E a r ly G b u r c b (Il a s s i c s

TH E EP I S TL E

C) D I O G N E T U S

BY TH E

A R . R O M . R . . EV. L B ADF D ,

? E ECTOR on HOL T (m o. NORWICH) ’ S OM TIM F L L OW 0 1 s . oa n s COL L G C M B RIDG E E E J E E, A E

L ONDON SOCI ETY FOR PROM OTING CH RISTIAN KNOWLEDG E

NO H UM B R V N “ a O S T E . RT L ND U c . U N VICT R I T R c E A A E E, 43, Q EE A EE , .

BRxG E TON : x 2 ORTH STR T 9, N EE

N Y K : . H EW OR E S. G OR AM 1 908 " E10 I THE N12“ m n x

Pf BL IC L ' BRMH’ 24 49 8 73

ASTOR L ENO! AND . TIL IDEN 1943

!PUBLI S HED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMM ITTEE ] C O N T E N T S

P AG E INTRODUCTION

I ORY OF ! . HIST THE TE T

I I A D . DATE N AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE

III AU S . THOR HIP OF THE EPISTLE

IV THE G Y OF TH E S A . INTE RIT EPI TLE : CH PTERS AND ! I I

V R O OG Y OF . THE CH IST L THE EPISTLE

V O OF I . C NTENTS THE EPISTLE

VII OM R S M OF . S E C ITICI S THE EPISTLE

TRANSLATION AND NOTES INDE!

THE

EPISTL E TO DIOG NETU S

IN T RODUCT ION

I H STO Y F TH E TE! T . I R O

‘ THE story of the Epistle to D zog n etu s is o n e of the m ost rom a n tic episodes in the history o f

a e the of a a e ae a liter tur . It is story solit ry m di v l ma nusc ript discovered in the sixteenth c entury

h e ee t n the d is a n d destroyed in t e nin t n h . Duri g — t u rba n ces of the Fre n c h Revolution (1 793 95 ) the re ca m e into th e muni c ipa l libra ry a t Stra ssb u rg a cod ex of 260 pa ges c onta ining a mongst other writings a number o f trea tises a ssign ed by the ir

h o n a e to t e e a d . titl s Justin , philos ph r m rtyr (d

“ ” “ h e n a o f od 2 I n t o a G . . O viz . m rchi ( ) ; An

” “ a o to the ee e o of exhort ti n Gr ks 3. An xpositi n the fa t e the c fe o n or c on i h conc rning right on ssi ,

“ “ he ee To c e the t . rning Trinity 4. To Gr ks 5 ” Dio n e s he a fo e g tu . Among t writings th t llow d I NTRODUCTIO N

’ th e Epistle to D zog rzetu s were the P etition of

' ' A tlze z s c n agom s on be/za /f of the Ckr s tza n ( .

a n d ea the R su r ction The e his tr tise e r e . r st

ofthe c e ofthe we e a a e a ont nts MS . r in l t r h nd , but the style of the ea rli er h a nd pointed to the thi rtee nth or fourteenth c entury a s th e d a te of the

of th e e on the a c of th e writing MS . A n ot b k

ex the a of Re c the fa cod , in h ndwriting u hlin , mous i c a o f Pf a e a - he s hol r orzheim (d . st t d th t t

a c w a s n c e e a n d h a d m nus ript o in his poss ssion , been bought by him from th e Ca rthusia n brother in a e o n o 1 60 w a s the hood his n tiv t w . Ab ut 5 it in

a a of M a u rsmu n ster In a e mon stic libr ry Als c . I n

1 86 a a c wa s a e the c o a - e 5 tr ns ript m d by s h l r print r,

f Pa a a e . e a o n d a c wa s H St ph nus ris, noth r tr ns ript

a e a fe a . e e a fe o a t m d soon t rw rds by J B ur r, pro ss r ’ Freibu rg and the va ria tions in B eu rer s c opy were embodied by Stepha nus in the a ppendi x to the e t of the E e c he e 1 2 di ion pistl whi h publish d in 5 9 , a n d a a S lbu r of e e e the e g in by F. y g H id lb rg in not s ’ ofhis edition o fJustin s works in The text ’ ofStepha nus edition wa s a dopted in th e editions ofP e of a Pa o fG a lla n d i rud ntius S . M ur ( ris,

e c e a n d of Oberth u r z (V ni , (Wur burg, a n d form ed th e ba sis of the criti c a l editions of

1 . fi r . F r h of th M S see o Cor . A e]. C o t e history e Ott , p p , — . G a P a tn A ost. 0 . vol. u st 0 . . . . . e iii j . p ii , pp xiii xx bh rdt , p p ' — r s m des B r ie s a n Dzo wet 1 2 . 1 2 n De Ur r z . , pp 4 6 Kih , p g fi g ,

f . p . 34 oll H ISTORY OF THE TE! T 9

B ob] e 1 826 H efele e (B rlin , ) and (Tubing n , odex A r en tor a ten sis At la st the Strassburg MS . (C g

e e so c e f th e Old a e of the . ix , all d rom Latin n m

A r en tora tu m e e e e city, g ) , with its dg s gnaw d by mic

a n e w e e a a n d a e d oth r is injur d by d mp rough us g , e d Cu n itz n 1 8 2 for wa s c a refully exa min d by E . i 4 ’ o e ofthe E e 1 8 a n d Ott s dition pistl ( 43, ’ a a Ed R 1 6 1 for e g in by . euss in 8 Otto s third dition ’ of e a f a e Justin s works (J n , It was ortun t , ee a e e c e on o of e a ind d , th t its vid n p ints t xtu l c ritic ism was thus rec orded ; for nine yea rs l a ter the c odex itself perished in the fl a mes when the Alsa tia n city-fortress w a s bombard ed by the ’ P u a f c e Au 2 Beu re r s a r ssi n or s ( g. 4 , tr n sc ript h a d long been l ost ; on ly the tra n sc ript of e a n e a e the U e St ph us now r m in d , in niv rsity of e e e e odex e e e e e C . L yd n , wh r it is still pr s rv d (

oss . T e a e 1 8 t V . en a 80 i , Q y rs l t r ( ) lost its

e of a e for Ne a n of a e e e prid pl c , Dr. um n H ll discov r d in the U n iversity libra ry a t Tiibin gen a y et ea rlier tra nsc ript m ade by B e rn a rd Haus in 1 5 80 for the

Tiibin en f a r usiu s odex M isc e C . g pro ssor, M rtin (C T ’ ztbi . Th f E h n . e e o the e a s g , M b . t xt pistl

o a e e f a ofthe now pr b bly r ach d its final orm . M ny brilli a nt em end a tions m a de by Lachm a nn and ’ '

e n e A n a lecta A n tem ewn a . Buns n in Bu s n s (Lond , — 1 8 1 0 1 2 1 e f e n e c e a c e. 5 4 , i . 3 ) hav ound p rma nt ac pt n G ebha rdt provid ed a c omplete appa r a tu s er itieu s in

e a r ast. his dition of the Apostolic Fa thers (P t . Ap 10 I NTRODUCTION

’ O er a 2 f the . ed . O o a e o p , I , tt s l st dition

Cor u s A o/o eta m m /rr istzuu or u m u sti u i O er a p p g C (j p , 8 . 1 h t ii . 79) c on ta ins a n exhaustive prefa c e on t e ’ history of the text ; and now Fu n k s Apostolise/zeu

' Vuter (1 90 1 ) ha s given us at l a st a text whic h is the first to e mbody the results ofa c are fu l study of

the Tijb n e f 1 e i g n tra nscript o 5 80. It is this t xt

c h a h e whi h s been used in t e pres nt work .

AT T E II . D E AND AUTH ENTICITY OF H EP ISTLE

THE lost Codex A rg en tor a teu sis w a s the only ev i

' r h s den c e fo t e existence ofthe Epistle to D zog u etu . Nowhere in a ll Christia n litera ture is the re a

f n c h a O u r re e re e to t e l etter or to its uthor.

e e of a e its a its e a knowl dg its d t , uthorship, d stin

e en s e e o its ow n c e a n d tion , d p d ntir ly up n ont nts the few indic a tions found there a re a s in c onclusive

a s e a re e e th y sugg stiv . l a e r e e the a e Dr . Don ldson , p pl x d by app r nt ’ mystery of the rel a tion of Stepha nus text to the

Codex A r eu tor u teu sis a n d e a a c c e g , h sit ting to us “ the e o off e wa s c e to o e dit r org ry, in lin d think it m r likely th a t some of the Greeks who c a me over to Ita ly when threa tened by the Turks m a y ha ve

e the t ea e so c f m a writt n r tis , not mu h ro wish to

1 ' . d at tr . . 1 1 1 2. . st o /t st. t a n B Cr it H i f C n L i . i 4 , 4 DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF TH E EPISTLE 1 1 c ounterfeit a work of Justin a s to write a good ” e a a the e he a e d cl m tion in old styl But dd d , There is n o sound ba sis for a n y theory with rega rd ” 1 a a e c i Draseke e e to this rem rk bl produ t on . d vot d a quite unn ec essa ry a mount of lea rn ed c ritic ism to ’ the d emolition of Don a ldson s a rgum ents aga inst

a of the E e The a n o f the ntiquity pistl . h dwriting

the c e the o ofe e a c e c on od x , in opini n xp rts , pl s it 2 e e e f e the Re a a e a a lusiv ly long b or n iss nc . H rn ck Shows good rea so n for thinking tha t th e c od e x c a n be tra ced ba ck to a n ea rlier text of the seven th

c entury. 3 Overbec k m a inta in ed tha t the l a ngu a ge o f the E e efe e c e a e a a to a pistl with r r n lik to p g nism , Jud ism a n d to Christia n ity wa s SO foreign to the c ha ra c ter ofearly a pologetic litera ture tha t the Epistle must be rega rd ed a s ha vin g been written a fter the a ge Of

h f e n e e n ta e a t e o c . Co s ntin , prob bly in urth tury Th r

h e e ou t efe e c e the E e to is , point d , no r r n in pistl

c e e e ec the a rgum ent from prophe y. Th r is littl dir t

u f ' c e a n d et the a q otation rom Holy S riptur , y l ng n a ge is interwov en with silent reminisc en c es o f the

of a n . N w e a en e ec a . Pa d . e T st m t , sp i lly S ul S John Pa ga nism is dismissed with a c on temptu ous ex posu re of popula r idol a try ; Greek philosophy is of Th e n e c a a c e rej ec ted a s destit u te truth . divi h r t r

1 ' - Der B r i a n Dzo u etos e . 2 . ef g (L ipzig, pp 7 2 f 62 o . fo . 8 1 I . 1 . T x t u u te su e/z . e e. . U r , pp 79 ll , 5 , ll 3 ’ — a lteu Kir e/z . 1 2. . e S ta d ten z u r G eseiz (i. i 9 1 2 I NTRODUCTION

of Jud a ism a s a prepara tory revel a tion is ignored in the assertion of the uniqueness of the revelati on

of G od 1 o e of e e e of in Christ . S m th s obj ctions

e ec e e e f e Ov rb k will be tr at d mor ully elsewh re . It is su ffic ient here to remark tha t at all th ese points where Overbec k la ys stress upon the divergen c e of the Epistl e from th e ton e a n d contents of the

o e of a a a n d e e a a a e Apol gi s Justin , T ti n Cl m nt , p r ll l

h a s ee f the A olo o A r istides u n b n ound in p gy f , an

e a e ofthe ec c e r the c e d ni bl work s ond ntu y, dis ov ry ofwhi c h h a s in fa c t n ec essita ted a revision of the

e a c c e o ofea a e c gen r l on pti n rly Christi n apolog ti s . La ter critic s a re a lmost a s un a ni mous in rej ec ting ’ ’ verbec k s e e ec a O th ory as in r j ting Don ldson s , though Overbeck ha d much more to sa y for

e f a n d a e e c a v e e hims l , r is d qu stions whi h h born

c f ri h ruit in discussion . The writer of an ambitious a rtic l e in the C/z u r c/z u a r ter R eview of 1 8 the e o f Q ly April 77, on str ngth a va st number of c oin c id ences in thought a n d l a ngu a ge between our Epistl e and writers of all times from Pl a to and Philo downwa rds to John of “ a c a n d e a a e D mas us (d . p rh ps still l t r to ” P e c e a c hotius (ninth c ntury), onclud d th t it ould

’ I Overbeck s c c R D n e e en o e . o riti isms w r d rs d by B . rumm d in th d e Aca em a . i . n . 1 8 v l. v n 6 . y , J 73 ( o , o 4, pp 27 but

'

e e e ev e i f l s : w ss . e a n e H l en e d Zeit c/zr . z th y w r s r ly h dl d by g , f T - lzeol . 1 8 2 0 2 k d Krii r . 86 Dra se e o . cit a n , 73, pp 7 , by , p , by ge , T — . w . lz. 1 8 . 2 22 . Z , 94, pp 06 3 DAT E AND AUTH E NTICITY OF THE EPISTLE 1 3 not ha ve been written ea rlier tha n the eighth or ninth

ee e e e the a n d century, and proc d d to d scrib work c hara cter of Stepha nus with the evid ent id ea of

a ha h e of e c insinu ting t t was guilty som tri k , or at l ea st c onsc ious o f some mystery b elonging to the ” e h e Aca dem in E e . e t pistl . Dr Hort, in a l tt r to y

M a 1 8 e the ofthe a c e y 77, r pudiating authorship rti l h ee a e e whic h a d b n ttribut d to him , dismiss d its c l a ims to c reden c e briefly but effec tively with the h a ppy re ma rk tha t it wa s a n interesti n g and unsuspic ious example ofthe c ritic ism whic h ca nnot ” ee for the ee ea a e the s the wood tr s . Two y rs l t r writer disclosed his id entity by publishing a lea rn ed

e e P er e r in u s P r oteu s h e d e work ntitl d g , which “ s c ribed a s a n investigation into c erta in rela tions

e wee De M or te P er e r in i the subsisting b t n g , two

e e of e e the a the E istle pistl s Cl m nt to Corinthi ns, p

’ to D zo u etu s the B ibliotkeca of P a n d e g , hotius , oth r

. er a c e of a n writings , by J . M Cott ill , in pursu n ’ inquiry into th e Epistle to D zog u etu s begun in the “ C/tu rc/t u a r ter l R ev iew Th e e Q y , oth r writings proved to ra n ge from the E v a n geliu m ’ Thoma to Ga l en s De P r a u otiou e a d En eu em ’ L iber a n d f m c a e x a n , ro h pt rs xxi d x x x of B a sil s w ork 072 the H oly Spir it, to the L oves of Clitoplzou

a u d L eu ci e ofthe ee e e a pp Gr k nov list Achill s T tius . O n the ground of a l a rge a rra y of c oin c idences of la ngu a ge between pa irs or groups of these

w s e e e n ow e a n ork th y w r all pronounc d spurious , d 1 4 I NTRODUCTION tra nsferred from their reputed a uthors to an ec cen c c e of e a e W e tri s ribbl r a lat r g . e h a v to d o with

e a P e a t on e e e e the n a lit r ry rot us who, tim , d rid s vai

o Pe e a t a o e a e glori us r grinus , n th r portr ys primitiv

f or er a e of purity in aith ( p h ps in mod living), or lashes with his satire th e extra vagant developm ents of e e A a e c ha e e n lat r tim s . g in , lik a m l o which a d a pts itselfto the c olour of th e ground on whic h ’ e f the e o a of P B iblio it finds its l , as int rp l tor hotius tlteca he e e e f e c e a a giv s xc rpts rom history, c l si stic l

r ec a n d c a c c o of e o s ular, fi titious unts docum nts w c e e e e en e a c of hi h w r n v r writt , or tru c ounts of he e f the writings which hims l was author.

ea e of e e a e he a e the fo W ri d th s sh p s ssum s rm, it m a be of e c a ea i e or a t y , a m di l tr t s , laughs us in a n n ece We a e a e i d nt love story . h v shown bov that

a e e e 1 2 n the Or tio print d by H . St ph ns in 5 9 is o e of th e m e e o f th e ro a n d w a s mb rs g up, that it published by him with th e full knowledge of its

c a c e W e to e ee spurious har t r . know him hav b n equ a lly a wa re of the true c ha ra c ter of th e equally

l o Dio n s t c o a ti r o E ist e t etu he a Or o. spu i us p g , omp ni n An interesti n g light is thus thrown upo n his reference to Prote us in c onn ection with his own ” r a a n o be a os e a e . p odi s And g i , It w uld h rdly p sibl to find a m a n more emi n ently fi tted for ou r litera ry Prote u s than the perso n wh o ta kes su c h pa ins to i e f elf Nic e horu s a llistu s o e e d nti y hims with p C , s m tim

a c of a e of a s patri r h Const ntinopl , but whom lmo t DATE AND AUTH E NTICITY OF TH E EPISTLE 1 5 nothing is known beyond wh a t the history itself

“ u w ee o n a acqu a ints s ith . It has b n sh w th t H enry Stephens kn ew ofthis fraud a n d l en t himself

He w a s a n a c e fe to it right willingly. c ssory a t r the fa e a b on e of the a ct c rt inly, possi ly princip ls ; but we must l ook to somewhat ea rlier tim es tha n those of H enry Stephens for the person who took ” th e a e e a e initi tiv . This xtr ordinary th ory has ’ been sta ted a t som e le n gth in its a uthor s own words in ord er th a t it m a y p a ss sentence u pon

e f a a e e v e s f its l . It is str ng p r r ion o criticism which c a n wa ste lea rning upon a mora lly unthinkabl e

he a n d e a to ee e a hypot sis, r m in blind d p r things th n c e literary a cid nts . The rec oil from suc h ec c e ntric ities of critic ism ’ ’ a s Don a ldson s a n d Ov erbec k s le ft conj ec ture con tent to wa nder a round within the obvious limits of the e c e e The a e s cond and third nturi s. l st sugg stion of litera ry dishon esty in the writer of the Epistle

a e f the a of S u er n a tu r a l R el ion c m rom uthor p ig , who the c o e of e ec a o of the e , in urs his d pr i ti n t sti

of th e E e the of o mony pistl to writings S . J hn , rem a rked incidenta lly that it m a y h a ve been a n d proba bly w a s written expressly in imita tion of ” 1 ea r a fe o e e ly Christi n eling . M st r c nt c ritic is m h a s sta rted with the n a tura l presuppositi o n th a t the E i e i a e e . e. a ea e e p stl is g nuin , th t it is r l l tt r or trea e w e a h a n e tis ritt n by C risti n to an i quir r, and

1 6th . 8 c d 1 . , 75 , i 39. 1 6 I NTRODUCTIO N ha s p roc eed ed on tha t ba sis to disc uss the i n ternal

c a o of the a e of the E n indi ti ns d t pistl e . O no o e a c a n e be c e in a n ea th r b sis th y dis uss d y r l sense .

If the e o e a e a n n e writ r is h n stly ddr ssing i quir r , or even putting forth a rea l apology in the form ofa n

O e e e to a n a e h e ea p n l tt r im ginary inquir r, will rev l n a a a n d the c o of d a tur lly simply nditions his y, a n d w e c a n a e a fe ev e o the e e rgu s ly, n th ugh evid nc m a n ot c a r e fa r If on the e h y r y us v ry . , oth r and , the l etter is a n a rtifi c i a l c omposition with n o

ra c c a ec e e the w e m a o p ti l Obj tiv , th n rit r y thr w hi ms el f into a n y historica l setting tha t he ca res

a e ec a l a n d w e a o a e f to im gin or r l , c nn t rgu rom tha t setting to th e a ctu a l time of th e wr iting ; a ll

a we c a n a e be the u a c c a e o th t rgu will npr ti l qu sti n , whether h e h a s su c c eeded in d epi c ting a n y set of

o d a e e oc c u et e he h a s c n itions th t did v r r , or wh h r

n h a e f o on e ble d ed t e fe tur s o two or m re epochs in . Certa in of the intern a l indic a tions ha ve been unduly pressed in fa vour of an ea rlier d a te eve n

a u a a c a l e n ew a n d th n J stin . ( ) Christi nity is l d , “ s i n ow e o the d is d esc ribed a ha v ng com int worl .

B u t e a the c e E e s T rtulli n in third ntury, and us biu

the f u se a a a e. r in ourth , simil r l ngu g Ch istianity w a s even then still n ew in c ontra st to pa ga nism a n d o u a m t J d is . (o) The J ewish sa c rifi c es a n d ritu a l a re d escribed in the present tense as though they were still

c e Tillemon t w a s c e c e pra tis d , and in lin d to pla DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE E PISTLE I 7 the E e e ef e the fa of e a e pistl e v n b or ll J rus l m . 1 But a part from the evidenc e wh i c h s ee ms to show that the sacrifices were actua l ly c ontinued so e c e a t e s v a e a fte in m pla s, l a t in pri t , long r this c e is e the ew e a e atastroph , it c rtain that J r g rd d th e s e a s st a o e e if e whol sy t m ill oblig t ry, v n at present impractica ble ; a n d a Christia n might well discuss Juda ism on tha t basis as ' a present f act . (c) The referen c es to persec ution ha ve been va riously a ssigned to the a ge of Traj a n (m a rtyr m of a of u P e e d o . Ign tius , c Antonin s ius ( sp

' c ia lly 1 5 1 a n d more proba bly to tha t o f

’ M a rcus Aurelius (1 6 1 The emphasis l a id on the growth of the Christian c ommunity in spite or in consequence of persec ution is a fea ture that

n e would be true to life a t more than o epoch .

P the R a a a e a t the e n of liny, om n m gistr t , b gin ing the e c e e a the a s cond ntury, and T rtulli n , Christi n

a o a t t he en d of a e a re a e p logist, th t c ntury lik witn esses to the r a pid expa nsion of Christianity u e e e e A ll be S is nd r hostil pr ssur . that can aid tha t these references a re so vivid a n d na tura l that

e be a e to e e e if n ot th y must t k n indicat r c nt,

e e d ifli u lt e e r e e u . c p s nt, p rs c tion It is to r gard th m as the imagin a tion of a writer ' living in the post

N e e a e e a a se f fi for ic n g , wh n p g nism it l was ghting

ex rs en c ' its t e in a Christia n e mpire. 1 D ‘ ' o a on o . crt. II. 1 n o cz t. . 6 0. n lds , p , 35 Kih , p . , pp 9, 7 B 1 8 I NTRODUCTIO N

Two other indica tions ha ve been thought to fix th e e ofthe E e e ec e dat pistl mor pr is ly. “ (d) The J ews a re described a s wa ging war “ 1 a s h n e U a s e c . v pon Christi n ali ns ( , § Bu s n rega rd ed this a s a reminisce nce of recent J ewish a e the of Pa e e m outr g s upon Christians l stin , who the J ews ha ted a s traitors to the n a tional c a use ; he dated the Epistle a c c ordingly ju st a fte r the se e w a r the e t u e B a r- oc hba cond J wish , r vol nd r C 1 2—1 H efel 2 h h . e t e e t e in 3 35 , on oth r hand , took a nti-J ewish ton e of the Epist le a s m a rking the hostile a ttitud e into whic h the Christia ns were d rive n by the bittern ess of J ewish en mity a fter the

fa of e e a n a e w c a e a ce to ll J rusal m , ttitud hi h g v pl a c a lmer vi ew of Ju da ism only after th e Ba r Cochba w a r ha d re mov ed the d a nge r of a n ation a l

reviva l of Jud a ism . H e wou ld d a te th e Epistle

e ef e ef e the w a r it S a th r or b or . But hould prob bly

be a c e a f the w a r Dio n u s e o a e pl d ter . g et s ems t h v been quite clea r as to the fa ct tha t the Christi a ns

e e c fo th e e c h a n d it wa s w r distin t r m J ws ( . i . ) this wa r w hic h fin a lly c on v inced the Rom a n world tha t 3 ia n e e a e e e c Christ s w r not m r J wish se t . ’ (e) The c ompa rison ofGod s mission of His Son

e a s c h v u to a king s nding his son a king ( . , 4) ha s been ta ken a s a' reference to the occ a sion when Antonin u s Piu s c onferred t he tribunic ia n power

1 - ' A n a lecta A n te Nica n a . IO . , i 3 2 3 — P . A ost d . . a tr 0 e x . n 6 . p . p . , 4, l xxix Kih , pp 5 7 9

20 INTRODUCTION

a of n is e e a a e a n d re se a n th t Justi , l ss l bor t p ci th

ha of O e ha s n o c e of the o t t rig n . It do trin H ly

see r to the a e ofc ea Spirit ( p. It is p ior g l rly

d efin ed he res e s efe e e to i s . It contain no r r nc any contempora ry heresy ; and its own theology is e xpressed incid enta lly in simple language tha t is c a pabl e of misinterpreta ti on a s hereti c a l just be

c a e the e c n c s ofa n c a e us writ r is un o s iou y su h d ng r . He c ould write a s h e did just bec a us e no heretic h a d yet u sed those expressions in proofor support

of e a n d the a fa ha d e ef e his vi ws , Christi n ith th r or e T e not y t grown c a reful of its phraseology. h only h eresy of whi c h there is any ec ho in the Epistle is the ea rly Gnostic ism whic h sepa ra ted

the ew fo the a G od a n d e a e J ish r m Christi n , d gr d d

th e a a c is Christ from His u niqu e Sonship . H rn k in c lin ed to find su pport for his la te d a te in the fa ct “ that though the writer nowhere a lludes to the Gnostic c on flict his theology is built on the res u lts of a n c ee a e a s if the e th t co fli t . I t s ms r th r writ r w e e if were c ontempora ry ith th e c onflic t . But v n H a rn a c k is right in seein g fruits of v ictory ra ther

a of c or ea of a o th n signs confli t, at l st tr nsiti n , still suc h a V iew is not in c onsistent with a d a te in the “ ” f h sec o e The ea middle o t e nd c ntury. r l crisis of th e Gnostic inva sion of the Church w a s over

f e 1 The m e of the a c be or 70. si pl vitality C tholi 1 a won the d a a n d e a e tr dition had y, it only r m in d

1 iz clz to A. D . 2 . 62. a e H ist. o C u r B t , f 3 5 , p AUTHORS HIP OF TH E EPISTLE 2 1 for the e - e e ae Ter gr at anti Gnostic writ rs, I r n us ,

a s e e a n d to e o the tulli n , H ippolytu , to compl t r c rd

triumph .

II I AUTHO RS H P OF TH E EP STLE . I I

TH E a e e ofe e c e h a s ef e e fee bs nc vid n l t conj ctur r , a n d c e a e the of e fee s holars hav m d most th ir r dom . 1 u ot lzomin es tot sen ten tia . e er c Q , Almost v y s hol a r ha s produced a candid a te for the honour of the authorship of this unclaimed gem of the pa tristic ” a e er 1 0 e e e e g . Barati in 74 sugg st d Cl m nt of R e G a lla n d i 1 2 a n d e 1 8 om ; in 74 , Lump r in 7 5 , t hought of Apollos Dorner in 1 845 pressed the

C la of a r a the ea e im Qu d tus, rli st known apologist , id e n tified by J erome with the Bishop of Athens of

a e . e e a re e e e that n m (c But th s pur conj ctur s . A few other suggestions c a n be supported by something a t lea st in the w a y of intern a l ind ic a

“ o b ut the a e c e of e e e e c e ti ns ; in bs n xt rnal vid n ,

e a e e e O to e e as W stcott s id, th y s rv nly xpr ss the ” 2 a e E c h rac ter of th pistle . They me rely ca ll a ttention to certain specia l features of style or tea c hing which rese mble the la ngu a ge of some e e a re ee known author. Th r only thr or four

1 S ee th e sketch of th is a rra y of c on jec tures in Kihn

1 2 fo . (p . ll ) 3 a o T. th . 1 8 n n tire c d . 6 N. 8 . C o f , 4 , 75, p 22 I NTRODUCTION answers to the question o f a uthorship whic h a re

a e o ee prob bl enough t n d discussion . (i) The firs t is the answer of the Codex A r en tor a ten szs c e the E e immedi g , whi h plac s pistl a te a fe e to a a n d ly t r works assign d Justin M rtyr,

ea the e the e a h ds it with titl , By sam uthor,

i . e. u n . the of e J sti But authorship Justin , doubt d

e Tillemon t 1 6 1 c e een alr ady by in 9 , has sin b

e e e e ea a e en qu stion d or d ni d by n rly all schol rs , v a t a t 1 88 2 a a e l s by Otto, who in b ndon d his long ’ ’ a c a of c a e e s dvo cy Justin s l im . Bri fly, Justin s vi w ofid ol a try a s the sea t and instrum ent of spiritua l

e of e of a s a e e a pow rs vil, Judaism divin pr par tion for the e ofthe e e f the c om Gosp l , Gosp l its l as pletion of the work of th e seminal word in the

d of a ll men n ot ea of the ee h min s , l st Gr k p ilo — sophers these a re quite fore ign to th e teaching o e of he E e E e ifthe c e s and t n t pistl . v n distan thu estimated between the m be diminished by re s embl a nces between other sa yings of the writer

of the a e f e and Justin , rgum nt rom styl is con ’ ee n ot o e e to elusive . Justin s Gr k is t b compar d 1 f E e the Greek ofthe unknown a u thor o the pistl . ’ (ii) Bunsen was led by the a uthor s repudiation of Juda ism to assign the Epistle to M a rc ion

c 1 0 The e c e o f e t e ( . 4 sil n Christian lit ra ur see med to Bunsen to be c a pa bl e of explan a tion on the Suppositi on tha t the Epi s tl e i tsel fwa s regarded

1 c o . c West tt, l . AUTH ORS HIP OF TH E EPISTLE 23

the of its e e c with suspicion , on ground h r ti al 1 th e c e of the E e is authorship . But do trin pistl e e - i- c e ith r non Marcionite or ant Mar ionit . The appa rent r ep u diation of the Cla ims of the Old Tes tam ent a s a divine revelation is indeed a coin c iden c e with the peculi a r tea c hing ofM a rcion the c c e c e a n d fe but it is only oin id n , it is a t r all

a e fe e c e f o e e is e e l rg ly an in r n r m sil nc , it not d lib rate

o e is a m is n and p sitiv as it in M rcion . Judais c o d em n ed a s u the e S c u e the a c lt J wish ript r s , with e e o ofa few e c e e of e a a e xc pti n r minis nc s th ir l ngu g , a re i n e a e E simply g or d , natur lly nough in an pistle

to ee ire The ld e e a s a Gr k inqu r. O T stam nt a whole

n ot c e n e it is ot e e a t a ll n th is ond m d ; n consid r d . O e other ha nd the theology o fthe Epistl e is distinctly

a - a c n e To c the c nti M r io it . Mar ion oming of the

’ ‘ S on wa s the good God s w a y of saving m en from the e the e or ea r low r God , D miurgus Cr to ; to our writer the Logos is HimselfCrea tor (Dem iu rgu s) and Artific er a n d the a e a ea a n d e , F th r is lso Cr tor Mak r

' a n d e e the E e f r Lord . Th r is no room in pistl o ’ M a rcion s idea ofthe a nta gon ism between the ha rd a n d cruel Crea tor-God ofthe Jews a n d the good a n d

Fa e -G od re e e u e e loving th r v al d thro gh Christ . Th r

ea on e d a n d v in is inst d God , always goo lo ing H im

e f the e e a o of s l , only withholding r v l ti n H is good

e a n d ov e a t c o of a a re e e e n ss l , all st pp nt n glig nc ,

1 A n a ecta te-Ni c n a 1 0 —1 0 H i / s d l A n a . o tu a n ti , i 3 5 pp y i s — A e . . 1 0 g , i 7 3 24 I NTRODUCTION

until m a n ha d lea rn ed his providentia l lesson of n ee d . 1 (iii) Dra seke m a de o u t an ingenious ca se on r of e e the a n te b ehalfofthe au tho ship Ap ll s M rcio i .

n e f h o x a c e of the H e acc ou t d . or t e orth do char t r

Epistle on the subj ect of the unity ofG od a n d . the n ec essity of faith as the sole c ha nnel of divine

e e 6 t e es knowl dg (ch. viii, ) by supposing tha Ap ll c ame round from the distin c ti ve tenets of Gnostic ism to the C a tholic position a t the c lose

e ha s t of his life a t Rome (c . This th ory h e a dva nta ge of explaining the supposed u Se of the

e a who a s R e a t he E pistle by T rtulli n , w at om t en o the e c e it e d f s cond ntury . But is a th ory

n c e e ef a e a ba sed o s anty evid nc . I ts chi v lu is th t it c alls attention to a n apparently Gn ostic element in the Epistle Three points ha ve been noted unde r this hea d : (a ) the empha sis la id upon the S on as the e e e o m n o the u niq u r v lation fGod to a (ch . vii) ; ( ) m ention of S piritua l powers entrusted with the

s o thin s e d ea h a £ e a n c . dmini tration . g in h av n rth ( c the efe e c e to G od c o vii , ( ) r r n as un hanging, g od a n d a n e Bu t us disp ssio at (ch . viii , it is obvio that

e e a r ec a c e th s e not p uli rly Gnosti doctrin s , though

e a re f in i The i th y ound Gnost c writings . d escr p tion of God a s unknown in H imsel f a n d only

e ea e a n d fa oha n n me oh r v l d in Christ to ith is J (J . i .

The a to a e e e llusion . spiritu l b ings x rcising

1 Der B ie r a n . 1 22 fo . D . f , pp ll AUTHORSH IP OF TH E EPISTLE 25

’ a u thority in God s service goes little or n o further ’ ha Pa a e efe e ce to the t n S . ul s langu g with r r n ” pri ncipalities and powers ofthe unsee n world

6 Ne er a re e e e ol . 1 C . i ) ith th s doctrin s o ex The e introduced in a Gnostic c nt t . goodn ss of God is not sta ted in contrast to any id ea of an

fe G d bu t e a ofthe e th e in rior o , in r pudi tion id a that d ela y of His rev elation implied a want of love for m a n On the e a the o of the . oth r h nd Christol gy

e - The on Epistle is d ecid dly a nti Gnostic . S is not identifi ed with the world but is distinct from the 1 H i . ou t e s e a world As Dorner points , et rn l with the Father He is the etern a l principle which finds e e i In th e a n he x pr ss on e Cr ation d in t Inca rnation .

The c r o c a l e of the E e h e e h on logi r lation pistl , ow v r, to the Gnosticism outside the Church is not so 2 a n a c e the E f clea r. H r ack pl s pistl e a ter the c on flic t between Gnosticism a n d the faith of th e ” Kihn he a . t th e E e Church fon contr ry , assigns pistl to that period in whic h th e fa lse gn os is was but a heretica l tend ency not yet developed into those

° manifold sec ts which on some points ca m e so n ea r to Christian truth a n d on others reced ed so fa r a aw y . (iv ) The la st conj ecture that deserves special

1 D octr in e o the P er son o C/zn st E. Tr 1 86 1 Div . f f . ( . , i .

i. 2 v l. . 6 o , p 3 2 lzr n o . l . C o . 1 , i p 5 4. 3 0 . cit. 1 6 p , p . 3 . 26 I NTRODUCTIO N

considera tion is tha t whic h wa s advo c a ted in 1 2 3 a f Do lc et K Kri er v rious orms by u and ihn and ig . It is the identification of the u nknown writer with the e e the e e n Aristid s whos Apology to mp ror, lo g

a a n d e a e wa s known in Syri c Arm ni n v rsions, only

ere ee o e fee ea e discov d in Gr k s m fi t n y rs ago . Th re a re indeed c lose resembl a n c es betwee n the language of the E e a n d a of the a n d the pistl th t Apology, first impression l eft by the compa riso n is tha t the on e r e e th e e or a o o c e w it r us d oth r, th t b th w rks am f m the e en Th e e a a e of the ro sam p . most l bor t theories built upon the supposed rela tion between the E e a n d the . o o a of K pistl Ap l gy is th t ihn . Ac c ording to this theory the author ofthe Epistle

e Dio n etu s i e of Ze the is Aristid s , g ( . . son us) is e e a r a the E e th e m p ror H d i n , and pistl is initiation ofDio n etu s o the a e e for c g int Christi n myst ri s, whi h the o of e h a s e a e he a Ap logy Aristid s pr p r d t w y .

The c a e r on a a a e h pt s p g nism and Jud ism , xposing

e fa e in c e or a c ce a re h is th ir ls hood do trin in pr ti , purifica tion (x dGa om s) ; the c ha pte rs on the “ ‘ Christia n revel a tion a re his instru c tio n (Ka r a Oec w i ’ n a taa a ra the a two c a e c h s . y y ) ; l st h pt rs ( xi , xii),

fa f n t with their sc in a ting pic t u re o Christia mys ic ism. ’ a n d a re évr ovrr era Oeofi e worship, his , his glimps into the s a c a ofth e e fa i Th e a u inmo t s n tu ry tru th . rg

1 Rev u e des u estion s fl istor i u es v ol. x v . Q g , x iii pp . — 60 1 6 1 2.

r — i D . 1 Der r s r u d B r e es a n . U . p w, / pp 95 54. 3 - /z . w . 0 2 itsc r iss Tlzeol . 2 6 2 . e . v . Z f xxx ii , pp 3

28 I NTRODUCTION

ca nnot be pressed a s a n a rgum ent a ga inst its be ing

a ofthe e on c P a the production s c d entury. rob bly expla n a tion is to be found in a cha nge of front

to ee n ew a a c Th e c ec e m t a tt k . ritical pagan obj t d

to Christianity as a novelty in the wa y of religion .

The a f e to fa c e n ew e pologist, ac with this Obj ction , — laid a side the argum ent from prophecy so essenti a l

in o e the e ef o c n trov rsy with J ws, so us ul in pr ving t o the pa ga n th a t Christia nity had a history before — its a ppea ra nce a n d expla ined the n ewness itself a s a of th e e e the a a a p rt divin plan . Wh n p g n a e a a wa s n ew c a a c e a rgu d th t Christi nity in h r t r,

fe e a e the a a we ed a r sh d p rtur , Christi n ns r th t his religi on was in fac t the l a st sta ge of a long proc ess of e e a e th e a n e e a r v l tion . Wh n p ga obj ct d th t

a n ew o of e a e Christi nity was in p int tim , lat

th e e e a n ot a e arrival , Christian r pli d th t it could h v — c ome soon er the sense of mora l need ha d first

e n The a e f to b created in ma . ppar nt in a ction o w s o he n ew G od a e a . S e a e t a sil nt ctivity xpl in d , n e of the a e ec a e the a ss Christi n r ligion b m , in h nds ofth ofof e a a e . pologist , pro its divin origin To ret u rn to the rela tion of the Epistle a n d the

o we ma e f the a e a Apol gy, y diss nt rom rgum nt th t the E e in e of c e a e e a c e pistl , spit rt in r s mbl n s, is . sepa ra ted from the Apol ogy by its tone a n d

' e e a e a the we a e g n r l s tting, th t in Apology h v

e f c e ea fe e e the pow r u l tou h s from r l li , wh r as in

“ Epistle we fin d ingenious pa ra doxes an d re flec AU THORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE 29

ec o fthe a c a a c e a n d tions on the subj t Christi n h r t r,

h a a c c a the ec t of e e u a c demi lm on subj p rs c tion ,

a he is a e e e a and th t t d t nc in tim , involv d in such

a ec e the ea of the two c ontr st, pr lud s id works 1 en it e e c omi n g from on e p . But is c rta inly tru tha t the resemblan ces do n ot a mount to a proof

f a e e e c o l of id entity o uthorship . Th ir vid n e w u d be sa tisfi ed by the supposition that the u n known

e ew a n d a e the of e writ r kn imit t d work Aristid s , or tha t he was an ind epend ent exampl e of the typ

e e e of a pologeti c s r pr sented by Aristid s . But the

e a f ll be a a probl m proves ter a to tri ngul r. There a re severa l close rese mbla n c es between these two

o c we a v e ee c o e a n d w rks whi h h b n nsid ring a third , ' the P r ea chin P eter K v a IIer ov n on g of ( fip yn p ) , a ca noni c a l writing whic h exerc ised a wide infl u en c e o n the h a n e e of the ec c e C risti lit ratur s ond ntury , a n d which survives o nly in a number of fragm ents quoted in th e S tr oma teis of Cl e ment of Al ex 2 a w a s a a e c c of th e andri . It pp r ntly an a ount

n f Pe e a missi on a ry work a d t ea c hing o S . t r mong the i e I ts a e is e e a l a e in the Gent l s . d t g n r ly pl c d

a e of th e ec c e Its first qu rt r s ond ntury . origin is

n e e c a e e u known , but th r is mu h th t is sugg stiv in the c onj ec ture of V on Dobsc hfi tz 3 tha t it wa s the

1 ’ lh r n in l z U o Ha c Rea en c . T eo c l l l. u . i /ze i . r c v . 6 u k s y K , 77 2 ’ S ee S a on a c e on P r ea cl n n o P te in Di t i r e r e . . lm , rti l g f , Gi ’ i l . 8 i B o r . v o . iv . ed 1 8 C a e n Ha n Diet. o B ible g ( , 7) h s , sti gs f ,

6 . iii . 77 3 Te x te u /z. 1 8 . 1 . . Un ter su c , 93, xi 30 I NTRODUCTION

o ofa a n o f e a a a n d w a s en w rk Christi Al x ndri , writt a s a suppl e ment to the Gospel ac cording to S

a Its c e ee c e a a v e ee M rk . ont nts s m rt inly to h b n a n a logous to thos e o f the A c ts o f the Apostl es

c u e e a s a S e e whi h S . L k wrot uppl m nt to his

o e a a n of the fa e G sp l . A tr nsl tio r gm nts which bea r upon the study of the Epistle to Diogn etu s

f the o e to the E e will be ound in n t s pistl . A c a reful exa min a ti on of the resembla n c es between

led m a e R 1 the three works Dr. Ar it g obinson to rej ect the idea tha t Aristid es h a d the Epistl e

e fo e a n d a th e c n e e ea a the b r him , lso o v rs id th t

e ofthe E e o e fo m th e o o writ r pistl b rrow d r Ap l gy. Fro m the fa c t th a t there a re points in c om mon between th e P r ea chin g of P eter a n d the Apology a o e a n d a a e ee the P r ea chin a n d the l n , g in b tw n g

E e a o n e he c on c e a w e a re e pistl l , lud s th t guid d to the hypothesis tha t the P r ea chin g of P eter lies ” i t o f es e o beh nd bo h th w rks . Su c h a c on c lusi on a s of c e c c of the f this , ours , uts mu h ground rom unde r the va ri ous theories built upon the supposed

e a e een the E t e a n d th e o r l tion b tw pis l Apol gy, a pa rt from the P r ea chin g AS a m a tter o f fa c t .

rii e r o n e o f th e a oc a e ofth e e of th K g , dv t s th ory e

e of e a n d the a ofthe E t e id ntity Aristid s uthor pis l , 2 th e ha s aba ndoned e th ory.

1 - Tex t r a n d S tudies . . , i pp 95 97 2 F r a en fa v o of th o i e eo s . ee w Th . his rgum t n ur th ry, Z. , - . . l A ch r . 1 8 206 22 E a t . L itt 2 1 efe to 94, pp 3 hrh rd, , i 5 , r rs AUTHORS HIP OF THE EPISTLE 3 1

1 H ere w e must leave the question of a uthorship. H a rnac k in 1 878 c onfin ed himself to the sta te ment th a t it was the work of a writer between “ 1 0 a n d 1 0 e the n c c e 7 3 , who us d G osti ontrov rsy

e e a n d o r h to d fin ad rn Christian t ut , who might

e h a be e a a c p r ps styl d a C tholic M r ion, who certa inly bl ended in on e gra ceful whol e the best

o f e ofthe c e ofthe thoughts Tatian , and som do trin s ” 2 ex a a e w e the Al ndri n school . W stcott , hil dating “ E e c ea e w a s e sa a we pistl mu h rli r, cont nt to y th t c a n rega rd it as the n a tural outpouring of a Greek mind holding converse w ith a Greek mind in the ” 3 a e o fold l o e langu g phi os ph rs.

V THE NTE TY F THE EP STLE I . I G RI O I CHAPTERS ! I AND ! I I

TH E evid ence c ited in prec eding sec ti ons h a s been d ra wn entirely from the first ten c ha pters of

’

a 0 for n on n . l e N chtr a e . 2 a a e S ee a o Krug r s g , p , its b d m t s — . 20 Th 1 8 6 . 1 6 1 . Z . , 9 , pp 9 74 1 i i s 1 - T R v n e i t. r 1 . h e E . D t hr B io . 1 62 1 e . . . C 6 B Birks, g , 7, a rgued eloquen tly for th e iden tity ofthe a uthor ofth e Epistle “ ” with th e a uthor of th e writi n g To Greeks (see p . 7 of this n o c on a n d en e the e w Am o a I tr du ti ), id tifi d writ r ith br sius, e c o n c o wh o ec a e a C Th e two w n Gre k u ill r b m hristia n . riti gs

o d in a c a e be c c e v e a e ofa n a o o . w ul , th t s , su ssi st g s p l gy But ’ e v e a s M r. a c e o o a n sugg sti Birks rti l is thr ugh ut, its m i a n e n m e e c on e rgum e t r ma i s r ly a j c ture. 2 H n a P a tr . a d a c . e a n A st . I. 2 a 0 . 1 2 . G bh rdt r k, p p , p 5 3 a o T. ed 1 8 . 8 C n on 6. IV. . f , 75 , p 32 I NTRODU CTIO N th e E e the a c fc e pistl . At brupt lose O hapt r x there wa s a r i o e the a a n a m g nal n t in Str ssburg M S . st ti g “ ” e e the C a that h r opy had a bre k . It was a gap o f- - h M or a fee f a e t e a S . hal lin in Str ssburg , bout fi t n

’ e e - a e the u e c the l tt r sp c s in T bing n trans ript, and in l a tter the lin e w a s compl eted a fter the break by h fc e K e e t e first two words o hapt r xi . ihn sugg st d th erefore tha t th e ga p might be filled in this way : (In tea c hing thus) I a m a d voc a ting n o stra nge ” o e a n d a e a a e a n d x ii d ctrin , maint in d th t ch pt rs xi 1 e e ov e of the e e B u t w r thu s pr ed to b p a rt l tt r. the eviden c e ha s sa tisfied a lmost a ll sc hol a rs that the l a st two c ha pters a re n o pa rt of the letter but a fa e f e 2 e ffe r gm nt o a lat r work. Th y di r in

a e a a a e e e m rk d w ys from the e rlier c h pt rs . Th r

c h i—x f f ( s . ) it is the mora l a n d spirit u a l li e o the

a e e e c hs . Christi n that is promin nt ; h r ( xi , xii) it is the Churc h a s the home of grace a n d in stru c

a n d h e e the fa tion wors ip . Th r Christian ith is pre-em in ently the Obj ec tive revela tion of God in

a a e e th ea of m a n Christ, which w k ns lov in e h rt ;

e e e e on ec e c a e h r it is r gard d its subj tiv , mysti l sid a s the e e r n osi e e the e tru knowl dge o g s . Th r writ r is pl a inly a ddressing an inquirer ; here w e see m to have the conc l u sion of a h omily to ca tec humens

1 Der r s r u n etc . . 8 . U p g , , p 4 2 B a r n h w r G esc ichte r a thir hliche S ee espec ia lly de e e , h de l c n ’ i s i. . v z t 2 n P a r . A a t v l. c L tter a u r . 2 t o , i 94, 95 Fu k, p , , pp x ii . c xix. INTEG RITY OF TH E EPISTLE 33

1 of a n a c e a e . e e c a adv n d st g Th s ontr sts , it is

f x a e a re e a c a a e o e a . It m a tru , p rh ps p bl pl n tion y be the sa me write r who is dea li n g with th e sa me

e e n ot n ow a s a n e a s i r ad r, inquir r but a com ng

s Th n e the a fe di c iple. e vindic ati g a n d y t s guard

of a e e the r a of the ing Christi n knowl dg , po tr ying

e a n d e of the fe of the e e b auty ord r li Church , th s m a y be a vision of promise intend ed to encoura ge a n d c onfirm the m a n whom the write r believes

e f to a e a e c e ew hims l h v lr ady onvinc d . This vi might be a va lid expl a n a tion o f the di fference in the m e f th c fa o att r o e two do uments . But it ils t ac count for the di fferent a ttitud e of the writer on c erta in importa nt questions whic h oc c ur both in the ea e a d he h e e rli r n in t la ter part of t e work . Th r the e a a f c o of ec e pr p r tory un ti n proph y is ignor d , a n d the very rea s on a blen ess of the J ewish syste m of sa c rifice a n d ritua l is d eni ed ; here the fea r o f

the la w a e a n d the a c e of the o e c is pr is d , gr pr ph ti

r e c o z e e e a e e fe to o d r is re gni d . Wh th r this pr is r rs e n or e C ea ha la w a n d l ction , or hym , s rmon , it is l r t t prophec y a re reckon ed e mpha tic a lly w ith gospel and tra dition a s trea sures of Churc h life and

ea c the a e e in e e a two t hing . At s m tim , th s l st

1 “ ” The c ha n ge from the sin gula r thou of c ha pters i-x “ ” to th e a ou ofc a e x i 1 n ot c on c v e for plur l y h pt rs xi , , is lusi , n o o In i—x Di n et s oc a on it is t c n sisten t. c h a pters og u is c si a lly merged in th e plura l a s represen ti n g th e Greek world in c a e h e n a c on a th h pt rs xi , xii , t si gul r is oc a si lly used to brin g e e on of n o ed e o o h e n v a r sp sibility k wl g h m e t t i di idu l Christia n . 34 I NTRODUCTION c hapters the Gen esis n arra tive of Pa radise a n d . l the Fall is ha ndled free y in a llegorical fa shion . I n fa c t the first pa rt of the l etter is “ everywhe re m a rked by the characteristic s of Greece ; the

ec o se of ex a The on e S to s nd by tho Al ndria . , O

s ea s e f u r a th e er p k , ts orth tr th ation lly, and oth

c a l The c e e of the on e is f ofthe mysti ly. ntr aith ; ” l O e e e a the e t eon th r knowl dg . Ag in , argum n te m pla ted in the first c hapter is compl eted a n d the

e o a ll a e n f a er x qu sti ns nsw red before the e d o Ch pt . An d a t the close ofc ha pte r xi the a uthor desc ribes himself a s speakin g ou t of th e purely missiona ry

i o fthe r e c e of the e ea s the spir t t u dis ipl Word , wh r earlier cha pters a re a vowedly written in answer

he e f i n e e n o fo to t qu stions o D og etu s. Th r rmal r efe e ce o e e e in r n is made t Holy Scriptur ; h r ,

c a e x ii e e 1 Cor . ix . 1 0 h pt r , 5 , a t xt is quot d ( ) ' “ ” a s a s a in of h a e The c y g t e postl . con lusion

ee e e The e a e h a e s ms irr sistibl . t nth ch pt r may v end ed origin a lly with its present abrupt gla nce a t the judgment whic h is to c ome on persec utor

’ a n d e ec e a l e or th e a c n the e m a p rs ut d ik , l u a in t xt y

c e he a n a B ut indi a t t loss of origin l peroration. in a n y c ase the two c ha pte rs th a t now follow a re the of e a fa e of s me work a lat r author, or r gm nt o

e the e e e e writing cont mporary with l tt r, but app nd d to the e e e e o m a a e ee l tt r by a lat r dit r. It y h v b n a dded by him as a delibera te c ompl etion or modi

1 W Ca n on o . e co N . T. 8 . st tt, f , p 7

36 INTRODUCTION

’ towa rds Bu n sen s theory of a lost peroration of h i t e Refu ta t on . Westc ott w a s inclin ed to regard this fra gment a s the work of a J ewish c onvert of Al exandria on

the of e c u se of e e n d ground its all gori al G n sis , a

“ welcomed it a s a sign of the Ca tholic spirit o f o n e o of e Its e e divisi n J wish Christendom . dat h “ a c e ea e c c e The pl d rly in th se ond ntu ry. author Speaks o f himsel f as a dis cipl e o f a postles a n d a e e of the e e The c a s h e t ach r G ntil s . Chur h ,

’ e i e wa s the e The e e d scr b s it, still in first stag . s ns of person a l intercourse with the Word was fresh a n d ee Re e a wa s n ot e a d p . v l tion th n wholly ” 1 thing of the pa st On two of these grou n ds the a e o a e e f e e a n d the ll g ric l int rpr tation o G n sis , d esc ription ofth e writer a s a teacher of Gentil es “ f c a e n of Pa n ta n u s the a o le Light oot m to thi k , p st ” o f the n e a n d the a e of the a ec e c a I di s , m st r c t h ti l c a t e a s th 2 a a e e . s hool Al x ndri , possibl author On the whole the proba bility lea ns towa rds a n Alex a ndria n ra ther tha n a Rom a n origin for this

o fa e The e e c e of the a e w nd erfu l r gm nt . vid n p ra ll l pa ssages in H ippolytu s is n ot equ a lly strong in a ll the ca ses c ited ; it m ight perha ps be matched in d eta il by a c a reful study ofCl em ent ofAlex a nd ria it is almost outweighed a lrea dy by the gen era l impression of this fra gment which d rew from

1 a n on 8 C o IV. . 8 T. f , pp , 9 2 os ol 88 8 A t i c F a th r s d . . . p e (e H a rmer), pp 4 , 4 9 I NTEG RITY OF TH E EPISTLE 37

“ f he e : e is ex a a Light oot t v rdict Cl arly it Al ndri n , as its phra seology a n d its sentimen ts a like S ” how .

he a e of the fa e e the a e of But t v lu r gm nt, lik v lu

the E e e e e of a r . Ea pistl , is ind p nd nt its utho ship ch of the two ha s enriched Christia n litera tu re with

em of its The e e h a s e e ve the a g own . l tt r pr s r d nobl est picture of the Christia n li fe in th e midst of th e world tha t c a n be found outside the New

e a e The fa e ha s e a n ea l T st m nt. r gm nt giv n us id view ofth e pla ce of knowl edge (g n os is ) w ithin the

C a fe e u e e e f hristi n li . I t r sc s knowl dg rom its a a e a c a e e a n d c a a s pp r nt sso i tion with h r sy, l ims it

of h e a e a e O e a a the part t Christi n h rit g . v r g inst ” sc ien c e fa lsely so c a lled which ra n into futile

e n e e of a a e o c a n r fi m nts l ngu g or l gi , or s nk i to

ee e e a a the c c e a of fa sh r rror, ov r g inst on ntr tion ith e e the c c a e of a e ith r on pra ti l issu Christi n lov , or

the c e ff t a fe a a e on mysti al or t r Christi n s intlin ss , the unknown a uthor s ets the c on c eption of a “ knowledge whic h is th e highest expression of

” 1 ‘ e ea ed e e o c r v l truth . But it is no m r Gn sti ism ,

e of e or of e a e a a he purg d rror shorn x gg r tion , th t welc omes within the Chu rc h and o ffers to the

a n os is c a ef a r e a a Christia n . It is g r ully gu d d g inst tha t is ol a tion from the other ele men ts of the Christia n c ha ra c ter whic h is th e d a nger of know

e I is a e e w on fa ea e l edg . t knowl dg by ith , st di d

1 T. . . e o Ca n on o N . 1 W stc tt, f , p 9 38 I NTRODUCTION

the c ee of the a a em by histori cr d I nc rn tion , t pered

l e a n d e fe by ov , prov d by li .

V TH E H T Y TH P T . C RIS OLOG OF E E IS LE

Th er son a lit o the Wor (i) e p y f d . The Logos is d esc ribed on ce in terms tha t S c a rcel

e e a c h se ffro involv p rson lity ( . vii, God H im l heaven pla nted a mong m en a n d esta blished in thei

ea the a n d the in c om rehen sibl h rts Truth , holy, p

in a a e ee the Word . But most p ss g s , as ind d in con

e of He a re e e t xt this , is indisput bly gard d as a p rson a n d His rela tion to God is d efined a s that of The e the se ofthe son . mphasis laid on nding So

G od a n d the c by , on ommunication to Him b God of the great mystery of hum a n salvation seems a t first sight to anticipa te or to echo th subordin a tio n ism whic h regard ed the S on a s in

h e a e B u t su bord in a tion is ferior to t F th r. it is a q u a lifi ed by its context ; for the Son a n d th Fa ther a re both alike d escribed by th e ter

he o Demiurgus or Crea tor. T L gos a gain i d epic ted ra ther in His rel a tion to the world an

a in e a G od to man , th n H is r l tion to . This i

n e e en a i t lligibl ough . Writing to a pa g n familia

the o c c e o of th e e e h with St ic on pti n univ rs , t author is naturally c on c e rn ed ra the r to dwell a length upon the dignity a n d th e glory ofthe Wor CH RISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE 39

e h a n u the e of the e o in Cr ation , t pon myst ry int ri r

1 ’ fe of the ea Y et e e c co of li Godh d . v n in this a un t His re lation to the universe He appea rs a s the g uiding prin c iple ra ther tha n a s the c rea tive power ’ “ h —ia he ord s of e c o a s the c o e a e t w W st tt, rr l tiv to eRea son in m a n ra ther tha n a s the expression of ” he a e of 2 t c re tiv Will God .

11 The n n a tion ( ) I ca r . The I nc a rn a tion of the S on is rega rded a s the

e e ofthe e of e w a s a t xpr ssion lov God . Its purpos

‘ e t e ea a n d to red eem m a n he e onc o r v l God . T r is n o hint ofa n y theologica l diffic u lty in the rel a tion between the divin e and the human in the In c a rn a te

e is c c a n Word . H God so truly tha t His oming be e c be a s the of e e d s ri d coming God , His Aton m nt ’ a n o ou r e e la as God s t ki g up n Him sins, His r v tion ’ m e On the e a a s God s revela tion ofHi s l f. oth r h nd the Pa tripa ssi a nism whic h rega rd ed the Fa ther a s comi n g in His ow n person is ruled ou t by the

” “ insistence upon the distin c t pe rson a lity of the

h e e H e ru a n on t e a m . beloved S . At s m tim is t ly He is n ev er c a lled J esus or Christ ; but He is “ ” s h o l a s G od d esc ribed a se t not n y God by , but

n he e e a e e as m a n to m e . T v ry unc rt inty wh th r

a e 2 the a o ea n o f the in ch pt r vii , g , uth r is sp ki g a of ea o u a a e o r of th e impl nting r s n in h m n n tur ,

1 e n e- a e I n tr odu ction to E a r l Chr istia n Doctr in e B thu B k r, y , 1 2 p . 3. 2 a n o N . T. . 2 n . C n o . f , p 9 , 4 40 I NTRODU CTI ON

c a a of the a m en n In rn tion Word mong , bri gs us to the philosophi c a l basis of the belief in the

a viz . the a the e n a u e Incarn tion , truth th t divin t r c a n a ssoc ia te the huma n with Itself because there

th e a n a e s e i is i e is in hum n tur om th ng that div n . The writer h a s n o doubt tha t the Word beca me

e fl sh .

The A ton emen t (iii) . The A e e is e e e ffec n ot ton m nt d scrib d in its ts, in e R a a the c e n its m thod . nsom , justific tion , ov ri g — a n d hiding ofsin there is the obj ec ti ve Aton e m ent s a e ea of l a e fee t t d with a w lth angu g and ling, but

u e n h e we a re t h witho t d finitio . W n old that in t is “ Epistle the dea th of the S on is not s tated to be a n n s a e for e a s e e ato ing crific sin , but rath r upr m ” 1 fe a n . of d e l ve we m a el mani st tio ivin o , y sur y reply that the a ntithesis is unnecessa ry in p rin c iple a n d a a e in fa c The er of h E unw rr nt d t. writ t e pistl e

e n ot in ee u se the a c fic e bu t th i a do s d d word s ri , e de of sac rifi c e is implied in the Scriptura l l a ngua ge c he es i e e whi h quot . To d sput that id a would be a s unrea sona ble a s to sa y tha t the writer does n ot sta te the dea th itsel f beca use h e merely spea ks of

i a a God g ving His Son as r nsom . At the same time the Atone ment is a s c lea rly “ ec e is e i e The subj tiv as it obj ct v . word ex ” a e e a e c ch ng is us d , but in cont xt whi h points perha ps as m u c h to the excha n ge of iniquity for

1 l D tr e oc in e o the I n ca r n ti on . 88 Ott y, f a , I 1 . CH RISTOLOG Y OF TH E EPISTLE 4 1 righteousn ess a s to the substit u tion of the 8 011 for

“ sinners I t is no externa l a c t or tra nsa ction that

o ew It is a ea e c a e effec ts the bj ect in vi . r l inn r h ng ” 1 ’ The e a a e tha t is wrought in man . writ r s l ngu g on this point reca lls his ea rlier rem a rk tha t G od “ e S on e a e n ot to f e for f e s nt His to p rsu d orc , orc ’ is n f c h M a n o a o a e . p rt God s n tur ( vii, is n o a w n e e t s ved without his o r spons . the ou l (iv) The Wor d in the Chu r ch a n d in S .

In c a e the a n e e e e h pt rs xi , xii Inc r ation is r pr s nt d a s h a h fa n i bot istorical ct a d a spir tual power. It is extend ed into th e life o f the Chu rc h a n d of he h W t . T e e e e f the soul ord is still pr s nt, Hims l ’ ’ Church s endowment a n d the Christian s inspira

n is to o e e c tio . It surprising find n ref r n e in this c ontext to the work of the Holy Spirit in the

c h e e n o e o of the h Chur . Th r is m nti n Spirit in t is sec the m a of th e e e The tion , or in in body l tt r. ” ’ gra c e whi c h is not merely the Son s gi ft to the

“ “ ” Churc h bu t itself revea ls a n d rejoic es c a nnot ’ ee be e a a n d th e e a ea ind d imp rson l , writ r s pp l to “ ” the Christia n disc iple n ot to grieve this gra c e ’ ee a c u e c c e o f Pa ea s ms cons io s r minis en S . ul s pl d “ in g with the Ephesia ns n ot to grieve the H oly E h Y et the e a a e e a Spirit ( p . iii . s p r t p rson lity ofth e Spirit is not here rec ogni z ed explicitly the gra c e is rega rd ed a s the direc t working of th

o e a n d the e c . c to W rd This indistin tn ss , t nden y

1 - e n e a e o . cit . 2 B thu B k r, p . , p 33 . 4 2 I NTRODUCTION

attribute to the Word wha t strictly belongs to the Spirit a re an indica tion oftha t period ofthe second c entury in whic h the doc trine of the Logos was s the a t of a e o till domin nt ruth Christi n th ol gy, as it is in the S hepher d of H er ma s a n d in the 1 Apologists . n c a e 6 the la w th e e the I h pt r xi , , , proph ts, gospels a n d the a postles a re reckoned togethe r

a n he ea ofthe a fe ofthe mo g t w lth spiritu l li Church , a n d the Word is d escribed a s tea ching through 2 -o n c n a s c H is w hose te cher . Bishop West ott

“ “ rema rks : I n this noble sent en c e we see the first intim a tion of the co-or din a te a uthorities of the

B e the rc of w en e a n d ibl and Chu h , a ritt r cord a

e W e ma a dd a a s h living voic . y th t t e Word is

ere the a ofthe ea e i e in C e h inspir tion t ch r, wh l hapt r

x ii 1 0 e i e f th e e e of the sa , § , H is H ms l t ach r ints , we h a ve a lso a c o-ordin a tion ofthe tea c hing ofthe

the e e en e of the Church , and xp ri c individual . In

a er e of a e a e this l tt doctrin priv t inspir tion , W stcott 3 “ rem a rks elsewhere it is possible to tra c e the ” e of a e m c the c e ofthe g rms l t r ysti ism , but influen Word on the Christi a n is m a d e to fl ow from His ” c a e e a histori l r v l tion to m a nkind . Meditation is

e e b t e k pt tru y h Creed .

1 - B n i . e e a e o . c t. 1 200 o e f of. thu B k r, p , pp 99, ; m r ully, Pr ’ S w e a r c e on th e H o o in Diet h io C r . . et s ti l ly Gh st . B gr 2 ls tr du ction t tu d o s e e . 2 1 I o o S Go d 1 888 . n y f p , . , p 4 3 t Ca n on a i v. ed . 1 8 . 2. T. , 75 , p 9

344 I NTRODUCTION — c h . v 1 6 th n iii, , e a ture of G od (a ) un disc overed by oso e h ev ea e in h phil ph rs, ( ) r l d t e S on to fa ith ; ’ c h . v 1 o ove a n o iii 7, ix , G d s l w iti g f r ma n to lea rn his n eed (An swer to C) - ’ ’ c h . 2 6 o v e o n o t ix, , G d s lo w rki g u ma n s sa l va tion a t a l st. (3) I ts results a re v isible in m a n — c h . 1 6 th e a on of i x, , imit ti G od n lov e for ma n (An swer to B) 8 n n o the e e n f 7, , i sight i t t r a l va lues of li e a n d dea th (An swer to A V I h e i n osis I . Chr stia g n

c h . xi . The Word 1 — a o c a l ev e a ion to h o 3, hist ri r l t t e w rld —8 a e en o e in the C c n i h 4 , pr s t p w r hur h a d n t e soul .

. Th C c a a ch . xii e hur h pa r dise 1 - 8 the n on of n o e e a n d fe , u i k wl dg li

the ea a n d O e of o s . 9, b uty rd r w r hip

N n of Dio n e s He ma a othing is know g tu . y h ve bee n the Stoic Diogn etu s who was the instructor o ffM a c u s e the f t e e e a r Aur lius , u ur mp ror, in p int 1 the e e e of Dou lc e ing and in l m nts philosophy . t endea voured to prove tha t Diogn etus wa s a pupil of i the e a e a t e of his Dionys us Ar op git , and wi n ss

2 ' o Ke e 3 e a a r . n a s the m rty d m stn r, r g rd ing Justi a of the E e s e Dio n etu s uthor pistl , uppos d that g wa s induc ed by the young Aurelius to c onsult Justin on points -of inquiry whic h the Apology ha d c e l or a ll a the tou h d but ightly not at , and th t

1 ‘ hil i l Vit n t n os M . A e C o in u a A o . . c . a p t s, p , 4 ; ur lius,

2 — ev u e des u est l i is L 1 880 . 60 1 61 2. R Q . , , pp 3 s i. o e n P a tr . A o t. vol. . c v . Qu t d by Fu k, p , , p x i N E N OF TH E E E CO T TS PISTL 45.

’ e w a s e u t we o n Epistl Justin s r ply. B kn w othing for c erta in of the position or c ha ra cter of the i n q u irer Or of th e circumstan c es of th e i n quiry. The questions a re n ot a nswered prec isely in th e

of e Pa a n a a re order th ir asking. g ism and Jud ism

m a o own e e s first dismissed su m rily n their d m rit . The writer then describes the c ondition and the

a a c e of a the a n d ee s ch r t r Christi ns in world , proc d to trace the sec ret of the Christia n life ba c k to the divin e origi n o f the Chr istian revela tion embodied

c a a n d th o e e e in th e In a rn tion e At n m nt . I n c id nt a lly he a nswers the question why the Christian

e wa s so e in a ea the r ligion l at pp ring in world . The s u bj ec tive revela tion of sin ha d to p rec ede the

c e e e a o ofth a o The o e obj e tiv r v l ti n e S vi ur. br th rly lov e of Christia ns is expl a in ed n ext a s the frui t

f e e a n of h e e of the o this r v l tio t goodn ss God . But purity of this love has been a lrea dy vi n dic ated in th e c ourse of the d esc ription of th e Christia n li fe ’ h Th e a c o e for ea t in t e world . m rtyr s nt mpt d h is t w ic e expla in ed on c e it is a ttributed to his loya lty

o c h n c h is l e f t a e e . v e e pr s nt Lord ( , 7 on to b i

th e fi re ofe e a e c h in t rn l judgm nt ( . x , 7,

VII S M E T S MS F TH L . O CRI ICI O E EPIST E

E ! CEPTION h a s been ta ken on va rious ground s to th e desc ription whi c h the u nknown writer gives

of a a of a a n d of a p g nism , Jud ism , Christi nity. 46 I NTRODUCTION

1 e ec a e the a Of the . Ov rb k rgu d that p ganism sec ond century w a s too strong for a Christia n a pologist to think tha t he cou ld dismiss its cla im s r e n at of i s d a Bu t by a su mma y c ond m ion t i ol try. the writer is n ot disc ussi n g pa ga n religion a n d life a s a whol e ; he is me rely expla ining the refu sal of hr a to ta e in a a a n d he C isti ns k part p g n worship, c a n ea sily be forgiven the omission to di fferentia te

e een the ed c a e a n d the e a e a a b tw u t d un duc t d p g n , when a n enlighten ed emperor like H a dria n too k su ch trou ble to identify himself with the wo rship 1 of the a s e I t be ea f e a n n m s s . would sy to ram l

ictme n of fa es a Pa i elf d t un irn s ag inst S . ul h ms by

e h e of a a his e e dw lling on what says p g nism in pistl s ,

‘ o e e c I and ign ring his s rmon at Ath ns in A ts v . I t is more to the point to n ote tha t the re is n o

r e e e ef of P a suggestion in ou Epistl of th b li S . ul h - I 20 a n d t e c e r e. ( Cor. x . ) post apostoli writ s ( g .

h a e e w I st A ol. c a s a ea Justin , p . ix) th t th r r lity

e the a n d ea the e e c e of b hind idols , that r lity pr s n evil spirits using the fa lse worship a s a barrie r a n d

a a n t e e Y et the e m a a wea pon g i st h tru . writ r y

a e ef He m a be ea e e h ve h eld this b li . y d ling h r only with the exte rn a l a spec t of pa ga n id ola try ; tha t wa s suffic i ent rea son in itself for Christia n

1 - ’ . r b k v e i n r s c . 26 1 . Ov e ec s De Ur r . et K h , p , , pp 3 i w T 1 8 c on ov e e o Hil en feld 2 . . 70. h is tr rt d a ls by g , f , 73, pp

’ " z z 1 7.i 7S CRITICISMS OF THE EPISTLE 47

e r f u efe th e abstin en c the e rom , witho t r rring to

ea of the e prIn CIple of evil a t th e h rt syst m . 2 u r a ee re e e e a a a s . O uthor has b n pr s nt d g in

e a a n is A s pl a c ing Juda ism on a l ve l with p g m . a matter of fa ct he begins with a word Of tribute

a s ee e th e a of the to J u daism a c r d . U nlik uthor ‘ P r ea chin g of P eter he gra nts tha t its monotheism is ea a n 15 a c ia a n d r l d true . It its s rific l ritual sys tem ha he ee to c e e t t proc ds ond mn . But his vi w is

e a a for he c e a a s c rt inly st rtling, ond mns Jud ism not an a c o bUt as a n u n ot ec a e na hr nism abs rdity , b us it refuses to see tha t its work end ed with the Christ n e e e but bec a use its prac ti c es a re irration a l a d irr v r nt . Suc h a senten c e c a n only be justified by c on fining ’ it c the m f he e d a stri tly to Jud a is o t writ r s own y . He w a s writing in view of a J ud a ism whic h ha d

wa s a e its f lost its sa vour while it still h rd ning orm . He w a s writing a t a time wh en J ewish hostility to Christia ns h a d found expression in the c ru elties of . - me u ch of the B a r Coc hba w a r. Pe a too rh ps , , so to the n a tion a l anti -Jud a is m ofthe Greek-Christian c ommunity w a s reflec ting itsel f in c orrespo n ding 1 e of the a c c a fe a ll is vi ws Jud isti ult . But t r it sur

a the te e e u h e w a s a ee prising th t wri r, v n tho gh Gr k

to a a ee n ot re Christian writing p gan Gr k, did m embe r the Jud a ism of the pa st whil e he w a s e x

la n n a the a ofth e ese t p i i g his antip thy to Jud ism pr n .

1 H - il n f h 1 8 . 2 2 . . T e eld 20. g , Z f , 73, pp 75 77 48 I NTRODUCTION

We might ha v e expec ted h im to sh ow som e rec og n ition of th e fac t tha t the Old Testa ment itsel f both c ontained the strongest protests a ga inst th e e of a c e a n d a n d ec e misus s crifi . ritual r ord d also r thei divin e origin . The c a fh h f 3. old sh dow o ostile c ritic ism a s a llen eve n a c ross the bea utifu l pi c ture of the Christia n

fe c a e The e a u li in h pt rs v and vi . writ r is rg ing

‘ there from the inv isible working of Christianity to

s e a a o i i O e ec o ec e t a its up rn tur l r g n . v rb k bj t d h t Christia nity wa s not invisibl e in the second c entury — tha t a ll the sta nding a c c usa tions of th e p a ga n world a ga inst the Ch ristia n s prov ed th a t Christi a n s

e e a e m en H e ec e fu e r a the w r m rk d . obj t d rth th t a pol ogists gi v e no indic a tion of a c ommon soc ia l — li fe between Christia n a n d p a ga n tha t suc h a sta te of things c ould only c om e when a victo rious Chri stia n ity h a d e n tered upon the herita ge of th e hea then a n d c l a imed for its o w n all the resou rc es 1 o f e c z a Hil en feld e imp rial ivili tion . g is sur ly right in replyi ng tha t in th a t c a se th e write r of suc h a n — — Epistl e itselfby th a t tim e a n a n a c hronism would l a y stress n ot upon th e position o f Christia ns in a pa ga n world but upon th e position of a dying ’ a n a a e re Ov erbec k s pa g ism in Christi n mpi . But ’ desc ripti on of the write r s argument is itsel f incor

ec The r e e ea n a ia r t . w it r do s not m th t Christ nity w a s Its a w a s e invisible. outw rd working visibl in

1 i - Hil en feld . i 70. h 1 8 . 2 280 . g , Z T , 73, pp 79 CRITICISMS OF TH E EPISTLE 49

a a he ea a the e i ev ery Christi n . Wh t m ns is th t r lig ous life a t the ba c k of the n ew type of e thic s w a s in

e The n c fed th e ea w a s the visibl . spri g whi h str m “ n he te f . a t li e hid with Christ in God Ag i , wri r does n ot sa y tha t the Christians ha d their soc ia l

fe e e in c o th e a a a n d e e li ntir ly mmon with p g ns , w r

e e n a c e outwa rdly m rg d i pag n so i ty . His point is ra e a e e e ee ec z a e bu t a th r th t th y w r ind d r ogni bl , th t th e distin c tive m a rk of a Christia n la y n ot in pec uli a r c u stoms and h a bits but in th e fa ct that c o u c w a s e e e a n d a u e his nd t pur and g ntl , his ttit d towa rds the things of d a ily life witn essed to ideals

c e e whi h wer the mselves unse n .

a fa u a e c c of h 4 . A str ngely un vo r bl riti ism t is ’ pic ture is to be found in H a rn a c k s Ex pa n s ion of

“ h r i stian it The c - a e e c C y . mu h pr is d d s ription in io e c h 6 a fin e e the e e D n tu s . a l tt r to g ( v, ) is rh toric l Th a a c e e e c o e . e o h a s hi v m nt, but not mu h m r uth r gi v en expression in on e brea th to three points of — v iew the Christi a n syste m o f c ondu c t a s the

e a the o n e of a n high st mor lity , unw rldli ss Christi ity , a n d th e i n n er life whic h permits this religion to sta n l in the midst of th e world a n d j oin in every

e e a c c n a a e thing xt rn l without ontra ti g st in . A writ r who c a n wea v e th ese ideas so c ompletely into on e d esign either sta nds on the high leve l of the fourth — Gospel but it is sc a rcely possible to promote th e — a uthor o f this letter to th a t position or else fa lls und er th e s u spic ion tha t h e is not entirely in ea rn est D so I NTRODUCTION

” 1 ’ o e of se n of ew a v r any tho poi ts vi . Harn ck s position is a pparently that the a pologetic school of tha t d a y laid stress m a inly upon the ethi ca l aspec t of the hris n o iteia c o v C tia p l . Su h a position is b i ou sly disturbed by the emphasis whic h the letter to Diogn etu s la ys Upon the spiritu a l life a t the hea rt

f a oliteia a s a c a n to o th t p . But H rna k s ys nothi g prove the in c ompa tibility of the three ele ments of the a fe th e on e u e we m a e Christi n li in pict r , y w ll continue to believe tha t the writer of the letter w a s

e e e e a ll ee a n d ea e in arn st in xpr ssing thr , was in rn st

ec a e he wa s e c e f the fe a n d b us d pi ting th m rom li , tha t even if he c a nnot be promoted to the level of the eva ngelist he m a y yet ha ve c a ught something

of the of the f u e a n d e z e spirit o rth Gosp l , r cogni d

h fhis own a tha t s pirit in t e Christia nity o d y .

a a c e a e e e e ea o 5 . H rn k r m rks ls wh r in his gr t w rk tha t in the pic ture o f the s oul within the body w e h a ve a definite c on c eption of the rela tion between

the u c a n d th e l c e e t e Ch r h wor d , whi h h id n ifi s with 2 e He e a e the Sta t . is p rh ps too rigid in this ind nti

fic a tio n of th kos mos a n d he e T e c o e t mpire . h y in

C e ee a t a the ea of th e id ind d m ny points, but id

hos mos c a a n d a a e a a word is so i l mor l r th r th n politic l , a n d is potentia lly wid er than the popula tions of h R H e e a in t e a e . om n provinc s is too rigid , p rh ps ,

1 8 Die Al is i A u n d . Chr isten th u ms . 6 s on . shr tu u ei g , p I ,

n . 2. 2 1h 1 , p. 93.

T RAN S L AT ION AND N OT ES

TO D IOG NETU S

1 . N E see m t e c e e Dio n etu s a I SI C I , os x ll nt g , th t thou hast shown an ea ge r desire to understand the

e n ofthe a a n d r t a n ec e r ligio Christi ns, a m ki g pr is

e a e a e e and dilig nt inquiry bout th m , wh t th r is in the e e of God whom th y trust, and in th ir worship

ea e to o e the a n d Him , that l ds th m lo k b yond world

e e ea e e e e a s e d spis d th, and n ith r r cogniz gods thos

a re c o e the ee ee the who unt d such by Gr ks , nor k p religious Observa nces ofthe J ews a n d what is the n a ture ofthe affection whic h they ex hibit towa rds on e another ; and why this n ew ra c e of men or 2 profession of life ha s c ome into the world n ow

- ‘ 1 r m r e a n e en o n ofli c ia l a n C . e a , pithet d ti g high r k, p Luk

. eo f n e n en of o a c a a c e i 3 (Th philus) ; in itsel i d pe d t m r l h r t r,

Ac . 26 v e v . 2 es . ts xxiii , xxi . 3 (F lix), xx i 5 (F tus)

2 ' ‘ e o 31 1 4 - y v s h 1 186 0144 . Lightfoot Ha rmer 2 Wha t is the n a ture ofthis n ew developmen t or i n terest whic h ha s en tered ’ ” in to men s liv es ? But the n a ture ofthe Christia n religion is c ov ered by th e first two question s ofDiogn etu s . Diogn etu s is here a ski n g pra c ti c a lly why th e Christi a n religion wa s SO ' i i w R e evos a e n c o n f a s th e e on . a c e l t mi g, it tru religi (y ) is us d ’ ofChristia n s in a spiritua lly gen ea l ogi c a l sen se in Aristides

A olo c h . e e e a re e c e a s the e c en a n p gy ( ii), wh r th y d s rib d d s d ts of e C the ee a r e c en a n of e J sus hrist, while Gr ks e d s d ts d mi ” o . For a f l c on oft e e on n ew eo e g ds ul dis ussi h expr ssi s p pl , “ a n d h a c e see Ha n a c E x a n sion o Chr istia n it t ird r r k, p f y, 5 2 TRANSLATION AND NOTES 5 3

a n d ea e — I e c e z e a n d not rli r, w l om thy al , I pray

who e th e e to God , b stows upon us p ow r both ea a n d to ea a m a be e m e to sp k h r, th t it y giv n to speak in suc h a wa y th a t thou m a yest be most

e e ea e ee to e h lp d by what thou h r st, and to th h ar in suc h a wa y tha t he who speaks m ay hav e no

c a e for e us regr t .

1 o f f a ll t e ea 1 . e n w f e o h Com , puri y thys l id s 1 a eoc c e the fa a th t pr upy thy mind , put asid mili rity 2 a m ea ee ec e a s e e a n ew m a n th t isl ds th , b om it w r

. h i 1 1. v . h sti bk c . In th e Greek text Of t e Apology of Ari des “ ” e e a re ee a c e ee e a n d C a n in th r thr r s, Gr ks, J ws hristi s the S yria c a n d Armen ia n v ersion s of the Ap ology there a r e fo a a k s ws C n T e a an G re e a . e e ur, b rb ri s, e , J , hristi s hr st g s ’ m a be O e v e in the u se ofth e e f i‘r ov evos y bs r d t rm p y . First , it

e e ea n a n of o etc . a s in th e P r ea chi n m r ly m s third ki d w rship, , g “ o P e i. h ter a C e en S tr om . v t e . A e . f , ( p l m t l x , , 5 39, wo of ee n o e a n rship Gr ks a d J ews is obs l te, but ye Christi s a re they who worship (G od) in a n ew wa y (Ra ma’s) a fter a

‘ - fa s on r f' r r 6m o e d evor Ne a n a e v en third hi ( p p 7 fi p ). xt, it is m gi t o C h a a n . D hristia n s by t e p g world ; T ertullia n (A . “ ” e en dic im u r . n a e a n t rtium g us Fi lly, it is us d by Christi s “ of - i r A O . 2 e n themsel ves ; Pseudo Cyp . ( . 42 t rt um ge us ” mu s . o t. h s S ee H n a c . ci I I i. E n e a . v c o t u r k, p , , x ursus ” e e dritt s G sc hlec ht . 1 i . e. th e n fl en c e ofc o a a n a a n a etc . i u ust m (p g ide s, l gu ge, )

c n a m a n to the ea S n c a n c e of in . C whi h bli ds r l ig ifi th gs p .

h u s o h a v oel V f or f e o v i h R. . o C . t e t v . e w rd ( n a ) n t e I . iii 7 foo -Ha e Th e a h c ea e ee a ra Light t rm r, h bit w i h l d th th st y but there is n o hin t in th e Epistle tha t Diogn etus wa s ea n v l din g a e il life . 2 . v . . h n C E . i 2 1 fol e e o ev t e n ew m a p ph l , wh r , h w er, is a o a n n n m r l ra ther tha a i tellec tua l tr a n sforma tion . 54 THE EPISTLE To DIOG NETUS fo the e n c e o a rt a to e r m b gin ing, sin th u bout list n to a c t n e c e f a n ew a s o do ri whi h is its l thing , th u 1 thysel fdidst a c k n owledge a n d obse rve n ot only w e e e h e e a a ith thin y s but wit thin und rst nding lso, 2 wha t is the rea l natu re a n d form of those whom o n d e a s 2 S u e c e a a . y !Greeks] d s rib r g rd gods . I n ot on e of e e l e th e o e a th m ston , ik st n th t is

o e n e foo a e e e e a n tr dd n u d r t noth r bronz , no b tt r th th e utensils moulded for our d a ily u se ; anoth er

ea d ec a e a o e e e a wood , alr dy y d n th r silv r, r quiring m a n to a a a e f a e r c o o e gu rd it g inst th t ; noth r i on , rr d d

a e ea e wa e o e c e a by rust noth r rth n r , no m r om ly th n tha t whic h ha s been prepa red fo r the mea n est

r l e servic e ? 3. A e n ot a l these m a d e of c orruptibl m a teria l ? A re they not wrought by iron and fire ?

Wa s on e of e fa e a em a not th m shion d by ston son , a n e a a z e a o e a S e oth r by br i r, n th r by ilv rsmith , a n other by a potter ? B efore they were mod elled into the form of these gods by the a rts of these c a f e w a s n ot ea c of e a f e r tsm n , h th m tr ns orm d by

1 Appa ren tly a referen c e to th e expressi on n ew ra c e or ” profession whi c h th e writer quotes in c ha pter i from th e n question s of Diog etu s. 2 ' Hyposta sis a n d eidos a re th e Greek words in the text . “ h v e R. t e i in . i . For hyp osta sis Cp . ts u se Heb 3 ( ry ” ” V . e on ec a Th . e e fHi s bsta n ce. e A ima ge o s u th r , p rs , r lls the l a ter u se of th e word to whi c h it wa s restri c ted in th e = Trin ita ri a n c on trov ersies of the fourth c en tury (hyposta sis u sia n It n a e e e e e the person , o a ture) . is i dmissibl h r , wh r person a lity ofthese gods is so stren uously den ie d . TRANSLATION AND NOTES 5 5

1 its o wn a f a a s is the e cr tsm n , still cas Might not e e n ow e of the a me m e a if e v ss ls mad s at ri l , th y ha ppened to fall into the han ds ofthe sa me cra fts m en he e a a e e e ? , mad simil r to im g s such as th s

n th c c a re 4 . O e other hand ould n ot th ese whi h n ow worshipped by you be mad e by m en into

e e e e ? Are e n ot ea f v ss ls lik any oth r th y all d ,

e e of fe of e e of ? A re blind , d stitut li , s ns , motion

e n ot a ll c th y subj e t to dec a y a n d corruption ? 5 .

e e a re the n e e e e Th s thi gs that y call gods, y s rv e e e e e e c om th m , y worship th m , and y b com l 2 F r réa son e e 6 . o p tely like unto them . this y

1 l a “ ” Ar e in x a y w . even n ew . a c a n n Cod . t g n . , lit still L hm c on ec e ex m c u n en en e e Wa s n ot ea c j tur d a , whi h B s r d r d h left to th e merc i es of th e workma n to tra n sform it a s h e ” ' e ? foo -Ha e a n the o in difieren t lik d Light t rm r, t ki g w rds o W o o for ea c on e Of e to rder, tra n sla tes , a s it n t p ssible h th m ha ve been c ha n ged in form a n d ma de to resemble these ” sev era l uten sils ? In a n y c a se the sen se is tha t the sha pe ” th e en of he d e en e on the c a f a n wh o id tity t go , d p d d r tsm , first c on v erted the origin a l sha pe of his ma teria l in to th e o a e ofa n o efo h e a v e n e fo r ugh sh p id l b re g it its fi ish d rm , a n d who might ha ve gi v en th e ma teria l the sha pe of a n y n h h thi g tha t e liked a t t e outset . 2 An ec o OfPS . c x v . 8 a n d P S . c v 1 8. C . 1 t e h , xxx . p ( ) h f — o R . o a in om . 1 8 th ught S . P ul i 32 tha t a degra ded idea Of the di v i n e n a ture results in a n a c tua l degra da tion ofhuma n n a tu re a n d (2) the ea rlier ela bora tion of the thought in Wisdom d x s in c a e a n iv . I r eve a , h pt rs xiii n ou text, how r,

P S . c x v . a n d c v . h e wo f n a e xxx , t rds re er to the in se sibility r th r a Th e tha n to the immora lity whic h results from idol try. o a o lo n l BOhl id l t r ses me ta l power a s well a s mora purity. 5 6 THE E PISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

a e a s ec a e e n ot e e e h t Christi n , b us th y do r gard th s

a s B u t a ll th e things gods . 7. with honour ye a re c c o e a n d se a e a re a ust m d suppo d to p y th m , n ot ye guilty yourselves o f greater c ontempt for the m th a n Christians a re Do ye not heap much grea ter ridi c ul e a n d insult upon the m by worship pin g those that a re m a d e o fston e a n d earthenware

a e w e e s without troubling to gu rd th m , hil y hut up a t o e a re a e of e a n d a n d night th s that m d silv r gold , post gua rds beside the m in the d a ytim e for fear

e shop l be e 8 A n d the e h th y d stol n . v ry on ours tha t ye think to offe r them a re more of a punish

e if e a re e e of e if on the e m nt th y s nsibl th m , oth r h a e a re e a e e c nd, th y without s ns tion , th n y convi t the m o fthis fa c t by worshippi n g them with blood

he fa t of c L t on e of and t vi tims . 9 . e you submit to ea e let on e of ou e n s this tr tm nt, y p rmit such thi g be e elf Wh on e e ma n to don to hims . y, not singl a to c o for a will volunt rily submit this infli ti n , man

ha s e ea the e u for it s n sation and r son ston s bmits,

h a s no sensa ti on . Certainly ye do n ot prove by 1 c a h a s e a 1 0. ee your condu t th t it s ns tion . I nd d I

a n d B u n sen pra c tic a lly ren der You pla c e these ima ges on a ” o a h h or You e ar th e c mplete equ lity with t e G od ea d, r g d — Godhea d a s a ltogether simila r to these ima ges a pa ra llel ’ to S . a a n a e a t A en Ac s v . 2 . P ul s l gu g th s, t x ii 9 1 ” Ye d o n ot e efo e ove en a on . The or Lit . th r r pr its s s ti w d “ ” tra n sla ted prov e (éx éyx m ) is more c ommon ly n ega t ive “ ” “ h er efo e n la te I Ye a re n ot c on v ic t . W e might t r tra s ( ) TRANS LATION AND NOTES 5 7 could say many other things a bout Christians not being en slaved to gods like these ; but if what is e e a ee to on e i ffic e I h r s id should s m any nsu i nt, e it a a e of e sa e consid r w st tim to y mor .

the ex a e e a r t mo I I I . I n n t pl c I suppos thou st d esirous to hea r a bout their not worshipping after th f he o h e s a e a s t e . 2. N w t e e m ashion J ws J ws , so fa r a s they abstain from the mann er of servi c e -

e c e a o e a re in . c to s d s rib d b v , right laiming wor hip on e of the n e e a n d to ec o z e a s God u iv rs , r gni Him 1 Lord ; but so fa r a s they offe r H im this worship

f ' e e o e c on n n e a on z . e. ou re n ot c on th r r dem i g its s n s ti , y a demn in a e for th e a c c e ou offe a re c a g its t st s , s rifi s y r su h th t ” we c a n n ot believ e th e god to be sen sible of them ; or (2) Are ye n ot thereby disprov in g th e idea ofthe sen sibility of ” th e ima ge ? A c ha n ge of a c c en t (obx oiiv for of» : a b ) would gi v e (3) You a re by these sa c rific es sim ply disprovi n g the ” - ’ ea of s en . foo Ha e en e n Ye id its sibility Light t rm r s r d ri g, ” c n v m ou o c en a . i t his s sibility, is bigu s 1 Our a uthor is more len ien t tha n th e F r ed a/lin g of P eter

e . S tr a w v i. c esc e th on o e f (Cl m , , 5 , whi h d rib s e m th ism o th e e a s v a the a c ca or of a n e e c J ws iti ted by pr ti l w ship g ls, t Ne e o Him a fe th e an n e of th e e for ith r w rship t r m r J ws, o e n a e a on e n ow G od e n ow th ugh th y thi k th t th y l k , th y k Him n ot a n e v c e to a n e a n d a c a n el on , p yi g s r i g ls r h g s, m th ” “ a n d oo C . th e S a c e ofA m n . p yri t xt ristides : They suppose i e n s e a re e v n G od bu in h n th ir mi d that th y s r i g , t t e method s ” of e a c on e e v ce is to a e s a n ot to o th ir ti s th ir s r i n g l d n G d, etc . Th e Greek text of Aristides c on c en tr a tes a tten tion on th e un belief of th e J ews in their trea tmen t ofthe prophets a n d “ of r ev n w Christ : a g . They wo ship e n o G od a s th e sole ule of a ll b u t n ot c c n to n o e r r , a ordi g k wl dge for they den y 5 8 THE EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

s fa on the ree e a re a e e in imilar shi to G ks, th y ltog th r

e ea the e e e a n wrong. 3. For wh r s Gr eks pr s nt ex a mple of folly by ma king their offerings to e e ea f e e e the e things ins nsibl and d , th s J ws , on oth r

a e a e h nd , ought rightly to r g rd it as absurdity rath r th a n piety to im a gin e tha t they a re presenting these offerings to G od a s though He were in n eed

of e He a a a . e ea e a n ea n d th m . 4 th t m d h v n d rth a ll a e bestoweth o a ll of th t is in th m , and up n us

the we ee a e f ee a n o f things that n d , c nnot Hims l n d y the things that He Himselfprov ides for those w ho 1 fa c e a re e e n y th y giving th m to Him . 5 . Th y who im a gi n e that they a re pe rformi n g sac rifice to Him

w fa t e ffe a n d ith blood and and whol burnt o rings ,

a e a re H im e e u e th t th y honouring by th s trib t s , see m to m e to differ in n o respec t from those who displa y the sa m e zeal towa rds sen sel ess obj ec ts ; for the l a tter think to provid e offe rings for things

c a n a a e ofthe n the fo e for a that not p rt k ho our, rm r

a f n God who st nds in n eed o nothi g .

e e e e c e a o IV. With r gard , how v r, to th ir s rupl s b ut 2 e e e e a ce of the m ats , and th ir sup rstitious obs rv n

th e C r s th e S on of G od a n d a re e the en e even if h i t , lik G til s, the seem in a wa to a w n to th e fo c y , y dr igh truth, r m whi h ” e a n e e fa r th y the Gen tiles) w d r d . 1 — ha d . d . r en t. A v 2 2 P5 1. 8 1 Co A Cp. c ts x ii 4, 5 . 4 . g

a a n a n o e efe n to a a . 1 2 o a re m rgi l t r rri g Is i h i , but its w rds a u n ec e a e p rtly d iph r bl . 2 the word used in c ha pter i of the J e wish

60 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

1 e e the se va c e of a n d to th r by Ob r n months days, 2 divide th e arra ngements Of God a n d the c ha nges o th t e o n c a f e sea sons a c cording to h ir w in lin tions, a n d assign some for fea sti n g a n d others for mourn

who e a a n e e of ie ing, would r g rd this as xampl p ty n 6 e ef e a d n ot ra ther of folly ? . I think th r or that thou ha st now learn ed su ffi ciently that Christians a re right in holding aloof from the va nity and

e i Of the a a f the d lus on p g n world , and rom

1 C a n Ye o se ve . l iv . 1 0 of h a n r Cp G a . t e Jud isi g h isti s b r ” d d e a n d ea . The v e o e ve da ys a n mon ths, a n tim s y rs rb bs r Th e there is the sa me a s th e substa n ti v e observa n c e here . J ews fixed the begin n i n g ofthe S a bba th a n d other da ys from h h On e a ea n da two a t e risi n g of t e sta rs . st r m t still y st rs

ee n . A ma n o n on a ev en n twilight ; thr , ight w rki g Frid y i g - a fter three sta rs were v isible wa s guilty ofS a bba th brea kin g.

' P ete i If h r lo . . e o n For th e oo c . P r ea etzzn o c c t t o m n , p g f ( ) m a ea n ot ee n ot th e S a a ca l e the s n or pp r , they k p bb th l d fir t,

’ the n ew moon n or the n ea v en e ea n or the feas t z. e. , u l d br d, ( ” en ec o n or the ea d a . e. of A on e en . The P t st), gr t y (i t m t)

ol c h . x iv c n n e e S yria c tex t of Aristides (Ap . ) o c ts thes pra c tices with a n gelol a try : Their serv ic e is to a n gels a n d n ot G od in a e o e ve S a a a n d n ew oon to , th t th y bs r bb ths, m s, a n d th e a ov e a n d th e ea fea a n d th e fa a n d p ss r, gr t st, sts, o a n d c ea n n e s of ea — c h n n ot ev en c irc umcisi n , l s m ts whi h t i gs ” thus ha ve they perfec tly observed . 2 “ ” ec n o e oix ovo fa s Th e wo ean . th e Lit. o mi s ( p ) . rd m s lit fa o e o a n d e ofv a ork n ma n a gemen t o h us h ld, is u s d rious w i gs

. th a ve o f th e f iv in e ov en ce e . a a n o o d pr id , g e gr du l re l ti truth, “ . E . . r . 1 i i en a o of the o e Co h . disp s ti n G sp l (I ix 7 p i 9, i Here it mea n s simply th e regulat ion ofth e movemen ts ofth e hea v en ly bodies . TRANSLATION AND NOTES

1 pu n ctiliousn ess and pride of the Jews ; bu t a s for the m e of e own e ex ec yst ry th ir r ligion , p t not 2 to a fr to be a bl e l e rn that om man .

a re e f the V. For Christians not distinguish d rom

e Of a c s eec h . or b r st m nkind by ountry, or by p , y 3 c o 2 For e d o e in c e of ust ms . . th y not dw ll iti s

1 - Lightfoot Ha rmer tra n sla tes From th e common (n owijs) n e a n d e r o of th e ew a n d fo e e c e s ve silli ss r r J s, r m th ir x s i f ” h ” ussin ess a n d pride. But t e words of th e J ews c lea rly l h be on g in t e Greek to th e secon d phra se a lon e. Common ma y mea n c ommon both to Greek a n d J ewish c ults (so Fun k n hi ta kes it). But th e a uthor seems to be summi g up s ’ a n swer to Diogn etu s first question a s to the a ttitude of o n Christia n s towa rds pa ga n a n d J ewish worship . C mmo ” is therefore proba bly a delibera te c on tra st to J ews ; it ” “ ” ea n in a c a e en a o u a a n d efe to the m s th t s g er l , p p l r , r rs e r a a h se of i n ow) h Gre k o p ga n world t la rge ; c p . t e u ; ; (t e c ommon la n gua ge) for th e H ellen istic Greek spoken f throughout th e E a st . The two fea tures si n gled ou t o ea c h of th e two religion s a re on this i n terpreta tion striki n gly ” a o r a e . a a n e on wa s for a dh eren ts a va n ppr p i t P g r ligi its ity, n a mora l fa ilure ; it led n owhere. In ma n y of its expon e ts ” wa s n it a c o sc ious imposture. Juda ism wa s ma rred by its - i “ ” r oAva a om f a n d n o ca on of p yp m, its ussy pu c tili us multipli ti ” e a n d a in a fe a n d h o rul ritu l d ily li , by t e pride whic h forg t a v th t pri ilege spelt respon sibility. 2 “ n n on v e o n i v Fu k, rbis h mi is sed gra tia De ita m ” Ch ristia n a m v iven s . The sec ret of Christia n ity c a n n ot be expla in ed by th e words ofa tea c her it must be experien c ed in h fe h e In h t e of t e ea n ve th e a of G od . t e li l r r, li d by gr c e n ext c ha pter th e writer desc ribes tha t life. Hen c e th e “ ” o n n pe i g word for . 3 5 ’ d . . 005 01 Co A r t ha s z . . i en e c o n . e s g , l thi g But symm try 62 THE E PISTLE TO DIOG NETUS t e r own ffe e a u e r a c e h i , di r nt l ng ag , o pr tis a peculiar This knowledge of theirs ha s 1 n ot been discovered by the thought and effort of 2 inquisitive men ; they a re n ot champions of a

'

a e e men a re. e hum n . doctrin , as som 4 . But whil

f n ec e “ c m i . e. c o . We v e en in a vour ofthe c o j tur , ust ms ha th 1 a a a e to 2 : c o n o in n exa c t p r ll l u try, S peech, c ust ms ;

a n a e fe. c ities, l gu g , li 1 ' Gli evov c ove e a n Th e Greek word mp , dis r d, is c o j ec ture

i é ' of e a n a n d e e . The c o e ha d e u vot ro St ph us B ur r d x pm , p ” ' l S lbu r e e u evov a o e c a imed to them . y g sugg st d yipm , d pt d by ” th em . 2 “ n s ve e e o e. It the a d ec ve fo Or i tru i , m ddl s m is j ti r m “ ” w c fo me the s a n ve a n a e n c o n e hi h is r d sub t ti tr sl t d pu tili us ss, ” r n a iv e i a fe en e o f n e i c e . a e s e c ussi ss, h pt r (I ) P rh ps ther r r e e to the e n e en of Ra n c a c oo In a ca e h r r fi m ts bbi i l s h ls. th t s “ ” th e hum a n doc trin e m a y refer to Greek philosophy a s

n T d . bein g la rgely the work ofa few i div idua l thin kers . h e Co

A rg en t. ha d a ma rgi n a l n ote : Christia n s hold n ot to the ‘ ea c n ofa ma n . For the A o e a a I r ec eiv d it t hi g p stl P ul s ys, e ’ ” 2 If n ot from ma n (G a l . i . ( ) both refer to Greek “ ” “ ” o the e e n v e or c o m a be th ught pith t i quisiti , uri us, y illustra ted by th e ch a ra c ter giv en to the Athen ia n s in Ac ts

v . h a a e o b v n x ii 2 1 . 3) Perha ps t e l n gu g is t o gen era l to e gi e a n n e The ea o a b a e y spec ia l refere c . id is pr b ly tha t syst m of religion sta rti n g from men wh o sha re the c urren t c on cep tion s of life ha s to fi n d a n d ma in ta in its own disti n c tn ess in

ec a e of a n n e a n d c o . C a n on the p uli riti s m r ust m hristi ity, c on a n ee n o n c v e a in the o n a n tr ry, ds disti ti m rk rdi ry thi gs of fe c o n v in a n n c ve li , be a use its rigi is di e, d its disti ti c a a c e e in a v n e l fe n c oe n ot a d o h r t r li s di i i withi , whi h d s pt r e ec a c a oc a o a n fo o r j t p rti ul r s i l c ust ms, but tr s rms them

a ll. TRANS LATION AND NOTES 63

1 they dwell in Greek or ba rba rian cities a c c ording ’ ea c m lot wa s c a n d f the as h an s ast, ollow customs ofthe a n d f e a e land in clothing ood , and oth r m tt rs ” of a fe et the of e c d ily li , y condition citiz nship whi h

e e e f a n d e e th y xhibit is wond r ul, admitt dly b yond

l c a e e e of ei a l expe t tion . 5 . Th y liv in countri s th r own as e e a e the l fe , but simply sojourn rs th y sh r i ofc z e e e e the lot off e e e e iti ns , th y ndur or ign rs ; v ry

f e a to e fa e a n d ev e r or ign l nd is th m a th rland , y

6 a e the a f a . e fa therl nd a oreign l nd . Th y m rry lik

e Of the e e et e e r st world , th y b g childr n , but th y

ff e e o c f . d not ast their o spring adri t . 7 Th y hav a 3 8 e c e n o a be . t d . ommon tabl , but common Th y

1 In c h a t i v I a re c on a s e p er a n d c ha pter , 7, Greeks tr t d w e He h w n a a n . ith J ws . re t e Je is i c luded a mon g th e ba rb ri s

C . n A . 6 e e the oo men fold a re de ol . o p Justi , p , i 4 , wh r g d “ c e a s ih e a n for n a n e a on th e s rib d a s n se Christi i st c , m g ee S oc a H leitu s n d the e a on th e Gr ks r tes a n d era c a lik , m g ” ba rba ria n s Abra ha m a n d Elia s a n d ma n y others . 2 ' . ma in . olitei C . th e a n ve olzteu Gk p a . p subst ti p Phil “ ” ' iii. 20 . e e A. . h a c on v e a on z e. en e a c on c , wh r V s rs ti , g r l du t, ” e R . V . v e in the e c en a n d in the a n whil gi s t xt itiz ship, m rgi “ ” ' ' c o on P zteza f n v o o mm wea lth . ol rom mea n i g c i ic r p litic a l e a v f n n l h o c e to ea n e a d c o c in en e a c . t e b h i ur a m m li du t g r , p

oA ' 6 ' a t v w t r e 6 0 0 A . e v in . I 2 e c . rb li ) ts xxiii a n d Phil i 7. Eusebius in the fourth c en tury c a n even desc ribe th e ea rthly

' ' life of th e I n ca rn a te S on a s His polzteza in th e flesh of (v a x o w ' fa a s oM re H E 1. . He e n ou r e the ea of ( ; p , . . iii r i t xt id the c on dition ofth e c itiz en a n d the c on duc t ofthe ma n a r e en still bl ded . 3 - Ka i v th e c on ofP en see 8 a e B u n m , j rud tius ( p . ) dopt d by

sen . If wa s the o n a h this rigi l text , it wa s perha ps t e sourc e 64 THE E PISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

x th e e e e a fe he e t e . ist in fl sh , but th y liv not t r fl sh

. e s e e ex e n e o ea 9 Th y p nd th ir ist c up n rth, but t e c e ea e 1 0 e e he h ir itiz nship is in h v n . . Th y ob y t e a ed a in e ow n e e a st blish l ws , but th ir liv s th y surp ss 1 h e a ll men n d a re e e t e a . 1 1 ; e a l ws Th y lov , p rs c u ted a ll 1 2 e a re a n d et e by . . Th y unknown , y th y a re n e e e a re ea a n d et co d mn d ; th y put to d th , y

e e oof of n ew ife 1 e a re th y giv pr l . 3. Th y poor ,

’ of Tertu llia n s fa mous om n ia in disc reta a pud n os prmter ” ' x C n e v n ve A ol u ores z . e. we a a e e , hristi s sh r rythi g but wi s ( p . m' w ' c . n t h n a . a A r . on Cod. e a d z e. c o But g . , mm ; lit ’ ’ c o n b n o c o n emez n sa men o a e u t et t o c . o mm t bl y mm ( p Ott s g ,

‘ ' ’ n ze/zt a ber emezn en c o on in th e en of n e o l g ), mm s se ighb ur y h ospita lity or c on grega tion a l fellowship (perha ps a n a llusion to the a a e or ove-fea s n ot c o on in th e en e of g p l t), but mm s s “ ” f n M n m e or o a e. o e ec e n ot c o o a impur pr r pr is ly, mm y

a ff 1 or . x . ea n n ot o e ea o e e t o c . C m ( ) p llut d by m t r d o id ls, p , or b n o o e o a en th e e ia on of ( ) t p llut d by imm r l lic c e (c p . r pud ti s c a n e in n A ol . . 2 or h ea n of u h sl d rs Justi , p i 6 by t e ti g huma n flesh whic h wa s rumoured to ta ke pla c e in their sec ret w o or o e o a e n ot ofa n e c on ec a e rship, m r pr b bly ( ) pr , but s r t d h f ” t e o o G od a n d a n v n Tim iv . . by w rd th ksgi i g, I . 5 1 ' z . e e i . they xhibit a higher dea l of life tha n th e la w of “ ” h a n No a n v v t e l d . t g i a i c tory o er th e l a ws (B u n sen ) a s though the idea were tha t th e li v es ofChristia n s disa rmed a n d won ove e offi c a e ec o n a c e r th ir i l p rs ut rs . Fu k ptly ompa r s L a c ta n tiu i v I n st v i. 2 wh s D . . o m ( 3, spea ks of th e a n “ wh o follows th e law of G od a s n ot m erely obeyin g ” public la ws but bein g a bov e a ll la ws . We might go ba c k

to S . a 1 Cor . . 2 1 Not e n o la w to G od bu t P ul, ix , b i g with ut , ” n e la w to C o th e efe en c e e e to th e u d r hrist, th ugh r r th r is ’ Apostle s a ttitude to men un der or n ot un der the J ewish

la w . TRANSLATION AND NOTES 65

c e e and yet make many ric h ; they la k v rything,

et 1 . e a re and y in everything they abound . 4 Th y

e e e e e dishonour d , and th ir dishonour b com s th ir

e a re e ed et a re e . glory ; th y r vil , and y vindicat d

1 . e a re e a n d e e s e a re 5 Th y abus d , th y bl s ; th y 6 e e e . 1 . insult d , and r pay insult with honour Th y

a re e a s e - e in do good , and punish d vil do rs and their punishment they rejoice a s finding n ew life 1 2 he e 1 The e w r a e e t r in . 7. J ws a gainst th m as ali ns ;

1 - Th 1 6 f 2 i I O. e C . 1 1 ca e or. v . p r ully with C 9, e n c n r l n o c a e of r mi i s e c es a e un mista ka b e. But this is s ‘

e e a a S u er n a tu r a l Relz zon . 8 6th c d . m r pl gi rism ( p g , ii 35 , , h a Th e n a ff . r v i we a v e ( ) m a i ide is di eren t In 2 Co . . a c e ofth e n f f a n fe pi tur mi isteri a l li e, here a pic ture o Christi li in en e a . 5 e a g r l ( ) There a re in teresti n g differen c es in d t il .

In 2 r v i. th c h e Co . e c on tra st is between the wa ys in whi h t Apostle wa s un derstood by some a n d misu n derstood by others h ere it is between th e gen era l ign ora n ce ofpa ga n s on the ec of th e C a n fe a n d th e o a or offi c a subj t hristi li , p pul r i l c on dem n a tion of Christia n s in spite of (or bec a use of) tha t n o a 2 v i h n e n h e a n c e . In Cor t e a e e e t ig r . . tith sis is b tw d ily dyi n g of the h a rd-pressed Apostle a n d the i n n er life tha t susta in ed him here it is between th e dea th of th e ma rtyrs a n h e e d t r n ewed en ergy ofth e Churc h . 2 C . on a n A ol . . 1 The p Justi , p i 3 : J ews rega rd us with pers l en 8 0 oii s a n d a c ve o n e lovs a n a n d mity ( x p ) ti h stility ( p ), sl yi g n n a s o en e d 1 ma be a i juri g us just y u G til s o. ( ) There y referen c e to th e Ba r-Coc hba wa r in whic h the Christia n s of Pa lestin e died by J ewish ha n ds a s ma rtyrs to their loya lty ” to th e e e c w s f c n 2 Th e mpir whi h a itsel perse uti g them . ( ) — c on tra st m a y be quite gen era l on the on e side the persec u on of a e en f o a n ti r s t ul world (it is Greek soc iety, n ot R m ove n en a is en o e a s e ec n on th e o e g r m t, th t m ti n d p rs uti g), th r E 66 THE EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS the Greeks persecute them ; a n d yet they th a t 1 for e e ha te them c a n state n o groun d th ir nmity . th the d . a a e VI In word , wh t soul is in bo y

s a a re h 2 The e Chri ti ns in t e world . . soul is spr ad through a ll the members of the body ; so a re

s e of he Christi a n through all the c iti s t world .

. The e the a n d et 3 soul dw lls in body , y it is not of th e so a e in th e body ; Christi ns dw ll world , and The e f et e a re n ot of the . . y th y world 4 soul , its l

s e e e in a c e invi ibl , is d tain d body whi h is visibl ;

a a re e e a s e the so Christi ns r cogniz d b ing in world , ” e The e e e . but th ir r ligious life r mains invisibl . 5

e a e the a n d a a n fl sh h t s soul , fights g i st it , though

th e a n ta gon ism of Juda ism to the n ew J ewish fa ith tha t h a d o n Th o a l en br ke with its n a tion a l tra diti on s . e w rd i suggests tha t the n a tion a lists ofPa lesti n e ha ted th e H ebrew fo e e a n s a s en e a e a n d so o e a n e e n . Christi r g d s, w rs th m r r ig rs 1 — Besides the ha tred whi c h kn ew its own rea son s th e ha tred of the Jew for beli evers in th e Christh ood of th e Na a en e a n d th e a e of th e a a n for th e c o n e of z r , h tr d p g s r rs o — e e wa s th e a of the w o d e a n d his g ds th r h tred rl , J wish a a n a e for th e n c e e a p g lik , Christia ity whi h r buk d its w ys ; a n d this wa s a ha tred whic h c ould n ot or would n ot giv e a n a c c o n of f u t itsel . h a 8 . c on S ee n o . . n n e e a l tr d pp 4 , 49 Fu k t i ks th r is tr st here between th e extern a lism ofpa ga n a n d J ewish sa c rific e a n d a a n d th e s a of C a n o . ritu l, piritu lity hristi w rship But (1 ) Christia n worship wa s n ot in v isible ; it h a d its simple

e a n d c e e on e a s n fo n in ov n c e in A. D . rit s r m i s , Pli y u d his pr i 1 1 2 th n a e e in e on th e (2) it is e Christia life th t is h r qu sti , spiritua l power in th e i n div idua l a n d in the Churc h .

68 THE EPISTLE To DIOG NETU S

1 r e they a e punished increase d a ily all the mor . 1 ea the o 0. So gr t is positi n to which God has a e e n ot a f for ppoint d th m , and which it is l w ul e ef e th m to r us . ” n o e e a s a VI I . For this is arthly discov ry, I s id , whic h wa s d elivered into their c ha rge ; it is n o morta l idea which they rega rd themselves bound so diligently to gu a rd ; it is n o stewardship of m erely human mysteri es with whi c h they have

ee e 2 f e e . . e b n ntrust d But God Hims l in v ry truth, the a a n d a ll- ea a n d e lmighty cr ting invisibl God , Himself from hea ven pl a nted a mong m en a n d

e a e e ea the a n d the st blish d in th ir h rts Truth Word , 3 the l o e e e e to ho y, inc mpr h nsibl Word , s nding

1 ‘ Otto ta kes the word in c rea se (wAeovdgou m) of the u a l ta tiv n h n en of C a n i e c ea e i . e. t e o q i r s , gr wi g str gth hristi Th c h a ra c ter a n d in fluen c e u n der persec ution . e pa ra llel between th e soul a n d th e Churc h is perha ps in fa v our ofthis

ea . in c a e v ii 8 th e c on e ec v e in fa v o of id . But h pt r , , t xt is d isi ur

he u a n tita ti ve n n of a e wo i . e. h t q mea i g this s m rd, t e rec ruit T i of h n e of th e a n c o n . er n g t e umb rs Christi mmu ity Cp. A a s w r n l c . 0 s ofen a w a n o . W e e a e o tulli , p 5 multiply t m ” own ou th o ofC a n e a e d by y e bl od hristi s is lik se d . 2 This un ique c ha ra c ter is th e fruit of a n un ique c reed . Th e Christia n life is m ore tha n huma n in its ma n ifesta tion i bec a use th e Christia n fa ith is div i n e n its origin . 3 h m lo s n i en e T e ter g o is ha rd to defi e n this s ten c e. Thr e en e n a re o e a r ea son th e fa c of ea on r d ri gs p ssibl ( ) , ulty r s o a n a e c G od en e m a n a (th ught, l gu g ) with whi h dow d t his on T o m c ea c . c a e o en G od a v n r ti ( p h pt r x, wh m ( ) g e rea so a n d n e en c e Mi' a s a n d voiis o tea e/zin h e v on i t llig ( y ) ( ) g , t re ela ti of u in C a s foo -Ha e a n a e la n e tr th hrist, Light t rm r tr sl t s, P t d TRANSLATION AND NOTES 69

1 m en a e a on e a e or a n not s rv nt, as might im gin , a e e on e of e ng l or rul r, or thos who administer e or of e e e arthly things, thos who have b en ntrusted

the e of e e th e v e with ord ring things in h av n , but ry

Artific er a n d e Of the e e e f Cr ator univ rs Hims l , by

He e the e e He e c e whom mad h av ns , by whom n los d 2 the sea of ow n e e e within bounds its , whos myst ri s

a on m en th e a n d h e o c m g truth , t h ly tea c hin g whi h pa sseth th e of m a n a n d e in e ea n ot wit , fix d it firmly th ir h rts, by sen din g a suba ltern or a n gel but by sen din g the Artific er ” a n d C ea o H e f e t/ze Wor d the n c a n a on of ; r t r ims l ( ) , I r ti th e e on a o o a o v o n a e a e e e p rs l L g s . ( ) is b i usly i d qu t h r b is fa vo e e a the o ofth e c on e a n e ( ) ur d p rh ps by w rds t xt, pl t d, ” “ ” esta blished (e) is suggested by th e epithets holy a n d ” awe wd os C in c omprehen sible ( p m , used by hrysostom ofG od ) . Perha ps it is n either n ec essa ry n or possible to sepa ra te (b) e The efe en ce in e e c a e to th e n c a n a on a n d ( ) . r r is ith r s I r ti “ ” o e en ou r o a s c a n H e f th e r S . J hn repr s ts L rd lli g ims l t uth - fHi w Ad es Th e of a n d yet a s spea kin g o s o n word ( y ) . e writ r E e m a a ve h a d o ea in n a n d n ot this pistl y h b th id s his mi d , tried to distin guish between th e rev ela tion a n d th e Rev ea ler. 1 “ ” Otto ta kes serva n t a s a gen era l term subsequen tly “ ” v n o a a n e a e n on ea a n d b di ided i t ( ) g ls dmin ist ri g rth , ( ) ” v n n in ea v On th e e of e e rulers go er i g h en . subj c t th s l spiritua l a gen ts or powers see espec ia lly Lightfoot on Co . i .

A 20 fo . 1 6 a n d a e R n on n E h . . 2 1 a n l o . , rmit g obi s o p i , d a s pp ll n ofhis i troduc tory expositi on oftha t epistle . 2 ” Th e term mysteries here refers to wha t a re ca lled th e e r s e n n fa o e la ws ofn a ture. Th y a e mysteries a b i g u th m d by huma n i n tellec t (B Ohl) th ey a re His mysteries a s bein g n ot imperson a l ten den c ies but the sec ret c oun sels of the li v in g

W ord . 70 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

1 a ll the e e e fa f o e e f the l m nts ith ully bs rv , rom whom s u n ha s rec eived the m easure of his daily c ourses

ee the e a s He her to k p, whom moon ob ys bids

e a t o the e e f o shin night , wh m stars Ob y as th y oll w

the c e of the n a e ours moon , by whom all thi gs h v ” een e e a n d e e a n d a c e e b ord r d d fin d pl d in subj ction ,

the e e a n d th e ea e th e ea h av ns things in h v ns , rth

a n d the ea the sea a n d the things in rth , things in

sea fire a the e a e , , air, byss , things in h ights bov , the e e ea the a c e things in d pths b n th, things in sp

— G od to m en between He it was whom sent .

He e a s a m a n o n a 3. Did s nd H im , might think ,

n n r In mission ofdomi a tion a n d fea r a d terro ? 4 .

' ee H e en e e a n d ee e d d did not , but in g tl n ss m kn ss

H e e a s a e ow n son who s nt Him , king s nding his 3 e f a He e a s H e e is hims l king ; s nt Him God , s nt

1 - ‘ or r oi ei a a o n a th e e e of th e a a e Gk . x , ( ) rigi lly, l tt rs lph b t ;

m n Heb v . 1 2 e a 6 ele en of n c on e . ( ) m ts i stru ti , rudi ts ( , p rh ps

P . 1 0 a G l iv . h c a ele en 2 et . lso a . 3) (e) t e physi l m ts ( iii , f h v n o e su n oon a n d e e ea e etc . or t e ea e ith r rth , ir , , h ly b di s, , m

s a or in a c a th e e ve i n of th e o a c . He e t rs , p rti ul r tw l s g s z di r

n o doubt it is used in th e gen era l sen se of(e).

. or o e o a 6 In subj ec ti on (a ) to m a n (c p x. m r pr b bly ( ) T e n in e a to th e o n a o to G od . he r fere c e eith r c se is rigi l sub r d in a tion of th e c ea e n ve e n ot to th e et n ea e r t d u i rs , y u r liz d a ssertion ofth e su prema c y p fChrist ov er a disordered world Th w ea r e s in 1 or . x v . 2 e t o a e n e in (a C 7, id s bl d d — . Th o h ea r th e a n a on . 5 e e H eb . ii 5 9 ( ) Gre k w uld just tr sl ti

An d to whom (i . e. the Word) a ll thi n gs ha ve been subj ec ted ;

but th e c ha n ge ofc on struc tion is forc ed . 3 1 8 . I n trod . p . TRANSLATION AND NOTES 71

a s men H e the e H im man to , e s nt H im with id a of a of e n ot of fo for f c e s ving, p rsuading, rcing ; or 1 n a fth e of . He e is o p rt o e natur God 5 . s nt Him a s m a n He e inviting, not as pursuing s nt Him in 6 He e e e . lov , not in j udgm nt . For will s nd Him in judgment ; and who shall stand before H is 2 e see e presenc ? 7. (Dost thou not th m) flung

the e to a e e en e to wild b asts , m k th m d y th ir Lord , a n d et see y unconquered 8 . Dost thou not that the more of them a re punished the more their

e e e e numb rs increase ? 9. Th s things look not lik the a chievem ents of ma n ; they a re the power of ” God ; they a re the proofs of His presence.

1 The sa me idea oc c urs in a lm ost the sa me words in ’ en ae iv 1 o c e n o a of o n a e a Ir us, . 37, F r is p rt G d s tur , but ” v n Him n kin dly purpose is e er prese t with . Fu k c ompa res

S B d . . 6 C s c on n o el . i P 3 . ed . en e e Orig. n ( ) ii 5 5 hri t qu rs m a n a a n e a n . g i st his will, but by p rsu di g him '

e t. h a d a la n a ce e e Coa . A rg n b k sp h r whic h S ylbu rg proposed to fill thus An d a s those who ha ve believ ed on Him e H is c o n o a o xpec t mi g with ut d ubt, there is n othin g e tha t c a n da un t or subdue them . S est thou n ot how they ” a r fl n etc . Th e o a re e on c e u g ? w rds pur c je ture, but they o a en th e n n e of pr b bly repres t missi g li thought . 3 ” Cod . A r en t. ha d do ma ta oc n g g , d tri es, silen tly a ltered ’ ” “ ” S e a n to a ez ma ta n oof a n d n by t ph us g , sig s, pr s, o doubt ” Th n c G k . a r ou si m h rightly. e prese e ( p a ) a y be (a ) t e sec on d n f s in 6 a n d c omi g o Christ, a , this possible exa mple of th e li n gerin g expec ta tion of His speedy return h a s been pressed a s a n in dic a tion of a n ea rly da te for the Epistle ; (6) His f of h c o n i. e. oo t e on of h S on n o a first mi g, pr s missi t e , t mere m a n but proba bly it is (e) th e presen c e ofth e Lord 72 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

a men e o a t a ll a VI I I . Who mong und rst od wh t 1 G o ef He c a e ? 2 r a c e d e . O is, b or m dost thou c pt the va in a n d foolish theories ofthose fa mous philo ” e of e a a fire soph rs , whom som s id th t God was (giving the nam e ofGod to the elem ent into which

e e e e a re e e to a n d e th y th ms lv s d stin d go) , oth rs

a He wa s a e a n d e a a me e of th t w t r, oth rs g in so oth r

he e e e a ? ee if t l m nts cre ted by God 3. And ind d on e of e e e es e e e a c c e a c e e any th s th ori d s rv s pt n , ach ofthe rema ining crea tures might just a s readily be

e be e e o a re prov d to God . 4 But th s noti ns but

h c e a n r f c No e d e o a . t tri k ry impostu magi i ns . 5 ” 4 m a n ever sa w God or mad e Him kn own ; G od v ouc hsa fed to the ma rtyr a s rea lly if n ot a s won derfully a s to S . S tephen . The stren gth of th e ma rtyr witn essed to his c on sc iousn ess of th e n ea rn ess of his S a v iour a s truly a s it

w a s a n e e efin a f e en c h . sust i d by his b li utur judgm t ( x, 1 There is n o n eed to suspec t here th e S a bellia n ism whic h rega rded the S on merely a s a mode of ma n ifesta tion f the on e G od The S on ev en t u r a o . is id tly o o a uthor n c e on so od a n H c o disti t p rs , but truly G th t whe e a me G d a e c m . “ h n T e o in f o . lz r t a a en . C n Co o ir y m us is p t t p Justi ) . a d G r een iv . B C : S ee n ow he c o e een o e , 5 , , t dis rd b tw th s wh o a re c on sidered a mon g you to ha v e been wise m en o e ec a n a e w s th e o f ll n s m d l ri g th t wa t r a s urc e o a thi gs , o e a ir o e fire o a a n o f h th rs , th rs , thers g i s me other o t e sa id en a n l elem ts , d a l of them usin g pla usible a rgumen ts of a ” o etc . s rt,

3 m ay an a o c e a n n . r , lm st rt i c orrec tio of th e Coil A g en t. “ ” shr ew c a ed . , de l r 1 -H foo a e ec o n e . ou in c a c a Light t rm r, r g iz d But th gh l ssi l TRANSLATION AND NOTES 73

v e f 6 H e r e f re ea l d Himsel . . And evealed H ims l 1 fa c a e ha s ee a e through ith , to whi h lon it b n gr nt d see o o h d ea of G d . . G d t e a n to 7 For , Lord Cr tor the e e e a ll a n d set e univ rs , who mad things, th m in

e e be ma n ord r, prov d to not only loving unto but

ffe n 8 c H e . ee ve a lso longsu ri g . Su h ind d e r was a n d a n d be a a e is will , kind and good and disp ssion t ” n d e— in fa H e a c a e . H e tru t lon is good . 9 But c e e ea a n d e a e a n d onc iv d a gr t unsp ak bl thought,

c n 1 0. this H e communi a ted to His S o a lon e . While therefore H e kept a n d gua rded His wise c e a s a e He ee e ee to be ouns l myst ry, s m d ind d 3 a n c a f u s 1 1 B u t e H e n egligen t d reless o . . wh n

‘ w i w = “ h v u N . . on . t e e os n ow in T Gk rb y p g m tly k , it is ly “ ” - on n . n n fo c e k ow (Phil i . a d twe ty ur times it is m ake ” n o n k w . 1 Or, by whic h . 2 “ ” H off a n n o ec n to th e e e on of oo . m , bj ti g r p titi g d (Gk “ ” a a t/zos c on ec e a a n os en e. th e e e on g ) j tur d g , g tl But r p titi

n ot e e e on . oo n e e a s is m r rep titi First, g d ss is pr dic a ted a n a ttribute ofG od then G od is dec la red to be th e on ly sourc e

f . M . . 1 M k . 1 k v o oo n e C a 8 L . . g d ss ( p tt xix 7 ; x . ; x iii “ ” - On h of th o od s n . 2 2 . t e idea e go d G ee I trod pp . 3 5 3 h R 2 i. 26 For t e e e n of o e see om . x v t r ity this purp s , 5 , ; — — I i . . . 0 l . h . 1 0 2 . Cor . 1 G a v E . Col . 26 ii 7 ; 4, 5 p iii 4 ; i , 7 ’ ” ’ For o ee n n e en c e of a n sin in a G d s s mi g glig m s p st times, se R m 2 H b 1 e . . . a n d e ec a Ac v . 0 . o iii 5 e . ix 5 sp i lly ts x ii 3

Th e whole pa ss a ge here is Pa ulin e in its idea s . “ n h a n a n o Th Ar e t. d a o e a t n e Coil. g ma rgi l c mm t this p i t mystery ofth e H oly Tri n ity w a s hidden for suc h lon g periods ” of h in n he e in time un til t e ba ptism J orda . But t myst ry 74 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

e ea e e e a n d a e r v l d it through His b lov d Son , m d manifest wha t had been prepa red from the begin

e H e e e a ll a t ning, th n b stow d upon us things

ce— to a ta e of e e a n d see a n d on p r k H is b n fits , to 1 understa n d things whic h non e of us could ever

a e c h v expe ted .

I! e ef e a e th e . Having th r or pl nn d e whol e disp ns ” a tion a lrea dy in H is ow n mind in u n ion with

on n ot h e eve a on ofthe n th e o e questi is t r l ti Tri ity, it is purp s n n ea n in of redemption . There is n o direc t Tri ita ri a t c hi g this Epistle ev en its tea c hi n g on th e rela tion of th e S on to the Fa ther c om es in c iden ta lly in th e c ourse ofthe exposition of th e grea t fa c ts of th e I n c a rn a tion a n d th e Aton emen t .

n o . eit. . 2 e a n o e m a a ve Kih (p , pp 4 , 43) sugg sts th t this t y h c ome from a sc ribe ofth e da te a n d sc hool ofTheodore ofM op s stia on th e o n a wa s eo o e wh o a u e , gr u d th t it Th d r l id stress h a a s the a n f d he upon t e b ptism first rev el tio o G o a s t Fa ther. n h It is a n u supported c on jec ture . But n o doubt t e c ommen t belon gs to the la ter da ys of Tri n ita ria n c on trov ersy a s c er ta in ly a s th e Epistle belon gs to th e ea rlier da ys when the a sec on d Person w s th e grea t theme ofdoc trin a l i n v estiga tion . ’ 1 i t . vo a a L a c hma n n s c on for h . en t Gk j , j ec ture t e God A rg . 5 “ ” «0: a m o d . If th n h n a 3 , t o e la tter represe ts t e origi l text ” ” c orrec tly w e ha v e in th e c ouplin g of seein g a n d doi n g a ” “ e o h 1 . pa ra ll l t t e gra c e a n d truth ofJob . i . 7 (c p Collec t

f r I st . a fe E n o S t r piph a y) . 2 ’ ’ i L n r dw a oix ouo x a chm a n s c on jec tu re fl n n n a s . ’ Th A n t h n dw 0311 aei ohrouo méi e Cod . r e . a d s g fi p , lit . “ ” ec on o c a c c o on n mi lly, whi h uld ly be ta ke a s a n a ston ish in gly ea rly in sta n c e ofa u se n ot in frequ en t in fa thers of th e fo a n d a e c en u e wh o e o e oix ouo ta urth l t r t ri s, us d this w rd lik p , ” ec on o e e to e c e th e n c a n a on a s a en my, ith r d s rib I r ti disp s a on ofG od or to e e the v n ti , xpr ss reser a tio with whic h Christ

76 THE EPISTLE To DIOG NETUS

e w a s a a c a e e t a n d ea r tribution w ited in h stis m n d th , when the time c a me which G od ha d ordain ed to m a nifest H is Ow n goodn ess a n d power (0 th e surpa ssing kindn ess and love Of God for m a n He d id not ha te us or rej ec t us or ta ke vengea nce

o e ffe a n d for up n us, but show d His longsu ring 2 bea ran ce in His m erc y H e Himselftook up the

e of ou r H e se f a e own burd n sins , Him l g v His

a s a a e f the for the Son r nsom on our b hal , holy

e the i c e t for the th e t for lawl ss, nno n guilty, jus th e the c o e for the e unjust, in rruptibl corruptibl , the r r h immo ta l fo t e mortal . a e e c c e u r 3. Wh t ls ould ov r o sins but His

h c we a e righteousn ess ? 4 . I n w om ould l wl ss a n d u n godly m en be justifi ed but in the Son of

o a e ? 0 ee e e ! 0 in sc r u t G d lon 5 . sw t xchang a e e a ! 0 e ec e e a the bl op r tion un xp t d bl ssings , th t l a wlessn es s of m a ny should be hidd en in on e

e e on a n d th e e e of on e right ous p rs , right ousn ss

f the a e a 6 a e e should justi y l wl ss m ny . H ving th r

1 f . en t n w or h Th e text o God A rg . might be re dered Ho (f ) t e ” lov e ofG od is on e in its surpa ssi n g kin dn ess to ma n l By ” on e ea n e h e a n e a on e in a n e or a is m t it r ( ) u iqu , l its gre t ss, ( ) ev e on e a n d th e a e c on en c v e even en it r s m , sist tly a ti , wh seemed n eglec tful of m a n . 2 ’ ’ oa . A r en t. ha d As a y n n n n e e C g y , sa yi g, a u i t lligibl n H e o u o a on rea di g . efele propos d t c t it ou t a s a n i n terp l ti from a m a rgi n a l n ote c a llin g a tten tion to th e referen c e to “ a a . 1 1 . a c a n n c on ec ed éAed w . e n Is i h liii 4, L hm j tur , lit b i g ” merciful . TR ANS LATION AND NOT ES 77 fore proved in the former tim e the powerlessness

f r n e to fe a n d e ea e o ou atur win li , having now r v l d e f a e e e the e e a Sav iour pow r ul to s v v n pow rl ss, in both these wa ys H e wished us to believe His 1 e to e a a s a fa e goodn ss, r g rd Him gu rdian , th r,

e c e u e h c a n t a h r, co ns llor, p ysi i , mind , light , honour, e fe a n d n ot be a glory, str ngth, li , to anxious bout ” c a n d f d lothing oo . ! If too e e f . thou , , d sir st this aith , first obtain 2 h f th e a e 2 e e e e o . t knowl dg F th r . For God lov d

1 ' “ ” “ 7 0 ea l . n e c . B a r a olt iv . 8 Ye Gk. p ! , it urs p , , ” f th o n e ou r or etifra w a a n d th e c om orgot e G d tha t urs d y ( p p ), - ‘ v o o o ei M c . n b v in h fD . . 1 a n d 2 a c pou d p o q p u sed t e L ! ! o eut i 3 ,

. 1 8 n i h . . A . 2 d n t A V n . of v ii a e a d R V. n c 7, (ma rgi ) ts xiii , ” He ba re them (Isra el) a s a n ursi n g fa ther in the wildern ess . 2 “ ” Otto suspec ted tha t th e c la use a fter life wa s a gloss h - a dded to th e text. But they a re n ot t e feeble a n ti c lim a x

tha t h e thought them to be . Prov iden c e a n d Aton emen t ’ — c ome together in th e Lord s Pra yer the da ily brea d a n d th e n on forgi v en ess ofsin . The Aton eme t is the c rown in g revela ti of a love tha t supplies a ll th e n eeds a n d en ters in to a ll th e ’ . H a e a of a n f c . e ec a Rom v . 2 e d t ils m s li e p sp i lly iii 3 , th t a e n ot H is own on e v e e Him for u s a ll sp r d S but d li r d up , ” h ow sha ll He n ot with Him a lso freely giv e us a ll thin gs ? 3 “ God . A r en t. fo o e n a n d bt i s th e g , ll w d by Fu k, o a n e t first ” n o e e etc . e on c on ion a l n n th e a o o k wl dg , , a s c d dit se te c e, p d sis or prin c ipa l sen ten c e bei n g lost in the digression of 2 on ’ th e a er v r o n in h e a e F th s lo e, o perha ps c mi g even tua lly t sh p f ’ of a e e n n . n e e r sh b gi n i g with 3 L a c hma n n s c o j c tur , “ a e o en O a n a e th a or a m y st th u th bt i , m k s e c la use wish ’ “ ” a e e a en o a n a n e v e. Th e pr y r G bh rdt s, th first bt i , imp ra ti ’ “ ” ma rtyrs fa ith ca n on ly be won by those who will lea rn ’ “ ” h a t e m rtyrs c reed . If this fa ith mea n s the body ofChristia n 73 THE EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

m en for o e e H e a e the , wh s sak m d world , to whom

He ec e a ll a a re the ea o subj t d things th t in rth, t

He a e e e e e to whom g v r ason and int llig nc , whom a e He a e 1 lon gr nt d to look upward to Him , whom He f e a fe ow n a e orm d t r His im g , to whom H e sent

l - e e S on o H e I is only b gott n , to wh m e promis d the o ea e ea a n d e kingd m that is in h v n , y , will giv e a a e e it to th m th t h v lov d Him . 3. And when ” a a a e h o e e thou h st tt in d t is kn wl dg , with what joy , e be e ? Or how t think st thou , wilt thou fill d wil

o ve who e ee n th u lo Him so first lov d th ? 4 . Lo vi g

be a n a of His e H im , thou wilt imit tor goodn ss . Wonder n ot th a t m a n c a n be a n imitator of G od

h of od he For a e by t e will G can . 5 . h ppin ss c onsists not in ex erc ising lo rdship over a n eigh

a e a n a e of e e bour, nor in wishing to h v dva t g w ak r men e ea a n d u f , nor in poss ssing w lth sing orce

e o a c a n a ga inst inf riors . N t in w ys like these a m a n imita te G od ; su c h ways a re fa r removed

beliefit is i n struc ti ve to n ote (1 ) tha t th e kn owledge ofthe a e e on 2 a n o e e a s set fo in F th r is its first l ss ( ) th t this k wl dg , rth 2 a c c a ea n c ea on e e on sa n ctific a ion § , pr ti lly m s r ti , r d mpti , t , a ll rega rded a s th e expression of th e lov e of G od ; (3) tha t “ ” ” G od o eve th e a e n ot e c ou r a e . is, h w r, F th r, xpli itly F th r 1 ” ’ live C r n . U pwa rd ( ) is B eu rer s c on j ec ture ; od . A g e t “ ” h a s on ly th e letter a For Him (a ir r bv) La c hma n n

on ec e ea v en a w a y c n on ofob a f . c j tur d h ( , o tra c ti p w v) 2 i e. of th e a e a n d Hi v for m n een in h . F th r s lo e a s t e n n h I n ca r a tio a n d t e Aton emen t . TRANS LATION AND NOT ES 79

1 f a e 6 e e a e rom His m j sty . . But whoso v r t k s up ’ his e e eve to n ighbour s burd n , whoso r is willing u se his superiority as a m eans of be nefiting

e e e fe anoth r man who is in this r sp ct his in rior, whosoever bestows upon the n eedy wha t he him ’ self holds as a recipi ent of God s bounty and so 2 ec e a od to the e e of he b om s g r cipi nts his bounty ,

1 ‘ ' . f h lt L . o t e . e a eufr the o e in k Gk p y n s, w rd us d ix 43, majesty of G od shown in th e hea li n g of th e demon ia c boy 6 f h r i on h 2 P . . 1 o t e a ofth tra n sfi u ed C t e in et i , m jesty e g hr st Th a o ov n d o moun t . e m jesty of G od is a maj esty f l e a f

holin ess. 2 Stepha n us c ompa red this to the Greek prov erb auopm ros ’ l di a é wov Ba c l l/ coy . a a n oo en u e of a p a , lit m s g d g ius , s d ’ m a n c o n mi g a s w e sa y prov iden ti a lly to a ma n s res c ue. — n Tn e . a r ol u t 1 88 1 . 1 6 1 8 o n ou t Fu k ( Q , , pp 4 4 ) rightly p i ts tha t a higher a n d truer pa ra llel is to be foun d in a proverb ’ ' ' quoted in E ra smus P n zloa ox u s Deum esse quisquis juva t ” o a e h c h n v n i ll n v o n . m rt l m , w i h sees somet i g di i e n a be e le c e — n l eol . u a r t 1 02 . 8 o c e a c o e Kih ( Q , 9 , pp 495 49 ) pr du s l s r

a a e et in H o P /zilos . . e e e n o p r ll l y ipp lytus, x 34, wh r tru k w ed e e e en e a s a n m a n o a e G od a n d l g is r pr s t d m ki g imm rt l lik , a s lea din g m a n to bec om e good by imita tin g th e goodn ess ofG od . This pa ra llel goes on ly a little wa y towa rds prov i n g a ou r a o n e H o or wa s H o for t th t uth r k w ipp lytus ipp lytus, i is obv ious tha t th e sourc e of this idea of phila n thropy a s a

fo of o n e a n d a f of fa S . o n e. . o n rm g dli ss ruit ith, is J h , g J h

iv . 2 . n o e a n . o n . 1 6 I a n d 1 a xiii 34 ; I J h iii , 7 Fu k qu t s s yi g

fo e o Na z . Or a t. x iv . 26 2 c e e a r m Gr g ry , , 7, whi h is ith r remin isc en c e of ou r a uthor or a c lose c oin c iden c e B e o a od to a in e a n so h e e c th u g him th t is distr ss, imit ti g t m r y ofG od for ma n h a s n othin g whi c h is so truly ofth e n a ture ofG od a s the doi n g ofgood . 80 THE EPISTLE To DIOG NETUS

a n of e a rt is imitator God . 7. Th n though thou yet upon earth thou shalt behold that God ruleth ea e e a h e to ea the in h v n , th n sh lt t ou b gin sp k 1 e e of en a e a n d e myst ri s God, th sh lt thou lov admir the m that a re punished for their refu sa l to deny

e s a e t th e God , th n halt thou p ss judgm n upon

ec e e o of the e d ption and d lusi n world , wh n thou

a e e to th e e fe ea e h st l arn d know tru li that is in h v n , to e e the ee ea e e fea the d spis s ming d th h r , and to r

e e e e c e e e for e a r al d ath th r , whi h is r s rv d th m th t shall be c ondemned to the eternal fire whic h shall e m a a re e e e e e e punish th th t d liv r d ov r unto it, v n

the e n e a a e e a unto d . Th n sh lt thou dmir th m th t ’ endure for righteousn ess sake the fire th a t la steth

for a e en e e but tim , wh thou hast l arn d to know

fire e that yond r .

! I n e e a e e c n o . It is o strang m ss g that I pr a h , 2 unreason a ble argum ent th a t I pursu e but having ” ee a c e of the a e a m n ow ec e b n dis ipl postl s , I b om a ea c e of the a a n d a wa s n c e t h r n tions , wh t o

1 Here is the c omplemen t ofth e first pa rt of this c h a pter. There a life of goodn ess is desc ribed a s th e outc ome of the true kn owledge ofG od here true kn owledge is the outc ome

e a n d fa ea c u on ea c o e . ofa life ofgood n ess . Lov ith r t p h th r 2 a s “ m r t. a . n n n c e n or a Cod . A gen (m Bu se c o je tur d (w , a I irr ti on a l in my z ea l . 3 Not n e on a a s o ca wa s of S . ec ssa rily a pers l pupil, P ly rp o n a n n c c e a fo o e of a o o c a J h , but i dire t dis ipl , ll w r p st li l “ ’ a e th e a o e tra dition . S o th e ba ptisma l c reed is c ll d p stl s ” c ee a s e n n he ea c n of th e a o le n ot a s r d, r prese ti g t t hi g p st s, e n h on b i g t eir c ompositi . TRANS LATION AND NOTES 8 !

1 delivered unto m e I n ow minister rightly in my r to e wh ec e e of the tu n thos o b om discipl s truth .

e ha s 2 . For who that has be n duly instructed and 2 become the friend of the Word does n ot seek to lea rn e xa c tly the things tha t were shown pla inly the the c e th e by Word to dis ipl s, to whom Word manifested these things on His own appea ra n c e in the e e e ee world , sp aking op nly , not und rstood ind d 3 the e e e a to the by unb li ving, but xpl ining things

c e who e c e f f dis ipl s , , b ing ount d aith ul by Him ,

e e the e e of the For l arn d myst ri s Father ? 3. this a e He e the a He a ea c us s nt Word , th t might pp r

the the who e unto world , Word was dishonour d by the c e e e c a e the e a n d hos n p opl , pro l im d by apostl s, 4 e e e h on t e a o . H e b li v d by n ti ns . 4 This is who

1 ’ “ ” “ Coa . A r en t. Gu ta rs a ee n c e wh g i , gr i g with dis ipl s, o ” bec ome worthy disc iples of th e truth . But the c on jec ture ” “ ” a s o o a c o ec . Th w , w rthily, rightly, is pr b bly rr t e empha sis of the pa ra gra ph is n ot on th e fitn ess of th e

c e n h h a . dis ipl , but o t e fidelity of t e te c her 2 ‘ “ A6 » w oa r dt ei “ ear /1 04 Cod . r e t. n 3 A g n h a d 74 p p y 7 , begotten by ” h ov n e offf t e W o . M S e a n c on ec e . l i g rd t ph us j tur d v m , Prud . " ” om tk s . o d h e W or e P p fi , lit bec me ea r to t ord, p rha ps - ” kin dly disposed . 3 ” l e S o vos . n Cod . A rgen t. my p expla in in g La c hma n G é ” con ec e o evos a . . ma e to e o n . n en j tur d mx p p ss ) lit d r s u d Bu s , “ ” published by the disc iples ; but the Greek word here

s e e a n th e ea e a u e. Th e ea c h n ugg st d is r re, a d id pr m t r pr i g of a postles c omes in th e n ext sen ten c e ; here it is th e tra in in g of th e disciples tha t is bein g described . 1 h C . 1 Ti . 1 6 e a a f a en ofa fa a n p m . iii , p rh ps r gm t mili r ym

h o a d toe. or c on fe on offa oo E . v . s e c ssi ith (so, t , p e Elli tt , F 82 THE EPISTLE To DIOG NETUS wa s f the e n who a ea e a s n e w rom b gin ing, pp r d and wa s f to be a e a n d e e e o n ound nci nt , is v r b ing b r e h f h 1 H e w t e ea o e . an in h rts t sa ints . 5 This is who th e e e has ee ou r d a is t rnal , who b n in this y a c c e a 2 the u ount d Son , through whom Ch rch is ” e c e a n d a c e f c ea e a o nri h d , gr un olding in r s s m ng the a a c e c e e a e ea s ints , gr whi h giv s und rst nding, r v ls 4 e e c a ea e e e the myst ri s , pro l ims s sons , r joic s ov r

’

o L e/i r e u . Gebet in a . dr ei er sten cn r . . 268 Pr bst ( pp , 2 0 28 1 e a a o n for a of e e 7 , ) sugg sts simil r rigi p rts this pistl - h . h c v ii 6 c h . 2 H e did n ot a e to t e ( , 4 ; ix, § h t — en d c h . 6 on th e o n of e c a a n ; xi , 3 ) gr u d th ir rhythmi l d a n tithetic a l wordin g . 1 “ “ A ea e a s n ew n a col s n ew in c a c e o n pp r d , , ha r t r ; b r ' a n Veos n w i Th on n u mbs i e e n e. e S n h o w, , tim is t e hist ric a l ’ I n c a rn a tion ; it wa s a n ew depa rture in God s wa ys with ’ u sos men . H e is in th e spiritua l life ofH is people there He i n a en e n n f f . . . is s s i c a r a te a resh rom a ge to a ge Cp G a l iv . 2 h 0 a n d t e Co ec for a Da . , ll t Christm s y 2 P s . . o . e S a a t An oc Ac . ii 7, qu t d by P ul ti h ( ts xiii s in h f t R . a ulfilled e esurrec tion ofChrist (Cp Rom . i . It o h is n e of t e proper psa lms for E a ster Da y. W a s this fra g n f e o a o a n Ea e e on ? C . a m t h mily st r s rm p c h pter xii, 9 “ h ’ ” - t e Lord s pa ssov er a dv a n c es . To d a y would be a v i vid touc h if it mea n t th e a n n iv ersa ry of His v in dic a ti on s h e o f a t S n o G od . 3 ” “ n en a n a e m e a e a c e c Bu s tr sl t s si pl , th t simpl gr whi h ” ve etc . th e v e in c a c a a n d a c ee a s in gi s, But rb l ssi l p tristi Gr k, “ ” “ ” h S H I t e e a n n fo e en . ptu gi t u ld, xt d ere it refers ( ) to the developmen t ofth e r ev ela tion of th e gra c e ofChrist or 2 to h h n ( ) t e exten sion oft e i fl u en ce oftha t gra c e. 4 u n en H i ol tu s a n d li is A e . 1 n e e B s ( pp y g , i 4 5) i t rpr ts this of th e a n c e of the C h i e n guid hurc h by t e S pirit, n d a li g with

84 THE EPISTLE To DIOG NETUS

1 f 2 a n d t . I o . e e n ot s r e s r ng 7 thou gri v thi g ac , thou shalt und erstand the truths whic h the Word

H c e e H e re e e . p ach s by whom hoos s , wh n wills 8 For e e to ec re u . what we wer mov d d la with m ch

a th e of the c n u s l bour by will Word omma ding , w e impa rt unto you out of love for wha t has been e e e 3 r v al d unto u s . ! I I 4 . ee e e e M ting with th s truths, and list ning

e ea e e a ll a G od to th m rn stly, y will know th t

e e a e e who b stows upon th m th t lov Him aright, y

ec e e e e a e of e ro b om th r by a v ry par dis d light, p 5 d u c in g in your midst a fruitful tree of abundan t

1 “ ” “ ” . ea e a o n a n a e . For Lit l ps lik y u g im l, xults this “ ” d ts ofth e Cod . A r en t th e c e or a fe of the x p g , gra spiritu l li “ ” c a c a n n c on ec e a d o c n en Chur h, L hm j tur d x p , jy, whi h Bu s “ ” h e ve tra n sla tes th e Churc h lea ps for joy. But t e t xt gi s a ri c her thought . 2 S ee n o . . 1 2 on th e e a on of a c e to I tr d pp 4 , 4 , r l ti this gr th e Ho S n d on th e a on of c ea c n to ly pirit, a e r l ti Chur h t hi g

Christ a s th e Tea c her . 3 Two motiv es c ombin e to ma ke th e Christi a n tea c h on e ’ o e n c e to c o n th e o e th e ov e of is b die Christ s mma d, th r is l h t e truth itself. 4 - ” foo Ha e c on f on e . The ee o Light t rm r, r t d with Gr k w rd of the (1 ) to c ome a c ross ; (2) to rea d . It might be used

ea e of a e on or th e ea e of a o . Th e en e h r r s rm , r d r h mily s s ” “ ” rea din g would n ot be i n c on sisten t with listen in g ; a t “ ” the en d of c ha pter i spea k a n d hea r a re used ofwriter a n d rea der . 5 i . n n o i e. in the life of th e Churc h ; or growi g up y ur ” f . Th c a e v i . . in o ow n a e e s l es, e y ur spiritu l li Chur h is a a e of a e a n d so oo th e ea of the p r dis gr c truth ; , t , is h rt beli e ver . TRANSLATION AND NOTES 8 5

F e . 2 or growth adorn ed with fruits ofri c h va ri ty . 1 in this ground ha th been pl a nted a tree of know ledge a n d a tree of life ; but it is not the tree of

e e e e e c e a knowl dg that d stroys, it is disob di n th t e Not c e 15 h d stroys . 3. without signifi anc t at

r e 2 how e f the which is w itt n , God plant d rom 3 beginning a tree (of knowl edge and a tree) of fe the of the en e e li in midst gard , indicating th r by

' 4 life th rou gh k n owledge ; and it wa s through not 5 using this knowledge in purity th a t the first 6 human beings were l eft n a ked by the d ecep of th e e fe tion e serpent . 4 . Th r is no li without

1 i . e. in this p a ra dise ofthe Churc h or the hea rt . 2 - “ ” foo H a e th e S c e a e c ea . Light t rm r, riptur s st t l rly But th e idea is ra ther tha t there is a n a llegori ca l truth ben ea th h e n a r t e simpl ra tive. 3 n n a r n Bu se a dded these words . They e pla i ly required h on n b o by t e c text (c p. a d might ea sily e mitted ’ through the sc ribe s eye pa ssin g ra pidly to the sec on d “ ” word tree. 4 i . e. (1 ) in di c a tin g by this a llegory tha t life is to be won throu gh kn owledge ; or (2) revea lin g the true mea n in g of f o ou r H li e t first pa ren ts by th e kn owledge tha t e ga v e them . 5 There m a y be a referen c e here to th e Gn ostic idea tha t the sin wa s th e c a n e c o e of A n d E v first physi l i t r urs da m a e,

a s a n ev e in e f or a s C e . A e . o in thi g il ither its l , ( l m l x th ught) a on a e its prem ture u se. But the purity here c templ t d is more “ ” o a he a n n pr b bly t mor l purity of loya l si gle ess of hea rt . ” ” foo -H a e en u n e n en An t Light t rm r, g i ly ; Bu s , rightly ; e “ ” Ni . Cftr . io e L n o . , pr perly 3 “ ” n en e ve of e n o e e or of th e fe Bu s , d pri d tru k wl dg , li they might ha v e ha d . 86 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

1 e e is e e e e u knowl dg , nor th r sound knowl dg witho t true life ; wherefore the two trees a re planted the

h the e Observ on e e e t e e . . b sid oth r 5 And Apostl , th e f e of c c 2 the ing orc this ( onjun tion), and blaming knowledge tha t is prac tised apa rt from the tru th 3 ofthe c e a e e fe a h ommandm nt th t l ad th unto li , s it , ” K e ff ifi h 6 For e e e ed et . . nowl dg pu th up, but lov he who thin ks that he k n ows a ught without the tru e knowl edge which is testified by life has lea rned

he led the e e t n ot nothing ; is astray by s rp n ,

a e the ea fe he ha s h ving lov d r l li . But who

1 — Th e word m a y mea n (a ) sa fe kn owledge div orc ed from — religion is a mora l da n ger ; or (b) sec ure on ly the kn ow ledge tha t is loya l to G od h a s the sec ret of growth ; or (e) — sou n d kn owl edge without religion is n eglecti n g a n essen tia l

fa c o of fe. fe e h e f n t r li Li is her t life o c ommu ion with G od . It n e e on in c on c t a n m en e fi ds xpr ssi du mo g , but it is her e in r ga rded its sourc e a n d sprin g . 2 i . e. of h con n c on of th e tw o n t is ju ti trees, a mely, kn ow ledge a n d life. 3 e e a re two o n c n f Th r p ssible c o stru tio s o this sen ten c e . “ ” “ ” a U n o fe m a e on to th e c o n en f ( ) t li y b l g mm a dm t o truth , “ a s a en a ov e the en e n a a fo it is t k b ; s s is the , p rt r m the mora l truth (th e truth embodied in the c omma n dmen t of ” G od c e i h n t e u e fe of ov e for od a n d m n . ), whi h r sults tr li l G a ” “ ” o U n o f ( ) t li e ma y belon g to pra c tised . S o Bun sen “ a n a e n o e e en a e o fe o he c m tr sl t s , k wl dg wh ppli d t li with ut t o ” n f h i - a o a n d t e a n la o n A n te !Vi lzr . L ion m d truth tr s t r a C , “ n o e e en a e to n fl en c e f h k wl dg , wh dmitt d i u li e without t e true ” doc tri n e. This c on struc tion might be better ren dered thus “ h t e n . k owledge whic h a ims a t life (i . e tri es to work ou t its ” own e ea of fe a a fo the la w f a s lfish id li ), p rt r m o mor l tru th . TRANSLATION AND NOTES 87

c e e e fea a n d ee a fe a quir d his knowl dg with r, s ks t r L e fe a e ex e f . . t li , pl nts in hop , p cting ruit 7 thy

ea be k e e let fe be the e h rt nowl dg , and thy li tru 1 i 8 ea the o n e . w rd und erstood thy h art . B ring 2 t ee e e f f a e e r th r o and taking its ruit, thou sh lt v r 3 4 rea p the ha rvest tha t is d esired in the sight of

G od c the e e c e n ot a n d d ec e , whi h s rp nt tou h th , p 5 tion c om eth not n ea r to d efile ; a n d E ve is n ot

1 “ foo -Ha e e ea on c o e en ed Light t rm r, tru r s duly mpr h d , i e = w or y os . in M a . I 2 The o e a n . x p p w rd is us d tr sit tt . xix I I ,

in n v . to ec e v ffic a n a n d in tra n sit. o r i e a di ult s yi g , J h iii 37 “ ” “ R . . a n ot (A. M y word ha th n o pla c e in you ( V ) h th “ ” f r in fa o of o a s ee c o . a a a e v r urse These p ss ges ur w rd, ” a a n ea on a s th e a n a on oflo os in the e a ove. g i st r s , tr sl ti g t xt b n o e e ea f in fe a n d fe be a e on K wl dg must b r ruit li , li must b s d

n ow e e . W c o a o o N 1 a a e T. a e C n n . k l dg st tt ( f , p . 9 ) p r phr s s “ the a n : In o e o C a n o s yi g thus th r w rds , hristi wisd m must be the n of a c on a n d C a n fe th e ea a on of spri g ti , hristi li r liz ti ” truth . 2 Cod . A r en t ha d on th e a ee e f a o g . ly l st thr l tters o w rd “ ” “ here . Otto c on j ec tured ta kin g ; B eurer lov i n g Bun sen ” ” n n oo for S lbu r n n to erfec on fi di g r m y g bri gi g p ti , 3 “ n en a c a n e of on e e e o ea : a Bu s , by h g l tt r, w uld r d sh ll f a re sumptuously upon . 4 “ ” on v Beurer c j ec tured pro ided Bun sen a boun d i n g . 5 a w' r fer a t a o on n to c Gk . wx p f , w rd bel gi g a group whi h express (1 ) c on ta c t of skin ; (2) c olouri n g of th e surfa c e “ ” touc hed ; (3) d efilem en t . IfOtto is right in rea di n g dec eit “ a s a v c e we en e th e c a e a n e e a re da ti e a s , might r d r l us ( ) ith r ” they (th e fruits of kn owledge) sta i n ed with dec eit ; or (b) “ a n d E ve n ot d efiled ec e n or sh e co e is with d it, is rrupt d, ” “ a n d E v e n ot c o e etc . or c n en but, ( ) with Bu s , will m ” ’ o e c e ee n or sh e be c o e . n en n ea r t s du th , will rrupt d Bu s s 88 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS

1 c e s e her m e u . orrupt d , but is tru t d in aid n p rity ” An d set f a the 9, salvation is orth pl inly, and ” ’ e a re e e e the a ve apostl s int rpr t d , and Lord s p sso r ren derin g gi ves a n exa c t pa ra llel to the Fa ll-story of Ev e s a s both dec eiv ed a n d deceiv in g. But it doe v i olen c e to h o of h t e rder t e Greek . 1 The idea of the writer is clea rly tha t th e true kn owledge o E is th e a n tithesis ofth e Fa ll . But it is n t c lea r whether ve “ ” is e e th e E v e of en e or th e ec on E ve th e e e h r G sis s d , Bl ss d

V n c n Dia l . c . 1 00 en ae . 2 In th e irgi ( p. Justi , ; Ir us , iii 3 form er c a se th e idea seems to be tha t Eve c a n b e sa fely e e n n o c e th e e en — a n a e o n f trust d, b i g u t u h d by s rp t ll g ry sig i y ’ in g tha t m a n s perc epti v e fa c ulty (a ta omm ) n eed n ot be sus ec ed a s o e e e fc o e ea e a r p t th ugh it w r its l rrupt d by pl sur (M k), n th of d a n d so in turn were c orrupti g e purity his kn owle ge. In the la tter ca se th e a n tithesis is between th e disobedi en c e of Ev e n n to th e e en a n d th e O e en c e through liste i g s rp t, b di ’ of th e Virgin to th e a n gel s m essa ge it is a n a llusion to the V n irgi Birth . 2 = Th e Greek word 07074 m is frequen t in S eptua gi n t (1 ) - a fe a va on 2 ea c e offe n . Is o e a e e s ty, s l ti ( ) p ri g it p ssibl th t h r it is th e Christia n pea c e-offeri n g of a n E a ster E uc ha rist ?

. n 8 n . 1 a n d 2 . er a d d . S ee 82 n . 2 n a e p , 4, p 9, Oth wis it must be a s on for th e ea c n of th e o e th e gen era l expres i pr hi g G sp l , free offer ofsa lva ti on . 3 e r o r h h e a w f w a i . e. a t e ea c n oft e a o e c e f , ( ) t hi g p stl s is r it d a n d expla in ed ; or (b) th e writin gs of the a postles a re rea d ’ n n h d n of th e a n d expla in ed . Cp . Justi s refere ce to t e rea i g ” memoirs ofth e a postles a t th e S un da y Euc ha rist . Light “ foot-Ha rmer tra n sla tes a re filled with un dersta n din g but though the Greek v erb is used more frequen tly in S eptua gi n t ofin str u ctin a n ofin ter r etin a to see in a g th p g , it is h rd wh t sen se th e writer c ould S p ea k of the a postles a s bei n g filled n e a n d n a t th e e en e en th e a o e with u d rst i g pr s t tim , wh p stl s TRANSLATION AND NOTES 89

1 ” a a ce on wa the e a re dv n s its y , and s asons kept 3 a re e e the and arrang d in ord r, and Word rejoices

to e the a the the t ach s ints , Word through whom

e e to be the for e e Fath r is glorifi d , whom glory v r. 4 Am en .

e e on ea n e the n a e a o e to b w r l g d d, u l ss m p stl is e supposed he e en a s it h a s in h e e to a v e t a e t e Dida e/ze v z . h r h s m s s , i a mission a ry order of m i n istry existin g like the prophets a on e th e e e n of o a n d e e l gsid s ttl d mi istry bish ps pr sbyt rs . 1 “ ” “ i . e th e Ea e e v c e ocee in d u e c o e or . st r s r i pr ds urs ; the ” Christia n pa ssov er goes on from a ge to a ge. Otto thin ks tha t th e referen c e is to the n umbers ofc a tec humen s ba ptiz ed on Ea e E v e a n d oc ee n to th e ec e on ofthe E a e st r , pr di g r pti st r E a uc h rist . 2 “ Cod . A r en t. K of L a t. cer ei wa x a e the a r g n p , , t p rs, lights e ” a e e o e e for th e ea E a e -d a e v c e Co g th r d t g th r rly st r y s r i . n “ r ha s een e e. a c a n n e e w ol jec tu e b busy h r L hm sugg st d n p , the ” r a e e to ec e v e a n c a la me a e g th r d r i Christi h rity ; Prud . M . “ ” “ ” n H f l o of c o n n n k i oz c on a a d e e e x p , h irs ; Bu se ip , greg tion s ; “ n t of S lbu r a ea on i . e. the ffe n fe va of th y g p , s s s, di re t sti ls e a n ea a re ou n o c on n e on or fo o a c Christi y r br ght i t xi , ll w e h o in o e c c on ther c l s su essi . 3 “ ” n en a n d a ll n a re a ra n e in o e . For Bu s , ! thi gs] r g d rd r “ ” the words in order (p a r a n l q uoy ) Cred n er suggested n em

ir a ca m i . e. n e a n to th e o e on a re e a n ed m , thi gs r l ti g w rld b y d xpl i . But n er a x da ma is a tec hn i c a l term of Greek philosophy the

a c e e een th e o e ofth e n ve e L a t. in ter m u n dia sp s b tw b di s u i rs ( ),

a n d in trodu c es a n idea foreign to the c on text here. 1‘ Ha n a c . 2 . 2 2 o e a s a n a a e r k ii , p 3 ) qu t s striki g p r ll l

’ c a e fo th e c o e of H o de A n tiel msto this l us r m l s ipp lytus, In whic h h Ope (th e W ord) ha v i n g ra ised up the sa i n ts will e o c e e in o f n th e Fa e to o be r j i with th m gl ri yi g th r, wh m glory A I for eve . en . t o be n o e o v e a r m sh uld t d, h we r, th t thi s 90 TH E EPISTLE TO DIOG NETUS refers to th e joy of the Lord a n d His serva n ts in the resur n f M rec tion life. In ou r text it is the c ommun io o a ster a n d disc iple in the possessi on of div in e truth . Cp. Westc ott

Ca n on . 8 The n of e son a n e c o e o IV. T . e e ( f , p 9) s s p r l i t r urs n s n ot w ith th e Word wa s fresh a n d d eep . Revela ti o wa ” then wholly a thin g of the pa st .

92 G ENE RAL I NDE!

Dou lcet 26 Ho o 20 1 , , 44 ly Gh st, , 4 D asek 1 1 1 2 2 H r e o Dr . I , , . 4. 35 rt, , 3

D on R . B . 1 2 H n 8 1 82 rumm d, , ym s , ,

E STE 82 8 8 88 8 IDOL ATRv 22 6 — 6 A R, , 3, 7, , 9 , I I , , 4 , 54 5 E c a 88 8 n a I u h rist, , 9 Ig tius, 7 E e 1 6 6 a on ofG od 8—80 us bius, , 3 Imit ti , 44, 7 E ve 8 88 n ca n a on — 1 6 — 1 , 7, I r ti , 39 4 , 45 , 9 7 E oa n sion o CIzn stia n it n ra on 2 g f y I spi ti , 4 2 In v Isibilit of C an fe 49: 5 : 5 3 y hristi li ,

L L th e l en ae 2 1 1 FA . . 34. r us, , 7 a t a n d fea 60 F s s sts, 59, F n 1 0 6 1 66 E M E 2 1 8 u k, , , . 79 J RO , , 3 e 1 8 6 J ws, , 5 L E I o n S . n 1 2 0 GA N, 3 J h , . . 5 . 4. 49. 5 . G a lla n di 8 2 1 , , 79 G e a 8 o n ofDa a c u 1 2 bh rdt, 9, 77, 3 J h m s s, en 3 5 1 6 8 8 88 a m 1 2 1 6 22 G sa 345 3 5 5 3 7: Jud is , , , , M3, 33. G o th e Ho 20 1 h st, ly, , 4 G n osis C a n 2 2 in M a 1 2 1 , hristi , 5 , 3 , 37, Just rtyr, 7, . 9. $ 22 6 6 2 88 44. 7 . 44. 46. 4. 7. 7 . n o i c 20 2 8 G st ism, , 4, 2 5 , 5 ' G oo n e ofG od 2 2 Ki v' a Hef ou 2 d ss , 3, 5 , 73 jp yy p , 9 a c e 1 8 8 i n 2 1 2 -2 Gr , 4 , 3, 4 K h , . 5 7. 79 G ee lo o 1 1 62 e 1 2 2 0 r k phi s phy, , 44, , Krug r, , 75 3 72 G N z e o a . CH M 6 r g ry , 79 LA ANN. 9. 5 5 . 74. 7 . 77.

H D I 26 6 L a c ta n tiu s 6 A R AN, , 4 , 4 H a e foo 2 L a w m e a 6 e rm r (Light t), 5 , 5 3, , i p ri l, 4 ; J wish , 6 1 2 8 8 8 n a a 6 5 5 . 5 7. 59. . 7 . 4. 5 . 33, 3 ; tur l, 9 88 e en L yd , 9 H a n a c 1 1 1 20 2 1 foo 1 6 2 r k, , 9, , 5 , 3 , Light t . 9. 3 . 37. 5 . 5 3. 6 1 2 8 8 35 5 7) 59) 3 7 ) 4, 5 ,

H a B . 3? us, , 9 H efele 1 8 6 8 o o th e 2 8 1 68 6 . 9, . 75 . 7 . 9 L g s, , 3, 3 , 4 , , 9, H e e 20 8 1 r sy, H il en feld 1 2 2 6 8 u e 2 1 g , , 7, 4 , 47, 4 , L mp r, 5 1 H o 2 1 8 M CI 22 2 1 ipp lytus. . 35 . 79. 9 AR ON, , 3, 3 H off a n n M a 1 80 m , 73 rtyrs. 43. 45 . 7 . G ENERAL I NDE! 93

M a o 82 S . 8 ur, , Pr bst, M a u r sm iin st r 8 o ec a u en fo 1 1 e , Pr ph y, rg m t r m , , M e e C a n 26 yst ri s, hristi , M c 2 o e 8 ysti ism , 4 Pr ph ts, 33, 3 f M en o S . a 8 6 Prud tius ur, , 3, NEU M 8 1 ANN, 9 Ne n e of C a n 1 6 w ss hristi ity, , D TUS 2 1 Q U A RA , New e a en 1 1 e i on of Dio n etu s T st m t, Q u st s g , 34,

43. 45 BE R O RTHU , 8 e a en 1 1 2 R CE th e n ew 2 Old T st m t, , 3, 3 5 , A , , 5 Ra n m 62 48 bbi is , en 20 1 R u ta tion o H er esies Orig , , 7 ef f , 3 5 e 0 Reli i on S u er n a tu r a l 1 Ottl y, 4 g , p , 5 , Ot l o 6 . 9. . 35 . 77. 5 g Re n 8 g uchli , ve ec 1 1 1 2 2 6 8 Re O rb k, , , 7, 4 , 4 , uss, 9 I R v e a on 6 2 0 S e l ti , 3 , 4 , 9 R a e 1 6 itu l, J wish, , 33

G ISM 1 1 22 6 Ro n on Dr . A a e 0 PA AN , , , 43, 4 , bi s , rmit g , 3 — 6 6 1 54 5 7 Pa n taen u s 6 S AB B TH 60 , 3 A , 59, a a e 8 8 8 S a e a n 2 P r dis . 4. 5 . 7 b lli ism, 7 ' ’ a ove the o 88 S a c c e of C r ea P ss r, L rd s, rifi , h ist s d th , a a a n 0 a a n 6 6 ew P trip ssi ism , 39 4 ; p g . 4 . 5 J ish .

P a n ] S ‘ “ 2 1 6 1 6 8 , : a 5 , 34) 4 : 4 ) . 33. 5 e on of C i i a n ea S a s s hr st y r, a i DI 82 8 P ul , , 35 , 9 P er e r in u s P r oteu s 1 1 oc a e of a n 8 g , 3, 4 S i l lif Christi s, 4 , e ec on I 6 66 68 - 6 P rs uti , 7, 5 , , , 5 71 S oul : Christia n s the soul of fo e 8 th e o 0 1 66—68 P rzh im , w rld, 43, 5 , 5 , o 1 2 S the H o 20 1 Phil , pirit, ly, , 4 o o ee 1 1 S a 60 Phil s phy, Gr k, , 44, t rs, 59, S e a n 8 1 0 1 1 62 t ph us, , , 3, 5 , , o 1 Ph tius, I 3, 4 a o 1 M r en t 2 6 S a S . v . A Pl t , , 7 tr ssburg , g n 1 a te sis Pli y, 7 or n o c a 80 S tr oma teis 2 P ly rp, , 9 P rea e/zin o P eter 2 0 o n a on 8 g f , 9, 3 , Sub rdi ti ism , 3 60 S u er n a tu r a l Reli ion 1 6 47. 535 5 7. p g , 5 , 5 94 G ENE RAL I NDE !

S e e of. 2 n H o w t , Pr , 4 Tri ity, ly, 73, 74 S lb u r 8 62 1 8 8 Tiibin en 2 y g, , , 7 , 7, 9 g , 9, 3

TI 1 2 1 TA AN, , 3 L H RN 2 U O , 9 e a n 1 6 I 2 1 2 T rtulli , , 7, , 4, 5 3, 6 68 4, VI G I th e e e 88 e a en 1 1 2 R N, Bl ss d, T st m t, Old , , 3, 35 New 1 1 ,

eo o e ofM o su estia WESTC TT B . 2 1 1 Th d r p , 74 O , p , , 3 , 34, Tillem o 6 2 8 0 n t, 3 , 37, 39, 4 , 7, 9 a a n 1 Wi sdom o S olom on 6 Tr j , 7 f , 5 5 , 7 ee of n o e e a n d fe Wo th e e on a 8 0 Tr s K wl dg Li , rd, (p rs l), 3 , 4 , 8 86 68 6 8 1 8 8 5 , , 9, , 4, 9

Q UOTATIONS FRO M H OLY S CRI PTURE

n Epistle to Diog etu s.

n l l 2 . Ge esis , 3 n

i 2 1 2 . 1 . i i . . 4

Exod . xx . 1 1 . 6 P . v . s c xl . i A x v . (c p . c ts i i i 1 . J ohn . 7

v . 2. Rom . iii 3

1 C r i v . 1 2. o .

v n i . 1 .

2 v i . 1 0. Cor . 9,

! ° n . 3

1 P et. 1 8.

I J ohn W . 9.

S evera l other pa ssa ges in the Epistle will be rec ogn ized a s a t lea st remin isc en t ofHoly S c ripture e. 3. 4 (Ac ts xv ii .

6 G a l. v . Z . . . . . e . . 6 5 9 (Phil iii 5 ( 7 4 c h ix . 7 — i R . . 2 1 2 . . m 1 0 M a l i i . 2 o 6 . ( . 9 I , ( iii , Titus iii 3 3

1 o n iv 1 1 o n . 1 1 ( J h . . 4 (I J h i , ii , 3, IN DE! OF WO RDS

ba rba ria n 6 m s er es 6 , 3 y t i , 9, 73 c om m n voiis o , 61 , 64 , 75 d e sida m on ia 8 n u rsin -fa er i i , 5 g th , 77 Demiu r us rea or 2 8 oin ovo fa 60 g (C t ), 3, 3 , u , , 74 60 oin ovo méis . 74 . 75 u , 74 éwm efa 26 3 m 8 , p , 3 ' en os evos fr ov 2 8 m 8 g (y , p ), 5 , 5 3 m , 3 n oriz o w ba ' w' fa 26 g (7v éw). 73 a i y y , a rousia 1 5 4 p , 7 d a o' i s 26 t ox em ia 0 6 p , , 5 , 3 i 1121 61 8 wok w w om 61 62 9 . 75 . 9 p yp m, , '

I of L a t. eer ei 8 a r oi eia 0 mp ( ) , 9 x , 7 n v' a 2 a u w' r fe' r t 8 fip yy 9 yx p g a , 7 n Ai or 8 u r o i 88 jp , 9 d ve fgw a , n on / 63 6 1 6 a defa , , 4 um , 5 3 k osmos 0 a wr i ov 88 , 5 fip , Ati' a s 68 8 a y , , 7 theosebei , 5 9 ‘ e a lteui s r oc etis p y m , 79 p p , 79 er a x da a 8 W lt w u ss sein 1 y m , 9 e be t , 5 ICH R D CL Av 81 S ONs L I M IT D R A , E ,

BR D S TRE T H I L L E. e. AND EA E , ,

BUNG Y S UFFOL K. A ,