A van de Beek
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Marcionism in To Diognetus: a plea for Christians at the expense of Jews

ABSTRACT

The early Christian writing Ad Diognetum clearly exhibits Marcionite features. It is, however, impossible that Marcion himself wrote it, as some authors argue, because the writer strongly stresses the monarchè. The text has striking similarities to the ideas of Apelles, to the extent we know them from Eusebius, though here too are differences. The last two chapters have Gnostic traits, though these cannot be fully separated from the rest of the writing.

The conclusion is that the booklet is a product of neo-Marcionite circles who are influenced by Gnosticism and who represent a type of Christianity that does not fit precisely in schematic divisions of Christianity. The character of the work on behalf of Christian apologetics is anti-Jewish, since it argues that Christians do not separate themselves from normal society. It is a plea for acceptance of Christians at the expense of Jews.

The early Christian text To Diognetus1 is generally considered a jewel of Christian apologetics.2 Particularly the fifth chapter, which sketches the Christians’ manner of living, stirs the heart. Yet much about this text is uncertain. That is true of the date of its composition, the authorship, and thus also its status. I will here examine these three aspects, and propose a new thesis, with my argumentation, particularly with regard to last of these questions.

1. THE RELATION WITH MARCION

We are entirely dependent on the text itself for its dating. No other early Christian author whose work we know mentions this text, which only surfaced in the 15th century in Constantinople. On the basis of style and content, almost all researchers have placed it in the second, or at the most the third, century.3 For a long time the discussion has focused on the question of whether it must be placed at the beginning or the end of this century, or, more precisely, whether it must be dated before or after Marcion. The argument of Charles Nielsen ultimately appeared decisive: “It is hard to believe that if Ad Diognetum 1-10 was written between 190 and 200 the obviously intelligent author would not have protected himself against a possible charge of Marcionism.”4 On the face of it, Nielsen would seem to be obviously correct about this. There are phrases that sound so much like Marcion that after his appearance one could not have used them any more without second thoughts, and if one still did go ahead and use them, one would have to make explicit one’s position vis-a-vis Marcion.5 Nielsen however assumes a premise that cannot be verified: that To Diognetus is by an orthodox author. Indeed, that is anything but certain. That orthodox Christians in the 20th century find it an attractive text counts for nothing on this score. We must establish whether it fits into the orthodoxy of the second century. And on precisely that point doubt is justified.

In their time Bunsen,6 and after him Buonaiuti,7 argued that To Diognetus was from the hand of Marcion. This hypothesis was quickly dismissed, because there are repeated explicit references to the Creator, and the Creator is identified with Christ. “It was really the Lord of all, the Creator of all, the invisible God Himself, who ... sent the Designer and Architect of the universe in person - Him by whom He created the heavens ... whose inscrutable counsels all the elements of nature faithfully carry out” (VII,2).8 This does not fit with the theology of Marcion in any way whatsoever. But this does not dismiss the arguments that led Bunsen and Buonaiuti to their hypothesis.

Nielsen cites two striking peculiarities of the text in relation to Marcion:

• the Old Testament is nowhere cited.9

• the writer nowhere explicitly distances himself from Marcion, as do all orthodox Christian authors of the end of the second century. “The author writes in such a way that it is quite difficult to believe that he could have ever heard of Marcion.”10

In these observations Nielsen limits himself to the portion of To Diognetus, which beyond any contention is to be considered as a unit, chapters 1-10.11 The last two chapters, 11-12, exhibit a different style and theology. Initially we shall follow his lead in this. The portion he deals with indeed shows many Marcionite features. This is true not only for the use of Scripture, but also for the fierce anti-Jewish attitude.12 Perhaps the Jews are better than the heathen, because they do not have graven images, but then, by bringing God offerings, as if the Creator of all things had need of offerings, they show no real respect for Him (III,3-5). The author therefore accuses the Jews of superstition (I,1), and general stupidity and delusion (IV,6). The intensity of the opposition to the Jews is greater than that with regard to the heathen. In this case the opposition is also not so much to contemporary Judaism, against which later Church fathers such as John Chrysostom could sometimes lash out. After all, in the second century it had been quite some time since the Jews brought offerings any more.13 Therefore, when the author derides the bringing of offerings, he is taking aim directly at the Old Testament.14 It is viewed as a book of the Jews that propagates superstition, which every right-minded person must look upon as nonsense and impious (III,3). In contrast to the Jews, the Christians have a religion that was not made by man (IV,6; V,3). Such a thoroughgoing rejection of the Old Testament is not to be found with any orthodox author whatsoever.15 That is true not only after Marcion, but also before Marcion. Orthodox early Christian authors can search for other interpretations of the Old Testament. As in the Epistle to the Hebrews, they can point to the fulfilment of the offerings in the one Offering of Christ, but the Old Testament is handled respectfully. That here the Old Testament is thrown out together with the Jews can only indicate a writer from outside orthodoxy, and then particularly one in Marcionite circles. Gnostics spiritualised the Old Testament, and therefore could not reject it.16 With this, Nielsen’s argument for an early date crumbles, because even before Marcion an orthodox writer could not have written that way.

That sentences sometimes appear in To Diognetus that remind one of orthodox authors does not undermine this conclusion. One must not make judgements about a text on the basis of individual elements, but on the whole. Some scholars have attempted to discover the authorship by tracing the relationship of ideas in To Diognetus with those of other authors. For instance, Conolly17 suggests that Hippolytus could be the author, on the basis of the assertion found in To Diognetus (and which also appears in Irenaeus), that in God there is no violence (VII,5). But the appearance of a statement such as this says nothing in and of itself. Not only, as Conolly himself already admits, is the point different here, but the rest of the text has quite a different air. For example, VII,2 inclines to a moralistic theology, while Hippolytus powerfully rejects that. The same is true for the relation of IX,2 and Protreptikos IX,82,2 by Clement of Alexandria. The literal agreement of the two citations is not sufficient to therefore attribute the authorship to Clement. Rather we must assume that the undoubtedly erudite writer of the present version has picked up material from various backgrounds and used it for his own purposes.18 A comparison with Clement, however, yields more than merely identical isolated phrases. Marrou 1965 and Brandle 1975 point to a number of similarities. They remind us that Christianity of around 200 is not to be judged by the precise lines of later orthodoxy. Thus they conclude that To Diognetus must be placed in the Alexandrian Christianity of the end of the second century, with some relationship to Clement. This thesis can only be maintained, however, if one accepts certain aspects and disregards others. The similarities are rather to be attributed to the general cultural climate of the time, which also made itself felt among certain Christians, particularly if they belonged to leading circles.19 From our present-day perspective, that suggests similarity. But one must be sensitive to divergences within that cultural climate. With that sensitivity, one must acknowledge that on the points, which then led to a division of minds in Christianity, the thinking diverges. Just as little as one can say Clement is a Gnostic because of superficial similarities in language, can one say To Diognetus, with its sharp rejection of the Old Testament, is a kindred spirit with Clement.

Because of the striking similarities with Marcion, we will have to seek the author of this text outside orthodox circles. Against the inclination to integrate it into Alexandrine theology, we will once again examine those aspects, which relate it to Marcionism. Not only is the Old Testament rejected, together with the Jews, but also the author’s New Testament references are almost entirely limited to Paul, and Paul is the only author literally quoted. In the other New Testament references it is a matter of free associations, which also could have come from the general body of Christian thought without a text from the New Testament having played a role. Paul is the canonical author par excellence.20

The position with regard to Marcion and orthodoxy can be further clarified by a theme that the author states directly in his introduction. Immediately in I,1 the author defends himself against the objection that Christianity is a new religion. Why had it not come into being earlier? This accusation played an important role at the end of the second century. Usually it is concentrated on the appearance of God in Christ. Why had He only come now, and not earlier? Irenaeus and Tertullian demonstrate to Marcion the absurdity of the late coming of the good God. If He comes so late, then He has apparently left men to their fate for a time. Then He is nowhere near as good as Marcion wants to make it appear.21 In turn, orthodox Christian theologians encountered a variant of this accusation from Platonic philosophers. Is God not inconstant, in that He at first does not reveal Himself to the world, and later does?22 Orthodox theologians found it easier to reply than did Marcion. In the first place, they did not have to maintain a good God of the Marcionite type. They confess that God created this broken world. For them, God’s goodness is embedded in the hiddenness of his dealing with the world. But more important, they can duly point to the revelation preceding Christ: to Moses and the prophets, and even already to Adam, as the Old Testament describes. Thus God did not entirely begin with his revelation only later. Immediately raising this point in I,1 thus indicates a familiarity with this discussion. What is striking, then, is that the author does not defend himself as Irenaeus does, by reference to the Old Testament. That confirms his rejection of it.

In VIII,7-IX,2 the author presents his own defence. That God did not intervene earlier has to do precisely with God’s goodness, because God is patient (VIII,7). He permitted us “to be carried away, just as we chose, by unruly passions - victims of unbridled desires” (IX,1). God is thus absolutely not inconstant, only later arriving at the idea of being good. He has always been goodness itself, by suffering so much. With this argument not only is the unchanging goodness of God powerfully established, but also, entirely in line with chapters III and IV, the whole time before Christ, including the world of Moses and the prophets, is painted as a wicked epoch. But that waiting had not only to do with God’s patience; it was also a preparation for really knowing his goodness: that God had such love for these impious men that He wanted to give his Son for them, the holy one for the lawless (IX,2). Only when iniquity is complete can the overwhelming compassion and love of God be known. Thus, the love of God can only be revealed over against the fullness of sin. All the patience of God is thus for the sake of the revelation of who He really is: perfect love.

That the author must deal with the late coming of God so thoroughly means that the accusation was already current and points at the earliest to a date later in the second century. The nature of his defence is Marcionite. Nielsen is right about that: one can not imagine an erudite orthodox theologian in that time ignoring the Old Testament just like that, any more than he could come up with such Marcionite views without at the same moment clearly distancing himself from Marcion. That does not say that orthodox theologians also did not defend the late coming of God on the basis of God’s patience. But they never did so without reference to the Old Testament.

Entirely in line with Marcion, the emphasis lies on the completely new thing that has come in Christ (I,1; II,1; VIII,1).

2. NEO-MARCIONISM

To Diognetus is thus a Marcionite-sounding text that is certainly not orthodox, but at the same time because of the identification of Christ and the Creator, certainly cannot be Marcionite. Now, in the early Church we have one author for whom all this seems to be true: Apelles.23 This idea was earlier advanced by Draseke,24 without however having a thorough rationale given for the suggestion. Apelles was a pupil of Marcion, but returned to the idea of the one archè. The information we have on him is limited. We can derive the most from Eusebius,25 who himself refers to Rhodon, and a citation from Origen by Ambrose.26

Like Marcion, Apelles taught that the Old Testament was good for nothing.27 According to him it is a lying human document, even as To Diognetus teaches. But Apelles also deviated from Marcion. According to Rhodon, Apelles taught that there is only one fundamental principle.28 A striking detail in Rhodon’s report is that Apelles could not say anything about the nature of the archè. Everything that we say only circles around the ultimate mystery. Even that there is one archè is not to be proven, but is exclusively a matter of faith.

Because Apelles stemmed from Marcionite circles, he had to accent precisely that point in which he diverged from Marcion. We note the same thing in To Diognetus. There is an unusual amount of emphasis laid on the omnipotence of the Creator. It is “really the Lord of all, the Creator of all, the invisible God Himself, who, of His own free will, from heaven, lodged among men the truth” (VII,2).29

According to Rhodon, Apelles laid great emphasis on the unknowableness of God.30 To Diognetus also plays on this theme. Of course, that also appears in orthodoxy, but what is striking is that To Diognetus, like Apelles, immediately links this with the almighty Creator. He is not only invisible, but the preservation of the cosmos is under the influence of the mysteries of God (VII,2). The Creator kept his plans and his decisions secret to Himself until He revealed Himself in the Son (VIII,7-11). Even the Word is beyond understanding, while it is given to mankind. Rhodon would ask here, just as he asks Apelles, what sense it still makes to be able to speak about God if you do not understand what has been revealed to you.

Through the overemphasis on the monarchè, it becomes difficult to conceive of a human birth for Christ.31 That is explicitly the case for Apelles; he rejects the birth of Christ. He is rather a person descended from heaven, who brings his body with Him from the sphere of the stars, a body composed of the four classic elements (warm and cold, wet and dry). It is a real material body with a real material history. But after the ascension the body is again disbanded into its elements.32

There is also no physical resurrection for man; only the immortal soul is saved.

To Diognetus exhibits a Christology in which, it is true, the birth is not explicitly denied, but which does concentrate on the descent of a divine person who is come to us to reveal truth. Now, the latter is also the case in most of the orthodox apologists in the second century. But even the most rationalistic among them,33 Justin, explicitly maintains the birth from the Virgin.34 The absence of the birth points rather to a Christology such as that which was on the rise in heterodox Christianity in that time. The reference to the elements that themselves are not God (VIII,2-3) in the context of the Christology is also reminiscent of Apelles. Yet, unlike in Gnostic circles, this Christology leads to a Christ who as the Righteous one bears the sins of the world and gives Himself as a ransom (IX,2-5). But on the other side, it is also said that our nature makes it impossible for us to receive life (IX,6). There it appears to lie more in the nature of mankind than in his guilt, that he was lost. Just as in Apelles, the creation thus exhibits “ein tragischer Zug”.35 The idea that the soul is imprisoned in the body, which does not argue for a physical resurrection, also is similar to Apelles’s thought.

The remarkable combination of aspects that are found in To Diognetus - rejection of the Old Testament, the fiercely anti-Jewish attitude, the newness of revelation and the monarchè - thus exhibits a striking likeness with the theology of Apelles.36 Yet it appears that we must exclude him as author, because the monarchè is carried through still further here than in Apelles. He does indeed stress this powerfully, but subsequently allows various created powers to appear under the one God, powers which represent the contradictory aspects that are present in the world, and that Marcion reduced to his two principles and Prepon to his three.37 Thus, according to Apelles there is indeed one archè, but under him there is a distinction between the Creator derived from him, who created an imperfect world,38 the Angel which inspired Moses, the power that symbolises the perversion of complete evil,39 and finally the true Virtue that is the saving Son.40 Von Harnack concludes that in the distinction between the demiurge and the Power of the Old Testament, even the anti-Jewish position of Marcion is surpassed: the God of the Jews is worse still than the imperfect demiurge.41 On this point To Diognetus diverges from Apelles.42 The fierce rejection of the Old Testament and the Jews remains standing, but the Creator and the Saviour are identified. That makes the anti-Jewish feeling all the stronger. The world is not strange to the Deliverer who loves it as his own and guides the whole cosmos: Creator and Deliverer are one. But the Old Testament is a figment of human imagination, stupid and untruthful.

Thus the Creator is no lower deity that is less than the God who reveals Himself in Christ, but He is the source of all that is. Christ is his Son. At the same time To Diognetus says that the Son Himself is the Designer and Architect of the universe (VII,2). In this, the author goes further than the most orthodox authors with regard to the one power of creation and salvation. It is true that many early Christian authors can closely link facets of the confession of the almighty Creator and Christ, but they do that preferably to indicate the paradoxicality of the incarnation. What happens in To Diognetus is a direct identification of Christ and the Creator. Here the monarchè is very rigorously carried through.43

The text thus shows features of Marcion and of Apelles, but also has its own body of ideas. It seems as if the author has taken up all sorts of ideas, thought them through, and worked independently. We will have to seek him in neo-Marcionite circles in which pupils of the “Helmsman” tried to remedy the weaknesses of his system. Apelles and Prepon belonged to these circles, but so did the author of To Diognetus, who takes his own position in them.

If the text does not come from orthodox circles, then it is also understandable that it was lost and only much later surfaced by chance.44 Almost no texts by persons who were considered heretics have survived the centuries. We know them only from quotations by their opponents. Then again, the apologetic text To Diognetus is not such a threat that one must quote from it to refute it. Ultimately, it does not challenge orthodoxy.

3. THE CLOSING CHAPTERS

Thus far we have limited ourselves to chapters 1-10. The last two chapters exhibit other features.45 That is not to say that an orthodox patrimony is represented. Quite the contrary; here the body of thought regarded as heretical is even more explicitly present. Only this time it is not Marcionist, but Gnostic. We find the most striking phrase in XII,7, which tells us that Eve was not tempted, but that she is worshipped as a virgin. I cannot imagine that this could have come from the pen of an orthodox author of the second or third century,46 but in the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi we find exactly the same idea. According to the text The Origin of the World Eve deceived the archons who wished to have intercourse with her by identifying with the Tree of Life and leaving behind only her likeness with Adam.47 The same story is also recorded in The Essence of the Powers.48 In the likewise Gnostic text, The Secret Book of John, we find a somewhat different version. Here the divine woman is identified with Sophia, who in the form of Epinoia descends on the Tree of Knowledge, through which Adam and Eve attain perfect knowledge. Sophia is the heavenly Eve, the mother of all living things, who is linked with the terrestrial Eve by Epinoia. Before Eve loses her virginity, however, Epinoia has already departed. The Eternal Pronoia (Prescience) that foresaw what would happen took the life away from her that she had through participation in the True Knowledge. It was thus a lifeless mannequin without knowledge that was defiled.49

Just as in these Gnostic myths, in To Diognetus heavy emphasis is laid on knowledge. The Tree is no longer the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but only the Tree of Knowledge. And this tree does not kill, but gives life. It is, thus, the source of true life, and the true Eve is not seduced, but is a pure virgin.

Also, the treatment of the Aeons in XII,9 sounds Gnostic. Here we are not dealing with periods of time, but with gifts, which stand under the power of a certain Aeon. In the Completion these will all be collected and receive their proper place.

In its present state To Diognetus must thus be seen as a compilation of two heresies.50 That does not say that these two sections are independent of each other. An explicit link between the two bodies of thought is found in To Diognetus.51 Gnostic features do already appear in I-X. Christians are held fast in this world as in a prison, even as the immortal soul is imprisoned in the body (VI,7-8). That Christians are aliens in this world is an idea held in common by all parts of the early Church. But that the world is a prison for them is a thought not found in orthodoxy. Because of the comparison made with the soul imprisoned in the body, there is a strong correspondence with the Gnostic idea of the eternal soul that is imprisoned in the body, by which all pure souls know themselves to be prisoners in the material world. Further, just as in XII,4-5, it is also said in X,1 that the beginning of the Christian life is in knowledge.52

On the other hand, the Gnostic character is also nuanced. The warning against conceited knowledge without love (XII,5-6) would seem to include a critique of Gnostics who are not oriented to a life of love. Such people are themselves deceived by the serpent. The real cause of death is therefore also not lack of knowledge, but disobedience (XII,2).

The relation of Marcionism and Gnosticism becomes particularly clear in XII,3. XII contains a discussion of Genesis 3. It says of that chapter, “What is written is not unimportant” (XII,3).53 One only says something like that if one assumes that the reader thinks Genesis is indeed unimportant. The presumed reader is thus thought to take a Marcionite position, which flows out of chapters I-X. But, the author then says, that story still has a certain meaning. Then he advances an allegorical explanation that fits with Gnosticism. The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life stand in the middle of the garden. Thus men receive life only through knowledge (gnosis), and knowledge only through life. People will only understand this meaning, however, if they are in the circle of the saints where mysteries are revealed and the Aeons are proclaimed (XI,5). There the law has meaning; there the grace of prophecy is known (XI,6). This would appear to be a full acceptance of the Old Testament, as law and prophets. But a step further on the author reveals that the text of Genesis is untruthful, because Eve was absolutely not tempted, as Genesis says. Thus the Old Testament has certain correct thoughts that refer to the unutterable mysteries of the knowledge of the unknowable God (in this the author agrees with Gnosticism), but (as Marcion says) it does not provide real truth.

Because of this last, there is all the more cause to seek the author in circles related to Apelles. That is true thus not only for the first part, but also for the whole. Von Harnack points to the same double linkage of Marcionism and Gnosticism for Apelles as well, “Die Lehre des Apelles ... ist eine interessante Verbindung des Marcionitismus met dem Gnostizismus auf Kosten des ersteren.”54 Marcion is corrected, but at the same time the intellectual heritage of Marcion remains present in Apelles in full, particularly when it comes to the use of the Old Testament. Eusebius reports that Apelles “has made countless scandalous remarks about the Law of Moses; and in various works he has slandered the Holy Scriptures by undertaking great efforts to dispute and refute them according to his views”.55

From this perspective, perhaps XI,6 must be interpreted otherwise. There is considerable tension between the extremely negative attitude with regard to the Old Testament in III and IV and the interpretation of XI,6 as praise of the law and prophets.56 Even if one considers the text as a compilation, that remains problematic. Now, it is possible to ease the tension by saying that only the Christians have the true interpretation of the law and prophets. But then the law and prophets ultimately retain their value, which the text would also appear to suggest. However, one must be careful: the text does not say the “law and prophets” but “law” and “prophesy”. It must therefore be asked if this really refers to the Old Testament, and not to contemporary prophesy in the community. Early Christian authors report that Apelles was under the influence of a prophetess named Philoumene.57 Thus his community knew prophecy. It did not read the false prophecy of the Old Testament, which arose from a hostile spirit, but knew the true prophecy. Here prophecy is under the aegis of enlightened knowledge. In this case, we no longer have to read “law” as the Law of Moses, but as the law of the monarchè, the order according to which the Creator rules the cosmos (VII,2) and carries out his plans, which He had first hidden within Himself but has now revealed (VIII,7-11). To Diognetus XI,6 must then be read not as praise of the Old Testament but precisely as the antithesis of that. Knowledge of God comes not on the ground of old books that men could manipulate, or of human philosophy (IV,6-V,3), but on the ground of the newly revealed mysteries (VIII).

It is possible that the obscure phrase in XI,5, where we are told that the believers “do not break their plighted troth”, can also be explained in this context. According to Eusebius, Rhodon forced Apelles to affirm under oath that his knowledge of the monarchè rested on faith and not on knowledge.58 For this you cannot call on reasoning but only on God himself: the vow has the last word. It is not a matter of knowing, but of inclination.59

4. CONCLUSION AND STATUS

Our conclusion is that the text in its present form must be considered as neo-Marcionite, in which the author strongly defends the monarchè and makes use of Gnostic ideas in the process.60 Even if he does that by adding two chapters to an earlier text, the earlier version still exhibits the same basic ideas, only without the conspicuous influence of Gnostic speculation. A date at the end of the second or beginning of the third century therefore seems most plausible. We will have to seek the author in the context of a community influenced by Marcion, of the same type as that to which Apelles belonged, without it being likely that the text is by Apelles himself. That we can advance no name for the author is of little importance in this. Of greater importance is that we are able to indicate the theological context of the document. It is a text, which cannot be placed in one of the distinct currents such as Gnosticism, Marcionism, modalism or what later was called orthodoxy. It is a document that indicates that the boundaries were fluid, and that is an expression of the dynamics of Christianity in the second century.

With this, the status of the text is other than has regularly been accepted. It is an original document from traditions that were expelled from the early Church and thereby can be compared with the Nag Hammadi texts. It grants us a look at another version of Christianity. That this Christianity nourished on Marcionism was more positive and humane than orthodoxy appears to me to be an illusion. Precisely the chapter, which is most appealing, chapter V, must be read in this context. When the author says, “They nowhere settle in cities of their own; they use no peculiar language; they cultivate no eccentric mode of life ... [They] conform to the customs of the country in dress, food, and mode of life in general, [and yet] the whole tenor of their way of living stamps it as worthy of admiration and admittedly extraordinary” (V,2 and 4), taken out of the context that sounds splendid. But if we consider that the chapter before that is a denunciation of the Jews, it takes on another guise. The civilised heathen must clearly understand that the Christians are not Jews, and are loyal citizens of the Empire. They claim no exceptional status. They are merely representatives of a higher religion, of which even the enlightened heathen must conclude that it is better than the worship of idols. But please, do not confuse us with the Jews.

In this conclusion we come close to the position of Wengst. According to him the text is the product of an elitist, Gnostic influenced Christianity, for which ecclesiastical organisation was of little importance.61 According to him, it was a form of cultural Christianity that attracted little notice because it was largely in accord with the culture. Yet his position must be nuanced. Baumeister (1988) has already noted that for the author persecutions were certainly very much a reality. Even if Gnostics were in harmony with tendencies in the culture, that still does not say that they were not persecuted. That is just as true for Marcionites. Not just those whose position in society was weaker were victims of persecution. Therefore we do not have to follow Wengst’s inclination to move the dating forward.62

For the theological status of the text, it is important that Wengst bestows little attention on the explicit Marcionite ideas in it, or rather, that he does not distinguish between Marcion and Gnosticism.63 Therefore the sharp anti-Jewish edge disappears from sight. It is precisely the radical rejection of the Jews, of their scriptures, including Moses, and of their customs, that is characteristic of To Diognetus, as Overbeck correctly contends.64 Theologically, this coincides in part with the author’s philosophical understanding of God. God is aorgetès (VIII,8), in contrast to the God of the Old Testament. But this does not have only a general theological significance, as Wengst65 argues, but receives a concrete focus in the apology: if Jews are tolerated, how much more must Christians be accepted, who not only adapt to the society, but also contribute to its structure by their virtuous lives. Overbeck has tried to link “die auffallend schroffe Behandlung des Judentums” with a concrete event: the attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild the temple has spurred the author to his attack on the Jews.66 If, however, we date the text earlier, then that is not possible. Moreover, the author is not referring to an event but to the religion and practices of the Jews. The provocation for the attack must not be sought so much by the Jews, as with the attitude of the pagans to the Christians. The author is remarkable mild in his critique of paganism. This is limited to commonplaces, which would not overly upset the cultivated heathen.67 This makes his judgement of the Jews all the sharper. In this manner the cultured Christian can make it clear to cultured pagans that they stand next to one another, and thus Christians should not be persecuted - and that at the cost of the Jews with their silly religion and strange customs.

That almost all interpreters to date have overlooked this undoubtedly has to do with Overbeck’s thesis: that modern authors enjoy To Diognetus so much that they recognise themselves in it.68 That rests primarily on the fifth chapter, where it is said that Christians do not distinguish themselves outwardly from their environment. It is precisely this chapter, which plays the central role in the apology. If, however, we overlook the anti-Jewish character of the apology, it is easy to open the door to the conclusion that religious people who do not adapt to the customs of their day are properly targets of persecution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andriessen, P 1946. L’Apologie de Quadratus conservée sous le titre d’Epitre a Diognète, Extrait des Recherches de Théologie ancienne et Médiévale 13. Louvain: Abbaie du Mont César.

Baumeister, T 1988. Zur Datierung der Schrift An Diognet, in Vigiliae Christianae 42:105-111.

Brandle, R 1975. Die Ethik der “Schrift an Diognet”: Ein Wiederaufname paulinischer und johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

Bunsen, CCJ 1852. Hippolytus und seine Zeit. Anfange und Aussichten des Christenthums und der Menschheit. I. Die Kritik. Leipzig: F A Brockhaus.

Buonaiuti, E 1921. Lettera a Diogneto. Scrittori Cristiani Antichi 1. Rome: Libreria di cultura.

Conolly, R H 1935. The date and authorship of the Epistle to Diognetus, in The Journal of Theological Studies 36:347-353.

Donaldson, J 1866. Acritical history of Christian Literature and Doctrine 2. London: Macmillan.

Draseke, J 1881. Der Brief an Diognetos nebst Beitragen zur Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften der Gregorios von Neocaesarea. Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth.

Harris, J R (ed) 1891. The Apology of Aristides. Cambridge: University Press.

Hilgenfeld, A 1875. Der Gnostiker Apelles, in Zeitschrift f. Wissenschafliche Theologie 18:55-75.

Junod, É 1982. Les attitudes d’Apelles, disciple de Marcion, a l’égard de l’Ancien Testament, in Augustinianum 22:113-133.

Kihn, H 1882. Der Ursprung des Briefes an Diognet. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder’schen Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Kleist, J A 1948. The Didache. The Epistle of Barnabas. The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp. The Fragments of Papias. The Epistle to Diognetus. Newly translated and annotated. Ancient Christian Writers 6. New York/Ramsey N J: Newman Press.

Klijn, A F J 1967. Apostolische vaders 3: Barnabas; Papias; Brief aan Diognetus; Quadratus (Bibliotheek van Boeken bij de Bijbel 57). Baarn: Bosch & Keuning.

Le Gras, A 1725. Epitre a Diognete. Ouvrage du Premier Siècle traduit de l’originale grec. Paris: N PArmand.

Lienhard, J T 1970. The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetus, in Vigiliae Christianae 24:280-289.

Loofs, F 1959. Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, 6 Aufl (Hrsg K Aland). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Marrou, H I 1965. ADiognète: introduction, édition critique, traduction et commentaire, 2e edition, revue et augmentée, Sources Chrétiennes 33bis. Paris: Cerf.

Meecham, H G 1949. The Epistle to Diognetus. Publ Univ Manchester 305. Theol Series 7. Manchester: University Press.

Meijering, E P 1998. Athanasius: Die Dritte Rede gegen die Arianer. Teil III: Kapitel 59-67. Übersetzung, Kommentar, theologiegeschichtlicher Ausblick. Amsterdam: Gieben.

Meijering, E P 2001. Irenaeus: Grondlegger van het christelijk denken. Amsterdam: Balans.

Nielsen, C M 1970. The Epistle to Diognetus: Its date and relationship to Marcion, in Anglican Theological Review 52:77-91.

Overbeck, F 1875. Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche 1. Repr 1965. Libelli 155. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Rizzi, M 1989. La questione dell’unita dell’ “Ad Diognetum”. Studia Patristica Mediolanensia 16. Milano: Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.

Robinson J M 1988. The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3d ed. Leiden, etc: Brill.

Thierry, J J 1964. The Epistle to Diognetus, Textus Minores 33. Leiden: Brill.

Von Campenhausen, C 1971 . Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tübingen: Mohr.

Von Harnack, A 1924. Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, 2. Aufl. Leipzig: Hinrich.

Wengst, K 1979. “Paulinismus” und “Gnosis” in der Schrift an Diognet, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 90:41- 62.

Wengst, K 1984. Schriften des Urchristentums II. Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, 2. Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet. Munich: Kösel.