MYSTERY REVEALED

ATLANTIC COAST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Dissertation
MYSTERY REVEALED
AN INQUIRY INTO
THE SIGNIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY
IN AD DIOGNETUM
By
Torbjörn P. B. Edebol
2012

ATLANTIC COAST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Daytona Beach, Florida
USA

MYSTERY REVEALED
AN INQUIRY INTO
THE SIGNIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
OF
THE REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY
IN
AD DIOGNETUM
Torbjörn P. B. Edebol
B.Th., Uppsala University, 1982
M.A., Uppsala University, 1995
Lic.Th., Uppsala University, 1995
D.Min., Lutheran School of Theology,
Chicago, 2005
A Dissertation for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
at
Atlantic Coast Theological Seminary
Daytona Beach, FL
USA
Submitted to the Atlantic Coast Theological Faculty on May 2, 2012
and Approved on June 5, 2012
(90 372)

Doctoral Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of
Atlantic Coast Theological Seminary
ABSTRACT
____________________________________________________________________________
Title: MYSTERY REVEALED: An Inquiry into the Signification and
Significance of the Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum
Author: Torbjörn P. B. Edebol
Year: 2012
__________________________________________________________________________
The aim of this Inquiry was to examine the revelation theme in Ad Diognetum as Revelational
Theology. The research question was formulated as how are we to understand, describe, explain and
apply the uniqueness, content and implications of Revelational Theology?
The hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur and Kevin J. Vanhoozer were utilized and combined in an
integrative approach designated as a hermeneutics of signification and significance. The applied methods
were contextual, rhetorical, exegetical and theological analyses. The apologetic context was related to
other Greek apologists (Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch and
Clement of Alexandria). The rhetorical analysis located the revelational part to chapters 7-9. The
exegetical analysis identified six main elements in Revelational Theology (Theocentrism, Eschatology,
Christology, Soteriology, Anthropology and Cosmology). The further implications of Revelational
Theology were demonstrated as well as its affirmation of Pauline and Johannine theologies. The
Lakatosian program of Nancey Murphy was employed, and Avery Dull’s five models of revelation, as
well as, the fideistic revelationism of Donald G. Bloesch, helped to understand the significance of
Revelational Theology.
The result of this Inquiry indicates that revelation is not just a literary theme in Ad Diognetum. The
author of Ad Diognetum combined rhetorical brilliance, theological reflection and evangelical zeal. He
presented a consciously worked-out theology that can be designated as Revelational Theology. That
theology was unique among the apologists of his time.
______________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: Ad Diognetum, Epistle to Diognetus, Greek Apologists, Apologetics, Rhetoric,
Protreptics, Hermeneutics, Revelation, Revelational Theology.
Torbjörn P. B. Edebol
ISBN 978-91-637-1212-8
Printed in Sweden 2012
DS Tryck, Boråsvägen 31,
512 53 Svenljunga, Sweden

To
Maria
Johannes, Hanna,
Josef, Marta and Jakob

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 1995, I published a thesis with the title All Things at Once: An Inquiry into the
Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum. That thesis granted me the two-year post-
graduate research degree of Licentiate in Theology at Uppsala University in Sweden. At
that time, my advisor asked me to bring in some more apologetic material, to anchor
Revelational Theology, and to present it as a doctoral dissertation. I was senior pastor of
five Lutheran congregations and extremely busy. I also had a large family and many
obligations. I had to postpone the project. Seventeen years have passed, and I am in a
different situation of life and now able to finalize the original project. I have taken into
consideration the suggestions above, reworked the licentiate manuscript, enlarged it
with some 130 pages, examined and updated the sources and added chapters on
methodology, hermeneutics and applications of Revelational Theology. This new
dissertation is entirely renewed in all its parts, although the original proposition and the
coined designation ‘Revelational Theology’ is the same. In accomplishing this doctoral
project, I have been constructively assisted, by Dr. Ray Parker and the members of the
Faculty of the Atlantic Coast Theological Seminary to whom I hereby express my
gratitude.
May 2, 2012
Torbjörn P B Edebol

Declaration Concerning Dissertation Presented for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
I, Torbjörn P. B. Edebol
of
Mjöbäck in Sweden,
Solemnly and sincerely declare, in relation to the Ph.D. dissertation entitled:
MYSTERY REVEALED
An Inquiry into the
Signification and Significance
of
the Revelational Theology
in
Ad Diognetum
(a) That work was done by me, personally
(b) The material has not previously been accepted in whole, or in part, for any other
degree or diploma
Signature: Date: May 2, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES xxi
LIST OF TABLES xxii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxiii
INTRODUCTION
1. PRESENTATION OF THE INQUIRY ....... 2
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2
Method and Structure of the Inquiry .... 3
The Background of the Inquiry ...... 3
The Aim and Scope of the Inquiry ...... 5
The Internal Structure of the Inquiry ...... 7
Hermeneutics of Signification and Significance 12
Contributions from Paul Ricoeur .... 12
Contributions from Kevin J. Vanhoozer .... 17
An Integrative Approach .... 21
The Enigmatic Text of Ad Diognetum .. 26
Isagogic Issues ...... 27
General Assumptions ..... 36
A Summary of the Content 38
Summary 40
PART ONE
REVELATION AND SIGNIFICATION
2. AD DIOGNETUM AS AN APOLOGETIC AND PROTREPTIC WORK ..... 42
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 42
Ad Diognetum as an Apologetic Work ... 43
Ad Diognetum and Early Christian Kerygmatic Preaching ..... 43
Ad Diognetum and the Apologetic Reaction ..... 45
Ad Diognetum and Second Century Apologetic Works ... 48
Ad Diognetum and the Apology of Aristides ..... 48
Ad Diognetum and the Apologies of Justin Martyr ..... 50
Ad Diognetum and the Legatio of Athenagoras ..... 58
Ad Diognetum and the Oratio of Tatian ..... 63
Ad Diognetum as a Protreptic Work ... 71
The Protreptic Genre ..... 71
The Protreptic Features .... 72
xv

xvi

Ad Diognetum and Second Century Protreptic Works .......... 73
Ad Diognetum and the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria ........ 73
Ad Diognetum and Ad Autolycum of Theophilus of Antioch ....... 83
Summary 88
3. AD DIOGNETUM AS A RHETORICAL WORK .... 90
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 90
Ad Diognetum and Rhetorical Strategies ... 90
The Rhetorical System ........ 90
The Rhetorical Situation ......... 92
The Rhetorical Style ........ 94
The Rhetorical Structure ........ 96
Ad Diognetum and the Three Introductory Questions ...... 100
Summary ................................................................................................................... 102
4. AD DIOGNETUM AND THE REVELATIONAL PART ....... 103
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 103
Section I – 7.1-6: No Earthly Discovery or some Mortal Idea ...... 103
Logos in the Hearts of Men and in the Order of Creation ......... 104
Digression: Why is Jesus of Nazareth Absent from the Text? ........ 107
Section II – 7.7 – 7. 9: Steadfastness in Persecutions as a Proof of
God’s Presence ..... 109
Section III – 8.1-4: Not the Pretentious Thoughts of the Philosophers ....... 111
Section IV – 8.5 – 11: God’s Plan Revealed at the Right Time ...... 113
Revelational Terminology ....... 113
Revelational Climax ........ 116
The Mysterious Plan of God in Pauline Theology ....... 119
Communication to the Child ........ 122
Section V - 9.1-6: Redemption Accomplished through the Son ........ 123
Anthropological Qualifications ......... 123
“Realized Eschatology” ....... 124
Soteriological Climax ........ 126
Ad Diognetum and Early Christian Soteriology ........ 130
A Summary of Revelational Theology ........ 131
Revelational Theology – An Explicative Definition ........ 133
Summary ................................................................................................................... 134
xvii

xviii

PART TWO
REVELATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
5. IMPLICATIONS OF REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY .......... 136
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 136
Revelation and the Futility of Idolatry in 2.1-10 ........ 136
Revelation and the Attack on the Jewish Cult and Customs in 3.1 – 4.6 ........ 138
The Adversus-Judaeos Literature ....... 138
Influences from Marcion or Barnabas? ....... 140
The Threefold Answer of Revelational Theology ........ 142
Revelation and the Distinct Nature of Christian Ethics in 5.1 - 6.10 ....... 143
The Divine Character of the Christian Faith ........ 143
The Christian Citizenship ........ 144
The Christians as the Soul of the World ....... 145
A Comparison with Clement of Alexandria on Christian Life-Style ....... 146
Revelation and Personal Christian Faith in 10.1-8 .......................................... 146
Johannine Influences ........ 146
The Importance of Knowledge of God ....... 147
The Imitation of God through Love ........ 149
Digression: Ad Diognetum as a Defense of Orthodoxy? ....... 151
Revelation as the Work of Grace in the Church in 11.1 – 12.9 ........ 153
Revelational Theology as a Link between Chapter 1-10 and 11-12 ................... 155
Summary .................................................................................................................. 156
6. AFFIRMATIONS OF REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY ....... 157
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 157
Revelational Theology as an Affirmation of Pauline and
Johannine Theologies ........ 158
Challenges to Pauline and Johannine Theologies ....... 158
Allusions to the Pauline and Johannine Writings .......... 159
Contributions from Pauline Theology ....... 161
Contributions from Johannine Theology ....... 164
Revelational Theology as an Affirmation of Early Christian Theology ......... 167
The Lakatosian Program of Nancey Murphy ....... 167
Application of the Lakatosian Program of Nancey Murphy ........ 169
Pauline and Johannine Heuristics ....... 172
Summary ................................................................................................................... 175
xix

7. APPLICATIONS OF REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY ... 176
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 176
Revelational Theology and Avery Dull’s Five Models of Revelation ....... 176
Revelation as Doctrine ........ 177
Revelation as History ......... 178
Revelation as Experience ........ 179
Revelation as Dialectical Presence ........ 180
Revelation as New Awareness .......... 181
Revelational Theology as a Multi-model Theology ......... 183
Revelational Theology and Donald G. Bloesh’s Fideistic Revelationism 187
A Short Biography of Donald G. Bloesch ......... 187
Revelation and Transcendence ......... 190
Revelation and Religion ......... 193
Revelation and Philosophy ......... 195
Revelation and Salvation ......... 197
Revelation and Ethics ........ 198
Revelation and Hermeneutics ......... 200
Revelation and Apologetics ........ 202
Summary ................................................................................................................ 204
CONCLUSION
8. REFLECTIONS ON THE INQUIRY .......... 207
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 207
The Results of the Inquiry ....... 207
Revelation and Signification ........ 208
Revelation as a Doctrinal system ....... 208
Revelation and Significance .... 210
The Methods of the Inquiry ........ 212
A Hermeneutical Basis ....... 212
An Interdisciplinary Design ....... 213
Specific Methodological Questions 214
The Theology of the Inquiry ....... 216
Exclusiveness or Assertiveness? ........ 216
Mystery and Revelation ....... 217
Dialectics and Discontinuity ....... 218
The Divine Character of Revelation ....... 220
The Final Appeal of Ad Diognetum ....... 221
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 223
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ 237
xxi

xxii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The internal structure of the Inquiry with the two hermeneutical
directions, signification and significance 11
2. Ad Diognetum and the hermeneutical processes 25
3. The six doctrinal parts of Revelational Theology and the centrality of
mystery-revelation 134
4. The multi-model Revelational Theology with the main theological
concepts for each separate model 186
5. Continuity-discontinuity continuum regarding God’s intervention
in the world 219
xxiii

LIST OF OF TABLES ABBREVIA
TIONS
Table Page
1. An outline of the content of Protrepticus,
written by Clement of Alexandria 74
2. “The perfect argument” in Ad Diognetum
and according to Ad Herennium 98
3. The rhetorical structure of Ad Diognetum whith chapters,
categories, contents and character of the main parts in the composition 99
4. Biblical texts to which the author of Ad Diognetum alluded 160
xxiv

ACW
AFa
AFe
ANF
ATR
BAG
BDF
CACSS
CD
CF
ECF
GCS
IER
JCTR
NJBC
OECT
JTS
KL
LCL
LXX
NIV
NPNF
PTS
SCH
SP
SU
TDNT
VG
ZNW
Ancient Christian Writers
The Apostolic Fathers.
De Apostoliske Fedre.
Ante-Nicene Fathers I-IX
Anglican Theological Review
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature.
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi Secundi
Church Dogmatics (Karl Barth)
Christian Foundations (Donald G. Bloesch)
Early Christian Fathers
Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller Der Ersten Jahrhunderte
Irish Ecclesiastical Record
Journal for Christian Theological Research
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary
The Oxford Early Christian Texts
Journal of Theological Studies
Kerygma und Logos
Loeb Classical Library
The Septuagint
New International Version of the Bible
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
Patristische Texte und Studien
Sources Chretiennes
Studia Patristica
Schriften des Urchristentums
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament I-X
Vigiliae Christianae
Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der alteren Kirche.
*For abbreviations on Early Christian writings please consult: Goeffrey W.H. Lampe, (ed.) A
Patristic Greek Lexicon, pp. ix-xliii. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).
**For abbreviations on the Biblical writings and the Classical literature, please consult Gerhard
Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (eds.) TDNT, pp.I:xvi-xl, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1964).
xxv

INTRODUCTION
1

CHAPTER 1
PRESENTATION OF THE INQUIRY
I ask God, who empowers us both to speak and to listen, that I may be enabled to speak in
such a way that you will derive the greatest possible benefit from listening, and that you
may listen in such a way that the speaker will have no regrets. Come then, clear your
mind of all its prejudices and cast aside the custom that deceives you, and become a new
man, as it were, from the beginning, as if you were about to hear a new message, even as
you yourself admit.(1-2.1).
Introduction
In this first chapter, I intend to introduce the reader into the Inquiry. The chapter
consists of three parts. In the first part, I give an account for the methodology behind
this Inquiry. In examining an ancient document, such as the Epistle to Diognetus or Ad
Diognetum, as I prefer do denote it, we are in need of a clear and conscious
methodology. It is also the obligation of every researcher to give an account for the
methodological foundation for a research-program, or an Inquiry like this one. Our
presuppositions and prejudices influence the direction and content of our interpretative
journey. Programmatic transparence is necessary in every step taken on the
interpretative road. Therefore, in this first part of the chapter, I aim to sketch a short
background of the research on Ad Diognetum and introduce the concept of revelation. I
also state the aim and scope of the Inquiry, explain the internal structure and outline of
this investigation. In the second part of the chapter, I shall introduce the reader to the
underlying hermeneutical assumptions of this Inquiry. In an integrative approach, I
designate this as a hermeneutic of signification and significance. In the third part, I will
let the reader be acquainted with the enigmatic text of Ad Diognetum. Here I present
some isagogic problems and solutions or rather proposals and explain some of the
contributing perspectives on the text of Ad Diognetum. Finally, I summarize the content
of Ad Diognetum, so that the reader has an overview of the work and a preliminary
understanding of its message and Revelational Theology.
2

Method and Structure of the Inquiry
The Background of the Inquiry
Ad Diognetum has been called “the noblest of early Christian writings.” 1 Many
scholars have contributed to our understanding of this attractive but enigmatic writing.
In the Post-War period, Henry G. Meecham 2 and Henri-Irénée Marrou 3 have done
excellent research and given us helpful tools in examining this work. As the
Bibliography shows, many valuable articles have also been written. In Scandinavia, this
writing was given particular attention by the Norwegian scholar Einar Molland. 4 It is
the conviction of this present author, that Ad Diognetum deserves attention also in
Sweden. I hope to be able to point out some of its qualities.
In 1975 Rudolf Brändle published a thorough dissertation on Die Ethik der “Schrift
an Diognet.” 5 Brändle identified and analyzed the ethical theme. Another theme has to
do with the concept of revelation. Most scholars agree that the revelational theme is
obvious in Ad Diognetum. Horacio E. Lona has in an outstanding commentary,
extensively and convincingly stated the revelational theme, 6 but none has, as far as I
know, carried out a comprehensive Inquiry into this subject and described and explained
this theme in terms of Revelational Theology. That further step is the object of this
Inquiry.
Many forms of religious discourse presuppose some kind of revelation. In
comparative religion, belief in Divine revelation is central to many traditions and is
supposed to be seen in nature, history, experience, community and conscience. Mircea
1 Joseph B. Lightfoot, Michael W. Holmes, and John R. Harmer (eds.), The Epistle to Diognetus, in
AFa, ed. rev. by M.W. Holmes, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p.529.
2 Henry G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek text with introduction, translation and
notes, Diss. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1949).
3 Henri-Irénée Marrou, A Diognète: Introduction, edition critique, traduction et commentaire, in SCH
33 (Paris: 1951).
4 Einar Molland, ”Brevet til Diognet.” Kirke og kultur 42, (Oslo 1935), pp.547-563 and E. Molland,
DieLiteratur- und dogmengeschichtliche Stellung des Diognetbriefes. Opuscula Patristica, (Oslo 1970),
pp.79-99. Orig. publ. in ZNW xxxiii (1934), pp.289-312.
5 Rudolf Brändle, Die Ethik der “Schrift and Diognet”: Eine Wiederaufnahme Paulinischer und
Johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag,
1975).
6 Horacio E. Lona, An Diognet. Kommentar zu Frühchristichen Apologeten in 12 Bänden. Bd. 8.
(Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2001).
3

Eliade writes on theophanies, hierophanies and ontophanies, expressed in myths, rituals,
places and symbolizing a fundamental belief in Divine self-communication. 7 Eliade
does not separate the three disclosures (phanies). Regardless of how to understand the
Divine (theos), the Sacred (hieros) or the Being (ontos), all three disclosures
communicate absolute reality and establish new reality. “The sacred reveals absolute
reality and at the same time makes orientation possible; hence it founds the world in the
sense that it fixes the limits and establishes the order of the world.” 8 Werner G.
Jeanrond describes this concept of revelation as an epiphanic understanding of
revelation. 9 In this line of thought, many different phenomena can express the Divine
reality. Jeanrond goes on to describe a second more instruction-oriented understanding
of revelation, which transforms and comprehends Divine self-communication in terms
of dogmatic propositions. 10 A third alternative refers to the time of Enlightenment and
express a reductionist understanding of revelation. Here religion is regarded as still a
dark period in the evolutionary process of reason. 11 The real revelation was and still is
the Enlightenment. According to Jeanrond there is a fourth understanding of Divine
Self-communication, not through reasoning or information, but as revelation.
Revelation is here understood as the mode of God’s communication to the world and an
invitation to the salvation of humanity and the welfare of human beings. 12 The four
strands of thought are all represented in Christian theology. To sum up, we found the
epiphanic understanding, the instruction-oriented concept of revelation, the reductionist
tendency and finally the idea of God’s self-communication to the world.
Traditionally Christian systematic theology has admitted a tension between God as a
concealed Mystery and the revealed Truth, between God as hidden (Deus absconditus)
and revealed (Deus revelatus), between God as Being (ousia) and energy (energeia),
between cataphatic and apophatic theology, between natural and revealed religion or
God as disclosing himself in general and/or special revelation. Some modern
7 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion., trans. Willard R.Trask
(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1987).
8 Ibid., p.30.
9 Werner G. Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance, (New York: The
Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001), p.100.
10 Ibid., p.101.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., p.102.
4

theologians try, for example, to remove the difference between general and special
revelation. However, some of them still distinguish between actual and final revelation 13
or revelation through the God of promise and the gods of epiphanies. 14 Here I do not
discuss if it is reasonable or not to uphold these distinctions, but I do underline the
centrality of revelation in the Christian religion. It seems as if the concept of revelation
has returned as a formative principle in Christian theology during the later decades. Due
to the reestablishment of Trinitarian theology, revelation has returned as a starting-point
for the theological enterprise. 15 Against this background, it is of utmost relevance to
investigate this ancient letter among the Greek apologists. 16 It is a treatise that not only
reflects Revelational Theology, but utilizes it as a foundation for presenting the
Christian message and persuading its reader of a Divine surprise and Mystery revealed.
The unknown author of Ad Diognetum proclaimed that the mystery of ages had been
revealed at one single moment in history as God’s foremost self-communicative act.
“No one has either seen or recognized him, but he has revealed himself. And he
revealed himself through faith, which is the only means by which it is permitted to see
God.” (8.5-6)
The Aim and Scope of the Inquiry
In his patrology, Ezra Gebremedhin defines the goal of patristic research. "The task
of patristics consists of an examination, evaluation and exposition of the Church Fathers
literary and theological achievements." 17 In this definition, Gebremedhin points out
three key elements in patristic inquiry: examination, exposition and evaluation. In his
13 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology: Reason and Revelation. Being and God, Vol.1. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1951-1967), p.1:132.
14 Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian
Eschatology, trans. James M. Leitch (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1978), p.42.
15 Ola Sigurdson, Kärlekens skillnad: Att gestalta kristen tro i vår tid, (Stockholm: Verbum Förlag,
1998), p.125.
16 The Greek apologists whose works have survived from the second century are Aristides, Justin
Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. Only fragments have
been preserved of the apologetic works of Quadratus, Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis,
while those of Aristo of Pella and Miltiades have been lost. All these mentioned, together with the author
of Ad Diognetum, comprise the Greek Christian apologists of the second century. Ad Diognetum and the
first six mentioned above are of special interest in this Inquiry.
17 Ezra Gebremedhin, Arvet från kyrkofäderna: Den kristna läroutvecklingen under den patristiska
perioden, (Skellefteå: Artos Bokförlag, 1992), p.16.
5

definition Gebremedhin also focuses on “the Church Fathers literary and theological
achievements.” 18 This undertaking requires both a real foundation in the text itself and a
further reflection on its theological implications.
In reflecting on the research topic, the research question, the research rationale and
the significance of this research and in making a design for the project, I began by
formulating one long sentence that stated a preliminary design:
I am studying the signification and significance of one of the Greek apologetic works
from (probable) the second century, the Epistle to Diognetus (Ad Diognetum), because I
am trying to examine, by means of hermeneutical, contextual, rhetorical, exegetical and
theological analyses, the Revelational Theology in that early Christian work, in order to
understand, describe, explain and evaluate the uniqueness, content and implications of
Revelational Theology, so that we will enhance the Patristic knowledge, learn more of the
early Christian apologists and state the importance of revelation in theology. 19
This sentence summarizes the main ideas behind this Inquiry. For the sake of clarity, I
will restate the research question and the aim of the study. The aim of this Inquiry is to
examine the Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum. Most scholars have discovered its
revelational theme, but none has so far, examined it in terms of a consciously worked
out Revelational Theology. Against this background, the research question becomes
highly relevant and is enlarged and formulated as: how are we to understand, describe,
explain, evaluate and apply the uniqueness, content and implications of Revelational
Theology? In understanding, describing, explaining, evaluating and applying the
Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum we will be able to accomplish the undertaking
of the patristic duties of examination, exposition and evaluation as described earlier and
we will probably take a further step into the domain of application as a natural part of
modern hermeneutics. We may also express the undertaking of this Inquiry in a fourfold
way:
to understand and describe the central position of the theme of revelation and to
explain and evaluate it in terms of Revelational Theology,
to explain and evaluate the configuration of Revelational Theology as a system
of doctrine,
to understand, describe, explain and evaluate the implications of Revelational
18 Ibid.
Theology for the writing as a whole and
19 Torbjörn P.B. Edebol, “Research Proposal for Ph.D. Dissertation,” (Daytona Beach: Atlantic Coast
Theological Seminary, 2012).
6

to evaluate and apply Revelational Theology as a positive challenge and a
contribution to modern theology.
The Internal Structure of the Inquiry
The internal structure of this inquiry puts forward in the concrete methods that I
employ in order to accomplish the stated aim and in answering the formulated research
question. I have followed a traditional methodology recommended by Henry A. Virkler
and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo. 20 This methodology is primarily intended for
examination of biblical texts, but can be utilized on other sacred texts as well. I follow
Virkler and Ayayo, not in a static, but in a flexible way. They recommend six forms of
analysis and all six are present in this Inquiry, but not in the exact order as presented by
Virkler and Ayayo. The procedure will be as follows.
1. Historical-cultural and contextual analysis. This is the historical-cultural milieu, in
which the author wrote and also the context of the entire text, including the entire
passage surrounding it. It contributes to enhance the understanding of the subject
matter. 21 In chapter two, I intend to describe Ad Diognetum as an apologetic work. I
hereby give the reader opportunity to be acquainted with the broader picture of the
situation for Christians during the second century. Christians had to face persecutions
and martyrdom. The apologists entered the stage and defended Christians and
Christianity against false accusations. In chapter two I also clarify that most apologists
not only went into defense, but tried to communicate the Christian faith positively
through the art of protreptics. Apologetics is the broader context and protreptics the
narrower context in our efforts to understand Ad Diognetum. In the last part of chapter
one, I introduce the enigmatic text of Ad Diognetum and relate many valuable isagogic
problems and possibilities. In doing so it becomes clear that there are many entries to
Ad Diognetum and those entries decide the direction of the interpretation.
2. Lexical syntactical analysis. This is the part where definitions of words and their
relationship to one another in syntax become indispensable in the Inquiry. This is the
exegetical part, and it is of foremost importance for this Inquiry. In chapter four, I work
with the Greek text of Ad Diognetum, and I will systematically go through section by
20 Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical
Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2007), p.80. The authors claim they
present a five-point methodology, but as a matter of fact, on page 80 they present a six-point
methodology. I prefer the longer version.
21 Ibid., p.80.
7

section in the revelational part (chapters 7-9). This is the climactic part of the epistle
and highly ornate and sublime in style. I also analyze relevant terminology in order to
understand argumentation.
3. Theological analysis “studies the level of theological understanding at the time a
revelation was given in order to ascertain the meaning of the text for its original
recipients.” 22 In chapter five, I intend to demonstrate the implications of Revelational
Theology and that is to a high degree a theological undertaking. In chapter six, I shall
give some evidence for the statement that Revelational Theology can be understood as
an affirmation of biblical theology. I am well aware of course, that the Bible, as a closed
canonical collection of sacred writings, was not finalized until later. However, essential
themes in Pauline and Johannine theology were restated in Ad Diognetum, and that is
worth paying attention to. I also intend to integrate theological analysis in the
examination in the second part of chapter six when I evaluate the doctrines of
Revelational Theology. Here I employ the Lakatosian program of Nancey Murphy in
evaluating research programs. Murphy has borrowed the main concept from the
philosopher of science Imre Lakatos and has adapted it to theology. Although this way
of integrating theology and science has been criticized, 23 I still find it useful in
evaluating and reconstructing a doctrinal system such as Revelational Theology.
Theological analyses are also highly present in chapter seven. As a matter of fact,
theological analysis, is an inevitable part of the whole Inquiry.
4. Genre identification and analysis. This analysis “identifies the literary form or
method used in a given passage.” 24 In chapter three, I shall describe Ad Diognetum as a
rhetorical work. In deciding that rhetoric is a literary genre of this work we are fortunate
to be able to understand and describe the literary situation, style, structures and
strategies that the author used in communicating his message. From this analysis, we are
able to locate the revelational part and receive some valuable hints on how to interpret
Ad Diognetum.
22 Ibid.
23 Josh A. Reeves, From method to Practice: A Critique of two models relating science to religion.
Diss. (Boston: Boston University Press, 2010).
24 Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, p.80.
8

5. Comparison with other interpreters. This is a comparison of “the tentative
interpretation derived from the four steps above with the work of other interpreters.” 25
Ad Diognetum has attracted the interest of many scholars, and it is a privilege to invite
many of them into the conversation on how to understand verses, sections and parts of
Ad Diognetum and the work as a whole. Even more important is to be able to compare
the interpretative results with scholars contemporary with the unknown author of Ad
Diognetum. These scholars and interpreters of the Christian faith during the second 26
century were known as the apologists. Some of them were Aristides, Justin the Martyr,
Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria, and in chapter
two, I give an account of their main works rather extensively. The purpose is to
compare their apologies with Ad Diognetum. In this way, I will be able to point out
similarities and dissimilarities and better understand the uniqueness of Ad Diognetum
and its Revelational Theology. It is also of importance to get a broad picture of the
achievements of the apologists as a frame of reference for understanding Ad Diognetum.
6. Application. Virkler and Ayayo define application as the “step of translating the
meaning a biblical text had for its original hearers into the significance it has for
believers in a different time and culture.” 27 They are stressing the necessity of
significance. The interpretative task is not accomplished only by stating the intention of
the author or a reasonable interpretation of the text in the past. The text must be present
and generate significance. Virkler and Ayayo admit that a translation of this kind and
application are often excluded from hermeneutics.
Step 6 - transmission and application of the biblical message from one time an culture to
another - is not always considered to be an integral part of hermeneutics per se, but is
included in this text because of its obvious relevance for the twenty-first-century believer
so widely separated by both time and culture from the original recipients of Scripture. 28
This statement is as important as it is relevant. Modern hermeneutics can not only be
limited to the disciplines of isagogics and exegetics. It is much more than so. In this
Inquiry, I emphasize the importance of taking the text into our own time. In order to do
so, and fulfill this ultimate goal, I have included two principal parts. In the second part
of chapter one, I present a hermeneutic of signification and significance. As a
25 Ibid.
26 With most scholars I take for granted that Ad Diognetum was written during the second century.
(Lona, An Diognet, pp.65-66).
27 Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, p.80.
28 Ibid., p.81.
9

theoretical foundation for the Inquiry, I utilize modern hermeneutics. I endeavor to
combine the best of Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutical pluralism with Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s
hermeneutical monism and suggest an integrative approach with the help of the two
concepts of ‘signification’ (that preliminary refers to the author’s intention) and
‘significance’ (that preliminary refers to the application of the text into new contexts).
Signification and significance are the two hermeneutical pillars that stabilize the
foundation of this Inquiry. This inquiry is not just an exegetical project in the field of
patristics, but an interdisciplinary project in trying to catch the direction of
understanding that the author of Ad Diognetum is pointing out with his Revelational
Theology. The message should be able to appropriate not only by the ancient reader(s)
of this treatise, Diognetus and his presumed audience, but hopefully also by the modern
reader in our contemporary Christianity and community. In order to carry out the
application part, as it is understood in this wider sense, I will in chapter seven first of all
examine Avery Dull’s five different models of revelation and show how the
Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum can be classified and related to some of the
models. Finally in chapter seven I shall present an Evangelical theology of revelation by
Donald G. Bloesch. The Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum could be related to
(and maybe also translated into) the revelationism of Bloesch. In doing so I intend to
point out a direction of a wider understanding and enhanced significance. It may on the
one hand, sound presumptuous, but on the other hand, why should we limit the
considerable potential of the text of Ad Diognetum? This internal structure of the
Inquiry, indicates that in chapters one to seven, I simply carry out the practical
hermeneutical program recommended by Virkler and Ayayo. This Inquiry could be
regarded as a hermeneutical project. In figure 1 below, I illustrate the two hermeneutical
directions and the different interpretative and applicative steps.
10

FIGURE 1
The internal structure of the Inquiry with the two hermeneutical directions,
signification and significance.
In this first part of the first chapter, I started out to give a short background of
research on Ad Diognetum and I also introduced the concept of ‘revelation’. Thereafter I
presented the aim and scope of this Inquiry. I also showed the internal structure and
gave an account for the six-step methodology of Virkler and Ayayo that is applied to the
text of Ad Diognetum. I sketched the inner logic of how the findings of this research
project will be presented in eight different chapters along two broad hermeneutical
lines, signification and significance. In so doing I gave an account for the
methodological foundation of the Inquiry. Programmatic transparence is necessary in
every step taken on the interpretative road. I will in this chapter declare more of my
intentions and undertakings. If this part has dealt with practical hermeneutics, we are
now ready to penetrate the theoretical hermeneutics of signification and significance.
11

Hermeneutics of Signification and Significance
In this part of the chapter, I shall give a brief sketch of the hermeneutical programs
of Paul Ricoeur and Kevin J. Vanhoozer. With the help of their contributions, I intend
to lay out an integrative approach or a hermeneutics of signification and significance.
The text of Ad Diognetum with all its problems and possibilities must be interpreted. To
be able to interpret the text, we are in need of hermeneutics or a theory of interpretation.
Hermeneutics is of crucial importance in understanding, describing, explaining and
applying the text of Ad Diognetum. In the end of this part, I also intend to discuss some
elementary hermeneutical processes and explain the complexity of the hermeneutical
project in the Inquiry into Ad Diognetum.
Contributions from Paul Ricoeur
In Greek mythology, Hermes was the messenger of the gods, and as such, he bridged
the gap between the Divine and the human realms. The science of Hermes,
hermeneutics, is still a bridge-building activity that relates the realm of the text to the
realm of people. “By 'hermeneutics' we mean the theory of interpretation." 29 The aim of
hermeneutical reflection is not to replace the reader's ordinary act of approaching the
text, but to help improve such acts by reflecting on the limitations of human
understanding and the possibilities of the text. 30 The term 'hermeneutics' has been used
from the seventeenth century in scriptural exegetics and later in philology. It was in the
nineteenth century that the notion gained prominence, partly due to the rise of historical
consciousness, and the realization that language is conditioned by changing cultural
contexts. 31 Friedrich Schleiermacher, William Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Hans Georg
Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur were some of the influential philosophers in the field of
hermeneutics and their ideas have been decisive in the development of theories of
interpretation.
The history of modern hermeneutics is dominated by two movements. 32 The first
movement is the epistemological that concentrates on the mode of knowing and
29 Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics, p.1.
30 Ibid., p.3.
31 Putti, Theology as Hermeneutics: Paul Ricoeur’s Theory of Text Interpretation and Method in
Theology, (Betesda, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1994), p.168.
32 Ibid., p.168.
12

originates with Schleiermacher, "the father of modern hermeneutics" 33 and continues
with Dilthey. The second movement is ontological, concentrates of the mode of being,
and comes with Heidegger and was proceeded with Gadamer. 34 In his hermeneutical
project, Ricoeur has tried to safeguard and reformulate the insights of both movements.
In Ricoeur, we find a pluriform "fusion of horizons," so that both text and reader, truth
and method, objective knowing and existential being, understanding and explanation,
and structural analysis and creative imagination, are of mutual importance in a dipolar
theory of interpretation. 35 It could be argued that Ricoeur offers a tentative
hermeneutical program. Before we go any further, I would like to sketch the main traits
of Ricoeur's program. Firstly, Ricoeur has emphasized the importance of method in
interpretation, 36 but at the same time, he rejects any totalitarian methodological
claims. 37 Interpretation is not just momentary understanding of the text. To benefit from
the existential aspects of understanding the interpreter has to make use of the linguistic
resources. Understanding without explanation is not possible. Here Ricoeur draws on
structuralism and its interest in texts as systems of communication. However, he is
quick to underline that the text is always more than its structure. Structuralism has
facilitated the scientific investigation of language, but neglected language as discourse
and event. 38 Secondly, Ricoeur's concept of the autonomy of the texts, has opened texts
to a multiplicity of new appropriations through reading, and to an important
depsychologization of understanding. 39 The text as a fixated separate discourse, is free
in relation to the author, the original addressee and the original cultural context. 40
However, it is not that simple. If Ricoeur warns us of the intentional fallacy, he also
warns us of the hypostasizing fallacy to regard the text as an "an authorless entity",
33 Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics, p.44.
34 Putti, Theology as Hermeneutics, pp.168-170.
35 Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics, pp.70-71.
36 Ibid., p.9.
37 Ibid., p.70.
38 Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, (Fort Worth: Texas
Christian University Press, 1976), pp.3-5.
39 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, p.23.
40 Ibid., p.30.
13

"reducing the texts to natural objects." 41 Thirdly, Ricoeur has introduced a
comprehensive critical dimension into the interpretation theory. Hermeneutics is no
longer confined to retrieval, but it comprises also suspicion. Through a series of
explanatory procedures, Ricoeur attempts to correct and validate the acts of
understanding the texts. Thus, interpretation consists not only of understanding
(Verstehen) and explanation (Erklären) but also of evaluation and validation (Deuten). 42
This last movement includes an ethical dimension. Fourthly, in line with Heidegger and
many others after him, Ricoeur understands the hermeneutic circle in a productive way.
We have no objective starting point, but our prejudices and presuppositions could serve
the act of interpretation in a constructive way. "Prejudice is not the opposite pole to
reason without presupposition; it is a component of understanding, linked to the finite
historical character of the human being.” 43 Fifthly, Ricoeur is eager to point out the
polysemic character of words. Words are being used in dialogical situations and
meaning is rendered precise by the context. 44 The meaning of plots, symbols and
metaphors are much more than simple decoration or pure delectation. Literary figures
extend their meaning beyond the factual level. On metaphors Ricoeur states:
Metaphor is living by virtue of the fact that it vivifies a constituted language. Metaphor is
living by virtue of the fact that it introduces the spark of imagination into 'thinking more'
at the conceptual level. This struggle to 'think more' guided by the 'vivifying principle' is
the 'soul' of interpretation. 45
Sixthly, Ricoeur distinguishes between the sense of a text and its reference. 46 It is one
way of justify both the immanent and the transcendent aspects in a multidimensional
understanding of texts. Thus the linguistic level is distinguished from the existential
meaning of a wider world outside the specific texts, but sense and reference can never
be separated. Instead, they enrich each other mutually. Ricoeur states:
Whereas the sense is immanent to the discourse, and objective in the sense of ideal, the
reference expresses the movement in which language transcends itself. In other words,
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid., pp.75-79.
43 Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. trans. John B. Thompson, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981), p.71.
44 Putti, Theology as Hermeneutics, p.187.
45 Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language,
trans. Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin and John Costello, (London: Routledge, 1986), p.303.
46 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, p.100.
14

the sense correlates the identification function and the predicative function within the
sentence, and the reference relates language to the world. It is another name for
discourse's claim to be true. 47
Seventhly. Ricoeur is interested in the reading act as appropriation of a text. The
understanding, explanation, and evaluation prepare and facilitate the appropriation of
texts. The goal of interpretation is achieved, insofar as interpretation actualizes the
meaning of the text for the present reader. 48
As appropriation, interpretation becomes an event. What has to be appropriated is the
meaning of the text itself, conceived in a dynamic way as the direction of thought opened
up by the text. In other words, what has to be appropriated is nothing other then the
power of disclosing a world that constitutes the reference of the text. 49
Thus, interpretation in this last stage could be described as a process that discloses "new
modes of being" or "new forms of life." 50 Here the two movements of hermeneutics, the
epistemological and the ontological converge. The mode of knowing leads to a mode of
being. This convergence is according to Gadamer an application of the text, a real
fusing of horizons "which means that as the historical horizon is projected, it is
simultaneously superseded." 51 Ricoeur has travelled a long distance on the
epistemological road to reach this ontological and existential goal. He has clarified and
legitimized the insights of his predecessors in the field of hermeneutics.
The history of ‘modern’ philosophical hermeneutics began with a theologian,
Friedrich Schleiermacher. He apparently saw that theology was in need of a foundation
in philosophical hermeneutics. In the same way, it could be argued that Ricoeur, has
provided modern theology with a new adequate foundation for hermeneutics. I can see
many theological dimensions in the hermeneutics of Ricoeur that are relevant for our
Inquiry of Ad Diognetum. Here I mention just one crucial concept. The hermeneutics of
Ricoeur has put forward the question of revelation. He states: "revelation, in short, is a
feature of the biblical world proposed by the text." 52 The Bible or other sacred texts
47 Ibid., p.20.
48 Ibid., p.92.
49 Ibid., p.94.
50 Ibid., p.94.
51 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, transl. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2nd
ed., (London: Sheed & Ward, 2001), p.307.
52 Paul Ricoeur, Essays of Biblical Interpretation, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p.104.
15

contains revelation in so far as it unfolds the new world or the new being, before us. 53
The strength of theories like Ricoeur's is “they give meaning to religious language
within the context of human experience…” 54 The reader does not have to make an a
priori philosophical decision whether the text contains transcendent revelation or a
subjective experience of meaning. The surplus of meaning in the text is taken for
granted and revelation is just beneath the surface. Ricoeur advocates "a polysemic and
polyphonic concept of revelation", just as we in the Bible find prophetic, descriptive,
hymnic, poetic discourse as well as wisdom discourse. 55 These original and manifold
literary expressions make the diversity of revelation possible. 56 The idea of revelation
presupposes the secrecy of God. "The God who reveals himself is a hidden God and
hidden things belong to him…The one who reveals himself is also the one who conceals
himself.” 57 Ricoeur is critical to a concept of revelation that is limited to "a body of
truths" or a "form of authority." 58 The mystery of God and the richness of meaning are
guarded against all totalitarian claims. Instead of securing the concept of revelation
through verification, Ricoeur prefers to "seek the traits of a truth capable of being
spoken of in terms of manifestation..." 59 Manifestations are cardinal experiences in our
life histories and in world history. Ricoeur justifies the use of the word ‘revelation’ 60 in
53 Ibid.
54 Philip Clayton, The Problem of God in Modern Thought, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2000), p.14.
55 Ricoeur, Essays of Biblical Interpretation, p. 92.
56 Ibid., pp.73-118. In this chapter entitled Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation, Ricoeur
presents his thoughts on revelation. Ricoeur here repeats the old statement lex orandi lex credendi (what
we confess is what we believe). He differentiates between five different types of discourse in the Bible;
prophetic, narrative, prescriptive, wisdom and hymnic discourse. Revelation is given in different
modalitites. A hermeneutic of revelation must give priority to those modalitites of discourse that are most
originary within the language of a community of faith. Ricoeur hesitates to make truth claims and states
that “to say that the God who reveals himself is a hidden God is to confess that revelation can never
constitute a body of truths which an institution may boast of or take pride in possessing.” (Ricoeur,
Essays of Biblical Interpretation, pp.95). Instead Ricoeur pleas for the testimony instead of dogma or
doctrine. Historical testimony has priority over self-consciousness but in a complementary dialectic and
reflective process between the Divine and the witness to a certain manifestation, revelation can appear
and it results in primarily new self-understanding.
57 Ibid., p.93.
58 Ibid., p.95.
59 Ibid., p.96.
16

this non-religious way and argues that by so doing, he restores the concept of biblical
revelation to its full dignity. 61 It is the "issue" of the text unfolded in front of the text
Ricoeur designates as "a new creation, a new Covenant, the Kingdom of God..." 62 Now
revelation no longer becomes "an unacceptable pretension, but a non-violent appeal." 63
It is fascinating to read Ad Diognetum and recognize how the unknown author is keen
on giving prominence to the fact that when God sent His Son, he chose a “non-violent”
approach. The author of Ad Diognetum writes in 7.3-4:
But perhaps he sent him, as a man might suppose, to rule by tyranny, fear, and terror?
Certainly not! On the contrary, he sent him in gentleness and meekness, as a king might
send his son who is a king; he sent him as God; he sent him as man to man. When he sent
him, he did so as one who saves by persuasion, not compulsion, for compulsion is no
attribute of God.
Contributions from Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Kevin J. Vanhoozer wrote his doctoral dissertation on Biblical Narrative in the
Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur. 64 Anthony Thiselton designates it as “one of the finest
studies of Ricoeur up to 1990…” 65 Vanhoozer has a thorough understanding of the
hermeneutical philosophy of Ricoeur and from that point of departure he has developed
his own hermeneutical approach. Vanhoozer develops his hermeneutical program in his
programmatic study Is There a Meaning in the Text? 66 He does so in contrast to
60 According to Ricoeur, a general feature of texts is that they have a revealing capacity and power.
When it comes to the question if there is a difference between the biblical text and its Kerygma on the one
hand, and other texts with an existential message of life and death, on the other hand, Ricoeur shows a
slight tendency to take side with the latter existential interpretation. “Does Ricoeur’s philosophy try to
capture and express the particular and unique Christian kerygma, or does it use the Christian kerygma to
illustrate a general ontology and anthropology that is ultimately independent of Christianity?” (Kevin J.
Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology,
Diss. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], p.285). The greatness of Ricoeur from a general
hermeneutical point of view, is his rehabilitation of texts and his firm belief in the texts’ capacity to
convey revelation and transcendence into the world. The weakness of Ricoeur from an Evangelical
Christian point of view, is his ambiguity concerning the status of the biblical texts as Holy Scripture and
their reference to real Salvation history.
61 Ricoeur, Essays of Biblical Interpretation, p.104.
62 Ibid., p.103.
63 Ibid., p.117.
64 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics
and Theology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
65 Anthony C. Thiselton. Hermeneutics: As Introduction, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2009), p. 248.
66 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in the Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of
Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
17

deconstructivism and in relying on the speech-act theory of John L. Austin. “What
started out as a work in hermeneutic theology has become a book on theological
hermeneutics.” 67 Vanhoozer came to realize that questions of biblical interpretation or
interpretation of sacred texts, deal with questions of reality (ontology), knowledge
(epistemology) and theology (metaphysics) and he became increasingly convinced that
“many of the contentious issues at the heart of current debates about biblical
interpretation, about interpretation in general, and about postmodern interpretation in
particular, were really theological issues.” 68 In presenting his theological hermeneutics,
Vanhoozer, is well aware that hermeneutic has to include theology as well as
philosophy.
Central to Vanhoozer’s hermeneutical program are the three concepts, locution,
illocution and perlocution. Vanhoozer has borrowed 69 them from Austin who
distinguished between three kinds of linguistic acts: 70 (1) the locutionary act: uttering
words and, for example, saying ‘Good morning’; (2) the illocutionary act: what we do
in saying something as for example greeting, promising, commanding and so on; (3) the
perlocutionary act: what we bring about by saying something as for example
persuading, surprising or provoking someone. Vanhoozer explains the advantage of
Austin's theory:
Whereas locution has to do with a sign system or language, illocutions and perlocutions
have to do with sentences, with language in action or parole. The notion of the
illocutionary act enables Austin to distinguish between the content of what we say (e.g.
the sense and reference of our sentence) and its force (i.e. what we are using the content
of our sentence to do). Austin’s all-important notion of illocution requires us, I believe, to
bring to the fore the speaker’s (or author’s) role as agent. The speaker is a doer. 71
In applying Austin’s speech-act theory Vanhoozer attaches the text to the author. The
text does not exist in total autonomy. It is rather connected to the author and the author
cannot be separated from the text. By emphasizing the illocutionary act Austin and
Vanhoozer succeed in proving that the act that is done by the text can not be confined to
the text, it rather transcends it. He maintains that the act is generated by the text and in
67 Ibid., p.9.
68 Ibid.
69 Also Ricoeur borrowed several ‘performative’ concepts from Austin’s speech-act theory. Ricoeur,
Interpreation Theory, p.14.
70 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in the Text?, p.209.
71 Ibid.
18

that way it is still closely connected to the text. In pointing to the action(s) and act(s) of
a text, meaning is performed and thus created. Meaning is not invented in the text, but
performed by the text as intended by the author.
A text is a complex communicative act done in the past that may nevertheless produce
present effects. The text is both a completed communicative project and a projectile that
has the potential to enter into and make a difference in the life-world of its readers. 72
Even though Vanhoozer in clear contrast to Ricoeur’s hermeneutical pluralism, takes
the position of hermeneutical monism, 73 he rejects metaphysical monism that argues
that “meaning is simple” and a premature and naive monism that “too quickly identifies
one particular interpretation with the single correct interpretation”. 74 Vanhoozer
maintains the ideal of seeking the author’s intention, but admits that “even those for
whom the author’s intention is an interpretative norm, then, must continue to reckon
with plurality.” 75 Instead of hermeneutical pluralism, Vanhoozer applies the concept of
significance. “To read for the original meaning only is to confine the text to its own
time. Understanding, as we have seen, is more than mere duplication or repetition.” 76
Similar to Ricoeur’s idea of ‘the surplus of meaning” in texts, Vanhoozer also asks for
the ‘abundance’ through the text, but he does so in his own characteristic and coherent
way:
By speaking of ‘abundance’ I wish to emphasize how the original meaning continues to
be meaningful today. The Spirit’s role, I will argue, is not to change the meaning, but to
charge it with significance. Scripture remains relevant (1) through the continuation of its
illocutionary and perlucutionary effects, and (2) by relating the original content to new
contexts. 77
Vanhoozer describes interpretation of discourse as a covenant between the word of
the author and the world of the reader. The text is a concrete seal and sign of the
communicative rights and responsibilities, “the ark of the covenant discourse.” 78 A text
is a bond of a covenant. It is communicative action fixed in writing. The communicative
matter (propositional content) and energy (illocutionary force) are inscribed. Genuine
72 Ibid., p.226.
73 Ibid., p.417.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., p.421.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid., p.229.
19

interpretation conserves textual matter and energy. Vanhoozer likens the text to a
“semantic sacrament” 79 that mediates the other: the author’s vision of the world. In a
covenant both parts have responsibilities and this is the ethical motive in hermeneutics.
On the one hand the interpreter has a duty to honor the text, give credit to its author and
allow himself to be challenged by the text. On the other hand, in remaining in this
covenant, the interpreter has the privilege of “covenantal freedom” 80 that opens up for
creative hermeneutics. Vanhoozer describes this freedom:
Indeed, readers are required to be creative when it comes to applying or extending the
word to new situations. Most important, perhaps, the interpreter is free for the other.
Interpretation is itself an exercise of the reader’s freedom for the text…Readers are free,
finally, to receive or reject a message not of their own making. The world of the text
invites, but does not coerce, the reader to inhabit it. Moreover, in our encounter with the
text as other, we escape from ourselves and our everyday world and are freed to enter
new worlds and so to be transformed. We do not lose our freedom by understanding
others. Indeed, true freedom occurs when we are able to go beyond ourselves, when we
are open to transformation. 81
Vanhoozer represents what is generally known as hermeneutical realism. Here
meaning in the text is discovered rather than made. 82 “The interpreter witness is not an
observer of the past (not an eyewitness) but one who testifies to the reality,
intelligibility, and efficacy of past communicative action.” 83 This reality-orientation
serves at communicative stability and trust. The reality of the text promotes not only
knowledge, but practice and reality of life. “For it is one thing to acquire knowledge of
the text, quite another to respond to it rightly. The ability to follow the word, from page
to practice, is ultimately a matter of wisdom.” 84 Vanhoozer denotes this wisdom as
“knowledge appropriated” and “lived knowledge.” 85
Vanhoozer underlines that reading is an ethical activity. More important, what is an
ethical reading? How do we know that we deal with understanding and not
overstanding, with sound exegetics instead of eisegetics? Vanhoozer answers that
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid., p.435.
81 Ibid. pp.435-436.
82 Ibid., p.440.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid. p.437.
85 Ibid.
20

eaders have “a twofold responsibility towards the text: to determine to what kind of
communicative act a text belongs, and to respond to this communicative act in an
appropriate manner.” 86 A text whose primarily perspective is theological can be
expected to provoke a theological genre of reading. A responsible response to the text is
“to walk the middle way between conformity and creativity, neither slavishly repeating
nor freely inventing”. It is in the end all about “a creative obedience.” 87 Finally
Vanhoozer argues that his theological hermeneutics is guided by the main teachings of
the Christian heritage.
For me, interpretation is the positive attempt to recover the author’s enacted intention, in
all its complexity, and to relate it to the present. The doctrines of creation, Incarnation,
revelation, and reconciliation are the main theological ideas that inspire and govern my
approach. 88
An Integrative Approach
We may summarize Ricoeur’s hermeneutical objective by reminding of his ambition
to show that a literary structure and unit is not closed in itself, but reaches out, touches
the heart and mind of the reader and transforms the world of the reader. 89 From Ricoeur
I have learned to appreciate the potential of the text and understand the art of
interpretation as finding the direction of the text. This is the work of application. The
reader exposes himself to the text. It is not enough to explain the text, but to “decide
what it means today, and how it impinges on the individual and on society.” 90 Ricoeur
regard application as something that penetrates every hermeneutic project. He writes
that “application is not a contingent appendix added on to understanding and
explanation, but an organic part of every hermeneutic project.” 91 As we saw, Ricoeur
does not hesitate to use the language of ‘revelation’ when he describes the unfolding
possibilities of the text. On the contrary he draws on famous biblical concepts such as
“a new creation, a new Covenant, the Kingdom of God,” but he does so in a seemingly
86 Ibid. p.395.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid., p.458.
89 Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, p.233.
90 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in the Text?,p.375.
91 Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 3, trans., Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer, (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988), p.3:158.
21

non-religious way. 92 Ricoeur’s manifestation-oriented understanding of language and
literature is a great achievement. The new “self-understanding” of the reader is an
important goal for the hermeneutical task. Thiselton is certainly right in stating that
“certainly Ricoeur seems to give the reader a more active role than the text.” 93 The
emphasis on the reading act, the appropriation and application of the text and its
revelatory potential are important insights.
We may summarize Vanhoozer’s hermeneutical objective as an ambition to honor
the text and its richness and to show fidelity to the author's intention. If Ricoeur’s
hermeneutic indicates a reader-orientation, we may say that Vanhoozer’s hermeneutics
indicates a text-orientation. In contrast to the postmodern tendency to deconstruct the
text, Vanhoozer boldly defends “the belief that we can come to know something other
than ourselves when we peer into the mirror of the text.” 94 Here the text offers more
than self-understanding. It is able to convey the rich Christian heritage and disclose
truths about God, man and the world. Vanhoozer reminds us of the importance to rely
on and honor the text and relate to it in an ethical and responsible way. After all, words
like author, authority and authentic have something in common and that is the sign of
reliability. 95
Now someone may ask: why these roundabout ways through modern hermeneutics
instead of going straight on to the ancient text itself? I shall give a threefold answer.
Firstly, there are no ‘straight on’ strategies to the text. As an interpreter you must give
an account for your methodology in dealing with the text. Secondly, there are many
interesting theories, but you always have to limit yourself to those interpretative
strategies that are ethical, promote the text, are useful and fit the research design.
Thirdly, I am concerned with the text as it has come down to us through the centuries,
but this text ought to be understood and applied in a way that optimizes its relevance.
In choosing Ricoeur and Vanhoozer, I have consciously built in a fruitful tension
between a serious and general hermeneutic perspective that centers on creating new
meaning and a more articulated and conservative Christian theory of interpretation. A
92 Ricoeur, Essays of Biblical Interpretation, p.103.
93 Thiselton, Hermeneutics, p.253.
94 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in the Text?, p.31.
95 Ibid., p.46.
22

hermeneutic of signification and significance is one way of combining the achievements
of Ricoeur and Vanhoozer. Both of them argue that the text as sign should not be mixed
up with what it refers to (Ricoeur) or with that we actually do in saying something in the
illocutionary act (Vanhoozer). However, both of them show great interest in the original
text and both of them believe in the great potential of the text and the necessity of
application. To be more specific, we may say that the term ‘signification’ should be
interpreted in line with Vanhoozer’s perspective as ‘the intended meaning of the text in
spite of all its complexity’. The term refers to both single words or signs, but also to
sentences. Both Ricoeur and Vanhoozer have reminded us that meaning is disclosed
through sentences, but is not confined to a given logic of structural textuality. Meaning
cannot be reduced to the number of signs in a sentence. Meaning is always more than
that. The intended meaning is not necessarily only the literal meaning. Signification
could very well include both the intended literal and intended symbolic meaning.
Ricoeur defines symbolic meaning as “any structure of signification in which a direct,
primary, literal meaning designates, in addition, another meaning which is indirect,
secondary, and figurative and which can be apprehended only through the first.” 96 In
this understanding of signification it is also possible to include Ferdinand de Saussure’s
synchronic definition of language so that “in a given state of language, the same word
has several meanings.” 97 The author of a text could consciously and artistically play
with words within the framework of an intended meaning. Signification does not mean
simplification. It is rather the readers curious, complex and intentional activity to find
the authors intention through all his or hers literary strategies. Intentionality is a
characteristic of all human activities and so also human writing and literary production.
However, intention is here not understood as designating the authors “inner mental
processes”, but rather “the author's aim.” 98
The term ‘significance’ should be interpreted in line with Ricoeur’s perspective as
‘the application of the text into new contexts creating new worlds of understanding’.
The term has much in common with Vanhoozer’s notion of creative significance in
general and Ricoeur’s new modes of knowing and being in particular, but stretches the
notion further to the revealing capacity of letting in even more aspects than those
96 Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretation: Essays in Hermeneutics, ed. trans. Don Ihde, (New York:
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004), p.12.
97 Ibid., p.66.
98 Thiselton, Hermeneutics, p.160.
23

connected to the human subjectivity and opening up for Divine transcendence and
modes of believing. A sacred text like Ad Diognetum, with its condensed Christian
message, even though it is not inspired as Holy Scripture, certainly has that capacity.
In the preceding section we noticed that Vanhoozer relied on the speech-act theory
of Austin. Now there are evidences that allow us to understand Ad Diognetum as a
discourse or a speech. Traditionally commentators have designated it as a literary work,
an epistle or a tract. It certainly is a fine piece of literature, but there are some
indications that help us to understand Ad Diognetum as a transcript or manuscript of a
speech. In the first chapter the author writes:
…I ask God, who empowers us both to speak and to listen, that I may be enabled to
speak in such a way that you will derive the greatest possible benefit from listening, and
that you may listen in such a way that the speaker will have no regrets (emphasis mine).
While most of the early Christian apologetic literature was written up and then sent to
different authorities and officials, it seems as if Ad Diognetum is an exception. “Ad
Diognetum appears to be the transcript of an oral address delivered in the presence of
the addressee.” 99 The communicative matter (propositional content) and energy
(illocutionary force) are inscribed and embodied in the text. Genuine interpretation
conserves textual matter and energy derived from the original speech-act.
99 Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and
the Author of Ad Diognetum, J. Frey (ed.) in Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,
186, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), p.103.
24

FIGURE 2
Ad Diognetum and the hermeneutical processes.
Now as illustrated in figure 2 above, we have an address and a text, two separate, but
still related units. We have the author who turns to the addressee, which is Diognetus
and maybe a wider audience in the Greco-Roman society. The author does not only look
forward. He also looks back and ponders the main message, the revelation event and he
refers Diognetus to the same event and to “see and understand” (8.11) the signification
and significance of the great revelation and redemption accomplished through the Son
of God. Later generations have read Ad Diognetum and made their own interpretations
with new significance, but still the words of the author and the signification of the text
have been there from time to time into our modern era. Apart from some textual
damages and lacunas in the text, a reader today will reflect on the same text and grasp
the same message, but in a different temporal and spatial context. A modern reader has
probably different needs, questions and motives compared to Diognetus. However, the
message is still there to appropriate and apply. These are some of the hermeneutical
25

processes 100 and they help us to anticipate the far-reaching implications of the
hermeneutics that I have given an account for in this chapter.
One advantage of this hermeneutic is related to difficult texts. In chapter three and
four of Ad Diognetum the author attacks the Jewish cult and customs in a polemic and
degrading way. Instead of softening and explaining away the seriousness of the matter,
this hermeneutic help us to do full justice to the signification of the text in stating what
it really means, even though it contradicts our own ethic. However, when it comes to
the significance of the text, we are free to (and also obliged to) criticize the text and to
reduce its negative consequences. In separating signification and significance we have a
specially designed hermeneutic that facilitates both our interpretation and application of
the text. From a methodological point of view one may say that a definite separation
between signification and significance does not do justice to the inner dynamics of
interpretation. That is partly true. Figure 2 illustrates an integrative circular approach,
which takes into consideration both our ambition to honor the text and to enhance
meaning. This hermeneutic is creative as well as constructive, but also critical. What I
here have designated as a hermeneutics of signification and significance sums up this
chapter and the Inquiry as a whole.
In this second part of the chapter, I started out to introduce two important
contributions in hermeneutical theory. We first learned to know some of the key
achievements of Paul Ricoeur and Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Then we were introduced to an
integrative hermeneutical approach in order to lay an appropriate theoretical foundation
for this Inquiry. With the help of thought elements of Ricoeur and Vanhoozer, I utilized
the concepts of signification and significance in securing the importance of the text and
its intended meaning and the importance of the reader and the application of the text
into new contexts creating new worlds of understanding. Finally I discussed some
elementary hermeneutical processes as illustrated in figure 2.
The Enigmatic Text of Ad Diognetum
In this third part of the chapter we concentrate on the historical text of Ad
Diognetum. I begin with introducing the text and its peculiar way through history and
discuss its integrity. Then I shall explain the style, genre and title of the text and move
on to the difficult questions on authorship, addressee and date of the text. I also
100 The processes illustrated in this figure capture some of the basic ideas in ”The Hermeneutic
Question,” in Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, pp.377-384.
26

introduce some prominent scholars such as Einar Molland, Henry G. Meecham, Henri-
Irénée Marrou, Dom P. Andriessen, Leslie W. Barnard, Richard H. Connolly, Horatio
E. Lona and Charles E. Hill to suggest how they prefer to solve the isagogic problems.
Finally I present some general assumptions concerning the text of Ad Diognetum and
summarize the content. Let us now start with the text per se as it has come down to us
through the centuries.
Isagogic Issues
Ad Diognetum is unique among patristic work of distinction, due to the fact that we
find no references to it in the writings of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church. We
search in vain for information on this writing, at least under its present title, in the
Church histories of Eusebius, 101 Socrates, 102 or Sozomen. 103 Moreover, for the text of
the work, we are dependent of transcripts, and printed editions from one single
Medieval manuscript that no longer exists. 104
The history of the text is as romantic as it is obscure. The following facts seem
however to be established. 105 In the beginning of the fifteenth' century an unknown
codex was found in a fish-market in Constantinople. It came into the hands of the
Hebraist Johannis Reuchlin and found its way, about A.D. 1560, to the monastery of
Mauersmünster in Alsace. Sometime between 1793 and 1775 it became the property of
the municipal library of Strasbourg. From the ancient name Argentoratum of that town
the manuscript received the title Codex Argentoratensis Graecus 9 (A). That codex
contained five treatises ascribed to Justin Martyr. Ad Diognetum came in the fifth place
in the order and was followed by other manuscripts, written in the thirteenth or
fourteenth centuries. On August 24, 1879, during the French-German war, the library
and codex were destroyed by fire. In the sixteenth century three manuscripts were
101 Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History, 2 vols., in LCL 153, 265, ed. George P. Goold, trans.
Kirsopp Lake and John E.L. Oulton, rear., (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1926).
102 Socrates, “The Ecclesiastical History,” in NPNF, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), pp.2:1-178.
103 Sozomen, “The Ecclesiastical History,” in NPNF, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), pp.2:179-427.
104 Eugene Fairweather, “The So-called Letter to Diognetus,” in ECF, ed. Cyril C. Richardson
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1913), pp.205-224.
105 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus and Sören Giversen, De Apostoliske Faedre 2 i oversettelse
med indledning og noter, (Köpenhavn: Museum Tuscalanums Forlag, 1949).
27

made. 106 One of these is the editio princeps of 1592 by Henricus Stephanus (Henri
Estienne), available in Leyden as Codex Graec.Voss., Q.30. It was based on an earlier
copy made in 1586 by Stephanus. In 1590 a second copy was made by Johannes J.
Beurer of Freiburg. This transcript has perished, but some of its readings appear as an
appendix to Stephanus edition of 1592. A third copy was made in 1580 by Bernhard
Haus and rediscovered in 1880 at Tübingen and is now known as Codex Misc. Tübing.,
M.b.17. In 1879 Johann C.T. Otto published his third edition of Corpus Apologetarum
Christianorum Saeculi Secundi. Fortunately, this edition was twice collated with the
original manuscript in Strasbourg by competent scholars. This was done in 1842 by
Eduard Cunitz and in 1862 by Eduard Reuss. By comparing different conjectures it was
possible to arrive at a reasonable understanding of the text, although the original text
was defective in some places. There are two obvious lacunae at 7.7 and 10.8 and
apparently also at 10.1. I shall try to answer some questions on textual criticism in due
course in the interpretation of the text. To sum up, today we have the editio princeps of
1592, the Tübingen manuscript of 1580 and the Strasbourg manuscript, a reliable
edition of the Medieval text, made by Otto in 1879.
The Integrity of the Text
The original manuscript had the following note after the lacuna at 10.8: "and here the
copy (emphasis mine) had a break." 107 Several scholars regard the two last chapters
eleven and twelve as a separate unit. 108 There are obvious differences between the two
parts (1-10 and 11-12). In the first place there is a difference in perspective. The first
part is addressed to a private person, who occupied a high social position and was
interested in religious matters. The second part is presumably addressed to catechumens
and Christians in established Church life. 109 Secondly, there is a difference in content.
106 Kirsopp Lake, The Epistle to Diognetus, in AFa and LCL 25 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1913), p. 349 and Eugene R. Fairweather, “The So-called Letter to Diognetus,”in ECF,
ed. C.C.Richardson, (Philadelphia, 1953), p.206.
107 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.64.
108 See for example Henry Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, pp.64-68, Walter Eltester, Das
Mysterium des Christentums. Anmerkungen zum Diognetbrief, ZNW, 61 (Giessen 1970), pp.278-293,
Klaus Wengst, Schrift an Diognet: Eingeleitet, herausgaben, übertragen und erläutert , SU, (München:
Kösel Verlag, 1984) and Rudolf Brändle, Die Ethik der “Schrift and Diognet”: Eine Wiederaufnahme
Paulinischer und Johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1975).
109 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.64.
28

The first part contains a sharp criticism of the Jewish cult and community. It has no
direct references to the Old Testament writings and does not give any evidence of
interpretative techniques. The second part contains references to the Law and the
Prophets (11.6), the allegory of the tree of Life and the typology on Eve and Mary
(12.3, 12.8). 110 Thirdly, there are stylistic divergences. In the first part we find rhetorical
figures, the use of synonyms and plenty of particles, but in the second part we enter into
an (Easter) homily characterized by asianism and followed by a doxology in 12.9. 111
Fourthly, the three introductory questions are all answered in the first part. The
argumentation is complete. The second part could therefore be regarded as an appendix.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the appendix has another author. Actually
it could have been written by the same author who has written chapters one to ten, but
under quite different circumstances. 112
Richard H. Connolly argued in a couple of articles in 1935-1936 convincingly for the
view that the two last chapters of Ad Diognetum have come from the hand of
Hippolytus and that they formed the lost end of his Philosophumena. 113 He mentioned
several good arguments from style and content and it is hard to neglect Connolly's
careful study. 114 A few years later, in 1940, Campbell Bonner raised the question as to
whether chapters eleven to twelve once were a part of a homily by Melito of Sardes. 115
Melito belonged to the same theological school as Hippolytus. Meecham summarized
the discussion thus far as follows: "The evidence gleaned is too meager to establish the
authorship of Diognetus xi-xii by Melito. But that the author belongs to the school of
thought represented in Melito and Hippolytus seems certain." 116
110 Ibid.
111 Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, p.287.
112 L.W. Barnard, “The Enigma of the Epistle to Diognetos.” Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their
Background, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), pp.165-173.
113 Richard H. Connolly, “The Date and Authorship of the Epistle to Diognetus,” in JTS 36, (Oxford,
1935), pp.347-353.
114 Ibid., and R.H. Connolly, “Ad Diognetum XI-XII,” in JTS 37 (Oxford, 1936), pp.2-15.
115 Campbell Bonner, The homily on the passion by Melito bishop of Sardis and some fragments of the
apocryphal Ezekiel, in Studies and documents 12, (London: Christophers, 1940), pp.60-61.
116 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.67.
29

In 1966 Leslie W. Barnard came up with another proposal for solving the integrity
problem. 117 Just as Harrison once had shown that Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians
comprised two distinct works by Polycarp, so it is possible to assume and demonstrate
that the two parts of Ad Diognetum were written in different situations and times by one
and the same author. 118 "The differences in milieu and audience addressed in Chs.i-x
and xi.xii also account for the differences in subject matter in the two sections." 119 We
should not dismiss Barnard's thoughtful arguments as indications of mere conservatism.
It could be argued that both parts of Ad Diognetum contain what I have designated as
‘Revelational Theology’, at least in a formal sense. It is still a question if both parts also
contain Revelational Theology in a material sense. How this presumed result finally
affects the integrity of Ad Diognetum is another question that we will return to a little
later in this presentation.
Style, Genre and Title
The writing consists of 698 words, excluding pronouns, proper names and the article.
Of those 664 are classical words and that is 98 percent of the total sum. 120 The literary
style is graceful and elegant. The author uses rhythmic, contrasts, metaphors, antitheses,
rhetorical figures, simplicity of thought and an ordered disposition. 121 The reader of Ad
Diognetum probably agree with Quasten when he states:
The epistle deserves to rank among the most brilliant and beautiful works of Christian
Greek literature. The writer is a master of rhetoric, his sentence structure full of charm
and subtly balanced, his style limpid. The content reveals a man of fervent faith and wide
knowledge, a mind of thoroughly imbued with the principles of Christianity. The diction
sparkles with fire and vitality. 122
Ad Diognetum is often included in modem editions of the Apostolic Fathers. In 1765
Andrea Gallandi discovered that in 11.1 the author called himself a “disciple of the
117 Barnard, “The Enigma of the Epistle to Diognetos,” pp.165-167.
118 Ibid., p.166.
119 Ibid., p.168.
120 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p 9.
121 Ibid., pp.13-15.
122 Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 4 vols. (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics Inc., 1992) ,
pp.1:251-251.
30

apostles.” 123 This expression does not necessarily mean that the author was a disciple to
the twelve apostles in the formal sense of the word. The expression could also be
understood in a wider sense to mean 'one that is guarding and standing in the apostolic
tradition’. 124 However, Gallandi seems to have interpreted the expression literally and
after him Ad Diognetum has been included among the Apostolic Fathers. However, in
most patrologies our writing is reckoned among the apologists. 125 The genre is
apologetic and the great literary example of this genre was Plato's apology on behalf of
Socrates, although the Christian apologists in general did not write exclusively in a
spirit of defense as did Plato. They were dependant upon Jewish apologetics represented
by Philo 126 and Josephus. 127 According to Harry A. Wolfson, the Christian apologists
borrowed the main argument from Philo. The most common arguments were connected
with:
miracles
fulfillment of prophecy
the excellence of the Christian teaching and
the universal spread of Christianity. 128
The Christian apologists had also received a large portion of inspiration from the
apostle Paul, and early missionary preaching. 129 The author of Ad Diognetum, employs
the epistolary form for an apologetic purpose. 130 The writing has been regarded as an
official tract or a public epistle, and not just an ordinary private letter. 131 It can not even
123 ἀποστόλων γενόμενος μαθητὴς.
124 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.136.
125 See for example Berthold Altaner and Alfred Stuiber (eds.), Patrologie: Leben, Schriften und Lehre
der Kirchenväter, 8th ed. (Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1978) and “Table of Contents” in Quasten,
Patrology, I:ix-xii.
126 Philo.hyp.
127 Joseph.ap. Se also Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1988), p. 11 and Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in
the First Three Centuries, trans. James Moffatt, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), pp.12-14.
128 Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Vol. 1. Faith, Trinity, Incarnation,
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1956), p.19-22.
129 Oskar Skarsaune, “Den Tidigaste Apologetiska Litteratur,” in AFe, eds. Einar Baasland and Reidar
Hvalvik, (Oslo: Luther Forlag, 1984), p. 212 and Grant, Greek Apologists, pp.23-24.
130 Lightfoot et al., p.529.
31

e compared to the apostle Paul's or Ignatius’ letters. One should observe the absence of
epistolary greetings and phrases. 132 Theophilus of Antioch wrote Ad Autolycem and
Tertullian wrote Ad Scapula, both in epistolary form, but with a wider scope in mind.
We are to understand Ad Diognetum in the same way. 133 Therefore I find it more
appropriate to entitle it A Diognete as Marrou or der Schrift an Diognet as Brändle, than
to use the common designation epistle or letter. 134 This is the reason way I prefer the use
of the Latin title Ad Diognetum or imply To Diognetus or even better To Diognetos to
clarify the Greek form of the name. This designation is congenial with the original title
ρος ιογνητον. 135
Authorship, Addressee and Date
The isagogic problems on authorship, addressee and date of Ad Diognetum are under
present circumstances unsettled and unsolvable. However, we are not thrown into the
darkness of absolute relativism. There are some serious proposals that shed light on
these problems and make it possible for us to recapture some possible, reasonable and
probable solutions. The enigma connected with Ad Diognetum has puzzled scholars for
centuries and more or less feasible hypotheses on the author, addressee and date have
been forwarded. Marrou has listed most of the hypotheses, ranging between a terminus
a qou at A.D.70 and a terminus ad quem at A.D.311. 136 A similar list of possible dates
is presented by Lona. 137 Space does not allow us to account for all of these proposals. I
have chosen four hypotheses that have been proposed in the last century by well-known
scholars. All of them have advocates in our time.
In 1934 Molland wrote an enlightening article entitled Die literatur- und
dogmengeschichtliche Stellung des Diognetbriefes. 138 On the basis of external and
131 Marrou, A Diognète, p.92.
132 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.7.
133 Marrou, A Diognète, p.92.
134 Marrou and Brändle.
135 Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, p.291. Please observe the original title .
and EPISTVLA was added by Stephanus in 1592 as an “interpretative” designation. J.C.T.
Otto, Epistula ad Diognetum, CACSS, 3, 3d. ed. (Jena, 1879), pp.159-210.
136 Marrou, A Diognète, pp.242-243.
137 Lona, Ad Diognet, pp.65-66.
32

internal criteria, Molland established a connection between our writing and the early
apologists such as the Apology of Aristides and Kerygma Petri. 139 He also identified a
strong Pauline influence on the author's soteriology. 140 Molland came to the tentative
conclusion that Diognetus was the tutor of Marcus Aurelius. 141 In his Meditations the
Emperor had written the following words on what he had learned from his tutors:
From Diognetus, not to be taken up with trifles; and not to give credence to the statement
of miracle-mongers and wizards about incantations and the exorcizing of demons, and
suchlike marvels; and not to keep quails, nor to be excited about such things. 142
The "miracle-mongers" and the "exorcizing of demons" can be references to Christians,
just as the opposition of "stage-heroics" in another chapter of Meditations refers to
Christians. 143 We know that the Emperor was surrounded by two more prominent
officials who opposed Christianity; Rusticus, who condemned Justin Martyr and Fronto,
who denounced Christians for immorality. 144 It could have been a good strategy to
address an apology to a tutor of the Emperor. 145 Marcus Aurelius was inclined to Stoic
philosophy, and there seem to be several Stoic allusions in Ad Diognetum. 146 The
refutation of human knowledge of God, and the emphasis on Divine revelation could
very well be regarded as inroads into the pantheistic and materialistic world view of
Stoic philosophy. Molland dated Ad Diognetum to the first part of the second half of the
second century. 147
Dom P. Andriessen gave a substantial contribution to the debate when he took up
August Dorner's old (1845) theory and in 1946 published his article L'Apologie de
Quadratus conservée sous le titre d'Épître à Diognète. 148 Here he suggested that the lost
138 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” pp.79-99.
139 Ibid., pp.81-83.
140 Ibid., pp.93-94.
141 Ibid., p.90 and Molland, “Brevet til Diognet,” p.548.
142 M.Ant.1.6.
143 Ibid., 9.3. Se also 3.16 and 8.51.
144 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.179.
145 Ibid.
146 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, pp.43-44.
147 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p. 90 and Molland, “Brevet til Diognet,” p.548.
33

apology of Quadratus is Ad Diognetum. 149 According to Eusebius this apology was
addressed to the Emperor Hadrian. 150 The fragment that Eusebius quoted would fit in
very well into the lacuna between 7.6 and 7.7 in Ad Diognetum. It runs:
But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were true, those who were
cured, those who rose from the dead, who not merely appeared as cured and risen, but
were constantly present, not only while our Savior was living, but even for some time
after he had gone, so that some of them survived even till our own time. 151
In A.D. 125/126 Hadrian visited Athens and was initiated into the Eleusinian
mysteries. 152 If we presume the Emperor was the addressee, and the Eleusinian
initiation rite the context, then, the mystery-revelation theme of Ad Diognetum becomes
highly fitting. The author wants to convey the message that Christianity is the perfect
and revealed mystery. 153 Andriessen argues that the entire chapter six and many other
vital passages are inspired by the main doctrines of the Eleusinian mysteries. 154
According to Andriessen's proposal, Hadrian, after the initiation, was addressed as ‘Dio-
gnetus’, born of Zeus, as a member of the Divine race. 155 The introductory formula
"most excellent Diognetus" 156 becomes fully understandable against this background. 157
By interpreting the Paradise allegory in chapter twelve in an Eleusinian context,
Andriessen argued that the two major parts of Ad Diognetum formed one single unit. 158
Andriessen hereby claimed to have explained the enigma of Ad Diognetum. No one
would deny the brilliance with which Andriessen presented his theory. But he did not
148 P. Andriessen, “L´Apologie de Quadratus conservéesous le titre d´Épître à Diognète.” Recherches
de théologie ancienne et médiévale, (Abbay de Mont-César: Lou, 1946), pp.5-9 and pp.125-149. Eng.
trans. in P Andriessen, The Authorship of the Epistula Ad Diognetum, VC 1, (Amsterdam 1947), pp.129-
136.
149 Andriessen, ”L´Apologie de Quadratus,” pp.125-126.
150 Eus.h.e.4.3.
151 Ibid.
152 Andriessen, ”Epistula ad Diognetum,” p.131,
153 Olof Andrén and Per Beskow, eds., De Apostoliska Fäderna: Inledning, översättning och
förklaringar, (Stockholm: Verbum förlag, 1992), pp.208-209.
154 Andriessen, ”Epistula Ad Diognetum,” p.131.
155 Ibid., p.133.
156 κράτιστε Διόγνητε.
157 Ibid., p.134. Please observe that κράτιστε (“most excellent”) is also used in the New Testament
writings as Lk. 1.1 and Ac.1.1 in addressing the prominent Theophilus.
158 Ibid., pp.135-136.
34

emained unchallenged. 159 A word of caution could be uttered against establishing too
hasty and too close connections between isagogic hypotheses and the interpretation of
Ad Diognetum. There is always the risk of absorbing the text into the Eleusinian
mysteries without any verification and as we will see there are more alternatives.
Marrou related Ad Diognetum to the Alexandrian school and proposed a different
Diognetus, namely the procurator Claudius Diognetus at Alexandria. 160 In a document
from A.D. 202/203, this person is simply called "the most excellent Diognetus." 161 He
is also known from five papyri dated between A.D. 197-203. 162 There seem to be both
formal and material resemblances between Ad Diognetum and Clement, the great
Alexandrian theologian at that time. 163 Clement himself or rather his teacher, Pantaenus,
could be the author of our writing. 164 Marrou defended the authenticity of Ad
Diognetum 1-10 and 11-12 as a work of one single author. 165 In recent time Lona has
argued in line with Marrou in favor of an Alexandrian context and reminds us of
striking similarities between Ad Diognetum and the Protrepticus by Clement of
Alexandria. 166 According to Lona this hypothesis explains how Ad Diognetum came
into the shadows of the greater Alexandrian scholars and was forgotten.
Im Vergleich zum grossen Werk des Alexandriners hatte die Schrift wenige Chancen,
sich so weit Geltung zu verschaffen, dass sie in den Umlauf der tradierten christlichen
Literatur gekommen ware. Sie geriet in Vergessenheit und irgendwann wurde sie, nicht
grundlos, an das Schrifttum des Philosophen und Märtyrers Justin angehingt. Diese
Hinzufügung bewahrte sie vor der Zerstörung, bevor sie in Konstantinopel im 15.
Jahnhundert zufällig wieder gefunden wurde. 167
159 Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”, pp.232-234 and Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, pp.151-153.
160 Marrou, A Diognète, p.268.
161 Ibid., 268 and Grant, Greek Apologists, p.179.
162 Marrou, A Diognète, p.268.
163 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 62ff. We will return to these resemblances between
Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria and Ad Diognetum in chapter two.
164 Marrou, A Diognète, pp.266-268.
165 Ibid., pp.219-221.
166 Lona, Ad Diognet, p.68.
167 Ibid., p.69.
35

Charles E. Hill has brought to the fore the milieu of Asia Minor and he claims that
the Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp, was the author of Ad Diognetum. He was martyred in
February A.D. 155, at the age of eighty-six, and the fine piece of rhetoric in Ad
Diognetum was originally a speech, delivered to a local official by the name Diognetus
in Smyrna, in the middle of the second century. 168 Ad Diognetum should be regarded as
a manuscript for a speech delivery or a transcript. Hill demonstrates many connections
between Ad Diognetum and the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ignatius’ Epistle
to Polycarp and to the Martyrdom of Polycarp. He has collected an impressive amount
of internal evidences for his sake, and he has the advantage of explaining how the two
parts of Ad Diognetum are related. They could have been spoken and/or written by one
and the same author (or a closely related person) and presented on different occasions
and in different contexts. That explains similarities and dissimilarities between the two
parts. Hill took independently up what Pier Franco Beatrice 169 proposed in 1990,
namely that Polycarp was the author and the solution of the enigma. Hill writes:
In conclusion, the ad Diognetum appears to be just the sort of address we might imagine
Polycarp to have given before an official who had expressed an interest in “learning the
religion of the Christians” (ad Diogn.1.1). The relatively peaceful years between about
135 and the mid 150’s, at about the time when Florinus, faring illustriously in the
imperial court, attached himself to Polycarp in Smyrna, deliver a plausible setting for
such an encounter as we have depicted in the ad Diognetum. In the experience of
Polycarp, then, we appear to have a real and suggestive analogue to the circumstances of
the origin of the ad Diognetum. 170
General Assumptions
I have earlier in this introductory chapter argued that no interpretation is carried out
in vacuum, out of its context. All research is based on certain assumptions. For the sake
of clarity, I shall state a few tentative assumptions behind the isagogic problems in this
Inquiry. Firstly, none of the preceding proposals regarding authorship, addressee and
date have won general acceptance. They are all hypotheses worked out with much
competence, but so far none of them has been conclusively proved to be accurate. This
statement is as self-evident as it is important. In interpreting Ad Diognetum we should
168 Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, pp.129-131.
169 Pier Franco Beatrice, “De Presbyter des Irenäus, Polycarp von Smyrna und der Brief an Diognet,”
in Pléroma. Salus carnis. ed. E. Romero Pose, FS A. Orbe, (Santiago de Compostela, 1990), pp.179-202.
170 Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, p.133.
36

not be pressed into an Aurelian, Eleusinian, Alexandrian, Valentinian 171 or Smyrnean
mould of thought. My approach to the hermeneutical task has much in common with
Ricoeur and Vanhoozer and their understanding of the relative autonomy of the text.
Among others, this means that we are still free to work with the text per se and that we
presuppose the surplus of meaning of texts in general and (we may say) of Ad
Diognetum in particular. Secondly, regarding the two major parts of the text, I tend to a
hypothesis that there probably is some kind of relation between the main part and the
appendix. However, due to the presented difficulties and differences, I look at them,
from a strict scientific perspective, as two separate units. I come to this conclusion, also
as a result of a structural and rhetorical analysis of the writing that is presented in
chapter three. In discussing the implications of Revelational Theology in chapter five, I
nevertheless will examine the appendix as if it somehow or another is related to the
main part of Ad Diognetum. In spite of this distinction, I examine the text as it has come
down to us through the centuries. 172 Nevertheless, I am cautious in making cross-
references, allusions and comparisons between the parts, because the original text seems
to have comprised only the first ten chapters. However, in the final analysis, I suggest
that Revelational Theology could be interpreted as an organic link between the two
parts (1-10 and 11-12). Thirdly, regarding the date, my preliminary tendency, is to side
with Meecham and others in reading Ad Diognetum, as an apologetic document from
the middle of the second century, that is somewhere between A.D. 135 and 165. 173 The
author's negative attitude towards the Old Testament and Judaism, the text's relation to
the early apologists, its discontinuity with natural religion and philosophy, the absence
of the mention of the Spirit and any detailed doctrinal reflection, favor an early date.
William Frend observes “the use of Hellenistic-Jewish apologetic models, the absence
of the Euhemerist argument against the pagan gods employed by later apologists, and
parallels with Aristides, suggest a relatively early date, not later than A.D. 150.” 174
171 Simone Pétrement, ”Valentin est-il l'auteur de l'épître à Diognète?” Revue d'Histoire et de
Philosophie religieuses 46, (Strasbourg, 1961), pp.34-62.
172 Many scholars like Marrou, Thierry, Andriessen, Barnard, Kleist and Petrément defended Ad
Diognetum as a work of one single author. Later research by Wengst, Brändle and Lona tend to favor a
double authorship. ( Wengst, Schrift and Diognet, p.287).
173 Together with Meecham, scholars like Molland, Frend and Hill have come to the same conclusion
in placing Ad Diognetum in the middle of the second century.
174 Frend, Rise of Christianity, p.261, n. 24.
37

One underlying assumption of this Inquiry is that Ad Diognetum should be reckoned
among the second century Greek apologies. Writers whose works have survived from
this century are Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch
and Clement of Alexandria. Only fragments have been preserved of the apologetic
works of Quadratus, Melito of Sardis, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, while those of
Aristo of Pella and Miltiades have been lost. 175 All these mentioned, together with the
author of Ad Diognetum, comprise the Greek Christian apologists of the second century.
In the following chapters, I will return to the arguments that support the above dating of
Ad Diognetum in favor of the middle of the second century, but here I do underline that
the object of this Inquiry is not a matter of isagogic, but the important content of Ad
Diognetum in general and Revelational Theology in particular.
A Summary of the Content
In chapter one, the author begins very politely and with an appreciation of Diognetus'
zealous concern to understand the Christian religion. He states the three questions that
are to be answered. Firstly, what God do the Christians believe in and how do they
worship him? Secondly, what is the nature of the Christian heartfelt love that they show
one another? Thirdly, why has this new race of men and new way of life come into the
world now and not before? He prays that God will bestow them power in speaking and
in hearing. He further asks Diognetus to free himself from all prejudice which occupies
his mind so that he can listen to a new story. In chapter two, he criticizes pagan idolatry.
The idols are made of matter such as wood, iron, silver or gold. The heathen gods are
dumb, blind and without feelings. The more the Greeks believe they praise these gods
and the more they despise them. In chapters three to four, the author goes on to
depreciate the Jewish religion and cult. It is true that he gives the Jews credit for their
worship of the one God of the universe, but the author is very critical of them on several
points. The sacrifices, food prescriptions, fasting, Sabbath-celebration, circumcision and
feasts are senseless and ridiculous. There is no real difference between Jews and
Greeks. Both believe that God is dependent on their worship. That is a great mistake.
After blaming the Jews, the anonymous author, starts praising the Christians in
chapters five to six. Christianity is a supernatural mystery, fundamentally different from
human speculations. In this world, the Christians are both good citizens and strangers.
175 Quasten, Patrology, pp. 1:186-252.
38

Their real citizenship is in heaven, and the mystery of their religion is in their hearts.
They live in the flesh but not according to the flesh. In a series of antitheses, the author
highlights the strength of the Christian religion in the midst of persecutions. Christians
are actually the soul of this world, maintaining the body of society. In chapters seven to
nine, the author explains the supremacy of the Christian religion. In is not a human
thought construction, but a Divine revelation. Therefore, it stands in sharp contrast to
world religions and philosophy and all man-made activities. The Almighty God who
ordered the creation through his Logos or Word, has because of his great goodness,
come down to humankind in his Son. Throughout the ages, it seemed as if he had not
cared. When our iniquity reached its full measure and it became plain that it was
impossible for us, by our own efforts to enter into the Kingdom of God, he acted on our
behalf. The great mystery that was concealed in God's secret plan from eternity was
revealed through the Son. Instead of our wickedness, mortality, unrighteousness and
corruptibility, he gave us all things at once, which is holiness, immortality, justification
and eternity, through the redemption of the Savior and as a blessed exchange.
In chapter ten, the author urges Diognetus to receive this faith and the complete
knowledge of the Father. Then he will be full of love and be able to imitate the
goodness of God. Then he will also be able to help his burdened neighbors and also love
and admire persecuted Christians. In chapters eleven to twelve, the unknown author
presents himself as a disciple of the apostles and a teacher of the heathen. He guards the
apostolic tradition and propagates the Word of God. In this way, there occurs a
continuing revelation of the mystery of the Father. This mystery is deposited in the
Christian Church, and revealed where the Law and Prophets, the Gospel and the
apostolic tradition are known. In describing the riches of this revealed mystery, the
author finally interprets the "Paradise text" in a figurative way. Now at last, we are able
to eat both from the tree of Knowledge and the tree of Life. It is necessary to eat from
both of them so that the Christian can become true both in teaching (doctrine) and in
living (morality). The serpent is no longer able to deceive the Christians, as he once
deceived Eve in the garden. After this homily, the author concludes with a short
doxology.
39

Summary
In this introductory chapter, I begun by presenting the methodology behind the
Inquiry. I sketched a background and gave an account for the special design with the
aim and scope of the Inquiry. I laid out six practical hermeneutical steps recommended
by Henry Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo and showed how these steps are
implemented in the internal structure of the Inquiry. I thereafter invited Paul Ricoeur
and Kevin J. Vanhoozer in order to work out an integrative hermeneutical approach for
this Inquiry. I demonstrated that the hermeneutics of signification and significance is a
fruitful combination of faithfulness to the intention of the author’s text with creativity in
the application of the text into wider contexts and new modes of being, knowing and
believing. Finally, I traced the single Medieval manuscript of Ad Diognetum through the
centuries. Thanks to Otto’s careful edition of the Strasbourg-manuscript (A) in 1879 the
text of Ad Diognetum must be considered as reliable. Although we have been exposed
to many textual problems and although there are no definite solutions to them, we have
been presented to several interesting hypotheses. None of them has so far won general
acceptance in the patristic community. I stated the importance of not pressing the fragile
text of Ad Diognetum into an Aurelian, Valentinian, Eleusinian, Alexandrian or
Smyrnean mould. We are free to work with the text per se, appreciate its qualities and
interpret its message. This is certainly our great opportunity and challenge.
40

PART ONE
REVELATION AND SIGNIFICATION
41

CHAPTER 2
AD DIOGNETUM AS AN APOLOGETIC AND A PROTREPTIC WORK
But as for the mystery of the Christian’s own religion, do not expect to be able to learn it
from any man…This teaching of theirs has not been discovered by the thought and
reflection of ingenious men, nor do they promote any human doctrine, as some do. (4.6,
5.3)
Introduction
In the first part of this second chapter, I intend to characterize Ad Diognetum as an
apologetic writing. The apologists in the early Church took part in a defense of the
Christian faith. They had to counter many accusations and to explain the Christian faith
before officials in the Greco-Roman society. In order to supply an informative
background to the Greek apologists of the second century and to let the reader be
acquainted with their apologies, I shall introduce some important apologetic works of
Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras and Tatian. This rather extensive introduction will
serve as a rich frame of reference for our understanding of Ad Diognetum, describe
some possible similarities and dissimilarities between Ad Diognetum and other
apologists and to demonstrate Revelational Theology as a unique apologetic strategy.
Many apologists not only defended the Christian faith from false accusations in times of
persecution. They also took the opportunity to communicate the Christian message. The
author of Ad Diognetum turned his apologetic intention into a form of literature that is
known as protreptics. In the second part of this chapter, I intend to look closer to the art
of protreptics and to compare Ad Diognetum with the famous protreptic works of
Clement of Alexandria and Theophilus of Antioch, point out some affinities between Ad
Diognetum and these works and to demonstrate the distinctive contribution of
Revelational Theology. However, first of all I trace the apologetic and protreptic genres
down to early Christian missionary and kerygmatic preaching.
42

Ad Diognetum as an Apologetic Work
Ad Diognetum and Early Christian Kerygmatic Preaching
One of Adolf von Harnack's contributions to theology, is his stressing of the close
relation between early missionary preaching, and the writings of the apologists. 1 He
states: “As Apologists and as teachers ex cathedra they took an active part in the
Christian mission. The early teachers of the church were missionaries as well; pagans as
well as catechumens, entered their schools and listened to their teaching.” 2 We are to
look at Ad Diognetum in the light of this fact. The rhetorical brilliance and the
apologetic convention, can not hide "the warmth, the evangelical understanding, the
devotion to Christ." 3 The author was a man of missionary zeal and vision. Michael
Green designates our writing as "one of the few examples which we have of a genuine
piece of evangelistic writing." 4 In preaching and writing, educated Christians took the
apologetic genre in the service of the Gospel.
An early Christian writing relevant to our present study is the so-called Kerygma
Petri. It consists of six fragments, incorporated in the Stromata, 5 written by Clement of
Alexandria. Kerygma Petri is mentioned by Eusebius, Origen, and Jerome. 6 It was a
compendium of early Christian preaching, under the name of the apostle Peter. It is
dated between A.D. 100 and 125. 7 Ernst von Dobschütz has edited the fragments with a
critical analysis. 8 Henning Paulsen and Oskar Skarsaune are probably right in arguing
that these fragments, from an authentic writing now lost, are to be regarded as an
1 von Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, pp.362-364.
2 Ibid., pp.226-227, 362.
3 Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 3rd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton , 1973),
p.136.
4 Ibid.
5 Fragment 1: in 1.29 (doublet in 2.15),
Fragment 2: in 6.5
Fragment 3: in 6.5
Fragment 4: in 6.6
Fragment 5: in 6.6
Fragment 6: in 6.15
6 Oskar Skarsaune, “Peters Forkynnelse,” in AFe, eds. Ernst Baasland and Reidar Hvalvik (Oslo:
Luther Forlag, 1984), p.216.
7 Ernst von Dobschütz, Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht, Texte und Untersuchungen, 11.1,
(Leipzig, 1893), p.67.
8 Ibid.
43

important link 9 between the kerygmatic preaching as represented in Acts 10 and the early
apologists of the second century such as the author of Ad Diognetum and Aristides. We
are also reminded, that there is apologetic material in the New Testament itself, and
especially in the apostolic preaching in Acts. 11 Many commentators have pointed out the
similarities between Kerygma Petri and Ad Diognetum. A fundamental similarity, is the
positive statement on the Christian faith, but the Christological Kerygma, that is, the
historical-redemptive events in the life of Christ, are not explicitly mentioned in Ad
Diognetum. 12 Here the narrative is stylized along theological lines. Another similarity
between the two writings is the view on God. God is according to Kerygma Petri
described as one God with many attributes.
Know then that there is one God, who made the beginning of all things, and holds the
power of the end; and is invisible who sees all things; incapable of being contained, who
contains all things; needing nothing, whom all things need, and by whom they are;
comprehensible, everlasting, unmade, who made all things by the 'Word of his power... 13
This concept of God is close to the Hebrew understanding of transcendence and is
presumable colored by Middle Platonic philosophy with regard to its negative
epithets. 14 With this concept as his point of departure, the author is in a position, to
criticize pagan religion and to set forth the content of the Christian faith. This strategy is
found also in Ad Diognetum with the difference that our author focuses on Revelational
Theology. A third similarity is the idea of Christians as “the third race.” 15
9 Henning von Paulsen, ”Das Kerygma Petri und die urchristliche Apologetik,” ZKG 88, (Stuttgart
1977), 37 and Oscar Skarsaune, Den Tidligaste Apologetiske Litteratur, AFe, (Oslo: Luther Forlag,
1984), p.212.
10 Ac.14.15-17, 17.22-31, 1 Th.1.9
11 Grant, Greek Apologists, 23ff. Grant mentions especially apologetic material in Paul such as Ro.
1.18-32, 1 Cor. 15.29-33, 37-41, Ac. 14 and 17 and Phil.4.8.
12 Both Meecham and Molland proposed the hypothesis that Kerygma Petri is behind both Ad
Diognetum and the Apology of Aristides. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.58-59 and Molland,
Stellung des Diognetbriefes, p.81.
13 Fragment 2.
14 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.39.
15 Fragment 2. Compare Ad Diognetum 1.
44

Ad Diognetum and the Apologetic Reaction
Due to the power of tradition and age Ad Diognetum was included among The
Apostolic Fathers. In contrast to all other writings in this body of early Christian
literature, Ad Diognetum was addressed primarily, not to members of the Church,
leaders and other "insiders", but to an "outsider". 16 Content, purpose and genre give
strong reasons for placing Ad Diognetum among the Christian apologists. As we will
see Ad Diognetum deals with some of the main accusations against the early Christians.
The unknown author knew how to counter-attack these accusations, legitimate the
Christian faith and persuade the addressee of its superior content and spiritual power.
During the second and third centuries, four main accusations were brought against
Christians: 17
atheism,
immorality,
misanthropy and contempt for the world and
introducing new teaching.
The author of Ad Diognetum, was, as was the case with all apologists, familiar with
these accusations and dealt with them directly or indirectly. 18 Firstly, we have the
charge of atheism, that is, neglect of and contempt for the official religion of the Roman
Empire. In three passages, the author refers to this charge. In chapter one, he admits that
the Christians "do not reckon as gods those who are considered to be so by the Greeks".
He hints at this accusation also in 2.10 and in 8.2-4. 19 Secondly, we have the charge of
immorality, that is, incest and ritual murder. The author does not explicitly mention
these, but we have echoes of them in 5.6-7 in an argument a minore ad maius (that is
from a minor to a major argument). If Christians guard their purity and do not expose
their offspring, how can they commit worse things? Thirdly, we have the charge of
misanthropy and contempt for the world. According to chapter one, Christians
disregarded the world and despised death. These accusations are treated in chapters five
and six. The Christians care for society, they love their neighbors and follow the local
16 Lightfoot et al., The Epistle to Diognetos, p.529.
17 Brändle, ”Schrift an Diognet”, p.26.
18 Ibid., p.27.
19 Ibid., p.29.
45

customs. They guarantee the harmony of the Empire and preserve society. In Stoic and
Platonic words, the author formulates this thought by means of the famous ‘body-soul’
metaphor. "To put it shortly, what the soul is in the body that Christians are in the
world"(6.1). Fourthly, we come to the introduction of new teachings and the removal of
old ancestral traditions. As mentioned before, this accusation is included in the third
introductory question. The Platonist philosopher, Celsus, was preoccupied with this
argument against Christianity as a new religion. 20 Age was used as a criterion for
truth. 21 Against this background, the author of Ad Diognetum elaborates on the
‘newness-’ or καινὸ-argument in a particular and positive way. He does not follow a
common line of reasoning among apologists, namely that Moses was older than Homer
and Plato, and therefore, more important. 22 Instead, he took advantage of the radical
newness of Christianity. Christians belong to the "new" race (1), Diognetus is to listen
to a "new" story (2.1) and become a "new" man (2.1). In the appendix we find that the
Word appear as "new" (11.4). The use of the term καινὸ, "new" in Ad Diognetum "is
the epitome of the wholly different and miraculous thing which is brought by the time
of salvation." 23 The theological presupposition for this way of reasoning, is the author's
eschatological view, on the breakthrough of the supernatural and revelational into
history. 24 Eugene Fairweather summarizes this "new" line of thought:
The very novelty of Christianity shows its transcendent origin. The description of
Christianity as a 'New Race' reflects in language widely used in the early Church, the
biblical expression of the supernatural in terms of the 'New Age', Covenant, Creation. 25
We may state that the apologists had to defend Christianity on two fronts. The first
one was the defense against false accusations and closely related was the second front,
the seriousness of persecution. The tragic fact of persecution is obvious throughout the
work. We find it mentioned in the beginning (1), the end (10.7-8) and in the middle
(5.11-17, 6.5-10, 7.7.8) of the work. Although it is hard to identify any specific
8.12.
20 Origen, Contra Celsum, ed. trans. H. Chadwick, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
21 Brändle, ”Schrift an Diognet”, p.44.
22 Ibid.
23 Johannes Behm, καινὸ, in TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. ed. Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), p.3:449.
24 Ibid.
25 Fairweather, “So-called Letter to Diognetus,” p.211.
46

persecution in this material, it furnishes us with an accurate background to the fact as
such. In describing the period A.D. 135 – 165, Frend combines two circumstances that
are reflected in Ad Diognetum. The one is the rapid growth of Christians, especially in
Asia Minor. The other is the united enemy; that is the Jews and the Greeks. 26
This strange alliance dates from after the defeat of 135. From now on, the domestic
struggle between the Old Israel and the New becomes merged in the original conflict
between Church and Empire. In the persecutions which were to wrack Asia in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius the Jew was often in the background. For nearly another century he
continued to stir up trouble wherever he could. The threat from this combined attack was
obvious to the sufferers. 'The Christians' wrote the author of the Letter to Diognetus, 'are
warred upon by the Jews as foreigners’ (ὡς ἀλλόφυλοι) and persecuted by the Greeks: and
those who hate them cannot state the cause of their enmity’. 27
That the Christians "are persecuted by all men" (5.11) is not necessarily a hyperbole. It
could very well be a true statement about conditions in the author's local area. The tone
suggests that persecution was taken more or less for granted, as the normal lot of the
Christians. 28 In line with Tertullian, the author of Ad Diognetum insists that persecution
leads to the multiplication of the number of Christians. 29 In contrast to Justin Martyr, he
does not look at persecution as instigated by demons. 30 The author's reply is to
emphasize the constructive role of the Christians in society. The reasons for persecution
fall into the same categories as of the classical accusations dealt with above. The
charges of atheism and black magic, were very effective in the propaganda aimed at the
public. 31 The author of Ad Diognetum is a typical apologist in his defensive strategy.
However, as was the case with many apologists, he also had an ambition to persuade the
reader of the superiority of the Christian faith.
26 William H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of the Conflict from
the Maccabees to Donatus, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p.258.
27 Ibid.
28 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.39.
29 Tert.apol.50.13-15.
30 Just.1apol. 5.
31 Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, p.260.
47

Ad Diognetum and Second Century Apologetic Works
Ad Diognetum and the Apology of Aristides
The oldest apologetic writing in existence is the Apology of Aristides. Until 1878, it
was known only through a brief statement in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. 32 In that
year, some Armenian fragments came to the knowledge of scholars and in 1889 the
Syriac version was found by J. Rendel Harris in the monastery of St. Catherina in
Sinai. 33 These findings helped J. Armitage Robinson to identify the Greek text, foliated
in the Medieval legend on Barlaam and Josaphat. 34 Today scholars disagree as to
whether the Syriac, Armenian, or the Greek text is the original version. 35 Grant suggests
that the shorter Greek version could very well have been addressed to Hadrian as
Eusebius too states 36 at a date before A.D.132. 37 In summarizing the content, Grant
writes: "The apology thus combines a vigorous attack on the gods of paganism with an
extended defense of Jewish and Christian morality. The combination gives the apology
its power." 38
Many have pointed out possible relations between this apology and Ad Diognetum. 39
Molland mentioned six general resemblances. 40 In the first place, none of these writings
contain explicit references to Scripture, and this in sharp contrast to the works of most
apologists, and could be a sign of the early date of Ad Diognetum. 41 However, in Ad
Diognetum, there are allusions to the Old Testament scriptures, the Gospels and to the
32 Eus.h.e.4.3.
33 Reidar Hvalvik, ”Aristides Apologi: Innledning, Noter,” AFe, red, Ernst Baasland and Reidar
Hvalvik, (Oslo: Luther Forlag 1984), p.223.
34 Ibid.
35 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.39.
36 Eus.h.e.4.3
37 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.39.
38 Ibid., p.38.
39 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, pp.59-60 and Marrou, A Diognète, pp.149-151.
40 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” pp.82-84. See also F. Ogara, “Aristides et epistolae ad
Diognetum cum Theophilo antiocheno cognatio,” Gregorianum 25, (Rome, 1944), pp.74-102.
41 Ibid.
48

Corpus Paulinum. 42 Secondly, both writings were negative towards paganism.
However, the section dealing with this question, is much longer in the Apology of
Aristides. 43 Thirdly, both were averse towards Judaism. In the Syriac version of the
Apology of Aristides, the author criticized the supposed Jewish veneration of angels. 44
Fourthly, both looked at philosophy as reverence for the elements. 45 Fifthly, both
authors developed the idea of genus tertium, that is the Christians as a third race among
the Jews and the Pagans. 46 This threefold classification into Jews, Pagans, and
Christians is also what we find in Kerygma Petri. 47 Sixthly, both writings show similar
wordings. 48 Regarding Ad Diognetum Molland concluded:
Unser Brief kann von einem Zeitgenossen des Aristides geschreiben sein, der in der
apologetisch-schriftstellerischen Kunst tüchtiger als er war, und die traditionellen Motive
mit grösserer Eleganz ausnützen konnte…Aber wahrscheinlich gehört er in die Zeit nach
Aristides, d.h. er gehort wohl frühestens der zweiten Hälfte des II.Jhs.an. 49
Two more observations ought to be made. The Apology of Aristides, as well as
Kerygma Petri, describe God in ‘negative terms’ and with epithets inspired by Middle
Platonism. 50 This is particularly true of the Syriac version where the author in a long
paragraph, excels in describing God as immovable, unsearchable, immortal,
42 Hvalvik, ”Til Diognet,” pp.252-255. The author draws periphrastically upon the Old Testament
passages in LXX’s languages. The New Testament phraseology pervades the whole writing. On the
author’s dependence upon Corpus Paulinum, Meecham wrote on page 57 in The Epistle to
Diognetus:”…we hear abundant echoes, especially of the Pauline writings”. Our author did not refer to
the Scriptures as authoritative writings. Instead he alluded to them. This is partly due to the context. The
author wrote to en gentile reader. The main explanation has to do with the (presumed) fact that at this
time there was no fixed canon of the New Testament writings. If this is true, this fact mirrors an early date
of Ad Diognetum. In the appendix, however, we find a later development. Here the author refers explicitly
to the Law, Prophets, Gospel and the Apostolic tradition (11.6).
43 In the Greek version thirteen of totally seventeen chapters are occupied with pagan religions.
44 The veneration of angels is mentioned in chapter fourteen of the Syriac version, but not in the Greek
version.
45 Molland, ”Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.83.
46 Ibid., p.84. In the Gospel of John. 4.21ff. we find a classification into Samarians (pagans), Jews and
“true worshippers”. This threefold classification could be a reminiscence of this Johannine passage. (von
Harnack, The Mission and the Expansion of Christianity, [New York, 1961], p.245). Please observe that
the Syriac version of the Apology of Aristides has a fourfold division into Barbarians, Greeks, Jews and
Christians. (Arist.apol.2.5.)
47 Fragm.2. Ernst von Dobschütz, Kerygma Petri: Herstellung des Textes mit Einleitung und
Erklärung. (Leipzig, 1893).
48 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.60, and Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.85.
49 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.86.
50 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.37.
49

incomprehensible, immutable etc. 51 A similar understanding of God as invisible,
although not accentuated, is implied and elaborated in Ad Diognetum. 52 Where God is
described as both invisible in his greatness, and incomparable in his goodness towards
man, we have the Theocentric foundation for Revelational Theology. Aristides and our
author also share a transcendental view on God. However, our author does not attack
Chaldean, Greek, and Egyptian religion, in a moralizing spirit to the same extent that
Aristides does. 53 He has an evangelistic object. He takes the opportunity to develop a
unique presentation of the revelational theme in the literary style of protreptics. He is
not content to state the impossibility of revelatio generalis, that is revelation in history
or creation. He proceeds to state the revelatio specialis, the manifestation of the Son or
rather the revelatio universalis, because of the universal implications of the
eschatological revelation. "Charakteristisch für den Diognetbrief is die Rolle, die der
Offenbarungsgedanke in ihm spielt. Von einer natürlichem oder vernüftigen
Gotteserkenntnis kann hier keine Rede sein.” 54
Ad Diognetum and the Apologies of Justin Martyr
As mentioned earlier, the Codex Argentoratensis Graecus 9(A) contained Ad
Diognetum among a number of treatises ascribed to Justin Martyr. 55 For various reasons
today, no one seriously claims that Justin was the author of Ad Diognetum. 56 However,
Justin has to be regarded as a central figure among the second century Greek apologists.
His pioneering effort, and remaining influence on most of the apologists and several
early fathers of the Church, has given him an iconic and historic status as both
philosopher and martyr. 57
51 Arist.apol.1.
52 Ad Diognetum 3.4, 7.2, 8.5, 8. The negative Platonic attribute of God is related to the interpretation
of the concept of ἀόργητος, that can be translated “free from wrath”, “free from anger” or “free from
passion.” (Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.78)
53 Brändle, ”Schrift and Diognet”, p.15.
54 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.91.
55 Marrou, A Diognète, pp.24-26.
56 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, pp.61-62.
57 Parvis, “Justin Martyr.” In Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures,
ed. Paul Foster, (London: IVP Academic, 2010), p.15.
50

According to Eusebius, Justin wrote several books. 58 There are only three remaining
works. They are the two apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho. Now there is a critical
question whether we de facto have to do with one or two apologies. The second apology
is rather short, and more philosophical than the first and is too flimsy and disconnected
a document to stand alone. 59 Denis Minns and Paul Parvis argue that the Second
Apology is a ‘notebook’ to the First Apology. If that is the case we de facto have only
one Apology 60 addressed to the Emperor Hadrian, his son and philosopher Verissimus
and to Lucius, adopted by Antoninus Pius, “a lover of learning” 61 and a member of the
imperial household. Justin speaks of the First Apology as an “address and petition.” 62
Justin made a “request” and used the normal term ἀξῦ. 63 A Roman citizen was able to
present a petition, a libellus 64 to the Emperor. That was exactly what Justin did. In so
doing he was able (1) to ask for relief from what he believed to be an unjust treatment
of his fellow Christians, (2) to counter some of the accusations against Christians
(atheism, lack of honor to the Emperor and promiscuity), 65 and (3) to insert catechetical
material in order to give an account for his Christian faith in trying to persuade its
readers of its superior message compared to Roman paganism. 66 In a sense, we may say
that Justin utilized the Roman administrative procedures for getting his message,
“literally and symbolically, to the heart of the Roman world.” 67
58 Eus.h.e.4.18.1-6. Eusebius mentions ”a Treatise on behalf of our opinions”, a second Apology,
another To the Greeks and a second treatise to the Greeks named A Confutation. Besides these a book
entitled Psaltes and a disputation On the Soul. He then mentions the Dialogue with Trypho.
59 Parvis, “Justin Martyr,” p.8.
60 Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr. In OECT, eds. Denis Minns and
Paul Parvis, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), p.27.
61 Just.1apol.1.1.
62 Just.1apol.1.1.
63 Just.1apol.7.4. See also Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, p.24.
64 The Greek word for libellus is ί.
65 Just.1apol.13.1-4, 17.1-3, 26.7-27.5, 29.1-3.
66 Ibid., p.25. Se also Just.1apol.1.1.
67 Ibid.
51

In his First Apology Justin introduces himself as “son of Priscus and grandson of
Bacchios who both come from Flavia Neapolis in Syria, Palaestina.” 68 His place of birth
was close to the biblical city of Shechem (modern Nablus) close to Mount Gerizim and
the Samaritan population. During Justin’s lifetime, a pagan temple was built on the
mountain by Emperor Hadrian. So it is reasonable to assume that Justin early received
knowledge of both the Jewish heritage and the Hellenistic culture.
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin relates 69 his spiritual and intellectual journey. He
first dedicated himself to Stoic philosophy, then he went to the Peripatetic school. His
next stop was at the Pythagoreans, but nowhere Justin was satisfied. In Ephesus he
learned to know “a wise man and prominent among the Platonists” 70 and Justin thought
he had become wise. Finally, Justin met a Christian who was well-versed in the
philosophy of Plato, but introduced him to the Hebrew prophets. It could have been a
Jewish Christian, addressing their fellow Jews in the distressing years, after the Bar
Kochba revolt A.D. 132-135. 71 However, it seems to have been the testimony of
Christian martyrdom that made a decisive impression on Justin and led to his
conversion. In the Second Apology, he gave some glimpses into his conversion:
For when I myself took delight in the teachings of Plato, I heard the Christians slandered
and saw that they were fearless in the face of death and everything thought fearful, and I
knew it was impossible that they were involved in evil and the love of pleasure. 72
As a Greek speaking man educated in Hellenistic philosophy and as a Christian
convert, Justin finally arrived at Rome. Here Justin spent his productive years, as a
founder and leader of a Christian school, and as a member of the Church, at that time
somewhat like a cell-church within a wider Christian community in the city. 73 Justin
gives a lengthy description, of the (baptismal) Eucharistic service 74 and of the baptismal
service. 75 We know that Justin was executed with several other Christians during the
68 Just.1apol.1.1.
69 Just.dial.2.3-8.1.
70 Just.dial.2.6
71 Parvis, “Justin Martyr,” p.4.
72 Just.2apol.12.1.
73 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, p.58.
74 Just.1apol.65.1-68.2.
52

eign of the urban prefect Quintus Iunius Rusticus who was at the office between A.D
163 and 168. An account of the trial, has survived in Greek recensions, based on official
verbatim record of the trial. 76 According to the Chronicon Paschale the execution took
place in A.D. 165. 77 Justin mentions the Bar Kochba revolt as “the recent Jewish war.” 78
A qualified suggestion on dating Justin’s First Apology would be right in the middle of
the second century, maybe in the year A.D. 153. 79
Justin and Philosophy
On account of his gown, Justin was identified as a philosopher by Trypho the Jew. 80
The philosopher in Antiquity was distinguished by his beard and his cloak (tribon), and
according to Eusebius, Justin continued as a Christian “in the garb of a philosopher” and
as an “ambassador of the word of God.” 81 Justin pleaded to the Emperor that his
judgments would be “worthy of piety and philosophy” 82 and he identified himself as a
philosopher. "Of all the early Christian theologians Justin is the most optimistic about
the harmony of Christianity and Greek philosophy.” 83 Just as the author of Ad
Diognetum, argues that Christianity is Divine, and philosophy is human, so Justin
upheld the demarcation line between both entities, and claimed that Christianity is
supernatural, and therefore, superior. 84 “Our doctrines are shown to be more majestic
than every human teaching through the fact that the whole rational principle became the
Christ, who was made visible for our sake, body and logos and soul.” 85 Justin did not
stop here. He found a wider scope of reasoning. While he maintained the truth of
75 Just.1apol.61.1-62.4.
76 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, p.32.
77 Ibid.
78 Just.1pol.31.6.
79 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, p.33.
80 Just.dial.1.
81 Eus.h.e.4.9.8.
82 Just.1apol.70.4.
83 Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1966), p.10.
84 Ibid., p.17.
85 Just.2apol.10.1. See also Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, p 61.
53

Christianity, he also incorporated the best of contemporary philosophy. "For him the
Gospel and the best elements in Plato and the Stoics are almost identical ways of
apprehending the same truth.” 86 Pagans, who lived according to reason, like Socrates
and Heraclitus, could be entitled Christians. 87 There were diabolical imitations of
Christian truth among the pagans, but the higher philosophical truths about God,
separated from the pagan cults, came from respectable sources. 88 The author of these
sources was the Old Testament giant, Moses. 89 The Greeks borrowed from Moses. 90
Justin had one more strategy on how to incorporate the best of philosophy into the
Christian framework. All rational beings share in the universal Logos or reason, which
is Christ. The sublime morality of the Stoics, comes from the seminal Logos or Logos
spermatikos, who created all men in his image. 91 Thus, we find in Justin both Scriptural
revelation and rational revelation through the same operating Logos. However, Justin
did not only utilize rationality and philosophy. He also passed judgments on it. The
revealed truth of the Bible was his criterion. The pantheism, fatalism and materialism of
the Stoics, are all wrong and Plato's cyclic theory of transmigration is false. 92 All
essential elements, in the Christian faith, were expounded. 93 The revelation was both old
and new. His fundamental attitude was one of openness, not exclusiveness. In this
regard, he had quite another approach compared to that of the author of Ad Diognetum,
who strongly criticized philosophy as “illusion and deceit” (8.4).
Characteristics of Justin’s Apologetics
A large portion of Justin’s First Apology consists of a kind of argumentation from
fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament. The idea behind these proofs from prophecy
p.13.
p.17.
86 Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition , p.11.
87 Just.1apol.46.3.
88 Just.1apol.28.1, 2apol.5.6. Se also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition,
89 Just.1apol.44.8-9.
90 Just.1apol.44.8, 59.1-60.1.
91 Just.2apol.7.1-5, 13.1-5. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition,
92 Just2apol.6.3-9.5. Se also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, p.21.
93 Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, p.19.
54

was that by showing the precision with which the inspired writers foretold important
events in the life of Christ, the credibility of the Christian faith was supported. It was
hereby possible to deduce its supernatural origin. Justin devoted almost thirty chapters
(24-53) to fulfilled prophecies. They are designated as “the greatest and truest proof.” 94
The foundation for proofs from prophecy was Justin’s high view of the Old Testament
as inspired by the “prophetic Spirit.” 95 When introducing the sayings of Jesus, Justin
refers to logoi 96 and when describing the Sunday Eucharist, he refers to the memoirs of
the apostles 97 and they are also called Gospels. 98 It seems as if Justin had access to some
of the Gospels, to some of the Pauline epistles, and to the Book of Revelation. 99 Behind
Justin’s thorough and extensive use of Scripture, we certainly have a theological
concept of God’s revelation in history through the prophetic Spirit.
It is beyond doubt that Justin claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of
God and begotten by God from the beginning. Justin states that
…Jesus Christ is Son of God and apostle. And was formerly Logos and was sometimes
revealed in the form of fire and sometimes in an incorporeal image. But now, having become
a human being by the will of God for the sake of the human race, he endure also to suffer
whatever treatment the demons made him endure at the hands of the unthinking Jews. 100
The eternal Logos appeared sometimes in the Old Testament theophanies and finally
revealed himself as a truly human being. However, we also find passages that seem to
show that Justin thought of Logos as a secondary God. Mentioning Jesus Christ as
crucified under Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea, at the time of Caesar Tiberius,
Justin continued to declare “him in second place, with the prophetic Spirit in the third
rank.” 101 It could also be argued, that Justin actually believed that the possibility of
94 Just.1apol.30.1.
95 Just.1apol.31.1.
96 Just.1apol.14.5.
97 Just.1apol.67.3.
98 Just.1apol.66.3.
99 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, pp.66-69.
100 Just1apol.63.10.
101 Just.1apol.13.3.
55

divine revelation required a distinct and subordinated being, due to the transcendence of
God. 102
Justin made frequently use of demonology and he explains the origin of demons
from an interpretation of Genesis 6.1-5 on the angels that “transgressed the appointed
order, succumbed to intercourse with women, and begot children-who are called
demons.” 103 Demons were behind the persecutions of Christians, 104 heresy, 105
perversion of prophecies and truth, 106 pagan gods, 107 immorality 108 and all forms
destruction in society such as “murders, war, adulteries, licentiousness and every kind
of evil.” 109 It is worth noticing that Justin employed demonology as an indirect warning
to the Emperor in risking to be deceived by the demons. “For we warn you to take guard
lest the demons whom we have previously accused deceive you and turn you aside from
even encountering what we say and understanding it.” 110 ”The leader of the evil demons
is called by us Serpent, and Satan and the Devil…” 111 In Ad Diognetum as contrast we
find no demonology.
An important argument in Justin’s refutation of the false accusations against
Christians has to do with retribution. The eternal punishment by God is placed in
relation the temporal punishments of the Roman authorities. In Ad Diognetum, the
eternal bliss of the martyrs, is contrasted to their temporal sufferings. 112 In his First
Apology Justin attacked the unfairness of Roman prosecution (chapter 1-2) and the lack
102 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, pp.61-62. The idea that God deals with the
created order by means of a second God had parallels in Jewish exegesis (Philo) and in Greek philosophy
(Middle Platonist philosopher Numenius of Apamea).
103 Just.2apol.4.3.
104 Just.1apol.5.3, 12.5, 63.10.
105 Just.1apol.26.2,5, 56.1, 58.1.
106 Just.1apol.23.3, 26.1, 44.12, 54.3, 62.1-2, 64.1, 66.4.
107 Just.1apol.9.1, 12.5, 21.5, 25.3, 41.1.
108 Just.2apol.4.4.
109 Just.2apol.4.4.
110 Just.1apol.14.1, 5.1.
111 Just.1apol.28.1.
112 Ad Diognetum 10.7-8.
56

of genuine investigation (chapters 3-8). Justin threatened the Emperor from the
beginning of his apology: “…But it is your task (as reason proves) to listen and to show
yourselves good judges. For there will be no excuse before God if, once you have learnt
these things, you do not do what is right.” 113 The risk of condemnation to “eternal fire,”
lies under the surface of Justin’s argumentation, and this is probably a conscious
contrast to the unfair trials and punishments that Christians have to endure just because
they bear the Christian name. 114 In both his apologies, Justin repeats more than twenty
times that the retribution for the unjust will be by fire. 115 Life in this world is placed
immediately under the judgment of God and the coming “conflagration” 116 and this
language borders on both Stoic philosophy and biblical eschatology and serves the
protreptic object of Justin’s apologies.
Justin denounced the pagan worship in different ways. In line with the author of Ad
Diognetum, he affirmed that God is in need of nothing. ”He does not need blood, and
libations, and incense.” 117 God is the Creator of everything, and Christians are therefore,
no atheists. Justin emphasized the rationality of the Christian faith and like the author of
Ad Diognetum he utilized rhetoric. His First Apology, is structured along similar
rhetorical lines as Ad Diognetum, beginning with exordium, followed by narration,
confirmation, refutation and peroration. 118 While Justin was occupied with the
demonstration of proofs from prophecy and used almost thirty chapters for that purpose,
the author of Ad Diognetum used three chapters, a substantial part of his smaller work,
to demonstrate Revelational Theology. Although Justin admitted the need for Divine
revelation and not only human rationality, he worked along another line of reasoning
compared to the author of Ad Diognetum. We may say that while Justin employed
Scriptural revelation (proofs from prophecy), in combination with natural revelation
(and human rationality) instrumented through Logos spermatikos, the author of Ad
Diognetum, favored the eschatologically motivated Christological revelation out of
113 Just.1apol.3.4-5.
114 Just.1apol.4-8.
115 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.53.
116 Just.1apol.45.1, 57.1.
117 Just.1apol.13.1.
118 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, p.46.
57

God’s eternal design and mysterious plan (ἔννοιαν). Both authors had a common and
clear protreptic ambition, but they employed different strategies.
Ad Diognetum and the Legatio of Athenagoras
The Legatio or Embassy for the Christians, 119 was probably written in the year A.D.
176, and addressed to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius
Commodus. 120 The last was granted the Imperial title in A.D. 176 and was the son of
Marcus Aurelius. Athenagoras has been called “an Athenian Christian Philosopher” 121
and it seems likely that the Legatio was presented to the Emperors at Athens in the early
autumn of A.D.176. 122 The work expresses “a conciliatory loyalist approach” 123 and is
written in a calm and well arranged style. The author was versed in both rhetoric and
philosophy. A striking feature was his patriotism and subordination under the Emperors.
He wrote:
For as all things have been subjected to you, a father and a son, who have received your
kingdom from above (‘for the king’s life is in God’s hand’, as the prophetic spirit says),
so all things are subordinated to the one God and the Word that issues from him whom
we consider his inseparable Son. 124
Athenagoras here compared the Imperial reign with the reign of God and his Logos-
Son. This quotation is an example of patriotic oratory, but Grant is certainly right in his
evaluation that this is theology, and not only rhetoric. 125 Athenagoras was alluding to
the eschatological subordination of all things under the Son and the Father in First
Corinthians 15.25-28 and also to Romans 13.1-2 where the apostle stated that
Emperors’ authority is established by God. He probably also referred to the Gospel of
John 19.11, where Jesus said to Pilate “you would have no power over me if it were not
given to you from above.” 126 Although Athenagoras employed Classical literature and
119 ί ὶ τῶν Χριστιανῶν.
120 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.100.
121 Ibid.
122 Ibid.
123 Ibid.
124 Athenag.leg.18.2.
125 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.102.
126 J.19.11 in NIV.
58

Middle Platonic philosophy, he was first and foremost a Christian author and a defender
of the faith.
In Defense of the Christians
In the first three chapters of Legatio Athenagoras went directly to the heart of the
matter and brought to the fore the empty slander and false accusations against the
Christians.
They bring three charges against us: atheism, Thyestean banquets and Oedipean unions.
If these are true, spare no class amongst us, prosecute our crimes, destroy us root and
branch, including women and children. But if these charges are fabrications and empty
slanders…then it is only right that you examine our conduct, our teachings and our zeal
and obedience to you, your house and the empire. In so doing, you will at length grant us
a favor equal to that enjoyed by our prosecutors. We shall surely overcome them, ready
as we are to give up even our lives for the truth without flinching. 127
The three charges here were atheism, cannibalism and promiscuity. Athenagoras
apology deals with them all. The charge of atheism was a special form of superstition
and not a religion. Christians did not worship the state gods and the popular gods of
paganism and that could be regarded as “superstition.” 128 Thyestean banquets
(cannibalism) and Oedipodean intercourse (incest) were charges that “have their broader
background in the suspicions held of a foreign, aloof, and despised people.” 129 They
hade their immediate background in misunderstandings of Christian terminology, such
as calling each other “brother and sister” (terminology for husband and wife in Egypt)
and the Eucharistic eating of the flesh and blood of Christ. 130 From the time of A.D.
150, a period of toleration came to an end. The Greco-Roman world under Emperor
Marcus Aurelius and his successors, begun to awake to the ‘threat’ of the Christians. 131
127 Athenag.leg.3.1-2.
128 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2003), p.595. Some important designations appear in official Roman documents concerning
Christians in the beginning of the second century. When Tacitus described the great fire of Rome in A.D.
64 and the subsequent persecution of Christians by Nero, he designated it as abominations (flagitia) and
superstition (superstitio) in his Annals (15.44.2-8). In the same way the Roman governor of Bithynia,
Pliny, in his correspondence with Trajan in A.D.112, mentions “secret crimes” (flagitia), “superstition”
(superstitio) and “obstinacy” (contumacia) in his Epistle (Ep.10.96).
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid., p.596.
131 Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, p.237.
59

Fronto was a North African orator and tutor of Marcus Aurelius, and he attacked the
Christians and repeated the slanders of the lower classes. 132
The Defense against the Accusations of Atheism
Athenagoras countered the accusation of atheism and presented a Christian Theism.
As with the author of Ad Diognetum (3.3-5), Athenagoras claimed that God is in need of
nothing. “The Artificer and Father of this universe need no blood, fat or fragrance of
flowers and incense. He himself is the perfect fragrance and is in need of nothing from
within or without.” 133 Athenagoras undermined the argument and turned it around to
present the Christian worship. “So then, when we regard the Artificer as a God who
conserves and governs all things with the knowledge and skill by which he guides them,
and we raise up holy hands to him, what further need does he have of any
hecatomb?” 134 In Ancient Greece, a hecatomb 135 was a sacrifice to the gods of 100
cattle. Hecatombs were offered to the Greek gods Apollo, Athena, and Hera, during
special religious ceremonies. As the author of Ad Diognetum (2.2-5), Athenagoras
pointed out the absurdity of not separating between God and matter, but “equating
perishable and corruptible things with that which is eternal.” 136 However, Athenagoras
was not only attacking the senseless pagan worship, he also made use of the opportunity
to present the Christian Theism. As a matter of fact, he was the first teacher of the early
Church to give us a doctrinal statement on the Trinitarian relations.
We are attended only by the knowledge of him which is truly God and the Word, that
issues from him-a knowledge as to what is the unity of the Son with the Father, what is
the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these
powers-the Spirit, the Son and the Father. 137
132 In the apology to Octavius, Minucius Felix, gave one of the versions of Christian initiation, a
version that circulated and triggered the hatred of Christians. In Octavius 9.6 Felix mentioned “the speech
of our friend of Cirta” and that was a reference to Fronto born at Cirta in Numibia. Of that Speech against
the Christians nothing survived except for the reminiscences in Octavius.
133 Athenag.leg.13.2.
134 Athenag.leg.13.3.
135 Hekaton = one hundred.
136 Athenag.leg.15.4.
137 Athenag.leg.12.3.
60

The Defense against the Accusations of Immorality
Athenagoras devoted chapters thirty-one to thirty-seven to the defense against
cannibalism, promiscuity, incest and infanticide. Against impious banquets,
Athenagoras stated three doctrines, as motivational forces for a high Christian ethical
standard of living. 138 Firstly, it was the ethics of respecting God’s rule in being
“blameless and faultless before him.” 139 Secondly, it was the omnipresence of God, who
“knows what we think and say both night and day.” 140 Thirdly, it was the final judgment
before God, and it would not be likely that Christians in view of all this “should want to
do evil” and to deliver themselves up “to the great Judge to be punished.” 141
Athenagoras stated that Christians respect both human laws and God’s law. He also
explained the way Christians live together. He admitted that Christian greet each other
with one salutary kiss, but not two. A second kiss was strictly forbidden. Marriage was
not for pleasure, but only for reproduction, lustful glances were reckoned as adultery, a
second marriage was regarded as a “covert” adultery, divorce was forbidden and so also
to bring in a second wife or a mistress. Virginity was honored, abortion was judged as
murder, prostitution and homosexuality were not admitted, gladiatorial shows were
denounced, and just as in Ad Diognetum 5.6, exposure of children was strictly
forbidden. The argumentation runs consistently. Christians were forbidden to commit
murder, adultery, incest and other forms of immoral practices not only in deeds, but in
thoughts, as well. The accusations were inconsistent with everything that Christians
represented in the Greco-Roman society. Christians chose a “gentle, affectionate and
kind” 142 way of life. Athenagoras had to take an uncompromising moral stance in
defending the Christians from false accusations. He had to articulate himself in
separating the Christian community from all sorts of unethical behavior. The author of
Ad Diognetum did not have to defend Christian chastity and purity. He was probably in
an earlier stage of development and could concentrate his efforts on painting the
138 Athenag.leg.31.
139 Athenag.leg.31.3.
140 Athenag.leg.31.4.
141 Athenag.leg.31.4.
142 Athenag.leg.12.1.
61

positive picture of Christians and he wrote: “In a word: what the soul is to the body,
Christians are to the world.” 143
In the Legatio, we find no distinct teaching on revelation as in Ad Diognetum, but in
7.1-3, Athenagoras indicates a belief in the necessity of revelation. The philosophers
came up with “different doctrines concerning God, matter, the forms and the world.”
However, they were able only to reach “a peripheral understanding”, within the scope of
their own minds (ῆ), because they “would not stoop to learn about God from
God, but each relied upon themselves.” 144 Instead of human opinions, and thanks to the
Spirit, Athenagoras had the divinely inspired prophetic and decisive word about God.
That made a great difference, and here Athenagoras reminds us of Ad Diognetum: “But
as regards the mystery of their own religion, do not expect to be able to learn it from
human lips.” 145 Only God can reveal God. As in Ad Diognetum we find an
understanding of God that is transcendent as “uncreated, eternal, impassible,
incomprehensible, indivisible and infinite.” 146 God is the Creator of the universe and the
emphasis here was on the primacy of the immaterial 147 and on his goodness, 148 but God
was not equated with the idea of Good in Platonism. In 4.2 and 7.2 Athenagoras
conveyed the truth that it is the uncreated God, the maker of the universe, and not the
idea of Good, that was connected with Being. In contrast to Ad Diognetum, and many
other apologists, Athenagoras in chapter eight, elaborated on an intellectual evidence for
God and monotheism. 149 It is worth noticing that Athenagoras gave the rational
143 Ad Diognetum 6.1.
144 Athenag.leg.7.2.
145 Ad Diognetum 5.6.
146 Athenag.leg.8.3 and 10.1.
147 Athenag.leg.15.1, 19.2, 36.3.
148 Athenag.leg.23.7, 24.2.
149 Athenagoras discusses the possibility of two gods. “Either (a) they would be in the same category
or (b) each of them would be independent”. Now gods are independent and uncreated and therefore they
cannot be similar and cannot belong to the same category. Christians believe in One Maker of the
universe. That statement excludes another god from the category of the One true God. Now, “if he is
neither in the world nor around the world (for everything around the world is controlled by God its
Maker), where is he?”. Athenagoras bring in the argument from the concept of ‘power’. Per definition a
true god must be the one with the greatest power. Athenagoras goes on to show that there is no place for a
second presumed god and therefore he can not exist, “since there is no place for him in which to be” and
since he has no great power. A second god would have no ultimate power and no space and therefore he
can not exercise providence and since he cannot exercise providence he can not be the Maker of all things
62

evidence for the existence of one God after his chapter on revelation. Revelation is our
true guide, but it is not devoid of rational grounds. This example shows very well
Athenagoras’ irenic way of reasoning. He found no foundational conflict between
Church and Empire or between faith and philosophy. The conciliatory message of
Athenagoras was that God has entrusted us with both entities.
Ad Diognetum and the Oratio of Tatian
Tatian’s Oratio, or Oration to the Greeks 150 is not really an apology at all. 151 It is
rather a polemic attack on Greek culture. It stands in sharp contrast to Athenagoras’
irenic approach. Maybe we should understand Tatian’s work as a logos syntaktikos, a
farewell discourse, 152 but it also has a strong exhortative tendency. Traditionally he is
reckoned among the apologists, and he certainly shows some apologetic traits. Tatian’s
Oratio could have been written in connection with the martyrdoms in Gaul A.D. 177, or
178. 153 The emperor Marcus Aurelius, confirmed the death sentences of convinced
Christians. 154 The slaughter resulted in the loss of many innocent lives, and the list of
martyrs included forty-eight names. 155 This brutal massacre of Christians in spite of
some apologists appeal to imperial justice, could have been the likely historical
background for Tatian’s oration and at least in part it explains the hostile tone that
and therefore the “logical” conclusion is that “God, the Maker of the world is from the beginning one and
alone” (Athenag.leg.8). This argumentation seems to presuppose the theses that God is independent and
indivisible and that there are only two categories of being: Eternal Being and temporal being (in one sense
non-being) and two categories of space: Inside or outside spherical creation.
150 .
151 Richard A. Norris, “The Apologists,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, eds.
Frances Young, Lewis Aures and Andrew Louth, Cambridge History Online (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), p.43.
152 Grant, Greek Apologists, p. 115.
153 According to Grant, Tatian in 19.1 probably referred to a celebration in Athens in the autumn of
A.D. 176 that accompanied the Emperors donation of four professorships in philosophy and one in
rhetoric, each with a stipend of 400 aurei. Tatian comments that “your philosophers are so far from that
practice that some receive 600 gold coins a year from the Roman Emperor for no useful purpose but that
they may even be paid for letting their beards grow long”. (Grant, Greek Apologists, pp.113-114). An
aureus was a Roman gold coin.
154 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.113.
155 Ibid.
63

characterizes the writing as a whole. In A.D. 165, Tatian had lost his former and “most
admirable” 156 teacher in Rome, Justin Martyr.
Tatian was born of pagan parents, in Assyria 157 in the frontier district, between the
Roman Empire and Parthia. 158 According to Eusebius, Tatian was “a man who in early
life was trained in the learning of the Greeks and gained great distinction in it and has
left many monuments of himself in writing.” 159 After much wandering, Tatian settled
down in Rome, was converted to Christianity and attended Justin’s school. 160 Tatian
described his search for truth and his conversion with the following words:
There when I had seen these things and had also taken part in the mysteries and had
scrutinized the rituals conducted everywhere through effeminate homosexuals and found
that among the Romans their Zeus Latiaris took pleasure in men’s gore and blood shed by
manslaughter and that Artemis not far from the great city practiced arts of the same sort
and that different demons in different places were busily encouraging wrong-doing, when
I was by myself I began to seek by what means I could discover the truth. While I was
engaged in serious thought I happened to read some barbarian writings, older by
comparison with the doctrines of the Greeks, more divine by comparison with their
errors. The outcome was that I was persuaded by these because of the lack of arrogance
in the wording, the artlessness of the speakers, the easily intelligible account of the
creation of the world, the foreknowledge of the future, the remarkable quality of the
precepts and the doctrine of a single ruler of the universe. My soul was taught by God and
I understood that some parts had a condemnatory effect, while others freed us from many
rulers and countless tyrants, giving us not something we hade never received, but what
we hade received but had been prevented from keeping by our error. 161
The “things” that Tatian had “seen,” he presented in chapters one to twenty-eight. After
giving an account for all his experiences, knowledge of Greek literature, religion and
insights in the mystery cults and passing categorical judgments on many different
strands of Greek culture, Tatian in the quotation above, mentioned some reasons for his
conversion. The divine origin of the Christian teachings, its cosmology (the intelligible
account of creation), the clear monotheistic belief (a single ruler of the universe), its
morality (quality of precepts) and prophecy (foreknowledge of the future), were some of
the teachings, that Tatian was attracted to. The “barbarian writings” was certainly the
156 Tat.orat.18.2, 19.1.
157 Tat.orat.42.
158 Frend, Rise of Christianity, p.175.
159 Eus.h.e.4.16.7.
160 Quasten, Patrology, p.1:220; Eus.h.e.4.29.1.
161 Tat.orat.29:1-2.
64

Old Testament writings, and probably also the four Gospels, Acts, Hebrews and the
Pauline Epistles. 162 His conversion seems to a great extent have been an intellectual and
moral consideration that led him to say farewell to Greco-Roman religion, philosophy
and culture, and to embrace Christianity as a profiled alternative. “So having taken my
leave of Roman arrogance and Athenian cold cleverness-incoherent bases of doctrine-I
sought out the philosophy which you consider barbarous.” 163 The execution of his tutor
Justin in the year A.D. 165 was certainly a great provocation and contributed to his
cultural exile out of the Greco-Roman society. Tatian went back to Syria, and became
the leader and maybe also the founder of the Encratite sect, 164 discouraging marriage
and denying the salvation of Adam. 165 One of his famous works was Diatessaron, a
harmony of the four Gospels into one continuous narrative. It was probably written in
Greek and later on translated into Syrian, Latin and Arabic versions. It had a remarkable
success and contributed to the growth of Syrian Christianity. 166 His Oration to the
Greeks was according to Eusebius “the most famous, quoted by many.” 167 The Oratio
consists of forty-two chapters written in rhetorical mastery and in style reflecting the
asianism that was popularized during the Second Sophistic, ”the cultural backdrop for
the young Tatian.” 168
Attack on Greek Culture and Philosophy
Tatian returned to the expression “men of Greece” 169 several times. He addressed
Greek culture as a historical phenomenon, and contrasted it with a Christian culture
which was free to all, irrespective of sex, age and wealth. 170 Greek culture was all of
162 Molly Whittaker, Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos. In OECT, ed. Henry Chadwick, trans. M. Whittaker.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982 ), p.18. Se also Eus.h.e.29.6.
163 Tat.orat.35.1.
164 Eus.h.e.29.1
165 Eus.h.e.29.2-3. Se also Edgar J. Goodspead, A History of Early Christian Literature, rev. Robert
M. Grant, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p.108.
166 Goodspead, A History of Early Christian Literature, pp.106-107.
167 Eus.h.e.4.29.7.
168 Paul Foster, “Tatian,” in Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures,
ed. Paul Foster, (London: IVP Academic, 2010), p.15.
169 ἂνδ ΄Ἐ.
65

“foreign origin.” 171 Tatian gave a long list of borrowed cultural contributions to the
Greek culture: Babylonian astronomy, Persian magic, Egyptian geometry, Etruscan
sculpture, Egyptian chronology and history, Phrygian flute-playing and Phoenician
education to mention only some of them. Had the Greek culture something of its own?
Tatian’s answer was no, and he continued: ”So drop this humbug and stop citing elegant
phrases in your own favor.” 172 He devoted chapters two to three and twenty-five to
twenty-eight to attack the philosophers. Tatian did not spare Plato or Aristotle. All
philosophers were more or less degenerated and fell under his judgment.
What are your philosophers doing of any significance or note? To leave one shoulder bare
and wear their hair long and grow beards, sporting the nails of wild beasts. And they say
they have no needs, but in fact like Proteus they want a leather-dresser for the wallet, a
weaver for the cloak, a woodcutter for the stick, and for gluttony rich men and a chef.
You, sir, behaving like a dog-you have no knowledge of God and have sunk to imitating
irrational creatures! 173
We may say that Tatian choose the strategy of a head-on collision or a frontal attack
on all forms of Greek degenerated culture and philosophy. Tatian wrote in the form of
Greek satire. 174 What is important to note here was the inability of philosophy to reach
true and real wisdom.
The origin of your nonsense is the grammarians, and by dividing up wisdom you cut
yourselves off from true wisdom, when you attributed the names of its parts to men.
Because you do not know God you make war among yourselves and kill one another. For
this reason you are all nothing; your appropriate words but your conversation is like a
blind man with a deaf. 175
Tatian seemed to trace the origin of the failure of philosophy to the grammarians and
their inability to reach true knowledge. He mentioned the analytical and deconstructive
methods of the grammarians. His denunciations of grammarians, had parallels in Sextus
Empiricus’ attacks on grammarians. 176 One way of interpreting the quotation above is
that the grammarians were not able to transcend partial understanding and comprehend
the whole picture. Like all the philosophers, they were lost in a partial and incomplete
170 Tat.orat.32.1-3; 33.1.
171 Tat.orat.1.1.
172 Tat.orat.1.2.
173 Tat.orat.25.1
174 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.118.
175 Tat.orat.26.2-3.
176 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.117.
66

understanding of reality. Now Tatian showed the diversity of Greek dialects, 177 such as
the Ionic, Doric, Attic and Aeolic dialects, and it could be that the denunciation of the
grammarians, also reflected a criticism of the diversity of dialects in general, and the
Athenian or Attic intellectualism in particular. 178
Proofs from Antiquity
One important part of Tatian’s line of argumentation was his proof from Antiquity.
Age was a powerful argument in proving the truth of a matter. Tatian employed material
from Chaldean, Phoenician and Egyptian chronicles, to prove that Moses was older than
the oldest of the Greek philosophers. In chapters thirty-five to forty-one, Tatian
presented all historical and chronological material he had compiled, and it was probably
to a large extent due to this part of his Oratio that many Christians, even in later
generations, learned to appreciate his work. After an impressive list of names, Tatian
concluded:
So it is clear from the preceding arguments that Moses is older than heroes, cities and
demons. We should believe one who has priority in time in preference to Greeks who
learned his doctrines at second hand. For with much labor their sophists tried to
counterfeit all they knew from Moses’ teaching and from those who philosophized like
him, first in order to gain a reputation for originality, and secondly in order that by
concealing their ignorance in a cloak of bogus verbiage they might distort the truth as
mythology…But in regard to my present point, I am most anxious to make it absolutely
clear that Moses is not only older than Homer but is older even than the writers before
him…(a long list of names follows). 179
Demonology and Material Spirits
Another important part of Tatian’s argumentation was his demonology in
combination with two kinds of spirit or spiritual ‘substance’. “Men became the subject
of the demons apostasy.” 180
The creature made in the image of God, when the more powerful spirit departed from
him, became mortal, while because of his transgression and rebellion the first-born was
appointed a demon, along with those who followed his example. Demonic apparitions
formed his army, and in consequence of their own free will were given up to their own
stupid folly. 181
177 Tat.orat.26.3-4.
178 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.117.
179 Tat.orat.40.1-2; 41.1.
180 Tat.orat.8.1.
67

Here Tatian described how the angels fell and became demons and demons became
mortal powers. As mortal powers, demons consisted of fine matter and “possess a spirit
derived from it.” This explained, according to Tatian, that some of them “became
profligate and greedy.” 182 These mortal demons, operated in pagan religion as
transformed gods, 183 in astrology as planetary demons, 184 in sorcery as perverted
thoughts and inclinations, 185 in medicine as elemental matter, 186 and in immorality as
sensual pleasures and wrong-doing. 187 The demons will finally be punished. 188 Tatian’s
demonology helped to explain the seriousness with which he evaluated his
contemporary Greek civilization. Behind the curtain of “the theatre to the demons” 189 he
recognized demonic tricks and brutal facts. His horizon was darkened. “Men became
subject of the demons’ apostasy.” 190 Although Tatian denounced philosophy, his
differentiation between two kinds of spirit related to matter, echoes the Stoic teaching
on two kinds of matter, “the heavier matter of the physical body and the lighter matter
of the soul.” 191 According to Tatian, spirits existed in luminaries, in angels, in plants
and waters and in animals. 192 Matter was possessed with material spirits of this world,
and with demons and should therefore, be rejected. 193 Tatian’s advanced speculations
related to these kinds of spirit and demons, and his tendency to a negative view on
matter, could be interpreted as a Gnostic orientation. However, to do him justice we also
181 Tat.orat.7.3.
182 Tat.orat.12.3.
183 Tat.orat.9.1, 10.1.
184 Tat.orat.9.2.
185 Tat.orat.16.1-2.
186 Tat.orat.16.3, 20.1.
187 Tat.orat.29.1
188 Tat.orat.14.1-2.
189 Tat.orat.8.1.
190 Tat.orat.8.1.
191 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, p.357.
192 Tat.orat.12.4-5.
193 Whittaker, Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos, p.16. See also Tat.orat.18.2.
68

must state that he upholds a clear Christian belief in one single Creator. 194 In his Oratio
we hardly find evidences for heretical suspicions. We must bear in mind the fluidity,
creativity, and sometimes contradictory tendencies, that emerged within the Christian
movement, during the second half of the second century. 195
Philosopher among the Barbarians
As the author of Ad Diognetum, Tatian believed in the transcendence of God. God is
spirit and above the spirit that pervades matter. He is entirely free of needs and “must
not be misrepresented by us as in need of anything.” 196 Through his Word or Logos God
established all things. It is not easy to understand if this Word is to be interpreted as the
personal Logos, equal to the Father, or as God’s creative and uttered Word through
which he created all things. 197 Tatian was not explicit on the theme of revelation, but he
and his fellow Christians rejected “all that is based on human opinion,” 198 and he seems
to set “the truth of God“ 199 in opposition to philosophy. As in Ad Diognetum, the title
‘Christ’ or name ‘Jesus’ was never mentioned, although “the servant of the suffering
God” 200 was once stated in the Oratio. Tatian presented himself as “a philosopher
among the barbarians,” 201 and his writing could be described as a work of propaganda
close to the protreptikos or hortative genre. Tatian was a cultivated and experienced
person who expressed his ambition as to “compose an account of everything that I
personally came to know.” 202 He had probably been initiated into the mystery cult 203
and had deep insights into the religious life of ordinary men. He wanted to relate his
194 Tat.orat.4-6.
195 Paul Foster, ”Tatian,” p.35.
196 Tat.orat.4.3.
197 Tat.orat.5.
198 Tat.orat.32.1.
199 Tat.orat.32.1.
200 Tat.orat.13.3.
201 Tat.orat.42.1.
202 Tat.orat.35.1
203 Tat.orat.29.1.
69

personal story and critical perspective. The returning phrase, “men of Greece” appeared
as an exhortation to his contemporaries to look through the falsity of corrupt culture and
to turn to the only true God. More positively stated, his “soul was taught by God,” 204
and as “a herald of truth” 205 he wanted to convey the superior Christian philosophy as
an instructive discipline (Paideia) 206 and “to speak about its doctrines.” 207 In this
ambition Tatian came rather close to the protreptic goal and genre. However, he also
employed the logos syntaktikos, a fare-well discourse to the distorted culture of Greece
and Rome. 208 Tatian came to Rome from Assyria as a foreigner, 209 and he left the city as
a foreigner. Oration to the Greeks was his apologetic goodbye treatise; polemic,
provocative and powerful.
Tatian came close to Ad Diognetum in his categorical rejection of pagan worship and
Greek philosophy and in his descriptions of God’s transcendence, the Logos ministry
and revelation, but those traits are common to most apologists and the revelation theme
was not related to salvation, but rather to the educative function of the Word. Tatian’s
penetrating demonology is totally absent from Ad Diognetum and so also his dark
horizon. Instead of utilizing chronology to demonstrate the older age of Moses
compared to the oldest philosophers, and so prove the supremacy of Christianity, the
author of Ad Diognetum worked out a Revelational Theology that revealed the eternal
and hidden counsel of God and showed that it had been realized through God’s Son. If
Tatian was known for his radical repudiations, the author of Ad Diognetum, was even
more radical in expounding his Revelational Theology.
204 Tat.orat.29.2.
205 Tat.orat.17.1.
206 Tat.orat.12.5. According to Werner Jaeger, the concept of Paideia represents the entire Classical
Greek learning, philosophy and tradition that penetrated the early Christian faith and was penetrated by
the Christian faith. In Judaism Philo of Alexandria was the most prominent representative and in early
Christianity, Clement of Alexandria was the foremost proponent. Paideia implied the use of Greek
tradition, its rich conceptual vocabulary and its highest values in a programmatic educative program. The
apostle Paul used the word in Ephesians 6.4 for Christian instruction. (Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity
and Greek Paideia, [Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1961], pp.12-35).
207 Tat.orat.35.2.
208 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.115.
209 Compare Tat.orat.1.1. It is an open question whether Tatian’s ‘foreignness’ was the suffering of
“all things as strangers” and still living in “every foreign country as their fatherland” as in Ad Diognetum
(5.5), or if it was an experience of total estrangement from the community and/or a total alienation in the
world. (Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion. The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of
Christianity, 2nd ed.[Boston: Beacon Press, 1991], p.323).
70

Ad Diognetum as a Protreptic Work
The Protreptic Genre
The Greek verb έω, means to urge, encourage, impel or persuade. 210
Protreptics was a literary genre, used by philosophers who wanted to urge people to
start studying philosophy. 211 Cicero's Hortensius, was read by the young Augustine and
was written in this genre. 212 Also, Aristotle wrote a Protreptikos that is lost, but has
been reconstructed. Here Aristotle admonished the reader to respond to the call of
philosophy as the only way to what is right and noble and to what gives true pleasure.
But it is clear that the philosopher is the only producer to have both laws that are secure
and actions that are right and noble. For he alone lives looking at nature and at the divine,
and, just as if he were some good helmsman who hitches the first principles of his life
into things which are eternal and steadfast, gets anchored and lives on his own
terms…Further, it is clear that the pleasure that arises from being intelligent and
observant must be the pleasure that comes from living, either alone or most of all.
Therefore living pleasantly and feeling true belong only to the philosophers, or to them
most of all. 213
Christians made use of this protreptic genre when they intended to expound on the
Christian faith. So did Clement of Alexandria who presented Christianity as the true
philosophy. The author of Ad Diognetum, also made use of this ‘propagandistic’
genre. 214 In this way, he transcended the limits of the pure apologetic genre. The
message was molded in a new literary form, but it is often very hard to separate these
two genres. Chapters one to six of Ad Diognetum could be described as apologetic,
while chapters seven to ten are perhaps more appropriately to be described as protreptic.
On the other hand, we find the protreptic tone in 2.1 and the apologetic tone in 8.1-4.
The two genres are often intermingled, and for the sake of precision, we ought to state
that Ad Diognetum, is an apologetic-protreptic writing. 215 This may sound technical and
210 Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957)
p.727.
211 J. Quasten, Patrology, p.2: 8.
212 Ibid.
213 Aristotle. Protrepticus: A Provisional Reconstruction, eds. Douglas S. Hutchinson and Monte
Ransome Johnson, [Online], Available from:http://www.scribd.com/full/37075552?access_key=key-
1y4xsbi894ios5ahftxp, [Accessed 3 March 2012], pp.25-28.
214 Brändle, ”Schrift and Diognet”, p.15, Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, p.293 and Walter Eltester, Das
Mysterium des Christentums. Anmerkungen zum Diognetbrief, ZNW 61, (Giessen, 1970), p.285.
215 Wängst, Schrift an Diognet, p.293.
71

therefore, we must remind ourselves of the evangelical spirituality behind the use of the
art of protreptics in Ad Diognetum. The author cared for the soul, and when he in
chapter ten reminded the addressee of the love of God and invited him to leave his
power and wealth to become an imitator of God, he was acting as a Spiritual director.
No wonder that Ad Diognetum has been used as a fine piece and early Christian
example of the art of Spiritual direction. 216
The Protreptic Features
According to Lona, who has examined several classical protreptic texts, there are at
least six features, or characteristics of the protreptic literary genre. 217 Firstly, the
protreptic literature is oriented to the reader/listener in a pragmatic way. Secondly, a
protreptic work is instantly regarded as a work of a teacher with the purpose of showing
the pupil the way to wisdom and happiness. The teacher’s authority is closely tied to the
literary form. Thirdly, the protreptic aim is persuasion, but the receiver of the message
is not in a neutral position vis-à-vi the message. He is rather supposed to show a
fundamental interest in the message. Fourthly, protreptic texts are based upon a certain
system of values. These values are often presupposed and can be formulated in
sentences as the soul is more important than the body, being is more important than
having, and truth is more important than image. Fifthly, the literary form of protreptics
is free and flexible. The author or speaker can choose if the form should be a speech, an
epistle, a dialogue, and the length and scope often vary. Sixthly, the ultimate goal of
protreptics is far wider than just conveying new knowledge. It is rather an exhortation to
reflect on and practice philosophy in order to reach the final goal of human life, which
is happiness and friendship. However, it is necessary to clarify that Christian writers and
speakers were able to utilize the freedom and flexibility of the protreptic genre for their
Christian purposes. They were not confined to a Middle Platonic or Stoic world-view,
or to the ultimate goals of philosophy, but rather and thanks to the wide range of the
protreptic genre, free to mould their Christian faith in the elastic protreptic form.
The writer of a Christian protreptic work had to have at least two qualifications.
Firstly, the author had to have a good general education and rhetorical training.
216 William A. Barry and William J. Connolly, The Practice of Spiritual Direction, (New York: Harper
and Collins Publishers, 1982), p.24.
217 Lona, An Diognet, pp.28-29.
72

Secondly, the author had to be a well-versed theologian, and a reflecting and spiritual
Christian personality. 218 Our anonymous author was qualified to accomplish the very
special task of writing to Diognetus. Our work is not only a beautiful example of
learning and oratory. It is also a refined theological tract. 219
Ad Diognetum and Other Second Century Protreptic Works
Ad Diognetum and the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria
Titus Flavius Clement was born about the year A.D. 150, probably in Athens, as a
son of pagan parents. 220 After his conversion to Christianity, he travelled extensively
and was eventually brought to Alexandria and attached to the Christian philosopher
Pantaenus and to the famous catechetical school. 221 Eusebius wrote: “at that time
Clement…was famous in Alexandria for his study of the Holy Scriptures with
Pantaenus.” 222 He finally succeeded Pantaenus as the head of the school and had later
on to leave Alexandria probably due to the outbreak of the persecution of Septimus
Severus A.D. 202. 223 He ended his life shortly before A.D. 215. 224 Clement has been
called “the pioneer of Christian scholarship.” 225 He united faith and philosophy and
employed secular learning in the propagation of the Gospel. For Clement Christianity
was the crown of Classical learning and Classical learning was a preparation for the
Gospel.
One of his writings bears the title Protrepticus, or Exhortation to the Greeks. 226 It
was likely written at the end of the second century before the persecution of Septimus
218 Brändle, “Schrift and Diognet”, p.15.
219 Ibid.
220 Eus.h.e.5.10.1-4 and 6.6.1. Se also Quasten, Patrology, p.2:5.
221 Ibid.
222 Eus.h.e.5.11.1.
223 Ibid.,5.
224 Thanks to two letters from Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, we know something of Clements later
years and death. The first letters was written in A.D. 211 and quoted in Eusebius (h.e.6.11.6.). Here
Clement is called “the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved”. The second letter was written to
Origen in A.D. 215 and quoted by Eusebius (h.e.6.14.9.) and presupposes Clement’s death. Here the text
goes: “the holy Clement, who was my master and profited me, and all others like them” (my emphasis).
225 Eus.h.e.6.
73

Severus as the first work in a series of three. The two remaining, were Paedagogos and
Stromata. 227 It consists of twelve lengthy chapters and could be outlined as follows:
TABLE 1
An outline of the content of Protrepticus, written by Clement of Alexandria.
Chapter 1 The call of the Logos and the new song
Chapter 2-7 Criticism of Greek religion and philosophy
Chapter 8-9 God’s call through the Sibyl and the Scriptures
Chapter 10-12
An appeal to abandon pagan institutions and share
God’s universal mission through the Logos.
In chapter eleven Clement cries out a final exhortation that summarizes his protreptic
object.
What then is my exhortation? I urge thee to be saved. This is the wish of Christ; in one
word, He freely grants thee life. And who is He? Understand briefly; the Word of truth;
the Word of incorruption; He who regenerates man by bringing him back to the truth; the
goad of salvation; He who banishes corruption and expels death; He who has built His
temple in men, that in men He may set up the shrine of God. Purify the temple, and
abandon your pleasures and careless ways, like the flower of the day, to the wind and fire;
but labor in wisdom for the harvest of self-control, and present yourself as first-fruits to
God, in order that you may be not only His work, but also His delight. Both things are
necessary for the friend of Christ: he must show himself worthy of a kingdom, and be
counted worthy of a kingdom. 228
Here Clement reflects a protreptic urge to convert the readers to Christianity. The
writing had no single addressee, but appealed to the Greek speaking world in general. It
bears a close resemblance to other early Christian apologies, with their familiar polemic
against ancient mythology, and their defense of the Antiquity of the Old Testament and
226 .
227 A most important lost work must have been the Hypotyposeis, a sort of commentary to selected
biblical texts, from which only brief fragments are preserved, and which seems to have survived to the
eighteenth century. Other lost works mentioned by Eusebius are On the Pascha, On Fasting, On Slander,
Against the Judaizers, On Providence, Exhortation to Endurance, To the Recently Baptized, and Who is
the Rich Man that is being Saved? (Eus.h.e.6.13.1-3).
228 Clem.prot.11.117.3-5.
74

Moses. 229 However, as an example of a protreptic treatise it does not defend Christianity
against false accusations. It rather presents the supremacy of the saving Word and
breathes a “a superior conviction, a calm assurance of the educative function of the
Logos throughout the history of mankind.” 230
Critique of the Materialistic Cult and Popular Philosophy
When we look for important traits in the Protrepticus that could indicate an affinity
with Ad Diognetum we make some interesting discoveries. One resemblance is the
critique of pagan religion and popular philosophy. As already have been stated Clement
was an open-minded Christian thinker, but Clement also criticized the early
philosophers and popular philosophy that exalted the elements and venerated matter and
in that way made themselves guilty of atheism. These men were the real atheists and not
the Christians. He included in his criticism Thales, Anaximenes, Diogenes, Permenides,
Hippasus, Heraclitus, Empedocles, and he concluded: “These men also were really
atheists, since with a foolish show of wisdom they worshipped matter.” 231 Clement also
criticized the Stoic doctrine of immanence that “say that the divine nature permeates all
matter, even in its lowest forms; these men simply cover philosophy with shame.” 232
However, Clement did not denounce all philosophers. He expressed his respect and
admiration for Plato and Platonic ideas and expressions. He interpreted Plato, Socrates,
Xenophon, Cleanthes and the Pythagoreans as if they believed in the one true God, and
he quoted some of their works and stated: “These sayings have been recorded by their
authors through God’s inspiration, and we have selected them.” 233 Like other early
Christian apologists Clement set the keynote for the section on monotheistic philosophy
by quoting the third book of the Sibylline Oracles 234 and above decent philosophers he
placed the Hebrew prophets. He referred to them in attacking the materialistic worship
of the Greeks and made it clear that Plato and other enlightened Greeks “have been
229 Quasten, Patrology, p.2: 8.
230 Ibid.
231 Clem.prot.5.64.3.
232 Clem.prot.5.66.3.
233 Clem.prot.6.72.5.
234 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.180.
75

helped by the Hebrews themselves.” 235 In his writings, Clement alluded to the Old
Testament in 1500 passages and to the New Testament in 2000 passages, and he also
had quotations from Classical writings in 360 passages. 236 Just like the author of Ad
Diognetum (2), Clement attacked idolatry, even the Olympian gods, and gave examples
that all images of gods are the work of men.
It is now, therefore, self-evident that out of stones and blocks of wood, and, in on word,
out of matter, men fashioned statues resembling the human form to which you offer a
semblance of piety, calumniating the truth. 237
Instead of worshipping a material statue and image, “man bear about the image of God,
an image which dwells in us, is our counselor, companion…” 238 Christians are the real
images of God. The materialistic cult was also rejected from the perception of the only
true God “not by the senses but by the mind,” 239 but in contrast to Ad Diognetum
Clement used demonology to explain and refute the pagan worship. “Come then, let us
add this, that your gods are inhuman and man-hating demons.” 240 To be more specific,
we should add that the emphasis here, is not that much upon demonology per se, as on
the demoralizing tendency of the pagan cults. In sharp contrast to Ad Diognetum
Clement did not blame the Jews and their cult and customs. Instead, he draws heavily
upon the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish monotheism.
Logos Terminology
A second resemblance is the frequent use of the Logos-terminology. Throughout his
work Clement referred to the Logos or the Word. In the first chapter, he picked up a
term by Philo of Alexandria. 241 The Philonic term symphonia 242 contributed both to
Christian universalism through the Word and to the language of poetry in depicting the
“new song” that had come into the world and brought harmony and melody in the world
235 Clem.prot.6.70.1.
236 Quasten, Patrology, p.2: 6
237 Clem.prot.4.47.1.
238 Clem.prot.4.59.2.
239 Clem.prot.4.51.6.
240 Clem.prot.3.42.1.
241 Philo.Virt.72-76.
242 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.181.
76

of nature and people. “The Lord fashioned man a beautiful breathing instrument, after
his own image; and assuredly he himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God,
melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word.” 243 This
Word is the “new song” and yet it was in the beginning as the “pre-existent Word” but it
was recently manifested on earth in “our Savior Jesus Christ.” 244 This metaphor of
music in presenting the work of the Logos, is an example of Clement’s creative genius,
but so typical of Clement he goes on to relate the Word as teacher or didaskalos. 245 One
get the impression, that for Clement, the educative ministry of the Word is more
important than his incarnation. Judith L. Kovacs came to the same conclusion. “Clement
adapts ancient ideas about education (Paideia) to describe the pedagogy of the Logos.
The divine Word is both Instructor (Paidagogos) and Teacher (Didaskalos) who
carefully arranges his curriculum…” 246 In the introduction to his Paedagogos Clement
referred to his earlier book, the Protrepticus and wrote:
As there are these three things in the case of man, habits, actions and passions; habits
are the department appropriated by the hortatory discourse the guide to piety…For the
whole of piety is hortatory, engendering in the kindred faculty of reason a yearning
after true life now and to come. 247
Clement looked back on his “hortatory discourse” (i.e. Protrepticus), and recapitulated
its object; to guide to piety and true life. 248 In the wider context, Clement described the
threefold action 249 (since Logos can also be interpreted as ‘discourse’) initiated by the
Divine Logos: the logos Protrepticus invites men to salvation, the logos Paidagogos
advises and heals their passions and the logos Didaskalos instructs them about the
content of Christian faith. 250 This may be called the developmental, universal and
243 Clem.prot.1.5.4.
244 Clem.prot.1.7.2.
245 Clem.prot.1.7.3.
246 Judith L. Kovacs, “Clement of Alexandria,” in Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of
Twelve Key Figures, ed. Paul Foster, (London: IVP Academic, 2010), p.78.
247 Clem.paed.1.1-2.
248 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.179.
249 Miguel Herrero de Jáuregui, The Protreptikus of Clement of Alexandria: A Commentary, Diss.
Bologna [Online] Available from: http://amsdottorato. cib.unibo.it/1117/1/Tesi_Herrero_ de_Jauregui_
Miguel.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2012], pp.12-13.
250 Clem.paed.1.1-3
77

unfolding revelation through the Logos. For Clement, as for so many apologists with the
classical ideal of Paideia, revelation to a large extent was the teaching ministry of the
Word. “It is the function of a word to instruct; it is the function of reason to enlighten
the mind.” 251 It was therefore, natural to him to “present Christ as the one who had
brought the world the teaching of that knowledge and truth that the minds of men so
eagerly and ineffectually groped.” 252 In Ad Diognetum, we find the teaching ministry of
the Word in the second and later part (chapters 11-12). However, in the first part
(chapters 1-10), the Word is presented as mediator in creation, (7.1-3) but first and
foremost as Revealer and Savior through the eschatological Christ-Event (7.4 – 9.6).
Along with Clements educative program, we also find a rigorous moralizing tendency to
perfection through purification, in order to moderate the passions and reach a state of
imperturbability (apatheia). This is according to Stromata, the goal of the Gnostic. 253
As so many apologists, Clement employed the Logos philosophy to widen the
horizon. Through the Word, the Divine has a point of resonance in the rationality of
every human being. Clement explains:
But we were before the foundation of the world, we who, because we were destined to be
with Him, were begotten beforehand by God. We are the rational images formed by
God’s Word, or Reason, and we date from the beginning on account of our connection
with Him, because ‘the Word was in the beginning’. Well, because the Word was from
the first, He was and is the divine beginning of all things. 254
Clement praised the greatness of the Word, and it seems as if he succeeded in
avoiding the premature Christological stages of modalism and subordinationism.
Although he used expressions like “mask of manhood”, Christ actually received
“fleshly form,” and in alluding to the prologue of the Gospel of John, Clement stated
that “the Word was in God.“ 255
The Mystery-Revelation Theme
A third resemblance is the mystery-revelation theme. Clement seemed to be well-
acquainted with the mysteries of Aphrodite, Demeter, Dionysus, Attis and Cybele.
251 Maurice Wiles, The Christian Fathers, (London: SCM Press Ltd.,1966), p.87.
252 Ibid., p.87.
253 Clem.str.6.9.74.1-2.
254 Clem.prot.1.6.4.
255 Clem.prot.10.110.2.
78

He also knew the Eleusinian formula, but denounced mystery religion as a twofold
atheism. In mystery religion people are ignorant of the one true God. They error in
believing in an existence of gods, that do not exist. 256 Clement also pointed out the
immorality connected to mystery religion and rejected its tendency to lusts and
licentiousness as “manifest shamelessness.” 257 It should be noticed, that Clement
criticized the mysteries into which the Emperors Hadrian, Lucius Verus, Marcus
Aurelius and Commodus had been initiated. 258 Throughout the twelve chapters of the
Protrepticus, we find the mystery-revelation theme. Some scholars see in Clements
main writings, the Protrepticus, the Paedagogos and the Stromata, a great trilogy
representing a gradual initiation 259 into the Christian life, – belief, discipline and
knowledge, corresponding to the three degrees of the neo-Platonic mysteries –
purification, initiation and vision. 260 Clement gave an unmistakably impression of
being well-versed, in the mystery-revelation ideas and language. 261 However, it is
also true that he had incorporated the idea of Christian incarnation into his message.
It becomes clear in the following quotation.
O amazing mystery! The Lord has sunk down, but man rose up; and he who was
driven from Paradise gains the greater prize, heaven, on becoming obedient.
Wherefore it seems to me, that since the Word Himself came to us from heaven, we
ought no longer to go to human teaching, to Athens and the rest of Greece, or to
256 Clem.prot.2.23.1.
257 Clem.prot.2.22.6.
258 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.180.
259 The mystery religions in the Greco-Roman society offered at least three values to the initiated
individual. 259 Firstly, they offered personal religion. The person was brought into a special relationship
with a deity. Secondly, the initiated individual was promised certain benefits such as the protection of the
deity by means of the different ceremonies themselves, which worked automatically. Thirdly, the
individual was enlightened in the initiation rite where “things were enacted” (dromena), “things were
said” (logomena) and most importantly “things were shown” (deiknymena). (Ferguson, Backgrounds of
Early Christianity, pp.251-252).
260 Francis Havey, “Clement of Alexandria.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert
Appleton Company, 1908. [Online], Available from: .
[Accessed 21 April 2012].
261 “The mysteries did not offer a god who came to the earth to save humans. Their gods did not die
voluntarily to save humankind. And there is no reason why they should, since the consciousness of sin
was not so acute nor was there a strong desire for new ethical life. The mysteries were not for everyone;
for one thing they were expensive. Initiation was for the inner circle, not for the whole community of
worshippers. The initiatory rites themselves were kept secret (one wants to keep a good thing a home),
unlike the Christian “mystery” (Mysterion), which was an “open secret,” something previously hidden
but now revealed and proclaimed to all.” (Quoted from Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, p.
299).
79

Ionia, in our curiosity…we who have become disciples of God, have entered into the
really true wisdom which leaders of philosophy only hinted at, but which the disciples
of Christ have both comprehended and proclaimed abroad. Moreover, the whole
Christ, so to speak, is not divided; there is neither barbarian nor Jew nor Greek, neither
male nor female, but a new man transformed by the Holy Spirit of God. 262
The quotation above is important for several reasons. Clement states that the
Christian mystery is related to the Word coming from heaven and this mystery is
above human teaching. The true bearers of this mysterious wisdom are the Christian
disciples and not the philosophers. Among the disciples of Christ, there is no
separation between Jew or Greek or between male or female. Through the work of
the Holy Spirit, a “new man” is developed. There is no mention of the “Holy Spirit”
in Ad Diognetum, but the author of the work invites Diognetus to “become a new
man” (2.1) and the author also declared that “as regards the mystery of their own
religion, do not expect to be able to learn it from human lips” (4.6).
Very often Clement describes revelation not in terms of a historical event, but as
an inner experience, an act of mind or an illumination of wisdom from within. It
could be interpreted as an appropriation of the heavenly Word by faith, but it is not
that evident and it is probably more appropriate here to recognize a tendency to a
Gnostic illumination in his writing. When Clement used the word ‘Gnostic’ to
describe the perfected Christian, it reflected his high evaluation of learning. 263
Knowledge, learning and truth were described with a light-metaphor as an inner
experience.
But it is the truth, I say, which cries, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness’. Let the light
the shine in the hidden part of man, in his heart; and let the rays of knowledge rise,
revealing and illuminating the hidden man within, the disciple of the light, friend of
Christ and joint-heir with Him. 264
Here Clement presented the Lord as a revealer of subjective truth that was to be
experienced through Christian initiation and in endless ecstasy before God.
O truly sacred mysteries! O pure light! In the blaze of the torches I have a vision of
heaven and of God. I became holy by initiation. The Lord reveals the mysteries, He
marks the worshipper with His seal, gives light to guide his way, and commends him,
when he has believed, to the Father’s care, where he is guarded for ages to come. These
are the revels of my mysteries! If thou wilt, be thyself also initiated, and thou shall dance
262 Clem.prot.11.111.3-112.3.
263 Kovacs, “Clement of Alexandra,” p.80.
264 Clem.prot.11.115.3-115.4.
80

with angels around the unbegotten and imperishable and only true God, the Word of God
joining with us in our hymn of praise. 265
Christianity offered man the true mysteries culminating in the vision of God. Clement
did not write of the Mystery par excellence, but of mysteries, and he did not seem to be
interested in making a clear distinction between the incarnational revelation of Christ
and the Christian initiation into the higher mysteries of Gnosis. Revelation could be
interpreted in terms of the Christ event when the Word became flesh and as an inner
illumination of new wisdom. For Clement revelation and mystery were inseparable. I
Ad Diognetum, on the other hand, we find a distinct concept of revelation as a
disclosure of the mystery through the Son and the blessings that follow from the
accomplished and revealed eschatological redemption (9.1-6). We also find a personal
appeal to acquire this evangelical revelation, but more in terms of personal faith and
knowledge of the Father (10.1), and not as inner illumination. According to Werner
Jaeger, Clement wrote within the framework of the Greek Paideia, “for the evolution of
a unified culture in the Greek intellectual world.” 266 He knew that his educated
contemporaries to a large extent had left the Olympian gods and were more attracted to
“the mysteries, which gave the individual a more personal relationship to the
godhead.” 267 This is the reason why Clement criticized the mystery cults and at the
same time utilized the language of the mysteries. However, while the author of Ad
Diognetum exclusively built his Revelational Theology on a Pauline non-cultic
concept, 268 Clement employed a concept closely related to the cults in Alexandria with
so many mysteries, and he probably did so in order to save his Paideia program, 269 that
for many educated people was identified with mystical enlightenments and “higher
forms of religion that had a message for mankind.” 270
The parallels between Clement’s Protrepticus and Ad Diognetum are interesting, and
as I already have touched on there is an affinity in terminology, literary form and
265 Clem.prot.12.120.1-120.2.
266 Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1961), pp.61-62.
267 Ibid., p.55.
268 Chrys C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion: Meaning and Content, Diss. (Lund: Gleerup Förlag,
1977).
269 Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, pp.55-56.
270 Ibid.
81

protreptic zeal. 271 Lona has presented a list of forty-five parallels between Ad
Diognetum, and all the writings of Clement. 272 However, we ought to remind ourselves
of the very Hellenistic air that all apologists of the second century breathed. A
terminological affinity is what we can expect to find, and this is also what we actually
have found when comparing different apologies. Now concerning Ad Diognetum and
Clement’s Protrepticus, a responsible comparison ought to demonstrate significant
differences in the understanding of the purpose of philosophy and Paideia. 273 We also
noticed substantial differences regarding the attitude towards the Jewish heritage and in
the understanding of important twin concepts such as revelation-mystery, 274 and faith-
knowledge. In Clement’s writings, we have two more characteristics that are absent
from Ad Diognetum. We cannot find any traces of demonology or of Christian gnosis, at
least not in the main part (chapters 1-10). 275 In Ad Diognetum, we find an entry of
eschatological time that breaks with much of the Clementine chronological and
developmental concept of time and this indicates a divergence of opinion in the
apprehension of time. To express this thought more distinctly, we find mystery and
revelation in Clement’s Protrepticus, but utilized within quite another framework and
271 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.63.
272 Lona, An Diognet, pp.56-59
273 According to Werner Jaeger, the concept of Paideia represents the entire Classical Greek learning,
philosophy and tradition that penetrated the early Christian faith and was penetrated by the Christian
faith. In early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria was the foremost proponent of Paideia. Paideia
implied the use of Greek tradition, its rich conceptual vocabulary and its highest values in a programmatic
educative program. “Clement distinguishes a philosophy of the barbarians and one of the Greeks: this
makes it easier for him to se a plan in the evolution of the human mind. The two supplement each other,
and thus Clement recognizes philosophy, though it is not perfect, as the propaideia of the perfect Gnostic.
The true Paideia is the Christian religion itself, but Christianity in its theological form, as conceived in
Clement’s own system of Christian gnosis, for it is obvious that the interpretation of Christianity as
gnosis per se implies that it is the divine Paideia.”(Quoted from Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and
Greek Paideia, [Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1961], pp.61-62).
274 It is not enough to affirm the prevalence of a concept. It is rather a question of the substantial
content of a concept and how the author employs it. If we compare Ad Diognetum to Melito of Sardis, we
are able to notice some similarities. We find that the asianisms in chapters eleven and twelve of Ad
Diognetum fit well into the milieu of Asia Minor and in chapters one to ten we also find similarities in the
rhetorical antithetical style, in the frequent use of the concept of mystery and in soteriological insights in
the Pascal Homily. The word ”mystery” (μυστήριον) occurs thirteen times in the Pascal Homily, but the
term is used in a different sense compared to Ad Diognetum. “Melito uses the word μυστήριον within a
narrow range of meaning. In most places where it occurs, it refers to the Passover, as a rite in which only
the chosen participate, and which to them has an inner significance”. (Quoted from Campwell Bonner,
The Homily of the Passion, in Studies and Documents 12, ed. Campbell Bonner, [London/Philadelphia,
1940], p.30).
275 Brändle, ”Schrift an Diognet”, p.225.
82

not systematized and radicalized in the way we find in Ad Diognetum. In short: we find
no Revelational Theology. As we already have seen Clement integrates Platonic
philosophy in his developmental vision. As we will se in chapter four of the Inquiry, the
author of Ad Diognetum integrates Pauline theology in his eschatological revelationism.
Now there is a temptation to interpret the Protrepticus not of its own merits, but in the
light of Clements other and more famous writings. However, Miguel de Jáuregui is
probably correct when he states that the Protrepticus ”is the first step in the integration
of Platonism in Christianity which would be fully exploited by Clement in the Stromata
and after him by Origen and the Cappadocian Fathers.” 276 We may add, that his
Protrepticus can be regarded as the first step on his Gnostic way to describe the
perfected Christian as not only living by faith, but of knowledge, that is gnosis and this
development would also be fully developed in his Stromata. 277 I believe Meecham has
formulated the general similarities between the two works quite well.
We can hardly affirm more than a general resemblance between the Epistle and the
Protrepticos due to the fact that both writings move in the same orbit of thought and deal
in part with the same themes. 278
Ad Diognetum and Ad Autolycum of Theophilus of Antioch
According to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 279 Theophilus was the sixth bishop in
the Church of Antioch from the apostles. He wrote extensively, and Jerome mentioned
five works of him 280 but only one of them is extant and that is his apologetic treatise To
Autolycos or Ad Autolycum. The work was addressed to “excellent Autolycus,” 281 a
“friend” 282 who asked Theophilus to “show me your God.” 283 The work was an
276 De Jáuregui, The Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria, p.39.
277 Clem.str.7.10.55.2-3, 57.3-4 and 7.3.13.1. Se also Kovacs, Clement of Alexandria, p.80.
278 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.63.
279 Eus.h.e.4.19. and Hier.ill.25.
280 Against Marcion, To Autolyces, Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, On the Gospel and On the
Proverbs of Salomon. Jerome writes that the two last mentioned “do not appear to me to correspond in
style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works” (Hier.ill.25.). Theophilus
also mentions another work entitled Genesis of the World that he probably had written
(Thphl.Autol.2.29).
281 Thphl.Autol.2.1.
282 Thphl.Autol.1.1, 1.14.
283 Thphl.Autol.1.2.
83

invitation to take up a particular kind of Christian life. In this wider sense, “To
Autoluces can be called a protreptic literature,” 284 although it consists of a mixture of
literary forms. The work consists of three books, and it seems as if Autolycus undergoes
a development during the reading stages, and it is reasonable to assume that a period of
time elapsed between them. The second book starts with the statement “some time ago
we hade a discussion, O excellent Autolycus, and when you asked me who my God is
and briefly lent your ears to my discourse, I set forth the nature of my religion for
you.” 285 Theophilus implies that Autolycus is an educated and curios student who is
deservedly called “a lover of learning.” 286 Maybe Theophilus had a wider audience in
mind, although he in the first place addressed Autolycus’ request. In the third book, of
Ad Autolycum, Theophilus gives a chronology from the creation of the world to his own
time and he finally mentions the death of Marcus Aurelius 287 on March 17, A.D. 180. 288
The main content of the third book must have been written after that year, and it is
probably correct to count on a date before A.D.180 for the first two books. Theophilus
wrote three distinct works, an apology, a biblical exegesis, and a chronology. 289 In the
first book, Theophilus picked up the blame of the offensive Christian “evil name.” 290 He
played consciously on the similar words χρηστ (useful) and χρστ (Christ), and
asked Autolycus if he without Christ was “of no use” (ἄ-χρηστ). Furthermore, he
urged Autolycus to cleanse himself from all defilement, to be able to see and
understand. 291 In chapter twelve, he returned to the ridiculing attack on the Christian
name and gave a further explanation. The word ‘Christian’ was related to krisma, which
could be interpreted as the anointing rite of the baptismal liturgy in the early Church.
284 Rick Rogers, “Theophilus of Antioch,” In Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of
Twelve Key Figures, ed. Paul Foster, (London: IVP Academic, 2010), pp.58-59.
285 Thphl.Autol.2.1.
286 Thphl.Autol.3.15.
287 Thphl.Autol.3.27.28.
288 Quasten, Patrology, p.1:237.
289 Rogers, “Theophilus of Antioch,” p.58.
290 Thphl.Autol.1.1.
291 Thphl.Autol.1.2.
84

Theophilus concluded: “We are actually called Christians just because we are anointed
with the oil of God.” 292
Theophilus distinguished between honoring and worshipping the Emperor.
“Accordingly, I will pay honor to the emperor, not by worshipping him, but by praying
for him. I worship God who is the real and true God, since I know that the emperor was
made by him.” 293 He also exhorted Autolycus to believe in God and recounted his own
journey from disbelief to belief.
At that time I encountered the sacred writings of the holy prophets, who through the
Spirit of God foretold past events in the way that they happened, present events in the
way they are happening, and future events in the order in which they will be
accomplished. Because I obtained proof from the events which took place after being
predicted, I do not disbelieve but believe, in obedience to God. If you will, you too must
obey him and believe him, so that after disbelieving now you will not be persuaded later,
punished with eternal tortures…If you will, you too must reverently read the prophetic
writings. 294
Here Theophilus described how he was convinced through proofs from prophecy.
Proofs from prophecy was a common way of reasoning among the apologists. The
quotation above shows how Theophilus wrote in the mood of genus deliberativum, in
trying to help Autoluces to consider the Christian faith and to read the prophetic
writings which includes both the Old Testament writings and the Gospels, both inspired
by the Spirit of God. 295 Rick Rogers claims that Theophilus’ work is best categorized as
a protreptic writing. 296 It is an invitation to the true religion. Especially in the third book
we have urgent invitations “to convert to the Christian way of life, which is based on
biblical morality.” 297
Transcendence and Negative Theology
I the first book Theophilus described the nature of God. He is the Creator and Master
of the universe. In accordance with Middle Platonism God was described in a series of
negative attributes as immortal, uncreated, immutable, ineffable, inexpressible,
292 Thphl.Autol.1.12.
293 Thphl.Autol.1.11.
294 Thphl.Autol.1.14.
295 Thphl.Autol.3.12.
296 Rogers, “Theophilus of Antioch,” p.59.
297 Ibid., p.60.
85

uncontainable, incomprehensible, inconceivable, incomparable, unteachable, inimitable
and inexpressible. 298 The Middle Platonists exalted the absolute transcendence of the
Supreme Mind (God) and direct knowledge of the transcendent Mind was impossible,
but ‘negative theology’ conveyed an indirect understanding of God. 299 Thus we are not
able to speak about God in Himself, but only his functions and attributes. 300 The striking
absence 301 of Jesus, the incarnation, crucifixion and atonement of Christ and his earthly
life, is probably a theological consequence of Theophilus’ articulated transcendence. It
can also be interpreted as an expression of a strong Jewish monotheistic tendency. 302
However, in presenting the nature of God, Theophilus also confessed his belief in God’s
wrath. ”Is God angry? Certainly: he is angry with those who do evil deeds, but good and
kind and merciful toward those who love and fear him.” 303 Here Theophilus distanced
himself from the Platonic attitude and stood firm on Old Testament ground. 304 God is
not impassible, in the sense of having no ability to feel angry and to punish evil deeds.
The articulated transcendence made it possible for Theophilus to denounce idolatry and
all forms of pagan worship as well as all human stories about gods and worship from
philosophers, historians and poets. 305
What has been said by philosophers, historians, and poets is thought to be trustworthy
because of its embellished style, but what they say is proved foolish and pointless by the
abundance of their nonsense and the absence of even the slightest measure of the truth in
their writings. 306
It is worth noticing that the articulated transcendence and the denouncement of
philosophy are two traits that Theophilus has in common with the unknown author of
Ad Diognetum. Two traits that differs him from Ad Diognetum are Theophilus’ high
regard for the Hellenistic Judaism and the Old Testament writings and the insistence on
298 Thphl.Autol.1.3-6.
299 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, pp.387-389
300 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.167.
301 Ibid., p.165.
302 Ibid.
303 Thphl.Autol.1.3.
304 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.168.
305 Ibid., 168. See also Thphl.Autol.1.9-10, 2.3.
306 Thphl.Autol.2.12.
86

the revealed law (Nomos) as the ethical code for the Christian life instead of the
revealed word (Logos) in Christ as the soteriological medium for Gods grace.
“Theophilus sought to promote a religion that is essentially a nomistic Christianity”. 307
“The saving work of Christ disappear.” 308 The author of Ad Diognetum took a different
stance. He promoted Revelational Theology, but both authors employed the protreptic
genre.
Logos and the Law
The second book contains to a large extent an exegesis of the creation narrative in
Genesis chapters one to three, and Theophilus here inserts his moral applications. Grant
is probably right when he points out Theophilus’ dependence upon two collections of
Jewish materials: Bereshith Rabbah and Philo’s Questions on Genesis. 309 The pinnacle
of his moral exegesis was the exposition of the Decalogue. The Old Testament law was
in complete agreement with the prophets and the Gospels. 310 Interestingly enough,
Theophilus in his exposition incorporated two fragments, including eighty-four verses,
of book three in the Sibylline Oracles. 311 If Theophilus was borrowing from the
Sibylline Oracles he also borrowed from the Stoics and Philo in their distinction
between the inner and outgoing Logos. 312 In explaining the work of Logos, Theophilus
differentiated between the Word internal ( ἐά) and the Word emitted
( ό). 313 He also spoke of the trias 314 or threesome of God and his Logos
and his Sophia, although he didn’t investigate the inner Trinitarian relations.
307 Rogers, “Theophilus of Antioch,” p.63.
308 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.172.
309 Ibid. p.157.
310 Thphl.Autol.3.9-14.
311 The Sibylline Oracles were probably composed in a Hellenistic Jewish context and were also in
circulation among the early Christians. Book three is the oldest and probably coming from the second
century B.C. A strong monotheism, ethical imperative and denouncement of paganism were some of its
more dominating features. (Thphl.Autol.2.36 and Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, pp.461-
462).
312 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.70.
313 Thphl.Autol.2.10, 2.22.
314 Thphl.Autol.2.15.
87

In the third book Theophilus first rejected the common accusations against
Christians. Promiscuity and cannibalism were degenerated signs of Greek literature, and
had nothing to do with Christians, who follow the ten commandments, and are guided
by the virtues of obedience and chastity and listen to the call to repentance.
Far be it from Christians to think of doing any such thing, for among them temperance is
present, continence is exercised, monogamy is preserved, purity is guarded, injustice is
driven out, sin is uprooted, righteousness is practiced, law is the guiding principle, piety
is performed, God is acknowledged, truth controls, grace preserves, peace protects, holy
Logos leads, Sophia teaches, Life controls, God reigns. 315
Theophilus then introduced biblical chronology and genealogy in order to conclude that
“the total number of years from the creation of the world is 5.695, with the additional
months and days,” 316 and to show that Moses was older than Homer and Hesiod and all
the ancient writers and that “this message is not recent in origin, nor our writings, as
some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and more
trustworthy.” 317
It seems as if Theophilus in his three books formulated a theology which promotes
the idea that the law is an effective means of salvation. The bishop of Antioch “seeks to
demonstrate that human transformation from the post-paradise world back to paradise
depends on education,” 318 on hearing and obeying the law of God and thus “be anointed
with the oil of God.” 319 The rejection of pagan worship and the transcendence of God
are traits that Theophilus has in common with the author of Ad Diognetum. However,
the obvious difference concerns the way of salvation. In Ad Diognetum salvation is
strongly related to the revelational event in Christ. Salvation was not related to the Law,
but was exclusively connected to the Gospel.
Summary
In this chapter I introduced some of the influential Greek apologists of the second
century and compared the works of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian,
Clement of Alexandria and Theophilus of Antioch with Ad Diognetum and pointed out
315 Thphl.Autol.3.15.
316 Thphl.Autol.3.28.
317 Thphl.Autol.3.29.
318 Rogers, “Theophilus of Antioch,” p.63.
319 Thphl.Autol.1.12.
88

similarities and dissimilarities. We observed in our exposition that Ad Diognetum shares
many important features with the apologetic works. Nevertheless, it is just as evident
that our work has its own peculiar quality. That is the revelation theme expounded into
a distinguished theological reflection. This independent way of pursuing apologetics is
worth our attention. In arguing that the redemptive gift of God had been given at one
single point in history through the Son as a revelation of a hidden mystery, the author
must have made a ‘chock-effect’ on the reader. For a sophisticated representative of the
Greek-Roman society, it probably was a catalytic experience to be challenged to
examine a new message of Divine intervention. Not because ‘sectarian ideas’ were
uncommon, but because this time it was presented in a provocative way urging the
reader to a complete revaluation of life due to the revelation of God. That was (and still
is) the radical message of Ad Diognetum.
Mit diesen Gedanken über Offenbarung und Glauben hat der Verfasser eine
apologetische Position gewählt, die selten in den Alten Kirche vorkommt, und die viel
leichter zu verteidigen ist als z.B. die Position eines Origenes, der in Contra Celsum den
Heiden so viel Zugeständnisse machem muss, dass er zuletzt das Christentum dadurch
Rechtfertigt, dass es dasselbe wie der Platonismus enthält, aber in einer verständlicheren
Sprache. 320
This kind of apologetic is proclamation instead of argumentation, Kerygma instead of
Sofia, theology instead of philosophy. We recognize the symbiosis between theological
content and the author's apologetic and protreptic strategies. The radicalism of
revelation is the characteristic of Ad Diognetum and distinguishes this work from other
Greek apologetic-protreptic writings from the second century. 321
320 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p. 92.
321 The peculiarity of Ad Diognetum becomes utterly clear if we read the work against a common
understanding of Deus revelatus in the Early Church. (Lars Thunberg, ”Fornkyrkans uppenbarelsesyn:
Några antydningar,”, Florilegium Patristicum, en festskrift till Per Beskow [Lund 1991], pp.214-232).
89

CHAPTER 3
AD DIOGNETUM AS A RHETORICAL WORK
O sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings,
that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the
righteousness of one should justify many sinners (9.5).
Introduction
Ad Diognetum is a multifaceted work. In this chapter I focus on the literary
characteristics of Ad Diognetum. With the help of the principles of classical rhetoric we
will be able to understand the rhetorical situation, style, strategies and structure of the
text. We will also be able to identify the revelational part and to demonstrate the
centrality of Revelational Theology in the work at hand. By referring to common
features in Ad Diognetum as a profiled rhetorical work, I intend to suggest several clues
on how to interpret Ad Diognetum. This chapter will serve as a literary background to
our Inquiry and pave the way for an examination of the revelational part in chapters
seven to nine of Ad Diognetum.
Ad Diognetum and the Rhetorical Strategies
The Rhetorical System
Rhetoric could simply be defined as "the art of persuasive communication." 1 This art
was of great importance for lawyers, philosophers, politicians and orators in the Greek
and Roman societies as well as for the Christian apologists. It is well-known that
rhetoric came to be one of the apologist’s successful instruments in proclaiming and
defending the Christian faith. 2 Many have recognized the unknown author of Ad
Diognetum as a master of literary rhetoric. 3 Please observe Norden's famous statement:
Von den an einzelne Personen gerichteten apologetischen Schriften ist die des Theophilus
an Autolykos nach Inhalt, Disposition, Stilistik und Sprache die schlechteste, während der
Brief an Diognet nach allen diesen Gesichtspunkten zu dem Glänzendsten gehört, was
von Christen in griechischer Sprache geschrieben ist. 4
1 B. Vickers, In Defense of Rhetoric, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p.1.
2 Ezra Gebremedhin, Arvet från kyrkofäderna, den kristna läroutvecklingen under den patristiska
perioden, (Skellefteå: Artos Bokförlag, 1992), pp.87-88, 113, 121.
3 Quasten, Patrology, p.1:251; Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.13 and Wengst, Schrift an
Diognet, p.305.
4 E. Norden, Die antike kunstprose II, (Darmstadt), p.513.
90

Before we go any further, we ought to reflect on the function of rhetoric as an ancient
art. Rhetoric was not only a learned technique. It was (and is) a communicative system.
Aristotle classified it into three divisions: the speaker, the subject and the person
addressed. 5 This comes close to a functionalistic way of describing rhetoric. A modem
theorist, Jeanrond, gives us a helpful hint along the same line:
The principal function of a text dictates to its producer the choice and possible
combination of textual strategies. Other textual elements will then be chosen accordingly.
For the reader it will be important to recognize the text's major communicative strategy in
order to disclose the text's sense appropriately while being guided by an adequate reading
perspective. 6
Thus when we maintain that Ad Diognetum is a masterpiece of rhetoric, we are giving a
definite indication as how to understand this piece of literature. It is not enough to know
that the author aimed to move (movere), to teach (docere) and to amuse (delectare) the
reader. It is not even enough to be aware of the three subjects of style that characterized
good rhetoric, elegance (elegantia), composition (compositio) and dignity (dignitas) that
together made the style appropriate (adcommodata). 7 Under the elegant surface, we
need to see how the different literary pieces and major parts in the system relate to each
other and to the structure. The classical handbooks in the rhetoric of Aristotle, [Cicero]
and Quintilian prove that oratory was (and still is) a sophisticated communicative
system. The author of Rhetorica ad Herrenium ends his exposition with the following
words:
Indeed I have shown how in every type of cause one ought to find ideas. I have told how
it is proper to arrange these. I have disclosed the method of delivery. I have thought how
we can have a good memory. I have explained the means by which to secure a finished
style. If we follow these principles, our Invention will be keen and prompt, our
Arrangement clear and orderly, our Delivery impressive and graceful, our memory sure
and lasting, our Style brilliant and charming. In the art of rhetoric, then, there is no more.
All these faculties we shall attain if we supplement the precepts of the theory with
diligent practice. 8
This quotation reminds us that rhetoricians were extremely conscious of their art. This
art was often described in terms of a war. The Rhetorica ad Herennium pictures the
5 Aristot.rhet.1.3.4
6 Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics, p.91.
7 George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994), p.125.
8 Cic.ad.her.4.56.69.
91

efutation of the opponent (refutatio) and the affirmation of the message (confirmatio)
in terms of a battle.
The entire hope of victory and the entire method of persuasion rest on proof and
refutation, for when we have submitted our arguments and destroyed those of the
opposition, we have, of course, completely fulfilled the speaker's function. 9
In articulating the function of rhetoric we can get the impression of rhetoric as a mere
technique or an instrument for personal, political and social manipulation. However,
that is a gross misunderstanding. Aristotle himself hade already called rhetoric not a
techne but a dynamis because he thought it belonged to the general definition of humans
as reasonable beings. 10 Rhetoric "is in truth an essential aspect of all reasonable
behavior." 11 A rhetorical analysis can help us to discover both the explicit and implicit
meaning of a text. It can help us identify the general disposition, to locate the thesis and
antithesis, to specify the argumentative part, to discover the rhetorical situation, style
and strategies and to reconstruct some historical problems behind the text. It can also
help us to discover the author's purpose and restate the original message that the author
intended to convey. 12
The Rhetorical Situation
According to Lloyd F. Bitzer “a work is rhetorical because it is a response to a
situation of a certain kind” 13 and the very situation is a rhetorical situation. A rhetorical
situation is not just the context surrounding the text. It is related to the exigence, an
issue, problem or situation that causes someone to speak or write.
A rhetorical situation can be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and
relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially
removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or
action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence. 14
9 Cic.ad.her.1.10.18.
10 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method. trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2nd.
(London: Shed & Ward Ltd, 1989), pp.568-569.
11 Ibid., p.568.
12 W.G. Überlacker, ”Retorisk analys och Nya testamentet: Kort presentation,” Svensk Teologisk
Kvartalskrift 70, (Lund, 1994), p.174.
p.13.
13 Lloyd F. Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” in Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, ed. L.F. Bitzer, (1968),
14 Bitzer, “The Rhetorical situation,” p. 6.
92

Rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to a certain situation and that
response is given special significance by the situation and the situation is a necessary
condition of the rhetorical discourse. The rhetorical situation is made up of three things:
(1) the exigence as marked by imperfection and urgency, (2) the audience or receiver of
the rhetorical discourse as potential mediators of the change that the discourse aims at,
and (3) constraints or a set of constraints made up of persons, events, objects and
relations which are parts of the situation with power to constrain decisions and
actions. 15 The rhetorical situation is always a real one and as such it is grounded in
history. It is rewarding to begin the rhetorical examination with questions on the
situation. What provoked the author’s composition? What personal or historical tension
needed a resolution? What general or specific questions had to be answered? Is there
any plot or intrigue that must be worked out in the discourse? Questions like these lift to
the surface the rhetorical situation. In Ad Diognetum we may answer these questions on
two levels. On a general level we find in Ad Diognetum “a community struggling to
make its way in an inhospitable culture” where “Christians differed significantly from
their non-Christian neighbors.” 16 Here was an obvious tension that the unknown author
could have been compelled to address. The audience could have been fellow Christians
who were in desperate need of comfort and encouragement, but the audience could also
have been Diognetus as an official representative of the Roman Empire. The title “most
excellent Diognetus” was ordinarily used of an imperial procurator. 17 Here was the
specific level of the rhetorical situation. Ad Diognetum was probably a discourse
addressed as a response to questions posed by a high-status official interested in the
Christian religion and he was a ‘most excellent’ person that deserved respect and honor.
In Ad Diognetum we find three specific questions that all are eloquently answered in the
work. The first question runs: Who is the God of the Christians that despise death and
how do they worship him? In chapter two the author refuted the materialism of the
pagan cult and in chapters three to four he refuted the foolishness of the Jewish cult and
customs. In chapters five and six he discussed the distinctiveness of the Christians and
their spiritual worship. Also in chapters seven to nine the author gave an answer in
15 Ibid., pp.6-8.
16 Bryan C. Hollon, “Is the Epistle to Diognetus an apology? A Rhetorical analysis.” In Journal of
Christian Religion, 2005, pp.127-146.
17 Hollon, “Is the Epistle to Diognetus an apology?”, p.130.
93

describing the God of revelation. The second question is: What is the love that the
Christians have for one another? The author gave his answer on the sublime love and
life of the Christians in chapter six. The third question goes: Why has this new race or
practice come into the world at this time and not formerly? In chapters seven to nine the
author presented Revelational Theology that explained why the unseen God revealed his
Divine mystery and gave “all things at once” (8.11). These questions belonged to the
specific rhetorical situation and the composition of Ad Diognetum was structured
around them. Chapter one was an introduction and chapter ten was a conclusion where
the author challenged Diognetus to see and understand and become an imitator of God.
We have already seen that Ad Diognetum consists of a rhetorical composition (1-10)
and a homily (11-12). The three introductory questions gave the discourse its
characteristic disposition. Rhetorical discourse was called into existence by a special
situation, and the rhetorical situation contained at least one exigence which functioned
as the organizing principle, and specified the audience and the change to be effected. 18
The Rhetorical Style
Closely connected to the so-called rhetorical situation, is the question of rhetorical
style or genre. According to the author of Ad Herennium and most of the Greco-Roman
handbooks of rhetoric, there are three kinds of rhetorical style.
The task of the public speaker is to discuss capably those matters which law and custom
have fixed for the uses of citizenship, and to secure as far as possible the agreement of his
hearers. There are three kinds of causes which the speaker must treat: Epideictic,
Deliberative and Judicial. The epideictic kind is devoted to the praise or censure of some
particular person. The deliberative consists in the discussion of policy and embraces
persuasion and dissuasion. The judicial is based in legal controversy, and comprises
criminal prosecution or civil suit and defense. 19
The last judicial style was located to the courtroom and consisted of accusation and
defense. 20 In this judicial context the word ‘apology’ was often used as a defense.
‘Apology’ can be described as the purpose of a speech, particularly as a speech for a
defense in a court. The word was also used more loosely as a defense or excuse
offered in a less precise context or genre. 21 When we thus far, has characterized Ad
18 Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” p.7.
19 Cic.ad.her.1.1.2.
20 Hollon, “Is the Epistle to Diognetus an apology”?, p.131.
94

Diognetum as an apologetic writing, this does not mean that we have to do with a
discourse written exclusively in the judicial style. Due to the threatening situation of
the Christians, the author in 2.6, 6.5, 6.9, 7.7-8 and 10.7 comes close to the
accusatory tone, but the work is relatively free from open accusations. The author
answered the introductory questions posed by Diognetus. The addressee was
probably a curious person and a “potential convert” 22 who had, as far as we can
judge, no interest in adding new accusations or blaming the Christians again. The
rhetorical style was to a great extent deliberative. The author challenged Diognetus to
think through the case and to choose between possible options. It would probably be
fair to say that the style of Ad Diognetum is a mixed and flexible style. 23 As in the
epideictic style the author blamed the pagans and the Jews and he praised the third
race, the Christians. In chapters seven to nine he demonstrated positively the
Revelational Theology and gave prominence to the qualities of the moral character of
God, his goodness, long-suffering, wisdom, power and immortality. I chapter nine he
adorned his discourse with several climactic figures of speech and optimized the
language of praise. In a subtle and flexible way the author blended the deliberate and
epideictic styles and on some occasions he also utilized the judicial style. On a
formal level he seems to have composed his work in accordance with the judicial
style. The judicial oration in Greco-Roman rhetoric consisted of the following parts:
exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, refutatio, digressio (not, however, accepted
as necessary), and peroratio. 24 It is evident that the author arranged his material in
accordance with these literary concepts and structures as I shall make an account for
in the following section.
21 Francis Young, “Greek Apologists of the Second Century,” in Apologetics in the Roman Empire:
Pagans, Jews and Christians, eds. Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman & Simon Price, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), p.91.
22 Hollon, “Is the Epistle to Diognetus an Apology”?, p.131.
23 Ibid. See also Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, p.120.
24 Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, p.120.
95

The Rhetorical Structure
We shall now structure the content of Ad Diognetum according to the ordinary
classical rules 25 for composition (dispositio). Chapter one can be regarded as an
introduction (exordium). With this introduction the author opened the writing and
captured the reader's good will (captatio benevolentia). Firstly, he addressed him as
"most excellent Diognetus". Secondly, he politely welcomed his zeal to learn. Thirdly,
he indicated his religious attitude by asking from God the power to speak and hear.
Fourthly, he urged Diognetus to leave all prejudice and throw aside the customs which
deceive. That was an exordium principium. The author aimed directly at the reader's
mind. In chapter one we also find three "clear and careful questions". This could have
been an influence of the common use of the Greek or Roman diatribe. 26 The threefold
nature of the subject could be regarded as a way of dividing the material (division). The
presentation moved around these three issues. The presentation (narratio) ought to
show "brevity, clarity and plausibility." 27 It was a neutral statement of facts. We find the
following facts in chapter one included in the three questions: The Christians
disregarded the world and despised death. They did not reckon the Greek gods as real
gods. They differed from the Jewish behavior and they had a distinction of their own.
These data were probably known to Diognetus.
In chapter two we have a refutation (refutatio) of the Greek religions and in chapters
three to four we find a refutation of the Jewish religion. If we compare the length of
these refutations, we observe that the attack on the Jewish cult and customs was of
comparatively large dimension. It included two chapters and was detailed as well as
aggressive. This ought to be remembered. Chapters two to four consisted of a
comparison with the foolishness of Greek and Jewish religions on the one hand, and the
simplicity and majesty of the Christian religion on the other hand. In rhetorical language
the author made use of a comparatio.
In chapters five to six we find a laudatory presentation (laudatio) of the Christians in
the world. I will formally designate this part as a defense (defensio). Here the author
25 The rhetorical terminology was and is not fully standardized. There are differences in vocabulary in
the Classical literature and different opinions on how to use the various terms. Here I have employed the
Latin terminology. I have had good help from Brian Vickers. (Brian Vickers, In Defense of Rhetoric,
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988]).
26 Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”, p.17.
27 Cic.ad.her.1.9.14.
96

defended the Christian life-style, but it is not a tense and fearful defense in reaction to
an aggressive accuser. It was rather a positive defense pointing out the advantages of the
Christian religion in a panegyric style. The contrast to the "crude" materialism of the
Greeks and the "madness" of the Jews was evident. This antithetical way of reasoning
was typical of rhetoric. Very close to rhetoric as a communicative system is the
cognitive system. In fact the two systems are inseparable. Aimé Puech argued that this
way of reasoning was a part of the author's technique, learned from the rhetorical
schools. 28 That is a valuable insight.
In chapters seven to nine we find the argumentation (argumentatio) with
confirmation (confirmatio). This part was more than a traditional confirmation of the
message. It went beyond the ordinary argumentative pattern. This was due to a strong
protreptic tendency in the text. To underline this fact we call it confirmation. Together
with the refutation part in chapters two to four and the defensive part in chapters five to
six, this part belong to the argumentatio. Now the author had left polemic (with the
exception of 8.1-4), and had come to the positive description of the Christian message.
Here the style was the genus grande, which "consists of a smooth and ornate
arrangement of impressive words." 29 We should not be surprised to find many figures of
style and thought in this section and especially in the sublime style of chapter nine. As I
have already mentioned, we also find the revelational proposition (propositio), that is
the author's thesis, in this part. The proposition has already been hinted at 30 and we can
locate it to 8.5-11 or more precisely to 8.5-6 where we find a repetition of the
revelational vocabulary (resumptio). The significant verb ἐπιδείκνυμι, which means to
reveal, to manifest or to demonstrate, is used at the end of the first clause in 8.5-6 and
repeated at the beginning of the second clause. The author emphasized the idea of
revelation (revelatio). 31 God is here presented as the God who reveals himself, as Deus
revelatus. The author used his threefold rhetorical competences in combining pathos,
ethos and logos, as he was operating within the epideictic style of rhetoric (genus
demonstrativum). 32 If we are right in assuming the proposition in 8.5-11 and this part is
28 Referred in Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.14.
29 Cic.ad.her.4.8.11.
30 4.6, 7.1, 7.9.
31 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.14 and Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.291.
97

central to chapters seven to nine, and therefore to the whole work, we will be able to
interpret the text in the light of an ancient handbook in rhetoric.
The most complete and perfect argument, then, is that which is comprised of five parts;
the Proposition, the Reason, the Proof of the Reason, the Embellishment, and the
Résumé. Through the Proposition we set forth summarily what we intend to prove. The
Reason, by means of a brief explanation subjoined, set forth the causal basis for the
Proposition, establishing the truth of what we are urging. The Proof of the Reason
corroborates, by means of additional arguments, the briefly presented Reason.
Embellishments we use in order to adorn and enrich the argument, after the Proof has
been established. The Résumé is a brief conclusion, drawing together the parts of the
argument. 33
Now if in the light of Ad Herrenium we apply the five parts of “the perfect
argument”, we are able to state it as follows from table 2 below.
TABLE 2
”The perfect argument” in Ad Diognetum and according to Ad Herennium.
The author framed his decisive argument according to the classical and common
rhetorical rules that made up “the perfect argument”. It was no sheer accident that this
ornamentation appeared here. It was rather quite logical. The author demonstrated his
precious case in the centre of the revelational part. Before we leave this part of our
study, we should ask ourselves, whether it is an accidental occurrence that we find a
refutation (8.1-4) of philosophy immediately before the proposition in 8.5-6 (-11)? Is
32 It is worth noticing that some Church Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon and Eusebius of Caesarea
entitled their writings ἐπδειξ, πδειξ or Demonstratio. The method of collecting and arranging
Scriptural, historical or philosophical proofs was widely used among the Church Fathers. In Classical
learning and rhetoric, proofs were important. Already Aristotle wrote: “A speech has two parts. It is
necessary to state the subject and then to prove it” and demonstration and ought to be regarded as the
climactic part of the writing. (Arist.rhet.3.13.2).
33 Cic.ad.her.2.18.28.
98

this a hint of what person Diognetus actually was, namely a (stoic) philosopher? For the
time being we leave that question, but return to it later in this Inquiry.
In the final chapter ten, we have the peroratio, that is the conclusion. The rhetorician
could become emotional in his personal appeal to the reader, and he could recapitulate
the main arguments. The anonymous author addressed Diognetus with the following
words in 10.1: "If you also desire this faith,...receive first complete knowledge of the
Father...(lacuna)". He went on in the same intimate and exhortative style throughout the
whole chapter. The author urged Diognetus to believe and to become an “imitator of
God” (10.4). This idea of mimesis was developed and utilized in the art of rhetoric.
Mimesis or imitatio was one of three means, by which a disciple learned the art of
rhetoric. 34 Now the author connected to this idea, but related imitation to the Christian
God. The goodness of God would stand out as his example and Diognetus was urged to
imitate that love and goodness. Thus we may regard chapter ten as an imitatio in the
more profound sense of the word.
TABLE 3
The rhetorical structure of Ad Diognetum with chapters, categories, contents and
character of the main parts in the composition.
Chapter 1
EXORDIUM
3 questions
Diognetus
Narratio
Chapters 2-4
REFUTATIO
Greeks & Jews
Comparatio
Chapters 5-6
DEFENSIO
Answering
questions 1 & 2
Christians
Laudatio
99
Chapters 7-9
CONFIRMATIO
Answering
questions 1& 3
Revelation of the
Christian religion
Propositio
Chapter 10
PERORATIO
Appeal
Faith & Love
Imitatio
Chapters 11-12
APPENDIX
Homily
Ethics &
doctrine
Symbolism
In table 3 above, I have outlined the strict (judicial) rhetorical structure of Ad
Diognetum. I have tried to prove that chapter ten is the logical end of the writing.
According to Classical rhetoric a perfect composition requires a beginning, a middle
and an end. The ten chapters have a beginning (1), a middle (2-9) and an end (10). The
34 Cic.ad.her.1.2.3.

composition is complete. The author had furnished a proper and complete answer to the
inquirer and made Christianity wholly acceptable. I have also shown that the section
consisting of chapters seven to nine is to be regarded as the climactic part of the treatise.
We have here located the revelational part where the author explored and confirmed the
revelational thesis. Chapters two to nine belong to the argumentative part and chapters
eleven to twelve should be regarded as an appendix. It was probably a later addition to
the original work, but not totally unrelated to it and it elaborated on biblical symbolism.
Ad Diognetum and the Three Introductory Questions
The three introductory questions, could be an influence from the diatribe, that was
common among Cynics and Stoics in popular debates. 35 Posing questions were a well-
known technique in focusing on a certain matter. However, it is not necessary to assume
that these questions were intended as a literary or oral fiction. On the contrary, if we
assume that Diognetus was a pagan of high official status, who was earnestly interested
in the Christian religion and evidently had some knowledge of Jewish worship, 36 these
questions are quite natural. They were in the minds of cultured Romans and Greeks at
that time, and we have reflections of them in the propaganda of philosophers as Fronto
and Celsus. 37 These questions explain the logos, ethos and pathos that permeates the
whole work. It is also reasonable to assume, that behind Diognetus was a larger Roman
audience. So although the work was formally addressed to one individual, the questions
had a greater scope in the Roman Empire. The first question run: Who is the God of the
Christians and how do they worship him? The answer to the first part of the question
was given in the revelational core, that is chapters seven to nine. Negatively, the author
stated that the Christian God and religion was not an earthly discovery, not some mortal
invention, nor human mysteries (7.1). Positively, he stated that God is Almighty and
Creator (7.2). He has manifested himself in the sending of his Son (7.3). We want to
call a specific attention to the apophatic view on God. In 7.2 he is described as an
invisible God, 38 and therefore the Christian religion is invisible (6.4). Here the author
35 George Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to
Modern Times, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), p.130.
36 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.93.
37 Fort the possible echoes of Fronto see Just.1apol.26-29, Min.Fel.Oct.9-13 and for references to
Celsus see Or.Cels.6.27.
38 ἀόρατος θεός.
100

came to the second part of the first question on the Christian worship. We find a sharp
line of demarcation between the Christian God/worship and other gods/worship, and the
contrast to the refutation of Greek and Jewish worship is quite obvious. The
invisibleness of God required the denunciation of images and sacrifices. If God was to
be seen, he had to reveal Himself, in a supernatural way. In line with the author of
Kerygma Petri, Aristides, and other apologists, our author started from a certain concept
of God. 39 This concept was presumably biblically grounded on the prohibition against
making images, 40 but it was also philosophically colored by Middle Platonism. 41 We
should not forget that the “God of the Christians” was in chapters seven to nine
described as Creator and Savior, gentle and meek (7.4) and kind and long-suffering
(8.7) and full of goodness and forbearance (9.1). This evangelical portrait of God was
probably the most striking feature in the author’s presentation of “the Christian God”.
The second question run: What is the love that Christians have for one another? (1).
The question was answered in the exposition of the Christian manner of life in chapters
five to six. Christians were occupied with love "to all men" (5.11), even to their enemies
(6.6). That was the specific answer. The word φιλοστοργία “is appropriately used of
strong family love and so here of the Christians as a family." 42
The third question run: Why has this new race or practice come into the world at this
time, and not formerly? ‘Antiquity’ was a powerful argument in discussing religions. 43
Celsus wondered why Christians "worship to an extravagant degree this man who
appeared recently...?” 44 We found the answer in chapters eight to nine in the
revelational part and specifically in 8.5 – 9.6. We will return to this answer later. Here
we just want to focus on the precise expression πάνθ᾿ ἅμα in 8,11 and which could be
39 For the concept of God in the Apology of Aristides and in Kerygma Petri see chapters five and
seven.
40 The ridiculing of pagan worship in Ad Diognetum chapter two, is most likely inspired by Jewish
apologetics that stem from the prophetical satire in Is.44.9-20. This satire was founded on monotheism in
general and on the prohibition against making images, that is found in the Decalogue, in particular. See
Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, 295f. Se also biblical references in Ex.20.4ff., Dt.4.28ff., Jer.10.1, Ps. 115.4-
7, Wsd. 13.10ff., 15.6ff., Job 12.3, Ac.7.29 and Arist.apol.13
41 Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986).
42 Meechem, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.94.
43 Brändle, ”Schrift and Diognet”, p.44.
44 Or.Cels.8.12, 1.2, 6, 2.4, 6.10.
101

translated "all things at once". God had appointed a time to manifest his kindness and
power (9.2) and to give us "all things at once" (8.11). That was the precise and
surprising answer of Revelational Theology. Diognetus had three questions and the
work at hand furnished him with adequate answers. In answering these particular
questions of Diognetus, questions, which were also primary for the second century (we
presume), the author had to develop a kind of contextualized theology, adapted to
cultured, religiously minded, and philosophically oriented persons.
The rhetorical approach has helped us in at least three ways. Firstly, we have,
through a structural analysis of the composition, been able to locate the confirmatio to
7.1 – 9.6 and the propositio in 8.5-6, in the centre of the revelational composition.
Secondly, we have examined the introductory questions and shown that the answers
(with one exception) appear in 7.1-9.6. All evidences point to these three chapters (7-9)
as the central part of Ad Diognetum. Here the author expounded on the Revelational
Theology that determined the content of all the other chapters. Here, at the very centre,
we found the tractatus de revelatione. 45 Thirdly, we have demonstrated that the
composition is completed with chapters one to ten.
Summary
In this chapter, I showed that the author of Ad Diognetum consciously and creatively
made use of different rhetorical strategies to convey his message. In describing the way
he structured his argumentation, it was possible to locate the revelational part of the
work to chapters seven to nine, and this is an fundamental insight in this Inquiry. In the
revelational part, the unknown author gave many evidences of his rhetorical excellence.
We also observed how and where in the work, the author answered Diognetus’ three
introductory questions. The author furnished his reader with complete answers within
the frame-work of ten chapters. Thus, the rhetorical analysis, helped us to the
conclusion, that despite the lacunas after 7.6 and 10.1, the original version of Ad
Diognetum in all probability consisted of these ten chapters. In spite of some damages
the ten chapters in the main part of Ad Diognetum constitute a complete text and a
distinguished rhetorical work.
45 Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, φανερό ,in TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.9:6.
102

CHAPTER 4
AD DIOGNETUM AND THE REVELATIONAL PART
Now as long as he kept it a secret and guarded his wise design, he seemed to neglect and
be unconcerned about us, but when he revealed it through his beloved Child and made
known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us everything at once, both to
share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of us ever would have
expected (8.10-11).
Introduction
We have already stated that this part (7.1–9.6) is constitutive of Revelational
Theology and could be designated as ‘the revelational part’. It can be structured into
five sections. 46 We shall now examine them one by one, interpret and restate their main
content. We will hereby find that several doctrinal elements can closely be related to or
rather be included in Revelational Theology. If we succeed in proving this fact, we have
legitimate reasons to speak of a condensed theology and not just a literary theme. In the
first three sections, the author not only presents his Revelational Theology, but he also
refutes concepts and ideas that are human speculations.
Section I – 7.1-6: No Earthly Discovery or some Mortal Idea
In 7.1, the author refuted the "human mysteries." 47 He underlined the seriousness of
the matter by referring 48 to a previous statement in 4.6 where he described the Christian
faith as a Divine mystery. He then employed three negations to stress his case. The
author wanted to convey the truth, that (1) "the religion of the Christians is no human
discovery, but a Divine revelation,” 49 (2) it cannot be learned from men, but from God
and (3) it is not "some mortal invention," but a Divine disclosure. Compare the apostle
Paul's insistence 50 that his Gospel had come "by revelation," 51 and not “from any
man.” 52 In this section as well as in this revelational part there is a strong Pauline
46 I:7.1-6, II:7.7-9, III:8.1-4, IV:8.5-11 and V:9.1-6
47 ἀνθρωπίνων μυστηρίων.
48 ὡς ἔφην.
49 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.117.
50 Gal.1.12 in NIV.
51 δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως
52 παρὰ ἀνθρώπου.
103

influence. With the idea, of “administration of human mysteries” 53 as a contrast to
Divine mysteries the author alluded to the Pauline wording in First Corinthians (4.1)
and Ephesians (3.9) where he defined his commission as being entrusted with the
administration of God’s hidden mystery. The mystery here in 7.1, as well as in other
passages in Ad Diognetum, 54 is clearly connected to God as revealer. 55
Logos in the Hearts of Men and in the Order of Creation
In 7.2, the author proceeded along the same line of thought as above. God "founded
among men the truth from heaven" and "established it in their hearts". Heart (καρδία),
referred to the biblical understanding of heart 56 as the center of human personality. 57
Truth was said to be established in human hearts and not in the Platonic Nous. The
Truth (τὴν ἀλήθειαν) was here linked with the Word (τὸν λόγον) and qualified as the
“holy and incomprehensible” 58 Word. Truth and Word could here to be understood in a
Johannine way, as personifications or titles of Christ, as Molland suggested, but also as
the teachings of Christ, as Meecham maintained. 59 In a valuable article, 60 Joseph T.
Lienhard discussed the meaning of the ‘titles’ above. He was cautious not to work out a
Christology solely on such titles, and of reading too many later concepts into the text. 61
Lienhard also reminded us of "the Epistle's lack of a plain statement on Christ's divinity,
humanity and unity," 62 and he took sides with Meecham on this special case. However,
53 ἀνθρωπίνων οἰκονομίαν μυστηρίων.
54 4.6, 7.2, 10.7, 11.2, 5.
55 Lona, An Diognet, p.213.
56 In Paul’s theology heart preeminently denotes the human ego in its thinking, affections, aspirations,
decisions, both in man’s relationship to God and to the world surrounding him. Herman Ridderbos, Paul-
An Outline of His Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company 1977), p.119.
57 Ulrich Wickert, “Christus kommt zur Welt. Zur Wechselbeziehung von Christologie, Kosmologie
und Eschatologie in der Alten Kirche.” In KL, ed. A.M. Ritter, pp.461-481, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht), p.475.
58 ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον.
59 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.92 and Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.118.
60 Joseph T. Lienhard, “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetos,” VC 24, (Amsterdam 1970),
pp.280-289.
61 Ibid., p.286.
104

as far as we can see, these two opinions, are not mutually exclusive. As Lienhard
admitted, the evidence for saying that the two terms refer to the Son, is strong. 63 The
passage has an undeniable Johannine flavor 64 and the Logos-theory of revelation is also
apparent in chapters eleven to twelve. 65 But that, according to our opinion, does not
exclude the idea that the truth and the Logos, are to be regarded also as the new
Christian teaching that Diognetus is reading about and through which the Logos himself
is operating in the hearts 66 of believers. The Word appeared and revealed the truth,
because he Himself was the truth (11.1-2). This is a Johannine idea, 67 and it fits the
context as a contrast to earthly discoveries and human mysteries in 7.1. It is also in line
with the common concept among the apologists, of the didactic function of the Logos. 68
The source of Divine action is in heaven and not on earth. The revelation through the
Logos was necessary. The negative titles underline the fact that the Logos himself came
with revelation to men. He was not some minister (ὑπηρέτη) or an angel (ἄγγελο) 69 or
ruler (ἄρχον) or some other earthly or leading heavenly being. The one sent "did not
belong to any subordinate order of celestial beings.” 70 In 7.6, he is also entitled, "the one
judging" (κρίνοντα). "All this suggests a dignity inherent in the Son comparable with
that of the Father himself.” 71
The positive titles applied to the Logos in 7.2 are Artificer (τεχνίτη) and Creator
(δημιουργὸ) "whose mysteries (τὰ μυστήρια) all the elements guard faithfully". Here we
find a close relation between Christology and cosmology. The Logos as the Son, is
described as Master of the creation order. Four items ought to be stressed regarding the
62 Ibid., p.289.
63 Ibid., p.282.
64 Ibid. Compare J. 1.1ff., 14.6, 1J. 4.9.
65 Ibid., p. 287. J.J. Thierry, “The Logos as Teacher in Ad Diognetum XI, 1,” VC 20, (Amsterdam
1966), pp.146-149.
66 ταῖς καρδίαις.
67 Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, (London: SCM Press Ltd. 1963), p.259.
68 Just.1apol.23, Clem.prot.10, Clem.str.1.10, Ath.inc.15.
69 The author rejects the idea that the Logos could be understood as an angel. Compare Justin Martyr
who in his Second Apology (5.2) refers to the Logos as an angel.
70 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.119.
71 Ibid.,p.120.
105

author's cosmology. Firstly, he was not original in his portrayal of the harmony and
glorious mysteries in the cosmos. We find similar thoughts in Old Testament
doxologies, in Stoic literature, and in early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome,
who employed the harmony-mystery argument, and clothed it in beautiful words. 72 This
structured harmony is underlined by the fact that the author employed number ‘three’ in
a fourfold way. He mentioned three heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars), three territories
(heaven, earth and sea), three elemental parts (fire, air and abyss), and three spheres (the
heights, the depths and the things in between). 73 Secondly, the author stressed the
active role of the Logos in Creation and Providence. All earthly elements and celestial
bodies obey his commands. Thirdly, we find the common Christian idea, that the
creation of a structured, mysterious and friendly cosmos, is an expression of God's love
towards man. 74 It is expressly stated in 10.2, and here in 7.2 as in 8.7 it is assumed.
Fourthly, the equality with God, the Creator, was given prominence by the fact that also
the laws of nature are Divine secrets (τὰ μυστήρια), beyond the knowledge of man, but
mastered by Logos, the Son. 75 This strong identification of the Father and Son in
cosmology (and Christology as well), led Marrou, quite logically, to deny the presence
of modalism and subordinationism in Ad Diognetum. 76 In sharp contrast to Marcionism,
the author, consciously or not, proclaimed that the Creator-God was actually the only
true God, operating through the Logos.
Two ‘sending’ verbs were used synonymously in this section. The verb ἀποστέλλω
occurs once and πέμπω nine times. They express the Father's sending of the Son and in
this way point out a distinction between the Father and the Son. 77 Here we notice some
‘nonviolent’ qualifications of the sending. In 7.3, the man-made thoughts about the
sending are ruled out. The Son did not come in tyranny (ί) and fear (ό) and
72 LXX Ps.33,6f., Wsd.9,11, A. Ant.3.11-12, 5.10, 7.9-13, 1 Cl.20, 33.3. Se also Molland, “Stellung
des Diognetbriefes,” p.82.
73 This structured harmony is built on the faithfulness of the elements or basic and mysterious
principles behind the Creation, the so-called τὰ στοιχεῖα and they are all placed in subjection. This
wording is depending on the Pauline wording in First Corinthians 15.27 and its close context. See Lona,
An Diognet, p.222.
74 Arist.apol.4, Just.1apol.10.2, 2apol.4, Herm.mand.12.4
75 Lienhard, “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetos,” p.288.
76 Marrou, A Diognète, pp.188-190.
77 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.121.
106

terror (άηξ). Such compulsion and violence (βία) can possibly be attributed to
man, but not to God (7.4). On the contrary, he came in gentleness (ἐπί) and
meekness (ὕ). All the ὡς-sentences serve to emphasize the distinctive sending of
the Son as appropriate to the Christian concept of God. The beautiful ‘king-son’
metaphor in 7.4 underlines the royal dignity of the Son and hints at "the conception of
the preexistent Christ as a King, a common idea in the Apostolic Fathers.” 78 Compare
Athenagoras and his patriotic comparison, between the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and
his son, with God and his Logos-Son. 79 The ‘sending’ terminology conveyed the same
view of God as the revelation terminology in chapter eight (8.8). Sending and revelation
were closely connected. The one presupposed the other. In chapters seven, eight and
nine, we have the revelation in a logical and ‘chronological’ order of three stages:
sending, revelation and redemption. In the sending terminology in 7.4-5, we are
reminded of a strong Johannine influence, and Lona is certainly right in suggesting that
behind these sending statements, we have the Gospel of John 3.16. 80 It could be argued
that the author explored John 3.16, and it is worth noticing that here in the beginning of
the revelational part as well as after the revelational part, in 10.2, we find the same
allusion to John 3.16 and the same sending terminology as a recapitulation of the
constitutive message of this part.
Digression: Why is Jesus of Nazareth Absent from the Text?
The closest we come to the human aspect of the incarnation is the sentence in 7.4,
where the author states that "he sent him as Man to men." 81 Many have observed that
neither the human name Jesus, nor his life, preaching, healing, suffering, death or
resurrection, are expressly stated in Ad Diognetum. 82 Although the ransom idea is
present in chapter nine, the cross and death of Jesus are not mentioned. The Christ title
is absent. In this regard, our writing diverged from Kerygma Petri and the Apology of
78 Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae, The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church, (Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksells, 1962), p.44.
79 Athenag.leg.18.2.
80 Lona, An Diognet, p.227.
81 ὡς ἄνθρπο ὸ ἀνθρώπος ἔπεμψεν.
82 Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, p.297, Lienhard, “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetos,” p.289,
Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.26.
107

Aristides. In the kerygmatic preaching, the story of Jesus was prominent. 83 Why not
here? Jesus of Nazareth was absent also in the apologies of Theophilus and Tatian.
Could it be that the author was silent on these matters for tactical reasons? Lienhard is
certainly right in stating, that "the Author seems hesitant about stressing doctrines which
would appear strange or grotesque to an uninitiated reader.” 84 We also have to take into
account the philosophical context. It seems as if Diognetus had a preliminary
understanding of the Christian God. One of his questions in chapter one had to do with
the concept of God. We have already assumed that Diognetus was a well educated
citizen who breathed the air of contemporary Platonic philosophy. Also, "the author's
own mind moves in Platonic grooves.” 85 We have also noticed that the revelation theme
is constitutive for our writing and that there is some kinship between our writing, and
the more abstract theology of the Gospel of John. 86 With these presuppositions, we can
understand the author's concentration on the self-disclosure of God, not from a human,
but from a Divine point of view. Our author reflected upon the majestic counsel of God,
and expounded Revelational Theology. 87 This kind of theology was rather close to, if
not identical with, philosophical theology. However, as far as we can see, there is
nothing in Ad Diognetum, that questions the reality of the life and death of Jesus of
Nazareth.
83 Compare for example the Christological Kerygma of Justin Martyr in J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian
Creeds, 3rd ed. (New York: Longman Inc. 1972), pp.73-74.
84 Lienhard, “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetos,” p.289.
85 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.34.
86 Ibid., p.118.
87 According to Robert L. Wilken pagans identified three characteristics of Christianity during the
second century. Firstly, a philosophical school whose teacher and founder was Jesus. Secondly, a
religious association whose cult-hero was Christ. Thirdly, an apostate Jewish sect. To respond to the
Roman charge of superstition and to develop its self-identity, Christianity adapted a self-defense before
Greeks and Romans. In this threefold scheme, the author of Ad Diognetum responds in line with the first
point. He develops a philosophical theology that denies philosophy. Revelational Theology could in fact
be seen from this point of view. Wilkes’s analysis presupposes that Christianity was a phenomenon of
reaction. That is true in part. But the apologists also worked out a proactive and a positive apologetic
program on the basis of their own theology. (Robert L. Wilken, “The Christians as the Romans (and
Greeks) Saw Them,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, ed. Ed P. Sanders, [Philadelphia 1980],
pp.100-125).
108

Section II - 7.7-9: Steadfastness in Persecutions as a Proof of God's Presence
Between 7.6 and 7.7, there was a lacuna in the original manuscript. A considerable
part of the text may have been omitted. Section II starts with an incomplete sentence. It
seems reasonable to assume that the preceding context also must have had something to
do with persecutions and punishments. It could also have been a short sentence
reminiscent of 7.8 in style with "Do you not see...". The seriousness of persecutions,
however, is obvious in the existing text. Instead of sacrificing to the Emperor, and
denying the faith, Christians chose martyrdom. In 7.8, the author turned directly to
Diognetus, just as in 8.2. The inhuman treatment of the Christians was something that
burdened our author. However, instead of complaining, he related the punishment to the
growth of the number of Christians and so turned the disadvantage into an advantage.
Here we come close to the thought behind Tertullian's famous quotation: “We multiply
whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed," 88 and to Origen's
words: "...the more emperors and rulers of nations and peoples in many places have
humiliated them, the more they have increased in number, so that they have become
exceedingly strong.” 89
In 7.9, we once again recognize the antithesis between what comes from man and
what comes from God. The multiplication of Christians, in spite of (or due to)
persecution, is here presented as a sign of the “power of God” (δύναμίς θεοῦ). In using
this apologetic argument of God's power, the author must have been able to refer to
some impressive and recent martyrdoms. Otherwise, the argument would have lost its
power. Furthermore, these things are proofs of his "coming." 90 This word can be
understood in a general sense, as referring to God's presence or in a particular sense as
denoting the first or second coming of Christ. 91 "The parousia is the definite
manifestation of what has been effected already as an eschatological reality.” 92 In
accordance with this particular understanding of the term, we prefer to translate it as
88 Tert.apol.50.13.
89 Or.Cels.7.27.
90 τῆς παρουσίας. Here I follow Kirsopp Lake in translating τῆς παρουσίας with ‘coming’, that is
martyrdom is here seen as a continuation of the event that is the first eschatological ‘coming’ of Christ.
91 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.123.
92 Albrecht Oepke, παρουσία, in TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.
Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974) p.5:870.
109

“coming” and so underlining the eschatological sense of the word. This is also in line
with the presumed second “coming” (τὴν παρουσίαν) in 7.6 when Christ comes as judge
at the end of history. However, the idea in 7.7 is that God's eschatological power and
presence that started with the first coming of Christ is to be seen in the endurance of
Christian martyrs. These things belong to eschatological time and are "proofs"
(δείγματα) or signs. 93 The author conveyed the thought that the Christian life is
intrinsically a supernatural life. He employed three ταῦτα-statements: (1) these things are
not the work of man, (2) these things are the power of God and (3) these things are
proofs of his coming. These things are shown in the inner strength of the martyrs, and
this strength is due to the eschatological character of the Christian religion itself. 94 To
formulate it in line with the present study: The Revelational Theology that was here
presented to Diognetus has already been presented, practiced and proved by the martyrs.
The same supernatural mystery was revealed. This is the triumph of eschatology and
results in proofs from martyrdom. This line of thought was what we found in the
context immediately before, in 6.9-10, where the author mentioned that Christians are
punished daily and increase more and more. “God has appointed them to so great a post
and it is not right for them to decline it.” 95 Earlier we asked why Jesus of Nazareth was
absent from the text of Ad Diognetum. The martyrs represent an answer. Their
sufferings in body and blood are proofs, and they belong to the long-suffering God who
gave his own Son as a ransom for us (9.2). Suffering, sacrifice and martyrdom, 96 were at
the very heart of the Christian religion.
93 Please note that the original manuscript (A) had ό instead of δείγματα in the editio princeps.
Here I prefer to read δείγματα in accordance with Kirsopp Lake and Lightfoot et al.
94 Fairweather, “So-called Letter to Diognetus,” p.211.
95 Here the author probably alluded to Plato’s word in his Apology (29a): “I remained where they
stationed me and faced the danger of dying like everyone else…”.
96 Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, p. 361. Frend elaborates extensively on the
differences between Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian on martyrdom. Ultimately these contrasts
rested on profound metaphysical differences, but to put it shortly: “To Clement the Christian Gnostic was
the type of perfect Christian. To Tertullian it was the martyr.” (Ibid., p.361)
110

Section III - 8.1-4: Not the Pretentious Thoughts of the Philosophers
In his thorough study of the philosophy of the Church Fathers, Harry Wolfson has
demonstrated that the Pauline attitude to religion and philosophy dominated well into
the second century. He described this attitude as follows: "This, then, is Paul's attitude
toward both the religion and the philosophy of the pagan world - a complete rejection of
the former and a disavowal of his use of the latter.” 97 According to Wolfson this attitude
followed the Apostolic Fathers into the middle of the second century. At that time,
Christianity begun to be introduced after "the manner of the Philonic presentation of
Judaism, as a belief which is harmonious with philosophy.” 98 According to Wolfson,
there are several reasons behind this development. 99 If we compare the attack on
philosophy in Ad Diognetum with Wolfson's insights, we come to the conclusion that
our author maintained the Pauline tradition. In 8.1, he began his criticism of philosophy
with an interrogation that ruled out all human knowledge of God. A similar categorical
statement appeared in 8.5. In 8.2-4, the author seems to identify the pagan gods with the
material elements. According to Heraclitus, reality consisted of fire, and according to
Thales the origin of all things was water. 100 However, in contrast to these pre-Socratic
natural philosophers, our author argued that “the elements" (τῶν στοιχείων) like water,
fire, earth and air were all created by God and could not be declared ‘God’. This way of
arguing in identifying matter with God was a straight-forward but simplified way of
attacking philosophy as an all-inclusive system. It seems as if our author, was not just
attacking the pre-Socratic philosophy, but philosophy as a totality. However, if we
consider Stoicism, this philosophy was not regarded as a once for all fixed system, but
moved in different directions.
The Stoic's view of order was based on their assumption of one great law of nature that
governed the totality of the cosmos, whether the law was imaged as the central fire, first
evoked by the fifth-century B.C.E. philosopher Heraclitus, or whether known
97 Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Vol. 1. Faith, Trinity, Incarnation.
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1956), p.10.
98 Ibid., p.11.
99 Ibid., pp.11-13. Firstly, pagans trained in philosophy were converted into the Christian faith.
Secondly, philosophy came to be used as a help in the Christian reply to accusations. Thirdly, philosophy
was introduced into Christianity as an antidote against the heresy of Gnosticism.
100 Alf Ahlberg, Filosofins historia, från äldsta grekiska antiken till våra dagar, 5th ed. (Stockholm:
Natur och kultur, 1967), pp.20-22.
111

philosophically as a rational order of things (logos), cosmologically as the order of nature
(heimarmené), or theologically as the god Zeus. 101
Our author did not distinguish pure philosophy from popular belief. Here he differed
from Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras who made use of serious
philosophy. On the contrary, our author looked at philosophy as an all-inclusive system.
The wording in 8.4 suggests this wider perspective on philosophy. "Now these things
are the miracle-mongering (τερατεία) 102 and the deceit (πλάνη) 103 of the magicians".
This sentence was not just a disparaging judgment in the rhetorical battle. The idea of
the prima materia could be exploited by alchemists and astrologers. 104 In Hellenistic
piety, philosophical principles served as a basis for the correspondence between earthly
matter and cosmic powers. 105 The author could have had such thoughts in mind, and he
could also have alluded to the arbitrariness of philosophy. If one claims that fire is the
ultimate reality, and another argue that water is the source of cosmos, anyone can claim
to be a philosopher and choose his own principle of reality. Our author had in this
respect much in common with Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. In chapters
two to three of the Oratio ad Graecos, Tatian attacked philosophy as a totality, just as
the author of Ad Diognetum did. 106 However, Tatian made it with bitter irony and satire.
Theophilus scrutinized the contradictions of philosophy and asked: “What would be
remarkable if God made the world out of preexisting matter?” 107 Tertullian had more
rhetorical refinements in chapters forty-six to forty-eight of his Apologia. All three
author's shared with Ad Diognetum a similar attitude towards philosophy. It was not the
conciliatory attitude of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria or Athenagoras (even
though they criticized popular philosophy), but it mirrored a fundamentally negative
attitude towards philosophy in general and philosophy as a way of knowledge to God in
particular. Tertullian spoke for all: "But then what have philosopher and Christian in
101 Luther H. Martin, Hellenistic Religion: An Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987),
pp.44-45. Compare Athenag.leg.6.4.
102 The word could also be translated illusion. Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.820.
103 The word could also be translated delusion. Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.671.
104 Martin, Hellenistic Religion, p.45.
105 Ibid. pp.44-45.
106 Tat.orat.2-3.
107 Thphl.Autol.2.4.
112

common, - the disciple of Greece and the disciple of heaven...?” 108 In the case of Ad
Diognetum, the radical revelation excluded the teachings of philosophy. If we look at
8.1-4 as written in the genus demonstrativum, it becomes obvious that the author's
critical attitude supported his anti-philosophical position. In section 7.1-6, the author
sketched his cosmology and related it to Christology and stated that the Word has been
established in the hearts of men. This should not be regarded as a theology of natural
revelation in creation. It was rather an aspect of Johannine theology and a likely
reference to John 1.18. “No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the
Father’s side, has made him known.” 109 We may say that the author of Ad Diognetum
dealt with Paganism, Judaism and Philosophy in the same consistent way. Due to his
strong Eschatology and Christology, two essential elements in Revelational Theology,
the author passed judgments from a lofty position.
Section IV – 8. 5-11: God's Plan Revealed at the Right Time
Revelational Terminology
The concept of Mystery (μυστήρ) occurs seven times in Ad Diognetum, on five
occasions 110 in the first part (chapters 1-10) and on two occasions 111 in the second part
(chapters 11-12). 112 In a smaller writing, consisting only of twelve chapters this is a
high frequency. Mysterion is one of the key words of Ad Diognetum. 113 The word is
commonly derived from ύ, which means "to close the eyes" or even the mouth. 114 Its
general meaning is "secret, secret rite, secret teaching, mystery…” 115 For New
Testament scholars, the concept is a standard designation "of God's secret (plan) which
in Old Testament times was kept secret or hidden, but which in the New Testament has
108 Tert.apol.46.18.
109 J.1.18 in NIV.
110 4.6, 7.1-2, 8.10, 10.7.
111 11.2, 5.
112 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.532.
113 J.A. Kleist, “The Epistle to Diognetus,” ACW, p.6, (Westminster, Maryland ,1948), 130 and
Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.107.
114 Chris C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion, Meaning and Content, Diss.,(Lund: Gleerup Förlag,
1977), p.1.
115 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.533.
113

een revealed.” 116 What happens then when a mystery has been revealed? Does it still
exist? Chrys C. Caragounis has gone through a rich material on the use of the term in
the Eleusinian cult, in Classical philosophy and in the Apocalyptic literature that shows
another numinous aspect of the term. 117 This connotative meaning of the term had
overshadowed its denotative meaning in Antiquity and had become its dominant
meaning. 118 From its earliest occurrences in literature the term was associated with the
"idea of the unfathomable, impenetrable, incomprehensive.” 119 Therefore, we ought to
be open to both aspects of hiddenness and mysteriousness in our dealings with
μυστήρ in Ad Diognetum. In 4.6 and 7.1-2, the mysteriousness is accentuated. In
8.10, the hiddenness before the advent of revelation is the primary aspect. In 10.7 and
11.2, 5 both aspects are probably included. In interpreting the mystery-terminology in
Ad Diognetum, we will not limit ourselves to interpret separate loci. We also intend to
relate the concept to other concepts, and so give a frame of reference for our
understanding of the tremendous content of μυστήρ. The point is that Mysterion is a
relational concept. The mystery waits for revelation and the revelation presupposes a
mystery. We shall therefore, pass on to its foremost relation, its counterpart in the
revelation-terminology.
The verb ἀποκαλύπτω is being used twice in Ad Diognetum (8.11, 11.8). 120 It
generally means to reveal or disclose something, and more plainly it has to do with
"divine revelation of certain supernatural secrets.” 121 Although the verb occurred only
on two occasions, the concept was conveyed through other verbs. In chapters eight to
nine, where the revelational theme reached its climax, the concept was underlined
through two more verbs. Firstly, ἐπιδεἱκνυμι in 8.5 and 8.6, was employed as an
emphatic and repeated verb, in the sense of "to demonstrate, show" or still better "to
116 Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion, Meaning and Content, p. 1. For a broader presentation of
Mysterium and Sacramentum in the Early Church, please turn to Anders Piltz, “Än som i gången tid,
Mysterieteologi från fornkyrka till nutid.”, Florilegium Patristicum, en festskrift till Per Beskow, (Lund
1991), pp.146-167.
117 Ibid., pp.3-5.
118 Ibid., p.10.
119 Ibid.
120 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.91.
121 Ibid.
114

eveal oneself.” 122 This verb was commonly used in rhetoric. 123 Ad Diognetum can be
regarded as a rhetorical work in the so-called genus demonstrativum, that is ἐπιδεί. 124
Apparently, the author here gives the reader a clue to an understanding of the work as a
whole. Here in 8.5-6 we have the rhetorical proposition: The self-manifestation or self-
revelation of God. Secondly, φανεόω was used several times 125 in the sense of "to
disclose a revelation to someone.” 126 In this context, I would like to draw attention to
the Pauline use of φανεόω and ἀποκαλύπτω. According to Dieter Lührmann, and Rudolf
Bultmann the apostle used these words synonymously just as in Ad Diognetum. 127
In Diognete 7-10 we have the first tractatus de revelatione. φανεό is used for the
revelation through Christ at 8.11. It is the revelation of God's mercy and power after
man's wickedness has been fully exposed 9.2. 128
In analyzing the revelation-terminology, we have arrived at some interesting
observations. The three verbs that we have considered here, were all favorite verbs for
the author of Ad Diognetum and were used interchangeably. 129 With the exception of
ἐπιδεικνύναι (that was used only in chapters 1-10), the verbs appeared in both parts
(chapters 1-10 and chapters 11-12) of the work, just as we have noticed in the case of
μυστήρ. There was a concentration of these verbs around the revelational climax in
8.5 – 9.2. Here we have not analyzed all derivative forms, but they conform to the same
122 Ibid., p.291.
123 M.L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey, (London 1953), p.24.
124 Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition, (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1980), Vickers, In Defense of Rhetoric, (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1988),
p. 62 and Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey, (London: Routledge, 1953), p.24.
125 8.11, 9.1, 9.2b and 11.5.
126 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.860.
127 Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, φανεό, In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.9:4.
128 Ibid., p.9:6. Here Bultmann and Lührmann include chapter ten in the tractatus de revelatione. I
have decided not to include that chapter in the revelational part for the following reasons: Firstly, this
chapter is a peroratio, and does not rhetorically belong to the main demonstrative bulk, that is chapters
seven to nine. A peroratio had according to Aristotle this peculiar way of reasoning: “I have spoken; you
have heard, you know the facts (my emphasis), now give your decision”. (Arist.rhet.3.19.6) Secondly, I
deal with chapter ten under “Implications of the Revelational Theology” in chapter five of the present
Inquiry. Thirdly, the essential Revelational Theology is already treated in chapters seven to nine.
Fourthly, chapter ten should be associated, according to the Pauline pattern, with paraenesis that naturally
followed the exposition. Fifthly, there is a lacuna in 10,1.
129 Ibid.
115

pattern as presented here. Finally, we would like to repeat the fact of reciprocity
between mystery and revelation.
The mystery is not itself revelation; it is the object of revelation. This belongs
constitutively to the term. It is not as though the mystery were a presupposition of
revelation which is set aside when this takes place. Rather, revelation discloses the
mystery as such. 130
Revelational Climax
We have already dealt with the function and meaning of the verb ἐπιδεικνύμι in the
aorist tense in 8.5-6. 131 Revelation was here carefully stated. Prior to revelation, God
was both invisible and unknown. With the sending of the Son, the time of revelation had
come. Two observations ought to be made. Firstly, we have the expression “but he
manifested himself,” 132 with the personal and reflexive pronouns, to emphasize the fact
that God himself chose to reveal Himself. 133 This Self-disclosure came from within the
Godhead. Revelation was an act of Divine Self-determination. It is worth noticing that a
similar idea and wording, were used in the Sibylline Oracles, which were frequently
quoted in the early Church. 134 Secondly, we have the expression “through faith” (διὰ
πίστεως). By faith, it is given to see God. The author explicitly stated that faith alone (ᾗ
μόνῃ) was necessary in order to come in contact with the true God of Christianity.
Nature, reason, soul or history, were not even mentioned as possible points of contact
between God and man. Only faith was mentioned, and it fitted into the once-for-all
character of Revelational Theology. "The term here denotes belief in the divine
revelation, this belief being the basis of true knowledge.” 135 This more intellectual
concept of faith was also expressed, as "knowledge of the Father" (10.1) and to "believe
on his goodness" (9.6). It presupposed the revelation that the author now presented, and
we ought to observe the authors’ unmistakable marking. He emphasized Pistis, in clear
130 Günther. Bornkamm, μυστήρ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans.
Goeffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.4:820.
131 See 6.5.2.
132 αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτὸν ἐπέδειξεν.
133 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.122 and Friedrich B1ass, Albert Debrunner and Robert W.
Funk,(eds.), A Greek Grammer of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans.
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p.145.
134 Sib.Or.3.15. See also Altaner and Stuiber, Patrologie, p.120.
135 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.40.
116

contrast to Gnosis and Nous. Once again we find a Pauline influence. This time it is the
apostle’s famous concept of faith “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through
faith.” 136 As I have already demonstrated, this passage (8.5-6), should be regarded as the
thesis of the whole work. The preceding (7.1 – 8.4) and following contexts (8.5 – 9.6),
serve to expound the content of Revelational Theology, and this section (8.5-11) is a
summary of the concept. It is here that we find the precise statement that summarizes
the main content of this Inquiry: “all things at once” (πάνθ᾿ ἅμα). That is a short version
of Revelational Theology.
In 8.7-8, the author summed up the various attributes of God. God was described as
Creator (δημιουργὸς) and Master (δεσπότης) of all the creative and constructive processes
in the universe. Here is the idea of Divine providence. Then we come to the moral
qualities of God. He is described as long-suffering (μακρόθυμος) and tender-hearted
(φιλάνθρπος), kind (χρηστὸς) and he alone is good (ἀγαθός). This last term could be an
echo of the synoptic Gospels. “No one is good except God alone.” 137 The revelational
will was grounded in the character of God. Just as God created the world out of eternal
love for humankind (10.2), so God, out of his goodness towards us, left his anonymity
and made himself known. The ‘story’ started with the moral qualities of God. We have
already noticed that God is invisible. He was also described as immutable. The author
formulated this attribute in 8.8. "Indeed, so he always was and is and will be..." He is
true (ἀληθής) and free from wrath (ἀόργητος). This last attribute is fascinating. Klaus
Wengst interpreted it as sign of an influence of Middle Platonism. 138 He commented
that in using this attribute, the author went against the biblical tradition. 139 Although our
author attacked philosophy, it seems as if he, in this case, was close to current thoughts
of God. Firstly, this technique of piling one attribute of God on another was a common
feature in apologetic literature. We have already noticed this pattern in Kerygma Petri
and the Apology of Aristides. 140 We found the same pattern in the writings of
Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Justin the Martyr, Tatian and Clement of
136 Eph.3.17 in NIV.
137 Mk.10.18 in NIV.
138 Wengst, Schrift and Diognet, p.296.
139 Ibid.
140 See chapter two.
117

Alexandria. 141 Secondly, when Theophilus in Ad Autolycem ended his long list of
definitions of God who is inexpressible, he stated: “If I call him Fire, I speak of his
wrath. You will say to me, then: Is God angry? Certainly: he is angry with those who do
evil deeds, but good and kind and merciful toward those who love and fear him.” 142
Here Theophilus wrote against "the overwhelming majority of philosophers, not to
mention the Marcionites.” 143 The author of Ad Diognetum wrote in a similar way of the
Son as Judge (7.6) and of "everlasting fire" (10.7). How are we to harmonize these
passages with 8.8 and God's freedom from wrath? Wengst stated: "dahinter steht die
platonische these, dass Gott sich nicht verändern kann...” 144 There are no changes and
moves in the Godhead. He is invisible and immutable. Maybe a word of caution should
be mentioned here. There is a risk of reading too much philosophy into one single word.
As a matter of fact, we have lexicographical support for translating ἀόργητος as "free
from anger.” 145 Positively stated it would convey the meaning of a "temperate" God in
contrast to the baffling gods of Antiquity. While the term ἀόργητος may still show some
influence from Middle Platonism, the context seems to point to a biblical understanding
of God as both true (ἀληθής) and good (ἀγαθός). Diognetus did not have to live in fear of
the Christian God. He is not capricious and does not express outbursts of rage. His
character is on the contrary noble and worthy of our praise and trust. The Christian God
is fundamentally φιλάνθρπος, a God that loves all human beings. The author did not
threaten with “everlasting fire” in 10.7, but contrasted the temporal fires of martyrdom
with the “everlasting fire” in order to defend persecuted Christians. Diognetus was
invited to know a God of extraordinary character and transcendence. From this high
point of Theocentrism, the author was able to refute the materialism of pagan religions,
and set forth the uniqueness of the Christian faith. This presentation of God was
fundamental to Revelational Theology.
In 8.9-11, our author was dealing with the mysterious design of God. The important
terms here were ἐννοα and βουλή. They could simply be translated ‘thought’ and
141 Thphl.Autol.1.3, 2.4, Athenag.leg.10.1, Just.2 apol.10.8, Tat.orat.4.2, Clem.prot.6.
142 Thphl.Autol.1.3.
143 Grant, God and the One God, p.88.
144 Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, p.295.
145 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.78.
118

‘counsel,’ and they were not used here in a philosophical sense. 146 Taking the terms
together, we can speak of the mysterious plan of God. In 9.2, a verbal form of πρόθσις
is used in the sense of ‘appointing’ or ‘deciding’ (the realization of a great plan). These
terms conveyed the idea of God's sovereign and inscrutable design, conceived by him
from the beginning (ἐξ ἀρχῆς) as an act of free will and communicated to the Child
alone. Here in 8.9 the verb for ‘communicate’ is ἀνακοινόω which is derived from
‘koinonia’. It normally denotes ‘a close mutual relationship’. 147 We may ask why the
author here preferred ‘Child’ instead of ‘Son’. I will return to this difference later, but
thus far I think Lona has formulated the author’s intention very well.
Der Vf. scheint die Cristologischen Titeln verschdiedenen Funktionen im Heilswerk
zuzuordnen. Der ῖ ist der präexistente Empfänger und der Offenbarer des Heilsplans
Gottes; der υἱ is der Gesandte und der Vollbringer des Heilsplan. 148
Thus, it seems to be a difference in function between the two titles, but the overall
message is that the communication of the mysterious plan was an act of God both as
regards its conception and its revelation. In eternity this unspeakable plan was
communicated to the Child and in history it was manifested to humankind through the
Son, and all the benefits included in it, were granted. That was the message of 8.9-11,
and in his Contra Celsum Origen wrote that this way of referring to the mysterious plan
was known among Christians. ”They seek the mystery 'according to revelation', which
has been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested by the prophetic
utterances and by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 149 A main feature of Ad
Diognetum is that this theme was developed into a radicalized theology of revelation
which colored the whole narrative.
The Mysterious Plan of God in Pauline Theology
Several commentators, have proposed, that in this passage (8.9-11), our author was
inspired by the Pauline idea of God's plan or counsel, the concept of μυστήρ. 150 The
146 Lona, An Diognet, p.247.
147 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, pp.439-440.
148 Lona, An Diognet, p.247.
149 Or.Cels.2.4.
150 Marrou, A Diognète, pp.127-129., Rudolf Brändle,”Das Mysterium des Christlichen Gottesdienstes.
Anmerkungen zur Ethik des Sogenannten Diognetbriefes,” SP XIII, (Berlin 1971), pp.132-133, Andreas
119

apostle Paul did express himself in words like these. 151 In line with these findings, and
Brändle’s insights, 152 I suggest that the author of Ad Diognetum had taken over the
Pauline concept of the mysterious but revealed plan, and applied it for his protreptic
purpose. 153 When we speak of this Pauline non-cultic concept of μυστήρ, there are
according to Caragounis, at least four requirements that have to be fulfilled. 154 Firstly,
the mysterious plan must be God's purpose. Secondly, it must be eschatological.
Thirdly, it must have wide dimensions. Finally, it must be a unified plan. These points
characterized the Pauline concept in general, and the Pauline-Ephesian concept in
particular. 155 If we examine Ad Diognetum 8.9-11 in the light of the following context
in 9.1-6, we will discover an affinity with the Pauline concept. The revelation of the
marvelous plan ἐν μυστηρίῳ was God's purpose, and it was eschatological. It had broad
dimensions, and it was a unified plan with the revelation through the Child as its centre.
The use of the participle οὐκονομηκώς 156 (having thus planned everything) was a
decisive sign of that unified Pauline plan.
The concept of οὶκονομί itself, as used in (Ignatius) Epf.18,2 and 20,1 means God’s
order of salvation and is to be found as a soteriological and dynamic concept in the NT
only at Epf.1:10 and 3:9, and in the post-apost. fathers as a verb only in Dg. 9,1.
Lindemann, “Paulinische Theologie im Brief an Diognet,” KL, (Göttingen 1979), p.349, Wengst, Schrift
an Diognet, p.298, Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.126.
151 Ro.16.25, Eph. 1.9-11, 3.4-6, 3.7-12, Col.1.26-27, 2.2, 4.3, 1 Cor.2.6-16, 4.1. We do not here
distinguish authentic Pauline epistles from pseudo-Pauline writings. By Corpus Paulinum I refer to all the
thirteen New Testament writings that are traditionally ascribed to the apostle Paul.
152 Brändle argues that the author of Ad Diognetum has specifically made use of the Ephesian-
Colossian concept of μυστήρ. The main source of inspiration seems to be Ephesians. “Als der
Zeitpunkt gekommen war, den Gott im voraus bestimmt hatte - πρέθ in 9,2 berührt sich mit Eph. 1.9,
1.11, 3.11 – da offenbarte sich Gott durch seinen geliebten Sohn und enthüllte - ἀπεκάλυψε erinnert an
Eph. 3.3, 3.5, Col. 1.26 – das von Anfang an Vorbereitete - ἡέ last an 1 Cor. 2.9 und Eph. 3.9
denken. Brändle, “Das Mysterium des Christlichen Gottesdienstes,” p.133.
153 Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion, p.118.
154 Ibid., pp.134-138. From where did the Apostle get the non-cultic concept of μυστήρ? The origin
and use of the concept in Ephesians must be sought for in the Semitic background. According to
Caragounis the specific background is the Book of Daniel. The apostle Paul had adapted, reinterpreted
and applied the prophetic concept of Mysterion. “The Danielic mysterion…meets all the requirements: it
is God’s purpose, it is eschatological, it has cosmic dimensions and it is a unified plan.” (Caragounis, The
Ephesian Mysterion, pp.134-136).
155 Ibid., p.118.
156 Most editors and commentators read οὐκονομηκώς instead of οὐκονομκῶς. See Lona, An
Diognet, p.252.
120

Thus, we find both a material kinship and formal similarities between the Pauline
concept of Mysterion and its use in Ad Diognetum. 157 However, the Pauline concept was
adapted. The cosmic recapitulation as the climax of the mysterious plan in Ephesians
was softened. 158 The incorporation of Jews and Gentiles into the earthly administration
of the plan was excluded. 159 The final Lordship of Christ over the whole universe was
not articulated. 160 God's plan ἐν μυστηρίῳ in Ad Diognetum (8.10) was applied out of
consideration for Diognetus and his question as to why this new race or practice had
come into being at this (late) stage of time. The revealed plan of God furnished the
author with a great answer and it served as a basis for his soteriological message in 9.1-
6. Our author was free in handling the Pauline material in accordance with his protreptic
purpose. 161
157 Brändle, “Das Mysterium des Christlichen Gottesdienstes,” pp.132-134. Brändle has convincingly
defended the close connection between Ad Diognetum and Corpus Paulinum.
158 Eph.1.10.
159 Eph.2.1-3, 13, Col.1.26-27.
160 Eph.1.20-23, Col.1.15-20.
161 It is possible to understand Paul’s interpretation of the mysterious revelation in line with the Jewish
pesher interpretation. As such it could be regarded as an interpretative aspect of the mysterious and
revelational event per se. Richard N. Longenecker states: “What is significant with respect to Paul’s use
of pesher interpretation, however, is his understanding of one feature of the prophetic message in terms of
a ‘mystery’ that has been made known by means of a ‘revelational understanding’ – or, to use the
nomenclature derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls, a raz (‘mystery’) that has become known through a
pesher (‘revelational interpretation’). Paul uses ‘mystery’ (Greek: musterion) some twenty times in his
letters, and in a number of ways. But in three instances in his use of the term he seems to be definitely
involving himself in a raz-pesher understanding of the unfolding of redemptive history: (1) In the
doxology of Romans 16:25–27, where he identifies ‘my gospel’ as being ‘the preaching of Jesus Christ
according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages, but now is disclosed and
through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations.’ (2) In Colossians 1:26–27, where he
mentions ‘the mystery hidden for ages and generation, but is now made manifest to his saints.’ (3) And in
Ephesians 3:1–11, where he speaks of ‘the mystery’ that was ‘made known to me by revelation,’ but
‘which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit, . . . the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things. ’Paul
could not claim the usual apostolic qualifications, as expressed in John 15:27 and Acts 1:21–22. His
understanding of the Old Testament could not be directly related to the teaching and example of the
historic Jesus, as was that of the Jerusalem apostles and many of the earliest believers in Jesus. Rather, he
was dependent on the early church for much in the Christian tradition, as his letters frankly indicate. But
Paul had been confronted by the exalted Lord, directly commissioned an apostle by Jesus himself, and
considered that he had been given the key to the pattern of redemptive history in the present age – that is,
that he had been given the ‘mystery’ to the outworking of divine redemption in this present day by means
of a ‘revelational understanding.’ The Jerusalem apostles had the key to many of the prophetic mysteries;
but he had been entrusted with a pesher that was uniquely his. Together, they combined to enhance the
fullness of the Gospel.” (Quoted from Longenecker, Richard E., Early Church Interpretation, in Stanley
E. Porter (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, [New York: Routledge, 2007, p.83].
121

Communication to the Child
We have already examined the revelation terminology in 8.11. Now I would like to
return to the relation terminology and indicate the filial relation between the Father and
the Child. “Child” (ὁ ῖ) was used in the LXX to denote the “Servant" in the suffering
servant song in Isaiah 53, 162 and also in the book of Acts. If “Child” here is to be
interpreted in line with the Septuagint tradition from Isaiah 52:13ff., we ought to
translate it with “servant”. 163 "Servant" fits the following context in Ad Diognetum, but
here we give prominence to an interpretation of "Child" that indicates the intimate
relation between the Father and the "beloved Child". Just like the title “’Son of God’
expressed Jesus’ constant experience of complete unity of will with the Father, the full
perception of revelation, which makes itself known to him as a unique recognition of
himself by the Father,” 164 so the Child in Ad Diognetum was intimately related to the
Father. The ‘Child’ was not only a prophetic consciousness of a lower instrument in
God’s hand. It was rather a Divine preexistent relation and internal communication.
This relation motivated the final revelation. The Divine mystery prepared from the
beginning was communicated to the Child. The context assured that this Child was no
one else than the Son. There is complete identity between Child and Son. In 9.2, the Son
was portrayed as the Father's agent who instrumentally performed the program of
revelation and salvation in the world. Thus, we find side by side, both a relational and
functional Christology. The Father communicated the unfathomable design to the Child
(8.9) and planned everything with him (9.1), but in the historical disclosure of the
mystery, the Son functioned as Revealer and Saviour. The sending ideology in 7.3-5
now moved to its culmination. The immense distance between God and man was
reduced. The eternal plan was accomplished in time and space categories. The sole and
saving point of contact was the Child-Son as one unified agent only. Through him, the
unexpected and unseen things were revealed. In the framework of soteriology (9.2 and
10.2), the author returned to the traditional title Son, and in so doing we probably can
162 Joakim Jeremias, ῖ, in TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.
Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.5:712.
163 Ibid. According to Jeremias ῖ as servant “plays a considerable role in primitive Christian
exhortation and the literature of martyrdom…There is no area of primitive Christian life of faith which
was not touched and stamped by the Ebed Christology”.
164 Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, p.282.
122

ecognize a differentiation in functions between the two titles ‘Child’ and ‘Son’. One
aspect of employing the strong relational title “Child”, would be a strategy of the author
to defend his Christology from any suspicion of subordination. In presenting Justin
Martyr, we were reminded that the idea that God dealt with the created order by means
of a second God, was anchored in Jewish exegesis (Philo) and in Greek philosophy
(Middle Platonist philosopher Numenius of Apamea). 165
Section V - 9. 1-6: Redemption Accomplished through the Son
Anthropological Qualifications
In sharp contrast to the goodness, forbearance, long-suffering and power of God, we
have the description of the human imperfection. We were borne along by undisciplined
impulses (ἀτάκτοι), led astray by pleasures (ἡδοναί) and lust (ἐπιθυμία). Our human
existence as separated from God, was characterized by terms like sins (ἁμάρτημα),
iniquity (ἀδικία), wickedness (ἀνμία) and impiety (ἀσέβε). The anthropology, reflected
in these terms, came quite close the Pauline view of man outside grace. 166 The moral
attributes of God indicated a sharp contrast to the (dis)-qualifications of man. The
author wanted to make it plain "that it was impossible for us by ourselves to enter into
the Kingdom of God." 167 (9.1). He was not moralizing. He described the state of human
existence, that is "the inability of our nature." 168 The passage reflected Greek influence
on the dialectic between our inability and weakness and God's ability and power. Our
condition was due to the presence of mortality and corruption in our nature. Weakness
and frailty had penetrated our bodies. Unlike most apologists, our author did not
attribute human sin to the malice of demons. 169 Generally speaking, he was more
165 Minns and Parvis, Justin-Philosopher and Martyr, pp.61-62.
166 Eph. 2. 1-3.
167 “Kingdom of God” (τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) - a central concept in the synoptic Gospels denoting
the eschatological reign of God and is here probably an allusion to the story of the rich young man in the
Gospel of Mark 10.17-31. There are three more similarities between this pericope and its wider context
and Ad Diognetum 9.1-6 and the preceding context. Firstly, our human inability (τὸ ἀδύνατον) to enter
into the Kingdom of God in Mark 10.27 is related to our inability in 9.1. Secondly, the goodness of God
alone in Mark 10.18 is related to the exclusive goodness (μόνος ἀγαθός ἐστιν) of God in 8.8. Thirdly, the
unusual noun λύτρον (ransom) in Mark 10.45 appears also in 9.2. These similarities could hardly be a
coincidence, but indicate a synoptic influence.
168 τὸ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἡμέτερας φύσεως.
169 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.29.
123

interested in the results of man's sin, than in its causes. 170 Besides iniquity and inability,
we also find ignorance as man's dilemma. According to 8.1 nobody had knowledge of
God and in 10.1 Diognetus was urged to acquire knowledge of the Father. Revelation
aimed at abolishing the lack of knowledge. However, it should be remembered that in
the authors anthropology, ignorance was strongly related to the tragic and desperate
human condition, as being lost, in total inability to relate to the true God. The authors
many negative attributes aimed at disqualifying any human effort to salvation. We may
say that the author’s anthropology served his soteriology.
"Realized Eschatology”
The "sending-revelation" of the Son divided history into two parts. The author
utilized some literary techniques to underline the eschatological climax implied in such
a view. In 9.2, he wrote with emphasis about the time that God had appointed (καιρός),
in contrast to the former chronological time of human tragedy (χρόνο). He also used
such adverbs as "then" (τότε) and now (νῦν) to separate past and present categories in
the history of salvation. His double perspective was expressed in a most pregnant
manner as "the time of iniquity which was then" 171 and "the time of righteousness which
is now." 172 In the past, it was impossible to attain life (9.6). We now have a Savior who
is able to save. In the background of this antithetical way of referring to history, we
have the Pauline tension between "then" and "now", the contrast between the "dominion
of darkness" and "the kingdom of his beloved Son.” 173 The Pauline distinction between
the old and the new, was to be understood in a redemptive-historical and eschatological
sense. 174 A similar idea was conveyed in 9.1 by a verbal form of the concept of
ἰί, which means God's order of salvation, and is to be found as a soteriological
and dynamic concept in connection with μυστήρ. 175 The author had comprehended
170 Ibid.
171 τότε τῆς ἀδικίας καιρῷ.
172 τὸν νῦν τῆς δικαιοσύνης δημιουργῶν.
173 Ro.5.6-11, 6.12-14, 7.1-6, Gal.3.23-29, 4.8-9, Col.1.13-14, Eph.2.1-10. Tit.3.3-8.
174 Herman Ridderbos, Paul, An Outline of His Theology, trans. John R. de Witt, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company 1979), p.63.
124

history in this dynamic-redemptive way. However, this is not a complete description of
the author's position. Further analysis will show that the author was not thinking of an
eschatological climax after a long historical process. Ad Diognetum did not assume a
history of salvation or Heilsgeschichte in the ordinary sense of the term. In chapters one
to ten, we look in vain for any precise, fundamental and positive reference to the Old
Testament, Judaism, prophecy, philosophy or history as a preparation or a Paideia. 176
We find no continuity. Time is divided into then and now. The radical revelation was a
once-for-all Divine breakthrough into human history. What we observe here is not a
futuristic oriented eschatology, although future elements are present, 177 but primarily a
realized eschatology. 178 History is divided into categories connected with redemption,
such as death and life, iniquity and righteousness. This view of history could, to some
extent, be a reflection of the author's rhetorical-antithetical style, or to a Christianized
and softened form of Gnosticism. 179 However, it is neither necessary or reasonable to
suspect Gnostic influence here as Andreas Lindemann soberly stated: “Die Annahme
eines direkten gnostischen Einfluss auf Dg ist nicht notwendig.” 180 It rather has to do
with the following facts. Firstly, we have noticed that our author's view reflected a
certain kinship with Johannine theology. In the Gospel of John realized eschatology is
central. In this Gospel "the revelation of God in Jesus was the place where one must
look upon a God who has revealed himself to us 'now’.” 181 This ‘now’ of Johannine
theology had been applied and radicalized in Ad Diognetum. 182 Secondly, although the
realized "now" was accentuated, it was not, in the final analysis, exclusive. In spite of
the preceding comments, the author evidently uphold the fundamental Pauline dialectic
of “now" and "then". We should not compel him to a final choice. As a matter of fact,
what we find in Ad Diognetum are similar statements to what we find in the Pauline
175 Otto Michel, ἰί, TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.
Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.5:152 and Brändle, “Das Mysterium
des Christlichen Gottesdienstes,” p.133.
176 Brändle, “Schrift and Diognet”, pp.60-64.
177 Compare 6.8, 7.6, 10.2, 7-8.
178 Brändle, ”Schrift av Diognet”, p.93.
179 Ibid., p.94.
180 Lindemann, “Paulinische Theologie im Brief an Diognet,” KL, (Göttingen 1979), p.348.
181 Francis J. Moloney, “Johannine Theology,” NJBC, (New Jersey 1990), p.1424.
182 Brändle, ”Schrift and Diognet”, p.91.
125

epistles. “At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all
kinds of passions and pleasures…But when the kindness and love of God our Savior
appeared, he saved us…” 183 Here the apostle pointed out the same dialectic between
‘now’ and ‘then’ and between our ‘disobedience’ and God’s ‘kindness’ (ἡ φιλνθρπί).
Here as so often in the revelational part of Ad Diognetum, we notice the author’s
intentional use of both Johannine and Pauline theologies.
The Soteriological Climax
"For what else could cover our sins but his righteousness"? 184 With this rhetorical
interrogation in 9.3, the author introduced a distinguished Pauline concept of
righteousness (δικαιοσύνη). He had already in 9.1 stated that the "time of righteousness"
had come and the whole context alluded to the apostle, but 9.3 was unmistakable a
reminiscent of the apostle Paul. Most scholars admit a heavy Pauline influence on the
author's soteriology. Lindemann went so far, as to state, that in chapter nine the author
"bemüht hat, eine zusammenfassende Darstellung der 'Theologie des Paulus' zu
geben.” 185 And commenting on this section, Molland wrote: "Das is alles paulinismus.
Wer konnte Rm.3.21-26 besser interpretieren?" 186 However, this fact should not be
understood as plagiarism on the part of the author. He was not just copying the apostle.
Instead, he worked out a Pauline soteriology in an independent way. 187 Firstly, in
contrast to the apostle, there was no mention here of an existential struggle under the
law and wrath of God. There was no tension between faith and deeds. Secondly, in
accordance with the apostle he taught justification as an imputed righteousness. After
the three rhetorical exclamations in 9.5, the author adorned his narration with a beautiful
chiasmus. 188 His sublime literary skill and theological precision worked together. "The
wickedness of many should be concealed (κρυβῇ) in the one righteous, and the
righteousness of the one should make righteous many wicked". The thought conveyed
183 Tit.3.3-4.
184 τί γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἠδυνήθη καλύψαι ἢ ἐκείνου δικαιοσύνη;
185 Lindemann, “Paulinische Theologie im Brief an Diognet,” p.343.
186 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.99.
187 Ibid., p. 95 and Lindemann, “Paulinische Theologie im Brief an Diognet,” pp.346, 349.
188 Chiasmus=Repeated ideas in an inverted order.
126

was an active removal of sins and not just a hiding of them. The word ύ could
here be translated “disappear” as the similar verb ύ in 9.3 could be translated
“remove”. 189 If that was the negative aspect of justification, the positive aspect was
stated by an interrogation in 9.4 that underlined the imputative righteousness of God. In
the Son, man was “to be made just” (δικαιωθῆναι) and receive a radically new status.
The author utilized the Pauline "Adam-Christ" typology. 190 In 9.5, we have "the
wickedness of many" (ἀνομία πολλῶν) in contrast to "the righteousness of the one"
(δικαιοσύνη δὲ ἑνὸς). Man was finally justified. That was the climax of soteriology.
The author based his understanding of justification on the concept of ransom
(ύ). 191 This ransom was “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) and not paid to the devil, as assumed
in some varieties of early Christianity. 192 “ύ in the LXX consistently denotes the
payment of a ransom price, substitutionary in character, and the same we saw to be true
almost universally outside the Bible.” 193 In a series of antitheses, in clauses that all
begin with the preposition ὑπὲρ in 9.2, the author conveyed the idea that "God in his
concern for man, acted as though man's sin was his own and hence planned to do away
with it, by giving his own Son as ransom.” 194 The holy, innocent, just, incorruptible and
immortal Son “took our sin” in a substitutionary act. Although not explicitly mentioned,
the author here explained the meaning of the historical cross of Jesus as the foundation
for justification. Lona summarized it exceedingly well: “Der ύ-Begriff deutet den
Tod Jesu in seiner Heisrelevanz als Befreiung und als stellvertretende Hingabe.” 195
None of the writers of the Apostolic Fathers or the apologists had such a clear statement
on redemption from sin and death and the justification of the sinners. 196 God himself
189 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.455 and p.402.
190 Lindemann, “Paulinische Theologie im Brief an Diognet,” p.345. Se also Ro.5,15-21.
191 Mk.10.45, 1 Ti.2.6, 1 Pt.3.18.
192 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (Exeter 1989), pp.173,185, 375.
193 Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1965), p.33. Se also Edvard H. Blakeney, The Epistle to Diognetus, (London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1943), p.71.
194 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.129.
195 Lona, An Diognet, p.267.
196 Olof Andrén and Per Beskow, eds., De apostoliska fäderna, Inledning, översättning och
förklaringar, (Stockholm: Verbum Förlag, 1992), p.221 and Philip Schaff, History of the Christian
127

had taken the sins of humankind and that is the judicial cause for our justification. In
9.4, the author formulated a rhetorical question that gave prominence to the absolute
necessity of God’s initiative. Justification was accomplished “in the Son of God
alone,” 197 and in 9.5 the author proclaimed this justification with a threefold ὢ-
interjection: “O the sweet exchange, O the inscrutable creation, O the unexpected
benefits”. The author had shown that the “time of iniquity” had passed, and the “time of
righteousness” had come. This change of time revealed a change of status. Through the
event of the Son and Savior, the eschatological time of salvation had come. In
Ephesians 1.9-10, the apostle Paul wrote that God “made known to us the mystery of
his will according to his gracious pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into
effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment…” This fulfillment of times
should be interpreted as an absolute category. It is in the redemptive-historical sense “a
new creation, the old has gone, the new has come,” 198 and that was perfectly in line with
the theological message of Ad Diognetum. 199 That was the theological background to
the invitation to become “a new man” (2.1), to the description of the Christians as “a
new race” (1) and to the presentation of “a new story” (2.1). It was in Ad Diognetum not
a question of popularizing the message or of following a traditional apologetic pattern.
It was rather radical newness and Good News due to the Revelational Theology which
colored all parts of the author’s presentation. Herman Ridderbos stated that “this
revelation of the mystery is the real content of Paul’s gospel.” 200 We may in a similar
way say that the revelation of the mystery in Ad Diognetum was its primary content.
However, revelation and salvation go together. In 9.6, the author summarized his
soteriology in mentioning “the Savior” (ὁ σωτήρ). The Savior was not presented here as
a counterpart to the healer god Asclepius. 201 According to Oscar Cullman “the early
Christian texts which call Jesus ‘Savior’ nowhere exhibit a view of the Soter related to
Church, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, repr., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1992), pp. 2:701-702.
197 ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ.
198 2 Cor.5.17 in NIV.
199 Ridderbos, Paul-An Outline of His Theology, p.45.
200 Ibid., p.47.
201 A Savior – or healing language does not prove that there necessarily is a “question whether Jesus or
Aesculapius was the true Savior”, as Harnack tends to argue. (von Harnack, The Mission and the
Expansion of Christianity, pp.107-109).
128

the Hellenistic concept.” 202 “Der σωτήρ verkörpert und vermittelt jetzt die Kraft Gottes,
die das menschlich Unmögliche, nämlich Leben zu erlangen, möglich macht.” 203 The
Soter-terminology should be interpreted against the tragic background of the human
predicament. The seriousness of our situation was described as “the powerlessness of
our nature.” 204 It was not only a question of committing evil deeds. Most of the
apologists criticized the contemporary immorality and licentiousness. In a unique way,
the author of Ad Diognetum stated the radical depravity of human nature and its
incapacity. Nature was here to be interpreted as the totality of the human being and
existence and not just the human body. Powerlessness was our condition, and natural
characteristic. 205 It was not something that can be ruled out with moral or mental
activity it still belonged to our nature. In that position, we were in desperate need of a
Savior, and the author was eager to paint a full portrait of the Savior. The eleven
epithets at the end of 9.6 served to give the Savior-title a deeper meaning. He is
sufficient for all human needs. The Savior is nurse, father, teacher, counselor, healer,
mind, light, honor, glory, strength, life “and to have care for clothing and food.” 206 The
Christian Savior was not an abstract idea or resource of mind, but he was able to meet
both the physical and spiritual needs of those who seek him. The Savior cared for the
total welfare of man. Those epithets probably had a deeper meaning in the early
Christianity. Justin Martyr, Damasus and Pope Damasus I, had similar catalogues. 207 It
202 Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, p.241
203 Lona, An Diognet, p.275.
204 ἀδύνατον τῆς ἡμέτερας φύσεως.
205 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.877.
206 Probably an echo of the Sermon of the Mount, Mt.6.25. This piling up of epithets in the sentence,
could be a way of pronouncing and securing the Christian Savior as distinguished from the Hellenistic use
of the title. (Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, p.241).
207 Just.dial.100 and Dam.troph.6. The last writing entitled The Tropies of Damasus, was written
somewhere round A.D. 680. Another Damasus was Damasus I and Pope in Rome between A.D. 366-384.
He also seemed to have been interested in collecting Christological titles. In The Decree of Damasus he
wrote and developed an advanced and comprehensive Christology and Soteriology: “The arrangement of
the names of Christ, however, is manifold: Lord, because He is Spirit; Word, because He is God; Son,
because He is the Only-begotten Son of the Father; Man, because He was born of the Virgin; Priest,
because He offered himself as a sacrifice; Shepherd, because He is a guardian; Worm, because He rose
again; Mountain, because He is strong; Way, because there is a straight path through Him to light; Lamb,
because He suffered; Corner-stone, because instruction is His; Teacher, because He demonstrates how to
live; Sun, because He is the illuminator; Truth, because He is from the Father; Life, because He is the
Creator; Bread, because He is flesh; Samaritan, because He is the merciful Protector; Christ, because He
is anointed; Jesus, because He is the Savior; God, because He is of God; Angel, because He was sent;
129

seems obvious that they had some profound meaning for the early Church, which was
accustomed to taking such symbols with the same seriousness that other ages have taken
what appears to be more logical discourse. 208 Even Philo had similar catalogues 209 and
could have inspired the use of collecting Divine titles.
Moreover, according to the important verse 9.6, God had accomplished two
revelational deeds within the Pauline scheme “now – then”. Firstly, he had “convinced
(ἐλέγξας) us of our inability (ἀδύνατον) of our nature (ἡμέτερας φύσεως) to attain life
(ζωῆς) in time past” (πρόσθεν χρόνῳ). In the New Testament, the verb ἐλέγ was used
in the sense of “ ‘to set right’, namely to point away from sin to repentance,” 210 but as
the verb was popular among philosophers it took other meanings. Epictetus used the
verb in the sense of “to take from someone his ό, i.e., the basic principle of his
life…” 211 It is hard to decide the precise meaning of the word in the context, but we
propose a forensic connotation, such as would be implied in words like ‘disprove’. In
the past, man was totally helpless, and his natural inability to acquire salvation was
clearly ‘disproved’. Secondly, we come to the ‘positive’ revelation, “having now (νῦν)
revealed (δείξας) the Savior (τὸν σωτῆρα) who is able (δυνατὸν) to save” (σώζειν). The
verb δείκν is here best translated ‘revealed’. 212 God has revealed Himself as Savior in
the Son. Revelation is here defined as salvation.
Ad Diognetum and Early Christian Soteriology
We would like to end this discussion on soteriology, by referring to John N.D.
Kelly's threefold division of early Christian soteriology. He differentiated between a
Bridegroom, because He is a mediator; Vine, because we are redeemed by His blood; Lion, because He is
King; Rock, because He is firm; Flower, because He is the chosen one; Prophet, because He has revealed
what is to come.” (Quoted from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers: A Source-book of
Theological and Historical Passages from the Christian Writings of the Pre-Nicene Era, [Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970], p.404).
p. 90.
208 Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers, (London: Darton, Longman & Todd Inc., 1987),
209 Philo.Congr.171. Here Philo wrote: ”For God is good, and the cause of good things, bounteous, the
savior, the supporter, the giver of wealth, the giver of great gifts, driving out wickedness from the sacred
boundaries…”
210 Friedrich Büchsel, ἐλέγ, TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.
Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.2:474.
211 Ibid., p.2:475.
212 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.171.
130

physical or mystical theory, a ransom theory, and a realist theory. 213 The first theory
links redemption to incarnation and coheres with the Greek tendency to regard
corruption and death as the chief effects of the Fall. The second theory is an explanation
of the redemption in terms of a ransom offered. The third theory directs the attention to
the Savior's suffering, his substitutionary offering as satisfaction for sinful men and the
paying of a penalty. The author of Ad Diognetum mirrored all three theories. We have
noticed how he linked soteriology with the sending of the Son. The saving work was
regarded as a mystical-physical and natural outcome of the sending of the Son. He also
found the second theory useful, although, of course, our author did not write in terms of
theories. He explicitly mentioned that the Son offered himself as a ransom. Our author
also touched on the third theory. Although he did not mention the sufferings of Christ or
did not use an atonement language, he still wrote of the "reward of punishment" (9.2) as
the forensic consequence of man being outside of grace. In short, our author had a
balanced soteriology with a predilection for the first two theories and a Greek tendency
to speak in terms of incorruption and immortality although not neglecting the moral
implications. His Revelational Theology was in the final analysis soteriological. The
section dealing with revelation, which begun at 7.1, was completed in 9.6.
A Summary of Revelational Theology
Ad Diognetum, as we now know it, was a literary work with many qualities, but it
was also a theological treatise of distinction. The author was an energetic and reflecting
theologian. In chapters seven to nine, he had condensed his thinking for the benefit of
the addressee. The content of these chapters was not just a literary theme among many
others. It was Revelational Theology, and it was built up of six basic doctrines. Firstly,
we have come across a strong Theocentrism. Its background was the Judeo-Christian
apologetic tradition and the monotheistic belief in a sovereign God as both Creator and
Providence. Furthermore, we probably had influences from the transcendent godhead of
Middle Platonism and its description of God as independent, invisible and immutable.
This concept of God could be used polemically in attacking man-made religion and
philosophy. The author's specifically ‘evangelical’ contribution to the view of God was
the constructive presentation of God as a loving, powerful, true, kind and a long-
213 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp.375-377. In this paragraph I use Kelly’s simple but useful
classification of theories of atonement.
131

suffering person. Now revelation was possible from God's point of view. He was
wholeheartedly interested in the welfare of man. Secondly, we had the author's
anthropology. The existence of man was marked by inability, ignorance, impiety and
iniquity. His nature was weakened due to the corruption of sin. The total situation of
man was characterized by powerlessness. His life and destiny was mortality. His
coming reward was punishment and death. This physical and ethical way of describing
man in his totality, was a result, particularly of a biblical influence, and generally of
common Greek thinking. Only a powerful and redemptive revelation could change
man's hopeless situation. Thirdly, we had the eschatology in Ad Diognetum. When the
time arrived that God had appointed from the beginning, the mysterious plan was
accomplished. The Divine plan had been postponed, because of man's iniquity, but the
eschatological era had come and now is the time of righteousness. We now have a new
story about a new people and the possibility of man's renewal. God had revealed himself
and unraveled the mystery. That was the eschatological act that made everything new.
Now it is possible to approach God and speak of him. It is possible to perceive and
partake in the incomprehensible and unfathomable mystery. According to his final plan
and in his marvelous goodness, God had manifested Himself. Here we have not only
obvious signs of Pauline eschatology, but also an emphasis on the present as in
Johannine realized eschatology. Fourthly, we must point to the author's Christology.
Although we search in vain for well-defined Christological distinctions, we do find
formulations that point to the equality between the Father and the Child and the Son.
We must remember that the author belonged to an early stage in the development of
doctrine and that he had a distinct object. Someone had to carry out the Divine plan.
This ‘someone’ could not be an angel, a ruler or another celestial being. God sent his
Son, as a King sends his royal progeny equal to him in dignity. In the beginning, the
Father communicated the plan to his Child, and it was he who accomplished the Divine
mission. The Son, as Logos, came with truth to the ignorant. This mission was the first
act in the revelational drama. In Ad Diognetum, we do not read of the birth, life,
suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. This is a peculiar feature of this work. The
work mediates a Christology from a lofty perspective. Formally, the human Jesus is
absent, but materially he is assumed in the narration. Fifthly, the same drama deals with
soteriology. Man's existence was characterized by a life in iniquity and total inability. If
he ever was to share Life, he was in desperate need of a Savior. The Son was the Savior.
He gave his life as a ransom and representative of the human race, and in the act of
132

justification, he conveyed blessings and benefits such as righteousness and immortality
to miserable man. The author once again utilized Pauline theology, but adapted it to his
protreptic purpose. The final act in the revelational drama was the personal reception of
the Divine revelation in faith and knowledge. The author had so far touched upon these
terms in 8.6, 11 and 9.6. Lastly, although the author's cosmology was meager, it should
be included as an element in Revelational Theology. It had a subordinated position, but
as a matter of fact, the author had sketched a structured and harmonious cosmology, that
had its origin and continuity from the operating activity of God and his Logos. The
same Logos that established structure in the universe also established himself as truth in
the hearts (ταῖς καρδίαις) of believers. The authors cosmology was not described as an
independent creation that functioned automatically beside the revealing and redemptive
activity of God. On the contrary, cosmology in Ad Diognetum, was strongly related to
eschatology and to Christology. 214 The Revelational Theology as such is to be regarded
as have been fully covered by the foregoing six theological elements. In figure 3 below,
the central thesis of Revelational Theology (Mystery-Revelation) including its six
doctrines is illustrated.
Revelational Theology – An Explicative Definition
‘Revelational Theology’ is the designation under which we have chosen to
summarize the main theological content of Ad Diognetum. It could be defined 215 as a
system of doctrines, which describes how the transcendent, sovereign and invisible
God, Creator and Master of a structured and harmonious universe, in his unfathomable
goodness and love, as an eschatological and supernatural event, revealed his mysterious
counsel and sovereign plan, on how to save man from iniquity, ignorance and mortality,
through his Son's revelatory and redemptive work, in order to bestow on man
righteousness, eternal life and to offer him participation in a Mystery revealed.
214 Wickert, “Christus kommt zur Welt,” pp.473-481.
215 Sometimes a definition is offered neither descriptively nor stipulatively but as, what Rudolf Carnap
called, an explication. An explication aims to respect some central uses of a term but is stipulative on
others. The explication may be offered as an absolute improvement of an existing, imperfect concept. Or,
it may be offered as a “good thing to mean” by the term in a specific context for a particular purpose.
(Anil Gupta, “Definitions,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edvard N. Zalta, [Online],
Available from http://plato.stanford. edu/entries/definitions/#DesDef. [Accessed 21 April 2012]).
133

FIGURE 3
The six doctrinal parts of Revelational Theology and the centrality of mysteryrevelation.
Summary
In this fourth chapter, I examined the revelational part (chapters 7-9) in Ad
Diognetum. With the help of exegetical method, I went through the five sections (I-V)
of the text and interpreted the text. This resulted in a clear picture of a coherent,
comprehensive and contextualized theology designated as Revelational Theology. It had
six doctrines: Theocentrism, Eschatology, Christology, Soteriology, Anthropology and
Cosmology that worked together and served the purpose of presenting to Diognetus a
condensed theology in order to prove that finally the mystery of ages had been revealed
through the Son. The author utilized literary devises to convey his message, and this
message was anchored in both Pauline and Johannine theologies.
134

PART TWO
REVELATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
135

CHAPTER 5
IMPLICATIONS OF REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY
Then you will see that though your lot is on earth, God lives in heaven, then you will
begin to declare the mysteries of God, then you will both love and admire those who are
punished because they refuse to deny God, then you will condemn the deceit of the error
of the world, when you realize what the true life in heaven is…(10.7).
Introduction
In this chapter, I intend to demonstrate the impact of Revelational Theology on the
further content of Ad Diognetum. By reason of this, we will be able to understand how
the author utilized Revelational Theology as an interpretative norm. Moreover, I aim at
demonstrating how this norm dominates and influences the author’s view on religion,
philosophy, Christian ethics and knowledge. From the normative centre, that was
localized to chapter seven to nine, we now turn to other parts of Ad Diognetum to
explain and evaluate its content. In a strict sense, we hereby leave the hermeneutics of
signification and move on to a hermeneutics of significance. This becomes utterly clear
when in chapter ten, the author turned to Diognetus, and urged him to embrace the
Christian message. The author here applied the message in order to enhance its
significance.
Revelation and the Futility of Idolatry in 2.1-10
According to Arthur D. Nock, Christians held two principal views on pagan worship
and deities. "First, that they were figments of the imagination, or at least not existing
supernatural beings; second, that they were in fact supernatural beings but evil
daimones or daimonia.” 216 In denying the supernatural character of the pagan gods, the
Christian apologists could refer to Eumenides, who argued that gods were just men,
deified kings and heroes. 217 They could also reason in line with the Pythagoreans and
author's like Sophocles and Xenophanes, who ridiculed the crude anthropomorphism of
the gods 218 and their great diversity. Another way of attacking the pagan gods was to
focus on their immoral character. In chapters two to four of the Protrepticus, Clement
of Alexandria blended the arguments from euphemism, anthropomorphism, polytheism
and immorality in his denunciation of pagan religion. The other strategy implied the
216 Arthur D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo, repr. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p.221.
217 Martin P: N Nilsson, Olympian, (Stockholm: Bokförlaget Prisma, 1964), p.26.
218 Grant, Greek Apologists, p.107 and Andrén and Beskow, De apostoliska fäderna, p. 219.
136

ecognition of the existence of gods, but relating them to the common belief in demons.
As we already have noted, Tatian argued that Greek mythology, astrology and religion,
were undermined by demonological activities. "Men became the subject of the demons'
apostasy.” 219
In 2.6, the author of Ad Diognetum admitted that Christians deny the pagan gods,
and thereby indirectly accepted the common charge of atheism. 220 Nevertheless, in the
next sentence, (2.7) he cunningly, and by means of a rhetorical question, hinted at the
fact that it was the pagans themselves, who were the real atheists. "For is it not you,
who, though you think and believe that you are praising the gods, are much more
despising them"? Then he went on to describe their worship as a matter of "mocking
and insulting" 221 the gods and finally he followed the prophetic pattern of ironizing at
the powerlessness of gods without perception and reason. Behind the author's counter-
attack laid his firm belief in the materialistic character of heathen gods. They were
nothing more than senseless matter. All interrogations in 2.1-5 served the purpose of
refuting this materialism. Given the requisite craftsmen, the material used for ordinary
vessels of wood, brass, silver or clay, might at any moment be turned into a ‘god’. He
focused on the materialism of heathen worship due to his understanding of God as
invisible (7.2) and the Christian religion as invisible (6.4). True religion stemmed from
a supernatural revelation. It had nothing to do with crude materialism. That was the
author's peculiar way of attacking religion. There was almost no criticism of
immorality, polytheism, euphemism or demonology. He was dependent on his own
Revelational Theology, colored by prophetic monotheism and maybe also a slight
tendency to a Middle Platonic transcendentalism. The author's anthropology and
eschatology also contributed to his argumentation. Formerly, during the time of
iniquity, man was powerless and unable to enter into the kingdom of God (9.1). Idolatry
as a way of salvation was per definition both impossible and irrational, according to the
author. The final result of idolatry was the tragic reality of being reduced to a state
resembling these material images (2.5). Here the author, in line with biblical precedents,
219 Tat.orat.8.1.
220 Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”, p.29.
221 χλευάζετε καὶ ὑβρίζετε.
137

linked idolatry to ethics. 222 To sum up, the author allowed no place to natural religion,
due to his exclusive emphasis on Revelational Theology.
Revelation and the Attack on the Jewish Cult and Customs in 3.1 – 4.6
The Adversus-Judaeos Literature
A common feature of apologetic literature was the type of writing which goes under
the denotation Adversus-Judaeos. 223 Material related to this phenomenon was relatively
large in Ad Diognetum. What the author wrote in this regard, was written in a militant
tone. The author referred in 3.1 to Diognetus' special interest in the subject on why the
Christians do not worship in the same way as the Jews. In chapter three, he dealt with
the Jewish sacrifices and in chapter four he scrutinized the Jewish rites and customs. To
begin with, the author made a distinction between Jewish and pagan religion. The Jews
worshipped "the one God of the universe, and regard him as master," (3.2) and this in
sharp contrast to the polytheism of the heathen. However, in spite of their monotheism,
the Jews were no better than the Greeks. Just like pagans they entertained a delusion by
sacrificing to God who is self-sufficient and in need of nothing (3.3). That was rejected
as foolishness (μωρίαν) and not true religion (οὐ θεοσέβειαν). Both these notions
suggested a moral as well as an intellectual fault. 224 In 3.4, the author alluded to a
wording in Acts 14.15, and exploited the fundamental creation doctrine of Jewish and
Christian religion, that God has made heaven and earth and all that is in them. It is man
that is in need of God and not God in need of man. The oblations of "blood and burnt
fat" did nothing more than degrade God from his true and transcendent position as
independent. Here the author maintained the tradition of several apologists. 225 In view
of the invisibleness of God (7.2), the Jewish cult was a sophisticated variant of
materialism. The author described the Jewish cult as if it still existed. This could reflect
the dream which Jewish orthodoxy had of rebuilding the temple. 226 Maybe it referred to
222 LXX, Ps.113,6, 134.18, Ro.1.18-32, Ac.12.29.
223 Brändle 1975, “Schrift an Diognet”, p.51.
224 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.102.
225 Please compare Tat.orat.4, Thphl.Ant.Autol.2.10, Just.1apol.10.
226 Andrén and Beskow, De apostoliska fäderna, p.219.
138

an atmosphere, "...in which rumor about the possibility of a rebuilt temple abounded.” 227
That was an important element in the background of the Epistle of Barnabas. 228 It
could also be explained in a literal way. Michael E. Stone has demonstrated, that from
the sixth century B.C., there existed a number of Jewish temples, inside and outside the
land of Israel, apart from the temple in Jerusalem. 229 Sardes in Asia Minor had a strong
Jewish population 230 and Melito's Paschal Homily obviously mirrored the confrontation
between Jews and Christians, which occurred at Easter time. 231 According to Stone, the
Jews of Sardes were permitted, during the reign of John Hyrcanus II (63-40 B.C.), to
establish a sacrificial cult in the town. 232 We should not therefore, associate the temple
cult exclusively with Jerusalem. The localized sacrificial cult in Jerusalem disappeared
with the fall of the city A.D. 70, and the Bar Kochba revolt A.D. 132-135. In chapter
three, our author could actually have referred to a real and contemporary practice
outside Jerusalem.
In chapter four, the author criticized the food prescriptions (4.1), fasting (4.2), the
celebration of the Sabbath (4.3), circumcision (4.4) and the Jewish feasts (4.5). In 4.6,
the author categorically disparaged Jewish rites and customs as folly (εἰκαιότης), deceit
(ἀπάτη), fussiness (πολυπραγμοσύνη) and pride (ἀλαζονεία). He simply dismissed them as
irrationalism, without any attempt to reinterpret them, or to ask why they have been
given. 233 The author showed no inclination to seriously understand Jewish religiosity as
a former manifestation of God’s unfolding history. 234 Instead, he ventilated his
227 J. Carleton Paget, The Epistle to Barnabas: Outlook and Background. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testaments, 2 Reihe, 64, (Tübingen, 1994), p.67.
228 Ibid.
229 Michael E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish
Revolt, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp.77-80.
230 Melito of Sardis, Om påsken, trans. Per Beskow, (Skellefteå: Artos Bokförlag, 1984), p.38.
231 Ibid., p.37.
232 Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions, p.80.
233 Carleton Paget, The Epistle to Barnabas, p.259.
234 Compare how different Aristides in chapter fourteen of his Apology describes his view on Judaism:
“The Jews the say that God is one, Creator of all and almighty:and that is not proper for us that anything
else should be worshipped, but this God only: and in this they appear to be much nearer to the truth than
all peoples, in that they worship God more exceedingly and not His works; and they imitate God by
reason of the love which they have for man; for they have compassion on the poor and ransom the captive
and bury the dead, and do things of a similar nature to these: things which are acceptable to God and are
139

animosity. We find no traces of empathy, but rather antipathy. The mystery of the
Christian religion (4.6) was articulated as an antithesis to Jewish religion. His purpose
was to differentiate the Christian faith from Judaism in particular and to accentuate the
superiority of the former. The new Christian universalism was based on the revelation
in Christ and not on the regulations of the Torah. In reflecting on the purpose behind
this apologetic and literary strategy of differentiating and accentuating, we believe that
Frend approaches one of the author's original purposes. Diognetus represented a group
of educated persons "...who accepted Jewish monotheism, ethics and theology of
history, but rejected Torah as a set of noisome irrelevancies.” 235 The author launched
Christianity as the true fulfillment of Judaism. Educated Greeks and Romans who
sympathized with the monotheism, ethics and theology of history of Judaism, but
rejected the regulations of the Torah; to such inquirers “Christianity had come as a
wondrous relief.” 236
Influences from Marcion and Barnabas?
To begin with, it is necessary to observe the "streamlined," and superficial character
of the author's condescending criticism of Judaism. Marrou has caught the point in these
words: "Il est toujours aussi rapide, sommaire, et par suite superficiel, quant au fond,
passionné et violent quant à forme et au ton.” 237 We have also demonstrated that
rhetorical rules require that the ‘enemy’ should be conquered. The antithetical logic
contributed to this literary strategy, and in genus demonstrativum it is the duty of an
author to blame and praise. 238 However, this statement does not answer the crucial
question itself. We have to go further and ask if the animosity in chapters three and four
can be regarded as an indication of an influence from Marcionism. In a highly
interesting article, Charles M. Nielsen discussed the relationship of Ad Diognetum to
well-pleasing also to men, things which they have received from their fathers of old. Nevertheless, they
too have gone astray from accurate knowledge, and they suppose in their minds that they are serving God,
but in methods and their actions their service is to angels and not to God, in that they observe Sabbaths
and new moons and the Passover and the great fast, and the fast, and circumcision, and cleanness of
meats: which things not even thus have they perfectly observed.” (Arist.apol.14).
235 Frend, The Rise of Christianity, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1984), p.237.
236 Ibid., p.237.
237 Marrou, A Diognète, p.112.
238 Arist.rhet.1.3.3.
140

Marcion. 239 Nielsen proposed the thesis that Ad Diognetum was written before Marcion
entered the stage. "The author writes in such a way that it is quite difficult to believe
that he could ever have heard of Marcion.” 240 Nielsen reminds us that Marcion came
from Pontus and that the process of dissociating Christianity from Judaism was already
under way within certain circles in Asia Minor before Marcion. "Marcion pushed the
process to its bitter end, but he really did not have very far to go.” 241 Marcion drew his
radical conclusions after the end of "the apocalyptic revolts that had ended in A.D.135
with a thoroughgoing massacre of Jews in the eastern part of the empire.” 242 Before
Marcion a Christian author could ignore the Old Testament and Judaism, but after
Marcion that became impossible due to heavy anti-Marcionite polemic. The main point
in this summary is that Ad Diognetum in its negative attitude to Jewish cult and custom
had ‘pre-marcionitic’ overtones. As both Nielsen and Wengst have shown, there are
similarities 243 between our author and Marcion, but there are also differences between
the authors. 244 The anonymous author of Ad Diognetum identified the Creator-God with
the Saving God. He recommended marriage, and he favored an anti-docetic
Christology 245 but in regard to the Jews, our author was not entirely unrelated to
Marcion. 246 Among the Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle of Barnabas expresses similar
thoughts and attitudes. "...Barnabas shows a notable similarity with other Adversus-
239 Charles M. Nielsen, “The Epistle to Diognetus: Its Date and Relationship to Marcion,” ATR, 52,
(Evanston 1970), pp.77-80.
240 Ibid., p.81.
241 Ibid., pp.90-91.
242 Grant, Gnosticism and the Early Christianity, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966),
p.122.
243 Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, pp.301-302.
244 Quasten, Patrology,pp.1:268-272. Here Quasten gives a conventional appraisal of Marcion’s
teaching and relates the common divergences from Orthodox faith.
245 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, pp.37-38 and Wengst, Schrift an Diognet, p.303. It should be
noted that the major work of Marcion, now lost, was entitled Antitheses. Here Marcion repudiated the Old
Testament and blamed the bad moral character of the God of the Jews, (Quasten, Patrology, p.1:271). We
cannot deny the fact that Ad Diognetum contains antitheses both in the linguistic and theological sense of
the term. But there was no blame directed at the ‘Jewish’ God. On the contrary, the author acknowledged
their monotheism (3,2) and uphold the teaching of one God and Father of the universe (10, 1-2). In this
regard the author was an “Anti-Marcionite”.
246 Carleton Paget, The Epistle to Barnabas, p.259.
141

Judaeos literature.” 247 In chapter two, the writer referred to the prophet Isaiah 1.11-13
in a polemic against sacrifices. Barnabas seems to argue that the prophets preached on
the necessity of the abolishment of the Jewish cult (2.4). In 3.1-6, he rejected fasting, in
9.4 he advocated the abolition of the command to circumcise, in 10.2 he denied the
ritual significance of the food prescriptions and in 16.1-2 the Jewish cult was compared
to paganism. In contrast to our author, Barnabas made use of allegorical interpretative
techniques and worked with a variety of Old Testament passages. Both shared a
suspicious attitude towards the Jews and betrayed, as did so many Church Fathers,
antisemitic tendencies. 248
The Threefold Answer of Revelational Theology
The urgent question facing modern readers, is how this extreme position towards the
Jews in Ad Diognetum, can be reconciled with the author's praises for Christian love?
Revelational Theology can help us to explain the author's position. It provides a
threefold answer. Firstly, the idea of God was decisive. As Nielsen remarks "...the
attack on the Jewish cult in Ad Diognetum is also an attack upon Jewish theology, the
Jewish doctrine of God. To say that God wants blood, fat and burnt offerings (3.5) is to
say something about God's nature.” 249 If God was defined as independent, he did not
need Jewish sacrifices. If he was invisible, the administration of cult and rites could
easily become relativized, in favor of a personalized religion. If he was described as
immutable, there could be no changes and moves within the Godhead. Changes (and
moves) were per definition always to the worse. If God in a former dispensation made
use of huge quantities of animal offerings, and in a later dispensation chose one single
human sacrifice, this could, from a Middle Platonic point of view, be regarded as a
serious change within the person of God. 250 Therefore, the former dispensation, with its
ceremonial law, had to be questioned. From this follow two more explanations.
Secondly, Jewish cult and Christian soteriology are presented as antitheses in Ad
247 Ibid.
248 John Lundmark, Det splittrade gudsfolket och missionsuppdraget: En studie i relationen mellan
kyrkan och judendomen, Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia xxxvii, Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1983,
pp.81-84.
249 Nielsen, “The Epistle to Diognetus,” p.84.
250 Wengst, Schrift av Diognet, p. 296. The argument from God’s immutability could be used also
against Christianity. It was set forth by Celsus as an obstacle to the Incarnation. See Or.Cels.4.14.
142

Diognetum. To establish the superiority of the latter, the former had to be refuted. We
may say that our author to some extent had fallen into the trap of his own rhetorical and
structured brilliance. In utilizing antitheses, the contrast between two alternatives
became clear. In employing genus demonstrativum, the author went into a polarized
world-view, with either friend or enemy, either praise or blame. There was no common
ground, no neutral stance. Thirdly, our author's eschatological emphasis on "this new
race" 251 as the people of God in history, was the final answer. The newness of
Christianity annulled the preceding procedures of the former people of God. This
explains why the author was totally uninterested in proofs from prophecy or in the age
of Moses. He not only distanced himself from Jewish religion, but also from pagan
religion and philosophy. The author of Ad Diognetum was consistent in his categorical
denouncements. The new reality of revelation determined the perspective. "Der
Hauptgrund dafür durfte aber im Offenbarungs-verständnis des Autors zu sehen
sein.” 252 However, it would be a tragic fallacy to read the author’s offensive criticism of
Judaism into Revelational Theology per se. That kind of determinism ought to be
rejected. Revelational Theology certainly could and certainly should be framed in a
polite and objective way. Furthermore, Revelational Theology had a supreme capacity,
and could be utilized in two contradictory ways. Either it could reduce the significance
of a certain phenomenon, or it could enhance its significance. As an interpretative norm,
it had the power to convey significance or insignificance.
Revelation and the Distinct Nature of Christian Ethics in 5.1 – 6.10
The Divine Character of the Christian Faith
In 1, 4.6 and 6.4, the author made use of a ‘non-Christian’ term to denote the
Christian religion. 253 Θεοσέβεια is found only once in the New Testament. 254 It has the
sense of "reverence for God, piety, religion" 255 and the context has to determine the
precise translation. In chapter one, it could be translated as ‘religion’ or ‘faith’. In 4.6, it
251 καινὸν τοῦτο γένος.
252 Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”, p.52.
253 Ibid., pp.102-103.
254 1 Ti. 2.10.
255 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.358.
143

was contrasted to the sacrificial cult and manifold customs of the Jews and was also
coupled with mystery (μυστήριον) that was something impenetrable. The Christians
actually participated in the inexpressible mystery of God. 256 Here the term conveyed the
meaning of ‘Divine faith’ in opposition to a worship learned from men. In 5.3, that
theme was articulated once more. The Divine religion of Christians had nothing to do
with the "teaching of men" (ἀνθρώπων μάθημα) or "human doctrine" (δόματος
ἀνθρωπίνου). Here the distinction of the Christians was described negatively. In 6,4, ἡ
θεοσέβεια was invisible (ἀόρατος) and could be translated with ‘worship’. 257 The
Christians worshipped God in their daily service among men. Just as the soul was
invisible in the body, but still active, so the Christians exercised their invisible faith in
society, and practiced a secret piety, a moral service and a practical worship. 258 They
were not occupied with man-made rites and dogmas. They were engaged in a
supernatural life, and that was the mystery of their piety. The Christian life as well as
faith originated from God. This argumentation can only be understood against the
background of Revelational Theology.
The Christian Citizenship
In 5.4-16, the Christians were described in a series of antitheses, as responsible
members of society. They “live in both Greek and barbarian cities, as each one’s lot
was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food and other aspects of life…”
(5.4). They took their citizenship seriously, but their citizenship was of a paradoxical
(παράδοξον) character. They were citizens, but still strangers (ξένοι). They lived
exemplary lives, according to the laws, but their real citizenship was in heaven (5,9).
Here the author had taken over the Pauline concept from the letter to the Philippians. 259
Christian citizenship was determined by the eschatological-redemptive element in
Revelational Theology. Christians belonged to the new order, the "time of
256 Ibid., p.112.
257 Ibid., p.104.
258 Georg Bertram, θεοσβεία, TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.
Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.5:127.
259 Phil.3.29-39. See also Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”,p.80. See also Hb.11.13-16, 1 Pt.1.1, 2.11,
Eph.2.6, Col.3.1ff. See also Meecham, Epistle to Diognetus, p.108 and his enlightening comparison of the
Christian politeia with the ideal state in Lucian’s Hermotimus 22-24. Compare also Arist.apol.15,
Just.apol.14.
144

ighteousness" (9.1). They lived in tension between being placed on earth, and
participating in the realities in heaven (l0.7). The eschatological revelation from heaven
had given the Christians a radically new status and perspective, and this explained their
dignified life-style. Besides this biblical foundation for Christian citizenship and the
influence of the apostle Paul, 260 chapter five also borders on the Stoic ideal of
cosmopolitanism. 261
The Christians as the Soul of the World
Chapter six is perhaps the one chapter in Ad Diognetum, which reflects the greatest
amount of influence from Stoicism. It is not difficult to read the idea of the Stoic
cosmological ‘world-soul’ into the text. However, Johannes B. Bauer has quite
convincingly introduced the Hebrew principle of life, the naephaesh, as a helpful tool in
interpreting this chapter. 262 We also have parallels to the Christians as the soul of the
world in the metaphors of Jesus. The disciples are described as "the salt of the earth"
and "the light of the world." 263 The idea that Christians are preservative of the world,
was common among the apologists. 264
In Brändle's dissertation, Die Ethik der "Schrift an Diognet", soteriology plays an
important role. Brändle has keenly observed the connection between soteriology and
Christian ethics in Ad Diognetum. 265 The remarkable thing was that our author
combined soteriology and Christianity as a social phenomenon to defend the thesis of
their preservative function in society. Through the redeeming work of the Son, the soul,
by faith, partakes in the immortality and incorruptibility of God. Now this life dwelled
in the cosmic body. This body was a metaphor for the world. The “world” (ὁ κόσμος)
appears eight times in this chapter. The author described it as a "mortal tabernacle". The
Christians "sojourn among corruptible things" in this world. This "Christian" soul was
healthy in a sick society (6.7). This sustaining activity emerged out of Divine love
(ἀγάπ). God was described as love (9.2), and the Christians participated in this Divine
260 2 Cor.6.9-11, 1 Cor. 4.10-12.
261 Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”, p.81.
262 J.B. Bauer, ”An Diognet VI,” VC 17, (Amsterdam, 1963), p.209.
263 Mt.5.13-14 in NIV.
264 Just.1apol.1.45, Just.2apol.2.2, Tert.apol.32.39.
265 Brändle, “Schrift an Diognet”, pp.65-68.
145

love as in a mystery (4.6, 10.3). The soul loved the flesh which hates it. The Christians
loved those who hate them (6.6). To sum up, the invisible religion of the Christians, was
practiced as a daily worship, in which Divine love and incorruptible life were channeled
as sustaining powers into the world. 266 Behind this grand ethic, we once again recognize
Revelational Theology in general and its eschatological-redemptive element in
particular.
A Comparison with Clement of Alexandria on Christian Life-Style
In his Paidagogos, Clement of Alexandria instructed the converts on how to live a
Christian life. In book two and three, he presented a casuistry on all spheres of life. He
dwelled on such matters as drinking, eating, home and furniture, music, dancing,
amusements, bathing, anointing, marital life, money, laughter, speaking, shoes, luxury
and other kinds of outward behavior. 267 There were many temptations in the daily life of
a Christian in Alexandria at the end of the second century. If we now compare the
Christian ethos of Ad Diognetum with that reflected in the work of Clement, we find no
description of outward behavior in the former. On the contrary, faith remained invisible
(6.4). It could not be regulated in outward prescriptions and prohibitions. What was
implied in 2.1 was a matter of a new life, resulting from becoming "a new man" (καινὸς
ἄνθρωπος). The distinction of Christian life rested on another ground. 268 Our author was
relatively free from legalism, casuistry and moralism, in virtue of his Revelational
Theology.
Revelation and Personal Christian Faith in 10.1 – 8
Johannine Influences
266 Ibid., pp.146-147. In this section I have limited Brändle’s rather exhaustive discussion on
soteriology and ethics to this one page. Please turn to Brändle for a deeper analysis.
267 Quasten, Patrology , p.2:11. Although Clement set forth a moral code for Christian behavior, I
agree with Quasten that for Clement the “point is the attitude of the soul”. It is still meaningful to
compare Paidagogos with Ad Diognetum. In Ad Diognetum chapters five and six we find a moral code,
but the subject is presented in another way, compared to Paidagogos. This difference could partly depend
on the addressee of the writing and the author’s intention not to go too deep into the question of ethics.
This is also due to the author’s orientation toward revelation and his accentuation of eschatology.
268 Molland, ”Brevet till Diognet,” p.551.
146

John Foster has indicated points of contact between the Gospel of John (3.16) and Ad
Diognetum 10.1-3. 269 Foster argues, that in 7.2, our author starts, under the influence of
the prologue of the Gospel, with the concept of Logos. After the theological treatise, he
has, so to say, reached 3.16 in the Gospel and his intention, is now to present the love of
God. This love was manifested both in Creation and in Salvation. Firstly, God made the
world. Secondly, God gave reason and mind. Thirdly, God sent his Only-begotten Son.
Fourthly, God promised the kingdom of heaven, that is eternal life. Foster argues, quite
reasonably, that our author had the Gospel of John (3.16) in mind. 270 The Gospel
invitation was now offered to Diognetus. In receiving this invitation, he would in 10.3
"love him who thus first loved you"; an obvious Johannine coinage from the First Letter
to John 4.19. Foster does not hesitate to claim a heavy Johannine influence in chapter
ten. “Word for word the same in the Greek, and occurring in the same order, can there
be no doubt that this passage was here uppermost in his mind?” 271
The Importance of Knowledge of God
Faith and knowledge are not exclusive. They belong together. "If you also desire this
faith (τὴν πίστιν)...receive first complete knowledge (ἐπίνωσιν) of the Father..."(10.1).
The author had instructed Diognetus on the main elements of Revelational Theology.
One of these was knowledge of the Father, because revelation and salvation were
initiated by the Father and motivated by the love of the Father. However, revelation
must be received. Here is a didactic process. The message conveyed must be grasped by
faith. Bultmann stated, "the compound ἐπίνωσι has become almost a technical term for
the decisive knowledge of God which is implied in conversion to the Christian faith”. 272
The theoretical element is present, but it is also assumed that Christian knowledge
carries with it a corresponding manner of life. 273 This definition of the term fits our
context very well. It is of utmost importance to notice the Johannine context of the term
269 John Foster, After the Apostles. Missionary Preaching of the First Three Centuries, (London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1961), p.82.
270 Ibid.
271 Ibid., p. 83.
272 Rudolf Bultmann, γινώσκω, in TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey
W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.1:707.
273 Ibid.
147

ἐπίνωσι. In the Gospel of John, the term is not described as a higher stage of the
development of faith. It is rather a part of faith. “γινώσκ is a constitutive element in
ύ.” 274
In 8.11, the author related the revelation of the Child with the possibility for
Diognetus to “see” and “understand” (ἰδεῖν καὶ νοῆσαι) the open secret. This spiritual and
intellectual seeing was as we already noticed, close to believing as the only way to
approach the unseen God. 275 If we compare 10.2, we identify man looking upward to
God. 276 Man was described as equipped with reason (ό) and mind (voῦ) 277 and as
God’s own image. 278 Here the author drew on the Creation narrative. 279 Now, “by
divine grace man has the ability to look up to God," 280 but before the revelation,
although the Logos was operating in Creation (7.2), man's eyes were darkened due to
the Fall. If we interpose the assumption of inability and ignorance as consequences of
the Fall, or “the time of iniquity” (9.1), we are able to harmonize this crucial passage
(10.2), with the rest of Ad Diognetum. 281 Otherwise it could be interpreted as an
instance of natural religion based on a natural revelation, and that would contradict
explicit texts, 282 the invisibleness of God (7.2) and the Christocentric revelation, which
we have dealt with above. In 10.2, the author returned to the original state and man’s
religious disposition. The radical revelation through the Son restated the original
condition. Man could be acquainted with God through faith (8.6) and practice its
274 Ibid., p.713.
275 Johannes Behm, ῦ, In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.
Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p.4:960. Behm writes that ”the
Apologists take up the Gk ideas of the strict transcendence of God and the possibility of access to Him
only through ῦ, Just.dial.3.7-4.5, Athenag.leg.4.1.10, 1.23.4. For them God and Christ are by nature
ῦ. Compare 9.6 where the Son is called ῦ.
276 ἄνω πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁρᾶν ἐπέτρεψεν.
277 The concept of Nous has great significance in Pauline theology. On the one hand is denotes man
addressed as a thinking and responsible being by the revelation of God and on the other hand it
constitutes the description of that by which he is most deeply determined in his thinking and acting.
(Ridderbos, Paul-An Outline of His Theology, p.119).
278 ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας εἰκόνος.
279 Gen.1.18ff.
280 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.133.
281 Molland, “Stellung des Diognetbriefes,” p.92.
282 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 8.11.
148

spiritual-intellectual abilities through ό and voῦ. However, fundamental for this
new outlook was the Christological revelation. Through the redemption in “his own
Son” 283 in 9.2 284 and “his only begotten Son” 285 in 10.2, the world could by faith be seen
as an expression of God's goodness, and Diognetus was able to share that goodness and
its benefits (8.11).
The Imitation of God Through Love
The idea of mimesis or imitatio is essential in chapter ten of Ad Diognetum. It has
biblical support 286 and it is a natural outcome of the love of God. Here the indicative
and imperative of the Christian faith are one and the same. Pistis and Praxis go
together. The idea of imitation linked the universal love of God, to the special love of
the neighbors, the weak and the poor. "But by your love you will imitate the example of
his goodness" (10.4). To imitate God in love for our neighbors, was according to the
author of Ad Diognetum, the primary sign of the Christian life in the eschatological
era. 287 Here, as in chapters five and six, ethics was closely connected to the new
redemptive order, that was brought in by God’s revelation and the Christian love was its
primary sign. 288 We may say that revelation here becomes concrete in the new Christian
ethics. It was an ethic directed to God and to one’s neighbor. “Die Liebe Gottes zum
Menschen führt diesen zur Liebe zu Gott; die Liebe zu Gott führt ihn weiter zur Liebe
zum Nächsten.” 289
This idea of imitation through love distinguished the author's use of the concept from
its philosophical use. Marcus Aurelius wrote, after describing some virtues such as
simplicity, independence and modesty: “Howbeit, to keep these attributions in mind it
will assist thee greatly if thou bear the Gods in mind, and that it is not a flattery they
283 αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν.
284 Here the author employs the title ”Son” instead of “Child”.
285 τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ.
286 1 Cor.4.16, 11.1, Eph.5.1, 1 Th.1.6, Ign.eph.1.1, Ign.trall.1.1.
287 Brändle, ”Schrift an Diognet”, p.144.
288 Ibid., p.214.
289 Ibid., p.212.
149

crave but for all rational things to be conformed to their likeness.” 290 Our author's ideal
of imitation was not based on human rationality, but on the revelation of the Divine
love. Such an imitation resulted not only in a godlike character, but in becoming "a god
to those who receive them..." (7.6), that was a practical likeness with God, 291 and not an
ontological likeness. The author’s concept of imitatio was primarily derived from
Ephesians (5.1). It was an imitation of God’s kindness and mercy with Hebrew roots in
the covenantal kindness-mercy ideal and the justice-holiness code of Jahve, and it fits
the context very well, with the author’s emphasis on love and holiness. 292 In Ephesians
chapter three, the apostle presented the revelation of the Divine mystery, in chapter
four, he urged his fellow Christians to live a life ὰ ό, in conformity to God which
involves justice and holiness, kindness and mercy.
The tradition of the imitation of God has been made to serve the writer’s perspective, in
which a relationship with God is needed for this imitation to be accomplished, and that
relationship is based on the saving activity in Christ. 293
In chapter five, the apostle completed the argumentation and encouraged his fellow
Christians to become “imitators of God” and he underlined the “kindness-mercy” ideal
“as dearly loved children.” 294 In the Ephesian context, the apostle also connected the
imitation to the idea of the “new man” (4.24). “The new person was created to be like
God…that epitomize a life in a right relationship to God and humanity and also recall
characteristics of this God himself.” 295 These Ephesian concepts and contexts were
probably what the author of Ad Diognetum had in mind when he wrote 10.4-6.
Moreover, the Christians had a special telos or purpose of life that was their true
happiness (εὐδαιμον). Among philosophers in Antiquity there was a profound
discussion on what constituted the real εὐδαιμον or happiness in life (10.5). 296 The
author referred to this discussion and stated that true happiness was living oriented to
290 M.Ant.10.8.
291 Hvalvik, ”Till Diognet,” p.257.
292 Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, in Bruce M,. Metzger, Ralph P. Martin and Lynn Allan Losie (eds.)
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 42, (Nashville: Thomas Nelsson Inc., 1990), p.311.
293 Ibid.
294 Eph.5.1 NIV.
295 Lincoln, Ephesians, p.290.
296 Ragnar Holte, Beatitudo och Sapientia: Augustinus och de antika filosofiskolornas diskussion om
människans livsmål, Diss. (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1958).
150

God and imitating God. True happiness had nothing to do with earthly domination,
wealth and power. It was rather the opposite, in practicing Divine love (ἀγάπ).
Meecham has observed, that in 10.7 the author answered Diognetus' introductory
questions. 297 The answer consisted of three parts and was given in a short summarizing
version. Firstly, Diognetus had asked what kind of God the Christians believed in and
worshipped. The answer was "God lives in heaven" and Diognetus would be able "to
speak of the mysteries of God." 298 This answer may seem cryptic, but to speak the
mysteries of God was the privilege of the author. Now Diognetus was invited to live in
faith, to participate in the open secret, to penetrate God's dealings with men, and as a
"philosopher of revelation", speak these revealed mysteries ''as an intellectual 'doctrine'
in the Greek fashion." 299 Secondly, Diognetos had asked about the Christians’ disregard
of the world. The answer was that Diognetos would understand the "deceit and error of
the world" and "know what is the true life of heaven". Once again we find heaven and
earth as contrasts. Thirdly, Diognetus had asked about the contempt that the Christians
had for death. The answer was that he now would "love and admire those who are being
punished because they will not deny God" and “fear the death, which is real” and not
“the apparent death of this world”. When you fear the eternal fire, you are able to enter
into the temporal fire. In 7.6, the author mentioned the return of Christ as judge and here
in 10.7-8 the author was counting on a coming punishment in fire and a final
condemnation. Although the author presented his Revelational Theology as a realized
and dialectic eschatology that had replaced and surpassed the “time of iniquity” (9.1),
he still believed in a ‘future’ eschatology. He was not confined to an exclusive and
presentic eschatology.
Digression: Ad Diognetum as a Defense of Orthodoxy?
In the New Testament, the term Monogenes (μονογενής) is used by Luke and John
and of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but not by any other author of the books
of the Bible. 300 The term stresses the uniqueness of Jesus' Sonship, and the idea that the
297 Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, p.135.
298 μυστήρια θεοῦ λαλεῖν.
299 Gregory Dix, Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church, (London 1953), p.86.
300 John N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed., (Burnt Mill, Harlow: Longman Group Limited,
1972), p.141.
151

Son of God was chosen from the very beginning. 301 In writings before the days of
Irenaeus, the term was most infrequent. With the exception of Ad Diognetum 10.2, it
occurred only on two occasions, 302 namely in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 303 and in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp. 304 From the middle of the second century, the term was
becoming a cliché with the Valentinian Gnostics as a designation for their Aeon Nous,
with a sharp distinction between Monogenes and the historical Jesus. 305 Kelly suggests
that the insertion of the word into the vocabulary of the old Roman Creed was a part of
a counterattack against Gnostic perversion. 306 Concerning the Gnostics, Simone
Pétrement argues cautiously, that Valentinus was the author of Ad Diognetum. 307 She
claims that she has found relations between Evangelium Veritatis, 308 Epistula ad
Rheginum 309 on the one hand, and Ad Diognetum on the other. She presents some
reasons for her position. 310 If she is right, Monogenes ought to be interpreted in a
Valentinian sense. However, that is excluded. Neither the immediate context in chapter
ten, nor the work as a whole, allow for the Valentinian doctrine of the Aeons. 311 On the
contrary, most scholars can provide a number of arguments against such a reading of Ad
Diognetum. 312 The primary argument is to be found in 10.2, the immediate context of
301 Cullman, Christology of the New Testament, p.298.
302 Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, p.142.
303 Just.dial.105.
304 M.Polyc.20.2.
305 Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, p.142.
306 Ibid.
307 Simone Pétrement, “Valentin est-il l´auteur de l´épître à Diognète?” Revue d´Histoire et de
Philosophie religieuses 46, (Strasburg 1966), pp.34-62.
308 [Valentinus], “The Gospel of Truth,” in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The International Edition,
ed. Marvin Meyer, trans. Einar Thomassen and Marvin Meier, (New York: Harper Collins, 2007), pp.31-
48.
309 [Valentinus], “The Treatise on Resurrection,” in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The International
Edition, ed. Marvin Meyer, trans. Einar Thomassen and Marvin Meier, (New York: Harper Collins,
2007), pp.52-55.
310 Ibid., pp.52-55.
311 H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity,
2nd ed.,(Boston: Beacon Press, 1991), pp.174-196. Jonas’ excellent chapter shows how complicated and
speculative the Valentinian system was with altogether thirty Aeons.
152

Monogenes. The God of creation is the God of salvation. We find no dualism in the
Godhead, and such dualism was the very foundation for Valentinian speculations.
Instead, Monogenes could be an indication of a part of the counter-attack, in favor of the
reconstruction and affirmation of orthodoxy by the author of Ad Diognetum.
Revelation as the Work of Grace in the Church in 11.1 – 12.9
The author described himself as a link within a historic-didactic chain. Behind him
were the apostles. He was "a disciple of apostles." 313 Before him, were those who "are
becoming disciples of truth." 314 The author was, not necessarily in his person, but at
least in his role as an instructor, the uniting link as "a teacher of the heathen." 315 He
served his catechumens (we assume) with the teachings that have been handed down (τὰ
παραδοθέντα), with what in the first instance, had been handed down to the apostles. 316
The apostles received the sacred teachings as a revelation from the Logos himself.
(11.2) In 7.2, the Son was designated Logos and Truth. Here in 11.2 the author was
referring to the same Logos. The Logos did not keep the mystery for himself. He
appeared to the apostles who gained "knowledge of the mysteries of the Father." 317 We
312 Brändle, ”Schrift and Diognet”, pp.226-229. Brändle writes as a good representative of modern
scholarship on Ad Diognetum. He admits certain Gnostic influences, but argues, quite convincingly, that
Pétrement’s proposal is inconsistent with conventional opinions.
Ad Diognetum can be interpreted in a Valentinian, Aurelian, Eleusinian, Smyrnean and Alexandrian way.
In choosing only one interpretative model, one becomes blind to the other models. There are some
general differences between Ad Diognetum and the Gospel of Truth and The Treatise on Resurrection.
Firstly, Ad Diognetum has no traces of the Valentinian cosmic teaching of (male-female) couples of the
thirty emanating Aeons completing the Pleroma, while the other works consist of reverberations of that
teaching. Secondly, Ad Diognetum describes sin in a multidimensional way, while the other works
describe it mainly as ignorance. Thirdly, Ad Diognetum maintains personal faith as appropriation, while
the other works emphasize knowledge, ‘truth’ or gnosis as means of salvation. Fourthly, Ad Diognetum
describes soteriology as an objective historical-redemptive event accomplished through the Son, while the
other works stress the subjective experience of salvation. Fifthly, Ad Diognetum does not evoke feelings
of the typical Valentinian sorrow and alienation, while the other works may evoke such feelings in the
reader. Sixthly, Ad Diognetum has no traits of fatalism and predestination, while the other works have
such traits. Seventhly, Ad Diognetum has as its main message Revelational Theology (including the six
doctrines), while the other works have no such Revelational Theology. Finally, in Ad Diognetum we find
a stronger tendency to objective reality (including the reality of martyrdom and accusations in the Greco-
Roman society), while the other works give the impression of being more oriented towards a speculative
spirituality of the searching soul.
313 ἀποστόλων γενόμενος μαθητὴς.
314 γινομένοις ἀληθείας μαθηταῖς.
315 διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν.
316 J.J. Thierry, “The Logos as Teacher in Ad Diognetum XI,1,” VC 20, (Amsterdam, 1966), p.146.
153

here identify an apostolic tradition, that started with the Logos' own earthly appearance
and his teaching. 318 The author had received this teaching from the faithful apostles,
who had learned it from the revealed Logos himself. So the author claimed a historical
succession of revelational teaching. He had a high degree of awareness of his role. He
was an important link in the apostolic succession. He wrote with authority. The Logos
was also, within the framework of the Church (ἡ ἐκκλησία), and already expressed in 7.2,
operating in "the hearts of men." 319 In 11.5, he "manifests mysteries" 320 and in 11.8
more things are revealed (ἀποκαλυφθέντων) in the context of the Law-Prophet and
Gospel-Apostolic teaching. In chapter eleven "the author never tires of speaking about
the Logos Didaskalos.” 321 His teaching ministry was just another way of stating the
ongoing revelational activity of the Word. In chapter twelve, the author gave a short
homily as an example of how "the Logos teaches the saints." 322 The term ‘knowledge’
(γνῶσι) occurred twelve times in different forms and denoted theological knowledge. 323
The apologists used the word to denote theoretical knowledge, primarily theological
knowledge of God, attained from Holy Scripture. 324 This definition fits the context very
well and falls within the author's limits of apostolic teaching.
The exposition of the "Paradise text" dwells on the trees, the serpent and the woman.
The message is profound. Just as God planted a tree of Life and a tree of Knowledge, so
"neither is there life without knowledge, nor sound knowledge without true life." (12.4)
Both trees were planted together. According to a figurative interpretation of these words
the Christians need both doctrine and morality. As a safeguard against a one-sided
orientation towards knowledge, the author picked up a quotation from the apostle (ὁ
ἀπόστολος). 325 True to the tradition of all the Church Fathers, 326 the author hold life and
317 ἔγνωσαν πατρὸς μυστήρια.
318 Thierry, “The Logos as Teacher in Ad Diognetum XI,I” p.147.
319 ἐν ἁγίων καρδίαις.
320 φανεροῦσα μυστήρια.
321 Thierry, “The Logos as Teacher in Ad Diognetum XI,I” p.148.
322 διδάσων ἁγίους ὁ λόγος.
323 Bultmann, ώ, TDNT, p.1:708.
324 Ibid., p.714.
325 1 Cor.8.1.
154

knowledge together. If his catechumens do likewise and eat of the good fruit, they
would be able to resist the serpent's temptation. With the help of the useful ‘Eve-Mary’
typology, the author, like Justin and Irenaeus, finally pointed to the faithfulness of the
virgin. 327 The homily ended with a short doxology.
Revelational Theology as a Link Between Chapters 1-10 and 11-12
When we compare both parts of Ad Diognetum (1-10 and 11-12) from the
perspective of Revelational Theology, we find a surprising correspondence between
them. The concepts of the mystery and revelation are present in both parts. The
terminology is the same. 328 Although the first part found a natural conclusion in chapter
ten, the two last chapters fit remarkably well as a complement to the former narrative.
Chapter eleven, with its preceding revelation theme and chapter twelve with its
illustration of Christian knowledge as profound theology, are not inconsistent with the
Revelational Theology as being presented in this study. Hill summarizes very well the
close connection between the two parts and the revelation theme as the natural, thematic
and theological link.
This common development of the idea of God’s μυστήρ, then, also connects the two
portions of text. This idea, however, belongs to a larger theme in ad Diognetum, that of
the Christian religion being not a product of human wisdom or investigation, but of
revelation through the Son of God, a theme which comes to the fore repeatedly, in 4.6,
5.3, 7.1-5, 8.1, 5.9-11 in the first section, and in 11.1-3, 7-8 in the second. This in fact
provides a larger field of correspondences than does the theme of the novelty of
Christianity. As part of this overall theme, we observe that both sections also share an
understanding that the Christian religion, revealed from heaven, has been preserved to the
speaker’s day through specific channels. 329
It is evident that both parts are linked together by a reflective and highly skilled
theologian at work. This similarity in subject matter should not be ignored. The
appendix could actually be regarded as a theological enrichment to Ad Diognetum as a
whole. We also remember Barnard's comments on the importance of milieu and
audience and those comments are worth taking into consideration. 330 It is obvious that
326 A good example is Barn.1,5ff. Compare Gebremedhin, Arvet från kyrkofäderna, pp.46-47.
327 Iren.edip.33, Iren.haer.3.22. 4.5, 19.1, Just.dial.100.
328 Please see “A Closer Look at Terminology” in chapter four of this Inquiry.
329 Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, p.1.
330 Barnard, “The Enigma of the Epistle to Diognetos,” p.169.
155

in chapters eleven to twelve, the author had catechumens in mind, and we assume that
thet were preparing for the Paschal Vigil, Baptism and the Eucharist. 331 He wrote within
the bounds of an established Church, and it is reasonable to assume a later date of origin
for the work at hand. Nevertheless, Revelational Theology functioned as a natural,
thematic and theological link that bound the two parts together.
Summary
In this chapter, I have demonstrated how the Revelational Theology has influenced
all parts of Ad Diognetum. That was also what we expected. The lofty Theocentrism
supported by five more important doctrines (Christology, eschatology, soteriology,
anthropology and cosmology) served to disconnect and disprove paganism, Judaism and
philosophy on the one hand, and to prove and profile Christianity and its ethics on the
other hand. We also noticed that there were good reasons to assume that Revelational
Theology is the ‘missing’ link between the two parts (1-10 and 11-12) of Ad
Diognetum. In this chapter, we moved from a hermeneutics of signification to a
hermeneutics of significance. From Revelational Theology as an interpretative norm the
author was competent to increase the significance of the Christian revealed religion, and
to decrease the significance of all other alternatives. The application of Revelational
Theology also served to enhance its personal significance for Diognetus (and his
presumed audience). That became utterly clear in chapter ten, when the author urged
Diognetus to embrace the Christian faith and love.
331 Ibid.
156

CHAPTER 6
AFFIRMATIONS OF REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY
I am not talking about strange things, nor am I engaged in irrational speculation, but
having been a disciple of apostles, I am now becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. To those
who are becoming disciples of the truth I try to minister in a worthy manner the teachings
that have been handed down (11.1).
Introduction
In chapters four and five, we noticed that the author of Ad Diognetum supported his
argumentation by referring to the writings of the apostles Paul and John. During the
second century Marcion, Valentinus and other Gnostic teachers had captured the
Pauline dialectics, and also the Johannine spirituality, and perverted the Gospel of the
apostles. The aim of the first part of this chapter, is to show how the Revelational
Theology in Ad Diognetum could and should be regarded as an affirmation of Pauline
and Johannine theologies. The aim is hereby to demonstrate the New Testament 332
foundation for Revelational Theology and to lay out some fundamental structures that
contributed to its development. In the second part of this chapter, I intend to restate the
main content of Ad Diognetum along broader lines, and reflect on them in a critical way.
In so doing we will get an overview of the principal questions that are posed. I will
make use of the Lakatosian program of Nancey Murphy as an instrument of analysis, in
order to evaluate Ad Diognetum as a doctrinal system. In the end of the chapter, we will
once again be reminded of the Pauline and Johannine theologies and their importance
for Revelational Theology. The author’s way of ‘constructing’ Revelational Theology
not only as a linguistic system, but as a doctrinal system, was of vital importance for
Diognetus as reader, but probably also for a broader audience and for the specific
historic time of Ad Diognetum. That is to say that Revelational Theology had a far-
extending significance.
332 It may look like an anachronism to mention the New Testament here. I am well aware of the fact
that it is not historical accurate to state the New Testament as a fully developed, complete and canonical
body of literature during the second century. However, its different writings were circulated and read
among the Christian churches at that time.
157

Revelational Theology as an Affirmation of Pauline and Johannine Theologies
Challenges to Pauline and Johannine Theologies
Rudolf Brändle argued that in the middle of the second century, the reputation of the
apostle Paul was questioned, due to Marcion’s capture of the Pauline Gospel. 333 In the
hands of the Gnostic teachers, the Pauline Gospel was perverted, and it seems to be the
case that some early Fathers of the Church consciously avoided the great apostle. 334
The Pauline dialectic between Law and Gospel became the heart of Marcion’s theology.
True Christians have the Gospel and the sublime God of love, but the Jews have only
the retributive law under the subordinated Creator God or Demiurgos. 335 Consequently,
the Christian canon ought to be reduced, and the complete Old Testament body of
literature should be left out, according to Marcion. 336 In the same way, the New
Testament writings should be reduced and consist only of the Gospel of Luke and the
Pauline epistles. 337 Moreover, even in Corpus Paulinum there had to be cuts and
restorations. The Pauline language of freedom from the law was misinterpreted by the
Gnostics, 338 and according to Brändle, the Church was divided. On the one hand, we
had the Gnostic oriented Church, that interpreted the Pauline writings in a one-sided and
heretic way in depreciating marriage and denouncing the law. On the other hand, we
had the orthodox Church, that was afraid of recapturing the Pauline heritage. 339 Brändle
interpreted Ad Diognetum as a reaffirmation of genuine Pauline theology. 340 If Marcion
had appropriated the Pauline Gospel, Valentinus had exploited the Gospel of John in an
attempt to anchor his speculations in the apostle’s reflective theology, and especially in
the prologue of the Gospel of John. 341 He also taught an esoteric and oral transmission
333 Brändle, der “ Schrift an Diognet”, pp.202-203.
334 Ibid.
335 Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p.214.
336 Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, (London: Penguin Books, 1967), p.40.
337 Ibid., p.215. Marcion approved in his canon the Gospel of Luke, beginning from chapter three and
he also omitted references to the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in the same Gospel.
338 Ibid., p.67.
339 Brändle, der “Schrift an Diognet”, p.204.
340 Ibid., p.206.
158

from Jesus to his disciples, and Valentinus claimed to have special insight into that
tradition. 342 At the time of Justin Martyr, Rome had become a centre for several Gnostic
teachers. 343 Eusebius mentioned Marcion, Valentinus and Cerdo. 344 Justin’s anti-
heretical efforts anticipated the theological work of Irenaeus in favor of orthodoxy, 345
and it is right here, in the struggle for the true Gospel, we find a certain place for Ad
Diognetum and Revelational Theology. It is reasonable to argue with Brändle, that Ad
Diognetum actually was part of an orthodox theological trend during the middle of the
second century in restating and affirming both Pauline and Johannine theologies. It is
important to mention both of the apostles. It is the combination of John’s reflective-
spiritual theology with Paul’s redemptive-historical theology that made a strong case for
the restoration of orthodoxy.
Allusions to Pauline and Johannine Writings
It is beyond doubt that the author of Ad Diognetum had knowledge of the Gospel of
John and of Corpus Paulinum. In the appendix to this Inquiry, I have systematized
important allusions 346 or references that the author made in the revelational part, that is
chapters seven to nine in Ad Diognetum. By studying the appendix, the influence from
the apostles Paul and John on the author’s theology becomes evident. That influence
was substantial and it can be documented. However, a word of caution is necessary
here. We are dealing with allusions and not with references in the strict sense of the
word.
If we summarize our findings, it is in the first place possible to claim that at about
thirty-five chapters in the Bible, escpeially from the New Testament, actively contribute
341 Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 10 vols.,(Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers
Marketing, 2011), p.2:472. See also Brändle, der ”Schrift an Diognet”, p.218
342 Chadwick, The Early Church, p.41. For a presentation of the Valentinian mythology,see Jonas, The
Gnostic Religion, pp.174-205.
343 Just.1apol.26.5, 58.1, 2apol.2.9-10. Just.dial.35.6.
344 Eus.h.e.4.11.1-2, 8-10.
345 Chadwick, The Early Church, pp.44-45.
346 With “allusion” I denote “an implied or indirect reference.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
[Online], Avaiable from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ [Accessed 30 April 2012]). Some allusions
are almost to be regarded as distinct references, while others are more imprecise. An allusion serves as a
kind of shorthand, drawing on an outside work to provide greater context or meaning to the situation
being written about.
159

to Revelational Theology. These chapters are shown in table 4 below. 347 When we
reflect on the fact that the author of Ad Diognetum relates his Revelational Theology in
only three chapters, that is altogether twenty-eight verses (including 10.1-2), we begin
to understand that the New Testament contribution is prominent. There are hints and
allusions to other writings of the Bible, as well, but it is the Pauline and Johannine
writings and theology that dominate the authors Revelational Theology and we notice in
the Appendix on pages 237-238, that almost 348 all six doctrines were anchored in the
New Testament body of literature.
TABLE 4
Biblical texts to which the author of Ad Diognetum alluded.
It is worth observing that it is not just a matter of presenting Scriptural ‘evidences’ for a
Pauline and Johannine influence on Ad Diognetum. We know that Valentinus had a
predilection for John’s Gospel and Paul’s epistles to Ephesians and Colossians. 349 With
the help of these writings, he fabricated his own mythological speculations around
apostolic concepts such as Logos, Only-Begotten, Truth, Life, Pleroma and Ecclesia. 350
347 For a detailed list of biblical allusions in the revelational part (chapters 7-9) of Ad Diognetum,
please turn to the Appendix.
348 The author’s cosmology seems to be tied to the Creation account in Genesis chapter one. That is
important. The author of Ad Diognetum has grounded his Revelational Theology in the Creation account
of the Old Testament, in clear contrast to Marcion and many Gnostic teachers.
349 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p.2:473.
350 Ibid.
160

The frequency of certain references is just one legitimate way of indicating affinities. It
is of utmost importance to understand how the author employed those allusions and
concepts. That is why hermeneutics is of crucial interest in this project. Without
grounded hermeneutics, we will not be able to go beneath the surface of the text.
Contributions from Pauline Theology
What is the quintessence of Paulinism?” 351 Fredrick F. Bruce has listed and
expounded eight Pauline doctrines in Ephesians, and he argues that this single epistle is
representative of Paul’s collected writings. The themes are salvation by grace through
faith, the Parousia, the Holy Spirit, the new man, from darkness to light, the broken
wall, the heavenly ascent and the Divine mystery. From what we already know of Ad
Diognetum, we are able to declare that the following four themes are not present in the
work: the Holy Spirit, from darkness to light, the broken wall and the heavenly ascent.
Nevertheless, we are able to identify four themes that are present, and they are the
Parousia, the new man, salvation by grace through faith and the Divine mystery. I shall
now deal with the two most prominent themes in Pauline theology, the Divine mystery
and justification by grace through faith. I have already touched on these themes, but it
could be rewarding to ponder more deeply into them.
The apostle Paul spoke of himself as a servant or steward of the “secret things of
God,” 352 or the mysteries. He often wrote comprehensively of the mystery in the
singular, “for all the revelation of God has been consummated in Christ.” 353 The full
unveiling of the mystery illuminates God’s ultimate purpose. That purpose was
described in Ephesians. 354 It was hidden in God from ages, and it brought to light the
eternal purpose. Through God’s people the grace and wisdom of God might be known
to all created beings, and even to “the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realm.” 355
The purpose was summarized in Ephesians as “to bring all things in heaven and on
351 Frederick F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1977), pp.424-440.
352 1 Cor. 4.1. in NIV.
353 Bruce, Paul-Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p.438.
354 Eph.3.9-11.
355 Eph.3.10 in NIV.
161

earth together under one head, even Christ.” 356 It is this reference to the “eschatological
fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation in Christ, that has influenced the way the writer of
the Ephesians speaks of ‘mystery’ here and in 3.3, 4.9, 5.32 and 6.9.” 357 In the revealed
mystery, the Pauline eschatology and Christology converge. We notice an
interdependence between the ‘eschatological’ and the ‘Christological’ ground motif of
Paul’s teaching, and this is of utmost importance for both. 358 For Christology it means
that with the coming of Christ, the Divine plan is executed and the mystery is revealed
as a fundamental redemptive-historical and all-embracing character. 359 For eschatology
it means, that there is an important distinction between the unredemptive time as a
‘once’, ‘in that time’ which has now been overcome, in contrast with the present ‘now’
of the new creation, the time of redemption and fulfillment. This tension between the
‘already now’ of the time of salvation, and the ‘even now’ of the world time that still
continues, is the remarkable distinction of Pauline eschatology. 360 We may say that
eschatology and Christology both bear a Theocentric character. 361 The Gnostics were
not able to hold this Pauline tension, and this partly explains their surrender to cosmic
speculations.
The second Pauline theme I would like to underline, is salvation by grace through
faith. It is clearly stated in Ephesians. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through
faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” 362 Salvation and justification
could not be separated from eschatology and Christology. On the contrary, soteriology
was interwoven into the fabric of Pauline theology. Paul proclaimed the righteousness
of God as an antithesis of condemnation, and something that had been revealed with the
advent of Christ. It should be interpreted as “a present reality and as a redemptive gift of
356 Eph. 1.10 in NIV.
357 Lincoln, Ephesians, p.31.
358 Ridderbos, Paul-An Outline of His Theology, p.49.
359 Ibid., p.51.
360 Ibid., p.52.
361 Ibid., p.50.
362 Eph.2.8 in NIV.
162

God as it was given, attributed and communicated in the gospel to everyone who
believes.” 363
Christ’s death and resurrection, which occurred for our sins and unto our justification,
could take place in our behalf and in our stead for the very reason that as the Son of God
he entered into our mode of existence, and in that mode of existence God not only
delivered him up ‘for us’, but also made us to be ‘in him’. It may perhaps be said that
Paul, at least in the Epistle to the Romans, starts from the justifying power of Christ’s
death ‘for us’ (Rom.3:21-5:11), in order thereafter, beginning with 5:12ff, to ground still
more deeply and to throw light on this redemptive significance in the corporate idea ‘wein-him’.
364
Paul ascribed an exclusive significance to faith and to the grace of God, and its
redemptive-historical background. Faith represented a new mode of existence that
had come with the “fullness of time” 365 and with the revelation of the grace of God in
the death and resurrection of Christ.
In contrast to the grace of God, we have realized the human tragedy. In the
pronouncements 366 of human sin and sins, we find a close relation between the
human “flesh” or “nature” and special sins or deeds. The Pauline anthropology
recognizes the human predicament under corruption of sin, depravity and
powerlessness. Behind the Pauline anthropology, we find the universality and supra-
individual character of sin. 367 Once again the apostle utilized redemptive-historical
categories. Against this radical and tragic background, the sacrificial and atoning
death of Christ was the only efficient “ransom for us.” 368 It changed our condition
and status as justified by faith. The universality and supra-individual character of sin,
was paralleled by the corporate and objective salvation in Christ once and for all. The
redemptive-historical perspective and the corporate-objective salvation are two
fundamental structures with universal scope in the Pauline contribution. 369
363 Ridderbos, Paul-An Outline of His Theology, p.164.
364 Ibid., p.169.
365 Gal. 3.23, 4.4.
366 Col.3.6-8, Ro.1.29-32, 3.9-18, 3.23, Eph.2.1-5.
367 Ridderbos, Paul-An Outline of His Theology, p.100.
368 λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in Ad Diognetum 9.2.
369 Ridderbos, Paul-An Outline of His Theology, pp.45-90.
163

Contributions from Johannine Theology
One important passage in the Gospel of John is the prologue (1.1-18). It begins with
the majestic statement: “In the beginning was the Word.” 370 Here the apostle introduced
the concept of Logos. We have noticed that the author of Ad Diognetum actually wrote
about Logos in 7.2. We interpreted it as both referring to the Word as Divine teaching,
and as God’s instrument in creating and ordering the cosmos. That Word functioned
both on a macro level and on a micro level. It established the cosmological harmony
and established itself in beliving “hearts” (ταῖς καρδίαις). This Logos had two
attributions. It was holy (τὸν ἅγιον) and incomprehensible (ἀπερινόητον) and stated as an
apposition to the truth (τὴν ἀλήθειαν) that came from heaven. The term Logos was in
frequent use among the Greeks. It was used by Plato and further developed by the
Stoics as an expression of their deep conviction of the rationality of the universe. 371 The
average man would know that it meant something very important and probably also that
it represented the supreme and impersonal principle of the universe. What is the
Johannine contribution to the concept of Logos? The apostle John did not show us a
God who was serenely detached, but a God who was and is passionately involved. “The
Logos speaks of God’s coming where we are, taking our nature upon Himself, entering
the world’s struggle, and out of this agony winning men’s salvation.” 372 We may
therefore, state that John had a deeper and richer idea of Logos than any of his
predecessors. For him Logos was not a principle or a personification, but a living Being,
and a Divine person. 373 In the prologue, John demonstrated how the eternal and Divine
Logos became flesh and a human person among us. So the universal Logos became the
incarnated Logos, and this incarnated Logos lived among us and established his living
word in the preaching and teaching ministry. Logos not only had a Greek background,
but also a Hebrew history in referring to the beginning, when God created through His
mighty word. John made it clear, that Jesus’ words are God’s Word. 374 In the prologue,
John sketched how the universal principle de facto was the Divine being who became
370 J.1.1 in NIV.
371 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974), p.116.
372 Ibid., p.117.
373 Ibid., p.123.
374 J.3.34, 14.10, 24, 17.8, 14.
164

the living human Word and is ministering in the world. We were not presented to a
tribal god, or a school of esoteric philosophy, but to the eternal God with a universal
and redemptive purpose. Oscar Cullman summarizes the rich revelatory content of
Logos.
The word of Jesus-the word he preached-plays such an important part of the whole
Gospel of John that one can hardly assume the evangelist did not think of this ‘word’
when in the prologue he identified Jesus himself as the Logos. The supposition that he did
so is suggested even more strongly by the basic Johannine thought that Jesus not only
brings revelation, but in his person is revelation. He brings light, and at the same time he
is Light; he bestows life, and he is Life; he proclaims truth, and he is Truth. More
properly expressed, he brings light, life and truth because he himself is Light, Life and
Truth. So it is also with the Logos: he brings the word, because he is the Word. 375
With Cullman’s clarifying words is mind, on the identity of the Logos as both Word
and words, it is reasonable to interpret Logos in Ad Diognetum 7.2 as to include both
senses. In is completely in line with Johannine theology.
In chapter seven, the author of Ad Diognetum employed two verbs in order to
underline the mission and sending of the Son. It seems as if πέμ and ἀπστέλλ were
used interchangeable. In 10.2 the author returned to the idea of how God sent his own
Son and motivated this sending with the same ἀγάπ-love here as in 9.2. The author
referred to 3.16 in the Gospel of John.
Here we read not of the Son of man, but of God’s only-begotten Son (cf.1:18), so
designated here as the highest gift God could give (ch.Ro.8:32, “who did not spare his
own Son”; Gn 22:16). And we read “gave” in the sense of what is elsewhere called
“giving up,” “surrendering” (e.g.Ro.4:25; 8:32; Mk.9:31), namely to death on the cross.
All this shows, how in the Fourth Gospel, as elsewhere in the New Testament, the Godgiven
sacrifice of Christ, is of central significance. This is surely the case also because in
that surrender the glory of God manifested itself so clearly ‘in the flesh’ of the man Jesus,
but above all, because it brought to its highest manifestation the measure of God’s love
for the world (cf.13:1). 376
It was a distinctively Christian idea that God’s love is wide enough to embrace all
humankind. 377 “The text’s exclusive concern is the fact and the magnitude of God’s
love.” 378 God’s love was not confined to a tribe, a nation or a culture. God’s love was
not blocked by a rigid transcendence or a philosophic concept of being motionless. On
the contrary, God’s love reached out to all. God loves because he is the kind of God he
375 Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, p.259.
376 Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), p.138.
377 Morris, The Gospel according to John, p.229.
378 Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, p.138.
165

is. He is free from wrath, but full of love. Furthermore, it was a typical Johannine
feature to differentiate between sending and giving. When God sent his Son, he came
into the world in the incarnation. When God gave his Son, he died on the cross in the
atonement. Both thoughts were present in Ad Diognetum. We have already mentioned
the ‘sending’ terminology. In 9.2, we also paid attention to the ‘giving’ terminology.
“He gave his own Son 379 as a ransom for us.” 380 The verb used here for ‘gave,’ is a form
of ἀποδίδω, and it has the sense of giving up, giving out. 381 Here it is employed in
aoristus secundus, denoting the singular and definite act, that happened in past time on
the cross. Thus, the suffering and death of Jesus, although not explicitly mentioned in
Ad Diognetum, is anyhow present in the text and the atoning work of Christ can be
interpreted as an expression of God’s universal and saving love. God was not trapped in
his sublime transcendence. On the contrary, in sovereign grace, out of free will and in
passionate love, he accomplished the eternal plan and great design. The contribution of
Johannine theology can be summarized as God’s self-communication through Logos-
theology out of passionate love. The result was eternal life for those who believe. Taken
together, the Johannine contributions provided a universal scope, a saving centre and a
noble motive for revelation and constituted a fundamental structure in Revelational
Theology.
In this part of the chapter, I have argued that the Revelational Theology in Ad
Diognetum could and should be regarded, as a restating and affirmation of Pauline and
Johannine theologies in the second century, when Marcion, Valentinus and other
Gnostic teachers had captured and perverted the apostolic Gospel. I identified important
biblical allusions and concepts that were employed by the author of Ad Diognetum, and
I also sketched some fundamental structures in Revelational Theology. I gave an
account for the Pauline redemptive-historical perspective, and the corporate-objective
view of salvation and the Johannine Logos-theology combined with universal and
passionate agape-love as constitutive structures for Revelational Theology.
379 The author of Ad Diognetum is in full harmony with the Gospel of John and in using the expression
“his only begotten Son” (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ) and the articulated concept of Monogenes in 10.2
as a mark of the oneness and uniqueness of the Father-Son relation, the author indicated that he should be
interpreted according to Johannine theological lines. As a matter of fact Monogenes occurs twice in the
prologue (1.14, 1.18).
380 αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.
381 Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, p.88.
166

Revelational Theology as an Affirmation of Early Christian Theology
In this second part of the chapter, I intend to restate the main contents of Ad
Diognetum along broader lines and reflect on them in a critical way. In so doing we will
get an overview of the principal questions that are posed. I also make use of the
Lakatosian program of Nancey Murphy as an instrument of analysis, in order to
evaluate Ad Diognetum as a doctrinal system and affirm its Revelational Theology.
The Lakatosian Program of Nancey Murphy
With the hermeneutics of Ricoeur and Vanhoozer, we restated the centrality of the
text. After structural, comparative and exegetical analyses, I now move forward to
reconstruct the theological content of the text. In this undertaking, I invite Nancey
Murphy, a philosopher of religion, who has made use of and applied Imre Lakatos’
methodology for analyzing scientific research programs. Lakatos has developed special
attention to new historicist accounts of science and progressive research programs. 382 A
research program is said to be progressive when the following conditions are met: (1)
each new version of a theory preserves the unrefuted content of' its predecessor, (2)
each has excess empirical content over its predecessor, that is, it predicts some novel,
hitherto unexpected facts, and (3) some of these predicted facts are corroborated. 383
Nancey Murphy has in a thought-provoking way applied the basic principles of
Lakatos' scientific theory into the field of theology. The overall purpose of Murphy’s
application, is to demonstrate the close link that exist between methods of scientific
inquiry and methods of theological reflection. The final aim seems to be that of
justifying the rationality of religious belief. In this attempt at a reconstruction of the
theological content of the text, I speak of the 'Lakatosian program of Nancey Murphy'.
It can be employed on a macro level to evaluate scientific research programs, but it can
also be utilized on a micro level, in analyzing, deconstructing and reconstructing
theoretical systems. 384 A theological treatise such as Ad Diognetum is both a linguistic
as well as a doctrinal system. According to Murphy’s strategy, all science, including
382 Imre Lakatos, “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”, in John Worrall and Gregory
Currie (eds.), Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1978), pp.8-
101.
383 Nancey Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, (New York: Cornell University
Press, 1990), p.59.
384 Ibid., pp.57-60.
167

theology, is in need of an organizing idea before it starts. 385 The organizing principle
functions as a source and centre in the system. In Ad Diognetum that source and centre
is God’s self-communicative love.
Before we go any further, we should reflect on some critical comments and
judgments on this program. Josh Andrew Reeves has scrutinized the assumptions that
Murphy´s Lakatosian program rests on. 386 Reeves argues that one important assumption
behind Murphy’s undertaking is that there is a single scientific method to be used for all
scientific activities. Reeves claims that there can be no such single scientific method for
the diversity of modern science, and he demonstrates its dependence upon modernity.
I criticized the Lakatosian project of Nancey Murphy in the last chapter, arguing that for
all of Murphy’s sensitivity to and appropriation of postmodern themes, her project is
unfortunately tethered to one of the most defining characteristics of modernity: the belief
that there is a single type of story to tell about what makes an inquiry (or its outcome)
scientific (or successful science). 387
Reeves goes on and argues, that despite the sophistication of Lakatos’ model, it is to
rigid and unyielding to account for the complexity of the history of science. 388 He
also adds that Lakatos developed his model to explain the obvious difference
between scientific and religious reasoning. 389 However, Murphy does know how to
reply. 390 Firstly, she argues that Lakatos’ program is supported empirically by the
history of science. Secondly, she replies to the most significant criticisms of his work
and thirdly she delivers some evidences that the most recent competitors offers no
better alternative. While Thomas S. Kuhn 391 claimed that the history of science is
best understood as successive paradigms, Lakatos argues, that it is more a question of
competing programs. 392 Some of those programs can be described as degenerative
385 Ibid., p.184.
386 Josh Andrew Reeves, From Method to Practice: A Critique of Two Models for Relating Science
and Religion, (Boston University: Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 2010).
387 Ibid., p.162.
388 Ibid.
389 Ibid.
390 Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, pp.61-79.
391 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1962).
392 Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, p.59.
168

and others as progressive. Reeves is certainly right in pointing out the diversity of
modern science, but I am not quite sure if Murphy would oppose that statement. The
Lakatosian model is one of many scientific models and future will decide if the
model is degenerative or progressive. I believe it is possible to leave the ontological
ground of the Lakatosian model, and instead employ it on a strict methodological
level as a way of describing and evaluating scientific data, and without any claims of
presenting absolute truth. It could be that Reeves has over-interpreted Murphy’s
intentions. As a heuristic model for understanding systems, it is still of great value.
Here I intend to make use of this methodology in a tentative way, and on a
descriptive level. The model can be described as follows.
Application of the Lakatosian Program of Nancey Murphy
Firstly, all science, including theology, is in need of an organizing idea before it
starts. 393 This is the hard core. It functions as a source and centre in the system. 394 The
hard core of Ad Diognetum could be formulated as follows: God has out of His
goodness and in a decisive way revealed himself to humankind. We designate this as the
‘hard core of revelation’. This core is clearly and carefully stated in the text.
Secondly, the hard core of revelation needs so-called auxiliary hypotheses. The
function of these hypotheses, is to spell out the meaning of the hard core, to make it
plain, and to provide connections between a rather abstract view of God and the
appropriate data. 395 In Ad Diognetum we find the following hypotheses:
Theocentrism: God is immutable and invisible. He himself took the revelational
initiative in Divine freedom and out of his goodness and self-communicating
love.
Cosmology: God operates through Logos, in upholding and ordering structure
and harmony in cosmos for the welfare of humankind and so revelation is
grounded in reality.
Anthropology: Man lived in iniquity and ignorance and was in desperate need of
the salvific goodness of God.
393 Ibid., p.184.
394 Ibid.
395 Ibid., p.186.
169

Eschatology: God conceived a plan on how to reveal his love and accomplish it
as an eschatological event.
Christology: God revealed this Divine plan to his equal, the beloved Son, who
came as Savior.
Soteriology: The Son gave his life as a ransom and redeemed man from iniquity
and mortality. Now man is invited to participate in the open secret that still is
mysterious.
These hypotheses are consequences of the hard core of revelation. They also explain
and confirm the revelational core. 396 What in a previous chapter was called ‘doctrines’
are here formulated as ‘auxiliary hypotheses’. Together these hypotheses build up a
comprehensive theological system.
Thirdly, we have different kinds of data in theology. These could be the Scriptures,
historical facts, personal experiences, critical discernment, Church traditions, natural
science and so on. 397 In chapters one to ten of Ad Diognetum we assume with most
scholars that the main source of data was the New Testament writings with a heavy
contribution from Corpus Paulinum, but also from Corpus Johanneum. We observed
that in chapters one to ten, the author seemed to lack some data. We noticed the absence
of a clearly spelled out Pneumatology, we missed proofs from prophecy and the Old
Testament writings as a preparation for the Gospel, and we don’t find the educative idea
of Paideia employed by Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. We
recognized the influence of the Pauline concept of Mysterion but noticed how the author
had adapted it and had excluded the law-gospel tension and the incorporation of both
Jews and pagans into the Church. When compared to other apologists we recognized the
absence of demonology and euphemism. The Christology was lacking in data on the
person of Jesus and a clearly stated incarnation. It was only in the appendix that the
author referred to the apostolic tradition and gave us signs of an ecclesiology. All these
limitations could be a concession to the ignorance of a pagan reader, a Hellenistic
philosopher. We should not entirely exclude a real lack of data or rather a lack of
sources for the required data, due to historical circumstances and an early stage in the
development of dogma. However, in this Inquiry we have hinted at another proposal.
396 Ibid.
397 Ibid., p.188.
170

Revelational Theology could be regarded as a contextualized theology for Diognetus
and his associates and audience. It could be "a philosophy of supernatural revelation." 398
for philosophically oriented persons or "a sofia for the Greeks" to speak with Gregory
Dix. 399 It could be that our unknown author was, due to historical circumstances, more
or less compelled to adapt his presentation. I here mention one example. We recognized
the lack of data on the historical Jesus and his title ‘Christ’. We also know that
Valentinian teachers reframed both ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ,’ and placed them as emanations
into the speculative context of the restoration of the Pleroma. 400 The author may have
tried to avoid any associations to a distorted Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead, he may in
his special geographical milieu, have tried to present a Gospel from above, and that
would explain the lack of certain data.
Fourthly, we have heuristics. Negative heuristics are the rules that protect the hard
core from falsification by the making of additions or changes in the belt of auxiliary
hypotheses. 401 Positive heuristics are such guiding principles or dogmatic models, that
help the theologian to elaborate new theories along the guiding principles or dogmatic
models. 402 In regard to Ad Diognetum, chapters one to ten, we find some signs of
positive heuristics. The author's Pauline and Johannine influence and Hebrew
monotheism combined with a slight Middle Platonic view of God, appear to help him.
As Dix maintains, the Hebrew-biblical ideas of revelation and eschatology are also
important in the author's working out of a Revelational Theology. 403 The idea of the
self-manifestation of God in human history, which is heading for the ‘end-time,’ and the
notion that this 'teaching' (ά) has not been discovered by the intellect, but by
revelation through the Son, are fundamental notions. 404
Furthermore, among positive heuristics we could include interpretative techniques,
such as the allegorical method, which is found in the appendix. It could have been
398 J.G. O´Neill, “The Epistle to Diognetos,” IER 85, (Dublin 1956), p.97.
399 Gregory Dix, Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church, (London 1953), p.87.
400 Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, p.185.
401 Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, pp.184-185.
402 Ibid., p.185.
403 Dix, Jew and Greek, pp.86-87.
404 Ibid.
171

something in line with Justin's philosophical strategies on how to incorporate the best of
worldly wisdom into Christian apologetics. Our author chose a radical strategy and
denounced philosophy, although he argued from the perspective of a biblical and
sometimes philosophical theology. It could have been some criteria of a good
"metaphysical pattern of history,” 405 compatible with historical facts and avoiding large
gaps. One example of such a metaphysical pattern of history was Irenaeus' theory of
recapitulation. Such an approach could actually be regarded as a method of including
the historical dimension and Old Testament facts into a Christocentric pattern of history,
in sharp opposition to the Gnostic devaluation of history. Our author emphasized
revelational discontinuity rather than historical continuity. In defending the hard core of
revelation, the author developed what we would designate as a "rhetorical theology." 406
We have seen that the antithetical pattern helped the author to refute foreign ideas. In
this way, it functioned as a kind of negative heuristics. The art of protreptics helped him
on the other hand, to set forth the sublime Revelational Theology, but none of these
methodologies served as instruments for accommodating new data.
Pauline and Johannine Heuristics
What seem to have been of uttermost importance for the author of Ad Diognetum
was four contributions from Pauline and Johannine theologies. From Paul he received
the redemptive-historical perspective in understanding God’s eschatological action in
history and the corporate-objective perspective on salvation. This helped the author to
avoid Gnostic and philosophic speculation and to anchor God’s revelation in the reality
of the Son. From the apostle John the author received the concept of Logos. It was not
applied in a philosophical way in distancing God from humankind, but it was applied in
a theological way in emphasizing God’s passionate involvement in the world. From
John he also received the Christological motive for ethics in loving both God and one’s
neighbor in an all-embracing and universal perspective. These Johannine perspectives
helped the author to avoid a narrowing individualism or ethnocentrism and to
demonstrate God’s universal saving and revealing participation in the world. The author
405 Anders Jeffner, Theology and Integration: Four Essays in Philosophical Theology, (Uppsala:
Uppsala universitet, 1987), p.53.
406 I have borrowed the expression ”Rhetorical theology” from David Dawson. See his “The Gospel of
Truth as Rhetorical Theology,” SP XVIII, p.1, and in Elisabeth A. Livingstone, Papers of the 1983
Oxford Patristics Conference, pp.241-245, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
172

did not apply this generous and universal perspective when he in chapter three and four
attacked Judaism in a very polemic way. In this regard, there there seem to be some
kind of a contradiction and probably an incoherent understanding. The contributions
from Pauline and Johannine theologies functioned both as negative and positive
heuristics. These perspectives or ‘methodologies’ also served in accommodating new
data in admitting, anchoring and advancing his contextualized theology. Finally, it must
be added that the author’s reception of Pauline and Johannine theologies was arranged
under the strong Theocentrism that worked as a general heuristic strategy.
Finally, all sciences need criteria for testing results. Murphy writes of the need of
discernment and judgment. According to Murphy, three kinds of discernment were
common in the early Church: Apostolic witness, Christ-like character and Communal
unity. 407 We also prefer to add the Ministry and the Canon. In chapters eleven to twelve
we actually discover Murphy's three discernments. They function as positive heuristics
and the results are observable. At a little later stage in the historical development,
Christian authors could presumably refer to a distinct Canon, the Regula fidei 408 and a
particular Credo as different types of discernment. In the appendix we actually find the
pairs "Law-Prophets" and "Gospel-Apostles" which can be regarded as reflections of a
canon process. The beautiful work at hand does not represent a fully exhaustive and
coherent system of theology. It would be preposterous to require that. Instead, it is a
contextualized theology built around the apostolic concept of revelation, presented in a
colorful style and with spiritual power.
Diognetus had put forward three questions. The first question run: Who is the God of
the Christians and how do they worship him? The answer to the first part of the question
was given in the revelational part, that is chapter seven to nine. Negatively, the author
stated that the Christian God and religion was not an earthly discovery, not some mortal
invention, nor human mysteries. Positively, he stated that God is Almighty and Creator.
He has manifested himself in the sending of his Son as an act of self-communication
and saving revelation. The second question was: What is the love that Christians have
for one another? The question was answered in the exposition of the Christian manner
of life in chapters five to six. Christians were occupied with love "to all men" (5.11),
407 Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, p.152.
408 ‘The Rule of Faith’ was the triadic pattern in the early Church including the threefold belief in God
as the Father-Creator, as the Son-Savior and as the Spirit of prophesy. (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines,
pp.88-89).
173

even to their enemies. That was the specific answer. The third question run: Why has
this new race or practice come into the world at this time, and not formerly? "Antiquity"
was an important argument in discussing religions. 409 We find the answer in chapters
eight to nine in the revelational part and specifically in 8.5 – 9.6. Here I once again want
to focus on the very precise expression πάνθ᾿ ἅμα. God had appointed a time to manifest
his kindness and power and to give us "all things at once" (8.11). That was the definite
answer of Revelational Theology. In answering the first and the third question, our
author relied on a biblical strategy. Most apologists defended God’s character and the
newness of Christianity by utilizing chronology and genealogy. We remember that
Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria employed this
argument from Antiquity. Moses was older than the oldest of the Greek philosophers,
historians and poets. We may say that the unknown author of Ad Diognetum,
demonstrated a more sophisticated way of reasoning. His strategy was biblical and at
the same time more advanced. He presented the mystery of ages now revealed through
the Son, and he helped Diognetus to appreciate its benefits. He framed and reframed a
Revelational Theology in combining and adapting doctrinal elements from
Theocentrism, Eschatology, Christology, Soteriology, Anthropology and Cosmology in
a consistent and coherent pattern, although not exhaustive. This theology was not
detailed, nor complete, but it was enough comprehensive to be designated as
Revelational Theology and it still is attractive. To be able to work out this manifold
message, the author had to be a skilled theologian. 410 With the help of this profound
message, the author had the advantage to claim a ‘theology of revelation’ that surpassed
contemporary philosophy, religion, Gnosticism and human wisdom. That was and is the
genius of Revelational Theology. Diognetus had three questions and the work at hand,
furnished him with adequate answers. In answering these particular questions of
Diognetus, questions which were also primary for second century citizens, the author
had to develop a kind of contextualized theology, adapted to a cultured, religiously
minded and philosophically oriented person.
The Epistle to Diognetus forms the transition from the purely practical literature of the
Apostolic Fathers to the reflective theology of the Apologists. It still glows with the ardor
409 Brändle, ”Schrift and Diognet”, p.44.
410 Ibid., p.228.
174

of the first love. It is strongly Pauline. It breathes the spirit of freedom and higher
knowledge grounded in faith. 411
Summary
In this chapter, I demonstrated that the Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum
could and should be regarded as an affirmation of Pauline and Johannine theologies, in
a time when the apostolic Gospel was challenged by Gnostic teachers. I also evaluated
the main content of Ad Diognetum along broader lines with the help of the Lakatosian
program of Nancey Murphy. The Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum was
interpreted as a linguistic and doctrinal system with a doctrinal core, auxiliary
hypotheses and positive and negative heuristics that facilitated for new data. In the end
of the chapter, we noticed that the fundamental structures of Pauline and Johannine
theologies functioned as negative and positive heuristics and contributed heavily to
Revelational Theology. The author’s way of ‘constructing’ Revelational Theology not
only as a linguistic system, but as an orthodox doctrinal system, although incomplete,
was of significance not only for Diognetus as a reader, but certainly also for a broader
audience and for the challenged Church of that time.
411 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p.2:702.
175

CHAPTER 7
APPLICATIONS OF REVELATIONAL THEOLOGY
To them the Word appeared and revealed these things, speaking quite plainly as he did so;
though not understood by unbelievers, he explained them to disciples who, being regarded
faithful by him, learned the mysteries of the Father (11.2).
Introduction
In this chapter, I shall take a step further in trying to enhance the significance of the
Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum. In the first part of the chapter, I intend to
relate its content to five different and general models of revelation. I invite the
distinguished scholar Avery Dull to give an account for his Models of Revelation. 412 In
so doing, we will be able to classify and compare the Revelational Theology of Ad
Diognetum and assess its advantages and relevance for today. In the final analysis
Revelational Theology requires not only one but several models of revelation in order to
do justice to its manifold and dynamic content. In the second part of this chapter, I
invite a second guest, the respected evangelical scholar Donald G. Bloesch. I intend to
introduce his fideistic revelationism and point out some of its affinities with the
Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum. Just as the ancient author of Ad Diognetum,
Bloesch takes his point of departure in the Divine, historic and unique revelation of
Jesus Christ. With the help of Bloesch, we will be able to be both faithful to the main
message of Ad Diognetum and flexible so that we can relate Revelational Theology to
important issues as revelation and transcendence, religion, philosophy, salvation, ethics,
hermeneutics and apologetics. The aim of this chapter is to apply Revelational Theology
and to demonstrate some of its lasting contributions and appreciate its widening
significance.
Revelational Theology and Avery Dull’s Five Models of Revelation
In trying to classify the content of classical texts and doctrinal systems, there is a risk
of simplification and generalization and not being enough sensitive to the peculiarities
of the text and its characteristics. There is also the danger of using contemporary models
on historic data in trying to press the content into certain typologies constructed for
modern purposes. Avery Dull is well aware of this complexity, and admits that there are
hybrid positions and unique combinations of models that surpass the pure positions. 413
412 Avery Dull, Models of Revelation, (New York: Orbis Books, 1992).
176

We are also reminded that the Divine revelation itself is always greater than our
theological codifications and theories of revelation. 414 When these dangers and
complexities are taken into due consideration, there are significant advantages in
working with models, in classifying types of revelation and so be able to compare and
assess strengths and weaknesses. Dull recounts and relates five models of revelation. I
shall now relatively briefly, present each one of them and point out some of their merits
and challenges and compare the models to the Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum.
Revelation as Doctrine
The first model can be labeled as “revelation as doctrine” or “the propositional
model.” 415 It is forwarded by Conservative Evangelicalism and Catholic neo-
Scholasticism, and it distinguishes between natural and supernatural revelation. The
general revelation in nature or reason is not enough to know the will of God. We need
supernatural revelation. Proponents of this model maintain that revelation does
effectively reach the human mind and that it can be grasped, at least to some degree, by
human convictions and affirmations. Evangelical theologians 416 refer to the Holy
Scripture as the primary source of revelation. The books of the Bible are the inspired
prophetic-apostolic and canonical writings that codify the complete revelation of God.
The Bible consists of universal propositional truth that we are able to appropriate thanks
to our cognitive equipment. Catholic neo-Scholasticism has been represented by
distinguished scholars, 417 and was affirmed by documents from Vatican Council I
(1870) and Pope Pius XII’s encyclical letter, Humani generis (1950). Beside the Holy
Scripture these documents place the tradition of the Church and the ecclesiastical
teaching office (Magisterium) of the Church as the three pillars of God’s infallible
revelation. What is finally codified as Church dogma is God’s supernatural revelation to
the world. The model has merits 418 and has also received some criticisms. 419
413 Ibid., p.29.
414 Ibid., p.35.
415 Ibid., pp.36-52.
416 Dull mentions Benjamin B. Warfield, Gordon H. Clark, James I. Packer, John W. Montgomery and
Carl F.H. Henry.
417 Dull mentions Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Christian Pesch and Hermann Dieckmann.
177

Revelation as History
The second model can be designated as “history as revelation,” 420 and it is built on
the assumption that God reveals himself in deeds, actions and historical events. This
way of reasoning was largely a part of the biblical theology movement during the mid-
twentieth century. One exponent of the model was the Anglican Archbishop William
Temple. According to Temple revelation must first be understood as God’s self-
disclosure in history, and second as the illumination in the prophet or apostle on what
the manifestation intended to convey. The Bible itself is not revelation, it is rather a
record of revelation. G. Ernest Wright and Charles Dodd continued along the same lines
in pointing out objective historical events as revelation. For Dodd, it was the early
Christian Kerygma. For Oscar Cullman, it was pivotal events in salvation history. The
Bible was not read as sheer history but revealed prophecy concerning history, not as
historiography but as prophetic revelation. This made interpretation essential. God’s
mighty deeds in salvation history were in need of prophetic interpretation. For Wolfhart
Pannenberg, revelation was universal history and not the ghetto of Church history or
salvation history. The historical resurrection of Christ points to the consummation and
fulfillment of history. God’s revelation in the Bible is always indirect. God’s revelation
is taking place in the public arena, interprets itself and evokes faith in God’s saving
power and the finality of history through the glorious transformation of cosmos. In
evaluating this model Dull, mentions four general merits 421 but also some criticisms. 422
418 Dull, Models of Revelation, pp.46-48. Firstly, it takes Holy Scripture seriously and it shows
faithfulness to the Christian tradition. The model itself is founded in the Bible and in the Fathers and
Teachers of the Church. It promotes biblical studies and respect for the classic teachings of the historic
Church. Secondly, it has inner consistence and provides for a firm doctrinal standard. It offers a simple
theological method in systematizing the truths of the Bible or the tradition. It fits the era of science in
relating creedal and/or biblical facts instead of presenting unreliable interpretations. Thirdly, it has some
practical advantages in encouraging unity and a clear sense of identity and in fostering spiritual growth
and missionary zeal.
419 Ibid., pp.48-52. Firstly, in the postmodern world an objectifying theory of knowledge is questioned.
Secondly, for many it is hard to accept the infallibility of the Pope or the Church tradition and many
modern people trained in criticism, scientific positivism, contemporary religion and deconstructive
hermeneutics do not accept the claims of biblical inerrancy and authority. Thirdly, some critics also point
out the inadequacy of the model to allow for individual religious experience and to open up for
ecumenical or inter-religious dialogue.
420 Ibid., pp.53-67.
421 Ibid. pp.61-62. Firstly, it has a relatively pragmatic religious value in making revelation concrete
and in bringing the faithful into a palpable relationship with God. Secondly, this historical approach
realizes and reaffirms the historical dimension in the Bible and it stimulates biblical theology. Thirdly,
this model is more organic, flexible and dynamic than the propositional model. Fourthly, this model is
less authoritarian than the propositional and more congenial with modern historicist orientation.
178

Revelation as Experience
The third model claims that revelation is an inner experience. 423 This does not mean
that revelation is the only to be found in experience but that it consists in an immediate
experience of the Divine who inwardly communicates with each believer. Liberal
protestants 424 prepared the way for this experiential model. Experience and mysticism
go together. Baron Friedrich von Hügel, Evelyn Underhill and the Swedish Archbishop
Nathan Söderblom explored the typology of mysticism in various religions and favored
this model, and they also tried to connect it with the two previous models. A
fundamental principle for all thinkers in this model is that God is both transcendent and
immanent. God is Spirit and reveals himself in our spirit, and this revelation must be
inner and personal. The content of revelation as experience is an illumination of God or
an ineffable encounter with the Divine. Initially revelation comes individually but
gradually it becomes a mainstream and a general phenomenon. Söderblom distinguished
between two types of mysticism, a mysticism of nature and infinity, which he found in
pagan religions, and a mysticism of personality, which is characteristic of biblical faith
and reached its perfection in the person of Jesus Christ. Revelation as experience rejects
any rational demonstration. The criterion of a true revelation is the quality of the
experience. This model has some merits 425 but there are also some criticisms 426 of the
experiential model.
422 Ibid., pp.62-67. Firstly, the separation between historical deeds and words is questioned. The two
are intimately related in the Bible and they cooperate dynamically as inspired words and sacred acts.
Secondly, the Bible consists to a large extent of literature of wisdom, poetry and prophecy. These literary
genres are not centered around historical deeds in the way the model presuppose. Thirdly, many historical
themes in the Bible such as the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus and so forth are not among
proponents of history reckoned as ordinary and universal historical events. They are rather regarded as
symbols and typologies of religious content. Fourthly, it is hard to read the Gospels as naked history.
Modern exegetics call attention to the fact that historical events are interwoven into the theological fabric
of the gospel narratives. Fifthly, Pannenberg does not offer legitimate criteria for deciding which
historical event is legitimate and trustful in the Bible. Why support the historicity of Christ’s resurrection
and deny the Virgin birth and why reduce the reliability of revelation to one historical event? In spite of
these criticisms this model when adjusted, balanced and combined with other models, is still an important
signpost to a broader understanding of Divine revelation.
423 Ibid., pp.68-83.
424 Dull mentions Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl and Wilhelm Herrmann.
425 Dull, Models of Revelation, pp.77-78. Firstly, In a Christian context it is possible to interpret
spiritual affirmations and experiences as the inward witness of the Spirit in accordance with the classic
Protestant theme of testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum. Secondly, in the context of Kantian
agnosticism and pragmatism, this approach to revelation can be a way of avoiding too many clashes with
the science and rationalism. Thirdly, this model can be of great support to the life of devotion, piety,
179

Revelation as Dialectical Presence
The fourth model presents revelation as dialectical presence. 427 This model is linked
to theologians such as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and Rudolf Bultmann and emerged as a
reaction to the liberal Protestantic theology of the nineteenth century. After the First
World-War 1914-1918, the rise of dialectical theology or “crisis theology” as it also
was called, influenced the theological thinking in Europe and North America. The
dialectical theologians were conscious of the Divine transcendence and human
sinfulness. They denied that God’s presence and activity could be known within the
realms of history, natural religion, religious experience and human philosophy.
Although very different from each other, the three proponents believed in revelation
through the Word of God as the only point of contact between God’s reality and the
human world. The Word of God has revealing power and revelation is intrinsically
salvific, and ought to be understood as God’s self-communication. Now God himself is
absolute, and concealed in a mystery. Revelation in this dialectic model is both a
revealing and a concealing activity. It is through the person and work of Jesus Christ
that God is revealed, not in his abstract essence, but in his orientation towards
humankind. In this revelation he comes with judgment and forgiveness. Jesus Christ is
God’s eschatological deed. This Christological focuses was combined with the work of
the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s creative work of faith in human hearts is a constitutive part
of God’s revelation. The Bible and the preaching ministry bear witness to the Word of
God. They are not as such the Word of God, but they can become the revealing truth
when God’s Word is effectively proclaimed, received by faith and when in his
sovereign will God so chooses. Revelation needs no verification. The self-
communication of God transcends all human categories and is self-displaying and self-
attesting. Revelation results in a new understanding of God but also to a certain degree
in self-understanding. Believers are seeing themselves “as sinners and mercifully
spiritual autobiography and ascetical theology. Fourthly, people in this model often show openness to
non-biblical religious experience.
426 Ibid., pp.78-83. Firstly, it makes a selective use of biblical texts. Secondly, it rejects the selfunderstanding
of the prophets of the Bible. Many of them spoke and wrote out of respect for God’s
objective revelation in space and time. Thirdly, this model can be interpreted as a support for religious
elitism and Gnosticism. Fourthly, adherents to this model often stands in opposition to Christian
institutions and the traditional churches. Fifthly, while the model promotes spiritual interiority, it neglects
the insight that religious experience is not possible without religious tradition. Sixthly, this model
presupposes a narrow concept of experience as if it only has to do with individual illumination.
427 Ibid., pp.84-97.
180

welcomed into fellowship by God.” 428 In evaluating the dialectical model it is important
to consider its diversity and development. 429 The movement that started with Barth
spread throughout Europe, and had a huge impact due to its merits, 430 but the dialectical
model also received some criticisms. 431
Revelation as New Awareness
This model proceeds from the subjective idealism of the nineteenth century, and
approaches revelation as a transcendent fulfillment of the inner drive of the human spirit
toward fuller consciousness. 432 According to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, God never
reveals himself from outside, by intrusion, but from within. The goal is humanization
and psychic growth. Another advocate of this model, Karl Rahner, presents a theory of
revelation in terms of an evolutionary view of the world. Self-transcendence is the
direction of the spirit and can occur because the Absolute is Spirit. Revelation becomes
428 Ibid., p.93.
429 Strictly speaking ‘dialectical theology’ was a short-lived undertaking between 1915 and 1922,
Thiselton, Hermeneutics, p. 186. Barth, Brunner and Bultmann went in different directions and the main
advocate, Karl Barth, developed a more mature theological system in his Church Dogmatics. It could be
questioned if it is justified to describe the lifeworks of Barth, Brunner and Bultmann under the heading
‘dialectical theology’ when this designation is reserved for a period of time of only seven years (My
commentary).
430 Dull, Models of Revelation, pp.93-94. Firstly, this model recaptured the words of the Bible, the
Word of the cross and the Kerygma of Christ and renewed the ministry of preaching in the Church.
Secondly, it renewed the central ideas of the Reformation and developed a neo-orthodox orientation in
theology so that concepts such as sin, redemption and grace returned to the theological agenda. Thirdly, it
restated the centrality of revelation that was under attack by the liberal theologians. Fourthly, it liberated
believers from feeling threatened under the deconstructive work of radical scholarship. Fifthly, this
dialectic or neo-orthodox model, while deemphasizing the religious experience, made true encounter with
the transcendent God possible. Sixthly, this model has inspired many biblical scholars during the Post-
War period. Ernest Fuchs, Gerhard Ebeling, Jürgen Moltmann and Eberhard Jüngel are some of those
renowned scholars. Seventhly, As a result of their Theocentric and Christological focuses, the dialectical
theologians contributed to a restatement of the Trinitarian faith as the starting point for all theological
undertaking.
431 Ibid., pp.94-97. Firstly, Dull points out that its theological method was weak and its concepts were
incoherent. We are asked to believe in the Word of God as norm, but then we recognize that the Word of
God is not strictly related to the Bible and more of an existential encounter. That could be interpreted as a
contradiction. 431 Secondly, the infinite quality difference between heaven and human creatures carries the
risk of concealing God instead of revealing the Divine. Thirdly, this model could be regarded as rather
exclusive. It seems to be incompatible with science, philosophy and world religions. It has been criticized
for ‘Christomonism’ in denying that revelation can appear in other forms than through Christ. Fourthly,
this model can be developed into radical and arbitrary fanaticism that makes broader conversations
problematic.
432 Ibid., pp.98-114.
181

a new mode of human spiritual consciousness. Gregory Baum typifies the distinctive
emphasis of this model when he writes:
Since divine revelation is not information about another world but God’s selfcommunication
to man, and hence his gracious entry into the dynamic process of man’s
becoming fully human, it is possible to express what the Church believes by describing
the new self-consciousness created by faith. 433
In this model, God is more thought of as a horizon rather than an object. According to
Paul Tillich, God is associated with things of ultimate concern. Revelation speaks to
man’s ultimate concern. The ultimate is never an intrusion into this world, but the
hidden dimension of all experience. A raised consciousness mediated through religious
symbols is a true revelation. Revelation in this model is not propositional, but
pragmatic, it is not finding the truth, but truthful awareness. According to Eugene
Fontinell, “revelation is true if it enriches the quality of individual and community
life.” 434 The ongoing process of revelation has no fixed context. Revelation mediates
itself through paradigmatic events and revelation has salvific power insofar as it is a
participation in God’s creative-redemptive ongoing activity leading towards universal
reconciliation and fulfillment. Dull relates the following merits 435 and criticisms 436 of
the awareness model.
433 Referred in Dull, Models of Revelation, p.101.
434 Referred in Dull, Models of Revelation, p.104.
435 Ibid., pp.110-11. Firstly, it comes out very well when judged in terms of plausibility and practical
fruitfulness. Secondly, it avoids problems connected with the other models, the rigidity and
authoritarianism of model one, the unsure reconstruction of historical events in model two, the
withdrawal into sentimentalist religiosity in model three and the disrespect for the active human subject in
model four. Secondly, it harmonizes with an evolutionary or transformationist understanding of history
and it is, thanks to its inbuilt pragmatism, well adapted for universal dialogue. Thirdly, its high regard for
the symbolic and paradigmatic value of history and tradition makes it possible to retrieve a new
hermeneutic in the service for a contemporary and imaginative vision.
436 Ibid., pp.111-114. Firstly, one may ask if the proponents of this model are treating Holy Scripture
and tradition with respect and fidelity. Secondly, it could be argued that this immanentistic model of
revelation is a self-destructive form of Gnosticism. Thirdly, there is the critical question on whether this
model in the final end encourages individualism and egocentric life-projects or true universalism.
Fourthly, it could be argued that this model can be interpreted as a pale version of a radical political
agenda and secular liberalism without true theological substance. Fifthly, this awareness model is hard to
distinguish from the third experiential model. Sixthly, the model has more affinity with anthropology than
with theology.
182

Revelational Theology as a Multi-model Theology
It is difficult to place Revelational Theology into one exclusive model. Due to its
transcendence we may say that Revelational Theology transcends most models.
However, at the same time it has much in common with several of Avery Dull’s five
models. In the preceding chapter, we stated that in Ad Diognetum we found the
following “auxiliary hypotheses”:
Theocentrism: God is immutable and invisible. He himself took the revelational
initiative in Divine freedom and out of his goodness and self-communicating
love.
Cosmology: God operates through Logos, in upholding and ordering structure
and harmony in cosmos for the welfare of humankind and so revelation is
grounded in reality.
Anthropology: Man lived in iniquity and ignorance and was in desperate need of
the salvific goodness of God.
Eschatology: God conceived a plan on how to reveal his love and accomplish it
as an eschatological event.
Christology: God revealed this Divine plan to his equal, the beloved Son, who
came as Savior.
Soteriology: The Son gave his life as a ransom and redeemed man from iniquity
and mortality. Now man is invited to participate in the open secret that still is
mysterious.
These hypotheses were described as consequences of the hard core of revelation. They
also explained and confirmed the revelational core. What we earlier labeled as
‘doctrines’ were here in chapter six formulated as “auxiliary hypotheses”. Together
these hypotheses build up a comprehensive theology. With these doctrines in mind, it is
natural and reasonable to place Revelational Theology in Dull’s first so-called
‘doctrinal’ model. In this Inquiry, I have argued that the author of Ad Diognetum was
influenced by Pauline and Johannine theologies and that he borrowed his fundamental
twin-concept of mystery-revelation and framed his complete theology from the
apostle’s propositional exposition of the Ephesian Mysterion. 437 He supported this
437 Chrys C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion: Meaning and Content. (Lund: Gleerup Förlag,
1977).
183

iblical concept with a relatively broad Scriptural material that was accounted for in
chapter six of this Inquiry and in the Appendix. As all of the apologists, the author of Ad
Diognetum more or less explicitly referred to the Scriptures, but due to his addressee
our author contextualized his theology and fashioned his work in style and content
smoothly so that it would be well received. We have also seen that one important strand
and fundamental structure in Revelational Theology was eschatology. The author
employed the famous Pauline tension between the ‘now’ and the ‘then’, between the
‘not yet’ and the ‘already now’. He emphasized the newness of eschatological
revelation, but he did not reject the categories of history and future. He was in the
thought-form of Johannine realized eschatology and of the Pauline redemptive-
historical eschatology. He leaned on discontinuity but did not give up the line of
continuity. The revelational event in Christ was an eschatological intervention into
history, but history was still there. With this in mind and when due consideration is
taken to eschatology as a remaking of history, it is possible to defend Revelational
Theology as belonging also the second historical model.
In line with other apologists, the author of Ad Diognetum utilized Logos-Christology.
We observed that the Logos or the Word was instrumental in cosmology and established
itself in the hearts of believers. We interpreted the Word as both referring to the
preexistent and incarnated person of Christ and his preaching and teaching ministry.
The Word was presented as both the Child and the Son, giving himself as a ransom for
the redemption of humankind. The Word was an expression of God’s self-
communicated and passionate love. The Word is and gives absolute revelation. In God’s
Logos Christology, eschatology and soteriology are one. These thoughts are to a high
degree in harmony with the Barthian theology and its dynamic understanding of the
revealing and reconciling ministry of God’s Logos. Karl Barth wrote:
The event in which revelation occurs must be seen in connection with what has happened
once and for all in this act. All fulfilled time must be seen as filled with the fullness of
this time. Revelation itself, however, is not referred to anything other, higher or earlier.
Revelation as such is not relative. Revelation in fact does not differ from the person of
Jesus Christ nor from the reconciliation accomplished in Him. 438
If we instead of Dull’s designation “dialectical presence” refer to the works of the
mature Barth and his revelationism as ‘the Person model’, (since all is related to the
438 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. 14 vols. Eds. Goeffrey W.Bromiley and Thomas Torrance, trans.
Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 2nd ed., (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), p.1:1.119.
184

person and work of Jesus Christ as in the quotation above) it is possible to place
Revelational Theology in this model. The unknown author of Ad Diognetum proclaimed
the Christian Gospel in the tension between Divine transcendence and human tragic,
and he rejected all human-made philosophy and religion and instead he projected the
decisive revelation from God. In this respect, there is an irrefutable similarity between
him and Karl Barth although more than nine-teen hundred years are separating them in
time. If we are remaking and widening the fourth model and label it as ‘the Person
model,’ it is possible to categorize Revelational Theology into this model. We probably
need to go further. The dialectical tensions between time and eternity, heaven and earth,
a transcendent God and the tragedy of man, were conjunctioned in the person or God-
Man Jesus Christ. It is probably correct to state, that this model of revelation, reworked
as ‘the Person model,’ while still maintaining a certain degree of its dialectics, is the
primary model for Revelational Theology.
Ad Diognetum was written in the protreptic genre. The aim of the author was not
only to defend Christianity against the common accusations, but to present the Christian
Gospel to Diognetus. In answering the three introductory questions our author
developed his Revelational Theology as a strong case for conversion to Christian faith.
The work included several exhortations to receive the Christian faith and knowledge of
the Father. Although faith is a Divine work, it is still a constitutive part of human
experience, and human experience makes the experiential model relevant. We also
observed that the Pauline concept of mystery included the two aspects of hiddenness
and mysteriousness. When the author of Ad Diognetum proclaimed that God had
revealed the mystery of ages, it was not only a statement of an open secret. It was also a
mystery per se, still something unfathomable, impenetrable and incomprehensible due
to the fact that God himself is a mystery. It also gave the association of God’s
mysterious ways to the hearts of men and women and to Diognetus. If we take the
mysteriousness of the Mystery seriously, it is wise to admit a certain space for the
subjective reception, the appropriation of faith and for human experience. Revelational
Theology is not only a general historic event, it also includes a personal reception of
God’s saving gift. If we label the fourth model as ‘the Person model’ it is even more
relevant to include personal experience. In this sense, it is reasonable to place
Revelational Theology in the third experiential model.
We have so far made use of four of Dull’s five models. All of these four models have
a common feature. They recognize revelation as God’s revelation. Revelation is not a
185

human invention or “a mortal idea”. It is given from outside, “descending from above
upon the human subject.” 439 Dull’s last model starts from the human subject instead of
the Divine, from anthropology instead of theology. This is a demarcation line, and it
would not be consistent with the strong denunciation of man-made philosophy in Ad
Diognetum and the uniqueness of Revelational Theology to assimilate it into model five
as an aspect of a new awareness. That is not to say that Revelational Theology is not
capable of contributing to new modes of knowing and being. However, in those cases it
would be the results of Revelational Theology and nothing else.
In figure 4 below, we have Dull’s four models and the figure is in itself a multi-model
of Revelational Theology. The aim of this chapter has been to classify and compare
Revelational Theology according to Dull’s five models of revelation. In the next
chapter, we will, with the help of Donald G. Bloesch, reflect on these parts of
Revelational Theology and their interrelations, to be able to contribute to and construct
Revelational Theology in our own time.
FIGURE 4
Experience
Doctrine
Person
186
History
The multi-model of Revelational Theology with doctrine, history, person and
experience as main theological concepts for each separate model.
439 Dull, Models of Revelation, p.98.

Revelational Theology and Donald G. Bloesch’s Fideistic Revelationism
Donald G. Bloesch has earned a reputation of being an outstanding creative thinker,
and is “one of the most quoted evangelical theologians in the United States.” 440 His
theology is both evangelical and ecumenical. It takes its point of departure in the Divine
revelation of Jesus Christ, and it helps us to reframe the Revelational Theology that the
author of Ad Diognetum once framed.
A Short Biography of Donald G. Bloesch
Donald G. Bloesch 441 was born in Bremen, Indiana in 1928. 442 His father was a pastor
in the local German Evangelical Church. The Church was a member of the Evangelical
Synod of North America with roots in Lutheran and Reformed Pietism. 443 Bloesch
admitted a heavy influence from both the Lutheran and the Reformed tradition on his
theological development. 444 Bloesch’s grandfathers were also pastors in that synod and
came from Switzerland as missionaries to German speaking immigrants. Bloesch was
raised and rooted in pietism 445 and he paid tribute to his upbringing and affirmed that
“my parental and cultural heritage played a major role in my theology.” 446 In 1934, the
Evangelical synod merged with the Reformed Church of the United States and later that
Church joined the Congregational Christian Churches that in 1957 created the United
Church of Christ. Bloesch remained in that Church until his death in 2010, but he was
an austere critic of the liberal tendencies within his own Church. 447
440 Elmer G. Colyer, “A Theology of Word and Spirit: Donald Bloesch’s Theological Method,” JCTR,
[http://.www.jctr.org], No. 1, pp.1-88, (1996), p.1.
441 Ibid. In this biographical sketch I am thankful to and follow Elmer M. Colyer’s presentation.
Colyer was a close colleague to Bloesch at the very same Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa, and
he had access to Bloesch’s archival material (including an unpublished autobiography) in the Library at
the University of the Theological Seminary. He also had personal interviews with Bloesch and his
mother, Adele Bloesch. Bloesch himself has approved and commended the article written by Colyer
(Donald G. Bloesch, “A Response to Elmer Colyer,” JCTR, [http://.www.jctr.org], No. 1, pp.1-8, (1996).
442 Ibid., p.3.
443 Ibid.
444 Richard E. Burnett, “Donald Bloesch: Ecumenical Evangelical,” Perspectives, [January 2012], p.2.
445 Colyer, “A Theology of Word and Spirit,” p.3.
446 Burnett, ”Donald Bloesch,” p.2.
447 Ibid. p.1.
187

After the second Word-War, in 1946, Bloesch entered Elmhurst College in Illinois
and went on to Chicago Theological Seminary. According to Bloesch, most theologians
at that seminary “identified themselves as neo-naturalists and appealed to the writings
of Alfred Whitehead.” 448 It was here that Bloesch discovered Neo-orthodoxy, which
came to play a decisive role in his theological development. 449 He learned to know and
read theologians as Kierkegaard, Brunner, Barth, Tillich and Bultmann, and he
gradually shifted his allegiance to Emil Brunner and especially to Karl Barth. He visited
both Brunner and Barth some years later. 450 After the seminary years he went to the
University of Chicago and wrote his doctoral dissertation on Reinhold Niebuhr’s
apologetics. 451 In 1957, Bloesch began his thirty-five year teaching career at the
University of Dubuque Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa. The administration
hired Bloesch “to counteract the influence of the noted Barthian theologian Art
Cochrane, assuming that Bloesch would reflect the regnant natural theology of his alma
mater, the University of Chicago.” 452 Bloesch attributed his high regard for Barth to the
mediating role of Cochrane, “who was really a longtime interpreter of Barth.” 453 After
six years as professor at Dubuque Theological Seminary Bloesch married Brenda Mary
Jackson, a British woman he had met in Geneva, Switzerland. Brenda was theologically
insightful, and had a clear evangelical orientation. 454 She shared her husband’s deep
interest in theology and served him as an associate researcher. 455 “Few people realize
what a strategic role she has played in Bloesch’s career as an author.” 456
Most of Bloesch’s early writings focused on the renewal of the Christian and the
Church. It seems as if Bloesch gradually developed a centrist ecumenical
448 Colyer, “A Theology of Word and Spirit,” p. 6. Colyer here refers to Bloesch unpublished
autobiography, p.11.
449 Ibid.
450 Burnett, “Donald Bloesch,” p.3.
451 Colyer, “A Theology of Word and Spirit,” p.7.
452 Ibid., p.8.
453 Burnet, ”Donald Bloesch,” p 3.
454 Colyer, “A Theology of Word and Spirit,” p.9.
455 Ibid.
456 Ibid.
188

evangelicalism, a position that is recognizable in most of his writings. On this centrist
position, Bloesch wrote:
A centrist position must not be misconstrued as a middle-of-the-road position that tries to
hold opposing camps in dialectical tension; instead, its goal is to drive beyond the
theological polarity to a synthesis that negates the misconceptions of both sides but at the
same time fulfills their legitimate hopes and concerns. 457
Thus, Bloesch sought to avoid extreme positions and hold to the central tenets of the
Christian faith. He presented his position as “an ecumenical orthodoxy,” 458 as “an
evangelical Catholicism” 459 and as “a progressive evangelicalism.” 460 After the
retirement in 1993, Bloesch concentrated his energy to complete the seven-volume
systematic theology, Christian Foundations. In the first volume in that series, A
Theology of Word and Spirit, Bloesch expounded on authority and method in theology,
and here he also defined theology as
The systematic reflection within a particular culture on the self-revelation of God in Jesus
Christ as attested in Holy Scripture and witnessed to in the tradition of the catholic
church. Theology in this sense is both biblical and contextual. Its norm is Scripture, but
its field or arena is the cultural context in which we find ourselves. It is engaged in
reflection not on abstract divinity or on concrete humanity but on the Word made flesh,
the divine in the human. 461
In this definition as well as in Bloesch’s writings the revelation theme is central. The
starting-point and foundational structure for the theological undertaking is God’s self-
revelation in Jesus Christ. Bloesch called his position a “fideistic revelationism,” and he
was careful to state that his approach, should not to be confused with revelational
positivism in which the fact of revelation was simply acknowledged and upheld as true
apart from other witnesses. 462 On the contrary, faith had its basis in the objective
revelation in history, and that was the objective side. The subjective side was the
“practical or moral certainty that is ever more fully realized in a life of repentance and
457 Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of the Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in Theology. CF,
(Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1992), p.31.
458 Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission. CF. (Downers Grove,
Ill: IVP, 2002), p.14.
459 Ibid., p.43.
460 Burnett, ”Donald Bloesch,” p.1.
461 Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of the Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in Theology. CF,
(Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1992). p.114.
462 Ibid. p.21.
189

obedience.” 463 There are many affinities between Revelational Theology and Bloesch’s
fideistic revelationism. I shall relate seven essential affinities.
Revelation and Transcendence
Both Bloesch and the author of Ad Diognetum have revelation as the fundamental
basis for theology. This rules out human speculations and thought constructions.
Bloesch wrote:
The God of the Bible is not a God who is discovered in the depths of nature or uncovered
in human consciousness. Nor is he a God who is immediately discernable in the events of
history, even of sacred history, for he is a God who hides himself even in his revelation
(ch. Is.45:15; Prov.25:2; Rom 11:33). For the living God to be known, he must make
himself known, and he has done this in the acts and words recorded in Scripture. Yet the
significance of what has been revealed continues to elude us until our minds are
illuminated by God’s Spirit, who comes and goes as he wills. 464
God’s self-revelation was recorded in the words of the Holy Scripture but was first and
foremost related to the Word, Jesus Christ. God revealed himself through the external
incarnation and through internal illumination. The result is a theology of Word and
Spirit. It is anchored both in objective history and in the subjective human heart. This
twin-concept of Word-Spirit was the middle ground from which Bloesch developed his
theology. From this position of fideistic revelationism, Bloesch distanced himself from
rationalism, even evangelical rationalism, and from pure experientialism or mysticism.
However, he was at the same time able to include important elements of both reason
and experience. The object of faith was neither true propositions (as in rationalism), nor
an experience of the ineffable (as in mysticism), but the living Word of God who is
revealed as well as hidden in the mystery of his self-disclosure in biblical history. 465
With Augustine, he stated ‘I believe in order to understand’ (credo ut intelligam).
“Reason…in and of itself cannot validate or substantiate the claims of faith.” 466 Faith
brings spiritual certainty, but not rational certainty, because human rationality belongs
to the domain of sin, which alienates the whole person from God. 467 Reason can be a
useful tool in the service of faith, but it cannot supply the substructure for faith. “Human
463 Ibid., p.22.
464 Ibid., p.20.
465 Ibid., p.60.
466 Ibid.
467 Ibid., p.61.
190

eason cannot grasp the mystery of divine revelation, but it can witness to this
mystery.” 468 We do not believe without our reason, but we also do not believe on the
basis of reason. Bloesch argued that this is in the strict sense not fideism as a blind leap
or a naked act. It is a “rational commitment to an intelligible gospel.” 469 Its starting
point is not faith in itself but God’s action through the Word and Spirit, which is God’s
revelation.
Although there is a huge time span between the author of Ad Diognetum and Donald
Bloesch, they have a common belief in God’s revelation. This belief in revelation is
both pervasive and comprehensive. It directed both authors way of thinking and writing.
Both authors believed in a strong dialectic between the infinity and transcendence of
God on the one hand, and the human tragedy and finitude on the other hand. Both
authors had a firm belief in the revelation of the mystery of ages. Bloesch expressed
himself in almost the same words as the author of Ad Diognetum.
Paul declares that the “mystery” of God’s grace was made known to him by revelation
(Eph 3:3 cf. Gal 1:12). In former generations this mystery was not known, but now with
the coming of Christ we are allowed to see and grasp the will and purpose of God for all
humankind. It is incumbent on us to ‘make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery
hidden for ages in God who created all things’ (Eph 3:9 NRSV). We are to speak in such
a manner that people of faith may be ‘encouraged and united in love, so that they may
have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God’s mystery,
that is, Christ himself (Col 2:2 NRSV). 470
Bloesch elaborated on the concepts of mystery and revelation. He understood the
mystery as an open secret; incomprehensible and imperceptible with regard to its
essence, but comprehensible and perceptible with regard to its work. 471 When
examining the concept of mystery we noticed a double reference, both to the hiddenness
and to the mysteriousness of the mystery. Both aspects were found in the concept.
Bloesch was eager to point out that the mystery is revealed, but it is still a mystery. The
mystery discloses the hidden God, but at the same time, it reveals the true God. “To
know the Deus revelatus is to know the Deus absconditus and vice versa. God remains
hidden even in his revelation, and he discloses himself precisely in the hiddenness of the
468 Ibid., pp.59-60.
469 Ibid., p.59.
470 Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love, CF (Downers Grove, Ill:
IVP, 1995), p.62.
471 Ibid., p.63.
191

mystery of Jesus Christ.” 472 Mysticism is oriented towards the hidden God and
rationalism is oriented towards the disclosed God. Very often the hidden and disclosed
aspects of God are portrayed as almost two different gods. Bloesch was careful to state
“what God is in himself, is identical to what he is in his revelation in Christ.” 473 In Ad
Diognetum 8.8 we noticed that God was described as immutable. The author formulated
this attribute with the following words: "Indeed, so he always was and is and will be,
kindly and good and free from wrath (ἀόργητος), true (ἀληθής), and he alone is good”.
We discussed the meaning of ἀόργητος and interpreted it as being free from
indiscriminate anger. However, the author also mentioned the severity of God as
“Judge” (7.6) and the seriousness of the “everlasting fire” (10.7). There is constancy in
God. He was and is and will be the same and true (ἀληθής) to his Divine nature. This
transcendence of God was not Middle Platonic and static. It was rather biblical and
dynamic. God was described as both immutable and free in his sovereignty. “God is not
pure actuality (actus purus) in the classical sense of excluding all movement and
possibility from his inner life. On the contrary, he is actus purus in the sense of
ceaseless overflowing of his goodness and mercy. 474 ” The author of Ad Diognetum
expressed these rather intricate aspects, and tried in his cultural climate to secure the
internal coherence in God’s being, and its consistence with his work. That was also
what Bloesch was doing when he wrote:
Only in Christ can we discern the mystery that God’s wrath is a form of God’s love, that
God’s love is a consuming fire and not simply divine empathy with the human condition.
We can speak of the secret will of God so long at it is always seen to be in the service of
his revealed will, which is consistently kind and loving. The purposes of the hidden God
(Deus absconditus) are at one with his will disclosed in Jesus Christ. God in his naked
majesty (Deus nudus) is not to be separated from the God of revelation (Deus
revelatus). 475
From a natural point of view, we have two theologians dealing with the Divine mystery
and revelation. Both of them were more or less compelled to explain the potential
‘change’ that the transition from mystery to revelation implies. Both of them
safeguarded the transcendence and truthfulness of God on the one hand, and the passion
and compassion of God on the other hand. Bloesch was able to employ more refined
472 Ibid.
473 Ibid.
474 Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Lord and Savior, CF, (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1997), p.172.
475 Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love, pp.63-64.
192

theological concepts, but both of the authors explored and explained God’s revelation in
Christ and both of them made use of the Pauline concepts of mystery and revelation.
These similarities qualify both that unknown author of Ad Diognetum and Bloesch to be
characterized within Dull’s dialectical model. Both authors have their primary
allegiance to that model that was redefined as ‘the Person model’.
Revelation and Religion
Both Bloesch and the author of Ad Diognetum share a critical attitude to religion. We
have seen that the author of Ad Diognetum rejected pagan religion and Judaism. This
drastic conclusion was related to the decisive revelation that made religion unnecessary.
God has no need of materialistic religion and God’s revelation has substituted all man-
made religion. This is radical revelation. Bloesch did not go so far, and he was utterly
polite and objective but due to his fideistic revelationism he also had a tendency to take
a critical view on religion. This was not an accidental occurrence. Both Bloesch and the
author of Ad Diognetum had a strong position on God’s transcendence and human
tragedy, and both started from the necessity of Divine revelation. We may say that both
authors represented theological dialectics. This premise led to the similar critical
conclusions. On religion Bloesch wrote:
In my view, which is close to that of Barth and Kraemer, the revelation of Jesus Christ
stands in judgment over all religions, including institutional Christianity. The beliefs and
experiences in all religions need to be purified and tested by God’s self-revelation in
Jesus Christ. The way to truth and salvation lies not in deepening our own religious
sensibilities, even if these are Christian sensibilities, but in being converted by the Spirit
of God to the One who is himself the way, the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6). 476
Bloesch admitted that people of world religions, can meet the hidden Christ, but only as
judge and not as Lord and Savior. 477 Bloesch was hesitant to inter-religious dialogue.
”We are justified neither by spirituality nor by morality but only by the vicarious,
forgiving love of God as revealed and fulfilled in Jesus Christ.” 478 Behind Bloesch’s
way of reasoning was the great distance between the finitude of man and the infinity of
God. In an interview one year before his departure, he received the question on what
aspect of Barth’s theology that had been most influential on his own theology. Bloesch
answered:
476 Ibid., p.52.
477 Ibid., p.53.
478 Ibid.
193

The great difference between finitude and infinity, between this world and the higher,
spiritual world, an emphasis on the ‘wholly otherness’ of God, the cleavage between God
and humankind. All of these are all in Calvin too, and in Luther, but Barth brought that
debate up to date, so to speak. 479
In his book, The Ground of Certainty: Toward an Evangelical Theology of Revelation,
Bloesch went through and scrutinized many different historical and modern religious
expressions and was consistent in upholding the demarcation line between religion in
general and the revealed faith in particular. They represented two different worlds and
were not compatible. His fideistic revelationism also made it possible to denounce our
own modern gods that exist among us, in spite of enlightenment and emancipation.
Bloesch wrote:
It has been said that with the dawning of the Age of Reason man has become
emancipated from the spell of mythology. But as Gilson remarks: ‘Just like the world of
Thales and of Plato, our own modern world is ‘full of gods’. There are blind Evolution,
clear-sighted Orthogenesis, benevolent Pragmatism and others which it is more advisable
not to name’. Luther stated that when God is gone, ‘the fairy tales arrive’ and the modern
world has witnessed a host of new myths and gods that truly rival those of ancient Greece
and Rome. 480
Here Bloesch detected and criticized the mythological and camouflaging character of
the Enlightenment project, and in so doing he developed a kind of cultural critique. He
was able to do that from his high position of fideistic revelationism, and we may add
that most of the apologists, and in a special sense the author of Ad Diognetum,
developed a similar critique of contemporary civilization. In the case of Ad Diognetum
Revelational Theology made that possible.
In following the reformed theologian, Hendrikus Berkhof, Bloesch suggested that
the term “general revelation” should probably be abandoned “because of its ambiguity
and imprecision.” 481 Bloesch preferred to speak of God’s presence in nature or history,
but this presence “does not become a revelation of his grace and mercy until it is
perceived in the light of Jesus Christ.” 482 When the author of Ad Diognetum in 7.2
presented his cosmology it was to a large extent Christology. The holy and
incomprehensible Word was the very artificer and Creator of the universe. He
established structure and harmony in the outer world as well as in the inner world, in the
479 Burnett, “Donald Bloesch,”, p.3.
480 Donald G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty: Toward an Evangelical Theology of Revelation,
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1971), pp.165-166.
481 Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit, p.164.
482 Ibid., p.164.
194

hearts of the Christians. In 10.2, we learned that the world was made out of Divine love
for humankind and that love sent “his only-begotten Son”. There was an interplay
between the world and the Logos, between external and internal structures, and between
cosmology and Christology in Ad Diognetum. 483 It seems as if a so-called ‘general
revelation’ was derived from and even integrated into the ‘special revelation’ through
Christ. If this interpretation is correct, we come close to Bloesch’s understanding.
If revelation is essentially a personal encounter, general revelation would seem to
contradict this essential dimension of revelation. If revelation is defined as God’s
effectual communication of his will and purpose in humanity, then we have no revelation
in nature that can be positively conjoined with the biblical meanings of ‘unveiling’
(apokalypsis) and ‘manifestation’ (from phaneroo)…It is probably better to regard this
general working of God as an exhibition or display of his power and goodness than as a
revelation that effectively unveils or conveys his plan or purpose for our lives. Through
his general working in nature and conscience, we are exposed to the mercy of God as
well as to his wrath and judgment, but God’s light and truth are disclosed to us only in the
encounter with Jesus Christ as presented in Holy Scripture. 484
Bloesch argued that believers in the Old Testament times received revelation as an
anticipatory or preparatory pre-form of the final revelation in Christ. In order to
understand the light of God’s truth in the Old Testament, or in nature, history or
conscience, we must view it from the perspective of the full disclosure of this light in
Jesus Christ. 485 God is constantly operating in all parts of creation through his Logos or
Word. One single part can not declare itself as independent. It is all God’s creation and
the key to it is Christ. “A theology of creation is one aspect of the Word of God, which
sees creation, reconciliation and redemption as an indissoluble unity.” 486 This unity is
what we to a very high degree find also in Ad Diognetum.
Revelation and Philosophy
Both Bloesch and the author of Ad Diognetum were suspicious of philosophy. Given
Bloesch’s view of the relationship between faith and reason, it is not surprising that he
was critical of philosophy and only saw a limited place for it within theology.
Philosophy was not en enemy of theology, since the Spirit of God is at work in the
world as well as in the Church. Philosophy represented the pinnacle of human wisdom,
483 Wickert, “Christus kommt zur Welt,” p.468.
484 Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit, p.164.
485 Ibid., p.165.
486 Ibid., p.173.
195

and as such it should be respected. 487 The relation between faith and reason was not an
“either-or,” but “both-and.” 488 The partial truths of philosophy could be brought into the
service of theology and Bloesch’s approach to philosophy can be said to be
“utilitarian.” 489 However, when that was said, Bloesch was careful to state the primacy
of revelation.
Just as reason is not completed but overturned by revelation, so philosophy, the very
human attempt to fathom the ultimate reality, finds itself in tension if not in conflict with
theology, the faithful explication of God’s self-revelation in the sacred history mirrored in
Holy Scripture…Theology on the other hand, is the systematic endeavor to render a
compelling and faithful witness to the truth of divine revelation. 490
If the author of Ad Diognetum rejected philosophy, we may say that Bloesch was
suspicious of philosophy. The relation between theology and philosophy was not one
of synthesis or correlation, but one of conflict and contradiction. Within the
“utilitarian” approach, Bloesch was free to denounce philosophy as a world view
with metaphysical claims. “I contend that every philosophy represents a
rationalization for a false theology of religion and that true theology necessarily
excludes philosophy-not its concerns, not even its language, but its world view, its
metaphysical claims.” 491 Bloesch was critical of those Church Fathers, who in
vigorous efforts to win intellectuals in Antiquity, treated Hellenistic philosophy as a
steppingstone to the Gospel, favored Platonism 492 and tried to present Christianity as
487 Ibid., p.49.
488 Ibid., p.61.
489 Ibid., p.49.
490 Ibid., p.38.
491 Ibid., p.43.
492 Platonism offered for many educated Christians in Antiquity many points of resemblance to
Christianity. According to Schaff’s idealistic view, Platonism, in spite of its serious errors, can be
described as: “spiritual and idealistic, maintaining the supremacy of spirit over matter, of eternal ideas
over all temporal phenomena, and the pre-existence and immortality of the soul; it is theistic, making the
supreme God above all the secondary deities, the beginning, middle, and end of all things; it is ethical,
looking towards present and future rewards and punishments; it is religious, basing ethics, politics, and
physics upon the authority of the Lawgiver and Ruler of the universe; it leads thus to the very threshold of
the revelation of God in Christ; though it knows not this blessed name nor his saving grace, and obscures
its glimpses of truth by serious errors. Upon the whole influence of Platonism, especially as represented
in the moral essays of Plutarch, has been and is to this day elevating, stimulating, and healthy, calling the
mind away from the vanities of earth to the contemplation of eternal truth, beauty and goodness. To not a
few of the noblest teachers of the church, from Justin the philosopher to Neander the historian, Plato has
been a schoolmaster who led them to Christ.” (Quoted in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
p.2:725). However, it was precisely this idealism and spirituality including a contempt for matter, that
rendered it difficult for so many to accept Divine incarnation (my comment).
196

superior wisdom and morality. 493 In that way grace became only an activation of the
powers of reason existent in man, and revelation was regarded as supernatural only
in its form, and not in its substance. 494 In line with Tertullian 495 and Irenaeus, the
author of Ad Diognetum represented another way of relating to philosophy. With the
help of Pauline and Johannine theologies, he was able to reproduce the great truths of
God’s mystery and revelation, and those Divine truths were of pivotal importance.
As a matter of fact, they helped the author to distance himself from philosophy and
to criticize philosophy and here is a remarkable affinity between the unknown author
of Ad Diognetum and Donald Bloesch.
Revelation as Salvation
Both authors were eager to show that revelation and salvation belong together.
Revelation was not to be understood as an act of information that contributed to new
metaphysical knowledge or as an experience of inner illumination of Divine light. In
Bloesch’s theology as well as in Ad Diognetum, God’s self-revelation in Christ is
closely related to the salvation that he accomplished once and for all. In Revelational
Theology, we noticed that sending, revelation and salvation were interconnected. The
state of humanity was characterized as inability (ἀδύνατο). 496 That necessitated a savior
(ὁ σωτήρ) and the Savior came and accomplished salvation “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) as a
substitute and as our representative before God. The author of Ad Diognetum stated all
this in the soteriological climax in 9.1-6, and he made it with rhetorical mastery. As a
modern theologian, Bloesch consciously upheld the old Pauline doctrine of atonement.
He wrote:
Evangelical theology affirms the vicarious, substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. It
does not claim that this theory does justice to all aspects of Christ’s atoning work, but it
does see substitution as the heart of the atonement. The crucial point is that Jesus suffers
493 Ibid., p.213.
494 Ibid.
495 Bloesch refers to Tert.Praescr.Haer.7, i.e. Tertullian’s work ‘On Prescriptions Against Heretics’, in
ANF, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1989), p.3:246.
496 In one of his works Bloesch has headlined the chapter on the state of humanity as Total Depravity
with subdivisions as The Grandeur and Misery of Mankind and Total and Universal Corruption. Bloesch
is careful to point out the seriousness of the human condition. See Donald G. Bloesch, Essential of
Evangelical Theology, (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), pp.88, 90.
197

in our stead, and he also conquers in our stead. Christ is our representative: he represents
God to humanity and humanity to God. 497
Both authors agreed on justification as an essential element in salvation. The author of
Ad Diognetum expressed this Pauline idea as imputed righteousness with a beautiful
chiasmus: “the wickedness of many should be concealed in the one righteous, and the
righteousness of the one should make righteous many wicked” (9.5). The author framed
the idea of justification as an exchange, and Bloesch interpreted the work of Christ in
almost the same way when he referred to Luther and wrote:
Luther referred to the “happy exchange.” Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us; our sin
is imputed to him. His righteousness covers our sin; our sin is hidden in his righteousness.
Our justification is grounded in his sacrifice; his sacrifice is the altar on which our sins
are laid. 498
The author of Ad Diognetum was living in the “time of righteousness, which is now.”
(9.1) Here time is a new order, and it is therefore possible to interpret the “time of
righteousness” as not only a historic change but as a continuous state. Bloesch
expounded the present implication of justification when he wrote:
The exchanged life is an ongoing reality and not simply a change in our status before
God. It is characterized by the substitution of Christ’s humility for Evangelical theology
sees Christ as our present substitute as well as our past sin-bearer our vanity, his courage
for our fear, his love for our bitterness, his power for our weakness, his holiness for our
sin (J. Hudson Taylor). 499
Revelation and Ethics
Both authors hold together faith and love and, revelation and ethics. In chapter ten,
the author of Ad Diognetum turned directly to Diognetus with a series of exhortations.
The Christian Gospel had to be received in faith and expressed in love. If revelation in
the foregoing chapters had an objective character, it was now a subjective revelation so
that Diognetus by believing and loving will acquire true knowledge. According to
Bloesch, revelation and salvation had two poles, the objective and the subjective pole. 500
Faith and love were the personal correlations of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. In
faith (pistis) our experience of life and the world are transformed and redirected, 501 and
497 Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord, (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1997), p.158.
498 Ibid., p.159.
499 Ibid., p.160.
500 Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit, p.15.
501 Ibid.
198

in love (agape) we learn to sacrifice for the good of others. 502 It is highly interesting to
recognize the striking similarity between the two authors’ way of formulating the
subjective ‘results’ of revelation. They had nothing to do with cosmic speculations,
Gnostic experiences or lofty theology. It was rather a very down to earth way of living
by faith in God and showing that faith in love towards ones neighbor and even to suffer
for that faith. Just like the author of Ad Diognetum, Bloesch referred to the eudaemonia
or happiness as the goal of human life, 503 and both of them had to qualify the concept of
eudaemonia. The author of Ad Diognetum made it through a series of negations in 10.5
and Bloesch did it by contrasting the classic concept with the biblical concept of
makarios, blessedness.
Classical humanism, which was reborn in the Enlightenment, teaches an ethics of
eudaemonia or happiness as the goal of human existence; theology emphasizes
blessedness (from the Greek makarios), which is qualitatively different from its worldly
counterpart. While happiness means the fulfillment of the self, the realization of our
dreams and desires, blessedness means the crucifixion of the self for the sake of the glory
of God and the service of our neighbor. While happiness signifies a life free from discord
and misery, blessedness involves taking suffering on oneself in order to rescue the
perishing and dying. Happiness is dependant on the circumstances of life; blessedness is
contingent on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which may occur even when life’s
circumstances are most dismal and hopeless. 504
However, we can not find a doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Ad Diognetum. As we have
seen, the author does not even mention the Spirit. Nevertheless, he certainly trusted the
power of God and he urged Diognetus to become an imitator of God and to speak the
mysteries of God. (10.6-7) In so doing he would understand the true blessedness of the
Christian martyrs. The Christian life in faith and love was here described not only as an
alternative to classical wisdom or schools of philosophy in Antiquity. It was also
proposed as a calm but consistent confrontation to the world view and moral basis of the
Greco-Roman culture, just as we observe in chapters five and six of Ad Diognetum.
502 Ibid., p.54.
503 Ibid.
504 Ibid.
199

Revelation and Hermeneutics
The author of Ad Diognetum was not occupied with a theory of hermeneutics, but he
applied certain interpretative methods. In ‘constructing’ a Revelational Theology and
locating it to the central part of the work, he developed an interpretative norm, which
helped him to carry out his speaking and writing project and to create significance. This
hermeneutic and theological maneuver ought to be regarded as a rather sophisticated
strategy in order to answer the three interrogations that Diognetus put forward and to
translate evangelical meaning. The anonymous author had made a true evangelical
discovery of the centrality of the Christological revelation. So he arranged the literary
material out of this discovery.
In the theology of Donald Bloesch, we recognize the same strategy. Although he
viewed the Holy Scriptures as inspired and authoritative writings, 505 he nevertheless
made a distinction between the words of the Bible and the revelation through Jesus
Christ, the Word of God. “The content of the Bible is indeed God’s self-revelation in
Jesus Christ,” 506 and “the purpose of the inspiration of writers and writings is to serve
God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.” 507 We may say that Bloesch made use of three
circles of revelation. 508 The inner circle was the living Word of God as revealed in
Christ, the middle circle was Holy Scripture as the inspired and written words of the
Bible and the outer circle was the preaching ministry and spoken words of the Church
and its tradition. In this way, revelation had a personal, a propositional and an
experiential pole, 509 but the primary circle was the Christ-event itself. However, the
Christ-Event also included its interpretation and so the biblical writings are necessary in
order to understand the events of salvation history as well as in the life of Christ. The
three poles or circles affirm and reaffirm each other. Just like the reformers insisted on a
Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, so we are allowed to interpret the
New Testament with a Christological focus. 510 Bloesch described three models of
505 Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration and Interpretation, (Downers Grove,
Ill: IVP, 1994), pp.25-62.
506 Ibid., p.56.
507 Ibid.,p.120.
508 Ibid., pp.155-158.
509 Ibid., p.42.
200

Scriptural authority; 511 the sacramental, the scholastic and the liberal or modernist. He
favored the first. “The sacramental model sees the Bible as a divinely appointed
medium or channel of revelation.” 512
The underlying hermeneutical concepts of this Inquiry have been signification and
significance. These concepts can easily be paralleled to Bloesch’s programmatic “Word
and Spirit”. He elaborated on those two concepts quite extensively, and presented a
thoroughgoing analysis of modern hermeneutic. 513 He proposed “a historical-pneumatic
hermeneutics in which Word and Spirit are joined together in dynamic unity.” 514 On the
one hand, he agreed to begin with the literal meaning of a text in order to grasp the
author’s intention. 515 On the other hand, Bloesch insisted “that the text does not yield its
full meaning until we see it in its theological relation to the wider context - the sacred
history of the Bible culminating in Jesus Christ - and appropriate its message for
ourselves.” 516 Bloesch believed that we must make a clear-cut distinction between the
historical meaning of the text, and its revelational or spiritual meaning. 517 It is of equal
importance to understand the Word among all words, and to be able to draw out the
spiritual significance out of the text. In interpretation, there is an intricate interaction
between Word and Spirit. The reader can use many different kinds of historical and
grammatical analytical strategies 518 but in the end as well as in the process, he is in need
of the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Even though Bloesch had developed a four-point
program for the historical-pneumatical interpretation, 519 he eagerly emphasized the
510 Ibid., p.194.
511 Ibid., pp.40-45.
512 Ibid., p.41.
513 Ibid.,pp.171-221.
514 Ibid., p.200.
515 Ibid., p.174.
516 Ibid., p.182.
517 Ibid., p.190.
518 Such strategies have been successfully employed in this Inquiry with the help of the six-point
hermeneutical program of Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne G. Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and
Processes of Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1981).
519 Ibid., pp.178-179. Bloesch suggested the following points: (1) Firstly, one must approach the Bible
in reverence and humility, (2) Secondly, one must here rely on tools of research and clarify the language
of the text in a critical methodology, (3) Thirdly, it is not enough to criticize the text, we must now let the
201

vitalizing role of the Spirit. Due to the work of the Spirit, the Spirit that inspired the
writers of the Holy Scripture, Bloesch believed in the sensus plenior. He quoted
William LaSor and wrote:
To discover the plenitude of meaning in the text (sensus plenior), he says, we must
always begin with its literal meaning. The sensus plenior ‘is not a substitute for
grammatico-historical exegesis, but a development from such exegesis. It is not a reading
into the text of theological doctrines and theories, but a reading from the text of the
fullness of meaning required by God’s complete revelation. 520
The hermeneutics of signification and significance can be translated into a hermeneutic
of Word and Spirit. It safeguards both the objective and subjective dimensions of
interpretation, and it takes seriously the resources of the text and the resources of the
Spirit. Interpretation remains incomplete as pure intentionalism or literalism without the
prayer for the spiritual significance of the Word. When Word and Spirit work together,
hermeneutics comes close to Vanhoozer’s way of stating the matter:
The Spirit in other words, discloses the significance of the (past) Word of God as it
relates to all times. Vitality – the Sprit’s enlivening of the letter – requires us to read not
only for meaning but for significance, or to be more exact, for one multilayered meaning
and for an abundance of significance. 521
Thus, we have seen that revelation is of utmost importance for many fields of theology.
If we take seriously God’s self-revelation in Christ, both Revelational Theology and
fideistic revelationism, contribute to a useful theological hermeneutic, and interpreted in
line with Bloesch, we may also describe the praxis of Word and Spirit as a work of
hermeneutical theology. In the very end, it could also be argued that the author of Ad
Diognetum, more or less consciously, in contextualizing the revealed Gospel of Christ,
utilized an early Christian version of hermeneutical theology.
Revelation and Apologetics
Revelational Theology could be interpreted as a special type of ‘modern’
apologetics. Bernard Ramm differentiated between three types of apologetics. 522 Firstly,
systems that stress the uniqueness of the Christian experience of grace. Ramm listed
text criticize us and (4) Fourthly, when radical doubt is pushed to the limit we end in the state of prayer.
We move beyond criticism to receptivity, in which we are open to hearing and learning from the Spirit of
God.
520 Ibid., p.188.
521 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in the Text?, p.421.
522 Bernard Ramm, Varieties of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961),
pp.14-17.
202

Pascal, Kierkegaard and Brunner as exponents of this type. Secondly, systems that
stress natural theology as the point at which apologetic begin. Ramm mentioned
Aquinas, Butler and Tennant as representatives of this second type. Thirdly, systems
that stress revelation as the foundation upon which apologetics must be built. Ramm
pointed to Augustine, Calvin and Kuyper as advocates for this third type. Revelational
Theology has probably much in common with the third type that stressed the
importance of revelation. It takes its point of departure in the Word of God and it shares
the conviction of the noetic effects of sin. Human reason is affected by sin and is in its
natural state not open to God. We are in need of revelation. This third type may also be
characterized as the “presuppositional model.” 523 The apologist must presuppose the
truth of Christianity as the proper starting point in apologetics. Most of the names
mentioned as its advocates are apologists who work with a firm belief in the Holy
Scripture as their starting point. Here we find Cornelius van Til, Gordon Clark, Greg
Bahnsen and Francis Schaeffer. The author of Ad Diognetum and Donald Bloesch
would both agree on the importance of Holy Scripture in apologetics, but both of them
would accentuate the Gospel revelation of Jesus Christ as the primary starting point.
Apologetics in this respect comes close to preaching. We were in chapter two of the
Inquiry, able to observe, that early Christian apologetics were a part of the missionary
program of the early Church. It was closely related to early Christian kerygmatic
preaching. We mentioned Kerygma Petri as a good example. One message of Ad
Diognetum is that we ought to hold that historical truth in mind. Bloesch would
probably agree. He proposed a theology of confrontation, not in an aggressive or
offensive way, as we discussed when interpreting chapter three and four of Ad
Diognetum. On the contrary, the irenic Bloesch pleaded for a respectful but convincing
kerygmatic, and not an apologetic theology. 524 His approach might be termed “Christ-
transforming culture.” 525 Bloesch wrote:
Against an apologetic accomodationist theology on the one hand and a descriptive
intratextual theology on the other hand, I affirm a kerygmatic confessional theology,
which sallies forth to battle unbelief-not on the basis of a common criterion of unbelief
523 Stanley N Gundry and Steven B. Cowan,(eds.), Five Views of Apologetics, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2000), pp.18-19.
524 Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit, p.262.
525 Ibid., 263.
203

ut on the basis of the new criterion of the wisdom of the gospel, which displaces all
other norms and standards. 526
In line with Barth, Bloesch was hesitant in his attitude to apologetics. He did not regard
it as a pre-kerygmatic or a pre-dogmatic enterprise. It should rather be integrated into
theology and utilized in true evangelism. “An apologetics in the service of a kerygmatic
theology of confrontation will enable the church to regain the offensive and rout the
forces of evil.” 527 The Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum could eprobably be
evaluated as such a transforming kerygmatic theology that Bloesch affirmed. It has
three timeless advantages. Firstly, it is rooted in the Gospel, “which is the power of God
for salvation of everyone who believes.” 528 Secondly, it is rooted in the kerygmatic
preaching of the early Church as already has been shown. Thirdly, it is rooted in Holy
Scripture and especially in the apostolic preaching in Acts and in the New Testament.
Summary
In the first part of this chapter, I described Avery Dull’s five models of Revelation
and pointed out their merits and weaknesses. I also discussed how these models could
be related to Revelational Theology. The first four of Dull’s models (Revelation as
doctrine, history, person and experience) indicated resemblances to Revelational
Theology. The fourth model was adjusted and labeled ‘the Person model’. The fifth so-
called New-awareness model was not compatible with Revelational Theology. I doing
this categorization and comparison, we noticed that Revelational Theology in itself
constitutes a multi-model theology. In the second part of this chapter I presented the
fideistic revelationism of Donald G. Bloesch and compared it to the Revelational
Theology of Ad Diognetum. We noticed several affinities and discussed their
significance for theology. I also paralleled Bloesch’s theological hermeneutics of ‘Word
and Spirit’ with the hermeneutics of signification and significance and stated their
compatibility. In the final discussion, I once again related Revelational Theology to
Dull’s models of revelation, and focused on the dialectical model now reinterpreted as
‘the Person model’. In bringing in Donald G. Bloesch as another ‘revelationist’ and
taking advantage of his ‘non-aggressive’ evangelical and kerygmatic theology, it was
526 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p.217.
527 Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology. 2 vols., (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2006), p.2:287.
528 Ro. 1.16 in NIV
204

and still is possible to regard the ancient Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum as a
powerful and convincing message of God’s self-revelation and salvation in and through
Jesus Christ. That message of Mystery revealed attracted many searching souls during
the second century and is still the raison d’être of the Church.
205

CONCLUSION
206

CHAPTER 8
REFLECTIONS ON THE INQUIRY
These things do not look like the works of man; they are the power of God, they are
proofs of his presence. For what man had any knowledge at all of what God was, before
he came? (7.8-9)
Introduction
In this last chapter, I intend to recapitulate the most important findings of the Inquiry
and discuss its results and methods. I will also dwell on its theory or rather theology and
in so doing we will be reminded of the lasting theological contributions of Ad
Diognetum. In order to be congenial with the protreptic and evangelical aim of Ad
Diognetum, that is to help us grow is faith and love in the revealed mystery of Jesus
Christ, I also intend to restate the unknown author's final plea to Diognetus and to all of
us.
The Results of the Inquiry
Let us first recapitulate the aim and research question of this Inquiry. The aim was
formulated as to examine the Revelational Theology in Ad Diognetum. The research
question was described in this fourfold way as
to understand and describe the central position of the theme of revelation, and to
explain and evaluate it in terms of Revelational Theology,
to explain and evaluate the configuration of Revelational Theology as a system
of doctrine,
to understand, describe, explain and evaluate the implications of Revelational
Theology for the work as a whole and
to evaluate and apply Revelational Theology as a positive challenge and
contribution to modern theology.
This fourfold research question has in this Inquiry been thoroughly answered.
Revelational Theology has been understood, described, explained, evaluated and
applied. With the help of rhetorical analysis, we have been able to demonstrate that
chapters' seven to nine constitute an exquisite theological treatise.
207

Revelation and Signification
In this Inquiry, the concept of revelation is central. With the help of an exegetical
examination we noticed how the author employed three different verbs (ἐπιδεικνυμι,
φανεόω and ἀποκαλύπτω) to underline the revelational message. That message was
contrasted to its counterpart, the concept of Mysterion (μυστήρ). Mysterion was used
in a non-cultic way and included both the idea of hiddenness or secrecy and the idea of
the unfathomable or impenetrable. In Corpus Paulinum Mysterion designated God's
plan which in Old Testament times was kept secret but which in New Testament times
had been revealed through Christ. In Ad Diognetum the author utilized this Pauline non-
cultic concept of Mysterion and connected it to a Pauline soteriology and redemptive-
historical view of history. The author also combined these thought-elements with a
Johannine variety of "realized eschatology”, a simplified Logos-Christology and a
personalized view of God as both passionate and compassionate. Furthermore, the
author was an heir to Judeo-Christian monotheism, which probably was colored by
Middle Platonic transcendentalism. This Theocentric concept of God as invisible and
immutable, was contrasted to the author's view of man's tragic existence as marked by
inability, ignorance, impiety and iniquity. The characteristic of the human state was
interpreted as the ‘negative’ anthropological background that necessitated the sending
of the Son as Savior. Only a Divine intervention and a supernatural break-through could
change the hopeless situation of humanity. The ‘positive’ background was found in the
author's ‘evangelical’ view of God as genuine love. Revelation and redemption were
described as acts of Divine love and self-determination. They were grounded in the
character of God, and they took place in a friendly cosmos created and structured by
God through God’s Logos. In sublime rhetorical style, the author painted the climax of
salvation and justification through the Son. Thus, the mystery of ages was disclosed in
Christ, but it was still something mysterious and remained a mystery. Nevertheless, the
turning-point in the Christ-event, had changed the course of both human and personal
history. We were invited to participate in a revealed mystery or Mystery Revealed.
Revelation as a Doctrinal System
In virtue of this Inquiry, we were in Ad Diognetum able to detect a comprehensive
doctrinal system that was defined as ‘Revelational Theology’. It was built up of six
distinct doctrines that were all found in the revelational part (chapters 7-9) of Ad
208

Diognetum: Theocentrism, Christology, eschatology, soteriology, anthropology and
cosmology. ‘Revelational Theology’ was the designation under which I choose to
summarize the major theological content of Ad Diognetum. It was defined as ‘a system
of doctrines which shows how the transcendent, sovereign and invisible God, Creator
and Master of a structured and harmonious universe, in his unfathomable goodness and
love, as an eschatological and supernatural event, revealed his mysterious counsel and
sovereign plan, on how to save man from iniquity, ignorance and mortality, through his
Son's revelatory and redemptive work, in order to bestow on man righteousness, eternal
life and to offer him participation in a Mystery revealed.’ With the help of the
hermeneutics of signification the Revelational Theology was detected, understood,
described, defined and explained.
With the help of the hermeneutics of significance Revelational Theology was
evaluated, affirmed, compared and applied. We noticed that it colored the content of Ad
Diognetum as a whole. From the Theocentric point of departure, the author was able to
attack Pagan and Jewish religions and philosophy (chapters 2-4, 8.1-5). The distinctive
nature of the Christian life in the world (chapters 5-6) could be understood against the
background of the eschatological and soteriological dialectics in Revelational Theology.
Personal Christian faith (chapter 10) included knowledge and imitation of the Father
and sharing the love that had been revealed through Christ. The apostolic tradition and
the ministry of the Church (chapters 11-12) were described as a continuous revelational
activity by the Logos-Didaskalos himself. It was suggested that Revelational Theology
constituted an organic link between the main part (chapters 1-10) and the appendix
(chapters 11-12). This should not, of course, be interpreted narrowly, that we claim to
have uttered the final word on the crucial question on the integrity of the writing.
Nevertheless, this Inquiry has contributed to a deeper material understanding of the
integrity of the text of Ad Diognetum. We also refused to tie the research to an
Alexandrian, Eleusinian, Valentinian, Smyrnean or Aurelian reading of the text. On the
contrary, we emphasized the importance of working with the ancient and enigmatic text
per se. Too often isagogic hypotheses have concealed the significance of the content of
Ad Diognetum. Maybe this is the reason way its Reve1ational Theology has been
neglected? It was also demonstrated that Revelational Theology was ‘constructed’ on
fundamental structures of Pauline and Johannine theologies. Revelational Theology
could be regarded as an affirmation of the apostolic teaching in a time when the
apostolic Gospel was challenged by Gnostics as Marcion and Valentinus. Revelational
209

Theology probably had a great significance not only for Diognetus, but also for his
audience and the challenged Church of the second century.
Furthermore, we evaluated Revelational Theology with the help of the Lakatosian
program of Nancey Murphy and in that way we discovered how the revelational core
was related to the auxiliary hypotheses and the positive and negative heuristics that
allowed for new data. We stated that Revelational Theology certainly was an
achievement, but also admitted some limitations due to lack of biblical data such as
information on the historical Jesus and a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Revelational
Theology did not claim to be a final theological system. The author was an
accomplished theologian of his time, and he had great rhetorical skills. His emphasis
was protreptic. He wanted most of all to prove that the mystery of all ages had been
revealed in Christ, and he was eager to persuade Diognetus to participate in the
mysterious open secret. God had given all things at once. Revelational Theology, as it
was presented in this Inquiry, could be regarded as the key that opens up a door to the
rich content of a beautiful and brilliant work of early Christian Greek literature.
Revelation and Significance
In the last chapter, two theologians were invited to reframe the Revelational
Theology of Ad Diognetum. Avery Dull’s models of revelation helped us to classify
Revelational Theology as multi-model theology including elements of doctrine, history,
experience and person. Donald G. Bloesch’s fideistic revelationism had many
resemblances to Revelational Theology. It helped us to translate and apply Revelational
Theology into the modern era and in that way Bloesch contributed to the enhancement
of the significance of Revelational Theology.
The result of this Inquiry is not only that the revelational theme of Ad Diognetum is
confirmed but that it can be described and explained as a Revelational Theology. The
distinctive character of Ad Diognetum as a work consisting of a unique theological
approach that distinguished it from the apologies of the second century is the main
result of this Inquiry. While it is correct to say that all apologists of that time wrote in
the same cultural sphere, expressed similar concerns and utilized a common set of
literary strategies, it is also correct to state that the Revelational Theology of Ad
Diognetum was an outstanding theological achievement in its own time. In three
chapters the unknown author captured the biblical doctrines of revelation and salvation
and framed them with theological power and rhetorical brilliance. When comparing
210

Revelational Theology with Dull’s models, we found that it could best be described as a
multi-model theology although it had its centre of gravity in ‘the Person model’ with a
dialectic element. It also appeared to have many and striking affinities with Bloesch
fideistic revelationism, and that was clarified in topics as revelation, transcendence,
religion, philosophy, ethics, hermeneutics and apologetics. While the author of Ad
Diognetum wrote his treatise in a certain historic time, his Revelational Theology, due
to its biblical and redemptive foundation and dialectic orientation, seems to have a more
or less timeless character. This is also an important discovery and a result of the
comparison with modern theologies in the application of Revelational Theology. It is
reasonable to argue that Revelational Theology goes to the very heart of the Christian
faith. We need both mystery and revelation. If we exclusively choose only the mystery,
we will probably end up in total subjectivism, and repeat the implosion of the mystery
cults. If we only choose revelation, we will probably end up in triumphalism, and repeat
the explosion of sectarianism and Gnosticism. The author of Ad Diognetum was
anchored in biblical theology and was able to distance himself and guide his hearer(s)
and reader(s) to avoid theological extremism. In so doing, he crafted a powerful
Christian alternative. His contemporaries were challenged.
The mystery religions in the Greco-Roman society, offered at least three values to
the initiated individual. 1 Firstly, they offered personal religion. The person was brought
into a special relationship with a deity. Secondly, the initiated individual was promised
certain benefits such as the protection of the deity by means of different ceremonies
themselves, which worked automatically. Thirdly, the individual was enlightened in the
initiation rite where “things were enacted” (dromena), “things were said” (logomena)
and most importantly “things were shown” (deiknymena). When examining Clement of
Alexandria and his work Protrepticus, we were reminded of how educated people
turned to the mystery cults in search of a personal religion, which also was compatible
with the Paideia vision for the evolution of humankind. 2
The author of Ad Diognetum knew how to present his case. Christianity also had a
mystery revealed. It centered around the transcendent and compassionate God. It
welcomed the unworthy and sinners and offered salvation, because it had a soteriology.
This ‘new’ religion was not only old; it was from the very beginning. Christians
1 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, pp.253-254.
2 Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, pp.55-67.
211

interpreted history in eschatological categories and eschatological time created an
urgency and dignity of life. The evolutionary scheme of the sophisticated philosophy
was hereby challenged. The Son of God had made an intervention into history and had
accomplished revelation and redemption. Christianity had a Christology in the real
person of the Son of God. Christians knew the misery and tragedy of life. Their
anthropology was serious, but they did not despair. They trusted the grace of God. They
knew they were citizens in an ordered and friendly cosmos, and they contributed to
stability and structure in society. By faith, they were partakers in the Divine mystery
that now had been revealed and through persistent love they were able to stand false
accusations and persecution. They knew human life was short and risky, but they had
the hope of eternal life in the kingdom of God. The revelational event in Christ was a
turning point that changed the course of both human life and personal history.
The Methods of the Inquiry
This Inquiry had a wide scope and utilized many different analytical strategies. We
may here make a distinction between an ‘actual-research level’ and a ‘meta-research
level’. On the actual-research level, we may say that the Inquiry was a literary
examination in the field of patristics using inductive method. However, on the meta-
research level the inquiry can be described as a hermeneutical project using more of
deductive method in the field of systematic theology. The two methodological research
levels were applied and created a dynamic that showed to have at least two
characteristics.
A Hermeneutical Basis
The first characteristic is hermeneutics. It is an undeniable fact that hermeneutics has
been of fundamental importance for this Inquiry. The structure of both the research plan
and this research presentation has been carried out in accordance with the six-point
program of Virkler and Ayayo. Their hermeneutical program was practically oriented in
suggesting different types of analyses. We also made use of Ricoeur's and Vanhoozer’s
more reflective hermeneutics and gave an account for an integrated approach, a
hermeneutics of signification and significance. Those concepts structured the two parts
of the dissertation and were employed not only in the disposition of the material, but
more importantly in the theological analysis. Signification and significance were
connected to and compatible with Bloesch’s theology of Word and Spirit and proved to
212

e the underlying hermeneutical structure of the Inquiry. This hermeneutic can be
seemingly simple, but when applied in its full potential it turned out to be both useful
and profound. It established an interpretative norm that was used to enhance the
significance of the text. The revelational part (chapters 7-9) functioned as such an
interpretative norm that was further applied to the text and its context. Thus, the author
framed a textual core that helped him to reframe the complete text and to widen its
significance.
An Interdisciplinary Design
This Inquiry can also be characterized by its interdisciplinary design. It was worked
out in the field of theology, but integrated hermeneutics, rhetoric, Church history,
isagogic, philosophy, patristics, exegetics, linguistics, apologetics and systematic
theology. These ten disciplines have all been fruitful and this is worth noticing. All
disciplines have contributed to the breadth and depth of the Inquiry. However, when this
has been stated it is probably reasonable to admit that the theological focus has been
predominant. This is one more characteristic of this Inquiry. Revelational Theology as it
has been presented here is a theological construct. We may ask if there is not is risk of
reading too much theology into three small chapters in an ancient Christian work? The
question is relevant. However, just as you can write a dissertation on the prologue of the
Gospel of John consisting of eight-teen verses, or the first three introductory and
majestic verses of the prologue, so it is possible to reflect and write in theological lines
on the three important chapters that constitute the revelational part of Ad Diognetum. If
you give substantial reasons for reading a theology into the text, it is certainly legitimate
and relevant to elaborate on a Revelational Theology. In this Inquiry, I have given an
account for both internal and external reasons for a theological interpretation of Ad
Diognetum. It was possible to demonstrate support from Johannine and Pauline
theologies and this theological reading proved to have both descriptive and explanatory
implications. All this has been possible thanks to the comprehensive methodology.
Revelation in Ad Diognetum was not just a literary theme or a transitional part of the
work. It was not only an ornate piece of brilliant rhetoric. More importantly, it was a
conscious ‘construction’ of Revelational Theology, right in the central part of the
rhetorical composition, and that was and still is the unique feature of Ad Diognetum.
213

Specific Methodological Questions
There are four more specific questions on the methodology that have to be answered.
Firstly, why devote fifty pages, that is one fourth of the substantial dissertation, to the
apologists (Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria and
Theophilus of Antioch) and why give that contextual material such a disproportionate
place? The answer is frankly a question of establishing a contextual background and a
textual foreground. Thanks to the comparison between Ad Diognetum and those
apologetic works, we were able to contrast Revelational Theology with other apologetic
strategies and understand and explain its remarkable distinction. This part also served as
a frame of reference to the Inquiry, and we have seen plenty of cross-references
between Ad Diognetum and those apologetic works. Chapter two was a necessary part
in the hermeneutics of signification.
Secondly, why pay such a great attention to isagogic questions in chapter one? Why
not go straight into the text of Ad Diognetum? The simple answer is that in examining
an ancient work, one has to be extremely careful and well aware of isagogic traps. If we,
for example, find it reasonable to associate the author of Ad Diognetum with the
catechetical school in Alexandria and identify Diognetus as the procurator Claudius
Diognetus in that town at about A.D. 200, this primary choice will guide our
interpretation. That choice makes us more or less unable to read the text with other
interpretative horizons. The same is true for an Eleusinian, Smyrnean, 3 Aurelian or a
Valentinian approach. Furthermore, the history and histories of this ancient text are
puzzling, thrilling and charming.
3 In spite of this withholding of personal opinions for the sake of an open-minded examination, the
author of this Inquiry has a slight tendency to take side with Charles E. Hill and his position in arguing
for the Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp and/or his Asia Minor School, as the likely author(s) of both parts of
Ad Diognetum. There are seven essential advantages with this position. Firstly, it has great explanatory
value. It explains authorship, date (at about A.D.155) and defends the relative integrity of the text.
Secondly, it takes the persecutions and ethnic clashes in Ad Diognetum seriously. We know that in Asia
Minor and especially in Smyrna at that time, there was a very tense and hostile Jewish-Christian relation.
Thirdly, it explains the evident apostolic presence in Ad Diognetum. Polycarp was a disciple of the
apostles and he guarded the Pauline and Johannine heritage. Fourthly, this position supports Revelational
Theology. Both the concepts of mystery and revelation are present in both parts and Revelational
Theology is the natural link between the two parts. Fifthly, it does justice to the ‘fact’ that Ad Diognetum
originally was a speech in front of the local official in Smyrna by the name Diognetus. This helps to
explain the lacunas in the text, the repetitions in chapter ten, the concise format and maybe also its
eloquence. Sixthly, there are relatively strong internal evidences as Hill has given an account for, though I
have not make use of them in this Inquiry. Seventhly, as far as I know, this theory, already proposed by
Pier Franco Beatrice in 1990, is the most recent one and at the same time both old and archaic, not to say
‘apostolic’. (Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic
Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum. In J. Frey (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament, 186, [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006]).
214

Thirdly, why not from the beginning choose a clear argumentative approach in
stating facts and arguments for Revelational Theology instead of using this repetitive
and lengthy way of revealing the case? As already mentioned in the Introduction, it is
partly a question of transparency in research. The reader should be able to follow all
important decisions and considerations. It is partly a question of an educative process,
so that the reader will be able to penetrate the process in both a formal and material
sense. In this dissertation, I have chosen to inform the reader in successive stages, first
in the hermeneutical direction of signification and then in the hermeneutical direction of
significance. I admit that all important parts surrounding Revelational Theology could
have been presented in a shorter form, but due to those two aspects (transparency and
educative process), and the wide scope of this Inquiry, I chose to ‘reveal’ the mystery in
successive stages.
Fourthly, why choose the Lakatosian program of Murphy, which is generally
associated with a tendency to guard theology as a science built on epistemological and
ontological realism, while at the same time employing the fideism of Bloesch? Bloesch
was chosen because he is close to and congenial with the revelationism of Ad
Diognetum. We have noticed striking similarities, and it was interesting to observe
significant affinities between an ancient and a modern theologian. The Lakatosian
program of Murphy was expressly employed on the descriptive level in helping us
understand and affirm Revelational Theology as a linguistic and doctrinal system. That
kind of application of the Lakatosian program, was compatible with the general research
design, and demonstrates very well the interdisciplinary approach of this Inquiry. The
object of this Inquiry was not to determine the usefulness of a fideistic or a realistic
philosophy of religion or to choose between them. However, in using both fideistic and
realistic substructures we may say we have avoided a one-sided approach.
215

The Theology of the Inquiry
Exclusiveness or Assertiveness?
It is possible to agree on the historic and objective content of Revelational Theology,
but to argue that this type of theology is not reasonable and relevant today. When
describing dialectical theology in the foregoing chapter, we were reminded of some of
its limitations. However, we also noticed that all of Avery Dull’s revelational models
had some limitations. 4 It can still be argued that a profiled theology like Revelational
Theology could become exclusive. The exclusiveness could lead to arrogance. The
ethical element is included in our hermeneutics, and it must be admitted that when
Revelational Theology was presented in a polemic way, as in Ad Diognetum chapters'
two to four, it was offensive. In chapter five of the Inquiry, I paid attention to this
anomaly. In Ad Diognetum at large, the author expounded on the generous and general
implications of Gods compassionate love, and he urged Diognetus to be an imitator of
God’s love and to love his neighbor, but when he came to pagans and especially Jews,
he became polemic and offensive. This should not be neglected or explained away. A
responsible hermeneutic is obliged to discuss this obvious self-contradiction. In the
application of the theology of Ad Diognetum, it seemed to be a lack of coherence.
However, in the strict sense it had nothing to do with Revelational Theology per se and
it is certainly possible and desirable to be assertive without being offensive.
It could also be argued that Revelational Theology is in danger of being anti-
ecumenical and against inter-religious dialogue. We live in the same global society with
the same challenges, and there is a need for mutual understanding and cooperation
instead of suspicion and isolation. The author of Ad Diognetum described the Christians
in the Greco-Roman society of his time as responsible and constructive members of
society and as a third race. Christians in the early Church were in need of strengthening
4 Ibid., pp.94-97. Firstly, Dull pointed out that its theological method was weak and its concepts were
incoherent. We were asked to believe in the Word of God as norm, but then we recognized that the Word
of God is not strictly related to the Bible and more of an existential encounter. That could be interpreted
as a contradiction. 4 Secondly, the infinite quality difference between heaven and human creatures carried
the risk of concealing God instead of revealing the Divine. Thirdly, this model could be regarded as rather
exclusive. It seemed to be incompatible with science, philosophy and world religions. It has been
criticized for ‘Christomonism’ in denying that revelation can appear in other forms than through Christ.
Fourthly, this model could be developed into radical and arbitrary fanaticism that makes broader
conversations problematic.
216

their identity 5 and defending themselves in times of persecution. Revelational Theology
put forward the question of truth, and that was a lasting contribution. Our postmodern
society is strongly influenced by relativism, but the question of religious truth is still
relevant. Revelational Theology posed the truth claim to Diognetus and his
contemporary, but also to the modern receptor. The author of Ad Diognetum challenges
the reader even today. Can we trust the biblical revelation and its centre in Jesus Christ?
Can the Church exist without a firm belief in the historical-redemptive intervention of a
Savior? The answers on these questions have radical implications for all spheres of the
future of Christianity, its preaching ministry, pastoral care and mission theology to
mention only a few examples. Revelational Theology does not forbid cooperation and
dialogue on the human level in common efforts to for example, combat racism or reduce
human sufferings. Revelational Theology was, and still is, concerned with God’s
revelation for the human welfare and the benefit of our salvation. As already noticed,
salvation was both described in eternal and temporal categories, and had ethical
implications in a very down to earth love for ones neighbors.
Mystery and Revelation
Furthermore, we come to the prominent contribution of Revelational Theology. It
centers around two poles, mystery and revelation. We remember that even though God
has disclosed his salvific secret, he is still hidden in a mystery. We can never define or
control the mystery of God, but we are able to receive his revelation by faith. In the
centre of Christian theology, we find both mystery and revelation. If we over-emphasize
the mysteriousness of God, we will probably lose sight of revelation and end up in
mystery religion, and there were many secret cults and esoteric societies at the time of
Diognetus, and even today. If we over-emphasize the revelational event and forget the
greatness and hiddenness of God, we will probably end up as an information enterprise
with an objectified god on the market, but the Christian Church is something else. The
author of Ad Diognetum employed both concepts, mystery and revelation, and he
understood their mutuality and character of internal reciprocity. As Christians we
believe in Deus revelatus. God has in a decisive and final way revealed himself in Jesus
Christ for our eternal salvation. However, we also believe in Deus absconditus. God is
5 Amanda Nelson argues that Ad Diognetum can be read as an expression of ethnical identity crisis and
identity construction. The new people of God, the third race, was questioned and persecuted and some of
the theological achievements in the work may have been motivated by challenges to the new Christian
identity. (Amanda Nelson, “Creation of Ethnicity in an Early Christian Document: The Epistle to
Diognetus,” Constellations, Vol.2, No.2, pp.21-30, [2011]).
217

always greater than our intellectual understanding of Him. He is still a marvelous
mystery in his revelation. This act of balance is at the centre of theology, but in a world
longing for the true Gospel, we are called to speak of God’s wonderful revelation in
Jesus Christ and to do that wisely, so that the mysteriousness of God is not diminished.
Dialectics and Discontinuity
Finally, we come to the underlying themes of dialectics and discontinuity. We stated
earlier that Revelational Theology has some common features with Dull’s doctrinal
model, history model, experience model and his dialectical presence model. The last
model was reworked and labeled as ‘the Person model’. Revelation in Ad Diognetum
was not an act of information, but of a personal intervention of the Son of God. As God-
Man the Son united and ‘reconciled’ time and eternity, preexistence and presence, earth
and heaven. Karl Barth, the father of dialectical theology, wrote:
The mystery of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ consists in the fact that the eternal
Word of God chose, sanctified and assumed human nature and existence into oneness
with Himself, in order thus, as very God and very man to become the Word of
reconciliation spoken by God to man. 6
According to dialectical theology the distance between God and man is overcome only
in Jesus Christ. Close to this concept of dialectics is the idea of discontinuity. In Ad
Diognetum we recognized a high degree of transcendence combined with a high degree
of discontinuity. The historical line was broken. The Christ-event divided history into
‘now’ and ‘then’. The Eschaton had come, and eschatology had been realized. We
identify in figure 5 7 below (and to the right of the figure), a primary discontinuity and a
secondary continuity. God’s revelation was located in a structured cosmology and a
history which allowed for continuity with future history or end-time eschatology, but
the author of Ad Diognetum did not refer to a salvation history in the past. His relatively
high Christology (including preexistence) united the finitude of man with the infinity of
God. Although our author tended to discontinuity, it was not complete. Bloesch had the
same tendency, but allowed for more historical continuity. This pattern is typical of
dialectical theology. The tension between God’s sovereign grace and the human
response in faith continues. In this way, the human experience of struggling faith can be
more or less incorporated in this dialectical view.
6 Barth, CD, p.1.2:122.
7 This figure has been borrowed from Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, p.123.
218

FIGURE 5
Continuity-discontinuity continuum regarding God’s intervention in the world.
Some apologists like Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of
Alexandria worked out theologies that combined continuity with discontinuity.
Theophilus utilized Hellenistic Judaism and interpreted the Gospel according to the
pattern of the Law, in order to secure continuity with the Nomos. Justin employed Stoic
philosophy and the idea of Logos spermatikos in order to establish continuity with the
rationality of all men. Clement used a wide spectrum of Platonic philosophy in order to
demonstrate points of contacts between the Christian God and the Classical and biblical
heritage and in that way secure continuity. However, all these authors also had elements
of discontinuity. We should not overstate the case, but the author of Ad Diognetum was
oriented in another direction. He stressed space-time discontinuity in order to achieve a
continuity in faith-love living. He was not lost in celestial speculations. Revelation was
historical-redemptive and took place in God’s creation and in human hearts. He was
very well aware of the obligations and responsibilities of Christian life. In virtue of his
biblical understanding of God’s mysterious revelation, he developed his Revelational
Theology and this theology actualizes the importance of reflecting on how God is
related to our world. Revelational Theology has given us some convincing answers, but
also some crucial questions.
219

The Divine Character of Revelation
Maybe the most penetrating question concerns the character of revelation itself. With
Ricoeur, we may claim that Ad Diognetum adorns a beautiful story, but is that very
story dealing with real history? Ricoeur was certainly well aware of the Kantian
formula: “history without poetry is blind, but poetry without history is empty.” 8 There
are indications that Ricoeur, a man of extensive reading, could have been acquainted
with Ad Diognetum. 9 The question could be restated, as if it is possible to read Ad
Diognetum as a linguistic manifestation, without taking into consideration its reference
to a transcendent and self-communicating God? Is Ad Diognetum to be regarded only as
poetic revelation and stimulation of human imagination or should it also be regarded as
an evangelical revelation of redemptive truth for humanity? Is the climactic revelation
in chapters seven to nine a narrative emplotment in order to secure certain structures in
narrative time and in human self-understanding? 10 This is a testing point for serious
hermeneutics. A hermeneutics of signification and significance, as fully interpreted in
line with Bloesch’s ‘Word and Spirit’ orientation, includes both aspects and claims that
it is impossible to honor the author and his timeless message, without being challenged
by his Revelational Theology. 11 However, if Revelational Theology is both a dramatic
8 Quoted from Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, p.280.
9 In this Inquiry, there are several references to the French historian and patristic scholar Henri-Irénée
Marrou and his work A Diognète. Ricoeur dedicated his three volume work Time and Narrative in
memory of Marrou and he paid tribute to his scholarship as an interpreter of ancient texts on several times
in that work. Ricoeur and his family also lived in Paris, in the very same house as Marrou. Apparently,
they had a closer friendship and it is reasonable to assume that Ricoeur had read the works of Marrou.
(Charles E. Reagan, Paul Ricoeur: His Life and His Work, [Chicago: the University of Chicago Press,
1996], p.21).
10 Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, p.1:192.
11 Ricoeur sketches a hermeneutics of religious freedom and provides space for the kerygma and he
could be interpreted as if his “Kerygma” as a presentation of the early Christian Gospel, corresponds to
the Revelational Theology of Ad Diognetum. “Therefore I understand the hermeneutics of religious
freedom as the explication of the meanings of freedom which accompany the explication of the founding
word or, as we say, the proclamation of the kerygma.” But Ricoeur seems to reserve the Kerygma for a
religious field of theologians and it is not clear what kind of contact that field has with the other field of
the philosopher. “In fact, the task of the philosopher appears to me here to be distinguished from that of
the theologian, in the following manner: biblical theology has the function of developing the kerygma
according to its own conceptual system; it has the duty of criticizing preaching, both by confronting it
with its origin and by reorganizing it in a meaningful framework, in a discourse of its own kind,
corresponding to the internal coherence of the kerygma itself. The philosopher, even the Christian one,
has a distinct task; I am not inclined to say that he brackets what he has heard and what he believes, for
how could he philosophize in such a state of abstraction with respect to what is essential? But neither am
I of the opinion that he should subordinate his philosophy to theology, in an ancillary relation. Between
abstention and capitulation, there is the autonomous way which I have located under the heading ‘the
philosophical approach’. (Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p.156). The quotation above serves
220

story and salvific history in the qualified sense of the words, we also have to create a
new integrative category for what it, Deo gratias, creates and recreates in the reader(s).
It is more than new modes of being and knowing. 12 Being, knowing, thinking,
experiencing and trusting are integrated into a wider concept of faith. 13 It all starts with
a Divine initiative and a proper human response, a mode of believing, and this is
completely in accordance with the author of Ad Diognetum who in 8.6 stressed “he
revealed Himself” (αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτὸν ἐπέδειξεν) “through faith alone” (διὰ πίστεως, ᾗ μόνῃ).
The Final Appeal of Ad Diognetum
Revelational Theology was not an advanced philosophical project in order to make
an impression on the reader’s intellect. It was not esoteric speculation in order to convey
true Gnosis to the searching soul of Diognetus. Revelational Theology could not be
described as an invitation to a new mystery religion with secret initiation rites.
Revelational Theology was, on the contrary, presented as an objective message from the
eternal God. It was and still is a message of his mysterious design for the world on how
to send his own Son and to demonstrate true love and a valid sacrifice for all human
crimes and sins in order to justify, save and grant those who believe, redemption from
sin and death. “For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In
whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son
of God alone?” (9.2) God gave us all things at once in Jesus Christ, and that message
ought to be received in faith. Only God could and can reveal God, and the Good News
is hereafter: Mystery Revealed! Many Christians were willing to risk their lives for the
revelation of the Christian faith. The martyrs testified, and still today some two hundred
millions of persecuted Christians testify to this faith. 14 The revelation of God’s eternal
to illustrate un unresolved dilemma in Ricoeur’s philosophical hermeneutic that reverberates in his
separation (though not a total separation) between sense and reference and the problem of assessment of
interpretations. In this regard I confirm the critical views formulated by Joseph Putti, (Theology as
Hermeneutics, pp.212-215). The hermeneutics of signification and significance, with contributions of
both Ricoeur and Vanhoozer, is an attempt to resolve the above mentioned dilemma.
12 It seems as if Ricoeur’s examination of the significance as a relationship between the linguistic and
existential aspects in interpretation has not been sufficiently investigated. Compare Jeanrond,
(Theological Hermeneutics, p.75). It could also be argued that Ricoeur consciously has not finalized this
relation, but holds it open to different suggestions. The author of this Inquiry sees here an opportunity for
a fideistic approach. The real significance starts with a new mode of believing followed by new modes of
being, knowing, experiencing, thinking and trusting. However, in real life, these modes are not
necessarily sequential, but they are still rooted in faith.
13 Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, pp.223-247.
221

love and the hope of eternal life, are of greater significance than the pleasures and
projects of this world. True faith will naturally be expressed in daily life with care for
ones neighbors. The ethical imperative of Revelational Theology is obvious. Christians
will behave as pure and proper citizens, being caring and constructive as responsible
members of society. They seek the welfare of all and are loyal citizens, but they also
know their true home in the Kingdom of God, and they make great efforts in helping
others to appreciate the Christian Gospel and so benefit from a new mode of believing.
It is in the end all about becoming “a new man” and receiving “a new life.” Revelational
Theology aims at kerygmatic and spiritual renewal.
The author of Ad Diognetum reaffirmed the Pauline Gospel during the second
century, and so did Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth
century. It was also a commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 15 which resulted in
a theological landslide in Europe after the First World-War in the twentieth century.
The Gospel was and remains “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who
believes..., for in the Gospel a righteousness from God is revealed…” 16 This is
Revelational Theology and the message of the Inquiry.
“When an investigation is rightly conducted, boulders composed of fortuitous or
incidental or merely historical conceptions ought to disappear almost entirely. The
Word ought to be exposed in the words.” 17 When proud empires and projects come to
an end, and human speculations and utopian dreams disappear, the Kingdom of God
remains. The author of Ad Diognetum proclaimed in the end, not only the glory of
Revelational Theology, but the glory of God and so this Inquiry ends, just as Ad
Diognetum ends, “and the Word rejoices as he teaches the saints, the Word through
whom the Father is glorified. To him be glory forever. Amen" (12.9).
14 According to the official site of Worldwide Persecution of Christians, 26.000.000 were killed for
their faith during the twentieth century and some 200 million Christians are persecuted in sixty countries
in the world today. Online, Accessed 15 April, 2012. Available from: Worldwide Persecution of
Christians://www.prayerfoundation.org/worldwide_persecution_of_christians.htm.
15 Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).
16 Ro. 1.16-17 in NIV.
17 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p.8.
222

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Greek Texts and Editions of Ad Diognetum
Lake, Kirsopp. 1913. The Epistle to Diognetus. Ed. George P.Goold, AFa II, LCL,
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Lightfoot, Joseph B., Harmer, John R. 1992. The Epistle to Diognetus.
ed. Michael W. Holmes, AFa, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Marrou, Henri I. 1951. A Diognète: Introduction, edition critique, traduction
et commentaire, eds. Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou and Claude Mondésert,
SCH, 33, Paris.
Meecham, Henry G. 1949. The Epistle to Diognetus: The greek text with introduction,
translation and notes, Diss. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Otto, Johann C.T. 1879. Epistula ad Diognetum. In Johan C.T. Otto, CACSS, 3,
3rd ed., pp. 159-210, Jena.
Wengst, Klaus. 1984. Schrift an Diognet: Eingeleitet, herausgaben, übertragen und
Erläutert. SU, ed. Klaus Wengst, pp. 281-348, München: Kösel-Verlag.
Works of the Apologists and Other Church Fathers
[Anonymous Author]. 1893. Kerygma Petri: Herstellung des Textes mit Einleitung und
Erklärung, ed. E. von Dobschütz. Leipzig.
[Anonymous Author].1924. “The Preaching of Peter.” Ed. Montague Rhode James The
Apocryphal New Testament, 16-19. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Apostolic Fathers I-II. 1913. I Clement. II Clement. Ignatius. Polycarp. Didache.
Barnabas. The Shepherd of Hermas, The Martyrdom of Polycarp,
The Epistle to Diognetus. In LCL 24-25, ed., trans. Kirsopp Lake, Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press.
Aristides. 1893/2004. Apology on Behalf of the Christians. With the Syriac and Greek
texts, ed. trans. J. Rendel. Harris (the Syriac text) and J. Armitage Robinson,
(the Greek text). Cambridge. A facsimile reprint of the orig. version publ. by
Gorgias Press LLC.
Athenagoras.1972. Legatio. In OECT, ed., trans. William R. Schoedel. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Clement of Alexandria. 1982. The Exhortation to the Greeks. In LCL 92, ed. George P.
Goold, trans. G. Williams Butterworth. Repr. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Eusebius of Caesarea. 1926. Ecclesiastical Historv. 2 vols. In LCL 153, 265, ed. George
P. Goold, trans. Kirsopp Lake and John E.L. Oulton. Repr., Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press.
223

Justin Martyr.2009. Justin-Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. In OECT, eds. Denis
Minns and Paul Parvis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Melito of Sardis. 1940. The Homily on the Passion by Melito-Bishop of Sardis.
Studies and Documents 12, ed. Campbell Bonner, London; Philadelphia.
__________. 1958. Die Passa-Homilie Des Bishops Meliton von Sardes.
Textus Minores xxiv, ed. Bernhard Lohse, Leiden.
Minucius Felix. 1984 Octavius. LCL 250, ed. George P. Goold, trans. Gerald H.
Rendall. Repr. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Origen. 1953. Contra Celsum. Ed. and trans. Henry Chadwick. Cambridge.
Socrates.1989. “The Ecclesiastical History.” Eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace,
NPNF, 2:1-178, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Sozomen.1989. “The Ecclesiastical History.” In NPNF, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace, 2:179-427, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Tatian.1982. Oratio ad Graecos. In OECT, ed. trans. Molly Whittaker. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Tertullian. 1984. Apology. In LCL 250, ed. George P. Goold, trans. Terrot R.
Glover. Repr. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Theophilus of Antioch. 1970. Ad Autolycem. In OECT, ed. trans, Robert M. Grant.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rahlfs, A.(ed.). 1982. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX
interpretes. Two vols. Ed. Alfred Rahlfs. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft.
Non Christian Greek and Latin Writers
Aristotle. 1994. The Art of Rhetoric. LCL 193, ed. George P. Goold, trans. John H.
Freese. Repr. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
__________. 2010. Protrepticus: A Provisional Reconstruction, eds. Douglas
S. Hutchinson and Monte Ransome Johnson, [Online], Available from:
http://www.scribd.com/full/37075552?access_key=key-1y4xsbi894ios5ahftxp,
[Accessed 3 March 2012].
Aurelius, Marcus.(1987) Meditations. LCL 58, ed. George P. Goold, trans. Charles
R. Haines. Repr. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
[Cicero].(1989). Rhetorica Ad Herennium. LCL 403, ed. George P. Goold. trans.
Harry Caplan. Repr. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Josephus, Flavius. (1987). The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Trans.
William Whiston. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.
224

Philo of Alexandria. (1993). The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged.
Trans. C.D. Yonge. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.
Plato. 1997. Complete Works. Eds. John M. Cooper and Douglas S. Hutchinson.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
[Valentinus].2008. “The Gospel of Truth.” In Marvin Meyer (Ed.), The Nag Hammadi
Scriptures: The International Edition, trans. Einar Thomassen and Marvin
Meier, 31-48. New York: HarperCollins.
Other Works
Altaner, Berthold; Stuiber, Alfred (eds.). 1978. Patrologie: Leben, Schriften Und Lehre
Der Kirchenväter. 8th ed. Freiburg: Herder Verlag.
Andriessen, Dom P. 1946. ”L'Apologie de Quadratus conservée sous le titre d'Épître à
Diognète.” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médièvale, 5-9, 125-149.
Abbay du Mont-Cesar, Lou.
__________. 1947. “The Authorship of the Epistula Ad Diognetum.” VC, 1, 129-
136. Amsterdam.
Atlantic Coast Theological Seminary. 2012. Study Guide. Doctor of Philosophy,
[Online] Available from: http://atlanticseminary.org/resourcerooms.
html, [Accessed 17 February 2012]
Barnard, Leslie W. 1966. “The Enigma of the Epistle to Diognetos.” Ed. Leslie W.
Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background, 165-173.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Barth, Karl. 2010. Church Dogmatics. 14 vols. Eds. Goeffrey W.Bromiley and Thomas
Torrance, trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 2nd ed., Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson
Publishers.
__________.1968. The Epistle to the Romans. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1968.
Bauer, Johannes B. 1963. “An Diognet VI” VC, 17, 207-210. Amsterdam.
Bauer, Walter; Arndt, William F.; Gingrich, F.Wilbur (eds.). 1952. A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans.
William F. Arndt and F.Wilbur Gingrich, 4th ed., Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Beatrice, Pier Franco. 1990. “De Presbyter des Irenäus, Polycarp von Smyrna und der
Brief an Diognet.” In Pléroma. Salus carnis, ed. E. Romero Pose, FS A, 179-
202, Santiago de Compostella.
225

Behm, Johannes. 1964. καινό. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich,
trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 3:447-454, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
___________. 1967. ῦ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans.
Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 4:951-960, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Bertram, Georg 1965. ί. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 5:123-128, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Beskow, Per. 1962. Rex Gloriae: The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church. Diss.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Biblia Patristica I. 1975. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientiphique.
Paris.
Billet, B. 1957. “Les lacunes de l' "A Dioqnete: essai de solution.” Recherches de
Science religieuse xlv, 409-418, Paris.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. 1968. “The Rhetorical Situation.” In Philosophy and Rhetoric, ed.
Lloyd F. Bitzer, Vol. 1. 1, 1-14.
Blakeney, Eedvard H. 1943. The Epistle to Diognetus. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge.
B1ass, Friedrich; Debrunner, Albert; Funk, Robert W.(eds.). 1961. A Greek Grammer of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. William F.
Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bloesch, Donald G. 1971. The Ground of Certainty: Toward an Evangelical Theology
of Revelation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
___________. 1992. A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in
Theology. CF, Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
___________. 1994. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration and Interpretation. CF,
Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
___________. 1995. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. CF, Downers
Grove, IL: IVP.
___________. 1996. “A Response to Elmer Colyer”. JCTR 1:1-8. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.jctr.org. [Accessed 26 March 2012].
___________. 2000. The Holy Spirit: Works and Gifts. CF. Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
226

___________. 2006. Essentials of Evangelical Theology: Two Volumes in One.
Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.
Bonner, Campbell. 1940. The homily on the passion by Melito bishop of Sardis and
some fragments of the apocryphal Ezekiel. Studies and documents 12.
London: Christophers.
Bornkamm Günther. 1967. ή. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 4:802-828, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Bruce, Frederick, F.1977. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Brändle, Rudolf. 1971. ”Das Mysterium des Christlichen Gottesdienstes. Anmerkungen
Zur Ethik des sogenannten Diognetbriefes.” SP XIII, 131-137. Berlin
___________. 1975. Die Ethik der ”Schrift an Diognet”: Eine Wiederaufnahme
Paulinischer under Johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang des zweiten
Jahrhunderts. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und neuen
Testaments, eds. Oscar Cullman and Hans J. Stoebe, Diss. Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag.
Bultmann, Rudolf and Lührmann, Dieter. 1964. ώ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel
and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 1:698-717, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
___________. 1974. ό. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 9:3-10, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Burnett, Richard, E. 2012. “Donald Bloesch: Ecumenical Evangelical.”, Perspectives,
January, 1-5.
Büchsel, H.M Friedrich. 1964. ὲὲ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 2:473-476, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Caragounis, Chrys C. 1977. The Ephesian Mysterion: Meaning and Content.
Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 8. Diss. Lund: Gleerup Förlag.
Carleton Paget, J. 1994. The Epistle to Barnabas: Outlook and Background.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testaments. 2 Reihe, 64.
Tübingen.
Catholic Encyclopedia. 2012. Clement of Alexandria. [Online] Available from:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm [Accessed 4 February 2012].
227

Chadwick, Henry. 1962. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition. Boston/
New York.
___________. 1967. The Early Church. London: Penguin Books.
Clarke, Martin.L. 1953. Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey. London.
Clayton, Philip. 2000. The Problem of God in Modern Thought. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Colyer, Elmer M. 1996. “A Theology of Word and Spirit: Donald Bloesch’s
Theological Method.” JCTR, 1:1-88. [Online] Available
from: http://www.jctr.org.[Accessed 26 March 2012].
Connolly, Richard H. 1935. “The Date and Authorship of the Epistle to Diognetus.”
JTS, 36, 347-353. Oxford.
___________. 1936. “Ad Diognetum XI-XII.” JTS, 37, 2-15. Oxford.
Cullman, Oscar. 1963. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans. Shirley C.Guthrie
and Charles A.M. Hall, London: SCM Press Ltd.
Dawson, David. 1989. “The Gospel of Truth as Rhetorical Theology.” In Studia
Patristica XVIII, l, Papers of the 1983 Oxford Patristics Conference, ed.
Elisabeth A. Livingstone, 241-245, Oxford.
Delling, Gerhard. 1961. ό. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 3:455-464, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
De Jáuregui, Miguel Herrero. 2008. The Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria: A
Commentary. Diss. Bologna [Online] Available from: http://amsdottorato.
cib.unibo.it/1117/1/Tesi_Herrero_de_Jauregui_Miguel.pdf [Accessed 1
March 2012]
Dix, Gregory. 1953. Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church. London: Dacre
Press and C. Black LTD.
Dobschütz von, Ernst. 1893. Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht. Texte und
Untersuchungen 11,1. Leipzig.
Dull, Avery. 1992. Models of Revelation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Edebol, Torbjörn P.B. 1995. “All Things at Once: An Inquiry into the Revelational
Theology of Ad Diognetum.” Licentiate Thesis. Uppsala:
University of Uppsala.
___________. 2012. “Research Proposal for Ph.D. Dissertation.” Unpubl. Daytona
Beach: Alantic Coast Theological Seminary.
228

Eliade, Mircea. 1987. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Trans.
Willard R.Trask. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Eltester, Walter. 1970. “Das Mysterium des Christentums. Anmerkungen zum
Diognetbrief.” In ZNW, 61, 278-293. Giessen.
Fairweather, Eugene R. 1953. “The So-called Letter to Diognetus.” In ECF, ed. C.C.
Richardson, 205-224. Philadelphia.
Ferguson, Everett. 2003. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Fitzmyer, Joseph.A. 1990. “Pauline Theology.” In NJBC, eds. Raymond E. Brown,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, 1382-1416. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Foster, Paul. 2010.(Ed.) Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve
Key Figures. London: IVP Academic.
Foster, Paul.2010. “Tatian.” In Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of
Twelve Key Figures, Ed. Paul Foster, 115-35. London: IVP Academic.
Frend, William H.C. 1965. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of
a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
___________. 1984. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2001. Truth and Method. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald
G. Marshall, 2nd ed. London: Sheed & Ward Ltd.
Gebremedhin, Ezra. 1992. Arvet från Kvrkofäderna: Den kristna läroutvecklingen
under den patristiska perioden. Skellefteå: Artos Bokförlag.
Giversen, Sören. 1985. De Apostoliske Faedre 2. I oversettelse med indledning og
noter. Köpenhavn: Museum Tuscalanums Förlag.
Goodspeed, Edgar J. 1966. A Historv of Earlv Christian Literature, rev. Robert M.
Grant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grant, Robert M. 1966. Gnosticism and Earlv Christianity. New York: Columbia
University Press.
___________. 1970. Ad Autolycem. In OECT, ed. trans, Robert M. Grant. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
___________. 1978. Early Christianitv and Society: Seven Studies. London: William
Collins Sons & Co Ltd.
___________. 1986. Gods and the One God. Library of Early Christianity.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
229

___________. 1988. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press.
Green, Michael. 1975. Evangelism in the Early Church. London: Hodder and Stoughon.
Gundry, Stanley N. and Cowan, Steven B.(eds.) 2000. Five Views on Aplogetics.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Gupta, Anil. Definitions. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edvard N Zalta,
[Online], Available from http://plato.stanford. edu/entries/definitions/#DesDef.
[Accessed 21 April 2012].
Harnack, Adolf von. 1961. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First
Three Centuries. Trans. J. Moffat, New York: Harper & Brothers.
Havey, Francis. “Clement of Alexandria.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. [Online], Available from:
.[Accessed 21
April 2012].
Hill, Charles E. 2006. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’
Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum. In Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 186, ed. J. Frey, Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
Hollon, Bryan C. 2005. “Is the Epistle to Diognetus an Apology?” A Rhetorical
Analysis. In Journal of Christian Religion, 11, 127-146.
Hvalvik, Reidar. 1984a. ”Aristides Apologi. Innledning, Noter.” In AFe, eds. Einar
Baasland and Reidar Hvalvik, 223-227; 237-239. Oslo: Luther Forlag.
___________. 1984b. "Til Diognet. Innledning, Noter.” In AFe, eds. Einar Baasland
and Reidar Hvalvik, 239-243, 252-259. Oslo: Luther Forlag.
Hägglund, Bengt. 1975. Teologins historia: En dogmhistorisk översikt. Lund:
Liber Läromedel.
Jeanrond, Werner G. 1991. Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance.
New York: Crossroad.
Jeffner, Anders. 1987. Theology and Integration: Four Essays in Philosophical
Theology. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
Johannesson, Kurt. 1990. Retorik eller konsten att övertyga. Stockholm: Norstedts
Förlag.
Jonas, Hans. 1991. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the
Beginnings of Christianity. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.
230

Jurgens, William A.1970. The Faith of the Early Fathers: Theological and Historical
Passages from the Christian Writings of the Pre-Nicene Era. Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press.
Kelly, John N.D. 1972. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd ed. New York: Longman Inc.
___________. 1989. Early Christian Doctrines. Exeter.
Kittel, Gerhard, Friedrich, Gerhard.(eds.). 1991-1993.Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament. 10 vols., trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Kennedy, George A 1980. Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition
from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
___________. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Kleist, James A. 1948. “The Epistle to Diognetus.” In ACW, eds., Johannes Quasten and
Joseph C. Plumpe, 6:127-147, 6:210-221. Mahwah, NJ: The Newman
Press.
Kovaks, Judith L. 2010. “Clement of Alexandria.” In Early Christian Thinkers:
The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures, ed. Paul Foster, 68-84,
London: IVP Academic.
Lakatos, Imre; Worrall, John and Currie, Gregory. 1980, “The Methodology of
Scientific Research Programs.” In Philosophical Papers, eds. John Worall
and Gregory Currie, Vol.1, (Nov), 8-101, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lampe, Goeffrey W.H.1961.(ed.). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. 1975. A Historv of Christianity 1: Beginnings to 1500. San
Francisco: Harper/Collins Publishers.
Lienhard, Joseph T. 1970. “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetos.” VC, 24,
280-289. Amsterdam.
Lietzmann, Hans. 1936. Geschichte der Alten Kirche 2. Berlin/Leipzig.
Lindemann, Andreas. 1979. “Paulinische Theologie im Brief an Diognet.” In KL,
Festschrift für Carl Andresen, ed. Adolf M. Ritter, 337- 350, Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Longenecker, Richard, N. 2007. Early Church Interpretation. In Dictionary of Biblical
Criticism and Interpretation, ed. Stanely E. Porter, 78-89, New York:
Routledge.
231

Lona, Horacio E. 2001. An Diognet. Kommentar zu Frühchristichen Apologeten in 12
Bänden. Bd 8. Freiburg: Herder Vorlag.
Lundmark, John. 1983. Det splittrade gudsfolket och missionsuppdraget: En studie i
relationen mellan kyrkan och Judendomen. Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia
xxxvii. Uppsala: EFS förlaget.
Martin, Josef. 1974. Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode. Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 11, 3. München.
Martin, Luther H. 1987. Hellenistic Religions. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Michaelis, Wilhelm. 1964. έ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 4:659-674, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Michel, Otto. 1964. ὶί. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich,
trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 5:151-152, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Minns, Denis, Parvis, Paul.2009. Justin-Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. In OECT,
eds. Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2012. [Online], Available from:http://www.merriam-
webster.com/ [Accessed 30 April 2012].
Molland, Einar. 1935. ”Brevet til Diognet.” Kirke og Kultur, 42, 547-563. Oslo.
___________. 1970. “Die literatur- und dogmengeschichtliche Stellung des
Diognetbriefes.” Opuscula patristica, 79-99. Oslo. (Originally publ.
Zeitschrift für die Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft xxxiii, pp. 289-312.
1934).
Moloney, Francis J. 1990. “Johannine Theology.” In NJBC, eds. Raymond E. Brown,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy, 1417-1426. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Moltmann, Jürgen. 1978. Theology of Hope. Trans. James W. Leitch, London: SCM
Press.
Morris, Leon. 1965. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Murphy, Nancey. 1990. Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. New York:
Cornell University Press.
Müller, David L.1977. Karl Barth. In Makers of the Modern Theological Mind, ed. Bob
E. Patterson, Waco: Word Books.
232

Nelson, Amanda. 2011. “Creation of Ethnicity in an Early Christian Document: The
Epistle to Diognetus.” Constellations, Vol.2, No.2.(Winter), 21-30.
Nielsen, Charles M. 1970. “The Epistle to Diognetus: Its Date and Relationship to
Marcion.” Anglican Theological Review, 52, 77-91. Evanston.
Nilsson, Martin P. 1964. Olympen. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Prisma.
Nock, Arthur D. 1963. Conversion. Repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norden, Eduard. 1958. Die Antike Kunstprose II, 5th ed. Darmstadt.
Norris, Richard, A. 2008. “The Apologists.” In The Cambridge History of Early
Christian Literature, eds. Frances Young, Lewis Aures and Andrew Louth,
36-44, Cambridge History Online, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oepke, Albrecht. 1964. ἀύ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 3:363-592, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
_________. 1967. ί. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich,
trans. Goeffrey W. Bromiley, 5:870, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Ogara, F. 1944. “Aristides et epistolae ad Diognetum cum Theophilo antiocheno
cognation.” Gregorianum, 25, 74-102. Rome.
O’Neill, John G.1956. “The Epistle to Diognetos.” IER, 85, 92-106. Dublin.
Parvis, Paul. 2010. ”Justin Martyr.” In Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and
Legacies of Twelve Key Figures, ed. Paul Foster, 1-14, London:
IVP Academic.
Paulsen, Henning von. 1977. “Das Kerygma Petri und die urchristliche Apologetik.“
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 88, 1-37. Stuttgart.
Pétrement, Simone. 1966. ”Valentin est-il l'auteur de l'épître à Diognète?” Revue
d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, 46, 34-62. Strasbourg.
Piltz, Anders. 1991. ”Än som i gången tid: Mysterieteologi från fornkyrka till nutid.”
Florilegium Patristicum. En festskrift till Per Beskow, 146-167. Delsbo.
Porter, Stanley, E. (Ed.). 2007. Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation.
New York: Routledge.
Putti, Joseph. 1994. Theology of Hermeneutics: Paul Ricoeur’s Theory of Text
Interpretation and Method in Theology. San Francisco: International Scholars
Publication.
233

Quasten, Johannes. 1992. Patrology. 4 vols. Westminster, Maryland: Christian
Classics, Inc.
Ramsey, Boniface. 1987. Beginning to Read the Fathers. London: Darton,
Longman & Todd.
Ramm, Bernard. 1961. Varieties of Christian Apologetics . Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House.
Reagan, Charles E.1996. Paul Ricoeur: His Life and His Work. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Reeves, Josh A. 2010. From method to Practice: A Critique of two models relating
science to religion. Diss. Boston: Boston University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort
Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
_________. 1980. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Ed. Lewis S. Mudge, Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1980.
__________. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Ed. trans. John B.
Thompson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_________. 1984. Time and Narrative. Vol.1. Trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David
Pellauer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_________. 1985. Time and Narrative. Vol.2. Trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David
Pellauer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_________. 1986. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of
meaning in language. Trans. Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin and John
Costello, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc.
_________. 1988. Time and Narrative, Vol. 3. Trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David
Pellauer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_________. 2011. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Ed. trans.
Don Ihde, Repr. New York/London: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Ridderbos, Hermann. 1979. Paul-An Outline of His Theology. Trans. John R. De Witt.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
_________. 1997. The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary.
Trans. John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Rogers, Rick. 2010. “Theophilus of Antioch.” In Early Christian Thinkers:
The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures, ed. Paul Foster, 52-67,
London: IVP Academic.
234

Sasse, Hermann. 1964. ό. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 3:867-898, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Schlier, Heinrich. 1964. ί. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich, trans. Gerhard W.Bromiley, 2:25-33, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Schaff, Phillip. 2011. History of The Christian Church. 8 vols. Ante-Nicene Christianity
A.D. 100-325. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Schoedel, William, R.1972. Athenagoras. Legatio. In OECT, ed., trans. William
R. Schoedel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schrenk, Gottlob. 1964. ύ. In TDNT, eds. Gerhard Kittel and
Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Goeffrey W.Bromiley, 2:192-210, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Skarsaune, Oskar. 1984a. ”Den Tidligaste Apologetiske Litteratur.” In AFe, eds.
Einar Baasland and Reidar Hvalvik, 211-214. Oslo: Luther Forlag.
__________. 1984b. "Peters Forkynnelse." In AFe, eds. Einar Baasland and Reidar
Hvalvik, 216-222. Oslo: Luther Forlag.
Stone, Michael E. 1980. Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra
to the Jewish Revolt. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Thierry, J.J. 1966. “The Logos as Teacher in Ad Diognetum XI, I.”, VC, 20, 146-
149. Amsterdam.
Thiselton, Anthony C. 2009. Hermeneutics: An Introduction, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Thunberg, Lars. 1991. ”Fornkyrkans uppenbarelsesyn: Några antydningar.” Florilegium
Patristicum. En festskrift till Beskow, 214-232. Delsbo.
Tillich, Paul. 1951. Systematic Theology: Reason and Revelation, Being and God. Vol.1
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turabian, Kate L. 1996. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and
Dissertations. Rev. John Grossman and Alice Bennet, 6th ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Überlacker, W.G. 1994. “Retorisk analys och Nya testamentet: Kort Presentation.”
Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift, 70, 167-174. Lund.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1988. Is There a Meaning in the Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
__________. 1990. Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in
Hermeneutics and Theology. Diss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
235

Vickers, Brian. 1988. In Defense of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Villadsen, Holger. 1990. ”Nordisk Patristik 1981-1988 - En bibliografisk översikt.”
Meddelanden, 26-48. Collegium Patristicum Lundense 5. Lund.
Virkler, Henry. A; Ayayo, Karelynne G. 1981. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes
of Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
Company.
Whittaker, Molly.1982. Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos. In OECT, ed. trans. Molly
Whittaker. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wickert, Ulrich. 1979. “Christus kommt zur Welt: Zur Wechselbeziehung von
Christologie, Kosmologie und Eschatologie in der Alten Kirche.” In KL,
Festschrift für Carl Andresen, ed. Adolf M. Ritter, 461-481. Göttingen:
Vandenhieck & Ruprecht.
Wifstrand, Albert. 1957. Fornkyrkan och den grekiska bildningen: Olaus Petri-
föreläsningar hållna vid Uppsala universitet. Lund.
Wilken, Robert L. 1980. “The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them.” In
Jewish and Christian Self-Definition 1, The Shaping of Christianity in the
Second and Third Centuries, ed. Ed P. Sanders, 100-125. Philadelphia:
M W Books.
Wolfson,. Harry A. 1956. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Vol.1. Faith, Trinity,
Incarnation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Young, Frances. 1999. “Greek Apologists of the Second Century.” In Apologetics in the
Roman Empire, eds. Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman and Simon Price,
81-104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
236

APPENDIX
Allusions and soft references to biblical passages categorized under the six doctrines of
Revelational Theology and the theological themes as they appear in the somewhat
extended revelational part (7.1 - 10.2) of Ad Diognetum. In this systematization I have
borrowed from similar lists in Marrou, A Diognéte, pp. 269-294 and Lona, An Diognet,
pp. 49-54.
Ad
Diognetum
Themes Doctrines Allusions/References
Theocentrism
7.1 Christian faith has Divine origin and is no earthly
discovery or mortal invention
237
Gal.1.11-12
8.2 God is Creator-no veneration of matter Ro.1.25, Gen.1.18-28
8.5 God is unseen and unknown J.1.18
8.7 God is Creator and Master of universe Ro.1.20
8.8 God alone is good and true Mk.10.18, J.1.14
9.1 God’s goodness and power Tit.3.4-5
9.2 God’s great design revealed Gal.1.11-12, Eph.1.9
Eschatology
9.1 Time of iniquity-time of righteousness
Former time-now
Tit.3.3-4, Eph. 4.22-24,
Col.3.9-10, 2 Cor 5:17-
9.2 God has appointed a time for revelation Eph.3.10, Ro.16.26
9.5 Time past and time now Ro.5.12,18-19, 6.6,
9.6 Past and present time Eph.2.1-4, Col.2.13
10.2 The kingdom of heaven Mk.10.25
Christology
7.2 The holy and incomprehensible Word-Logos J.1.3, 10, Col.1.15-17,
19

The Word as instrument in creation
The Word as truth
The Word and not an angel, minister or ruler
238
Hb.1.2
J.1.14, 14.6
Hb.1.2-4
7.4 The Word sent as a royal Son J.3.16
7.3-4 The Son came in kindness, not in terror J.3.17
7.6 The Son will come again as Judge J.5.22, 27
8.5 The unseen God manifested himself J.1.18
8.9 The Father communicated the plan to the Child Eph.1.9
8.11 The Child revealed the mystery of Ages Eph.1.9, 3.9
9.2 God gave us his own Son-holy, innocent, just Ro.6.10, 1 Pt.3.18,
10.2 The only-begotten Son
Soteriology
Hb.7.27
J.3.16, 18, 1J.4.9
7.2 The Word established in hearts of faith Eph.3.17
7.5 The sending of the Son in love, not judgement J.3.17
8.6 Through faith we can see God revealed Eph.3.17, Ro.3.26,
J.9.40-41, 20.29
9.1 Entering the kingdom of God through God’s power J.3.5, Mk 10.24-25,
9.2-5 The Son gives justification for our sins
The Son gives himself as a ransom
Lk.18.24-27, Mt.19.23-
26,
Ro.3.25-26, 2Cor. 5.21,
Gal.1.4,1Ti.2.6, Tit.2.14,
1 Pt. 3.18
Mk.10.45, Mt.20.28,
Ro. 8.32
9.6 The Son as Saviour 2Ti.1.10

9.6 The Saviour gives life and light J.1.4-5
10.2-3 God so loved the world J.3.16, 1J.4.9, 19
Anthropology
9.1-2 Human life under lust, iniquity and death Col.3.6-8, Ro.1.29-32,
239
3.9-18
9.3 Our sins Ro.3.23
9.4 Our wickedness and impiety Eph.2.1-5
9.6 Our inability or powerlessness Mk.10.27
Cosmology
7.2 Mysteries in the order and harmony of creation J.1.3, Gen.1.16-28, 1Cor.
10.2 God’s gifts in reason and mind
God created the world in his love for humankind
15.27, Ac. 14.15-16
Gen. 1-2, Eph.1.17-19,
3.16-18
Ac.14.15-17, 17.24-28

240