MYSTERY REVEALED

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