Heaven-borne in the World:

Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus1

Anders Klostergaard Petersen

1. From Fish to Pearl – the Whims of Fate

Working with the Letter to Diognetus inevitably brings to mind the old story
theme of the fish and the pearl. As many commentators have noticed through-
out the years2, the work is a pearl among early Christian literature. Yet it is a
treasure which has only survived due to the strange whims of fate. We have
no knowledge of the work from ancient times. The church fathers neither
name nor make reference to it. For 1200 years it languished in neglect, until it
turned up in 1436 at a fish market in Constantinople as part of a stack of pa-
pers used to wrap fish.3 Today we can thank the whims of fate for its surviv-
al. Thomas d’Arezzo, a young Italian clergyman, purchased the manuscript
for a modest sum shortly after its appearance at the fish market. It was part
of a larger codex, Kodex Argentoratensis Graechus 9, presumably from the 13th
or 14th century, which contained 21 early Christian works in addition to the
Letter to Diognetus.4 The work was grouped with four other pseudo-Justinian
texts which made up the first five works in the codex: 1) By St. Justin, philoso-
pher and martyr,On the Sole Government of God; 2) By St. Justin, philosopher
and martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks; 3) By St. Justin, philosopher and

1 This chapter came into being during a research visit to the Institut für Neues Testament,
Philipps-Universität, Marburg. I am thankful to the Theological Faculty at Aarhus Univer-
sity for financing the secondment, and to my good friend Professor Dr. Friedrich Avemarie
for organising the practical details of the visit and for many stimulating and inspiring con-
versations over the years. In deep sorrow, I now dedicate this essay to my friend of blessed
memory († 13.10.2012).
2 As can be seen, for example, in the titles of two earlier works by I.M. Sailer (ed.), Der Brief
an Diognetus, eine Perle des christlichen Altherthums, in: Briefe aus allen Jahrhunderten der christ-
lichen Zeitrechnung, Vol. 1‒5, Munich 1800‒1804, and W. Heinzelmann, Der Brief an Diognet,
Erfurt 1896. The pearl metaphor is also used by Fiedrowicz, 2000, 55, and C.C.J. Bunsen,
Hippolytus und seine Zeit. Anfänge und Aussichten des Christentums und der Menschheit. Erster
Band. Die Kritik, Leipzig 1852, 138, describes the work using the related term, “jenes patris-
tischen Edelsteins”.
3 The most comprehensive presentation of the history and background of the work is found
in H.I. Marrou, A Diognete. Introduction, SC 33, Paris 1951, which also contains the most ex-
tensive commentary on the work. I am using the translation of Bart Ehrman found in The
Apostolic Fathers II. Epistle of Barnabas. Papias and Quadratus. Epistle to Diognetus. The Shepherd
of Hermas. Edited and Translated by Bart D. Ehrman, LCL 25, London 2003. When referring
to the Greek text I am using the Greek text in the edition of Marrou In my outline of the
history of the work I have drawn on Marrou‘s presentation.
4 For a complete overview of the 22 works in the codex, see Marrou, 1951, 12‒17.
126 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

martyr, An Exposition of True Faith or On Trinity; 4) By the same, The Discourse

to the Greeks; 5) By the same, Letter to Diognetus.5
Shortly after the purchase, d’Arezzo left with three brothers of the Do-
minican order to missionise among Muslims. He therefore transmitted the
work to another Dominican, the later Cardinal Johannes of Ragusa, who was
in Constantinople at the same time as a delegate for the Basel Council, and
who owned a significant manuscript collection. After his death in Basel in
1443, Johannes Reuchlin, uncle to renaissance humanist, Philipp Melanch-
thon, acquired the manuscript. An inscription on the back page of the codex
indicates that Reuchlin must have worked with it. It is unclear what happened
to the codex after Reuchlin’s death in 1522, but at some point in the second
half of the 16th century it was passed on to Marmoutier Abbey in Alsace, and
from there to the national library in Strasbourg in the late 18th century. How-
ever, fate again intervened capriciously. When Strasbourg was hit by cannon
fire during the Prussian siege on 24 August 1870, much of the national li-
brary went up in flames, including – unfortunately among other irreplaceable
treasures – the codex to which the Letter to Diognetus belonged. An original
manuscript, therefore, no longer exists. Fortunately three transcriptions of
the original codex and collations and several precise palaeographical obser-
vations and descriptions exist, but the text situation undeniably makes the
work of textual criticism more difficult. This is not improved by the fact that
there are gaps in three places in the text (6.6; 10.1,8), which, due to these prob-
lems of transmission, cannot be reconstructed.

2. The Letter to Diognetus as a Historical Work:

Author and Date of Authorship
In the original codex, of which the Letter to Diognetus was the fifth work, the
letter was attributed to Justin Martyr along with four other works. However,
no modern scholars see him as the author of any of the five works.6 They are
considered to be pseudo-Justinian, but this raises the questions of who au-
thored the Letter to Diognetus, the date of authorship, its intended recipients
and genre, and the circumstances under which it came into being. Examining
the history of scholarship, it becomes apparent that our understanding of the
work reflects its fateful appearance as a pearl in fish wrapping paper. We

5 Cf. section 1 in Jörg Ulrich’s article on Justin Martyr. A. von Harnack argues in Die Überlie-
ferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter,
Leipzig 1883, 85, and in Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Zweiter Theil. Die
Chronologie. Erster Band. Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenäus nebst einleitenden Untersu-
chungen, Leipzig 1897, 513, that the initial five works attributed to Justin Martyr originally
comprised a separate Justin collection which was appended to the other 17 works of the
codex at a later date by an editor, sometime between the 4th and 10th century.
6 Cf. H.G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus. The Greek Text with Introduction Translation and
Notes, Manchester 1949, 61f. and E. Molland, Die litteratur- und dogmengeschichtliche Stellung
des Diognetbriefes, in: ZNW 33 (1934), 289‒312 (292).
 Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 127

neither know its origin nor its date of authorship, and we have only a vague
sense of the circumstances under which it came into being. Throughout the
ages, many have conjectured about famous people from antiquity as potential
authors, or have attempted to anchor the letter in a particular geographical
environment,7 but such attempts have always been guesswork. We only have
the transcript, and yet we are capable of saying something approximate about
the historical situation behind its authorship, since the text at a number of
points exhibits notable similarities with other works about which we have
a greater knowledge concerning the historical background. To be fair, such
parallels have provided the basis for various scholarly attempts to link the
letter to famous people and particular locations in early Christianity. How-
ever, we will never be in a position to say to whom the work was directed,
who the exact author was, or how it came into being, but we may make some
justified claims about the cultural and social environment which the work
reflects. There are several similarities between Aristides, the Kerygma Petrou,
Clement of Alexandria’s Protreptikos and the Letter to Diognetus; and it shares
several characteristics with the other second-century apologetic works. It also
reflects a phase in early Christianity where in certain contexts it had become
possible to perceive Christianity as an independent religion with respect to
Judaism (ch. 1 and 3–4).8
Based on these and other considerations, it seems reasonable to date the
work to sometime during the late second century or first half of the third
century, in a Christian environment clearly set in a Greco-Roman, Chris-
tian, culturally elitist context, where Judaism was viewed with great mis-
trust. The author had no background in Judaism, but was a former pagan
who addresses other pagans interested in Christianity, encouraging them to
convert. The work shows no indications of having been written in a social
context where a more Judaising form of Christianity represented a threat to
the author‘s world-view. The Judaism he feels compelled to combat does not
appear to have won a foothold in the circles to which he belongs. Rather, it
appears as if the author, in line with the argument of 1 Cor 1:20‒25, has ste-
reotypically divided the world into three ethnic/religious classes: Greeks,
Jews and Christians. Possibly, one may come closer to determining a time
and place of the Letter to Diognetus when one takes particular characteristics
of the work into consideration.
Contrary to other apologetic literature, not just from the second centu-
ry but the subsequent centuries as well, it is unusual that the text does not
refer to the Old Testament. We do find a pronounced polemic against Jew-

7 See Marrou, 1951, 242f.

8 In, A.K. Petersen, At the End of the Road – Reflections on a Popular Scholarly Metaphor, in:
J. Ådna (ed.), The Formation of the Church. Papers from the Seventh Nordic New Testament Con-
ference in Stavanger 2003, Tübingen 2005, 45‒72 (56‒58), I have discussed in detail the ge-
neral issues surrounding the establishment of Christianity as a separate and independent
religion with respect to Judaism.
128 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

ish and pagan idol worship in chapter 2, which constitutes a textual patch-
work of Old Testament themes and images against idol worship (Deut 4:28;
Ps 115:4‒7; Isa 44:9‒20; Wis 13:10‒16; 15:4‒17; JerBr 2‒70). In chapter 12, the
goal for the newly converted pagans is described by the use of images
drawn from Gen 2. God makes those who love him in the right way into a
garden paradise, and each one becomes a fertile tree, bearing all kinds of
fruit. However, there is uncertainty as to whether chapters 11‒12 are part
of the original work. There are many indications that the two chapters have
been added by a later editor who wanted to anchor the work in a more
‘orthodox’ form of Christianity.9 By emphasising Christ as the Word, the
two chapters fulfil a perceived christological deficiency in the preceding
section of the work, and they connect the teaching of the letter institution-
ally to the church. It is a characteristic of the work that the author does
not relate his understanding of Christians and Christianity as a novum to
the Old Testament. This is not an element in his understanding of history.
Marcion naturally comes to mind, who distanced himself from the Old
Testament Creator God and the Jewish Bible as the foundation for the New
Testament10 – but one needs to be wary of this connection for two reasons.
First, the work contains no Marcionite polemic against the Old Testament.
Second, the idea of creation plays an important role throughout the work.
At several places, God is emphasised as the creator of the universe (7.2; 8.7).
We can simply observe that references to the Old Testament narrative and
promises have no part to play in the text.11 Judith Lieu, therefore, makes the
succinct point that:

9 Although most interpreters see chapters 11‒12 as a later addition, some scholars argue
that the work in its present form functions as a whole. See D.P. Andriessen, The Author-
ship of the Epistula ad Diognetum, in: VigChr 1 (1947), 129‒136 (135); Marrou,1951, especi-
ally 219‒227; Fiedrowicz, 2000, 57; M. Rizzi, La questione dell’unità dell’ “Ad Diognetum”,
SPMed 16, Milano 1989. For the secondary nature of the chapters, see K. Wengst, Di-
dache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet, Darmstadt 1984,
283‒356 (287‒290), where Wengst provides a number of clear arguments for viewing
ch. 11‒12 as a later addition. He notes that: “Damit dürfte deutlich sein, dass es sich bei
den Kap. 11f. um einen sekundären Nachtrag handelt, der von einem anderen als dem
Autor der Kap. 1‒10 verfaßt worden ist.”
10 Cf. A. von Harnack, Beilage V. Die Antithesen Marcions (nach Zitaten und Referenzen), in:
Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Darmstadt 1960 (21924), 256‒313, and Me-
echam, 1947, 37f.: “Our author’s temper is Marcionite in its ignoring of the historical link
between Judaism and Christianity.” Two earlier scholars have gone as far as claiming
that Marcion was the author of the Letter to Diognetus. See Bunsen, 1852, 138: “In der
Ausgabe, welche ich von dieser Reliquie vorbereitet habe, glaube ich bewiesen zu haben,
dass der Brief an Diognet ein verlorner Brief Marcion’s aus seiner frühesten Zeit ist.”; E.
Buonaiuti, Lettera a Diogneto. testo, traduzione e note, Rom 1921, 18f: “Nulla v’è in essa (sc.
the text) che Marcione non avrebbe potuto scrivere: molto v’è che nessuno, se, non lui,
avrebbe potuto dettarre.”
11 Cf. Harnack, 1960 (19242), 203f. — this observation had not yet been made in the first edition
from 1921, 236.
 Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 129

The ad Diognetum is unusual in the second century in not finding

any such [Old Testament] history; consistent this may be, yet ulti-
mately it was to prove unsatisfactory, and the denial of history, as
implied by Marcion’s rejection of the Creator God of the Jews, was
excluded as heretical.12
Another peculiarity is the absence of references to, or even the impression
of Christianity as an institutionalised religion with a developed cult and
specific rituals and a concomitant structure. It is odd that one does not find
traces of the ‘established’ Church in a work from the late second century
or the first half of the third century. Chapter 11:5‒6, however, is a striking
exception, but these verses should probably be seen as a later editor‘s at-
tempt to compensate for the lack of institutional links in the original work.
Despite parallels to other apologetic literature, much suggests that the text
was written in the context of an extremely independent Christian group –
virtually an enclave – which pursued and radicalised certain traditions of
the Pauline literature.13 Gospel material is also strikingly absent. One could
almost see the work as a bridge or stepping stone towards more Gnostic
forms of Christianity.14 However, interpretations reflected by the Letter to
Diognetus may help us understand how and why Marcionism and Gnostic
forms of Christianity were able to perceive themselves as valid and true
stewards of the Christian traditions.
The work is written in stylistically elegant and flawless Greek.15 There
is no doubt that the author had undergone extensive rhetorical schooling,
which suggests that the work was written at a stage of early Christianity
where it had gained a footing in educated and socially higher circles of the
Greco-Roman world, and could be formulated in philosophical categories.
Although the author emphasises God‘s revelation, and in contrast to others
such as Justin Martyr, writes off philosophy as “illusions and the deception
of tricksters (ταῦτα μὲν τερατέια καὶ πλάνη τῶν γοήτων)” (8.4), he clearly

12 J. Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity, London 2002, 189.
13 In light of these considerations, I am sceptical about Charles Hill’s recent attempt to argue
that the author of the Letter to Diognetus was Polycarp of Smyrna. Apart from the fact that it
is an impossible thesis to prove, the conjecture falters on the ground that remarkable differ-
ences exist between the Letter to Diognetus and the only extant text of Polycarp, that is, his
Letter to the Philippians. See C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. Identifying Irenaeus’
Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum, Tübingen 2006, 128‒165.
14 S. Petrement, Valentin est-il l’auteur de l’épître à Diognète?, in: RHPhR 46 (1966), 34‒62, has
argued that the work was written by the Christian Gnostic, Valentine, but this seems ext-
remely doubtful given the creation theology themes in the text. Cf. R. Brändle, Die Ethik der
„Schrift an Diognet“. Eine Wiederaufnahme paulinischer und johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang
des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Zürich 1975, 228, and Harnack, 1897, 514.
15 E. Norden claims in Die antike Kunstprosa, Vol. 2, Darmstadt 1958, 513, that: “von den an
einzelne Personen gerichteten apologetischen Schriften… der Brief nach Diognet nach al-
len diesen Gesichtspunkten (sc. content, level of style, and language) zu dem glänzendsten
gehört, was von Christen in griechischer Sprache geschrieben ist.”
130 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

belongs to the Middle Platonic tradition.16 The Christology of the work also
indicates an advanced stage in the history of early Christianity. Christ and
Jesus are not mentioned. Rather, Christ is portrayed as the truth and the
holy incomprehensible word (7.2); the Son (9.2; 9.4; 10.4); the Son (παῖς 8.9;
8.11; 9.1);17 saviour (9.6); and Lord (7.7). The absence of references to New
Testament christological concepts (Jesus, Christ, son of David, son of man,
etc.) must be seen in light of the author‘s wish to avoid linking the Christ
event with Old Testament narratives and the earthly Jesus. However, the
author emphasises the purpose of Christ in terms of a theology of creation
to an extent that is only matched by other contemporary works. God sent
Christ who is:
The craftsman and maker of all things himself, by whom he created
the heavens, by whom he enclosed the sea within its boundaries,
whose mysteriums all the elements of creation guard faithfully,
from whom the sun was appointed to guard the courses that it runs
during the day, whom the moon obeys when he commands it to
shine at night, whom the stars obey by following the course of the
moon, by whom all things are set in order and arranged and put
into subjection, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth
and the things in the earth, the sea and the things in the sea, fire,
air, the abyss, creatures in the height, creatures in the depths, and
creatures in between–this is the one he sent to them (7.2).
Another argument for dating the work to the late second or early third
century is a number of references to martyrdom ([1.1]; 5.11f; 6.5f; 6.9; 7.7‒9;
10.7f.). They almost have the character of an independent martyr ideology,
which has its closest parallels in other works from around the end of the
second century. For example, the reader is encouraged in 7.8f. to consider
the correlation between the death of the martyrs and the growth of Chris-
tianity: “Do you not see that the more the multitude is punished, the more
others increase their numbers. These are the powers (ταῦτα δύναμίς) of
God; these are the proofs of his coming.”It is also notable that the particu-
lar Christian ethos the work is at pains to emphasise at several places is
closely linked to martyrdom.
In light of these considerations, it is not unreasonable to view the Let-
ter to Diognetus as a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity
dating to the late second or early third century,18 with a Pauline focus,19 but
untouched by the ritualised and institutionalised form of Christianity or
by the Old Testament narrative, and representative of a protreptic discourse

16 Cf. Wengst, 1984, 304f.

17 It is clear from 8.11 and 9.4–5 that παῖς and υἱός are used synonymously in the work, so
παῖς means son here and not servant.
18 Cf. Harnack, 1897, 515.
19 Cf. Molland, 1934, 310.
 Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 131

employed to mark out the path by which pagans (cf. 5.4) are exhorted to
convert to Christianity. This is a further argument to support the second-
ary nature of chapters 11‒12, since these two chapters presuppose a Chris-
tian audience.

3. The Letter to Diognetus as an Apologetic Work:

Determining the Genre, Structure and Content
In what sense is the Letter to Diognetus an apologetic work? If it is an idiosyn-
cratic radicalisation of certain Pauline traditions dating to the late second or
early third century, one has to ask whether it can be meaningfully classified
in the context of other apologetic works. The more distinctive one makes the
work, the further one removes it from other comparable literature. This is
self-evident, but we also find patterns in the work which connect it with other
apologetic works. Before discussing the text as an apologetic work, however,
I will first consider its genre, structure and content.
I have certain reservations about using the title, Letter to Diognetus,
since the work is not in the genre of a letter. It lacks the features which
would justify such a classification. It is also a modern designation which
can be traced back to the work‘s first publisher, Henricus Stephanus Justini
philisophi et martyris Epistula ad Diognetum et Oratio ad Graecos “The philoso-
pher and martyr Justin’s Letter to Diognetus and The Discourse to the Greeks”
(Paris 1592). Inevitably, this raises the question what kind of work is it? I
will draw here on Jörg Ulrich‘s musings in the introduction regarding the
relationship between apologetic and protreptic works. I can only concur
with his conclusion that there is a great need to group protreptic discours-
es with the classic apologies. This is the more so, since it makes no sense
to categorise the Letter to Diognetus as an apology sensu stricto, but rather
as a protreptic speech which may also be described as an apologetic work.
This is not to say that every protreptic discourse, therefore, is an apologetic
work. The claim being made is simply that apologetic texts may well be
protreptic in terms of genre, cf. figure 1.20 The Letter to Diognetus lacks the
characteristics that would make it natural to classify it as an apology in
terms of both genre and function. Rather, it belongs to the more diffuse and
fuzzy category of ‘apologetic works’, which are not apologies in the narrow
genre sense, but may be classified as apologetic because their nature, con-
tent, and rhetoric have a predominantly apologetic character. Given that
we may also characterise the genre of the work as protreptic, we should
consider the implications of such a categorisation.

20 For a detailed elaboration of the figure, see my article A.K. Petersen, The Diversity of Apol-
ogetics. From Genre to a Mode of Thinking, in: A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich / D. Brakke (eds.),
Critique and Apologetics. Jews, Christians and Pagans in Antiquity, ECCA 4, Frankfurt 2009,
15‒41 (23‒39).
132 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

Intentionality
Emic perspective
Apologies proper
Deliberative Forensic

Etic perspective Fictive court speech Court speech

Cluster of apologetic
motifs
Apologetic strategy
Apologetic mode of Logos protreptikos
interpretation Letter to Diognetus

Apologetic texts

As a general mode Specificacity

of thinking
Argument
Agōn For instance, writing
Persuasio of history
Communication

Figure 1

In the mid-1980s Stanley Stowers introduced a heuristic distinction be-

tween paraenetic and protreptic texts. Both were exhortative in nature,
but the paraenetic works were aimed at followers who had already en-
rolled on the right path and needed encouragement in order to remain on
it, whereas protreptic was used with regard to exhortative works with the
aim of calling followers to a new and different way of life. In other words:
Paraenetic works were directed towards insiders – adherents to a certain
philosophy in need of strengthening in an ideal practice corresponding
to that philosophy – while protreptic speeches targeted outsiders as con-
version literature.21 However, this distinction has recently received strong
criticism. In an essay on paraenesis in light of protreptic speech, Diana
Swancutt argues that Stowers‘ distinction is based on a false opposition,
resulting from earlier German scholarship.22 Neither paraenesis nor pro-

21 S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986, 92.

22 D.M. Swancutt, Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy, in:
J. Starr / T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin 2004, 113‒153
(113‒121).
 Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 133

treptic speech represented independent genres in antiquity, but rather

parallel textual layers with different social connotations which could be
invoked in particular situations. Paraenesis and protreptic speech are sim-
ilar in content and may, therefore, also be used for parallel purposes with
identical audiences in mind, but they are derived from different cultural
and social environments:
Hence, paraenesis employs traditional, elite, hortatory precepts and
examples whereas the λογός προτρεπτικός is usually a discourse or
dialogue including several, major structural elements: a censure of
rivals; an exhortation to the Good; a demonstration of truth claims;
a description of goals; a discussion of politics; and sometimes, epit-
omized, paraenetic urgings to virtue and dissuasions from vice
(Swancutt, 2004, 152).
It is reasonable, as several scholars have noted,23 to view the Letter to Diognetus
as a λογός προτρεπτικός, the goal of which – in terms of the original work
in chapters 1‒10 – was to exhort interested pagans to convert to Christianity.
However, one should also consider whether it is unthinkable that the work
was also used internally, given the addition of chapters 11‒12. As Jörg Ul-
rich touched on in his introduction, the question of audience has troubled
the study of apologetics since early times. On the surface apologetic works
present themselves as addressing the Greco-Roman non-Christian world, but
one cannot deny – despite all the internal differences – that they have had a
significant, possibly primary, internal function as part of the formation, con-
solidation and ongoing confirmation of the internal Christian identity.24 The
Letter to Diognetus is a work which strikingly demonstrates how identity is
constructed through a strategy of radical distancing from other cultural and
social constructs.25 In the world of the text, only three groups exist: Greeks,
Jews and Christians, the latter of which act in response to God‘s direct com-
mission and in consistency with the heavenly world. Christians are heav-
en-borne in a world full of sin and defilement. They are defined negatively
in opposition to Greeks and Jews and positively by the emphasis on their
particular moral character. As figure two shows, Christians represent a kind
of meta-identity which transcends the usual ethnic differentiations in the
world.26 Christians are in the world, where they follow the moral practices,

23 Wengst, 1984, 293: “Daher läßt sich die Schrift an Diognet am ehesten als apologetisch-pro-
treptisches Schreiben kennzeichnen, wobei das protreptische Element den stärkeren Ak-
zent hat.” Cf. Marrou, 1951, 92f.; Brändle, 1975, 14f.; Stowers, 1986, 122.
24 A.K. Petersen, Paulus som apologet, in: A. Pilgaard (ed.), Apologetik i Ny Testamente, Frederiks-
berg 2005, 15‒37 (23f.).
25 A.K. Petersen, Creating the ‛Others’ in Book of Mysteries and 1 Corinthians 1‒2, in: C. Hempel
/ A. Lange / H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of
Sapiential Thought, Leuven, 2002, 405‒432 (410‒415), where I discuss differentiation strategy
as an inevitable element in all identity construction.
26 Cf. Lieu, 2002, 179.
134 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

but as the work emphasises, they live in the world as heaven-borne souls,
who have their true citizenship in heaven:
They inhabit both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot
assigned to each. And they show forth the character of their own
citizenship (καὶ ὁμολουγέμενως παράδοξον ἐκδέικνυται τὴν
κατάστασιν τῆς ἑαυτῶν πολιτέιας) in a marvelous and admitted-
ly paradoxical way by following local customs in what they wear
and what they eat and in the rest of their lives. They live in their
respective countries, but only as resident aliens (ἀλλ᾿ ὡς πάροικοι);
they participate in all things as citizens (ὡς πολῖται), they share in
all things with others, and they endure all things as foreigners (ὡς
ξένοι). Every foreign territory is a homeland for them every home-
land foreign territory. They marry like everyone else and have chil-
dren, but they do not expose them once they are born. They share
their meals but not their sexual partners. They are found in the flesh
(ἐν σαρκὶ), but do not live according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα). They
live on earth but participate in the life of heaven (ἀλλ᾿ ἐν οὐρανῷ
πολιτεύονται) (5.4‒9).

The construction of the world in the Letter to Diognetus

The heavenly world

Love Christians
Righteousness

The earthly world

Sin
Jews Greeks
Unrighteousness

Figure 2
The work has a clear structure. It consists of five major parts. Following a
brief introduction which outlines the structure of the work, it contains four
large blocks: 1) A polemic against Greek and Jewish religion (ch. 2‒4); 2) an
account of the Christian way of life (ch. 5‒6); 3) a positive presentation of the
Christian conception of God in contrast to the description of Greek and Jew-
ish idolatry in chapters 2‒4 (ch. 7‒9); and 4) a closing exhortation (ch. 10 and
11‒12). Another important element can be added to this structure—the series
 Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 135

of questions the author has put into the mouth of his addressee, Diognetus
(see 1.1): 1) What is the Christian God like? (answer: ch. 7‒9); 2) How do they
worship their God? (answer: ch. 6); 3) Why are they indifferent toward the
world? (answer: ch. 5‒6); 4) Why are they not afraid of death? (answer: ch. 6.5;
6.9‒10; 7.7‒9); 5) Why do they not recognise the Greek gods? (answer: ch. 2); 6)
Why do they see Judaism as superstition? (answer: ch. 3‒4.5); 7) What kind of
love do Christians have for each other? (answer: ch. 10.4‒8); 8) Why have
Christians and the Christian way of life only arisen at such a late point in
history? (answer: ch. 8.7‒9.2).27
Finally, it is worth considering the name of the addressee. It is unlikely
that the recipient of the work can be related to a known person from an-
tiquity, as Marrou and others have attempted over the years. One should
rather consider whether the name Diognetus (scion of Zeus or the gods)
has a symbolic meaning. This would make sense, as the work targets pa-
gans who see Zeus as their father. Diognetus, therefore, is a reflection of
that part of the human race the work is addressing. What Diognetus has to
learn through the work microcosmically reflects God‘s instruction of the
human race (9.6ff.). The aim is for Diognetus or the pagan to be moved to-
wards becoming a Christian while reading, through an unfolding move-
ment of acknowledgement.28 Through insight into the mystery (cf. 4.6; 7.1;
8; 11.2) the work reveals,29 the aim is for the pagan to come to acknowledge
the father (10.1) and thereby be led towards ethical perfection by imitating
God (10.4,6). The divine mimicry the pagan achieves through conversion to
Christianity is expressed in brotherly love and in admiration for the will-
ingness of martyrs to disdain the world rather than deny God.

4. The Letter to Diognetus as an Apologetic Work:

Cluster of Apologetic Themes
Turning our attention to the Letter to Diognetus as an apologetic work, it is
natural to begin by examining a number of the points Jörg Ulrich high-
lights as key to apologetics in his introduction to this volume. Although
it may lack the features that would permit it to be classified narrowly in
the apology genre, the Letter to Diognetus is still undeniably an apologet-
ic work. It is an exhortative, encouraging, instructional, protreptic work
aimed externally at leading pagans to Christianity, while internally assur-
ing Christians of their special identity and moving them to live a Chris-
tian life consistent with the work‘s perception of ideal Christian practice:

27 The structure outlined is yet another indication of the secondary nature of chapters 11‒12,
given that the answers to the questions raised do not cover the last two chapters.
28 Cognitive terms play a key role in the original work: 1.2; 2.1,6f.10; 3.3‒5; 4.6; 5.3; 7.1f.; 8; 9.6; 10.
29 I.W. Eltester, Das Mysterium des Christentums. Anmerkungen zum Diognetbrief, in: ZNW 61
(1970), 278‒293, contains a specific discussion of the work‘s particular use of the concept of
mystery or secret.
136 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

Brotherly love and martyr ideology. Yet this positive presentation unfolds
through an assimilation of a number of genre themes familiar to us from
more narrowly defined apologetic literature – i.e. the actual apologies (cf.
figure 1). The ‘sales catalogue’ listing the many merits of Christianity also
serves as an apology in response to a number of the contemporary charges
raised against Christianity.
In sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of his introduction, Jörg Ulrich discusses an-
ti-pagan and anti-Jewish polemic in Christian apologetic literature. Chap-
ters 2‒4 of the Letter to Diognetus are a very illustrative example of what Ul-
rich is discussing in these two sections. Building on Old Testament themes
of idolatry and Greco-Roman philosophical traditions directed against tra-
ditional religious ideas, the author of the Letter to Diognetus is able to lam-
bast Greek and Jewish religion. Both Jews and Greeks make sacrifices to
lifeless and stupid things (3.3), thereby, demonstrating their religious sim-
plicity, if not foolishness. In section 4.1 of his article, Ulrich also mentions
five charges raised against Christians in antiquity, the sting of which they
attempted to remove through apologetic texts of various kinds: 1) Chris-
tians as promiscuous or morally reprehensible; 2) Christians as potentially
politically dangerous; 3) Christians as atheists who did not recognise the
Greco-Roman gods; 4) Christians as a new and dangerous social element
which broke away from the traditional Roman principles and customs; 5)
Christians as a potentially politically disruptive social element comprising
dubious social groups (slaves, women and others with low social status in
the Roman Empire).
As already discussed above, the Letter to Diognetus reacts to all these
charges. Christians are portrayed in chapters 5‒6 as people who follow the
set local laws in all respects, and whose way of life surpasses these laws –
who like the soul of the world, give spirit to the body of the earth. This por-
trayal serves to take the sting out of these charges. Despite their conception of
God, Christians present no danger to the Roman Empire. On the contrary, the
Roman Empire should be thankful to them, because in a world full of sin and
unrighteousness, Christians add spirit and righteousness to the body of the
earth, like its soul. Parallel to this emphasis, it is stressed in several places that
Christian teachings are neither false nor atheistic. On the contrary, Christian
teaching is not false, but should be understood as a revelation received from
God himself, cf. 5.3; 7.1ff.
In section 4.2 Ulrich discusses a number of positive arguments which have
been used in apologetics to prove the truth of Christianity: 1) The argument
from antiquity, 2) the argument from miracles, 3) the argument from ethics, 4)
the argument from covenant promises, 5) the argument from history. However,
the Letter to Diognetus stands out as different on this point, which should come
as no surprise. The work‘s deliberate silence with respect to the Old Testament
narrative, the covenant promises, the gospel literature and the earthly Jesus
make it impossible for the author to positively exploit points 1, 2, 4 and 5. With
 Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 137

respect to point 3, already in the previous section we have seen how the au-
thor uses the Christians‘ particular ethos as evidence for the exemplary role of
Christianity in the world and as an expression of its superior truth.
One could claim that the work is mired in problems in relation to the
four other points, because it has deliberately cut off the possibility of argu-
ing for the antiquity of Christianity.30 Thus again, chapters 11‒12 may be
seen as an attempt by a later editor to compensate for perceived ‘orthodox’
deficiencies in the original text, cf. 11.4. Instead, the work accentuates Chris-
tianity in several places as a new development on the world stage, cf. 1.1; 2.1.
This does not constitute a problem, since the author has a fundamentally
timeless and vertical perception of reality. His world is not constricted to
a horizontal historical axis, connecting past, present and future. It is true
that there is a future perspective involved, and the spread of Christianity in
both Greek and non-Greek towns has a horizontal geographical character
(5.5; 6.2), but the basic orientation of the work is an apocalyptic, vertical,
timeless, spatial axis connecting heaven and earth. Christians live in the
world as foreigners because their real citizenship is in heaven (5.5). This ver-
tical structure is supplemented by an axis of depth between inner and outer,
soul and body. Christians are to the world as the soul is to the body: “The
soul lives in the body, but it does not belong to the body; Christians live in
the world but do not belong to the world. The soul, which is invisible, is put
under guard (ϕρουρεῖται) in the visible body; Christians are known to be in
the world, but their worship of God remains invisible” (6.3‒4).
As heaven relates to earth on the vertical axis, so the soul relates to the
body on the axis of depth. The relationship between Christians and Jews/
Greeks in the world corresponds to these two relationships. In other words,
the Letter to Diognetus is based around a very simple structure:
Heaven::earth
≈
Soul::body
≈
Christian::world (Greeks and Jews), cf. figure 3.
It is this structure which provides orientation for the various findings of the
work, and bequeaths the text with its unique character in comparison to other
early apologetic literature. The work is protreptic and apologetic in nature,

30 For a discussion of the significance of the argument from antiquity and the problems
it creates among a number of early Christian authors, see my article, A.K. Petersen, Be-
tween Old and Novelty. The Problem of Acculturation of Early Christianity Illustrated by the
Use of the Phoenix Motif, in: F. Garzía Martínez / G.P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alex-
andria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, Leiden 2003,
147‒164 (151‒154). For a more detailed discussion of the significance of the argument
from antiquity in ancient thought and a collocation of relevant sources, see Pilhofer,
1990, 253‒260.
138 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

but also stubbornly maintains an apocalyptic structure inherited from early

Christianity, in contrast to the other apologetic literature which shares a basic
structure defined in historical categories.31

The basic spatial structure of the Letter to Diognetus

Heaven +

Interior +

Christians + Exterior ÷
Earth - Present Future +
Jews and Greeks -
The values assigned to the various positions
are marked by plus and minus

Figure 3

31 In a number of publications, H. Tronier has had an eye for this structure for understanding
Paul. For example, H. Tronier, Transcendens og transformation i Første Korintherbrev, Copen-
hagen 1994, 139‒143; id., Virkeligheden som fortolkningsresultat – om hermeneutikken hos Filon og
Paulus, in: M. Müller / J. Strange (eds.), Det Gamle Testamente i jødedom og kristendom, Copen-
hagen 1993, 151‒182 (173‒177), where the same structure is derived from 2 Cor 3, with the
difference here being a contrast between past and present.