of the remaining relics. He relates that the Israelites, having returned from Canaan, lived in Egypt until the day of their departure. This is also found in the Testament of Benjamin. He then reports that when some war had occupied the Egyptians, the Israelites seized the opportunity to transfer their patriarchs to Hebron, though they performed the task in secret, so as to remain hidden even in this way from the Egyptians. Thus the Testament of Simeon, loc. cit.: *They brought them back secretly in the war of the Egyptians.* He combines this year with the year after the death of Gad, [the fifth], according to that Testament. For it holds: *[Greek phrase]*—but the author could not have meant this, for he would have been born after Joseph was sold, whereas our author makes him very hostile to Joseph. It is easily concluded from this that a larger number is missing. It must therefore be rewritten: *After forty-five years*, or *after 45*. Thus everything proceeds most correctly according to our calculations. For Dan died in the year 225 of the Promise, which was the year forty-five before the deportation of the relics. From this, that location which we assigned to Gad is wonderfully confirmed. Thus, therefore, our author feels, if he feels anything consistent with himself. Yet, it should not immediately be held as true just because he himself believed it to be true. I would rather conclude that this entire chronology of those times, which does not rest upon the sacred text, has arisen either from the reasonings of men or from faulty belief. Certainly, our author thinks differently in all these matters than Demetrius in Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, bk. IX, ch. 21. This, of course, could hardly have happened if they were contemporaries, given that we know of no monuments besides the sacred scriptures. Therefore, we have taken pains that the author’s arguments, whatever they may be, should at least stand for themselves; not, however, that we would compel our own allegiance to them. But it will not even be useless that the ancients—though younger than our author—be understood, if by chance, seduced by the venerable names of the Patriarchs, they followed him even when he was in error. It is, moreover, a very accepted error among recent chronologists, and a source of other errors, that they do not even distinguish with sufficient accuracy in the ancients between historical testimonies concerning matters explored by themselves, and the conjectures and reasonings of those same ancients. For if these were distinguished, not every utterance would be held as an historical testimony.
ANONYMOUS APOSTOLIC MAN: EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS: PROOEMIAL DISSERTATION
(Galland., *Vet. Patr. Biblioth.*, I, Proleg., LXVIII.)A I. Regarding the Epistle to Diognetus of the anonymous apostolic man, whose editions are announced. It is less correctly attributed to St. Justin Martyr; this is proven by various arguments taken from the character of the writer, the notation of the times, and the distinction of style.
When the Ignatian Epistles were being committed to the press, the thought entered our mind regarding the author of the distinguished Epistle to Diognetus, who is found to have flourished in the first century. But since neither Polycarp nor Papias were to be entirely separated from the society of Ignatius, we judged it opportune to give a place to that anonymous apostolic man at least after the holy bishop of Hierapolis.
Most excellently, therefore, Henry Stephanus first brought this Epistle to light in Greek, translated it into Latin, and illustrated it with notes in the year 1592; which thereafter was added to the works of St. Justin Martyr and appeared in the editions of Heidelberg 1593, Paris 1615 and 1636, Cologne or Wittenberg 1686, and in the recent Paris edition of 1742—which is surely the most brilliant of all—by the labor and study of the distinguished Prudentius Maranus; B whose copy, however, a Venetian edition printed five years later, but less accurately. We have therefore put that aside and fashioned our own according to the standard of the former, and furthermore restored to their own places those things which the most learned editor had advised should be added or amended.
Although many writers of no small reputation, especially in the last century, have without any hesitation adjudicated this same Epistle to St. Justin, there have not been lacking others—men distinguished in both genius and learning—who have believed its author to be much older than Justin. Among the first of these is Tillemont (1); whom Noris (2), Baraterius (3), and recently Orsi (4)—a man conspicuous both for his learning and his dignity—have subsequently followed.
And surely the arguments brought forward to strengthen this opinion do not appear to be light, drawn especially from the character of the writer and the distinction of the times and style.
ANONYMOUS EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS — PROOEMIA
A And first of all, the author clearly enough betrays 5 that he had addicted himself to the discipline of the apostles and had been their hearer. "Having become a disciple of the apostles, I become a teacher of the Gentiles." This, surely, one could only say of Justin most improperly.
Next, our Anonymous writer frequently inculcates that the Christian religion had recently sprung up. Addressing Diognetus at the beginning of the Epistle 6: "I see," he says, "that you are possessed of a most eager desire to learn what is the divine worship of the Christians, and why this new race or institution has now begun to enter into life, and not before..." "What then is this new race or practice that has entered into life now, and not before?" And soon after, to the same effect 7: "After you have become, as if from the beginning, a new man, as you have yourself confessed, a hearer of a new doctrine..." "A hearer of a new doctrine." And with a few words interposed, he confirms the same even more clearly in these words 8: "When in former time God had convinced us that our nature could not attain to life, but now had manifested the Saviour, who was able to save even what could not be saved, etc." "Now having manifested the Saviour, able to save even things that are impossible, etc." And a little later 6: "This One who is always, today deemed a Son, through whom the Church is enriched." "This One who is always, today deemed a Son; through whom the Church is enriched." When all these things are duly weighed, I should think they can scarcely, if at all, square with the age of Justin.
What of the fact that, while the Jerusalem temple was still standing, the author declares without ambiguity that this Epistle was written by him? For when speaking of the Jews, and comparing them with the Gentiles and Christians, he says this 10: "The Jews... who think that by blood and odor and whole burnt offerings they offer sacrifices to God, appear to me to differ nothing from those who pursue the same honor with a sense of lack." And he adds immediately: "But their meticulous caution regarding foods, and their superstition regarding Sabbaths, and the boasting about circumcision, and what they feign about fasting and new moons, which are ridiculous and unworthy of being told, I do not consider that you have any need to learn from me." And soon after: "I judge, therefore, that you have learned in abundance that Christians rightly abstain from the common vanity and imposture of the Gentiles, and from the curiosity and boasting of the Jews." "The Jews... abstain... they claim... they offer this worship to God... they err... they think." B Do you see how everything is expressed here as if, at the time when the Anonymous writer was writing, the Jewish cult must still have been flourishing? He speaks in no other way than Clemens Romanus does in the Epistle inscribed to the Corinthians 11; and the Clementine passage which we drew forth earlier to define the notation of the time, deserves also, in regard to the age of our Anonymous writer, to be urged; and so the Epistle itself should be fixed at the year of Christ 69 at the latest, or perhaps even earlier—which is more pleasing, as will become clear from what is to be said presently.
Furthermore, and in my own mind a by no means light indication appears from that same Epistle, which so far as I know has not yet been noticed by anyone, by which the conjecture proposed regarding its author being an apostolic man is more and more built up. For our Anonymous writer mentions the war which the Jews and Greeks were at that time waging against the Christians in these words 13: "By the Jews they are warred against as foreigners, and by the Greeks they are persecuted; and the haters are unable to state the cause of their enmity." "Against them (the Christians) the Jews wage war as against foreigners, and the Greeks persecute them; and their haters are unable to state the cause of the enmity." And with a few words interposed 14: "(Do you not see) them thrown to the wild beasts, that they may deny the Lord, and yet not being conquered? Do you not see, how many more they are that inflict tortures, by so much more do they multiply?" "Do you not see them subjected to wild beasts, that they may deny the Lord, and not be conquered? Do you not see, the more they are that inflict torture, the greater is the number of others?" In these words there are two things in particular, I think, to be noted. And first, the author speaks of Christians from among the Jews, or of those who, "after they had gone forth to Jesus outside the camp, bore his reproach," to use the Pauline phrase; for he testifies that war was being waged against them by the Jews as though they were foreigners. To wit, he says, the Christians who are harassed are Hebrews, they are Israelites, they are the seed of Abraham, and they are nourished by the same blood as their persecutors, the Jews; who yet pursue them and provoke them with war, just as if they were foreigners, D *allophyloi*. And that the opinion of our author is to be understood in this sense, no one, as I think, will deny. Here I now ask, what else should our Anonymous writer be thought to have implied by those words than those disturbances and seditions which, from the very cradle of the Church, the Jews incessantly stirred up against the faithful from the circumcision, as is manifest everywhere, both from the Acts of the Apostles 3, and from the Apocalypse 4; which also they are reported to have excited on occasion later on, as is clear in the first place from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna 15? The author himself, being an apostolic man, consigned to writing with his own hand what we have just reported concerning these Jewish persecutions; and I therefore do not understand by what reasoning these can be adapted to the times of Justin.
A Another point, however, worthy of note in the two passages brought forward, is that at the same time as the Jews, the Greeks also were fighting against the Christians; and the author of the Epistle asserts that they were thrown to the wild beasts, and declares that their number was the greater, the more there were who inflicted punishments upon them. Who, moreover, could fail to see that the Neronian persecution is here perfectly described by these characteristics? For in the first place, Hermas, another apostolic writer flourishing at the same time as our Anonymous is thought to have written, as we showed above (16), looking back at this same persecution, mentions (17) those who have already deserved well of God, and have suffered for his name’s sake wild beasts, scourges, prisons, and crosses. Next, we learn from Tacitus (18) that the Christian religion, having been vexed all the more under that same Nero, grew by greater increments with each passing day. "This destructive superstition," he says, "though suppressed for the moment, was breaking out again, not only throughout Judea, the source of this evil, but even through the City, whither from every side all things atrocious or shameful flow and are celebrated": so that the author of the Epistle may justly and deservedly be considered to have spoken of this very persecution.
If anyone chooses to weigh with an unbiased mind what we have observed up to this point, I little doubt that he will embrace the opinion of those who define the author of this Epistle to be much older than Justin Martyr. Some critics, indeed, prefer to understand one or two of these passages differently, so as to assign the epistle to Justin; but they seem to do violence to the words in order to force them to yield the meaning they intend, whereas, on the contrary, all things flow more evenly when they are referred to those times which we have deduced from the context itself. Nor, finally, can anyone rightly persuade himself that Justin Martyr, or anyone else more recent than he, would have wanted to employ that mode of speech throughout that whole epistle which savors of high antiquity, as has been rightly noted by learned men (23).
C To these points is added the style of the same Epistle, much more florid and elegant than that which the holy martyr is found to have used in all his genuine works that are in circulation. For concerning the style of Justin, the greatest critic, Photius, judged as follows (19): "He did not take the trouble to adorn the natural beauty of his philosophy with rhetorical devices. And therefore his discourses, though otherwise powerful and preserving a scientific character, do not possess the sweetness that distills from those sources, nor do they draw the crowd of hearers with persuasive and charming allurements." "He thought it of no importance," says he, "to color the native beauty of his philosophy with rhetorical artifice. For which reason also his speech, though otherwise powerful and valid, and keeping a scientific style, does not breathe those rhetorical condiments, nor does it attract the common crowd of listeners with enticements and flatteries." If anyone were to wish to compare this judgment, indeed, with that excellent eloquence which the author of the Epistle uses, even if other arguments were perhaps lacking, he would nevertheless have to admit, however unwillingly, that it must be adjudged away from Justin. And the learned Benedictine editor was so moved by this difficulty that he did not place this same epistle among the most certain works of the holy martyr in the place he would otherwise have assigned to it, had not doubt been fixed in the heart of that most distinguished man (20).
D "Nor, indeed," as Nourry well says (21), "should one immediately argue from this that a style elaborated with such great care is more abhorrent to the highest simplicity of apostolic speech than can be attributed to any disciple of theirs. Verily, after the divine writers, by whom the holy volumes of Scripture were issued by the inspiration of the Spirit, each one indulged his own genius, and some composed their studies in a more elegant style, others in a simpler one. It must be admitted, however, that they applied themselves to simplicity; nor did our author use these artifices and ornaments of eloquence without some serious cause, perhaps to persuade Diognetus of the truth more easily." So far the learned man. Regarding this matter, you have much that has been sagaciously observed by the most skillful Fabricius (22).
[11. Objection is made by some.]
As for what we have noticed up to this point, if it please anyone to weigh it with an even mind, I do not doubt that he will embrace the opinion of those who define the author of this epistle to be much older than Justin M. To some critics, indeed, it pleases to take one or another of these passages differently, in order to assert the epistle for Justin; but they seem to force the words to yield the meaning they intend, when on the contrary all things flow more evenly where they are referred to those times which we have extracted from the context itself. Nor, finally, should anyone rightly persuade himself that Justin M., or any other person more recent than he, would have wanted to use in that whole epistle a manner of speaking that smacks of extreme antiquity, as has been rightly noted by learned men (23).
But the author designates him by the title of Apostle, antonomastically, without mentioning the name of Paul, by which he is not found to have been distinguished until after the earlier ages of the Church. "When the Apostle," he says (24), "had perceived this power, he says: 'Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.'" And yet, to remove this difficulty, I certainly will not use the excuse that I should suspect the end of the Epistle, from the words *this one from the beginning* to the very end, to have been added by another, as Stephanus and Sylburgius (25) do. For that which they allege is very slight, namely "that the author of the Epistle was not dealing with a Christian who could penetrate to the depths of such words, but with Diognetus, still raw in Christian doctrine." Yet, to that man who was most desirous of knowing the Christian religion, the author proposes in the preceding parts most of the things that occur toward the end of the Epistle: such as that God did not send a created thing, but his own Son; that the Son was sent late so that men might know that they were unworthy of life from their own sins; that man could not be justified in any other than in Christ, etc., so that it was not inappropriate that Diognetus, having been taught mysteries of this kind, should also be imbued with those which are thought by some to be surreptitiously added. Therefore, leaving these things aside, it is better to say with a learned man:
A “for since in the whole Epistle various hiatuses and gaps occur, some shorter, some longer, it cannot be determined with certainty what is missing therein, which might one day be supplied with the aid of other manuscripts. And indeed, the word ‘Paul’ may perhaps have been rubbed out, or omitted, or faded, which without a doubt solves the knot of this difficulty.” To which I would especially like for you to add, why indeed could our Anonymous author not have used that antonomasia? Since it was permitted or pleasing to later Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, why not also to an apostolic man? Finally, what prevents us from believing that this manner of speaking was first introduced by him and then usurped by the rest? For truly and wisely Chrysostom says (27): “When you say ‘the Apostle,’ immediately everyone thinks of him; just as when you say ‘the Baptist,’ immediately everyone thinks of John.” What of the fact that Athenagoras simply names (him) the Apostle, *On the Resurrection*, § xviii, p. 53.
III. Who was the author of the same Epistle, it is inquired. Was it Clement of Rome? Perhaps rather Apollo, the Alexandrian man, eloquent and gifted: of whom there is frequent mention in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pauline Epistles. An observation concerning Diognetus, to whom the Epistle is inscribed, and concerning the excellence of the Epistle itself.
These things, however, which we have discussed thus far, attract the mind and in a certain way compel us to inquire who the author of the Epistle might be: for if he were perhaps detected, greater light would be added to the things already said. One, Baraterius, conjectured that Clement of Rome had written this (28), for the primary reason that it is certain he lived in those times during which our Anonymous author is said to have flourished. I fear, however, that what that learned man proposed is not sufficiently firm and established, namely, that the epistle with which we are dealing so reflects Paul’s style that it appears to be Paul’s; and so holds forth Clement as the author, whose style is clearly known to have great affinity with the Pauline one. But I, if I know anything, would incline to that opinion, that Apollo should be recognized as its writer, of whom Luke writes these things in Acts: “Apollos… an eloquent man… being mighty in the Scriptures. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning the Lord… who… helped much those who had believed… For he mightily convinced the Jews publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” So if Apollo was such a great man, while he was B still imbued only with the first rudiments of the Christian faith and had been baptized only with the baptism of John; how much greater must he be thought to have become, after he was subsequently instructed in the higher mysteries of religion by the disciples of the Lord, and first of all by the teacher of the Gentiles himself? The Apostle truly testifies of him that he watered the Church at Corinth, which he himself had planted, with such a copious shower of his wisdom and eloquence that, bringing forth a very rich crop, it was an occasion of schism, with some of the Corinthians saying: “I indeed am of Paul; but others: I, however, am of Apollo.” Why then should the Alexandrian man, eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit and instructed in the way of the Lord, not have written a most brilliant epistle? Why should that apostolic man, excelling in knowledge, faith, and piety—who diligently taught the things that are of the Lord, showing through the Scriptures that He is the Christ; and who was *λόγιος ὁ ποτιστὴς τῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν* (“the eloquent one who waters the disciples of Christ”), to use the words of St. Nilus (29)—not have discussed those sublime mysteries concerning the Son of God, which he teaches Diognetus with most sweet eloquence in that epistle (30)? For to Apollo, indeed, all other things correspond, which we have just illustrated, having drawn them from the context of the Epistle itself; and that most of all, that he called him “the Apostle” simply, with the name Paul suppressed; him, whom, meeting at Ephesus and acting most friendly with him, he clearly knew to be concerned for all the Churches.
Nor would I have you omit that, to further establish the timing, this apostolic man was alive in the year 64 (31), or rather 65, drawing to a close (32), in which Paul wrote his Epistle to Titus: for in it he gives him a mandate concerning sending Apollo before to Nicopolis in Crete, where he had decided to winter; so that, in the beginning of the following year 66, Apollo himself might have joined the Apostle as a companion, and thus might have inscribed his Epistle to Diognetus at about the same time or a little later.
Who, moreover, that Diognetus was, is completely unknown. For indeed, if those things which we have just evaluated have any value, he is not to be thought to be the one whom Capitolinus testifies had great influence with M. Aurelius Antoninus (33). This one thing we know from the author of the Epistle (34), that he was a *κράτιστος* (“most excellent”) man, who was burning with a great desire for knowing the Christian religion. And indeed, several C were... D