With a textual history fit for an Umberto Eco novel (the sole surviving MS, Codex Argentoratensis Graecus 9, making its way from a Constantinopolitan fish shop in 1436 to a Strasbourg library where it was lost forever to artillery shells in 1870), the so-called Epistle to Diognetus poses an intertwined set of delicate problems for the scholar of early Christianity. In this volume, J. sets out cautiously to unravel some of these by providing a new compendium of Diognetan scholarship. It is the first such in English since Meecham's 1949 commentary, and succeeds in its stated goals of providing an up-to-date review of research and in sketching a ‘general setting’ and plausible composition history of the text (p. 5). Indeed, J.'s contribution is primarily his presentation of a careful overview and synthesis – sometimes verging on the repetitious – as opposed to compelling original insights. Notwithstanding, students of Diognetus will find this volume a helpful and necessary starting point.
As part of the Oxford Apostolic Fathers series, J.'s volume adopts the tripartite structure of introduction, text and translation (with extensive notes to the text, pp. 168–88), and commentary, followed by a bibliography and two indexes. Additionally, the text and a translation of the Fragment of Quadratus, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.3) and linked conjecturally by some to Diognetus (pp. 20–2), is included summarily (pp. 190–1). Unfortunately, the inclusion of Quadratus has the feel of an afterthought, merely reproducing Greek text readily available elsewhere and offering a facing translation less precise than that available in, for example, B. Ehrman's Loeb edition of The Apostolic Fathers, vol. II (2003), pp. 118–19.
J. excels at recounting the history of scholarship and unfolding the issues it presents. He has the valuable ability to digest and condense the surprising amount of analysis and speculation generated by such a brief text. In doing so, he highlights the sometimes divergent approaches of German and English-language scholars to Diognetus, himself often preferring the former on issues of textual emendation and composition history. J. concludes that Diognetus comprises two primary literary segments (1.1–10.8 and 11.1–12.9), each reflecting distinct authorial hands and composite structure. The earlier section evinces significant editorial activity: oral-catechetical elements were inserted into an extant apologetic-protreptic discourse frame. The latter section reveals a more institutional–liturgical orientation (‘rigid’, p. 251, overstates the case) and more explicit scriptural mode of argumentation (i.e. an alleged Johannine ‘Logos Christology’, an explicit Pauline citation in 12.5; and an exegetical improvisation of sorts on Gen. 2.4b–17 in 12.2–9; pp. 246–56). From these observations and from detailed textual analysis, J. deconstructs Diognetus by removing secondary material and then constructs an evolutionary hypothesis whereby the text moved from orally performed segments that were scribed, added to and reshaped (pp. 115–26). He admits that some of this hypothesis is ‘almost pure conjecture’ (p. 119), but offers it as a model that accounts for apparent seams and variation of style in the text.
Indeed, there is rich structural analysis and attention to detail sprinkled throughout. But one might wish for more depth and precision in the several discussions of genre. This is a pressing matter given J.'s observations concerning the lack of scholarly consensus regarding the textual integrity of Diognetus (p. 54) and the paradoxical similarity of content yet fluidity of form with regard to second-century Christian ‘apologetic’ literature (e.g. pp. 6, 28–9, 56, 92–3, 98–104). J.'s conclusion that Diognetus is ‘typical’ (p. 104) in this respect is cautious and generalising; it risks effacing the distinctive features the work bears in its final form when set among other contemporary ‘apologies’ (p. 29 and n. 65 reveal J.'s frustration with this important problem).
The textual apparatus is full throughout, although one sometimes finds its information unnecessarily repeated in prose form in the notes (where J.C.T. Otto's 3rd edition figures prominently). Less precise is J.'s translation, which tends in places to be too free. Some of these translation problems are inveterate and not unique to J. For example, while we may sympathise with rendering θεοσέβεια as ‘religion’ at 1.1, ‘reverence’ at 4.5, ‘devotion’ at 4.6 and ‘worship’ at 6.4, this assists neither the student who requires a transparent translation nor the scholar attempting to think outside the problematic category of ‘religion’ (see, e.g., B. Nongbri, Before Religion [2012]). More puzzling are representative instances such as ϕυλάσσω (‘subscribing to’ rather than ‘keeping’ or ‘guarding’, 1.1), ϕιλοτιμία (‘copious honor’ rather than simply ‘honor’, 3.5), θνητός (‘worldly’ rather than ‘mortal’, 7.1), μυστήριον (‘secret’ rather than ‘mystery’, 8.10), or πολιτεύω (‘reigns’ rather than ‘orders the constitution’ or ‘governs’, 10.7). In certain cases this may be a matter of style, of wishing to distinguish one's translation from others already available. But the cumulative effect is an English version that often ignores primary lexical senses, frequently obscures scriptural terms and phrases by unconventional renderings, and sometimes fails to signpost for the reader the grammatical and syntactical flow evident in the Greek text. This approach to translation is somewhat surprising given the overall cautious nature of J.'s scholarship (see pp. 130–1 for J.'s comments on translation method).
J. has solved few of the problems Diognetus presents. He has, however, laid them out very clearly and, especially in those places where he provokes disagreement, will facilitate further research by scholars of early Christianity.
