[Notes on EpDiog §7.1-2]

EpDiog 7.1-2 discussed the one sent by God to man. §7.3 picks up at this point.

The author of the letter asks Diognetus a question about the nature of the mission this one sent from God is on. Did God “... send him to rule in tyranny, fear, and terror?”

Such a mission could be expected — after all, man pretty much screwed it up at the beginning of it all. Wouldn't God be justified in sending a representative to whip things back into shape and give us what we deserve?

Well, God would be justified in doing that, but thankfully he didn't send someone to rule in tyranny, fear, and terror. The author explains this starting in verse 4. If you look at the Greek, you can catch the rhythm:

4 οὐ μὲν οὖν·
ἀλλ ̓ ἐν ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ πραύτητι
ὡς βασιλεὺς πέμπων υἱὸν
βασιλέα ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς θεὸν ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς ἄνθρωπον πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς πείθων, οὐ βιαζόμενος·
βία γὰρ οὐ πρόσεστι τῷ θεῷ.
5 ἔπεμψεν ὡς καλῶν, οὐ διώκων·
ἔπεμψεν ὡς ἀγαπῶν, οὐ κρίνων.

You can see the repeated use of ὡς (“as”) and ἔπεμψεν (“he sent”) and pick up the cadence/rhythm. I love passages like this because they beat the syntax into my head through the repetition. (Hint: EpDiog 5.5-16 has similar repetition, though not as direct.)

This one whom God sent was sent as a king sending his own son. Though the author doesn't say it explicitly, he obviously means Jesus, the Son of God. He has been alluded to/referred to with some of the same phrases used in the NT. Now the author is mentioning that this one (Jesus) is sent in the same way that a king would send his own son. Could there even be an allusion to the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Lu 20.9-18)?

Yet the author of the letter tells Diognetus that this one sent from God comes to “show forth his love”, not to judge — at least not to judge yet; that part comes later (EpDiog 7.6). And when it comes, none will be able to “withstand” it.

There is a lacuna right here in the best and most complete MSS for the Epistle to Diognetus, none of the other sources fill the two-line gap. Meecham* (p. 122) lists various theories as to what is missing, but all we really know is from a marginal note at this point that says something like “and in this manner the copy was found (cut?), being very old”. So the copyist didn't have the material; who knows if the space of two lines accurately measures the amount of missing material.

Whatever the missing content, v. 7 in Ehrman's edition has been emended. The last three verses speak of martyrs refusing to deny “the Lord” and noting the curious phenomena this spectacle had on recruitment — according to EpDiog 7.8-9 these sorts of things only increased the numbers of Christians. As soon as one was martyred, another was in his place. What, asks the author of the letter, could drive men to do this? Surely not anything natural or logical. Surely not common sense. Therefore, this must be evidence that God is in it: “These things do not appear to be human works. These are the power of God; these are proofs of his coming.”

Fragmented, random comments — oh well. Thanks for puttin' up with me.

* Meecham, H.G. The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek Text with Introduction, Translation and Notes. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1949.