About six weeks ago, I blogged about the first part of Charles E. Hill's book From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, where he argues (somewhat convincingly) that Polycarp is the source of Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter in AH 4.27-32.

I read the second part of the book today. Amy is at a bridal shower, so after I got some chores 'round the house done (mowed the lawn, pressure-washed the driveway and front walk) I figured I could sit down with a book for awhile and get lost. Since I'd been meaning to get back into Hill's book (disclaimer: I took a year of Greek and a class on the Johannines from Dr. Hill when he was at Northwestern College) it seemed the thing to pick up.

As Hill himself mentions, the links between Polycarp and the work known as the Epistle to Diognetus (henceforth ad Diognetum) are largely circumstantial and cannot, with current data, be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That said, Hill makes a strong case. As a result of reading his work, I'm more ready to say that the work likely came from a Smyrnaean milieu, though a specific, direct tie to Polycarp is another matter.

For me, there are just too many jumps to make in order to get there. Each step seems legitimate, but as a group the whole seems rickety. Granted, there are few if any other theories about the authorship of ad Diognetum that do as well as Hill's in covering bases. But the textual jumps are, I think, too strained. They could be used as evidence with other more certain proof, but standing on their own they are inconclusive.

What are they? I'll say first off that Hill has many more parallels (textual, cultural, epigraphic, and geographic) than I'll list here. If you're interested, you need to read the book.

The primary jump -- the initial one Hill makes, anyway -- seems to be from the Martyrdom of Polycarp to chapters 11-12 of ad Diognetum. Hill makes a strong case that Polycarp was known as a "disciple of the apostles", language in common between Martyrdom of Polycarp and ad Diognetum. But from here we have to jump back from the Martyrdom -- an account of Polycarp's death with some reported speech that may or may not be accurate -- to Polycarp himself. And we have to jump over the large lacunae between chapters 10 and 11 of ad Diognetum.

Hill does this well. He makes a strong case for the unity of the ad Diognetum, positing that the lacunae are missing sheets from the same document, not a work of someone else pasted on the end of the ad Diognetum.* Hill also then makes the case that ad Diognetum is protreptic, that is, it is a work that was read by the author in the presence of Diognetus; it wasn't a letter. Hill finds other similarites between reported speech of Polycarp in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

And again, it all could be, but to me it seems too stretched to stand on its own. Hill's thesis is worthy of consideration, but it, with current knowledge, cannot be proven. Even Hill admits that. In his preface he writes:

At the outset I will state that the two cases [i.e., Polycarp as source of AH 4.27-32 and Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum] rest on quite different sets of evidence; each case is presented and should be evaluated separately. The first will render results which, I will suggest, may be treated as a certainty. The results of the second rest, I believe, high in the realms of probability, though perhaps not quite at the same level as the first.

From my perspective, I can agree with this. That is, I think Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum is within the realms of probability as a result of reading Hill's work; but I do think it is still far from certain.

If you have an interest in the Apostolic Fathers, particularly in Polycarp, the ad Diognetum, or Irenaeus; or if you have an interest in authorship studies or general texutal analysis, I recommend Hill's work with enthusiasm.

Update (2006-06-04): Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) asks about where Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians fits into this whole theory. It does fit in, but Hill finds more parallels in the martyrdom because it is more contemporary with ad Diognetam in Hill's view. The martrydom happened in 155 or 156 (likely); Hill places ad Diognetam in the 140s. The epistle, however, is much earlier (30 years earlier, at least, perhaps 40). Hill also sees differences in genre. The epistle is just that, an epistle. The ad Diognetam is apologetic and intended to be given as an address to convince. This is why Hill focuses more on the reported speech sections of the Martyrdom; if they are accurate of Polycarp's style of debate and presentation, then they will likely show more parallels. Hill does have a whole section (pp. 136-140) on the corresponences between Polycarp's epistle and ad Diognetam. One major item of correspondence is discussion of Christ's atoning as substitutionary, which Hill says "is not at all comon elsewhere in the second century": Poly 1.2, Poly 8.1, Poly 9.2 compared to Diog 9.2-5.

* I think the case is strong enough that the adherents of the general consensus that chaps 1-10 and 11-12 are from different documents need to respond to the case presented by Hill.