After reading Hill's stuff (see post below) I'm convinced, once again, that I need to do some serious reading of Irenaeus.

The problem is that I have no idea what a good modern edition of Irenaeus would be. I'd like something that doesn't sound like the KJV. If it has the Greek and notes that is bonus. Something like a Loeb edition with a modern translation would be perfect, but I'd also go for a cheap (but good) modern English translation and a recommendation as to which Greek edition to pursue (assuming the organizing schemes between the two editions are compatible).

Any help? Any ideas? Feel free to leave a comment or email me with edition citations.

Thanks!

Update (2006-06-13): I purchased two volumes. One is Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. The other is Book I of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies. Both are volumes from Paulist Press' Ancient Christian Writers series. Note they only have Book I of Against Heresies, I guess I'll find another edition to cover the balance unless they rush out with the balance of it. If anyone has any leads on decent English editions of others of Irenaeus' works, please feel free to let me know, either via email or through comments on this post (comments are preferred).

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.

I just received word that the paper I submitted for presentation at the 2006 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington DC has been accepted. Here's the info:

• Paper: Subjects and Predicates and Complements, Oh My! Searching the New Testament with Sensitivity to Syntax
• Abstract: Logos Bible Software have implemented an edition of the OpenText.org Syntactically Annotated Greek New Testament. One facet of OpenText.org's work isolates clause boundaries. Within each clause, subjects, predicators, complements and adjuncts are identified. This enables searching of the Greek New Testament with sensitivity to clause-level criteria. This advance raises certain questions: How should syntactic annotation be used? What sorts of things can be searched for? This paper examines different sorts of searches that can be pursued from the starting point of a word. Questions like "When is [word] used as a subject?" or "What verbs are used when [word] is a subject?" will be examined and discussed.

If you'll be at ETS in November, make sure to talk to me more about syntax and searching the Greek New Testament. If you're really interested, I have a few articles on the Logos blog with video (here and here) that you can check out in the meantime. In those articles, I walk through some searches using the OpenText.org annotation. Fun stuff!

This sure beats last year -- I only found out my paper was accepted when I read the program book about a month before the meeting!

We recently looked at 1Th 4.1-12 in the home group study I take part in. I wanted to work a little further through the flow of the text, so this seems as good a place as any to do it.

Section 1: 1Th 4.1-2

Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν
Finally, then, brothers, we ask you and urge you
   ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ,
   in the Lord Jesus,
   ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε
   that just as you have received
      παρ’ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ,
      from us how you should necessarily walk and please God,
         καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε,
         just as you are walking,
         ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον.
         that your progress may continue even more.

οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν
For you know this message we have given to you
   διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ.
   through the Lord Jesus.

In chapter 3, Paul (and Silas, and Timothy; though primarily Paul) had written concerning their relationship with the Thessalonians. How fellowship with them was missed, and how Paul was apprehensive about their condition and faith. After being reassured by Timothy's report, Paul digs in and switches to didactic mode. This is the preface. Note how Paul's request -- that the Thessalonians continue to progress and apply what they have been taught -- is bounded on both sides by reminders that this message is from "the Lord Jesus". It is asked in the Lord Jesus (v. 1) and given through the Lord Jesus (v. 2). The message is serious: Don't stop. Keep going, and keep walking and progressing, that you may continually please God to a greater degree with your obedience to His will.

The focus on the message and on the source of the message is important. Paul wants them to know that what he has to say is not from him, but from the Lord. It is a serious message, one that requires attention and one that demands obedience.

Section 2: 1Th 4.3-8

Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ,
For this is the will of God,
   ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν,
   your sanctification,
   ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας,
   that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality,
   εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι
   that each of you know (how to) gain control of your own body
      ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ,
      in holiness and honor,
      μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας
      not in lustful passion
         καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν
         just as the Gentiles who do not know God;
   τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν
   no one should exceedingly transgress or take advantage
      ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ,
      of his brother in this matter,
      διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων,
      because the Lord is the one who punishes concerning all things,
         καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα.
         just as we warned you and testified against.

οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς
For God has not called us
   ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ.
   for impurity but into holiness.

τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν
For this very reason, the one who rejects this rejects not man but God,
   τὸν [καὶ] διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς.
   the one who gives his spirit, the holy one, to you.

After underscoring the importance of the message in 1Th 4.1-2, Paul digs right in. The holiness, or sanctification, of the Thessalonians is what God wills. Paul describes that in three parts:

• "that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality"
• "that you know how to keep control of your own body"
• "no one should exceedingly transgress or take advantage of his brother"

Is this all that sanctification consists of? No. But these are three areas that Paul instructs the Thessalonians to address and ensure they are obedient in. It is interesting that the second and third items in the list are expanded upon.

Keeping control of one's own body is to be done in holiness (prepositional phrase with prepositional object of "holiness" or "sanctification", the same word used earlier in v. 3) and honor. This is contrasted with the lack of control that Gentiles (others outside Christian community) show. They follow their "lustful passions" instead of curbing them in obedience. The Thessalonians are to curb their lustful passions, they are to control their bodies with their eyes focused on honor and holiness.

The third item has to do with defrauding or cheating others, taking advantage of others with the idea of benefitting ones self instead of acting in the interest of others. It is the self-focused nature of the action that is the underlying problem. The Thessalonians are to act with the interests of the other in view, particularly if the other is a fellow believer.

The consequences of disobedience are then laid out: The Lord punishes. Paul simply reiterates that this is what the Thessalonians were told by Paul, Silas and Timothy during their stay.

This is all followed up by another reminder of the will of God: sanctification. God calls to holiness, not to impurity or immorality. This bounds the section, it began by stating God's will was sanctification, it ends with a reminder that impurity (reflected in the three areas mentioned) is not what God calls His own to; he calls to holiness. Sanctification.

After this, a reminder that the one who rejects this teaching does not reject man (Paul, Silas and Timothy; the ones bringing the message) but reject God. In so doing, the Holy Spirit is rejected. Note the similarity with Lu 10.16, where Jesus says, "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (ESV). 

Section 3: 1Th 4.9-12

Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν,
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need [for anyone] to write to you.
   αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους,
   for you yourselves have been taught by God in the love of others,
   καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε αὐτὸ
   for this is what you do
      εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
      to all the brothers,
      [τοὺς] ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ.
   the ones in the whole of Macedonia.

Παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισσεύειν μᾶλλον
But we implore you, brothers, to progress still more
   καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν
   and have as your ambition quietness,
   καὶ πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια
   and mind your own,
   καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν,
   and work with your own hands,
      καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν,
      just as we proclaimed to you,
   ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως
   so that you may walk properly
      πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω
      among those who are outside
      καὶ μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε.
      and you may have need of nothing.

Paul next transitions straight into the Thessalonians' love of the community. They practice this, and they do it well. But Paul isn't satisfied with this and he encourages them to strive even more in this area. Paul offers three areas of refinement:

• have quietness as their ambition (cf. 1Ti 2.1-2)
• mind their own personal matters
• work with their hands

The Thessalonians aren't to be boorish or overbearing, they are to be serious and respectful. They aren't to be nosey. And they are to be productive. These are all things Paul had told them earlier, he is reiterating them here. The result of this action, says Paul, is twofold:

• Those outside the fellowship will see these things, they will see the proper walk (cf. 1Ti 3.7)
• Need of and reliance on things of the world will decrease

Paul urges them to take the next step, to "up their game" a notch. He says, "You're doing great. But you can do better, so shoot for a higher goal." They are to love others with more than a brotherly love, they are to love with the love of Christ. This love isn't the naive love of embracing tolerance, nor is it the tough love of judgement and rebuke. It is a love that focuses on Christ our Savior, loving him and obeying the will of God as we progress toward sanctification. It is a love that strives for holiness in our relationship with Him, and in our relationship with others, loving Him and loving others with the eternal and not necessarily the temporal in primary view. We can meet temporal needs, and this is good. But we need to primarily attend to the need of salvation in non-believers and the need of sanctification in our lives and the lives of other believers. Adding this eternal focus to the way they love others is how the Thessalonians can do even better, "excel still more" as the NASB translates.

Of course, that's what we need to do too.

The June edition of the Biblical Studies Carnival, deftly wordsmithed by Benjamin Myers of the Faith and Theology blog, is available for the world to see. And ricoblog even got in there a few times!

If you don't regularly read Ben's stuff, you should. Read some more of his posts, like just about anything in his "popular posts" list.

Thanks, Ben!

The sweet woman I love pointed out to me the other day that in June we can say, "we get married next month!"

So to celebrate that fact, I post one of my favorite pictures from our engagement picture session. Hey, I didn't know you took 'engagement pictures', but it's what all the kids are doing these days.

The wedding is on July 22. Until then, here's a pic* of the happy couple:

* Aaron Nelson of Evantide Photography is our photographer. He's a great guy who just got married two weeks ago!

I took this photo (and many others) atop Chuckanut mountain in Larrabee State Park at sunset a few weeks ago. From Chuckanut, take Highline Road, and then ascend up Cleator road (one-lane gravel, fairly well maintained) to the viewpoint at the top.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Μὴ γίνου πρὸς μὲν τὸ λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας,
Do not first reach out your hands to receive,
   πρὸς δὲ τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν.
   only to draw back from giving.

ἐὰν ἔχῃς διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου,
If you have something because of your hands,
   δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου.
   offer it as a ransom for your sins.

οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις·
Do not hesitate to give nor grumble while giving:
   γνώσῃ γάρ,
   for you will know,
      τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης.
      who is the good paymaster of the reward.

οὐκ ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν ἐνδεόμενον,
Do not reject the needy one,
   συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σοῦ
   but share everything with your brother
      καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι·
      and do not say anything is your own:
   εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοινωνοί ἐστε,
   for if you are sharers in the immortal,
      πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς θνητοῖς;
      how much more in things that will die?

Notes

These three verses center on materialism. They speak about giving and receiving. The Didachist teaches that in order to receive, one must give. The one who is receiving should be giving. The bit about offering up the work of our hands "as a ransom for your sins" seems a bit strange, though. The Didachist's point, though, is that the baptismal candidate shouldn't clutch to the tangible things of the world, but he should realize that nothing is his, all belongs to the Father, so sharing with the brothers bestows the benefits upon the community.

Almost sounds communist, though.

The basic idea is that the material things should have no pull on the actions of the Christian. They are not ours, they have only been entrusted to us for a short time. We should, then, use such resources wisely and appropriately.

The paragraph closes off with a stunning concept: "if you are sharers in the immortal, how much more in things that will die?" Christians have and share in the incredible gift of salvation and eternal life. In light of that, lesser things should be just that: lesser.

Update (2006-06-01): Tim Wegener (Madabar) writes in to refer me to Ex 30.11-13 on the idea of the work of our hands offered up as a ransom for our sins. He also (rightly) points me away from thoughts of communism by reminding me "Perhaps the difference is that the sharing is done freely, rather than through force, regulation, legislation or coercion". True, true. It seems when I see things like "share things freely" my economics major kicks in and considers economic systems instead of what the text really says. Thanks for bringing the discussion back to what's important, Tim!