While many Evangelicals have paid a great amount of attention to NT texts, fewer have considered the value of a set of writings known as the Apostolic Fathers. When we do pay attention to these writings, the Epistle to Diognetus and the Fragment of Quadratus are the least considered. The Epistle to Diognetus is one of the earliest apologies within Christian literature. It has been described as a literary gem. J. B. Lightfoot, the great Anglican bishop, even called the Epistle to Diognetus the noblest of early Christian writings. Despite its literary beauty, it is an often forgotten witness for how the NT was interpreted within early Christianity.

Part of the difficulty with the study of the Epistle to Diognetus is the great amount of uncertainty about introductory matters. It is uncertain who the recipient was. Was it Tiberius Claudius Diogenes, who was a procurator of Alexandria at the end of the second century? Was the recipient the archon Diognetus, the son of Apollonius? Was Diognetus a fictional name as there were so many with this name at that time in history? Since the Epistle was found within the writings of Justin Martyr, was it related in any way to this well-known Christian apologist?

The authorship of the Epistle to Diognetus is also in question. The author describes himself as a mathētēs, the Greek word for disciple, signifying that he was a disciple of the apostles. Some have proposed that Apollos was the author. Many other potential authors have been set forward: Clement of Rome, Quadratus, Marcion the heretic, Apelles the student of Marcion, Aristedes of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome, Pantaenus from Alexandria, Lucian of Antioch, Ambrosius, and others.

It is also unclear as to whether the Epistle to Diognetus was one or two documents. There appears to be a sudden shift between chapters ten and eleven which has led scholars to believe that two letters have been sewn together. Connected to the question of integrity is that of purpose. Is it a letter, which it has been called traditionally, even though there is no greeting or thanksgiving? Furthermore, can it be a letter when there is not an indication of the author’s name or the date when it was sent? Is a better possibility that it is an apology? Could chapters 10–12 have been a homily or a fragment of a homily added to the letter or apology?

The date is uncertain as well with a wide suggestion of dates. Dates range between 117 and 313. While there are several scholars who date the Epistle between AD 150 and 225, the majority of scholars date it to 200. Clayton Jefford, however, rightly considers the Epistle to be an apology and dates it within the mid to latter half of the second century. There is some similarity with the later apologies, and thus this may be one of the first early apologies written during the latter half of the second century.

Jefford addresses each of these issues and others such as structure, theology and theme, relationship to Scripture, and historical trajectory within the first section of his work to the Epistle to Diognetus. Although this section is considered the editor’s introduction, it is a lengthy section of 126 pages, comprising nearly half of the overall book. The introduction is replete with references to past and recent scholarly discussion on the Epistle to Diognetus.

After surveying options referring to the author and recipient, Jefford states that the resolution to most of these issues cannot be clearly determined. He does conclude on the matter of the text of the Epistle that the core materials were given orally first in an unknown setting. A later author then recorded this. It is possible that Clement of Alexandria edited the Epistle later. He added chapters 11–12 and then inserted several hymnic sections within chapters 1–10; Logos Christology influenced these additions. The Epistle thus exhibits the influence of a vibrant faith community.

While Jefford draws conclusions, they are appropriately tempered. He rightly acknowledges the struggles that scholars have had with the Epistle such as lack of an extant ancient manuscript with only a few transcriptions and much scholarly disagreement. He, however, helpfully chooses to make proposals rather than leaving matters in ambiguity. While his conclusions are tentative, Jefford has made a significant contribution to scholarship by making proposals and drawing reasonable conclusions that are in agreement with the evidence that is given.

Besides addressing these introductory matters, this volume also provides a fresh English translation of these two documents. The Greek text is placed on the left page with the English translation on the right facing page. As a result, it makes translation comparison easy. Several other factors distinguish the translation. It is gender inclusive and contains some movement between the use of the singular and plural forms of second person verbs and pronouns. Reference is made to major translations within the footnotes.

Each verse within the Epistle to Diognetus also has a comment. Several of these comments are lengthy filling a few pages. There are also lengthy discussions of critical issues and key interpretive questions.

Jefford’s volume is especially important for English speakers as it ends the drought of commentaries on this apology. The last great English commentaries on this work were written in the mid-twentieth century by Blakeney (1943) and Meecham (1949). Others like Ehrman, Hill, Bockmuehl, and Lona, have commented significantly in English about the Epistle within their recent writings on the Apostolic Fathers, but they have not produced a text and commentary on the Epistle. Commentaries on the Epistle can be found by the French scholar Marrou and the German scholars Brändle, Lona, and Wengst in the latter half of the twentieth century, but there is no full-length study comparable to this volume in English in recent times.

Those who are students and scholars of the Early Church and Patristic theology will be highly interested in this book. Those who are interested in the influence of the NT upon the followers of the apostles will be interested as well. Some who are looking for a more detailed discussion on the Fragment of Quadratus may be disappointed as there are only a few pages devoted to this.

---