Is the Epistle to Diognetus Anti-Semitic?

News of the Dea blogger Meg recently commented on a previous Per Christum post I made about Ash Wednesday. I visited her blog, and found out that she is participating in our Church Fathers Lenten Reading Plan, which includes the Epistle to Diognetus. Let me welcome her to the blog.

Over at her blog, she made a post that asks an interesting question: Is the Epistle to Diognetus Anti-Semitic? She quotes from the letter:

From the translation available at New Advent:

their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice

Actually, this next line made me laugh:

And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,—how is it not a subject of ridicule?

What, did this guy not read the Torah? At ALL!?…

I’m really okay with reading this — it’s history, all part of the bad and good that makes up the Church. But I’m feeling a bit concerned about the catechumens in my RCIA class. This was handed out to anyone who wanted it. I sure hope none of them read this and conclude that anti-semitism is okay in the Roman Catholic Church.

Tomorrow I read more of Diognetus. Let’s hope it gets better.

Some Catholics over the years have been genuine anti-semites, and encouraged hatred and mistreatment of Jews, and this is inexcusable, and a stain on our past. There are even some Catholic bloggers on the web whom I believe are truly anti-semitic, or at least dangerously close, and at least one of our contributors attempted to call one such blogger to task for this. However, I have read this letter many times (in a more modern, but copyrighted, translation), and I never thought of it as anti-semitic. I am sure there is a fine line between strongly opposing Judaism and its practices, and opposing actual Jews. The early Christians did strongly oppose Judaism, but they did accept the Old Testament, including the Torah. However, they almost universally interpreted it allegorically, not literally, and likely many of them thought a literal interpretation of it was wrong. I am not an expert in Jewish-Christian relations over the years, but I suspect that Jews wrote nasty things about Christians too during this time, since these two faiths were in competition (not that two wrongs make a right, of course, but it does provide a context for this less-than-polite discourse). If anti-semitism is defined broadly as to include opposition to Judaism, the New Testament may even be considered anti-semitic (and some do consider it as such). I have heard Catholics called “anti-semitic” simply for saying that Judaism is wrong, so I think it is important to define exactly what anti-semitism is. I am interested in what all of you think about it, and I think we must begin by defining our terms.

One thing we must keep in mind as well: The Church Fathers are not infallible. Catholics do not use their writings as infallible proof-texts, which is good, because sometimes they wrote things that were not so charitable or even correct. Thus, the Fathers are not beyond correction, so we have no need to somehow sanitize the words of author of this letter to Diognetus in order to defend Catholicism.

What do you think?

This entry was posted on February 9, 2008 at 1:58 pm and is filed under Fathers of the Church, Liturgical Year. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Is the Epistle to Diognetus Anti-Semitic?”

  1. Gil Garza Says:
    February 9, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Diognetus is a great example of Christian Greek rhetorical apologetic during a time of persecution by both pagans and Jews. The point that is being made is that both paganism and Judaism were foolish and that Christianity was reasonable. Paganism is foolish because it offers faulty worship to faulty gods. Judaism is foolish because it offers faulty worship to the One true God.

    In its proper context, Diognetus is not anti-Semetic at all. There is no condemnation of the Jews as a race or even as a people. Rather, ideas are presented as either foolish or reasonable in classical rhetorical style.

  2. A Simple Sinner Says:
    February 9, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    I tend to not support (and in fact grow really leary of people who do) the idea that there are “dangerous or unreadable” ideas…

    At least to the point I am leary of it possibly including exhorting thinking people to NOT read something. Mein Kampf, as an extreme example, should be published until the end of ages so people can examine the ERROR contained therein and analyze it. But there is wisdome in creating critical annotation of these texts. I wouldn’t hand Mein Kampf unannotated and without history to an 11 year old and say “here ya go!” Come to think of it, there are some 50 year olds I wouldn’t do that with either…

    During a brief stint as an intern at Catholic Answers I was sometimes amused by the fact that the vast library of CA may well have included more non-Catholic and anti-Catholic literature than Catholic! It was needed for the research of error.

    That being said, I am also a little concerned about any crticism or critique or refutation of post-Christic, post-temple. rabbinic Judaism as being “anti-semetic”. (especially when applying apologetic for the fullfillment of the law and the Divinity of Christ.) That is a well-loaded term that conjurs up Nazism, slurs, KKK, and the like.

    Context is also important. Ancient apologias being what they were, no small amount of hyperbole and a different sense of politness is found therein. I am pretty sure that if I wholesale adopted the writing style of various and sundry eastern fathers in “comdemning the loathsome heretics who with error rip from the Bosom of Christ’s Church those who are ignorant leading them ingloriously to burn in hell for all eternity”…

    Then again, maybe that would boost our visitorship!

  3. Meg Says:
    February 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    I think it was the mocking tone of Diognetus that made me think of it as anti-semitic.

    He doesn’t actually critique Jewish practices, he just holds them up and calls them ridiculous.

    I had no idea that this was a rhetorical style. That certainly helps me put it in context.

  4. A Simple Sinner Says:
    February 10, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    Oh dear Meg… I may have to warn you to stay away from some papal encyclicals of the 1800s! :)

    We have to be careful not to read some of these older texts in a modern voice… Commonly patristic voices are pretty, well, gruff. Today to write some of what they do would be considered downright rude!

    I can state that I have reservation about handing such text to RCIA candidates without noting something about the stylistic types of yester-century!

    Start looking at other patristics - especially Eastern fathers writing against various and sundry heresies. (hehehe) Their exhortations against the “impious heretics which cleve from the bossom of the Church faithful which they would lead to Hell for all eternity”… Well let’s just say you wouldn’t exactly see such talk at the next RC-Lutheran joint meeting!

  5. Mrs. Darcy Says:
    February 19, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    My response, though much belated, is over at Byzantine, Texas in a guest post.

Leave a Reply