Ignatius of Antioch
c.35 - c.107
Alexander of 
|
|
|
SynopsisIGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. The only sources from which any information can be drawn about this celebrated person are the epistles circulating under his name. Eusebius knows nothing more of him than what can be extracted from the epistles, with the exception of a few short notices by lrenaeus (Adv. Haeres., V. 28, 4) and by Origen (prologue to the Canticles, and in Horn. 6, on Luke), which he also knows. But the list he gives of the bishops of Antioch is doubtful with respect to its chronology. Compare A. HARNACK: Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878. He places Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter. As nobody knew any thing about the intervening Euodius, he gradually dropped out of attention, and a new tradition formed, placing Ignatius immediately after Peter (Chrysostom, the Paschal Chronicle, Theodoret). Between these two traditions the Const. Ap. (VII. 46) tries to mediate by making Peter consecrate, first Euodius, and then Ignatius. What tradition else has preserved concerning Ignatius - the story that he was the child spoken of in Matt. xviii. 5, and other fictions by Simeon Metaphrastes and Vincentius - is completely worthless. Nor are the various Acta Martyrii of any historical value. We have two which are completely independent of each other. I. Martyrium Colbertinurn, first published by Ussher, 1647, in a barbarous but literal translation, then in a Greek version by Ruinart, in Act. Mart., 1689, and finally in a Syriac translation by Mosinger, in Supplern. Corp. Ign., Innsbruck, 1872. II. Martyriurn Vaticanum, edited by Dressel, in Patr. Apost., p. 368. The Latin Vita Ignatii, in Act. Sand. Feb., I., 29, the Armenian Martyrium edited by Petermann, and the Vita, by Symeon Metaphrastes, may be considered as mere compilations from the two first mentioned. This whole literature has been collected and edited by Zahn, in Patr. Ap. Oper., Leipzig, 1876 [F. X. Funk, Op. Patr. Ap., Tubingen, 1881, and J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1885]. But all these Ada Martyrii are spurious: they contradict the epistles; they swarm with unhistorical statements; they were not known to any old writer, not even to Eusebius; they date, probably, from the fifth century. Thus the epistles are the only source of information left to us. They claim to have been written by Ignatius, on his journey from Antioch (where he had been condemned to death) to Rome, where he was to suffer the punishment of being torn to pieces by wild beasts. The total number of epistles bearing the name of Ignatius is fifteen, but they are of very different date and worth. Seven of them, namely, those Ad Ephesios, Magnesios, Trallianos, Romanos, Philadelphenos, Srnyrnaeos, and Polycarpum, are extant in a double Greek version, - a shorter and a longer. The latter contains five more epistles; namely, those Ad Mariam Cassobolitam, Tarsenses, Antiochenos, Heronem, and Philippenses: and finally we have three more epistles, but only in a Latin translation; namely, two Ad S. Joannem, and one Ad S. Mariam Virginem, to which is added a Responsio B. Mariae V. ad Ignatium. The three last-mentioned letters were probably originally written in Latin, and are completely worthless. They are found in ZAHN I. c. Of the shorter Greek version, G1, we have two manuscripts, - Codex Mediceo-Laurentianus, and Codex Casanatensis, of which, however, the latter is a transcription of the former. There also exist a Latin translation, first published by Ussher, 1644, a Syriac translation, extant only in fragments, and a complete Armenian translation of the Syriac translation, published by the Armenian Bishop Menas of Constantinople, 1783. The epistle Ad Romanos is also found in the Codex Colbertinus, and has been published by Mosinger l. c. The whole shorter version was first published by Ussher in Latin, 1644, and then in Greek by Isaac Vossius. Later editions are very numerous, the best by Zahn l. c. Of the longer Greek version, G2, containing twelve epistles, there exist nine manuscripts, and a Latin translation. The above-mentioned Armenian translation also contains the five additional epistles of the longer version. The whole longer version was first edited by Pacaeus, 1557, then by And. Gessner, 1559, and afterwards often, best by Zahn l. c. Lately the three epistles Ad Ephesios, Smyrnaeos, and Polycarpum, have been discovered in a version still shorter than G1 This version, however, exists only in a Syriac translation. It has been published by Cureton, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, London, 1845, and still better in Corpus Ignatianum, Berlin, 1849. A very rich collection of materials belonging to the subject, especially of Oriental versions, is found in PETERMANN: S.Ignatii Epistolae, Leipzig, 1849. On account of the great importance which the epistles of Ignatius have for the older church history, the question about their genuineness gave rise to a very lively debate, the more as a preliminary question about the authenticity of the versions had to be settled in advance. The history of the debate falls into three periods. The first period ends with the discovery of the shorter version, G1; and its principal result was the general recognition of the spuriousness of those three epistles Ad S. Joannern and S. Mariam Virginem, which exist only in a Latin translation: even Baronius gave them up. With respect to the remaining twelve epistles, most Roman-Catholic theologians (Hartung, Baronius, Bellarmin) accepted them; while most Protestant theologians (the Magdeburg Centuries, Calvin) rejected them. Among the former, however, Martialis Mastraeus acknowledged that the text was interpolated; and among the latter Nic. Vedelius recognized the only seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius. With the publication of the shorter version, G1, the second period opens. The version G1 was soon generally accepted as authentic, and the version G2 rejected as interpolated; and lately Zahn has fixed the date of this inter- [1059] polation to the latter half of the second century (Ignatius von Antiochia, Gotha, 1873). The question of the authenticity of the text thus settled, the question of the authorship was again taken up. The five epistles not mentioned by Eusebius, and not contained in the shorter version (Ad Mariam Cassobolitam, Tarsenses, A Antiochenos Heronem, and Philippenses), were immediately excluded as spurious. With respect to the remaining seven epistles, the question was answered in the affirmative by Rothe, Huther, Dusterdieck, and others; in the negative, especially by Baur, who fixes their date at the middle of the second century. The third period begins with the discovery of the shortest Syrian version, S, of the three epistles Ad Romanos, Ephesios, and Polycarpum. Cureton, who first edited this version, asserted without hesitation that the original and genuine epistles of Ignatius had now been found; that the versions G1 and G2 were nothing but interpolations and expansions in support of a later state of ecclesiastical development; that the four epistles Ad Magnesios, Smyrnaeos, Philadelphenos, and Trallianos, were mere fictitious compositions, etc. Bunsen exerted himself much to introduce these views in Germany (D. drei echten u. vier unechten Briefe d.Ignatius, Hamburg, 1847, and Ignatius von Antiochien u. s. Zeit, Hamburg, 1847). They found also many adherents (Ritschl, Weiss, Bohringer, and Lipsius); but they met with still stronger opposition, both among those who rejected the Ignatian epistles in any version, such as Baur (Die ignatianischen Briefe und ihr neuester Kritiker, Tubingen, 1848), and among those who accepted them in version G1, such as Denzinger (Ueber d. Aechtheit d. bisherigen Textes d. ignatianischen Briefe, Wurzburg, 1849), Uhihorn (Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1855, I.-II.), Petermann, Merx (Meletemata Ignatiana, 1861), and Zahn. In the course of the debate, conclusive evidence was produced, partly from a logical analysis of the contents of the epistles, partly from a comparison of the various Syrian translations, that S is nothing more than an extract from G1. Some of the stanchest champions of S, as, for instance, Lipsius and Lightfoot, fell off; and the whole period passed off as an episode, leaving the debate at the old dilemma: either we have the genuine epistles of Ignatius in the version G1, or we have no epistles at all by Ignatius, but only spurious compositions bearing his name. A decision in the matter has not yet been reached, though it may not be so very far off. The objections to the genuineness of the epistles are: (1) That the fact on which they rest is unhistorical. When, however, the fact is read oot of the epistles themselves, and not, as Baur did, out of the spurious Acta Martyrii, it fits in very well with the actual state of affairs. That Christians suffered martyrdom under Trajan is well known; and it need cause no hesitation that Ignatius was condemned ad bestias by the governor of Antioch, as instances of such condemnations occur even in Hermas, and soon after become very frequent. Nor is it strange that he should be brought to Rome to he executed. The law forbidding the governor to send convicts from one province to another dates from the tune of Severus and Antoninus; and the law regulating the transferrence of such prisoners to Rome is still later. The route of the journey has nothing improbable about it, as little as the circumstance, that, on the road, Ignatius was at liberty to converse with the congregations, and write letters. Similar instances occur in Lucian (De morte peregrini), amid in the acts of Perpetua and Felicitas. The whole situation, finally, presupposed by the Epistle Ad Romanos, the anxiety of Ignatius that the Romans might take some step in order to secure his liberation, is easily explained by the legal right which any one concerned had to appeal in behalf of another, even against his will. (2) When next it has been said (by Baur) that the character of Ignatius, such as it appears in the epistles, looks more like a fiction than a reality, that his forced humility and strained heroism are downright offensive, etc., the mere subjectivity of this objection, and consequently its insufficiency as an argument, is proved by the circumstance that others (e.g., Rothe) find a strong evidence of the genuineness of the epistles’ in the picture they give of the character of Ignatius. (3) Of much more weight is the objection that the heresies attacked in the epistles belong to a later period than the beginning of the second century. It has been doubted whether time epistles speak of two distinct heresies, - a gnostico-docetic and a judaizing, - or only of one, combining both these elements; and it has been asserted that such a combination would be an impossibility. But we know too little of the earlier stages of Gnosticism to make such an assertion; and a cautious criticism must, no doubt, arrive at the conclusion that the epistles were written before Gnosticism reached that form under which it presents itself between 130 and 140. A decision with respect to the genuineness of the epistles cannot be reached from this point; and, should from some other point an irrefragable evidence of their genuineness be produced, we should have to change our ideas of the historical development of Gnosticism. (4) It has also been alleged that the church constitution mirrored by the epistles, especially the episcopacy, belongs to a later time. It is true that the epistles distinguish sharply between the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon; that they represent the episcopate as superior to the presbytery; that they never weary of extolling the bishop, and exhorting the faithful to rally around him as the visible representative of the unity of the congregation, etc. But, though the epistles doubtless show an advance beyond Clemens Romanus and Hermas, they certainly fall behind Irenaeus. Ignatius knows nothing about an apostolical establishment of the episcopate, nor does he connect with it those ideas of a priesthood which afterwards were borrowed from the Old Testament. The episcopate is to him an office in the congregation, not an office in the church. The bishop is to him not the successor of the apostles, nor is he the bearer of the doctrinal tradition. To sum up the whole, though not every difficulty presented by the above objections can be said to have been successfully solved, the collective mass of internal evidence against the genuineness of the epistles would, nevertheless, be insufficient to counterbalance the testimony in its favor of one single external witness; amid there is such a testi- [1060] mony in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. He who will prove the epistles of Ignatius to be spurious must begin by proving the Epistle of Polycarp to be spurious, or at least very heavily interpolated; but such an undertaking will hardly ever succeed. [Besides the works already mentioned, see J. NIRSCHL Die Theologie des heiligen Ignatius, Mainz, 1880.] G. Uhlhorn, "IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn., Vol. 2. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.1058-1060.
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Biographies
|
William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch:
A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Hermeneia.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990. Hbk. ISBN: 0800660161. pp.305.
Related Subjects
Alexander of Alexandria | Ambrose | Athanasius | Athenagoras | Augustine | Basil | Boethius | John Cassian | Celsus | Clement of Alexandria | Clement of Rome | Constantine | Cyprian | Cyril of Alexandria | Cyril of Jerusalem | Ephraem the Syrian | Epiphanius | Eusebius of Caesarea | Gregory of Nazianzus | Gregory of Nyssa | Gregory Thaumaturgus | Hermas | Hilary of Poitiers | Hippolytus | Ignatius of Antioch | Irenaeus of Lyons | Julius Africanus | Jerome | John Chrysostom | Josephus | Justin Martyr | Justinian I | Lactantius | Marcellus | Melito | Methodius | Minucius Felix | Novatian | Origen | Pachomius | Papias | Philo | Polycarp | Tatian | Tertullian | Theodore of Mopsuestia | Theodoret | Theophilus | Tyconius | Ulfilas | Victorinus | Marius VictorinusABOUT | SITE MAP | INTRODUCTIONS | BIBLE | COUNCILS & CREEDS | DOCTRINE & PRACTICE | HERESIES & SECTS | HISTORY | MINISTRY | PEOPLE | PHILOSOPHY | WRITINGS | STUDY AIDS | GUESTBOOK | CONTACT |
|
