IDUMEA. See Edom.

IGNATIUS (ig-ne'shi-us) OF ANTIOCH

Life of Ignatius

Little is known of the life of Ignatius of Antioch except what may be gathered from the letters bearing his name. Irenaeus (Hær. V., xxviii. 4) quotes him as a martyr who was condemned to be thrown to the beasts; Origen quotes him once (Prologue to Cant.), and in the sixth homily on Luke mentions him as the successor of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch, giving the same account of his death as Irenaeus. Eusebius knows no independent facts, and the chronology of the lists of the bishops of Antioch which he gives is doubtful. He too calls him the second bishop; though the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) combine two traditions by making Peter appoint first Euodius, the immediate predecessor of Ignatius, and then Ignatius. Purely legendary are the assertions that Ignatius was the child mentioned in Matt. xviii. 4, and that he was a disciple of John or of Peter. The Acta Martyrii relating to him must also be abandoned as historical sources. Two independent accounts exist, the Martyrium Colbertinum (first published by Ussher in a Latin version, 1647, then by Ruinart in Greek, 1689), which is identical with the Syriac version given in part by Cureton and in full by Mosinger (1872); and the Martyrium Vaticanum, published by Dressel from a Vatican manuscript, after Ussher had given a slightly different text from one at Oxford. Besides these there are three others formed by a combination of the two; but the authenticity of even the Colbertinum, which has the best claim, is now seldom defended. This result

445

has been reached on the basis of contradictions between it and the letters, of its frequent unhistorical statements, and of the fact that it was not known to any ancient writer. It cannot have been composed earlier than the fifth century. The one source is therefore the epistles, which purport to have been written during the journey of Ignatius from Antioch to Rome to suffer martyrdom.

The Ignatian Letters.

In all there are fifteen letters bearing the name of Ignatius, evidently of varying age and value. Seven of these (Ad Ephesios, Ad Magnesios, Ad Trallianos, Ad Romanos, Ad Philadelphenos, Ad Smyrnmos, Ad Polycarpum) are found in a shorter and a longer Greek recension. The latter adds five more (Ad Mariam Cassobolitam, with a letter from Mary to Ignatius, Ad Tarsenses, Ad Antiochenos, Ad Heronem diaconum Antiochenum, and Ad Philippenses); and finally there are three found only in a Latin text, two to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply to it. These last are wholly worthless, and were probably composed originally in Latin. Of the shorter Greek recension (known as G') there is only a single manuscript, the Codex Mediceo-Laurentinus, and two copies made from it; but there is alsa a Latin version (first published by Ussher, 1644, from two manuscripts, of which one has since been lost), quite accurate and of value for the restoration of the text; a Syriac one, incomplete, and an Armenian one based upon it; and a fragment of a Copto-Sahidic one. This shorter recension was first published in Greek by Vossius, 1644. Of the numerous later editions, those of Zahn and Lightfoot are the most scholarly. The longer or interpolated Greek recension (G') exists in several manuscripts, as does also a Latin version of it; and the Armenian version mentioned above contains the additional letters. It was first published by Paemus in 1557 and independently by Gessner two years later; of modern editions Zahn's is the most reliable. Finally three letters (to the Ephesians, the Romans, and Polyoarp) were discovered in a still shorter recension, though only in a Syriac version, and first published by Cureton in 1845 from two manuscripts found in the Nitrian desert in 1839 and 1843, and again in 1849 with the additional use of a third, found in 1847.

In view of the great importance of these letters for the early constitutional history of the Church,

the question of their authenticity has Their been much discussed. The first period Authen- in the history of their criticism goes ticity. down to the discovery of G'. In it at least the three Latin epistles were abandoned, even by Baronius. As to the others, Roman Catholic theologians were usually inclined to defend the authenticity of all those contained in G', and the Protestants to deny it. With the publication of G' begins the second period, in which G' was generally recognized as a nearer approach to the original text, G' as interpolated. The latter was defended by Meier as late as 1836, but this question may be regarded as finally settled. Opin ions varied greatly during the second period as to the authenticity of G'. The third period began with the discovery of the shortest or Syriac recen-

sion (S). The first editor, Cureton, strongly expressed his belief that now at last the really genuine letters were found, which had later been recast so as to support the developed doctrine of the divinity of Christ and the developed constitution of the Church, while four entirely new letters had been added. A large number of scholars declared substantially for this view, though still more refused their assent. The demonstration begun by Denzinger and Uhlhorn, carried further by Merx, and completed by Zahn, that S represents merely an excerpt from G', may now be regarded as conclusive. Many of the original upholders of S have now abandoned it, while no new defenders have appeared; and its part in the history of Ignatian criticism may be regarded as a closed incident. The present position of the controversy is this: either G' gives what are substantially unchanged, genuine letters of Ignatius, or none of his letters are extant. It may be safely said that the upholders of the former view, represented with learning and thoroughness by Zahn and Lightfoot, have increased in number. Harnack has abandoned his former attempt to date the letters in the last years of Hadrian or the first of Antoninus Pius, and decided that they are genuine, and composed toward the end of the reign of Trajan (110-117), or possibly, though not probably, a little later.

Four principal reasons are urged against the authenticity of the letters as found in G'. (1) It is

asserted that the historical data afArguments forded by them are incorrect. The Against fact is, however, that the data of the

Authen- letters themselves (not of the Acta) tieity. correspond perfectly to the conditions

of the time. Christians suffered martyrdom under Trajan, and there is no reason to doubt the account of Ignatius being brought to Rome to die there. The law forbidding provincial governors to send condemned prisoners from one province to another is not earlier than Severus and Antoninus, and that which regulated their transportation to Rome probably later still. There is nothing improbable about the route assigned, nor the fact that Ignatius was able to have intercourse with the local churches and wrote letters on the way. Similar examples are found in Lucian (De morte Peregrini), and in the Acta of Perpetua and Felioitas. The anxiety of Ignatius lest the Roman Christians should take steps for his liberation is easily understood when it is known that appeals on behalf of a condemned prisoner might be set in motion by others, even against his will. In a word, the whole line of argument represented by the first objection may now be largely disregarded. (2) The second deals with the personality of Ignatius, as set forth in the epistles, which Baur considered much more suited to a deliberate invention than to actual history, objecting especially to its " affected humility,, and its " false heroism." This point, made most strongly by Bunsen, is now not so much pressed; it is an entirely subjective one, and is decided in an opposite sense by equally good judges, Rothe and Harnack seeing throughout the stamp of an actual personality. (3) Somewhat more impressive is the contention that heresies

446

are abated which belong to a later period than the opening years of the second century. It is still a question whether one heresy or two (a Gnostic-Docetic and a Judaising) may be discerned. In favor of the view once held by Baur, that the epistles presuppose the existence of the great Gnostic system; that of Valentinus and Marcion, Hilgenfeld is almost alone. Lipsius places the Dooetiam attacked by Ignatius later than Satur nmus, though still before Valentinus, and thus dates the letters between 130 and 140. But a careful study of the question makes it fairly certain that they must have been written before Gnosticism grew to threatening dimensions, which occurred precisely in those years. In any case, too little is known of its earlier stages to assert that no such heretics as are described in the letters existed in the opening years of the send century; and it is safe to say that if their genuineness is accepted on other grounds, this offers no reason to doubt it. (4) It is also contended that the organisation of the Church, especially the episcopate, belongs to a later period. It is perfectly true that the epistles know three orders-bishops, presbyters, and dea cons, of which the second i® already subordinate to the first-and Ignatius lays great stress upon the function of the episcopate in the interests of unity. But if there is here a step in advance of Clement of Rome and the "Shepherd of Hernias" the stage which appears in Irenaeus is still more advanced. There are abundant traces of a recent and as yet incomplete elevation of the episcopate over the presbyterate; it is a local, not a universal, office, and does not carry with it the guardianship of the teaching tradition; it is valued largely as a center of unity for the local church, a safeguard against centrifugal tendencies, and a guaranty for the future permanence and purity of Christianity. While it would, then, be too much to say that all difficulties have been removed, the discussion has reached a stage when such as remain are not to be set against a single piece of strong external evidence; and such evidence exists in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which is itself definitely attested by Irenaeus. This can only be met by declaring it forged or largely interpolated. The former view offers great difficulty in the face of the evidence; the latter, more often put forward (most acutely by Ritschl), falls before the unity of the whole letter and the fact that such very extensive interpolations would have to be supposed in order to remove all tram of the Ignatian epistles. (G. UHLHORNt.) It seems highly probable that even the shorter Greek form hag suffered extensive interpolation, how extensive no one is in a position to determine. The cautious student of the history of polity and doctrine will decline to base important conclusions on the unsupported testimony of these writings. Even if the reference to Ignatian epistles in the epistle of Polyearp be genuine, this would not prove the authenticity of the epistles in their present form.

A. H. N.

Bibliography: A very full list of works Is given in ANF. Bibliography, pp. 10-15. The earlier editions of note are those of J. E. Grabs, in his Spidkyium, Oxford, 1700;

T. Smith, London, 1709 (Greek-Latin, shorter form); W. W. Whistoa, in his Primitive Christianity. London, 1711 (Greek-English, longer and shorter forms, Smith's text). Modern editions are: MPG, v. 843 sqq.; W. Cuetoa, no Ancient Syrwe lTmeion of the Epistles q< .9t. lyratiw, London, 1845; idem, Corpus Ipnatiaaum, ib., 1849; T. Zahn, Pabrues apostauccrufn opera, VOL ii., Leipsic, 1878; P. de Iagorde, Göttingen, 1882 (sborter Latin recension); F. %. Funk, Opera pafrum apostotioorum, Tübingen, 1887; idem Pabee apoBdiei voL L, ib, 1801; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part II., 2 vols., London, 1889 (both forms). The most accessible Erg. tfnaL in in ANF, L 46 sqq.

All of that editions noted above are rich in notes and introductions upon the critical questions involved. Consultfurther: J. Pearson, Yindieis Ipnatiana, Cambridge, 1872, reissued Oxford, IW2; R. Rothe, Die AnfAnps der ehrieliahsn Kirdhe, pp. 713-084, Wittenberg, 1837; WCaeeton, Findido lynagana, London, 1848; C. C. J. von Bunsen, Ignatius con Antioch, Hamburg. 1847; idem, Hippolytus and His Ape, L 88-103, London, 1854; F. C. Baur, Die iynatiamiscden Briefs, Tübingen, 1848; H. Densinger; Ueber die Awhfhsit des Tsxtes des Ipnatiue, WtDie Rntatehung der altkalkolischen Kirche, pp. 577-889, Bonn, 1850; R. A. Liysius, in ZHT, 1858; idem, in ZWT, avii (1874), 209 sqq.; A Merz, Ma;temda Ipnatiana, Have 1881; T. Zahn, lpnogue roon Anlioakisn, Gotha, 1873; E. Reran, Les Asanpitm, Paris, 1877; A. Harmak, Die Zeit Ass Ignatius eon Antiodien, Leipsic, 1878; idem, Lilreratur, L 73 sqq. et passim, ii. 1, pp. 881-400; idem, in TU, i1 1 and 2, 1884; F. S. Funk, Die Rehtheit der ipnatianiseken Briefs, Tübingen, 1888; idem, in HL, v1 581-69p; W. D. Killen, The lpnalian B snbrdy Spurious, Edinburgh, 1888; D. Wite;, Die tpnatianischen Briefs, Tübingen, 1892; J. Ravine, Les Origines de r6piscopat, pp. 442-481, Paris, 1894; G. A. Simooa, in Ths Academy, Nov. 24, 1894; J. 13. Srawley, Bpistks of St. Ignatius, 2 vols., London, 1900; H. de Genouillao, L'Aolise ehrltienns ¢u temps de S. Ipnooe d'An. forAe, Paris, 1908; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 47 sqq., 851 sqq.; Moeller, Christian Church, i. 112 sqq.; Krager, History, pp. 28-84; DCB, iii. 209-222; and, in general. modern treatments of thepost-apoetolio period of church history.