Archived
Post
|
Ignatius
– High Christology in the 2nd Century AD?
Who was Ignatius, and what are the Ignatian Epistles?
In their benchmark classic The Trinity – True
or False? (1995) Christadelphian authors Broughton
and Southgate explain:
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and was put
to death in the Coliseum at Rome sometime between
the years 110 and 117. On his fateful journey
to Rome he wrote epistles to various churches
that had sent emissaries to cheer him on his way,
and to one individual, Polycarp of Smyrna. Of
the epistles once attributed to him, seven are
now regarded as genuine, although they may contain
some interpolations.
In all these letters the essential distinction
between God and Jesus and the subordination of
the Son to the Father is evident. He speaks of
God as the ‘Father of Jesus Christ’, of ‘one God,
who has manifested himself through Jesus Christ
his Son’, exhorts his hearers to ‘subordinate
yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as
Jesus Christ in the flesh did to the Father’,
and refers to the ‘God of Jesus Christ’.
In the following passage, by the repetition of
the word ‘truly’, Ignatius
was clearly attacking the Docetians in stressing
the reality of the person of Jesus, but at the
same time gives a summary of then Christian belief,
which contains no hint of any co-equality or pre-existence
but rather stresses the dependence of Christ on
God (‘his Father raised him’, etc.):
‘Stop your ears therefore when anyone speaks to
you apart from Jesus Christ, who was descended
from David, who was the son of Mary, who was truly
born, who both ate and drank, was truly persecuted
under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and
died, in the sight of those in heaven and on earth
and under the earth; who was also truly raised
from the dead, when his Father raised him, and
his Father in like manner will raise us up also
who believe in him through Jesus Christ, without
whom we can have no true life’.
There is clearly no
hint here of any relationship between God and
Christ as is demanded by Trinitarian dogma. If
Ignatius believed the modern idea of the Trinity
he could and almost certainly would have used
other arguments to combat the errors of the Docetians.
But on the other hand elsewhere in his letters
Ignatius does seem to go further than the Apostles
in that he describes Jesus as ‘God’, using phrases
such as ‘Jesus our God’, and ‘our God Jesus Christ’.
We say ‘seem’ advisedly,
because there is some possibility that here we
have examples of the later interpolations alluded
to above; although probably few would go along
with Lamson's view that the text is ‘hopelessly
corrupt’.
Of the contentious Epistles, the Catholic
Encyclopaedia advises:
Collections.
The oldest collection
of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have
existed was that made use of by the historian
Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century,
but which unfortunately is no longer extant.
It was made up of the seven letters written by
Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome. These letters
were addressed to the Christians
of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius
("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome
(De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections
of Ignatian letters which have been preserved,
the oldest is known as the "long recension".
This collection, the
author of which is unknown, dates from the latter
part of the fourth century. It contains the seven
genuine and six spurious letters, but even the
genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to
lend weight to the personal views of its author.
For this reason they are incapable of bearing
witness to the original form.
The spurious letters in this recension are those
that purport to be from Ignatius
to Mary of Cassobola (Pros Marian Kassoboliten);
to the Tarsians (Pros tous en tarso);
to the Philippians (Pros Philippesious);
to the Antiochenes (Pros Antiocheis);
to Hero a deacon of Antioch (Pros Erona diakonon
Antiocheias).
Associated with the foregoing is
a letter from Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius.
It is extremely probable
that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition
of the spurious letters, and the union of both
in the long recension was the work of an Apollonarist
of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning
of the fifth century.
We see, therefore, that the letters of Ignatius
are extremely controversial - not least because
it is very difficult to ascertain the precise nature
of the originals.
And why is this?
- Because
the earliest collection known to have existed
is dated to “the latter part of the fourth
century."
- Because
this earliest collection is no longer extant.
- Because
“Even the genuine epistles were greatly
interpolated to lend weight to the personal
views of its author.”
If the earliest collection known to have existed
was merely a late 4th Century copy, we can safely
conclude that the work of the interpolators took
place during the 200+ years between the writing
of these letters and their subsquent distribution.
This in turn means that the collection with which
Eusebius was familiar, must already have been
corrupted. (Hence the Catholic Encyclopaedia's
conclusion that “For this reason they are incapable
of bearing witness to the original form.”)
Let us now examine the Ignatian epistles for ourselves.
Since the Short Recension has been generally accepted
as the most accurate form, I shall treat it as
the “default” reading, making reference to the
Long Recension only when its alternative gloss
may shed light on the veracity of the Short.
The Epistle to the Ephesians
Our first interpolation is found in the Introduction
to this epistle:
- Short
Recension -
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to
the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly
most happy, being blessed in the greatness and
fulness of God the Father, and predestinated
before the beginning of time, that it should
be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory,
being united and elected through the true passion
by the will of the
Father, and Jesus Christ, our God:
Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and
His undefiled grace.
- Long
Recension -
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to
the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly
most happy, being blessed in the greatness and
fulness of God the Father, and predestinated
before the beginning of time, that it should
be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory,
being united and elected through the true passion
by the will of God the Father, and of our
Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour: Abundant
happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled
joy.
The Long Recension is clearly written in a style
identical to the apostles' while the Short Recension
contains an uncharacteristic reference to Jesus
as “our God” (an expression which is only ever used
of the Father in the New Testament and never
applied to the Son.) Take note, however, of the
clear Biblical language that is present in both
Recensions, describing Jesus as "predestinated
before the beginning of time." This provides us
with Ignatius' view of Christ - as pre-destinated
rather than pre-existent.
Any language which goes further than this simple,
Biblical concept must therefore be regarded as spurious.
The next interpolation arrives in Chapter 1:
- Short
Recension -
Being the followers of God, and stirring up
yourselves by the blood of God
,
ye have perfectly accomplished the work which
was beseeming to you.
- Long
Recension -
Being the followers of the love of God towards
man, and stirring up yourselves by the blood
of Christ, you have perfectly accomplished
the work which was beseeming to you.
The correct reading is obvious; it must necessarily
be that which we find in the Long Recension. Nowhere
does the New Testament make reference to “the blood
of God”, lest it be in a Trinitarian interpolation
long since exposed as a fraud. (Acts
2:28 comes very close, but see here
for clarification.) By contrast, the phrase "blood
of Christ" is a strictly apostolic expression, occuring
four times in the New Testament.
Thus:
- I
Corinthians 10:16.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion
of the body of Christ?
- Ephesians
2:13.
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were
far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
- Hebrews
9:14.
How much more shall the blood of Christ
,
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without spot to God, purge your conscience from
dead works to serve the living God?
- I
Peter 1:19.
But with the precious blood of Christ,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
The next interpolation arrives in Chapter 7:
- Short
Recension -
There is one Physician who is possessed
both of flesh and spirit; both made and not
made; God existing in flesh; true life in death;
both of Mary and of God; first passible and
then impassible
even Jesus Christ our Lord.
- Long
Recension -
...We have also as a Physician the Lord our
God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son
and Word, before time began, but who afterwards
became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the
Word was made flesh." Being incorporeal,
He was in the body; being impassible, He was
in a passible body; being immortal, He was
in a mortal body; being life, He became subject
to corruption, that He might free our souls
from death and corruption, and heal them, and
might restore them to health, when they were
diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.
Both recensions appear to support Trinitarian Christology,
but the clause which I have italicised in the Short
Recension is absent from
the Greek copy, being found only in the Latin.
(Notice also that the Long Recension does not match
with this section of the Short.) So the Greek copy
of the Short Recension provides us with a Unitarian
gloss (in language that is perfectly consistent
with the apostolic writings) while the Long Recension
contains many
uncharacteristic references to Jesus in language
which was not in vogue until the 3rd Century AD.
The next interpolation arrives in Chapter 18:
- Short
Recension -
…For our God, Jesus Christ
,
was, according to the appointment of God, conceived
in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but
by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized,
that by His passion He might purify the water.
- Long
Recension -
For the Son of God, who was begotten before
time began, and established all things according
to the will of the Father, He was conceived
in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment
of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy
Ghost. For says [the Scripture], "Behold, a
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel."
He was born and was baptized by John, that He
might ratify the institution committed to that
prophet.
Here we have a curious mixture. One would expect
both of these
clauses (“our God, Jesus Christ” and “begotten before
time began”) to be used together
as a joint statement about the status and work of
the Son. Neither one of them, of course, is an explicitly
Trinitarian statement. Both could be recited by
the Arians of the 4th Century, with perfect confidence.
(Indeed, both were!) Each is clearly part of
a two-fold statement about the nature of Christ,
so it is odd that the one should appear without
the other.
The expression "begotten before time began" (or
"before the ages", as the literal Greek reads) finds
a parallel in Christ's own words (John
17:5), and in the book of Revelation,
where Jesus is described as “the Lamb slain from
the foundation of the world” (which not even Trinitarians
will take as a literal reference.) But it is still
curiously unBiblical, for the apostles never speak
of Christ in this way.
I have considered the possibility that Ignatius’s
use of “begotten before time began” is his own personal
invention; perhaps an extension of the “foreknowledge
and predestination” language which we find in the
OT and NT, in regard to the work of Christ (hence
John 17.)
But on the basis of the textual evidence (both Biblical
and extra-Biblical) I am inclined to dismiss this
clause – along with “our God” – as spurious.
In this regard I am fully supported by Cardinal
Newman, who, in his celebrated essay On
the Texts of the Seven Epistles of St Ignatius
(1870), writes:
Another mark of Arianism was to insist on
“the generation of the Son before all ages,”
which is of course a revealed truth, but was used
by the Arians as a denial of His co-eternity with
the Father, the “ages” being creatures of God,
priority to which did not involve eternity à parte
ante. Again, as generation in their mouths
implied a beginning of existence, they preferred
to say that our Lord “was begotten before all
time,” to saying “was before all time.”
Hence it is, that in another passage above quoted,
the larger edition gives, ”Jesus Christ, who was
begotten before time with the Father, the Word
God, the only-begotten Son,” etc., while the shorter
reads, ”who was with the Father before the ages.”—Magn.,
c. 7.
And so in like manner Eph., c. 18, in the shorter,
runs, ”Our God, Jesus Christ, was borne in the
womb by Mary, according to the economy of God,”
etc.; but in the longer, ”The Son of God, who
was begotten before the ages, and has constituted
all things by the mind of the Father.”
This last clause brings us to another characteristic
of the Arian system. It inculcated that our
Lord was made by God in order to be His instrument
in creating all things, and that he acted according
to His Father's will, mind, or design; whereas
the orthodox held that our Lord was Himself the
very will, mind, design, Word, and Wisdom of God,
and God acted according to His own Mind or Design
in acting by Him.
Hence, while in the shorter edition Ignatius says
to the Ephesians, c. 3, ”I exhort you to concur
in the mind of God; for Jesus, our inseparable
Life, is the Father's Mind,” he is made to
say in the longer, “for Jesus Christ does all
things according to the mind of the Father.”
Newman’s unswerving Trinitarian sympathies will
not permit him to accept such blatantly Arian language.
He correctly identifies the Alexandrian’s subordinationist
terminology here, concluding that both
texts are corrupt in the places referred to. With
this conclusion I wholeheartedly agree.
Later in Chapter 18:
- Short
Recension -
...Hence every kind of magic was destroyed,
and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance
was removed, and the old kingdom abolished,
God Himself being manifested in human form
for the renewal of eternal life. And now that
took a beginning which had been prepared by
God. Henceforth all things were in a state of
tumult, because He meditated the abolition of
death.
- Long
Recension -
...Every law of wickedness vanished away; the
darkness of ignorance was dispersed; and tyrannical
authority was destroyed, God being manifested
as a man, and man displaying power as God.
But neither was the former a mere imagination,
nor did the second imply a bare humanity; but
the one was absolutely true, and the other an
economical arrangement. Now that received a
beginning which was perfected by God. Henceforth
all things were in a state of tumult, because
He meditated the abolition of death.
The Short Recension contains a blunt Unitarian statement
(“God Himself being manifested in human form”) which
finds a direct parallel in the work of the first
Christadelphians, who use this exact same language
when describing the 1st Advent of Christ.
Writing in Elpis Israel,
for example, John Thomas makes the following observations
on page 153:
But the Mosaic Cherubim were deficient of several
of the characteristics which distinguish those
of Ezekiel and John. They had simply the wings
and the faces. His cherubim were not only of beaten
gold continuous with the substance of the mercy-seat;
but they were embroidered into the Veil, made
of blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine twined
linen, which divided the holy and the holiest
places of the tabernacle.
Now, when "Jesus cried with a loud voice, he expired
(ejxevpneuse); and the Veil of the Temple was
rent in twain from top to bottom". Thus, we see
the breaking of the body of Jesus identified with
the rending of the Cherubic Veil; thereby indicating
that the latter was representative of the Lord.
We have arrived then at this, that the Mosaic
Cherubim were symbolical of “God manifest in the
flesh”. We wish now to ascertain upon what principles
His incarnate manifestation was represented by
the Cherubim?
First, then, in the solution of this interesting
problem, I remark, that the scriptures speak of
God after the following manner: “God is light,
and in him is no darkness at all "; again, "God
is a Spirit; and they that worship him, must worship
him in spirit and in truth"; and thirdly, "Our
God is a consuming fire.” In these three texts,
which are only a sample of many others, we perceive
that God is represented by light, spirit, and
fire; when, therefore, He is symbolized as manifest
in flesh, it becomes necessary to select certain
signs representative of light, spirit, and fire,
derived from the animal kingdom.
Now, the ancients selected the lion, the ox, and
the eagle for this purpose, probably from tradition
of the signification of these animals, of the
faces of them, in the original Cherubim. They
are called God's Faces because His omniscience,
purity, and jealousy are expressed in them. But
the omniscient, jealous, and incorruptible God
was to be manifested in a particular kind of flesh.
Hence, it was necessary to add a fourth face to
show in what nature He would show Himself. For
this reason, the human face was associated with
the lion, the ox, and the eagle.
Here, Thomas describes the manifestation of God
in His Son Jesus Christ, using the language that
Ignatius had already used centuries before him in
the Short Recension of his Epistle
to the Ephesians. It is tremendously
reassuring to see our Christology confirmed by so
august an authority as Ignatius himself.
But the Long Recension is markedly different. It
contains 3rd Century language: “God being manifested
as a man and
man displaying power as
God… nor did the second imply a
bare humanity… the other an
economical arrangement.” This is the
language of Theophilus and Tertullian. It finds
no parallel
in the apostolic writings – and so we are at liberty
to dismiss it as yet another of those blatant interpolations
for which Trinitarian forgers have long since earned
their notoriety.
Summarising the evidence from the Epistle
to the Ephesians, therefore, I find that
the only expressions with which I take issue are
those which find no parallel in the NT – and since
it is obvious from Ignatius' own style of writing
that he quotes extensively from the words of Scripture,
I am perfectly justified in taking such a position.
Observe the precise nature of the interpolated clauses:
- They
involve the casual use of “God” in connexion
with Christ, which conflicts with the sharp
distinction between “God” and “Christ” throughout
(a) the remainder of the epistle, and (b) the
apostolic literature.
- Some
of them are undoubtedly Arian (as Newman
himself has confirmed), which precludes any
possibility that they were written by a late
1st- or early 2nd-Century Christian.
- They
sound more philosophical than Biblical, reeking
of post-2nd Century Christology.
- They
have no Biblical counterparts, and therefore
no Biblical endorsement.
On what basis, therefore, do they have any authority?
The simple answer, of course, is "They have no
such basis at all."
The Epistle to the Magnesians.
Our first stop is Chapter 6:
- Short
Recension:
Since therefore I have, in the persons before
mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you
in faith and love, I exhort you to study to
do all things with a divine harmony, while your
bishop presides in the place of God, and your
presbyters in the place of the assembly of the
apostles, along with your deacons, who are most
dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry
of Jesus Christ, who
was with the Father before the beginning of
time, and in the end was revealed.
- Long
Recension:
Since therefore I have, in the persons before
mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you
in faith and love, I exhort you to study to
do all things with a divine harmony, while your
bishop presides in the place of God, and your
presbyters in the place of the assembly of the
apostles, along with your deacons, who are most
dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry
of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the
Father before the beginning of time, was God
the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains
the same for ever; for "of His kingdom there
shall be no end," says Daniel the prophet.
Here again, we have the same language which was
found in Chapter 18 of the Epistle
to the Magnesians. As I said then, so
say I now – the expression “begotten before time
began” is distinctly unBiblical, for the apostles
never speak of Christ in this way. I therefore dismiss
it as an interpolation, for the reasons given earlier.
The next interpolation arrives in Chapter 8:
- Short
Recension:
For the divinest prophets lived according to
Christ Jesus. On this account also they were
persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully
convince the unbelieving that there is one God,
who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ
His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding
forth from silence ,
and who in all things pleased Him that sent
Him.
- Long
Recension:
For the divinest prophets lived according to
Jesus Christ. On this account also they were
persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully
convince the unbelieving that there is one God,
the Almighty, who has manifested Himself
by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not
spoken, but essential. For He is not the voice
of an articulate utterance, but a substance
begotten by divine power, who has in all
things pleased Him that sent Him.
In reference to this phrase...
who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth
from silence
...which appears in the Short Recension but not
in the Long, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
(see here
has a footnote:
Some have argued that the Gnostic Sige (“silence”)
is here referred to, and have consequently inferred
that this epistle could not have been written
by Ignatius.
Newman was not of this opinion, for he correctly
observed that Gnosticism was alive and well before
the time of Ignatius. Nevertheless, there is some
doubt here in the minds of many commentators.
Either way, I am perfectly happy with the Long Recension
– and quite probably with the Short Recension as
well, depending on which word has been translated
here as "eternal."
It could be:
- Aiōnios
– used here to describe the immortality of the
Son, and therefore more correctly translated
“immortal.” (The same word is used in Revelation
22:5 in reference to those who have been
raised from the dead to immortality.)
- Athanasia
– used here for the same purpose as above, and
correctly translated “immortal.” (The same word
is used in I Corinthians 15:53 in reference
to those who have been raised from the dead
to immortality.)
- Aphtharsia
– used here for the same purpose as above, and
correctly translated “immortal.” (The same word
is used in Romans 2:7 in reference to
those who “see for glory and honour and immortality
[aphtharsia], eternal [aiōnios]
life.”)
There is no threat here to Unitarian Christology
- nor any endorsement of Trinitarian Christology.
The Epistle to the Romans
We begin with the introduction:
- Short
Recension -
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to
the Church which has obtained mercy, through
the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus
Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which
is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him
that willeth all things which are according
to the love of Jesus
Christ our God.
[…]
...in Jesus Christ our God.
- Long
Recension -
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to
the Church which has obtained mercy, through
the majesty of the Most High God the Father,
and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son;
the Church which is sanctified and enlightened
by the will of God, who formed all things that
are according to the faith and love of Jesus
Christ, our God and Saviour;
[…]
...in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ.
Both Recensions contain language which is consistent
with Arian and Trinitarian Christology, but the
Long Recension also makes use of the apostolic
expression "our God and Saviour." The phrase has
a Biblical precedent in Titus 2:13, where
its grammatical construction is the subject of
endless debate (see here)
and for this reason I feel that the Long Recension
provides the more accurate gloss here. (The words
"Our God and Saviour" could be translated “God
and our Saviour”, thereby precluding any Trinitarian
argument from this Epistle.)
The Epistle to Polycarp
Here I merely take issue with the conclusion of
Chapter 8:
- Short
Recension -
I pray for your happiness for ever in our
God, Jesus Christ ,
by whom continue ye in the unity and under the
protection of God, I salute Alice, my dearly
beloved. Fare ye well in the Lord.
- Long
Recension -
I pray for your happiness for ever in our
God, Jesus Christ, by whom continue ye in
the unity and under the protection of God. I
salute Alice, my dearly beloved. Amen. Grace
[be with you]. Fare ye well in the Lord.
Both Recensions contain the expression “our God,
Jesus Christ” – but this term has no Biblical
precedent whatsoever, and for this reason (as
before) I discard it as fraudulent.
The Christology of the Ignatian Epistles -
Which Way does the Evidence Point? (Part I)
From a total of seven authentic letters,
we have seen a mere nine clauses which might
give Unitarians cause for concern.
Moreover:
- None
of these clauses are distinctly Trinitarian.
- All
of these clauses are perfectly compatible with
Arianism.
- The
vast majority of them are easily disposed
of by
- an
appeal to the alternate Recension.
- an
appeal to the Biblical standard.
- an
appeal to mainstream commentators and standard
authorities.
leaving only two or three allegedly "Trinitarian"
clauses common to both Recensions.
So already, the evidence in favour of a Trinitarian
Ignatius is reduced to a few paltry sentences. Dear
reader, ask yourself if a truly Trinitarian
Ignatius would content himself with such a meagre
tribute to the "great mystery" of the Christian
religion. Ask yourself why he never quite manages
to pen those words which Trinitarianism so desperately
requires him to write. Ask yourself why so many
of these controversial clauses are just not strong
enough to withstand a critical examination of the
text.
But there is worse to come.
Of the Short Recension, Phillip Schaff (History
of the Christian Church; 1819-1893) makes the
following admissions:
We grant that the
integrity of these epistles, even in the shorter
copy, is not beyond all reasonable doubt. As the
manuscripts of them contain, at the same time,
decidedly spurious epistles (even the Armenian
translation has thirteen epistles), the suspicion
arises, that the seven genuine also have not wholly
escaped the hand of the forger.
Yet there are, in any case, very strong arguments
for their genuineness and substantial integrity;
viz.
(1) The testimony of the fathers, especially of
Eusebius. Even Polycarp alludes to epistles of
Ignatius.
(2) The raciness and freshness of their contents,
which a forger could not well imitate.
(3) The small number of citations from the New
Testament, indicating the period of the immediate
disciples of the apostles.
(4) Their way of combating the Judaists and Docetists
(probably Judaizing Gnostics of the school of
Cerinthus), showing us Gnosticism as yet in the
first stage of its development.
(5) Their dogmatical
indefiniteness, particularly in regard to the
Trinity and Christology,
notwithstanding very strong expressions in favor
of the divinity of Christ.
(6) Their urgent recommendation of episcopacy
as an institution still new and fresh, and as
a centre of congregational unity in distinction
from the diocesan episcopacy of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
(7) Their entire silence respecting a Roman primacy,
even in the epistle to the Romans, where we should
most expect it. The Roman church is highly recommended
indeed, but the Roman bishop is not even mentioned.
In any case these epistles must have been written
before the middle of the second century, and reflect
the spirit of their age in its strong current
towards a hierarchical organization and churchly
orthodoxy on the basis of the glory of martyrdom.
Schaff's optimistic declaration that the Epistles
contain "strong expressions in favour of the divinity
of Christ" are somewhat dampened by his own concession
to "their dogmatical indefiniteness, particularly
in regard to the Trinity and Christology." Still,
he holds out hope that a Trinitarian Ignatius
may be found somewhere in the few scant interpolations
which might be coerced into performing a Trinitarian
role. Whilst acknowledging the presence of interpolations,
he argues that the Short Recension is the genuine
one.
With this conclusion I would be tempted to agree,
were it not for the many discrepancies between
the two Recensions (some favouring the Trinitarian
gloss, others the Unitarian.) For example, in
Chapter 15 of the Epistle to the Ephesians
(Long Recension) we find the clause "Our Lord
and God, Jesus Christ." (The Short Recension not
only omits the clause but contains nothing remotely
similar to it.) Is Ignatius likely to use such
a phrase? Trinitarians will say "Yes", for they
claim he was one of their own. But how do they
account for the omission of this clause
from the Short Recension, which they believe to
be the most accurate form of his work?
It is therefore unwise to characterise either
one as "the original", since both are clearly
interspersed with unoriginal material. Even the
Long Recension (which, though older than the Short,
has been frequently criticised as the less accurate
of the two) frequently employs language which
is far more supportive to Trinitarian Christology.
Thus far, we have seen nothing which might vindicate
the interpolations as valid, nor anything which
requires us to believe that Ignatius believed
in the deity of Christ (much less Trinitarianism.)
The Christology of the Ignatian Epistles -
Which Way does the Evidence Point? (Part II)
Schaff has already alluded to the breathtaking simplicity
of Ignatius' Christology. Leaving aside the
interpolated passages, we can sense his frustration
as he struggles to wrest an explicit Trinitarian
statement from these unsophisticated epistles.
Other Trinitarian commentators have been refreshingly
candid about Ignatius' lack of support for Trinitarianism.
Srawley (for example) was positively dismal when
presenting his own summation of the textual evidence:
As compared with later teaching, the theology
of Ignatius, like that of the other 'Apostolic
Fathers,' exhibits in some respects an immature
and undeveloped character. It was only slowly
that men came to sound the depths of the teaching
of St. Paul and St. John, and to grasp the eternal
relations of the truths revealed in time.
Hence we find in Ignatius
a use of doctrinal terms, which would have been
avoided by the more exact theology of a later
age. Instances
are the phrases, the blood of God,' '
the passion of my God,' and the word '
unoriginate,' which, as applied to our Lord,
might seem to deny the Eternal Generation.
There is also an absence
of any references to the work of the Son of God
in the world before the Incarnation
(except, perhaps, in Magn. 8), and
of the doctrine of His agency in Creation such
as we find in St. Paul.
While Ignatius applies to Him the title '
Logos' or 'Word,' and elsewhere speaks
of Him as ' the Mind of the Father,' and
' the unerring Mouth whereby the Father spake
;' while, moreover, he asserts the Divine
Sonship, and once uses the phrase, ' the Only
Son,' yet he nowhere
speaks of the eternal relations of this Divine
Sonship to the Fatherhood of God,
beyond the mere fact of the Son's pre-existence
with the Father.
How far the human nature was complete, whether
Christ had a human soul, how the two natures are
united in One Person, these
are questions which lie outside the scope and
grasp of the teaching of Ignatius.
Srawley, J. H. (1927), The Epistles of St
Ignatius Bishop of Antioch.
Far from embracing them unreservedly (as we might
expect) Srawley is forced to address the problems
that the interpolated narratives pose for his Christology.
His comments with regard to the "blood of God",
etc. cast a shadow over Schaff's previous assertion
that the Short Recension was the original one. Clearly,
the issue is far more complex than he would like
us to believe. Both
Recensions contain language that is (in one way
or another) problematic for the Trinitarian, Arian
and Unitarian schools of Christological thought.
But Srawley perks up at a later stage:
It is the Person and not merely the teaching
of Christ, which is of importance. He is '
our God,' ' my God,' 'God in man,'
though never apparently called God absolutely
without some defining words. The controversial
purpose of the letters leads Ignatius to lay special
stress upon the reality of the human nature
of Christ. The Docetse, whom he is attacking,
conceived of the existence of Christ in a purely
metaphysical way, as a spiritual or ideal existence.
Against this view Ignatius sets the historical
Christ, whose appearing in human form becomes
the medium of God's revelation and alone guarantees
its truth to man. Hence he emphasizes the
facts of His earthly life.
Ibid.
Here he argues blatantly from the interpolations
themselves ("our God"; "my God"; "God in man")
in a vain attempt to bolster the Trinitarian claim.
But as we have already seen, these interpolations
are quite indefensible and most can be culled
from the text by the simplest of critical methods.
Only the words "our God" appear in both
Recensions - and since this (unBiblical) phrase
could be recited by an Arian with perfect confidence,
it proves nothing in the way of Trinitarian Christology.
|
