Are we Certain about Ignatius of Antioch?

[CollegeKid]

I noticed that on the Early Christian Writings website, which in the past I’ve been referred to from posters here on Catholic Answers for writings of the ECFs, the section on the seven epistles of Ignatius of Antioch to countries in Asia Minor stated that the evidence suggested they were forged in the 3rd or 4th centuries. These would be the letters that contained Ignatius’ statements on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the bishops, priests, and deacons, and so on. I was wondering has anyone ever encountered this objection before? Is there evidence to contradict this assertion?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I noticed that on the Early Christian Writings website, which in the past I’ve been referred to from posters here on Catholic Answers for writings of the ECFs, the section on the seven epistles of Ignatius of Antioch to countries in Asia Minor stated that the evidence suggested they were forged in the 3rd or 4th centuries. These would be the letters that contained Ignatius’ statements on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the bishops, priests, and deacons, and so on. I was wondering has anyone ever encountered this objection before? Is there evidence to contradict this assertion?

From newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed Virgin, which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious. The great body of critics who acknowledge the authenticity of the Ignatian letters restrict their approval to those mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The six others are not defended by any of the early Fathers. The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters. In 1623, whilst the controversy was at its height, Vedelius gave expression to this latter opinion by publishing at Geneva an edition of the Ignatian letters in which the seven genuine letters are set apart from the five spurious. In the genuine letters he indicated what was regarded as interpolations. The reformer Dallaeus, at Geneva, in 1666, published a work entitled “De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur”, in which (lib. II) he called into question the authenticity of all seven letters. To this the Anglican Pearson replied spiritedly in a work called “Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii”, published at Cambridge, 1672. So convincing were the arguments adduced in this scholarly work that for two hundred years the controversy remained closed in favor of the genuineness of the seven letters. The discussion was reopened by Cureton’s discovery (1843) of the abridged Syriac version, containing the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Romans, and to Polycarp. In a work entitled “Vindiciae Ignatianae” London, 1846), he defended the position that only the letters contained in his abridged Syriac recension, and in the form therein contained, were genuine, and that all others were interpolated or forged outright. This position was vigorously combated by several British and German critics, including the Catholics Denzinger and Hefele, who successfully de fended the genuineness of the entire seven epistles. It is now generally admitted that Cureton’s Syriac version is only an abbreviation of the original.

While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

 

[awalt]

I am not an expert on when those gospels were written, but even so, Ignatius was alive way before then, and his belief on the real presence was clear:

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.​

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.​

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.​

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.​

 

[Nicene]

That is the position of certain protestants. There were actually other letters attributed to Ignatius which are spurious, eight if I remember correctly. Certain protestants group them all as spurious.

The real letters are:

Ephesians
Magnesians
Trallians
Romans
Philadelphians
Smyrneans
to Polycarp

Some of the spurious are:

Tarsians
Antiochans
2nd Ephesians
Philippians

among others

Hope that Helps.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

In reality, who knows? The key issue from my perspective is interpolations…and how do you prove or disprove that after all those years?

 

[Nicene]

In reality, who knows? The key issue from my perspective is interpolations…and how do you prove or disprove that after all those years?

Same could be said of the bible in all honesty. While that may rustle a few defensive feathers, objectively it is the truth.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

Same could be said of the bible in all honesty. While that may rustle a few defensive feathers, objectively it is the truth.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Yes, while one can be affirmed in their walk by reading the history of it and examining biblical criticism, no doubt there is a faith component. I do not think the faith part of it bothers most people of faith, but obviously troubles the nonreligious.

 

[CollegeKid]

Everyone’s replies have been helpful. I guess my next question would be, if the “key” letters of Ignatius, if you will, like those featured on this website that attest to the truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, were forgeries, does that weaken the claims to key Catholic doctrines pre-dating the Edict of Milan of AD 312? I would like to be able to answer the Fundamentalists who throw out the charge that Constantine created the Catholic Church and served as its first pope.

My view (admittedly biased because I’m Catholic) is that even if some of Ignatius’ most important letters were forged, however much that weakens the Catholic argument, at the same time it lends credit to it by demonstrating that because someone went to the trouble of making these forgeries, the core Catholic doctrines like the Real Presence were already in existence.

I think it would be incredibly far-fetched to say that if the Ignatian letters were forgeries, it proves that Constantine just created the Church with its entire systematic and complex theology if he had no older Christian sources to draw from.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please let me know what you think.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Everyone’s replies have been helpful. I guess my next question would be, if the “key” letters of Ignatius, if you will, like those featured on this website that attest to the truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, were forgeries, does that weaken the claims to key Catholic doctrines pre-dating the Edict of Milan of AD 312? I would like to be able to answer the Fundamentalists who throw out the charge that Constantine created the Catholic Church and served as its first pope.

My view (admittedly biased because I’m Catholic) is that even if some of Ignatius’ most important letters were forged, however much that weakens the Catholic argument, at the same time it lends credit to it by demonstrating that because someone went to the trouble of making these forgeries, the core Catholic doctrines like the Real Presence were already in existence.

I think it would be incredibly far-fetched to say that if the Ignatian letters were forgeries, it proves that Constantine just created the Church with its entire systematic and complex theology if he had no older Christian sources to draw from.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please let me know what you think.

Okay, I guess I posted too much. Try this mcnugget:

“While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius.”

You’re all good.

 

[CollegeKid]

Okay, I guess I posted too much. Try this mcnugget:

“While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius.”

You’re all good.

Actually I read your entire post earlier, it wasn’t too much. And while the quote above is encouraging, we all have to face the reality that the day might come when the best modern criticism or scholarly research does not favor our position. In that situation it will be our duty to keep the faith even if becomes intellectually very difficult.

 

[Nicene]

Yes, while one can be affirmed in their walk by reading the history of it and examining biblical criticism, no doubt there is a faith component. I do not think the faith part of it bothers most people of faith, but obviously troubles the nonreligious.

Very true, and well said. The hardest objection to overcome is the objection to grace.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Actually I read your entire post earlier, it wasn’t too much. And while the quote above is encouraging, we all have to face the reality that the day might come when the best modern criticism or scholarly research does not favor our position. In that situation it will be our duty to keep the faith even if becomes intellectually very difficult.

Yep, agreed. (that’s redundant ) Fatih isn’t come by intellectualism and criticism in the end. If it were how could one believe in Christ?

Heb 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Contarini]

Everyone’s replies have been helpful. I guess my next question would be, if the “key” letters of Ignatius, if you will, like those featured on this website that attest to the truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, were forgeries

There’s no need to worry about that. Only a small minority of scholars hold this skeptical position. The textual history of the letters is complex and there have been a lot of debates, but the vast majority of scholars hold that seven letters of Ignatius are authentic in their shorter Greek forms. (There are longer forms of these letters; Syriac versions of some of them; and other letters that everyone agrees are spurious.)

One of the problems in apologetics, it seems to me, is that people move quickly from defending their beliefs to trying to prove them. You really can’t use history very well to prove anything positively–there is always an element of doubt. What you can do is make a plausible case, and at the same time point out flaws in your opponents’ position. If people are determined to question the authenticity of all the Ignatian writings, they will be able to find some scholar to sanction their view. You can’t stop them, but you can make it clear that they are in the minority and you can ask them why they need so badly to discredit what most scholars agree are among our earliest post-NT Christian writings.

Edwin

 

[Sixtus]

Ignatius of Antioch to countries in Asia Minor stated that the evidence suggested they were forged in the 3rd or 4th centuries.

Is there evidence to contradict this assertion?

There were many forgeries around the 3rd and 4th centuries.

That was why the Church guided by the Holy Spirit included only those gospels which were known to be authentic, excluding those with which there was any doubt

See above for autentic letters. See also Clements letter. That in my view should have been in the canon but it was not. It too is authentic. Clement was a disciple of Peter and ordained by him. He was one of the early popes after Peter.
He is clearly seen as acting with authority as cardinal bishop, or senior of all bishops presiding over the synod of bishops, ordering a Church to reinstate their bishop under pain of excommunication. They did and the rest is history

 

[thistle]

There were many forgeries around the 3rd and 4th centuries.

That was why the Church guided by the Holy Spirit included only those gospels which were known to be authentic, excluding those with which there was any doubt

See above for autentic letters. See also Clements letter. That in my view should have been in the canon but it was not. It too is authentic. Clement was a disciple of Peter and ordained by him. He was one of the early popes after Peter.
He is clearly seen as acting with authority as cardinal bishop, or senior of all bishops presiding over the synod of bishops, ordering a Church to reinstate their bishop under pain of excommunication. They did and the rest is history

The Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined the letter of Clement should not be included in the canon. You’re surely not saying the Holy Spirit got it wrong??

 

[Nicene]

There were many forgeries around the 3rd and 4th centuries.

That was why the Church guided by the Holy Spirit included only those gospels which were known to be authentic, excluding those with which there was any doubt

See above for autentic letters. See also Clements letter. That in my view should have been in the canon but it was not. It too is authentic. Clement was a disciple of Peter and ordained by him. He was one of the early popes after Peter.
He is clearly seen as acting with authority as cardinal bishop, or senior of all bishops presiding over the synod of bishops, ordering a Church to reinstate their bishop under pain of excommunication. They did and the rest is history

Chapter 25 of 1 Clement would pretty much guarantee it wouldn’t be canon. It doesn’t state whether Clement thought it an allegory or real when stating his case for the resurrection.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Atreyu]

There were many forgeries around the 3rd and 4th centuries.

That was why the Church guided by the Holy Spirit included only those gospels which were known to be authentic, excluding those with which there was any doubt

See above for autentic letters. See also Clements letter. That in my view should have been in the canon but it was not. It too is authentic. Clement was a disciple of Peter and ordained by him. He was one of the early popes after Peter.
He is clearly seen as acting with authority as cardinal bishop, or senior of all bishops presiding over the synod of bishops, ordering a Church to reinstate their bishop under pain of excommunication. They did and the rest is history

Clement’s letter is a Papal Encyclical just like any other. Unlike every inspired book of the New Testament (and Old for that matter), Clement’s letter to the Corinthians does not make use of typological language. I have tried to make typological analyses but it makes no sense. You may not agree with me that the existence of typological language is a pre-requisite for inspiration - I simply mention it because it is enough evidence for me to understand that it was the fathers themselves who were inspired to collate and proclaim the canon of the Bible, rather than simply recognising what was inspired and what was not out of sheer luck.