The writings of Ignatius have been known to have incorrect historical data. Roman Law did not allow for prisoners to be sent from one province to another at the time of Ignatius. Many scholars also are concerned about the ‘false heroism’ shown in Ignatius’ writings. It is a personality issue that seems to be an invention of a later time.
**Roman Law didn’t prevent that? Would you explain St. Paul?
Also, “they are concerned”. That does not mean it is false. Can you name any of these “concerned scholars”?**
The heresies combated by Ignatius in his letters belong to a later period of time than the early years of the second century. Gnosticism grew to great dimensions but at a later date than the supposed time mentioned as the time of Ignatius’ writings. The heretics described in his letters did not exist in the early part of the second century.
False. It is said that John’s Gospel was to correct the error of early gnosticism. John’s Gospel preceeded Ignatius.
In addition, Ignatius writes of a church organization that did not exist at that time. The episcopate did not exist until much later. The epistles mention three orders, bishops, presbyters and deacons with the second already subordinate to the first and he mentions the function of the episcopate and unity well prior to the actual time.
False. You must prove that Ignatius’ writings are false before you can refute this. You’ve only showed “concern”. If, in fact, Ignatius’ writings are true, then it would be an accurate portrayal of the Catholic Church’s claims. I now understand why one would be “concerned” with its authenticity. It would have blown nearly every Protestant church out of the water, just with this.
If you take the writing of Polycarp, as verified by Irenæus as accurate, then it is too early for Ignatius’ writings to be authentic. And of course a final blow, the originals are said to not still exist, as for many of the earlier writings.
OK, you lost me here. You need to provide a little more meat in this sandwich.
There is a better argument for the authenticity of Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians. The 2nd letter attributed to him is spurious however as it was written in the second century and Clement was then dead.
I haven’t referenced his 2nd letter at all. The Church doesn’t use his 2nd Epistle for any teaching.
You are simply throwing out a red-herring.
Clement does not mention his name either in the opening of the epistle or in the body. It is addressed from one church to another and not from one person to a church. One of the biggest problems with considering it genuine is that it is a very large size, not like an epistle, but more like a book. Also the real reason for the letter does not appear until chapter 44. It seems much more likely that it is a treatise that attempts to display peace and unity in different communities. Whoever wrote it called it an appeal ‘for peace and harmony.’
Wow. That means nothing. Hebrews or any ot the Gospels does not mention their authorship. You want to show “concern” for them?
The Epistle is about the same length as Romans. Although there 60 some-odd chapters, most of them are very short.
Yes, it is an appeal for harmony. An appeal to restore the Apostolic Succession of the Church in Corinth.
The author seems to be attempting to mediate problems from Rome but that is unrealistic for the times. He says that the Corinthians had always been in revolt and that goes against Paul’s epistles. The epistle also speaks of great harmony between Peter and Paul and that did not exist at that time. That came much later than this letter purports to be written. If one reads the ending of the epistle and finds the prayer that says: “So let us, in harmony and as best we know, meet in the same place and with one voice emphatically praise the Lord, since we are blessed with his great and magnificent promises.” How could the Corinthians have gone to a sanctuary with the Romans?
You make no sense here. Peter and Paul were dead by the time the Epistle was written.
We meet in the same place and with one voice emphatically praise the Lord in Mass, OS.
The letter also indicates antagonism between priests and laymen. This would have had to be a much later time. Mention is also made of the book of Judith and that was not written until 138 A.D. too long for Clement to have known about it.
Judith was written in BC. What are you talking about?
One last reason I don’t think it was written by Clement was that it would require uniform leadership, if written by a bishop, that Rome did not have until the time of Anicetus in 156-166 A.D. Many scholars believe the writing is of another person, perhaps named Clement, whom no one knows anything about but who could have been a member of the governing body of the Roman Church.
Again, was is your reasoning for this. Who claims that Anicetus consolidated leadership in Rome?
In defense of Clement as the author, the early church certainly thought it was written by him as it was read and used frequently. The problems with his authorship however have not been explained. In order to be perfectly honest however, I must admit that many scholars make the claim that it is authenticate. There are also many who do not accept it as authenticate.
There are no valid “concerns”. The Church in Corinth claimed it was Clement of Rome. Everyone else in the early Church made this claim. The only “concerns” were by those that don’t want to see Roman leadership in the early Church.
