Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ignatius of Antioch
(ca. 110 A.D.)
Ignatius also refers to himself in his letters as "Theophorus." A church legend says he
was the little child taken up in Jesus' arms (Mk 9:35). He was bishop of Antioch,
friend of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, and may have known the Apostle
John. Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. However, we know very little else about
him and the early church fathers do not say much about his life or his writings.
Irenaeus alludes to him when he quotes from Ignatius' letter to the Romans but he
does not mention him by name even though Ignatius' name does appear in the letter.
"As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild
beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: 'I am the wheat of
Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be
found the pure bread of God.'" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, 28, 4).
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (III, 36), written about 315 AD, mentions
Ignatius as being in charge of the episcopate of Smyrna at the time of Papias. He
records Ignatius as having been sent to Rome to be fed to the wild beasts and on his
way edified the churches by giving them oral homilies and by writing several letters.
Eusebius mentions seven of his letters: Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans,
Philadelphians, Smyrneans and a letter to Polycarp.
The writings of Ignatius have always been controversial and have been widely
disputed. There are fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. The first three
exist only in Latin and the rest are extant also in Greek:
The Ignatian problem arises from the fact that we possess different versions of his
letters: the Short Recension, the Long Recension, and the Syriac abridgement. The
Short Recension was unknown until 1646, and the Syriac until 1845. During the
Reformation, Catholics appealed to the Long Recension Ignatian epistles in defense
of the Catholic authority. Protestants discredited these writings of Ignatius as
inauthentic. After the 1646 discovery of the Short Recension in Florence by Vossius,
many Protestants still insisted that both recensions were forgeries. The matter is still
disputed by some scholars who believe all the so-called recensions are corrupted.
Textual critic scholars tell us that eight of the fifteen letters of Ignatius are definitely
not authentic. One of their main reasons is that Eusebius was unaware of these eight.
However, we must be cautious here and remind ourselves that we cannot decisively
conclude they did not exist simply because Eusebius was unaware of them. The
current opinion is that the "Short Recension" of seven letters is authentically Ignatian.
However, this is not without several serious problems. Even if we could be
absolutely sure that Ignatius did only write seven letters, this does not mean those
seven letters are uncorrupted as well as the other writings which are believed to be
inauthentic. The fact that many of Ignatius' writings were forgeries and corruptions
should cause us to cast a suspicious eye upon all his writings. For example, compare
the following passage from the Epistle to the Romans also quoted by Irenaeus in
reference to Ignatius:
Short Long
Irenaeus Syriac Version
Recension Recension
We must be careful not to misunderstand the facts and confuse the authenticity
concerning which letters Ignatius wrote and the authenticity of their content. If we
suupose that Ignatius only wrote seven letters, it does not necessarily follow that the
seven letters which we have are uncorrupted. Also, the conclusion that Ignatius only
wrote seven is a speculation based on opinions concerning their content and
Eusebius' lack of knowledge concerning them. However, Ignatius may have written
other letters, Eusebius may have been legitimately unaware of them, and the eight we
do have, and are known to be corrupted, may indeed be corruptions of authentic
originals. And too conclude Ignatius only wrote seven letters, and not fifteen, does
not mean these seven letters in the so-called Short Recension are not also corrupted
simply because they differ from the so-called Long Recension. It is one thing to be
quite sure Ignatius authentically wrote seven letters but quite another thing to be quite
sure those seven letters contain his authentic words without any corruption.
Furthermore, the church fathers tell us that Gnostics were especially known for
altering or deleting texts from Christian writings. That would point to Gnostic
corruption in the Short Recension, not the Long Recension. In the end, we simply
cannot have any certainty as to the purity of their content.
There are also several other problems with the Ignatian letters as a whole. His letters
seem to contain very unlikely geographical and historical circumstances. For
example, Ignatius was being taken to Rome to be eaten by the lions. So then why
would the Romans take a prisoner who on a very long over land journey rather than
sailing by ship when he was being transported from one sea-port (Antioch) to
another (Rome)? It doesn't make any sense and the story has the flavor of
romanticized fiction which in turn might be a main reason why early church fathers do
not bother mentioning his letters. Additionally, his letters seem anachronistic
containing theological notions and a picture of a developed church structure which
seems to be more suited to a much later time period.
The following compares the Short and Long Recensions of Ignatius' letters. Excerpts
for the Short vs. Long Recensions taken from the Roberts-Donaldson English
Translations of the Short and Long Recensions, emphasis mine. The indented version
is the Long Recension. Especially compare the bolded words between the Short and
Long Recensions. The differences are quite revealing.
To the Ephesians
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. (VII).
Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His
resurrection. Especially if the Lord make known to me that ye come
together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one
faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to
the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God. (XX).
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the
beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).
There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His
Son, who is His eternal Word. (VIII).
To the Trallians
Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the
case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union
with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop and the enactments of the
apostles. (VII).
To the Romans
"For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are
not seen are eternal." For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with
the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III).
"For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things
which are not seen are eternal." The Christian is not the
result of persuasion, but of power. When he is hated by
the world, he is beloved of God.
I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild
beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. (IV).
For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose
his own soul? " Him I seek, who died for us: Him I desire, who rose
again for our sake. This is the gain which is laid up for me. Pardon me,
brethren: do not hinder me from living, do not wish to keep me in a
state of death; and while I desire to belong to God, do not ye give me
over to the world. Suffer me to obtain pure light: when I have gone
thither, I shall indeed be a man of God. Permit me to be an imitator of
the passion of my God. (V).
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for
its Shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it. (IX).
To the Philadelphians
[Missing]. (IV).
[Missing] (V).
[Missing] (VI).
If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the
God of the Law and of the prophets, saying that the
Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he
has not continued in the truth any more than his father the
devil. (VI).
The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest is better; to whom the
holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been trusted with
the secrets of God. He is the door of the Father, by which enter in
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles,
and the Church. All these have for their object the attaining to the unity
of God. (IX).
To the Smyrneans
Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom....He
was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of
God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of
a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be
fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the
tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. (I).
The following are excerpts taken from Ignatius' other letters that are extant only in
one copy and belong with the collection known as the "Long Recension." He uses
language to describe God very similar to Irenaeus.
And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He
that was crucified was "the first-born of every creature," and God the
Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, "There is one
God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things. And again, "For there is one God, and one
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the
Tarsians, IV).
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His
Son, He says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my
God and your God. And again, "When all things shall be subjected
unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all
things under Him, that God may be all in all." Wherefore it is One
[God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His
Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all
other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf.
1 Cor 15:24-28).
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His
existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-
begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God." And in another place, "The Lord
created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works.
Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget
Me. (To the Tarsians, VI).
For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, "The Lord thy
God is one Lord," and thus proclaimed that there was only one
God, did also forthwith confess also our Lord [Jesus] when he said,
"The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from
the Lord." And again, "And God said, Let us make man after our
image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him."
And further "In the image of God made He man." And that [the Son]
was to be made man, he says, "A prophet shall the Lord [YAHWEH]
raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me." (To the Antiochians,
II).
The prophets also, when they speak as in the person of God, [saying, ]
"I am God, the first [of beings], and I am also the last,10 and besides
Me there is no God,"11 concerning the Father of the universe, do also
speak of our Lord Jesus Christ. "A Son," they say, has been given to
us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is
called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong
and mighty God."12 And concerning His incarnation, "Behold, a virgin
shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son; and they shall call his
name Immanuel. (To the Antiochians, III).
The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the
only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was
made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says, "became
flesh, and dwelt among us." And again: "The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very
apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is
one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of
the incarnation and the passion. For what says "The man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever,
therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away
the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He
also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the
world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the
law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the
devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross
for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who
affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet,
since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-
V).
May He who is alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit
and in the flesh, through him who was begotten before time began.
(To the Antiochians, XIV).
May I have joy of thee, my dear son, whose guardian may He be who
is the only unbegotten God, and the Lord Jesus Christ! (To Hero, IV).
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has obtained mercy
through the grace of the Most High God the Father, and Jesus
Christ the Lord, who died for us. (To Maria at Neapolis, Near
Zarbus).
If we examine his writings carefully, we can easily see that what Ignatius teaches is
not Trinitarianism, that is, "the Trinity" as is defined by that dogma today. As with all
Christians, Ignatius believes in a trinity, but he does not believe in a three in one God.
Ignatius, along with all the early Christians, did not believe the Son was the second
person of a "Triune Godhead" along with God the Father, but was God's Word and
in that sense was "God the Word" because he was out of, came from, and
proceeded forth from, the One and Only True God himself. In other words, he is not
the true God himself but the Word of God and in that sense, of God, like a sunbeam
of the Sun, but not the Sun itself, to use an analogy so oft employed by early
Christians to aid others in understanding what they believed.
The following is from the Long Recension. Notice how his language sounds typically
apostolic:
There is then One God and Father, and not two or three, One who
is, and there is no other besides Him, the only true One. For "the
Lord [YAHWEH] thy God," saith, "is one Lord." And again, "Hath
not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is
also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith,
"who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus
Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's
name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there
is also," saith, "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of
our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what
follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts "worketh one and the self-
same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or
three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete.
Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make
disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," not unto one having
three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three
[persons] possessed of equal honour [one name]. (To the Philippians,
II).
Note carefully, that to Ignatius, as to all the early Christians, there is One God and
that One God is the Father alone. The Son is divine only in the sense that he derives
his divinity from that One and Only True God, the Father. For Ignatius "God the
Word" does not mean the second person of "the Trinity" because for Ignatius there
is Only One God, the Father. For Ignatius, "God the Word" means that God is
manifested in His Word Jesus Christ, but that Word is not He Himself, the One and
Only True God. This was the common voice of all Christians prior to the late third
and early fourth centuries.
Some textual critics have compared one set of writings to the other set and have
decided that there are two different writers involved (obviously). What is amusing is
that some Trinitarians claim the Long Recension is Gnostic. However, it is the Short
Recension which smacks of hack and slash Gnostic tampering, something which the
early church writers often stated that these Gnostics loved to do (Example: Marcion).
It reeks with that form of Gnosticism that claimed Christ was indeed the begotten
"God" but denied that God as a person suffered and died but only had the
appearance of suffering. This is exactly the false teaching John wrote about (1 John
4:2-3; 2 Jn 1:7). Many of the elements of Ignatius' teaching that are present in the
Long Recension, are completely missing in the Short Recension, and these items
insist and emphasize far more strongly, that the Word himself was that flesh who was
crucified and dead in the tomb just as Irenaeus and Tertullian later insist over and
against the Gnostics. In the Long Recension, Ignatius repeatedly emphasizes that the
Word was himself that flesh that was crucified dead and buried, against Gnostics
who teach otherwise, and who taught that the Word did not die and was always
impassible and could not die or be dead. Ignatius believed the impassible Word
became passible in his incarnation for our sake, so that the Word could and would
die for us. Ignatius is the disciple of the Apostle John himself and was wary of the
very Gnostic antichrist teachings John warned about. The following from the Long
Recension is Christian, not Gnostic. Can you imagine a Gnostic forging a text that
speaks of his own beliefs in this manner? Absurd!
HOME