Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

IGNATIUS ('Iyvfrior)

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V14, Page 294 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

IGNATIUS ('Iyvfrior) , See also:bishop of See also:Antioch, one of the " Apostolic Fathers." No one connected with the See also:history of the See also:early See also:Christian See also:Church is more famous than Ignatius, and yet among the leading churchmen of the See also:time there is scarcely one about whose career we know so little. Our only trustworthy See also:information is derived from the letters which he wrote to various churches on his last See also:journey from Antioch to See also:Rome, and from the See also:short See also:epistle of See also:Polycarp to the See also:Philippians. The earlier patristic writers seem to have known no more than we do. See also:Irenaeus, for instance, gives a See also:quotation from his Epistle to the See also:Romans and does not appear to know (or if he knew he has forgotten) the name of the author, since he describes him (Adv. haer. v. 28. 4) as " one of those belonging to us " (rts TWv ?7µ€Tipcwv). If See also:Eusebius possessed any knowledge about Ignatius apart from the letters he never reveals it. The only shred of extra information which he gives us is the statement that Ignatius " was the second successor of See also:Peter in the bishopric of Antioch " (See also:Eccles. hist. 36). Of course in later times a See also:cloud of tradition arose, but none of it bears the least See also:evidence of trustworthiness. The martyrologies, from which the See also:account of his martyrdom that used to appear in uncritical church histories is taken, are full of anachronisms and impossibilities. There are two See also:main types—the See also:Roman and the Syrian—out of which the others are compounded.

They contradict each other in many points and even their own statements in different places are sometimes quite irreconcilable. Any truth that the narrative may contain is hopelessly overlaid with fiction. We are therefore limited to the Epistles for our information, and before we can use even these we are confronted with a most complex See also:

critical problem, a problem which for ages aroused the most See also:bitter controversy, but which happily now, thanks to the labours of Zahn, See also:Lightfoot, See also:Harnack and Funk, may be said to have reached a satisfactory See also:solution. I. The Problem of the Three Recensions.—The Ignatian problem arises from the fact that we possess three different recensions of the Epistles. (a) The short recension (often called the Vossian) contains the letters to the See also:Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, See also:Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans and to Poly-See also:carp. This recension was derived in its See also:Greek See also:form from the famous Medicean MS. at See also:Florence and first published by See also:Vossius in 1646 (see Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1906, 596 f., for an early See also:papyrus fragment in the See also:Berlin Museum, containing Ad Smyrn. iii. fin. xii. init.). In the Medicean MS. the Epistle to the Romans is missing, but a Greek version of this epistle was discovered by Ruinart, embedded in a martyrium, in the See also:National Library at See also:Paris and published in 1689. There are also (I) a Latin version made by See also:Robert See also:Grosseteste, bishop of See also:Lincoln, about 1250, and published by Ussher in 1644—two years before the Vossian edition appeared; (2) an Armenian version which was derived from a See also:Syriac not earlier than the 5th See also:century and published at See also:Constantinople in 1783; (3) some fragments of a Syriac version published in See also:Cureton's edition of Ignatius; (4) fragments of a Coptic version first published in Lightfoot's See also:work (ii. 859-882). (b) The See also:long recension contains the seven Epistles mentioned above in an See also:expanded form and several additional letters besides.

The Greek form of the recension, which has been preserved in ten See also:

MSS., has thirteen letters, the additional ones being to the Tarsians, the Philippians, the Antiochians, to See also:Hero, to See also:Mary of Cassobola and a See also:letter of Mary to Ignatius. The Latin form, of which there are thirteen extant MSS., omits the letter of Mary of Cassobola, but adds to the See also:list the Laus Heronis, two Epistles to the apostle See also:John, one to the Virgin Mary and one from Mary to Ignatius. (c) The Syriac or Curetonian recension contains only three Epistles, viz. to Polycarp, to the Romans, and to the Ephesians, and these when compared with the same letters in the short and long recensions are found to be considerably abbreviated. The Syriac recension was made by See also:William Cureton in 1845 from three Syriac MSS. which had recently been brought from the Nitrian See also:desert and deposited in the See also:British Museum. One of these MSS. belongs to the 6th century, the other two are later. Summed up in a word, therefore, the Ignatian problem is this: which of these three recensions (if any) represents the actual work of Ignatius ? II. History of the Controversy.—The history of the controversy may be divided into three periods: (a) up to the See also:discovery of the short recension in 1646; (b) between 1646 and the discovery of the Syriac recension in 1845; (c) from 1845 to the See also:present See also:day. In the first See also:stage the controversy was theological rather than critical. The See also:Reformation raised the question as to the authority of the papacy and the See also:hierarchy. Roman See also:Catholic scholars used the interpolated Ignatian Epistles very freely in their See also:defence and derived many of their arguments from them, while See also:Protestant scholars threw discredit on these Epistles. The See also:Magdeburg centuriators expressed the gravest doubts as to their genuineness, and See also:Calvin declared that "nothing was more foul than those See also:fairy tales (naeniis) published under the name of Ignatius!" It should be stated, however, that one Roman Catholic See also:scholar, Denys See also:Petau (Petavius), admitted that the letters were interpolated, while the Protestant Vedelius acknowledged the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius.

In See also:

England the Ignatian Epistles took an important See also:place in the episcopalian controversy in the 17th century. Their genuineness was defended by the leading See also:Anglican writers, e.g. See also:Whitgift, See also:Hooker and See also:Andrewes, and vigorously challenged by Dissenters, e.g. the five Presbyterian ministers who wrote under the name of Smectymnuus and John See also:Milton.' The second See also:period is marked by the recognition of the superiority of the Vossian recension. This was speedily demonstrated, though some attempts were made, notably by See also:Jean See also:Morin or Morinus (about 1656), See also:Whiston (in 1711) and Meier (in 1836), to resuscitate the long recension. Many Protestants still maintained that the new recension, like the old, was a See also:forgery. The See also:chief attack came from Jean Daille, who in his famous work (1666) See also:drew up no fewer than sixty-six objections to the genuineness of the Ignatian literature. He was answered by See also:Pearson, who in his indiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii (1672) completely vindicated the authenticity of the Vossian Epistles. No further attack of any importance was made till the time of See also:Baur, who like Daille rejected both recensions. In the third stage—inaugurated in 1845 by Cureton's work—the controversy has ranged See also:round the relative claims of the Vossian and the Curetonian recensions. Scholars have been divided into three camps, viz. (1) those who followed Cureton 'in maintaining that the three Syriac Epistles alone were the genuine work of Ignatius.

Among them may be mentioned the names of See also:

Bunsen, A. See also:Ritschl, R. A. See also:Lipsius, E. de See also:Pressense, H. See also:Ewald, See also:Milman, Bohringer. (2) Those who accepted the genuineness of the Vossian recension and regarded the Curetonian as an See also:abbreviation of it, e.g. See also:Petermann, Denzinger, Uhlhorn, Merx, and in more See also:recent times Th. Zahn, J. B. Lightfoot, Ad. Harnack and F. X.

Funk. (3) Those who denied the authenticity of both recensions, e.g. Baur and See also:

Hilgenfeld and in recent times See also:van Manen,2 Volter3 and van Loon.' The result of more than See also:half a century's discussion has been to restore the Vossian recension to the premier position. 1 In his short See also:treatise " Of Prelatical See also:Episcopacy," See also:works iii. p. 72 (See also:Pickering, 1851). 1 Theologisch. Tijdschrift (1892), 625-633. 3 lb. (1886) 114-136; See also:Die Ignatianischen Briefe (1892). lb. (1893) 275-316.with regard to the origin of the recension. Some, e.g.

Leclerc, See also:

Newman and Zahn, think that the writer was an Arian and that the additions were made in the See also:interest of Arianism. Funk, on the other See also:hand, regards the writer as an Apollinarian. See also:Light-See also:foot opposes both views and suggests that it is better " to conceive of him as See also:writing with a conciliatory aim." IV. The Objections to the Curetonian Recension.—The objections to the Syriac recension, though not so decisive, are strong enough to carry conviction with them. (I) We have the See also:express statement of Eusebius that Ignatius wrote seven Epistles. (2) There are statements in Polycarp's Epistle which cannot be explained from the three Syriac Epistles. (3) The omitted portions are proved by Lightfoot after an elaborate See also:analysis to be written in the same See also:style as the See also:rest of the epistles and could not therefore have been later interpolations. (4) The Curetonian letters are often abrupt and broken and show signs of abridgment. (5) The discovery of the Armenian version proves the existence of an earlier Syriac recension corresponding to the Vossian of which the Curetonian may be an abbreviation. It seems impossible to account for the origin of the Curetonian recension on theological grounds. The theory that the abridgment was made in the interests of Eutychianism or Monophysitism cannot be substantiated. V.

The Date and Genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.—We are See also:

left therefore with the seven Epistles. Are they the genuine work of Ignatius, and, if so, at what date were they written? The main objections are as follows: (1) The See also:conveyance of a condemned prisoner to Rome to be put to See also:death in the See also:amphitheatre is unlikely on See also:historical grounds, and the route taken' is improbable for See also:geographical reasons. This objection has very little solid basis. (2) The heresies against which Ignatius contends imply the rise of the later Gnostic and Docetic sects. It is quite certain, however, that Docetism was in existence in the 1st century (cf. 1 John), while many of the principles of See also:Gnosticism were in See also:vogue long before the See also:great Gnostic sects arose (cf. the See also:Pastoral Epistles). There is nothing in Ignatius which implies a knowledge of the teaching of See also:Basilides or See also:Valentinus. In fact, as Harnack says: " No Christian writer after 140 could have described the false teachers in the way that Ignatius does." (3) The ecclesiastical See also:system of Ignatius is too See also:developed to have arisen as early as the time of See also:Trajan. At first sight this objection seems to be almost fatal. But we have to remember that the bishops of Ignatius are not bishops in the See also:modern sense of the word at all, but simply pastors of churches. They are not mentioned at all in two Epistles, viz.

Romans and Philippians, which seems to imply that this form of See also:

government was not universal. It is only when we read modern ecclesiastical ideas into Ignatius that the objection has much See also:weight. To sum up, as Uhlhorn says: "The collective See also:mass of See also:internal evidence against the genuineness of the letters ... is insufficient to counterbalance the testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp in their favour. He who would prove the Epistles of Ignatius to be See also:spurious must begin by proving the Epistle of Polycarp to be spurious, and such an undertaking is not likely to succeed." This being so, there is no See also:reason for rejecting the See also:opinion of Eusebius that the Epistles were written in the reign of Trajan. Harnack, who formerly dated them about 140, now says that they were written in the latter years of Trajan, or possibly a little later (117-125). The See also:majority of scholars place them a few years earlier (110-117).' The letters of Ignatius unfortunately, unlike the Epistles of St See also:Paul, contain scant autobiographical material. We are See also:fold absolutely nothing about the history of his career. The fact that like St Paul he describes himself as an gm-pwµa (Rom. 9), and that he speaks of himself as " the last of the Antiochene Christians " (Trail. 13; Smyrn. xi.), seems to suggest that he had been converted from paganism somewhat See also:late in See also:life and that the See also:process of See also:conversion had been abrupt and violent. He See also:bore the surname of Theophorus, i.e. " See also:God-clad " or " bearing e But there are still a few scholars, e.g. van Manen and Volter, who prefer a date about 15o or later; van Loon goes as late as 175.

See See also:

article " Old-Christian Literature," Ency. Bib. iii. See also:col. 3488. God." Later tradition regarded the word as a passive form (" God-See also:borne ") and explained it by the romantic theory that Ignatius was the See also:child whom See also:Christ took in his arms (See also:Mark ix. 36-37). The date at which he became bishop of Antioch cannot be determined. At the time when the Epistles were written he had just been sentenced to death, and was being sent in See also:charge of a See also:band of soldiers to Rome to fight the beasts in the amphitheatre. The fact that he was condemned to the amphitheatre proves that he could not have been a Roman See also:citizen. We lose sight of him at Troas, but the presumption is that he was martyred at Rome, though we have no early evidence of this. But if the Epistles tell us little of the life of Ignatius, they give us an excellent picture of the See also:man himself, and are a See also:mirror in which we see reflected certain ideals of the life and thought of the day. Ignatius, as See also:Schaff says, " is the incarnation of three closely connected ideas: the See also:glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of See also:heresy and See also:schism." I. Zeal for martyrdom in later days became a disease in the Church, but in the See also:case of Ignatius it is the mark of a hero.

The heroic See also:

note runs through all the Epistles; thus he says: " I bid all men know that of my own See also:free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me . . . Let me be given to the See also:wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto God. I am God's See also:wheat, and I am ground by the wild beasts that I may be found the pure See also:bread of Christ. Entice the wild beasts that they may become my See also:sepulchre . ; come See also:fire and See also:cross and grapplings with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole See also:body; only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ " (Rom. 4-5). 2. Ignatius constantly contends for the recognition of the authority of the ministers of the church. "Do nothing," he writes to the Magnesians, "without the bishop and the presbyters." The " three orders " are essential to the church, without them no church is worthy of the name (cf! Trull. 3).

" It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast " (Smyrn. 8). Respect is due to the bishop as to God, to the presbyters as the See also:

council of God and the See also:college of apostles, to the deacons as to Jesus Christ (Trail. 3). These terms must not, of course, be taken in their developed modern sense. The " bishop " of Ignatius seems to represent the modern pastor of a church. As Zahn has shown, Ignatius is not striving to introduce a See also:special form of See also:ministry, nor is he endeavouring to substitute one form for another. His particular interest is not so much in the form of ministry as in the unity of the church. It is this that is his chief concern. Centrifugal forces were at work. See also:Differences of theological opinion were arising. Churches had a tendency to split up into sections.

The See also:

age of the apostles had passed away and their successors did not inherit their authority. The unity of the churches was in danger. Ignatius was resisting this fatal tendency which threatened ruin to the faith. The only remedy for it in those days was to exalt the authority of the ministry and make it the centre of church life. It should be noted that (I) there is no trace of the later See also:doctrine of See also:apostolical See also:succession; (2) the ministry is never sacerdotal in the letters of Ignatius. As Lightfoot puts it: " The ecclesiastical See also:order was enforced by him (Ignatius) almost solely as a See also:security for doctrinal purity. The threefold ministry was the husk, the See also:shell, which protected the See also:precious See also:kernel of the truth " (i. 40). 3. Ignatius fights most vehemently against the current forms of heresy. The chief danger to the church came from the Docetists who denied the reality of the humanity of Christ and ascribed to him a phantom body. Hence we find Ignatius laying the utmost stress on the fact that Christ " was truly See also:born and See also:ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius See also:Pilate ..

. was truly raised from the dead " (Trail. 9). " I know that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection, and when He came to Peter and his See also:

company, He said to them, `See also:Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit ' " (Smyrn. 3). Equally emphatic is Ignatius's protest against a return to Judaism. " It is monstrous to talk of JesusChrist and to practise Judaism, for See also:Christianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Christianity " (Magn. ro). Reference must also be made to a few of the more characteristic points in the See also:theology of Ignatius. As far as Christology isconcerned, besides the insistence on the reality of the humanity of Christ already mentioned, there are two other points which See also:call for See also:notice. (1) Ignatius is the earliest writer outside the New Testament to describe Christ under the categories of current See also:philosophy; cf. the famous passage in Eph. 7. " There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit (vapKLKUs Kai rrvetwarucbs), generate and ingenerate (yevvrlros Kai aryfvvr)See also:ros), God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and son of God, first passible and then impassible " (irprerov IraOrlros Kai aaaO)c). (2) Ignatius is also the first writer outside the New Testament to mention the Virgin See also:Birth, upon which he See also:lays the utmost stress.

" Hidden from the See also:

prince of this See also:world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the See also:Lord, three mysteries to be cried aloud, the which were wrought in the silence of God " (Eph. 19). Here, it will be observed, we have the See also:nucleus of the later doctrine of the deception of Satan. In regard to the See also:Eucharist also later ideas occur in Ignatius. It is termed a µuQrrlpcov (Trail. 2), and the See also:influence of the Greek mysteries is seen in such See also:language as that used in Eph. 20, where Ignatius describes the Eucharistic bread as " the See also:medicine of See also:immortality and the antidote against death." When Ignatius says too that " the heretics abstain from Eucharist because they do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ," the words seem to imply that materialistic ideas were beginning to find an entrance into the church (Smyr. 6). Other points that call for special notice are: (I) Ignatius's rather extravagant angelology. In one place for instance he speaks of himself as being able to comprehend heavenly things and " the arrays of angels and the musterings of principalities " (Trail. 5). (2) His view of the Old Testament.

In one important passage Ignatius emphatically states his belief in the supremacy of Christ even over " the archives " of the faith, i.e. the Old Testament: " As for me, my archives—my inviolable archives—are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death, His resurrection and faith through Him" (Philadel. 8). (H. T.

End of Article: IGNATIUS ('Iyvfrior)

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
IGNATIEV, NICHOLAS PAVLOVICH, COUNT (1832-1908) 		[next]
IGNORAMUS (Latin for " we do not know," " we take n...

Site © 2006 - Net Industries