RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Idolatry Ignatius
has been reached on the basis of contradictions between it and the letters, of its frequent unhistorical statements, and of the fact that it was not known to any ancient writer. It cannot have been composed earlier than the fifth century. The one source is therefore the epistles, which purport to have been written during the journey of Ignatius from Antioch to Rome to suffer martyrdom.
In all there are fifteen letters bearing the name of Ignatius, evidently of varying age and value. Seven of these (Ad Ephesios, Ad Mag- The nesios, Ad Trallianos, Ad Romanos, Ad Ignatian Philadelphenos, Ad Smyrnceos, Ad Poly- Letters, carpum) are found in a shorter and a longer Greek recension. The latter adds five more (Ad Mariam Cassobolitam, with a letter from Mary to Ignatius, Ad Tarsenses, Ad Antiochenos, Ad Heronem diaconum Antiochenum, and Ad Philippenses); and finally there are three found only in a Latin text, two to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply to it. These last are wholly worthless, and were probably composed originally in Latin. Of the shorter Greek recension (known as G1) there is only a single manuscript, the Codex Mediceo-Laurentinus, and two copies made from it; but there is also a Latin version (first published by Ussher, 1644, from two manuscripts, of which one has since been lost), quite accurate and of value for the restoration of the text; a Syriac one, incomplete, and an Armenian one based upon it; and a fragment of a Copto-Sahidic one. This shorter recension was first published in Greek by Vossius, 1644. Of the numerous later editions, those of Zahn and Lightfoot are the most scholarly. The longer or interpolated Greek recension (G2) exists in several manuscripts, as does also a Latin version of it; and the Armenian version mentioned above contains the additional letters. It was first published by Paca^us in 1557 and independently by Gessner two years later; of modern editions Zahn's is the most reliable. Finally three letters (to the Ephesians, the Romans, and Polycarp) were discovered in a still shorter recension, though only in a Syriac version, and first published by Cureton in 1845 from two manuscripts found in the Nitrian desert in 1839 and 1843, and again in 1849 with the additional use of a third, found in 1847-
In view of the great importance of these letters for the early constitutional history of the Church, the question of their authenticity has Their been much discussed. The first period Authen- in the history of their criticism goes ticity. down to the discovery of G1 In it at least the three Latin epistles were abandoned, even by Baronius. As to the others, Roman Catholic theologians were usually inclined to defend the authenticity of all those contained in G2, and the Protestants to deny it. With the publication of G1 begins the second period, in which G1 was generally recognized as a nearer approach to the original text, G2 as interpolated. The latter was defended by Meier as late as 1836, but this question may be regarded as finally settled. Opinions varied greatly during the second period as to the authenticity of G\ The third period began with the discovery of the shortest or Syriac recen-
sion (S). The first editor, Cureton, strongly expressed his belief that now at last the really genuine letters were found, which had later been recast so as to support the developed doctrine of the divinity of Christ and the developed constitution of the Church, while four entirely new letters had been added. A large number of scholars declared substantially for this view, though still more refused their assent. The demonstration begun by Denzinger and Uhlhorn, carried further by Merx, and completed by Zahn, that S represents merely an excerpt from G1, may now be regarded as conclusive. Many of the original upholders of S have now abandoned it, while no new defenders have appeared; and its part in the history of Ignatian criticism may be regarded as a closed incident. The present position of the controversy is this: either G1 gives what are substantially unchanged, genuine letters of Ignatius, or none of his letters are extant. It may be safely said that the upholders of the former view, represented with learning and thoroughness by Zahn and Lightfoot, have increased in number. Harnack has abandoned his former attempt to date the letters in the last years of Hadrian or the first of Antoninus Pius, and decided that they are genuine, and composed toward the end of the reign of Trajan (110-117), or possibly, though not probably, a little later.
Four principal reasons are urged against the authenticity of the letters as found in G1. (1) It is asserted that the historical data af- Arguments forded by them are incorrect. The Against fact is, however, that the data of the Authen- letters themselves (not of the Acta) ticity. correspond perfectly to the conditions of the time. Christians suffered martyrdom under Trajan, and there is no reason to doubt the account of Ignatius being brought to Rome to die there. The law forbidding provincial governors to send condemned prisoners from one province to another is not earlier than Severus and Antoninus, and that which regulated their transportation to Rome probably later still. There is nothing improbable about the route assigned, nor the fact that Ignatius was able to have intercourse with the local churches and wrote letters on the way. Similar examples are found in Lucian (De morte Peregrini), and in the Acta of Perpetua and Felicitas. The anxiety of Ignatius lest the Roman Christians should take steps for his liberation is easily understood when it is known that appeals on behalf of a condemned prisoner might be set in motion by others, even against his will. In a word, the whole line of argument represented by the first objection may now be largely disregarded. (2) The second deals with the personality of Ignatius, as set forth in the epistles, which Baur considered much more suited to a deliberate invention than to actual history, objecting especially to its " affected humility " and its " false heroism." This point, made most strongly by Bunsen, is now not so much pressed; it is an entirely subjective one, and is decided in an opposite sense by equally good judges, Rothe and Harnack seeing throughout the stamp of an actual personality. (3) Somewhat more impressive is the contention that heresies
Ignatius Ignatius of Loyola