I guess I will take this further with a few observations... Perhaps I will start with the so-called letter to Polycarp.
In the following, I reference the Short Recession – that is, the letter in the Syriac, which was translated by William Cureton in his “Corpus Ignatianum.” Since I have no knowledge of Syriac, my observations are dependent entirely upon his translation, which is probably lacking in a great many respects.
The observations come as I read. So they may change or take on new meaning as I read more. My observations remain, therefore, very much preliminary.
The first thing I noticed about this letter “to Polycarp” is that it contains no greeting or salutation. It does not actually mention Polycarp at all. Neither does it identify the writer/author. Indeed, there is nothing whatsoever in the letter that makes it seem as if the writer/author were referring to the Polycarp of Smyrna. The way this letter is written, it seems to be directed toward someone respected and loved, but younger, less mature, and without a lot of authority or learning. The author/writer instructs the addressee like a student—one who has attained a few graces of the Spirit (is patient, kind, knowledgeable, and has a passionate spirit), but needs guidance and help in order to grow into full spiritual blossoming: “that thou mayest be lacking in nothing, and mayest abound in all gifts.”
The addressee is told to work to reconcile divisiveness in the church through gentleness, love, dependence upon God for understanding, meekness, and what I would call long-suffering - enduring the “infirmities” of the “evil” ones in the church. All this is for the sake of unity – something that, apparently, was of great concern to the writer/author. Excommunication does not come up. Neither does rebuke. The addressee is to be “wise as a serpent” and “innocent as a dove” (imagery comes from Matthew 10:16) in that context.
The addressee is told that he needs to be “worthy of God” - at this particular time more than ever. The need for this worthiness is like a person who stands in a tempest needs a haven.
Much of the letter is simply a list of instructions about how to deal with people in the church or is an importation of wisdom – many things seem to be based on stuff found throughout Paul's writings. Not a lot is either original or creative. There are several attempts at metaphor—none of them good.
The author/writer speaks in his own voice in several places:
-- “That which is promised to us is life eternal incorruptible”
-- “In every place I will be instead of thy soul” and “I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons”
-- there is a notion of behavior that takes place in two realms, the “flesh” and the “spirit” - and that one must act in both realms as a Christian
-- “Expect Him who is above the times, Him to whom there are no times, Him who is unseen, Him who for our sakes was seen, Him who is impalpable, Him who is impassable, Him who for our sakes suffered, Him who endured every thing in every form for our sakes.”
-- There is a focus on the “Bishop” as a counselor and mentor in some ways that I am not sure I understand.
-- There is a dependence upon the “will of God” in all one's actions and upon doing everything to “honor” God. Quite worthy and noble aspirations!
-- There is a mention of “conquering” by means of being “smitten” that is quite interesting: “Stand in the truth, like a combatant who is smitten: for it is [the part] of a great combatant that he should be smitten and conquer.” I'm not really sure about that to which this pertains. Is being “smitten” literal or a metaphor? And what is being “conquered”? None of it is explained in the letter.
As for the author/writer, he is apparently in some sort of “bonds,” but whether these “bonds” are physical, mental, or another bad/unexplained metaphor is uncertain. He is, apparently, sending someone in his stead to Antioch. But what that could be is not ascertainable. It would seem that he did not consider himself either a Bishop or a Presbyter or a Deacon since he speaks of those three as something other than himself and aligns himself specifically with those who are “subject” to them. He would appear to align himself with the “laborers” of the gospel – the “stewards” and “domestics” and “ministers.” In other words, there is no hint in this letter, and much against it, that the author/writer considered himself to be the Bishop of Antioch.
I have read Polycarp, Clement, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Justin, etc... and this is, by far, the most banal, non-inspiring, and rudimentary of them all. There is little or no great authority present in voice as seen in those writings. There is no continual dependence upon scripture for teaching and admonition as seen in those writings. The difference between those writings and this is night and day. If this really is a writing of one of the early church fathers—one of the great leaders of the Christian church in the early days, then it shows no sign of it and has fooled me utterly. Perhaps, as I delve into the other two letters from the Syriac, I may encounter things that alter this impression.
