How Authentic Are Ignatius' Letters?

[AJB4]

I was reading this:

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html

I was just wondering, had anyone read this thing before? I'm just wondering now, how authentic are Ignatius' letters? The author of this article has pointed out many possible inconsistencies...

[Knowledge3]

St. Ignatius of Antioch?

Very.

[AJB4]

St. Ignatius of Antioch?

Very.
Proof?

[gzt]

Well, your article there points out the general scholarly consensus is that those seven letters are probably genuine. If you'd like, I can dig out some references to articles which discuss their authenticity, I'd do it now but I don't have JSTOR access on this computer. Real articles by real scholars. I really wouldn't go for anything that's just up on some random web page.

[AJB4]

Well, your article there points out the general scholarly consensus is that those seven letters are probably genuine. If you'd like, I can dig out some references to articles which discuss their authenticity, I'd do it now but I don't have JSTOR access on this computer. Real articles by real scholars. I really wouldn't go for anything that's just up on some random web page.
Very true. I had no doubt they were authentic anyway - most of what that article said was little nit-pickings anyway, like him failing to mention something in one letter that he mentioned in another. The author of that article was obviously an anti-Catholic with an axe to grind.

[repentant]

Even in the Gospels and Epistles, one mentions something that another doesn't.

[Knowledge3]

Proof?

No proof needed;knowledge of the ECF's is crucial to developing a proper and non-heretical view of God and the Trinity.

His letters are likely very authentic.

[Michael the Iconographer]

No proof needed;knowledge of the ECF's is crucial to developing a proper and non-heretical view of God and the Trinity.

His letters are likely very authentic.

Helpful, but not crucial. As has been said many times before, there are plenty of old baba's who have not read the Apostolic Fathers and who have a perfectly Orthodox view of God and the Trinity. The letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch are authentic. The Church holds them in very high esteem. However, to say that one must read them in order to understand God and the Trinity is inaccurate.

[Knowledge3]

Helpful, but not crucial. As has been said many time before, there are plenty of old baba's who have not read the Apostolic Fathers and who have a perfectly Orthodox view of God and the Trinity. The letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch are authentic. The Church holds them in very high esteem. However, to say that one must read them in order to understand God and the Trinity is inaccurate.

Ok, I will accept your correction.

Thanks. :)

[AJB4]

The early epistles of the early church father's help shed some light on the meanings of scripture. It's too bad they are largely ignored.

[Michael the Iconographer]

The early epistles of the early church father's help shed some light on the meanings of scripture. It's too bad they are largely ignored.
The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are what started me on the path to Orthodoxy. They are a gem and I wish more people had read them. Ignatius' comments on the episcopacy made me doubt for the first time the Roman position on the papacy. St. Polycarp's writings are good too. Another early writing that is excellent to read is "The Didichae."

[buzuxi02]

Thats a loooong article. Just a few points.

At the time of St.Ignatious, the heresy of Docetism reached a high point. This heresy taught that Jesus only "appeared" to suffer ,only "appeared" to be human. The belief was that he was a phantom, an apparition. The docetists believed the Virgin Mary remained a virgin during the divine birth (as st. Ignatious taught and is an orthodox belief) but for the docetists this was evidence for their heresy, because only a ghost or spirit or phantom can pass thru a virgin womb and still leave it unviolate.

This heresy is first revealed in its infancy in the writings of John the evangelist in the New Testament.(John's writings written between 90-100 a.d.) He combats this heresy in 1 John 4.2-3,

"By this you know the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God and every spirit that does not confess Christ has come in the flesh is not of God..."


" That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon (crucufixion?), and our hands have handled...." 1 John 1.1


One of the strongest refutations against this new heresy in the late 1st century: 2 John 1.7-11.

Verse 7-" For many decievers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deciever and an antichrist".

This maybe the reason why the gospel of John is the most graphic on the Eucharist (see John 6.51-56)

Another peculiar way that John upheld the traditional view of the Virgin Birth albeit in a veiled way in his gospel, without offering any ammunition to the docetists is found in John 1.12-14.

Speaking of those that accept Christ, John says (v13-14):

"who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us...."
Some latin fathers believed the word were was originally meant to say was because its unusual to join that statement with verse 14.
John carefully worded and veiled the doctrine of the Virgin Birth so that it could not be used by the docetist position.


Another early belief found in the writings of st. Ignatious is that he connects the "seed of David according to the flesh" with the Virgin Birth. A few liturgical texts in Orthodoxy still teach that Mary was also of the seed of David, she too was of royal lineage not only Joseph. Thus for Ignatious, Jesus truly fulfilled the prophecy that He would be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Once again this is not good for the docetist heresy who would teach that he was of the seed of David thru Joseph not thru blood but thru adoption.


It would be only natural for st. John Chrysostom to be one of the earliest fathers to mention Ignatious as bishop of Antioch (as the article states) since st. John Chrysostom was from Antioch. This also explains why the antiochan school stressed the humanity of Jesus while the alexandrian school (who wrestled with arianism) stressed his divinity.

[repentant]

The reason why most people either ignore or say that St. Ignatious' Epistles are not authentic, is because they are some of the early known writings, outside of Scripture. They show what the early Church believed and taught, these same things that we Orthodox and to a point Catholics believe in. So therefore in order for the heretical Protestants to refute the ancient teachings of Orthodoxy is to state that the Epistles of St. Ignatius and other ECF's are not authentic.

Sad really.

[Michael the Iconographer]

The reason why most people either ignore or say that St. Ignatious' Epistles are not authentic, is because they are some of the early known writings, outside of Scripture. They show what the early Church believed and taught, these same things that we Orthodox and to a point Catholics believe in. So therefore in order for the heretical Protestants to refute the ancient teachings of Orthodoxy is to state that the Epistles of St. Ignatius and other ECF's are not authentic.

Sad really.
The Catholics do not believe in the Episcopacy the way Ignatius describes it. Ignatius makes it clear that where the Bishop is, there is the Church. He does not say where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Church. He says each individual Bishop has the full authority of the Church.

[Jacob4707]

Speaking of those that accept Christ, John says (v13-14):

"who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us...."
Some latin fathers believed the word were was originally meant to say was because its unusual to join that statement with verse 14.
John carefully worded and veiled the doctrine of the Virgin Birth so that it could not be used by the docetist position.

I suspect you meant to say that the subject of verse 13 was believed by some to originally have been in the singular. I.e.,:

12 but to as many as received Him ... 13 [He who was] born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Logos became flesh ...

There may be some merit to this, because the verb "were/was born" is in the aorist, and in I John 5:1-4, John seems to use the aorist of "born" to refer to Christ, and the perfect to refer to Christians.

On the other hand, with "received Him" in 1:12 being in the aorist, their being born from God might also best be expressed here in the aorist.

Verse 12 deals with plurals. Verse 14 deals with singulars. I'm not sure that one can thus say whether the number in verse 13 best goes with verse 12 or with verse 14 - i.e., whether it should be "they were" or "he was."

(Just some quick remarks without studying this in depth.)

[NyssaTheHobbit]

The early epistles of the early church father's help shed some light on the meanings of scripture. It's too bad they are largely ignored.

One reason is that many Protestants don't even know they exist. For an example, I never heard of the Early Church Fathers or their writings until maybe 2 years ago, while reading a book which basically took quotes from the ECF's to show how chauvinist they were. Until I started looking in-depth into Orthodoxy, I had no idea the writings of the ECF's were actually crucial resources, not just collections of outdated ideas. And hubby, a Lutheran, never heard of the ECF's either, until I started talking about them.

[AJB4]

One reason is that many Protestants don't even know they exist. For an example, I never heard of the Early Church Fathers or their writings until maybe 2 years ago, while reading a book which basically took quotes from the ECF's to show how chauvinist they were. Until I started looking in-depth into Orthodoxy, I had no idea the writings of the ECF's were actually crucial resources, not just collections of outdated ideas. And hubby, a Lutheran, never heard of the ECF's either, until I started talking about them.
I had no idea that they existed. The CoC is extremely sola scriptura, and so the letters of the early church fathers are extremely ignored.

[repentant]

The Catholics do not believe in the Episcopacy the way Ignatius describes it. Ignatius makes it clear that where the Bishop is, there is the Church. He does not say where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Church. He says each individual Bishop has the full authority of the Church.


Yes even Catholics twist the ECFs' to suit them. They surely love to think that when St. Ignatius says "Catholic Church" that he is talking about them. This is why I said "to a point" in my post above.