andrewcriddle

(This is a preliminary draft of something I'm trying to think out so there are probably substantial problems as it stands. )

IMO there are good reasons to regard most and probably all of the seven 'middle recension' letters of Ignatius as being authentic in the sense of being written by a martyred bishop of Antioch called Ignatius in the early 2nd century CE.

However, it is much less clear whether Ignatius really died in the reign of Trajan.

Our earliest piece of information about the date of Ignatius is the claim by Origen that Ignatius was 'second from the Apostles'.

Our earliest extant list of bishops of Antioch is in the 'Ecclesistical History' of Eusebius the list being Euodius Ignatius Hero Cornelius Eros Theophilus Maximin Serapion Asclepiades... This list is thought to be based on the work of Julius Africanus c 220 CE.

The 'Ecclesiastical History' does not make the dates of the bishops clear, however with additional information from the 'Chronicle' of Jerome which is mostly based on the lost 'Chronicle' of Eusebius the dates are roughly as follows

Ignatius dies and is succeeded by Hero 107
Hero dies and is succeeded by Cornelius 128
Cornelius dies and is succeeded by Eros 142
Eros dies and is succeeded by Theophilus 169
Theophilus dies and is succeeded by Maximin 179
Maximin dies and is succeeded by Serapion 191
Serapion dies and is succeeded by Asclepiades 211

The date of Serapion's replacement by Asclepiades is reasonably solid. The period between the accession of Theophilus and the death of Serapion has a major problem in that the 3rd book of 'To Autolycus' makes clear that Theophilus is writing at least a year or so after the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 CE) whereas Eusebius has Theophilus dying in 179 or earlier.

However most scholars regard the accession of Theophilus in 169 as more or less accurate and change the dates of Maximin up 4 years or so ie we have a corrected chronology.

Ignatius dies and is succeeded by Hero 107
Hero dies and is succeeded by Cornelius 128
Cornelius dies and is succeeded by Eros 142
Eros dies and is succeeded by Theophilus 169
Theophilus dies and is succeeded by Maximin 183
Maximin dies and is succeeded by Serapion 195
Serapion dies and is succeeded by Asclepiades 211

The earlier dates are clearly unreliable but most scholars basically accept them while moving the death of Ignatius a few years later than 107 but still within the reign of Trajan.

There are IMO two problems
a/ there are various evidences not individually particularly strong but cumulative for dating Ignatius later than the reign of Trajan.
b/ There is a problem that there are too few bishops between the death of Ignatius during Trajan's reign and the death of Eros c 169.

We know however that there was a tendency to confuse the famous Ignatius and his totally obscure predecessor Euodius. It may be that originally the 107 date was that of the death of Euodius not Ignatius. (107 CE is a more or less plausible date for the death of the last person in Antioch claiming some sort of official appointment by the Apostles.)

This would result in the following rough chronology.

Euodius dies and is succeeded by Ignatius 107
Ignatius dies and is succeeded by Hero 123
Hero dies and is succeeded by Cornelius 138
Cornelius dies and is succeeded by Eros 154
Eros dies and is succeeded by Theophilus 169
Theophilus dies and is succeeded by Maximin 183
Maximin dies and is succeeded by Serapion 195
Serapion dies and is succeeded by Asclepiades 211

ie Ignatius is martyred in the early years of the reign of Hadrian.

Obviously this is speculative but it does seem to fit the facts somewhat better than the standard chronology.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

I agree that the standard chronology of Ignation could well be bogus in many respects, but is there anything internal to the letters of the middle recension that better fits the reign of Hadria instead of Trajan?

IIRC, Robert M. Grant once suggested that Eusebius had no evidence for dating Ignatius specifiically and so he dated him strictly by reference to Polycarp, assuming that 35 was the youngest age Polycarp could have been a bishop. This implies that Eusebius' date of 107 / 117 was done as the earliest possible date and Ignatius could have been later.

I'll have to review Lightfoot's case for dating Ignatius.

Stephen

andrewcriddle

IF you accept

a/ that all the 7 letters of the middle recension are authentic.
b/ That 'To the Corinthians' commonly attributed to Clement dates from the 90's CE.
c/ That Polycarp 'To the Philippians' is in its present form almost contemporary with the letters of Ignatius.

(None of which is established beyond reasonable doubt and you have argued specifically against b/ in an earlier thread))

Then I have real problems with a date in the reign of Trajan.

The knowledge of NT documents, the developed ecclesiology and the heretical doctrines Ignatius opposes all IMHO (and accepting the above assumptions) support a date after Trajan.

None of these points is in itself particularly convincing but together they make a reasonably strong case.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

OK, I'm willing to grant assumptions a/ and c/ for purposes of this discusion, though I'm willing to entertain arguments against them should that be necessary.

As far as I am concerned, dating 1 Clement to c. 80, as I am inclined to do, would not have much of an effect on my dating of Ignatius. (I think that Ignatius has knowledge of other texts composed in the 90s, e.g., Luke.)

My problem for dating Ignatius is that we know fairly little about Christianity between 100 and 130. It is awful hard to date the later known NT works that Ignatius may have knowledge of. For example, when were the Pastorals published? I have only a vague idea, possibly after 100 but I think that Polycarp (nearly contemporaneous by assumption c/) is aware of them.

Of the three, the heresiology in Ignatius appears the most promising to me, but knowledge is limited there too. For example, I don't think there's anything distinctively Marcionite in it, but that only puts Ignatius before 130 or so.

In dating Ignatius, I'm certainly intrigued by your revision of the episcopal list. Your suggestion that Ignatius was conflated with Euodius is reasonable, and what you have argued here is sufficient for me to be less confident in the standard dating of Ignatius and open myself to the possibility of a post-Trajanic dating. It would be nice to pin it down more precisely, though.

I have another question:
Where did you derive the dates of 123, 138, and 154 from?

Stephen

Vorkosigan

Ken Humphreys, who has built a well-read and deliciously nasty website on Christianity, Christianity's Fabrication Factory, has this to say about Ignatius:

• Early Christians are themselves presented as "evidence." Thus the recorded beliefs of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (50-115?), become the lynchpin of Roman Catholicism's claim for world mastery. In an impressively entertaining tale of martyrdom and celebrity tour, the episcopal superstar gets sentenced to wild beasts by the dastardly Emperor Trajan (in truth, a famously benign ruler).
  
  We are asked to believe that, at a time when all of Rome's resources were being assembled for a war against Parthia, the emperor eschewed the perfectly serviceable local arena for Ignatius's execution and instead, assigned a troop of guards to traipse their captive the long way round the eastern empire and back to Rome. The protracted journey afforded Ignatius the opportunity to meet and greet Christian worthies every step of the way. Along the journey, Ignatius (who is quite insistent upon his own martyrdom) writes 15 letters of a truly miraculous nature. They are addressed to such diverse notaries as the Virgin Mary and a bishop not even born at the time of Ignatius's death!
  
  The importance of the letters is not historical veracity but Catholic dogma. Ignatius is turned into the mouthpiece of 4th century Orthodoxy, back-dated into a 2nd century proselytising fantasy. The obliging bishop warns the brethren of all-manner of "heresies" and urges rigid obedience of their bishops.
  
  In the fable in which he is made bishop by the apostles themselves and then himself instructs bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (died 166?), Ignatius is made the "missing link" between the Palestinian pageant and the reality of Catholic episcopal authority. The first Roman cleric to identify himself as bishop – Anicetus (156-166) – did so in correspondence with Polycarp.

Detering has made similar arguments that were posted to JM, but I can't find the posts at the moment.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Cassel's reply to Lightfoot, in 1907, is online here.

Some useful stuff as one moves down, summaries of old arguments...similar to Humphreys'....Cassel writes:

"I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott, in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion, demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage, he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he "fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely, but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches, which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.

When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts. It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not condemned ad bestias, however, and much less deported to Rome for the purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild beasts."

If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation ad bestias would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians, to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.

It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says: "Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch ... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets; houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed: the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius, was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome." [108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact, interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against the atheoi aroused by the earthquake.

I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December. I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important statement. He says:--

"The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (i.e. the earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, emarturêse) before him (epi autou); for he was exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1]

Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary argument:--"

Vorkosigan

Cassel continues:

"On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says, are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter, known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure. Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only, the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form. The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot, that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them."

andrewcriddle

(I'm replying here to several points made in different posts by Vorkosigan.)

a/ John Malalas is not only an inaccurate writer but a very late one (6th century CE)

b/ The whole argument that Ignatius was killed in December shortly after the 115 CE earthquake assumes that the feast day of the 20th December (sometimes 17th December) is original.

Syriac and other sources have convinced almost all scholars that the feast of Ignatius' martyrdom was originally held on the 17th of October.

c/ The Idea that Ignatius was sentenced in Antioch by Trajan himself is first found in the 'Martyrdom of Ignatius' which in anything like its present form is no earlier than the late 4th century. It is not found for example in Eusebius.

Hence improbabilities in the idea of Trajan in 115 sending Ignatius to Rome for execution are really problems with the Martyrdom rather than either the Letters or Eusebius.

(FWIW the Martyrdom in its present form has Ignatius sentenced to death by Trajan c 108 during a non-existent visit by the Emperor to Antioch at that time.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I tend rightly or wrongly to date the Pastorals after 1 Clement ie in the reign of Trajan on the traditional dating of 1 Clement. Polycarp seems to know the Pastorals well; which causes me problems with dating both the Pastorals and Polycarp's letter in the reign of Trajan. (although I may be overestimating the time for a work to become well known.)
I took the dates of 107 and 169 as givens and divided the period between as evenly as possible into 4. This is obviously not realistic, but if Euodius died in 107 and Theophilus became bishop in 169 the results are unlikely to be wrong by more than say 5 years either way.

IMHO the figures given in Jerome's Chronicle (based on Eusebius based on Julius Africanus) for bishops of Antioch after 107 and before 169 are based not on any sort of tradition but on an attempt to divide the period plausibly but with too few bishops.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

... unless Polycarp (or his or a nearby church) was the one responsible for publishing the Pastorals. I don't have any specific information about this scenario, but, speaking of which, I should eventually get around to reading Hans von Campenhausen, "Polycarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe" in Aus der Friehzeit des Christentums (1964), 197-252.

In other words, we're basically in the same position as the chronicler. Do we have any reliable information about bishops Hero, Cornelius, and Eros or are they mere ciphers?

Stephen