Skip to main content

Full text of "The Apostolic Fathers : a revised text with introductions, notes, dissertations, and translations"

See other formats 








Αὐτῷ ater ΝΟΣ ΤῊ 


Sats 
p> Mo He be Ie eB A sik 


Bea awaw et Por τ Αγ ' +3 ‘ 
De he eh ee ριον ete he! Crates tare bt oh oh ae ee 8 ἂν et νν ὭΣ ὦ 
aR ae RRR δον eR κο εξες το τ eee 











ἀπ αν σα ον τὸς ων 
ia ΚΣ 
ν sictatsienanmreene igo ei Ma soa ae πα τον runs δὰ ὡς ὃν ep ἐν ἀν. Pte ἵν Ν᾿ oP ae 
ἃ οί the ον Wade A he Be he ΡΟ ey he i re kD OAR eh Rw eS μον, veolye! ote vin ΑΝ ἊΣ 
μονας αν Ot σαν ies rr ba Ts waa Drolet yey tei ie Meus an eae ag ho 
Sateen a an Rat ae Rabe tt mck 
Site am oy hin Me he δον, » Sie hence teen Mh mS SE TO (ἂν ἐν ἐν ἄν ae ee naam Carey 
ponerse δε αμ ας neat ee mes eames hs teenies eerie eR 
p Sie aor We bm) ὧν Body eT aed “ ᾿ το a fre k Οὐ νὰ ὦ ἀνα LIA th βὰν (δ τῶν ἐὰν ἐὰν ὅν ὧν NB ἀν ἐξ μὰ ἀνα 
πότος στα το a Tae aaa ἔασον ἐνσν τ τα στ δα 
Ἂν μα ὡς he cy Ἄν ho LOO te VA Rae Bee. Rete ee ey ma amenne ἐμέν, ata nv 


ΚΝ ᾿ νι ἂν δῶν 
pat τῶν a fia Waite ty Ma ht ew ύμλδο, Ἃ 
ἊΝ piel πόνον ΣΝ te ipee ace ta ἀν ας δον ὦ τς tae A Ai PH LS pater y =A 
Ne fa ἂν δὲν ἂν δὰ Aen tie Sonihe ha Che th Ne on he Nie Mie te Ae Ae Nig ἀρ te hi 8 et A ὑπ ho sie Pie rhe Ἂν Sh Δ. ἃς, ὅν, ὅν. ae Dy Ae AY κι δὰν Kak cishicheoante 
Se ee LS leer an αν Στ δε aan ets chine eae 
we ~ 7 eas 

vbr Gk : : Pare υ νην Die ἐν οὴν ἂν ἀν VRAD ἀνα. γα ἐν. Νὴ rnc οδι τὰς γι bi PS AN yin NI γὴν. 

“ aS ; δὰ Sade doa γα ϑδ νὰ oie 


ἄν ka ale 
fe 






Trae ie ory pion: ἣν δὲ. ἐν nl ἡ 
“γρ μὲν ‘ 
Ee EMER EEE Se Phe αν vautenoneac th halen αν πο τα τον εν ἘΝ ΤΣ 


te ty τολολ, Κρ Bale Me ἐν Mey hein We Minty αν 7 
τ αν ἐρετῶν ὄντας mae ey tte Peake: Rel” ὌΝ Υ 
ete Ve θρπρ ας, Rell Sees et δ τα αν τ Ν 
αν ἃ σα hee ‘ eertinte Ὁ eng ae se Met γε pk yi “4 eat eye ἐς ed aM ΡΝ oh att ol ig hye anne 
ν, - my yee Mev Se a ve “ “αν δὰ, At = ᾿ 5 a 
aw aoe st ae mre ας x ὃ hess ial ’ λαμ τῶι ὮΝ Ee altel μὴ ολεχνὰ κοι νεῖν, heey ener Fg κΊ apne 
ree ταν, Loe ἡήνήν - δι Sh 1k Attia να να νὰ et ovate Boats beggin geere ee shea he Meee 
ae μα prorat siete he Abe stey iy ih orev δὰ ἣν νῦν he Sota pM χὰ gilda MQM old «τι ἀν,» γὴν “Ὁ οἷν ona ph lng yeh 2 i tiga 
- ms tate τὴ molly LT eae gi γᾷ δὲν ol, ph an OS «ἢ. ον ῥά, Cr nareecrien aarti TN er ει ἀνα 
πα τες saat vente = wit ee ober waved αῳέφν eh ot. Boh gle ρὸ Aag natin Ia Highs 
on for er edt Rogie a he epi A Mee Aeretete ge a" Lah ΣΑΣ ἄνα aah chen ν “ἀν ew i ody bo oral 
ir ten Pit Pants ash ἡνῶν «Αγ yh Ae (ὦ slang ily ΡΥ eyelet phd κατ ν σο sede Te ens 
no ome h eae : AK ὧν CBee yh tae σ hh bigiha ty gig ἐφ wh aed TP Fa i arakan pei erer syn iene se 
a hs sm SSIS gS pdr dN A ih Srey Hae a ἐμ ον ateghiGis te tnetr ome dp! a Ὁ ὦ eter baie ga w™ 
rote ea τα “ m shite AiwA pacts abs del κενῇ νι amaed™ σϑρὴν ΕΒ ρΗΣ, νος. any gh ἐΝ. sev αι, Thigh sth κᾺ οὗνφνε οἱ «(Ὁ oh 
Bre τν ταῖν πον τσ τν, ‘ : a ; μὲ : odes BA μὴ νὰ thy it ΝΜ γϑν γὴν ἦν δο Δ gh ah ne’ Dee Dat chat δα οἷν ee ere darn δον δον όσα yh 
NN eters ; ee aa , re AN τ aa ae ν ε ν shears eam δον. λα αν ene age meh py ἀγάννιφον «ΤΊ ΚΣ Sane 
‘ < Y μι i ΡΥ “ hat tes ῷ oe ὶ ᾿ awk δεν wh he Meet hee 
. s > ἐν : 2 ε' ΑΨ ΟΝ parr ee ν : / Re ὡπειν tog > aikeyses ath wagta Mathys εν ahead 
- ” ae : ᾿ ‘ πον ἐν γα τον 


Ὡς “ete ἴλσλο ip Wao whe tye 


; har Pra hm ake Pally ny aes Ma he ἐς ai Ay Boson 
aes the ee Ay ey Ng ol tp he Pos - 4 nf 
lla ote Nedite ἐὰν δὰν Fee +e ν δι ἐς νὴ hr eV εν PA tect r 
μἋ, αν Avesta onterte ds Arty coy rien erO ere hey Ἢ Pa δυ πύλας ἐν ΨΥ αν ψώρα we = Η 4 
. δ᾽ Ref aha see soeieuseckgrsi ct neat aan eevee ον τ πε ααυκοιοκώτας 


ect Eta yA So nt Mende Re "ere τάν. μὰ Sey Me Boye gots M heh en! 

* Actas Maes tothe erty Ren αν Ὅν, δῆς, oA te yah τἂν ν 
Abagtin9 sibs teed ΨΥ a Peg eC tating hte sere ἐΝκώμῳ neh 

ψυχά ν αν ψυνκεν Recah 2 et nea τον πλήν. 

Tangata yoga ot neh et τῷ κα Ting Riga sels Nugt μὴν ἐν οα. 086-0! page ‘ 

Neocon sliaies lyin tatabeep DAA Angi gtsahenttg aye Aa vag Behl Prshecies ncthaseateen se RaW gone 


+ pectin pote τ Cady Maple Nes 
Seine? 





se, Pacer Metng: Ἀγλν φέδεόῳ Mts 
pegs her vhs to aN Se Miron tas stant 


bestia hy Rane ovat Man Mos pit, ND Pan the pn Pry oie 

ys din ν πε ei aie Pee Pav tape Dog SA ig Fae Ss enh Nw er 

ips tihp ἂν hy, Wares Ra yy Nar 4 Moe Nee tele her See QS & 
ΡΟ as pee Vo tan 





LIBRARY OF 
WECDESE) OOLLEGE 





PRESENTED BY 


Mrs. Rooes 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Wellesley College Library 


httos://archive.org/details/apostolicfathersO202clem 

















mee APOSTOLIC. FATHERS 


SECOND PART 


VOL, ΤΙ 


eee AeOsrOLIC FATHERS 


PART Il. 


SG NA LYS. 
S. hOLYCAR P. 


REVISED TEXTS 


With INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES,. DISSERTATIONS: 
AND TRANSLATIONS. 


BY 


feo. LIGHT ROOT, ΝΕ 


BISHOP OF DURHAM. 


SECOND EDITION. 


VOL. IE 


London; 
MACMILLAN AND: 690 
AND NEW YORK. 

1889 


[All Rights reserved.| 


᾿ γιὰ am 
H G 4 A 5. ye) 
é Nene , we i 


NA Se ἢ] 


Tambringe : 


PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


TABLE. OF CONTENTS: 


SECOND VOLUME. 


GENUINE EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

(1) Circumstances of writing and order of the Epistles; (2) Au- 
thorities for the text. Exceptional position of the Letter to the Romans. 
Previous editions. Principles of the text and apparatus criticus of the 
present edition. Symbols used. 


m 70 THE EPHESIANS 
Introduction 
Text and Notes : J ξ : 
Excursus on γεννητὸς and ἀγέννετος ὃ 7 


2. TO THE MAGNESIANS 
Introduction 
Text and Notes 


eet) THE TRALIIANS 
Introduction 
Text and Notes 


4. TO THE ROMANS 
Introduction 
Text and Notes 


me £0 THE PHILADELPAIANS 
Introduction : : 
Text and Notes 


6. TO THE SMYRNAANS 
Introduction 
Text and notes 


Pout Oo. POLVCARP 
Introduction 
Text and Notes 


PAGE 
ΓΤ 


1394 
I5—20 
21—89 
9094 


95—140 
97—104 


. 105—140 


14I—182 


- 143—149 
- 150—182 


183—234 


. 185—188 
- 160—234 


235—282 


- 237247 
- 248—282 


283—326 | 


285, 286 


- 287—326 


227-300 
329: 330 


. 331—360 


v1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


ACTS OF MARTYRDOM. 


PAGE 
INTRODUCTION. 363—474 
1. Different forms: (i) Aztiochene Acts, Greek, Latin, and Syriac; 
(ii) Roman Acts, Greek and Coptic; (iii) Bollandist Acts; (iv) Armenian 
Acts ; (v) Acts of Metaphrast [363—368]. 
2. Mutual relations. The Antiochene and Roman Acts independent. 
Their contents. The other Acts composite (368—377]. 
3. Historic credibility, place, and date of the Roman Acts [377—382]. 
The same questions as regards the Antiochene Acts: internal evidence 
[383—386]; external testimony (Chrysostom, Evagrius, the Menza) [386— 
389]. Possible nucleus of truth [389—391]. 
4. Chronology of Trajan’s reign. Tables [391—398]. Reckoning of 
tribunician years [398—404]. Notes on the tables with special reference 
to Trajan’s Eastern campaigns [404—418]. 
5. The festival of Ignatius. (t) Oct. 17, the original day [418—422]. 
(2) Dec. 20, the later day with the Greeks [422, 423]. (3) July 1, the 
Egyptian festival [423—428]. (4) Feb. 1, the Latin commemoration 
[428—430]. Lessons for his day [430, 431]. Translations of the reliques 
[431434]. 
6. The year of the martyrdom. Pearson’s disquisition [435, 436]. 
Volkmar’s theory that he was martyred at Antioch [436]. The testimony 
of John Malalas examined [437—447]. Statement of the Syriac Chronicle 
[447]. Authorities for the gth year of Trajan [448]. Chronicon of Eu- 
sebius [448—452]. Harnack’s theory examined [452—471]. Results of 
the investigation [471, 472]. 
7. Authorities for the texts of the Antiochene and Roman Acts. Pre- 
vious collations and editions [473, 474]. 
A. ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 
Text and Notes . 477—495 
B. ROMAN ACTS. 
Text and Notes - 406---540 
TRANSLATIONS. 
τ UGENUOINE EPISTLES OFS. IGNATLIGS . 543—574 
2. ACTS OF MARTYRDOM. 
Antiochene Acts - 575—5790m 
Roman Acts . 579—588 
ADDENDA. . . 589—598 


INDEX. 


. 599—619 


Mee GENUINE. BPISTLES. 


ἘΣ 


HE REASONS for accepting as genuine the Seven Epistles in 

the form in which they were current in the age of Eusebius have 
been stated already. Only a few additional words will be necessary 
to explain the principles which have been followed in the arrangement 
of the epistles and in the construction of the text. 

These seven epistles were written in the early years of the second 
century, when the writer was on his way from Antioch to Rome, having 
been condemned to death and expecting to be thrown to the wild 
beasts in the amphitheatre on his arrival. They fall into two groups, 
written at two different halting-places on his way. ‘The letters to the 
Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans, were sent from Smyrna, 
while Ignatius was staying there and was in personal communication 
with Polycarp the bishop. The three remaining letters, to the Philadel- 
phians, to the Smyrnzeans, and to Polycarp, were written at a subsequent 
stage in his journey, at Alexandria Troas, where again he halted for a 
time, before crossing the sea for Europe. The place of writing in every 
case 1s determined from notices in the epistles themselves. 

The order in which they are printed here is the order given by 
Eusebius (17... iii. 36). Whether he found them in this order in his 
manuscript, or whether he determined the places of writing (as we 
might determine them) from internal evidence and arranged the epistles 
accordingly, may be questioned. So arranged, they fall into two groups, 
according to the place of writing. The letters themselves however 
‘contain no indication of their chronological order in their respective 
groups; and, unless Eusebius simply followed his manuscript, he must 
have exercised his judgment in the sequence adopted in each group, 
e.g. Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans. 


IGN? ΤΊ: I 


2 THE GENUINE EPISTLES 


The two groups, besides having been written at different places, are 
separated from each other by another distinctive feature. All the 
epistles written from Smyrna are addressed to churches which he had 
not visited in person but knew only through their delegates. On the 
other hand all the epistles written from Troas are addressed to those, 
whether churches (as in the case of the Philadelphians and Smyrnzans) 
or individuals (as in the case of Polycarp), with whom he had already 
held personal communication at some previous stage in his journey. 

It has been seen that at some point in his journey (probably 
Laodicea on the Lycus), where there was a choice of roads, his 
guards selected the northern road through Philadelphia and Sardis 
to Smyrna. If they had taken the southern route instead, they would 
have passed in succession through Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus, before 
they reached their goal. It is probable that, at the point where the 
roads diverged, the Christian brethren sent messengers to the churches 
lying on the southern road, apprising them of the martyr’s destination ; 
so that these churches would despatch their respective delegates without 
delay, and thus they would arrive at Smyrna as soon as, or even before, 
Ignatius himself. 

The first group then consists of letters to these three churches, 
whose delegates had thus met him at Smyrna, together with a fourth to 
the Roman Christians apprising them of his speedy arrival among 
them—this last probably having been called forth by some opportunity 
(such as was likely to occur at Smyrna) of communicating with the 
metropolis. The three are arranged in a topographical order (Ephesus, 
Magnesia, Tralles) according to the distances of these cities from 
Smyrna, which is taken as the starting-point. 

The second group consists of a letter to the Philadelphians whom he 
had visited on his way to Smyrna, and another to the Smyrnzans with 
whom he had stayed before going to Troas, together with a third to his 
friend Polycarp closing the series. 

The order however in the Greek Ms and in the versions (so far as 
it can be traced) is quite different, and disregards the places of writing. 
In these documents they stand in the following order : 


I. Smyrneans 5. Philadelphians 
2. Polycarp 6. Trallians’ 

3. Ephesians 7. Romans. 

4. Magnesians 


* The Armenian Version however transposes Trallians and Philadelphians. 





OF S. IGNATIUS. 3 


This sequence is consistent with the supposition that we have here 
the collection of the martyr’s letters made at the time by Polycarp, 
who writing to the Philippians says ‘The Epistles of Ignatius which 
were sent to us by him, and others as many as we had with us, we send 
to you, even as ye directed: they are subjoined to this letter’ (§ 13). 
But though this order, which is given in the documents, has high claims 
for consideration as representing the earliest form of the collected 
epistles, I have substituted the chronological arrangement of Eusebius 
as more instructive for purposes of continuous reading. 


Of the data for the text an account has been given already. Our 
documents are as follows. 

1. The Manuscript of the Greek Original (G). If this ms had 
been, as Turrianus described it, ‘ emendatissimus’, we should have had 
no further trouble about the text. But since this is far from being the 
case, the secondary authorities are of the highest moment in settling the 
readings. 

2. Among these the Latin Version (L) holds the first place, as 
being an extremely literal rendering of the original. It exhibits a much 
purer form of the text, being free from several corruptions and a few 
interpolations and omissions which disfigure the Greek. At the same 
time however it is clear, both from the contents of the collection and 
from other indications (as described previously), that this version was 
translated from a Greek Ms of the same type as the extant Greek ms; 
and therefore its value, as a check upon the readings of this Ms, is 
limited. Whenever GL coincide, they must be regarded as one witness, 
not as two. 

3. The Syriac Version (S) would therefore have been invaluable as 
an independent check, if we had possessed it entire, since it cannot 
have been made later than the fourth or fifth century, and would have 
exhibited the text much nearer to the fountain-head than either the 
Greek or the Latin. Unfortunately however only a few fragments 
(S,, S,, 5.) belonging to this version are preserved. But this defect is 
made up to a considerable extent in two ways. First. We have a 
rough Adridgment or Collection of Excerpts (%) from this Syriac Version 
for three epistles (Ephesians, Romans, Polycarp) together with a frag- 
ment of a fourth (Trallians), preserving whole sentences and even 


IS 


4 THE GENUINE EPISTLES 


paragraphs in their original form or with only slight changes. Secondly. 
There is extant also an Armenian Version (A) of the whole, made from 
the Syriac (S). This last however has passed through so many vicissi- 
tudes, that it is often. difficult to discern the original Greek reading 
underlying its tertiary text. It will thus be seen that AS have no inde- 
pendent authority, where S is otherwise known, and that SAS must be 
regarded as one witness, not as three. 

4. There is likewise extant a fragment of a Coptic Version (C), in 
the Sahidic (Thebaic) dialect of the Egyptian language, comprising the 
first six chapters of the Epistle to the Smyrnzans, besides the end of the 
spurious Epistle to Hero. The date of this version is uncertain, though 
probably early; but the text appears to be quite independent of our 
other authorities, and it is therefore much to be regretted that so little 
is preserved. 

5. Another and quite independent witness is the Greek Text of 
the Long Recension (g) of the Ignatian Epistles. The Latin Version (1) 
of this Long Recension has no independent value, and is only import- 
ant as assisting in determining the original form of this recension. 
The practice of treating it as an independent authority is altogether 
confusing. The text of the Long Recension, once launched into the 
world, had its own history, which should be kept quite distinct from 
that of the genuine Epistles of Ignatius. For the purpose of determining 
the text of the latter, we are only concerned with its original form. 

The Long Recension was constructed, as we have seen, by some 
unknown author, probably in the latter half of the fourth century, from 
the genuine Ignatian Epistles by interpolation, alteration, and omission. 
If therefore we can ascertain in any given passage the Greek text of 
the genuine epistles which this author had before him, we have traced 
the reading back to an earlier point in the stream than the direct Greek 
and Latin authorities, probably even than the Syriac Version. This 
however it is not always easy to do, by reason of the freedom and 
capriciousness of the changes. No rule of universal application can be 
laid down. But the interpolator is obviously much more given to 
change at some times than at others; and, where the fit is upon him, 
no stress can be laid on minor variations. On the other hand, where 
he adheres pretty closely to the text of the genuine Ignatius, as for 
instance through great parts of the Epistles to Polycarp and to the 
Romans, the readings of this recension deserve every consideration. 

Thus it will be seen that though this witness is highly important, 
because it cannot be suspected of collusion with other witnesses, yet it 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 5 


must be subject to careful cross-examination, before the truth under- 
lying its statements can be ascertained. ' 

6. Besides manuscripts and versions, we have a fair number of 
Quotations, of which the value will vary according to their age and 
independence. A full account of these has been given already. 

From the above statement it will be seen that, though each authority 
separately may be regarded as more or less unsatisfactory, yet, as they 
are very various in kind, they act as checks one upon another, the 
one frequently supplying just that element of certainty which is lacking 
to the other, so that the result is fairly adequate. Thus A will often give 
what g withholds, and conversely. Moreover it will appear from what 
has been said that a combination of the secondary and capricious 
authorities must often decide a reading against the direct and primary. 
For instance, the combination Ag is, as a rule, decisive in favour of a 
reading, as against the more direct witnesses GL, notwithstanding that 
A singly, or g singly, is liable to any amount of aberration, though in 
different directions. 


The foregoing account applies to six out of the seven letters. 
The text of the Zpzstle to the Romans has had a distinct history and is 
represented by separate authorities of its own. This epistle was at 
an early date incorporated into the Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom, 
and thus disconnected from the other six. In its new connexion, it 
was disseminated and translated separately. It so happens that the 
only extant Greek ms which contains this epistle (the Colbertine) 
is even less satisfactory than the sole Greek ms of the other six (the 
Medicean); but on the other hand we have more than compensation 
for this inferiority in the fact that the Acts of Martyrdom (with the 
incorporated epistle) were translated independently both into Syriac 
(S,,) and into Armenian (A,,); and these two versions, which are ex- 
tant, furnish two additional authorities for the text. Moreover the 
Metaphrast, who compiled his Acts of Ignatius from this and another 
Martyrology, has retained the Epistle to the Romans in his text, 
though in an abridged and altered form. 

From this account it will be seen that the authorities for the Epistle 
to the Romans fall into three classes. 

(1) Those authorities, which contain the epistle as part of the 
Martyrology. These are the Greek (G), the Latin (L), the Syriac 
(S.,), and the Armenian (A,,),. besides the Metaphrast (M). These 
authorities however are of different values. When the epistle was first 


6 THE GENUINE EPISTLES 


incorporated in the Acts of Martyrdom, it still preserved a compara- 
tively pure form. When it has arrived at the stage in which it appears 
in the extant Greek ms (G), it is very corrupt. In this last form, 
among other corruptions, it exhibits interpolations and alterations which 
have been introduced from the Long Recension (g). The ms used by 
the Metaphrast exhibited a text essentially the same as that of G. 

(2) The independent Syriac Version (3) of which only a few 
fragments remain, but which is represented, as before, by the Syriac 
Abridgment (Σ) and the Armenian Version (A). 

(3) The Zong Recension (g), which in great parts of this epistle 
keeps close to the text of the original Ignatius. 


Though the principles on which a text of the Seven Epistles should 
be constructed are sufficiently obvious, they have been strangely over- 
looked. 

The first period in the history of the text of the genuine Ignatius 
commences with the publication of the Latin Version by Ussher (1644), 
and of the Greek original by Isaac Voss (1646). The Greek of the 
Epistle to the Romans was first published by Ruinart (1689). The text 
of Voss was a very incorrect transcript of the Medicean ms, and in this 
respect subsequent collations have greatly improved on his edztio princeps. 
But beyond this next to nothing was done to emend the Greek text. 
Though some very obvious corrections are suggested by the Latin 
Version, these were either neglected altogether by succeeding editors 
or were merely indicated by them in their notes without being intro- 
duced into the text. There was the same neglect also of the aid 
which might have been derived from the Long Recension. Moreover 
the practice of treating the several mss and the Latin Version of the 
Long Recension independently of one another and recording them 
co-ordinately with the Greek and Latin of the genuine Ignatius (instead 
of using them apart to ascertain the original form of the Long Recen- 
sion, and then employing the text of this Recension, when thus 
ascertained, as a single authority) threw the criticism of the text into 
great confusion. Nor was any attention paid to the quotations, 
which in several instances have the highest value. Hence it happened 
that during this period which extended over two centuries from Voss to 
Fiefele (ed? 17,1639; \ed;"3, 1847) and Jacobson (ed.. 11936; ed. 7. 
1847) inclusive, nothing or next to nothing (beyond the more accurate 
collation. of the Medicean Ms) was done for the Greek text. 

The second period dates from the publication of the Oriental 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 7 


versions—the Syriac Abridgment with the Syriac Fragments by 
Cureton (1845, 1849), and the Armenian Version by Petermann (1849)’. 
New materials of the highest value were thus placed in the hands of 
critics ; but, notwithstanding the interest which the Ignatian question 
excited, nearly thirty years elapsed before any proper use was made 
of them. In some cases the failure was due, at least in part, to a false 
solution of the Ignatian question. The text of Bunsen (1847), Cureton 
(1849), and Lipsius (1859), which started from the assumption that 
the Syriac Abridgment represented the genuine Ignatius, must neces- 
sarily have foundered on this rock, even if the principles adopted had 
been sound in other respects. Petermann and Dressel (1857) however 
maintained the priority of the Seven Epistles of the Vossian text to the 
Three of the Curetonian; and so far they built upon the true basis. 
But Petermann contented himself with a casual emendation of the text 
here and there from the versions; while Dressel neglected them 
altogether. Jacobson (ed. 4, 1863) and Hefele (ed. 4, 1855) also, 
in their more recent editions which have appeared since the Oriental 
versions were rendered accessible, have been satisfied with recording 
some of the phenomena of these versions in their notes without apply- 
ing them to the correction of the text, though they also were un- 
hampered by the false theory which maintained the priority of the 
Curetonian Abridgment. It was reserved for the most recent editors, 
Zahn (1876), and Funk (1878), to make use of all the available materials 
and to reconstruct the text for the first time on sound and intelligible 
principles. 

The text which I have given was constructed independently of both 
these editions, and before I had seen them, but the main principles are 
the same. Indeed these principles must be sufficiently obvious to those 
who have investigated the materials with any care. In the details 
however my views frequently differ from theirs, as must necessarily be 
the case with independent editors; and in some respects I have had 
the advantage of more complete or more accurate materials than were 
accessible to them. 


In the apparatus criticus, which is appended to the text, I have 
been anxious not to overload my notes with matter which would be 
irrelevant to the main issue. ‘Thus for instance, those divergences in 


1 The editio princeps of the Armenian was published at Constantinople in 1783; 
but this version was practically unknown to scholars until Petermann’s edition ap- 
peared. 


ὃ THE GENUINE EPISTLES 


the several versions which, however interesting and instructive in them- 
selves, cannot be supposed to represent various readings in the Greek 
text, are carefully excluded. On the other hand it has been my aim 
to omit nothing which could reasonably be thought to contribute to — 
the formation of a correct text. 

In carrying out this principle, the following rules have been ob- 
served. 

1. The various readings of the Greek Manuscripts of the genuine 
Ignatius (G), 1.6. of the Medicean Ms in the Six Epistles, and of the 
Colbertine in the Epistle to the Romans, are given zz full. This is 
also the case with the fragment of the Epistle to the Ephesians (G’) 
which is found in another Paris ms. I have not however thought it 
worth while to record differences of accent, or such variations as 
ὅτ᾽ ἂν for ὅταν, οὐδὲ μία for οὐδεμία, etc., except where they had some real 
interest. All these mss I have myself collated anew for this edition. 

2. The readings of the Latin Version (L) are generally given from 
the ultimate revised text, as it is printed in the Appendix. ‘This text 
is founded on a comparison of the two mss of the version, modified by 
other critical considerations which will be explained in their proper 
place. It did not seem necessary to give here the various readings of 
these two mss (L,, L,), except in very rare cases. Where such varia- 
tions occur, I have held it sufficient to call attention to the fact, refer- 
ring the reader to the Appendix itself. As the Latin Version is strictly 
literal, every variation which remains in the z/¢mate Latin text (i.e. the 
text as restored to the condition in which presumably it left the hands 
of the translator) is recorded, because every such variation represents, 
or may have represented, a corresponding variation in the Greek ms 
which the translator used. 

3. In like manner the various readings of the different mss 
(3, 2» %,) of the Syriac Abridgment (3%) are not generally given. 
They will be found in the Appendix, where this version is printed at 
length with an apparatus criticus of its own and a translation. In 
admitting or rejecting divergences which this abridgment exhibits, 
I have been guided by the considerations already alleged. The few 
fragments which survive of the original unabridged Syriac Version (S) 
are also printed in the Appendix. In the case of this and all the 
other Oriental versions Latin renderings are given in the critical notes 
for the sake of convenience and uniformity. 

4. The Armenian Version (A) has been described in the proper 
place. From the description it will have appeared that only a small 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 9 


proportion of its many divergences deserves to be recorded as bearing 
on the Greek text. In giving its various readings I have found Peter- 
mann’s Latin translation of the greatest service; but I have myself 
consulted the Armenian original as printed by him, in order that, so 
far as my slender knowledge of the language served me, I might not be 
misled by the necessary distortion produced in passing through the 
medium of another language. 

5. The fragment of the Cofto-Thebaic Version (C) will be found 
in the Appendix, where it is published for the first time. It is ancient 
and literal enough to be an important authority as far as it goes, and I 
have therefore given all its variations. 

6. The Armenian and Syriac Versions of the Epistle to the 
Romans in the Acts of Martyrdom (Ay, Sn), having been translated 
separately and directly from the Greek, are independent of each other 
and of the above-mentioned versions (A, S) in these languages. I have 
freely used Petermann’s translation of the one and Moesinger’s of the 
other, but not without satisfying myself by consulting the originals. 

7. The text of the MJetaphrast (M) for this same epistle is never 
quoted, unless supported by some other authority. In other cases his 
mode of compilation deprives his text of any weight. The mss of the 
Metaphrast are very numerous; the readings of some of these are given 
by Cotelier, Dressel, Zahn, and others. 

8. The Greek of the Long Recension (g) will be found with its 
own apparatus criticus in the Appendix. The limits within which it 15 
necessary for my purpose to quote its text as an authority have been 
already indicated (p. 4). In citing this recension I have given the 
critical text at which I have myself arrived, without (as a rule) re- 
ferring to the variations of the several mss or of the Latin Version (1). 
These will be found in their proper place. 


For convenience of reference I give the following recapitulation of 
the symbols : 


G. Greek Original (Medicean and Colbertine Mss). 
G’. Paris fragment of the Epistle to the Ephesians. 
L. Latin Version. 
L,, L,, the mss of this Version. 
A. Armenian Version. 
S. Syriac Version. 
5. 8» 5.» being the several collections of fragments belonging 
to this version. 


10 THE GENUINE: EPISTLES 


Coptic Version. 

Abridgment of the Syriac Version. 
Greek Original of the Long Recension. 
Latin Version of the Long Recension. 


HR MO 


For the Epistle to the Romans alone: 


A, Armenian Version in the Martyrology. 
Sm Syriac Version in the Martyrology. 
M. Acts of the Metaphrast. 


The Greek and Latin quotations from the fathers are given by the 
volumes and pages of the standard editions; the Syriac quotations by 
the pages of Cureton’s Corpus 7gnatianum. 


The following marks and abbreviations are also used. 


add. Where a word or words are added or prefixed in the 

preef. } authority subjoined. 

al. Where the divergence is so great in a version or recension, 
that no inference can be drawn as to the reading which the 
author of the version or recension had before him. ‘This will 
also include passages which are so corrupt as to be worth- 
less for determining a reading. 

app. Apparently. 

def. When the context, in which the word or words should occur, is 
wanting either from designed or accidental omission or from 
the imperfection of the Ms or Mss. 

om. When the context is there, but does not contain the word or 
words in question. 

dub. Where a word or expression is so translated or paraphrased, 
that the reading which it represents is uncertain. 

marg. When the reading is found in the margin of the authority in 
question. 

5, Attached to an authority signifies that the reading of such 
authority is not given on express testimony, but may be inferred 
from the sz/ence of collators., 

txt. When the authority quoted supports the reading adopted in the 
text. 

edd. When an authority is given as generally quoted, or as it stands 
in the common editions, though some mss may be known or 
suspected to have it otherwise. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. II 


[ ] An authority is included in square brackets thus [g], in all cases 
where it is discredited by some special circumstances: e.g. (1) 
where the grammatical forms are so close as to be easily 
confused, as in the case of the singular and plural in the Syriac ; 
or (2) where the context in a version or recension is so altered 
as to impugn the fidelity of the author or the scribe at this 
particular point; or (3) where a passage may have been modified 
in the process of quotation by the influences of the context. 

() The words included in brackets of this form have reference to 
the authority which has immediately preceded and which they 
explain or qualify in some way. 

* An asterisk after an authority (e.g. L*) refers the reader to the 
Appendix for particulars as to the reading of the authority 
which is so distinguished. 





I 


ma ΤῊ EPHESIANS. 


τυ 


ἢ ΛΕΥῚ ] 
μην" ᾿ 





ni 
iv 





ΑΓ ΟΝ i. ee CN 
BARES " ΠΝ ue ᾿ 
Pvt): iA (ata 2X ᾽ 4 
ιν. 

‘3 bi 


4 


ny 
ΝΣ 

ποτ 
ἣν 





ΒΟ Pr) Pri LStANS: 


HE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS belongs to the group 

of four letters written by the saint from Smyrna (§ 21). He 
had not himself visited Ephesus on his way; but the Ephesians had 
been apprised of his journey and had sent delegates to meet him at 
Smyrna (S$ 1, 2, 21). The probable manner in which this information 
was conveyed to the Ephesians has been suggested above (p. 2). 

Ephesus was the nearest to Smyrna of those cities which are 
recorded to have sent their delegates thither, the distance between the 
two places being about 40 miles (Strabo xiv. p. 632 τριακόσιοι εἴκοσι 
στάδιοι). We are therefore prepared to find that the Ephesian delegacy 
was more numerous than that of any other church. The bishop 
Onesimus was there in person; and he was accompanied by four others 
who are mentioned by name, Burrhus, Crocus, Euplus, and Fronto 
(88 1, 2). Of the two last the names only are given. On the other 
hand Crocus is singled out in this letter for special praise as having 
greatly ‘refreshed’ the saint and is mentioned also in affectionate terms 
in the Epistle to the Romans (§ 10); while Burrhus the deacon is 
valued so highly by him that he requests the Ephesians to allow him 
to remain in his company. This request was granted ; and we find 
Burrhus with him at Troas, where he acts as his amanuensis (see the 
note on § 2). 

Altogether Ignatius appears to have had much satisfaction in the 
presence of these Ephesian delegates, whom he mentions in all his 
other letters written from Smyrna (Magn. 15, Tradl. 13, Rom. το). Of 
his intercourse with Onesimus their bishop more especially he speaks in 
terms of grateful acknowledgment. He describes him as ‘unspeakable 


16 THE EPISTLE OF. IGNATIUS 


in love’ (8 1). He says that in a very brief space of time they had held 
much spiritual communion (§ 5). . 

But not only was he moved by gratitude to write this letter. He was 
also deeply impressed with the previous history of the Ephesian Church. 
He speaks of itas ‘renowned unto all ages’. He himself is the devoted 
slave of such a church (§ 8). He does not venture to set himself up 
as their teacher: he is content to be their fellow-disciple. Nay, he will 
even look upon them as his trainers in the athletic contest for the 
martyr’s crown which awaits him (ὃ 3). Above all, he remembers their 
companionship with Apostles; and remembering this, he is constrained 
to dwell on his own weakness as contrasted with their strength. They 
had escorted the blessed Paul on the way to martyrdom—Paul who 
never tires of commemorating them in his letters; and he himself would 
fain tread in the same path (§ 12). 

Of the character of this church he speaks most favourably. Onesimus 
himself had commended them in the highest terms (ὑπερεπαινεῖ). No 
heresy had found a lodgment among them. ‘They were steadfast in 
maintaining doctrinal purity and good order (§ 6). They were spiritually 
minded in all things (§ 8). They owned no other rule of life but God 
(§ 9). Thus the Ephesian Church appears to have sustained the cha- 
racter and profited by the warning which it received on the last occa- 
sion when it is directly mentioned in the Apostolic writings ; ‘I know 
thy works and thy labour and thy patience, and how thou canst not 
bear them which are evil, and didst try them that call themselves 
Apostles, though they are not, and didst find them hars, and thou hast 
patience and didst bear for My Name’s sake and hast not fainted. 
Nevertheless I have this against thee, that thou didst leave thy first 
love. Remember therefore from whence thou hast fallen and repent 
and do the first works (Rev. 11. 2—5).’ 

But, though heresy had not found a home among them, it was 
hovering in their outskirts. Certain persons who came from a distance 
had attempted to sow the seeds of error among them, but had been 
repulsed (§ 7). These were doubtless the docetic teachers, who are 
denounced in his other epistles. Hence the emphasis with which he 
dwells on the ‘reality’ of the Passion in the opening salutation (ἐν πάθει 
ἀληθινῷ). Hence also the prominence which he gives to the true 
humanity of our Lord, where he has occasion to mention His two 
natures (85 7, 18, 19, 20). False teachers are described as ‘ violators 
of the temple’ in the worst sense, and as such condemned to the 
severest vengeance (§ 16). 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 17 


As a safeguard against the inroads of this heresy, the saint gives the 
Ephesians some practical advice. They must assemble themselves 
together more frequently than hitherto for congregational worship (§§ 5, 
13). No man can eat the bread of God, if he keeps aloof from the 
altar (§ 5). More especially they must adhere to their bishop, as the 
personal centre of union (§§ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The silent modesty of 
Onesimus renders this warning the more necessary (§ 6). Unity will 
thus be secured, and unity is the overthrow of Satan (§ 13). 

While enforcing these duties, Ignatius indulges in several metaphors, 
always vigorous, but sometimes extravagant, after his wont. One such 
metaphor more especially demands attention, as containing a vivid 
appeal to the local experiences of an Ephesian audience. In the reign 
of Trajan a munificent Roman of high rank, Gaius Vibius Salutaris, a 
citizen of Ephesus, gave to the temple of Artemis a large number of 
gold and silver-gilt images. Among them are mentioned several statues 
of Artemis herself, one representing her as the Huntress, others 
as the Torchbearer; images of the Roman Senate, of the Ephesian 
Council, of the Roman People, of the Equestrian Order, of the Ephe- 
beia, etc. One of the ordinances relating to his benefactions bears the 
date February in the year of the Consuls Sextus Attius Suburanus 11 
and Marcus Asinius Marcellus (A.D. 104)—the same year in which, 
according to one Martyrology, Ignatius was put to death. Salutaris 
provided by an endowment for the care and cleaning of these images ; 
and he ordered that they should be carried in solemn procession from 
the temple to the theatre and back again on the birthday of the 
goddess (6th Thargelion), on the days of public assembly, and at such 
other times as the Council and People might determine. ‘They were 
to be escorted by the curators of the temple, the victors in the sacred 
contests, and other officers who are named. ‘The procession was to 
enter the city by the Magnesian gate and leave by the Coressian, so 
as to pass through its whole length. On entering the city it was to 
be joined by the Ephebi who should accompany it from gate to gate. 
The decrees, recording the acceptance of these benefactions on the 
conditions named, were set up on tablets in the Great Theatre, 
where they have been recently discovered (Wood's Dascoveries at 
Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1 sq.). The practice of carrying the images and 
sacred vessels belonging to the temple in solemn procession on the 
festival of the goddess and on other occasions doubtless existed long 
before; but these benefactions of Salutaris would give a new impulse 
and add a new splendour to the ceremonial. At such a time the 


IGN. II. 2 


18 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


metaphor of the saint would speak with more than common directness 
to the imagination of his Ephesian readers, when, alluding to these pagan 
festivals, he tells them that as Christians they all alike are priests and 
victors, for they carry, not in their hands, as the votaries of Artemis 
carry their images and treasures, but in their hearts, each his God, his 
Christ, his shrine; that they too are duly arrayed for their festivities, 
not indeed in ornaments and cloth of gold, but in the commandments 
of Jesus Christ which are their holiday garments (see the notes on 
ὃ 9). 

The Epistle to the Ephesians is the longest and most elaborate of 
the extant letters of Ignatius. This fact may be explained by his close 
relations with the Ephesian delegates, as well as by his respect for the 
past history and present condition of the Ephesian Church, as already 
mentioned. ‘Towards the close he enters upon what looks like a 
systematic discussion of the doctrine of the Incarnation (δ 19). But 
he breaks off abruptly, promising, if it be God’s will, to send them a 
second tract (βιβλίδιον) wherein he will continue the subject upon 
which he has entered, ‘the economy relating to the new Man Christ 
Jesus’ (§ 20). This promise he seems never to have fulfilled. At least 
no such second letter or treatise has ever been heard of. The hurry 
of his subsequent movements (/o/yc. 8), perhaps also the direct inter- 
ference of his guards (om. 5), may have prevented his carrying out his 
intention. 


The following is an azalyszs of the epistle : 


‘IGNATIUS to the CHURCH OF EPHEsus, which was blessed by God 
and predestined to glory through a true Passion, hearty greeting in 
Christ.’ 

‘You have acted in a manner congenial to your nature, in sending 
your delegates to comfort me on my way to martyrdom. In welcoming 
Onesimus I welcomed you all. You are indeed happy in your bishop, 
and should love him as he deserves (§ 1). I thank you for sending 
Burrhus also, and I trust you will let him remain with me. Your other 
delegates too, Crocus more especially, have. greatly refreshed me. 
Glorify Jesus Christ by unity and submission to your bishops and 
presbyters (§ 2). I do not say this, as if I had a right to command. 
Indeed it were much more fit for me to learn of you. But love will 
not let me be silent. The bishops represent the will of Jesus Christ 
(δ 3). Your presbyters are to your bishop as the strings to the lyre. 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 19 


Let one harmonious chant rise up to heaven, as from one chorus singing 
in accord. Union is fellowship with God (δ 4). If my brief intercourse 
with your bishop has been so blessed, what blessing will not attend 
your unbroken communion with him! The united prayer of the bishop 
and the congregation is all powerful. He that stands aloof brings 
God’s condemnation upon himself (δ 5). If your bishop is silent, he 
only claims from you the more respect. The delegate of the Master 
must be received as the Master Himself. I rejoice to hear so good an 
account of you from Onesimus. He tells me that heresy has found 
no home among you (§ 6). Still certain persons are going about 
teaching false doctrine. Shun them, as you would wild beasts. There 
is only one Physician who can heal their wounds ; and He is flesh, as 
well as spirit, Man as well as God (ὃ 7). Be not deceived, but put 
away all evil desires. I am devoted to the renowned Church of 
Ephesus. ‘The things of the flesh and things of the Spirit are exclusive 
the one of the other. With you even the things done in the flesh are 
the promptings of the Spirit (δ 8). I have learned that certain persons 
coming from a distance attempted to sow the seeds of false doctrine 
among you: but you stopped your ears and would not listen. You are 
stones raised aloft to be fitted into the temple of God. You are holiday- 
makers, bearing your sacred things in festive procession ; and I rejoice 
that I am permitted to take part in your festivities (§ 9). Pray for the 
heathen, since repentance is still possible for them. ‘Teach them by 
your conduct; by your gentleness, your humility, your prayers, your 
steadfastness in the faith. Requite them not in like kind, but imitate 
the Lord in your forbearance. In this way show that you are their 
brothers. Be chaste and modest (δ το). 

‘The world is drawing to a close. If we value not the present 
grace, let us at least dread the coming wrath. One way or another let 
us be found in Christ Jesus, in whom I also hope to rise from the dead 
and to have my portion with the Christians of Ephesus, the scholars of 
Apostles (δ 11). I cannot compare myself with you—you who were 
associates in the mysteries with Paul, who are mentioned by him in 
every letter (§ 12). Meet together more frequently for eucharistic 
service. ‘These harmonious gatherings will be the overthrow of Satan. 
There is nothing better than peace (§ 13). This ye yourselves know. 
Cherish faith and love—the beginning and the end of life. Where 
these exist, all else will follow. The tree is known by its fruits. 
Christianity is not a thing of profession but of power (§ 14). Doing 
with silence is better than not doing with speech. The silence and 


2-—-2 


«: 


20 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS. 


the speech alike of the great Teacher were operative. Whosoever 
understands His word will understand His silence also. Nothing is 
hidden from the Lord. In all our doings let us remember that we are 
His temples (§ 15). No violators of the temple shall inherit God’s 
kingdom. To those that violate the faith by corrupt doctrine the 
warning is especially addressed. They and their hearers shall go into 
unquenchable fire (§ 16). The Lord was anointed with ointment that 
He might breathe incorruption upon His Church. Shun the foul 
odour of false doctrine. Why should we perish in our folly, by refusing 
the grace of God (8 17)? Iam the devoted slave of the Cross, which 
is a scandal to the unbeliever. Away with the wisdom of this world! 
Our God Jesus Christ was born a Man (§ 18). This economy was 
hidden from the Prince of this world, until it was accomplished—this 
threefold mystery, the virginity of Mary, her child-bearing, and the 
death of Christ. It was revealed by a star of unwonted brightness. 
All the powers of heaven were dismayed at its appearing; for the 
Incarnation of God was the overthrow of the reign of evil. This was 
the beginning of the end. The dissolution of Death was at hand 
(8 19). If it please God, I will write again and say more of this 
economy. Only be steadfast in the faith; preserve the unity of the 
body ; render obedience to the bishop and presbyters (§ 20).’ 

‘My affectionate devotion to you and your delegates. I write this 
from Smyrna. Remember me and pray for the Church in Syria, of 
which I am a most unworthy member. Farewell in God and Christ 


(Sco)? 


mee. DECOY C. 


ITNATIOC, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ εὐλογημένη ἐν μεγέ- 


Trpoc Εφεοιογο] πρὸς ἐφεσίους ἰγνάτιος G (with y in the marg.) ; τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς ἐφεσίους g* (with ca in the marg.); zgnatius ephestis L3 [6745] secunda 


quae ad ephestos 2; ad ephesios A. 


1 ὁ καὶ] GLg; gud est Σ (11, and so Rom., Polyc.) A (and so always, except 


lero, where it is φϑ et). 


‘IGNATIUS, called also Theopho- 
rus, to the CHURCH OF EPHESUS, 
which is greatly blessed of God and 
was foreordained from the beginning 
to eternal glory, united and elected 
in the power of a real Passion through 
the will of the Father and of Christ; 
hearty greeting in Christ.’ 

I. ὁ kat Θεοφόρος] This word would 
be equally appropriate to the true 
Christian, whether taken in its active 
sense (θεοφόρος, bearing God, clad 
with God) or in its passive sense 
(Oeopopos, borne along by God, in- 
spired by God); Clem. Alex. Strom. 
Vil. 13 (p. 882) θεῖος ἄρα ὁ γνωστικὸς 
καὶ ἤδη ἅγιος, θεοφορῶν καὶ Geo- 
φορούμενος; comp. .527 0771. vi. 12 
(Ρ. 792). There can however be little 
doubt that it should here be taken 
actively and accentuated Θεοφόρος ; 
for (1) We have the authority of 
Ignatius himself below, § 9, where 
the connexion of θεοφόροι with 
vaopopot, χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφύόροι, fixes 
its meaning; see also the analogous 
words capxodopos, vexpopopos, Suzyrit. 
5. (2) It is so interpreted universally 
till a very late date, e.g. by the Syriac 
translator who renders it ‘clad with 
God.’ See also the altercation in 
Mart. Ign. Ant. 2, where in answer 


μεγέθει] μεγέθη G. 


to the question of Trajan καὶ τίς 
ἐστιν θεοφόρος; Ignatius answers 
Ὃ Χριστὸν ἔχων ἐν στέρνοις. (3) The 
metaphor of ‘bearing God, ‘bearing 
Christ,’ is frequent in early Christian 
writers; e.g. Iren. 111. 16. 3 ‘portante 
homine et capiente et complectente 
jilium Det, v.8. 1 ‘assuescentes capere 
et dortare Deum’ (quoted by Pearson 
on S7zyrn. inscr.). See also the Latin 
reading in 1 Cor. vi. 20 ‘glorificate 
et portate (tollite) Deum in corpore 
vestro’; comp. Tert. de Resurr. 10, 
16, de Pudic. 16, Cypr. Tesé. iil. 11, 
Dom. Orat. 11. Hence Tertullian 
elsewhere, adv. Marc. v. 7,‘Quomodo 
tollemus Deum in corpore perituro ?’ 
Compare also Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 
27 (p. 976) τὸ θεοφόρον γίνεσθαι τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον προσεχῶς ἐνεργούμενον ὑπὸ 
τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ καθάπερ σῶμα αὐτοῦ 
γινόμενον. (4) Even in later writers 
and in other connexions this active 
sense prevails: e.g. Greg. Naz. 2257. 
102 (II. p. 96, Caillau) τὸ δεῖν προσκυνεῖν 
μὴ ἄνθρωπον θεοφόρον ἀλλὰ Θεὸν 
σαρκοφόρον, and below μὴ σάρκα 
θεοφόρον ἀλλὰ Θεὸν ἀνθρωποφόρον. 
See other examples in Pearson 7 7. 
Ρ. 521 sq, Suicer 7265. 5.:ν. Similarly 
χριστοφόρος seems to be always 
active (see Phileas in Euseb. 1. £, 


22 THE (EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


θει Θεοῦ πατρὸς πληρώματι, ™ προωρισμένῃ πρὸ 


I πληρώματι] Gg* (with a ν.1.); pervfectione A; et plenttudine L; et perfectae Σ: 


see the lower note. 


Vili. 10 of χριστοφόροι μάρτυρες) ; while 
on the other hand πνευματόφορος is 
commonly used in such a sense as to 
suggest a passive meaning, ‘inspired, 
borne along by the Spirit, e.g. Hos. ix. 
7 (LXX), Presbyt. in Iren. v. 5.1, Herm. 
Mand. 11, Theoph. ad Auzol. i. 9, 11. 
22, Dionys. Rom. in Athanas. Of. I. 
p- 182, and frequently. But even 
here we are perhaps deceived, and 
the idea of inspiration may be derived 
equally well from the active πνευμα- 
τοφόρος ‘a vehicle of the Spirit’; e.g. 
in Herm. Mand. 11 (a reference 
already cited) the word may be ex- 
plained by an expression which occurs 
in the neighbourhood, ἔχων ev ἑαυτῷ 
δύναμιν πνεύματος θείου. Comp. Iren. 
iv. 20. 6 ‘videbitur Deus ab homi- 
nibus qui portant Spiritum ejus.’ 
The passive word θεοφόρητος, which 
is also classical, is found occasionally 
in early Christian writers, e.g. Hippol. 
Fragm. 123 (p- 193 Lagarde), and 
several times in Philo, e.g. de Som. 
1 43, Gis TT. pps 658, 659).)' The idea 
involved in the word θεοφόρος is 
found also in contemporary Stoic 
Whiters! eo. ΠΕΣ ΙΕ Dzss. 1; 8.;-12, 
13 Θεὸν περιφέρεις...ἐν σαυτῷ 
φέρεις. αὐτὸν κιτιλ. (comp. il. 16. 
33), Lucan Phars. ix. 563 ‘Ile Deo 
plenus, tacita quem mente geredat 
The active sense therefore must be 
adopted, but the alternative of ‘bear- 
ing God’ and ‘wearing God’ still 
remains. All the passages quoted 
however seem to show that the former 
is the sense of θεοφόρος here, though 
the Syriac renders it ‘God-clad,’ and 
S. Pauls metaphor of ‘putting on 
Christ’ might suggest this meaning. 
The former sense indeed is impe- 
ratively demanded below, § 9. 


τῇ] txt GLZ[A]; add. καὶ g. 


It is more probable that this sur- 
name was adopted by Ignatius himself, 
as atokenof his Christian obligations, 
than that it was conferred upon him 
by others, as a title of honour. For 
supposed references to it in the body 
of his epistles, see the notes on Magu. 
1, Lvadl..4, Smyrn. 5. ΤῈ occurs) ia 
the opening of all his genuine epi- 
stles; and in this he is imitated by 
the Pseudo-Ignatius. The epithet 
however is not confined to him, but 
is applied freely to later fathers, espe- 
cially to those assembled at any of 
the great councils, as Nicwa; see 
Pearson V. /.1.c. In his case how- 
ever it has the character of a second 
name or surname, as the mode of 
introduction, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, shows; 
comp. Acts xili. 9 Σαῦλος, ὁ καὶ Παῦ- 
λος. This form of expression is ex- 
tremely common in inscriptions; e.g. 
Boeckh C. 1. G. 2836 ᾿Αριστοκλῆς ὁ καὶ 
Ζήνων, 2949 M. Aup. Πετρώνιος Κέλσος 
ὁ καὶ Μένιππος, 3282 Kaorpikios ᾿Αρτε- 
μίδωρος ὁ καὶ |’ Ap|usavos, 3309 Ἑρμείας 
ὁ καὶ Λίτορις, 3387 PAaovia Τρύφαινα 
ἡ καὶ Ῥοδόπη, 3550 Μενέστρατον τὸν 
καὶ Τρύφωνα, 3675 Γάϊος Γαΐου ὁ καὶ 
Πίστος, 3737 Μαξίμα ἡ καὶ Ἡδονή, 
4207 ᾿Ἑλένη ἡ καὶ Αφῴφιον, and so fre- 
quently. From this epithet arose the 
tradition that Ignatius was the very 
child whom our Lord took up in 
His arms (Mark ix. 36; comp. Matt. 
Xvill. 2, Luke ix. 47), the passive 
Geopopos being substituted for the 
active θεοφόρος and a literal sense 
being attached to the word. 

The groundless suspicion of Dus- 
terdieck (p. 89), Bunsen (2. p. 33, 
2. Ὁ. A. p. 38), Renan (Les Evangiles 
p. xxvii), and others, that θεοφόρος 
is a later insertion, has been refuted 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 23 


by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 69 sq). It goes 
directly in the teeth of all the evi- 
dence. Daillé founded an objection 
to the genuineness of the epistles on 
the use of this surname, urging that it 
arose out of the legend. He is re- 
futed by Pearson (V. 1. p. 520sq), who 
shows that the converse was the case. 

τῇ εὐλογημένῃ κιτ.λ.] This opening 
address contains several obvious re- 
miniscences of Ephes. i. 3 sq. ὁ 
Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ...ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς 
ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ... καθὼς ἐξελέξατο 
ἡμᾶς ... πρὸ καταβολῆς 
εἶναι ἡμᾶς...«ἀμώμους..-.προορίσας 
ἡμᾶς... κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελή- 
ματος...διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ... 
προορισθέντες.. κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ 
θελήματος αὐτοῦ...εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς 
εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ. See also 
the notes on πληρώματι below, and 
On μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ § 1, and for πρὸ 
αἰώνων comp. Ephes. ill. 11 κατὰ πρό- 
θεσιν τῶν αἰώνων. Though 5. Paul’s 
so-called Epistle to the Ephesians 
was probably a circular letter, yet 
even on this hypothesis Ephesus was 
the principal Church addressed, and 
there was therefore a special pro- 
priety in the adoption of its language. 
This is analogous to the references 
in the Roman Clement (ὃ 47) to the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, and 
in Polycarp (§ 3, comp. 9, 11) to the 
Epistle to the Philippians, where 
these fathers are writing to the same 
two Churches respectively. The di- 
rect mention of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, which is supposed to occur 
at a later point in this letter (§ 12 
IlavAov...0s ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ μνημο- 
νεύει ὑμῶν), is extremely doubtful (see 
the note there); but the acquaintance 
of Ignatius with that epistle appears 
from other passages besides this ex- 
ordium, e.g. Polyc. 5. 


, 
κόσμου, 


ἐν μεγέθει] ‘2x greatness. The 
μέγεθος describes the moral and 
spiritual stature of the Ephesian 


o 


Church itself; comp. Smyrn. 11 
ἀπέλαβον τὸ ἴδιον μέγεθος, Rom. 3 
μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμός. These 
are the only other passages in Ig- 
natius where μέγεθος occurs, and in 
both it refers not to God, but to the 
Church. We might be tempted by 
the parallel, Rom. inscr. ἐν μεγαλειό- 
τητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου, to connect ἐν 
μεγέθει with Θεοῦ πατρός, but this 
would oblige us to interpret πληρώ- 
pare ‘fully,’ ‘richly’ (as Zahn 7. v. A. 
p- 415, while ad loc. he compares 
Rom. xv. 29 ἐν πληρώματι εὐλογίας) ; 
an interpretation which cannot, I 
think, stand. 


Θεοῦ πατρὸς πληρώματι] ‘through 
the plenitude of God the Father} 
where Zleroma is used, as by 5. 
Paul and S. John, in its theological 
sense, to denote the /o¢a/ity of the 
Divine attributes and powers: see 
the excursus on Colosszans p. 257 
sq. The dative case is instrumental. 
To participation in the Pleroma 
of God, or of Christ, we are in- 
debted for all the gifts and graces 
which we possess; John i. 16 ἐκ τοῦ 
πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλά- 
βομεν x.t.A. The expression before 
us should be compared especially 
with Ephes. ili. 19 iva πληρωθῆτε εἰς 
πᾶν TO πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, a passage 
which Ignatius probably had in his 
mind, as this same epistle of S. Paul 
is present to his thoughts through- 
out his opening salutation. See also 
Ephes. i. 23, where the πλήρωμα is 
regarded as transfused wholly into 
the Church. Ignatius again uses 
this term in its technical sense, Ζγαζί. 
inscr. ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν τῷ πληρώ- 
part. For the prominence of the 
pleroma in the Valentinian theology 
see Colossians p.265 sq. For similar 
instances of phraseology, which was 
afterwards characteristic of Valenti- 
nianism or of other developments of 
Gnosticism, in these epistles, see the 


24 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


Ἄς J 53 \ \ > / / af 
αἰώνων εἶναι διὰ παντος εἰς δοξαν WAPAMOVOV, ἀτρεπ- 


2 ἡνωμένῃ καὶ ἐκλελεγμένῃ] ἡνωμένην καὶ ἐκλελεγμένην GLg; but ZA refer the 
words to the Church, and seem therefore to have read the datives: see the lower 
note. Their renderings are ef (i.e. guae ecclesia) perfecta et electa Z; quae perfecta 


est (om. καὶ ἐκλελεγμένῃ) A. 


notes on ὃ 1 φύσει, Rom. 6, Magu. 8, 
Trall. i. 

The sentence would be simplified, 
if we could venture on the reading 
καὶ πληρώματι. In this case μέγεθος, 
like πλήρωμα, would be attributed to 
God; and here again a Valentinian 
tinge would be given to the language 
of Ignatius, for μέγεθος appears to 
have had a technical sense with this 
Schools comp: Iren,, 1 2..2 
μέγεθος τοῦ βάθους καὶ τὸ ἀνεξιχνί- 
αστον Tov πατρός, and esp. Anon. in 
Epiphan. “Yer. xxxi. 5 (see Stieren’s 
Irenzeus, p. 916 sq) ἥν τινες ἜἜννοιαν 
ἔφασαν, ἕτεροι Χάριν οἰκείως, διὰ τὸ 
ἐπικεχορηγηκέναι αὐτὴν θησαυρίσματα 
τοῦ μεγέθους τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ μεγέθους, 
οἱ δὲ ἀληθεύσαντες Σιγὴν προσηγό- 


διὰ τὸ 


ρευσαν, ὅτι δι’ ἐνθυμήσεως χωρὶς λόγου 
τὰ πάντα τὸ μέγεθος ἐτελείωσεν: ὡς 
οὖν προεῖπον, ἡ ἄφθαρτος [αἰωνία] 
βουληθεῖσα δεσμὰ ῥῆξαι ἐθήλυνε τὸ 
μέγεθος ἐπ᾽ ὀρέξει ἀναπαύσεως αὐτοῦ; 
comp. the Valentinian use of μεγέθη 
for ‘powers’ in Iren. i. 13. 6, 1. 14. 4, 
and see also i. 13. 5. I find more- 
over that in Syriac ‘the greatness’ 
(Δ Δ) was used absolutely to 
signify the Divine Majesty. To the 
passage from Ephraem Syrus (Of. 
Syr. 1. p. 68), quoted by Michaelis 
(Castell. Lex Syr. s. v. p. 843) for 
this use, add two examples from the 
Syriac of Clem. Recogn. p. 21 1. 28, 
Ρ. 26 1. 7 (ed. Lagarde), both which 
passages are altered in the Latin of 
Ruffinus, perhaps because he did 
not understand this sense of μέγεθος. 
Itis possible therefore that thisreading 
καὶ πληρώματι is correct; but in the 
extant authorities which have it the 


In Σ the word ssspw) ef erfecta is the same which 


καὶ must be regarded as a later (and 
very obvious) insertion, and if it 
existed in the original copy, it must 
have dropped out at a date anterior 
to any existing texts. The original 
form of the Syriac was not ΟΣ ΟῚ 
‘and perfected ( fultilled), as it stands 
in the Curetonian MSs, but ΟΣ 
‘tn (or by) the perfection (fulness), 
or some similar expression, as the 
Armenian rendering shows (see 
Petermann ad Joc.). The word 
sow is the rendering of πλήρωμα 
in’ ‘Rom, xi. ‘12;phes. 1) 23 ave aq 
The substitution would be the more 
easy, because the former word occurs 
in the immediate context as the 
rendering (or loose paraphrase) of 
ἡνωμένῃ. 

1. εἰς] For the construction εἶναι 
eis ‘to be destined for, reserved for’ 
comp. Ephes. i. 12 eis τὸ εἶναι εἰς ἔπαι- 
νον k.t.A.. Acts viii, 23 εἰς χολὴν πι- 
kplas...0p@ σε ὄντα, I Cor, xiv. 22 αἱ 
γλῶσσαι eis σημεῖόν εἶσιν. 

παράμονον ἄτρεπτον) ‘abiding and 
unchangeable” Both adjectives must 
be connected with δόξαν, even though 
we should read ἡνωμένην κιτ.ὰ. after- 
wards; comp. Clem. Al. Strom, vii. 
10 (p. 866) ἐσόμενος, ws εἰπεῖν, φῶς 
ἑστὼς καὶ μένον ἰδίως, πάντη πάντως 
ἄτρεπτον. For παράμονος comp. 
Philad. inscr. χαρὰ αἰώνιος καὶ παρά- 
μονος; for ἄτρεπτος, which is used es- 
pecially of the unchangeable things 
of eternity, see e.g. Clem. Hom. xx. § 
ἄτρεπτον yap [ὁ Θεὸς] καὶ ἀεὶ dv, Philo 
Leg. All. i. 15 (1. p. 53) ἄποιον αὐτὸν 
[τὸν Θεὸν] εἶναι καὶ ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἄτρεπ- 
TOV. 

2. ἡνωμένῃ κιτ.λ.} I have ventur- 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 26 


/ \ > / y > ~ >, 
Tov, ἡνωμένη καὶ ἐκλελεγμένη ἐν πάθει ἀληθινῷ ἐν 


has occurred just before as the rendering οἵ πληρώματι, and there is probably 


therefore some corruption, as it does not represent ἡνωμένῃ. 


gested that 2 read ἠνυσμένην. 
lower note. 


ed to substitute datives for accusa- 
tives, as the change is slight. But 
if the accusatives be retained, they 
must still be referred to the Church, 
and not connected with δόξαν. As 
coming after the infinitive, εἶναι 
[αὐτὴν].. .ἡνωμένην x.7.A., they are jus- 
tifiable: comp. Winer Gramm. § xliv. 
p- 402, Ixvi. p. 782, Kiuhner II. p. 
590 sq. But in the present instance 
they are especially awkward, as 
being interposed between datives 
before and after, and also as being 
liable to confusion with the accusa- 
tives immediately preceding. For the 
frequency of ἑνοῦν etc. in Ignatius see 
the note on § 4. 

ἐν πάθει] This should probably be 
connected with both the preceding 
words. The ‘passion’ is at once the 
bond of their union and the ground 
of their election. For the former idea 
comp. Philad. 3 εἴ tis ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ 
γνώμῃ περιπατεῖ, οὗτος TO πάθει οὐ συγ- 
κατατίθεται; for the latter, 7 γαζί, 11 
ἐν τῷ πάθει αὐτοῦ προσκαλεῖται ὑμᾶς. 
This latter relation it has, because 
in foreordaining the Sacrifice of the 
Cross God foreordained the call of 
the faithful. Thus their election was 
involved in Christ’s passion. 

This word has a special promi- 
nence in the Epistles of Ignatius. 
In Christ’s passion is involved the 
peace of one Church (77ea//. inscr.) 
and the joy of another (PAz/ad. 
inscr.). Unto His passion the peni- 
tent sinner must return (Smzyrz. 5); 
from His passion the false heretic 
dissents (PAzlad. 3); into His passion 
all men must die (Magn. 5); His 
passion the saint himself strives to 


Cureton (1845) sug- 
ἐν πάθει] GLAg; iz signo X: see the 


imitate (Rom. 6); the blood of His 
passion purifies the water of baptism 
(Lphes. 18); the tree of the passion 
is the stock from which the Church 
has sprung (Smyrm. 1); the passion 
is a special feature which distin- 
guishes the Gospel (PAzlad. 9, Smyrn. 
7). In several passages indeed it is 
coordinated with the birth or the 
resurrection (Zphes. 20, Magn. τι, 
Smyrn. 12, etc.); but frequently, as 
here, it stands in isolated grandeur, 
as the one central doctrine of the 
faith. 

Hence the importance that the 
Passion should have been real (dAn- 
θινόν), and not, as the Docetic teach- 
ers held, a mere phantom suffering 
and death. On the opposition of 
Ignatius to these Docetic views, see 
the note on 7rva//. 9. As this is the 
only passage referring to Docetism 
in the Curetonian letters, and as the 
Syriac MSS here read rats ‘in 
signo, the fact has been pressed as 
arguing the priority of these letters 
to the Vossian. Cureton at first 
supposed that it was a corrupt 
reading for τα ‘in fasszone,’ 
but afterwards was persuaded that 
it was genuine and represented the 
Greek ἐν προθέσει, which (as he sup- 
posed) had been changed into ἐν πάθει 
by the Vossian interpolator to con- 
trovert the Docetz, whose errors are 
combated elsewhere in the Vossian 
letters, ‘or perhaps indeed the Phan- 
tasiastee of a later period’ (C. Δ G. 
p. 276 sq). An argument in favour 
of Cutreton’s reading is, that it pro- 
duces another coincidence with 5. 
Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, i. 


26 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


θελήματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ 


© “~ “ : , - ᾿ / o »" » 
ἡμῶν, τὴ ἐκκλησίᾳ τὴ ἀξιομακαρίστῳ Ty οὐσὴ εν 


τ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ “I. X. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν) GL; θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν IX. τοῦ 
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν g; patrts tesu christi det nostri D3 dei et domint nostri tesu christi 


[A] (omitting ἐν θελήματι) : see the lower note. 3 


transposes the whole clause) g; om. =. 
g=A; χάριτι GL: see the lower note. 


Il προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν κιτιλ. 
This view accordingly has been a- 
dopted by several later writers, e.g. 
Bunsen (Atpfolvius τ. p. 94, ed. 2), 
Lipsius (Aechké. p. 24, S. 7. p. 153), and 
others. Nevertheless Cureton’s for- 
mer view was unquestionably correct. 
The telling facts are these. (1) The 
word πάσχα is not in itself a suit- 
able rendering of πρόθεσις, and as a 
matter of fact is never so employed 
in the Peshito. As denoting a ‘sign,’ 
‘mark,’ it denotes an aim or purpose 
(σκοπός), but this is somewhat dif- 
ferent from πρόϑεσις. (2) On the 
other hand the Greek text has ἐν 
πάθει, which is exactly represented 
by τόσυϑο. (3) The two words 
are not unfrequently confused in the 
Syriac texts. Even in these Igna- 
tian Epistles, the Armenian transla- 
tor found this error twice in the 
Syriac text which he had before him, 
in δεν 1 ἀπὸ τοῦ πάθους rendered 
a signo (see Petermann p. xix), and 
in 7γαϊ τι ἐν τῷ πάθει rendered 
stgno. The Syriac of this latter 
passage is preserved (C. 7. p. 200), 
-ἶνπ 9. I may add a third in- 
stance from the Syriac Version of 
the Clementines p. 74, 1. 25 (ed. La- 
garde), where one MS (the older of 
the two and the earliest known 
Syriac MS, dated A.D. 411) has 
exes and the other xan, the 
latter being correct, as appears from 
the Latin of Ruffinus (C/em. Recogn. 
ii. 58); and a fourth from Sexti Sex- 
tentiae pp. 26, 27 (ed. Gildemeister), 


| τῆς ᾿Ασία:] GL[A] (which 
καὶ GLg; om. DA. 4 χαρᾷ] 
5 “AmodeSduevos] Gg* ; acceptans Τὰ; 


where there is the same interchange 
between the two words τώ σα, 
sais, in the mss, As a very 
slight knowledge of Syriac literature 
has enabled me to collect these in- 
stances, it may be presumed that the 
confusion is common. Indeed the 
‘aces of the letters so closely re- 
semble each other that it naturally 
would be so. (4) The Armenian 
Version actually has 7” passtone here, 
so that gas must have stood in 
the Syriac text from which it was 
translated. 

I. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν] Where the 
Divine Name is assigned to Christ 
in these epistles, it is generally with 
the addition of the pronoun, ‘our 
God,’ ‘wy God,’ as below § 18 ὁ Θεὸς 
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη 
κατιλ., ἄνουν. inscr., 3 ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν 
Ἶ X., Polyc. 8 ἐν Θεῷ ἡμῶν “I. Χ. 
εὔχομαι, Rom. 6 μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πά- 
θους τοῦ Θεοῦ μου; or it has some 
defining words as in Smyrn. 1 Δοξά- 
Cw “I. X. τὸν Θεὸν τὸν οὕτως ὑμᾶς σοφί- 
σαντα, Ephes. 7 ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεός. 
The expression just below § I ἐν 
αἵματι Θεοῦ can hardly be regarded as 
an exception (see the note there). 
In the really exceptional passages 
there is more or less doubt about 
the reading or the connexion; Z7aél. 
7, Smyrn. 6, 10. The authority for 
the omission of καὶ here is quite in- 
adequate; but, even if xai were gen- 
uine, rod Θεοῦ ἡμῶν must be taken 
with “I, X., and not (as Bunsen Sr. Ρ. 
85) with rod πατρός. 





5 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


27 


᾿Εφέσῳ [ τῆς ᾿λσίας]), πλεῖστα ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ καὶ 


ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ χαίρειν. 
I. 


᾿λποδεξάμενος [ὑμών) ἐν Θεῷ τὸ πολυαγάπη- 


quoniam acceptum mihi (supra me) Σ ; quoniam acceptabilis estapud me ἃ. There is 


no authority (except a worthless ν.]. in g) for ἀπεδεξάμην. 


ὑμῶν] g; cov (after 


πολυαγάπητον) GL; vestrum ZA, but there is nothing to show in what position 
ὑμῶν stood in their text, or whether it stood there at all: see the lower note. 
πολυαγάπητον] ( ; πολυπόθητον g; multum dilzctum ΤΙΣΙ ΑΊ. 


2. ἀξιομακαρίστῳ] ‘worthy of feli- 
citation. Comp. ὃ 5 πόσῳ μᾶλλον 
ὑμᾶς μακαρίζω. The compound occurs 
again § 12, Rom. inscr., 10. It is 
hardly classical, and its occurrence 
in Xenophon “201. 34 has been al- 
leged as an argument against the 
genuineness of that treatise. Onthe 
fondness of Ignatius for compounds 
of ἄξιος see the notes on ἀξιονόμαστον 
§ 4 below. 

3. τῆς ᾿Ασίας] i.e. the Roman 
province. With very much hesita- 
tion I have put the words in brackets, 
as a possible though not a probable 
interpolation, since they are wanting 
in the Syriac. With a place so well 
known as Ephesus the specification 
is a little startling. It occurs how- 
ever in Iren. iii. I. I Ἰωάννης...ἐν 
᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας διατρίβων ; and is 
added also in the addresses of the 
letters to Smyrna, Tralles, and Phila- 
delphia, cities only less famous than 
Ephesus, while in the letter to the 
Magnesians it is only suppressed to 
give place to another geographical 
definition τῇ πρὸς Maiavipo. The 
case of ᾿Αντιόχεια τῆς Συρίας (Philad. 
10, Smyrn. 11, Pol. 7) is different, 
for several important cities bore that 
name. The other places called Ephe- 
sus were quite too obscure to come 
into competition (Steph. Byz. s.v. 
ἔστι καὶ Ἔφεσος νῆσος ἐν τῷ Νείλῳ, on 
the authority of Hecatzus); and the 
addition here must be explained by 
the formal character of the address, 


See also Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 6 ἐξ Ἐφέ- 
σου τῆς Ἰωνίας. 

4. ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ] Comp. Magn. 
7 ἐν τῇ χαρᾷ TH ἀμώμῳ. If the read- 
ing had been left doubtful by the ex- 
ternal authorities, this parallel would 
have decided it. For ἄμωμος, ἀμώμως, 
in the openings of these epistles, see 
Rom. inscr., Smyrn. inscr., Trail. 1, 
Polyc. τ: comp. also ὃ 4 (below), 
Trall. 13. 

πλεῖστα... χαίρειν)] This form of 
salutation runs through six of the 
seven Ignatian letters, somfetimes 
with words interposed as here and 
Rom., sometimes in juxtaposition as 
Polyc., Magn., Trall., Smyrn. The 
exception is PAz/ad., where the open- 
ing salutation runs on continuously 
into the main subject of the letter, so 
that there is no place for such words 
or any equivalent. The commonest 
form of salutation in the opening of 
a Greek letter is χαίρειν; and it is 
occasionally strengthened, as here, 
by πλεῖστα. Of the Apostolic Epi- 
stles however S. James alone (i. 1, 
comp. Acts xv. 23) has χαίρειν in 
the opening salutation. 

I. ‘I heartily welcomed you in God. 
Your name is very dear to me; for 
your character for love and faith with 
right judgment is not accidental, but 
natural to you; and inflamed by 
Christ’s blood you did but fulfil the 
dictates of your nature, in imitating 
the loving-kindness of God. For 
when you heard that I was on my 


28 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ 


τον ὄνομα, ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει [ἐν γνώμῃ ὀρθῃ καὶ] δικαίᾳ 
é 


\ if \ , ~ ns ~ ~ 
κατα πίστιν καὶ ἀγαπην ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ σωτήρι 


1 φύσει... δικαίᾳ] natura (in) voluntate recta et justa 2; reveraimmaculata volun- 


tate A; φύσει δικαίᾳ (omitting the other words) GLg. 
ἐν X. Ἷ. τῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν] gL; ἐν. X. τῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν G; 


praef. atque etiam Z,. 


tesu christt salvatoris nostri =A: see the lower note. 


way from Syria, a prisoner for the 
Name of Christ our common hope, 
expecting to fight with wild beasts 
in Rome and so to claim a place as a 
disciple, you were eager to visit me. 
Gladly then have I received you all 
in the person of Onesimus your loving 
bishop and delegate. And I pray 
that you may love and imitate him; 
for God has indeed been good to you 
in giving you such a man for your 
bishop.’ 

᾿Αποδεξάμενο) ‘Having wel- 
comea comp: Polyc: 1, Tryall. 1. 
He had welcomed them in the person 
GiOucsimus...see. 7a. t> | ihe 
sentence thus begun is never finished, 
being lost in a succession of subor- 
dinate and parenthetical clauses. 
The subject is at length resumed in 
a different form, ἐπεὶ ovv...ameiAnpa 
x.t.A. The opening of the letter to 
the Romans fares in the same way. 
See also similar phenomena in 
Philad. 1, Smyrn. 1; comp. Magn. 


I, 5- 
I. dvopa] ‘ame, here equiva- 
lent to ‘personality, ‘character,’ 


‘worth’; comp. Clem. Rom. 1 ἀξια- 
γάπητον ὄνομα ὑμῶν. A marginal 
gloss to the Latin translation (L,) 
supposes that there is a play on the 
word ἔφεσις ‘appetite, desire,’ ‘EL phe- 
sis Greece, desidertum Latine. Ephesii 
desiderabiles dicuntur’; and _ this 
explanation has been adopted by 
some editors. Such a reference how- 
ever, besides being too obscure in 
itself, is rendered improbable by such 
parallel passages as Rov. 10 Kpoxos 


2 κατὰ] txt. GLAZ3¢ ; 
3 μιμηταὶ] Gg; 


τὸ ποθητόν μοι ὄνομα (see also the 
note on “AAkny, .57217}721:. 13). The 
various readings suggest the omis- 
sion of the pronoun with ὄνομα. At 
all events gov can hardly stand. The 
Latin translation here again has a 
gloss (L,), ‘Dicit autem singulariter 
tuum nomen, et continuo pluraliter 
possedistis, insinuans multitudinis in 
fide et charitate unitatem’; but this 
is too ingenious. I am disposed to 
think that a transcriber, finding no 
pronoun,carelessly inserted cov,which 
appears in Polyc. 1. Otherwise I 
should adopt the reading of the Long 
Recension ὑμῶν ἐν Θεῷ τὸ k.T.A., as 
this pronoun occupies the same 
early place elsewhere in the opening 
addresses of Ignatius, JZagu. 1, Kom. 
1, Lolye. τὰ 

φύσει] ‘by nature; and not by 
accident or use or education. Here 
again the expression has a Gnostic 
tinge: see the note on 7va//. 1 ”A- 
μώμον διάνοιαν... ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, 
οὐ κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν. 

ἐν γνώμῃ ὀρθῇ καί] I have inserted 
these words from the Syriac, which 
is loosely followed by the Armenian. 
They must have fallen out at an age 
prior to any of our Greek authorities. 
The epithet δικαίᾳ is altogether un- 
suited to φύσει; and, if the Greek 
text could be regarded as entire, I 
should suggest οἰκείᾳ; comp. Euseb. 
de Laud. Const. 15, p. 652 τὸ θνητὸν 
τῆς οἰκείας ἠλευθέρου φύσεως, ib. p. 
653 εἰς ἔλεγχον τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως, 
Clem. Alex. S¢vomz. ii. 3 (p.433) ἐνταῦθα 


Ἁ - ‘ 
φυσικὴν ἡγοῦνται τὴν πίστιν οἱ ἀμφὶ 


1] TO THE EPHESIANS, 29 


ε ~ ἮΝ Ὁ “- , ε 
ἡμῶν: μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ, ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι 


quia imitatores 1.3 the anacoluthon is obviated in ZA by conversion into a finite 


verb with a connecting particle ef est’s itmitatores. 


ἀναζωπυρήσαντες] 


Gg* [Sev-Syr 172, 174]; δέ reaccendentes Τ,; et incalescentes estis...et Σ; def. A 


(see the next note). 


Βασιλείδην...ἔτι φασὶν of ἀμφὶ Βασι- 
λείδην πίστιν ἅμα καὶ ἐκλογὴν οἰκείαν 
εἶναι. 

2. πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην] A very 
frequent combination in this writer; 
e.g. ὃ 14, 20, Magn. 1, 13, Rom. inscr. 
(v. 1.), Phzlad. 11, Smyrn. inscr., 1, 
13. He explains himself on this 
point, ὃ 14 ἀρχὴ ζωῆς καὶ τέλος, ἀρχὴ 
μὲν πίστις τέλος δὲ ἀγάπη, Smyrn, 6 
τὸ γὰρ ὅλον ἐστὶν πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη. 
See the simile in § 9. In 7 γαζί. 8 
faith and love are said to be the flesh 
and blood of Christ respectively. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κιτ.λ.] The read- 
ing of the Syriac and Armenian may 
be explained by the interchange of a 
single letter in the Syriac, 4 for 4; 
see Clem. Rom. 60 (p. 292). Other- 
wise the following reasons are in its 
favour. (1) It has an exact parallel 
in Rom. inscr. κατὰ πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ; comp. below ὃ 20 ἐν 
τῇ αὐτοῦ πίστει καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀγάπη. 
(2) It is more difficult than the other 
reading, and would therefore lend 
itself more easily to correction. 

3. μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘in 
benevolence and love.’ So also 
Trail, τ; and see below ὃ 10, where 
the point of μιμηταὶ τοῦ Κυρίου is 
ἐπιείκεια. The expression is borrow- 
ed from S. Paul, Ephes. v. 1, thus 
exhibiting another coincidence with 
this same epistle: see the note on 
inscr. τῇ εὐλογημένῃ. Comp. Clem. 
Hom. xii. 26 χρὴ τὸν φιλανθρωπίαν 
ἀσκοῦντα μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
εὐεργετοῦντα δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, ὡς 
αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς πᾶσιν ἐν τῷ νῦν κόσμῳ 
τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τοὺς ὑετοὺς αὐτοῦ παρέ- 
χων. The same is the point here. 


The interpolator brings it out by 
writing μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ φιλαν- 
θρωπίας. 

This sentence, μιμηταὶ. . ἀπηρτίσατε, 
was apparently intended to be paren- 
thetical, stating merely by the way 
that the Ephesians had been true to 
their nature and had exhibited their 
character in action: but it leads inci- 
dentally by a series of subordinate , 
clauses to the main topic, the visit 
of Onesimus, and so breaks up the 
grammar of the sentence. This very 
disjointedand ungrammatical preface 
is explained by the unfavourable cir- 
cumstances under which the letter was 
dictated: Rom.5. Thegrammar would 
be partially relieved, if there were au- 
thority enough for the insertion of καὶ 
before κατὰ πίστιν, for the parentheti- 
cal sentence would then begin less 
abruptly with καὶ κατὰ πίστιν; but 
the Syriac without the Armenian is 
valueless. Otherwise the καὶ might 
easily have dropped out in our main 
authorities owing to the repetition of 
the same letters—KAIAKAIKATA. 

ἀναζωπυρήσαντες] ‘kindled into liv- 
ing fire, in an intransitive sense, i.e. 
‘stimulated to activity.’ The intran- 
sitive use is not uncommon; e.g. 
Gen.) Εχν 27. τ Mace: xin 7; the 
only passages where it occurs in the 
τ χε So alsoy Clem. Rom: 27; ΕἸΠΕ 
Mor. p. 695 A, p. 888 F ἀναζωπυρεῖν 
νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας, etc. 

ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ) Tertull. σα ζὔχογ. 
ii. 3 ‘sanguine Dei.’ See also Acts 
xx. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν 
περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, 
where Θεοῦ is most probably the 
correct reading ; and comp. /om. 6, 


30 


THE EPISTLE 


OF IGNATIUS Ἢ 


~ \ \ 7 7 / 3 , 
Θεοῦ, τὸ συγγενικὸν ἔργον τελείως ἀπηρτίσατε" ἀκού- 


\ / 3 \ 7 e \ an ΄- 
σαντες yap δεδεμένον ἀπὸ Cupias ὑπερ τοῦ κοινοῦ 


3 / \ 3 7 9 7 ΄- a e ΄- 
ὀνόματος καὶ ἐλπίδος, ἐλπίζοντα TH προσευχὴ υὑμων 
a έ 


1 Θεοῦ] GL*Z Sev-Syr 2, 3; def. A (but this defect witnesses to θεοῦ, 


the whole clause having dropped out owing to the homeeoteleuton) ; 


χριστοῦ Ὁ. 


τελείως] GLe Sev-Syr 2, 33; celeriter (as if ταχέως) Σ ; cum amore A. 


ἀπηρτίσατε] g* LDA Sev-Syr 2, 33 ἀπαρτίσατε G. 
ρ Ξ yi f 

δεδεμένον] GL; pe δεδεμένον g; dub. ZA. 
4 ἐπιτυχεῖν) GLg ; om. ZA: see the lower note. 


"A. 
syria A; ab operibus Σ΄. 


2 γὰρ] GLg*; om. 
ἀπὸ Συρίας] GLg ; 27 


διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν] per polirt L*; per id quo dignor=; quando hoc dignor et perfero 
A; διὰ Tov μαρτυρίου g 3; διὰ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐπιτυχεῖν G: see the lower note. 


For similar modes of expression in 
early Christian writers, see the notes 
on Clem. Rom. 2 τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ 
(with the Appendix, p. 402). It does 
not follow because a writer uses ‘the 
blood of God’ and ‘the blood of 
Christ’ as convertible expressions, 
that he would therefore speak of 
Christ as ‘God’ absolutely. This 
passage is therefore no exception to 
the rule as to the Ignatian usage 
laid down above on inscr. τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἡμῶν. The ‘blood of God’ is the 
incentive which fans the natural 
benevolence of their character into a 
flame. On the energizing action of 
the blood of Christ, see the note on 
Phitad. inscr. 

I. συγγενικόν] ‘zatural, literal- 
ly ‘connate, ‘congenital’; comp. 
Plut. 2707. p. 561 F κακίας ὁμοιότητα 
συγγενικὴν ἐν νέῳ βλαστάνουσαν ἤθει. 
So συγγενικὸν νόσημα, Plut. Vet. 
Pericl. 22. Here it refers back to 
ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει. The Ephesians had 
perfected in action the disposition 
which they possessed by nature. 
Zahn translates it fraternum, adding 
‘quod decebat vos prestare erga 
eum qui eidem genti a Christo re- 
dempti [redemptze?] vobiscum ad- 
scriptus est. But this, though a 
possible sense, does not suit either 
the context or the general usage of 
the word so well as the other, 


2. ἀπὸ Συρίας] A condensed ex- 
pression in place of ‘hearing that I 
was come in bonds from Syria ; 
see Winer Gramm. ὃ lxvi. p. 776 
(Moulton), Kiihner 11. p. 469 sq. For 
other similar constructions of prepo- 
sitions comp. e.g. below, ὃ 12 τῶν 
εἰς Θεὸν ἀναιρουμένων, § 14 εἰς Kado- 
καγαθίαν ἀκόλουθά ἐστιν, ὃ 17 αἰχμα- 
λωτίσῃ...ἐκ τοῦ... ζῆν, and not unfre- 
quently in Ignatius. For the par- 
ticular expression here see Syru. 
11 ὅθεν δεδεμένος (comp. below, 
§ 21). 

τοῦ κοινοῦ ὀνόματος] i.e. ‘the Name 
of Christ which we all bear in com- 
mon.’ For this application of τὸ 
ὄνομα see the note on § 3 below. 

3. Ἐλπίδος So § 21 
Χριστῷ τῇ κοινῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν, Philad. 
11: comp. Philad. 5. For ἢ ἐλπὶς 
ἡμῶν, applied to Christ, see the note 
Magn. τι. 

4. ἐπιτυχεῖν] A very common and 
characteristic expression in Ignatius. 
It occurs most frequently in the 
connexion ἐπιτυγχάνειν Θεοῦ ; see 
the note on Magn. 1. His mar- 
tyrdom was ¢he success, ¢he triumph, 
to which he looked forward ; see 
esp. Rom. ὃ αἰτήσασθε περὶ ἐμοῦ, iva 
ἐπιτύχω : comp. also Polyc. 7, Tradl. 
12,03. So Mart. Len. Ant. στοῦ 
στεφάνου τῆς ἀθλήσεως ἐπιτύχη. 

διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν] The genesis of 


5 9 a 
ev ‘Inoov 


1] TO THE EPHESIANS. 31 


> ~ 2 Ῥ , ~ / \ ~ > 

ἐπιτυχεῖν ἐν Ρώμη θηριομαχῆσαι, ἵνα διὰ ποῦ ἐπιτυ- 
= ΄-: A > e ~~ > 

5 χεῖν δυνηθῶ μαθητὴς εἶναι, ἰστορῆσαι ἐσπουδάσατε. 


3 \ > \ Ἶ 7 δι κ᾿ > 3». Σιν ΓΝ , 
ἐπεὶ οὖν THY πολυπληθειαν ὑμῶν ἐν ὀνόματι Θεοῦ ἀπεί- 


5 μαθητὴς εἶναι] Τ, ; add. dei DA ; add. τοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἑαυτὸν ἀνενεγκόντος (-νέγκαν- 
Tos v. l.in g) θεῷ προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν Gg (from Eph. v.2; l1completes the quotation 


by adding 27: odorem bonae suavitatis): see the lower note. 


ἱστορῆσαι ἐσπου- 


δάσατε] videre (leg. visere ?) festinastis L; studuistis ut ventretis et videretis me Z; vos 
studuistis recreare me A (as if it had read JIN for 3353NN); om. Gg. Cureton 
supplies the missing words, με ἰδεῖν ἐσπουδάζετε; Pearson, Petermann, Lipsius, Zahn, 


and Funk, ἰδεῖν ἐσπουδάσατε: see the lower note. 
(δὲ) 2; enim (as if τὴν yap πολυπλήθειαν) L; ergo A. 


the corruptions in the text is as 
follows. (1) The interpolator of the 
Long Recension has substituted διὰ 
τοῦ μαρτυρίου for διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν 
to save a needless repetition; and 
he has also helped out the μαθητής, 
which appeared to him bare and 
unmeaning, with the addition of 
τοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἑαυτὸν ἀνενεγκόντος 
Θεῷ προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν, borrowed 
from 5. Paul, Ephes. ν. 2. Both 
these changes are after his usual 
manner. But in doing so he has 
carelessly thrust out the end of the 
sentence, ἱστορῆσαι ἐσπουδάσατε, and 
thus left ἀκούσαντες without any finite 
verb. (2) The genuine Ignatius has 
been corrupted from the text of the 
interpolator ; but the work has not 
been done thoroughly, and the word 
ἐπιτυχεῖν has been allowed to stand. 
For a similar instance of interpola- 
tion in the Greek Ms from the Long 
Recension see § 2 after κατηρτισμένοι. 
In both cases however we have the 
alternative of supposing conversely 
that the interpolation was made first 
in a MS of the genuine Ignatius and 
so passed into the Long Recension, 
but this is not probable. The Latin, 
Syriac, and Armenian Versions, when 
correctly read and interpreted, sug- 
gest the true restoration of the text, 
which however has been overlooked 
by the editors generally. 


6 ἐπεὶ οὖν) Gg* ; guia autem 
πολυπλήθειαν] οὕ; 

5. μαθητής] ‘a learner? This 
also is an idea which has taken 
possession of Ignatius, and is repeat- 
ed again and again by him. He 
does not set himself up as a teacher 
of others; at present he himself is 
only beginning to be a learner : see 
esp. § 3 vw yap ἀρχὴν ἔχω τοῦ 
μαθητεύεσθαι ; comp. Trall. ς, Rom. 5 
(quoted below), and see Mart. Len. 
“6 1μήπω... ἐφαψάμενος. ..τῆς τελείας 
τοῦ μαθητοῦ τάξεως. His discipleship 
will then only be complete, when he 
is crowned with martyrdom, Rom. 4; 
comp. Magn. 9, Polyc. 7. Hence he 
uses μαθητὴς elsewhere, as here, ab- 
solutely : Zvadl. 5 οὐ.. παρὰ τοῦτο ἤδη 
καὶ μαθητὴς εἰμί, Rom. 5 νῦν ἄρχομαι 
μαθητὴς εἶναι. The Greek interpolator 
and the Syriac translator, not under- 
standing this absolute use, have sup- 
plied genitive cases in different ways. 
This εἰρωνεία of Ignatius has a pa- 
rallel in Socrates, who always pro- 
fessed himself merely a learner: see 
Grote’s Plato 1. p. 239. 

ἱστορῆσαι] Comp. Gal. i. 18 (with 
the note). In restoring the Greek 
from the Versions, I have chosen 
this word, because the Syriac render- 
ing seems to point to something more 
expressive than ἰδεῖν, which is gene- 
rally supplied. 

6. ἐπεὶ οὖν κιτ.λ.}] A resumption 
of the original sentence ᾿Αποδεξάμενος 


22 THE EPISTLE: OF IGNATIUS [1 


Anpa ἐν ᾿Ονησίμῳ, τῷ ἐπ᾽ ἀγάπη ἀδιηγήτῳ, ὑμῶν δὲ 


3 \ 4 iy rat Sf SW) “- \ 
[ἐν σαρκὶ] επισκΚοήω" OV EUV ONAL Κατα lnoouv Χριστὸν 


΄ ΄ \ 7 ΄σ ΖΝ ἐν ΔΚ ς , On 
ὑμᾶς ἀγαπᾶν, καὶ TAVTAS ὑμάς αὐτῷ EV ὁμοιοτητι εἰναι" 


πολυπληθίαν G (so it reads certainly, though the word is written in a slovenly way ; 
there is no authority for πολυπληρίαν which has got into the common texts): see the 


lower note. 


ZAg: see the lower note. 
dominum nostrum Σ 2 om. GLAg. 


ἀπείληφα] GLAg; suscepimus Σ. 
altered to conform to the following ἐν σαρκὶ) G; zz L*; dub. DA. 
om. ZA (so that they take ἀδιηγήτῳ with αγάπη). 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν] GLIA 3 χριστὸν ἰησοῦν g. Add. 


1 ἐπ] g; ἐν (probably 
δὲ] GLg ; 
2 ἐν σαρκὶ] GL; om. 


3 αὐτῷ ἐν ὁμοιότητι εἶναι] G3; 2252 771 


stmilitudine esse Ly ἐν ὁμοιώματι αὐτοῦ εἶναι g; sitis in similitudine gus Σ 


κιτιλ.; see the note there. This new 
sentence itself is never finished, but 
is lost in a crowd of subordinate 
clauses. In this respect it is an 
exact parallel to Magn. 2, which 
begins in the same way ἐπεὶ οὖν 
ἠξιώθην κ-ιτ.λ. 

πολυπλήθειαν ‘your numerous 
body, ‘your large numbers’; comp. 
2 Macc. vill. 16 τὴν ἐθνῶν πολυπλή- 
θειαν, Valentinus in Epiph. Her. 
xxxi. 6 ὧν τὴν πολυπλήθειαν πρὸς 
ἀριθμὸν ἐξειπεῖν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον. The 
expression is an incidental testimony 
to the flourishing condition of the 
Ephesian Church in the beginning 
of the second century. The word 
occurs occasionally in Classical wri- 
ters, being found as early as So- 
phocles Fragm. 583; comp. Arist. 
Hist, An. v. 4 (p. 562) τὴν πολυπλή- 
θειαν αὐτῶν. It is written both πολυ- 
πλήθεια and πολυπληθία. The former 
is more largely supported by ana- 
logy ; but for the latter comp. Soph. 
Fragm. 342 κυκλεῖ δὲ πᾶσαν οἰκετῶν 
παμπληθίαν, which however, as a po- 
etical passage, does not go far to 
establish a prose usage. 

ἀπείληφα] The martyr received 
the whole Church, when he received 
Onesimus, their representative ; see 
Magn. 6 ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τοῖς mpoye- 
γραμμένοις προσώποις τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος 


ἐθεώρησα ἐν πίστει κιτιλ, Comp. also 
below, § 2 δ ὧν πάντας ὑμᾶς κατὰ 
ἀγάπην εἶδον, Magn. 2 ἠξιώθην ἰδεῖν 
ὑμᾶς διὰ Δαμᾶ κιτὰ., Trall. τ ὥστε μὲ 
τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. 

I. ἐν ᾿ΟνησίμῳθΙ This Onesimus 
seems to be a distinct person alike 
from S. Paul’s convert the slave of 
Philemon, who, if still living, would 
be too old at this time, and from his 
later namesake the friend of Melito 
(Euseb. A. 45. iv 26), who belonged 
to another generation and was ob- 
viously a layman. Chronologically 
this notice stands about mid-way 
between the two, being separated 
from each by about half a century. 
On the name Onesimus and the 
persons bearing it, see the introduc- 
tion to the Epistle to Philemon in 
Colossians etc. p. 310 sq. The name 
occurs in an Ephesian inscription 
Boeckh C. /. G. no. 2983. 

2. “ἐν σαρκί] See the note on 
Rom. 9 τῇ ὁδῷ τῇ κατὰ σάρκα. But 
the words ἐν σαρκὶ here are highly 
suspicious, both as being absent 
from some authorities and as being 
unmeaning in themselves. They may 
have been added to relieve the ap- 
parent awkwardness of the connexion 
ὑμῶν δὲς There is no reason to sup- 
pose that the Syriac translator had 
not the δὲ in his text, because he 


17 TO THE EPHESIANS, 33 


& 
\ \ 4 ~ > / 3 ~ 
εὐλογητὸς γαρ ὁ χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν ἀξίοις οὖσιν τοιοῦ- 
5 TOV ἐπίσκοπον κεκτῆσθαι. 


1 


Περὶ δὲ τοῦ συνδούλου μου Βούρρου τοῦ κατὰ 


Similes-estote et A. 4 ἀξίοις] GLZA; τοιούτοις g. οὖσιν] οὖσι Gs. 
5 κεκτῆσθαι] GL; κεκτῆσθαι ἐν χριστῷ g; om. TA. Similar omissions in Σ occur Rom, 
1 εἶναι, Polyc.6 σχεῖν (ἔχειν). The translator probably had κεκτῆσθαι in his text here 
but declined to translate it asa pleonasm. Σ stops here and resumes again § 3 ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπεὶ κ.τ.λ. 6 μου] GLA; ἡμῶν g. A read συμβούλου for συνδούλου. 

Βούρρου] G; διεγαάο A (a confusion of the Syriac letters αἴ and 4, ὦ] and r). For the 
variations in the first vowel in Lg see Appx. All the authorities, except A, agree 


in the consonants here. 


has not translated it. This free 
handling of connecting particles is 
habitual with him. If ἐν σαρκὶ be 
genuine, it would seem to imply a 
contrast to the great ἐπίσκοπος 
in heaven (Magn. 3). But such a 
contrast is out of place here, and 
Ignatius was not likely to speak of 
a bishop as a carnal officer. Zahn 
(7. v. A. p. 254) explains it other- 
wise ; Onesimus belongs to all alike 
by virtue of love (ἐν ἀγάπῃ), though 
externally (ἐν σαρκί) he was connected 
with the Ephesians alone. But this 
antithesis is not suggested by the 
first clause. For ὑμῶν δὲ see Phil. 
li. 25 ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον ; comp. 
Herod. vii. ὃ ᾿Αρισταγόρῃ τῷ Μιλησίῳ 
δούλῳ δὲ ἡμετέρῳ Onesimus had 
two recommendations in the eyes of 
Ignatius ; he was beyond praise for 
his love, and he was f¢hetr chief 
pastor. 

κατὰ Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] ‘after the 
standard of Christ) i.e. ‘with a 
Christian love’; comp. Rom. xv. 5 
τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἀλλήλοις κατὰ 
Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. 

3. αὐτῷ] 1. 6. ᾿Ονησίμῳ. For the 
dative after ὁμοιότης, comp. Plat. 
Phed. 109 A τὴν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ, Phadr. 253 C εἰς ὁμοιό- 
τητα αὑτοῖς καὶ τῷ Θεῷ...ἄγειν : and for 
this case with substantives generally 


IGN. II, 


See also the notes on Smyrn. 12, Philad. 11. 


see Kuhner Gramm. 11. p. 372 sq. 
The interpolator has substituted a 
simpler construction and order, ἐν 
ὁμοιώματι αὐτοῦ. 

4. ἀξίοις οὖσιν] A favourite ex- 
pression in Ignatius; ὃ 2, Magn. 
12, 14, Trail. 4, 13, Rom. 9, Smyrn. 
9, 11, Polyc. 8. So also ἄξιος Θεοῦ 
δὲ 2, 4, Rom. 10; comp. Ephes. 15. 

II. ‘As touching Burrhus the 
deacon, I entreat that he may be 
allowed to remain with me. Crocus 
too has refreshed me much, and I 
pray that God may refresh him. 
These, together with Euplus and 
Fronto, have been very welcome to 
me as your representatives. May I 
have joy of you always, if I deserve 
it. Ye ought therefore to glorify 
Jesus Christ, who glorified you, by 
submission to your bishop and pres- 
byters, that ye may be perfectly 
sanctified.’ 

6. συνδούλουΠ͵, This expression 
is with great propriety confined in 
Ignatius to deacons, since the func- 
tion which the bishop had in common 
with them was mindstration,; Magn. 
2, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 12. Similarly 
it was customary for bishops to 
address presbyters as ‘ compresby- 
teri’; see Philippians p. 228. So 
too Constantine was accustomed to 
speak of himself as a συνθεράπων of 


3 


34 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


\ onl \ = y aI 
Θεὸν διακόνου ὑμῶν [καὶ] ἐν πᾶσιν εὐλογημένου, εὔχομαι 
~~ >] A > \ € = \ Co Ci 
παραμεῖναι αὐτὸν εἰς τιμὴν ὑμῶν Kal TOU ἐπισκόπου. 


καὶ Κρόκος δὲ ὁ Θεοῦ ἄξιος καὶ ὑμῶν, ὃν ἐξεμ- 


1 καὶ] Ag; om. GL. 
cum (= for g, m for 2) A. 


3 καὶ Kpdxos δὲ] GL; κρόκος δὲ σ᾽; εὖ mar- 


ἐξεμπλάριον] GL; ὡς ἐξεμπλάριον g; 


secundum similitudinem A (omitting however ὃν, and adding em at the end of the 


sentence). 


bishops, Euseb. VY. Ὁ: 11. 69, ili. 12, 
17, Socr. H. £.i. 9. For the relation 
of the Ignatian usage of σύνδουλος 
ἘΠ 5 Paul’s see the note on ‘Col. 
iv. 7. The limitation observed by 
Ignatius is not regarded in other 
early writers ; e.g. Clem. Hom. Con- 
reseMigsEp.cad , Lac: 2, αὐ (where 
presbyters and others are so address- 
ed by a bishop. 

Bovppov| This person is mentioned 
again ΤΠ γα 11, Smyrn. 12.) He 
was the amanuensis of both those 
letters, which were written from 
Troas ; and is there represented as 
bearing a joint commission from the 
Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna 
to attend the saint. The request 
therefore which Ignatius prefers 
just below (εὔχομαι παραμεῖναι) was 
granted; and he accompanied him 
when he left Smyrna, whence the 
present letter was despatched. In 
the Syriac Decease of Saint Fohn 
(Wright’s Apocryphal Acts 11. p. 64) 
the Apostle is represented as giving 
his latest commands to one Birrus 
(Byrrhus). As the scene takes place 
at Ephesus, it is not improbable that 
the person intended was the same 
who is mentioned by Ignatius. The 
Greek copy however substitutes the 
name Εὐτυχῆ τὸν καὶ Οὐῆρον (Tisch- 
endorf Act. Afost. Apocr. p. 274). 
In the corresponding passage of 
pseudo-Abdias (Ap. Hist. v. 23) the 
name is Byrrhus, as in the Syriac. 

2. εἰς τιμήν] A common Ignatian 


4 ἀπέλαβον] GLA; ἀπελάβομεν g. 


6 ἀναψύξαι] 


phrase, more especially with Θεοῖ 
etc. (see examples in the note on 
§ 21 below); comp. also Polyc. 5 
εἰς τιμὴν τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου. 

3, Κρόκος] mentioned likewise in 
the letter to the Romans § 10, which 
also was written from Smyrna, as 
τὸ ποθητόν μοι ὄνομα. It is a rare 
name. 

Θεοῦ ἄξιος καὶ ὑμῶν] The same 
expression occurs also Rom.10. For 
Θεοῦ ἄξιος see the note on ὃ 1 ἀξίοις 
οὖσιν. 

ἐξεμπλάριονῦῚ)͵ ‘a pattern; not 
merely ‘a sample” The Latin ‘ex- 
emplar,’ ‘exemplarium,’ is properly 
a copy, not in the sense of a thing 
copied from another, but a thing 
to be copied by others; Hor. £#. 
i. 19. 17 ‘Decipit exemplar vitiis 
zmitabile. As a law term, it de- 
noted one of the authoritative origi- 
nals where a document was written 
in duplicate ; see Heumann-Hesse 
Hand-lexicon des Romischen Rechts 
s.v. Hence Arnob. adv. Nat. vi. 13 
‘Phryna...exemplarium fuisse per- 
hibetur cunctarum quz in opinione 
sunt Venerum,’ i.e. the original of 
all the statues of Venus held in 
repute. The older form is ‘exem- 
plar’ (‘exemplare,’ Lucr. ii. 124); but 
even this would become ἐξεμπλάριον 
in Greek, just as Apollinaris becomes 
᾿Απολλινάριος. The word occurs 
again TZyrall. 3 τὸ ἐξεμπλάριον τῆς 
ἀγάπης ὑμῶν, Smyrn. 12 ἐξεμπλάριον 
Θεοῦ διακονίας. It was natural that 


11] TO THE EPHESIANS. 35 


o 


/ ~ ~ / 
πλαριον THs ad vuwy ἀγάπης ἀπέλαβον, κατὰ πάντα 


\ \ \ = Ἢ 
5 ME ἀνέπαυσεν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν 6 πατήρ ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ 


ἀναψύξαι, ἅμα ᾿Ονησίμῳ καὶ Βούρρῳ καὶ Εὔπλῳ καὶ 


7 3) ee / a ΕΣ \ 3 / 5 3 , 
Φρόντωνι, δι ων TAVTAS υμας κατα aAYaATHV εἶδον" Οναι- 


GL; ἀναψύξει g (but refrigeret 1); dub. A. 
explained by the confusion of similar letters in the Syriac). 

Εὔπλῳ] G; εὔπλοϊ g*; euplo L; euphathe A. 
ὀναίμην] ὠναίμην G. 


in the first vowel as before. 
7 Φρόντωνι] φρόντονι G. 


a provincial, like Ignatius, should 
adopt from the Latin a word which 
was a law-term, just as he elsewhere 
adopts others which are military 
terms (Polyc. 6; see the note). 

4. κατὰ πάντα x.t.A.] The phrase 
κατὰ πάντα ἀναπαύειν occurs several 
times in Ignatius; Magn. 15, 7 γαζέ. 
12, Rom. 10, Smyrn. 9, 12 (comp. 
Smyrn. 10). The word ἀναπαύειν 
is similarly used by S. Paul of the 
‘refreshment’ arising from the kind- 
ly offices of another: 1 Cor. xvi. 18, 
Philem. 7, 20. 

5. ὡς kal αὐτὸν.. .«ἀναψύξαι) A remi- 
niscence of 2 Tim. i. 16 πολλάκις με 
ἀνέψυξεν [ὁ ᾿᾽Ονησίφορος] καὶ τὴν ἅλυσιν 
οὐκ ἐπησχύνθη...δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος 
εὑρεῖν κτλ. The Latin translator 
of the interpolated letters has been 
so possessed with this parallel, that 
he has added the words ‘ et catenam 
meam non erubuit’ here, and sub- 
stituted ‘ Onesiphoro’ for ‘ Onesimo’ 
just below. Ignatius exhibits another 
reminiscence of this context of S. 
Paul in Smyrn. 10 τὰ δεσμά pov ἃ 
οὐχ... ἐπησχύνθητε' οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαι- 
σχυνθήσεται ἡ τελεία πίστις, ᾿Ιησοῦς 
Χριστός, a passage which in thought 
closely resembles the one _ before 
us. For ἀναψύχειν comp. also 7rad/d. 
¥2. 

6. Evm\@] The name Εὔπλους is 
found occasionally in the inscrip- 
tions, as is also the feminine Εὐπλοία. 
In Boeckh C./. 1211 we have the 


Bovppy] G; cendaro A (to be 
L*g* have variations 


coincidence of names, Εὔπλους ’Ova- 
givov. The other form of the dative 
Εὔπλοϊ, which appears in the MSS 
of the interpolated epistles, is also 
legitimate, as πλοῦς is frequently 
declined τοῦ πλοός, τῷ Aoi, in later 
writers; see Lobeck Paral. p. 173 
sq, Phryn. p. 453. In Alciphr. 22. 
i. 18 I find it written Ἑὐπλόῳ. This 
Euplus and Fronto are not mentioned 
again by name, though they are 
probably included among the ‘many 
others’ who are mentioned together 
with Crocus, as being in the saint’s 
company at Smyrna, in Rom. Io. 
All these Ephesians, with the excep- 
tion of Burrhus, appear to have 
parted from Ignatius at Smyrna, as 
they are not mentioned in the epis- 
tles written from Troas. 

7. Oe ov] i.e. ‘as your repre- 
sentatives.’ For the general sense 
see the note on ἀπείληφα δ 1, and for 
διὰ comp. Magn. 2 ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς διὰ 
Aapa. 

ὀναίμην] Again a Pauline phrase, 
Philem. 20 (see the note there). In 
Ignatius it occurs several times in 
this same phrase or in similar con- 
nexions, Magn. 2, 12, Polyc. 1, 6; 
comp. Rom. 5. The clause occurs 
again almost word for word in 
Magn. 12. The spurious Ignatius 
has caught up this expression and 
repeats it, Mar. 2, Tars. 8, 10, Ant. 
14, Hero 6, 8, Philipp. 15. There 
may possibly be a play on the name 


3--2 


36 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


΄σ \ / / / 3 
μην ὑμῶν διὰ παντὸς, ἐάνπερ ἄξιος ὦ. 


’ oo 
πρέπον οὖν 


ἐστιν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον δοξάζειν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν 


\ / ς “- « > ~~ e - / 
Tov δοξάσαντα vas: ἵνα ἐν μιᾷ ὑποταγή κατηρτισμε- 


’ la / \ - / 
νοι, ὑποτασσόμενοι TH ἐπισκόπῳ Kal TW πρεσβυτερίῳ, 


\ / os , 
κατὰ TAVTA NTE ἡγιασμένοι. 


1 πρέπον οὖν] txt GL; add. ὑμᾶς g; add. vobis A. 


3 κατηρ- 


τισμένοι] Ls; ἦτε κατηρτισμένοι τῷ αὐτῷ vot καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ Kal τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε 


πάντες περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἵνα Gg (from 1 Cor. i. το). 


This addition is wanting not 


only in L, but also in A, where however the syntax is rearranged; fer/ectos fiert 


in omni submissione; ergo submisst estote episcopo etc. 


᾽Ονήσιμος here, as there seems cer- 
tainly to be in S. Paul; but this is 
not probable. 

I. ἐάνπερ ἄξιος ὧ] This doubt 
about his ‘worthiness’ is common in 
Ignatius; Magn. 12, 14, Tradl. 4, 13, 
Rom. 9, Smyrn. 11. See also the 
note on ἠξιώθην, Magn. 2. 

mpémov...ectw| This phrase ap- 
pears again, Magn. 3, 4, Rom. Io, 
Philad. το, Smyrn. 7; while πρέπει 
occurs in ὃ 4 below, Magn. 3, Trall. 
12, .57)27}772. 11, Polyc. τ, 7. 

2. δοξάζειν...τὸν do€acavra] See 
Philad. το δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα... καὶ ὑμεῖς 
δοξασθήσεσθε. For similar turns of 
expression see the note on Szyru. 
5 μᾶλλον δὲ k.7.A. 

3. κατηρτισμένοι]͵ ‘joined toge- 
ther, ‘settled’; comp. Phtlad. 8 
εἰς ἕνωσιν κατηρτισμένος, Smyrn. 1 
κατηρτισμένους ἐν ἀκινήτῳ πίστει. The 
Latin translator has rendered it here, 
as elsewhere, by ‘ perfecti,’ which 
would be ἀπηρτισμένοι. The promi- 
nent idea in this word is ‘ fitting to- 
gether’; and its force is seen more 
especially in two technical uses. (1) 
It signifies ‘to reconcile factions,’ 
so that a political umpire who ad- 
justs differences between contending 
parties is called καταρτιστήρ ; e. g. 
Herod. v. 28 ἡ MiAntos...vooncaca ἐς 
τὰ μάλιστα στάσι μέχρι ov μιν Πάριοι 
κατήρτισαν᾽ τούτους γὰρ καταρτισ- 


4 ὑποτασσόμενοι] 


τῆρας ἐκ πάντων Ἑλλήνων εἵλοντο οἱ 
Μιλήσιοι. (2) It is a surgical term 
for ‘setting bones’: e.g. Galen ΟΖ. 
XIX. p. 461 (ed. Kiihn) καταρτισμός 
ἐστι μεταγωγὴ ὀστοῦ ἢ ὀστῶν ἐκ τοῦ 
παρὰ φύσιν τύπου εἰς τὸν κατὰ φύσιν. 
The use of the word here recalls its 
occurrence in I Cor. i. 10 ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ 
λέγητε πάντες, καὶ μὴ ἢ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσ- 
ματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ 
νοὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ. From 
this passage of 5. Paul the Ignatian 
interpolator has introduced the words 
which I have here spaced into our 
text (see the upper note); and from 
the interpolated epistles they have 
passed into the Greek MS of the 
genuine epistles. The versions are 
our authorities for ejecting them. 
For a similar instance see the note 
on § I διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν. 

4. πρεσβυτερίῳγ This is a com- 
mon word in Ignatius; see below, 
$8 4,20, Maen. 2. 15, Tall. Binge 
13,.Phelad. Ἢ, ἘΠῚ; Suave. 8. 12. 
In the Apostolic writings it occurs 
only once of a Christian presbytery, 
1) Tim, iv. ΤΑ: 

III. ‘Ido not venture to use the 
tone of authority. I am only a 
learner with you. I need to be train- 
ed by you for the contest. Never- 
theless love would not allow me to 
be silent. I could not refrain from 
urging obedience to your bishop. 





111] 


7: 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


37 


, ΄ af > 
Ov διατασσομαι ὑμῖν, ὡς ὧν TL εἰ γὰρ Kal 


δέδ ’ a 3 / aI 5) / > , ~ 

ἐδεμαι ἐν TW OVOMATL, οὔπω ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ 
~ n~ A \ ᾽ — 

Χριστᾷ" νῦν [γὰρ] ἀρχήν ἔχω τοῦ μαθητεύεσθαι καὶ 

προσλαλώ ὑμῖν ὡς συνδιδασκαλίταις μου" ἐμὲ γὰρ ἔδει 


gLA; ἐπιτασσόμενοι G. 


6 τι] gA; τις GL. 


7 €v τῷ ὀνόματι] 


G; in nomine (165) christi L*; διὰ τὸ ὄνομα g* (add. αὐτοῦ vulg.); propter veri- 


tatis momen A. 


It may be a question whether we should read ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι or 


διὰ τὸ ὄνομα, but without doubt the words Chrtstt, veritatis, are glosses: see the 


lower note. 


The bishops abide in the mind of 
Christ, just as Christ is the Mind of 
the Father.’ 

6. Ov διατάσσομαι κιτ.λ.} Trail. 3 
ἵνα ὧν κατάκριτος ὡς ἀπόστολος ὑμῖν 
διατάσσωμαι, Rom. 4 οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος 
καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν. For 
the general sentiment comp. Barnab. 
I ἐγὼ δὲ οὐχ ws διδάσκαλος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑποδείξω ὀλίγα κ-ιτ.λ., 26. 
4 ἐρωτῶ ὑμᾶς ὡς εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν ὦν, and 
again οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
πρέπει ἀγαπῶντι.. γράφειν ἐσπούδασα, 
περίψημα ὑμῶν, Polyc. ἐάϊζ[. 12 ‘nihil 
vos latet; mihi autem non est con- 
cessum modo.’ For the reading τι; 
rather than ris, comp. I Cor. iii. 5, 7, 
τί οὖν ἐστιν ᾿Απολλώς; τί δέ ἐστιν 
Παῦλος;...οὔτε ὁ φυτεύων ἐστίν τι 
κιτιλ., where similarly, τίς...τίς is sub- 
stituted for τί...τί in some copies; 
see also Gal. ii. 6, vi. 3, εἶναί τι, and 
I Cor. xill. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 11, οὐδὲν εἶμι. 

καὶ δέδεμαι] ‘Even my bonds do 
not perfect me; even my bonds do 
not make me a full disciple, much 
less a teacher’; comp. Magz. 12 
ei yap καὶ δεδέμαι, πρὸς ἕνα τῶν λελυ- 
μένων ὑμῶν οὐκ εἰμί, Trall. 5 καὶ γὰρ 
ἐγὼ οὐ καθότι δεδέμαι... παρὰ τοῦτο 
ἤδη καὶ μαθητής εἰμι, πολλὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν 
λείπει κιιλ. For the additional 
dignity and authority which are con- 
ferred by his bonds, see the notes on 
§ 11 below, Magn. 1. 

7. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι) ‘the Name, i.e. 


8 γὰρ] Gg; autem L; om. A. 


of Christ. The Name is again used 
absolutely below ὃ 7 τὸ ὄνομα περι- 
φέρειν, Philad. 10 δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα; 
comp. Acts v. 41 ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος 
ἀτιμασθῆναι, 3 Joh. 7 ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθαν. So too [Clem. 
Rom.] ii. ὃ 13 τὸ ὄνομα δι ὑμᾶς μὴ 
βλασφημῆται... βλασφημεῖται τὸ ὄνομα, 
Hermas .527722. viii. 10 τὸ ὄνομα ἡδέως 
ἐβάστασαν, ix. 13 ἐὰν τὸ ὄνομα μόνον 
λάβῃς, 1b. ἐὰν τὸ ὄνομα φορῇς, 20. τὸ 
μὲν ὄνομα ἐφόρεσαν, ix. 28 οἱ πάσ- 
χοντες ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος, Apollon. 
in Euseb. H. £. ν. 18 κέκριται... οὐ 
dia τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ OC as ἐτόλμησε 
ληστείας, Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 6 
(p. 532). There is a tendency in 
later transcribers, who did not un- 
derstand this absolute usage, to 
supply a genitive: e.g. αὐτοῦ in Acts 
v.41; Christi, bonorum, in § 7 below; 
Domini, etc., in PAzlad. 10; τοῦ Κυ- 
ρίου, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, in [Clem. Rom.] ii. 
13. Similarly the versions interpo- 
late here. 

8. μαθητεύεσθαι] ‘of becoming a 
learner? For the idea see the note 
on ὃ I μαθητὴς εἶναι; for the verb, the 
note on ᾧ 10 μαθητευθῆναι. 

9. συνδιδασκαλίταις μου] ‘22y school- 
fellows.” 1 cannot find either διδασ- 
καλίτης Or συνδιδασκαλίτης elsewhere ; 
but there is a close analogy in com- 
pedagogita or conpedagogtta which 
appears in some Latin inscriptions 
(Fabretti Zuscr. Ant. p. 361 sq, Orelli 


38 


THE, EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


€ = € ~ Id / ε ΄σ 
ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὑπαλειφθῆναι πίστει, νουθεσίᾳ, ὑπομονή, μα- 


κροθυμίᾳ. 


> > 3 \ > Lh IA “ \ 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ  AyaTH οὐκ ἐᾷ ME σιωπᾶν περι 


ε ΄σ \ ΄σ / na ε ΄- .« 
ὑμῶν, διὰ τοῦτο προέλαβον παρακαλεῖν ὑμᾶς, ὅπως 


1 ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν] G; παρ᾽ ὑμῶν [g]. 


Inscr. Lat. 2818, 2819), and which 
points to the meaning. These com- 
pedagogite are the slaves trained 
under the same Zedagogus or in the 
same fedagogium, and are called 
elsewhere puert compedagogit (see 
Fabretti l.c.). The word is a mongrel 
(con-radaywyitns), like sudllzébertis 
(ovv-libertus) which also is found in 
some inscriptions. Similarly συνδι- 
δασκαλῖται are those who have had 
the same διδάσκαλος or διδασκαλία or 
διδασκαλεῖον. Their common διδάσ- 
καλος, contemplated here, is not S. 
Paul or any Apostle, but Christ; see 
δ 15 eis οὖν διδάσκαλος κιτιλ. Some 
would explain the word ‘joznt-teach- 
ers’? (comp. August. Conf. i. 9 ‘con- 
doctore suo’), and this meaning cer- 
tainly suits the following ὑπαλειφθῆναι 
well (comp. Plut. Vz¢. Pericl. 4 τῷ δὲ 
Περικλεῖ συνῆν, καθάπερ ἀθλητῇ, τῶν 
πολιτικῶν ἀλείπτης καὶ diOacKados); 
but it seems to be inadmissible on 
several grounds. (1) There is no 
reason why Ignatius should not have 
used συνδιδάσκαλος, which occurs in 
Cyril Alex. ZZ. Ixvii (X. p. 336, ed. 
Migne). (2) Analogy shows that the 
termination -irns signifies ‘one who 
has to do with’ anything, e.g. ’Apeo- 
mayitns, ἐγκρατίτης, ὁπλίτης, πολίτης, 
σωρίτης, τεχνίτης, παλαιστρίτης (Maca. 
Magn. iii. 26), πρωτοκαθεδρίτης (Her- 
mas V7s. iil. 9), etc. So συμφυ- 
Aakitns, not ‘a fellow-jailor,’ but ‘a 
fellow-prisoner’; συζυγίτης ‘a yoke- 
fellow, husband’ (συζυγία) ; συνορίτης 
‘a neighbour’ (συνορία) ; συνοδίτης “ἃ 
fellow-traveller’ (συνοδία); etc. (3) 
The συν- would be pointless other- 


ὑπαλειφθῆναι] G; suscipi (ὑποληφθῆναι) L; 
accipere a vobis fidem etc. A; ὑπομνησθῆναι g. 


2 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ k.7.A.] Σ has 


wise; since there is no reason for re- 
presenting the Ephesians as a doard 
or council of teachers. 

ἐμὲ yap ἔδει] This sentence must 
be connected with ov διατάσσομαι 
ὑμῖν κιτ.λ., ποῖ with the words imme- 
diately preceding, if συνδιδασκαλίταις 
is rightly interpreted ‘school-fellows’ ; 
and to such a connexion the im- 
perfect ἔδει ‘it weve meet’ (not δεῖ) 
points. See the language of Ignatius 
to the Romans ὃ 3. 

I. ὑπαλειφθῆναι)] ‘to have been a- 
nointed, as an athlete preparing for 
the contest. Compare the metaphor 
in Polyc. 2, 3, νῆφε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἀθλητής 
τὸ θέμα adpOapaia...weyadov ἐστὶν 
ἀθλητοῦ τὸ δέρεσθαι καὶ νικᾶν. For 
the meaning of ὑπαλείφειν see Com. 
in Plut. Vit. Pomp. 53 ὡς ἅτερος 
πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον ὑπαλείφεται TO χεῖρε 
θ᾽ ὑποκονίεται. This duty of oiling 
the athlete fell to the trainer, hence 
called ἀλείπτης (see e.g. Epict. Dass. 
iii, 10./8,) 11,20, 10, 11: 26: 22). and 
Ignatius here says that the Ephesians 
were the proper persons to perform 
this office for him. The metaphor 
is variously applied: e.g. ἐπαλείφειν 
ἐπί τινα ‘to incite against a person,’ 
Polyb. 11. 51. 2 (see Wesseling on 
Diod. Sic. 11. p. 138) ; ἀλείφειν πρός τι, 
ἀλείφειν ἐπί τι, ‘to educate to a thing’ 
Philo Leg. ad Caz. 24 (Il. p. 569), 
Quis rer. αν hers, Στ py AGO), 
Clem... Alex. SZvom.. τ: Ἐπ (pi 436): 
For its application to a moral and 
godly life generally, see Philo Om. 
prob. lib. 12 sq (Il. p. 458 sq) ro 
ἠθικὸν εὖ μάλα διαπονοῦσιν, ἀλείπταις 
χρώμενος τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις...τοιού- 


1π|| 


συντρέχητε τῇ γνώμη τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


/ 
OTOS, 


this one sentence, but nothing afterwards till § 8 ὅταν yap κ.τ.λ. 
περὶ ὑμών] Gg; pro vobis L; de vobis A; a vobis Σ (a Syriac 
5 ἡμῶν] LA; ὑμών G; al. g. 


ἐπειδὴ g. 
idiom). 


τους ἡ δίχα περιεργείας ἑλληνικῶν 
ὀνομάτων ἀθλητὰς ἀρετῆς ἀπεργάζεται 
φιλοσοφία, γυμνάσματα προτιθεῖσα 
τὰς ἐπαινετὰς πράξεις (Speaking of the 
Mosaic law), Epict. Déss. i. 24. I 6 
Θεός σε, ὡς ἀλείπτης, xK.T.A., Clem. 
Alex. Strom. vii. 3 (p. 839) οὗτος ὁ 
ἀθλητὴς ἀληθῶς ὁ ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ 
σταδίῳ τῷ καλῷ κόσμῳ τὴν ἀληθινὴν 
νίκην κατὰ πάντων στεφανούμενος 
τῶν παθῶν... περιγίνεται ὁ πειθήνιος τῷ 
ἀλείπτῃ γενόμενος ; comp. 20. vii. II 
(p. 872) ἡ ἀγάπη ἀλείφουσα καὶ 
γυμνάσασα κατασκευάζει τὸν ἴδιον 
ἀθλητήν. But τ came to be applied 
more especially, as here, to the 
struggle for the martyr’s crown. 
Hence the vision of Perpetua on the 
eve of her martyrdom, «4 εἴ. SS. Perp. 
et Fel. τὸ (Ruinart p. 84) ‘et δα: 
perunt me fautores mei oleo defrigere 
quomodo solent zz agonem, Tertull. 
ad Mart. 3 ‘Christus Jesus...vos 
spiritu zza2z¢ et ad hoc scamma pro- 
duxit.’ So too Basil. ZZ. clxiv (11. 
p- 255, Garnier) ὅτε μέντοι εἴδομεν τὸν 
ἀθλητήν, ἐμακαρίσαμεν αὐτοῦ τὸν 
ἀλείπτην ὃς παρὰ τῷ δικαίῳ κριτῇ 
κιτιλ. And in later writers this ap- 
plication becomes common. _ 5. 
Chrysostom, in his homily on Ig- 
natius, repeats the saint’s own 
metaphor; Of. Il. p. 598 B (ed. 
Bened.) ai yap κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πόλεις 
συντρέχουσαι πάντοθεν ἤλειφον τὸν 
ἀθλητὴν καὶ μετὰ πολλῶν ἐξέπεμπον 
τῶν ἐφοδίων. 

3. προέλαβον] i.e. ‘I did not wait 
for you,’ ‘I took the initiative,’ ‘I lost 
no time” For the infinitive after 
προλαμβάνειν comp. Mark xiv. 8. 

4. συντρέχητε] ‘concur, combine, 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


35" 
καὶ γὰρ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χρι- 


\ ἰδ / ε - ~ \ - 7 
τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ γνώμη, 


ἐπεὶ G; 


agree, and below ὃ 4; as eg. Clem. 
Hom. xx, 22 συνέδραμον αὐτοῦ τῷ 
βουλήματι (comp. i. 10). The sense is 
not uncommon in later writers. 

τῇ γνώμῃ Tov Θεοῦ] This expression 
is characteristic of Ignatius: Rom. 8, 
Smyrn. 6, Polye. 8. So too γνώμη 
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ here and PAz/ad. inscr. 

5. ἀδιάκριτον] ‘znseparable’ ; comp. 
Magn. τ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ διὰ 
παντὸς ἡμῶν ὧν. The word has va- 
rious meanings. In the active sense 
it signifies; (1) ‘ Unhesttating, un- 
wavering, single-minded, steadfast’ ; 
e.g. James ill. 17 ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία... 
ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος, where it is 
best explained by a previous ex- 
pression, 1. 6 μηδὲν διακρινόμενος. So 
elsewhere in these epistles, J/agu. 
15 κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, Trald, 
Ι ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον; 
comp. Heracleon in Orig. zz Joann. 
xiii. ὃ 10 (IV. p. 220) τὴν ἀδιάκριτον 
καὶ κατάλληλον τῇ φύσει ἑαυτῆς πίστιν, 
Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 3 (p. 190) ἀδια- 
κρίτῳ πίστει: see the note on ad.a- 
κρίτως Romz. inscr. (2) ‘ Vndescriminat- 
ing, indiscriminate, tndtscreet, reck- 
less’; e.g. Clem. Hom. 111. 5 τοῖς διὰ 
τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἀλόγοις ζώοις παρει- 
κασθεῖσι. (3) ‘Lmpartial, e.g. Clem. 
Alex. Strom. ii. 18 (p. 474) ἀγάπη... 
ἀμέριστός ἐστιν ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀδιάκριτος, 
κοινωνική. 80 the adverb, Zest. Duod. 
Patr. Zab. 7 ἀδιακρίτως πᾶσι σπλαγχ- 
νιζόμενοι ἐλεᾶτε. Its passive senses 
are; (4) ‘[useparable, tnseparate, as 
here; comp. Aristot. de Somun. 3 
(p. 458) dua δὲ τὸ γίνεσθαι ἀδιακρι- 
τώτερον τὸ αἷμα μετὰ τὴν τῆς τροφῆς 
προσφορὰν ὁ ὕπνος γίνεται, ἕως ἂν 
διακριθῇ τοῦ αἵματος τὸ μὲν καθα- 


40 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


3 A \ , ’ 9 
WS καὶ OL ἐπίσκοποι OL κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες ἐν 


> ~ ~ A 3 7 
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ γνωμῃ εἰσίν. 


ε ~ ΄σ -. ’ 
IV. “OGev πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν TH τοῦ ἐπισκο- 


« \ ζω 
σου Yep O7TEO καὶ TTOLELTE. 


᾽ / 
TO yap ἀξιονόμαστον 


΄ ΄σ ας, of « “ 
ὑμῶν πρεσβυτέριον, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀξιον, οὕτως συνήρμοσται 5 


1 ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώμῃ] G; in tesu christi voluntate A; iesu christi sententia 
L, where the omission of 7 (=7”) was easy between determinati and iesu; al. g. 


3 πρέπει ὑμῖν] G; decet vos L; καὶ ὑμῖν πρέπει [5]; et vos decet A. 


ρώτερον eis τὰ ἄνω τὸ δὲ θολερώτερον 
εἰς τὰ κάτω. (5) ‘lndistinguishable, 
as Athenag. Resurr. 2 κἂν πάνυ 
map ἀνθρώποις ἀδιάκριτον εἶναι δοκῇ 
τὸ τῷ παντὶ πάλιν προσφυῶς ἡνωμένον: 
and so ‘confused, unintelligible, 
Polyb. xv. 12. 9 ἀδιάκριτον φωνήν. 
(6) ‘Miscellaneous, Prov. xxv. I (LXX) 
αἱ παροιμίαι (παιδεῖαι) Σολομῶντος ai 
ἀδιάκριτοι. (7) ‘ Undecided’ (οἵ a con- 
test), Lucian Jug. Trag. 25 (11. p. 671) 
ὡς ἀποθάνῃ ἀήττητος, ἀμφήριστον ἔτι 
καὶ ἀδιάκριτον καταλιπὼν τὸν λόγον. 

ζῆν] For this substantival use of 
the word, see the note on ὃ 11. 

ἡ γνώμη] This term here takes the 
place of the more usual λόγος or 
σοφία, as describing the relation of 
Christ to the Father. On this ac- 
count γνώμη is employed in the one 
clause, and ἐν γνώμῃ in the other; 
though some authorities obliterate 
the distinction. 

I. τὰ πέρατα] ‘the farthest parts, 
i.e. of the earth: comp. Rom. 6 οὐδέν 
μοι ὠφελήσει τὰ πέρατα τοῦ κόσμου, 10. 
βασιλεύειν τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς. The 
expression [τὰ] πέρατα used absolutely 
as here occurs, Ps. lxv (Ixiv). 9 οἱ 
κατοικοῦντες Ta πέρατα: Comp. also 
Philo Leg. ad Caz. 3 (p. 548) of μέχρι 
περάτων, 2b. 27 (p. 571) ἀπὸ περάτων 
αὐτῶν, Celsus in Orig. ας. Cels. viii. 
72 ἄχρι περάτων νενεμημένους. Ignatius 
would be contemplating regions as 
distant as Gaul on the one hand and 
Mesopotamia on the other. The 


5 ὑμῶν) 


bishops, he says in effect, however 
wide apart, are still united in the 
mind of Jesus Christ; see Lzturg. D. 
Marc. p. 16 (Neale) τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς 
ἀπὸ γῆς περάτων μέχρι τῶν περάτων 
αὐτῆς, comp. Liturg. S. Basil. p. 164. 
Zahn objects that ra πέρατα cannot 
mean τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς, and himself 
conjectures τὰ ποίμνια (J. v. A. p. 564) 
or τὸν marepa (ad@ loc.), and Markland 
suggests τὴν χάριτα ; but the passages 
which I have quoted amply justify 
the absolute use of [τὰ] πέρατα. Zahn 
rightly objects (Λ΄ v. A. p. 299) to 
Pearson’s interpretation ‘episcopatum 
fuisse ab apostolis ex voluntate 
Christi institutum’ (V. /. p. 271), a- 
dopted also by Rothe and Uhlhorn. 
Ignatius is speaking here, not of 
episcopacy as instituted by Christ, 
but of the bishops themselves as 
sharing the mind of Christ. 

IV. ‘Act in concert with your 
bishop, as you are now doing. Your 
presbytery stands in the same rela- 
tion to the bishop, as the strings to 
the lyre. The theme of your song 
is Jesus Christ. The several members 
of the Church will form the choir. 
God will give the scale. Thus one 
harmonious strain will rise up from 
all and reach the ears of the Father. 
He will recognise your good deeds; 
and by your union among yourselves 
you will unite yourselves with him.’ 

4. ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε] See for simi- 
lar expressions elsewhere in Ignatius, 


Iv] TO THE EPHESIANS. 41 


Coty 15 ,ὔ ε ‘ / \ ~ > σε 
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ. διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ ὁμο- 
7 ε - \ ΄ 3 ’ Ἴ ~ x \ rs 
νοίᾳ ὑμῶν Kal συμφώνῳ ἀγάπη ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἄδεται. 
\ ε » A \ / e/ / ᾽ 
καὶ οἱ κατ᾽ ἀνδρα δὲ χορὸς γίνεσθε, ἵνα σύμφωνοι ὄντες 
3 ε / - ΄" 4 3 ΕἾ ἐν " ᾽ 
ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, χρῶμα Θεοῦ λαβόντες, ἐν ἑνότητι ἄδητε ἐν 


GL [A]; om. [5]: 
should read ἐγίνεσθε or ἐγένεσθε. 


Trall, 2, Smyrn. 4, Polyc. 1, 4. 

ἀξιονόμαστον] ‘worthy of record, 
‘worthy of fame.” The fondness of 
Ignatius for the word ἄξιος, which 
has been already remarked (note on 
§ 2), extends to its compounds also. 
Thus we have ἀξιαγάπητος, ἀξίαγνος, 
ἀξιέπαινος, ἀξιεπίτευκτος, ἀξιοθαύμα- 
στος, ἀξιόθεος, ἀξιομακάριστος, ἀξιό- 
πιστος, ἀξιόπλοκος, ἀξιοπρεπής, in these 
epistles. Some of these must have 
been coined for the occasion. 

6. ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ] See another 
application of this metaphor in 
Philad. τ συνευρύθμισται [ὁ ἐπίσκοπος] 
ταῖς ἐντολαῖς; ὡς χορδαῖς κιθάρα. 
Somp. Clem. Al. Protr. 1 (p. 5) 
ὁ TOU Θεοῦ Adyos...Tdv ἄνθρωπον, ψυχήν 
τε καὶ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, ἁγίῳ πνεύματι 
ἁρμοσάμενος, ψάλλει τῷ Θεῷ διὰ 
τοῦ πολυφώνου ὀργάνου καὶ προσ- 
άδει τούτῳ τῷ ὀργάνῳ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ" 
σὺ γὰρ εἶ κιθάρα κ-ιτ.λ. 

διὰ τοῦτο] ‘owing to this adjust- 
ment, this relation? 

8. οἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘ the individual 
members’ of the Church, who are to 
‘form themselves’ (γίνεσθε) into a 
band or chorus. Forthe characteristic 
Ignatian expression oi κατ᾽ ἄνδρα 
comp. below ὃ 20, Tradl. 13, Smyrn. 
"125 Pole. \t. 

χορὸς] So Rom. 2 ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
χορὸς γενόμενοι ᾷσητε τῷ πατρὶ ἐν 
Χριστῷ ᾿ἸἸησοῦ : comp. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vii. 14 (p. 885) ἡ ἐκκλησία 
Κυρίου ὁ πνευματικὸς ἅγιος χορός. 


9. χρῶμα Θεοῦ] ‘the scale of 


τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄξιον] GL; ἄξιον ὃν τοῦ θεοῦ [g]; al. A. 
8 γίνεσθε] G; γένεσθε [6]; γαείξ estis L; estote (or facti estis) A, 


Possibly we 
9 ἄδητε] ἄδετε G. 


God’: comp. e.g. Antiphanes in 
Athen. xiv. p. 643 ἔπειτα τὰ μέλη 
μεταβολαῖς καὶ χρώμασιν ws εὖ κέκραται, 
Plato Resp. x. p. 601 ἐπεὶ γυμνωθέντα. 
γε τῶν τῆς μουσικῆς χρωμάτων τὰ τῶν 
ποιητῶν, αὐτὰ ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν λεγόμενα κιτιλ. 
(see also Legg. ii. p. 655). The term 
χρώματα ‘hues’ applied to sounds is 
only one illustration of the very com- 
mon transference, by analogy, of 
ideas derived from one sense to 
another (see Farrar Chapiers on 
Language p. 297 sq). The word 
χρῶμα then, as a musical term, de- 
signated an interval between two full 
tones; comp. Aristid. Quint. p. 18 
ὡς yap τὸ μεταξὺ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος 
χρῶμα καλεῖται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ διὰ μέσων 
ἀμφοῖν θεωρούμενον χρῶμα προσείρηται. 
Hence it gave its name to the 
chromatic scale, which was called 
χρωματικὸν γένος, OF χρῶμα simply, 
as distinguished from the two other 
scales used by the Greeks, the da- 
tonic (διατονικὸν γένος or διάτονον) 
and enharmonic (ἐναρμόνιον γένος ΟΥ̓ 
ἁρμονία); see Aristoxenus 27477221. pp. 
19, 23 sq, 44, Euclid. Jair. Harn. 
p- 534 (ed. Gregory), Dion. Halic. 
de Comp. Verb. 19, Plut. de Mus. 11, 
32. sq (Mor. pp. 1134, 1142 sq), 
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vi. p. 366, 
Vitruv. Avch. v. 4, Macrob. Somn. 
Scip. ii. 4. See on this subject West- 
phal Harmonik u. Melopote der 
Griechen pp. 129 sq, 141 54, 263 
sq, Marquardt on Aristoxenus Harm. 
p. 246 sq and elsewhere. Of the 


42 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[1v 


pats μιᾷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ warp, iva sis καὶ 


ἀκούση καὶ ἐπιγινώσκῃ, δι ὧν εὖ πρασΘΈ ΤΕ; μέλη ὄντας 


τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. 


RERUN οὖν ἐστιν ἐκ ἐν ἀμώμῳ 


, ὯΝ e/ 
EVOTNTL ElValL, («νὰ καὶ Θεοῦ πάντοτε μετέχητε. 


V Ei \ ᾽ \ > ΄- 7 lA υ ΔῸΣ, 
: ι yao ἔγω ἐν μικρὼ χρόνῳ τοιαύτην συνή 


» \ \ 3 / ς ~ 3 7 
θειαν ἔσχον πρὸς τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὑμῶν, οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνην 


1 διὰ] GL; om. A (attaching Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to the following words and render- 
ing patri domini nostri iesu christi: the omission may be owing to homceoteleuton 


(MIAAId)- 


καὶ TO ἠγαπημένῳ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἶ. X. κι.τ.λ. 


chromatic scale itself there were three 
recognised modifications; Aristox. 
Harm. Ὁ. 50 τρεῖς δὲ χρωματικαί, 7 
τε τοῦ μαλακοῦ χρώματος καὶ 7 τοῦ 
ἡμιολίου καὶ ἡ τοῦ τονιαίου (comp. Aris- 
ἘΠῚ Quint. Ὁ. τὸ; ϑεχίς emp. 1: ο: 
Euclid. 1 c. p. 537 sq). Such sub- 
divisions or modifications of any of 
the three great γένη were called 
χρόαι, ‘colorations’ or ‘shadings’ ; 
e.g. Aristox. Harm. Ὁ. 24 κατὰ τὰ 
γένη Te καὶ Tas χρόας (see Marquardt’s 
note), comp. ib. p. 69 καθ᾽ ἑκάστην 
χρόαν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου γένους. These sub- 
divisions (χρόαι) of the χρῶμα were 
also themselves called χρώματα: 
see Euclid.l.c. Ignatius may have 
been led to choose a term which 
pointed chiefly to the chromatic 
scale, because this scale was espe- 
cially adapted to the instrument 
which suggested this elaborate meta- 
phor, the κιθάρα : comp. Philochorus 
in Athen. xiv. p. 637 sq Avoavdpos 
6 Σικυώνιος κιθαριστὴς πρῶτος μετέ- 
στησε τὴν ψιλοκιθαριστικὴν .... χρώ- 
ματά τε εὔχροα πρῶτος ἐκιθάρισε κ.οτ.λΔ.; 
Plut. Mor. p. 1137 E τῷ χρωματικῷ 
γένει... κιθάρα... ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐχρήσατο: 
see Westphal p. 131 sq. The Latin 
translator here roughly renders χρώμα 
by melos. 

ev ἑνότητι] The phrase occurs again 
δὲ 5, 14 below, Phzlad. 2, 5, Smyrn. 


The paraphrase in g is ἐν ἑνότητι ἕν γένησθε τῇ συμφωνίᾳ τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ 


2 ἐπιγινώσκῃ] cognoscat LA ; 


12, Polyc. 8. The words ἑνοῦσθαι, 
ἑνότης, ἕνωσις, are frequent in these 
letters, as might have been antici- 
pated from their general purport. 

2. δὶ ὧν εὖ πράσσετε] ‘through 
your good actions, as in § 14 δ ὧν 
πράσσουσιν ὀφθήσονται ; comp. ὃ 15 
50 ὧν λαλεῖ πράσσῃ κιτιλ. There is no 
ground for the conjectural reading 
δ᾽ ὅν. The Latin has not fer guem 
(as it has hitherto been read), but 
per que; and the Armenian trans- 
lates 72 bonis laboribus vestris. For 
εὖ πράσσειν in the sense, not of 
‘faring well,’ but of ‘acting well, 
comp. Smyrn. 11. 

μέλη] ‘ members, as Tradl. 11 ὄντας 
μέλη αὐτοῦ (see the note there). 
There is no play here, as Markland 
and others have supposed, on the 
other meaning of the word, ‘songs. 
Such an allusion would confuse the 
metaphor hopelessly, and would be 
unmeaning in itself. 

V. ‘I myself have found much 
happiness in my brief intercourse 
with your bishop ; much more then 
must you, who are closely united 
with him, as the Church is with 
Christ, and as Christ is with the 
Father. Let no man deceive him- 
self. None shall eat the bread who 
stand apart from the altar. The 
united prayers of the bishop and 


“ 


v] TO THE EPHESIANS. 43 


S > \ / 7 ΄σ ε ΄σ 7 

οὖσαν ἄλλα πνευματικήν, πόσω μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς μακαρίζω 
\ / « ς > ΄σ 

τοὺς ἀνακεκραμένους οὕτως, ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ᾿Ἰ]ησοῦ Χρι- 


~ \ ΄ \ ~ 7 .« > 
CTW Kal ws ᾿Ϊησοῦς Χριστος TW πατρι, ἵνα πάντα ἐν 


ἑνότητι σύμφωνα 1. 
ἢ ἐν 


ἐπιγινώσκων G; al. g. 
dvakexpauévous] g* 


junctos 1,: see the lower note. 


11 ἢ ἐντὸς] G Dam-Rup τ; sit intra L; ἐντὸς ἡ g. 


τοῦ Θεοῦ] GLg Dam-Rup; om. A. 


the whole Church are all powerful. 
Whosoever comes not to the con- 
gregation 15 self-willed, and falls 
under the condemnation of the 
Scriptures. Let us obey our bishop, 
if we would be God’s people.’ 

6. οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνην] i.e. ‘ not world- 
ly, ‘not after the ordinary ways of 
men’; see the note’on ὃ Ὁ “κατ᾽ 
ἀνθρώπων βίον. 

ὃ. ἀνακεκραμένους! ‘ closely attach- 
edad’ to him. This, rather than ἐγ- 
kekpapevous, seems to be the proper 
word, when attachment, friendship, 
is meant. See Pollux Oxzom. v. 113 
ἐπιτηδείως ἀνακέκραμαι πρὸς αὐτόν, 
where he gives συγκέκραμαι as ἃ 
synonyme, but not ἐγκέκραμαι ; and 
50 again, viii. 151: comp. also Bekker 
Anecd. p. 391 ᾿Ανακραθέντες" ἀνακε- 
ρασθέντες, ὁλοψύχως κολλώμενοι. For 
this use see Epict. XS a ae a I 
μή ποτε ἄρα τῶν προτέρων “συνήθων ἢ ἢ 
φίλων ἀνακραθῇς τινι οὕτως ὥστε 
κιτιλ., M. Antonin. x. 24 προστετηκὸς 
καὶ ἀνακεκραμένον τῷ σαρκιδίῳ, Clem. 
Hom. ix. 9 τῇ Ψυχῇ ἀνακίρνανται 
(comp: §§ 11, 15» 15), Clem. Alex. 
Exc. Theod. 36 (p. 978) τῷ ἑνὶ τῷ δι 
ἡμᾶς μερισθέντι ἀνακραθῶμεν, Orig. 
c. Cels. vill. 75 ἀνακραθῶσι τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
λόγω, Euseb. V. (. iil, 12: comp. 
Philo de Praem. et Poen. 16 (11. p. 
424),.Plut. Vit. Rom. 29,.V2t. Cat. 
25, and the words in Eur. Αἰ. 253 


4 μετέχητε] μετέχετε G. 
(but vv.ll.); τοὺς ἐνκεκραμένους G3 gui mixti estis A; con- 


\ / 
μηδεὶς mAavacOw: ἐὰν μή τις 
ντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὑστερεῖται τοῦ ἄρτου {τοῦ 


8 τοὺς 


οὕτως] GL; αὐτῷ [g]; cum eo [A]. 


e - e ~ 
ὑστερεῖται] ὑστερεῖτε G, 


χρῆν γὰρ μετρίας εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλίας 
θνητοὺς ἀνακίρνασθαι (with Valck- 
naer’s note). 

10. μηδεὶς πλανάσθω] As Smyrn. 
6. So too the Apostolic phrase 
(S. Paul and S. James) μὴ πλανᾶσθε, 
§ 16 below, Magn. 8, Philad. 3 
(see the note). 

II. tov θυσιαστηρίου] The same 
expression occurs again T7yvall. 7 
6 ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὧν καθαρός 
ἐστιν k.t.A. The θυσιαστήριον here is 
not the altar, but the enclosure in 
which the altar stands, as the pre- 
position ἐντὸς requires. This meaning 
is consistent with the sense of the 
word, which (unlike βῶμος) signifies 
‘the place of sacrifice’; and it is 
supported also by examples of its 
use as applied to Christian churches; 
e.g. Conc. Laod. Can. 19 μόνοις ἐξὸν 
εἶναι τοῖς ἱερατικοῖς εἰσιέναι εἰς τὸ 
θυσιαστήριον (i.e. the sacrarzum),com- 
pared with Can. 44 ov δεῖ γυναῖκας 
ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ εἰσέρχεσθαι 
(Labb. Cone. I. pp. 1533, 1537, ed. 
Colet.). This seems also to be its 
sense in Rev. xi. I μέτρησον τὸν ναὸν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ TO θυσιαστήριον καὶ τοὺς 
προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν 
τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν, καὶ 


μὴ αὐτὴν μετρήσῃς; ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς 
ἔθνεσιν ; comp. XIV. 17, 18 ἄλλος 
ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ vaov... καὶ 


ἄλλος ἄγγελος [ἐξῆλθεν] ἐκ τοῦ θυσια- 


44 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v 


Θεοῦ!. 


> \ » / ~ e/ ~ » , \ / 
ἰσχυν ἔχει, πόσῳ μαλλον ἢ TE TOV ἐπισκόπου καὶ πα- 


/ \ / 
εἰ γὰρ ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου προσευχὴ τοσαύτην 
΄σ > , e Ss \ 3 / 93 \ \ > \ 
ons τῆς ἐκκλησίας. ὁ οὖν μὴ ἐρχόμενος ἐπὶ TO αὐτὸ 
ὯΝ sf € ~ \ A , * 4 
οὗτος ἤδη ὑπερηφανεῖ Kat ἑαυτὸν διέκρινεν γέγραπται 
/ 
σπουδά- 5 


’ c , «ς \ U 
yap, ὑπερηφάνοιο ὁ Θεὸς ANTITACCETAI. 


2 re] Gg Dam-Rup; om. LA. 


Urepnpavel] ὑπεριφανεῖ G, and so ὑπεριφάνοις just below. 
διακρίνει Dam-Rup; condemnavit L; al. 


otnpiov. (For the ναός, as confined to 
the holy place and distinguished 
from the court of the altar, see Clem. 
Rom. 41.) 

The reference here is to the plan 
of the tabernacle or temple. The 
θυσιαστήριον is the court of the con- 
gregation, the precinct of the altar, 
as distinguished from the outer court. 
The application of this imagery, 
which Ignatius had in view, appears 
from the continuation of the parallel 
passage already quoted, 7rad/. 7 ὁ δὲ 
ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὧν ov καθαρός ἐστιν, 
τουτέστιν, ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσ- 
βυτερίου καὶ διακόνου πράσσων τει, 
οὗτος οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν τῇ συνειδήσει. 
The man who separates himself from 
the assembly of the faithful, lawfully 
gathered about its bishop and pres- 
byters, excludes himself, as it were, 
from the court of the altar and from 
the spiritual sacrifices of the Church. 
He becomes as a Gentile (Matt. xviii. 
17); he is impure, as the heathen is 
impure. See esp. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
vil. 6 (p. 848) ἔστι γοῦν τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
θυσιαστήριον ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἐπίγειον τὸ 
ἄθροισμα τῶν ταῖς εὐχαῖς ἀνακειμένων, 
μίαν ὥσπερ ἔχον φωνὴν τὴν κοινὴν καὶ 
μίαν γνώμην κιτιλ. (with the whole 
context). Thus θυσιαστήριον, being 
at once the place of sacrifice and the 
court of the congregation, was used 
metaphorically for the Church of 
Christ, the θυσιαστήριον ἔμψυχον, as 
S. Chrysostom terms it. Somewhat 


4 οὗτος] GA; sic (οὕτως) L; al. σ΄. 
duéxpwev] G; 
ge; ‘def. A. 5 γάρ] GLA; δὲ 
similarly in Polyc. PAz?. 4 γινωσκούσας 
ὅτι εἰσὶν θυσιαστήριον Θεοῦ, it is ap- 
plied to a section of the Church, the 
body of ‘widows’; see also AZost. 
Const 111. Ὁ, ΤῊ ἵν: 3: 

Thus 5. Ignatius does not here 
refer to a literal altar, meaning the 
Lord’s table. Too much stress per- 
haps has been laid on the fact that 
the early Christians were reproached 
by the Gentiles with having no 
temples and no altars, and that the 
Apologists acknowledged the truth 
of the charge, explaining that their 
altars, temples, and sacrifices alike 
were spiritual: e.g. Minuc. Fel. Ocz. 
32, Orig. c. Cels. vill. 17. But, inde- 
pendently of this, the literal inter- 
pretation will not stand here, because 
the place for the Christian laity would 
not be ἐντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. In fact 
the imagery here is explained by 
the following words, where ὁ ἐπίσκο- 
πος καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία corresponds 
to θυσιαστήριον, while ἡ προσευχὴ is 
the spiritual sacrifice therein offered; 
as eg. Clem. Al. Zc. 97 θυσία τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας λόγος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ψυχῶν 
ἀναθυμιώμενος, Orig. ὦ. c. ἀναπέμπεται 
ἀληθῶς καὶ νοητῶς εὐώδη θυμιάματα αἱ 
προσευχαὶ ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως καθαρᾶς. 
For the prayers of the Christians, as 
taking the place which the sacrifices 
held under the old dispensation, see 
the note on Clem. Rom. 44 προσενεγ- 
κόντας τὰ δώρα. In Philad. 4 θυσιαστή- 
ρίον seems to be used (see the note 





vi] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


45 


5 τ ’ ΄ , ᾿ 
σωμεν οὖν μὲ ἀντιτάσσεσθαι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ἵνα ὦμεν 


΄ / 
Θεοῦ ὑποτασσόμενοι. 


wt, 


- Dam-Rup; al. g. 


\ / , (πὸ Sionh 
Kai ὅσον βλέπει Tis σιγῶντα ἐπίσκοπον, 


6 οὖν] GLS,; om. A [Dam-Rup 5] [Anton 3]; al. g. 
ἀντιτάσσεσθαι] LA L, 82 Dam-Rup Anton; ἀντιτάσσεσθε G; al. g. 
G; θεῷ Dam-Rup Anton; deo LS,; dub. A; al. g. 


7 Θεοῦ] 
8 καὶ ὅσον] ἃ Dam-Rup 


Anton; e¢ guanium L; ὅσῳ οὖν [6]; e¢ guando A; guia quantum (quanto) S). 
ἐπίσκοπον] G Dam-Rup; τὸν ἐπίσκοπον [g] Anton. 


there) as here andin 7ra//. 7 (already 
quoted). For other applications of 
the term, likewise metaphorical, see 
Magn. 7, Rom. 2. These five are 
the only passages in which it occurs 
in the Epistles of Ignatius. 

τοῦ ἄρτου Tov Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘the spiritual 
sustenance which God provides for 
His people.’ There is probably a 
reference to the eucharistic bread 
here, as there is more plainly in 
Rom. 7 (see the note there), The 
eucharistic bread however is not ex- 
clusively or directly contemplated, 
but only taken as a type of the 
spiritual nourishment which is dis- 
pensed through Christ. This re- 
ference (like Rom. 7) seems to be 
inspired by Joh. vi. 31 sq, where 
also the eucharistic bread furnishes 
the imagery, while at the same time 
a larger application is contemplated, 
ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ καταβαίνων 
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ «7A. If so, the 
metaphor reverts ultimately to the 
manna, and thus harmonizes with 
the preceding θυσιαστήριον. The 
manna was the bread provided by 
God for the congregation of Israel. 
For a more direct reference to the 
eucharistic bread, or at least to the 
agape, see below § 20; and for a dif- 
ferent application and meaning of 
ἄρτος, Rom. 4. It will be seen from 
the authorities that the words τοῦ 
Θεοῦ are somewhat doubtful. Per- 
haps they should be omitted: see an 
exactly parallel case, Rom. 4 καθαρὸς 


ἄρτος [Θεοῦ], with the note. 

I. εἰ yap ἑνὸς κιτ.λ.] An allusion to 
our Lord’s promise, Matt. xviii. 19, 
20, ἐὰν δύο συμφωνήσουσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν 
κιτιλ. 

4. ἑαυτὸν διέκρινεν] ‘separates him- 
self then and there.” He pronounces, 
as it were, the sentence of excommu- 
nication on himself. For this force 
of the aorist see Gal. v. 4 (note), and 
comp. Winer Gramm. xl. p. 345 
(Moulton). The Latin condemnavit 
does not imply a different reading 
κατέκρινεν (as Zahn), but is a mere 
mistranslation, just as this same 
version renders κατηρτισμένοι fer- 
fecti (δ 2), as if it were ἀπηρτισμένοι, 
and ἀδιάκριτον (δ 4) zacomparabile, as 
if it were ἀσύγκριτον. 

5. Ὑπερηφάνοις κιτ.λ.] A quotation 
from Prov. iii. 34. It is quoted also 
1 Pet. v. 5, James iv. 6, Clem. Rom. 
30; see the note on the last passage. 
In all alike [6] Θεὸς is substituted for 
Κύριος of the LXx; but Ignatius is 
alone in placing ὑπερηφάνοις first. 

6. ὦμεν Θεοῦ κ-τ.λ.}] ‘we may be 
Goa’s by our subjection’; comp. καὶ ὃ 
ὅλοι ὄντες Θεοῦ, Magn. 10 οὐκ ἔστιν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, Philad. 3 ὅσοι Θεοῦ εἰσὶν... 
οὗτοι Θεοῦ ἔσονται, Rom. 7 ἐμοὶ (ν. 1. 
ἐμοῦ) γίνεσθε, τουτέστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
The substitution of the dative was 
so obvious, and almost inevitable, 
that I have adopted the genitive 
against the preponderance of autho- 
rities. 

VI, ‘Ifa bishop is silent, he only 


46 


πλειόνως αὐτὸν φοβείσθω. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v1 


Fr \ « / 
πάντα yap ὃν πέμπει ὁ 


> ,ὔ 3 57 3 7 .« ὃ =~ ¢ lo 3 \ 
οἰκοδεσπότης Els ἰδίαν οἰκονομίαν, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτον 


δέχεσθαι, ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν πέμψαντα. 
δηλονότι ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν Κύριον δεῖ προσβλέπειν. 


Ss ᾽ / 
TOV οὖν ἐπίσκοπον 


3 \ 
auTos 


\ > "0 , ε a ε ΄σ \ 3 Θεῶώ €U- 
μεν ουν νήσιμος ὑυὑπερέτπαίινει υμων THV EV , U 


/ e/ / \ / Lee 3 ©) ie 
ταξίαν, ὅτι πάντες κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ζῆτε καὶ OTL EV ὑμῖν 


1 πλειόνως] G (written πλειόνωςαυτὸν); πλεῖον [5]; πλέον Dam-Rup 5 Anton 


πέμπει] GLg Dam-Rup 5 Anton; ἂν πέμπῃ Dam-Rup τ; με: A. 


2 οὕτως 


δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν] GL Anton; οὕτως ἡμᾶς δεῖ Dam-Rup 1; οὕτως δεῖ ὑμᾶς Dam-Rup 5; 


οὕτως αὐτὸν δεῖ ἡμᾶς σ. 
Dam-Rup 1; recifere L. 
Rup 5 Anton; dub. LA. 


deserves the more reverence. The 
master’s steward must be received as 
the master, the bishop as Christ. 
Onesimus himself praises you. He 
tells me that no heresy has a home 
among you and that you will not 
listen to one who speaks of anything 
else but Christ.’ 

σιγῶντα] Ignatius returns to this 
subject again ὃ 15, without how- 
ever mentioning the bishop. Simi- 
larly he commends the quiet and 
retiring disposition of the bishop of 
Philadelphia (Pz/ad. 1), who is not 
named ; and he deprecates any one 
presuming on the youth of Damas the 
bishop of Magnesia (JZagn. 3). 

2. ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης] Apparently an 
allusion to the parable in Matt. xxi. 
33. sq. The words εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν oiko- 
νομίαν are a condensed expression for 
εἰς τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου (or 
ἀμπελῶνος), 

οὕτως δεῖ κιτ.λ.] Comp. John xiii. 
20 ὁ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω ἐμὲ 
λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων λαμβάνει 
τὸν πέμψαντά με, together with Matt. 
Χ. 40 ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, καὶ 
ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστεί- 
λαντά με. 


3 δέχεσθαι] Gg Dam-Rup 5 Anton; ὑποδέξασθαι 
πέμψαντα] Gg Dam-Rup 1; πέμποντα Dam- 
οὖν] Gg Anton, and so S,A; γοῦν Dam-Rup 5. 
4 δηλονότι] GLS,; om. A Anton Dam-Rup. 
Dam-Rup, and so LS,A; προβλέπειν G. 


προσβλέπειν] g Anton 
5 μὲν οὖν] GL; atgue igitur A; 


7. κατοικεῖ] ‘has its permanent 
abode’; see the note on Clem. Rom. 
inscr. At the same time though no 
one had sef¢¢led here, Ignatius speaks 
of certain heretics as παροδεύσαντας 
§ 9. 
8. περὶ κιτ.λ.}1 have ventured so to 
emend the text, as the Armenian 
Version suggests, and as the sense 
seems to require, substituting ntte- 
piHcoy for Htepincoy; see the 
faulty reading of A, womep for os 
περὶ, in [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 1. Com- 
pare Philad. 6 ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότεροι περὶ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ λαλῶσιν, οὗτοι 
ἐμοὶ στῆλαί εἰσιν κιτ.λ., and simi- 
larly Trall. 9 κωφωθῆτε οὖν, ὅταν 
ὑμῖν χωρὶς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ λαλῇ τις. 
Another simple emendation would be 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: comp. Magn. 10 
ἄτοπόν ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν λαλεῖν 
καὶ ἰουδαΐζειν, Rom. 7 μὴ λαλεῖτε 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κόσμον δὲ ἐπιθυμεῖτε. 
The Latin alguem amplius quam 
Iesum Christum loguentem 15. ambi- 
guous, and might represent the ac- 
cusative as well as the genitive. 

VII. ‘Certain false teachers are 
going about, who profess the Name 
of Christ in guile. Avoid them, as 


vil] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


47 


7ὔ J - PE / 
οὐδεμία αἵρεσις κατοικεῖ" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἀκούετέ τινος πλέον 


ἢ περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ λαλοῦντος ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 


VIL. 


be J 7 / ΄σ \ »/ 
Εἰώθασιν yap τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ TO ὄνομα 


περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια Θεοῦ: οὗς δεῖ 


ε > ε 7 > / > \ \ / A 
ὑμᾶς ws θηρία ἐκκλίνειν: εἰσὶν yao κύνες λυσσῶντες 
b 


λαθροδῆκται, ovs δεῖ ὑμᾶς φυλάσσεσθαι ὄντας δυσθερα- 


, 
σευτοῦυς. 


μέντοι [6]. 


8 ἢ περὶ] guam (ἤπερ) 


- 3 / > \ 
εἰς ἰατρος εΕστιν".9 OAPKLKOS Kal πνευματικός, 


L; ἢ μόνου g (a paraphrase); εἴπερ G. 


In A the sentence is translated e¢ non audiatis gquemquam, st non in veritate de tesu 


christo loguatur vobiscum. See the lower note. 


but l adds christz); add. donorum A; 
glosses. 


add. χριστοῦ Dam-Rup 1. 
10 ἄλλα Twa] So app. most Mss of g* 
ἄλλά τινα (sic) G; sed (ἀλλὰ) guaedam L; εἰ revera (om. Twa) A. 
δῆκται] G Dam-Rup; λαθροδῆκτοι g (MSS). 

Theodt Gelas Sev-Syr 5, 6; add. yap Anon-Syr,; al. g. 


9 τὸ ὄνομα] txt GLg (Mss, 
See § 3 for similar 
, and Dam-Rup (Lequien) ; 
12 λαθρο- 
13 εἷς] txt GLA Athan 


gapkikos] txt 


[17 [A] Athan Gelas Theodt Sev-Syr (twice) Anon-Syr,; add. τε G; al. δ. 


wild beasts. They are like mad 
dogs, whose bite is hard to heal. 
There is only one sure Physician, 
flesh and spirit, create and increate, 
God in man, Life in death, the Son of 
Mary and the Son of God, passible 
first and then impassible, even Jesus 
Christ our Lord.’ 

9. τὸ ὄνομα K.T.A. | Comp. Polyc. 
Phil. 6 τῶν pevdadeh pov καὶ τῶν ἐν 
ὑποκρίσει φερόντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
Κυρίου. For the absolute use of τὸ 
ὄνομα see above § 3. 

10. ἄλλα τινὰ] ‘certain other things. 
It seems necessary to read ἄλλα; 
since the oppositive conjunction 
ἀλλὰ would be quite out of place 
after δόλῳ πονηρῷ. 

11. θηρία] So Smyri. 4 προφυλάσσω 
δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἀνθρωπομόρ- 
gov «rd. In Philad. 2 they are 
called ‘wolves.’ 

12. λαθροδῆκται] Various forms of 
the word occur, λαθροδήκτης, as here, 
being the commonest, comp. Chrysost. 
Hom. in Ephes. xv. καθάπερ οἱ λαθρο- 
δῆκται τῶν κυνῶν οἱ TOY μὲν προσιόντα 
οὐδὲν ὑλακτοῦσιν K.T-A. (Of. XI. p. 115 


A); λαθροδῆκτος (?) in the correspond- 
ing passage of the Pseudo-Ignatius: 
λαθροδάκτης Pallad. Vzt. Chrys.(Chrys. 
Of. XIII. p. 21); λαθραιόδηκτος, Photius 
in Oecum. ad Phil. iii. 2 ; λαθροδάκνης, 
Antiphanes in Anthol. Grec. τι. p. 
189 (Jacobs); AaOpodaxvos (?), Nilus 
Epist. i. 309, p. 196 A(Migne). The 
recognised classical equivalent was 
λαίθαργος (λάθαργος), e.g. Arist. Eg. 
1068. Phrynichus (Bekker Axecd. p. 
50) on AdOapyos κύων Says, τοῦτο δὲ οἱ 
πολλοὶ παραφθείραντες λαθροδήκτην κα- 
λοῦσιν. 

δυσθεραπεύτους i.e. ‘their madness 
is a virulent disease which is hard to 
cure and which they communicate to 
others by their bite’: comp. Soph. 
Ajax 609 δυσθεράπευτος Αἴας...θείᾳ 
μανίᾳ ξύναυλος. 

13. εἷς ἰατρός] ‘There is only one 
physician who can cope with it’: 
comp. Clem. Alex. Quzs div. salv. 29 
(p- 952) τούτων δὲ τῶν τραυμάτων μόνος 
ἰατρὸς Ἰησοῦς «.7.A., Orig. «. (είς. il. 
67 (I. p. 438) ἦλθε σωτὴρ ὁ Κύριος 
ἡμῖν μᾶλλον ὡς ἰατρὸς ἀγαθός K.T-A. 
For the connexion of ἰατρὸς and 


48 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[vir 


\ \ Lng doy > > / / 3 , 
γεννητὸς Kal ἀγέννητος, ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ 
\ > ΄“ ~ 
ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθη- 


᾽ ΄σ 7 ~ 
τὸς Kal τότε ἀπαθής, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν. 


I γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος] G, and so app. Athan (though some Mss and the 
edd. read γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος); genitus et ingenitus L; factus et non factus A 
Gelas Sev-Syr (twice) Anon-Syr,; γεννητὸς ἐξ ἀγεννήτου Theodt. The words 
substituted in g are ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ ἀγέννητος... τοῦ δὲ μονογενοῦς πατὴρ 
καὶ γεννήτωρ. See the excursus at the end of this epistle. ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ 
Θεός] Athan Theodt Gelas Sev-Syr (twice) Anon-Syr,; deus et filius hominis 
[A] (reading WII | filius hominis’ for Leis in homine ; see Peter- 
mann); ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός GL; al. g. ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή] Athan 
Theodt Sev-Syr (twice) Anon-Syr,; vera vita οὐ in morte vivus [A]; i morte 
vita aeterna Gelas; ἐν ἀθανάτω ζωὴ ἀληθινῇ (the dative is intended, for this Ms 





θηρίον see Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 2 
Tov προκαθεζόμενον δεῖ ἰατροῦ τόπον 
ἐπέχειν, οὐ θηρίου ἀλόγου θυμὸν ἔχειν. 
Compare § 15 εἷς οὖν διδάσκαλος. 

σαρκικὸς x.t.A.]| The antithesis of 
σαρκικὸς and πνευματικὸς is intended 
to express the human and the Divine 
nature of Christ respectively; comp. 
Smyrn. 3 ὡς σαρκικός, καίπερ πνευμα- 
τικῶς ἡνωμένος τῷ πατρί. 

For the constant recurrence of the 
combination σάρξ and πνεῦμα in Ig- 
natius in various relations, see the 
note on § 1lobelow. The expressions 
σαρκικός, γεννητός, ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ἐν 
θανάτῳ, ἐκ Μαρίας, παθητός, here are 
introduced to emphasize the reality 
of Christ’s humanity against the 
phantom theory of the Docetics: see 
the note on 7yra//. 9. For the use 
of πνεῦμα in early Christian writers, 
as opposed to σάρξ and expressing 
the Divine nature of Christ as the 
Λόγος, see 2 Clem. ὃ 9 Χριστὸς ὁ 
Κύριος... ὧν μὲν TO πρῶτον πνεῦμα, 
ἐγένετο σάρξ, with the note. The 
alternative is that σαρκικὸς k.t.d. 
should be taken closely with ἰατρὸς 
‘a physician for flesh and spirit a- 
like’; but the antitheses which follow 
seem to require the other explanation. 

For this sentence of antitheses 
compare Polyc. 3 τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν dv 


ἡμᾶς ὁρατόν, τὸν ἀψηλάφητον, [τὸν dv’ 
ἡμᾶς ψηλαφητόν), τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν δι᾽ 
ἡμᾶς παθητόν κιτιλ. See also Tertull. 
de Carn. Chr. 5 ‘Ita utriusque sub- 
stantiz census hominem et Deum 
exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum, 
hinc carneum, inde spiritalem, hinc 
infirmum, inde preefortem, hinc mori- 
entem, inde viventem,’ a passage 
which too strongly resembles the 
words of Ignatius to be independent. 
It is worth while observing that in 
the immediate context Tertullian 
quotes the incident from Luke xxiv. 
39, which Ignatius elsewhere (S7yrn, 
3) gives from another source. Comp. 
also Melito Fragm. 13 (ed. Otto) 
‘judicatum esse judicem [et incom- 
prehensibilem prehensum esse] et in- 
commensurabilem mensuratum esse 
et impassibilem passum esse et im- 
mortalem mortuum esse et caelestem 
sepultum esse. Dominus enim noster 
homo natus...mortuus est, ut vivifi- 
caret, sepultus est, ut resuscitaret’; 
Fragm. 14 ‘quum sit incorporeus, 
corpus ex formatione nostra texuit 
sibi...a Maria portatus et Patre suo 
indutus, terram calcans et caelum 
implens, etc.’ 

I. γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος ‘generate 
and ingencrate, 1.6. ‘generate as re- 
gards His human nature and ingene- 


vi1I] TO THE EPHESIANS. 


49 
VITI. 


5 ἐξαπατᾶσθε, ὅλοι ὄντες Θεοῦ. 


Μὴ Ὰ 2 es 3 , e/ Σ 
ἡ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατάτω, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ 
“ἶ \ / > 
ὅταν yao μηδεμία ἐπι- 
7ὔ ae ἢ 3 [aor e / ε > 4 
θυμία ἐνήρεισται ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ δυναμένη ὑμᾶς βασανίσαι, 


does not write the iota subscript) G; 272 cmmortali vita vera L; al. σ. 2 καὶ 
ἐκ] GLA Athan Theodt Sev-Syr 5; ἐκ (om. καὶ) Sev-Syr 6 Gelas Anon-Syr, ; 
al. g. 3 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν] A Theodt Sev-Syr (twice) 
Anon-Syr,; dominus 7105 767, iesus christus Gelas ; dominus christus noster LL; om. G; 
al. g. 5 ὅταν γὰρ] = commences again here and continues to the end of 
the chapter. ἐπιθυμία] ZA g; ἔρις GL, see below. 6 ἐνήρεισται 
plantata est ZA; complexa est (évelpnrac?) L; ἐνείρισται G; ὑπάρχῃ [g*]. The 
impossible word ἐνείρισται is retained even by the latest editors (e.g. Hefele, 
Jacobson, Cureton, Dressel, Petermann, Lipsius, etc.), except Zahn and Funk. 


Dressel has accidentally transposed the words, ἐνείρισται ἔρις, in his text. 


rate as regards His deity.’ The 
words γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος are here 
used to signify ‘create and increate,’ 
in which sense the more careful 
dogmatic language of a later age 
would have employed in preference 
the forms γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος with 
the single ν. See the excursus at the 
end of this epistle. 

ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεός] This reading is 
demanded alike by the great pre- 
ponderance of authorities and by the 
antithetical character of the sentence. 
The substitution ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος 
Θεός may have been due to the fear of 
countenancing the Apollinarian doc- 
trine that the Logos took the place 
of the human νοῦς in Christ. 

ev θανάτῳ x.t.’.] For His death is 
our life, His passion is our resurrec- 
tion; comp. e.g. S7myrn. 5 τὸ πάθος 
6 ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἀνάστασις. Here again 
there is reference to His two natures. 
He died as man: He lives and gives 
life as the Eternal Word. 

2. ἐκ Μαρίας] See below ὃ 18, 
-Trall. 9, and comp. Smyrz. 1. 

πρῶτον] He might have said with 
equal truth πρῶτον ἀπαθὴς καὶ τότε 
παθητός, as in Polyc. 3 (already 
quoted) τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν dv ἡμᾶς παθητόν, 
but in these antitheses he commences 
with the humanity, as being the point 
attacked by the Docetic teachers, 


MSN. II, 


VIII. ‘Suffer not yourselves to 
be led astray ; for now ye are wholly 
given to God. So long as ye are 
free from any evil craving, ye live 
after God. I would gladly devote 
myself for the renowned Church of 
Ephesus. Carnal men are incapable 
of spiritual things, as spiritual men 
are incapable of carnal things. With 
you, even the things done after the 
flesh are spiritual, for they are done 
in Christ.’ 

5. ὄντες Geov] See the note on 
§ 5 ἵνα ὦμεν Θεοῦ. 

ἐπιθυμία! The combination of 
authorities leaves no doubt that 
this is the correct reading; comp. 
Ephes. iv. 22 κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς 
ἀπάτης. For the connexion of unre- 
strained desire (ἐπιθυμία) with false 
teaching see 2 Tim. iii. 6 αἰχμαλωτεύ- 
οντες γυναικάρια... ἀγύμενα ἐπιθυμίαις 
ποικίλαις, 2 Pet. ii. 18 δελεάζουσιν ev 
ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκός (comp. ver. 10), Jude 
16, 18. The reading ἔρις, though not 
inappropriate in itself (comp. Clem. 
Alex. Strom. vii. 16, p. 894, ἔριν ἣν ev 
ταῖς αἱρέσεσι προκριτέον), must be 
rejected here. It may have found its 
way into the text from a marginal 
note attempting to give a derivation 
of ἐνείρισται. 

6. ἐνήρεισται) ‘2s inherent, ts 
fixed? So it is necessary to read 


4 


50 


apa κατὰ Θεὸν ζῆτε. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ΠῚ 


περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι 


ax 3 / - / ~ 9 κ' 
ὑμῶν ᾿Εφεσίων ἐκκλησίας τῆς διαβοήτου τοῖς αἰῶσιν. 


1 ἄρα] ἄρα G (so certainly). 


περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι] G (but 


with a smooth breathing ἀγνίξζομαι); peripsima vestri et castificer (i.e. ἁγνίξωμαι, but 
the MSs castificet) a vestra etc. L*; gaudeo in vobis et supplico pro vobis ZA. In 


for ἐνείρισται, in which the editors 
generally have acquiesced, but which 
they do not attempt to justify. The 
frequent itacisms in the MS render 
the change obvious. Bunsen (47 p. 
88) saw that ἐνείρισται was impossible, 
but substituted ἐνεργῆται. Zahn first 
introduced the correct word into the 
text. For évepeidew (-δεσθαι) comp. 
Dioscorid. ii. 23 (p. 367, Kiihn) τῶν 
ἐνηρεικότων στομάχῳ καὶ κοιλίᾳ χολω- 
δῶν, a use that would be appropriate 
to the metaphor at the close of the 
preceding section; see also Plut. 
Mor. p. 327 Β βέλει ἀπὸ τόξου τὸ 
στέρνον ἐνερεισθέντι, 20. Ῥ. 344 C τοῖς 
περὶ τὸν μαστὸν ἐνερεισθέντος ὀστέοις 
καὶ καταπαγέντος. Comp. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. ii. 20 (p. 487) ἀπάτη συνεχῶς 
ἐναπερειδομένη TH Ψυχῆ, Whence eva- 
περείσματα ‘impressions’ in the con- 
text. For the form of the perfect see 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 33, Veitch Greek 
Verbs 5. v. ἐρείδω ; and for the indica- 
tive with ὅταν, Winer xlii. p. 388 sq. 
Merx would read ἐρρίζωται or eveppi- 
ζωται (p. 41), because the Syriac and 
Armenian have ‘plantata est,’ but 
this seems to be only a loose render- 
ing of ἐνήρεισται. 

I. περίψημα ὑμῶν] sc. εἰμι. Forthe 
omission of the substantive verb, and 
for the general form of the sentence, 
comp. fom. 4 ἀπελεύθερος Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (sc. ἔσομαι) καὶ ἀναστήσομαι ἐν 
αὐτῷ ἐλεύθερος. Otherwise we might 
read περίψημά εἶμι ὑμῶν, aS εἰμι in 
this position might easily have drop- 
ped out amidst the recurrence of 
similar letters. 

Περίψημα, literally ‘filth, scum, 
offscouring,’ was used like κάθαρμα, 


περικάθαρμα, especially of those crim- 
inals, generally the vilest of their 
class, whose blood was shed to expi- 
ate the sins of the nation and to 
avert the wrath of the gods. Photius, 
Lex. s.v., says οὕτως ἐπέλεγον τῷ 
κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐμβαλλομένῳ τῇ θαλάσσῃ 
νεανίᾳ ἐπὶ ἀπαλλαγῇ τῶν συνεχόντων 
κακῶν Περίψημα ἡμῶν γενοῦ, ἤτοι 
σωτηρία καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις, καὶ οὕτως 
ἐνέβαλον τῇ θαλάσσῃ, ὡσανεὶ τῷ Πο- 
σειδῶνι θυσίαν ἀποτίννυντες : COmMp. 
Amphitoch. cxxxiii. (OP. I. p. 731, ed. 
Migne), where Photius well explains 
the force of the word as used by S. 
Paul. In Athenian language these 
persons were called φαρμακοί, Arist. 
Ran. 731 καὶ πονηροῖς κἀκ πονηρῶν eis 
ἅπαντα χρώμεθα, ὑστάτοις ἀφιγμένοι- 
σιν, οἷσιν ἡ πόλις πρὸ τοῦ οὐδὲ φαρμα- 
κοῖσιν εἰκῇ ῥᾳδίως ἐχρήσατ᾽ ἄν. On 
these human victims see Hermann 
Griech. Alterth. Gottesdienst. § 60. 
Hence the idea in the word as used 
here is twofold: 7vs¢, ‘I am as the 
meanest among you,’ and secondly, 
‘I devote my life for you.’ For its 
biblical use see Jer. xxii. 28 (Symm.) 
μὴ περίψημα φαῦλον καὶ ἀπόβλητον ὁ 
ἄνθρωπος ; Tobit ν. 20 (LXX) ἀργύριον 
... περίψημα τοῦ παιδίου ἡμῶν γένοιτο, 
1 Cor. iv. 13 ὡς περικαθάρματα τοῦ 


κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα 


ἕως ἄρτι. See also below § 18 περί- 
ψημα τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, 
Barnab. 4 γράφειν ἐσπούδασα ἐγὼ 
περίψημα ὑμῶν, 16. 6 ἐγὼ περίψημα τῆς 
ἀγάπης ὑμῶν. Hence Origen zz Joann. 
XxVill. ὃ 14 (IV p. 393), explaining 
the prophecy of Caiaphas, applies 
the term to our Lord with an apology 
for so using it. In the middle of the 


= 


) 


vit] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


51 


\ \ \ , 
οἱ σαρκικοὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ πράσσειν οὐ δύνανται οὐδὲ 


\ A 7 e/ ~ 
οἱ πνευματικοὶ τὰ σαρκικα, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις τὰ τῆς 


3 / PANe! e > 7 \ a 7 
aTTLOTLAS οὐδὲ y ATLOTLA TA Τῆς WLOTEWS. 


ἃ δὲ Kal 


g it is altered into περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ τῆς ἁγνοτάτης ἐφ. ἐκκλ. See the lower 


note. 
οἱ γὰρ σαρκικοὶ Z [Antioch 12]. 
τειν σ. 

GLA; γὰρ 2. 


third century, as appears from Dio- 
nysius of Alexandria (Euseb. H.£. 
Vili. 22), περίψημά σου had become a 
common expression of formal com- 
pliment ‘your humble and devoted 
servant’ (see Heinichen on Euseb. 
l. c. Melet. xv.). This expression, he 
says, which with others was a mere 
form of speech, had been actually ful- 
filled in the case of those devoted 
Christians who had caught the plague 
and died, while nursing others into 
health. Thus περίψημα is closely al- 
lied in meaning to ἀντίψυχον, which 
is also a favourite Ignatian word (see 
below § 21), but superadds to the idea 
of ‘self-devotion,’ which is common 
to both, the further idea of ‘abase- 
ment, vileness.’ 

ἁγνίζομαι κιτ.λ.] “7 am devoted to 
your Church’; comp. Trall. 13 ayvi- 
Cera [ayvicere MS]. ὑμῶν τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦ- 
pa. It appears to mean literally ‘I 
make myself a ἅγνισμα, a piacular 
offering, for your Church.’ The verb 
ἁγνίζειν Sometimes means ‘to sacri- 
fice,’ ‘to devote’ (see esp. ἐφαγνίζειν, 
καθαγνίζειν); and ἅγνισμα is ‘an expi- 
atory victim,’ e.g. A®sch. Eum. 315. 
Of the genitive case after ἁγνίζομαι 
I can find no other instance: but it 
might fall under the category of 
verbs of admiration, affection, and 
the like; and, as τρύχεσθαι, ἐπιτύφεσ- 
θαι, etc., are found with this case (see 
Kihner 11. p. 324), it can hardly be 
considered out of place after ayvi- 
ζεσθαι, when this secondary sense 
predominates. Several corrections 


3 οἱ σαρκικοὶ] GLAg (but 1 adds enim) Dam-Vat 5 Dam-Rup 7; 
πράσσειν] ἃ Antioch Dam-Vat-Rup; mpdr- 
οὐδὲ] Gg Dam-Reg-Rup Antioch; οὔτε Dam-Vat. 


5 δὲ] 


have been suggested; e.g. the sub- 
stitution of ἅγνισμα for ἁγνίζομαι, or 
the insertion of ὑφ᾽ or of ὑπέρ before 
ὑμῶν. But, as Tradl. 13 (already 
quoted) agrees in the same expres- 
sion, it is highly improbable that the 
scribes should have made the same 
error and introduced the same diffi- 
culty in both passages. A much 
more easy change than any hitherto 
proposed would be ἀγάζολλδι for 
ἁγνίζολλδι; but no correction seems 
to be required. 

2. ἐκκλησίας] governs ὑμῶν, and 
does not stand in apposition with it, 
as the article before διαβοήτου shows. 

διαβοήτου κ.τ.λ.7 ‘renowned through 
all ages, literally ‘bruzted about by 
the ages. The word occurs Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod.75 (p. 986), Orig. ¢. 
(ες τι: Euseb. A. ἘΠ ai. 36, m 
which last passage it is used of Ig- 
natius himself, ὁ παρὰ πλείστοις εἰσ- 
έτι νῦν διαβόητος ᾿Ιγνάτιος. It is 
found also occasionally in late classi- 
cal writers, e.g. Plutarch and Dion 
Chrysostom. Compare also περιβόη- 
ros, Clem. Rom. 1, 47. For the 
dative see Xen. Ephes. 1. 2 
διαβόητος τοῖς θεωμένοις ἅπασιν k.T.X. 
The αἰῶνες are here ‘future genera- 
tions,’ and the dative is one of the 
agent. 

3. of σαρκικοὶ κιτ.λ.} A reminis- 
cence of I Cor. li. 14 sq. 

5. a O€ καὶ «7.A.] i.e. ‘even your 
secular business is exalted into a 
higher sphere, is spiritualized, by your 
piety.’ 


ἣν δὲ 


4—2 


52 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[vii 


land ’ 9 Ἢ 3 
κατὰ σάρκα πράσσετε, TAaAUTAaA πνευματικα εστιν εν 


~ ΄σ / 
᾿Ιησοῦ γὰρ Χριστῷ πάντα mpacceTe. 


~ sf 
IX. "Eyvor δὲ παροδεύσαντάς Twas ἐκεῖθεν, Exov- 


ε A ~ 3 ε = 
Tas κακὴν διδαχήν: οὗς οὐκ εἰάσατε σπεῖραι εἰς ὑμᾶς, 


1 πράσσετε] GAg; fecistis 2; οῤογαία sunt (πράσσετα) L. And so again 


just below, except g, in which the passage is quite changed. 


GL; δι᾽ ὑμῶν [g]; ad vos A. 


3 ἐκεῖθεν] 
6 προητοιμασμένοι] mpc ἡτοιμασμένοι ἃ 


(written apo, not προσ, as stated by Markland and others); patris, paratr L; 
patris vestri dei, parati A; θεοῦ... ἡτοιμασμένος [Antioch 1]; e parati estis [2] 


ΙΧ. ‘At the same time 1 learn 
that certain false teachers from a 
distance have been passing through 
your city; but ye stopped your ears 
and did not suffer them to sow the 
seeds of evil in you. For ye are 
stones of a temple, prepared for the 
building of God, hoisted up by the 
Cross of Christ, the Spirit being 
the rope and your faith the engine, 
while love is the way leading to God. 
Ye all take your part in the holy pro- 
cession, bearing each his God and 
his Christ, his shrine and his sacred 
things, dressed in the festive robes 
of Christ’s precepts, while I by letter 
am permitted to share your rejoicing 
and to congratulate you on your un- 
alloyed love of God.’ 

3. παροδεύσαντας] Sc. τὴν Ἔφεσον. 
They had taken Ephesus on their 
way, though they had not settled 
there; see § 6 ἐν ὑμῖν οὐδεμία αἵρεσις 
κατοικεῖ (with the note). These are 
the itinerant false-teachers who are 
described in § 7 as δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ 
ὄνομα περιφέροντες. The inter- 
pretation of Baur (/. B. p. 29) and 
Hilgenfeld (p. 191), who take παρο- 
δεύσαντας metaphorically, ‘taking a 
by-path, ‘going out of the direct 
way, cannot stand. The word al- 
ways signifies ‘to pass by,’ ‘to pass 
through on the way,’ e.g. Plut. 7707. 
Ῥ. 973 Ὁ τοῖς συνήθως παροδεύουσι 
τὸν τόπον, Lucian Scyth. 10 σιωπῇ 
παροδεύσας τηλικαύτην πόλιν. It is 


used several times in the LXx, and 
always in this sense: Ezek. xxxvi. 
34, Wisd: 1. 8, ii: 7, Vv. 15; waa, 
x. 8. See also the note on Kom. 9 
παροδεύοντα. 

ἐκεῖθεν] ‘from yonder’; comp. Mart. 
Polyc. 20 τοῖς ἐπέκεινα ἀδελφοῖς. The 
martyr uses the same reticence here 
as regards place, which he uses else- 
where as regards persons; Smzyri. 5 
τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν, ὄντα ἄπιστα, οὐκ 
ἔδοξέν μοι ἐγγράψαι, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ γένοιτό 
μοι μνημονεύειν κατιλ. But what place 
is meant? Bunsen (/. v. A. p. 38) says 
‘from Smyrna,’ translating it ‘from 
here’; but ἐκεῖθεν could not have this 
sense. Baur (/. &. p. 29) answers 
‘from Ephesus’; and this, if I under- 
stand him rightly, is the view of 
Zahn also (ὦ v. A. pp. 258 sq, 356 
sq, and ad /oc.), who takes the whole 
sentence to mean ‘I learnt that cer- 
tain persons passed through where I 
was (at Philadelphia) from Ephesus.’ 
But neither again could a writer well 
use ἐκεῖθεν of the place to which he 
addressed his letter. The reference 
in ἐκεῖθεν therefore must remain un- 
certain: but, if it were necessary to 
name any place, Philadelphia would 
answer the conditions. It appears 
from notices in the Epistle to the 
Philadelphians (see the introduction), 
that Ignatius had passed through 
their city on his way to Smyrna, 
so that he would know the facts; 
and we also gather from the same 


1x] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. ia 


7 \ > \ 
5 βύσαντες τὰ ὦτα εἰς TO μὴ παραδέξασθαι τὰ σπειρό- 


3 ΄σ ε a E σ΄ , 
μενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν" ws ὄντες λίθοι ναοῦ προητοιμασμένοι 


εἰς οἰκοδομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός, ἀναφερόμενοι εἰς τὰ ὕψη διὰ 


a ΄ ~ ΄σ J > 
τῆς μηχανῆς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν σταυρός, σχοινίῳ 


(all the previous part of § 9 being omitted); al. σ: 


see the lower note. 3 


commences again here and continues to ἡ ἀναφέρουσα εἰς Θεόν, omitting the last 


part of the chapter. 
templi spiritualis A. 
crux L; dub. 2; al. Ag. 


letter, that heresy had been busy 
there (§§ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8). The substi- 
tutions for ἐκεῖθεν in the Armenian 
Version and in the interpolator’s 
text are mere expedients to get rid 
of an obscure expression. 

4. σπεῖραι] See the metaphor of 
βοτάνη below, ὁ το. Here the ‘sowing’ 
is regarded as taking place through 
the ear. 

5. βύσαντες τὰ ὦτα] Ps. lvii. (viii). 
4 ἀσπίδος κωφῆς καὶ βυούσης τὰ ὦτα 
αὐτῆς. It was an action expressive 
of horror, when any blasphemy was 
uttered; Acts vil. 57 συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα 
αὐτῶν, Iren. in Euseb. H. £. v. 20 
ἐμφράξας ta ὦτα αὐτοῦ (of Polycarp, 
when he heard any heresy talked), 
Iren. Her. 111. 4. 2 ‘si aliquis annun- 
tiaverit ea que ab hereticis adin- 
venta sunt...statim comcludentes aures 
longo longius fugient,’ Clem. Recogn, 
li. 37 ‘aures continuo obcludens, velut 
ne blasphemia polluantur’ (comp. 20. 
li. 40, 52). In Clem. Alex. Protr. 10 
(PP- 73, 83) ἀποβύειν τὰ dra is used of 
resisting good influences; comp. 
Clem. Hom. 1. 12 βύοντες τῶν σώζεσ- 
θαι θελόντων τὰς ἀκοάς. For the pur- 
port comp. Zral/l. 9 κωφώθητε οὖν 
K.T.A. ; 

6. λίθοι ναοῦ] The metaphor, and in 
part even the language, is suggested 
by Ephes. il. 20—22; comp. 1 Pet. 
ii. 5. The metaphor is elaborately 
carried out in Hermas S27. ix. See 
below § 15 (note). The transition in 


7 Θεοῦ πατρός] GLE Antioch; θείαν πατρός [g]; 
8 ὅς] G; 6 Antioch; Zer machinam...que est 
σχοινίῳ] G; σχοίνῳ [g] [Antioch]. 


the metaphor is violent, after the 
manner of Ignatius. It can hardly 
be bridged over, I think, by a re- 
ference to the idea of seed sown on 
rocky ground (Matt. xiii. 4), as Zahn 
suggests. 

προητοιμασμένοι] So I have ven- 
tured to substitute for πατρὸς ἦἤτοι- 
μασμένοι, 1.6. TIPOHTOIMACMENO! for 
TIPCHTOIMACMENO!. This was Mark- 
land’s conjecture, but it had occurred 
to me without knowledge of the fact. 
Certainly πατρός is awkward, where 
Θεοῦ πατρός follows so closely; while 
προητοιμασμένοι gives another coinci- 
dence with the same Epistle of S. 
Paul (Ephes. ii. 10 οἷς προητοίμασεν ὁ 
Θεός, comp. Rom. ix. 23 σκεύη 
ἐλέους a προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν) which 
has so largely influenced this letter, 
and more especially this context. 
An alternative correction would be 
to substitute mvs for mps, πνεύματος 
for πατρός; see the note on Smyrn. 
13. For ναοὶ πνεύματος comp. I Cor. 
vi. 19. But the mention of the Spirit 
comes in properly at a later stage. 

8. μηχανῆς] See Hippol. de Antichr. 
59 (Ρ. 31 Lagarde) κλῖμαξ ἐν αὐτῇ εἰς 
ὕψος ἀνάγουσα ἐπὶ τὸ κέρας εἰκὼν 
σημείου πάθους Χριστοῦ, ἕλκουσα τοὺς 
πιστοὺς εἰς ἀνάβασιν οὐρανῶν (comp. 
Clem. Rom. 49 τὸ ὕψος εἰς ὃ ἀνάγει 
ἡ ἀγάπη κ-.τ.λ.), Method. de Sanct. 
Cruc. 1 (p. 400, ed. Migne) μηχανὴ δι᾽ 
ἧς of εἰς οἰκοδομὴν εὐθετοῦντες τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας κάτωθεν λίθου τετραγώνου δίκην 


54 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[1x 


/ ΄σ / ~ ς / 4 ς 4 / ε ΄σ΄ 3 
χρώμενοι TW TTVEUMATL TW AYLW" ἢ δὲ πίστις υμων ανα- 


έ 


ε = \ > / 
γωγεὺς ὑμῶν, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη ὁδὸς ἡ ἀναφέρουσα εἰς Θεὸν. 


I τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ] G3 τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι g;3 spiritu sancto L; gui est spiritus 


sanctus Σ ; τῷ πνεύματι [Antioch]; def. A. 
Rup 6, and so in the next line; al. g Antioch. 


ἀνέλκονται, ἐναρμοσθησόμενοι TH θείῳ 
λόγῳ (speaking of the cross), Chrysost. 
Hom. 3 in Ephes. (Op. X1. p. 19) ὥσ- 
περ διά τινος ἕλκων μηχανῆς εἰς 
ὕψος αὐτὴν [τὴν ἐκκλησίαν] ἀνήγαγε 
μέγα. 

és] by attraction for 7; see on 
Magn. 7, and Winer § xxi. p. 206 sq. 

I. avaywyevs| ‘a lifting engine. No 
other example of this sense of the 
word is given in the lexicons earlier 
than Eustath. Opuse. Ρ. 328 (ed. Tafel) 
"Apyov...0v ἡ ποιητοῦ πλαστικὴ εἰς 
πολλοὺς ἤνοιξεν ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ βρύειν 
ὥσπερ πολλαῖς ἐποίησεν ὄψεσιν, εἰς 
μυρία ὄμματα κατατρήσασα, ὡς διαρρεῖν 
οὕτω τὸ ὀπτικὸν τοῦ ὅλου σώματος, ὡς 
ὅτε πολυτρήτου τινὸς ἀναγωγέως ὕδωρ 
πολύρρουν ἐξακοντίζεται. This com- 
parison to the many eyes of Argus 
seems to show that the avaywyevs 
described by Eustathius is, as a 
friend suggests to me, an engine like 
Barker’s Mill. The dvaywyevs con- 
templated by Ignatius may not have 
been of the same kind, for the word 
itself is not special; but there would 
be no anachronism in this identifica- 
tion, since (as I am informed on com- 
petent authority) the principle of Bar- 
ker’s Mill was known before his time. 
I have not found the word in the 
Mathematict Veteres, where it might 
have been expected to occur. 

The metaphor is extravagant, but 
not otherwise ill-conceived. The 
framework, or crane, is the Cross of 
Christ; the connecting instrument, 
the rope, is the Holy Spirit; the 
motive power, which sets and keeps 
the machinery in motion, is faith; 
the path (conceived here apparently 


ὑμῶν] GLE; om. A; ἡμῶν Dam- 
avaywyevs] G Dam-Rup; 


as an inclined plane), up which the 
spiritual stones are raised that they 
may be fitted into the building, is 
love. 

3. ἐστὲ οὖν k.r.A.| The mention of 
the ‘way’ suggests a wholly different 
image to τς writer. The members 
of the Ephesian Church are now 
compared to a festive procession, in 
which each person bears some 
sacred vessel or emblem, a statue of 
a god, a model of a shrine, and the 
like; comp. Epist. Jer. 4 νυνὶ δὲ 
ὄψεσθε ἐν Βαβυλῶνι θεοὺς ἀργυροῦς 
καὶ χρυσοῦς καὶ ξυλίνους em ὦμοις 
αἰρομένους. How large ἃ place these 
religious festivities occupied in the 
life of a Greek may be inferred from 
Aristoph. Lys. 641 sq ἑπτὰ μὲν ἔτη 
γεγῶσ᾽ εὐθὺς nppnpopovr...kakavn- 
φόρουν ποτ᾽ οὖσα παῖς καλὴ k.T.A. 
Hence such words as ἀνθοφόρος, da- 
Sopopos, ἐρρηφόρος, Gupaopopos, κανη- 
φόρος, κιστοφόρος, λικνοφόρος, mac- 
τοφύρος, ὑδροφύρος, etc. At Ephesus 
itself the saint’s imagery would have 
an especially vivid illustration in the 
fact that treasures belonging to the 
temple of Artemis were solemnly 
borne in procession into the city by 
one road and taken back by another 
at stated times, as we learn from a 
recently found inscription : see Wood’s 
Discoveries at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1; 
Pp. 32, 34, 42 (see above, p. 17 56). 
A description of such a procession 
in Ephesus at an ἐπιχώριος ἑορτὴ of 
Artemis is given also in Xenoph. 
Ephes. 1. 2, παρήεσαν δὲ κατὰ στίχον 
οἱ πομπεύοντες" πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ 
δᾷδες καὶ κανᾶ καὶ θυμιάματα, ἐπὶ δὲ 
τούτοις ἵπποι καὶ κύνες καὶ σκεύη κυνη- 


Ix] TO THE EPHESIANS. 55 


> , / 
ἐστὲ οὖν καὶ σύνοδοι πάντες, θεοφόροι καὶ ναοφόροι, 


paraphrased πίστει ἀναγομένους [6]; ἀγωγεύς [Antioch]; dux L; pracparator A. 
2 ἀναφέρουσα] ἃ Antioch; rveferens L; ἄνω φέρουσα Dam-Rup; dub. DA; al. g. 


els] G; εἰς τὸν Antioch; πρὸς Dam-Rup; πρὸς τὸν [6]. 


3 ναοφόροι] GLg; 


om. A; paraphrased ναὸς Θεοῦ by Antioch. 


yetixa κι. Accordingly elsewhere 
(C. Z. G. no. 2963 c) we read of oi 
τὸν.. «κόσμον βασταΐ ζοντες] τῆς peya- 
Ans θεᾶς [᾿Αρτέμι]δος πρὸ πόλ[εω ]ς 
ἱερεῖς [καὶ ἱερ]ονεῖκα. Again there is 
a mention in another inscription 
(Wood’s Discoveries Inscr. vi. 19, p.68) 
of a δειπνοφοριακὴ πομπή in this same 
city. Again we read of yet another 
Ephesian festival, the καταγώγια, in 
which persons went along ῥόπαλά τε 
ἐπιφερόμενοι καὶ εἰκόνας εἰδώλων (Mart. 
S. Zimoth. in Ducange Gloss. Graec. 
p- 607: see Lobeck Agdlaoph. p. 177). 
But indeed this was not character- 
istic of one or two special occasions. 
At all the great festivals of Ephesus, 
the Tavpea, in honour of Poseidon, 
the ᾿Αμβρόσια, in honour of Dionysus, 
etc., the same sight would probably 
be seen. 

Ignatius is not the only writer, to 
whom this characteristic feature of a 
heathen religious ceremonial suggests 
the image in the text: comp. Philo 
Leg. ad Cat. 31 (1. p. 577) ἐν ταῖς 
ψυχαῖς ἀγαλματοφοροῦσι tas τῶν 
διατεταγμένων εἰκόνας; i.e. they carry 
the commandments in their souls, as 
the pagans bear the images of their 
gods on their shoulders. So again 
de Mund. ΟΥ̓ 23 (1. p. 16) πρὸς ἕνα 
τὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐκεῖνον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχέτυπον, 
ὁ ἐν ἑκάστῳ [νοῦς] τῶν κατὰ μέρος 
ἀπεικονίσθη, τρόπον τινὰ θεὸς ὧν τοῦ 
φέροντος καὶ ἀγαλματοφοροῦντος 
αὐτὸν, 2b. 47 (I. p. 33) οἶκος γὰρ ἢ νεὼς 
ἱερὸς ἐτεκταίνετο Ψυχῆς λογικῆς ἣν 
ἔμελλεν ἀγαλματοφορήσειν, ἀγαλ- 
μάτων τὸ θεοειδέστατον, and so fre- 
quently in Philo, who however in 
some passages attaches also a 


secondary meaning to ἄγαλμα, ‘an 
image’ or ‘representation’ in its 
philosophical sense. From Philo 
the application of ἀγαλματοφορεῖν is 
borrowed by the Christian fathers. 
See also Epictet. Dass. ii. 18. 12 sq 
θεὸν περιφέρεις, τάλας, καὶ ἀγνοεῖς" 
δοκεῖς με λέγειν ἀργυροῦν τινα ἢ χρυ- 
σοῦν ἔξωθεν; ἐν σαυτῷ φέρεις αὐτὸν 
Κιτιλ. Similarly Clem. Alex. 2 γοΐγ. 
4 (p. 53) ἡμεῖς γάρ, ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν οἱ τὴν 
εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ περιφέροντες ἐν τῷ 
ζῶντι καὶ κινουμένῳ τούτῳ ἀγάλματι, 
τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κιτλ. See also the note 
on ἁγιοφόρος below. 

σύνοδοι] ‘companions on the way, 
This word occurs several times in 
Epictetus; /)zes.) 110. τῆλ το; ἀπ 2 5: 
iv. I. 97 (and so it should be writ- 
ten in 111. 13. 13). Similarly πάροδος 
‘a waylarer |LXo¢ 2); Sams i 44, 
Ezek. xvi. 15, 25; mpdodos ‘a pre- 
cursor,’ Clem. Hom. 111. 58, viii. 2, 
χα 09s την BGs nepasosinea 
patrol,’ e.g. Polyb. vi. 36. 6. 

θεοφόροι κ.τ.λ.] 1.6, Seach carrying 
his God, his shrine, his Christ, his 
holy things.’ On this word θεοφόρος 
see the note, inscr. above. 

ναοφόροι] ‘shrine bearers’ The 
metaphor is taken from the portable 
shrines (containing the image of 
some patron deity), which were 
made either to be carried about in 
processions, or to be purchased by 
pilgrims to any famous sanctuary 
as reminiscences of their visit and 
worn about the person as amulets. 
For the former see e.g. Herod. 1]. 
63 τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ἐὸν ἐν νηῷ μικρῷ 
ξυλίνῳ κατακεχρυσωμένῳ προεκκομί- 
ζουσι κιτιλ., Diod. Sic. 1. 97 τῶν ναῶν 


56 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[1x 


/ / \ / / 
χριστοῴφοροι, ἁγιοφόροι, κατα πάντα κεκοσμημένοι ἐν 


ἐντολαῖς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" οἷς καὶ ἀγαλλιώμενος ἠξιώθην, 


3... ἘΠΕ / - a > ε 
δι ὧν γράφω, προσομιλῆσαι ὑμῖν, καὶ σνγχαρήναι ὅτι 


I χριστοφόροι] α; et christiferi L; om. ἃ [g]; recognized by Antioch, who has 
θεοφόρος ἠγοῦν χριστοφόρος (the whole being transferred into the singular). 


ἁγιοφόροι] GLAg; Antioch has ἁγιοδρόμος. 


πάντα Antioch; ef ommnino [A]. 


κατὰ πάντα] GLg; καὶ τὰ 


κεκοσμημένοι] κεκοσμιμένοι G. ἐν] 
L; om. G; ἐν ταῖς [g]; (ὲ2) omnibus [A]. 


2 ἀγαλλιώμενος ἠξιώθην] 


L [6]; ἀγαλλιώμαι ὅτι ἠξιώθην G. A begins a new sentence ‘exulto quod dignus 
factus sum logui vobiscum, et gaudeo in eo quod scripsi ad vos (thus strangely 


ἀνακομιζομένων ἀμφοτέρων eis ὄρος 
K.T.A., XX. 14 ἔπεμψαν δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ 
τῶν ἱερῶν χρυσοῦς ναοὺς τοῖς ἀφιδρύ- 
μασι πρὸς τὴν ἱκεσίαν. Of the latter 
the miniature representations of the 
shrine of the Ephesian Artemis fur- 
nish the best illustration, and we 
may suppose that Ignatius had these 
more or less in mind; see Acts 
x1x. 24 (with the passages collected by 
commentators). Comp. Amm. Mare. 
xxll. 13 ‘deae caelestis argenteum 
breve figmentum, quocumque ibat, 
efferre solitus. See also the con- 
jectural reading of Wordsworth on 
the Scholiast of Aristides, Athens 
and Attica p. τοῦ Παλλαδίων.. τῶν 
περιαυτοφόρων καλουμένων. The appli- 
cation of the metaphor is to the body 
of the Christian, as the shrine of 
the Spirit; see below § 15 ἵνα ὦμεν 
αὐτοῦ ναοί (with the note). 

I. χριστοφόροι] Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 
IO πάντοτε THY νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν 
τῷ σώματι περιφέροντες, Magn. 12 
Ἰησοῦν γὰρ Χριστὸν ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 
The saint himself is called χριστοφό- 
pos in Mart. lgn. Ant. 5. So Phileas 
in Euseb. H. .Σ. vili. 10 οἱ χριστοφό- 
po. μάρτυρες. Other compounds of 
Χριστὸς in Ignatius are χριστομαθία 
Philad. ὃ, χριστόνομος Rom. inscr. 

ἁγιοφόροι) ‘bearers of holy things, 
such as sacred treasures, votive offer- 
ings, and the like, which it was cus- 
tomary to carry in procession. They 


are the divinarum bajuli caeremo- 
niarum, Firmic. Matern. Astron. 
iii, τι. 9. The word occurs again, 
Smyrn. imscr.; comp. lepodopos 
CooL. 6G 1793° DB; tepadapes| ize: 
2384 b (Appx.). So too the Latin 
‘sacra ferre’ (e.g. Virg. <7. ui. 19) 
of priests. But see esp. Plut. Mor. 
352 Β τοῖς ἀληθῶς καὶ δικαίως iepa- 
φόροις καὶ ἱεροστόλοις προσαγορευο- 
μένοις" οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ τὸν ἱερὸν λό- 
γον...ἐν τῇ Ψυχῇ φέροντες, ὥσπερ 
ἐν κίστῃ, καὶ περιστέλλοντες (with 
Wyttenbach’s note), Virg. Georg. il. 
476 ‘Quorum sacra /fero ingenti 
percussus amore’; in both which 
passages the image is applied as 
here. 

κεκοσμημένοι) ‘adorned, decorated, 
as with festive robes, chaplets, trink- 
ets, and the’ like; comp) 1 Peta 
ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν 
καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως 
ἱματίων κόσμος κοιτιλ., τ Tim. ii. 9 Sq 
μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν 
ἑαυτὰς... «δι᾿ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. See Xenoph. 
Ephes. 1. 2 ἔδει δὲ πομπεύειν πάσας 
τὰς ἐπιχωρίους παρθένους κεκοσμη- 
μένας πολυτελῶς καὶ τοὺς ἐφήβους, 
describing a sacred procession at 
Ephesus. Mention is made of certain 
officers as χρυσοφοροῦντες in connex- 
ion with these festive processions in 
honour of Artemis; Wood’s Dzs- 
covertes Inscr. vi. pp. 32, 34 (comp. 
111. p. 20). This seems to mean 


1x] 


TO: THE EPHESIANS. 


57 


> 3 / 4 2» \ > ~ > \ / \ 
κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπων βίον οὐδὲν ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸν 


5 Θεόν. 


Χ, Καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἀδιαλείπτως 


deranging the connexion of the words). 
κατ᾽ ἄλλον βίον κιτ.λ. GL; see the lower note. 
the paraphrase in g οὐδὲ κατὰ σάρκα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλὰ κατὰ θεόν. 


4 kat’ ἀνθρώπων βίον κ.τ.λ. 
My conjecture is supported by 
The text was early 


corrupted, as appears from the confused rendering of A, alium quendam non diligitis 


sed eum qui secundum deum vivit. 


6 καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ] GLg; εἴ pro 


aliis A; super omnibus Z. Σ commences again here and continues as far as ἀθετηθῇ. 
ἀδιαλείπτως] GLg; om. ZA. See the lower note. 


‘decorated with gold ornaments or 
wearing gold embroidery’; comp. 
Wesseling on Diod. Sic. iv. 83 χρυσο- 
φορεῖν τῇ “Adpodirn. The fondness 
of the Ephesians for fine dresses 
is commemorated by the Ephesian 
Democritus quoted in Athenzeus xii. 
pes25- it 1is-rebuked by S. Paul, 1 
Tim. ii. 9, 10. The interpretation of 
Hilgenfeld (A. V. p. 250), ‘durch die 
Gebote Christi organisirt, geordnet,’ 
seems to me quiteimpossible, whether 
the preposition ἐν be retained or not. 

2. ots καὶ x.t.A.] ‘wherein also 
rejoicing I was permitted to assoctate 
with you by letter, and to congratu- 
late you, that ye love nothing after 
the common life of men, but God 
only” The reading ἀγαλλιώμενος 
should probably be adopted on the 
ground of external authority ; and if 
sO, ois is more naturally taken as a 
neuter with ἀγαλλιώμενος. It may 
however be a masculine governed 
by προσομιλῆσαι and explained after- 
wards by ὑμῖν: see Winer Gramm. 
§ xxii. p. 184 sq. For the whole 
expression comp. Magn. I ἀγαλλιώ- 
μενος προειλάμην ἐν πίστει ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ προσλαλῆσαι ὑμῖν᾽ καταξιωθεὶς 
γὰρ κιτιλ.; and for ἀξιοῦσθαι, a cha- 
racteristic expression of Ignatius, the 
note on Magn. 2. 

4. kar ἀνθρώπων βίον] So I have 
ventured to emend, aNWN for ἄλλον; 
or perhaps read aNINON = ἀνθρώπινον; 


comp. Rom. 8 οὐκέτι θέλω κατὰ ἀν- 
θρώπους ζῆν, Trall. 2 φαίνεσθέ μοι 
οὐ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῶντες. In this 
case ef μὴ will be ‘dut only? In 
other words it will not refer to the 
whole of the foregoing sentence, but 
to οὐδὲν ἀγαπᾶτε alone ; comp. Matt. 
xii. 4, Luke iv. 26, 27,  etc., and sée 
the note on Gal. i. 19. The com- 
mentators fail to make anything of 
κατ᾽ ἄλλον βίον. Zahn accepts Mark- 
land’s conjecture καθ᾽ ὅλον βίον, but 
this is a violent change and does not 
yield a very good sense. 

X. ‘Pray also for unbelievers. 
There is hope of their repentance. 
Let them learn from your deeds, if 
they will learn from nothing else. 
Requite them with good for evil; 
with meekness for their wrath, with 
humility for their boastfulness, with 
prayers for their revilings, with 
staunchness in the faith for their 
errors, with gentleness for their 
wrath. Show yourselves their bro- 
thers by your conduct. Imitate not 
them but the Lord. Vie with each 
other who shall suffer rather than 
do the most wrong. Let no rank 
weed of the devil spring up in you; 
but live in chastity and soberness.’ 

6. ἀδιαλείπτως] See 1 Thess. v. 17, 
where also we have the expression 
ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε; comp. Her- 
mas Sz. ix. 11. The same adverb 
occurs also Rom. i. 9, 1 Thess. i. 3, 


58 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x 


/ θ Ξ of \ ᾽ ? ~ =r \ z 
προσεύχεσθε: ἔστιν yap [ἐν] αὐτοῖς ἐλπὶς μετανοίας, 


.«“ cr / 9 / 5 9 a \ 3 ~ 
iva Θεοῦ τύχωσιν. ἐπιτρέψατε οὖν αὐτοῖς κὰν ἐκ τῶν 


᾽} ΄σ an A \ 3 \ .} ~ e Lon 
ἔργων ὑμῖν μαθητευθῆναι. πρὸς Tas ὀργὰς αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς 


~ \ \ / 5» ~ ες ~ ͵ 

πραεῖς, προς Tas μεγαλορήμοσύυνας AVUTWY UMELS ταπεινο- 
\ \ 7 ΄σ ε “σ᾿ \ 

Ppoves, πρὸς Tas βλασφημίας αὐτών ὑμεῖς τας προσευ- 


I προσεύχεσθε] προσεύχεσθαι G. Add. deum L; add. ut redeant ad deum A; 
txt Gag. ἐν] GL: om. ZAg (Mss, but inserted in 1). 2 ἐπιτρέψατε 
k.T.X.] The whole of this passage is loosely translated in 2 ex oferibus vestris magts 
aiscipuli-fiant ; contra verba eorum dura in humilitate animt placabiles-estote et in 
lenitate ; contra blasphemias eorumt vos estote precantes ; et contra errorem eorum arme- 
mini in fide; et contra ferocitatem eorum estote pacifici et tranquilli et ne admireminti 
eos, where however the word JJO7NN admiremini, is probably an error of 


transcription for JWOINN zwteminz. 
Greek. 
οὖν] GLg; om. ZA. 


The Armenian substantially follows the 
ἐπιτρέψατε] (ἃ; monete L; rogate A; ἐπιστρέψατε g; om. 2. 
8 ddedgol...adernO7] 


In place of these words 


Σ has simus autem imitatores domini nostri in humilitate et eius qui magis injurias- 


ii. 13, in Connexion with prayer and 
thanksgiving. See also Polyc. 1 προσ- 
evxais σχόλαζε ἀδιαλείπτοι. The 
Syriac and Armenian have simply 
‘pray’ here and simply ‘be constant 
in prayer’ in Polyc. 1. In the passage 
before us therefore the ἀδιαλείπτως 
is highly suspicious, and may easily 
have been inserted from St Paul. 
In Polyc. I it is not quite so clear 
that the word is unrepresented in 
the text of the Syriac translator 
(followed by the Armenian), because 


the Syriac cardi’ ‘be constant’ 
might be intended to cover both 
σχόλαζε and ἀδιαλείπτοι. On the 
other hand, supposing that the word 
was in the Greek text used by the 
Syriac translator, he may have re- 
jected it on account of its apparent 
extravagance. 

I. ἔστιν yap κιτ.λ.] Comp. Herm. 
Sim. vill. 7 καὶ ἔτι, φησίν, ἔστιν ἐν 
αὐτοῖς ἐλπὶς μετανοίας (comp. Ζό. § 10), 
quoted by Zahn. 

2. κἂν κιτ.λ.] ‘at all events from 
your works, if they will not listen to 


your words.’ This use of κἂν is 
elliptical for kav... . μαθητευθώσιν : 
comp. Mark vi. 56, Acts v. 15, 2 Cor. 
xi. 16, 2, Clem. ii. 7, 18. See. Winer 
Gramm. § \xiv. p. 730 (Moulton). 

3. ὑμῖν μαθητευθῆναι) ‘to be your 
disciples, ‘to go to school to you’; 
a legitimate and not uncommon 
construction with μαθητεύειν (-εσθαι), 
e.g. Plut. Mor. 832 B μαθητεύσας τῷ 
πατρί, ἦν yap σοφιστής, ᾧ καὶ ᾿Αλκι- 
βιάδην φασὶν ἔτι παῖδα ὄντα φοιτῆσαι, 
2b. 837 C, 840 F, Orig. ¢c. Cels. ill. 29 
αἷ..«Χριστῷ μαθητευθεῖσαι ἐκκλησίαι, 
Euseb. “11. 45. v. 13 μαθητευθεὶς ἐπὶ 
Ῥώμης, ὡς αὐτὸς ἱστορεῖ, Τατιανῷ 
(speaking of Rhodon), V. C. iii. 47 
τῷ κοινῷ σωτῆρι μεμαθητεῦσθαι. On 
this verb see the note Rom. 3. 

πρὸς tas ὀργὰς k.t.A.]| See Matt. 
v. 44, Luke - vi. 27,28, (Rome xin: 
14 sq.. ‘Comp, ‘also Ὁ Peta, 21522, 
where our Lord’s example is dwelt 
upon as here. 

5. βλασφημίας] Not ‘dlasphemies, 
but ‘slanderings, ‘railings’; comp. 
Luke 1. c. προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπη- 


ae) 


x] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


59 


/ \ \ / μεν ~ c a a ' 
yas, πρὸς THY TWAaVHY αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς Edpaiol TH πίετει, 


\ \ U ~ ~ e/ 
πρὸς TO ἀγριον αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἥμεροι: μὴ σπουδάζοντες 


/ 5) / ? 3 ΄σ ε ΄σ a 
ἀντιμιμήσασθαι αὐτούς. ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν εὑρεθῶμεν τῆ 


> € / Ξ \ δὲ τ: Κ / ὃ , ἊΣ / 
ἐπιεικείᾳ" μιμηταῖ O€ TOU Κυρίου σπουδάζωμεν εἶναι, Tis 


7 > ΄σ 7 > ~ ᾽ qt e ae 
πλέον ἀδικηθῇ, τίς ἀποστερηθῆ, Tis ἀθετηθῆ" ἵνα μὴ τοῦ 
[ 


patietur et opprimetur et defraudabitur. 


After ἀθετηθῇ it omits everything till the 


last sentence of 8 14 ov [yap viv] ἐπαγγελίας κιτ.λ. The corresponding words in 
A are sed (in) mansuetudine state et similes det studeamus fieri, the sentence τίς 
mhéov...a0ern#; being omitted. The Syriac Version (S) was probably corrupted 
at an early date, and hence the aberrations of ZA. εὑρεθῶμεν] So 
G. Dressel prints εὑρηθῶμεν (after other editors) and does not notice any variation 
from his text in G. 9 τοῦ Κυρίου] GZ; τὸν κύριον g (with a different con- 
struction); dez LA (comp. § 1). 
ἀδικηθεῖ... ἀποστερηθεῖ.. ἀθετηθεῖ G; injustum patiatur ... fraudetur ...contemnatur 
L; def. A. The construction is changed in [g], but the words ἀδικηθείς, ἀποστε- 


ρΡηθῇ, ἀθετηθῇ appear. The rendering of Σ (see above) points to the reading 


10 ἀδικηθῇ.. ἀποστερηθῇ... ἀθετηθῃ] 


adopted in the text. 


ρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. For this mean- 
ing of βλασφημία, which indeed is 
more common than the other in 
the N.T., see the note on Col. iii. 3. 

τὰς προσευχάς] The interpolator 
has supplied this ellipsis by ἀντιτά- 
fare; the Syriac translator has ren- 
dered it by a verb ‘be ye praying.’ 
For the elliptical sentence, which is 
much more forcible, see Winer lxiv. 
p- 734 sq, A. Buttmann p. 337 sq. 

6. ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει] Comp. Col. i. 
23 εἴ ye ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμε- 
λιωμένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι x.t.A. (Comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 58), Polyc. ΖΖΖ, τὸ ‘ firmi 
in fide et immutabiles.’ So too 
Smyrn. 13 ἐδρᾶσθαι πίστει. 

ὃ, ἀντιμιμήσασθαι) ‘reguite them 
by imitating thetr conduct to you, 
1.6. ‘retaliate; a rare word. It oc- 
curs Appian Bell. Czv. v. 41; comp. 
ἀντιμίμησις, Thuc. vii. 67. 

ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν κιτ.λ.} 1.6. ‘The 
right way of showing our brother- 
hood with them is not by imitating 
their conduct, but by evincing our 
regard. Our zwztation must be of 


Christ, not of them.’ The word 
ἐπιείκεια, aS denoting the spirit of 
concession and forbearance, which 
contrasts with strict justice, strict 
retaliation, is highly appropriate here ; 
see the notes on Phil. iv. 5, Clem. 
Rom. 59 (p. 284). It was moreover 
especially characteristic of Christ 
(2 Cor. x. I), whose example is en- 
forced here. 

9. τίς x.7.A.] This describes the 
proper aim of their rivalry. They 
should try to imitate Christ and 
show ‘who can suffer more wrong 
than his neighbour.’ The words are 
dependent on pmnrai; comp. ὃ 19 
ταραχή... πόθεν κιτ.λ. For the con- 
junctive in indirect questions, see 
Kiihner § 394 (11 p. 187). It is 
unnecessary to emend the sentence 
ris πλέον ἠδικήθη κιτιλ. (Markland), 
or τίς πλέον ἀδικηθείς (Hefele), or οὗ 
τίς πλέον ἀδικηθῇ (Pearson), or κἄν τις 
πλέον ἀδικηθῇ (Dressel). The whole 
passage is a reminiscence of I Cor. 
vi. 7 διατί οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀδικεῖσθε ; διατί 
οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀποστερεῖσθε ; κιτ.λ. 


60 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x 


/ , - ω 9 eon 7 > 3 Z 
διαβόλου βοτάνη τις εὑρεθῆ ἐν ὑμῖν: αλλ ἐν racy 


ε , PA Υ͂ / 3 κ᾿ ΄“ 
ayvela Kal cwppocvrn MEVETE εν Χριστῷ Inoou σαρκι- 


“ \ ~ 
κῶς καὶ TTVEULATLKWS. 


ΧΙ. 


Εσχατοι καιροί. λοιπὸν αἰσχυνθῶμεν, φοβη- 


2 μένετε] G; maneatis L; ut stetis A; as if they had read μένητε, which is 


perhaps correct; al. g. 


Xpiotp ᾿Ιησοῦ A [g]; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ GL. 


4 "Eoxaro καιροί. λοιπὸν k.7.A.] So it seems to be taken in Dam-Rup 4 ἔσχατοι 
καιροί, ἀδελφοί, λοιπὸν αἰσχυνθῶμεν, and this is apparently the connexion intended 


in L extrema tempora de cetero etc. 
αἰσχυνθῶμεν. See the lower note. 
om. A. 


1. βοτάνη] ‘weed’ Though the 
word is quite neutral in itself and is 
often used in a good sense (e.g. Heb. 
vl. 7), yet it has a tendency to take a 
bad meaning, ‘a rank or noxious 
herb,’ ‘a weed’; e.g. Hermas Szyz. v. 2 
εἶδεν τὸν ἀμπελῶνα βοτανῶν πλήρη Ov- 
τα..«καὶ πάσας τὰς βοτάνας τὰς οὖσας 
ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι ἐξέτιλλεν k.T.A., 20. Ἰχ. 
26 ὡς γὰρ ἄμπελος... ὑπὸ τῶν βοτανῶν 
ἐρημοῦται κιτ.λ.; comp. Clem. Hom. 
ΧΙΧ. I5, 20, βοτάναι θανάσιμοι, κακαί, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi..7 (p..770) 
ἄγριαι βοτάναι. Hence βοτανίζειν ‘to 
weed, ἘΞ 5. (Cheophrast. C. 2.. iii. 20: 
9. This sense it gets, because its 
leading idea is the absence of culture. 
On the other hand λάχανα is used 
more especially for ‘garden herbs,’ 
‘vegetables.’ Accordingly βοτάνη, as 
a metaphor, is especially applied, as 
here, to vice or to heresy ; comp. 
Trall. 6, Philad. 3. It is opposed to 
the planting, the φυτεία τοῦ πατρός 
(Trall. 11, Philad. 3). It is the rank 
growth which springs up of zfsedf in 
the soil of man’s unregenerate na- 
ture ; or it is the malicious sowing 
of the devil, as here, where there is 
probably a reference to the parable 
in Matt. xiii. 25. 

2. ἁγνείᾳ καὶ σωφροσύνῃ] The same 
combination is found in Clem. Rom. 


5 ἵνα] GL; om. Dam-Rup; al. g. 


In g λοιπόν is connected with what precedes 
ἔσχατοι καιροὶ λοιπόν εἰσιν; in A it is omitted. 
φοβηθῶμεν] Gg Dam-Rup; et timeamus L; 


In G there is no stop till after 
ἡμῖν εἰς κρῖμα] ἃ (κρῖμα) L; 


58 (see the note p. 169). 

σαρκικῶς κιτ.λ.] Comp. 2 Cor. vii. I 
καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ παντὸς po- 
λυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος. This 
conjunction of ‘flesh and spirit,’ as 
comprehending the whole nature of 
man, is very common in Ignatius ; 
Magn. 1, 13, Trall. inser. 12, feu. 
INSCI., Sy7n. 1, 12, 135 Pelve ΕΣ 
But see esp. Polyc. 2 διὰ τοῦτο σαρ- 
κικὸς εἶ καὶ πνευματικός K.T.A. In one 
place only there is a triple division 
Philad. τι σαρκί, ψυχῇ, πνεύματι. See 
also the note on ὃ 7, above. 

XI. ‘The end of all things is at 
hand. Let us therefore stand in awe 
of the judgment, or, if we do not 
fear the coming wrath, let us value 
the present grace. From the one 
motive or the other may we be found 
in Jesus Christ. In Him I wear these 
bonds ; these jewels in which I hope 
also to be decorated at the resurrec- 
tion through your prayers. This is 
my hope ; that I may be united in one 
destiny with the glorious Church of 
Ephesus, which was ever a devoted 
follower of the Apostles.’ 

4. ἔσχατοι καιροί] See 1 John ii. 
18 ἐσχάτη dpa ἐστίν, and esp. 1 Cor. 
V1l. 29 ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστὶν TO 
λοιπὸν ἵνα κιτιλ. So also Magn. 6 ἐν 
τέλει ἐφάνη. 


xt] TO THE EPHESIANS. 61 


5 θ - \ θ ’ ~ Θ er, re nears > , 
ωμεν THV μακρο υμιᾶαν TOU €OU, ινὰ μῆ ἡμιν εις κριμα 
, >\ \ \ ΄, > \ x 
γένηται. ἤ yao τὴν μέλλουσαν ὀργὴν φοβηθῶμεν ἢ 
\ la / > / εὰ ΄- Ἂ 
τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν χάριν ἀγαπήσωμεν, ἕν τῶν δύο: μόνον ἐν 
Xx ~ ;Ἴ a e θη > \ 9 Ὶ σ΄: \ 
ριστῷ “Incov εὑρεθῆναι εἰς τὸ ἀληθινὸν Civ. χωρίς 
; / \ Cas i > fe \ \ ’ 
τούτου μηδὲν ὑμῖν πρεπέτω, ἐν ᾧ τὰ δεσμὰ περιῴφερω, 
εἰς κρίμα ἡμῖν Dam-Rup; vobts...in zudicium A; al. g. 7 χάριν] GLA 
Dam-Rup; χαρὰν g* (Mss, but 1 has gratiam). ἕν τῶν δύο]. ΕΤ,; ἐν τῷ viv 
βίῳ g Dam-Rup. Something like this may have been the reading of A which trans- 
lates τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν χάριν k.T.r. eratiam quam habemus in hoc mundo; unless indeed 


in hoc mundo represents ἐνεστῶσαν, but if so ἕν τῶν δύο is omitted. Perhaps ἕν τῶν 
δύο was first corrupted into ἐν τῷ viv, and βίῳ added afterwards as a gloss; see the 


lower note. 


8 εὑρεθῆναι] G, and so too g (but inserting words ἔστω δὲ κ.τ.λ. 


to help out the construction); zzvenztur L*; εὑρεθῶμεν Dam-Rup; zxventamur A. 


ἀληθινὸν] GLA; ἀληθινώς [g]. 


λοιπὸν] ‘for what remains, and so 
‘ henceforth’; comp. Smyrn. 9 εὔλο- 
yov ἐστιν λοιπὸν ἀνανῆψαι. For the 
occurrence of λοιπόν or τὸ λοιπόν at 
the beginning of the sentence see 
meeor oa Tt, Phile iis αν: 8; 
@ fhess. aii. 1, 2 ΤΠ Ὁ. 8; Clem. 
Rom. 58; and it should probably be 
taken with what follows in 1 Cor. l.c. 
So too I have punctuated it here, as 
this is by far the most usual position 
of λοιπόν and the most forcible in 
this place. 

5. κρίμα] For the accent of this 
word, see the note on Gal. v. Io. 
The Greek MS however accentuates 
it κρῖμα here. 

6. γένηται] ‘zt turn, sc. ἡ μακρο- 
θυμία Tov Θεοῦ. 

7. ἕν τῶν δύο] See Phil. iii. 13 
ἐν δέ, τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω κιτιλ.; Compare 
the classical use of δυοῖν θάτερον, and 
for examples of similar constructions 
see Kihner Il. p. 244 sq, Winer 
§ Ixvi. p. 774. See also Magn. 1 τὸ 
δὲ κυριώτερον, Magn. 3 τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον. 
The reading ἐν τῷ νῦν βίῳ is shown 
from the authorities to have been as 
early as the 4th century, but cannot 
be correct, 


9 ἐν ᾧ] Lg; cujus causa A; ἐν τῷ G. 


μόνον k.T.A.] 1.6. μόνον [οὕτω ποιήσω- 
μεν ὥστε] εὑρεθῆναι. For similar 
elliptical uses of the infinitive see 
Kuhner 11. p. 590. There is a ten- 
dency to ellipsis with μόνον : comp. 
Rom. 5 μόνον iva ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπι- 
τύχω, Smyrn. 4 μόνον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ x.7.A., and see the note 
on Gal. ii. Io. 

8. ὧν] ‘Ue’; the infinitive being 
treated as a substantive, as above, 
§ 3, and below, ὃ 17, Wagn.1, 5. This 
very phrase τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῆν occurs in 
Trall. 9, Smyrn. 4. 

9. τούτου] 1.6. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

ὑμῖν πρεπέτω] ‘glitter in your 
eyes, i.e. ‘have any attraction for 
you’ ;\as. ‘ee; Pind.” Py, x. 105 
πειρῶντι δὲ καὶ χρυσὸς ἐν βασάνῳ 
πρέπει καὶ νόος ὀρθός. The word is 
thus a preparation for the imagery of 
‘the spiritual pearls’ which follows. 
Ignatius would say ‘Do not value 
any decoration apart from Christ.’ 

περιφέρω] He uses the same word 
of his bonds again, Magn. 1, Tradl. 
12. It suggests the idea of ostenta- 
tion. He is proud of this decora- 
tion, with which his Sovereign has 
invested him. On the prominent 


62 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x1 


ἢ a - , ἢ 
τοὺς πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας" ἐν οἷς γένοιτο μοι ἀνα- 
rs σ΄ ~ ε ~ xe) 4 ’ ye) lA 
στῆναι TH προσευχή ὑμῶν, NS γένοιτο μοι ἀεὶ μέτοχον 
4 [1 
a e/ ? / 3 / ε lon - a ἊΝ 
εἶναι, ἵνα ἐν κλήρῳ ᾿Εφεσίων εὑρεθῶ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, ot 


~ / / / , 
καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πάντοτε συνήνεσαν ἐν δυνάμει 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


3 ἐνή᾽ Lg; ἑνὶ G; al. A; see Zphes. 20 for a similar confusion of ἐν, ἑνί, in G. 
4 συνήνεσαν] GL; συνῆσαν gA. The testimony of A shows that the corruption 


(if it be such) was very early. 


place given to his ‘bonds’ by Igna- 
tius, as by S. Paul, see the notes on 
§ 3, above, Magn. 1. 

I. τοὺς πνευματικοὺς κιτ.λ.] Clem. 
Hom. xiii. 16 τιμίους μηργαρίτας περι- 
κεῖται, τοὺς σωφρονίζοντας λόγους. See 
also a similar image in Polyc. Phzd. 
I, where, referring apparently to Ig- 
natius and his companions, he says, 
τοὺς ἐνειλημένους τοῖς ἁγιοπρεπέσι δεσ- 
μοῖς, ἅτινά ἐστιν διαδήματα τῶν ἀλη- 
θῶς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 
ἐκλελεγμένων. So too in the Zfzstle 
of the Gallican Churches, Euseb. 
ΗΠ. E.v. τ ὥὦστε καὶ τὰ δεσμὰ κόσμον 
εὐπρεπῆ περικεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς, ὡς νύμφῃ 
κεκοσμημένῃ ἐν κροσσωτοῖς χρυσοῖς 
πεποικιλμένοις, Cyprian. Zpist. 76 (p. 
829, Hartel) ‘ornamenta sunt ista, 
non vincula, nec Christianorum pe- 
des ad infamiam copulant sed clari- 
ficant ad coronam,’ Victor Vzt. de 
Pers. Vand. iii. ad fin. ‘rigentium 
pondera catenarum quasi quaedam 
monilia pervidebat, quia non fuerunt 
illa vincula, sed potius ornamenta’; 
see Cotelier ad /oc., Pearson V. J. p. 
588, and comp. Magn. 1 (note). 

ἀναστῆναι] He can hardly mean 
that he desired literally to rise in his 
chains ; but that he hoped through 
the prayers of the Ephesians to re- 
main steadfast to the end, and so to 
appear at the resurrection invested 
with the glory of discipline and suf- 
fering, of which his chains were the 
instrument and the symbol. For 


8 πάροδός ἐστε] GL; παραδοθείς γε 


other references to his condition at 
the resurrection see Rom. 4, Polyc. 7 


(yok): 
3. ἐν κλήρῳ] Comp. Philad. 5 


τῷ 


ἵνα ἐν ᾧ κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην ἐπιτύχω, ED. 
Vienn. § 7 in Euseb. A. E. v. x [ev] 
τῷ κλήρῳ τῶν μαρτύρων προσετέθη. 
Voss, followed by some later editors, 
reads ἐνὶ (for ev), but this poetic form 
would hardly be possible in a writer 
like Ignatius. 

4. τοῖς ἀποστόλοις] S. Paul and 
S. John primarily, for these resided 
and taught at Ephesus ; possibly S. 
Peter as well, for he corresponded 
with the Churches of Asia Minor, if 
he did not visit them (1 Pet. i. 1); 
perhaps also S. Andrew and S. Philip, 
whom early tradition represents as 
living in these parts; see Colosstans 
p- 44 sq. The interpolator names 
Paul, John, and Timothy; but Timo- 
thy was not an Apostle: see Gala- 
tians p. 96. 

avynvecav| I have, with some hesi- 
tation, preferred this reading to συνῆ- 
σαν, only because letters were more 
likely to have dropped out than to 
have been inserted. 

XII. ‘I know that it ill becomes 
me to address such exhortations to 
you. I am only a weak criminal, 
while ye have obtained mercy and 
are strong in the faith. Ye have ever 
escorted the martyrs on their way to 
death. Ye were fellow-students of 
the mysteries with Paul the blessed, 


x] 


AXLE. 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Οἶδα τίς εἰμι καὶ τίσιν γράφω. 


63 


3 \ ᾿ς 
ΕὝΎω κατα- 


ε ΄ 3 “ > \ e \ ἥ ε a 9 
κριτος, ὑμεῖς ἡλεήμενοι" EYW ὑπὸ κίνδυνον, ὑμεῖς EoTN- 


ριγμένοι. 


/ / 3 ~ 3 \ ? ig 
παροδὸς ἐστε τῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἀναιρουμένων, 


Παύλου συμμύσται τοῦ ἡγιασμένου, τοῦ μεμαρτυρη- 


g* (MSs). 
gui propter deum martyres-fiunt. 
as stated in Dressel. 


in whose footsteps I would fain 
tread, and who makes mention of 
you in all his letters.’ 

6. ἐγὼ κιτ.λ.] See a similar pas- 
sage in Rom. 4 Οὐχ ws Πέτρος καὶ 
Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ἐκεῖνοι 
ἀπόστολοι, ἐγὼ κατάκριτος κιτιλ., and 
comp. 7γαζί. 3 ἵνα ὧν κατάκριτος 
ὡς ἀπόστολος ὑμῖν διατάσσωμαι. In 
all these passages his civil status, 
as κατάκριτος, is an emblem of his 
spiritual status: ‘I am under sen- 
tence of condemnation; while ye 
have obtained mercy and are par- 
doned.’ 

7. ὑπὸ κίνδυνον͵] Comp. Tradl. 
13 ἔτι yap ὑπὸ κίνδυνόν εἰμ. He 
alludes to the danger of his flinching 
before the terrors of death, or other- 
wise yielding to the allurements of 
the world. 

8. πάροδός ἐστε] ‘ye are a way of 
transit. They had escorted 5. Paul 
first, and now they were escorting 
Ignatius on his way to martyrdom. 
Their spiritual position, he seems 
to say, corresponds to their geogra- 
phical position. As they conducted 
the martyrs on their way in the 
body, so they animated their souls 
with fresh strength and courage. 
The reference to S. Paul will hardly 
be satisfied by the interview with the 
Ephesian elders in Acts xx. 17 sq, 
for he was not then on his way to 
death, if (as is most probable) he was 
liberated from his first captivity: but 
the notices in the Pastoral Epistles 
show that he was again at Ephesus 


Ἐπ πων 
υμιν 


The reading πάροδος underlies the rendering in A ad vos viatores 


9 ἡγιασμένου] So G; not ἁγιασμένου 


shortly before his final trial and mar- 
tyrdoin:) (1) Tim: 1 Ὁ ΕΠ i; 038), 
Probably Ignatius was thinking of 
other martyrs also of whom we know 
nothing: | ,,See.e.g.. Polyes; £222. (1 
συνεχάρην ὑμῖν προπέμψασιν.. 
ἐνειλημένους τοῖς ἁγιοπρεπέσι δεσμοῖς 
K.T.A., and 26. 9 ἀσκεῖν πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν 
nv καὶ εἴδετε kat ὀφθαλμούς, οὐ μόνον 
ἐν τοῖς μακαρίοις ᾿Ιγνατίῳ καὶ Ζωσίμῳ 
καὶ Ῥούφῳ κ.Οτιλ. 

τῶν εἰς Θεὸν κιτ.λ.] ‘who are slain 
unto God, a condensed expression 
for ‘who are put to death and thus 
conducted to God’; comp. ὃ 1 δεδε- 
μένον ἀπὸ Συρίας (with the note). The 
word ἀναιρουμένων is a mapa προσδο- 
kiav, where we should look for some 
such expression as προπεμπομένων. 

9. Παύλου συμμύσται] i.e. ‘ fellow- 
recipients, fellow -students, of the 
mysteries, with Paul.’ For the word 
see) Onis. 2% Ses: Naue. Hom ἢ 
(II. p. 413) ‘ Paulum nobis commu- 
niter adhibeamus magistrum ; ipse 
enim est symmystes Christi,’ Hippol. 
in Daniel. p. 174 (Lagarde) ὡς συμ- 
μύσται καὶ θεοσεβεῖς ἄνδρες (1.6. CO- 
religionists), Constantine in Theodt. 
H.E. i. 19 ὁ τῆς τυραννικῆς ὠμότητος 
συμμύστης. This was signally true 
of the Ephesians, among whom 
S. Paul resided for an exceptionally 
long time (Acts xix. IO sq, xx. 31), 
with whom he was on terms of the 
most affectionate intimacy (Acts xx, 
18 sq, 36), and who were the chief, 
though probably not the sole, recipi- 
ents of the most profound of all his 


‘ 
« TOUS 


64 THE EPISTLE 


4 / ὭΣ 
μένου, ἀξιομακαρίστον, οὐ 


epistles. The propriety of the lan- 
guage here is still further enhanced 
by the fact that 9. Paul, in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians more es- 
pecially, dwells on the Gospel dis- 
pensation as μυστήριον (1. 9, ill. 3, 4, 
Q, V. 32, vi. 19). Elsewhere (Phil. iv. 
12) he speaks of himself as μεμυη- 
μένος. In later ecclesiastical lan-- 
guage the words μυστήριον, μύστης, 
μυστικός, ἄμυστος, ἀμύητος, etc., were 
used with especial reference to the 
sacraments, more particularly to the 
eucharist (Bingham Christ. Ant. 1. 
iv. 2). But there is no trace of this 
meaning in Ignatius, who still uses 
these terms, as they are used by 
S. Paul, of the doctrines and lessons 
of Christianity. For the force and 
significance of this use in the Apo- 
stle, see the notes on Col. i. 26. 

If it be asked why S. John also 
is not mentioned here, the answer is 
simple. Ignatius is speaking of the 
relations of the Ephesians with 
martyrs (τῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἀναιρουμένων) ; 
but 5. John died peaceably in extreme 
old age at Ephesus. He is doubtless 
included in the ἀπόστολοι mentioned 
before; but here there is no place 
for him. It should be added also, 
that the life of S. Paul had a peculiar 
attraction for Ignatius, owing to the 
similarity of their outward circum- 
stances. He too, like Paul, had been 
an ἔκτρωμα; he too, like Paul, was 
journeying from Asia to Rome, 
there to win the crown of martyrdom. 
If Ignatius shows a full knowledge 
and appreciation of the ¢eaching of 
S. John, his heart clings to the ex- 
ample of S. Paul. 

τοῦ μεμαρτυρημένου] ‘attested, and 
hence ‘approved, ‘ of good report’ ; 
as e.g. Acts vi. 3, x. 22, XVl. 2, xxil. 
5,1 Tim. v. 10. So Clem. Rom. 47 
ἀποστόλοις μεμαρτυρημένοις ; see also 


OF IGNATIUS πὴ 


’ / e \ 5 wir yf 
YEVOLTO MOL UTO Τὰ ἐχνήῆ 


Clem. Rom. 17 (note), 18, 19, 44, and 
Philad. 5,11. It must not however 
be confined to the opinion of the 
Church, but will refer rather to the 
testimony of God as given in S. 
Paul’s own life and work: comp. 
Heb. xi. 2, 4, 5, 39 μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ 
τῆς πίστεως. Thus zxdirectly it may 
refer to his martyrdom; because this 
is God’s chief act of attestation. But 
the Anglo-Latin translator is wrong 
in rendering it sartyrizati, i.e. ‘put 
to death as a martyr’; because the 
passive is not used in this sense 
even in very late Greek. ‘To be 
a martyr’ is not μαρτυρεῖσθαι, but 
μαρτυρεῖν ‘to bear testimony.’ Even 
in Latin the passive martyrizart 
is a solecism, though a common 
one; and martyrizare is the more 
correct word. On the use of these 
words, μάρτυς, μαρτυρεῖν, etc., as re- 
ferring especially to the testimony 
borne by the death of the witness, 
see the note on Clem. Rom. 5. 

I. ἀξιομακαρίστου] See the note on 
this word above, inscr. 

ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη] Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 21, 
and esp. Mart. Polyc. 22 ἸΤολύκαρπος 
οὗ γένοιτο ev τῇ βασιλείᾳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
πρὸς τὰ ἴχνη εὑρεθῆναι ἡμᾶς. In the 
Mart. Ignat. Ant. § 5 it is related 
that the saint on his journey to 
Rome desired to follow in the A- 
postle’s foot-prints, not only figura- 
tively, but literally also, κατ᾽ ἴχνος 
βαδίζειν ἐθέλων τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου; 
but adverse winds prevented him 
from landing at Puteoliand so enter- 
ing Rome by the Appian Way as 
5. Paul had done. Ὑπὸ ra ἴχνη here 
stands for the more usual κατὰ ra 
ἴχνη or ἐν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν. With the accu- 
sative ὑπὸ often signifies ‘close to,’ 
e.g. Thuc. v. 10 ὑπὸ τὰς πύλας; 
Soph. £2 720 vm αὐτὴν ἐσχάτην 
στήλην (see the note on ὑπεναντίος, 


x11] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 65 


~ e/ ~ / «λ 
εὑρεθῆναι, ὅταν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω: ὃς ἐν πάση ἐπιστολῆ 
έ ‘ 


͵ e ΄-ἢ 9 m~ 9 a 
μνημονεύει ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 


3 μνημονεύει] GLe; μνημονεύω A. 


Col. ii. 14); but the instances are 
very rare in which, as here, its local 
meaning is preserved while yet the 
idea of subjacence has altogether 
disappeared ; comp. Plut. Vzt. Pelop. 
16 μικρὸν δὲ ὑπὸ τὰ ἔλη νεώς ἐστιν 
᾿Απόλλωνος. It almost universally 
refers to objects which are more or 
less raised. Comp. Ov. 2761. 111. 17 
‘ subsequitur pressoque legit vestigza 
gressu.. The Armenian translates 
ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη ‘under his footstool.’ 

2. Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] A phrase used 
especially of his martyrdom; see the 
note onMagz. 1. 

ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ) ‘2m every epis- 
tle’ Besides the epistle which 
bears their name, S. Paul refers to 
Ephesus and the Ephesian Chris- 
tians, either alone or with others, 
in Romans (xvi. 5), 1 Corinthians 
iam 32, xvi. ὃ. 19),/2. Cormthians 
(i. 8 sq), and the two Epistles to 
Timothy. These references would 
be quite sufficient to explain the 
hyperbole in the text ; comp. e.g. 
1 Thess. i. 8 ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, Col. i. 23 
ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει TH ὑπὸ TOY οὐρανόν. 
But, as Ignatius must have been 
born before the Apostle’s death, it 
is not improbable that he had oral 
information respecting the Apostle’s 
relations to the Ephesian Church, 
which has not come down to us and 
by which his language here is colour- 
ed. Others would translate ἐν πάσῃ 
ἐπιστολῇ ‘throughout his letter,’ 
supposing him to refer to the 
‘Epistle to the Ephesians’; e.g. 
Pearson V. /. p. 487 sq, and ad Joc. 
But for the omission of the definite 
article with πᾶς in this sense no 
example has been produced which 
is analogous. The instances alleged 


IGN. ΤΙ. 


are either proper names, as Matt. ii. 3 
πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα, Rom, xi. 26 πᾶς 
Ἰσραήλ (quoted by Hefele); or they 
are highly poetical passages,as Eurip. 
Med. 114 mas δόμος ἔρροι (quoted by 
Jacobson) ; or they are false readings, 
as Ephes. 5 καὶ πάσης ἐκκλησίας (quoted 
by Pearson. 7. p. 488, who has taken 
the incorrect text of Voss, the MS 
having καὶ πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας); or 
they are misinterpreted, as 2 Tim. 
iii. 16 πᾶσα γραφή (quoted also by 
Pearson V. ἢ l.c. and wrongly ex- 
plained ‘tota scriptura’); or they 
illustrate wholly different uses of 
mas, as Soph. Aj. 275 κεῖνός te λύπῃ 
mas ἐλήλαται κακῇ (again quoted by 
Pearson, 1. c.); or they are false 
Latin analogies, as e.g. Cicero’s 
‘omne corpus’ which might stand 
quite as well for πᾶν ro σῶμα as for 
πᾶν σῶμα, and which therefore fails 
in the main point (quoted also by 
Pearson, l.c.). It is strange that 
no one has adduced Ephes. ii. 21 
where πᾶσα οἰκοδομή is the best sup- 
ported reading; but even though 
this reading be accepted, the context 
(esp. συνοικοδομεῖσθε) shows that 
many οἰκοδομαί are required to make 
up the one temple (comp. Matt. xxiv. 
1, Mark xiii. 1, 2), and that therefore 
‘every building’ is the right render- 
ing. 

3. μνημονεύει] “ makes mention.’ 
This would be singularly unmeaning, 
if not untrue, supposing the reference 
to be to the Epistle to the Ephesians. 
Hence Valois and others would im- 
port into the word more than it 
contains, ‘vos cum laude memorat.’ 
The interpolator has changed what 
seemed to him a very awkward ex- 
pression, and substitutes ὃς πάντοτε 


5 


66 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ XIII 


XPT. CrrovdaCere οὖν πυκνότερον συνέρχεσθαι εἰς 


3 7 ~ \ > / « \ “Ὰ OMEN 
ευχαριστιᾶν Θεοῦ και εἰς δόξαν" OTAYV γὰρ TWUKVWS Ετι 


\ 5) \ / ~ ε / ΄σ C > 
τὸ αὐτὸ γίνεσθε, καθαιροῦνται αἱ δυναμεις τοῦ CaTava, 


\ , Caos, 3 ~ 2 πῇ ς / ς a ~ 
καὶ λύεται ὁ ὄλεθρος αὐτοῦ ἐν TH ὁμονοίᾳ ὑμών τῆς 
cf 


/ 2Q/ ? sf > / ? ΤΣ a / 
πίστεως. οὐδὲν εστιν ἀμεινον εἰρήνης» εν ἡ πὰς πόλεμος 5 


κι / \ / 
καταργεῖται ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων. 


2 Θεοῦ] here, GLg (Mss, but 1 has ad eucharistiam et gloriam det); after δόξαν 


[51]; om. A: 
Rup 4: crebrvo L; συνεχῶς g; al. A. 
L; γένησθε (v. 1. γίνησθε) g. 


eis δόξαν] GLS,A; δόξαν (om. εἰς) g. 


πυκνῶς] G Dam- 
3 γίνεσθε] G Dam-Rup; convenitis 


καθαιροῦνται ai δυνάμεις] Gg; καθαιροῦνται 


δυνάμεις Dam-Rup; destruuntur potentiae L; diruitur vis 51; tnfirmatur vis A. 


4 καὶ] GLA; om. Dam-Rup; al. g. 


6] G; om. Dam-Rup; al. g. ὄλεθρος 


αὐτοῦ] GL Dam-Rup; αὐτοῦ... ὄλεθρος [5]; Sy has (ὯΣ ϑοο στ 2γι6712772 cus, but 


this is probably a corruption of ΟἿ 3:9 τε exitinm ejus. 


shows another corruption, memoria ejus = AIBA AN. 


ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσιν αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν. 
An anonymous critic (see Lardner 
Credibility Pt. il. c. 5) conjectured 
μνημονεύω ; and this is now found to 
be the reading of the Armenian 
Version. This would be true to 
fact, for Ignatius does mention the 
Ephesians in five of the six remain- 
ine epistles, Magn2..15, 17a. 13, 
Rom. 10, Philad. 11, Smyrn. 12. 
But the parallelism of the clauses, 
as well as the general tenour of 
sentence, shows that S. Paul, not 
Ignatius, is the subject here. 

XIII. ‘ Gather yourselves together 
more frequently for eucharistic praise. 
By your frequent gatherings the 
powers of Satan are frustrated. The 
concord of your faith is their ruin. 
Nothing is better than peace, which 
vanquishes the antagonism of all 
enemies, spiritual and carnal.’ 

I. πυκνότερον] As Polyc. 4 πυκνότερον 
συναγωγαὶ γινέσθωσαν, Clem. Rom. [1]. 
17 πυκνότερον προσερχόμενοι πειρώμεθα 
προκόπτειν k.t.A., Doctr. A post. 16 πυκ- 
vas δὲ συναχθήσεσθε; see also Magn. 
4 διὰ τὸ μὴ βεβαίως Kar ἐντολὴν συνα- 


The rendering of A 
5 οὐδέν] GLS,Ag 


Opoiter Oa (with the note). Compare 
for similar injunctions in early times, 
Heb. x. 25 μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν 
ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, Barnab. 4 ἐπὶ 
τὸ αὐτὸ συνερχόμενοι συνζητεῖτε K.T.A., 
Clem. Hom. iii. 69 πρὸ δὲ πάντων, εἰ 
καὶ δεῖ ὑμῖν λέγειν, συνεχέστερον συν- 
έρχεσθες The meaning of πυκνότερον 
is not ‘in larger numbers,’ as it is 
taken by some (e.g. Pearson, here and 
on Polye. V.c¢.; Zahn, 7. Vv. A. peas 
and ad /oc.), but ‘more frequently,’ 
which sense is demanded alike by 
the passage Polyc. 1.ς. and by the 
common usage of the adverb in later 
Greek (e. g. Acts xxiv. 26). The 
former rendering would have been 
more correct, if the reading had been 
TUKVOTEPOL. 

2. εὐχαριστίαν] ‘thanksgiving. The 
word is quite general in itself, but 
doubtless refers indirectly to the 
Holy Communion, which was the 
chief εὐχαριστία of the Church, and 
which elsewhere Ignatius regards as 
the special bond of union ; P&zlad. 4 
(see the note there). The genitive 
Θεοῦ must be supplied also with δόξαν. 


XIV | 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


67 


XIV. ‘*Qy οὐδὲν λανθάνει ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τελείως εἰς 


> ΄σ N sf \ / \ \ / 2 
ἰησοῦν Χριστον EXNTE τὴν πιστιν καὶ THV ἀγαπην" ἥτις 


2 \ 2 \ os \ / 3 \ \ 7 / \ 
ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ ζωῆς καὶ τέλος" ἀρχὴ μὲν πίστις, τέλος δὲ 


ae} \ \ , ἢ Prey / yale \ 
ἀγάπη" Ta δὲ Ovo ἐν ἑνότητι γενόμενα Θεὸς ἐστιν, τα 


(but 1 adds exzm) [Dam-Vat 1] [Dam-Rup 2] [Anton 2]; add. γὰρ Sj. πᾶς 
πόλεμος] Gg Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; πᾶς ὁ πόλεμος Anton; dub. LS,S,A. 
6 καταργεῖται] g Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; καταργεῖτε G; evacuatur L; καταλύεται 


Anton; zmpediuntur A; frustrantur 5154: 
eis] GLg Dam-Rup; om. S,A. 


Rup 6. 
χριστὸν ἰησοῦν Dam-Rup; χριστὸν [6]. 
L; sent A (om. 7715). 


οὐ. ἀγάπη] Gg; ἡ πίστις... ἡ ἀγάπη Dam-Rup. 
Θεός ἐστιν] LS,A Dam-Rup; θεοῦ ἐστιν G; θεοῦ ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελεῖ σ. 


Rup. 


3. KaOaipovyra...Averat] See ὃ 19, 
where the words are similarly con- 
nected. 

ai δυνάμεις] i.e. ‘the hosts, the forces 
of Satan, whether they are evil an- 
gels (ἐπουράνιοι) or wicked men (ἐπί- 
γειοι). 

4. ὁ ὄλεθρος αὐτοῦ] i.e. ‘the de- 
struction which he is preparing for 
others.’ 

5. πᾶς πόλεμος «.7.A.] 1.6. ‘every 
antagonism which wars against the 
Church.’ It is not the war between 
the powers of heaven and the powers 
of earth, but the war of his spiritual 
(ἐπουράνιοι) and his carnal (ἐπίγειοι) 
enemies alike against the Christian, 
of which Ignatius speaks. For ἐπου- 
pavot, as applied to the powers of 
evil, comp. Ephes. vi. 12 πρὸς τοὺς 
κοσμοκράτορας TOU σκότους τούτου, πρὸς 
τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς 
ἐπουρανίοις, a passage which the 
interpolator has introduced into his 
text here. 

XIV. ‘All these warnings will be 
needless, if you abide in faith and 
love. Faith is the beginning of life, 
and love is the end. Where these 
two coexist, there is God. Faith 
cannot err, and love cannot hate. 
The tree is known by its fruits: pro- 
fession is tested by practice. The 


9 ζωῆς] GLg Dam-Rup; al. Sy; om. A. 


7 τελείως] GLS,Ag; om. Dam- 

8 ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν] GLS JA]; 
ἥτις ἐστὶν] GSyg Dam-Rup; guae sunt 
πίστις 
Io γενόμενα] Gg; γινόμενα Dam- 


work to which we are called consists 
not in empty profession, but in an 
effective and abiding faith.’ 

7. οὐδὲν λανθάνει] Comp. Polyc. 
Phil. 12 ‘nihil vos latet.’ 

ὃ. ἥτις ἐστὶ} An irregularity of 
construction for αἵτινές εἰσιν. This 
leaves an ambiguity, which is cleared 
up by the explanatory clause ἀρχὴ 
μὲν κιτ.λ. 

9. ἀρχὴ ξώης καλῇ See Clem. 
Alex. Strom. vii. 10 (p. 864) ἄμφω 
δὲ ὁ Χριστός, 6 τε θεμέλιος ἥ τε ἐποι- 
κοδομή, δι οὗ καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὰ τέλη... 
ἣ τε ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, πίστις λέγω, 
καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη κιτιλ.; Comp. 26. 11. 13 
(p. 458) προηγεῖται μὲν πίστις, φόβος 
δὲ οἰκοδομεῖ, τελειοῖ δὲ ἡ ἀγάπη. See 
also the confused passage in Barnab. 
1 in the Greek MSS, where the con- 
fusion has perhaps arisen partly from 
the insertion of some such passage 
as this, written originally as an 
illustration in the margin. For the 
second clause comp. I Tim. i. 5 τὸ 
δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη. 

Io. Θεός ἐστιν] Comp. 7 γαζέ, 11 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου ὅς 
ἐστιν αὐτός. See also a similar 
expression in Magn. 15 κεκτημένοι 
ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν ‘Ingots 
Χριστός. The combination of autho- 
rities leaves no doubt about the 


5—2 


68 


af ’ 7 / Fag 3 
δὲ ἄλλα πάντα εἰς καλοκαγαθίαν ἀκόλουθα ἐστιν. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[Χιν 


3 
ου- 


\ / 3 / e , δὲ ᾽ ΄ 
dels πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει OVOE ayarny 


/ ~ 
KEKTHMEVOS MILOEL, 


PANEPON TO AENAPON ἀπὸ TOY KapTIOY 


> a ε ε 7 ἊΣ > - 
αὐτοῦ οὕτως οἱ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι Χριστοῦ εἶναι, Ov ὧν 


v. 9 / 
πράσσουσιν ὀφθήσονται. 


\ a 9 7 \ 
οὐ yap νῦν ἐπαγγελίας TO 


᾽ 3 “ / 3. “- 3 / 
ἔργον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει πίστεως ἐάν τις εὑρεθή εἰς τέλος. 


1 ἐστιν] Gg; εἰσιν Dam-Rup. 
éxew A Dam-Rup. 


ἐπαγγελλόμενος] GLS,g Antioch 6; add. 


οὐδὲ] GLS,g Antioch, and so prob. A; οὐδεὶς Dam-Rup. 
3 κεκτημένος] GLS,Ag Dam-Rup; ἔχων Antioch. 
add. yap [Antioch]; praef. guoniam A; al. g. 

om. αὐτοῦ [g] (changing the whole context); γίνεται (om. αὐτοῦ) Antioch. 


φανερὸν] GLS, Dam-Rup; 
4 αὐτοῦ] GLS,A Dam-Rup; 


“ 
OUTWS 


οἱ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι] GL Dam-Rup; z¢a et guz promittunt A; oi ἐπαγγελλόμενοι [g] 
(om. οὕτως); ὁ οὖν ἐπαγγελλόμενος [Antioch], substituting the singular throughout. 


Χριστοῦ] gA Dam-Rup Antioch; χριστιανοὶ GL. 
again here and continues as far as λαλοῦντα μὴ εἶναι § 15. 


reading. The interpolator has sub- 
stituted an easier expression for a 
more difficult one. 

I. εἰς καλοκαγαθίαν κ-.τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘at- 
tend upon these and lead to per- 
fection.’ For this pregnant use of 
the preposition see the note on δ 1 
δεδεμένον ἀπὸ Συρίας. The word καλο- 
καγαθία does not occur in the LXX or 
N. T., but seems here to denote 
Christian perfection (τελειότης, Heb. 
vi. I). 

3. φανερὸν κ.τ.λ.] Matt. xii. 33 ἐκ 
yap Tov καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται ; 
comp. Luke vi. 44. 

5. ov yap νῦν «.t.r.] ‘for now (1.6. 
in these evil times, in this season of 
persecution) the Work zs not a mere 
matter of profession. For this abso- 
lute use of τὸ ἔργον, meaning ‘the 
preaching and practice of the Gospel,’ 
comp. Rom. 3 ot πεισμονῆς τὸ ἔργον 
ἀλλὰ μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμός, 
ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου, a passage 
which explains the force of νῦν here. 
See also Acts xv. 38, Phil. ii. 30 
(with the note). Similarly we have 
τὸ ὄνομα (see note ὃ 3 above), [τὸ] 
θέλημα (see note ὃ 20 below), ἡ χάρις 


5 ov κιτ.λ.] 2 commences 
yap νῦν] 


(e.g. Sazyrn. 12), and the like. 

6. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει x.t-A.] ‘but is 
realised only zf a man be found in 
the power of faith (with an effective 
faith) Zo the end.’ The words ev dvva- 
pet πίστεως are Sometimes attached 
to the preceding clause, and πιστός is 
understood with εὑρεθῇ; but the con- 
struction which I have adopted seems 
simpler. It is not uncommon to 
throw some of the dependent words 
forward with ἐὰν and_ similar 
particles, for the sake of emphasis ; 
e.g. John x. 9 80 ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ, 
1 Cor. vi. 4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια 
ἐὰν ἔχητε, Xl. 15 γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν Kopa. 
The connexion εὑρεθῇ εἰς τέλος how- 
ever is possible in itself (comp. 
Rom. 2 εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν). 

XV. ‘It is better to keep silence and 
to be, than to talk and not to be. The 
great Teacher never spoke without 
doing: and even His silence is of 
the Father. He, who apprehends 
the word of Jesus, understands also 
His silence. With a man so taught 
speech is action and silence is ar- 
ticulate. Even our most secret 
thoughts lie open before the Lord. 


σι 


fe) 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 69 


Xv] 


mn Vi "Ὰ / 3 “ \ Sy \ ~ 
AV. μεινον ἐστιν σιωπᾶν Kal εἰναι ἡ λαλοῦντα 
\ > \ \ / 4. ἢ ς 7ὔ A - 
μὴ εἶναι: καλὸν τὸ διδάσκειν, ἐὰν ὁ λέγων ποιῆ. εἷς 
ἘΣ / «“ 3 Su Ae ἐν E > \ 
οὖν διδάσκαλος, ὃς εἶπεν Kai ἐγένετο: Kal ἃ σιγῶν δὲ 
/ ᾽) ~ ΄ 2 ς , ~ 
πεποίηκεν ἄξια τοῦ πατρὸς ἐστιν. ὁ λόγον “Inco 
7 3 ΄σ / \ ~ > lanl 
κεκτημένος ἀληθῶς δύναται Kal τῆς ἡσυχίας αὐτοῦ 
9 I e/ , ὯΝ .« CE ~ / A > 
ἀκούειν, ἵνα τέλειος ἦ" ἵνα OL wy λαλεῖ πράσση Kal δι 

é 4 


GL Rup; om. [Z][A]; al. g. 6 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν] GL; ἀλλὰ Rup; al. Ag. 
7 λαλοῦντα] GLZS,A; λαλοῦντας [Antioch 4]; al. g. 8 μὴ εἶναι] The 
next sentences are omitted in Σ, and the words ἵνα δι’ ὧν... σιγᾷ γινώσκηται follow 


immediately. After these it omits everything till the beginning of § 18. 


ὁ λέγων] GLg Antioch; guod dictt (ὃ λέγει) 5.54; al. A. 

G; ὁ διδάσκαλος Antioch; dub. LS,A; al. g. 

ἃ] GL Antioch; om. S4A; al. g. The same authorities omit 
10 Ἰησοῦ] GLA; add. χριστοῦ Antioch; al. g. 


(ed.); al. a. 
ἐστιν in the next line. 


12 τέλειος ἢ] G [L]; ἢ τέλειος Antioch; al. g. 


λαλῆ πράσσει G; al. g. 


Let us remember therefore that we 
are His temple, and He dwells in 
us. This is so now, and it will 
hereafter be made manifest.’ 

7. Δμεινόν x.t.A.] Iren. ii. 30. 2 οὐκ 
ἐν τῷ λέγειν, GAN ἐν TG εἶναι, ὁ κρείττων 
δείκνυσθαι ὀφείλει: comp. Rom. 3 
ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγω ἀλλὰ καὶ θέλω, and 
see the note on Clem. Rom. 38. This 
is an indirect defence of their bishop 
Onesimus, on whose quiet andretiring 
disposition men were apt to presume : 
see above § 6. 

9. καὶ ἐγένετο] ‘and tt came to pass, 
taken from Ps. xxxii (xxxiil). 9, where 
the LXx has εἶπεν καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, but 
ἐγένετο would be a more literal trans- 
lation of the original. Thus Ignatius 
says in effect, ‘It is true of Christ’s 
work on earth, as the Psalmist says 
of God’s work in the universe, that 
the word was equivalent to the deed’; 
comp. Euseb. #. £. x. 4 (p. 469). 
This reference explains the following 
clause; ‘The effects of His silence 
also, not less than of His speech, are 
worthy of the Father.’ 

a σιγῶν δὲ κ-τ.λ.] ‘yea, and what 
He hath wrought by His silence, etc. 


9 διδάσκαλος] 
6s] GLS,A; ὡς Antioch 


λαλεῖ πράσσῃ] Antioch; 


i.e. His retirement in childhood and 
youth, His refusal to allow His 
miracles or His kingship to be pub- 
lished, His withdrawal for the pur- 
pose of prayer, His silence before 
His accusers, and the like; in short, 
the passive side of our Lord’s life. 
The impression which His silence 
at His trial more especially made on 
His followers may be inferred from 
Matt. xxvi. 63, xxvii. 14, Luke xxiil. 
9; John’ xix. 9; Acts ΜΠ 32, πὶ Peto n: 
23.. (There 1s no. reference’ here to 
the silence before the Incarnation, 
as in § 19. The silence here con- 
templated relates not to the counsels 
of God, but to the life of Christ. 

10. ὁ λόγον κ-τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘He, who has 
truly mastered the spoken precepts 
of Christ, is best able to appreciate 
and copy His silence.’ ᾿Αληθῶς is 
best taken with κεκτημένος. 

12. ἵνα δι’ ὧν λαλεῖ k.T.A.] i.e. ‘ that, 
when he has thus appropriated both 
the word and the silence of Christ, his 
speech may be as operative as action 
and his silence as significant as 
speech.’ For the latter clause comp. 
Clem. Al. Ped. ii. 7 (p. 202) o δὲ 


70 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [xv 


a - 29 \ / \ / 3 \ 

ὧν σιγᾷ γινώσκηται. οὐδὲν λανθάνει Tov Κύριον, ἀλλα 
έ 

\ \ \ ε ~ 2 \ 3 A 3 , SY 

Kal Ta κρυπτὰ ἡμῶν eyyUs αὐτῷ ἐστιν. πάντα OV 

~ 9 lanl 5 ς ΄- -~ J 3 3 Ler 

ποιῶμεν, WS αὐτοῦ EV ἡμῖν κατοικοῦντος, ἵνα ὦμεν αὐτου 


\ \ 3 \ > core / A .« ΑΛ \ / 
ναοὶ καὶ AUTOS EV 1) MLV Θεὸς OTrTEO Kal EOTLY KQAL φανη- 


1 γινώσκηται] G; γινώσκεται Antioch (ed.); al. g. 


Ag; add. yap Antioch. 
Gg; εἰσιν Antioch. 
4 αὐτὸς] txt gL; add. ἡ G [S,][A]. 


ἐμὸς vids, ἐκεῖνον λέγω τὸν σιωπῶντα, 
οὐ παύεται λαλῶν. Somewhat simi- 
larly Clem. Rom. 21 τὸ ἐπιεικὲς τῆς 
γλώσσης αὐτῶν διὰ τῆς σιγῆς φανερὸν 
ποιησάτωσαν. See thenoteon Phz/ad. 1. 
The meaning of Philo Quzs rer. div. 
53 (I. Ρ. 511) quoted by Zahn, ὁ προφή- 
της, καὶ ὁπότε λέγειν δοκεῖ, πρὸς ἀλή- 
θειαν ἡσυχάζει, is somewhat different, 
‘When he seems to speak, it is God 
who speaks and not himself.’ The 
force of γινώσκηται seems to be ‘way 
be recognized, understood by others, 
as if he were speaking.’ Otherwise 
γινώσκηται might refer to recognition 
by God (a meaning suggested by the 
words following οὐδὲν λανθάνει k.T.A.) ; 
but this is hardly so appropriate. 

I. οὐδὲν κιτ.λ.] Clem. Rom. 27 
πάντα ἐγγὺς αὐτῷ ἐστιν.. πάντα ἐνώ- 
πιον αὐτοῦ εἰσιν καὶ οὐδὲν λέληθεν τὴν 
βουλὴν αὐτοῦ. 

2. αὐτῷ] For the dative with 
ἐγγὺς comp. Ps. cxliv (cxlv). 18, Acts 
ix. 38, xxvii. 8, Clem. Rom. 1:0: Herm. 
Vis. 11. 3; see Bleek Hebraerbr. 11. 2. 
p- 209. The genitive is the more 
usual case, and in classical Greek 
the dative is very rare; Kihner II. 
Ῥ 357- The authorities leave no 
doubt about the reading here. 

4. vaoi] Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, 
vi. 19, 2 Cor. vi. 16; and Philad. 7 
τὴν σάρκα ὑμῶν ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ τηρεῖτε, 
Barnab. 16 ἵνα ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἐνδόξως οἰκοδομηθῇ...διὸ ἐν τῷ κατοι- 
κητηρίῳ ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὁ Θεὸς κατοικεῖ ἐν 


2 αὐτῷ] Gg*; αὐτοῦ Antioch. 
3 αὐτοῦ ναοὶ] GLg; zemplum ejus A; templa det So. 


ἐστιν} 
Θεός] txt σϑ.; add. ἡμών GLA 


ἡμῖν, Tatian ad Gre@c. 15 εἰ μὲν ὡς 
ναὸς ἢ, κατοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ βούλεται Θεὸς 
διὰ τοῦ πρεσβεύοντος πνεύματος. See 
on Mart. Ant. 2. 

Θεός] ‘as God’; i.e. ‘that He may 
be the God of this spiritual temple 
in which He dwells, just as the image 
is the god of the material shrine in 
which it is placed’: the word Θεὸς 
being part of the predicate, and not 
the subject to κατοικε. Ἡμῶν, which 
is added in some texts, interferes 
slightly with the sense. See the note 
on ὃ 9 ἐστὲ οὖν κιτιλ. above. 

ὅπερ καὶ ἔστιν κ-τ.λ.] i.e. ‘It is the 
case that God dwells in us now, and 
this fact will be made clearly mani- 
fest to our eyes hereafter from our 
deeds of love towards Him’; comp. 
§ 14 Ov ὧν πράσσουσιν ὀφθήσονται. 

5. δικαίως] ‘rightly, i.e. ‘as in 
duty bound’; comp. Magn. 9 ov 
δικαίως ἀνέμενον, I Cor. xv. 34 exvnw are 
δικαίως. Hence it sometimes signi- 
fies ‘truly’; see Lobeck on Soph. 
Aj. 547. 

XVI. ‘Be not deceived. To vio- 
late the house of God is to forfeit 
the kingdom of heaven. If those 
who desecrated the temple of their 
bodies were punished with death, 
what fate must await such as defile 
the temple of the faith, for which 
Christ died? They are filthy in- 
deed, and will go into unquenchable 
fire—they and their disciples.’ 

7.. Μὴ πλανᾶσθε] See the notes 





XVI] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 71 


\ , ε “ 2 ὩΣ " - 
σεται πρὸ προσώπου ἡμών, EE ὧν δικαίως ἀγαπῶμεν 


αὐτόν. 
XVI. 


BaciAelaNn 


Θεοῦ OY KAHPONOMHCOYCIN. 


Μὴ πλανάσθε, ἀδελφοί μου: οἱ οἰκοφθόροι 


> > : \ 
€L OUV Ol. Kata 


My ΄ A 3 7 / - > 
σάρκα ταῦτα πράσσοντες ἀπέθανον, πόσῳ μάλλον ἐὰν 


(but A omits ἐν ἡμῖν). 
homeceoteleuton); al. g. 


ὅπερ... ἡμῶν] GL; om. S,A (perhaps owing to 
7 ot] GS,Ag; om. Dam-Rup 1. 
σοντες ἀπέθανον] GLS,A; πάσχοντες ἀπέθνησκον Dam-Rup; al. g. 


Q πράσ- 


ἐὰν] G 


Dam-Rup; gwz (plur.) S,A (omitting ἐὰν); sz guzs L; al. g. 


on ὃ 5 μηδεὶς πλανάσθω above, and on 
Phitad. 3. 

of οἰκοφθόροι)]͵ The whole pas- 
sage is founded on S. Paul’s lan- 
guage in the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians; comp. iii. 16 οὐκ ot- 
Sare Ort ναὸς Θεοῦ ἐστε, καὶ τὸ 


a ΄σ cal ς σ΄ 5 ς + δὴ 
πνεῦμα του Oeov OLKEL ἐν υμιν; εἰ 


τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φθείρει, 
φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Θεύς, combined with 
vi. 9, 10, 19, μὴ πλανᾶσθε" 
/ 3, , , 
TOpVOL...... οὔτε [OLXOl...... βασιλείαν 
Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν. ..οὐκ οἴδατε 
ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν 


a+ 
OUTE 


ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν; Hence οἰκο- 
φθόρος must be interpreted from 5. 
Paul. It denotes those who violate 
the temple of their hearts and bo- 
dies, which is God’s house, by evil 
thoughts or evil habits. In classical 
Greek οἰκοφθόρος, οἰκοφθορεῖν, oiko- 
φθορία, commonly refer to the squan- 
dering of property, e.g. Plato Phed. 82 
C; but occasionally they designate the 
ruin of a house by offences of another 
kind, as in Plut. 7707. 12 Β γυναικῶν 
οἰκοφθορίαι γαμετῶν, and perhaps in 
Orac. Stbyll. 11. 258 δόλιοί τ᾽ οἰκοφθόροι 
aivoi ; comp. Orig. ¢. Cels. vii. 63 
νοθεύειν THY ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων ἑτέρῳ προ- 
καταληφθεῖσαν γυναῖκα καὶ φθείρειν 
τὸν ἄλλου ἀνθρώπου οἶκον. Whence 
Hesychius explains οἰκοφθόροι by μοι- 
xoi. The word therefore would lend 
itself easily to the application which 
Ignatius here makes of it. If the 


explanation which I have adopted be 
correct, the following ἀπέθανον will 
probably refer to the incident in 
Numbers xxv. I—9g, to which also S. 
Paul alludes in the same epistle, x. 8 
μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν 
ἐπόρνευσαν, καὶ ἔπεσαν κιτλ. The in- 
terpolator has got altogether on a 
wrong track, for he paraphrases εἰ de 
οἱ τοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους οἴκους διαφθείρον- 
τες θανάτῳ καταδικάζονται, πόσῳ 


μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίαν 
ΚΤ. Δ: 
ὃ, βασιλείαν Θεοῦ x.t.A.] See 


I Cor, Οὐ 7/10, Gal. 'v..213 camp, 
Philtad. 3, Polyc. Phil. 5. 

εἰ οὖν οἱ κατὰ σάρκα x.T.A.| Comp. 
Clem. Hom. Ep. ad lac. 7 πολὺ γὰρ 
δεινὸν ἡ μοιχεία τοσοῦτον ὅσον Ta dev- 
τερεῖα ἔχειν αὐτὴν τῆς κολάσεως" ἐπεὶ 
τὰ πρωτεῖα τοῖς ἐν πλάνῃ οὖσιν ἀπο- 
δίδοται, κἂν σωφρονῶσιν, 70. xvi. 20 
μοιχείας πνευματικῆς τῆς κατὰ σάρκα 
χείρονος ὑπαρχούσης. This last pas- 
sage illustrates the force of xara 
σάρκα in the text. The excuse for 
such language lies in the fact that the 
early heresies, which these writers 
combat, were in many cases highly 
immoral in their tendency, maintain- 
ing in direct terms the indifference of 
sins of the flesh. See the note on 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. 9, where also the 
sanctity of the bodily temple is 
maintained against such pernicious 
teaching. 


72 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[xvI 


~ 3 ε \ SG 3 la 
πίστιν Θεοῦ ἐν κακοδιδασκαλίᾳ φθείρῃ, ὑπὲρ ἧς ᾿Ιησοῦς 


Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώθη. 


c ΄σ΄ ε \ “ 3 
ὁ τοιοῦτος ῥυπαρος γένομενος εἰς 


Cn ᾽ / ς 7 \ e > , 
τὸ πῦρ TO ἄσβεστον χωρήσει, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ ἀκούων 


αὐτοῦ. 


XVII. Ata τοῦτο μύρον ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς 5 


΄ι ς ς ~ 9 9 / \ 
[αὐτοῦ] ὁ Κύριος, iva πνέη τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀφθαρσίαν. μὴ 


1 πίστιν Θεοῦ] GLA; fidem veram 341 om. Dam-Rup; al. g. 
Dam-Rup; κακῇ διδασκαλίᾳ G; al. g: comp. Phzlad. 2. 


κακοδιδασκαλίᾳ] 
See 7γαζ, 6, where in a 


similar case Dam-Rup alone has preserved the correct reading καταξιοπιστευόμενοι. 


φθείρῃ] G; φθερεῖ Dam-Rup; al. g. 
al, Ag. 


παχυνθείς, he would seem to have read τρυφερός. 


I, πίστιν Θεοῦ] ‘the faith of God, 
i.e. ‘the teaching of the Gospel.’ 
For this objective sense of πίστις see 
Galatians p. 155, and the notes on i. 
23, ill. 23, vi. τὸ. This use is so fully 
recognised when Ignatius writes, that 
the definite article is dispensed with, 
as e.g. in θέλημα (see the note on 
§ 20). 

φθείρῃ] ‘any one corrupt. This 
omission of τις in classical writers is 
not unfrequent ; see Kihner 11. p. 32 
sq, Jelf § 373. 6. 

2. pumapos] ‘He, not less than 
the other, is defiled with filth.’ 

3. τὸ πῦρ TO ἄσβεστον] See Matt. 
lili, 12, Luke iii. 17, and esp. Mark 
ix. 43. 

XVII. ‘The Lord’s head was per- 
fumed with ointment, that He might 
shed the fragrance of incorruptibility 
on the Church. Suffer not your- 
selves to be anointed with the foul 
odour of the teaching of the Prince 
of this world. We have received the 
knowledge of God, which is Jesus 
Christ. How then shall we ignore 
His grace bestowed upon us, and 
perish in our folly?’ 

5. Διὰ τοῦτο] to be connected with 
the following iva, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 10, 
2 Thess. 11. 11, 1 Tim. i. 16, Philem. 


2 ὁ τοιοῦτος] GL; ὅτι οὗτος Dam-Rup; 


ῥυπαρὸς] GL Dam-Rup; al. A. As g paraphrases λιπανθεὶς καὶ 


6 αὐτοῦ] Gg; suo LA; 


15, comp. Magn. 9; though διὰ τοῦτο 
sometimes refers to the preceding 
clause, when followed by ἵνα, e.g. 


_ Eph. vi. 13. 
μύρον é€daBev] A_ reference to 


the incident in the Gospels; Matt. 
xxvi. 7 sq, Mark xiv. 3 sq, [Luke vii. 
37 sq], John xii. 3 sq. As on that 
occasion ‘the whole house was filled 
with the odour of the ointment,’ so 
to all time the Church is perfumed 
with the fragrance of incorruptibility 
shed from the Person of Christ. 
Somewhat similarly Clem. Alex. 
Paed. 11. 8 (p. 205), speaking of this 
same incident, says δύναται δὲ τοῦτο 
σύμβολον εἶναι τῆς διδασκαλίας τῆς 
κυριακῆς καὶ τοῦ πάθους αὐτοῦ " μύρῳ 
γὰρ εὐώδει ἀλειφόμενοι κιτ.λ., where 
Clement explains the anointed feet 
of the Lord to mean the Apostles 
who received the fragrant chrism of 
the Holy Spirit. Comp. Clem. Hom. 
ΧΙ]. 15 ἡ σώφρων γυνὴ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν 
ἀγαθῇ τιμῇ μυρίζει, Orig. c. Cebs. 
vi. 79 ἐπεὶ Χριστὸς κεφαλή ἐστιν τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας, ὡς εἶναι ἕν σῶμα Χριστὸν καὶ 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τὸ μύρον ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς 
καταβέβηκεν κιτιλ. (with the whole con- 
text), Macar. Magn. AZocr. iii. 14 (p. 
23) τὸ οὐράνιον μύρον (said of Christ, 
in reference to the incident at Beth- 


Xvit] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


73 


ἀλείφεσθε δυσωδίαν τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ 


5, κ᾿ 7 \ 3 £ ς ~ > ~ / 
αἰῶνος TOUTOU, MH αιἰχμαλωτίση UMas EK TOU προκειμενουν 


Civ. 


διὰ τί δὲ οὐ πάντες φρόνιμοι γινόμεθα λαβόντες 


Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ὅ ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός; τί μωρώς 


Υ > ΄σ \ / A 
ἀπολλύμεθα ἀγνοοῦντες TO χάρισμα ὃ πέπομφεν ἀλη- 


θώς ὁ Κύριος: 


om. g Antioch 2. 


arepécOw...7) ἁγία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησία [g*]. 
[5]; doctrinae L; ἀπιστίας Antioch; zniguctatis A. 
11 χάρισμα] GL[g]; χάριν [Antioch]; dub. A. Zahn con- 


dub. A; al. g. 


jectures χρῖσμα. There is av. 1. χάρισμα for χρῖσμα in τ Joh. ii. 27. 


μὴ areiperbe] GLA; μηδεὶς οὖν ἀλειφέσθω [Antioch]; μὴ 


ἡ τῆς διδασκαλίας] G; διδασκαλίας 
10 6] α; gui (ὅς) L; 


πέπομφεν 


GL; πέπονθεν A Antioch (who paraphrases, ὑπὲρ ἧς πέπονθεν ἀληθῶς ὁ κύριος) ; al. g. 


any). Zahn truly remarks that the 
allusion here implies a knowledge of 
S. John’s Gospel (ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη 
k.7.A.), as well as of 5. Matthew’s 
(κατέχεεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ) or 
S. Mark’s (κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς). 

6. αὐτοῦ] not αὑτοῦ ; see the notes 
θη Col. i. 20, 22. 

ἀφθαρσίαν] ‘tncorruptibility, ra- 
ther than ‘z#zmortality, here, as the 
preceding φθείρῃ requires; comp. 
Ephes. vi. 24, and so prob. Magn. 6 
εἰς τύπον καὶ διδαχὴν ἀφθαρσίας. At 
least the former idea must be promi- 
nent here, though the latter may not 
be absent. Zahn quotes Iren. iii. 11. 8 
πανταχόθεν πνέοντας τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν 
said of the Gospels (so too i. 4. 1 ὀδ- 
μὴ ἀφθαρσίας, i. 6. τ πνοὴ ἀφθαρσίας). 
Comp. Afost. Const. vii. 27 εὐχαρισ- 
τοῦμέν σοι...καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐωδίας τοῦ 
μύρου καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀθανάτου αἰῶνος 
k.7.A. See Harnack in Zeztschr. f. 
Kirchengesch. 11. p. 295. 

7. δυσωδίαν] Liturg. D. Fac. p. 40 
εὐωδίασον ἡμῶν τὸ δυσῶδες τῆς ψυχῆς 
καὶ τοῦ σώματος; comp, Lp. Vienn. in 
Euseb. H. E. v. 1 τὴν εὐωδίαν ὀδω- 
δότες ἅμα τὴν Χριστοῦ ὥστε ἐνίους 
δόξαι καὶ μύρῳ κοσμικῷ κεχρῖσθαι αὐ- 
τούς, οἱ δὲ κατηφεῖς καὶ ταπεινοὶ καὶ 
δυσειδεῖς καὶ πάσης ἀσχημοσύνης ἀνά- 
πλεοι κιτ.λ., where perhaps we should 


read δυσώδεις for δυσειδεῖς. See also 
Magn. το ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς ἐλεγχθήσεσθε. 

τοῦ ἄρχοντος κιτ.λ.] The same ex- 
pression occurs below ὃ 19, Magn. 
I, Zrall. 4, Rom. 7, Philad. 6; comp. 
John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, ὁ ἄρχων 
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, I Cor. li. 6, 8, οἱ 
ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (this later 
phrase however apparently being used 
by S. Paul of earthly powers). 

8. μὴ αἰχμαλωτίσῃ x.t-r.] ‘lest he 
lead us captive and carry us away 
Jrom the life etc.’ For the condensed 
expression αἰχμαλωτίζειν ἐκ τοῦ k.T-X., 
see the note on § 1 δεδεμένον ἀπὸ 
Συρίας. For αἰχμαλωτίσῃ comp. Phz- 
lad. 2 αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν τοὺς θεοδρόμους, 
2 Tim. iii. 6 αἰχμαλωτίζοντες γυναι- 
κάρια (the correct reading). 

τοῦ προκειμένου ζῆν] ‘the life which 
is set before us, 1.6. ‘for us to pursue.’ 
For this sense of προκείμενος comp. 
Heb. vi. 18, xii. 1, 2. For the sub- 
stantival use of ζῆν see the note on 
§ 11 above. 

9. λαβόντες] ‘by rececving’ It 
might however be translated ‘seeing 
that we received, but the words in 
the following clause, pwpds, ἀγνοοῦν- 
τες, point to the former interpretation. 

10. 6 ἐστιν κιτ.λ.] Comp. Magn. τὸ 
μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην ὅ ἐστιν 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Col. 11. 2 ἐπίγνωσιν 


74 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


XVIII. 


[XVIII 


\ 3 \ ΄σ Cd lan 
Περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα TOV σταυροῦ, 


ε > qn > ΄σ ς \ / 
ὅ ἐστιν σκάνδαλον τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν, ἡμῖν δὲ σωτηρία 


\ \ 3. τ 
καὶ ζωὴ αἰωνιος. 


͵ an , lod , 
TOY comodc; TOY CYZHTHTHC; WOU Kau- 


lanl , ~ Ἢ ς \ \ e lol 
χήσις τῶν λεγομένων συνετῶν; O γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν 


1 περίψημα k.T.d.] Σ begins again here and continues to ζωὴ αἰώνιος. It omits 


the rest of the chapter and commences again with § 19. 
GLZA; crucis tuae Anon-Syr; al. g. 

crux=6s) L; dub. ZA Anon-Syry; al. δ. 

ὑμῖν δὲ Σ; sed vobis fidelibus A; τοῖς δὲ πιστοῖς [6]. 
GLAg; in salutem et in vitam aeternam % Anon-Syrto. 


GLA Tim-Syr 2; δυνατῶν g. 


GG’ Theodt; ἐκ [g]; ex L; dub. A Tim-Syr. 


ἐπ 


τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ 
εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ 
γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι (the correct read- 
ing). The knowledge of God is co- 
extensive with Jesus Christ. For 6, 
where we should expect ἥτις, see the 
note on Col. ili. 14 τὴν ἀγάπην 6 ἐστιν 
σύνδεσμος THs τελειότητος (the correct 
reading). It is not uncommon in 
these epistles; Magn. 1.ς., Tradl. 7, 
Rom. 7. The reading however is 
doubtful here; see the upper note. 

XVIII. ‘I am the devoted slave 
of the Cross. It is a scandal to the 
unbeliever, but salvation and life to 
us. In it the boast of this world’s 
wisdom comes to nought. Such was 
God’s scheme for our redemption. 
Jesus Christ our God was born as a 
man. He was Himself baptized that 
by His passion He might cleanse the 
waters of baptism for us.’ 

I. Tepivynpal ‘the offscouring’ ; see 
the note on ὃ 8. Here also the idea 
is twofold, abasement and self-sacri- 
fice; ‘My spirit bows itself at the foot 
of the Cross,’ and ‘My spirit devotes 
itself for the sake of the Cross.’ ‘I 
am content, Ignatius would say, ‘to 
give up everything, and to become 
myself as nothing, for that Cross in 
which others find only a stumbling- 
block.’ Zahn points out a passage 


τοῦ σταυροῦ] 

2 ὁ] G; quae (i.e. 

ἡμῖν δὲ] GL Anon-Syro; 
σωτηρία... αἰώνιο9] 

4 συνετῶν] 

ὁ] G; om. G’ Theodt; al. g. ὑπὸ] 


Mapias] txt GLAg 


in Ephraem Syrus Of. Syr. Ill. p. 
494 E ‘crucem tuam adoravi,’ which 
seems to be a reminiscence of the 
Syriac version of περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν 
πνεῦμα τοῦ σταυροῦ here, ‘adorat spi- 
ritus meus crucem tuam.’ 

2. 6 ἐστιν σκάνδαλον] A reminis- 
cence of 1 Cor, 1. τὸ; 22, 24; ‘comp: 
Gal. v. 11. The Cross was still a 
stumblingblock, as it had been in 
the Apostolic age; but the persons 
who stumbled at it were different. 
The stumblers, to whom Ignatius 
seems especially to allude in oxav- 
dadov here, are the Docetics ; see on 
λεία, 8, and 1. Ρ. 359 sq, 568 sq. 

3. ποῦ σοφός x.t-A.] An inexact 
quotation from 1 Cor. i. 20 ποῦ σοφός; 
ποῦ γραμματεύς ; ποῦ συνζητητὴς τοῦ 
αἰῶνος τούτου; which words them- 
selves are a free paraphrase of Isaiah 
xxx. 18, The following clause, ποῦ 
καύχησις τῶν λεγομένων συνετῶν, 1S 
Ignatius’ own; but it is suggested by 
the quotation from Isaiah xxix. 14, 
ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ THY 
σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω, Which 
S. Paul introduces into his context 
(i. 19), combined with other expres- 
sions of the Apostle in this neigh- 
bourhood (i. 31 ὁ καυχώμενος ev Κυρίῳ 
καυχάσθω, a condensed quotation of 
the passage in Jeremiah ix. 23, 24, 


XVIII] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 75 


, > ~~ ς | ε > 
5 Incovs ὁ Χριστος ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονο- 


͵ , / \ A ὃ / \ e 7 
μίαν, ΕΚ σπέρματος μεν QUEL σνευματος δὲ αγιου" 


ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ἵνα τῷ male τὸ ὕδωρ 


καθαρίση. 


Tim-Syr; add. τῆς παρθένου G’. 


κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν] κατοικονομίαν G. 


οἰκονομίαν] g*; add. det patris [A] (the whole sentence being in brackets); add. 


det GG'L Theodt Tim-Syr 


6 Aaveld] 6a6 GG’. 


πνεύματος] 


GG'Lg* (with a v.1.); ἐκ πνεύματος Theodt, and so prob. Tim-Syr; dub. A. For 
μὲν...δὲ Tim-Syr has a simple connecting particle e semine dauid et ὁ spiritu sancto. 
7 ἵνα...καθαρίσῃ! GG'L; ut aguas passtbiles purgaret Tim-Syr, so that his trans- 
lator apparently read τοῦ παθεῖν for τῷ πάθει; ut purgaret aquae corruptionem A; 
iva τὸ θνητὸν ἡμών καθαρισθῇ Theodt; al. g. 


μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ 
x.T.A.) and elsewhere (Rom. Iii. 27 
ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις 1). 

4. ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν] See the note 
on this expression in inscr. above. 

5. ἐκυοφορήθη) ‘was borne in the 
womb. For the word comp. Clem. 
Rom. 20. It is found once in the 
LXX, Eccles. xi. 5, and occurs several 
times in late classical writers. 

ὑπὸ Μαρίας] See above, § 7. 

κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν] ‘according to a 
dispensation. The word οἰκονομία 
came to be applied more especially 
to the Incarnation (as here and below 
ᾧ 20 ἧς ἠρξάμην οἰκονομίας κ.τ.λ.), be- 
cause this was par excellence the 
system or plan which God had or- 
dained for the government of His 
household and the dispensation of 
His stores. Hence in the province 
of theology, οἰκονομία was distinguish- 
ed by the fathers from θεολογία 
proper, the former being the teaching 
which was concerned with the Incar- 
nation and its consequences, and the 
latter the teaching which related to 
the Eternal and Divine nature of 
Christ. The first step towards. this 
special appropriation of οἰκονομία to 
the Incarnation is found in S. Paul; 
e.g. Ephes. 1. 10 εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ 
πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν. See the note 


on that passage, where the history of 
the word is more fully traced. In 
this passage of Ignatius it is more- 
over connected with the ‘reserve’ of 
God (ὃ 19 ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ Θεοῦ ἐπράχθη). 
Thus ‘economy’ has already reached 
its first stage on the way to the sense 
of ‘dissimulation,’ which was after- 
wards connected with it, and which 
led to disastrous consequences in the 
theology and practice of a later age. 

6. ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ] This is 
the way in which Ignatius delights 
to represent the human nature of our 
Lord; comp. § 20 below, ΣΧ 9, 
kom. 7, Smyrn. 1. It is generally 
counterbalanced by a reference to 
His Divine nature, as here (ὁ Θεὸς 
ἡμῶν, πνεύματος ἁγίου); except where, 
as in Tradl. 9, his object is merely to 
assert the reality of the human na- 
ture against the Docetics. See esp. 
Tertull. Carn. Chr. 21. 

7. ἐγεννήθη] not ‘begotten, but 
‘born, asin Trall.g; comp. Smyrn. 
το 50-Luke 1.133574, χα σον ete. 

wa τῷ πάθει κιτιλ.)] The baptism of 
Christ might in a certain sense be 
said, in the language of our liturgy, 
to ‘sanctify water to the mystical 
washing away of sin’ (comp. Tertull. 
adv. Fud. 8, de Bapt.9); but it was 
the death of Christ which gave their 


76 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[XIX 


XIX. Kal ἔλαθεν τὸν ἄρχοντα TOU αἰῶνος τούτου 


1 καὶ] GG'LAg Orig (Gk, but omitted in Jerome’s version) Euseb Andr- 


Cret Tim-Syr; sed Anon-Syr,; om. ~. 
GL etc.; add. τῆς ἀειπαρθένου καὶ θεοτόκου G’. 


purifying effect to the baptismal wa- 
ters. The baptism was only the in- 
auguration of this sanctifying process. 

XIX. ‘This divine economy was 
hidden from the prince of this 
world. The virginity of Mary, her 
child-bearing, the death of the Lord 
—these three mysteries, though des- 
tined to be proclaimed aloud, were 
wrought in the silence of God. The 
announcement was first made to all 
the ages by the appearance of a star, 
which outshone all the celestial 
lights, and to which sun and moon 
and stars did obeisance. They were 
terrified at this strange apparition. 
Magic vanished before it; ignorance 
was done away; the ancient kingdom 
of evil was destroyed, when God ap- 
peared in the form of Man. Thus 
the eternal counsel of God was inau- 
gurated. And the whole universe 
was confounded because the disso- 
lution of death was purposed.’ 

I. Καὶ ἔλαθεν κιτ.λ.}] This passage 
is more frequently quoted by the 
fathers than any other in the Igna- 
tian Epistles. It is cited or referred 
to by Origen (Hom. in Luc. vi, Op. 
Ill. p. 938 A), by Eusebius (Quaest. ad 
Steph. 1, Op. IV. p. 881, ed. Migne), 
by Basil (Hom. in Sanct. Chr. Gen. 
a. N71. sp. τοῦ B), by | Jerome 
(Comm. in Matt. i. § 1, Op. VU. p. 
12 B), by Jovius Monachus (de Oecon. 
vil, an Phot. 6267." ccxxii, p.''622); 
by Andreas Cretensis (Hom. in 
Nativ. Ὁ. Virg. ii, in Pearson V. J, 
p. 87), and by an anonymous Mono- 
physite writer preserved in a Syriac 
version (Cureton C. 7. p. 219; see 
7b. p. 359), besides Timotheus of 
Alexandria (Cureton C. Z. p. 211) 


2 Μαρίας] txt 
toxeros|] GG’g etc.; 


who has quoted also the previous 
context. Of these writers however, 
Basil and Jerome have obviously 
taken the reference, not from Igna- 
tius himself, but from Origen, whose 
comment they mix up with the state- 
ment of Ignatius, as Cotelier has 
pointed out. The passage was appa- 
rently also in the mind of the com- 
mentator who bears the name of 
Theophilus of Antioch (zz Evang. i, 
p. 280 Otto), of Ephrem Syrus 
(Hymn. 19, quoted by Merx, p. 74 
sq), of S. Ambrose on Luke 1. 27 
(Of. τ. p. 1281 ‘ut virginitas Mariz 
falleret principem mundi’), of Cyril- 
lonas the Syrian poet (Bickell Coms#. 
ker. Syr. Lit. pp. 34, 35, quoted by 
Zahn /. v. A. p. 187), of Anastasius 
(de Rect. Ver. Dogm. quoted by Pear- 
son V. J. p. 81), and certainly of a 
Syrian Commentator on S. John 
(Cureton C. /. p. 285; this was either 
Harith-bar-Sisin, or Lazarus of Beth- 
Kandasa; see Wright Catal. Syr. 
Manuscr. Brit. Mus. pp. 608, 610). 
The idea that the Deceiver was 
himself deceived by God’s mysterious 
reserve is found in many connexions 
in the early fathers; see for instance, 
besides the passages already quoted, 
Justin Martyr in Iren. v. 26. 2 Σα- 
Tavas...undém@ εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατά- 
κρισιν, Hippol. Op. p. 38 (Lagarde) 
ἰδοὺ ὁ Κύριος παραγίνεται λιτός, μόνος, 
γυμνός, ἀπροστάτευτος, ἔνδυμα ἔχων 
τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, κρύπτων δὲ τὸ 
τῆς θεότητος ἀξίωμα ἵνα λάθῃ τοῦ 
δράκοντος τὸ Tavovpynpa...adda καὶ ὡς 
ἄνθρωπος λιτὸς καὶ ὑπόχρεως ἁμαρτιῶν 
ἔκλινεν τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ βαπτισθῆ- 
vat κιτιλ. (a passage which may have 
been suggested by the words of 


XIx] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


7} 


ε 7 / \ ς \ 4. σὰ ε 7 \ ε 
2) παρθενία Μαρίας Καὶ Ο ΤΟΚΕΤΟς AUTNS, OMOLWS Kal O 


τόκος Andr-Cret. 


αὐτῆς...ὁ θάνατος] GG’LZ, (which omits ὁμοίως) A 


(which has verum etiam for ὁμοίως καὶ) g Euseb Andr-Cret Tim-Syr Anon-Syr 
(comp. Jov καὶ τὴν σταύρωσιν); om. 2: see the lower note. 


Ignatius), 7d. p. 146 τοῦτο δὲ oiko- 
vouia τοῦ πνεύματος ἐγίνετο, ἵνα μὴ ὁ 
διάβολος συνίῃ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν 
ἐν παραβολαῖς λελαλημένα x.t-A. So 
too Greg. Nyss. Orat. Catech. 26 (II. 
p. 68 Migne) ἀπατᾶται yap καὶ αὐτὸς 
τῷ Tov ἀνθρώπου προβλήματι ὁ προ- 
απατήσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ τῆς ἡδονῆς 
δελεάσματι, and for other passages 
in writers of the fourth and later 
centuries see Baur Christl. Lehre 
uv. a. Versohnung Ὁ. 73 56. 

2. ὁμοίως καὶ κιτ.λ.] For this mode 
of connexion see § τὸ, Zvall. 13: 
similarly ὡσαύτως καὶ Clem. Rom. 43. 

In one of the two Mss (3,) of the 
Curetonian text this clause is omitted, 
and the words run ‘the virginity of 
Mary and the birth of our Lord and 
the three mysteries of a cry.” Thus 
the three mysteries are dissociated 
from the virginity and child-bearing. 
This reading has been adopted by 
Cureton (Ὁ: /. p. 284 sq), Lipsius 
(Aecht. p. 128 sq, S. 7. pp. 9, 36, 194), 
and others, as the text of the original 
Ignatius; and is adduced as an argu- 
ment for preferring the Curetonian 
letters to the Vossian. The reasons 
urged in favour of this view are two- 
fold. (1) It is said that the earliest 
writers who quote or refer to the 
passage (Origen and Theophilus of 
Antioch) stop short of the death of 
Christ. The answer is, that they 
were speaking of the virginity of 
Mary and the birth of Christ alone, 
and therefore quoted, or referred to, 
just so much only of Ignatius’ words 
as served their purpose. In the case 
of Origen the argument is suicidal ; 
for he ends with ἡ παρθενία Μαρίας, 
so that the testimony of his silence 


would be equally valid against 6 ro- 
κετὸς αὐτῆς aS against 6 θάνατος τοῦ 
Kupiov. Again Theophilus of An- 
tioch (if indeed we could venture to 
consider this commentary his genuine 
work) does not directly refer to the 
passage at all, and therefore any allu- 
sion to the death would be altogether 
out of place. Eusebius, the next 
writer in point of time who quotes 
the passage, quotes the clause καὶ ὁ 
θάνατος x.t-A. also. Cureton alleges 
likewise the Pseudo-Ignatius (Phz- 
lipp. 8), who mentions the virginity 
and birth alone as being hidden from 
Satan; but here again the answer is 
the same. This writer is not con- 
cerned at all with the death of Christ. 
Moreover this very instance shows 
the fallacy of the argument from si- 
lence; for this Ignatian forger cer- 
tainly had καὶ ὁ θάνατος τοῦ Kupiov in 
his text here, as his own recension 
shows. (2) Itis urged that the state- 
ment involved in ὁ θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου 
is false; for, since Satan is repre- 
sented in the Gospels as prompting 
Judas to the betrayal (Luke xxii. 3, 
John xiii. 2), he could not have been 
ignorant of the death. Nor is the 
answer given by Uhlhorn (p. 48) and 
Hefele, that this ignorance of Satan 
applied to the predeterminate counsel 
of God and not to the historical 
event, satisfactory. It is not how- 
ever the fact of the death, but the 
significance and effects of the death, 
to which Ignatius refers. The prince 
of this world instigated the death of 
Christ, not knowing that it was or- 
dained to be the life of mankind. 
Thus the deceiver was himself de- 
ceived. See esp. 1 Cor. ii. 7 sq Aa- 


78 THE EPISTLE 
λοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν 
ἀποκεκρυμμένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς 
πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν, ἣν 
οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος 
τούτου ἔγνωκεν᾽ εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ 
ἂν τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν 
κιτιλ., where, as here, the reference 
is to the mystery of the atonement 
through the cross of Christ, and on 
which passage Chrysostom says τὸ δὲ 
Οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ov περὶ Χριστοῦ 
ἐνταῦθα εἰρῆσθαι ἀλλὰ περὶ αὐτῆς τοῦ 
πράγματος τῆς οἰκονομίας, οἷον, τί 
ἐβούλετο ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ σταυρός, 
οὐκ ἤδεισαν. As Ignatius has quoted 
the context of this passage of S. Paul 
just before, we must suppose that he 
had the Apostle’s words in his mind 
here. It is probable indeed that by 
οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου S. Paul 
means earthly rulers, such as Pilate 
and Herod; but very many ancient 
commentators (e.g. Marcion in Ter- 
tull. adv. Marc. v.6; Origen Sel. 271 
Psalm. ii, 11. p. 538; τινές in Chry- 
sost. on I Cor. ii. 6; Ambrosiaster 
ad loc.), and some modern, have 
interpreted the words of spiritual 
powers, and Ignatius is likely to 
have done the same. Even if he 
did not, he would still regard the 
earthly rulers as acting under ¢he 
ἄρχων Tov αἰῶνος τούτου in this crime. 
Indeed the mention of the ‘death 
of Christ’ is required by the context. 
Here, as elsewhere in Ignatius, the 
πάθος is the centre round which his 
thoughts revolve. The Incarnation 
has its importance mainly in the 
fact that it leads up to the Passion. 
It is only the degznmning of the end 
(ἀρχὴν δὲ ἐλάμβανεν). The whole 
passage opens and closes with the 
death of Christ. It opens with the 
mention of the ‘Cross’ which is 
‘salvation and life eternal’ (§ 18 be- 
ginning); it closes with the reference 
to the ‘dissolution of death’ through 
the sacrifice of Calvary (ὃ 19 end). 


OF IGNATIUS [ xIx 
Both these passages, it will be ob- 
served, appear in the Curetonian 
letters themselves. And, while the 
mention of Christ’s death is thus 
suggested by the parallel in S. Paul 
and required by the context of Ig- 
natius himself, this mode of regarding 
it entirely accords with the language 
of other fathers, who speak in the 
same way of Satan’s ignorance re- 
specting it; e.g. Orig. Sel. zz Psalm. 
xxxiv. ὃ (commenting on the words 
ἐλθέτω αὐτοῖς παγὶς ἣν οὐ γινώσκουσι 
κιτιὰ., Op. τι. p. 650) νομίζω περὶ τοῦ 
σταυροῦ λέγειν αὐτόν, εἰς ὃν ἐμπέπτωκεν 
ὁ διάβολος ἀγνοῶν K.T.r., Comm. in 
Matt. T. xiii § 6, Op. 11. p. 583 (comp. 
Comm. tn Matth. T. xiii § 9, Of. 111. 
Ρ. 583, ἵν᾽ οἱ παραλαβόντες αὐτὸν... ἐκ τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἐκμυκτηρισθῶσιν, εἰς κατάλυ- 
σιν τῆς ἰδίας βασιλείας καὶ ἀρχῆς παρὰ 
προσδοκίαν παραλαβόντες...δ ὃν ἐν 
καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατοῦμεν). The 
Marcionites used similar language 
of the demiurge, Adamant. Dza/. de 
ect. Fid. ii ὁ δημιουργὸς...ἐπεβού- 
λευσεν αὐτῷ, μὴ εἰδὼς ὅτι ὁ θάνατος 
τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ σωτηρία ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο. 
See also the references in the pre- 
vious note on the idea of the De- 
ceiver deceived. 

On the other hand the shorter 
reading, which omits the reference 
to the death, is condemned alike on 
grounds of external and _ internal 
criticism. (1) Though one of the 
two MSS (3,) of the Syriac has the pas- 
sage as given above, the other (3,) 
reads it ‘the virginity of Mary and 
her child-bearing and the death of 
the Lord (eahama mslama 
ὡ- 5351) and the three mysteries of 
crying,’ thus only differing in sense 
from the Greek text by the insertion 
of ‘and’ before τὰ τρία μυστήρια (an 
insertion which a thoughtless tran- 


scriber would readily make). It is 
said indeed, that this MS (3,) must 


XIX] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 79 


7ὔ ~ 7 / ~ ε > 
θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου: τρία μυστήρια κραυγῆς, ἅτινα ἐν 


1 τοῦ Κυρίου) GG’LZAg Tim-Syr Anon-Syr; rot! χριστοῦ Euseb Andr-Cret. 
τρία μυστήρια] GG’LA (which adds mzradilia) g Euseb Andr-Cret Tim-Syr; δ 


tria mysteria Z,Ds. 
lower note. 


have been corrected from the Greek 
text. But such a solution is highly 
improbable in itself; for elsewhere 
=, follows the Curetonian text closely 
in all the omissions and divergences 
from the Greek. In the only other 
passage of importance in which it 
exhibits a variation, Rom. 9 καὶ yap 
ai μὴ προσήκουσαί μοι τῇ ὁδῷ, where 
with the Greek it retains the nega- 
tive μὴ, which 3, omits, it clearly 
preserves the original reading (see 
the note there). Even in smaller 
matters it is not uncommonly more 
correct than 3, (see Zahn /. v. A. 
p. 187). Again the Armenian Ver- 
sion, which was translated from the 
Syriac, has the clause here as in the 
Greek ; and it is quoted or referred 
to in Syriac writers (see the re- 
ferences given above), who were 
scarcely likely to have got it from 
the Greek. Moreover the omission 
in 3, is readily explained. The eye 
of the transcriber would be confused 
between words differing so slightly 


as maxlama ‘and her child-bear- 
ing, and escvasa ‘and the death 


of, so that the latter word might 
easily drop out; and as a matter of 
fact this same confusion is actually 
made in Rom. 6, where rokerés is 
rightly translated in the Curetonian 
text dolores partus, but an extract 
elsewhere preserved gives it with 
the corrupt reading weasa for 
caiam, and accordingly the Ar- 
menian version has dolores mortis 
. (see the notes on the passage). (2) 
The reading of 3., which distin- 
guishes the three mysteries from 


κραυγῆς] GG’LE etc; φρικτὰ Andr-Cret; see the 
ἅτινα] GG’L®> etc; om. A. 


what has gone before, has never yet 
been adequately explained. What 
in this case are the ‘three mys- 
teries of crying’? Cureton altogether 
evades this difficulty when he says 
(C. Δ p. 286) that they may ‘refer to 
the song of the angelic host, Luke 
ii. 14; for there is nothing in this 
song which explains such a reference. 
Ritschl (Eutstehung p. 578, ed. 1) 
and Lipsius (Aecht. p. 133) agree 
that two of the three were (1) the 
voice at the baptism, (2) the voice at 
the transfiguration. For the third 
Lipsius suggests the angelic an- 
nouncement of the conception as 
made either to Joseph (Matt. 1. 20) 
or to the Virgin herself (Luke i. 26) ; 
while Ritschl supposes that Ignatius 
used some other Gospel containing 
a third proclamation similar to the 
two others. But, if the transfigura- 
tion is allowed a place here, why 
not the death? And again, in what 
sense can the announcements of 
Matt. i. 20, Luke 1. 26 be called 
κραυγῆς; seeing that they were strictly 
private? Volkmar (see Lipsius 5S. 
T. p. 9 sq) finds all the three μυστή- 
pia κραυγῆς in 5. Mark, explaining 
them of the voice at the baptism, 
the voice at the transfiguration, and 
the exclamation of the centurion at 
the crucifixion (Mark xv. 39). As 
he includes this last, it is difficult 
to see on what grounds he rejects o 
θάνατος Tov Κυρίου. 

I. κραυγῆς] ‘of crying, of pro- 
clamation, a stronger word than 
κηρύξεως : see Athenag. Suppl. ΤΊ 
ἐπιτρέψατε ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου ἐξακού- 
στου μετὰ πολλῆς κραυγῆς γεγο- 


80 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


| XIX 


σ᾿} ΄σ ἰοὺ / ~ 7A le 
ἡσυχίᾳ Θεοῦ ἐπράχθη. πώς οὖν ἐφανερωθη τοῖς aiwow ; 


2 \ -~ ὁ} ε \ / A > / 
ἀστὴρ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἔλαμψεν ὑπερ παντας τοὺς ἀστέρας, 


1 Θεοῦ] GG’LZA Euseb Andr-Cret Tim-Syr; om. g. 


πῶς οὖν... αὐτοῖς} 


In place of all this = has merely a /atere (a Syriasm for ἀπὸ or ἐκ or παρὰ) stellae. 


νότος ἐπὶ παρρησίαν ἀναγαγεῖν ws ἐπὶ 
βασιλέων φιλοσόφων ἀπολογούμενον 
(comp. Luke i. 42 κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ, 
probably the correct reading). Comp. 
also Philad. 7 ἐκραύγασα, with the 
note. Here κραυγή is the corre- 
lative to ἡσυχία, as revelation is to 
mystery. ‘These mysteries,’ Igna- 
tius would say, ‘were foreordained 
and prepared in silence by God, that 
they might be proclaimed aloud to 
a startled world.’ It is an exag- 
gerated expression of the truth stated 
in Rom. xvi. 25 ro κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου 
χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου φα- 
νερωθέντος δὲ νῦν «.7.A., Ephes. iii. 
9 τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμ- 
μένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ Θεῷ 
...wa γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ 
ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις K.T.X. 
(with the parallel passage Col. i. 26 
sq); comp. also 1 Cor. 1]. 7 sq (already 
quoted), 2 Tim. i. 10. For the use 
of μυστήριον in 5. Paul as suggesting 
the idea of revelation, see the note 
on Col. i. 26. The expression μυ- 
στήρια κραυγῆς involves ἃ studied 
contradiction in terms; for, as Chry- 
sostom says (Of. II. p. 375), ἔνθα μυ- 
στήρια, πολλὴ σιγή. 

The substitution of φρικτὰ for κραυ- 
γῆς in Andreas Cretensis is not to 
be explained with Merx (p. 76) as 
a corruption of κρυπτά, this again 
being corrupted from κραυγῆς. It is 
merely the substitution, in a loose 
quotation, of a common epithet of 
μυστήριον (occurring in the liturgies) 
for a not very intelligible expression. 
The epithet φρικτὸν is found with 
μυστήριον, e.g. Joseph. B. F. ii. 8. 5, 
Hippol. p. 17 (Lagarde), Zzé# D. 


Marc. Ὁ. τό, Lit. S. Bastl. p. 164 
(ed. Neale). So in Chrysostom the 
μυστήρια (i.e. the eucharist) are styled 
φρικτά, φρικώδη, OP. VII. p. 310, VIII. 
Dp: 273, Χ: ip. 7393; and felsewhere 
Bunsen would read ἐναργῆ for kpav- 
γῆς: 

ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ...ἐπράχθη] Comp. Magn. 
ὃ ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος 
ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών (with the note). 
On this silence of God compare 
Dionys. Areop. de Div. Nom. xi περὶ 
μὲν οὖν αὐτῆς, ὅ τι ποτέ ἐστι, τῆς 
θείας εἰρήνης καὶ ἡσυχίας κι. See 
also the language of Marcellus of 
Ancyra quoted on Magn. 8. 

I. τοῖς αἰῶσιν] ‘to the ages’ past 
and future, which are here personi- 
fied. It seems probable that in S. 
Paul’s expression, μυστήριον ἀποκε- 
κρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. ili. 9, 
Col. i. 26), the preposition should be 
taken as temporal (see the note on 
the latter passage); but Ignatius 
may have understood it otherwise. 


‘At all events this personification of 


‘the aeons’ is a step towards the 
Valentinian phraseology, and affords 
another illustration of the Gnostic 
tinge which colours the language of 
Ignatius. 

2. ἀστὴρ] In the evangelical nar- 
rative (Matt. 11. 2 sq) the incident 
of the star is very simply told; but 
this simplicity was early overlaid by 
gross exaggerations. So we find it 
treated in the Protevangelium, § 21 
εἴδομεν ἀστέρα παμμεγέθη λάμψαντα ἐν 
τοῖς ἄστροις τούτοις καὶ ἀμβλύνοντα 
αὐτούς, ὥστε τοὺς ἀστέρας μὴ φαίνεσθαι. 
[I may here mention by way of 
caution, that Lipsius (Aechz. p. 135) 


ΧΙΧ] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. SI 


\ \ ΄- 3 ΄σ΄ ͵ > 
Kal TO φώς αὐτοῦ ἀνεκλάλητον ἦν, καὶ ξενισμὸν παρεῖ- 


e y 3 ΄σ \ \ \ 5) 
χεν ἡ καινότης αὐτοῦ" Ta δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα ἄστρα ἅμα 


erroneously quotes after Cureton as 
a separate authority, though closely 
allied, an extract from the Ms, Bv?z. 
Mus. Add. 14, 484, which Cureton 
himself correctly gives as a Syriac 
translation of this passage in the 
Protevangelium (C. /. p. 286). See 
the account of the MS in Wright’s 
Catal. p. 99.] Compare also Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod. 74 (p. 986) avé- 
τειλεν ξένος ἀστὴρ καὶ καινός, κατα- 
λύων τὴν παλαιὰν ἀστροθεσίαν, καινῷ 
φωτὶ οὐ κοσμικῷ λαμπόμενος, ὁ καινὰς 
ὁδοὺς καὶ σωτηρίους τρεπόμενος, αὐτὸς 
ὁ Κύριος ἀνθρώπων ὁδηγὸς κιτ.λ., where 
the resemblances to this passage of 
Ignatius are perhaps too great to be 
accidental. Still more extravagant 
is the extract which Cureton (C. 7. 
p- 287) gives from the Syriac work 
called the Cave of Treasures, wrong- 
ly ascribed to Ephrem: ‘For two 
years before the birth of Christ the 
star appeared to the magi; for they 
beheld the star in the firmament of 
heaven, which shone with a light, 
the appearance of which was greater 
than all the stars; and there was a 
girl in the midst of it holding a boy, 
and a crown was placed upon his 
head, etc.’ This extract is taken from 
the MS Brit. Mus. Add. 25, 875: see 
Wright’s Cazal. p. 1064. A similar 
account of the appearance of the 
virgin and child in the star is found 
also in the Ethiopic Conflict of 
Adam and Eve, of which the Syriac 
Cave of Treasures is apparently only 
another recension (see Dillmann Das 
Christliche Adambuch des Morgen- 
landes Ὁ. 9 sq, in Ewald’s Fahr- 
biicher no. v), but nothing is there 
said of the two years. The star how- 
ever is there stated, as here, to have 
‘shone in the heavens zz the midst 


IGN, ΤΙ: 


of all the other stars’ (Dillmann 1. c. 
p- 135). Whether Ignatius derived 
his statement from some written nar- 
rative or from oral tradition, it would 
be impossible to say. In the only 
other passage where he seems to step 
outside of the Canonical Gospels, 
Smyrn. 3, either hypothesis is ten- 
able. 

In the Curetonian letters the 
whole passage, πῶς οὖν...ἡ ἀνόμοιος 
αὐτοῖς, is abridged into these words 


MaAAAaA δος A ἐᾷ latere 


stellae,’ which if it had been trans- 
lated from the Greek, would pro- 
bably represent ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀστέρος. 
But even if it be rendered ‘from the 
time of the star’s appearing’ with 
Weiss, Lipsius (Aech¢. p. 132), and 
others (see below, III. p. 90), no good 
sense is attained. Bunsen boldly 
substitutes ἐκηρύχθη for ἐπράχθη; but 
what is the meaning of ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ 
Θεοῦ ἐκηρύχθη: Cureton does not 
attempt to explain the words. 

3. ἀνεκλάλητον] Not a common 
word; see I Pet. i. 8, Iren. i. 14. 5. 

ξενισμὸν] ‘amazement, perplexity,’ 
as arising from a sense of strange- 
ness; comp. I Pet. iv. 12 μὴ ξενί- 
ἕεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πει- 
ρασμὸν ὑμῖν γινομένῃ, ὡς ξένου ὑμῖν 
συμβαίνοντος, which explains the 
meaning. See the note on ξενισθή- 
σονται (Clem. Rom.] ii. 17. The 
substantive occurs occasionally else- 
where in the sense which it has here ; 
e.g. Polyb. xv. 17. 1 συγκινεῖ πῶς 
ἕκαστον ἡμῶν ὁ ξενισμός. 

4. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κιτ.λ.] The conception 
here is obviously taken from Joseph’s 
dream, and it may therefore be a 
question how far Ignatius intended 
this as a description of actual phy- 


6 


$2 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[xix 


\ / \ > / ΄σ 3 if 3 \ 4 3S 

ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνη KXOPOS EYEVETO TH GOTEPL, AUTOS δὲ ἦν 
- 3 vo \ / 7 > 

ὑπερβάλλων τὸ φώς αὐτοῦ ὑπερ παντα' ταραχή TE NV 


1 χορὸς] G's; χωρὸς G (but with a blot which may be intended as a correction 
into χορὸς). ἐγένετο] GG’; ἐγίνοντο g. 2 Te] GG’Ag; autem (δὲ) L. 
3 ὅθεν] GG’; ἔνθεν [56]. From this point 2 reads etiam adhuc in manifestatione filit 
cocpit abolert magia et omnia vincula evanuerunt et regnum vetus et error malitiae 
destruebatur. inde commota sunt simul omnia et dissolutio mortis excogitata est, et 
erat initium illi quod in deo (apud deum) perfectum est, where the epistle ends, so 
that §§ 20, 21 are omitted altogether. ἐλύετο...διεφθείρετο, Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.] 
ἐλύετο πᾶσα μαγεία (μαγία), καὶ πᾶς δεσμὸς ἠφανίζετο κακίας, ἄγνοια καθῃρεῖτο (καθη- 
ρῆτο), παλαιὰ βασιλεία διεφθείρετο, Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. GG'L, and so it is universally read by 
the editors. But I am disposed to think that διεφθείρετο ought to be omitted, and 
the punctuation will be readjusted accordingly, as is done in the text. With perhaps 
the exception of Severus, I cannot find any trace of διεφθείρετο in our other authori- 
ties: (1) g paraphrases ἐμωραίνετο σοφία κοσμική, γοητεία ὕθλος ἦν Kal γέλως ἡ 
μαγεία, πᾶς θεσμὸς κακίας ἠφανίζετο, ἀγνοίας ζόφος διεσκεδάννυτο, καὶ τυραννικὴ 
ἀρχὴ καθῃρεῖτο, Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ., where τυραννικὴ ἀρχὴ is the substitute for παλαιὰ 
βασιλεία: (2) A has et hinc solvebatur omnis incantatio astrologorum (= ἐλύετο πᾶσα 
μαγεία Kai πᾶς δεσμὸς) εἰ deceptiones mali jfiniebantur (ἠφανίζετο κακίας ἀγνοια)ὴ et 
vetus regnum destruebatur (καθηρεῖτο παλαιὰ βασιλεία) fer revelationem dei etc. 


sical phenomena. The parallel pas- 
sage of the Excerpta ex Theodoto 
already quoted shows how the 
symbol and the thing symbolized 
might be blended together: see also 
Ephrem Syrus, Of. Syr. Iv. p. 416 
‘A star shone forth suddenly with 
preeternatural light, less than the 
sun and greater than the sun. It 
was less than the sun in manifest 
light; it was greater than he in 
secret strength by reason of its 
mystery. A star in the east darted 
its rays into the house of darkness, 
etc.’; Marcellus in Euseb. ς. Ware. 
lil, 3 (p. 48) οὗτος yap ἦν ὁ τηνικαῦτα 
φανεὶς ἀστὴρ ὁ φέρων τε καὶ δηλῶν τὴν 
ἡμέραν τοῖς μάγοις, explaining Ps. 
cix (cx). 3. There is the same contra- 
distinction as here, between ἄστρα 
‘the constellations’ and ἀστὴρ ‘the 
single star,’ in Protev. 21 (quoted 
above). 

I. χορὸς ἐγένετο] Comp. ὃ 4, Rom. 
2 


2. ὑπερβάλλων k.t.A.] ‘surpassing 


all in its light, where τὸ φῶς is pro- 
bably the cognate accusative, de- 
scribing the thing in which the excess 
took place; as eg. Aristot. AH. A. 
ix. 29 (p. 618) τὴν δειλίαν ὑπερβάλλει 
τοῦτο τὸ ὄρνεον. At least I do not 
remember any instance where ὑπερ- 
βάλλειν signifies ‘to make to exceed.’ 
In 2 Macc. iv. 24 ὑπερβαλὼν τὸν 
Ἰάσωνα τάλαντα ἀργυρίου τριακόσια, 
the second accusative is one of 
quantity (see Grimm ad Joc.). 

ταραχή τε ἦν] 1.6. ‘there was trouble, 
perplexity, to know whence came 
this strange appearance which was 
so unlike them.’ For xaworns comp. 
Orig. σι ὐζο 1. 58. (ie. p.) 373) τὸν 
ὀφθέντα ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ καινὸν 
εἶναι νομίζομεν καὶ μηδενὶ τῶν συνηθῶν 
παραπλήσιον K.T.A. 

3. ὅθεν ἐλύετο] The critical note 
will explain the diplomatic grounds 
on which I have placed διεφθείρετο 
in brackets, as probably a later and 
spurious addition. The gain to the 


sense is great and obvious. Δεσμός 


ΧΙΧ] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 83 


/ ε 7 ε > / 3 a e/ 3 / a 
σόθεν y KQALVOTHS ἢ αἀνομοίιος avuTOLS. ὅθεν ἔλυετο σασα 


/ \ - ΄ > / , of 
Mayela καὶ σας δεσμος, ἠφανίζετο KaAKLaAS αγνοια, καθη- 


(3) The sentence is much tumbled about in = (as given above), and retrans- 
lated into the Greek it would run thus, ἐλύετο μαγεία καὶ πᾶς δεσμὸς ἠφανίζετο 
καὶ καθῃρεῖτο παλαιὰ βασιλεία καὶ κακίας αγνοια. From a comparison of the two 
last it seems to follow that the Syriac Version, of which Σ is a tumbled abridg- 
ment and from: which A is a corrupt text of a secondary translation, must have 
run somewhat thus; solvebatur omnis magia et omne vinculum et error malitiae 
jiniebatur et regnum vetus destruebatur, etc. The scribe of the ancestral Ms of 
GG’L, having begun with a wrong punctuation, found when he got to the end of 
the sentence that he had no verb for παλαιὰ βασιλεία and inserted διεφθείρετο 
accordingly. Sev-Syr 5 quotes only the latter part of the sentence, zgworantia 
dissipabatur, regnum vetus corrumpebatur (destruebatur), where the last verb 
nin ssannp is a natural rendering of διεφθείρετο, which was perhaps already 


in his text. 4 μαγεία] μαγία G’. δεσμός] GG’LZ; θεσμὸς [g]; 
sate καθῃρεῖτο] g; destruebatur A; καθηρῆτο GG’; adlata est L. 


Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου] GG'L; guum deus homo mantfestaretur Sev-Syr; 
θεοῦ ὡς ἀνθρώπου φανερουμένου g (treating the whole context paraphrastically) ; 
per revelationem det qui incarnatus est A; in manifestatione fila X (in an earlier 


place in the sentence; see above). 


is‘thus connected with éAvero, and 
βασιλεία with καθηρεῖτο, to which 
they have respectively a natural 
affinity ; whereas in the common 
text they are separated. For the 
connexion of λύειν with δεσμὸς see 
Philad. 8; for the connexion of καθ- 
αἱρεῖν with power and sovereignty, 
see above § 13. 

4. μαγεία] The idea that magic 
was overthrown by the Advent of 
Christ is frequent in the fathers, and 
this overthrow was commonly con- 
nected, as here, with the visit and 
worship of the magi, as the symbol 
and assurance of its defeat. Seee.g. 
Tertull. de dol. 9, Orig. c. Cels. i. 60 
(I. p. 374 54) καθαιροῦνται ai τῶν 
δαιμόνων ἐνέργειαι μὴ δυνάμεναι ἀντι- 
βλέψαι τῷ τῆς θεότητος φωτί, with 
other references given by Cotelier. 
The same too is said in Clem. Alex. 
Exc. Theod. 72 sq (p. 986) more es- 
pecially of astrology; comp. Tertull. 
1, c. ‘attamen cum magia punitur, 
cujus est species astrologia, utique 


et species in genere damnatur.’ The 
large space which magic, witchcraft, 
astrology, and the like, occupied in 
the popular religion of the heathen, 
may be seen from the denunciations 
of the Christian fathers; e.g. Justin 
Afpol.i. 14, Tertull. Afolog. 23, etc. 
See the account of Hadrian in Orac. 
Sibyll. viii. 56. The lapse of Julian 
into paganism was connected with 
magical rites; Eunapius Vz¢. Soph. 
p. 89 sq (comp. Greg. Naz. Orat. 4, 
I. p. 102). For the prevalence of 
magic at Ephesus see Acts xix. 19. 
πᾶς δεσμός] ‘every spell’; comp. 
Porph. Zp. ad Ane. p. 5 (ed. Gale) 
δεσμεῖν te ἱερούς twas δεσμοὺς καὶ 
λύειν τούτου. As I have connected 
the words, δεσμὸς will refer especially 
to witchcraft, incantations, and the 
like, though it need not be confined 
to these, but will extend to any spell 
which the powers of evil exert over 
a man (see Philad. 8). For other 
examples of this sense of δεῖν, δεσμός, 
etc., see Asch. Eum. 303 ὕμνον δ᾽ 


6—2 


34 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[xIx 


| es 
petro παλαιὰ βασιλεία, [διεφθείρετο], Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως 


/ 3 ; TOL th 3 \ δὲ λα cy 
Pavepoupevou ELS KAINOTHTA ALOLOU ZWAC’ ἀρχὴν o€ ἐλαμ 


= , 
Pavey TO παρὰ Θεῷ ἀπηρτισμεένον. 


sf \ y 
ἔνθεν Ta παντα 


~ \ A ΄σ / / 
συνεκινεῖτο διὰ TO μελετάσθαι θανάτου καταλυσιν. 


2 εἰς... ζωῆς] GG’L Sev-Syr; ad vitam novam aeternitatis A; om. 2; al. g. 


ἀϊδίου] ἀειδίου G’. 


ἀκούσει τόνδε δέσμιον σέθεν (Comp. ver. 
318), Plat. Resp. 11. p. 364 C ἐπαγω- 
yais τισὶ καὶ καταδέσμοις ; comp. 
Justin Déal. 85 (p. 311 C) ἐξορκίζουσι 
καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις χρῶνται, 
Tertull. de Sect. 2 ‘vis homicidium 
ferro, veneno, magicis devinctiontbus 
perfici? Euseb. Z.C. 13 ἢ 4 καταδέσμοις 
τισὶν ἀπειρημένης γοητείας. 

I. παλαιὰ βασιλεία] The ancient 
kingdom of the Evil One was re- 
placed by the βασιλεία Θεοῦ. The 
visit of the magi was regarded from 
the earliest times as the inauguration 
of a new £zzgdom, this being implied 
in Matt. 11.2. Their gifts were the 
offerings of subjects to their sove- 
reign, Compare Justin Dza/. 78 (p. 
304 Ὁ) of yap μάγοι, οἵτινες ἐσκυλευ- 
μένοι ἦσαν πρὸς πάσας κακὰς πράξεις 
τὰς ἐνεργουμένας ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου 
ἐκείνου, ἐλθόντες καὶ προσκυνήσαντες τῷ 
Χριστῷ φαίνονται ἀποστάντες τῆς σκυ- 
λευσάσης αὐτοὺς δυνάμεως ἐκείνης, Iren. 
iii, 16. 4, Tertull. adv. Fud. 9, adv. 
Mahe. Mi; 13, etc, 

Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘when God thus appeared 
as a man to claim His own King- 
dom.’ The substitution of ‘at the 
revelation of the Son’ for Θεοῦ ἀν- 
θρωπίνως davepovpévov in the Cure- 
tonian text seems to be a capricious 
alteration made by the epitomator, 
who has abridged and transposed 
freely throughout this passage. This 
is shown by the reading of the 
Armenian, which follows the Greek. 

2. εἰς καινότητα κ-ιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘So as 
to introduce a new order of things, 
which is everlasting life,’ ζωῆς being 


ἀρχὴν...κατάλυσιν] GG! (the latter reading éxwetro for 


the genitive of apposition; comp. 
Winer § lix. p. 666. See Rom. vi. 
4, where also καινότης ζωῆς means 
‘the new state which is life,’ as op- 
posed to the old state which was 
death. Comp. (Magu. 9 εἰς καινότητα 
ἐλπίδος. 

ἀρχὴν δὲ «.7.A.| Le. ‘the economy 
which had been perfected in the 
counsels of God long before began to 
take effect.’ The appearance of the 
star was the beginning of the end. 

3. τὰ πάντα κιτιλ)] These words 
may be compared with a passage 
in the Protevangelium, of striking 
power, but in its dramatic character 
singularly unlike the representations 
of the Canonical Gospels, where not 
the universal disturbance, but the 
universal hush, of nature is the con- 
sequence of this birth of the Victor 
of Death; § 18 καὶ ἀνέβλεψα εἰς τὸν 
ἀέρα καὶ εἶδον τὸν ἀέρα ἔκθαμβον καὶ 
ἀνέβλεψα εἰς τὸν πόλον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν ἑστῶτα κιτιλ. So too 
Milton, ‘The stars with deep amaze 
Stand fixt in stedfast gaze.’ 

4. θανάτου κατάλυσιν] Comp. 1 Cor. 
xv. 26 ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ 
θάνατος. The actual destruction of 
death is the last scene of all; but 
the appearance of the star was the 
signal for the commencement of the 
war destined so to end. 

XX. ‘If God permits me, I in- 
tend to write to you a second treatise, 
in which I will complete the subject 
thus begun, God’s economy in the 
Passion and Resurrection of Jesus 
Christ ;- more especially, if it should 


Xx | 


TO. THE EPHESIANS. 


85 


XX. “Eav με καταξιώση ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν τῇ 


προσευχῇ ὑμῶν, καὶ θέλημα ἦ, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ βιβλιδίῳ, 
ὃ μέλλω γράφειν ὑμῖν, προσδηλώσω ὑμῖν ἧς ἠρξάμην 


> 7 - \ \ aS 5) ~ 3 
οἰκονομιαᾶς εἰς TOV καινον ἀνθρωπον Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, εν 


συνεκινεῖτο) LAg Sev-Syr; the order of the two sentences, ἀρχὴν δὲ κιτ.λ. and 


ἔνθεν x.7T.X., is transposed in 2. 


please the Lord to reveal it to me. 
Only let me hear that you all meet 
together in one in the faith of Jesus 
Christ, who is both Son of God and 
Son of Man, and that you are obe- 
dient to your bishop and presbyters, 
breaking one bread, which is the 
medicine of incorruptibility and the 
antidote against death.’ 

5. καταξιώσῃ] A favourite Igna- 
tian word; Magn. 1, Trall. 12, Rom. 
Be Pkzlad. 10, Smyrn. 11 Polyc: 1; 
7, 8. 

ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν] i.e. ‘through 
your prayers.’ The same expression 
occurs in a similar context, Phz/ad. 
8, Smyrn. 11. Altogether the ‘prayers’ 
of his correspondents occupy a very 
prominent place in the letters of Ig- 
natius. He either asks their prayers 
for himself (§ 1, 11, Wagn. 14, Philad. 
5, 8, Smyrn. 11) or for the Church at 
Antioch (Rom. 9, Trall. 13); or he 
gratefully acknowledges the effects 
of their prayers on behalf of the latter 
(Philad. 10, Smyrn. 4, -Polyc. 7); 
or he gives them general injunctions 
respecting prayer (ὃ 5, 10, Magn. 7, 
Trall. 12, Smyrn. Ὁ, Polyc. 1). 

6. θέλημα] i.e. ‘the Divine will? 
It is used thus absolutely several 
times in Ignatius, either with the 
definite article (Polyc. ὃ ὡς τὸ θέλημα 
προστάσσει) Or, as here, without it 
(Rom. 1 ἐάνπερ θέλημα ἢ τοῦ ἀξιωθῆναί 
pe κιτιλ., Smyrn. 1 υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ 
θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν, 25. ττ κατὰ θέλημα 
δὲ κατηξιώθην). Examples of both 
kinds appear also in S. Paul, Rom. 


11. 17 54 καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ καὶ γινώ- 
σκεις τὸ θέλημα, I Cor. xvi. 12 πάντως 
οὐκ ἦν θέλημα ἵνα νῦν ἔλθῃ; though 
in the former passage the fact is 
obscured by the proximity of Θεῷ, 
and in the latter θέλημα is almost 
universally misunderstood as apply- 
ing to Apollos himself. So too Clem. 
Alex. Stvom. vi. 18 (p. 826) θελήματι 
θέλημα καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι TO ἅγιον 
πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν ἐθίζοντες. On the other 
hand of the devil Heracleon said that 
he μὴ ἔχειν θέλημα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας, Orig. 
in Ioann. xx. § 20 (IV. p. 339). The 
translators and transcribers of Igna- 
tius however, not understanding this 
absolute use, have in several instances 
supplied genitive cases: see the 
critical notes on Rom. 1, Smyrn. 1, 
11. Compare the absoluté use of ἡ 
χάρις, TO ὄνομα, etc. 

ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ x.r.A.] There is no 
reason to think that this design was 
ever fulfilled: see above, p. 18. 

7. προσδηλώσω κ.Οτ.λ.] “17 will go 
on to expound the economy (of the 
Incarnation) wfon which I com- 
menced. See the note on § 18 kar 
οἰκονομίαν. 

ὃ. εἰς τὸν καινὸν κιτ.λ.] “ referring 
to the new Man, Fesus Christ, the 
words being closely connected with 
οἰκονομία. The καινὸς ἄνθρωπος of 
Ignatius is equivalent to the ἔσχατος 
᾿Αδάμ, the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, of 5. 
Paul (1 Cor. xv. 45,47). The Apostle 
himself seems to use ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρω- 
πος in a different sense, Ephes. iv. 24 
ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, though 


εν 


86 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[xx 


™ αὐτοῦ πίστει καὶ ἐν τῆ αὐτοῦ ἀγάπη, ἐν παθει αὐτοῦ 


καὶ ἀναστάσει, μάλιστα ἐὰν ὁ Κύριος τς ἀποκαλύψηι' 


ἐδτιΐ οἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα κοινῆ πάντες ἐν χάριτι ἐξ ὀνόματος 


τ la 7 \ ς 
συνέρχεσθε ἐν μιᾷ πίστει καὶ EVE 


\ / 9 Id (ὃ 
κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ γένους Aavelo, τῷ 


ὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ 


cn 4 / \ en 
ULW ἀνθρώπου Kal ULw) 


3 ὅτι] GL[A]; εἴ τι Theodt; om. Gelas (treating συνέρχεσθε as an impera- 


tive convenite); al. g: 
Theodt. 4 ἑνὶ] Theodt; 
it is quite possible that Ignatius 
took this to mean 
Χριστόν. 


ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν 

ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ k.t.A.] ‘consisting 77 
faith towards Him and love towards 
Him. This again must be closely 
connected with οἰκονομίας ; comp. 
1 Tim. 1. 4 οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν 
πίστει, τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας 
ἐστὶν ἀγάπη. For the genitive case 
see the note on fom. inscr. So 
again the following ἐν πάθει κοτ.λ. 
must be similarly connected. This 
latter clause describes the objective 
element, as the former described the 
subjective element, which are the 
essential characteristics of the dis- 
pensation. 

3. συ κτλ}. ‘for ye all meet 
together in common—every indt- 
vidual of you. If the reading be 
correct, this must be the grammar 
and connexion of the clause. He- 
fele however follows Uhlhorn (p. 52) 
in connecting ὅτε with ἀποκαλύψῃ ‘1 
the Lord reveal to me that etc.,’ but 
this gives a sense altogether un- 
worthy of the writer and entirely 
opposed to his mode of speaking 
elsewhere (e.g. §§ 3, 6, 9, 11, 12). 
But the reading is rendered sus- 
picious by the fact that Theodoret 
has εἴ τι, while Gelasius treats συνέρ- 
χεσθε as animperative. Moreoverthe 
dependent εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ὑμᾶς points 
to a preceding imperative or condi- 


see the lower note. 


χάριτι] G[g]; τῇ χάριτι 


in uno Gelas; ἐν GL, and so 85 (which has 


tional statement. Zahn (/.v. A.p. 569) 
for ὅτι suggests ἔτι, or (as preferable) 
simply τι, which he reads in his text, 
connecting it with the preceding 
words. This latter conjecture has 
much to recommend it. For οἱ κατ᾽ 
ἄνδρα, ‘each individually, see the 
note on § 4, where it stands in the 
same relation to χορός as it does to 
κοινῇ πάντες here; comp. Smyrnz. 12 
τοὺς kat ἄνδρα καὶ κοινῇ πάντας. In 
this passage it is further strengthened 
by ἐξ ὀνόματος ‘name by name, 
‘severally’; comp. Polyc. 4 (with the 
note), 8. 

4. ἑνὶ Ἰησοῦ] or perhaps ἐν ἑνὶ Ἰησοῦ. 
The recurrence of the same letters 
ENENIIHCOY would account for the 
omission. Comp. Magn. 7 εἷς ἐστὶν 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, 7b. συντρέχετε.. «ἐπὶ 
ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Clem. Rom. 46 
ἢ οὐχὶ... ἔχομεν...ἕνα Χριστόν; in which 
passages the application is the same 
as here. It is equivalent to S. Paul’s 
appeal in 1 Cor. 1. 13 μεμέρισται ὁ 
Χριστός ; Here, as in § 12, Zahn sug- 
gests the impossible form évi. 

τῷ κατὰ σάρκα k.t.\.] This is in- 
serted as a protest against Docetic 
error, by which their unity was 
threatened. But this emphatic men- 
tion of the human nature requires a 
counterbalance. Hence he adds that 
Christ is not only ‘Son of man,’ but 
also ‘Son of God’: see above, the 
note on § 18 ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυείδ. 


ΧΧΙ] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 


87 


΄ > \ / ~ “- / ΄σ 
Θεοῦ, εἰς TO ὕπακουειν ὑμᾶς τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τῷ πρεσ- 


/ > bs 7 e/ af ~ e 
βυτερίω απερισπαστω διανοίᾳ" EVa αρτον κλωντες, ὃ 


9 / 3 7 ? / “~ \ 3 ~ 
ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν 


ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός. 


».@.4 9 


7 Gr 3 4 iy 
᾿λντίψυχον ὑμών ἐγώ, καὶ wv ἐπέμψατε 


772 una fide tn iesu christo); al. Ag. See the converse error, Ephes. 11. 


τῷ] G; om. Theodt; al. g. 


Θεοῦ] G; τοῦ ἀνθρώπου...τοῦ θεοῦ Theodt; al. g. 
6] gL; 6s G; dub. A. 


κλῶντος G. 
7. ἀπερισπάστῳ] ‘undtstracted’ ; 
Wases svi 21, Ecchus., ali.) 1) Se 
ἀπερισπάστως, I Cor. vii. 35. The 
words are not uncommon in classical 
writers of the age of Polybius and 
later, more especially in Stoic circles ; 
ee. WE Pets 1.26). 52, 11) 21. 225 ete, 
M. Antonin. 111. 6. 

ἕνα ἄρτον kdovres] The refer- 
ence will be to the agape, but more 
especially to the eucharistic bread, 
in which the agape culminated, and 
which was the chief bond of Chris- 
tian union; comp. P&hzlad. 4 σπου- 
δάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι" 
μία γὰρ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου x.t.A., Smyrn. 
ὃ τοὺς μερισμοὺς φεύγετε... ἐκείνη βε- 
βαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν 
ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα...οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε 
ἀγάπην ποιεῖν (see the note there). 
For κλᾶν ἄρτον comp. Acts ii. 46 
(comp. ver. 42), xx. 7, ἘΠ: I Cor. x. 16, 
where it occurs as a synonyme for 
celebrating the eucharistic feast, ap- 
parently in all cases in conjunction 
with the agape. 

6] The right reading rather than és. 
The o may refer either to the whole 
preceding clause, ‘this concord and 
unity in breaking bread,’ or to dpros 
alone by attraction with φάρμακον. 
The latter is the more probable; see 
Irenzeus iv. 18. 5, v. 2. 3 (passages 
quoted by Jacobson), who argues 
that our fleshly bodies must inherit 


5 Aaveid] dad G. ἀνθρώπου... 


7 KNGvtes] GLA; 
to ὧν] g (but 1 has guem); ὅν GLA. 


eternal life, because they partake of 
the eucharistic bread. We need not 
however suppose that Ignatius had 
this very material conception in view. 

ὃ, ἀντίδοτος] This word, when 
used as a substantive, is either 7 
ἀντίδοτος (sc. δύναμις, e.g. Strabo iil. 
4. 14 ἀντιδότοις τισὶ δυνάμεσι; see 
E. A. Sophocles Zex. s. v.) or τὸ 
ἀντίδοτον (sc. φάρμακον, e.g. Anthol. 
Ad. 80, Ill. p. 166, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι 
κακῶν φάρμακον ἀντίδοτον) ; but never 
apparently ὁ ἀντίδοτος. The femi- 
nine is the more common, e.g. (2672. 
Hom. xi. 9. The dependent geni- 
tive commonly describes the thing 
counteracted and not, as here, the 
result of the counteraction. 

XXI. ‘I am devoted to you and 
your representatives at Smyrna, from 
which place I write. Remember 
me, and so will Christ remember 
you. Pray for the Church in Syria, 
whence I was carried in bonds to 
Rome, though all unworthy of the 
glorious destiny which awaits me. 
Farewell in God the Father and in 
Jesus Christ.’ 

10. ᾿Αντίψυχον] So too S7zyrn. 10, 
Polyc. 2, 6. The interpolator has 
caught up the phrase, as character- 
istic of Ignatius, and introduces it 
freely, Zars. 8, Ant. 7, 12, Hero 9, 
Philipp. 14. ᾿Αντίψυχον is properly 
‘a life offered for a life,’ ‘a vicarious 
sacrifice’; as[Joseph.] Macc. 6 ἵλεως 


88 


THE EPISTLE OF 


IGNATIUS [ΧΧῚ 


ap > « \ / δ» ὡρᾷ > 
εἰς Θεοῦ τιμὴν εἰς Cuvpvav ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν εὐχα- 


σ΄: ΄- lal / \ ς “ 
ριστῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, ἀγαπών [Ἰ᾿Ἰολύκαρπον ws καὶ ὑμᾶς. 


f / \ val o / 
μνημονεύετέ μου, ὡς Kal ὑμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος. 


σροσ- 


ς ox ᾽ ΄- « 
εύχεσθε ὑπὲρ THS ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Cupia, ὅθεν δεδε- 


3 καὶ GAg; om. L (the omission of e¢ after a being easy). 


γενοῦ.. «καθάρσιον αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι τὸ 
ἐμὸν αἷμα, καὶ ἀντίψυχον (ν. 1. ἀντὶ 
ψυχῶν) αὐτῶν λάβε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν, 
7b. ver. 17 ὥσπερ ἀντίψυχον γεγονότας 
τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας: comp. I 
Kings xx. 39 καὶ ἔσται ἡ Ψυχὴ σοῦ 
ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, 2b. ver. 42, 2 
Kings x. 24, Clem. Rom. 49. Hence 
S. Athanasius uses it of our Lord in 
a sense nearly equivalent to ἀντί- 
λυτρον, e.g. de Incarn. Verb. 9 (1. p. 
44); comp. 1 John iii. 16 ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ 
ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν καὶ ἡμεῖς 
ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς 
θεῖναι. The Syriac translator of Ig- 
natius has employed the same phrase, 
‘J will be instead of thy soul,’ which 
is found in the Peshito in the pas- 
sages of the O. T. The expression 
means therefore properly ‘I give my 
life for you,’ ‘I devote myself for 
you, and is closely allied to περί- 
Wnpa in meaning (see the note on 
§ 8); but the direct idea of a vi- 
carious death is more or less ob- 
literated, and the idea of devotion 
to and affection for another stands 
out prominently. We cannot there- 
fore press the allusion to his ap- 
proaching martyrdom. See _ the 
similar Jewish use of ΠῚ (Bux- 
ΠΟΥ Β Lee, 5.) V. p.!1078, to which 
Jacobson refers here). It is in a 
different sense that Anselm said of 
Osbern (£Z7zs¢. i. 4, p. 313) ‘anima 
ejus anima mea est,’ and that Horace 
calls Mzecenas ‘meze partem anime.’ 
Even if there were any authority for 
this sense of ἀντίψυχον ‘another self,’ 
we should expect not ἀντίψυχον ὑμῶν 
ἐγώ, but ἀντίψυχόν pov ὑμεῖς. 


ὧν} ic. ἐκείνων οὕς, referring to 
Onesimus, Burrhus, Crocus, Euplus, 
Fronto, and others; see 85 1, 2. This 
is clearly the right reading, in place 
of which ὃν would easily be sub- 
stituted by careless transcribers: for 
(1) The earlier part of the epistle 
mentions several representatives of 
the Ephesian Church; (2) The gram- 
mar of ὃν would be extremely harsh 
as well as ambiguous, since it might 
stand for either ἐκείνου ὃν ΟΥ ἐκεῖνος 
ὃν, and indeed the latter would be 
the more natural construction. (3) 
In the other letters written from 
Smyrna the Ephesian delegates are 
spoken of in the plural; A/agn. 15, 
Trall. 13, Rom. 10. 

I. εἰς Θεοῦ τιμὴν] As just below. 
So too Smyrn, 11, Polyc. 5; comp. 
Magn. 3, Trall. 12. 

εὐχαριστῶν] One chief subject of 
his thanksgiving is obviously his in- 
tercourse with Polycarp, for whom 
he entertains a strong affection (dya- 
πῶν Πολύκαρπον K.7.A.). 

3. μνημονεύετέ μου 1.6. ἐν ταῖς προσ- 
ευχαῖς ὑμῶν ; see Magn. 14, Trald. 
13, Rom. 9. 

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] 50. μνημονεύσει or 
μνημονεύσειε: See the note on Swzyrz. 
9. 

προσεύχεσθε] The same request is 
made in all the other letters written 
from Smyrna; Magu. 14, Tradl. 13, 
Rom. 9. 

4. ὅθεν δεδεμένος] As Smyrn. 11; 
see also above ὃ 1. 

5. amdyoua| The word is com- 
monly used of criminals led to trial 
or execution ; comp. e.g. Matt. xxvil. 


ΧΧΙ] 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 89 


/ > / / yA ’ ΄σ a a 
5 μένος εἰς Ρώμην ἀπάγομαι, ἔσχατος ὧν τῶν ἐκεῖ πιστῶν, 
cf ? , ? \ ΄σ A ᾿ 
ὥσπερ ἠξιώθην εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ εὑρεθῆναι. ‘Eppwa be ἐν 
΄σ \ 73 > a ~ aa) fd ε ~ 
Θεῷ πατρὲ καὶ ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ TH κοινὴ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν. 


7 ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν] txt GL; add. ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ" [ἔρρωσθε}" ἀμήν" [ἡ χάρι5] οὕ; 


add. gratia vobiscum; amen A. 


There is no subscription in GLA. For 2g see the Appx. 


2, Acts xii. 19, in which latter pas- 
sage for the correct reading ἀπαχθῆ- 
ναι D has ἀποκτανθῆναι. 

τῶν ἐκεῖ] 1.6. ἐν Συρίᾳ; comp. 
Trall. 13 τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ, ὅθεν καὶ οὐκ 
ἄξιός εἰμι λέγεσθαι, ὧν ἔσχατος ἐκείνων. 
Heuses similar language also, Magu. 
14, Smyrn. 11, Rom. 9. 

6. ὥσπερ] To be connected with 
Sedepevos...amdyopat. 

Ἔρρωσθε)] This was a common 
salutation at the close of a letter, as 
χαίρειν was at the commencement ; 
Artemid. Ozezr. iii. 44 ἴδιον yap πάσης 
ἐπιστολῆς τὸ Χαίρειν καὶ τὸ ΓἜρρωσο 
(quoted by Pearsonon Smyrn. inscr.). 


They correspond to the Latin Salve 
and Vale respectively. Ἔρρωσο (έρ- 
poobe), like ὑγίαινε, was regarded 
as essentially a parting salutation, 
‘Farewell’; 26. i. 82 οὐ yap προσί- 
ovres ἀλλήλοις... ταῦτα λέγουσιν ἄν- 
θρωποι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαλλαττόμενοι : comp. 
e.g. Boeckh C. /. G. 3832, 3833, in 
letters. The parting salutation in 
all the seven epistles takes this 
form; the attached words however 
varying, e.g. ἐν Κυρίῳ, ev χάριτι Θεοῦ, 
etc. 

7. τῇ κοινῇ K.t.A.| See the notes 
§ 1, Magn. 11: 


9O THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


Excursus on γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος § 7. 


Tue Son is here declared to be γεννητὸς as man and ἀγέννητος as 
God, for this is clearly shown to be the meaning from the parallel 
clauses. Such language is not in accordance with later theological 
definitions, which carefully distinguished between γενητός and γεννητός, 
between ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος ; so that γενητός, ἀγένητος, respectively 
denied and affirmed the eternal existence, being equivalent to κτιστός, 
ἄκτιστος, while γεννητός, ἀγέννητος, described certain ontological rela- 
tions, whether in time or in eternity. In the later theological language 
therefore the Son was yevvytos even in His Godhead. See esp. Joann. 
Damasc. de Hid. Orth. i. 8 (1. p. 135 Lequien) χρὴ yap εἰδέναι ὅτι τὸ 
ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόμενον, TO ἄκτιστον ἢ TO μὴ γενόμενον 
σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο νν γραφόμενον, δηλοῖ τὸ μὴ γεννηθέν 
x.7..; whence he draws the conclusion that μόνος 6 πατὴρ ἀγέννητος, 
and μόνος ὁ υἱὸς γεννητός. ; 

There can be little doubt however that Ignatius wrote γεννητὸς καὶ 
ἀγέννητος, though his editors frequently alter it into γενητὸς καὶ ἀγέ- 
vytos. For (1) The Greek ms still retains the double v, though the 
claims of orthodoxy would be a temptation to scribes to substitute the 
single v. And to this reading also the Latin genztus et ingenttus points. 
On the other hand it cannot be concluded that translators who give 
factus et non factus had γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος ; for this was after all what 
Ignatius meant by γεννητὸς «.7.X., and they would naturally render his 
words so as to make his orthodoxy apparent. (2) When Theodoret 
writes γεννητὸς ἐξ ἀγεννήτου, it is clear that he, or the person before him 
who first substituted this reading, must have read γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος : 
for there would be no temptation to alter the perfectly orthodox 
γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος, nor (if altered) would it have taken this form. 
(3) When the interpolator substitutes ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς ὁ ἀγέννητος... 
τοῦ δὲ μονογενοῦς πατὴρ καὶ γεννήτωρ, the natural inference is that he too 
had the forms in double v, which he retained, at the same time altering 
the whole run of the sentence so as not to do violence to his own doc- 
trinal views; see Bull Def. Aid. Nic. a1. 2 § 6 (Works v. p. 114 sq). 
(4) The quotation in Athanasius is more difficult. The mss vary, and 
his editors write γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος. Zahn too, who has paid more 
attention to this point than any previous editor of Ignatius, in his 
former work (/gn. v. Ant. Ὁ. 564) supposed Athanasius to have read and 
written the words with a single v, though in his subsequent edition of 





TO THE EPHESIANS. ΟΙ 


Ignatius (p. 338) he declares himself unable to determine between the 
single and double v. I believe however that the argument of Athanasius 
decides in favour of the vv. Elsewhere he insists repeatedly on the 
distinction between κτίζειν and γεννᾶν, justifying the use of the latter 
term as applied to the divinity of the Son, and defending the statement 
in the Nicene Creed γεννητὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὁμοούσιον 
(De Synod. 54,1. p. 612). Although he is not responsible for the lan- 
guage of the Macrostich (De Synod. § 3, τ. p. 590), τὸν πατέρα μόνον 
ἄναρχον ὄντα καὶ ἀγέννητον γεγεννηκέναι ἀνεφίκτως καὶ πᾶσιν ἀκαταλήπτως 
οἴδαμεν᾽ τὸν δὲ υἱὸν γεγεννῆσθαι πρὸ αἰώνων καὶ μηκέτι ὁμοίως τῷ πατρὶ 
ἀγέννητον εἶναι καὶ αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τὸν γεννήσαντα πατέρα, and 
would have regarded it as inadequate without the ὁμοούσιον, yet this use 
of terms entirely harmonizes with his own. In the passage before us, 
ib. §§ 46, 47 (p. 607), he is defending the use of ὁμοούσιος at Nica, 
notwithstanding that it had been previously rejected by the Council 
which condemned Paul of Samosata, and he contends that both Coun- 
cils were orthodox, since they used ὁμοούσιος in a different sense. Asa 
parallel instance he takes the word ἀγέννητος, which, like ὁμοούσιος, is 
not a scriptural word, and like it also is used in two ways, signifying 
either (1) τὸ ὃν μέν, μήτε δὲ γεννηθὲν μήτε ὅλως ἔχον τὸν αἴτιον, OY (2) τὸ 
ἄκτιστον. In the former sense the Son cannot be called ἀγέννητος ; in 
the latter He may be so called. Both uses, he says, are found in the 
fathers. Of the latter he quotes the passage in Ignatius as an example; 
of the former he says, that some writers subsequent to Ignatius declare 
ἕν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ πατὴρ, καὶ εἷς ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ υἱὸς γνήσιος, γέννημα ἀληθινόν 
κιτιλ. [He may have been thinking of Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 7, which 
I shall quote below.] He maintains that both are orthodox, as having 
in view two different senses of the word ἀγέννητον; and the same, he 
argues, is the case with the Councils which seem to take opposite 
sides with regard to ὁμοούσιος. It is clear from this passage, as Zahn 
truly says, that Athanasius is dealing with one and the same word 
throughout; and, if so, it follows that this word must be ἀγέννητον, 
since ἀγένητον would be intolerable in some places. I may add by 
way of caution that in two other passages, de Decret. Syn. Nic. 28 (I. 
p. 184), Orat. c. Arian. i. 30 (I. p. 343), S. Athanasius gives the various 
senses of ἀγένητον (for this is plain from the context), and that these 
passages ought not to be treated as parallels to the present passage 
which is concerned with the senses of ἀγέννητον. Much confusion is 
thus created, e.g. in Newman’s notes on the several passages in the 
Oxford translation of Athanasius (pp. 51 sq, 224 sq), where the three 
passages are treated as parallel, and no attempt is made to discriminate 


ΟΖ THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


the ‘readings in the several places, but ‘ingenerate’ is given as the 
rendering of ἀγένητον and ἀγέννητον alike. If then Athanasius also 
read γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος in Ignatius, there is absolutely no authority 
for γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος. ‘The earlier editors (Voss, Ussher, Cotelier, 
etc.) printed it as they found it in the ms; but Smith substituted the 
forms with the single v, and he has been followed more recently by 
Hefele, Dressel, and some others. In the Casanatensian copy of the 
MS a marginal note is added, avayvworéov ἀγένητος τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι μὴ 
ποιηθείς. Waterland (Works 111. p. 240 sq, Oxf. 1823) tries ineffect- 
ually to show that ἀγέννητος was invented by the fathers at a later date 
to express their theological conception. He even ‘doubts whether 
there was any such word as ἀγέννητος so early as the time of Ignatius.’ 
In this he is certainly wrong. 

The mss of early Christian writers exhibit much confusion between 
yevntos and γεννητός, ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος : see e.g. Justin Dial. 2 
(p. 218) with Otto’s note; Athenag. Swfp/. 4 with Otto’s note ; Theophil. 
a Auto. i. 3; 4... \Iren.) iv. 38.4; 2; Oris. c Cas, να: 66; Me whod: 
de Lib. Arbitr. p. 57 Jahn (see Jahn’s note 11. p. 122); Maximus in 
Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 22; Hippol. Haer. ν. 16 (from Sibylline Oracles) ; 
Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14, pp. 702, 718; and very frequently in later 
writers. Yet notwithstanding the confusion into which later transcribers 
have thus thrown the subject, it is still possible to ascertain the main 
facts respecting the usage of the two forms. The distinction between 
the two terms, as indicated by their origin, is that ἀγένητος denies she 
creation, and ἀγέννητος the generation or parentage. Both are used at 
a very early date; e.g. ἀγένητος by Parmenides in Clem. Alex. Strom. 
V. 14 (p. 716) ws ἀγένητον ἐὸν καὶ ἀνώλεθρόν ἐστιν, and by Agathon in 
Arist. Eth. Vic. vi. 2 (p. 1139) ἀγένητα ποιεῖν ἅσσ᾽ dv ἢ πεπραγμένα 
(comp. also Orac. Sibyll. prooem. 7, 17); and ἀγέννητος in Soph. 
Trach. ὅτ κἀξ ἀγεννήτων apa μῦθοι καλώς πίπτουσιν (where it is equivalent 
to dvoyevov). Here the distinction of meaning is strictly preserved, 
and so probably it always is in Classical writers ; for in Soph. Trach. 
743 τὸ yap φανθὲν τίς ἂν δύναιτ᾽ ἀγέννητον ποιεῖν we should after Porson 
and Hermann read δύναιτ᾽ ἂν ἀγένητον ποιεῖν with Suidas. In Christian 
writers also there is no reason to suppose that the distinction was ever 
lost, though in certain connexions the words might be used convertibly. 
Whenever, as here in Ignatius, we have ἀγέννητος where we should 
expect ayévytos, we must ascribe the fact to the indistinctness or 
incorrectness of the writer’s theological conceptions, not to any ob- 
literation of the meaning of the terms themselves. To this early 
father for instance the eternal γέννησις of the Son was not a distinct 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 93 


theological idea, though substantially he held the same views as the 
Nicene fathers respecting the Person of Christ. The following pas- 
sages from early Christian writers will serve at once to show how far 
the distinction was appreciated, and to what extent the Nicene concep- 
tion prevailed in Antenicene Christianity; Justin “4202. 11. 6 (p. 44) ὄνομα 
δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγέννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν... δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου ὁ 
μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ 
γεννώμενος x.7.A., comp. 2. ὃ 13 (p. 51); Athenag. Suppl. 10 ἕνα τὸν 
ἀγένητον καὶ αἴδιον... ὑφ᾽ οὗ γεγένηται τὸ πᾶν διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου... ἐρῶ 
διὰ βραχέων [τὸν υἱὸν] πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ πατρί, οὐχ ὡς γενό- 
μενον x.7.A. (comp. 2. 4); Theoph. ad Aut. il. 3 εἰ γὰρ ἐγέννων καὶ 
ἐγεννῶντο [θεοί], δῆλον ὅτι ἐχρῆν Kal ἕως τοῦ δεῦρο γίνεσθαι θεοὺς 
γεννητούς «.t.A.; Tatian Orat. 5 ὁ λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ γεννηθεὶς ἀντε- 
γέννησε τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ποίησιν (with the context); Rhodon in Euseb. 
HT. E. vy. 13 τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστι pia ἀρχή, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν... μὴ ἐπί- 
στασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστιν ἀγέννητος Θεός ; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 7 (p. 769) 
ἕν μὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ Θεός, ἕν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν Ov 
οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο x.t.r.; Orig. 4 Cels. vi. 17 (p. 643) οἴτε γὰρ τὸν 
ἀγένητον καὶ πάσης γενητῆς φύσεως πρωτότοκον Kar ἀξίαν εἰδέναι τις 
δύναται, ὡς ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ K.T.r., 2b, Vi. 52 περὶ μὲν γενέσεως 
κόσμου καὶ φθορᾶς, ἢ ὡς ἀγένητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος, ἢ ὡς γενητὸς μὲν ἄφθαρτος 
δέ κιτιλ.; Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269) in Routh Red. Sacr. 111. p. 290 ὅτι ὁ 
Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, εἷς, ἄναρχος, K.T.A...... τοῦτον δὲ τὸν υἱὸν γεννητόν, μο- 
νογενῆ υἱόν κιτιλ.; Method. de Creat. 5 (p. tor Jahn) γενητὸν τὸ μὴ 
γενέσεως ἔχον ἀρχὴν φαίης av; ov δῆτα": εἰ yap μὴ ὑποπίπτει γενέσεως 
ἀρχῇ, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀγένητόν ἐστιν: εἰ δὲ γέγονεν, κιτιλ. In no early 
Christian writing however is the distinction more obvious than im 
the Clementine Homilies, x. 10 τοῦ μόνου ἀγενήτου, ὅτε Ta λοιπὰ πάντα 
γενητὰ τυγχάνει: ὡς οὖν TOD ἀγενήτου ἴδιον τὸ θεὸς εἶναι, οὕτως πᾶν 
ὁτιοῦν γενόμενον θεὸς τῷ ὄντι οὐκ ἔστιν, XVI. 16 τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ μὴ YE 
γεννῆσθαί ἐστιν, υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι: γεννητὸν δὲ ἀγεννήτῳ ἢ καὶ 
αὐτογεννήτῳ οὐ συγκρίνεται k.7.X. (where the distinction is employed 
to support the writer’s heretical theology): see also viii. τό εἴτε ἀγαθοὶ 
εἴτε κακοὶ ov γεννώμεθα ἀλλὰ γινόμεθα, and comp. xix. 3, 4,9, 12. The 
following are instructive passages as regards the use of these words 
where the opinions of other heretical writers are given ; Saturninus, 
Iren. 1, 24. 1, Hippol. Haer. vii. 28 ; Simon Magus, Hippol. Her. vi. 
17, 18; the Valentinians, Hippol. Aer. vi. 29, 30, the Ptolemzeus in 
particular, Ptol. Zp. ad Flor. 4 (in Stieren’s Irenzeus p. 935); Basilides, 
Hippol. Haer. vil. 22; Carpocrates, Hippol. Haer. vil. 32. 

From the above passages it will appear that Antenicene writers were 


904 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE EPHESIANS. 


not indifferent to the distinction of meaning between the two words ; 
and when once the orthodox Christology was formulated in the Nicene 
Creed in the words γεννηθέντα, ov ποιηθέντα, it became henceforth im- 
possible to overlook the difference. The Son was thus declared to 
be yevvytés, but not yevytos. I am therefore unable to agree with 
Zahn (Marcellus pp. 40, 104, 223, Zen. von Ant. p. 565) that at the 
time of the Arian controversy the disputants were not alive to the 
difference of meaning. See for example Epiphanius, “7467. lxiv. 8 
(p. 531) ὡς yap τινες [1.6. the Arians] ἡμᾶς βούλονται σοφίζεσθαι καὶ 
λέγειν ἴσον τὸ γενητὸν εἶναι τῷ γεννητῷ, οὐ παραδεκτέον δὲ ἐπὶ Θεοῦ 
λέγειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ τὰ κτίσματα μόνον" ἕτερον γάρ ἐστι γενητὸν καὶ ἕτερόν 
ἐστι γεννητόν, κιτιλ.; where he is arguing against a passage of Origen 
which ran (at least as Epiphanius read it) τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων Θεῷ διὰ 
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχιερέως γενητοῦ Θεοῦ «.7.A. But it had no 
special interest for them. While the orthodox party clung to the 
ὁμοούσιος as enshrining the doctrine for which they fought, they had 
no liking for the terms ἀγέννητος and yevvytos, as applied to the Father 
and the Son respectively, though unable to deny their propriety, be- 
cause they were affected by the Arians and applied in their own way. 
To the orthodox mind the Arian formula οὐκ ἣν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, or 
some Semiarian formula hardly less dangerous, seemed always to be 
lurking under the expression Θεὸς yevvytos as applied to the Son. 
Hence the language of Epiphanius /aer. lxxiil. 19 (p. 866) ἐὰν οἱ καινοὶ 
αἱρετικοὶ προσδιαλεγόμενοι ἀγέννητον λέγουσι Kal γεννητόν, ἐροῦμεν αὐτοῖς, 
Ἔπειδη κακουργήσαντες τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ὄνομα ἐν χρήσει τοῖς πατράσιν 
ὑπάρχον ὡς ἄγραφον οὐ δέχεσθε, οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς τὸ ἀγέννητον ἄγραφον ὃν 
δεξόμεθα κ-τ.λ.., 1.6. ‘As you refuse to accept our ὁμοούσιος because, though 
used by the fathers, it does not occur in the Scriptures, so will we 
decline on the same grounds to accept your ἀγέννητος. Similarly Basil 
¢. Hunom, 1 (I. p. 215 sq, p. 227 sq, p. 235), iv (p. 281), and 
especially 7. iv (p. 283 sq), in which last passage he argues at 
great length against the position of the heretics, εἰ ἀγέννητος, φασίν, 
ὁ πατήρ, γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ vids, οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας. See also the argu- 
ments against the Anomceans in [Athan.]° Deal. de Trin. ii passim 
(Op. τι. p. 423 sq). This fully explains the reluctance of the orthodox 
party to handle terms which their adversaries used to endanger the 
ὁμοούσιος. But, when the stress of the Arian controversy was removed, 
it became convenient to express the Catholic doctrine by saying that 
the Son in His Divine nature was yevvyrds but not yevyrds. And this 
distinction is staunchly maintained in later orthodox writers, e.g. John 
of Damascus (quoted above p. go). 


2 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


ἢ 3 1 
a cone ΝΥ 
TELIA AD, Y, 
Pita 


ah 


EP ett Pos 


hy ΑΥ̓͂ 


Ρ . 


‘ at ΟΝ 
4a Vil 


ΡΥ 
(eis i 

Υ Te! 
en) 
He i 


Ἄν | UN is. 4 fh 
LSA aia 
ΝᾺ 


+m 





TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


FTER leaving Ephesus, says Strabo, the first city is Magnesia 

(xiv. I, p. 647 πρώτη δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐξ ᾿Εφέσου Μαγνησία). The 

sequence in the Ignatian Epistles is the same as the sequence in the 
geographer’s itinerary. 

Magnesia by the Meander was said to have been originally a settle- 
ment of the Magnesians from Thessaly (Strabo xiv. 1, p. 636; Plin. 
LV. H. ν. 31). The site of the city was well chosen. The valley of the 
Cayster on the north is separated from that of the Mzeander on the south 
by a mountain chain running for the most part nearly due east and 
west, but taking a more southerly direction in its western extremity and 
terminating in the promontory of Mycale opposite Samos. Indeed the 
lofty island of Samos itself is only a prolongation of this same mountain 
range which is broken by the intervening channel of the sea. There is 
a very marked depression in the chain towards its western extremity. 
The long range eastward of this depression, bounding the valley of the 
Meander on the north during the greater part of its course, bore the 
name of Messogis ; the shorter range to the west or seaward was called 
Mount Mycale. A few miles to the north of this depression in the 
valley of the Cayster stood the famous city of Ephesus; while to the 
south, immediately below the pass, on the ground overhanging the valley 
of the Meander Magnesia was built. It thus commanded the pass 
through which ran the high road connecting the fertile and populous 
valley of the Meander with the metropolis of Asia Minor. 

Magnesia is occasionally designated the ‘ Asiatic’ in earlier times to 
distinguish it from the Thessalian district of the same name; but in 
later writers, from Aristotle downwards, it is specified as ‘ Magnesia by’ 
or ‘on the Mzander’, in contradistinction to another Asiatic city of 


ΤΟΝ 15 7 


98 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 

the same name, which had risen meanwhile into importance, ‘Mag- 
nesia under’ or ‘against Sipylus’ (see the references given below p. 106). 
It was not however situated directly on the banks of the Meander, 
as this name would suggest, but on a tributary, the Lethzeus, at a 
distance of some four miles’ (6} kilometres, Texier Aste Mineure M1. 
p. 41) from the larger river ; comp. Strabo xiv. 1, p. 647, Μαγνησία πόλις 
Αἰολίς, λεγομένη δὲ ἐπὶ Μαιάνδρου᾽ πλησίον γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἵδρυται" πολὺ δὲ 
πλησιαίτερον ὁ Ληθαῖος ἐμβάλλων εἰς τὸν Μαίανδρον. Hence Pausanias 
persistently speaks of Magnesia or the Magnesians ‘on the Lethzeus’ 
(i. 35. 6, V. 21. 10, Vi. 17. 3, X. 32. 6; Comp. Nicander in Athen, xv. p. 
683 Ληθαίου Μαάγνητος ἐφ᾽ ὕδασιν). But in coins, inscriptions, and all 
public documents, as well as in common parlance, it was designated by 
the nobler stream. 

Earlier travellers (Smith, Chandler, Pococke, and others) had identi- 
fied Magnesia ad Mzandrum with the modern town of Giizel- Hissar. 
Its true site was pointed out by W. R. Hamilton in 1803. Its modern 
representative is Inek-Bazar, or more properly Eyineh-Bazar (Wot: 
Hamilton’s Researches in Asia Minor τ. p. 535); whereas Giizel-Hissar, 
otherwise known as Aidin, is close to the site of the ancient Tralles, some 
eighteen miles from Magnesia. 
with the distances recorded in ancient books of travel, and they are 
rendered absolutely certain by inscriptions found on the respective sites 
(see Leake’s Asda Minor p. 242 sq). The scenery and ruins of Mag- 
nesia are described in Arundell Seven Churches p. 58 sq; in Texier Asze 
Mineure i. p. 35 sq, Ρ. 90 54, and in some respects more fully in his 
smaller work of the same name in Didot’s series Z’ Univers p. 346 sq; in 
Murray's Handbook for Turkey in Asia p. 305 54; in Hamilton’s Asia 
Minor τ. p. 538 sq; and elsewhere. It stands on the right bank of the 
Lethzeus and is built partly on the side of Mount Thorax, a spur or 
buttress of the main range, and partly in a plain girt with a back- 
ground of hills (Strabo xiv. 1, p. 647, κεῖται δ᾽ ἐν πεδίῳ πρὸς ὄρει 
καλουμένῳ Θώρακι ἡ πόλις ; comp. Diod. Sic. xiv. 36). The theatre, 
as usual, is situated on the hill-side; the principal ruin in the plain is 
the temple of Artemis Leucophryene’. The ravine of the Lethzeus to 


These latter identifications alone agree 


1 Though the question respecting the 
relation of Leucophrys and Magnesia has 
no direct bearing on my subject, I ven- 
ture to discuss it briefly in a note, as 
this will give me an opportunity of call- 
ing attention to a passage in an ancient 


author which seems to have been alto- 
gether overlooked, but which neverthe- 
less contains the key to the solution of 
the difficulty. 

The facts are these. (1) Xenophon (/Ze//. 
iii. 2. 14), speaking of the campaign of 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


99 


the east of the city, as it descends from its sources in Messogis to join 
the Mzander, is described as singularly beautiful. 


Dercyllidas (B. C. 396) in Asia Minor, 
states that, a parley having been agreed 
upon between the generals of the contend- 
ing armies, the Persians retired to Tralles 
and the Greeks ‘to Leucophrys where 
was a temple of Artemis of peculiar 
sanctity (és Λεύκοφρυν ἔνθα ἦν ’Apréucdos 
ἱερὸν μάλα ἅγιον) and a lake more than 
a stadium (in length), sandy and peren- 
nial, of warm water fit to drink’. Ina 
later passage (10. iv. 8. 17), where he is 
giving an account of the campaign of 
Thimbron (B.C. 391) in this same region, 
he speaks of his setting out from Ephesus 
and from ‘the cities in the plain of the 
Meander, Priene and Leucophrys and 
Achilleion.’ [This last by the way cannot 
be the place bearing the same name in 
the Troad, as commentators seem to 
assume.] In neither passage does he 
mention Magnesia, though Magnesia had 
existed for centuries. (2) Strabo (xiv. 1, 
p. 647), speaking of the temple of the 
Mother of the Gods built by Themisto- 
cles, writes, ‘Now however the temple 
does not exist (οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἱερόν), because 
the city has been removed (μετῳκίσθαι) 
to another place; but in the present city 
(ἐν δὲ τῇ νῦν πόλει) there is the temple of 
Artemis Leucophryene’ etc. 

Boeckh (C. 7. G. τί, p. 582) discerns 
the true solution. The city of Magnesia 
stood originally on another site, but was 
afterwards transferred to Leucophrys, so 
that the ancient temple of Artemis of 
Leucophrys was now within the city of 
Magnesia itself. This may perhaps be 
also the meaning of Texier (Z’ Univers 
PP- 349, 350), but I am not quite sure 
that I understand him. When then did 
this removal take place? Texier (p. 350) 
says, when it was rebuilt after its destruc- 
tion by the Treres, a Cimmerian people 
(see Strabo l.c.). But this is quite im- 
possible, as Boeckh had already pointed 


out (II. p. 700): for, though the age of 
this invasion of the Treres is doubtful, it 
certainly took place long before the time of 
Themistocles, and yet Magnesia was still 
on its ancient site in his time. Boeckh 
continues ‘Addo eam (i.e. translationem) 
factam videri ante medium tertium sae- 
culum Christianam praecedens epocham, 
nam vs. 84 nostri foederis Dianae Leuco- 
phryenae templum Magnesiae ad Maean- 
drum tribuitur’. [The words of the 
treaty (about B.c. 244) are ἐμ Μαγνησίᾳ 
TH πρὸς τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ἐν τῷ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος 
τῆς Λευκοφρυήνης.] But indeed we are 
not dependent on conjecture, where direct 
evidence is forthcoming. He and others 
have overlooked a passage in Diodorus 
(xiv. 36) which gives the fact. Diodorus, 
speaking of an earlier campaign (B.C. 
399) of the same Thimbron in these re- 
gions, says that, having taken Magnesia 
and made an unsuccessful attack on 
Tralles, he retired to Magnesia, ταύτης 
δ᾽ οὔσης ἀτειχίστου, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο φοβού- 
μενος μή ποτε χωρισθέντος αὐτοῦ κυριεύσῃ 
τῆς πόλεως ὁ Τισσαφέρνης, μετῴκισεν 
αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ πλησίον ὄρος ὃ κα- 
Here then is the whole 
account of the matter. The position 
chosen by Thimbron exactly corresponds 
to the site of the later city as described 
by Strabo. In its original position it 
was defenceless and had been exposed 
to successive captures; but he removed it 
nearer to the hill-side, as the term λεύ- 
κοῴρυς, ‘White-brow’ or ‘ White-cliff’, 
itself suggests, so as at once to incor- 
porate the ancient temple of Artemis 
and to make Mount Thorax serve as a 
natural fortress. A few years later (B.C. 
391), during Thimbron’s second cam- 


λοῦσι Owpaka. 


paign, Xenophon can still speak of Leu- 
cophrys, because the migration was still 
recent, perhaps was not yet complete; 
and the name of the old fortress had not 


eee: 


100 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


Magnesia rose to very considerable importance at an early date. 
Its connexion with Themistocles, as his place of residence during his 
exile (Thue. i. 138; Diod. Sic. xi. 57; Strabo xiv. 1, p. 647; Athen. 1. p. 
29; Plut. Vit. Them. 30, 31, 32; see Grote’s History of Greece Vv. p. 385 
sq), has given it a special renown. His descendants, one of whom bore 
his own name, enjoyed exceptional honours there even as late as the 
age of Ignatius (Plut. Vit. Them. 32). A more speaking testimony to 
its importance is the fact that the Persian satraps appear at one time 
to have chosen it as their place of abode (Herod. 111. 122, Diod. Sic. 
xiv. 36). Indeed, considering the advantages of its situation and the 
fertility of the country, the surprise is not that it was a considerable city 
but that it did not attain to even greater distinction. During the 
Roman period it appears to have declined somewhat in importance 
(Tac. Ann. iv.55); but it continued to strike coins as late as the reign of 
Gallienus a.p. 260—-268 (Mionnet Supplement vil. Ὁ. 256). Among the 
famous men, who were natives of Magnesia, Strabo especially mentions 
the orator Hegesias the founder of the florid Asiatic style of eloquence, 
and Simus the inventor of a licentious form of lyric poetry called 
Simodia after him, each in a different way the corruptor of his respective 
art (lc. p. 648). Altogether its literary reputation did not redound 
much to its credit. 

Themistocles is said to have erected at Magnesia a temple to the 
Mother of the Gods under the name Dindymene (of which _ his 
daughter or his wife became priestess), in consequence of an epiphany 
of this goddess which saved his life (Plut. Viz Them. 30; Strabo 
XIV. I, p. 647); but this temple no longer existed when Strabo wrote. | 
The patron goddess of the city was Artemis Leucophrys or Leuco- 
phryne or Leucophryene, for the epithet is written in all these ways. 


yet been merged in the name of Mag- 
nesia. 

The name Λεύκοφρυς, I cannot doubt, 
refers primarily to the natural features of 
the ground (see Texier LZ’ Univers p. 350), 
just as Tenedos was called λεύκοφρυς 
(Strabo xii. ἀὴρ: ὅσα: 1086. Sics:v. 
Sagn lin. Δ 7 V1 30) (31)s.)\ Pausan\ ix. 
14. 3; Hegesianax in Athen. ix. p. 393). 
This account of the name seems far 
more probable than Boeckh’s hypothesis 
(II. p. 582) that the worship of Artemis 
was imported hither from Tenedos. The 
goddess was properly called Λευκοφρυήνη 


or Λευκοφρύνη, but sometimes Λεύκοφρυς 
(Nicander in Athen. xv. p. 683, and fre- 
quently on coins, Mionnet III. p. 147 sq, 
Supplement νι. p. 236 sq). From being 
the name of the place it was transferred 
to the goddess, as we say S. Christopher- 
le-Stocks, S. Peter-le-Cheap, S. John 
Lateran, etc. The story of the nymph 
Leucophryne who was buried at Mag- 
nesia (Zeno Myndius in Clem. Alex. 
Protr. 3, p» 39; comp. Arnob. vi. 6) is 
of course a legend founded on the name 
of the place. 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. IOI 


Her name and effigy occur constantly on the coins (Mionnet 11. p. 
147 sq, Supplement v1. p. 236 sq); and her priestesses are mentioned 
in extant inscriptions (Boeckh C. 7. G. 2914). She is commemorated 
also in Anacreon /ragm. 1 (Bergk) δέσποιν᾽ ΓΑρτεμι θηρῶν ἥ κου νῦν 
ἐπὶ Ληθαίου δίνῃσι θρασυκαρδίων ἀνδρῶν ἐσκατορᾷς πόλιν χαίρουσ᾽ κ-.τ.λ. 
The Ionic temple dedicated to her was one of the most famous in 
Asiatic Greece (Strabo xiv. 1, p. 647; Pausan. i. 26. 4; Tac. Ann. 
mi 6256 C. A G.3137» 11. 84; 11. -p. 697-3 Vitruv. Archit. iii. τ΄. vil 
preef.). Strabo (1. c.) commends it as exceeding in size all the 
temples in Asia but two, those of Ephesus and Didymi (Branchide); 
and, though inferior to the former in magnitude and in the costli- 
ness of its offerings, yet superior in the proportions and design of 
its cell. Very considerable ruins of this edifice still remain, which will 
be found described in Leake’s Asia Minor p. 245, p. 349 sq, Texier 
Asie Mineure Ul. Ὁ. 40, p. 91 sq, L’ Univers p. 350 sq. The site was 
excavated under the direction of Texier in 1836, when the sculptures 
of the friezes were removed to the Louvre’. 

In the Epistles of S. Ignatius the Ephesians and Magnesians appear 
in close connexion (Magu. 15). This is accounted for by their near 
neighbourhood. The distance between Ephesus and Magnesia is 
given by Artemidorus (Strabo xiv. 2, p. 663) as 120 stadia (so too 
Diod. Sic. xiv. 36), by Pliny (VV. #& v. 31) as 15 Roman miles. The 
distance between the modern railway stations of Ayasoulouk and 
Balachik, which are near to the sites of Ephesus and Magnesia respec- 
tively, is stated to be somewhat under 14 English miles. Owing to this 
proximity, the southern gate of Ephesus bore the name of the Magnesian 
Gate (Mayvytides πύλαι, Pausan. vil. 2. 9; Mayvytixy πύλη, Wood's 
Discoveries at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, pp. 32, 42). As an illustration of 
the saying οὐδὲν γειτονίας χαλεπώτερον (Arist. “het. 11. 21), we find 
the Ephesians and Magnesians at war in early ages (Strabo xiv. 1, 
p. 648; Hermippus in Diog. Laert. i. 117; Ailian VY. H. xiv. 46, WV. Z. 
xi. 27; comp. Arist. Po/. ii. 3, p. 1289); and this state of things ended 
for the time in the Ephesians taking possession of the Magnesian 
territory (Strabo 1. c., Athen. xii. p. 525). At a later date, under the 
Romans, we find the two cities making up their differences and striking 
coins to commemorate their friendly relations, with the legend 
MAPNHT@N KAI EMECIWN OMONOIA (Mionnet Supplement VI. p. 242). 
Among the not very numerous inscriptions recently discovered in the 


1 While the sheets for this second edi- Revue Archéologigue Dec. 1887, giving an 
tion were passing through the press, a account of further very recent discoveries 
paper by De Villefosse appeared in the _ on the site of this temple. 


102 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


temple of Artemis at Ephesus, at least two record services rendered 
to the Ephesians by individual citizens of Magnesia (Wood’s Dizs- 
coveries etc. Inscr. ii. 3 ᾿Απολλώνιος Κόνωνος Mayvys, 26. 12 Θρασύμαχος 
Ποσειδωνίου Μάγνης). 

This proximity of the two cities also answers another question. 
How and when was the Gospel first preached in Magnesia? When 
-we read that during 5. Paul’s three years’ residence in Ephesus (a. Ὁ. 
54—57), ‘all those who dwelt in Asia (the proconsular province) heard 
the word of God’ (Acts xix. 10, comp. ver. 26), when we find the 
Apostle towards the close of his sojourn sending salutations to distant 
correspondents from ‘the Churches of Asia’ (1 Cor. xvi. 19), when we 
learn that within two or three years of this date there were Christian 
congregations even in the comparatively distant towns of Hierapolis and 
Laodicea and Colossze, we can hardly doubt that Magnesia, the nearest 
city of any importance, lying within four hours’ walk of Ephesus, 
must have been among the earliest of these recipients of Christianity. 
If we were to hazard a conjecture regarding the agent in its conver- 
sion, we might mention Tychicus. ‘The name Tychicus seems to have 
been especially common at Magnesia; see Boeckh C. 7 G. 2918, 
Mionnet Ill. pp. 153, 154, 155,157, Supplement Vi. pp. 236, 245, 250, 
255. ‘The Apostle’s companion bearing this name was a native of 
proconsular Asia (Acts xx. 2), and apparently of some place not far from 
Ephesus, if not of Ephesus itself (2 Tim. iv. 12). But, though less 
common than some of the New Testament names, it is not so rare 
that any great stress can be laid on the coincidence. ‘The omission 
of any mention of Magnesia in the Apocalypse presents no difficulty 
on the supposition that this church had been founded during S. Paul’s 
residence at Ephesus. The seven letters are addressed only to the prin- 
cipal churches in the respective districts. Ephesus was the centre of one 
district comprising Magnesia and Tralles and Miletus, just as Laodicea 
was the centre of another comprising Hierapolis and Colossz ; and ot 
the subordinate churches no mention is made in either case. Another 
link of connexion with S. Paul was the fact that the Pisidian Antioch, where 
he preached, was a colony of this Magnesia (Strabo xii. 8, p. 577). 

At all events the Church of Magnesia seems to have been a 
flourishing community in the early years of the second century when 
Ignatius wrote. The Magnesians, like the Ephesians, had heard of 
his projected visit to Smyrna; and, like their neighbours, they had sent 
delegates to meet him there (§§ 1, 2, 6, 15). The Magnesian delegacy 
was an adequate representation of the Church. It comprised all 
orders of the ministry—the bishop Damas, the presbyters Bassus and 
Apollonius, the deacon Zotion (§ 2). It was in acknowledgement of the 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 103 


attention which the Magnesians had thus shown to him that he wrote 
this letter. 

The main theme of the epistle is the exhortation to unity (§§ 1, 
2-—4, 6, 7, 13). The bond of unity is obedience to the bishop and to 
the other officers of the ministry. A warning is the more needed in 
their case, because some might be tempted to presume upon the youth 
of the bishop (§ 3). 

The object of this exhortation appears in another part of the letter. 
Unity is the best safeguard against the intrusion of heresy (§§ 8—11). 
The heresy in question is described as a return to the old and un- 
profitable fables, the stale and sour leaven, of Judaism (§§ 8, 10). He 
expresses the substance of his warning to his correspondents in the 
exhortation not to ‘sabbatize,’ but to ‘live after the Lord’s day’ (§ 6). 
It appears however from incidental expressions, that he is not con- 
templating Judaism of a pure Pharisaic type, for he affirms with em- 
phasis the vea/ity of Christ’s birth, passion, and resurrection (§§ 9, 11), 
obviously having these same teachers in view. The heresy therefore is a 
Docetic Judaism. He acquits the Magnesians of any complicity therein 
as yet; but, while this false doctrine is abroad, he feels that the warning 
is not superfluous, and he counts on their obedience (S§ 11, 12, 14). 

The Church of the Magnesians was not famous in later ecclesiastical 
history. The martyrdom of a certain Quadratus is said to have occurred 
at Magnesia, presumably the city on the Meander ; and one form of the 
legend identifies him with the celebrated Apologist bearing this name, 
who presented his defence of Christianity to the emperor Hadrian. But 
it seems more probable that the martyr in question suffered during the 
persecution of Decius, if indeed the story of the martyrdom is not 
altogether a fiction (see Act. SS. Boll. 26 Maii, and comp. Tillemont 
Mémoires τι. p. 236 sq, 589 sq). In the succeeding centuries we 
hear of the Magnesian Church from time to time, as represented by her 
bishops at the great Councils of the Church (see below p. 105), though 
they do not occupy any very distinguished position on these occasions. 
But, if we might assume that the Macarius, whose work has been 
recently recovered and published’, owed his surname to this city, the 
Church of Magnesia is not left without a representative in the field of 
theological literature. 


The following is an avalyszs of the epistle. 
‘IcnatTius to the CHURCH OF MAGNESIA ON THE MAANDER, 
abundant greeting in the Father and in Jesus Christ.’ 


1 Μακαρίου Μάγνητος, ᾿Αποκριτικὸς ἢ Μονογενής, ex inedito codice ed. C. Blondel, 
Paris 1876. 


104 IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


‘Knowing your harmony and love I was glad to hold converse with 
you. I glorify all those churches which preserve unity. Abiding in 
love, you will resist the assaults of the Evil One (§ 1). I rejoiced 
therefore to see you in the person of your bishop Damas, of your 
presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, of your deacon Zotion (§ 2). Let 
no man presume on the youth of your bishop. The presbyters recog- 
nise his wisdom and obey him. He who deceives his bishop plays 
false with God (§ 3). You must be Christians in reality and not in 
name only. It is not honest to be always talking of the bishop and 
yet always acting without him (§ 4). All things come to anend. The 
choice is between death and life. There are two coinages—the stamp 
of the world and the stamp of God. We must die into Christ’s passion, 
if we would live in His life (§ 5). Having met you through your 
representatives, I intreat you to act in concert with the bishop, the 
priests, and the deacons. Allow nothing to make divisions among you 
(§ 6). As Christ did nothing without the Father, so do ye nothing 
without your bishop and presbyters. Let there be one prayer, one 
mind, one hope. You have one temple even God, and one altar even 
Christ (§ 7). Go not astray after the antiquated tales of Judaism. 
The prophets themselves bore witness to Christ. They were inspired 
so as to convince the unbelievers that there is one God who manifested 
Himself through His incarnate Word (δ 8). If those who were brought 
up in the old ordinances forsook them for Christ, how can we live apart 
from Him, of whom the prophets themselves were disciples (§ 9)? Let 
us not despise His goodness, nor forsake our Christianity. Put ye 
away the sour leaven, and be ye salted in Him. Jesus Christ and 
Judaism cannot exist side by side (§ 10). I say this to warn you against 
the snares of false doctrine. Be ye fully convinced that Christ was born 
and died and rose again in reality; for this is your only hope (δ 11).’ 

‘I am not worthy to be compared to you. I say this, knowing that 
my praise will not puff you up, but rather put you to shame (§ 12). 
Stand steadfast, one and all, in the teaching of the Lord and His 
Apostles. Be obedient to your bishop and to one another (δ 13). A 
brief exhortation will suffice.’ 

‘Pray for me and for the Syrian Church. We need your united 
prayer (§ 14). The Ephesians send greeting from Smyrna whence I 
write. So does Polycarp. ‘The other Churches salute you. Farewell, 
and be united in Christ (§ 15).’ 


ΓΟ FOYC ENS WAENHCIAR 


ITNATIOC, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ εὐλογημένη ἐν 
χάριτι Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ σωτῆρι [ἡμῶν], 


ΤΡΟΟ TOYC EN MAPNHCIAl] ad ἐϊίος gui in magnesia Sev-Syr 2, 7; τοῦ 
αὐτοῦ πρὸς μαγνησίους (being numbered y) g*; μαγνησιεῦσιν ἰγνάτιος G; ignatius 
magnestis L*; ad magnesios A. See the lower note for other authorities. 


2 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] Lg; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ G; def. A. 


def. A. 


πρὸς τοὺς ἐν MarNHcia] The 
proper Greek adjective correspond- 
ing to Mayvnoia is neither Μαγνη- 
σιεύς (the form in the MS of the gen- 
uine epistles) nor Μαγνήσιος (the 
form in the MSS of the interpo- 
lated epistles), but Μάγνης, the femi- 
nine being sometimes Μαγνῆτις (e.g. 
C. I. G. 3381), sometimes Μάγνησσα 
(e.g. Theocr. xxii. 79), sometimes Μάγ- 
νησις (Parthenius in Steph. Byz.). 
This is equally the case whether the 
Magnesia intended be the town on 
the Mzeander or its namesake under 
Sipylus. Steph. Byz. 5. v. Μαγνησία 
says explicitly, ὁ πολίτης Μάγνης ὁμω- 
νύμως τῷ οἰκιστῇς. This statement is 
confirmed by all ancient remains. 
The legend of the coins is universally 
MALPNHTEC OF MAPNHTWN: See Mion- 
net Ill. p. 142 sq, SuPP/. VI. p. 231 sq, 
for the city on the Meander, and 
Mionnet Iv. p. 68 sq, Suppl. VII. p. 
371 sq, for the city under Sipylus. 
The same is also the form which 
occurs in the inscriptions (C. Δ G. 
2913, 2919 b Appx., 2933; Wood’s 


ἡμῶν] GL; om. g*; 


Discovertes at Ephesus Inscr. ii. 3, 
12). It alone is found in classical 
writers of all ages (e.g. Herod. iii. 90, 
Arist. Pol: iv. 3, Strabo xi. 8, 'p. 577; 
xiv. I, p. 647 sq, Plut. Vet. Themast. 
32, Appian. Wzthr. 21, Paus. 1. 20. 5, 
1.26.4. Julian Ovad. vile pe 218). 
Even in ecclesiastical writings down 
to a very late date I have not met 
with any other form: see e.g. Labb. 
Conc. 111. p. 85 (ed. Colet.) τῶν Μαγνή- 
Tov πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἦν ὀνόματι Maka- 
ριος (at the Oak Synod A.D. 403; ἃ 
document in Photius 4207. 59); 2. vil. 
Ρ. 1072 Πατρίκιος ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ ἐπίσκοπος 
τῆς Μαγνήτων περὶ Μαίανδρον πόλεως 
τῆς ᾿Ασιανῶν ἐπαρχίας (comp. 2. p. 
1100; at the third Council of Con- 
stantinople, A.D. 680). In the Parad?. 
Rupef. pp. 779, 785 (ed. Lequien), a- 
scribed to John of Damascus, πρὸς 
Μαγνησίους occurs, but the present 
text of this collection of extracts else- 
where has also the impossible form 
πρὸς Φιλαδελφίους. The form May- 
νησίους also appears to underlie the 
Syriac translation of Timoth. Alex. 


106 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


? c. : / \ 3 7 \ 33" > / 
ἐν ᾧ ἀσπαζομαι THY ἐκκλησίαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ 
΄σ \ / \ γ, 2 a \ Velie 
τῇ πρὸς Μαιάνδρῳ, καὶ εὔχομαι ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐν 


> ~ can σ- / 
Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ πλεῖστα χαίρειν. 


2 πρὸς δίαιάνδρῳ)] προσμεάνδρω (sic) G. 
v. 1.) ; χριστῷ ἰησοῦ (om. ἐν) [g]; al. A. 


(Cureton C. /. p. 211). Nothing can 
be inferred from JZagnisoyé in a 
quotation from the Syriac Version 
(Cureton C. /. p. 197; comp. p. 200), 
or from Magniszatzis in the head- 
ing of the epistle in the Armenian 
Version, as these forms follow the 
analogy of the respective languages. 
The Greek translator of Jerome V7zr. 
Tt. 16 has Μαγνησιανούς, but this 
simply is a transliteration of Je- 
rome’s Latin. The proper form in 
Latin is J/agnes, following the Greek 
lemiCic! ware. <or,.. Tac: Arn. 11. 
47), but Jerome writes ad Magune- 
stanos. In an ancient inscription 
(BocekhinG, 7. Ὁ 3137),) about B.c. 
244, recording a treaty between the 
Smyrnzans and Magnesians (pro- 
bably of the city ad Sipylum, see 
Boeckh p, 698), while the former are 
always Σμυρναῖοι, the latter are οἱ ἐν 
(written ἐμ) Μαγνησίᾳ or οἱ ἐκ (written 
also ἐγ or exy) Μαγνησίας or οἱ ἀπὸ 
Μαγνησίας. Similarly in two different 
passages of Severus of Antioch pre- 
served in Syriac versions (Cureton 
G7. Ρ (213, Land) Anmecd...Syr. 1. p. 
32) this epistle is entitled ‘to those 
who (are)in Magnesia.’ The fact is the 
more remarkable, because in quoting 
the other epistles he writes ‘to the 
Ephesians,’ ‘to the Trallians, etc. 
If therefore Ignatius or any early 
transcriber had prefixed a title to this 
epistle, he would probably have 
written either Tipoc TOYC EN MarNH- 
Clal OF TTPOC TOYC MaPNHTac. At 
all events the facts alleged seem to 
show that the extant title μαγνησι- 
cvow tyvarws must date long after 


ἐν “Inoot Χριστῷ] GL* (with a 


the time when the epistle (on any 
showing) was written. 

‘IGNATIUS, called also Theopho- 
rus, to the CHURCH OF MAGNESIA 
ON THE MAANDER, blessed through 
the grace of God in Christ, hearty 
greeting in Christ.’ 

τῇ εὐλογημένῃ] 56. ἐκκλησίᾳ, but the 
form of the sentence is changed as 
it proceeds, and the missing sub- 
stantive becomes the accusative to 
ἀσπάζομαι. 

2. τῇ πρὸς Μαιάνδρῳ] This city 
was Called frequently ἐπὶ [τῷ] Μαιάν- 
δρῷ, Arist. Pol. iv. 3, Strabo xiv. I 
(p:-647), Died.) Sics x. 57, ΔΕΒ ΩΣ τ 
p. 173, or ἐπὶ τοῦ Μαιάνδρου, Athen. 
26.. but more commonly, as here, 
πρὸς [τῷ] Μαιάνδρῳ, C. 7. G. 2910, 
3137, Strabo xii. ὃ (p. 577), Athen. 
He 6 Ps; (525, Laabbs) Comes Vile 
L1oo,..Ptol. v...2., Semetimes itis 
simply Μαιάνδρου, Labb. Conc. II. 
p. 1088, IV. p. 506, 858, 894, VIII. p. 
687 ; and occasionally περὶ Μαίανδρον, 
zb. VII. p. 1072, comp. [Aéschines] 
Epist. x. 8. Herodotus describes it 
(ili. 122) as ἡ ὑπὲρ Μαιάνδρου ποταμοῦ 
οἰκημένη. These designations were 
adopted to distinguish it from Mag- 
nesia in Thessaly, of which it was 
reported to be a colony, but more 
especially from its near neighbour un- 
der mount Sipylus, which was called 
Μαγνησία πρὸς Σιπύλῳ or ὑπὸ Σιπύλῳ 
Or ὑπὸ Σιπύλου, and its inhabitants 
Μάγνητες ἀπὸ Σιπύλου (see C. ἢ G. 
2933, 3381, Mionnet Iv. p. 68 sq, 
Suppl. Vu. p. 371 sq). The two places 
are mentioned in the same context, 
Liv. xxxvil. 44, 45, Ptol. v. 2. Wes- 


i] TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


107 


\ - \ / ΄ 
I. [vous ὑμῶν τὸ πολνεύτακτον τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν 
> 7 ᾽ 7 7 > > ΡΞ 
ἀγάπης, ἀγαλλιώμενος προειλάμην ἐν πίστει ᾿Ιησοῦ 


Χριστοῦ προσλαλῆσαι ὑμῖν. καταξιωθεὶς γὰρ ὀνόματος 


5 προειλάμην] g3 προειλόμην G. 


seling /¢zz. p. 658 states that it is 
called ἡ Πρωτομαιανδρούπολις ; and 
the writer in Smith’s Dect. of Geogr. 
s. v. says ‘Later documents seem to 
imply that at one time it bore the 
name Meandropolis.’ Both quote 
as their authority ‘Concil. Constan- 
tin. iii, p. 666. This however is 
merely a corrupt text, πρωτομαιαν- 
δρουπόλεως for πρὸς τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ 
πόλεως: see Labb. Coe. VII. p. 1100. 
The Meeandropolis mentioned by 
Pliny WV. H. v. 29 is a different place, 
though identified with Magnesia by 
Spanheim de Usu et Praest. Numm. 
ix. Ρ- 889. When Phlegon, as quoted 
by Steph. Byz. 5. v., says Μαιανδρού- 
mous, Μαγνησίας πόλις, he means that 
it belonged to the territory of Mag- 
nesia. Our Magnesia is also desig- 
nated 7 ᾿Ασιανή (Thuc. 1. 138), and its 
inhabitants are Μάγνητες οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίῃ 
(Herod. iii. go), to distinguish them 
from their Thessalian namesakes, 
It is placed in Caria, Diosc. Mat. 
Med. v. 130 (131). 

I. ‘Knowing your orderly de- 
meanour and godly love, I am de- 
sirous of conversing with you by 
letter. For decked out in these 
honorable chains, I sing the praises 
of the churches, and pray for their 
unity in the spirit and in the flesh, 
a unity consisting of faith and love, 
and centering in Jesus and in the 
Father. If we abide in Christ, we 
shall escape all the assaults of the 
Evil One and shall find God.’ 

4. Yvovs|] ‘Having learnt, i.e. 
probably from the reports of Damas 
their bishop and the other Magnesian 
delegates mentioned in § 2. 


6 καταξιωθεὶς] G3 ἀξιωθεὶς [g]. 


τὸ πολυεύτακτον] ‘the abundant 
good order’; comp. Ephes. 6 ὑπερε- 
παινεῖ ὑμῶν τὴν ev Θεῷ εὐταξίαν. 1 
have not found an example of this 
word elsewhere; but comp. πολυεύ- 
σπλαγχνος Clem. Alex. Quzs div. salv. 
39 (p. 957). The Lexicons also give 
πολυευζωΐα, πολυευπρεπής, as late 
words. Here, as in other churches, 
it is the harmony and submission to 
authority in the Magnesians which 
secures the admiration of Ignatius: 
comp. Lphes. 6, 20, Tradl. 1, 2, Polyc. 
6, ete. 

κατὰ Θεὸν] ‘72 the way of God’, 
a somewhat favourite Ignatian ex- 
pression: comp. ὃ 13, 7vad/l. τ, Philad. 
4, Polyc. 5. So too κατὰ Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστόν, § ὃ below, Phzlad. 3. This is 
a favourite preposition with Ignatius 
in various connexions, e.g. in this 
epistle, ὃ 3 κατὰ μηδεμίαν ὑπόκρισιν, 
§ 4 κατ᾽ ἐντολήν, § 6 κατὰ σάρκα, § 8 
κατὰ lovdaicpov, § Q κατὰ κυριακήν, 
δ 10 κατὰ χριστιανισμόν, δὴ 8, 15, κατὰ 
πάντα. 

5. προειλάμην] “7 determined’, as e.g. 
Prov. xxi. 25 (LXX) οὐ yap προαιροῦν- 
ται ai χεῖρες αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν τι, 2 Cor. ix. 
7. The ordinary sense of the sub- 
stantive προαίρεσις, ‘choice, purpose,’ 
points to the meaning of the verb. 
The word does not imply any prefer- 
ence of the Magnesians over others, 
as some commentators explain it. 

ἐν πίστει κιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘as a Chris- 
tian speaking to Christians, to con- 
verse with you (by letter).’ For 
προσλαλεῖν of ‘addressing’ by letter 
comp. £phes. 3. 

6. ὀνόματος] What is this name? 
Is it, as some Say, the name of Christ 


108 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ 


- a ᾽} A 
θεοπρεπεστάτου, ἐν ois περιφέρω δεσμοῖς adw τὰς 


᾽ J ᾽ ce e/ \ \ , 
ἐκκλησίας, εν ALS EVWOLV εὔχομαι σαρκος-ς καὶ σσνευματος 


9 ~~ rand ΄. \ | ς ~ ~ , tA 
ησοῦ Χριστοῦ Tov δια παντὸς ἡ ὡς τ 
Ιησοῦ Χριστο ὃ ὧν CHV, πίστε € 


2 ἕνωσιν] &voow G. 
GL*; om. A [Antioch 1]; al. g. 


(but this must be a misprint or misreading). 


(see the note on Lphes. 1)? The 
epithet θεοπρεπεστάτου would be 
hardly adequate here for this name 
of names, though in another con- 
nexion it is used of Christ Himself, 
Orie. co Celss mt 4.4; /Or sis 1}. the 
designation of θεοφόρος, as Pearson 
(V. 1. p.523) and others after him (e.g. 
Hilgenfeld A. V. p. 193) maintain? 
This designation however seems to 
have been self-assumed, and not con- 
ferred upon him by others as a title 
of honour, as Pearson supposes. Or 
again is it the appellation of ‘mar- 
tyr’, as Lipsius (Aecht. p. 90) and 
others believe? But elsewhere Ig- 
natius shrinks from any such boast- 
ful title (see the note on 7γαζί. 4). 
I think that the reference here is 
best supplied by the words which 
follow, ἐν ois περιφέρω δεσμοῖς. Ig- 
natius rejoices, as S. Paul had re- 
joiced before him, that he is δέσμιος 
Χριστοῦ (Ephes. ili. 1, iv. 1, Philem. 
Ι, 9). This is his proudest distinc- 
tion. 

I. θεοπρεπεστάτου The word 
occurs again, Swzyrz. inscr., I1, 12, 
Pole, 7. itis found as» early. as 
Diodorus (xi. 89, xvii. 75) and ap- 
pears in Philo (Vt. Moys. ii. 3, p. 
137). Compare the similar Ignatian 
words, θεοδρόμος, θεομακαριστός, θεο- 
πρεσβύτης. 

ἐν οἷς k.T.A.] 1.6, €v τοῖς δεσμοῖς ἃ 
περιφέρω. He compares himself to 
some gay reveller; his fetters are 
his holiday decoration ; the burden 
of his song is the praise of the 
churches. For this conception of 


3 ἡμῶν] GA; ἡμᾶς (?) L*; al. g. τέ] 


4 4s] GLA; al. g; εἰς [Antioch] 
7 τευξόμεθα] G (certainly) ; 


his bonds see Ephes. 11 τὰ Seopa 
περιφέρω, τοὺς πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας 
(with the note). See also the notes 
on Philem. 9, 13, for the correspond- 
ing idea in 5. Paul. For the meta- 
phor in dédew see Ephes. 4, Rom. 2, 
with the notes on both places. The 
words ἐν ois x.7.A. are best taken with 
the following clause. Zahn has not 
improved the passage by his reading. 
In his earlier work (/. v. A. p. 569) 
he boldly alters the words thus, κατα- 
ξιωθεὶς yap Se ὀνομάτων θεοπρεπεστά- 
των, ἐν οἷς περιφέρω δεσμοῖς, ἰδεῖν τὰς 
ἐκκλησίας κιτιλ.; but in his subse- 
quent text he contents himself with 
substituting ἰδὼν for dde, retaining 
the other words and explaining ὄνομα 
θεοπρεπέστατον to refer to Damas 
the bishop. The lively and charac- 
teristic image of Ignatius is thus 
obliterated. | 

2. ἔνωσιν κιτ.λ.)] “7 pray that 
there may be unity in thetr flesh and 
in their spirit, which are Fesus 
Christ’s.’. It seems best so to explain 
the words, rather than ‘anton with 
the flesh and spirit of Fesus Christ, 
or ‘union in flesh and spirit with 
Fesus Christ’, because (among other 
reasons) we thus avoid an unmean- 
ing and awkward repetition which 
otherwise arises out of the subse- 
quent words, τὸ δὲ κυριώτερον, Ἰησοῦ 
κιτιλ. For ἕνωσιν σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύμα- 
ros comp. Hom. inscr. κατὰ σάρκα καὶ 
πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις, and below ὃ 13 wa 
ἕνωσις ἦ σαρκική τε καὶ πνευματική. 
These passages seem to show that 
σαρκὸς kal πνεύματος must refer to the 


1] TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


109 


ΔΕ - Δ , \ \ ἢ 
καὶ αὙαΤΉς, ns οὐδὲν προκέκριίται, TO δὲ κυριώτερον, 


3 ΄σ \ / δν..5 ‘ene / \ ~ > / 
5 Inoov Kal TAT POS εν Ww UTTOMEVOVTES Τὴν πασαν ἐπήρειαν 


΄σ »f a 77 Li \ | a ΄:- 
του αρχόοντος του ALWVYOS TOUTOU Kal διαφυγόντες Θεοῦ 


τευξόμεθα. 


potimur L; refugimus ad (confidimus in) A (the word does not imply a different 


reading φευξόμεθα); al. g. The earlier edd. after Voss print φευξόμεθα. 


Voss 


gave φευξόμεθα as the reading of the Ms, and offered τευξόμεθα as a conjecture. 


churches and not to Christ. The 
flesh and the spirit denote the secular 
and the spiritual sides of life respec- 
tively. 

On the frequency of these words 


ἑνοῦσθαι, etc. in Ignatius see the note © 


on Ephes. 4. The difference between 
ἕνωσις and évdrns is the difference 
between ‘union’ and ‘unity’, between 
the process and the result. For the 
genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as I have 
taken it, comp. Polyc. 5 eis τιμὴν τῆς 
σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου (the correct read- 
ing), and see I Cor. vi. 20 (as read in 
the received text) δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν 
Θεὸν ἐν TH σώματι ὑμῶν Kal ἐν τῷ 


πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἅτινά ἐστιν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. According to this construc- 


tion ἕνωσις here takes three sets of 
genitives ; (1) Of the subject, which 
possesses the unity, σαρκὸς καὶ mvev- 
ματος: (2) Of the matter in which 
the unity shows itself, πίστεώς τε καὶ 
ἀγάπης : (3) Of the personal centre 
in which the unity resides, Ἰησοῦ 
καὶ πατρός. For this threefold refer- 
ence comp. ὃ 13 κατευοδωθῆτε σαρκὶ 
καὶ πνεύματι, πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ, ἐν υἱῷ 
καὶ πατρὶ K.T.A. 

3. τοῦ διὰ. παντὸς xt.A.] ‘our 
never-fatling life’; comp. Ephes. 3 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, 
Smyrn, 4 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὸ ἀληθινὸν 
ἡμῶν ζῆν. For this substantival use of 
ζῆν see the note on Zphes. 11. There 
is no sufficient reason for adopting 
the ill-supported reading ἡμᾶς here 
with Zahn (see 7. v. A. p. 570), who 


compares Efhes. 20. The sense is 
rather injured than improved by the 
change, which introduces an irrele- 
vant clause. 

4. ἧς οὐδὲν κιτ.λ.] ‘than which 
(i.e. love) sothing ἐς preferable’: 
comp. Smyrz. 6 πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη, ὧν 
οὐδὲν προκέκριτα. For προκέκριται, 
comp. Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 8, Mem. iii. 5. 19. 

τὸ δὲ κυριώτερον k.t.r.| ‘and what 
zs more tntportant than all, a union 
in Fesus and the Father—in Jesus, 
in whom if we endure etc.’; where 
ἐν ᾧ must be connected with Ἰησοῦ, 
as the sense requires. For ἕνωσις 
Ἰησοῦ καὶ πατρός comp. John xvii. 21. 

5. τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπήρειαν] ‘all out- 
rage. For the emphatic position of 
the article preceding πᾶς, and thus 
denoting the whole range of possi- 
bility, comp. 1 Tim. 1. 16 τὴν ἅπασαν 
μακροθυμίαν, Hermas Mand. v. 1 τὴν 
πᾶσαν ἐλπίδα, and see the note on 
Gal. v. 14. For ἐπήρειαν comp. 
Afpost. Const. viii. ὃ τῆς παγίδος τοῦ 
διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἐπηρείας τῶν δαιμόνων 
(comp. 26. § 11), Lucian Pro Laps. 
int. Salut. 1 χαλεπὸν μέν, ἄνθρωπον 
ὄντα, δαίμονός τινος ἐπήρειαν διαφυγεῖν, 
Philostr. Afzst. 18 (p. 349) ἀνοίᾳ 
μᾶλλον ἢ ἐπηρείᾳ δαιμόνων γενόμενα; 
and so it is used elsewhere of the 
wanton injury inflicted by super- 
human agencies. 

6. τοῦ ἄρχοντος x.t.A.] See the 
note on Ephes. 17. 

Θεοῦ τευξόμεθα] The phrase τυγχά- 
νειν Θεοῦ occurs again Lphes. το, 


I1O 


ΤΗΝ" EPISTLE /OF - IGNATIUS [11 


11. ᾿Επεὶ οὖν ἠξιώθην ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς διὰ Aaya τοῦ 


ἀξιοθέου ὑμῶν ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτέρων ἀξίων Βασ- 


1 Δαμᾶ] δάμα G. 


Smyrn. 9. More common still is 
ἐπιτυγχάνειν Θεοῦ, below § 14, Ephes. 
15: 7 ΧΩ 2: 6 1; (CRON. 1, 125A, Ὁ; 
myrn. 11, Polyc. 2,7; and so also 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτυγχάνειν, Rom. 5. 

II. ‘I have seen you in the per- 
son of your bishop Damas, of your 
presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, 
and of your deacon Zotion, whose 
submission to the bishop and the 
presbyters is a great joy to me.’ 

I. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἠξιώθην x.7.A.] The 
sentence, thus commenced, is never 
completed. The protasis is length- 
ened out in recording the obedi- 
ence of the deacon Zotion (οὗ ἐγὼ 
οὐ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), and this record 
suggests a general injunction to the 
Magnesian Church at large (καὶ ὑμῖν 
δὲ πρέπει κιτ.λ.), Which again branches 
off into subsidiary topics occupying 
three chapters (δὲ 3, 4, 5), the apo- 
dosis being meanwhile forgotten. At 
the beginning of the 6th chapter the 
original protasis 15 again resumed, 
ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις προσώ- 
ποις x.T.A.. and the long-suspended 
apodosis follows, παραινῶ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ 
Θεοῦ κιτιλ., doubtless modified in 
form and substance by the ideas 
which have intervened. For a simi- 
lar sentence similarly broken see 
Ephes. τ ἐπεὶ οὖν τὴν πολυπλήθειαν 
κιτιλ. 

ἠξιώθην] A favourite word of Ig- 
natius when speaking of himself; 
PEPHES. Ὁ 21, Rom.) 1. The com- 
pound καταξιοῦσθαι also occurs 
several times in this connexion; see 
Sim iabove 77,274. 12... Soars. ΤΊ, 
Polyc. 1 (comp. Ephes. 20, Rom. 2). 
See also the note on “phes. 2 ἐάνπερ 
ἄξιος ὦ. 


2 ἀξίων] GLA; θεοῦ ἀξίων g. 


διὰ] ‘272 the Person of.’ For διὰ comp. 
Ephes. 2 δ ὧν πάντας ὑμᾶς.. «εἶδον, 
Mart. Ign. Ant. 3, 4; and for the idea 
see the note on A phes. 1 ἀπείληφα. 

Δαμᾶ] This name occurs several 
times in the inscriptions, e.g. Boeckh 
C..G. 2880 Μάρκου Οὐλπίου [Φλα]βια- 
νοῦ Δαμᾶ αἱ Didymi; 2869 προφήτης 
Κλαύδιος Δαμᾶς also at Didymi; 3507 
Μαρκοῦ OvAmiov Δαμᾶ παραδόξου καὶ 
Κανιδίας Βάσσης θυγατέρα at Thyatira; 
3902 1 τῴ ἀνδρὶ Δαμᾷ αἱ Eumenia; 
3983 Οὐάναξος Δαμᾶς τέκνῳ ἀώ[ρῳ] 
Δαμᾶ! δ]ή.. at Philomelium. See also 
nos. 284, 2562, 3860 and Wood’s 
Ephesus ἵν. 3 (ρ. 6), Bull) de (077. 
Ffell. Vil. p. 311. 80 ἴοο on Milesian 
coins in the time of Nero, em. Ti. 
Aama, Mionnet Ill. p. 168, SuppZ. V1. 
p. 272. In the inscriptions the name 
is commonly declined Δαμᾶς Aaya. 
[In one instance however (no. 3983, 
already given) it is declined Aapas 
Aapados, if Keil and Franz are right 
(see Boeckh Vol. 11. p. 1107); and in 
Latin inscriptions (C.\/.Z. Vv. 1636, XIV. 
1349) we have a dative DAMATI.] 
On the other hand we find Δάμας 
Aduartos (like Θαύμας Θαύμαντος) in 
Suidas s.v. ᾿Αλκμάν. The two forms 
however seem to represent different 
names, as Zahn rightly supposes. 
Aapas (gen. Aaya) is probably a con- 
tracted name, like "Eradpas, Znvas, 
etc. For these contracted names 
in @ see the note on Col. iv. 15. 
Assuming this to be the account of 
the word, I have accentuated it 
Aaya, as it appears in the editions of 
interpolated epistles, rather than 
Adua, as it is written frequently, 
even by the same editors (e. g. Cure- 
ton, Dressel), in the genuine Ignatius. 


π] TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


Lit 


\ / \ ay ͵ 
σον καὶ ᾿λπολλωνίου καὶ τοῦ συνδούλου μου διακόνου 


/ ἜΣ \ > 7 « / aC ΕῚ 
Ζωτίωνος, οὗ ἐγὼ ὀναίμην, OTL ὕὑποτασσεται τῷ ἐπι- 


3 ᾿Απολλωνίου] ἀπολωνίου G (not ἀπολονΐου, as given in Dressel). 
4 ZLwrlwvos] Gg; sotionem A; zononem L* (an obvious miswriting for zotzonem). 


On this hypothesis, it is worth men- 
tioning that among the names occur- 
ring on coins, inscriptions, etc., rela- 
ting to Magnesia are Anunrpuos (Mion- 
net III. p. 143), Δημόνεικος (2d, 111. p. 
156, Suppl. VI. p. 252), Δημόστρατος 
(2b. Ill. p. 157; comp. p. 148), and 
Anpoxapts (Boeckh C. 7. G, 2911, of 
the date A. U. C. 850); that the name 
of the same person is written Aa- 
meoy and AHmeoy on different coins 
of Magnesia (Mionnet Sul. VI. p. 
252); and that our Damas is called 
Anpas in the spurious epistle Ax¢zoch. 
13. The name Damas occurs also in 
atin: mascriptions:;e.0. C. S,.L... Wiz 
FA0OL, 116722, Χο 2263, 6164, XIV. 
2061. It is probably therefore the 
same with the common slave-name 
Dama (Hor. Saz. i. 6. 38, ii. 5. 18, 101, 
Αι PGES. ἰδ νυ 70.70, Co) Louw, 
II. 5042, V. 4087, etc), just as we 
have in Latin the forms Apella, Her- 
ma, Heracla, etc. Basil Afzst. 252 
(11. p. 388) mentions one Δάμας 
(Aapas?) as a famous martyr of a 
lates. date... .useb;. #7. £o< 1. 36, 
speaking of the Epistle to the Mag- 
nesians, refers to this passage, ἐπι- 
σκόπου Aaya μνήμην πεποίηται. Da- 
mas is mentioned twice in the 
spurious epistles, Azzoch. 15, Hero 


2. ἀξιοθέου Applied again to a 
bishop in Smyrn. 12. On the word 
generally see the note on 77a/Z. inscr. 

ἀξίων] Comp. Ephes. 4 πρεσβυτέ- 
ριον Tov Θεοῦ ἄξιον. 

Βάσσου «.t.A.] Apparently not an 
uncommon name in these parts of 
Asia Minor; see e.g. Boeckh C. ZG. 
3112, 3148, 3151, 3493, Wood’s Dzs- 


coveries at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, 17 
(pp. 34, 66). At least two Smyr- 
nzeans bearing the name appear in 
history ; see Pape-Benseler Woricrd. 
ad. Griech. Eigennamens.v. At Mag- 
nesia itself this name appears on the 
coins as borne by two persons at 
different epochs, each at the time 
recorder (γραμματεύς), i.e. chief ma- 
gistrate of the city (comp. Acts xix. 
35 for the parallel case of Ephesus) ; 
em! . fp .@A . BACCOY . MAPNHTWN 
under Caracalla (Mionnet III. p. 151), 
ΕΤΤΙ. Fp. BACCOY . MAFNHTWN under 
Maximinus (ib. Suppl, VI. p. 248). 
In a Samian inscription, C. /. G. 
2248, the names Bassus and Apol- 
lonius occur together, as here. The 
latter is a frequent name in most 
places. One Apollonius a Magnesian 
appears in an Ephesian inscription, 
Wood’s Déscoverics Inscr. 1]. 3 (Ρ. 6) 
ἐπειδὴ ᾿Απολλώνιος Κόνωνος Μάγνης 
κιτιλ.; and two others, also Magne- 
sians, are named in a Trallian in- 
scription, Boeckh C. /. G. 2919 b 
(p. 1123) ᾿Απολλώνιος ᾿Απολλωνίου 
Μάγνης. 

3. συνδούλου] Applied by Igna- 
tius solely to deacons; see the note 
on Ephes. 2. 

4. Ζωτίωνος] The name is not 
uncommon in inscriptions, where it 
is most frequently written Σωτίων, as 
in one authority here. In the same 
way in the inscriptions the same 
person is called Σώτιχος and Ζώτιχος; 
Boeckh C. 7. G. 202, 205. There is 
some reason also for thinking that 
the Swras of Euseb. H. £. v. 19 is 
the same with the Σωτικός of the pre- 
ceding chapter. On the confusion 


ΕΓ. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


7 e / Oc fa) \ “ ε β 7 ε , 
OKOTTW WS χάριτι OU Kal TW i σ UTEDL® WS VOMW 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


111. 


Καὶ ὑμῖν δὲ πρέπει μὴ συγχρᾶσθαι TH ἡλικίᾳ 


2 Χριστοῦ] For the addition in 1, see Appx. 


of = and Z see the note on Polyc. 
inscr. 

ὀναίμην] i.e. ‘enjoy his com- 
pany’; see the note on Zphes. 2. 

I. χάριτι Θεοῦ κιτ.λ.] The bishop 
is here regarded as the dispenser of 
blessings; the presbyters as the 
representatives and guardians of 
order. For νόμῳ comp. 7 γαζί. 13 ὑπο- 
τασσόμενοι TO ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς TH ἐντολῇ 
(with the note). The expression here 
does not mean that the presbyterate 
is itself an ordinance, an institution, 
of Christ, but that the presbyters 
order with the authority of Christ. 
For νόμῳ Χριστοῦ see the note on 
Rom. inscr. χριστόνομος ; for πρεσβυ- 
τερίῳ, the note on /phes. 2. 

ii 1 vexhort’ you’ all in dike 
manner to respect the youth of your 
bishop. Follow the example of your 
presbyters, who regard not his age 
but his wisdom. Your duty towards 
God, the universal Bishop, requires 
you so to act. Whosoever fails in 
his obedience, deceives not the 
visible overseer, but the Invisible. 
His all-seeing eye nothing escapes.’ 

3. καὶ ὑμῖν δὲ] ‘you the laity of 
the Church, not less than the 
deacons.’ 

συγχρᾶσθαι)] ‘to presume upon, 
literally ‘¢o treat familiarly’ The 
word occurs in the N. T. once only, 
Joh. iv. 9 ov yap συγχρῶνται ᾿ἸἸουδαῖοι 
Sapapeiras. The word signifies either 
(1) ‘to use together with another,’ 
as perhaps in Polyb. vi. 3. 10 συμ- 
ψεύδονται καὶ συγχρῶνται πάντες oi 
μόναρχοι τῷ τῆς βασιλείας ὀνόματι; 
or (2) ‘to use constantly or fully or 
familiarly,’ e.g. Epict. i. 2. 7 ταῖς τῶν 


ἐκτὸς ἀξίαις συγχρώμεθα, Orig. Ep. ad 
Afric. 15 (I. p. 28) συγχρωμένους προ- 
φήτας προφητῶν λύγοις σχεδὸν αὐταῖς 
λέξεσι. In this latter signification 
it has a tendency to a bad sense, 
like καταχρῆσθαι, though not to the 
same extent. For the form -χρᾶσθαι, 
instead of -χρῆσθαι, see the notes on 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. 6 (pp. 195, 452), 
and comp. Herm. Szm. i. xpacat, 
though χρήσῃ occurs in the context. 
For the sense see 1 Tim. iv. 12 μηδείς 
σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω. 

4. κατὰ δύναμιν κ-τ.λ.] i.e. ‘having 
regard to the power conferred upon 
him by God the Father.’ 

5. ἀπονέμειν) ‘to pay’, as his due ; 
for this is the force of the preposi- 
tion. So ἀπονέμειν τιμὴν, 1 Pet. 111. 
7, Clem. Rom. 1, Mart. Polyc. 10. 

6. ov προσειληφότας | ‘ zot taking ad- 
vantage of ;comp. Demosth. Olynth. 
ii. p. 20 B τὴν ἑκάστων ἄνοιαν ἀεὶ τῶν 
ἀγνοούντων αὐτὸν ἐξαπατῶν καὶ προσ- 
λαμβάνων οὕτως ηὐξήθη, Dion. Cass. 
Ix. 2 καὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦτο προσλαμβά- 
νοντες (i.e. ‘availing themselves of 
this weak point in his character’) 
οὐκ ἐλάχιστα κατειργάζοντο (passages 
quoted in Steph. Thes. s. v., ed. 
Hase and Dindorf). The expres- 
sion ov προσειληφότας has been com- 
monly explained ‘zot regarding, i.e. 
‘overlooking’; but the parallels quo- 
ted suggest the correct interpreta- 
tion, as Uhlhorn (p. 329) and Zahn 
(I. v. A. p. 303) have pointed out. 
For other untenable explanations of 
ov προσειληφύτας see the next note. 

νεωτερικὴν τάξιν] ‘his youthful sta- 
tus or condition, a slightly awkward 
but intelligible expression. The uses 


m1] 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. II 


“A 
o 


ANS / > \ \ / ΄σ Ἢ ~ 
τοὺ ἐπισκόπου, ἀλλα κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ TATOOS πᾶσαν 


3 \ a / \ ᾽} 
" ἐντροπὴν αὐτῷ ἀπονέμειν, καθὼς ἔγνων καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους 


7 
πρεσβυτέρους οὐ προσειληφότας τὴν φαινομένην νεωτε- 


4 δύναμιν] GLA; γνώμην g. 


of τάξις elsewhere quite justify this 
interpretation ; seeesp. Aristot. Wagn. 
Mor. i. 34 (p. 1194) ὅταν ἤδη λάβῃ τὴν 
τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τάξιν, ‘when he has now 
atrived at για, estate, which is an 
exact parallel: comp. also AH. A. ix. 
7 (p. 612) τῇ περὶ τὸν πηλὸν ἀχυρώσει 
τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν ‘is of the same 
nature as,’ Az. Gen. iii. 11 (p. 761) 
βούλεται κατὰ THY τοῦ πυρὸς εἶναι 
τάξιν, Magn. Mor. i. 2 (p. 1183) ὅσα 
eis δυνάμεως τάξιν ἥκει ‘pertain to 
the category of power, Plato Phz/ed. 
49 C τὴν τῶν γελοίων εἴληχε τάξιν τε 
καὶ φύσιν, Dion. Hal. de Adm. Vi 
Dem. 40 δεσμοῦ δέ τινος ἢ κόλλης 
τάξιν..-παρεξομένας ‘to take the place 
of, ‘to serve the purpose of,’ Diod. 
Sic. 1. 25 els τὴν mpovmapEacay καθί- 
τάξιν, ‘restored to their 
former condition (of health and 
soundness of limb).’ Ignatius there- 
fore says that, though apparently 
from his years Damas belongs to 
the category of youth, yet his godly 
wisdom takes him out of this cate- 
gory. This is substantially the in- 
terpretation adopted by the Igna- 
tian interpolator, who paraphrases 
the words οὐ πρὸς τὴν φαινομένην 
ἀφορῶντας νεότητα, and of the Arme- 
nian translator, who renders them 
‘non spectant ad apparentem aetatem 
pueritiae ejus’; and it alone harmon- 
izes with the preceding context, μὴ 
συγχρᾶσθαι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. 
It must be noticed however that 
Ignatius says, not τὴν φαινομένην 
νεότητα, for his νεότης was a fact, but 
τὴν φαινομένην νεωτερικὴν τάξιν, for he 
was young without being youthful, 


IGN. 1: 


στασθαι 


πατρὸς] GLg; om. [A]. 


and the vewrepixn τάξις was therefore 
only a semblance. On the other 
hand Saumaise (Appar. ad Libr. de 
Prim. Pap. p.57 sq, Lugd. Bat. 1645) 
gave a wholly different turn to the 
passage. He supposed that νεωτερικὴ 
τάξις meant ‘the newly created order 
or institution of the episcopate,’ and 
he rendered the sentence ‘ sicut cog- 
novi presbyteros, non ut accipientes 
eam, quae nova videtur, institutionem, 
sed tanquam prudentes in Deo, ce- 
dentes ipsi.’ In reply to Saumaise, 
Petau (Theol. Dogm. v. 8. 5, IV. p. 
162, ed. Antyv. 1700), while main- 
taining the antiquity of the episco- 
pate against him, was nevertheless 
led astray by his misinterpretation 
of ov προσειληφότας, ‘not recognising’ 
and so ‘vefudiating, and himself 
explained vewrepixn τάξις ‘novitia et 
vrecens ordinatio et tnstitutio” He 
supposed that this new order of 
things which the presbyters repu- 
diated was the substitution of ap- 
pointment by superior standing for 
free election, or in other words, of 
sentority for merit. This however 
is a pure hypothesis, not resting on 
any historical basis. Both these 
interpretations of the sentence are 
refuted by Pearson (V. /. p. 5 sq), 
and have not been reproduced lat- 
terly. But, while rejecting the general 
interpretation of the passage as given 
by Saumaise, several recent writers 
have adopted his rendering of vewre- 
ρικὴ τάξις, ‘the newly-created office or 
order’; e.g. Rothe Ax/ange, p. 436 56; 
Uhlhorn p. 329 sq, Lipsius Clem. 
Rom. p.27. Yet itis open to the most 


8 


rhe 


THE HPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


ρικὴν τάξιν, avn ὡς φρονίμῳ ἐν Θεῷ συγχωροῦντας 


~~ ~ / \ ΄- \ lon ΄. ~ 
αὐτῷ" οὐκ αὐτῷ δέ, ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρὶ ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ 


> / 3 \ Ss 3 / las / 
πάντων ETLO ΚΟΊΤΩ. εις τιμὴν OUV EKELYOU TOU θελήσαντος 


΄ \ ε 7 \ 7 € / 
ὑμᾶς πρέπον ἐστὶν ὑπακούειν κατὰ μηδεμίαν ὑποκρισιν" 


1 φρονίμῳ] sicut σα ίογιίϊ viro (om. ἐν θεῷ) A; and so the paraphrase of g οὐ πρὸς 
τὴν φαινομένην ἀφορῶντας νεότητα ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν ἐν θεῷ φρόνησιν; φρονίμους GL. 
3 ἐκείνου] GLA (which seems to have read τιμὴν οὖν ἐκείνου [αὐτοῦ] θελήσαντοΞ); θεοῦ 


[Dam-Rup 5]; al. g. 


4 ὑμᾶς] A, and so [g] πρέπον οὖν ἐστιν καὶ ὑμᾶς ὑπακούειν 
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑμῶν K.T.A.; ἡμᾶς ΑἹ, Dam-Rup. 


ὑπακούειν] Dam-Rup [6]; 


obedire 1.; audire A; ἐπακούειν G: comp. Ephes. 2, where G reads ἐπιτασσόμενοι 


for ὑποτασσόμενοι. 


serious objections. (1) It dislocates 
the connexion of thought. Obviously 
the words καθὼς... καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους πρεσ- 
βυτέρους x.tT.A. imply that the example 
of the presbyters corresponds to the 
previous injunction, whereas this in- 
terpretation makes it refer to some- 
thing quite different. (2) The words 
will not bear the meaning thus put 
upon them. Even though τάξις 
might stand for the ‘institution’ or 
‘order’ of the episcopate, the epithet 
νεωτερικὴ cannot have the sense as- 
sioned jtaxdt.. It |denotes, either 
‘juvenile’ or ‘revolutionary,’ but 
never, so far as I am aware, ‘recent’; 
nor indeed does the form -ἰκός admit 
this meaning; see Pearson /.. 7. p. 
FAS Ζαίνην fo 17.04. ἢ: 304; ) (3), Tt 
leaves φαινομένην unexplained, for 
there could be no question of affear- 
ances here, seeing that the age of 
the episcopal office must have been 
a matter of fact. Zahn (p. 304 sq) 
gives an explanation of νεωτερικὴ 
τάξις, which stands midway between 
that which I have adopted and that 
which Saumaise proposed, and in- 
terprets it ‘the ordination of a young 
man.’ Hethus brings the expression 
into a nearer connexion with the 
preceding injunction, and gives a 
possible interpretation to νεωτερική. 


5 οὐχ ὅτι] (ἃ; non guod A (less literally translated 


But his rendering strains the sense of 
both νεωτερικὴ and τάξις ; and the 
combined result is an awkwardness 
of expression far greater than in the 
traditional interpretation which I 
have adopted. Zahn was anticipated 
in his explanation by Bingham Azz. 
ii, 10. I, ‘He calls his ordination 
νεωτερικὴν τάξιν, a youthful ordina- 
tion. An alternative rendering sug- 
gested by Cotelier ‘vecentem Ζ{{2245 
ordinationem’ is open to still greater 
objections. This account would not 
be complete without a reference to 
the interpretation by Bos £vxerc. 
Phil. in 2 Tim. ii. 22 (p. 45), ‘on ad- 
sumentes ea guae manifesto Juvents 
(episcopi) sant munia 

I. φρονίμῳ] 1 Cor. iv. 10 φρόνι- 
μοι ev Χριστῷ: The reading which 
I have adopted from the Armenian 
Version and which is supported by 
the interpolator’s paraphrase seems 
to be required by the context. A 
reference is wanted to the prudence, 
not of the presbyters, but of Damas ; 


comp. Socr. A. E. ii. 6 avdpa véov 


μὲν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ προβεβηκότα δὲ ταῖς φρε- 
σίν, speaking of Paulus when appoint- 
ed bishop of Constantinople. 

2. τῷ πάντων ἐπισκόπῳ) See the 
note on fom. 9. Somewhat similar- 
ly Polycarp Pil. 5 Sutkovo...opevo- 


111] TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


115 

ae \ > e/ \ > 7 ΄ \ , 

ἐπεὶ οὐχ OTL τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τοῦτον τὸν βλεπόμενον 
΄σ \ \ 3 

πλανᾷ τις, ἄλλα τὸν ἀόρατον παραλογίζεται: τὸ δὲ 


΄ > \ ΄ e ΄ 2 \ \ \ \ 
τοιοῦτον, OV πρὸς σαρκα ὁ λόγος ἄλλα προς Θεὸν τὸν 


τὰ κρύφια εἰδότα. 


IV. Πρέπον οὖν ἐστιν μὴ μόνον καλεῖσθαι Χριστια- 


nequaguam by Petermann); xeguaguam Τ, (this probably does not represent any 


other Greek than οὐχ ὅτι); οὐχὶ Dam-Rup; οὐ yap [g]. 


‘ 
6 τὸν ἀόρατον 


παραλογίζεται] txt GL; add. θεόν [Dam-Rup]; add. τὸν μὴ δυνάμενον κιτ.λ. σ. A 


has simply zzvisibzlem (omitting παραλογίζεται). 
however has the form τοιοῦτο); τῷ δὲ τοιούτῳ Dam-Rup; al. A. 


τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον] GLg (which 
9 κα- 


λεῖσθαι] Gg Dam-Rup 5; vocari LA; ἀκούειν Dam-Rup το. 


μενοι κατὰ THY ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Κυρίου, ὃς 
ἐγένετο διάκονος πάντων. There is 
a reference here to the primary idea 
in ἐπίσκοπος ‘to Him who overseeth 
all,” thus preparing the way for the 
closing words τὸν τὰ κρύφια εἰδότα. 

3. eis τιμὴν} See the note on 
Ee hes. 2%. 

θελήσαντος ὑμᾶς] ‘who desired you’: 
comp. fom. 6 ἐκεῖνον θέλω, whereas 
here the object is a person. For this 
sense of θέλειν see 26. 8 θελήσατε ἵνα 
καὶ ὑμεῖς θεληθῆτε, with the note. 

4. kara μηδεμίαν κιτ.λ.] The thought 
is the same as in Ephes. vi. 6, Col. 
Mi, 22. 

5. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘ZL wll not say’; an 
ellipsis for ov λέγω ore: see Kihner 
525 (II. p. 800 sq), Winer § lxiv. p. 
746. It is difficult to see why Zahn 
(1. v. A. 429 and ad Joc.) should prefer 
ovxi which is much less expressive. 
He speaks of ἐπεὶ οὐχ ὅτι as not 
Greek ; but the presence of ἐπεὶ can- 
not in any way affect the correctness 
of the phrase οὐχ ὅτι. 

6. παραλογίζεται] ‘attempts to 
cheat,’ literally ‘imposes upon with 
false reasoning’; see the note on Col. 
ii. 4. So[Clem. Rom.] 11. 17 παραλο- 
γισαμένους τὰς ἐντολὰς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
In Afost. Const. viii. 11 God is in- 
voked as ἀπαραλόγιστε. 


τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον K.T.A.] “ butin such a 
case he will have to reckon not with 
Jiesh but with God? For τὸ τοιοῦτον 
see the note on Efhes. 11 ἕν τῶν δύο. 
For the sense of ὁ λόγος and for the 
general tenour of the passage, see 
Heb. iv. 13 πάντα δὲ γυμνὰ ... τοῖς 
ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ; 
comp. Liban. ΟΖ. I. p. 201 (ed. Morel.) 
τοῖς δὲ ἀδίκως ἀπεκτονόσι καὶ πρὸς 
θεοὺς καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους γίνεται ὁ 
λόγος, and see Wetstein and Bleek 
on Heb. Zc. Similar is the expres- 
sion ἔσται αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ‘he will 
have to reckon with the god,’ (. 1 G. 
3890, 3902 f, 3902 n, 3902 0, 3962 b, 
3980 ; comp. 3902 a, 3963. 

7. τὸν τὰ κρύφια x«.t.r.| Probably 
suggested by Ps. xliii (xliv). 22 αὐτὸς 
γὰρ γινώσκει τὰ κρύφια τῆς καρδίας: 
comp. πε. 15, Philad. 7. The 
exact form κρύφιος does not occur 
elsewhere in Ignatius, or in the N. T. 

IV. ‘It is not sufficient to bear 
the name of Christians without the 
reality ; as some men profess respect 
for their bishop but act without re- 
gard to him. The consciences of 
such men are not upright ; for they 
absent themselves from the public 
assemblies of the Church and thus 
disobey the commandment.’ 

9. μὴ μόνον καλεῖσθαι 


$—2 


K.T.A. | 


116 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[Iv 


> 2 / / D τὴν, \ 
vous ἀλλὰ Kal εἶναι" ὥσπερ καὶ τινες ἐπίσκοπον μὲν 


σ΄ \ ΄σ / , 
καλοῦσιν, χωρὶς δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα πράσσουσιν. 


οἱ τοι- 


΄σ \ 3 3 , 7ὔ Ὧν / ὃ \ \ 
οὔτοι [de] οὐκ εὐσυνείδητοί μοι εἶναι φαίνονται διὰ τὸ 


μὴ βεβαίως κατ᾽ ἐντολὴν συναθροίζεσθαι. 


’ \ 5 / \ 7, " \ , 
V. ᾿Ἐπεὲ οὖν τέλος τὰ πράγματα EVEL, καὶ προόκει- | 


\ / ε ΄σ .« / EG / ΓΤ 
ται τὰ δύο ὁμοῦ, ὅ τε θάνατος καὶ ἡ ζωή, καὶ ἕκαστος 


2 καλοῦσιν] G Dam-Rup 5; vocant L; λέγουσιν [5]; al. A. οἱ 
τοιοῦτοι δὲ] GL* (Ly, but om. δὲ L,); οὐ gud sic cogitant A: οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι [5]; 


οἱ τοιοῦτοι Dam-Rup. 
GLg; dub. A. 
grammar. 

ἐπίκειται G: see the lower note. 
Jaye BG 32 
ἄρχοντος τῆς πονηρίας [g]. 


Comp. om. ὃ ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγωμαι 
Χριστιανός, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὑρεθῶ. 

I. ἐπίσκοπον μὲν κιτ.λ.] ‘have the 
name of bishop always on their lips? 
But καλοῦσιν is an awkward expres- 
sion, and we ought perhaps to adopt 
Zahn’s conjecture λαλοῦσιν (7. v. A. 
p. 302). Scribes would be tempted 
thoughtlessly to assimilate it to the 
preceding καλεῖσθαι, though a false 
connexion is suggested thereby. For 
this use of λαλεῖν in Ignatius, see the 
note on 2765. 6. Comp. Bishop of 
London’s Charge 1866 (p. 12) ‘Is it 
too much to hope that some at least 
of those, who...profess an almost in- 
ordinate respect for the Bishop’s 
office in the abstract, will listen to 
that practical exercise of its func- 
tions which warns them of the dan- 
ger of the course on which they have 
entered ?’ 

3. εὐσυνείδητοι] The adjective 
occurs again Philad. 6 ; comp. Ep. 
Vienn. et Lugd.in Euseb. 44. E. v. 1, 
Afpost. Const. ii. 17, 49, Clem. Al. 
Strom. Vil. 7, 12, 13 (pp. 858, 879, 882), 
M. Antonin. vi. 30. So εὐσυνειδήτως, 
Isidor. in Clem, Al. Stvom. iii. 1 (p. 


3 eva] 616]; om. Dam-Rup; dub, A. 
Many editors omit it without authority for the sake of the 
πρόκειται] g (but 1 has adjacet); proponuntur LL; posita sunt as 


5 καὶ] 


8 ὃ μὲν...ὃ δὲ] L; ὁ μὲν. ὁ δὲ G; dub. 


Q τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] GL; principis mundi hujus S,A; τοῦ 
10 χαρακτῆρα] GL; so also g, which sub- 


510), Clem. Hom. ii. 36, Clem. Al. 
Strom. vii. 13 (p. 882); εὐσυνειδησία, 
Clem. Hom. xvii. 11. So the oppo- 
site δυσσυνειδήτως, Clem. Hom. i. 5, 
ll. 38 ; δυσσυνειδησία, Clem. Hom. iii. 
14. 

4. βεβαίως] “ strictly, validly? It 
is explained by Smyrn. ὃ ἐκείνη βεβαία 
εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκο- 
mov οὖσα κιτιλ. The presence or the 
approval of the bishop was necessary 
for the validity of these gatherings. 
The persons here denounced held 
unauthorised meetings for sectarian 
purposes. 

συναθροίζεσθαι)] Great importance 
is attached in these epistles to fre- 
quent meeting together; comp. § 7 
below, Ephes. 13, 20, Polyc. 4, and 
see the note on Zphes. 13. Such 
meetings were a symbol and a guar- 
antee of harmony. The εὐχαριστία 
was the special bond of unity in these 
gatherings: see Ephes. 5, 20, Philad. 
4, Smyrn. 6, 8. 

V. ‘Ail things come to an end. 
The great alternative of life and 
death awaits every man at last ; and 
each goes to his own place. There 


c 


v| TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


ey 


’ \ »" , / - «.« 7 ᾽ 
εἰς τὸν ἴδιον τόπον μέλλει χωρεῖν: ὥσπερ γάρ ἐστιν 


/ / « \ a xX \ ΄ Wires 
νομίσματα δύο, ὃ μὲν Θεοῦ ὃ δὲ κόσμου, Kal ἕκαστον 


> ~ " ΄σ > , yA Cis 'sfj a 
αὐτῶν ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα ἐσικειμένον EXEL, Ol ATLOTOL TOU 


/ , ε \ {23 3 7 ~ ΄ 
κόσμου τούτου, οἱ δὲ πιστοὶ ἐν ἀγάπη χαρακτῆρα Θεοῦ 


πατρὸς διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτως 


stitutes εἴκονα ἔχουσι, must have had the accusative. 
translate zmago sunt det patris, as if they had read χαρακτήρ. 
δι’ ov] GLg (Mss, but 1 propter guod=6v δ); dv ὃν Sy (e¢ 


GLS,A; καὶ g. 


On the other hand 5:8 
τι διὰ] 


st nolumus mori propter eum in passione etus) A (et si nolumus pati et mort prop- 


ter nomen etus). 


Perhaps δι’ ov is the right reading. 


Even g introduces a 


reference to martyrdom by inserting words in the latter part of the sentence, τὸ 


ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας παθεῖν. 
however it can hardly be correct. 


are, as it were, two coinages of man- 
kind; the unbelievers who have 
issued from the mint of this world, 
and the believers who are stamped 
with the image of God in Christ. 
We must first die to Christ’s death, 
if we would rise with His life.’ 

5. Ἐπεὶ οὖν] The apodosis to 
this protasis is lost in the subordinate 
explanatory sentence, ὥσπερ yap 
ἐστιν κιτιλ. This explanatory sen- 
tence again is a protasis without an 
apodosis. On these anacolutha in 
the letters of Ignatius, see the note 
an pies. τ. 

τὰ πράγματα] ‘ the business of life.’ 

πρόκειται] The common reading 
ἐπίκειται Would mean ‘ave at hand,’ 
‘are at the door’: comp. Rom. 6 6 
τοκετός μοι ἐπίκειται. This reading 
however, as Zahn has seen, is the 
mechanical substitution of a scribe 
from below, where the word is used 
in a different sense. The life and 
death here mentioned are the spiri- 
tual, the eternal, life and death. 

-7. τὸν ἴδιον τόπον] So Acts i. 25, 
Hermas S77. ix. 4, 5, 12, and simi- 
larly τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον, Clem. 
Rom. 5, Polyc. Phzl. 9: see also the 
note on Clem. Rom. l. c. 


In Philad. 7 there is a similar v. 1. δι᾿ ὃν (for ἐν @), where 


8. νομίσματα] ‘coinages” The 
image was perhaps suggested by our 
Lord’s words in Matt. xxii. 19 ἐπιδεί- 
ξατέ μοι TO νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου K.T.d. 
A similar contrast between the good 
coinage (ὀρθῶς κοπεῖσι καὶ κεκωδωνισ- 
μένοις) and the bad (χθές τε καὶ πρῴην 
κοπεῖσι τῷ κακίστῳ κόμματι) appears 
in a noble passage in Aristophanes, 
Ran. 717 sq: comp. Acharn. 517. 
See also Clem. Alex. Strom. 11. 4 (p. 
436) τό τε παρακεχαραγμένον καὶ TO 
δόκιμον χωρίζειν καὶ διακρίνειν, Philo 
de Execr. 6 (Il. p- 433) παρακόψας τὸ 
νόμισμα τῆς εὐγενείας, Euseb. LZ. C. 
Prol. ὃ 5. See also Jer. vi. 30 ἀργύ- 
ριον ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον καλέσατε αὐτοὺς 
κιτ.λ. 

ὃ μὲν...ὃ δὲ] For τὸ μὲν... τὸ δὲ: 
see Winer § xviii. p. 130. 

9. τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] SC. χαρακ- 
τῆρα ἔχουσιν. The reading of the 
Syriac, τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, 
deserves consideration. 

10. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ie. ‘the faithful 
whose faith manifests itself in love’; 
comp. Gal. v. 6 πίστις δ ἀγάπης 
ἐνεργουμένη. ᾿ 

II. διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Christ is 
Himself the χαρακτήρ (Heb. i. 3) of 
God, and this image is stamped upon 


118 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v 


af \ 9 ~ 3 \ ΄σ “ \ χω 3 ΄σ 
εχωμεν “To ἀποθανεῖν els ΤῸ αὐτοῦ παθος, TiO Civ αὐτου 


sf «- 
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 


ΠΣ > ΄ / 
VI. Emel οὖν ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις προσώποις 


\ ΄σ ΄σ 3 7 > , \ 3 / 
τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ἐθεωρησα ἐν πίστει καὶ ἠγάπησα, 


1 ἔχωμεν] ἔχομεν G (not ἔχωμεν, as stated by Dressel). 
GLg; add. episcoporum scilicet et presbyterorum et diaconorum Sy. 


3 προσώποις] 
Similarly A 


translates iz eo quod antea scripsi de episcopo et presbyteris et diaconis. 


4 τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος] GLg; add. vestrum SA. 


ἀγάπῃ); dilectione LSA. 


ἠγάπησα] Gg* (but ν.]. 


If any alteration were made, ἀγαπήσει would be 


better than ἀγάπῃ; but the versions are not of great weight in this case, where 


the alteration was obvious. 


the Christian by union with the 
Father through Him ; comp. Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod. 86 (p. 988) ἐπὶ τοῦ 
προκομισθέντος νομίσματος ὃ Κύριος 
εἶπεν...τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή ; 
οὕτως καὶ O πιστὸς ἐπιγραφὴν μὲν ἔχει 
διὰ Χριστοῦ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ κ-.τιλ. 
On the Alexandrian interpretation 
of εἰκών, as the λόγος, the ἀρχέτυπον 
παράδειγμα, in Gen. i. 27 κατ᾽ εἰκόνα 
Θεοῦ, see the notes on Col. 111. Io. 

αὐθαιρέτως] 2 Macc. vi. 19: 50 
avOaiperor 2 Cor. vill. 3. 

I. εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ πάθος] Comp. om. 
6 ἀποθανεῖν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, and see 
the note on Zffes. inscr. The lan- 
guage of Ignatius is moulded on that 
of S. Paul; comp. Rom. vi. 5, viii. 17, 
20).2 (GCoroay..10, Phil. i. 10,2) Tim. 
1 ke 

VI. ‘ Wellthen, since I have been 
permitted to see you all through your 
representatives, I exhort you to act 
together in harmony with the bishop, 
the presbyters, and the deacons who 
are entrusted with the ministry of 
Christ the eternal Son of God incar- 
nate. Conform yourselves to God, 
and love one another. Let no divi- 
sions arise among you.’ 

3. Ἐπεὶ οὖν κιτ.λ.)] The protasis 
which commenced with the beginning 
of § 2 Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἠξιώθην κιτιλ. is here 


6 εἰς τύπον] εἰς τόπον GLg Sev-Syr 2; 


resumed, and at length matched with 
its long suspended apodosis, παραινῶ 
ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. 

ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις κ-τ.λ.] “ 27 
the persons (or rather representatives) 
already mentioned’ in § 2: see the 
note on Lphes. τ ᾿Επεὶ οὖν τὴν πολυ- 
πλήθειαν ὑμῶν.. .ἀπείληφα ἐν ᾿Ονησίμῳ. 
The word πρόσωπον here signifies 
more than a ‘ Person’; it is a ‘per- 
sonage, ‘ representative’; comp. 6. δ. 
Polyb. v. 107. 3 ἐζήτουν ἡγεμόνα καὶ 
πρόσωπον ὡς ἱκανοὶ ὄντες βοηθεῖν av- 
τοῖς, ΧΧΥΠ. 6. 4 προθέμενοι το τοῦ 
βασιλέως Ἑὐμένους πρόσωπον (with 
other passages given in Schweighzeu- 
ser’s Lexicon). So im) Clem=\Romia: 
47, it is applied to the ‘ ring-leaders’ 
(see the note on the former passage). 
Again it was used in law-courts of 
the ‘parties’ to asuit; Lobeck Phryz. 
p- 380, and comp. Apost. Const. ii. 
47; 49, θα In fall thesevuses nes 
tains something of its primary sense, 
and has not yet degenerated into 
the colourless meaning ‘ person.’ See 
also Meyer on 2 Cor. i. II. 

4. ἠγάπησα] ‘ welcomed, embraced, 
The word here refers to external 
tokens of affection, according to its 
original meaning ; see the note on 
Polyc. 2 ta Seopa pov ἃ ἠγάπησας. 
Though the versions favour the 


vi] 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


119 


σι Σ ς ᾿ ~ / / 
παραινῶ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ σπουδάζετε πάντα πράσσειν, 


7 A. 9 / 3 7 ΄σ ~ 
προκαθημένου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τύπον Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν 


/ > Λ / ~ 3 / 
πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων, Kal 


NDD IOS S (where the word thus transliterated into Syriac would naturally 
stand for τύπος, not for τόπος; see Payne Smith Zhes. Syr. s.v.); tanguam A 


(thus taking the Syriac word to represent 7vzros). 
same, where the phrase recurs in the next line. 


The authorities are just the 
See the lower note. 


7 συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων] GLg Sev-Syr; angelorum consilii S,; tanguam angeli 
regis A (an erroneous rendering of xo, which differently vocalized signifies rex 


or consilium). 


reading ἀγάπῃ, no great stress can 
be laid on the fact, since there was 
every temptation to recur to the fre- 
quent Ignatian combination πίστει 
καὶ ἀγάπῃ. 

5. ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ] “221 godly 
concord’; comp. ὃ 15, Phzlad. inscr., 
where the same expression occurs. 
So too évorns Θεοῦ ; see the note on 
Philad. 8. 

6. προκαθημένου] So προκαθέζεσθαι 
is used of the bishop, Clem. Hom. Ep. 
Clem. 12, 16, iii. 64, 66,70, 72. Comp. 
Afpost. Const. ii. 26 ὁ yap ἐπίσκοπος 
προκαθεζέσθω ὑμῶν ws Θεοῦ ἀξίᾳ τετι- 
μημένος, a passage obviously mould- 
ed after Ignatius (see the following 
notes). The same word προκαθημέ- 
νων may well be understood with 
the following τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, as it 
is used of the presbyters just below; 
but with τῶν διακόνων it is necessary 
to supply some other word, such as 
συμπαρόντων, according to the sense. 
The clause πεπιστευμένων x.t.A. 15 
added by way of explanation, ‘see- 
ing that they have been entrusted 
Stic.’ 

eis τύπον] So it seems best on the 
whole to read with Zahn (J. v. A. p. 
570 sq). See the parallel passage 
Trall. 3, where the right reading is 
καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα τύπον τοῦ 
πατρός, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέ- 
δριον Θεοῦ καὶ ὡς σύνδεσμον ἀποστό- 


λων: comp. Afost. Const. ii. 26 ἡ δὲ 
διάκονος εἰς τύπον ἁγίου πνεύματος 
τετιμήσθω ὑμῖν...οἱ δὲ πρεσβύτεροι εἰς 
τύπον ἡμῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων νενο- 
μίσθωσαν...α τε χῆραι καὶ ὀρφανοὶ 
ὑμῶν εἰς τύπον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λε- 
λογίσθωσαν. As the whole context 
in the Cozstitutions abounds in re- 
miniscences of this passage of Ig- 
natius (see the notes on προκαθημένου 
above, and on ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς κ.τ.λ. 
§ 7), it is another very strong con- 
firmation of the reading adopted 
(though the word τόπον also occurs 
in the context, § 28, as quoted in the 
next note). Zahn quotes Barnab. 19 
ὑποταγήσῃ κυρίοις ὡς τύπῳ Θεοῦ. See 
also Clem. Hom. iil. 62, where the 
μοναρχία of the episcopate is re- 
presented as the counterpart to the 
μοναρχία of God, and the people are 
bidden to honour the bishop ὡς 
εἰκόνα Θεοῦ. In Afpost. Const. 1. ο. 
the bishop is called ὑμῶν ἐπίγειος 
θεὸς μετὰ Θεόν, with more to the same 
effect: comp. zd. ii. 30. He is the 
highest earthly representative of the 
Spiritual power: 

7. συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων] This 
comparison exactly corresponds with 
the parallel passage already quoted, 
Trall. 3, where the presbyters are 
compared to ‘the council of God 
and company (see the note on σύν- 
δεσμον) of the Apostles.’ Ignatius is 


120 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi 


τῶν διακόνων τῶν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων, πεπιστευμένων 
διακονίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὶ ἦν 
καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. πάντες οὖν ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ AaBov- 
τες ἐντρέπεσθε ἀλλήλους, καὶ μηδεὶς κατὰ σάρκα βλε- 


5 > 3 ~ “ 3 / 
πέτω τὸν πλησίον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾿Ιηυσοῦ Χριστῷ ἀλλήλους 5 


1 διακόνων] GLg; add. εἰς τύπον τῶν ἀποστόλων (ΟΦ δ ΟΊ) 5) 
(which does not continue the quotation further); add. zz forms apostolorum 
A (where again NDDI is taken as standing for τύπος). Sev-Syr omits the 
clause καὶ τῶν διακόνων τῶν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων. 2 πρὸ αἰώνων) G; ante 
saecula Τ,; πρὸ αἰῶνος g (but ante saecula 1); perpetuus A. Sev-Syr has a plural, 
but it depends on ribui. πατρὶ] G; τῷ πατρὶ g. 4 ἐντρέπεσθε 
ἀλλήλους] ἐντρέπεσθε ἀλλήλοις G; wveneremini adinvicem L*; ἀλλήλους ἐντρέ- 


πεσθε Dam-Rup 9; al. g: 
Ta G. 


see the lower note. 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] GSA]; χριστῷ inood g; χριστῷ Dam-Rup. 


5 τὸν] g Dam-Rup; 


ἀλλήλους διὰ παντὸς ἀγαπᾶτε] GL Dam-Rup; estote inter vos omni tempore S43 


picturing to himself the gathering of 
the church, where the bishop and 
presbyters are seated on a dais, the 
bishop occupying the throne in the 
centre, and the presbyters sitting 
round (as in the Basilican arrange- 
ment) so as to form a corona; comp. 
§ 13 below ἀξιοπλόκου πνευματικοῦ 
στεφάνου τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου ὑμῶν (with 
the note). See also the note on 
Philad. ὃ συνέδριον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, 
where again the reference is doubt- 
less to the presbytery. Comp. A fost. 
Const. 11. 28 rots δὲ πρεσβυτέροις... 
διπλῆ καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀφοριζέσθω ἡ μοῖρα 
εἰς χάριν τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ἀποστόλων, 
ὧν καὶ τὸν τόπον φυλάσσουσιν... ἔστι 
γὰρ συνέδριον καὶ βουλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 
The presbytery are again compared 
to the Apostles, 7val/. 2, Smyrn. ὃ. 
The text of the Syriac (followed by 
the Armenian) seems to have been 
altered deliberately, in order to pro- 
duce what appeared to be a more 
suitable comparison. 

2. διακονίαν “I, X.] i.e. fa service 
under Fesus Christ, as their Κύριος: 
comp. Zrall. 2 τοὺς διακόνους ὄντας 
μυστηρίων ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, S7zyri. 10 


ὡς διακόνους [Χριστοῦ] Θεοῦ, Polyc. 
Phil. τ ὡς Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ διάκονοι; 
comp. 2 ΘΟ ΣΙ. 23. ΘΟΕ ἢ, ΤΠ ΠΗ 
ἵν. 6. This seems the most probable 
interpretation. Otherwise it might 
be explained ‘a ministry in which 
Jesus Christ Himself served,’ for He 
became διάκονος πάντων (Polyc. Phzl. 
5); comp. Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45. 
For the comparison of the deacon to 
Jesus Christ, which is involved in 
this latter interpretation, see the note 
on Zrall. 3. 

3. ἐν τέλει] Heb. i. 2 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου 
TOV ἡμερῶν τούτων, 1X. 26 ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ 
τῶν αἰώνων: comp. I Cor. x. II εἰς 
ovs Ta τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν. 
See also Lfhes. 11 ἔσχατοι καιροί 
(with the note). Zahn quotes Iren. 
i. 10. 3 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν καιρῶν ἡ 
παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τουτέστιν 
ἐν τῷ τέλει ἐφάνη ἡ ἀρχή. 

ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ] ‘moral conformity 
with God’; comp. Polyc.1 τοῖς κατ᾽ 
ἄνδρα κατὰ ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ λάλει (with 
the note). This parallel passage 
shows the meaning of the expression 
here. It is not ‘godly conformity 
among yourselves,’ as Zahn takes it, 


vi| TO THE MAGNESIANS. 121 


\ x 32 ~ Mite 5 3 Chin ¢ 
διὰ παντὸς ἀγαπᾶτε. μηδὲν ἔστω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ δυνήσεται 
ε - / 3 ε “ ~F3s ~ 
ὑμάς μερίσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνώθητε τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Kal τοῖς προ- 
/ 3 / \ \ 3 7 
καθημένοις εἰς τύπον καὶ διδαχὴν ἀφθαρσίας. 
.“ > ᾿ 3 ~ 3 
VIL. “ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν 
9 / ε / a 3) ΓΘ > »/ \ a 
ο ἐποίησεν [ ἡνωμένος wy], οὔτε Ov ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε διὰ τῶν 


om. g (here, but it is represented in the context). 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν.. ἀγαπᾶτε into sed amore tesu christt. 


A abridges the whole sentence 
7 τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Kal τοῖς 

προκαθημένοις}] GLS, Dam-Rup 6; τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ τῷ προκαθημένῳ A; τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ 

g (omitting καὶ τοῖς προκ. and substituting ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ θεῷ κ.τ.λ.). 

8 τύπον] G (but carelessly written) LS,; τόπον Dam-Rup; al. g. The rendering 

of A conspectum bonum arises from a misunderstanding of the Syriac ἐξ "7, 


which differently vocalized signifies exemplar and obtutus. 
(but om. L,) g Dam-Rup; δὲ S,; e A. 


Rup [S,] [A]. 


9 otv] GL* 
ὁ Κύριος] GLg; add. ἡμῶν Dam- 


το ἐποίησεν] GL[S,] Dam-Rup; faciebat A; ποιεῖ [g]. 


ἡνωμένος ὧν] GL; om. S,A [g] Dam-Rup. 


and as the preceding ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ 
. might suggest. See also μιμηταὶ 
Gcov, Ephes. 1, Tradl. 1. 

4. ἀλλήλους] The reading ἀλλή- 
λοις Must be wrong, as ἐντρέπεσθαι 
takes a genitive or an accusative (in 
Ignatius only the latter), but never 
a dative. Though αἰσχύνεσθαι some- 
times has a dative, it is with a differ- 
ent meaning, ‘to be ashamed az,’ or 
“on account of’; a sense which would 
be out of place here. There is a simi- 
lar error in the Greek MS, 7γαζί. 7 
φυλάττεσθε οὖν τοῖς τοιούτοις. 

κατὰ σάρκα] i.e. ‘so as to love and 
hate his neighbour by turns, from 
merely human passion.’ It is op- 
posed to διὰ παντὸς ἀγαπᾶτε. 

8. εἰς τύπον κιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘both as 
an example and as a lesson of in- 
corruptibility.. In Rom. vi. 17 we 
have εἰς τύπον διδαχῆς. The idea of 
ἀφθαρσία in Ignatius (Lphes. 17, 
Philad. 9; comp. Polyc. 2) is not 
merely immortality, but moral in- 
corruption as carrying with it im- 
mortal life ; see the note on 2765. 
17. 
VII. ‘As the Lord Jesus did 
nothing without the Father, so must 


ye do nothing without your bishop 
and presbyters. Let no man study 
any private ends; but let there be 
one common prayer, one common 
mind, one common hope. Jesus 
Christ is one; be ye therefore one. 
Gather yourselves together as to one 
Temple, even God; as to one Altar, 
even Jesus Christ, who came forth 
from One and is in One, and re- 
turned to One, even the Father.’ 

9. ἄνευ tov πατρὸς «k.t.A.] See 
John viii. 28 ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν, 
ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατήρ, ταῦτα 
λαλῶ (see § 8 κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν 
which is a reminiscence of the con- 
text of this same passage); comp. x. 37 
εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα TOU πατρός μου K.T.A. 
See also Afost. Const. ii. 26 ὡς ὁ 
Χριστός, ποιῶν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, τὰ 
ἀρεστὰ ποιεῖ τῷ πατρὶ πάντοτε, li. 30 
ὡς γὰρ Χριστὸς ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν 
ποιεῖ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὁ διάκονος ἄνευ τοῦ 
ἐπισκόπου (passages referred to by 
Jacobson), where there is a remi- 
niscence at once of these passages 
in Ignatius and of the sayings in 
S. John’s Gospel on which they are 
founded. 

10. nvwpévos ὧν] ‘ being united with 


122 THE 


EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[vil 


7 « A qn of a / \ 
ἀποστόλων, οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμεῖς ἀνευ TOU ἐπισκόπου Kal 


τῶν πρεσβυτέρων μηδὲν πράσσετε' μηδὲ πειράσητε 


᾽ / / 3.7 = \ \ 3 \ / 
εὔλογόν τι φαίνεσθαι ἰδίᾳ ὑμῖν: GAN ἐπὶ TO αὐτὸ μία 


2 / / / - ΄- 7 3 7 > 3 / 5) 
προσευχή; μία δέησις, εἷς νοῦς, μία ἐλπίς, ἐν αγαπή; ἐν 


΄σ ΄σ Coy NS) / e/ > 3 lo / aN) A 
TH χαρᾳ TH ALWUwW, OS ἐστιν Ιησοῦς Χριστος, οὐ ἄμεινον 


I καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων] GLA; om. Dam-Rup [g] (but g continues μηδὲ πρεσβύ- 


τερος; μὴ διάκονος, μὴ λαϊκό5). 


2 πράσσετε) πράσσεται G. 


2 φαίνεσθαι] φαίνεσθε 


G: ὑμῖν] txt GLA Dam-Rup (but the quotation ends here); add. seors¢m ab 


episcopo S, (an accidental repetition from the preceding sentence?); al. g. 


5 és] 


guod (the antecedent being gaudio) L; 6 Antioch 1; εἷς G; al. Ag: see the lower 


note. 


Him’; comp. Smyrn. 3 πνευματικῶς 
ἡνωμένος τῷ πατρί, said of Christ. 

I. οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμεῖς κιτ.λ.] Apost?. 
Const. il. 27 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἄνευ τοῦ 
ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ποιεῖτε. The pre- 
cept occurs again 7val/. 2,7, Philad. 
7, Smyri. 8. 

2. μηδὲ πειράσητε k.t.A.| 1.6. ‘do 
not struggle to persuade yourselves 
that anything is right and proper 
which you do by and for yourselves.’ 
For the word εὔλογον itself, compare 
Smyrn. 9; and for the sense, Ephes. 
11 χωρὶς τούτου μηδὲν ὑμῖν πρεπέτω. 

3. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ] SC. συνερχομένοις 
γινέσθω. The sentence is studiously 
terse, the words being thrown down 
singly, and the reader left to supply 
the connecting links. Zahn (/.v. A. 
p- 345 sq, and ad δος.) would connect 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ with the preceding 
words; but this does not appear to 
me so forcible. A similar alternative 
as to the connexion of ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
with the preceding or following words 
presents itself in Acts ii. 47, ill. 1. 

5. Τῇ χαρᾷ «7.A.| See Lphes. 
inscr. ev ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ. 

ὅς] 1 have ventured to substitute 
this reading, though there is no direct 
evidence in its favour, for two reasons. 
(1) It stands mid-way between the 


ἄμεινον οὐθέν ἐστιν] GLAg (but οὐδέν for οὐθέν); οὐδὲν θυμηδ- 


two extant readings, 6 and εἷς, and 
explains both. For the confusion of 
6 and ὅς in the text of the Ignatian 
Epistles, see below ὃ 10, 7va/Z. 8, 11. 
(2) This attraction accords with the 
idiom of these epistles elsewhere ; 
see below ὃ 10 μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν 
ζύμην, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (v.1.), 
δ 15 ἔρρωσθε ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ κεκτημέ- 
νοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, Os ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς 
Χριστός; comp. Zvall. 11 τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτός 
(where however there is a various 
reading), Ephes. 9 διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς... 
os ἐστιν σταυρός (withthe note). The 
passages, § 15, 72 γωζί 11, seem to 
show that the relative refers not to 
τῇ χαρᾷ τῇ ἀμώμῳ, but to the whole 
idea of the sentence, ‘ This perfect 
unity is Jesus Christ.’ Compare the 
still stronger expression, Afphes. 14 
ἀρχὴ μὲν πίστις, τέλος δὲ ayann’ τὰ δὲ 
δύο ἐν ἑνότητι γενόμενα Θεός ἐστιν. 
The reading εἷς is part of the confu- 
sion which extends over the following 
clauses in the existing Greek text. 

6. ὡς εἰς ἕνα κιτ.λ.}] Looking at 
the authorities, there can be little 
doubt, I think, that the passage 
should be so read. (1) The word éva 
slipped out of the extant Greek text 
of the genuine Ignatius in the first 


vit] 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


oe 


θέ ? ' ς 2 « \ / Π ~ 
OUVEV εστιν. TAVTES WS ELS EVA ναὸν TUYTPEXETE ΤΘεοῦΐ, 


ε > Vi ΎΛΕΝ / > δ -ὦ 3 ~ \ \ 
ws ἐπὶ ev θυσιαστήριον, ἐπὶ ἕνα ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν 


3 δὲ ρ | \ / 4 3 J ᾽ \ , 
ap €vos πατρὸς προελθόντα καὶ εἰς Eva ὄντα Kal χωρή- 


σαντα. 


éorepov [Antioch]. 
LAg; add. οὖν ἃ [Antioch]. 
om. G, 


A. 7 ἐπὶ ἕν] ἃ (ἐπὶ, not ἐπεὶ as suggested in Dressel’s note). 


6 οὐθέν) G (not οὐδέν as in Dressel). 
eis] GLA; εἷς εἰς σ΄, 
συντρέχετε Θεοῦ] GL; θεοῦ συντρέχετε g. 


πάντες] txt 
ἕνα] LA; τὸν [g]; 
Θεοῦ] GL[g]; om. 


ἐπὶ ἕνα] g* 


(but v. 1. ὡς ἐπὶ ἕνα) ; in unum L, (but L, wut iz unum); ὡς ἐπὶ ἕνα G; om. A. 


clause, owing to the combination of 
similar letters wcelCENaNaon, while 
the word eis found its way by a 
reduplication (eiceic) into the text 
which the interpolator had before 
him. (2) The os before ἐπὶ ἕνα ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστὸν must be rejected, as an ob- 
vious addition of the scribes in some 
copies both Greek and Latin, which 
the supposed parallelism of the clause 
would suggest, but which really de- 
stroys the meaning of the sentence. 
Jesus Christ Himself is compared to 
the one altar. I suspect however 
that a still further change ought 
to be made, and that Θεόν should 
be read for Θεοῦ ‘as to one shrine, 
even to God. In this case the 
shrine (ναός) would be compared to 
God the Father, and the altar or 
court of the altar (θυσιαστήριον) to 
Jesus Christ. Thus the image gains 
in distinctness ; for the access to the 
former is by and through the latter. 
Comp. Clem. Rom. § 41 ἔμπροσθεν 
τοῦ ναοῦ πρὸς TO θυσιαστήριον, and see 
the note on ZAphes. 5. For the θυ- 
σιαστήριον in connexion with Christ 
see Heb. xiii. 10, where perhaps it 
signifies more definitely the Cross ; 
and for the general complexion of 
the imagery Heb. ix.6sq. For the 
omission of eis before Θεόν (if this 
reading be adopted) comp. Joseph. 
B. F. ii. 8. 5 καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμε- 
νος παραγίνονται τὸ δειπνητήριον, Clem. 


Hom. ν. 21 ὥσπερ δι’ ὀργάνων τῶν 
ἡμετέρων σωμάτων εἰς τὰς τῶν νοητῶν 
φέρεται συνουσίας, Athenag. SupPZ. 31 
ὡς πρὸς στάθμην τὸν Θεὸν Kavoviterat, 
Orig. c. Cels. 1. 55 (I. p. 370) ταῦτα 
προφητεύεσθαι ws περὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ ὅλου 
λαοῦ, Macar. Magn. iil. 13 (p. 85) ὡς 
εἰς μεγαλόπολιν κατακλίνας THY ἔρημον : 
and, as regards classical writers, see 
Kihner § 451 (II. p. 479). The 
omission would assist the corruption 
of Θεόν into Θεοῦ. 

8. προελθόντα] This refers not 
to the Divine generation of the Son, 
but to the mission on earth; for it 
corresponds to χωρήσαντα, as the 
setting out to the return; comp. 
John xiii. 3, xvi. 28 (quoted below), 
where ἐξελθεῖν answers to προελθεῖν 
here. See also the note on προελθών 
in § 8. 

eis ἕνα ὄντα) For this preposition, 
as describing the absolute eternal 
union of the Son with the Father, 
comp. John i. 18 ὁ ὧν eis τὸν κόλπον 
τοῦ πατρός. See also John i. πὶ ὁ 
Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 

χωρήσαντα] sc. eis va. As at the 
commencement of His earthly min- 
istry He came forth from One, as 
He is eternally with One, so also 
at the close of this earthly minis- 
try He returned to One. See es- 
pecially John xvi. 28 ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ 
πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον᾽ 
πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύο- 


[24 


THE EPISTLE OF 


IGNATIUS [ vill 


VIIT. My πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις μηδὲ μυθεύ- 


- ~ y Ss 3 \ / ΄' 
μασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελεσιν oval εἰ Yap μέχρι νὺν 


κατὰ ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰλη- 


φέναι. 


1 πλανᾶσθε] πλανᾶσθαι G. 


ἰουδαϊσμόν G; judaicam legem As; νόμον ἰουδαϊκόν [6]. 
Ἰησοῦν] GLA; ἰησοῦν χριστόν g Sev-Syr 2, 7. 
6 ὑπὸ G; amo g. 


la τι ἢ 
ἐνπνεόμενοι ἃ. 


μαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, COMP. ΧΙ]. 3 
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν 
ὑπάγει; and for χωρήσαντα alone, see 
John xiv. 12, 28, πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν 
πατέρα, XVi. 10, 16, 17, ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν 
πατέρα. 

VIII. ‘Be not seduced by false 
doctrines and antiquated fables. If 
we still live after the manner of Juda- 
ism, we avow that we have not re- 
ceived grace. Yes, the holy prophets 
themselves lived a life after Christ. 
For this they were persecuted, being 
inspired by His grace, that so in the 
time to come unbelievers might be 
convinced that there is one God who 
manifested Himself through His Son 
Jesus Christ, His Word that issued 
forth from silence and did the will of 
the Father in all things.’ 

I. μὴ πλανᾶσθε] See the note on 
Ephes. 16. 

ταῖς érepodokias| So ἑτεροδοξεῖν, 
Smyrn. 6. The words are at least as 
old as Plato (7heaet. 190 E, 193 Ὁ), 
but do not occur in the LXX or N.T. 
These are perhaps the earliest ex- 
amples in Christian writings, though 
ἑτερόδοξος occurs in Philo de Sodr. 
13 (I. p. 403) and in Josephus B. F. 
coma 

μυθεύμασιν κ-τ.λ.] Comp. 1 Tim. 
iv. 7 γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ, Tit. I. 
14 μὴ προσέχοντες ᾿Ιουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις : 
and for ἀνωφελέσιν see Tit. iii. 9 
μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ 


¢ \ / ΄σ \ \ 
οἱ yap θειότατοι προφῆται κατὰ Χριστον 


 ἰουδαϊσμὸν] judaismum L; νόμον 
4 Χριστὸν 

5 ἐμπνεόμενοι] 
αὐτοῦ] GL Sev-Syr 


ἔρεις Kal μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο; εἰσὶν 
γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι. These pa- 
rallels are important because they 
serve to indicate the type of heresy 
which Ignatius has in his mind. It 
belongs to the same category with the 
heresy of the Colossian Church (see 
Colossians p. 73 sq), of the Pastoral 
Epistles, of the Apocalypse, of the Ca- 
tholic Epistles, and of the Cerinthians. 
It is Judaism crossed with Gnosti- 
cism. The ‘antiquated fables’ are 
probably myths relating to cosmo- 
gony and angelology: see above, 
I. p. 360 sq, and Colossians pp. 89 
sq, IOI sq, 109 sq. This account 
of the heresy here contemplated, 
which is suggested by the parallels 
above quoted from S. Paul, is also 
demanded by the context of Igna- 
tius himself. He begins here with a 
warning against ἑτεροδοξίαι, and he 
concludes with a similar warning 
against κενοδοξία (δ 11). These two 
he connects closely together (ὃ ΤΙ 
ταῦτα δὲ...θέλω ὑμᾶς μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς 
τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας), So that he 
unquestionably has the same foe be- 
fore him from first to last. Yet in 
attacking this foe, he condemns two 
things: first (§§ 8—10), Fudaizing 
practices, i.e. the doctrine of the per- 
manent obligation of the Mosaic 
ritual, more especially the observance 
of sabbaths (ὃ 9); and secondly, 
Docetic views, which are directly met 


vit] 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


125 


΄σ sf \ ~ \ / ΄ 
᾿Ιησοῦν ἔζησαν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐδιώχθησαν, ἐμπνεόμενοι 


ε \ ΄σ 7 3 ~ > \ ~ \ 
ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος [αὐτοῦ εἰς TO πληροφορηθῆναι TOUS 


᾽ ΄σ / τ / 2 ε / ε A \ 
ἀπειθοῦντας, ὅτι εἷς Θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ φανερωσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ 


~~ rol ~ e ~ > ~~ εὖ ~ 
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ Tov υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Ἀόγος 


2; om. Ag. 


Tim-Syr 2; g paraphrases λόγος 


8 λόγος] txt A Sev-Syr; add. ἀΐδιος οὐκ GL 


ῥητὸς ἀλλ᾽ οὐσιώδης, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν 


λαλιᾶς ἐνάρθρου φώνημα ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεργείας θεϊκῆς οὐσία γεννητή: see the lower 


note. 


in the words πεπληροφόρησθε ἐν τῇ 
γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει k.T.d. (§ 11), hav- 
ing been alluded to previously in ὃ 9 ὅν 
(1.6. τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ) τινες ἀρνοῦνται. 
The foe in question therefore was 
Doceio-judaism. For the Docetic 
element see above, I. p. 363 sq, and 
on 72 γαζί. 9. 

2. μέχρι vov| ‘until now, 1:8. 
when two or three generations have 
passed since the true doctrine of 
grace was revealed. 

3. κατὰ ἰουδαϊσμὸν] There cannot 
be much doubt about the reading 
here. The superfluous νόμον in the 
extant Greek text of Ignatius is an 
obvious gloss; and the substitution 
of the ‘Jewish law’ in the Arme- 
nian Version and in the interpo- 
lator’s text is a not less obvious 
paraphrase. Zahn however reads 
κατὰ νόμον ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν and is 
disposed to take ἰουδαϊσμὸν as ἃ 
cognate accusative with ¢jv—a con- 
struction which Pearson (ad Joc.) 
suggests only to reject. For ἰουδαΐ- 
σμός, denoting conformity to the 
external rites of the Jews, see the 
notes on Gal. i. 13, il. 14. 

ὁμολογοῦμεν x.7.A.| Ignatius doubt- 
~ less had in his mind Gal. v. 4 κατηρ- 
γήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ 
δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε 
(comp. ii. 21 οὐκ ἀθετῷ τὴν χάριν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ). For χάρις, as the central point 
of the Gospel dispensation, see the 
note on Col. i. 6. 


4. κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν] 1.6. “1 


In 


expectation of a coming deliverer 
and a redemption.’ So also Philad. 
5 καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ ἀγαπῶμεν διὰ 
τὸ καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατηγ- 
γελκέναι καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπίζειν καὶ αὐτὸν 
ἀναμένειν (comp. 26.9). See too below 
ᾧ 9 οἱ προφῆται μαθηταὶ ὄντες x.7.X. 
For the expression κατὰ Χριστὸν 
Ἰησοῦν ζῆν comp. Phzlad. 3 (with the 
note); and for the preposition see 
the note on § 1 above. 

5. διὰ τοῦτο «.7-A.] The same 
idea which appears in Heb. xi. 16, 25, 
26, 35 (and throughout this chapter 
generally): see also Clem. Rom. 17 
ἐν δέρμασιν αἰγείοις καὶ μηλωταῖς πε- 
ριεπάτησαν, κηρύσσοντες τὴν ἔλευσιν 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

ἐδιώχθησαν) Zahn quotes Iren. iv. 
33. 9 ‘similiter ut veteres prophetae 
sustinentes persecutionem etc, a 
passage which closely resembles 
this. 

ἐμπνεόμενοι k.T.A.] Comp. 1 Pet. i. 
IO Sq προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς 
χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, ἐραυνῶντες 
εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν 
αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ... οὐχ ἑαυ- 
τοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά κτλ. 
where there are several ideas in 
common with this passage of Igna- 
tius; see the note on § 9 παρὼν ἤγειρεν 
καιτιλ. Comp. also Barnab. 5 οἱ προ- 
φῆται, ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντεςτὴν χάριν, 
εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπροφήτευσαν. 

6. τοὺς ἀπειθοῦντας] Not the con- 
temporaries of the prophets them- 
selves, but disbelievers in later ages, 


126 


THE EPISTLE: OF HGNATIUS 


[vin 


\ AY / eA , , ~ 
ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθῶν, Os κατα πάντα εὐηρέστησεν τῷ 


/ ᾽ / 
πέμψαντι αὐτον. 


I κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν] G; secundum omnia beneplacuit Τ,; πάντα κατευα- 
ρέστησεν g (MSS); 22 omnibus placuit Tim-Syr Sev-Syr; 222 omnibus gratus 


Juit A. 


who could test the prophecy by the 
fulfilment and thus convince them- 
selves) see’ 1 (Pet: 1. Ὁ: For πλη- 
ροφορεῖν, “10 convince, see the note 
on Colossians iv. 12. 

8. λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών] This 
reading has been altogether neglect- 
ed by editors (before Zahn), but de- 
serves to be preferred to the common 
text, λόγος ἀΐδιος οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς mpoed- 
θών, for the following reasons. 

(1) It has higher authority than 
the other. It stands in the oldest 
extant form of the text, that of the 
Armenian Version, and in one of the 
earliest extant quotations, that of 
Severus (Cureton C. /. pp. 213, 245). 
Severus even comments on the ex- 
pression; ‘This (statement) that He 
proceeded from silence means that 
He was ineffably begotten by the 
Mather ete.’)))/4t 1s clear. therefore 
that he had this reading before him, 
and it may be inferred from his 
silence that he was not acquainted 
with any other. This fact is the 
more important as Severus elsewhere 
(Rom. 6) mentions a various reading 
in Ignatius and compares the ages of 
different Mss. The paraphrase of 
the interpolator leaves some doubt 
about his reading: but inasmuch 
as there is nothing corresponding to 
ἀΐδιος, which he is hardly likely to 
have omitted, I suppose that in his 
text also ἀΐδιος οὐκ were wanting. He 
seems after his wont to have substi- 
tuted for the Ignatian language λόγος 
ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών, which savoured 
strongly of heresy, another expres- 
sion which squared with his ideas of 
orthodoxy. 


(2) This reading is better adapt- 
ed to the context. It corresponds to 
the previous ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which it explains; 
and it aptly introduces the words 
which follow, εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμ- 
Ψψαντι αὐτόν. It is also more con- 
sistent in itself; for σιγὴ and λόγος 
are correlative terms, Adyos implying 
a previous σιγή : comp. Iren. il. 12. 5 
‘impossibile est Logo praesente Sigen 
esse, aut iterum Sige praesente Logon 
ostendi; haec enim consumtibilia sunt 
invicem etc.’ 

(3) It accords entirely with the lan- 
guage of Ignatius elsewhere, where 
the period before the Incarnation is 
described as God’s silence; Lphes. 
IQ μυστήρια κραυγῆς ἅτινα ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ 
Θεοῦ ἐπράχθη" πῶς οὖν ἐφανερώθη; 
(see the note there). There is the 
same contrast between the ‘silence’ 
and the ‘manifestation’ here. 

(4) The insertion of the words 
ἀΐδιος οὐκ, if spurious, is much more 
easily explained than their omission, 
if genuine. A transcriber would be 
sorely tempted to alter a text which 
lent itself so readily to Gnostic and 
other heresies. The forced interpreta- 
tion which Severus (as quoted above) 
is obliged to put on ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών 
shows how distasteful the expression 
would be to orthodox ears. The in- - 
terpolation should, I think, be assign- 
ed tothefourthorfifthcentury. About 
the middle of the fourth century 
Marcellus propounded his doctrine, 
which was assailed by Eusebius as 
Sabellian. The attacks of Eusebius 
show that Marcellus expressed his 
views in language almost identical 


vit | 


with this statement of Ignatius see 
e.g. Eccl. Theol. ii. 9 (Ὁ. 114) ἃ δὴ 
Μάρκελλος ἐτόλμα ὑποτίθεσθαι, πάλαι 
μὲν λέγων εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν καί τινα ἡσυ- 
χίαν ἅμα τῷ Θεῷ ὑπογράφων ἑαυτῷ, 
κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν τῶν ἀθέων aipe- 
σιωτῶν ἀρχηγόν (i.e. Simon Magus, 
as Pearson, V. 7. p. 420, rightly sup- 
poses), os τὰ ἄθεα δογματίζων ἀπεφαί- 
vero λέγων, Ἢν Θεὸς καὶ σιγή" μετὰ δὲ 
τὴν σιγὴν καὶ τὴν ἡσυχίαν προελθεῖν 
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς κοσ- 
μοποιΐας δραστικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ κιτιλ. Τί 
seems probable indeed from this and 
other coincidences (see Smzyri. 3), 
that Marcellus was acquainted with 
the Ignatian Epistles. See also on 
this procession of the Logos from 
Silence the passages quoted from 
Marcellus, ¢. Marcell. 11. 2 (pp. 36, 41), 
Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 100), il. 8 sq 
(pei πε er (pp: 198)) I. 3’ (pp. 
163, 166). This mode of expression 
would thus be discredited, and the 
text altered in consequence. A pa- 
rallel case is the insertion of ἀΐδιος 
μὲν with ἀρχιερεύς in Euseb. Quaest. 
ad Steph. Op. IV. Ὁ. goo (comp. p. 
965) to save the orthodoxy of the 
writer. 

This reading was advocated by me 
as early as 1868 in the Fournal of 
Philology 1. p. 51 sq, and again later 
in the Contemporary Review, Feb- 
ruary 1875, p. 357sq. It was adopt- 
ed by Zahn in his edition (1876) 
quite independently, for he was un- 
aware of what I had written (see 
p- 201). In his previous work (J. v. 
A. p. 471 sq, 1873) he had tacitly 
acquiesced in the vulgar text. The 
wonder is that a reading of such im- 
portance should have been so gener- 
ally overlooked. 

But if this be the correct reading, 
what is meant by it? Does this 
‘procession from silence’ refer to the 
Divine generation of the Word or to 
the Incarnation? Severus takes the 
former view (Cureton C. 7. pp. 213, 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


127 


245). This sense would correspond 
to the use of similar expressions in 
various Gnostic systems, and it is 
recommended to a certain extent also 
by the parallels in Marcellus; comp. 
also Tatian ad Graec. 5 οὕτω καὶ 6 
λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς 
δυνάμεως. But nevertheless it does 
not suit the context, nor does it 
accord with the language of Igna- 
tius elsewhere. As Logos implies 
the manifestation of Deity whether 
in His words or in His works, so 
Sige is the negation of this (see Iren. 
11. 12. 5 quoted above). Hence the 
expression ‘ proceeding from silence’ 
might be used at any point where 
there is a sudden transition from 
non-manifestation to manifestation ; 
e.g. Wisd. xvill. 14, 15, ἡσύχου yap 
σιγῆς περιεχούσης Ta πάντα...ὁ παντο- 
δύναμός σου λόγος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν...εἰς 
μέσον τῆς ὀλεθρίας ἥλατο γῆς, Where 
the reference is to the destruction of 
the first-born in Egypt. To the In- 
carnation, as the chief manifestation 
of God through the Word, this lan- 
guage would be especially appli- 
cable; comp. Rom. xvi. 25 κατὰ 
ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις 
σεσιγημένου, φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν 
(with other passages quoted on 
Ephes. 19), and see also Clem. Alex. 
Cohort. 1 (p. 9) ἵνα τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ 
φῶς, ὁ λόγος, τῶν προφητικῶν αἰνιγμά- 
των τὴν μυστικὴν ἀπολύσηται σιωπήν, 
εὐαγγέλιον γενόμενος. Since therefore 
the whole context here relates to the 
Incarnation and human life of Christ 
(ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτόν, τῷ πέμψαντι 
αὐτόν), it is natural to refer ἀπὸ 
σιγῆς προελθὼν to the same. See also 
the parallel passage Zfhes. 19 (al- 
ready quoted), which is strongly in 
favour of this interpretation; and 
comp. Rom. ὃ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς.. τὸ a- 
Ψευδὲς στόμα ἐν ᾧ ὁ πατὴρ ἐλάλησεν 
ἀληθῶς. So too προελθεῖν has been 
used just before of the Incarnation, 
δ΄ 7. Ignatius however does not 


128 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1x 


IX. ΕἸ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστρα- 


/ > 7 5) ν ἊΣ 7 
φέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατί- 


1 ἐν] G; om. g* (the existing Mss). 


deny the pre-existence of the Word 
here, though he does not assert it. 
This was not the first time when 
the silence of God had been broken 
by the Word. Elsewhere this father 
asserts the eternity of the Son in the 
most explicit terms; e.g. ὃ 6 above, 
Polyc. 3. 

εὐηρέστησεν κιτ.λ.] A reminiscence 
of John viii. 29. 

IX. ‘If then those who had lived 
under the old covenant attained to 
a new and higher hope by abandon- 
ing the observance of sabbaths and 
by keeping the Lord’s day—the me- 
morial of Christ’s resurrection, where- 
by we have found life through His 
death, which some deny but which to 
us is the ground of our faith and the 
strength of our endurance; if, I say, 
this be so, how can we live without 
Him? Nay, even the prophets were 
His disciples, for in the Spirit they 
looked forward to Him as their 
teacher; and therefore, when He 
came, He raised them from the dead.’ 

I. of ἐν παλαιοῖς κιτ.λ.7 i.e. ‘those 
who were brought up in the practices 
of Judaism.’ If the Jewish converts 
gave up the observance of sabbaths, 
a fortiori ought Gentile converts 
not to barter Christ for Judaic rites. 
Hilgenfeld (4. V. p. 232) refers these 
words to the post-Mosaic prophets ; 
but this, as Zahn truly says (7. v. A. 
p- 354), would be to outbid even the 
Pseudo-Barnabas, who with all his 
hostility to Judaism does not go 
nearly so far (δ 15). Such a state- 
ment would have been quite untrue 
in itself, and altogether discordant 
with the teaching of these epistles 
elsewhere. Moreover it is inconsis- 
tent with the language of the con- 


πράγμασιν] GLA; γράμμασιν g. 


text; for (1) μηκέτι implies a conver- 
ston from the old to the new; and 
(2) the correct reading is unquestion- 
ably κατὰ κυριακὴν ‘in the observance 
of the Lord’s day,’ which could not 
possibly have been predicted of the 
prophets. Hilgenfeld has taken the 
corrupt reading κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωήν. 
πράγμασιν] See Orig. de Princ. ἵν. 
3 (1. p. 160) πάντων τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν 
πραγμάτων ἐν οἷς ἐσέμνυντο, referred 
to by Zahn. There is ἃ slight tinge 
of depreciation in this word. It 
points to the vexatiousness of the 
ordinances of Judaism. The read- 
ing of the interpolator’s text, ypdu- 
μασιν, is tempting: comp. Rom. vii. 
6 κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ Tod νόμου.. ὥστε 
δουλεύειν [ἡμᾶς] ἐν καινότητι πνεύ- 
ματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος, 
which passage may perhaps have 
suggested it. It must however be 
rejected for two distinct reasons: (1) 
The convergence of the best autho- 
rities is decidedly in favour of πράγ- 
μασιν : (2) The γράμματα in this case 
would naturally refer to the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures, and παλαιά must 
suggest the idea of ‘antiquated’ But 
this is not at all the language which 
meets us elsewhere in the Ignatian 
Epistles. The patriarchs and the 
lawgiver and the prophets are the 
forerunners of the Gospel; there is 
an absolute identity of interests be- 
tween them and the Gospel (Phz/ad. 
5, 9, Smyrn. 7; and see also the 
mention of the prophets in this con- 
text). Moreover the only direct quo- 
tations in these epistles are from the 
Old Testament (Prov. 111. 34 in Ephes. 
δ: Prov.) xvi. 87 in Wages ΤΡ ais: 
111. 5 in 7γαζί. 8), and in two out of 
three passages they are introduced 


Ix] 


> \ \ ‘ ἴω > ε 
ζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ἡ καὶ ἡ 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


129 


ἡ καὶ Con ἡμῶν 


͵ 


3 Κυριακὴν] dominicam Τ,:; dominicam diem sanctam et primam [A]; κυριακὴν 


ζωήν G; 


with the common form of authorita- 
tive citation, γέγραπται. The inter- 
change of γράμμα and πρᾶγμα with 
scribes and critics is frequent: e.g. 
Plato Soph. 262 D, Polyb. ix. 4o. 6; 
x1. 6. 3, xv. 26. 4, Euseb. H. E. ix. τ. 

2. σαββατίζοντες] For the abroga- 
tion of the observance of the sabbaths 
see Col. ii. 16 (comp. Gal. iv. 10); 
and for opinions in the early church 
comp. Barnab. 15, Ep. ad Diogn. 4, 
Justin Dial. 12 sq (p. 229 sq), 19 
(p. 236), 21 (p. 238), 23 (p. 240 sq), 
29 (p. 246), Iren. iv. 16. 1, Tert. adv. 
Fuad. 4. The word σαββατίξειν 
not found in the New Testament, 
but occurs frequently in the Lxx, 
where it bears a good sense ; comp. 
σαββατισμός in Heb. iv. 9. 

3. κατὰ κυριακὴν] SC. ἡμέραν. This 
‘living after the Lord’s day’ signifies 
not merely the observance of it, but 
the appropriation of all those ideas 
and associations which are involved 
in its observance. It symbolizes the 
hopes of the Christian, who rises 
with Christ’s resurrection, as he dies 
with Christ’s death. It implies the 
substitution of the spiritual for the 
formal in religion. It is a type and 
an earnest of the eternal rest in 
heaven. See esp. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
Vii. 12 (p. 877) otros ἐντολὴν τὴν κατὰ 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον διαπραξάμενος κυριακὴν 
ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν ποιεῖ, ὅταν ἀποβάλλῃ 
φαῦλον νόημα καὶ γνωστικὸν προσλάβῃ 
τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀνάστασιν δο- 
ξάζων, comp. 7%. vil. το (p. 866). 
Comp. also Barnab. 15 ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας 
oydons...0 ἐστιν, ἄλλου κόσμου ἀρχήν' 
διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην 
εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν 7 καὶ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνέστη 
ἐκ νεκρῶν κιτιλ., Justin “1201. i. 67 
(p. 99) ἐπειδὴ πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα, ἐν ἧ 


ΤΟΙ ΤΙ: 


al. g. See the peasants of Ussher Works x11. p. 584. 


ὁ Θεὸς τὸ σκότος Kal τὴν ὕλην τρέψας 
κύσμον ἐποίησε, καὶ ᾿ησοῦς Χριστὸς ὃ 
ἡμέτερος σωτὴρ τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νε- 
κρῶν ἀνέστη, Dial. 24 (p. 241) ἡ ἡμέρα 
ἡ ὀγδόη μυστήριόν τι εἶχε κηρυσσόμενον 
διὰ τούτων ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ μᾶλλον τῆς 
ἑβδόμης κιτιλ. (comp. 26. 41, p. 260). 
So Irenzeus states that the practice 
of not kneeling on the Lord’s day 
dated from Apostolic times, and ap- 
pears to have explained that it was 
σύμβολον τῆς ἀναστάσεως, δι᾿ ἧς τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ χάριτι τῶν τε ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ 
τοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτών τεθανατωμένου θανάτου 
ἠλευθερώθημεν (Fragm. 7, p. 828, ed. 
Stieren); comp. Tert. de Cor. 3 ‘die 
dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, 
vel de geniculis adorare.’ Melito 
wrote a treatise περὶ κυριακῆς (Euseb. 
ff. E:. iv. 26) in which doubtless he 
drew out the symbolism of the day. 
The day is commonly called pia 
[τῶν] σαββάτων in the New Testa- 
ment. As late as the year 57 this 
designation occurs in S. Paul (1 Cor. 
Xvi. 2), where we should certainly 
have expected κυριακή, if the word 
had then been commonly in use. 
Even in Rev. i. 10 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύ- 
ματι ev τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ the inter- 
pretation is doubtful, and there are 
good, if not conclusive, reasons for 
interpreting it of the day of judgment ; 
see Todd’s Discourses on Prophecies 
in the Apocalypse pp. 59, 295 sq. If 
so, the passage before us is the ear- 
liest example of its occurrence in this 
sense, except perhaps Doctr. Afost. 
14, where the expression is κυριακὴ 
Κυρίου. In Barnab. 15 it is called 
ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ὀγδόη, where however the 
writer has a special reason for dwell- 
ing on the ezghth day. With Justin 
writing to the heathen it is ἡ τοῦ 


9 


130 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1x 


Vag ἢ 3 ? σι δ a / 3 ΄σ ev 
ἀνέτειλεν Ot αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ὅν τινες 

- ὩΣ ! 3 / \ / 
cpvouvvta δι᾿ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν TO πιστεύειν, καὶ 
\ a , τ Ξ . >? as 
διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν, iva εὑρεθῶμεν μαθηταὶ ᾿]ησοῦ 


Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν: πώς ἡμεῖς δυνη- 


1 ὅν τινες] οἵτινες G; quod guidam (6 twes) L. The paraphrase οὗ g ὃν τὰ 


τέκνα τῆς ἀπωλείας ἀπαρνοῦνται points to the reading ὅν τινες. 
a δι᾽ ov] GL; διὰ [A] (apparently). 
al. g. 


either ὅ τινες or ὅν τινες ; al. g. 
2 ὑπομένομεν] LA; ὑπομένωμεν G3 


ἡλίου ἡμέρα (Apol. i. 67), but to the 
Jews, ἡ pia τῶν σαββάτων or ἡ ὀγδόη 
ἡμέρα (Dial. 24, 41). Melito’s trea- 
tise on this day was designated περὶ 
κυριακῆς (Eus. A. £. iv. 26); and 
Dionysius of Corinth also calls it by 
this name, τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν 
ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, as if it were 
the familiar title (Eus. H. £. iv. 
ὭΣ 

The insertion ζωὴν in the Greek 
text is condemned alike by the pre- 
ponderance of authorities and by 
the following words ἐν 7 k.r.A. 

I. ἀνέτειλεν ͵] For this metaphor 
comp. ftom. 2, where again itis applied 
to the resurrection from the dead. 

ὅν] 1.6. τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ. The al- 
lusion is to Docetism, which denied 
the reality of our Lord’s passion. 
See the note on § ὃ μυθεύμασιν «rd. 
for the connexion of this error with 
Judaism here, and the note on 7val/. 
9 for the Docetism assailed in these 
epistles generally. In a _ parallel 
passage, S7zyri. 5 ὅν τινες ἀγνοοῦντες 
ἀρνοῦνται, the relative refers to ‘Jesus 
Christ,’ and so it might be connected 
with αὐτοῦ here; but the meaning 
would hardly be so distinct, though 
the allusion to Docetism would still 
remain. The same will also be the 
allusion, if for ov we read 6, as some 
authorities suggest. In this case 6 
may be referred either (1) to the 
whole sentence ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν 
δ αὐτοῦ κιτιλ., the denial of this 


A may represent 
5 ov] GLg Sev 1, 7 (Cramer’s 


truth being involved in the denial of 
the reality of the passion and resur- 
rection; or (2) to the words τοῦ θα- 
νάτου αὐτοῦ alone. For this latter 
use of 6 see Tradl. 8 ἐν πίστει 6 ἐστιν 
σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου, Rom. 7 ἄρτον Θεοῦ 
0 ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; and 
comp. Col. ili. 14, Eph. v. 5. See also 
below § 10, where the common text 
has νέαν ζύμην 6 ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. 

2. Ov οὗ μυστηρίου] Zahn (1 v. A. 
P. 455) quotes Justin Dial. οἱ (p. 318) 
ot ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τούτου τοῦ 
μυστηρίου (SC. τοῦ σταυροῦ) εἰς τὴν 
θεοσέβειαν ἐτράπησαν κιτιλ., 26. 131 
(p. 360) οἵτινες διὰ τοῦ ἐξουθενημένου 
καὶ ὀνείδους μεστοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ 
σταυροῦ κληθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ κ-.τ.λ. 

καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κιτ.λ.] This sentence 
as far as διδασκάλου ἡμῶν is paren- 
thetical, and διὰ τοῦτο is perhaps 
best connected with the following 
ἵνα (see the note on Lfhes. 17). The 
apodosis to εἰ οὖν of ἐν παλαιοῖς K.T.X. 
at the opening of the section begins 
with πῶς ἡμεῖς x.7.A. 

3. ὑπομένομεν; 1.6. ‘we endure per- 
secution.’ For this connexion be- 
tween suffering and discipleship in 
the mind of Ignatius, see the note 
on Ephes. I μαθητής. 

5. χωρὶς αὐτοῦ] This form of error 
was a separation from Christ in two 
ways; (1) In its Docetism it denied 
the reality of His death and resur- 
rection, which are our true bond of 
union with Him; (2) In its Judaism 








Ix] TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


191 


’ὔ — ~ -πτ rant 
5 σόμεθα ζῆσαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ; οὗ Kal ot προφῆται μαθη- 
ra / φ 7 > 
Tal ὄντες τῷ πνεύματι ὡς διδάσκαλον αὐτὸν προσεδόκων. 


᾿ \ \ > «“ UA / \ ] 
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ὃν δικαίως ἀνέμενον, παρὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτοὺς 


ἐκ νεκρῶν. 


Cat. in i Pet. iii. 19 sq; Land Axecd. 1. 32); ov A. 


6 προσεδόκων] g Sev; προσεδόκουν G. 
map’ ὧν, as Dressel). 


it substituted formal ordinances for 
God’s grace, and so was a disavowal 
of any part in His redemption (see 
§ ὃ ὁμολογοῦμεν κ.τ.λ.). 

6. τῷ πνεύματι] Zahn (comp. /. v. A. 
p. 462) attaches this to μαθηταὶ ὄντες ; 
but the connexion with the following 
words seems more natural, as well 
as more consonant with 1 Pet. 1. 11 
ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, 
προμαρτυρόμενον K.T.A. 

ὡς διδάσκαλον κ-τ.λ.] For the sense 
in which the prophets expected Him 
as a teacher see the next note. The 
form προσεδόκων may be retained 
here, but προσεδόκουν will not alter 
the sense. I mention this, because 
Zahn (/. v. A. p. 462) separates the 
two words, translating προσεδόκουν 
‘sie schienen ausserdem noch.’ For 
προσδοκεῖν, aS a later alternative form 
of προσδοκᾶν, see Dindorf in Szeph. 
Thes. s.v.; and for the interchange 
of -ew and -aw generally in some 
early dialects, and in the later Greek, 
see Kiihner ὃ 251 (1. p. 606), Winer 
§ xv. p. 104 (ed. Moulton), A. Butt- 
mann pp. 38, 50. 

7. δικαίως] ‘rightly, not ‘righteous- 
ly’; see the note on Zphes. 15. 

παρὼν ἤγειρεν κιτ.λ.] ‘He came 
and raised them.’ ‘This refers to the 
descensus ad inferos, which occupied 
a prominent place in the belief of 
the early Church. Here our Lord 
is assumed to have visited (παρὼν) 
the souls of the patriarchs and pro- 


οἱ] Gg; om. Sev. 
7 παρὼν] παρ ὧν (sic) G (not 


phets in Hades, to have taught them 
(ὡς διδάσκαλον «.7.r.) the truths of 
the Gospel, and to have raised them 
(ἤγειρεν) either to paradise or to 
heaven; see Phzlad. 9 αὐτὸς dv θύρα 
τοῦ πατρὸς dv ἧς εἰσέρχονται ᾿Αβραὰμ 
καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ οἱ προφῆται 
KT... Comp. 26. 5 ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύ- 
σαντες (SC. οἱ προφῆται) ἐσώθησαν, 
with the note. I have already pointed 
out (see the note on ᾧ 8 ἐμπνεόμενοι) 
that the functions assigned to the 
prophets by Ignatius strongly re- 
semble the representations in S. 
Peter; and this reference to the 
descent into Hades also has its 
parallel in 1 Pet. ili. 19, iv. 6. Other 
passages in the N. T. which have 
been thought to refer to it are 
Ephes. iv.'9, Heb; xi. 23. This he- 
lief appears in various forms in early 
Christian writers. Justin D7zal. 72 
(p. 298) quotes a passage from Jere- 
miah, ᾿Ἐμνήσθη δὲ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ 
(1. ἅγιος with Iren.) Ἰσραὴλ τῶν νεκρῶν 
αὐτοῦ τῶν κεκοιμημένων εἰς γῆν χώμα- 
τος καὶ κατέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐαγγελί- 
σασθαι αὐτοῖς τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ. He 
says that the Jews had cut out this 
passage from their copies; and it 
does not appear in extant MSS of the 
LXX. ‘What may have been its his- 
tory we cannot say; but Irenzeus 
quotes it several times (once as from 
Isaiah, once as from Jeremiah, and 
in other passages anonymously) and 
applies it to the descent into Hades; 


ΘΟΕ 


132 THE/VEPISTLE, OF(IGNATIUS [x 


> 3 ΄σ ΄σ , 3 ΄σ 
X. My οὖν ἀναισθητώμεν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. 
lanl \ / lf / 
adv yap ἡμᾶς μιμήσηται Kala πράσσομεν, οὐκέτι ἐσμεν. 
land ΄σ / / \ 
διὰ τοῦτο, μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι, μάθωμεν κατὰ χρι- 


Ἁ -_~ 
στιανισμὸν ζῆν. 


1 ἀναισθητῶμεν] G; non sentiamus L; ἀναίσθητοι ὦμεν g; al. A. 


Tos] χριστότητος G. 


ΞΕ ΠῚ 99. A, 1V..22. 1, av: 33. 1, 12, 
π΄ nthe last passage he 
writes ‘tribus diebus conversatus est 
ubi erant mortui, quemadmodum 
propheta ait de eo Commemoratus 
est Dominus etc. He also relates 
(iv. 27. 2) a discourse which he had 
heard from an elder who had known 
personal disciples of the Lord, and 
who stated ‘Dominum in ea quae 
sunt sub terra descendisse, evange- 
lizantem et illis adventum suum, 
remissione peccatorum existente his 
qui credunt in eum: crediderunt 
autem in eum omnes qui sperabant 
in eum, id est, qui adventum ejus 
praenuntiaverunt...justi et prophetae 
et patriarchae etc.’ So too Tertullian 
de Anim. 55 ‘descendit in inferiora 
terrarum, ut illic patriarchas et pro- 
phetas compotes sui faceret,’ speak- 
ing of the three days between the 
death and the resurrection (comp. 
zb. § 7). Hermas makes the Apostles 
and first teachers of the Gospel 
preach to the souls in Hades, Szy. 
ix. 16 οὗτοι of ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ διδά- 
σκαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ...ἐκήρυξαν καὶ τοῖς προκεκοι- 
μημένοις... ἐκεῖνοι δὲ οἱ προκεκοιμημένοι 
κιτιλ. These προκεκοιμημένοι have 
been described before (ὃ 15) as the 
prophets and ministers of God, as 
well as the first two generations of 
mankind which preceded them. Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, Stvom. ii. 9 (p. 
452), quoting this passage of Her- 
mas, explains it as including right- 


2 ἂν γὰρ] G; ἐὰν (om. yap) g; sz enim L; al. A. 
μιμήσηται] ἡμᾶς μιμήσεται (ἃ; nos persequatur L; μιμήσηται ἡμᾶς g. 


« \ / / a / 
os yap ἀλλῳ ὀὄνοματι καλεῖται πλέον 


χρηστότη- 
ἡμᾶς 
πράσ- 


eous heathens as well as Jews; but 
Hermas himself gives no _ hint 
whether he contemplated this ex- 
tended application or not. In a 
later passage, Strom. vi. 6 (p. 763), 
Clement refers back to his second 
book, as having shown there that 
‘the Apostles, following the Lord, 
preached ‘the Gospel to those in 
Hades’; and he maintains that, as 
our Lord preached there to the Jews, 
so the Apostles addressed themselves 
to the righteous heathen, referring 
again to the passage in the Shep- 
herd. Somewhat similarly Hippoly- 
tus de Antichr. 45 (p. 22, Lagarde) 
makes John the Baptist after his 
death preach to those in Hades, as 
a forerunner of Christ, σημαίνειν μέλ- 
λων κἀκεῖσε κατελεύσεσθαι TOY σωτῆρα 
λυτρούμενον τὰς ἁγίων ψυχὰς K.T.A.; 
and so too Origen zz Luc. Hom. iv. 
(III. p. 917), 22 Loann. 11. § 30 (IV. p. 
g1). Even Marcion accepted the 
descent of Christ into Hades, though 
(unless he is misrepresented) he 
maintained that the righteous men 
and prophets under the old dispen- 
sation, as being subjects of the 
Demiurge, refused to listen to His 
preaching, and that only such per- 
sons as Cain and the other wicked 
characters of the Old Testament 
listened and were saved: Iren. i. 27. 
3, Wheodt..77.. F.. 4.24; jseeg7 ale 
Der Hirt des Hermas p. 425 sq. 
If this be so, it is a speaking testi- 
mony to the hold which the belief 


—t 


) 


x] 


/ > a ΄σ rn 
τούτου, οὐκ ἐστιν τοὺ Θεοῦ. 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


122 


ε J 33) \ \ 
ὑπέρθεσθε οὖν THY κακὴν 


, \ a \ 3 
ζύμην τήν παλαιωθεῖσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μετα- 
7 > / / e/ > > “ 
βαλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην, ὃς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. 


σομεν] σ; πράσσωμεν G. 
Rup; add. ἂν g. 
pref. οὗτος gA. 


had on men’s minds. For the opinion 
of the later fathers on this subject 
see Pearson Exposition of the Creed 
Art. 5. This belief was sometimes 
connected with the incident related 
in Matt. xxvii. 52 πολλὰ σώματα τῶν 
κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν k.T.d.; 
ere by seuseb, Dem.) 0 ον. 8) (p: 
501), and by Severus (Land Axecd. 
Syr. I. p. 33) commenting on this 
passage of Ignatius. 

X. ‘Let us not be insensible to 
His goodness. If He were to treat 
us, as we treat Him, we should in- 
deed be lost. Therefore, as His dis- 
ciples, let us learn to live Christian 
lives. He who is called by any other 
name than Christ’s, is not of God. 
Put away the sour and stale leaven 
of Judaism, and replace it with the 
new leaven of Christ. Be yesalted in 
Him, that ye may escape corruption. 
It is monstrous to name the name 
of Christ and to follew Judaism. 
Christianity did not believe in Ju- 
daism, but Judaism in Christianity, 
wherein all nations and tongues were 
gathered unto Ged.’ 

I. ἀναισθητῶμεν] ‘ be tnsensible to. 
This verb not uncommonly takes a 
genitive; e.g. Jos. Amz. xi. 5. 8, B. 
Gaives 3ac1On Plat. 7707: pr 1062: Ὁ; 
Athenag. Swff/. 15. The word is 
at least as old as Epicurus, Plut. 
Mor. p. 1103 D. 

τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ] The sub- 
stitution of Judaism for Christianity 
was a rejection of God’s χάρις, a 


4 6s] Gg; ὅστις Dam-Rup 6. 
πλέον] G; πλεῖον g Dam-Rup. 

6 μεταβάλεσθε] G; μεταβάλλεσθε g. 
6 G; dub. A; al. g: see the lower note. 


γὰρ] G Dam- 
5 οὐκ] GL Dam-Rup; 
7 os] gui L; 


denial of Christ’s work; see above 
§ 8. 

2. ἂν yap κ.τ.λ.] i.e. 1 He should 
treat us with the same scorn and 
defiance with which we treat Him’; 
comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 26, 27 (Ps. xviii. 
28, 90ὴ: 

4. πλέον τούτου] ‘beyond this, i.e. 
τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ. Or is It τοῦ ὀνόματος 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ For πλέον see Polyc. 5. 

5. ὑπέρθεσθε) ‘dispense with, lite- 
rally ‘defer’, and so postpone szze 
die. The word is used somewhat 
similarly in Prov. xv. 22. 

6) (Gupny κατ ἘΝ roms Core v7 
ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην K.T-r.3 
comp. Clem. Hom. vili. 17 ὁ Θεὸς 
αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ κακὴν ζύμην ἐξελεῖν 
ἐβούλετο. On the metaphor gene- 
rally see the note Galatians v. 9. 

παλαιωθεῖσαν] Not simply παλαιάν. 
See Heb. viii. 13° for this) ‘anti- 
quation’ of the Judaic law and 
ritual. 

evokicacay| ‘which has gone sour, 
No other instance of the word is 
given in the lexicons, though ὀξίζω 
and παροξίζω occur elsewhere. 

7. ὅς} I have preferred this to 9, 
because it accords with the writer’s 
idiom elsewhere in this epistle, § 15 
ὅς ἐστιν Ιησοῦς Χριστός ; see also the 
note on ὃ 7ζ. On the other hand, ὅ 
might stand, and be referred to νέαν 
Cépnv. For this use of the neuter 
relative see the note on § 9. The 
Gospel is spoken of as leaven in the 
parable, Matt. xiii. 33, Luke xiii. 21. 


134 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x 


, 3 “ .« \ lod a \ 
ἁλίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα py διαφθαρῇ τις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐπεὶ 
\ a > - 3 / af / ΄σ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς ἐλεγχθήσεσθε. ἀτοπὸν ἐστιν ᾿Ϊησοῦν 
\ ΄σ Wale Sf. ε \ \ 
Χριστὸν λαλεῖν Kal ἰουδαΐζειν. ὁ yap χριστιανισμος 
3 2 > oe \ 3 / > eed “. \ 3 
οὐκ εἰς ἰουδαΐσμὸν ἐπίστευσεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἰουδαΐσμος εἰς χρι- 
ὯΝ a a / 3 ἃ 
στιανισμόν, ᾧ πᾶοὰ TAA@Cca πιστεύσασα εἰς Θεὸν cyn- 
Η χθη. 


1 ἁλίσθητεῖ GL*; conjungamini (giving a wrong sense to the ambiguous 
ἁλισθῆτε) A; αὐλίσθητε g. 119} Gls: go As al. ig. 2 ὀσμῆς] odore 
L; sperttu (a confusion of the Syriac NOY spiritus and SM odor) A; ὁρμῆς 
Ge gale. Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν] gLA; χριστὸν ἰησοῦν G. 

5. ᾧ..-συνήχθη] 7 guo omnis gui credidit ad deum congregatus est So; et omnis 


I. ἁλίσθητε)] ‘be ye salted’ Here 
again is an allusion to another meta- 
phor in the Gospel parables, Matt. 
v. 13, Mark ix. 50, Luke xiv. 34; see 
the note on Col. iv. 6. There is a 
possible reference to the injunction 
of the law, Lev. il. 13 πᾶν δῶρον θυ- 
σίας ὑμῶν ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσετα. The 
metaphor is carried out in διαφθαρῇ 
‘putrefy,’ as well as in ὀσμῆς. 

2. τῆς ὀσμῆς] Comp. Lphes. 17 δυσ- 
wdiav τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ ἄρχοντος 
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with the note. 

3. λαλεῖν] ‘to profess. For the ex- 
pression λαλεῖν ‘I. X. see the note on 
Ephes. 6. For the whole sentiment 
of the contradiction between Jesus 
Christ and Judaism see Phz/ad. 6. 

ὁ yap χριστιανισμὸς] The word oc- 
curs again Rom. 3 (v. 1), Philad. 6; 
see Mart. Polyc. 10, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vil. 1 (p. 829). The word 
χριστιανός first arose at Antioch 
(Acts xi. 26), but at what date we are 
not told. About A.D. 60 it is repre- 
sented as used by Agrippa, Acts 
xXxvi. 26; and at the time of the 
Neronian persecution (A.D. 64) it was 
already a common designation of 
the believers; 1 Pet. iv. τό, Tac. 
Ann. xv. 44 ‘quos per flagitia in- 
visos valgus Christianos appellabat, 
Suet. Wer. 16. The derived verb 
χριστιανίζειν, after the analogy of 


πυθαγορίζειν, ἰουδαΐζειν, etc., would be 
coined soon after as a matter of 
course, to designate the peculiarities 
of the new sect, and with it the 
substantive χριστιανισμός. But these 
epistles furnish the earliest extant 
example of its use. In the New 
Testament the word ‘Christian’ is 
still more or less a term of reproach; 
in the age of Ignatius it has become 
a title of honour: see above ὃ 4, 
Ephes. 11, 14 (v.1.), Rom: 3, ΘΟΕ ἢ 
(comp. 7vail/. 6). 

5. ᾧ] Governed by πιστεύσασα. 
This correction of the existing Greek 
text ὡς is required by the sense and 
justified by the authorities. On the 
other hand Zahn (J. v. A. p. 429, 
and here) reads eis ὅν with the in- 
terpolator ; but this reading must, 1 
think, be regarded as a paraphrase 
of the interpolator after his usual 
manner. 

πᾶσα γλώσσα] i.e. ‘not Jews only, 
but every race upon earth.’ It was 
therefore a larger and better dispen- 
sation than Judaism ; and it approved 
itself as the true fulfilment of the 
prophecy which declared that all na- 
tions and tongues should be gathered 
to God; Is. Ixvi. 18 συναγαγεῖν 
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ τὰς γλώσσας 
(comp: κῖν- 22: 25. ΖΑ. νη 25. 
The language of Ignatius is some- 


x1] 


ΧΙ. 


TO THE MAGNESIANS, 


135 


΄σ 7 5) Vs > > 
Tavta δε, ἀγαπήτοι μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων 


\ 2 ς ΄σ «.«“ af 3 > ς 7 ε ΄- 
τινας ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς μικρότερος ὑμών 


3 7 « ΄σ΄ \ 3 σκ- 3 > 
θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἄγ- 
κιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφόρησθε ἐν τῇ 


7 \ > / \ A“ 3 ΄σ 
γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει καὶ TH ἀναστάσει TH γενομένη 
L L [4 


ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Tlovtiov Πιλάτου: πραχθέντα 


qui credit in eum ad deum congregatur A; ὡς.. συνήχθη G3 ut...congregaretur L*, 
In g the passage runs εἰς ov πᾶν ἔθνος πιστεῦσαν καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογη- 


σαμένη εἰς θεὸν συνήχθη. 
9 προφυλάσσεσθαι] προφυλάσσεσθε G. 


7 ἐπεὶ ἔγνων] GLS,A; ἐπέγνων g. 


10 πεπληροφόρησθε] g (app., but 


with vv. Il.); πεπληροφορεῖσθαι G; ut certificemint S14; corroborati-estote A; certi- 


ficemini L. 


what hyperbolical as applied to his 
own time, but not more so than 
some expressions of S. Paul; e.g. 
mom. 1: 8,.,Col. 4. 6,.23., Compare 
the language of Justin Martyr (Dzad. 
117, p. 345), and of Irenzeus (i. 10, 2), 
regarding the spread of the Church 
in their own times respectively. 

ΕΠ 91 say,.tbis,.net: because 1 
know that you have already fallen 
into error, but because I wish you to 
be forewarned against the wiles of 
heresy. Have a firm belief in the 
Incarnation, the Passion, the Resur- 
rection of Christ. These things are 
no delusive phantoms, but real facts. 
Letno one divert you from your hope.’ 

7. Ταῦτα δέ] sc. λέγω. For the el- 
lipsis and the sentiment alike comp. 
Trall. 8 Οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων κιτ.λ., where 
still more is left to be understood. 
It would be possible to treat the sen- 
tence here as complete, by making 
ταῦτα the accusative after προφυλάσ- 
σεσθαι; but the antithesis of the 
clauses would thus be destroyed. 
For the sentiment see also S7zyr7. 4. 
Comp. Polyc. PAz/. 11 ‘Ego autem 
nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi.’ 


8. ds μικρότερος ὑμῶν] i.e. ‘as one 


who has no right to dictate to you’; 
comp. Ephes. 3 (with the note). For 


other expressions of self-depreciation 
see the note on Ephes. 21 τῶν ἐκεῖ. 

9. προφυλάσσεσθαι] ‘should be on 
your guard beforehand? So the 
active προφυλάσσω ὑμᾶς, Tradl. 8, 
Smyrna. 4. Similarly ἀσφαλίζομαι ὑμᾶς 
Phitad. 5. 

10 κενοδοξίας ‘foolish opinion.’ 
The word has two senses (1) ‘vain- 
glory,’ asin Phil.ii.3 (comp. κενόδοξος, 
Gal. v. 26), Clem. Rom. 35, PAzlad. τὸ 
and so most frequently; (2) ‘vain 
Opinion,’ ‘error,’ as Wisd. xiv. 14, 
Clem. Al. Protr. 5 (p. 55) φιλοσοφίαν 
αὐτὴν κενοδοξίας ἕνεκεν ἀνειδωλοποιοῦ- 
σαν τὴν ὕλην, and so here. This 
latter sense is commonly overlooked 
in the lexicons. 

πεπληροφόρησθε] ‘be ye fully per- 
suaded, the imperative. For this 
sense of the word, and for the con- 
struction πληροφορεῖσθαι ev ‘to be 
convinced of a thing,’ see the note 
Colossians iv. 12. 

τῇ γεννήσει) On the Docetism 
which denied the reality of the hu- 
man body of our Lord, and therefore 
of His Incarnation, Passion, and 
Resurrection, see the note on 77a//. 9. 

12. Ποντίου Πιλάτου] So again 
Trall.9, Smyrn. 1. ΤΏ 811 these places 
the specification of the date is in- 


136 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x1 


ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος 


~~ - ~ \ ς ~ / 
ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν γένοιτο. 


xa. 


Ὸ / ε ΄σ \ / oy TA sf ἴον 
ναίμην UMWY KATA παντα, ἐάνπερ ἄξιος ω. 


> \ \ / \ ε΄ ΄ / ε - 3 
εἰ γὰρ καὶ δέδεμαι, πρὸς ἕνα τών λελυμένων ὑμῶν οὐκ 


ἐς TA 
εἰμί. 
ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 


2 ὑμῶν] GL; ἡμῶν Ag* (but with a v. 1.). 
5 Χριστὸν] GLA; om. g. 
0] G; om. g. 


3 ᾿Οναίμην] ὠναίμην G. 
GLA; γέγραπται (om. ὅτι) δ. 


tended to emphasize the reality of the 
occurrence. The chief motive for the 
insertion of the name in the Apostles’ 
Creed was probably the same; see 
Pearson Oz the Creed Att. iv. p. 371 
(ed. Chevallier). The mention of 
‘Pontius Pilate’ in connexion with 
the crucifixion in early Christian 
writings is of constant occurrence, 
eo Lamwi 15, justin’ Afo/. 1.13 
(p. 60), Dzal. 30 (p. 247); and pro- 
bably we owe to the prominence 
thus given to the name among the 
Christians themselves the fact that 
he is so mentioned also by Tacitus, 
Ann. xv. 44. 

πραχθέντα] ‘things done?’ The 
accusative may be regarded as stand- 
ing in apposition with the object 
involved in the preceding words, 
which are equivalent to ev τῷ γεννη- 
θῆναι καὶ παθεῖν x... For various 
loose constructions of the accusative 
participle, see Kuhner 11. pp. 646 sq, 
667 sq, Winer § xxxii. p. 290, lix. p. 
669. The participle, thus isolated, 
emphasizes the reality of the events. 

I. ἀληθῶς] See the note on 77a/Z. 9. 

τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν] As in Tradl. 
msctr.2, co also. Lim.i 1. ‘Comp. 
Polyc. Phil. ὃ προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ 
ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν...ὃς ἐστιν Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. 
For the longer expression 7 κοινὴ 
ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν see the note on “2265. I. 


οἶδα ὅτι ov φυσιοῦσθε: ᾿Ϊησοῦν γὰρ Χριστὸν 5 


\ 4: ef 3 ΄σ΄ ς κ- > 
Kal μᾶλλον, ὅταν ἐπαινώ ὑμᾶς, οἶδα 


γένοιτο] G; γένηται g. 
7 γέγραπται ὅτι] 
9 σπουδάζετε] G; σπουδά- 


XII. ‘May I have comfort in you, 
11 am found worthy. For although 
I am bound, I do not compare my- 
self with any of you who are free. I 
know that ye are not puffed up: for 
ye have Jesus Christ in you. Nay, my 
praise will only fill you with shame, 
for The righteous man ts hts own ac- 
cuser, 

3. ὀναίμην κιτ.λ.] See the note on 
Ephes. 2, where the whole clause 
occurs, as here. 

4. εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι] i.e. ‘notwith- 
standing the dignity conferred on me 
by my bonds. See the note on 
Ephes. 3, where the same phrase 
occurs. 

πρὸς ἕνα κιτ.λ.] “7 am not compar- 
able to one of you who are free from 
bonds.’ For this sense of mpos see 
Kuhner ὃ 441 (II. p. 450); comp. e.g. 
Herod. ii. 35 ἔργα λόγου μέζω παρέχε- 
ται πρὸς πᾶσαν χώρην (i.e. ‘in com- 
parison with any country’), Plat. 
Prot. 328 C οἱ TodvkXeirov vieis... 
οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰσί, Xen. ALem. 
i. 2. 52 μηδαμοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τοὺς ἄλλους 
εἶναι πρὸς ἑαυτόν, Demosth. Symm. p. 
185 ἐν ταύτῃ χρήματ᾽ ἔνεστιν.. -πρὸς 
ἁπάσας τὰς ἄλλας... πόλεις. 

5. φυσιοῦσθε] Trall. 4,7, Smyrn. 6, 
Polyc. 4. Sotoo 1 Cor. iv. 6, 18, 19, v. 
2, Vili. 1, xi. ἡ; Col.a Τὸ; comp: 
φυσίωσις 2 Cor. xil. 20. The word 





[Ο 


x11] 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


137 


TA / τ / e/ e ’ c “οὥκ. 
ὅτι ἐντρέπεσθε᾽ ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ λίκδιος ἑδλγτοῦ 


KATHTOPOC. 


XIII. 


Crovoatete οὖν βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγ- 


΄ 7 \ - 3 / J ’ og 
μασιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἵνα TANTA boca 


a - \ \ / / \ 
TOIEITE KATEYOAWOHTE σαρκι καὶ TTVEUMATL, πιστει και 


3 7 9 en \ \ Ve / 3 9 ΄σ \ 
a a 
αγατπή; εν ULW Kal TAT Ol Kal €V TT VEU Tl, EV ἀρχῇ Kal 


care g. 


11 ποιεῖτε] σα; ποιῆτε G. 


κατευοδωθῆτε] G; κατευοδωθήσεται g* ; 


prosperentur 1.3 spendeatis A (}NOSN splendeatis for nnoyn prosperemini; see 


Petermann). 


σαρκὶ] txt G[L][A]; add. τεσ. For L see the note on 7Z7ral/. 9. 


12 ἐν πνεύματι] GL* (but add. sancto L,); add. ἁγίῳ A; def. g. 


is confined to S. Paul in the N.T. 

Ἰησοῦν yap «.t-A.] 2 Cor. xill. 5 
Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν, εἰ μή τι 
ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε. They were χριστοφύ- 
po (Ephes. 9). Thus bearing Christ, 
they bore the mind of Christ, which 
was ταπεινοφροσύνη (comp. Phil. ii. 
5 sq). 

7. δίκαιος κιτ.λ.] From the LXx of 
Prov. xvill. 17. Inthe Hebrew how- 
ever the sense is quite different ; 
‘The first man is upright in his suit ; 
then cometh his neighbour and 
searcheth him out.’ In other words 
it is necessary to hear both sides of 
a case (see Delitzsch ad loc.). Inthe 
LXX the subject and predicate of the 
first clause are transposed, and it is 
rendered Δίκαιος ἑαυτοῦ κατήγορος ἐν 
πρωτολογίᾳ. 

XIII. ‘Stand fast therefore in the 
ordinances of the Lord and His 
Apostles, that ye may be prosperous 
in all things, with your bishop, pres- 
byters, and deacons. Submit your- 
selves to your bishop and to one 
another, as Jesus Christ submitted 
to the Father, and the Apostles to 
Jesus Christ and the Father, that 
there may be unity-of flesh and spirit.’ 

9. τοῖς δόγμασιν] ‘precepts, i.e. ‘au- 
thoritative sayings’: see the note on 
Colossians li. 14. For one half of the 
phrase comp. Barnab. 1 τρία οὖν δόγ- 


ματά ἐστιν Κυρίου, and for the other 
Acts xvi. 4 ta δόγματα τὰ κεκριμένα 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων. 

Il. κατευοδωθῆτε] ‘ye may be pros- 
peredé, an adapted quotation from 
Psalm 1. 3 πάντα ὅσα ἂν ποιῇ κατευοδω- 
θήσεται, where this prosperity is pro- 
mised to those who take pleasure ἐν τῷ 
νόμῳ Kupiov. The compound karevo- 
δοῦν is not uncommon in the LXXx, and 
the simple word evodovv occurs four 
times in the N. T. Zahn (/. v. A. 
p- 434, and here) reads κατευοδωθῇ 
after the Latin version prosperentur ; 
but I suspect that the Latin trans- 
lator had κατευοδωθῆται in his text, 
which (overlooking the itacism) he 
carelessly rendered in this way, as 
if it were κατευοδωθῇ. The remi- 
niscence of the Psalm in the Vulgate, 
which runs omnia guaecungue factet 
prosperabuntur, and after which he 
has modelled the rest of the quota- 
tion, would assist his mistake. Zahn 
objects to the accusative after κατευο- 
δοῦσθαι, but the Hebrew shows that 
this is most probably the construc- 
tion in the Psalm: comp. also I Cor. 
XVi. 2 θησαυρίζων 6 τι av εὐοδῶται. 

σαρκὶ καὶ πνεύματι] See the note 
on L£phes. το. 

12. ἐν vig κιτ.λ.] The order is the 
same as in 2 Cor. xiii. 13. It is more- 
over a natural sequence. Through 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [xu 


138 


ἐν τέλει, μετὰ TOU ἀξιοπρεπεστάτου ἐπισκόπου ὑμῶν 
καὶ ἀξιοπλόκου πνευματικοῦ στεφάνου τοῦ πρεσβυτε- 
ρίου ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν διακόνων. ὑποτάγητε τῷ 
ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ws ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρὶ 


\ / \ ε > / ΄σ ΄- \ qn 
[κατὰ σάρκα] καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τῷ 


ε «Ὕ a / \ / 
πατρί, ἵνα EVWALS 7 σαρκικΚΉ TE Και TVEUMATIKY. 


XIV. Εἰδὼς ὅτι Θεοῦ γέμετε, συντόμως παρεκά- 


2 ἀξιοπλόκου] txt GL; ἀξιοπλόκου καὶ g; om. A, 
5 κατὰ σάρκα] GL; om. A[g] (but g also omits 


GLA; ὁ χριστὸς [5]. 


4 ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς] 


several words which follow, app. owing to the homceoteleuton τῷ πατρὶ): see the 


lower note. 


τῷ Χριστῷ] GL; desu christo A; def. g. 


καὶ τῷ πατρὶ] txt A; 


add. καὶ τῷ πνεύματι GL: def. g (if the lacuna in g is owing to homceote- 


leuton, it is evidence against καὶ τῷ πνεύματη. 


the Soz is the way to the Father 
(Joh. xiv. 6): this union with the 
Father through the Son is a com- 
munion in the S#zvrzz. 

I. ἀξιοπρεπεστάτου] See the note 
on ow. inscr. 

2. στεφάνου] Like the Latin ‘co- 
rona, of an encircling attendance; 
comp. Afost. Const. 11. 28, where the 
presbyters are called σύμβουλοι τοῦ 
ἐπισκόπου Kal τῆς ἐκκλησίας στέφανος. 
In the primitive assemblies of the 
Christians the bishop would sit in the 
centre, surrounded by his presbyters ; 
see the note on ᾧ 6 συνέδριον. This 
sense of στέφανος may be illustrated 
by such passages as e.g. Hom. 72. xiii. 
736 πάντη yap σε περὶ στέφανος πολέ- 
μοιο δέδηεν, Plut. Mor. 228 E πόλιν 
ἥτις ἀνδράσι καὶ ov πλίνθοις ἐστεφά- 
νωται, ‘which has its crown, its cir- 
clet, not of towers, but of men.’ The 
epithet ἀξιόπλοκος, ‘worthily-woven,’ 
carries out the metaphor of στέφανος, 
for πλέκειν στέφανον is a common ex- 
pression, e.g. Matt. xxvii. 29, etc. 

3. κατὰ Θεὸν] See the note on § 1 
above. 

τῷ ἐπισκύπῳ κιτ.λ.} I Pet. v. 5 νεώ- 
τεροι ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις, πάντες 


συντόμως GL; cum 


δὲ ἀλλήλοις, Ephes. v. 21 ὑποτασσόμε- 
νοι ἀλλήλοις : comp. Clem. Rom. 38. 

5. κατὰ σάρκα] These words, if gen- 
uine, would expressly limit the sub- 
ordination of the Son to His human 
nature; see Rothe Aznfange Ὁ. 754. 
But their absence in some authori- 
ties seems to show that they are no 
part of the original text. 

kat τῷ πατρί] I have struck out 
the addition καὶ τῷ πνεύματι, which 
appears in the common texts, as 
suspicious in itself, and as wanting 
in one important authority. It would 
easily be suggested by the previous 
mention of the three Persons of the 
Trinity, ἐν υἱῷ x.r.A. On the other 
hand its omission might be account- 
ed for by a homceoteleuton trpi and 
TINI, which are constantly confused : 
see note on Smyriz. 13. 

6. σαρκική τε «.t-A.] See the note 
on “2165. 10. Comp. Ephes. iv. 4 
ἕν σῶμα καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα. 

XIV. ‘I am brief in my exhorta- 
tions, for I know that ye are full of 
God. Remember me in your prayers, 
as also the Syrian Church. I have 
need of your united aid, that the 
Church in Syria may be refreshed 


IO 


xIv| 


λεσα Vas. 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


139 


/ 4 ~ ΄-: ε ΄ 
μνημονενετέ μου ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ὑμῶν, 


e/ a γ᾽ \ Fi 3 / 2 ε 3 
ἵνα Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω, καὶ τῆς ἐν (υρίᾳ ἐκκλησίας, ὅθεν οὐκ 


᾽ / > ~ Ἵ 
ἀξιὸς εἰμι καλεῖσθαι. 


> / \ ~ e etn 
ἐπιδέομαι γὰρ τῆς ἡνωμένης ὑμῶν 


2 Θ vo a Novas / 2 \ > én \ > 
εν Cew προσευχῆς Kal ἀγαπῆς Els TO ἀξιω HVaL τὴν ἐν 


7 > 7 \ σ > / ε ΄σ ΄- 
Cupia ἐκκλησίαν διὰ τῆς ἐκτενείας ὑμῶν δροσισθῆναι. 


XV. ᾿λσπαζονται ὑμᾶς ᾿Εφέσιοι ἀπὸ (μύρνης, ὅθεν 


/ eA 3 ~ Py A 
καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν, παρόντες εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ 


fiducia (συντόνως) A. 
κέλευσα G. 
below; ἐκκλησίας GL; εὐταξίας [g]. 


παρεκάλεσα] g; deprecatus sum L; peto A; παρε: 
το καλεῖσθαι] καλεῖσθε G. 
In A the sentence runs digna fiat et ecclesia 


12 €xrevelas] see 


syriae ut stillent in ea preces vestrae et firmitas. 


by your fervent supplications.’ 

7. Θεοῦ γέμετε] They are θεοφόροι 
in the fullest sense: comp. Ephes. ὃ 
ὅλοι ὄντες Θεοῦ. So Virgil’s ‘plena 
deo.’ 

παρεκάλεσα] A common word in 
Ignatius, more especially in the same 
connexion as here, e.g. Tradl. 6, Polyc. 
7, etc. On the other hand παρακε- 
λεύειν does not occur elsewhere in 
this writer or in the N. T. 

9. Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] On this phrase 
see the note § 1 above. 

τῆς ev Συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίας] See the 
note on Lphes. 21 προσεύχεσθε. 

ὅθεν οὐκ ἄξιός K.T.A.| See the note 
on Ephes. 21 τῶν ἐκεῖ. 

12. ἐκτενείας] ‘fervency, urgency. I 
have ventured on this emendation 
for ἐκκλησίας, as it is suggested by the 
Armenian Version. The interpola- 
tor’s εὐταξίας may be explained as 
the substitution of a simple for a diffi- 
cult or illegible word, according to his 
common practice. For the connexion 
of ἐκτενής, ἐκτενῶς, ἐκτένεια, With prayer 
comp. Joel i. 14, Jonah iii. 8, Judith 
ΠΟ 12. Luke xxii. 44, Acts xii. 5, 
xxvi. 7, Clem. Rom. 34, 59, Ps-Ign. 
Ephes. to. For the supplication 
called ἐκτενής in the Greek ritual see 
Clement of Rome p. 270. See esp. 


Ps-Ign. Philipp. 14 ai προσευχαὶ 
ὑμῶν ἐκταθείησαν eis τὴν ᾿Αντιοχείας 
ἐκκλησίαν ὅθεν κιτιλ., Which would 
seem to be taken from this passage. 
The confusion between exTeNelac 
and εκκληοιὰς would be easy, where 
€KKAHCIAN had almost immediately 
preceded. The purists condemned 
these words ἐκτενῶς, ἐκτένεια, etc.: see 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 311. 

δροσισθῆναι)])͵ Pearson compares 
Clem. Al. Paed. ii. 10 (p. 232) moa 
ἡμεῖς οἱ τῇ χάριτι δροσιζόμενοι τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. The metaphor of course is 
much older; Deut. xxxii. 2, Prov. xix. 
12 Εἰς. 

XV. ‘Greeting from the Ephe- 
siars who arein Smyrna. Like your 
own delegates, they have refreshed 
me greatly. Polycarp joins in the 
greeting. So also do the other 
churches. Farewell; be of one mind; 
be steadfast in spirit; for this is 
Jesus Christ Himself.’ 

13. Ἐφέσιοι] For these Ephesian 
delegates who were with Ignatius, 
see Ephes. 1, 2 (with the notes). 

14. εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ] So too Kom. 
10; comp. Ephes. 13, Polyc. 4. A 
more common expression in Ignatius 
is εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ; see the note on 


Ephes. 21. 


140 IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS. 


[xv 


~ cA \ / 7 ε / 
ὑμεῖς, OL KATA TayTa με ἀνέπαυσαν, ἅμα Π}Ὠολυκάρπῳ 


/ \ e \ \ 3 / 3 
ἐπισκόπῳ Cyuupvaiwy. καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ δὲ ἐκκλησίαι ἐν 


η ᾿Ιησοῦ Χ 0 ἀσπα Ἱμᾶ ἔρρωσθε ἐν 
τιμῇ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς. ἐρρ ἐ 


a / 3 / - e/ 3 
ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ, κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὃς ἐστιν 


᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος. 


1 ἀνέπαυσαν] GLA; ἀνεπαύσατε g. 
4 Θεοῦ] GLA; om. g. 
μένοι ἀδιάκριτον in g); διάκριτον G. 
valete fratres; amen A. 


For the subscription of G see the title to Philadelphians. 


scription. For g see the Appx. 

ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμεῖς] SC. πάρεστε. The 
Magnesians were present in the per- 
‘sons of their representatives men- 
tioned above, § 2. 

I. κατὰ πάντα κιτ.λ.] For this fa- 
vourite Ignatian phrase see the note 
on Lphes. 2. 

ἅμα ἸΠολυκάρπῳ] These words are 
perhaps better taken with ἀσπάζονται 
ὑμᾶς, than with the clause immedi- 
ately preceding; comp. 77vadl. 13 
ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη Σμυρναίων καὶ 
᾿Εφεσίων. 

2. αἱ λοιπαὶ κιτ.λ.] i.e. through their 
representatives, who also were with 
him: comp. 7rad/. 12 ἅμα ταῖς συμ- 
παρούσαις μοι ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
The Trallians would be included 
among ai λοιπαὶ here; comp. 77ad/. 
I. 

ev τιμῇ K.T-A.| 1.6. ‘not the honour 
which is implied in the ordinary 
greetings of men, but the honour 


᾿ 


2 ἐπισκόπῳ Σμυρναίων] GLA; om. g. 


ἀδιάκριτον] gLA (the order being πνεῦμα κεκτη- 


5 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] txt GL; al. g; add. 


LA have no sub- 


which belongs to the sphere of, which 
springs from, Jesus Christ.’ Thus it 
is a fuller phrase for ἀσπάζεσθαι ἐν 
Κυρίῳ (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 19). 

3. ἔρρωσθε] See the note Ep/es. 21. 

ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ] See above § 6 
(note). 

4. ἀδιάκριτον] ‘unwavering, stead- 
Jast?; comp. Trall. τ ἄμωμον διάνοιαν 
kal ἀδιάκριτον, and see the note on 
Ephes. 3. 

ὅς ἐστιν κιτιλ] See above § 7 (ac- 
cording to the reading adopted), and 
compare thestill stronger expressions, 
Trall. τι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλο- 
μένου, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτός, Ephes. 14 τὰ δὲ 
δύο ἐν ἑνότητι γενόμενα Θεός ἐστιν. 
These parallels seem to show that 
the antecedent to ὅς is not ἀδιάκριτον 
πνεῦμα, but the whole sentence, more 
especially the exhortation to concord; 
since unity is the prominent idea in 
all these passages. 


3. 


coy tr ET RALLIANS. 


' ὧν ‘ ie ἣ 
iy WAT tii OP, Khe bhi 
ROD ARAN TTA 

ΠΥ rit MAC " 


i " i 


fh ᾿ 


ἡ i 


ὑπ bal) 
na tan 


di 





Be EL Ete Ake NS 


‘ AFTER leaving Magnesia the road leads to Tralles,’ writes Strabo 

(xiv. 1, p. 648). Here again the route of the geographer accords 
with the sequence of the Ignatian letters (see above pp. 2, 97). As we 
have followed him from Ephesus to Magnesia, so now we follow him 
from Magnesia to Tralles. Magnesia is nearly equidistant between the 
two, being about fifteen miles from Ephesus, and about seventeen or 
eighteen from Tralles (Artemidorus in Strabo xiv. 2, p. 663, εἰς Τράλλεις 
...€ir εἰς Μαγνησίαν ἑκατὸν τετταράκοντα [στάδιοι], εἰς [Ἔφεσον δ᾽ ἑκατὸν 
εἴκοσιν, εἰς δὲ Σμύρναν τριακόσιοι εἴκοσιν). The road between Magnesia 
and Tralles runs from west to east on the right bank of the Mzeander, 
having the mountain range of Messogis to the north, and the river 
and plain to the south; ‘a broiling and dusty journey,’ ‘aestuosa et 
pulverulenta via,’ as it is described by Cicero (ad Aft. v. 14) who 
travelled along it in the latter part of July, on his way to his province 
—about the same time of the year (Hom. 10) when the delegates of 
the churches must have been traversing it in the opposite direction 
to pay their respects to Ignatius. It is described by Artemidorus as 
‘a high-road trodden by all who make the journey from Ephesus to 
the East’ (Strabo xiv. 2, p. 663, κοινή τις ὁδὸς τέτριπται ἅπασι τοῖς ἐπὶ 
τὰς ἀνατολὰς ὁδοιποροῦσιν ἐξ ᾿Εφέσου). For a description of this road 
see Hamilton Asta Minor τ. p. 533 sq. 

The ancient city of Tralles was situated on the right bank of the 
river, at some distance from it, and occupied a square or oblong 
plateau with steep sides, a prolongation of the hills which jut out 
from the main range of Messogis. It thus formed a strong natural 
fortress (Strabo xiv. 1, p. 648, ἵδρυται δ᾽ ἡ μὲν τῶν Τραλλιανῶν πόλις ἐπὶ 


\ 4 ” Ν Ν \ ΄, Δ ε + > a δι 
τραπεζίου τινὸς ἄκραν ἔχοντος ἐρυμνὴν καὶ τὰ κύκλῳ ὃ ἱκανώς εὐερκῆ). Τί 


144 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


is said to have owed its origin and its name to a colony of the Thracian 
Trallians (Strabo /.¢. p. 649). Its modern representative is Giizel- 
Hissar or the Beautiful Castle, also designated Aidin from the province 
of which it is the capital, to distinguish it from other places which have 
the same name. Ajdin Giizel-Hissar, which lies on the lower ground at 
the foot of the ancient city, is a large and flourishing town with a popu- 
lation variously estimated at from thirty-five or forty to sixty thousand 
people. It is the terminus of the Smyrna railway, and stands in the 
centre of a very fertile district, which has been described as the orchard 
of Asia Minor. Among its chief products now, as in ancient times 
(Athen. iii. p. 80), are figs and raisins for the Smyrna market. 

Owing to its natural advantages Tralles was always a wealthy place. 
Attalus, the Pergamene king, whose magnificence passed into a proverb 
(Hor. Carm. i. 1. 12), had a famous palace here (Plin. VV. A. xxxv. 49 ; 
see also the inscription on a coin, Tpad . attadoy, Mionnet Swpp/. vu. 
Ρ. 460), which under the Romans became the official residence of the 
high-priest of Tralles for the time being (Vitruv. 11. 8; comp. Boeckh 
C. 1 G. 2934 [ap|xveparevovtos). Somewhat later Cicero, in his defence 
of Flaccus, describes this city as ‘gravis locuples ornata civitas.’ De- 
nouncing an obscure person, one Mzeandrius, who claimed to represent 
the Trallians in their complaints against his client, he asks what had 
become of the illustrious names among their citizens; ‘Ubi erant 
illi Pythodori’, Aetideni, Lepisones, ceteri homines apud nos _noti, 
inter suos nobiles? ubi illa magnifica et gloriosa ostentatio civitatis ?’ 
If they are content to put forward such a mean representative, he 
adds, then let them abate their pride, ‘remittant spiritus, comprimant 
animos suos, sedent arrogantiam’ (270 Flacc. 22, 23). Some years 
later Strabo speaks of Tralles as surpassed by no other city of Asia 
in the opulence of its principal inhabitants (2 ¢. συνοικεῖται καλῶς εἴ τις 
ἄλλη τῶν κατὰ THY ᾿Ασίαν ὑπὸ εὐπόρων ἀνθρώπων), and in illustration of 
this fact he mentions that the Asiarchs or Presidents of the Games, 
who incurred great expenses in maintaining the splendour of their 
position, were constantly taken from its citizens. At the martyrdom 
of Polycarp the Asiarch Philippus, who presided, was a Trallian (Marz. 
Polyc. 12, 21). At the same time, while the chief citizens thus enjoyed 
high distinction at home, the lower population contributed to swell 


1 This Pythodorus is mentioned also 
by Strabo (xiv. 1, p. 649). He had 
amassed a ‘princely fortune’ (βασιλικὴν 
οὐσίαν) of more than 2000 talents, but 
unfortunately espoused the cause of 


Pompeius. Julius Czesar stripped him 
of his wealth in consequence, but he 
succeeded in again amassing as large a 
fortune as he had thus lost. His daughter 
was Queen of Pontus when Strabo wrote. 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 145 


the flood of greedy adventurers who sought their fortunes in the 
metropolis of the world and threatened to sweep away everything that 
was Roman in Rome (Juv. ill. 70). Altogether Tralles seems to have 
been a busy, thriving, purse-proud place, much given to display, and 
not altogether free from vulgarity. Cicero is not always as compli- 
mentary to this city, as it suited his purpose to be, when he was 
defending Flaccus’. 

When Ceesar landed in Asia after the battle of Pharsalia, the 
Trallians were not slow to pay their homage to success. A miracle 
sealed their allegiance. A statue of Caesar had been erected in the 
temple of Victory at Tralles. A palm-tree shot up through the hard 
pavement at the base of the statue ; and it is even said that the goddess 
herself turned round and locked upon the effigy of the conqueror 
(Caes. Bell. Civ. iii. 105, Plut. Vit. Caes. 47, Dion. Cass. xli. 61, Val. 
Max. 1. 6.12). Under Augustus, whom it regarded as its ‘founder’ 
(Bull. de Corr. Hellin. x. p. 516), the city took the name of Czsarea. A 
boastful inscription speaks of it as ‘the most splendid city of the 
Cesarean Trallians’ (Boeckh C. ZG. 2929 ἡ λαμπροτάτη Καισαρέων 
Ῥραλλιανῶών πόλις ; comp. Lebas et Waddington Juscr. 600 a, Papers of 
American School at Athens τ. pp. 94,113, Bull. de Corr. Hellén. x. p. 517). 
From this time forward till the end of the first Christian century the 
coins commonly bear the legend kaicapewNn . TpadAAIANWN, and some- 
times even κἀισὰρεων alone (Mionnet Iv. p. 181 sq, Suppl. vil. p. 462 sq; 
comp. Eckhel Doctr. Num. 11. p. 125). This loyalty to the emperors 
brought its return to the Trallians. During the reign of Augustus 
(about B.C. 26—24) the city was visited by an earthquake, a catastrophe 
to which this region was and is especially liable. The earthquakes at 
Tralles play a prominent part in the Sibylline Oracles (ili. 459, v. 287). 
On this occasion the destruction which it caused was very considerable 
(Strabo xii. p. 579 τὸ γυμνάσιον καὶ ἄλλα μέρη συνέπεσεν : Agathias Ii. 
17; p. 101, ἐσείσθη τε ἅπασα καὶ ἀνετράπη καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτῆς ὅ τι ἐσέσωστο: 
comp. «6.5 G. 2923). The emperor however came to its relief and 
contributed largely to the rebuilding. It seems to have recovered 
rapidly from the effects of this calamity ; for under Tiberius we find the 
Trallians competing with other great cities of Asia for the honour of 
erecting a temple to the emperor and senate, but they were passed over 
as parum validi (Tac. Ann. iv. 55)”. 


1 3 Philipp. 6 ‘Aricina mater. Trallia- flourishing cities of Asia Minor, such as 
nam aut Ephesiam putes dicere.’ Inthe  Tralles or Ephesus. 
eyes of a Roman a small country-town 2 The expression is commonly sup- 
like Aricia was far nobler than the most posed to mean insufficient wealth, but 


IGN. II. IO 


146 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 

The patron deity of the city was Zeus (C. Δ G. 2926 τῆς λαμπροτάτης 
moAews...tepas τοῦ Aws; comp. Bull. de Corr. Hellin. x. p. 516) sur- 
named Larasius (Mionnet Iv. pp. 179, 183, Supp. VII. pp. 462, 465, etc., 
Amer. School at Athens 1. pp. 110, 112; comp. Bull. de Corr. Hellén. 
Ill. p. 468; comp. Waddington J/nscr. 604), written also Larisius or 
Lariseeus by Strabo (ix. p. 440, xiv. p. 649)—these latter modes of 
spelling being adopted apparently with a reference to tradition or the 
theory that Tralles was colonized from the Thessalian Larissa (Strabo 
ix. Z.¢. ἴσως δὲ καὶ ὁ Λαρίσιος Ζεὺς ἐκεῖθεν ἐπωνόμασται) : and the high- 
priest already mentioned (p. 144) was doubtless the functionary of this 
god (Strabo xiv. Zc. ἔχων τὴν ἱερωσύνην τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Aapicaiov). But 
besides Zeus, we read also of the worship of Demeter (C. Z. G. 2937 
ἱέρεια Δήμητρος), of Dionysus (C. 7. G. 2919 Διονύσῳ Βακχίῳ τῷ δημοσίῳ ; 
comp. 70. 2934), and of A‘sculapius (Vitruv. vil. 1). Among the games 
celebrated at Tralles in honour of different deities are mentioned the 
Pythia (C..7. (G. 2932, 2935, Mionnet tv. pp. 181, Το. ΤΟ see Wad- 
dington Juscr. 598) and the Olympia (Wood's Déscoveries at Ephesus 
Inscr. vi. 14, 20, pp. 60, 70, Mionnet /. cc. etc.), as well as those bearing 
the name of Hercules (C. I. G. 2936 εἰν ἀέθλοισιν ἀταρβέ[ος] Ἣρακλῆος ; 
comp. Amer. School at Athens τ. p. 110). The city boasted of several 
buildings, of whose architectural character notices have been preserved 
(Vitruv. 11. 8, v. 9, vil. 1, 4). Nor was it without distinction as the 
mother of famous men. Of orators, it boasted Dionysocles and Damasus 
who was nicknamed σκόμβρος (Strabo xiv. p. 649), both doubtless 
representatives of the affected and florid Asiatic style, for which indeed 
this city was famous (Cic. Ovator 234 ‘quasi vero Trallianus fuerit De- 
mosthenes’). It had also an illustrious school of physicians, of whom 
two are mentioned by name, Philippus and Thessalus (Galen Of. ΧπΠι. 
Ρ. 105, XIV. p. 684; comp. C. 2. 2. 1.1256). At the time when Ignatius 
wrote, Tralles was represented in literature by a living writer, Phlegon, 
the freedman of Hadrian, whose works have partially survived the wreck 
of time (Muller /ragm. Hist. Graec. 111. p. 603 sq), but whose fame 


this interpretation may, I think, be ques- 
tioned. When we read just below ‘pau- 
lum addubitatum, quod Halicarnassii 
mille et ducentos per annos 2220 motu 
terrae mutavisse sedes suas, wivogue in 
saxo fundamenta templi adseveraverant,’ 
we are led to suspect that parum validi 
refers to the insecurity of the ground 


owing to earthquakes. Laodicea, which 


was also set aside on this occasion for 
the same reason as Tralles, is elsewhere 
commemorated for its wealth (Tac. Azz. 
xiv. 27, see Colossians pp. 6 sq, 43 sq); 
and Tralles itself must have been very 
flourishing at this time. On the other 
hand both localities were a prey to 
earthquakes. 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 147 


chiefly rests on the fact that he is quoted by Christian writers as a 
heathen witness to the preternatural darkness which shrouded the 
Crucifixion (Miiller 7c. p. 606 sq). At a much later date Tralles 
gave birth to an illustrious son, who has left to posterity a far more 
impressive memorial of himself than these third-rate literary efforts, 
Anthemius, the architect of S. Sophia at Constantinople (Procop. de 
Atdif. i. τ, p. 174 ed. Bonn.) Altogether Tralles was invested with 
sufficient interest in herself and her history to induce two authors at 
different times, Apollonius of the neighbouring Aphrodisias (Miiller 
Fragm. Hist. Graec. Vv. p. 310 Περὶ Τραλλέων) and Christodorus of the 
Egyptian Coptos (zd. p. 360 Πάτρια Τραλλέων), to take it as the subject 
of their writings. 

Of the evangelization of Tralles no record is preserved’; but the 
hypothetical account which has been given of the foundation of the 
Church in Magnesia (p. 102) will probably hold good for this neigh- 
bouring city also. We can hardly doubt that it owed its first know- 
ledge of the Gospel to the disciples of 5. Paul. Lying on the high- 
road between Ephesus and Laodicea, where flourishing churches were 
established through the agency of this Apostle almost half a century 
before Ignatius wrote, Tralles would not have been allowed for any long 
time to remain ignorant of the Gospel. This epistle however contains 
the earliest notice of Christianity in connexion with Tralles. 

‘Sub idem fere tempus,’ writes Livy, describing the Roman con- 
quest of these regions (xxxvil. 45), ‘et ab Trallibus et a Magnesia quae 
super Maeandrum est et ab Epheso legati...venerunt.’ The words would 
apply equally well to the incidents of the Christian conquest. These 
same three cities sent their delegates to meet Ignatius at Smyrna; 
but, while Ephesus and Magnesia were each represented by several 
persons (see above pp. 15, 102), Tralles, as being more distant, was con- 
tent with sending a single representative, its bishop Polybius (δ 1). At 
least no mention is made of any other name. The Epistle to the 
Trallians is written by the saint in grateful recognition of the attention 
thus shown to him through their bishop, whose grave and gentle de- 
meanour he praises (§$ 1, 3). 

The main purport of the letter is a warning against the poison of 
Docetism (§§ 6—11). As an antidote he recommends here, as else- 


1 The Greek books (Oct. 11) represent dation in fact, that a Philip, more pro- 
Philip the Evangelist, whom they identify bably however the Apostle than the 
with the Apostle, as the founder and first | Evangelist, resided in proconsular Asia; 
bishop of the Church of Tralles (Τράλλη, 566 Colossians p. 45 56. 

Menza). The story has this slender foun- 


[o—2 


148 THE ‘HPISTLE SORVIGNATIUS 

where, union among themselves, and submission to the bishop and 
other officers of the Church (δὲ 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13). The denunciation 
of Docetism is fuller and more explicit in this than in any other of 
his letters. On the other hand no allusion is made to the Judaic 
side of the heresy; but a comparison with his language elsewhere 
shows these false teachers to have been Judaizers also (see the notes, 
Magn. 8, 9, 11, Philad. inscr., 5, ὃ, Zrall. 9). He acquits the Trallians 
indeed of any complicity in this heresy hitherto, but he writes to put 
them on their guard (ὃ 8. Nor would the caution be unneeded. We 
might safely have assumed that in a busy thriving city like Tralles, 
situated in a district where Jews abounded (see Colossians p. 19 sq), 
there would be a considerable Jewish population which would act as a 
conductor to this heretical teaching, even if we had no direct in- 
formation of the fact. A document published by Josephus however 
(Ant. xiv. το. 20) mentions the opposition of the Trallians to an ordi- 
nance of the Roman governor giving permission to the Jews to keep 
their sabbaths and to celebrate other sacred rites without interruption ; 
and, whether this document be genuine or not, it is satisfactory 
evidence of their presence in Tralles in considerable numbers before 
the age of Ignatius. The interest moreover which the Sibylline Oracles 
take in Tralles (see above p. 145) points in the same direction’. 

Tralles does not occupy any prominent place in the subsequent 
history of Christianity ; but like Magnesia, it is represented from time 
to time at the great synods of the Church. At the Council of Ephesus 
the bishop of Tralles records his assent to the orthodox doctrine in 
explicit terms (Labb. Conc. 111. p. 1024 sq, ed. Colet). He signs his 
name in a way which furnishes an instructive parallel to the opening 
of the Ignatian letters; Ἡρακλέων, 6 καὶ Θεόφιλος, ἐπέγραψα (ὁ. Pp. 
1080; comp. p. 1222, where the second name is written in Latin 
Theophanius: elsewhere he gives his first name only, 11. pp. 996, 
1024, IV. p. 1135). At a later meeting held at Ephesus, the notorious 
Robbers’ Synod, Α.Ὁ. 449, Maximus bishop of Tralles commits himself 
to the opinions of the majority and to the heresy of Eutyches (Iv. p. 
894, 1117, 1178, 1187); but he appears afterwards to have recanted, 
for his assent to the decrees of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) is attested in his 
absence by his metropolitan, the bishop of Ephesus (Iv. p. 1503). 


1 May not the unidentified ΝΟ. placed at a. May not this Lud be 


(Tarlusa or Tralusa), which is men- 
tioned in the Jerusalem Talmud Zaanzth 
iv. 8, be our Tralles? The incident 
which took place at Tarlusa is elsewhere 


Lydia, rather than Lydda as Neubauer 
(Géogr. du Talm. pp. 80, 268) takes it? 
Tralles is sometimes spoken of as a 
Lydian city by classical writers, 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 149 


Amongst the letters of remonstrance addressed to Peter the Fuller, 
and purporting to have been written a few years after the Council of 
Chalcedon, is one bearing the name of Asclepiades bishop of Tralles 
(v. p. 241 sq). At later Councils of the Church also bishops of Tralles 
were present. 


The following is an avalysis of the epistle. 


‘IGnatTius to the CHURCH OF TRALLES, which has peace through 
the Passion of Christ, an apostolic and hearty greeting.’ 

‘Polybius your bishop informed me of your blameless disposition. 
Seeing him, I seemed to see you all, and I glorified God for your 
kindness in sending him (§ 1). Be obedient to your bishop, if you 
would live after Christ. Submit also to the presbyters. The deacons 
too must strive to please all men and avoid offence (§ 2). Let all 
reverence the deacons in turn, as also the bishop and the presbyters. 
I am persuaded you do so; for I have received a token of your love 
in your bishop, whose gravity and gentleness must command the 
respect of all (§ 3). I fear lest I should fall through spiritual pride. 
I wish to suffer, but I know not whether I am worthy. I lack gentle- 
ness (ὃ 4). Though I could reveal the mysteries of the heavens, yet 
I forbear for your sakes. Notwithstanding my fetters and my know- 
ledge of heavenly things, I am not yet a disciple (δ 5). I beseech you, 
touch not the rank weeds of heresy. The cup of poison is sweetened 
with honey to deceive you (§ 6). Shun these false teachers and cling 
to Christ and to your bishop. Whosoever stands aloof from the altar 
is not pure (§ 7). I say this by way of warning. Strengthen your- 
selves with faith and love, which are Christ’s flesh and blood. Give no 
occasion to the heathen to blaspheme (§ 8). Turn a deaf ear to the 
seducer.. Christ was truly born, truly lived, truly died, and truly 
rose again, even as He will truly raise us (δ 9). If all this had been 
mere semblance, as these men say, why am I in bonds? Why am I 
ready to fight with wild beasts (δ 10)? Avoid these rank growths which 
are not of the Father’s planting. They are no true branches of the 
Cross. The head cannot exist without the members (ὃ 11).’ 

41 greet you from Smyrna. I appeal to you by my bonds; be 
united and submit to your bishop and presbyters. Pray for me that 
I may attain my desire (ὃ 12). The Smyrnzans and Ephesians greet 
you. Pray for the Church in Syria. Once more, be obedient to your 
bishop and presbyters. I am devoted to you. I am in peril now, 
but God will answer my prayer. May you be found blameless in Him 


(ὃ 13). 


ΠΡΟ ΡΥ ΑΙ Ν Ogee 


ἼΓΝΑΤΙΟΟ, 6 καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἠγαπημένη Θεῷ πατρὶ 


9 na ΄- >) e ~ sf “ 
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐκκλησίᾳ ἁγίᾳ τὴ οὔση ἐν Τραλλεσιν 


TIPOC TPAAAIANOYC | τραλιανοῖς ἰγνάτιος G (not written τραλλιανοῖς, as given 


by Dressel); tgvatius tralestis L*; τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τραλλησίους (with the 
» number β in the marg.) g* (but 1 has the form ad ¢rallianos); ad trallianos A. 
I Θεᾷ... Χριστοῦ] GL; παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ g3 a deo patre et 


προς TpadAAlaNoyc] Steph. Byz. 
5. v. says of this city τὸ ἐθνικὸν Tpad- 
Auaves, and the statement is fully 
confirmed by evidence of all kinds. 
It is the only form on the coins, even 
to the latest date (Mionnet IV. p. 
178 sq, Suppl. VII. p. 439 sq). It 
alone occurs in inscriptions, whether 
fereek (C_7. G. 2926, 2920, 2035) or 
Latin (Orell. Zuzscr. 5298, 6232); nor 
does any other form appear to be 
found in any classical writer, either 
Greek or Latin. Boeckh indeed sup- 
poses that there was also a form 
Τραλλεῖς (C. 7. G.I. p. 584,comp. III. p. 
30), but his own data do not bear him 
out. The form Τραλλεῖς is indeed 
found elsewhere (see Schmidt-Al- 
berti Hesych. Zex. Iv. p. 168), but it 
refers toa Thracian people. Soagain 
Τράλλιοι Occurs (see Steph. Byz. s. v. 
Τραλλία), but it denotes the inhabi- 
tants of the Bithynian town Trallium. 
Pearson again (ad doc.) is wrong in 
saying ‘Cives etiam ab antiquis Lati- 
nis Tralles dicebantur, ut a Varrone 
apud Apuleium’: Varro personifies 
the city Tralles itself, Apul. AZol. 42 
‘Trallibus de eventu Mithridatici belli 


magica percontatione consulentibus.’ 
The word is most commonly spelled 
Τραλλιανός, but it occurs sometimes 
with a single A; e.g. Mionnet IV. p. 
187, Suppl. VII. p. 472. In the edict 
of Diocletian it is written indifferent- 
ly Τραλλιανός and Tpadiavos, Corp. 
Inscr. Lat. ἘΠ. ppalioi, 119s: 

On the other hand there is the 
greatest variety in the title of this 
Ignatian Epistle. The Greek of the 
genuine Ignatius and the Latin of 
the interpolator have the common 
form Tpartavoi, Tvralliant; while 
conversely the Greek of the interpo- 
lator and the Latin of the genuine 
Ignatius read instead Τραλλήσιοι, 
Tratesiz. Jerome again refers to it 
as ad Trallenses (Vir. Ill. 16); in the 
Parall. Rupef., ascribed wrongly to 
John of Damascus (OP. IL. p. 772; 
Lequien), it is entitled πρὸς Τραλλαεῖς ; 
and in the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistle 
Antioch. 13 the form seems to be 
Tpaddaio. Generally however the 
correct form is given. So for in- 
stance Theodt. Dza/. I (Iv. p. 51 ed. 
Schulze), Chron. Pasch. 1. p. 417 (ed. 
Bonn.), Sever. Ant. Fvagm. (preserv- 


TO 


THE TRALLIANS. 


[51 


κὰν ὅν / 3 “ \ ? , 2 / ? \ 
τῆς ᾿λσίας, ἐκλεκτῆ Kat ἀξιοθέῳ, εἰρηνευούση ἐν capKi 


domini nostri iesu christi A (where ef seems to be the commencement of a correction, 
preparatory to substituting the commoner form e¢ domino nostro etc., but not carried 


out). 
trallianus) A. 


ed in the Syriac; see I. p. 171)... So 
too the Greek translator of Jerome 
(Vir. fll. |. c.). It is clearly also 
the form which underlies the Ar- 
menian title of the epistle. On the 
other hand the fragments of the 
Syriac Version (see III. pp. 678, 682) 
give : A 
‘Titiliyu’ § These words are ob- 
viously corrupt; but possibly they 


stand for as\\q\, ‘Tralliyu) which 


cannot have been derived from Τραλ- 
λιανοί and might represent Τράλλιοι, 
but probably was invented by the 
Syriac transcriber or translator him- 
self. These facts show that the present 
heading of the Greek Ignatius, Tpa- 
λιανοῖς ᾿Ιγνάτιος, is very much later 
than the epistle itself, and has no 
authority whatever. I have therefore 
substituted a title which conforms to 
the others. 

IGNATIUS, called also Theophorus, 
to the CHURCH OF THE TRALLIANS, 
beloved of God, and having peace 
through the passion of Christ, hearty 
greeting after the Apostolic fashion. 

I. Θεῷ sratpi] On this dative, 
which stands for ὑπὸ Θεοῦ πατρός but 
does not, like it, directly describe 
the agent, so much as the person in- 
terested, see Winer Gramm. § 1xxxi. 
p- 274 (ed. Moulton), Kiihner § 423 
(II. p. 368 sq); comp. Neh. xili. 26 
ἀγαπώμενος τῷ Θεῷ. 

2. ἐν Τράλλεσιν] The plural form 
Τράλλεις is by far the most common 
name of this city, not only in Greek, 
but also in Latin (e.g. Juv. Saz. iii. 
70; Orell. Zzscr. 321, quoted below; 
C. J. L. i. 144). Very rarely how- 
ever the singular Τράλλις is found: 


2 Τράλλεσιν] g3 τράλεσιν G; tralesits L; in tralliano (from a nom. 
3 τῆς Actas] GL; urbe asiae A; om. g. 


e.g. C. Δ G. 2936 πόλιος δ᾽ ἐγέρηρέ pe 
δῆμος Τράλλεος εἰν ἀέθλοισιν κ.τ.λ., 
Inscr. in Agath. Azs¢. ii. 17 (p. 102, 
ed. Bonn.) ὥρθωσε Τράλλιν τὰν τότε 
κεκλιμέναν, Orac. “516. ili. 459 Τράλλις 
δ᾽ ἡ γείτων ᾿Εφέσου, 26. ν. 289 πολυή- 
pate Τρᾶάλλις (see C. Z. G. Il. pp. 557; 
1119), comp. Bekker Anecd. p. 1193 
Τράλλις, Τράλλιος : and so in Latin, 
Plin. WV. A. v. 29. 

3. τῆς ᾿Ασίας] The Roman pro- 
vince of ‘ Asia’ is meant ; comp. Orrell. 
lnscr. 132 ‘ Natus in egregiis Tralli- 
bus ex Asia,’ Agath. Azsz. ii. 17 
(p. 100) Τράλλεις ἡ πόλις ἡ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ 
νῦν καλουμένῃ χώρᾳ; comp. Strabo 
xiv. I (p. 649)., It is therefore a poli- 
tical designation. Ethnographically 
or topographically, Tralles was as- 
signed sometimes to Lydia (Steph. 
Byz. 5. v.), sometimes to Caria (Piin. 
lV. H. v. 29, Ptol. v. 2), sometimes to 
Ionia (Diod. Sic. xiv. 36, Mionnet 
Suppl. Vil. p. 477). Probably this 
last was the designation which the 
Trallians most affected, as neither 
Lydians nor Carians stood in very 
high repute (Cic. fro Flacc. 27). 
For similar instances of various eth- 
nological attributions in the case of 
towns in this neighbourhood see 
Colossians Ὁ. 1754. Theaddition τῆς 
᾿Ασίας is not quite so superfluous 
here as in other cases (e.g. Ephes. 
inscr.; see the note there), since there 
were other places bearing similar 
or identical names, e.g. Τράλλης in 
Phrygia, Τράλλις in Caria, Τραλλία 
or Τράλλεις in Illyria; see Benseler- 
Pape Worterb. d. Griech. Eigenn. 
s. vv. But our Tralles was far the 
most important of them all. 

ἐκλεκτῇ) Used probably, as here, of 


52 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


\ / “4:1 ~ σ΄ σ΄ 
καὶ πνεύματι τῷ πάθει ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος 


lo 5) ~ 3 3 \ 3 / «Ὁ \ 3 / > 
ἡμῶν EV TH ELS αὐτὸν ἀναστάσει: ἣν καὶ ἀσπαζομαι εν 
t 


σ- 7 ΄- ΄σ \ of 
TW πληρώματι EV ἀποστολικῴ χαρακτήρι, καὶ εὔχομαι 


΄ / 
πλεῖστα χαίρειν. 


1 πνεύματι] g; αἵματι GLA; see the lower note. 


τῷ πάθει] G3; et 


passione L; ἐν πάθει [6] (the context being much altered); om. A. 


5 ἀδιάκριτον] GL[A]; ἀνυπόκριτον g. 


churches in 1 Pet. v. 13 (συνεκλεκτή), 
2 Joh. 1,13. So also ἐκλεκτοί, ἐκλεκ- 
Tov γένος, of Christians generally, 1 
Pet. i. I, ii. 9. On this meaning of 
‘election,’ as distinguished from its 
more restricted sense, see the note on 
Colossians 111. 12. 

ἀξιοθέῳ] Like other compounds of 
ἄξιος, a favourite word with Ignatius ; 
Magn. 2, Rom. inscr., 1, Smyrn. 12. 
In om. inscr. it is applied to a 
church as here; in all the other ex- 
amples, to individuals. 

ev σαρκὶ κιτ.λ.] The existing Greek 
text ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι τῷ πάθει 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κιτιλ. can hardly 
stand; and I have thought it best 
to adopt from the interpolator’s text 
πνεύματι for αἵματι. There is the 
same confusion of πνεύματι and αἵ- 
ματι in the authorities in S7myrn. 3. 
With this reading we have the com- 
mon Ignatian combination ‘flesh and 
spirit’; see the note on Ephes. 10, 
and comp. especially the opening 
addresses in Magn. 1 ἕνωσιν εὔχομαι 
σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος, Rom. inscr. κατὰ 
σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις κοτ.λ.; 
Smyrn. 1 καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ 
οὐ σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύματι. 

The alternative would be to omit 
τῷ πάθει, as a gloss. To this mode 
of remedy the Armenian Version 
gives countenance. In this case the 
passage might be compared espe- 
cially with PAzlad. inscr. ἣν ἀσπά- 


Copa ἐν αἵματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; Smyrn. | 


c ΄ > > , » “ a 
I ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγαπῃ ἐν τῷ αἵματι 


Χριστοῦ. The sentence would then 


6 κατὰ φύσιν] GL; κατὰ 


be directed against Docetic error, 
and would signify ‘reposing peace- 
fully in the belief in and union witha 
truly incarnate Christ’; comp. Swyra. 
3 κραθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ 
αἵματι (ν. 1.). 

I. τῷ πάθει] ‘through the passion, 
For the prominence given to the 
work of the Passion in these epistles, 
see the note on “hes. inscr. ἡνω- 
μένῃ καὶ ἐκλελεγμένῃ ev πάθει ἀληθίνῳ. 

τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν] See the note on 
Magn. τι. 

2. ἐν τῇ κιτιλ.)] To be connected 
closely with τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν. These 
words define wherein Jesus Christ is 
the Christian’s hope. 

ἐν τῷ πληρώματι] ‘27 the pleroma, 
the sphere of the Divine graces. It 
is no mundane salutation which the 
writer sends; see the note on Magu. 
15 ev τιμῇ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. For the 
sense οἱ πλήρωμα see the note on. 
Ephes. inscr. Other explanations, 
such as ‘in the whole body of the 
Trallian Church’ (Smith ad /oc.), or 
‘in the plenitude of Apostolic power’ 
(Bunsen Sr. p. 139, interpreting it 
by what follows), or ‘in the fulness 
of Christian good wishes’ (Zahn 
I. v. A. p. 416), seem to be excluded 
by the use of the word or by the 
grammar of the sentence. 

3. ἐν ἀποστολικῷ k.7-A.] ‘after the 
manner of the Apostles’ It is a salu- 
tation which followed the precedent 
set in the Apostolic epistles. Another 
interpretation is ‘in my Apostolic 
character or office’ eg. Vedel. ad 


> 


1 TO THE TRALLIANS. 


153 


I "Dn ὃ / \ 3 7; 9 ε ΄σ 
- μῶμον laVOLAV Kal ἀδιάκριτον εν ὑπομονῇ 
‘ 


af CA ΛΟ 3 \ > 2 \ \ 
eyywy ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ κατὰ χρῆσιν ἄλλα κατα φυσιν' 


\ / / / ec ΄σ ε 
καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ὑμῶν, ὃς 


/ ΄σ ΄σ ΄σ 
παρεγένετο θελήματι Θεοῦ καὶ ᾿]Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν 


κτῆσιν σ; sagacz sapientia A. 


7 μοι] GLA; om. g* (Mss, but ins. 1). 


8 Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL; domini nostri tesu christi A; θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ 


κυρίου Ἶ. Χ. κ-τ.λ. σ. 


oc. p. 18, Bunsen .57. p. 139, Lipsius 
Aecht. p. 56; but this would make 
the writer contradict himself, as Zahn 
has pointed out (J. v. A. p. 415); 
for just below, § 3, he disclaims 
giving them orders ὡς ἀπόστολος. 
On the other hand see Mart. Lgn. 
Ant. τ ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀποστολικός, 
but this is not his own estimate of 
himself. 

I. ‘I know how blameless and 

steadfast ye are naturally. This 
knowledge I have obtained from 
your bishop Polybius, who is with 
me in Smyrna, and has so warmly 
sympathized with my bonds that in 
seeing him I have seemed to see 
you all. I heartily welcome your 
kindly interest as manifested through 
him, and I am full of thanksgiving 
that ye show yourselves thus fol- 
lowers of God.’ 
. 5. “Apopov κτὶλ.}) See the eulogy 
of the Trallians in Apoll. Tyan. £Z/. 
69 (Philostr. Of. 11. p. 364, ed. Kay- 
ser) εἰς τήνδε THY ἡμέραν. οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμι 
προκρῖναι Τραλλιανῶν ὑμῶν οὐ Λυδούς, 
οὐκ ᾿Αχαιούς, οὐκ Ἴωνας «.T.A....vov δὲ 
μόνον ὑμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καιρὸς ἄνδρας τε 
τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν, ὡς πολὺ κρείτ- 
τους τῶν παρ᾽ ἑτέροις ἀρετῇ καὶ λόγῳ 
K.T.A. 

ἀδιάκριτον xk.T.r.] ‘unwavering, 
steadfast, in patient endurance.’ For 
ἀδιάκριτον see the note on Lfhes. 3. 
Here it is closely connected with ἐν 
ὑπομονῇ, which probably refers to 
some persecutions undergone by 
the Trallian Church. 


6. ov κατὰ χρῆσιν k.t.r.| ‘not from 
habit but by nature’; comp. Ephes. 
I ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει...τὸ συγγενικὸν 
ἔργον, Barnab. I οὕτως ἔμφυτον 
δωρεᾶς πνευματικῆς χάριν εἰλήφατε, 
26.9 ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς διδαχῆς 
αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ὑμῖν. See Cope’s 
note on Avzstot. Rhet. i. 7. 33. For 
the opposition of φύσις and χρῆσις 
see Plut. Mor. 1115 F, 1116 A; comp. 
the passages in Jahn’s Methodius p. 
124. The same contrast is repre- 
sented elsewhere as between φύσις 
and ἄσκησις (Plut. 2707. 226 A); be- 
tween φύσις and παιδεία (Plut. Viz. 
Them. 2); between φύσις and ἔθος 
(ec: Arist. ΖΝ CPS p.137o. ΕἾΠΕ: 
Mor. 132 A); between φύσις and 
τροφή (Plat. 77m. 20 A, Legg. 961 B); 
between φύσις and θέσις (Macar. 
Magn. ii: 13, iv. 26);rete.. » This: 1s 
one of those passages in which the 
language of Ignatius takes a Gnostic 
tinge; see Iren. i. 6. 4 ἡμᾶς μὲν yap 
ἐν χρήσει τὴν χάριν λαμβάνειν λέ- 
γουσι...αὐτοὺς δὲ ἰδιόκτητον...ἔχειν 
τὴν χάριν : comp. Clem. Alex. S¢vom. 
11. 3 (p. 433). The interpolator has 
κτῆσιν, where φύσιν stands in the 
text of the genuine Ignatius, and the 
passage of Irenzeus might seem to 
favour this. But the alteration was 
doubtless made to obtain the com- 
moner antithesis of χρῆσις and 
κτῆσις (e.g. Philo Leg. ad Caz. 2, 11. 
p. 547), ‘temporary occupation’ and 
‘absolute possession, ‘wswzs’ and 
‘mancipium’; comp. Cic. Fam. vii. 
29 ‘sum χρήσει μὲν tuus, κτήσει δὲ 


154 


THE EPISTLE 


OF IGNATIUS [1 


€ / 5 ΄σ 
Cuvpyn, καὶ οὕτως μοι συνεχάρη δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ 


~ e/ A ~~ / ~~ 9 9 ~ a 
᾿Ιησοῦ, ὥστε με TO πάν πλήθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. 


/ 53 \ \ \ af > 3 “ 
ἀποδεξάμενος οὖν τὴν κατα Θεὸν εὔνοιαν δι αὐτοῦ, 


ΣΝ 7 ς \ e “- ε ᾽ \ 3} Θ ~ 

ἐδόξασα εὑρων ὑμάς, ὡς ἔγνων, μιμητὰς ὄντας Θεοῦ. 
ε ΄σ ΄ ς 

Il. Ὅταν γὰρ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑποτάσσησθε ὡς 5 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, φαίνεσθέ μοι οὐ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῶντες, 


1 Χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ] LAg; Ἰησοῦ χριστῷ G. 
G; speculer L; vidi A: see the lower note. 
4 ἐδόξασα] gloriatus sum Li; glorificavt dominum 


bonam mentem vestram A. 
meum tesum christum A; ἔδοξα Gg*. 
οτος A> Om. ν. 
om. Dam-Rup 5. 


2 θεωρῆσαι] g; θεωρῆσθε 
3 εὔνοιαν] GL; ὑμῶν εὔνοιαν g3 


ὡς ἔγνων] GL; guomodo et didi- 


5 ws Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] GLS,A Sev-Syr 23 ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ [g]; 
6 κατὰ ἀνθρώπους] secundum homines L; sicut homines 


Sev-Syr 2; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον Gg Dam-Rup; 7 corpfore S,A: see the lower note. 


Attici nostri: ergo fructus est tuus, 
mancipium illius.’ At the same time 
the substitution of κτῆσις for φύσις 
would recommend itself as getting 
rid of a questionable doctrine. 

I. συνεχάρη δεδεμένῳ] ‘She re- 
joiced with, or perhaps, ‘congratu- 
lated me in my bonds.’ For ovyxa- 
ρῆναι comp. Lphes. 9, Philad. 10, 
Smyrn. 11, and see note on Philzp- 
pians 11. 17. 

2. ev αὐτῷ] i.e. as being the re- 
presentative of the whole body. For 
this use of the preposition comp. 
Magn. 6 ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις προσ- 
ono, Lphes. τ ἐν ᾽οΟνησίμῳ. 

θεωρῆσαι] This reading is to be 
preferred. There seems to be no 
good authority for the middle θεω- 
ρεῖσθαι, though it appears in some 
corrupt texts of classical authors; 
see Dindorf and Hase Steph. Thes. 
5. Υ. 

3. ἀποδεξάμενος] ΑΡΟ]]. Tyan. 22:2. 
69 addressing the Trallians says, τίς 
οὖν αἰτία, δ᾽ ἣν ἀποδέχομαι μὲν ὑμᾶς 
KoTA. 

κατὰ Θεὸν] On this Ignatian phrase 
see the note Magu. I. 

εὔνοιαν] SC. ὑμῶν, which the inter- 


polator inserts for clearness. The 
Trallians appear to have sent some 
substantial proofs of their goodwill 
by the hands of Polybius. 

4. ἐδόξασα] ‘J gave glory to 
God.’ For this absolute use comp. 
Polyc. τ ᾿Αποδεχόμενός σου τὴν ἐν 
Θεῴ γνώμην.. ὑπερδοξάζω, and see 
also Ecclus. ΧΙΠ1, 28 δοξάζοντες ποῦ 
ἰσχύσωμεν; The reading ἔδοξα is self- 
condemned, independently of au- 
thority. 

ὡς ἔγνων] “ας 7 had been informed, 
referring back to the foregoing 
ἔγνων. 

μιμητὰς κιτ.λ.] See the note Ephes. 
i 

II. ‘When ye submit to your 
bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye live 
after Jesus Christ, who died that 
you through faith in His death 
might yourselves escape death. Do 
nothing without your bishop; and 
be obedient also to the presbyters 
as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ. 
The deacons likewise must study 
to satisfy all men; for they are 
ministers of Christ’s mysteries, not 
of meats and drinks. Therefore it 
is their duty to shun all blame, 





POOTHE *TRALLIANS, 


11] 


ἀλλὰ κατὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν δι ἡμᾶς ἀποθανόντα 


155 


/ / > \ / 5) > \ ? ΄ 
ἵνα πιστεύσαντες εἰς Tov θάνατον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν 
7 
ἐκφύγητε. 

LES If \ / ε “- 3 ΠΣΡΩΣ - / 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν πράσσειν ὑμᾶς: ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθε 


~ SS e/ ~ 2 
ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε, ἄνευ 


\ ~ B / cn ~ 9 4% af ΄σ 
καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, ὡς [τοῖς] ἀποστόλοις ᾿Ϊησοῦ 


~ ~ 3 7 ε > > "ey / > > ~ 
Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμών, ἐν ᾧ διάγοντες [ἐν αὐτῷ] 


7 ἡμᾶς] GS,Ag Dam-Rup Sev-Syr; vos L. 
g@; credentes L; quando creditis S,A Sev-Syr. 


10 πράσσειν] ἃ; πράττειν g. 
14]; the authorities for g* vary. 


Χριστοῦ] GLS,g Antioch; χριστοῦ A. 
om. GL; al. A. 


as they would shun the fire.’ 

6. κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῶντες] So too 
Rom. 8. See also Ephes. 9 kar 
ἀνθρώπων βίον (according to the read- 
ing proposed). S. Paul uses the 
singular κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (see the note 
on Galatians ili. 15); and the re- 
miniscence of S. Paul has doubtless 
led to the substitution of ἄνθρωπον 
for ἀνθρώπους in some texts here. 

8. ἵνα πιστεύσαντες k.t.A.] Comp. 
Magn. 5 ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτως ἔχωμεν το 
ἀποθανεῖν κ.τ.λ. 

9. ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε] Comp. 2165. 
4, with the note. 

ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου 
Magn. 7 with the note. 

II. τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ] See the note 
on Ephes. 2. 

ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις κιτ.λ.}] They 
stand in the same relation to the 
bishop, as the Apostles stood to 
Jesus Christ. So again Smyrn. ὃ; 
comp. Magn. 6 τῶν πρεσβυτέρων eis 
τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων (with 
the notes), and below ὃ 3. Con- 
versely the Apostles are called πρεσ- 
βυτέριον ἐκκλησίας in Phzlad. 5. 

12. ἐν @ κιτὰλ!] ie. ‘if we live in 


Καλὴ See 


8 πιστεύσαντες] G3 πιστεύοντες 


9 ὥσπερ] GLS,A; ὅσαπερ δ. 


ὑποτάσσεσθε] (5:4; ὑποτάσσεσθαι 1, [Antioch 
Il τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ] GL*g Antioch; pres- 
byteris S,; sacerdotibus A (see below on § 7). 


τοῖς] G; om. g Antioch. Ἰησοῦ 
12 ἐν αὐτῷ] gS, (see the next note); 


Him now, we shall be found in Him 
hereafter.’ But in order to get this 
sense it seems necessary to insert 
ἐν αὐτῷ, which appears in the inter- 
polator’s text. The words without 
this addition can hardly have this 
meaning, since ἐν ᾧ cannot well be 
made to do double duty. If, intend- 
ing this sense, Ignatius omitted ev 
αὐτῷ, we must regard this as an illus- 
tration of the hasty writing in which 
these epistles abound and which is 
explained by the circumstances of 
the writer (see above, pp. 28, 110, 159). 
An alternative would be to read the 
conjunctive, ἐν ᾧ διάγοντες εὑρεθησώ- 
μεθα ‘in whom may we be found 
living’; but the existence of a future 
conjunctive is very questionable (see 
Winer Gramm. xiii. p. 89), and our 
Greek authorities here do not coun- 
tenance it. So too in Rom. 4 wa... 
εὑρεθήσομαι (NOt iva...evpeOnowpat) is 
substituted by the interpolator for 
ἵνα...γένωμαι of Ignatius. In 1 Cor. 
xiii. 3 the authorities show that the 
alternative is between the fut. indic. 
ἵνα καυθήσομαι (not iva καυθήσωμαι) 
and the conj. aor. ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. 


156 


εὑρεθησόμεθα. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [a1 


~ \ \ \ / a 
det δὲ Kal Tous διακόνους ὄντας μυστη- 


ρίων ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον πάσιν ἀρέσκειν" 


3 \ β ΄ \ “ ? ὃ V4 at A 3 
ου γὰρ ρωματῶωῶν Kat TWOTWY Εἰσιν taKOVOL, ἃ E€K= 


I εὑρεθησόμεθα] Gg* (Mss, but 1 has znveniamur); inveniamur 1, (= evpe- 
θησώμεθα, if it be not a slip of a Latin scribe). The Oriental Versions are; z¢a 
ut inventamur quod in ipso (NI ID NA=eodem) vivimus S, (which seems 
certainly to have read ἐν avrg and perhaps εὑρεθησώμεθα); ut inveniatur vita 
vestra cum 115. A (a corrupt text of a loose rendering of the Syriac). μυσ- 
τηρίων] g; μυστήριον G. The versions, which all have the genitive, are as fol- 
lows; dtaconos mintstros existentes mysteriorum Ly, (ministros being supplied to 
assist the sense); dtaconos qui sunt filit mysterit S,; diaconis gui sunt partictpes 
mystertorum A. 2 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS,A; χριστοῦ ἰησοῦ g. πᾶσιν] 
GLS, Antioch 14; deo et hominibus A; om. g. 3 βρωμάτων] ἃ 
Antioch; ciborum L; βρωτῶν g. 4 ὑπηρέται] GLg Antioch; om. 
5,A. οὖν] GLg Antioch; et prvopterea A; om. Sj. αὐτοὺς] GS, Ag* 
(but 1 praecepta eorum observare) Antioch; vos L (Mss, doubtless a scribe’s error 
for ¢0s). φυλάσσεσθαι τὰ ἐγκλήματα) ἃ (φυλάσσεσθε, but corrected by a 
later hand) L Antioch; τὰ ἐγκλήματα φυλάττεσθαι g. 6 Ὁμοίως] G 
Antioch ; simzliter εὐ L; et ita 511 e¢ (om. ὁμοίως) A; al. g. τοὺς διακόνους... 
πατρός] τοὺς διακόνους ὡς ἰησοῦν χριστόν, ὡς καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα υἱὸν τοῦ 
πατρός G; diaconos ut mandatum iesu christi, et eptscopum ut tesum christum 


I. δεῖ δὲ καὶ κιτ.λ.] This is not an 
injunction of obedience due to the 
deacons, as the preceding sentence 
might suggest, but a statement of 
requirements from them, as the fol- 
lowing words clearly show. Not their 
claims, but their duties, are enforced. 

τοὺς διακόνους ὄντας x.T.A.] ‘those 
who are deacons (ministers) of the 
mysteries of Fesus Christ” This 
assertion is justified by what fol- 
lows, οὐ yap βρωμάτων κιτιλ. The 
reference here is to the deacons, and 
not (as some have supposed) to the 
presbyters. See Smyrz. 10 ὡς δια- 
κόνους Θεοῦ [Χριστοῦ], Polyc. PAzzl. 5 
ὁμοίως διάκονοι ἄμεμπτοι.. .ὡς Θεοῦ καὶ 
Χριστοῦ διάκονοι καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπων. 
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. I ὡς ὑπηρέτας Χρι- 
στοῦ καὶ οἰκονόμους μυστηρίων Θεοῦ, 
which passage seems to have in- 
fluenced the expressions here. In 
a later writer διακόνους μυστηρίων 
would probably refer to their at- 


tendance on the priest when offi- 
ciating at the eucharist. But such 
a restriction of μυστηρίων would be 
an anachronism in Ignatius. He 
apparently uses the word in the 
same wide sense in which it is used 
by S. Paul, ‘revealed truths.’ 

2. κατὰ πάντα] According to S. 
Paul’s example, 1 Cor. x. 33 καθὼς 
κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω. 

3. βρωμάτων κιτ.λ.)] See Rom. 
xiv. 17, Col. 11.916) Heb.ax 10.4 ΠΠς 
diaconate was originally instituted 
διακονέϊν τραπέζαις (Acts vi. 2); and 
these less spiritual duties of the 
office, such as the distribution of 
alms, the arrangement of the agape, 
and the like, tended to engross the 
interests of the deacon (1 Tim. iii. 
8 sq). He needed therefore to be 
reminded that the diaconate had a 
higher aspect also. The mode of 
expression here may have been sug- 
gested by Rom. xiv. 17. 


11] TO THE TRALLIANS. Ἵν, 


κλησίας Θεοῦ ὑπηρέται: δέον οὖν αὐτοὺς φυλάσσεσθαι 
5 τὰ ἐγκλήματα ὡς πῦρ. 
ii}, 


ε > ΄σ 7 ς \ \ 3 / A 7 
ως ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, WS Καὶ TOV ETLOKOTOY OVTaA TuUT7OYV 


+ / ΕῚ / \ / 
Ouoiws πάντες ἐντρεπέσθωσαν Tous διακόνους 


existentem filium patris L; @ diaconts sicut a tesu christo et ab episcopo qui est in 
forma (SDB) patris S, (for NDDBW see the note on Magn. 6); a diaconis sicut 
a iesu christo et ab episcopo sicut a patre deo A; αὐτοὺς [i.e. τοὺς διακόνους] ὡς 
χριστὸν ἰησοῦν, ov φύλακές εἰσιν τοῦ τόπου, ws Kal ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν 
ὅλων τύπος ὑπάρχει σ᾽; τοὺς διακόνους ὡς ἰησοῦν χριστὸν καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὡς τὸν 
πατέρα Antioch. Comparing these authorities we arrive at these results. (1) In 
the first clause we must reject the reading of L ὡς ἐντολὴν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, as standing 
alone against all the others (GS,Ag Antioch) which support the simple ws ἰησοῦν 
χριστὸν (g however transposing and reading χριστὸν ἰησοῦν, but dominum tesum 
christum 1). (2) In the second clause the corrupt υἱὸν of GL must certainly be 
rejected in favour of τύπον, which appears in Sg and is loosely paraphrased in A 
Antioch. (3) The second ws is somewhat awkward, and the sentence would gain by 
its rejection or transposition, καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ws ὄντα τύπον k.T.X. (or in this case 
we might perhaps read ws ἔντυπον for ws ὄντα υἱὸν, as nearer to the traces of the 
MS); but it appears in this place in Gg, while on the other hand the versions are 


not of much account in such a case. 
as it is capable of explanation. 
in both clauses see the lower note. 


4. αὐτοὺς φυλάσσεσθαι x.rd.| It 
is S. Paul’s injunction also, that the 
deacons should be ἀνέγκλητοι, 1 Tim. 
iii. 10; comp. Polyc. PAzl. 5, Apost. 
Const. ii. 10, vili. 18. The reading 
αὐτῶν is condemned by the authori- 
ties even in the interpolator’s text, 
and it interferes with the sense. 

bi fAt the same time let>the 
laity pay respect to the deacons as 
to Jesus Christ, while they reverence 
the bishop as the type of God the 
Father and the presbyters as the re- 
presentatives of the Apostles. With- 
out these three orders no body of 
men deserves the name of a Church. 
This rule, I am persuaded, you fol- 
low; for I have with me a pattern 
of your love in the person of your 
bishop, whose gentle demeanour is 
in itself a powerful lesson. Even 
the godless heathen must reverence 


It ought probably therefore to be retained, 
(4) For an account of the anomalous reading of L 


him. I spare you for the love I 
have towards you. Though I might 
have written more strongly, I for- 
bear; nor do I venture, being a 
convict, to command you as if I 
were an Apostle.’ 

6. Ὁμοίως] As the deacons are 
required to consult the wishes of the 
laity, so zz like manner must the 
laity pay respect to the deacons. 
For this vecthrocation introduced by 
opoiws, even where the duty is not 
identical, comp. I Pet. ili. 7. The 
πάντες here corresponds to the πᾶσιν 
of the preceding sentence. As the 
deacons have duties fowards all, 
so they claim respect from a1. 

7. ὡς Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] This start- 
ling comparison of the deacon to 
Jesus Christ rests on the assumption 
that the relations of the deacon to 
the bishop are analogous to those 


158 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


~ / \ A 7 e / a 
τοῦ πατρός, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέδριον Θεοῦ 


\ ε , 3 / \ / 5 / 
καὶ [ὡς] σύνδεσμον ἀποστόλων' χωρίς τούτων ἐκκλησία 


οὐ καλεῖται. 


2 καὶ ws] G Antioch; καὶ (om. ws) LS,A [g]. 


\ ie / ε lon « » A 
περὶ WV πέπεισμαι ὑμᾶς οὕτως ἔχειν. TO 


σύνδεσμον] conjunctionem 


L; δεσμὸν Antioch; σύνδεσμος G; g also has σύνδεσμος, but as a nominative, the 


of Christ tothe Father; comp. “2052. 
Const. ii. 26 ὁ δὲ διάκονος τούτῳ [τῷ 
ἐπισκόπῳ] παριστάσθω.. καὶ λειτουρ- 
γείτω αὐτῷ ἐν πᾶσιν ἀμέμπτως, ὡς ὁ 
Χριστός, ποιῶν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, τὰ 
ἀρεστὰ ποιεῖ τῷ πατρὶ πάντοτε, 2b. 30 
ὡς γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς 
οὐδὲν ποιεῖ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὁ διάκονος ἄνευ 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου K.T.A., 20. 44 πάντα μὲν 
ὁ διάκονος τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀναφερέτω, ὡς 
ὁ Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί κιτιλ. See also 
the note on ἤΖαρι. 6. 

The preponderance of authority 
seems to show very decidedly that 
this is the original text. But if so, 
how can we account for the reading 
of the Latin translator? It is pro- 
bably to be explained as having 
arisen from a combination of two 
readings, τοὺς διακόνους ws ἐντολὴν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and TOUS διακόνους 
ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. The former of 
these was probably in the first in- 
stance a marginal illustration taken 
from another passage, Swzyri. ὃ τοὺς 
δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς Θεοῦ ἐν- 
τολήν, Or an emendation suggested 
by this parallel. It would then dis- 
place the original reading ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστόν in the text; and this latter 
would be inserted just below, where 
it seemed to be required, the corrupt 
reading ὄντα υἱὸν (for ὄντα τύπον) 
having set the transcriber on the 
wrong track. 

ὡς καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον x.t.A.| The 
sentence would be rendered much 
smoother, if ws were transposed and 
placed before ὄντα rimov. As the 
text of this epistle here and in the 


immediate neighbourhood (see be- 
low ἀγαπῶν ὑμᾶς κιτ.λ.) has been much 
tumbled about, such a change would 
perhaps be justifiable. I have pre- 
ferred however to retain it in the 
place where it is found in most 
authorities, because it thus introduces 
the azalogy of the relation between 
Jesus Christ and the Father as ex- 
plaining the previous injunction. 

τύπον Tov πατρός] See the note on 
Magn. 6 εἰς τύπον Θεοῦ. 

I. ὡς συνέδριον «.t.r.] ‘as the 
council of God and (as) the band of 
the Apostles” As the bishop sits in 
the place of God, so too the corona 
of presbyters (Zagu. 13) is compared 
to the company of the Apostles, 
seated, as it were, on thrones encir- 
cling the Eternal Throne. The ter- 
restrial hierarchy is thus a copy of 
the celestial ; comp. Rev. iv. 4 κυκλό- 
θεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνοι εἴκοσι τέσσαρες" 
καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρας 
πρεσβυτέρους καθημένους (comp. Vil. 
11). The συνέδριον τοῦ Θεοῦ is de- 
fined by σύνδεσμον τῶν ἀποστόλων ; 
and the second ὡς, which is dis- 
credited by external authority, inter- 
feres somewhat with the sense. On 
this comparison of the presbyters to 
the Apostles, and on the arrangement 
in the early Church which suggested 
it, see the notes on Magn. 6 συνέδριον 
τῶν ἀποστόλων, 20. 13 στεφάνου Tod 
πρεσβυτερίου. For this concrete sense 
of σύνδεσμος, signifying an aggregate 
and so either ‘a bundle’ of letters 
or ‘a band’ of persons, see the note 
on Colossians iii. 14. It occurs with 


111] 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 


159 


\ > / ~ / e ~ 5) 5) 
yap ἐξεμπλάριον τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν ἔλαβον καὶ ἔχω 


΄σ ΄σ > ’ ΄σ “πὶ > \ \ 7 
5 μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑμῶν, οὗ αὐτὸ TO κατά- 


στημα μεγάλη μαθητεία, ἡ δὲ πραότης αὐτοῦ δύναμις" 


construction having been changed. 
vestrae 1). 


much the same meaning as here, 
though in a bad sense ‘a confede- 
racy, a conspiracy,’ in 2 Kings xi. 14, 
moo, )6r,..1..9: 

It will thus appear that both the 
comparison of the deacons to Jesus 
Christ and that of the presbyters to 
the Apostles flow naturally, though in 
separate channels, from the idea of 
the bishop as the type of God. But 
the combined result is incongruous, 
for the presbyters are made to occupy 
a lower place in the comparison than 
the deacons. We may suppose there- 
fore that the last clause τοὺς δὲ πρεσ- 
βυτέρους κιτ.λ. was added as an after- 
thought by Ignatius, without noticing 
the incongruity. This is only one 
among many indications of extreme 
haste, to be explained by the circum- 
stances under which these letters 
were written (Rom. 5). 

2. χωρὶς τούτων κ.τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘With- 
out these three orders no church has 
a title to the name, deserves to be 
called a church’. This seems to be 
the meaning of ov καλεῖται, ‘is not 
spoken of’, ‘is not recognised’, as 
in Heb. iii. 13 ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον 
καλεῖται ; comp. Polyc. 7 os δυνήσεται 
θεοδρόμος καλεῖσθαι, Magn. 14 ὅθεν 
οὐκ ἄξιός εἶμι καλεῖσθαι. 

3. περὶ ὧν) ‘concerning which 
things’, not referring to τούτων, but 
to the general injunctions of the pre- 
ceding sentence. 

4. e&eumddpiov] See the note on 
Ephes. 2. 

τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν] This is treated 
by Jacobson as a mere compliment- 


4 ὑμῶν] GLA; om. g (Mss, but add. 


5 μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ] G3; per’ ἐμαυτοῦ g (edd., but see the Appx). 


ary form of address, like ‘dilectio 
vestra, ἡ εὐσέβεια ὑμῶν, ‘your grace,’ 
‘your holiness,’ and the like. Pear- 
son explains § 13 ἡ ἀγάπη Σμυρναίων 
and Smyrz. 172 ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφῶν 
(comp. λείας. 11) similarly. Any 
such usage however would be an ana- 
chronism here. For ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν 
comp. Rom. 1, 9. Polybius was an 
illustration of their affectzon for the 
martyr. 

5. ἑαυτοῦ] For ἐμαυτοῦ; see Winer 
Gramm. xxii. Ὁ. 188. 

κατάστημα] ‘denteanour’; comp. 
Plut. Vit. Marcell. 23 οὔτε φόβῳ τὴν 
δίκην οὔτε θυμῷ πρὸς τοὺς Συρακοσίους 
τοῦ συνήθους μεταβαλὼν καταστήμα- 
τος, ἀλλὰ πράως πάνυ καὶ κοσμίως 
τὸ τῆς δίκης τέλος ἐκδεχόμενος. The 
derivation suggests, though it does 
not require, the idea of ‘composure, 
‘ guietude, ‘staidness’ (comp. Orig. 
c. Cels. ili. 80 τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς 
κατάστημα); and hence καταστηματι- 
kos signifies ‘of calm demeanour,’ 
as in Plut. Vzt. Κῶ Gracch. 2 id<a 
προσώπου καὶ βλέμματι καὶ κινήματι 
πρᾶος καὶ καταστηματικὸς ἦν. See 
Wetstein on Tit. il. 3, where κατά- 
στημα occurs. The view of Hammond 
(on Tit. ii. 3), that κατάστημα signifies 
rank, office (from καθιστάναι ‘to ap- 
point,’ Acts vi. 3, Tit. i. 5), is desti- 
tute of support from usage. 

6. μεγάλη μαθητεία] τ Pet. ii. 1 
ἵνα...διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς 
ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται. See also the 
language which Ignatius uses respect- 
ing Onesimus of Ephesus (ZPfes. 6) 
and Damas of Magnesia (JZagm. 3). 


160 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


«Ὁ , \ \ 5. 3 / 3 - 
ὃν λογίζομαι καὶ τοὺς ἀθέους ἐντρέπεσθαι. ἀγαπῶν 


ε = « / / / / 
ὑμᾶς οὕτως φείδομαι, συντονώτερον δυνάμενος γράφειν 


ὑπὲρ τούτου" [ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ 


€ \ δ \ > ΄σ΄ 
ἰκανον éavTov | εις TOUTO 


als e/ δ) 7 ε 3 , ε 7 
ὠήθην, «νὰ WY κατάκριτος ως αποσπτολος υμιν διατασ- 


σωμαι. 


1 ὃν] GLg*. There is a plural in A, which probably therefore read ὧν. Thisisa 
possible reading, but ἐντρέπεσθαι elsewhere in Ignatius takes an accus. (see the note 
on Magn. 6). 
δυνάμενος γράφειν ὑπὲρ τούτου εἰς τοῦτο ῳήθην x.T.X. G; dtligentes quod non parco 
ipsum aligualem potens scribere pro illo, in hoc existimer ut εἴς. L; etiam quoniam 
amo vos, parco vobis scribere vehementer et glorificare; sed et non sum sufficiens sicut 


> a 3} ᾽ ao e ’ a e Nv Γ 
ἀγαπῶν... φήθην κ.τ.λ.] ἀγαπῶντας ὡς οὐ φείδομαι ἑαυτὸν πότερον 


apostolus praecipere vobis, quoniam vir aliguis condemnatus sum A; ἀγαπῶν ὑμᾶς 
φείδομαι συντονώτερον ἐπιστεῖλαι, ἵνα μὴ δόξω τισὶν εἶναι προσάντης ἢ ἐπιδεής κ.τ.λ. g. 
Here the text of GL is seriously corrupt. In attempting to restore the reading 
we may observe as follows: (1) The agreement of A and g establishes one unques- 
tionable emendation; ἑαυτὸν πότερον is a corruption of συντονώτερον : see the lower 


note. 
that the corruption is in -ras ὡς ov. 


I. τοὺς ἀθέους] 1.6. ‘the heathen, 
who were ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, Eph. 1]. 
12 See also Clem. Hom. xv. A, 
Clem. Al. Protr. 4(p. 52), Paed. ili. 11 
(0300) vOrieeni(G.(Ce/s. ἷ Ts Mil. 7.3) 
speaks of ἡ ἄθεος πολυθεύτης ; Comp. 
Mart. Ign. Rom. 8. On the other 
hand, the Christians themselves were 
denounced by the heathen as ἄθεοι, 
because they had no images or 
shrines or visible representations of 
deity; Mart. Polyc. 9 (comp. 20. 3), 
where the cry against Polycarp is 
aipe τοὺς ἀθέους, which he himself, 
looking εἰς πάντα τὸν ὄχλον τῶν ἐν TO 
σταδίῳ ἀνόμων ἐθνῶν, catches up and 
repeats. See also Justin AZol. i. 6 
(p. 56), 20. 13 (p. 60), Athenag. 224. 
50. Clem. “Alex. S270770..:vils ΟἹ 
(p. 828 sq), Minuc. Octav. ὃ, Tertull. 
Apol. το sq ; comp. Clement of Rome 
I. p. 34. Below, § 10, the epithet 
ἄθεοι seems to be applied to the 
Docetic teachers (see the note 
there). 

2. συντονώτερον ‘sore urgently’ ; 


(2) The coincidence of the same authorities shows that ἀγαπῶν is correct, and 
Having regard to the sense as given in Ag, 


comp. Polyc. 7 ὑμῶν τὸ σύντονον τῆς 
ἀληθείας. This emendation is much 
less violent than it seems at first 
sight, CYNTONWTEPON for EAYTO TIO- 
TEPON (see the note on ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ κ-τ.λ. 
just below). At all events the inter- 
polator’s text leaves no doubt about 
its correctness, as Pearson saw long 
ago. 

3. ὑπὲρ τούτου] 1.6. τοῦ ἐπισκόπου 
ὑμῶν, or possibly ‘on this matter.’ 

ἀλλ᾽ ovx «.t.A.] The state of the 
text in the immediate neighbourhood 
(e.g. at the beginning of this chapter ; 
see also § 4 of yap λέγοντες «.7-A. and 
§ 6 οἱ καὶ ἰῷ «.7.A.) shows that the 
archetypal MS of GL must have 
been much worn and probably muti- 
lated in this part. Accordingly I 
have sought to remedy the text here 
on the hypothesis that some words 
have dropped out. For ἑαυτὸν see 
the note on ἑαυτοῦ above. I have 
chosen this form (rather than éyav- 
τὸν) here, because it better explains 
the corruption of συντονώτερον just 


Iv] TO THE TRALLIANS. 


161 


IV. Πολλὰ φρονώ ἐν Gew* ἀλλ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν μετρῶ, 


«.« \ 3 , 9 / ὦ a 7 Bae , 
ἵνα μὴ ἐν καυχήσει ἀποόλωμαι" νῦν yap με δεῖ πλέον 


~ \ \ / ~ ~ 7 ε \ 
φοβεῖσθαι καὶ μὴ προσέχειν τοῖς φυσιοῦσίν με" οἱ γὰρ 


/ Ne of 
λέγοντες μοι μαστιγουσιν με. 


΄σ \ \ \ 
ἀγαπῶ μὲν yap TO 


I have substituted ὑμᾶς οὕτως. (3) These two authorities also seem to indicate 
that some words have dropped out, probably between ὑπὲρ τούτου and εἰς τοῦτο. 
What these were it is impossible to say, owing to the capricious changes in g 
and the habitual laxity and constant omissions of A. I have hazarded a conjecture 
in accordance with the general sense of A. Hilgenfeld (Zettschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 
XXI. p. 541 sq) has his own conjectural reading, but he does not seem to me to be 
on the right track. 4 διατάσσωμαι] praecipiam L; διατάσσομαι Gg (but in the 
latter the form of the sentence is altered, οὐχ ws ἀπόστολος διατάσσομαι). 

6 Πολλὰ φρονῶ ἐν Θεῷ] GLE Dam-Vat 3; multa cogito in divinis A; om. g. 
This and the following chapter appear at the close of the Epistle to the Romans 
in 2. 7 me δεῖ πλέον] G; me oportet plus L* (but oportet me plus 1.)); πλεῖόν 
με δεῖ [g] Dam-Vat 2 (but quoted by Max, πλέον με δεῖ). 8 wn] GLZAg 
(but om. Max Dam-Vat). oi yap λέγοντές μοι μαστιγοῦσίν με] GL; οἱ 
γάρ με ἐπαινοῦντες μαστιγοῦσιν g (but Max Dam-Vat quote it ἐπαινοῦντες γάρ με 
μαστιγοῦσι[ν]}; wl entm gui dicunt mthi talia flagellant me Σ; def. A: see the 


lower note. 


before. For the construction of wa 
comp. Luke i. 43 πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα 
ἔλθη ἡ μήτηρ «.T.A.. I Cor. iv. 3 εἰς 
ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν ἵνα ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀνακριθῶ, 
ἘΠ] ΟἿ ive 17: 

4. ὧν κατάκριτος x.t.A.] His posi- 
tion as acondemned criminal is taken 
as a type of his unworthiness in the 
sight of God. See the note on Rom. 4, 
where he uses similar language of 
his relation to the Apostles. For 
διατάσσωμαι comp. also ELAhes. 3 ov 
διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν ὡς ὧν te (with the 


note). 
IV. ‘I have many deep thoughts 
in Christ. Yet I put restraints upon 


myself, lest my boasting should be. 


my ruin. I have need to tremble. 
The praise of these men is a stum- 
bling-block and a torture to me. 
For indeed I earnestly desire mar- 
tyrdom, but I know not whether I 
am worthy of it. The envy of the 
devil fights against me all the more, 
because it is unseen by many. So 


IGN, HH, 


then I have every need of a gentle 
spirit, which defeats the prince of 
this world.’ 

6. πολλὰ φρονῶ] Comp. Herod. ix. 
16 πολλὰ φρονέοντα μηδενὸς κρατέειν. 
Similarly Barnab. I συνειδὼς ἐμαυτῷ 
ὅτι ἐν ὑμῖν λαλήσας πολλὰ ἐπίστα- 
peau k.T.A, 

ἐμαυτὸν μετρῶ] “17 take the measure 
of myself’, ‘1 do not exceed my 
proper bounds’; a reminiscence of 
S) Paul,’ 2 Cori x! 12;°13, ev εαὐτοῖς 
ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες.. ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ εἰς 
τὰ ἄμετρα καυχησόμεθα. 

7. πλέον φοβεῖσθαι] So Philad. § 
δεδεμένος φοβοῦμαι μᾶλλον, ὡς ὧν 
ἀναπάρτιστος. 

ὃ. οἱ γὰρ λέγοντές por] This can 
hardly be correct as it stands, and 
probably some words have fallen 
out: see the note, ὃ 3 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ κ-τ.λ., 
on the mutilated state of the arche- 
typal MS in these parts. It is gene- 
rally supposed that Ignatius sup- 
presses some words addressed to 


I] 


162 


a ἊΣ 2 ᾽ / 3 
παθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα εἰ ἀξιὸς εἰμι" 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[τν 


τὸ γὰρ. ζῆλος 


πολλοῖς μὲν οὐ φαίνεται, ἐμὲ δὲ [πλέον πολεμεῖ. χρήζω 


ἊΣ ? τ 7 of ΄σ IA 
οὖν πραότητος, ἐν ἡ καταλύεται ὁ apXwY TOU αἰῶνος 


7, 
TOUTOU. 


1 τὸ] Gg (but the latter with a v. 1. ὁ). 
It was perhaps interpolated from πλέον φοβεῖσθαι above. 
Gg Dam-Vat 4 Dam-Rup 6; πραὔτητος Anton 9. 


@ Dam-Vat-Rup; dub. ZA. 


2 πλέον] GL; om. ZAg. 
3 πραότητος] 
ἐν ἡ] GLg Anton; ἐν 


4 τούτου] txt ΟἸΣΑ ; add. ὁ διάβολος g; add. 


διάβολος Dam-Vat-Rup Anton (but these writers may be quoting the interpolator’s 


text, not the genuine Ignatius). 
om. ZA. 

LZA [g]; om. G. 
παραθῶμαι g. 
made in fom. 6. 


him such as μάρτυς ἔσῃ (Smith ad 
foc., Uhlhorn Ὁ: 23, Zahn J. v. A. pp. 
416, 572 54); but there is no adequate 
reason for the suppression. With 
more probability Bunsen (27. p. 121) 
supposes that the word μάρτυς has 
accidentally dropped out owing to 
the following μαστιγοῦσιν. It seems 
probable that the title here dis- 
claimed by Ignatius would be that 
of a martyr or witness: comp. Euseb. 
ΤΠ. E. v. 2 (quoted by the commen- 
tators here) εἴποτέ τις ἡμῶν δι᾿ ἐπιστο- 
λῆς ἢ διὰ λόγου μάρτυρας αὐτοὺς 
προσεῖπεν, ἐπέπλησσον πικρῶς" ἡδέως 
γὰρ παρεχώρουν τὴν τῆς μαρτυρίας 
προσηγορίαν τῷ Χριστῷ τῷ πιστῷ καὶ 
ἀληθινῷ μάρτυρι κιτιλ.  Hilgenfeld 
(A. V. p. 204) suggests that the 
writer may refer to the name θεο- 
φόρος; but as this name implies 
obligation rather than renown, and 
as the writer of these epistles boldly 
claims it elsewhere, this suggestion 
has little to recommend it. Possibly 
the Syriac Version may preserve the 
true text, and we have only to add 
τοιαῦτα. Comp. Smyri. 5 τί yap [με] 
ὠφελεῖ, εἰ ἐμὲ ἐπαινεῖ τις, with the 
note. 

I. τὸ yap (dos κιπλ Le. ‘the 
jealous opposition of Satan, who 


δύναμαι] GLIA; ἐβουλόμην [g] (but 1 has Aoteram). 
6 νηπίοις οὖσιν] GLg; om. ZA. 
7 συγγνωμονεῖτε] G3 σύγγνωτε g. The converse change is 


5 Μὴ οὐ] (ἃ; zonne L; μὴ yap οὐκ g; 
ὑμῖν] 
παραθῷ] G; 


attempts to rob me of the crown of 
martyrdom’; comp. Rom. 5 μηθέν pe 
ζηλώσαι τῶν ὁρατῶν καὶ τῶν ἀοράτων, 
ἵνα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτύχω, i.e. ‘may 
no power of man or devil interpose 
through envy to prevent my finding 
Christ by martyrdom’. As these are 
the only places in Ignatius where 
ὥλος, ζηλοῦν, occur, it seems natural 
to explain the one passage by the 
other. The interpolator therefore 
correctly interprets the sense, when 
he adds τοῦ ἐχθροῦ after ζῆλος. For 
the allusion see the next note. Other 
interpretations are; (1) ‘My passion- 
ate desire, my excessive ambition, 
for martyrdom’, as e.g. Voss p. 287, 
Smith p. 88, Jacobson ad loc., Dressel 
ad loc.; but the language of Ignatius 
elsewhere throughout suggests that 
he would consider such a passion as 
the reverse of blameworthy; (2) ‘The 
opposition and ill-treatment from my 
guards’ (Rom. 5), Nirschl Ὁ. Io1 ; 
but I do not see how the connexion 
involved in yap can be explained on 
this hypothesis. 

2. πολλοῖς μὲν ov φαίνεται] i.e. 
‘many fail to see this jealousy of 
Satan in its true colours, and so 
unconsciously abet him.’ Ignatius 
is alluding, as I suppose, more es- 


v] TO THE TRALLIANS. 


163 


\ 3 ΄ δ ας \ > / / 

V. My ov δύναμαι ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι; 
> “ \ 7 > ε ΄σ ΄. 
ἀλλὰ φοβοῦμαι μή νηπίοις οὖσιν ὑμῖν βλάβην παραθώ. 

na / 7 > ~~ 
καὶ συγγνωμονεῖτέ μοι, μήποτε οὐ δυνηθέντες χωρῆσαι 


στραγγαλωθῆτε. 


\ \ 2 / 9 Lf , \ 
Kal yap ἐγώ, οὐ καθότι δέδεμαι καὶ 


μήποτε] GL; μὴ 5; cautus enim sum ne forte Σ; et caveo [A] (omitting the 


remaining words of the sentence). 


device to ease the awkwardness of the negatives. 
strangulemint Τ,; tmplicemint 2; orpdyyadov θῆτε ἃ; def. A. 
GLS,=Ag; add. λέγω (9) Sev-Syr 4c (but om. Sev-Syr 7): 


p. 180, Jen. et Pol. Ep. p. 355- 


The insertion in Σ is probably a translator’s 


8 στραγγαλωθῆητε) g; 
ἐγώ] txt 
see Zahn. J..0. A. 
καθότι] The rendering of L secundum 


guodcumgue seems to represent καθ᾽ ὅ τι, not καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν, as Zahn supposes. 


καὶ] GS,ZAg Sev-Syr 4c, 7 


pecially to those Roman Christians 
who were desirous of obtaining a 
reversal of his sentence, and whose 
interposition he strongly deprecates 
in the letter to the Roman Church. 
He describes this interposition some- 
times as a ζῆλος ‘jealousy’ (Rom. 
5, quoted in the last note), sometimes 
as a βασκανία ‘envy’ (Rom. 7 βασ- 
kavia ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ κατοικείτω : Comp. 20. 
3 οὐδέποτε ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί). Τί 15 ἃ 
device of the devil who would effect 
his ruin, and he entreats the Chris- 
tians of Rome not to ally themselves 
with the Evil One (Rom. 7 ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ 
αἰῶνος τούτου διαρπάσαι pe βούλεται... 
μηδεὶς οὖν τῶν παρόντων ὑμῶν βοηθείτω 
αὐτῷ). 

πλέον] i.e. ‘all the more because 
it eludes the notice of others’, if the 
word be genuine. 

πολεμεῖ] ‘wars against me’, For 
this construction of πολεμεῖν with an 
accusative, which is common in 
Polybius, Diodorus, and later writers, 
see Wesseling on Diod. iv. 61: comp. 
Clem. Hom. xix. 20, Hippol. p. 166 
Lagarde. On this tendency of the 
later language to substitute the ac- 
cusative for other cases, see the notes 
on Galatians v. 7, 26. 

3. καταλύεται κιτ.λ.} LEphes. 13 


- ς , Led “ Ν 
καθαιροῦνται αι δυνάμεις του ξαταναᾶ καὶ 


(but om. Sev-Syr 7 v.1.); sed L. 


λύεται ὁ ὄλεθρος αὐτοῦ ; comp. John 
SST Kv. ὙΠ 1 ΠΟΥ Π1: ὃ. 

6 ἄρχων κιτ.λ.] See the note on 
Fephes: V7: 

V. ‘Am I not able to write about 
heavenly things? Yet I fear lest 
such strong meat should not be suit- 
ed for you babes. Forgive me, I 
would not have you suffocated. Nay, 
I myself, though I am privileged to 
be Christ’s prisoner and though I 
could unfold all the mysteries of the 
celestial hierarchy, yet do not there- 
fore hold myself to be already a dis- 
ciple. We want much, in order that 
God may not be wanting to us.’ 

6. μὴ νηπίοις κιτιλ.)] Suggested 
by 1 Cor. ili. I, 2, οὐκ ἡδυνήθην λαλῆ- 
σαι ὑμῖν ὡς πνευματικοῖς, GAN ὡς σαρ- 
κίνοις, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ" γάλα ὑμᾶς 
ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα" οὔπω γὰρ ἐδύνασθε, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔτι νῦν δύνασθε. 

7. συγγνωμονεῖτέ μοι] ‘bear «ὐτ7ἢ 
me’, i.e. ‘when I refuse to give you 
this strong meat’: comp. Rom. 6 
σύγγνωτέ μοι. On the form συγγνω- 
μονεῖν see Lobeck Phryn. p. 382. 


χωρῆσαι) ‘to take it in.” The 
word is used transitively again 
Smyrn. 6. 


8. στραγγαλωθῆτε!] “ be choked’. 
The word occurs Tobit ii. 3. Other 
forms are στραγγαλάω, στραγγαλίζω. 


ΕΠ 


164 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [Vv 


/ ~ / \ \ , \ 
δύναμαι νοεῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ Tas τοποθεσίας Tas 


> \ \ \ / \ 5 ’ / 
ἀγγελικας Kal τὰς συστάσεις τας ἀρχοντικας, ὁρατὰ 


I δύναμαι νοεῖν] gS,ZA Sev-Syr (twice); δυνάμενος (om. νοεῖν) GL* (not 


potens scire, aS it is commonly read). 
the supposition that νοεῖν is a gloss: see the lower note. 
GLS,[A][g] Sev-Syr 4c; om. Sev-Syr 7. 


δὴ) Lg Sev-Syr (twice); om. S,2A. 


The consensus of authorities excludes 
2 καὶ] 

3 ἤδη] G (written εἴ 
μαθητής εἰμι] ΟἿΣ (discipulus 


sum mihi) A g Sev-Syr (twice); a@iscipuli estis mihi S, (doubtless an error 


of transcription in the Syriac, }1N for NM‘). 


Sev-Syr 4c; wobis 
μοι [6]. 


For the metaphor see Hieron. Ζ 2252. 
84 (I. p. 525) ‘ne parvuli atque lacten- 
tes solidioris cibi edulio suffocemur’, 
Op. Imperf. in Matt. Hom. xxxviii 
(Chrysost. ΟΖ. VI. p. clxi) ‘sicut enim 
infanti si dederis fragmentum panis, 
quoniam angustas habet fauces, offo- 
catur magis quam nutritur; sic et 
homini imperfecto in fide et puero 
sensibus si altiora mysteria sapientiae 
volueris dicere, angustam' habens 
fidem et sensum magis scandalizatur 
quam aedificatur’ (comp. xlix, 2d. p. 
ccv), passages quoted by Pearson 
ΡΣ. 517, and ‘ad oc.). 

ov καθότι dédeua] Comp. Ephes. 
3 εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, 
οὔπω ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" 
νῦν γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἔχω τοῦ μαθητεύεσθαι. 
On the manner in which Ignatius 
regards his bonds, see the note there. 

I. δύναμαι νοεῖν] ‘am competent 
to understand’. For this expression 
comp. Hermas Szm. ix. 9, 143 50 
Eph. i. 4 δύνασθε... νοῆσαι. Pear- 
son saw that this must be substi- 
tuted for δυνάμενος ; and his opinion 
has been confirmed beyond question 
by the versions and citations dis- 
covered since. The change is not 
great; AyNamenoel! for AYNAMENOC 
(δύναμαι being written dvvape). 

τὰς τοποθεσίας x.t.A.| ‘the dispost- 
tions of the angels’, i.e. their distribu- 
tion in their several ranks or in the 
several celestial spheres : comp. Clem. 


4 ἡμῖν] GS, 


L (the mss, but doubtless a scribe’s error for modis); 
For ZA, which have a singular, see the next note. 


Alex. Strom. vii. 2 (p. 833) ἡ μακαρία 
ἀγγελοθεσία καὶ δὴ μέχρις ἡμῶν av- 
τῶν ἄλλοι ὑπ᾽ ἄλλοις ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ δι᾿ ἑνὸς 
σωζόμενοί τε καὶ σώζοντες διατετάχ α- 
ται. For τοποθεσία ‘a topographical 
description’ see Cic. ad AZt. i. 13, 16. 
Just such a τοποθεσία of the celestial 
hierarchy is given in the Zest. Duod. 
Patr. Wevi_ 3; ;where. the different 
ranks of angels with their several 
names are distributed through the 
seven heavens. The large space 
which angelology occupied in Jewish 
and Christian speculation in the 
Apostolic age, appears from the in- 
cidental language of 5. Paul; e.g. 
Ephes. i. 20, 21 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς 
καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος 
καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου 
k.T.A., (ΟἹ. 1. 16 τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, 
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ 
εἴτε ἐξουσίαι, and the condemnation 
of θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων Col. 11. 18. 
On this whole subject see the notes 
Colossians i. 16, ii. 18; and to the 
references there given add Papias 
(Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. Ὁ. 14), Hermas 
V7s. 111. 4, and (for Jewish angelology) 
Gfrorer Fahrh. des Hettls τ. p. 357 sq, 
Eisenmenger γα. Fudenth, i. p. 
374, Edersheim Lzfe and Times of 
Fesus WU. p. 748 sq. See also the 
discussion about angels in Orig. ὦ 
Cels. vi. 30 Sq, especially c. 40, where 
Celsus brings this charge against 
the Christians, ἑωρακέναι παρά τισι 


v| TO THE TRALLIANS. 


165 


7 \ > "7 \ 7 > 
TE Kal ἄορατα, παρα τοῦτο ἤδη καὶ μαθητὴς εἰμι" 


πολλὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν λείπει, ἵνα Θεοῦ μὴ λειπώμεθα. 


Vi. 


λειπώμεθα] GLS, Sev-Syr; ἀπολειφθῶ [6]. 


i > cs 2 ? \ 3 Sed: 3 / 
Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμάς, οὐκ ἔγω ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἀγάπη 


The whole sentence πολλὰ... 


λειπώμεθα is thus translated in the Oriental versions ; multum enim deficimus 
ne a deo destituamur 31; multum enim deficiens sum a perfectione quae digna 


>> 


est deo X; sed quod valde deficiens sum a similitudine det A. Thus ZA seem 
to give loose paraphrases of the original Syriac rendering, which is preserved 


in S). 


After this sentence = has estote zncolumes perfecte in patientia tesu christi 


det nostri, which forms the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans (see on Rom. 
10). 5 ἡ ἀγάπη] GLS,Ag; ἡ χάρις Dam-Rup 1 (see 1 Cor. xv. 10). 


πρεσβυτέροις τῆς ἡμετέρας δόξης τυγ- 
χάνουσι βιβλία βάρβαρα δαιμόνων ὀνό- 
ματα ἔχοντα καὶ τερατείας. For the 
passage here comp. Smyrz. 6 τὰ 
ἐπουράνια καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ οἱ 
ἄρχοντες ὁρατοί τε καὶ ἀύρατοι. 

2. τὰς συστάσεις κιτ.λ.}] ‘the as- 
semblages, musterings, of the hea- 
venly rulers’; comp. ἐθνικαὶ συστά- 
Ger, Oly bh) XXIV. 1.2, "XXX ΤΟΣ Ὁ. 
The ἄρχοντες here, like the ἀρχαί in 
S. Paul, are angelic beings: comp. 
Justin Dzal. 36 (p. 255) οἱ ev τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς ταχθέντες ὑπὸ TOU Θεοῦ ἄρχον- 
τες (quoted by Jacobson on Smyrz. 
6). For “ἀρχοντικὸς see Celsus in 
Orig. c. Cels. vi. 27 ἑτέρων δὲ τῶν λε- 
γομένων ἀρχοντικῶν K.T.A. (comp. § 33), 
from which it appears that in some 
systems of angelology ἀρχοντικοὶ de- 
noted a particular class of the ce- 
lestial hierarchy. Jacobson would 
translate συστάσεις ‘the conflicts’, 
comparing Ephes. 13 πόλεμος ἐπουρα- 
viev καὶ ἐπιγείων, but such an idea 
seems to be quite inappropriate to 
this context. The word occurs again 
Rom. 5. 

ὁρατά te καὶ ἀόρατα] The know- 
ledge previously mentioned (ra ἐπου- 
ράνια) has reference to the things 
invisible; but ὁρατὰ are also named 
here (after the precedent of S. Paul, 
Col. i. 16) for the sake of including 
all things which fall within the range 


of cognisance. So again in Smyrn, 
6 (see the note). For ὁρατὰ καὶ ἀόρατα 
see also Lom. 5. 

3. παρὰ τοῦτο] ‘on this account’: 
see Rom. 5 (with the note). 

μαθητής εἰμι] See the notes on 
Ephes: τς 5: 

4. πολλὰ γὰρ κ-.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘we still 
lack much, that we may not be left 
behind by God, may not fail in find- 
ing God’, where λείπεσθαι Θεοῦ is 
the negative of ἐπιτυχεῖν Θεοῦ, a 
favourite Ignatian phrase (see the 
note on Magn. 1). For the con- 
struction here comp. Hermas zs. 11]. 
I σοὶ δὲ πολλὰ λείπει ἵνα κιτ.λ.; and 
for the characteristic Ignatian play 
on λείπει, λειπώμεθα, see the note on 
Smyrn. 5 μᾶλλον δὲ κιτιλ. 

ἡμῖν] i.e. ‘you and myself alike,’ 

VI. ‘I therefore entreat you—yet 
not I but the love of Christ—to eat 
only the wholesome food of Christi- 
anity and to abstain from the noxious 
herbs of heresy. These false teach- 
ers mix poison with Jesus Christ; 
they impose upon men with their 
plausible professions ; and the deadly 
drug, thus disguised with a sweet 
flavour, is thoughtlessly taken, though 
death is its consequence.’ 

5. Παρακαλῶ οὖν κιτ.λ.] The form 
of the sentence is here suggested by 
1 Cor. vii. 10 παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ 
ἀλλὰ ὁ Κύριος. 


166 THE) EPISTLE: OF IGNATIUS [vi 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, povn τῇ Χριστιανῆῇ τροφῇ χρῆσθε, 


ἀλλοτρίας δὲ βοτάνης ἀπέχεσθε, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἵρεσις" 
1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS,g; τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν “I. X. A Dam-Rup. Χριστιανῇ)]) 
GL; χριστιανικῇ Dam-Rup; christianismi A; gratiarum actionts (εὐχαριστικῇ ?) 
See ayer χρῆσθε...ἀπέχεσθε] LS,A; χρῆσθαι... ἀπέχεσθαι ἃ Dam-Rup; 
al. g: see the lower note. 
ρεμπλέκουσιν (ἃ; καὶ παρεμπλέκουσιν Dam-Rup; guae et tnguinatis tmplicat L, 


3 of καὶ ἰῷ παρεμπλέκουσιν] οἱ καιροὶ πα- 


καὶ τὸν ἰὸν προσπλέκοντες τῆς πλάνης TH γὙλυκείᾳ προσηγορίᾳ g. The renderings 
of the passage in the Oriental Versions are: eorum qui commiscent semetipsos 
in (cum) jesu christo 51; jam commiscent semetipsos cum jesu christo A. They 
may have had simply of καὶ παρεμπλέκουσιν and supplied the semetipsos to make 
sense. The rendering of L perhaps arises from a further corruption of the 
corrupt text of G, οικαιροιπαρεμπλεκουσιν being read of καὶ pumap’ ἐμπλέκουσιν ; 


I. τροφῇ] Comp. Rom. 7 οὐχ ἥδο- 
μαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς. 

χρῆσθε] The imperatives, besides 
béing better supported than the in- 
finitives, are more in the manner of 
Ignatius, who prefers this mood with 
παρακαλεῖν ; see below ὃ 12 παρακαλεῖ 
...drapevete, Rom. 4 παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, 
μὴ...γένησθε, Philad. ὃ παρακαλῶ δὲ 
ὑμᾶς, μηδὲν πράσσετε (Where the infi- 
nitive πράσσειν has been substituted 
in some copies). So too παραινῶ 
with an imperative in Magu. 6. The 
exception is Polyc. 1 παρακαλῶ σε 
προσθεῖναι K.T.A. 

2. βοτάνης] Heresy or error is 
called βοτάνη; a rank weed, a noxious 
herb, again in Ephes. το, Philad. 3. 
For the meaning of βοτάνη see the 
note on the former passage. In the 
Gospel of the Egyptians our Lord 
was reported as having said πᾶσαν 
φάγε βοτάνην, τὴν δὲ πικρίαν ἔχουσαν 
μὴ φάγῃς, Clem. Alex. Strom. iil. 9 
(p. 541). 

3. ot καὶ ἰῷ] This emendation 
involves a very simple change, katiwl 
for Kaipo!. For the construction οἱ 
(i.e. of αἱρετικοί understood from the 
preceding αἵρεσις) comp. e.g. Thucyd. 
vi. 80 ἀπὸ Πελοποννήσου παρεσομένης 
ὠφελείας, οἱ τῶνδε κρείσσους εἰσὶ τὸ 
παράπαν, and see Kihner ὃ 356, II. 


p- 49 sq., Matthiz § 435. For the 
metaphor of ἰός, as used here, comp. 
Hermas Sz. ix. 26, Clem. Hom. 
x, 14... ‘See alsoGlem. Hlapexaxe πα 
οὐχ ἑρπετῶν ὁ ἰὸς εἰργάζετο, ov τῶν 
κακῶν βοτανῶν αἱ ἐνέργειαι, for the 
same connexion of words as here. 
Zahn refers to Iren. 1. 27..4 “Christi 
quidem Jesu nomen tanquam irrita- 
mentum proferentes, Simonis autem 
impietatem varie introducentes, mor- 
tificant multos...per dulcedinem et 
decorem nominis amarum et malig- 
num principis apostasiae serpentis 
venenum porrigentes eis.’ 
παρεμπλέκουσιν] ‘2nzfuse’. An ob- 
jection has been raised to such an 
emendation as the one adopted on 
the ground.-that it ‘vitio incongruae 
metaphorae laborat’ (Churton in 
Pearson V. /. p. 103). If indeed the 
derivation of the word be scrutinized, 
we have in this expression ‘inter- 
weave poison’ a combination of me- 
taphors as violent as e.g. in 1 Tim. 
Vl. 19 ἀποθησαυρίζοντας θεμέλιον. A 
liberty however might well be con- 
ceded to an inexperienced writer like 
Ignatius, which the greatest of mo- 
dern poets has asserted, when he 
speaks of ‘taking avms against a sea 
of troubles’. But usage entirely jus- 
tifies the combination. It appears 


vi] TO THE 


TRALLIANS. 


167 


«τ ‘ a -s / ΕῚ - / 
Ol καὶ ἰῷ παρεμπλέκουσιν Ιησοῦν Χριστον, καταξιο- 


f .« 7 / / \ 
πιστευόμενοι, ὥσπερ θανάσιμον φάρμακον διδόντες μετὰ 


comp. 2265. 16, where ῥυπαρὸς is rendered zxqguznatus (the only passage where 
the word occurs in Ignatius). The paraphrase of g points to the true reading. 
Voss first suggested of καὶ ἰοῖς, which some later editors have accepted. I 
have substituted i for éois, as nearer to the traces of G, as corresponding 
to the singular in g, and as more natural in itself: see the lower note. 

καταξιοπιστευόμενοι] Dam-Rup (see the note on Zphes. τό κακοδιδασκαλίᾳ) ; 
κατ᾽ ἀξίαν πιστευόμενοι G; om. L (perhaps because the translator could make 
nothing of the unusual word); wt simplices credere faciant A; ita ut credatur-ws 


(credantur) Sy; al. g. 
TLOTEVO [LEV OL. 


that the words παρεμπλέκειν, mapep- 
πλοκή, Were employed especially in 
this connexion, as medicinal or culi- 
nary terms; e.g. by the physician 
Diphilus of Siphnus in Athen. ii. 
Ρ- 57 C οἱ στρόβιλοι...θώρακος καθαρ- 
τικοὶ διὰ τὸ ἔχειν παρεμπεπλεγμένον 
τὸ ῥητινῶδες, Agatharchides in Photius 
Bibl. ccl. 12 τούτου [τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ 
παλιούρου] συμμιγέντος κολλῶδες μὲν 
τὸ πᾶν πολὺ μᾶλλον γίνεται, δοκεῖ δ᾽ 
οἷον ἡδύσματος ἢ παρεμπλοκῆς τάξιν 
ἔχει. The more common words 
however in this sense in medical 
writers are the single compounds, 
παραπλέκειν, παραπλοκή; e.g. Galen 
Op. XIV. p. 168 (ed. Kiihn) ἱερᾶς Bo- 
τάνης μικρόν τι παραπλέκων, 20. p. 367 
δέονται τῆς τῶν στυφόντων παραπλοκῆς 
«οπαραπλέκειν τι τῶν στυφόντων, 70. 
Ρ. 398 στύρακα τὴν ὑγρὰν μίξας ἐλαίῳ 
παράπλεκε, Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. i. 
102 χυμῶν τινῶν παραπλοκή, Clem. 
Alex. Strom. i. 1 (p. 325) οἷον ἥδυσμά 
ἐστιν παραπεπλεγμένον ἀθλητοῦ βρώ- 
part. See also Macar. Magn. iil. 37 
(p. 133) συμπλέξαντες.. «ἵν᾽ ἡ συμπλοκὴ 
τοῦ διαβεβλημένου φαρμάκου δοθεῖσα 
κιτ.λ.; Comp. Ζό. 1V. 25 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χρι- 
στοῦ συμπλακὲν τοῖς ὕδασι. Thus the 
language here will have a parallel in 
the somewhat elaborate medical meta- 
phor of Polyc. 2. The verb παρεμπλέ- 
κειν occurs in other connexions in 


The renderings of AS, are paraphrases of καταξιο- 


Clem. Hom. vi. 19 and 26. Ep. Clem. 5. 

καταξιοπιστευόμενοι] ‘imposing by 
their professions of honesty’; comp. 
Polyb, xii. 17. 1 va δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν τῶν 
τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν καταξιοπιστεύεσθαι, 
μνησθησόμεθα μιᾶς παρατάξεως κΟατιλ. 
For the bad sense of ἀξιόπιστος, ‘spe- 
cious, plausible’, and so ‘an impostor,’ 
see the parallel passage Phzlad. 2 
πολλοὶ yap λύκοι ἀξιόπιστοι ἡδονῇ κακῇ 
αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν τοὺς θεοδρόμους (with 
the note). From this comes the verb 
ἀξιοπιστεύεσθαι, Which on the analogy 
of ἀσωτεύεσθαι, διαλεκτικεύεσθαι, περ- 
περεύεσθαι, παραβολεύεσθαι, etc. (see 
the note on Philippians 11. 30), sig- 
nifies ‘to play the ἀξιόπιστος", ‘to 
make loud professions of honesty’. 
It does not appear to occur in extant 
standard writers, but is recognised 
by Hesychius 5. v. βρενθύεσθαι, 
θυμοῦσθαι, ὀργίζεσθαι, ἀξιοπιστεύεσθαι, 
and by Suidas 5. v. ἀναπειστηρίαν, 
ἀξιοπιστεύονται δὲ of διδάσκαλοι λέ- 
γοντες κιτιλ. (from the scholiast on 
Arist. uz. 866). Hence the com- 
pound καταξιοπιστεύεσθαι, ‘to over- 
power, or impose upon, by playing the 
part of an ἀξιόπιστος", on the analogy 
of καταλαζονεύεσθαι, κατανεανιεύεσθαι, 
κατασοβαρεύεσθαι, κατασωτεύεσθαι, κατ- 
ειρωνεύεσθαι, κατεμβριθεύεσθαι, κατισ- 
χυρεύεσθαι, etc. There can be no 
doubt about the reading here, though 


168 THE 


EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi 


> / e/ ε > ~ 3 “ / 2 ς is 
οἰνομέλιτος, ὅπερ ὁ ἀγνοών ἀδεῶς λαμβάνει ἐν ἡδονῆ 


~ \ ? = 
ΚΑΚΉ TO ἀποθανεῖν. 
ἐ 


VIL. 


if 53 \ / 
Φυλάττεσθε οὖν τοὺς τοιούτους. 


TOUTO δὲ 


sf con \ / \ 3: 3 if ap 
ἐσται ὑμῖν μή φυσιουμεένοις καὶ OVTLY ἀχωρίστοις [Θεοῦ] 


I ὅπερ...τὸ ἀποθανεῖν] see the lower note; ὅπερ ὁ ἀγνοῶν ἡδέως λαμβάνει ἐν 
ἡδονῇ" κακεῖ (so written and punctuated) τὸ ἀποθανεῖν G; ὅπερ ὁ ἀγνοῶν ἡδέως λαμ- 


βάνει, ἐν ἡδονῇ κακῇ τὸ ἀποθάνειν Dam-Rup; 


quod gut tgnorat delectabiliter accipit et 


in delectatione mala mori L (where e¢ is added to help out what seemed to be a 
defective construction); za wt ts gut non novit in voluntate mortem accipiat S,; ut 


12 guos non cognoscunt cum voluptate mortem accipiant A. 


Dam-Rup [g] (but in g the verb is ἀσφαλίζεσθε):; 


it depends solely on the quotation in 
the Parall. Rupef. 

I. οἰνομέλιτος]) Swine mixed with 
honey’; comp. Polyb. xii. 2.7. Dios- 
corides (Mat. Med. v. 16) explains 
wherein it differs from οἶνος μελιτίτης, 
how it is made, and what are its me- 
dicinal qualities. For the idea in the 
text comp. Theoph. ad Azfol. 11. 12 
καθάπερ φάρμακόν τι δηλητήριον συγ- 
κραθὲν μέλιτι ἢ οἴνῳ ἢ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ τὸ πᾶν 
ποιεῖ βλαβερὸν k.t.A., Anon. adv. Mare. 
i. 85 (Tertull. OZ. 11. p. 783, Oehler) 
‘dulcique cruentum circumfert mi- 
seris mixtum cum melle venenum’, 
Lactant. D. /. v. 1 ‘incautos animos 
facile irretire possunt suavitate ser- 
monis...mella sunt haec venenum 
tegentia...circumlinatur modo pocu- 
lum caelestimelle sapientiae’, Ephrem 
Syrus Op. Syr. 11. p. 554 A ‘et pro- 
pinavit simplicibus amaritudines (ve- 
nena) dulcedine commixtas’ (speak- 
ing of the hymns of the heretic 
Bardesanes). Thus these impostors 
were mimicking genuine physicians, 
who disguised their curative drugs 
in the same way: Plut. Jor. p. 13 Ὁ 
ἰατροὶ τὰ πικρὰ τῶν φαρμάκων τοῖς 
γλυκέσι χυμοῖς καταμιγνύντες τὴν τέρ- 
Ww ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον πάροδον εὗρον, 
Julian Caesar. p. 314 οὐκ οἶσθα, ὦ 
Πρόβε, ὅτι τὰ πικρὰ φάρμακα μιγνύντες 
οἱ ἰατροὶ τῷ μελικράτῳ προσφέρουσι; 


3 τοὺς τοιούτους] 
τοῖς τοιούτοις G. 4 Θεοῦ] 

ὅπερ κιτ.λ.] Comp. Clem. Hom. 
X. 12 ov yap, εἴτις προσλάβοι θανασίμου 
φαρμάκου ἀγνοῶν, οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει. 

ἀδεῶς] ‘without apprehension’, as 
e.g. Plut. Wor. p. 477 ἀδεῶς καὶ ἀνυ- 
πόπτως. 1 venture on this conjecture, 
which is suggested by the interpola- 
tor’s paraphrase ἵνα ὁ πίνων, τῇ γλυκυ- 
τάτῃ κλαπεὶς ποιότητι τὴν γευστικὴν 
αἴσθησιν, ἀφυλάκτως τῷ θανάτῳ περι- 
παρῇ. The alternative would be to 
eject ἡδέως altogether, as a gloss of ἐν 
ἡδονῇ. At the close of the sentence 
the reading of the Greek MS κἀκεῖ To 
ἀποθανεῖν is tempting; but the paral- 
lel passage Phzlad. 2 (quoted above 
on καταξιοπιστευόμενοι) 15 decisive in 
favour of κακῇ (rather than κακεῖ), 
and this is also supported by the 
great preponderance of authori- 
ties. 

VII. ‘Therefore be on your guard 
against such men. Your best security 
is to shun pride and self-sufficiency, 
and to hold fast to Jesus Christ, to 
your bishop, and to the ordinances 
of the Apostles. He only is pure, 
who is within the pale of the altar. 
In other words, he that acts apart 
from the bishop and presbyters and 
deacons is not pure in conscience.’ 

3. τοὺς τοιούτους] This correction 
is necessary, as φυλάσσεσθαι does 
not take a dative. A similar cor- 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 169 


vit] 


5] va ~ ΄- / \ ~ 7 
5 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Kal τῶν διαταγμάτων 
΄σ / eves 7 λ / 
τῶν ἀποστόλων. ὁ ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίου wy καθαρὸς ἐστιν, 
ε \ \ 7 \ 3 / ᾿ 
ὁ δὲ ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου wy οὐ καθαρὸς ἐστιν" τουτεσ- 


GL; om. A. It seems however to have been in the text used by the interpolator 
(either with or without Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), for g has εἶναι ἀχωρίστους θεοῦ... αἰδεῖσθε δὲ 
καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὑμῶν ws χριστόν, καθὰ ὑμῖν of μακάριοι διετάξαντο ἀπόστολοι. See 
the lower note. 7 ὁ δὲ...ὧν οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν] gui vero extra altare est 
non mundus est LL; om. G (doubtless owing to homceoteleuton). The clause is 
recognised in g, where the sentence is abridged ὁ δὲ ἐκτὸς ὧν οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χωρὶς 
k.T.\. For the whole sentence 6 δὲ ἐκτός... τουτέστιν A has merely e¢: the trans- 
lator perhaps had before him a text with the same omission as in G and, finding 
nothing to explain τουτέστιν, struck it out and substituted a connecting particle in 


its place. 


rection was required in the MS, 
Magn. 6 ἐντρέπεσθε ἀλλήλοις. 

4. μὴ φυσιουμένοις) Comp. Magn. 
12 οἶδα ὅτι οὐ φυσιοῦσθε. In both 
passages Ignatius refers to the pride 
of self-assertion, which rebels against 
lawful authority. 

Θεοῦ] Probably this word should 
be omitted with the Armenian Ver- 
sion. Though Ignatius frequently 
speaks of Jesus Christ as God, it 
may be questioned whether he ever 
so styles Him without some explana- 
tory or qualifying phrase; see the 
note on /phes. inscr. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. 
Hence the awkwardness of the ex- 
pression is at once apparent. For 
other doubtful cases see Swyrn. 6, 
το, with the notes. If Θεοῦ be re- 
tained, it should perhaps be separated 
from Χριστοῦ, ‘of God, of Jesus 
Christ, and of the bishop, etc.’; but 
the absence of the connecting par- 
ticle is hardly consistent with the 
genius of the Greek language. In- 
stances of such omission occur in- 
deed in the existing Greek text of 
Ignatius; § 12 eis τιμὴν πατρός, Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, Pihzlad. 9 
τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀνά- 
στασιν, but in both passages there are 
good grounds for questioning the 


reading (see the notes). 

5. τῶν διαταγμάτων x.t.A.] The 
reference is doubtless to the institu- 
tion of episcopacy. Early tradition 
points to S. John as mainly instru- 
mental in establishing an episcopal 
organisation in Asia Minor, and to 
him more especially Ignatius may be 
referring here; comp. Clem. Alex. 
Quis Div. Salv. 42 (p. 959) ὅπου 
μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ 
ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων κ-Οτ.λ., Lragm. 
Murat. p. 33 (ed. Tregelles) ‘cohor- 
tantibus condiscipulis et episcopis 
suis’, Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 5 ‘ordo 
episcoporum ad originem recensus 
in Ioannem stabit auctorem.’ So 
Irenzus ili. 3. 4 says of Polycarp 
ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς eis τὴν 
᾿Ασίαν ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπί- 
σκοπος; while elsewhere (v. 20. 1), 
more especially in reference to the 
Asiatic elders, he speaks of ‘epis- 
copi quibus apostoli tradiderunt ec- 
clesias’. See Philippians p. 212 sq. 

6. ὁ ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίου κιτ.λ.}] For 
the meaning οἵ θυσιαστήριον, ‘the 
place of sacrifice’, ‘the court of the 
altar’, and for the application here, 
see the note on Zfhes. 5. It sym- 
bolizes the congregation lawfully 
gathered together under its duly ap- 
pointed officers. 


170 


THE EPISTLE OF 


IGNATIUS [VII 


\ / 
TW, ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου Kal πρεσβυτερίου Kal διακόνων 


/ © 3 Ub 3 ΄σ / 
πράσσων TL, οὗτος οὐ καθαρὸς ἐστιν TH συνειδήσει. 


ΝΠ]. 


I ἐπισκόπου] (ἃ; τοῦ ἐπισκόπου g. 


3 ’ δι 7 ΄σ / 3 ς > \ 
Οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τοιοῦτον τι ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀλλα 


πρεσβυτερίου] GL*; τῶν πρεσβυ- 


τέρων g3 sacerdotibus A (this is the common rendering of πρεσβυτέριον in A, and 


therefore it determines nothing as to the reading). 


καὶ διακόνων] καὶ διακόνου 


GL; καὶ τῶν διακόνων g (having inserted articles before the previous words); om. A. 


2 πράσσων τι] GL; τι πράσσων g. 


written above the line, though prima manu, in G. 


editors. 


I. ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου k.t.A.] See 
the note on Magu. 7. 

διακόνων) This alteration is neces- 
sary with πρεσβυτερίου, which seems 
certainly to be the correct reading. 
If πρεσβυτέρου could be retained, 
διακόνου might stand. ‘The alterna- 
tive is to eject καὶ διακόνου as a later 
interpolation, since it is wanting in 
the Armenian. 

2. καθαρὸς x.t.A.] Comp. 1 Tim. 
111. 9, 2 Tim. i. 3, ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδή- 
σει. 

VIII. ‘Ido not say this, because 
you have already fallen into such 
errors, but I wish to put you on your 
guard against the snares of the devil. 
Therefore be gentle-minded; renew 
yourselves in faith, which is the 
flesh, and love, which is the blood, 
of Jesus Christ. Let no man enter- 
tain any ill-will against his neigh- 
bour. Give no opportunity to the 
heathen, lest through the folly of a 
few the whole body of God’s people 
be evil spoken of, and thus the woe 
denounced by the prophet fall upon 
you.’ 

3. Οὐκ ἐπεὶ] 1.6. Οὐ λέγω ταῦτα 
ἐπεὶ κιτιλ.: see Magn. 11 (with the 
note). 

4. προφυλάσσω] “1 keep watch 
over you in good time’, as Smyrn. 4 
προφυλάσσω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων 


5 τὴν] 
Hence it is omitted by many 


4 προορῶν] mpd ὁρῶν G. 


6 ἀνακτήσασθε)] Cotelier; ἀνακτίσασθε G (which similarly in 


τῶν ἀνθρωπομόρφων: comp. Magn. 
11. In Xen. em. ii. 7. 14 it is used 
of the watch-dog, who is represented 
as saying to the sheep ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ 
καὶ ὑμᾶς αὐτὰς σώζων ὥστε μήτε ὑπ᾽ 
ἀνθρώπων κλέπτεσθαι μήτε ὑπὸ λύκων 
ἁρπάζξεσθαι, ἐπεὶ ὑμεῖς ye, εἰ μὴ ἐγὼ 
προφυλάττοιμι ὑμᾶς, οὐδ᾽ ἂν νέ- 
μεσθαι δύναισθε κιτιλ. The same 
metaphor of the flock guarded against 
the attacks of wild beasts appears 
to underlie both these Ignatian pas- 
sages. The false teachers are wolves 
in sheep’s clothing: comp. Phzlad. 2 
ὅπου δὲ ὁ ποιμήν ἐστιν, ἐκεῖ ὡς πρόβατα 
ἀκολουθεῖτε" πολλοὶ γὰρ λύκοι ἀξιόπισ- 
τοι k.T.A., With the end of § 6 in this 
epistle. 

τὰς ἐνέδρας] Comp. Pihzlad. 6. 

5. πραῦΐπαθειαν] The word occurs 
only once in the Greek Bible, 1 Tim. 
vi. 11, where the common text has 
πραότητα, which the interpolator sub- 
stitutes here also. The verb mpaima- 
θεῖν (πραοπαθεῖν) occurs Philo de Prof. 
I (I. p. 547), and the substantive 
πραὐπάθεια ib. de Abr. 37 (11. p. 31). 

6. ἀναλαβόντες] ‘taking up’, i.e. 
‘as your proper arms of defence’; 
comp. e.g. Eph. vi. 13, 16, ἀναλάβετε 
τὴν πανοπλίαν, ἀναλαβόντες τὸν θυρεόν. 

ἀνακτήσασθε] ‘recover, refresh’. 
This is doubtless the right reading. 
The phrase ἀνακτᾶσθαι ἑαυτὸν is com- 


65, πα, 


vu | 


TO Tre, TRALESANS: 


ye 


/ - » / ΄σ 
προφυλαάσσω ὑμᾶς οντας μον ἀγαπητοῦς, προορῶν τὰς 


ἐνέδρας τοῦ διαβόλον. 


«ε ~ oy \ “. 
UMELS OUVY THY πραὐπαθειαν 


3 le 3 / ¢ \ 3 / « > 
ἀναλαβόντες ἀνακτήσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει, ὃ ἐστιν 


λ a 7 Vane > / .« 3 - > ΄- 
σαρξ τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπη, ὃ ἐστιν αἷμα ᾿Ϊησοῦ 


Philad. 6 writes κτίσωνται for κτήσωνται); recreate 1.1; reguiescere-facite S,A: see 


the lower note. 


ὁ] quod L; os G3 guae (or guod)S,; al. Ag. The whole clause 


runs in Sj, 272: fide quae (quod) est in spe (RVADI) οὐ im convivio (jucunditate 
NIODIIA) sanguinis jesu christi (where ἀγάπη is taken in the sense of a love-feast, 
comp. Swzyrn. 8); in A, fide et spe et coena sanguinis christi (where, as Petermann 
foresaw, there is a confusion of the Syriac NDI caro and NAD sfes). 


ΤΠ: 6:5... pict, 26s. Π1. 25. 4, Jos. 
wage: τσ. Θὲ. 4... Dion, Chrys. OF. vii. 
p. 223. As it denotes recovery after 
fatigue or hunger or sickness or 
wounds or the like, we must suppose 
that the peril of the Trallians was 
more serious than Ignatius was will- 
ing to state in words (Οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων 
κιτιλ.). The metaphor in both ἀνα- 
λαβεῖν and ἀνακτᾶσθαι ἑαυτοὺς is 
probably taken from campaigning; 
comp. Polyc. 6. If the other verb 
(ἀνακτίζειν) had been used, the words 
would have been ἀνακτίσατε ἑαυτούς 
rather than ἀνακτίσασθε ἑαυτούς. 

6 ἐστιν σὰρξ κιτ.λ.] This is the 
food which their refreshment de- 
mands. The reference is only indi- 
rectly to the eucharist. The eucha- 
ristic bread and wine, while repre- 
senting the flesh and blood of Christ, 
represent also faith and love. Faith 
is the flesh, the substance of the 
Christian life; love is the blood, the 
energy coursing through its veins and 
arteries. “See esp. Clem. Alex. Paed. 
i. 6 (p. 121) βρῶμα δὲ ἡ πίστις εἰς 
θεμέλιον τῆς κατηχήσεως συνεστραμμένη, 
ἣ δὴ στερεμνιωτέρα τῆς ἀκοῆς ὑπάρχουσα 
βρώματι ἀπεικάζεται...καὶ ὁ Κύριος... 
ἑτέρως ἐξήνεγκεν διὰ συμβόλων, Φάγετέ 
μου τὰς σάρκας, εἰπών, καὶ Πίετέ μου 
τὸ αἷμα, ἐναργὲς τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς 


ἐπαγγελίας τὸ πότιμον ἀλληγορῶν, δι 
ὧν ἡ ἐκκλησία... ἄρδεταί τε καὶ αὔξεται, 
συγκροτεῖταί τε καὶ συμπήγνυται ἐξ 
ἀμφοῖν, σώματος μὲν τῆς πίστεως, ψυχῆς 
δὲ τῆς ἐλπίδος, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐκ 
σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος" τῷ γὰρ ὄντι αἷμα 
τῆς πίστεως ἡ ἐλπίς, ἐφ᾽ ἧς συνέχεται, 
καθάπερ ὑπὸ Ψυχῆς, ἡ πίστις" διαπνευ- 
σάσης δὲ τῆς ἐλπίδος δίκην ἐκρυέντος 
αἵματος τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς πίστεως ὑπεκ- 
λύεται, where the application of the 
image is exactly the same as here, 
except that ‘hope’ is substituted for 
‘love’.. Zahn (cy Avipianeomsa) 
explains the words here differently ; 
he supposes that faith and love are 
so described, as the means whereby 
we participate in the flesh and blood 
of Christ, i.e. are united with Him. 
See Rom. 7 ἀρτὸν Θεοῦ θέλω 6 ἐστιν 
σὰρξ tov Χριστοῦ..«καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ 
αἷμα αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος (with 
the note). In Phdlad. 5 προσφυγὼν 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησοῦ, we have 
a different application of the eucha- 
ristic metaphor. See also the notes 
on Ephes. 5, Smyrn. 6, 12. 

For the neuter relative 6, referring 
to the feminine substantives πίστει, 
ἀγάπῃ respectively, see the notes on 
Magn. 9, 10: for the combination of 
‘faith’ and ‘love’, see the note on 
Ephes. τ. 


172 


Χριστοῦ. 


THE EPISTLE OF “IGNATIUS 


[ν Π| 


ς ΄σ \ ~ / Ψ \ 
μηδεὶς ὑμῶν κατὰ TOU πλησίον ἐχέτω: μή 


ἀφορμὰς δίδοτε τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἵνα μὴ δι’ ὀλίγους 


ἄφρονας τὸ ἔνθεον πλῆθος βλασφημῆται: 


ATMOY LET) MATAIOTHT 
BAACDHMEITAIL. 


TO ONOMA MOY 


Οὐδὶ yap 


ET). T LNOW 


I πλησίον] g Dam-Vat 6. This is also the reading of G, though several edd. 


print πλησίου, which appears also in the Casanatensian copy. 


ἐχέτω] 


txt G; add. τι here, Dam-Vat; add. τι after ὑμῶν g; add. aliguid (before 


habeat) L; add. stmultatem A. 


3 τὸ ἔνθεον] Dam-Vat; τὸ ἐν θεῷ G; quae 


in deo 1, (but in ὃ 10 ἄθεοι is translated szwe deo); dei A. The reading ἔνθεον 
perhaps underlies the loose paraphrase of g, where ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία is 


substituted for τὸ ἔνθεον πλῆθος. 


I. ἐχέτω] So ἔχειν τι κατά τινος; 
Matt. ν. 23, Mark xi. 25 ; ἔχειν κατά 
τινος, ὅτι κιτιλ. Αρος. ii. 4, 2ο. Zahn 
refers to Hermas (Zand. ii. ἕξεις κατὰ 
τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, S772. 1x. 23 οἱ Kat ἀλλή- 
λων ἔχοντες (comp. V7Zs. 111. 6), for the 
omission of the accusative here. 
Comp. also 2 Cor. v. 12 ἔχειν πρός 
τινα; ‘to be able to answer another’. 
The upper note shows how τι is 
supplied differently in different texts. 

μὴ ἀφορμὰς x.t.A.| 1 Tim. v. 14 
μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικει- 
μένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν. 

3. €vOcov] Comp. Eus. H.£. x. 4 
(p. 470) τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐνθέου ποίμνης. 

Οὐαὶ γὰρ κιτ.λ.] A loose quotation 
from Is. lil. 5 θαυμάζετε καὶ ὀλολύ- 
ζετε᾽ τάδε λέγει ὁ Κύριος, AC ὑμᾶς 
διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται 
ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, a passage which is 
likewise quoted indirectly by S. Paul 
hOM.41.,.24; Comp. 4 Tim. ‘vi: 1, Tit. 
li. 5. See also Ezek. xxxvi. 23. None 
of these other passages however ac- 
count for the departure of the Igna- 
tian quotation from the Lxxof Isaiah: 
nor is it explained by the original 
Hebrew. The interpolator brings it 
somewhat nearer to the LXX; Οὐαὶ 
yap, φησὶν ὁ προφήτης ws ἐκ προσώπου 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, δι’ οὗ τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφη- 
μεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, but the chief 


βλασφημῆται] βλασφημεῖται G. 


peculiarity Οὐαὶ... δ οὗ remains, As 
the Armenian Version omits the whole 
clause Οὐαὶ yap...€mi τινων βλασφη- 
petra, it might be thought that this 
quotation was a later interpolation ; 
see instances of interpolated quota- 
tions, Ephes. 1, 2, Rom. 3, 6. But, 
besides that it is found in all the 
other authorities, the passage of 
Isaiah is similarly quoted in Polycarp 
Phil, το ‘Vae autem [illi] per quem 
nomen Domini blasphematur’, and 
twice in the Afost. Const. 1. 10, 111. 5, 
Οὐαὶ yap, φησί, δὲ οὗ τὸ ὄνομά pov 
βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (but with- 
out the Οὐαὶ in a third passage, vii. 
24); and as both these writers had 
the Epistles of Ignatius before them, 
there is a certain presumption that 
they derived the quotation from him. 
Moreover the Armenian omission is 
easily explained by the homceoteleu- 
ton βλασφημῆται, βλασφημεῖται. There 
is no trace of the Ovai in the Hexa- 
plaric versions; and Justin (Lza/. 17, 
Ῥ. 235) and Tertullian (adv. Marc. iii. 
23, iv. 14) both quote the passage 
without it. For instances in later 
fathers where it is quoted Οὐαὶ x.7.X., 
as here, see Cotelier on Afost. Const. 
1. 10. In[Clem. Rom.] ii. 13 we have 
apparently this same passage quoted 
in two forms (see the note there). 


1x] TO THE TRALLIANS. 


IX. Κωφώθητε οὖν, 


173 


/ ~ \ ΄σ΄ 
ὅταν ὑμῖν χωρὶς ᾿Ϊησοῦ 


΄ - ae > / yf ~ 5 
Χριστοῦ λαλῇ τις, τοῦ ἐκ γένους Δαυείδ, ποῦ ἐκ 
ἐ 


Μαρίας, ὃς ἀληθώς ἐγεννήθη, ἔφαγέν τε καὶ ἔπιεν, 


Οὐαὶ... βλασφημεῖται] GL; and so g (with additions and variations); om. A: 


see the lower note. 


Theodt; after /oguatur [S,]; om. A. 
This is clearly the reading of G. 


6 οὖν] GLg Theodt; om. [S,] A. 
(ὅτ᾽ av) LS,g Theodt; 2 omni quod A. 


ὅταν] G 
ὑμῖν] here, Gg; after χριστοῦ 
7 Aaveld] dad G. 8 4s] 
te] GS,(?)A(?) Theodt; om. g [L]. 


In this matter the authority of L is of little value; it sometimes reproduces Te 
(e.g. Magn. τ, Trall. 5, Smyrn. 1, 12), but more commonly omits it (e.g. Magn. 5, 
Trall. 12, Rom. 3, Smyrn. 6, 12, 13, Polyc. 1). 


IX. ‘Therefore stop your ears, 
when any man would deny or ignore 
Gheist ibelieve it: He was true 
man, the descendant of David, the 
child of Mary. His human body 
was no mere phantom. He was 
really born. He really ate and drank. 
He was really persecuted, crucified, 
put to death—a spectacle to men and 
angels and demons. And so too He 
was really raised again by the Father, 
who will as surely raise us also 
through Jesus Christ, in whom alone 
is true life.’ 

6. Κωφώθητε] See Ephes. 9 βύ- 
σαντες Ta ὦτα, With the note. 

χωρὶς Ἰησοῦ «7.A.] See the note 
on Ephes. 6 ἢ περὶ ᾿Ἰησοῦ x.r.A. 

7. ἐκ γένους Δαυείδ] Enforcing 
the reality of Christ’s humanity, as 
elsewhere in Ignatius; see the note 
on Ephes. τὸ. 

ἐκ Μαρίας] Another mode of ex- 
pressing Christ’s human nature, as in 
Ephes. 7, 18; so too Smyri. 1 yeyev- 
νημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου. 

8. ἀληθῶς] The watch-word against 
Docetism; as in Magn. 11, Smyrn. 
1.2 

The opposition to Docetism is a 
main characteristic in Ignatius; but 
it has various degrees of prominence 
in the different letters. In the Epis- 
tle to the Romans, as addressed to a 


foreign church, and in the Epistle to 
Polycarp, as addressed to an indi- 
vidual, it does not appearatall. The 
letter to the Ephesians contains allu- 
sions to it, but they are indirect (inscr. 
thereality of the passion, § 18 the scan- 
dal of the cross, δὴ 7,20, the stress laid 
on Christ’s humanity). In the four re- 
maining letters heresy is directly at- 
tacked. In 77.177. (inscr., 2, 9, 10, T1) 
andeven more fully in Swzyrz. (δῷ 1—8) 
Docetism, as such, is denounced at 
length. In Magz. (δὲ 8,9, 10) and in 
Philad. (δὲ 5, 6, 8,9) he appears to 
be attacking Judaism rather than 
Docetism; but from incidental no- 
tices (Wagn. 9 ὅν τινες ἀρνοῦνται, § ΤΙ 
πεπληροφορῆσθε ἐν x.T.A., πραχθέντα 
ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως; Phzlad. inscr. 
ἀγαλλιωμένῃ KT... § 3 τῷ πάθει οὐ 
συγκατατίθεται, ὃ 5 ὡς σαρκὶ Incod, § 8 
ὃ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ.), it appears that 
this Judaism was Docetic, so that it 
is the same with the heresy of the 
Trallian and Smyrnzan Epistles, 
though attacked from the other side. 
This Docetism, as appears from the 
notices in these two epistles, was 
extended to the birth, passion, and 
resurrection, in fact to the whole 
human life of Christ. 

ἐγεννήθη] ‘was born’: see the note 
on Lphes. 18, 


174 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1x 


ἀληθῶς ἐδιώχθη ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, ἀληθῶς ἐσταυ- 
, \ > [3 7 ΄σ΄ 3 / \ 
pwn καὶ ἀπέθανεν, βλεπόντων [τῶν] ἐπουρανίων καὶ 


τ 7 \ ς / « \ > a 3 / ie) \ 
ἐπιγείων καὶ ὑποχθονίων: os καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ 


an / \ a \ - \ \ 
νεκρών, ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν TOV πατρος αὐτοῦ, κατα TO 


/ « \ on \ 4 ΄σ « 
ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ ἡμάς τοὺς πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ οὕτως! 


t Ποντίου Πιλάτου] GLAg Theodt; Πιλάτου Ποντίου Sj. 
2 τῶν G Theodt; om. g. 
Theodt is alone in transposing the order and 


GLS,[g]; om. [A] [Theodt]. 
ρανίων] ἃ [Theodt]; οὐρανίων g. 
reading ἐπιγείων καὶ ἐπουρανίων. 


[Theodt] (after Phil. ii. 10). 


ἀληθῶς] 


ἐπου- 


3 ὑποχθονίων] G; καταχθονίων g 


4 κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ κ-τ.λ.1] G3 γι 


et secundum similitudinem nos credentes 1251 sic resuscitabit etc. L; ztta ut et nos 


I. ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου] On the 
significance of this form of expres- 
sion, as giving force to the protest 
against Docetism, see the note J/agn. 
Tete, 

2. βλεπόντων κιτ.λ.] Comp. Phil. 
11. 10 πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ 
ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων : see also I 
Cor. five 9. 

3. καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη] See Orig. c. 
Cels. il. 
παθεῖν οὐ τάσσομεν, ἵνα μὴ Ψευδὴς 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις ἧ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθής" ὁ 
γὰρ ἀληθῶς ἀποθανών, εἰ ἀνέστη, ἀληθῶς 
ἀνέστη, ὁ δὲ δοκῶν ἀποτεθνηκέναι οὐκ 


΄σ A = 5 a 
16 ἡμεῖς τὸ δοκεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ 


ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη. 

4. ἐγείραντος κιτ.λ.] Apparently 
a reminiscence of 2 Cor. iv. 14 εἰδότες 
ὅτι ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ 
ἡμᾶς σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐγερεῖ, I Thess. iv. 
14 εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπέθα- 
νεν καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτως καὶ ὃ Θεὸς τοὺς 
κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει σὺν 
αὐτῷ : see also Rom. viii. 11. So too 
Polyc. Phzl. 1 ὁ δὲ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ 
νεκρῶν καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐγερεῖ. 

κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα x«.7.A.| For the 
sense see Rom. vi. 5 ἀλλὰ καὶ [σύμ- 
duro TO ὁμοιώματι] τῆς ἀναστάσεως 
ἐσόμεθα, which passage Ignatius pro- 
bably had in his mind. The sentence 
would be simplified by the transpo- 
sition, ὃς καὶ κατὰ TO ὁμοίωμα for κατὰ 
τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ, as suggested by the 


versions ; but in a transposition they 
are not a safe guide. Zahn goes 
further and reads οὗ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίω- 
μα. An easier correction would be 
ὡς for ὃς, so that κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὡς 
would be equivalent to ὁμοίως ὡς. 
The tautology κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα... οὕτως 
is explained by the circumstances 
under which the letter was written: 
see the next note. 

6. 06 πατὴρ αὐτοῦ Added to 
show that the agent intended is not 
Christ, as the form of the sentence 
might otherwise suggest. This is 
one of many instances, in which these 
letters betray haste of composition. 
Markland, Petermann, and others 
would omit these words, but without 
sufficient reason. It is true that they 
are wanting in the Armenian; but, 
as the Syriac from which the Arme- 
nian was taken contains them, the 
omission is obviously due to the Arme- 
nian translator or to some transcriber, 

τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῆν] See the note on 
EDhes. ττ. 

X. ‘If it be true, as these godless 
unbelievers affirm, that Christ did 
not really die, then why am I a pri- 
soner? Why do I desire to fight 
with wild beasts? In this case I die 
for nothing; and I lie against the 
Lord.’ 

8. ἄθεοι, κιτ.λ.} ‘godless men, 7 


1x] TO THE TRALLIANS. 


175 


ἐγερεῖ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, οὗ χωρὶς τὸ 


ἀληθινὸν ζῆν οὐκ ἔχομεν. 


> J \ 5) 5) 
Χ, Εἰ δέ, ὥσπερ τινὲς ἀθεοι ὄντες, τουτέστιν 


» / \ an Awe > A 3 \ 
ἄπιστοι, λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν πεπονθέναι αὐτόν, αὐτοὶ 


qui credimus in eum itidem resuscitabit etc. S,; Ζ2121616771 et 7105 -credentes in eum 
secundum eandem rationem resuscitabit A; al. g: see the lower note. 

6 ὁ πατὴρ... Ἰησοῦ] GL; pater jesu christi S, (the change of a single letter 2 
for Ἵ would produce pater etus in jesu christo, which was doubtless the prior 


form of the Syriac); om. A (as being superfiuous); al. g. 


G; τῷ δοκεῖν [5]; secundum videri L. 


mean atsbelievers’. The first, word, 
not being strictly applicable to these 
heretics, needs explanation: ‘They 
are disbelievers’, says Ignatius, ‘and 
therefore they have severed them- 
selves from God’. By calling them 
ἄθεοι (see § 3 above) he places them 
on a level with the heathen; comp. 
Orig. c. Cels. ii. 3 αἱρέσεων ἀθέων καὶ 
Ἰησοῦ πάντη ἀλλοτρίων. So Tertull. 
de Carn. Chr. 15 ‘merito ethnici 
talia, sed merito et haeretici: num 
quid enim inter illos distat, nisi quod 
ethnici non credendo credunt, at 
haeretici credendo non credunt?’, 
speaking also of a form of Docetism. 
The same epithet ἄπιστος is applied 
to these Docetics in S7yrn. 2, 5, as 
not believing in the reality of Christ’s 
birth, life, and death. Comp. Iren. 
ii. 18. 7 ‘Venit...omnibus restituens 
cam guae est ad Deum communio- 
nem: igitur qui dicunt eum putative 
manifestatum, neque in carne natum 
neque vere hominem factum, adhuc 
sub. veteri sunt damnatione...non 
devicta secundum eos morte’. Igna- 
tius seems to have the same idea 
here;-) ΠΡ 15. the’ reality 'of ‘Christ’s 
humanity, as well as of His deity, 
which makes communion with God 
possible to the believer. Those there- 
fore, who deny this, hold themselves 
aloof from God; they are still ἄθεοι 
ev τῷ κύσμῳ (Ephes. ii. 12). See also 
Φ 


9 τὸ δοκεῖν] 


Cyrill. Hier. Caz. iv. 9 (p. 56) φαγὼν 
ὡς ἡμεῖς ἀληθῶς καὶ πιὼν ὡς ἡμεῖς 
ἀληθῶς: εἰ γὰρ φάντασμα ἣν ἡ ἐνανθρώ- 
πησις, φάντασμα καὶ ἡ σωτηρία. 

9. τὸ δοκεῖν) “2721 appearance’. For 
this adverbial use of τὸ δοκεῖν comp. 
Smyrn. 2, 4. The former of these 
passages is almost word for word 
the same as here. See also Tertull. 
de Carn. Chr. τ ‘et partus virginis et 
ipsius exinde infantis ordo τὸ δοκεῖν 
haberentur’, where some editors read 
But the dative is read in 
the interpolator’s recension here and 
in S7zyrz. 2,4; and so also in Philo 
Leg. ad Cat. 34 (p. 584), 42 (p. 594), 
Orig. in Hieron. ¢. Joann. Hteros. 25 
ἀπ: 431) Hieron: 2 P2/ae. ΝΡ 
(It. p. 758), at least in the printed 
texts. The accusative however seems 
altogether to be preferred here. The 
construction is different in Plat. Gorg. 
527 B μελετητέον ov τὸ δοκεῖν εἶναι ἀγα- 
θὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶναι, which Jacobson 
quotes as a parallel. 

αὐτοὶ ὄντες κιτ.λ.] ‘being themselves 
nothing but outward profession’. 
Similarly Iren. iv. 33. 5 ‘judicabit 
autem eos qui putativum inducunt... 
putativum est igitur, et non veritas, 
omne apud eos’; Tertull. adv. Valent. 
27 ‘ita omnia in imagines urgent, 
plane et ipsi imaginarii Christiani’. 
Hippolytus plays on the word δοκη- 
τὴς in another way; Haer, viii. 11 


τῷ δοκεῖν. 


176 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [Χ 


" \ - 3 \ ,ὔ ΄ x 7 \ \ " 
ὄντες τὸ δοκεῖν, ἐγὼ τί δέδεμαι; τί δὲ καὶ εὔχομαι 


θηριομαχῆσαι ; δωρεὰν οὖν ἀποθνήσκω. 


ψεύδομαι τοῦ Κυρίου. 


Μ 
ἀρα οὖν κατα- 


aor. 


s \ 
PevyeTe οὖν Tas κακὰς παραφυάδας Tas 


1 rl δὲ καὶ] L* (but with a v. 1.) Sev-Syr 2; τὶ δὲ G; e¢ quare S,A; καὶ 
[g]. 2 dpa οὖν] Voss; dpa οὐ GL; guare S, (the same interrogative 
with which it has twice translated τί just before); ἄρα (om. οὖν) [g] Sev-Syr 
(at least οὖν is not translated); e¢ A. But S,A seem to have transferred dpa 
οὖν to the sentence ἐγὼ τί dédeuat. 5 οὗ] GLg Dam-Rup 1 Sev-Syr. 
There is no authority for the reading ὧν. I do not quite understand Zahn’s 
statement, “ὧν Sf 1, 15 [i.e. 51] A, quorum hic ad fructus, ille ad propagines traxit 
pronomen, uterque enim καρποὺς θανατηφορους habet.’ Sj, translates the sing. 
καρπὸν here (as it does καρπός just below) by the plur. of NON, this being a 
common practice with Syriac translators, and necessarily therefore it substitutes a 
plural in place of ov. In this it is followed by A. In A the form of this plural 
pronoun gives no indication of gender, and it might be referred equally well to 


παραφυάδας, if we had not the Greek to determine the reference for us. 


δοκητὰς ἑαυτοὺς προσηγόρευσαν ὧν οὐ 
τὸ δοκεῖν εἶναι τινὰς κατανοοῦμεν μα- 
ταΐζοντας, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ τοσαύτης ὕλης 
δοκὸν ἐν ὀφθαλμῷ φερομένην διελέγ- 
χομεν. Pearson (on Smyrz. 2) com- 
pares Epiphan. H/aer. Ixxvi. 10 (p. 
923) ἀνόμοιον πατρὶ λέγων σὺ ἀνόμοιος 
γέγονας, κληρωθεὶς τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα, 
μηκέτι ὅμοιος ὑπάρχων τῶν ἐν Θεῷ σω- 
ζομένων. In the same vein Plato 
makes merry with the views of those 
philosophers whom he calls οἱ ῥέοντες, 
Theat. 181 A. 

I. ἐγὼ τί δέδεμαι] i.e. ‘The atone- 
ment becomesan unreality,and there- 
fore my sufferings for Christ are 
vain’, The argument is put in a 
somewhat different form in Swzyrz. 4 
εἰ yap τὸ δοκεῖν ταῦτα ἐπράχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Κυρίου, κἀγὼ τὸ δοκεῖν δέδεμαι. 

εὔχομαι θηριομαχῆσαι] “7 pray that 
7 may fight with wild beasts’: comp. 
Ephes. τ, Rom. 5. The same verb 
occurs with an aorist infinitive, § 12 
below, Ephes. 2, Rom. 5, Smyrn. 11. 
This passage is obviously a reminis- 
cence of 1 Cor. xv. 32 εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρω- 
πον ἐθηριομάχησα KT.A., as the argu- 


In S, the 


ment shows. The θηριομαχεῖν of S. 
Paul however is probably metaphori- 
cal, while that of Ignatius is literal. 

2. δωρεὰν οὖν κιτ.λ.1] Comp. Gal. 
ii. 21 ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. 

ἄρα οὖν κιτ.λ.] ‘2x this case I lie 
against the Lord’, i.e. ‘my life and 
my preaching alike are a falsehood 
against Him, for they assume that 
Christ really did rise’. The whole 
argument here is founded on 1 Cor. 
XV: 12 ‘sq: ‘see’ especially vers ag 
εὑρισκόμεθα δὲ καὶ ψευδομάρτυρες Tod 
Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ὅτι ἤγειρεν τὸν Χριστὸν k.t-A. For ἄρα 
οὖν comp. Rom. v. 18, vii. 3, 25, Vili. 
12, etc. The reading ov (which re- 
quires to be read interrogatively, ἄρα 
ov=onne) is possible in itself (see 
Kihner Gramm. 11. p. 1027), but not 
good here. 

XI. ‘Shun such false and irregu- 
lar growths; for their fruit is poison- 
ous and causes immediate death. 
These men are not the planting of 
the Father; otherwise they would 
have been seen to be branches of 
the Cross and have borne imperish- 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 177 


x1] 


/ \ 7 “᾿ aS i 
5 γεννώσας καρπὸν θανατηφόρον, ov ἐὰν γευσηταί τις, 


A ’ Cs \ of > 
παραυτὰ ἀποθνήσκει. οὗτοι yap οὐκ εἰσιν φυτεία 


7 > \ Ss 3 / \ / ΄σ a 
πατρος" εἰ yao ἦσαν, ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ σταυρου, 


Ne EN ε \ ae If : δι OM TE ~ y 
Kal ἦν ἂν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν ἀφθαρτος: ot ov ἐν TH παθει 


existing text has the fem. }%73, which would refer to παραφυάδας, but this is doubt- 
less a scribe’s error for the masc. Ἷ 722. γεύσηται] γεύσητε (with ac written 
above, but whether Arima manu, is doubtful) G. Tis] here, GL Dam-Rup ; 
before γεύσηται g. 6 παραυτὰ] wap αὐτὰ G3; παραυτίκα [g] Dam-Rup. 

yap] GLS, Dam-Rup; om. [g] A. 
Dam-Rup. For the not uncommon confusion of TNC and Trpc see the note on 
Smyrn. 13. ἦσαν] GLA; add. φυτεία πατρός S,; add. τοῦ πατρὸς κλάδοι [6]. 

8 καὶ ἦν ἂν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν κ.τ.λ.] GL; et fructus eorum incorrupti manerent in 
2α5510716 crucis domini nostri cujus membra estis 8,3; et fructus eorum permanens. 
tam signo cructs domini nostri vos membra estis eius A (for the substitution of szgno 
for passione see above, p. 26); al. g. The Syriac translator must have had a 


πατρός] GLS,Ag; τοῦ πνεύματος 


mutilated text, which omitted δ οὗ and προσκαλεῖται. 


able fruit—the Cross, whereby He 
calleth us unto Him, being His own 
members. The Head cannot be 
found apart from the members, 
forasmuch as God promiseth union, 
which union is nothing else than 
Himself.’ 

4. παραφυάδας] ‘ excrescences, off- 
shoots’; comp. Clem. Alex. Paed. 1. 8 
(p. 138) καθυλομανεῖ yap μὴ KAadevo- 
μένη ἡ ἄμπελος, οὕτως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄνθρω- 
mos: καθαίρει δὲ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐξυβριζούσας 
παραφυάδας ὁ λύγος, ἡ μάχαιρα, K.T.A. 
The word is used of an adventitious 
shoot or other growth of a plant. 
Aristotle, Plant. i. 4 (p. 819), writes 
παραφυάδες δέ εἶσι τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης 
τοῦ δένδρου βλαστάνοντα, but Theo- 
phrastus 277:2. Plant. ii. 2. 4 con- 
templates their springing from other 
parts besides the root, for he says 
ἐὰν ἀπὸ ῥίζης ἡ παραφυὰς 7. This word 
occurs several times in the LXx, 
where however it is not used with any 
precision. The metaphorical sense 
is naturally very common, and ap- 
pears at least as early as Aristotle, 
Eth. Nic. i. 4 (p. 1096). See also the 


IGN. II, 


allegory of the παραφυάδες in Hermas 
S7m. vill. I sq. 

6. παραυτὰ] ‘forthwith’; comp. 
Mart. Ign. Ant.6. Itisagood classi- 
cal word: see Lobeck Pkryn. p. 47. 

φυτεία πατρός] So again Phzlad. 3 
διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτοὺς φυτείαν πατρός. 
The reference is to Matt. xv. 13 
πᾶσα φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ 
μου 6 οὐράνιος κιτ.λ., which passage 
the interpolator has introduced into 
his text here. 

7. κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ] This they 
are not, for they deny the reality of 
the Passion. On the prominence 
given to the Cross by Ignatius in 
refuting Docetism, see phes. 18, 
Phitad. ὃ, Smyrn. 1, with the notes. 

8. ἄφθαρτος] For the Cross is the 
true ξύλον ζωῆς. 

δι’ οὗ] Sc. τοῦ σταυροῦ ; comp. Gal. 
Vid, ΡΣ πο Cok ΠΡ 2Θ 3566 
also Ephes. 9 διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν σταυρός. The in- 
termediate clause, καὶ ἦν ἂν 6 καρπὸς 
αὐτῶν ἄφθαρτος, is parenthetical. 

ἐν τῷ πάθει αὐτοῦ] See the note on 
Ephes. inscr. 


ΕΖ 


_ 


178 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x1 


΄σ ΄ ε ΄“ af / 3 σι 3 
αὐτοῦ προσκαλεῖται ὑμᾶς, οντας μελῆ αὐτου. οὐ 
is \ or of ~ ~ 
δύναται οὖν κεφαλὴ χωρὶς γεννηθῆναι ἀνευ μελῶν, TOV 
ie / c/ ? 3 / 
Θεοῦ ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου, OS ἐστιν AUTOS. 
3 / ς σὰ ᾽ \ C / e/ a 
XII. ᾿λσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ (μυρνης, ἅμα Tats 
7 ΄- ~ cA \ / 
συμπαρούσαις μοι ἐκκλησίαις TOU Θεοῦ, οἱ κατα παντα 5 


/ \ / 
με ἀνέπαυσαν σαρκί TE καὶ πνευματι. 


\ / « e/ 
Ta δεσμα μου, ἃ ἕνεκεν 


3 8s] G; guod L; al. A; def. δ΄. 
mthi L; μου G; apud vos A. 


I. προσκαλεῖται] i.e. probably ὁ 
Χριστός, to whom the preceding and 
following αὐτοῦ must necessarily refer: 
comp. Clem. Rom. 22, where προσ- 
καλεῖται ἡμᾶς 15 said of Christ. 

μέλη] As in Rom. xii. 4 sq, 1 Cor. 
vi. 15, Eph. v. 30, and especially 
1 Cor. xil. 12 sq, which last passage 
has suggested the words following 
here: comp. ver. 21 ov δύναται... ἡ 
κεφαλή x.T.A. See also Clem. Rom. 
37, 46; comp. also Ephes. 4. 

ov δύναται οὖν] ‘Now it ἐξ not 
possible (in the nature of things) that 
a head should be born without limbs’ ; 
and therefore the existence of Christ 
as the Head implies the attachment 
of the believers to Him as His mem- 
bers. Perhaps however we should 
read γενηθῆναι for γεννηθῆναι. 

2. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕνωσιν κιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘God 
supplying the principle of cohesion, 
which principle is nothing else than 
Himself’; comp. John xvii. 21 sq 
ἵνα πάντες ἕν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ; 
ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν 
ἡμῖν ὦσιν κιιλ. With ὅς ἐστιν αὐτός 
comp. /phes. 14 τὰ δὲ δύο ἐν ἑνότητι 
γενόμενα Θεός ἐστιν, and see the note 
Magn. 15. For the attraction of 
ὃς see the note on Magu. 7. The 
interpretation suggested by Smith, 
‘gut Deus est thse Christus, is quite 
out of place. 


παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ περιφέρω, 


5 po] g* (but with a v. 1. μου) ; 


πάντα] GL; πᾶν [g]; dub. A. 


XII. ‘The churches present with 
me at Smyrna join in my salutation. 
I appeal to you by the chains which 


.1 wear in Christ: Remain in unity 


and prayerfulness. It is your duty 
one and all, but especially the pres- 
byters, to assist and cherish the 
bishop, to the honour of God, of 
Christ, and of the Apostles. Listen 
to me, lest this letter rise up as a 
witness against you. I desire your 
prayers that by God’s mercy I may 
attain the martyr’s crown for which 
I thirst, and may not be rejected.’ 

4. ταῖς συμπαρούσαις μοι xk.t.d.] 
The churches who were present 
in the person of their representa- 
tives; comp. Wagn. 15 καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ 
δὲ ἐκκλησίαι... «ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς. Among 
these were the Ephesians (Zfhes. 
I sq.) and the Magnesians (J/agz. 1), 
from both which churches several 
delegates were present with him. 

5. κατὰ πάντα κιτ.λ.} On _ this 
common Ignatian phrase see the 
note Ephes, 2. 

6. σαρκί te κιτ.λ.] See the note 
on Lphes. το. 

παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς κιτ.λ.] For similar 
appeals in 5. Paul see Eph. iv. 1 παρα- 
καλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος κοτιλ., 
Philem. 9 μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ, τοιοῦτος 
ὧν ὡς Παῦλος. ..δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ; 
comp. Col, iv. 18. 


) 


XII] TO THE TRALLIANS. 


179 


αἰτούμενος Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν: διαμένετε ἐν TH ὁμονοίᾳ 
IT) / πῇ ᾿ ἀλλήλων ToOTEVYH. πρέπε ὶ 
υμῶν Και TY MET “ἃ ρ Xn p ι yap 
ὑμῖν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕνα, ἐξαιρέτως καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, 


> / 4 3 / 3 \ \ \ > 
ἀναψύχειν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον εἰς τιμὴν πατρὸς [Kal εἰς 


\ Ἵ “ x “ 3 nm ᾽ / 
τιμὴν) ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων. 


6 με] here, GL; before κατὰ [g]. 


oS 
εὔχομαι 


ς ΄ > > / > a f e/ \ 3 , 3 
ὕσὕμας εν ayany QAKOVO AL μου, {νὰ BY εις μαρτυριον ω 


Ir καὶ εἰς τιμὴν “I, X.] g3 et uni- 


genitt eius domini nostri jesu christt etc. A; Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (om. καὶ eis τιμὴν) GL: 


see the lower note. 


7. περιφέρω] See the notes on 
Ephes. 11, Magn. 1. 

8. Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν] So too below, 
§ 13. For this favourite Ignatian 
phrase see the note on 77.971. 1. 

διαμένετε] These are the words of 
the appeal (παρακαλεῖ which his 
bonds address to them. For this 
favourite construction in Ignatius, 
who prefers the imperative to the 
infinitive after παρακαλεῖν, see the 
note on § 6 χρῆσθε above. 

Io. τοῖς καθ᾽ ἔνα] See Eph. v. 33 
for this expression. Similarly οἱ κατ᾽ 
ἄνδρα below, § 13 (see the note on 
Ephes. 4). In Rom. xii. 5 we have 
the strange expression τὸ καθ᾽ εἷς. 

ἐξαιρέτως καὶ The transposition 
καὶ ἐξαιρέτως, Suggested by Jacobson, 
seems unnecessary ; comp. ὃ 13 ὁμοίως 
καὶ (with the note). For the adverb 
ἐξαιρέτως comp. Smyrz. 7 (with the 
note), and for the corresponding ad- 
jective ἐξαίρετος, Phzlad. 9. Neither 
word is found in the N.T., but ἐξαί- 
peros occurs in the LXx, Gen. xlviii. 
22, Job: v. δὲ 

II. ἀναψύχειν] See the note on 
Ephes. 2. 

εἰς τιμὴν x.t.A.] For this Ignatian 
mode of expression see the note on 
Ephes. 21. 

πατρὸς x.T.A.| If the Greek Ms of 
Ignatius be followed we must punc- 
tuate ‘to the honour of the Father 


of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles’ 
(making Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ dependent on 
πατρὸς), rather than ‘to the honour 
of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of 
the Apostles’ ; for the latter connexion 
would almost necessarily require a 
connecting particle, καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(see the notes on § 7 ἀχωρίστοις Θεοῦ 
κατιλ., and Philad. 9 τὴν παρουσίαν). 
But in this case the omission of ‘ the 
honour of Jesus Christ’ would be in- 
explicable. The probability however 
is that the right reading is preserved 
in the interpolator’s text, which inserts 
another καὶ eis τιμὴν before Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, and that a transcriber has 
ejected the words as a superfluity. 
Zahn defends the common text on 
the ground ‘scriptoris menti simili- 
tudinem illam obversari, quam et 
inter episcopum Deumque Christi 
patrem, et inter presbyteros aposto- 
losque intercedere existimat’ (comp. 
Magn. 6). 

13. εἰς μαρτύριον ὦ] Comp. Phz/lad. 
6 καὶ πᾶσι δὲ, ἐν ois ἐλάλησα, εὔχομαι 
ἵνα μὴ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτὸ κτήσωνται. 
The ἐν should probably be retained, 
in which case γράψας will stand by 
itself, ‘by my writing.’ The inter- 
polator has omitted the preposition 
in conformity with the very common 
idiom eis μαρτύριόν τινι, Matt. Vill. 4, 
x. 18, xxiv. 14, Mark i. 44, vi. II, 
GEC, 

[2—2 


180 


[ἐν] ὑμῖν γράψας. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[x 


\ \ 3 = x / 
kal περὶ ἐμοῦ δὲ προσεύχεσθε, 


τῆς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀγάπης χρήζοντος ἐν τῷ ἐλέει τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναί pe τοῦ κλήρου οὗπερ ἔγκειμαι 
ἐπιτυχεῖν, ἵνα μὴ ἀδόκιμος εὑρεθώ. 

XIII. ’᾿Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη Cuvpvaiwy καὶ 


᾿Εφεσίων. 


μνημονεύετε ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ὑμῶν τῆς 


ἐν Cupia ἐκκλησίας" ὅθεν [καὶ] οὐκ ἄξιός εἰμι λέγεσθαι, 


1 ἐν] GL; om. Ag. 


τυχεῖν Gg: gua conor potiri L; accipere (sortes) ad quas vocatus sum Jah 


ταῖς mpocevxats] GLA; om. δ. 
G; om. LAg. 


3. καταξιωθῆναι] See the note on 
Ephes. 20. 

Tov κλήρου] i.e. the glory of mar- 
tyrdom, as in Lom. 
κλῆρόν μου ἀνεμποδίστως ἀπολαβεῖν, 
Philad. 5 ἡ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν εἰς Θεόν 
με ἀπαρτίσει, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην 
ἐπιτύχω. The word is used in the 
same connexion elsewhere; 7767. 
Polyc. 6 ἵνα ἐκεῖνος τὸν ἴδιον κλῆρον 
ἀπαρτίσῃ, Ep. Vienn. et Lugd. § 3 
(in Euseb. H. £. v. 1) ἀνελήφθη καὶ 
αὐτὸς εἰς τὸν κλῆρον τῶν μαρτύρων. 

οὗπερ ἔγκειμαι K.t-A.| ‘which 7 am 
eager to attain’ 1 know no better 
emendation of the obviously corrupt 
ov περίκειμαι than this conjecture of 
Bunsen’s (47. p. 141), corresponding 
to the Latin gua conor potirz; but 1 
am not quite satisfied with it. I do 
not know whether ἔγκεισθαι elsewhere 
takes an infinitive; its common con- 
struction is with a dative of the 
thing or person. The common text 
might mean “20 obtain the lot with 
which I am invested’ (οὗ by attrac- 
tion for ὅν), but this is hardly sense. 

4. ἵνα μὴ ἀδόκιμος κιτ.λ.] Suggested 
by 1 Cor. ix. 27. The idea of a race 
seems to be present here (e.g. in 


5 \ \ 
Π εἴ 10 GOV. 


8 ἐκείνων] GL; τῶν ἐκεῖ g; al. A. 
GL; ἐν κυρίῳ ἰησοῦ χριστῷ g (MSs, but ἐγ christo jesu 1) A. 


3 οὗπερ ἔγκειμαι ἐπιτυχεῖν] Bunsen ; οὗ περίκειμαι ἐπι- 


6 ἐν 
ὑμῶν] GL [g*]; om. A. 7 καὶ] 
ἐν “Inootd Χριστῷ] 
9 ὡς 


ἔγκειμαι ἐπιτυχεῖν), aS in 5. Paul. 

XIII. ‘ The Smyrnzeans and Ephe- 
sians salute you. Pray for the Church 
in Syria, of which I am an unworthy 
member. Farewell in Christ. Be 
obedient to your bishop and pres- 
byters, and love one another. My 
spirit is devoted to you, not now 
only, but when I shall find God. 
At present I am still exposed to 
dangers; but the Father is faithful 
to fulfil your prayers and mine in 
Christ Jesus, in whom may we be 
found blameless.’ 

5. ἡ ἀγάπη κιτ.λ.1] Comp. Rom. 9, 
Philad. 11, Smyrn. 12. This is not 
a mere complimentary title, as Pear- 
son and others would take it; see 
note on § 3 τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν. 

6. Ἐφεσίων] Though the repre- 
sentatives of other churches were pre- 
sent with him at Smyrna, the Ephe- 
sians are singled out, as the more 
numerous body of delegates and as 
attending more’ continuously on him; 
comp. Magn. 15, Rom. 10. See the 
notes on Ephes. 1, 2. Ephesus and 
Smyrna were regarded as the ‘two 
eyes”, of Asia; Plin.) JV. Zao 
‘Ephesum alterum lumen Asiae’ (in 





X11] 


NX af > / 
WV εσχατος EKELYWYV. 


TO THE TRALLIANS. 


181 


sf =) 9 ~ ~ - 
ἔρρωσθε ἐν ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστῷ, ὑπο- 


/ > 3 / Ε ΄σ ? ~ ε / \ 
TAGOOMEVOL TW ETLOKOTTW ως TH evToAn, OMOLWS και 


~ 7 as \ € CC LN > 7, > ~ 
10 τῷ TET BUTEPIW" καὶ οἱ κατ avopa ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶτε 


ἐν ἀμερί δὶ 
ν ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ. 
ς AY / / > 
ὑπὸ κίνδυνον εἰμι" 


τῇ ἐντολῇ} G; om. g3 add det LA. 


πρεσβυτέροις καὶ τοῖς διακόνοις g : sacerdotibus A (see above on ἃ 7). 
ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς g (MSS, but castificet vos 1); 

13 ὑπὸ κίνδυνον] GL; ἐπικίνδυνον g (MSs, but see Appx); 
ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] GL* (but L, 2 christo 2652) ; ἰησοῦ 
χριστοῦ g ; domini nostri jesu christi [A]. 


ζεται ὑμῶν] ayvifere ὑμῶν GL; 
desiderat erga vos A. 
in sollicitudine A, 


reference to Smyrna mentioned pre- 
viously). 

τῆς ev Συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίας] This request 
appears in all the letters written from 
Smyrna; see the note on Z/hes. 21. 

7, OOev «.t.A.| Comp. Magn. 14 
ὅθεν οὐκ ἄξιός εἰμι καλεῖσθαι. 

ὃ, ὧν ἔσχατος «.7t.A.] Comp. 5- 
phes. 21 ἔσχατος ὧν τῶν ἐκεῖ πιστῶν 
(with the note). 

ἔρρωσθε] See the note on Zghes. 
21: 

9. ὡς τῇ ἐντολῇ] So too Smyrn. ὃ 
τοὺς διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς Θεοῦ 
ἐντολήν: comp. also Magu. 2 τῷ 
πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς νόμῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(with the note). In our passage ἡ 
ἐντολὴ is used absolutely, as in Rom. 
vii. 8 ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ 
τῆς ἐντολῆς K.T.A., τ Tim. vi. 14 τη- 
ρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον κ.Οτ.λ. 
Not satisfied with this, the translators 
have added ‘Dei.’ This absolute 
use is not consistent with Pearson’s 
interpretation of Swzyrn. l.c. ‘tam- 
guam Det praecepto institutos, 1.6. 
‘as being God’s ordinance’ (where 
he refers to this passage). The Tral- 
lians are told to obey the bishop’s 
orders, as they would obey God’s 


ς / ς ~ \ > \ ~ 

ayviCeTat ὑμών TO ἐμὸν πνεῦμα, 
᾽ / > ? \ Ne eZ. ἌΝ. 4 / 

ov μόνον νῦν ἄλλα καὶ OTav Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω. 


ἔτι γὰρ 


3 \ \ ς > > ΄σ 
ἄλλα πιστὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ᾿Ϊησοῦ 


Io Tg πρεσβυτερίῳ] GL* ; τοῖς 
Il ἁγνί- 


orders. The sense of ἐντολὴ here is 
active, not passive; ‘the voice or- 
dering,’ not ‘the thing ordered.’ 

ὁμοίως καὶ] See the note on Zphes. 
19. 

10. οἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘each individu- 
ally’; see the note on Efhes. 4. 

II. ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ] So again 
Philad. 6. Thus also διάνοιαν ἀδιά- 
κριτον ὃ 1, ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ Ephes. 
20. 

ayvicera ὑμῶν] 1.6. ἅγνισμα γίγνεται 
ὑμῶν, where ἅγνισμα; ‘a piacular offer- 
ing,’ like περίψημα, περικάθαρμα, etc., 
denotes entire devotion to and self- 
sacrifice for another: comp. Zphes. ὃ 
περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι ὑμῶν 
(with the note). 

12. ὅταν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω i.e. “by my 
martyrdom’; see above $ 12. 

13. ὑπὸ κίνδυνον] Comp. “2765. 12 
ἐγὼ ὑπὸ κίνδυνον, ὑμεῖς ἐστηριγμένοι 
(with the note). There is still the risk 
that either by his own weakness or 
by the interposition of others he may 
be robbed of the martyr’s crown. 

πιστὸς ὁ πατὴρ] Compare 5. Paul’s 
πιστὸς ὁ Θεὸς and similar expressions ; 
1 Cor. i. 9, X. 13, 2 Cor. i. 18, 1 Thess. 
v. 24, 2 Thess. iil. 3. 


182 IGNATIUS) TO THE, TRALEIANS. [xq 


΄σ - \ 2 \ ε ΄ 3 ΤΣ 
Χριστῷ πληρώσαί μου THY αἴτησιν καὶ ὑμῶν" ἐν ᾧ 
ς / af 
εὑρεθείημεν ἀμωμοι. 


2 εὑρεθείημεν] Ag; εὑρεθείητε GL. A single letter might make the difference 
—HMe for -HTE.- ἄμωμοι] GL; add. gratia vobiscum omnibus. amen A; 
add. ὀναίμην ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ g. 


There is no subscription to GLA. For g see the Appx. 


I. πληρῶσαι] An infinitive after αὐτῷ κιτιλ.; comp. Ephes. 11 μόνον 
πιστός; as in Neh. xiii. 13. ev Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εὑρεθῆναι, and see 
ἐν ᾧ] 1.6. Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, as in Phil. also § 2 of this epistle. 
111. 9 ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν 


A. 


Po eerie. ROMAN S. 


a 
Γ 
— 
᾿ 

᾿ 


ΠΕ — is 7 
a 


ae ὦ. 
Se ΝΕ 
a 


7 
aa 
pe 

Ι 





4. 


TO THE ROMANS. 


IKE the three preceding letters, the Epistle to the Romans was 

written and despatched from Smyrna. The Ephesian delegates, 

who were still with him, acted as amanuenses; and, as the name of 

Crocus is singled out for mention, we may suppose that he was the chief 

-penman on the occasion. This is the only letter which bears a date. 
It was written on August 23rd (δ 10). 

Ignatius had been preceded by certain members of the Syrian 
Church, who however are not mentioned by name. He assumes that 
they will have arrived in Rome before the letter; he bespeaks for them 
a kindly welcome ; and he wishes them to be informed of his speedy 
arrival. Of these persons nothing is said elsewhere. Probably they 
had been despatched from Antioch direct to Rome, immediately after 
the condemnation of the saint, with the news of his impending visit. 
The letter throughout assumes that the Roman Christians are informed 
of his fate, and will act upon the information. 

But, though the letter was despatched from the same place and 
probably about the same time with the Epistles to the Ephesians, 
Magnesians, and Trallians, though it closely resembles them in style 
and expression, yet the main topics are wholly different. The subject 
matter is changed with the change in the relations between the writer 
and the readers. There is no direct allusion to the Judzo-Gnostic 
heresy, which occupies so large a place in his letters to the Asiatic 
Churches. The Roman Church is complimented in the opening as 
‘filtered clear from every foreign colouring,’ and from first to last the 
epistle contains no reference to false doctrine of any kind. On the 


186 ‘THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


correlative topic also, the duty of obedience to the bishop and other 
officers of the Church, which shares with the denunciation of heresy 
the principal place in the other letters, he is equally silent here. Indeed 
we might read the epistle from beginning to end without a suspicion 
that the episcopal office existed in Rome at this time, if we had no 
other grounds for the belief. On the relation of this phenomenon to 
other early documents bearing on the Roman Church I have spoken 
elsewhere (.S. Clement of Rome τ. p. 68; comp. Philippians p. 217 sq). 

On the other hand the letter is almost wholly taken up with one 
single topic, which appears only casually in the other epistles—his 
coming martyrdom. We have seen how the news of his conviction 
had preceded him to Rome. He was alarmed at its possible effects. 
Perhaps he had good reason to fear the too officious zeal of his friends 
from Syria. At all events there were Christians holding influential 
positions in Rome at this time, more especially about the court (see 
the note on § 1 φοβοῦμαι κιτ.λ). What, if they should attempt to 
obtain a reversal or a commutation of his sentence? Their inop- 
portune kindness would be his ruin (§ 4). The whole letter is a 
passionate cry for martyrdom, an eager deprecation of pardon. The 
altar is ready. Will they then withhold the libation (§ 2)? Will they 
refuse the sacrifice (ὃ 4)? It will be an act of jealousy (δ 5 ζηλώσαλ)͵, 
a display of envy (δ 3 ἐβασκάνατε, ὃ 7 βασκανία), an infliction of wrong 
(8 τ ἀδικήσῃ), an outbreak of hatred (δ ὃ ἐμισήσατε), an abetting of 
Satan (§ 7 βοηθείτω αὐτῷ), to rob him of his crown. Even though 
he himself on his arrival in Rome should crave their intercession, 
which now he deprecates, he intreats them not to listen to him (δ 7). 
Martyrdom is the new birth, is the true life, is the pure light (§ 6). 
Martyrdom is the complete discipleship, the final enfranchisement (§ 4). 
The martyr’s crown is better than all the kingdoms of the earth (§ 6). 
Only then, when he sets to the world, will he rise to God (§ 2). The 
teeth of the wild beasts are the mill which grinds the fine flour for the 
sacrificial bread. ‘Therefore he will entice them, will provoke them, 
to mangle, to crush, to pulverize his limbs for the altar of God (§§ 4, 5). 
Crowned by martyrdom, his life becomes an utterance of God; robbed 
of martyrdom, it is a vague unmeaning cry (δ 2). 

The Epistle to the Romans had a wider popularity than the other 
letters of Ignatius both early and late. It appears to have been circu- 
lated apart from them, sometimes alone, sometimes attached to the 
story of the martyrdom. Thus it seems to have become in some sense 
a vade mecum of martyrs in the subsequent ages. At all events we find 


TO THE ROMANS. 187 


it quoted before any of the other epistles (Iren. v. 28. 4; see § 4, p. 207 
below) ; and its influence on the earliest genuine Acts of Martyrdom 
extant—those of Polycarp, and those of Perpetua and Felicitas—seems 
to be clearly discernible (see the notes on ὃ 6 προσβιάσομαι, ὃ 5 ᾽᾿Οναίμην 
x.T.X. ; comp. also the note on ὃ 4 ἀπελεύθερος x.7.X.). Moreover in the 
Meneza for Dec. 20, the day assigned to 5. Ignatius in the later Greek 
Calendar, we meet again and again with expressions taken from it, 
whereas there is no very distinct coincidence with the other epistles. 
On the other hand, where the interest was doctrinal and not practical, 
as for instance in the Monophysite controversy, the other letters are 
prominent and the Epistle to the Romans recedes into the background. 
Owing to these circumstances, the history and the phenomena of the 
text are different in several respects from those of the other epistles 
(see above, p. 5 56). 


The following is an analyszs of the epistle. 

‘IGNATIUS to the CHURCH OF ROME, preeminent in position as in 
love, worthy of all good things and filtered clear from all defilement, 
abundant greeting in Christ.’ 

‘My prayer has been more than granted; for I shall see you in 
my bonds. Only do not interpose, that so my course, which has begun 
well, may also end well (δ 1). The opportunity is great; do not mar it. 
If you keep silence, God will speak through me. The altar is ready 
for sacrifice; chant ye the hymn of praise round the victim (§ 2). 
Teach me my duty, as you have taught others. Pray that I may have 
strength to do, aswellastosay. I shall be seen most plainly then, when 
I have ceased to be seen. Christianity is not talk, but might (§ 3). 
I tell all the churches that I die freely. Leave me to the wild beasts. 
I am the fine meal ground in the mill for sacrifice. Stir up the wild 
beasts to devour me wholly. I cannot command you as Peter and 
Paul did; for I am only a criminal and a slave (§ 4). I am fighting 
with wild beasts the whole way from Syria to Rome. Yet the cruelty 
of my guards is a wholesome discipline to me. I trust and pray that 
the beasts will devour me at once; that they will be eager, as I am 
eager. Let no power in heaven or on earth envy me my crown. Iam 
ready for any torture (§ 5). All the kingdoms of the earth are nothing 
to me. I desire Christ; I desire light and life. Let me imitate the 
passion of my God (§ 6). Satan would seize on me as his prey; do 
not abet him. Obey me in these words which I write now. My 
earthly passions are crucified. I desire not the food of corruption. 


188 IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS. 


I crave the bread and the cup of God (§ 7). Once again; do not 
thwart me. I write briefly, but Christ will interpret. It is God’s own 
will that I declare (δ 8).’ 

‘Pray for the Syrian Church, which has no bishop now but God, and 
of which I am an unworthy member. The churches which have re- 
ceived and escorted me join in my salutation (§ 9). I write this from 
Smyrna, with the assistance of the Ephesians, especially Crocus. Tell 
the Syrians who have preceded me, that I shall arrive shortly. Written 
on ix Kal. Sept. Farewell, be patient to the end (§ 10).’ 


Poe oP OMALOY G: 


ἼΓΝΑΤΙΟΟ, ὁ καὶ Qeodopos, τῆ ἠλεημένη ἐν μεγα- 


/ \ e 7 ~~ o ς.- 
λειότητι πατρος ὑψίστου καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου 


e ΄. > ~~ > 7] 3 ’ \ / > 
νιον αὐτου, ἐκκλησίᾳ ynyamnuevn καὶ πεφωτισμεέενη ἐν 


θ λή a θ ͵ A / εὰ J \ 
ελήματι του θελησαντος Ta πανταὰα ἃ ἐστιν, κατα 


ΠΡΟς ρΡωμδιουο] τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς ῥωμαίους g*; ztgnatit epistola ad 
romanos L*; epistola tertia (eiusdem sancti ignatit) X*; ad romam urbem A. There 


is no title in GA,SmM. 
I ὁ kal] M; gud est Am; om. Sp. 
Ephes. inscr. 


ὑψίστου θεοῦ πατρός g. 
ys 


For the other authorities see the note on 
2 πατρὸς ὑψίστου] GLZAAmM; excels¢ (om. πατρός) Sm; 

καὶ] GLAmSn[M] g (but omitted in 1); om. A; def. 
Σ. 3 ἠγαπημένῃ] GLAmSmM: ἡγιασμένῃ [g*]; sancti A (translating it as if it 
had read the sentence υἱοῦ τοῦ ἡγιασμένου καὶ φωτίζοντος) ; def. =. 


4 τοῦ θελή- 


σαντος] GLAAmM ; τοῦ ποιήσαντος [5]; es gui ligat et tenet omnia Sm; def. Σ. 


‘IGNATIUS to the CHURCH OF 
ROME, that hath found mercy and 
enlightenment in Jesus Christ, that 
is foremost in rank as in love, worthy 
in all respects, attached with Christ’s 
commands, full of grace, and filtered 
clear of all defilement; a hearty 
greeting in Christ.’ 

I. τῇ ἠλεημένῃ κιτ.λ.] ‘which has 
found mercy in the mightiness of the 
Father Most High, i.e. ‘on which 
He in His compassion has conferred 
gifts such as His mightiness alone 
can bestow’; comp. Smyrn. inscr. 
ἠλεημένῃ ἐν παντὶ χαρίσματι. For 
ἠλεημένῃ see also Phzlad. inscr. For 
μεγαλειότης, ‘mightiness,’ ‘magnifi- 
cence,’ applied to God, comp. Luke 
ix. 43, 2 Pet. i. 16, Clem. Rom. 24, in 
all which passages it refers to muni- 
ficent exhibitions of His power (Acts 


li. II τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ). It oc- 
curs in other connexions, Jer. xxxili 
(xl); 9,°3 Esdruie 4Aets 1x. 27; 

32. ἠγαπημένῃ] So to be read, as in 
Trall. inscr. Though ἡγιασμένῃ has 
very high support, yet it ought pro- 
bably to be rejected, as a likely word 
(comp. I Cor. i. 2) to be substituted 
in this connexion by a scribe. This 
very substitution has been made in 
many MSS of Jude 1 τοῖς ἐν Θεῴ πατρὶ 
ἡγιασμένοις, where ἠγαπημένοις is the 
correct reading. 

4. τοῦ θελήσαντος x.t.d.| ‘of Him 
that willed all things which exist’; 
comp. Magn. 3 εἰς τιμὴν ἐκείνου τοῦ 
θελήσαντος ὑμᾶς. I have punctuated 
after ἔστιν and accentuated it paroxy- 
tone, as the sense requires. 

κατὰ πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην «.t-A.| ‘27 


faith and love toward Fesus Christ? 


190 


THE EPISTLE (OF IGNATIUS 


- ~ - ΠΝ uel 
πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, iris 


1 πίστιν καὶ] gAAm; om. GLSmM ; def. >. 
ἀξιόθεος.. «ἀξίωγνος] txt GLA (with variations 


loco chori Τ,; regione Sm. 


2 τόπῳ χωρίου] GEAAnMg ; 


explicable through the medium of the Syriac; see the next note) AmSmg; digna deo 
(ἀξιόθεος) εἰ digna vita (ἀξιοπρεπής, for ἐδ ΤΠ veta is doubtless a corruption of NN? 


The genitive case is objective and 
probably refers to both the preceding 
substantives, as in Lphes. 20 ev τῇ 
αὐτοῦ πίστει καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀγάπῃ; 
comp. 20. 14 ἐὰν τελείως εἰς ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἔχητε τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγά- 
πην. 866 4150 Epes. τ with the note. 
The preposition κατὰ gives the rule 
or standard after which their con- 
duct is fashioned. 

I. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν] See the note 
on £phes. inscr. 

2. προκάθηται] ‘has the chief seat, 
presides, takes the precedence. The 
word is used of preeminence or supe- 
riority generally in writers of about 
this time; e.g. Dion Chrysost. O7. 
xxxv (p. 68) τῆς τε Φρυγίας mpoxabn- 
σθε καὶ Λυδίας κιτ.λ. (of the town of 
Celzenz), Galen XIX. p. 22 (Kiihn) 
ἡ ξίωσάν τινες τῶν ἀξιολόγων ἰατρῶν ἐν 
προεδρείᾳ καθεζόμενοι κιτιλ., Greg. 
Naz. Oy. xliii. 14 (I. p. 780) τὸ Βυ- 
ζάντιον, τὴν προκαθεζομένην τῆς ἑῴας 
Schol. to Soph. Electr. 234 
Μυκῆναι ἡ προκαθεζομένη τοῦ “Apyous. 
See the inscription in Bull. de Cor- 
resp. Hellén. VU. Ὁ. 283 Tadpoos...rav 
y ἐπαρχειῶν, Κιλικίας], Ἰσαυρίας, Avkao- 
vials, προἸκαθεζομένη, with the refer- 
ence (2b. p. 285) to Basil of Seleucia 
Op. p. 275 (Paris, 1622) Σελεύκεια... 
προεδρεύουσα καὶ προκαθεζομένη πάσης 
Ἰσαυρίδος πόλεως. Pearson quotes 
an edict ascribed to the Dictator 
Cesar in Ioann, Malal. Chron, ix. p. 
216 (ed. Bonn.) Ἔν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τῇ μη- 
τροπόλει, ἱερᾷ καὶ ἀσύλῳ καὶ αὐτονόμῳ 
καὶ ἀρχούσῃ καὶ προκαθημένῃ τῆς ἀνατο- 
λῆς, Ἰούλιος Taios Καῖσαρ κιτιλ. Leo 
the Great thus apostrophizes Rome 
herself at a later date (Seri, 82, OP. 


πόλιν. 


I. p. 322, Venet. 1753), ‘civitas sacer- 
dotalis et regia, per sacram beati 
Petri sedem caput orbis effecta, latius 
praesideres religione divina quam 
dominatione terrena.’ 

ἐν τόπῳ «.t.’.] These words pro- 
bably describe the limits over which 
the supremacy or jurisdiction ex- 
tends; comp. Tert. de) Praesceiao 
‘percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud 
quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolo- 
rum suzs locis praesident. In this 
case it might be thought that there 
was a reference more especially to 
the presidency of the Roman see 
over the suburbicarian bishops, who 
formed a sort of college under the 
bishop of Rome as their head—a con- 
stitution out of which the later college 
of Cardinals grew. But, not to men- 
tion that the presidency is here as- 
signed not to the Roman bishop but 
to the Roman Church, such a refer- 
ence would probably be a great ana- 
chronism. Though some have seen 
distinct traces of this relation between 
the bishop of Rome and the subur- 
bicarian sees at least as early as the 
beginning of the third century (Bun- 
sen Hippolytus 1. Ὁ. 422 sq, ed. 2; 
Milman Laz. Christ. 1. p. 41; comp. 
Ruggieri de Port. Hippol. Sed. ii. 8 
in Lumper Azs¢t. Sanct. Patr. Vit. 
Ῥ. 518 sq), yet there is really no evi- 
dence of such a constitution till a 
very much later date, while many 
facts point in the opposite direction ; 
see Dollinger Hzppolytus u. Kallistus 
p. 108 sq. The τόπος χωρίου Ῥωμαίων 
therefore will have a looser significa- 
tion, denoting generally ‘the country 
or district of the Romans’ (comp. 


TO THE ROMANS, 191 


7 > 
καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ‘Pwuaiwv, ἀξιόθεος, 


decorum, as Cureton and Petermann suggest) e¢ deatitudine (ἀξιομακάριστος) et laude 
(ἀξιέπαινος) et memoria (perhaps -- ἀξίαγνος, 8IN317 memoria being a corruption of 
NDI purificatio) et digna prosperitate (ἀξιεπίτευκτος) 2; om. M. 


Macar. Magn. Agocr. iii. 38, p. 135, 
ἐν σκήπτρῳ καὶ χώρᾳ Ῥωμαίων avara- 
τῶν); and the Church of Rome itself 
is so entitled, as the principal church 
in this region, just as the Church of 
Jerusalem might be said προκαθῆσθαι 
ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ᾿Ιουδαίων. 

On the otherhand it might be urged 
that ἐν τόπῳ κιτιλ. describes not the 
range of the supremacy, but the 
locality of the supreme power itself. 
In this case προκάθηται would be used 
absolutely of a certain precedence 
assigned to the Church of Rome, as 
situated in the metropolis of the em- 
pire and the world, over the other 
churches of Christendom. The ex- 
pression would then be allied to the 
‘potentior principalitas,’ which Ire- 
nzus (ili. 3. 2) assigns to the Roman 
Church; though not so strong in 
itself. But, if this were the meaning, 
it is difficult to see why Ignatius 
should write ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων 
in place οὗ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, which alone 
would be natural to describe merely 
the locality. The idea of the ‘cathedra 
Petri’ therefore has no place here. 

For the pleonastic τόπῳ comp. 
Clem. Hom. i. 14 ποθῶ ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς 
Ιουδαίας γενέσθαι τόπον, Letter of 
Abgar in Euseb.. 27... i. 13 δ ὠτῆρι 
ἀγαθῷ ἀναφανέντι ἐν τόπῳ Ἱεροσολύμων 
(comp. Doctrine of Addai p. 4, ed. 
Phillips). It may perhaps be regard- 
ed as a Syriasm, since the Syrians 
constantly insert the corresponding 
word NNN in translating from the 
Greek, where it has no place in the 
Originals e.g: “ACts ii. 9;.10; iv. 36, 
ἘΠ IO iv. 2A. xy, 7.8, XVill.:2, XX-2, 
etc., in the Peshito. In Origen zz 
Toann. 11. 12 (iV. p. 172) πεποίηκεν 
ἐκεῖ τοῦ τόπου χωρίου παρακλήσεως, 


quoted by Pearson and others as a 
parallel to the expression here, we 
ought probably to read χωρίον. The 
explanation of Bunsen, who governs 
χωρίου by προκάθηται and interprets ἐν 
τόπῳ in dignitate, in officio suo (Br. 
p. 114), appears to me quite unten- 
able. Nor again does it seem possi- 
ble to accept Zahn’s solution (/. v. A. 
p. 311 sq, and ad /oc.), who takes the 
same construction but substitutes 
τύπῳ for τόπῳ, making ἐν τύπῳ signify 
‘as an example,’ i.e. to the other 
churches. We should expect ets 
τύπον OF ws τύπος in this case; and 
indeed the extreme awkwardness of 
the whole expression condemns it. 

χωρίου] ‘region.’ The words χῶρος 
(‘place’), χώρα (‘country’), and χω- 
ρίον (‘district’), may be distinguished 
as implying locality, extension, and 
limitation, respectively. The last 
word commonly denotes either ‘an 
estate, a farm,’ or ‘a fastness, a 
stronghold,’ or (as a mathematical 
term) ‘an area.’ Here, as not un- 
frequently in later writers, it is ‘a 
region, ‘a district’; but the same fun- 
damental idea is preserved. The 
relation of χῶρος to χωρίον is the 
same as that of ἄργυρος, χρυσός, to 
ἀργύριον, χρυσίον, the former being 
the metals themselves, the latter the 
metals worked up into bullion or 
coins or plate or trinkets or images, 
e.g. Macar. Magn. AZocr. iil. 42 (p. 
147) ταῦτ᾽ ἐκ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου καὶ 
χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου πλαττόμενα μορφώ- 
ματα ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον. 

ἀξιόθεος κιτιλ] On the frequency 
of these compounds of ἄξιος in Igna- 
tius see the note on Zphes. 4 ἀξιο- 
νόμαστον. In this passage, though 
symmetrical in composition, they are 


192 


THE EPISTLE: OF IGNATIUS 


5 ΄ 5 / 9 / b) iF 
ἀξιοπρεπής, ἀξιομακαριστος, ἀξιέπαινος, ἀξιεπίτευκτος, 


\ y ΄- 9 fi v. 
ἀξίαγνος, και προκαθημένη τῆς AYATNS, χρίιστονομος, 


/ 
πατρωνυμος" 


e\ \ 3 ’ 3 Med ‘| a 
ἣν καὶ ἀσπαζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ϊησοῦ 


1 ἀξιεπίτευκτος] g* (but | has fide dignae) G (written ἀξιοεπίτευκτος) Σ (see the 
last note) AmSm; digne ordinata L; digna precibus A: see the lower note. 
2 xpicrdvouos] g* (though the common text has xpiorwvupos) ; christi habens 


hardly so in meaning, but take their 
complexion from the other compo- 
nent element, ‘worthy of praise,’ 
‘worthy zz purity,’ etc. For the word 
ἀξιόθεος itself see 7γαζί. inscr. (note). 

I. ἀξιεπίτευκτος] The meaning of 
the word may be doubtful. Accord- 
ing as an active or a passive sense is 
assigned to -emurevktos, it will signify 
‘worthy of success’ or ‘worthy of 
associating with.’ Jacobson indeed 
says of this latter sense, ‘mire Vede- 
lius diguissima quae invisatur. But 
it is suggested by the passive form; 
it is supported by such analogies as 
ἀξιοζήλωτος, ἀξιοθέατος, ἀξιόκτητος, 
and especially ἀξιοκοινώνητος (Plat. 
Resp. p. 371 E); and it would harmo- 
nize with Ignatius’ expressed desire 
to see the Romans (ὃ 1). On the other 
hand ἀνεπίτευκτος, εὐεπίτευκτος, both 
of them late and rare words, are used 
in the sense ‘unsuccessful,’ ‘fortu- 
nate, respectively. All those versions 
also, which had the word uncorrupted, 
agree in so rendering it ; agua prospe- 
vitate 3; digna assecutione (desidert- 
orum) A,; digna its quae petitt S,: 
and this fact may perhaps be allowed 
to decide the meaning. Of the others, 
digne ordinata in L represents ἀξιε- 
πίτακτος, and fide digna in 1 ἀξιο- 
πίστευτος, While digna precibus in 
A is due to a corruption in the 


Syriac text (ask 


ash \ eal prosperttate) which the 


Armenian translator had_ before 
him, as Petermann has pointed out. 
Yet δυσεπίτευκτος seems to have a 


precatione for 


passive sense ‘ difficult of attainment’ 
(unless indeed its meaning is ‘diffi- 
cult of success’) in Diod. Sic. xvii. 93 
ὁρῶν δυσεπίτευκτον τὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς Τὰν- 
δαρίδας στρατείαν οὖσαν, 2b. Xxxii. EXC. 
εἰς πολλὰς ἐπιβολὰς δυσεπιτεύκτους 
ἔσχε τὰς πράξεις, and so certainly 
Methodius Conv. i. I (p. 11, 64. Jahn) 
σπάνιον πάνυ καὶ δυσεπίτευκτον ἀνθρώ- 
ποις ἁγνεία ; While Hesych. uses it in 
a somewhat different sense, but still 
passive, ‘difficult of access, unsoci- 
able,’ when he writes δυσπετέστε- 
pos: δυσκολώτερος, δυσεπιτευκτότερος. 
As regards the form of the word, 
ἀξιεπίτευκτος is more in accordance 
with analogy (e.g. ἀξιέπαινος just a- 
bove, ἀξιέντρεπτος Clem. Alex. Proph. 
Fel. 28, Dp. 997), 

2. a€iayvos]‘worthily pure. Bun- 
sen (Lr. p. 115) conjectures d&iawos, 
supposing that the previous ἀξιέπαινος 
is a transcriber’s gloss to explain the 
unusual word aéiawos. But the con- 
vergence of so many and various 
authorities in favour of the reading 
in the text forbids such a violent 
alteration. 

προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης] Comp. 
Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 2, 17, where 
προκαθέζεσθαι ἀληθείας is said of Cle- 
ment as the successor of S. Peter. 
There is doubtless here a reference 
back to the foregoing προκαθημένη ἐν 
τόπῳ κι. The Church of Rome, as 
it is first in rank, is first also in love. 
A noble testimony is borne to the 
spirit which distinguished the early 
Roman Church by Dionysius of 
Corinth, who writes as follows to the 


TO THE ROMANS. 


193 


~~ ς “ , \ / ~ 
Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ πατρὸς: κατὰ σάρκα Kal πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις 


7 3 ~ > os J , 4 > 
Taon ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμενοις χάριτος Θεοῦ ἀδια- 


7 Δ 3 ὃ / 3 \ \ > 7 / 
κρίτως καὶ aTrOOLWALOMEVOLS ἀπὸ TaVTOS ἀλλοτρίου χρώ- 


legsem Li; in lege christi [Z| Sm; lege christi A; χριστώνυμος G; def. Μ. Am gives 


both readings, christz-habens-legem (aut; christi-habens-nomen). 


which follows, = is greatly abridged. 


Christians in Rome (c. A.D. 170), ἐξ 
ἀρχῆς ὑμῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας 
μὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκ- 
κλησίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν 
πόλιν ἐφόδια πέμπειν, ὧδε μὲν τὴν τῶν 
δεομένων πενίαν ἀναψύχοντας, ἐν μετάλ- 
λοις δὲ ἀδελφοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἐπιχορη- 
γοῦντας: δι ὧν πέμπετε ἀρχῆθεν ἐφο- 
δίων πατροπαράδοτον ἔθος Ῥω- 
μαίων Ῥωμαῖοι φυλάττοντες, and he 
adds that Soter, their present bishop, 
had more than sustained the tradi- 
tional reputation of his church for 
deeds of charity; Euseb. 4. £. iv. 
23. The Epistle of Clement itself is 
a happy illustration of this spirit. 

xptorovopos| ‘observing the law 
of Christ’: comp. 1 Cor. ix. 21 ἔννο- 
μος Χριστοῦ, and see also Gal. vi. 2 
ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
Magn. 2 ὡς νόμῳ “Incov Χριστοῦ. 
Considering the great preponder- 
ance of the best authorities in favour 
of χριστόνομος, and the likelihood of 
alteration into χριστώνυμος for the 
sake of conformity with the following 
word, there can be no doubt about 
the reading. 

3. πατρώνυμος] See Ephes. iii. 14, 15, 
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἐξ ov πᾶσα πατριὰ 
ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται. 
The lexicons give no other example 
of this word, though the derivatives 
πατρωνυμικός, πατρωνυμικῶς, are not 
uncommon in later writers, and πα- 
τρωνύμιος occurs even in Aéschylus 
Pers. 151 τὸ πατρωνύμιον γένος ἡμέτε- 
pov (where Blomfield would read τὸ 
πατρώνυμον ὧν k.T.A.). This same play 
also offers a good analogy to the pre- 
ceding word in Περσόνομος ver. 916. 


ΤΟΝ: 11. 


In the passage 


4. σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα] See the note 
on £phes. το. 

ἡνωμένοις] ‘united to’, and so ‘act- 
ing tn unison with’; comp. Magn. 6, 
Smytn. 3. 

5. ἀδιακρίτως] not ‘znseparably’, 
but ‘wthout wavering, with undt- 
vided allegiance, with singleness of 
hear?’; comp. Philad. inscr. dyah- 
λιωμένῃ ἐν τῷ πάθει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 
ἀδιακρίτως. See the note on ἀδιάκρι- 
tov, Ephes. 3. Comp. also such ex- 
pressions as ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ Tradl, 
13, ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ Ephes. 20. 

6. ἀποδιυλισμένοις] ‘strained clear’, 
‘filtered’; comp. Philad. 3 οὐχ ὅτι παρ᾽ 
ὑμῖν μερισμὸν εὗρον ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδιυλισμόν. 
The single compound éwaAi¢ew occurs 
literally in Amos vi. 6, Matt. xxiii. 24 
(comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 20, p. 
489), and metaphorically in Clem. 
Alex. Proph. Eccl. 7 (p. 991) To καὶ 
πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα συμπεπλεγμένα TH 
ψυχῇ διυλίζεσθαι κιτιλ. For the sub- 
stantive see Iren. i. 14. ὃ ἔν τε πόνοις 
καὶ ταλαιπωρίαις ψυχὴ γενομένη eis 
διυλισμὸν αὐτῆς (explaining the Va- 
lentinian teaching), Clem. Alex. Paed. 
i. 6 (p. 117) οἱ διυλισμὸν μὲν τοῦ πνεύ- 
ματος τὴν μνήμην τῶν κρειττόνων εἶναι 
φασίν διυλισμὸν δὲ νοοῦσι τὸν ἀπὸ 
τῆς ὑπομνήσεως τῶν ἀμεινόνων τῶν χει- 
ρόνων χωρισμόν (speaking of certain 
Gnostics)...rdv αὐτὸν οὖν τρόπον καὶ 
ἡμεῖς...διυλιζόμενοι βαπτίσματι k.T.d. 
For another compound see Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod. 41 (p. 979) ἐν ᾧ 
συνδιυλίσθη κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ τὰ σπέρ- 
ματα συνελθόντα αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλήρωμα. 
For coincidences with the Valenti- 
nian phraseology in Ignatius see the 


13 


194 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


wn Co ~~ ~ e δι 3 / 
ματος, πλεῖστα ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ἀμώμως 


χαίρειν. 


’ \ ’ / -~ > / > ΄ € ΄σ A 
I. Emel εὐξάμενος Θεῷ ἐπέτυχον ἰδεῖν ὑμών τα 


rT. X. re Oeg ἡμῶν GLAm Sm; I. X. τὸ θεῷ (om. ἡμῶν) M; Ἶ. X. 
(om. τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν) A; θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἴ. X. g; om. a (see the last 
note). 3 ᾿Επεὶ evédpevos] GAAm Mg* (but 1 has deprecans); deprecans 
(ἐπευξάμενος) L. The following are doubtful; jampridem deum oravt ut dignus 
fierem...nunc autem ligatus etc Σ; oravi et datum est mihi ut viderem etc Sm; but 
they seem to be attempts to mend the anacoluthon of ἐπεὶ εὐξάμενος κιτ.λ. See the 
lower note. Θεῷ] GM; τῷ θεῷ g. 4 ἀξιόθεα] G2Sm g; 
ἀξιοθέατα M (but v.1. ἀξιόθεα); dignas visione L. (but this does not necessarily imply 
ἀξιοθέατα, since ἀξιόθεα might have been so interpreted, though wrongly; see the 
lower note); vestras dignas visione facies (aut, vestras deo dignas facies) Am (this 
might imply merely alternative renderings of ἀξιόθεα, but probably intends alterna- 
tive readings, ἀξιόθεα and ἀξιοθέατα); om. A. ws] GL; ods g* (Mss, but 1 has 
stcutt); quod (or guem, or guos) A; td guod Sm (but this does not imply any other 


notes on Lfhes. inscr., Magn. ὃ, 
Trall.t. The construction and meta- 
phor here are well illustrated by a 
fragment attributed to Archytas in 
Stobeeus Flor. 1. 73 Θεὸς...εἰλικρινῆ 
καὶ διυλισμέναν ἔχει τὰν ἀρετὰν ἀπὸ 
παντὸς τῶ θνατῶ πάθεος. The χρῶμα 
refers to the colouring matter which 
pollutes the purity of the water. 

I. πλεῖστα...χαίρειν] See the note 
on Ephes. inscr. 

τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν] See the note on 
Ephes. inscr. 

ἀμώμως] On this word in the open- 
ing salutations of the Ignatian Epis- 
1165 see the note “phes. inscr. 

I. ‘My petition has been more 
than answered, when I prayed that I 
might see your faces: for I hope at 
length to salute you as a prisoner of 
Jesus Christ, if it be God’s will that 
I complete my course. The begin- 
ning indeed is well ordered, if only I 
am successful to the end, so that no 
one interposes to rob me of my por- 
tion. I say this, because I am ap- 
prehensive of your love. It is easy 
for you to do as you will; but it is 
difficult for me to find God, unless 
you stay your hands’. 


3. Ἐπεὶ εὐξάμενος x.t.r.] ‘Seeing 
that in answer to my prayers’. The 
sentence is an anacoluthon; depen- 
dent clauses crowd upon each other 
in succession; and the thread of the 
grammar is lost. For similarinstances 
in the openings of these epistles 
see Ephes. 1 ᾿Αποδεξάμενος (with the 
note). The anacoluthon here has a 
close parallel also in MZagu. 2 Ἐπεὶ 
οὖν ἠξιώθην k.r.A. (see the note). The 
subject on which he here ‘flies off at 
a tangent’ is his fear lest the Roman 
Christians should interpose and rob 
him of his martyr’s triumph. Here, 
as in similar cases, the transcribers 
and critics have attempted to mend 
the syntax. Such an attempt, for 
instance, is the substitution of ’Ezev- 
Eauevos for ᾿Επεὶ εὐξάμενος (Vedelius, 
Ussher, Pearson, etc, with the Latin 
Versions and some MSS of the Meta- 
phrast), or the reading Πάλαι ἐπευξά- 
μενος (Bunsen after the Syriac), or 
the omission of yap after δεδεμένος 
(the editors commonly after the Me- 
dicean MS). 

ἐπέτυχον] “7 have been successful’, 
‘tt has been granted me’; not mean- 
ing that he had already seen them, 


1] TO THE ROMANS. 195 


/ / Φ > > ~ 
ἀξιόθεα πρόσωπα, ws καὶ πλέον ἢ ἠἡτούμην λαβεῖν" δεδε- 
/ \ > X Fe ᾽Ἵ = 3 , e - ᾽ / 
5 μένος yap ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐλπίζω ὑμᾶς ἀσπάσασθαι, 
J / ὩΣ ox -_ 3 > 
ἐάνπερ θέλημα ἡ τοῦ ἀξιωθῆναί με εἰς τέλος εἶναι: ἡ 


reading than ws); def. ΣΜ. For Am see the next note. πλέον ἢ ἠτούμην] 
see below; πλέον ἠτούμην GLAg; ex multo tempore petebam Sm (perhaps a bad 
rendering of πλέον rather thanav.1. πάλαι); def. 2M. An has guantum petii, plus 
etiam accepi, which gives the same sense as my conjectural reading. 5 γὰρ] 
gL Am; unc autem [2] (see a previous note); δέ nunc A; om. GM; al. Sm (but 
the existing text seems to have been corrupted from one which had γάρ; see 
Meesinger p. 25). Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] GLAnSmMg; inoot χριστῷ DA. 

ἀσπάσασθαι) GLAAmMg; ventre et salutare Sm; accipere et salutare Σ (where 
accifpere seems to represent λαβεῖν, which has been preserved from the omitted 
context). 6 θέλημα] gLzZSpm; add. τοῦ θεοῦ GAM; add. domini Am: see 
the lower note. εἶναι] GLg; οὕτως εἶναι M3; pervenire Am; sustinere 
haec Sm; om. ZA. The variations of the Oriental Versions seem to be mere 


- 


expedients of translators, and not to imply any v. 1. in the Greek. 


but that circumstances were such as 
to have already insured the fulfilment 
of his prayer. 

4. ἀξιόθεα] See the note on 7ralJ. 
inscr. The authorities for ἀξιοθέατα 
are too slight to justify its adoption, 
though plausible in itself. I cannot 
find that ἀξιόθεος (or indeed any com- 
pound in -eos) is ever derived from 
θέα, and therefore equivalent to ἀξιο- 
θέατος (as maintained by Zahn ἢ, v. 
A. p. 558, though ad /oc. he is dis- 
posed to retract this opinion). In 
C. ἢ G. 4943 ἀξιθέους in ver. 3 has 
not the same meaning as ἀξιθέωρον 
in ver. 4 but refers to the ‘shrines’ 
which are mentioned in the same 
line. Alciphron £7. 111. 55 is quoted 
in the lexicons for this sense, but the 
reading is probably ἀξιόχρεα, not ἀξι- 
όθεα. 

ὡς καὶ κιτιλ] ‘so that I have re- 
ceived even more than I asked for’. 
He had prayed that he might see the 
Romans; he was permitted to visit 
them, decorated with a prisoner's 
fetters and (so he ventured to hope) 
crowned with a martyrs chaplet. 
For the ideas associated with δέσμιος 
in the mind of Ignatius see the notes 


on Ephes. 3, 11, Magn. 1. For os 
with the infinitive, expressing the 
consequence, see e.g. Acts xx. 24 (v. 1.), 
Clem. Hom. i. 20 ὡς ἐκπλαγέντα pe 
θαυμάζειν, 3 Macc, i. 2 ὡς μόνος κτεῖναι 
αὐτόν. It is not very uncommon in 
classical authors, e.g. AEsch. Eum, 36, 
Xen. Azad. i. 5. 10, 1. 8. 10, ili. 4. 25, 
iv. 3. 29 (with Kiihner’s notes), and 
fairly common in later writers. The 
reading of the MSS here seems quite 
unintelligible, though the editors have 
hitherto acquiesced in it. I have 
remedied the fault by the repetition 
of a single letter, πλέον ἢ ἡτούμην for 
πλέον ἠτούμην (comp. e.g. the vv. Il. in 
Gal. v. 1, Clem. Rom. 35, ii. 8). For 
the construction comp. Aristid. ΟΖ. I. 
p. 48 σκέπης ἔδει πλείονος ἢ φέρειν 
δυναίμην. Another simple emenda- 
tion would be πλέον ὧν for πλέον, as 
the ὧν might easily have been omit- 
ted owing to homceoteleuton; comp. 
Polyc. τ αἰτοῦ σύνεσιν πλείονα ἧς ἔχεις, 
ib. 3 πλέον σπουδαῖος γίνου οὗ εἶ, 

6. ἐάνπερ θέλημα ἢ] “170 1ὲ should 
be willed’. For this absolute use of 
θέλημα, referring to the Divine will, 
see the note on Ephes. 20. Here, as 
in most other passages where it oc- 


13—2 


196 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ 


> / / 9 > \ , > 
μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὴ εὐοικονομῆτος E€OTILV, εαν TEPATOS εσι- 


τύχω εἰς τὸ τὸν κλῆρόν μου ἀνέμπιοδισίτως ἀπολαβεῖν. 
ee i γὰρ τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην; μὴ αὐτή με ἀδικήση" 
ὑμῖν γὰρ εὐχερές ἐστιν, ὃ θέλετε, ποιῆσαι: ἐμοὶ 


1 ἐὰν πέρατος ἐπιτύχω] si finem etiam inveniam A; st dignus-fiam perduct ad 


finem =; ἐάνπερ χάριτος ἐπιτύχω GL; 


have had two separate words χάριτος and πέρατος. 


ἐάνπερ τῆς χάριτος ἐπιτύχω M. Hitherto we 


In the authorities which follow 


they are combined ; wt wsgue ad finem assequar hanc gratiam Sm; st finem etiam 

gratiae assequar Am; and so too the presence of both words is betokened in the 
| ΕΞ 3 > “ἢ 2 2 

adaptation of g, ἐάνπερ χάριτος ἐπιτύχω eis τὸ Tov κλῆρόν μου εἰς πέρας ἀνεμπο- 


δίστως ἀπολαβεῖν. 


ΑΙΙΣΜ g; sed AAmSn. 


curs, the transcribers have added 
explanatory words. See the critical 
note. 

εἰς τέλος εἶναι] “210 arrive at the 
end’: comp. Luke xi. 7, and see A. 
Buttmann p. 286. See also the note 
on ὃ 2 εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν. For similar 
uses in classical writers (e.g. Herod. 
i. 21 ἐς τὴν Μίλητον ἢν) See Kiihner II. 
Ὁ 171: comp: Polyc. P27. 9. It-is 
unnecessary to read with 
Young. 

I. εὐοικονόμητος] So too δυσοικονό- 
pytos, e.g. Artem. Onezr. 11.58. The 
words more often have the meaning 
‘digestible’, ‘indigestible’, e.g. Di- 
philus of Siphnus in Athen. ii. p. 54, 
where both occur. They are rare in 
any sense. 

πέρατος] ‘the termination, goal’, 
as e.g. Lucian Harmon. 2 ἐπὶ τὸ πέρας 
ἀφίξη τῆς εὐχῆς. This reading, which 
I have restored, seems to follow from 
a comparison of the authorities as 
given above. We can there trace the 
genesis of the variations. The ori- 
ginal reading would be emended thus 

χάρι 
ἐὰν πέρατος, whence would arise two 
variations; (1) ἐάνπερ yapitos, the read- 
ing of GL; (2) ἐὰν πέρατος χάριτος, 
the reading of A, which is also the 
foundation of Sn g. 


77 
tevatl 


See the lower note. 
patienter is a mere gloss unsupported by any other authority. 
τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην] GM; τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν g 


2 ἀπολαβεῖν] The addition of 2 
3 yap] 


2. τὸν KAnpov pov] See the note 
on 7γαϊζί. 12 for this use of κλῆρος, 
referring to his martyrdom. In azo- 
λαβεῖν, ‘to secure’, the preposition 
probably denotes that it was his 
proper, destined lot: comp. [Clem. 
Rom.] ii. ὃ, and see the notes on Ga- 
latians iv. 5. 

3. φοβοῦμαι «.7.A.] For the con- 
struction see Winer § Ixvi. p. 782. 

The persecutions in the reign of 
Domitian show that Christianity had 
already forced its way upwards to the 
highest ranks of society in Rome 
(see Clement of Rome 1. p. 29 sq). 
Although Ignatius had been con- 
demned to death, yet the inter- 
cession of powerful friends in the 
metropolis, whether open Christians 
or secret sympathisers, might have 
procured, if not a pardon, at least a 
commutation of his sentence. An 
instance of such interposition with 
the emperor on behalf of Christian 
convicts at a later date is given by 
Hippol. Yaer. ix. 12. The strenuous 
efforts of the Christians under like 
circumstances are described in Lu- 
cian Peregr. 12 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὖν ἐδέδετο, οἱ 
Χριστιανοὶ συμφορὰν ποιούμενοι τὸ 
πρᾶγμα πάντα ἐκίνουν ἐξαρπάσαι πειρώ- 
μενοι αὐτόν. Ignatius appears to have 
heard that such efforts were contem- 


ἢ TO THE ROMANS. 


197 


/ / ? a “- ᾽ a e - 
δύσκολον ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν, ἐάνπερ ὑμεῖς μὴ 


φείσησθέ μου. 
ἘΠ 


΄- 7, .« \ / 
Oew ἀρέσαι, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀρέσκετε. 


Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀνθρωπαρεσκῆσαι ἀλλὰ 


sf A ᾽ / 
οὔτε yap ἐγὼ ποτε 


« \ ὅπ ~ > ~ "7, ε ~ 
ἕξω καιρον TOLOUTOV Θεοῦ εἐπιτύχειν" OUTE υμεις, ἐὰν 


4 yap] GLAmM g; autem Σ ; scio enim quod Sm; om. A. 
LZA σ᾽ (but with a v. 1.); om. GSm Am (substituting nc) M. 
after οὐ GLM; after θέλω g; om. AAn; al. Sn; def. 2. 

ἀλλὰ Θεῴ ἀρέσαι] GLAmM g; sed deo A (a translator’s 


app. L; ὑμῖν G. 
abridgment); om. Sm; def. 2. 
gL Sm(?); οὐ GM2(?) A(?) Anm(?). 


ἕξω ποτε καιρὸν) ; ἕξω καιρόν ποτε M; habebo aliguando tempus L. 
It is omitted altogether in M. 


οὔτον] G; τοιοῦτον ὥστε g. 


plated on his behalf. 

5. Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν]! See the note 
on JJagn. τ. 

μὴ φείσησθέ μου] ‘tf you should 
not spare me’, i.e. ‘should inter- 
pose to rob me of my desire.’ To 
Ignatius martyrdom is life: comp. 
ᾧ 6 μὴ ἐμποδίσητέ μοι (not θανεῖν, as 
we might have expected, but) ζῆσαι. 
Whosoever stands between him and 
this his true life, does him a wrong 
(ἀδικήσῃ just above). Such a person 
grudges him a blessing (ὃ 3 οὐδέποτε 
ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί, ὃ 7 βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν 
μὴ Katotkeirw). Hence in his no- 
menclature the meaning of words is 
reversed. To ‘spare’ means to deliver 
to death, because death is life. From 
not understanding this, transcribers 
here have omitted the negative. Simi- 
larly μὴ was omitted in some texts 
in § 6 μὴ θελήσητέ pe ἀποθανεῖν (see 
the note there). 

II. ‘I would not have you please 
men but God, as indeed you are 
doing. For me this is the great op- 
portunity of finding God, while for 
you it will be the noblest achieve- 
ment to hold your peace. If you are 
silent and leave me to my fate, I 
shall become an utterance of God; 
if you are solicitous for my life in 


5 μὴ] 
7 yap] 
ὑμᾶς) gM, and 


8 ἀρέσκετε] ἀρέσκεται G. οὔτε] 
ποτε ἕξω καιρὸν] Gg* (but with a ν. 1. 
9 To- 


the flesh, I shall be reduced again to 
an inarticulate cry. Permit me—I 
ask nothing more—to pour out my 
blood as a libation to God, while 
there is still an altar ready. Encircle 
this altar as a chorus, and sing your 
hymn of thanksgiving to God in 
Christ for summoning the bishop of 
Syria from the rising to the setting 
of the sun. Yes, it is good for me to 
set from the world, that I may rise 
unto God.’ 

7. ἀνθρωπαρεσκῆσαι κ,ιτ.λ.)} For 
the opposition see Gal. i. 10, 1 Thess. 
ii. 4. The adjective ἀνθρωπάρεσκος is 
a Pauline word, Eph. vi.'6, Col. iii. 
22, and it occurs also in Ps. li. 7; 
comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 13. The 
verb is not found either in the LXx 
or in the N. T. Justin (AZo/. i. 2) 
uses ἀνθρωπαρέσκεια. This family of 
words seems to be confined to bibli- 
cal and ecclesiastical Greek. On 
these forms see Lobeck PAryx. p. 621. 
By ‘pleasing men’ he means abetting 
those friends who desired to save 
him, or gratifying the merely human 
cravings of his own nature: comp. 
ἐὰν ἐρασθῆτε τῆς σαρκός μου just be- 
low. 

9. καιρὸν τοιοῦτον κατιλ.] 


opportunity like the present’. 


‘an 
For 


198 THE EPISEULE OF IGNATIUS [11 


σιωπήσητε, κρείττονι ἔργῳ ἔχετε ἐπιγραφῆναι. ἐὰν 

2 γὰρ] GLAAm Sm; om. = Joann-Mon (twice), M (but with a ν. 1. οὖν); τε 
γὰρ δ. ἐγὼ] txt L; add. γενήσομαι GMg. Other authorities supply different 
words; sw Am; sum mtht Sm Joann-Mon (once); evo Z Joann-Mon (once); fam A; 
but there is no reason to think that any corresponding word stood in their Greek text. 
There is no sufficient authority for the omission of ἐγὼ (with Zahn): it appears di- 
rectly in GLAAmMg Joann-Mon (once), and is represented, though less emphatically, 
in the sz mthi of Sm Joann-Mon (once). λόγος θεοῦ] L*ZSm Joann-Mon (twice); 
θεοῦ (om. Adyos) GMg; ego verbum sum (aut ; ego det sum) Am (where both readings 
are recognised, but the first imperfectly, for there is no other evidence for ἐγὼ λόγος 


without θεοῦ). 


the infinitive after καιρὸν τοιοῦτον 
comp. e.g. Hom. Qd. vii. 309 οὔ μοι 
τοιοῦτον evi στήθεσσι φίλον κῆρ μαψι- 
δίως κεχολῶσθαι, and see Kuhner I. 
pp- 580, ΙΟΙΙ. 

I. κρείττονι κιιλ] ‘have your 
name attached to, have ascribed to 
you, win the credit of, any nobler 
achievement’: as e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 
326 F τὴν τύχην τοῖς κατορθώμασιν 
ἑαυτὴν ἐπιγράφουσαν, Dionys. A. RF. 
Vil. 50 Tots ἐκβαίνουσι mapa Tas ὑμετέ- 
pas συνθήκας ov τὴν τύχην ἀλλὰ THY 
ὑμετέραν ἐπιγράφει διάνοιαν, AZlian 
Hf, A. vili. 2 τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ἑαυτὸν 
πόνοις οὐκ ἐπιγράφων. Sometimes the 
dative is omitted, and ἐπιγράφειν τινά 
signifies ‘to give the credit to a per- 
ΕΟ 6 5. 75 5,.: Love. ix. 16,17, 1 18, 
ΧΙ, 11, while ἐπιγράφεσθαι is ‘to have 
the credit’, zd. xi.9. Soin Latin Se- 
neca de Brev. Vit. 16 ‘quid aliud est 
vitia nostra incendere, quam auctores 
illis Ζ7157 22:76 deos’. The metaphor 
is taken from a public tablet, where 
the name of the person is added to 
the mention of the achievement. 

2. σιωπήσητε am ἐμοῦ] With refer- 
ence to what follows, ‘Silence in you 
is speech in me’. The twice repeat- 
ed ἐὰν σιωπήσητε Shows the nature of 
the efforts which Ignatius feared from 
his Roman friends. They might 
plead for his life. The words ‘be 
silent from me’ are a condensed ex- 
pression for ‘be silent and leave me 


A has sz stletis a me verbo ego pars det fam. 


This departure from 


alone.’ 

λόγος Θεοῦ κιτ.λ.] ‘a word of God’. 
The saint’s career, if it is left to work 
out its course and ends in martyr- 
dom, will be a word of God; it will 
be an expressive testimony to the 
Gospel, a manifestation of the Divine 
purpose: but, if interfered with, it 
will be reduced to a mere inarticulate 
meaningless cry. The point of this 
sentence depends on a recognised 
distinction between λόγος and φωνή, 
as denoting respectively ‘an intelli- 
gible utterance’ and an ‘irrational 
cry’; comp.) Arist. 7002.) xis (55) (p: 
905) λόγου κοινωνεῖ μόνον (ἄνθρωπος), 
τὰ δὲ ἄλλα φωνῆς, de [nterpr. 4 (p. 16) 
λόγος δέ ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντικὴ κΟιτιλ. 
It was a Stoic definition also that 
λόγος ἀεὶ σημαντικός ἐστι (Diog. Laert. 
vil. 57). See Lersch Sprachphilos. d. 
Alten 111. Ὁ. 32 Sq, 42 sq. Thus φωνή, 
as Aristotle says elsewhere (de Gex. 
An. Vv. 7, p. 786), is merely the ὕλη 
of λόγος. It has in it the making 
of λόγος. The three words λόγος, 
φωνή, ψόφος, are in a descending 
scale, and denote respectively; (1) 
the utterance of a rational being; 
(2) the cry of an animate creature, 
whether articulate or not; (3) a mere 
confused indistinguishable sound ; 
comp. Arist. de Az. li. 8 (p. 420) 7 
φωνὴ ψόφος τίς ἐστιν ἐμψύχου. They 
are respectively ‘an utterance’, ἃ cry’, 
and ‘a noise’. It will be seen from 


π] TO THE ROMANS, 


199 


\ , ea a > \ / ΄ en avis 
yap σιωπήσητε aT ἐμοῦ, ἔγω λόγος Θεοῦ: ἐὰν δὲ ἐρασ- 


the Syriac may be explained in several ways; (1) A may have read τόδιλ- 9 
verbo for τὸν verbum, and pars det may represent θεοῦ; (2) There may 
have been in the Syriac text of the translator a corruption roa portio for 


rwahisa verbum, and a subsequent correction, so that both words were retained; 
(3) The mixed result may be due to a confusion of the two Greek readings 
ἐγὼ λόγος θεοῦ and ἐγὼ γενήσομαι θεοῦ, the Armenian text having been clumsily 


and imperfectly corrected by a Greek Ms which had the latter. 


The substitution 


of currens in the next clause from such a Greek Ms favours this last explanation. 


this distinction, why Ignatius uses 
φωνὴ rather than ψόφος ; for φωνή, as 
such, though it does not imply reason, 
yet expresses animal emotion, Arist. 
Pol. i. 2 (p. 1253) ἡ μὲν οὖν φωνὴ τοῦ 
λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος ἐστὶ σημεῖον, διὸ 

Ν Ψ΄- 25, «ς , / ς Ν 
καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει ζώοις...ὁ δὲ 

’ Sew = “ 3 \ , 
λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ δηλοῦν ἐστι τὸ συμφέρον 

Ν \ / wd Ἂ, Ν / A 
καὶ TO βλαβερόν, ὥστε Kal TO δίκαιον Kat 

\ ) oy ‘ - A \ > a 
τὸ ἄδικον᾽ τοῦτο yap πρὸς τάλλα ζῶα 

΄“ > / Ea \ / 3 ΄σ 
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴδιον, τὸ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ 
καὶ κακοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου καὶ τῶν 
ἄλλων αἴσθησιν ἔχειν. Hence φωνὴ 
stands to λόγος in the same relation 
as the ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος to the mvev- 
ματικός. So again Plut. 7707. p. 1026 
A ὡς δὲ φωνή τις ἐστὶν ἄλογος καὶ ἀσή- 

/ Ν , 2 ΄σ 

μαντος, λόγος δὲ λέξις ἐν φωνῇ σημαν- 
τικῇ διανοίας ; comp. Plato Theaet. p. 
203 B εὖ ἔχει λέγεσθαι αὐτὰ ἄλογα, ὧν 
ye τὰ ἐναργέστατα.. «φωνὴν μόνον ἔχει, 
λόγον δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὁντινοῦν. 

This distinction of λόγος and φωνὴ 
was at once pressed into the service 
of Christian theology. Melito (Fvagm. 
xv, ed. Otto: see Cureton Spzczl. Syr. 


pp. αὶ, 53) speaks of our Lord as 


‘among angels the Archangel, among 
voices the Word’, where the editors 
(Renan, Cureton, Sachau) all have 
the singular ‘in voce’, ‘in the voice’, 
but where we ought certainly to read 
the plural las with ribuz. So 
again Heracleon the Valentinian saw 
this distinction in John i. 1, 14, where 
our Lord is called ὁ λύγος, as con- 


trasted with i. 23, where the Baptist 
styles himself φωνὴ βοῶντος, adding 
that the prophets were ἦχος and 
arguing τὴν φωνὴν οἰκειοτέραν οὖσαν 
τῷ λόγῳ λόγον γίνεσθαι (Orig. in Joann. 
vi § 12, IV. p. 121). And Origen 
himself, though rejecting the com- 
ments of Heracleon, assumes the dis- 
tinction of λόγος and φωνὴ as under- 
lying the language of S. John, and 
argues at length from it, the φωνὴ 
being the minister and forerunner of 
the λόγος (26. 11 ὃ 26, p. 85; vi § 10,p. 
119 sq;-compsc: -Cefs.) vi. 6)!" Ae 
Docetz too in Hippolytus (Haer. viii. 
9) base some of their speculations on 
this distinction. See also Clem. 
Alex. Protr. 1 (p. 8) πρόδρομος Ἴωαν- 
νής, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ πρόδρομος τοῦ λόγου 
κιτιλ. : comp. Stvomm. vill. 2, p. 914 sq. 
From Origen more especially the 
distinction would find its way into 
later fathers; comp. Meletius in 
Epiph. Haer. |xxiii. 30 (p. 878), Ephr. 
Syr. Evang. Conc. Exp. 3 sq, 39 
(ed. Mcesinger). 

The passage of Ignatius is ex- 
plained accordingly by Johnthe Monk 
in the latter part of the fourth cen- 
tury (see Quotations and References 
no, 21), who writes, ‘The Word is 
not of the flesh but of the Spirit, 
whereas the Voice is not of the Spirit 
but of the flesh...for every beast and 
bird together with cattle and creep- 
ing thing of the earth utter the voice 
only; but because man has in him a 


200 


΄- ΄σ / / xf , 
θῆτε τῆς σαρκὸς μου, παλιν ἐσομαι Pwvy. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


πλέον [δέ] 


μοι μὴ παράσχησθε τοῦ σπονδισθῆναι Θεῷ, ὡς ἔτι θυ- 


t φωνή] L*2Sm Joann-Mon 206 sq (several times); τρέχων GAMg. As before, 
Am recognises both readings, zerwm ero mera vox (aut, werum ero currens). It 
should be noticed that in G the words πάλιν ἔσομαι τρέχων are omitted in the text 
and added in the margin, though apparently by the same hand. The alterations 
in this context, (1) the insertion of γενήσομαι, (2) the omission of λόγος, (3) the 
substitution of τρέχων for φωνή, all hang together; see the lower note. The 
departure of A here from the original text of the Syriac Version, as shown by 
readings of 2 Joann-Mon, must be explained as the alteration of some later 
scribe who substituted in a familiar quotation the form with which he was ac- 


quainted. πλέον] GM; πλεῖον g. δέ] MLg; jam Am; igitur Sm; 
om. G2ZA. 2 μὴ] GLZAAmSm; om. σ΄ (the existing authorities) 
M. παράσχησθε] G3; παρέχεσθε g; παράσχεσθε M3; ¢tribuetis L (the 


MSS, but we should probably read ¢vzuatis). 


soul and is not like the rest of the 
other bodies, he uses the Word and 
the Voice etc.’, with much more to the 
same effect, and he refers in the con- 
text to the contrast between the 
Word and the Voice in John i. 1, 14, 
23. This is doubtless substantially 
the meaning of Ignatius. His mar- 
tyrdom alone would make his life an 
intelligible utterance; otherwise it 
was no better than the passionate cry 
of some irrational creature to whom 
life is pleasure or pain, and nothing 
more. In the highest sense of all 
One only is the Λόγος, the Word of 
God; but all His saints, made perfect 
in knowledge, are utterances, words, 
of God, as fragments of the One 
Word. 

Partly because he did not under- 
stand this distinction of Adyos and 
φωνή, and partly (we may suppose) 
because he shrank from applying 
the term λόγος Θεοῦ to any one but 
Christ, the interpolator has altered 
the passage after his wont, substi- 
tuting ἐγὼ γενήσομαι Θεοῦ for ἐγὼ 
λόγος Θεοῦ and τρέχων for φωνή. 
Wordsworth (Church History 1. p. 
143) translates πάλιν τρέχων ‘rene- 
gade, backslider’, referring to his 


σπονδισθῆναι] gM ; σπονδιασ- 


note on παλινδρομεῖν, S. Hippolytus 
p- 124 (ed. 2); but the interpolator 
probably meant that Ignatius, in- 
stead of receiving the crown of 
victory, would be put back again to 
run the race (comp. Macar. Magn. 
111. 40, p. 138, κέκλεισται TOY πόνων Kal 
τῶν δρόμων τὸ στάδιον... καὶ σὺ πάλιν 
ἀνοίγεις καὶ τρέχειν ἐπιτάττεις κ-τ.λ.: 
and for the metaphor see also Polyc. 
I προσθεῖναι τῷ δρόμῳ σου ; 50 too τρέ- 
χειν πὶ τ ΘΟ ἼΣ. 22, 20, (6 1} iene 
7, Phil. ii. 16, etc., and dpopos Acts 
XX. 24, 2 (Tim. iv. 7). psutthewhas 
spoiled the antithesis. From the 
interpolator it has got into the 
Greek Ms of Ignatius. Cureton sug- 
gested ἠχώ for τρέχων on account 
of the similarity of the letters, and 
this not very happy conjecture is 
adopted by Bunsen p. 96, by Lipsius 
S.Z. pp. 75, 196, and by Zahn, though 
Cureton himself (C. Z. p. 292) retract- 
ed it in favour of φωνή. But obviously 
the case here is not one of a clerical 
error, but of a deliberate alteration. 
Moreover φωνὴ is required as well 
by the common antithesis of Adyos 
and φωνή, as also by the render- 
ings of the versions; e.g. the Latin 
‘vox’, which is not an equivalent to 


ir] TO THE ROMANS. 


/ J / > 
σιαστήριον ετοιμὸν ἐστιν" 


201 


.« 3 > / \ / 
tya εν ayann XOpos Yyevo- 


»" > Wt 3 a - ε \ ΗΠ 
μενοι ᾷἀσητε τῷ πατρὶ ἐν ᾿Ιηυσοῦ Χριστῷ, ὅτι τὸν ἐπί- 


θῆναι G. 


3 ἵνα.. ἄσητε] GLAmMe ; wt in amore sitis in uno consensu 


et glorificetis X (probably only a loose paraphrase); ftantum (cum) amore state et 
una-voce sloriosum facite A; sed in coetu amoris estote mthi cantatores et glorificate Sm. 


4 τῷ πατρὶ] GLAAmSmMg (but deo patri 1); deo patri Σ. 
Χριστῷ] L; per tcesum christum AmSm; 272 tesu christo domino nostro 2; 
ἰησοὺ GMg; domini nostri iesu christi A. 

GLA Mg (with the variations in GM noted below); 


dignificavit ut sit dei, og vocaverit eum ab oriente in occidentem = 


ἐν ᾿Τησοῦ 
ἐν χριστῷ 
τι...μεταπεμψάμενος] txt 
quod episcopum (syriae) 
(where [τοῦ] 


θεοῦ is perhaps read for ὁ θεός, and where wf sz¢ represents εὑρεθῆναι; see however 


the lower note for another possible explanation) ; 


qui episcopum syriae dignatus 


est vocare ab oriente in occidentem A (not reading és for ὅτι, but so translating the 


ambiguous Syriac 1); 


guod dignificavit episcopum syriae ut in confessione dei inve- 


niretur in occidente missus in vincults ex oriente Sm. 


ἠχώ. Again, in the first clause the edi- 
tors read ἐγὼ γενήσομαι λόγος Θεοῦ 
(Cureton, Bunsen), or ἐγὼ γενήσομαι 
Θεοῦ λόγος (Lipsius), or λόγος γενή- 
σομαι Θεοῦ (Zahn): but the Latin 
version, which is almost always 


literal, shows that the terse and 
characteristic ἐγὼ λόγος Θεοῦ is 
correct. 


I. πλέον κιτ.λ.] ‘give me nothing 
more on your part’, ‘I ask no favour 
of you beyond this.’ On παρέχεσθαι 
see the note Colossians iv. 1. 

2. τοῦ σπονδισθῆναι] ‘to be poured 
out as a libation’. The idea is taken 
from S. Paul, Phil. ii. 17 εἰ καὶ σπέν- 
δομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ κ-.τ.λ., 2 Tim. iv. 6, 
ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι. In both 
these passages it occurs in immediate 
connexion with the metaphor of the 
stadium, and this may possibly have 
suggested τρέχων to the interpolator. 
The word occurs also in Joann. 
Damasc. 42. ad Theoph. 18 (1. p 
639) ὑπὸ Tov μαθηματικοῦ Ἕβραίου τῷ 
διαβόλῳ σπονδιζόμενοςς. The lexicons 
give the meaning ‘to be reconciled’ 
(ΞΞ σπένδομαι) in both passages. This 
meaning might be possible in John 
Damascene, as the word might there 
be middle, but in Ignatius neither 


the voice nor the sense of the context 
will admit it. 

ὡς ἔτι θυσιαστήριον x.t.r.| ‘while 
yet there is an altar ready’, i.e. pre- 
pared for the sacrifice. The altar 
intended is, we may suppose, the 
Flavian amphitheatre, the scene of 
his approaching martyrdom. 

3. χορὸς) The Roman Christians 
are asked to form into a chorus and 
sing the sacrificial hymn round the . 
altar; comp. Zphes. 4 καὶ οἱ kar’ ἄν- 
dpa δὲ χορὸς γίνεσθες The metaphor 
is taken from a heathen sacrificial 
rite; see K. F. Hermann Goffes- 
dienstl, Alterth. ii. § 29. For a 
similar figure borrowed from a 
heathen religious procession see 
Ephes. 9 ἐστὲ οὖν καὶ σύνοδοι κιτ.λ. 

4. τὸν ἐπίσκοπον Συρίας] ‘the bishop 
belonging to Syria’, i.e. ‘from the dis- 
tant east’; the genitive denoting, not 
the extent of his jurisdiction, but the 
place of his abode. Onthe supposition 
that episcopal jurisdiction is implied, 
objection has been taken to Συρίας 
(which is wanting in one copy of the 
Curetonian Syriac)as an anachronism 
in the time of Ignatius, and there- 
fore as an indication of the spurious- 
ness of the Greek Epistles (Bunsen 


202 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


σκοπὸν Cupias κατηξίωσεν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν, 


᾿] \ ΕῚ ΄σ / 
ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς μεταπεμψαμενος. 


A \ lol \ 
καλὸν TO δῦναι ἀπὸ 


/ \ / 4 > any 2 7 
κόσμου προς Θεόν, ἵνα εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατείλω. 


1 Συρίας] GLZ,AAmSmMg (comp. Mart-Rom 10); om. 25. 


κατηξίωσεν 


ὁ Θεὸς] gLAm; ὁ θεὸς κατηξίωσεν ΑΜ; al. ZDASm (see the previous note, p. 201). 


2 μεταπεμψάμενος] txt GL[g]; pref. τοῦτον M. 

Sev-Syr 4a; add. mzhi AZ, Joann-Mon; add. autem Sm. 
in the authorities for g see the Appendix. 
Sev-Syr; zztrare Am; congregari A; τὸ διαλυθῆναι g*. 


καλὸν] txt GLZ,AmMg* 
For the complications 
δῦναι] GLZSmM Joann-Mon 

3, πρὸς Θεόν] ΑἿΣ 


AAmSmMg; om. Sey-Syr (but he quotes the passage loosely from memory donum 


est occidere a mundo et oriri in christo). 


Br. p. 117). But the anachronism 
would be as great in the third or 
fourth century, as in the second; see 
Zahn /, v. A. p. 308. Moreover the 
other MS of the Syriac version con- 
tains the word, and therefore its 
omission in this one copy must be 
due, not to the text which was 
before the original translator, but to 
an excision practised by a later 
scribe. 

I. εὑρεθῆναι εἰς δύσιν] Comp. Esther 
i. 5 τοῖς ἔθνεσι τοῖς εὑρεθεῖσιν εἰς THY 
πόλιν, Acts vill. 40 Φίλιππος δὲ εὑρέθη 
εἰς Αζωτον. So too φανῆναι εἰς, e.g. 
2 Macc. 1. 33. See also the note on 
§ 1 εἰς τέλος εἶναι. The rendering of 
the Curetonian Syriac may perhaps 
be explained by an accidental repeti- 
tion of the first syllable of εὑρεθῆναι, 
which would easily be read @yeyp- 

S. Chrysostom obviously alludes 
to this passage in his oration on 
Ignatius, Of. II. p. 598 (ed Bened.) 
καθάπερ ἥλιός τις ἐξ ἀνατολῆς ἀνίσχων 
καὶ πρὸς τὴν δύσιν τρέχων... κἀκεῖνος 
μὲν εἰς τὰ τῆς δύσεως ἀπιὼν μέρη κρύπ- 
τεται καὶ νύκτα εὐθέως ἐπάγει, οὗτος 
δὲ εἰς τὰ τῆς δύσεως ἀπελθὼν μέρη 
φαιδρότερον ἐκεῖθεν ἀνέτειλε. So too 
the Mena Dec. 20 τοῖς δρόμοις τῆς 
πίστεως, ὡς ἥλιος, τὴν γῆν γενναίως 
διέδραμες ἀπ᾿ ἄκρων οὐρανοῦ, καὶ δύνας 
ἀδύτως ἀπὸ γῆς εἰς Χριστὸν τὸ φῶς 
συναστράπτεις αὐτῷ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, 


ἀνατείλω] ΟἸΣΑΡ Joann-Mon; 


besides several other allusions to this 
passage more or less direct. See 
also Ephrem Syrus Of. Graec. 111. 
Ρ. 261 ἔδυσαν ἀπὸ κόσμου καὶ πρὸς 
Χριστὸν ἀνέτειλαν, quoted by Zahn. 

2. καλὸν τὸ δῦναι κιτ.λ.] He was 
following the course of the sun; his 
life would set to the world in the far 
west; but as the sun rises, so it also 
would rise again to God. For this 
expressive intermingling of the actual 
and the metaphorical, see κατάκριτος 
§ 4. There is a somewhat similar 
turnin 2 Tim. il. 9 ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ 
μέχρι δεσμῶν, ὡς κακοῦργος, ἀλλὰ ὁ 
λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται. 

III. ‘You have never yet grudged 
any one his triumph: you have 
always hitherto been the instructors 
of others. It is my wish now that 
the lessons which you have taught 
should stand fast. One service you 
can dome. Pray that strength may 
be given me within and without, so 
that I may not only say, but will; may 
not becalled, but be found aChristian. 
The name will follow in due course. 
My faithfulness will then be manifest, 
when I am no more seen by the 
world. Nothing visible is of any 
worth. Our God Jesus Christ Him- 
self is the more clearly seen, since 
He has returned to the Father. The 
work of the Gospel is not a matter 
of persuasive rhetoric: Christianity 


| TO THE ROMANS. 203 


Οὐδέποτε ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί: 


11. ἄλλους ἐδι- 
5 δάξατε. ἐγὼ δὲ θέλω ἵνα κἀκεῖνα βέβαια ἡ ἃ μαθη- 


ἀνατείλωμεν M; oriar (aut, fiam oriens) Am (which seems to offer an alternative 
reading ἀνατολὴ for avarethw); tandem (ad finem) oriar Sm; al. Sev-Syr. After 
ἀνατείλω ZA Joann-Mon have zz vita, which must be regarded as a mere gloss 
of the Syriac translator. 4 ἐβασκάνατε] Gg; ἐβασκήνατε M. οὐδενί] 
gM; οὐδένα G; οὐδὲ Am (mon unguam invidistis nobis, et non alios etc). As the 
case affects the meaning, the testimony of the versions is important; zzvzdzstis 
in aliguo L; invidistis cuzgquam ZASm; fascinastis aliqguem 1 (which requires 


οὐδένα, not οὐδενὶ as in g): see the lower note. 


GLAnSmMg; om. ZA. 


is a thing of energy and power, when 
it is hated by the world.’ 

4. ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί] ‘grudged any 
one’, 1.6. the triumph of martyrdom: 
comp. ὃ 7 βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ κατοι- 
κείτω, Where he is speaking of the 
same thing. ‘Do not’, writes Ignatius, 
‘depart from your true character ; 
you have hitherto sped the martyrs 
forward to victory, do not now inter- 
pose and enviously rob me of my 
crown.’ For the form and meaning 
of ἐβασκάνατε see Galatians iil. 1. 
The dative is required here: for βασ- 
καίνειν τινά is either ‘to bewitch’ or 
‘to calumniate’, while βασκαίνειν τινί 
is ‘to envy’; see Lobeck Phryn. 
Ρ. 463. 

ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατε)] ‘you instructed 
others’, i.e. in the training of the 
Christian athlete; comp. “2165. 3 
ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὑπαλειφθῆναι πίστει, vov- 
θεσίᾳ, ὑπομονῇ, μακροθυμίᾳ (with the 
note). Rome had hitherto been the 
chief arenaof martyrdom; the Roman 
brethren had cheered on many a 
Christian hero in this glorious con- 
test during the persecutions of Nero 
and Domitian. The expression might 
therefore refer to the Roman martyrs 
themselves, in which case ἄλλους 
would be ‘others besides myse//’. 
Perhaps however ἄλλους here means 
‘others besides yourselves’. In this 
case Ignatius would refer to the 
exhortations of the Romans, whether 


5 ἐγὼ δὲ... ἐντέλλεσθε] 


by letter or by delegates, to foreign 
churches. More especially we may 
suppose that he had in his mind 
the Epistle of Clement, which con- 
tains several references to confessors 
and martyrs, with exhortations to pa- 
tient endurance founded on these ex- 
amples; e.g.§ 7 ταῦτα, ἀγαπητοί, ov μόνον 
ὑμᾶς νουθετοῦντες ἐπιστέλλομεν K.T.A., 
§ 46 τοιούτοις οὖν ὑποδείγμασιν κολλη- 
θῆναι καὶ ἡμᾶς δεῖ κιτιλ., ὃ 55 ἵνα δὲ 
καὶ ὑποδείγματα ἐθνῶν ἐνέγκωμεν κ-Οτιλ. 
There are other slight indications 
also in Ignatius that he was ac- 
quainted with the Epistle of Clement ; 
and the fact of his mentioning S. 
Peter and S. Paul in connexion a 
little below (§ 4), just as they are 
mentioned in Clement (§ 5), makes 
this inference very probable. Zahn (1. 
v. A. p. 313) supposes that Ignatius 
alludes also to the Shepherd of 
Hermas, which is directed to be sent 
εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις (Vis. ii. 4); but this 
assumes the early date of Hermas, 
which is at least doubtful. 

5. ἐγὼ δὲ θέλω κ-ιτ.λ.} ‘For my- 
self, I only desire that you should be 
consistent, so that the lessons, which 
you thus give to your disciples, may 
not fail when it comes to a practical 
issue in my own case.’ Ignatius al- 
ways uses paOnrevew as a transitive 
verb; comp. ὃ 5 below, and Zfhes. 
3, 10. So too Matt. xiil. 52, XXVIll. 19, 
Acts xiv. 21, and probably also Matt. 


204 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ΠῚ 


/ > / / ὃ / > ΄- θ s/ 6 2 
τεύοντες ἐντέλλεσθε. μονον μοι ὀυναμιν ALTELTVE ET WUEV 


, J \ / / 3 Q \ / Fs J 
τε Kal ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγω adda καὶ θέλω: ἵνα 


μὴ μόνον λέγωμαι Χριστιανὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ εὑρεθῶ. ἐὰν 


ε ΄σ \ / \ 
yap εὑρεθῶ, καὶ λέγεσθαι δύναμαι, καὶ τότε πιστος 


ὩΣ « / \ 7 
εἶναι, ὅταν κόσμῳ μὴ φαίνωμαι. 


οὐδὲν φαινόμενον 5 


1 μοι δύναμιν αἰτεῖσθε] GL; μοι δύναμιν αἰτήσασθε [M]; δύναμιν αἰτεῖσθέ 


μοι g. 2 ἵνα μὴ sec.] GM; ὅπως un g (comp. Smyrn. 11 where there is 
the same substitution, and Polyc. 2, where there is the conyerse); u¢ non Sm} 


non ut L; et non ut 2; et non AAn. 


yap καὶ G; al. ASm; def. M. 


3 ἐὰν γὰρ] gLZAm; ἐὰν 
4 καὶ τότε πιστὸς εἶναι] GLMg; et dunc 


fidelis possum fiert Am; et tunc sim jfidelis A; tunc sum fidelis X Joann-Mon; 
et fidelis (creditus) ero [Sm] (τότε being transferred to the former clause). 


5 ὅταν] GL; ὅτε g (Mss) M. 
M (with av. 1.); appareo L. 
Syr 1]; add. γὰρ 2SmM. 


φαίνωμαι] Gg* (with av. 1.); φαίνομαι 


οὐδὲν] txt GLAAng (but 1 add. exzm) [Tim- 
6 καλόν] bonum LAAm; pulchrum (ΒΦ) 


TS; decens (NN) Tim-Syr; αἰώνιον GMg. Doubtless αἰώνιον is wrong; and I 
have chosen καλόν rather than ἀγαθόν (Petermann, Zahn), as it is suggested by the 


xxvii. 57, where however there is a v. ]. 
ἐμαθήτευσεν for ἐμαθητεύθη : but in 
classical writers (e.g. Plut. 2207. p. 
837 C) it is perhaps more commonly 
intransitive, ‘to be a disciple’. He 
here claims the Romans for his 
teachers, as elsewhere he regards the 
Ephesians in the same light, 5 2265. 
3 (quoted above). 

I. povov] i.e. ‘This is the only 
interposition on your part, which I 
wish.’ 

ἔσωθέν τε k.T.A.| 1.6. ‘with moral 
courage and with physical endur- 
ance’. It is nearly equivalent to the 
common antithesis in Ignatius σαρ- 
κί τε Kal πνεύματι. 

2. ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγω κ.τ.λ.] Comp. 
Ephes. 15 ἄμεινον x... with the note. 

3. μὴ μόνον λέγωμαι] Clem. Hom. 
iil. 37 μόνος γὰρ οὗτος καὶ λέγεται καὶ 
εστιν. 

ἐὰν γὰρ κιτ.λ.] ‘If I am proved ἃ 
Christian by my martyrdom, then 
I shall certainly be recognised as 
one; and my position as a true be- 
liever will be only the more manifest, 


when I myself am withdrawn from 
the sight of the world’; comp. § 4 
Tore ἔσομαι μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, ὅτε οὐδὲ τὸ σῶμά μου ὁ κόσμος 
ὄψεται. His martyrdom alone will 
make him truly πιστός, ‘a believer’, 
as it alone will make him truly pa@y- 
τής. 

5. οὐδὲν φαινόμενον κ-τ.λ.}] “πο- 
thing visible’, i.e. external and ma- 
terial, ‘Zs good’; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 18 
μὴ σκοπούντων ἡμῶν τὰ βλεπόμενα ἀλλὰ 
τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα: τὰ γὰρ βλεπόμενα 
κιτιλ., Of which passage the latter 
part has been foisted into the text of 
Ignatius in many copies here. 5. 
Chrysostom in his panegyric of Igna- 
tius says (Of. 11. p. 598) πείθων κατα- 
φρονεῖν τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς καὶ μηδὲν 
ἡγεῖσθαι τὰ βλεπόμενα καὶ τῶν 
μελλόντων ἐρᾶν κιτ.λ., probably having 
this passage more especially in his 
mind. Zahn (Add. et Corr. p. 404) 
has pointed out that this expression 
is quoted by Origen de Orat. 20 (I. 
p. 229) οὐδὲν φαινόμενον καλόν ἐστιν, 
οἱονεὶ δοκήσει ὃν καὶ οὐκ ἀληθῶς. 


m1] .TO THE ROMANS. 


205 


/ ς \ ~ ~ a 
καλὸν. ὁ yap Θεὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ἐν πατρὲ 


af - / 
ὧν, μᾶλλον φαίνεται. 


3 ~ διὸ Ash > \ 
οὐ πεισμονῆς TO Epyov ἀλλα 


/ \ / e/ ~ ς 
μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμός, ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ 


/ 
κοσμου. 


Syriac renderings (see e.g. καλὸν in 8 6). [The above note was written before I 
noticed Zahn’s Add. et Corr. He there quotes Origen οὐδὲν φαινόμενον καλόν ἐστιν 
k.T.A. (see the lower note), and is disposed to adopt καλόν, pointing out ‘vocem 
ἀγαθὸς omnino Ignatianam non esse’.] After αἰώνιον Gg add τὰ γὰρ βλεπόμενα 
πρόσκαιρα, τὰ δὲ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια (from 2 Cor. iv. 18), and similarly M; om. 
LZAA,Sm Tim-Syr. ὁ γὰρ.. φαίνεται) GLAAnSm Tim-Syr; om. 2g; 
def. M. 7 πεισμονῆς] gLZAm Tim-Syr; destdertd Sm; vanitatis A; 
σιωπῆς μόνον G; def. M. ἔργον] ἔργων G. 8 χριστιανισμός] 
GZAAng* (as appears from 1, but the MSs χριστιανός): christianus LS (but here 
it is doubtless due to a corrupt reading in the former part of the sentence, N73 
vir for NTAY opus, thus rendering christianus necessary) Tim-Syr; def. M. 

ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου] g*LAm Tim-Syr; guando odit eum mundus ZA; 
quando mundum odit Sm (but this inversion of subject and object is explained by 


a superfluous letter in the Syriac); om. G; def. M. 


6. ὁ yap Θεὸς ἡμῶν] See the 
note on ZPphes. inscr. 

ev πᾶτρε ὧν κιτιλ.} i.e. ‘is more 
clearly seen, now that He has as- 
cended to His Father’. During His 
earthly ministry He was misunder- 
stood and traduced; but now His 
power is manifested and acknow- 
ledged in the working of His Church. 
As soon as He ceased κόσμῳ φαίνεσ- 
θαι, He μᾶλλον ἐφαίνετο. The sen- 
tence is thrown into the form of a 
paradox; ‘Christ Himself is more 
clearly seen, now that He is no more 
seen’, 

7. ov πεισμονῆς xkrr.| ‘The 
Work is not of persuasive rhetoric’ ; 
comp. I Cor. il. 4 ὁ λόγος μου καὶ TO 
Knpuypa μου οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας 
λόγοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ 
δυνάμεως, I Thess. 1. 5 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ 
μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει κιτιλ. For 
πεισμονή COMp. Gal. v. 8 with the 
note. On τὸ ἔργον ‘the Work’, as a 
synonyme for the Gospel, see the 


note on the closely parallel passage 
Ephes. 14 οὐ yap viv ἐπαγγελίας τὸ 
ἔργον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει πίστεως k.T.A. 
Ignatius here returns to the idea ex- 
pressed a few sentences above in the 
words ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγω ἀλλὰ καὶ 
θέλω. Men must not talk fluently, 
but act mightily, when persecution 
is abroad. I do not understand how 
Renan (Les Evangiles p. 490 sq) 
can defend the reading σιωπῆς μόνον. 
The external evidence is decisive 
against it: nor does it suit the con- 
text, which depreciates talk as con- 
trasted with work. 

8. μεγέθους] Involving the idea of 
‘power, efficiency,’as e.g. Mart. Polyc. 
17 τὸ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ τῆς μαρτυρίας: 
comp. “2265. inscr., Smyrn. 11. 

ὁ χριστιανισμός] See the note on 
Magn. το. 

μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου] Comp. John 
vii. 7, xv. 18, 19, xvii. 14, I Joh. iil. 13. 
This last clause has dropped out of 
the Greek Ms. There is a similar 
omission in ὃ 6 μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε. 


206 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1v 


3 / ~ > , \ 9 
IV. γὼ γράφω πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλῆησίαις, Kal ἐν- 
“- « \ ς \ \ ~ > / 
τέλλομαι πᾶσιν ὅτι [ἐγὼ] ἑκὼν ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποθνήσκω, 
Aa Ἂς \ r ey ee \ ᾿ 
ἐάνπερ ὑμεῖς μη κωλυσητε. παρακαάλω ὑμᾶς, μή εΥ- 


ἐντέλλομαι] GL*S,S.2 
2 ἐγὼ] GM; om. g. 


3 εὔνοια 


I πάσαις] g S,S,zAAm Tim-Syr; om. GLSnM. 
AAmSmM Tim-Syr; ἐντελοῦμαι g* (Mss but mando 1). 
It is not expressed in LAAmSm Tim-Syr, and doubtfully in 2S,Ss. 
ἄκαιρος γένησθε] GMg; concordia (σύννοια Ὁ) intempestiva (nom. or abl.) fatzs L; 7715 
in amore intempestivo Σ (εὐνοίᾳ ἀκαίρῳ, unless it is a loose paraphrase); factatis 
amorem...intempestive A; inutiliter (aut; incongrue) curas ostendere Am (this is per- 
haps an alternative translation, not an alternative reading); compatiamini inaniter, 
sitis amatores tnanes Sm (a double translation): see the lower note. 4 θηρίων 
εἶναι] S.S32Sm; add. βορράν G; add. βοράν M; add. βρώμα 5; add. cébum LA; 


a bestits devorari An. 


iV. <2) write! and’) tell. all’ the 
churches that I die gladly for Christ, 
unless you hinder me. I beseech 
you, be not inopportune in your kind- 
ness. Give me to the wild beasts, that 
so I may be given to God. I am the 
wheat of God, and am ground by 
their teeth, that I may be made pure 
bread for a sacrificial offering. Lure 
the wild beasts that they may devour 
me wholly and leave no part of my 
body to be a trouble to any. So 
shall I be truly a disciple, when the 
world sees me no more. Pray God, 
that I may be found a fit sacrifice to 
Him. I do not command you, as if 
I were Peter or Paul. I am onlya 
convict, not an apostle; only a slave, 
not a free man. Yet, if I suffer, I 
shall be liberated by Christ, and be 
free in the resurrection. At present 
I am learning from my bonds to 
crush all my desires’. 

I. πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις] So Lucian 
relates of Peregrinus (ὃ 41) φασὶ δὲ 
πάσαις σχεδὸν ταῖς ἐνδόξοις πόλεσιν 
ἐπιστολὰς διαπέμψαι αὐτὸν κιτιλ. Ig- 
natius was afterwards prevented by 
circumstances from entirely fulfilling 
this intention: Polyc. 8 ἐπεὶ πάσαις 
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐκ ἠδυνήθην γράψαι 


5 ἔνεστιν] GM (with ἃ v.1.); ἔστιν g; est 


x.t-A. It may have been the apparent 
contradiction between these two pas- 
sages which led to the omission of 
πάσαις in some texts of Ignatius 
here. 

3. εὔνοια ἄκαιρος] They were kind- 
ness itself to him, but this kindness 
was inopportune, An easy alteration 
would be εὐνοίᾳ ἄκαιροι, but the text 
is probably correct as it stands. It 
seems to be areference to the proverb 
ἄκαιρος εὔνοι οὐδὲν ἔχθρας διαφέρει 
(Zenob. Paroem. i. 50); comp. § ὃ 
ἐὰν ἀποδοκιμασθώ, ἐμισήσατε. 

4. θηρίων] The opposition between 
θηρίων and Θεοῦ is studied. He must 
first be the wild-beasts’, that in the 
end he may be God’s; comp. S7yra. 
4 μεταξὺ θηρίων, μεταξὺ Θεοῦ. The 
insertion of βορὰν or βρῶμα in the 
existing Greek texts entirely mars 
the antithesis. 

5. Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν] See the note on 
Magn. τ. 

6. ἀλήθομαι] “17 am ground’; the 
present indicative being used, as in 
ἀποθνήσκω above. The correction 
ἀλήθωμαι iS unnecessary and weakens 
the sense. As regards the form, 
ἀλεῖν is considered by some more Attic 
than ἀλήθειν; see Lobeck Phryn. 


v] TO THE ROMANS. 207 


a ͵ θέ " ἢ , > 
νοιὰ ἄκδιροο γένησθε μοι. ἀφετέ μὲ θηρίων εἶναι, 


S af Lami ie! a ΄- 3 ΄σ 
5 00 ὧν [ἔν- leat Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν. σῖτός εἰμι Θεοῦ, καὶ 


δι᾿ ὀδόντων θηρίων ἀλήθομαι, ἵνα καθαρὸς ἄρτος εὑρεθώ 


LAm; Zossum Sm; al. A. σῖτος k.T..] This saying is quoted several times 
in the A/enza in different forms, but the license taken in this book deprives the 
quotations of any value. I shall not therefore give its readings as a rule. Θεοῦ] 
GM Theod-Stud; τοῦ Θεοῦ g Mart-Rom 10; det LS,SsEAAmSm Beda Comm. in 
Apoc. xviii; christ: Iren. v. 28. 4 (Lat., but quoted θεοῦ in Euseb. 27. 25. iii. 36) 
Beda Martyr. vii Kal. Dec. 6 ἀλήθομαι] Mg (but 1 has molar) Iren Mart- 
Rom (but Copt. has solar) Theod-Stud; ἀλέθομαι G3 molor SoSgzAAmSm}; molar 
L (Ξ-Ξ ἀλήθωμαι, if indeed it is not intended for a future; comp. Hieron Catal. τό, 


and see Zahn /. v. A. p. 339): see the lower note. 


γένωμαι (v. 1. γίνωμαι) Mart-Rom. 


Ρ. 151. The latter form occurs in 
other dialects, and even in Phere- 
crates (quoted by Suidas s.v.) ἀνὴρ 
(δὲ) γέρων ἀνοδόντος ἀλήθει, which 
illustrates the expression as well as 
the form here. Meineke however 
(Fragm. Com. 11. pp. 285, 292) gives 
reasons for questioning the reading. 
From ἀλεῖν comes the substantive 
ἀλεσμός, which is better supported 
than ἀλησμός below, in § 5. 

καθαρὸς ἄρτος] ‘a pure, clean loaf’; 
comp. Jos. Avy. iil. 10. 5 καθαρὰς 
πρὸς ἀλεστῶν (v. 1. ἀλεσμὸν) τὰς 
κριθὰς ποιήσαντες τῷ βωμῷ ἀσσάρωνα 
προσάγουσι τῷ Θεῷ. The epithet 
is especially applied to ἄρτος ; e.g. 
Alexis (Fragm. Com. Il. p. 483, 
Meineke) ἄρτος καθαρὸς eis ἑκατέρῳ, 
ποτήριον ὕδατος, of the Pythagoreans ; 
Hermeias (Athen. iv. p. 149 E) ἔπειτα 
ἑκάστῳ παρατίθεται ἄρτος καθαρός, of a 
sacred banquet; Lamprid. V7zz. Alex. 
Sev. 37 ‘panis mundus’, opposed 
_to ‘panis sequens’ (i.e. ‘seconds’). 
The purest bread (ὁ καθαρώτατος ap- 
ros), according to Galen, was called 
in Latin σιλιγνίτης (1. 6. ‘siliginea’), 
the next quality in point of pureness 
being σεμιδαλίτης (Op. VI. p. 483, 
Kiihn.). As symbolical of purity, 
ἄρτοι καθαροὶ were offered in sacrifice ; 


εὑρεθῶ] GLE etc; 


e.g. Herod. 11. 40, See also the 
passage of Josephus quoted above. 
This is doubtless the quaint but 
beautiful thought of Ignatius here. 
He was the grain of God; by the 
teeth of the wild beasts he would be 
ground into fine flour; thus he would 
become a pure sacrificial loaf fit for 
the altar of God. See Θεοῦ θυσία 
below, and comp. σπονδισθῆναι § 2. 
See the Zena (Dec. 20) σῖτος Θεοῦ 
καθαρὸς εἰμί, ἔλεγες, καὶ δ ὀδόντων 
θηρίων ἀλήθομαι, ἵνα ἄρτος γένωμαι 
ἱεροτελούμενος τῷ ἐραστῇ καὶ Θεῷ κε- 
καθαρμένος. : 

So far the metaphor is clear. But 
we may perhaps go a step further 
and see a reference to the offering 
of the Pentecostal loaves. These 
were ordered to be made of fine 
flour (Lev. xxiii. 17); it was sifted 
twelve times to insure the greatest 
purity (Mishna Menachoth vi. 7); 
the loaves were eaten the same night, 
and no fragment was allowed to 
remain till the morning (Jos. Avz. iii. 
10. 6). The language of Josephus, 
describing this last regulation, closely 
resembles the context of Ignatius 
here; προσάγουσι τῷ Θεῷ ἄρτον... «καὶ 
καταλιπεῖν οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰς 


΄- / Σ 
τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν συγκεχωρημένον. 


208 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [iv 


΄. ~ ~ A e 
[τοῦ Χριστοῦ]. μᾶλλον κολακεύσατε τὰ θηρία, ἵνα 


/ / \ \ id lod ΄σ 

μοι τάφος γένωνται, καὶ μηθὲν καταλιπωσιν τῶν τοῦ 
.« \ \ / Ψ 

σώματός μου, ἵνα μὴ κοιμηθεὶς βαρὺς τινι γένωμαι. 

> oN ΄σ a ~ / A 

τότε ἔσομαι μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς ᾿Ι]Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτε οὐδὲ 


\ - if ε / 7 / \ 
TO σώμά μου ὁ κόσμος ὄψεται. λιτανεύσατε τον 5 

1 τοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLSmM; θεοῦ (before εὑρεθώ) g; αἰεὶ SoSgz2AAm Iren-Lat Beda 
Martyr.; om. Iren-Gr (Euseb) Mart-Rom Hieron Catal. τό Beda Comm. in 
Apoc. It seems probable from a comparison of these authorities that the genitive 
should be omitted altogether. If indeed θεοῦ (contracted θ0) had stood in the 
original text before εὑρεθῶ, as in g, its omission through carelessness might easily 
have been explained by the recurrence of similar letters (see the notes on θεοῦ θυσία 
just below, and on § 2 εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν above); but with θεοῦ, or τοῦ θεοῦ, in the 
preceding clause, its appearance again here would be very awkward, though it has 
far better support than τοῦ Χριστοῦ. μᾶλλον] GLAMg; om. Am. It is ap- 
parently intended to be expressed by the strong forms, provocando provocate, adu- 
lando adulamini, in S.S32Sm.- 2 μηθὲν] μὴθὲν (sic) G; μηδὲν M. The Mss 
of g vary. καταλίπωσιν] καταλίπωσι (sic) (ἃ; καταλείπωσιν (or -σι) gM (the 
latter with ἃ ν. 1.). τῶν τοῦ σώματός μου] σ᾽; eorum quae corporis met L; ὁ 


I. μᾶλλον] Referring tothe clause Ρ. 1096) θηρία πεπλησμένα, τάφους τρέ- 


μὴ εὔνοια ἄκαιρος γένησθέ μοι. 
κολακεύσατε] ‘coax, humour, 671- 
tice’, a somewhat favourite word in 
Ignatius: see the note on Polyc. 2. 
2. τάφος γένωνται] So in the 776- 
nea (Dec. 20) it is said of Ignatius 
σπλάγχνα θηρίων σοι τάφος γεγόνασιν. 
Gorgias spoke of vultures as ἔμψυχοι 
τάφοι (Longin. de Sud/. 111. 2). Our 
own Spenser has the expression ‘to 
be entombed in the raven or the 
kight’, Hacry Queen ii. 8.16. The last 
two passages, with others from Latin 
writers, are given by Munro on Lu- 
cret. V. 993 ‘Viva videns vivo sepe- 
liri viscera busto’. Compare Suicer 
Thes. s.v. τάφος for other illustra- 
tions. See also Soph. ZZ. 1487 κτα- 
vav πρόθες ταφεῦσιν, ὧν τόνδ᾽ εἰκός 
ἐστι τυγχάνειν, ἄποπτον ἡμῶν, Eur. Lon 
933 θηρσὶν φίλον τύμβευμα; and a- 
mong Christian fathers, Athenag. 
Suppl. 36 τίς av ὧδ᾽ ἀνάστασιν πεπισ- 
τευκὼς ἐπὶ σώμασιν ἀναστησομένοις 
ἑαυτὸν παράσχοι τάφον ; Amphiloch. 
Lamb. ad Sel. 148 (Greg. Naz. Op. 11. 


χοντας. 

μηθὲν καταλίπωσιν] In one Martyr- 
ology, the Antiochene (ὃ 6), it is re- 
lated that the saint’s wish was almost 
literally fulfilled, ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν aded- 
φῶν ἐπαχθὴς διὰ τῆς συλλογῆς τοῦ 
λειψάνου γένηται, καθὼς ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ 
τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπεθύμει γενέσθαι τελείωσιν" 
μόνα γὰρ τὰ τραχύτερα τῶν λειψάνων 
περιελείφθη, ἅτινα εἰς τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν 
ἀπεκομίσθη κιτιλ. In the other, the 
Roman, this wish is entirely ignored, 
(δ 10) of λέοντες.. Φροσπεσόντες ἀπέ- 
πνιξαν [αὐτὸν] μόνον, οὐκ ἔθιγον δὲ 
αὐτοῦ τῶν σαρκῶν, ἵνα τὸ λείψανον 
αὐτοῦ εἴη φυλακτήριον τῇ Ῥωμαίων 
πόλει κιτιλ., though in this latter 
document the passage has been al- 
tered in one copy to conform it to 
the other account (see the note 
on the passage). In either legend 
the narrative has been framed to 
meet the claims of certain cities to 
the possession of the saint’s reliques. 
It may safely be said that the saint 
had no thought of the preservation 


v] TO THE ROMANS. 209 


, e \ > ~ e/ \ ~ > / 7 σι 
Κύριον ὑπερ εμου, να διὰ των οργαάνων TOUTWY Θεοῦ 


θυσία εὑρεθώ. 


Οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσο- 


cee ne 3 ΄ 3 / 3 \ Ἢ) ἰῷ 
μαι Uv? ἐκεῖνοι ἀπόστολοι, ἔγω κατάκριτος" ἐκεῖνοι 


ἐλεύθεροι, ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος. 


\ 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν πάθω, 


τον ογδηις meis Am (probably the plur. is intended to represent the τῶν) ; τοῦ 
σώματός μου (om. τῶν) GM; ¢ corfore meo S,S,ZA (but in such a matter the Oriental 


Versions do not count for much). 


g* ; inveniar L; appaream Aw; def. A. 
ἀληθῶς] GL* Am; 2 veritate ZX; ἀληθής gASmM. 


et tunc A, 
L=Ang; τοῦ χριστοῦ GAS mM. 
GLSm; τῷ χριστῷ M. 


3 γένωμαι] ΑΣΜ ; sim Sm; εὑρεθήσομαι 

4 τότε] GLZADSmM ; τότε δὲ g; 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] 
5 τὸν Κύριον] SstAAmg; τὸν χριστὸν 


6 Θεοῦ] g* (but om. θεοῦ 1; and some Gk mss 


read θεῷ) ; det L; deo or det (probably the latter) AAm; deo S3=Sm; om. GLM 


(which last reads θυσία καθαρα): 


see the lower note. 

dé [g] (altering the context freely) [Sm Sev-Syr 8; e¢ ego AAm. 
GS3;2M[g]; e ego AAm; ἐγὼ (om. δὲ) LSn. 
should be admitted here, but rejected in the previous clause. 


8 ἐγὼ] GLS.M; ἐγὼ 

9 ἐγὼ δὲ] 
There can be little doubt that δὲ 
The testimony of 


some authorities however (g=AAm) is weakened here by their insertion of a con- 


necting particle in the former case. 


of his reliques in the words Bapvs 
τινι γένωμαι, but referred only to the 
difficulties of sepulture in a strange 
city and at a season of trouble. 

4. μαθητὴ ͵)]͵ On this favourite 
idea of Ignatius see the note 2: 2165. 1. 

6. τῶν ὀργάνων τούτων] ‘these in- 
struments of my purification’, 1.6. the 
wild beasts. 

Θεοῦ θυσία] The omission of Θεοῦ 
in some texts must be explained by 
the similar letters @yeycia. For 
this reason Θεοῦ is to be preferred to 
Θεῷ. See however the v. ]. in Clem. 
Rom. 10 θυσίαν [τῷ Θεῷ! 

7. ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος] S. Peter 
and 5. Paul are especially mentioned, 
because they had been at Rome and 
had given commandments (éera- 
ἕαντο) to the Roman Church; see 
the note on £fhes. 12 Παύλου συμ- 
μύσται. For the combined mention 
of these two Apostles in connexion 
with the Roman Church in early 
writers see the note on Clem. Rom. 
5, Where also their names appear in 
conjunction. It is worth observing 


IGN. II: 


that this phenomenon appears in the 


_ earliest document emanating from, as 


well as in the earliest document ad- 
dressed to, the Roman Church, after 
the death of the two Apostles. 

8. ἐκεῖνοι ἀπόστολοι κιτ.λ.] ‘They 
visited you, as Apostles, as accre- 
dited delegates of God: I only as 
a convict, as one despatched to 
Rome to receive his punishment’. 
For ἐκεῖνοι ἀπόστολοι... ἐκεῖνοι ἐλεύ- 
Oepor comp. I Cor. 1x. I οὐκ εἰμι 
ἐλεύθερος 3 οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος ; 

κατάκριτος] ‘a convict’? His ju- 
dicial condemnation by the Roman 
power was a type of his unworthi- 
ness, his conviction, in the sight of 
God ; his δικαίωσις was yet to come 
(δ 5 ov mapa τοῦτο Sedtxaiwpat). For 
this intermingling of the symbol and 
the thing symbolized see the note on 
§ 2 καλὸν τὸ δῦναι κιτιλ. For the whole 
sentence comp. 77val/. 3 ἵνα ὧν κατά- 
Kpitos ὡς ἀπόστολος ὑμῖν διατάσσωμαι, 
Ephes. 12 ἐγὼ κατάκριτος, ὑμεῖς ἠλεη- 
μένοι (with the notes). 

9. μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος} It has been 


14 


pig 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[iv 


> , 3 ~ ~ \ 3 lé 3 3 - 
ἀπελεύθερος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἀναστήσομαι ἐν αὐτῷ 


ἐλεύθερος. 


νῦν μανθάνω δεδεμένος μηδὲν ἐπιθυμεῖν. 


1 ἀπελεύθερο] GM; add. γενήσομαι g. The versions naturally supply various 


words; jfiam L; fio A; inveniar Am}; ego sum S323 sum miht Sm: 
Χριστοῦ] LSsZAAmSmMg; om. G. 
2 viv] GAmMg; εὖ nunc LIA ; nunc autem Sm- 

μανθάνω] txt GLEAAmSmM ; add. ἐν αὐτῷ g* (MSs, but om. 1). 
txt LEAAmSm; add. κοσμικὸν ἢ μάταιον GMg. 


note. 
cum 60 Am3 om. LA. 


see the lower 
ἐν αὐτῷ] GSs2SmMg ; 


ἐπιθυμεῖν] 
3 γῆς καὶ θαλάσσηΞ] 


GLAmSn[M]g Euseb Mart-Rom 1; θαλάσσης kat γῆς ZA Euseb-Syr Hieron. 


inferred from this (Bunsen 7971. p. 
58, Ritschl Altkhath. Kirche Ὁ. 412), 
that Ignatius was, or had been, ac- 
tuallya slave. This inference is at all 
events supported by the analogy of 
κατάκριτος, which describes an actual 
fact, though taken as the symbol of 
a spiritual state. Some external fact 
indeed seems to be required; but 
probably Ignatius means nothing 
more than that, as a prisoner, he 
was subject to the despotic will of 
others ; see Zahn 7: v. A. p. 410 sq. 

I. ἀπελεύθερος κιτ.λ.} ‘a freed- 
man’, the idea being taken from 
I Cor. vil. 22 ὁ yap ἐν Κυρίῳ κληθεὶς 
δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν: 
comp. Mart. Fustin. et Soc. 4 Ev- 
ἔλπιστος δοῦλος Καίσαρος ἀπεκρίνατο, 
Καγὼ Χριστιανός εἶμι, ἐλευθερωθεὶς 
ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ, Cyprian 22:7. 76 (p. 
829, Hartel) ‘O pedes in saeculo ad 
praesens ligati, ut sint semper apud 
Deum liberi,” Act. SS. Did. ct Theod. 
I ‘Judex dixit /ugenua es, an an- 
cilla? Theodora respondit fam tibi 
aixt, Christiana sum, Christus autem 
adventens me liberavit’ (Ruinart Act. 
Mart. Sinc. p. 428, Ratisbon. 1859). 
Similarly Epictetus Dzss. iii. 24. 68 
ἐξ ov p ᾿Αντισθένης ἠλευθέρωσεν, 
οὐκέτι ἐδούλευσα᾽ πῶς ἠλευθέρωσεν: 
κιτιὰλ., 1V. 7. 17 ἠλευθέρωμαι ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, ἔγνωκα αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐντολάς, οὐκέτι 
οὐδεὶς δουλαγωγῆσαί με δύναται (comp. 
ἵν. I. 35). For the form of the sen- 
tence (with the omission of the sub- 


stantive verb) comp. £~/cs. ὃ περί- 
ψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι ὑμῶν. 

2. νῦν μανθάνω κ-ιτ.λ.}] “Αἱ pre- 
sent I am only a learner; my bonds 
are teaching me to abandon all 
worldly desires’: comp. ὃ 5 μᾶλλον pa- 
Onrevopat...vov ἄρχομαι μαθητὴς εἶναι, 
and § 7 ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται K.T.A. 

V. ‘From Syria to Rome, by land 
and by sea, night and day, I am fight- 
ing with wild beasts. I mean these 
soldiers to whom I am bound, for 
they are like ten leopards. Kindness 
only makes them worse. Yet their 
wrong-doing is my discipline. How- 
beit I am not thereby justified. 
Gladly shall I welcome the wild- 
beasts that are prepared for me, and 
I trust they will do their work 
quickly. I will lure them on to 
devour me. Even if they are un- 
willing, I will force them to it. 
Pardon me, I know what is good 
for me. I would not have anything 
visible or invisible stand between 
me and God. Fire and cross, wild- 
beasts, the most horrible manglings 
and tortures which the devil can 
devise—let all these overtake me, if 
only I may find Christ.’ 

3. ᾿Αιπὸ Συρίας x«z7.A.] ‘Shall I 
encounter wild-beasts only then at 
length, when I arrivein Rome? Nay, 
I am assailed by them every hour 
throughout my journey. This man- 
iple of soldiers is to me now what 
the lions of the Flavian amphi- 


v] TO THE ROMANS. 


vr: 


211 


‘Aro Cupias μέχρι ‘Pwuns θηριομαχῶ, διὰ γῆς 


\ , \ \ / 3 7 
καὶ θαλάσσης, νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, ἐνδεδεμένος δέκα Χεο- 


In the passage which follows I have not generally recorded the vv. ll. of 
Jerome and of Gildas (de Exc. Brit. iii. 7) as having no independent value, since 
the former merely repeats Euseb, and the latter borrows from Rufinus’ translation 


of the same historian. 


Nor again are all the vv. ll. of Mart-Rom recorded here; 
they will be found in their proper place. 


4 ἐνδεδεμένος] g Euseb 


Mart-Rom ; winctus inter ZA; vinctus cum AmSm Euseb-Syr; δεδεμένος GM; 


vinctus (with dat.) L. 


theatre will be to me then.’ The 
metaphor of θηριομαχῶ is suggested 
by 1 Cor. xv. 32 εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον 
ἐθηριομάχησα ev “Edéow, but it has 
reference to the literal @npiopayia 
which awaits him. See the saying 
of Pompeius in Appian Be//. C7v. ii. 
61 οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα, and Lucian 
Pisc. 17 ov yap τοῖς τυχοῦσι θηρίοις 
προσπολεμῆσαι δεήσει μοι, add’ ἀλαζό- 
σιν ἀνθρώποις καὶ δυσελέγκτοις, quoted 
in Wetstein on 1 Cor. 7c. For ἀπὸ 
Supias «7X. comp. C. /. G. 3425 
στεφανωθέντα ἱεροὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς ἀπὸ 
τῆς οἰκουμένης πάντας ἀπὸ Καπιτω- 
λείων ἕως ᾿Αντιοχείας τῆς Συρίας. 

διὰ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης) This ex- 
pression has been thought to militate 
against the statement in JZar¢. 7971. 
Ant. 3 κατελθὼν ἀπὸ ᾿Αντιοχείας εἰς 
τὴν Σελεύκειαν, ἐκεῖθεν εἴχετο τοῦ πλόος 
καὶ προσχὼν μετὰ πολὺν κάματον τῇ 
Σμυρναίων πόλει κιτιλ., as the few 
miles from Antioch to its port Se- 
leucia would hardly justify the διὰ 
γῆς. The difficulty however is not 
serious. Ignatius is referring to the 
whole journey, not yet completed, 
so that not only the stay at Smyrna, 
but the way across the continent 
from Neapolis and Philippi to Dyr- 
rhachium will be included. On the 
other hand Eusebius speaks of it as 
a /and journey through Asia Minor, 
ΤΥ. E. iii. 36 τὴν δι’ ᾿Ασίας ἀνακομιδήν, 
and this is required by another ex- 
pression in this epistle, ὃ 9 τῶν 


ἐκκλησιῶν τῶν δεξαμένων pe...ovx ὡς 
παροδεύοντα: καὶ γὰρ ai μὴ προσήκου- 
σαί μοι τῇ ὁδῷ κιτιλ. In this case the 
difficulty is to explain διὰ θαλάσσης; 
but the answer is the same. It is 
far from improbable indeed that (as 
Zahn suggests, Δ v. A. p. 253) they 
should have taken ship from Se- 
leucia to some Cilician or Pamphy- 
han harbour, in order to shorten the 
route; but, even without this, the 
saint is contemplating the voyages 
from Smyrna to Troas, from Troas 
to Neapolis, and from Dyrrhachium 
to Puteoli or Ostia or Portus, which 
are yet to come. 

4. ἐνδεδεμένος] This reading is 
better supported and more appro- 
priate than δεδεμένος. The saint was 
attended by a company of ten 
soldiers, who relieved guard in turn, 
so that he was always bound night 
and day to one of them by a ἅλυσις 
or ‘coupling-chain.’ On this ‘ cusfo- 
dia militaris’ see Philippians p. 
8sq. It is probable that the soldiers 
were in charge of other prisoners 
also, though these are not mentioned 
by Ignatius. We might have con- 
jectured that among these were 
Zosimus and Rufus who are men- 
tioned by Polycarp (PAz/. 9) together 
with Ignatius, as visiting Philippi 
(apparently) on their way to mar- 
tyrdom. But if his fellow-prisoners 
had been Christians, he would pro- 
bably have alluded to them. 


14—2 


20 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v 


ς 5 \ y vA \ ; 
πάρδοις, ὃ εστιν στρατιώτικον ταγμα, Ot Και ευεργε- 


1 ὅ ésrw] GLMg Euseb (Gk mss, Hieron Rufin) ; οἵτινές εἰσι Mart-Rom 


(ν. 1); 22 gud sunt Sm; qui sunt ZAAm Euseb-Syr. 


στρατιωτικὸν] gM 


Euseb Mart-Rom; militaris L; στρατιωτῶν G; militum ZAAmSm Euseb-Syr 


I. λεοπάρδοις] This is the earliest 
occurrence of the word in any extant 
writing. Thirty or forty years before 
however Pliny (JV. H. viii. 17) speaks 
of ‘leones quos pardi generavere,’ so 
that the word was then on the point 
of formation, if not already formed. 
And about fifty years later than 
Ignatius, we find it in Galen (ΟΖ. V. 
Ρ. 134, Kiihn) ἐπὶ λεόντων καὶ λεαινῶν 
καὶ παρδάλεών τε καὶ λεοπάρδων, ἄρκτων 
τε καὶ λύκων, οἱ τὰς σάρκας αὐτῶν 
ἡδέως ἐσθίοντες ἀφίστανται τοῦ σπλη- 
vos ὡς ἀβρώτου, where it is used as 
a familiar word. The work quoted, 
de Atra Bile, appears to have been 
one of Galen’s earliest treatises; see 
Op. τ p. xxviii. Again in a rescript 
of Marcus and Commodus (i.e. be- 
tween A.D. 177—180), quoted by 
Marcianus in Dzg. xxxix. 4. 16, men- 
tion is made of ‘leones, leaenae, pardi, 
leopardi, pantherae,’ among commo- 
dities liable to customs’ duty. Again 
in the contemporary Acts of Per- 
petua and Felicitas, who were sa- 
crificed to grace a birthday of Geta 
about A.D. 202, this word occurs 
several times; § 19 ‘leopardum ex- 
perti, zd. ‘ab uno morsu leopardi,’ 
§ 21 ‘ab uno morsu leopardi’ (again), 
zh. ‘leopardo objectus. Of this 
Geta too it is related (Spartian. 
Vit. Get. 5) that he used to ask ques- 
tions about the cries of different 
criminals, as ‘leones rugiunt, leo- 
pardi rictant, elefanti  barriunt.’ 
Again of Heliogabalus we are told 
(Lamprid. Vz¢. “e/. 21) that he ‘ha- 
buit leones et leopardos exarma- 
tos in deliciis,’ and again (26. § 25) 
that he ‘subito nocte leones et 
leopardos et ursos exarmatos inmit- 
tebat,’ among his drunken friends, 


‘ita ut expergefacti in cubiculo eodem 
leones ursos pardos...invenirent,’ so 
that Lampridius appears to use ‘leo- 
pardus’ and ‘pardus’ as synonymes. 
Under the younger Gordian again 
mention is made, among other foreign 
animals exhibited at Rome, of ‘leo- 
pardi mansueti triginta,’ Capitol. 
Vit. Gord. 33. Of Probus too it is 
related (Vopisc. Vzt. Prob. 19) that 
‘editi deinde centum leopardi Li- 
byci, centum deinde Syriaci.’ This 
last word explains why leopards 
should occur to Ignatius as naturally 
as lions or tigers. In the edict of 
Diocletian also leopards are men- 
tioned, Corp. dusem 7. αὐ ΠῚ Ὁ. Ὁ55Σ 
δέρμα λεοπάρτου ἄεργον, εἰργασμένον, 
‘pellis leopardina infecta, eadem 
confecta. The word occurs also in 
one text of the Acta Philippi 36, 
but this work is of uncertain date 
and cannot be very early. In Cant. 
iv. ὃ ‘pardorum’ is quoted ‘leopar- 
dorum’ by Jerome adv. Fovin. 1. 30 
(II. p. 286). 

Bochart (Hzerozotcon Pars 1. Lib. 
iii. c. 8) alleged the word as a proof 
of the late date of the epistles, as- 
serting that it was not used till the 
age of Constantine. He attempted 
to set aside some of the passages 
from the Augustan Historians on 
the ground that they represented the 
language of the narrators, and not 
of the times to which the events 
belong. Pearson (V. /. p. 456 sq), 
and Cotelier (ad Zoc.), besides other 
considerations, referred to the Acés 
of Perpetua and Felicitas in reply. 
But they overlooked the earlier pas- 
sages from Galen and the Dzgesés, 
which, so far as I know, are ad- 
duced here for the first time; and 


v| TO THE ROMANS. 4715 


, , , 
TOUMEVOL χείρους γινονται. 


o 


a δὲ ~ > / 5 ~ 
ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀδικήμασιν αὐτῶν 


(the Greek word στρατιώτης being transliterated in ZSm Euseb-Syr) : comp. Ps-Ign. 


ad Mar. 4 ἡ στρατιωτικὴ φρουρά. 


The Syriac Versions are of no account here, 


as they could hardly have translated otherwise. 


the Edict of Diocletian was yet un- 
discovered. Bochart’s objection was 
revived by Baur (Ursprung des Epts- 
copats p. 156). 

The form of the word seems to 
show that it was of Roman and not 
Greek origin. The more natural 
Greek would be λεοντοπάρδαλις, like 
καμηλοπάρδαλις. Theognostus how- 
ever (Bekker “δε. p. 1394) treats 
it as Greek, and justifies it by the 
analogy of yepoxopos (from γέρων), 
᾿Απολλογένης, ᾿Απολλοφάνης (from ᾿᾽Α- 
πόλλων). In Athanas. Vzt. Anton. 9 
(I. p. 640), where λεοπάρδων occurs, 
there is av. 1. λεοπαρδάλων (see Fes- 
tus quoted below). The name ori- 
ginated in the mistaken belief that 
the animal was a hybrid; see (be- 
sides Pliny 7. c.) Festus (p. 33, ed. 
Mueller) ‘Azgenera dicuntur ani- 
malia ex diverso genere nata, ut 
leopardalis ex leone et panthera’ 
(where for /eofardalis inferior MSS 
have /eopardus), Philostr. Vit. Apol?. 
ii. 14 (p. 30) λέγεται δὲ Kai περὶ τῶν 
λεαινῶν λόγος, ὡς ἐραστὰς μὲν ποιοῦνται 
τοὺς παρδάλεις κιτιλ....στικτὰ γὰρ τίκ- 
τουσιν. On the animals intended by 
the ancients under the several names 
πάνθηρ, πάρδαλις, pardus, etc., see 
Wiegemann in Oken’s /szs 1831, p. 
287 sq. 

6 ἐστιν κιτ.λ.] This looks like a 
gloss at first sight, but it is found 
in all the copies. It is added some- 
what awkwardly in explanation by 
Ignatius, as his obscure metaphor 
might otherwise have been misun- 
derstood. 

στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα] ‘a company of 
soldiers’ The word τάγμα here might 
be rendered in Latin by ‘manipulus,’ 
if the disposition of the legion, which 


Vegetius describes (ii. 13), already 
prevailed when Ignatius wrote; 
‘Centuriae in contubernia divisae 
sunt, ut decem militibus sub uno 
papilione degentibus unus quasi prae- 
esset decanus, qui caput contubernii 
nominatur ; contubernium autem ma- 
nipulus vocabatur etc.’; comp. Spar- 
tian. Vzt. Pesc. Nig. 10 ‘decem com- 
manipulones. This is a great de- 
parture from the earlier sense of 
‘manipulus, which was equivalent 
to ‘centuria,’ and contained Ioo or 
120 men; see Marquardt Rom. 
Alterth, iii. 2, p. 458 sq (comp. 2d. 
p- 253 sq). The Greek raypa is 
used widely, to denote any body of 
soldiers, whether maniple or cohort 
or legion. The very expression which 
we have here, στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα, 
occurs im Dion» Halics A Ke vie 
of a legion; comp. Dion Cass. xxi. 
9 καλοῦσι δὲ τὸ τάγμα οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι 
λεγεῶνα; but more properly it de- 
noted an ‘ordo’ or maniple, as in 
Polyb. vi. 24. 5. For στρατιωτικὸν 
τάγμα see Euseb. Quaest. ad Marin. 
(Op. IV. p- 984) ἡ yap κουστωδία orpa- 
τιωτικόν ἐστι τάγμα, Vit, Const. 111. 44, 
47, iv. 56, 68, 70,71. For the number 
ten comp. Joseph. B. /. iii. 6. 2 
τούτοις ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστης ἑκατονταρχίας ἠκο- 
λούθουν δέκα x.t.A., and see esp. Leo 
Tacticus iv. 2 (quoted by Marquardt 
Rom. Staatsverw. 11. p. 580 sq). 
εὐεργετούμενοι k.T.A.] 1.6. ‘the more 
they receive in gratuities, the harsher 
and more extortionate they become’ ; 
as rightly explained by Pearson (V. 
Z. p. 511) who, to illustrate this mode 
of procuring comforts for Christian 
confessors and martyrs, cites Lucian 
Peregr. 12 συνεκάθευδον ἔνδον μετ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ διαφθείροντες τοὺς δεσμο- 


214 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [Vv 


μάλλον μαθητεύομαι: ἀλλ οὐ Tapa τοῦτο AEAIKAIW- 


Mal. 


΄ 7 ΄σ 3 \ ςε if 
᾿Οναίμην τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἐμοὶ ἡτοιμασμένων, 


Ω ᾽ ’ o> ᾿ « \ / 
ἃ καὶ εὔχομαι σύντομά μοι εὑρεθῆναι: a καὶ κολακεύσω 


΄- Ε « i ’ 
συντόμως με καταφαγεῖν, οὐχ ὥσπερ τινων δειλαινομενα 


2 τῶν ἐμοὶ ἡτοιμασμένων] GMg (comp. ad Mar. 2 ὀναίμην τῶν δεινῶν τῶν ἐμοὶ 
ἡτοιμασμένων) ; τῶν ἐμοὶ ἑτοίμων Euseb; mihi esse paratis L*; guae mihi paratae 
sunt (manent Am) ZAAmSm Euseb-Syr. 3 Ὁ] g EusebAAnm; om.GLM. It 
is omitted also in Sm Euseb-Syr, but the Syriac idiom would suggest the omission. 

σύντομα] g Euseb; veloces...in tempore suo Sm; confestim = (the same word which 
renders συντόμως just below) A (the following συντόμως is not represented) ; prompée 
Am (the following συντόμως is omitted); ἕτοιμα GM; promptas L. Those texts, 
which omit συντόμως below, favour σύντομα here; for the omission is then ex- 
plained by the desire of avoiding an awkward repetition. 4 τινῶν] 
GLAAnMg Euseb; αὖ aliis hominibus Σ (but τινῶν of g is translated 272 alizs 
by 1; while Jerome freely renders Euseb here sicu¢ aliorum martyrum, and the 
Syriac version of this same historian has αὖ adits); a multis Sm. δειλαινό- 
μενα οὐχ ἥψαντο] GLAmSmMg Euseb (but with a v. 1. ἥψατο). Σ Euseb-Syr 
have metuens ab alits (add. hominibus Z) et non appropinguans 115, as if they had 


read δειλαινόμενος οὐχ ἥψατο. 


φύλακας" εἶτα δεῖπνα ποικίλα εἰσεκο- 
μίζετο κιτὰ,, Apost. Const. ν. τ εἴ 
τις Χριστιανὸς..-κατακριθῇ ὑπὸ ἀσεβῶν 
εἰς λοῦδον ἢ θηρία ἢ μέταλλον... 
πέμψατε αὐτῷ εἰς διατροφὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ 
εἰς μισθαποδοσίαν τῶν στρατιω- 
τῶν, ἵνα ἐλαφρυνθῇ καὶ ἐπιμελείας 
τύχη; ἵνα ὅσον τὸ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν μὴ θλίβηται 
ὃ μακάριος ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, Act. Perf. 
et Fel. 3 ‘Tertius et Pomponius, be- 
nedicti diaconi, qui nobis ministra- 
bant, consiztuerunt praemio ut paucis 
horis emissi in meliorem locum 
carceris refrigeraremus, with other 
passages. 

I. μαθητεύομαι] See the note on 
§ 3. 

ov παρὰ τοῦτο x.t.A.| Taken from 
1 Cor. iv. 4 οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι. 
For mapa τοῦτο ‘on this account’, 
where παρὰ ‘along of’ denotes causa- 
tion, comp. Zvall. 5 mapa τοῦτο ἤδη 
καὶ μαθητής εἰμι. So too 1 Cor. xii. 
15, 16, ov mapa τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ 
σώματος, Clem. Hom. xv. 10, xvill. 18. 
In all these passages it is with a 


5 ἑκοντα μὴ θέλῃ] g3 volentem non velint 


negative, or with an interrogation 
which is equivalent to a negative. 
This however is not always the case; 
see e.g. the references in Kuhner II. 
p- 444 sq. 

2. “Ovaipny κιτιλ.] So Act. Perp. 
et Fel. 14 Sut bestias lucraretur’. 
Pearson has given a wrong turn to 
the expression, when he writes ‘Zo- 
tiar feris; potius ferzs quam fzs 
leopardis’. For ὀναίμην see the note 
on E£phes. 2. 

3. σύντομα] ‘prompt’, ‘expedt- 
tious’, as frequently. The emenda- 
tion σύντονα suggested by Voss is 
not an improvement. 

4. δειλαινόμενα] See for examples 
Euseb.- 4702.09. ἡ (quoted tin Ga 
subsequent note), Act. SS. Zarach. 
Prob. etc. 10 (in Ruinart Act. Mart. 
Sinc. p. 473). Sotoo of Blandina, £4. 
Vienn. in Euseb. v. 1 μηδενὸς ἁψαμέ- 
vou τότε τῶν θηρίων αὐτῆς. 

5. κἂν αὐτὰ δὲ x.t.A.] The autho- 
rities point to ἑκόντα as the original 
reading; and, if so, it is perhaps 


v] TO THE ROMANS. 215 


5 οὐχ ἥψαντο' κἂν αὐτὰ δὲ ἑκόντα μὴ θέλῃ, ἐγὼ προσ- 
βιάσομαι. συγγνώμην μοι ἔχετε" τί μοι συμφέρει ἐγὼ 
γινώσκω" νῦν ἄρχομαι μαθητὴς εἶναι: μηθέν με ζηλώ- 
σαι τῶν ὁρατών καὶ τῶν ἀοράτων, ἵνα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 


L; ἄκοντα μὴ θέλῃ Euseb; ἄκοντα μὴ θελήσῃ (ἃ; ἄκοντα μὴ θελήσειεν M; non 
velint AnSm; “on velint appropinguare miht ZA Euseb-Syr. This last seems to 
represent a reading ἑκόντα μὴ ἔλθῃ, the confusion of €A@H and O€AH being easy. 
Possibly however afpropinquare is supplied after θέλῃ from the previous ἥψαντο, which 
is translated ‘approach’ in all the three. 6 ἐγὼ... εἶναι] GLS,AAnSmMg 
Euseb Euseb-Syr; om. Σ. A line seems to have dropped out in the copy from 
which this abridgement was made. 7 μηθέν] G3 μηθέν or μηδέν σ; μηδέν 
Euseb; def. M. ζηλώσαι] ζηλωσαι g (accentuated as infin. ζηλώσαι in 
the Mss) Euseb (Jerome treats it as an infin.; Rufinus and the Syriac as an 
optat.); ἕξηλῶσαι (for it is treated as an infin.) LAAm ; zzvideat (ζηλώσαι or ζηλώσῃ) 
S,2 Joann-Mon ; ζηλώση G. The original reading therefore was doubtless ἕηλωσαι 
(not ἕηλώσῃ), and the sense requires ζηλώσαι rather than ζηλῶσαι: see the 
lower note. - 8 τών ἀοράτων] gS. Euseb-Syr (the two latter repeating 
ex tis quae); ἀοράτων (om. τῶν) G Euseb; dub. L= (which repeats gwae only) 


Nes ale Sen 3 Get. M. 


best taken as the accusative with the 
Latin Version, i.e. κἂν αὐτὰ μὴ θέλῃ 
[καταφαγεῖν ἐμὲ] ἑκόντα, ‘to devour 
me, though I am ready’. 
προσβιάσομαι)] So Mart. Polyc. 
3 (of the martyr Germanicus) ἑαυ- 
τῷ ἐπεσπάσατο τὸ θηρίον προσβιασά- 
μενος, Euseb. Wart. Pal. 6 (of Aga- 
pius) δρομαῖος ἄντικρυς ἀπολυθείσῃ 
κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄρκτῳ ὑπαντιάσας, ταύτῃ 
τε ἑαυτὸν ἀσμενέστατα ἐπιδεδωκὼς εἰς 
βοράν, Act. SS. Tarach. Prob. etc. 10 
‘sanctus vero Andronicus posuit 
caput suum super ursum et insti- 
gabat eum ut irasceretur etc.’ This 
provocatio was not purely volun- 
tary in some cases; Euseb. . 4. 
Vili. 7 τῶν ἀνθρωποβόρων ἐπὶ πλείονα 
χρόνον μὴ προσψαύειν μηδὲ πλησιά- 
ἕξειν τοῖς τῶν θεοφιλῶν σώμασιν ἐπι- 
τολμώντων... μόνον δὲ τῶν ἱερῶν 
ἀθλητῶν γυμνῶν ἑστώτων καὶ ταῖς 
χερσὶ κατασειόντων ἐπί τε σφᾶς av- 
τοὺς ἐπισπωμένων, τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτοῖς 
ἐκελεύετο πράττειν, μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἐφαπτο- 
μένων, which passage also illustrates 


the preceding δειλαινόμενα. 

7. νῦν ἄρχομαι κιτιλ.}] The com- 
mencement of his sufferings is the 
inauguration of his discipleship (see 
Ephes. 1, 3, notes). This disciple- 
ship will only then be complete, 
when his sufferings are crowned by 
his passion; comp. § 4 τότε ἔσομαι 
μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς k.T.Xr. 

ζηλώσαι] Not ζηλῶσαι. The opta- 
tive is wanted rather than the infini- 
tive. The word here seems to have 
its common meaning ‘envy’; comp. 
§ 3 ἐβασκάνατε, § 7 βασκανία, with the 
notes. Zahn however gives it a dif- 
ferent sense; ‘ (nAovy τινά, 1.6. studi- 
ose gratiam alicuius quaerere omnt- 
busgue artificits aliguem capiare’, as 
in, Gal. ivs,.17),.2.Com, x. 2.4. 
expression Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν 
is equivalent to μαθητὴς εἶναι in the 
language of Ignatius. Both will at 
length be realised in his martyr- 
dom. 

8. δρατῶν ... ἀοράτων] See Tradl. 
5 (note). 


216 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [Vv 


5 ~ A / , 9 
ἐπιτύχω. πῦρ καὶ σταυρὸς θηρίων τε συστάσεις, | ἀνα- 
Pipa \ > 4 \ 
τομαί, διαιρέσεις], σκορπισμοὶ CTO TEWY, TUYKOTAL με- 
~ " ε ΄σ / \ / ΄“-“ 
λῶν, ἀλεσμοὶ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος, κακαὶ κολάσεις TOU 


1 συστάσει:] GLAmMg; σύστασις Euseb (Laemmer, but v. l. cuordces) Sm 
Euseb-Syr (the two latter owing to absence of riduz). S.=A have bestiae quae 
paratae sunt (mihi). ἀνατομαί, διαιρέσεις] GAm[Sm]Mg ; διαιρέσεις (or rather 
διαίρεσις, omitting dvarouai) S,A; om. altogether, L= Euseb Euseb-Syr. 2 σκορ- 
πισμοὶ...μελῶν] GLS,AAmSmMg Euseb Euseb-Syr (the minor variations in these 
authorities are given below); ef abscissio membrorum et dispersto ossium Z 
(transposing the two clauses; comp. om. inscr., Hphes. 19). σκορ- 
πισμοὶ GLMg Euseb Mart-Rom 5 (ν. 1.); déspersio SAAmSm Euseb-Syr (but 
the sing. in DASm Euseb-Syr is explained by the absence of 7zbuz, and Am 
renders διαιρέσεις, dvaroual, σκορπισμοί, ἀλεσμοί, also by singulars). ὀστέων 
ὠστέων G συγκοπαὶ] g Euseb Euseb-Syr [Mart-Rom]; συγκοπή 
GLS,=ZAAmSmM; but the Oriental Versions are of no account here (see the 
last note). μελῶν] μελλών ἃ. 3 ἀλεσμοὶ] gM Euseb (but 
ν. 1. ἀλησμοί) Mart-Rom; ἀλησμοί G. There is no authority for ἀλυσμοί, unless 
it be Am which has coztritio (aut, contritio et dissolutio), where the words in 


brackets perhaps mean a vy. 1. giving both words, ἀλεσμοὶ καὶ ἀλυσμοί. 


I. συστάσεις] ‘conflicts, grap- 
plings with’. As συστάδην μάχεσθαι is 
a common phrase for ‘comminus pug- 
nare’, SO σύστασις denotes ‘a hand 
to hand engagement’, e.g. Plut. 
Vit. Pomp. 70 τῆς σάλπιγγος apxo- 
μένης ἐγκελεύεσθαι πρὸς THY σύστασιν, 
Vit. Demetr. 16 ὅταν μάλιστα σύστασιν 
ὁ ἀγὼν ἔχῃ (i.e. comes to close quar- 
ters). Itis indirectly defined in Plat. 
Legg. viil. p. 833 A ἢ ἐν ταῖς συμ’ 
πλοκαῖς μάχη καὶ σύστασις. The word 
occurs in ἃ different sense, 7va//. 5. 
ὀστέων) Ps. xxi 
(xxl) 15 διεσκορπίσθη πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ 
ποῦ comp. Ps, lii (lili). 7, cxl (cxli). 8. 
The word σκορπίζειν is an illustration 
of the exceptional character of the 
Attic dialect. It appears in Heca- 
tzeus, and reappears in writers, sacred 
and profane, of the post-classical 
ages; it is called by some an Ionic, 
by others a Macedonian word; but 
in Attic it seems not to occur. See 
Lobeck Phryn. Ὁ. 218, and comp. 


2. σκορπισμοὶ 


κακαὶ] 


Pathol. p.295. For similar instances 
see Galatians vi. 6, and p. 92; 4 12- 
lippians 1. 28, ii. 14. 

3. ἀλεσμοὶ] For this form see 
the note on ἀλήθομαι ὃ 4. The read- 
ing dAvopoi, ‘restlessnesses’, ‘dis- 
tractions’, has no authority (see the 
upper note) and is inappropriate. It 
was first introduced into the inter- 
polator’s text by the editor Morel, 
who prints ἁλυσμοὶ, and is not found 
(as Smith states) in the Cod. August. 
of the interpolator’s text. 

κακαὶ κολάσεις k.T.A.| Pearson quotes 
Justin Dzal. 131 (p. 360 C) κολάσεις 
μέχρι θανάτου ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμονίων καὶ τῆς 
στρατιᾶς τοῦ διαβόλου, Celsus in Orig. 
c. Cels. vi. 42 (I. p. 663) ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
παῖς ἄρα ἡττᾶται ὑπὸ διαβόλου, καὶ 
κολαζόμενος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ διδάσκει καὶ 
ἡμᾶς τῶν ὑπὸ τούτου κολάσεων κατα- 
φρονεῖν. 

4. μόνον ἵνα] For the ellipsis 
with μόνον see the note on Zphes. 11. 

VI. ‘The kingdoms of this world 


v] TO THE ROMANS. 


217 


ve 3 \ / ε ᾽ ΄σ - 
διαβόλου ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐρχέσθωσαν: μόνον iva ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 


3 7 
5 ἐπιτύυχω. 


MI: 


Οὐδέ 9 Xn \ / ~ ; 
udev μὲ ὠφελήσει τὰ πέρατα τοῦ κόσμον, 


δὲ « ~ ~ 2G , 4 ? 
οὐδὲ at βασιλεῖαι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου: καλόν μοι ἀπο- 


GL; οὐ malae S,A (the conjunction is of no account); durae 2; δέ omnes Αταϑχαὶ 
καὶ gM Euseb-Syr; om. altogether, Euseb. Nothing can be inferred from the 
loose quotation of Sev-Syr 216 zgnzs et bestiae et mille species tormentorum veniant 


Super 7716. 
ἐρχέσθω for ἐρχέσθωσαν) Euseb-Syr. 


solum A Sev-Syr; et solum S,=Sm Euseb-Syr. 


Euseb Euseb-Syr Sev-Syr; om. Am. 


κολάσει5] GLS,SAAmSn(?)M Euseb; κόλασις g (reading also 


4 μόνον va] GLAnMg Euseb; 
Ἰησοῦ] GLES ASwMg 


5 ἐπιτύχω] = breaks off here and 


(with the exception of the words ὁ τοκετός μοι ἐπίκειται § 6) contains nothing till 


§ 7 ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως κ-.τ.λ. 


6 we] gM; po G. 


πέρατα] gLS,AmSm 


(written however "ΠῚ ofera for WIY termini); thesaurus A; τέρπνα GM. 
7 τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου] GLAmSmMg; ews 59; Aujus A. The Syriac had already 


exhausted the proper equivalent to αἰών, xndy, in translating κοσμος. 


καλόν] 


gM; Jonum 1,39. Tim-Syr τ; pulchrum Sm; μᾶλλον G; mielius (2) Am. 


μοι] ΑΜ; ἐμοὶ g. 


will profit me nothing. It is better 
to die for Christ than to reign over 
the whole earth. I long for Him 
who died and rose for me. The 
labour-pangs of a new birth are upon 
me. Do not prevent me from living; 
do not desire me to die. I would 
fain belong to God; do not bestow 
me on the world. Let me see the 
pure light. When I am come thither, 
I shall be truly a man. Permit me 
to imitate the passion of my God. 
Let all who have Him in their 
hearts feel and sympathize with my 
desire, for they know what constrain- 
eth me’. 

6. pe ὠφελήσει] With an accusa- 
tive, as Mark viii. 36, 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 
Heb. iv. 2. This is the common con- 
struction; but it sometimes takes a 
dative, more especially in poetry. 
See Kuhner ils pp. 251,252. 

τὰ πέρατα tov κιτ.λ.] ‘the boun- 
daries of the earth’, i.e. ‘the whole 
earth from one end to the other.’ 
In the LXX τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς (τῆς 


οἰκουμένης) iS ἃ Common expression : 
see esp. Ps. 11. 8 δώσω.... τὴν κατά- 
σχεσίν σου τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς, which 
well illustrates the meaning of Ig- 
natius here. See also the note on 
Ephes. 3. The other reading ra 
τερπνὰ is discredited by the deficiency 
of authority. 

7. at βασιλεῖαι κιτ.λ.)] This was 
the temptation offered to Christ 
Himself; see Matt. iv. 8, Luke iv. 5. 

καλόν x.t.A.]| Suggested by 1 Cor. 
ix. 15 καλὸν yap μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν 
ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου K.T.A. For καλὸν... ἢ 
(without μᾶλλον) comp. Matt. xvii. 8, 
9, Mark ix. 43, 45; and see Winer 
§ xxxv. p. 301 sq for this construc- 
tion, which is common in the LXx. 
If the alternative reading μᾶλλον 
were accepted, we must understand 
ὠφελήσει; but it is condemned by 
the great preponderance of authori- 
ties. Itwas perhaps originally written 
above the line to supply the defective 
construction καλόν. .. ἢ, and after- 
wards displaced καλόν. 


218 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [νι 


a ΄. \ 7 A / 
θανεῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, ἢ βασιλεύειν τῶν περάτων 


τῆς γῆς. 


ἐκεῖνον θέλω, τὸν [Ov ἡμᾶς] ἀναστάντα. 


3 a -~ \ ε \ ε = 3 7 a 
ἐκεῖνον ζητώ, τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμών ἀποθανόντα 


: , 
O TOKETOS μοι 


τ διὰ] g (but 1 translates 2) 1, Tim-Syr; ἐν M; εἰς G; 7# S,AAm (they may 
have read either ἐν or els); cum Sm. Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] LS,Ag 
Τίπι-ϑγγ; χριστὸν ἰησοῦν (or χριστῷ ἰησοῦ) GAmSmM. 
GLAmnSmMg Tim-Syr; super omnes terminos S.A. 
LS,AAmSm Tim-Syr; add. τί yap ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος 
ὅλον (τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ 5) THY δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ζημιωθῇ (τ. δὲ ψ. αὐτοῦ 
ἀπολέσῃ g, καὶ ¢. τ. Ψ. αὐτοῦ Μ) GMg from Matt. xvi. 26: comp. Mart-Rom 2. 

3 δι’ tas] GLAn[Sm] Tim-Syr; om. S,A[g] Mart-Rom ; def. M. 
eros] [=]AmSm; ὁ δὲ τοκετός GL* (reading however ὅδε for ὁ δὲ, and mis- 


τῶν περάτων] 
2 γῆς] txt 
ἐὰν κερδήσῃ τὸν κόσμον 


ὁ τοκ- 


translating τοκετός Jucrum) Tim-Syr; δέ dolores mortis Sy (reading -διαϑπ 
mortis for τῷ πὰ A™ZIR partus; see above p. 78 54); dolores mortis (om. δὲ) A; 


def. Mg. Am has fartus meus (aut; fenus et lucrum meum), where the words 
in brackets may imply another reading τόκος or another interpretation of τοκετός. 

μοι] GLEASm Tim-Syr; μου Am; om. 59; def. Mg. 4 σύγγνωτε] GM; 
συγγνωμονεῖτε g: see the converse change in 7’rall. 5. 5 μὴ θελήσητε] 
GLS,ASm g Tim-Syr; μηδὲ θελήσητε M; veldtis (secundum alios; ne velitis) Am. 
There is no other trace of this v. 1. θελήσητε for μὴ θελήσητε. The omission of the 
negative has an exact parallel in 8 1 [μὴ] φείσησθε, the motive being the same. με] 
gM and perhaps L (zvelitis me); μοι G. ‘The rest are doubtful. 
Θεοῦ θέλοντα] ἃ Sm Tim-Syr; τοῦ θεοῦ θέλοντά με gAm(?); dee volentem...me L; 


τὸν τοῦ 


3. ὃ τοκετός κιλ] ‘My birth- 
pangs are at hand’. The image re- 
fers not only to the birth of the child, 
but to the pangs of the mother also. 
Ignatius stood in the position of both 
the one and the other. His martyr- 
dom represented the pains of labour. 
They were suffered by the earthly 
Ignatius; they resulted in the birth 
of the heavenly. The ὠδῖνες τοῦ 
θανάτου (Acts ii. 24) were with him 
the ‘natalicia’ of his higher life. 
For the metaphor, as regards the 
mother, comp. Gal. iv. 19 rexvia μου, 
ovs πάλιν ὠδίνω κιτιλ.; and as re- 
gards the child, e.g. August. Serz7. 
381 de Natali Apost. (Vv. p. 1481) 
‘Natalicio ergo Petri passus est 
Paulus, non quo ex utero matris in 
numerum fusus est hominum, sed 
quo ex vinculo carnis in lucem natus 


est angelorum’, a passage which has 
more than one resemblance to the 
language and thoughts of Ignatius 
here. As this interpretation was 
written down some years before 
Zahn’s book appeared, 1 am con- 
firmed in its correctness by finding 
that he had expressed independently 
and in other language the same view 
respecting the double reference in 
roxeros (J. τῷ 4. p. 561°Sq). 701 he 
word takes a genitive either of the 
mother (Zphes. 19, Job xxxix. I, 2) 
or of the child (Ecclus, xxiii. 14). 

On the other hand the Latin Ver- 
sion renders it ‘lucrum’, and the 
Armenian Martyrology gives as an 
alternative translation ‘fezus e¢ lu- 
crum. Soalso some modern critics, 
e.g. Smith p. 99, Denzinger p. 62, 
who compare Phil. i. 21 τὸ ἀποθανεῖν 


vi] TO THE ROMANS. 219 


σύγγνωτέ μοι, ἀδελφοί, μὴ ἐμποδίσητέ μοι 
— \ / / ») ~ 
5 ζῆσαι, μὴ θελήσητε με ἀποθανεῖν. 


4 , 
ἐπίκειται. 
\ ΄. ~ 
Tov τοῦ Θεοῦ θέ- 

λοντα εἶναι κόσμω μὴ γαρίσησθ δὲ UA λακεύ 
pw μὴ χαρίσησθε, μηδὲ VAN κολακεύσητε. 


def. Μ. 5,4 favour τὸν...θέλοντα as against θέλοντά με, but otherwise they have a 
corrupt text: see the next note. 6 χαρίσησθε] gAmSm (which has dedu- 


catis, a loose rendering) Tim-Syr (for doubtless we should read eanis\ for 


weiss); χαρήσησθε G; separetis (χωρίσησθε, taken as if xwplonre) L; def. M. 
In S, the whole sentence is rendered, ¢//um qui non vult esse in mundo ne honoretis 
me in hoc, and similarly in A gut non volo manere in mundo, ne honoretis sic. 
The explanation of this rendering seems to be this; (1) Some letters dropped out, 
TON| TOYOE JoYOEAONTA, owing to the recurrence of similar letters, so that it was 
read τὸν οὐ θέλοντα k.T.d.3 (2) In order to make sense, κόσμῳ was attached to the 
preceding words; (3) χαρίσησθε was inaccurately translated honoretis. At all events 
the coincidence of S,A shows that the corruption is not in the Armenian, as Peter- 
mann not unnaturally supposed, but existed already in the Syriac Version. μηδὲ 
ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε] see the lower note; neque per materiam seducatis L; neque per 
hylen adulemini (blandiamini) me Tim-Syr; negue provocetis-me-ad-aemulationem 
per ea quae videntur So; et ne aemulatorem faciatis visibilium A; neque labefactetis 


me (om. ὕλῃ) Sm (but for the verb MW. labefaciavit, peccare fecit, we ought surely 
to substitute Naz blanditus est, which is used in Tim-Syr); 726 elemenizs (mate- 


rialibus) quibusdam seducamini Am (reading perhaps κολακευθῆτε, but a single 
letter makes the difference between the active and the passive in the Armenian, as 
in the Greek); om. Gg; def. M. 


preferred κολακεύσητε, because it ex- 
plains αὐ the versions better than 
ἐξαπατᾶτε (ἐξαπατήσητε) OF παρα- 
(niwonte, While moreover παρα- 
(nidonre does not give the right 
sense. The verb ΟΦ, which the 
translator of Timotheus uses here, 
occurs in Σ as the rendering of κο- 
λακεύειν in Polyc. 2, and the sub- 
stantive from the same root appears 
in the Peshito of 1 Thess. 1i. 5 for xo- 
λακεία. The word in the Syriac Ver- 
sion S, (from which the Armenian 
A is translated), }30 (Aphel, provo- 
care ad szelum, stimulare), though 


κέρδος, and similarly Leclerc. This 
arises from a confusion of words. 
While τόκος frequently bears this 
secondary sense of ‘interest’, τοκετός 
seems never to have it. 

6. μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε] For 
ὕλῃ ‘matter’, ie. ‘external things’, 
see the note on φιλόδλον § 7. The 
words missing in the existing Greek 
text have been supplied μήθ᾽ ὕλῃ 
ἐξαπατᾶτε by Petermann, μήθ᾽ ὕλῃ 
παραζηλώσητε by Lipsius, and μηδὲ 
ὕλῃ ἐξαπατήσητε by Zahn (f. v. A. 
p- 560, and zz Zoc.) and Funk. They 
have rightly substituted μηδὲ for 


μήτε, since there is no reason for 
introducing a connexion μή... μήτε 
which is only not solcecistic. The 
word ὕλῃ is preserved in the Syriac 
of Timotheus. For the verb I have 


neither well suited to the context 
nor a good rendering of κολακεύειν, 
is closely allied in meaning to 173 
(excitare) which is used by = in Rom. 
4, 5, the only remaining passages 


220 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi 


΄σ ΄- " / γῇ 
ἄφετέ με καθαρὸν φῶς λαβεῖν: ἐκεὲ παραγενόμενος ay- 


θρωπος ἔσομαι. 
πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ μου. 


> / \ > ~ 
ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι τοὺ 


af \ a tL 
él τις αὐτὸν EV ἑαυτῷ EXEL, 


/ \ , \ 6 fons io \ \ / 
νοησάτω ὃ θέλω Kal συμπαθείτω μοι εἰδως Ta συνε- 


χοντά με. 


1 ἄνθρωπος] LSm Tim-Syr; homo perfectus S,A; i luce perfectus Sy (but this 
is clearly a corruption, WIMAID wv luce for rz 3:9 20m, as 85 shows); 


ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ GMg. The ferfectus of the Syriac and Armenian, and the θεοῦ of 
the Greek copies, are evident glosses. In Am the sentence ἐκεῖ... ἔσομαι runs 2224716 
homo sum, sed illuc iens angelus fiam, the seemingly unmeaning ἄνθρωπος being 
displaced by a paraphrase. 2 ἐπιτρέψατέ por] GMg; ἐάσατε Anast-Sin. 
The singular fermitte in Sev-Syr 3 is doubtless an error of transcription, as 
the plural appears in three other places, 2 (twice), 4 b. μιμητὴν] ἃ 


(written μῆμητὴν) LS;,AAmSmMg Anast-Sin Tim-Syr (twice) 1, 2, Sev-Syr 


where κολακεύειν occurs in Ignatius; 
and indeed the two roots are con- 
nected together in the Peshito ren- 
dering of 2 Cor. xi. 2 τὸ ὑμῶν ζῆλος 
ἠρέθισεν τοὺς πλείονας. On the 
other hand in the Latin Version 
blandirz is the consistent rendering 
of κολακεύειν in these epistles else- 
where, while seducatis occurs here. 
For the sense of κολακεύειν Comp. 
Clem. Flom. xx. 4 κολακευούσῃ ἅμαρ- 
tia, and see the note on Polyc. 2. 

I. ἄνθρωπος] ‘a man’ in the 
highest and truest sense, ‘a rational, 
immortal being’. In the language 
of Scripture generally, as in other 
writers, ἄνθρωπος is a disparaging 
term, suggesting the weakness, the 
sins, the mortality of human nature; 
see esp. I Cor. ill. 4 οὐκ ἄνθρωποί ἐστε: 
(where the received reading, οὐχὶ 
σαρκικοί ἐστε; 1S a Mere paraphrase). 
Here however the case is different. 
Ignatius speaks of the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, 
the man regenerate, in whom the 
Divine image (Gen. 1. 26) is renewed. 
So used, it is higher than ἀνήρ; for 
while ἀνήρ implies either maturity 
(opposed to νήπιος, e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 11 


ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ) or courage (opposed 
to γυνή, e.g. Hom. // vi. 112 ἀνέρες 
ἔστε, φίλοι), ἄνθρωπος denotes the ideal 
of humanity. The use of the word 
here is partially illustrated by M. An- 
tonin. iv. 3 ἐλεύθερος ἔσο καὶ dpa τὰ 
πράγματα, ὡς ἀνήρ, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ws πο- 
λίτης, ὡς θνητὸν ζώον, X. 15 ἱστορήτωσαν 
οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἄνθρωπον ἀληθινὸν κατὰ φύ- 
σιν ζῶντα, χὶ. 18 ἄρξαι ποτὲ ἄνθρωπος 
εἶναι, ἕως (ns. Thus too Menander 
says (Fragm. Com. IV. pp. 355, 372) 
ὡς χάριέν ἐστ᾽ ἄνθρωπος, ὅταν ἄνθρω- 
πος 7, quoted by Clem. Alex. (Strom. 
Vill. 3, p- 916) whose comment is 
ὄντως ἄνθρωπος, ὁ Tas κοινὰς φρένας 
κεκτημένος. So again in the well- 
known story of Diogenes the Cynic 
(Diog. Laert. vi. 41) λύχνον pe 


᾿ἡμέραν ἅψας, "AvOpwrov, ἔφη, ζητῶ. 


and in another story of this same 
philosopher (26. vi. 60) ἐπανήει ἀπὸ 
᾿Ολυμπίων: πρὸς οὖν τὸν πυθόμενον εἰ 
ὄχλος ἦν πολύς, Πολὺς μέν, εἶπεν, 
ὄχλος, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἄνθρωποι. See also 
[Clem. Rom.] /vagm. I (p. 213) διὰ 
τοῦτό ἐσμεν ἄνθρωποι καὶ φρόνησιν 
ἔχομεν κιτιλ. Scribes and translators, 
not understanding this use, have 


vil] 


VII. 


7 
βούλεται καὶ τὴν εἰς Θεόν pov γνώμην διαφθεῖραι. 


TO THE ROMANS. 


221 


e 7 ΄σ ΕΓ ΎΣς" 7 
O ἀρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου διαρπάσαι με 


μη- 


\ EN = / ε oN / > ΄σ ΄σ 
δεὶς οὖν τῶν παρόντων ὑμῶν βοηθείτω αὐτῷ: μᾶλλον 


(four times), Anon-Syr, Anon-Syr, Theod-Stud. 


In the first passage Severus 


states that ‘in other copies which are rather older’ the reading is μαθητήν. No 


other trace of this reading exists. 


εἶναι] GLMg; γενέσθαι Anast-Sin, 


The Oriental Versions determine nothing here. Tov πάθους] GM Anast-Sin; 
3 Tov Θεοῦ μου] GLS,ASm Anast-Sin Tim-Syr (twice) Sev- 
Syr (three times) 2, 3 (while elsewhere 4 Ὁ he quotes it ‘my God’ for ‘of my 
God,’ but probably a letter 7 has dropped out of the existing text) Anon-Syr, 
Anon-Syr3; χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ μου g; τοῦ χριστοῦ M; domint met Am. 4 εἰ- 
dws] GLAmSmMg Tim-Syr; oc dico quod σεῖο A, but this is probably a translator’s 
insertion to refer εἰδώς (wrongly) to the Ist person. 7 Θεόν] GM; τὸν θεόν g. 

8 τῶν παρόντων ὑμῶν] Gg; praesentium de vobis 1, (which probably is a mis- 


πάθους g. 


interpretation of the same Greek); ¢ vodis (om. τῶν παρόντων) AAm; τῶν παρόντων 


(om. ὑμῶν) SmM. 


helped out the meaning in different 
ways, as the critical note shows. 
The reading of the Greek MS ἄνθρω- 
πος Θεοῦ was probably suggested to 
the scribe as a scriptural expres- 
Sion) ©.) Tim: vi. 112. Tim. 11]: 
¥7. 

2. μιμητὴν k.T.A.] Comp. 
Ephes. τ μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ, ἀναζω- 
πυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ (with the 
notes). Anastasius of Sinai (Hodeg. 
i. 12, p. 196 Migne) mentions this as 
one of the passages in earlier writers, 
which the Monophysites quoted in 
support of their doctrine. The quo- 
tations in the extant fragments of 
the Monophysite Severus confirm 
this statement. 

VII. ‘The prince of this world 
desires my ruin. Do not ye abet. 
him in his purpose; but espouse my 
cause, which is God’s cause also. 
Do not talk of Jesus Christ and de- 
sire the world at the same time. 
Let no man grudge me my crown. 
Obey not my prayers, if I should 
entreat you by word of mouth, but 
rather obey my letter, as I now write 
to you. For though living, I write 


εἶναι 


αὐτῷ] There is no v. ]. here. 


For L see the Appx. 


to you, desiring to die. All my 
earthly longings have been crucified. 
There is no more any flame of pas- 
sion in me, but living water, which 
speaks and summons me to the 
Father. I have no delight in cor- 
ruptible food or in this life’s plea- 
sures. I desire the bread of God, 
which is the flesh of Christ the son 
of David, and His blood, which is 
imperishable love.’ 

6. Ὁ ἄρχων «z7-r.] See the note 
on Ephes. 17. 

διαρπάσαι] The word used in the 
parable of the strong man’s house, 
Matt. xii. 29 (v. 1.), Markiii.27 ; which 
passage may have suggested its em- 
ployment here. 

7. τὴν εἰς Θεόν κ-τ.λ.] “γεν mind 
which ἐς to Godward’, ‘my heaven- 
ward thoughts’; comp. P#zlad. τ 
τὴν εἰς Θεὸν αὐτοῦ γνώμην. See also 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. 3 ἡ γνῶσις ἡ πρὸς 
αὐτόν. 

8. τῶν παρόντων] ‘who are on 
the spot, i.e. ‘who will be witnesses 
of my approaching martyrdom.’ It 
corresponds to the following apo», 
‘when I am among you.’ 


222 


3 / , ΄- ΄ 

ἐμοὲ γίνεσθε, τουτέστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
\ / \ ~ 

Χριστὸν κόσμον δὲ ἐπιθυμεῖτε. 


THE EPISTLE, OF IGNATIUS 


[vit 


μὴ λαλεῖτε ᾿Ιησοῦν 
3 Ae RCS \ 
βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ 


s\ Α Ἁ ΄σ ς ~ , 
KATOLKELTW* μηδ᾽ av ἔγω παρὼν Tapakadw ὑμάᾶς, πει- 


1 ἐμοὶ γίνεσθε] gM; ἐμοῦ γίνεσθε G; mei fratis L (which would suit either read- 
ing); σα meum latus estote AAm (where ἐμοὶ the possessive pronoun seems to be 
mistaken for the dative of the personal pronoun); al. Sm. 3 μηδ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼ παρὼν 
παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς] GM; μηδὲ ἐὰν ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς παρὼν παρακαλῶ 6; megue utigue ego Vos 
praesens (ν. 1. praesens vos) deprecor L. πείσθητε] πείσθειτε G. 4 μοι] 
GLAAmM; i//i Sm (perhaps a corruption in the Syriac text, ἐγώ having been 
already dropped, so that a third person takes the place of παρακαλῶ) ; om. g. 
πιστεύσατε] gA (prob., for it has credatis here, but obtemperetis (obediatis) for 
πείσθητε above) Am (prob., for it has credite here, but convincamini (consentiatis) 
above) Sm; πεισθῆτε GML* (prob., for it uses the same verb credere in both 
cases). 5. yap] gLM (which has ἐξ ὧν yap...épa); om. GASm; def. Am: 
see Clem. Rom. 62 (note). ὁ ἐμὸς] GLAAmSmM (ν. 1. ἐμὸς) g Dion-Areop 2 
Theod-Stud; e¢ meus [2]; meus autem Orig. Σ᾽ resumes here and continues 
(with omissions) to the end of the chapter. 6 ἐσταύρωται] GLZA (see 
below) SmMg Orig Dion-Areop Theod-Stud; but Am has meum desiderium a patre 
est (secundum alios; meum desiderium vel meus amor cructifixus est), where the 
corrupt reading ἐκ πατρός ἐστι (for ἐσταύρωται) is partially explained by the 


I. ἐμοὶ γίνεσθε] Stake my side, 
where ἐμοὶ is the nominative of the 
possessive pronoun. Scribes, mis- 
taking it for the dative of the per- 
sonal pronoun, have altered the text 
to produce conformity in the two 
clauses, some reading ἐμοῦ for ἐμοί, 
others τῷ Θεῷ for τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

μὴ λαλεῖτε κιτ.λ.] See the note on 
Ephes. 6. 

2. βασκανία] To desire to spare 
his life is to grudge him the glory of 
martyrdom; comp. ὃ 3 οὐδέποτε ἐβα- 
σκάνατε οὐδενί (with the note), § 5 
μηθέν με ζηλώσαι. 

3. παρὼν παρακαλῶ i.e. ‘if on my 
arrival in Rome I should change my 
mind and ask your intercession to 
save my life.’ 

5. ζῶν yap Κιτιλ.] 1.6. ‘In the 
midst of life, with all its attractions, 
I write deliberately and desire death’; 
where ζῶν is emphatic. 

ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως] ‘wy earthly passion’ ; 
comp. Gal. v. 24 τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύ- 


ρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς 
ἐπιθυμίαις, Vi. 14 ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύ- 
ρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ. The word ἔρως, 
so frequent in classical Greek, is 
found only twice in the Lxx, and in 
both passages it denotes strong sen- 
sual passion, as a term of reproach ; 
Prov. vii. 18 δεῦρο καὶ ἐγκυλισθῶμεν 
ἔρωτι, XXX. 16 ἅδης καὶ ἔρως γυναικὸς 
κτλ. In the New Testament at 
does not occur at all. Conversely 
the common term for Christian love 
in the New Testament, ἀγάπη, is 
almost, if not quite, unknown in 
classical writers (in Plut. Jor. p. 
709 ἀγάπης ὧν has been rightly 
corrected into ἀγαπήσων). Ignatius 
therefore would necessarily use ἔρως 
in a bad sense to denote the passions 
of his former unregenerate life. 
His ἀγάπη, we might say, was per- 
fected, when his ἔρως was crucified. 
His meaning therefore being clear, 
it is strange that Origen should have 
given a wholly different interpreta- 


vu] TO THE ROMANS. 22 


“A 
a 
, ts \ - 7 - ͵ 

σθητέ μοι, τούτοις δὲ μᾶλλον πιστεύσατε, οἷς γράφω 
ae ~ A / Chi tes > ~ ~ > = ε 
- ὑμῖν. Cav [γὰρ] γράφω ὑμῖν, ἐρῶν τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν: ὁ 
A sf 3 / ᾽ > 9 - 
ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται, Kal οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ πῦρ 


usual contractions of πατρός and σταυρός (with its derivatives). The double 
rendering in A amor meus crux est, meum adesiderium crucifixum est, is owing 


to the ambiguous spy of the Syriac, which may be either crux or cruci- 
jixus. ἔστιν] ἔστην G. πῦρ φιλόῦλον, ὕδωρ δὲ Fav καὶ λαλοῦν] 
G; πῦρ φιλόῦλον, ὕδωρ δὲ μᾶλλον ζῶν καὶ λαλοῦν M Theod-Stud (Menzea Dec. 
20); πῦρ φιλοῦν τι, ὕδωρ δὲ ζών ἁλλόμενον g (1 omits πῦρ φιλοῦν τι and translates 
the remaining words agua autem viva alia manet, i.e. ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν ἄλλο μένον) ; 
iguis amans aliquam (leg. aliam?) aqguam sed vivens et loquens est (πῦρ φιλοῦν τι 
ὕδωρ Sav δὲ καὶ λαλοῦν) L; agnis tx amore alio (v.1. amoris alius) X (perh. rip 
φιλόαλλον, a corruption of φιλόῦλον ; the rest of the words are omitted); alius calor 
amoris. agua bona et vivida...existit (πῦρ φιλόαλλον, ὕδωρ καλὸν καὶ ζῶν) A; ignis 
amanadt (alienum quidguam) agua vivida et loguens est Am (where the words in 
brackets may be merely an explanatory gloss or may betoken a v. 1.); Ζργῖς alienus, 
diligo enim aquas vividas et loguentes Sm. The Menzea (Dec. 20) have οὐκ ἔσχες πῦρ 
φιλόῦλον ἐν aol, iyvarie, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν μᾶλλον καὶ Nadovy...Udwp TO ἁλλόμενον κ.τ.λ. 
Thus the authorities exhibit a strange confusion of -vAov, ἄλλο, καλὸν, μᾶλλον, 


ἁλλόμενον : see the lower note. 


tion to the words; Prod. in Caz. 
Ill. p- 30 ‘Nec puto quod culpari 
possit si quis Deum, sicut Ioannes 
[1 Joh. iv. 8] caritatem [ἀγάπην], ita 
ipse amorem [ἔρωτα] nominet. De- 
nique memini aliquem sanctorum 
dixisse, Ignatium nomine, de Christo 
Meus autem amor crucifixus est, nec 
reprehendi eum pro hoc dignum 
judico.’ Origen is followed by some 
later writers. Thus the false Diony- 
sius the Areopagite, de Div. Nomi. 
Iv. 12 (p. 565 ed. Cord.), accounts for 
the expression by saying that it was 
thought by some θειότερον εἶναι τὸ 
TOU ἔρωτος ὄνομα τοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης. SO 
also Theodorus Studites, Catech. 3 
(Grabe Sfzc. 11. p. 229) ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως 
ἐσταύρωται Χριστός (where Χριστός 15 
his own gloss), ib. Famb. 70 (p. 
1797 Migne) ἔχων ἔρωτα Χριστὸν ev 
σῇ καρδίᾳ. Hence too in the J/en@a 
(Dec. 20) ὡς τετρωμένος ἔρωτι ἀγάπης 
τοῦ Κυρίου σου, ‘O ἐμὸς ἔρως, ἐβύας, 
Χριστὸς ἐσταύρωται θέλων, besides se- 
veral other allusions to this saying, 


in all which it is interpreted in the 
same way. In favour of this inter- 
pretation it might be urged that ἐρᾶν, 
ἐραστής, are applied in the LXx 
(Prov. ἵν 6; "Wisd: νη 2) 10° tae 
pursuit of Divine wisdom; comp. 
Justin Dzadl. 8 (p. 225 B) ἐμοὶ δὲ πα- 
ραχρῆμα πῦρ ev τῇ ψυχῇ ἀνήφθη καὶ 
ἔρως εἶχέ με τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν 
ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων οἵ εἰσι Χριστοῦ φίλοι, 
Clem. Al. Coh. 11 (p. 90) 6 ye Tot 
οὐράνιος Kat θεῖος ὄντως ἔρως, ib. 
Fragm. p. 1019 βαθύν τινα τὸν τοῦ 
κτίστου περιφέρωμεν ἔρωτα. So Chry- 
sostom says of Ignatius himself (Ο. 
Il. p. 599) τοιοῦτοι yap οἱ ἐρῶντες" 
ὕπερ av πάσχωσιν ὑπὲρ TOY ἐρωμένων, 
μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς δέχονται, though he may not 
have been thinking of this passage. 
But the fatal objection to this inter- 
pretation is that, even if otherwise 
admissible, it would tear the clause 
out of the context. Obviously ἔρως 
and πῦρ are synonymous here, as 
they are in the passage of Justin. 
See the saying ascribed to Buddha, 


224 


THE EPISELE OF MGNATIUS 


[vil 


φιλοῦλον, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν καὶ λαλοῦν ἐν ἐμοί, ἔσωθέν 


~ \ If 
μοι λέγον: Δεῦρο πρὸς Tov πατέρα. 


1 ἔσωθεν] GMg; ἔνδοθεν Theod-Stud. 


οὐχ ἥδομαι τροφή 


2 λέγον] Μ Theod-Stud ; λέγων 


(sic) G; λέγει g (but 1 decens) ; dicens Sev-Syr 4 Ὁ; dicit L; et dicit A; et...clamat 
et dicit Am. The two last seem to have had the participle rather than the 
indicative. Sm renders the sentence ἔσωθέν μοι λέγων quam sit mihi dominius 


Dhammapada 251 ‘There is no fire 
like passion’ (Buddhaghosha’s Pa- 
rables, by Rogers, p. Cxxvill). 

I. φιλόϊλον] ‘ matter-loving, ‘sen- 
suous, ‘carnal’; comp. ὃ 6 μηδὲ 
ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε. On the other hand 
the Holy Spirit is πῦρ aivdoy ‘ignis 
materiae expers’ in the Liturgy of 
S. Cyril (Renaudot 275: Orzeni. I. 
p. 38). The word vAy has here its 
secondary sense ‘matter,’ as e.g. in 
Wisd. x1. 19, xv. 13, Clem: Rom. 33. 
It is too fanciful to see (with Zahn 
p. 563) a reference also to its primary 
sense, as if Ignatius had in view the 
same metaphor as in James 111. 5 
ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει (COMP. 
[susan 7 ΘΟ 5. xxvii, Το) “Chere 
seems indeed to be the double re- 
ference in the passage to which he 
refers, Clem. Alex. Paed. 11. 1 (p. 164) 
οἱ παμφάγοι, καθάπερ τὸ πῦρ, τῆς ὕλης 
ἐξεχόμενοι (Where however we should 
perhaps read ἐξεχόμενον) ; but it is 
there brought out by the form of the 
sentence, Forthe compound φιλόῦδλος, 
which 15 very rare until a later age, 
comp. Orig. Fragm. 71 Luc. φιλούλων 
καὶ φιλοσωμάτων λόγοι πιθανοί (IL. p. 
682. ¢elarue) For the Gnostic 
(Valentinian) tinge of the sentiment 
see the notes on / pes. inscr. 

J have adopted φιλύῦλον here on 
authority which elsewhere would 
not deserve a preference, for several 
reasons. (1) It is so obviously the 
best reading; (2) It explains the 
other main variations, φιλοῦν τι and 
φιλοῦν ἄλλο, which would be substi- 
tuted for geAcvAoy, if either mis- 


written or unintelligible to the scribe; 
(3) Conversely it is not usual for 
a transcriber to show such intelli- 
gence as appears in the substitution 
of an unusual word φιλόῦλον for 
either φιλοῦν τι or φιλοῦν ἄλλο. 

ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν] Doubtless a refer- 
ence to John iv. Io, 11, as indeed 
the whole passage is inspired by 
the Fourth Gospel. This water at 
once quenches the fires of sensual 
passion and supplies an unfailing 
draught of spiritual strength; comp. 
Justin, Dzal. 114 (342 B) τῆς καλῆς 
πέτρας.. ὕδωρ Cav ταῖς καρδίαις τῶν Ov 
αὐτοῦ ἀγαπησάντων τὸν πατέρα τῶν 
ὅλων βρυούσης. 

+xat λαλοῦν] According to Jor- 
tin (Eccles. Hist. τ. p. 356 sq, quoted 
by Jacobson) there is an allusion to 
the heathen superstition that certain 
waters communicated a _ prophetic 
power to the person drinking them; 
e.g. Anacreont. 11 (13) δαφνηφόροιο 
Φοίβου λάλον πιόντες ὕδωρ (comp, 
Stat. Sylv.d. 2. 6,4.) 5 2 το ΠΕ: 
was one of these ‘speaking’ foun- 
tains αἱ Daphne (Sozom...77, Ἐπ 
19, Evagr. i. 16) the famous suburb of 
Antioch, he supposes that the image 
would readily suggest itself to Igna- 
tius, This reference ‘seems to.me 
more than doubtful, even if the text 
were correct. But I am disposed to 
believe that the right reading is 
preserved in the interpolator’s text, 
ἁλλόμενον for καὶ λαλοῦν. The various 
readings show that the text here has 
been much tumbled about in very 
early times; and this being so, Aa- 


vit] 


TO THE ROMANS. 


225 


φθοράς οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου" ἄρτον Θεοῦ 


meus tntus dicens mihi, doubtless reading the masculine λέγων (with G) and wishing 


accordingly to give it a personal application. 


Similarly Severus translates πρὸς 


Tov πατέρα ad patrem meum, thus giving a personal reference to the participle, 


and he too perhaps read λέγων: see the lower note. 
3 Θεοῦ] GM; τοῦ θεοῦ 5. 


οὐκήδομαι G. 


λοῦν might very easily suggest itself 
to a scribe from the following λέγον. 
If ἁλλόμενον be correct, it is taken 
from John iv. 14 πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλο- 
μένου eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Combined 
from this and the preceding passage 
(ver. 10, 11) in the same Gospel, the 
expression ὕδωρ ζῶν ἁλλόμενον took 
a prominent place in the speculations 
of the second century; e.g. of the 
Naassenes, Hippol. Haer. v. 9 ἔδωκεν 
ἄν σοι πιεῖν ὕδωρ ζῶν ἁλλόμενον ; Of 
the Sethians, zd. ν. 19 ἀπελούσατο καὶ 
ἔπιε TO ποτήριον ζῶντος ὕδατος ἀλλο- 
μένου ; of Justin the Gnostic, Ζό. v. 
27 ὅπερ ἐστὶ λοῦτρον αὐτοῖς, ὡς νομί- 
ζουσι, πηγὴ ζῶντος ὕδατος ἁλλομένου. 
This makes the combination the more 
probable here. Heracleon in Orig. 
im Ioann. xiii. § 10 (IV. p. 220), the 
earliest commentator on this Gospel, 
lays great stress on ἁλλομένου. 

2. λέγον κιτ.λ.] Similarly Phzlad. 7 
τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐκήρυσσεν, λέγον τάδε" 
Χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου κιτιλ. See also 
Dion. Alex. in Euseb. ZH. £. vii. 7. 
§ 2, 3. I have not ventured to sub- 
stitute the masc. λέγων, though the 
evidence is in its favour. This read- 
ing would identify the ὕδωρ ζῶν 
directly with Christ (see the upper 
note), and thus the reference to John 
iv. 10 sq would be made more dis- 
tinct. For a similar instance of an 
alternative between λέγον or λέγων 
see Phzlad. |. Ὁ: 

τροφῇ φθορᾶς) Suggested by 
John vi. 27 ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν 
τὴν ἀπολλυμένην. 

3. ἡδοναῖς κιτ.λ.] The phrase ἡδο- 
νῶν τοῦ βίου occurs Luke viii. 14. 
This sentence involves a distinction 


IGN, ΤΊ; 


2 οὐχ ἤδομαι] 


between Bios and ξωή (in ὕδωρ Cav), 
which is brought out more definitely 
in the interpolator’s text by the in- 
sertion of ἄρτον ζωῆς in the next 
sentence. The former denotes the 
lower earthly life, the latter the 
higher divine life. If ¢w) is some- 
times used of the earthly life, Bios is 
never used of the heavenly. This 
distinction holds in the writings of 
the Apostolic Fathers, not less than 
in the N. T. It is founded on an 
essential difference between the two 
words, recognised by Greek philo- 
sophers ; but to the Christian their 
relative position is exchanged, be- 
cause his point of view is altered. 
As ζωὴ is the principle of life, vzta 
gua vivimus, Bios denotes the pro- 
cess, the circumstances, the accidents 
of life, in its social and physical 
relations, vita guam vivimus, comp. 
Athenag. Resurr. 19 ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
ζωὴ Kal σύμπας ὁ Bios. Hence Aris- 
totle could say Bios ἐστὶ λογικὴ ζωή 
(Ammonius s. v. Bios); for with him 
Bios was the higher term of the two. 
See Trench WV. 7. Sym. ὃ xxvii. p. 86 
sq, and Field in Fournal of Philo- 
logy X. p. 178 sq (1882). But in 
Christian philosophy the principle of 
life is not physical, but spiritual ; and 
thus, while Bios remains at its former 
level, ζωὴ has been translated into a 
higher sphere and takes the prece- 
dence. So too Dion Cass. lxix. 19 
βιοὺς μὲν ἔτη τόσα, ζήσας δὲ ἔτη ἑπτά. 
Accordingly, while θάνατος is opposed 
to ζωή, it may be identical with 
βίος ; [Clem. Rom.] ii. I 6 Bios ἡμῶν 
ὅλος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἦν εἰ μὴ θάνατος. Con- 
trast I Joh. iii. 15 ζωὴν αἰώνιον with 


15 


226 


THE JEPISTLE ‘OF IGNATIUS 


[vir 


~ ἊΣ ~ 3 / 
θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος 


1 θέλω] txt 


(with a v. 1. és) g; dub. ZAAmSm; vulg. ὅς. 


SAAmSm; add ἄρτον οὐράνιον, ἄρτον ζωῆς GMg. 


6] GLM 


τοῦ Χριστοῦ] g*=X; inoov 


χριστοῦ GLAAmSmM. After χριστοῦ add. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ GMg; om. L[Z]AAnSm. 
τοῦ] txt L (ejus gui ex genere) Sim (gud est ex genere); add. γενομένου GAAmnMg 


(but the versions AAm are not of much weight in this matter); def. =: 
After τοῦ [γενομένου] add. ἐν ὑστέρῳ GMg; om. LAAnSm; def. 2. 


lower note. 


70, ver. 17 τὸν βίον Tov κόσμου, or the 
same Apostle’s absolute use of ὁ Bios 
in 1 Joh. ii. 16 with his absolute use 
of ἡ ζωὴ elsewhere, e.g. ili. 14, v. 12. 
Contrast also the expression τοῦ 
βίου τούτου here with τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης 
in Acts ν. 20. See too Clem. Hom. 
Ep. Clem, 1 αὐτὸς τοῦ νῦν βίου βιαίως 
τὸ ζῆν μετήλλαξεν (i.e. ‘received true 
life in exchange for this earthly life’), 
2b. Xii. 14 ὅπως ἀβασανίστως τοῦ ζῆν 
τὸν βίον μεταλλάξαι δυνηθῇς (which 
passage, like the former, seems to 
have been altogether misunderstood 
by the critics), whereas 2. 1. 14 we 
have τὸν πάντα pov τῆς ζωῆς βίον, but 
there an only half-converted heathen 
is speaking; Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. τ 
(p. 168) of ramewodpoves, χαμαιγενεῖς, 
τὸν ἐφήμερον διώκοντες βίον, ws ov 
(noopevor (comp. 20. p. 163), Orig. 
c. Cels. ili. τό (I. p. 457) περὶ τῆς ἑξῆς 
τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ ζωῆς, Macar. Magn. 
Apocr. iil. 12 (p. 82) ἀμέμπτῳ δὲ βίῳ 
τὴν ζωὴν ἐμεγάλυνεν, C. 7. G. 9474, ἃ 
Christian inscription where ὁ βίος 
(οὗτος) is contrasted with ζωὴ οὐράνιος 
(αἰώνιος). 

ἄρτον Θεοῦ] Here again is an ex- 
pression taken from S. John’s Gos- 
pel, vi. 33. Indeed the whole con- 
text is suggested by this portion of 
the Evangelist’s narrative. The con- 
trast of the perishable and imperish- 
able food—the bread and the cup as 
representing the flesh and blood of 
Christ—the mystical power emanat- 
ing therefrom—are all ideas con- 
tained in the context (vi. 48—59). 
The later interpolator has seen the 


see the 


source of Ignatius’ inspiration, and 
has introduced expressions freely 
from the Gospel; ‘the heavenly 
bread’ (vi. 31, 32, 50, 58), ‘ the bread 
of life’ (vi. 48), ‘eternal life’ (Cw7 
αἰώνιος, Vi. 27, 40, 54). For dpros 
Θεοῦ compare also 2165. 5 with the 
note. 

The reference here is not to the 
eucharist itself but to the union with 
Christ which is symbolized and 
pledged in the eucharist. Obviously 
any limitation to the actual reception 
of the eucharistic elements and the 
blessings attendant on such recep- 
tion would be inadequate; for Ig- 
natius is contemplating the consum- 
mation of his union with Christ 
through martyrdom. The indirect 
reference to the eucharistic elements 
is analogous to that which our Lord 
makes in John vi. 

I. τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυείδ] i.e. 
‘who was really and truly incarnate’: 
see the note on “phes. 18. The 
reality of Christ’s humanity is neces- 
sary to the full power and significance 
of communion with Him; because 
only so is our own manhood truly 
united with God. The shadow of Do- 
cetic antagonism, which was rife in 
Asia Minor, rests for a moment even 
on this letter to the Church of Rome, 
though the Romans were ἀποδιυλισ- 
μένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος, 
and though there is no direct mention 
of this heresy in it. ᾿ 

The insertion γενομένου stands on 
a slightly different footing from the 
other interpolations in this context, 


vii] 


TO THE ROMANS. 


227 


7 \ / / \ ἝἜ > ‘at | dae 5 > , 
Aaveid, καὶ πόμα θέλω TO αἷμα αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐστιν ὠγάπη 


ἄφθαρτος. 


2 Δαυείδ] δαδ G. After δανεὶδ add. καὶ ἀβραάμ GMg; om. LAA, Sn; 


def. =. 


πόμα] gLZAAmSm; add. θεοῦ GM. 


3 ἄφθαρτος] txt LEAS; 


add. καὶ ἀένναος (dévaws G) ἕἑωή GMg*; comp. Mart-Rom τὸ (where this addition 


seems to be recognised). 


being somewhat more highly sup- 
ported ; but it ought probably to be 
omitted. There was an obvious mo- 
tive for inserting it, so as not to 
overlook the preexistence and Di- 
vinity of Christ ; comp. Smyrn. 4 τοῦ 
τελείου ἀνθρώπου [γενομένου], where 
the motive for the insertion would 
be the same, and see also the v. 1. 
Ephes. 7 ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος. 

2. ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος] The 
relative refers to τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ. As 
the flesh of Christ represents the 
solid substance of the Christian life, 
so the blood of Christ represents 
the element of love which circulates 
through all its pores and ducts, ani- 
mating and invigorating the whole. 
See especially Zva//. 8, where the 
flesh and the blood are separated in 
a similar way, and made to represent 
respectively the faith and the love 
of the Christian ; and compare also 
the passage from Clem. Alex. Paed. 
i. 6 (p. 121) there quoted, in which 
there is an analogous application. Ig- 
natius does not here directly say what 
he means by the flesh, as distinguish- 
ed from the blood; but we may supply 
the omission from the parallel passage 
in 7rad/. 8, and say that he refers to 
faith as the substance of man’s union 
with Christ. See also for partial 
illustrations of this passage Clem. 
Alex. Paed. ii. 2 (p. 177) τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι 
πιεῖν TO αἷμα Tov ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῆς κυριακῆς 
μεταλαβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας, ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ 
λόγου τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα σαρκός, Ours 
div. salv. 23 (p. 948) ἄρτον ἐμαυτὸν 
διδούς, οὗ γευσάμενος οὐδεὶς ἔτι πεῖραν 
θανάτου λαμβάνει, καὶ πόμα καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 


In Am ef vita aeterna is added in brackets as a v. 1. 


ἐνδιδοὺς ἀθανασίας. “1 desire,’ Ignatius 
appears to mean, ‘that heavenly sus- 
tenance which is derived from union 
with a truly incarnate Christ through 
faith and love.’ But it is impossible 
to be confident about the interpreta- 
tion of language so obscure. 

On the other hand Zahn (Z/. v. A. 
p. 348sq, and ad loc.) would apply 
the relative clause 6 ἐστιν ἀγάπη 
ἄφθαρτος not to τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, but to 
both clauses of the preceding sen- 
tence, 1. 6. ‘which participation in the 
flesh and blood’, so that it will no 
longer be parallel to ὅς ἐστιν σὰρξ 
Χριστοῦ. Accordingly he supposes 
that in ἀγάπη there is a secondary 
reference to the ‘love-feast’ (comp.. 
Smyrn. 8) of which the eucharist 
formed apart. This reference to the 
agape is, I think, barely possible; but 
the grammatical construction thus a- 
dopted seems to me altogether harsh. 
It is true that the parallelism, as 1 
take the sentence, is grammatical, 
rather than logical. The logical pa- 
rallelism would have been ἄρτον θέλω 
τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ ἐστιν πίστις 
ἄτρεπτος κ-ιτ.λ. ; andin a more finished 
and less hurried writing it might have 
been so expressed. But instances of 
parallelism not strictly logical are 
common, and here it is too obtrusive 
to be set aside; while it is further 
confirmed by the very similar pas- 
sage, Zval/. 8. 

3. ἄφθαρτο] The interpolator 
adds καὶ dévvaos ζωή, an expression 
occurring in the LXX apparently only 
in 2 Macc. vii. 36, and never in the 
N.T. But it was doubtless suggested 


15—2 


228 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


VIII. 
δὲ ἔσται, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς θελήσητε. 
θεληθῆτε. δὲ ὀλίγων γραμμάτων αἰτοῦμαι ὑμᾶς: πι- 
στεύσατέ μοι. ᾿Ιησοῦς δὲ Χριστὸς ὑμῖν ταῦτα φανε- 
ρώσει, ὅτι ἀληθῶς λέγω: τὸ ἀψευδὲς στόμα, ἐν ὦ ὃ 5 
αἰτήσασθε περὶ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα 


[νππ| 


Οὐκ ἔτι θέλω κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῆν τοῦτο 


e/ \ > 
θελήσατε, iva Kal ὑμεῖς 


\ / 5 ~~ 

πατήρ ἐλαλησεν [ἀληθώς]. 
/ / A Ig e ~~ 

ἐπιτύχω [ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ]. ov κατὰ σάρκα υμῖν 
2 θελήσητε] GM; θέλητε g. The omission of the following words in some 
texts (see the next note) points to a homceoteleuton, θελήσητε, θεληθῆτε, and 
therefore favours θελήσητε. θελήσατε...θεληθῆτε] GLAmSmM ; om. A [g]. 
With θελήσατε connecting particles appear in some texts; autem LSm; οὖν M; 
jam Am. 3 θεληθῆτε] GLMSm; def. Ag. Am has wt e¢ vos auxilium 
inveniatis (aut; ut et vos optati fiatis, id est accepti). The alternative awxiliam 
inveniatis seems to represent a v. 1. ὠφεληθῆτε, but there is no trace of it else- 


where. 
GLMSm; om. AAn; al. g. 


by ¢@17 αἰώνιος which occurs several 
times in John vi. 

VIII. ‘I no longer wish to live, 
as men count life. I entreat you to 
fulfil my desire, that God may fulfil 
yours. I have written briefly to this 
effect ; but Christ, the unerring mouth- 
piece of the Father, will show you 
that I speak the truth. Pray for 
me, that I may succeed. I write 
not this after the flesh, but after the 
will of God. If I suffer, it is your 
favour; if I am rejected as unworthy, 
it is your hatred.’ 

1. κατὰ ἀνθρώπους] i.e. ‘accord- 
ing to the common, worldly, concep- 
tion of life’; comp. Zval/. 2 φαίνεσθέ 
μοι ov κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῶντες (with 
the note). 

τοῦτο] ‘this desire of mine to live 
no longer the common life of men’. 

3. θεληθῆτε] 1.6. ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
‘may be desired, may be looked upon 
favourably, by God’; comp. Clem. 
Hom. Xi. 25 εἰ δὲ καὶ μετὰ τὸ κληθῆναι 
οὐ θέλεις ἢ βραδύνεις, δικαίᾳ Θεοῦ 
ἀπολῇ κρίσει, τῷ μὴ θελῆσαι μὴ 


60 ὀλίγων] GLSmMg; pref. 6 (or a) AAn. 


4 δὲ] 


ὑμῖν ταῦτα φανερώσει] GM; φανερώσει ὑμῖν 


θεληθείς, Athan. c. Arian. 111. 66 
(Op. I. p. 487 sq) ὁ υἱὸς τῇ θελήσει 
7 θέλεται παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ταύτῃ Kal 
αὐτὸς ἀγαπᾷ καὶ θέλει καὶ τιμᾷ τὸν 
πατέρα, Greg. Naz. Ογαΐ. xxix. 7 (I. p. 
527) ἢ τὸ μὲν αὐτοῦ θέλησαν, τὸ δὲ 
θεληθέν. The passive occurs not 
very commonly of things (e.g. Epict. 
Diss. ἵν. 1. 59), and still more rarely 
of persons (e.g. Clem. Hom. xiii. 16 ἡ 
σώφρων eis τὸ θέλεσθαι προφάσεις ov 
παρέχει ἢ τῷ αὐτῆς ἀνδρί, ἡ σώφρων 
ὑπὸ ἑτέρου θελομένη λυπεῖται). From 
this passive use comes the Θελητός, 
which has a place among the zons of 
Valentinian mythology (Iren. i. 1. 2). 

δι ὀλίγων γραμμάτων) ‘in a brief 
letter’; comp. Polyc. 7. So ὧδ ΟΝ 
γῶν, I Pet. v. 12, Ptolem. ad Flor. 4 
in Epiph. Haer. xxxiil. 7; διὰ Bpa- 
xeov, Heb. xiii. 22. 

5. ev & «7.A.] So He is styled 
τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ γνώμη in Ephes. 3. 

8. γνώμην Θεοῦ] Comp. Ζ2ἦ6ε5. 3, 
Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 8. The expression 
itself does not occur in the N. T. (see 
however Rev. xvii. 17). 


> 


vir | TO THE ROMANS. 229 


sf \ \ / ~ 

ἔγραψα, ἀλλὰ κατα γνώμην Θεοῦ. 
CA ΄σ 

Gate: ἐὰν ἀποδοκιμασθώ, ἐμισήσατε. 


ἐὰν πάθω, ἠθελή- 


/ 3 ~ la ΄σ ΄σ > 
TX. Μ νημονεύετε ἐν τῆ προσευχῇ ὑμών τῆς ἐν 

7ὔ > / «.« > Ἄν τ ΄σ 7 : a ~ = 
Cupia ἐκκλησίας, ἥτις ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ ποιμένι TO Θεῷ χρῆται" 
7 \ la) \ 9 7 ε ε ΄σ 
μόνος αὐτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐπισκοπήσει καὶ ἡ ὑμῶν 
> / > \ δὲ 3 / > > ΄ / Δ 
ἀγάπη. ἐγω δὲ αἰσχύνομαι ἐξ αὐτών λέγεσθαι: οὐδὲ 


\ a/ / 3 \ a] 35. ΣΝ ᾽ ? ᾽ 
yap ἀξιός εἰμι, ὧν ἔσχατος αὐτών καὶ ἔκτρωμα: ἀλλ 


ταῦτα g; vobis mantfestabit haec L. 
al. g. 
τὰ γνώμην] GLSaMg; 
dum voluntatem Am. 

M. 
use the word εὐχή. 
yap] G; 
def, M. 
dignus L; def. M. 


ἠθελήσατε! ‘Ye have done me the 
favour which I asked’. It is best 
not to understand τὸ παθεῖν, but to 
refer ἠθελήσατε to the preceding ἐὰν 
ὑμεῖς θελήσητε. 

9. ἀποδοκιμασθῶώ] See Trall. 12 
ἵνα μὴ ἀδόκιμος εὑρεθῶ (with the note). 

ie) Pray’ ἴθ the Church of 
Syria whose only pastor now is God. 
Jesus Christ will be its bishop—He 
and your love. For myself, I am 
not worthy to belong to them; but 
God has had mercy on me, if so be 
I shall find Him in the end. Saluta- 
tions from myself and from the bro- 
therhoods which have received me 
as Christ’s representative, not as a 
mere passer by; for even those 
churches which lay out of my path 
went before me from city to city’. 

10. Mynuovevere x.7.A.] For this 
injunction, which occurs in all the 
four letters written from Smyrna, 
see Ephes. 21. 

Il. ἥτις] ‘seeing that zt’, thus 
giving the reason for their prayers: 
see Philippians iv. 3 (note). 


7 ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ] [5]; sprite sancto A; om. GLAmSmM. 


5 ἀληθῶς] GLA; om. AmSm; def. M; 


8 κα- 
spiritu et voluntate A; secundum spiritum et secun- 
ἠθελήσατε] GLAAnSm; ἠγαπήσατε g; def. 


10 προσευχῇ]! GM; εὐχῇ σ. The genuine Ignatius does not anywhere 
13 δὲ] GLAAnSm; δὲ καὶ g; def. M. 
οὐ yap g3 non enim L; guia non A; quoniam non Am; non Sm; 

14 ἀξιός εἰμι] G (but writing jue for εἰμι) ; 


ovde 


᾽ we 
εἰμι ἄξιος By SUM 


ποιμένι k.7.A.] In connexion with 
ἐπισκοπήσει Which follows, this pre- 
sents a close parallel to 1 Pet. 11. 25 
ἐπεστράφητε viv ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ 
ἐπίσκοπον τῶν Ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (comp. 
1 Pet. ν. 2 ποιμάνατε... ἐπισκοποῦντες, 
but ἐπισκοποῦντες is very doubtful) : 
see also Ezek. xxxiv. II sq. 

12. ἐπισκοπήσει)] ‘be its bishop’: 
comp- Polye. inscr. μᾶλλον ἐπεσκο- 
πημένῳ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, and Magn. 3 τῷ 
πατρὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ πάντων 
ἐπισκόπῳ. The office of Jesus Christ 
is here identified with the office of 
God in the pastorate of the Syrian 
Church. 

ἡ ὑμῶν ἀγάπη] See the note on 
7 γαζ. 2. 

13. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄξιος κιτιλ.] See the 

note on Efhes. 21 ἔσχατος ὧν τῶν 
ἐκεῖ πιστῶν. 

14. ἔκτρωμα] ‘an immature birth’. 
The word, occurring in this context, 
is obviously suggested by 1 Cor. xv. 
8, 9, ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων, ὡσπερεὶ τῷ 
ἐκτρώματι, ὥφθη κἀμοί ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι 
ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων, ὃς οὐκ 


230 


᾽ , , “ep 2 \ ~ ? / 
ἠλέημαί τις εἰναι, ἐαν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[1x 


3 Ui ς ΄σ 
ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς 


ee A ~ \ e > , ΄- 3 ~ ~ ὃ 
TC ἐμὸν πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἐκκλήσιων τῶν εξα- 


/ o va ς / 
μένων με εἰς ὄνομα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὐχ ws παροδευοντα" 


2 καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν] GLESm (so doubtless originally, but the present 
text has amor et ecclesiae) Mg ; et amor omnium ecclestarum Am} et omnes ecclesiae A. 
3 eis] GL (γε nomine, but εἰς is often so translated in L) AmMg* (but v. 1. @s); 
propter Sm (probably representing ¢is); ws 2 (nwo PN, not ws εἰς as Petermann 


εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος K.T.A. 
Objection was taken to ἐκτιτρώσκειν, 
ἔκτρωμα; etc., in this sense, instead of 
the approved words ἀμβλίσκειν, ἄμ- 
βλωμα, etc., by purists (see Lobeck 
Phryn. 208 sq); but they cccur as 
early as Hippocrates and Herodotus 
(111. 32); and ἔκτρωμα is mentioned by 
Aristotle as a common word, de Gen. 
An. iv. 5 (p. 773) kunpar ἐκπίπτει παρα- 
πλήσια τοῖς καλουμένοις ἐκτρώμασιν. 
In the same sense it occurs also in 
the Lx, Num: xii. 12,, Job 1i., 16, 
Eccles. vi. 3. See also references to 
other writers in Wetstein on 1 Cor. 
Z.c. For the metaphorical use com- 
pare Philo Zeg. AW. 1. 25. {π Ὁ. 59) 
οὐ γὰρ πέφυκε γόνιμον οὐδὲν τελεσφο- 
ρεῖν ἡ τοῦ φαύλου ψυχή, ἃ δ᾽ ἂν δοκῇ 
προσφέρειν, ἀμβλωθρίδια εὑρίσκεται καὶ 
ἐκτρώματα (referring to Num. ΧΙ]. 12 
ὡσεὶ ἴσον θανάτῳ, ὡσεὶ ἔκτρωμα ἐκπο- 
ρευόμενον ἐκ μήτρας μητρός), Clem. Alex. 
Ἔχε. Theod. 68 (p. 985) ἀτελῆ καὶ 
νήπια καὶ ἀφρονα καὶ ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἄμορφα, 
οἷον ἐκτρώματα προσενεχθέντα, Iren. i. 
8. 2, ἐν ἐκτρώματος μοίρᾳ. The idea 
in the metaphor, as used by 8. Paul 
and by Ignatius, is twofold: (1) irre- 
gularity of time, referring to an unex- 
pected, abrupt, conversion; and (2) 
imperfection, immaturity, weakness 
of growth. Ignatius, like S. Paul, 
we must suppose, had been sudden- 
ly brought to a knowledge of the 
Gospel. The late story, that he was 
the child whom our Lord took up 
in His arms and blessed, is doubtless 
founded on a misinterpretation of 


Θεοφόρος (see the note on 2165. 
inscr.) and cannot be reconciled with 
his expressions here, It is very pos- 
sible that his early life had been 
stained with the common immoralli- 
ties of heathen society; but at all 
events this expression throws a flood 
of light on his position and explains 
the language of self-depreciation 
which he uses so freely. See on this 
point Zahn ἢ. v. A. p. 403 sq. In the 
letter of the Gallic Churches, Euseb. 
H.E.v. τ, the same metaphor is twice 
similarly applied. In § 4 it is said 
of some who shrank from martyrdom, 
ἐφαίνοντο δὲ of ἀνέτοιμοι Kat ἀγύμνασ- 
τοι καὶ ἔτι ἀσθενεῖς, ἀγῶνος μεγάλου 
τόνον ἐνεγκεῖν μὲ δυνάμενοι, ὧν καὶ ἐξέ- 
τρωσαν ὡς δέκα τὸν ἀριθμόν: and in 
§ 12 of others, who had before denied 
their faith but at the last moment 
gave themselves up to die, eveyivero 
πολλὴ χαρὰ τῇ παρθένῳ μητρὶ [1.6. τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ), οὺς ὡς νεκροὺς ἐξέτρωσε; 
τούτους ζῶντας ἀπολαμβανούσῃ. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἠλέημαί x.t.A.] Again an echo 
of S. Paul, 1 Tim. i. 13 ἀλλὰ nrenOnv 
ὅτι k.T.A., where the words occur in a 
similar connexion; comp. I Cor. vii. 
25 ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ Κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι. 

I. Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] See the note 
on Magn. 1. 

2. τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα] Comp. Ephes. 
18, Trall. 13, Smyrn. το. This again 
is a Pauline expression, I Cor. v. 4. 

ἡ ἀγάπη] See the notes on Tvall. 
3, 13. 

τῶν δεξαμένων k.t.A.| The Churches 
of the Ephesians and Smyrnzeans 


1x] 


TO THE ROMANS. 


231 


\ A e \ / yd ΄. ε ~ n~ 
Kal yap at PY TPOGHKOVG AL μοι TH ὁδῷ TY κατὰ σάρκα 
£ L 


\ / ~ 
κατα πολιν ME προήηγον. 


gives it, δ being merely the sign of the accus.) [A]. 

τῇ κατὰ σάρκα] GLZEAmSmM; om. gA. 
It is translated by an imperfect in 2, and by an aorist 
At this point 2 departs from the text of Ignatius 


2: see the lower note. 

ἢγον] GM; προήγαγον g. 
or perfect in LAA,Sn. 
lower note on Τράφω δὲ, p. 233. 


are meant in the first instance; 
comp. Magn. 15, Trall. 13. Hewas 
also attended about this time by 
several delegates from the Magne- 
sians (Magn. 2 sq), and by one at 
least from the Trallians (77va//. 1). 
These churches also would be in- 
cluded. By τῶν δεξαμένων he intends 
not only those churches which (like 
Philadelphia and Smyrna) he had 
visited in person, but those which 
(like Ephesus and the others) had 
welcomed him through their repre- 
sentatives. 

3. εἰς ὄνομα] Le. ‘having regard 
to the name’, i.e. ‘because I bear 
the authority of’, ‘because I repre- 
sent Christ’: comp. Matt. x. 41, 
42, 0 δεχόμενος προφήτην εἰς ὄνομα 
προφήτου ... ὁ δεχόμενος δίκαιον εἰς 
ὄνομα δικαίου: and see Buxtorf Lex. 
Talm. Ὁ. 2431 for the correspond- 
ing usage of ow>. Ignatius seems 
here to have in his mind the 
context of this same passage of 
5. Matthew, ver. 40 ὁ δεχόμενος 
ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται : comp. Lphes. 6 
οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι ὡς 
αὐτὸν τὸν πέμψαντα x.t.A. The read- 
ing εἰς must be preferred to ὡς, be- 
cause (1) It is the more difficult read- 
ing of the two; (2) The scribes would 
naturally alter eis into ws to produce 
uniformity with the words following, 
οὐχ ὡς mapodevovra. Independently 
of this reason, the tendency is to 
change εἰς into ws in such cases; 
e.g. Potter on Clem. Alex. S¢vomt. 1. 
15 (p. 359) ov... eis θεὸν τετιμήκασι 
writes ‘seu potius ὡς θεόν᾽, though 


4 μὴ] GLZ3AAnSnMg; om. 


5 προ- 


: see the 


eis θεὸν τιμᾶν is excellent Greek; (3) 
Considering the meaning of δέχεσθαι 
εἰς, it cannot be assumed that those 
versions which give a rendering equi- 
valent to ws had os in their text. 

οὐχ ὡς mapodevovra] “τοῦ as a 
chance way/farer, a mere passer by’, 
as e.g. Ezek. xxxvi. 34; comp. Zphes. 
9 ἔγνων δὲ παροδεύσαντάς τινας ἐκεῖθεν, 
Mart. Ign. Ant. 5 διὰ Φιλίππων παρώ- 
δευεν Μακεδονίαν (of Ignatius himself). 
See also πάροδος, Ephes. 12. On the 
other hand Hilgenfeld (A. V. p. 191 
sq) here, as in Ephes. 9, gives to 
mapodevewx the sense ‘to take a 
by-way’, understanding it of one who 
has deserted the true path of the 
Gospel, which is far excellence ‘the 
way’, and supposing that an an- 
tithesis is intended between this ὁδὸς 
κατὰ Θεὸν and the ὁδὸς κατὰ σάρκα 
mentioned in the next sentence. 
To this it is sufficient to answer; 
(1) That mapodevew, though a fairly 
common word, never has this mean- 
ing elsewhere; and (2) That such an 
antithesis would be meaningless here, 
even if the readers of the letter 
could have discovered it. 

4. kat yap ai py ἐπι λ.] ie. ‘for 
not only have those churches through 
which I passed welcomed me; but 
also those which lay out of the way, 
etc The Curetonian Syriac text, 
as represented by one MS 2,, omits 
the negative and reads ‘for even 
those which were near to the way, 
etc” It has been contended that 
this was the original reading, and 
this supposed fact has been alleged 


232 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x 


X. Γράφω δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ (μύρνης dv ᾿Εφεσίων 


τῶν ἀξιομακαρίστων. 


af \ Nie > \ \ of 
ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἅμα ἐμοὶ σὺυν ἀλ- 


r \ iv 3) 
λοις πολλοῖς καὶ Κρόκος, τὸ ποθητόν [μοι] ὄνομα. 


ι δὲ] GLSmMg; om. AAn. 


GLg; after πολλοῖς M. 
altis (om. πολλοῖς) Am. 


δι] GM; διὰ g. 

GL; ἔστιν δὲ (om. καί) gM; est or sunt AAmSm. 
ἄλλοις πολλοῖς] GLM ; πολλοῖς καὶ ἄλλοις £3 

For ASm see the next note. 


2 ἔστιν δὲ καὶ] 
ἅμα ἐμοὶ] before σὺν 


3 καὶ Κρόκος] 


“LAmM; κρόκὸς (om. καὶ) Gg. The two remaining authorities take a different form; 


as favouring the priority of the Cure- 
tonian letters by Lipsius (δ. 7: p. 
136). But (1) The negative cannot 
be dispensed with, for it alone gives 
any significance to καὶ yap ‘for 
even’, ‘for also’; and (2) Though 
absent in one (3,) of the two Syriac 
MSS, it is present in the other (3s), 
and the latter elsewhere preserves 
the correct reading as against the 
former; see Lphes. 19 with the 
note. S. Chrysostom indeed says 
of Ignatius ai yap κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πόλεις 
συντρέχουσαι πάντοθεν ἤλειφον τὸν 
ἀθλητὴν καὶ μετὰ πολλῶν ἐξέπεμπον 
τών ἐφοδίων κιτιλ. (Of. Il. p. 598); 
but the expression diverges too far 
from the words of Ignatius to justify 
the inference that the negative was 
omitted in his copy of Ignatius; 
and indeed the word συντρέχουσαι im- 
plies the presence of those churches 
which did of lie on the actual 
route. 

τῇ κατὰ σάρκα] By this qualifying 
clause he wishes to imply, that though 
in actual locality they lay out of his 
way, yet in the spirit they were all 
his close and intimate neighbours: 
comp. “2165. τ ὑμῶν δὲ [ἐν σαρκὶ] ἐπι- 
OKOT@). 

This passage is quite inconsistent 
with the account in the Antiochene 
Martyrology, which represents Ig- 
natius as sailing direct from Seleucia 
the port of Antioch to Smyrna. To 
save the credibility of this Martyr- 


ology, Pearson (ad /oc.) translates 
ai μὴ προσήκουσαί μοι, ‘which do not 
belong to me’, 1.6, ‘are not under my 
jurisdiction’, separating τῇ ὁδῷ κιτ.ιλ.; 
and so too Smith ‘multi ab ecclesiis 
non mei juris et ad me neutiquam 
spectantibus [μὴ προσήκουσαί orl, 
in hoc nimirum ultimo itinere, quod 
in mundo restat emetiendum [τῇ 
ὁδῷ τῇ κατὰ σάρκα], ut mihi obviam 
irent missi, me singulas civitates 
ingressurum honoris causa praeces- 
sere’. It will be seen that Zahn 
(1 v. A. p. 254) is mistaken, when he 
charges Smith with giving to ὁδὸς 
the sense ‘episcopal jurisdiction’ ; 
but though Smith is not guilty of 
this error, his separation of τῇ ὁδῷ 
from προσήκουσαι and his general 
interpretation of the passage (in 
which he follows Pearson) are too 
harsh to be tolerable. Even if this in- 
terpretation were possible, κατὰ πόλιν 
would remain an insuperable diffi- 
culty. The only land journey which 
on this hypothesis Ignatius had 
hitherto taken was from Antioch to 
Seleucia, some 15 or 16 miles (130 
stades, Procopius Bel/. Pers. il. 11, 
I. p. 199 ed. Bonn. ; 120 stades, Strabo 
Xvi. 2, p. 751). For the double dative 
comp. 2 Cor. ΧΙ]. 7 ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ 
τῇ σαρκί, and see Kihner ὃ 424 (II. 
p. 375 sq), Winer § xxxil. p. 276. 
κατὰ πόλιν x.t.A.] ‘went before 
me from city to city’, i.e. so as to 
make preparations and welcome him 


x] TO THE ROMANS. 


259 


΄ / 2 > ς > 
Π;ερὶ τών προελθόντων με ἀπὸ Cupias εἰς Ρώμην εἰς 


5 δόξαν [τοῦ] Θεοῦ πιστεύω ὑμᾶς ἐπεγνωκέναι. 


Ὁ \ 
OLS Kal 


sunt mecum et alit multi fratres dilectti A (omitting κρόκος) ; sunt autem mecum 


etiam alit multi crescus (sic) Sm. 
Smyrn. 13, Polyc. 8. 


μοι] GLAm; om. SmMg; al. A: comp. 
4 τῶν προελθόντων με] G3 gui praevenerunt me A; 


gut comitatt sunt ct deduxerunt mie Sm (this also seems to represent προελθόντων ; 
comp. Luke xxii. 47); τῶν προσελθόντων (om. με) g ; advenientibus mecum 1, : τῶν 


συνελθόντων μοι [M]; gud venerunt Am: see the lower note. 


«θεοῦ gM. 


on his arrival. For κατὰ πόλιν comp. 
Euke vin. 1 4, Acts xv. 21, xx. 23; 
for mpoayew, Matt. xiv. 22, xxvi. 32, 
xxvill. 7, Mark xi. 9, etc. Zahn (/. v. 
A. p. 255) rightly objects to taking 
it aS an equivalent to προπέμπειν, 
a sense which it seems never to 
have; nor indeed would his guards 
have allowed anything like a tri- 
umphal procession. The ἄγειν of 
mpoayew here is intransitive, and the 
construction is the same as in προεὰ- 
θεῖν § 10. When the word is transi- 
tive, it has the sense ‘to put forward’ 
or ‘to drag forward’. 

X. ‘I write this from Smyrna by 
the hand of the Ephesians. Among 
others the beloved Crocus is with 
me. I believe you have already re- 
ceived instructions concerning those 
who have gone before me to Rome. 
Inform them that I am near. Re- 
fresh them with your friendly ser- 
vices, for they deserve it. I write 
this on the 9th before the Kalends 
of September. Farewell; endure unto 
the end in Christ Jesus.’ 

I. Τράφω δὲ «7.A.] The Syrian 
epitomator here leaves the text of 
this epistle. He first makes up a 
sentence of his own; ‘Now I am 
near so as to arrive in Rome’. He 
then inserts two chapters (4, 5) from 
the Epistle to the Trallians. And 
he concludes with the farewell sen- 
tence of this epistle, ἔρρωσθε k.t.A. 

δ Ἐφεσίων] For the names of 
some of the Ephesian delegates who 


5 τοῦ Θεοῦ] G; 


were with Ignatius at Smyrna, see 
Ephes. 1, 2. These delegates are 
mentioned also in Magu. 15, Trail. 
13. For the whole expression comp. 
Philad. τι, Smyrn. 12, in both which 
passages he says γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ 
Bovppov (the only Ephesian then re- 
maining with him at Troas). See 
also 1 Pet. v. 12 διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν... 
δι’ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα. In all these in- 
stances the preposition would seem 
to denote the amanuensis. And this 
would appear to be the case also in 
the passage before us. But in Polyc. 
Phil. 14 ‘haec vobis scripsi per 
Crescentem’, Crescens would appear 
to be the bearer of the letter; and 
in Dionys. Cor. quoted in Euseb. 
H. E. iv. 23 τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ 
Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν, Clement is the 
composer of the letter, though it is 
sent in the name of the whole Ro- 
man Church. 

2. ἀξιομακαρίστων] 
inscr. 

3. Kpoxos] See the note Epes. 2. 

4. τῶν προελθόντων pe] No men- 
tion is made of these persons else- 
where. The letter however presup- 
poses throughout that the Roman 
Church already possessed informa- 
tion of his condemnation and ap- 
proaching visit to Rome; and such 
information could only be conveyed 
by a previous arrival from Syria. 
The Metaphrast, not understanding 
this obscure allusion, abridges the 
passage so as entirely to alter the 


See Lphes. 


234 


IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS. [x 


2 sf ‘ / / 3 af a 
δηλώσατε ἐγγύς με ὄντα' πάντες yap εἰσιν ἄξιοι [ποῦ] 


΄σ' ΄ ε , land \ / 3 
Θεοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν: οὗς πρέπον ὑμῖν ἐστιν κατὰ πανταὰ ava- 


~ > \ ς ~ = ~ x ΕῚ is 
παῦσαι. ἔγραψα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα TH πρὸ ἐννεὰα Kahav- 


= / af 3 / 3 ε σ᾿} ΄- 
δών (επτεμβρίων. ἔρρωσθε εἰς τέλος ἐν ὑπομονῇ ᾿Ιησοῦ 


Χριστοῦ. 


1 δηλώσατε] G3; δηλώσετε g (but 1 mandastis or mandaiis) ; mantfestatis L; 


notificate AmSm; def. AM. 


éotw] G; ἐστὶν ὑμῖν g; est vos L; def. M. 
TH... Demreuspiwy] txt LMg (but σεπτεμβρίου in M); add. 


om. AAyM. 


τοῦ Θεοῦ] G; θεοῦ g; def. M. 


2 ὑμῖν 


3 δὲ] GLSng (but om. 1); 


τουτέστιν αὐγούστου εἰκάδι τρίτῃ G3 ante ix kalendas septembres, mense augusto que 
dies 22 erat As ante ix kalendas ahekant (gr. et lat. septembris, hoc est 24 augustt) 
Am. The difference in the calculations in GAAm shows that the additions have 
been made independently. Sm substitutes for the clause a local reckoning of time, 
undecimo (die) mense ab. 4 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLMg; add. dec nostri 2; 
preef. domini nostri Am; add. gratia domini nostri vobiscum omnibus A; add. estote 


incolumes. gratia vobiscum Sm. 


Add. ἀμήν GASmM ; om. 2LAng. 


There is no subscription in GLAAmSmM. For 2g see the Appx. 


sense; Kpoxos, τὸ ποθητὸν ὄνομα, τῶν 
συνελθόντων μοι ἀπὸ Συρίας εἰς δόξαν 
Θεοῦ. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ. 

I. ἐγγύς με dvta] This would be 
the case, when the letter arrived in 
Rome and the message of Ignatius 
was delivered. There is therefore no 
difficulty in his using such language 
at Smyrna; see Zahn 7. v. A. p. 251. 

ἄξιοι τοῦ Θεοῦ κιτ.λ.] See Ephes. 2, 
where the same expression occurs. 

2. κατὰ πάντα ἀναπαῦσαι] See the 
note on Lphes. 2. 

3. τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα κιτ.λ.] 1.6, August 24. 
The Armenian martyrology alone has 
correctly reckoned the day. The 
others give the 21st, the 22nd, or the 
23rd. The 21st is the equivalent to 
the 11th of Ab in the Syriac Mar- 
tyrology (Mcesinger p. 26). For the 
common construction τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα 
κιτιλ. comp. e.g. Plut. Mor. 203 A τῇ 
πρὸ μιᾶς νωνῶν ὀκτωβρίων. So also 
we have such expressions as πρὸ μιᾶς 
ἡμέρας; πρὸ τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν, ‘one day 
before’, ‘thirty days before’, in Greek 
writings of this age: comp. e.g. John 
Xl. I πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα, and 


see Winer § lxi. p. 697, together with 
the instances in Kypke Ods. Sacr. I 
p. 393 sq. It is the Greek equivalent 
to ante diem nonam Kalendas Sep- 
tembres; though the construction in 
Latin is somewhat different. 

4. ἔρρωσθε] See the note on 
Ephes. 21. 

ἐν ὑπομονῇ κιτιλ.] Comp. 2 Thess. 
lil, 5 κατευθύναι ὑμῶν Tas καρδίας εἰς 
τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπο- 
μονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. In Rev. 1. 9 
ὑπομονῇ Ιησοῦ, the right reading is 
ὑπομονῇ ev Ἰησοῦ. The expression 
apparently has the same sense here 
as in 2 Thess. 111. 5, but the meaning 
is doubtful. Most probably it is ‘the 
patient waiting for Christ’: comp. 
1 Thess. i. 3 τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος 
τοῦ Κυρίου κιτιλ., and see also Rom. 
Vill. 25... Inthe LXX it is.a transla- 
tion of MPI, MPN, etc, ‘expectatio’, 
‘spes’, e.g. Ps. Ixii (xi). 5, Ixxi (Ixx). 
5, Jer. xiv. 8, xvii. 13, etc. The com- 
mentators however more commonly 
take it otherwise, ‘such patience as 
Christ Himself showed’. The former 
sense is much more appropriate here. 


re 


fee rie PHILADELPHIANS 








7 an ὧν 






ῃ 
‘ 








2 . ἐν ae 
can re 





mone GLE. PALLAbDELPHILANS, 


ΠΕ name Philadelphia was borne by several cities (see below, p. 

249). Of these perhaps the most important was the Syrian Phila- 
delphia, the Rabbah or Rabbath-Ammon of the Scriptures; while the 
second in importance—if second—was the Lydian Philadelphia, with 
which Ignatius corresponded. But, though bearing the same name, 
they did not owe it to the same person. The Syrian city was so 
designated from the second Ptolemy of Egypt, who restored this ancient 
capital of the Ammonites; the Lydian city was called after the second 
Attalus of Pergamus (B.C. 159—138) its founder. Both these princes 
bore the surname Philadelphus. The foundation of the Lydian city is 
distinctly ascribed to the Pergamene king (Steph. Byz. s. v. ᾿Αττάλου 
κτίσμα τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου), as indeed its situation would suggest. Yet we 
may be tempted to suspect an error in this statement. Joannes 
Laurentius the Lydian, a writer of the sixth century, himself a native 
of this Philadelphia, in a part of his work which is not preserved, 
related how it was founded by the Egyptians (de Mens. iil, 32, p. 45, 
ed. Bonn., ὅτι τὴν ἐν Λυδίᾳ Φιλαδέλφειαν Αἰγύπτιοι ἐπόλισαν) ; and this 
notice would seem to point to Ptolemy Philadelphus, who had large 
possessions in Asia Minor (Theocr. /¢y//. xvii. 88). 

Philadelphia lies at the foot of the Tmolus mountains, which separate 
the valley of the Hermus on the north from that of the Cayster on the 
south, and is washed by the river Cogamus, an important tributary of 
the Hermus (Plin. VV. ZH. v. 30 ‘ Philadelpheni et ipsi in radice Tmoli 
Cogamo flumini appositi,’ Joann. Lyd. de Magistr. ii. 26, p. 218, τῆς 


228 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 
ἐνεγκούσης pe Φιλαδελφείας τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ TuddrAw καὶ Λυδίᾳ κειμένης). It 
is situated in the loop which connects the valley of the Meander with 
that of the Hermus, the valley of the Cayster being shut in between the 
two. Hence the importance of its position, as commanding the way to 
the pass between the two valleys. It is nearly equidistant from Tripolis to 
the west and Sardis to the east (33 miles from Tripolis, 28 from Sardis, 
Anton. Itin. Ὁ. 336; 34 miles from Tripolis, 30 [Ὁ] from Sardis, Peuting. 
Tab.), lying on the great high-road between Apamea and Smyrna, which 
leaves the Mzeander close to Tripolis and touches the Hermus near 
Sardis. Along this road the great king led his countless hosts on his 
fatal expedition against Greece ; and Callatebus, at which he halted on 
this occasion, and where he committed the plane-tree to the guardian- 
ship of one of the Immortals, must have been not far from the site of 
the later city of Philadelphia’. It was along this same road also that 
Cyrus marched with his Greek auxiliaries from Sardis to the Meeander 
(Xen. Azad. i. 2. 5, see Ainsworth’s Travels in the Track of the Ten 
Thousand Greeks p. 13 54); but no place within these limits is men- 
tioned by name in Xenophon’s account of his march. Descriptions 
of the road, and of the city of Philadelphia, will be found in Smith 
Sept. Asiae Eccles. Not. p. 32 sq; Chandler Zvavels in’Asia Minor etc. 
I. p. 303 sq (ed. Churton); Arundell Seven Churches p. 163 sq; 
W. J. Hamilton Researches in Asta Minor etc. 11. p. 370 sq; Ainsworth 
l.c.; Fellows Asta Minor and Lycia p. 216 sq; Texier Aste Mineure 
Ill. p. 23 sq. For the physical features of the region see Tchihatcheff 
Aste Mineure P..l. p. 235 84, 470°8q, Ps Iv.)Vol.22.p4229 56: 
Philadelphia does not appear ever to have attained the magnitude or 
the wealth which its position might have led us to expect. The ‘little 
power’ (Rev. 11. ὃ μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν) of the Christian Church here 


1 Herod. vii. 31 ἰέναι mapa Καλλάτη- 
Bov πόλιν, ἐν τῇ δημιοεργοὶ μέλι ἐκ μυρίκης 
τε καὶ πυροῦ ποιεῦσι κιτ.λ. Philadelphia 
is still famous for a similar confection, 
called halva; von Hammer Gesch. d. Os- 
man, Reiches 1. p. 220, Texier L’ Univers 
p- 271. Xerxes is stated by Herodotus to 
have arrived at Sardis from Callatebus 
δευτέρῃ ἡμέρῃ, and as the distance be- 
tween Philadelphia and Sardis is 28 or 
30 miles, this would be a fair two days’ 
march for a large army. On the other 
hand, some would place Callatebus about 
four hours higher up the valley of the 


Cogamus at Aineh Ghieul (see Hamilton 
Asia Minor 11. p. 374), near which the 
tamarisk grows in great abundance. This 
is possible; but not so the position as- 
signed to Callatebus in Smith’s Dict. of 
the Bible, s. vy. Philadelphia, ‘not far 
from the Meeander’; for the Mzander 
must be some seventy miles from Sardis 
—a distance far too great for Xerxes’ 
host to traverse in the time. Cyrus took 
three days, marching quickly with a 
much more manageable force (Xen, 
Anab. i. 2. 5). 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 239 


probably reflected the comparative size of the city itself. It lies indeed 
in a region of great natural fertility ; and, as is frequently the case with 
volcanic regions, this was especially a vine-growing country. The wines 
of Tmolus were among the most celebrated of antiquity (Virg. Georg. 
i, 98, Plin. Δὲ & v. 30, xiv. 9). But this physical characteristic was 
at the same time its most terrible scourge. It borders on the region 
called Katakekaumene, which is to Asia Minor what the Phlegrzean 
Plains are to Italy; and in a country where every city was more or less 
liable to such catastrophes, none suffered more cruelly from convulsions 
of the earth than Philadelphia. On this account the city itself con- 
tained a very small population, the majority preferring to live in the 
country and follow agricultural pursuits. Strabo, who gives us this 
information, expresses his surprise that even these few are hardy 
enough to brave the dangers. The earthquakes, he says, are con- 
stant: the houses are continually gaping asunder with the shocks: 
the architects are obliged to reckon with this fact in building (Strabo 
xii. 8, Ὁ. 579, xill. 4, p. 628). In the terrible catastrophe during the 
reign of Tiberius, when twelve cities were thrown down in one night, 
Philadelphia was among the sufferers (Tac. Anz. 11. 47; see also the 
Puteoli marble, C. Z Z. x. 1624). Doubtless these subterranean forces 
were exceptionally active when Strabo wrote; but the account of a 
Philadelphian in the sixth century shows that the danger was not 
confined to any one epoch. This last-mentioned writer, Joannes Lau- 
rentius, also speaks of the hot springs in this region, as connected with 
its volcanic energy (de Ostent. 53, p. 349, ed. Bonn.)’. 

In the age of Pliny (WV. Z. v. 30) this city had no law-courts of 
its own, but belonged to the jurisdictio or conventus of Sardis (see 
Colossians p. 7 sq). Before the middle of the next century however 
a change appears to have been made; for the rhetorician Aristides 
speaks of the legate as holding courts here (Of. 1. p. 530, ed. Dindorf, 
κυροῖ τὴν χειροτονίαν ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ [v. 1. Φιλαδελῴφείᾳ] δικαστηρίοις 
ἀπόντος ἐμοῦ; see Masson Vit. Aristid. 16. 11. p. cxvili sq). No great 
weight can be attached to the fact that the epithet ‘splendid’ is 
given to Philadelphia in a Smyrnzean inscription of the age of Valerian 
and Gallienus (C. Δ G. 3206 ἐν τῇ λαμπρᾷ Φιλαδελφέων πόλει) ; Nor 
again, do the titles of the two ruling bodies in the city, ‘the most 


1 From this district also was obtained ...οἷός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ Φιλαδελφείας κομιζόμενος 
the highest quality of the commodity τῆς ἐν Λυδίᾳ. For the substance meant 
which the ancients called spuma nztri ; by ἀφρὸς νίτρου see the reff. in Steph. 
Dioscorid. Wat. Med. v. 130 ἀφρὸς virpov 7665. 5. ν. ἀφρόνιτρον, ed. Hase et Dind. 


240 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


sacred,’ or ‘the most excellent Council,’ and ‘the most splendid People’ 
(ἡ ἱερωτάτη [κρατίστη] βουλὴ καὶ 6 λαμπρότατος δῆμος, C. 7. G. 3416, 
3421), imply very much. It is more important to observe that Phila- 
delphia bore the name of ‘Little Athens.’ This designation was given 
to the city on account of its religious character. As the great Athens 
especially prided herself on being the most ‘pious’ city in Greece (see 
the passages in Wetstein on Acts xvii. 16, 22 sq), while from an opposite 
point of view the earliest historian of the Christian Church described 
the place as ‘beset with idols’ (Acts xvii. 16 κατείδωλον) ; so also this 
miniature Athens was distinguished by the number of its temples 
and the frequency of its festivals (Joann. Lyd. de Mens. iv. 40, p. 75, 
Mixpas ᾿Αθήνας ἐκάλουν τὴν Φιλαδέλφειαν διὰ τὰς ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τῶν 
εἰδώλων). This statement is borne out by the not very numerous 
extant inscriptions found in or near the city. Among the festivals 
celebrated there we read of the Fovzalia Solaria (Acta ἽΑλεια Φιλαδέλ- 
pea C. 7 G. 3427, Acta ἽΛλεια ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ no. 3428, μεγάλα Αλεια 
no. 3416; see Boeckh’s note, 11. p. 804 sq, Lebas and Waddington no. 
645), of the Communia Asiae (κοινὰ ᾿Ασίας ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ, no. 1068, 
3428), and of the Augustalia Anaitea (μεγάλα Σεβαστὰ ᾿Αναείτεια no. 
3424, 1.6. in honour of Artemis or Aphrodite Anaitis, a Persian and 
Armenian deity worshipped in these parts): while Asiarchs, pane- 
gyriachs, xystarchs, ephebarchs, hipparchs, etc., appear in considerable 
profusion. More especially mention is made of the ‘ priest of Artemis’ 
(no. 3422) who seems to have been the patron-goddess of the city 
(see Mionnet Iv. p. 97 sq, Suppl. vil. p. 398 sq); and the title of 
‘high-priest,’ which occurs from time to time, probably belongs to this 
functionary. 

It would seem from these facts that paganism had an exceptional 
vitality in this otherwise not very important place. At the same time, 
it is no less clear that Philadelphia was a stronghold of the Jews. 
The message to the Church in the Apocalypse contains a reference to 
‘the synagogue of Satan,’ which is further defined as ‘those that called 
themselves Jews, though they are not’ (Rev. ili. 9); and in accordance 
with this notice the Epistle of Ignatius is largely occupied in controvert- 
ing a stubborn form of Judaism which obviously constitutes the chief 
peril of the Christian Church in this city (see esp. §§ 6, 8, 9). The 
promise in the vision of Patmos that the Jews should come and worship 
‘before the feet’ of the Philadelphian Church had been fulfilled mean- 
while ; but the influx of Jewish converts had been attended with the 
usual dangers. 

The intimate connexion which subsisted between Philadelphia and 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 241 


Smyrna, where Ignatius made his long halt, appears from several cir- 
cumstances. Among the coins of Philadelphia are not a few which 
commemorate the ‘concord’ (ὁμόνοια) of the Philadelphians with the 
Smyrnzans (Mionnet, Iv. pp. 100, 108, Supf/. vil. pp. 400, 401). The 
Anthology again contains a couplet recording some honour which 
Philadelphia, μνήμων ἡ πόλις εὐνομίης, had paid to a statue of one 
‘Philip ruler in Smyrna’ (Anzhol. τι. p. 450). Again, an inscription 
at Smyrna mentions one Apollinaris, a citizen both of Smyrna and of 
Philadelphia, as of other places also (C. Z G. 3206). And lastly we hear 
of Philadelphian Christians crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna about 
the middle of the second century (Mart. Polyc. το ; see below, p. 243). 

The earliest notice of Christianity in Philadelphia is the passage in 
the Apocalypse (11. 7—-13). But the language there used implies that 
this church had already existed for some years at least. In default of 
any information we fall back, as before (see above, pp. 102, 147), on the 
supposition that its evangelization was due to S. Paul and his com- 
panions ; though here the distance from Ephesus, his head-quarters, was 
much greater than in the cases of Magnesia and Tralles. 

Unlike the churches which have come before our notice hitherto 
Philadelphia had been visited in person by Ignatius. At the bifur- 
cation, on the banks of the Lycus, his guards had taken the right- 
hand road which led in a more northerly direction over the Derwend 
pass through Philadelphia and Sardis, by the valleys of the Cogamus 
and Hermus, to Smyrna (see above, p. 2). At Philadelphia they 
appear to have made a halt of some duration. To this visit Ignatius 
incidentally alludes more than once in the course of the letter. He 
speaks of making the acquaintance of their bishop, whose modesty and 
reserve and gentleness he praises highly (§1). After the example of 
S. Paul, he appeals to the character of his intercourse with them. It 
was entirely free from tyranny or oppressiveness of any kind (§ 6). He 
alludes obscurely to an attempt on the part of certain persons to lead 
him astray—an allusion which (in the absence of information) it were 
lost time to attempt to explain. He reminds them that he had warned 
them emphatically ‘with the voice of God’ to give heed to the bishop 
and other officers of the church (§ 7). He had done all that one man 
could do (τὸ ἴδιον ἐποίουν) to promote unity. He recals a dispute— 
apparently held at Philadelphia—when the Judaizers had pleaded the 
ancient charters (τὰ ἀρχεῖα) against the Gospel, while he himself de- 
clared that Christ’s Cross and Resurrection were their own witnesses 
and superseded any such appeal (ὃ 8). 


IGN. II, 16 


242 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


Nor is this the only point in which the Epistle to the Philadelphians 
differs from the previous letters. It was also written from a different 
place. Since the despatch of the earlier letters, the saint had moved 
onward from Smyrna to Alexandria Troas, and was waiting there to 
embark for Europe. ‘This interval had somewhat altered the position 
of affairs. Two persons had meanwhile joined him from the east after 
his arrival at Troas, or at all events after his departure from Smyrna 
—Philo, a deacon of Cilicia, and Rhaius Agathopus, a member of the 
Syrian Church. They had followed in his track, and halted at Phila- 
delphia. Here they had received a hearty welcome from the main 
body of the church; but some persons—doubtless his Judaizing op- 
ponents—had treated them with contempt (§ 11). From them he 
probably heard of those misrepresentations of his conduct during his 
stay at Philadelphia, which he considers it necessary to rebut (S§ 6, 7). 

But at the same time, they brought him more welcome news also. 
The prayers of the churches had been heard. The persecution at 
Antioch had ceased. He therefore urges the Philadelphians to despatch 
a deacon to Syria, as their representative, to congratulate the brethren 
there. Other churches which lay nearer, he tells them, had sent dele- 
gacies on a larger scale (§ 10). | 

But, though the letter contains this incidental charge, its direct 
purport and motive is different. The main burden is the heresy which 
troubled the Philadelphian Church. It had awakened his anxiety 
during his own sojourn there, and the later report of Philo and Aga- 
thopus had aggravated his alarm. What the nature of this heresy was, 
the tenour of his letter plainly indicates. He is attacking a form of 
Docetic Judaism (see the note Ζγαΐζ. 9), but more directly from its 
Judaic than from its Docetic side. ‘The Docetism is tacitly reproved in 
the opening salutation, where he congratulates the Philadelphians as 
‘rejoicing in the Passion of our Lord without wavering, and ‘steadfast 
in the conviction of His Resurrection,’ and salutes them ‘in the blood 
of Jesus Christ which is eternal and abiding joy.’ There are perhaps 
also allusions to it, when speaking of the eucharist he refers to the 
‘one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (§ 4), and when he describes him- 
self as ‘taking refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of Jesus’ (§ 5). But 
the Judaism is openly attacked. A Jew talking Christianity, he says, 
is better than a Christian talking Judaism. If any disputant is silent 
about Christ, he is no better than a tombstone with its epitaph inscribed 
(§ 6). The Judaizers allege the ancient charters: but to himself Jesus 
Christ—His Cross and Resurrection—is the one inviolable charter (§ 8). 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 243 


The prophets are to be loved and admired, because they foretold Christ 
(§ 5). The priests too are not to be despised, but the great High- 
priest is better than all. He is the door through whom patriarchs and 
prophets alike, not less than the Christian Church, must pass to the 
Father (§ 9). These heretics are described as treacherous wolves 
devouring the flock (δ 2). The heresy itself is a noxious herb, which 
does not belong to the husbandry of Jesus Christ (§ 3). As a safeguard 
against its assaults he recommends here, as elsewhere, unity and obe- 
dience to the bishops and officers of the Church (§ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). 
In saying this, he merely repeats a charge which he had given them 
orally (§ 7). More especially they must not separate themselves from 
the one eucharistic feast (δ 4). No schismatic can inherit the kingdom 
of God (§ 3). 

When Ignatius wrote this letter from Troas, Burrhus the Ephesian, 
alone of the delegates who had been with him at Smyrna, still remained 
in his company (see the note on Zffes. 2). He was the amanuensis of 
the letter (§ 11). 

It will be seen from the above account, that the impression of the 
Philadelphian Church left by the language of Ignatius is less favourable 
than that which we obtain from the message in the Apocalypse, where 
its constancy is commended (Rev. iii. 8, 10). The warning with which 
the Apocalyptic message closes was not superfluous; ‘Hold fast 
that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown (ver. 11).’ At the 
same time the main body of the Church appears to have been sound ; 
for Ignatius praises the steadfastness of their convictions (inscr.), and 
declares that he has found ‘sifting, and not division,’ among them (§ 2). 
The next notices also in point of time are honourable to the Philadel- 
phian Church. She numbered among her sons eleven martyrs, who 
suffered at Smyrna in the persecution which was fatal to Polycarp, 
A.D. 155 (Mart. Polyc. 19). We are also told of one Ammia a pro- 
phetess of Philadelphia (ἡ ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ Appia) who appears to have 
flourished early in the second century, for her name is mentioned in 
connexion with Quadratus more especially (Anon. in Euseb. &. £. 
y. 18). The Montanists claimed her as a forerunner of their own pro- 
phetesses; but this claim the orthodox writer quoted by Eusebius 
indignantly denies. The name is probably Phrygian, and occurs com- 
monly in inscriptions belonging to these parts (see Colossians p. 307): 
At the council of Nica this Lydian Philadelphia is represented by her 
bishop Hetcemasius (Sf7c. Solesm. 1. Ῥ. 535» Cowper Syriac Miscellanies 


pp. 11, 28, 33), as is also the Syrian by her own bishop Cyrion. On 
| 16—2 


244 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


the other hand at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) the only 
Philadelphia which puts in an appearance is the Isaurian (76. p. 37, Labb. 
Conc. I. p. 1135), both her more famous namesakes being unrepre- 
sented. In the meanwhile our Philadelphia has been toying with Semi- 
arianism. At the Synod of Philippopolis (a. Ὁ. 347) there was present 
one Quirius (Κύριος) bishop of Philadelphia (see Labb. Conc. τι. p. 743), 
apparently the Lydian city, though the name of the bishop would suggest 
the Syrian; and at the Synod of Seleucia (a.D. 359) again, we meet 
with a Theodosius, bishop of Philadelphia, here expressly defined as the 
Lydian city (Labb. Conc. 11. p. 922). At Ephesus (a.p. 431) the 
Lydian Philadelphia is represented by Theophanes or Theophanius 
(Labb. Conc. 1. p. 1086) ; and at later councils also her bishops appear 
from time to time. For some centuries Philadelphia remained a suffra- 
gan see under Sardis, but at a later date it was raised to an independent 
metropolitan rank, though apparently not without some vicissitudes (see 
the WVotitiae pp. 96, 132, 156, 226, 236, 246, ed. Parthey). 

It was in the last struggle for independence that Philadelphia won 
an undying renown. ‘The strategical importance of the site, which 
doubtless had led to the foundation of the city in the first instance, 
was also the cause of her chief woes. Philadelphia was besieged by 
every invading army in turn, Byzantine, Latin, and barbarian. Against 
the Turkish hordes the Philadelphians offered a manly resistance. For 
nearly a hundred years after the neighbouring places had succumbed, 
Philadelphia held out. ‘The whole land beneath the sun,’ writes the 
Byzantine historian, ‘was subjugated by the Turks, but this city like 
a star shone still in the over-clouded mid-heaven’ (Ducas iv. 4, p. 19, 
ed. Bonn.). It is said that she was sustained in her resistance by the 
commendation and the promise in the Apocalypse. At length she 
yielded to the assaults of the victorious Bajazet, ‘the thunderbolt.’ 
But even then her fall was due quite as much to the baseness of 
the Byzantine emperors as to the persistence of the Turkish invader. 
Philadelphia was part of the price paid by John and Manuel Palzo- 
logus for the support of the Turk against rival claimants to the throne 
of the Cesars in their own household. The Greek emperor summoned 
the Philadelphians to surrender and receive a Turkish governor. They 
replied proudly that ‘they would not, if they could help it, deliver 
themselves over to the barbarians.’ But it was only a question of time. 
The siege, aided by famine, was successful; and the Greek emperors, 
fighting under Bajazet, were the first to enter the defeated city ; οὕτω, 
concludes the historian, ἑάλω Φιλαδέλφεια 4 τῆς Λυδίας πόλις εὐνομουμένη 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 245 


Ἑλληνίς (Chalcocond. de Reb. Ture. ii. Ρ. 64, ed. Bonn.). Probably 
Philadelphia had never been more prosperous than at this epoch, 
for it is described as ‘of vast size and very populous’ (Ducas l. ¢. 
ὑπερέχουσα τῷ μεγέθει καὶ πολύανδρος οὖσα). Nor was this siege the last 
trial endured by this city. If she was chastised with whips by the 
Ottoman Bajazet', she was chastised with scorpions under the Tartar 
Timour, the conqueror of Bajazet (Ducas xvi. p. 71, xxii, p. 122). 
But from first to last she has never altogether forfeited her claim to 
the proud title of a ‘Greek’ city. 

The present name of Philadelphia, as given almost universally by 
English travelers, 15 Allah Shehr, ‘the city of God.’ The true form 
however seems to be A/a Shehr, ‘the pied or striped city’ (v. Hammer 
Gesch. d. Osman. Reiches τ. p. 219, not ‘the white city,’ as in Texier 
1; Univers p. 270, Murray’s Handbook for Turkey in Asia p. 327), but 
no explanation is given of this epithet. The Apocalyptic message to 
this Church (Rev. ili. 12), containing the promise that ‘the name of 
the city of God’ shall be written ‘on him that overcometh,’ may pos- 
sibly have led travelers and natives alike to wrest Ala Shehr into 
Allah Shehr. At all events the coincidence with the language of the 
Revelation is purely superficial. At the present time Philadelphia con- 
tains a population variously estimated at from seven or eight to fifteen 
thousand, of whom a larger proportion than is common in Turkish cities 
—perhaps a third or a fourth—are Christians. The number of churches 
again is differently stated, the highest number being thirty, and the 


1T, Smith Sept. As. Eccles. Not. p. 33; 
speaking of this victory of Bajazet, writes; 
‘Sola conjectura est, quam jam profero, 
hujus stragis, cujus 116 author erat, 
vestigia adhuc restare. Ad mille enim 
quingentos ab urbe [Philadelphia] passus 
versus austrum crassum murum ex ossibus 
humanis cum lapidibus gypso confusim 
permistis consistentem vidi; illum [Baya- 
zidem] hoc irae suae in obstinatos hosce 
cives monimentum erexisse verisimile 
mihi videtur : mihi enim pene constat fa- 
cinus adeo horrendum et ab omni huma- 
nitate prorsus alienum nonnisi a Turcis 
perpetrari posse.’ Rycaut also mentions 
this wall built of human bones. The 
Turks have enough to answer for; but of 
this atrocity assuredly they were not 


guilty. This wall is a mass of vegetable 
matter incrusted with a calcareous de- 
posit, as pointed out long ago by Wood- 
ward (Addition to Catal. of Foreign and 
Native Fossils p. 11, 1728). A specimen 
procured by him may still be seen in the 
Woodwardian Museum at Cambridge. 
Tchihatcheff (P. Iv. Vol. 3, p. 230 note) 
tells us that the Turks in the neighbour- 
hood glory in this supposed atrocity of a 
former sultan. He has so little acquaint- 
ance with the writings of his predecessors, 
that he supposes himself to have dis- 
covered the phenomenon and unearthed 
the legend, though this wall was men- 
tioned by Smith two centuries ago, and 
the true explanation given by Woodward 
a century and a half ago. 


246 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


lowest fifteen ; but only five or six are in common use, while the greater 
number lie in ruins. The Christian community here is governed by a 
resident bishop; and altogether its ecclesiastical arrangements betoken 
a vitality and influence, such as is rarely found in the cities of Asia 
Minor. 

The often-quoted passage of Gibbon may be quoted once again, as 
a just tribute to a city whose past history is exceptionally bright in the 
midst of the surrounding darkness. 

‘The captivity or ruin of the seven churches of Asia was consum- 
mated ; and the barbarous lords of Ionia and Lydia still trample on the 
monuments of classic and Christian antiquity. In the loss of Ephesus 
the Christians deplored the fall of the first angel, the extinction of the 
first candlestick, of the Revelations; the desolation is complete; and 
the temple of Diana, or the church of Mary, will equally elude the 
search of the curious traveler. The circus and the three stately 
theatres of Laodicea are now peopled with wolves and foxes; Sardes 
is reduced to a miserable village; the God of Mahomet, without a rival 
or a son, is invoked in the mosques of Thyatira and Pergamus; and 
the populousness of Smyrna is supported by the foreign trade of the 
Franks and Armenians. Philadelphia alone has been saved by pro- 
phecy or courage. At a distance from the sea, forgotten by the em- 
perors, encompassed on all sides by the Turks, her valiant citizens 
defended their religion and freedom above fourscore years; and at 
length capitulated with the proudest of the Ottomans. Among the 
Greek colonies and churches of Asia, Philadelphia is still erect; a 
column in a scene of ruins; a pleasing example, that the paths of 
honour and safety may sometimes be the same (Decline and Fall c. \xiv).’ 


The following is an azalyszs of the epistle. 

‘IGNaTIUS to the CHURCH OF PHILADELPHIA which is rooted 
firmly in the conviction of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ ; 
greeting in the blood of Jesus Christ which is abiding joy, so long as 
there 15 obedience to the bishop and presbyters and deacons.’ 

‘Your bishop has his authority from God and exercises it in love. 
I admire his gentleness and modesty. As the lyre to its strings, so is 
he strung to the commandments (δ 1). As children of truth, shun 
dissension. Follow the shepherd, lest ye be devoured by wolves (§ 2). 
Abstain from noxious herbs, which are not of Christ’s husbandry. Be 
united with the bishop, that ye may be owned by God. No schismatic 
shall inherit the kingdom (§ 3). Be partakers in one eucharist. ‘There 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 247 


is one flesh, one cup, of Jesus Christ, one altar, one bishop (§ 4). 1 
love you heartily, and therefore I warn you. By your prayers I hope 
to be made perfect, while I cling to the Gospel and the Apostles. We 
love the Prophets also, for they foretold Christ and were saved through 
Him (§ 5). Turn a deaf ear to Judaism. Whosoever speaks not of 
Christ, is no better than a gravestone. Flee from these snares of the 
devil. I thank God, that I oppressed no man, when I was with you 
(§ 6). They tried to mislead me in the flesh; but the Spirit cannot be 
misled. I told you plainly to obey your bishop and presbyters and 
deacons. It was the voice of the Spirit, enjoining unity (§ 7). I have 
done my best to promote harmony. God will forgive those who repent 
and return to unity. Men appeal to the archives against the Gospel ; 
I know no archives but Jesus Christ—His Passion and Resurrection 
(§ 8). The ancient priesthood was good; but the great High-priest is 
better. Patriarchs and Prophets must enter through Him as the door. 
The Prophets foretold ; the Gospel is the crown and fulfilment (ὃ 9).’ 

‘Your prayers have been answered. The Church of Syria has 
peace. Send a deacon to congratulate them. The nearer churches 
have sent bishops and presbyters also (§ 10). I thank God that you 
gave a welcome to Philo and Agathopus. May their enemies be for- 
given. The brethren at Troas salute you. I write by the hand of 
Burrhus. Farewell in Christ (§ 11).’ 


TTPOC ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΘΙΟ. 


'ITNATIOC, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεοῦ πα- 


TOS καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆ οὔση ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ τῆς 


3 le / > ε ,ὔ ΄ \ 
"Acias, ἠλεημένη Kal ἡδρασμένη ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ Kat 


ΠΡΟΟ Pidadeddeic | μαγνησιεῦσιν φιλαδελφεῦσιν ζγνάτιος G (the first word 
being the displaced subscription to the Epistle to the Magnesians which imme- 
diately precedes); ignatius philadelphicis L* ; τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς φιλαδελφεῖς 
(with the number S in the marg.) g; ad philadelphenses (the form uncertain) A. 


1 6 kal] See LZphes. inscr. 


‘IGNATIUS to the CHURCH OF PHIL- 
ADELPHIA, which is founded on godly 
concord and rejoices in the passion 
and resurrection of the Lord: greeting 
in the blood of Christ, if she is united 
with her bishop and clergy whom He 
ordained.’ 

προς midadceAdeic| Here the co- 
pies of the genuine Ignatius and of 
the interpolator’s text agree in 
taking the form Φιλαδελῴφεῖς, not 
Φιλαδελφηνοί. Steph. Byz., 5. ν. Φιλα- 
δέλφεια, after mentioning several 
places of the name, adds ὁ πολίτης 
Φιλαδελφεύς, τὸ δὲ Φιλαδελφηνὸς ἐπι- 
χώριον. This however refers pos- 
sibly not to all, but only to the last 
mentioned, the Philadelphia of Syria; 
for he adds οὕτω yap ᾿Ιώσηπος x’ τῆς 
᾿ἸΙουδαϊκῆς dpyatodoyias. Yet the same 
Josephus, who there (Avzé. xx. I. 1) 
uses Φιλαδελῴφηνοί, in an earlier pas- 
sage (xiii. 8. 1) has Φιλαδελφεῖς, both 
passages referring to the Syrian 
Philadelphia. The same variation oc- 


a Inco. Χριστοῦ] L; κυρίου “I. X. Gg; 


curs with regard to the Philadelphians 
of ‘Asia.’ In the coins we have con- 
stantly Φιλαδελφέων (Mionnet IV. p. 
97 sq, Suppl. VII. p. 397 sq), and once 
(perhaps by an error) Φιλαδελφείων 
(ιν. p. 103). In the inscriptions too 
the form is most commonly ®:Aa- 
deAdevs, e.g. C. Χ G. 3206, 3424, 
3425, 3426; but ῥεγιῶνος Φιλαδελφη- 
vis, no. 3436, and this must also 
have been the form in the mutilated 
inscription no. 3000. Joannes Lydus 
is styled Φιλαδελφεὺς in the head- 
ings of his works. So also it is 
written in Nicet. Chon. AZex. vii. τό, 
p. 341 sq (ed. Bonn.). In Suidas s. v. 
Σέξτος we have “Hpodorov τοῦ Φιλαδελ- 
gaiov, a form which seems not to 
occur elsewhere.. The Latins com- 
monly say Philadelphenus, Plin. WV. 
H.-v. 29 (30); Tac. Ann. 15 47. Bae 
the version of Ignatius has ‘ Phila- 
delphicis (-sis),’ and the version of 
the interpolated text ‘Ad Philadel- 
phienses’; while in the printed texts 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


249 


3 / 3 ΄σ / ΄σ΄ ΄ 
ἀγαλλιωμένη ἐν τῷ πάθει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ἀδιακρίτως 


Ves Fon τ δι 7 ? a , > 
καὶ ἐν Tn ἀναστάσει αὐτοῦ, πεπληροφορημένη ἐν παντὶ 


zesu christt domini nostri A. 
tuting ἐν ἀγάπῃ). 
om, A, 


τῆς ᾿Ασίας] GL: urbe asiae A; om. g (substi- 
3 ἡδρασμένῃ!] ἠδρασμένη (sic) G. 
4 ἀγαλλιωμένῃ] G3; ἀγαλλομένῃ g. 


Θεοῦ] Gg; 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν] GL* 


(but L, dominz ies christi) g* (prob. but the Gk Mss add ἰησοῦ or ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ). 
[A] omits τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν here and substitutes chrzsti for αὐτοῦ in the next clause. 


of Jerome Vzr. Zi. 16 it is ‘Ad 
Philadelpheos.’ 

2. Φιλαδελφίᾳ] The form Φιλα- 
δέλφεια with the diphthong appears 
im’ the inscriptions (eg. C. 7. G, 
1068, 3428 four times), and gene- 
rally in the best MSS of ancient 
writers ; comp. Moschop. Περὶ σχεδ. 
Ῥ. 121 Φιλαδέλφεια πόλις τὸ Hee δί- 
φθογγον, φιλαδελφία δὲ ἰῶτα (quoted 
ins Steph. ὅς 15. ν..; ed. Hase’ et 
Dind.). So too it is scanned in 
Anthol. Il. p. 450 Ἔκ Φιλαδελφείης 
ξεινήϊα «.7.A.; comp. also Anon, in 
Euseb. H. Z. v. 17, and Eusebius 
himself (speaking of this epistle) 
H. E. iii. 36 (though with a v. 1) 
Accordingly ‘it is written P/zladel- 
phea on the Puteoli marble C. 7. 2. 
x. 1624. In Apoc.i. 11, ill. 7, however 
the uncial MSS are generally agreed 
in the form Φιλαδελφία, and so it oc- 
curs on coins, Mionnet Iv. pp. 98, 100, 
Suppl. Vu. p. 399, and in an inscrip- 
tion C. 7. G. 9911; and with this 
spelling apparently it is found also 
in the Mss of Mart. Polyc.19. I have 
therefore retained this form, which 
alone appears in the Ignatian MSS. 

τῆς ᾿Ασίας] This town was one of 
several bearing this name. Another 
was in Isauria, a third in Egypt, a 
fourth (the ancient Rabbath-Ammon) 
in Palestine; see Steph. Byz. s. v. 
Thus here, as in the case of Tralles, 
τῆς ᾿Ασίας might have been added 
for the sake of identification, ‘ Asia’ 
being of course the Roman province 
(see Zrad/. inscr.). The same words 
however are added in most texts in 


the case of Ephesus, where such 
specification was unnecessary (see 
Ephes. inscr.). Politically Philadel- 
phia was in ‘Asia,’ but ethnographi- 
cally it was in Lydia (Dioscorid. az. 
Med. v. 130 (131) Φιλαδελφίας.. τῆς ἐν 
Λυδίᾳ, Steph. Byz. 5. v. πόλις Λυδίας, 
Ptol. ν. 2. 17, and the WVofztzae gene- 
rally), or in Mysia (Strabo xiii. 10, 
p- 628). 

3. ἠλεημένῃ] See the note Rom. 
inscr. Here it is used absolutely, 
‘having found mercy.’ 

ἡδρασμένῃ ἐν] For this construc- 
tion see Smyrn. 1, and possibly 
Polyc. 1 (see the note). 

ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ] See Magn. 6, with 
the note. 

4. ἀγαλλιωμένῃ κ-τ.λ.] ‘ rejotcing 
in the passion, i.e. ‘joyfully recog- 
nising it and the benefits derived 
from it.’ For the prominence of ‘the 
passion’ in these letters, see the note 
on Ephes. inscr. The connexion of 
“steadfastness in concord’ and ‘rejoic- 
ing in the Passion’ is to be noticed. 
The Docetic teaching at once threat- 
ened the unity of the Church and 
assailed the reality of Christ’s death. 

ἀδιακρίτως] ‘without wavering’; 
comp. Rom. inscr. πεπληρωμένοις χά- 
ριτος Θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως (with the note), 
and see also the note on ἀδιάκριτον 
Ephes. 3. 

5. καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει κιτ.λ.}] This 
is perhaps best taken with the pre- 
ceding words ἀγαλλιωμένῃ «.7.0., rather 
than with the following πεπληροφο- 
ρημένῃς. For this co-ordination of 
the passion and the resurrection see 


250 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


c / 3 ἴων ~ / 
ἐλέει: ἣν ἀσπάζομαι ἐν αἵματι “Incov Χριστοῦ, ἡτις 
7 7 3. 3 CERUAN 
ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰώνιος Kal παράμονος" μάλιστα ἐαν ἐν ἑνι 


3 ΄- ro \ 3 ~ f 
ὦσιν σὺν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Kal τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ πρεσβυτέροις 


\ , ᾽ ὃ ὃ / 2 / | ~ x lo 
Kal διακόνοις ἀποδεδειγμένοις εν γνωμή ἴησον Ἄριστου, 


2 παράμονος] GAg; zncoinguinatum (ἄμωμος 3) L. 


ἐὰν ἐν évi ὦσιν] G3 sz 


in uno simus (v.1. sumus) 1, ; ἐν ἑνὶ wow σ᾽ (MSS, but prob. ἐὰν has been accidentally 
omitted); οἱ stetis in concordia A. For the change of persons in AL see the lower 


below ὃ 9, Zphes. 20, Magn. 11, 
Smyrn. 7, 12; comp. Smyrn. 1. 
There is however no objection to the 
construction πληροφορεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ 
ἀναστάσει ‘to be convinced of the 
resurrection’; comp. e.g. Magz. τι. 

πεπληροφορημένῃ κ-τ.λ.] ‘becng fully 
convinced,’ i.e. of their reality. On 
the meanings of πληροφορεῖν itself, 
and on its different connexions with 
ἐν, see the note Colosszans iv. 12 
πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι, 
where, as here, the preposition de- 
notes the sphere, the surroundings, 
of the conviction. Their firm belief 
was a manifestation of God’s mercy ; 
comp. the preceding ἠλεημένῃ καὶ 
ἡδρασμένῃ κ-τ.λ. 

I. ἀσπάζομαι ἐν αἵματι κιτ.λ.] 1.6. 
‘whom I greet,as ransomed with me 
and incorporate with Christ through 
His blood,’ again an indirect con- 
demnation of Docetism. Only those 
are included in his greeting who 
acknowledge with him the reality of 
Christ’s passion; see below § 4 εἰς 
ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, and comp. 
Ephes. 1 ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι 
Θεοῦ, Smyrn. 1 ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
ἐν τῷ αἵματι Χριστοῦ. 

ἥτις κιτιλ.] ‘seeing that Zt) i.e. 
αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the gender of the 
relative being thus attracted to χαρά, 
aS,e. S001. (Aa. 111. 51 Se comp. Winer 
§ xxiv. p. 206 sq. For similar in- 
stances of attraction in these epistles 
see the note Magu. 7. The blood 


of Jesus Christ, sincerely recognised 
in itself and in its practical conse- 
quences, is the source of all abiding 
joy. This is the simplest construc- 
tion. . Qn . the , other, hand), Zahn 
(J. v. A. p. 350) takes the antecedent 
to ἥτις to be the whole sentence ἀγαλ- 
λιωμένῃ κιτιλ. But the interposition 
of another feminine relative ἣν, re- 
ferring to a wholly different ante- 
cedent, and thus isolating ἥτις from 
the words in question, seems to me 
to be an insuperable objection to 
this construction, which otherwise 
would be very reasonable. 

2. παράμονος͵ Comp. £phes. inscr- 
eis δόξαν παράμονον x.t.’. The word 
occurs occasionally in _ classical 
writers, but not in the LXx or N.T. 

μάλιστα κιτ.λ] To be connected 
with ἀσπάζομαι x.r.A.; comp. Polyc. 
6 ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων 
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ K.T.A. 

ἐὰν κιτ.λ.] “27 they, i.e. the Phila- 
delphian Christians. He still uses 
the third person, because the address 
of the letter is not yet concluded ; 
see 2 Joh. 1 τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, con- 
trasted with ver. 4 τῶν τέκνων σου. 
The difficulty has occasioned the 
substitution of the first or second 
person in the versions, and the read- 
ing μάλιστα ἐν ἑνὶ ὦσιν in the inter- 
polator’s text. See the upper note. 

This sentence—a warning against 
dissension—is a sort of after-thought, 
which deranges the whole of the 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


251 


ε \ \ J ͵ > 
5 οὗς κατὰ TO ἴδιον θέλημα ἐστήριξεν ἐν βεβαιωσύνη τῷ 
έ έ 


ε 7 3 lon) / 
aylw αὐτου πνευματι. 


«ὁ 3 ᾽ 3 > ΄σ 
I. Ὃν ἐπίσκοπον ἔγνων οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲ δι᾽ 


note. 


3 σὺν αὐτῷ] GL; om. Ag. 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν x.7.d. afterwards) ; guz A (adding zos afterwards). 


5 ods] GL; ὃς [g] (adding 
Thus ὃς seems to 


have been an early corruption, which obliged Ag to supply the object to ἐστήριξεν 


in different ways. 


subsequent passage. After the words 
nv ἀσπάζομαι κιτιλ. would naturally 
have followed καὶ εὔχομαι πλεῖστα 
χαίρειν (comp. Magn. inscr., Tradl. 
inscr.). This however is forgotten; 
there is no opening benediction, such 
as we find in the other six letters; but 
instead of this Ignatius runs off into 
a justification of the Church officers 
thus accidentally mentioned (azode- 
δειγμένοις x.7.A.), and more especially 
into a eulogy of the bishop (ὃν ἐπί- 
σκοπον ἔγνων). 

4. ἀποδεδειγμένοι]͵ ‘designated, 
‘appointed to office’; comp. Susann. 
5 καὶ ἀπεδείχθησαν δύο πρεσβύτεροι 
ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ κριταί k.T.v.. a Very CoM- 
mon classical usage. This word 
refers to the nomination or election 
by the human agents—whether the 
congregation or the officers of the 
Church—as the following words ev 
γνώμῃ k.t.A. Show. 

ἐν γνώμῃ) i.e. ‘with the approval 
of’; comp. Lphes. 3 of ἐπίσκοποι ot 
κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ γνώμῃ εἰσίν (with the note). 

5. οὖς κατὰ κιτ.λ.] 1.6. Christ con- 
firmed and established in their office 
the persons so appointed through 
human agency by the gift of His 
Holy Spirit; where τὸ ἴδιον θέλημα 
is opposed to the ἀπόδειξις of man. 

I. ‘I know well that your bishop 
does not owe his office to any human 
appointment or any spirit of vain- 
glory, but to the love of God the 


θέλημα] (ἃ; βούλημα σ΄. 


7 οὐκ] οὐχ G. 


Father and of Christ. His gentle- 
ness overwhelms me; his silence is 
more powerful than the speech of 
others; for he is attuned to perfect 
harmony with the commandments, 
like the strings inalyre. Therefore 
I praise and bless his godly mind, 
knowing its virtues and perfections, 
its calmness and forbearance, which 
are of God.’ 

7. “Ov ἐπίσκοπον]! The relative 
refers to the previous σὺν τῷ ἐπι- 
σκόπῳ; but the antecedent being so 
distant, ἐπίσκοπον is added to make 
the reference clear. For the cause 
of the derangement in the sentence, 
which has given rise to this awk- 
wardness of expression, see the note 
on μάλιστα κιτιλ. above. The inter- 
polator has straightened the con- 
struction, Θεασάμενος ὑμῶν τὸν ἐπί- 
σκοπον ἔγνων K.T.A. 

ἔγνων] Ignatius had passed through 
Philadelphia on his way to Smyrna; 
see above p. 241, and § 6, 7 (with the 
notes). There is no indication in this 
letter or elsewhere, that the Phila- 
delphian bishop had visited him at 
Smyrna with the delegates of other 
churches. 

οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ x.r.A.] An obvious 
reflexion of Gal. i. 1 οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων 
οὐδὲ δ ἀνθρώπου, where see the note 
on the difference of prepositions. 
Neither did he himself originate 
(ἀπό), nor did other men confer (διά), 
the office which he held. 


252 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1 


ἀνθρώπων κεκτῆσθαι τὴν διακονίαν τὴν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν 
ἀνήκουσαν, οὐδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀγάπη Θεοῦ 
πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" οὗ καταπέπληγμαι 
τὴν ἐπιείκειαν, ὃς σιγών πλείονα δύναται τῶν λαλούν- 
των" συνευρύθμισται γὰρ ταῖς ἐντολαῖς, ὡς χορδαῖς 5 


1 διακονίαν] Gg; administrationem.L ; dispensationem (domus-administrationem 
=olxovoulav) A. There is no reason to suppose (with Petermann) that L read 
οἰκονομίαν. In L οἰκονομία elsewhere (Zphes. 6, 18, 20) is always dispensatio, 
whereas διακονία is rendered by mznzstratio in ὃ 10 below, Magn. 6, by mintsterium 
in Smyrn. 12, and by this very word admznistratio in Hero g. On the other hand 
the rendering of A certainly implies οἰκονομίαν, and we may suppose that this word 
was substituted in some texts, because διακονία seemed an unfit term to apply to 


a bishop. 
quae decet communem hominen. 
πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος κ.τ.λ. [g]. 


τὸ] gL; τὸν G, and this was also the reading of A, which translates 


2 Θεοῦ... Χριστοῦ] GLA ; Ἴ. X. καὶ θεου 
4 πλείονα] GL; πλέον g; al. A. 


τῶν λαλούντων] quam loguentes (rationales) A; τῶν μάταια λαλούντων GL; τῶν 


πλέον λαλούντων g* (the Gk Mss, but 1 om. πλέον). 


The Armenian word means 


properly ‘persons gifted with λόγος, i.e. ‘speech, reason, intelligence,’ and its em- 


I. εἰς τὸ Κοινὸν Κατ Δ] Comp. 
Smyrn. ὃ τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλη- 
σίαν. For the expression ἀνήκειν εἰς 
see the note on Clem. Rom. 45. The 
verb takes a dative in Clem. Rom. 35 
τὰ ἀνήκοντα TH ἀμώμῳ βουλήσει, 70. 
62 τῶν ἀνηκόντων τῇ θρησκείᾳ ἡμῶν, 
Herm. Szm. v. 2 ἀνήκουσαν th νη- 
στείᾳ, and so in Polyc. 7. 

2, οὐδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν] “7107. wth 
vain-glory. Add to this the expres- 
sion in § ὃ μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσ- 
σετε, and for both combined comp. 
Phil. 11. 3 μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν μηδὲ κατὰ 
κενοδοξίαν. For the different mean- 
ings of κενοδοξία see the note on 
Magn. τι. 

Θεοῦ] The subjective genitive, as 
the antithesis to οὐκ ad’ ἑαυτοῦ k.7.A. 
suggests; comp. 77ad/.6. God’s love 
conferred the office upon him. The 
genitive is perhaps objective in Rov. 
inscr. (see the note). 

3. οὗ] SC. Tov ἐπισκόπου. 

4. ἐπιείκειαν] ‘ modesty, modera- 
tion, forbearance. See the notes 
on Clem. Rom. 58, Ign. Zphes. 10. 


There is an oxymoron in καταπέ- 
πληγμαῖι, Since ἐπιείκεια is the quality 
to reassure, not to dismay. Similarly 
in the following clause silence 15 said 
to be more eloquent than speech. 
Comp. “/phes. 6 ὅσον βλέπει τις σι- 
γῶντα ἐπίσκοπον, πλειόνως αὐτὸν φο- 
βείσθω. See the note there. 

ὃς σιγῶν κιτ.λ.}] So Carlyle says of 
Cromwell (2275 and Letters, Introd. 
c. 2) ‘His words—still more his 
silences and unconscious instincts, 
when you have spelt and lovingly 
deciphered these also out of his 
words—will in several ways reward 
the study of an earnest man.’ 
Comp. Aristoph. Raz. 913 sq. οἱ δ᾽ 
ἐσίγων. AIO. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἔχαιρον τῇ σιωπῇ 
καί με τοῦτ᾽ ἔτερπεν οὐχ ἧττον ἢ νῦν οἱ 
λαλοῦντε. The interpolator and 
transcribers have enfeebled the ex- 
pression by inserting πλέον or μάταια. 
The editors have retained the latter, 
apparently without misgiving. 

5. συνευρύθμισται] ‘2s tuned in 
harmony with’; comp. Ephes. 4 τὸ 


ο , κ 
οὐ πρεσβυτέριον.. οὕτως συνήρμοσται τῷ 


1] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


κιθάρα. 


253 


A / 
διὸ μακαρίζει μον ἡ ψυχὴ τὴν εἰς Θεὸν αὐ- 


qa / \ ΕἸ 7 \ / Φ' 
τοῦ γνώμην, ἐπιγνοὺς ἐνάρετον καὶ τέλειον οὖσαν, τὸ 


Α΄. 3 ~ \ \ Pa 4 qn > 
AKLYNTOV αὐτου Kat TO aopynTov [αὐτοῦ] ἐν πάση ἐπι- 
t 


εικείᾳα Θεοῦ ζῶντος. 


ployment here is a proof that the translator had’ neither πλέον nor μάταια in his 
text. The evidence of 1 seems to show that πλέον was omitted in the original text of 
g. See the lower note. 5 συνευρύθμισται] G; patiens est et concordans est A; 
συνήρμοσται £3; concordes estis (cvvevpvOmobe?) L*. χορδαῖς κιθάρα] GL; 


chordae citharae (χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ or κιθάραϑ) A: χορδαὶ τῇ κιθάρᾳ g. 6 εἰς 
Θεὸν] GLg; divinam (ἔνθεον Ὁ) A; comp. the v. 1. in 7 γα. 8. ἡ τέ- 
λειον]} G; τελείαν g. 8 αὐτοῦ sec.] G; om. Lg; al. A. 9 ζῶντος] 


Glg. The rendering of A is σεῖο guod perfecta est (om. évdperov) ea et non unguam 
conturbatur et trascitur sed vivit omni humilitate cum deo (per deum). Petermann 
suggests that the translator read ¢@v for ζῶντος, or that he misunderstood the Syriac 
son NMOS ‘dei viventis,’ separating the last word and interpreting it vvit. But 
a third solution seems at least as probable. May not the Syriac translator himself 
have separated ζῶντος from Θεοῦ and connected it with αὐτοῦ ἢ See the lower note. 


ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ KiOapa. Here 
however the metaphor is not so 
clear. It is not easy to see in what 
sense the harp as a whole can be 
said to harmonize with the several 
strings; and, even if this difficulty 
were waived, the application of the 
metaphor is not good. Perhaps we 
should read χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ, as some 
authorities suggest. For ταῖς évro- 
Aais, used absolutely, see the note 
on Zral/. 13. If the lexicons may 
be trusted, not only is συνευρυθμίξειν 
a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, but neither εὐρυθ- 
μίζω nor συνεύρυθμος occurs else- 
where. 

6. τὴν eis Θεὸν κιτ.λ.}] The same 
expression occurs Rom. 7: comp. 
Polyc. τ cov τὴν ἐν Θεῷ γνώμην. 

7. ἐνάρετον]! The word does not 
ΘΕΟΊ im the*Lxx or N. -T., but’ is 
found in 4 Macc. xi. 5, and in 
Clem. Rom. 62 τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων 
eis ἐνάρετον βίον. It is a favourite 
word with the Stoics; see Phryn. 
p- 328 (Lobeck) παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς 
κυκλεῖται τοὔνομα, οὐκ ὃν ἀρχαῖον, With 
Lobeck’s note. 


τέλειον] Here an adjective of two 
terminations, as e.g. Plat. Phaedr. p. 
249 C, Leg. x. p. 951 B, Aristot. 277: 
ἡ δ: va τῇ (ps °1153)¢ Pele cae 
1252), and frequently. Compare 67- 
λος [Clem. Rom.] ii. 12. 

τὸ ἀκίνητον κιτ.λ.] In apposition to 
τὴν εἰς Θ. αὐτοῦ γνώμην, as explaining 
it. Ignatius here runs into Stoic 
phraseology (see the note on ἐνάρετον 
above). For ἀόργητος see the note 
on Clem. Rom. 19. 

9. Θεοῦ ζῶντος] 1.6. ‘inspired by 
a living God.’ There is not however 
much force in the epithet here, and 
perhaps ζῶντος should be separated 
from Θεοῦ and taken with αὐτοῦ, 
as the Armenian Version suggests ; 
comp. ὃ 3 ἵνα ὦσιν κατὰ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν 
ζῶντες. 

II. ‘Therefore as children of 
truth, avoid dissension and false- 
teaching. Where the shepherd is 
there let the sheep follow; for many 
wolves are prowling about, ready to 
seize the stragglers in the race of 
God. But they will have no place, 
so long as you are at unity.’ 


254 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


II. Τέκνα οὖν [φωτὸς] ἀληθείας, φεύγετε τὸν μερι- 
σμὸν καὶ τὰς κακοδιδασκαλίας" ὅπου δὲ ὁ ποιμήν ἐστιν, 


σ- ς σ΄ \ / 3 
ἐκεῖ ὡς πρόβατα ἀκολουθεῖτε: πολλοὶ γὰρ λύκοι ἀξιό- 


1 Τέκνα] GLA Dam-Rup 5; ὡς τέκνα g. 
inserts δ) σ᾽ Dam-Rup; /uczs et veritatis A. 
is older than any existing authorities, though probably corrupt. 
ever is not to insert a καὶ, as is commonly done: see the lower note. 
(but the Casanatensian transcript has μὲν) g Dam-Rup; autem L; et A. 
οὐχ ἕξουσιν] Gg; non habent L; non est tllis A (but the ᾿ 


τητι] ἑνώτητι G. 


φωτὸς ἀληθείας] GL* (but a ν. I. 
It is clear therefore that φωτὸς ἀληθείας 
The remedy how- 
2 δὲ] α 


5 ἑνό- 


freedom elsewhere used by A in translating the Syriac future deprives it of weight). 


I, Τέκνα κιτ.λ.] Τέκνα φωτὸς Oc- 
curs, Ephes. v. 8; υἱοὶ [τοῦ] φωτός, 
Luke xvi. 8, John xii. 36, 1 Thess. v. 
5. The reading of the Greek MSS 
φωτὸς ἀληθείας, ‘of the light of truth,’ 
cannot stand; for definite articles 
would almost certainly be required. 
The text might be mended by in- 
serting a καί, as the Armenian Ver- 
sion gives ‘light and truth.” On 
such a point however a version has 
little weight, since this would be a 
very obvious expedient for a trans- 
lator. I am disposed to think that 
τέκνα ἀληθείας was the original read- 
ing of Ignatius; and that φωτὸς was 
first intended as a substitution or a 
gloss or a parallel, suggested by the 
familiar scriptural phrase τέκνα (υἱοὶ) 
φωτός. 

μερισμὸν] So again δὲ 3, 7, 8, 
Smyrn. ὃ. The word occurs both 
in the LXx, and in the N. T. (Heb. 
lil. 4, iv. 12), but not in this sense. 

2. κακοδιδασκαλίας] See [Clem. 
Rom.] ii. 10 κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες, with 
the note. 

5. λύκοι]. 950. 9. Paul, Acts xx: 
29 λύκοι βαρεῖς...μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ 
ποιμνίου ; comp. John Χ. 12. In ἀξιό- 
πίστοι there is perhaps an allusion 
to the ‘sheep’s clothing’ of Matt. 
vii. 15 (comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 35, 
Iren. i. praef. 1, Clem. Alex. Progr. τ. 
p- 4). For the metaphor see also 
Epictetus Déss. ili. 22. 35 ri οὖν εἶ: 


ποιμὴν ταῖς ἀληθείαις. οὕτω yap κλάεις, 
ὡς οἱ ποιμένες, ὅταν λύκος ἁρπάσῃ τι 
τῶν προβάτων αὐτῶν" καὶ οὗτοι δὲ πρό- 
Bara εἶσιν οἱ ὑπὸ σοῦ ἀρχόμενοι : Comp. 
26. 1. 3. 7 οἱ μὲν.. «λύκοις ὅμοιοι γινόμε- 
θα, ἄπιστοι καὶ ἐπίβουλοι καὶ βλαβεροί:" 
οἱ δὲ λέουσιν κιτιλ. Rhodon (in Euseb. 
H. ΖΦ. ν. 13) calls Marcion ὁ Ποντικὸς 
λύκος, and at a later date it is not un- 
common as a designation of heretics. 

ἀξιόπιστοι] ‘specious, plausible, de- 
cettful,’ as in Polyc. 3 (where how- 
ever the bad sense is not so directly 
prominent); comp. 77adZ. 6. καταξιο- 
πιστευόμενοι (with the note). Suidas 
distinguishes between the earlier and 
later sense of this word, ᾿Αξιόπιστος 
οὐχὶ ὁ κατάπλαστος λέγεται ὑπὸ τῶν 
παλαιῶν καὶ τερατείᾳ χρώμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ 
πιστὸς καὶ δόκιμος καὶ ἀξιόχρεως. For 
this later and bad sense comp. 
Lpist. ad Diogn. ὃ τοὺς κενοὺς καὶ 
ληρώδεις ἐκείνων λόγους ἀποδέχῃ τῶν 
ἀξιοπίστων φιλοσόφων, Lucian Alex. 
4 πιθανὴν καὶ ἀξιόπιστον καὶ ὑποκριτι- 
κὴν τοῦ βελτίονος, Charito iv. 9 ἐμνη- 
μόνευσε Καλλιρόης ἀξιοπίστῳ τῷ προσ- 
ὥπῳ (comp. 24. i. 4), Apollon. in 
Euseb. H. £. v. 18 Θεμίσων ὁ τὴν 
ἀξιόπιστον πλεονεξίαν ἠμφιεσμένος. 
So too ἀξιοπιστία, Joseph. .δ. F. ii. 
13. 3 παντάπασιν ὑπ᾽ ἀξιοπιστίας ἦσαν 
ἀνεύρετοι, Tatian ad Graec. 25 κεκρα- 
yos δημοσίᾳ per’ ἀξιοπιστίας, Aristid. 
Art. Rhet. i. 4 (Of. Ale p. 745, ‘ed. 


Dind.) ἀξιοπιστίας δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐπικατα- 


1] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


30 


e ΄σ ~ 5) / \ , 
πιστοι ἡδονῆ κακῇ αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν τοὺς θεοδρόμους" 
> Bid oN) A / ε -~ 3 / / 
5 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν TY ἑνότητι ὑμῶν οὐχ ἕξουσιν τόπον. 


IL. 


7 ~ ~ ~ e 
᾿λπέχεσθε τῶν κακῶν βοτανῶν, ἅστινας οὐ 


a δ - X / ὃ \ \ \ 5 3 \ 7 
γεώργει Ιησους ἄριστος, Ola TO μὴ εἰναι αὐτοὺς φυτείαν 


6 ᾿Απέχεσθε] GL[Dam-Rup]; add. οὖν g; jam (ergo) A (prob. representing οὖν, 


if it be not an insertion of a translator or of a scribe). 


ἅστινας οὐ γεωργεῖ 


I. X.] GL; ἅστινας Ἶ. Χ. οὐ γεωργεῖ g; ὧν χριστὸς ἰησοῦς οὐ γεωργεῖ Dam-Rup (so 
the Ms, but Lequien omits οὐ); guas dominus noster iesus christus non plantavit A 


(omitting the rest of the sentence). 


αὐτοὺς] Gg* (Mss, though edd. 


read αὐτάς) Dam-Rup; zsos L (not isas, as commonly given); def. A. There is 


therefore no authority for αὐτάς. 


ψεύδεσθαι (with the whole chapter, 
which treats of ἀξιοπιστία in all its 
forms); and ἀξιοπίστως, Polyb. iii. 33. 
17 τοῖς ἀξιοπίστως ψευδομένοις (Comp. 
ΧΙ]. 9. 3, XXVill. 4. 10), Tatian ad Graec. 
2 ἀξιοπίστως ἠσωτεύσατο, Joseph. δ. 
F. 1. 25. 2, Anon. in Euseb. ZH. £&. 
v. 16. In this sense the word differs 
from πιθανός, as implying a show 
of severe honesty or downrightness. 
It is frequently found however in a 
good sense, even in late writers, e.g. 
ἡ ον c Af70n.!1¢-/1,) 20;\ 11. 37, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 2 (p. 327), ii. 5, 
6 (pp. 442, 445), vil. 8, 9 (p. 862). 
The manner in which it slips into a 
bad sense will appear from Clem. 
Alex. Paed. 111. 11 (p. 302) μὴ μόνον 
εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀξιοπίστους φα- 
νῆναι. 

4. ἡδονῇ κακῇ] This is the bait 
which they hold out to their victims ; 
see the parallel passage Tyad/. 6, 
where the same phrase occurs. 

αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν] As in 2 Tim. iii. 
6; and so Iren. I. praef. 1 διὰ ris 
πανούργως συγκεκροτημένης πιθανότητος 
.««.«αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν αὐτούς (comp. 76. 
i. 3. 6), quoted by Pearson. In all 
these cases it is said of the machina- 
tions of heretical teachers. 

Oeodpomous| ‘the runners in the 
stadium of God, who is the great 
ἀγωνοθέτης. It is the metaphor of 


φυτείαν] φυτίαν G, 


the Christian δρόμος, which occurs 
so frequently in S. Paul; see the 
note on fom. 2, and comp. also 
Clem. Rom. 6, 7, [Clem. Rom.] ii. 7 
(with the notes). The idea-here is 
much the same as in Gal. v. 7 ἐτρέ- 
χετε καλῶς" Tis ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν; The 
word θεοδρόμος occurs again Polyc. 7, 
but in a somewhat different sense, 
*God’s courier.’ 

5. ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι κιτ.λ.] ‘So long 
as you are united, they will find no 
place for their machinations.’ 

III. ‘Beware of these false teach- 
ers, as of noxious weeds, which were 
not planted by the Father and are 
not tilled by Christ. Not that I found 
any dissension among you, but on 
the contrary purity of faith. Those 
who belong to God and Christ attach 
themselves to the bishop; and those 
too, who repent and enter again into 
the unity of the Church, are owned 
by God and live after Christ. Be 
not deceived. No man who follows 
a leader of schism can inherit the 
kingdom of God. He, who adheres 
to a false doctrine, dissevers himself 
from the Passion.’ 

6. βοτανῶν] ‘weeds. See the 
note on Zya//. 6, where the same 
metaphor occurs. 

7. γεωργεῖ] Comp. John xv. 1 
ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ yewpyos ἐστιν, I Cor. iil. 


256 


πατρός. 


διυλισμόν. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


οὐχ OTL παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μερισμὸν εὑρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπο- 
¢ \ ~ 3 > ~ an 
ὅσοι yap Θεοῦ εἰσιν καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 


τ \ ΄σ / \ e/ 3\ / 
οὗτοι μετὰ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰσίν" Kal ὅσοι ἂν μετανοη- 


of > \ \ ς / ΄σ 9 ͵ \ 
σαντες ἔλθωσιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ 


se: fa YA / 53 \ ;Ἴ ~ Χ \ 
οὗτοι Θεοῦ ἔσονται, ἵνα wow Kata ᾿Ιησοὺν ἄριστον 


I πατρός] Gg; τοῦ πατρὸς Rup. 


ἀποδιυλισμόν] abstractionem L (comp. Rom. 


inscr. ἀποδιυλισμένοις, translated adbstractis); ἀποδιυλισμένον G; clamor A; def. g. 
The rendering of A is explained by Zahn ἢ v. A. p.270. The same Syriac root bby 
signifies colare (διυλίζειν, e.g. Pesh. Matt. xxiii. 24) and clarum sonitum reddere; see 


Bernstein Lex. Syr. Chrestom. s. v. 
det sunt A; χριστοῦ εἰσιν [6]. 


9 Θεοῦ γεώργιον...ἐστε. Here the 
Father is represented as planting 
the field and as sending Christ to 
till it. 

αὐτούς] i.e. ‘these heretical teach- 
ers,’ who are intended by the κακαὶ 
Boravai. ‘The reading is certainly 
αὐτούς, not αὐτάς (see the critical 
note); and the sudden change to 
the masculine is the same here as in 
the parallel passage, Zval/. 11 φεύ- 
γετε οὖν τὰς κακὰς παραφυάδας... οὗτοι 
γὰρ οὔκ εἰσιν φυτεία πατρός. 

φυτείαν πατρός] A reference to 
Matt. xv. 13 πᾶσα φυτεία, ἣν οὐκ 
ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ μου K.T-A., aS In the 
parallel passage 7γαζί. 11 already 
cited. There is also doubtless an in- 
direct reference to the parable of the 
tares sown by the Evil One, Matt. 
xiii. 24 sq. This reference has been 
seen by the interpolator; for to the 
words διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτοὺς φυτείαν 
πατρός he adds ἀλλὰ σπέρμα τοῦ 
πονηροῦ. 

I. οὐχ ὅτι] This sentence must 
be taken as parenthetical. Ignatius 
guards against appearing to censure 
the Philadelphians in what he has 
said. The words ὅσοι yap x.t.A. are 
connected with the previous sen- 
tence, ἅστινας. «πατρός. For this cor- 
rective ovx ore see the note on 
Magn. 3. 


2 Θεοῦ εἰσιν καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS,; 


6 ἀδελφοί μου] GLS, Dam-Rup 1 Anon Syr; 


εὗρον] “7 found.” This implies that 
Ignatius had himself visited Phila- 
delphia; see above p. 241, and the 
notes on δ) I ὃν ἐπίσκοπον ἔγνων, ὃ 6 
ὅτι ἐβάρησα κιτ.λ., ὃ 7 ἐκραύγασα μετ- 
αξὺ ov. 

ἀποδιυλισμόν] ‘filtration.’ See the 
note on fom. inscr. ἀποδιυλισμένοις 
ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος. The 
false teachers had been at Philadel- 
phia; but the Philadelphian Chris- 
tians had strained out these dregs 
of heresy. They had separated them- 
selves from the heretics; but this 
separation deserved the name of 
‘filtering,’ rather than of ‘ division.’ 

2. Θεοῦ εἰσιν] For this phrase 
see the note on Ephes. 5. 

5. κατὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν κιτιλ.] So again 
Magn. 8. Similarly, κατὰ χριστια- 
vopov ζῆν Magn. το, κατὰ Θεὸν ζῆν 
Ephes. 8, κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ζῆν Ephes. 6, 
κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῆν Magn. 9, κατὰ ἰου- 
δαισμὸν ζῆν Magn. 8, κατὰ ἀνθρώπους 
ζῆν Trall. 2, Rom. 8. 

6. μὴ πλανᾶσθε] As in I Cor. 
Vig OjeXV. 0 33;0Galiuvi.w, James 1.606 
Here the phrase is clearly suggested 
by 1 Cor. vi. 9 sq, whence the words 
βασίλειαν Θεοῦ ov KAnpovopet also are 
borrowed. Comp. “2145. τό, where 
there is the same connexion of 
phrases suggested by S. Paul’s lan- 


guage. 


5 


111] 


ζώντες. 
ἀκολουθεῖ, 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


BaciAelan Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομεῖ: εἴ 


257 


pn πλανάσθε, ἀδελφοί pour εἴ τις σχίζοντι 


TAS 


> > £ / ΄σ ε ~ 7 > 
ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ γνώμῃ περιπατεῖ, οὗτος τῷ παθέει οὐ συγ- 


7 
κατατίθεται. 


/ s A 3 A 
IV. Crovdacate οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι: 


(but for the Syriac authorities see Clem. Rom. ii. 8 13); /vatres (here) A; 
σχίζοντι)] txt GL Dam-Rup; add. ἀπὸ τῆς 


(before μὴ πλανᾶσθε) g. 


ἀδελφοί 


ἀληθείας [5]; add. ecclestam Anon-Syr,; add. ecclesiam dei S); separatoris ec- 


clesiae A. 
haereditabit S,. 


7 κληρονομεῖ] GLA Dam-Rup Anon-Syr,; κληρονομήσει g; 
The future is taken from S. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. Ὁ, 10, Gal. v. 21. 


8 τῷ πάθει] GL; add. chrésti S,A. The sentence is paraphrased in g, οὗτος οὐκ 
ἔστιν χριστοῦ οὔτε τοῦ πάθους αὐτοῦ κοινωνός. 


σχίζοντι] ‘making a rent, ‘causing 
a schism. For this absolute use of 
σχίζειν comp. Orig. Comm. in Matth. 
x. ὃ τό (III. p. 462) οὐ σχίζων ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτῆς (1.6. τῆς συναγωγῆς), Dion. Alex. 
Ep. ad. Novat. (in Euseb. H. £. vi. 
45) ἕνεκεν τοῦ μὴ σχίσαι, passages 
referred to in E. A. Sophocles Lex. 
s.v. It is not so used in the LXx 
or NT. 

ὃ, ἀλλοτρίᾳ] ‘strange, i.e. ‘here- 
tical? as in Zyval/. 6 ἀλλοτρίας Bo- 
ravns, Rom. inscr. ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος, 
Papias in Euseb. ZH. £. ill. 39 τοῖς 
Tas ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσιν. 
So too ἕένος, Heb. xill. 9. 

τῷ πάθει] See the note on Ephes. 
inscr. 

ov συγκατατίθεται] ‘has no part or 
agreement with, ‘ dissoctates himself 
from’; Exod. xxiii. 1, 32, Susann. 20, 
Luke xxiii. 51; comp. συγκατάθεσις 
2 Cor. vi. 16. The full phrase would 
be συγκατατίθεσθαι ψῆφον, or κλῆρον, 
‘to cast in one’s vote or lot with.’ 
It is a good classical word. The 
meaning of Ignatius here is ex- 
plained by the following sentence, 
σπουδάσατε μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι. 
These heretics separated themselves 
and set up a eucharistic feast of 
their own. By thus severing them- 
selves from the true eucharist of the 


ΤΟΝ ὙΠ’ 


Church, they severed themselves 
from the passion of Christ and all 
the benefits flowing therefrom ; see 
Smyrn. 6 with the note. 

IV. ‘Therefore take care to keep 
oneeucharistic feast only ; for Christ’s 
flesh is one and His blood is one; 
there is one altar and one bishop 
with his priests and deacons. Do 
this, and ye will do after God’s 
bidding.’ 

10. μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ x.t.d.] Comp. 
Smyrn. ὃ τοὺς δὲ μερισμοὺς φεύγετε 

«μηδεὶς χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου τὶ πρασσέ- 
τω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν" 
ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω ἡ ὑπὸ 
τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, κιτιλ. The heretics 
disobeyed this rule. These passages 
in Ignatius (comp. also Smyrn. 6, 
and perhaps 2145. 13) are the 
earliest instances of εὐχαριστία ap- 
plied to the Holy Communion ex- 
cept perhaps Doctr. Afost. 9 περὶ δὲ 
τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτως εὐχαρισ- 
τήσατε κιτιλ.: comp. Justin Martyr 
Apol. 1 64,65 (ps SF sq) μεταλαβεῖν 
ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος 4 ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου 
«καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται 
τὴν Ou εὐχῆς 


καὶ ὕδατος... 
παρ᾽ ἡμῖν evxaptoria.. 
λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖ. 
σαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ 
μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ 
σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ 


17 


258 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[1v 


ἴω A A ‘ed eX 

μία γὰρ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕν 
ε aA ε A «Δ 7 

ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ" ἕν θυσιαστή- 


ς Ὁ 2 7 « A / \ 
ριον, ὡς εἷς ἐπίσκοπος, ἅμα TH πρεσβυτερίῳ καὶ δια- 


σι e/ eX 5. , \ 
KOVOLS τοῖς συνδούλοις ou’ ἵνα ὃ ἐαν TPAaTONTE, κατα 


Θεὸν πράσσητε. 


2 εἰς ἕνωσιν] GL; concordiae S,; om. A; al. g. 


3 ws] G; ὦ L (but 


perhaps we should read w¢; see the converse error in Rom. 4, and comp. Lfhes. 21); 


sicut et A; καὶ [6]. 
κόνοις [g]. 


αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι (comp. Deal. 
117, p. 345), Iren. iv. 18. 5 mar de 
σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη TH εὐχαριστίᾳ... 
ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανό- 
μενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκέτι 
κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία, 
κιτιὰλ., Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2 (p. 178) 
εὐχαριστία κέκληται, χάρις ἐπαινουμένη 
καὶ καλή, Orig. c. Cels. vill. 57 ἔστι 
δὲ σύμβολον ἡμῖν τῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν 
εὐχαριστίας, ἄρτος εὐχαριστία καλού- 
μενος ; comp. Tertull. ad. Marc. i. 23 
‘super alienum panem alii deo gra- 
tiarum actionibus fungitur.’ On the 
question whether the eucharist was 
at this time still connected with 
the agape or not, see the note on 
Smyrn. ὃ. 

With this passage compare I Cor. 
xl. 18, 20 πρῶτον μὲν yap συνερχο- 
μένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσ- 
ματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν... .συνερχομένων 
οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, οὐκ ἔστιν κυ- 
ριωκὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν «tA. The 
heretics of Ignatius’ time violated 
this bond of union, though not in 
the same way, but by holding sepa- 
rate eucharistic feasts; see the note 
on Smyrn. 6, 8. 

I. μία yap σὰρξ «.t.A.]| Doubtless 
suggested by 1 Cor. x. 16, 17 τὸν 
ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία Tod 
σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ὅτι εἷς 
ἄρτος, ἕν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν᾽ οἱ 
γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν. 
The ‘one flesh’ here is the one 


Should we read ws καὶ with A? 
6 ᾿Αδελῴφοί μου] not omitted in A, as stated by Petermann; but 


dvaxdvors] G3 τοῖς δια- 


eucharistic loaf betokening the union 
in the one body of Christ. 

2. εἰς ἕνωσιν] ‘unto unity, i.e. ‘so 
that all may be one by partaking of 
‘His own blood.” For the word 
ἕνωσις see the note on Magu. 1. 

ἕν θυσιαστήριον] Comp. Cyprian 
Epist.. xiii. 5. (ps 504, Hartel) 
‘Aliud altare constitui aut sacerdo- 
tium novum fieri praeter unum altare 
et unum sacerdotium non potest. 
Quisque alibi collegerit, spargit.’ It 
would be an anachronism to suppose 
that Ignatius by the ‘altar’ here 
means the ‘Lord’s table.’ Even in 
Irenzeus, though he is distinctly 
speaking of the eucharist in the 
context (see the passage quoted 
above), yet only a spiritual altar is 
recognised ; //aer. iv. 18. 6 ‘offerimus 
eum ei, non quasi indigenti sed 
gratias agentes [εὐχαριστοῦντες] do- 
minationi ejus et sanctificantes crea- 
turam...sic et ideo nos quoque offerre 
vult munus ad altare frequenter sine 
intermissione. Est ergo altare in 
caelis (illuc enim preces nostrae et 
oblationes diriguntur) et templum, 
etc.’ Compare also the passages of 
Clement and Origen quoted in the 
note on “~hes. 5, and see PAzlip- 
pians p. 265 sq. Probably Ignatius 
here means by the term (to use 
Clement’s definition) the ἄθροισμα 
τῶν ταῖς εὐχαῖς ἀνακειμένων. See the 


notes on Lfhes. 5, Ἵγαζθ 7. For 


v] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 259 


, ἢ , τς πλὴν δ 

V. ᾿Αλδελφοί μον, λίαν ἐκκέχυμαι ἀγαπῶν ὑμᾶς, 
καὶ ὑπεραγαλλόμενος ἀσφαλίζομαι ὑμᾶς: οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ, 
3 lan / © ΄σ ΄σ 
ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ἐν ᾧ δεδεμένος φοβοῦμαι μᾶλλον, 


ς oS \ 9 “ ? Shite AW Pie ΄ > 
Ws ETL ὧν ἀναπάρτιστος. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν Ϊ εἰς 

/ Ie / ΩΣ 
Θεόν] με ἀπαρτίσει, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ 


/ 9 / 7 
ὁ κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην ἐπιτύχω, 
attached to the former sentence. 9 dvamrdprictos] gLA; ἀνάρπαστος G, 
eis Θεόν] Gg; om. L [A]. Io κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην] GL; ἐκλήθην g. The read- 
ing of GL seems to underlie the rendering of A, which paraphrases the sentence 


loosely zta ut dignus fiam hac portione et in ea reguiescam. 


a 


o 


different applications of the image 
see Magn. 7, Rom. 2 (with the notes). 

3. πρεσβυτερίῳ] See the note on 
Ephes. 2. 

4. συνδούλοις] See the note on 
Ephes. 2. 

κατὰ Θεὸν] See the note on Magn. 
io 

V. ‘Brethren, my love for you is 
unbounded, and I wish therefore to 
warn you—yet not I, but Jesus 
Christ, whose prisoner I am, anxious 
and fearful as yet, because not yet 
made perfect. But your prayers will 
perfect me, so that in God’s mercy 
this my lot may be fulfilled, and I 
may obtain the martyr’s crown. I 
cling to the Gospel as the flesh of 
Christ, and to the Apostles as the 
presbyters of the Church. Yes, and 
we love the prophets also, because 
they foretold the Gospel and awaited 
the coming of Christ. Thus they 
were saved by faith through union 
with Him, being worthy of all love 
and honour; to whom also Christ 
bore witness, and who are enrolled 
in the Gospel of our common hope.’ 

6. ἐκκέχυμαι)] Implying profuse 
demonstrations of love, as not un- 
frequently, e.g. Arist. Vesp. 1469, 
Lucian Sa/¢. 81, Polyb. v. 106. 7 eis 
πάντας τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἐξεκέχυντο, 1.6. 
‘were lavish in their loyalty and 
devotion’; see also Clem. Alex. 


Prou..2(p;.27). So.the Latin tet 
fundi,’ e.g. Cic. Azt. iv. 9 ‘in nos 
vero suavissime hercule est effusus.’ 

7. ὑπεραγαλλόμενος)]) So ὑπερδο- 
Eatew Polyc. 1, ὑπερεπαινεῖν Ephes. 6. 

ἀσφαλίζομαι] ‘2 warn you, ‘put 
you on your guard’ The word 
means properly ‘to shut up fast, 
‘to make secure for oneself, e.g. 
PAX Neh.). 111: 15,. Wisd. oxen 
comp. Clem. Hom. ii. 45 ὁ τὸ περιέ- 
Xov σῶμα ἐν ἀπείρῳ πελάγει πνεύματι 
βουλῆς ἀσφαλισάμενος. See Bekker 
Anecd. p. 456 τὸ ἀσφαλίζεσθαι βαρ- 
βαρον. It is however acommon word 
from Polybius downward. 

8. ἐν ᾧ δεδεμένος] Comp. ὃ 7, 
Ephes. 3, Trail. 1, Rom. τος For the 
feeling of Ignatius respecting his 
bonds see the notes on “Pes. 3, 11, 
Magn. τ. 

φοβοῦμαι μᾶλλον] Comp. Trall. 4 
νῦν γάρ pe δεῖ πλέον φοβεῖσθαι. 

9. ἀναπάρτιστος] See the parallel 
passage 2165. 3 εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι 
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, οὔπω ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. The word ἀναπάρ- 
τιστος occurs Diog. Laert. vii. 63. It 
is vain in the face of the authorities, 
the requirements of the context, and 
the parallel passage, to attempt with 
Voss to defend ἀνάρπαστος here. 

10. ἀπαρτίσε]͵ The word was 
condemned as a solcecism by the 
purists; but the condemnation must 


17—2 


260 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v 


\ o 4h x A > ~ \ ~ 
προσφυγων Tw εὐαγγελίῳ ws σαρκὶ ᾿Ϊησοῦ καὶ Tots 


1 Ἰησοῦ] GL; ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ g; christi A. 


be taken with some qualification. It 
is used several times by Aristotle. 
See Lobeck Phryn. p. 447 sq. 

κλήρῳ] Of martyrdom; see the 
note 77all, 12. 

ἠλεήθην] After S. Paul’s manner of 
speaking, 2 Cor. iv. I καθὼς ἠλεήθη- 
μεν, οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν, I Tim. i. 13, 16 
ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην.. «ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο HrEenOnv : 
comp. Rom. xi. 30, 31. ΟΙΘΟΙ Pet. 
li. 10. See also Rom. inscr. (note). 
For ἐλεεῖσθαι ἐν comp. Smyrn. inscr. 

ἐπιτύχω] The construction is ἵνα 
ἐπιτύχω TOU κλήρου ἐν ᾧ ἠλεήθην, ‘that 
I may secure, make good, the lot, 
in which (i.e. in the way of obtain- 
ing which) God’s mercy placed me’: 
comp. Zyvall. 12 τοῦ κλήρου οὗπερ 
ἔγκειμαι [MS οὗ περίκειμαι] ἐπιτυχεῖν, 
Rom. 1 εἰς τὸ τὸν κλῆρόν μου ἀνεμπο- 
δίστως ἀπολαβεῖν. Sotoo Mart. Polyc. 
6 τὸν ἴδιον κλῆρον ἀπαρτίσῃ. 

I. προσφυγὼν] This can hardly 
be connected with ἠλεήθην (as Zahn 
proposes /. v. A. p. 575), seeing that 
ἐπιτύχω intervenes. Nor is there 
any objection to connecting it with 
ἵνα... ἐπιτύχω. The participle here 
signifies not ‘by taking refuge,’ but 
‘inasmuch as I took refuge.’ In 
other words it is not necessarily part 
of the contingency implied in ἵνα. 

ὡς σαρκὶ k.7.A.] i.e. because it gives 
the earthly life, records the actual 
works of Christ, as the Logos zucar- 
mate; comp. ὃ 9 ἐξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχει 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθος 
αὐτοῦ, κιτιλ. The metaphor is eucha- 
ristic. Somewhat similarly Origen 
75. Le tT OMI Bie 5 KL, 1 Pos 225) 
interprets the words of John vi. 
53 Sq, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα κοτ.λ., 
“carnibus et sanguine verbi sui...po- 
tat et reficit omne hominum genus’ ; 
and so too Euseb. #ccl. Theol, iii. 


12 ὥστε αὐτὰ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα καὶ τοὺς 
λόγους αὐτοῦ τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὸ αἷμα 
x.7.A., Anon, Brev. in Psalm. cxlvii 
(Hieron. Οὔ. Vi. p. 530 Appx) ‘ Ego 
corpus Jesu evangelium puto, sanctas 
scripturas puto, doctrinam ejus; et 
quando dicit Quz non comederit car- 
nem meam etc.’ These passages are 
quoted by Ussher. See also the 
notes on 7radi. ὃ, Rom. 7, for similar 
eucharistic metaphors. There is 
probably an indirect allusion to 
Docetism here. 

τοῖς ἀποστόλοις k.T-A.] The Apostles 
stand in the same relation to the 
Church at large, in which its own 
presbytery does to each individual 
church. So conversely TZyall. 2 
ὑποτάσσεσθαι καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, ws 
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (comp. 
Smyrn. 8). See the notes on Magn. 
6.13; γα 5. 

The expression obviously points 
to some authoritative wr7tings of 
the New Testament. The ‘Apostles,’ 
like the ‘Prophets,’ must have been 
represented in some permanent form 
to which appeal could be made. So 
far the bearing of the passage seems 
to be clear. But it is not so obvious 
whether Ignatius refers to two classes 
of writings included in our New 
Testament, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον the Gospel 
or Gospels, and οἱ ἀπόστολοι the 
Apostolic Epistles (perhaps includ- 
ing the Acts), or to one only, of ἀπό- 
στολοι as expositors of the εὐαγγέλιον, 
in which latter case it would com- 
prise the Gospels as well as the 
Epistles. The former view is taken 
by Ussher, Pearson, and Leclerc, and 
more recently by Westcott JzZro- 
duction to the Gospels p. 416, and 
Hilgenfeld Lzzlectung in das N. T. 
p. 72; while Zahn (Z. v. A. p. 431 
sq) and others interpret εὐαγγέλιον 


v] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


> / € 7 > / 
ATOGTOAOLS WS πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας. 


261 


\ \ 
καὶ TOUS σρο- 


2 πρεσβυτερίῳ] GLg; ministris (diaconis) A. 


in the latter way, not of the book, but 
of the teaching. The parallel pas- 
sages are ὃ 9 below οἱ yap ἀγαπητοὶ 
προφῆται κατήγγειλαν εἰς αὐτόν, τὸ δὲ 
εὐαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίας, 
Smyrn. 5 οὺς οὐκ ἔπεισαν ai προφη- 
τεῖαι οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ 
μέχρι νῦν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον K.T.r., 20. 7 
προσέχειν δὲ τοῖς προφήταις, ἐξαιρέ- 
τως δὲ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν ᾧ τὸ πάθος 
ἡμῖν δεδήλωται κιτιλ. These passages 
point to the latter view, which re- 
gards the Apostles as the expositors 
of the Gospel. They cannot how- 
ever be considered decisive in them- 
selves, since ‘the Gospel’ might here 
be broken up into ‘the Gospel’ and 
- ‘the Apostles,’ just as ‘the Prophets’ 
are broken up in Smyrn. 5 into 
‘the Prophets’ and ‘the Law of 
Moses.’ But the use of εὐαγγέλιον 
in the context here (eis τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
κατηγγελκέναι and συνηριθμημένοι ev 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) is a more powerful 
argument, and seems to show that 
the idea of written documents is not 
intended in the word εὐαγγέλιον it- 
self, but only involved in the subse- 
quent mention of the ‘ Apostles.’ 
In this case the description of the 
Old and New Testaments as ‘the 
Prophets’ and ‘the Apostles’ re- 
spectively may be compared with 
Justin’s statement Aol. i. 67 (p. 
98 Ὁ) τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστό- 
λων ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν 
ἀναγινώσκεται, or the language in the 
so-called Second Epistle of Clement 
§ 14 τὰ βιβλία καὶ of ἀπόστολοι, or the 
classification of the Muratorian 
Canon (Tregelles, p. 58) ‘neque inter 
prophetas completum numero neque 
inter apostolos.’ Towards and after 
the close of the second century the 
separation of the ‘Gospels’ from the 
‘Apostles’ becomes common, e.g. 


Iren. i. 3. 6 τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν Kal τῶν 
ἀποστολικῶν, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 
3 (p. 836) τό τε εὐαγγέλιον 6 τε ἀπό- 
στολος, Tertull. de Praescr. 36 ‘ evan- 
gelicis et apostolicis literis,” and 
elsewhere; see Reuss Gesch. der 
hetl. Schr. N. T. § 300. There is 
indeed nothing to prevent the same 
author from using both modes of 
speaking in different places ; comp. 
evo: Clem. Alex. S770774, ΠῚ το ae 
543) νόμος τε ὁμοῦ καὶ προφῆται σὺν 
καὶ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ 
εἰς μίαν συνάγονται γνῶσιν, with 76. 
ν. 5 (p. 664) τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῶν 
ἀποστόλων ὁμοίως τοῖς προφήταις ἅπασι, 
vi. II (p. 784) συμφωνίαν τὴν ἐκκλη- 
σιαστικὴν νόμου καὶ προφητῶν ὁμοῦ καὶ 
ἀποστόλων σὺν καὶ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. But 
we should certainly not expect it in 
the same passage, and therefore 
there is no ground for interpreting 
the language here in a way which 
would perhaps (we cannot say, cer- 
tainly) be an anachronism in the age 
of Ignatius. Lessing attempted to 
handle Ignatian criticism here and 
burnt his fingers (Sdmmtl. Schrift. 
XI. 2, pp. 187, 197, 237, ed. Malt- 
zahn; passages referred to by Zahn 
I. v. A. pp. 431 sq, 575). He stated 
that there was no trace of acodllection 
of N. T. writings in the fathers of 
the first two centuries, and being 
confronted with this passage de- 
clared it to be corrupt. His emen- 
dation is an exhibition of reckless 
audacity, all the more instructive as 
coming from a great man ; προσφυ- 
γὼν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἐκκλη- 
σίας ὡς ἀποστόλοις" καὶ τοὺς διακόνους 
δὲ ἀγαπῶ, ὡς προφήτας Χριστὸν καταγ- 
γείλαντας καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πνεύματος 
μετασχόντας οὗ καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι. 
προφήτας δὲ 


2. καὶ τοὺς 


K.T.A.| 


262 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v 


J \ 3 a \ \ \ 3 \ 3 \ 3 id 
φήτας δὲ ἀγαπώμεν, διὰ TO Kal αὐτοὺς Els TO εὐαγγε- 


/ \ 3 > \ 3 / \ > \ 
λιον κατηγγελκέναι καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπίζειν καὶ αὐτὸν 


3 7ὔ © \ / > , ? ς / F 
αναμενειν" ἐν ῳ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσωθησαν ἐν ἑνοτητι 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὄντες ἀξιωαγάπητοι καὶ ἀξιοθαύμαστοι 


1 ἀγαπῶμεν] GL; diligamus Τ,: ἀγαπῶ g; diligo A. Perhaps it was treated 


as two words ἀγαπῶ μὲν : see the lower note. 


5 καὶ συνηριθμημένοι] 


GL; om. g. A translates the passage guos testificatus est dominus noster resus 


For what reason are the prophets 
thus suddenly introduced? The mo- 
tive is clearly apologetic; but what is 
the accusation or the antagonism 
against which the words are di- 
rected? Is -it aimed at Judaizers 
who overrated the Old Testament 
in comparison with the Gospel? 
or at Anti-judaic Gnostics or Mar- 
cionites who depreciated or even re- 
jected it? In the former case the 
force of the words will be, ‘We do 
not disparage the prophets any more 
than yourselves; only we maintain 
the superiority of the Gospel; the 
prophets themselves look forward 
and bear witness to the Gospel.’ 
And this sense is required by the 
context, ἐὰν δέ tis ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἑρμη- 
νεύῃ kK.T.A., i.e. ‘but if any one, while 
upholding the Prophets (the Old 
Testament), so interprets them as 
to teach Judaism, etc.’ It is more- 
Over supported by the very close 
parallel in §§ 9, 10, where Ignatius 
represents his Judaizing opponents 
as alleging against him the ar- 
chives (i.e. the records of the Old 
Testament), while he himself con- 
cedes the greatness of the Mosaic 
priesthood (καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς), but 
maintains the superiority of the 
great High-priest of the new cove- 
nant (κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς), declar- 
ing that all the saints under the 
old dispensation entered through 
Him into the presence of God, and 
that the prophets heralded the Gos- 


pel. See especially the note on 
§ 9 καλοὶ καὶ κ-.τ.λ. 

I. ἀγαπῶμεν] Not an imperative, 
‘let us love,’ as the Latin Version 
‘diligamus,’ but an indicative, ‘we 
love. It may be a question how- 
ever, whether we should not read 
ἀγαπῶ μὲν, to which the antithetical 
clause would be ἐὰν δέ τις ἰουδαϊσμὸν 
κιτιλ.; comp. Zrall. 4 ἀγαπῶ μὲν γὰρ 
τὸ παθεῖν k.T.X. 

εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κιτ.λ.1] For the 
construction and sentiment alike 
comp. ὃ 9 of ἀγαπητοὶ προφῆται κατήγ- 
γείλαν εἰς αὐτόν, Barnab. 5 οἱ προφῆται, 
ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες τὴν χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν 
ἐπροφήτευσαν. For the sentiment 
see also the notes on Magn. ὃ, 9; 
for the construction comp. λέγειν εἰς; 
Acts i. 25; ‘Ephes: “v. 22) and asec 
Winer § xlix. p. 495. 

3. ἐν ᾧ καὶ κιτ.λ.] ‘22 whom also 
(i.e. when He actually appeared to 
them) ‘they believed and so were 
saved’; comp. § 9 below. On the 
salvation of the prophets through 
Christ, as involving the descent into 
Hades, see the note on J/agz. 9. 

ἐν ἑνότητι] ‘22 an unity which 
centres in Fesus Christ, i.e. they 
were incorporated in one and the 
same body with the faithful members 
of the Church; comp. § 9 πάντα 
ταῦτα εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ. 

4. ἀξιαγάπητοι] “ worthy of this 
Jove, which we accord to them,’ ἃ 
reference to καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ 


ἀγαπῶμεν. On the compounds of 


v] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 263 


5 ἅγιοι, ὑπὸ ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεμαρτυρημένοι καὶ συνη- 


/ 5) ~ 3 7 ΄σ a > V4 
ριθμημένοι ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλπίδος. 


VI. *€av δέ τις ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἑρμηνεύη ὑμῖν, μὴ 


ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ. 


*# / 3 > 
ἄμεινον yao ἐστιν παρὰ ἀνδρὸς περι- 


christus quod fideles computantur (numerantur) in evangelio, thus clearly recognising 


συνηριθμημένοι. 
ὑμῖν] LA; ἡμῖν G; al. g. 


ἄξιος in Ignatius see the note on 
Ephes. 4 ἀξιονόμαστον. 

5. ἅγιοι] Connected by previous 
editors with the preceding words, 
but it seems to go better with those 
following. 

συνηριθμημένοι] i.e. ‘included a- 
mong those who participate in the 
privileges of the Gospel.’ It is 
wrongly explained by Smith “270- 
phetae cum apostolis zz evangelio 
connumeratt, utpote de quibus utris- 
que insigne testimonium illic reliquit 
Christus.’ There is no reference 
to the written record in εὐαγγελίῳ 
here. 

6. τῆς κοινῆς ἐλπίδος] ‘our com- 
mon hope, i.e. Christ, as appears 
from ὃ 11 below ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, τῇ 
κοινῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν; and so elsewhere 
in Ignatius; see the notes on Epihes. 
1, Magn. 11. Zahn (/. v. A. pp. 430, 
435) suggests reading τῆς καινῆς ἐλπί- 
δος, comparing Magn. 9 εἰς καινότητα 
ἐλπίδος ; but I cannot think this an 
improvement. Not to mention that 
ἡ κοινὴ ἐλπίς Occurs more than once 
elsewhere in Ignatius, the epithet 
here is especially appropriate, as 
enforcing the main idea of the pas- 
sage (comp. ἐν ἑνότητι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
and συνηριθμημένοι) that all alike, 
whether they lived before or after 
the coming of Christ, are united ina 
common Saviour. 

VI. ‘But if anyone so interprets 
them as to find Judaism in them, 
listen not to him It is better to 


7106} GL; e¢ A; om. [g]. 


tis] GA[g]; om. ΤΣ 


hear the circumcised teaching Chris- 
tianity than the uncircumcised teach- 
ing Judaism. But in either case, 
if they speak not of Jesus Christ, 
they are no better than tombstones 
inscribed with men’s names. Flee 
therefore from the snares and devices 
of the Evil One, lest your love wax 
feeble: and meet together all of you 
in concord. I thank God that my 
conscience acquits me of oppressing 
any one, while I was among you. 
And I pray that my words then 
spoken may not rise up in judgment 
against you.’ 

7. ἰουδαϊσμὸν] See the note on 
Magn. 8. 

Eppnvetn| ‘profound’; as Celsus 
in Orig. c. Cels. iii. 58 (I. p. 485) οὐδὲ 
δυνήσονται τοῖς παισὶν ἑρμηνεύειν aya- 
θόν (quoted by Pearson), where as 
here the accusative describes not the 
text interpreted but the result attain- 
ed by interpretation. The reference 
here is doubtless to the interpreta- 
tion put upon the language of the 
prophets who have been mentioned 
in the last sentence, so as to support 
Judaizing practices, just as below 
(δ 8) Ignatius represents his oppo- 
nents as appealing to the ἀρχεῖα 
against him. 

8. ἄμεινον γάρ κιτλ] Who is 
meant by the ἀκρόβυστος in this 
sentence? Is he to be identified 
with the τις in the preceding clause, 
so that ἀκούειν παρὰ ἀκροβύστου in 
the latter place corresponds to ἀκού- 


264 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi 


’ \ ἤ X\ \ 3 
τομὴν ἔχοντος χριστιανισμον ἄκουειν ἢ πάρα akpo- 


βύστου ἰουδαϊσμόν. ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότεροι περὶ ᾿Ϊησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ μὴ λαλώσιν, οὗτοι ἐμοὶ στῆλαί εἰσιν καὶ τάφοι 
νεκρῶν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς γέγραπται μόνον ὀνόματα ἀνθρώπων. 
φεύγετε οὖν τὰς κακοτεχνίας καὶ ἐνέδρας τοῦ ἄρχοντος 5 


Pon ~ / / / ΄σ Υ 3 ΄σ 
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, μήποτε θλιβέντες TH γνωμή αὐτοῦ 


7 ἐξασθενήσετε] σ ; ἐξασθενήσεται (ἃ : infirmemini LA. 
8 εὐχαριστῶ δὲ] GL; εὐχαριστῶ (om. δέ) A [g*] (but v. 1. evxapeorws). 
τι ἐν μικρῷ] GL; ἢ ἐν μικρᾷ g; dub. A (where 


et L. 
9 μου] GLA; om. [g]. 


ἧ...ἢ may perhaps be represented by vel etiam). 


ere αὐτοῦ in the former? In this case 
the ¢eachers would be represented, 
not as Jewish Christians, but as 
Gentile Christians with strong Ju- 
daic tendencies. This seems the 
most natural interpretation; nor 
Can τ ἀπ Zann τ ὦ: Al. 61368 
sq) see any serious objection to it. 
These opponents of Ignatius indeed 
are represented as intimately ac- 
quainted with the Old Testament 
and taking their stand upon it (ὃ ὃ 
ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις κιτ.λ., COMp. 
Smyrn. 5 ovs οὐκ ἔπεισαν αἱ προφη- 
τεῖαι οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως); but the 
effective proselytizing of Jews and 
Judaic Christians among persons of 
Gentile origin is a patent fact, and 
there is no reason why proselytes so 
made should not have taken up the 
position of proselytizers themselves 
in Philadelphia. On the other hana 
it is possible, though I think not 
probable, that the ἀκρόβυστος is the 
recipient, not the promulgator, of the 
false interpretation. Under any cir- 
cumstances the ἰουδαϊσμός, i.e. Jewish 
manner of living, which was enforced, 
would include the observance of 
sabbaths (comp. Magz. 9), rigorous 
restrictions respecting meats and 
drinks, etc., and in short such prac- 
tices as are condemned in Col. ii. 16, 
21, but not circumcision, as the word 


ἀλλὰ] GAg; sed 


δέ] GL* (but a v. 1. omits 


ἀκροβύστου shows. Though circum- 
cision was insisted upon by the 
earliest Judaizers (see Gal. v. 2 sq, 
vi. 12 sq), this requirement was soon 
dropped as impracticable. In the 
Clementine Homilies for instance, 
notwithstanding their strong Judaic 
tendencies, nothing is said about it. 
Thus the heresy combated by Ig- 
natius was only an lovdaicpos ἀπὸ 
μέρους, as Epiphanius describes the 
Judaism of Cerinthus (//aer. xxviii. 1). 

I. χριστιανισμόν] See the note on 
Magn. το. 

dxpoBtorov] Though the word 
ἀκροβυστία occurs many times in 
S. Paul (see also Acts xi. 3), ἀκρό- 
βυστος is not once found in the N. T. 
Nor does it occur in the LXx, though 
found in other of the Hexaplaric 
Versions, Exod. vi. 12, Josh. v. 7. 

2. ἀμφότεροι] 1.6. whether περιτο- 
μὴν ἔχων OY ἀκρόβυστος. 

περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ x.t.A.] See the 
note on Lphes. 6. 

3. στῆλαι κιτ Δ ἢ Comp. Matt. 
XXlll, 27 παρομοιάζετε τάφοις κεκονια- 
μένοις. SO old men are styled τύμβοι, 
Eur. Med. 1209, Heract. 168, Arist. 
Lys. 372; comp. Lucian Dzal. Mort. 
Vi. 2 ἔμψυχόν τινα τάφον; and σορός, 
e.g. Athen. ΧΗ p. 580. So too the 
Latin ‘sepulcrum,’ Plaut. Pseud. i. 4. 
19. The closest parallel however 


vi] 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


265 


/ ~ ? 7 > \ > 9 
ἐξασθενήσετε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπη" ἀλλὰ πάντες ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 


“ 9 > 7 7 
γίνεσθε ἐν ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ. 


εὐχαριστῶ δὲ τῷ Θεῷ 


4 I ,ὔ > > δὰ ας \ > ᾽ 
μου, ὅτι εὐσυνείδητος εἰμι ἐν ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐκ ἔχει τις καυ- 


»/ / yi ~ ε 3 
χήσασθαι οὔτε λαθρα οὔτε ᾧφανερώς, ὅτι ἐβάρησά τινα 


3 ὅσῳ, —'SN\ AD / 
ἐν μικρῳ ἡ ev peyadw. 


\ ~ / 3 Ξε ? 
καὶ πᾶσι δέ, ἐν ois ἐλάλησα, 


᾽} e/ \ 3 / 3 \ 7 
ευχόμαι νὰ [AY εις μαρτυριον QaUTO ΚΤΉσωνται. 


δὲ); om. gA (but A omits καὶ also). 


12 μαρτύριον] (ἃ; μαρτυρίαν g. 


κτήσωνται] g; possideant L; κτίσωνται ἃ ; fiat ws A. So in TJrall. 8 G has ἀνα- 


κτίσασθε for ἀνακτήσασθε. 


is in Laberius (Macrob. Saz. 11. 7) 
‘sepulcri similis nil nisi nomen re- 
tineo,’ quoted by Voss; comp. also 
Lucian 772. 5 nv που καὶ ὁδῷ βαδίζων 
ἐντύχω τινὶ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ τινὰ στήλην 
παλαιοῦ νεκροῦ ὑπτίαν ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου 
ἀνατετραμμένην παρέρχονται μηδὲ ἀνα- 
γνόντες. So Jerome (ΟΖ. VI. Ρ. 105), 
referred to by Ussher, explains στῆ- 
hae in the LXx, Hos. x. τ, of the 
heretics, because ‘terrae suae bona 
verterunt in titulos mortuorum, quia 
omnis doctrina eorum non ad vi- 
ventes refertur, sed ad mortuos etc.’ 
The Pythagoreans used to erect 
‘cenotaphs’ (Orig. c. Ceés. ii. 12, 11]. 
51) to those who were untrue to the 
principles and practice of their 
school; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
v. 9 (p. 680) στήλην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γενέσθαι 
οἷα νεκρῷ, lambl. Vzt. Pythag. 17 
στήλην δή τινα τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ μνημεῖον 
...x@oavTes, a practice to which Zahn 
directs attention in his note. The 
false teachers in Ignatius however 
are compared not to the dead, but 
to the sepulchres themselves. 

5. φεύγετε x.t.A.] See Polyc. § 
τὰς κακοτεχνίας φεῦγε (with the note). 

τοῦ ἄρχοντος x.T.A.] See the note 
on Ephes. 17. 

6. θλιβέντες κιτ.λ.}] ‘worn out, 
wearied, dy his suggestions. 

7. ἐξασθενήσετε] ‘grow weak’; 
comp. Matt. xxiv. 12 ψυγήσεται ἡ 
ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν, Apoc. ii. 4 τὴν 


ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες. 

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κ-τ.λ.] ‘meet together, 
i.e. for public worship and the eu- 
charist; comp. 4 σπουδάσατε μιᾷ εὐ- 
χαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι. For ἐν ἀμερίστῳ 
καρδίᾳ comp. 7 γαζί. 13. 

9. evouveidnros| See Magn. 4 
with the note. 

Io. ore ἐβάρησα κ.τ.λ.] 2 Cor. xi. 9 
ἐν παντὶ ἀβαρῆ ἐμαυτὸν ὑμῖν ἐτήρησα, 
Xil. 16 ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς (ν. 1. 
κατενάρκησα), I Thess. il. 9 πρὸς τὸ μὴ 
ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν (comp. 2 Thess. 
111. 8). See also the protest of Samuel, 
2 Sam. xil. 3 τίνα κατεδυνάστευσα ὑμῶν 
ἢ τίνα ἐξεπίασα ὑμῶν; Hefele sup- 
poses that Ignatius refers to the 
yoke of Jewish ordinances: but he 
was extremely unlikely to be charged 
with imposing such a burden. The 
parallel of S. Paul’s language would 
rather suggest that he is speaking of 
using his position and authority ty- 
rannically, whether (as in 5. Paul’s 
case) to burden them with his 
maintenance, or (as the following 
words suggest) to overawe and crush 
any free expression of opinion. This 
apology obviously implies that he had 
heard of such accusations brought 
against him at Philadelphia, The 
report was probably conveyed to him 
by Philo and Agathopus (ἢ 11). See 
Zahn J/. v. A. p- 266 54: 

II. καὶ πᾶσι δέ κοτ,λ.} ‘yea, and 
for all those among whom I spoke, ἢ 


266 
Wad. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ vil 


᾽ \ \ \ , 7 4ΔὉ 
Εἰ γὰρ καὶ κατὰ σάρκα μέ τινες ἠθέλησαν 


an > \ \ la a 3 \ rot πὰ 
πλανῆσαι, ἀλλὰ TO πνεῦμα οὐ πλανᾶται, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ὀν' 


\ , ” \ “Ὁ c U \ \ 
οἶδεν γὰρ πόθεν EpyeTal Kai ποῦ ὑπάγει, Kal Ta 


1 καὶ] GLA; om. g. 
πνεῦμα] GLA; add. μου [g]. 


τινες ἠθέλησαν] GL; ἠθέλησάν τινες σ. 


2 τὸ 
4 ἐκραύγασα] GLAg® (but some texts 


of g add γάρ); add. zgétur S). μεταξὺ wy] GLS,A; μεταξὺ ὧν g* (vulg.): 
see the lower note. 5 Θεοῦ φωνῇ] LS,A; paraphrased οὐκ ἐμὸς ὁ λόγος 
ἀλλὰ θεοῦ g; om. G. 6 dtaxdvois] G3 τοῖς διακόνοις g. οἱ δ᾽ 
k.T.A.] οἱ δὲ πτέσαντές με ὡς προειδότα τὸν μερισμόν τινων λέγειν ταῦτα" μάρ- 
Tus δέ μοι κιτ.λ. (ἃ; guidam autem suspicait (add. sunt Ly) me ut praescientem 
divistonem quorundam dicere haec ; testis autem mthi etc L; et sunt guidam qui 


coguaverunt de me quod tanguam cognoverim divistones quorundam haec dixerim ; 


pray that they may not find my 
words ὦ Zestimony against them’; 
comp. 7rad//. 12 (with the note). For 
the dative with εὔχεσθαι see the re- 
ferences in Rost u. Palm s. v. 

VII. ‘Though certain persons 
attempted to deceive me in the flesh, 
yet the Spirit is not deceived. It 
knows its own movements, and it 
penetrates into the most secret re- 
cesses. When I was among you, I 
told you plainly, speaking with the 
voice of God, to give heed to your 
bishop and presbyters and deacons. 
Some men suspect that I said this, 
knowing the dissensions which im- 
pended. But indeed I did not learn 
it of flesh and blood; the Spirit 
cried aloud, saying, ‘Do nothing 
without the bishop; defile not your 
bodies which are the temples of 
God; cherish unity; avoid dissen- 
sions; be imitators of Jesus Christ, 
as He was of His Father.”’ 

I. ἠθέλησαν x.7.d.| ‘desired to 
lead me astray, i.e. ‘to impose upon 
me by their deceit’; comp. JZagu. 3 
οὐχ OTL τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τοῦτον τὸν βλε- 
πόμενον πλανᾷ τις κιιλ. Markland’s 
interpretation of πλανῆσαι ‘decepto- 
rem esse’ (i.e. ‘would make me out 
a deceiver’) is refuted by the fol- 
lowing ov πλανᾶται, and indeed by 
the whole context. It is vain to 


speculate on the circumstance to 
which Ignatius alludes. The ex- 
pression κατὰ σάρκα points to some 
deceit practised upon him (and per- 
haps successfully) in the common 
affairs of life; comp. esp. Afhes. ὃ 
a δὲ καὶ κατὰ σάρκα πράσσετε, Rom. 9 
τῇ ὁδῷ τῇ κατὰ σάρκα. In this pro- 
vince they might deceive him, but 
in the sphere of the Spirit no de- 
ception was possible. The obscurity 
of the allusion is a strong testimony 
to the genuineness of the letter. 

2. τὸ πνεῦμα] ive.) ‘the. Spirit 
which is working in me.’ 

3. οἶδεν yap x.t.A.] John iii. 8 
οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει, 
said of the wind, as the symbol of 
the Spirit. The coincidence is quite 
too strong to be accidental. Nor 
can there be any reasonable doubt 
that the passage in the Gospel is 
prior to the passage in Ignatius. 
The application in the Gospel is 
natural. The application in Ignatius 
is strained and secondary; nor is 
his language at all explicable, except 
as an adaptation of a familiar pas- 
sage. ‘Though no one else can 
trace the movements of the Spirit,’ 
Ignatius would say, ‘yet the Spirit 
knows full well its own movements.’ 

καὶ Ta κρυπτὰ k.t.A.] Comp. 1 Cor. 
ll. 10 TO yap πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, XIV. 


vit] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


267 


ae ed > / \ oS 5 ΄ 
κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει. ἐκραύγασα μεταξὺ ὦν, ἐλάλουν με- 


7 ΄- van gis SANs SE / / \ 
5 γαλή φωνῇ, Θεοῦ φωνῆ" Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε καὶ 


΄- 7 \ , ε > ε y , 

τὰ mpeo BuTEpio Kat διακόνοις. ol ὃ UTTOTTTEVO AVTES 
testatur autem nobis etc S,; δέ sunt guidam qui cogttaverunt de me guomodo cognovi 
ego divisiones quorundam et dixt hoc; testatur mihi etc A; εἰ δὲ ὑποπτεύετέ με ὡς 
προμαθόντα Tov μερισμόν τινων λέγειν ταῦτα, μάρτυς μοι K.T.A. g* (but 1 has 42 vero 
despexerunt me etc, thus showing that the earlier reading of g more closely followed 6). 
It seems clear that the original of all these was οἱ δ᾽ ὑποπτεύσαντές με ws προειδότα 
τὸν wep. TW. λέγ. ταῦτα, μάρτυς δέ μοι K.T.A. G has preserved this with the corruption 
of πτέσαντες for ὑποπτεύσαντες ; 1, has translated it literally (for the swt of L, is ob- 
viously a later addition) ; S, (followed by A) has set the syntax straight; and g (as 
it now stands) has paraphrased the sentence, mending the grammar at the same 


time. See the lower note. 


25 Ta κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ 
γίνεται, Ephes. ν. 12, 13 μᾶλλον δὲ 
καὶ ἐλέγχετε᾽ τὰ γὰρ κρυφὴ γινόμενα 
K.T.A. 

4. ἐκραύγασα] For the expres- 
sion see Joh. xi. 43 φωνῇ μεγάλῃ 
expavyagev: comp. Tatian Ovat. 17 
κεκραγότος ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ μετεώρου 
Κατακούσατέ μου, and see the note on 
Lphes. 19 μυστήρια κραυγῆς. Bunsen 
(1571. p. 73) translates éxpavyaca ‘ Ich 
schrieb einen Brief, and suggests 
that the writer alludes to passages 
in the letter to Polycarp (I suppose 
to § 4,6). By such free renderings 
anything may be made of anything. 
Moreover the letter to Polycarp 
does not profess to be written from 
Philadelphia, but from Troas. 

μεταξὺ ὦν] ‘when I was among 
you. It is evident from the whole 
context that Ignatius had himself 
visited Philadelphia. He must there- 
fore have taken the northern road 
through Sardis to Smyrna, instead 
of the southern which would have 
led him to Ephesus on his way 
thither (see above, p. 241). Zahn 
(i. v. A. p. 268) adopts the reading 
μεταξὺ ὧν ἐλάλουν, ‘in the midst of 
my discourse,’ which is found in the 
common text of the Long Recension, 


and is rendered (though incorrectly) 
in the Latin Version of the same, 
‘inter eos quibus loquebar.’ The 
Greek MSS however of the Long 
Recension do not altogether support 
this reading; while in the Greek MS 
of the uninterpolated text, and in all 
the Versions of it (Syrian, Armenian, 
Latin), it is consistently read μεταξὺ 
ὦν, ἐλάλουν. The change of tense 
ἐκραύγασα, ἐλάλουν, is no serious ob- 
jection to this latter reading, which 
is otherwise much more natural. 

5. Θεοῦ φωνῇ] The words are 
omitted in the Greek MS by homceo- 
teleuton, as in a parallel instance 
Trall, 7. The paraphrase of the in- 
terpolator, οὐκ ἐμὸς κιτιλ. (see the 
critical note), gives the right sense. 
For a similar claim where the writer 
declares himself to be speaking with 
the voice of God, see Clem. Rom. 59 
(with the note). 

Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ x.t.A.] Comp. Polyc. 6 
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε... .ἀντίψυχον 
ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, 
πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις. 

6. οἱ δ᾽ ὑποπτεύσαντες κ.τ.λ.] ‘but 
these persons suspecting me. There 
is no authority for any earlier form 
of the text than this ; see the critical 
note. We must therefore suppose, 


268 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS | vil 


/ \ if , - 
με; WS προειδότα TOV μερισμὸν τινων, λέγειν ταῦτα. 
᾽ ὯΝ / J \ \ 3 / 
μάρτυς δέ μοι ἐν ᾧ δέδεμαι, OTL ἀπὸ σαρκὸς ἀνθρωπίνης 
3 ᾽ \ > > / / / i 
οὐκ ἔγνων: τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐκήρυσσεν, λέγον τάδε 
~ / \ ~ \ / ς δος 
Χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ποιεῖτε THY σάρκα ὑμὼν 
ε a ΄- \ J 3 a \ 
ws ναὸν Θεοῦ τηρεῖτε: THY ἕνωσιν ἀγαπᾶτε" TOUS μερι- 5 
\ / \ / 6 | ἴω X = ς \ 
σμοὺς peuyeTe punta yiveoVe ᾿Ιησου Αριστου, ws και 


αὐτὸς TOU πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. 

I ὡς προειδότα] GL; ὡς προμαθόντα g. Zahn supposes that the reading of 
S,A (see the last note) was ὥσπερ εἰδότα, and adopts this reading. But the omis- 
sion of the preposition in rendering προωρισμένῃ Lphes. inscr. (ZA), and προορῶν 
Trall. 8 (A), renders the inference somewhat doubtful. And, even if it were cer- 
tain, this reading does not seem so well supported, or so good in itself, as ws mpo- 


ειδότα. 


note. 


either that some word such as 7- 
τιῶντο has fallen out, or that the 
sentence is an anacoluthon. This 
latter seems the more probable hy- 
pothesis. Forsimilar instances, where 
in the hurry of dictating under pres- 
sure of circumstances sentences are 
left unfinished, see the notes, Zfhes. 
I ᾿Αποδεξάμενος x.r.A. Otherwise we 
might adopt Zahn’s conjecture, εἰ δὲ 
ὑπώπτευσάν τινές pe k.T.A., thus making 
μάρτυς δέ μοι the apodosis.. 

2. ἐν ᾧ δέδεμαι] See § 5 with the 
note. 

ἀπὸ σαρκὸς x.t.A.] Matt. xvi. 17 
σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψεν k.7.A. 

3. λέγον κιτ.λ.] See Rom. 7 ἔσω- 
θέν μοι λέγον, Δεῦρο κιτιλ. (with the 
note). If the masculine λέγων be 
correct here, it may be compared 
with ἐκεῖνος in Joh. xvi. 13, 14; but 
no dependence can be placed on the 
reading in such acase. There isthe 
same ν΄ 1. also in Rom. 7. The pas- 
sage has been misunderstood to mean 
that ‘an apocryphal writing is quoted 
as Holy Scripture’ (Supernatural 
Religion 1. p. 273, ed. 2: see West- 


2 δέ] GLS,; om. [A] [5] [Antioch 14] [Dam-Rup 5]: see the last 
uot] GL[Alg Antioch ; μου Dam-Rup ; zobis (} for 9) S,. ev Φ] 
GLS,A Antioch Dam-Rup; 6 ὃν g: see the note on Magu. 5. 


ἀπὸ σαρκὸς 


cott Canon p. 60, ed. 4). Ignatius 
is plainly speaking throughout this 
passage of a spiritual revelation to 
himself. 

4. Χωρὶς κιτ.λ.] See the note on 
Magn. 7. 

τὴν σάρκα κιτ.λ.] Comp. [Clem. 
Rom.] il. 9 δεῖ οὖν ἡμᾶς ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ 
φυλάσσειν τὴν σάρκα, with the note. 
See also the notes on 3 2265. 9, 15. 

5. evoow] Comp. Polyc. 1 ris 
ἑνώσεως φρόντιζε, and see the note 
on Magn. 1. 

τοὺς μερισμοὺς φεύγετε] Comp. ὃ 2 
above (with the note), and Smyrz. 8. 

6. μιμηταὶ κ.τ.λ.] 1.6. of His ἐπι- 
είκεια ; Comp. Lphes. 10, and see the 
note on μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ Ephes. τ. 

VIII. ‘I therefore did my best to 
promote union. Where dissension 
is, there God has no dwelling-place. 
Now the Lord will forgive all who 
repent and return to the unity of 
God and to fellowship with the 
bishop. I have faith in the grace 
of Christ, who will shake off your 
chains; but I exhort you to do 
nothing in a sectarian spirit. I heard 


Io 


vu] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


\ \ a Wey) > ς ᾽ 
VITT. ᾿γὼ μὲν οὖν τὸ ἴδιον ἐποίουν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος 
εἰς ἕνωσιν κατηρτισμένος. 


269 


ἜΣ \ / 
ov δὲ μερισμός ἐστιν Kal 
3 Υ͂ \ ~ “ ᾽ ΄σ > 
ὀργή, Θεὸς ov κατοικεῖ. πᾶσιν οὖν μετανοοῦσιν ἀφίει 
ε / > \ / > 7 ~ , 
ὁ Κύριος, ἐὰν μετανοήσωσιν εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ καὶ συνέ- 
a / / ΄σ ᾿ ~ 
δριον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. πιστεύω TH χαριτι ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χρι- 
΄σ « 7 3 3. ΕἿἾΕ ~ / : / - \ 
στοῦ, ὃς λύσει ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν πάντα δεσμόν: παρακαλῶ δὲ 
ἀνθρωπίνης] GL Antioch Dam-Rup; αό hominibus S,A; ἀπὸ στόματος ἀνθρώπου g. 
3 ἐκήρυσσεν] G Antioch [Dam-Rup]; clamabat S,A; praedicavit L; ἐκήρυξέ μοι g. 
λέγον] Antioch; λέγων Gg* (some Mss; but v. 1. λέγον) ; dicens L; et dicebat S,A; 


om. Dam-Rup: see the lower note. 
5 τηρεῖτε] g Dam-Rup; τηρῆτε G. 
μετανοοῦσιν] G3 τοῖς μετανοοῦσιν g. 


δριον] G; συνεδρείαν (or συνεδρίαν) g* ; concilium Ly; coetus A. 
ὑμών] GLA ; ἡμῶν g*. 


GL; ὅτι σ'; guod is A. 
(but audem 1); om, A. 


some persons saying 7 w¢ll not be- 
lieve it, unless I find it in the 
charters. 1 said to them, 77 zs so 
written. They answered, You are 
begging the question. But to me the 
charter, the inviolable charter, is 
Jesus Christ and His Cross, His 
Death and His Ascension, and faith 
through Him. IntheseI hope to be 
justified through your prayers.’ 

ὃ, τὸ ἴδιον] ‘my own part’; as 
e.g. Isocr. Archid. 8 (p. 117) ef δεῖ 
τοὐμὸν ἴδιον εἰπεῖν, Lucian de Merc. 
Cond. 9 ὡς ἔγωγε τοὐμὸν ἴδιον κ.τ.λ., 
passages quoted in the lexicons. 

9. κατηρτισμένος] ‘settled’? The 
Latin translator here, as elsewhere, 
has rendered it ‘perfectus, as if 
ἀπηρτισμένος. Onthe meaning of κατ- 
apti¢ew ‘to settle, reconcile, pacify,’ 
see the note on Efhes. 2. 

II. εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ] Comp. ὃ 9 
below, S7yrn. 12, Polyc. 8, where the 
same expression occurs. See also 
the note on ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ Magn. 6. 
The évorns here is the result of the 
ἕνωσις mentioned just before. For 
the abridged expression μετανοεῖν εἰς 
ἑνότητα comp. Smyrn. 5 μετανοήσωσιν 


4 τοῦ] ἃ Antioch; om. g Dam-Rup. 


6 καὶ] GLA[g]; om. Dam-Rup. 10 
11 Κύριος] GL*A; ὁ θεὸς g. συνέ- 
13 Os] 


δὲ] G; autem 1,; οὖν g 


εἰς τὸ πάθος, and see the note on 
Ephes. τ δεδεμένον ἀπὸ Συρίας. 
συνέδριον κιτ.λ.] i.e. ‘the bishop 
with his council of presbyters as 
assessors.’ In Afost. Const. ii. 28 
the presbyters are styled σύμβουλοι 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Kal τῆς ἐκκλησίας στέ- 
φανος" ἔστι γὰρ συνέδριον καὶ βουλὴ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας. See the notes on Jagz. 
6, 13, Zrall. 3. A civil συνέδριον τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων at Philadelphia is men- 
tioned C. 7. G. 3417 (comp. 3422). 
13. Avoee «7.A.] Is. Ἵν ΠῚ 6 Ave 
πάντα σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας, from which 
passage the interpolator has substi- 
tuted σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας for δεσμόν 
here. The passage of Isaiah is 
quoted, Barnab. 3, Justin AZol. i. 37 
(p. 77), Deal. 15 (p. 233), Iren. iv. 17. 
3, Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 18 (p. 470), 
Apost. Const. ii. 53, Vill, 5, and seems 
to have been a very favourite cita- 
tion in the early Church. In the 
original the ‘bonds of wickedness’ 
refer to the oppression of the weak, 
and apparently in a literal sense to 
the chains of slaves and of debtors. In 
the LXX however it may be a ques- 
tion whether σύνδεσμον is not in- 


270 


THE’ EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ν Π| 


a if \ \ 
ὑμᾶς, μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν πράσσετε ἀλλα κατα χριστο- 


μαθίαν. 


I πράσσετε] g; facite A; πράσσειν GL: see the lower note. 
μαθίαν] G; χριστομαθείαν g* (with a v. 1. -μαθίαν). 


value for χρηστομαθείαν. 


tended to mean ‘a conspiracy’ (comp. 
ver. 9 σύνδεσμον Kal χειροτονίαν), as it 
is used in Jer. xi. 9 and elsewhere 
in the LXx. In Afost. Const. 11. 53 
ἐξακολούθει τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου νόμῳ Ave 
πάντα σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας" ἐπὶ σοὶ γὰρ 
ἐξουσίαν ὁ σωτὴρ ἔθετο ἀφιέναι ἅμαρ- 
τίας κιτιλ.,) 20. vill. 5 λύειν δὲ πάντα 
σύνδεσμον κατὰ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἣν ἔδωκας 
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, it is understood of 
the remission of sins (comp. Matt. 
Xvl. 19, xviii. 18). There may or 
may not be an allusion to this pas- 
sage of Isaiah here. In any case 
it seems to refer to the power of evil 
generally, as in the words of the 
collect ‘though we be tied and bound 
with the chain of our sins, yet let 
the pitifulness of Thy great mercy 
loose us.’ Hilgenfeld however refers 
it to the oppressive yoke of Judaism; 
Uhlhorn to the overbearingness of 
the heretical teachers. See also the 
note on Ephes. 19 ὅθεν ἐλύετο πᾶσα 
μαγεία καὶ πᾶς δεσμός κ.τ.λ. 

I. κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν] “7722 a sectarian 
spirit. From Phil. ii. 3 μηδὲν κατὰ 
ἐρίθειαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν : see the 
note on § 1, where the other member 
of S. Paul’s sentence appears. For 
the meaning of ἐρίθεια, ‘partisan- 
ship, ‘factiousness; see the note 
Galatians v. 20. 


πράσσετε] See the note on 7γαζ. 


χριστομαθίαν] So χριστομαθής, Mo- 
dest. Encom. in B. Virg. τ ὅσοι φιλο- 
μαθεῖς ἤγουν χριστομαθεῖς (Patrol. 
Graec. LXXXVI. p. 3080, a reference 
given in E. A. Sophocles s.v.); comp. 
χριστόνομος Rom. inscr. 


3 Need / / / "Ee \ \ 9 
ἐπεὶ ἠκουσὰ τινων λεγοντων OTL Cay μή ἐν 


χριστο- 
There is no authority of any 
ALI all render χριστο- not χρῆστο-. 2 ἐπεὶ 


2. ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις] ‘2m the ar- 
chives.” For ἀρχεῖον comp. Dion. 
Hal. A. A. ii. 26 μέχρι τῆς εἰς τὰ 
ἀρχεῖα (v. 1. ἀρχαῖα) τὰ δημόσια ἐγγρα- 
φῆς, Jos. c. Ap. i. 20 ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις 
(v. 1. ἀρχαίοις) τῶν Φοινίκων, B. F. ii. 
17. 6 τὸ πῦρ ἐπὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα ἔφερον, 
ἀφανίσαι σπεύδοντες τὰ συμβόλαια 
κιτιλ., Apollon. in Euseb. .7. £. v. 18 
τὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀρχεῖον, African. in 
Euseb. 7. £. i. 7 ἀναγράπτων εἰς τότε 
ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις ὄντων τῶν Ἑ βραϊκῶν 
γενῶν, Euseb. H. 45. 1. 13 τῶν ἐπι- 
στολῶν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχείων ἡμῖν ἀνα- 
ληφθεισῶν. The word occurs in 
the following inscriptions found at 
Smyma. itself; Ὁ: 7. ἋΣ. 3137: 520}. 
3266, 3281, 3282, 3286, 3295, 3318, 
3335, 3349, 3356, 3382, 3386, 3394, 
3400. It signifies originally ‘the 
government house,’ ‘the magistrates’ 
office.’ . Hence it comes to mean 
‘the record-office’; and hence, like 
the English word ‘archives,’ it is 
used indifferently of the place where 
the documents are kept and the 
collection of documents themselves ; 
nor is it always easy to separate 
the one meaning from the other. 
The word is naturalised in Chaldee 
(see Levy Lex. Chald. s. v. 31378) 
and in Syriac (see Payne Smith 


Thes. Sy? Som MAT). The 
meaning here is as follows. The 
opponents of Ignatius refuse to defer 
to any modern writings, whether 
Gospels or Epistles, as a standard 
of truth; they will submit only to 
such documents as have been pre- 
served in the archives of the Jews, 
or in other words, only to the Old 


viit| 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


271 


~ / e/ ΄“ / 
τοῖς ἀρχείοις εὕρω, EV τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω: Kal 


ἤκουσα] G; guia audivi L; ἤκουσα yap g; sed guoniam audivi A. 


3 ἀρ- 


xelos] g ; scripturis antiquis (prioribus) A; ἀρχαίοις G; veteribus L. ἐν 


τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ] GL; τὸ εὐαγγέλιον or τοῦ εὐαγγέλιου g*. 


A also seems to have 


read τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, for it translates sz 272 scripturis antiquis non laudatur (glori- 


ficatur) evangelium, non credimus et. 


Testament Scriptures. Thus the 
ἀρχεῖα and the εὐαγγέλιον are op- 
posed as the Old Testament and 
the New, so that the antithesis is 
similar to that in [CZem. Rom.] ii. 14 
τὰ βιβλία καὶ of ἀπόστολοι. A wholly 
different interpretation however has 
not uncommonly been given to the 
passage, e.g. by Voss (apparently), 
Smith, and several later writers; ra 
ἀρχεῖα being explained as referring 
to the original autographs or au- 
thentic MSS of the Evangelical writ- 
ings, with which is contrasted τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον, the Gospel as written and 
preached in Ignatius’ time. In other 
words his antagonists are repre- 
sented as complaining that the Gos- 
pels had been tampered with; comp. 
Polyc. Phil. 7 ὃς av μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια 
τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας 
(quoted by Zahn /. v. A. p. 379), 
where however the words perhaps 
refer rather to misinterpretation than 
to corruption of our Lord’s sayings. 
But this restriction of εὐαγγέλιον is 
unnatural ; and altogether the inter- 
pretation is unsuited to the age 
and character of these Judaizing 
antagonists. Nor again is it easily 
reconcilable with γέγραπται. 

There can be no doubt, I think, 
that dpxeiouw ought to be read here ; 
as by Voss, Cotelier, Smith, Rothe 
(Anfange p. 339), and others. For (1) 
The argument requires that the same 
form should stand in all the three 
places ; and, if this be so, there can 
be no question which word should 
be preferred on external authority. 
For ἀρχεῖα alone is read in the 


second and third places, while even 
in the first the weight of authority 
is in favour of ἀρχείοις rather than 
ἀρχαίοις. (2) While ra ἄθικτα ἀρχεῖα, 
‘the inviolable archives,’ is an in- 
telligible phrase, no very satisfactory 
meaning can be attached to ra ἄθικτα 
ἀρχαῖα. (3) It is more probable that 
the more usual word ἀρχαίοις should 
be substituted for the less usual 
ἀρχείοις than conversely, as indeed 
we find to have been done elsewhere. 
For the common substitution of ap- 
χαῖα for ἀρχεῖα see Wyttenbach on 
Plut. Zor p. 218 Cc. On the other 
hand Credner (ettrage 1. p. 15) 
reads ἀρχαίοις, ἀρχαῖα, ἀρχαῖα, con- 
sistently, and so Hefele (in his later 
editions), Dressel, Hilgenfeld (A. V. 
p. 236), and others. 

Some of those who retain ἀρχαίοις 
take it as a masculine, ‘the ancient 
writers’ (comp. Matt. v. 21, 27, 33); 
and Markland even proposes at the 
second occurrence of the word to 
read ἀρχαῖοί ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστύς, 
comparing the line quoted in Pliny 
Ep. iv. 27 ‘Unus Plinius est mihi 
priores’; but he does not say what 
he would do with the third passage 
τὰ ἄθικτα ἀρχεῖα. The view of Bull 
(Works Vi. p. 208, ed. Burton), that 
ἀρχαῖοι signifies ‘the old rabbis or 
doctors, has nothing to recommend 
its 

3. ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κ-ιτ.λ.} The 
construction is, if I mistake not, 
‘Unless I find it (the point at issue) 
in the archives, I do not believe it 
(because it appears) 22 the Gospel.’ 
The parallelism demands this. [This 


oe Be: 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[vi 


NE / i. Brat ταν Pee ἢ [θ 
EYOVTOS μοὺυ AUTOLS OTL EYPaAT TAL, ATTEKPLUYOAV μοι 


OTL Πρόκειται. 


᾽ \ \ 3 RS) > -- / 
ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖα ἐστιν ᾿]Ιησοῦς Χριστος, 


ἈΝ 3 ΄- ς \ 3 ΄σ Nore / Nene 
Ta ἀθικτα αρχέειὰα O σταυρὸς αὐτου Kal O θανατος Kat v 


2 Πρόκειται] GL, and so too [g*] (but with a v. 1. προκρίνεται) 5 superfluum est 


ἊΝ ἀρχεῖα] Gg; principium L; scriptura prior A. 
3 ἄθικτα] ἄθηκτα G3; inapproximadbilia L; gui non 


ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς g. 


construction I find is supported by 
Hilgenfeld Zedtschr. Δἴ Waossensch. 
Theol. XVII. p. 116; but he reads 
ἀρχαίοις for ἀρχείοις.) On the other 
hand the passage seems to be al- 
most universally taken, ‘ Unless 7 
jind it (i.e. the Gospel) 2 the ar- 
chives (or in the ancients), I do not 
believe in the Gospel, with the very 
rare construction which occurs Mark 
i. 15 πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. A 
third interpretation is adopted by 
Zahn (/. v. A. p. 378 sq, and ad loc.) 
after Holsten (in Dressel, p. 180), 
‘Unless I find it in the archives, 
that is, 2% the Gosfel, 7 do not believe 
zt?; but the Greek order and pa- 
rallelism are strongly against this 
mode of breaking up the sentence ; 
not to say that the apposition of the 
ἀρχεῖα with the Gospel is in itself an 
anachronism. Zahn takes the view 
that these objectors appeal to the 
original documents of the New Tes- 
tament, as evidence for the true 
Gospel. 

1. Yéypanrra] i.e. ‘in the Old 
Testament Scriptures,’ as Ephes. 5, 
Magn. 12, according to the common 
use of γέγραπται in the N. T.; comp. 
Clem: Rom: 4514.17, 20, 530, etc. 
Though it is not impossible that 
Ignatius might have applied yé- 
Ὑραπται to some Evangelical or 
Apostolical writings (as e.g. Barnab. 
4; comp. Polyc. Pz/. 12), yet quite 
independently of the requirements 
of the context the word would refer 
much more naturally to the Old 
Testament. Ignatius meets these 


᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός] G; 


on their own ground ; 
? 


objectors 
they ask for proof from ‘the charters 
(τοῖς ἀρχείοις), and he points to the 
passages in the Old Testament. 

What the points at issue were, the 
following words ὁ σταυρὸς x.t.Xr. will 
suggest. The old question εἰ παθη- 
τὸς ὁ Χριστός (Acts xxvi. 23; comp. 
Justin.’ Dza?. 36,76, ΡΡ 2:7. 5952) 
had still to be discussed. The Cross 
was still a stumbling-block to these 
Docetic Judaizers, as it had been in 
the Apostolic age to the Jews, though 
from a different point of view. They 
denied the reality of Christ’s birth 
and death and resurrection; see the 
note on Zyvad/. 9. It was therefore 
necessary to show from the Hebrew 
Scriptures, not only (as in the Apos- 
tolic age) ore τὸν Χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν 
καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν (Acts xvii. 2 : 
comp. Luke xxiv. 26, 46, Acts iii. 
18), but also that He ‘must needs’ 
have been born in the flesh. 

2. Πρόκειται] ‘ 7125 zs the question 
before us, this remains to be proved’: 
comp. Arist. Eccl. 401 περὶ σωτηρίας 
προκειμένου, Dion. Hal. Ars Rhez. vii. 
5 (p. 274) ov περὶ αὐτοῦ νῦν πρόκειται, 
Plut. Mor. p. 875 A, Galen Of. v. p. 
126, Clem. Hom, xix. 12 viv ἀποδεῖξαί 
μοι πρόκειται (Comp. Ζό. v. 8, xix. 13), 
Clem. Alex. Strom. v. ὃ (p. 676) πρὸς 
κειται δ᾽ ἡμῖν Ti trovovrtes...adixoipeba 
(comp. Strom. 1. 10, p. 344, il. 21, p. 
500, vi. 15, Ρ- 801; vil I, ΤΟΣ ΒΡ 820, 
867), Athenag. Sufp/. 18 ov yap προ- 
κείμενόν μοι ἐλέγχειν, Orig. c. Cels. 1. 
25. 11. 5. ΠΡ ταν. 385152; 55; Garvie, 
vi, 19, 41, 51, Vil. 2, 30, 50 


) 


ViIr| 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


273 


9 y 9 ΄σ 4 ς 7 ς ᾽ > ~ ᾽ e / 
ἀνάστασις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ πίστις ἡ Ol αὐτοῦ: ἐν ois θέλω 


ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν δικαιωθῆναι. 


rapitur A (attaching it to ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς and omitting ἀρχεῖα). 


In the corre- 


sponding place g* has ἄθικτον, for which some texts substitute αὐθεντικόν. 


ἀρχεῖα] G; principia L; om. A; ἀρχεῖον [6]. 


τούτων σ᾽; ejus A. 


frequently. Hence τὸ προκείμενον 
‘the subject under discussion’; e.g. 
foseph. ¢. Afzon. i. 22, 35, Epict. iv. 1. 
46, Clem. Hom. xix. 1, Clem. Al. Quzs 
div. salv. 26 (p. 950), Orig. c. Cels. i. 
ΡἼ 14. My FT, νι τ Vi. 1, Vill..16,.65 3 
and τὰ προκείμενα Joseph. Azz. xvi. 
2. 5. Many other interpretations 
have been adopted; e.g. by Pearson 
‘It stands already written’ (com- 
paring Athen. xiv. p. 646 πρόκειται 
τὸ μαρτύριον), and so Bull (in the pas- 
sage cited below) as an alternative, 
as also several later writers; by Bull 
(Works Vi. p. 208) ‘It is rejected by 
us’; by Credner (Beztrage i. p. 16) ‘It 
is obvious,’ ‘So ist die Sache ausge- 
macht,’ and so other writers; by Hug 
(Introd. to the N.T.1. p. 105) ‘This 
is to be preferred’ (comparing Sext. 
Emp. Pyrrh. i. 8); together with 
others which it is unnecessary to 
give. ΑἹ] these fail, either as forcing 
a meaning on πρόκειται which is 
alien to it, or as yielding a sense 
which is unsuited to the context. 
The emendation of Voss, who inserts 
a negative, ore ov πρόκειται, and the 
conjecture of Pearson (see Smith p. 
84), who substitutes οὔτι for ὅτε, may 
likewise be dismissed, notwithstand- 
ing the great names of their authors. 
They do not gain any support from 
the language of the interpolator, 
οὐ yap πρόκειται (ν. 1. προκρίνεται) 
τὰ ἀρχεῖα τοῦ πνεύματος, but just 
the contrary; for this language is 
put by him into the mouth, not of the 
objectors, but of Ignatius himself. It 
is clear therefore that the interpolator 


ΤΟΥ 1]. 


4 ἡ δι᾽ αὐτο] GL; ἡ περὶ 


read in his text πρόκειται, which he 
interpreted, ‘Zhe archives (i.e. the 
Old Testament Scriptures) ave to be 
preferred; and he makes Ignatius 
answer the objectors accordingly. 

ἐμοὶ δὲ κιτ.λ.} 1.6. ‘Though I have 
condescended to argue, though 1 
have accepted their appeal to the Old 
Testament Scriptures, yet to myself 
such an appeal is superfluous: Jesus 
Christ zs the archives; He contains 
in Himself the documentary proofs 
of His person and mission’: comp. 
Clem. Recogn. i. 59 ‘non ideo cre- 
dendum esse Jesu, quia de eo pro- 
phetae praedixerint, sed ideo magis 
credendum esse prophetis, quod vere 
prophetae sint, quia eis testimonium 
Christus reddat, etc.’ 

3. aOcxra] ‘2zvzolable’; an appro- 
priate epithet of ἀρχεῖα, being used 
especially of sacrosanct places and 
things. 

5. ἐν, tH “προσευχῇ K.T.ArA.] ie. 
‘through your prayers’; compare 
Ephes. 20 with the note. 

δικαιωθῆναι] Comp. Xow. 5. 

IX. ‘The priests deserve respect, 
I allow; but much more the High- 
priest. He alone is entrusted with 
the holiest things of all, the hidden 
mysteries of God. He Himself is 
that door of the Father, through 
whom patriarchs and prophets and 
apostles and the whole Church must 
alike enter into the unity of God. 
But the Gospel has the pre-eminence 
in that it sets forth the advent, the 
passion, the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. The prophets indeed fore- 


[ὃ 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1x 


274 
IX. Karol καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς" κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς 

7 \ ε σ΄ ε ral 
ὁ πεπιστευμένος τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ὃς μόνος πεπί- 
~ ΄- λ a 
στευται τὰ κρυπτὰ tou Θεοῦ: αὐτὸς wy θύρα τοῦ 


/ ὃ > ΩΣ 3 / "A \ \ ; A \ 
TAT POS, cs: εἰσερχόνται βραὰμ Kal CGaak Καὶι 


1 kal] GL; μὲν g: om. A. 
Mss read κρείσσω); dub. A. 


κρεῖσσον] GL; κρείσσων σ᾽ (though some 


3 αὐτὸς av] GL; οὗτός ἐστιν [6] (but 


the whole context is changed); et hic est A (but A commonly changes participles 


into finite verbs). 


told iim’ but the “Gospel is’ the 
crown and completion of immor- 
tality. All things together are good, 
if your faith is joined with love.’ 

I. Καλοὶ καὶ x.7.A.] The contrast 
here is between the Levitical priest- 
hood, and the great High-priest of 
the Gospel, i.e. between the old and 
new dispensations. This is recog- 
nised by most commentators, and 
indeed is so directly demanded by 
the context, that it is strange any 
other interpretation should have been 
maintained. The interpolator how- 
ever has altered the passage, so as 
to make a reference to the three 
orders of the Christian ministry, Ka- 
hot μὲν of ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ τοῦ λόγου 
διάκονοι, κρείσσων δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς κιτ.λ, 
interpolating several words so as to 


disconnect αὐτὸς ov θύρα from apxte- - 


pevs, which he evidently intends to be 
understood of the Christian bishop. 
This has misled Cotelier, who in- 
terprets ἱερεῖς of the Christian pres- 
byters: "and “so ‘too “others (e.g. 
Greenwood Cathedra Petri 1. p. 73). 
Rothe (Az/fange 1. p. 732) applies it 
to the Christians of Philadelphia 
generally, as the ἱερεῖς of the new 
dispensation (comp. Rev. i. 6, v. Io, 
ἘΣ Ὁ. 

But what form of antagonism has 
the writer in view, when he says 
καλοὶ καὶ of iepets? Is the statement 
aggressive, as against those who dis- 
paraged the Old Testament dispen- 


4 εἰσέρχονται] GLA; εἰσῆλθον [g]. 


6 Θεοῦ] 


sation? or concesstve, as towards 
those who rated it too highly ? Were 
these antagonists Antijudaic or Ju- 
daic? The latter view alone seems 
consistent with the sequence of the 
writer’s thoughts. There is no indi- 
cation that the antagonists contem- 
plated here are different from those 
mentioned in the previous context, 
who were plainly Judaizers; and 
moreover the stress of the sentence 
itself is not on the eminence of the 
Aaronic priesthood, but on the supe- 
rior eminence of the High-priest and 
the Gospel. 

κρεῖσσον] The neuter is justified 
by such passages as Matt. xil. 41, 42 
πλεῖον ᾿Ἰωνᾶ.. Σολομῶνος ; comp. also 
Winer § lviii. p. 649 sq. 

ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς] After the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, li. 17, 111. I, Iv. 14, Vv. 5, 
ΤΟ, Vi. 20, “Vii: “26, vii: 15) ise ee 
sée esp. Vii. 7) 19,/ 22) 7232, 20.) ὑπὸ 
TOU KpEiTTOVOS...e€mELTAywy?) κρείττονος 
eAmidos...Kpeitrovos διαθήκης...οἱ μὲν 
πλείονές εἰσιν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες διὰ τὸ 
θανάτῳ κωλύεσθαι παραμένειν, ὁ δὲ διὰ 
τὸ μένειν K.T.A....ToLOUTOs ἡμῖν [καὶ] 
ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς. For this term 
ἀρχιερεύς applied to Christ in early 
writers, see the note on Clem. Rom. 
36; and to the references there given 
add 2b. 61 διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ προ- 
στάτου τῶν Ψυχῶν ἡμῶν, Melito 
Fragm. 15 (Otto) ‘in sacerdotibus 
princeps sacerdotum,’ Clem. Alex. 
Protr. 12 (p. 93), Stvom. iv. 23 (p. 





1x] 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS, 


2795 


\ \ ~ \ ε ΄ ᾽ 
᾿Ιακωβ καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι: καὶ ἡ ἐκκλη- 


7ὔ 
Ola. 


~ 3 ς / ΄- 
πάντα ταῦτα εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ. 


ἐξαίρετον O€ TL 


af \ 3 ΄ \ 7 ΄σ n 
ἔχει TO εὐαγγέλιον, THY παρουσίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος, 


ΘΑΓΡΊ. 


The reading of the Mss of L, fidez, is obviously corrupted from αἶδί. 
reminiscence of Ephes. iv. 13 would assist the corruption. 


The 
7 σωτῆρος] 


LA[g]; om. G. Petermann inserts σωτῆρος after παρουσίαν, but this is solcecistic, 
Zahn places it as I have done; and this position is suggested by g, which has 
τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμών ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


633), Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 7 ‘verus 
summus sacerdos patris, Christus 
Jesus,’ iv. 35 ‘authenticus pontifex 
Dei patris’ (comp. iv. 9). 

2. ὁπεπιστευμένος x.T.A.] The re- 
ference is to the special privilege of 
the high-priest, who alone was al- 
lowed to enter into the holy of 
holies, as in Heb. ix. 7—12, x. 19 sq. 
This coincidence, combined with 
those noticed in the preceding note, 
shows, I think, that Ignatius must 
have had the Epistle to the Hebrews 
in his mind. 

os «.t.A.] ‘for He alone etc’? This 
clause explains the symbolism of 
‘being entrusted with the holy of 
holies.’ The furniture of the adytum, 
the ark of the covenant, the pot of 
manna, the rod of Aaron, the tables 
of the law, etc, which were com- 
mitted to the keeping of the high- 
priest alone, represent the secret 
counsels of God; comp. Heb. ix. 3 sq. 

3. αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα] ‘He not only 
enters into the presence-chamber of 
the Father, but is Himself the door’; 
doubtless an allusion to John x. 9 
eyo εἰμι ἡ θύρα: δι’ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις 
εἰσέλθη, σωθήσεται. For similar re- 
ferences to Christ, as the door or 
gate, see the note on Clem. Rom. 
48. See especially the allegory in 
Hermas Sz. ix. 12. It is worth 
observing also that this image occurs 
in the message to the Philadelphian 
Church, Rev. iii. 8 ἰδοὺ δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν 
σου θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην κ.τ.λ. 


4. ᾿Αβραὰμ x«.7.A.] For the man- 
ner in which Ignatius regards the 
privileges of the Gospel as extended 
to the patriarchs, etc, see the notes 
on § 5 above, and esp. on Magn. 9. 
In the allegory of Hermas those 
stones which represent the patri- 
archs and prophets, not less than 
those which represent the apostles, 
are carried through the gate for the 
building of the tower, i.e. the Church; 
Sz. 1x. 4, 15. 

6. πάντα ταῦτα κ.τ.λ.] ‘All these 
elements, whether they belong to the 
old dispensation or to the new, are 
brought zo the unity of God, i.e. all 
are united together in the same God 
through the same Christ; § 5 above, 
πιστεύσαντες ἐσώθησαν ἐν ἑνότητι Ἴη- 
σοῦ Χριστοῦ, where the idea is the 
same. For the expression ἑνότης 
Θεοῦ see the note on § 8. 

ἐξαίρετον x.T.A.] Comp. Siyrn. 7 
ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν ᾧ τὸ 
πάθος ἡμῖν δεδήλωται καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις 
τετελείωται. 

7. τὴν παρουσίαν] The reference 
is obviously to the first advent, the 
incarnation, though the word, when 
not specially defined, generally refers 
to the second advent. The word 
does not occur in this sense in the 
N. T., except possibly in 2 Pet. i. 16. 
See for instances elsewhere, 752 
Duod. Patr. Levi 8, Juda 22, Clem. 
Hom. ii. 52, Clem. Recogn. i. 59 
‘praesentia et adventus Christi,’ Iren. 
iv. 7. i, iv. τοῦ sq, ClemivAlex 


18—z2 


276 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[rx 


΄- ~~ ~~ a ’ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ, τὴν dva-- 


στασιν. 


οἱ γὰρ ἀγαπητοὶ προφῆται κατήγγειλαν εἰς 


3 , \ \ 3 / 3 / Mone. 3 / 
αὐτόν: τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον απαρτισμα ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίας. 


, σ΄ 9) aN 3 “ / 
TAVTA ὁμοῦ KaNa ἐστιν, ἐαν ἐν ἀγαπὴ πιστεύητε. 


\ \ \ ΄σ \ \ 
X. ᾿Επειδὴ κατὰ τὴν προσευχὴν ὑμῶν, Kal κατα 5 


1 Κυρίου] GLA; om. [9]. 


στασιν); αὐτὴν g. 


DSE7OUE Ὁ ΠΡ Ρ. 251) 1 18 (p> 370): 
Early writers are careful to distin- 
guish the two παρουσίαι of Christ; 
ἘΠῚ Justin Afol. 1 152 (p. $7), Dzai. 
14 (p. 232), 32 (p. 249); comp. 20. 49 
(9:1 268),; 120) (p. 350) 3) (ren. ἵν. 33; 
{π  ; Can. Murat. p. 35) (ed. Tre- 
gelles); Tertull. Apo/. 21; Clem. 
kecogn. 1. 49, 69. The passages in 
the Recognitions 1 should have over- 
looked, but for Hesse Das Murat. 
7 agi. Pp. 112. 

I. to maOos «.7r.A.| For the ab- 
sence of conjunctions comp. Polyc. 
6 τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, πρεσβυτέροις, διακό- 
νοις. The καὶ before τὴν ἀνάστασιν 
in the Greek MS of Ignatius is al- 
most certainly an interpolation. It 
produces an almost impossible Greek 
sentence, and demands another καὶ 
before τὸ πάθος : see the notes on 
Trall. 7, 12. Whether we should 
read αὐτοῦ or αὐτὴν, is a less easy 
question; probably the former, both 
because it is better supported, and 
because αὐτὴν τὴν ἀνάστασιν would 
emphasize the Resurrection as com- 
pared with the Passion, in a way 
which the language of Ignatius else- 
where does not justify, the chief 
stress being commonly laid on the 
Passion. 

2. κατήγγειλαν εἰς] For this con- 
struction see the note on § 5. 


αὐτοῦ] GLA (which translates it after τὴν ἀνά- 
τὴν] 5; καὶ τὴν GA (but A inserts e¢ before τὸ πάθος also 
and otherwise alters the form of the sentence). 
the other omitted. See the lower note. 

L; κατήγγελον [g] (Mss, but witha νυ. 1.) ; pracdicaverunt A. 


In one Ms of L ef¢ is inserted, in 
2 κατήγγειλαν] G; annunciaverunt 
4 πιστεύητε] 


3. ἀπάρτισμα ἀφθαρσίας] ‘ the 
completed work of immortality, as 
the law was the first stage; where 
ἀπάρτισμα corresponds to τετελείω- 
ται in the parallel passage, Swzyrm. 7 
quoted above. In 1 Kings vil. 9 
(Symm.) ἀπαρτίσματα are the coping 
stones, the tops of the walls, com- 
monly called θριγκο. The word 
differs from ἀπαρτισμός (Luke xiv. 
28), as the result from the operation. 
By ἀφθαρσία is meant the indestruc- 
tible, eternal life, which is the object 
of the Gospel; comp. Polyc. 2 τὸ δὲ 
θέμα ἀφθαρσία καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, [Clem. 
Rom.] 11. 7 τὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀγῶνα. 
The word however involves the idea 
of moral incorruption, which is in- 
separable from eternal life; see the 
notes on Lphes. 17, Magn. 6. 

4. πάντα ὁμοῦ καλά] i.e. ‘whether be- 
longing to the old dispensation or 
the new’; comp. καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς 
κιτιλ., and πάντα ταῦτα K.T.A. 

X. ‘Since the Church of Antioch 
has rest owing to your prayers and 
your Christian compassion, it is your 
duty to send a deacon thither, as 
God’s ambassador, to congratulate 
them and to glorify Christ’s name. 
Happy the man, who shall be en- 
trusted with this office. The mission 
will redound to your glory. If you 
really desire to send such a person, 


Ο 


x] 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


277 


\ / aA of > —~ 9 ~ 3 / 
Ta σπλαγχνα a ἔχετε EV Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ, amnyyexn μοι 


3 7 \ 3 I \ > 3 7 ΄σ 7 
εἰρήνευειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τῆν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τῆς Cupias, 


7 3 \ Cis ς > IA ~ la 
TPETOV ἐστιν» UMLY, WS EKKANO LA Θεοῦ, χειροτονησαι 


/ > \ ~ 3 ΡΞ ~ 
διάκονον εἰς TO πρεσβεῦσαι ἐκεῖ Θεοῦ πρεσβείαν, εἰς τὸ 


~ 3 lo 3 \ \ 3 \ / 
συγχάρηναι αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ TO αὐτὸ γενομένοις Kal δοξάσαι 


G; creditis L; al. Ag. 


5 κατὰ sec.] GL; om. g; al. A. 


8 πρέπον] 


txt GLg; add. οὖν S,A (but they alter the former part of the sentence). 
Q διάκονον] GL; ministrum aliquem (unum) S,; aliquem bonum ministrum A; 


ἐπίσκοπον σ. 


το συγχαρῆναι] ΟΤ,5:4 ; συγχωρηθῆναι g. 


καὶ δοξάσαι] 


GLg; εἰ glorificent S,; qui glorificant A. 


you will not find it impossible. The 
churches nearest to Syria have sent 
bishops, and others presbyters and 
deacons.’ 

5. Ἐπειδὴ κιτιλ.] When Ignatius 
wrote his four letters from Smyrna, 
he was still anxious about the 
Church of Antioch, and desired the 
prayers of his correspondents for its 
welfare ; see the note on 2 2765. 21. 
By the time that he arrived at Troas 
however, or soon after, he had heard 
that the persecution was ended, and 
inthe threeletters written from thence 
he charges his readers to send dele- 
gates to congratulate this church 
on the restoration of peace; comp. 
Smyrn. 11, Polyc.7. The words κατὰ 
τὴν kK... are connected, not with 
ἀπηγγέλη, but with εἰρηνεύειν. 

6. τὰ σπλάγχνα] i.e. ‘your Chris- 
tian compassion and love’; comp. 
Philippians i. 8 ἐπιποθῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς 
ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (with 
the note). 

7. τῆς Συρίας] As in Smyrn. 11, 
Polyc. 7. So it is specified also 
Clem. Hom. xi. 36, xii. 1: see also 
ee.) C2 7. τ: 5125: “The addition 
was not unneeded, though this was 
the principal place bearing the 


‘name; for Appian (Sy7v. 57) relates 


that Seleucus founded (ἔκτισεν) six- 
teen cities which he called ᾿Αντιό- 
χεια after his father, and Steph. Byz. 


Ss. v. enumerates fourteen bearing the 
name. Ignatius however inserts such 
specifications where there was not 
this reason; see e.g. Epfes. inscr. 
ev ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, Swyrn. inscr. 
ἐν Σμύρνῃ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, with the notes. 
This Antioch, the great Antioch, 
was not unfrequently called ἡ ἐπὶ 
Δάφνῃ (e.g. Strabo xv. I. p. 719, xvi. 
2e.p.1749,' }oseph...A v7. xvily ΣῈ 
ἡ ἐπὶ Δάφνης (Plut. Vet. Lucull. 21; 
comp. Plin. JV. 27. v. 18 ‘Epidaphnes 
cognominata’) or ἡ πρὸς Δάφνην 
(Hierocl. Syuecd. 711) or ἡ πρὸς 
Δάφνῃ (Mionnet v. p. 36 sq) or ἡ 
περὶ Δάφνην (Steph. Byz. 5. vv. “Akpa, 
Mepon); but the associations con- 
nected with the grove of Daphne 
would not recommend this designa- 
tion to Ignatius; see I. p. 41 sq. 

ὃ, πρέπον ἐστὶν κιτ.λ.] See the 
similar directions to the Smyrnzeans 
in Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 7. 

9. Θεοῦ πρεσβείαν] A similar mes- 
senger is called θεοπρεσβύτης Smyrn. 
11, θεοδρόμος Polyc. 7. 

10. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κ-τ.λ.] ‘ when they 
are assembled together’ in church ; 
comp. § 6, and Ephes. 5, 13. The 
Latin translator has merely adopted 
the common Vulgate rendering of 
ἐπὶ TO αὐτό 771: 2aipsum, but commen- 
tators (eg. Smith, Jacobson) have 
misapprehended it. 

καὶ δοξάσαι] It is possible to con- 


278 


THE. EPISTLE ‘OF “IGNATIUS 


[x 


\ ᾽} > m3 qn rat θή 
τὸ ὄνομα: μακάριος ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὃς καταξιωθη- 
΄: / / \ qn / 
σεται τῆς τοιαύτης διακονίας" Kal ὑμεῖς δοξασθήσεσθε. 

΄ \ Pinions 3 af Ὁ 7 Cite 9 WE 

θέλουσιν δὲ ὑμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδύνατον ὑπὲρ ὀνόματος 
~ ε sf / sf 

Θεοῦ: ws Kal αἱ ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι ἔπεμψαν ἐπι- 


/ ε \ / \ / 
σκόπους, αἱ δὲ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διακονους. 


Ι τὸ ὄνομα] GL; add. τοῦ θεοῦ g; add. domini 514. 
καταξιωθήσεται] GL; κατηξιώθη g. A has a 

2 δοξασθήσεσθε] GLg; glorificabitis 51; dub. A. 
οὐκ ἔστιν] GL; non est...hoc S,; non quidguam 
4 καὶ ai ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι] G; et guaedam propinquae 


gA; incot χριστῷ GLS,. 
future, S; a present. 
3 δῶ] GLg; om. 5,3; e A. 


est A; ov πᾶσιν g. 


Χριστῷ "Inoov] 


ecclesiae Το (see appx); καὶ del ai ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι g; sanctae ecclesiae tllae quae 51: 


nect these words with either χειρο- 
τονῆσαι OY πρεσβεῦσαι OY συγχαρῆναι. 
The first mode of connexion is re- 
commended by the subsequent clause 
καὶ ὑμεῖς δοξασθήσεσθε. The third is 
favoured by the proximity, and pro- 
bably this consideration should pre- 
vail. The second has nothing to 
recommend it. 

I. τὸ ὄνομα] ‘the Name’; see the 
note on Lfhes. 3. 

καταξιωθήσεται)] See the note on 
Ephes. 20. 

2. καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτλ.] Perhaps to 
be connected closely with δοξάσαι τὸ 
ὄνομα, the intervening words μακάριος 
...Olakovias being parenthetical; comp. 
e.g. § II εἰς λόγον τιμῆς" τιμήσει av- 
τοὺς ὁ Κύριος κ.τ.λ. 

3. θέλουσιν δὲ κιιλ] ‘Where 
there is a will, there is a way.’ With 
ὑπὲρ ὀνόματος Θεοῦ must be under- 
stood τοῦτο ποιεῖν, or words to this 
effect. 

5. ai δὲ] ‘but others, presuma- 
bly those which were not so near and 
whose bishop could not be spared. 

XI. ‘Philo the deacon from Cilicia, 
who is assisting me in the Word, 
and Rhaius Agathopus, who follows 
me from Syria, bear witness to the 
kindly hospitality which they re- 


ceived from you. I am thankful for 
it, and I pray that God may requite 
you, May Christ’s grace redeem 
those who treated them otherwise. 
Salutations from the brethren in 
Troas, whence I write to you by the 
hand of Burrhus, whom the Ephe- 
sians and Smyrnzeans have sent with 
me to do honour to me. The Lord 
Jesus Christ in whom they trust will 
do honour to them. Farewell in 
Christ Jesus, our common hope.’ 

6. “περὶ δὲ «.7.A.] The persons 
here mentioned had followed in the 
track of Ignatius. They would 
therefore pass through Philadelphia, 
as he had done (see αὶ τὶ 6, 7, with 
the notes). From Philadelphia they 
went to Smyrna, where also they 
were hospitably entertained (Swyra. 
10). It appears from the language 
of Ignatius to the Smyrnzans, that 
he had already left Smyrna, before 
they arrived. They therefore fol- 
lowed him to Troas. They were 
doubtless the bearers of the good 
news that the persecution at An- 
tioch had ceased. They would pro- 


bably also accompany him further ; 


and, if so, they would be those com- 
panions of Ignatius about whom 
Polycarp enquires, PAz7. § 13 ‘et de 


. 


ΧΙ] 


ΧΙ. 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


279 


Περὶ δὲ Φίλωνος τοῦ διακόνου ἀπὸ Κιλικίας, 


3 ὃ \ / « \ - 3 Xr / Θ mie 
avopos μεμαρτυρήμενου, OS καὶ VUV εν oyw €OU νυτῆη- 


peter μοι, ἅμα ‘Paiw ᾿λγαθόποδι, ἀνδρὶ ἐκλεκτῷ, Os 


sanctae ecclesiae quae A. Petermann supposes that this reading is to be explained 


by a confusion of Wa πο sanctae and Wohasto propinguae. It seems 
quite as likely however that arial may have been corrupted from Kdaldl, the word 


ἔγγιστα being omitted. 
κιλικίας σ. 


6 ἀπὸ Κιλικίας ἀνδρὸς] GLA; ἀνδρὸς ἀπὸ 
7 Θεοῦ] GLA; om. g* (but 1 adds dz). 


8 ‘Palw 


᾿Αγαθόποδι] see the lower note; pew . ἀγαθόποδι (with the interpunctuation) G; 
reo agathopode Τ,; reo fratre et agathopode A; γαίῳ (or γαυΐᾳ) καὶ ἀγαθόποδι g*. 
See also Smyrn. 10, where L, in addition to Ag, inserts the conjunction. 


ipso Ignatio et de his qui cum eo 
sunt [τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ] quod certius ag- 
noveritis, significate’; see Pearson 
V. I. p. 171. In the opinion of those 
critics who maintain the genuineness 
of the Antiochene Martyrology, they 
were also the eye-witnesses and nar- 
rators of the saint’s voyage and suf- 
ferings ($7 τούτων αὐτόπται γενόμενοι). 
So for instance Ussher (422. Len. 
p- 54), Ruinart (Act. Stuc. Mart. Ὁ. 55, 
Ratisbon. 1859), Smith (p. 42, who 
says, ‘vix a quoquam dubitari aut 
potest aut debet’), and many later 
writers. The first person however 
does not commence, as on this hy- 
pothesis it ought, at Troas, but off 
Puteoli (δ 5 ἡμεῖς) ; see Zahn 19. v. A. 
p- 42. 

τοῦ διακόνου κιτιλ.] The Pseudo- 
Ignatius makes him a deacon of 
Tarsus, 7475. 10 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς 
Φίλων ὁ διάκονος ὑμῶν (a letter pur- 
porting to be written from Philippi). 
In the genuine Ignatius, Smyrz. 13, 
he sends a salutation to the Smyrn- 
eeans. 

7. ἀνδρὸς pepaptupnuevov| The 
same phrase is used of the Seven 
in Acts vi. 3. On the meaning of 
μεμαρτυρημένου See the note on Ephes. 
512. 

ἐν λόγῳ Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘the preaching 
of the Gospel,’ as eg. Acts vi. 2 
καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 


Col. i. 25 πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, Rev. i. 9 διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
In the parallel passage Smyrn. 10 
εἰς λόγον Θεοῦ the expression has a 
wholly different sense. Zahn how- 
ever treats the two phrases as equi- 
valent and compares Phil. iv. 17, 
Εἰς: 

ὑπηρετεῖ] By doing the work of a 
deacon or attendant; comp. Acts 
Xili. 5 εἶχον δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην ὑπηρέτην. 

8. Ῥαίῳ] I have ventured on 
this correction of the reading for two 
reasons. (1) I have not succeeded 
in finding the proper name Rheus 
elsewhere, whereas Raius (Raiius, 
Rahius) occurs several times Cor. 
Inscr. Lat. Wi. 1129, 4975", Il. 6183, 
v. 4078, and the feminine Raia, C. 
Fi TZ; TE. 1Z490; | TE, \2400,, 2502, ye 
973; see also the indices to Vols. 
IX. X. (2) This form explains both 
the readings of the MSS. By a com- 
mon itacism it would become ‘Péa, 
as in the MS of Ignatius; by a slight 
corruption, raiw! for paiwl, it would 
produce the Ταΐῳ of the interpolator’s 
text. As Raius is a nomen, and 
Agathopus a cognomen, the com- 
bination is correct. In a Greek 
inscription at Palmyra (C. 7. G. 4482) 
the name ‘Paaios occurs. 

᾿Αγαθόποδι] A common name, more 
especially in the case of slaves and 
freedmen; see for Greek inscrip- 


280 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x1 


\ / > ~ Ud a ἃ 
ἀπὸ Cupias μοι ἀκολουθεῖ ἀποταξάμενος TH βίῳ" οἱ καὶ 
έ έ 


μαρτυροῦσιν ὑμῖν. 


> \ ΄σ 9 ~ 3 ~ ε \ 
KkKayw TW EW EVV APlLO TW UTE) 


e ΄σ e/ 57 3 / ς \ ε ΄σ ε / ε 
ὑμῶν, ὅτι ἐδέξασθε αὐτούς, ὡς καὶ ὑμᾶς ὁ Κύριος. οἱ 


1 ἀποταξάμενος] GLA; ἀποταξάμενοι g. 
(substituting ὑπὲρ ὧν for ὅτι in the next clause). 


2 ὑπὲρ] G; pro LA; περὶ g 
4 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] gL; 


τοῦ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ G; domini nostri tesu christi A. The reading of G seems to 
have arisen from the accidental omission of κυρίου ἡμῶν, for τοῦ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ can 


hardly stand. 


5 τῶν ἀδελφών] GAg; multorum L. 


6 Βούρρου 


G; durrum 1.; βούργου g (without any v. 1.); A has dardum here, as also in 


Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 12. 


Petermann supposes that this is owing to a confusion in 


the Armenian letters for αἱ and g, which closely resemble each other, so that the 


tions, C. J. G. 268, 270, 1380, 2454, 
[2837], 2878, 3847 d, 3977, 4716 d, 
etc; Wood’s Discoveries at Ephesus 
ὙΠ ἢ (pine) s tor eating Cy 7. £0) ΤΙ: 
2431, 2864, 4463, 4550, Il]. 633, 1825, 
2113, 3017, 3141, 3959, V. 744, 806, 
ἘΠ. ΠΡ Τ25 1. πηδῶ» ete. dn (7: 
L. τι. 4463 it is connected with other 
familiar names, CVRA . AGATHOPI . 
TROPHIMI.POLYCARPI.LIBERTORVM. 
As an early Christian name it ap- 
pears in the Roman catacombs (de 
Rossi Roma Sotterranea 11. Ὁ. 47 56; 
Ill. p. 286 (?); comp. Bull. di Arch. 
Crist. Gennaro 1863), being some- 
times confused with Agapetus. It is 
also used as the name of a con- 
fessor in the Avnczent Syrian Mar- 
tyrology, published by Wright in the 
Fournal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 
1866 (from a MS itself dated A.D. 412), 
under Nisan (April) 4th. For an 
illustration of the meaning of Aga- 
thopus, comp. August. £/. 17 ad 
Max. (II. p. 22) ‘Namphanio[a Punic 
proper name] quid aliud significat 
quam boni pedis hominem, 1.6. cujus 
adventus afferat aliquid felicitatis, 
sicut solemus dicere, secundo pede 
introisse, cujus introitum prosperitas 
aliqua consecuta sit?’, quoted by 
Pearson on Smyrn. τὸ (but he 
wrongly calls it an epistle of Maxi- 
mus zo Augustine) The meaning 


will account for the frequency of the 
name, as one ‘fausti ominis.’ Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, Strom. iii. 7 (p. 
538), quotes a letter of the heretic 
Valentinus to one Agathopus. Voss 
(on Smyrn. 10) expressed a belief 
that he is the same person with our 
Agathopus, and defended his opinion 
in his answer to Blondel (see Pear- 
son V. 7. p. 645 sq, ed. Churton). 
This identification is likewise main- 
tained by Pearson (on Smyrn. 10) 
and by Grabe (5226. Patr. 11. p. 53). 
Chronologically it is quite defensible, 
since Agathopus is apparently a 
young man now, and Valentinus 
flourished within some 20 or 30 
years of Ignatius’ death. Moreover 
it would help to explain those anti- 
cipations of Valentinian phraseology 
which we find in Ignatius (see e.g. 
Ephes. inscr., Magn. 8, Trail. 1, 
fom. inscr., 6, 7); for it would show 
that Ignatius moved in the same 
circles. The identification therefore 
seems far from improbable. But, the 
name being so common, too much 
stress must not be laid on it. 

In the interpolator’s text this per- 
son is divided into two, ‘Gaius (for 
Rhaius) azd Agathopus,’ both here 
andin Swyrn. 10. There can be little 
doubt however that this is a mis- 
take; for (1) The addition ἀνδρὶ 


x1] 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 


281 


\ > / \ » ~~ 3 
δὲ ἀτιμάσαντες αὐτοὺς λυτρωθείησαν ἐν TH χάριτι ᾿Ιη- 


σοῦ Χριστοῦ. ᾿λσπαάζεται ὑμάς ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφών 


τῶν ἐν Τρωάδι: ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Βούρρου πεμ- 


Greek reading underlying this authority would be βούργου. 


This explanation 


might pass here and in Swyrn. 12, where also g has βούργου ; but it fails to account 
for the reading of A in Aphes. 2, where there is no various reading βούργου in the 
Greek, and where even g has the form in pp (though with some variations in the 
vowels). The true explanation of the Armenian reading in all the three passages 
is that which Petermann himself gives on Afhes. 2; that it arises from a confusion 


of the Syriac letters 3 and 4%, ὦ and yr. The substitution of βοῦργος for Bodppos, 


here and in Smyrn. 12, has a parallel in the substitution of yalw for ῥαίῳ just above. 


ἐκλεκτῷ κιτιλ. Shows that a single 
person is mentioned; (2) In the 
spurious Ignatian Epistles (Azz. 13, 
Philipp. 15; comp. Tars. 10) only 
two persons are represented as being 
with Ignatius on this journey, Φίλων 
καὶ ᾿Αγαθόπους οἱ διάκονο. As these 
false letters emanated from the same 
author who interpolated the genuine 
letters, he is inconsistent with him- 
self, unless indeed the καὶ, here and 
_ in Smyrn. 10, crept into his text at 
a later date. It would appear from 
Smyrn. 10 (see the note), that Aga- 
thopus, like Philo, was a deacon, for 
the two are there called διάκονοι 
Χριστοῦ (the word probably being 
used in its official sense). The 
Pseudo-Ignatius (Il. cc.) is explicit on 
this point. 

I. ἀποταξάμενος κιτ.λ.} ‘having 
bidden farewell to this lower Zzfe’; 
comp. Philo Leg. ad Caz. 41 (II. p. 593) 
wa μὴ ὁ σὸς ᾿Αγρίππας ἀποτάξηται τῷ 
βίῳ, [Clem. Rom.] ii. 6 δεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς 
τούτῳ [τῷ αἰώνι] ἀποταξαμένους ἐκείνῳ 
[τῷ μέλλοντι] χρᾶσθαι, with the note. 
For the distinction between βίος the 
lower and ζωὴ the higher life, see the 
note on Rom. 7. 

2. μαρτυροῦσιν ὑμῖν] i.e. ‘bear 
witness to your hospitality’: comp. 
3 Joh. 5, 6, eis τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ 


“ a ΄“ 
τοῦτο ξένους, ot ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ 


ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας K.T.A. 

3. ws καὶ ὑμᾶς] ie. ἀποδέξεται 
or ἀποδέξαιτο: comp. Ephes. 2 κατὰ 
πάντα με ἀνέπαυσεν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ὁ 
πατὴρ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναψύξαι ἴν. 1. 
ἀναψύξει), Smyrn. 9 κατὰ πάντα με 
ἀνεπαύσατε, καὶ ὑμᾶς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός 
(with the note). See also the note 
on Smyri. 5 μᾶλλον δὲ x.t-A. for 
other similar modes of expression. 

οἱ δὲ ἀτιμάσαντε) These were 
doubtless the heretical teachers who 
had opposed Ignatius himself when 
he was in Philadelphia; see above 
$$ 6, 7, 8. 

4. λυτρωθείησαν] ‘be ransomed, 
and set free from this chain of sin, 
in which they are at present bound; 
see above § ὃ τῇ χάριτι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
ὃς λύσει ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν πάντα δεσμόν. For 
this word as a theological term com- 
pare (besides the passages in the 
N. T.) Barnab. 14, 19,[Clem. Rom. ] 
it.) V7 

5. ἡ ἀγάπη] See the note on 
Trail 3. 

6. διὰ Bovppov| He acted as the 
amanuensis of Ignatius. For this 
Burrhus see the note on Zhes. 2, 
and for the meaning of the preposi- 
tion διὰ the note on Rom. Io. 

πεμφθέντος) In accordance with 
the wish expressed Ephes. 2 εὔχομαι 
παραμεῖναι αὐτὸν κτλ. 


282 


IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. [x1 


, «.« 3 \ > \ 3 7 \ A 3 
φθέντος ἅμα ἐμοὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Εφεσίων καὶ (μυρναίων eis 


λόγον τιμῆς. 


’ 3 \ ε if 3 ΄σ ͵ 
τιμήσει αὐτοὺς ὁ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, 


3 rat 9 / ik Cond / / 
εἰς ον ἐλπίζουσιν σαρκῖ, ψυχή, πνεύματι, πίστει, 
έ 


3 / ε , 
ayarn, Omovola. 
3 / ~ 
ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν. 


1 ἐμοὶ] GLA; om. g. 
norabit A; ods ἀμείψεται [6]. 
Gg; sperent L; def. A. 

A; σαρκί, ψυχῇ (om. πνεύματι) G. 
Ἰησοῦ] GLA; κυρίῳ ἰησοῦ χριστῷ g. 


aS 9 σ᾿ lal ΄ι ΄- 
ἔρρωσθε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῆ κοινῇ 
é 


2 τιμήσει αὐτοὺς] G; honoret tpsos 1,: guos ho- 
ὁ Κύριος] GLg; om. A. 
σαρκί, ψυχῇ, πνεύματι] Lge; corpore et spiritu et mente 
πίστει] GLg; om. A. 


3 ἐλπίζουσιν 


4 Χριστῷ 


κοινῇ} GLg; om. A. 5 ἡμῶν] 


txt GL; add. ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι σα; add. gratia vobiscum: amen A. 
There is no subscription in GLA. For g see the Appx. 


I. ἀπὸ ᾿Εφεσίων κιτ.λ.)] Though 
himself δὴ Ephesian, he was the 
joint delegate of both churches; see 
Smyrn. 12. 

eis λόγον τιμῆς] ‘to do me honour, 
eis λόγον meaning ‘to the account 
of,’ ‘on the score of’; comp. Swyrz. 
IO eis λόγον Θεοῦ, and see the note 
on Philippians iv. 15. 

2. τιμήσει αὐτοὺς] This responds to 
the foregoing τιμῆς ; comp. Smyrn. 9 
ὃ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τετίμηται. 


d 


3. σαρκί, ψυχῇ; mvevpare] For 
this threefold division of the human 
personality see the notes on 1 Thess. 
v. 23. The omission of πνεύματι 
(contracted τὴν!) in some authorities 
is easily explained owing to the be- 
ginning of the next word t-. 

4. ἔρρωσθε] See the note on 
Ephes. 21. 

τῇ κοινῇ ἐλπίδι] See the notes on 
Ephes. τ, Magn. 11. 


6. 


wey ΠΡ ov YRNALANS. 





LO, IHE SMYRNALAWNS. 


T would not be possible, even if it were advisable, to discuss the 

notices of Smyrna and the Smyrnzan Church with the same fulness 
which has been aimed at in the introductions to previous epistles. The 
history of a city which struck its roots into the most remote antiquity, 
which claimed Theseus or Tantalus or an Amazon as its founder and 
Homer as its most illustrious child, which has had a continuous au- 
thentic history of twenty-five centuries, and which is at this day the 
most flourishing and populous centre of commerce in the Levant, must 
be too well known to require, and too copious to admit, the scale of 
treatment which seemed suited to Magnesia and Tralles and Phila- 
delphia. Such details moreover, as are necessary to understand the 
position of Christianity in Smyrna at this time, have found their proper 
place in the notice of Polycarp. 

This letter, like the preceding one to the Philadelphians, was written 
from Troas, and probably about the same time. The /ersonnel there- 
fore is the same. Burrhus is again his amanuensis (δ 12). Philo and 
Rhaius Agathopus are again mentioned as having received a kindly 
welcome from his correspondents (§ 10). Directions are again given 
for the dispatch of a representative to congratulate the Church of Antioch 
(δ rz). But at Smyrna he had made a longer halt, and apparently had 
established more affectionate relations, than at Philadelphia. Hence 
he sends special salutations to certain classes of persons, and to certain 
individuals by name (§ 13). 

The main purport of the letter is the condemnation of the same 
Judaic Docetism which he assails elsewhere (see pp. 16, 103, 147 sq, 


286 IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


242 sq). But whereas in the Philadelphian letter it is attacked 
chiefly from its Judaic side, here on the contrary he denounces mainly 
its Docetism (§§ 1—6). Yet at the same time its Judaism appears in- 
cidentally from an allusion to the tuition which these heretics had 
received from the Law and the Prophets (8 5). Their separatism and 
their contentiousness are dwelt upon more fully here than in his 
other letters, and the duty of unity is strenuously enforced in con- 
sequence. 


The following is an avalysis of the epistle. 

‘IGNATIUS to the CHURCH OF SMYRNA, which abounds in faith and 
love and lacks no spiritual grace ; abundant greeting.’ 

‘I give glory to Christ who has bestowed so much wisdom on 
you, that ye fully believe in the blood of Christ and are convinced of 
His incarnation, His baptism, His passion. ‘The cross was the standard 
round which Jew and Gentile alike were summoned to rally (δ 1). These 
things were realities, not phantoms, as some persons, phantom-like 
themselves, imagine (§ 2). The Lord appeared to Peter and to the 
disciples after the resurrection. ‘They handled Him. He ate and 
drank with them (§ 3). ‘These things I say to warn you. If the life 
and death of Christ were unreal, then my sufferings also are unreal (§ 4). 
These heretics have failed to learn from either the Law or the Gospel. 
It is a mockery to praise me, and yet to deny my Lord. I would 
gladly forget the existence of these men (§ 5). Even angels will be 
condemned, if they believe not in the blood of Christ. Beware of these 
heretics. ‘They abstain from deeds of love (§6). They hold aloof from 
the eucharist of the Church. Yet love only is life. Shun them there- 
fore, and avoid dissension (ὃ 7). Obey your bishop. ‘The bishop is 
the centre of the individual congregation, as Christ is the centre of the 
universal Church. ‘The bishop is the fountain-head of all authority 
(§ 8). Be wise in time. May God requite you for your kindness to 
me (8 9). I thank you also for your welcome of Philo’and Agathopus. 
God will reward you (§ 10). The Church of Antioch at length has 
peace. Send ye a delegate to rejoice with them. This will be a 
worthy work ; and it is within your reach (δ 11).’ 

‘Salutations from Troas. Burrhus, your representative, is my amanu- 
ensis. I salute your bishop, your clergy, your laity (§ 12). I salute 
the families of the brethren, and the holy widows. Philo sends salu- 
tations. I salute Gavia and Alce and Daphnus. Farewell (§ 13).’ 


WP OG: “GWYP NAIOYG, 


ITNATIOC, 


καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεοῦ πα- 


τρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἠλεημένη ἐν 


\ / / 3 7 \ 3 / 
παντὶ χαρισματι; πεπληρωμένη ἐν πίστει καὶ AYAaATN, 


/ 7 \ / 7 
ἀνυστερήτω Ovo) TTAVTOS χαρισμαᾶτος, θεοπρεπεσταάτη 


TPOC CMYPNAIOYC | τοῦ ἁγίου tyvariov ἐπιστὸ σμυρναίοις (numbered a in the 


marg.) G; τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς σμυρναίους οἷ; ad smyrnacos A; item alia epistola 
sanctt tgnatit martyris qui vocatur theophorus, quod est qui fert deum, quam scripsit 


ad smyrnaeos (numbered β in the marg.) C. For L see the Appx. 
ὁ (om. καὶ) C; for the other authorities see Zphes. inscr. 
Θεοῦ πατρὸς] txt GLAC; 


add. guz scrzbzt C. 
πημένου] GL; add. υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ gAC. 


‘IGNATIUS to the CHURCH OF 
SMYRNA, which is of God the Father 
and His beloved Son, and through 
His mercy abounds in faith and 
love, being deficient in no spiritual 
gift; greeting in a pure spirit and in 
the word of God.’ 

2. τοῦ ἠγαπημένου] ‘The beloved, 
os nwo LAY beloved’ ; comp. Ephes. 1. 6 
ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ,Ἴγαπημένῳ. 50 
too Barnab. 3 ὃν ἡτοίμασεν ἐν τῷ 
ἠγαπημένῳ αὐτοῦ, 2b. 4 ἵνα ταχύνῃ ὁ 
ἠγαπημένος αὐτοῦ, ἡ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου 
Ἰησοῦ [διαθήκη), Clem. Rom. 59 τοῦ 
ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ἠγαπη- 
μένου παιδὸς cov. This title ‘Dilec- 
tus’ is the common designation of 
the Messiah in the Ascensio Lsazae, 
ΕΟ 7, Ts. Mile, 195175 τὸν iv. 3, 
6, etc. 

ἠλεημένῃ ἐν] ‘having been pitied 
in, 1.6. ‘having in God’s mercy been 


I ὁ καὶ] 
Θεοφόρος] txt GLAg; 
add. ὑψίστου g. 2 ἦγα- 


endowed with.’ For the construction 
and meaning see Philad. 5 ἐν ᾧ 
κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην (with the note). Comp. 
also 1 Cor. vii. 25 ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ 
Κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι, Ign. Rom. 9 ἠλέ- 
ημαί τις εἶναι. 

3. ἐν πίστει κιτ.λ.] For this pre- 
position ve πληροῦν see Ephes. v. 
18, Col. i. 9, and perhaps Ephes. i. 
22. With πληροφορεῖν it is more 
common; see the note, Colossians 
iv. 12. For the connexion πίστει καὶ 
ἀγάπῃ see the note on Zfhes. 1. 

4. ἀνυστερήτῳ k.r.A.] Probably sug- 
gested by 1 Cor. i. 7 ὥστε ὑμᾶς μη 
ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι ; COMp. 
Polyc. 2 ἵνα μηδενὸς λείπῃ καὶ παντὸς 
χαρίσματος περισσεύῃς. The word 
ἀνυστέρητος, though a very obvious 
form, is not very common. 

θεοπρεπεστάτῃ] See the note on 
Magn. 1. 


/ 


288 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


A ioe 4 “- ᾽ 3 γ a 9 / > 5) / 
καὶ aylopopw, TH oven ἐν (μύρνη τῆς “Actas, ἐν ἀμώμῳ 
L t 


7 \ 7 a "ἃ , 
πνεύματι καὶ λόγῳ Θεοῦ πλεῖστα χαίρειν. 


if AovEaGw ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν τὸν οὕτως 


ς ~ 7 » / A ε ΄σ / 3 
ὑμᾶς σοφισαντα᾽ ἐνοησα yap ὑμάς κατηρτισμένους ἐν 


2 πνεύματι] GLCg; fide A. 


(having transposed θεοῦ and connected it with πνεύματι). 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν τὸν κ.τ.λ.] GL 


Cg Sev-Syr 2; δοξάζων G. 


λόγῳ] txt GLAg; add. sancto (app.) C 
3 Δοξάξω] LA 


Sev-Syr (comp. Ephr-Ant); zesam christum qui etc. (om. τὸν θεὸν) AC; τὸν θεὸν 


καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν “I. Χ. τὸν dv αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. g. 


I. ἁγιοφόρῳ] ‘ferax sanctorum, 
says Pearson. The analogy of other 
Ignatian compounds however, such 
as θεοφόρος, χριστοφόρος, vaodopos, 
etc, points to another meaning, ‘car- 
rying holy things,’ rather than ‘ pro- 
ducing holy men.’ See the notes on 
Θεοφόρος Lphes. inscr., and on ἐστὲ 
οὖν «t.A. Ephes. 9 (in which last 
passage the word ἁγιοφόρος itself oc- 
curs), for this metaphor derived from 
religious processions. The ‘sacred 
vessels,’ which the Church of Smyrna 
bears, are its Christian graces and 
virtues. 

Σμύρνῃ] For the form of this word 
see the note on Polyc. inscr. 

τῆς ᾿Ασίας] On this specification 
see the notes Lphes. inscr., Tradl. 
inscr., PAzlad. inscr. It was not 
wanted in this instance to distin- 
guish the place from any other bear- 
ing..the same name., A part of 
Ephesus was indeed called Smyrna 
at one time, but this name no 
longer remained, when Ignatius wrote 
(Strabo xiv. I, p. 633 sq) ; and more- 
over Ephesus itself was equally in 
‘Asia.’ 

ἐν ἀμώμῳ πνεύματι κ-ιτ.λ.] Comp. 
Ephes. inscr. πλεῖστα ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ 
καὶ ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ χαίρειν, om. inscr. 
πλεῖστα ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν 
ἀμώμως χαίρειν. The words ἐν ἀμώμῳ 
κιτιὰ. therefore are to be attached to 


ovrws] GACg Sev- 


what follows. On ἀμώμῳ see the note 
Ephes. inscr. 

2. λόγῳ Θεοῦ] Regarded here as 
an inward monitor; comp. 1 Joh. i. 10, 
11. 14, and see the note on Colossians 
ill: τ: 

πλεῖστα χαίρειν] See 
Ephes. inscr. 

I. ‘I give glory to Christ who has 
bestowed this wisdom upon you. I 
perceive that your faith is steadfast, 
being nailed to the Cross, and that 
your love is firm in the conviction 
of Christ’s blood. Ye believe that 
Christ was truly born of a virgin, 
was truly baptized, was truly nailed 
to the Cross. From the fruit of this 
tree we are sprung. Through His 
resurrection God has held up a 
standard to Jew and Gentile alike, 
that all may flock to it, and be united 
in the one body of His Church.’ 

3. Δοξάζξω] The finite verb is 
here adopted in preference to the 
participle, both because the great 
preponderance of authority is in its 
favour, and because the variation is 
very slight (δοξάζω, δοξάζω); comp. 
Polyc. τ ὑπερδοξάζω. It is quite pos- 
sible however that Δοξάζων is right 
and that we have here again an 
anacoluthon (the sentence being in- 
terrupted by a succession of subor- 
dinate clauses and never finished), as 
in Ephes. 1 ᾿Αποδεξάμενος k.7.A., Rom. 


the note 


ἢ] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


289 


/ / e/ / Cal ~ ~~ 
5 ἀκινήτῳ πιστει, WOTED καθηλωμένους ἐν τῳ σταύυρῳ TOU 


Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύματι, καὶ 


ε / > 9 / > ~ J a 
ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπη ἐν τῷ αἵματι Χριστοῦ, πεπληρο- 


Syr; om. L (but see Appx). 


4 yap] GLCg Sev-Syr; om. A. 


5 Tov 


Κυρίου] txt GCg* (but Gk Mss add. ἡμῶν); add. nostri L[A][Sev-Syr] (but the two 


last are valueless, since the addition is always made in the Syriac). 


sec.] GL[A]g Sev-Syr; om. C. 


I ᾿Επεὶ εὐξάμενος κιτ.λ. ; see the notes 
on both passages. 

τὸν Θεὸν τὸν κιτ.λ.] ‘the God who 
thus made you wise. For reasons 
which are explained in the note on 
Ephes. inscr., tov Θεὸν must be 
closely connected with the words 
following. Ignatius does not appear 
ever to call Jesus Christ God abso- 
lutely. Ephraim of Antioch, quoted 
by Photius (47z6/. 229, p. 258), refers 
to this passage, καὶ ὁ Oeopdpos δὲ 
Ἰγνάτιος καὶ μάρτυς, Σμυρναίοις ἐπι- 
στέλλων, ὁμοίως κέχρηται τῷ ἄρθρῳ 
(i.e. uses the article with Θεός, when 
speaking of our Lord); but the in- 
ference to be drawn from the pre- 
sence of the article is somewhat 
modified by the additional words τὸν 
οὕτως x.t.A. Though the words τὸν 
Θεὸν are wanting in two important 
authorities, they seem to be genuine, 
as they are appealed to by two 
fathers. The omission would be easy 
Owing to the repetition of similar 
letters TONONTONOYTOS. 

οὕτως ὑμᾶς σοφίσαντα)] ‘made you 
thus wise, as described in the open- 
ing salutation. For the expression 
comp. 2 Tim. ill. 15 τὰ δυνάμενά σε 
σοφίσαι κιτιλ. See also Ps. xviii 
Pax). /8,. civ (cv). 22, cxvili. (cxix). 
98. 

4. ἐνόησα] “1 perceived, when 1 
was staying among you.’ 

katnptiopévous| ‘settled’; see the 
note on Ephes. 2. 


IGN. Il. 


6 καὶ 
7 Χριστοῦ] G; τοῦ χριστοῦ g. 


5. ἀκινήτῳ] Comp. Phzlad. τ, Polyc. 
E: 
ὥσπερ καθηλωμένους] Col. ii. 14 
προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷς For the 
metaphor see Gal. ii. 20 Χριστῷ συν- 
εσταύρωμαι (comp. vi. 14), Rom. 7 ὁ 
ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται. Here however 
the ‘nailing fast on the Cross’ im- 
plies especially a firm belief in the 
reality of the crucifixion, as opposed 
to the theories of Docetism; comp. 
Polyc. Phil. 7 ὃς av μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ 
μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ. See also 
Trall. 11 ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ 
σταυροῦ, Ephes. 18 περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν 
πνεῦμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, Philad. 8 τὰ 
ἄθικτα ἀρχεῖα ὁ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ (with 
the note), where under different 
images the necessity of this belief is 
enforced. For ἐν with καθηλοῦσθαι 
comp. e.g. Arist. Raz. 618 ev κλίμακι 
δήσας. So the Latin ‘figere zz cruce, 
7” parietibus.’ 

6. σαρκί re x.t.A.] For this fa- 
vourite Ignatian phrase see the note 
on Lphes. το. 

7. ἡδρασμένους ἐν] For the con- 
struction see Phz/ad. inscr. (note). 

ἐν τῷ αἵματι] This again implies 
a belief in the reality of the passion ; 
see the note on PAz/ad. inscr. 

πεπληροφορημένους κ.τ.λ.] ‘having a 
full conviction with respect to our 
Lord as being truly descended from 
David etc’ For the different mean- 
ings of πληροφορεῖν see the note on 
Colossians iv, 12. 


19 


290 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1 


/ > \ / ς cad 3 - 39 3 / 
φορημένους ets Tov Κύριον ἡμών ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ γένους 
\ A / e4 ~ A / \ / 
Aaveid κατὰ σάρκα, υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν, 


/ 3 θῶ 3 θέ / € \ 
γεγεννημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου, βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ 


I ἡμῶν] txt GC Theodt Sev-Syr; add. ἰησοῦν χριστὸν gLA. 


ἀληθῶς] 


GL Theodt (after πεπληροφορημένους, Schulze) Sev-Syr; ὡς ἀληθῶς g (trans- 
posing it and placing it after werAnpogopynuévous); vere C (connecting it with 


mem\npopopnuevous); om. A. 


Sev-Syr; naturam A; θεότητα Theodt; def. g. 
add. θεοῦ GLC Sev-Syr; def. g: see the lower note. 


2 Δαυεὶδ] 6a6 GC. 


θέλημα] GLC 
δύναμιν] txt A Theodt; 
3 γεγεννημέ- 


νον] Theodt (Schulze); gaz natus est A Sev-Syr; genitum LC; γεγενημένον G; 


def. τὶ 


I. ἐκ γένους Δαυεὶδ] See the note 
on Ephes. 18. 

2. υἱὸν Θεοῦ] For the same an- 
tithesis comp. ΖΦ 2245. 20 (with the 
note). See esp. Rom. i. 3 τοῦ yevo- 
μένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ 
σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν 
δυνάμει, which passage Ignatius 
doubtless had in his mind. 

θέλημα] ‘the Divine will’ ; see the 
note on Ephes. 20. Again δύναμιν 
is used absolutely, as in Rom. i. 3 
just quoted. The addition of Θεοῦ in 
the common texts is a transcriber’s 
expedient, owing to ignorance of this 
absolute use of θέλημα. Theodoret 
strangely substitutes θεότητα for θέ- 
Anua. This reading again may be 
due in part to the same ignorance. 
The Armenian translator likewise 
has substituted another word. See 
Justin Dzal. 61 (p. 284) ἀπὸ τοῦ 
πατρὸς θελήσει γεγεννῆσθαι compared 
with 26. 128 (p. 358) γεγεννῆσθαι ἀπὸ 
τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ, 
Tatian ad Graec. 5 θελήματι δὲ τῆς 
ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος com- 
pared with 26. ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ 
τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμεως, passages 
quoted by Pearson. 

3. -yeyevynuevov| So we must 
certainly read with Theodoret (as 
printed by Schulze, but Sirmond 
has γεγενημένον), as e.g. Justin Dzad. 
66 (p. 291) ἐκ παρθένου γεγέννηται: 


ἀληθῶς] not omitted in A, as stated by Zahn, who is misled by 


comp. LEphes. 18 ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ 
ἐβαπτίσθη, Trall. 9 ὃς ἀληθῶς ἐγεν- 
νήθη. This word should probably 
be read also in Hippol. Haer. vii. 38, 
where the MS has τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ ἐκ 
παρθένου γεγενῆσθαι. For the mean- 
ing of γεγεννημένον, ‘born,’ see the 
note on Ephes. 18. 

4. ἵνα πληρωθῇ x.7.r.] According 
to Matt. iii. 15 οὕτω yap πρέπον ἐστὶν 
ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. No- 
thing is said respecting the modzve 
of Jesus in coming to baptism in 
the other Canonical Gospels. On 
the other hand the Gospel of the 
Hebrews, which Ignatius is supposed 
to quote below § 3, gave an account 
of the matter which is inconsistent 
with this motive; Hieron. c. Pelag. 
lil. 2 (11. p. 782) ‘In Evangelio juxta 
Hebraeos ... narrat historia; Ecce 
mater Domini et fratres eius dice- 
bant ei; Ioannes Baptista baptizat 
in remissionem peccatorum ; eamus 
et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem 
eis : Quid peccavi ut vadam et bap- 
tizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum 
quod dixi ignorantia est.’ In the 
Praedicatio Pauli also it is said that 
Christ ‘ad accipiendum Ioannis bap- 
tisma paene invitum a matre sua 
Maria esse compulsum,’ Refract. de 
Bapt. 17 (Cyprian. Of. 111. p. go, ed. 
Hartel). 

5. Ποντίου Πιλάτου] For the reason 


1] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


291 


/ 7 a ral ! en 
᾿Ιωάαννου iva πληρωθηῆ T&ca AlkalocyNH ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀλη- 


3 θώς ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ ᾿Ηρώδου τετράρχου καθη- 


7 ec \ ΄σ 3 7 3 > Ὃ ΄σ ε os 3 
λωμένον ὑπερ ἡμῶν ἐν σαρκί" ἀφ᾽ ov καρποῦ ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ 


Petermann’s translation. 


(some authorities); dub. AC Sev-Syr. 


5 καθηλωμένον] GL Theodt; καθηλωμένου g* 


6 ἐν] GLC(?)g; om. Theodt ; 


dub. Sev-Syr. As A is derived from the ambiguous Syriac, it has no authority on 


this point. 


καρποῦ] GLAC Sev-Syr (not καρπῶν, as Zahn; for the word 


SIND is very commonly used in the plural, as a rendering of καρπός: see the 


note on Zra//. 11, p. 176); καὶ g. 


of this specification see the note on 
Magn. 11. Here the date is still 
further defined by the mention of 
Herod. 

Ἡρώδου τετράρχου] The part taken 
by Herod is mentioned by S. Luke 
alone in the Canonical writings; 
Luke xxiii. 7—12, 15, Acts iv. 27. 
This Herod Antipas is called ‘te- 
trarch’ also in Matt. xiv. 1, Luke iii. 
19, ix. 7, Acts xiii. 1, to distinguish 
him from his predecessor Herod the 
Great who is ὁ βασιλεύς (Matt. ii. 1, 
comp. Luke i. 5), and from his suc- 
cessor Herod Agrippa who is also 
ὁ βασιλεύς (Acts xii. 1). The absence 
of the definite article however before 
the word obliges us to translate ἐπὶ... 
Ἡρώδου τετράρχου ‘before Herod as 
tetrarch, or more probably ‘when 
Herod was tetrarch’ (Ξ- τετραρχοῦντος 
... Hpddov Luke iii. 1). 

6. ἀφ᾽ ov Kaprod|‘fromwhich frutt’ ; 
comp. Tertull. adv. Fud. 13 ‘Et lig- 
num, inquit, attulit fructum suum[Joel 
11. 22], non illud lignum in paradiso 
quod mortem dedit protoplastis, sed 
lignum passionis Christi, unde vita 
pendens etc. The Cross is regarded 
as a tree (ξύλον); comp. Zrad/. 11 
ἐφαίνοντο av κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ Kal ἦν 
ἂν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν ἄφθαρτος. The 
symbolism of the tree of life planted 
in paradise, as referring to the Cross 
of Christ, dates from a very early 
time; Justin Martyr Dza/. 86 (p. 
312 D), Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 11 (p. 


ἡμεῖς] GLC ; add. ἐσμὲν g. 


689 sq) ἀλληγορῶν ὁ Μωῦσῆς ξύλον 
ζωῆς ὠνόμασεν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ πεφυ- 
τευμένον...ἐν τούτῳ ὁ Λόγος ἤνθησέν τε 
καὶ ἐκαρποφόρησεν σὰρξ γενόμενος καὶ 
τοὺς γευσαμένους τῆς χρηστότητος av- 
τοῦ ἐζωοποίησεν, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ ἄνευ τοῦ 
ξύλου εἰς γνῶσιν ἡμῖν ἀφῖκται. This 
application of the tree of life would 
probably be made by Papias; comp. 
Anastas. Sinait. Hexaem. vii. (p. 961 
Migne), and see Contemporary Re- 
view, October 1875, p. 844. Similarly 
Melito saw a reference to the Cross 
in the tree of Gen. xxii. 13, Fragm. 
12 (p. 418 Otto) φυτὸν Σαβέκ, τουτ- 
έστιν ἀφέσεως, ἐκάλεσε τὸν σταυρόν, 
and Clem. Alex. (Strom. 1. c. p. 690) 
so applies also the ξύλον ζωῆς (which 
however he quotes δένδρον ἀθανασίας) 
in Prov. iii. 18. If the reading kap- 
mov be correct, Christ Himself seems 
to be regarded as the fruit hanging 
upon the tree; and ἀφ᾽ οὗ καρποῦ is 
further explained by ἀπὸ τοῦ θεομα- 
καρίστου αὐτοῦ πάθους. We may be 
said to spring from that fruit, inas- 
much as the taste of it gives us life; 
see Clem. Alex. 1. c. The Latin 
translator renders ἀφ᾽ ov καρποῦ a 
cujus fructu, which Pearson explains 
‘ligni quod hic subintelligitur,’ taking 
ξύλου to be the antecedent of ov. 
But it is more naturally rendered 
a guo fructu. Zahn takes the same 
construction as Pearson, but makes 
Χριστοῦ the antecedent of ov. The 
clause ἀφ᾽ οὗ.. πάθους must be taken 


19--2 


292 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1 


a 7 a U4 .« 3: ἢ 2 
τοῦ θεομακαρίστου αὐτοῦ πάθους" iva ἄρῃ cyccHMoN εἰς 


\ lo \ a > / \ 7 \ 
τοὺς αἰῶνας διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως εἰς TOUS ἁγίους καὶ 


\ 9 a » > 5 7 7 9 ᾽ 3 δ. ΟΝ 
πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ, εἴτε ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίοις εἴτε ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐν ἑνὶ 


/ = / > “ 
σώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ. 


17: 


Ταῦτα yao πάντα ἔπαθεν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς [ἵνα σωθῶ- 
γὰρ μ 


I θεομακαρίστου] g; divine beatissima L (i.e. θεομακαρίστου, the word having been 
mistaken for a superlative); θεομακαρίτου G; dub. A Sev-Syr; deat (μακαρίου) C. 


3 εἴτε ἐν... εἴτε ἐν] gC; ἔντε ἐν...ἔντε ἐν G; et in...e¢ in L. 
5 yap] GLg Sev-Syr; om. CA (but supplied in the 
wa σωθῶμεν] GL Sev-Syr; ad vivificandum nos A (but in the marg. 
6 ws] GLCg; om. A (but it omits the context 
ἔπαθεν ws καὶ ἀληθώς owing to homceoteleuton) Sev-Syr. 


Sev-Syr; om. C. 
marg.). 
ut salvemur); om. C[g]. 


ἑνὶ GLAg 


3 et / 
ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτόν] 


GL Sey-Syr; ἀνέστη g (but below it adds ὁ λόγος τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ναὸν... ἀνέστησεν); 


as parenthetical, so that ἵνα ἄρῃ is 
connected with the preceding sen- 
tence. The punctuation in the com- 
mon editions (Cureton, Jacobson, 
Hefele, Dressel) is wrong. 

I. θεομακαρίστου] Comp. Polyc. 
7. The word occurs also Method. 
de Sym. et Ann. 5 (p. 107 Jahn) pa- 
kapla σὺ ἐν γενεαῖς γυναικῶν, θεομα- 
κάριστε. The other form θεομακαρίτου 
is worse supported and is exposed 
to a double objection, as a ἅπαξ λε- 
γόμενον, and as being somewhat out 
of place here (since μακαρίτης is used 
of the blessed dead). Zahn retains 
it and endeavours to justify it as a 
transference from the dead to the 
death. 

ἄρῃ σύσσημον] ‘raise an ensign 
aloft. The reference is to Isaiah 
xlix. 22, lxii. Io (comp. v. 26), where 
the LXx has αἴρειν σύσσημον to 
describe the raising of Jehovah’s 
standard in jerusalem, about which 
(in the prophet’s image) men should 
rally from all parts of the earth. 
Ignatius sees the fulfilment of this 
in Christ’s resurrection. Hence the 
words εἴτε ἐν Ἰουδαίοις εἴτε ἐν ἔθνεσιν, 
which follow; for the gathering of 
the Gentiles is a prominent feature 
in the context of the evangelical pro- 


phet. Jerome says on Is. v. 26 (Of. 
Iv. p. 88), ‘Legi in cujusdam com- 
mentariis, hoc quod dicitur Levadzt 
stgnum in nationibus procul et stbt- 
labit ad eum de finibus terrae de 
vocatione gentium debere intelligi, 
quod elevato signo crucis et deposi- 
tis oneribus peccatorum velociter 
venerint atque crediderint.’ The 
commentator to whom Jerome al- 
ludes is probably, as Pearson sug- 
gests, Origen. There is nothing of 
the kind in Eusebius. But the idea 
seems to have been present to the 
mind of Lactantius Dzv. Just. iv. 26. 
There is perhaps a reference to this 
same prophetic image of a standard 
in John xii. 32 κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ 
τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. 
The expression αἴρειν σύσσημον oc- 
curs also Diod. ‘Sie.°x1. 22, ΘΟ τ 
51. The word σύσσημον, which sig- 
nifies properly ‘a concerted signal’ 
(Diod. Sic. xx. 51 τὸ συγκείμενον... 
σύσσημον, comp. Mark xiv. 44), was 
used even by Menander, who how- 
ever is roundly scolded by Phrynichus 
for the solcecism (ed. Lobeck, p. 418). 
There is mention of the ‘vextllum 
crucis’ in Fragm. 5 of the passages 
ascribed to Polycarp by Victor of Ca- 
pua, The word τρύπαιον is frequently 


1] TO THE SMYRNAAANS. 


293 


\ ~ sf > ~ > 
μεν] Kat ἀληθώς ἔπαθεν, ws καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησεν 


/ e/ sf / / \ ~ 
ἑαυτον: οὐχ ὥσπερ ἀπιστοί τινες λέγουσιν TO δοκεῖν 


3 \ / > \ \ ΄- sf \ \ 
αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι, αὐτοὶ To δοκεῖν ὄντες" καὶ καθὼς 


΄σ \ / > ~ = ῇ 
φρονοῦσιν, καὶ συμβήσεται αὐτοῖς, οὐσιν ἀσωμάτοις Kal 


δαιμονικοῖς. 


resurrexit a mortuis A; resurrexit C. 


7 τὸ δοκεῖν] G; τῷ δοκεῖν g (some 


MSS); secundum vidert L. And so again just below. A has ofznione in the first 


passage, and ofzvzo in the second. 
[g]; al. C. 


καὶ} GLA; om. C; al. g. 


8 αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι] GLA; πέπονθεν 
Q ἀσωμάτοις καὶ δαιμονικοῖς] 


GL; daemonia sine corpore C; incorporet sicut daemones A; al. g. 


used by Athanasius of the cross or 
crucifixion of Christ (see the note 
on the Festal Letters p. 97, Oxf. 
transl.), as well as by later fathers. 
This image wouid gain currency 
through the ZLabarum of Constan- 
tine; but it appears before his time, 
as the passage of Methodius p. 103 
(referred to by Zahn) shows, and 
indeed might be suggested by Col. 
ii. 15. The conjectural reading σύσ- 
σωμον, which is adopted by Bunsen, 
destroys the point of the expression. 

3. πιστοὺ] The Docete, who 
denied the reality of the Cross, did 
not fall under this category; see the 
note on ἄπιστοι § 2. 

ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] Doubtless a remi- 
niscence of S. Paul’s teaching, Ephes. 
il. 16 ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους 
ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τοῦ 
σταυροῦ (where also the context, 
ver. 18, contains a reference to the 
evangelical prophet, Is. lvii. 19), 11]. 
6 εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη...σύσσωμα, IV. 4 ἕν 
σῶμα καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα, etc.; comp. 
Hermas Sz. ix. 18 ἔσται ἡ ἐκκλησία 
Tov Θεοῦ ἕν σῶμα. And for the exact 
expression see Col. i. 18 τοῦ σώματος 
τῆς ἐκκλησίας (comp. ver. 24, Ephes. 
ei 23, Woke sh V3, 20,. 30) The 
corresponding part of the image, 
μέλη; appears in Ephes. 4, Tradl. 11. 
Pearson writes on ἑνὶ σώματι, ‘Hic 
usus erat signi militaris, ut collige- 


rent se et in unum congregarent, si 
quando erant dispersi aut dissipati.’ 

II. ‘He thus suffered for our 
salvation. His passion and His re- 
surrection were realities, and not 
phantoms, as some think. To such 
persons it shall happen according to 
their thoughts; for they are unreal 
and visionary.’ 

6. ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτόν] This is dif- 
ferent from the language of the N. T., 
where Christ is always said to be 
raised by the Father. Accordingly 
the interpolator has substituted ἀνέ- 
στη; aS Jacobson points out. Below, 
δ᾽ 7, the doctrine is stated in the 
scriptural way, σάρκα εἶναι Tov σω- 
τῆρος...ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ 
ἤγειρεν. 

7. ἄπιστοι] He calls the Doce- 
tze unbelievers, because they denied 
the reality of Christ’s humanity; 
comp. also below ὃ 5 ra δὲ ὀνόματα 
αὐτῶν ὄντα ἄπιστα κιτιλ. See the note 
on 7 γαζί. το, where they are likewise 
so called. 

8. αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν κιτιλ.}] See the 
note on 7 γαζί. 10, where similar lan- 
guage is used. 

9. καὶ συμβήσεται] ‘so shall it 
happen. For instances of καὶ in the 
apodosis answering to ὡς (καθώς) in 
the protasis comp. e.g. Gal. 1. 9, Phil. 
i. 20, I Joh. 11: 18, and see Winer 
§ 111. p. 548 sq, A. Buttmann p. 311. 


294 
III. 


1 yap] GL Theodt; δὲ C[g] Euseb; atguc A. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


\ \ CMe od \ 
᾿Εγὼ yap Kal μετὰ THY ἀνάστασιν ἐν σαρκι 


2 οἶδα] GLCAg 


Euseb Theodt; vidi L (prob. a mistranslation rather than a v. 1. εἶδον, since 


The passage is wrongly punctuated 
in the common editions. For the 
sense comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. ὃ 1 ἐν 
τῷ yap φρονεῖν μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ 
καὶ ἐλπίζομεν λαβεῖν. 

ἀσωμάτοις κιτ.λ.} ‘being unsubstan- 
tial and phantom-like, in their opin- 
ions: comp. Hieron. Comm. in Isat. 
xviii. (Op. IV. p. 774) ‘nec daemonia 
subsistant, quia jam a Deo qui vere 
est exciderunt, nec sectae haereti- 
corum, quae nullam retinent verita- 
tem, sed in umbrarum similitudinem 
transeunt et intereunt, where there 
is a similar comparison. For δαιμον- 
ικοῖς see the note on δαιμόνιον § 3. 
In ἀσωμάτοις there is possibly an 
allusion to the σῶμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
(at the end of ὃ 1) in which they have 
no part. The two adjectives are 
chosen with a view to the δαιμόνιον 
ἀσώματον in the narrative which 
follows. The word δαιμονικός occurs 
in Athenag. δέ. 25, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vi. 12 (p. 789), as well as in 
Plutarch. Pearson distinguishes be- 
tween δαιμονικός (-- δαιμονιώδης) and 
δαιμονιακός (-- δαιμονιαζόμενος). The 
distinction is fundamentally just, but 
the one sense frequently runs into 
the other. 

III. ‘I myself am convinced that 
He was still incarnate even after the 
resurrection. He told Peter and his 
companions to handle Him and as- 
sure themselves that He was not a 
phantom. They did so. They were 
convinced, and in this conviction 
they despised death. Nay, He even 
ate and drank with them in the flesh, 
though in the spirit He was one with 
the Father.’ 

I. kat pera καλὴ Le. ‘not only 
during His natural life, of which they 


deny the reality, but even after His 
resurrection. See the irony of Ter- 
tull. de Carn. Chr. 5 ‘Fuit itaque 
phantasma e/iam fost resurrectionem, 
cum manus et pedes suos discipulis 
inspiciendos offert, Aspicite, dicens, 
etc,’ 

ἐν σαρκὶ x.t.A.]| “17 know and be- 
lieve Him to be in the flesh’ For 
οἶδα καὶ πιστεύω Comp. Rom. xiv. 14 
οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι. Jerome (Ver. Li. 
16), clearly deriving the quotation at 
second hand from Eusebius and re- 
ferring the passage by inadvertence 
to the Epistle το Polycarf, translates 
‘in carne eum vidi et credo quia sit,’ 
as if it were εἶδον, and evidently sup- 
poses that Ignatius had seen our 
Lord in the flesh. Similarly the 
Latin Version here ‘in carne ipsum 
vidi et credo existentem.’ This in- 
terpretation would be encouraged by 
the story, built upon a misinterpre- 
tation of Θεοφόρος (see on Lphes. 
inscr.), that he was the child whom 
our Lord blessed. Chrysostom dis- 
tinctly states the opposite, Hom. zx 
S. Lyn. 4 (IL. p. 599) τὸν οὐδὲ éwpa- 
κότα αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἀπολελαυκότα αὐτοῦ 
τῆς συνουσίας. Pearson conjectured 
that the false interpretation arose 
from John xx. ὃ καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐπί- 
στευσεν. 

2. καὶ ὅτε x.t.A.] The reference 
is plainly to the same incident which 
is related in Luke xxiv. 36 sq; see 
esp. VV. 38, 39 ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν, 
kat εἶπεν αὐτοῖς... Ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ 
ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ 
ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα. The 
words however, in which it is told, 
are different. Eusebius (1. £. iii. 
36) is at a loss to say from what 
source this incident was taken (οὐκ 


ut] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


295 


\ 5 \ , af NY 
αὐτὸν οἶδα Kal πιστεύω ὄντα Kal ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὲ 


Jerome so translates the οἷδα of Euseb). 


modo (οὕτως) C ; dominum A. 


οἶδ᾽ ὁπόθεν ῥητοῖς συγκέχρηται). Je- 
rome however states that it was 
taken ‘de evangelio quod nuper a 
me translatum est,’ i.e. the Gospel 
to which he has referred before in 
the same treatise, ‘evangelium quod 
appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et 
quod a me nuper in Graecum Lati- 
numque sermonem translatum est, 
quo et Origenes saepe utitur’ (Vzr. 
7. 2), and which at this time he 
was disposed to regard as the ori- 
ginal Hebrew of 5. Matthew; ‘Ip- 
sum Hebraicum [Matthaei] habetur 
usque hodie in Caesariensi biblio- 
theca quam Pamphilus martyr stu- 
diosissime confecit; mihi quoque a 
Nazaraeis, qui in Beroea urbe Syriae 
hoc volumine utuntur, describendi 
facultas fuit’ (Ver. 7. 3); though 
afterwards he spoke less confidently 
on this point ; zz Matt. xii. 13 ‘quod 
vocatur ὦ plerisque Matthaei authen- 
ticum’ (Of. VII. p. 77); ¢. Pelag. iii. 2 
‘in Evangelio juxta Hebracos...siveut 
plerique autumant, juxrta Matthaeum, 
quod et in Caesariensi habetur biblio- 
theca’ (Of. Il. p. 782). In another 
passage also Comm. in Isat. xviii. 
praef. (Of. IV. p. 770) he writes 
‘quum enim apostoli eum putarent 
spiritum, vel, juxta evangelium quod 
Hebraeorum lectitant Nazaraei, z7- 
corporale daemoniumt, dixit etc.’ But 
this statement, though thus repeated 
and explicit, is attended with diffi- 
culties; for (1) Eusebius was well 
acquainted with the Gospel accora- 
ing to the Hebrews. There was a 
copy preserved in his own city, 
Caesarea, in the library which had 
been collected by his friend Pamphi- 
lus, was probably attached to his 
own Church or palace, and certainly 


ὄντα] GLg Euseb Theodt; hoc 


was habitually used by him; and 
he makes it his business to record 
all references to these apocryphal 
gospels in early writers, and does so 
in other cases. Yet he cannot verify 
the quotation in this instance, not- | 
withstanding the striking words δαιμό- 
νιον ἀσώματον which would be likely 
to dwell on his mind. (2) Origen, 
who was also well acquainted with 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
ascribes the words not to this but 
to an entirely different apocryphal 
writing, de Princ. praef. 8 (I. p. 49) 
‘Si vero quis velit nobis proferre ex 
illo libello qui Petrz Doctrina ap- 
pellatur, ubi salvator videtur ad dis- 
cipulos dicere, Vox sum daemonium 
zncorporeum, primo respondendum 
est ei, quoniam ille liber inter libros 
ecclesiasticos non habetur, et osten- 
dendum quia neque Petri est ipsa 
scriptura, neque alterius cujusquam 
qui spiritu Dei fuerit inspiratus’. 
With these facts before us it is 
reasonable to suppose either (1) That 
it was a lapse of memory in Jerome. 
His memory sometimes plays him 
strange tricks. Thus he quotes, as 
from ‘Ignatius vir apostolicus et 
martyr,’ the most notable passage in 
the Epistle of Barnabas; c. Pelag. iil. 
2 (11. p. 783). Or inasmuch as, hav- 
ing translated the book, he was not 
likely to have made this mistake, it 
seems more probable that (2) His 
copy contained a different recension 
of the Gospel according to the He- 
brews from that which was known to 
Origen and Eusebius. This Gospel 
bore various titles and there is every 
reason to think that it went through 
various recensions, The copy in the 
Caesarean library would represent 


296 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


oy of > ' , , ‘ 
Πέτρον ἦλθεν, epn αὐτοῖς" Λάβετε, YHAADHCATE ME, KAI 


ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ AAIMONION A&COMATON. 


\ 2f)\ 3 
Και εὐθὺς αυ- 


~ e/ \ / / Oo \ ~ 
τοῦ ἥψαντο, kal ἐπίστευσαν κραθέντες TH σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ 
é 


rt ἦλθεν] Gg Theodt; ἐλήλυθεν Euseb. 


3 Kpabévres] G3; convicti 


(κρατηθέντες) L; guum prehendissent eum C; al.g. A has crediderunt gui eucha- 
ristiae-participes-fuerunt (lit. communicaverunt) et coenaverunt antea corpus et san- 


guinem ejus. 


The first clause is evidently a gloss (prob. later and certainly erro- 
neous) of the second; and the rendering generally points to κραθέντες. 


The 


rendering of C may represent κρατήσαντες, but prob. is a loose paraphrase of 


κραθέντες. See the lower note. 


the text as Origen and Eusebius had 
it. Though Jerome refers to the 
existence of this copy, apparently for 
the sake of vouching for the respec- 
tability of the Gospel, there is no 
reason to suppose that he had seen 
it. His own, as he tells us, was a 
transcript made at Beroea: and this 
incident seems to have been a later 
accretion incorporated either from 
Ignatius or from the TZeaching of 
Peter or from some other source. 
As regards Ignatius himself, it is 
impossible to say whether he got it 
from oral tradition or from some 
written source. Under any circum- 
stances the more elaborate language 
(δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον) shows that it is 
later than the account in S. Luke, 
which is told in simple and natural 
language (πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ 
ἔχει). 

Ι. τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον] 1.6. τοὺς 
ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, as the 
company gathered together on this 
occasion is described in the parallel 
narrative, Inuke «xxiv. 24. The “ex- 
pression of περὶ Πέτρον might in 
late Greek signify Peter alone (see 
Kihner Il. p. 231, Winer ὃ xlix. p. 
506 sq); but it commonly implies 
others as well (e.g. Acts xill. 13), and 
here the plurals following, αὐτοῖς, 
λάβετε, etc. are decisive. Zahn points 
out that it is the expression used in 
the alternative ending to S. Mark’s 


4 αἵματι]! A; “πνεύματι GLC; al. τ: 


Gospel found in L and some other 
authorities, rots περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντό- 
Bos ἐξήγγειλαν. 

2. δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον] ‘an 771- 
corporeal spirit. Origen (1. c.) sup- 
poses that the author of the Doctrina 
Petri used this epithet ἀσώματον, not 
in its philosophical sense (=‘im- 
material’), but as meaning composed 
of some subtle substance and with- 
out a gross body like man. He says 
also that the Scriptures of the Church 
do not countenance the use of the 
word. Similarly in Clem. Alex. Exc. 
Theod. 14 (p. 971) we read τὰ δαι- 
μόνια ἀσώματα εἴρηται, οὐχ ὡς σῶμα 
μὴ ἔχοντα᾽ ἔχει γὰρ σχῆμα᾽ διὸ καὶ 
συναίσθησιν κολάσεως exer’ ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
πρὸς σύγκρισιν τῶν σωζομένων σωμά- 
των πνευματικῶν σκιὰ ὄντα, ἀσώματα 
εἴρηται. As the Preaching of Peter 
(Κήρυγμα Πέτρου), which is supposed 
to have been the same work, was 
well known both to Clement of 
Alexandria and to the Valentinians, 
we may suspect that the explanation 
in this excerpt has special reference 
to this saying of that apocryphal 
writing. Zahn infers from the intro- 
ductory καὶ ὅτε here (instead of ὅτε 
γὰρ), that we have a direct citation ; 
but the inference is precarious. 
When Celsus assumes that the Chris- 
tians regard angels as δαίμονες, Ori- 
gen is careful to reply that to the 
Christian ear δαίμων, δαιμόνιον, is not 


111] 


\ ~ e/ 
Kal TW αἵματι. 
é 


5 ηὑρέθησαν δὲ ὑπὲρ θάνατον. 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


297 


\ ΄σ \ ΄ Ls 
διὰ τοῦτο Kat θανάτου κατεφρόνησαν, 


\ δὲ \ 5 7 
μετα δὲ τὴν ἀναστασιν 


\ / ~ \ Υ̓ ε i 
[kal] συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν ὡς σαρκικός, καίπερ 


~ / “ 7 
πνευματικῶς NVWMEVOS τῷ πατρί. 


see the lower note. 


5 ηὑρέθησαν δὲ] GL; ηὑρέθησαν yap G; def. A 
(doubtless owing to homeeoteleuton); al. g. 


6 καὶ συνέφαγεν] g (the 


connexion of the sentences however being different) C Theodt; συνέφαγεν (om. 


kal) GLA, 


αὐτοῖς] here, GLCg; after συνέπιεν [A] Theodt. ws 


σαρκικός, καίπερ πνευματικῶς] GL; ws σαρκικῶς καὶ πνευματικώς Theodt; al. g. 
The sentence is rendered οὐ erat corpore et spiritu et unitus cum patre in A, and 


a neutral word, but dei ἐπὶ τῶν 
φαύλων ἔξω τοῦ παχυτέρου σώματος 
δυνάμεων τάσσεται τὸ τῶν δαιμόνων 
ὄνομα, πλανώντων καὶ περισπώντων 
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ¢. Cels. ν. 5 (1. p. 580). 
For the whole passage comp. Tert. 
adv. Marc. iv. 43, where this father 
argues against the Docetism of Mar- 
cion from Luke xxiv. 37 sq. Marcion 
retained the passage, but explained 
καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα, ‘as ye be- 
hold me having (neither flesh nor 
bones). ‘Quae ratio tortuositatis 
istius!’, exclaims Tertullian. The 
way in which Apelles disposed of 
such passages in the Gospels may 
be seen from Hippol. Haer. vii. 38. 
3. κραθέντες] ‘being mixed with, 
joined to, and so ‘having handled,’ 
the strongest possible expression 
being chosen to express the closeness 
of the contact ; comp. Pind. PyZf. x. 
65 οὔτε γῆρας οὐλόμενον κέκραται ἱερᾷ 
γενεᾷ, Olymp. X. 123 ὥρᾳ κεκραμένον, 
Plato Phaedr. 279 A ἤθει γεννικωτέρῳ 
κεκρᾶσθαι, Epist. vii. 326 C οὐχ οὕτω 
θαυμαστῇ φύσει κραθήσεται. So also 
συγκεκρᾶσθαι, e.g. Arist. Plut. 853 
πολυφόρῳ συγκέκραμαι δαίμονι, and 
see the note on ἀνακεκραμένους Ephes. 
5. The editors for the most part 
have followed Voss in substituting 
κρατηθέντες, Which perhaps the Latin 
translator had in his text. But this 
is not so good. The same confusion 
of κραθῆναι, κρατηθῆναι, appears three 


times in Iren. 1. 6. 4 ὥστε αὐτὴν κρα- 
τηθῆναι, κρατηθεὶς γυναικί, κρατηθῆναι, 
where the Latin translation has ‘ut 
ei conjungatur,’ ‘mixtus mulieri,’ 
‘mixtus est,’ thus showing that the 
Greek should be read κραθῆναι, κρα- 
θείς, κραθῆναι. The construction κρα- 
τεῖσθαί τινι however is unobjection- 
able in itself; eg. Act. Paul. δὲ 
Thecl. 9 κρατεῖται ἐπιθυμίᾳ καινῇ, 
Clems, Alex. Strom. vi. 19. (8: 7658) 
Wuxas τινὰς κρατουμένας doe τῷ 
σώματι, Εἶχε. Theod. 32 (p. 977) ἐκρα- 
τήθη, ὥσπερ τοῖς ὅλοις, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τῷ 
παρακλήτῳ. ἱ 

4. τῷ αἵματι] This is clearly the 
reading of the Armenian Version 
(which wrongly interprets it of the 
eucharist) and seems to be required 
for the sense. ‘Flesh and blood’ is 
a synonyme for the corporeal part of 
man: Matt.Wxvirit7, vo Com ΤΠ ΠΟ 
Gal. i. 16. In Heb. ii. 14 the reality 
of Christ’s humanity is described as 
a partaking αἵματος καὶ σαρκός. The 
Apostles who were invited to feel the 
nail-prints in His hands and the 
spear-wounds in His side might be 
said almost literally to touch His 
blood as well as His flesh. At the 
same time πνεύματι might easily be 
substituted for αἵματι, because the 
conjunction ‘flesh and spirit’ is fre- 
quent in Ignatius. See Z7vad//, inscr., 
where there is the same confusion of 
πνεύματι and αἵματι in different texts. 


298 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[Iv 


IV. Ταῦτα δὲ παραινῶ ὑμῖν, ἀγαπητοί, εἰδὼς ὅτι 


\ ε lat «.« af / \ € ~ 3 \ vant 
καὶ ὑμεῖς οὕτως ἔχετε: προφυλαάσσω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν 


7 σ΄ 3 / ε 2 , ΄ ς ~ \ 
θηρίων των ἀνθρωπομόρφων, οὗς οὐ μόνον δεῖ ὑμᾶς μη 


παραδέχεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽, εἰ δυνατόν, μηδὲ συναντᾷν [αὐτοῖς]" 


/ \ / ς \ 3 ~ > 
μόνον δὲ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, ἐάν πως μετανοή- 


existens carnalis et spiritualis (ὧν σαρκικὸς καὶ mvevpariKos) existens unus cum patre 
in C. Possibly the correct reading may be ws σαρκικὸς καὶ πνευματικός, but more 
probably the περ was accidentally dropped, and the terminations of σαρκικός, mvev- 
ματικῶς. were then made to conform by altering the one or the other. 3 av- 
θρωπομόρφων)] txt GLACg; add. αἱρετικῶν Theod-Stud (but prob. this is his 


own gloss according to his practice; see Rom. 7 ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ... xptords). 


ὑμᾶς μὴ] GL, and so prob. C; ov det ὑμᾶς Theod-Stud; won ofortet vos A 


Anon-Syr,; al. g. 


μετ εν Kr!) See Acts x.) 41 
οἵτινες συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν 
αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ ἀναστῆναι αὐτὸν ἐκ νε- 
κρῶν. Three several occasions are 
recorded in the Canonical Gospels ; 
@) (Luke xxiv. (30) 59 5.; (2) Luke xxiv. 
4243 23) job xxi. (02, 13: 

nvopevos| Compare Magn. 7 
ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν ἡνω- 
μένος ὦν. See also Marcellus in 
museb:) 6) Marc. 1i..-2 (p. 37) and 
Ecel. Theol. ii. 4 (p. 105) τὴν δὲ κατὰ 
πνεῦμα ἀϊδιότητα ἡνῶσθαι τῷ πατέρι 
πεπιστεύκαμεν. 

IV. ‘I give this advice, knowing 
that you yourselves act as I would 
have you act. But I would put you 
on your guard against these monsters 
in human shape. Do not go near 
them, but pray for them. Their re- 
pentance is not an easy matter, but 
Christ can do all things. If Christ’s 
life was a phantom, then my bonds 
are a phantom also. Why then do 
I expose myself to fire and sword 
and wild beasts? Near to these, I 
am near to God; if only I suffer in 
Christ’s name. I have all power in 
Christ, the perfect man.’ 

2. ὑμεῖς οὕτως ἔχετε] See the note 
on Ephes. 4 ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε. 


4 δυνατόν] txt L Theod-Stud Anon-Syr,; add. 
ἐστι G; al. g. The verb substantive is naturally supplied in AC. 


αὐτοῖς] 


προφυλάσσω] Comp. 7γαϊ. 8 ἀλλὰ 
προφυλάσσω ὑμᾶς ὄντας μου ἀγαπητοὺς 
k.T.A., With the note. 

3. ἀνθρωπομόρφων) Philo de Abr. 
6 (II. p. 6) κυριώτερον δὲ εἰπεῖν, ἀνθρω- 
πομόρφου θηρίου. So too ἀνθρωποειδῆ 
θηρία, Vit. Moys. i. 8 {π| p. 87), de 
Decal. 16 (il. Ὁ. 194). This last ex- 
pression occurs also “2057. Const. 11. 
21. These passages are collected 
by Cotelier: See ‘also(Hus. dpa: 
4. (p. 467) Ps-Ign. Zars. 1, and comp. 
Suicer 5. v. ἀνθρωπόμορφος. 

6. ὅπερ] SC. τὸ μετανοεῖν. For the 
whole passage compare Iren. iil. 2. 
3 ‘adversus tales [haereticos] cer- 
tamen nobis est, 0 dilectissime, more 
serpentum \ubricos undique effugere 
conantes. Quapropter undique 7¢- 
ststendum est tllis, si quos ex his 
retusione confundentes ad conver- 
stonem veritatis adducere possimus. 
Etenim si zon facile est ab erroré 
apprehensam resipiscere animam, 
sed non ommnino tmposstbile est er- 
rorem effugere, apposita veritate.’ 

7. ὧν] Used as a substantive; 
see the note on £fhes. 11. 

εἰ yap καὶλ.} To be connected 
with the preceding chapter, the in- 
termediate words ταῦτα δὲ... ζῆν being 


δεῖ 


frm 


Iv] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


299 


e/ 7 Uf Ass is, “ 
σωσιν, ὅπερ δύσκολον: τούτου δὲ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ᾿Ιησοῦς 


Χριστός, τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν Civ. 


> A \ ~ 
εἰ yap TO δοκεῖν 


΄ι 9 / e \ ~ / ε ~ 3 \ \ = 
TaAUTaA ἐπράχθη τὺ TOU Κυρίου NUWYV, KaYyW TO δοκεῖν 


δέδεμαι. 


τί δὲ καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἔκδοτον δέδωκα τῷ θανάτω, 
έ 


πρὸς πῦρ, πρὸς μάχαιραν, πρὸς θηρία; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐγγὺς 


L*AC (but AC add. zs also after δύσκολον) Anon-Syr,;; om. G Theod-Stud; 


al. g. 
orate 1). 


5 προσεύχεσθε] C Anon-Syr,; προσεύχεσθαι GLAg* (Mss, but 
7 γὰρ] GCg Theodt; autem LS,; at A. τὸ 
δοκεῖν] G3 secundum vidert 1,; τῷ δοκεῖν g Theodt. 


The various readings are 


just the same below. The other versions do not assist in determining between 


τὸ δοκεῖν and τῷ δοκεῖν. 


Theodt; metpsum L. 


8 κἀγὼ] GS.g Theodt; ego et ipse etiam 
C; ergo εἴ ego L* (but with a v. 1. δὲ ego) A. 


9 ἑαυτὸν] G; ἐμαυτὸν g 


10 ὁ ἐγγὺ}] S,AC (which however translates 


just below as if 6 μεταξὺ θηρίων) Theodt; ἐγγὺς (om. ὁ) GL; al. g. 


parenthetical. The return to the 
subject however was suggested by 
the expression τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν, 
which here, as in 7Zvad/. 9, has a 
reference to Docetic error. 

τὸ δοκεῖν] For this expression, and 
for the sentiment, see the notes on 
f7all.10. 

9. ἑαυτὸν] Of the first person, as 
in Zvrall. 3 (see the note). 

ἔκδοτον k.t-A.| We find ἔκδοτον διδό- 
va e.g. Demosth. ¢c. Avistocr. 217 (p. 
692), Polyb. iii. 20. 8, xx. 10. 5, xxviil. 
4. 11, Bel et Drac. 22; ἔκδοτον παρα- 
διδόναι, e.g. Diod. Sic. xv. 10; ἔκδο- 
τον προδιδόναι Polyb. vi. 49. 5. The 
corresponding ἔκδοτον λαμβάνειν Oc- 
curs Acts il. 23, Jos. Azz. vi. 13. 9. 

10. πρὸς πῦρ x«.t.A.] Tertull. ὦ 
Marc. iv. 29 ‘Qualis machaera, talis 
et flamma,’ commenting on Luke xii. 
49, 51 (Matt. x. 34). 

ὁ ἐγγὺς μαχαίρας κ-τ.λ.] A saying to 
this effect is attributed to our Lord 
by Didymus on Ps. lxxxvili. 8 διό 
φησιν ὁ σωτήρ, Ὃ ἐγγύς μου ἐγγὺς τοῦ 
πυρός, ὁ δὲ μακρὰν am ἐμοῦ μακρὰν 
ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας (p. 1488, ed. Migne); 
see Westcott Juxtroduction to the 
Gospels p. 455 (ed. 4). It is men- 


tioned also by Origen Hom. xx in 
Terem. § 3 (Ill. p. 280) ‘ Legi alicubi 
quasi salvatore dicente, et quaero, 
sive quis personam figuravit salva- 
toris sive in memoriam adduxit, an 
verum sit hoc quod dictum est; ait 
autem ipsi salvator Quz juxta me 
est etc. Gregory Nazianzen attri- 
butes a similar saying to S. Peter, 
Epist. 20 (11. p. 19, ed. Caillau) Κάμ- 
νουσα yap ψυχὴ ἐγγύς ἐστι Θεοῦ, φησί 
που θαυμασιώτατα λέγων ὁ Πέτρος. 
This latter saying is quoted again 
by him anonymously, Ova. xvii. 5 
(I. p. 321) ἐπειδὴ κάμνουσα Ψυχὴ ἐγγύς 
ἐστι Θεοῦ (though 5. Peter is men- 
tioned in the context), on which 
later passage Elias Cretensis (Greg. 
Naz. Of. τι. p. 895, Migne) remarks 
ἐν τῇ Διδασκαλίᾳ Πέτρου κεῖται: Kap- 
νουσα γάρ, φησί, ψυχὴ, τουτέστι, κα- 
κοπαθοῦσά τε καὶ τοῖς περιστατικοῖς 
σφιγγομένη, ἐγγίζει μᾶλλον Θεῷ. These 
words are highly natural as the 
genuine expression of Ignatius be- 
fore his execution (comp. fom. 5), 
for fire, sword, and wild-beasts all 
alike were possible ; but extremely 
improbable in a forger writing after 
the occurrence had excluded ail al- 


300 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1v 


μαχαίρας, ἐγγὺς Θεοῦ" μεταξὺ θηρίων, μεταξὺ Θεοῦ": 


le 3 ΄σ 9. A > ΄ι a > \ ~ 
μονον ἐν Tw ὀνόματι ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς TO συμπαθεῖν 


αὐτῷ ὶ 


τελείου ἀνθρώπου. 


/ 7 ΄': ’ rant ΄- 
πάντα ὑπομένω, αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος τοῦ 


V. “Ov τινες ἀγνοοῦντες ἀρνοῦνται, μάλλον δὲ 


I μεταξὺ θηρίων μεταξὺ Θεοῦ] GLS,AC; om. Theodt (from homeeoteleuton); 


def. g. 


qui mortuus est propter nos So; al. g. 
τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου] C Theodt; add. γενομένου GL; 


sustinebo (ὑπομενῶ) L. 


2 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLAC Theodt; domini nostri iesu christi 


3 ὑπομένω] GS,ACg Theodt; 


zesu christo deo S,; tesu christo deo nostro A; def. g: see the lower note. 


5 ἀρνοῦνται) GLS,AC Theodt; ἠρνήσαντο g. 


προφῆται C; prophetia prophetarum A. 


ternatives but one; see Zahn /. v. A. 
p. 246 sq. As a matter of fact all the 
three had a place in the case of 
Polycarp’s martyrdom. He was in- 
tended to be thrown to the wild 
beasts (§ 3, 12); he was actually 
burnt at the stake (ὃ 5, 13 sq); and 
he was ultimately dispatched by the 
executioner’s sword (§ 16). 

I. μεταξὺ θηρίων κιτ.λ.] So Rom. 
4 ἄφετέ pe θηρίων εἶναι, δ ὧν 
ἔνεστιν Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν. 

2. μόνον] sc. γενέσθω. For ἃ 
similar ellipsis with μόνον comp. 
Rom. 5, and see the note on Ephes. 
11. The common punctuation (Us- 
sher, Voss, Smith, Jacobson, Cureton) 
which attaches μόνον κιτιλ. to πάντα 
ὑπομένω destroys the sense. That 
of Hefele, Dressel, and Zahn, which 
punctuates after Χριστοῦ and _ at- 
taches εἰς τὸ συμπαθεῖν αὐτῷ with 
what follows, is somewhat awkward. 
I have adopted a punctuation dif- 
ferent from either. 

συμπαθεῖν αὐτῷ) Comp. Rom. viii. 
yp 

3. πάντα ὑπομένω] This sentence 
is modelled on Phil. iv. 13 πάντα 
ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί pe. For 
πάντα ὑπομένω comp. 2 Tim. il. 10, 
and see also § 9 below, Polyc. 3, 


7 προφητεῖαι] GLeg; 
8 Μωσέως] G; ὁ μωσέως g. It was 


Polyc. Phz?. 8. The word ἐνδυναμοῦν 
is especially Pauline in the N. T.; 
it occurs also several times in Her- 
mas, Mand. v. 2, ΧΙ: 5,16; 52722. ΝΠ ie 
Wily 1X21; 

τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου] Zahn refers 
to Melito Fragm. 6 (p. 416 Otto) 
Θεὸς yap ὧν ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος 
τέλειος ὁ αὐτός. The addition γενο- 
μένου, which appears in the com- 
mon texts, ought to be omitted. It 
has doubtless been added to sug- 
gest indirectly the preexistence and 
Divinity of Christ ; see the note on 
Rom. 7. The substitutions in the 
Syriac and Armenian are due to a 
similar motive. The object of Igna- 
tius however in this passage was to 
assert broadly the humanity against 
the Docetics, and with the Divinity 
he was not concerned here ; comp. 
ὉΠ πη ties: 

V. ‘Certain persons deny Him, 
or rather are denied by Him. They 
are advocates of death, not of truth. 
They turn a deaf ear to the Law and 
the Prophets and the Gospel. Our 
sufferings produce no effect upon 
them. What good is it to me, if I 
am praised by one who denies my 
Lord in denying His humanity? I 
will not mention their names. I will 


ν] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


301 


/ ~ sf / ΄ 
ἠρνήθησαν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ὄντες συνήγοροι τοῦ θανάτου 


΄σ \ - « »ὕ e τ: 
μάλλον ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας: οὖς οὐκ ἔπεισαν αἱ προφητεῖαι 


\ ε / / 3 3 29 \ / ΄ > 
οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μέχρι νυν τὸ εὐαγγέ- 


29 \ \ ε / = EM Dd / \ 
λιον, οὐδὲ τὰ ἡμέτερα τῶν κατ᾽ ἄνδρα παθήματα" Kal 


to be expected that L* after the Vulg., and C as an Egyptian version, should take 


the form pwions moyses with the v. 


The Gk Mss however are too late to be of 
any account in such a question of orthography. 


ἀλλ GLAg; om. Ὁ. 


9 παθήματα] GLC (τὰ ἡμέτερα τῶν Kar’ ἄνδρα παθήματα being rendered victoria 
laborum) g. The clause is translated scripturas nostras quas stngulos docemus in A, 
which must therefore have read μαθήματα (not γράμματα, as Petermann supposes); 
see the confusion of παθητής, μαθητής, in Polyc. 7 (see the note on Clem. Rom. 2). 


strive to forget them; until they 
repent and believe in the Passion.’ 

5. Ὅν τινες κιτ.λ.] Comp. Magn. 
9 (with the note). 

μᾶλλον δὲ «.r.A.] See 2 Tim. ii. 12 
εἰ apynoopeba, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς. 
So of the opposite, Gal. iv. 9 νῦν δὲ 
γνόντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες 
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ (see the note there). For 
similar turns of expression in Igna- 
tius see Polyc. inscr. ἐπισκόπῳ Σμύρ- 
νης, μᾶλλον ἐπεσκοπημένῳ, 7b. 3 πάντα 
ὑπομένειν ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς 
ὑπομείνῃ, Trall. 5 πολλὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν 
λείπει ἵνα Θεοῦ μὴ λειπώμεθα, Rom. 8 
θελήσατε ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς θεληθῆτε. See 
also such expressions as P&zlad. 10 
δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα...καὶ ὑμεῖς δοξασθή- 
σεσθε, 2b. ττ ἐδέξασθε αὐτοὺς ὡς καὶ 
ὑμᾶς ὁ Κύριος (with the note), Polyc. 
6 τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε iva καὶ ὁ 
Θεὸς ὑμῖν, and below § 10 οὐδὲ ἐπῃσ- 
χύνθητε:" 
K.T.A, 

6. συνήγοροι κιτ.λ.] ‘advocates of 
death, because by denying the verity 
of Christ’s passion and resurrection, 
they practically denied the immor- 
tality of man; comp. vexpoddopos 
below. 

7. τῆς ἀληθείας] It is probable 
that these heretics, like many others 
since, arrogated to themselves a 
monopoly of ‘the truth.’ Thus the 


> ‘ c ΄“ > , 
οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυνθήσεται 


Valentinians had their Evangelium 
Veritatis (Iren. lii. 11. 9); Celsus 
entitled his work ᾿Αληθὴς Λόγος (Orig. 
c. (δίς. i. 40 pera πολλῆς θρασύτητος 
καὶ ἀλαζονείας ἐπιγράψας x.t.A.); and 
Hierocles similarly named his own 
attack on Christianity Φιλαλήθης (Eu- 
sebicf77rocl, 1, p. 511, etc): 

ai προφητεῖαι κιτ.λ.} As Judaizers 
they professed the greatest respect 
for the Law and the Prophets, and 
yet they ignored the testimony borne 
by them to Christ’s passion; see the 
notes on Magn. 6, Philad. 5, 8, 9. 
Like S. Paul before him, Ignatius en- 
countered a stubborn opposition, as 
he διελέγετο ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν, διανοίγων 
καὶ παρατιθέμενος ὅτι τὸν Χριστὸν ἔδει 
παθεῖν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν (Acts 
XVil. 3); 

8. μέχρι νῦν] 1.6. notwithstanding 
the clear revelation of the Gospel; 
comp. Magn. 8. 

9. τὰ ἡμέτερα] On his own suffer- 
ings, as a testimony to the reality 
of Christ’s life and death, sec 77ad/. 
Io (with the notes). 

τῶν κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] i.e. ‘our several 
sufferings,’ i.e. of himself and other 
martyrs and confessors, each addi- 
tional instance being a fresh testi- 
mony to Christ’s passion. For oi 
kar’ ἄνδρα see the note on Ephes. 4. 


302 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v 


yap περὶ ἡμῶν τὸ αὐτὸ φρονοῦσιν. τί yap [με] ὠφελεῖ 


> 9 a \ \ a \ 
εἰ ἐμὲ ἐπαινεῖ τις, Tov δὲ Κύριόν μον βλασφημεῖ, μὴ 


ε “- 3 \ / e \ ~ \ / 
ὁμολογῶν αὐτὸν σαρκοφορον; o δὲ τοῦτο μή λέγων 


/ 3 \ > / \ J 
τελείως AUTOV ATNPYHTAL, ὧν vekpo@opos. 


\ \ 9 / 
Ta δὲ OVO- 


3 ἘΣ af sf 9 ἔὸ ie 9 Ἂ 
ματα αὐτῶν, ὄντα ἀπιστα, οὐκ ἔδοξέν μοι ἔγγραψαι 


1 με] GL (after javat) AC; om. g Theodt. 
ἐμὲ] Gg; εἴπερ we Theodt; εἰ ἐμὲ (or me) μὲν C3 sz... me A. 


gA Theodt; after ὠφελεῖ GLC. 
add. θεόν g. 

note § τι below). 
app. had ὧν vexpodopos. 


μὴ] GL[A]g; om. C. 
Theodt has ws vexpopopov for ὧν vexpopopos. 
5 οὐκ] GLAC; νῦν οὐκ g. 


Δ εἰ 
tis] here, 
3 σαρκοφόρον] txt GLAC Theodt; 

4 ὦν] gLA; ὧν G (see the 
C is mutilated, but 


εἰς τὸ. 


ὠφελεῖ] ὀφελεῖ G. 


ἀνάστασι:] GLAC (but τὸ πάθος is paraphrased fasstonem salvatoris nostri in A, 


and mortem domini nostri tesu christt in C); om. δ. 


10 πιστεύσω- 


ow] LAC Tim-Syr 1 Anon-Syr,; πιστεύσωμεν G3 πιστεύσῃ g (the sing. being 


I. τὸ αὐτὸ φρονοῦσιν] To be ex- 
plained by § 4 εἰ yap ro δοκεῖν ταῦτα 
ἐπράχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, κἀγὼ τὸ 
δοκεῖν δέδεμαι. The view which they 
take respecting Christ’s sufferings 
applies by parity of reasoning to his 
own. They reduce everything to an 
unreality. 

2. εἰ ἐμὲ ἐπαινεῖ] Pearson sup- 
poses that there is a special reference 
to his title Θεοφόρος : ‘ Illorum laudes 
non acceptabat, dum eum Θεοφόρον 
vocarent, negarent autern Christum 
σαρκοφόρον, et se probarent vexpo- 
φόρους. But if this had been so, the 
word Θεοφόρος would almost cer- 
tainly have been expressed, for the 
sake of the alliteration, as well as 
for clearness. See also the notes on 
Tala. 

4. ὧν νεκροφόρος] ‘he himself car- 
rying a corpse’ The word signi- 
fies ‘a bearer in a funeral,’ ‘ves- 
pillo” ‘bajulus’; e.g. Polyb. xxxv. 6. 
2 πότερον ὑπὸ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ev ᾿Αχαίᾳ 
νεκροφύρων ἐκκομισθῶσι, Appian Bel/. 
Civ. iv. 27 πλεονάζουσιν οἱ νεκροφύροι. 
For other applications of the meta- 
phor see Philo Flacc. 19 (1. p. 540) 


, \ «ς ,ὕ 3 \ ‘ 
στέλλομαι yap ὁ κακοδαίμων ἐγὼ τρό- 


Tov τινὰ νεκροφορῶν ἐμαυτὸν ὥσπερ 
εἰς nplov, de Agric. 5 (I. p. 304) ἄχθος 
τοσοῦτον οὐκ ἀποτίθεται vexpopopovaa, 
Leg. Alleg. iii. 22 (I. p. 100) μὴ γὰρ 
ἄλλο τι ποιήσειε ἕκαστον ἡμῶν ποιεῖν, 
ἢ νεκροφορεῖν, τὸ νεκρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ 
σῶμα ἐγειρούσης καὶ ἀμοχθὶ φερούσης 
τῆς Ψυχῆς (comp. de Migr. Abr. 5, 
I. p. 439, 218. Somn. 11. 30. 1. 09)» 
Greg. Naz. Of. II. 246 νεκροφόρος 
(of Adam on his expulsion from 
Eden). Cotelier quotes Cypr. de 
Laps. 30 (p. 259, Hartel) ‘spiritali- 
ter mortua supervivere hic tibi et 
ipsa ambulans funus tuum portare 
coepisti, Hieron. “7. 68 (1. p. 319) 
‘Quanti hodie diu vivendo portant 
funera sua et, quasi sepulcra de- 
albata, plena sunt ossibus mortuo- 
rum.’ This last quotation combines 
the metaphors which appear in this 
and the parallel passage of Ignatius 
referring to these same Docetic 
Judaizers, Phzlad. 6 οὗτοι ἐμοὶ στῆλαί 
εἶσιν καὶ τάφοι νεκρῶν. But why 
are they called vexpopopo.? Pearson 
quotes such passages as I Tim. v. 6 
ζῶσα τέθνηκεν, Apoc. ill. I ζῆς καὶ 
νεκρὸς et. It may possibly have this 
reference to their szoral state also ; 


vy] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


303 


9 \ δὲ 7 7, ; ᾽ ΄σ / / - 
αλλα μηδὲ γένοιτο μοι αὐτῶν μνήμονενειν, μέχρις OU 


3 \ / v4 lad / 
μετανοήσωσιν εἰς TO παθος, ὃ ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἀνάστασις. 


VI. 


Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω. 


\ \ / 
Kal Ta ἐπουράνια Kal ἡ 


/ ΄σ J e of e 
δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων Kal οἱ ἄρχοντες ὁρατοί τε καὶ 


CA \ \ 7 3 \ fe ~ ΄σ 
HOPaTOL, ἐαν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ [τοῦ 


necessary to harmonize with changes in the context). 


τοῦ Θεοῦ] gui est deus 


Anon-Syr,; guz est det Tim-Syr (where the relative may refer either to αἷμα or 
to χριστοῦ); om. GLAC (which last renders the sentence, 7% dominum nostrum 
jesum christum et sanguinem etus sanctum); al. g (but something corresponding to 
τοῦ θεοῦ might have been expected, if it had been in his text). If any insertion is 
to be made, τοῦ Θεοῦ has the advantage of explaining the renderings of both Anon- 


Syr, and Tim-Syr. 


They might however be brought to conformity by substi- 


tuting NTONTT for ΝΠΟΝ in the Syriac, or conversely. See the lower note. 


but I believe that it points more 
directly to their doctrinal postition. 
If Christ’s resurrection were not real, 
then their own immortality was de- 
stroyed also; they were simply carry- 
ing corpses to the grave. 

5. ὄντα ἄπιστα] i.e. ‘being those 
of unbelievers, by a very natural 
brachylogy ; comp. ὃ 2 ὥσπερ ἄπιστοί 
τινες λέγουσιν. 

7. εἰς τὸ πάθος] For the con- 
struction comp. PAzlad. 8 μετανοή- 
σωσιν eis ἑνότητα Θεοῦ (with the note). 
For the prominence given to the 
Passion see the note on L£phes. 
inscr. 

VI. ‘Be not deceived. Even the 
angels will be judged, if they believe 
not in Christ’s blood. Let no man 
be elated by office. Faith and love 
are all in all. Beware also of the 
false teachers. They have no regard 
for deeds of charity. They abstain 
from the eucharist, because they do 
not acknowledge it to be the flesh of 
Christ which truly suffered and rose 
again.’ 

ὃ, Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω] See LEphes. 
5 with the note. 

καὶ τὰ ἐπουράνια κιτ.λ.] See Tradl. 


5 μὴ οὐ δύναμαι τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι... 
δύναμαι νοεῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια κ-ιτ.λ. 

ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων] i.e. ‘the angels 
notwithstanding all their glory.’ 

9. ἄρχοντες! For this word as a 
designation of angels comp. 77ra//. 5 
with the note, and see Hort’s article 
in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biogr. 
s.v. Archon. 

ὁρατοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι] The same 
expression occurs again in a similar 
connexion, 7ra//. 5 ras συστάσεις Tas 
ἀρχοντικάς, ὁρατά τε καὶ ἀόρατα (see 
the note there). 

Io. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘who zs God’ 1 
have inserted these words in brackets 
with very great hesitation, as a pos- 
sible reading. Such a mode of 
speaking however is almost, if not 
quite, unique in Ignatius; see Epes. 
inscr. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. If this was 
the reading of Timotheus and the 
anonymous Syrian writer, as it seems 
to have been (see the upper note), 
it may be due to ἃ transcriber’s 
reminiscence of 4 2165. 1 ἐν αἵματι 
Θεοῦ. See the notes on § 10 below, 
and on Zyad/. 7, and compare the 
variation of the Syriac Version above 
in ὃ 4 τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου. 


304 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi 


~ / / / c an ͵ / 
Θεοῦ], κἀκείνοις κρίσις ἐστίν. ὁ χωρῶν χωρείτω. τόπος 

/ / A \ c/ 3 \ / Nua ΄ 
μηδένα φυσιούτω: τὸ yap ὅλον ἐστίν πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη, 
se: “ΔΝ / ζ \ \ C ὃ 
ὧν οὐδὲν προκέκριται. καταμάθετε δὲ τοὺς ἑτεροδοξ- 


΄σ 3 \ ’ > ΄σ ΄σ \ 3 ε σ 3 lo 
οὔντας εἰς THY χάριν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν εἰς ἡμάς ἐλθοῦ- 


1 τόπος] GCg Tim-Syr; gualiter (τὸ mas) L; def. A. The same corruption of 


τόπος appears in Clem. Rom. 54. 


4 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL; domini nostri jesu christi C; dei A; al. g. 


3 δὲ] GLC; etzam A; οὖν [6]. 
7 ov 


περὶ θλιβομένου ov περὶ δεδεμένου] GL; oppressorum et ligatorum A; aut alicuius 


I. ὁ χωρῶν yopeiro] ‘Let him 
that recetveth receive, taken from 
Matt. xix. 12 ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν yo- 
ρείτω. It is a mysterious truth, and 
beyond the capacity of the common 
hearer. Similarly in 7va//. 5, when 
he is tempted to speak of the hea- 
venly hierarchy, he checks himself 
and says, φοβοῦμαι μὴ νηπίοις οὖσιν 
ὑμῖν βλάβην παραθῶ" καὶ συγγνωμονεῖτέ 
μοι, μήποτε οὐ δυνηθέντες γωρῆσαι 
στραγγαλωθῆτε, which passage also 
illustrates the metaphor in χωρεῖν. 
The interpolator himself was not able 
χωρεῖν, for he obliterates all mention 
of the angels here, evidently looking 
upon them as a stumbling-block, 
and substitutes κἂν βασιλεὺς 7 κἂν 
ἱερεὺς κἂν ἄρχων κἂν ἰδιώτης «K.T.A. 
Perhaps the reading πιστεύσωμεν 
may be due to the same cause. 
S. Jerome (quoted by Smith) says, 
Comm. in Ephes. iv. το (VIL. p. 614) 
‘Neque enim scire possumus quo- 
modo et angelis et his qui in inferno 
erant sanguis Christi profuerit; et 
tamen quin profuerit, nescire non 
possumus.’ 

τόπος] ‘place, i.e. ‘office,’ ‘ digni- 
ty’: see the note on Polyc. 1. 

2. φυσιούτω] Pearson compares 
Iren. iv. 26. 3 ‘principalis conses- 
sionis [1.6. πρωτοκαθεδρίας, where the 
MSS have ‘concessionis’| tumore elati 
sunt.’ 

πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη) See the note on 
Ephes. 14 ἀρχὴ ζωῆς κιτιλ.; and for 


the frequent conjunction of πίστις 
and ἀγάπη in Ignatius, the note on 
Ephes. 1. 

3. ὧν οὐδὲν προκέκριται] ‘to which 
nothing is (justly) preferred, ‘than 
which nothing ts better’; comp. 
Magn. 1 with the note. 

καταμάθετε] ‘mark well, as in Matt. 
vi. 28; comp. Polyc. 3, and see also 
Clem) Rom-?7. 

ἑτεροδοξοῦντας.] See the note on 
Magn. ὃ. The χάρις, as to which 
they have gone astray, is the gift of 
Christ’s incarnation and _ passion. 
The γνώμη of God, which they defy, 
is the obligation to love imposed 
upon them in consequence thereof. 
Their doctrinal error leads to their 
moral failure. On the phrase γνώμη 
Θεοῦ see Rom. ὃ with the note. 

5. περὶ ἀγάπης] i.e. ‘deeds of 
charity.’ There is apparently no re- 
ference to the technical sense which 
ἀγάπη has below in ὃ 8. It is the 
general term introducing the men- 
tion of the special directions in which 
love may be manifested. 

6. περὶ χήρας κιτ.λ.} For the 
whole passage comp. Barnab. 20 
χήρᾳ καὶ ὀρφανῷ ov προσέχοντες... 
ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον καὶ κα- 
ταπονοῦντες τὸν θλιβόμενον. 

The care of widows and orphans 
was regarded as of primary obliga- 
tion in the Christian Church from 
the beginning; Acts vi. I, ix. 39, 41, 
1 Tim, v. 3—16, James i. 27. See 


vi] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


~~ 7 3 \ ~ ~ ~ 
σαν, πώς ἐναντίοι εἰσὶν TH γνώμη τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
έ έ 


395 


περὲ 


ΕῚ 7 ͵ ΕῚ ~ 3 > > ~ 

ἀγαπης οὐ μελει αὐτοῖς, οὐ περὲ χήρας, οὐ περὶ ορφανοῦ, 
2 / 3 ’ 

ov περὲ θλιβομένου, ov rept δεδεμένου [ἢ λελυμένου], οὐ 


indigentis aut alicuius oppresst C (thus transposing the two words and reading δεομέ- 
vou or évdeouévou for dedeuévov; see Doctr. Apost. 5, quoted below); θλιβόμενον... 


δεδεμένον [g] (changing the form of the sentence). 


om. AC[g]. 


ἢ λελυμένου] GL; 


The omission in g however is of little account, since this re- 


cension contains nothing corresponding to the remainder of the section ov περὶ 


πεινῶντος K.T.X. 


also (besides Barnab. 20 just quoted) 
Polyc. 4 χῆραι μὴ ἀμελείσθωσαν, 
Polyc. Phil. 6 μὴ ἀμελοῦντες χήρας ἢ 
ὀρφανοῦ ἢ πένητος, Hermas [725. il. 4 
νουθετήσει τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφα- 
νούς, Mand. vill χήραις ὑπηρετεῖν, 
ὀρφανοὺς καὶ ὑστερουμένους ἐπισκέπ- 
τεσθαι, Sim. i ἀντὶ ἀγρῶν οὖν ἀγορά- 
(ere ψυχὰς θλιβομένας.. καὶ χήρας καὶ 
ὀρφανοὺς ἐπισκέπτεσθε καὶ μὴ παρα- 
βλέπετε αὐτούς, S77. v. 3 δώσεις αὐτὸ 
χήρᾳ ἢ ὀρφανῷ ἢ ὑστερουμένῳ (Comp. 
ΕΣ ix. 26, 27), Justin “4207. 1. 67 
(p. 99) ἐπικουρεῖ ὀρφανοῖς τε καὶ χήραις 
καὶ τοῖς διὰ νόσον ἢ δι’ ἄλλην αἰτίαν 
λειπομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἐν δεσμοῖς οὖσι 
κτιλ., Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 8 τοῖς 
μὲν ὀρφανοῖς ποιοῦντες τὰ γονέων ταῖς 
δὲ χήραις τὰ ἀνδρῶν, ill. 71 τιμᾶτε... 
χήρας εὖ βεβιωκυίας, ὀρφανοὺς ὡς 
ἐκκλησίας τέκνα, Tertull. “4294. 39 
‘dispensatur...egenis alendis human- 
disque, et pueris ac puellis re ac pa- 
rentibus destitutis, iamque domesti- 
cis senibus, item naufragis, et si qui 
in metallis, et si qui in insulis vel 
in custodiis, dumtaxat ex causa dei 
sectae alumni confessionis suae fiunt,’ 
Apost. Const. ii. 24 οἰκονομείτω op- 
φανοῖς καὶ χήραις καὶ θλιβομένοις καὶ 
ξένοις ἀπορουμένοις, Cyprian “2151. ὃ 
(p. 487) ‘sive viduae sive thlibomeni 
qui se exhibere non possunt, sive hi 
qui in carceribus sunt etc.’ (comp. 
7257.7, Pp: 485; Test. 113, ps 181). 
For the practice of the Roman 
Church see Cornelius in Euseb. 27. 2. 


PENS PY. 


Vi. 43 χήρας σὺν θλιβομένοις ὑπὲρ 
τὰς πεντακοσίας, οὺς πάντας ἡ τοῦ δε- 
σπότου χάρις καὶ φιλανθρωπία δια- 
τρέφει. 

7. θλιβομένουῇ Besides passages 
in the last note, comp. Doctr. Apost. 
5 ἀποστρεφύμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, κατα- 
πονοῦντες τὸν θλιβόμενον, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vi. 12 (p. 873) ἀμέλει θλιβό- 
μενον ἐπικουφίζει, παραμυθίαις, παρ- 
ορμήσεσι, ταῖς βιωτικαῖς χρείαις ἐπι- 
κουρῶν. 

δεδεμένου͵ἡ The prisoners again 
were a special object of solicitude to 
the early Christians, more especially 
if they were suffering for the faith; 
comp. Heb. x. 34 καὶ yap τοῖς decpi- 
ots συνεπαθήσατε, xiii. 3 μιμνήσκεσθε 
τῶν δεσμίων ὡς συνδεδεμένοι, Clem. 
Rom. 55 ἐπιστάμεθα πολλοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν 
παραδεδωκότας ἑαυτοὺς εἰς δεσμὰ ὅπως 
ἑτέρους λυτρώσονται κιτιλ., 20. 59 λύ- 
τρωσαι τοὺς δεσμίους ἡμῶν, Hermas 
Mand. viii ἐξ ἀναγκῶν λυτροῦσθαι 
τοὺς δούλους τοῦ Θεοῦ (with Sz. 1 
quoted above), Clem. Hom. Ep. 
Clem. 9 πολλῷ μᾶλλον πεινῶντας τρέ- 
φετε καὶ διψῶσι παρέχετε πότον, γυμ- 
νοῖς ἔνδυμα, τοὺς νοσοῦντας ἐπισκέ- 
πτεσθε, τοῖς ἐν φυλακαῖς ἐπιφαινόμενοι 
ὡς δύνασθε βοηθεῖτε κιτ.λ. (Comp. 20. 
iii. 69, xi. 4, xii. 32, where nearly the 
same words are repeated), Dionys. 
Cor. in Euseb. H. £. iv. 23 (of the 
Roman Christians) ἐν μετάλλοις δὲ 
ἀδελφοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἐπιχορηγοῦντας 
κιτιλ., Apost. Const. iv. 9 ῥυόμενοι 


20 


306 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v1 


΄σ \ lol 7 \ ΄- 
περὲ TELVWVTOS ἢ διψώντος" εὐχαριστίας Kal προσεύχης 


A \ \ ε - \ 7 f 7 
ἀπέχονται διὰ TO μὴ ομολογεῖν THV εὐχαριστίαν σαρκα 


> ΄σ ~ ς ~ ~ “Ὁ \ ε Cay 
εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, THY ὑπὲρ τῶν 


1 διψῶντος] C breaks off at this word. 


δούλους καὶ αἰχμαλώτους, δεσμίους ἐπη- 
ρεαζομένους, ἥκοντας ex καταδίκης διὰ 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὸ τυράννων εἰς 
μονομαχίαν καὶ θάνατον, ν. 1 εἰ δὲ καὶ 
οἷός τε ἐστὶν ἅπαντα τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ 
ἀποδόμενος ῥύσασθαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ 
δεσμωτηρίου, μακάριος ἔσται (with the 
whole context), Hippol. /aer. ix. 12, 
Cyprian ΖΦ 2254. 72 (p. 698) and fas- 
sim. See especially, as the testimony 
of a heathen, Lucian de Mort. Peregr. 
12 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὖν ἐδέδετο [ὁ Περεγρῖνος], οἱ 
Χριστιανοὶ συμφορὰν ἡγούμενοι τὸ πρᾶγ- 
μα πάντα ἐκίνουν ἐξαρπάσαι πειρωμένοι 
αὐτύν- εἶτ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἦν ἀδύνατον, ἥ γε 
ἄλλη θεραπεία πᾶσα οὐ παρέργως ἀλλὰ 
σὺν σπουδῇ ἐγίγνετο: καὶ ἕωθεν μὲν 
εὐθὺς ἦν ὁρᾶν παρὰ τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ 
περιμένοντα γρᾷδια χήρας τινὰς καὶ 
παιδία ὀρφανά κιτιλ. For passages in 
the early Liturgies see the note on 
Clem. Rom. 59. 

ἢ λελυμένουΠ͵ No adequate sense 
can be given to these words. It is 
proposed for instance to interpret 
δεδεμένου ‘a cripple’ and λελυμένου 
‘a paralytic’ (‘de podagricis et pa- 
ralyticis aliisque etc.’ Smith). For 
δεδεμένος in this sense comp. Luke 
xill. 16 ταύτην... ἣν ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς... 
οὐκ ἔδει λυθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ δεσμοῦ τού- 
του; Clem. Hom. xii. τὸ γυνὴ ὅλη 
ὑπὸ πάθους τινὸς συνδεθεῖσα: and for 
λελυμένος, 2151. Vienn. in Euseb. 
ΜΠ. E. ν. τ ὑπὸ τοῦ γήρως καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς 
νόσου λελυμένου (οἵ Pothinus), Greg. 
Naz. Op. Il. p. 276 ἑκαντοντάρχοιο 
λελυμένον ἥδρασε παῖδα in allusion to 
Luke vii. 2 sq (comp. λύσις 2. 11. p. 
278, λυσιμελής 2b. pp. 860, 946). 
But though each word singly might 
refer to some kind of disease, the 


εὐχαριστίας Kal προσευχῆς ἀπ- 


odd antithesis of ‘bound and loosed’ 
in this sense is quite inconceivable; 
not to say that parallel passages 
make the sense of δεδεμένον ‘a pri- 
soner’ quite certain. Markland again 
would render it ‘fatigato, deficiente’ ; 
but even if this rendering could 
stand in itself, it makes no antithesis 
to δεδεμένου. Zahn preserves this an- 
tithesis (/.v. A. p. 333) by giving to the 
passage the sense ‘they care not 
whether a man is in bonds or free’; 
but this assigns to ἢ quite a different 
sense from that which it has in the 
next clause περὶ πεινῶντος ἢ Oupavros. 
It seems necessary therefore to eject 
the words ἢ λελυμένου. as the addi- 
tion of some officious scribe who had 
more regard for rhetoric than for 
sense. They are omitted in the 
Armenian and Coptic Versions. 

I. εὐχαριστία] On the appli- 
cation of this word to the Holy 
Communion, and even to the ele- 
ments themselves, see the note on 
Philad. 4. It would appear from 
§ 8 (comp. Phzlad. 4), that these 
heretics did not altogether abstain 
from this sacrament, but that they 
established a eucharist of their own 
apart from the Church. This Igna- 
tius does not allow to be a real 
eucharistic feast (ὃ ὃ ἐκείνη βεβαία 
εὐχαριστία κ-τ.λ.), and therefore he 
says here εὐχαριστίας ἀπέχονται. The 
προσευχῆς is the public prayer of the 
Church, more especially that which 
accompanies the eucharist. Theo- 
doret Of. IV: I. p./231 quotes the 
passage loosely, εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσ- 
φορὰς οὐκ ἀποδέχονται k.T.A. 

2. διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν κιτ.λ.] The 


vi] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 307 


5 A ε ΄σ “ A - / ε \ 
AUAOTLWYV MWY παθοῦσαν, Hv TH XPNTTOTHTL O TATHO 


ἤγειρεν. 
VII. 


vont 9 Υ͂ 
συζητοῦντες ἀποθνησκουσιν. 


έχονται] GLA; εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσφορὰς οὐκ ἀποδέχονται Theodt; al. g. 


x 3 4 ΄σ ΄σ qn ΄ 
Οἱ οὖν ἀντιλέγοντες TH δωρεᾷ TOU Θεοῦ 


\ 2 = 3 
συνέφερεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγα- 


6 τῇ 


δωρεᾷ) G; hutc dono (τῇδε δωρεᾷ) L; donis A; al. g. 


argument is much the same as Ter- 
tullian’s against the Docetism of 
Marcion, adv. Marc. iv. 40 ‘Accep- 
tum panem et distributum discipulis 
corpus suum illum fecit, Hloc est cor- 
pus meum dicendo, id est figura met 
corporis. figura autem non fuisset, 
nisi veritatis esset corpus. ceterum 
vacua res, quod est phantasma, figu- 
ram capere non posset.’ The eu- 
charist implies the reality of Christ’s 
flesh. To those who deny this 
reality, it has no meaning at all; to 
them Christ’s words of institution 
are false; it is in no sense the flesh 
of Christ. Somewhat similarly Ire- 
nzeus (iv. 18. 5) argues against those 
who deny the resurrection and im- 
mortality of the body from the eucha- 
tist; and he challenges them either 
to change their opinions or to give 
up the celebration (ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλα- 
ξάτωσαν ἢ τὸ προσφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα 
παραιτείσθωσαν). See also ν. 2. 2. 

4. ἣν καιιλ] Comp. 7rall. 9, and 
see the note on § 2 above. 

VII. ‘It is death to gainsay the 
gift of God. They must learn to 
love, if they would rise again. Have 
nothing to do with these men, but 
give heed to the Prophets, and es- 
pecially the Gospel, where the Pas- 
sion and Resurrection are set forth.’ 

6. τῇ δωρεᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ] The ‘gift 
of God’ is the redemption of man 
through the incarnation and death 
of Christ. It has substantially the 
same sense in Ignatius, asin S. Paul, 
om. v.15 sq,"2) Cor, 1x. 15 5. comp. 


Iren. v. 2. 3. Those who denied 
the reality of the passion gainsaid 
the gift. There is no direct reference 
here to the eucharist, as Aldrich 
supposes. The elements were called 
δῶρα, not as the gifts of God, but as 
the offerings of the congregation. 

7. συζητοῦντες κιτ.λ.] ‘die by their 
disputing. The contentious spirit 
is death; for it is the negation of 
love (τὸ ἀγαπᾶν). 

συνέφερεν δὲ x.t-A.]| This was the 
point in which they were at fault, 
περὶ ἀγάπης ov μέλει αὐτοῖς ὃ 6. If 
they had devoted themselves to cha- 
ritable works instead of theological 
disputations, it would have been 
better for them (συνέφερεν αὐτοῖς). 
Love would have revived them, for 
love is resurrection, is life: comp. 
I John ili. 14 ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι μετα- 
βεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν 
ζωήν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς" 
ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. 
Many commentators (Cotelier, Pear- 
son, Aldrich, Hefele, Zahn) would 
take ἀγαπᾶν-ε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν ‘to hold 
an agape’ (see ὃ 8 below). This how- 
ever seems lexically impossible, nor 
would the passage be improved by 
the interpretation, if it could stand. 
The word might possibly contain an 
indirect allusion to the agape, but 
even this would destroy the force of 
the expression. The sense ‘to ac- 
quiesce,’ i.e. ‘in the revelation of the 
Gospel,’ which Smith assigns to the 
word, is too weak for the occasion. 


90. -Ζ2 


308 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[vir 


΄σ ε ἴω (¢ Oy 3 \ > ,ὔ 
πᾶν, ἵνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν. πρέπον | οὖν] ἐστὶν ἀπέχεσθαι 


a / Ε 2 Hy. \ > A“ ΄- 
τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ μήτε κατ᾽ ἰδίαν περὶ αὐτῶν λαλεῖν 


7" έγειν δὲ τοῖς π' οφ TOLLS ἐξαι ETws δὲ 
μήτε κοινῆ" προσέχ pon ; ρ 

rn > 7 > τῷ \ / eA on \ ς 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν ᾧ τὸ παθος ἡμῖν δεδήλωται καὶ ἡ 


fe UY 
ἄναστασις TETEAELWTAL, 


ΔΤ. 


1 καὶ] G; om. L (the omission of e¢ after w¢ was easy); al. Ag. 


Gg; om. AL* (but see Appx). 


cum A. 


paraphrase of g, τοῖς εὐαγγελισαμένοις ὑμῖν x.7.d.; nostra (= ἡμῶν) A. 
GL (but om: L,) Ὁ: ¢ A; om. [Dam-Rup 1]. 


Τοὺς [δὲ] μερισμοὺς φεύγετε, ὡς ἀρχὴν 


οὖν] 
2 περὶ] Gg* (but v. 1. μετ᾽); de L; 


4 ἡμῖν] GL, and this reading seems to be recognised in the 


6 δὲ] 


7 ws ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς 


τῷ πατρί] GL Dam-Vat 2 Dam-Rup 5; ὡς ὁ χριστὸς ἰησοῦς τῷ πατρί g; szcut 


zesu christo et patri deo A. 


I. πρέπον οὖν ἐστὶν] See the note 
Ephes. 2. 

2. περὶ avtav| This expression 
suggests that the previous τῶν τοιού- 
τῶν may perhaps be neuter, and not 
masculine, as it is generally taken. 
See however § 5 τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν 
κιτιλ. 

3. τοῖς προφήταις] On the pro- 
phets as witnesses to the passion 
and resurrection see ὃ 5 above, and 
Philad. 5, 9, with the notes. 

ἐξαιρέτως δὲ] ‘but preeminently’; 
comp. Philad. 9 ἐξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχε! 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κιτιλ. For ἐξαιρέτως 
see the note on 7γαζί. 12. ᾿Ἐξαιρέτως 
de occurs, as here, in Mart. Ant. 3. 

4. τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) ‘The Gospel’ 
is here the body of fact or doctrine. 
There is no direct reference to a writ- 
ten record here, though the whole 
body of the four Gospels is often 
called τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (e.g. Orig. ὦ 
GCOlSs τὸ πον πον: θῶ, ek CALSON’S 
question ‘An unum tantum evange- 
lium viderat?’ is quite out of place. 
For the distinction between ‘the 
Gospel’ and ‘the Gospels,’ comp. 
Iren. lil. 11. 9 οἱ ἀθετοῦντες τὴν ἰδέαν 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ εἴτε πλείονα εἴτε 


8 πρεσβυτερίῳ] txt GL Dam-Vat; add. δὲ g; 


ἐλάττονα τῶν εἰρημένων παρεισφέροντες 
εὐαγγελίων πρόσωπα, and again ‘in 
nihilo conveniens apostolorum evaz- 
geliis, ut nec evangelium quidem sit 
apud eos sine blasphemia’ (comp. 
zb. § ὃ ‘neque rursus pauciora capit 
esse cvangelia: quoniam...firmamen- 
tum ecclesiae est evangelium etc’), 
Orig. ὦ (δίς. ll. 13 ἐν τοῖς evayye- 
λίοις yéypamrat...ovdev δὲ εἶχεν ἔξω- 
θεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου φέρειν (comp. 1. 
44, 45; ll. 27, 34). 

5. τετελείωται) ‘has been Sully 
accomplished’; comp. Philad. 9 τὸ 
δὲ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἐστιν ἀφθαρ- 
σίας. The word cannot signify, as 
several commentators take it, ‘is 
demonstrated, assured, attested.’ 

VIII. ‘Shun divisions. Follow 
the bishop and presbyters, and re- 
spect the deacons. Do nothing with- 
out the bishop. The eucharist is 
not valid without his consent. Where 
the bishop is, there should the laity 
be found. It is not allowable to 
baptize or to hold an agape without 
him. A ceremony so held is dis- 
pleasing to God and has no vali- 
dity.’ 

6. Τοὺς δὲ μερισμοὺς «.7.A.] Comp. 


O 


vilt| 


κακῶν. 


TO THE SMYRNAEANS. 


309 


7 Ψ.- 5 / πὶ ~~ « 3 ~~ 
πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς ᾿]ησοῦς 


Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳω ὡς τοῖς ἀπο- 


, \ \ / 3 14 ΄:- 
στόλοις" τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν. 


\ > bs 7 ~ 2 / > 
μηδεὶς χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς 


\ > 7 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 


3 , / 5 7 ε / ec 
ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω ἡ 


e \ \ 3 / Sy \ fe \ 3 \ > 7 
ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, ἢ ὦ ἀν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρεψη. 
L 


sacerdotibus A (see the note on 77all. 7, p. 170). 
Dam-Reg Dam-Rup; add. διακονοῦντας g Dam-Vat. 
Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; τοῦ ἐπισκόπου G. 


ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ Dam-Rup; al. A. 
Rup. 


9 ἐντολήν] txt GLA 
Io ἐπισκόπου] g 
eis THY ἐκκλησίαν] GLg Dam-Vat; 


11 ἐκείνη] GLg Dam-Vat; om. A (?) Dam- 


12 ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον] GLg Dam-Reg; ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπισκόπων 


Dam-Vat; ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου A (translating gaaecumgque ab episcopo efficiatur) 


Dam-Rup. 
Gg; ἐὰν Dam-Rup; def. Dam-Vat. 


Philad. 2 (note), 7, where the same 
expression occurs of these same 
heretics. These Docetic teachers 
were separatists, as well as heretics. 
Their separatism however seems to 
have been only partial. They would 
mix with the Church generally, but 
they would have their separate ritual, 
e.g. the agape, baptism, etc. 

7-  @s Ἰησοῦς «.z.A.| For this 
analogy see Jag. 6, 7 προκαθημένου 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τύπον Θεοῦ.. ὥσπερ 
οὖν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν 
ἐποίησεν κιτιλ., 16. 13 ὑποτάγητε τῷ 
ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ᾿ἸἸησοῦς 
Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, Trall. 3 τὸν ἐπί- 
σκοπὸν ὄντα τύπον τοῦ πατρός, with 
the respective notes. 

8. @s τοῖς ἀποστόλοις] For this 
comparison see Magn. 6 τῶν πρεσβυ- 
τέρων εἰς τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστό- 
λων, Trall. 2 ὑποτάσσεσθε καὶ τῷ 
πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις K.T.X., 
2b. 3 τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέ- 
δριον Θεοῦ καὶ ὡς σύνδεσμον ἀποστό- 
λων, and conversely Phzlad. 5 τοῖς 
ἀποστόλοις ὡς πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας, 
with the several notes. 

9. ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν] not ‘as the 
ordinance enjoined by God’ (so Pear- 


ᾧ] GAg Dam-Rup; guod (6) L; def. Dam-Vat. 


ἂν] 


son ‘tanquam Dei praecepto insti- 
tutos’), but ‘as the votce of God 
enjoining you. The deacons speak 
with the authority of God; they 
command in God’s place. See the 
note on the parallel passage 727αζά. 
13 ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς TH 
ἐντολῇ, and compare the v. 1]. in the 
Latin of Zyral/l. 3 ‘vereantur dia- 
conos ut mandatum Jesu Christi,’ 
which is probably borrowed from 
this passage. See also I Cor. xiv. 
37 ἐπιγινωσκέτω a γράφω ὅτι Κυρίου 
ἐστὶν ἐντολή. The interpolator has 
inserted διακονοῦντας to govern ep- 
roAny and thus relieve the sense. 

10. μηδεὶς χωρὶς k.t.A.] See the 
note on Magu. 7. 

τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς] See the notes 
on Phzlad. 1 and Clem. Rom. 45. 

11. ἐκείνη «.t.A.| This passage 
shows that the heretics celebrated 
the eucharist separately; see also 
below οὐκ ἐξόν k.7.X. 

βεβαία] ‘valid, as e.g. Rom. iv. 16, 
Heb. ii. 2, ix. 17; comp. fom. 3. 

ἡγείσθω) ‘be held’ This passive 
use of deponent verbs, even in the 
present and imperfect tenses, is not 
very uncommon in other words, e.g. 


310 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[νΠ| 


« "Ὰ τ eta) / > σ΄. \ ΄σ af .«ἶ 
ὅπου ἂν (avn O ἐπίσκοπος, EKEL TO πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ 


1 ἂν] Gg Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; ἐὰν Dam-Reg. 


Vat Dam-Rup; ἐπίσκοπος Antioch 14. 
om. Dam-Rup. 


ὁ ἐπίσκοπος] Gg Dam- 
ἔστω] Gg; ἤτω Antioch Dam-Vat; 


2 ὅπου ἂν ἢ] G; ὅπου ἐὰν ἢ Dam-Rup; ὅπου ἂν Dam- 


Vat; ὅπου (om. ἂν ἢ) σα; ὅπουπερ ἂν ὀνομασθῇ Antioch; wztigue ube est L; τὲ 


βιάζομαι, λογίζομαι, wvodpar: comp. 
Kihner I. p. 106, Winer § xxxviil. 
p. 325, Cope on Arist. het. I. p. 299 
sq; and for δέχεσθαι, προσδέχεσθαι, 
etc, see Poppo on Thuc. iv. 19 (comp. 
eg. the passive προσδεχέσθω in 
Apost. Const. ii. 58, vill. 31). But I 
have not found an instance of the 
present or imperfect of ἡγεῖσθαι ex- 
cept in an active sense, for in Herod. 
111. 14 ἡγεόμενον, ‘being led,’ the 
reading is highly doubtful. The per- 
fect ra ἁγημένα occurs as a passive in 
an oracle in Demosth. JZac. p. 1072, 
and ἡγηθήσεται also is passive in 
buppel: i2a27si),.procm,.p. 5. The 
commentators do not notice the dif- 
ficulty. 

2. ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία] ‘the uni- 
versal Church.” The bishop, argues 
Ignatius, is the centre of each in- 
dividual Church, as Jesus Christ is 
the centre of the universal Church. 
The word καθολικὸς is found in a 
treatise ascribed to Aristotle de Plant. 
ii. 6 (p. 826), where καθολικὸς λόγος 
is a ‘universal statement’ (comp. 1]. 
8, p. 828, καθολικῶς) ; and Zeno the 
Stoic wrote a work called Καθολικὰ 
‘Universals’ (Diog. Laert. vii. 4). 
It occurs several times in Polybius, 
e.g. vi. 5. 3 κι ἔμφασις ‘a general 
exposition,’ Vill. 4. 11 κ. ἱστορία ‘uni- 
versal history.’ So also Philo ΚΖ 
Moys. iii. 32 (Il. p. 172) καθολικώτερον 
vopov, c. Flacc. 29 (Il. p. 574) τῆς 
καθολικωτέρας πολιτείας, Dion. Hal. 
de Comp. Verb. p. 68 καθολικὴν πε- 
ρίληψιν, Epictet. 11. 20. 2 καθολικὸν 
aAnOes (comp. ii. 2. 25, lv. 4. 29, Iv. 
12. 7), Quintil. ii. 13. 14 ‘praecepta 
quae καθολικὰ vocant, id est (ut di- 


camus quomodo possumus) wz2ver- 
salia vel perpetualia’, and examples 
might be multiplied. The word 
therefore was extremely common in 
the age of Ignatius. 

At a later date the expression 7 
καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία acquired a techni- 
cal meaning, ‘the Catholic Church’, 
as opposed to the heretical sects ; 
but here its use is different. It is 
the general or universal Church, as 
opposed to a particular body of 
Christians. This meaning is ob- 
viously required by the context; and 
yet it was reserved for Zahn (/. v. A. 
p. 428) to emphasize the difference, 
and to point out its bearing on the 
Ignatian controversy. The expres- 
sion as used here therefore is no 
indication of a late date, but the 
opposite. It was natural at any 
moment from the time when the 
Church first began to spread by the 
labours of the Apostles. Thus it is 
not more indicative of a late date 
than other uses of the word in early 
Christian writers ; e.g. ἡ καθ. ἀνάστα- 
σις ‘the general resurrection’, Justin 
Dial. 82 (p. 308), Theoph. ad Axtzol. 
1. 13 (p. 18); καθ. πνεύματα (of the four 
principal winds) Iren. iii. 11. 8; καθ. 
διαθῆκαι Iren. ii. 11.9; καθ. σωτηρία 
Clem: Alex. Paed..4.0:6.(p. τατον πα, 
ὁμολογία (opposed to μερική) Stvoz. iv. 
9 (p. 595); καθ. κίνησις καὶ μετάθεσις 
(speaking of Matt. xxvii. 52) Stvoz. 
vi. 6 (p. 764); καθ. λόγος, Strom. i. 
4 (p. 330), vi. 8 (p. 773); ra καθ. 
στοιχεῖα (of the letters of the alpha- 
bet), καθ. θεωρήματα, Strom. viii. 8 
(Ρ. 928); ‘cath. bonitas’ (said of God) 
Tertull.. ady.: Mancs ας 27 50 ΕΑ πὶ 


vil | 


TO THE SMYRNAEANS. 


SEF 


ε΄ λ ὩΣ \ ~~ > ΄:- \ 
ὅπου av ἡ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. 
ἐ 


sit A. 
Rup; ὁ χριστὸς Dam-Vat. 


Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς] GL Antioch Dam-Reg; ἰησοῦς χριστός A Dam- 
ἐκκλησία] txt GLA (which however inserts 


sit or esto) Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; add. ἐπισυνάγεται [Antioch]. 


Dei templum’ (applied to our Lord), 
Gav, Mare. Wi.'21; ‘eath.  patris 
sacerdos’ (said likewise of Christ) 
adv. Mare. iv. 9. 

The earliest examples after this 
time, where it occurs as an epithet 
of ἐκκλησία, are (about A.D. 155 ora 
little later) in the letter of the Church 
of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of 
Polycarp, where it occurs three times; 
inscr. πάσαις ταῖς κατὰ πάντα τόπον 
τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παρ- 
οἰκίαις, § ὃ πάσης τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκου- 
μένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, § τὸ Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστὸν.. ποιμένα τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκου- 
μένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ; but in all 
these passages it still signifies ‘uni- 
versal.’ Ina fourth passage indeed, 
§ 16, Polycarp is called in the com- 
mon texts ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Σμύρνῃ 
καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. If this reading 
were correct we should have here 
the earliest instance of the use of 
‘Catholic Church’ in its technical 
sense; and it would stand in marked 
contrast with the passage in Igna- 
tius. For, whereas in Ignatius the 
‘Catholic Church’ is distinguished 
from the congregation over which 
Polycarp presided, in the passage 
of the Martyrdom this very congre- 
gation is itself so designated. But 
the recently collated Moscow MS. 
(see Zetischr. f. Hist. Theol. 1875, 
p. 360) for καθολικῆς has ἁγίας in ac- 
cordance with the Latin Version ; 
and there can therefore be little 
doubt that this is the original read- 
ing. The technical sense however 
occurs in the Muratorian Fragment 
pp. 20. 47 (ed. Tregelles), ‘in catho- 
licam ecclesiam recipi non potest’ 
(speaking of heretical writings), and 


very emphatically in Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vii. 17 (p. 898) μεταγενεστέρας 
τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰς ἀνθρω- 
πίνας συνηλύσεις πεποιήκασιν...ἐκ τῆς 
προγενεστάτης καὶ ἀληθεστάτης ἐκκλη- 
σίας..-μίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληθῆ ἐκκλησίαν 
τὴν τῷ ὄντι ἀρχαίαν..-μόνην εἶναί φαμεν 
τὴν ἀρχαίαν καὶ καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν εἰς 
ἑνότητα πίστεως μιᾶς. 

In its earliest usages therefore, as 
a fluctuating epithet of ἐκκλησία, 
‘catholic’ means ‘universal,’ as op- 
posed to ‘individual’, ‘particular.’ 
The Church throughout the world is 
called ‘catholic,’ just as the Resur- 
rection of all mankind is called 
‘catholic.’ In its later sense, as a 
fixed attribute, it implies orthodoxy 
as opposed to heresy, conformity as 
opposed to dissent. Thus to the 
primary idea of extension are super- 
added also the ideas of doctrine and 
unity. But this later sense grows 
out of the earlier. The truth was 
the same everywhere, ‘quod semper, 
quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.’ The 
heresies were partial, scattered, lo- 
calized, isolated (comp. the note on 
Col. i. 6). See Athanasius Festal 
Letters 11 (p. 94, Oxf. transl.) ‘The 
Catholic Church which is in every 
place,’ Aug. fst. 111 (II. p. 119) 
‘KaOodixy Graece appellatur, quod per 
totum orbem terrarum diffunditur.’ 
Not unnaturally however there was 
a tendency in theologians to put 
into the word more than history 
warranted: e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem 
Catech. xviii.”23 (p. 296) says that 
the Catholic Church was so called 
for three reasons; (1) διὰ τὸ κατὰ 
πάσης εἶναι τῆς οἰκουμένης ; (2) διὰ τὸ 


διδάσκειν καθολικῶς καὶ ἀνελλειπῶς 


eile 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ vill 


? 2 I 2 \ ΚΕΝ ΤΣ ΄ » / 
οὐκ ἐξὸν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν 


1 τοῦ] Gg Antioch Dam-Vat; om. Dam-Rup. 


2 ἀγάπην] GLA (see 


Petermann) Antioch Dam-Vat; ἀγάπας S, (owing to 7tduz) Dam-Rup; δοχὴν 


ἅπαντα τὰ eis γνῶσιν ἀνθρώπων ἐλθεῖν 
ὀφείλοντα δόγματα ; (3) διὰ τὸ καθο- 
λικῶς ἰατρεύειν μὲν καὶ θεραπεύειν ἅπαν 
τὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν εἶδος κιτιλ. These 
two latter reasons, that it is com- 
prehensive in doctrine, and that it is 
universal in application, can only be 
regarded as secondary glosses. So 
again Augustine 2252. xciil. 7 (IL. 
Ῥ. 240) calls a Donatist adversary 
to account because he explained 
‘Catholicae nomen non ex totius or- 
bis communione sed ex observatione 
praeceptorum omnium divinorum at- 
que omnium sacramentorum’, but he 
adds ‘quasi nos, etiamsi forte hinc sit 
appellata Catholica, quod totum ve- 
raciter teneat, cuius veritatis non- 
nullae particulae etiam in diversis in- 
veniuntur haeresibus, etc.’ 

I. οὔτε βαπτίζει») Tertull. de 
Lapt. 17 ‘Superest...de observatione 
quoque dandi et accipiendi baptismi 
commonefacere. Dandi quidem ha- 
bet jus summus sacerdos, qui est 
episcopus ; dehinc presbyteri et dia- 
coni, non tamen sine episcopi aucto- 
ritate, etc.’ In early times the bishop 
stood to his diocese in the same in- 
timate relations in which a rector now 
stands to his parish. Reference to 
him therefore was possible on all 
these points. The following passages 
show how it soon became necessary 
fo) relax: the: rule vand. extend. :the 
power to others; Cypr. Azs¢. Ixxiii. 
7 sq (p. 783 sq, Hartel) ‘intellegi- 
mus nonnisi in ecclesia praepositis 
...licere baptizare...nec posse quen- 
quam contra epzscopos et sacerdotes 
usurpare 5101 aliquid’; Can. “2057. 
ς. 47 ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τὸν 
κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἔχοντα βάπτισμα ἐὰν 
ἄνωθεν βαπτίσῃ κιτ.λ. (Comp. c. 46, 
49, 50), Apost. Const. 111. 11 οὔτε τοῖς 


λοιποῖς κληρικοῖς ἐπιτρέπομεν βαπτί- 
ζειν, οἷον ἀναγνώσταις κιτ.λ.,) ἢ μόνοις 
ἐπισκόποις καὶ πρεσβυτέροις, ἐξ- 
υπηρετουμένων αὐτοῖς. τῶν διακόνων, 
[Cypr.] de Μεδαῤέ. το (p. 82, Hartel) 
‘aut 51 a minore clero per necesst- 
tatem traditum fuerit.’ Yet theoreti- 
cally the power still remained with 
the bishop; see esp. Hieron. c. Luczf. 
9 (II. p. 181 sq) ‘Non quidem abnuo 
hance esse ecclesiarum consuetudi- 
nem, ut ad eos qui longe a maioribus 
urbibus per presbyteros et diaconos 
baptizati sunt, episcopus ad invoca- 
tionem sancti spiritus manum im- 
positurus excurrat.... Inde venit ut 
sine chrismate et episcopi jussione 
neque presbyter neque diaconus jus 
habeant baptizandi; quod frequenter, 
si tamen necessitas cogit, scimus 
etiam licere laicis’; Ambros. de 
Sacram. ill. I (p. 362) ‘Succinctus 
summus sacerdos: licet enim pres- 
byteri fecerint, tamen exordium mi- 
nisterii a summo est sacerdote.’ 
Comp. Bingham Christ. Ant. ii. 3. 3, 
Augusti Denkw. aus der Christ. 
Archaol. Vil. p. 136 sq, Probst Sa- 
kramente etc. p. 115 sq. 

2. οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν] “7107 to hold a 
love-feast.’ The interpolator expands 
the sentence, οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε προσ- 
φέρειν οὔτε θυσίαν προσκομίξειν οὔτε 
δοχὴν ἐπιτελεῖν. For this last clause 
comp. Apost. Const. ii. 28 τοῖς εἰς 
ἀγάπην ἤτοι δοχήν, ὡς ὁ Κύριος 
ὠνόμασε, προαιρουμένοις καλεῖν «.T.A. 
(where the reference is to Luke xiv. 
13 ὅταν ποιῇς δοχήν κιτιλ.). For 
δοχή; aS ἃ synonyme for ἀγάπη, see 
the emperor Julian -Fragm. Efpist. 
Ῥ 305 Spanh. (I. p. 392, ed. Hert- 
lein) τῆς λεγομένης παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀγάπης 
ἢ ὑποδοχῆς καὶ διακονίας τραπεζῶν, 
where he is speaking of the ‘impious 


Vill] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


31S 


7 9 / ~ > 5 τὰν ’\ 3 ΄ ὃ 7 ΄ 
οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν: ἀλλ᾽ ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάση, τοῦτο 


[g]. ὃ] GLS,A[g] Antioch Dam-Vat; ᾧ Dam-Rup. 


Antioch Dam-Vat; ἐὰν Dam-Rup. 


Galileans.’ For this use of ἀγάπη in 
the earliest ages of the Church see 
Jude 12 ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες 
(compared with 2 Pet. 11. 13 ἐντρυ- 
φῶντες ἐν ταῖς αγάπαις αὐτῶν, συνευω- 
χούμενοι ὑμῖν, where the v. 1. ἀπάταις 
is an obvious error), Clem. Alex. 
Paed. ii. 1 (p. 165) ὃν ἀγάπην τινὲς 
τολμῶσιν καλεῖν...δειπνάριά Tiva...70TO 
τε καὶ τρυφῇ καὶ καπνῷ βλασφημοῦντες 
τοὔνομα... δειπνάριά τε καὶ ἄριστα καὶ 
δοχὰς εἰκότως ἂν καλοῖμεν τὴν συνήλυ- 
σιν ταύτην.. τὰς τοιαύτας δὲ ἑστιάσεις ὁ 
Κύριος ἀγάπας οὐ κέκληκεν (denouncing 
the abuse of these entertainments), 
Strom. ili. 2 (p. 514) εἰς τὰ δεῖπνα 
ἀθροιζομένους, οὐ yap ἀγάπην εἴποιμ᾽ 
ἂν ἔγωγε τὴν συνέλευσιν αὐτῶν (Speak- 
ing οὗ the Carpocratians), Celsus in 
Orig. ¢. Cels. 1. 1 (1. p. 319) βούλεται 
διαβάλλειν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χρισ- 
τιανῶν KT.A.. Act. Paul. et Thecl. 25 
ἦν ἔσω ἐν τῷ μνημείῳ ἀγάπη πολλή 
(not found however in all texts), 
Act. Perp. et Felic. 17 ‘Quantum in 
ipsis erat, non coenam liberam sed 
agapen coenarent,’ Tertull. Afol. 39 
‘Coena nostra de nomine rationem 
sui ostendit: id vocatur quod d- 
lectio penes Graecos etc.’ (where it 
is described), ad Mart. 2 ‘ Quae justa 
sunt caro non amittit per curam ec- 
clesiae et agapen fratrum,’ de Fejuz. 
17 ‘Apud te agape in caccabis fervet 
etc.’ (where, as a Montanist, he is 
reviling the feasts of the Catholics). 
We find references to these agapae 
in heathen writers (besides Celsus 
already quoted who seems to have 
mentioned them by name); e.g. Pliny 
Ep. x. 97 (96) ‘Soliti stato die ante 
lucem convenire carmenque Christo 
quasi Deo dicere secum invicem, 
seque sacramento non in scelus ali- 
quod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne 


av] Gg 


latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent 
...quibus peractis mzorem sibe dtsce- 
dendi fuisse, rursusgue |cocund| ad 
capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen 
et innoxium: quod ipsum facere 
desisse post edictum meum, quo 
secundum mandata tua _ hetaerias 
esse vetueram’; and Lucian de 
Mort. Peregr. 12 εἶτα δεῖπνα ποικίλα 
εἰσεκομίζετο καὶ λόγοι ἱεροὶ αὐτῶν 
ἐλέγοντο. 

In the Apostolic age the eucharist 
formed part of the agape. The ori- 
ginal form of the Lord’s Supper, as 
it was first instituted by Christ, was 
thus in a manner kept up. This 
appears from 1 Cor. xi. 17 sq (comp. 
Acts xx. 7), from which passage we 
infer that the celebration of the eu- 
charist came, as it naturally would, 
at a late stage in the entertainment. 
In the Doctr. Afost. 10 this early 
practice is still observed. In after 
times however the agape was held 
at a separate time from the eu- 
charist. Had this change taken 
place before Ignatius wrote? I think 
not. The words οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε 
ἀγάπην ποιεῖν seem to describe the 
two most important functions in 
which the bishop could bear a part, 
so that the ἀγάπη must include the 
eucharist. Indeed there would be 
an incongruity in this juxtaposition, 
as Zahn truly says (/. v. A. p. 348), 
unless the other great sacrament 
were intended; see e.g. Tertull. de 
Virg. Vel. 9 ‘Non permittitur mulieri 
in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere 
nec tinguere nec offerre; de Exh. 
Cast. 7 ‘et offers et tinguis et sacerdos 
es tibi solus.’ Nor would the omis- 
sion of the eucharist be intelligible. 
Pearson indeed urges ‘de eucha- 
ristia ante locutus est’; but this fact 


314 


THE ‘EPISTLE OF (IGNATIUS 


[vil 


΄σ land 7 «/ > \ . \ ~ 
καὶ τῷ Θεῷ εὐάρεστον, iva ἀσῴαλες ἡ Kat βέβαιον πᾶν 
έ 


« / 
O TPAGOETE. 


> 2 > ε - € Sf 
IX. Εὔλογόν ἐστιν λοιπὸν ἀνανῆψαι ἡμᾶς, ws [ἔτι] 


\ af 3 \ a 
καιρὸν ἔχομεν εἰς Θεὸν μετανοεῖν. 


> / 3 7 
ἐπίσκοπον εἰδέναι. 


7 I \ ΣΥΝ 
καλῶς ἔχει Θεον kat 


ς ~ Week 4 ε \ > / 
ὁ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπο Θεοῦ TETI- 


ς > ~ / 
pyta ὁ λάθρα ἐπισκόπου τὶ πράσσων τῷ διαβόλῳ 


1 καὶ] GL Antioch Dam-Reg Dam-Rup; om. 5.Δ Dam-Vat. 


τῷ Θεῷ] 


GLS,A Antioch Dam-Vat; paraphrased κατ᾽ εὐαρέστησιν θεοῦ 3 τῷ ἰησοῦ 


χριστῷ Dam-Rup. 


ἵνα] g Dam-Rup; ἵν᾽ G. 


a ν᾽ 
2 ὃ πράσσετε] 


quod facitis 51; quidquid et faciatis A; ὃ πράσσεται GL Dam-Rup; ὃ δ᾽ ἂν 


πράσσητε g (attaching it to the next sentence). 


3 ἀνανῆψαι ἡμᾶς] g 


Dam-Rup; wt evigilemus 5528. (VYNNII); vigilem stare A (the Syriac form: for 
the 3rd pers. sing. and the rst pers. plur. being the same); ἀνανῆψαι (om. ἡμᾶς) 


GL. Add. καὶ GL (so that μετανοεῖν is made dependent on εὔλογόν ἐστιν); om. 


S,SsAg Dam-Rup. Thus καὶ seems to have displaced ἡμᾶς. 


om. $,5,A Dam-Rup. 


would not dispense with the men- 
tion here, where it is imperatively 
demanded. The interpolator, living 
more thantwo centuries after the evxa- 
ριστία had been separated from the 
ἀγάπη, feels this necessity and inserts 
words accordingly, οὔτε προσφέρειν 
οὔτε θυσίαν προσκομίζει.. On the 
other hand some have inferred from 
the words of Pliny quoted above 
and italicized, that when he wrote 
(about A.D. 112) the two were held 
at different times of the day. This 
however depends, first on the ac- 
curacy of Pliny’s information, and 
secondly on the interpretation of 
sacramentum, which is supposed to 
have been used by his Christian 
informers in its technical sense and 
to have been misunderstood and 
confused with its ordinary meaning 
by Pliny. The inference therefore is 
somewhat precarious. Others again 
maintain that the eucharist was se- 
parated from the agape and attached 
to the early morning service 77 con- 
seguence of Pliny’s edict prohibiting 
these Christian hetzriz. For dif- 


ἔτι] GLg; 


4 μετανοεῖν] GLS,g Dam-Rup; foenztentiae A; 


ferent views on the relation of the 
agape and eucharist see Bingham, 
Antig. xv. 7. 6 sq, Augusti Denkw. 
VIII. p. 78 sq, 317 sq, Probst Lehre 
u. Gebet p. 349 sq, Th. Harnack Der 
Christliche Gemeindegottesdienst Ὁ. 
213 sq, Suicer 7765. 5. v. ᾿Αγάπη. 

IX. ‘It is well to learn sobriety, 
and repent, while there is time. 
Honour God and the bishop. He 
who deceives the bishop serves the 
devil. May you abound in all grace, 
as you deserve. You have been good 
to me alike in my presence and in my 
absence. May God requite you.’ 

3. εὔλογον] ‘lt zs the part of 
reasonable men’; a common expres- 
sion. It frequently however means, 
not ‘it is reasonable,’ but ‘it is pro- 
bable;> e.g-\Ci¢. ad wae κι ine 
22. The word occurs in the same 
sense as, here :in/;AZogm: (7.04 Dine 
warning is addressed to the here- 
tical teachers. 

λοιπὸν] ‘for what remains, i.e. 
seeing that the time is short; as in 
Ephes. τι ἔσχατοι καιροί. 
σχυνθῶμεν. 


λοιπὸν ai- 


ΙΧ] TO THE SMYRNAEANS. 


λατρεύει. 
Sf / > 
ἀξιοι yao ἐστε. 
3 ~ ἢ 
ἰησοῦς Χριστός. 


315 


πάντα οὖν ὑμῖν ἐν χάριτι περισσευέτω, 
\ LA / r 
κατὰ TAVTA με AVETAVTATE, Kal ὑμάς 


> / \ / 
ATOVTAa με καὶ παρόντα ἠγαπήσατε" 


> 7] CoA δ > « / ¢ / > a 
ἀμείβοι υμιν Θεος, δὶ OV TWaVTaA UTTOMEVOVTES αὐτου 


τεύξεσθε. 


X. φίλωνα καὶ ἹΡαῖον ᾿λγαθόπουν, οἱ ἐπηκολού- 


om. Sy. 
ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Antioch 14. 


G; ἰησοὺς ὁ χριστός g. 
ἀμείψεται [g]. 


5 ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ Θεοῦ] Gg Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; τὸν ἐπίσκοπον 
τετίμηται] GL Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; τιμᾶται 
Antioch; honoratur S,A; τιμηθήσεται [g]. 
enim omnia L; nant in omni A; καθὰ (om. πάντα) [6]. 


8 κατὰ πάντα] G3; secundum 
9 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] 


10 ἀμείβοι] ἀμοίβει G; retribuat L; servabit A; 
ὑμῖν] G; vobts L; ὑμᾶς g. Θεός} G3; ὁ θεός 


g. 12 ‘Paiov] ῥέων (ἃ; reum L; γάϊον g; agrium (ἄγριον) A. This 
last may perhaps be a confusion of the two readings PadiON (DEON) and fAION, 


or it may have come from KAIPEON, read KAPPEON: see on Philad. τι. 
this name add. καὶ gLA; om. G: see on Philad. τι. 


After 
᾿Αγαθόπουν)] ἃ; aga- 


thopum 1.4; ἀγαθόποδα g {but 1 has agathopum); dub. A. 


ἀνανῆψαι} “10 recover our senses. 
The word occurs in the same con- 
nexion, 2 Tim. ii. 25 δώῃ “αὐτοῖς ὁ 
Θεὸς μετάνοιαν eis ἐπίγνωσιν ἀλη- 
θείας καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ 
διαβόλου παγίδος, [Clem. Rom.] ii. 
13 ἤδη ποτὲ μετανοήσωμεν, νήψωμεν 
ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν. See also Μ. Anton. 
Vi. 31 ἀνάνηφε καὶ ἀνακαλοῦ σεαυτόν. 

ὡς ἔτι καιρὸν ἔχομεν] See Gal. vi. 
10, [Clem. Rom.] ii. 9, with the notes, 

5. εἰδέναι] “20 acknowledge, ap- 
preciate, value’; see esp. 1 Thess, v. 
12 εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ 
προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ. The 
more natural word with ἐπίσκοπον 
would be γινώσκειν ΟΥ ἐπιγινώσκειν ; 
but εἰδέναι Θεὸν is a somewhat fami- 
liar expression. 

ὁ τιμῶν x.7.A.] Comp. Phzlad. 11 
πεμφθέντος ἅμα ἐμοὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Εφεσίων καὶ 
Σμυρναίων εἰς λόγον τιμῆς. τιμήσει 
αὐτοὺς ὁ Κύριος κιτιλ. For such 
modes of expression in Ignatius ge- 
nerally see the note on § 5 above. 

8. ἄξιοι «7.A.] See the note on 
Ephes. 1. 


κατὰ πάντα κιτ.λ.] See the note on 
Ephes. 2 for this favourite Ignatian 
phrase. 

καὶ ὑμᾶς] SC. ἀναπαύσει OF ἀναπαύ- 
σειε; comp. Lphes. 21 ὡς καὶ ὑμῶν . 
X., Philad. 11 ὡς καὶ ὑμᾶς ὁ Κύριος. 
The future is suggested by § 10 οὐδὲ 
ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυνθήσεται κιτιλ.; the 
optative aorist by “2165. 2 ὡς καὶ 
αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ I. Χ. ἀναψύξαι. 

9. ἀπόντα κιτ.λ.] Comp. Phil. 1]. 


“=e 


ἠγαπήσατε] See the note on Polyc. 
4. 

10. πάντα ὑπυμένοντε) See the 
note on § 4 above. 

αὐτοῦ τεύξεσθε] See the note on 
Magn. τ. 

X. ‘Ye did well to welcome Philo 
and Agathopus. They have a grate- 
ful remembrance of your kindness. 
You will not lose your reward. I am 
devoted to you. As ye were not 
ashamed of my bonds, so also Christ 
will not be ashamed of you.’ 

I2. Φίλωνα «.7.A.| On the two 
persons here mentioned see the notes 


250 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x 


/ 3 / ΄σ΄ ~ 2 / ε 
Onoav μοι εἰς λόγον Θεοῦ, καλῶς ἐποιήσατε ὑποδεξά- 


μενοι ὡς διακόνους [Χριστοῦ] Θεοῦ: οἱ καὶ εὐχαριστοῦ- 


> / \ ΄“ «“ \ 3 / \ 
σιν τῷ Κυρίῳ ὑπερ ὑμών, OTL αὐτοὺς ἀνεπαύσατε κατὰ 


/ / 
TWAaAVTA TPOTTOV. 


> \ ς ~ 3 \ 3 ~ 
οὐδὲν ὑμῖν οὐ μὴ ἀπολεῖται. 


3 / 
aVT l= 


~ \ ΄σ Vf \ / «λ 
ψυχον ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα μου, καὶ τὰ δεσμά μου ἃ οὐχ 5 


2 Χριστοῦ Θεοῦ] G; dei christi L; θεοῦ (om. χριστοῦ) A. 


In g the passage is 


paraphrased of ἐπηκολούθησάν μοι εἰς λόγον θεοῦ διάκονοι χριστοῦ ὄντες, καλῶς 
3 / e ἿΣ - 4 ΤῸΝ 02 . . 

ἐποιήσατε ὑποδεξάμενοι ws διακόνους χριστοῦ, in the Greek Mss, but 1 has wezz7s- 
tros det in this last place, and perhaps διακόνους θεοῦ was the original reading of g 


here. 


to Philad. 11. They had evidently 
arrived at Smyrna after the depar- 
ture of Ignatius thence and followed 
him to Troas. 

I. εἰς λόγον] “20 the score of) ‘in 
the matter of’; see the note on 
Philad. τι εἰς λόγον τιμῆς. 

2. ws διακόνους κιτ.λ.}] It is pro- 
bable that the Armenian Version has 
preserved the correct text. The com- 
mon reading διακόνους Χριστοῦ Θεοῦ 
must be regarded as a confusion of 
the two expressions διακόνους Χριστοῦ 
and διακόνους Θεοῦ. Both occur in 
S. Paul; διάκονος Θεοῦ, Rom. xiii. 4, 
2Cor. vi. 45 1 Thess. tii..2(v.1.); d:a- 
xovos [τοῦ] Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor. xi. 23, Col. 
i. 7 (comp. I Tim. iv. 6): and both 
are combined by Polyc. PhzZ. 5 Θεοῦ 
καὶ Χριστοῦ διάκονοι. A scribe, fami- 
liar with the language of the Apostle, 
would not unnaturally write down 
the alternative phrase in his margin 
or elsewhere ; and hence the con- 
fusion. At all events the expression 
Χριστοῦ Θεοῦ is very awkward in 
itself and quite without a parallel 
even in Ignatius. The nearest ap- 
proach to it is the various reading 
Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ (above, § 6) which, 
though more intelligible, 15 itself 
highly doubtful (see the note there). 
See also a questionable parallel in 
Trall. 7. For the limitations with 


If so, the paraphrase may point to χριστοῦ θεοῦ as standing in the text 


which Ignatius speaks of Christ as 
God, see the note on 2 2765. inscr. 

Though S. Paul uses the expres- 
sion διάκονοι Θεοῦ (or Χριστοῦ) in a 
much wider sense, it is probable that 
Ignatius here employs διάκονος in 
its technical, restricted meaning of 
‘deacon,’ for he never uses it with 
any other signification ; comp. esp. 
Trall. 2 τοὺς διακόνους ὄντας μυστη- 
ρίων ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See also the 
note on Aphes. 2 respecting his ap- 
plication of σύνδουλος after 5. Paul, 
but with a similar restriction. Philo 
is distinctly called a deacon in 
Philad. 11; and the same was pro- 
bably true of Agathopus (see the note 
there). 

4. ἀντίψυχον κιτ.λ.] Comp. Polyc. 
2 κατὰ πάντα σου ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ 
δεσμά μου ἃ ἠγάπησας. For the mean- 
ing of ἀντίψυχον see the note on 
Epes 21; 

5. οὐχ ὑπερηφανήσατε] Comp. Gal. 
iv. 14. 

6. οὐδὲ ἐπῃσχύνθητε] Suggested by 
2 Tim. 1. 16 τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπῃ- 
σχύνθη (see the note on Lphes. 2). 
The interpolator has seen the pa- 
rallel and introduced the context of 
S. Paul into the context of Ignatius, 
δῴη ὑμῖν ὁ Κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος κιτιλ. It 
will be seen that there is considerable 
authority for ἐπαισχύνθητε here ; and 


) 


x] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


317 


ε / SQV 45 Nf BS Nie > > 
ὑπερηφανήσατε οὐδὲ ἐπησχύνθητε: οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυν- 


θ if ε 7 7ὔ 3 ~ / 
ἥσεται ἡ τελεία πίστις, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος. 


XI. 


\ > ΄σ \ 
Ἢ προσευχή ὑμῶν ἀπῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν 


τὴν ἐν ᾿λντιοχείᾳ τῆς (υρίας: ὅθεν δεδεμένος θεοπρε- 


, - 7 3 7 > 3 af 
TETTATOLS δεσμοῖς πάντας ἀσπάζομαι, οὐκ ὧν ἄξιος 


which the paraphrast had before him. 


5 ὑμῶν] LAg; ἡμῶν G. 


6 ὑπερηφανήσατε] ὑπεριφανήσατε G. 


See however the lower note. 
er y- 


σχύνθητε] ἐπαισχύνθητε ἃ. The mss of g vary between ἐπαισχύνθητε and ἐπῃ- 


σχύνθητε: see the lower note. 
GL; ἐλπίς gA: see the lower note. 


in 2 Tim. i. τό ἐπαισχύνθη is the best 
supported reading. Probably this 
was a common, though incorrect, 
form of the word, and perhaps it 
should be retained here. 

ἐπαισχυνθήσεται] Comp. Mark viii. 
38 ὃς yap ἂν ἐπαισχυνθῆ με...καὶ ὁ υἱὸς 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται κ.οτ.λ. 
(Luke ix. 26). 

7. πίστι) Here in its passive 
sense ‘¢rust-worthiness, fidelity, as 
e.g. in Rom. itl. 3. See Galatians 
po 055, and\the mote on ‘v.22: \ For 
the idea compare Heb. vi. 10 ov yap 
ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου 
ὑμῶν κιτιλ. In this mention of Christ’s 
fidelity there is probably a reference 
to His promise, which is quoted in 
the last note. The reading ἐλπίς has 
rather better support, but is open to 
suspicion as a scribe’s alteration, the 
term being frequently used of Christ 
in these epistles ; see the notes on 
Magn. 11. 

XI. ‘Your prayer for the Church 
of Antioch has been heard. A very 
unworthy member of that Church, I 
have nevertheless been glorified by 
my bonds and have received grace, 
which I pray may be perfected. 
Perfect your work also and send an 
ambassador to Syria to congratulate 
the brethren on the restoration of 
peace. It will be a deed worthy of 


οὐδὲ sec.] GLA; διὸ οὐδὲ g. 


7 πίστις] 
Χριστός] G3 ὁ χριστός [g]. 


you thus to show your sympathy with 
them for that the storm has ceased 
and the haven is reached. Aim at 
perfection in your counsels. God 
ever assists the ready will.’ 

8. Ἢ προσευχὴ] See the note on 
Phitlad. το. 

ἀπῆλθεν ἐπὶ] ‘went forth unto, ‘has 
been adtrected towards, as e.g. Luke 
Xxlv. 24 ἀπῆλθον ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον. 
Their prayer had indeed been an- 
swered; but this is not the point 
here, and cannot be implied in the 
expression. ‘ Your prayer,’ says Ig- 
natius, ‘travelled to Antioch; let 
your congratulations follow on the 
same road.’ 

9. τῆς Συρίας] 
Pihilad. το. 

ὅθεν δεδεμένο]͵ As LEphes. 21; 
comp. also Ephes. 1 δεδεμένον ἀπὸ 
Συρίας. 

θεοπρεπεστάτοις) So called because 
they are goodly ‘ornaments’ with 
which God has invested him ; comp. 
Polyc. Phzl. τ τοὺς ἐνειλημένους τοῖς 


See the note 


ἁγιοπρεπέσι δεσμοῖς said with re- 
ference to Ignatius and others, 2252. 
Vienn. in Euseb. H. £. v. 1 τὰ δεσμὰ 
κόσμον εὐπρεπῆ. See the note on 
Ephes. τι. For the word θεοπρεπής 
see the note on J/agyz. 1. 

το. οὐκ ὧν ἄξιος] See the notes on 
Ephes, 2, 21. 


318 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[x1 


> ~ > Sf 5) ΄σ of ᾿ \ θέ , 
ἐκεῖθεν εἶναι, ἐσχατος αὐτῶν ὧὠν' κατὰ θελημα κατηξιω- 


’ ᾽ Ie ? 3.69 / ~ « af 
θην, οὐκ ἐκ συνειδότος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ χάριτος Θεοῦ, ἣν εὔχο- 


σ c/ ᾽ ΄σ΄ ΄σ ra a ~ 
μαι τελείαν μοι δοθῆναι, ἵνα ἐν TH προσευχή ὑμῶν Θεοῦ 


> / 
EMLTUXW. 


: 5 7 a / \ of \ 
iva οὖν τέλειον ὑμῶν γένηται TO ἔργον Kat 


> a 2 ᾽ “ / ? \ a 
ἐπὶ γῆς Kal ἐν οὐρανῷ, πρέπει εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ χειροτο- 


1 ea) GL; zocart A; om. δ΄: 
A (vilior quam omnis, homo). 
follows). 


αὐτῶν] GLg; ἀνθρώπων (ANN) 


wv] LAg; ὧν G (connecting it with what 
Dressel adopts this reading, which however yields no tolerable sense, 
For similar false aspirates in G see the note on Phdlad. 7. 


κατὰ θέλημα] 


txt L* (but awéem added in the printed texts) g* (but δὲ added in some texts); 
add. δὲ G; pref. jam A. After θέλημα add. det L; om. GA (voluntate mea) g* 


(originally, but some texts add τοῦ θεοῦ). 
scientia 1; mente A; συνειδήσεως ἐμῆς g. 


I. θέλημα]! ‘the Divine will’; 
see ithe mate iom 65. 20," 4 The 
various readings give the expedients 
of translators and scribes to help out 
this absolute use of θέλημα here, as 
in other passages. 

2. ἐκ συνειδότοςϊ)͵ The participle, 
when used for συνείδησις, generally 
has the article. For instances of its 
omission however see Lzturg. D. 
Marc. p. ὃ ἐν καθαρῷ συνειδότι (and 
so also Liturg. 1). Facob. pp. 42, 56), 
Pausan. vi. 10 ὁ μὲν δὴ ὑπὸ συνειδότος 
ἐπαρρησιάζετο ἀγαθοῦ, Hermog. Rhet. 
21 οὗτος συνειδότος pevyer(Rhet. Gracc. 
Il. p. 145, Spengel), 26. 30 (Ρ. 152) τὸν 
πατέρα κρίνει συνειδότος, ἡ γυνὴ συνει- 
δότος φεύγει, Joseph. Az. i. 1. 4 οὐ 
γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀρετῇ τὴν σιωπὴν ἄγεις GAN ἐπὶ 
συνειδότι πονηρῷ, Orig. c. Cels. viii. 62 
μετὰ συνειδότος τοῦ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῶν 
ὅλων καθαρῶς εὐσεβοῦς, Euseb. H. Ε. 
Χ, ὃ συνειδότι φαύλῳ τοῦτο λογιζό- 
μενος, Chrysost. Hom. ta Rom. xiii 
(IX. p. 552) ri yap ἀλγεινότερον, εἶπέ 
μοι, συνειδότος πονηροῦ ;...0vdev οὕτως 
ἀνέχει; καὶ μικροῦ πέτεσθαι ποιεῖ, ὡς 
συνειδὸς ἀγαθόν. See also προειδὸς 
in Dion Cass. (Epit. Xiph.) Ixix. 4 
ἐξ ov προειδότος. _ The expression 
might have either of two meanings ; 


2 συνειδότος] συνειδότως G3; con- 
3 τῇ προσευχῇ] GL; ταῖς προσ- 


(1) ‘of conscience, i.e. ‘not that my 
conscience pronounces me worthy,’ 
comp. I Cor. iv. 4; or (2) ‘of consent, 
complicity, ie. ‘it was God’s sole 
doing.’ This latter is the meaning of 
συνειδὸς in Hermog. 1. c., and more 
commonly of τὸ συνειδός. See the 
note on συνείδησις Clem. Rom. 34, 
p. 113. The latter is perhaps the 
more probable sense here. 

3. ἐν TH προσευχῇ ὑμῶν] See the 
note on 2265. 20. 
Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] 

Ephes. τ: 

4. τέλειον] With a reference to 
the preceding τελείαν, as the em- 
phatic position of ὑμών shows; “1 
pray that God’s grace in me may be 
perfect ; take ye heed that your work 
also may be perfect.’ He still harps 
on the same word below, τέλειοι ὄντες 
τέλεια Kal φρονεῖτε. 

5. εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ] See the note 
on Lphes. 21. 

6. θεοπρεσβύτην] ‘an ambassador 
of God’; comp. Philad. τὸ εἰς τὸ 
πρεσβεῦσαι ἐκεῖ Θεοῦ πρεσβείαν, εἰς 
τὸ συγχαρῆναι αὐτοῖς κιτιλ. More 
particular directions are given about 
this delegate in the companion 
epistle, Polyc. 7, where he is called 


See the note on 


5 


ΧΙ] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


319 


΄σ \ ’ , ε ~ / > \ 7 
vyoat τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὑμῶν θεοπρεσβύτην εἰς τὸ γενο- 


J / oy - c/ > 
μενον ἕως Cupias συγχαρῆναι αὐτοῖς ὅτι εἰρηνεύουσιν καὶ 


> / \ »/ A ‘ ᾽ / Π - \ 
ἀπέλαβον To ἴδιον μέγεθος καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη αὐτοῖς TO 


af ΄ 
ἴδιον σωματεῖον. 


/ ΓΑ »" ~ 
ἐφάνη μοι οὖν ἀξιον πράγμα πέμψαι 


ευχαῖς [6] (but it has substituted αἱ προσευχαὶ for ἡ προσευχὴ above, p. 317). A 


also has a plural, but this is the common Armenian usage. 


g: see the note on Rom. 3. 
ἔργον τέλειον γένηται g. 
ρανῷ] G; τῆς γῆς ... τῷ οὐρανῷ g. 
om. A. 
lower note. 


4 ἵνα] ἃ; ὅπως 


τέλειον ὑμῶν γένηται τὸ ἔργον] GL; ὑμῶν τὸ 
καὶ ἐπὶ] GL; ἐπὶ (om. καὶ) gA. 


5 γῆς... οὐ- 
εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ] GL; εἰς θεοῦ τιμὴν g; 


6 θεοπρεσβύτην] Gg; deo venerabilem Τ,:; praecursorem A: see the 
ἕως Συρίας] GL; ἐν συρίᾳ g; in syriam A. 
τεῖον] G; σωμάτιον g; corpusculum L; perfectio A. 


9 σωμα- 
ἄξιον] Gg; deo digna 


(ἀξιόθεον, perhaps written AZIOON) L; gratum deo A. 


θεοδρόμος (see the notethere). There 
can be no doubt about the meaning 
of the word here, but I have not 
thought it necessary to substitute 
θεοπρεσβευτην (the correct form), as 
there is sufficient evidence that the 
forms πρεσβευτης, πρεσβυτης, were 
confused at this time ; see the note 
on Philem. 9 πρεσβύτης, νυνὶ δὲ καὶ 
δέσμιος K.T.A. 

εἰς τὸ κιτιλ.] ‘that he may visit 
Syria and congratulate them. For 
γενέσθαι €ws, ‘to arrive as far as,’ 
comp. Rom. 2 εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν, 
with the note. 

8. ἀπέλαβον k.t.dr.] ‘recovered 
their proper magnitude’. The church 
had been previously weakened and 
diminished by the dispersion and 
defections consequent on persecu- 
tion. 

τὸ ἴδιον σωματεῖον] ‘their proper 
corporate substance’. So we should 
probably read in Euseb. #7. E. x. 5 
(an imperial law) ἅτινα πάντα τῷ 
σωματίῳ τῶν Χριστιανών.. παραδίδοσθαι 
δεήσει. The form σωμάτιον, like σαρ- 
κίον (σαρκίδιον), is a word of depre- 
ciation, affected more especially by 
the Stoics, ‘this puny, wretched 
body’ (e.g. Epictet. i. 1. 10, i. 25. 21, 
where it appears in conjunction with 


other diminutives); whereas capa- 
τεῖον is a term of enhancement. The 
proper distinction between the two 
words is recognised in Chcerobosc. 
Orthogr. 5. v. (Cramer Anecd. 11. 
p. 262) Swparetiov: εἰ ἡ παράδοσις" 
σωμάτιον δὲ καὶ προπαροξυτόνως τὸ 
ὑποκοριστικόν. The meanings of σω- 
ματεῖον are as follows; (1) ‘A corpo- 
ration, college’, as Cod. Fust. i. 2. 
20 ws ἐλλειπόντων δῆθεν τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς 
σωματείων: comp. Suicer and Du- 
cange s.v. In this sense substan- 
tially it is used here. (2) ‘An actor’s 
dress and make up’, including the 
padding, etc. to give dignity to the 
figure ; Pollux Onom. iv. 115 καὶ 
σκευὴ μὲν ἡ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν στολή: ἡ 
δ᾽ αὐτὴ καὶ σωματεῖον ἐκαλεῖτο, where 
the editors have wrongly substituted 
σωμάτιον (though in ii. 235 it 1s so 
written, σωμάτιον. The word is 
mentioned by Pollux side by side 
with προσωπεῖον, μορμολυκεῖον. So 
Lucian Fup. Trag. 41 τὰ πρόσωπα 
τῶν θεῶν αὐτὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐμβάτας καὶ 
τοὺς ποδήρεις χιτῶνας...καὶ σωματεῖα 
καὶ τἄλλα οἷς ἐκεῖνοι σεμνύνουσι τὴν 
τραγῳδίαν, where however it is com- 
monly read σωμάτια. In this latter 
form too it appears in Photius s.v., 
who defines it ἀναπλάσματα ois οἵ 


320 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x1 


\ ~ ς / ~ J 7 \ 
τινὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων μετ᾽ ἐπιστολῆς, ἵνα συνδοξάση THY 
\ \ 3 a / 57 Ney, / nO 
kata Θεὸν αὐτοῖς γενομένην εὐδίαν, καὶ OTL λιμένος ἤδη 
7 ~ ΄σ' ς Pan 7 sf / \ 
ἐτύγχανον TH προσευχῆ ὑμῶν. τέλειοι ὄντες τέλεια καὶ 
͵ έ 
΄ / \ ΄σ- oF if \ « 
φρονεῖτε: θέλουσιν γὰρ ὑμῖν εὖ πράσσειν Θεος ἕτοιμος 


\ -~ 
εἰς TO παρασχεῖν. 


at. 


᾿λσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῶν 


ἐν Τρωάδι, ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Βούρρου, ὃν ἀπε- 


2 ἤδη] GL; subst. evopuov [5]; om. A. 


3 ἐτύγχανον] pervenerunt in A; 


ἐτύγχανεν GL; τετύχηκα g. This last reading points to ἐτύγχανον, which however 
the interpolator has mistaken for a 1st pers. sing. instead of a 3rd pers. plur. 


kal] GLAg; om. Max Dam-Rup 1. 
ἡμῖν Dam-Rup. 


εὖ πράττειν g Max Dam-Vat Dam-Rup. 


Dam-Rup καὶ ἕτοιμός ἐστιν ὁ θεός g*. 


ὑποκριταὶ διασάττουσιν αὑτούς: (3) ‘A 
corpus, or collection, of writings’, 
as e.g. Iren. i. 9. 4 τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας 
σωματείῳ. But in other authors 
where this sense occurs, the existing 
texts frequently write it σωμάτιον. 
(4) ‘A corpse’, not regarded by it- 
self but (as may be inferred from 
the form) with its belongings, e.g. 
the urn which contains the ashes. 
So it appears in three inscriptions, 
at Aphrodisias, C. 7. G. 2826, 2829, 
2835. Though these same inscrip- 
tions elsewhere have εἰ for 1, they 
do not so write where the ὁ is cer- 
tainly short, as it 1s in σωμάτιον. It 
must be confessed that no stress 
can be laid on manuscripts, so far 
as regards the distinction between 
ι and εἰ, and with some of the above 
meanings the form of the word may 
be doubtful; e.g. with the second the 
diminutive form σωμάτιον is explic- 
able, when compared with ‘corset’, 
‘corselet’, ‘leibchen’. But inthe sense 
which it has here, this form seems 
quite out of place. The word σω- 
patetoy διὰ τῆς εἰ διφθόγγου 15 ex- 
pressly recognised by a writer in 


4 ὑμῖν] GLAg Max Dam-Vat 1; 


εὖ πράσσειν] G (not evrpdocew, as commonly stated); 


Θεὸς ἕτοιμος] GL Max Dam-Vat 
5 παρασχεῖν] Gg; παρέχειν Max 


Cramer Axnecd. 11. pp. 308, 309, but 
he does not distinguish its meaning 
from σωμάτιον. 

I. συνδοξάσῃ]͵ The word occurs 
Rom. viii. 17, and (in a different 
sense) Arist. Polit. v. 9 (p. 1310). 
Otherwise it 15 rare until a later date. 

2. λιμένος] The simile occurs al- 
so Polyc. 2. 

3. “τέλειοι κιτιλ] See Phil. ii. 15 
Ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονώμεν. 
Ignatius is here referring to what 
has been said above, ἵνα οὖν τέλειον 
ὑμῶν γένηται τὸ ἔργον : 50 that τέλεια 
φρονεῖτε means ‘do not leave your 
plans incomplete.’ 

XIT.,., ‘The . brethren “at, Breas 
salute you ; whence also I write by 
Burrhus your delegate. His minis- 
trations are an example for all to 
copy, and God will requite him. 
I salute your bishop, presbyters, 
deacons, and laity, in Christ, in His 
passion and resurrection, in the 
unity of God and of yourselves. 
Grace be with you always.’ 

6, ἡ ἀγάπη x.7.A.| See the notes 
One 7). 8. 15. 

7. διὰ Βούρρου] See the note on 


nm 


) 


x11] TO THE SMYRNASANS. 321 


? =~ ef / ΄σ ΄ ε “ 
στείλατε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἅμα ᾿Εφεσίοις τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὑμῶν' 


A \ Hf αν NE OD / 3 
ὃς κατα πάντα ME ἀνέπαυσεν. καὶ ὄφελον παντες av- 


\ > = "7 3 / “- if ῃ , 
TOV ἐμιμοῦντο, ὄντα ἐξεμπλάριον Θεοῦ διακονίας. ἀμεί- 


> \ € , \ ͵ 3 / \ 
ψεται αὐτὸν ἡ χάρις Kata πάντα. ᾿λσπαζομαι Tov 


> / ? 7 \ \ , \ 
ἀξιόθεον ἐπίσκοπον Kat θεοπρεπὲς πρεσβυτέριον, [ καὶ] 
τοὺς συνδούλους μου διακόνους καὶ τοὺς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα Kal 


ot 7] > > / σ΄: ~ \ ΄' \ 
κοινῇ πάντας, ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ TH σαρκὶ 
£ l 


Dam-Vat Dam-Rup. 6 ἀδελφῶν] GLA; add. ὑμὼν g. 7 Bovppov] 
burrum L; Bippov G; byrdium A; Bovpyouv g: see the notes on “Lphes. 2, Philad. 
EE. 8 ἀδελφοῖς] G; fratribus LA; συναδελφοῖς g* (but with a v. 1.). II 7 
χάρις] GLA; add. τοῦ κυρίου g. 12 ἐπίσκοπον] GL; add. vestrum A; add. 
θεοπρεπὲς] gL[A?]; θεοπρεπέστατον G. 


14 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL; χριστοῦ ζησοῦ g; domini nostri tesu 


© “ , ‘ 
ὑμὼν πολύκαρπον δ. καὶ sec.] 


L[A][g]; om. G. 


christi A. 


Philad. 11, where the same expres- 
sion occurs. 

ὃ, ἅμα ᾿Ἐφεσίοις κιτ.λ.] ‘jointly 
with your brethren the Ephesians’. 
The Smyrnzans had joined with the 
Ephesians in commissioning Bur- 
rhus: see Philad. 11. Smith there- 
fore is wrong when he explains ἅμα 
᾿Εφεσίοις τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, ‘Euplo et 
Frontone’, who are stated in Zghes. 
2 to have been among the Ephesian 
delegates in Ignatius’ company at 
Smyrna. Evidently dua ᾿Εφεσίοις is 
connected with the subject, not the 
object of ἀπεστείλατε, as the parallel 
passage, Philad. 11, shows. Moreover 
there is reason to think that Euplus 
and Fronto were no longer with him, 
having parted from him at Smyrna, 
so that Burrhus was the only Ephe- 
sian delegate in his company at 
Troas ; see the note on 2 2765. 2. 

9. κατὰ πάντα x.t.X.] For this 
phrase see the note on Zfhes. 2. 

ὄφελον] ‘2 would’, as τ Cor. iv. 8, 
ΠΟΥ (x1), τ Gal. vi 12° (see the 
note), Apoc. iii. 15: see Winer § xli. 
p. 377. The word so used is properly 
the Ist pers. sing., ‘I ought (sc. to 


ΤΟΝ: ΤΙ. 


τῇ σαρκὶ GLA; τῆς σαρκὸς g (MSS, but | has 272 carne). 


witness it)’, ‘Would I might see it’, 
but becomes a mere particle=‘ uti- 
nam.’ The form without the aug- 
ment seems to be the more common 
with this usage. 


10. ἐξεμπλάριον] See the note on 
Ephes. 2. 
11. ἡ χάρις] ‘the Divine favour’; 


as Polyc. 7 πιστεύω yap τῇ χάριτι, 20. 
ὃ ἔσται ἡ χάρις μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. For this 
absolute use of ἡ χάρις in the N. T., 
see the note Philippians 1.7. Com- 
pare in Ignatius the similar uses of 
[τὸ] θέλημα (see note on LPhes. 20), 
τὸ ὄνομα (see the note on Ephes. 3), ἡ 
ἐντολή (see note on 7 γγαζί. 13). 

I2. ἀξιόθεονἢ] See the notes on 
Magn. 2, Tralt. inscr. 

θεοπρεπὲς) See the note on Magn. 
1: 

13. συνδούλους] Appropriated by 
Ignatius to deacons; see the note on 
Ephes. 2. 

τοὺς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘zndividually’ ; see 
the note on Epes. 4. 

14. καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ «7.A.] A farewell 
warning against the false doctrine of 
the Docetics; comp. §§ I, 2, 3, 4, 5; 
ΟἿ: 


21 


= 


B22 


THE: EPISTLE OF 


IGNATIUS [x11 


“~ \ ~ / 2 \ , ro 
αὐτοῦ Kal τῷ αἵματι, πάθει TE Kal ἀναστάσει σαρκικῆ 
ἐ 


\ ~ / ~~ \ a 
TE καὶ πνευματικῇ, ἐν ἑνοτητι Θεοῦ Kat ὑμῶν. 
έ 


χάρις 


ἘΠ σα ᾽ > if, ε \ \ / 
υμῖν, EAEOS, εἰρήνη» ὑπομονή διὰ παντος. 


2 πνευματικῇ] txt LAg; add. ἐν ὀνόματι G. 
ἐν] GI; om. g (but 1 has 222). 


ὀνόματι Incotv Χριστοῦ above. 


I. σαρκικῇ τε κιτιλ.] A spiritual 
resurrection was not denied by the 
Docetics. Hence Ignatius asserts 
both ; see [Clem. Rom.] ii. 9, with 
the note. 

2. ἐν ἑνότητι x.7.r.| A farewell 
warning against the separatism of 
the Docetics; comp. § 8. For the 
form comp. Polyc. 7 τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον 
Θεοῦ ἐστὶν καὶ ὑμῶν. For évorns Θεοῦ 
see Philad. 8, 9, Polyc. 8 (comp. 
ἑνότης Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Philad. 5); for 
ἑνότης ὑμῶν, Philad. 2. The first 
genitive describes the binding prin- 
ciple of the unity; the second the 
component parts. 

χάρις κιτιλ.] The form of bene- 
diction gathered words by time. In 
all)S.) Paul's’ Epistles, except» the 
latest, in 1, 2 Peter, and in Clement, 
it 15 χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη; in the Pastoral 
Epistles, and in 2 John, χάρις, ἔλεος 
[καὶ] εἰρήνη; while here ὑπομονὴ is 
superadded. The additional words 
(ἔλεος, ὑπομονή) point to a time of 
growing trial and persecution. Other 
forms are ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη, Polycarp; 
ἔλεος [καὶ] εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη, Jude, 
Mart. Polyc.; εἰρήνη καὶ χάρις καὶ 
δόξα, Epist. Vienn. et Lugd. 

XIII. ‘I salute my brethren and 
their families; as also the widows. 
Farewell. Philo my companion sa- 
lutes you. I salute the household of 
Gavia; likewise Alce, Daphnus, Eu- 
tecnus, indeed all one by one. Fare- 
well once more.’ 

5. τὰς παρθένους κιτ.λ.} The first 
care of the Church was to provide 
for the wants of the widows (see the 
note on § 6 above). The next step 


It has clearly crept in from ἐν 
A, being 


was to impose upon them such duties 
as they were able to perform in re- 
turn for their maintenance, e.g. care 
of orphans, nursing of the sick, visit- 
ing of prisoners, etc. Hence they 
were enrolled in an order, which 
however did not include all who re- 
ceived the alms of the Church. This 
order was already instituted in the 
Apostolic age (1 Tim. v. 9 sq). It 
is probably intended here, and in 
Polycarp Phzl. 4 γινωσκούσας ὅτι εἰσὶ 
θυσιαστήριον Θεοῦ. Τί is certainly re- 
ferred to in Hermas Vs. τ. 4, and 
in Clem. Hom. xi. 36 χηρικὰ συστη- 
σάμενος (Said of S. Peter). It was 
even known to the heathen, as ap- 
pears from Lucian De Mort. Peregr. 
12 ἦν ὁρᾶν παρὰ τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ περιμέ- 
vovta γράδια χήρας τινάς (i.e. ‘ widows 
as they call them’; comp. 24. § 41 
ἐπιστολὰς διαπέμψαι αὐτὸν διαθήκας τι- 
vas, ‘testaments as he called them’). 
The importance of this order may 
be inferred from the incidental col- 
location in Tertullian de Pudic. 13 
‘prosternis in medium ante viduas, 
ante presbyteros.’ Indeed there is 
every reason to think that it was 
more important throughout the se- 
cond century than at any later time. 

The interpretation of the language 
of Ignatius has been confused by the 
assumption that the widows were the 
same order as the deaconesses. This 
however seems to be quite a mis- 
take. Whatever confusion there may 
have been in later times, in the 
apostolic age and for some genera- 
tions after Ignatius they were dis- 
tinct, This is clear from S. Paul’s 


x11] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 323 


J 


XIII. ᾿λσπάζομαι τοὺς οἴκους τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου 


\ \ \ / \ \ / \ 
συν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις, καὶ τας παρθένους τας λεγο- 


transmitted through the Syriac, has no authority on this point. 


3 ἔλεος, 


εἰρήνη, ὑπομονὴ] Gg; et salus et patientia A; et misericordia et pax et sustinentia L*. 
4 ᾿Ασπάζομαι x.7.X.] Some sentences in this chapter are transposed in A. 


language in 1 Timothy, where the 
qualifications and functions of the 
two are quite separate (the deacon- 
esses are described in iii. 11, the 
widows in v.9 sq). It held equally 
when the Afostolic Constitutions 
were compiled. The distinction is 
observed alike in the earlier books 
(the deaconesses are discussed in 1]. 
58, lll. 15, the widows in iii. I—8; 
while in 11, 26 the two are mentioned 
apart, and in iii. 7 the widows are 
ordered to be submissive to the 
deaconesses), and in the later (sepa- 
rate directions are given for the ap- 
pointment of the two—for the deacon- 
esses in vili. 18 sq, for the widows 
in vill. 25—-and are assigned to dif- 
ferent Apostles). 

Having thus cleared the way, we 
ask next, what is the meaning of 
‘the virgins that are called widows’. 
From their mention as distinct from 
‘the households of the brethren with 
their wives and children, it is clear 
they were persons who lived apart 
from the family life of the rest. 

It is generally explained as imply- 
ing that the order of so-called ‘widows’ 
either contained among its ranks per- 
sons who were actually unmarried 
virgins, or was altogether made up of 
these. This view is not uncommonly 
supported further by the identifica- 
tion of the ‘widows’ with the ‘dea- 
conesses’; e.g. by Cotelier, Hefele, 
and others here, by Bingham Av. 
li. 21. 2 56; vil. 4. 9, by Probst Kz7ch- 
liche Disciplin Ὁ. 143 sq, and by 
Dollinger Christenthum τ. Kirche Ὁ. 
326, etc. S, Paul however did not 


contemplate anything of the kind, 
for his directions point to widow- 
hood in the strictest sense, I Tim. v. 
IO μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα yeyovvia, 
ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή κιτλ. Moreover 
even at the beginning of the third 
century Tertullian treats it as a mon- 
strous and unheard-of irregularity 
that a virgin has been admitted into 
the order of widows; de Virg. Vel. 9 
‘Plane scio alicubi virginem in vi- 
duatu ab annis nondum viginti col- 
locatam: cui si quid refrigerii de- 
buerat episcopus, aliter utique salvo 
respectu disciplinae praestare potuis- 
set, ne tale nunc miraculum, ne 
dixerim monstrum, in ecclesia de- 
notaretur, virgo vidua.”’ It seems 
therefore impossible that at any time 
when these epistles could have been 
written, the ‘viduatus’ should have 
been so largely composed of virgins 
as to explain the writer’s language 
so interpreted. Cotelier feels this 
difficulty and attempts to overcome 
it by the supposition that different 
churches had different practices ; 
and Zahn (/. v. A. p. 336) argues 
similarly. But Tertullian could not 
treat as a ‘monstrum’ a practice 
which had prevailed commonly in 
the Churches of Asia Minor for a 
whole century before he wrote. More- 
over with this interpretation we must 
suppose either that the χηρικὸν of 
Smyrna was wholly composed of 
virgins, or that Ignatius selected out 
of the order for salutation those only 
who had never been married. Either 
supposition would be inexplicable. 
The passages which speak of virgins 


21----2 


324 


μένας χήρας. 


€ “ / \ 3 Δ 
ζεται ὑμᾶς Φίλων, συν ἐμοὶ wy. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


" / 2 / / 
ἔρρωσθέ μοι ἐν δυνάμει πατρὸς. 


[xu] 


3 / 
αστα- 


3 / \ ἊΝ 
ἀσπάζομαι τὸν οἶκον 


1 πατρός] LA; πνεύματος G (contracted mvs) g* (Mss, but 1 has ded 2αΐγ715). 
3 Taovias] γαυΐας g: gaviae A: ταουΐας G; thaviae L: see the lower note. 


as admitted into the diaconate in 
somewhat early times, though quoted 
in support of this view, prove no- 
thing, when it is seen that the 
viduate and the diaconate were 
originally separate institutions. I 
do not hesitate therefore to offer a 
wholly different interpretation, which 
is suggested by the following pas- 
sages ; Clem. Alex. Szvom. vii. 12 (p. 
875) ὁ yap ἐπιθυμήσας καὶ κατασχὼν 
ἑαυτοῦ καθάπερ ἡ χήρα, διὰ σωφρο- 
σύνης αὖθις παρθένος. . αὗται δέ 
εἰσιν ai γνωστικαὶ Ψυχαὶ ἃς ἀπείκασεν 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον [Matt. xxv. 1 sq] ταῖς 
ἡγιασμέναις παρθένοις ταῖς προσδεχο- 
μέναις τὸν Κύριον᾽ παρθένοι μὲν γὰρ ὡς 
κακῶν ἀπεσχημέναι k.T.A. (Comp. S707. 
ili. 16, p. 558 ἤδη τινὲς Kal τῆς παρθέ- 
vou τὴν χήραν εἰς ἐγκράτειαν προτεί- 
νουσι καταμεγαλοφρονήσασαν ἧς πε- 
πείραται ἡδονῆς), Tertull. ad Uxor. 4 
(of certain widows) ‘Adhibe sororum 
nostrarum exempla, quarum nomina 
penes Dominum, quae nullam formae 
vel aetatis occasionem praemissis ma- 
ritis sanctitati anteponunt; malunt 
enim Deo nubere; Deo speciosae, 
Deo sunt puellae, de Virg. Vel. τὸ 
‘Non enim et continentia virginitati 
antistat, sive viduorum (v. 1. vidua- 
rum), sive qui ex consensu contume- 
liam communem jam recusaverunt?’, 
de Exh. Cast. 1 ‘secunda [species] 
virginitas a secunda nativitate, id 
est alavacro, gwae aut in matrimonio 
purificat ex consensu aut 27 vzduztate 
perseverat ex arbitrio.’ This then I 
suppose to be the meaning of Igna- 
tius here; ‘I salute those women 
whom, though by name and in out- 
ward condition they are widows, I 


prefer to call virgins, for such they 
are in God’s sight by their purity and 
devotion.’ See also Jahn S. Method. 
Platoniz. p. 42, on some uses of 
παρθένος which illustrate this. M. 
Renan (Les Apétres p. 124 sq), with- 
out any thought of this passage in 
Ignatius, says, ‘Cette position si dif- 
ficile de la veuve sans enfants, le 
christianisme I’éleva, la rendit sainte. 
La veuve redevint presque Végale de 
la vierge.” These words give fairly the 
Christian sentiment about widows in 
the age of Ignatius, and the mode of 
expressing it here is eminently cha- 
racteristic of this father in its terse 
epigrammatic form. It is difficult 
to say exactly what interpretation 
Voss takes; but he quotes (in a 
mutilated form) Clem. Alex. Stvozz. 
vii. 12, and seems in one part of his 
note, as if he were approaching the 
explanation which I have given. 
The expression in Seneca Agamt. 
196 ‘An te morantur virgines viduae 
domi?’, quoted by Pearson, has a 
wholly different sense. The reader 
should be cautioned that in the notes 
of both Cotelier and Voss, as quoted 
by Jacobson, important sentences 
are left out without any sign of 
omission. 

I. ἐν δυνάμει πατρός] In con- 
firmation of this reading comp. Magu. 
3 κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ πατρός. The 
confusion of the oblique cases of 
πατὴρ and πνεῦμα 15 not uncommon, 
owing to the contractions Tpc, TNC, 
etc. So 7γαζ 11 φυτεία: πατρὸς is 
quoted φυτεία τοῦ πνεύματος in| Ioann. 
Damasc.] Par. Rufef. a. \xxvi. (OP. I. 
Pp. 773); see also the notes on “phes. 


x11] 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


30 


.Λ ray 7 ς ΄ / ee / a 
Γαουΐας, nv εὔχομαι ἑδρᾶσθαι πίστει καὶ αγαπη σαρκικῆ 


\ ΄ς 
me KOE πνευματικῇ « 
4 


ἑδρᾶσθαι] ἐδρᾶσθαι G; ἡδρᾶσθαι g. 


ἀσπάζομαι ἴλλκην, τὸ ποθητόν 


4 ᾿Αλκὴν] ἅλκην G. The other authori- 


ties, LAg, write it without an aspirate: comp. Polyc, 8. 


grein @ Cor, xv. 24 F ‘has a v.1. 
av for πατρί. In Iren. Vv. 5. I τῶν 
πνευματικῶν, the Latin has ‘patrum’, 
which must have arisen in the same 
way ; just as in Hippol. Haer. vii. 33 
the MS has πατρικόν where the sense 
requires πνευματικόν. Again in Jus- 
tin Dzal. 30 (p. 247) the common 
reading is μετάνοιαν τοῦ πατρός, where 
the sense requires πνεύματος. The 
critics there refer to Tatian Oraz. 5, 
Method. Cozv. p. 93, where the MSS 
exhibit a similar confusion. In Euseb. 
ff, E. i. 13 mapa τοῦ πατρὸς there is 
a v.1. πνεύματος. 

3. Yaovias] There cannot be 
much doubt about the word here. 
The names Gavius, Gavia, are fre- 
quent in the Latin inscriptions: 
see also Jul. Capitol. Axton. Pius 8. 
Gavius appears also in a Greek in- 
senpion, CC, Χ G. 5979. On the 
other hand I have not observed any 
example of Tavia, and only one or 
two of Tavius or Thavius, Muratori 
MCCCXCV. 10, Corp. Lnuscr. Lat. Ul. 
6248. 

ἑδρᾶσθαι πίστει] Comp. Efphes. 10 
ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει, With the note. The 
form ἑδρᾶσθαι for ἡδρᾶσθαι is pos- 
sible; see D’Orville on Charito 
Pp. 404. 

σαρκικῇ κιτ.λ.] See the note on 
Ephes. το. 

4. Αλκην] She is saluted also in 
the companion letter, Polyc. 8, and in 
the same terms, τὸ ποθητόν μοι ὔνομα. 
The name occurs also in the ac- 
count of Polycarp’s martyrdom (A.D. 
155 Or 156) § 17 ὑπέβαλε γοῦν Νικήτην 
tov tov Ἡρώδου πατέρα ἀδελφὸν δὲ 
ΓἌλκης κιτιλ., Herodes being the 


magistrate who was instrumental in 
putting Polycarp to death. There is 
no difficulty, though a period of forty 
or fifty years may have elapsed, in 
supposing the same person to be 
meant. The Alce there mentioned 
was plainly well known to the Chris- 
tians; and her relationship to the 
magistrate implies that, if still liv- 
ing, she was advanced in life. If 
so, this divided family is an illus- 
tration of the warning in Matt. x. 35; 
for her brother Nicetes and her 
nephew Herodes are both actively 
hostile to the Christians. Pearson 
says incorrectly that on her account 
‘utpote Christianae, frater eius in- 
tercesserat pro Polycarpo’. But Ni- 
cetes interposes for quite another 
purpose, to prevent the Christians 
from recovering the remains of 
Polycarp, being instigated by the 
devil, as the writers of the Martyr- 
dom state. The name Alce occurs 
occasionally in inscriptions, but is 
not common. It is remarkable that 
of the only two occurrences in the 
Greek collection the one (C. 72. G. 
3268) is at Smyrna, while the other 
(C. 1 G. 7064) is on a gem of un- 
certain locality. In the Latin col- 
lection however it is lessrare. Jacob- 
son (Polyc. 8) supposes that in ro 
ποθητόν μοι ὄνομα there is a play on 
the word ἀλκή, ‘robur, fortetudinem 
desiderabat ad martyrium subeun- 
dum’. But this can hardly be; for 
Ignatius uses the same expression of 
Kpoxos, Rom. 10, where no such play 
is possible (see also the note on 
Ephes. 1). 


326 


IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAANS. 


[ΧΠῚ 


᾽ \ A / \ 3 U4 \ Εὖ 
μοι ὄνομα, καὶ Aadvoyv τὸν ἄσυγκριτον καὶ ζύτεκνον 


\ / af 
καὶ πάντας κατ᾽ ὄνομα. 


1 μοι] σ; γιῖλὲ L; μου G; al. A. 866 also Polyc. 8, Rom. το. 


sf > / -~ 
ἔρρωσθε ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ. 


2 Θεοῦ] 


GL; add. amen A; add. καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ. g. 
For the subscriptions of GL see the title to the Epistle to Polycarp. For A 


no subscription is given. 


1. Addvov] This name occurs 
from time to time in the inscrip- 
tions. In one, Reines. 72.527. p. 693, 
it is found in connexion with ano- 
ther name which occurs in this con- 
text, D. M. GAVIAE . QVADRATILLAE 
...C. GAVIVS . DAPHNVS. PATER. IN- 
FELICISSIMVS. Pearson also refers 
to Daphnus the Ephesian physician, 
who is an interlocutor in Athenzeus 
ΤΡ. 

ἀσύγκριτον) “Ζρεολεῤαγαίο᾽ : Her- 
mas Mand. 7 ἡ πρᾶξίς σου ἀσύγκριτος 
ἔσται, Clem. Hom. i. 21, ii. 43, 45, iii. 
5Θ ΧΙ 2VEte. | Sesn XT air. Levi 2, 
Hippol. p. 89 (Lagarde). It occurs 
also in classical writers of this age. 
Pearson points out that the corre- 
sponding ‘incomparabilis’ is a very 
common epithet in the Latin in- 


For g see Appx. 


scriptions; and ἀσύγκριτος itself oc- 
curs on epitaphs in Jewish cemeteries 
at Rome (Garrucci Déissert. Archeol. 
11: ‘pp. 179, 182)» In Rom via 
it appears as a proper name; but 
this is apparently rare. 

Evrexvov| I have not observed any 
other example of this name; nor 
does it seem very suitable as a proper 
name. However Εὐτέκνιος is found 
in literary history; see Fabric. Bz67. 
Graec. V. p. 601, ed. Harles. Zahn 
writes εὔτεκνον and treats it as an 
epithet, but this is awkward. 

2. Kar ὄνομα] 3 Joh. 15 ἀσπάζου 
τοὺς φίλους κατ᾽ ὄνομα, Polyc. ὃ ἀσπά- 
ἕομαι πάντας ἐξ ὀνόματος. See also 
the note on ἐξ ὀνόματος Ephes. 20. 

ἔρρωσθε) See the note on “2165. 
21: 


7: 


EG OE Ory ATR P: 


᾿ 
ὕες Ἂ 
par 
ΑΙ 


i 


ai 
ἮΝ 





7. 


ΤΟ ΟΝ. 


A; BILE addressing a letter from Troas to the Church of Smyrna 

generally, Ignatius writes at the same time more especially to the 
bishop Polycarp. He had during his stay in Smyrna received much 
kindly attention from Polycarp, whom he mentions affectionately in 
letters written thence (Zphes. 21, Magn. 15), and had learnt to admire 
his character and work. 

Like the Pastoral Epistles of S. Paul, with which it has many 
points in common, this letter is the exhortation of an older servant of 
Christ to a younger friend who holds a responsible office in the Church. 
Like them also, though special, it is not private. It was obviously 
intended to be communicated to the Smyrnean Church, for at the 
beginning of § 6 the writer turns from the bishop to the congregation 
and addresses them directly on their reciprocal duties towards their 
chief officer. 

In this letter fuller instructions than in the more general epistle 
are given respecting the delegate who is to represent the Smyrnzans 
at Antioch (§ 7). Moreover Polycarp is charged with the duty of 
writing to other churches nearer to Syria and directing them to send 
representatives in like manner (δ 8). As in the letter to the Smyrnzeans, 
so here special salutations are sent to individual persons (zd). On the 
other hand there is no mention, beyond a passing allusion expressed 
in general terms (§ 3), of the heresy which occupies so large a space 
in the companion epistle. The directions have reference to the inter- 
nal circumstances and private life of the Church, not to its relations 
with alien persons and creeds. Owing to this fact it has escaped with 


330 IGNATIUS TO POLYCARP. 


comparatively few changes from the violence of the interpolator, who 
accepts any mention of heresy as a signal for free-handling and 
insertion. 


The following is an analysis of the epistle. 


‘IGNATIUS to PoLycaRP greeting. 


‘It was a great privilege to see thee. I exhort thee to greater zeal 
than ever. More especially have a care for unity. Be firm and tender 
and watchful. Bear the ailments of all (δ 1). Adapt thy medicines 
to the complaints of thy patients. Join the wisdom of the serpent 
with the guilelessness of the dove. Thou art compact of flesh and 
spirit, that thou mayest use each in its proper function. Thou art 
the pilot of the vessel of the Church, the athlete in the race of God 
(§ 2). Be not scared by false teachers. Be firm as an anvil; submit 
to bruises, as a victorious athlete. Read the signs of the times, but 
await the advent of the Eternal (§ 3).’ 

‘Provide for the widows. Let nothing be done without thee. Let 
your meetings be more frequent. Do not overlook slaves, but do not 
exalt them unduly (ἢ 4). Warn thy flock against evil arts. Explain 
the duties of husbands and wives to each other. Vows of chastity 
and vows of marriage should be taken with thy cognisance; and all 
things done to God’s honour (§ 5).’ 

‘Ye laity, obey your bishop and your clergy. Work and suffer, 
sleep and rise, together. Be not remiss in your spiritual warfare ; 
but buckle on your armour and win your reward. Be patient one 
with another (ὃ 6).’ 

‘As the Church of Antioch now enjoys peace, I am the more 
ready to die. Gather together a council, Polycarp, and elect a 
representative who shall go to Syria. A Christian is not his own 
master. It remains for you to complete your good deed (§ 7).’ 

‘Hurried in my departure hence, I have had no time to write to 
the distant Churches. Do thou, Polycarp, urge them to send delegates 
to Syria. Salutations to the widow and children of Epitropus, to Attalus, 
to your elected representative, to Alce. Farewell (§ 8).’ 


TPOC TMOAYKAPTION. 


ἸΓΝΑΤΊΟΟ, 6 καὶ Θεοφόρος, Πολυκάρπω ἐπισκό- 
Tw ἐκκλησίας Cuvpvaiwy, μᾶλλον ἐπεσκοπημένῳ ὑπὸ 
Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πλεῖστα χαίρειν. 


προς TTOAYKAPTTON | σμυρναιοῖς ἀπὸ Tpwddos πρὸς πολύκαρπον ἴγνάτιος (num- 
bered β in the marg.) G (the first three words being the subscription to the pre- 
vious epistle); epéstola 2a tgnactt smyrneis. a troade policarpo L* (where the two 
are confused); ad polycarpum episcopum zmyrnae urbis A; epistola [dominti] ignatiz 
[epescopt antiochiae] X*; Tov αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς πολύκαρπον ἐπίσκοπον σμύρνης g. 


1 ὁ καὶ] See Zphes. inscr. 
smyrnae urbis S,A; smyrnae 2. 


A. ἐπεσκοπημένῳ] 2; ἐπισκοπημένῳ G. 


inoov ΑΣΑ. 


‘IGNATIUS to POLYCARP who is 
overseer of the Church in Smyrna, 
but himself is overseen by God and 
the Lord Jesus Christ; greeting’. 

2. Σμυρναίων] The Syriac Version 
(and after it the Armenian) writes 
the word with a Z, as it is written 
also in the Syriac translations of 
the Martyrology (Moesinger pp. 5, 
10) and of Eusebius #7. £. iii. 36 
(Cureton C. 7. p. 203, four times). 
This may be a scribe’s caprice, but 
it not improbably represents the 
original form in Ignatius. At all 
events elsewhere (e.g. in the frag- 
ments in Cureton C. /. pp. 198, 210, 
212, 214, and) in’ Rev. 1. 11. 2.8) it 
is spelt With S in the Syriac. The 
forms Ζμύρνα, Ζμυρναῖος, are com- 
mon in Greek inscriptions; 6. g. 
Cl. Gi 2032) 320} ἼΖ2ΙῚΙ, 3270; 3276, 


2 ἐκκλησίας Σμυρναίων] GLg; ecclesiae 
μᾶλλον] txt G2g; add. autem L; def. 
3 Ἰησοῦ] Lg*; κυρίου 


3286, 3289, 3311, 3371, all these at 
Smyrna itself, besides several else- 
where (e.g. Wood’s Discoveries at 
Ephesus Inscr. vi. 20, p. 70). On 
the coins too this name is written 
indifferently with a = or a Z: see 
Eckhel Doctr. Num. 11. p. 545 sq. 
In the earliest coins the Z seems 
to be preferred, in the latest the Σ, 
while about the age of Ignatius 
both seem to be used impartially ; 
see Mionnet Ill. p. 302 sq, .522222. 
VE. p:r90,'sq.”), In: Rev.ok/ nasi: 
it is Ζμύρνα in &, and Zmyriza in the 
Cod. Amiat. Nor is this form very 
uncommon in Latin Mss elsewhere 
(eg. Tac.. Ann. iv. 56). The title 
of Cinna’s poem was evidently so 
written, ‘Zmyrna’; see Catull. 95 
(p. 67 ed. Mueller, with the fragments 
of the poem itself, 2d. p. 88). Lucian 


3509. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1 


I. ᾿λποδεχόμενδος cov τὴν ἐν Θεῷ γνώμην ἡδρα- 


/ ς 5}: ἢ / Nats ε / 
σμένην ὡς ἐπὶ πέτραν ἀκίνητον, ὑπερδοξαζω KaTa- 


΄σι / “~ , Ὁ / 
ξιωθεὶς τοῦ προσώπου σου τοῦ ἀμώμου, ov ὀναίμην ἐν 


I σοὺ τὴν ἐν Θεῷ γνώμην] (ἃ; tuam in deo sententiam L; τὴν ἐν θεῷ σου γνώμην 


g; dub. ZA. 
GLg; om. ZA. 


(Fud. Voc. 9) makes = complain 
that among other aggressions Z has 
‘robbed him of all Smyrna’. The 
form Ζμύρνα is supported by the an- 
alogy of ζμάραγδοι, ‘zmaragdi,’ which 
is frequent, (uepdadéa in the Her- 
culanean papyri of Philodemus, etc : 
see Munro on Lucret. iv. 1126. Simi- 
larly the duplicate forms Σμῆθος, 
Ζμῆθος, of a proper name occur in the 
inscriptions. Compare also the two 
forms Σωτίων, Ζωτίων, in Magn. 2 
with the note. The substitution of 
‘bishop of Smyrna’ in the Syriac of 
Cureton for ‘bishop of the Church 
of the Smyrnzans’ is an indication 
of a later date. 

ἐπεσκοπημένῳ] See below § ὃ ἐν 
ἑνότητι Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπῇ, Magn. 3 
τῷ πατρὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ πάντων 
ἐπισκόπῳ; comp. also 1 Pet. ii. 25. 
For this use of the verb, referring to 
God’s supervision, comp. Orig. de 
Orat. 31 (I. p. 268) ὑπηρεσίᾳ τοῦ 
θείου βουλήματος ἐπισκοποῦντος τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν... .οἱ τοιοῦτοι... οὐκ ἐπισκοπη- 
θήσονται. There is perhaps the same 
play, as here, intended by Polycrates 
in Euseb. H. .Ε. v. 24 Μελίτωνα.. .ὃς 
κεῖται ἐν Σάρδεσι περιμένων τὴν ἀπὸ 
τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπισκοπήν κιτ.ιλ., and in 
Eusebius himself 27. £. ili. 7 ᾿Ιάκωβος 
αὐτὸς ὁ τῇδε πρῶτος ἐπίσκοπος. . τῆς 
θείας ἐπισκοπῆς εἰσέτι τότε μακροθυ- 
μούσης. For the sentiment here 
comp. Gal. iv. 9 γνόντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον 
δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ; and for simi- 
lar turns of expression in Ignatius 
see the note on Swzyru, 5. 


2 ὑπερδοξάζω] GLg; add. deum ZA, 
4 ἐν χάριτι] For the addition in L see Appx. 


3 TOU ἀμώμου] 
5 πάντας 


I. ‘I welcome thy firm faith in 
God, and I give glory that I have 
seen thee face to face. Be more 
diligent in thine own life, and exhort 
all men to be saved. Vindicate thine 
office; be zealous for unity; bear 
the burdens of all; give thyself to 
prayer and ask for more grace; be 
vigilant ; address thyself to each man 
severally ; bear the sicknesses of all. 
The greater the pain, the greater the 
gain.’ 

I. ᾿Αποδεχόμενος] ‘ Welcoming, ap- 
proving, asin Ephes. τ ᾿Αποδεξάμενος 
ὑμῶν ἐν Θεῷ TO πολυαγάπητον ὄνομα; 
Trall. 1 ἀποδεξάμενος οὖν τὴν κατὰ 
Θεὸν εὔνοιαν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐδόξασα κ.τ.λ. 

ἐν Θεῷ] These words might be 
connected with ἡδρασμένην, as in the 
Syriac and Armenian versions. For 
ἑδράζεσθαι ἐν see Philad. inscr. (with 
the note). Comp. also ἑδραιοῦσθαι ἐν 
Θεῷ Epiphan. Haer. |xi. 8 (p. 512). 
Perhaps however they are better 
taken with γνώμην; comp. Rom. 7 
τὴν εἰς Θεόν μου γνώμην, and Tradd. 1 
(quoted above). 

2. ἐπὶ πέτραν] As in the parable, 
Matt. vii. 24, 25, Luke vi. 48. 

ὑπερδοξάζω] Used absolutely, like 
ἐδόξασα in Trall. 1 quoted above 
(see , the note, there), ihe tSymae 
and Armenian versions, followed by 
Petermann, supply ‘Deum,’ from not 
appreciating this usage. For ὑπερ- 
δοξάζω see Orig. Comm. tn Loann. 
xili (Of. IV. p. 235), and comp. vzep- 
ευφραίνομαι Barnab. I, ὑπερευχαριστῷ 
Barnab. 5. 


1] TO POLYCARP. 


Θεώ. 


Jae 


΄σ 2 ’ 3 / ~ 
παρακάλω σε εν χάριτι 1] ἐνδέδυσαι προσθεῖναι 


qn 7 \ ’ ΄σ- e/ Ἃ 
5 TW δρόμῳ σου. καὶ TAVTAS παρακαλεῖν lVvVa σωζωνται. 
έ έ 


7 \ / 3 lf 5) 7 « 
ἐκδίκει σου τὸν τόπον ἐν πασήη ἐπιμελείᾳ σαρκικὴ TE καὶ 


παρακαλεῖν] GLe; είας pro omnibus hominibus (filiis hominum) Σ; petere pro 


filits hominum A. 


GLZAg; om. Antioch. 


καταξιωθεὶς x.t.r.] ‘having been 
permitted to see thy face.” ‘Numquam 
igitur ante viderat Polycarpum,’ says 
Pearson. This seems a just infer- 
ence from the language ; and if so, 
it refutes the statement in Mart. 
Ign. Ant. 3 that Polycarp had been 
a fellow-disciple (συνακροατὴς) of Ig- 
natius under S. John. For the fre- 
quency of καταξιοῦν in Ignatius see 
the note on 2 2765. 20. 

3. τοῦ ἀμώμου] The absence of 
these words in the Syriac and Arme- 
nian versions renders them doubtful 
here ; but ἄμωμος, ἀμώμως, are favour- 
ite words of Ignatius, especially in 
the addresses of his letters: see the 
note on /Phes. inscr. 

οὗ ὀναίμην] ‘and may 7 have joy of 
ge See the note on ΚΣ ) 7,5: 2: 

4. προσθεῖναι κ-τ.λ.} “ to add to thy 
race, i.e. ‘to run thy race with in- 
creased vigour.’ The words are 
copied by the pseudo-Ignatius Hero 
I προσθεῖναι τῷ δρόμῳ σου καὶ ἐκδι- 
κεῖν σου τὸ ἀξίωμα. The word δρόμος 
reproduces 5. Paul’s favourite meta- 
phor of the stadium; e.g. πληροῦν 
τὸν δρόμον Acts xill. 25, τελειοῦν τὸν 
δρόμον Acts xx. 24, τελεῖν τὸν δρόμον 
2 Tim. iv. 7. For the metaphor in 
Ignatius see the note on fom. 2. 

6. ἐκδίκει κιτ.λ.] ‘vindicate, assert, 
thine office? i.e. ‘make it felt and 
respected by a diligent discharge of 
its duties.’ Pearson quotes Origen 
Comm. in Matt. xii. (11. p. 531) οἱ 
τὸν τύπον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐκδικοῦντες 


6 σου τὸν τόπον] GLg (and so Antioch 11 αὐτοῦ τὸν 
τόπον); convenientia (decentia) ZA: see the lower note. 


σαρκικῇ TE καὶ] 


χρῶνται τῷ ῥητῷ ὡς Πέτρος, Cornelius 
in Euseb. 27. EZ. vi. 43 (speaking of 
Novatian) ἐπισκοπὴν... μὴ ἐπιβάλλου- 
σαν αὐτῷ ἐκδικεῖ. In the first passage 
the phrase is used exactly as here; 
in the second somewhat differently. 
The word ἐκδικεῖν occurs frequently 
in the LXx, but most commonly in 
another sense, ‘to exact vengeance for 
or from, ‘to avenge,’ ‘to punish.’ 

τὸν τύπον] ‘thy place, i.e. ‘thine 
office’; comp. Smyrn. 6 τόπος μηδένα 
φυσιούτω. See also Acts i. 25 τὸν 
τόπον τῆς διακονίας (the correct read- 
ing), Clem. Rom. 40 τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν 
ἴδιος ὁ τόπος προστέτακται, 70. 44 μή 
τις αὐτοὺς μεταστήσῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱδρυμένου 
αὐτοῖς τόπου, Polyc. Phz/. 11 ‘ignoret 
is locum qui datus est ei,’ Mart. 
Vienn. in Euseb. H. E. v. 4 εἰ yap 
ἤδειμεν τόπον τινὶ δικαιοσύνην περιποι- 
εἴσθαι, ὡς πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας k.T.A, 
Apost. Const. ii. 2 καθίσταται ἐν τῷ 
τύπῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, 11. 11 γνωρίζων 
τὸν τόπον σου καὶ τὴν ἀξίαν, il. τὸ 
ἀξίως τοῦ τόπου σου ἐν τῷδε τῷ βίῳ 
ἀναστρέφου, ll. 35 τῆς ἱερωσύνης τοῦ 
τηλικούτου τόπου, Alexander in Euseb. 
HY, E. vi. τι Νάρκισσος ὁ πρὸ ἐμοῦ 
διέπων τὸν τόπον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς τὸν 
ἐνθάδε, Orig. Comm. in Matt. 1. ς. 
So also in Latin, Tertull. de Fuga 11 
‘omnem servum dei...etiam minoris 
loci, ut majoris fieri possit...sed cum 
ipsi auctores, id est, ipsi diaconi et 
presbyteri et episcopi fugiunt, etc’, 
Cyprian 32 2257. iii (p. 469 ed. Hartel) 
‘immemor sacerdotalis loci tui et 


234 


πνευματικῇ. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x 


a ε , , < “ἊΝ ν᾽ 
τῆς EVWOEWS φροντιζε, ἧς οὐδὲν ἀμεινον" 


/ f e / ς / if CT ns 
πάντας βασταζε, ws καί σε ὁ Κύριος: πάντων ἀνέχου 


> ΄ e/ ~ ΄σ / 
ἐν ἀγάπη, ὥσπερ Kal ποιεῖς: προσευχαῖς σχόλαζε ἀδια- 


/ 3 cot "4 7 - ᾽ 4 
λείπτοις" αἰτοῦ σύνεσιν πλείονα ἧς ἔχεις" γρήγορει 


2 ὡς kal] GLAg Dam-Vat 2 Antioch (twice) 7, 11; szcu¢ (om. καὶ S42. 6 


e 


Κύριος] GLg Antioch (twice) Dam; add. fortat S,2; add. portavit A: see a simi- 


lar addition of ZA in § 6 ws καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν. 
(om. καὶ) Σ (see above 1. 2); 24] guod S,: def. Dam-Vat Antioch. 


3 ὥσπερ καὶ] GL* Ag; sicut 
ἀδια- 


λείπτοι5] GLg* Dam-Vat Antioch rr (who paraphrases προσευχέσθω ὑπὲρ πάντων 


ἀδιαλείπτως); om. S,2A (seemingly, but see the note on Zfhes. το). 


officii,” xv (p. 513) ‘solicitudo loci 
nostri,’ xvi (p. 517) ‘aliqui de pres- 
byteris nec evangelii nec loci sui 
memores, xl (p. 586) ‘ promovebitur 
quidem...ad ampliorem locum reli- 
gionis suae.’ See Pearson here and 
on Smyrn. 6, where several passages 
are collected. So in English we 
speak of ‘placemen,’ ‘ place-seekers.’ 
The scruples of Cureton (C. /. p. 265) 
respecting τὸν τόπον are groundless ; 
for τόπος was certainly so used in the 
time of Ignatius, as the quotations 
given above show. The rendering 
of the Syriac and Armenian ‘things 
becoming’ is perhaps merely a loose 
paraphrase, meaning the ‘official 
duties’ of a bishop (see e.g. Payne 


Smit 7 hess Syrns.. ve réasla). 


But in uncial characters TONTOTTON 
might easily be read totrpetton, the 
confusion between n, tr and between 
€, o, being very frequent where the 
MS is blurred ; and the plural is ex- 
plained by 7zbz2. 

σαρκικῇ τε x.t.A.] As we should 
say, ‘secular as well as spiritual.’ 
For this favourite combination in 
Ignatius, see the note on “2265. το. 

I. τῆς ἑνώσεως] See the note on 
Magn. 1. 

οὐδὲν ἄμεινον]! Comp. Lphes. 13, 
Magn. 7. 


2. πάντας βάσταζε] 1.6. ‘support 


5 πνεῦμα] 


the burdens of ali men’; comp. Rom. 
xv. I, Gal. vi. 2. So Epzst. ad Diogn. 
IO τὸ τοῦ πλησίον ἀναδέχεται βάρος. 
See “12ο57. Const. 1. 1 βαστάζετε οὖν; 
οἱ δοῦλοι καὶ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλήλους; 
ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα κ.τ.λ. 

ὡς καί σε ὁ Κύριος κιτ.λ.] An allu- 
sion to Isaiah lili. 4 paraphrased 
in Matt. vill. 17 αὐτὸς ras ἀσθενείας 
ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ Tas νόσους ἐβάστασεν. 
The influence of the evangelist’s 
paraphrase is clear, when we com- 
pare the words used just below, 
πάντων Tas νόσους βάσταζε: for the 
LXX rendering is quite different, οὗ- 
Tos τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ 
ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται. ‘The interpolator has 
seen the reference, and has intro- 
duced the words of Is. liii. 4, as given 
in S. Matthew, into the context of 
πάντων τὰς νόσους k.T.r. just below. 

πάντων ἀνέχου] This describes the 
passive side of his duty to others, as 
the previous clause had described 
the active. See Ephes. iv. 2 ἀνεχό- 
μενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ, Which Igna- 
tius probably has in his mind. Comp. 
also the saying of Epictetus, ἀνέχου 
καὶ ἀπέχου, Aul. Gell. xvii. 19. This 
verb generally takes the genitive in 
ὑπο 

3. ἀδιαλείπτοις) See Ephes. 10 ἀδι- 
αλείπτως προσεύχεσθε with the note, 
where the omission of ἀδιαλείπτοις in 
some texts here is discussed, 


1] TO POLYCARP. 


335 


7 ΄σ 7 τ: 
ἀκοίμητον πνεῦμα κεκτημένος: τοῖς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα κατὰ 


/ ΄σ 7 / \ / 
ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ λάλει: πάντων Tas νόσους βάσταζε, 


c / / ε / / 
ws τέλειος ἀθλητὴς: ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος. 


GLS,2Ag Dam-Reg; ὄμμα Dam-Vat; def. Antioch. 
adjutorium 1); consuetudinem L; voluntatem S,ZA; βοήθειαν G. 


Gg Antioch; ὁ ἀθλητής Dam-Vat. 
add. yap S,= Antioch. 
Reg; multus SyZA. 

etiam S,ZA; add. καὶ τὸ Antioch. 


5. πνεῦμα] The substitution of 
ὄμμα in a quotation of the passage 
was probably suggested by the fact 
that ἀκοίμητον ὄμμα is a more fami- 
liar combination ; e.g. Philo de Mut. 
Nom. 1 (I. p. 579), de Mon. 6 (11. p. 
219). 

τοῖς kat ἄνδρα] ‘to each singly’: 
see the note on Ephes. 4 for this 
characteristic Ignatian phrase. 

κατὰ ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ] ‘27 conformity 
with God. If the balance of au- 
thorities had left any doubt about 
the reading, it would have been 
settled by J/agn. 6 ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ 
λαβόντες. The Syriac and Armenian 
give a loose rendering of ὁμοήθειαν, 
which it was difficult to translate ac- 
curately. The similarity of the letters 
β and μ in cursive MSS explains the 
variation βοήθειαν, a common word 
being substituted for an uncommon. 
See also the note on Mart. Rom. το. 
For ὁμοήθεια see Clem. Alex. Strom. 
vil. 12 (p. 878), Philostr. Vzt. “4, 2ο δέ, ii. 
II (p. 61), Cyril. c. Fulian. x. p. 338 
(ed. Spanheim). Ignatius here means 
‘conformity with the character of 
God’ our Father, who neglects no 
one, but makes His sun to shine 
alike upon the good and evil (Matt. 
ν. 45 sq). It will appear, I think, from 
the context, that Ignatius has this 
saying of Christ in his mind ; comp. 
πάντων Tas νόσους βάσταζε ὡς τέλειος 
ἀθλητής, with ver. 48 ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς 


6 ὁμοήθειαν] g* (but 
7 ἀθλητής] 
ὅπου] txt GLAg (but add. exim 1) Dam; 


πλείων] g*L Antioch Dam-Vat; πλεῖον G Dam- 
πολὺ] GLg (but preef. 247 etiam 1) Dam-Vat; add. 


τέλειοι WS ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν k.T.r., and 
καλοὺς μαθητὰς ἐὰν φιλῇς κιτιλ. with 
ver. 47 Sq ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς 
ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε 
K.T.A. 

6. tas νόσους x.7.A.]| See the note 
ON ὧς καί σε κιτιλ. above. 

7. τέλειος ἀθλητής] So Polyb. ii. 
20. 9 ἀθληταὶ τέλειοι γεγονότες τῶν 
κατὰ πόλεμον ἔργων ; comp. Ζὖ. i. 59. 
12 ἀθλητὰς ἀπετέλεσε. In this ap- 
plication of the word ‘athlete’ Igna- 
tius had already been anticipated by 
Clement of Rome, § 5. The allied 
words, ἀθλεῖν, ἄθλησις, occur in this 
connexion as early as 2 Tim. ii. 5, 
Heb. x. 32, and the idea is con- 
stantly present to S. Paul’s mind. 
It afterwards became a very favour- 
ite metaphor, more especially as 
applied to the martyrs; e.g. Marz. 
Polyc. 18, Epist. Vienn. in Euseb. 
Hi, E. v. 1 (several times), Act. Perp. 
et Felic. 10, etc. Naturally also it 
was frequently employed by the 
Stoics. Here Ignatius seems to be 
contemplating the pancratiast (πάν- 
τῶν «.t.A.), In whom all the faculties 
were on the alert, and all the muscles 
brought into play; so Paneetius in 
Aul. Gell. xiii. 28. 3 ‘ Vita hominum 
qui aetatem in medio rerum agunt ac 
sibi suisque esse usui volunt, negotia 
periculaque ex improviso adsidua et 
prope cotidiana fert : ad ea cavenda 
atque declinanda perinde esse opor- 


336 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


IT. Καλοὺς μαθητὰς ἐὰν φιλῆς, χάρις σοι οὐκ ἐσ- 


΄ \ / 5) fA ε / 
τιν. μᾶλλον Tous AOLMOTEPOUS EV πραὕτητι υποτασσε. 


I φιλῇς] txt GLg Dam-Vat Antioch (φιλῇ) Anton 4 (φιλεῖς); add. tantum 


SDA. 


ἔστιν] or ἔστι GLSyZAg Antioch Anton; ἔσται Dam-Vat. 


2 μᾶλλον] GLE Dam-Vat Anton; μᾶλλον δὲ σα; ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον Antioch; sed potius 


S,A. 


tet animo prompto semper atque in- 
tento, ut sunt athletarum qui pan- 
cratiastae vocantur: nam sicut illi 
ad certandum vocati etc. For re- 
λειος Pearson compares Plato Legg. 
Vil. p. 795 ὁ τελέως παγκράτιον HoKN- 
Kos κιτὶλ., Galen de Saz. 111. 2 (VI. p. 
168 sq, Kiihn) οὐδ᾽ οἱ πλεῖστα πο- 
νοῦντες ἀθληταὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλο τι γυμνάσιον 
ἐφεδρεύοντα ἔχουσι πλὴν τὸ 
and 
again τὸ τελεώτατον ἐκεῖνο γυμνάσιον 


κόπον 
καλούμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τέλειον, 
ὃ δὴ καὶ κατασκευὴν ὀνομάζουσι. 

ὅπου πλείων κ.τ.λ.] ‘Zhe more pain 
the greater gain? So S. John in 
Browning’s ‘ Death in the Desert, 
‘When pain ends gain ends too” A 
contemporary of Ignatius, R. Tar- 
phon (Tryphon), is credited with a 
saying which resembles this, Pzrke 
Aboth ii. 19 ‘Dies brevis et opus 
multum et operaril pigri et merces 
multa et magister domus (οἰκοδεσπό- 
της) urget.’ So too Tertull. ad Mart. 
3 of athletes, ‘quanto plus in exer- 
citationibus laboraverint, tanto plus 
de victoria sperant,’ Greg. Naz. Orat. 
xl (I. p. 706) αὐτὸ τὸ καμεῖν πλέον, 
πλείων μισθὸς κιτιλ. The word κόπος 
is used especially of the athlete's 
training : comp. e.g. Galen l.c., and 
see the note on συγκοπιᾶτε § 6. 

II. ‘It is not enough to love good 
scholars. Bring the pestilent into 
subjection. Apply not the same 
remedy to all diseases. Be wise as 
the serpent and harmless as the 
dove. Thou art compact of flesh 
and spirit, that thou mayest humour 


τοὺς λοιμοτέρους] Gg; deteriores L; malos SsZA; τοὺς ἀπειθεστέρους 
(ἀπιθεστέρου:) Antioch Dam-Vat Anton. 


mpairnre] g (but with a v. 1.) 


the things that are visible and may- 
est acquire a knowledge of the things 
that are invisible. The occasion 
demands thee, as a pilot the gales or 
as a storm-tossed mariner the haven. 
Train thyself, as God’s athlete. The 
prize is eternal life. I am thy de- 
voted friend, I and my bonds.’ 

I, Kadovs «.7.A.] Luke vi. 32 εἰ 
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία 
ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν; κιτιλ. (see the note 
on ὃ I κατὰ ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ), I Pet. ii. 
18 οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς: τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις 
«tA. See also[Clem. Rom.] ii. § 13 
ov χάρις ὑμῖν, εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶν- 
τας ὑμᾶς. 

2. τοὺς λοιμοτέρους] ‘the more 
pestilent; with a reference to the 
metaphor in ὃ I πάντων τὰς νόσους 
κιτιλ. This word, like ὄλεθρος, is used 
of persons even in classical writers, 
e.g. Demosth. ς Avistog. i. 80 (p. 
794) 6 λοιμός ‘the pest.’ Hence it 
comes to be employed as an ad- 
jective, and is even declined as such; 
eg. I Sam. i. 16 θυγατέρα λοιμήν, 
Barnab. 10 ὄντα λοιμὰ τῇ πονηρίᾳ av- 
τῶν. This usage is most common in 
the LXxX; comp. also Acts xxiv. 5. 
But I have not found an earlier in- 
stance of the comparative. Zahn 
refers to Clem. Alex. Strom. 11. 67 
(p. 464), where this father mentions 
having heard a wise man (Pante- 
nus ?) interpret καθέδραν λοιμῶν (Ps. 
i. 1) as referring to the heretical 
sects (ras αἱρέσεις). 

πραύτητι] Probably the correct 


11] TO 


POLYCARP. S57 


> σ΄: ΄: ~ 9 ~ > 7 
οὐ πᾶν τραῦμα TH αὕτη ἐμπλαστρῳ θεραπεύεται: τοὺς 


παροξυσμοὺς ἐμβροχαῖς παῦε. 


Anton; πραότητι G Antioch Dam- Vat. 


Dam-Vat Anton; adscissionem =; absctssam A. 


φρόνιμος γίνου Wc 


3 τοὺς παροξυσμοὺς] ΟΤ,σ Antioch 
4 ἐμβροχαῖς)] g* (but 


with v. 1.) Dam-Vat Anton; ἐν βροχαῖς GL Antioch; (2) lenttate Σ; lenttate A; 


ἐν εὐχαῖς Dam-Reg. 
form here. See the note on Gala- 
Zzans ν. 23. 

3. τραῦμα] The word, as a medi- 
cal term, is not confined to bleeding 
wounds, but includes all external 
bruises and sores. 

τῇ αὐτῇ ἐμπλάστρῳ] ‘the same plaster 
or salve’: comp. Clem. Alex. /ragm. 
p- 1020 (Potter) ἐν μιᾷ ἐμπλάστρῳ καὶ 
σεαυτὸν καὶ τὸν πλησίον ἰασάμενος, 
Hermes Trism. περὶ Bor. χυλ. p. 331 
(ed. Roether) ἐμπλάστρῳ μὴ τῷ αὐτῷ 
χρῶ. The word is properly an ad- 
jective, θεραπεία or φαρμακεία being 
perhaps understood, and hence its 
gender. In late Greek however it 
became a neuter, τὸ ἔμπλαστρον. On 
the other hand, the recognised Latin 
form was the neuter emplastrum, 
and Gellius (xvi. 7) complains of cer- 
tain ‘novicii semidocti,’ who treated 
it as a feminine. This branch of 
medicine seems to have been espe- 
cially elaborated by the ancients. 
Their treatises are largely occupied 
in describing the different kinds of 
‘emplastra’; e.g. Celsus Jed. ν. 19, 
Galen de Comp. Med. per Gen. 1. 
4 sq (XII. p. 357 sq). In the index 
to Galen the list of emplastra occu- 
pies several pages. The familiarity 
of the Latins with the word appears 
from the passage of Laberius, ‘Quid 
est jusjurandum? emplastrum aeris 
alieni,’ quoted by Gellius l.c., and 
by the remarks of Gellius himself 
on it. With the expression here 
comp. AZost. Const. 11. 41 ὡς συμπα- 
Ons ἰατρὸς τοὺς ἡμαρτηκότας πάντας 
θεράπευε... μὴ μόνον τέμνων ... ἀλλὰ 


IGN. ΤΠ; 


καὶ... καταβρέχων λόγοις παρακλητι- 
κοῖς: ἐὰν δὲ κοῖλον ἢ τὸ τραῦμα, 
θρέψον αὐτὸ δ ἐμπλάστρων κ.τ.λ., 
a passage which is evidently taken 
from Ignatius. See also Clem. Hom. 
x. 18 οὐ yap χρὴ τὴν ἔμπλαστρον προσ- 
φέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ ὑγιεινὸν μέρος k.T.X. 
Zahn quotes Orig. Hom. in Fes. Naue 
vil. § 6 (II. p. 414) ‘si oleo perunxi- 
mus, si emplastris mitigavimus, si 
malagmate mollivimus, nec tamen 
cedit tumoris duritia, solum superest 
remedium desecandi.’ See also Epict. 
il, 21. 20 Sq τὰ yap κολλύρια οὐκ 
ἄχρηστα τοῖς ore δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ ἐγ- 
χριομένοις, with what follows. 

This passage of Ignatius is quoted 
anonymously by Peter of Alexandria 
as retranslated into the Greek from 
the Syriac by Lagarde Rell. Fur. 
Eccl. Gr. p. xlvi ἐκ περισσοῦ [μάλιστα] 
ἀκούομεν ὅτι Οὐ πᾶν τραῦμα TH αὐτῇ 
ἐμπλάστρῳ θεραπεύεται. 

4. mapo€vopous| ‘sharp pains or 
inflammations’; a medical term with 
a much wider meaning than the 
derived English ‘paroxysm. Its 
Latin equivalent is ‘accessio.’ 

éuBpoxais| ‘enbrocations’ or ‘fo- 
mentations, Galen Of. XIV. pp. 314, 
316; comp. Plut. Mor. p. 42 C ουδὲ 
(nrew μυρίζεσθαι, δεόμενον ἐμβροχῆς 
καὶ καταπλάσματος. For parallels to 
the metaphor see also Plut. Jor. p. 
74 Ὁ οὔτε yap ἐκεῖνοι τέμνοντες ἐν τῷ 
πονεῖν καὶ ἀλγεῖν καταλείπουσι τὸ πε- 
πονθὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐνέβρεξαν προσηνῶς k.T.X., 
A post. Const. ii. 41 (quoted above) κα- 
ταβρέχων Adyots παρακλητικοῖς : Comp. 
Galen Of. XIII. p. 210 παρηγο- 


22 


338 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS (ur 


c 


' “Ὁ \ > ' 3 \ c ς 
6 ὄφις ἐν πάσιν Kal AKEPAIOC ElLTAEL WC H TEPI- 


F \ - 5 \ fo heey, \ 
ctepd. διὰ τοῦτο σαρκικὸς εἰ καὶ TVYEVMATLKOS, ἵνα τὰ 


/ / > / / ᾿ \ δὲ ἍὟ 
φαινόμενα σου εἰς πρόσωπον KOAaKEVYS* τὰ OE aopaTa 


1 ὁ ὄφις] g* (but with ἃ v. 1. ὄφις), and so prob. Antioch who substitutes the plur. 
οἱ ὄφεις ; ὄφις (om. 6) ἃ. Zahn (1 v. A. p. 597) is not altogether correct about 
the authorities. The clauses are balanced, ὁ ὄφις against ἡ περιστερά. πᾶ- 
ow] or πᾶσι g Antioch; ἅπασιν G. εἰσαεὶ] g (but om. 1, which like- 
wise omits ἐν πᾶσιν in the first clause); ad ea quae reguiruntur (els ἃ det) 2; 
tis quae digna (or gui digni) sunt A; om. GL Antioch. The omission is doubtless 
owing to the recurrence of similar letters. ws ἡ] Gg, and so prob. Antioch, 
who has the plural ὡς ai περιστεραί; ὡσεὶ vulg. 3 σοὺ εἰς πρόσωπον] G; 
in tuam faciem 1,; coram facie tua ZA; σοι εἰς πρόσωπον g Dam-Vat 2. In 
Antioch 1 it stands αὐτῶν εἰς πρόσωπον, where αὐτῶν corresponds to gov, but as the 
context is in the 3rd person s?zgzdar we should prob. read αὐτῷ corresponding to 
σοι. κολακεύῃς] GLE Dam-Vat; κολακεύεις Dam-Reg; κολακεύῃ Antioch 
(transferred to the 3rd pers.); Zucreris A; ἐπανορθώσῃς σ΄. 4 αἴτει] ἃ 
Dam-Vat, and this was prob. the reading of g*, though the existing authorities 
vary; fete ZA; petas L. Antioch has αἰτῇ, which corresponds to αἰτῇς, when 


pias μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν δεῖται ἢ Bias ἐν correct reading). By ‘the things 


τοῖς παροξυσμοῖς κιτ.λ. (Comp. 20. p. 
182 sq). 

φρόνιμος x.t.A.] A reference to the 
saying in Matt. x. 16 γίνεσθε οὖν φρό- 
νιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις Kal ἀκέραιοι ws at 
περιστεραί. Ignatius has substituted 
the singular, and inserted ἐν πᾶσιν 
and εἰσαεὶ in the respective clauses. 

2x δία τοῦτο Καλὴ 1: ° You care 
composed of two elements ; of flesh, 
that you may be able to deal with 
the world of matter, and shape it to 
God’s ends; of spirit, that you may 
be competent to receive a revelation 
of the unseen world.’ For διὰ τοῦτο 
iva comp. Magi. 9. 

ae) σου his. seems τ be, the 
right reading; and if so, it should 
probably be taken with εἰς πρόσωπον. 
This position of the pronoun, even 
when there is no special emphasis, 
is common in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. 
ΝΠ εν 7,11 On πὴ τῶν ele.) cand 
occurs, as here, even with an inter- 
posing preposition, e.g. Luke vil. 44 
εἰσῆλθόν σου εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, John ix. 15 
ἐπέθηκέν μου ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς (the 


which appear before thy face’ is 
meant ‘the visible and material 
world.’ Pearson wrongly interprets 
τὰ φαινόμενά σου ‘corpus tuum.’ 

κολακεύῃς}] ‘mayest humour’; a 
characteristic word of Ignatius, Rowe. 
4 κολακεύσατε Ta θηρία, 20. 5 ἃ καὶ κο- 
λακεύσω, and (as I have restored the 
Greek) 26. 6 μηδὲ ὕλῃ Kodakevonre. 
The word is used here in a good 
sense, as in Clem. Hom. xii. 25 ὑπ᾽ 
ἐλέου κολακευθεῖσα ἐπέπειστο εὐεργέτις 
γενέσθαι κ-ιτ.λ., xiii. 16 ἡ σώφρων τὸν 
ἄνδρα ἐνδιαθέτως φιλεῖ...κολακεύει, ἀ- 
ρέσκει (comp. Afost. Const. 1. 2 τῇ 
ἰδίᾳ γυναικὶ μόνον βουλόμενος ἀρέσκειν 
καὶ ταύτην κολακεύειν ἐντίμως, Which 
can hardly be independent of this 
passage), xili. 17 ἄκουσαν αὐτὴν πρὸς 
τὸν σωφρονίζοντα ἀεὶ εἰσέρχεσθαι λόγον 
ἀνάγκασον, κολάκευσον. The advice 
here is not very different from 5. 
Paul’s maxim of ‘ becoming all things 
to all men.” The things of this 
world are to be ‘coaxed’ into con- 
formity with the will of God. 

4. αἴτει] So we should probably 


π] TO POLYCARP. 


399 


a] e/ θῃ- .« ὃ \ 7 \ A 
αἰτει LYa σοι φανερω n° lva μήῆήδενος λείιπή, καὶ παντος 


7 / e \ ~~ e 
5 χαρίσματος περισσευῆς. O καιρος ἀπαιτεῖ σε. ὡς κυβερ- 


~ ἈΠ 7 \ e / / > 4 a 
VNTAL QVEMLOUS καὶ WS χειμαζόμενος λιμένα, εἰς τὸ Θεοῦ 


transferred from the third person to the second. See the lower note. pave- 
pwn] G Dam-Vat; φανερωθείη g; dub. Antioch. ἵνα sec.] g Antioch 
Dam-Vat; ὅπως G. The change seems to have been made to avoid the repe- 
tition of ἵνα ; comp. the note on Rom. 3. μηδενὸς] GLZA Antioch 
Dam-Vat; μηδέν σοι g. 5 ὁ καιρὸς ἀπαιτεῖ σε] GL, and so Antioch 
(transferred to the 3rd pers.; see the next note); add. εὔχεσθαι g3 tempus poscit 
(or fosce) X*; pete tu tibt in tempore A. ws κυβερνῆται ἀνέμους] GL; sicut 
sapiens gubernator ventum A; ut gubernator navem Σ. The sentence is para- 
phrased in g*, ὥσπερ yap κυβερνήτῃ ἄνεμος συμβάλλεται καὶ ὡς νηΐ χειμαζομένῃ 
λιμένες εὔθετοι εἰς σωτηρίαν, οὕτω καὶ σοὶ τὸ ἐπιτυχεῖν θεοῦ, which points to the 
same reading as GL. The paraphrase of Antioch is very different, ὁ καιρὸς γὰρ 
ἀπαιτεῖ αὐτόν, ws κυβερνήτην πρὸς τοὺς ἀνέμους Kal τὰς τρικυμίας καὶ ζάλας τῶν 
πνευμάτων τῆς πορνείας στῆναι γενναίως καὶ ὁδηγεῖν τοὺς χειμαζομένους ἐπὶ τὸν λιμένα 


τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ θεοῦ. 


read, as the evidence suggests. The 
form of the sentence is suddenly 
changed. Otherwise we should ex- 
pect ra δὲ ἀόρατα αἰτοῦντί σοι φανερω- 
θῆ, or words to that effect. For this 
sudden transition to an imperative 
in the antithetical clause comp. 
Magn. 11 πεπληροφόρησθε, Trall. 2 
ὑποτάσσεσθε, Suyrn. 4 προσεύχεσθε. 
In all these examples scribes have 
shown a leaning towards a more ob- 
vious mode of expression. See the 
vv. ll. in the several passages. 

gavepo67| The other reading φα- 
vepwbein would perhaps seem more 
apt here, as expressing greater diffi- 
dence; but in the N.T. at all events 
final particles like iva are never found 
with the optative; comp. Winer § xli. 
Ῥ. 360. 

μηδενὸς λείπῃ κιτ.λ.] James i. 4 sq 
ἐν μηδενὶ Aeuropevor’ εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν 
λείπεται σοφίας, αἰτείτω κιτ.λ., I Cor. 
i. 7 ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ 
χαρίσματι. 

5. ὁ καιρὸς «.t.A.] Hippol. de 
Antichr. 5 (p. 4 Lagarde) ἐπειδὴ και- 


pos λοιπὸν ἀπαιτεῖ x«.T.X., where La- 


See the lower note. 


garde refers to Herodian i.. 1. 5 
μερισθεῖσα ἐς πλείους δυναστείας ἢ 6 
χρόνος ἀπήτει. Cureton here quotes 
Period. Ioann. in Birch’s Auctar. 
Cod. Apocr. p. 265 καὶ yap ὁ καιρὸς 
ἀπαιτεῖ τοῦ ταῦτα γενέσθαι. 

ὡς κυβερνῆται κιτιλ.] There was 
perhaps some early corruption in 
the text here. The Syriac ut gu- 
bernator navem hardly makes sense, 
for we should naturally expect wz 
gubernatorem navis. On the other 
hand, the Greek text ὡς κυβερνῆται 
ἀνέμους, making the crisis the cap- 
tain and Polycarp the breeze, is cer- 
tainly not what we should expect. 
I can only conjecture that the ori- 
ginal reading was os κυβερνήτην ναῦς 
καὶ ὡς ἀνέμοις χειμαζόμενος λιμένα. 
The variations at all events sug- 
gest the existence of both words, 
ναῦς and ἄνεμος, in the original text 
in some form or other. When so 
read, the metaphor is _ intelligible. 
‘The ship of the Church is tossed to 
and fro on the ocean of the world. 
It is a critical moment, a tempes- 
tuous season. You must be both its 


22—2 


340 


ἐπιτυχεῖν. 


\ \ ΝᾺ Ae \ \ 7 
και Con αἰώνιος, περὶ ἧς καὶ OU πεπεισαι. 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11 


νῆφε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἀθλητής: TO θέμα ἀφθαρσία 


\ / 
KATA σαντα 


3 > A \ \ / Ae ’ 
σου ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ δεσμὰ μου a ἠἡγαπησας. 


1 τὸ θέμα] GL; οὗ θέλημα g3 quicquid promissum est nobis Σ; quoniam quod- 


cunque promisit nobis A. The paraphrase of ZA points to θέμα. 


ἀφθαρσία 


καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος] Gg; incorruptio vita aeterna (om. καὶ) L; vita quae in aeternum 


sine corruptione X; vita saeculorum quae non transit A. 
5 στῆθι] Gg; στῆκε Dam-Rup 8 Anton το; al. 


GL*g; aliquid S,ZA. 


helmsman and its haven; must 
guide its course and afford it a 
shelter. So will it arrive at God, its 
destined goal.’ 

This is the earliest example of a 
simile which afterwards was used 
largely by Christian writers. The 
comparison of the Church to a ship 
is drawn out at great length in Clem. 
Hom. Ep. Clem. 13 sq δυνήσεσθε εἰς 
τὸν τῆς ἀναπαύσεως ἐνεχθῆναι λιμένα, 
ἔνθα μεγάλου βασιλέως ἐστὶν εἰρηνικὴ 
πόλις. ἔοικε γὰρ ὅλον τὸ πρᾶγμα τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας νηΐ μεγάλῃ διὰ σφοδροῦ χει- 
μῶνος ἄνδρας φερούσῃ κ-ιτ.λ., where the 
writer dwells chiefly on the personnel 
of the vessel, the owner being God, 
the captain Christ, the mate the 
bishop, the sailors the presbyters, 
etc. It is elaborated also by Hip- 
polytus de Antichr. 59 (p. 30 La- 
garde) θάλασσα δέ ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ 
ἡ ἐκκλησία ὡς ναῦς ἐν πελάγει χειμάζε- 
ται μὲν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀπόλλυται, ἔχει γὰρ μεθ᾽ 
ἑαυτῆς τὸν ἔμπειρον κυβερνήτην Χριστὸν 
κατιλ., Where this father dwells espe- 
cially on the furuzture of the ship, 
the mast being the Cross, the two 
rudders the two covenants, the un- 
dergirding ropes the love of Christ, 
with much more to the same effect. 
The ship is one of the ornaments 
which Clement of Alexandria allows 
a Christian to wear, doubtless as 
representing the Church; Paed. iii. 
II (p. 289) ναῦς οὐριοδρομοῦσα (for so 
it should be read). On the use of 


4 ἀξιόπιστοι] 


this particular symbol as an orna- 
ment, see Smith and Cheetham’s 
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 
s. v. Gems, I. p. 715. In the AZosz. 
Const, ii. 57 we have probably the 
earliest instance of the application 
of this metaphor to the material 
building, ὅταν συναθροίζῃς τὴν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν, ὡς ἂν κυβερνήτης νηὸς 
peyaAns...kal πρῶτον μὲν ὁ οἶκος... 
ἔοικε νηΐ, after which the writer de- 
scribes the functions of the different 
officials in reference to the building, 
having regard to this simile. 

This simile was used of the State 
by classical writers long before it 
was applied by Christians to the 
Church. It is found as early as 
Alczeus Fragm. 28 (Bergk), a pas- 
sage which has been imitated in the 
familiar ode of Horace Carm. i. 14. 
In Plato Resp. vi. p. 488 it appears at 
some length (comp. Podzt. p. 302), as 
also in Polyb. vi. 44, in both which 
passages it is applied to mutiny and 
disorder in the crew. For other 
examples see Orelli’s Excursus on 
Horace lc. 

I. νῆφε] ‘be temperate; as an 
athlete training for the contest: 
comp. I Cor. ix. 25 πᾶς δὲ ὁ ayou- 
ζόμενος πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται" ἐκεῖνοι μὲν 
οὖν ἵνα φθαρτὸν στέφανον λάβωσιν 
καλὰ. Comp. Tertull. adi Waring 
‘athletae...continentur a luxuria, a 
cibis laetioribus, a potu jocundiore 
etc.,’ Epict. Déss, ili. 15. 2 sq (comp, 


ut] 


IIL. 


~~ δ J 
5 σκαλοῦυντες MH TE καταπλησσετωσαν. 


Antioch 8. Add. δὲ gS,2A; 


TO POLYCARP, 


341 


Οἱ δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροδιδα- 


στῆθι ἑδραῖος, 


txt GL [Dam-Rup] [Anton]; al. [Antioch]. 


édpatos] GLg, and so Antioch (substituting édpato. to conform to other changes 
which he has made); édpalws Dam-Reg; 772 veritate S,S4ZA (which represents 


ἑδραῖος or édpalws) ; 


Ench. 29) θέλω ᾿Ολύμπια νικῆσαι... 
δεῖ σε εὐτακτεῖν, ἀναγκοφαγεῖν, ἀπέ- 
χεσθαι πεμμάτων... «μὴ ψυχρὸν πίνειν, 
μὴ οἶνον, or ἔτυχεν κιτ.λ., Plut. Mor. 
59 Ε ὥσπερ ἀθλητὴν ΕΞ ἐῶν 
μεθύειν καὶ ἀκολασταίνειν, Horace Ars 
Poet. 412 sq. This is probably the 
idea also in the parallel passage, 
2 Tim. iv. 5 ov δὲ νῆφε ἐν πᾶσιν, Ka- 
κοπάθησον, as the direct reference to 
the ἀγὼν and δρόμος in ver. 7 seems 
to show. 

70 μα ‘the prize’; see e.g 
C. δ G. 2758, 2759, 2954, 3082, 3493 
(at Aphrodisias, Ephesus, Troas, 
and Thyatira), and esp. Orac. S70. ii. 
45 Sq ἁγνὸς yap Χριστὸς τούτοις τὰ 
δίκαια βραβεύσει, καὶ δοκίμους στέψει, 
αὐτὰρ θέμα μάρτυσι δώσει κιτιλ. The 
θέμα was a prize of money, as dis- 
tinguished from the στέφανος. Con- 
tests were of two kinds, either στε- 
φανῖται Or apyvpira (Athen. xiii. p. 
584 C); for which latter word θεμα- 
Tikol Or θεματῖται WaS a synonyme 
(Pollux iii, 153). Two Smyrnzan 
inscriptions make mention of θεμα- 
τικοὶ ἀγῶνες, C. 7. G. 3208, 3209. 

3. ἀντίψυχον x.t.r.] “7 am thy 
devoted friend, 7 and my bonds which 
etc’; comp. Smyrn. 10. For apti- 
ψυχον see the note on Zphes. 21. 

ἠγάπησας} ‘didst welcome, caress, 
Jondle’; see Smyrn. 9 ἀπόντα pe καὶ 
παρόντα ἠἡἠγαπήσατε. The word seems 
originally to have referred to the 
outward demonstrations of affection. 
In Hom. Od. xxili. 214 it is used of 
welcoming a new comer: in Eurip. 
Hel. 937 πρόσω σφ᾽ ἀπόντα δακρύοις 


om. Dam-Rup Anton. 


ἂν ἠγάπων, Suppl. 764 φαίης ἂν εἰ 
παρῆσθ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἠγάπα νεκρούς, of the last 
offices paid to the dead. This origi- 
nal sense appears still more strongly 
in ἀγαπάζω. The application of the 
term to the zxward feeling of love is 
a later development ; and the earlier 
meaning still appears occasionally. 
On the other hand I do not know of 
any instance where it has the very 
precise sense of φιλεῖν ‘to kiss,’ as 
Bunsen and Zahn (ὦ v. A. p. 415) 
would take it here; though it is 
quite possible that the ἀγάπησις in 
this instance might take this parti- 
cular form, as e.g. in Tert. ad Ux. il. 
4 ‘ad osculanda vincula martyris’ 
(quoted by Zahn). 

III. ‘Be not dismayed by false 
teachers. Stand firm as an anvil. 
A true athlete will suffer blows that 
he may win the victory. We must 
endure all things for God’s sake. 
Grow in diligence. Discern the sea- 
sons. Await the eternal, invisible, 
intangible, impassible One, who was 
seen and handled and suffered for 
our sakes,’ 

4. ἀξιόπιστοι] ‘plausible’: comp. 
Trall. 6 καταξιοπιστευόμενοι (with the 
note).. For the bad sense of a&uw- 
πιστος see the note on Phz/ad. 2 

ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες] Comp. 1 Tim. 
i. 3, VI. 3. So ἐἑτεροδιδάσκαλος, He- 
gesipp. [5] mm Euseb. 77. 2. i 55 
See the notes on κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. 10, and on ἑτεροδοξία 
Magn. 8. 

5. “στῆθι ἑδραῖὸς ΚΤ} I Cor. 
vil. 37 ὃς δὲ ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ 


342 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[111 


e of / / : \ ἰθ “- \ δέ 
ὡς ἄκμων τυπτόμενος. μεγάλου ἐστὶν ἀθλητοῦ [το] δε- 


ρεσθαι καὶ νικᾶν. 


/ ς > a / \ 3 \ ε ΄ ε ,ὔ 
μένειν nas δεῖ, (νὰ Καὶ αὐΤὸος nMas υπομεινήῆ. 


/ Nes oo μ ε 
μάλιστα δὲ ἕνεκεν Θεοῦ παντα ὑπο- 


/ 
σλεον 


1 ἄκμων] GLg Antioch Dam-Reg Dam-Rup Anton ; vr fortis (sands) 5:54Ά ; 


athletes (Δ ΤΙ) Σ. 


μεγάλου] GLg (but add. evzm 1) Antioch Dam-Reg 
Dam-Rup Anton; add. exim S,SqZA (but S,A om. μεγάλου). 


3 4 
εστιν 


ἀθλητοῦ] Gg; ἀθλητοῦ ἐστιν (or ἐστι) Antioch Dam-Reg Dam-Rup Anton. τὸ] 


G; om. g Antioch Dam-Reg Dam-Rup Anton. 


2 δὲ] GLS,4g Antioch 


Dam-Reg Dam-Rup Anton; om. ZA (Petermann’s transl. is misleading). 


ἑδραῖος. Comp. ELphes. το πρὸς τὴν 
πλάνην αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει, 
of these same false teachers. 

I. ὡς ἄκμων x.t.r.] “ας an anvil 
struck with the hammer’; comp. 
Job ΧΙ. 15 ἔστηκε δὲ ὥσπερ ἄκμων 
ἀνήλατος. This passage of Ignatius 
is plainly in the mind of Ephraem 
Syrus Paraen. de Pat. (Op. Graec. 
Il. p. 367) γενώμεθα ὡς ἄκμονες 
τυπτόμενοι Kal μὴ ἐνδίδοντες...δερ ό- 
μενοι νικήσωμεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον διὰ 
τῆς ὑπομονῆ ς᾽ καὶ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν 
οὐ πάντα ὑπήνεγκε διὰ τὴν ἡμῶν 
σωτηρίαν. For the image comp. 
fEsch. Pers. 51 λόγχης ἄκμονες (quoted 
by Jacobson), Aristophon 1 (fragm. 
Com. 111. Ὁ. 357, Meineke) Καπα- 
νεύς, ὑπομένειν πληγὰς ἄκμων, Callim. 
Hymn. Dian. 146 τοῖος γὰρ ἀεὶ Τι- 
ρύνθιος ἄκμων ἕστηκε πρὸ πυλέων, 
Shakespeare Corzol. iv. 5 ‘Here | 
clip the anvil of my sword.’ 

δέρεσθαι κιτ.λ.)}] ‘to be bruised 
and conguer’; comp. Epict. ili. 10 
7 οἷον εἴ tis πληγὰς λαβὼν aro- 
σταίη τοῦ παγκρατιάζειν ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν 
ἔξεστι καταλῦσαι καὶ μὴ δαίρεσθαι 
(v. 1. δέρεσθαι), ἐνθάδε δ᾽ κιτ.λ. The 
word δέρειν ‘to flay’ was originally 
a vulgar expression in this sense; 
but in the later language the vul- 
garity had worn off, and it came to 
signify merely ‘to beat, bruise.’ For 
the application to athletes see e.g. 
1 Cor. ix. 26, Timocles /ragm. Com. 
Ill. p. 610 ἑαυτοὺς ἀντὶ κωρύκων δέρειν 


παρέχοντες ἀθληταῖσιν (where δέρειν 
is Porson’s conj. for λέγειν). For the 
idea see Seneca de Provid. 2 ‘ Ath- 
letas videmus...caedi se vexarique 
patiuntur...marcet sine adversario 
virtus: tunc apparet quanta sit 
quantumque polleat, cum quid pos- 
sit patientia ostendit, de [ra ii. 14 
‘Athletae quoque...ictus doloresque 
patiuntur, ut vires caedentis exhau- 
riant etc., Afzszt. 13 ‘Non potest 
athleta magnos spiritus ad certamen 
adferre, qui numquam suggillatus 
est: 116 qui sanguinem suum vidit, 
cujus dentes crepuere sub pugno, 
ille qui supplantatus adversarium 
toto tulit corpore nec projecit ani- 
mum projectus, qui quotiens cecidit 
contumacior resurrexit, cum magna 
spe descendit ad pugnam,’ 2 2254. 78 
‘Athletae quantum plagarum ore, 
quantum toto corpore excipiunt... 
nos quoque evincamus omania...virtus 
et firmitas et pax in ceterum parta, 
si semel in aliquo certamine debel- 
lata fortuna est.’ Cotelier quotes 
the Metaphrast Vit. Chrysost. 43 
(Op. I. p. 1161, Migne), where Epi- 
phanius writes to Chrysostom ἀθλητὰ 
Ἰωάννη, παίου καὶ νίκα. 

2. πάντα ὑπομένειν] For this phrase 
see the note on Smyrnz. 4; and for 
the turn of expression in this sen- 
tence, the note on Swyri. 5 μᾶλλον 
δὲ κιτιλ. 

4. τοὺς καιροὺς κιτιλὰὶ See esp. 
Matt. xvi. 3 τὰ σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν οὐ 


111] 


~ / Ces 
σπουδαῖος γίνου OU El. 


Me EOL VCE? 


343 


\ \ 7 
τοὺς καιροὺς καταμάνθανε" τὸν 


\ \ / \ » \ 
5 ὑπερ καιρὸν προσδόκα, TOV ἄχρονον, τον ἀόρατον, τὸν 


Ov ἡμᾶς ὁρατόν, τὸν ἀψηλάφητον, τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν Ov 


ἕνεκεν Θεοῦ] Gg Dam-Rup Anton; ἕνεκε Θεοῦ Dam-Reg; θεοῦ ἕνεκεν Antioch. 
ὑπομένειν ἡμᾶς δεῖ] GLe; ἡμᾶς ὑπομένειν δεῖ Dam-Rup Anton; δεῖ ἡμᾶς ὑπομένειν 


Dam-Reg; al. Antioch. 


ὑπερκαιρὸν G3; ὑπέρχρονον Antioch; al. g. 


Syr 2: 


3 ἵνα.. ὑπομείνῃ] al. Sy. 


5 ὑπὲρ καιρὸν] 


6 ἀψηλάφητον] ΟἸ,ΣΔ Sev- 


add. 6” ἡμᾶς δὲ ψηλαφηθέντα [Antioch]; add. δι’ ἡμᾶς δὲ ἁπτὸν καὶ 


ψηλαφητὸν ἐν σώματι [5]; see the lower note. 


δύνασθε [διακρίνειν] : comp. Luke xii. 
56. The suspicion of Mill on Rom. 
ΧΙ. I1, that Ignatius had the read- 
ing τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύοντες there, has 
not much weight, since the passages 
in the Gospels were more likely to 
have suggested the expression to him. 

Tov ὑπὲρ καιρόν] ‘who ts above 
opportunity, i.e. ‘to whom all 
seasons are alike.’ Smith’s transla- 
tion ‘omni tempore priorem’ would 
be more appropriate to ἄχρονον. It 
fails to recognise the distinction be- 
tween χρόνος and καιρός : see Trench 
N. T. Synonyms § Wii. p. 197 sq. 
The editors before Jacobson read 
it as one word ὑπέρκαιρον. If such 
a word had existed, it would mean, 
as Jacobson points out, ‘immode- 
rate’: but in the only passage ad- 
duced, Xenophon as quoted in Athen. 
Xiv. p. 613 σίτων δὲ ὑπερκαίρων, the 
text of this author himself (Ages. v. 
1) has ὑπὲρ καιρόν. 

5. ἄχρονον] ‘eternal, * transcend- 
ing the limits of time, as explained 
in Plut. Wor. p. 393 ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς... 
kai ἐστι κατ᾽ οὐδένα χρόνον ἀλλὰ κατὰ 
τὸν αἰῶνα τὸν ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄχρονον : 
comp. Greg. Naz. Lpist. IOI (Il. Ρ. 
96) εἴπερ μὴ ταὐτὸν...τὸ ἄχρονον τῷ 
ὑπὸ χρόνον. For the word in this 
sense comp. Iren. i. 17. 2 (where it is 
translated ‘intemporalis, as here), 
Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 1, p. 829. Oc- 
casionally it has the opposite mean- 
ing ‘instantaneous,’ and so ‘brief, 


‘ short-lived,’ e.g. Plut. Jor. p. 908 
δυστυχεῖς Kal ἀχρόνους (comp. Clem. 
Alex. Strom. viil. 9, p. 931). The 
corresponding adverb ἀχρόνως too 
has both meanings ; (1) ‘eternally,’ 
e.g. Hippol. Haer. viii. 12, Julian. 
Orat. iv. p. 156 Spanheim ; (2) ‘ 
stantaneously,’ e.g. Philo de Sacr. 
Κα V3 (i. pr 172)" 

τὸν ἀόρατον x.t.A.| See Melito 
Fragm. 13 (p. 419 Otto) ‘ Invisibilis 
videtur, neque erubescit ; incompre- 
hensibilis prehenditur, neque indig- 
natur ; incommensurabilis mensura- 
tur, neque repugnat; impassibilis 
patitur, neque ulciscitur ; immortalis 
moritur, neque respondet verbum ; 
..tunc intellexit omnis creatura 
propter hominem...invisibilem visum 
esse et incommensurabilem mensu- 
ratum esse et impassibilem passum 
esse et immortalem mortuum esse 
etc.,’ Iren. iii. 16. 6 ‘hominem ergo 
in semetipsum recapitulans est in- 
visibilis visibilis factus, et incompre- 
hensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et 
inpassibilis passibilis εἴς. ἡ Greg. Naz. 
Orat. xxxvili (I. p. 664) ὁ ἀόρατος 
ὁρᾶται; ὁ ἀναφὴς ψηλαφᾶται, ὁ ἄχρονος 
ἄρχεται, Epist. ci (Π: p. 85) παθητὸν 
σαρκί, ἀπαθῆ θεότητι, περιγραπτὸν 
σώματι, ἀπερίγραπτον πνεύματι, τὸν 
αὐτὸν ἐπίγειον καὶ οὐράνιον, ὁρώμενον 
καὶ νοούμενον, χωρητὸν καὶ ἀχώρητον, 
kA. See also the Christological 
passage, Ephes. 7. 

6. ἀψηλάφητον) The preponder- 


344 


‘THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[Π| 


ε a / \ \ 7 rd ΄σ 
ἡμάς παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον δ ἡμᾶς ὑπο- 


/ 
μειναντα. 


TV. Χῆραι μὴ ἀμελείσθωσαν: μετὰ τὸν Κύριον σὺ 


qn 7 
αὐτῶν φροντιστὴς ἔσο. 


μηδὲν ἄνευ γνώμης σου γι- 


, \ \ x} ~ / on / 
νέσθω, μηδὲ σὺ ἄνευ Θεοῦ γνώμης τι πρᾶσσε: ὅπερ 5 


I κατὰ πάντα τρόπον] GLg Sev-Syr; πάντα [Antioch]; omnia omnimodo SA 


(thus inserting another πάντα). 


GLg; propter X; def. A; see the lower note. 
5 Θεοῦ γνώμης] g3 γνώμης θεοῦ Ps-Chrysost ; 


43 τῆς γνώμης δ. 


θεοῦ γνώμης or γνώμης θεοῦ ZA; θεοῦ (om. γνώμης) GL. 


ance of authority forbids the inser- 
tion of the balancing clause δι᾿ ἡμᾶς 
δὲ ψηλαφητόν, however tempting ; 
and indeed the run of the sentence 
is against it. For τὸν ἀψηλάφητον 
stands alone before the antithesis 
τὸν ἀπαθῆ... «παθητόν, just as previously 
Tov ἄχρονον stood alone before a 
similar antithesis τὸν adparov...dparov. 

IV. ‘Bea guardian to the widow. 
Let nothing be done without thee, 
and do thou nothing without God. 
Let your meetings be held more 
frequently.” Address thyself to each 
singly. Despise not slaves: yet the 
slaves themselves must not be puffed 
up, nor desire to be set free at the 
common cost.’ 

3. Χῆραι] On the care taken of 
widows in the early Church see the 
note on Smyrzn. 6. 

μετὰ τὸν Κύριον] ‘after the Lord, 
who is before all ‘the Father of the 
fatherless and Judge of the widows,’ 
Psyiixvai) 5 (comp: cxlyi-)9)..’ The 


Syriac translator in writing =a 


‘metul’ for pera has consulted the 
sound rather than the sense. Other 
examples of this substitution have 
been pointed out to me in the Syriac 
versions of Aristotle (?) and Iso- 
crates in Lagarde Azal. Syr. p. 150 


LG. A74 1: 25. 


3 Xjpa] G; αἱ χῆραι g. μετὰ] 
4 γνώμης] G Ps-Chrysost 


πρᾶσσε] ἀρ; 


4. φροντιστής] ‘guardian, pro- 
tector, trustee, a semi-official term: 
comp. Diod. Sic. Exc. xxxvi ad fin. 
(II. p. 611) τῶν yap ἄλλων στρατηγῶν 
εἰωθότων διδόναι προστάτας τοῖς op- 
Φανοῖς καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐρήμοις συγγε- 
νῶν, οὗτος ἑαυτὸν τούτων ἀνέδειξε 
φροντιστήν, Clem. Hom. xii. 10 ὑπὸ 
φροντιστὰς ποιήσας pe καὶ eis Ῥώμην 
καταλείψας δωδεκαετῆ (Clement is here 
speaking of his father). It corre- 
sponds to the Latin ‘curator’; e.g. 
φρόντισμα = ‘curatio,’ Conc. Chalc. 
Can. 2 (Labb. Conc. Iv. p. 1682, ed. 
Colet.). Like curator, it may refer 
to the guardianship of orphans or 
widows, etc., as here, or to the direc- 
tion of public works, or to the 
management of finance, e.g. Boeckh 
C. Δ G. 3612 φροντιστὴν Δρούσου Kat- 
σαρος, where the officer intended 
was probably ‘curator’ (or ‘ procura- 
tor’) ‘fisci’ to this prince. 

μηδὲν κιτ.λ.] Quoted in the Hom. 
de Uno Legisl. 4, attributed to 
Chrysostom and printed in Mont- 
faucon Chrys. Of. VI. p. 410. For 
the sentiment comp. Magn. 7 with 
the note. 

6. evoraber] ‘be firm. The word 
occurs two or three times in the 
LXX ; also in Hermas Mand. v. 2, 
SEM, Μὰ ἢ ΖΦ Οὐ ΕΣ ἘΠῚ: 


~ ΄ ἘΣ 
Clem. 15 εὐσταθείτωσαν οὖν οἱ ἐπι- 


1v] TO POLYCARP. 


345 


\ 7, , , 
οὐδὲ πράσσεις. εὐσταθει. πυκνότερον συναγωγαὶ γι- 


νέσθωσαν. 


> Tenn! , 7 
ἐξ ὀνόματος πάντας ζήτει. 


᾿ς / 
δούλους Kal 


δούλας μὴ ὑπερηφανει: ἀλλὰ μηδὲ αὐτοὶ φυσιούσθωσαν, 


ἀλλ᾽ εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πλέον δουλευέτωσαν, ἵνα κρείτ- 


πρᾶττε Ps-Chrysost. 
εὐσταθής G; εἰσταθές (apparently) L*. 


6 mpacces] (ἃ; πράττεις g. 


εὐστάθει] gdA; 


8 ὑπερηφάνει] ὑπεριφάνει G. φυσι- 


οὐσθωσαν] GLg; contemnant ZA. These last two authorities use the same word 
here by which they have rendered ὑπερηφάνει above; but A alters the whole 


meaning of the sentence. 
ws ZA, 
Cotelier). 


Barat ἑδραῖο. The substantive ev- 
στάθεια occurs Clem. Rom. 61, 65 
(59). It is naturally a favourite 
Stoic word ; e.g. in M. Aurel. v. τὸ 
ἐπιδεικνύμενος μεγαλοφροσύνην εὐστα- 
θεῖ, vi. 10 σέβω καὶ εὐσταθῶ, and in 
Epictetus frequently, e.g. ili. 9. 17 
τίνος οὖν ἔχω χρείαν ;...τοῦ εὐσταθεῖν, 
τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχειν τὴν διάνοιαν; τοῦ 
μὴ ταράσσεσθαι. Yet it is said to 
have been especially affected, if 
not invented, by Epicurus and the 
Epicureans: Cleomedes 7heor. Cycl. 
li. 90, Schol. Venet. on Hom. //. v. 2, 
quoted by Lobeck Phryn. p. 283, 
where several examples of this word, 
which with its congeners was ab- 
horrent to purists, are collected from 
later classical writers. It was com- 
mon ground for the ἀταραξία of the 
Epicurean, the ἀπάθεια of the Stoic, 
and the εἰρήνη of the Christian. 

πυκνότερον κιτ.λ.] See for this in- 
junction the note on 2 2265. 13, where 
the meaning of πυκνότερον is dis- 
cussed. See also Magn. 4 with the 
note. 

συναγωγαί] ‘ gatherings, meetings.’ 
The word is applied to Church ga- 
therings among Jewish Christians, 
who would naturally adopt the name 
of the ‘synagogue,’ in James ii. 2; 
see Trench V.7. Sym. § 1, p.1 sq. 


9 ἀλλ GLg Dam-Rup 4 Anton 6; ἀλλ᾽ 
πλέον] G Anton; πλεῖον Dam-Rup; πλείονα g* Nicon (see 


See, also, Zest, 222... Pair... Ben ai 
ev συναγωγαῖς ἐθνῶν (the prophecy 
relating to S. Paul). In Ignatius 
however it is not employed as a 
technical term, but resembles the 
use of ἐπισυναγωγή in Heb. x. 25 μὴ 
ἐγκαταλείποντες THY ἐπισυναγωγὴν €- 
auTov «.T.A.; comp. Hermas Mand. 
xi ὅταν ἔλθη 6 ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἔχων τὸ 
πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν 
δικαίων (and .several times in the 
context), Theoph. ad Aufol. 11. 14 
δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς TO κόσμῳ κυμαινομένῳ 
«τὰς συναγωγάς, λεγομένας δὲ ἐκκλη- 
σίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς καθάπερ λιμέσιν K.T.A. 

7. ἐξ dvopatos] Like the Athe- 
nian general at Syracuse, Thuc. vii. 
69 ἕνα ἕκαστον ἀνεκάλει πατρόθεν τε 
ἐπονομάζων καὶ αὐτοὺς ὀνομαστὶ K.T.A. 
See the note on ἐξ ὀνόματος, Ephes. 
20. 

9. πλέον dovdevéraoav] A remi- 
niscence of 1 Tim. vi 2 μὴ καταφρονεί- 
τωσαν ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον 
δουλευέτωσαν: see also I Cor. vii. 21 
ei καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, 
μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, according to one, 
though not the most probable, in- 
terpretation (see Epzstles to Colos- 
stans etc. p. 324 sq). See also 
Ephes. 6 sq, Col. 111. 22 sq. 

κρείττονος ἐλευθερίας] 1 Cor. vil. 22 
ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν. 


346 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [iv 


᾽ / > \ ~ / \ > / ᾽ \ 
TOVOS ἐλευθερίας avo Θεοῦ TUX WOOLY’ μη ερατωσᾶν ΑἿΤΓΟ 


τοῦ κοινοῦ ἐλευθεροῦσθαι, ἵνα μὴ δοῦλοι εὑρεθῶσιν ἐπι- 
βουσυσο μ ρ 


θυμίας. 


1 ἀπὸ Θεοῦ réxwow] GL Anton; ὑπὸ θεοῦ τύχωσιν Dam-Rup; τύχωσιν ἀπὸ 


θεοῦ σ; τύχωσι παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ Nicon. 
desiderent Τ,:;: ament DA. 
GLZAg*. 


I. ἀπὸ tov κοινοῦ] ‘from the 
common fund, the public money. 
See Afost. Const. iv. 9, where it is 
said of the disposal of the alms of 
the Church, ἀθροιζόμενα χρήματα δια- 
τάσσετε εἰς ἀγορασμοὺς ἁγίων, ῥυόμενοι 
δούλους κιτιλ. As the money avail- 
able for this purpose was limited, 
it was necessary to select cases of 
special hardship; and a general 
anxiety of slaves to obtain their 
emancipation in this way was to be 
deprecated. For this sense of τὸ 
κοινὸν see e.g. Herod. vii. 144, 
Mincyd vim6"Polyb. x17; 2, ‘Oris: 
Comm, in Matt. xv (111. p. 674) ; and 
even without the article, so that 
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ is ‘from the common 
Stock, Xen. “Azad. iv) 7227, Vv. Y. 12, 
Arist. “οί, 11. 9. Others would take 
τὸ κοινὸν here to be ‘the community,’ 
and Lucian Peregr. 13 τῶν Χριστιανῶν 
στελλόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ is quoted 
in support of this (see Zahn 17. v. A. 
Pp. 333). But with ἐλευθεροῦσθαι we 
should certainly expect ὑπὸ τοῦ κοι- 
νοῦ, not ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ, in this sense. 
Other interpretations, which have 
been proposed, do not deserve dis- 
cussion. 

V. ‘Shun the evil arts of false 
teachers, and warn thy flock against 
them. Admonish wives to be faith- 
ful to their husbands, and husbands 
to cherish their wives. Let not those 
who remain in single chastity parade 
their virtue. Let those who marry 
seek the approval of the bishop for 


For the v. 1. aipérwoav in g see the Appx. 
For the reading μὴ ποιοῦ in some texts of g see Appx. 


ἐράτωσαν] Gg* Dam-Rup Anton; 

ρ Ξ Ρ 

5 ποιοῦ] 
6 τὸν 


their union. Let all things be done 
for the honour of God.’ 

4. Tas xaxotexvias] The meaning 
here is not obvious in itself, but is 
shown by the parallel passage, PAz/ad. 
6 φεύγετε οὖν τὰς κακοτεχνίας, where 
it is a warning against the schis- 
matical designs of the false teachers. 
See Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. ὃ (p. 340) 
ois φίλη ἡ στωμύλος αὕτη κακοτεχνία, 
εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἶεν εἴτε καὶ βάρβαροι 
σοφισταί (with reference to the 
heresy condemned in 1 Tim. vi. 
3 sq), Theodt. H. F. i. 1 τῆς τούτου 
[rod διαβόλου] κακοτεχνίας ὑπουργὸς 
ἀνεφάνη (speaking of Simon Magus). 
So too κακοτέχνως, Hippol. Haer. vi. 
9, also of Simon Magus. It was 
used especially of ‘magical arts,’ 
and of these most commonly as con- 
nected with heretical teaching ; e.g. 
Euseb. Vzt. Const. iii. 66, quoted by 
Jacobson. There is something to 
be said for giving it this very definite 
sense here, as is done e.g. by Hil- 
genfeld A. V. p. 206. Witchcraft, 
sorcery, and the like (γοητεία, φαρ- 
pakeia), were highly attractive in 
these regions; and against them 
Christian teachers waged internecine 
war from the first (see Acts xix. 19, 
and the note on Gal. v. 20); comp. 
Ephes. 19 ἐλύετο πᾶσα μαγεία. Thus 
κακοτεχνίαι would correspond with 
the Latin ‘ maleficia,’ e.g. Tac. Azz. 
ii. 69 ‘carmina et devotiones...alia- 
que maleficia’; see also Heumann 
Hlandlex. des Rom, Rechis s.v. But 


) 


ν] 


TO POLYCARP. 


347 


\ ΄ a 
V. Tas κακοτεχνίας φεῦγε, μᾶλλον δὲ περὲ Tov- 


ς 7 onl 
τῶν ομιλίαν ποιου. 


ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς μου προσλάλει 


᾽ ΄σ΄ s / \ ~~ / > ~ \ 
ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Κύριον καὶ Tots συμβίοις ἀρκεῖσθαι σαρκὶ 


Κύριον] GLAg; ἐπ domino nostro Σ. The reading of Σ᾽ is a corruption 


for \. yal, as A shows; the corruption would be suggested by Col. iii. 


18, 20. 


it may be doubted whether these 
arts were practised by the heretics 
in question, and the parallel passage 
(Philad. 6) must fix the interpreta- 
tion. Cureton (C. Z p. 172) thinks 
that it means ‘nothing more than 
an improper means of gaining a 
livelihood’ (comp. Strabo vii. p. 301 
for the general sense of the word), 
including however magical arts a- 
mong these; and so Zahn (/. v. A. 
Ῥ. 321). The emendation of Bunsen, 
Tas κακοτέχνους ‘coquettish women,’ 
has met with no favour. In a list 
of practical exhortations we need 
not look for any close connexion 
with the preceding or following 
topics. 

μᾶλλον δὲ x«.7.A.] This qualifies the 
previous prohibition, ‘Shun them 
indeed, but do not forget to warn 


your hearers against them’; where 


τούτων refers to the foregoing κακο- 
Texvias, and not (as it is taken by 
Pearson and some others) to what 
follows. For μᾶλλον δὲ comp. I Cor. 
xiv. I, 5. The fidelity with which 
Polycarp observed this injunction in 
after-life appears from the account 
of him left by his scholar Irenzeus, 
111. 3. 4 πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων 
αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, μίαν καὶ μόνην ταύτην ἀλή- 
θειαν κηρύξας ὑπὸ [ἀπὸ 3] τῶν ἀποστό- 
λων παρειληφέναι. The reading μὴ 
ποιοῦ, as the critical note shows, has 
no authority and therefore need not 
be seriously considered, though it 


has found favour with some modern 
critics. 

5. ὁμιλίαν ποιοῦ] ‘hold discourse, 
as Justin Dzal. 85 (p. 312) τὸν ἀπὸ 
τῶν γραφῶν τῶν προφητικῶν ὁμιλίας 
ποιούμενον, 20, 28 (p. 245) ἀπό τε 
τῶν γραφῶν καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων τάς τε 
ἀποδείξεις καὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας ποιοῦμαι. 
For this use of ὁμιλία, ‘a conver- 
sation,’ ‘discourse,’ and so even 
a ‘sermon, ‘homily, comp. also 
Justin Dza/. 68 (p. 294), Clem. Hom. 
Epm€lem: 2; 14; 18,19; oar, 
Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 1, Clem. Alex. 
Stroms iw. 13)(p. 603).. In Prov. νηΐ 
21 πολλῇ ὁμιλίᾳ it is a translation of 
np> ‘instruction.’ 

6. τοῖς συμβίοις] The word σύμ- 
βιος is common for a husband or 
a wife in this age and even earlier ; 
comp. Diod. Sic. iv. 46, Philo de 
Congr. Erud. Gr. 12 (1: p. 527), Test. 
xit Patr. Jud. 23, Clem. Hom. xiii. 
δ᾽ xiv. 6,017, xx, τὸ, Herhase yam 
ii. 2. In the inscriptions during the 
Roman period it is especially fre- 
quent. In those of Smyrna alone, 
to which place this letter was written, 
I find it several times, C. Z G. 
3265, 3270, 3318, 3320, 3347, 3349; 
3361, 3364, 3380; and in those at 
Troas, from which it was written, 
though very few in number, it oc- 
curs twice, 3586, 3588 b. I mention 
these facts, because Donaldson 
(Apostolic Fathers p. 388) has al- 
leged its use as an argument against 
the genuineness of the Greek text of 


348 


\ 7 
καὶ σνευματι. 


THE EPISTLE ‘OF IGNATIUS [v 


¢ \ ΄σ- 3 ~ 7 
ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου παραγ- 


3 3 2 a me EES ΄σ \ / 
γελλε ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀγαπᾶν Tas συμβίους, 


c c , Α > ͵ 
ὡς ὁ Κύριος THN EKKAHCIAN. 


2 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL*g; preef. domint nostri DA. 
4 Ths σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου] GLZA Antioch 3 


GLg; ecclestam suam ZA. 


Dam-Rup Anton 1; τοῦ κυρίου τῆς σαρκὸς G. 


af / 2 e 
ει τις δυναται εν αγ- 
3 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν 


ἐν ἀκαυχησίᾳ] GZAg 


[Antioch] Dam-Rup Anton; add. domini 1, (the word has probably crept in 


from the preceding clause). 


Hermas, and an evidence of a later 
date. To the Christians it would 
perhaps be an especially welcome 
term, because it would cover those 
unions of slaves which are called 
contubernia, and which the Christian 
Church regarded as not less sacred 
and inviolable than wedlock among 
the free-born, though the Roman 
law did not recognise such a thing 
as marriage among slaves; comp. 
esp. Afost. Const. vill. 31 (speaking 
of slaves) εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔχει γυναῖκα ἢ ἡ 
γυνὴ ἄνδρα, διδασκέσθωσαν ἀρκεῖσθαι 
ἑαυτοῖς. On this subject see Allard 
Les Esclaves Chrétiens p. 152 sq, 
p- 274 sq, and Colossians p. 321. 
The passage from the Afost. Const. 
just quoted seems to show that 
Ignatius had especially in view such 
cases, where the union being ignored 
by the law naturally led to great 
irregularities. 

ἀρκεῖσθαι] ‘to be content.’ Besides 
Apost. Const. viii. 31 (see last note) 
comp. Alexander in Joseph. 2, 7. ii. 
7. 4 σὺ δὲ οὐκ ἀρκεσθεῖσα τούτῳ [sc. 
τῷ γάμῳ], Epiphan. “4.07. 104 (p. 
107) μὴ ἀρκουμένης τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἀνδρά- 
σιν, quoted by Pearson. The Anglo- 
Latin translator has stumbled, and 
translates it ‘sufficere,’ as if ἀρκεῖν. 

3. ὡς ὁ Κύριος κιτ.λ.] A reminis- 
cence of Ephes. ν. 29, where however 
the correct reading 15 καθὼς καὶ 6 
Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 

εἴ τις δύναται κ-τ.λ.] Comp. Clem. 


5. καὶ ἐὰν] GLAg Dam-Rup Anton; ἐὰν 


Rom. 38 ὁ ἁγνὸς ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἤτω καὶ 
μὴ ἀλαζονεύεσθω, with the note (comp. 
tb. § 48), Minuc. Felix 31 ‘Casto 
sermone, corpore castiore, plerique 
inviolati corporis virginitate perpetua 
fruuntur potius quam gloriantur.’ In 
this place ἁγνεία is clearly ‘virgin 
purity,’ like ayvos in Clem, Rom. 1. c.; 
though the words themselves will 
apply equally well to the chastity 
of, married: life (6:5. Tit.!ais'55 τ Bet. 
iii. 2, Clem. Rom. 1, Polyc. Phzé. 4). 
The language of S. Paul (1 Cor. vii. 1 
sq) is quite sufficient to explain the 
state of things as it appears in Igna- 
tius half a century later than the Apo- 
stle’s time. A few years afterwards 
Justin Martyr, “202. 1. 15 (p. 62), 
says πολλοί τινες καὶ πολλαὶ ἑξηκον- 
τοῦται καὶ ἑβδομηκοντοῦται, οἱ ἐκ παί- 
δων ἐμαθητεύθησαν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἄφθοροι 
διαμένουσι᾽ καὶ εὔχομαι κατὰ πᾶν γένος 
ἀνθρώπων τοιούτους δεῖξαι : see also 
Athenag. «222. 33 to the same 
effect. For the ever-increasing and 
somewhat extravagant feeling which 
prevailed in the Church during the 
second and third centuries on this 
point, see Probst Kzrchliche Disct- 
plin p. 129 sq. On the other hand 
there is no indication here of an 
‘order’ of virgins, such as we meet 
with soon after. See also.on this 
point the note on S7yrn. 13. 

4. τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου] ‘the 
flesh, the body, of the Lord’; which 
is explained by 1 Cor. vi. 15 sq οὐκ 


v] TO POLYCARP. 349 


γ᾿ / > \ ~ \ ~ / > > 
VELA μένειν εις TLUNV THS σαρκος TOU Κυρίου, εν ακΚαυ- 


5 χησίᾳ μενέτω: 


΄- ΄ / 77 
γνωσθῆ πλέον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἔφθαρται. 


(om. καὶ) 2. 


SN / ᾽ / 
ἐαν καυχήσηται, απωλετο᾽ 


\ >\ 
καὶ εαν 


΄ \ 
σρέπει δὲ 


6 γνωσθῇ] ΟΣ Dam-Rup Anton; imveniatur A (probably 


a misunderstanding of the Syriac, rather than a corruption of the Armenian, as 
Petermann supposes); wzdert velit L (where L departs from its usual literalism and 


gives a paraphrase). 
2; sine A; πλὴν g. 


οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη Χρισ- 
τοῦ ἐστίν :...δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν Θεὸν ἐν 
τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν: see [Clem. Rom. ] 
li. 14. It is true of all Christians 
that their flesh is the Lord’s, not 
their own nor another’s; but it is 
especially true of those contemplated 
here: comp. Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 16 
‘Nupsisti Christo, illi tradidisti car- 
nem tuam,’ Cypr. Z/zs¢. ΙΧ] (p. 699 
Hartel) ‘Membra Christo dicata et 
ad aeternum continentiae honorem 
pudica virtute devota’; comp. Me- 
thod. Conv. iii. 8, iv. 5, v. 4. 

5. ἐὰν γνωσθῇ κιτιλ.)] “27 1 be 
known beyond the bishop’; where the 
nominative to γνωσθῇ is ‘his purpose 
or vow of chastity,’ as implied in the 
preceding words. Just as persons 
intending to marry are to marry 
‘with the approval (γνώμης) of the 
bishop,’ so persons devoting them- 
selves to a single life are to take the 
bishop into their counsels, but no 
one else; comp. J/agn. 7 μηδὲ ὑμεῖς 
ἄνευ Tov ἐπισκόπου Kal τῶν πρεσβυ- 
τέρων μηδὲν πράσσετε, μηδὲ πειράσητε 
εὔλογόν τι φαίνεσθαι ἰδίᾳ ὑμῖν. The 
precept of Ignatius thus contrasts 
with the usage of a later age, where 
the public profession of such vows 
was an essential feature in the sys- 
tem. If πλὴν be the right reading, 
the interpretation which I have 
given seems to be necessary. For 
similar elliptical usages of πλὴν 
(where the context explains the 
meaning) comp. Thuc. iv. 54 ἐπιτρέ- 


πλέον] GL Dam-Rup Anton; extra (fraeter) 1D 325 


Wat περὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν πλὴν θανάτου, 
Herod. v. 71 ὑπεγγύους πλὴν θανάτου, 
Plato Resp. ν. p. 469 σκυλεύειν... τοὺς 
τελευτήσαντας πλὴν ὅπλων, [Arist.] de 
Plant. ii. 4 (p. 825) of S€ τύποι Οἱ 
ψυχροί, εἰ Kal οὗτοι TO ὅμοιον ποιοῦσί 
ποτε, πλὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου, Polyb. ΧΙ]. 
22. I μακρὸν ἂν εἴη λέγειν πάντα, πλὴν 
(Comp, xt, Teor 
There is no sufficient reason how- 
ever for displacing the reading πλέον 
here; comp. Magn. 10 ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι 
καλεῖται πλέον τούτου. And if πλέον 
be adopted, the passage should still 
probably be interpreted in the same 
way. The Greeks were very loose 
and elliptical in their comparative 
clauses; see the examples in Kuhner 
ul. p. 850 sq. The Oriental versions 
must either have had πλήν, or must 
have interpreted πλέον in this way. 
On the other hand several modern 
critics take it otherwise, ‘if he be 
better known than the bishop,’ ‘if 
he become more famous than the 
bishop’; but I cannot think this at 
all a natural expression in the pre- 
sent context. See the passages in 
the next note. 

6. ἔφθαρται] ‘he ts corrupted, i.e. 
‘his chastity is violated by the very 
publicity given to it,’ the word φθεί- 
pev being chosen for its special 
meaning; comp. e.g. Rev. xix. 2. 
For the sentiment comp. Tertull. de 
Virg. Vel. 3 ‘Omnis publicatio vir- 
ginis bonae stupri passio est,’ 26. 13 
‘utique primo illicitum, ut gloriae 


τελέως ὀλίγων 


350 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [Vv 


΄- ~ \ ~ i A 7 ~ 
τοῖς γαμοῦσι Kal ταῖς γαμούσαις μετὰ γνώμης τοὺ 


3 / \ e/ ε- ε7 if iS \ 
ἐπισκόπου τὴν ἕνωσιν ποιεῖσθαι, iva ὁ γάμος ἡ κατα 


Κύυ \ \ Die 19 7 
υρίιον καί μῆ Καῖ ἐπιθυμίαν. 


γινέσθω. 


VI. 


I yauovoas] g; γαμουμέναις ἃ Dam-Rup Anton. 
3 Κύριον] gzA; θεὸν ἃ Dam-Rup Anton. 
κατ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν] GLIA; κατὰ (κατ᾽) αἰσχρὰν ἐπιθυμίαν 
πάντα] GLAg; add. δὲ 2. 
GLg, Antioch 14; ὑμῖν ὁ θεός Dam-Rup 5. 
Rup; add. προσέχῃ S,AZ; see above § 1. 


Dam-Rup Anton; om. L. 
L see the Appx. 
Dam-Rup Anton. 


ἐγὼ ἀντίψυχον Dam-Rup. 
τῷ ὑποτασσομένῳ Antioch. 


libidinosum; gloria enim illicitum 
est eis quorum probatio in omni 
humiliatione constat, 26. 14 ‘ipsa 
concupiscentia non latendi non est 
pudica; patitur aliquid quod non 
virginis sit etc.,’ Cyprian de Hab. 
Virg. 9 (p. 191 sq) ‘maculis te con- 
cupiscentiae carnalis aspergis, cum 
integritatis candidata sis et pudoris,’ 
Method. Conv. xi. 1 οὐδέ ye, ὁπόταν 
οοὑὐπεραίρηται φυσιούμενος αὐτῷ δὴ 
τούτῳ τῷ δύνασθαι τῶν τῆς σαρκὸς 
ὑπεκκαυμάτων κρατεῖν, καὶ πάντας οὐδὲν 
ἡγῆται, ἁγνείαν τιμᾷ ἀτιμάζει γὰρ 
αὐτὴν ὑβρίζων ὑψηλοφροσύνῃ κ.τ.λ. 

I. τοῖς γαμοῦσι] On the sanction 
given by the Church to marriages in 
the early ages see Probst Sakra- 
mente Ὁ. 435 sq, Bingham Azz. xxii. 
Dee SANA 1 50]: 

γαμούσαις) In so reading I have 
followed the Mss of the interpolator’s 
text, whereas the MS of the genuine 
Ignatius has the more correct γα- 
μουμέναις. The familiar distinction 
(e.g. Pollux 111. 45 γῆμαι μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ 
ἀνδρὸς λέγεται, γήμασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς 
γυναικός, οὐ γαμηθῆναι) apparently 
holds universally in classical writers, 
except where some reversal of the 
natural relation is implied, as when 
the henpecked husband in Anti- 


lA 3 \ ~ 
πάντα εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ 


oe 3 / / ἘΝ \ ε \ 
Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς 5 


2 6 γάμος] GZAg 
For 


5 ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν] 
6 ὑμῖν] GLg Antioch Dam- 
ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ] GLg Antioch ; 


τῶν ὑποτασσομένων] GL[S,]=[A]g Dam-Rup; 


τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ] G; ἐπισκόπῳ (om. τῷ) g Dam- 


phanes says ἐγημάμην (see Porson on 
Eurip. Jed. 264); comp. also Clem. 
Alex. Paed. iii. 3 (p. 264). Accord- 
ingly Irenzus writes v. 9. 4 νύμφη 
γαμῆσαι οὐ δύναται, γαμηθῆναι δὲ δύ- 
vara [the passive however is for- 
bidden by Pollux 1. c.], ὅταν ἔλθῃ 
kal παραλήψηται αὐτὴν ὁ νυμφίος, 
where the Latin translator has ‘sponsa 
assumere sponsum non potest, as- 
sumi autem a sponso potest.’ This 
distinction however is not observed 
in ‘the N. T., but: the activejisqieer 
of the woman by S. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 
26, 34, 1. Tim, Va. 11,145 ene 
Mark x. 12 γαμήσῃ ἄλλον is unques- 
tionably right, though most texts 
have γαμηθῇ ἄλλῳ. This last in- 
stance betrays a tendency in later 
transcribers to return to classical 
forms; and, as in these small matters 
the Mss of the interpolator are gene- 
rally more trustworthy than that of 
Ignatius himself, I have adopted 
yapovoas. 

2. kata Κύριον] As Clem. Alex. 
Strom. 111. 12 (p. 549) ἀλλοῖος δὲ ὁ 
κατὰ τὸν Κύριον γάμος. Ignatius is 
apparently thinking of 5. Paul’s 
words 1 Cor. vii. 39 μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ. 

3. εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ! See the note 
on Lphes. Nes 


vr] TO POLYCARP. 351 


Coe > / > \ - ς σ- 9 
ὑμῖν. ἀντίψυχον ἔγω τῶν ὑποτασσομένων [TH] ἐπι: 
έ 
/ / / > > ~ 
OKOTW, πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις" MET αὐτῶν μοι τὸ 
/ / a \ ~ ~ > 
μέρος γένοιτο σχεῖν Tapa Θεῷ. συγκοπιᾶτε ἀλλήλοις, 
a / / a 
συναθλεῖτε, συντρέχετε, συμπασχετε, συγκοιμᾶσθε, 
5 7 ε a ? ΄ ε 
ο συνεγείρεσθε, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμοι καὶ πάρεδροι καὶ ὑπη- 
Rup [Antioch]. 7 mpecBurépos|] GL; πρεσβυτέροις τε καὶ Antioch; ef 
presbyteris et S;ZA; πρεσβυτερίῳ g Dam-Rup. μετ᾽ αὐτῶν] S,ZAg Antioch 
Dam-Rup; καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν GL. 8 σχεῖν] G; ἔχειν g* Antioch; capere 
L; om. S,2A Dam-Rup. For 2 see the note on Zfphes. 1 κεκτῆσθαι. παρὰ 
Θεῷ] g* (with a ν.]. παρὰ θεοῦ); apud deum S,ZA; ἐν θεῷ GL Antioch Dam- 


Rup. 


9 συναθλεῖτε] συναθλῆτε G. 


συντρέχετε] GLZAg; om. 


ΟΝ συγκοιμᾶσθε, συνεγείρεσθε] GLZAg; om. 84. 


VI. ‘Give heed to your bishop. 
I devote myself for those who are 
obedient to the officers of the Church. 
Be united one with another in doing 
and in suffering, in toil and in rest, 
as stewards of God. Strive to please 
your Captain; do not desert from 
His ranks. Your Christian graces 
are your arms. Invest your good 
deeds as savings; that you may re- 
ceive a bounty in accordance there- 
with. Be long-suffering one with 
another. Give me joy in all things.’ 

5. Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ «.t.A.] Ignatius 
here turns from Polycarp individually 
and addresses the whole Church of 
Smyrna. In the subsequent part of 
the letter, whenever he has any mes- 
sage directed specially to Polycarp, 
he mentions him by name; e.g. ὁ 7 
πρέπει, ἸΠολύκαρπε κιτιλ., and § ὃ τοῦ 
πέμποντος αὐτὸν Πολυκάρπου. Like 
the Pastoral Epistles of 5. Paul, this 
letter was obviously intended to be 
made known to the Church also. 
Polycarp (PAz/. 13) apparently puts 
it in the same category with the 
Epistle to the Smyrnzeans, speaking 
of the two as ras ἐπιστολὰς ᾿Ιγνατίου 
τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. For 
the admonition see Phzlad. 7. 

wa kat καὶ λ ἢ See the note on 
Smyrn. 5 μᾶλλον δὲ k.7.d, 


6. ἀντίψυχον] Comp. § 2, and see 
the note on Zphes. 21. 

7. per αὐτῶν x.t.r.] A_ biblical 
expression; comp. Matt. xxiv. 51, 
Luke xii. 46, Rev. xxi. 8. There can 
be little doubt, I think, looking at 
the authorities, that the correct read- 
ing here is παρὰ Θεῷ ‘in the presence 
of God,’ for it explains all the others. 

ὃ, ouykomare] This word pre- 
pares the way for συναθλεῖτε, συντρέ- 
xeTe, since κοπιᾶν is used especially 
of the toilsome training for an ath- 
letic contest; comp. Phil. 11. 16 οὐκ 
eis κενὸν ἔδραμον οὐδὲ els κενὸν ἐκοπί- 
aoa, Col. i. 29 εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ἀγωνι- 
ζόμενος, 1 Tim. iv. 10 εἰς τοῦτο κοπι- 
@pev καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα, |Clem. Rom.] 
ii. 7 of πολλὰ κοπιάσαντες Kal καλῶς 
ἀγωνισάμενοι. So Anthol. II. p. 166 
μὴ τρέχε, μὴ κοπία. The metaphor of © 
the athletic training, etc., probably 
continues to the end. Thus συγκοι- 
μᾶσθε, συνεγείρεσθε, will refer to the 
uniform hours of going to bed and 
getting up prescribed by the trainer 
to the athletes under his charge. 
Any reference to ‘death’ and ‘ resur- 
rection, such as some commentators 
have found in these words, seems 
altogether out of place. 

IO. Θεοῦ οἰκονόμοι] The expres- 
sion occurs Tit. i. 7; comp. I Cor, iv, 


352 


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi 


7 Ce τ < J θ 2749 “΄ \ δι 9 , 
ρέται. ἀρέσκετε ᾧ στρατεύεσθε, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ Ta ὀψωνια 


΄ / ε va / € ΄σ \ / } 
κομίσεσθε. μήτις ὑμών δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῆ. τὸ βάπτισμα 


I ἀρέσκετε ᾧ στρατεύεσθε] GLg; placete [ez] et servite οἱ 5,ΣΑ. 


2 κομί- 


σεσθε] g* (with a v. 1. κομίσησθε) [S4][Z][A], and so app. Antioch 9 (in a loose 


reference) κομισόμεθα; κομίσεσθε GL. 


I, I Pet. iv. 10. The reference here 
is not to the Christian pastors, but, 
as the context (esp. ἀντίψυχον κ.τ.λ.) 
requires, to the whole brotherhood, 
according to the language of 1 Pet. 
iv. 10 ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα, 
εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες, ὡς καλοὶ 
οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος Θεοῦ. 
Pearson supposes a reference to the 
three orders of the ministry, the 
οἰκονόμοι being bishops, the πάρεδροι 
presbyters, and the ὑπηρέται deacons ; 
but how then is the plural οἰκονόμοι 
to be explained? 

πάρεδροι) ‘assessors’ of God; a 
stronger expression even than 5. 
Paul’s Θεοῦ συνεργοί (1 Cor. il. 9, I 
Thess. iii. 2 v. 1.), but it is immedi- 
ately qualified by ὑπηρέται. For ὑπη- 
ρέτης in connexion with οἰκονόμος 
comp. I Cor. iv. I. 

I. ἀρέσκετε k.t.A.] ‘please the 
Captain under whom you serve, pro- 
bably a reminiscence of 2 Tim. 1]. 3, 
A, οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς 
τοῦ βίου πραγματείαις, ἵνα τῷ στρατο- 
λογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ. 

τὰ ὀψώνια] ‘soldiers pay, as e.g. 
1 Cor. ix. 7 ris στρατεύεται ἰδίοις 
ὀψωνίοις ποτέ; Luke ill. 14; and pro- 
bably the reference is the same in 
the other two passages where the 
word occurs in the N. T., Rom. vi. 
23, 2-Cor, xi. 8. 50, always in the 
LXX, I Esdr. iv. 56, 1 Macc. ili. 28, xiv. 
32. It is the Greek equivalent to the 
Latin ‘stipendia’; for the word οό- 
sonta in Latin seems never to have 
acquired this meaning. The deriva- 
tion of the word explains its use. 
The soldier’s reward for his service 
was twofold; (1) a ration in kind, 


δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῇ} GAg*; rebellet 


which was an allowance of corn 
(σιτομέτρημα) for making bread, and (2) 
a small payment in money (ὀψώνιον), 
by which he might purchase a relish 
(ὄψον) to be eaten with his bread: 
as in Polyb. vi. 39. 12 sq ὀψώνιον δ᾽ of 
μὲν πεζοὶ λαμβάνουσι...σιτομετροῦνται 
ot μὲν πεζοὶ «.7-A.. C. J. G. 3137 τὰ 
τε μετρήματα καὶ τὰ ὀψώνια (an in- 
scription found at Smyrna itself); 
comp. Dion. Halic. A. R. ix. 36. 5 τὸ 
τ᾽ ὀψώνιον τῇ στρατιᾷ καὶ TO ἀντὶ τοῦ 
σίτου συγχωρηθὲν...ἀργυρίον (where 
the rations could not be supplied in 
kind). In Greek ὀψωνία is the act of 
purchasing ὄψα, while ὀψώνιον is the 
money for purchasing them and is 
used almost exclusively of soldier’s 
pay. In Latin however the derived 
word odsonium has a different sense. 
From ὀψωνεῖν the Romans adopted 
obsonart, ‘to purchase delicacies, to 
cater,’ and from this they used the 
substantive obsontum to signify food 
so purchased, ‘delicacies,’ without 
reference to the meaning of the cor- 
responding Greek ὀψώνιον. 

2. δεσέρτωρ] For the same me- 
taphor see Clem. Rom. 21 μὴ λιποτακ- 
τεῖν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, 20. 
§ 28 τῶν αὐτομολούντων ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 
Clem. Hom. xi. 16 ὁ μὴ ποιῶν τὸν νόμον 
ἐκ τοῦ μὴ πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ λιποτακτεῖ 
(comp. Epi Clem, 12/017): 

The adoption of Latin words ina 
Greek writer is natural in technical 
and more especially in military terms 
(e.g. here, and δεπόσιτα, ἄκκεπτα, be- 
low); and from Ignatius who was in 
charge of a στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα and 
bound to a soldier night and day 
(om. 5), nothing else was to be ex- 


vi] TO POLYCARP. 


353 


e ~ 7 e e/ ε Is ε 7 A 
ὑμών μενέτω WS ὅπλα, ἡ πίστις ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ 


> 7 e , Syivre \ e / \ 7 
ἀγάπη ὡς δόρυ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ ὡς πανοπλία: τὰ δεπόσιτα 


S,=; otiosus inveniatur L. G has ἃ marginal gloss ἀργὸς to δεσέρτωρ, whence the 


rendering of L. 


διπόσητα G. 


pected. For similar instances see 
Epictet. iii. 7. 30 Καῖσάρ μοι κωδίκελ- 
λον ἔγραψε, 20. 111. 24. 117 ἢ ὀρδινα- 
τίων δήξεταί σε ἢ οἱ ἐπιθύοντες ἐν τῷ 
Καπιτωλίῳ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀπτικίοις (ὀπφι- 
kiows? ‘officiis’), Herm. V7s. iii. 1 ἐπὶ 
τοῦ συμψελλίου ἔκειτο κερβικάριον 
λινοῦν καὶ ἐπάνω λεντίου ἐξηπλωμένον 
λίνον καρπάσινον, Mart. Polyc. 16 κομ- 
φέκτωρ, Symmachus Eccles. ii. 8 πε- 
κούλια (comp. Hieron. Of. VII. pp. 
34, 726), Evang. Nic. 2 sq κούρσωρ, 
σίγνα, φακεώλιον, etc; besides the 
instances familiar to us in the N. T., 
e.g. centurio, euraquilo, flagellum, 
legio, linttum, membrana, paenula, 
praetorium, quadrans, semicinctium, 
sudarium, etc. The only other in- 
stance in Ignatius is ἐξεμπλάριον ; see 
the note on Ephes. 2. The gloss 
ἀργὸς which appears on δεσέρτωρ in 
the Greek MS is taken from Ps-Ign. 
Lars. Ὁ. 

3. ὡς ὅπλα] ‘as your shields, 
as the context requires. The Latin 
translator rightly renders it scutuzz. 
Comp. Xen. Azad. i. 2. 17 ἐκέλευσε 
προβαλέσθαι τὰ ὅπλα (where however 
it might include spears as well), Polyb. 
i. 22. 10 ὑπὲρ Tov δρύφακτον ὑπερτιθέ- 
μενοι Tas ἴτυς τῶν ὅπλων. This sense 
seems to be more frequent in Helle- 
mistie’ Greek; LXX I Kings x. 17 
τριακόσια ὅπλα χρυσᾶ «.T.A., Ps. xc. 
(xci). 5 ὅπλῳ κυκλώσει σε ἡ ἀλήθεια 
αὐτοῦ (and several times elsewhere 
in the LXx), Aquila Hos. xi. ὃ ὅπλῳ 
κυκλώσω oe (where the LXX has ὑπερ- 
aom gov), Zest. xiz Patr. Levi 5 
ἔδωκέ μοι ὅπλον καὶ ῥομφαίαν, Barnab. 
12 τίθησιν οὖν Μωυσῆς ἕν ἐφ᾽ ἕν ὅπλον. 


ΠΟ: 11: 


τὸ βάπτισμα... περικεφαλαία] ΟἸΣΟ; e (sed) fides 
maneat vobiscum sicut arma, et 5265 sicut galea S.A. 


4 δεπόσιτα] g*; 


See also Macar. Magn. Afocr. ii. 7 
(p. 6) πίστιν ἔχοντες τὸ ξίφος καὶ ὅπλον 
τὸν σταυρόν. This meaning οὗ ὅπλον 
is preserved both in the derivative 
ὁπλίτης ‘bearing the heavy-shield’, as 
opposed to the πελταστὴς ‘bearing 
the light-target,’ and in the secondary 
meaning of the word itself ‘a medal- 
lion, like the Latin ‘clypeus,’ e.g. 
C. J. G. 124 εἰκόνα γραπτὴν ἐν ὅπλω 
(see Boeckh’s note, 11. p. 664). This 
sense explains μενέτω ; ‘Hold out 
your baptismal vows, your baptismal 
privileges, as a shield before you. 
Do not throw away your best defence, 
and incur the reproach of a ῥίψασπις 
in this sacred warfare.’ 

4. πανοπλία] Here ‘the com- 
plete body-armour,’ breast - plate, 
greaves, etc: for nothing else re- 
mains. Patience protects the whole 
spiritual man, wherever the blow is 
aimed... , Comp: Act. SS.  Lerngee, 
Prob. etc. 7 (Ruinart p. 465, Ratisb. 
1859) οὐδὲ yap δύνασαι τὴν πανοπλίαν 
μου βλέπειν τυφλὸς ὦν. 

This passage was doubtless sug- 
gested by Ephes. vi. 13—17, which 
it closely resembles, though the parts 
of the armour are differently assigned 
in the metaphor. The resemblance 
to 1 Thess. v. 8 is less, Comp. also 
15: hic τι 

τὰ δεπόσιτα] When a donative was 
accorded to the soldiery, one half 
only was paid at the time, the remain- 
ing half being placed in a savings- 
bank attached to the cohort. This 
money was said ‘deponi apud signa’ 
(Sueton. Dom. 7, Veget. 11. 20); and 
the fund was managed by a special 


23 


354 


THE EPISTLE (OF IGNATIUS [vi 


΄σ Ns? - 7 \ 7 - 7 , 
ὑμῶν Ta ἔργα ὑμῶν, ἵνα Ta ἀκκεπτα ὑμῶν ἀξια κομι- 


σησθε. μακροθυμήσατε οὖν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἐν πραὕτητι;, 


ὡς ὁ Θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 


1 τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν] Gg; ofera bona [S,JZA; 
position of vestra in the Mss should be noticed). 


> ΄ ε ~ \ / 
ὀναίμην ὑμῶν διὰ παντὸς. 


opera (om. ὑμῶν) L* (but the varying 
‘ U - an oT he 
τὰ ἄκκεπτα ὑμῶν ἄξια] 


GL; add. θεοῦ σ᾿; donum (or dona) det, sicut justum est S,=; dona a deo (om. 


ἄξια) A. 


Anton; πραότητι ἃ Antioch 9. 
σ; ὡς καὶ Antioch. 


officer entitled ‘curator fisci’ (e.g. 
Orell. Zzscr. 3462). We read also of a 
‘librarius depositorum’ (Dg. 1. 6. 7), 
perhaps the clerk who kept this de- 
posit account. The deposits how- 
ever, as entered in the name of any 
soldier, would include other items 
besides, e.g. other portions of dona- 
tives voluntarily so deposited, prize- 
money, etc. The ‘peculium’ thus 
accumulated was paid over to the 
soldier at his discharge, or an equi- 
valent in land given to him. See 
Becker and Marquardt Rom. A/terth. 
III. 2, p. 429. ‘Accepta’ would thus 
be the sums placed to his credit and 
ultimately paid over to him. The 
Castrense Peculium is the subject of 
a work by H. Fitting (Halle, 1871). 
It was the special privilege of this 
kind of property (‘quae sunt parta 
labore militiae’), that it was secured 
to the man himself, and was accord- 
ingly exempted from the fatrza fo- 
testas, on the principle enunciated 
in) [1..} xvi. κδ) 56, *Ipsius certe 
ducis hoc referre videtur, Ut qui for- 
tis erit, sit felicissimus idem, etc.’, 
where the fact is stated. The excep- 
tional character of this kind of pro- 
perty gives its force and appropriate- 
ness to the image here. Cotelier 
moreover aptly quotes Veget. ii. 20 
‘Miles...qui sumptus suos scit apud 


2 μακροθυμήσατε] G; μακροθυμεῖτε g Dam-Rup 8 Anton το. 
οὖν] GLg; om. S,2A [Dam-Rup] [Anton]. 


πραὕτητι)] g* Dam-Rup 
3 ws] GLSyZA Dam-Rup Anton; καὶ 


μεθ SaSAg Dam-Rup Anton Antioch; om. G; 


signa depositos, de deserendo nthil 
cogttat, magis diligit signa, pro illis 
in acie fortius dimicat, etc.’ Those 
who deserted or were dismissed for 
misconduct would forfeit all this 
accumulated property. For the me- 
taphor comp. August. Of. Vv. Appx. 
p- 150 ‘Milites igitur Christi sumus, 
et stipendium ab ipso donativumque 
percepimus etc.’, in a sermon by an 
unknown writer. The metaphor of 
the s¢gnum (σύσσημον) appears in the 
companion epistle, S7zyr7. 1. 

I. ἄξια) ‘due’, 1.6. ‘correspond- 
ing to the defoszta, as in [Juv.] xvi. 
56 ‘Hunc labor aeguus provehit et 
pulcro reddit sua dona labori,’ speak- 
ing of this same thing. 

3. μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν] sc. μακροθυμεῖ, as 
above iva καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν SC. προσέχῃ 
(see the note). I should not have 
thought it necessary to explain the 
construction, if Jacobson had not 
quoted Phil. iv. 5 ὁ Κύριος éyyus, ap- 
parently led astray by the Armenian 
mis-rendering ‘quasi Deus sit in 
mediis vobis.’ 

ὀναίμην] See the note on Ephes. 
ox 

VII. . 1 hear that the Chureli ΟΝ 
Antioch has peace at length; and 
the news has gladdened me, if only 
I am allowed to finish my course. 
Summon a council, and elect a trusty 


vir] 


Vit. 


re POEMCARYT, 


355 


᾿Επειδὴ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τῆς Cu- 


Ξ ρίας εἰρηνεύει, ὡς ἐδηλώθη μοι, διὰ τῆς προσευχῆς ὑμῶν, 


\ J ᾽ , τς 9 / ~ " 
κάγω εὐθυμότερος ἐγενόμην ἐν ἀμεριμνίᾳ Θεοῦ, ἐάνπερ 


\ ΄- = m~ 939 IY > \ e ~ 7 ΕῚ ~ 
dia τοῦ παθεῖν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω, εἰς TO εὑρεθῆναί με ἐν TH 


ΘΠ. 1. 


ὑμῶν pri.] GLES,Ag; ἡμῶν Dam-Rup Anton [Antioch]. 


παντός] Here = breaks off, and has only two sentences more, ὃ 7 χριστιανὸς 


k.T.A. and § 8 ἀσπάζομαι τὸν μέλλοντα κ.τ.λ. 


5 διὰ τῆς προσευχῆΞς] 


£3 fer orationem 1, (which prob. represents the gen., since L commonly 


translates διὰ with the accus. correctly fropter); διὰ τὴν 


prectbus A. 


person to carry your congratulations 
to Antioch. This is God’s work. I 
trust to your compliance; and know- 
ing your zeal, I have thought few 
words sufficient.’ 

4. ᾿᾽Ἐπειδὴ κιτ.λ.] On this matter, 
which is mentioned in all the letters 
written from Troas, see the notes to 
Philad. το. 

6. dyepysvia Θεοῦ] For this geni- 
tive Θεοῦ, describing the character 
of the preceding substantive, comp. 
Magn. 6 ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ with the note. 

.7. Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] See the note 
on Magn. 1. 

ev τῇ αἰτήσει ὑμῶν] ‘through your 
supplication. For the expression 
see Lphes. 20 ἐάν pe καταξιώσῃ ’I. X. 
ἐν TH προσευχῇ ὑμῶν, Philad. 8 θέλω 
ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν δικαιωθῆναι, 
Smyrn. 11 ἵνα ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν 
Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω. The word αἴτησις 
occurs only once elsewhere in Igna- 
tius (Zrvadl/. 13), but he uses it rather 
than προσευχὴ here because he had 
already exhausted the latter word in 
the context. For the idea of ‘disci- 
pleship,’ as the final result of martyr- 
dom, see the note on Ephes. 1 διὰ 
τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν δυνηθῶ μαθητὴς εἶναι. 
In the connexion διὰ τοῦ παθεῖν... 
μαθητήν, Ignatius probably has in his 
mind the proverb παθήματα μαθήματα; 
comp. e.g. Atsch. Agam. 177 τὸν 
πάθει μάθος θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν (comp. 


προσευχὴν G; 


70.257), δῖοα. i. 207 τὰ Ger wae 
παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα 
γεγόνεε, Philo de Leg. Shec. 6 (II. p. 
340) ἵν᾽ ἐκ τοῦ παθεῖν μάθῃ, with other 
passages quoted by Wetstein and 
Bleek on Heb. v. 8 ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν 
ἔπαθεν. 

This reading is to be preferred, both 
on account of the parallel passage in 
the companion epistle, Swzyr. 11, 
and by reason of the combination of 
authorities for it. If it had stood in 
the interpolator’s text alone, it might 
have been classed with such wilful 
changes of θέλημα for θέμα above § 2, 
ayvotatns for ἁγνίζομαι Ephes. 8, 
διαλυθῆναι for δῦναι Rom. 2, where 
similarity of sound has suggested the 
substituted word. But the coinci- 
dence of the Armenian Version shows 
that it was already in the text of 
Ignatius. On the other hand it has 
not the authority of any MS of the 
Latin Version, as commonly repre- 
sented. At the same time the other 
reading, ἐν τῇ avactace:, would make 
very good sense; comp. “2165. 11 
ἐν οἷς γένοιτό μοι ἀναστῆναι ἐν TH προσ- 
εὐχῇ ὑμῶν. The opposition would 
then be between παθεῖν and ἀνάστασις, 
as in Rom, 4 ἐὰν πάθω.. ἀναστήσομαι 
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐλεύθερος. And for ὑμῶν 
μαθητήν (which in this case must be 
taken together) comp, /phes. 3 with 
the note. 


23—2 


356 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[ vir 


9 ’ € lol , , [4 
αἰτήσει ὑμῶν μαθητήν. πρέπει, TloNvKap7e θεομακα- 


’ Υ 5 ~~ / A 
ριστότατε, συμβούλιον ὠγαγεῖν θεοπρεπέστατον καὶ 
΄σ΄ ray 9 \ af Ἧτο 
χειροτονῆσαί τινα ὃν ἀγαπητὸν λίαν ἔχετε καὶ ἀοκνον, 
e\ ’ / ~ ~ ~~ 
os δυνήσεται θεοδρόμος καλεῖσθαι: τοῦτον καταξιῶσαι; 
ἵνα πορευθεὶς εἰς (υρίαν δοξάσ ὑμῶν τὴν ἄοκνον aya- 
ρ ρ ηυμ 1 ΎὟ 
> , ΄σ \ ς ΄σ 9 lf 
my εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ. χριστιανὸς ἑαυτοῦ ἐξουσίαν οὐκ 


᾽ \ ~ ’ ~ 5) ~ 39 
ἔχει ἀλλὰ Oew σχολαζει. τοῦτο TO ἔργον Θεοῦ ἐστιν 


1 αἰτήσει] g*; precibus A (the same word which is used just before to trans- 
late διὰ τῆς mpocevyys); ἀναστάσει GL (there is no v. 1. in the mss of L; see 
the Appx). μαθητήν] gLA; παθητήν G: see also Smyrn. 5 for a similar 
error. πρέπει] GLAg; add. tb2 zgitur Sj. 3 τινα ὃν] GL; wlum 
gut 51. eos qui A; εἴ τινα δ. 4 καλεῖσθαι] GLg; frert As ut stt et vocetur 
Si: καταξιώσαι] σ΄; καταξιῶσε (an itacism) G3 dignificari L* (Mss); huic 


persuadeatur (lit. htc persuadeatur) S,; al. A. 6 Θεοῦ] gLS,; χριστοῦ 


Geacet. pa. χριστιανὸς] ἃ Dam-Vat 7 Dam-Rup το; ὁ χριστιανὸς g; 
christianus L[Z]; christianus enim 91; ergo christiano A. ἑαυτοῦ 
I. πρέπε!] See the note on διαθήκας τινὰς καὶ παραινέσεις καὶ 
Ephes. 2. νόμους" καί τινας ἐπὶ τούτῳ πρεσβευ- 


θεομακαριστότατε] See the note on 
Smyrin. 1. 

3. χειροτονῆσαί τινα] Similar in- 
structions are given in the companion 
letter, Smzyru. 11. Polycarp himself 
refers to this intended delegate, P/z/. 
13 Eypawaré μοι καὶ ὑμεῖς καὶ ᾿Ιγνάτιος 
ἵνα, ἐάν τις ἀπέρχηται εἰς Συρίαν, 
τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀποκομίσῃ γράμματα" 
ὅπερ ποιήσω...εἴτε ἐγὼ εἴτε ὃν πέμψω 
πρεσβεύσοντα καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν. 

4. θεοδρόμος] ‘God's courier” The 
word is used here in reference to 
the special mission, which he was 
promptly (doxvoy) to execute. In 
Smyrn. 11 he is styled θεοπρεσβύτης. 
On the other hand in Philad. 2 
θεοδρόμοι is used of the Christian 
course generally. Lucian seems to 
be referring to these directions of 
Ignatius, de Mort. Peregr. 41, where 
he says of Peregrinus, previously a 
Christian, but now a Cynic, φασὶ δὲ 
πάσαις σχεδὸν ταῖς ἐνδόξοις πόλε- 
σιν ἐπιστολὰς διαπέμψαι αὐτὸν 


A ~ > / 
τὰς τῶν ἑταίρων ἐχειροτόνησε νε- 


κραγγέλους καὶ νερτεροδρόμους 
προσαγορεύσας. 
καταξιῶσαι)] ‘to {07)12)115.57071᾽, ‘ac- 


credit’; comp. Philad. 10 ὃς καταξιω- 
θήσεται τῆς τοιαύτης διακονίας of a 
similar person. For the use of this 
word in Ignatius generally see the 
note to Ephes. 20. 

5. πορευθεὶς eis ΣυρίανὭγΖγ The ob- 
ject of this mission is more distinctly 
stated in Philad. 10, Smyrn. 11, as 
the congratulation and encourage- 
ment of the Church at Antioch. The 
delegate was to bear a letter from 
the Smyrnzans. 

7. Θεῷ σχολάζει] ‘devotes his 
time to God’; Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 
10 (p. 236) ἡ ἄγαμος μόνῳ σχολάζει τῷ 
Θεῴ. The sentiment here has refer- 
ence to the Smyrnzeans generally, 
but to the individual messenger 
more especially. 

Θεοῦ...καὶ ὑμῶν] ‘of God, as well 
as of yourselves, where Θεοῦ ex- 


ωι 


vit] 


\ ~ e/ \ > / 
Kal ὑμών, ὅταν αὐτὸ ἀπαρτίσητε. 


ἜΘ POLYCARP, 


357 


/ ~~ 
πιστεύω γὰρ TH 


’ «.« «.« / > 3 aA ~ 
χάριτι, ὅτι ἕτοιμοί ἐστε εἰς εὐποιΐαν Θεῴ ἀνήκουσαν. 


᾽ \ e ΄σ \ / ~ 4 > 9 ΄σ 
ο εἰδὼς UMWY TO συντονον τῆς ἀληθείας δι ὀλίγων ὑμᾶς 


γραμμάτων παρεκάλεσα ὦ 


WV LL: 


\ ’ ~ 9 , 
᾿Επεὶ πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐκ ἠδυνήθην 


γράψαι διὰ τὸ ἐξαίφνης πλεῖν με ἀπὸ Τρωάδος εἰς 


| ς \ I / / ~ 
Νεάπολιν, ws τὸ θέλημα προστάσσει, γράψεις ταῖς 


ἐξουσίαν] GL Dam-Vat Dam-Rup; ἐξουσίαν ἑαυτοῦ g. 


τῷ θεῴ Dam-Vat Dam-Rup. 


7 Sew] Gg; 


τοῦτο] GLg; hoc enim 81; et hoc A. 
8 αὐτὸ] g*S,A; αὐτῷ G; 225] (αὐτῷ or αὐτοί) L* (see the next note). 


ἀπαρ- 


τίσητε] GS,Ag; perfecti estis (ἀπαρτισθῆτε) L (so that the previous word was 


probably read αὐτοὶ). 


10 εἰδὼς] txt gL; add. οὖν G; nam et σεῖο A. 


σύντονον] G; σύντομον g*;3 compendium L; praeparationem (promptitudinem) A 


(‘videtur legisse ἕτοιμον᾽ Petermann; see the v. 1. in Rom. 5). 


txt GA; add. οὖν Lg. 
alus L. 


plains and justifies the preceding 
Θεῷ σχολάζει. 

8. τῇ χάριτι] ‘the Divine grace’; 
see below § 8, and the note on 
Smyrn. 12. 

9. Θεῷ ἀνήκουσαν] See the note 
on Philad, 1. 

10. τὸ σύντονον] ‘zntensity, airect- 
ness’, properly ‘Zenszon’; comp. Philo 
Leg. ad Cat. ὃ 20 (p. 565 M) ro τάχος 
καὶ σύντονον τῆς σπουδῆς. ‘This there- 
fore is probably the reading here, 
rather than τὸ σύντομον ; but the words 
are constantly confused. Sometimes 
they occur together; e.g. Plut. Aor. 
P- 759 Ὁ σύντονον ὁμοῦ καὶ σύντομον 
εὑρηκέναι πορείαν εἰς ἀρετήν, Clem. 
Alex. Paed. i. 3 (p. 103) τὰς συντόμους 
ὁδοὺς καὶ συντόνους εἰς αἱδιότητα, Julian. 
Orat. vii. (p. 225 C) τὴν σύντομον, 
φησίν, ὁδὸν καὶ σύντονον ἐπὶ τὴν ape- 
τὴν εἰσιοῦσιν. 

τῆς ἀληθείας] ‘your sincerity, ‘your 
fidelity’; comp. Polyc. Phil. 4 στε- 
γούσας τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας ev πάσῃ 
ἀληθείᾳ. In the LXX ἀλήθεια is a 
frequent rendering of J1DN, ‘sted- 
fastness,’ ‘constancy, which is also 


12 Ἐπεὶ] 


14 ταῖς ἔμπροσθεν] Gg; guae supra nos sunt A; 


translated by πίστις in other places. 

dv ὀλίγων κιτ.λ.} See the note on 
Rom. 8. 

VIII. ‘I am prevented by the 
hurry of my departure from writing 
to all the churches. I charge thee 
therefore to direct the churches in 
front to send delegates or letters, as 
circumstances may allow, to Syria. 
I salute all individuals, especially 
the widow of Epitropus with her 
family, and Attalus. I salute the 
delegate who will go to Syria, and 
Polycarp who will send him. I pray 
for a blessing on you all. Abide in 
the unity of God. I salute Alce. 
Farewell.’ 

13. πλεῖν] The letter therefore is 
written from Troas; and the pre- 
ceding ἠδυνήθην is an_ epistolary 
aorist; see Zahn /, v. A. p. 283. 

eis Νεάπολιν] The port-town of Phi- 
lippi (Acts xvi. 11), where he would 
take the great Egnatian road across 
the continent to Dyrrhachium; see 
Philippians p. 47 sq. 

14. τὸ θέλημα] ‘the Divine will’; 
see the note on Zfhes.20. There is 


358 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS 


[vill 


oS 7 € > ͵ , » 

ἔμπροσθεν ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς Θεοῦ γνώμην κεκτημένος; εἰς 
\ \ δὴ \ on € a if 

TO καὶ αὐτοὺς TO αὐτὸ ποιῆσαι---οἱ μὲν dSuvayeEvoL 

\ , \ \ \ > ε ’ 

πεζοὺς πέμψαι, οἱ δὲ ἐπιστολὰς δια τῶν ὑπὸ σου πεμ- 
4 e/ ὃ θη ᾽ / ᾽ ε ᾽ ος OV 
TOMEVWV, iva δοξασθῆτε αἰωνίῳ Epyw—ws ἀξι : 
9 7 , 9 ° / \ \ 9 

λσπάζομαι πάντας ἐξ ὀνόματος, καὶ τὴν τοῦ ’Em- 

\ e/ ΄ »" ΄σ \ ΄σ , 9 / 

τρόπου σὺν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτῆς Kal τῶν τέκνων" ἀσπα- 


1 εἰς τὸ καὶ αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ.1 For the reading of L see the Appx. 2 τὸ αὐτὸ] 


GA; τοῦτο g; om. (?) L*. 4 δοξασθῆτε] GAg; glorificeris L. al- 
wrly ἔργῳ] GL; ἐν αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ g; i operibus aeternitatis A. ws ἄξιος wr | 
GLg*; guomodo et digni estis A. 6 τῶν τέκνων] GLg. Petermann trans- 
lates A filizs (= τέκνοις), but the case is ambiguous and may be either forum or 
filtis. 7 τὸν μέλλοντα...πορεύεσθαι] GLg (but g omits τοῦ); em fratrem qui 


paratus est ive in Syriam A (ison for ris) ; lum gui dignatur tre ad 


antiochiam pro me, sicut praccepi tibi = (but =, for praecepi tibi reads praecepisti 


no reason for departing from the or- 
dinary use of Ignatius, and explain- 
ing it here of the will of the emperor 
or the Roman authorities. 

ταῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐκκλησίαις], ‘the 
churches lying in front, i.e. nearer 
to Syria than Smyrna itself. The 
writer naturally imagines himself 
looking towards Antioch, whither the 
delegates areto besent. Ignatius had 
been unable himself to write to any 
of these, except Philadelphia, since 
they lay at too great a distance from 
Troas. For ἔμπροσθεν comp. Xen. 
Anab. v. 6. 9 πολεμίων πολλῶν ἔμ- 
προσθεν ὄντων. Uhlhorn (p. 31) refers 
to Herod. vii. 126 πάσης τῆς ἔμπροσ- 
θεν Ἑὐρώπης, but he himself prefers 
explaining it by the Semitic use of 
DTP ‘in front,’ 1.6. eastward. This 
is quite unnecessary. Other expla- 
nations which have been suggested 
hardly deserve consideration. 

I. Θεοῦ γνώμην x.t.r.] ‘Possessing 
the mind of God? For Θεοῦ γνώμη 
‘see the note Ephes. 3. 

3. πέμψαι] sc. πεμψάτωσαν, 1.6. 
‘Let those who are able to send 
messengers, send them, and let the 


others send letters.’ The sentence, 
οἱ μὲν δυνάμενοι.- αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ, must 
be regarded as parenthetical, so that 
ὡς ἄξιος ὧν will be connected with 
γράψεις...«ὡς Θεοῦ γνώμην κεκτημένος, 
and refer to Polycarp himself. Much 
unnecessary difficulty has been made 
about this singular ἄξιος ὧν by trans- 
lators and commentators. 

διὰ τῶν κιτ.λ.} 1.6. by the hands of 
the messengers whom Polycarp will 
send to the several cities, to inform 
them of the, wish of Ignatius. The 
letters of the several churches will 
thus be collected, and placed in the 
hands of the Smyrnzan θεοδρόμος, 
who will carry them to Syria; comp. 
Polyc. PAz?. 13, quoted above on ὃ 7 
χειροτονῆσαί τινα. 

A.’ iva’ Κιτίλ!] ΣΕ: 
who participate in this mission, ‘way 
be glorified by an ever-memorable 
work.’ 

5. ἐξ ὀνόματος] See the note on 
δ 4. 

τὴν τοῦ ᾿ΕἘπιτρύόπου)] ‘the widow,’ 
rather than the wife, ‘of Epitropus, 
as the words following seem to show. 
The name appears to be very rare; 


vit] TO POLYCARDP. 359 


"nr pa sue ‘ ’ , > , \ 
Comat “Attadov τὸν ἀγαπητόν pov: ἀσπάζομαι τὸν 
ie ΄ ΄σ » 
μελλοντα καταξιοῦσθαι τοῦ εἰς (υρίαν πορεύεσθαι: 
s/f ες , ΄σ \ ͵ ~ 
ἐσται ἡ χαρις MET αὐτοῦ διὰ παντός, Kal TOU πέμπον- 
> \ / > - ε ~ \ \ > 
τος αὐτὸν [loNvKaprrov. ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς ἐν 
΄ ς ΄ > ΄σ ΄σ of > -- 7 ᾽ 
Θεῴ μῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ εὔχομαι, ἐν ᾧ διαμείνητε ἐν 
/ ΄σ \ 3 πῆς “ > 
evoTnt: Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπῆ. ἀσπάζομαι λλκην τὸ 
7 sf » » 
ποθητὸν μοι ὄνομα. ἔρρωσθε ἐν Κυρίῳ. 
έ 


nobis by the change of a letter). [1 Χριστῷ] χριστοῦ G. διαμείνητε] G; 


διαμείνατε Or διαμείνετε (sic) g*. 


"Adkynv] ἅλκην G. There is no aspirate in LAg; 
See also Smyriz. 13, Rone. το. 


e; mht 1.: pov G; al. A. 
Κυρίῳ] GLg; om. A. 
Subscription πρὸς Πολύκαρπον G. 


see the Appx. 


but I find one Ti. Claudius Epitro- 
pus in an inscription, Muratori MCLI. 
10. Perhaps the word is wrongly 
taken as a proper name; and we 
should rather translate, ‘the wife (or 
widow) of the procurator.’ Mention 
is made in the inscriptions at Smyrna 
of an officer called ἐπίτροπος otpa- 
τηγύός OL ἐπίτροπος τῆς στρατηγίας 
(C. I. G. 3151, 3162), and perhaps 
this officer may be meant. Another 
Smyrnzan inscription speaks of ὁ 
ἐπίτροπος Tov Σεβαστοῦ (C. 7. G. 3203). 
This woman is not improbably the 
same with Gavia mentioned in the 
companion epistle, Swyrn. 13 τὸν 
οἶκον Τ'αουΐας k.T.X. 

7. ᾿Ατταλον] This name appears 
many times in inscriptions and coins 
belonging to Smyrna, C. /. G. 3141, 
3142, 3239, 3288, 3289, 3299, 3304, 
Bast, Miounet 111.) pp. 232, 233, 
Suppl. Vi. p. 309 (Ὁ), 344. The coins 
belong to the time of M. Aurelius. 

τὸν μέλλοντα κιτ.λ.} The Geodpo- 
μος, about whom he has given direc- 
tions in the preceding chapter. The 
Syriac epitomator, having struck 


12 ἐπισκοπῇ] GLeg*; émoxémov A. 
13 μοι) 
ἔρρωσθε ἐν 


see Smyrn. 13. 


here is no subscription in LA. For g 


out the whole of the preceding pas- 
sage which explains who is meant, 
substitutes here ‘him that is thought 
worthy to go to Antioch in my stead, 
as I commanded thee.’ His abridg- 
ment rendered some explanation ne- 
cessary; but his language would 
suggest to the reader that the person 
in question was intended to succeed 
Ignatius as bishop. There is no 
reason to think that the epitomator 
himself intended this, or that this 
was anything more than a piece of 
slovenly wording, such as character- 
izes his abridgment elsewhere. 

9. ἡ χάρις] ‘the Divine grace, 
as in § 7 πιστεύω τῇ χάριτι (see the 
note). 

II. ©e@ ἡμῶν] See the note on 
E-phes. inscr. 

12. ἑνότητι Θεοῦ] See the note on 
Philad. 8. 

ἐπισκοπῇ] ‘superintendence. He 
had begun the letter by speaking 
of Polycarp as ἐπεσκοπημένος ὑπὸ 
Θεοῦ κιτλ. There is therefore much 
propriety in his ending with διαμείνητε 
x..A. The reading ἐπισκόπου however 


360 


is ancient, as the Armenian Version 
shows, though its presence in any 
Greek texts has no authority. It 
would make good sense; comp. 
Smyrn. 9 Θεὸν καὶ ἐπίσκοπον εἰδέναι, 
Trall. 7 οὖσιν ἀχωρίστοις [Θεοῦ] Ἰη- 
σοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπουι But 
the alteration of ἐπισκοπῇ into ἐπι- 
σκόπου would be so much more 
natural to a transcriber than the 
converse, that I have not hesitated 


IGNATIUS TO POLYCARP. 


[ΝΠῚ 


to adopt ἐπισκοπῇ in preference. 

"Adknv] See the note on Srzyrz. 
13. 

TO ποθητόν μοι κιτ.λ.] So Rom. 
10, Smyrn. 13. Similarly Eusebius 
speaks of his friend Pamphilus as 
To ποθεινόν μοι ὄνομα, Act. Pamph. 1, 
6 (Οὗ. τι. 1441, 1445, Migne). 

13. ἔρρωσθε] See the note on 
Ephes. 21. 


ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


OF 


a tN ATL US. 


ὰ 


a 





ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


OF 


ἜΡΟΝ Pty: 


ite 


HE ACTS OF MARTYRDOM of S. Ignatius appear in five 
forms. 


1. The ANTIOCHENE Acts. These are extant in three lan- 
guages. 
(i) GREEK; Paris. 1451 (formerly Colbert. 460). From this ms 
the Acts were first published by Ruinart (Act. Prim. Mart. Sinc. 1689, 
p- 605 sq). No other Greek ms of these Acts is known to exist. 


(ii) ZAZIZN; attached to the Anglo-Latin Version of the Igna- 
tian Epistles discovered and published by Ussher in his edition (1644) 
from two MSs. 

(ill) SYR/ZAC; first published in part by Cureton (Corp. 797. 
p. 222, London, 1849) and afterwards entire by Moesinger (Supplementum 
Corporis Ignatianit, 1872, p. 7 sq). Four mss of this version are 
known to exist, of which two are imperfect at the end. 

As these Antiochene Acts incorporate the Epistle to the Romans, 

a full account of the Mss in the three !anguages has been given already 
in the notices of the mss of the Ignatian Epistles. The original Greek 
is printed below; and the Latin and Syriac will be found in the Ap- 
pendix. 


364 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


2. The Roman Acts, which are extant in the original Greek and 
in a Coptic Version. 


(i) GREEK. Of this I am not aware of more than three Mss. 

(a) Vatic. 866. From this ms Dressel first published these Acts 
in his edition of the Patres Afostolici (1857). He thus describes it: 
‘membraneus, foliis dimidiatis 395, saeculi x. Ex eo (fol. 185—188) 
‘Acta Martyris Ignatii’ deprompsi inedita. Alia insunt martyria, epis- 
tolae sanctorum, similiaque adhuc parum cognita.’ 

(2) Bodl. Laud. Graec. 69, fol. 245 b—255 a. ‘This ΜῈ is de- 
scribed in Coxe’s Catal. Cod. Graec. Bibl. Bodl. p. 552 sq’. It is 
a large fol. in parchment, of the r1th century, and contains a Mar- 
tyrology for December. The Martyrdom of Ignatius is preceded by 
μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου βονηφατίου καὶ πολιτεῖα ἀγλαΐδος fol. 240 b, and 
followed by Bios καὶ μαρτύριον τῆς ἁγίας μάρτυρος ἀναστασίας καὶ τῶν σὺν 
αὐτῇ μαρτυρησάντων ἐν ῥώμῃ fol. 255 b. Ussher gave some extracts from 
this Ms in his Zenatit εὐ Polycarpi Epistolae 1644, and in his Appendix 
Ienatiana 1647; but, notwithstanding the interest of the subject, it has 
lain unexamined since. I have collated it throughout for this edition. 
The iota is adscript, not subscript. 

(c) Parts. Bibl. Nat. Graec. 1491 (formerly Colbert. 450), fol. 86a, 
60]: 2—fol. 93 b, col. 2. (See the Catal. Bibl. Reg. 11. p. 338.) tas 
a folio in double columns in a bold cursive hand, without iota adscript 
or subscript, and appears to have been written in the 11th century. The 
Martyrdom of Ignatius is preceded (fol. 64 b) by Bios τοῦ ὁσίου zps 
ἡμῶν βλασίου, and succeeded (fol. 94 a) by τοῦ ὁσίου πρς ἡμῶν Kat 
ὁμολογητοῦ θεοδώρου κατήχησις ἐπιτάφιος εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ pytépa. The 
volume is mainly occupied with the Acts of saints and martyrs who are 
commemorated in the latter half of December. This copy of the 
Roman Acts has never, so far as I am aware, been noticed before. 
I have collated it throughout for this edition. It is quite the most 
important authority for the text. 


(1) COP77c. ‘These Acts are extant in the two principal dialects 
of the Coptic language, (a2) the Memphitic and (8) the Thebaic or 
Sahidic. 


1 Zahn (7. v. A. p. 2, note 2), misled Acts are contained in two Oxford Mss. 
by Smith p. 45, supposes that the Oxford If Zahn has rightly apprehended Smith’s 
MS which Ussher used was Barocc. 192; meaning (for his words are somewhat 
and, as Grabe (Sfic7/. 11 p. 4) refers to the | ambiguous), Smith is certainly in error; 
Laudian MS for the Acts of Martyrdom [ον the Martyrdom of Ignatius in Baroce. 
quoted by Ussher, he infers that these 192 is that of the Metaphrast. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 365 


(a) The Memphitic is found in Vatic. Coft. \xvi. This Vatican ms 
is described by Quatremetre Recherches sur la Langue et la Littérature de 
VE gypte p. 128 sq (Paris 1808), and by Assemani in Mai Script. Vet. 
Nov. Coll. v. Appx. p. 161 sq (see also Bzb/. Orient. 1. p. 618). It is a 
parchment ms in fol., of 313 leaves, written in various hands, and 
contains a Martyrology for the Egyptian month Epiphi. The Martyr- 
dom of Ignatius begins the volume (fol. 1). The third document in 
the volume has a note appended to the effect that it was given to the 
church of 5. Macarius in Scete, A. Mart. 641 (A.D. 925); and the fifth 
is stated to have been written A. Mart. 634 (A.D. 918). At the close of 
the volume is a note bearing the date A. Mart. 741 (A.D. 1025). A 
transcript of this ms, made by Tuki, belonged to the Borgian collection 
(Cod. xviii)’, and is described by Zoega Catal. Cod. Copt. Mus. Borg. 
p- 19. This transcript is now probably in the Naples Library, with the 
other patristic and kindred ss belonging to the Borgian collection. 
Professor Guidi, with his habitual kindness, made a transcript of the 
Vatican ms for me; and from his transcript this Coptic Version was 
published for the first time in my first edition. It will be found in the 
Appendix in the third volume of the present edition, p. 281 sq. 

(8) The Sahidic or Thebaic is preserved in Zaurin. Papyrus 1, 
in the Egyptian Museum at Turin; described by Peyron in his Lexicon 
Linguae Copticae p. xxv. It 15 a papyrus of 63 leaves and contains 
(1) ‘Martyrium S. Ignatii Antiochiae Episcopi’; (2) ‘ Martyrium 5. 
Gioore’; (3) ‘ Historiam, seu potius fabulam virginis Eudoxiae impera- 
toris Constantini sororis, quae post Persas a fratre devictos Hiero- 
solymam contendit etc; haec vero contigerunt anno 365 post Christi 
resurrectionem.’ 

This Sahidic text has been published since the appearance of my 
first edition, with a translation, by F. Rossi in his Papyrt Copti del Museo 
Fgizio di Torino, in the part bearing the title Vita di Sant’ [larione ὁ 
Martirio di Sant [gnazto, Torino 1886, being taken from the AMemorte 
della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Serie 2, Tom. XXxXVIII. 
From this I have taken the various readings for my apparatus criticus 
in the present edition. 

The earlier part of these Coptic Acts (as far as § 3 ὑπὸ ἀπίστων) in 
both dialects was published by Revillout in the Revue Egyptologique 11. 
p- 34 54 (1883), the Thebaic text being placed below the Memphitic on 
the same page. The two texts were taken from the two Mss described 
above, and indeed I am not aware of any other Ms of either version. 


1 Tattam in a letter to Cureton (Corp. Cod. xviii of vol. Ixvi Vatic. in Zoega’s 
Tgn. p. 362) writes loosely, ‘It is marked Catalogue of the Borgian Mss’. 


366 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Though Revillout’s publication had appeared before my first edition 
(1885), I was unaware of the fact. My own text of the Memphitic Acts 
had been passed through the press some time before its appearance. _ 

It is evident at once that these two versions are not independent the 
one of the other. Not only do they follow the same text with the same 
insertions and omissions, but they render the Greek in the same way. 
The one therefore must have been taken from the other; and further 
examination shows that the priority should be assigned to the Thebaic. 
Though here and there we stumble on a passage which seems to point 
to the Memphitic as the original, yet these are capable of being ex- 
plained otherwise. On the other hand the phenomena which indicate 
that the Thebaic is the parent of the Memphitic are too numerous and 
decisive to be set aside. Occasionally the Memphitic preserves a purer 
form of the Egyptian text where the existing Thebaic Ms is corrupt; 
but, as a rule, the Thebaic text is found to be older and closer to the 
original Greek. 

From what has been said, it will have appeared that the two cannot 
be regarded as independent authorities; but as each manuscript 1s 
mutilated in parts by the loss of a leaf or leaves, they supplement each 
other, and no part is wanting to both versions. ‘The Memphitic omits 
a considerable portion of the 6th chapter; the Thebaic is defective at 
the beginning and leaves out parts of the roth and rith chapters. 
There are likewise smaller omissions in other parts. 

Cureton (C. Δ p. 362), while giving an extract from Peyron, speaks 
of these Coptic Acts as if they were a translation of the Colbertine or (as 
I prefer to call them) the Axtiochene Acts, though Peyron’s own words 
ought to have saved him from this erroneous identification. Zoega 
(1. c.) writes somewhat carelessly, ‘Auctor videtur esse Heron quidam, 
nam circa finem inter alias invocationes S. Ignatii legitur apsebmers 
MIEKUHpY Hp MWemento filii tut Heronis.’ ‘The fact is that the Acts 
are followed by the Prayer of Hero, of which these words form part ; 
but there is nothing to connect the Acts themselves with Hero. Zahn 
(Z. v. A. p. 3, note 6) is perplexed by this statement of Zoega, as 
repeated by Tattam, and says that, if the statement be correct, this must 
be different from any known Martyrdom of Ignatius. 


3. The Botianpist Acts, extant only in Latin. A portion of 
these was published by Ussher in his Appendix Lgnatiana (1647) from 
a Cotton ms. ‘This was, I suppose, Otho ἢ. viii (see the Catalogue 
p- 369), since charred and rendered illegible by the fire. They were 
afterwards given in full in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum Febr. 1, ‘ex 


Ot 7S. IGNATIUS: 367 
pluribus eisque vetustissimis codicibus Mss desumpta, et cum Rosweydo 
olim, tum nobis communicata: eorum praecipui sunt Lobiensis, Audo- 
marensis, Ultrajectinus, aliusque Burgundicus a Chiffletio nostro trans- 
missus’. ‘The most convenient and best text is that of Funk (1881), 
who collated several manuscripts. Manuscripts of these Acts seem to 
be numerous. Sometimes they are attached to the Latin version of the 
interpolated and spurious Ignatian Epistles: e.g. Zyroyes 412; Brussels 
5510; Brussels 703 (perhaps a transcript from the preceding) ; Paris. 
Bibl. Nat. 1639 (formerly Cold. 1039). These mss have already been 
described among the authorities for the text of the Ignatian Epistles. 
Sometimes the Acts of Martyrdom are apart from the epistles: e.g. 
Bodl. Laud. Lat. 31, fol. 118 a; Laud. Miscell. 114, fol. 61 b; 
Sangall. 454. 


4. The ARMENIAN ACTs, first published by J. B. Aucher in his 
Armenian Lives of all the Saints of the Armenian Calendar (Venice 
18ro—1814), and reprinted from him by Petermann in his edition of 
Ignatius (p. 496 sq). As these Acts contain the Epistle to the Romans, 
they have been already noticed in the account of the authorities for the 
text of the Ignatian Epistles. 


5. The Acts oF THE METAPHRAST. As these also contain the 
Epistle to the Romans, they have been noticed already in the account 
of the ss of the Ignatian Epistles. 


The short Latin Acts, published by Moesinger (Suppl. Corp. Lenat. 
Ρ. 18 sq) from a ms in the Vallicellian Library at Rome (see z. p. 5), 
may be dismissed at once; as they are put together from Rufinus’ 


1 Tt is necessary to warn readers who’ misled by Petermann. This paragraph 


use Petermann’s edition for these Acts, 
that he has omitted a long paragraph, 
‘Fuerunt autem custodientes ... pejores 
fiunt’, at the end of ὃ 3 (p. 487) without 
any notice of the omission. It appears 
in its proper place in the Bollandist Acta 
Sanctorum p. 29 sq, but is omitted by 
Ussher (p. 5), because Ussher was only 
concerned with those parts which were 
taken from the Antiochene Acts, and 
this piece comes from the Roman Acts. 
Petermann seems to have copied Ussher 
and omitted it through inadvertence, as 
his purpose is to give these Acts com- 
plete... Zahn (7. v..A. p. 18, note) is 


certainly appears in the only two Mss 
which I have consulted for this part, 
Laud. Lat. 31, and Laud. Miscell. 114. 
So again in § 1 Petermann (p. 484) and 
Zahn (/. ¢.) treat the words ‘secundus 
post apostolos factus, qui post Euodium’ 
as an interpolation in the Bollandist Mss, 
whereas they were probably omitted by 
Ussher though found in his Cotton Ms, 
because there was nothing corresponding 
to them in the Antiochene Acts. The 
alternative hypothesis, that some later 
scribe interpolated them from the Roman 
Acts, is highly improbable. 


368 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Latin version of Eusebius and the account of Ignatius in the Mar- 
tyrology of Ado (see Zahn ἢ wv. A. p. 30). 


2. 


The next point is to determine the mutual ve/ations of the five 
documents described in the last section. And here our task is easy. 
The two first-mentioned Acts, which (for reasons which will appear 
presently) I have called the Avztcochene and the Roman respectively, are 
quite independent the one of the other; while the remaining three are 
combinations of these two more or less modified’. 


1. The first of these five documents begins with an account of 
the successful administration of the Antiochene Church by Ignatius 
under the persecution of Domitian and during the early part of Trajan’s 
reign (δ 1). We are then carried forward to the ninth year of Trajan. 
The emperor, elated by his victories over the Scythians and Dacians, is 
exasperated by the refusal of the Christians to worship the gods of 
heathendom. ‘Their subjugation is necessary to crown his triumphs. 
He is now at Antioch, preparing for his expedition against Armenia and 
the Parthians. Ignatius is summoned before him. After some alterca- 
tion, which turns entirely on the word θεοφόρος, Trajan condemns the 
saint to be carried a prisoner to Rome and there to be thrown to the 
wild-beasts. With much thanksgiving he invests himself in his chains 
(§ 2). The narrative of the journey to Rome is given at some length. 
It more resembles the progress of a conqueror than the transportation 


1 Ussher seems to have rightly divined 
the relations of the Bollandist Acts (which 
he read in the Cottonian Ms) to the two 
independent works which I have called 
Antiochene and Roman Acts respectively 
(see his preface); but he was unacquaint- 
ed with the Armenian Acts and does not 
appear to have paid sufficient attention 
to the Metaphrast. To Zahn (1 uv. A. 
p. Io sq) belongs the credit of having 
first stated distinctly the relations of the 
five documents to each other. Some 
years before Zahn’s book appeared, I had 
myself investigated these relations and 
arrived at the same results. Indeed a 
careful comparison of the documents 


themselves can only lead to one con- 
clusion. On the other hand, Aucher 
confidently maintained that the Armenian 
Acts were translated from the original 
document, of which all the others were 
abridgements or modifications (see Peter- 
mann pp. 496 sq, 545); but it must be 
remembered, as an excuse for this very 
untenable view, that he was unacquainted 
with the Roman Acts which are the key 
to the solution. About the time when 
Zahn’s book was published, Kraus (Z%eo- 
log. Quartaischr. LV. p. 115 sq, 1873) 
discussed the various Acts of Ignatius, 
but did not trace their relations. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 369 


of aconvict. From Antioch he goes to Seleucia the port-town, where 
he takes ship for Smyrna. Arrived at Smyrna, he enjoys the society of 
Polycarp, formerly his fellow-disciple under the tuition of S. John. 
Here he receives delegates from the churches, and exhorts them to 
second his desire of martyrdom (δ 3). As a reward for their kindly 
attention, he writes letters of exhortation to them. At this point the 
Epistle to the Romans is inserted to show the spirit of his letters (δ 4). 
From Smyrna he is hurried forward by his guards to Troas; thence by 
ship to Neapolis; thence by land through Philippi and Macedonia to 
Epidamnus, where again he embarks. The course of the vessel is 
through the Adriatic and Tyrrhene seas to Portus. As they pass by 
Puteoli, he desires to land there, so that he may tread in the footsteps 
of S. Paul; but adverse winds prevent this. At Portus he disembarks 
(8 5). Leaving this place, he and his companions are met by ‘the 
brethren’ who had heard the rumour of his coming. He entreats 
them not to interpose and rob him of his crown. Immediately on 
his arrival he is carried to the amphitheatre. It is the great ‘thir- 
teenth’ day, and the spectacle is already drawing to a close. He 
had prayed that his remains might not give any trouble to the breth- 
ren. His prayer is granted. ‘The beasts devour all but the more solid 
bones. These are carried back to Antioch, and preserved as reliques 
there (§ 6). 

This happened on the xiii Kal. Jan., in the consulship of Sura and 
Senecio 11. His companions, who relate the facts, were comforted 
during the night following by various appearances of the martyred 
saint. They write this account to the Antiochene Church, that the very 
day of the martyrdom may be religiously observed (§ 7).. 

Thus it appears that in these Acts the centre of interest is Antioch. 
Antioch is the scene of the interview and condemnation; at Antioch 
the martyr’s remains are deposited and venerated. It will be seen also 
hereafter, that these Acts were probably written at Antioch, and that 
their principal circulation at first was in this city and neighbourhood. 
I have therefore called them the Anztzochene Acts. 


2. The second of these documents likewise gives the date as the 
gth year of Trajan, but the consuls are differently named, Atticus Surba- 
nus and Marcellus. Ignatius, the successor of Euodius as bishop of 
Antioch, is sent to Rome in custody of ten soldiers of the body-guard, 
of whose cruelty he complains in his letter. He is taken through Asia, 
and thence to Thrace and Rhegium (δ 1). From Rhegium he sails to 
Rome. At Rome he is heard by Trajan in the presence of the senate. 


IGN. II. 24 


370 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


The emperor attempts at first to bribe him; he will make him high- 
priest of Jupiter and share his sovereignty with him, if he will recant. 
Ignatius refuses (§ 2). Then ensues a long altercation between the 
emperor and the saint, in which the senate from time to time joins. 
Ignatius ridicules the myths of the gods and assails their morality. 
Trajan intersperses his part of the dialogue with arguments more power- 
ful than words ; he threatens and inflicts a series of the most excruciat- 
ing tortures, but without producing any effect. This interview extends 
over several long chapters (δὴ 3—9). The emperor ends by condemn- 
ing him to starve in prison three days and nights, that he may be 
brought to his senses. ‘The senate confirms the sentence (ὃ 9). On the 
third day Ignatius is led into the theatre in the presence of the emperor, 
the senate, the prefect, and the Roman mob. At the last moment he 
is offered his release, if he will deny his faith, He refuses. Two lions 
are let loose upon him. They crush him to death, but do not devour 
any part of his flesh. This was done, we are told, that his reliques 
might shield from harm the city, ‘in which Peter was crucified and Paul 
was beheaded and Onesimus was perfected’ (§ 10). 

But Trajan is dismayed at his own act; and to increase his dismay, 
letters arrive from Pliny informing him how the innocent Christians 
press forward in crowds to suffer death for their faith. So he allows the 
body of the saint to be buried. The Christian brethren deposit it in 
a place where they can meet together safely from time to time to com- 
memorate his martyrdom (§ 11). 

After this the writer adds the testimony of Irenzeus and Polycarp to 
the circumstances of Ignatius’ life (tacitly borrowed from Euseb. . £. 
111. 36); and the whole closes with the mention of the day of the com- 
memoration—the 1st of Panemus (July)—and the name of the martyr’s 
successor Hero (§ 12). 

As in the former case the interest of the story centred in Antioch, so 
here it centres in Rome. In Rome the saint is heard and condemned 
by the emperor; at Rome his body is preserved. I have therefore 
designated these the Roman Acts. By this designation however it is 
not meant to imply that they were actually written in Rome. They can 
hardly have been composed before the beginning of the fifth century at 
the very earliest ; and long before this time Greek had ceased to be the 
vulgar tongue of the Church in Rome. There are some indications 
indeed, as I shall point out hereafter, that these Acts were written at 
Alexandria; but, whether intentionally or not, they are subservient to 
the interests of the Roman Church. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 371 


These two Acts of Martyrdom are quite independent, the one of the 
other. They unite indeed in assigning the martyrdom to the gth year 
of Trajan; but in all the other details they are not only distinct, but 
contradictory to each other, agreeing only in the main facts of a journey 
to Rome, an interview with Trajan, and a martyrdom in the amphi- 
theatre. 

In the remaining three documents in which these two conflicting 
accounts are combined in different ways, the patch-work is more or less 
apparent. 


3. The clumsiest form of the combined narrative appears in the 
Bollandist Acts. In this recension little or no attempt is made to fuse 
the Antiochene and Roman Acts. In the incidents at Antioch and 
the journey to Rome the former account is followed (JZart. Ant. δδ 1—s), 
with two unimportant exceptions in ὃ 1—a notice giving the succession 
to the see of Antioch and a paragraph relating to the cruel treatment of 
his guards—both these being insertions from the Roman Acts (see 
above, p. 367, note). As soon as Ignatius arrives in the metropolis, 
the latter account is taken up and continued to the close (AZar¢. Rom. 
§§ 2—12). Thus the end of the first document and the beginning of 
the second are knocked off; and the two, thus mutilated, are joined 
together. The narrative at its joining runs thus: ‘ Denique una die et 
ea nocte prosperis ventis 151 pervenerunt ad urbem Romam: et nun- 
tiaverunt imperatori de adventu ejus.’ This sentence is made up of 
τοιγαροῦν ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ νυκτὶ TH αὐτῇ οὐρίοις ἀνέμοις προσχρησάμενοι 
from Mart. Ant. 5, followed by παραγίνονται [v. 1. παρεγένοντο] ἐν τῇ 
Ῥώμῃ" καὶ προσήνεγκαν τῷ αὐτοκράτορι τὴν ἀφιξιν αὐτοῦ from JZart. 
fom. 2. The result of this agglutination is utter incongruity. Trajan 
appears first at Antioch and then at Rome, but how he got from the one 
place to the other does not appear. Ignatius has an altercation with 
him in both cities. The condemnation takes place twice over. The 
editors of the Acta Sanctorum can only explain this startling incongruity 
by supposing that some chapters have been displaced. Generally these 
Acts of Martyrdom are a corrupt rendering, first of the Antiochene, and 
then of the Roman account, running off occasionally into paraphrase. 
The day of commemoration is altered in the last paragraph to the 
Kalends of February in accordance with the Roman usage. 


4. The Armenian Acts are a more successful attempt to amalga- 
mate the two narratives. The compiler is not satisfied with agglutina- 
tion, as in the former case, but aims at fusion. He strives to work in 


24—2 


372 ~ ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


all, or nearly all, the incidents of both accounts, and yet to guard the 
unity of the story. From the Antiochene Acts he has taken the whole 
account of the interview with Trajan at Antioch, the journey to Rome, 
and the martyrdom, borrowing here and there an incident or an expres- 
sion from the Roman Acts. To the Roman Acts he is indebted for the 
lengthy altercation between the emperor and the saint, with the account 
of the tortures inflicted on the latter in the course of this examination. 
This portion of the story however he has transferred from Rome to 
Antioch, inserting it in the midst of the conversation between Trajan 
and Ignatius as given in the Antiochene Acts, and thus the incongruity 
of the Bollandist Acts, which relate two interviews with Trajan at 
different places and two condemnations, has been avoided. Occasion- 
ally the compiler has inserted notices which have no counterpart in 
either the Antiochene or the Roman narrative, and these he perhaps 
invented himself. But with one or two exceptions (see below, p. 373), 
the insertions are slight and unimportant. The Armenian version 
is unfortunately so edited that it is not always easy to separate the 
notices inserted by the editor Aucher from the body of the Armenian 
text which he had before him. One chapter (§ 50), which gives an 
account of the authorship of this document, is described by Peter- 
mann as ‘additamentum editoris’; by which expression he probably 
means Aucher, as Zahn (Z v. A. p. 24) takes him to mean. In this 
chapter it is stated that the copy before the writer was ‘translated from 
the Greek.’ If this statement is Aucher’s own, we should be glad to 
know on what authority he made it. If we may judge from his 
language in his preface (see Petermann, Ρ. 496), he had no authentic 
information on this point, but offers it as his own decided opinion. 
There is no reason however for questioning its truth’. The amalgama- 
tion of the two narratives is much more likely to have been the work of 
a Greek compiler than of an Armenian translator. 


This Armenian Martyrdom is made up as follows: 

SS I—5 (pp. 497—505, ed. Petermann), ‘Paulo ante...male pereant,’ 
from M@art. Ant. ὅδ τ, 2,”Apre διαδεξαμένου ... κακῶς ἀπολοῦνται: but the 
notice ὃ 1 ‘etenim Evodium excepit’ is taken from J/art. Rom. 1; in 
δ 3 ἃ paragraph is inserted from AZart, Rom. 1 (see above, p. 367, note); 
and in ὃ 5, where Mart. Ant. 2 has ὡς δὲ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔστη Τραϊανοῦ, 
it substitutes ‘et ut stetit coram Trajano ef senatu,’ in order to account 
for the senate taking part in the proceedings as represented in 722 γα 


1 The hypothesis of Zahn (1 v. A. p- mediate Syriac version, has been con- 
21), that it was translated from an inter- sidered already. 


» 


U 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 373 


Rom., which is afterwards followed. In ὃ 4 it is worthy of notice that, 
whereas in one place Ignatius voluntarily goes to Trajan (after Zar‘. 
Ant. 2 ἑκουσίως ἤγετο), in another he is represented as ordered into the 
emperor’s presence (after Aart. Rom. 2 ἐκέλευσεν... εἰσαχθῆναι αὐτόν). 
There are also amplifications and explanations (e.g. that Trajan suc- 
ceeded Nerva) due to the redactor himself, if not to Aucher. 

§ 5 (p. 505) ‘qui et Antiochenorum ... christianismum,’ from Ζ7Ζαγί. 
Rom. 2 0 τὴν ᾿Αντιοχέων ... eis τὸν χριστιανισμόν. 

§ 6 (p. 505) ‘Ignatius dicit, Deo vestitum ... malitiam daemonum,’ 
from Mart. Ant. 2 ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν Οὐδεὶς θεοφόρον ... καταλύω ἐπιβουλάς. 

S§ 6—35 (pp. 505—533) ‘Utinam possem...ego vice fiam,’ from 
Mart. Rom, 2—10 εἴθε, βασιλεῦ, οἷός τε ἤμην ... ὃν ποθῶν ἄπειμι πρὸς 
αὐτόν. But here again to prepare the way for the transition to the 
Antiochene narrative, we have an insertion in ὃ 34, ‘etenim festinabat 
in Armeniam et ad Parthos,’ taken from Mart. Ant. 2 σπουδάζοντα... 
ἐπὶ “Appeviay καὶ Πάρθους. In this portion of the Armenian Martyrdom 
there is also a long passage inserted (δδ 9, 10, p. 509) ‘sicut et prius- 
quam crucifigeretur ... argillam illuminationi oculorum dabat inservire,’ 
which is not found in either of the Greek narratives, and which contains 
an account of our Lord’s miracles somewhat irrelevant to the matter in 
hand. So again § 17 has no counterpart in either the Roman or the 
Antiochene Acts. 

S$ 36—46 (pp. 533—541) ‘ Trajanus dicit; Cruci affixum...festinabat 
deinde intrare in theatrum,’ from J/art. Ant. 2—6 Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν' 
Tov oravpwhévra ... ἀπήχθη peta σπουδῆς εἰς TO ἀμφιθέατρον. At the end 
of § 41 the redactor has inserted a note of his own to the effect 
that Ignatius calls himself Θεοφόρος in the superscription of all his 
epistles. 

§ 46 (p. 541) ‘et stans in medio populo dicebat ... panis purus,’ from 
Mart. Rom. 10 ἔφη πρὸς τὸν δῆμον... ἄρτος καθαρὸς γίνωμαι. 

δὴ 47, 48 (pp. 542, 543) ‘et quum haec dixisset ... proverbiorum 
auctor dixit.’ This portion of the narrative, the account of the actual 
martyrdom and the reliques, presented the greatest difficulty in the 
fusion, since the two Greek narratives directly contradict each other. 
The redactor fuses them as follows : 


Armenian. Greek. 
‘Et quum haec dixisset, καὶταῦτα εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ 77. Δ᾽. το. 
-. . 8, ὁ»... “ > la \ a 
bestis ferocibus projiciebant οὕτως θηρσὶν ὠμοῖς παρὰ τῶν 
eum impii carnifices ; ἀθέων παρεβάλλετο 777. A. 6. 


et accurrentes duo leones suffo- ἔδραμον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ot λέοντες καὶ 


374 


Armenian, 


cabant beatum, et absumserunt 
sanctum corpus ejus, 


et implebatur desiderium ejus 
secundum dictum divinae scripturae 
quod destderium justorum accepta- 
bile est. Etenim volebat ut absu- 
meretur a bestiis et non molesta 
fieret collectio corporis ipsius fra- 
tribus; et secundum desiderium 
promtitudinis ejus itidem et fecit 
Deus. Etenim quum absumsissent 
bestiae totum corpus sancti, paul- 
lum quidquam e magnis ossibus reli- 
querunt, quod postea abstulerunt in 
Antiochenorum urbem, thesaurum 
incomparabilem in testimonium 
gratiae sanctae ecclesiae relictum.’ 

‘Sed tunc conventum instituen- 
tes sancti fratres qui Romae erant, 
quibus et scripsit beatus ut non 
impedimento fierent ipsius bono 
proposito, et tollentes reliquias 
sancti posuerunt in loco quodam, 
in quo accidebat congregatis una 
laudare Deum et filium ejus unige- 
nitum et sanctum spiritum in me- 
moriam decessus sancti episcopi et 
martyris; etenim et memoria jus- 
forum cum laude, proverbiorum 
auctor dixit.’ 


ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Greek. 


ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν προσπεσόντες 
3 7 € / 5 2) δὲ > 
ἀπέπνιξαν μόνον, οὐκ ἔθιγον δὲ av- 
tov τῶν σαρκῶν MW. Δ΄. το. 
lal / 
ὡς παραυτὰ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος 
5 ͵7 “A \ 5 ,ὔἅ 
Ἰγνατίου πληροῦσθαι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν 
κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐπιθυμία δι- 
/ ᾽ν; Ψ Ν “ 5 
καίου δεκτή, ἵνα μηδενὶ τών ἀδελ- 
φῶν ἐπαχθὴς διὰ τῆς συλλογῆς τοῦ 
λειψάνου γένηται, καθὼς φθάσας ἐν 
a ΕἸ “ \ 950.»ϑὔ0ὕ > / 
τῇ ἐπιστολῇ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπεθίμει γε- 
νέσθαι τελείωσιν. μόνα γὰρ τὰ τρα- 
VA las οὐ 3 la / 
XUTEPA τῶν αγίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων 
περιελείφθη, ἅτινα εἰς τὴν ᾿Αντιό- 
3 ,ὕ 6 AV eis λ A 
χειαν ἀπεκομίσθη Kat ἐν ληνῷ κατε- 
/ ‘ Stay. ε Ν “ ΕἸ 
τέθη, θησαυρὸς ἀτίμητος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν 
΄- / LZ Ay 1c 
τῷ μάρτυρι χαρίτος TH ayia ἐκκλησίᾳ 


καταλειφθέντα M. A. 6. 


\ \ ε , - 

ot δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ρώμην ἀδελφοί, 

a 7 
ois Kal ἐπεστάλκει ὥστε μὴ παραιτη- 
/ 3 Ν “ 
σαμένους αὐτὸν τῆς ποθουμένης μαρ- 
3 an 
Tupias ἀποστερῆσαι ἐλπίδος, λαβόν- 
2 A Ν la 3 / 
TES αὐτοῦ TO σῶμα ἀπέθεντο | ἐν τόπῳ] 
δ > 2¢\ > / ΕἾ A \ 
ἔνθα nv ἐξὸν ἀθροιζομένους αἰνεῖν τὸν 
Ν Ν \ , ε a 5 “ 
Θεὸν καὶ τὸν υριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν 
\ Ay ie lal 
Χριστὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα | vv. Il. ] 
Ν a an ε ΄ 
ἐπὶ τῇ τελειώσει τοῦ aylov ἐπισκό- 
X 4 
που καὶ μάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου᾽ μνήμη 
Ν 4 3 > / 
γὰρ δικαίου pet ἐγκωμίων 77. 
ἜΤ τὰ 


Thus in this section the Antiochene story is followed as regards the 


two main points in which it differs from the Roman—the devouring of 
the body with the exception of the harder bones and the translation of 
the reliques to Antioch. At the same time portions of the Roman 
story relating to both these points are introduced with modifications. 
(i) The wild beasts in the Roman story are said to ‘crush him to 
death only’ (ἀπέπνιξαν μόνον), this mode of death being invented to 
account for the body being preserved whole. ‘The incident of the 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 375 


‘crushing’ is retained, but the qualifying adverb ‘only’ (μόνον) is omitted, 
and the beasts proceed to devour the body. (11) The deposition of the 
reliques and gatherings of the Roman brethren to commemorate the 
martyr are also adopted from the Roman story; but the account is 
introduced by the words ‘sed tunc,’ to show that this was only their 
temporary resting-place, prior to their translation to Antioch, 

§ 49 (pp. 543—545) ‘et dum nos noctem...Januarias,’ the account 
of the appearances of Ignatius to his friends on the night after the 
martyrdom, from JJart. Ant. 7 ἐγένετο δὲ ταῦτα ... μακαρίσαντες τὸν 
ἅγιον ; but the date is transferred from the beginning to the end of this 
section; the day is altered from xi Kal. Jan. to ix Kal. Jan. (apparently 
to suit the Armenian Calendar); and the names of the consuls are 
omitted. 

§ 50 (p. 545) is an addition of the editor, as already stated, 

§ 51 (pp. 545, 547) ‘Novit ejus martyrium ... gavisuros esse,’ from 
Mart. Rom. 12 οἷδεν δὲ αὐτοῦ ... ὠφεληθήσεσθε, the passage of Eusebius 
containing the testimony of Irenzeus and Polycarp respecting Ig- 
natius. 

§ 52 (p. 547) runs ‘Pone verba Polycarpi addit Eusebius “μα guz- 
dem, quod de sancto Ignatio erat et martyrium ejus hucusque ; exceptt 
episcopatum Anttochiae Heron. This corresponds to Mart. Rom, 12 
τοῦτο ᾿Ιγνατίου τὸ μαρτύριον ... Ἥρων, where however the name of Eu- 
sebius is not mentioned. The editor then continues ‘At pone has 
Eusebianas sectiones rursus profert collectio [i.e. Actorum] tanquam ex 
ore genuini auctoris sic.’ ‘The words which follow are an amalgama- 
tion: 


‘Memoriam Deo dilecti et pro- 
bi athletae Ignati in Hrotitz men- 
sis die primo [secundum Graecos 
Decembr. 20] manifestavimus vobis 
et diem ut tempore martyrii con- 
gregati participes fiamus ... in sae- 
cula saeculorum. Amen.’ 


Kal ἔστιν ἡ μνήμη τοῦ θεοφιλε- 
στάτου καὶ γενναίου μάρτυρος ᾽Ἴγνα- 
τίου μηνὶ πανέμῳ νεομηνίᾳ 777. R. 12. 
ἐφανερώσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν 
καὶ τὸν χρόνον, ἵνα κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν 
τοῦ μαρτυρίου συναγόμενοι κοινωνῶ- 


ἀμήν M. A. 7. 


pev...els αἰῶνας. 


This date, rst Hrotitz (1.6. July), taken from the Roman story, is 
quite inconsistent with the previous date, ix Kal. Jan., modified from 


the Antiochene. 


5. The two documents last mentioned, while combining the 
Antiochene and Roman stories, appropriate not only the incidents but 


the very language of these narratives. 


The Acts which bear the name 


376 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


of Symeon the MWetaphrast use the materials much more freely’. With 
a higher literary aim, the author recasts both the diction and the inci- 
dents, toning down the ruggedness of the one and rejecting the more 
revolting features of the other. But though he alters without scruple, 
it is easy to trace the influence of one or other of the independent 
narratives throughout the main part of his composition. Like the 
author of the Armenian Acts, he borrows the dispute with Trajan from 
the Roman story and transfers it in like manner to Antioch. The 
discussion however is much curtailed, and the tortures are omitted. 
At the commencement he introduces the story that Ignatius was the 
child whom our Lord took up in His arms and blessed (§ 1); and at 
the close, where he mentions the translation of the reliques from Rome 
to Antioch (§ 24), he seems to be recalling the language of S. Chrysos- 
tom in his panegyric on the martyr (Op. 11. p. 600 B, ed. Bened.). 
With these exceptions, he does not appear to employ any other sources 
of information but the two independent Acts of Martyrdom, which he 
amalgamates. 

Our first impulse is to suppose that the Metaphrast had before him 
not the two independent narratives, but the same combined narrative 
which the Armenian translated from the Greek into his own language. 
‘The discussion on the name Θεοφόρος from the Antiochene story is 
interrupted in the same way by interposing the altercation with Trajan 
from the Roman story ; and in the account of the scene in the theatre 
and the disposal of the reliques there is a similar juxtaposition of 
features derived from both narratives. But a closer examination dispels 
this first impression. The Metaphrast preserves portions from each 
story, which are not found in the combined narrative of the Armenian 
Acts. ‘Thus for example these last-mentioned Acts have nothing corre- 
sponding to ὃ 4 καὶ τί ἐστι θεοφόρος ; and 720. τί δὲ nets; ov σοὶ δοκοῦμεν 
x.t.A. Of the Metaphrast, which are adopted and adapted from Aart. 
Ant. 2, or again to ὃ 27 ἀκούσας δὲ πολλὰ x.t.X’. of the Metaphrast, which 
is taken from the account of Pliny’s letter to Trajan in Mart. Rom. 11. 
Nor again is the sequence the same in the Metaphrast as in the Arme- 
nian Acts. Thus in § 4 of the Metaphrast we have in close proximity 
two pieces of conversation, σὺ οὖν ὁ ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν Χριστὸν περιφέρων ; vai, 
φησί, γέγραπται yap" ᾿Βνοικήσω x«.7.d., and ὃν εἰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπέγνως ... μονι- 
μώτερα, which appear at an interval of 30 chapters and in the reversed 


1 It did not seem worth while to reprint tions of Cotelier, Petermann (p. 472), 
the Acts of the Metaphrast in the present Dressel (p. 350), Zahn (p. 316), and 
volume, as they have no independent Funk (1. p. 246). The text of this last 
value. They will be found in the edi- edition is founded on fresh collations. 


£ 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 510 


order in the Armenian version (§ 36, and § 6). It seems probable 
therefore that the Metaphrast fitted together the two stories for himself ; 
but if he used a combined narrative, it must have been somewhat diffe- 
rent from that which was in the hands of the Armenian translator. 


3. 


It remains to enquire whether either of the two Acts of Martyrdom, 
which alone have an independent character, the Antiochene and the 
Roman, deserves any consideration as regards hestorical credibility. 


And here we may at once dismiss the Roman Acts, for internal 
evidence condemns this work as a pure romance. The exaggerated 
tortures inflicted on the saint, the length and character of the discourses 
attributed to him, and the strange overtures made to him by the emperor, 
all alike are fatal to the credit of the narrative. 

Moreover, the writer is not even consistent with himself. He gives 
the year of the emperor’s reign and the names of the consuls at the 
time of the martyrdom (§ 1, see the note). The one date is irrecon- 
cilable with the other. He states also that letters reached Trajan from 
Pliny after the martyrdom. ‘The receipt of these letters is represented 
as following so immediately on this event, that they influence the em- 
peror in the disposal of the body (δ 11). This statement again cannot 
be harmonized with either of the dates given in the opening chapter. 
The year of the emperor’s reign points to A.D. 106, or 105 at the 
earliest ; the names of the consuls give A.D. 104: but the proconsul- 
ship of Pliny in Bithynia, and the consequent letters respecting the 
Christians, cannot date before about A.D. 112 (see below, p. 393 Sq). 

Nor is there any reason for supposing that this document was 
founded on an earlier writing or tradition. Zahn indeed has en- 
deavoured to show this (7. v. A. p. 31 sq), but his evidence to my mind 
fails to establish his point. 

(1) His first witness is Jerome. This father (Casad. 16), after giving 
an account of the letters of Ignatius which is taken altogether from 
Eusebius (H. £. iii. 36), adds; ‘Quumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, 
ardore patiendi, cum rugientes audiret leones, ait, /rumentum Christ 
sum ; dentibus bestiarum molar, ut pants mundus tnveniar. Passus est 
anno decimo (ν. 1. undecimo) Trajani: reliquiae corporis ejus Antio- 
chiae jacent extra portam Daphniticam in coemeterio.’ So at least this 
father’s text is read in the common editions. In like manner our 


378 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


martyrologist ascribes these same words to Ignatius (§ 10), when he is 
actually in the amphitheatre and sees the wild beasts let loose’. And 
as Jerome was several times at Antioch from A.D. 373 onward and held 
intimate relations with the Antiochene Church, it is argued by Zahn 
that he derived this tradition from Antioch itself, where also he learnt 
about the burial place of Ignatius. 

But what was Jerome’s position with relation to Ignatius? There is 
no evidence that he had ever seen the Ignatian letters. He only twice 
elsewhere quotes or attempts to quote Ignatius. The one quotation 
(Comm. in Matth. i. § τ, Op. Vu. p. 12) is a stock passage from 2765. 
19, and occurs in a work of Origen Hom. vi in Luc. 1 (OP. i. p. 938), 
which Jerome himself translated. ‘The other (adv. Pelag. 111. 2, Of. τι. 
Ρ. 783) is a mere blunder; for the words which he ascribes to Ignatius 
belong to Barnabas, and here again he probably owed the quotation to 
Origen, misnaming however the author. In this very notice of Ignatius 
in the Catalogue he borrows the whole of the preceding account of the 
life and letters from Eusebius; but even thus he fails into a strange 
blunder. Misled by an expression of Eusebius (τῇ Σμυρναίων ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
ἰδίως TE TO ταύτης προηγουμένῳ Πολυκάρπῳ), he identifies the Epistle to 
the Smyrnzeans with the special letter to Polycarp, and consequently 
quotes as from the latter a passage which Eusebius gives as from the 
former (Smyrvv. 3). When therefore we find that his account of the saying 
of Ignatius in the amphitheatre has likewise a parallel in the narrative 
of Eusebius, which he might easily misunderstand so as to bear this 
sense, we are led perforce to conclude that here also he was indebted to 
this same source. The words of Eusebius are: ‘And Irenzus also 
knows of his martyrdom and makes mention of his letters, saying thus: 
As one of our own people said, when he was condemned to wild beasts for 
his testimony (μαρτυρίαν) to God; Lam the wheat of God, and I am 
ground (ἀλήθομαι) by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure 
bread” ‘The saying occurs in Rom. 5, whence Irenzus doubtless de- 
rived it; but the language of this father, though not incorrect, is suffi- 
ciently ambiguous to mislead one unacquainted with the letters, and 
Jerome accordingly, if the common text be correct, has transferred the 
saying to the time of the martyrdom, embellishing it with a rhetorical 


1 Pearson (Vind. Lyn. Ὁ. 189) suggests this view untenable. With more cogency 
that Jerome did not really mean to as- Pearson urges (pp. 189 sq, 6το) that it 
cribe these words to Ignatius at the time does not matter what Jerome meant, 
of martyrdom ; but if we retain the com- _ since his information is derived at second 
mon text, which Pearson had before him, hand from Eusebius. 

I agree with Zahn (p. 32) in considering 


= 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 379 


flourish of his own, ‘quum rugientes audiret leones.’ But the correct 
text appears to be ‘et ardore patiendi rugientes audiret leones,’ and 
this probably means that in his eagerness for martyrdom the saint 
already heard by anticipation the roaring of the lions. ‘The author of 
these Roman Acts, who likewise had Eusebius before him, though not 
unacquainted with the epistles themselves, has made the same mistake 
which Jerome is supposed to have made. 

(2) The second passage, to which Zahn refers, is taken from the 
panegyric of Chrysostom on Ignatius. The words of Chrysostom are: 
‘Therefore that all the inhabitants of Rome might learn these things 
in deed, God allowed the saint to be martyred (τελειωθῆναι) there. 
And that this was the reason, I will make good (τοῦτο πιστώσομαι) 
from the very manner of his death. For he did not receive the sen- 
tence of condemnation (τὴν καταδικάζουσαν ἐδέξατο ψῆφον) outside the 
walls, in a dungeon (ἐν βαράθρῳ), nor in a law court, nor in any corner; 
but in the midst of the theatre, while the whole city was seated over- 
head, he underwent this form of martyrdom (τὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου τρόπον), 
wild beasts being let loose upon him that he might erect a trophy 
against the devil before the eyes of all, etc. (Of. τι. p. 599).’ These words 
are taken to mean that the actual conviction of the saint took place 
at Rome, as represented in the Roman Acts. This interpretation 
seems to me to be more than doubtful in a highly rhetorical passage 
as this is’. But even if it were correct, the passage would only 
show that Chrysostom drew his own inference from the letters, just 
as the author of our Acts did. The expression κατάκριτος (Rom. 4, 
Trall. 3, Ephes. 12) is most naturally interpreted to mean that the 
conviction had already taken place; but this inference that the final 
sentence had been pronounced is not quite certain, and the fears else- 
where expressed by Ignatius lest he should be robbed of the martyr’s 
crown by the interference of the Romans might easily suggest the 
opposite conclusion, as it has done to some modern critics. 

Nor can any inference, I think, be drawn from another passage of 
Chrysostom (p. 600 a), ‘He considered the mouths of these (the wild 
beasts) to be much less savage (πολλῷ ... ἡμερώτερα) than the tongue of 
the tyrant. And reasonably too (καὶ pada εἰκότως); for while it invited 
him to gehenna, their mouths escorted him to a kingdom.’ ‘There are 


1 The expression τὴν καταδικάζουσαν τρόπον ὑπέμεινε, suggests the former mean- 
ἐδέξατο ψῆφον is as applicable to the exe- ing. Moreover the preceding words, ἐκεῖ 
cution as to the delivery of the sentence; τελειωθῆναι, ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς τελευ- 
and the expression which balances it in τῆς, have no reference at all to the trial, 
the antithetical clause, τὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου _ but refer solely to the actual martyrdom, 


380 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


indeed passages in our Acts (δὲ 2, 5) to which the allusion might con- 
veniently be referred. But this contrast between the temporal and the 
eternal tortures was an obvious commonplace of martyrologies; and 
the threats and blandishments of a tyrant were almost a necessity in 
such a scene. ‘The elements moreover of Chrysostom’s rhetoric are 
found in the language of Ignatius himself, Rom. 5, 6, 7, where he defies 
the present tortures for the sake of the future kingdom and denounces 
the attempts of ‘the prince of this world’ to corrupt his mind and divert 
him from his purpose. 

(3) Zahn’s third argument is built on a coincidence with the spurious 
Epistle to the Antiochenes. In the Acts of Martyrdom (§ 6) Ignatius, 
addressing Trajan, describes the Christians as ‘obedient to rulers 
whereinsoever the obedience is free from peril’ (ὑποτασσομένους ἄρχουσιν 
ἐν ols ἀκίνδυνος ἡ ὑποταγή); while to the Antiochenes he is made to 
write (ὃ 11), ‘Be ye obedient to Czesar, whereinsoever the obedience is 
free from peril’ (τῷ Καίσαρι ὑποταγητε ἐν οἷς ἀκίνδυνος ἡ ὑποταγή). Such 
a coincidence of course cannot ‘be accidental; and Zahn supposes that 
the saying in these Acts and the injunction in the letter were both 
derived from a common tradition. He puts aside the alternative solu- 
tion, that the writer of the Acts took the saying from the spurious 
epistle, arguing that the martyrologist is only acquainted with the Epistle 
to the Romans of the seven older letters, and that therefore we cannot 
suppose him to have had any knowledge of one of the later and spurious 
epistles. Now it is true, that he does not elsewhere betray any distinct 
acquaintance with any other Ignatian letter besides the Epistle to the 
Romans; but his subject matter naturally led him to quote this and 
this only. The same is the case also in the Menza and elsewhere, 
whensoever writers are especially concerned with the martyrdom and 
the facts connected with it. In such cases the argument from silence 
ceases to have any value. But I observe that Rhegium is twice men- 
tioned by our martyrologist (δ 1 ἐπὶ τὴν Θράκην καὶ Ῥήγιον, ὃ 2 “Apavtes 
οὖν ἀπὸ Ῥηγίου); and the name of this same place occurs in one of the 
spurious epistles (PAzlipp. 15 συντυχὼν περὶ ἱῬήγιον), but no where else 
(so far as 1 remember) in connexion with the history of Ignatius. More- 
over in these Acts and in the spurious epistles alike it is the only 
place named between the same limits—Thrace or Philippi to the East, 
and Rome to the West. But more important still is the fact, which 
Zahn overlooks, that our martyrologist quotes the Epistle to the Romans 
from the interpolator’s recension. ‘This, I think, is clear from § 2 where 
Ignatius says, οὐ γὰρ τὸν νῦν ἀγαπῶ αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ἀποθανόντα 
καὶ ἀναστάντα Χριστόν, compared with a passage in Lom. 6, which stands 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 381 


in the genuine Ignatius ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ tov ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα, ἐκεῖνον 
θέλω τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀναστάντα, but is read by the interpolator ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ 
τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα. Moreover in other passages 
our martyrologist reproduces expressions that were first inserted into 
the Epistle to the Romans in the interpolator’s recension, though they 
have also crept into the text of the genuine Ignatius in later authorities ; 
e.g. comp. ὃ 2 οὔτε βασιλείας κοσμικῆς ἐφίεμαι with Rom. 4 μηδὲν ἐπι- 
θυμεῖν κοσμικόν, 10. τί γὰρ ὠφεληθήσομαι ἐὰν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσω 
τὴν δὲ ψυχήν μου ζημιωθῶ with Rom. 6 τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος ἐὰν κ.τ.λ.., 
8.3 ὁ μὲν πρόσκαιρος ὁ δὲ αἰώνιος with Rom. 3 τὰ γὰρ βλεπόμενα πρόσ- 
καιρα τὰ δὲ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια, ὃ το σῖτος γάρ ἐστιν ἀθανασίας καὶ πόμα 
ζωῆς αἰωνίου with Rom. 7 ἄρτον ζωῆς...καὶ πόμα...ἀένναος ζωή. It is 
worthy of notice also that the rare word ἀλωπός occurs both in 
these Acts ὃ το and in Ps-Ign. Antioch. 6 (though only as a various 
reading), and that 2 Cor. vi. 14 sq 15 quoted both by our martyrologist 
§ 4, and in Ps-Ign. Ephes. 16. 

But, if this narrative must be relegated to the region of pure ro- 
mance, is it possible to determine the place or time of writing? 

As regards the A/ace, our first impulse is to attribute it to Rome, 
since Rome is the centre of interest in the story (see above, p. 370). 
But inasmuch as there is every reason to suppose that the Greek is the 
original language of the document, and it is certain that the Roman 
Church had ceased to speak Greek commonly long before this narra- 
tive can have been written, this hypothesis must be abandoned. 
Certain indications seem to me to point directly to Egypt, and therefore 
probably to Alexandria, as its birth-place. The date of the anniversary 
is given according to the Macedonian, and therefore Alexandrian, 
nomenclature of the months as the 1st of Panemus (for there can be 
little doubt that this was the original form of the notice, and that it has 
been altered to Dec. 20 in some authorities to conform to the later 
Greek festival of the martyrdom). There is good reason also for 
believing that this day, the 1st of July, corresponding to the 7th of the 
native Egyptian month Epiphi, was the day assigned to Ignatius in the 
Egyptian calendar, which in this respect differed from all the other 
known calendars whether Eastern or Western. Again, the emphatic 
attack on the animal worship which prevailed in Egypt (§ 4) seems to 
show a local interest in this form of paganism, just as in the earliest 
Sibylline Oracles, which emanated from Egypt, we find the same pheno- 
menon (procem. 60—65, 70 sq, ili. 29 sq, v- 77, 278 sq). Lastly, we 
find this narrative translated into the Coptic, whereas on the other 
hand the Antiochene story of the martyrdom does not appear, so far as 


382 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


we know, to have found its way into the native Egyptian Church. The 
relations between Alexandria and Rome were sufficiently close to 
account for the circulation of these Acts in the Western Church, while 
the special prominence assigned to Rome in the narrative would secure 
for them a favourable reception there. ‘To account for this prominence 
no recondite motive need be sought. A romance writer, founding his 
story on the single fact that Ignatius was martyred at Rome, would 
naturally assume that his trial also took place in the metropolis and 
that his reliques were deposited there. The one inference which may 
be safely drawn from this treatment is the complete isolation of the 
writer from the influences of Antiochene sentiment and Antiochene 
tradition’. 

The zme of writing can only be determined within very rough limits. 
The writer is evidently acquainted with the £cclesiastical History of 
Eusebius. Several facts and expressions in the opening chapter (e.g. 
μετὰ ἐπιμελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακῆς, ἀπὸ Συρίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων πόλιν, 
τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν ἕνεκα μαρτυρίας, διὰ τῆς ᾿Ασίας) are taken from this 
father’s account of Ignatius (1. £. il. 36); and the notice of the 
correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, together with the testimonies 
from Irenzeus and Polycarp and the name of Ignatius’ successor, at 
the close, is derived from the same source (17. £. iil. 33, 36). More- 
over, as we have seen, there are good reasons for believing that the 
writer was acquainted with the interpolated recension of the Ignatian 
Epistles, which probably belongs to the latter half of the fourth century 
and cannot well have been earlier. These facts furnish us with a 
terminus a quo. For the terminus ad guem, the Coptic papyrus at Turin 
may perhaps prove an important witness ; but of its probable date I am 
not able to say anything. Failing this, we have recourse to quotations 
and references ; and here our earliest witnesses are Latin writers. The 
account of Ignatius in the Martyrology of Ado (t a.p. 875) is largely 
taken from this story. Ado however had it before him, not in its 
original form, but in the combined narrative of the Bollandist Acts. 
This is also the case with other Latin Martyrologies of the gth cen- 
tury and later, such as the so-called Bede and Usuard. We must 


Antiochene tradition point not to the 
Colbertine [i.e. Antiochene in my nomen- 


1 Any one writing at the close of the 
4th century or after, if he knew anything 


of Antioch, must have known that it 
claimed to have the reliques of Ignatius. 
This consideration seems to me to be 
decisive against the conclusion of Zahn 
(7. v. A. p. 53) that all traces of a fixed 


clature], but to the Vatican [i.e. Roman] 
Acts. The tradition may be worthless ; 
but, such as it is, it must be looked for 
altogether in the former. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 383 


therefore allow time for its combination with the Antiochene Acts 
and for translation into Latin before this date. The corresponding 
Greek witnesses are later. The A/enea for Dec. 20 show a know- 
ledge of the Roman as well as of the Antiochene Acts; but whether 
they were used separately, or in a combined form, may be open to 
question. Zahn (/.v. A. p. 28) argues from the expression σιδηροῖς ὄνυξι 
(Ρ. 143, ed. Venet. 1863), that the compiler must have used the same 
combined narrative which is preserved in the Armenian version. The 
Armenian Acts (§ 31) also introduce the epithet ferrezs ungulis, where 
the Greek has merely τοῖς ὄνυξι (§ 9). But this inference from the 
insertion of a single obvious word is not conclusive. In § 4 this same 
epithet is supplied by the Coptic version. In the Aenology of Basil 
Porphyrogenitus also (circ. A.D. 980), under Jan. 29, a knowledge of 
these Acts appears (Patrol. Graec. Cxvi1. 284, Migne). The Laus Heronis 
is another and probably an earlier witness ; but of its date we have no 
evidence. Ussher was disposed to assign it to the author of the spurious 
and interpolated Ignatian letters (/gv. οἱ Pol. Mart. p. 131). It has 
seemed hitherto to be a sufficient answer to this hypothesis that the 
Laus Heronis, existing only in Latin, was probably written originally 
in this language (Zahn /. v. A. p. 38). But the discovery of a Coptic 
version alters the case. It is not very probable that a Coptic version 
would be translated from Latin, and we are led therefore to postulate a 
Greek original. Ussher’s hypothesis however has nothing to recommend 
it. We might with greater plausibility urge that this document pro- 
ceeded from the same author as our Acts, to which it is attached in 
the Coptic version. But however this may be, the writer seems to be 
acquainted with our story; for he speaks of Ignatius as ‘confounding 
Trajan and the senate of Rome.’ On the whole we may say that these 
Roman Acts cannot well have been written before the fifth century, 
and probably were not written later than the sixth. 


The claims of the Axtiochene Acts deserve greater consideration. 
Their substantial genuineness has been maintained by Ussher, Pearson, 
and Leclerc, among earlier critics, and by a considerable number of 
more recent writers. But the objections which have been urged against 
them of late, more especially by Uhlhorn (Dee Lenatianischen Briefe p. 
248 sq) and Zahn (/. v. A. p. 41 sq), must be felt to have the greatest 
weight ; and the only question which can now be seriously entertained 
is whether—though spurious in their present form—they may not have 
incorporated some earlier and authentic document and thus contain a 
residuum of fact. This question will now be considered. 


384 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


1. The internal evidence is decidedly adverse to their claims to be 
regarded as an authentic document, either wholly or in great part. 
The difficulties under this head are as follows. 

(i) These Acts are not consistent with themselves. ‘They give the 
year of Trajan in which the martyrdom occurred (§ 2), and the names 
of the consuls for the year ($7). But the two are not easily recon- 
cilable (see the note on ὃ 7 Σύρα καὶ Sevexiwvos «.7.A.). Still no 
great stress can be laid upon this discrepancy, since the names of the 
consuls might easily have been a later insertion. 

(ii) They contradict the genuine Epistles of Ignatius. Eusebius 
has rightly inferred from the letters that the martyr was carried over- 
land through Asia Minor (17. £. ill. 36 τὴν δι’ ᾿Ασίας ἀνακομιδὴν... 
ποιούμενος) ; and in this he is followed by the author of the Roman 
Acts. But these Antiochene Acts state that he set sail from Seleucia 
the port of Antioch, and went by sea straight to Smyrna (§ 3). This 
statement conflicts directly with several notices in the epistles. Thus 
Ignatius in one passage says that ‘even those churches which did not 
lie on his route went before him from city to city’ (fom. 9). As the 
letter is written from Smyrna, the expression is wholly irreconcilable with 
the sea voyage of our martyrologist (see the note, p..232). Again, 
writing to the Philadelphians, he speaks of certain things which hap- 
pened when he was among them (PAz/ad. 7), and throughout this 
epistle a personal visit to Philadelphia is implied (see above, pp. 241, 
251, 265, 266, 267); but for such a visit the sea voyage leaves no place. 
Moreover in a third passage (om. 5) he speaks of travelling ‘by land 
and sea’—an expression which is explicable indeed, but appears 
somewhat strained, if we adopt the account of our Antiochene Acts 
(see the note p. 211). And generally it may be said that the incidents 
of the journey, more especially the movements of the delegates 
from the different churches, are involved in the greatest difficulties 
by this sea voyage. Another point of conflict with the letters is 
the notice of Polycarp. In the epistles Ignatius apparently makes 
the acquaintance of Polycarp for the first time (Polyc. 1); in our Acts 
on the other hand they are represented as having been fellow 
disciples under S. John in years gone by (ὃ 3). -Again, the notices of 
the persecution in the two documents are not in harmony. In the 
epistles the Churches of Asia Minor appear to enjoy quiet, and even 
to the Church of Antioch peace is restored while the saint is still on 
his journey (Philad. 10, Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 7). But in our Acts the 
persecution is coextensive with the empire. It is a resolute determi-. 
nation on the part of Trajan to crush the Gospel, as he had already 


OF 8S. IGNATIUS. 385 


crushed the Dacians and Scythians, as he intended shortly to crush the 
Parthians (§ 2). 

(11) Not less irreconcilable are the incidents in these Acts with 
external history. History is silent about any visit of Trajan to Antioch, 
or any expedition against Parthia, at this time. His actual campaign 
against the Parthians, on which occasion he made a long sojourn at 
Antioch, took place several years later than the date assigned to the 
martyrdom in these Acts, whether the year of Trajan’s reign (§ 2) or the 
names of the consuls (§ 7) be taken to determine the time. In either 
case the time of the martyrdom falls in the interval between the em- 
peror’s earlier campaigns in the North and his later campaigns in the 
East, during which interval he was residing in Rome and Italy, and 
busying himself chiefly with public works (see below, p. 407 sq). So 
also the account of the persecution, to which I have already referred, 
is too far removed from the actual occurrences to have proceeded from 
a contemporary writer, however prejudiced. It is equally irreconcilable 
with Trajan’s own rescript to Pliny, in which, so far from entertain- 
ing this dogged purpose of stamping out Christianity, the emperor 
betrays a temporising policy, being desirous as far as possible to 
minimise the judicial proceedings against the Christians, and with 
the account of Eusebius, who correctly describes the sufferings of the 
believers under Trajan as confined to particular localities and due to 
popular excitement (7. Z. ill. 32 μερικῶς καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἐξ ἀναστάσεως 
δήμων). 

(iv) Moreover, the language used from time to time is such as ἃ 
contemporary writer could hardly have employed. ‘The opening chap- 
ters for instance, giving the political events which form the setting of 
the narrative, are conceived altogether in the manner of a historian 
writing long after the occurrences. A contemporary, addressing con- 
temporaries, would not have introduced this elaborate statement which 
was superfluous alike for himself and for his readers. The same remark 
applies also to the notice of the reliques at the end. Here the incon- 
gruity reaches a climax. The document professes to be a narrative 
written by companions and eye-witnesses (δὲ 5, 6, 7) soon after the event 
for the sake of certifying their readers—apparently the members of the 
Antiochene Church—as to the exact date of the martyrdom, that so 
writers and readers might all meet together and keep the festival on the 
right day (§ 7). But under these circumstances why should they tell 
their readers that only the harder bones had been preserved, and that 
these ‘had been carried back to Antioch and deposited there in a sar- 
cophagus as an invaluable treasure’ (δ 6)? Later ages might be in- 


IGN. II. 25 


386 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


terested in such information, but to the persons addressed it was quite 
superfluous. 


2. Nor are these Acts discredited by their internal character alone. 
The external testimony is notably defective. Not a single witness to 
their existence has been adduced till the close of the sixth century. 
They were unknown to Eusebius who, as we have seen (p. 384), cor- 
rectly sends Ignatius by land to Smyrna, thus contradicting the story of 
our Acts in one of its main features. Moreover Eusebius says nothing 
of the altercation with Trajan, of whose intervention he betrays no 
knowledge. Lastly; when he has occasion to mention the account of 
Polycarp’s martyrdom, he speaks of it as the earliest written narrative 
of the kind with which he was acquainted (17. £. iv. 15 ἀναγκαιότατον 
δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος ἐγγράφως ἤδη φερόμενον ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν μνήμῃ τῆς 
ἱστορίας καταθέσθαι). We cannot but infer from his language on this 
occasion that if he had likewise had this Ignatian martyrology in his 
hands he would have felt an equally strong ‘necessity’ to insert 
extracts from it. Nor again does it appear to have been known at 
Antioch at the close of the fourth century ; for Chrysostom in his pane- 
gyric on S. Ignatius makes no use whatever of its incidents, but on the 
contrary assumes, like Eusebius, that the saint journeyed to Rome mainly 
by land (at κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πόλεις... ἐξέπεμπον K.T.r., ταῦτα διδάσκων κατὰ 
πᾶσαν πόλιν, ταῖς ἐν τῷ μέσῳ κειμέναις πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις διδάσκαλος K.T.A.), 
though his language is not so explicit on this point as the historian’s. 
This father does indeed mention the translation of the martyr’s remains 
from Rome to Antioch (p. 600 B)—of which Eusebius says nothing— 
and here is a point of coincidence with our Acts; but this, whether true 
or false, must have been a vulgar tradition of the Antiochenes quite 
independently of any written sources of information. Nor again is there 
any reason for supposing that Jerome ( Κ77. 7/7. 16) was acquainted with 
this narrative. He too, like Chrysostom, mentions the reliques as being 
at Antioch ; but inasmuch as he speaks of their lying ‘in the Cemetery 
outside the Daphnitic gate,’ he must have derived his information from 
some independent source, probably from oral tradition. Nor can any 
inference be drawn from the fact that Jerome uses the expression ‘quum 
jam zavigans Smyrnam venisset’; since he, like the author of our Acts, 
would independently assume that Ignatius was conveyed to Smyrna in 
the easiest and most usual way, though a more careful reading of 
Eusebius, whose text was before him, might have saved him from the 
error. 


The first coincidence of any value appears in Evagrius who wrote at 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 


387 


the close of the sixth century, and this is explicit enough. The notice 
is significant and deserves to be given at length’. 
‘At that time also,’ writes Evagrius, ‘the divine Ignatius (as 


1 Evagr. 27. £. i. τό Τότε καὶ "lyvdrios 
6 θεσπέσιος, ws Ιωάννῃ τῷ 'Ῥήτορι σὺν ἑτέ- 
ροις ἱστόρηται, ἐπειδή γε ὡς ἐβούλετο τάφον 
[Ms τάφων] τὰς τῶν θηρίων ἐσχηκὼς γαστέ- 
pasév τῷ τῆς Ῥώμης μφιθεάτρῳ ἐτελειώθη] 
καὶ [ἔπειτα] διὰ τῶν ὑπολειφθέντων ἁδρο- 
τέρων ὀστῶν, ἃ πρὸς τὴν ᾿Αντιόχου ἀπε- 
κομίσθη, ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ κοιμητηρίῳ [κατε- 
τέθη], μετατίθεται πολλοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις, 
ὑποθεμένου τοῦ παναγάθου Θεοῦ Θεοδοσίῳ 
τὸν θεοφόρον μείζοσι τιμῆσαι τιμαῖς, ἱερόν 
τε πάλαι τοῖς δαίμοσιν ἀνειμένον (Tuxatov 
τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις ὠνόμαστο) τῷ ἀθλοφόρῳ καὶ 
μαρτυρι ἀναθεῖναι" καὶ σηκὸς εὐαγὴς καὶ 
τέμενος ἅγιον τῷ ᾿Ιγνατίῳ τὸ πάλαι Τυ- 
χαῖον γέγονε, τῶν ἱερῶν αὐτοῦ λειψάνων 
μετὰ πομπῆς ἱερᾶς ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐπ᾽ 
ὀχήματος ἐνεχθέντων καὶ κατὰ τὸ τέμενος 
τεθέντων. ὅθεν καὶ δημοτελὴς ἑορτὴ καὶ 
πάνδημος εὐφροσύνη μέχρις ἡμῶν τελεῖται, 
πρὸς τὸ μεγαλοπρεπέστερον τοῦ ἱεράρχου 
γέγονε δὲ 
ταῦτα ἐκεῖθεν évOev[......... 1, τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς 


Τρηγορίου ταύτην ἐξάραντος. 


ὁσίας τῶν ἁγίων τιμῶντος μνήμας κ.τ.λ. 
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἄρα ἦν τὸ οἰκονομούμενον παρὰ τοῦ 
σωτῆρος Θεοῦ, ὡς ἂν καὶ τῶν μεμαρτυρη- 
κότων ἡ δύναμις ἔκδηλος 7, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου 
μάρτυρος τὰ εὐαγῆ λείψανα εὐαγεῖ μετε- 
νεχθεῖεν χώρῳ, καλλίστῳ τεμένει τιμώμενα. 
The passage is translated literally in the 
text, without any attempt to improve 
upon the style of Evagrius which is as 
bad as possible. The words which I 
have inserted in brackets [] seem to be 
required to complete the sense. The pas- 
sage is obviously mutilated, as the break 
in the construction after ἐκεῖθεν ἔνθεν 
shows, though commentators do not 
appear to have noticed the fact. By 
this mutilation an apparent confusion is 
created between the original translation 
of the bones from Rome to Antioch, and 
the later translation of them from the 
Cemetery of Antioch to the Tychzeum in 


this city. Hence the erroneous heading of 
the chapter, Ὅπως ὁ θεοφόρος ᾿Ιγνάτιος ἐκ 
Ῥώμης ἀνακομισθεὶς παρὰ Θεοδοσίου ἐν 
᾿Αντιοχείᾳ κατετέθη, which must have 
been added after the text was mutilated. 
The mutilation had already taken place, 
and the false heading had been prefixed, 
before the time of Nicephorus Callistus 
Hf. E. xiv. 64 (Migne’s Patrol. Graec. 
CXLVI. p. 1212), who derives his account 
from Evagrius; for (1) The heading to 
his chapter is substantially the same; (2) 
He writes ὅσα δὴ στερρότερα καὶ ἁδρότερα 
περιελέλειπτο τῶν ὀστέων ἐκεῖσέ πη [i.e. 
ἐν Ῥώμῃ] ἐκρύπτετο, and adds καὶ δὴ 
ἐκεῖθεν ἀράμενος [Θεοδόσιος] σὺν λαμπρᾷ 
τῇ πομπῇ ἐπὶ Tip’ ἀντιόχου ἀνήγαγε χρόνου 
παραρρυέντος πολλοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ 
κοιμητηρίῳ σεμνῶς κατατίθησιν, ἱερόν τε 
μέγα δαίμοσιν ἀνειμένον, ὃ τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις 
Τυχαῖον ὠνόμαστο, τῷ θεοφόρῳ καὶ μάρ- 
τυρι ἐχαρίζετο, thus making Theodosius 
transfer the reliques from Rome to 
Antioch, and identifying the sepulchre 
in the Cemetery with the Tycheum. It 
may be well to add by way of caution 
that in the opening sentence of Nice- 
phorus, Ἔν δὲ τῷ τότε καὶ ὁ Oeoddpos 
Ἰγνάτιος ἐκ Ῥώμης εἰς τὴν Κωνσταντίνου 
ἀνεκομίζετο, the word Κωνσταντίνου must 
be regarded as a mere scribe’s blunder 
for ᾿Αντιόχου (assisted perhaps by the 
contractions). This appears both from 
the parallel passage of Evagrius and from 
the context of Nicephorus, which through- 
out contemplates Antioch and not Con- 
stantinople as the place of translation. 
The Bollandist editors have argued from 
this Κωνσταντίνου as if it were genuine. 
For the meaning of διὰ in the opening 
sentence of Evagrius, διὰ τῶν ὑπολειῴφθέν- 
των ἁδροτέρων ὀστῶν, see the note on 
Magn. 2 διὰ Δαμᾶ. It is not easily trans- 
lated in its connexion here. 


25—2 


388 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


recorded by Joannes Rhetor and others)—forasmuch as he had met his 
death in the amphitheatre of Rome finding his tomb in the bellies of 
the wild beasts in fulfilment of his own wish, and afterwards, so far as 
regards the tougher bones that remained, which were conveyed back to 
the city of Antiochus, had been deposited in the Cemetery, as it is 
called—was translated long years afterwards, when the good God put 
it into the mind of Theodosius to honor the God-bearer with higher 
honours, and to dedicate to the victorious martyr a sanctuary given over 
from ancient times to the demons, and called the Tycheum (or Temple 
of Fortune) by the people of the place. ‘Thus the ancient Tychzeum is 
made into a consecrated shrine and holy precinct dedicated to Ignatius, 
his sacred reliques having with sacred pomp been conveyed through 
the city on a car and deposited in the precinct. Whence also a 
public festival and general rejoicing is celebrated down to our own 
times, the archbishop (high-priest) Gregory having exalted this festival 
to greater magnificence.’ ‘This then has providentially been so ordered 
by God our Saviour, that the power also of those who have suffered 
martyrdom might be clearly manifest and the sacred reliques of the 
holy martyr might be translated to a sacred place, being honoured with 
a most beautiful sanctuary.’ 

The historian Evagrius himself wrote about the close of the sixth 
century. His history reaches down to a.p. 594, and no later event 
in his own life is on record. The Gregory, whom he mentions, was 
his contemporary and friend, and held the patriarchate of Antioch from 
about A.D. 570 or 571 to A.D. 593 or 594. Joannes Rhetor, whose 
authority he quotes, was the author of a history which comprised the 
period from the commencement of the reign of the younger Theodosius 
to the earthquakes and fire at Antioch in a.p. 526 (Evagr. H. £. iv. 5). 
The translation of the bones of Ignatius, which is recorded, took place 
in the reign of the younger Theodosius who succeeded to the empire 
as a child, when 7 years old, and reigned from Α.Ὁ. 408 to A.D. 450. 
The incident is related immediately after the notices of Isidore of 
Pelusium and Synesius of Cyrene (i. 15) and immediately before the 
account of Attila’s invasions. ‘Thus, as a rough approximation, we may 
suppose that the translation to the Tychzum took place about a. Ὁ. 
430—440. 

The account here given by Evagrius of the preservation of the 
tougher bones and the conveyance of these reliques from Rome to 
Antioch is clearly not independent of the story of our martyrologist 
(§ 6 μόνα yap τὰ τραχύτερα τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων περιελείφθη, ἅτινα 


εἰς τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἀπεκομίσθη κ-τ.λ.), and may have been taken directly 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 389 


from it. The alternative remains, that both alike were derived from some 
common source, e.g. the account of Joannes Rhetor ; and this solution 
is far from improbable. However this may be, the narrative of Evagrius 
is highly suggestive as to the origin of these Acts. The translation 
of the martyr’s bones from the Cemetery outside the Daphnitic Gate 
to the Tycheum by Theodosius m would arouse curiosity with 
respect to the history of the reliques. The saint had been devoured 
by wild beasts at Rome, and the presence of his bones at Antioch 
needed explanation. The document would be compiled to gratify this 
curiosity and to supply this explanation. Either at the time of the 
translation, or more probably at some later date, when public interest 
was excited on the subject, as for instance when the patriarch Gregory 
added new splendours to the festival of the martyr, the narrative would 
make its appearance. To this subject I shall have to return again, 
when I come to speak of the change in the day of the saint’s com- 
memoration. 

At a later date this document obtains a wide circulation. It finds 
its way into the Menza. It is translated into Syriac. It is used by 
the Metaphrast. It is combined with the Roman Acts in different 
ways; and, thus combined, it is read not only by Greek-speaking 
Christians, but also in Armenia and in all the Churches of Latin 
Christendom. 

It has been seen then, that these Acts have no claim to be re- 
garded as an authentic narrative. But the possibility remains that they 
may have embodied some earlier document and thus may preserve a 
residuum of genuine tradition. Such a residuum, if it exists at all, 
will naturally be looked for in those portions which profess to be related 
by eye-witnesses, and in which the first person plural is employed. 
But, even when so limited, the hypothesis of authenticity is involved 
in great difficulties. As Zahn (7 v. A. p. 42 sq) has truly remarked, 
the first person plural in this document does not justify itself in the 
same way as in the Acts of the Apostles. There it is suddenly dropped 
at Philippi, and resumed again at the same place after an interval of 
several chapters and a lapse of several years (Acts xvl. 17, XX. 5). 
Here on the contrary there is no such propriety in its presence or 
absence. If the writers were, as many critics suppose, Philo and 
Rhaius Agathopus, whom we learn from the letters to have been in the 
martyr’s company at Troas (Philad. 11, Smyrn. το, 13) the ‘we’ might 
be expected to appear, while the martyr was still on the shores of the 
ZEgzean (see above, p. 279). Asa matter of fact, its first occurrence is 
where we should least look for it—on the Tyrrhene Sea, as the ship is 


390 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


approaching the Italian shore (δ 5 οὐρίοις ἀνέμοις προσχρησάμενοι ἡμεῖς 
μὲν κιτ.λ.). Still the objection is very far from being fatal; while on 
the other hand there is at least a naturalness in its introduction without 
any attempt to justify or explain it. Moreover I cannot help feeling 
impressed with the air of truthfulness, or at least of verisimilitude, in some 
incidents in the latter portion of the narrative which have excited the 
suspicions of others. Thus Hilgenfeld (4. VY p. 215) argues that the 
desire of landing at Puteoli, attributed to Ignatius, is due to the writer’s 
wish ‘to make his journey to Rome as like as possible to that of the 
Apostle.’ To my mind it suggests the very opposite inference. It is 
not easy to see how two journeys from the shores of the Levant to 
Rome could differ more widely. 95. Paul goes by sea to Melita; 
Ignatius crosses over Macedonia and Epirus to Dyrrhachium. 5. Paul 
lands at Puteoli; Ignatius is prevented from landing there and dis- 
embarks at Portus. The two journeys in short have nothing in 
common, except the fact that both travellers were on the Adriatic and 
Tyrrhene seas. The voyage of Josephus ( Vzta 3) bears a much closer 
resemblance to S. Paul’s. On the other hand, if this is not an authentic 
tradition, it shows some artistic skill and very much self-restraint in the 
martyrologist, that having an unfettered license of invention as regards 
his incidents, and remembering, as evidently he does remember, the 
express desire of the saint to tread in the footsteps of 5. Paul (Zp/es. 
12 οὗ γένοιτό μοι ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη evpeOyvar), he not only refrains from 
representing it as fulfilled, but even emphasizes the disappointment of 
the hope. So again, objection has been taken to the appearance of the 
saint to his friends on the night after the martyrdom (§ 7), as if this 
were impossible in an authentic document. But here too I cannot but 
think that such an apparition was in the highest degree natural after 
the agonizing scenes of the day, and with the tension of feeling which 
they must have left behind in the mourners. If I mistake not, scores 
of parallels could be produced from contemporary and genuine narra- 
tives of the deaths of saints and martyrs in later ages. At the same 
time it is very difficult to separate these incidents from the inauthentic 
references to the reliques and to the day of commemoration with which 
they are closely connected, and which also are given in the first person 
plural (δ 7 ἐφανερώσαμεν ὑμῖν x.7.A.). Still I should be disposed to 
believe, that the martyrologist had incorporated into the latter portion 
of his narrative a contemporary letter of the martyr’s companions con- 
taining an account of the journey from Philippi and the death, though 
freely interpolating and altering it, where he was so disposed. But 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 391 


one consideration is so serious as to be almost fatal to this hypothesis. 
It is extremely improbable that such a document should turn up in the 
fifth or sixth century, though wholly unknown to previous ages. 


4. 


The Chronology of Trajan’s reign requires investigation as a prelimi- 
nary step towards any discussion respecting the time of the martyrdom 
of Ignatius. The labours of Borghesi, Mommsen, and other recent 
critics, have contributed greatly to a more satisfactory arrangement of 
the dates of this period; and the /as#z, as given by previous writers 
such as Clinton, require considerable modification in consequence. 
The investigations of Borghesi are scattered up and down his works, to 
which frequent references will be given below. Mommsen’s Fasti of 
this reign will be found in his article Zur Lebensgeschichte des jungeren 
Plinius in Hermes 111. p. 31 sq. From it I have mainly taken the names 
of the consuls, but not without verification. Under each year I have 
given the typical and important inscriptions, so that the reader may test 
for himself the epigraphical evidence on which the chronology rests’. 


1 For this purpose I have made 
especial use of the more recent standard 
collections of inscriptions, where the 
genuineness and accurate transcription 
of the documents can be depended upon, 
more especially the Corpus Inscriptio- 
num Latinarum of the Berlin Academy, 
compiled by Mommsen and his fellow- 
labourers. The full and well arranged 
indices of this admirable work have 
been of the greatest use. At the same 
time the reader needs to be warned 
that the years A.D. affixed to the several 
inscriptions, whether in the text or in 
the indices, cannot (at least so far as 
regards Trajan’s reign) be accepted with- 
out verification. The years in the text 
and indices frequently do not agree; 
and even in the parts for which Momm- 
sen himself is personally responsible it is 
sometimes impossible to harmonize the 


dates given with either his earlier or his 
later theory respecting the tribunician 
years. Thus in C./. Z. 111. p. 866 (comp. 
pp- 1110, 1124) June 30 of Trib. Pot. xi 
is assigned to A.D. 108, whereas it belongs 
to τοῦ on either reckoning; and in C. Z.Z. 
III. p. 102 sq Mommsen reckons accord- 
ing to Borghesi’s computation of the tri- 
bunician years, not according to either of 
his own. In the volumes for which 
Mommsen is not personally responsible, 
there is still less constancy of reckoning 
in the dates A.D. affixed to the inscrip- 
tions. Klein’s Fasti Consulares (1881) 
had not yet appeared when these sheets 
were passed through the press for my first 
Otherwise I should have been 
I have made use of 


edition. 
saved some trouble. 
this work, where necessary, for this second 


edition. 


392 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 























CONSULS. ταῖν, EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 
| 
A.D. | C. Antistius Vetus Domitian slain Sept. 18. Acces- 
96 | Z: Manlius Valens (1) sion of Nerva. 
A.U.C. 
849 
A.D. | mp. Nerva Augustus 11 | 1 | Trajan adopted about October. 
97 | L. Verginius Rufus 11 The 1st year of his” 7772 fon 
eure. begins then (2). 
850 
A.D. | Zmp. Nerva Augustus τν | 2 | Nerva dies towards the end of 
98 | lZmp. Nerva Trajanus January (3). Accession of Tra- 
A.U.C..| Caesar (afterwards A4u- jan at Cologne. He is already 
851 gustus) U Imperator and Germanicus (Plin. 


Paneg. 9). The title Pater Pa- 
| triae assumed this year. 

| C.J. 1. i. 4933 AVG. GERM . PON- 
| TIF.MAX.IMP. TRIB. POTEST. II. 
| COS JIL. PP. Pa; Compstia7 25, 


4934, 111. 3924. 











A.D. | A. Cornelius Palma 2. | Trajan enters Rome. 
99 | Q. Sostus Senecio | C. 7. L. vi. 563 AVG.GERM.P.M. 
AUG, | TR, ΒΟ ΤΠ COS... ΒῈΒ ys eomipe 
852 | 1. 663 (Aug. (14), 1x17 20: 


Orelli 449 AVG. GERM. PONT.MAX. 
| TRIB, POT. COS: 11.2. P; DES: lee 
comp. Cohen Jééd. mp. i. 











P. 53- 
A.D. | Lup. Nerva Trajanus| 4 | Pliny’s Panegyric in September. 
100 Augustus ΤΙ C. L. £. Vi. 451 AVG. GERM . PON= 
A.u.c. | Sex. Julius Frontinus 11 TIFICI. MAXIMO. TRIB. POT. III. 
853 COS. Ill. DESI|G . 1111] (Dec. 29); 


comp. II. 4900, III. 1699, VIII. 
10186, 10210, x. 6819,) 6820; 
Liphem. ΡΖ. i. p. 334. See 
also Cohen 11. pp. 53, 82 sq. 





A.D. | Lump. Nerva Trajanus| 5 | The First Dacian War breaks out 
Iol | Augustus ιν _ (4). Trajan leaves Rome in 
A.u.C. | Ὁ. Articuletus Paetus | March. Jmperator 11. 
854 | | C. ZL. vi. 1239 AVG. GERMANIC. 
PONTIF. MAX. TRIB. POTEST. V. 
δ νὰ ΟΟΒ.. ΤΠ. P. P. (several times), 
| | Col LZ. Wi. 2184 [TR: POTES| TATE: 
| V .IMP:. 11. COS. ΠῚ ΡΈΕΙ ΒΝ 








ΟἿ IGNATIUS. 393 





TRIB. 
CONSULS. POT EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 








Ap. |Z. Julius Ursus Servia-| 6 | Continuance of the First Dacian 


102 nus ΤΙ War. Jmperator 111, iv. 
A.u.c. | L. Licinius Sura ει (5) C.L,L. X. 6931 AVG .GERMANICVS. 
855 PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. VI.IMP. 


II. COS. III. PATER. PATRIAE; 
comp. X. 6926, 6927, 6928, 
Cohen in pe 57, προ 
AVG.GERM.P.M.TR.P.VI, with 
R IMP. Ul. COS. IIL: DES; Vv. 
Pepe Se 
| Tat See ΕΘΝ 
Α.Ὁ. | Lump. Nerva Trajanus| 7 | The title Dacicus (perhaps at the 
103 | Augustus V close of the previous year). Re- 
a.u.c. | MZ’. Laberius Maximus τὶ turn and Triumph of Trajan. 
856 | C. 1. L. 111. p. 864 [D]AcIcvs . PON- 
TIFEX. MAXIMV|S. TRIB|VNIC. PO- 
TESTAT. VII. IMP. ἘΠῚ P.P.COS. 
v (dated Jan. 19). 
| CT, Tl. 4796 AVG. GER BAG? 
| PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. VII.IMP. 
Hill’. COS. Vs Pies Compa 
4797; VI. 955, 1239 &% VIII. 5325, 
x. 7472; Cohen: nk, p. 657mm 
540 sq. The inscription, C. 7. 
| 7. Vv. 7151, which belongs to 
this year, has IMP. x11, but x 
| must be an error for III. 





ag 


A.D. 
104 
A.U.C. 


857 


Sex. Attius Suburanus τι | 8 | C. Δ L. Vi. 956 AVG . GERM. DA- 
M. Asinius Marcellus (6) | CICO. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. VIII. 


IMP... LHI. COS. V. Px P OPT Vite 
PRINCIPI. 


| 


A.D. | Zt. Julius Candidus Ma-| 9 | The Second Dacian War breaks 

105 γί Celsus ΤΙ out. Trajan leaves Rome in 
A.u.c. | C. Antius A. Julius Quad- June (7). 

S50 | vatus Τί C. I. £. m1. p. 865 sq AVGVSTVS . 

GERMANICVS . DACICVS . PONTI- 

FEX . MAXIMVS. TRIBVNIC . PO- 

TESTAT. VIIII. IMP. III. COS.V. 

| p.p. (May 13); comp. C. ZZ. 

| Vv. 354, VI. 95%; Vil. τεῦ 

| |  68g0. 




















394 
a TRIB. 
CONSULS. nas 
A.D. | LZ. Cetontus Commodus | ΤῸ 
106 Aurelius Annius Verus 
ἈΠ a ee ξύν Certalts 
859 
A.D. | L. Licinius Sura ut para 
107 | Q. Sostus Senecio 11 {0}. | 
A. WUE GC: | 
860 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
A.D. | Ap. Annius Trebontus | 12 
108 Gallus 
A.U.C. | AZ. Atilius Metilius Bra- 
861 dua 
A.D. | A. Cornelius Palma ΤΙ 13 
tog |[Q. Baebius| Tullus 
A.U.C. 
862 
| 
A.D. | Ser. Scipio Salvidienus | 14 
110 Orfitus 
A.U.C. | AZ. Peducaeus Priscinus 





863 | 


ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS, 





The Second Dacian War 


con- 
tinues. Conquest of Arabia 
Petraea by Palmas about this 
time (8). 





End of the Second Dacian War 
(if not at the close of the pre- 
ceding year). Trajan is now 
Imperator vi. 

ΟΣ £. 1X. 36 AVG? GERM BAG 
[Pp ]ONT.MAX.TRIB. POT. XI. IM[P]. 
VI.COS.V.P.P., at Brundisium. 

C. /. £. i. p. 867 AVG. GERMANIC. 
DACICVS . PONTIF.MAXIMYS. TRI- 
BVNIC . POTESTAT . XI. IMP. VI. 
cos. V.P.P..(June 30); comp: 


Vill... 79075, 91, 








Orelli787 AVG.GERM. DACICO. PON- 
TIFICI. MAX. TRIBVNIC.POTEST. 
XII. IMP. VI. COS. V- PP 
VICTIS .. DACIS; comp, /\G74e 
Hl.) 1627, 0272. 





C. I. £. vi. 1260 alvG]. GERM. 
DACIC . [PO]NT. MAX. TR. POT. 
XII . IMP. VI. (COS (.\y eee 
AQVAM . TRAIANAM . PECVNIA . 
SVA.IN.VRBEM. PERDVXIT. 

C. J. L. 1X. 6005 AVG. GERM. DA- 
ci[C].PONT. MAX. TR. POT. XIII. 
IMP.VI.COS.V.P.P.VIAM.ET. 
PONTES . BENEVENTO . BRVNDI- 
SIVM . PECVNIA. SVA; comp. C. 
χι LN) 252, Vuk S4eanee 
6003, X. 6853. 





σι £. Wi. p, 868 AVG ΘΕΈ 
DACICVS . PONTIF . MAX. TRIBV- 
NIC. POTESTAT. XIII1. IMP. VI. 
COS ..¥..P..P. (Feb. 7), icone: 
IX. 27, X. 6835, 6629, Goa: 


A.D. 
ΠῚ Ὶ 


OF 5. 


CONSULS. 





C. Calpurnius Piso 
M. Vettius Bolanus 


A.U.C. 


864 





A.D. 
112 

AUC 
865 


Imp. Nerva Trajanus 
Augustus V1 
.| Zi Sextius Africanus 


A.D. 
113 


IGNATIUS. 395 





EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 


15 | Pliny assumes the government of 


Bithynia (10). 

C. I. LZ. 1%. §947 AVG . GERMAN . 
DACICVS . PONTIF . [M]AXIMVS . 
TRIB. P[OTE|STATE . XV. IMP. 
vVI.COS. V. P.[P.S|VBSTRVCTIO- 
NEM .CONT[RA.L]ABEM. MONTIS. 
FECIT . 





16 | Persecution of the Christians in 


Bithynia. Statue erected in the 
Forum of Trajan and inscribed 
(C2 7. L. vi. 950) AVGEVSEor 
GERMANICO. DACICO. PONTIF . 
MAX. TRIBVNICIA. POTEST . XVI. 
IMP. VI.COS.VI.P.P.OPTIME. 
DE. REPVBLICA. MERITO. DOMI. 
FORISQVE; comp. C. . Z. VI. 542. 

Cf, Le NW. 16117 orriMiver 
[aAv|G . GERM . DACIC . PONT . 
[MA|xX . TRIB. POT . XVI. IMP. 
VI.COS. VI.P.P., at Hippo in 
Africa. 





L. Publilius Celsus ΤΊ 
| C. Clodius Crispinus 


A.U.C. 


866 


114 


QO. Ninntus Hasta 
P. Manilius Vopiscus 


τῇ 


! 
| 


18 | 











| 
The Column of Trajan dedicated 


and inscribed (C. Z ZL. vi. 960) 
AVG . GERM . DACICO ἡ PONTIF . 
MAXIMO. TRIB. POT. XVII. IMP. 
Vb; COS. ΡΒ 

In the autumn Trajan starts for his 
Parthian expedition (11), passes 
through Athens and Asia Minor, 
and winters at Antioch. 








Armenia and Mesopotamia subju- 
gated. Trajan marches to Adia- 
bene. Operations of Lusius. 
The senate confers the title of 
Optimus (12) upon Trajan. He 
is afterwards designated Partht- 
cus (13). This year also he is 
Imperator vii, vill, ix. He win- 
ters again at Antioch. 





ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


CONSULS. 





7. Vipstanius Messalla 
M. Vergilianus Pedo 








TRIB. 


POT. 





EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 


C. J. LZ. ul. p. 869 OPTIMVS. AVG. 
GERM. DACIC. PONTIF.MAX . TRI- 
BVNIC . POTESTAT . XVIII. IMP. 

COS. VI. PsP. (Septet 
ney diploma at Carnuntum 
in Pannonia. 

C. 7. ZL. 1%. 1558 OPTIMO . AVE™ 
GERMANICO . DACICO . PONTIF. 
MAX. TRIB. POTEST . XVIII. IMP. 
VII. COS. VI. P. P. FORTISSIMO. 
PRINCIPE. SENATVS . ΡΊΤΟ, ἘΠῚ 
on the arch at Beneventum. 

C. Z. £, 11. 2097 OPTIMO. AVG.GERM. 
DACICO. PARTHICO. PONTIF. MAX. 
TRIB. POT. XVIII. IMP. VII. COS. 
VI. PATRI. PATRIAE, in Baetica. 

Borghesit Quvres v. 22 OPTIMVS. 
AVG. GERMANICVS.DACICVS. PON- 
TIFEX. MAXIM. TRIB. POT. XVIII. 
IMP. VIIII. P. P. FACIENDAM. CV- 
RAVIT, at Ferentinum. 

Eckhel vi. p. 449 apict. kal. ceB. 
rep.Aak. with R. 10yAlEWN.TWN. 
Kal. AAOAIKEWN . BZp (the 162nd 
year of Laodicea began in the 
autumn A.D. I14). 





The great earthquake at Antioch, 
| in which Pedo is killed (14). 
In the spring Trajan starts for 

a fresh campaign. The Tigris 

crossed and Adiabene reduced. 

Trajan’s stay at Babylon. He 

enters Ctesiphon. The title 

Parthicus confirmed. The sen- 

ate votes honours liberally. Z7- 

perator x, xi, and perhaps xii. 
CLL LL V1.5 43: -OP TIMI . (Anne a 

GERM . DA|cicl . (Id. Jan.). 

(Ὁ. I. £. TX Ἐ504. OPTIMO Ave? 
| GERMANIC.DACICO. PONT. MAX. 
TR. POT. XVIIII. IMP.1IX. COS. VI. 
P . P. PROVIDENTISSIMO . PRIN- 
CIPI. SENATVS «P.O. Ε΄ Om tae 
| arch at Ancona; comp. x. 6387. 








A.D. 
116 
A.U.C. 
869 


OF 5: IGNATIUS. 397 





CONSULS. 
| 





7. Lamia Aetianus 
Vetus 











20 





EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 











Liphem. Epigr. i. p. 38 sq (1876) 


OPTIMO . AVG. GER. PARTHICO. 


DACICO. PONTIF.MAXIM.TRIBVN. 


POTEST .-XVIIII . IMP ΧΙ ΘΟ. 


Vi. PP. (acormectiono: C. 67, 
11. 1028), in Baetica. 


Fabretti Zuscr. Aed. Pat. p. 398, 


no. 289, OPTIMVS .AVG.GER. DA- 
CICVS . TRIBVNIC. POTEST . XIX. 
IMP. XI. COS. VI.P.P. FACIVN- 
DVM . CVRAVIT. 


Boeckh Corp. Juscr. Graec. 4948 


L, 10 . AYTOKPATOPOC . KAICAPOC . 
NEPOYA . TPAIANOY . APICTOY . CE- 
BACTOY . FEPMANIKOY . AdKIKOY . 
TaAXWN . A (Pachon 30 = May 
24). 





Trajan’s expedition to the Persian 


Gulf. He returns to Babylon. 
Revolt of the subjugated na- 
tions. Operations of Lusius and 
other heutenants against the re- 
volt. <A king given to the Par- 
thians. Uprising of the Jews in 
Cyrene, Egypt, and Cyprus. 
Imperator Xi. 


C.I. L.X.16340PTIMO. AVG.GERM. 


DACIC . PARTHIC . PONT . MAX. 
TRIB. POTEST. XX. IMP. XII.COS. 
VI. PATRI. PATR., from Puteoli. 
There is a similar Tunisian in- 
scription, Borghesi Bull. Lusi. 
Corr: Artheol. 1859, “pol 156 
comp. C. ΣΙ ΠΣ 


ΟΣ ΤΗΣ p: 876 OPTI Ave 


GERM. DACIC.PARTHIC. PONTIF. 
MAX. TRIB. POTESTAT.XX. IMP. 
XIII . PROCOS. COS. VI. P.P. (Sept. 
8), at Wiesbaden. 


Cohen II. p. 54 OPTIMO. AVG. GERM. 


with R. DAC. PARTHICO. P. Μ. 
TR. PORK PCOS SOP TP 





ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


TRIB.| ’ 








CONSULS. 
A.D. | Q. Aguilius Niger 21 
117 | AZ. Rebilus Apronianus 
A.U.C. 
870 


{τ (For ‘the consuls of this year see C. 7. Z. vi. 17707. 


POT. 





EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 





Lusius crushes the rebellion of the 
Jews. Illness of Trajan. He 
leaves the army under Hadrian 
andreturns homeward. Hisdeath 
at Selinus in Cilicia, August 11. 

C. ££. 1X. 2015 OPTIMG) Aver 
GERMANICO. DACICO. PARTHICO. 
PONT.MAX.TRIB. POT. XXI. IM[P. 
XII]. COS. VI. PATRI . PATRIAE, 
but it should be Imp. xm. 

The following inscription (which I 
give in full) belongs to a statue 
voted in his life-time, but com- 
pleted after his death; 

C. 2. Z. I. 2054 IMP’ “CARSARTS 
DIVI. NERVAE. F. DIVO. TRAIANO. 
OPTVMO . AVG . GERM. DACICO. 
PARTHICO . PONTIF . MAX. TRIB. 
POTEST .XXI. IMP. XIII. COS.VI. 
PATER. PATRIAE. OPTVMO. MAXV- 
MOQVE . PRINCIPI . CONSERVA- 
TORI. GENERIS. HVMANI. RES . 
PVBLICA. ARATISPITANORVM. DE- 
CREVIT . DIVO . DEDICAVIT, in 
Baetica. 


Dion 


(Ixvil. 14) gives Gaius as the prenomen of Valens, but see Borghesi 


(CHuvres Vi. p. 159. 


(2) The tribunician years of Trajan are the backbone of the 
chronology of his reign, and it is therefore important to determine how 


they were reckoned. 


The ¢ribunicia potestas was conferred on ‘Trajan about the end 
of October a.D. 97', three months before the death of Nerva, which 


1 This follows from a comparison of 
Aur. Victor. Zgzt. xii. g ‘Hic [Nerva] 
Trajanum in liberi locum inque partem 
imperil cooptavit; cum quo tribus vixit 
mensibus,’ with Plin. Paneg. 8 ‘simul 
filius, simul Caesar, mox imperator et 
consors tribuniciae potestatis, et omnia 
pariter et statim factus es, quae proxime 


parens verus [i.e. Vespasianus] tantum in 
alterum filium [Titum] contulit’ (comp. 
§ 9g ‘jam Caesar, jam imperator, jam 
Germanicus, absens et ignarus’). Thus 
Trajan was adopted as son and made 
Ceesar about the same time, perhaps even 
on the same day. Then after a short 
interval he was associated in the empire 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 


399 


took place towards the end of January a.p. 98. Accordingly older 
numismatists and chronographers (e.g. Eckhel and Clinton) commonly 
reckon the 2nd tribunician year from Oct. 98 to Oct. 99, the 3rd 
from Oct. 99 to Oct. 100, and so forth. This mode of computation how- 
ever fails to explain certain inscriptions and coins where the number of 
the tribunician year is one in advance of the reckoning as required by 
this hypothesis; and fresh discoveries are constantly adding to these 
examples. Later writers therefore have busied themselves to find 
some cther solution which would explain these phenomena. 

1. Borghesi first applied himself to the problem (Giuures v. 19 sq; 
see also his letter to Henzen Bull. Inst. di Corrisp. Archeol. 1859, 
p- 1:9 sq). His hypothesis is that Trajan renewed his tribunician 
power at his accession (Jan. 27 or 28), so that his second tribunician 
year was from the end of January a.p. οὗ to the end of January 99, 
the broken piece of a year from the end of October 97 to the end of 
January 98 counting as the first year. 

2. Borghesi’s hypothesis covered most of the examples which 
the older view failed to explain, but not all (e.g. C. Z 2. ut p. 864, 
given above under a.D. 103). To account for those which still 
remained, Mommsen (//ermes 111. p. 128 sq) substituted Jan. 1 for 
Jan. 27 or 28. In other words he supposed that Trajan renewed 
his tribunician power with the beginning of the new year next after 
he had assumed it, so that the 2nd tribunician year coincided exactly 
with A.D. 98, the third with a.p. 99, and so forth. One or two examples 
however resisted this hypothesis also; but Mommsen was persuaded 
that the inscriptions in these cases were either spurious or misread or 
miscut. 

3. Another hypothesis was started by Stobbe in an article Dz 
Tribunenjahre der Romischen Kaiser p. 1 sq in Philologus ΧΧΧΙΙ, 1873. 
He maintained that some extraordinary event, especially the association 


But the in- 
terval was so brief that Aurelius Victor 
can speak of the adoption and the asso- 
ciation in the empire together as taking 
place three months before Nerva’s death. 
This account is quite consistent with 
Dion’s narrative Ixvili. 3, 4, ὁ Nepovas... 


and the tribunician power. 


ἀνέβη τε εἰς TO Καπιτώλιον καὶ ἔφη γεγω- 
νήσας... Τραϊανὸν ποιοῦμαι" καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα 
ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Kaicapa τε αὐτὸν ἀπέδειξε 
kK.T.A...0UTW μὲν ὁ Τραϊανὸς Καῖσαρ καὶ μετὰ 
τοῦτο αὐτοκράτωρ éyévero, The expression 


μετὰ ταῦτα would be satisfied even if Nerva 
proceeded straight from the Capitol to the 
Senate, while the μετὰ τοῦτο requires an 
appreciable, though not necessarily a long, 
interval. It appears from Pliny’s lan- 
guage that the ‘tribunicia potestas’ was 
conferred at the same time (‘pariter et 
statim’) with the association in the ‘im- 
perium,’ There is no ground whatever 
for deferring the ¢rzbunzcta fotestas to the 
next January, as Stobbe does (Phz/ologus 
XXXII. p. 34 Sq, 1873). 


400 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


of a colleague in this office, would lead the emperor to a fresh assump- 
tion of the ¢rvibunicia potestas. ‘Thus he supposed that Nerva would 
begin a new tribunician year, when Trajan was associated with him 
in the office. He believed however that this association in the tribu- 
niclan power took place not, as is generally assumed and as the 
authorities seem naturally to imply, contemporaneously, or nearly so, 
with the adoption, i.e. in October or November 97, but in the early 
days of January 98. This assumption was made to account for the 
fact that the 4th consulate of Nerva (i.e. January a.D. 98, for this 
emperor died towards the end of the month) is found connected not 
only with Trib. Pot. 1, but also with Trib. Pot. i, in inscriptions. 
On this hypothesis therefore the 1st tribunician year of Trajan actually 
began on some early day in January a.p. 98; but by a fictitious 
reckoning this 1st year was counted as the 2nd year, the previous 
three months since his adoption as Cesar being thus retrospectively 
regarded as his first year. This hypothesis is far too artificial to 
commend itself, nor does it explain any phenomena in the inscriptions 
of Trajan’s reign which Mommsen’s solution had left unexplained. 
But Stobbe has the merit of endeavouring to treat the question of the 
tribunician years of the emperors connectedly as a whole. 

4. Lastly, Mommsen in a later work (Rdmisches Staatsrecht τι. Ὁ. 
750, 1ste Aufl. 1375 5:11) Ὁ. 775°sq,-2te Aufl..1877 (a1. ps Foo sqiste 
Aufl. 1887]) has replaced his former hypothesis by another. He now 
supposes that Trajan’s second tribunician year began not on Jan. 1, 
τὸν δ: but.on Dec. τον 4.D: 97. This latter day, Dec. τὸ, waseiie 
ancient day for the election of the tribunes, and Dionysius (Azz. 
fom. vi. 89) says explicitly that it remained so in his time (ὥσπερ καὶ 
μέχρι τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνου yiverat). Now Dion Cassius (lili. 17) tells us 
that the years of the emperors’ reigns were counted by the tribunician 
power ‘on the assumption that they received it year by year together 
with those who for the time being held the office of tribune’ (δι αὐτῆς 
καὶ ἡ ἐξαρίθμησις τῶν ἐτῶν τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν, ὡς KAT ἔτος αὐτὴν μετὰ τῶν ἀεὶ 
δημαρχούντων λαμβανόντων, προβαίνει). It appears therefore that, as a 
rule, the tribunician years of the emperors commenced with Dec. to. 
Dion himself seems not to be aware of any other mode of reckoning. 
This however was not the case with the earlier emperors, who reckoned 
their tribunician years from the day of their accession (des tmperiz). 
Such apparently was the computation adopted by all the emperors of 
the first century. At what time and for what reason then was a change 
made? ‘The association of Trajan with Nerva in the sovereignty 
appears to have been the starting point for the new reckoning. It 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 401 


was a matter of paramount convenience that the two colleagues in 
the tribunician power should compute their tribunician years from the 
same point of time. The difficulty had never occurred before. When 
Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the tribunician power, and 
again when Titus was associated with Vespasian in the same, this 
was done on the anniversary of the dies zmperit. But when Nerva 
adopted Trajan, the political emergency was so pressing that the 
recurrence of this anniversary, which was then some ten or eleven 
months distant, could not be waited for. The tribunician power was 
therefore conferred upon him at once. But in order that the years 
of Nerva and Trajan might synchronize, both the colleagues re-assumed 
the tribunician power on the next Dec. το, this being the ordinary 
day for the election of the tribunes; and the practice, thus initiated, 
became general with succeeding emperors. This hypothesis is con- 
firmed by an inscription in Zphem. Epigr. 11. p. 339 IMP-NERVAE: 
CAESARI: AVG: PONTIF-MAX:TRIB-POT-II1-COS-1I. The third consulate 
of Nerva fixes this inscription to a.D. 97, since he was consul for the 
fourth time in A.D. 98. But his second tribunician year only began 
in the middle of September 97. Therefore between this time and the 
end of the year he must have re-assumed the tribunician power; and 
such a re-assumption would appropriately be made on Dec. το. Thus 
the inscription belongs to some date between Dec. τὸ and Dec. 31, 
A.D. 97. 

It may be a question which of the rival claimants for the vacant 
place should be preferred—whether Borghesi’s theory, or the early or 
later hypothesis of Mommsen ; but there can be no doubt that the older 
method of reckoning the tribunician years, from the actual anniversary 
of the first assumption, must be finally abandoned. ‘The following 
facts show its inadequacy. 

1. The base of a statue set up to Trajan at Aratispi in Baetica 
gives the emperor’s honours (C. Z Z. π΄. 2054; see above, p. 398) 
TRIB: POTEST -XXI-IMP-XIII-COS-vI. Coins also bear the inscription 
AHMAPX.EE-KA; see Eckhel vi. p. 456. Now, as Trajan was 
invested with the tribunician power in October 97 and died in 
August 117, he held this rank somewhat less than twenty years, and 
a 21st year of his tribunician power is only explicable on some 
hypothesis as regards the mode of reckoning, which anticipates the 
actual anniversary’. 


1 Two recorded inscriptions however Mommsen /. 2. WV. 5619(C.Z. 2. 1X. 3915) 


exceed the 21st year, and these are OPTIMO.AVG.GERMANICO. DACICO.PAR- 
not explicable on any reckoning. (1) THICO. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT.XXIII. 


TEN: II: 26 


402 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


2. The military diplomas sometimes give the month and day, as 
well as the consuls of the year; and by this means we are able to 
compare the tribunician years with the consular years. ‘The comparison 
is decisive. Thus the inscription, C. / Z. 111. p. 868, Henzen 5443, 
gives TRIBVNIC-POTESTAT-XIII1-IMP-VI-Cos-v, and is dated 13 Kal. 
Mart. of the consulate of Salvidienus Orfitus and Peducaeus Priscinus, 
Reva. 120." Thus again in 5 Χ 7 111: Ὁ. 865, ΗΠ ΖΕ δε, avewsave 
TRIBVNIC: POTESTAT- VIIII-IMP-IV-COS-v, the date being 3 Id. Mai 
of the consulate of C. Julius Bassus and Cn. Afranius Dexter; but 
these appear elsewhere (C.  Z. vi. 2075) as the consules suffecti of 
A.D. 105. Henzen himself wrongly ascribes this inscription to A.D. 
106 (p. 375). Again in a military diploma, C. 7 Z. 111. p. 863, dated 
19 Kal. Sept., Trajan is styled TRIBVNIC. POTESTAT. III. COS. 11. The 
consuls of the year indeed are not named here, but cos. 1 fixes it 
to A.D. 99, since the emperor was consul for the third time in a.D. τοῦ. 
Again in another, C. /. Z. 111. p. 870, dated 6 Id. Sept., he is described 
as TRIB-POTESTAT- Xx; and this must refer to a.p. 116, since Trajan 
was no longer living in September 117. 

This point therefore must be regarded: as settled. But hitherto 
no facts have been mentioned, which are not equally consistent with 
Borghesi’s theory and with either of those put forward by Mommsen. 
This is not the case however with others. Thus in the inscription 
C. 7. LZ. 11. p. 864 (see above, p. 393), a military diploma dated 
14 Kal. Febr. (= Jan. 19) of the consulate of Μ᾽. Laberius Maximus u, 
Q. Glitius Atilius Agricola 1, Trajan is designated TRIBVNIC- POTESTAT. 
VII-IMP-111I-Cos-v. This evidently belongs to the year 103, the emperor 
having retired at once from the consulate to make room for Atilius 
(see Mommsen Hermes it. p. 128). The only alternative is to trans- 
pose the consuls for the years a.D. 103 and A.D. 104, as older critics 
did; but Mommsen has shown that this transposition is inadmissible. 
Borghesi’s theory therefore fails to explain this example. But this 


As an official inscription was not likely to 
omit the imperatorial titles, this explana- 
tion seems very probable. (2) Renier 
fy A, 1842 (Co τ ΖΜ 2256) ΔΎΟ: 


COS . VI. PATRI . PATRIAE . SENATVS . 
POPVLVSQ . ROM. found at Avezzano. 
Orelli (1. p. 1901) treats it as spurious. 
Probably it has been wrongly transcribed. 


Mommsen says ‘scribe TRIB. POT. XXI. 
IMP. XII’. But we now know that TRIB. 
POT. XXI requires IMP. XIII, and this 
better explains the error, some letters 
having been dropped in transcription 
ERIB~ POT). X [XI . IMP a] MUL /COS VI, 
if not left out by the stone-cutter himself. 


GERM . DAC. PART . PONT. MAX. TRIB. 
POT’. XXII. IMP \ XVIII COS Vine ee 
at Thamugas. This again, if correctly 
transcribed, can only be explained by 
carelessness of the stone-cutter or of the 
transcriber. It ought perhaps to be 
TRIB . POT. XVIII. IMP. VIII. 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 403 


inscription does not enable us to decide between the earlier and later 
of Mommsen’s hypotheses, since it would be satisfied by either. At 
this point however a legend on a coin (Cohen Jd. /mp. τι. p. 57, 
no. 354) comes to our aid: IMP-CAES-NERVA-TRAIAN-AVG-GERM: 
P-M-TR-P-VII, with the R. IMP-IIII-COS-IIII-DES-V-P-P-S-c. Here 
the date is fixed as the last part of -a.D. 102 by Cos-IIII-DES-V. 
Therefore the 7th year must have begun earlier than Jan. 1, A.D. 103. 
When he was maintaining his earlier hypothesis, Mommsen had ques- 
tioned the deciphering or the genuineness of this coin (Hermes |.c.); 
but he was afterwards satisfied by M. Waddington that it was neither 
spurious nor misread (Staatsrecht 1. p. 777, note 1). There are 
other coins also (Cohen 1. p. 57, no. 355; p. 85, no. 539), though less 
certainly authenticated, with similar legends. ‘This fact is in favour 
of Mommsen’s later theory as against his earlier, and combined with 
the arguments which have been mentioned already (p. 400 sq) invests 
it with a high degree of probability. Some difficulties indeed still 
remain, but these are perhaps less serious than on any other hypothesis’. 


1 It would not be surprising if in the 
earlier years of Trajan’s reign we found 
some wavering in the inscriptions between 
the old reckoning and the new. But 
I am unable to understand many of the 
statements of Mommsen Svaatsrecht 11. 
p- 776, note 2. The diploma (C. JZ. Z. III. 
p- 862) of Feb. 20, A.D. 98, may perhaps 
be regarded as an example of the reten- 
tion of the old reckoning, as it gives 
TRIB. POTEST .COS. II, where the absence 
of any number suggests the first year of 
the tribunician power, though according 
to the new reckoning it was the second. 
But, inasmuch as it is the exception, 
not the rule, when the number of the 
tribunician year is given on the coins of 
Trajan (though it appears commonly in 
diplomas), the instance is not conclusive. 
Mommsen goes on to say that we possess 
no documents of the years 99—102 which 
are decisive as between the old and the 
new systems. He then instances the di- 
ploma (C. Z. Z. 11. p. 863) of Aug. 14, 
which has Trib. Pot. iii, and says that on 
both systems this belongs to 100, not 99 
fas he himself ‘gives it in Ὁ. 7. Z. I. ΟἹ]. 
But it is fixed to A.D. gg by the addition 


cos.11, for Trajan was COS.III in A.D. 
100; and according to the old system 
Aug. 14, A.D. 99, would belong to the 
2nd tribunician year. Again he adduces 
another diploma, Orelli 782 (=C. 2. L. 
VI. 451, given above, p. 392), bearing 
date Dec. 29, with Trib. Pot. iv, and 
says that this again would belong to 100 
on either reckoning. It is indeed fixed 
to A.D. 100 by the specification COs . III. 
DESI[G .IIII]; but Dec. 29, A.D. 100, 
would fall in the //¢/ tribunician year 
according to the new reckoning, as the 
year began on Dec. to. If therefore 
Mommsen’s later theory be correct, either 
there is some stone-cutter’s error here, or 
in this instance the old system has sur- 
vived. [Mommsen has corrected him- 
self on both these points in his last 
edition, 1887, 11. p. 800, note 1.] 

At the same time Mommsen omits to 
mention some inscriptions which, if cor- 
rectly transcribed, are opposed to his 
theory. Thus C. Z. LZ. 1. 2352 of Julipa 
in Baetica is given TRIB. POT. IIII.COs. 
1Π|. Here we must read COS. 111, if it is 
to harmonize with either of Mommsen’s 
theories; though, as it stands, it is con- 


20-2 


404 ACTS HOF MARTYRDOM 


We may therefore accept it provisionally. So far as regards the Ignatian 
question, the differences between the three solutions are unimportant. 

In the tables given above the inscriptions dated by the tribunician 
years are assigned to the years A.p. with which they roughly coincide. 
If Mommsen’s later theory be correct, these may possibly belong 
in some cases to the last twenty-one days of the preceding year. 
If Borghesi’s view be adopted then they may fall within the first 
twenty-seven days of the following year. This is the limit of possible 
divergence. 


(3) See the note on Mart. Ant. 1 "Apt διαδεξαμένου κ-.τ.λ. 


(4) The 4irst Dacian War must have broken out after September 
A.D. 100, when Pliny’s panegyric was delivered, since the panegyrist 
makes no mention of it. Until quite recently, this was the nearest 
approximation to an exact date, which the evidence supplied. But 
some lately discovered fragments (a.p. 1867-1871) of the Acta Fra- 
trum Arvaltum afford more precise information. Here we find these 
officials sacrificing Q-ARTICVLEIO -[PAETO]-SE[X + ATT]IO-SVBVRANO - 
COS - VIII: Καὶ APR-IN-CAPITOLI[0-PRO+SALVTE- ET+ REDIT|V- ET- VICTORIA: 
IMP-CAESARIS- NERVAE- TRAIANI- AVG-GERM-, and lower down the object 
of the sacrifice is defined ‘itu et reditu et victoria imperatoris etc.’ 
Ὁ i> 2094; comp., Henzen Ad. Pratr. Aro. ppy al er eansay: 
This is the year tor, Trajan having retired from the consulate to 
make room for Suburanus. The sacrifice therefore takes place on 
March 25, A.D. 101; and it is evidently synchronous, or nearly so, 
with the emperor’s departure from Rome, as the whole context shows. 

This First Dacian War seems to have been brought to a close 
towards the end of the year 102. The title Dacicus at all events 
appears then, if the evidence can be trusted. The following coins 
and medals given by Cohen illustrate the course of events. 


(a) p. 57, Πο. 354. IMP-CAES:NERVA-TRAIAN-AVG-GERM:P-M-TR- 
P. VII 
R. IMP-IIII+COS-IIII-DES-V-P+P-S-C; 


from Mommsen’s own collation that this 
reading is given in one transcription. 


sistent with Borghesi’s. The case is simi- 
larialso withers V. 2487 (ὦ 7 2.x, 


1633) AVG. GERM. DACICO. PONT. MAX. 
PRIBGPOT. XV «MP, τς COSiVI\« ΒΒ: 
OPTIMO. PRINCIPI, which is reconcilable 
with Borghesi’s view but not with either 
of Mommsen’s. Here however cos.v 
would set all straight, and it appears 


Both these examples would be explicable 
on the old system of reckoning by com- 
plete years from the day of the first as- 
sumption of the tribunician power, but 
this view must be regarded as definitively 
abandoned. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 405 


(b) Pp. 57: ΠΟ. 355. IMP-CAES-NERVA-TRAIAN-AVG-GERM-:DACICVS: 
Beste VIIP 
R. IMP.-T1I:COS-IllI-DES-V-P-P-S.-C. 


(c) p. 85, no. 539. IMP-CAES- NERVA- TRAIAN - AVG-GERM -DACICVS:- 
P-M- 
R. TR-P-VII-IMP-IIII-COS-IIII-DES-V-P-P.- 


All these belong to A.D. 102, as COS-IIII-DES-V- shows. 


Of these (a), on which the title Dacicus is wanting, is certainly 
genuine, and belongs to Dec. to—Dec. 31 of the year (see above, 
Ρ. 401). The others are not so well attested; but, if genuine and 
correctly read, (b) (c) must also fall within this same period. The 
devices on the reverses of both represent the subjugation of Dacia. 
It would appear therefore that the final submission of Dacia and the 
title Dacicus belong to the very last days of a.p. ror. Mommsen at 
one time (/ermes 111. p. 131) threw discredit on all three alike; but 
now that he accepts the first as genuine (see above p. 403), the ground 
for objecting to the others (the combination of TR-P-vi1 with Cos.) 
has been cut away. Two other types of coins, likewise bearing the 
name DACICVS in conjunction with cos-111, i.e. not later than A.D. 102, 
are also given by Cohen, p. 15, nos. 78, 79. 


(5) For the consuls of this year see the note on Mart. Ant. 7. 


(6) On the names of the consuls for this year, and on their trans- 
position with those of the preceding year, see the note on Mart. 
Lom. i. 


(7) The outbreak of the Second Dacian War is determined by 
the same means as the first, the recently discovered fragments (A.D. 
1867—1870) of the Acta Fratrum Arvalium; C. I. 2. vi. 2075 (comp. 
Henzen Act. Fratr. Arv. p. 124). Here we find these officials assem- 
bled AD-VOTA - SVSCIPI[ENDA - PRO-IT]V- ET- REDITV - [tmp - c]AESA[RI]s 
etc, some day during the Nones of June (i.e. between June 2—5) in 
the year 105. ‘This therefore is the time of the emperor’s departure 
from Rome for the Second Dacian War. 

The close of this war is not so easy to determine. Unfortunately 
no inscriptions have yet been discovered belonging to the roth tribu- 
nician year (A.D. 106); so that the information is deficient just where 
it is wanted. The sequence of the imperial titles is imperfect in 
consequence. On May 13, A.D. 105, immediately before he starts for 
the Second Dacian War, Trajan is still /ferator iv. On June 30, 
A.D. 107, he is Jmferator vi. These two additional attributions of the 


406 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


title are doubtless due to the second subjugation of Dacia by Trajan 
himself, and to the reduction of Arabia Petreea by Palmas. On this 
point there can hardly be two opinions. But it is doubtful which 
of these two events preceded the other. No trustworthy inscriptions 
bearing the designation /mferator vy have been discovered; for, 
though the words inscribed on the bridge at Alcantara (C. Δ Z. τι. 759) 
are certainly TRIB-POTES:VIII-IMP-V-Cos-v (the tribunician year being 
written vill, and not ὙΠ, as it has been read; see Renier’s note 
on Borghesi @uvres iv. p. 122), this must be a stone-cutter’s error, 
since Trajan was still /mperator iv in the following year, and pro- 
bably therefore ΜΡ. should be substituted for mp.v. Here there- 
fore we receive no assistance as regards the matter in question. 
Mommsen (ὦ 1 Z. m1. 550), combining the sequence of Hadrian’s 
honours as recorded in an Athenian inscription with the account 
of the same in Vit. Hadr. 3, arrives at the result that the Second 
Dacian War extended into a.pD. 107; and his inference, though far 
from conclusive, is plausible. Dion at all events remarks that Trajan’s 
operations in this second war were characterized by caution rather 
than by speed, and that he only conquered the Dacians after a long 
time and with difficulty (σὺν χρόνῳ καὶ μόλις, Ixvill. 14). On the other 
hand Julian (Caes. p. 327) makes Trajan say that he reduced this 
people ‘within about five years’ (ἐπράχθη δέ μοι τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο ἐν 
ἐνιαυτοῖς εἴσω που πέντε); and five years reckoned from the outbreak 
of the First Dacian War would bring us to about midsummer a.D. τοῦ. 
To meet this difficulty, Mommsen suggests that the interval of peace 
between the two wars is not reckoned in the five years; but this 
solution seems impossible. It does not appear necessary however to 
take Julian’s off-hand statement au pied de la lettre. On the other 
side Dierauer (p. 106, note) decides positively that the war must have 
been concluded before the end of 106, because Sura, one of Trajan’s 
generals in this war, was consul in 107. 


(8) Dion Cassius (xviii. 14), after describing the Second Dacian 
War, adds, κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον καὶ Πάλμας τῆς Συρίας ἄρχων τὴν 
᾿Αραβίαν τὴν πρὸς τῇ Πέτρᾳ ἐχειρώσατο κιτιλ. This is not very precise. 
The epigraphic evidence again, as will have appeared from the last 
note, admits of our placing the subjugation of Arabia Petreea at 
any time between about midsummer Α.Ὁ. 105 and midsummer a.D. 
107. The testimony of the Chronicon Paschale p. 472 (ed. Bonn.) 
here comes to our aid. Under the consulship of Candidus and 
Quadratus (i.e. A.D. 105) it states that the people of Petra and Bostra 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 407 


reckoned their years from this date. This probably means, as Clinton 
says, that the year of the Seleucidz which began in the October 
falling within this consulship was counted as the ist year of the 
Peirean era. ‘The fact would imply that Arabia Petrzea was conquered 
and made a Roman province some time between Oct. τος and Oct. 
106. Whether early or late in this period, it would probably be 
before the close of the Second Dacian War. If so, Jmferator v 
belongs to the conquest of Arabia, and /mperator vi to that of 
Dacia. 


(9) For the consuls of the year 107 see the note on Mart. 
ὙΠ... 


(10) For the date of Pliny’s propretorship in Bithynia, and the 
persecution of the Christians connected therewith, see the note on 
Mart. Rom. 11. 


(11) It may now be regarded as an established fact that Trajan 
as emperor only made one expedition to the East, and that this took 
place in the last years of his reign. This is the opinion of almost all, 
if not all, critics who have approached the subject from an independent 
point of view (without reference to the Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius) ; 
e.g. Eckhel D. JV. vi. p. 450 sq, Francke Geschichte Trajans pp. 16 sq, 
253 sq, Dierauer Geschichte Trajans p. 152 sq, Mommsen C. /. Z. πε 
Ρ- 103 sq. And even among those who accept these Acts as genuine 
in the main, many have been led to infer that there is an error in 
the date there given, the 9th year of Trajan. It is Pearson’s great 
merit that, with the very imperfect and confused materials before him, 
he yet discerned the main fact correctly, that an earlier expedition 
of ‘Trajan to the East was impossible. His view required that the 
19th year should be substituted for the gth, and in this he is followed 
by Clinton and others. The only point of difference among these 
writers has reference to the exact year in which Trajan started for 
the East. Thus Eckhel and others placed his departure in the autumn 
A.D. 114, being misled by their mode of reckoning the tribunician 
years. With the new light thrown upon this point, we may now regard 
it as certain that he left Rome in the autumn of 113. 

The reasons for concluding that this was the first and only expedi- 
tion of Trajan as emperor seem quite conclusive. (i) Dion Cassius 
represents his departure for the East as taking place after the erection 
of the column (a.D. 113), and says nothing of any earlier expedition. 
(ii) There is not the slightest indication in the genuine coins and in- 


408 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


scriptions of any such Eastern expedition, or indeed of any important 
military operations of any kind, in the interval between the close of 
the Second Dacian War and the autumn Α.Ὁ. 113. Thus for instance 
there is no accession to the emperor’s titles. He is J/mperator vi 
in June A.D. 107, and he remains so as late as A.D. 113 when the 
column is erected. The next accumulation, J/mferatfor vii, first 
appears A.D. 114. (111) In accordance therewith, so far as we are able 
to trace the movements of the emperor during the interval, we find 
him in Rome or Italy. The correspondence of Pliny with the 
emperor (A.D. 111—113), which falls in this interval, indicates this. 
The medals and inscriptions too, which belong to this period, represent 
him as actively engaged in public works at home, e.g. the forum 
bearing his name at Rome, the Aqua Trajana, the great roads and 
harbours of Italy, etc. 

On the other hand Tillemont (Zjereurs τι. p. 196 sq, p. 562 sq) 
sends Trajan to the East several years earlier and makes him enter 
Antioch in January A.D. 107, thus antedating the conquest of Ar- 
menia and Mesopotamia, which really took place a.D. 114, by seven 
years. With the mixture of genuine and spurious documents accessible 
to Tillemont this position is intelligible. But such views are not so 
easy of explanation in later writers. Quite recently (A.D. 1869) 
Nirschl (Das Todesjahr des H7. Zgnatius) has made an elaborate attempt 
to prove that Trajan made three several expeditions to the East, 
AED, £07, A.D. 110; and a:b. 116. “And even De Rossii (/uscr (Cerise 
Urb. τ. p. 6 sq) is disposed provisionally (for he speaks with caution) 
to assume one earlier Parthian expedition with Tillemont in order to 
save the credit of the Ignatian Acts of Martyrdom. ‘The arguments 
by which it is attempted to sustain the theory of an early expedition 
or expeditions to the East are as follows. 

(i) Our information respecting Trajan’s reign is very deficient. 
Dion Cassius, our chief authority, or rather his abbreviator Xiphilinus, 
does not give events in sequence, but groups them. Hence all the 
campaigns in the East are put together. ‘This however is not an 
accurate statement of the case. The historian (Ixvill. 17), after de- 
scribing the construction of the forum and the erection of the column, 
proceeds peta δὲ ταῦτα ἐστράτευσεν ἐπ᾽ “Appeviovs καὶ Πάρθους. 
Hence it was not before the close of A.D. 113 according to this repre- 
sentation. Thus there is a direct notice of time. Nor is there any 
ground for supposing that the abbreviator tampered with the sequence 
of the original. The order of Xiphilinus is the order of Zonaras also. 
Thus it must be regarded as Dion’s own. Moreover the sequence of 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 409 


events, as given by Dion, is confirmed in all respects by the genuine 
coins and inscriptions. It should be added also that Julian (Caes. 
p. 328) only speaks of one Parthian expedition, which he assigns to 
Trajan’s old age. The words which he puts into Trajan’s mouth are 
these : πρὸς Παρθυαίους δέ, πρὶν μὲν ἀδικεῖσθαι Tap αὐτῶν, οὐκ ᾧμην 
δεῖν χρῆσθαι τοῖς ὅπλοις, ἀδικοῦσι δὲ ἐπεξῆλθον οὐδὲν ὑπὸ τῆς ἡλικίας 
κωλυθείς, καίτοι διδόντων μοι τῶν νόμων τὸ μὴ στρατεύεσθαι. 

(ii) The Ignatian Acts of Martyrdom are themselves put in evi- 
dence. This arguing in a circle would be quite legitimate, if these 
Acts approved themselves as genuine in all other respects. But, as 
we have already seen (p. 383 sq), they are discredited by various 
considerations, apart from this difficulty about the date. 

(11) The evidence of other Christian writers is alleged. More es- 
pecially stress is laid on the testimony of John Malalas (p. 270 sq, 
ed. Bonn.), who states that Trajan made an expedition against the 
Parthians in the 12th year of his reign (ἐπεστράτευσε τῷ ιβ΄ ἔτει τῆς Bact 
λείας αὐτοῦ) leaving Rome in October, reaching Syria in December, and 
entering Antioch on Jan. 7. Of the blunders of Malalas I shall have 
much to say hereafter. At present it will be sufficient to remark that 
the events recorded as taking place on this occasion are obviously 
the same as those narrated by Dion, though mixed up with much 
fabulous matter by Malalas; and that Dion, as interpreted by the 
monuments, places this campaign in a.D. 114. Moreover Malalas 
convicts himself. For afterwards, when mentioning the earthquake 
which happened during a subsequent winter spent by Trajan at Antioch, 
he places it two years after his arrival in the East (μετὰ β΄ ἔτη τῆς 
παρουσίας τοῦ θειοτάτου βασιλέως Τραιανοῦ τῆς ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνατολήν), and yet 
dates it Dec. 13, a.D. 115. Of the other Christian authorities cited 
it may be said generally that they either prove nothing or are based 
on the story of Trajan’s interview with Ignatius at Antioch. To the 
former class belongs Eusebius, who in his Chronicon (p. 162, Schoene) 
places the martyrdom of Ignatius in a.p. 107, there or thereabouts. 
But, as he knows nothing about the appearance of Ignatius before 
Trajan at Antioch or elsewhere, his testimony has no bearing on 
Trajan’s movements. As regards the latter class of writers, the case 
presented itself to them thus. The Antiochene tradition or Antiochene 
Acts of Martyrdom relate that Ignatius was brought before Trajan at 
Antioch. Now Eusebius says that he was martyred about A.D. 107. 
Therefore Trajan must have been in Antioch at that time, preparing 

for his Parthian campaign. In fact these writers were in the same 
- position as Tillemont or Nirschl with regard to the evidence ; and, like 


410 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


these modern writers, they drew this as a critical inference from state- 
ments which they accepted without sifting. One authority however 
is not so easily explained. ‘The compiler of the Chronicon Paschale 
(p. 471 sq, ed. Bonn.) places the martyrdom of Ignatius in the con- 
sulate of Candidus and Quadratus (1.6. A.D. 105). Then under the 
following year (A.D. 106) he writes, πολέμου χαλεποῦ ἐπιβάντος τῇ Ρωμανίᾳ 
ὑπὸ Περσῶν καὶ Τόθων καὶ ἑτέρων ἐθνῶν, Tparavos ἀπερχόμενος eis τὸν 
τούτων πόλεμον κιτιλ, The Goths here are doubtless the Dacians'. This 
is the correct date for the Second Dacian War, which commenced in 
the previous year and was not yet ended (see above, p. 405 sq). Against 
these Trajan conducted the expedition in person. But he could not 
march at once against both Dacians and Persians, and the writer 
cannot have meant this. Perhaps this ‘ Persian’ War here mentioned 
represents the operations of Palmas in Arabia, which were really 
synchronous with the Second Dacian War. Or it may be an echo 
of some previous Christian writer, who sent Trajan to the East at 
this time in order to satisfy the exigencies of the Ignatian story. Under 
any circumstances it is valueless as against the plain inference drawn 
from more authentic sources of information. 

(iv) Lastly; certain medals and inscriptions are cited. They pro- 
fess to belong to a much earlier date than a.p. 114, and yet they bear 
the legend TIGRIS, or INDIA, Or PARTHICVS, Or! REX-PARTHIS- DATVS, 
or other words which point to an eastern campaign of Trajan. It 
is sufficient to say that they are discredited by the channels through 
which they come to us, that their genuineness has never been esta- 
blished, that in some instances they convict themselves, and that 
generally they are confuted by the eloquent silence of a large and 
ever-increasing mass of epigraphic and numismatic evidence, which 
betrays no knowledge of such stirring events’. 


(12) The designation Ofézmus is an important landmark in the 
chronology of this reign. The two following notices have reference 
to it. 

(i) Pliny Paneg. 2 writes, ‘Jam quid tam civile, tam senatorium, 
quam illud additum a nobis Optimi cognomen ? quod peculiare hujus 


1 Julian (Caes. p. 327) calls the Da- 
cians ‘Getz’ throughout; τό τε Terexoy 
καὶ τὸ Ilap@ixov tpdmaov, τῆς τῶν L'erov 
ὕβρεως, τὸ Ττετῶν ἔθνος ἐξεῖλον. 

ΠΟΙ ΠΕ vay (pe ana se). ellana 
enimvero Trajani historiam quam quis ex 
catalogis seu lapidum seu numorum, quos 


nobis Gruterus, Muratorius, Mediobarbus 
obtrusere, volet contexere. Non habent 
fabulae monstra magis obscoena, chimae- 
ras, cerberos, centauros, quam inauspi- 
catus is partus erit, wt mec pes nec caput 
unt reddatur formae.’ 


OF S. IGNATIUS. AII 


[Trajani] et proprium arrogantia priorum principum fecit’; and again 
c. 83 ‘Justisne de causis S.P.Q.R. Optimi tibi cognomen adjecit? 
Paratum id quidem et in medio positum, novum tamen.  Scias 
neminem ante meruisse...Adoptavit te optimus princeps in suum, 
senatus in Optimi nomen.’ As Pliny’s panegyric was delivered in 
September Α.Ὁ. 100, this must refer to the very beginning of Trajan’s 
reign. 

(ii) Dion Cassius (Ixviii. 23), as abridged by Xiphilinus, says of 
Trajan ta te ἄλλα ἐψηφίζετο αὐτῷ πολλὰ ἡ βουλή, καὶ ὄπτιμον, εἴτ᾽ 
οὖν ἄριστον, ἐπωνόμασεν, and a little lower down, καὶ ὠνομάσθη μέν, 
ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὴν Νίσιβιν εἷλε καὶ τὰς Βάτνας, Παρθικός: πολλῷ δὲ μάλλον 
ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ ὀπτίμου προσηγορίᾳ ἢ ταῖς ἄλλαις συμπάσαις...ἐσεμνύνετο. 
As these events are related after Trajan’s first campaign in the East, 
they seem to belong to a date not earlier than A.D. 114. 

Thus there is a difference of some fourteen years in the two 
accounts ; and yet the language of both writers is so alike, that they 
seem to be referring to the same incident. It is only when we examine 
the monuments, that the solution of the difficulty appears. On the 
coins and medals of the early years, at least as early as the 5th con- 
sulate (A.D. 103 sq), we find frequently the legend ΟΡΤΙΜΟ PRINCIPI, 
and so occasionally in inscriptions. To this use of the word Pliny must 
be alluding. But in the later years, in coins and inscriptions alike, 
OPTIMVS -appears no longer as an epithet, but as an inseparable part 
of the name ; and, as such, it precedes even Augustus, so that the order 
is IMP-NERV-TRAIAN-OPTIM-AVG-GERM DAC:|[PARTHIC-]. This phe- 
nomenon first makes its appearance in the 18th tribunician year, 
i.e. A.D. 114, the point of time to which Dion is referring’. 


1 Several types of coins are given by 
Fabretti Col. 7747. p. 292 (see Francke 
Geschichte Trajans p. 16) with apictoc 
before ceBacToc, dated AHMAPY. εξ. IZ. 
As they are not cited by Eckhel and 
others, I presume that they are not re- 
garded as genuine. No accredited inscrip- 
tion hitherto discovered exhibits this title 
before the 18th tribunician year. Still 
its appearance in the 17th would not be 


that campaign, still it is quite conceivable 
that he intended to group together all 
the honours bestowed on Trajan by the 
senate after his departure from Rome, 
and so this might belong to the last 
months of A.D. 113. 

[Since the above was written the in- 
scription C. /. Z. VIII. 10117 (see above, 
p- 395) has been published, in which this 
title appears in the 16th tribunician year. 


altogether irreconcilable with Dion’s ac- 
count. Though Dion mentions the be- 
stowal of the title at the end of his 
account of the eastern campaign of A.D. 
114, and the natural inference is that it 
was not bestowed till some time during 


Wilmanns, the editor of this volume, 
writes, ‘Offendit Optimi nomen ea ra- 
tione positum, quam tam nummi quam 
tituli ab anno demum I!4 proponunt. 
Fortasse titulus conceptus a. 112 post 
intervallum incisus est eoque tempore 


412 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


(13) The date of the assumption of the title ‘ Parthicus’ presents 
some difficulties. Dion Cassius (lxviil. 23) in the abridgment of 
Xiphilinus, as quoted just above, says that he was designated (ὠνο- 
μάσθη) Parthicus after taking Nisibis and Batne. He does not 
say by whom this designation was given. Zonaras (xi. 21) however 
represents it as conferred by the senate, 7 βουλὴ... Παρθικὸν αὐτῷ 
ἐπίκλησιν ἔθετο; but this may be merely his own inference from the 
words of Dion. According to the arrangement of the events which I 
have adopted (p. 413 sq), this would be towards the end of a.p. 114. 
At a later point Dion (Xiphilinus), describing a subsequent cam- 
paign (lxvill. 23), says that when the emperor entered Ctesiphon as 
victor, he was saluted (ἐπωνομάσθη) imperator, and ‘confirmed the 
epithet of Parthicus’ (τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ Παρθικοῦ ἐβεβαιώσατο). This 
would take place in the following year, A.D. 115. 

The expression ἐβεβαιώσατο implies that there was some uncer- 
tainty about the use of the term. Perhaps we may infer that though 
it was employed unofficially, yet the emperor did not adopt it himself, 
or allow it to be adopted in official quarters, when it was first bestowed 
upon him. The monuments confirm this supposition. In the year 
114, in a military diploma of Trajan dated Sept. 1st, with imp-vu, it is 
wanting’. Soalso in the inscription on the arch at Beneventum, erected 
by the senate, likewise with IMP-VII, it is absent. Even later in this 
same year, when the emperor’s titles have risen to IMP-Ix, it does 
not appear in an inscription set up at Ferentinum in Trajan’s own 
name. Yet before the date of this last-mentioned inscription, and 
while Trajan is still only tmp. vu, it appears on a monument in Baetica. 
Thus, unless we have here some stone-cutter’s error, this first bestowal 
of the title, whether by the senate or by the army, must have occurred 
in sufficient time to allow the news to travel to Spain before the close 
of the year 114. In the following year we find the same fluctuation. 
In an inscription set up by the senate on the arch at Ancona’, in 
another (recorded by Fabretti) which was inscribed by the emperor's 
own orders, and in a third (an Egyptian inscription bearing date 
May 24) which likewise has an official character’, it is wanting ; while 


interpolatus. It is perhaps simpler to AvG, and IMP. vu, show that the former 


suppose a stone-cutter’s error in the XVI. 
See the next note for an example.] 

1 These inscriptions are given above, 
p- 5005: InC. 5. Z. 111. p. 869, dated 
Sept. 1, the one side of the tablet has 
XVIII, and the other xvii, for the tribu- 
nician years. The titles of Trajan, opr. 


is correct, and the latter the stone-cutter’s 
blunder. 

2 See above, p. 396. 

> Boeckh, C. 7. G. 4948, given above, 
p- 397- The Egyptian year began on 
Aug. 29, and the second year of Trajan 
in Egyptian reckoning would be from 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 413 


again in another Betican inscription’ it appears. The provincial 
and unofficial character of this last is evident from the circumstance that 
PARTHICO is placed before Dacico, whereas its proper place is later. 
In the following year (A.D. 116) all the monuments have the title. 
One of these, a military diploma, bears the date Sept. 8. The capture 
of Ctesiphon therefore, and the official acceptance of the title by 
Trajan himself, must have preceded this. But the exact date of this 
incident is not determined for us by the inscriptions hitherto discovered. 
So far as their evidence goes, it may have occurred in the early part 
of this year 116, or in the later part of the preceding year 115. 


(14) The year of the great earthquake at Antioch is fixed as A.D. 115 
by the notice in Dion (Ixviil. 24) that Pedo the consul perished in it. 
And Dion’s account is so far confirmed by Malalas, that the latter 
gives the date as A.D. 115. Moreover the calamity happened according 
to both these authors while Trajan was wntering at Antioch. But 
the alternative still remains that the winter in question was 114 or 
112, 1.6. that the earthquake took place at the beginning or the end of 
115. If Malalas is worthy of credit, it happened on Dec. 13 of this 
year. But several modern critics (e.g. Eckhel vi. p. 453 sq, Clinton 
Fast. Rom. sub ann. 115, Borghesi Ceuvres v. Ὁ. 19) on various 
grounds reject his statement, and place it at the beginning of the year, 
in January or February. 

The degree of credibility which attaches to statements of Malalas 
in general will be discussed hereafter. It will then be seen that 
in this particular notice the day of the month is not consistent with 
the day of the week. But still the possibility remains, that Malalas 
has given correctly the month and day of the month; and this view is 
taken by many critics of consideration, e.g. by Von Gutschmid (in 


Aug. 29 A.D. 98 to Aug. 28 A.D. 99, 
the broken year preceding the Egyptian 
new year’s day counting as the first year ; 
see Raoul Rochette Fournal des Savans 
1824, p. 240 sq, Mommsen Séaatsrecht 
1. p. 778. According to this reckoning, 
May 24 of the rgth year would belong to 
A.D. 116, as given by Letronne, Franz, 
and others. But I agree with Dierauer 
(p. 167, note) that the official character 
of this inscription suggests the reckoning 
by tribunician years. Thus it must be 
referred to A.D. 115. Otherwise it would 
be the only verified inscription of A.D. 


116, in which the title Parthicus is 
wanting. 

1 Ephem. Epigr. il. p. 38 sq, quoted 
above, p. 397. This, inscription had 
previously been deciphered incorrectly 
(e.g. in C. ZZ. ii. 1028) 15 δε, 
rect decipherment has antiquated much 
that has been written on the title Par- 
thicus; e.g. by Borghesi Bull. Corr. 
Inst. Archeol. 1859, Ῥ- 119 sq, by Noel 
des Vergers C. &. Acad. Lnscr. et Belles 
Lettres 1866, p. 85, and by Dierauer, 
p- 166 sq. 


A414 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Dierauer Geschichte Trajans p. 157 sq), by Dierauer, and others. 
This view seems to me to present serious difficulties. 

The coins and inscriptions show clearly that Trajan set out for 
his eastern campaigns in the autumn A.D. 113, not A.D. 114, as main- 
tained by Eckhel and Clinton; for their error about the reckoning 
of the tribunician years led them to post-date it by a year. In August 
117 he died. Within this interval therefore we have to arrange all the 
incidents of these campaigns. For these incidents Dion is our only 
trustworthy authority; and as there is no reasonable ground for 
supposing that he gives these events out of their chronological order, 
we may follow his sequence. 

‘ After these things,’ says Dion, ‘he made an expedition against the 
Armenians and Parthians’ (Ixviii. 17). The completion of the Forum 
and the erection of the Column have been mentioned just before. On 
his way eastward Trajan stays at Athens, where he receives an embassy 
from Osrhoes, asking the crown of Armenia for Parthamasiris. From 
Greece he passes to Asia and Lycia; from thence to Seleucia (c. 17). 
While he is in Antioch, he receives overtures from Augarus of Osrhoene. 
This is obviously therefore the winter A.p. 113. ‘The subsequent events 
are as follows. 

(a2) The expedition begins. Entering the enemy’s territory, Trajan 
is met by satraps and kings who are the bearers of presents. The 
whole country of Armenia submits without a battle (ἀμαχί), and the 
emperor enters Satala and Elegia, its strongholds. The humiliating 
interview at which Parthamasiris was deposed is described at length. 
It takes place at Elegia (c. 18, 19, 20). Trajan then goes to Edessa, and 
there sees Augarus and receives overtures from other kings (c. 21). 
Other negociations with petty princes are mentioned while he is in 
Mesopotamia. From Mesopotamia he marches against Adiabene. 
Lusius gains possession of Singara and other places without a battle 
(apaxc). Adenystre, a strong fortress, opens its gates to the Romans, 
the garrison having been massacred (c. 22). The emperor receives 
the title of Optimus from the senate. After taking Nisibis and Batne, 
he is also designated Parthicus (c. 23). 

(8) While he is residing at Antioch, an earthquake lays the 
city in ruins. The consul Pedo is killed. ‘Trajan himself escapes 
through a window. ‘The shocks last for several days, during which 
he lives in the open air in the hippodrome (cc. 24, 25). 

(y) At the approach of spring (ὑπὸ τὸ ἔαρ) he sets out on his 
march into the enemy’s country. Vessels built at Nisibis are car- 
ried on carts to ihe Tigris. A bridge across the river is constructed 


OF 3.7 IGNATIUS: 415 


with much difficulty (ἐπιπονώτατα) in the face of the opposing  bar- 
barians; and the Roman army crosses. The whole of Adiabene is 
reduced, including the scenes of Alexander’s exploits, Arbela and 
Gaugamela. After this the Romans advance as far as Babylon itself, 
not meeting with much opposition from the natives, because Parthia 
had been wasted by civil wars and was torn asunder by factions. 
Trajan surveys the wonders of Babylon. He then designs digging 
a canal between the Euphrates and the Tigris, that his boats may 
pass through for the construction of a bridge; but this design he 
abandons on account of the engineering difficulties, and the boats 
are carried overland. He then enters Ctesiphon, on taking which 
he is saluted /merator and ‘confirms’ the title Parthicus. ‘The senate 
votes him honours liberally. After taking Ctesiphon, he sets out 
towards the Red Sea (i.e. the Persian Gulf). He acquires without 
trouble the island Messene in the Tigris; but owing to the difficulty 
of navigating the river, he is in great peril. However he reaches the 
Ocean, which he explores, and sees a vessel sailing for India. He 
writes an account of his exploits to the senate. His despatches to 
them, announcing victories, follow in such quick succession that 
they cannot understand the tidings or even pronounce the names. 
They however vote him honours freely, and prepare to erect a tri- 
umphal arch. Meanwhile, during his journey to the Ocean and back, 
all the places which he had taken revolt. The bad news reaches 
Trajan while at Babylon. Accordingly he sends Lusius and Maximus 
to quell the revolts. Maximus is slain in battle; Lusius ‘among many 
other successes’ recovers Nisibis and besieges and sets fire to Edessa. 
Seleucia is taken by the lieutenant-generals Erycius Clarus and 
Julius Alexander. Trajan, now fearing fresh difficulties from the 
Parthians, gives them a king of their own. After this he marches into 
Arabia, and attacks the city of the Atreni, which had revolted from 
him. Here however he encounters enormous difficulties and is unsuc- 
cessful. He leaves the place. Not long after his health begins to 
fail. Meanwhile there is an uprising of Jews in Cyrene, accompanied 
by wholesale massacres. The same thing happens also in Egypt and 
in Cyprus. Lusius is sent by Trajan and puts down the insurrection. 
Trajan prepares for another expedition; but his sickness increasing, 
he sets out on his return to Italy, leaving Hadrian in Syria in command 
of the army. He dies at Selinus in Cilicia. 

Now the winter at Antioch (8) separates the events enumerated 
in the paragraphs (a) and (y) respectively; and supposing this to be 
the winter of 112, we should get two whole years for the operations (a), 


416 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


while only one year and a half would be left for all the campaigns 
(y). But this is quite disproportionate to their relative difficulty and 
extent. The operations (a) were confined to a range of territory which 
compared with the subsequent campaigns was limited, for Trajan does 
not seem to have advanced beyond the borders of the Greater Armenia, 
and it is not clear that he himself entered Adiabene at all. Not a 
single battle appears to have been fought; no delay in crossing great 
rivers is recorded; not one siege is mentioned; and altogether the 
operations resolve themselves into a straight-forward bloodless march. 
But the incidents (y) are wholly different in character. They extend 
from Cyprus and Cyrene to the Persian Gulf. There are subjugations 
and revolts and subjugations again. There are boats to be built and 
dragged overland, and rivers to be bridged, and cities to be besieged. 
Trajan and his generals appear now here and now there—over vast 
tracts of country. Dierauer speaks of the ‘astonishing rapidity’, the 
‘breathless haste’, of Trajan’s movements (pp. 173, 181). But with 
this apportionment of the time, we have something more than breathless 
haste; and it may fairly be asked whether human energy could have 
crowded all these operations within the limits thus assigned to 
them. 

The same result seems to follow from an investigation of the 
chronology of the emperor’s titles. We have seen (pp. 396, 411) 
that Oftimus occurs on more than one inscription belonging to the 
year 114, and one of these, a military diploma found at Carnuntum 
in Pannonia, bears the date Sept. 1. The designation Parthicus on 
the other hand is less frequent. Hitherto it has been found only on 
one monument belonging to this year, a non-official inscription in the 
province of Baetica (see above, p. 412 sq). It must therefore have 
been given in sufficient time to get known in Spain before the close 
of the year. 

These facts are in harmony with the meagre notice of Dion, in 
which he represents both titles as conferred during the first part 
of the eastern campaign, and Optimus as preceding Parthicus. But 
the date of the latter title has an important bearing on our investigation. 
It was conferred, says Dion, after he had taken Nisibis and Batne, 
i.e. after he had overrun Mesopotamia and while he was close to the 
frontier of Adiabene, so that the operations (a) were already drawing 
to aclose. Indeed it seems probable from Dion’s account that he left 
Lusius to complete them, while he himself returned to Antioch. This 
being so, the operations (a) are all exhausted in the year 114, and nothing 
is left for 115. 





OF S. IGNATIUS. 417 


So again with the successive titles of Imperator. In the years 
A.D. 114, 115, Trajan rises from Imperator vi to Imperator xi, if 
not to Imperator xii, so that the title is conferred five times, if not 
six; whereas in A.D. 116, 117, there are only two fresh accumulations 
at most. This ratio of five to two, or possibly of six to one, would 
be out of all proportion to the respective operations (a) and (y). On 
the other hand, if all the events (a) were comprised in the year 114, 
the three fresh titles vil, vill, and 1x, which belong to that year, would 
supply all that the history requires; and four accumulations of the 
titles would still remain for the numerous operations (y) of the years 
ΕΣ τ 116. 

On these grounds I have assumed that the winter of the earthquake 
was 114, not 112; and the incidents are arranged accordingly in the 
chronological table. The distribution of the subsequent events however 
which fall to the years 115, 116, 117, 15 still left undetermined 
by the monuments, and here conjecture must step in. It seems 
probable however that the entrance into Ctesiphon, which was the 
crowning triumph of the expedition, took place at the close of 115, 
and that the winter 11° was spent in this city. ‘This is a reasonable, 
though not certain inference from the language of Dion. He says 
that Trajan after leaving Ctesiphon set out to visit the Red Sea (i.e. 
the Persian Gulf) but that ‘owing to the wintry season (or the stormy 
weather) and the rapidity of the Tigris and the reflux of the ocean 
he was in some peril.’ The expression ὑπὸ χειμῶνος is not indeed 
conclusive in itself as to the season of the year’; but in conjunction 
with the description of the danger it points naturally to the winter 
or the very early spring. The documents are quite consistent with 


1 Dion Cass. Ixviii. 28 ὑπὸ δὲ δὴ χει- 
μῶνος τῆς Te τοῦ Tiypidos ὀξύτητος Kal 
τῆς τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ ἀναρροίας ἐκινδύνευσε. 
Volkmar (Rhein. Mus. Ν. F. ΧΙ]. p. 508), 
answering Francke, says ‘ Und worin liegt 
nun das Ueberwintern? Sollte der ge- 
lehrte Historiker wirklich gedacht haben 
in ὑπὸ χειμῶνος Es heisst nicht etwa 
ὑπὸ τὴν χειμώνα, sondern durch einen 
Sturm etc.’ But (1) Dion would certainly 
never have made χειμὼν feminine. (2) 
He would not have used the accusative 
case, unless he had meant something dif- 
ferent, e.g. ‘under cover of winter’, or 
‘at the approach of winter’. (3) The 
article is as frequently omitted as inserted, 


ΠΝ Ty. 


when winter is intended; e.g. Thucyd. vi. 
34 ἐξωσθῆναι ἂν τῇ wpa εἰς χειμῶνα. In 
fact ὑπὸ [τοῦ] χειμῶνος may have several 
meanings ; (1) ‘stormy weather’, e.g. Thu- 
cyd. vi. 104 Tas ναῦς ὅσαι ἐπόνησαν ὑπὸ 
τοῦ χειμῶνος, Antiphon Zetral. i. 2. 1 
(p. 116) of δυστυχοῦντες, ὁπόταν μὲν ὑπὸ 
χειμῶνος Tovwow, εὐδίας γενομένης παύ- 
ονται : (2) ‘severe climate’, as at high alti- 
tudes, e.g. Herod. viii. 138 οὖρος κέεται, 
Βέρμιον οὔνομα, ἄβατον ὑπὸ χειμῶνος : (3) 
‘winter season’, e.g. Thucyd. ii. 101 ὑπὸ 
χειμῶνος ἐταλαιπώρει (comp. c. 102 τοῦδε 
τοῦ χειμῶνος), Herod. iv. 62 ὑπονοστέει 
γὰρ δὴ αἰεὶ ὑπὸ τῶν χειμώνων. 


27 


418 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


‘ this view. The official assumption of the title Parthicus was, as we 
have seen (p. 412), coincident with the entrance into Ctesiphon. This 
title is not wanting on any document belonging to the year 116. 

Nor again do the inscriptions which bear the name of the consul 
Pedo offer any impediment to this solution, as some critics seem to 
think. If the earthquake occurred during this winter, he must have 
perished soon after he had assumed office, probably not later than 
February. The news might not have reached Rome before March. 
Of the documents bearing his name, some merely mention him as 
the eponym of the year (e.g. C./. 2. VI. 1984, 2404, 241 tL); Dhese 
therefore have no bearing on the question. The only two which have a 
date both belong to the month of January (C./7.Z. vi. 543, dated 
Id. Jan., and vi. 43, 44, dated v Kal. Febr.), while he was probably 
still alive, but at all events before his death was known at Rome. 


5: 


The day on which S. Ignatius was commemorated is a fit subject for 
investigation, for it has some indirect bearings which are not unimpor- 
tant. It varied at different times and in different places. 


1. Ocroser 17. This was the original day observed as the anniver- 
sary of the saint’s martyrdom in Syria and Greece, as will be evident 
from the following facts. 

(1) Chrysostom in his panegyric on S. Ignatius states that the 
festival of the martyr followed immediately on that of 5. Pelagia ; HYom. 
in S. Ignat. (Op. τι. p. 562 sq). The grace of the Spirit, he says, sets 
before us its banquets of the martyrs in rapid succession (συνεχεῖς ἡμῖν 
kai ἐπαλλήλους τὰς τῶν μαρτύρων παρατιθέναι τραπέζας). Only the other 
day it was a young virgin Pelagia who entertained us; to-day the valiant 
Ignatius has succeeded to her festival (πρώην γοῦν ἡμᾶς κόρη κομιδῇ νέα 
καὶ ἀπειρόγαμος ἡἣ μακαρία μάρτυς ἸΤελαγία.. εἱστίασε" σήμερον πάλιν τὴν 
ἐκείνης ἑορτὴν ὁ μακάριος οὗτος καὶ γενναῖος μάρτυς ᾿Ιγνάτιος διεδέξατο). 
The persons, he adds, are different, but the table is one. 

This statement created a difficulty. The Pelagia here mentioned 
was doubtless the saint of Antioch, in whose honour Chrysostom de- 
livered two orations which are extant. But, whereas the day of Igna- 
tius in the Greek calendar is December 20, neither this nor any 
other Pelagia is commemorated in December or even in the preceding 
month in any known calendar. The days assigned to Pelagia of 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 419 


Antioch in different calendars are June 9 or το, and October 8. On 
this account it was inferred by discerning critics that the festival of 
Dec. 20 must have been due to some later change in the Greek calen- 
dar, and that in Chrysostom’s time the day of commemoration was 
different. Zahn (7 v. A. p. 53), who took this view, supposed that the 
original commemoration was in June. The first point has since been 
established beyond question; but the original day of Ignatius is dis- 
covered to have been October 17, as will appear from the documents 
quoted in the sequel. ‘This accords with a marginal note in a ms of 
Chrysostom’s Homily on 5. Pelagia, which gives μηνὶ ὀκτωβρίῳ η΄, as 
the date of its delivery (Og. U1. p. 584). 

(1) The Syriac ms Grit. Mus. Add. 12,150 is described in 
Wnight’s Catalogue of Syriac MSS p. 631. It is probably the oldest 
dated Ms in existence, having been written A.D. 411. Αἰ the close of 
the volume, which contains portions of the Clementine Homilies and 
Recognitions, the Books against the Manicheans by Titus of Bostra, the 
Theophania and Palestinian Martyrs of Eusebius, etc., in Syriac versions, 
is a Syriac Martyrology, in which the names of the Western martyrs are 
arranged in the order of the Syrian months. This Martyrology has 
been published and translated by Wright in the Journal of Sacred 
Literature Vi. pp. 45 sq, 423 sq. Under the month Former Teshri 
(October) we have, among other names ; 


8. At Antioch, Pelagia. 
17. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, of the number of the ancient con- 
fessors. 


Attention was called to this entry by Zahn (Zen. εἰ Pol. Ep. pp. xiii, 
343, 381), who thus in his later work corrected his earlier conjecture as 
to the time. 

Here then we have found what we sought. The ms, as we have 
seen, dates from the early years of the 5th century ; but the Martyrology 
itself, even in its Syriac dress, must be much older. It is full of errors 
arising from the confusion of Syriac letters having similar forms, and 
therefore probably is removed by several stages of transcription from the 
original Syriac document. But this Syriac document itself was a transla- 
tion from the Greek (see Zahn Jgn. οἱ Pol. Ep. p. 381). We shall 
probably therefore be correct in assigning the work to a date not later 
than about the middle of the 4th century. At all events it will be older 
than S. Chrysostom’s panegyric; and it seems to have emanated from 
Antioch or the neighbourhood. 

(iii) In the Syriac translation of the Antiochene Acts of Lgnatius, 

27—2 


420 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


published by Meesinger (p. 12, 1. 1; comp. p. 15 for the translation), 
the date of the martyr’s death, which in the extant Greek and Latin 
copies of this same document is given December 20, appears as ‘the 
seventeenth of the Later Teshri’ (i.e. November). Comparing this 
statement with the previously mentioned Syrian Martyrology, and 
bearing in mind that no calendar places the commemoration of the 
saint on November 17, we can hardly doubt that it is a slip for the 
Former Teshri, so that here also the same date (Oct. 17) is given. The 
translator doubtless substituted the day of commemoration which was 
still kept by his own church for the day which he found in the Greek 
document before him (see below, p. 423). Thus the commemoration of 
Oct. 17 survived, in some Syrian Churches at least, long after the Antio- 
chene Acts were composed. 

(iv) I have also found this date of the festival preserved in a 
Jacobite Syriac calendar in the Vatican ms Sy. xxxvii, described in 
Assemani A76/. Apost. Vatic. Cod. MSS Catal, Pars 1. Tom. ii. p. 244, 
a volume of miscellaneous contents brought from Mesopotamia. On 
Ρ. 250 sq is ‘Kalendarium per anni circulum festorum Domini et 
sanctorum ordinatum a sancto Jacobo Edesseno.’ It contains these 
notices ; 


Oct. 15 ‘Isaiah of Aleppo; and the decease of Mar Asia [srw 
the Physician] who is also Pantaleon; and Ignatius of Melitene who is 
also the Runner!; and Mar Phineas of Hah.’ 

Oct. 17 ‘The Prophets generally; and Hosea the Prophet; and Igna- 
tius Nurono; and Theophilus of Alexandria.’ 

Jan. 29 ‘Burial of the bones of Ignatius Nurono; and Severus the 
Capharsezean, Archimandrite of Kartamin; and the Martyrs of Galatia.’ 


The celebration of the other Ignatius two days before was probably 
due to an attraction. We shall meet with other instances in the calen- 
dar of this tendency to bring into proximity saints bearing the same 
name. Of Jan. 29, as the day of the translation of our Ignatius from 
Rome to Antioch, I shall have to speak hereafter. 

(v) A search through the Syriac calendars in the British Museum, 
which Dr Wright kindly undertook at my request, has brought to light 
one interesting entry. 

The ms Add. 17,134 15 dated a.D. 675, and was probably written 
by the hand of the famous Jacob of Edessa himself (see Wright’s 
Catalogue of Syriac MSS p. 330 sq). It contains chiefly Hymns of 
Severus and others (among these a Hymn on Ignatius, and another on 


1 See Assem. 816]. Orient. 11. pp. 351, 365. 


OF 5. IGNATIUS. 421 


Basil and Gregory) ; but beginning on fol. 84 ὦ is a calendar of Saints’ 
Days ‘perhaps written by a different hand.’ It furnishes these notices ; 


maior oréizeto MAG. οἷος, a1n> ass 
fol. 84a + CAYLAA M9 Ca TAROT “οανλιοοτ 9 
“ΟΝ, τό emior ἀπο pizd> imsahars 

fol. 855 + sodslimrts ὡοσυὐν ον 


‘On the Ist of the Later Kanun [January]; Of the holy fathers 
Ignatius, Basilius, Gregorius, and the rest.’ 

‘On the 17th of the Former Teshri [October]; Of the holy (ones), 
Ignatius, Gregorius, Basilius.’ 


S. Basil died on the first day of the year 379, and his commemora- 
tion was and is kept accordingly on Jan. 1, while Oct. 17, as we have 
seen, was the festival of Ignatius’. Here then they make common 
cause—each sharing his festival with the other. This phenomenon 
illustrates other notices respecting Ignatius. Of the 125 “pzthronian 
Orations, delivered by Severus of Antioch and preserved in Syriac 
versions, six (9, 37, 65, 84, 102, 116) were spoken on the festival of 
S. Basil and 5. Gregory’ (Wright’s Catalogue Ὁ. 534 sq, Cureton C. Δ 
p. 215 sq, Ρ. 247 548). Respecting four of these we are told that they 
were delivered in the Church of Ignatius, that is, no doubt, in the 
ancient Tychzum, which had been converted into a Christian church, 
and whither the bones of Ignatius had been translated from the Ceme- 
tery. In one case it is distinctly said that the delivery of the oration 
on the Cappadocian fathers in this church was ‘according to custom,’ 
while in three reference is made to Ignatius, and the preacher dwells 
on the resemblance of Basil and Gregory to this early martyr of Antioch. 
This habitual association of their names by the great Monophysite 
patriarch of Antioch may have suggested a corresponding arrangement 
in the calendar of the great Monophysite father of Edessa. At all 
events the two cannot be independent. But, however this may be, 
these notices show that Oct. 17 continued to be the festival of S. 
Ignatius after the Monophysite schism, and had not yet been sup- 
planted by Dec. 20. 


1 The day of Gregory Nazianzen is was not instituted till the 11th century. 
Jan. 25. On Jan. 30 the Greek Church 2 These six homilies were evidently 
(besides their several commemorations) delivered on Jan. 1, for they appear be- 
commemorates in common Basil,Gregory, tween homilies on the Nativity and the 
and Chrysostom; but this common festival | Epiphany. 


422 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


(vi) Another trace of this day appears in the Bollandist Acta 
Sanctorum Feb. 1 (1. p. 14, ed. nov.), where, after mention of the proxi- 
mity to S. Pelagia’s day in S. Chrysostom’s time, the editors say ‘Neque 
in Junio neque in Octobri ulla S. Ignatii in martyrologiis reperitur 
observata solennitas, si quaedam annotata Mss excipiantur Carthusia- 
norum Bruxellensium, in quibus xvii Octobris traditur B. IRgnati 
martyris translatio.’ As the day of the martyrdom was already fixed 
for them in their own calendar at a different time, these Carthusians 
would naturally assume that October 17 must be the day of the transla- 
tion of the reliques. But whence they derived their information, I do 
not know. 


2. DECEMBER 20. This is the common date of the martyrdom, 
which prevailed in the Greek and other Eastern Churches at a later age. 
The J/enea contain two festivals of our saint. 

Dec. 20. The anniversary of the martyrdom {Μνήμη τοῦ ἁγίου 
ἱερομάρτυρος Lyvatiov τοῦ Θεοφόρου). 

The στίχοι are 

Agovow, ᾿Ιγνάτιε, δεῖπνον προὐτέθης, 
Κοίνωνε δείπνου μυστικοῦ, θάρσους λέον. 
Εἰκάδι ᾿Ιγνάτιος θάνε γαμφηλῇσι λεόντων. 

Jan. 29. The return of the reliques (Ἢ ’Avaxopidy τῶν Λειψάνων τοῦ 
ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου τοῦ Θεοφύρου). 

The στίχοι are 

Χάρις λέουσιν, ᾿Ιγνάτιε, παμβόροις 
Σοῦ σώματος λιποῦσι καὶ πιστοῖς μέρος. 
Τῇ δ᾽ ἐνάτῃ ἐπάνουδος ᾿Ιγνατίῳ εἰκάδι τύχθη. 

This second festival is almost as prominent in the Menza as the 
first. 

The Armenian calendar agrees substantially with the later Greek as 
regards the day of the martyrdom, though it exhibits slight variations. 
In the Armenian Acts of Ignatius (§ 49) the date is given ix Kal. Jan., 
1.6. Dec. 24. It has been suggested above that this was an alteration 
made arbitrarily from xii Kal. Jan. (Dec. 20)—the day given in the 
original Greek from which this portion of the Armenian Acts is taken— 
because Dec. 24 was the Armenian day of commemoration at the time 
when the translator or transcriber lived. Just in the same way we have 
seen (p. 420) that the Syrian translator in this very passage has substi- 
tuted another day, to bring it into conformity with the usage of the 
Syrian Church. The day in the Armenian calendar was originally, we 
may suppose, identical with the day in the Greek; but the beginnings 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 423 


of the Armenian months at that time did not exactly synchronize with 
the beginnings of the Greek months. In the same way Dec. 20 is Choiak 
24 in the Egyptian, and Tahsas 24 in the Ethiopic calendar (see below 
p. 425 sq). In the Armenian Menologies, if I am correctly informed, 
the day is given Dec. 20, conformably to the Greek calendar. On the 
other hand in two Armenian calendars reprinted in Assemani (£707. 
Orient. 111. p. 648, p. 654) it is neither Dec. 24 nor Dec. 20, but Dec. 17. 
Whether this slight variation again can be explained by some fluctuation 
in the Armenian year or not, lam unableto say. It should be observed 
however that this last date agrees with some early forms of the Latin 
calendar (see below p. 430). In the two Armenian calendars last men- 
tioned there is also a second day of commemoration for this saint ; 
Jan. 29 in the one (p. 645), and Jan. 30 in the other (p. 649). This 
second commemoration corresponds to the festival of the translation 
in the Greek calendar. 

The earliest document which gives December 20 for the martyrdom 
is the Antiochene Acts of Ignatius (δ 7 τῇ πρὸ δεκατριῶν καλανδών Ἰαννου- 
apiwv). Notwithstanding the various reading of the Syriac version 
mentioned above (p. 420), the existing Greek and Latin texts un- 
questionably give the date which stood originally in this document ; 
for this xiiith before the Kalends is mentioned in the body of the work 
(δ 6 ἡ λεγομένη τῇ Ῥωμαϊκῇ φωνῇ τρισκαιδεκάτη), where it belongs to the 
texture of the story, and where the number is left undisturbed by the 
Syriac translator himself. 


3. JuLy 1. This appears to have been the anniversary of the 
martyrdom, as commemorated in the Egyptian Churches. 

The correct text of the Roman Acts of Martyrdom is unquestionably 
(δ 12) καὶ ἔστιν ἡ μνήμη τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου καὶ γενναίου μάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου 
μηνὶ πανέμῳ νεομηνίᾳ, ‘in the month Panemus on the tst day,’ as it 
appears in’P, the best of the three Greek mss. ‘The retention of this 
date is the more remarkable, because this document is inserted in a 
hagiology for December (see above, p. 364); its place having been adapted 
to the later usage of the Eastern Churches as regards the commemora- 
tion of Ignatius, but the corresponding change in the month and day, 
which was thus required, having been overlooked. So too the date is 
given in the Memphitic version, necovar Misahot ewjarmort epoy 
RATA MIPWMEOE RE MAMEMOC’ KATA HIPEMIINCHAT AE WECOT 7 ILEILAIT, 
‘the first of the month which is called according to the Romans Pane- 
mus, but according to the Egyptians the seventh of Epiphi [Abib].’ 
The Macedonian names of the months prevailed in Egypt; and in 


424 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Macedonian nomenclature July was Panemus. The Egyptian equivalent 
was Epiphi; but the native Egyptian months only coincided roughly, and 
Epiphi began on June 25, so that Panemus 1 = Epiphi 7; see Clinton 
Fast. Hellen. 111. pp. 360, 363, Ideler Handb. ὦ, Chron. i. p. 143 sq. 
So too the heading of these Acts in this Coptic Version describes the 
martyrdom as taking place neov 7 Mmsahot ennn, ‘on the seventh of 
the month Epiphi.’ And again the corresponding notice in the Avmenian 
Acts of Martyrdom (§ 52), taken from these Roman Acts, runs ‘Me- 
moriam Deo dilecti et fortis propugnatoris Ignatii in Hrotitz mensis die 
primo [secundum Graecos Decembr. 20] manifestavimus vobis etc.’ 
(p. 547, Petermann). Hrotitz is the last of the Armenian months, but 
the Armenian year commenced with August, so that here again we have 
the date July 1. The words in brackets therefore (an addition, I 
suppose, of the editor Aucher) do not give the Greek equivalent in 
time, but communicate the information that the day was different in 
the Greek calendar. It has been observed already (p. 375) that this 
statement is quite inconsistent with an earlier notice in these same 
Armenian Acts (§ 49), ‘Facta est res haec ante ix [secundum Graecos 
xili] Kalendas Januarias’ (p. 545), taken from the Antiochene Acts. 

This then (July 1) was the original date for the martyrdom in this 
document; but in the other Greek mss VL it is altered to conform to 
the later Greek usage μηνὶ Δεκεμβρίῳ εἰκάδι, and L also adds the day of 
the translation of the reliques Jan. 29, ἐνεχθέντων δὲ ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τῶν 
τιμίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων μηνὶ ᾿Ιαννουαρίῳ εἰκάδι évvary. 

This same day, Epiphi [Abib] 7, was also, I do not doubt, the 
original festival of the martyrdom in the native Coptic Churches. 
Melchite Coptic calendars indeed, as we should expect, follow the 
later Greek usage, giving Dec. 20 for the martyrdom, and Jan. 29 for 
the translation. Two such are given in Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. 
IV. li. pp. 50, 52, and p. 169, respectively. In the present Jacobite 
Coptic calendar also the martyrdom of Ignatius is commemorated on 
Choiak 24 (Dec. 20), and his name has disappeared from Abib 7 
(July 1), which commemorates only Shenuti (see Malan’s Documents 
of the Coptic Church, pp. τό, 34, of the calendar)’. The translation is 


1 This is also the case in Brit. Mus. 
Add. 5996, where Shenuti alone is com- 
memorated on Epiphi 7. In Brit. Mus. 
Oriental 425, dated A.D. 1307, a MS of 


dar Epiphi is wanting. Conversely in 
Brit. Mus. Oriental 1321, dated A.D. 
1346, a lectionary with calendar, She- 
nuti alone without Ignatius is comme- 


the Gospels with a calendar appended, 
Ignatius is commemorated on Choiak 24; 
while owing to a mutilation of the calen- 


morated on Epiphi 7; but the month of 
Choiak is not included in this volume. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 425 


not mentioned at all. But in other Coptic calendars the original 
Egyptian day, Epiphi 7, is preserved. Probably documents may be 
extant in which this is the sole day of commemoration. But in those 
which I have noticed the later Greek usage is combined with the original 
Egyptian, so that there are two days of commemoration, July 1 and 
Dec. 20. This double commemoration appears, for instance, in a 
Jacobite Coptic calendar (in Arabic) given in Mai lc., where we have 
under Abib 7 [July 1] ‘Sancti Ignatii et Scenudii abbatis’ (p. 31), and 
under Choiak 24 [Dec. 20] ‘Sancti Ignatii’ (p. 21). A second example 
appears in another Coptic calendar (in the Arabic language), likewise 
given in Mai, 2d. pp. 103, 117, which under Abib 7 has ‘Martyrium 
Ignatii papae Romae, qui Petrum excepit imperante Trajano,’ and 
under Choiak 24 ‘Martyrium sancti Ignatii patriarchae Antiochiae, 
discipuli sancti Johannis evangelistae.’ The designation ‘Papa Romae’ 
is a hasty inference from the statement that he succeeded S. Peter. 
This last quoted calendar is stated to be ‘juxta recensionem factam 
a patre Michaele episcopo Atribae et Meligae, et ab aliis sanctis 
patribus’ (p. 93). This Michael flourished about a.p. 1425. The 
alternate ascendency of Melchites and Jacobites for some generations 
in the Egyptian Churches will explain this intermingling of different 
usages. 

So far as I have observed, the Ethiopic calendars all commemo- 
rate Ignatius on both days, Tahsas 24 and Hamlé 7, corresponding 
to Dec. 20 and July 1 respectively. So for instance the calendar 
given in Ludolf, p. 389 sq (see pp. 402, 421). But they most 
commonly add a third commemoration also, Hamlé 1 (June 25). This 
is the case with the Ethiopic Synaxarion described in Dillmann’s 
Catal. Cod. Aethiop. Bibl. Bodl. p. 37 sq, where we have the following 
entries ; 

Tahsas 24 ‘Martyrium Ignatii, patriarchae Antiocheni’ [p. 49]. 
Hamlé 1 ‘Commemoratio Martyrii Ignatii patriarchae’ [p. 63]. 
Hamilé 7 ‘ Martyrium Ignatii, patriarchae Romani post Petrum’ [p. 64]: 


and similarly in Zotenberg Catal. des MSS LEthiop. de la Bibl. Nation. 
pp- 169, 189, Igo. 

Several such Ethiopic Synaxaria are described in Wright’s Catad. of 
Ethiop. MSS in the Brit. Mus. p. 152. At my request Dr Wright 
examined them with a view to the notices respecting the commemo- 
ration of Ignatius, and has furnished me with the following translation 
of the entries. 


Tahsas 24 ‘And again on this day the holy and illustrious Ignatius, 
patriarch of Antioch, became a martyr.’ 


426 ACFS OF MARTYRDOM 


‘He was the disciple of the blessed Apostle John the Evangelist, 
and ministered unto him in preaching, and went with him to many cities. 
Thereafter he appointed him patriarch over the city of Antioch; and he 
preached therein with life-giving preaching, and converted many unto the 
knowledge of the Lord, and baptized them with the Christian baptism, 
and enlightened them with knowledge, and showed their error unto those 
who worshipped idols.’ 

‘And the heathen were enraged with him and accused him before 
king Trajan (Trabyanos), the wicked Czesar; and they said unto him: 
Lenatius abolisheth the worship of thy gods, and teacheth the people and 
bringeth them into the Christian faith of Christ,’ 

‘Then he sent and bade him come unto him. And the king said 
unto Ignatius: Why hast thou done this? and why hast thou abolished the 
worship of my gods? and hast brought all men into the worship of 
Christ? And Ignatius said unto him: Jf zt were possible for me, 7 
would bring thee too, O king, into the worship of Christ, the King of 
all, that I might make thee a friend of His. And the king said unto 
him: Let this talk alone, and sacrifice unto my gods, and tf not, I will 
torture thee with great torture. And the holy Ignatius said unto him: 
Do unto me, O king, all that thou pleasest; because, as for me, I will not 
sacrifice unto thy filthy gods, and I am not afraid of thy torture, neither 
of thy fire nor of thy lions; and thou art not able to divide me from the 
love of Christ, the living King, 

‘And when the king heard this, he became very angry, and ordered 
him to be tortured with great torture. And they tortured him with much 
torture, and placed coals of fire in his hands, and seized him with pincers 
(or fleshhooks) a long time, whilst the fire was in his hands; and after 
this they burned his sides with brimstone (θεῖον) and: oil, kindled with 
fire. And after this they lacerated all his body with knives of iron.’ 

‘And when those who tortured him were weary of torturing him, 
they cast him into prison, until they could do with him according to all 
that they wished; and he remained in prison many days. And there- 
after they remembered him and brought him forth, and set him before 
the king.’ 

‘And the king said unto him: O Jenatius, if thou couldest see the 
gods, their beauty would please thee. And the holy one said unto him: 
Lf thou wouldest believe in Christ, He would make thee ratse the dead 
and heal the sick. And the king said unto him: There is no worship 
which ts better than the worship of the sun. And the holy one said unto 
him: How ἐς ἐξ better to worship the sun, which hath been created, and to 
forsake the Creator, whose kingdom doth not fail? And the king said 
unto him: Thou speakest not well, but by thy transgression thou drawest 
all the people of Syria unto the worship of Christ. And the holy one 
was angered, and said unto him: O king, because 7 have drawn the 
people from worshipping idols and have brought them unto the worship 
of Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, who was before the world, 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 427 


thou art angry with me and orderest me to sacrifice unto thy gods and 
thy filthy idols! But as for me, I will not obey thy order, and T will 
not sacritce unto devils, but I will sacrifice unto my God, who ἐς in 
truth, Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, 

‘Then the king was angered, and commanded that they should let 
loose upon him two hungry lions, so that they should not leave even a 
morsel of his flesh. And when the holy Ignatius saw the lions coming 
nigh unto him, he cried out with a loud voice, and said to the people: 
Hearken unio my voice, O men of the city of Rome who are assembled 
here, and know that it ts not because of pride and vainglory that 7 
patiently endure thts torture, but my patience ts because of my Lord 
Fesus Christ, my God. And lo, my soul destreth that these lions should 
crush me like wheat, because my soul destreth now to go to my Lord Fesus 
Christ.’ 

‘And when the king heard what he said, he marvelled and was 
astonished and said: How great ts the patience of the Christians under 
these tortures! Who ἐς there of the heathens who could patiently endure 
these tortures for the gods?’ 

‘Then those lions came near to the holy one; and when they saw 
him, they stood still in terror. And afterwards one of them stretched out 
his paw upon his neck and seized him. Then he delivered up his soul 
into the hand of Christ his God with joy, and He fulfilled for him his 
prayer, and it was not possible for those lions to touch a morsel of his 
body, but it is preserved in the city of Rome until the second coming 
of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ 

‘And after this they buried the body of the holy Ignatius in the 
cemetery which is outside the city, with hymns and psalms. And he 
accomplished his martyrdom well for the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ; and they wrote his contest that it might be profitable for him 
who reads it and for him who remembers his name. And they made 
for him a festival in every place, and he intercedes for them in all their 
afflictions, because he hated the life of this world. May his holy bless- 
ing be with eéc.’ 

‘Hail to Ignatius, the chosen of God 

Who preached the truth unto those who had gone astray! 
The heathen, whilst they made sport of him, 
Burned his side with boiling oil and sulphur, 
And also placed in his hands coals of fire’ 


Hamlé τ ‘And again on this day was the martyrdom of Ignatius the 
patriarch, may his blessing be with e/c.”’ 
Hamlé 7 ‘And again on this day the holy father Ignatius, patriarch 


1 mss consulted, Brit. AZus. Oriental 2 Orient. 659 has Agnatyos; Orient. 
660, 667, 656, 658; see Wright’s Cata- 657, Guatyos; Orient. 661, Anagtyos ; 
Jogue p. 152 54: and Orient. 670, Agrtyos. 


428 ACTS OF) MARTYRDOM 


of the city of Rome, became a martyr, who was after Peter, in the days 
of king Trajan (Trabyanos).’ 

‘For when this king heard concerning this father that he taught all 
the nations and brought them into the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ (to 
whom be glory) and rejected the worship of idols, he bade him come, 
and said to him, Sacrifice unto the gods; but he hearkened not unto him, 
neither did he obey him. And he made him many promises, and was 
indignant with him; but he heeded not his promises, and feared not his 
indignation. And after there had been much talk between them, and 
he would not agree with him about his apostatising, then he brought 
him to the lions. And the holy Ignatius commanded his people, and 
strengthened them in the right faith. And one of the lions drew nigh 
unto him and seized his neck; and he delivered up his soul into the 
hand of the Lord. And thereafter that lion came not near him at all. 
And they carried away his body with much honour, and placed it in a fair 
spot, which the Lord had prepared for it.’ 

‘Hail to Ignatius, who inherited (07 occupied) the throne of Peter, 

The grace of which is exalted above all thrones. 

While he was polluting the sacrifice of abominable idols, 
As the consummation of his martyrdom a lion killed him, 
But did not thereafter come near to his body to touch it!’ 


This triple commemoration may be easily explained. The date 
Hamlé 1 is a repetition of Hamlé 7, according to another mode of 
reckoning. Strictly speaking Panemus (July) 1 corresponded to Hamlé 
7; but roughly Panemus was regarded as equivalent to July. Hence 
by a careless transference the Egyptian day of commemoration Panemus 
1 became Hamlé 1; and this day, having been borrowed directly or 
indirectly from some Greeco-Egyptian calendar, was set down without 
noticing that Panemus 1 was already represented by Hamlé 7. 

It should be noticed that both the accounts of the martyrdom 
(under Tahsas 24, and under Hamlé 7) are derived almost entirely from 
the Roman Acts. ‘This is an additional indication of the Egyptian 
origin of those Acts (see above p. 381). 


4. FEBRUARY 1. The ultimate usage of the Latin Churches is 
represented in the Martyrology of Ado (t a.p. 875); 


Feb. 1 ‘Eodem die apud Antiochiam, beati Ignatii episcopi et martyris.’ 
Dec. 17 ‘Translatio 5. Ignatii episcopi et martyris qui tertius post 
beatum Petrum apostolum Antiochenam rexit ecclesiam.’ 


See also his Leber de Festiv. p. 191 (Migne), where an account of the 


1 Orient. 670, f. 78 a, col. 2; collated with Ordent. 661, f. 106 ὦ, col. 3, and 
Orient. 657, f. 147 3, col. 2. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 429 


saint is given, and the same days are mentioned. The account con- 
cludes, ‘ Reliquiae ejus Antiochiam relatae jacent extra portam Daphni- 
ticam in coemiterio ecclesiae, xvi Kalendas Januarias delatae.’ The 
days are the same in Usuard; and so Notker gives Feb. 1 for the 
martyrdom, but the two last months in the year are wanting in his 
calendar. 

Thus comparing it with the final Greek calendar we find the final 
Latin calendar substituting Feb. 1 for Dec. 20 as the day of the 
martyrdom, and Dec. 17 for Jan. 29 as the day of the translation. 

But this result was only attained after much fluctuation. In the 
oldest Latin calendars there is no mention of this saint at all (see 
Zahn /. Ὁ. A. p. 2754). This is the case for instance in the Hierony- 
mian Martyrology. In the original Beda (ΟΖ. v. 1134, Migne), Dec. 17 
is given as the day, not of the translation, but of the martyrdom’; 

ΧΥῚ Kal. Jan. ‘Natale S. Ignatii episcopi et martyris qui tertius 
Antiochiae post Petrum apostolum episcopus duodecimo Trajani anno ad 
bestias vinctus Romae []. Romam] missus est. Reliquiae tamen corporis 
ejus Antiochiae jacent (extra portam Daphniticam in coemeterio ec- 
clesiae)’; 

while no other day is commemorated in connexion with this saint. 
The same is also the case with Rhabanus Maurus (Qf. Iv. 1186, Migne), 
who repeats almost the same words; and with Wandalbert (Migne’s 
Patrol. Lat. CXx1. p. 622), whose verses on Dec. 17 are, 


‘Tgnatius sanctus deno sextoque triumphat, 
Antiochenae urbis pastor martyrque, ferarum 

Quem dentes panem vivum fecere; sequuntur 
Quem fuso ob Christum Rufus Zosimusque cruore’ ; 


where the companionship of Rufus and Zosimus with Ignatius is taken 
from Polycarp Phil. 9. These facts seem to show that, when Dec. 17 
first appeared in the Latin calendar, it was intended for the martyrdom. 
How this day came to be selected, we can only conjecture*. But I 
think it may be explained as a confusion of Oct. 17 and Dec. 20, the 
two days of the martyrdom in the earlier and later Greek calendar. 
On the other hand Zahn (Z v. A. p. 28) suggests that it is due to 
attraction, the commemoration of another martyr bearing the same 
name having already, as he supposes, been fixed on Dec. 25 (see 


1 In the poetical Martyrology however, 2 See however the same phenomenon 
attributed to Bede (Of. v. 606, Migne), in some Armenian calendars noticed 
Dec. 20 is given; ‘Ter decimas Daciani above, p. 423. 

Ignatius aeque Kalendis,’ 


430 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Martyr. Hieron. Dec. 25, Hieron. Op. X1. p. 545). Meanwhile in other 
calendars in the West Feb. 1 had been fixed for the martyrdom of 
Ignatius of Antioch. This day must have been selected arbitrarily 
without any reference to tradition ; but it would be suggested, as Zahn 
supposes (Il. c.), by proximity to the festival of the African martyr bearing 
the same name Ignatius or Egnatius (see Cyprian 27st. xxxix. 3, 
p- 583 Hartel), who was already commemorated on Feb. 3 (see the 
Bollandist Act. Sanc¢t. Februarius 1. p. 325 sq, ed. nov.)'. Again, Feb. 1 
appears as the commemoration of Polycarp’s martyrdom in some 
early Latin calendars (e.g. Martyr. Hieron.), and the memory of Ignatius 
of Antioch was inseparably connected with that of Polycarp. Thus the 
earlier Latin calendars exhibit two days as claimants for the martyrdom 
of Ignatius of Antioch, Dec. 17 and Feb. 1; and the ultimate form of 
the Roman calendar is, I am disposed to think, an attempt to reconcile 
these rival claims. Feb. 1 was allowed to retain the martyrdom, while 
Dec. 17 was compensated with the translation. ‘This last adjustment 
would be the more easy, because those martyrologies which give 
Dec. 17 as the day of Ignatius include in the appended account of 
the saint the notice of the deposition of his bones at Antioch as related 
by 5. Jerome. In this way ‘ Translatio’ would be inserted on Dec. 17, 
and ‘Natale’ (where it occurred) would be removed. 

From this account it will have appeared that the commemoration 
of Ignatius of Antioch only obtained a place among the festivals of 
the Latin Church at a comparatively late date, and even then with 
many fluctuations. But in these islands several centuries more elapse 
before he is recognised ; and indeed he seems never to have obtained 
a firm footing in our northern calendars, whether Celtic or English. 
This appears, I think, from the calendars published in Hampson’s 
Medit Aevi Kalendarium, and in Forbes’s Kalendars of Scottish Saints. 
Even in those which belong to as late a date as the r4th century 
his name is frequently wanting, and S. Brigid still retains sole posses- 
sion of Feb. 1. 


The lesson from the Gospels, appropriated to the commemoration 
of S. Ignatius, was Mark ix. 32-40. This appropriation was owing 


1 Cyprian (1. c.} tells us that this Egna- 
tius was already commemorated in his 
time; ‘Sacrificia pro eis semper, ut me- 
ministis, quotiens martyrum passiones, et 
dies anniversaria commemoratione cele- 
bramus.’ His day of commemoration how- 


ever in the early Carthaginian calendar 
of the 5th century appears to be June 14, 
not Feb. 3. But he was transferred to 
Feb. 3, before Ignatius of Antioch was 
assigned to Feb. 1; see Zahn /, wv. A, 


p. 28 sq. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 431 


to the legend, founded on a misinterpretation of the name θεοφόρος, 
that Ignatius was the child whom our Lord took up in His arms 
and blessed. The legend appears in the Menza and in the Meta- 
phrast’s Life, and through these channels it obtained currency as 
the recognised tradition of the Church. . This lesson is assigned to 
his day, Dec. 20, in the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary (p. 478, ed. 
Miniscalchi Erizzo), of which the date is A.D. 1030. So too in another 
Melchite Syriac Lectionary, dated a.D. 1216, of which an account 
is given by Assemani 701. Vat. Cod. MSS Catal. i. p. 103 sq; see 
p. 121. In a Syriac Praxapostolos, likewise Melchite, described by 
Assemani (l.c. p. 137 54), of which the date is a.p. 1041, and which 
was written in the neighbourhood of Antioch, I find a lesson from 
Heb. iv. 14 sq ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν «.7.X. assigned to Dec. 20 
‘Coronatio episcopi Ignati.’ Again, in the Augsburg (Munich) Ms 
of the interpolated Ignatian Epistles [g,] a marginal note points to a 
lesson taken from Ignatius himself, Rom. 4 ἐγὼ γράφω x.t.X., as ordered 
to be read ἐν τῇ μνήμῃ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιγνατίου. 


It will have appeared from the above account that the translation of 
the remains plays an important part in the commemoration of the 
saint. A few words therefore will be necessary respecting the history 
of the reliques, in order to clear up some points relating to the 
Calendar. Three distinct translations, real or imaginary, must be 
kept in mind. 

1. The translation from Rome to Antioch. Of this incident 
Eusebius betrays no knowledge at all. At the close of the fourth 
century however, if not earlier, it was believed that the saint was 
buried at Antioch. Jerome in his Cadalogue (δ 16), written A.D. 392, 
says explicitly ‘The remains of his body lie at Antioch outside the 
Daphnitic Gate in the Cemetery.’ As this is the only statement 
respecting Ignatius which he superadds to the particulars given by 
Eusebius (see above p. 377sq), it may be presumed that he derived 
it from local sources; and perhaps he may himself have seen the real 
or reputed tomb of the martyr. This belief supposes a translation. 
Accordingly 8. Chrysostom, when he pronounces his panegyric on 
Ignatitis, delivered while he was still a presbyter at Antioch (A.D. 
386—397), dwells at some length on the return of the reliques from the 
metropolis. Just as an athlete, he says, is carried home in triumph 
after his victory with cheers, and not allowed to set foot on the ground, 
so also the cities in succession, receiving Ignatius from Rome and 
bearing him on their shoulders, escorted him as far as Antioch, praising 


432 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


the crowned victor. At the moment, he continues, he brought ad- 
vantage and prosperity to all those cities through which he passed ; 
but from that time forward to the present day he enriches the city of 
Antioch (Og. 11. p. 600). In all this however there is nothing which 
suggests that Chrysostom was building upon any definite tradition. 
His language looks like a mere imaginative effort by which a skilful 
orator would dress up the bare fact of the restoration of the body to 
Antioch. Whether the bones of the saint were actually so restored 
or not, it is impossible to say. Such a belief, where there is no evi- 
dence of its existence before the close of the fourth century, is not 
entitled to serious credit. The mere name found on a tombstone 
would be sufficient to start the belief, where the disposition was ready. 
However from this time forward the translation from Rome to Antioch 
became a settled belief. It was commemorated, as we have seen, on 
Jan. 29 in the Greek and Syrian Churches probably as early as the 
fifth century ; and in the Latin Churches also at a later date it appro- 
priated a day to itself, Dec. 17. 

2. The translation from the Cemetery outside the Daphnitic 
Gate to the Tychzum within the city. This second translation is 
so far historical, that some bones believed (whether truly or not) to 
be those of Ignatius were so translated. This took place, as we have 
seen (387 sq), some time during the first half of the fifth century 
under Theodosius the younger. 

3. The translation from Antioch to Rome. This must be con- 
sidered as a pure fiction, of which the growth is easily traced. The 
Acts of Martyrdom, which I have called the Roman, were written, 
as we have seen, not before the fifth century. By this time it was 
the stedfast belief in Antioch and the neighbourhood, that the 
reliques of the saint reposed in his own city. But the Roman Acts 
were composed probably in Egypt, and certainly without any know- 
ledge of Antiochene belief. The writer therefore, being unfettered 
by any tradition, supposed that, as the saint had died at Rome, so 
he was buried there. This was the natural supposition. Accordingly 
he dressed up his statement in an attractive form. Before the gth 
century however these Roman Acts, clumsily combined with the 
Antiochene Acts, had been translated into Latin (see above pp. 371, 
382) and circulated in the West. A story so acceptable to Roman 
feelings could not be overlooked ; and it soon became a settled belief 
in Rome that the body of the martyr lay in the city where, as these 
Acts express it, ‘Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded and 
Onesimus was perfected.’ But by this time the Antiochene story 


OF Ὁ IGNATIUS. 433 


of the translation to Antioch was also an established belief far 
beyond the region of Antioch and its neighbourhood. To reconcile 
the two therefore, it was necessary to suppose a retranslation at some 
later date. As to any such retranslation history and legend alike are 
silent ; but the body, being at Rome, must. have got to Rome somehow. 
Accordingly Baronio in his notes on the Martyrologium Romanum 
modestly suggests that they were removed from Antioch to Rome 
under Justinian, when the former city was devastated by Chosroes 
and the Persians, a.D. 540. This however is impossible, as the 
Bollandist editors (p. 35) point out, since half a century later Evagrius 
speaks of the saint’s body as still at Antioch. In another passage however, 
in his Axnales, Baronio states the case so as to evade this difficulty. 
Under the year a.p. 637, having occasion to speak of the Saracenic 
capture of Antioch in the time of Heraclius, he writes, ‘Plane his 
temporibus, quibus sive a Persis antea, sive ab Arabibus postea lisdem 
Mahometanis et Sarracenis captae sunt nobilissimae civitates Orientis, 
Alexandria, Hierosolyma et Antiochia...accidit ut...complura sanctorum, 
tum martyrum, tum confessorum, corpora translata fuerint in occi- 
dentem... Romam autem translatas tunc fuisse venerandas reliquias 
Ignatii martyris Antiochia, constans fama vetusque traditio, potius 
quam scripta, significant’, where the previous description leaves his 
func several centuries to move about in. But it is clear from his 
account that he had not found this tradition (if tradition it could 
be called) in any writer even of moderate antiquity. Of the numerous 
churches in Rome and elsewhere in Western Europe, which profess 
to have different bones of this martyr, an account is given in the 
Bollandist Acta Sanctorum Feb. 1. p. 36 sq. The most persistent, 
and perhaps the most ancient, claim is that put forward by the Basilica 
of San Clemente at Rome, which is asserted to possess the main reliques 
—the body—of the martyr. There is a certain propriety in the story 
which assigns a common resting-place to the remains of the two great 
Apostolical Fathers. Only a few years ago (A.D. 1868), when owing 
to the excavations in this ancient basilica the reliquary supposed to 
contain the bones of the two martyred saints had been for a time 
displaced, it was restored to its old position with much pomp. On 
this occasion the reliques of Ignatius were carried in solemn pro- 
cession into the Flavian Amphitheatre, where he himself had suffered, 
and back again to the church. Of this latest ‘translation’ an account 
is given in Mullooly’s Sant Clement and his Basilica p. 305 56. 


It has appeared from the above investigation that the original 
IGN. II, 28 


434 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


day of commemoration was October 17, and that this day afterwards 
gave place to December 20. How and when did the change take 
place? The account of Evagrius, quoted above (p. 386 sq), suggests 
the answer to this question. We are told by this historian that from 
the time when the reliques were translated to the Tychzum by Theo- 
dosius to his own day a public festival was observed with general 
rejoicing and that his contemporary the patriarch Gregory had added 
to the splendours of this festival. It is the natural inference from 
his language that the day so observed was the anniversary, not of 
the martyrdom, but of the translation to the Tycheum. If so, it was 
probably December 20, as Zahn (7. v. A. p. 53, (en. e¢ Pol. Ep. p. 358) 
suggests. The previous translation from Rome to Antioch was already 
commemorated on’Jan. 29, in addition to the commemoration of the 
martyrdom on Oct. 17; and as three distinct festivals for this one 
saint were felt to be excessive, Oct. 17 would fall into disuse, and the 
commemoration of Dec. 20 would come to be regarded as the 
anniversary of the martyrdom. 

The only anniversary therefore, which has any claims to con- 
sideration as the true day of the martyrdom, is Oct. 17. Nor is this 
date improbable im itself. Ignatius wrote his Epistle to the Romans 
on August 24 (Rom. 10); and he was about to embark at Troas at 
the time. This interval of between seven and eight weeks would be 
long enough, and not too long, for the journey from Troas to Rome 
and for the necessary delays which might occur on the way or 
after his arrival. On the other hand the later day of commemo- 
ration, Dec. 20, for which the Antiochene Acts are our earliest 
authority, leaves an interval of nearly four months—a delay not 
easily reconcilable with other notices in these same Acts; for this 
document represents the journey as hurried and the sentence as 
executed immediately on the saint’s arrival in Rome. But even the 
observance of Oct. 17 cannot be traced back earlier than the later 
decades of the fourth century; and there are reasons for thinking that the 
commemoration had not then been established very many years. It is 
not indeed impossible that the initiators of this festival may have had 
authentic information as to the day of the martyr’s death; but after 


the lapse of more than two centuries this cannot be regarded as 
probable, 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 435 


6. 


The year of the martyrdom is not altogether independent of the 
day; but it has a still more direct bearing on the main question of 
the Ignatian controversy, and deserves special consideration. 

So long as the personal interview with Trajan at Antioch was 
accepted without question as an accredited truth, it formed a definite 
starting point, from which investigations respecting the date of the 
martyrdom issued. ‘Taking this assumed fact as his basis, Pearson 
in his posthumous disquisition (de Anno guo S. Lenatius a Trajano 
etc. first printed from his papers by Smith in S. Lenatit Epistolae 
Genuinae etc. p. 58 sq) endeavoured to show that Ignatius was 
condemned in the earlier part of A.D. 116 and suffered at Rome at 
the close of the same year. He proved conclusively, as against Ussher, 
who had dated the martyrdom A.D. 107, that Trajan’s departure for 
the East took place several years afterwards, and that this early 
date therefore was untenable. Of other statements in the Antiochene 
Acts, which conflict with this result, e.g. the names of the consuls, 
which belong to A.D. 107, and the reference to the subjugation of the 
Dacians, which took place in this or the preceding year, he says 
nothing. Doubtless he regarded these Acts as interpolated’; but his 
dissertation seems to have been left unfinished, and hence his silence’. 

Pearson’s dissertation held its ground as quite the most important 
contribution to the subject till recent years. But it turned wholly on 


1 This opinion is definitely attributed 
to Pearson by Smith, p. 42. 

2 In his earlier work (Vind. Zen. p. 
346) Pearson writes, ‘supponendum im- 
primis Ignatium...tandem ab imperatore 
_ Trajano, in expeditione Parthica ad be- 
stias condemnatum, et ab Antiochia 
tractum, si quid scripserit in itinere satis 
molesto partim Smyrnae, partim Troade, 
et quidem decimo imperii Trajani, vul- 
garis aerae Christianae septimo post cen- 
tesimum anno, anno Christi vero, ut 
ego quidem existimo, 113, epistolas scrip- 
sisse.’ Jacobson (Patr. Apost. τι. p. 569; 
note) explains this as meaning that Pear- 
son believed Ignatius to have been taken 
from Antioch to Rome A.D. 107, but to 
have written his epistles A.D. 113. But 


he cannot have entertained a theory so 
irrational as this. Pearson’s words are 
loose, and we may suspect some mis- 
print; but they must mean that Ignatius 
was carried to Rome and wrote his 
epistles A.D. 107, according to the ge- 
neral opinion, but A.D. 113, as he him- 
self believed. He seems to have been 
already meditating the theory which he 
puts forward in his posthumous disserta- 
tion, but it did not affect his immediate 
argument, and he could therefore pass 
the subject over. So again in Vind. ΠΡ. 
p- 435 he provisionally accepts the com- 
mon date, A.D. 107. Smith states in his 
preface that Pearson at one time agreed 
with Ussher in placing the martyrdom 
in this year. 


25——2 


436 i ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


the interview at Antioch, as related in the Antiochene Acts of Mar- 
tyrdom. The credit of these Acts however has been irretrievably 
damaged by recent criticism; and with their authority the only 
grounds for regarding the interview at Antioch as historical have 
disappeared. It was unknown to Eusebius, and apparently also to 
Chrysostom’; and it appears for the first time in these very Acts, 
which cannot well be assigned to a date earlier than the fifth or sixth 
century. It was a fiction too, in which a hagiologist would be sorely 
tempted to indulge. The dramatic gain of confronting the saintly 
sufferer with his imperial persecutor was too great to be resisted. 
The martyr lived at Antioch, and Trajan visited Antioch. What more 
natural than that the two should have stood face to face? Moreover 
there was an ambiguity in the language in which the fact of the 
martyrdom was handed down, favourable to this assumption. It was 
related to have taken place ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ, and this might mean equally 
well ‘in the presence of Trajan’ or ‘in the time of Trajan.’ Thus all 
the elements of the fiction were ready to hand. 

Recent criticism has thus given its death-blow to the interview at 
Antioch, which was at one time regarded as the central fact of the 
Ignatian history. One attempt however has been made in an un- 
expected quarter to reverse the verdict. Volkmar endeavours to revive 
this corpse of an exploded fiction; no longer however from a con- 
servative point of view, from which it was defended by older critics, 
but with the destructive aim of closing for ever by an ὦ priord nega- 
tive the question of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. Owing 
to the important consequences which thus flow from it, rather than 
to any inherent probability which it can claim, his theory requires a 
full investigation once for all. 

John Malalas (Chronogr. xi. Ὁ. 275, ed. Bonn.) states that the 
earthquake at Antioch in Trajan’s reign took place ‘on the 13th of 
the month Apelleus, which is also December, on the first day of the 
week, after cock-crow, in the 164th year according to the reckoning of 
the said Antiochenes, two years after the arrival of the most divine 
king Trajan in the East.’ The year 164 of the Antiochene era is 
Ἂς ἘΝ ΤῊ ὅ- 

After some intervening matter the same writer (p. 276) adds; ‘Now 
the said king Trajan was residing in the said city (Antioch) when the 


1 Op. Il. p. 600 THs τοῦ τυράννου γλώσ- ἰγταηϊ 5 name, and he does not say 
ays (see above p. 379 sq). The whole whether the interview took place at 
passage looks like a rhetorical venture. Rome or at Antioch, 

Chrysostom betrays no knowledge of the 


OF 8, IGNATIUS. 437 


visitation (7 θεομηνία) took place. And in his presence (07 under him) 
at that time the holy Ignatius, bishop of the city of Antioch, suffered 
martyrdom (or bore his testimony) ; for he was exasperated against him, 
because he reviled him’ (ἐμαρτύρησε δὲ ἐπὶ αὐτοῦ τότε 6 ἅγιος ᾿Ιγνάτιος 
ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῆς πόλεως ᾿Αντιοχείας᾽ ἠγανάκτησε γὰρ κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι 
ἐλοιδόρει αὐτόν). 

Combining these statements with the fact that in the normal Greek 
calendar Ignatius is commemorated on the 20th of December, Volk- 
mar frames his theory (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen 1. p. 
49 Sq, p. 121 sq; comp. Zur Chronologie des Trajanischen Partherkriegs 
in the Peheinisches Museum N. Ἐν xi. p. 481 sq, 1857). He is convinced 
that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but was condemned and 
executed at Antioch. The populace, he supposes, lashed into fury by 
the earthquake, demanded the life of Ignatius as a propitiatory offering 
to the gods. ‘Trajan yielded to their fanaticism ; and within a week 
of the calamity their victim suffered martyrdom in the amphitheatre. 
From this it follows that the letters must be spurious, for they pretend 
to have been written during the journey to Rome. 

This theory, notwithstanding the slender basis on which it rests, 
is maintained with great assurance by Volkmar; but it has not 
generally been received with favour. The anonymous author of 
Supernatural Religion however has given it his unqualified support, 
regarding it as ‘demonstrated’ (1. p. 268), but not alleging any new 
arguments’; and it may be worth while to enquire what is thought to 
constitute demonstration in this case. 

1. Inthe first place then it must be remarked that John Malalas 
did not write earlier than the latter half of the sixth century. His 
probable date as an author is the age of Justin 11 (see Mommsen in 
Hermes Vi. p. 381) who reigned a.p. 565—578; though some critics 
have placed him much later (see Fabric. Bibi. Graec. vil. p. 447, ed. 
Harles). His date therefore constitutes no claim to a hearing. But 
his statement is directly opposed to the concurrent testimony of all 
the preceding centuries, which without a dissentient voice declare that 
Ignatius suffered at Rome. This is the case with all the writers and 
interpolators of the Ignatian letters; of whom the earliest is placed, 
even by those critics who deny their genuineness, about the middle or 
in the latter half of the second century. It is the case apparently even 


1 On the other hand Renan (Zes question d’Ignace, n’a-t-on pas prétendu 
Evangiles p. xxxiv) says of the extra-  corriger les traditions du m° siecle avec 
vagances of the Tiibingen school,‘ Dansla Jean Malala?’ 


438 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


with the heathen satirist Lucian, who writing soon after a.D. 165 
caricatures the progress of Ignatius through Asia Minor in his death of 
Peregrinus’. It is the case with the authors of the two Acts of Martyr- 
dom, which, written independently of each other and agreeing in little 
else, are united in sending the martyr to Rome to die. It is the case 
necessarily with all those fathers who quote the Ignatian letters in 
any form as genuine, among whom are Ireneus and Origen and 
Eusebius and Athanasius and Basil, besides numbers of later writers. 
It is the case especially with Chrysostom, who on the day of the 
martyr’s festival pronounces at Antioch an elaborate panegyric on his 
illustrious predecessor, and with Severus, who preaching likewise at 
Antioch in the very church where the martyr’s remains rested, or were 
supposed to rest, turns aside from his main subject to eulogize him, 
assuming throughout the traditional belief respecting the place of his 
martyrdom (Cureton Corp. Jen. p. 247 sq). All these writers lived 
before, and many of them several centuries before, the time when 
Malalas wrote. One of the earliest, Origen, writing about a century 
after the event, directly affirms that Ignatius was martyred at Rome 
(Op. 11. p. 938 τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ θηρίοις μαχησάμενον). 

But Malalas, it is said, resided at Antioch, and therefore was 
favourably situated for obtaining correct information. So did Chrysos- 
tom—a successor of Ignatius in the see of Antioch—some two cen- 
turies before Malalas. So did Severus—likewise a successor in the 
same see—nearly a century before Malalas. So did Evagrius, who, 
if the earliest date be adopted, was his contemporary, and who 
coincides with all preceding writers in placing the martyrdom of 
Ignatius at Rome. So almost certainly did Joannes Rhetor, whom 
Evagrius quotes among his authorities, and who must have written 
some years at least before Malalas. If therefore the testimony of 
Malalas deserves to be preferred to this cloud of witnesses, it can only 
be because he approves himself elsewhere as exceptionally sober and 
accurate and trustworthy in his statements. 

2. As a matter of fact however, he is the very reverse of ali this. 
Several tests of credibility may be applied to his narrative, and he fails 
to satisfy any one of them. The questions which the problem suggests 
are these. Is he generally trustworthy where he touches upon Christian 
history? Does his account of Trajan’s doings harmonize with the 
notices of credible secular historians? Lastly; Are his statements 
at this particular point consistent with themselves ? 

(i) His notices of early Christian history are, almost without ex- 


1 See above, pp. 206, 213, 356. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 439 


ception, demonstrably false or palpably fabulous. The following are 
all the notices bearing on the history of the Church during the reigns 
of Nero and Trajan, with the exception of the supposed ‘recall’ of 
S. John from Patmos by Nerva (p. 268); and they will serve therefore 
as a standard by which we may gauge his general credibility in such 
matters. 

(za) ‘During the reign of the same [Nerva] Manes appeared, etc.’ 
(p. 268). This heresiarch really flourished about A.D. 260—270, so 
that he is ante-dated by at least a century and a half’, 

(2) ‘And in like manner during his reign gladiators and their 
exhibitions were prohibited; and the exhibition of hunts (κυνηγώων, 
venationum) was devised in their stead.’ The gladiatorial shows were 
not abolished till the time of Honorius (Theod. & Z. v. 26), three 
centuries after the reign of Nerva, owing to the courage of the monk 
Telemachus. There is indeed in the statute-book an order of 
Constantine (Cod. Just. xi. 44) dated a.D. 325, ‘omnino gladiatores 
esse prohibemus’’; but it evidently was not acted upon. Of Nerva’s 
successor Trajan we are told, that at the celebration of his triumph 
after the close of the Dacian wars μονομάχοι μύριοι ἠγωνίσαντο (Dion 
Cass. lxvili. 15). The origin of the misstatement in Malalas may be 
partially explained from Dion Cass. Ixvill. 2. 

(c) ‘Until the second year of his [Trajan’s] reign the holy John, 
the Apostle and Divine, was appearing and teaching in Ephesus, being 
bishop and patriarch; and having disappeared (ἀφανῆ ἑαυτὸν ποιήσας) 
he was no more seen of any one, and no man knoweth to this day what 
came of him, as Africanus and Irenzus, men of the greatest wisdom, 
have recorded’ (p. 269). Africanus and Irenzus assuredly never wrote 
anything of the kind. ‘As regards Africanus, we have not the means 
of confronting this statement with the fact. Ireneeus merely says that 
John survived to the time of Trajan (il. 22. 5, 111. 3. 3); of his mys- 
terious disappearance not a word. 

(4) Having mentioned the persecution under Trajan (p. 269), he 
afterwards states that Trajan, while he was at Antioch laying his plans 
for the war, received a letter from Tiberianus, governor of Palestine, 
relating to the Christians, in consequence of which he put an end to 
the persecution. The letter is given in full (p. 273). The story is 
generally acknowledged to be a fiction, and the letter a forgery’. 


1 Some of these fabulous statements investigate their source. 
he shares in common with the Paschal 2 See Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 25. 
Chronicle (p. 469 sq, ed. Bonn.). It is 3 The genuineness of this letter has 
unnecessary for my present purpose to recently found an advocate in Wieseler 


ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


440 


(6) The next statement relating to Christian history is the notice 
of the martyrdom of Ignatius (p. 276) with which we are concerned. 

(f) In the very next sentence Malalas introduces an account of 
further persecutions. He relates how Trajan had five Christian women 
burnt alive; the emperor then mingled their ashes with the metal from 
which the vessels used for the baths were cast; the bathers were seized 
with swooning fits in consequence; the vessels were again melted up, 
and out of the same metal were erected five pillars in honour of the 
five martyrs by the emperor’s orders. These pillars, adds Malalas, 
stand in the bath to this day. Asif this were not enough, he goes on 
to relate how Trajan made a furnace, and ordered any Christians, who 
desired, to throw themselves into it—an injunction which was obeyed 


by many. 


‘At that time,’ he concludes, ‘the holy Drosine and man 
, y y 


other virgins were martyred’ (pp. 276, 277). 
From the company in which it is found, some estimate may be 
formed of the antecedent trustworthiness of Malalas’ statement relating 


to Ignatius. 


(ii) Again; the statement is mixed up with the narrative of Trajan’s 
campaigns in the East, and it is therefore pertinent to enquire what 
degree of credit is due to this narrative. 


(Christenverfolgungen der Cdasaren p. 
126 sq, 1878); but his advocacy cannot 
be considered successful. The arguments 
against it are as follows. (1) Eusebius is 
ignorant of any such systematic persecu- 
tion as this letter supposes; though it was 
not likely to have escaped him as a 
native of Palestine. We must infer too 
that Hegesippus said nothing about it. 
Otherwise Eusebius would have known 
of it. (2) The exaggerated expressions 
condemn themselves; ‘I am exhausted 
with punishing and slaying the Galileans,’ 
‘they do not cease informing against 
themselves that they may be put to 
death,’ ‘I got tired of warning these per- 
sons and threatening them that they 
should not give information to me.’ The 
letter is evidently founded on Pliny’s re- 
presentations to this same emperor and 
exaggerates them. (3) The titles by 
which Trajan is addressed are at least 
suspicious, and savour of a later age, 
νικητῇ, θειοτάτῳ, though they might stand. 


(4) Tiberianus himself is designated ‘ gov- 
ernor of Palestina Prima’ (ἡγεμὼν τοῦ 
πρώτου ἸΠαλαιστινῶν ἔθνους); whereas 
this division of Palestine into different 
provinces is not known to have taken 
place till much later. Marquardt (Ao. 
Alterth. IV. p. 261, ed. 2) escapes the 
difficulty by supposing that this desig- 
nation was no part of the original docu- 
ment, but was due to Malalas himself. 
Wieseler (p. 129) endeavours to show 
that Palestine may have been so divided 
at an earlier date than is generally be- 
lieved. If the document had come to us 
on earlier and more trustworthy authority, 
we should have felt bound to give full 
consideration to such possibilities, though 
they could hardly have been regarded as 
satisfactory solutions; but, where the sole 
voucher for its genuineness is a blunderer 
and fabulist like Malalas, they are power- 
less to remove the objections. This being 
so, the document stands self-condemned 
by its extravagance of language. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 441 


Malalas first gives an account of the previous events by which 
Trajan was provoked to undertake his eastern campaign, wholly ir- 
reconcilable with the trustworthy narrative of Dion. He then states 
that Trajan left Rome in the October of the r2th year of his reign 
(p. 270). ‘The 12th year would be a.p. 108, if the tribunician years 
are counted, or A.D. 109, if the starting point be his actual accession 
to the throne. Neither year can be reconciled with the coins and in- 
scriptions, or with the account of Dion. From all these authentic 
sources we learn that he did not set out on his eastern expedition till 
the autumn, A.D. 113. He makes Trajan arrive at Seleucia, while the 
Persians are holding Antioch. At Trajan’s instigation the Antiochenes 
rise up by night against their Persian masters, and slay them. The few 
survivors set fire to a part of the city. Trajan orders the carcases of the 
murdered Persians to be burnt outside the walls at a distance, and drums 
to be beaten throughout the city to drive away the unrighteous spirits 
of the slaughtered Persians. After this he entered Antioch, we are 
told, ‘through the Golden Gate, as it is called, that is the Daphnitic, 
wearing a crown of olive boughs on his head, on the 7th day of the 
month Audenzus, that is January, being the 5th day of the week, at 
four o'clock in the day: and he ordered the drums to be beaten for 
30 days every night, giving directions also that this should be done 
every year at the same time in remembrance of the destruction of the 
Persians.’ ‘These things,’ so he concludes, ‘have been recorded by 
Domninus the chronographer’ (p. 272 sq). 

These ‘Persian Vespers,’ as they have been happily called, have 
no point of coincidence with contemporary history, and are plainly 
fabulous. Von Gutschmid (Dierauer Geschichte Trajans p. 157, note) 
conjectures that they may refer to some incident in the later campaign 
of Valerian against the Persians [a.p. 258—26o0], but this is mere 
conjecture. One inference, I think, may be fairly drawn from the 
story as told by Malalas. It is a legend founded on a snatch of a 
popular ditty, ‘Away, away, Gargari, Fortune’ (aye, ἄγε, Τάργαρι, 
Φορτοῦνε), which he introduces into his account. All this nonsense, 
it will be observed, is accompanied by the utmost precision of 
dates. 

The remaining notice respecting these eastern campaigns is not 
reconcilable in its details with Dion’s account ; but its main incident, 
the creation of Parthemaspates (so he writes the name) as king of the 
Parthians, is historical. It should be added that Malalas represents 
Trajan as sacrificing a beautiful virgin, Calliope by name, ‘for the 
redemption and purification of the city’ (ὑπὲρ λύτρου καὶ ἀποκαθαρισμοῦ 


ACTSVOE "MARTYRDOM 


442 


τῆς πόλεως), and then erecting a statue of her in bronze gilt, apparently 
represented as impersonating the Fortune of Antioch (p. 275). 

(iii) The third criterion was self-consistency. Even this simple test 
is not satisfied by Malalas. 

For instance, this very date of the earthquake, with which we are 
mainly concerned, is consistent neither with itself nor with a previous 
date given by this author. He represents it as taking place ‘on the 
thirteenth of December, the first day of the week, after cock-crow’, in 
the year 164 according to the Antiochene reckoning [ie. a.D. 115], 
two years after the arrival of Trajan in the East’ (p. 275). But the 
13th of December was not a Sunday in this year. The only years 
during Trajan’s reign, in which Dec. 13 fell on a Sunday, were A.D. 100 
and 106. Moreover, this was not two, but five or six years at the least, 
after Trajan’s arrival, according to his own previous reckoning ; for he 
makes him arrive there at the close of his rath year, i.e. A.D. 108 or 
Tog, as we have already seen (pp. 409, 441). It should be added that 
in a previous date which he has given (see above, pp. 409, 413) there 
is the same inconsistency between the day of the month and the day of 
the week, Thursday Jan. 7. January 7th was not a Thursday in 
A.D. 10g or 110, either of which years he might mean. The only 
years in which this day fell on a Thursday during Trajan’s reign were 





A.D. Tor and 107”. 


1 Volkmar (Rhein. Mus. N. F. Xi. 
p- 490) falls into the error of translating 
a’ μετὰ ἀλεκτρυόνα ‘hora prima matutina,’ 
whereas the practice of Malalas elsewhere 
(to say nothing else) shows clearly that a’ 
means ‘the first day of the week.’ 

2 Von Gutschmid (in Dierauer Ge- 
schichte Trajans p. 157 endeavours to get 
over the difficulty in this way. Malalas 
gives two dates; (1) Trajan’s first entry 
into Antioch, Thursday Jan. 7, he having 
left Rome in the previous October in 
the 12th year of his reign; (2) The earth- 
quake at Antioch, Sunday December 13, 
A.D. 115, two years after the arrival of 
Trajan in the East. To meet these facts 
Von Gutschmid makes the following hy- 
potheses; (i) As regards the first date, 
we must read 17 for 12, Aru [Atti Ὁ] for 
Au. Thus we get the 17th year of Trajan 
for the date of his departure from Rome. 


(ii) As regards the ‘two years,’ the chrono- 
graphers in their computations generally 
reckon by current years, so that the ar- 
rival in the East would be in A.D. 114 
at the close of the year, and the entrance 
into Antioch on January 7, A.D. 115. 
(iii) This being so, a transposition sets 
everything right. The Thursday and the 
Sunday must change places. Jan. 7, 
A.D. 11; was a Sunday, and Dec. 13, 
A.D. 115,0 was a Thursday. The two 
dates indeed are not close to each other 
in Malalas, but probably they were much 
nearer in the authority from whom he 
obtained them. 

We need not stop to enquire whether 
any weight is still due to statements 
which can only be rectified by a com- 
bination of hypotheses like this; since 
Von Gutschmid’s solution depends on 
the date A.D. 114 for the emperor’s 


OF 5. IGNATIUS. 443 


3. But again; while the general fidelity of Malalas is thus dis- 
credited, it cannot be said that his particular statement here carries 
with it any appearance of probability. I have already pointed out 
(p. 413 sq) what serious historical difficulties attend the assertion that 
the earthquake took place at the end of the year 115. The represen- 
tation moreover, which the story gives of Trajan’s character, is altogether 
untrue to the life. Nor indeed, if the emperor had so desired, would 
he have found time at such a crisis to try and to execute Ignatius in 
the manner suggested. If Volkmar’s theory were correct, only seven 
days elapsed from the outbreak of the catastrophe to the execution of 
Ignatius in the amphitheatre. But what was the state of things at 
Antioch at this time? The earthquake, Dion tells us (lxvui. 24 sq), 
continued for many days (ἐπὶ πλείους ἡμέρας ὁ σεισμὸς ἐπεῖχεν); Mount 
Casius was seen to reel and split, and appeared as if it would fall and 
bury the city; there was a subsidence of other mountains; the emperor 
himself had escaped through a window, and was camping out of doors 
in the hippodrome; a great part of Antioch was overthrown; crowds © 
were buried in the ruins; no nation escaped unhurt, says Dion, for , 
owing to the presence of the emperor people had flocked thither from 
all parts of the Roman dominions. He states moreover that, as the 
shocks were repeated for many days and nights (ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας καὶ 


- when it is removed. 


departure from Rome, and this is now 
shown to be erroneous. The inscriptions 
given above (p. 394 sq), combined with 
the account of Dion, prove conclusively 
that the emperor left Rome in the 
autumn A.D. 113, and wintered at An- 
tioch A.D. 113% Dierauer sees the dif- 
ficulty (p. 158, note), and speaks of it as 
the ‘only misgiving (nur ein Bedenken)’ 
which arises as regards this solution. 
But, as this date is the very pivot of the 
whole, the explanation falls to pieces 
In C. de la Berge’s 
Essai sur le Régne de Trajan pp. 160, 
174 sq (Paris 1877) the inconsistency is 
still greater. He places Trajan’s arrival 
in the East A.D. 113, and yet accepts Von 
Gutschmid’s solution as ‘decisive.’ To 
this end, he tacitly takes Malalas’ date 
for the entry into Antioch as referring to 
Trajan’s second winter there, whereas 
Malalas distinctly gives it of his first. 


Whether Von Gutschmid’s emendation of 
17 for 12 is correct or not, I need not 
stop to enquire. 

Wieseler offers another explanation (p. 
viii sq) of the date Sunday Dec. 13, A.D. 
115. Malalas says μηνὶ ᾿Απελλαίῳ τῷ καὶ 
Δεκεμβρίῳ vy. Inan old Tyrian calendar 
(for which see Ideler Hand. d. Chron. 1. 
p- 435 sq) he finds that Apellzeus 13 cor- 
responds to December 30, and December 
30 was a Sunday in A.D. 115. He sup- 
poses therefore that the reckoning was 
according to this older calendar, and 
that Malalas erroneously treated Apellzeus 
as exactly conterminous with December, 
following the calendar of his own day. 
This solution does not commend itself; 
but, if it were true, the date of the earth- 
quake would be useless for Volkmar’s 
purpose, as it would fall ten days /a¢er in 
the year than the supposed day of the 
martyrdom. 


444 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


νύκτας), the sufferings of those buried alive were intense, some being 
mangled to death, others perishing from famine, before they could 
be extricated. Yet we are asked to believe that in the midst of 
this confusion a vezatio was held in the amphitheatre, in which a 
victim formerly condemned by the emperor was thrown to the wild 
beasts. 

4. But again; the last prop, on which Volkmar’s theory rested, 
has been knocked from under it by the discovery that the anniversary 
of Ignatius’ martyrdom, as kept in the early Antiochene and Syrian 
Church, was not December 20, but October 17. The only day there- 
fore which has any claim to be regarded as authentic (see above, p. 434) 
is wholly unconnected with the earthquake. Malalas himself in fact 
says nothing about the day of the martyrdom, nor does he hint that 
the earthquake had anything to do with it, but on the contrary ascribes 
the death of Ignatius to the abuse which he poured upon the emperor. 
The combination is Volkmar’s own; and it is thus shown to be a 
baseless fabric. 

5- Lastly; if any other argument were needed to complete the 
evidence by which the falsity of the theory is shown, it is found in 
the fact that the error of Malalas can be easily explained by the 
ambiguities of the Greek language. The words μαρτυρεῖν, μαρτυρία, 
which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier 
ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing to the faith. 
Again, the expression ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ is also ambiguous, as has been 
already noticed (p. 436), and might signify equally well ‘during the 
reign of Trajan,’ or ‘in the presence of Trajan’.’ It seems probable 
therefore, that Malalas stumbled over one or other of these expressions, 
which he found in some earlier writer, and misinterpreted his authority 
accordingly *. 

Under cover of the latter ambiguity more especially the blunder of 
Malalas would easily shelter itself. The common mode of expressing 
a date is ἐπὶ τούτου [τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος], ἐπὶ τούτων [τῶν ὑπάτων]; and the 
following passages relating to the persecutions of Trajan’s reign, which 
I have gathered from different historians and chronographers, will be 
found, if I mistake not, eminently suggestive, as pointing to the cause 
of the error in Malalas. 


1 The same ambiguity appears in Ori- 2 The former ambiguity is suggested by 
gen, quoted by Euseb. 27. &. iii. 1, τί δὶ — Lipsius (S. 7. p. 7), the latter by Zahn 
περὶ Παύλου λέγειν...ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ (JL. v. A. p. 67), to account for the error 
Νέρωνος μεμαρτυρηκότος ; of Malalas. 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 445 


Hegesippus in Euseb. H. 25. ill. 32 οὕτω μαρτυρεῖ ἐτῶν ὧν ἑκατὸν 
εἴκοσιν ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ Καίσαρος καὶ ὑπατικοῦ ᾿Αττικοῦ (speaking of Symeon 
the son of Clopas); where, as applied to Trajan, ἐπὶ can only mean 
‘during the reign of,’ though as regards Atticus it might signify ‘in 
the presence of,’ as in fact it does in a subsequent passage of Hege- 
SIppUS, κατηγορήθη...ἐπὶ ᾿Αττικοῦ τοῦ ὑπατικοῦ, καὶ ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἡμεραῖς 
αἰκιζόμενος ἐμαρτύρησεν. 

Chron. Pasch. p. 471 “Ext τούτου τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ καὶ Μάρκος 6 evayye- 
λιστὴς...πυρὶ κατεκαύθη καὶ οὕτως ἐμαρτύρησεν: and lower down, after 
mentioning Symeon son of Clopas, this chronographer adds, ὁμοίως δὲ 
καὶ ᾿Ιγνάτιος ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐπίσκοπος ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐμαρτύρησεν. 

Theod. Presbyt. (Photius 4762. 1) Ἰγνάτιος δὲ ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ τὸν διὰ 
μαρτυρίου ἤθλησεν ἀγῶνα. 

Georg. Hamartol. Chron. 135 (p. 339, ed. Muralt) "Ext αὐτοῦ [τοῦ 
Τραϊανοῦ] Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλεόπα ὁ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπίσκοπος καὶ Ἴγνάτιος 
0 θεοφόρος ἐμαρτύρησεν. 

Georg. Syncell. Chron. p. 656 (ed. Bonn.) Ἰγνάτιος ὁ θεοφόρος β' 
ἐπίσκοπος ᾿Αντιοχείας ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ τῷ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ κατεστέφθη μαρτυρίῳ. 
᾿Αλεξανδρείας δ΄ ἐπίσκοπος Κέρδων ἔτη (. οὗτος ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ ἐμαρτύρησεν 
ἐν τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν διωγμῷ. 

Niceph. Chron. Comp. p. 747 (ed. Bonn.) *Ext τούτου [τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ] 
᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ θεοφόρος ἐν Ρώμῃ ἐμαρτύρησε θηρίοις βορὰ παραδοθείς. 

Suidas 5. v. Dionysius Areopagita. Μαρτυρίῳ τῷ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ τελει- 
οὔται ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ Καίσαρος, ὅτε καὶ ὅ θεοφόρος ᾿Ιγνάτιος ἐν Ρώμῃ τὸν τῆς 
ἀθανασίας διήθλησεν ἀγῶνα. 

Now let us suppose that John Malalas, or some previous writer 
whom he copied, had before him in a chronography of Trajan’s reign 
a sentence running “Ext τούτου [τότε] ἐμαρτύρησεν ᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ τῆς ᾽Αντιο- 
χείας ἐπίσκοπος. Being fresh from the fact that Trajan spent a winter 
at Antioch, and knowing nothing else about the death of Ignatius, he 
would easily, we might almost say inevitably, draw the conclusion that 
the martyrdom occurred at Antioch, and that ἐπὶ τούτου signified ‘in 
the presence of this emperor.’ If we suppose τότε also to have had 
a place in our hypothetical chronographer, it may have referred, when 
in situ, to some previously mentioned incident in the persecution, e.g. 
the martyrdom of Symeon son of Clopas, as in fact it does refer in 
Zonaras xi. 22 τούτου [Τραϊανοῦ] κρατοῦντος Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλοπᾶ...ἐμαρ- 
τύρησεν K.T.r....TOTE καὶ ὁ θεοφόρος ᾿Ιγνάτιος κιτιλ. But, when separated 
from its context by Malalas or his predecessor, it would assume quite 
a different reference. 

This supposition that the error of Malalas is due to his having mis- 


446 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


understood his authority is rendered still more probable from another 
consideration. John, surnamed Madabbar, was bishop of Nikiou 
(Pshati) in the later decades of the 7th century (Renaudot Azst. Patr. 
Alexandr. Jacob. pp. 176, 177, 182) and wrote a Chronicle which he 
carried down to the Arab conquest of Egypt. This work is extant in an 
Ethiopic translation made from the Arabic (Zotenberg Catal. des MSS 
Ethiop. dela Bibl. Nation. p. 223 sq, Wright Catal. Ethiop. MSS Brit. 
Mus. p. 300 54). In great portions it runs parallel with John Malalas, 
so that the two accounts were evidently derived from the same source’. 


1 The following extract from this 
Chronicle is taken from the British Mu- 
seum MS, O7vzert. 818, f.61 a. The Paris 
MS does not exhibit any variations which 
affect the sense. The translation I owe to 
the kindness of Dr Wright. 

Chapter 73 [read 72]. ‘After the death 
of the good king Arwds [Nerval], Endré- 
yanos reigned. He was a lover of idola- 
try, and the third of those who persecuted 
the Christians. Many were martyred 
everywhere, and he condemned them in 
numbers. Moreover, the saint of God, 
Ignatius [Agnatyds] the patriarch of An- 
tioch [Ans6kiya], who had been ordained 
after Peter the chief of the Apostles, he 
sent to the city of Rome in chains, and 
delivered him to the lions.’ 

‘Further, he took them (women) and 
questioned them, and said to them, Whom 
do ye worship, and in whom do ye trust, 
that ye run and are in haste to die? They 
answered and said, We die for Christ’s 
sake, who will give us everlasting life, and 
will raise us up from this corrupt body. 
And he was filled with wrath, because he 
was a heathen and did not desire the 
revelation of the resurrection. So he 
ordered the bodies of the holy women to be 
cast into the fire; and the very earth upon 
which the bodies of the holy women fell 
he ordered to be gathered up and thrown 
into the (vessel of) brass of the lighter of 
the public bath, which he had built (and 
called) by his own name. And after- 
wards, when any one bathed in this bath, 


it emitted a smoke (07 vapour) ; and then, 
when he smelled this smoke, he fell 
down, and they had to carry him out; 
and every one who saw it, marvelled 
thereat. Moreover the Christians mocked 
at the heathen and boasted in Christ and 
glorified Him with His saints. But when 
Endréyanés knew this, he changed the 
lighters of the bath and removed hence 
the brazen vessels in which were the 
ashes of the bodies of the holy women. 
And he put the ashes of the bodies into 
five stelee of brass [Malalas p. 277 τὰ 
δὲ πρῶτα χαλκία ἀναχώσας (ἀναχωνεύ- 
gas?) ἐποίησε στήλας χαλκᾶς πέντε ταῖς 
αὐταῖς γυναιξί] and set them up in this 
bath; and he used to watch and try to 
disgrace the martyrs, saying, 7hey are not 
mine, nor their God’s, and they died with- 
out knowledge. And at that time there 
were martyred his daughter Atrasis [Apo- 
σινὴ in Malalas], and Yona the daughter 
of the patrician Filasanrfin. And yet 
many other virgins suffered martyrdom at 
the hand of this infidel by the burning of 
ire.; 

‘And while Endréyainés was at An- 
tioch, the earth was sore afflicted and 
trembled because of the anger of God in 
the night, because he was impure, three 
times; and not merely Antioch but also 
the island of Rités (Rhodes). In like 
manner moreover there was an earth- 
quake after cockcrow.’ 

There seems to have been some mutila- 
tion in the MS from which the Ethiopic 





OF S. IGNATIUS. 447 


This is the case with the narrative of the persecutions in Trajan’s reign. 
Yet John Madabbar expressly places the martyrdom of Ignatius at 
Rome, and records it before, not after, the earthquake. 

A similar explanation will apply to another document, which (at 
least in its present text) agrees with Malalas in representing Ignatius 
as martyred at Antioch. The British Museum ms Add. 14, 643 
(described in Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac MSS p. 1040) contains a 
Syriac Chronicle, of which the first part is an epitome of the Chronicon 
of Eusebius (translated by Roediger and published in Schoene 11. p. 
203 sq), and the second part, with which alone we are now con- 
cerned, is a separate series of notices in chronological order derived 
from other sources. This second part is published by Land Azecd. 1. 
p. 2 sq, with a translation (p. 103 sq) and notes (p. 165 sq). The 
part relating to this period runs as follows in Land’s translation (p. 
116). 


Anno 420 [A.D. 109] obiit dominus Ioannes evangelista. 

[This is clearly a miswriting for 410=A.D. 99; since elsewhere the 
notices are in chronological order. ] 

Anno 415 [A.D. 104] persecutio in Christianos gravissima intenta est a 
Trajano rege improbo. Martyrium imprimis passus est Simeon filius 
Cleopae episcopus Hierosolymae. 

Anno 419 [A.D. 108] Trajanus Armeniam subjecit. Eodem anno Ignatius 
Antiochiae [i.e. in Antiochia] martyrium subiit, qui discipulus erat 
Ioannis evangelistae. 


The ms which contains this chronicle belongs probably to the 
middle of the 8th century; it contains a list of caliphs reaching down 
to Hisham a.D. 724—742; and the last notice in the part with which 
we are concerned belongs to a.D. 636. 

The statement here may have originated in the same way as in 
Malalas; or the change in a single letter in the Syriac would make 
the difference 3 for 3, ‘in Antioch’ for ‘of Antioch.’ This latter is 
a very common blunder with Syriac transcribers. The Ignatian Epistles 
alone furnish several examples of it. 


Thus, the interview of Ignatius with Trajan having no claim 


translation was made, for the story of the appended to the work, the passage is thus 
martyrdom of the five virgins wants a epitomized; ‘Concerning the death of 
beginning. It is clear from the sequence Ignatius the God-clad and the women 
of the Chronicle that Trajan is meant by who were martyred with him.’ 
Endréyanés. In the index of chapters 


448 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


to be regarded as historical, we have lost our one criterion of 
date from comparison with external chronology, and are obliged to 
fall back on the notices of Christian chronographers and martyro- 
logists. 

And here we cannot help being struck with the fact that both the 
Antiochene and the Roman Acts agree in the oth year of Trajan. 
This agreement is the more remarkable, because they agree in scarcely 
anything else, and neither can possibly have been known to the writer 
of the other. Nor is the value of the fact diminished, but rather 
enhanced, when we find that the two martyrologists give different 
names of consuls, which in neither case belong to the gth year; for 
thus it appears that this 9th year was the one fixed element in the 
common tradition, while everything else was left to the caprice or 
the ignorance of the writer. Moreover in the case of the Antiochene 
Acts this gth year has an additional value, because it has survived 
the confusion in chronology introduced by the necessity of making 
the condemnation synchronous with Trajan’s Parthian expedition—a 
necessity arising out of the writer’s belief that Ignatius was condemned 
by Trajan himself. This gth year also is the date in the Chronicon 
Paschale p. 471 (ed. Bonn.) where moreover the consuls for the gth year 
(A.D. 105) are correctly given, Candidus and Quadratus. It appears also, 
though amidst much confusion, in a Syriac Chronicle, Brit. Mus. Add. 
14,642 (described in Wright’s Cazalogue, p. 1041). The Ms belongs to 
the early part of the roth century, but the chronicle itself only reaches 
down to A.D. 797 (at which time it was probably compiled), though 
with later additions down to Α.Ὁ. 811. Cureton (Corp. Jen. p. 221; 
comp. p. 252) gives the extract ; ‘And also Ignatius, when he had ruled 
I5 years, was cast to beasts at Rome, and Heron stood in his stead. 
In the gth year John the Evangelist departed this world, having con- 
tinued in the episcopate 70 years; and Ignatius and Polycarp were 
his disciples ; and the life of John was prolonged to the 9th year of 
Trajan.’ Here the chronicler has obviously blundered over some 
previous authority; and transferred the 9th year of Trajan from the 
martyrdom of Ignatius to the death of S. John. 


Does this coincidence imply a wide-spread and very early tradition 
in favour of the gth year? Or can all these authorities be traced to 
some one common and comparatively late source? 

We naturally turn to the Chronicon of Eusebius as the work which 
exercised the widest influence in these matters, and we ask whether the 
solution can be found here. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 449 


This portion of the Chronicon is as follows ; 
Ol. | Ann. Abr.| Traj. 


220 | 2116 3 g. Trajanus de Dacis et Scythis triumphavit. 
por Σ ΡΤ 44 | Δ. Trajanus Daciam in provinciam redegit. 
2118 5 z. Romanorum ecclesiae episcopatum excepit v Alex- 
| 2 2119 6 ander annis X. 

221 | 2120 7 | k. Romae aurea domus incendio consumpta est. 
| arax 8Z | Z Terrae motus magnus factus Menesiae terrae iv urbes 
| 2122 9 concussit, Eliam, Mirinam, Piitanem, et Cisem, et 
ΠΣ 125.) τὸ Graecorum Opuntiorum et Oritarum (urbes). 


Trajano adversus Christianos persecutionem movente, Simon 
Cleopae (filius) Hierosolymitanae ecclesiae episcopus martyrium 
subiit, cui successit Iostus. Itidem [Ignatius] Antiochensium 
episcopus martyrium passus est, post quem iii Antiochensium 
episcopus constitutus est Eron. 


Plinius Secundus, cuiusdam provinciae praeses, multos e 
Christianis mortis reos fecit etc. 


The probable inference from this arrangement is that Eusebius had 
no definite information as to the exact year or years in which the occur- 
rences recorded in the two paragraphs beginning ‘Trajano’ and 
‘Plinius’ took place. He put together the three known events bearing 
on the persecution of the Christians under Trajan; (1) The martyrdom 
of Symeon ; (2) The martyrdom of Ignatius; and (3) The sufferings 
in Bithynia. He supposed that they took place somewhere about this 
time; but, not being able to give an exact date, he left them unde- 
termined, placing them at the end of the 221st Olympiad, which coin- 
cided also with the round number τὸ of the years of Trajan. This 
account is in accordance with his treatment of these incidents in the 
ffistory, where they are not only undated, but recorded in a different 
order: (1) Martyrdom of Symeon (ili. 32); (2) Persecution in Bithynia 
(11. 33); (3) Martyrdom of Ignatius (iii. 36). When we come to discuss 
the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, we shall find that Eusebius treats it 
in the same way. 

Being thus left loose, they were liable to be assigned to any of the 
neighbouring years by later scribes and redactors. Thus Jerome in 
his revision of the Chronicon separates them, attaching the martyrdoms 
of Symeon and Ignatius to the roth year, and the persecutions in 
Bithynia to the 11th. Accordingly in his Catalogue c. 16 he writes of 
Ignatius, ‘passus est anno decimo Trajani’; for, though the word is 
printed ‘undecimo’ in Vallarsi, this editor’s note clearly shows that 
the best mss read ‘decimo,’ and the Greek version also has δεκάτῳ. 
In like manner also they are divided in Zohrab’s version of the Ar- 


IGN. EL 29 


450 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


menian Chronicon, but here the martyrdoms of Symeon and Ignatius 
are assigned to the gth year, while the Bithynian persecution is left at 
the end of the roth. 

These facts are perhaps sufficient to account for the coincidence of 
the authorities mentioned above in naming the oth year. 

The writer of the Avztiochene Acts was largely indebted to the 
Chronicon. The historical setting of the martyrdom is borrowed mainly 
from it. The mention of Ignatius as the pupil of 5. John and the 
fellow-pupil of Polycarp is probably derived thence (see the note on 
§ x ’Iwavvov μαθητής). The reference to the victory over ‘the Dacians 
and Scythians’ (§ 2) is plainly taken therefrom. Even the exaggeration 
ἑτέρων πολλῶν ἐθνῶν (§ 2) may have been due to it, if we may suppose 
that the author’s copy contained a notice corresponding to that which 
appears in Jerome’s revision immediately after the mention of Trajan’s 
making Dacia a province; ‘Hiberos Sauromatas Osroenos Arabas 
Bosforanos Colchos in fidem accepit, Seleuciam Ctesifontem Babylonem 
occupavit’,’ where events which occurred many years later are gathered 
together out of their proper chronological place in order to enhance 
the effect. And altogether the idea of making the subjugation of the 
Christians the crowning idea of Trajan’s ambition is suggested by the 
sequence of the notices in the Chronicon. 

To the Chronicon the author of the Roman Acts also betrays his 
obligations. Though generally in his narrative he has drawn more 
largely from the Lcclestastical History of Eusebius (see the notes §§ 1, 
Io, I1, 12), yet the manner in which the Bithynian persecution and 
the correspondence of Pliny with Trajan are introduced cannot be 
traced to this source, and must be due to the Chronicon. Our hagiolo- 
gist’s point of view requires that the letter from Pliny should come 
immediately after the execution of Ignatius (§ 11). A glance at the 
extract given above (p. 449) from the Chronicon shows at once whence 
he derived the inspiration that the emperor’s rescript to Pliny might 
be used to account for the disposal of the martyr’s reliques. On the 
other hand in the £eclestastical History the persecution in Bithynia, 
with the account of the correspondence, is given before the martyrdom 
of Ignatius : two chapters intervene: and there is nothing to suggest the 
connexion which our author establishes between the two events. 

Thus the acquaintance of our two martyrologists with the Chronicon 
seems clear. And the same is plainly also the case with those chrono- 
graphers who give the gth year of Trajan for the date of the martyrdom. 
The obvious inference therefore would seem to be that all these 


1 The notice in Jerome is obviously taken from Eutropius viii. 3. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 451 


writers alike derived this date from the Chronicon, to which they were 
certainly indebted, directly or indirectly, for other facts. The only 
objection to this otherwise simple solution lies in the fact that Eusebius 
does not assign the martyrdom to the oth year specially. Still the 
manner in which he arranges the events might very naturally lead to 
its special attachment to this year, as we have seen to be the case in 
Zohrab (see above p. 449). The 6th, 7th, and 8th years are each 
supplied with their special notice. The oth year is the first vacant 
year, and the notice of the martyrdoms of Symeon and Ignatius, which 
were found hanging loose, would be attached to it so as to fill the void. 
It seems fairly probable therefore that we may ultimately trace to a 
particular interpretation, or recension, of the Chronicon of Eusebius all 
the notices which assign the martyrdom of Ignatius to the goth year of 
Trajan. 


But what grounds had Eusebius himself for placing the martyrdom 
where he does in the Chronicon? Wieseler (Christenverfolgungen d. 
Casaren p. 125 sq), who himself would date it in the roth year [the 
r1th tribunician year] of Trajan, a.p. 107, alleges Eusebius as ‘the 
most trustworthy witness’ for this date. But Eusebius, as we have 
seen, is not so precise. He only places it thereabouts. Wieseler 
further supports this view on the ground that Pliny’s letter implies 
previous persecutions of the Christians during Trajan’s reign. ‘This is 
not impossible; but Pliny’s language itself only implies that the 
emperor had decreed proceedings against ‘ heteerize’ generally’, in which 
the Christians might or might not be involved. Moreover, so far as 
regards Eusebius, it is clear that he had not, and did not profess to 
have, any definite idea of the relative chronology of these persecutions 
under Trajan which he relates in proximity, since he gives the Bithynian 
martyrdoms in one place before, and in another after, the death of 
Ignatius (see above p. 449). Of the Bithynian persecution he knows 
nothing, except what he has learnt from the account of Pliny’s letter 
and Trajan’s rescript, as read by him in a Greek translation of Tertullian 
(ZZ. £. ii. 33). He cannot even tell the name of the province, and he is 
obviously quite ignorant of the date (see the note on Mart. Rom. 11). 
In the same way Wieseler urges in favour of his view the fact that 
‘the martyrdom of Symeon the son of Clopas...according to Eusebius 
and Jerome happened a short time before,’ and that ‘according to 


1 Plin. ZZ. X. 97 ‘secundum mandata says ‘cognitionibus de Christianis interfui 
tua hetaerias esse vetueram’; see Trajan’s numquam,’ he may be referring to the 
own language, ib. xX. 43. When Pliny persecution of Domitian. 


29—2 


452 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Waddington (Fastes des Provinces Astatigues Ὁ. 720) the consular 
Herodes Atticus, under whom he was martyred, was consular legate 
of Palestine in the years A.D. 105—107.’ Here again the answer is 
the same; that Eusebius does not profess to give these martyrdoms in 
chronological sequence, for in the A/zséory he interposes the Bithynian 
persecution (which happened about a.p. 112) between the two. More- 
over, when we come to examine Waddington’s argument for the date 
of Herodes Atticus’ government in Palestine, it amounts to nothing 
more than this; that Eusebius represents him as putting Symeon to 
death about the gth or roth year of Trajan, and that, as the years 
A.D. 105-107 are unoccupied by any other governor whose name has 
been preserved, we may suppose Atticus to have ruled there during 
this period. Wieseler’s attempt therefore to establish a definite date 
for the martyrdom of Ignatius on the authority of Eusebius must be 
regarded as unsatisfactory. 

On the other hand, Harnack in an important contribution to the 
subject (Die Zeit des Lgnatius etc, Leipzig 1878) arrives at conclusions 
diametrically opposed to those of Wieseler’. He has investigated the 
Eusebian list of the Antiochene bishops as a whole; and, if we could 
accept his inferences, Eusebius would be deprived of all authority as 
a witness respecting their chronology. He remarks that the dates of 
accession assigned to the Antiochene bishops in the Chronicon have 
a suspicious relation to those assigned to the Roman bishops. In the 
earlier part of the list each Antiochene bishop is placed 4 years (i.e. 
one Olympiad) after some Roman bishop; in the latter part each 
Antiochene bishop is placed one year before some Roman bishop ; and 
the point of transition from the one arrangement to the other is after 
the accession of the Antiochene bishop Philetus (Ol. 249). This is 
a rough abstract of Harnack’s statement of the facts ; and his inferences 
are as follows. The Chronicle of Julius Africanus is known to have 
been brought down to the third year of Elagabalus, Ol. 250 (see 
Clinton fast. Rom. 1. p. 233); and we have also information that 
Africanus used Olympiads in his arrangement of dates. Clearly there- 
fore Eusebius borrowed the earlier dates of the Antiochene bishops 
as far as Ol. 250 from Africanus. By this discovery the authority of 
Eusebius is replaced by that of Africanus. So far there is a gain in 
the exchange, for an earlier authority has been substituted for a later. 


1 After the sheets for my first edition (1879). The speculations of Harnack 
had passed through the press, two papers and Erbes are discussed by R. A. Lipsius 
by C. Erbes appeared in the Fahrd. f. 706. VI. p. 233 (1880). On Lipsius’ own 
Prot. Theol. V. p. 464 sq, p. 618 sq view see below, p. 468, note. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 453 


But this gain is more than neutralised by the other facts thus elicited. 
From this symmetrical relation of the dates referring to the Roman and 
Antiochene sees it is clear that Africanus invented the latter on some 
artificial plan. Thus his authority is deprived of any weight. In the 
interval between composing his Chronicon and his History Eusebius 
discovered that he was leaning on a rotten reed in following Africanus. 
In the later work therefore he rejected the dates of accession, so far as 
regards the Antiochene bishops, and was content to give their sequence, 
merely noting in a rough way their synchronism with the bishops of 
the other great sees and with contemporary events. On the second 
part of the list Harnack does not say very much; but he ascribes the 
artificial arrangement here directly to Eusebius himself (p. 19, note 1). 

In one respect Harnack seems to be unquestionably right. Euse- 
bius evidently had no list of the Antiochene bishops, giving the lengths 
of their respective terms of office, as he had in the case of the Roman 
and Alexandrian sees. This fact had been already noticed by Zahn 
(Zen. v. Ant. p. 56 sq). But on the other hand it is equally evident 
that he possessed some previously existing tables containing the dates 
of accession of the Antiochene bishops, or at least information which 
enabled him to construct such tables, and was not utterly without 
chronological records, as he confesses himself to be in the case of the 
Jerusalem bishopric (Cron. 11. p. 172 sq, Schoene), for which he contents 
himself with giving the sequence of bishops, and does not attempt to 
assign dates. With regard to the Antiochene see he stood in an 
intermediate position. Beyond this point Harnack’s inferences are 
very questionable, but they at least deserve careful consideration. 

Before entering into an examination of its details however we are 
struck with an antecedent objection to the theory as a whole. As 
regards its adoption and its abandonment alike, it is burdened with 
improbability. As regards its adoption; for is it likely that two persons 
independently should hit upon a similar artifice of placing the Antiochene 
bishops at regular intervals after or before certain Roman bishops, while 
nevertheless the second person was taken in by the device of the first? 
As regards its abandonment; for in his story Eusebius treats the later 
Antiochene bishops exactly as he has treated the earlier. Here too 
as in the former case, he is content to give rough synchronisms without 
assigning exact dates as in the Chronicon. But though he might be 
supposed to have detected the artificial character of Africanus’ dates in 
the meanwhile, there is no room for the theory of subsequent detection 
as a motive for the abandonment of his own dates. 

When we pass from such general considerations to an investigation 


454 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


of details, our difficuities increase. ‘The chronological relation of the 
Antiochene to the Roman bishops in the Czronicon, as stated by 
Harnack, stands thus: 

































| 
A. Abr. | Order. 







































Order. Antioch. Intervals. Rome. 
1 | Euodius 3 years after eter 2055 
2 | Ignatius Bis ἣν Linus 2082 I 
a. ἢ FAero haere 7 Alexander 2119 5 
4 | Cornelius Anyi iats ς Telesphorus 2140 ἤ 
5 Eros Bias ms Pius 2154 9 
6 | Theophilus ΠΕ: "ἢ Soter 2180 II 
7 | Maximinus Be κα τ» Eleutherus 2189 12 
8 | Serapion At as ἧς Victor 2202 13 
g | Asclepiades I year before | Callistus 2229 15 
1o | Philetus 4 years after Callistus 2229 15 
1 | Zebinus 1 year before | Pontianus 2246 17 
ἢ Pes τ Κα gy Xystus 2271 23 
14 | Demetrianus 
15 | Paulus 1 year before | Dionysius 2279 24 
16 | Domnus 
17 | Timeeus 1 year before | Felix 2289 25 
18 | Cyrillus heer Ἢ Eutychianus 2298 26 
19 | Tyrannus contemporary 









of Eusebius 


In this table the numbers of the last column give the order of 
succession of the Roman bishops named, S. Peter not being counted. 
The dates are given in the years of the era of Abraham, in accordance 
with the practice of Eusebius in the Chronzcon. 

In this list Harnack draws the line after Philetus, at which point 
he supposes the earlier arrangement to be exchanged for the later. It 
will therefore be necessary to consider the two parts of the list 
separately. 


(1) The first list contains ten bishops; and the numbers repre- 
senting their chronological relations to the corresponding Roman 
bishops are, 


Bs 0350450 s ΠΑ Αι, (a), As 


Here there is a great predominance of the number 4, and it might 
be increased by supposing with Harnack that in other cases the date 
of accession had been accidentally displaced by a year. This supposi- 
tion is not extravagant in itself, for displacements certainly occur 
frequently elsewhere in these tables. But we have no right to postulate 
it as the basis of a theory not otherwise probable, since a displacement 
is as likely to have occurred in a 4 as in a 3 ora 5. 





OF S. IGNATIUS. 455 


Moreover, the date of Hero’s accession must be withdrawn; for 
Eusebius, as pointed out above (p. 447), does not give any definite 
date for the death of Ignatius and accession of his successor, but men- 
tions it at the end of the 221st Olympiad (the tenth year of Trajan) 
as having occurred thereabouts’. If then we deduct this date, and if 
ἢ the case of Asclepiades we substitute the number of years after the 
preceding Roman bishop, as in the other cases, we get; 


3» 3.1 1, 4) 4» 5) 4» 4» 12, 4. 
Thus five out of ten give the number 4. This is no doubt a larger 
proportion than the doctrine of probabilities would suggest. But then 
in historical records, as in games of chance, events are constantly 
found recurring with a frequency far in advance of any such calculation. 


(2) The second list contains nine names. In this list five 
examples occur, where the artificial rule supposed to prevail in this 
part is observed. But from these five two must be deducted. The 
dates of Timzus and Cyrillus do not occur in the Armenian Version, 
which is taken as the authority for the original Chronicon of Eusebius, 
and Harnack therefore supplies them from Jerome’s recension. But 
Jerome’s recension, as a whole, would not have borne out his theory. 
Its figures are as follows’; 





































Zebinus 2245 | 5 years before | Pontianus 

SE ae 2268 | 1 year before | Cornelius 2269 
: Luci 

Demetrianus | 2269 | 1 year before ee 2270 

Paulus 2277 | 5 years before | Dionysius 2282 

Domnus 2283 

Timzeus 2288 | 6 years before | Felix 2294 

Cyrillus 2297 | 1 year before | Eutychianus| 2298 

Tyrannus 









1 This is also the view of Harnack doubt’? Is Eusebius likely to have had 





himself (pp. 9, 23, 38, 67), and yet he 
writes (p. 23), ‘Without doubt in the 
source [the document used by Eusebius, 
presumably the Chronography of Afri- 
canus] the accession of Hero was as- 
signed to the Olympiad corresponding 
to the Eusebian Ann. Abr. 2123. To 
this Eusebius bears witness in the fact 
that he has placed this event at all events 
after the Ann. Abr. 2123. But inasmuch 
as he has not ventured to record it under 
this particular year, it follows that he 
was not certain here.’ But why ‘without 


information independently of Africanus 
at this point in the list which he did not 
possess for the later dates? If he had 
such information, this very circumstance 
gives a higher value to his testimony. If 
he had not, and if the uncertainty was 
expressed by Africanus, then this frank- 
ness inspires confidence in Africanus. 

2 I have here taken Schoene’s text. 
There are slight variations in the Mss, 
but they do not assist Harnack’s theory. 

3 These bishops are called Fabius and 
Demetrianus by Jerome in accordance 


456 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 
In using Jerome’s figures Harnack has made an arbitrary selection. 
In dealing with the first pair of bishops, he takes the date of Timzeus 
from Jerome, but retains that of Felix as it stands in the Armenian. 
With the next pair however, Cyrillus and Eutychianus, his treatment is 
different. Here he has taken Jerome’s date for the Roman bishop, as 
well as for the Antiochene. ‘This substitution of the Hieronymian date 
2298 in place of the Armenian 2296 for Eutychianus is unintelligible on 
his own principles, and must have been an oversight; yet without it the 
example falls to the ground. But indeed Harnack’s confidence that the 
missing Armenian dates for Timzeus and Cyrillus would have agreed 
with Jerome’s is not justified by the facts. The presumption is quite 
the other way. For six out of the eight preceding bishops, from 
Asclepiades to Domnus, Jerome’s dates, whether we take the years of 
Abraham or the years of the Roman emperors, differ from those of the 
Armenian version’. After these reductions are made, there remain in 
nine accessions only three examples of this interval of one year, which is 
supposed to betray an artificial arrangement in the latter part of the 
list ; and, considering the very rapid succession of the Roman bishops 
during the earlier years of this period, such a proportion can excite 
no misgiving. In Jerome’s list also there are three examples, but 
they are all different ; and the fact exemplifies the accidental character 
of such recurrences. 

But again; there is no clear frontier line between the earlier 
and later lists, such as Harnack’s theory requires. On the one hand 


with Euseb. 1. Z. vi. 39, 46, etc. The Ar- 
menian Version on the other hand names 
them Fabianus and Demetrius. The 
former are their correct names; the latter 
are probably due to confusion with the 
bishops Fabianus of Rome and Demetrius 
of Alexandria, who are nearly contempo- 
rary and are sometimes mentioned in 
proximity with them. 

1 The difficulty which attends the date 
assigned to the last name in the list should 
be mentioned here. The accession ot 
Tyrannus the successor of Cyrillus is 
placed by Jerome in the 18th year ot 
Diocletian, which began Sept. A.D. 301; 
but Cyrillus appears on the scene in 
the account of the martyrdom of the 
Quatiuor Coronati, who apparently suf- 
fered Nov. 9, A.D. 306 (see Harnack 
Pp- 538q). The narrative further states 


that he had been already three years a 
prisoner in the mines of Pannonia. Eu- 
sebius was probably some forty years old 
at this time; he was already actively en- 
gaged in literary work; he took an eager 
interest in the history of the martyrs; and 
he was in constant communication with 
Antioch. This being so, it is quite in- 
credible that he can have been ignorant 
of the true date of the death of so impor- 
tant a person as Cyrillus. We must con- 
clude therefore either that Jerome does 
not reproduce the date of Eusebius in this 
instance, or that Tyrannus was appointed 
to succeed to the see during the life-time 
of Cyrillus. But this last mode of solu- 
tion, if admissible, may possibly apply in 
other cases where the same difficulty ex- 
ists; e.g. in the case of Maximinus the 
successor of Theophilus. 





OF S. IGNATIUS. 457 


Asclepiades, though belonging to the first list, is an example of the 
artificial arrangement which marks the second. On the other hand 
Demetrianus and Domnus, though included in the second, betray the 
characteristic feature which distinguishes the first, as Lipsius (/enaer 
Literaturzettung, April 6, 1878, p. 201 sq) has pointed out; for 
Demetrianus is placed Ann. Abr. 2272, four years after the accession of 
the Roman bishop Stephanus Ann. Abr. 2268 [other Antiochene and 
Roman bishops however having intervened], and Domnus Ann. Abr. 
2283, four years after the accession of the Roman bishop Dionysius 
Ann. Abr. 2279. 

But besides the fact that there is no such clearly drawn line of 
demarcation, separating the list into two parts at the very date when 
Africanus wrote, the phenomena at the supposed point of juncture are 
not such as to favour the theory that Eusebius was indebted to a ficti- 
tious table of this chronographer for the first part. The great work of 
Africanus was carried down to A.D. 220 or 221, at which date (or 
within a year or two) it was written. About the same time, during 
the reign of Elagabalus (A.D. 218—223), we read that he was instru- 
mental in rebuilding Emmaus under the name of Nicopolis, and that 
he went as a delegate (evidently to the emperor) on this business 
(Euseb. Chron. τι. p. 178, Hieron. Vir. LW. 63, Chron. Pasch. p. 499). 
About the year 220 therefore his literary activity and his political 
influence alike were at their height. It is not too much to assume 
that he was 40 years of age at least at this time. If so, he must have 
been born not later than about a.p. 180. But from another circum- 
stance we may infer that his birth was some years earlier than this. 
Origen was born about a.D. 185 (Clinton Fast. Rom. τ. p. 183), and 
Africanus (Routh Re. Sacr. 11. p. 225) calls him his ‘son.’ Moreover, 
as a native of Palestine, Africanus was favourably situated for ascer- 
taining the chronology of the Antiochene Church. He was a traveller 
too; for, besides the embassy just mentioned, we know that he went 
to Egypt before writing his Chronography, attracted thither by the 
learning of Heraclas (Euseb. 77 £. vi. 31). A diligent and acquisitive 
investigator, who took so much pains in the cause of learning, could 
hardly have been mistaken, or seriously mistaken, about the dates of 
those Antiochene bishops who flourished during his own youth or 
manhood. How does this consideration bear on the dates given in the 
Chronicon of Eusebius ? 

The accession of the last bishop before he wrote, PHILETUS, 15 
placed a.D. 215, ie. five years before his Chronography ended, and 
(as we must suppose) while he was already engaged on his work. If 


458 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


therefore this date be his, we may safely assume that it is correct. Any 
other supposition would be irrational. Yet it exhibits the supposed 
schematism, for it is placed 4 years after the Roman bishop Callistus. 
In this case therefore the period is accidental. Though an exact Olym- 
piad, it is not due to the fact that Africanus reckoned by Olympiads. 
Tracing the succession backwards we come next to ASCLEPIADES, 
whose date is A.D. 210. Here the schematism attributed to Africanus 
is not observed. He is placed not four but twelve years after the pre- 
ceding Roman bishop Zephyrinus. He stands however one year 
before the next Roman bishop Callistus, in accordance with the 
supposed schematism of the latter part. What account can we give 
of this fact, if Harnack’s theory be true? Harnack himself believes 
that Eusebius here altered the date as given by Africanus (see p. 28). 
Eusebius, he supposes, had some ‘sort of tradition’ that Serapion, the 
predecessor of Asclepiades, lived beyond the 4th year of Zephyrinus; 
accordingly he moved the accession of Asclepiades forward and, 
abandoning the schematism of Africanus in this instance, made the date 
conform to his own schematism. ‘This seems to me an improbable 
supposition. Eusebius elsewhere (27. 25. vi. 11) gives an extract from 
a letter to the Antiochenes written by Alexander, afterwards bishop 
of Jerusalem, in which he says that the Lord had lightened his bonds 
‘in the season of captivity’ (kata τὸν καιρὸν τῆς εἱρκτῆς) by the news 
that Asclepiades had been appointed their bishop. ‘The confession of 
Alexander is placed by Eusebius himself in the Chronzcon (11. p. 176) 
during the persecution in the roth year of Severus, i.e. A.D. 203. We 
may waive the question whether Eusebius was right or wrong in so 
dating Alexander’s imprisonment. For our immediate purpose it is 
enough that he did so. Thus the only tradition which Eusebius is known 
to have possessed, bearing on the matter, so far from leading him to 
substitute a later date, would have prevented him from doing so. The 
curious fact is that, if Africanus had dated the accession of Asclepiades, 
according to his supposed schematism, four years, instead of twelve, after 
Zephyrinus, the date (A.D. 203) would have entirely satisfied the con- 
temporary allusion in Alexander’s letter. As it is, critics (e.g. Valois on 
Euseb. 417. £. 1. c., Clinton Fast. Rom. 1. pp. 209, 211), whether rightly or 
wrongly, condemn the date a.p. 210 as impossible, and themselves place 
the accession of Asclepiades seven or eight years earlier’. These con- 


1 Harnack himself argues that the date substitute it. He suggests that the see 
in the Chronicon must be nearly right, remained vacant for a time, and he places 
since Eusebius would not otherwise have the accession of Asclepiades about A.D. 
altered the schematism of Africanus to 209 (p. 46 54). This however does not 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 459 


siderations seem to show that Eusebius found this date already in his 
authority, and did not himself invent it. If this authority was Afri- 
canus, the date must almost necessarily be correct; for it is only ten 
years before his Chronography was published. 

The predecessor of Asclepiades was SERAPION. The date of his 
accession, A.D. 190, accords with the supposed schematism, being four 
years after the accession of the Roman bishop Victor. Here again 
there is a high probability that Africanus would have had correct 
information ; but, as we are now getting back into his youth or his 
boyhood, the certainty is less than in the previous cases. When how- 
ever we come to test the statement by known facts, we find not only 
that it does not conflict with any historical notices, but that it must 
at all events be within a year or two of the correct date. The facts 
are as follows. Eusebius (@ 45. v. 19) places Serapion among the 
writers who took part in the Montanist controversy in the reign of 
Commodus (slain Dec. 31, A.D. 192), saying that he became bishop 
of Antioch during the times of which he is speaking (ἐπὶ τῶν dyAov- 
μένων χρόνων), and alleging for his statement a constant tradition 
(κατέχει λόγος). In a later passage (7. 25. v. 22), after mentioning the 
accessions of Victor of Rome and Demetrius of Alexandria, both which 
he places in the roth year of Commodus (a.D. 189), he adds that ‘con- 
temporary with them the afore-mentioned Serapion still continued to 
flourish at that time, being eighth bishop of the Church of the Antiochenes 
after the Apostles’ (καθ᾽ ods καὶ τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας ὄγδοος ἀπὸ τῶν 


:] 
ἀποστόλων ὁ πρόσθεν ἤδη δεδηλωμένος ἔτι τότε Σαραπίων ἐπίσκοπος 


explain the notice in Alexander’s letter. τὸν τοῦ διωγμοῦ καιρόν). Harnack infers 


This difficulty, if I understand him rightly, 
he meets elsewhere (p. 14) by supposing 
that Eusebius was wrong in connecting 
the imprisonment of Alexander, during 
which he heard of Asclepiades’ accession, 
with the great persecution in the roth 
year of Severus (A.D. 203). The alter- 
native would be to suppose that Alexander 
was detained several years in captivity 
(A.D. 203—210). One or other hypothesis 
seems necessary if we are to maintain the 
date of Asclepiades’ accession as given in 
the Chronicon. 

Eusebius (#7. 25. vi. 12) mentions Se- 
rapion writing to a certain Domninus who 
had lapsed from Christianity to Judaism 
‘at the time of the persecution’ (παρὰ 


from this that Serapion must have sur- 
vived the persecution of Severus (p. 46). 
The inference may be correct; but the 
necessity which he has felt of postulating 
some other event to satisfy the reference 
in Alexander’s letter suggests misgivings 
as to the certainty of the allusion in the 
very similar case here. 

Altogether we may take warning by the 
perplexities which these strictly genuine 
and contemporary records create—not to 
condemn hastily the dates of the Chronz- 
con in other cases, even where the frvzma 
facie interpretation of authentic notices 
seems imperatively to demand it, e.g. the 
accession of Maximinus. 


460 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


ἐγνωρίζετο). Again, Eutychius patriarch of Alexandria (see Harnack 
Ρ. 45), a late and untrustworthy writer indeed, but here apparently 
relating a historical fact, states that Demetrius of Alexandria wrote to 
Gabius [Gaius] bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus [Maximinus] patriarch 
of Alexandria, and Victor patriarch of Rome, on the paschal compu- 
tation (Az. 1. p. 363 sq, ed. Pococke). If these statements be true, 
Maximinus the predecessor of Serapion must have survived the 
accession of Victor (A.D. 189), and yet Serapion must have succeeded 
before the death of Commodus (A.D. 192). These notices combined 
point to about A.D. 190, as the date of Serapion’s accession. 

Serapion was preceded by Maximinus, whose accession in the 
Chronicon is assigned to A.D. 177, four years after the Roman bishop 
Eleutherus. This is almost demonstrably wrong. Theophilus the 
predecessor of Maximinus in his extant work (ad Auwfo/. 111. 27) cites 
a chronography of Chryseros which closed with the death of M. Aurelius, 
and himself carries down his reckoning to that event; so that he cannot 
have written his third book till the first year of Commodus (a.D. 180) 
at the earliest. The only escape from the contradiction would be the 
supposition that he vacated his see for some reason or other during 
his lifetime. On the other hand it is not probable that he lived very 
much later than this date, inasmuch as his name is not mentioned in 
connexion with the Montanist controversy which raged soon after. 
The reckoning of the C/ronicon therefore would seem to antedate the 
accession of Maximinus by about five years. 

With regard to the six earlier accessions we have no contemporary 
or trustworthy notices which enable us to test the accuracy of the 
dates. Of these six, the dates assigned to the first two do not satisfy 
the supposed schematism; the third is not assigned to any precise 
year; the fourth and fifth agree with the assumed rule, being placed 
four years after Telesphorus and Pius, the 7th and 9th Roman bishops, 
respectively ; while the sixth again violates it. Thus of these six earlier 
dates only two afford examples of this schematism. 

As the result of this examination, we are led to the conclusion that 
in this first part of the list as far as Philetus, the authority followed 
by Eusebius cannot have been Africanus, unless the chronology here is 
genuine in the main, though not necessarily accurate in its details. 
If it was a fictitious list, the authority followed must have been some 
later writer who was less favourably situated for obtaining correct 
information. 

From these facts it will have appeared, unless I am mistaken, 
that Harnack’s theory is not built on a secure foundation. For the 


OF 8. IGNATIUS. 461 


general predominance of the interval of four years, i.e. one Olym- 
piad, there is indeed some show of evidence. But it does not 
necessarily point to any deliberate artificial arrangement on the part 
either of Eusebius himself or of a previous authority copied by him. 
The frequent recurrence of the number 4, if not accidental, might be 
explained in the following way. The primary authority—whether 
Africanus or some one else—arranged his chronography by Olympiads. 
He knew roughly that such and such an Antiochene bishop succeeded 
to the see of Antioch, when such and such a Roman bishop occupied 
the see of Rome, and he placed them in the next Olympiad accordingly. 
The exact year in the Olympiad to which the accessions of the Antiochene 
bishops are assigned in the Chronzcon of Eusebius would then be due to 
this previous writer’s form of tabulation, which was misunderstood by 
his transcribers or successors and is lost to us. 

Beyond this point we are not at liberty to assume any artificial 
arrangement. All the accompanying facts forbid us to suspect either 
Eusebius himself or his previous authority of deliberate invention. 
There is no appearance of artifice in the Olympiads themselves, which, 
for the accessions from Euodius to Philetus inclusive are as follows ; 


το: sO), 252) 2. OL .221..2..}» 227. 1, Ol. 230; 3,0 2475, 
ΝΠ τὸ 2,,OL242. 3, Ol. 248. 1, Ol..240. 2. 


Nor again does any suspicion attach to the order of succession of 

the Roman bishops selected, which is as follows ; 
O, 1, 5, 7» 9, ΤΙ, 12, 13, 15, 15. 

It should be observed also that where Eusebius does not know 
a date, or at least does not believe that he knows it, he indicates his 
uncertainty. Thus in the case of the bishops of Jerusalem he masses 
them together at intervals, giving their names and the order of succes- 
sion, but not attempting to fix the dates of accession ; and as regards 
this very see of Antioch, in the case of Hero the successor of Ignatius 
he is satisfied with indicating a rough proximity, without naming a 
precise year. Moreover in his preface to the whole work he cautions 
his readers against attaching too much weight to individual dates, 
where much must necessarily be uncertain. The Scriptural saying, ἡ It 
is not yours to know the times and the seasons,’ holds good (so he 
considers) for the chronology of all times, as well as for the Second 
Advent (Chron. τ. Ὁ. 3, ed. Schoene). 

But, though this recurrence of the number 4 may perhaps be due 
to some cause such as I have suggested, the possibility remains that its 
frequency here was a mere chronological accident. From this point of 


462 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


view the following example from the recent history of France may not 
prove uninstructive’. 


1643 Accession of Louis xIv. 

1715 Accession of Louis xv. 

1774 Accession of Louis XVI. 

1793 Accession of Louis xvir (end of French Monarchy). 
1804 Accession of Napoleon as Emperor. 

1814 Accession of Louis XvItl. 

1824 Accession of Charles x. 


Here we have a schematism, of which the principle is the recurrence 
of the number 4 in the units. The majority of the dates already fulfil 
this condition. The rest may be brought into accordance by adding 
or subtracting one in each case. But what supposition is more natural 
than that the events should have been accidentally displaced by a 
year in some transcription of the tables? We have a right to expect 
only one occurrence of the same unit 4 in ten dates, and here we have 
four in seven (or if we commence with the accession of Louis xv1, 
the beginning of the revolutionary period, four in five), with a rea- 
sonable presumption that originally it occupied the remaining places 
also. Moreover, if the fictitious character of this chronology thus 
betrays itself by its artificial arrangement, what shall we say when we 
observe the inordinate length of time assigned to the earliest names ? 
Not less than 131 years are given to two sovereigns alone. This, 
it may be safely said, is without a parallel in European annals. The 
greatest length of time occupied by any two successive reigns in the 
preceding history of the French Monarchy appears to be 86 years. The 
average duration of a reign, from Hugh Capet downwards till we arrive 
at this point, is 21 or 22 years. Even the chronology of the regal 
period in Roman history is not guilty of any such extravagance. Thus 
the condemnation of this table 15 complete. From this point onward 
a different principle prevails. The new French Monarchy begins with 
Louis Philippe, a.D. 1830. This king dies a.p. 1850, and his death is 
followed in the next year by the Coup d’Etat, which results in the 
establishment of the Second Empire. This Second Empire ends, and 
the new French Republic begins, a.D. 1870. Here, it will be observed, 
there is an interval of 20 years between each event. 

This example will serve as a caution against too rapid inferences 
from the recurrence of numerical peculiarities in history. But indeed 


1 A striking example of chronological symmetry is given in Seeley’s Expansion 
of England, p. 266 sq. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 


463 
any ordinary chronological lists furnish abundance of such warnings’. 
There is no end to the tricks which authentic history plays with 
numbers. Few European states are safe from the suspicions which 
these freaks of chronology may stir in the minds of critics in the remote 
future’. 


In the above criticisms I have argued provisionally on the assump- 
tion that the Armenian dates give the chronology of Eusebius himself ; 
but, as I have elsewhere shown’, this assumption is burdened with 
difficulties, and another aspect of the question is presented in the 
following communication which I received from Dr Hort, when my 
first edition was going through the press. 

‘Harnack’s theory takes for granted the truth of Lipsius’s assump- 
tion that the Roman episcopal chronology of Eusebius’s Chronicle is 
to be found in the Armenian version, not in the Hieronymian Chronicle. 
This has always seemed to me an improbable view: but it would 
acquire fresh strength if the Antiochene chronology, which is approxi- 
mately the same in both versions, were shown to be founded on the 
Armenian dates of the Roman chronology. On all accounts there- 
fore it is worth while to ascertain whether the relations between the 
Antiochene chronology and the Hieronymian dates of the Roman chro- 
nology exhibit any correspondences like those which have been pointed 
out by Harnack. The following table will furnish provisional means 
of comparison. It gives both the Armenian and the Hieronymian dates 


Prussia? Accession of the great Elector 
Frederick William A.D. 1640; Accession 
of the great King Frederick II a.D. 1740; 


_ 1 The recent chronology of the two 
_ archiepiscopal sees of England for in- 
stance may be taken as examples. The 





dates of accession to the see of Canter- 
bury since the middle of the last century 
are 1758, 1768, 1783, 1805, 1828, 1848, 
1862, 1868, where five out of eight have 
the same unit. The three preceding ac- 
cessions bear the dates 1737, 1747, 1757. 
The see of York again exhibits in suc- 
cession these dates; 1747, 1757, 1761, 
1776 [1777], 1807 [1808], 1847, 1857, 
where the dates in brackets are as I find 
them in another list. Here not only have 
five at least out of seven the same unit 7, 
but in two cases the same years, 47, 57, 
are repeated in succession in two succes- 
sive centuries. 

2 What can be more suspicious for in- 
stance, than these dates in the history of 


Accession of Frederick William IV A.D. 
1840. Is it too much to assume that 
this schematism was drawn up when the 
hopes of the national party centred in 
Frederick William IV as the sovereign 
of a united Germany? The date of his 
accession is, we may assume, correct, 
or at least roughly so; and the chrono- 
grapher, writing at a crisis when he was 
expected to take his rank with the two 
most illustrious sovereigns of the past, 
adopted this date as his starting point 
and placed the accessions of the triad at 
intervals of a century, filling in the inter- 
mediate dates at his pleasure. 

3 See S. Clement of Rome 1. p. 222 56 
(ed. 2). 


464 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


in years of Abraham for Antioch, and replaces the Armenian by the 
Hieronymian dates for Rome. Schoene’s text is followed, the years given © 
in mss cited by him, where they are different, being added in brackets. 





| 
Antioch Arm. Hier. Rome Hier. 


Euhodius 2058 Peter 2058 
2060 (59) 
Ignatius 2084—5 | Linus 2084 
2085 
Anencletus 20096 
Clemens 2108 
Euarestus 2115 (4) 
Hero 2123 2123 
Alexander 2125 (6) 
Xystus 2135 
Cornelius 2144 2144 Telesphorus 2144 
Hyginus 2154 (5) 
Eros 2158 2158 Pius 2158 
Anicetus 2173 (1) 
Theophilus 2185 2185 Soter 2185 
Maximinus 2193 2193 Eleutherus 2193 
Serapion 2206 2206 (5) 
Victor 2209 
Zephyrinus 2217 (6) 
Asclepiades 2227 (5) 
2228 
Philetus 2233 
2234 
Callistus 2236 (5) 
Urbanus 2241 (0) 
Zebinus 2245 2245 
Pontianus 2250 (48) 
Anteros 
Fabianus 2258 
Babylas [2270] | ? 
Fabius 2270 2268 Cornelius 2269 (8) 
Demetrianus 2269 
Lucius 
Stephanus i a 
[Xystus IT. 2271] 
2272 
Paulus 2277 (8) 
2278 
Dionysius 2282 (1) 
Domnus 2283 2283 (4) 
Timeeus 2288 
Felix 2204 
Cyrillus 2207 
Eutychianus 8 
Gaius ae 
Marcellinus 2313 
Tyrannus 2319 
Eusebius 2321 


‘It will be seen at once that the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh 
Antiochene dates exactly synchronize with Roman dates: the cor- 








OF S. IGNATIUS. 465 


respondence is all the clearer because the Armenian and Hieronymian 
dates for Antioch are identical. The first, second, and third require 
examination. 

‘The Armenian list for Antioch starts in the same year as the list for 
Rome; the Hieronymian list two years later in Schoene’s text, one year 
later in Pontac’s text and the excellent Cod. Freherianus. The difference 
cannot however be original, for the appointment of the first bishop 
of Antioch must have been taken to accompany or follow immediately 
the departure of S. Peter from Antioch for Rome: the intervening 
Hieronymian article is on the preaching of S. Mark, ‘interpres Petri,’ 
in Egypt and Alexandria, and the three articles were evidently intended 
to form a single whole. The year intended to be common to all three 
was apparently not 2058, but 2059. Without this change the Roman 
date cannot be made to agree with the 25 years of office assigned 
to S. Peter in the Hieronymian Chronicle; while comparison with 
other lists shews that xxv is not itself a corruption of xxvi. In the 
Armenian mss (see Aucher’s edition, 11. 268 sq) the three years 2057, 
2058, 2059 form a separate compartment, the right-hand portion of which 
is entirely taken up with the articles on S. Mark and Euhodius; so 
that the displacement is easily accounted for by considerations of 
space. Moreover, if we put S. Peter’s date entirely out of sight, 2059 
remains evidently the most probable Eusebian date for Euhodius; since 
it accounts for both 2058 and 2060, and in the Antiochene (unlike 
the Roman) episcopates there is no reason to suppose that the dis- 
crepancies between the two forms of the Chronicle are due to anything 
but accidents of transcription. 

‘The beginnings of the second episcopates likewise approximately 
coincide. Linus is clearly referred to 2084, the last year of Nero, 
assumed as the date of S. Peter’s martyrdom: the Hieronymian article 
on Ignatius is attached in a singular manner to the Olympiadic numeral 
answering to 2085 (see Schoene’s note), but apparently should rather 
be regarded as part of an overflow from the too numerous articles of 
2084: the Armenian position of Ignatius is at 2085, but evidently by 
a mistake of transcription, for the article interrupts a single long sen- 
tence about Vespasian, and the existence of a dislocation at 2084 is 
proved by the interposition of the reigns of Galba and Vitellius before 
the death of Nero. Eusebius doubtless placed both Ignatius and Linus 
at 2084. 

‘At the third Antiochene episcopate there is a real breach of syn- 
chronism, though only to the amount of two years: the Armenian and 
Hieronymian records agree in placing Hero at 2123, while Alexander 


IGN. II. 30 


466 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


of Rome stands at 2125. Here Eusebius had a historical landmark 
independent of any artificial co-ordination with Roman chronology, for 
Hero became bishop of Antioch in consequence of the death of 
Ignatius. He mentions the succession in connexion with the martyr- 
dom; and as the martyrdom was said to have taken place under 
Trajan, he includes the record of it in what he has to say about what 
passed as Trajan’s persecution. 

‘ Accordingly the first seven Antiochene episcopates stand related to 
Roman episcopates in the manner shown by the following list. 


Euhodius 2059 Peter 


Ignatius 2084 Linus 
Hero 2122 

2125 Alexander 
Cornelius 2144 Telesphorus 
Eros 2058 SP ius 
Theophilus 2185 Soter 
Maximinus 2193 Eleutherus. 


‘Such a series of exact coincidences speaks for itself, and cannot be 
accidental. ‘The one exception occurs in the one place where it could 
not but occur: an artificial distribution was required only through 
defect of knowledge; and if Eusebius supposed himself to have direct 
or indirect knowledge of the date of such an event as the martyrdom 
of Ignatius, the beginning of the next episcopate was already deter- 
mined for him. This and the accession of Euhodius, as due to 
S. Peter’s removal to Rome, were doubtless his two early fixed points. 
Between them he had to place the accession of Ignatius, and the perse- 
cution under Trajan might easily suggest the persecution under Nero, 
in which 5. Peter suffered martyrdom; and Linus was recorded to 
have succeeded him. ‘This juxtaposition of the two sees, sanctioned 
by S. Peter’s traditionary connexion with both, would supply a helpful 
resource for the following Antiochene episcopates in the absence of any 
evidence. If Eusebius found the date of Serapion’s accession recorded 
or in any way indicated as 2206, he might take his first two dates, reckon- 
ing backwards, from the two Roman episcopates immediately preceding 
2206; and then, observing five more to remain while only two dates 
were needed, he might adopt every alternate Roman date. The pro- 
cess here supposed would account naturally and precisely for the actual 
facts; but of course the borrowing of the Antiochene from the Roman 
dates, with the single inevitable exception, is all that can be safely 
affirmed. In the rest of the list we find no such coincidences, where 





OF S. IGNATIUS. 467 


historical attestation is wanting. The single absolute synchronism which 
occurs in this part—that of Fabius and Cornelius—was attested by the 
fact, unquestionably known to Eusebius, that their respective pre- 
decessors, Babylas and Fabianus, both perished in the short Decian 
persecution. 

‘At the accession of Clement of Rome, the fourth on the list if 
S. Peter is included, the Armenian date precedes that of Jerome by 
five years, and during the next nine episcopates, to Eleutherus inclu- 
sive, the interval is always either four or five years (Alexander making 
only an apparent exception), owing to the fact that the fundamental 
term-numerals are all but identical in the two lists throughout this 
period. This is the reason why the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Antiochene 
bishops appear to stand about an Olympiad in advance of corre- 
sponding Roman bishops, when Armenian are substituted for Hiero- 
nymian dates in the Roman chronology. Of course Julius Africanus 
vanishes with the Olympiads. But even if the Armenian chronology 
is retained, two of the Olympiadic intervals become incorrect as soon 
as the Armenian dates are tested critically instead of being simply 
copied as they now stand. The term-numerals show conclusively that 
the Armenian year for Alexander is not 2119 but 2120, and for 
Eleutherus not 2189 but 2188; so that the intervals would be of five 
and of three years, not of four years in both cases.’ 


I cannot doubt that this is the right solution in the main. The 
Chronicon and the Azstory appear to have been completed within a 
year or two of each other; and Eusebius must have been employed 
upon them at the same time’. This being so, it would be strange if 
they presented two widely divergent chronologies of the early Roman 


bishops. This difficulty disappears if we suppose the Roman episcopal 


‘present persecution.’ Again in Praep. 
Ho. x. O# τι there is a reference te 
the Chronicon ; yet indications are not 
wanting that the Praefaratio and De- 
monstratio were written during the per- 
secution and in the years immediately 
succeeding (Tillemont H. Z. VII. p. 
53 sq). But this hypothesis of an earlier 
edition will not explain the difficulty ; for 


1 The Chronicon was carried down to 
the vicennalia of Constantine, A.D. 325 
(II. p. 191, Schoene); the A7zs¢ory, unless 
internal evidence is altogether delusive, 
was written before the death of Crispus 
(A.D. 326). Eusebius indeed appears to 
have issued two editions of the Chronzcon, 
as he certainly did of other works, e.g. the 
Martyrs of Palestine and the Zwo Books 


of Objection and Defence read by Photius 
(Bibl. 13). Thus in the Zclog. Prophet. 
i. 1 (p. 1 Gaisford) Eusebius directly refers 
to the Chronicon; yet elsewhere in this 
same work, i. 8 (p. 26), he speaks of the 


the Armenian represents one which was 
contemporary with the History, since it 
mentions the vicennalia (I. pp. 71, 131). 
On this subject see S. Clement of Rome 1. 
p. 224 sq (ed. 2.) 

30—2 


468 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


dates of the Armenian version to be due either to accident or to 
some later revision or to both causes. But, even supposing that 
the Armenian version did give the original Eusebian dates for the 
Roman bishops, the possibility would still remain that for the dates 
of the Antiochene bishops Eusebius copied some previous writer 
who had arranged the Antiochene chronology according to another 
list of Roman bishops—a list afterwards substituted in the Chronzcon 
by Jerome for that of Eusebius’. As regards details, the procedure 
which Hort suggests, but does not insist upon, to account for the 
synchronism of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Antiochene bishops with 
the 7th, 9th, 11th and 12th Roman bishops respectively, seems to 
me to attribute too elaborate an artifice to Eusebius. Eusebius or 
his authority must have known, as we know, that Theophilus was 
contemporary with Soter and Maximinus with Eleutherus. He may 
have believed or known also, what we do not know, that Cornelius was 
contemporary with Telesphorus and Eros with Pius. In placing their 
accessions over against the same year, he or his authority merely adopted 
an inexact, or rather too exact, way of expressing these rough syn- 
chronisms in a tabular arrangement where assignment to a definite 
year was convenient. His treatment of the Jerusalem bishops, where 
he had no chronological data, ought, I think, to liberate him from the 
suspicion even of the moderate artifice which Hort’s suggestion ascribes 
to him in the case of the Antiochene bishops. We are bound to 
believe that for the latter he had some data, however rough and 
imperfect. With this exception, which however does not affect the 
main question, Hort’s solution has everything to recommend it. It is 
free from the difficulties which beset Harnack’s theory, and it explains 
the phenomena better. 


One other objection is brought by Harnack (p. 70 sq) against the 
early part of the list in the Chronicon. The average duration of office 
assigned to these early Antiochene bishops is unusually long. If we 
suppose Theophilus to have died about a.p. 185 (the Chronicon places 
his death a.p. 177, but for reasons already stated it seems necessary to 
advance the date by some years), we have then a period of more than 
75 years for four bishops alone, Hero, Cornelius, Eros, Theophilus, or 
an average of 18 or 19 years apiece. ‘This is an unusually long time. 


1 This is in fact the view which has press for my first edition, but before they 
since been maintained by Lipsius (see were published. See S. Clement of Rome 
above, p.452 note), whose paper appeared 1. p. 224 (ed. 2) on the difficulties which 
after these sheets had passed through the _ attend this hypothesis. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 469 


He infers from this that the original chronicler had before him 
simply a list of the names of the successive Antiochene bishops ; that 
he felt bound to represent the earliest of these persons so hamiee as 
appointed directly by Apostles; and that he was obliged accordingly 
to stretch out the duration of their tenure of office on the ραν μεν 
bed of this necessity so as to cover the period, though in fact the 
earliest name belonged to a date much later than the Apostolic times. 
On this principle he rectifies the chronology thus. If we reckon the 
duration of office at an average of twelve years, this gives 48 years 
for the four, and we are thus carried back to about the time of the 
martyrdom of the Roman bishop Telesphorus for the death of Ignatius, 
Or again; if we place the death of Theophilus in the middle of the 
episcopate of Eleutherus, and reckon back the duration of four 
episcopates in the Roman list, we are brought to about a.p. 138, 
1.6. nearly the same date, for this same event. ‘In the Alexandrian list,’ 
he adds, ‘a similar reckoning leads to a similar date.’ As the result 
of this calculation, he considers that the death of Ignatius may be 
placed in the reign of Hadrian, or even of Antoninus Pius (p. 71). 

But, even if we allow that the length of the period constitutes a real 
difficulty in the Eusebian chronology, the solution does not seem to be 
the most probable under the circumstances. It is more natural, as 
well as more in accordance with experience, to suppose that some 
links in the chain have been lost, than that the links are continuous 
but have been stretched out to lengthen the chain backwards. Thus our 
original chronicler may only have been able to recover a name of a 
bishop here and there, in connexion with some fact which enabled him to 
fix approximately their respective dates; and, as he was not acquainted 
with any other names in the early annals of the Antiochene episcopate, 
may have assumed that there were no others. This is a matter of 
common occurrence in the lists of official personages in their earlier 
stages, where the historical record is imperfect. 

But in fact the period of 75 years, though longer than the average 
of four episcopates, has been again and again attained, and sometimes 
largely exceeded, in authentic records about which no doubt can be enter- 
tained’. We may compare for instance the annals of the other Eastern 


1 In the recent annals of the English 
episcopate for instance, notwithstanding 
the practice of frequent translations, we 
have far more surprising phenomena. 
Thus in the see of Canterbury four epis- 
copates extend from A.D. 1768—1848, or 


80 years, and from A.D. 1783—1862, or 
7g years, though in all cases the arch- 
bishops were translated from other sees; 
in York from A.D. 1761—1857, or 96 
years, and again from A.D. 1776—1862, 
or 86 years, though again all were trans- 


470 


patriarchates, Alexandria and Jerusalem, at the first moment when 
we reach the broad daylight of history and no cloud of obscurity hangs 
over the dates. This is probably as fair a parallel as the case admits. 
At Alexandria then we have Demetrius, Heraclas, Dionysius, Maximus, 
extending from A.D. 19g0—283, or 93 years; Alexander, Athanasius, 
Petrus 11, Timotheus 1, from A.D. 313385, or 72 years; Timotheus 1, 
Theophilus, Cyrillus, Dioscorus, from A.D. 377452, or 75 years: and 
at Jerusalem Narcissus, Alexander, Mazabanes, Hymenzeus, from A.D. 
190—298, or 108 years; Hermon, Macarius, Maximus, Cyrillus, from 
A.D. 300—388, or 88 years; Cyrillus, Joannes 1, Prayllus, Juvenalis, 
from A.D. 348—458, or 110 years; Joannes 1, Prayllus, Juvenalis, 
Anastasius, from A.D. 388—478, or go years. In fact at Alexandria 13 
successive bishops, from Demetrius to Cyrillus inclusive, cover from 
A.D. I190—444, 1.6. 254 years, giving an average of between 19 and 
20 years; and at Jerusalem 13 successive bishops, from Narcissus to 
Anastasius inclusive, cover from Α. Ὁ. 190—478, ie. 288 years, giving 
an average of more than 22 years’. 

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared generally 
that there is no sufficient ground for suspecting an artificial arrange- 
ment of the dates of accession; but that, if it exist at all, it is not of 
such a kind as to affect the substantial accuracy of the chronology, 
though it may have caused a displacement of a few years in any given 
case. Of the capricious invention of names, or the arbitrary assign- 
ment of them to particular epochs irrespective of tradition, there is no 
indication. ‘The information may be incorrect; the tradition may be 
hazy; but this is a different matter. Our guarantee of substantial 
fidelity will be the rough accordance of these dates with extraneous 
and authentic notices. If this ordeal be applied to the list, its general 
credibility does not suffer. From Theophilus onwards we are able 


ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


lations; in London from A.D. 1675— 
1761, or 86 years, though all the four 
were translations; in Winchester from 
A.D. 1734—1827, or 93 years, and again 
from A.D. 1761—1869, or 108 years; in 
Durham from A.D. 1632—1730 (with the 
vacancy of one year), or 97 years, and 
again from A.D. 1660—1750, or go years; 
in Chichester from A.D. 1731—1824, or 
93 years (70 years being occupied by two 
episcopates alone); in Bath and Wells, 
where longevity seems to prevail, from 
A.D. 1703—1802, or 99 years, and again 


from A.D. 1727—1824, or 97 years, and 
again from A.D. 1744—1845, or IOI years, 
though all were translations; in Lincoln 
from A.D. 1787—1869, or 82 years, 
though all were translations; in Worces- 
ter from A.D. 1781—1861, or 80 years, 
though all were translations. These ex- 
amples might be multiplied. 

1 No account is here taken of intruders 
who were thrust into the sees during the 
lifetimes of the regular bishops, as e.g. 
in the case of Athanasius. 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 471 


to test every name, though the test is sometimes rough; and in no 
case is the divergence from known or suspected fact very wide. In all 
cases, which we have means of verifying, the Antiochene episcopates 
were contemporary with the Roman episcopates with which they are 
co-ordinated. 

But the value of Harnack’s investigations is quite independent of 
the particular theory which he founds upon them. He has raised 
definitely the question what degree of credit is due to the chronology 
of the early Antiochene bishops. He has collected the data for a 
satisfactory answer to this question, so far as it can be answered. And 
above all: he has set the relation of this chronology to the Ignatian 
controversy in its proper light. 

With this last point alone we are directly concerned. The question 
which critics henceforth must ask is this. If there be a conflict be- 
tween the very early date assigned to Ignatius in the traditional 
chronology of the Antiochene episcopate, and the phenomena of the 
Ignatian epistles regarded as a genuine work of Ignatius, so that the 
two cannot be reconciled, which must give place to the other? To the 
question so stated there can, I think, be only one answer in the end. 
The evidence, internal and external, for the genuineness of the Ignatian 
epistles is twenty times stronger than the evidence for the early 
Antiochene chronology. Elsewhere I have given reasons for the 
belief that no such conflict exists. But, assuming for the moment 
that the epistles do betray a later date than the chronology of the 
Antiochene episcopate assigns to Ignatius, it is not the genuineness 
of the epistles but the veracity of the chronology which must be 
surrendered. 

Meanwhile, if we consider this chronology in itself (irrespective of 
its bearing on the Ignatian controversy), it is reasonable to take up 
an intermediate position between Wieseler and Harnack. We cannot 
with Wieseler tie down the date of the martyrdom to the precise 
year A.D. 107, for indeed there is no reason to think that Eusebius 
himself intended this. But neither can we with Harnack allow it 
such latitude as A.D. 138, because the evidence, while it disproves 
the chronology as a strictly accurate statement, confirms it as a rough 
approximation. Even as a rough approximation however, its value 
will diminish as we go farther back. The dates of the first century, 
the accession of Euodius a.p. 42, and the accession of Ignatius A.D. 69, 
deserve no credit. Both alike, we may suppose, were due to specu- 
lative criticism, rather than to traditional report. If Hort’s synchron- 
ism with the Roman bishops be not accepted, these two accessions 


472 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


may be explained in another way. The first would aim at giving 
the date when the Antiochene Church first received a definite con- 
stitution, this date being inferred from the Acts of the Apostles'; 
the other would represent the close of the Apostolic age as marked 
by the destruction of Jerusalem’, Ignatius being regarded as still a 
disciple of the Apostles and as appointed by them to the episcopate. 
The dates during the first half of the second century on the other hand 
may be accepted as rough, but only very rough, approximations. The 
first of these, the death of Ignatius, does not profess to be more than 
this. Not making any extravagant claims, it is the more entitled 
to credit. If it comes to us on the authority of Africanus, it is 
highly valuable, because Afncanus lived in a neighbouring country, 
and must have been born within a single lifetime of the alleged 
date. However this may be, we have the indisputable testimony of 
a contemporary of Africanus to the same effect. Origen (Hom. in 
Luc. c. 1, Op. ut. p. 938 A) speaks of ‘Ignatius who was second bishop 
of Antioch after the blessed Peter, and during the persecution (ἐν 
τῷ διωγμῷ) fought with wild beasts in Rome.’ From this statement 
the date of the martyrdom may be inferred approximately*. Origen, 
it should be observed, had himself resided at Antioch before this 
(Euseb. A. £. vi. 21; about a.p. 226, see Clinton fast. Rom. 1. pp. 
239, 241). If in addition to these facts we bear in mind that common 
tradition assigned the martyrdom to the reign of Trajan, we shall be 
doing no injustice to the evidence by setting the probable limits 
between A.D. r100—118, without attempting to fix the year more 
precisely *. 


1 The famine prophesied by Agabus 
(Acts xi. 28) is placed in the Armenian 
the year before, and in Jerome the year 
after, the accession of Euodius. In the 
Acts this prophecy and its fulfilment are 
recorded in the same paragraph which 
describes the foundation of a church at 
Antioch. This approximate synchronism 
was probably sufficient to suggest the date 
for the accession of the first bishop of 
Antioch. 

2 The accession of Ignatius is placed 
one year before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem in the Armenian, and two years 
before in Jerome. The final dispersion 
of the surviving Apostles, which imme- 
diately preceded the overthrow of the city, 


would be thought a fit moment for the 
consecration of the last bishop of Antioch 
who was a disciple of Apostles. 

3 The expression ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ leaves 
open the alternative of the reigns of 
Domitian and Trajan; for any subsequent 
persecution would be too late for the 
second bishop of Antioch after S. Peter. 
As no one has ever placed the martyr- 
dom under Domitian, we may safely as- 
sume that Origen intended the persecu- 
tion of Trajan. 

There is no ground for the surmise 
of Harnack (p. 67) that Origen derived 
his information from Africanus. 

4 If Malalas were a more trustworthy 
writer, we might be disposed to listen to 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 473 


7: 


The two Acts of Martyrdom which I have designated the Antiochene 
and the Roman respectively are given in the following pages. The 
other three, having no independent value, are not reprinted here. 


The authorities for the text of the ANTIOCHENE ACTS are: 


(1) Zhe Greek MS [G], which I have collated anew for this 
edition. 

(2) Zhe Latin Version |L], of which a revised text will be found 
in the Appendix. 

(3) Zhe Syriac Version [S], which also is re-edited in the Ap- 
pendix. 

(4) Zhe Bollandist Acts |B], which comprise a Latin version of 
a considerable portion of the Antiochene Acts (see above, pp. 366, 371). 
They will be found in the Acta Sanctorum for Feb. 1. 

(5) Zhe Armenian Acts [A], which also comprise a very large 
portion of these Acts (see above, pp. 367, 371 sq). Petermann’s re- 
print of Aucher has been used for these. 

(6) Zhe Acts of the Metaphrast |M], which are compiled partly 
from these Acts (see above, pp. 367, 375 sq), and may be used oc- 
casionally for textual purposes. 


As G is a late and poor s, the different versions LSBA are highly 
important aids to the construction of a text. Of these L is valuable 
on account of its literalness. On the other hand SBA frequently offer 
better readings, and generally may be said to preserve older forms of 
the text. But the license which they have taken with the original 
lessens their value ; and I have only recorded their readings where they 
appeared to represent variations in the Greek. No weight attaches to 
M ; for, where his text coincides with our Acts, it is evidently founded 
on a comparatively late ms closely resembling G. 

These Acts were first edited in the original Greek by Ruinart (Ac. 
Mart. Sinc. p. 605 sq, Paris, 1689) from the Colbert ms G, the Latin 


him when ὁ σοφὸς Θεόφιλος ὁ χρονογράφος 
is adduced by him (x. p. 252, ed. Bonn.) 
as stating that Anianus succeeded S. 
Mark as bishop of Alexandria. Theo- 
philus of Antioch, who shows himself a 
chronographer in his extant work, is 
doubtless meant; but this is probably a 
blunder akin to the erroneous statement 


of Malalas about Africanus and Irenzeus 
quoted above (p. 439). Otherwise Theo- 
philus might have been looked to, as a 
primary source of information respecting 
the Antiochene bishoprics. As it is, 
Harnack (p. 43 sq) seems to me to treat 
the statement of Malalas with too much 
respect, 


474 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM 


Version having been previously published by Ussher (a.D. 1644) to- 
gether with the Ignatian Epistles which it accompanies. Subsequent 
editors contented themselves with reproducing the text of Ruinart. 
Jacobson recollated G, but did nothing more for the text. Zahn first 
made use of the versions for the correction of the errors in the Greek 
ms, and thus produced a much superior text to those of his prede- 
cessors. He did not however exhaust all the good readings which 
they would yield. A further use of them is made in this edition. 
The readings ἕωθεν, and ληνῷ (for λίνῳ), in § 6, with several others 
elsewhere, are now introduced into the text for the first time from 
these versions. 


The authorities for the text of the Roman Acts are these ; 


(1) The Three Greek MSS [V\[L][P], described above, p. 364. 

(2) Zhe Coptic Versions [C], of which an account is also given 
above, p. 364.sa. ‘These are the Memphitic [C,,] and the Thebaic or 
Sahidic [C,]. In passages where the two agree, or where only one is 
extant, the symbol used is C simply. 

(3) Zhe Bollandist Acts |B], in which is incorporated a very large 
portion of these Roman Acts (see above, pp. 366 sq, 371). 

(4) Zhe Armenian Acts [Δ], which likewise contain a large portion 
of these Acts (see above, pp. 367, 371 sq). 

(5) Zhe Acts of the Metaphrast |M|, in which use is made of the 
Roman Acts (see above, p. 375 sq); but the coincidences are very rarely 
close enough to have any value for textual purposes. 


The Greek text of these Acts was first printed in full by Dressel 
from V. Extracts had been given before from L by Ussher (see above 
p- 364). Zahn improved upon Dressel’s text here and there, chiefly 
by corrections from AB; but with the imperfect materials before him 
he was unable to do much, and the text has remained hitherto in a 
very bad state. Thus it has been disfigured by such corruptions as 
Κυθήνῃ (Κιθαιρῶνι, Zahn) for ΚΚυνοσούρῃ (ὃ 1), τοῦ ἡλίου for Ἰλώου (§ 1), 
ἐμφρόνου for ἔμφρονος (§ 2), χαλκῷ for χαλκεῖ (§ 3), Μωῦσέως for μυήσεως 
(§ 6), while in one place (§ 3 εἰ καὶ ἐσταυρώθη κ-.τ.λ.) several lines had 
dropped out owing to a homceoteleuton. ‘The superior materials at 
my disposal have enabled me to give an entirely new and, as I hope, 
greatly superior text. Of the Greek mss P, which is here made known 
for the first time, is quite the best, while the full collation of L is also 
important. The Coptic Versions preserve a text in some respects more 
ancient than any other authority, and from them I have extracted 
readings which, though evidently correct, do not appear elsewhere, 


OF S. IGNATIUS. 475 


The chronological notices at the beginning and end of these Acts in 
my text assume entirely new forms, which are not without an interest 
for the Ignatian controversy. 

Though these Roman Acts are quite valueless as history, they are 
interesting as a specimen of apologetics. For this reason I have 
thought it worth while to add full explanatory and illustrative notes, 
which hitherto they have lacked. 


The variations of the versions (which in some cases are very con- 


siderable) are not given unless they have a bearing on the Greek text or 
possess some interest of their own. 





MAPTYPION 


IF NATIOY 


A. 


1. λρτι διαδεξαμένου τὴν Ρωμαίων ἀρχὴν Tpata- 


~~ | / e ΄σ > / 3 7 , - ale, | 
νοῦ, ᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ᾿Ιωάννου μαθητής, ἀνὴρ 


MAPTYPION ΙΓΝΔΤΙΟΥ a] μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου lepoudprupos ἰγνατίου τοῦ θεοφόρου 
G; martirium sancti ignacti episcopi antiochie sirie L* ; martyrium ignati episcopt 
imperante traiano (in regno traiani) in roma urbe S* (but with vv. 11.). 

2 ἀποστόλου] G3; add. evangelistae S ; add. et evangelistae LA[B]. 


I. "Apte διαδεξαμένου κιτ.λ.} The 
death of Nerva, with the consequent 
accession of Trajan, took place on 
Jan. 25, A.D. 98 (Chron. Pasch. 1. p. 
469, ed. Bonn.), or probably two days 
later (Reimar on Dion Cass. Ixviil. 
3); see Clinton Fast. Rom. 1. p. 
84. 

2. Ἰωάννου μαθητής] See again 
§ 3 ἐγεγόνεισαν yap πάλαι μαθηταὶ 
Ἰωάννου with the note. This is the 
earliest direct statement that Ig- 
natius had S. John as his master. 
Older writers say not a word of it, 
though we should expect some refer- 
ence to it, either in the scattered 
notices of Irenzeus or in the memoir 
of Eusebius or in the encomium of 
Chrysostom, if it had been true. 
Moreover the absolute silence of 
Ignatius himself respecting this A- 
postle, while he mentions S. Peter 
and S. Paul by name, is unfavourable 
to its truth. A highly probable ex- 
planation of the origin of the story is 


given by Zahn ἢ v. A. p. 46sq. Eu- 
sebius in his Chronicon (11. p. 162 
sq), speaking of S. John, says μεθ᾽ 
ὃν Παππίας Ἱεραπολίτης καὶ Πολύκαρ- 
πος Σμύρνης ἐπίσκοπος ἀκουσταὶ αὐτοῦ 
ἐγνωρίζοντο (Syncellus has here pre- 
served the exact words of Eusebius, 
as the Armenian Version shows). 
This becomes in Jerome’s edition 
‘post quem auditores ejus insignes 
fuerunt Papias Hieropolitanus epis- 
copus et Polycarpus Zmyrnaeus et 
Ignatius Antiochenus. We may 
however question whether, as Zahn 
assumes, Jerome himself supposed 
Ignatius to have been a disciple of 
S. John. In his notices of Ignatius 
and Polycarp, Vir. 11. §§ 16, 17, he 
twice states the fact of Polycarp, 
‘auditor Joannis’, ‘Joannis apostoli 
discipulus’, but abstains from stating 
the same of Ignatius, notwithstanding 
the temptation. It seems more pro- 
bable therefore that he rapidly added 
‘et Ignatius Antiochenus’, intending 


478 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. (1 


Ν Ἔν a 5 / > / A 9 7) 
ἐν τοῖς πάσιν ἀποστολικος; ἐκυβέρνα τὴν ἐεκκλησιαν 
« / ΄“-ϑ / a 
᾿λντιοχέων" ὃς τοὺς πάλαι χειμῶνας μολις παραγαγὼν 
΄σ΄ ΄σ > ΄σ ~ , 
τῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ διωγμῶν, καθάπερ κυβερ- 
> ΄σ sf ΄σ ΄σ΄ \ a 7 
νή τῆς ἀγαθός, τῷ OLAKL τῆς προσευχῆς και τῆς νηστείας, 
lon ΄σ ΄σ / a ΄- 
TH συνεχείᾳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, TW τόνῳ τῷ πνευματικω, 
~ 3 / 3 ΄σ / 
πρὸς τὴν ζάλην TNS αντικειμενῆς ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμεως, 
~ 3 , δ). 5 / 3 
δεδοικὼς μή τινα τῶν ὀλιγοψύχων ἠ ἀκεραιοτέερων ἀπο- 
1 év] L[A]BS* (but with a v. 1.); ἢ» G. éxuBépva] txt L[A][B]; preef. 
καὶ G[S]. 2 ᾿Αντιοχέων»] txt L[S][AJB; add. ἐπιμελῶς G. bs] LA(?); 
om.G; ¢S; al. B. 5 τῇ συνεχείᾳ] L; preef. καὶ G[B]; preef. gaz δέ [A]. 


S translates as if it had read τῆς συνεχοῦς καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ; but perhaps the 
translator connected τῆς νηστείας τῇ συνεχείᾳ together; at all events his text 


seems to have omitted καὶ here. 


translates τόνῳ ad Mar. 4); τῷ πόνῳ AB; τῶν πόνων 5. 


GLS. 


τῷ τόνῳ] (ἃ; robore L (so also it 
Pref. ef AB; om. 


τῷ πνευματικῷ] LAB; τῶν πνευματικῶν 5; τῷ πνὶ (Ξεπνεύματι) G. 


6 τῆς ἀντικειμένης ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμεως] Zahn; adversantis se opposuit potentiae L* ; 
potentiae (gen.) inimicd restitit S (potentiae inimict being a loose paraphrase of τῆς 


to understand merely ‘insignis fuit’ 
with it, though the form of the sen- 
tence suggests a close connexion 
with all the preceding words. He 
excuses his work as ‘tumultuarium’ 
in his preface and says that he 
“notario velocissime dictavit’. A 
similar addition to the language of 
Eusebius is made, as Zahn points 
out, in the Syriac abstract (11. p. 214, 
Schoene), ‘post quem, qui eum au- 
diverant innotuerunt Papias Ierapo- 
litanus et Polycarpos episcopus eo- 
rum qui Smyrnae sedem (suam) col- 
locaverant, praeterea autem Ignatios 
episcopus Antiochenorum’; and this 
renders it probable that the name of 
Ignatius was added in some Greek 
copies of Eusebius, the addition be- 
ing perhaps suggested by the con- 
nexion of the names in Euseb. A. £. 
iii. 36. From such an addition, loosely 
worded or carelessly interpreted, the 
story would take its rise. It is re- 
peated in the Chron. Pasch. p. 416 ὁ 


*Iodvvov τοῦ θεολόγου γνήσιος μαθητὴς 


γεγονώς, in the Hymn of 5. Joseph 3 
(Anal. Sacr. Sfic. Sol. 1. p. 389) 
μαθητευθεὶς... τῷ ἱεροφάντορι καὶ θεο- 
λόγῳ «7.A., and in the Menea Dec. 
20. So also in two Syriac chronicles 
(Cureton Οἱ /. pp. 221; 2502; comups 
Land Axecd. Syr. 1. p. 116), belong- 
ing apparently to the seventh and 
eighth or ninth centuries respectively 
(see Wright’s Catal. of Syr. MSS 
in the Brit. Mus. pp. 1040, 1041), 
and in the Syriac writer Solomon, 
author of the Bee (Cureton C. J. 
pp. 220, 251), who flourished about 
A.D. 1220 (Assem. “704. Orient. 111. 
p. 309). On the other hand Socrates 
(7. E. vi. 8) says of Ignatius merely 
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῖς συνδιέτριψεν, 
and Gregory the Great regards him 
as a disciple, not of S. John, but of 
S: Peter; £fzst0v. 30) ad VAnase 
‘magistrum ejus apostolorum princi- 
pem,’ ‘ejusdem principis discipulum’ 
(Of. VII. p. 320, Venet. 1770). 

I. ἀποστολικός] Said of Polycarp 
in Mart. Polyc. 16, and of Barnabas 


Vv 


1] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 


Bann. 
> i mW A \ > 7 ΄- ΄σ- 
ἀσαλεύτῳω, λωφήσαντος πρὸς ὀλίγον τοῦ διωγμοῦ, 


479 


= > / \ > ΄:- = 
τοιγαροῦν ηὐφραίνετο μεν ἐπὶ τῷ τῆς ἐκκλησίας 


sf \ 5 Ἑ \ ε / - oo 3 \ 

ἡσχαλλεν δὲ καθ᾽ ἑαυτον ὡς μήπω τῆς ὄντως εἰς Χριστὸν 
> / / \ an rand :- 
αγαπῆς ἐφαψάμενος μηδὲ τῆς τελείας τοῦ μαθητοῦ 


> \ \ i 
τάξεως. ἐνενόει γὰρ τὴν διὰ μαρτυρίου γινομένην 


ς 7 , 3 \ τὰ “Ξ 7, 
ὁμολογίαν πλέον αὐτὸν προσοικειοῦσαν τῷ Kupiw. 


ἀντικειμένης δυνάμεως); adversabatur (om. τῆς ἀντικειμένης and δυνάμεως) Α ; zncum- 
bentem ... sua virtute avertebat (τὴν ἀντικειμένην ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμει) Bs τὴν ἀντι- 
κειμένην ἀντεῖχεν G. The corruption of τῆς ἀντικειμένης into τὴν ἀντικειμένην 
has led to the rejection or alteration of δυνάμεως. 7 ἀκεραιοτέρων] There 
is no sufficient reason for thinking with Zahn that the versions had different read- 
ings, though they translate loosely; e.g. he supposes magis simplices of L to 
represent ἀφελεστέρων, but ἀκέραιος is always translated szwflex in the Vulg. of 
tne We T. - Matt. χα τό; Rom. xvi. τὸ; Phil..t. 1s. 9 λωφήσαντοΞ] λο- 
φήσαντος G. Io τῆς ὄντως] GS; vere (Ξε ὄντως, om. THs) L; zm plenum 
[B]; om. A. 12 γινομένην] (ἃ; factam B; st contigerit et evenerit super 
ipsum S; om. L[A]. 13 πλέον] So G, not πλεῖον as commonly given. 

προσοικειοῦσαν] The infin. adducere in L does not imply a v. 1. προσοικειῶσαι (as 


Zahn), but the genius of the Latin language would suggest the change. 


by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 11. 
20, p. 489). Tertullian distinguishes 
apostolict or apostolict vir from 
apostolt, using the term with the 
meaning ‘disciples of apostles’ (e.g. 
de Praescr. 32, adv. Marc. iv. 2), 
though Clement calls Barnabas ἀπό- 
στολος and ἀποστολικός in different 
places. Our martyrologist probably 
means ‘a true disciple of apostles in 
all respects.’ Comp. 7Zva//. inscr. 
ἐν ἀποστολικῷ χαρακτῆρι. 

2. παραγαγών] ‘having passed by, 
escaped, or perhaps ‘having turned 
aside, diverted.’ For this latter mean- 
ing see Herod. i. 91 οὐκ οἷόν τε ἐγένετο 
παραγαγεῖν μοίρας. 

3. τῶν πολλῶν] The persecution 
of Domitian, unlike that of Nero, 
consisted of repeated attacks; see 
Clem. Rom. 1 ras αἰφνιδίους καὶ ἐπαλ- 
λήλους [γινομ]ένας ἡμῖν συμφορὰς κ.τ.λ. 
with the note. There is no satisfac- 
tory evidence however that it extend- 
ed beyond Rome; and the martyrolo- 


gist’s accuracy therefore is not above 
suspicion. 

5. τόνῳ] ‘tension’, ‘inflexibility’ ; 
comp. Ps-Ign. ad Mar. 4 παρακαλῶν 
προσθεῖναι τῷ τόνῳ, where there is the 
same v. 1. πόνῳ as here. The word 
is put into the mouth of Ignatius 
himself in the JZex@a Dec. 20 ἐβόας, 
ἀθλητά: Μηδεὶς ὀχλείτω, μηδείς μου 
θρύψει τὸν τόνον (p. 141, ed. Venet. 
1863). Itis used by Plutarch to de- 
scribe the ‘atrocem animum Catonis’, 
Vit. Pomp. 44; comp. also Aristid. 
Op. I. p. 524 τὸν τόνον Ths γνώμης. 
Though the word might suggest a 
continuation of the nautical meta- 
phor of the previous clauses (comp. 
Herod. vii. 36), it is difficult to find 
an appropriate application of such 
an image here. 

II. τῆς τελείας x.7.A.] See Trall. 
5 οὐ..-παρὰ τοῦτο ἤδη καὶ μαθητής εἰμι, 
Rom. καὶ νῦν ἄρχομαι μαθητὴς εἶναι, 20. 4 
τότε ἔσομαι μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς κ-.τ.λ., With 
the notes on Zphes. 1, 3. 


480 


MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [1 


ὅθεν ἔτεσιν ὀλίγοις ἔτι παραμένων TH ἐκκλησίᾳ, [καὶ] 
λύχνου δίκην θεϊκοῦ τὴν ἑκάστου φωτίζων διάνοιαν διὰ 


τῆς τῶν γραφῶν ἐξηγήσεως, ἐπετύγχανεν τών κατ᾽ 


εὐχήν. 


11. Τραϊανοῦ γὰρ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐννάτῳ ἔτει τῆς 5 


αὐτοῦ βασιλείας ace μὰν ἐπὶ TH νίκη TH κατὰ 


CxvOav καὶ Δακῶν καὶ ἑτέρων πολλών ἐθνῶν καὶ νομί- 


> land \ ~ ε \ \ 
σαντος ἔτι λείπειν αὐτώ πρὸς πάσαν ὑποταγήν TO 


A oa \ iz 3 \ \ ΕΝ 
τῶν Χριστιανὼν θεοσεβες σύστημα; εἰ μὴ THY τῶν 


1 καὶ] GLA; om. S[B]. 


3 γραφῶν] LSB; θειῶν γραφῶν G; scripturarum 


sacrarum A. For ἐπετύγχανεν τῶν κατ᾽ εὐχὴν S has quae revelabantur ipst per precem 


(tn prece). 
(iv for ix). 
num in L* (but see Appx). 

A (thus giving both readings). 


multas et diversas 1,; diversarum B; def. A. 
9 εἰ μὴ] txt LSAB; 
δαιμόνων] G; daemonum suorum A; daemoniacam L; al. BS. 


add. decere ipst et 5. 


5. ἐννάτῳ ἔτει] See above, p. 448 
Sq. : 
7, Σκυθῶν καὶ Δακῶν] For the 
chronology of the Dacian Wars see 
Borghesi Geuvres IV. p. 121 sq, 
Henzen Azn. dell’ Inst. di Corrisp. 
Agcheol.. XXXIV. {ρ5 137 Sq, 1862, 
Mommsen Hermes 111. pp. 45, 130 56; 
Corp scr Lae. | Wil; ps7 (102) τῷ; 
Dierauer Geschichte Trajans p. 63 
sq (in Bidinger’s Unters. 5. Rom. 
Kaisergesch. vol. 1), besides Clinton 
and older writers, e.g. Tillemont 47- 
pereurs 11. pp. 553 sq, 560sq, Eckhel 
Doct. Num. Vi. p. 414. Recent dis- 
coveries have added to our knowledge 
on this subject; see above p. 404 sq. 
The First Dacian War began A.D. 
ΤΟΙ and ended A.D. 103 (or at the 
close of A.D. 102); the Second was 
waged during the years 105, 106, and 
(as Mommsen thinks) 107 also. 

The mention of the Scythians here 
in connexion with the Dacians is 


5 yap] GLA; δὲ (vero) SB. 
The sentence is translated fost novem annos in S, and fost guartum an- 
7 Δακῶν] GSB; thraces L; dacos (vel thraces) 


ἐννάτῳ] GSAB; quarto L 


ἑτέρων πολλῶν] GS (comp. M); alteras 
᾿ pouicavros| txt GLA[B]; 
preef. καὶ G. τών 
το ἕλοιτο] 


borrowed from Euseb. Chron, I. p. 
162 ‘Trajanus de Dacis et Scythis 
triumphavit. They are not men- 
tioned, so far as I am aware, in any 
histories or monuments relating to 
the period. In the Metaphrast’s 
Acts of Ignatius they displace the 
Dacians, who disappear altogether. 
See above, p. 410, and comp. Hodgkin 
Ltaly and her Invaders 1. p. 84 sq. 

ἑτέρων πολλῶν ἐθνῶν] This is a 
rhetorical flourish; but during the 
Second Dacian War (A.D. 105 or 
106) Palmas the governor subjugated 
Arabia Petrzea and added it to the 
dominions of Trajan, Dion Cass. 
Ixvill. 14 (comp. Chrox. Pasch, I. p. 
472); see above, p. 406 sq. 

Ὁ: ef μὴ κιτιλ Euseb. ZH. Z. x. 8 
εἰ μὴ τοῖς δαίμοσι θύειν αἱροῖντο. 
See however the upper note. 

15. διάγοντα x.r.A.] It is clear that 
our hagiologist places the Armenian 
expedition and consequent residence 


Ο 


π] 


δαιμόνων Τἕλοιτο λατρείαν μετὰ πάντων ὑπεισιέναι 
τῶν ἐθνῶν, διωγμὸν ἐὐπεόμεμει] ἀπειλήσα[ντο]ς, πάντας 
τοὺς εὐσεβώς ζῶντας ἢ ἢ θύειν ἢ τελευτῶν κατηνάγκαζεν. 
τότε τοίνυν φοβηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς "Αντίοχεων ἐκκλησίας 
ὁ γον αίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ σϑραειαάσης ἑκουσίως ἤγετο 


πρὸς Fpaiavon διάγοντα μὲν Κατ, ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν 


ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 481 


κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν, απουδαζοντα δὲ ἐπὶ 


καὶ Πάρθους. 


ὡς δὲ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔστη 


[τοῦ βασιλέως] Τίς εἶ, κακοδαῖμον, τὰς 


᾿λρμενίαν 
Τραϊανοῦ 


ἡμετέρας 


G; cogeret LSA; inclinaret B; so that all the versions would seem to have had 


another reading, possibly ἐπείγοι. 


(which are too loose to allow any inference); def. B. 


comminans (as if ἀπειλήσας) L. 
12 τοὺς εὐσεβῶς ζῶντας] G; 


wgnatius S* (as a v. 1.) AB. 


ipsos det cultores existentes (αὐτοὺς εὐσεβεῖς ὄντας) L; 
det cultores B; christianos A; sanctos 8. 


18 τοῦ βασιλέως] GLB; om. S[A]. 


11 ὑπομένειν] G3 om. L; dub. SA 
ἀπειλήσαντος) G; 
πάντας] txt LSAB; pref. ὁ φόβος G. 

14 στρατιώτης] txt GL; add. 
Add. 


travanus dixit LB; add. dixit illi (traianus) S* ; add. et senatu, interrogabat eum rex 


et dicebat A (see above, p. 37 


of Trajan at Antioch immediately 
after the end of the Dacian Wars. 
This however is not consistent with 
the known facts. The Dacian Wars 
ended A.D. 107 at the latest; while 
the Eastern expedition did not com- 
mence till the autumn A.D. 113. 
The interval of six or seven years 
was spent by the emperor at Rome 
or the neighbourhood. On the at- 
tempts which have been made to 
interpolate an earlier expedition to 
the East and consequent residence 
at Antioch in this interval, see above 
Ρ. 407 sq. 

18. κακοδαῖμον] ‘wretch’, ‘mise- 
rable creature’; a common mode of 
address. The word however pro- 
perly means ‘one possessed by an 
evil genius or fate’, especially when 
this evil genius urges him on to his 
ruin by infatuation; comp. Dion 
Chrysost. Oraz. xxill. p. 514 ἀπόκριναί 


ΠΟΥ͂Ν ET, 


2) on G. 


a c ~ ” 3A , 
μοι ὃ TL ἡγῶμαι ἄνθρωπον εὐδαίμονα 
3 Φ 3 erne \ > , > 
εἶναι. A. dp ov ὁ δαιμὼν ἀγαθός ἐστιν, 
τοῦτον εὐδαίμονα εἶναι φῆς, ov δὲ μοχ- 
θηρός, κακοδαίμονα ; and again p. 515 
/ > ΄σ 
ἀναγκὴ φάσκειν εκεῖνον 
= , ΄ \ , 
κακῷ δαίμονι συνεζευγμένον καὶ λατρεύ- 
οντα, Arist. Pluz. 850 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων 
, 
«καὶ μυριάκις... 


κακοδαίμονα 


..Kal τρὶς κακοδαίμων... 
οὕτω πολυφόρῳ συγκέκραμαι δαίμονι. 
See also Gataker on Μ. Antonin. 
vii. 17. In this sense it is taken up 
by Ignatius in his reply. ‘Ignatius’, 
says Leclerc, ‘vocem Christianorum 
more interpretatur, quasi Trajanus 
κακοδαίμονα dixisset ἐνεργούμενον, ut 
loquamur, ecclesiastico more, seu a 
malo daemone obsessum.’ but the 
passages which I have quoted show 
that he is hardly justified in adding 
‘qua in re, quod cum pace sanctis- 
simorum manium dictum esto, non- 
nulla tamen cavillatio fuisse videtur.’ 
Κακοδαίμων is the direct antithesis to 


31 


MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. | [11 


ae ς / \ ~ iy Ω , 
σπουδάζων διατάξεις ὑπερβαίνειν μετὰ TOU καὶ ETEPOUS 


/ 9: 
Ἴγνατιος εἶπεν" 


482 


ἀναπείθειν ἵνα κακῶς ἀπολοῦνται: 
7 ~ / A > / 
Οὐδεὶς θεοφόρον ἀποκαλεῖ κακοδαίμονα: apertnKkact 


\ \ 3 \ “ / ω QO -~ \ ὃ / 
yap μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῶν δούλων τοῦ Θεοῦ Ta δαιμονια. 


3 ε ᾽ / ? / \ \ 
εἰ δέ, OTL τούτοις ἐπαχθής εἰμι, κακὸν μὲ πρὸς Tous 5 


δαίμονας ἀποκαλεῖς, συνομολογῶ: Χριστὸν γὰρ ἔχων 

/ / \ / I 5) , 
ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα τὰς τούτων καταλύω ἐπιβουλας. 
Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Καὶ τίς ἐστιν θεοφόρος ; ᾿Ιγνάτιος 
ἀπεκρίνατο: ‘O Χριστὸν ἔχων ἐν στέρνοις. Τραϊανὸς 
εἶπεν: Ἡμεῖς οὖν σοι δοκοῦμεν κατὰ νοῦν μὴ ἔχειν 
θεούς, οἷς καὶ χρώμεθα συμμάχοις πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους: 
᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Τὰ δαιμόνια τῶν ἐθνῶν θεοὺς προσα- 
γορεύεις πλανώμενος" εἷς γάρ ἐστιν Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας 
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν Kat 
πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ εἷς Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς 


I ὑπερβαίνειν] ὑπερβένειν G. μετὰ τοῦ κ-.τ.λ.] cum et alteros persuadere L; 
μετὰ τὸ k.T.X. G3 the other versions SAB probably had τοῦ, for they render 
loosely e¢ alits persuades. 4 μακρὰν] Zahn; Jonge LB; longo intervalloS; om. 
G, The procul sunt of A is doubtful, and possibly represents ἀφεστήκασι alone. 

5 εἰ δέ] GLSA3 sco quidem (οἶδα) B. κακόν] txt L[S][A]; preef. καὶ G; 
preef. propterea B. 6 éxwv...7as...katadvw] GLAB; ἔχω...τὸν... καταλύοντα S. 
Bas edule orl M sal. . JA, 14 τὸν οὐρανὸν] GLB; pref. ταῦτα 
πάντα κατὰ S; def. A. τό αὐτοῦ] LSB; τοῦ θεοῦ G (comp. M); def. A. 

οὗ] οὐ G. φιλίας] amicitia L; amicitiam B; in amore S; amoris A; 


βασιλείας G (comp. M). 18 τὴν] txt LSABM ; add. ἐμὴν G. 


θεοφόρος. The word is naturalised in 
earlier English writers; e.g. Shake- 
speare Richard the Third i. 3 ‘Hie 
thee to hell for shame and leave 
this world, Thou cacodzemon.’ 

3. θεοφόρον] ‘one who carries God 
within him’: see the notes on Ephes. 
inscr., 9. The word should not be 
treated directly as a proper name 
here, but is general, as the context 
shows,=Twa τῶν τὸν Θεὸν ἐν καρδίᾳ 
φορούντων. 

10, κατὰ νοῦν] “77: our mind’, equi- 


valent to ἐν στέρνοις, ἐν καρδίᾳ, which 
occur in the context. 

18. τὸν ἀνασταυρώσαντα] ‘who sus- 
pended on the cross, who crucified’; 
comp. I Pet. 11. 24 τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν 
αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ. 
The preposition in ἀνασταυροῦν (as in 
ἀνασκολοπίζειν) always has this mean- 
ing in classical writers (e.g. Herod. 
vi. 30, Thuc. i. 110, etc.), and so also 
in Josephus B:F. iiv14s0) ve rae 
Ant. ii. 5. 3, xi. 6. το; see Bleek on 
Heb. vi. 6. The Greek and other 


WW 


11] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 


483 


3 “ ε 7 ὯΝ ~ 7 “. 
αὐτου ὁ μονογενής, οὗ τῆς φιλίας ὀναίμην. Τραϊανὸς 
ὯΝ \ / / ᾽ 
εἶπεν Tov σταυρωθέντα λέγεις ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου; 
? / 5 \ ς 
ἰγνάτιος εἶπεν: Τὸν ἀνασταυρώσαντα τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
\ ΄σ 7 ε ΄σ \ ~ 
METa TOV TaUTHS EUPETOU Kat πασαν καταδικάσαντα 
4 7 ε \ \ / τ a > > 
ο δαιμονικὴν κακίαν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας τῶν αὐτὸν ἐν καρδίᾳ 
/ “. \ > \ ἊΣ > ε > a 
PopovyTwy. Tpatavos EL7TTEV* Cu OUV €V EaAUTW φορεῖς 
\ / 2 / > 
τὸν Χριστὸν; ‘lyvatios εἶπεν: Ναί: γέγραπται yap, 
ENOIKHCW ἐν AYTOIC Kai ἐμπεριπατήοω. Τραϊανὸς 
απτε (A - | / / \ " « ~ 
~nvatro: ‘lyvatiov προσεταξἕαμεν, Tov ἐν ἑαυτῷ 
/ ἐξ \ ? / 
5 λέγοντα περιφέρειν τὸν εσταυρωμένον, δέσμιον ὑπὸ 
΄σ ͵ sf \ \ 
στρατιωτῶν γενόμενον ἄγεσθαι Tapa τὴν μεγάλην 
Ῥ / > / / > of \ > 
wunv, βρῶμα γενησόμενον θηρίων εἰς ὄψιν καὶ εἰς 
Vd ΄σ / / e/ / 3 / 
τέρψιν τοῦ δῆμον. ταύτης ὁ ἅγιος μάρτυς ἐπακούσας 
΄σ 3 , \ ΄σ΄ / ᾽ > 
τῆς ἀποφάσεως μετὰ χαρᾶς ἐβόησεν Εὐχαριστῶ σοι, 
20 κακίαν] LS; malitias A; πλάνην καὶ κακίαν G; al. Β. 21 φορεῖς} 
φέρεις G; gestas B; ctircumfers (περιφέρεις) LA (comp. Μ) ; amictus es...e¢ indutus 
S. The versions BS seem to require φορεῖς, which accordingly I have substituted 
for φέρεις. 22 τὸν Χριστόν] LSABM; τὸν σταυρωθέντα G. The vy. Il. 
περιφέρεις and τὸν σταυρωθέντα seem both to have been suggested for the sake of 
conformity to the sentence below, τὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγοντα περιφέρειν τὸν ἐσταυρω- 
26 στρατιωτῶν] GLAB; ῥωμαίων S. μεγάλην] This 
epithet appears in all our authorities, GLSAB. 27 els ὄψιν καὶ eis τέρψιν] 
in spectaculum et in oblectationem A; delectentur (delectetur) videntes quid acciderit et 


μένον. 


5; 271 spectaculum (εἰς ὄψιν) L; εἰς τέρψιν G[M]; pro avocatione B. 


GLSB (comp. M): om. A. 

ancient commentators seem to be 
agreed in giving a different sense, 
‘crucify anew,’ to the word in Heb. 
l. c., but this meaning is entirely 
without a parallel in earlier or con- 
temporary usage. 

«ς A ‘ , = 

20. ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας] Rom. xvi. 20 

, \ “ ς | \ / 
συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας 
ὑμών. 

23. evouxyow| Taken word for 
word from 2 Cor. vi. 16, where it is 
a loose quotation from Levit. xxvi. 
II, 12, καὶ θήσω τὴν σκήνην pov ἐν 
Co at ee / 2 (a Nc 
υμῖν.. καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν vuly; COMP. 


28 μάρτυς] 


Ps-Ign. Hero 6 σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει; 
ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκητήριον κιτιλ. See also 
Ephes. 15 ὡς αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικοῦν- 
τος, ἵνα ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοί, with the 
note. 

25. περιφέρειν κιτ.λ.] Comp. 2 Cor. 
iv. 10 πάντοτε THY νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
ἐν τῷ σώματι περιφέροντες. ‘Trajan is 
made to speak the language of 5. 
Paul. 

29. ἀποφάσεως) ‘sentence’ (from 
ἀποφαίνω), as e.g, Dion Cass. xlvi. 6 
τὰς τῶν δικαστῶν ἀποφάσεις ; Comp. 


Mart. Rom. 9. 
31—2 


f ? 


MARTYRDOM OF 8S. IGNATIUS. [11 


ε / ~ 3 i? a 
δέσποτα, ὅτι pe τελείᾳ TH πρός σε ἀγάπῃ τιμῆσαι 
~ / / / 
κατηξίωσας, τῷ ἀποστόλῳ σου Παύλῳ δέσμοις συν- 


484 


σ- ~ \ 3 7 
δήσας σιδηροῖς. ταῦτα εἰπὼν καὶ μετ’ εὐφροσύνης 
/ ls ~ 3 
περιθέμενος τὰ δεσμά, ἐπευξάμενος πρότερον TH ἐκ- 
/ \ 7 4 , 
KAnola καὶ ταύτην παραθέμενος μετὰ δακρύων TH Κυρίῳ, 
9 ΄σ / \ 
ὥσπερ κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἀγέλης καλῆς ἡγούμενος, ὑπο 
va / if 7 
θηριώδους στρατιωτικῆς δεινότητος συνηρπάζετο, θηρίοις 
3 Ψ 9 \ \ e , > / \ , 
ὠμοβόροις ἐπὶ τὴν Ρώμην ἀπαχθησόμενος πρὸς Ropar. 


dell, 


3 / “ / \ \ / > 
ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦ πάθους, κατελθὼν amo ᾿Αντιοχείας εἰς 


\ =~ / if \ ro 
Μετὰ πολλῆς τοίνυν προθυμίας Kat χαρᾶς, 


\ / 93 ~ sf ~ / \ \ 
τὴν (ελευκείαν ἐκεῖθεν εἴχετο τοῦ πλοῦς: Kal προσχὼν 
UA ΄σ / / \ ΄ 
μετὰ πολὺν κάματον TH Ομυρναίων πόλει, σὺν πολλῆ 
é ‘ 


΄σ ΄σ xf \ e/ / 
χαρᾷ καταβὰς τῆς νηὸς ἔσπευδε Tov ἅγιον [ἰολύκαρ- 


I τῇ πρός σε ἀγάπῃ] GL; amore tuo SA, and zz tua dilectione B (as if they 
had read τῇ σῇ ἀγάπῃ). 2 συνδήσας] G; et ligasti [S]; colligari (corrupted 
into collocari) L* (probably reading συνδῆσαι, just as ἀποδοῦναι in § 4 is translated 
reddit), and similarly alijgart B, ligari A. 4 ἐπευξάμενος] G; oransque L. 
A connecting particle is also supplied by SAB in different ways, but they count 


for nothing in such a case. 


6. ὥσπερ κριὸς ἐπίσημος) Mart. 
Polyc. 14 προσδεθείς, ὥσπερ κριὸς ἐπί- 
σημος ἐκ μεγάλου ποιμνίου εἰς προσ- 
φοράν, from which passage our mar- 
tyrologist has probably borrowed 
the image, though the application 
is different. 

7. θηριώδους στρατιωτικῆς κ.τ.λ.] 
Rom. 5 θηριομαχῶ... δεδεμένος λεοπάρ- 
δοις, ὅ ἐστιν στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα. 

8. ὠμοβόύροις] ‘carnivorous’, as e.g. 
Philo de Som. ii. 13 (p. 670) ἄρκτον 
τις ἢ déovra...€£aypiaiver καὶ ἀνερεθίζει, 
ὅπως θοίναν καὶ εὐωχίαν ὠμοβόροις ἀνη- 
λεεστάτην εὐτρεπίσῃ ἑαυτόν: and so 
ὠμοβορία Tatian ad Graec. 2. But 
αἱμοβόροις is unobjectionable in it- 
self (comp. e.g. Aristot. Azst. Az. 
Vill, ΤΙ, p. 596, 4 Macc. x. 17), and 


8 ὠμοβόροις] craudivorantibus L* ; αἱμοβόροις ἃ ; 


perhaps should be retained. It oc- 
curs in the Mart. Rom. 7; comp. 
Euseb. 1. £. vill. 7 ἐν θηρσὶν aipoBo- 
pos. The same v. 1. αἱμοβόρον, ὠμο- 
βόρον, appears in Alciphr. ΚΦ 2252. iii. 
25: 

10. τοῦ πάθους] i.e. not ‘of his 
own martyrdom’, but ‘of the Passion 
of Christ’, as a gloss in the Syriac 
translation has correctly interpreted 
it; comp. Rom. 6 ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μι- 
μητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ pov. 

κατελθὼν κιτ.λ.} As Acts ΧΙ. 4 
κατῆλθον εἰς [τὴν] Σελεύκειαν, ἐκεῖθέν τε 
ἀπέπλευσαν. 

12. τῇ Σμυρναίων πόλει] On the 
impossibility of reconciling this sea 
voyage from Seleucia to Smyrna 
with the notices in the epistles see 


5 σασθαι: 


Oo 


u1] 


ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 


485 


\ , ’ \ 
mov τὸν Cuvpvaiwy ἐπίσκοπον τὸν συνακροατὴν θεά- 


4 / \ / \ 3 7 
ἐγεγόνεισαν γὰρ πάλαι μαθηταὶ ᾿Ιωάννου. 


fe \ \ > ~ 
παρ᾽ ω καταχθεὶς καὶ σνευματικωὼν αὐτῷ κοινωνήσας 


7 \ ~ ld / 
χαρισμάτων Kal τοῖς δεσμοῖς ἐγκαυχώμενος, παρεκάλει 


~ ΄σ 3 ΄σ / , \ ΄σ ΄σ 
συναθλεῖν TH αὐτοῦ προθέσει, μάλιστα μὲν κοινῇ πᾶσαν 


> / ὃ =. \ \ e/ \ “" ? / 
ἐκκλησίαν (ἐδεξιοῦντο yap Toy ἅγιον διὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων 


\ / qn 
Kal πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων αἱ τῆς ᾿λσίας πόλεις 


Ve us / 7 > / \ , ᾽ 
καὶ ἐκκλησίαι, TAVTWY ἐπειγομένων προς αὐτον, εἴ πως 


7 7 / ΄σ΄ 
μερος χαρισματος λάβωσι πνευματικοῦ), ἐξαιρέτως δὲ 


\ e/ ° vo ΡΞ 
τὸν ἅγιον Πολύκαρπον, ἵνα διὰ τῶν θηρίων θᾶττον 


> MY ~ ͵ / 3 ~ ~ 7 
ἀφανὴς τῷ κόσμῳ γενόμενος ἐμφανισθῆ τῷ προσώπῳ 
έ 


τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


crudelissimts (Ὁ) [B] (which paraphrases); om. A. The equivalent for θηρίοις ὠμο- 


βόροις in S is NIW Ni ferae voraces. 


βοράν] Boppay G. I2 με- 


τὰ πολὺν κάματον] GLB; cum (2) multo labore (μετὰ πολλοῦ καμάτου) AS*. 


Σμυρναίων] σμυρνέων G; zmyrnacorum A; zmyrnan.Ss. 
nacorum LB; σμυρνέον (sic) G; zmyrnae [SJA. 
pref. τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου GA; add. afpostoli B; pref. afostoli S. 
αθλεῖν] GLSA; tre ad (συνελθεῖν ἢ) B. 
21 ef πως] G; ut fortasse SA; ut B; st quo aliquam L (as if εἴ 


LA. 


πού (Ὁ) Tt). 


above pp. 232, 241, 251, 265, 266, 267; 
comp. p. 211. 

14. τὸν συνακροατὴν] See the note 
on § I Ἰωάννου μαθητής. The dis- 
parity of age is an additional objec- 
tion to the statement here, and the 
opening of the Epistle to Polycarp 
implies that Ignatius had not seen 
him before his visit to Smyrna. The 
Menawa Feb. 23 say of Polycarp, 
οὗτος ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ θεολόγῳ ᾿Ιωάννῃ 
καὶ εὐαγγελιστῇ σὺν ᾿Ιγνατίῳ τῷ θεο- 
φύρῳ. 

18. συναθλεῖν κιτ.λ.] See his own 
language in Polyc. 6 συγκοπιᾶτε ἀλ- 
λήλοις, συναθλεῖτε. 

πᾶσαν ἐκκλησίαν] ‘every church’, 
Rom. 4 Ἐγω γράφω πάσαις ταῖς 
ἐκκλησίαις καὶ ἐντέλλομαι πᾶσιν, ὅτι 


14 Σμυρναίων] 5717}7- 
15 ᾿Ιωάννου] txt 1, (comp. Μ); 
18 συν- 


20 καὶ prim.] GS[B]; om. 


ἐγὼ ἑκὼν ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποθνήσκω x.T.A. 
It could hardly mean ‘all the 
Church’, as Leclerc takes it; see 
the note on Ephes. 12 ἐν πάσῃ ἐπι- 
στολῇ. , 

19. διὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων κιτ.λ. For 
the preposition comp. § 4 διὰ τῶν 
ἡγουμένων below, and see the note 
on Magn. 2 διὰ Aapa. See also the 
note on E£phes. τ ἀπείληφα. 

22. μέρος χαρίσματος x.t.A.] Rom. 
i, 11 ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευ- 
ματικόν. 

ἐξαιρέτως] As in Smyrna. 7, Trall. 
12; comp. Phzlad. 9. 

24. ἀφανὴς x«.t.d.] Suggested by 
Rom. 3 
κόσμῳ μὴ φαίνωμαι k.t.d., 2b. 4 ὅτε οὐδὲ 
τὸ σῶμά μου ὁ κόσμος ὄψεται. 


, \ πὰ “ 
καὶ ΤΌΤΕ πιστος εἰναι, οΤαν. 


486 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [iv 


\ ~ « ν᾽ \ e/ 
IV. Καὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔλεγεν, [καὶ] οὕτως διε- 
lon 5 7 \ \ \ 
μαρτύρατο, TOTOUTOV ETTEKTELYWY THY προς Χριστον 
5 ε 3 ΄σ / 5 Ud ~ 
ἀγάπην, ὡς οὐρανοῦ μέλλειν ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι διὰ τῆς 
΄σ € / \ ΄σ ~ / e \ a 
καλῆς ὁμολογίας Kal τῆς τῶν συνευχομένων UTED τῆς 
> » ΄ > ΄σ \ x \ ~ 
ἀθλήσεως σπουδῆς, ἀποδοῦναι δὲ τὸν μισθὸν ταῖς ἐκκλη- 
΄ ς If 2 ~ \ ~ , 
σίαις ταῖς ὑπαντησάσαις αὐτῷ Ola τῶν ἤγουμεένων, 
/ 3 / / \ / 
γραμμάτων εὐχαρίστων ἐκπεμφθέντων προς αὐτας, 
\ 9 9 ~ \ / > / 
πνευματικὴν MET εὐχῆς καὶ παραινέσεως ἀποσταζόντων 
/ ΄σ΄ \ 7 ς ~ ee lon 
χάριν. τοιγαρουν τοὺς TavTas ορων εὐνοϊκῶς διακει- 
U \ 3 ΙΆ \ / ς ~ 3 / 
[MEVOUS περί AUTOV, φοβηθεὶς μὴ ποτε ἡ τῆς ἀδελφότητος 
στοργὴ τὴν πρὸς Κύριον αὐτοῦ σπουδὴν ἐκκόψ, An 
PYn τή ρ ρ ῆ η, καλῆς 
3 / 5.1... 75 r - / τ \ \ 
ἀνεῳχθείσης αὐτῷ θύρας TOU μαρτυρίου, οἷα προς τῆν 
5) / 3 / G / ς / 
ἐκκλησίαν ἐπιστέλλει Ρωμαίων ὑποτετακται. 


[Here follows the Epistle to the Romans.] 


i Ket sec. Go; om. Ls al. A}; def. B. διεμαρτύρατο] GL; διεμαρτύρετο S; 
al. A; def. B. 2 πρὸς Χριστὸν] G; circa (περὶ) christum L; christi [S]A; 
def. B. 3 μέλλεν] G; guidem (μὲν) L; def. B. Zahn accepts μὲν, but μέλ- 
New (or μέλλων) seems to be recognised by the paraphrases, δέ spes [cords] ejus (erat) 
ut assequeretur caclestia S; donec fret mihi caelestia apprehendere A. 6 αὐτῷ] 
GSA; christ L* (the mss); def. B. ἡγουμένων) L wrongly connects this 
with the following words and translates, per praecedentes literas, thus referring it 
to the collection of letters to which the Martyrology is appended. 


7 εὐχα- 

3. τῆς καλῆς ὁμολογίας] The ex- φιλοτιμίας] ‘Public entertainments’, 
pression is taken from 1 Tim. vi. 12, ‘shows’. The word denotes a ‘dis- 
13, in which latter verse it is used play of public spirit’, ‘an act of 
of our Lord’s witness before Pilate. munificence’, ‘a benefaction’ (e.g. 


ὃ, ἀποσταζόντων χάριν] Prov. x. C. 2. G. τοῦ), whether in the form 
32 χείλη ἀνδρῶν δικαίων ἀποστάζει of a public building (Plut. ΚΖ. 
χάριτας, quoted by Zahn. So we Dion. 29 τὴν φιλοτιμίαν καὶ τὸ ἀνάθημα 
meet with στάζειν χάριν or χάριτας τοῦ τυράννου), or of a largess, or of 
elsewhere. a public spectacle or entertainment, 

12. dvewxOeions κιτ.λ.} 1 Cor. xvi. as the case may be. For the last of 
0, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. iv. 3; comp. these meanings comp. Plut. V4. Nic. 
Apoc. iii. 8. 3 χορηγίαις ἀνελάμβανε καὶ γυμνασι- 

15. καταρτίσας] ‘have quieted’, αρχίαις ἑτέραις τε τοιαύταις φιλοτιμίαις 
literally ‘adjusted’; see the note on τὸν δῆμον κ-ιτιλ., Vit. Phoc. 31 φιλο- 
Ephes. 2. τιμίας τινὰς ἔπεισε καὶ δαπάνας ὑποστῆ- 

18. χριστοφόρος] See the note on ναὶ γενόμενον ἀγωνοθέτην, Lucian. 
Ephes. 9. Asin. 53 ἐν n τὰς φιλοτιμίας ἦγεν 


μι 


v] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 487 


5 V. Katapticas τοίνυν, ws ἠβούλετο, τοὺς ἐν 
“Ρώμῃ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄκοντας διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, οὕτως 
ἀναχθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς Ομύρνης (κατεπείγετο γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν 
στρατιωτῶν ὁ χριστοφόρος φθάσαι τὰς φιλοτιμίας ἐν 
τῇ μεγάλη πόλει, ἵνα ἐπ᾿ ὄψεσι τοῦ δήμου Ρωμαίων 

> θηρσὶν ἀγρίοις παραδοθεὶς τοῦ στεφάνου τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
διὰ τοιαύτης ἀθλήσεως ἐπιτύχη) προσέσχε τῆ Τρωάδι. 
εἶτα ἐκεῖθεν καταχθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν Νεάπολιν, διὰ Φιλιπ- 


πησίων παρώδευεν Μακεδονίαν πεζῇ καὶ τὴν "Ηπειρον 


ρίστων] S; εὐχαριστῶν GL; εὐχαριστίαν A; def. Β. S translates the whole 
clause οὐ deduxerunt eum cum (A) literis gratiarum-actionis with its characteristic 
looseness, as if it were ἐκπέμποντες for ἐκπεμφθέντων ; but if it had read διὰ ypap- 
μάτων (as Zahn supposes and as he himself reads), it would probably have ren- 
dered by 73°, not by the simple 3. 8 ἀποσταζόντων] GLA] (but rendered 
paraphrastically); amplexantes (ἀσπαζομένων) L; communicantes-invicem et addentes 
[5]: def. B: το περὶ] G[A]; ad (πρὸς) L; adversus 5. 16 ἄκον- 
tas] GSA; absentes (ἀπόντας) L; def. B. 18 στρατιωτῶν] GLA[M]; 
ῥωμαίων S; def. B. ἐν TH μεγάλῃ πόλει] LA; ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ῥώμῃ G3; ro- 
manorum S; def. B. 20 τῆς δικαιοσύνης διὰ τοιαύτης ἀθλήσεως] justitiae per 
tale certamen LA; justitiae in (A) hoc certamine 5; τῆς ἀθλήσεως G (the words δικαιο- 
σύνης διὰ τοιαύτης have been omitted by homceoteleuton); def. B. 22 dud 
Φιλιππησίων] per philippenses L; per philippesios B, but with a v. 1. phil- 
ippos; διὰ φιλίππων GA(?)[S] (and so M). 23 πείῇ] wefi G (not περὶ, 
as it has been hitherto read). Critics have restored πεΐῇ from the versions, which 


all (LSBA) read thus; and so too M. 


ἐμὸς δεσπότης. With this meaning 
it corresponds to the Latin munera; 
see Lactant. Div. Just. vi. 20 ‘vena- 
tiones quae vocantur munera’, with 
Lenglet-Dufresnoy’s note; and Eu- 
seb. Mart. Pal. 6 ras φιλοτίμους θέας 
οὐ πλεῖόν τι καὶ παράδοξον χρῆν ὑπάρξαι 
ταῖς φιλοτιμίαις, where, as here, the 
subject is a martyrdom. There is an 
approach to this sense in Demosth. 
de Cor. p. 312 χορηγεῖν, τριηραρχεῖν, 
εἰσφέρειν, μηδεμιᾶς φιλοτιμίας μήτε 
ἰδίας μήτε δημοσίας ἀπολείπεσθαι. 

22. Νεάπολιν] As S. Paul does in 
Acts xvi. 11. See the language of Ig- 
natius himself Polyc. ὃ διὰ τὸ ἐξαίφ- 


ms πλεῖν με ἀπὸ Τρωάδος εἰς Νεάπολιν. 


Neapolis, though the port town of 
Philippi, belonged itself to Thrace 
rather than to Macedonia; see PAz/- 
ippians pp. 49, 50. 

διὰ Φιλιππησίων] Polycarp men- 
tions the stay of Ignatius at Philippi 
in his letter to this church § 9 (comp. 
§ 1). The spurious letters to the 
Tarsians (§ 10), to the Antiochenes 
(§ 14), and to Hero (§ 8), profess to 
have been written from Philippi; 
and the pseudo-Ignatius writes after- 
wards to the Philippians themselves 
from the neighbourhood of Rhegium 
(PAzlipp. 15). 

23. τὴν “Hrewpov| The word is 
probably intended as a proper name 


MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [v 


- > ~ 5 fd \ 
ov ἐν τοῖς παραθαλαττίοις vnos 


488 


THY πρὸς Koreoapvay 
ἐπιτυχὼν ἔπλει τὸ ᾿λδριατικὸν πέλαγος, κἀκεῖθεν ἐπιβὰς 
τοῦ Τυρρηνικοῦ καὶ “μα ΩΝ νήσους τε καὶ πόλεις, 
ὑποδειχθέντων τῷ ἁγίῳ Ποτιόλων, αὐτὸς μὲν ἐξελθεῖν 





> ~ > / 
ἔσπευδεν, κατ᾽ ἴχνος paisa’ ἐθέλων τοῦ ἀποστόλου 5 


[ Παύλου | ws δὲ ἐπιπεσὸν βίαιον πνεῦμα οὐ TUPEX OPEL 
τῆς νηὸς ἐκ πρύμνης ἐπευγομένης, mi τς τὴν ἐν 
ἐκείνῳ τῷ τόπῳ τῶν ἀδελφών ἀγάπην οὕτω παρέπλει. 
έ έ 
΄σ 3 > ς , \ \ ~ Ses Ey 3 αν 
τοιγαροῦν ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ νυκτὶ τῇ αὐτή, οὐρίοις ave 
/ « a \ Sf ? , 
LOLS προσχρησάμενοι, ἡμεῖς μὲν AKOVTES ἀπηγόμεθα 


1 οὗἹ] caus L (wrongly translated, as if Epidamnus had been masc.); δέ 22 [A]; 


atque exinde [B]; tunc S; om. G. 


et civitates LS; εἰ tnsulas multas (νήσους τε odds?) A; def. B. 


Nov] GLA[B]; om. 5. 
S; ter perficiebamus A; al. B. 


here. As such, it would still have a 
tendency to retain the definite ar- 
ticle. 

4. ὑποδειχθέντων] Acts xxi. 3 dva- 
φάναντες (V. ἀναφανέντες) δὲ τὴν 
Κύπρον. So aperire, Virg. Aen. ili. 
206, 275; and of the opposite, 2d, 111. 
291 ‘Phaeacum abscondimus arces.’ 

Ποτιόλων] The word Ποτίολοι is 
the proper Greek form (e.g. C. #. G. 
5853, an inscription at Puteoli it- 
self) corresponding to the Latin Pu- 
teoli, 
(Strabo v. 4, p. 245, ἀπὸ τῶν φρεάτων): 
but its ancient Greek name was 
Δικαιάρχεια. There seems to have 
been a vulgar tendency however to 
insert a vy into the name in Greek ; 
and in this form it became a fertile 
source of legend. Thus it is written 
Ποντιόλη in Act. Petr. et Paul. 12, 14 
Geers Ἐπ Tisch.) ‘anda miracles 
founded on this bad spelling, τὴν πό- 
Aw ἐκείνην τὴν καλουμένην Ποντιόλην 
πεποντισμένην, ANd again ἐκ τῆς πό- 
λεως Ποντιόλης τῆς ποντισθείσης 


which is derived from 22 262 


3 νήσους τε καὶ modes] G; txsulas 


6 Παύ- 


το ἀπηγόμεθα] G; abducimur (ἀπαγόμεθα) L; thamus 
16 στρατιῶται] GLA; ῥωμαῖοι S (as before, 


ἀπήγγειλαν τῷ Καίσαρι eis Ῥώμην ὅτι 
Ποντιόλη ἐποντίσθη. So here also 
in the Bollandist Acts § 5 the passage 
appears ‘Et cum inde ascenderet ad 
Tyranicum, ostensum est sancto Pon- 
tiolo episcopo, quod ipse transiturus 
esset ; et obviam ei exiens festinabat 
sequi ejus vestigia, tanquam apostoli 
Pauli; et non potuit sequi, spiritu 
navis prorae incumbente: et Ignatius 
beatificans in eo loco fratrem suum 
in dilectione ita navigavit.’ Thus the 
seaport is transformed into a person, 
the bishop apparently of Tyranicum 
(= Τυρρηνικὸν “ἴῃ6 Tyrrhene Sea’), who 
puts out to sea to follow Ignatius, 
but is prevented by adverse winds 
and receives a passing benediction 
from the saint on ship-board. There 
must have been a corrupt reading 
τῷ ἁγίῳ Ποντιόλῳ, and this S. Pon- 
tiolus was made into a bishop by 
some scribe to account for his sudden 
appearance on the scene. The Bol- 
landist editors are content to sug- 
gest Puteolono (Puteolano?), and 


Ic 


v] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 489 


στένοντες ἐπὶ TH ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν μέλλοντι χωρισμῷ τοῦ 
, 
δικαίου γίνεσθαι, τῷ δὲ κατ᾽ εὐχὴν ἀπέβαινεν σπεύδοντι 
θάττον ἀναχωρῆσαι τοῦ κόσμου, ἵνα φθάση πρὸς ὃν 
ἠγάπησεν Κύριον. καταπλεύσας γοῦν εἰς τοὺς λιμένας 
Ρωμαίων, μελλούσης λήγειν τῆς ἀκαθάρτου φιλοτιμίας, 


ε A ΄σ ε \ ΄σ 7 of 
οἱ Mev στρατιωται ὑπὲρ τῆς βραδύτητος ησχαλλον, 


6 δια 7 7 yi ε 
O δὲ ΕΠ  σΚΟΤΓΟς χαιρῶὼν κατεσειγουσιν ὑπήκουεν. 


VI. 


᾿Εκεῖθεν γοῦν ἕωθεν ὁρμηθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ Kad- 


ουμένου Πόρτου (διεπεφήμιστο γὰρ ἤδη τὰ κατὰ τὸν 


for we should doubtless read S939 for 8D). 
ὑπήκουσεν, as it has hitherto been read), and so obediebat L. 
excitati (expergefacti) inde primo mane A; 


ὁρμηθέντες] see below; 


17 ὑπήκουεν] G (not 
18 ἕωθεν 
expulst 


(ἐωθέντες taken for ὠσθέντες) L; ἐώθησαν (ἃ; mane (tempestive) duxerunt eum 


ΟΠῚ ΡΝ) S. 


leave the context as itis. Two copies 
at least of these Latin Acts, which I 
have seen, omit efzscofo, which is 
therefore a later introduction ; Parzs 
Bibl. Nat. 1639, Bodl. Laud. Lat. 31. 

5. κατ᾽ ἴχνος x.t.A.] Suggested 
by Ephes. 12 Παύλου...οὗ γένοιτό μοι 
ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη εὑρεθῆναι; see the note 
there. His imitation of 5. Paul is a 
frequent topic in the Menea Dec. 20. 
See the Hymn of 5. Joseph 5 (p. 389). 

10. ἡμεῖς] This is the first occur- 
rence of the first person plural. On 
the difficulties connected with it, see 
above, p. 389 sq. 

18. ἕωθεν ὁρμηθέντες) This con- 
jecture suggested itself to me from a 
comparison of the various readings. 
The Armenian translator had before 
him the uncorrupted text ; of which 
also the Syriac is perhaps a loose 
paraphrase. But some letters hav- 
ing dropped out by homceoteleuton, 
εὠ[θενορλληίθεντεο became eEw- 
@entec, which was treated as if 
ὠσθέντες by the Latin translator, and 
altered into ἐώθησαν by the Greek 


scribe in order to get a finite verb. 
At all events it is clear from the au- 
thorities that ἕωθεν ought somehow 
to be brought into the text. 

19. Πόρτου] Owing to the gradual 
silting up of the Tiber at Ostia, it 
became necessary in early imperial 
times to construct an artificial har- 
bour for Rome. This work was car- 
ried out mainly by Claudius (Dion 
Cass. lx. 11), and called Portus Au- 
gusti. It was considerably to the 
north of Ostia, on the right branch 
ofthe river. Trajan afterwards added 
an inner basin which was called 
after him Portus Trajant (Clem. 
Hom. xii. 10). In the neighbour- 
hood of this twofold harbour grew 
up the town of Portus—the present 
Porto—with which the name of Hip- 
polytus is connected. But it would 
hardly, I think, have been mentioned, 
as it is in our martyrology, at the 
date of Ignatius’ death, when Trajan’s 
part of the work can only have been 
very recently constructed, if it ex- 
isted at all. Ddllinger Azpfolytus 


490 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [vi 


, qn “«- > ~ / A 
ἅγιον μαρτυρα) συναντωμεν τοις ἀδελφοῖς φόβῳ και 
΄σ \ > > - 3 ΄σ 
χαρᾳ πεπληρωμένοις, χαίρουσιν μεν ED ous ἠξιοῦντο 

΄σ ΄σ / / / δὲ ὃ / 
τῆς TOU Θεοφόρου συντυχίας, φοβουμένοις € OLOTL TED 


> ΄σ ᾽ \ \ ῖ 7 
ἐπὶ θάνατον τοιοῦτος ἤγετο. τισὶ δὲ καὶ παρήγγελλεν 


΄ / \ - 
ἡσυχάζειν, ζέουσι καὶ λέγουσι καταπαύειν TOV δῆμον 5 


πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιζητεῖν ἀπολέσθαι τὸν δίκαιον" οὖς εὐθὺς 
γνοὺς τῷ πνεύματι καὶ πάντας ἀσπασάμενος, αἰτήσας 
τε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν ἀληθινὴν ἀγάπην, πλείονα τε τῶν 
ἐν TH ἐπιστολῇ διαλεχθεὶς καὶ πείσας μὴ φθονῆσαι τῷ 
σπεύδοντι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, οὕτω μετὰ γονυκλισίας 
πάντων τῶν ἀδελφών παρακαλέσας τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ 


ε \ ΄σ > ΄σ e \ ΄σ ΄σ ~ , 
ὑπέρ Τῶν ἐκκλησιων, ὑπὲρ ΄χῇῆφ «ποῦ διωγμοῦ KaATATAU- 


2 ἠξιοῦντο] dignificabantur LA; ἠξιῶντο (sic?) G; al. 5. The edd. have re- 


tained ἠξιῶντο, without correcting the accent. 
ζέουσι] GL; sed zlli fervebant (ζέουσι δὲ) A (thus chang- 


SA; ἡσυχάζουσιν G. 


ing the participles into finite verbs); widens quod ferverent S. 


5 ἡσυχάζειν] szlere L, and so 


6 ovs] guos 


L; et eos gui illa cogitabant S; et...cogitationes eorum A; ὃς G. The renderings of 
SA suggest that some words have dropped out, such as οὕτω φρονοῦντας or ταῦτα 


and Callistus p. 72 sq (Eng. Trans.) 
gives reasons for supposing that there 
was no town at Portus even as late as 
the third century. 

9. μὴ φθονῆσαι] Rom. 5 μηθέν pe 
(niooa τῶν ὁρατῶν κιτιλ., 20. 7 
βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ κατοικείτω. 

18. τρισκαιδεκάτη] i.e, the ‘thir- 
teenth beforethe Kalends of January’, 
as stated in ὃ 7. The Saturnalia 
had originally occupied one day 
only, xiv Kal. Jan. (Dec. 19). But 
Ceesar’s reforms in the calendar, by 
adding two days to the month of 
January, had caused some uncer- 
tainty and confusion with respect 
to the right day of celebration ; and, 
in order to meet this difficulty, by an 
edict of Augustus they were extend- 
ed backward to three days, xvi, xv, 
xiv Kal. Jan. (Dec. 17, 18, 19); see 
Macrob. Sa¢. i. 10. 2—6, 22. After- 


wards the festival was still further 
prolonged by the addition of the 
Sigillaria, which commenced xili 
Kal. Jan. (Dec. 20). In this way 
before the close of the reign of the 
emperor Gaius the festival extended 
over a fifth day (Sueton. Calzg. 17, 
Dion Cass. lix. 6, lx. 25), the Sigillaria 
occupying two days; and ultimately 
four days were assigned to the Sigil- 
laria, so that the whole festival took 
up seven days (Lucian, Saturn. 2,25), 
xvi—x Kal.Jan. (Dec. 17—23) ; comp. 
Macrob. i, to. 24 ‘Sigillariorum ad- 
jecta celebritas in septem dies discur- 
sum publicum et laetitiam religionis 
extendit.’ This part of the festival 
derives its name from the ‘sigilla’, 
little images of clay or of sweetmeats 
or of precious metal, which were ex- 
posed for sale at the fair and given as 
presents. The ‘thirteenth’ therefore 


μὶ 


ws 


Vv 


vi] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 


401 
e \ σ a 3 ΄ > 9 , 9 

σεως, ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἰς αλληλοὺυς ἀγάπης; 

{> 3 \ 

eita εὐθὺς 

’ \ \ \ id / > / 

ἐμβληθεὶς κατὰ TO πάλαι πρόσταγμα τοῦ Καίσαρος, 


ἀπήχθη μετὰ σπουδῆς εἰς τὸ ἀμφιθέατρον. 


on / ~ ~ > = 
μελλουσῶν καταπαύειν τῶν φιλοτιμιῶν (HY γὰρ ἐπι- 


/ ε > / ε / > ς -— oA ΄σ 
ams, ὡς ἐδόκουν, ἡ λεγομένη τῇ Ρωμαϊκῃ φωνῇ 
ἐ a 


QQ / ’ 
τρισκαιδεκάτη, καθ 
θηρσὶν ὠμοῖς παρὰ 
παραυτὰ τοῦ ὡγίου 


\ 2 , 
τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν 


τῶν 


e\ 7ὔ / / 
ἣν σπουδαίως συνήεσαν), οὕτως 


ἀθέων παρεβάλλετο, ὡς 


μάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου πληροῦσθαι 


\ ‘ , > ͵ ͵ 
κατὰ TO γεγραμμένον ἐπιθγμιὰ δΔΙΚΔΙΟΥ 


λεκτή, ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐπαχθὴς διὰ τῆς 


΄ ΄σ- 7 ts \ > 
συλλογῆς τοῦ λειψανου γένηται, καθως φθάσας ἐν 


~~ 


TH 


{ 


2 Co \ > / 5 ͵ / / / 
ἐπιστολῇ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπεθύμει γενέσθαι τελείωσιν. μόνα 


διαλογιζομένους. 


Ig παρὰ τῶν ἀθέων] as Zahn correctly; ab hominibus qui 


sine deo S; ab impiis 1,; παρὰ τῶ vad G. A has certainly ἄθεοι, though changing 


the form of the sentence. 


Smith had conjectured παρὰ τῶν ἀνοσίων or ἀνόμων from 


L, but AS supply the right word; and ἄθεος is translated zmpius by L in Trail. 3, 


though not in 7Z7a//. το. 


was the first day of the Sigillaria and 
the middle day of the whole festival, 
and seems to have had, at*least in 
later times, a special distinction ; 
Macrob. Saturn. 1. 11. 50 ‘ideo 
Saturnalibus talium commerciorum 
coepta celebritas septem occupatdies, 
quos tantum feriatos facit esse, non 


festos omnes: nam medio, id est 


tertio decimo Kalendas, festum pro- 
bavimus etc.’ During the festival 
there were gladiatorial and other 
contests of the arena; Auson. £c/. 
de Fer. 32 sq ‘Aediles plebeii etiam 
aedilesque curules Sacra sigillorum 
nomine dicta colunt ; Et gladiatores 
funebria praelia notum Decertasse 
foro ; nunc sibi arena suos Vindicat ; 
extremo qui jam sub fine Decembris 
Falcigerum placant sanguine Caeli- 
genam’, Lactant. Div. Just. vi. 20 
‘yenationes quae vocantur munera 
Saturno sunt attributae’ (see the note 


In G some letters have been dropped τωνα[θε]ω[ν]. 


on φιλοτιμίας above, ὃ 5). For the 
customs of this festival see Mar- 
quardt Rom. Alterth. IV. p. 459 sq, 
Forbiger Hellas u. Rom 1. 2 pp. 
157 sq, 183 sq. The coincidence is 
purely accidental in 2 Macc. xv. 36 
ἔχειν δὲ ἐπίσημον τὴν τρισκαιδεκάτην 
τοῦ δωδεκάτου μηνός. 

19. τῶν ἀθέων] As this reading is 
unquestionably right, it is unneces- 
sary to discuss the proposed inter- 
pretations of τῷ ναῷ. 

20. παραυτὰ] ‘along with the 
events’, ‘then and there’, ‘forth- 
with’; see the note on 77a//. τι. 

21. ἐπιθυμία κ-τ.λ.] From the Lxx 
Prov. x. 24. 

23. φθάσας K.TA. | ‘already in his 
epistle’. The reference is to Rom. 
4 μηθὲν καταλίπωσιν κιτιλ. On the 
whole subject of the reliques, see 
pp. 386 sq, 431 sq. 

24. τελείωσιν] The word was early 


492 


MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [ντ΄ 


\ / ~ AY ἣ 
γὰρ τὰ τραχύτερα τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων περιε- 


/ e/ > \ / 7 Ι 
λείφθη, ἅτινα εἰς τὴν ᾿λντιόχειαν ἀπεκομίσθη καὶ ἐν 


΄σ΄ ͵ \ > 7 ε \ ΄σ΄ 2 qn 
ληνῷ κατετέθη, θησαυρὸς atiuntos ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν τῷ 


/ / ~ a la > λ Ν θέ 
μαρτυρι χάριτος TH γις EKK nolan Κατα Erp εντα. 


1 ἁγίων αὐτοῦ] GL; juste (τοῦ δικαίου) S; om. [A]. 
glossocomo S; λίνῳ G; def. A: see the lower note. 


3 ληνῷ] capsa L; ; 


5 πρὸ δεκατριῶν κα-᾿ 


λανδῶν Ἰαννουαρίων] GL; ante tx (secundum graecos xiit) kalendas januarias A; 


decimo septimo tishri posterioris Ὁ. 


After “Iavvovaplwy add. τουτέστιν δεκεμβρίω ἶ 


εἰκάδι G; add. zd est decembris 24 vel 20 A (an addition of the editor?); txt L. 


used with a special reference to mar- 
tyrdom ; see Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 4 
(p. 570) τελείωσιν τὸ μαρτύριον καλοῦ- 
μεν, οὐχ ὅτι τέλος τοῦ βίου ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
ἔλαβεν, ὡς οἱ λοιποί, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τέλειον 
ἔργον ἀγάπης ἐνεδείξατο, quoted by 
Jacobson. So too the verb, as e.g. 
Euseb. 27. 45. iii. 35 τοῦ Supedvos τὸν 
δηλωθέντα τελειωθέντος τρόπον, Vill. 6, 
and frequently. See Suicer 76-. 5. 
VV. τελειοῦν, τελείωσις. 

μόνα γὰρ k.t.A.] For the relation of 
this account to the statement of 
Evagrius H. £. i. 16, see above 
pp. 387 sq, 434. 

2. ἐν ληνῷ] “771: α coffin’, ‘a sarco- 
phagus’. Ihave restored this read- 
ing from the versions for ev λίνῳ. 
Jacobson writes, ‘ ἐν λίκνῳ hariolatur 
Noltius’, but Nolte was on the right 
track. For Anvos, ‘a coffin’, see 
Phrynichus Bekker Avwecd. p. 51 
ληνούς" ov μόνον ἐν ais τοὺς βότρυς 
πατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς τῶν νεκρῶν 
σοροὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμοιότητος τῆς κατα- 
σκευῆς : comp. Pollux Oxomz. 111. 102, 
viii. 146, x. 150. In the last passage 
Pollux quotes Erastus and Coriscus 
writing to Plato, ληνὸν ᾿Ασσίαν σαρκο- 
φάγου λίθου, and also Pherecrates 
Agr. 12 πόθεν ληνοὺς τοσαύτας λή- 
ψομαι (Meineke Fragm. Com. 11. p. 
260). The word occurs several times 
in the inscriptions; C. /. G. 1979, 
1981, 1993, 1997 6) 2209, 2210, Journ. 
of Hell. Stud. Vit. p. 374 (1887). 


There is the converse itacism in our | 
MS in the same word, used as a proper | 
name, Ps-Ign. ad Mar. 4 τῷ μακαρίῳ, 
πάπᾳ Anve (for Aire). | 

3. ὑπὸ ths κιιλ] 1.6. ‘by the! 
Divine grace as manifested in the | 
case of the martyr.’ | 

6. Σύρα κιτ.λ.] The year intended 
is A.D. 107, in which the consuls 
were L. Licinius. Sura III, Q. Sosius 
Senecio 11; see Mommsen in Hermes 
Ill. p. 138, Ephem. Epigr. V. p. 71%: 
In the common lists (e.g. Clinton) | 
they are called C. Sosius Senecio Iv, 
L. Licinius Sura III, after a spurious | 
inscription ‘in antiqua figulina’ given 
by Panvinio Fast p. 217 ‘ L. Licinio 
Sura lll, C. Sosio Iv.’ But it is quite | 
certain from a genuine inscription 
since discovered, that Senecio was 
never consul more than twice, and | 
that his preenomen was Quintus ; see | 
Borghesi in Bull. dell’ Inst. di Ar- 
cheol. 1853, p. 184 sq. The words 
τὸ δεύτερον therefore refer to Seve- } 
κίωνος alone; and the number of 
the consulship in the case of Sura 
has been omitted through careless- } 
ness or ignorance. The expression 
has sometimes been interpreted as f 
meaning the second year in which 
Sura and Senecio were consuls to- 
gether ; so Hefele (in some editions), ἢ 
Uhlhorn (p. 254), Nirschl ( Zodesjahr 
p. 8), and at one time even Borghesi } 
himself (Qeuvres I. p. 507), though he ἢ 





492 





MARTYRDOM OF 8. IGNATIUS. [vi 


yap Ta TpaxvTEepa τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων περιε- 


e/ \ , / \ 
λείφθη, ἅτινα εἰς τὴν ᾿λντιόχειαν ἀπεκομίσθη Kal ἐν 


a , \ > 7 ε \ ΄σ 3 ΄σ 
ληνῳ κατετέθη, θησαυρος ἀτίμητος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν TH 


lf / ΄σ ςε / 3 ri / Xr θέ 
μαρτύυρι χάριτος TH ayla EKK nola Κατα ει CVTC. 


1 ἁγίων αὐτοῦ] GL; justi (τοῦ δικαίου) S; om. [A]. 
glossocomo S; λίνῳ G; def. A: see the lower note. 


3 ληνῷ] capsa- L; 


5 πρὸ δεκατριῶν κα- 


λανδῶν Ἰαννουαρίων] GL; ante ix (secundum graecos xiii) kalendas januarias A; 


decimo septimo tishri posterioris Ὁ. 


After “Iavvovaplwy add. τουτέστιν δεκεμβρίω 


εἰκάδι G; add. zd est decembris 214 vel 20 A (an addition of the editor?); txt L. 


used with a special reference to mar- 
tyrdom ; see Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 4 
(p. 570) τελείωσιν τὸ μαρτύριον καλοῦ- 
μεν, οὐχ ὅτι τέλος τοῦ βίου ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
ἔλαβεν, ὡς οἱ λοιποί, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τέλειον 
ἔργον ἀγάπης ἐνεδείξατο, quoted by 
Jacobson. So too the verb, as e.g. 
Euseb. 27. £. iii. 35 τοῦ Supedvos τὸν 
δηλωθέντα τελειωθέντος τρόπον, Vill. 6, 
and frequently. See Suicer Ζ765. 5. 
VV. τελειοῦν, τελείωσις. 

μόνα γὰρ x.t.A.] For the relation of 
this account to the statement of 
Evagrius #7. £. i. 16, see above 
pp. 387 sq, 434. 

2. ἐν ληνῷ] ‘22 a coffin’, ‘a sarco- 
phagus’. I have restored this read- 
ing from the versions for ἐν λίνῳ. 
Jacobson writes, ‘€v λίκνῳ hariolatur 
Noltius’, but Nolte was on the right 
track. For Anvos, ‘a coffin’, see 
Phrynichus Bekker Avecd. p. 51 
ληνούς" ov μόνον ἐν ais τοὺς βότρυς 
πατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς τῶν νεκρῶν 
σοροὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμοιότητος τῆς κατα- 
σκευῆς : comp. Pollux Ozoz. ill. 102, 
viii. 146, x. 150. In the last passage 
Pollux quotes Erastus and Coriscus 
writing to Plato, ληνὸν ᾿Ασσίαν σαρκο- 
φάγου λίθου, and also Pherecrates 
Agr. 12 πόθεν ληνοὺς τοσαύτας λή- 
ψομαι (Meineke /ragm. Com. 11. p. 
260). The word occurs several times 
in’ they inscriptions’; (Ca wi iG.) 1970, 
1981, 1993, 1997 6, 2209, 2210, Jouri. 
of Hell. Stud. Vitl. p. 374 (1887). 


There is the converse itacism in our 
MS in the same word, used as a proper 
name, Ps-Ign. ad Mar. 4 τῷ μακαρίῳ 
πάπᾳ Anve (for Λίνῳ). 

5. ὑπὸ τῆς xTA.] i.e. ‘by the 
Divine grace as manifested in the 
case of the martyr.’ 

6. Σύρα κιτ.λ.] The year intended 
is A.D. 107, in which the consuls 
were L. Licinius. Sura III, Q. Sosius 
Senecio 11; see Mommsen in Hermes 
Ill. Ῥ: 138, Lphem. Epier. Voip 7G. 
In the common lists (e.g. Clinton) 
they are called C. Sosius Senecio Iv, 
L. Licinius Sura 111, after a spurious 
inscription ‘in antiqua figulina’ given 
by Panvinio Fast p. 217 ‘L. Licinio 
Sura lll, C. Sosio Iv.’ But it is quite 
certain from a genuine inscription 
since discovered, that Senecio was 
never consul more than twice, and 
that his preenomen was Quintus ; see 
Borghesi in Bull. dell’ Inst. di Ar- 
cheol. 1853, p. 184 sq. The words 
τὸ δεύτερον therefore refer to Seve- 
kiovos alone; and the number of 
the consulship in the case of Sura 
has been omitted through careless- 
ness or ignorance. The expression 
has sometimes been interpreted as 
meaning the second year in which 
Sura and Senecio were consuls to- 
gether ; so Hefele (in some editions), 
Uhlhorn (p. 254), Nirschl ( Zodesjahr 
p. 8), and at one time even Borghesi 
himself (@uwvres 1. p. 507), though he 


vii] 


wil 


ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 


493 


Ἐγένετο δὲ ταῦτα TH πρὸ δεκατριῶν Ka- 


λανδών ᾿Ιαννουαρίων, ὑπατευόντων παρὰ ἱΡωμαίοις Cupa 


\ , \ , , / 
και (ενεκίωνος TO δεύτερον. τούυτων αὐτόπται YEVOMEVOL 


A / 39 53 / / \ \ 
ETA δακρύων κατ᾽ οἶκον TE παννυγίσαντες Kat πολλὰ 
ρ 


\ / 7 \ 
μετὰ γονυκλισίας Kal δεήσεως παρακαλέσαντες τον 


7 Σενεκίωνος] S; senecto (abl. Ξε σενεκίου) L; σεδεκίου G (which punctuates σύρα. 


καὶ σεδεκίου τὸ δεύτερον, so as to confine τὸ δεύτερον to the second name); def. A. 


9 γονυκλισίας] γονυκλησίας G. 


afterwards corrected his mistake (see 
the other references in this note). This 
interpretation seemed to be favoured 
by an inscription on a lead weight 
in the Borgian Museum, SOSETSVRA 
COSIT, taken to mean ‘ Sosio et Sura 
consulibus iterum’, but Borghesi 
(see De Rossi Juscr. Christ. Urb. 
Rom. 1. p. 4 54) points out that this 
would require the order IT . COS, 
and that IT therefore stands for 
‘Italica libra’, In fact Sura and 
Senecio never were consuls together 
more than once. In Clinton indeed, 
and in other lists, the consuls for 
A.D. 102 appear as C. Sosius Sene- 
cio 111, L. Licinius Sura 11; but this 
is conjectural, the old lists giving the 
former name Servillus, Severianus, 
or Svpiavos. An inscription disco- 
vered since Clinton’s time (Corp. 
Inscr. Lat. V1. 2185) shows that the 
consuls of that year were C. Julius 
Ursus Servianus II, L. Licinius 
Sura II; see Visconti Azz. dell’ 
Inst. di Archeol. 1860, XXXII. p. 440 
sq: and this agrees with the notice 
of the consulate in Spartian. V7z. 
Hadr. 3 ‘Praetor factus est sub 
Surano bis Serviano iterum consu- 
libus’, though Spartianus has here 
assigned the pretorship of Hadrian 
to a wrong year (see Visconti l.c., 
Mommsen C. /. Z. Ill. p. 102). The 
two consulships of Senecio were in 
99 and 107. The second and third 
of Sura were in 102 and 107, as we 


have seen; but his first cannot have 
been an ordinary consulship, as it 
does not appear in the fasti, and 
its year is therefore unknown (see 
Mommsen in Hermes Ul. p. 129, 
note 3). His three consulships are 
mentioned, C. / ZL. Il. 4536—4548, 
11. 356. For this Sura see Borghesi 
(Eusres: Ve p: 3484-6 PL ee 
602 sq, VI. p. 315 ; comp. Julian Ces. 
p. 327 ; for Senecio see Borghesi VIII. 
p. 3607. Both Sura and Senecio were 
highly honoured by Trajan; Dion 
Cass. Ixvili. 15, 16. 

This consulate (A.D. 107) is not 
reconcilable with the statement § 2 
ἐννάτῳ ἔτει. Trajan was adopted by 
Nerva and assumed the tribunician 
power in the autumn 97 (see above, 
p. 398); Nerva died at the end of 
January 98. Thus Dec. 20, A.D. 107, 
fell not before the roth year of his 
reign, on the strictest reckoning, and 
the 11th of his tribunician power, 
whatever mode of reckoning the 
years we adopt (see above, p. 399 sq). 
Nor can the two notices be recon- 
ciled by supposing the events which 
intervened between the point of time 
designated in § 2 and the martyrdom 
to have extended into the following 
year of Trajan’s reign ; for the date 
assigned to the martyrdom, Dec. 20, 
A.D. 107, is not towards the begin- 
ning, but at the very end of the roth 
year, 


494 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [vil 


Κύριον πληροφορῆσαι τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τοῖς προ- 


7 \ 3 7 ε \ 2 / > 
YEYVOVOOLY, μικρον αφυπνωσαντες, Ol μεν ἐξαιφνης ΕΥΓΙΡ 


, \ / e ΄-΄ 3 / ε δὲ 
σταντα καὶ περιπτυσσομενον ἡμᾶς ἐβλέπομεν, OL O€ 


/ > / ς ΄- ς an \ f / 

πάλιν ἐπευχόμενον ἡμῖν ἑωρῶμεν TOV μακάριον Ἴγνατιον, 
> 4 ς ς ~~ e 9 le ΄- 
ἄλλοι δὲ σταζόμενον ὑφ᾽ ἱδρῶτος ὡς ἐκ καμάτου πολλοῦ 
/ \ ἊΝ ~ / \ ΄- 
παραγενόμενον καὶ παρεστῶτα τῷ Kupiw μετὰ πολλῆς 
\ > 7 7 , \ 
[ παρρησίας καὶ ἀνεκλαλήτου δόξης" πλησθέντες δὲ] 
΄σ- ΄σι 3 / \ / \ ᾽ ~ 
χαρᾶς ταῦτα ἰδόντες καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ὄψεις τῶν 

ΡῚ / ς / A Ἁ \ oO Fant ΠῚ 
ὀνειράτων, ὑμνήσαντες τὸν Θεὸν τον δοτῆρα τῶν ἀγα- 
΄σ \ \ J 9 i Gruen 
θῶν καὶ μακαρίσαντες τὸν ἅγιον, ἐφανερώσαμεν ὑμῖν 
\ ς \ / e/ \ \ ~ 
Kal THY ἡμέραν Kal TOV χρόνον, ἵνα κατὰ TOV καιρὸν TOU 
7 [ά ~ ΄σ΄ 3 a \ 
μαρτυρίου συναγόμενοι κοινωνώμεν TH ἀθλητή καὶ 

, ΄- 7 \ V2 

γενναίῳ μάρτυρι Χριστοῦ καταπατήσαντι Tov διάβολον 


\ \ oe / 3 Cosine >) / ἐᾷ 
καὶ τὸν τῆς φιλοχρίστου αὐτου ἐπιθυμίας τελειωσαντι 


3 ἐβλέπομεν GS; videbant LA. 
A transposes). 
tion of idiom. 


4 ἑωρῶμεν] (ἃ; videbant LS[A] (but 
In this case and the last the change of person is simply a ques- 

5 ἄλλοι δὲ σταζόμενον ὑφ᾽ ἱδρῶτος] GSA; om. L. 6 με- 
τὰ... ἰδόντες] 27 (1. cum?) multa confidentia et ineffabili gloria. impleti autem gaudtio 
haec videntes LL; μετὰ πολλῆς τοίνυν χαρᾶς ταῦτα ἰδόντες G3; εἰ haec videntes magno 
gaudio implebantur omnes A; gaudio magno. et quum haec autem vidissent Ὁ. 
It appears therefore that a whole line has dropped out in GS. 8 συμ- 
Badovtes...Tav ὀνειράτων] GS; om. L (a line probably omitted, the eye passing 
from the υμ- of συμβαλόντες to that of ὑμνήσαντεΞς) ; intelligentes bonam et mirabi- 
lem revelationem A (the translator seems to have had the clause, and to have 
changed it because it did not harmonize with his form of narrative). 14 καὶ 


I. τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς ἡμᾶς} ‘us, weak ἀσθενεῖς refers more naturally to the 


men as we were’; comp. Clem. Rom. 
6 ai ἀσθενεῖς for the definite article, 
and see the note on [Clem. Rom.] 
li. 19 οἱ ἄσοφοι. Objection has been 
taken to this narrative on the ground 
that these eye-witnesses did not need 
to be convinced of the saint’s death 
(e.g. by Grabe Sfzcz/. Il. p. 22, and 
ZA, 2h} Voi A Dn AB) f Ponts on ithe 
supposition that this part of the 
narrative is a fiction, our martyr- 
ologist was not so stupid as to make 
such an obvious blunder; and τοὺς 


need of assurance respecting God’s 
providence and righteousness after 
this execution of an innocent man, 
than to the certification of a fact 
patent to their eyes. 

5. σταζόμενον x7.r.] The image 
is taken from the athlete, just as in 
the dream of Perpetua on the eve 
of her martyrdom (Act. Perp. et 
Felic. 10) she sees herself anointed 
for the contest, ‘coeperunt me favi- 
tores mei oleo defrigere, quomodo 
solent in agonem.’ 


5 


vu] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 495 


δρόμον ev Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμών" δι ov καὶ 
θ᾽ fe ἜΝ τὸ es at ε ὃ / \ \ / \ - ε 7 
μεθ᾽ οὗ τῷ πατρὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ KPaTOS σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ 


7 > 5, σι > / 
πνεύματι εἰς αἰῶνας. ~Apny. 


Tov...nuav] G, and so substantially SA; e¢ huius insidias in finem prostravit 

glorificantes| in ipstus venerabili et sancta memoria dominum [nostrum] jesum 
christum L*. 15 ἐν Χριστῷ... ἡμῶν] GA; dominum [nostrum|] jesum christum 
[L]; 22 zese christo domino nostro S. de οὗ Kal μεθ᾽ οὗ] GL; cud et per quem 
_S; cuz A; μεθ᾽ οὗ [M]. 16 τῷ πατρὶ] GL; deo patriS; cum patre A. 

ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος] GLA; gloria et honor et magnitudo S. 17 πνεύματι] 
txt GSA; add. 2722 sancta ecclesia L. 
Subscription. ins martyrii sancti domini ignati episcopi antiochiae. et deo 

gloria S. ‘There is none in G, and none is recorded for ἃ. For L see the Appx. 


MAPTYPION 


ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΥ 


Β. 


I. Ὃν ἔτει ἐννάτῳ τῆς βασιλείας Τραϊανοῦ Kai- 


/ ~ / 3 ΄ / af > 
σαρος, τουτέστι τῆς σκγ ὀλυμπιάδος δευτέρω ἔτει, EV 


MAPTYPION IFNATIOY B] μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου (add. ἱερομάρτυρος LP) ἰγνατίου 
(add. τοῦ θεοφόρου L) ἐπισκόπου (ἀρχιεπισκόπου L) ἀντιοχείας LPV; martyrium 
sancti ignatit qui dicitur theophorus, id est is qui fert deum, is qui erat episcopus 
antiochiae post praedicationem apostolorum, gui complevit martyrium suum in roma 


seplimo mensis epiphi in pace dei. 
I ἐννάτῳ] LC: πέμπτῳ PV. 


amen C. 
Tpaiavod] LPV; samtparsastoc (perhaps a 


confusion between mantpsaitoc Zadriani, and wTparasmoc ¢raianz) C, but else- 


1. ἐννάτῳ, The Coptic version 
shows that this is the right reading. 
So long as it was found only in L, 
it was open to grave suspicion ; and 
Zahn (/. v. A. p. 16) seemed justified 
in inferring that it was an arbitrary 
correction of the scribe, who else- 
where has altered the narrative so 
as to make it conform to the Anti- 
ochene story (ὃ 10 σπαράξαντες κατέ- 
Sovro «7.A.). But this solution is no 
longer possible. This version also 
shows how the corruption arose ; for 
it is written with the numeral © (ἐν- 
var), Which would easily be altered 
into € (πέμπτῳ. Hence the not un- 
frequent confusion of 5 and 9g in 
Greek documents. For several in- 
stances of this interchange as affect- 
ing the Chronicon of Eusebius, see 
Hort in the Academy, Sept. 15, 1871, 
p- 435. This common corruption 


suggests an easy correction in the 
heading of the letter of M. Aurelius, 
Euseb. 27. £. iv. 13 "Appévos...dnpap- 
χικῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ πέμπτον καὶ [τὸ] δέ- 
κατον, ὕπατος τὸ τρίτον. 1{ἔννατον be 
substituted for πέμπτον, the letter (if 
genuine) will belong to A.D. 165, and 
the emperor’s titles will be in strict 
accordance with history. 

Τραϊανοῦ] The tradition, so far as 
it is worth anything, points con- 
sistently to Trajan as the emperor 
under whom Ignatius suffered. The 
confusion in the Coptic seems to be 
due to an Egyptian mode of represent- 
ing the Greek A, and does not be- 
token any wavering in the tradition. 
Thus the A of Darius is written in 
the hieroglyphics NT: see Lepsius, 
Konigsbuch p. 172. So also in the 
Orac. Stbyll. vill. 65 τὸν μέτα τρεῖς 
ἄρξουσι πανύστατον ἦμαρ ἔχοντες, Ovvo- 


[1] ROMAN ACTS. 


497 


ὑπατείᾳ ᾿λττίκου CovpBavov καὶ Μαρκέλλου, ᾿]γνάτιος 


where the emperor’s name is consistently given Tparastoc in these Acts; see the 


lower note. 


2 τουτέστι τῆς σκγ ὀλυμπιάδος δευτέρῳ ἔτει] guod est secundus 


annus ducentesimae vicesimae tertiae olympiadis ( ; δευτέρῳ ἔτει Ῥ ; καὶ δευτέρῳ ἔτει 


Ψ; δευτέρῳ μηνί 1,. 
C; ἐνυπατίας V. 


ἐν ὑπατείᾳ] P; ἐν ὑπατίᾳ L; in consulatu (wMatsa) 
3 ᾿Αττίκου] LPC[B]; ἀττήκου V. 


LoupBavov | 


surbonis (csphwmt) C; καὶ σουρβανοῦ L; καὶ σουρβούνου P; καὶ covpBivov V; om. 


[B]. 


μα πληρώσαντες ἐπουρανίοιο Θεοῖο, the 
connexion between the name of the 
Antonini and Adonaz is much closer 
than the commentators generally 
seem to be aware, because the latter 
might be represented in Egyptian 
writing (and probably in Egyptian 
pronunciation also) as Azfonaz. 

2. τουτέστι κιὶλ.} I have re- 
stored these words from the Coptic 
version. The different Greek texts 
betray their history. The lacuna is 
left unmended in P, though δευτέρῳ 
ἔτει is meaningless after ἔτει πέμπτῳ. 
The mutilated text is then patched 
up in different ways: (1) In L μηνὶ 
is substituted for ἔτει in order to 
make some sense; (2) In V καὶ is 
inserted before δευτέρῳ ἔτει, and ἐνυ- 
marias is substituted for ἐν varia (or 
ὑπατείᾳ), 50 as to read ‘and in the 
second year of the consulship of etc.’ 
The substantive ἐνυπατία (or ἐνυπα- 
τεία) does not occur elsewhere, nor 
is it justified by the occurrence of 
the verb ἐνυπατεύειν (Plut. Mor. Ὁ. 797 
ois ὀρθῶς ἐνυπατεύων); for the verb 
signifies ‘to spend the consulate in,’ 
and is only explained by its context. 

The first numeral in the Coptic is 
not easily deciphered, but it can 
hardly be anything else than «= 200. 
The 2nd year of the 223rd Olympiad 
however does not correspond either 
to the consulate named or to the 9th 
year of Trajan, but is A.D. 114. We 
must therefore suppose that our hagi- 
ologist got his dates from different 
sources; (1) the 9th year of Trajan 


IGN. II. 


from Eusebius, if not from tradition 
(see above p. 450 sq); (2) Olymp. 
223. 2 directly or indirectly from 
some chronographer who believed 
the story of the interview at Antioch, 
and consequently gave this year as 
being the date of Trajan’s sojourn 
there. Having got these dates from 
different sources, he put them to- 
gether without enquiring whether 
they coincided. The alternative 
would be to read CKA for CKT. We 
should thus get A.D. 106. It was not 
uncommon in these ages to give the 
Olympiad years with the names of 
the consuls; eg. Socr. H. £. 1. 40, 
11 47,17. 28, εἰς. 

3. ᾿Αττίκου x.t.A.] The true names 
of the consuls for this year, A.D. 104, 
are Sextus Attius Suburanus 7], 
Marcus Asinius Marcellus, as ap- 
pears from a Greek inscription re- 
cently published, Wood’s Dzscoveries 
at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, p. 363 see 
Mommsen /lermes 111. p. 132. But 
as it is probable that our hagiologist 
himself did not write the names cor- 
rectly, I have given in the text the 
nearest approximation which the au- 
thorities countenance. The name 
Suburanus is rightly given in Idatius, 
but corrupted into Suranus, Urbanus, 
and Συριανός, in the other consular 
lists. His first consulate was A.D. 101, 
when he was sufectus,;, see (. 2 2. 
VI. 2074. The substitution of “212- 
cus for Attius may perhaps have 
been owing to a reminiscence of 
Hegesippus as quoted by Euseb. 


32 


498 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [1 


’ / ΄σ ͵ \ \ 
ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ᾿λντιοχείας δεύτερος μετὰ TOUS ἀπο- 
/ / / Α / 
στόλους γενόμενος (Evodioy yap διεδέξατο) μετὰ ἐπι- 
7 ~ - > \ 9 
μελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακῆς ἀπὸ Cupias ἐπὶ τὴν 
, ἢ , an > \ e/ 
“Ρωμαίων πόλιν παρεπέμφθη τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν ἕνεκα 
7 Ss δὲ ε VE 3 \ oe ra 
μαρτυρίας. ἦσαν δὲ ot φυλάσσοντες αὐτὸν Τραϊανοῦ 
7 , \ 3 / 7 7 \ 
προτίκτορες δέκα TOV ἀριθμὸν, ἀνήμεροί τινες Kal θηρίων 
Ι τῆς "Avtioxelas] C3 τῆς ἐν ἀντιοχείᾳ ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας LP; τῆς 
ἀντιοχέων τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας V. τοὺς ἀποστόλους] LVC; τοῦ ἀποστό- 
dov P. 2 Hvddiov] VC; εὐώδιον LP, 3 φρουρῶν φυλακῆς] LP Euseb.; 
φρουροφυλακῆς V. ἀπὸ Συρίας] LPV Euseb.; om. [C]. 


palwy πόλιν] V Euseb.; ῥώμην LPC. 
χριστὸνν. 


4 ‘Pw- 
Χριστὸν] LP Euseb.; τὸν 
6 mporixropes] Cs begins at this point. τὸν ἀριθμόν] 
txt LPVB; add. haec autem sunt nomina eorum, cornelios, phison, jubinos, sedos, 


bautos, lelarchos, palmas, lymen, barbaros, lymppos (sic) Cm. (Cs transposes and 


FT, E. iii, 32, where Atticus is twice 
named as the legate of Syria who 
under Trajan condemned Symeon 
the son of Clopas to death. 

Modern writers for the most part, 
following Noris and Fabretti, have 
transposed the consuls of 103 and 
104, as they appear in all the ancient 
lists, owing to a spurious inscription 
on a coin, and have assigned Szbz- 
ranus 11, Marcellus, to A.D. 103, giv- 
ing Jmp. Nerva Trajanus Aug. V, 
M’. Laberius Maximus 11, the pro- 
per consuls of A.D. 103, to A.D. 104 
(See τ ΡΠ ἢ: 801. Vo O07, 
VII. 1193). So eg. Clinton, Eckhel 
Doctr. Num. Vi. p. 415 sq, and even 
Borghesi @uvres 1. p. 70. Momm- 
sen (Hermes Ill. p. 126 sq) has vin- 
dicated the old lists and restored the 
consuls of these two years to their 
proper places. 

In no case however can this con- 
sulate be reconciled with the year of 
Trajan’s reign as given just before, 
whether πέμπτῳ or ἐννάτῳ be read. If 
the reckoning be by tribunician years, 
the date of the martyrdom (July 1) 
would fall in the one case in A.D. 
IoI and in the other in A.D. 105. 


If on the other hand the Egyptian 
computation be followed (see p. 412, 
note 3), as is not improbable, July 1 
in the 5th year would be A.D. 102, 
and in the oth A.D. τοῦ. 

I. ἐπίσκοπος κιτ.λ.] From Euseb. 
“7. EF. iii. 36 ᾿Ιγνάτιος τῆς κατ᾽ ᾿Αντιό- 
χειαν Πέτρου διαδοχῆς δεύτερος τὴν ἐπι- 
σκοπὴν κεκληρωμένος, compared with 
26. ill. 21 τῶν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας Evodiov 
πρώτου καταστάντος, δεύτερος ἐν τοῖς 
δηλουμένοις ᾿Ιγνάτιος ἐγνωρίζετο. 

2. μετὰ ἐπιμελεστάτης k.t.A.] From 
Euseb. 27. £. iil. 36 λόγος δ᾽ ἔχει τοῦ- 
τον ἀπὸ Συρίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων πόλιν 
ἀναπεμφθέντα θηρίων γενέσθαι βορὰν 
τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν. οὗτος 
δὴ οὖν τὴν δι ᾿Ασίας ἀνακομιδὴν per 
ἐπιμελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακῆς ποι- 
ούμενος K.T.A. 

6. προτίκτορες] i.e. ‘ protectores,) 
‘body-guards’ ; see Ephem. Epigr. v. 
Ῥ. 121 sq, 647 sq; comp. Menander 
Exc. p. 418 (ed. Bonn.) ὁ δέ ye τῶν 
μεθορίων λεγόμενος προτίκτωρ (δηλοῖ de | 
παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις τὸν ἐς τοῦτο καταλεγό-᾿ 
μενον ἀξίας, τὸν βασίλειον προσκε- 
παστήν) κιτλ. This writer was him- 
self a ‘protector’: see Suidas s. -v. 
Μένανδρος. Comp. also Cod. Theod. 


1] ROMAN ACTS. 


409 


7, " Ἂ δ᾽ \ Ss >A / a 5 . 
τροπους εχόντες Ol ΚΟ Ol Glas OEDMLOV γον τον 


7 3 ΄δ 7 3 \ \ / Ne / \ 
μακάριον" ἐκεῖθεν τε ἐπὶ τὴν Θράκην καὶ Ῥήγιον διὰ 


σ΄ \ 6 7 ε / \ J ε / \ 
γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης, ὑπωπιάζοντες TOV ὅσιον ἡμέρας καὶ 


/ 7 5) ε “ / 5) / ς \ 
VUKTOS, KALTOL καθ EKAGCTHV πολιν ενεργετουμενοι UTTO 


΄σ > Cain ha > sAA 7 Jas a \ 
TOV ἀδελφῶν ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν τούτων ἐπραῦνεν αὐτῶν τὰς 


varies the forms of some of these names.) 
7 δι᾽ ᾿Ασίας] L Euseb.; διὰ τῆς ἀσίας PV. τὸν 
μακάριον] PVC; om. L (having already inserted τὸν ἅγιον after of καὶ). 
Θράκην] PV; τὴν θρᾷκην L. 


τὸν τρόπονν. 


SPs ΣΟ; δὲ Ww. 
ὑποπιέζοντες PV; ὑποπιαίζοντες L. 
ἡμέρας LP. 


ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. 
sancto C. 
diam BC; θηριώδη προαίρεσιν L. 


vi. 24. 9 ‘Devotissimos protectores, 
qui armatam militiam subeuntes, non 
solum defendendi corporis sui, verum 
etiam protegendi lateris nostri sollici- 
tudinem patiuntur (unde etiam 270- 
tectorum nomen sortiti sunt), inglori- 
osos esse non patimur’. For this 
office and its duties see Gothofred’s 
paratitlon and notes Cod. Theod. 
os Mo Wit: xxiv. Ὁ. 130 sq), 
Ducange Gloss. Lat. s. v. protector. 
They are styled in the inscriptions 
‘protectores Augusti’ or ‘Augus- 
torum’ (e.g. Corp. Insc. Lat. I. 327, 
3126, 3424); the name of the empe- 
ror being sometimes added e.g. ‘pro- 
tector Aureliani Augusti’ (2d. III. 
327); also ‘protectores lateris divini’ 
(2b. 111. 1805, an inscription of the 
year A.D. 280). A soldier so serving 
was said ‘protegere’ (26. III. 6194 
‘deinde protexit’). We read also 
of the ‘protectoria dignitas’ being be- 
stowed on veterans (Cod. Fust. xii. 
47. 2); and altogether the ‘protec- 
tores’ were treated with the highest 
honour (Cod. ΖΕ). xii. 17) 7,2).. The 
career of such a person is sketched 
But In iG.f 7. ΠῚ: 371.‘ militavit in 
vexillatione Fesianesa annis xxiil, 


θηρίων τρόπους] LPCB; θηριώδη 


8 τε] 
9 ὑπωπιάζοντες] 
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός] ΝΟ; νυκτὸς καὶ 


10 καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν] LPV; but, as C has Rata ποις, 
perhaps we should read κατὰ πόλιν ‘from city to city.’ 

II ἀδελφῶν] txt LPVB; add. scilicet ut darent indulgentiam 
αὐτῶν] LPCB; τών ἀνημέρων V. 


B has guotidie=xal? 


Tas ὀργάς] PV; tracun- 


unde factus protector, idequi (I. in- 
deque ov idemque) militavit in schola 
protectorum annis quinque’. For 
the ‘schola protectorum’ see also 
Cod. Theod. vi. 24. 3, Cod. Fust. xii. 
17. 2, Amm. Marcell. xiv. 7.9. These 
officers appear in the martyrdoms of 
a later age; eg. Act. SS. Philem. 
et Apoll. 9 ὁ Διοκλετιανὸς ἀπέστειλε 
προτίκτορας πρὸς αὐτὸν ev τῇ Θηβαΐδι 
...01 προτίκτορες συνέλαβον αὐτὸν K.T.A., 
quoted in Ducange Gloss. Lat. 5. v.: 
see also his Gloss. Graec. s.v., and 
comp. Ps-Prochorus Act. Foann. p. 
48 (ed. Zahn). But the name is an 
anachronism in the time of Trajan. 
In the inscriptions the office is men- 
tioned under Gallienus A.D. 267,C.Z.L. 
Ill. 3424. Spartianus (Vzt. Carac.) 
writes § 5 ‘cum protectoribus’, and 
δ 7 ‘inter protectores suos’, speaking 
of Caracalla; but perhaps he was 
unconsciously attributing to a former 
age an institution with which he was 
familiar in his own time. 

8. Ῥήγιον] See above, p. 380. 

9. ὑπωπιάζοντες] ‘oppressing, mal- 
treating’; comp. I Cor. ix. 27, where 
there is the same v. l. ὑποπιέζω, as 
here. See Lobeck Phryx. p. 461. 


32—2 


500 MARTYRDOM OF 5S. IGNATIUS. [1 


> / 3 3 / \ / ΄ 5... 
ὀργάς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνηκέστοις καὶ ἀνηλεέσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐξέ- 
\ «“ «ἢ \ 3 \ 3 ~ 
θλιβον τὸν ἅγιον, ws πον Kal αὐτὸς ἐν ἐπιστολῇ 
σ- / > \ ͵ , c , 
μαρτυρεῖ λεγων" Ato 2ypiac μέχρι Ῥώμης θηριο- 
May@® Ald γῆς kal θδλᾶοοης [ἀγόμενοο ἐνδελε- 
MENOC AEKA λεοπᾶάρδοιο, οἵτινές εἶσι οτρὰτιωτικὸν 
cTimdoc’ of καὶ ΕΥ̓ερΓετούμενοι. χεῖρον. ΤΙΝ 
TAl. 
if "A / 5) 9 Ῥ Υ Uf 3 
it, πάραντες οὖν ἐκ Ῥηγίου παραγίνονται ἐν 
a 2 / \ , ε α > 9 , \ of 
TH WAN]. Kai TPOGHV γκαν TW αὐτοκράτορι THV ἀφιξιν 
3 ~ WA cA “ 3 ΄σ i 
αὐτοῦ. Kal ἐκέλευσεν ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ εἰσαχθῆναι αὐτον, 
, \ an / 7 \ 3 , 
Tapovaons Kal τῆς GUYKANTOV, καὶ φησιν προς avTov: 
\ 5 / ec \ 7 7 3 / 
Cu εἶ ᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ τὴν ᾿λντιοχέων πόλιν ἀνάστατον 
4 \ 3 \ 3 \ 9 κι e/ > \ 
ποιήσας ; ὡς Kal εἰς adkoas ἐμὰς ἐλθεῖν OTL πᾶσαν THY 
/ / 3 ‘ Qe io > \ 
Cupiav μετέβαλες ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ εἰς TOV χριστι- 
" ἢ r > 3} ee enh " 
ανισμόν. ᾿ΪΙγνάτιος εἶπεν: Εἴθε, βασιλεῦ, οἷος τε ἤμην 
I ἀνηκέστοις] ἀνικέστοις P; ἀνεικέστοις L; cmpudentibus (ἀναιδέσιν or perhaps a 
paraphrase of ἀνηκέστοιθ) C; ἀτάκτοις V. The clause stands cradelibus oculis et 
mantbus (1. zmmantbus?) in B. ἀνηλεέσιν] ἀνιλεέσιν LP; tmmisericordibus C; 
ἀναιδέσιν V. For B see the previous note. 3 μαρτυρε] LPCB; γράφει V. 
θηριομαχώ] PB; θηριομαχῶν LV; dub. C. 4 ἀγόμενος] V; ἤχθην L (a 
change necessitated by the previous θηριομαχών); om. PB (with Rom. 5). For 
θηριομαχῶ... ἀγόμενος C has 2267 facto (or faciens) cum feris. 5 οἵτινές eior] V 
[C]; οἵτινές ἐστι L; ὃ ἐστὶν PB (after Rom. 5). στρατιωτικὸν στῖφος] LP; 
στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα V (after Rom. 5); militarts custodia B; milites C. 6 γί- 
vovra] LVCB; ἐγένοντο P. 8 ᾿Απάραντες}] LP; ἄραντες V3 Zol- 
lentes B. Ῥηγίου] txt PV; add. τὸν ἅγιον L; add. τὸν δίκαιον C; add. beatum 
zonatium [B]. παραγίνονται] LV; παρεγένοντο P[C]. 9 αὐτο- 
κράτορι] txt CB; add. τραϊανῷ LPV. 10 ἐκέλευσεν] ΤΡ; éxédevoe V. 
τι καὶ pri] PV[M]; om. LB; al. C. φησιν] P; φησι LV. 13 ποιήσα5] 
txt PVC[B]A; add. rot μὴ σέβεσθαι θεούς L. ἐμὰ] VCA; ἡμῶν LP; 
def. B. 14 Συρίαν] PVCBA; ἀνατολὴν L. 15 ἤμην] PV; εἰμί 


iE. τό καὶ σὲ] here PV[A]; before οἷός re L[B]. μεταστῆσαι... 
καὶ προσαγαγεῖν] L; μεταβαλεῖν... καὶ προσαγαγεῖν V; μεταστήσας...προσαγαγεῖν P; 


2. ἐν ἐπιστολῇ] The reference is Euseb. Mart. Pal. 4. Our hagiolo- 


to Rom. 5. gist shows himself a diligent reader 
6. στῖφος] This word seems ἴο of Eusebius. 
have been substituted by the author 12. ἀνάστατον ποιήσας] Acts xvii. 


himself for τάγμα of Ignatius. The 6 of τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀναστατώσαντες 
expression στρατιωτικὸν στῖφος Occurs οὗτοι Kal ἐνθάδε πάρεισιν. 


. 


1 


ἷ 


u] ROMAN ACTS. 501 


\ \ ~ 5) \ “- 3 / \ 
Kal σὲ μεταστῆσαι ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας καὶ προσα- 
i ~~ ~ e/ ~ \ / ΚΝ 
γαγεῖν τῴ τῶν ὅλων Oca καὶ φίλον Χριστοῦ παρα- 
΄σ > , . ΄σ \ > / 
στῆσαι καὶ ἰσχυροτέραν σοι καταστῆσαι THY ἀρχήν. 
ee \ > > / 7 ͵ \ 
Tpatavos εἶπεν: Ei βούλει μοι χάριτας καταθέσθαι καὶ 
3 Ἐν 2 = 7 ~ / ~ 
"ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς φίλοις καταριθμεῖσθαι, μετατιθέμενος τῆς 
/ / “~ ΄σ ΄σ Ay "Ὁ > \ Lae 
γνώμης ταύτης θῦσον τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ Eon ἀρχιερεὺς τοὺ 
Γ \ \ / \ > / 7 / 
μεγάλον Διὸς καὶ βασιλεύσεις σὺν ἐμοί. ᾿Ϊγνάτιος 
Ss / ~ / ΄ \ \ 
εἶπεν: Χάριτας δεῖ παρέχειν, βασιλεῦ, Tas μὴ βλα- 
/ Vis \ 3 b 3 ST, / 
πτούσας ψυχήν, οὐ Tas ἀπαγούσας εἰς αἰωνιον κολασιν. 
: \ \ 3 7 « 5 7 / 
‘Tas δὲ ἐπαγγελίας σου, as ἐπηγγείλω διδόναι μοι; 
> \ / 3 “7 / sf \ ΄σ ch 3 / 
οὐδενὸς λόγον ἀξίας κρίνω" οὗτε yap θεοῖς ols οὐ γινω- 
/ of ε \ ς \ 7 ? 7 
oKw λατρεύω, οὗτε ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ Gos τίς ἐστιν ἐπίσταμαι, 
a / oe If ' \ > ! 
οὔτε βασιλείας κοσμικῆς ἐφίεμαι: τί γὰρ ὠφεληθη- 


COMAi, ἐὰν τὸν KOCMON ὅλον KEPAHCW THN AE 


avertere...et introducere B; convertere...et offerre A; convertere...ad offerendum C. 
amo] PV; om. L. εἰδωλολατρείας] VLs; εἰδωλολατρίας P. 17 τῶν 
ὅλον] ΡΥ ΒΆΘΕΙ; om. Ca. παραστῆσαι καὶ... καταστῆσαι] παραστήσαΞ... 
καταστῆσαι Ls; ποιήσας...καταστῆσαι P; καταστῆσαι καὶ... ποιῆσαι V ; constituere ac 
.. facere A; facere...ut corroboret C. B is deficient in the first clause and has comstz- 
tuere in the second. — 18 ἰσχυροτέραν) LP; ἰσχυρωτέραν V. σοι] LP 
BA; cov VC. 20 καταριθμεῖσθαι] PV; συναριθμεῖσθαι LC [?]: connumerart 
B; aestimarz A. μετατιθέμενος τῆς γνώμης ταύτης] LP[A] comp. [M]; μετατι- 
θέμενος τὴν γνώμην V. The demonstrative pronoun appears in CB, but whether 
they had the gen. or accus. is doubtful. 23 det] PVCBA; o7nL. Ba- 
aed] LP; βασιλεύς V. 24 ψυχήν] LPVCB; om. A. αἰώνιον] 
L; αἰωνίαν P; τὴν αἰώνιον V. 27 λατρεύω] V3 sacrifico B; λατρεύσω 
EPC; def. A. Ζεὺς ὁ σὸς Tis] Ρ ; zeus quidem, quem dicis (zeus iste quem dicts 
nunc Cs)...cujusmodi sit (ζεὺς ὁ σός, ὅστις Ὁ) C3 feds ὅστις L; ὁ feds ὅστις V; ara- 
mazdum omnino, quisnam sit A; jovem, guts sit B. 28 ὠφεληθήσομαι]) P; 
ὀφεληθήσομαι L; ὄφελος θήσομαι V; prodest miht B; lucrabor AC. 20 τὸν 
κόσμον ὅλον] LP; ὅλον τὸν κόσμον V; mundum totum [ΑἸ]Ός ; totum mundum Ὁ; 
hunc mundum totum Cm. The order differs in the different evangelists. κερ- 
δήσω τὴν O€] LV; lucrer et BA; κερδήσας τὴν P; dub. C. 


23. τὰς μὴ βλαπτούσας «.T.A.] See Rom. 6 οὐδέν pe ὠφελήσει τὰ πέρατα 
Mart. Polyc. 10 δεδιδάγμεθα γὰρ ἀρ- τοῦ κόσμου οὐδὲ αἱ βασιλεῖαι τοῦ 


~ A > , ¢ ‘ “ , tA , - “- , 
χαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις ὑπὸ Θεοῦ tetaypé- αἰῶνος τούτου, and 726. 4 νῦν μανθάνω 
vais Tiny κατὰ τὸ προσῆκον, τὴν μὴ δεδεμένος μηδὲν ἐπιθυμεῖν [κοσμικὸν ἢ 
βλάπτουσαν ἡμᾶς, ἀπονέμειν. μάταιον]. See above, p. 381. 


28. οὔτε βασιλείας κιτ.λ.] Comp. τί γὰρ ὠφεληθήσομαι] Taken from 


502 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [11 
ψυχήν MoY ζημιωθῶ; Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν" "Εοικάς μοι 


αἰσθήσεως ἔμφρονος ἄμοιρος εἶναι, διὰ τοῦτο ἐξευτελί- 


\ 3 / e/ Ἢ Me 3 U4 fi 
ζεις μου Tas ἐπαγγελίας. ὅθεν, ἐὰν εἰς ἀγανακτησίν με 


> 7 7 Die / > / 
AYAYNS, πάσαις αἰκίαις σὲ τιμωρήσομαι, οὐ μόνον ὡς 
Sons, 3 \ \ 2 / \ € 3 / 
avykoov, ἀλλα Kal ὡς ἀχάριστον Kal ὡς οὐ πειθόμενον - 


ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου δόγματι Kat θύοντα [θεοῖς]. ᾿Ϊγνάτιος 


> 7 \ ΄σ ΄σ > \ \ / 
εἶπεν". Π]οίει τὸ δοκοῦν σοι, βασιλεῦ, ἐγὼ yap ov θύω. 
Σ ~ af \ of / \ sf 
οὔτε yap πῦρ οὔτε σταυρὸς οὔτε θηρίων θυμὸς οὔτε 
9 a“ if 7 3 (o> 2 \ Bu 
ἀφαίρεσις μελῶν πείσουσίν με ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ 


I ζημιωθῶ] PVC; ἀπολέσας ζημειωθώ (sic) L; perdam BA. 2 ἔμφρονος] 
LP; ἐμφρόνου V (9), in which the edd. have acquiesced. διὰ τοῦτο] VC; καὶ 
διὰ τοῦτο LPBA. . ἐξευτελίζεις5] LP; ἐξεοτελίζεις (sic) V; annullas (ν. 1. annz-» 
hilas) B (‘legisse videtur é£ov8evifes’ Zahn); contemnis A. The wordin Cy, στε}, 
vituperare, contumelirs afficere, is a rendering of ἐξουδενοῦν, Job xxx. 1, but would 
stand quite well for ἐξευτελίζειν. 3 ἐὰν] ἂν here, P; ἐὰν before εἰς, V; om. L; 
sce dub. 's det. Bs; 4 ἀγάγῃς] PV; ἄγεις L. 
τιμωρίσασθαι (sic) L (necessitated by the previous ἄγεις for ἐὰν dydyys); dub. C; 
det. 5. 5 ws ov] LP; μὴ (om. ws) V. There is nothing corresponding to ὡς 
in CAB. 6 δόγματι] LPB (senatusconsulto); δόγμασι C; decretis A; om. V. 
θύοντα] L[B]; οὐ θύοντα PVC[A]. The omission or insertion [OTJOY- would be 
easy by a clerical oversight ; or it might have been inserted to avoid ambiguity. 
θεοῖς} LPCBA; om. V. It should perhaps be omitted notwithstanding this weight 


τιμωρήσομαι] PVA ; 


Matt. xvi. 26. See om. 6, where 
this passage from the Gospel is in- 
terpolated. 

8. οὔτε yap πῦρ κιτ.λ.)] Adapted 
from Rom. 5. 

IO. ov yap τὸν νῦν κιτιλ͵] See 
Polyc. Pal. 9 οὐ yap τὸν viv ἠγάπησαν 
αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα 
καὶ Ov ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναστάντα, 
For the first part of the sentence see 
also 2 Tim. iv. 10 ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν 
αἰῶνα, and for the second Ps-Ign. 
Rom. 6 ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 
ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα. 

15. Ov οἰκονομίαν] See Ephes. 18, 
with the note. 

17. αὐτίκα γοῦν «.t.A.] Comp. 
Clem. Hom. vi. 21 οὕτως τελευτήσαν- 
τος [τοῦ Διὸς] τὸν τάφον Κρῆτες ἐπι- 


δεικνῦσιν᾽ ἐν δὲ τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ κεῖνται 
Ἥλιος μέν τις ἐν ΓΑτροις, Σελήνη δέ τις 
ἐν Κάρραις, Ἑρμῆς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τις 
ἄνθρωπος, "Ἄρης ἐν Θράκῃ, ᾿Αφροδίτη 
ἐν Κύπρῳ, ᾿Ασκλήπιος ἐν ᾿Επιδαύρῳ, 
K.T.A. ; Comp. v. 23, Clem. Recogn. x. 
24. The passage which follows in 
our martyrologist has many close 
resemblances to the Protrepticon of 
Clement of Alexandria. Ultimately 
it may have been derived from the 
arch-rationalist Euhemerus himself, 
since Cicero de Nat. Deor. i. 42 in- 
forms us ‘Ab Euhemero et mortes et 
sepulturae demonstrantur deorum.? 
So likewise Lactant. Φ 2122. 13 ‘Eu- 
hemerus qui de sacris inscriptionibus 
veterum templorum et originem Jovis 
et res gestas omnemque progeniem 


11] ROMAN ACTS. 503 


as 2 \ ἢ a > a dA 3 \ \ 
> CWYTOS. OU yap TON NYN ἀγὰπῶ aidna, ἄλλα Tov 
e \ ΄σ Υ \ 7 / 
ὑπερ ἐμοῦ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀνασταντα Χριστον. 


ELE. 


θεοὶ ἀθάνατοί εἰσιν σὺ δὲ πῶς dis, ᾿Ιγνάτιε, ὅτι ὁ 


ε / = ς - γ᾽] «“ ς 
Η σύγκλητος εἶπεν. Ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι οἱ 


\ 3 f 3 , ὩΣ ε 3 \ / > 
Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ; ᾿]γνάτιος εἶπεν: Ὃ ἐμος Κύριος, εἰ 
καὶ ἀπέθανεν, Ot οἰκονομίαν τινὰ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ 
τριῶν ἡμερών ἀνέστη" οἱ δὲ ὑμέτεροι θεοὶ ὠπέθανον μὲν 


e / > > » 7 > 7 ~ \ \ 3 
ὡς θνητοί, οὐκ ἠγέρθησαν δέ. αὐτίκα γοῦν Ζεὺς μὲν ἐν 


of authority. 7 εἶπεν] PV; εἶπε L. 
Jicabo); pref. dis B; add. οὐδὲ προσκυνῶ δαίμοσιν L. 


Tavpoc Cn. 
A; praevalebunt C (translating ἀποστῆναι as if ἀποστῆσαι); ποιοῦσιν V. II 


οὐ θύω] txt PVCA (sacri- 
8 σταυρὸς] LPVC.AB; 


g πείσουσιν] P; πείσωσι L; persuadent B; possunt persuadere 


kai ἀναστάντα] VCA; om. P; e¢ gui a deo resuscitatus est B; καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
13 p78] LPCAB; ἔφης V. 14 ἀπέθανεν] LPVAB; 


15 δι᾽ οἰκονομίαν twa] PAB; δι’ οἰκονομίαν V ; διὰ 


ἀνάσταντα L. 

add. gud deus est C. 
τὴν σωτηρίαν ἡμῶν ἑκουσίως L, comp. [M]; secundum (κατὰ) oeconomiam propter 
nostram salutem C. ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη] V, and so 
substantially AB (but they both omit the previous εἰ καὶ ἀπέθανεν), comp. [Μ]; 
ἀπέθανεν (alone) L; resurrexit tertio die C; δ ἡμερῶν τριῶν πάλιν ἀνέστη (alone) 
Ῥ- 17 ἠγέρθησαν δέ] txt LPCBA; add. ὡς θεοί. αὐτίκα γοῦν] PV; 
ut sciatis C ; quod manifestum est, quia B; idem utique (αὐτὸς γοῦν) A; ἀμέλει L. 


this tomb of Zeus at Gnossus was 
ZAN KPONOY according to Lactan- 


collegit; item ceterorum deorum 
parentes, patrias, actus, imperia, 


obitus, sepulcra etiam persecutus 
est: quam historiam vertit Ennius 
in Latinam’ (comp. Dzv. 7257: i. 11). 
His work was doubtless a rich store- 
house of materials ready to hand for 
the Christian apologists (comp. e.g. 
Plem:) Alex ΧΟ 2. p: 20; | Minuc. 
Octay. 21): 

Ζεὺς μὲν «.t.r.|] Callim. Hymn. ad 
Fov. ὃ sq Κρῆτες ἀεὶ Wedorar’ καὶ yap 
τάφον, ὦ ava, σεῖο Κρῆτες ἐτεκτή- 
ναντο, σὺ δ᾽ οὐ θάνες (with Spanheim’s 
note), a passage quoted by Athenag. 
Suppl. 30, by Clem. Alex. Pvoftr. 
p. 32, and by Orig. ¢. Ceds. iii. 43, and 
alluded to by Tatian ad Graec. 27. 
Chrysostom Hom. 7221 Ep. ad Tit. 3 
(Op. XI. p. 744) ascribes these verses 
to Epimenides. The inscription on 


tius 2227. 13, on the authority of 
Euhemerus as reproduced by Ennius 
(comp. Div. 7ηι52.1.11). Pythagoras is 
said by Porphyry (Vz¢. Pyth. 17) to 
have written on the tomb some verses 
(ἐπίγραμμα ἐπεχάραξεν ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ), 
which began Ὧδε θανὼν κεῖται Ζᾶν ὃν 
Δία κικλήσκουσιν. Hence Chrysostom 
(I. ς.) gives the actual inscription on 
the tomb as Ἐνταῦθα Zav κεῖται ov 
Δία κικλήσκουσι. See Hoeck A7e/a Ill. 
p. 335 sq (comp. p. 297 sq). Comp. 
also the mockery of Lucian 77zwzon 
6, de Sacréf. 10. This was a com- 
monplace of apologists and others 
in their attacks upon the pagan 
mythology; e.g. Clem. Hom. ll. cc., 
Clem. Recogn. \.c., Athenag. l.c., 
Tatian l.c., Theoph. ad Aztzol. 1. 


504 


MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. 


[111 


Κρήτη τέθαπται, ᾿λσκλήπιος δὲ κεραυνοβοληθεὶς ἐν 
Κυνοσούρῃ, ᾿λφροδίτη ἐν Πάφῳ μετὰ Κινύρου τέθαπται, 


᾿Ηρακλῆς πυρὲ ἀνήλωται. 


1 dé] PLCBM; om. VA. 
κεραυνῷ βληθεὶς V (comp. M). 


τοιούτων γὰρ τιμωριῶν ἄξιοι 


κεραυνοβοληθεὶς] P ; κεραυνωβοληθεὶς (sic) L ; 
2 Κυνοσούρῃ] P; κοινοθύρῃ L; κυθήνῃ V ; 


REMoeoTpoc Cs; 0...e07TPHe Cy (the word being mutilated) 5 céthaerone (v. 1. 


cithero) B; kitheron monte bocotiae A. 
Cyr 


ro gi. 5, Clem, Alex (P7077... 2, (p.-32), 
Minuc. Octav. 21, Tertull. AZol. 25, 
ad INat. 11. 17, Cyprian Quod Idola 
etc. 2, Firm. Matern. 7, Arnob. adv. 
Cea AV. ΤῊΣ 25. lactant.. 11: :cc., 
Euseb. 27acp. ΚΕ il. 2. AS, ili. 10. 21, 
etc. So too Orac. Szbyll. viii. 48 ὧν 
Κρήτη καύχημα τάφους ἡ δύσμορος ἕξει 
(a passage quoted by Lactant. Dzv. 
Inst. 1. 11), where the Sibyllist in- 
cludes Cronos and Rhea. Celsus 
complained of the treatment of this 
myth by the Christians; Orig. c. (δίς. 
lll. 43 λέγει περὶ ἡμῶν ὅτι καταγελῶμεν 
τῶν προσκυνούντων τὸν Δία, ἐπεὶ τάφος 
αὐτοῦ ἐν Κρήτῃ δείκνυται, καὶ οὐδὲν 
ἧττον σέβομεν τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου, οὐκ 
εἰδότες πῶς καὶ καθὸ Κρῆτες τὸ τοιοῦτο 
ποιοῦσιν. Origen controverts his 
tropological explanation of the story. 

I. ἐν Κυνοσούρῃ! Cic. de Nat. 
Deor. iii. 22 ‘Is [i.e. ‘Aesculapius 
secundus’, for he mentions three], 
fulmine percussus, dicitur humatus 
esse Cynosuris’: comp. Clem. Alex. 
Protr. 2 (p. 26) οὗτος͵ pev οὖν [ὁ 
᾿Ασκλήπιος] κεῖται κεραυνωθεὶς ἐν τοῖς 
Κυνοσουρίδος ὁρίοις, Lactant. ΞΖ 221. ὃ 
‘Cynosuris, ut Cicero ait, sepultus, 
cum esset ictu fulminis interemtus’ 
(comp. Dév. Just.i. 10). The place 
intended was perhaps the Spartan 
Cynosura, on which see Miiller Dovz- 
ans Il. p. 48 (Eng. Trans.), Leake 


Πάφῳ] LPVBMCs; fapho cypri A; τάφῳ 
Κινύρου] V; κυνήρου P; RomHpoc Cs; κύρου L ; cennis (MIMHAIIILOC) Cm; 
cyrene (secundum alios; venatore) A; venatore (-- κυνηγοῦ) B. 
LPVC; add. zz tyro B; add. 2722 alzo zterum loco etc. A. 


3 ἀνήλωται] 
yap] PVCs: ztgztur B; 


Travels in the Morea 1- p. 176; 
Boeckh C.,/.)°G, Gop) Goose onic 
may have been the Cynosura of 
Arcadia, as Curtius (Peloponnesos 1. 
p- 391 sq) with some reason sup- 
poses. There can be no doubt but 
that the right word is preserved by 
P. The ultimate Latin and Arme- 
nian reading ‘Cithaerone’ is an at- 
tempt to get an intelligible name 
out of a mutilation or corruption 
KYOHPH Or KYOHpw, to which the 
readings of LV point, but no tradi- 
tion placed the death or burial of 
Aésculapius on Cithzron. As re- 
gards the termination, I have retain- 
ed that which alone the authorities 
support here; but in the parallel 
passages it 15 -pis -pidos, or -pa -ρων. 
2. peta Kwvpov] Cinyras held 
the foremost place in Cyprian legend. 
The myths respecting him are mi- 
nutely investigated in Engel’s Aypros 
il. Ὁ: 04 sq (comp. 2é) ni 5295 
sq). The story was variously told. 
The main points however are these. 
Cinyras was the founder of Cyprian 
civilisation and the institutor of the 
worship of the Paphian Aphrodite ; 
he was the ancestor of the Paphian 
priests, the Cinyradz; he was the 
beloved of the goddess herself; he 
met with a violent death; and he 
was buried in the sanctuary of Aphro- 


wwe 


111] 


ROMAN ACTS. 


595 


on Ἐν > ~ \ \ € 4: 
ὑμών ἦσαν οἱ θεοί, ἐπεὶ ἀκρατεῖς καὶ κακοποιοὶ [ὑπῆρχον] 


καὶ ἀνθρώπων φθορεῖς: ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος Κύριος, εἰ καὶ 


ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔδειξεν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δύνα- 


Ε] ΄σ \ 3 / 2 \ 3 
μιν ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ τοὺς ἀνελόντας αὐτον δὶ 


65 ΑΕ om; Εἰ πὰ. 


4 ὑμῶν] here, LP; after θεοί, V. 
ΕΒ: ὑπῆρχον] LV; sunt C; erant A; fuerunt B; om. P. 


ἐπεὶ] LV; ἐπειδὴ 
5 ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος... 


ἐργάται xaxtas] LPCBA (but A contains also much additional matter); om. V 


(obviously owing to the recurrence of ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος ΚΚύριοΞ). 


PBC,A ; add. ἑκουσίως LC; def. V. 


THY ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν ἔδειξεν L, 


dite, where also the remains of his 
descendants lay. On this last point 
see Clem. Alex. Protr. 3 (p. 40) Iro- 
λεμαῖος δὲ ὁ τοῦ ᾿Αγησάρχου ἐν τῷ 
πρώτῳ τῶν περὶ τὸν Φιλοπάτορα ἐν 
Πάφῳ λέγει ἐν τῷ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερῷ 
Κινύραν τε καὶ τοὺς Κινύρου ἀπογόνους 
κεκηδεῦσθα. So too Arnob. adv. 
Gent. vi. 6, who mentions the same 
fact on the same authority of Ptolemy, 
and obviously copies Clement. The 
Christian apologists, in their attacks 
on pagan mythology, frequently al- 
lude to the love of Aphrodite for 
Cinyras and represent her as a harlot 
whom he deified ; Clem. Alex. Profr. 
2 (p. 5) ὁ Κύπριος ὁ νησιώτης Κινύρας... 
τὰ περὶ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μαχλῶντα ὄργια 
ἐκ νυκτὸς ἡμέρᾳ παραδοῦναι τολμήσας, 
φιλοτιμούμενος θειάσαι πόρνην πολίτιδα 
(comp. zd. pp. 13, 29), Arnob. adv. 
Gem iv. 25 “Ouis*rege ‘a’ Cyprio, 
cujus nomen Cinyras est, ditatam 
meretriculam Venerem divorum in nu- 
mero consecratam...prodidit?’ (comp. 
zb. v. 19), Firm. Matern. τὸ ‘ Audio 
Cinyram Cyprium templum amicae 
meretrici donasse etc.’, and Euseb. 
Praep. Ev. ii. 3. 14, 15, who quotes 
Clement of Alexandria as above 
cited. The apologists do not gene- 
rally speak of the death or burial of 
the goddess, but are content to refer 
to her being wounded by Diomed. 


6 ἀπέθανεν] txt 
ἀλλ᾽ ἔδειξεν THY ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν] P ; ἀλλὰ 


The tomb however is mentioned in 
Clem. Flom... Fi. 233° Vic 21.) Clee: 
Recogn. x. 24, and in the passage 
of Czesarius corresponding to the 
reference in the Recognitions, Dial. ii. 
Resp. 102 ἐν Κύπρῳ τὴν Κύπριν κόπρῳ 
ἐν τάφῳ κειμένην, ἐν δὲ Θράκῃ "Ἄρην τὸν 
τῆς ἀρᾶς ἐπώνυμον, where he makes 
merry with the names. [The only 
reference given in Engel (II. p. 75) is 
‘Klemens v. Alex. Recognit. B. 13. 
Kap. 24 ᾿Αφροδίτης ὁ τάφος δείκνυται 
ἐν ade. It would hardly be possi- 
ble to crowd more blunders into a 
single reference. The quotation is 
taken from the Metaphrast’s JZartyr. 
Ignatz. ὃ 7 (and therefore derived ulti- 
mately from our martyrologist) and 
appears in Cotelier’s note as an illus- 
tration of the statement in Clem. 
Recogn. x. 24. With Clement of 
Alexandria it has not any, even the 
remotest connexion.] I do not find 
any references given from classical 
writers, which mention this tomb of 
Aphrodite. The reading κυνηγοῦ is 
apparently an emendation or a fur- 
ther corruption of κυνηρου, itself cor- 
rupted by itacism from κινυρου ; but 
it seems to be intended for Adonis. 
Though in one form of the legend 
Adonis was the son of Cinyras, yet 
(so far as I am aware) he was never 
represented as buried in Paphos. 


500 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [111 


ς a / \ ε \ ε Wi 3 
ὑμών τιμωρησάμενος: καὶ οἱ μὲν ὑμέτεροι θεοὶ ἀπ 
a 7 ε > 7 ς \ 
αὐτοῦ δίκην εἰσεπράχθησαν ws ἐργάται κακίας, ὁ δὲ 
ε Uh fi > / \ if ς \ 3 A 
ἡμέτερος Κύριος ἀνηρεθη κατὰ σάρκα ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων 
΄- / 9 ΄- \ 9 / ΄σ \ 
πονηρῶν οὐ φερόντων αὐτοῦ Tous ἐλεγμούς, πᾶσαν μὲν 
ς / > \ \ 2 , 
εὐεργεσίαν παρεσχήκως, ἀχαριστηθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ ἀπίστων. 5 


Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: “Eyw σοι παραινώ ἐκκλῖναι τὸν θάνα- 


\ a a a 
TOV Και προσδραμεῖν TH ζωῇ. 


/ σ᾽ a 
᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν Καλώς 


lo = / \ \ 4. te / 
παραινεῖς μοι, βασιλεῦ: φεύγω yap Tov αἰώνιον θανα- 


\ / ΄σ 3 7 ~ 
τον καὶ προσφεύγω τῇ αἰωνίῳ ζωῇ. 


4 ἐλεγμούς] P; ἐλέγχους LV. 
...kal ἀχαριστηθεὶς V; al. CAB. 


pot] L; παραινεῖς με Ῥ; μοι παραινεῖς V. 
φεύγω] LPCA; φύγω ΝΒ (?). 
9 προσφεύγω] PV; προστρέχω L; festino in Cs; festino tre in Cm3 
10 εἰσὶν] LP; εἰσὶ Vs. 
δὲ kal] V ; stmeliter autem et B; ὡσαύτως καὶ L; οὕτως P; def. CA. 


[A]. 
νον P. 


curroad A; al. B. 
αἰώνιος] PV ; ἡ δὲ ἀΐδιος L. 


IO. ὃ μὲν πρόσκαιρος κιτ.λ.] See 
the interpolated text of Ao. 3, where 
the words of 2 Cor. iv. 18 are intro- 
duced. 

15. τῷ δεκατρεῖς x.7.A.] For the 
allusion see Hom. 724. v. 385 sq τλῇ 
μὲν "Apns, ὅτε μιν Ὦτος κρατερός τ᾽ 
᾿Εφιάλτης, παῖδες ᾿Αλωῆος, δῆσαν κρα- 
τερῷ ἐνὶ δεσμῷ, χαλκέῳ δ᾽ ἐν κεράμῳ δέ- 
δετο τρισκαίδεκα μῆνας, Firm. Mat. 12 
‘Oti εἰ Efialtae edicto Mars...ferrea 
catenarum vincla sustinuit’, Tertull. 
Apol.14 ‘Martem tredecim mensibus 
invinculis paeneconsumptum’ (comp. 
ad Nat.i. 10). When our martyro- 
logist adds διὰ μοιχείαν, he apparent- 
ly confuses this binding of Ares by 
the Aloidze with the other binding of 
the same god by Hephestos, as told 
also by Homer Od. viii. 295 sq. The 
adultery of Ares with Aphrodite is 
a frequent topic of the apologists ; 
Tatian ad Graec. 34, Athenag. SupAl. 
21, Minuc. Oc¢. 23, Firm. Matern. 12, 
Cypr. ad Donat. ὃ, Lactant. Dev. Znst. 


14. ἀμείνων] Κ΄; ἀμείνω LP. 


Τραΐα νὸς εἶπεν" 


πᾶσαν μὲν.. ἀχαριστηθεὶς δὲ] LP; πᾶσαν 
6 co] LV; ce ἘΣ ὃ παραινεῖς 
βασιλεῦ] LP; ὦ βασιλεῦ V[C][B] 

αἰώνιον] LVCAB; ἀνθρώπι- 
εἶπεν] PV ; εἶπε 1,. 11 οὕτω 
12 ἡ δὲ 
θέλεις] Ν' ; om. 


i. Io (comp. ΖΦ 7227. i. 8), Arnob. v. 41, 
43, Clem. Alex. Pot. Σ 9. 20)» 
Arnobius (l.c.) deals with the alle- 
gorical interpretation which heathen 
apologists put upon the story. 

16. τῷ πεπεδημένῳ k.t.d.] “20 the 
blacksmith with the crippled feet, 
The reference is to the common 
story of Hephzstos, as told from 
Homer (71. i. 590 sq) onward. Allu- 
sions to the lameness of this god 
and its cause in Christian apologists 
appear in. Tatian \ad)) Grace ie, 
Theoph. ad Autol. i. 3, Minuc. Octav. 
22, Firm. Matern. 12, Arnob. iv. 24, 
Clem. Alex...Protr:.2, (.125)-0 mee 
this sense of πεπεδημένος, ‘maimed, 
crippled’, see Hom. 71. xili. 435 πέ- 
δησε δὲ φαίδιμα γυῖα (comp. iv. 517). 

χαλκεῖ] Hephezestos is so called in 
Hom. //. xv. 309. Again in Od. viii. 
273 he goes to his ‘smithy’ (87 p 
ἴμεν εἰς χαλκεῶνα). So too his festi- 
val at Athens was called χαλκεῖα. See 
also Tertull. ad Vaz. i. 10 ‘ In Vulcano 


ut] 


ROMAN ACTS. 


507 


\ / > \ / Nate. , Cy “ / « \ 
ο Kal πόσοι εἰσὶν θάνατοι; ᾿Ϊγνάτιος eimrev* Avo, ὁ μὲν 


, e δὲ 5)... 7 ᾿ J ac \ \ Si Ca. 
TPOGKALOOS, O € ALWVYLOS" OUTW OE Και Cwal vO, ἢ MEV 


Av / e δὲ ΦΥ͂, 
ολιγοχρόνιος, OE αἰωνιος. 


Τραΐα νὸς εἶπεν: Θῦσον 


a a \ \ / af \ io \ = 
τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ Tas τιμωρίας EKKALVOY" OU yap εἰ σι τῆς 


/ 3 / 
γερουσιας ἀμείνων. 


᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν" Ποίοις θεοῖς θέλεις 


Ls > ~ > \ 7 3 / 
θύσω: τω δεκατρεῖς μῆνας δια μοιχείαν ἐν πίθω κατειρ- 


θέ a 3\ ΄- ὃ 7 δ β 7 λ ΞΕ "λ lon 
4 GUTEL Gg! i] Tw TETTE μένω TAS aACELS χα K€l, ἢ τω 


7] σ΄: ~ \ e \ A fe 
ἀστοχήσαντι τῆς μαντικῆς καὶ ὑπὸ YUVaLKOS νικηθέντι: 


3λ a ς \ 7 / 3 / x 3 σ- \ 
ἢ τῷ ὑπὸ Τιτάνων διασπωμένῳ ἀνδρογύνῳ ; ἢ τοῖς Ta 


LPCAB. 


τρεῖς μῆνας. 


κατειρχθέντι] V; καθειρχθέντι LP. 


15 δεκατρεῖς] PV; δεκὰ καὶ τρεῖς L. C omits the words δεκα- 


τό χαλκεῖ] fabro- 


ferrario C; χαλκῷ LPV; aeneis vinculis A (but he seems to have omitted 7, and 
perhaps some other words, and thus to have referred χαλκῷ to Ares in the pre- 


vious clause) ; dub. B (who omits many words, perhaps this included). 


κηθέντι] PV; ἡττηθέντι L. 


17 ve- 


18 διασπωμένῳ] PV; διασπομένῳ L. For ἢ 


τῷ ὑπὸ T. διασπωμενῷ AB translate as if they had read τῆς ὑπὸ T. διασπωμένης. C 


agrees with the Greek Mss. 


faber ferri consecratur.’ There can 
be no doubt that the Coptic has pre- 
served the correct reading. The 
text of the Greek MSS, ‘ chained with 
brass’, does not suit the legend. 

τῷ ἀστοχήσαντι κ-τ.λ.] Apollo, who 
did not foresee the death of Hya- 
cinthus whom he killed unintention- 
_ally, and was a slave to his love for 
Daphne who escaped his embraces. 
The reference is explained by paral- 
lel passages in the apologists; Tatian 
ad Graec. 8 ἐπαινῶ σε viv, ὦ Δάφνη" 
τὴν ἀκρασίαν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος νική- 
σασα ἤλεγξας αὐτοῦ τὴν μαντικήν, 
ὅτι μὴ προγνοὺς τὰ περὶ σὲ τῆς αὐτοῦ 
τέχνης οὐκ ὥνατο. λεγέτω μοι νῦν ὁ 
ἑκατηβόλος πῶς Ὕάκινθον διεχρήσατο 
Ζέφυρος κ-.τ.λ. (comp.z.§19),Athenag. 
Suppl. 21 ὦ μάντι καὶ σοφὲ καὶ προει- 
δὼς τοῖς ἄλλοις τὰ ἐσόμενα, οὐκ ἐμαν- 
τεύσω τοῦ ἐρωμένου τὸν φύνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
ἔκτεινας αὐτοχειρὶ τὸν φίλον, Theoph, 
ad Autol.i. 9 ᾿Απύλλωνα...τῆς Δάφνης 
ἐρῶντα καὶ τὸν Ὑακίνθου μόρον ἀγνοοῦντα 


[Justin] Or. ad Graec. 2 ὁ Λητοΐδης, ὁ 
μαντικὴν ἐπαγγειλάμενος, ἑαυτὸν ἤλεγξεν 
ὅτι ψεύδεται Δάφνην ἐδίωξεν, ἣν οὐ 
κατέλαβε, καὶ τῷ ἐρομένῳ αὐτὸν [ἐρω- 
μένῳ αὐτοῦ 3] Αἰακίδῃ θρησκεύοντι τὸν 
αὐτοῦ θάνατον οὐκ ἐμαντεύσατο, Clem. 
Alex. Protr. 2 (p. 27) Δάφνη γὰρ ἐξέ- 
φυγε μόνη καὶ τὸν μάντιν καὶ τὴν φθοράν, 
Firm. Matern. 12 ‘ Dafnen divinans 
deus nec invenire potuit nec stu- 
prare.’ 

18. τῷ ὑπὸ Τιτάνων «.7.d.] 1.6. Dio- 
nysus: comp. Diod. Sic. ii. 61 τὸν 
θεὸν [Διόνυσον] ἐκ Διὸς Kat Δήμητρος 
τεκνωθέντα διασπασθῆναι μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν 
Τιτάνων, πάλιν δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς Δήμητρος 
τῶν μελῶν συναρμοσθέντων K.T.A. (with 
Wesseling’s note); comp. 20. v. 75 
διασπώμενον ὑπὸ τῶν Τιτάνων, and see 
Pausan. vil. 18. (4; Vile 37.5.) Foe 
Christian writers see Clem. Hom. v1. 
2 τὸν Διόνυσον...ὃν ὑπὸ Τιτάνων ἐ- 
σπαράχθαι λέγουσιν, Clent. Recogn. x. 
20 ‘Persephonae...ex qua Dionysum 
genuit, qui a Titanis discerptus est,’ 


508 MARTYRDOM’ OF S. IGNATIUS. [ΠῚ 


| / 2 ὃ , / \ \ Ao ᾽ 
λίου οἰκοδομήσασιν τείχη καὶ τὸν μισθὸν ἀποστερη- 
a \ ΄σ \ a af / \ \ lo 
θεῖσιν; ἢ ταῖς Ta ἀνδρών ἔργα μιμουμέναις, Ta δὲ τῶν 
> of 3 / 3 ΄σ / \ 
γυναικῶν ἔργα ἐκλαθομέναις; αἰδοῦμαι λέγειν θεοὺς 
7 ~ 7] \ / 3 3 \ \ 
γόητας καὶ φθορεῖς παίδων καὶ poryous, εἰς ἀετὸν καὶ 
΄- \ \ / \ y ε land 
ταῦρον καὶ χρυσὸν Kal κύκνον Kat δράκοντα, [ws ὑμεῖς 5 
/ Γ 2 3 3 ΩΝ 3 3 
λέγετε,) μεταβαλλομένους, οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ τινι, ἀλλ 


3 A 
ἐπὶ διαλύσει ἀλλοτρίων γάμων: ous ἔχρην βδελύττε- 


2) \ \ \ ~ 
σθαι, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ προσκυνεῖν. 


τ Ἰλίου] A; HAsoc Cs; ovTAIOC Ομ; ἡλίου LP; τοῦ ἡλίου  ; def. Β. 
ἀποστερηθεῖσιν] txt PVCA[B]; ἀποστερηθεῖσι 
4 καὶ ταῦρον] LPCB; ταῦρον V; om. [A]. 
χρυσὸν] LPVC.; et leonem (σὲ for ποῦ) Cm; om. [A][B]. 
ws ὑμεῖς λέγετε] LPV ; om. CAB. 


δομήσασιν] Ῥ ; οἰκοδομήσασι LsV. 
τῶν ἐργασθέντων 1,. 


om. LP[BJC. 


Clem. Alex. Protr. 2 (p. 15) of Tiraves 
διέσπασαν ἔτι νηπίαχον ὄντα, ὡς ὁ τῆς 
τελετῆς ποιητὴς ᾿Ορφεύς φησιν ὁ Opa- 
κιος Κατιλ., Where the story is given 
at length (comp. Ζό. p. 19 παιδίον 
ὑπὸ Τιτάνων διασπώμενον) ; Arnob. v. 
Ig ‘ut occupatus puerilibus ludicris 
distractus ab Titanis Liber sit etc.’ 
ἀνδρογύνῳ] Suidas ᾿Ανδρόγυνος. 
ὁ Διόνυσος κιτιλ. So Cosmas explains 
ἀνδρογύνους in Greg. Naz. as a re- 
ference to Bacchus; see Greg. Naz. 
Op. IV. pp. 402,403 (ed. Migne). Comp. 
also Porphyr. in Euseb. Praep. Ev. 
111. 11. 11 ὁ δὲ Διόνυσος... ἔστι θηλύμορ- 
gos, μηνύων τὴν περὶ τὴν γένεσιν τῶν 
ἀκροδρύων ἀρρενόθηλυν δύναμιν. He 
was also called δίμορφος, Diod. Sic. 
iv. 5. The effeminacy of Bacchus is 


held up to scorn in [Justin] Ογαΐ. ad © 


Gent. 2 (p. 38) Διονύσου τὸ θηλυκόν, 
Arnob. vi. 12 ‘Liber membris cum 
mollibus et languoris feminei disso- 
lutissimus laxitate’, Firm. Matern. 
ἢ; 12, Clem: 110m. Va τ: 

τοῖς Ta Ἰλίου κιτ.λ.] The ‘ Laome- 
donteae perjuria Trojae,’ when Posei- 
don and Apollo the builders were 
defrauded of their wages; Clem. 


fi ε ~ af 
TOUTOLS UMW) EUV OVTAL 


oiko- 


5 Kal 
καὶ κύκνον] VA; 


g ὑμῖν] here, LP; before 


Alex. Protr. 2 (p. 30) Λαομέδοντι δ᾽ 
ἐθήτευε ἸΤοσειδῶν καὶ ᾿Απόλλων, καθάπερ 
ἀχρεῖος οἰκέτης, μηδὲ ἐλευθερίας δήπου- 
θεν δυνηθεὶς τυχεῖν παρὰ τοῦ προτέρου 
δεσπότου τότε καὶ τὰ Ἰλίου τείχη 
ἀνῳκοδομησάτην τῷ Φρυγί, Lactant. 
Div. Inst. i. 10 ‘Nonne [Apollo]... 
turpissime gregem pavit alienum, et 
muros Laomedonti exstruxit cum 
Neptuno mercede conductus, quae 
illi negari potuit impune etc.?’, 
Minuc. Oct. 23 ‘Laomedonti vero 
muros Neptunus instituit nec mer- 
cedem operis infelix structor accipit’ 
(whose words are repeated by 
Cyprian Quod Idola etc. 2), Firm. 
Matern. 12 ‘ Mercedem fabricatorum 
murorum Neptunus a superbo rege 
non recipit’. Sometimes the two are 
spoken of as building the walls, 
e.g. Hom. JZ. vil. 452 τὸ εγὼ καὶ 
Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων ἥρῳ Λαομέδοντι πο- 
λίσσαμεν ἀθλήσαντε (comp. Pind. Οὦ 
Vill. 31) ; but where the story is told 
at length (71. xxi. 442 sq), Poseidon 
is represented as building the walls, 
while Apollo tends the cattle. 

2. ταῖς ta ἀνδρῶν κιτ.λ.] Athene 
the warrior and Artemis the hunter ; 


111] ROMAN ACTS. 


509 


e n ε7 \ ΓΑ ~ 7 
al γυναῖκες, ἵνα τὴν σωφροσύνην ὑμῖν φυλαξωσιν. 


Τ “. \ > 9 , 7ὔ ~ 3 \ \ 
9 Toatavos εἶπεν" “Eyw σοι παραίτιος τῆς εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς 


βλασφημίας γέγονα, μὴ αἰκιζόμενός σε. 


, ἘΣ 
"Iyvatios εἰ- 


. 9] , \ / «“ ε VA ᾽ A 
mev’ Eionka σοι καὶ πάλαι, OTL ἑτοίμως ἔχω πρὸς 


ies LY \ ΄- / / > \ 
πάσαν αἰκίαν καὶ παντοῖον θανάτου τρόπον, ἐπειδὴ 


σπεύδω πρὸς τὸν Θεον. 


ἘΥ. Τραϊανὸς εἴπεν' ᾿Εὰν μὴ θύσης, μεταμελη- 


θήση. 


τὴν σωφροσύνην V. 


πρὶν οὖν παθεῖν, φεῖσαι σεαυτοῦ. 


10 θεοὺς] twice in L. 


3 / 
lyvatios 


11 αἰκιζόμενος] LP; αἰκι- 


σάμενος V3; αἰκισαμένους (or αἰκιζομένους) B. The nom. sing. was read by CA. 


12 πάλαι] PVCBA; πάλιν λέγω L. 


τοίων θανάτων τρόπον 1, : omnem mortem B. 
15 θύσῃς] LP; θύσεις V. 


Tov V. 


comp. Justin Or. ad Graec. 2 (p. 39) 
διδάξατε ᾿Αθηνᾶν καὶ [Αρτεμιν τὰ τῶν 
γυναικῶν ἔργα καὶ Διόνυσον τὰ ἀνδρῶν. 
4. εἰς ἀετὸν κιτ.λ.} The amours 
and transformations of Zeus were a 
fertile theme of invective for Christian 
writers in their attacks upon pagan- 
ism. The fullest list is in Clem. 
Hom. v. 13, from which I extract the 
particulars referred to in our martyr- 
ology, Αἰγίνῃ τῇ ᾿Ασωποῦ πλησιάζει 
γενόμενος ἀετός... Δανάῃ τῇ ᾿Ακρισίου 
χρυσὸς ἐπερρύη...Καλλιστοῖ τῇ Λυκά- 
ovos ἠγριώθη λέων. ..Εὐρώπῃ τῇ Φοί- 
νικος διὰ ταύρου συνῆλθεν... Νεμέσει 
τῇ Θεστίου, τῇ καὶ Λήδᾳ νομισθείσῃ, 
κύκνος ἢ χὴν γενόμενος Ἑλένην ἐτεκ- 
νώσατο... Περσεφόνην αὐτὸς ἐκνυμφεύει 
τὴν θυγατέρα, αὐτὸς ὁμοιωθεὶς δράκοντι 
where ἢ χὴν is added by the author 
himself in ridicule ; comp. Clem. Re- 
cogn. x. 22. See also the invec- 
tive in Arnob. ad Nai. v. 20 sq. 
So too [Justin] Orat. ad Gent. 2 ἐπ᾽ 
᾿Αντιόπῃ μὲν ὡς σάτυρος, καὶ Aavan 
χρυσός, καὶ ἐπ᾿ Ἑὐρώπῃ ταῦρος ἦν, 
ἐπτεροῦτο δὲ παρὰ Λήδᾳ, Tertull. Afol. 
21 ‘squamatum aut cornutum aut 
plumatum amatorem, in aurum con- 


13 παντοῖον θανάτου τρόπον] PVCA; παν- 
14 τὸν] txt LPCAB; add. ἀθάνα- 
16 σεαυτοῦ] PV; σαυτοῦ L. 


versum, Jovis enim ista sunt numina 
vestri’, Firm. Matern. 12 ‘deus suus 
in cygno fallit, in tauro rapit, ludit in 
satyro etc.’; see likewise Tatian Oraz. 
ad Graec. το, Athenag. Supfl. 20, 21, 
Clem. Alex. Protr. 2 (p. 31), Tertull: 
ad Nat. ii. 13, Arnob. vil. 33, Lactant. 
Dia. Ζ οί, i. τας £it.. 10; ie Buses 
Theoph. ii. 15, 111. 61, with the verses 
of Greg. Naz. Of. Il. pp. 366, 456, 
ed. Caillau (see the commentary of 
Cosmas in Migne’s ed. of Greg. Naz. 
Of. IV. pp: 404 sq, 580 sq), hte 
passage of Homer (//. xiv. 315 sq), 
in which Zeus mentions his various 
loves, is quoted by [Justin] Cok. ad 
Graec. 3 (p. 3) and Athenag. Sup. 
21. For the transformation into the 
dragon, which marked the climax of 
this god’s turpitude, see esp. Clem. 
Flom. v. 14, Tatian Or. ad Graec. τὸ, 
Athenag. Suppl. v. 20, Clem. Alex. 
Protr. 2 (p. 14); Arnob. vy; 21. he 
eagle is connected in Clem. Hom. v. 
13 (quoted above) with A£gina, but 
other Christian writers associate it 
with the better known myth of 
Ganymede. 


510 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [ιν 


εἶπεν" Εἰ μὴ ἐφειδόμην ἐμαυτοῦ, ἐποίουν ὃ προσέταττες. 
Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Ταῖς μολυβίσιν αἰκίσασθε αὐτοῦ τὰ 
μετάφρενα. 
τὸν εἰς Θεὸν πόθον. 


3 / 5 3 / / a 
Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: ᾿Επέτειναάς μοι, βασιλεῦ, 
oe \ > na sf \ 
Toaiavos εἶπεν: Tots ὄνυξι tas 
\ ᾽ 7 / \ e/ 3 7 
πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ KaTa€avaTe καὶ ἅλατι ἀνατρίψατε. 
9 / 5 «“ ς “-“ \ \ 3 Ih 
Ιγνάτιος εἴπεν" “OXos μου ὁ vous προς Θεὸν ἀνατέταται, 


1 ὃ] LVC[A][B]; ἃ Ρ. 


αἰκίσασθε] LP; αἰκίσατε V. 


2 μολυβίσιν] 1, ; μολοβίσιν P; μολιβέσιν V. 

4 εἰς Θεὸν] VB; 22 christum C; ad domt- 
num A; ἐν κυρίῳ LP. Tots ὄνυξι] LPVB; ferrets unguibus AC. 5 a- 
Aart] LP; Grow V; sale CA; lapidibus asperis B. 6 Θεὸν7 LV; 
ἀνατέταται] VP; τέταται L. 8 οτῖς θεοῖς] txt LPVC;A 3 
add. haec verba enim nihil proderunt tibi Cm; add. nam ista praesumptio non 


τὸν θεὸν P. 


te juvabit B; see below p. 512, 1. 2. ΠΟοίοις θεοῖς} LPCAB; om. V. τάχα] 
PVCAB; om. L. g Αἰγυπτίων] LP; τῶν αἰγυπτίων V. κε- 
Nevers με θῦσαι] here, PVCAB; κελεύεις με θύειν after ποίοις θεοῖς, L. βου- 


2. μολυβίσιν] ‘leaden bullets’, 
attached to the thongs of the lash ; 
comp. Basil. Hom. tn Gord. Mart. 
4 (Of. τι. p. 145) κάλει, φησί, δημίους " 
ποῦ δὲ αἱ μολυβίδες ; ποῦ δὲ αἱ pa- 
atiyes; Passio S. Acactz § 11 (quoted 
in Ducange Gloss. s.v.) ὁ δικαστὴς 
εἶπεν, Κλάσατε αὐτοῦ τὰς σιαγόνας 
μολυβδίσιν. Previous editors have 
altered the form into μολυβδίσιν 
here. The insertion of the 6 is un- 
necessary: see the note on [Clem. 
Rem. ΠΡ. 5925 Whips ise 
weighted were called plumbatae in 
Latin ; see Gothofred on Cod.’ Theod. 
ise 135 (lid: pl i270): 

9. τοῖς Αἰγυπτίων κιτλ.} The 
animals here enumerated are; the 
calf (βούδιον) the emblem of Osiris, 
called Apis at Memphis (Herod. 1]. 
38, iil. 27 sq) and Mnevis at Heli- 
opolis (Plut. Zor. p. 364, Diod. Sic. i. 
84, 88); the goat Mendes of the 
Mendesian nome (Herod. ii. 42, 
46, Diod. i. 84, Strabo xvii. p. 802, 
812); the ibis sacred to Thoth, at 
Hermopolis (Herod. ii. 67,75); the 
ape, the cynocephalus (Strabo xvii. 


p. 812, Horapollo 1. 14—16) and the 
cercopithecus (Juv. Saz. xv. 4), the 
former certainly, the latter apparently, 
sacred to Thoth, at Hermopolis and 
at Thebes; the asp sacred to Neph, at 
Thebes (Plut. Jor. p. 380 sq, comp. 
Herod. ii. 74); the wolf sacred to 
Osiris (Ὁ), at Lycopolis (Plut. Mor. 
p. 380, Diod. i. 88, Strabo xvii. p. 
812); the dog supposed to have 
been sacred to Anubis, at Cynopolis 
(Herod. ii. 67, Diod. i. 87, Plut. Zor. 
368, Strabo xvii. p. 812); the lion sa- 
cred to Djom, at Leontopolis (Strabo 
xvil. 1p. 812, Diod. 1. 84, Plut: A7on 
p- 366); the crocodile sacred to 
Savak, in Crocodilopolis and the 
Arsinoite nome (Herod. ii. 69, 148, 
Strabo xvii.’ p.) 511; Died7 aes 
89); some of these animals being 
also worshipped throughout Egypt. 
A convenient list of the animals of 
Egypt, sacred and not sacred, is 
given in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyp- 
wiams V. p. 116 sq. The following are 
among the references to the animal 
worship of Egypt in early Christian 
writers 5 (Clem, Soni. ois 1235) πὸ τῷ 


Iv] ROMAN ACTS. 


\ Ξ; / / -- 
καὶ ὧν πάσχω λόγον οὐ ποιοῦμαι. 


Θῦσον τοῖς θεοῖς. 


511 


Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν" 


7 ἊΣ ’ ~ 
ἼἼγνάτιος εἴπεν" []οίοις θεοῖς ; τάχα 


΄- > / 7 ee / \ ls 
τοῖς Αἰγυπτίων κελεύεις με θῦσαι: βουδίῳ καὶ πράγῳ, 


of \ / \ 7 > / \ / \ 
ἰβιδι καὶ πιθήκῳ καὶ ἀσπίδι ἰοβόλῳ, ἢ λύκῳ καὶ κυνί, 


/ ἡ Νὴ > ~ >\ 
λέοντι Kat κροκοδείλῳ, ἢ τῷ Περσικῷ πυρὲ ἢ θαλάσσης 


δίῳ] P; Bot LV. 


τράγῳ, ἴβιδι] hirco, ibidi B; τράγω. 7B. V3 tpdyw καὶ ἴβη P; 


τράγω ἢ ἥβῃ L; hirco A; hirco et tbtdi C (ovohovs in Cy, but read ororhows). 
ré < 


10 πιθήκῳ] Vs; πιθίκῳ L; πηθίκω P. 
aut aspidt [B]. 

LP; κυνή V. 
κροκοδίλω καὶ κύκνω P. 
Cs, eracledes Cy). 
the lower note. 


ἢ λύκῳ] LP; e¢ Zupo C; lufo BA; om. V. 
11 λέοντι] LPVC; om. BA. 


τῷ Περσικῷ πυρὶ] add. guem adoravit heraclitus (heraclius 


ἀσπίδι] Ῥ ; καὶ ἀσπίδι LV[C]A ; 
κυνί] 


κροκοδείλῳ LVCAB; 


There is no trace of this addition in the other authorities; see 
ἢ θαλάσσης ὕδατι] LPC; (but om. ἢ) VAB; aut aguae thalletis 


(1eArAHC, 1.6, of Thales) μι where Cs has woeadAacca. After ὕδατι add. aut 
terrae aut cereris B; add. demetri terrae A: txt LPVC. 


(comp. Clem. Recogn. v.20), Athenag. 
Suppl. 1, Theoph. ad Auztzol. i. 10, 
Clem. Alex. Profr. 2 (pp. 34, 39), 
Paed. iii. 2 (p. 253), Tertull. ad Nat. 
ii. 8, adv. Marc. ii. 14, Orig. δι Cels. 
1. 20, vi. 80, Minuc. Oczav. 28, Lactant. 
Div. Inst. v.21, Euseb. Pracp. Ev. 
Meese, TL, Tig Si. ἀρκύϑεα 
also Orac. Szbyll. Prooem. 60 sq, v. 
73 sq, 278 sq. Celsus complained 
of the ridicule which the Christians 
threw on the animal worship of 
Egypt, Orig. c. Cels. 111. 19 καί φησί 
γε ἡμᾶς τῶν μὲν Αἰγυπτίων καταγελᾶν, 
καίτοι πολλὰ καὶ οὐ φαῦλα παρεχόντων 
αἰνίγματα κιτιλ. Τί is strange that our 
martyrologist in his enumeration has 
omitted the scoff at the ‘cats and 
weasels,’ with which other early 
writers barb their invective against 
this animal worship (e.g. αἴλουροι καὶ 
γαλαῖ; Clem. Alex. Protr. 2, p. 39). 

βουδίῳ] On the form see Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 86 sq. 

11. τῷ Περσικῷ πυρὶ] See Clem. 
Alex. Protr. 5 (p. 56), Firm. Matern. 
5. As the introduction of Heraclitus’ 
name appears only in the Coptic ver- 
sions, and can be explained by the cor- 


ruption in the Memphitic of @aAaccHc 
into θᾶλλης In the next clause, which 
introduced the name of Thales and 
thus suggested the introduction of 
Heraclitus also, it should probably 
be rejected. Yet curiously enough we 
have the same connexion in Arnob. 
adv. Nat. ii. 9, τὸ ‘Qui cunctarum 
rerum originem ignem esse dicit aut 
aquam, non Thaleti aut Heraclito 
credit ?...Vidit enim Heraclitus res 
ignium conversionibus fieri, concre- 
tione aquarum Thales,’ Lactant. Dzv. 
Inst. ii. τοῦ ‘ Heraclitus ex igne nata 
esse omnia dixit, Thales Milesius 
ex aqua’, Tertull. adv. Marc, i. 13 
‘ut Thales aquam, ut Heraclitus 
ignem’; comp. de Anim. 5, Justin. 
Coh. ad Gent. 3 (p. 4), Clem. Alex. 
Protr. 5 (p. 55 sq). The Memphitic 
scribe has confused the name of two 
philosophers together, Heraclitus and 
Heraclides. How easy such a con- 
fusion would be, appears from Tertull. 
de Anim. 9 ‘Non ut aer...etsi hoc 
Aenesidemo visum est et Anaximeni, 
puto secundum quosdam et Hera- 
clito, nec ut lumen, etsi hoc placuit 
Pontico Heraclidi.’ This Heraclides 


ice MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [1v 
ὕδατι, ἢ χθονίω Πλούτωνι ἢ Ἑρμῆ KNETTY § Τραϊανὸς 


S a. / « “- ~ y / 
εἶπεν: Εἰπὸν σοι OTt θῦσον. ταῦτα yap σε λέγοντα 


\ "ἢ 7 Ss ‘> lA . / sQA\ 
οὐδὲν ὀνήσει. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Εἶπον σοι [ ὅτι] οὐ θύω, οὐδὲ 
7 ΄- σ- m~ ς Α \ «δ > ͵ 
ἀφίσταμαι τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἑνος καὶ μόνου, ὃς ἐποίηςεν 
τὸν OYPANON KAl THN γῆν, THN θάλδοοὰν KAI πᾶντὰ 
\ > > A e\ γ 7 \ 5 7 an nr 
TA EN AYTOIC, OS EXEL TATHS σαρκος ἐξουσίαν, TOY ΘΕΟΥ 
an , \ / \ 3 Pal \ 
TON TNEYMATWN Kal βασιλέως παντὸς αἰσθητοῦ Kal 
΄. oe \ > VA / / 3 = 
νοητοῦ. Tpatavos εἶπεν: Ti yap [σε] κωλύει κἀκεῖνον, 
! \ 7 \ id e\ a / 
εἴπερ ἐστιν, θεὸν σέβειν καὶ τούτους οὗς κοινῇ πάντες 
ὁμολογοῦμεν ; ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: “H φυσικὴ διάγνωσις, 
5 A KaOaoa, ov [ 7 ἀληθεία τὸ ψεῦὸδ 9 
ὅταν ἡ καθαρά, οὐ συγκρίνει TH ἀληθείᾳ TO Os, τῷ 
\ \ 7 ΄- fq \ / ΄ \ 
φωτὶ TO σκότος, TW γλυκεῖ TO πικρὸν. τοῖς γὰρ 


τ χθονίῳ] LPCA; ἐπιχθονίῳ V (which gives a wrong sense); om. B: see the 
lower note. Πλούτων! ] LPAB; πλάτωνι V3 mnatwmn(?) Ος; montibus Cm 
(itrTWOT). “Epun] LV; épuet P. 
sacrifica (i.e. θῦσον or ὅτι θῦσον) CA; ἵνα ἐπιθύσῃς P; om. B. 
λέγοντα] PV; etenim ista dicere te A; quia ista multiloguia B; haec verba enim quae 
dicis C3 ὅσα yap av λέγῃς L. 
V. There is a future in CAB. 


2 ὅτι θῦσον] L; θῦσον V3; guod 


ταῦτα γάρ σε 


3 ὀνήσει) ὀνήση Ῥ ; σε ὀνίνησι L; ὀφελήσει (sic) 
Εἶπόν σοι] LVCAB; om. P. 


e 
OTL 


ΠῚ}: οἴ. PV; dub. CA. 4 Tov Θεοῦ] PV; θεοῦ L. 5 ΤῊΝ 
θάλασσαν] VCmAB ; preef. καὶ C;LP, and so Dressel without any reason. 6 ὃς 
ἔχει...ἐξουσίαν] here, CAB; after παντὸς αἰσθητοῦ [καὶ νοητοῦ], LPV. τοῦ 


Θεοῦ] τὸν θεὸν LPV. If this be the original reading, the writer must have forgotten 
the beginning of his sentence. 7 καὶ βασιλέως] καὶ βασιλέα LP ; τοῦ βασιλέως 
V; regis (om. καὶ) Cs; def. Cm. The conjunction appears in AB. 
νοητοῦ LVABC,; αἰσθητοῦ (om. kal νοητοῦ) P; zxvistbilium Cm (obviously defective 
here). 8 ce] LVCAB; om. P. 9 θεὸν] V[B]; θεὸς LPCA, but, 
though so highly supported, this is not the reading required by the sense. 11 τῷ 
φωτὶ] PV; pref. οὐδὲ L; pref. e¢ [A][B]; pref. awt C. And so again with τῷ 


αἰσθητοῦ καὶ 


is mentioned also Clem. Alex. Pyotr. tion ‘ Demeter (Ceres)’ would follow. 


5 (p. 58), Hippol. Haer. x. 7, Minuc. 
Octav. 19. 

I. ἢ xOovim κιτιλ.} The inser- 
tion in the Armenian and Latin may 
be explained by a repetition of sylla- 
bles, so as to read ἢ χθονὶ ἢ χθονίῳ 
κιτιλ., or by a corruption of ἢ χθονίῳ 
into ἢ χθονὶ ἢ κιτιλ. When the men- 
tion of Earth as an object of worship 
was once introduced, the explana- 


Previous editors have acquiesced in 
ἐπιχθονίῳ : but ἐπιχθόνιος, meaning 
térricola, is no epithet of Pluto, 
though it might be of Plato. 

4. ἐποίησεν κιτ.λ.] From Exod. 
ΧΧΨΤΙ: 

6. τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν πνευμάτων] Num. 
XXVil. 16; see the note on Clem. Rom. 
58 (64). 


7. “παντὸς «.7.A.] See Ps-Ign. 


et 


17] ROMAN ACTS. 


ων A / / \ a 2 
TavTa My διακρίνουσιν ἐπήρτηται TO oval. 


CYMPONHCIC 


XpicT@ περ Ὁ 


ae 

͵ \ 

τίς. yao 

BeAtap, H Tic mepic 


ποτ META ATICTOY; TIC AE CYFKATABECIC NA® 


ΟΕ meta EIADADN; 


ee \ > / ~ ~ 
AL Tpaiavos εἶπεν: ‘AtAwoavTes αὐτοῦ Tas χεῖρας 


/ 3 \ ’ 
πληρώσατε AVTAS πῦυρος. 


\ af / 
KQUOTLKOV οὔτε θηρίων 


“ > 
᾿Ἴγνάτιος εἶπεν" 


ὀδόντες 


Οὔτε πὺρ 


of 
οὔτε σκορπισμὸος 


> / af 3 Ue ref ΄σ / 3 ε ~ 
στέων οὔτε ἄλεσμοι ὅλον TOV TDwWMaATOS, οὐχ al TOU 


/ [7 / 7 land \ \ 
διαβόλου. κολάσεις, μεταστήσουσίν με τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν 


7 
ἀγαπης. 


“. \ τ Σ ΠΑ > 7] 7 
Τραΐανος εἶπεν: [᾿ἰαπυρον ἐλαίω βάψαντες 


καὶ μαλαξαντες, ἐξάψαντες τὰς πλευρὰς αὐτοῦ φλέ- 


γλυκεῖ. 


κρίνουσιν] LP; διακρίνουσι Vs. 


readings occur in 2 Cor. vi. 15, but χριστοῦ is correct. 


12 τῷ γλυκεῖ τὸ πικρόν] VAB; τὸ γλυκεῖ τὸ πικρόν P; τῷ γλυκεῖ 
τῷ πικρῷ L; dulce amaro C (but it transposes also, Zacem tenebris). 


13 δια- 
14 Χριστῷ] PVB; χριστοῦ L. Both 
Βελίαρ] LVCA ; 


βελίαν P; delial B. All three readings occur in 2 Cor. vi, 15, but Βελίαρ is cor- 


rect. 
LPCAB; ναῶν V. 
εἰδώλοις V; dub. (Ὁ. 
care] LP; πλήσατενν. 
TO καυστικὸν V. 


15 amiatov] LPCAB (as in 2 Cor. vi. 15); ἀπίστων V. 


vac | 


16 μετὰ εἰδώλων] LPAB (with 2 Cor. vi. 16); καὶ 
17 Tas χεῖρας] LP; χεῖρας V. 
αὐτὸς} LP; om. V. 
σκορπισμὸς] VC[B] (but CB have singulars in the other 
clauses) ; σκορπισμοὶ LP (with Rom. 5); def. A. 
οὐ (οὔτε P, οὐδὲ C?) συγκοπαὶ (συγκοπὴ C) μελῶν PVC (from Rom. 5); def. A. 
the clauses stand xegue dissipatio membrorum neque confractio ossium. 
ἀλεσμοὶ... σώματος] LPVCB (but CB have ἀλεσμός); om. A. 
διαβόλου κολάσει5}] LPVAB (with minor variations in AB); om. C. 


18 πληρώ- 
Ig καυστικὸν] LP ; 


20 ὀστέων] txt L; add. 
InB 
οὔτε 
οὐχ αἱ τοῦ 

21 μετα- 


στήσουσιν] PVC; separabit A; πείσωσιν ἀποστῆναι L; poterit me separare B 


(from Vulg. of Rom. viii. 39). 
eis L, 
ἅψαντες VA; incendentes B; om. Ὁ. 


Philipp. 5 ὁ.. πᾶσαν αἰσθητὴν καὶ νοητὴν 
φύσιν κατασκευάσας. 

ὃ. κἀκεῖνον, κιτιλ.) This was a 
compromise which the heathen 
apologists constantly put forward 
in the declining years of polytheism; 
see e.g. Macar. Magn. Ajpocr. iv. 20, 
26, where this father replies at length 
to the ‘sophism’ that Θεὸς οὐκ ἂν 
μονάρχης κυρίως ἐκλήθη, εἰ μὴ θεῶν 
ἦρχε. 

IGN. II. 


ΤῊΣ] PV ; ἀπὸ τῆς L. 


mpos] PV ; 


23 kal μαλάξαντες, ἐξάψαντες] L; καὶ μαλάξαντες ἐξάψατε καὶ P; καὶ 


13. τὸ οὐαί] So Dionys. Corinth. 
in Euseb. H. £. iv. 23 οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ 
κεῖται. 

τίς yap x.t.A.| From 2 Cor. vi. 15, 
16,a passage which is also quoted in 
Ps-Ign. Ephes. 16. 

18. Οὔτε πῦρ κ.τ.λ.] Adapted from 
Rom. 5. 

22. ἐλαίῳ «7.A.] Euseb. Mart. 
Pal. 4 λίνοις ἐλαίῳ δεδευμένοις τὼ πόδε 
αὐτοῦ καλύψαντες πῦρ ὑφῆπτον κ.τ.λ. 


3: 


514 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [Vv 
Eare. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Δοκεῖς μοι, βασιλεῦ, ἀγνοεῖν, 


« \ 3 3 \ ἴα > ray \ 7 3 ot 
ὅτι Θεὸς ἐν ἐμοὶ Cav ἐστιν, ὃς καὶ δύναμιν ἐπιχορηγεῖ 
a \ / 3 \ \ ἜΝ 
μοι καὶ στερροποιεῖ THY ψυχήν μου" οὐ yap ἂν οἷος TE 
; \ , ς \ > / 
ἤμην φέρειν σου τὰς βασάνους. Tpatavos εἶπεν" (ιδη- 
> 3 coy \ \ 3 

ρεος τάχα τις εἰ καὶ ἀπεσκληκώς" ἡ yap ἀν ἐνεδίδως 

~~ / / -~ ~~ ~ 
λοιπόν, Tots MwWAwW WLW ἀλγυνόμενος, θῦσαι Tots θεοῖς. 

9 3 

9 / ae > ε \ 5 ͵ σ΄: lo 
Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν" Οὐχ ws μὴ αἰσθανόμενος, βασιλεῦ, τῶν 

/ ΄σ ἢ} 3 9 a 
βασάνων φέρω καὶ καρτερῶ ταύτας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλπίδι τών 

r ΄- \ \ 9 
μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐνοίας ἐπικουφι- 
\ 3 / of \ ΄σ , > 
ζούσης μου Tas ὀδύνας: οὔτε yap πῦρ φλέγον οὔτε 
ὲ ς / 7, \ , \ \ , 
ὕδωρ ἐπικλύζον σβέσαι ποτὲ δυνήσεται τὴν πρὸς Θεόν 
9 / ee \ ὌΣ 3 / ~~ 

pou ἀγάπην. Tpatavos εἶπεν: ᾿Ενέγκαντες πῦρ Kat 
ς 7 2 δι 7 \ 3 7 If CANS 
ἁπλώσαντες εἰς TO ἐδαῴος THY ἀνθρακίαν, στήσατε ἐπ 


9 \ \ > / « \ e/ “σ΄ Gas \ 
αὐτὴν Tov ᾿Ιγνάτιον, ἵνα Kav οὕτως πεισθῇ εἰξαί μοι καὶ 


2 Θεὸς71.Ὁ} : ὁ θεὸς V. 


χορηγεῖ μοι] LP (ἐπιχωρηγεῖ Ῥ) ; μοι ἐπιχορηγεῖι V. 
στεροποιεῖ Ls; στερρὰν ποιεῖ V ; confortat BA ; facit...novam C. 
oul EPs οὔτε ν᾽: 


LP ; before τὴν ψυχήν, V. 

P; σιδηροῦς Ls; σιδήριος V. 
σκληρυκώς Ῥ. 
Veitch Greek Verbs 5. ν. διδόω, δίδωμι. 


θύσαι ] PV; καὶ ἔθυε LA; dub. C; al. B. 
ἐλπίδι... ἀγαθῶν] LP (but ἐπειδὴ for ἐλπίδι P) ; 


φέρω, L; ταῦτα here, V. 


ζῶν] LPCA; vita (ζωή) B; om. V. 


ἐπι- 
3 στερροποιεῖ] Ῥ; 
μου] here, 

4 σιδήρεος] σιδηραῖος 
5 ἀπεσκληκώς] V3 ἀπεσκλικώς L; ἀπε- 


évedidws| LP; ἐνεδίδου. V. For these parallel forms see 


6 μώλωψιν] P; μώλοψιν LV. 
8 ταύτας] here, P; after 


ἐλπίδι τῶν ἀγαθῶν after εὐνοίας, V. The word μελλόντων is represented in CAB. 


Ὁ THs] LP; as THs V; al. ABC. 


Cs φλέγον] PV; κατάφλεγον L. 
sions have a conjunction, but in such a case they have no weight. 
ἀγάπην] LP[A][B]; ἀγάπην (om. pov) V. 


3. στερροποιεῖ] The word occurs 
Polyb. v. 24.9, and elsewhere. 

4. Σιδήρεος] Euseb. Laud. Const. 
I6§$ 11 τίς οὕτω σιδήριος τὴν ψυχήν ; 
For the form see Steph. 7zhes. 5. v. 
p. 224 (ed. Hase et Dind.), Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 208. I have adopted it 
here, because it explains the read- 
ings of all the MSS. 

5. ἀπεσκληκώς] ‘hardened, obdu- 
rate, as e.g. Chrysost. de Sacerd. vi. 


το μου] LV[B]; wo. P; om. [A]; al. 

οὔτε sec.] PV; οὐχ Ε΄ The ver- 
12 μου 
14 τὸν ᾿Ιγνάτιον] here, 


1 (Op. τ. p. 422) ἢν μὴ πολλῇ τῇ τῆς 
σωφροσύνης αὐστηρότητι ἀπεσκληκυῖα 
τύχη [ἡ ψυχή] So Hesych. ἀπεσ- 
κληκώς: αναισθήτως Hence 
πρὸς didocodiav...dmeckAnkotas ἔχει, 
Synes. Lfzst. 138, p. 275 (see Lo- 
beck Phryn. 119). In its primary 
physical sense it is not uncommon; 
eg. Euseb. AZ. ix. ὃ of μὲν ἀπε- 
σκληκότες ὥσπερ εἴδωλα νεκρὰ ὧδε 


x 
EX@V. 


> ΄ ~ 
κακεῖσε Ψυχορραγοῦντες, 


μι 


ν] ROMAN ACTS. 515 


θῦσαι τοῖς θεοῖς. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: To καυστικὸν τοῦ 
πυρός σου εἰς ὑπόμνησίν με ἄγει τοῦ αἰωνίου καὶ ἀσβέ- 
στου πυρὸς, καίτοι πρόσκαιρον ὄν. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν" 
Οἶμαι γοητείᾳ σέ τινι καταφρονεῖν τῶν βασάνων" 7 
γὰρ ἂν εἴξαις ἡμῖν τοσαῦτα παρ᾽ ἡμῶν αἰκισθείς. 
 ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Οἱ δαίμονας ἀποστρεφόμενοι ὡς ἀπο- 
στάτας Θεοῦ καὶ εἴδωλα βδελνσσόμενοι πῶς ἂν εἶεν 
γόητες, εἰπέ [μοι]. 


= / if e / om \ 
μενοι τοῖς τοιούτοις λοιδορήμασιν ὑπόκεισθε" ἡμῖν δὲ 


e =~ \ ~ e ~ / 
ὑμεῖς yao μάλλον οἱ ταῦτα σεβο- 


νενομοθέτηται bapmakoye μὴ ἐᾶν Civ μηδὲ ἐπδοιλοὺο 
; μηδὲ KAHAONIZOMENOYC, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τὰ περίερΓγὰ 

πράττόντων TAC BIBAOYC KATAKAIEIN εἰώθαμεν ὡς 

3 ’ 5 _ 5 9 \ Lf 3 > ς ΄- e 

ETT LON TOUS. OUKOUV OUK EYW YO7S, αλλ UMELS Οἱ σροσ- 
Kav] LPC; καὶ V; vel Β ; saltem A. 
εἶξαι] PV ; πεισθεὶς ἥξει L3 credat et...consentiat B; πεισθῇ (om. εἶξαι) C; al. A. 
Perhaps we should read πεισθεὶς εἴξαι. po] LBC.; pov P; om. VCn; 
ala A. 15 θῦσαι] PV; θύσει L. 16 τοῦ...πυρός] LP; ἐκείνου 
τοῦ πυρὸς Kal αἰωνίου καὶ ἀσβέστου V; ignis (veri) aeterni et inextinguibilis C; 
verissimt tgnis [B]; tnextinguzbilis ignis [A] (the sentence being greatly altered). 
18 γοητείᾳ σέ τινι] P, and so app..C; guod tncantator es et A; γοητείας ἐστὶ V3; hoc 
malefictorum esse B; γοητείαν εἶναι τό L. ἢ γὰρ] h yap V3 ἢ γὰρ P; ἔπει 1,. 
19 elas] PV; ἥξας L. 21 eldwrta] PV; εἴδολα L. 22 por] LVC; 
om. PB; def. A. ταῦτα] here, PL; after μᾶλλον, V. 23 λοιδο- 
pnuacw] LPC[A]B; ληρωδήμασιν V. 24 ἐάν] PV; ἐὰν L. 25 κλη- 
Sovifouevous] V 3 κλιδωνιζόμενους L; κλιδονιζομένους P. 27 ἐπιρρήτους] L; 
ἐπαράτους P; ἀπορρήτους V ; corruptores A; quos et audire execramur B (apparently 
a combination of ἀπορρήτους and ἐπαράτους) ; def. C. oi] LP; om. V. 


LV; after στήσατε, P. πεισθῇ 


16. τοῦ αἰωνίου κιτ.λ.] See Mart. 
Polyc. 1 ὁ δὲ Πολύκαρπος" Πῦρ ἀπειλεῖς 
τὸ πρὸς ραν καιόμενον K.T.A. 

23. λοιδορήμασιν] The sense seems 
to require this word here; but in 
Suidas s.v. Λεόντιος the word Anpo- 
δήματα occurs without any v.l., and 
in Anast. Sin. Hodeg. 8 (p. 60) ro 
πολυθρύλλητόν σου ληρώδημα seems 
certainly to be right. 

24. φαρμακοὺς κιτ.λ.] Deut. xviii. 
IO Sq οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν σοὶ...κληδονι- 


ζόμενος καὶ οἰωνιζόμενος, φαρμακός, ἐπά- 
Sev ἐπαοιδήν κιτ.λ. ; Comp. Exod. xxii. 
18 φαρμακοὺς ov περιποιήσετε. 

25. tov τὰ x.t.A.| See Acts xix. 
19, whence the words are borrowed. 

27. ἐπιρρήτους] ‘infamous’; as 
Euseb. H. Z. ix. 5 émippnra tia 
γυναικάρια ἐξ ἀγορᾶς x.t.A., V. C. iii. 
55 ἄρρητοί te καὶ ἐπίρρητοι πράξεις 
(comp. Z.C. 8). The word occurs 
in this sense as early as Xen. Oecon. 
4. 2 at ye βαναυσικαὶ καλούμεναι [τέχ- 


33—2 


516 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


[Vv 


΄. ~ / ee \ 5 \ \ 
κυνοῦντες τοῖς δαίμοσιν. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Nn τους 
\ / \ ~ 
θεούς, ᾿Ιγνάτιε, ἀπέκαμον εἰς σὲ λοιπὸν, Kal ἀπορῶ 
7 \ \ ~ / 5 
ποίαις χρήσομαί σοι βασάνοις πρὸς τὸ πεῖσαί σε εἶξαι 
~ / 3 “ Ss \ 7 
τοῖς προσταττομένοις σοι. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν" Mn καμνε, 
a“ 3 ), ὙΥΟΝ \ 4 3\ 7] / x\ ΄σ 
βασιλεῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ πυρὶ παραδίδου ἢ ξίφει τέμνε ἢ βυθῷ 
sf 3\ 7 9 / J ° e/ 7 eon 
ἔκριπτε ἢ θηρίοις ἐκδίδου, ἵνα πεισθῆς OTL τούτων ἡμῖν 
3 ν ἃ \ \ \ \ \ a) / 
οὐδὲν δεινὸν διὰ τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν ἀγάπην. 


Wal: 


3 / rel / ε / sf 
τούτοις ἐναποθνήσκων οἷς TATXWY ὑπομένεις, οὐκ ἔχω 


Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Τίνα ἐλπίδα ἐκδέχη, γνάτιε, 


/ 3 / Or ξ € 3 - \ 3 \ τ 
λέγειν. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν. Οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες Tov ἐπὶ πάντων 
\ \ \ / e > 3 σι \ 3 > 
Θεὸν καὶ τὸν Κύριον [ἡμῶν] ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστον ἀγνοοῦσιν 

\ e , ΄- 3 , ͵ J 3 
kal Ta ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν ayaa: ὅθεν ἐν- 
~ ͵ / \ e/ 5. τῶν 2D. ε \ 
ταῦθα μόνον λογίζονται THY ὕπαρξιν αὐτῶν εἰναι ὡς καὶ 
~ 9 / / > \ \ ~ \ \ 9 7 ὃ 
τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων, οὐδὲν δὲ κρεῖττον μετὰ τὴν ἐνθένδε 


/ «ε ΄- \ ε / \ 
ἀπαλλαγὴν φανταζονται. ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ γινώσκοντες THY 


I νὴ τοὺς θεούς] P; ματοὺς (for μὰ τοὺς) θεοὺς L; fer deos CAB: τοὺς 
θεοὺς V. 2 εἰς σὲ λοιπόν, καὶ] P; εἰς σὲ καὶ λοιπὸν V ; λοιπὸν εἰς σὲ καὶ 
L; εἰς σὲ καὶ (om. λοιπὸν) A; εἰς σὲ C; al. Β. 3 σοι Bacdvos|] Ῥ ; βασάνοις 


κατὰ σοῦ L; βασάνοις V; al. B; def. C. εἶξαι] PV; ἤἥξαι L. 4 σοι] 
δ ΠΕ: πὶ. 1. 6 ἔκριπτε] LP; ἐπίρριπτενν. 7 πρὸς Θεὸν] 
PV; εἰς τὸν θεὸν L; det BA; Ζγι deum Cs; tn christum meum Cm. ἀγάπην] 


PVAB; ἡμῶν ἀγάπην 1,. 8 ἐκδέχῃ] LP; ἐκδέχει V. 9 ἔχω] LVB[C]; 
ἔχων P; def. A. 10 Tov éml...... Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἴ. X.] LPB (but P om. ἡμῶν); 
deum qui super omnia et logon ejus (add. viventem Cm) jesum (add. christum Cm) domi- 


num nostrum C; deum Ay τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων κύριον ἡμῶν I. ΧΟ. 


12 τοῖς εὐσεβέσι» 1 LPAB; om. V; al. C. 


οὔῦσιν LP; ἀγνοοῦσι V. 


ναι] καὶ ἐπίρρητοί εἰσι ‘have an ill 
name.’ In Pollux iii. 139, v. 159, vi. 
127, its synonyms are ἐπιβόητος,; ἐπί- 
μεμπτος, ἐπονείδιστος, ἐπίψογος. This 
reading is to be preferred here, both 
as being the most difficult and as ex- 
plaining all the others. 

5. ἢ πυρὶ αλλ 988, suseb.< 77.7, 
Vill. 14 ἀνατλάντες πῦρ καὶ σίδηρον καὶ 
προσηλώσεις θῆράς τε ἀγρίους καὶ θα- 
λάττης βυθοὺς ἀποτομᾶάς τε μελῶν καὶ 


11 ἀγνο- 
13 μό- 


καυτῆρας κιτιλ., of the sufferers under 
Diocletian. 

25. ὁσημέραι κιτ.λ.] Euseb. Praep. 
LV. 1. 3. 10 Sq εἰσέτι τε νῦν αὔξει καὶ 
ἐπιδίδωσι...ἥ τε... ἐκκλησία... .δοξαζομένη 


U1 


«ς iy a \ A 
τε ὁσημέραι Kal εἰς ἅπαντας TO νοερὸν 


καὶ ἔνθεον φῶς.. ἀπαστράπτουσα K.T.A. 

26. κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ x.t.A.] Euseb. 
Ep. ad Caesar. τὸ (Οὐ Wa) ὙΠ: 
Migne) δυνάμει πάντα ὄντος dei Te κατὰ 


Our 


\ 55. ἡ \ ς , + 
Ta αὐτὰ Καὶ MOTAVTWS EVOVTOS. 


O 


UI 


vi] ROMAN ACTS. 517 


3 / 7 .«“ \ \ 3 ἊΝ 3 \ 
εὐσέβειαν ἴσμεν ὅτι μετὰ τῆν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπαλλαγὴν 
5.1 \ e/ ΕῚ land 5 «-- 
ἀναστάντες ἀΐδιον Conv ἕξομεν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀνελλιπῆ 
\ 9 , Cx 3 / 3 / \ / \ r 
καὶ ἀδιάδοχον, nS ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ στεναγμός. 
oe \ “ 3 \ / ς ~ ς 
Τραΐανος εἴπεν" Εγὼ καταλύσας ὑμών τὴν αἵρεσιν 
/ ς 4 ΄- \ / ~ 
διδάξω ὑμᾶς σωφρονεῖν καὶ μὴ διαμάχεσθαι τοῖς ‘Pw- 
, 7 / Ss 
μαιων δόγμασιν. ᾿Ἴγνατιος εἰπεν' Καὶ τίς δύναται, 
A 2 \ ΄σ a δ). > 
βασιλεῦ, οἰκοδομὴν Θεοῦ καταλῦσαι: κἂν [γὰρ] ἐπι- 
ει Co ι O AY: x , 3 ~ e 7 \ \ θ 7 
χειρήση τις, οὐδὲν πλέον αὐτῷ ὑπάρξει ἢ τὸ θεομάχον 
Oy e \ \ / > 
εἶναι. ὁ γὰρ χριστιανισμος οὐ μόνον οὐ καταλυθήσεται 
e \ > 7 9 > e / / a 3 
ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ᾽ ὁσημέραι δυνάμει Χριστοῦ εἰς 
᾽) / 7 \ \ > \ e 
αὔξησιν ἐπιδώσει καὶ μέγεθος: κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ Kal ὡσαύ- 
a/ E , e ΄σ \ 7 
τως ἔχων προκόψει, λαμπρότητος ὁμοῦ καὶ σεμνότητος 
> / / ͵ \ ε , 
ἐκλάμπων μαρμαρνγᾶάς" TAHCOHCETAI Yap ἡ CYMTACA 


TOF FN@Nal TON Kypion, we YAMP TOAY KaTa- 


vov] here, LP{C.][B] (where the sentence is altogether mistranslated) ; after εἶναι, 


V3 om. A; def. Cn. καὶ] PV; om. L[C]; dub. A; al. B. 14 ζώων] 
PV[A]; om. L (but the parchment is torn) ; al. BC. κρεῖττον] LA; bonum C; 
πλέον PV; def. B. ἐνθένδε] LV; ἐντεῦθεν P. 17 ἀνελλιπῆ! LV ; 
ἀνεκλειπὴ Ρ. 19 τὴν αἵρεσιν] PVC; τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τὴν θρησκείαν L ; cultum 
et haeresin A; def. B. 22 οἰκοδομὴν θεοῦ] LP; θεοῦ οἰκοδομὴν V. γὰρ] 
ΘΑ. πὶ ΒΡ. def. B. 23 πλέον αὐτῷ] LP; αὐτῷ πλέον V. ὑπ- 
ἀρξει] ΤΡ ; ὑπάρχει V[A]; def. B. There is a future in C. 25 ἀνθρώπων] 
LP; τῶν ἀνθρώπων V. 26 ἐπιδώσει] PVC(?)A (but a pres. tense); om. L; def. 
B. τὸ αὐτὸ] LP; τὰ αὐτὰ V. 27 προκόψει]) LPCA; προκοπὴν V; def. 
Β. 28 ἐκλάμπων] LP; ἐκλάμπουσα V. ἡ σύμπασα] P (with Is. xi. 9 LXX) ; 


ἡ σύμπασα γῆ Ι.; σύμπασα ἡ yn V; def. B. The word ¢evra appears in CA. 


author is very Eusebian in his lan- αστραπτούσας pappapuyas, Vit. Const. 
guage in this passage, as elsewhere. ill. Io. 


Probably καὶ has been omitted before πλησθήσεται γὰρ] From Is. xi. 9 

kara in our text, as frequently; see ἐνεπλήσθη κ.τ.λ. 

Clement of Rome p. 448, Appendix. 29. κατακαλύψαι] For this opta- 
28. μαρμαρυγάς] Euseb. Laud. tive of hypothesis comp. Deut. xxxil. 

Const. τ ὃ 1 φῶς δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀπα- 11 ὡς ἀετὸς σκεπάσαι νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ. 


στράπτον ἀρρήτοις ἀκτίνων μαρμαρυ- It seems to be commoner with ὡσεὶ, 
yais, ἃ 2 τῶν ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν pappapvyais Num. xxii. 4, Deut. XXVIi.. 29, GEC, 
(comp. 12 ὃ 12), Epist. ad Const.(Op. See Thiersch de Pent. Vers. Alex. 
1. 1545, Migne) τῆς τοσαύτης ἀξίας op. 101. For its use in classical writers 
τε καὶ δόξης τὰς ἀποστιλβούσας καὶ ἀπ- see Jelf § 426, Kihner 11. p. 191 sq. 


518 MARTYRDOM OF 5, IGNATIUS. 


[νι 


͵ ’ ioe / er? J 
KAAYWal θάλάσοδο. οὐ καλῶς δέ, βασιλεῦ, αἵρεσιν 


Ε iy \ / \ \ / 
ATOKANELS TOV χριστιανισμον" TONVU yap aLOEGLS χρι- 


~ / 4 \ “ sf 
OTLAVLO MOU KEXWOLO TAL. χριστιανισμος δὲ TOU OVTWS 


2) “- J / \ ΄σ ΄σ econ 
ὄντος Θεοῦ ἐπιγνωσίς ἐστιν καὶ TOU μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ 
acy \ ~ \ 7 3 i} lod A / 
αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς KATA σάρκα οἰκονομίας αὐτοῦ και μυη- 
ἡ \ lon ~ 7 ΄σ- ΄- 

σεως, συνεπομένων καὶ τῶν τῆς πολιτείας καλῶν TH 


3 7 ,ὔ / \ ε ~ J , \ 
ἀδιαψεύστω θρησκείᾳ. τίνας δὲ ἡμῶν ἔγνως στάσιν καὶ 


, a 3 \ \ ε / of 
πόλεμον ἀγαπῶντας, οὐχὶ δὲ ὑποτασσομένους ἀρχου- 
3 «7 CY A ς 7 ς ΄σ ~ 
σιν, ἐν οἷς ἀκίνδυνος ἡ ὑποταγή, ὁμονοοῦντας εἰρηνικῶς 


σι > a / \ 3 , a 
ἐν τοῖς φιλικοῖς, πᾶειν ἀποτίννυντας τὰς ὀφειλάᾶος, TH 


τ δε WEA s γὰρ, Vis.om. τ: def. Β. 2 κεχώρισται] A description of 
heresy follows in C, which is not found in the other authorities. dé] LPC; yap 
VAs al. Β: ὄντως ὄντος] P; ὄντος ὄντως V3 existentis in veritate C3; vert 
[B]JA; ὄντος L. 5 οἰκονομίας] LCA; ἐπιδημίας PV; conversationem B. 
μυήσεως}] LP; mystertorum doctrinae bonae A; μωυσέως V; moyses B (see the 
lower note); al. C. 6 συνεπομένων] PV; ἑπομένῳ L. τῶν τῆς] 
LP; rijs τῶνν-: 7 ἀδιαψεύστῳ θρησκείᾳ] LP; αδιαψευστα Opickela (sic) V. 
There is a lacuna from this point to nearly the end of the chapter in Cy. 
LP; τίνα VAB; guemnam Cs. ὃ ayaravras] L; ἀγαπᾶν PV. οὐχὶ 
dé] LV; ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ P. g ἐν ois] LP (as in Ps-Antioch. 11); ubi B; quatenus A; 
Ors alee ὁμονοοῦντας] P; ὁμονοοῦντες LV. 
10 φιλικοῖς) LPBA; φυλάκοις V; al. Cs. The sentence is rendered loosely δ 
consensus noster est in pace et amore vivere erga nos tnvicem in A, but Zahn’s conj. 
ζῆν καὶ φιλικῶς for ἐν τοῖς φιλικοῖς is not needed. πᾶσιν] here, P; καὶ 
πᾶσιν here, L; πᾶσι after ἀποτείνοντας, V. The conjunction is omitted in [B][C.]. 


τίνας] 


εἰρηνικῶς] PV; εἰρινικῶς 1,. 


I. οὐ καλῶς δὲ κιτιλ.)] This mode 
of speaking would hardly be intelligi- 
ble to Trajan or his contemporaries. 
The word αἵρεσις was neutral, like our 


without a reference to the previous 
catechetical instruction; and so οἱ 
μυούμενοι, οἱ μεμυημένοι, 20. Vi. 15, Vil. 
22 ὁ εἰς τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον μυούμενος, 


‘persuasion,’ and had not necessarily 
any depreciatory sense. More than 
two centuries later Constantine in 
Eusebius (77.7, Χ' δ. 21) expresses 
his displeasure at those who are 
making schisms by separating from 
‘the Catholic heresy’ (τῆς αἱρέσεως 
τῆς καθολικῆς ἀποδιϊστασθαι). 

5. μυήσεως) “222 12αέ2071,) i.e. in- 
struction in His Gospel and admis- 
sion to His Church. In Afost. Const. 
Vil. 42 μύησις is used of baptism, not 


Vil. 38 of κατὰ Χριστὸν μεμυημένοι, Vill. 
8, while οἱ ἀμύητοι ἀγα ‘the unbaptized’ 
vii. 25. Of baptism also it is used 
Sozom. /7.£. 1. 3 ἀμνήτοις μὲν μύησιν 
κατὰ τὸν νόμον τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τοῖς δὲ 
μεμυημένοις τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἁμαρτεῖν, and 
in other writers. No sense can be 
extracted from the reading Μωυσέως, 
which is retained by previous editors. 

7. ἔγνως] On the difference in 
meaning of γινώσκειν with the infin. 
(‘to judge’) and with the part. (‘to 


10 


vi] ROMAN ACTS. 519 


TON φόρον TON φόρον, τῷ TON φόβον TON Φόβον, 


TO TO TEAOC τὸ TEAOC, TA THN TIMHN THN TIMHN, 


4 \ > , 7” \ > a 
σπεύδοντας MHAEN) MHAEN OMEIAEIN H TO ALATIAN 
> , / A \ ΄σ 7 e a 
ἀλλήλογο; δεδιδάγμεθα γὰρ mapa τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 
, \ 7, \ ͵ > a 2 \ \ \ > 1 
5 μή MOVOV TON TIAHCION ἀγὰπᾶν, ἄλλα καὶ TON ἐχθρὸν 
> “- \ \ a > a 3: 
EeyepreTjrein KAO TOye MIiCOYyYN TAC ALTATIAN καὶ ΕΥΧῈ- 
COAl ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεάζοντωῶν HMAC KA) διωκόντων. 
/ 7 ᾿ \ ΄σ ΄σ 7 
ark δέ σοι πιρροσέκρουσεν EO Tou χριστιανισμου κηρύγμα, 
3 / af > / 3 / / / 
ἐξοτε ἤρξατο, εἰπε. ἄρα μή τι νεώτερον συμβέβηκεν 
3 \ \ ‘P. / 3 Bites 3 \ \ ς 7 3 
OETL THV ωμαιὼν αρχῆν 3 Οοὔχι δὲ 7) πολναρχία εις 
ἀποτίννυντας) ἀποτίννυντες P; ἀποτιννύοντες 1,: ἀποτείνοντας V. τῷ] 
LP[A]BC,j (as in Rom. xiii. 7); τοῖς V. So in all the four places. II τῷ τὸν 
φόβον τὸν φόβον] here, LV (but V has τοῖς) B; after τὰς ὀφειλάς, P; after τὸ τέλος, 


AC; (with Rom. xiii. 7). 
ABC,; om. P. 
PVABC,; om. L. 


ptov ἡμῶν] txt PB; add. inoot χριστοῦ LV; christo C;; domino A. 


πλησίον] PVBCs; τοὺς πλησίον LA. 
τοὺς ἐχθροὺς LA. 


12 τῷ τὸ τέλος τὸ τέλος] LV (but V has Tots) 


13 σπεύδοντας] PV; σπεύδοντες 1,. μηδὲν] 
ἢ] PV; εἰ μὴ 1, (with Rom. xiii. 8). 14 Κυ- 
15 τὸν 


τὸν ἐχθρὸν] PBC;; τῶν ἐχθρῶν V; 


τό εὐεργετεῖν... ἀγαπᾶν] LPB; καὶ εὐεργετεῖν (or 


εὐποιεῖν) τοὺς μισοῦντας ACs; εὐποιεῖν καὶ εὐεργετεῖν τοὺς μισοῦντας ἡμᾶς V. 


εὔχεσθαι] PV; προσεύχεσθαι L. 
προσέκρουσεν] LP; προσέκρουσεν. 
P; ἐξότου LV. 
PV; συνέβη L. 
ἀρχὴν ῥωμαίων L. 


perceive, discover’) see Kihner II. 
Ῥ. 629 sq. The reading here how- 
ever is doubtful. 

8. ὑποτασσομένους x.t.d.| Comp. 
Ps-Ign. Antioch. 11, from which the 
words appear to be taken; see ἢ. 380. 

10. πᾶσιν tas ὀφειλάς κιτ.λ.] From 
Rom. xiii. 7, 8. 

15. μὴ μύλον x«.t-A.]| See Matt. v. 
A3, 44, Luke vi. 27, 28. 

20. οὐχὶ δέ κιτ.λ.] The argument 
is used by Melito Fragm. 1 ἐπανθήσα- 
σα δὲ [ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία] τοῖς σοῖς 
ἔθνεσι κατὰ τὴν Αὐγούστου τοῦ σοῦ 


προγόνου μεγάλην ἀρχήν, ἐγενήθη μά- 


λιστα τῇ σῇ βασιλείᾳ αἴσιον ἀγαθόν. 


εἰπέ] txt ΡΥΒΑ ; add. μοι LCs. 
20 émi] PV; περὶ LB. 
dé] txt LP; add. cat V; add. Aotiws B; al. Cs. 


18 δέ} PV; γάρ. L[B]; om. ACg. 
Tov] LP; om. V. 1g ἐξότε] 
συμβέβηκεν 

Ῥωμαίων ἀρχήν] PV[B]; 


ἔκτοτε γὰρ εἰς μέγα καὶ λαμπρὸν τὸ 
Ῥωμαίων ηὐξήθη κράτος k.t.A., pre- 
served by Euseb. HW. £Z. iv. 26. See 
also Orig. c. Cels. 11. 30 πλῆθος εἰρή- 
uns γέγονεν ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως 
αὐτοῦ, εὐτρεπίζοντος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ διδασ- 
καλίᾳ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔθνη, ἵν᾽ ὑπὸ ἕνα γένηται 
~ € , ’ A \ \ \ 
τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλέα, καὶ μὴ διὰ τὸ 
προφάσει τῶν πολλῶν βασιλειῶν ἄμικ- 
“ > - \ Edd \ 
Tov τῶν ἐθνῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα κ.τ.λ... καὶ 
, i \ ‘ > , 
σαφές ye ὅτι κατὰ THY Αὐγούστου βασι- 
λείαν ὁ ᾿ΙἸησοῦς γεγέννηται, τοῦ, ἵν οὕτως 
ὀνομάσω; ὁμαλίσαντος διὰ μιᾶς βασιλείας 
τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς. The argu- 
ment is dwelt on elsewhere by Euse- 
bius, Zheoph. ii. 65 sq, ili. 1, 2, v. 52, 


520 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [νι 


΄ af \ 7 
μοναρχίαν μετέπεσεν ; καὶ λὔγουστος ὁ σὸς πρόγονος, 
5. 1095 Fel se PS / \ , 2 I \ / 
ἐφ᾽ οὗ ὁ ἡμέτερος σωτὴρ ἐτέχθη ἐκ παρθένου Kat ἐγε- 

ε / \ If oi STL ANS. a 
veto ὁ πρώην Θεὸς Λόγος καὶ ἀνθρωπος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς, μονον- 
\ 5. σ- c/ 3 7) / « 3 
ουχί alwva ολον ἐβασίλευσεν, πεντήκοντα ὅλοις ἐνιαυ- 
- \ ¢ \ \ \ sf A / la 
τοῖς Kal ἑπτὰ πρὸς μησὶν ἀλλοις EE κρατήσας τῆς 
ε 3 ~ \ ’, ε 3 « ~ 
Ρωμαίων ἀρχῆς; καὶ μοναρχήσας ws οὐδεὶς ἕτερος τῶν 
\ 3 aa 3 ἘΝ ~ 2 ΄σ ς / \ ε 
προ αὐτου; ov παν ᾧΦυλον αὐτῷ ὑπετάγη; καὶ ἡ προ- 
/ 3 ..7 ΄σ 3 σ \ \ ᾿ ’ / 3 ~ 
TENA ἀμιξίια τῶν ἐθνών καὶ τὸ προς ἀλλήλους αὐτων 
a ; 9 ~ ΄σ΄ ~ ς ro 9 
μῖσος διελύθη ἐκ τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐπιδημίας 5 
“ 5 \ > e/ ᾽ 
VII. Ἡ σύγκλητος εἶπεν: Nat, ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, 


3 καὶ! LPB (but with av. 1.); ὧν V; al. A; al. Cg. 


4 ὅλοις ἐνιαυτοῖς] 


PV; ὅλους ἐνιαυτοὺς L. 5 ἑπτὰ] LPVBC; sex A. ἐξ] 
sex A; ἐπτὰ PB[Cs]; om. LV. 6 Ῥωμαίων] LP; τῶν ῥωμαίων V. 

7 καὶ ἡ κιτ.λ.] Cm resumes here. προτέρα] LP; πρότερον V. 8 τῶν 
ἐθνών] here, LV (written ἐθῶν in V); before ἀμιξία, P; al. Ὁ. τὸ] txt 
PV[B]A[C]; add. πρότερον L. αὐτῶν] LP; om. V. 11 εἶπας] 


V; dixisti CAB; dis LP. 
sed tllud B. 


Praep. Ev. i. 4, v. 1, Dem. Ev. iii. 7. 
30 sq, Laud. Const. 16; see also his 
Comm. in Ps. quoted below in the 


note ON of ἡμέτεροι λόγοι. Comp. 
Dante Monarch. 1. 16 (17). 
4. πεντήκοντα κιτ.λ.} Reckoned 


from the death of Julius Czesar, as in 
OS) AXE xviii. 2. 
κοντα τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔτη, πρὸς οἷς μῆνες ἐξ 
ἡμεραῖν δυοῖν πλείονες, τούτου δὲ αὐτῷ 


, 
2 ἑπτὰ δὲ καὶ πεντή- 


τοῦ χρόνου τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἔτη συνῆρ- 
ξεν ᾿Αντώνιος.ς Theophilus (ad Azzol. 
ili. 27) reckons it 56 years, 4 months, 
1 day; Tertullian (adv. Fud. 1) says 
56 years. Eusebius in the £cc/esz- 
astical History (1. 9) makes it 57 
years ; but in the Chronzcon (1. p. 
138, Schoene) 56 years and 6 months, 
This last is also the reckoning in the 
Chron. Pasch. p. 360 (ed. Bonn.). 
See the next note. It was actually 
57 years, 5 months, and 5 days; see 
Clinton Fas¢. Hell. Il. p. 280 (276). 
Dion Cass. (lvi. 30) gives the dura- 


ἀλλὰ TotTo] LVCA3 ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνω (sic) P; 
13 εἶπεν] txt LPVA; add. e¢ guid fecit tncongruum B; et 


tion of his sole sovereignty, μοναρχή- 
σας ἀφ᾽ οὗ πρὸς τῷ ᾿Ακτίῳ ἐνίκησε τέσ- 
σαρα καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη δεκατριῶν 
ἡμερῶν δέοντα. The whole term of 
power might be said to extend over 
μονονουχὶ αἰῶνα ὅλον: for αἰών cor- 
responds to the Latin saeculum, which 
was used loosely, sometimes denot- 
ing a generation or a third of a cen- 
tury, sometimes the period of a man’s 
life, sometimes a longer recurring 
interval such as the 110 years of the 
secular games. Jerome on Ezek. 
XXVIl. 36 εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (OP. V. p. 324) 
says, ‘usgue in saeculum, unius sae- 
culi tempus ostendit, quod juxta aeta- 
tem hominis annorum septuaginta 
circulo supputatur.’ 

5. ἑπτὰ] This reading is retained 
in accordance with the preponderance 
of authorities. But the adoption of 
e€ with the Armenian would bring 
our author into exact accordance 
with Euseb. Chron. l.c. and Chron, 


o1 


vit] ROMAN ACTS. 521 


¢ ὧν > 7 3 \ ΄σ 3 ~ J 
ws εἶπας, ᾿Ιγνάτιε. ἀλλα τοῦτο ἀγανακτοῦμεν, ὅτι 


\ \ \ \ , / 3 7 
τὴν περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς θρησκείαν κατέλυσεν. ᾿]γνάτιος 
εἶπεν: ) λαμπρὰ γερουσία, ὥσπερ τὰ ἀλογώτερα τῶν 
ἐθνῶν καθυπέταξεν τή Ρωμαίων ἀρχή, ἣν οἱ ἡμέτεροι 

έἐ έ 
᾿ λόγοι οεἰληρᾶν ῥάβδον ἀποκαλοῦσιν, οὕτως καὶ τὰ TU- 


\ ΄σ 7 > / > / 
ραννικα τῆς πονηρίας πνευματα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων απήλασεν, 


) 


of \ 7 7 \ 5 τσὴ / / 
ἕνα καὶ μονον καταγγείλας Tov ἐπὶ πάντων Θεον. 


\ 
Kal 


3 ~ / 3 \ \ “ an 3 = / 
οὐ τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal τῆς πικρᾶς αὐτῶν δουλείας 


7 ε / \ ΄σ af > ~ 
ἀπήλλαξεν, αἱμοβόρων καὶ ἀνηλεῶν ὄντων αὐτῶν. 


τῷ θανά ὃ λτά ἱμών ἐνετρυφώσαν;: 
; vaTw τῶν φιλτάτων vw ἐνετρυφωσαν: 


guid malum accidit C. 


15 Τὰ τυραννικὰ τῆς πονηρίας πνεύματα] LPB; 


3 
ου 


οὐκ 


14 καθυπέταξεν] P; καθυπέταξενν : ὑπέταξε 1,. 


vimt malorum et insanorum dae- 


monum A; spiritus erroris, qui daemones sunt, tyranni existentes etc [C]; τὰ πονηρὰ 


here, and πνεύματα after ἐξήλασε, V. 
ἀπήλασεν] P; ἀπήλασε L; ἐξήλασε V. 


V. ὄντων αὐτών] LV; αὐτῶν ὄντων P. 


see the lower note. 


Pasch. \.c., with whom he is likely to 
have agreed. 

ἐξ] I have followed the Armenian 
here, as it agrees with both Josephus 
and Eusebius. The Greek and Latin 
texts seem to have altered the num- 
ber of months to conform to the 
number of units in the years (ἑπτά). 
The presence of the word ἄλλοις 
shows that some number had a place 
here. 

14. οἱ ἡμέτεροι λόγοι] Ps. il. 9 
ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, 
which was interpreted as foretelling 
the Roman domination: see esp. 
Euseb. (Of. v. p. 89, Migne) ad loc. 
ῥάβδον δὲ σιδηρᾶν τὴν “Ρωμαίων 
ἀρχὴν εἶναί φησιν, ἐ ἐπικρατεστέραν ye 
μένην μετὰ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐπι- 
φάνειαν᾽ ἐξ ἐκείνου γὰρ τῶν κατ᾽ ἔθνη 
πολυαρχιῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ χώρας ἐθναρ- 
χιῶν καταλυθεισῶν ἡ Ῥωμαίων ἐμονάρ- 
χῆσε βασιλεία κιτιλ. So too [Ada- 
mant.] Dézad. i. (Orig. OZ. I. p. 818). 


16 ἐξ] LP; ἀπὸ τῶν V. 
το ἀνηλεών] LPCA(?)B; ἀνιλέων 
20 ἐνετρυφώσαν) so ΡΥ: 


In Clem. Alex. Paedag. i. 7 (p. 134) 
and Origen Se/. zx Psalm. ii. 3 (Op. 
11. p. 542) it is differently interpreted. 

19. αἱμοβόρων] See the note on 
Mart. Ant. 2 ὡμοβόροις. 

20. ἐνετρυφῶσαν͵] The ‘Alexan- 
drian’ form of the 3rd pers. imperf. 
for ἐνετρύφων; comp. Bekker Axecd. 
Pp. 91 ἐλέγοσαν, ἐγράφοσαν, καὶ τὰ 6- 
μοια ᾿Αλεξανδρεῖς λέγουσι, where Ly- 
cophr. Alexandr. 21 ἐσχάζοσαν is 
quoted. So John xv. 22, 24, εἴχοσαν, 
Rom. iil. 13 ἐδολιοῦσαν (from the 
LXX). For this form, which is more 
common in the aorist, see Kiihner I. 
p- 531 sq, Winer ὃ xiii. p. 91 (Moul- 
ton). The correctness of the reading 
here is assured by the consistent 
accentuation in the MSS, as well as 
by the imperfects in the parallel 
clauses. Dressel substituted ἐνετρυ- 
φῆσαν, for which Zahn (correcting 
the false accent) writes ἐνετρύφησαν. 


522 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. 


[ viz 


ἐμφυλίοις πολέμοις ὑμᾶς ἐμίαινον; οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖν ὑμᾶς 
ἠνάγκαζον γυμνοὺς θεατρίζοντες, καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν 
γυμνὰς ὡς ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πομπεύοντες, αἵμασιν κοι- 
νοῦντες τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὸν καθαρὸν ἀέρα ἀκαθαρσίαις 
1 ὑμᾶς pri.| here, PV; after ἐμφυλίοις, L. 
mevovras VA (?); al. C. 


om. L. 4 τὸν καθαρὸν ἀέρα] LPV; 
communen aérem B; aérem Cm; def. Cs; omnium animas semper (ἀεὶ for ἀέρα) A. 


2 πομπεύοντες] LPB (?); πομ- 
αἵμασιν] PV (αἵμασι) A (sanguine) BCm; def. Cs; 
κοινοῦντες) PV; κυνοῦντες L. 


I. ἐμφυλίοις πολέμοις x.7.A.] Eu- 
seb. Laud. Const. 9 ὃ 2 αἵμασι καὶ 
φόνοις ἐμφυλίοις τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπλήρουν 
χώρας, 20. 13 ὃ 7 τοὺς αὐτῶν οἴκους ἐμ- 
φυλίοις μολύνειν φόνοις, speaking of 
the same thing. 

5. xvéas| The people of the 
Tauric Chersonese; see Strabo vii. 4 
(p. 308) τὴν Tavpixny καὶ Σκυθικὴν 
λεγομένην χερρόνησον, and again οἱ 
Ταῦροι, Σκυθικὸν ἔθνος. Comp. Tertull. 
Scorp. 7 ‘Sed enim Scytharum Dia- 
nam...hominum victima placari apud 
saeculum licuit,’ Athan. ας. Graec. 25 
(Op. I. p. 19) Σκύθαι yap οἱ καλού- 
μενοι Ταυρεῖοι τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς παρθένῳ 
καλουμένῃ K.T.A. 

7. τὴν τῷ Κρόνῳ κ-Οιτ.λ.] Cronos 
was the Molech of the Phcenicians 
and Carthaginians, to whom they 
constantly offered human victims. 
An occasion is recorded (Diod. Sic. 
xx. 14, Pescenius Festus in Lactant. 
Div. Inst. 1. 21), when two hundred 
persons were sacrificed by the Cartha- 
ginians, while three hundred more 
offered themselves voluntarily for 
sacrifice. References to human vic- 
tims immolated to Saturn are fre- 
quent in the apologists; e.g. Justin 
Apol. ii. 12 (p. 50), Tertull. AZol. 
9, Minuc. Octav. 30, Lactant. Dev. 
Vast Aocwmeuseb. awed. δ 123; 
Athan. ¢. Graec. 25. But this par- 
ticular sacrifice to Saturn by the 
Romans (ὑμεῖς) is not explained by 
any other passage which I have 


come across. It may have some- 
thing to do with the usage in prime- 
val Latium mentioned by Varro as 
reported in Macrobius Saz, 1. 7. 31, 
‘cumque diu humanis capitibus Di- 
tem et virorum victimis Saturnum 
placare se crederent propter oracu- 
lum in quo erat, καὶ κεφαλὰς Αἵδῃ καὶ 
τῷ πατρὶ πέμπετε φῶτα, Herculem 
ferunt...suasisse illorum posteris ut 
faustis sacrificiis infausta mutarent, 
inferentes Diti non hominum capita 
sed oscilla...et aras Saturnias non 
mactando viro sed accensis lumini- 
bus excolentes, quia non solum virum 
sed et lumina φῶτα significat, inde 
mos per Saturnalia missitandis cereis 
coepit’(comp.. τ 11.)\48)4 (Bub ithe 
apologists are silent about the sacri- 
fice of this damsel. On the other 
hand they repeatedly mention a 
human victim as offered in Rome 
itself to Jupiter Latiaris even in 
their ‘own ‘time ἢ Justin Lic 
Tatian ad Graec. 29, Theoph. ad 
Autol. ii. ὃ, Tertull. Afol. 9, Scorp. 
7, Minuc. Oc¢av. l.c., Firm. Matern. 
26,' Lactant. |) Lie.) Even, ithisimlace 
writer speaks of the practice as still 
existing. Nor is the statement con- 
fined to Christian apologists. Por- 
phyry also gives it as a well-known 
fact, de Abst. 11. 56 ἔτι ye νῦν τίς 
ἀγνοεῖ κατὰ THY μεγάλην πόλιν TH TOU 
Λατιαρίου Διὸς ἑορτῇ σφαζόμενον ἄν- 
θρωπον. This passage of Porphyry is 
directly quoted by Eusebius Praef. 


vit] 


ROMAN ACTS. 


522 


θολοῦντες ; ἐρωτήσατε (κύθας, εἰ μὴ τῇ ᾿λρτέμιδι ἀν- 


2 >\ - 3 ΄σ > 
θρώπους ἔθυον: πάντως yap, Kav ὑμεῖς ἀρνῆσθε αἰσ- 


/ lal / 7 ς 
χυνόμενοι τὴν τῷ Κρόνῳ σφαττομένην παρθένον, “Ελ- 


ἀκαθαρσίαις} LVCmB; ἀκαθαρσίας P; zmmunditie A; def. Cs. 


PV; θωλοῦντες L. 
(fortasse...guidem, for πάντως... κἂν). 


indic. may be defended by the analogous use with ἐὰν, ὅταν. 


5 θολοῦντες] 


6 κἂν] κὰν Ῥ; om. LVC3 guogue (kal?) B; dub. A. 


ἀρνῆσθε] ἀρνεῖσθε LPV, and the 
7 Ἕλληνες] 


LPC; pref. καὶ V; preef. sed et nunc etiam A; add. guogue B. 


Ev, iv. τό. το, and is repeated word 
for word by him without any signs 
of quotation in Laud. Const. 13, 
Theoph. ii. 64, so that he adopts the 
statement as true for his own time. 
[The last passage of Eusebius stands 
in Lee’s translation (p. 123) ‘Whom 
has it escaped, that even to this time 
a man is sacrificed in the Great Czty 
(Megalopolis) at the feast of Jupiter 
Latiaris? For even up to this time, 
it was not only to Jupiter in Arcadia 
nor to Saturn at Carthage, that they 
all commonly sacrifice men’ etc. 
Thus translated, Eusebius is made 
to assert that the sacrifice to Jupiter 
Latiaris took place in the Arcadian 
Megalopolis. But of this extraordi- 
nary blunder he is quite innocent. 
The Syriac here freely translated ‘to 
Jupiter’ represents the Greek τοῖς 
Λυκαίοις ‘at the Lyczea,’ an Arcadian 
festival of Zeus. The reference to 
human sacrifices in Arcadia is quite 
a separate notice in Porphyry him- 
self (de Adst. 11. 27), and is given as 
a separate quotation by Eusebius 
elsewhere (Pracp. Ev. 1.c.), though 
immediately after the mention of 
Jupiter Latiaris. Nor can we sup- 
pose that he intended to refer to 
the same sacrifice in the two suc- 
cessive sentences here. The confu- 
sion is Lee’s own.] Somewhat later 
however Athanasius c. Graec. 25 (I. 
Ῥ. 19) writes of πάλαι Ῥωμαῖοι τὸν 
καλούμενον Λατιάριον Δία ἀνθρωποθυσί- 
ats ἐθρήσκευον. The reason why we 


hear nothing else of it in classical 
writers seems to be explained by the 
language of Tertullian Afo/. 9, ‘Ecce 
inillareligiosissima urbe Aeneadarum 
piorum est Jupiter quidam, quem 
ludis suis humano produnt sanguine. 
Sed, bestiarli, inquitis. Hoc opinor 
minus quam hominis. An hoc tur- 
pius, quod mali hominis?’ The vic- 
tim was a criminal condemned to 
the wild beasts, and this was his 
mode of execution (comp. [Cyprian] 
de Spect. 5 ‘nonnunquam et homo 
fit hostia latrocinio sacerdotis’ with 
the context). There is an interesting 
correspondence of Stanhope, Peel, 
and Macaulay, on this human sacri- 
fice to Jupiter Latiaris, in Earl Stan- 
hope’s Mzscellanies p. 128 sq, but it 
does not go below the surface. Ex- 
amples of human sacrifices in the 
earlier history of Rome are noticed 
by Minuc. Océav. l.c., ‘ritus fuit... 
Romanis Graecum et Graecam, Gal- 
lum et Gallam, sacrificii loco viventes 
obruere.’ Two soldiers of Julius 
Czesar also, who had mutinied, were 
sacrificed ἐν τρόπῳ τινὶ ἱερουργίας by 
the pontifices and the priest of Mars 
in the Campus Martius (Dion Cass. 
xliii. 24). Tatian also (1...) refers to 
the cultus of Diana near Rome as 
belonging to the same category. He 
must be referring to the goddess of 
Aricia, whose priest procured his 
office by the murder of his prede- 
cessor: see Preller Rém. Mythol. Ὁ. 
278 sq. 


MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [vir 


524 


~ 3 \ ~ 7 / 
Anves ἐγκαυχῶνται ἐπὶ ταῖς τοιαύταις ἀνθρωποθυσίαις, 
\ / \ ΄σ ΄ / oe 
παρὰ βαρβαρων τὸ τοιοῦτον παραλαβόντες κακὸν. Tpat- 
\ 3 \ \ — > / / > / lon 
avos εἶπεν: Νὴ τοὺς θεούς, ἐκπλήττομαί oe, Iyvatie, τῆς 
7 > \ \ lo ~~ 7 / 
πολυμαθίας, εἰ Kal μὴ ἐπαινῶ τῆς θρησκείας. ᾿Ϊγνατιος 
93. \ / / “ / e > ~ 7 
εἶπεν. Καὶ τί κατέγνως τῆς θρησκείας ἡμῶν τῆς θείας 5 
oe \ Ἂν .« \ » e/ 3 
Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν. “Οτι τὸν δεσπότην ἥλιον οὐ προσκυ- 
- af \ 3 2 af \\ ε \ ΄ / \ 
νεῖτε, οὔτε TOY οὐρανὸν, OUTE THY Lepav σέληνην THY 
/ 3 / Ss \ / \ «“ἶ 
mavtotpopov. ᾿ἰΪγνάτιος εἶπεν: Kat τίς av ἕλοιτο, 
> a .« \ 2 ’, af \ 
βασιλεῦ, προσκυνεῖν HALOY TOV ἐν σχήματι ὄντα; TOV 
3 7 ε / \ 3 / \ / 3 
αἰσθήσει ὑποπίπτοντα, τὸν ἀποβαλλοντα καὶ πάλιν ἐκ 
\ 9 7 \ 9 ΄. / 
πυρὸς ἀναλαμβάνοντα τὴν ἀποβληθεῖσαν θερμότητα, 
\ af e 7 \ \ / 7 an 
τὸν ἔκλειψιν ὑπομένοντα, TOV μὴ δυνάμενὸν ποτε ἀμεῖ- 
λ € ΄σ / \ 7 ΄σ 3 i 
Yat τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Taw παρα τὴν γνώμην τοῦ ἐπιτατ- 
I ἀνθρωποθυσίαις] LP; ἀνθρώπων θυσίαις Ν. 2. τὸ LV; om. P. πα- 


ραλαβόντες] LV; λαβόντες P. 3 σε] VC (ὃ); cov LPA(?)B(?). The latter 
clause requires ce in the former. *Iyvdtie] here, PVC; after θεούς, LB; 


om. A, 4 πολυμαθίας] PV; πολυμαθείας L. 5 καὶ ΤΙ PVCAB; 
τί (om. καὶ) L. 7 οὔτε sec.| LP; zegue [C][A][B]; οὐ V. 8 παν- 
τότροφον] P; πάντροφον LV. g ἥλιον] P; τὸν ἥλιον LV. IO aig- 


θήσει] LP; ἐν αἰσθήσει V. τὸν ἀποβάλλοντα] LC[B]; καὶ ἀποβάλ- 
λοντα PV; def. A. After ἀποβάλλοντα 1, adds τὴν θέρμην. 12 ἔκλει- 
pw ὑπομένοντα] PB; ἐκλείψεις ὑπομένοντα L; ἐκλείψει οὑπομένοντα V (doubtless 
a corruption of ἐκλείψεις ὑπομένοντα); ετέ715 lumen deficit aligquando opus quod 
adicitur apud vos eclipsis C; def. A. ποτὲ ἀμεῖψαι]  ῬΥΟ; mutare B; 
ἀνῦσαι (sic) ποτε L; def. A. 12 ἐπιτάττοντος) LP[B]; ἐπιτάξαντος V. 

14 τελεῖν] here, LP; after δρόμον, V. 15 νέφεσιν] P; νέφεσι LsVs. ὡς] 


I, Ἕλληνες] A large number οὗ in- 
stances in Greece and elsewhere are 
collected in Clem. Alex. Protr. 3 (p.36) 
and in Porphyr. de Adstin. ii. 54 sq. 
These writers and others are quoted 
on this subject by Euseb. Praep. Ev. 
Hy. 45 sq (comp, Zayd, \Cozs?, 13, 
Theoph. ii. 53 sq). See Wachsmuth 
He, A Werth. Ti. 2p. e224. Sq, on 
these human sacrifices among the 
Greeks. They were put down gene- 
rally (σχεδὸν... παρὰ πᾶσιν) in the 
reign of Hadrian; Porphyr. 1. c., 
Euseb: Pracp. Ev. iv. 15. 3, Laud. 


Const. 16§ το, Lactant. Dzv. Znst. 1. 21, 
See Renan L’Eglise Chrétienne Ὁ. 3. 

9. ἐν σχήματι ovral See Clem. 
Hom. xvi. 17, xvii. 3. 8. 9, for this 
phrase. 

15. ws δέρριν κιτ.λ.] Ps. cili (Civ). 
2 ἐκτείνων τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ δέρριν. 

16. ὡς καμάραν κ.τ.λ.] Is. xl. 22 ὁ 
στήσας ὡς καμάραν τὸν οὐρανόν. 

17. ows κύβον] Job xxxviii. 38 (LXX) 
κεκόλληκα δὲ αὐτὸν [1.6. τὸν οὐρανὸν] 
ὥσπερ λίθῳ κύβον(οΥ λιθόκυβον) ; comp. 
Ap. Const. vii. 35 οἶδεν οὐρανὸς τὸν 
ἐπὶ μηδενὸς αὐτὸν καμαρώσαντα ὡς λίθῳ 


υι 


μι 


vit] ROMAN ACTS. 


525 

> ΄σ ΄. \ ὃ / 3 > \ \ ΄ 

TOVTOS αὐτῷ τελεῖν τὸν ὃρόμον ; οὐρανος δὲ πῶς 

e 7 / cA ε ; 
προσκυνητος, ὁ νέφεσιν καλυπτόμεέενος, OV ὡς AEPPIN 
’ ε \ \ ε ' 4 

EZETEINEN ὁ δημιουργὸς Kal ὧς KAMAPAN ἔπηξεν καὶ 
ε : ε Ἄν ΟΝ / a} \ / 

ὡς KYBON ἥδρασεν: ἢ σελήνην αὔξουσαν καὶ μειουμένην 

\ 7 ε Υ͂ 2 .« \ 

καὶ φθίνουσαν καὶ πάθεσιν ὑποκειμένην ; ἀλλ᾽ OTL TO 

~ 7 7 \ ~ ΄σ 3 7 

φώς ἐχουσιν λαμπρον, διὰ τοῦτο προσκυνεῖσθαι ὀφει- 


/ 3 \ ͵ 3 σι \ 
»ovew, οὐ πάντως ἀληθῆς 6 λόγος. εἰς Pavow yap 


> / 3 3 3 2 7 2S 7 7 

ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ εἰς προσκύνησιν ἐδόθησαν: πεπαί- 
\ \ 7 

νειν καὶ θερμαίνειν τοὺς καρποὺς προσετάχθησαν, λαμ- 


/ \ ς ,ὔ \ / \ / \ € 
πρύνειν THY ἡμέραν Kal φωτίζειν ΤῊ γυκταν Kal δὲ 


ἀστέρες [δὲ] TOU οὐρανοῦ εἶς CHMETA ἐτάχθησαν κὰὶ 


2 \ \ 2 \ \ ~ \ 7 
;eic KAIPOYC καὶ εἰς τροπᾶς καὶ τῶν THY θαλασσαν 


, 3 4 ISX \ Si 
πλεόντων ELS παραμυθίαν. οὐδὲν δὲ TOUTWY σπροσκυνη- 


LP; ὡσεὶ V (from Ps. ciii (civ). 2). τό δημιουργὸς] txt LVB; add. e7us C; 
add. τών ἁπάντων P; def. A. 17 KUBov] LPV; cuppam B; fornicem (RANE; 
comp. Is. xl. 22) Cs; σβκηπη Cm; def. A. nopacev| LV; ἔδρασεν P. 
σελήνην αὔξουσαν] LVCB(?); σελήνη ἡ αὔξουσα P (and so the nom. throughout) ; 
def. A. 18 φθίνουσαν καὶ] LP (but P φθίνουσα, see above) B; om. V; def. 
A. In C the whole sentence runs /unam...quae diminuitur (deficit) et repletur et 
subjicitur passtonibus, quae indiget saepe. 19 λαμπρόν] here, LP; after 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι, V. 23 τὴν νύκτα] txt PVCAB; add. οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ προσκυνεῖσθαι L. 
24 δὲ] LCA; om. PVB. καὶ eis καιροὺς] PVC (the sentence being somewhat 
changed, and C, having Rapmioc for Rarpoc) AB; om. L. 26 eis 
παραμυθίαν] here, P; before τῶν τὴν, L; παραμυθίαν (om. eis) here, V3 270 conso- 
latione B; al. C. The prepos. appears in A. οὐδὲν δὲ] PLCs; ἀλλ᾽ οὐθὲν 
V; et nthil A; nihil ctaque (οὖν) BCy. 


κύβον (v. 1. λιθόκυβον); Vitruv. v. Preef. 
‘Is (cubus), quum est jactus, quam in 
partem incubuit, dum est intactus, 
immotam habet stabilitatem.’ The 
Coptic suggests ws σκηνήν (comp. Is. 
xl. 22), while the Latin points to some 
late Greek word signifying a ‘vault’ 
or ‘dome’; see Hesych. κουπήϊον" 
καμάρα ἡ ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν γινομένη ; Suid. 
κύβεθρον" θήκην μελισσῶν; andcomp. 
Ducange Gloss. Med. et Inf. Lat. 5. 
vv. ‘cufa, cupa, cuppa, cupla, cup- 
pula, etc. See Lobeck Pathol. p. 242. 

αὔξουσαν κιτ.λ.] See “2051. Const. 


Vil. 34 ὁ γῆν ἑδράσας καὶ οὐρανὸν 
ἐκτείνας.. «οὐρανὸς δὲ ὡς καμάρα πε- 
πηγμένος.ἠγλάϊσται ἄστροις ἕνεκεν 
παραμυθίας, φῶς δὲ καὶ ἥλιος εἰς 
ἡμέρας καρπῶν γονῆς γεγένηνται, σε- 
λήνη δὲ εἰς καιρῶν τροπὴν αὔξουσα 
καὶ μειουμένη κιτιλ., Euseb. Laud. 
Const. τ ἃ 5 σελήνη τε ὑποχωροῦσα τὸ 
φέγγος ἡλίῳ, χρόνων τε περιόδοις μει- 
ουμένη καὶ πάλιν αὐξομένη K.T.X. 

24. εἰς σημεῖα κιτ.λ.] See Gen. i. 14. 

25. τροπὰς] Deut. xxxili. 14 ἡλίου 
τροπῶν, Job Xxxvill. 33 τροπὰς οὐρα- 
νοῦ : comp. James i. 17. 


526 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


[vii 


« - ~ A εἰ 
τόν, οὐχ ὕδωρ ὃ Ποσειδῶνα καλεῖτε, οὐ πῦρ ὃ “Hpa- 
᾿ ΄σ 3 2 Ἃ rar / ΄ 3 ΄σ « 
στον καλεῖτε, οὐκ ano ὃν “Hoav καλεῖτε, οὐ γῆ ἣν 
Δήμητρα καλεῖτε, οὐ καρποί: πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα, κἂν 
« 
πρὸς σύστασιν ἡμετέραν γέγονεν, ὅμως φθαρτά εἰσιν 
καὶ ἄψυχα. 
VIII. 


= c/ \ > ε 3 / \ 3 \ \ 
ἀρχαῖς, OTL GU εἰ O αναστατωσας THY ἀνατολὴν μῆ 


Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Οὐκ ἄρα καλῶς ἔλεγον ἐν 


7 \ ε > / ἼΩΝ \ 3 ΄- 
σέβεσθαι τοὺς θεούς : ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Kal ἀγανακτεῖς, 
3 κ᾿ ef \ ον \ rot \ 
ὦ βασιλεῦ, OTL τὰ μὴ ὄντα προσκυνητὰ παραινοῦμεν μὴ 

7 \ \ \ \ 3 / \ ΄σ \ 
σέβειν, ἀλλὰ Tov Θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινὸν, Tov ζώντα, Tov 

~~ \ Cy \ \ ΄σ ΟΥ̓Δ 9 ΄- 
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ § 

, \ c/ 3 \ / (πὰ \ ς 
μόνη γὰρ αὕτη ἀληθὴς θρησκεία κρατοῦσα καὶ ὁμολο- 

/ \ - / 
γουμένη, θείοις TE Kal πνευματικοῖς δόγμασιν ἁβρυνο- 
ες \ see ~ / GP AC Com, fy / 
μένη: ἡ δὲ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς διδασκαλία τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ ἀθεος 


1 6] LP; 6» V. So in both places. Ποσειδώνα] LV; ποσειδόνα P. 
Ἥφαιστον καλεῖτε] LPC (which uses the same word throughout), and so B attaches 
all the substantives to one verb vocetur; ἥφαιστον λέγετε. The words are varied 
also in A, but the variations do not seem to follow V. 2 ἀὴρ] P; ἀέρα V. 
The clause οὐκ ἀὴρ ὃν ἥραν καλεῖτε is omitted by L alone. Ἥραν καλεῖτε] PC; 
ἥραν ὀνομάζετε V; def. L. For AB see the note οἡ Ἥφαιστον καλεῖτε above. 
v7] P; γὴν LV. 3 καρποί] P; καρπούς LV. πάντα yap ταῦτα] 
P; ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα LV. 4 πρὸς σύστασιν ἡμετέραν γέγονεν, ὅμως] PB 
(sum for σύστασιν) ; εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν ἡμετέραν γεγένηνται, ὅμως L; κἂν ἢ πρὸς σύ- 
στασιν ἡμετέραν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως V; guamquam ad victum nobis ordinata sunt, sed A; 
etiam Sst (Rast Cm) creavit ea ad sustinendum vitam nostram C. εἰσιν} LP; εἰσι 
V. 6 οὐκ ἄρα] οὐκ apa LP; od V; zon C (add. orn C,) AB. ἔλε- 
γον] PV; εἴρηκα L. ἐν ἀρχαῖς] PV; 271 initio B; ἐξ ἀρχῆς LC(?) primo A. 
7 un] PV; τοῦ μὴ 1. 11 καὶ rov] LPCAB; τὸν (om. καὶ) V. 
αὐτοῦ] PV; αὐτοῦ υἱὸν L; lium cjus (add. dominum nostrum Cm) jesum christum 


υἱὸν 


taken up by the Stoics and by the 
Neoplatonists; Plut. Mor. p. 877 
(quoted by Euseb. Praep. Ev. xiv. 14. 
6), Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 26, Athenag. 
l. c., Porphyry in Euseb. Praep. Ev. 
111. 11}, ἢ -Sq,, etc... daaiertolines:s 


2. ov “Hpav ἀκ πολι] Clem. Hom. 
vi. ὃ ὁ anp.-.ov ἐπονομάζουσιν Ἥραν. 
See also to the same effect Athenag. 
Suppl. Wapian. ἡ aa) (τ) 21, 
Tertull. adv. Marc. i. 13, Arnob. iti. 
30, etc.; in which passages also the 


09 


“4: 


rationalising accounts of the other 
deities are dealt with. This expla- 
nation is attributed in the first place 
to Empedocles, but it was afterwards 


time it was no longer confined to 
philosophers, but ‘Ipsa quoque vul- 
garis superstitio communis idolo- 
latriae...ad interpretationem natura- 


( 


I 


εν 


ROMAN ACTS. 


527 


A > / sf 
πολυθεΐα, εὐανάτρεπτος, ἀστατος, περιφερομένη, ἐπ᾽ 


οὐδεμιᾷ βεβαιώσει ἑστηκυῖα" 


TAIAEIA TAANATAL TOS 


ε \ - ; 
H yap aNEZEAELTKTOC 


\ > af 
yap οὐκ ἔστιν παντοίων 


= , \ \ / 
ψευδολογιῶν πεπληρωμένη, ποτὲ μὲν λέγουσα δώδεκα 
> \ 4 7 ΄ / / / \ / 
εἶναι Tous καθόλου τοῦ κόσμου θεούς, πάλιν δὲ πλείονας 


ὑπειληφυῖα: 


Τραϊανὸς εἶστεν" 


> / / \ 
Οὐκέτι σου φέρω τῆν 


> 7 ~ \ ς ΄- = 
ἀλαζονείαν: δεινῶς yap ἡμῶν κατακερτομεῖς, στωμυλίᾳ 
ἕ 


/ ~~ e σ- 
λόγων νικᾶν ἡμᾶς θέλων. 


J 7 ς ~ 
ood κατερητορευσας ἡμῶν. 


θῦσον οὖν: ἀρκεῖ yap ἴσοι], 
3 δὲ 7 / 
εἰ O€ MH YE, παλιν σε 


3 7 e/ > ΚἊΝ 
αἰκισάμενος ὕστερον θηρίοις παραδώσω. ᾿]γνάτιος εἴπεν' 


Μέ , 5) a \ > ΄ « 3 / 
Expt πότε απειλεῖς, καὶ ov πληροῖς a ἐπαγγελλη: 


ἣν 49 \ \ Χ 7 > \ 2 θύ ~ ὃ / 
EYwW γὰρ ριστιᾶνος Εειμι Kal OU UUW TOV POLS ALMOGLY, 


5) \ =~ \ > \ \ \ ͵ ~ 
ἄλλα προσκυνω TOV ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν τον πατέρα τοὺ 


Κυρίου [ἡμῶν ] ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸν φωτίελντᾶ μοι φῶς 


C. Add. καὶ τὸ ἅγιον (add. αὐτοῦ Νὴ πνεῦμα LPVA; om. CB. 


γὰρ αὕτη] LP; αὕτη γὰρ μόνην. 


ὁμολογουμένη] PVC[A]; ἐφ᾽ οἷς ὁμολογοῦμεν L, and so app. [B]. 


τος] LPC(?)BA(?); ἀστάτως V. 


κεῖσε (sic) L; add. ab omnibus partibus A; al. BC. 


PV; éorixvia L. 
Pe) ἔστι LsVs: 


νημένη PV; al. A. 


ἀνεξέλεγκτος] LP: ἀνεξέλεκτος V. 


12 μόνη 
ἀληθὴς7 LV; ἀληθινὴ Ῥ. καὶ 
I5 ἄστα- 
περιφερομένη] PV; pref. τῆδε κα- 
16 ἑστηκυῖα] 

17 ἔστιν] 


18 ψευδολογιῶν] ψευδολόγων P; falstloguio B; ψεύδων 
λόγων L; λόγων ψεύδων V; dub. AC. 
το πάλιν δὲ] VBA; πότε δὲ καὶ L. The whole 


πεπληρωμένη] LB[C]; πεπλα- 


clause πάλιν δὲ.. ὑπειληφυῖα is much amplified in C, and wholly omittedin P. A 


long interpolation appears in C at this point. 
στωμυλίᾳ] V3; στομυλίᾳ LP. 
23 κατερητόρευσα5] LP; κατερρητόρευσας Vs. 
Ῥ 24 Onplos] LPA; add. σε VB[C]. 
25 Μέχρι] LP; ἕως V. 
28 ἡμῶν] LPAB; xostri Cs; met Cm; om. i 


νίαν LV. 
PC... 


παραβαλῷ P. 
V 


pe VB; dub. AC. 


lium refugit, et dedecus suum ingenio 
obumbrat, figurans Jovem in sub- 
stantiam fervidam et Junonem eius 
in aéream, secundum sonum Graeco- 
rum vocabulorum, etc.’ (I.c.). 

14. ἄθεος πολυθεΐα] Comp. Euseb. 
Laud. Const. 3 ἀκριβῶς yap ἄθεον τὸ 
πολύθεον, and see the note on Zral/. 
3 τοὺς ἀθέους. 


21 ἀλαζονείαν] P; ἀλαζο- 
22 σοι] LVC,AB; om. 

ye] LV; om. 
παραδώσω] LVCA(?)B; 
πληροῖς] LPCAB; ποιεῖς 
μοι] LP; 


16. ἡ γὰρ «.7.A.] From the ΤΧΧ 
of Prov. x. ‘17; 

23. κατερητόρευσας] ‘deluged us 
with your rhetoric. The word is 
used by late classical writers, as 
Plutarch and Lucian. 

28. τὸν φωτίσαντα] Hos. x. 12 
φωτίσατε ἑαυτοῖς φῶς γνώσεως. 


528 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


[ΝΠ] 


͵ δὴ 3 ' U \ > \ > 
TNWCEWC, TOV ANOIZANTA MOY TOYC OMOAAMOYC EIC 


, an ' a “ / 
KATANOHCIN TON OAYMACION αὐτοῦ σ΄τουτον σέβω 
\ ΄σ 3 Α \ / 3 \ / \ 
Kal τιμῶ: αὐτὸς yap Θεὸς ἐστιν καὶ Κύριος καὶ βασι- 
\ \ ͵ , 
λεὺς καὶ MONOC AYNACTHCE. 
a. ee \ “5 7 9 ΄σ 
IX. Tpaiavos εἰπεν" Κραβαττοπυρίαις σε ἀναιρώ, 
3 \ / 3 / i 4 Ss ΄σ 
εἰ μή μετανοήσης. Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Καλὸν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, 
e a / € Nii gs 9 σ΄ e / 5) \ \ 
ἢ ἐκ κακῶν μετάνοια, ἢ δὲ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν ὑποδικος: ἐπὶ τὰ 
\ \ / ~ 3 2 \ \ / 
κρείττω yao χρή τρέχειν ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἐπὶ Ta χείρονα. 
3 7 »"» 3 iy “. \ 53 ~ sf 
εὐσεβείας ἄμεινον οὐδέν. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν. Τοῖς ὄνυξιν 
\ ΄σ- lo / / ~ 
TOV νῶτον αὐτοῦ καταξάνατε λέγοντες αὐτῷ" πείσθητι 
σ- 7 \ ~ πὶ ~ \ \ i 
τῷ αὐτοκράτορι, καὶ θῦσον τοῖς θεοῖς κατὰ τὸ δογμα 
σ- 7 3 / Ss \ \ / Lond 
τῆς συγκλήτου. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: "Eyw τὸ δόγμα τοῦ 


τοῦτον σέβω καὶ τιμῶ] LP[C]B[A]; αὐτὸν 
3 αὐτὸς γὰρ] VCmB; οὗτος yap L; ὅτι οὗτος P; hic 


2 θαυμασίων) LV; θαυμάτων P. 
γὰρ τιμῶ καὶ céBw V. 
(om. yap) Cs; dub. A. 
et solus potens AB; et potens (maomactHe Cs, TYMATOC Cm) sols C; ὁ μακάριος 
καὶ μόνος δυνάστης LPV (taken from τ Tim. vi. 15). 


ἐστιν] Ps ἐστι LsVs. 4 kal μόνος δυνάστηΞ] 
5 KpaBarromupias] L; 
κραββατοπυρίαις P; κραβατοπυρίαις V. ἀναιρῶ ei] V3 ἀνελῷ ἐὰν LP. 
There is a future in CB, a present in A. 7 ὑπόδικος] LP; add. ἐστιν V. 

8 χρὴ] here, PV; after ἡμᾶς, L. ovK] LV; ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ P. Q εὐ- 
σεβείας ἄμεινον οὐδέν] LPCAB (but εὐσεβείας δὲ LCs; εὐσεβείαις yap PB); om. V. 

Tots ὄνυξιν] P; τοῖς ὄνυξι LsVs; ungulis B; ferrets ungulis [A]; om. C. 
καταξάνατε λέγοντες] LPB; 


10 τὸν 
νῶτον αὐτοῦ] here, PV; before τοῖς ὄνυξι, L. 


καταξέσαντες λέγετε V3 dub. CA. 


I. Tov ἀνοίξαντα K.T.A. | Ps; δ μη 
(cxix). 18 ἀποκάλυψον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς 
μου καὶ κατανοήσω τὰ θαυμάσια ἐκ τοῦ 
νόμου σου. 

4. μόνος δυνάστης] From 1 Tim. 
Vi ΤΡ ΠΕ versions might seem 
rather to suggest δυνατός as the word 
here; but, inasmuch as the Coptic 
frequently substitutes one Greek form 
for another, and the Latin translates 
δυνάστης by ‘potens’ in 1 Tim. 1. c., 
I have preferred the latter word as 
more likely to have suggested the 
interpolation μακάριος καὶ, which must 
be rejected. 

5. Κραβαττοπυρίαις) ‘gridirvons.’ 
No other example of the word is 


15 παρανομεῖν] LP; add. με V. 


given. For κράβαττος see Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 62. As regards the ortho- 
graphy, I have adopted the form 
which has the highest support in the 
MSS of the N. T. and is confirmed by 
the quantity of the Latin ‘ gvabatus,’ 

6. Kandov, x.7.A.| See Wart. Polye. 
11, which is closely followed here. 

9. Τοῖς ὄνυξιν] ‘claws. We find 
this instrument of torture at least as 
early as Tertull. Afo/. 12 ‘Ungulis 
deraditis latera Christianorum’ (see 
Oehler’s note, and comp. § 30), Cy- 
prian £4. 10 (p. 491 Hartel) ‘lanian- 
tes ungulas,’ Ζό. 20 (p. 532) ‘in poena 
ungularum fortiter est confessus,’ and 
elsewhere. 


Ἂμ 


Θεοῦ φοβοῦμαι τὸ λέγον' 


1x] ROMAN ACTS. 


529 
ΟΥ̓κ 


ECONTAI CO! δε 


a > al ΕΣ: , a ς , 
ἕτεροι πλὴν ἐμοῦ καὶ Ὁ θγοιάᾶζων θεοῖς ἑτέροις 


2 , / \ / 
€Z0A08peyOHceTal συγκλήτου δὲ καὶ βασιλέως παρα- 
~ / / 2 ’ \ , 
νομεῖν κελευόντων οὐκ ἀκούω" οὐ λήψῃ yap πρόσωπον 
᾿ ε / , \ 2 » \ 
AynAdcToy, of νόμοι διαγορεύουσιν, Kal οὐκ ἔσῃ μετὰ 
A > ‘ ͵ °° \ ΓΟ 7 \ ε \ 
πολλῶν ἐπὶ κακίὰ. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Ὄξος σὺν ἁλσὶν 
/ ~ ΄' ~ » / Ss / 
κατάχέατε αὐτοῦ τῶν πληγών. Ἰγνάτιος εἶπεν Tlav- 
\ \ ~ ΄σ ΄σ e , / 
Ta Ta ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁμολογίας μοι γινόμενα 
3 \ « ~ s / > 2] \ \ 
οἰστα ws μισθών εἶναι προξἕενα' οὐκ ἄξιὰ yap TA 


ΗΑ τὰ TOY NYN KAIPOY πρὸς THN μέλλουσαν 


i 5 ; “. \ a - 
AOZAN ATIOKAAYTITECBOAL. Tpatavos εἰπεν' Φεῖσαι cav- 


oa / >/ \ Ss ~ 7 
Tov λοιπὸν, ἀνθρωπε, καὶ εἰξον τοῖς προσταττομένοις 


16 ἀκούω] LPAB; ἀκούσω ΝΟ. λήψῃ] LP; λείψει V. 17 οἱ 
νόμοι] LP; εχ B; lex nostra (leges nostrae) A; οἱ θεῖοι νόμοι Ν' ; lex (leges) det C. 
The recurrence of similar letters or@esor would explain the insertion or omission 
18 ἁλσὶν] P; ἁλσὶ 
19 καταχέατε] LP; καταχέετενν. τῶν πληγών] PV; 

20 τὸ LPCAB; ταύταν: μοι] here, LP; 


21 οἰστὰ ὡς μισθῶν] οἰστὰ ws μισθὸν ἀγαθῶν μοι P; οἴσω 


οἵ θεῖοι. διαγορεύουσιν] PV; διαγορεύουσι L. 
Mie ὕλατι 1 
ταῖς πληγαῖς 1,. 
after πάντα, V. 
ws μισθῶν L; congregantur mihi in mercedes C; ἴσθι ws μισθῶν V ; scio guia merces 
(οἶδα ws μισθὸν 9) B; scio guod...mercedis (οἶδα ws μισθῶν ἢ) A. 23 ἀποκα- 
λύπτεσθαι) LP; ἀποκαλυφθῆναι V (with Rom. viii. 18). 
Tou V. 24 ἄνθρωπε] written ave, LP; dvep V. 


σαυτοῦ] LP; ceav- 


Οὐκ ἔσονται κ.τ.λ.] Exod. xx. 3, the thing provided ; comp. Philostr. 


15. 


‘and Exod. xxii. 20. 


16. 
ov λήμψῃ πρόσωπον 
ϑαυμάσεις πρόσωπον δυνάστου : comp. 
Ecclus. iv. 27 μὴ λάβης πρόσωπον δυ- 
νάστου. 


17: 


οὐ λήψη «.7.A.] Levit. xix. 15 


΄ » ΝΥ 
πτωχοῦ οὐδὲ 


οὐκ ἔσῃ κιτ.λ.] Exod. xxiii. 2, 


Ραΐ πλειόνων changed into πολλῶν. 


18. "O€os κιτ.λ.] Our hagiologist 


may have taken this from Euseb. 


HE. viii. 6 ὄξος λοιπὸν ἤδη τῶν ὀστέων 
ὑποφαινομένων αὐτοῦ σὺν καὶ ἅλατι 
φύραντες κατὰ τῶν διασαπέντων τοῦ 
σώματος μερῶν ἐνέχεον, an incident in 
the persecution of Diocletian. 

21. πρόξενα] With a genitive of 


IGN, I. 


Vit. Apoll. iv. 3 πρόξενος τοῖς ἄλλοις 
τοῦ éppaiov, Alciphr. EP. lil. 72 mpo- 
Eevov εἶναι τῆς κοινωνίας, Schol. on 
Arist. (ud. 243 τὰ δύσπεπτα τῶν 
σιτίων voowy πρόξενα γίνεται. In 
Esch. Suppl. 809 τάδε φροίμια πρό- 
ἕενα πόνων, the word is a conjectural 
emendation; and it is discredited 
by the fact that all the other exam- 
ples of this use are late. On the 
other hand the occurrence of the 
verb προξενεῖν in this metaphorical 
sense is much earlier and more fre- 
quent. 

οὐκ ἄξια x.7.A.] From Rom. viii. 
18. 


34 


530 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [ΙΧ 
σοι, ἐπεὶ χείροσιν κατά σου χρήσομαι βασάνοις. ᾿Ιγνά- 
Twos εἶπεν" Tic Him&c ywpice: ἀπὸ, TAc drdmuc τῶν 
Χριοτοῦ; θλίψις ἢ CTENOYWPIA ἢ AIM@PMOC ἢ AIMOC 


ἢ TYMNOTHC H KINAYNOC H μάχδιρὰ; πέπειομ δι Pap 


" \ 3: ͵ = / ~~ 
ὅτι οὔτε ζωὴ οὔτε OANATOC EKOTHTAL ME τῆς εὐσε-: 


»ἤ ἰ ex ~ / lanl ΄. 
βείας δυνήσεται, θαρροῦντα τῆ δυνάμει τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
έ 
“. \ 3 » “ 7 > / Ἢ / 
Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Oin νικῆσαί με TH καρτερίᾳ ; φιλόνικον 


γὰρ ζῶον ὁ ἄνθρωπος. ᾿]γνάτιος εἶπεν: Οὐκ οἴομαι, 


> \ / « 5. ΠῚ} \ / « ΄σ ε Z 
ἄλλα πιστεύω OTL ἐνίκησα καὶ νικήσω, ἵνα γνῳς ὁπόσον 


μεταξὺ εὐσεβείας καὶ ἀσεβείας. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Aa- 


βόντες αὐτὸν καὶ περιθέντες αὐτῷ σίδηρα, ἐν ZYA® 


TOYC πύλας, AYTOY ACHMAAICAMENO! BAAETE AYTON 


> \ > , ’ \ \ 3 \ e/ 
cic THN €CWTEPAN MYAAKHN, καὶ μηδεὶς αὐτὸν ὅλως 


\ qn e an 7 \ oi / \ 
ἐπὶ τῆς ELOKTHS OpaTw* Kal τρεῖς HuEepas Kal 
/ sf \ / \ e/ \ lA 

νύκτας ἀρτον μή φαγέτω Kal ὕδωρ μὴ πιέτω, 


1 co] LV; oov P. ἐπεὶ] PVB; st minus A; ἵνα μὴ L, and so app. 
σ: χείροσιν] P; χείροσι LV. κατά σου] here, LP; after χρήσομαι, V. 
χρήσομαι] PV; χρήσωμαι L. 2 Χριστοῦ] PVA; θεοῦ LBC. There is the 
same v. 1. in Rom. viii. 36. ἢ διωγμὸς] here, PVBA (with Rom. viii. 36) ; 
after λιμός, L; om. C. 4 yap] PVB (with Rom. viii. 38); δὲ LC; om. A. 
5 ἐκστῆσαι] PV; ἀποστῆσαι L. In Rom. viii. 39 it is χωρίσαι. 6 δυνή- 
σεται] LP; δυνηθήσεταιΝ. θαρροῦντα] LP; θαρρήσαντα V. 7 οἴῃ} P; 
οἴει LV. φιλόνικον] V; victoriae amans Cm; victoriosum Cs; φιλόνεικον LP; 
tolerabile B; def. A. ὃ οἴομαι] V; οἶμαι LP. 
LPABC,; add. 27 verttate Cm; add. τῷ θεῷ V. 
L; ἐγ victoria υἱεῖ (as if νικῶν ἐνίκησα) C. 
γνῷς] LPAB; sctam Cs; πεισθῇς V; def. Cm. 
VABC,; ἀσεβείας καὶ εὐσεβείας LP; def. Cn. 


τρεῖς 


.«ἶ 
OTTWS 


9 πιστεύω] txt 

ἐνίκησα]  ῬΨΑΒ ; καὶ ἐνίκησα 
καὶ] txt VCAB; add. πάλιν LP. 
10 εὐσεβείας καὶ doeBelas] 
11 σίδηρα] txt LP; add. 


καὶ Ν. ἐν ξύλῳ] here, P; ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ (after αὐτοῦ) L; εἰς τὸ ξύλον (after 
ἀσφαλισάμενοι) Ν. 13 ἐσωτέραν] PV; ἐσοτέραν 1,. 14 dparw] PV; 
oparo L. 15 καὶ ὕδωρ μὴ πιέτω] LPC (but Cy transposes this clause with 


the former) AB; om. V. ὅπως] LP; wa V. 
txt VAB; add. καὶ [ins. τὰς L] τρεῖς vuxras LP; haec C. 


16 Tas τρεῖς ἡμέρας] 
παραβληθεὶς] 


2. Τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει κιτ.λ.} Rom. wise φιλόνεικος is a much commoner 


Vili. 35, 39. 

7. φιλόνικον] This word, rather 
than φιλόνεικον, is suggested by the 
context, as in Arist. Ahez. 1. τι καὶ 
τὸ νικᾶν ἡδύ, οὐ μόνον τοῖς φιλονίκοις 
ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν (comp. i. 6, 10). Other- 


word. 

11. ev ξύλῳ x«.t.d.] The language 
is taken from Acts xvi. 24. 

18. ἀποφάσεως αὐτοῦ] ‘sentence 
against him.’ For ἀπόφασις see Mart. 
Ant, 2. 





1x] ROMAN ACTS. 531 


\ A A e I 7 \ J ~ 
μετὰ Tas τρεῖς ἡμέρας θηρίοις παραβληθεὶς οὕτως τοῦ 
χω 7 / ὯΝ \ ς ~ 
ζῆν ὑπεξέλθη. ἡ σύγκλητος εἶπεν: Καὶ ἡμεῖς σύμ- 
~ ’ / > “ / 
ψηῴφοι τῆς ἀποφάσεως αὐτοῦ γινόμεθα: πάντας yap 
“σ΄ πὰ “ἢ \ ~ > / \ » ΄σ 
ἡμάς ἐνύβρισεν μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος, μὴ εἴξας θῦσαι 
a ~ > io \ / 

ο τοῖς θεοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι χριστιανὸς διεβεβαιώσατο. ’lyva- 
τίος εἶπεν Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς kal πὰ ΤΉ Ρ TOY Kypioy 
c a > a a « “ ~ 3 la 3 7 
ἡμῶν Ἰηςοοῦ Χριοτοῦ, ὃς τη πολλῃ αὐτου ἀγαθότητι 
3 (4 / \ ~ 7 ~ - > 
nElwoev με κοινωνὸν τῶν παθημάτων τοῦ Χριστοῦ av- 

΄- , \ / ~ 7] 3 ~ ᾽ ~ 
τοῦ γενέσθαι καὶ μαρτυρα τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ ἀληθῆ 
\ / 
5 καὶ πιστόν. 
X. Τῇ τρίτη ἡμέρα ὁ Τραϊανὸς προσκαλεσάμε 
- η ρ 1 np pc p ρ Κα, μένος 
\ / \ \ Sf , 5) \ 3 
THY σύγκλητον καὶ τὸν ἔπαρχον πρόεισιν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀμφι- 
᾽ 7 \ ~ / ~ ε 7 
θέατρον, συνδραμόντος καὶ τοῦ δήμου τῶν Ρωμαίων" 
s/f \ J ς 3 7 / / 
ἤκουσαν yap ὃτι ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Cupias μέλλει θηριο- 


~ \ / \ / 5 / > ~ 
ο μαχεῖν: Kal προσταττει τὸν ἅγιον ‘lyvaTiov εἰσαχθῆναι. 


P; παραδοθεὶς L; βληθεὶς V. οὕτως] LP; οὕτω V. τοῦ ζῆν] LV; 
τὸ ζὴν Ἐ. 17 ὑπεξέλθῃ] ΚΝ ; ὑπεξέλθοι Ῥ; ὑποξέλθοι L. 18 ἀπο- 
φάσεως αὐτοῦ] PC; hujus sententiae B; huic verbo A; τῆς Kat’ (κατὰ V) αὐτοῦ 
ἀποφάσεως LV. γινόμεθα] here, PV; after σύμψηφοι, L. 19 ἐνύ- 
Bpicev] LP; ἐνύβρισενν. pera] txt PVCAB; add. καὶ L. εἴξας] 
PV = ἤξας L. 20 εἶναι] here, LV; after χριστιανὸς, P. διεβε- 
βαιώσατο] P; διαβεβαιωσάμενος L; διαβεβαιούμενος V; confirmans B; dub. CA 
(whether they had a part. or finite verb). 21 ὁ Θεὸς] LVCAB; κύριος 
(κα) P. 22 αὐτοῦ] here, PV; after ἀγαθότητι, L. 23 ἠξίωσεν 
P; ἠξίωσε V; κατηξίωσε L. 24 adnOn] LV; ἀληθινὸν P. 26 ΤΉ] 
P; xai ry LCA; τῇ δὲ VB. 6] LPs. ome Vz 27 καὶ τὸν 
ἔπαρχον] PV; et pracfectum ΒΟς; et praefectos Cm (πὶ for WN); καὶ τὸν ὕπαρχον 
L; om. A: see the same v. 1. ἔπαρχοι, ὕπαρχοι, in Clem. Rom. 37. ἐπὶ] 
SV τ μεῖς. Ρ: 28 τῶν] LP; om. V. 30 προστάττει τὸν ἅγιον 


ἸἸγνάτιον εἰσαχθῆναι] LP; et sedens pro tribunali jussit adduct sanctum ignatium 
B; mandatum dedit ducere tn tribunal ignatium [A]; καὶ ἐκέλευσεν ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ 
εἰσαχθῆναι αὐτὸν V; et jussu regis ( jubente rege) induxerunt sanctum ignatium C. 


21. Εὐλογητὸς κιτ.λ.] From I Pet.i.3. to the city prefect, though Dion 
23. κοινωνὸν κιτιλ.) See 2 Cor. i. calls him πολίαρχος, so as to keep 
7; comp. Phil. iii. ro. ἔπαρχος for the ‘praefectus praetorio’; 
27. τὸν ἔπαρχον] ‘the prefect, i.e. see Mommsen Staatsrecht 11. Ὁ. 
the ‘praefectus urbi,’ the highest offi- 1013. 
cial under the emperor. The term 29. ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Συρίας] The ex- 
used absolutely would naturally refer pression is taken from Ign. Rom. 2. 


34-2 


532 MARTYRDOM OF 5S. IGNATIUS. [κ 


ὡς δὲ ἐθεάσατο, ἔφη πρὸς αὐτόν: ᾿Εγὼ θαυμάζω ὅτι 
ἀλλὰ 


3 ~ / c/ \ ~ / ~ 
κἂν νυν πείσθητι μοι. ὁπτως καὶ τῶν προκειμένων κακὼν 


ζῆς μετὰ τοσαύτας αἰκίας καὶ τοσαύτην λιμόν. 
ἀπαλλαγῆς" καὶ ἡμᾶς ἕξεις φίλους. ᾿Ιγνάτιος elmer 
"Εοικάς μοι μορφὴν μὲν ἔχειν ἀνθρώπου, τρόπους δὲ 5 
ἀλώπεκος σαίνοντος μὲν τῇ κέρκῳ ἐπιβουλεύοντος δὲ τῇ 
γνώμῃ, φιλανθρώπου ῥήματα πλαττόμενος καὶ βουλευό- 
μενος μηδὲν ὑγιές. ἄκουε γοῦν λοιπὸν μετὰ παρρησίας, 
ὡς οὐδείς μοι λόγος ἐστὶν τοῦ θνητοῦ καὶ ἐπικήρου βίου 
διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν ὃν ποθῶ" ἄπειμι πρὸς αὐτόν: ἄρτος yap 
ἐστιν ἀθανασίας καὶ πόμα ζωῆς αἰωνίου. ὅλος αὐτοῦ 
εἰμὶ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκτέτακά μου τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ 
ὑπερορώ σου τὰ βασανιστήρια, καὶ τῆς δόξης σου δια- 
πτύω. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν" ᾿Επειδὴ ἀλαζὼν καὶ ὑπερόπτης 


1 ἐθεάσατο] P; add. αὐτὸν LV. ἔφη] PVCB; add. ὁ Τραϊανὸς 


L[A]. 2 ζη5] PV; gets L. ἀλλὰ Kav] LPCAB; καὶ V. 3 νῦν] 
LVCAB; γοῦν P. 4 ἡμᾶς] txt PC; add. τοῦ λοιποῦ LVA; al. B. ἕξεις 


φίλους] LP; φίλους ἕξεις V. 5 τρόπους] PV; τρόπον L; mores BA; al. C. 
6 ἀλώπεκος] LP; ἀλωποῦν. caivovtos]| LPAB; σείοντος V; al. C: see the 
lower note. 8 λοιπὸν] LPCS; jam B; nunc Cm; om. VA. g ἐστὶν} LPCAB; 
ἔσται V. τοῦ θνητοῦ Kal ἐπικήρου βίου] PVCB (but ¢emporalis B, possibly 
reading ἐπικαίρου for ἐπικήρου) ; τοῦ θανάτου L. A translates ego mortis deinceps 
curam non gero et non vitam hanc curo, as if the translator had both readings before 
him. βίου] txt PB; add. τούτου V[C][A]; al. L. 10 ποθῶ] LPA(?)B; 
ποθών V; dub. C. ἄπειμι] LV; ἀπίημι P. dpros] LPCB; σῖτος V; al. 
A. 15 ἐστὶν] here, LP; ἐστι (after ἀλαζών) V. προσδήσαντες αὐτὸν] LCB; 
om. PV. Add. τῷ παλῷ L; om. PVCB. 16 ἐάσατε] LV, and so app. 
CB (laxate); ἐλάσατε P. 17 ἐάθη] L; dimtssae sunt B; ἐθεάθη V; ἦλθεν P, 
and so perhaps C (which translates guwm autem vidit beatus [add. ignatius Cy] feras 


duas [leones duo Cy] venientes super ipsum). The reading ἦλθεν seems to be an 


6. ἀλώπεκος] This reading isre- hand σείοντος would seem to require 
quired; since the adjective ἀλωποῦ the accusative. 
(‘fox-like’) would be out of place. 9. τοῦ θνητοῦ x.7.A.] Euseb. HE. 
For ἀλωπὸς see the note on Ps-Ign. 1. 2 τουτονὶ τὸν θνητὸν καὶ ἐπίκηρον 
Antioch. 6. βίον, Laud. Const. 4§5 τὰ θνητὰ καὶ 





caivovros| The dative decides the 
reading, for this is the common con- 
struction with σαίνειν, e.g. σαίνειν 
οὐρῇ Hom. Od. xvii. 302, σαίνειν κέρ- 
κω Arist, Ἐφ: 1031, On the other 


ἐπίκηρα. 

10. ἄρτος γάρ ἐστιν κιτ.λ.] Comp. 
Ign. Rom. 7, which has_ probably 
suggested this language. 

13. τῆς δόξης] The construction 





x] ROMAN ACTS. 533 


’ / ὃ , 3 \ , y 98 > \ 
ι5 ἐστίν, προσδήσαντες αὐτὸν δύο λέοντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν 
oh Va J \ 7 > - ε ’ ε 
ἐάσατε, ὅπως μηδὲ λείψανον αὐτοῦ ὑπολείπωνται. ὡς 
δὲ Dat A 7 / ec / sf \ \ 
ε ἐαθη Ta θηρία, θεασάμενος 6 μακάριος ἔφη πρὸς τὸν 
on = ΤᾺ ὃ Ῥ ~ ε "ὃ ΄σ 3 ~ / " 
ῆμον vopes Ρωμαῖοι, οἱ τοῦδε τοῦ ἀγῶνος θεαταί, οὐ 
,ὔ «) ’ js \ ΄σ ΄σ 
φαύλης ἕνεκα τινος πράξεως ἢ μομφῆς ταῦτα πάσχω, 
3 4. εὖ > Zs / ~ / 5] ΄σ ΄- \ > 
0 ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκα εὐσεβείας" σῖτος yap εἰμι τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ δι 
7 7 3 7 ε ᾽ 
ὀδόντων θηρίων ἀλήθομαι, ἵνα ἄρτος καθαρὸς γένωμαι. 
7 \ ~ ε oe \ 
ἀκούων δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Τραϊανὸς μεγάλως ἐξεπλήττετο 
7 / ε e \ =~ 5) \ \ > 
λέγων: Μεγάλη ἡ ὑπομονὴ τῶν εἰς [τὸν] Χριστὸν ἐλπι- 
/ / \ ε 7 9Ὰ / ς 
ζόντων: τίς [γὰρ] Ελλήνων ἢ βαρβάρων ὑπέμεινεν τοι- 
΄σ ΄ J Ai 3 eS - ε e 
5 αὗτα παθεῖν ἕνεκα θεοῦ ἰδίου, οἷα οὗτος ὑπὲρ οὗ πεπί- 
/ / ἊΣ > 3 
στευκεν πάσχει; ᾿Ϊγνάτιος εἶπεν: Οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης 
Δ 7 ᾽ \ , ~~ 
δυνάμεώς ἐστι TO στέγειν τοιαῦτα, προθυμίας δὲ μόνης 


emendation of ελθη which was corrupted from εαθη. Add. ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν L[C]B; 


om. PV. θεασάμενος] P; add. αὐτὰ V; add. ταῦτα L. 18 oi] 
Eom. V: rou) LP; om. V. 19 ἕνεκά Twos] LP; τινὸς ἕνεκα 
V. πράξεως ἢ μομφῆς] L; opera et...damnum [A]; πράξεως B (translating 
φαύλης πράξεως pravitatem); actionem (mpakéts)...guam fect C3; μομφῆς V; μορφῆς 
P. 21 γένωμαι] LP; γίνωμαι V. 22 ἀκούων] PV; ἀκούσας 
Ι,. 23 τῶν εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν ἐλπιζόντων] LP (but om. τὸν L); 40γ124771 qui 


credunt in christum Cy (but ποῦ, though properly meaning πιστεύειν, is some- 
times used to translate ἐλπίζειν, e.g. Ps. xc (xci). 4, just as ἐλπίζειν is frequently 
translated ‘trust’ in the E. V.); 22 chréstum credentium B; τῶν χριστιανών VCs. 
24 γὰρ] LPV; om. CB. ὑπέμεινεν] P; ὑπέμενεν V3 ὑπέμεινεν av L. 
τοιαῦτα] PV; τοσαῦτα LB; hos labores (cructatits) C. 25 πεπίστευκεν LP; 
πεπίστευκεν. 27 τὸ στέγειν τοιαῦτα] L; τὸ στέγειν ταῦτα Cs (qroamays, 
as in 1 Cor. ix. 12) canta toleravi B; τὸ στέργειν τὰ τοιαῦτα V; ταῦτα (simply) P. 
The sentence is translated in Cm as if οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης δυνάμεώς ἐστι προθυμία μόνη Kal 


πίστις K.T.A. 


προσπτύειν τινός occurs in Atlian 
Hi. A. iv. 22, where it is altered by 
the editors. The word belongs to 
the category of verbs denoting de- 
preciation and contempt; comp. 
Kihner 11. p. 326 sq. 

17. ea6n| for εἰάθη. The irregu- 
larity with respect to the augment is 
not a serious objection to the adop- 
tion of this reading. 

20. σῖτος yap εἰμι] Ultimately 


from Rom. 4; but it is here taken 
from Iren. v. 28. 4, as quoted by 
Euseb. H. £. iii. 36. See above, p. 
377 56. 

27. στέγειν] ‘to sustain’; see the 
note on I Thess. ili. 1. The con- 
fusion between στέγειν and στέργειν 
appears in MSS elsewhere; see Steph. 
Thes. 5. v. στέγω p. 690 (Hase et 
Dind.). Here στέγειν is better adapt- 
ed to the sense. 


534 


MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [x 


Ἂ / > / 5 \ 
καὶ πίστεως ἐφελκομένης εἰς ὁμοήθειαν Χριστοῦ. καὶ 


σι > qn > / af Own) 9 \ ε / ΩΝ 
TAUTA AUTOU ELTOVTOS ἔδραμον ἐπ αὑτον οἱ AEOVTES και 


3 ς / ~ ~ > / [y 

ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν προσπεσόντες ἀπέπνιξαν μόνον, 
> ’ \ 3 oa ~ ~ / \ / 

οὐκ ἔθιγον δὲ αὐτοῦ τῶν σαρκῶν, ἵνα τὸ λείψανον 


τ εἰς ὁμοήθειαν Χριστοῦ] εἰς βοήθειαν χριστοῦ P; εἰς βοήθειαν χριστὸν Τ,Υ͂Ος. 


The 


sentence is translated fide attrahente et adjutorio (v. 1. auxilio) christi in B, and fides 


quae attrahit nobis christum adjutorem (βοηθόν) in Cm. See the lower note. 
ἔπι LP; πρὸς V. 


τοῦ εἰπόντος] LP; εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ V. 
C; breaks off, two pages being lost. 


2 av- 
αὐτὸν] At this point 
oi λέοντες] here, LV; after ἔδραμον, P. 


καὶ ἐξ éxarépwy...év ἡ] PVCB (minor variations in these authorities are given in the 
following notes); καὶ ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μηρῶν σπαράξαντες κατέδοντο αὐτοῦ ws παραυτὰ 
τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος ἰγνατίου πληροῦσθαι τὴν εὐχὴν καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμ- 
μένον, ἐπιθυμία δικαίου δεκτή" ἵνα ὥσπερ ἔγραφεν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὁ ἅγιος μηδενὶ τῶν 
ἀδελφῶν ἐπαχθεὶς (sic) εὑρεθείη διὰ τῆς συλλογῆς τοῦ λειψάνου" κατὰ γὰρ τὴν αὐτοῦ 


yy , \ , i τ: , ᾽ cote) ῇ 
αἴτησιν μόνα τὰ τραχύτερα τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ ὀστέων περιελείφθη. 


ἅτινα φυλακτήριον 


διετηροῦντο τῇ ῥωμαίων μεγαλοπόλει ἐν ἣ κιτιλ. L. This substitution is taken 


I. els ὁμοήθειαν] i.e. ‘drawn fo 
conformity with (the sufferings of) 
Christ, in accordance with his own 
wish Rom. 6 ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν 
εἶναι τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ pov. I have 
been led to this conjectural reading 
by the fact that Ignatius twice uses 
ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ in the sense of ‘con- 
formity with God, J/agn. 6, Polyc. 1, 
and that in the latter passage the 
Greek MS substitutes βοήθειαν for 
ὁμοήθειαν. Moreover ἐφελκομένης eis 
βοήθειαν Χριστὸν 15 awkward alike in 
expression and in order, while im- 
portant authorities have Χριστοῦ. 

2. édpayov Κι] On the rela- 
tion of this account to the divergent 
story of the Antiochene Acts, see 
above, pp: 372 56, 431 sq. Lhe Ms 
L has interpolated from the latter 
here and below, p. 538, 1]. 3. 

5. φυλακτήριον] ‘a preservative, 
an amulet’; comp. e.g. Plut. 2707. 
Ῥ. 378 τὸ τῆς Ἴσιδος φυλακτήριον 
ὃ περιάπτεσθαι μυθολογοῦσιν αὐτήν, 
Dioscor. v. 158 (159) φυλακτηρίου δὲ 
περιάμματι αὐτῷ αἱ γυναῖκες χρῶνται, 


20. 159 (160) φυλακτήρια.. μηρῷ περι- 


απτόμενα, Euseb. Ζ.. C. 9 § ὃ ὥσπερ τι 
φόβητρον καὶ κακῶν ἀμυντήριον... τῆς 
Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς καθόλου βασι- 
λείας φυλακτήριον, V. C. 1. 40, 11. 9.5. 11]. 
1. The presence of the saint’s bones 
was to guard the city from harm. The 
word φυλακτήριον always has an ac- 
tive sense (e.g. Plut. Jor. p. 820 τιμῆς 
φυλακτήριον, 26. 821 φυλακτήριον... ταῖς 
πόλεσι), SO that there can be no doubt 
about its meaning here. The ‘phylac- 
teries’ mentioned in the Gospel (Matt. 
xxlil. 5) seem to have been so called 
originally, because in pursuance of a 
literal fulfilment of the Mosaic pre- 
cept they were designed to preserve 
the law in memory (Exod. xiii. 10 
φυλάξεσθε τὸν νόμον, Deut. vi. 2 
φυλάσσεσθε πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα, 3 
φύλαξαι ποιεῖν, 17 φυλάσσων φυλάξῃ 
τὰς ἐντολὰς κιτ.λ.; Comp. the explana- 
tion in Justin Dza/. 46); but the 
word and the mode of wearing them 
would at a later date suggest no 
other idea but that of amulets to 
protect the wearer. On φυλακτήριον 
see also Colossians p. 69. 

7. ἐτελειώθη] The name of One- 


σι 


Χ] 


ROMAN ACTS. 


Io 


᾽ a γ᾽ fs ~ ς 7 / > 
QUTOU ε 
in φυλακτήριον TH Pwuaiwy μεγαλοπόλει, ἐν 


ὯΝ \ / > / ΄σ 3 
ἡ καὶ Ilerpos ἐσταυρωθὴ καὶ [Παῦλος ἀπετμήθη τὴν 


κεφαλὴν καὶ ᾿Ονήσιμος ἐτελειώθη. 


ΧΙ. 


3 / 
EKTANTTOMEVOS. 


substantially from Mart. Ant. 6. For A see p. 372 sq. 


ε \ “. \ 3 λ 3 ~~ sx 
O δὲ Τραΐανος ἐξαναστας εν θαυμασμῷ nV 
.« \ > ~ / \ / 

ἥκει δὲ αὐτῷ γράμματα mapa Π]λινίου 


3 μερῶν] PVCB; 


μηρῶν L. ἀπέπνιξαν] Ῥ ; add. αὐτὸν V[C][B]; al. L. 4 δὲ] 
Be ΒΞ: ὅς V; al. L. 5 εἴη} PCB? Fr Veal. 163 μεγαλο- 
πόλει] LPCB; πόλει V. 6 ἀπετμήθη τὴν κεφαλὴν] ΡΥ͂ ; τὴν κεφαλὴν 
ἀπετμήθη L. .7 ἐτελειώθη] PV; lapidatus B; τῇ τῶν σκελῶν κλάσει τὸ 


τέλος ἐδέξατο 1,: om. C. Add. ἐν δόξῃ χριστοῦ LPV; om. CB. 


8 ἐξα- 


ναστὰς... ἐκπληττόμενος] PV; ἐξανέστη θαυμάζων ἅμα καὶ ἐκπληττόμενος L; eXSUI-LENS 
admtratione perculsus discessit B; surrexit...existens in magna adnitratione, etiam 
autem (ἔτι δὲ) perculso (πλήσσειν) ἐο et admirante etc. C (as if ἔτι ἐκπληττομένς δὲ 


ἥκει K.T.N.). 


9 αὐτῷ] txt LP[C]B; add. καὶ V. 


IIh\wiov] VB; 


pilinio (πτλττος) C; παιωνίου L; πεονίου P. 


simus occurs twice in the Menea. 
On Feb. 15 he is commemorated 
alone. Here he is called a slave 
Φιλήμονος davdpos Ῥωμαίου πρὸς ov 
γράφει ὁ ἅγιος ἀπόστολος Παῦλος ; he 
is arraigned before Tertullus ‘the 
prefect of the country’; and he is 
sent to Puteoli and there put to 
death by having his legs broken. 
This is also the story in the Meta- 
phrast. On Nov. 22 again the 
Menea commemorate ‘the holy 
Apostle Philemon and those with 
him, Apphia, Archippus, and One- 
simus.’ They are here related to 
have suffered at Colossz; they are 
brought before Androcles the govern- 
or of Ephesus, and after undergoing 
other tortures are stoned to death. 
Though no special details are given 
about Onesimus, he is not dissociated 
from the others in the list. The 
Latin Martyrologies make Feb. 16 
(not Feb. 15) the day of his com- 
memoration ; and they represent him 
as put to death by stoning, not how- 
ever at Puteoli, but at Rome. They 
celebrate Philemon and Apphia alone 


on Nov. 22; but, like the MWexea, 
they represent them as stoned to 
death at Colossz. These facts will 
explain the glosses which have been 
substituted for ἐτελειώθη. 

9. ἥκει δὲ αὐτῷ κιτ.λ.] The whole 
of this account is taken from Euse- 
bius H. £. iii. 33, whose language 
our author follows in the main, for- 
getting even to change the oblique 
narration (πρὸς ἃ τὸν Τραϊανὸν κ.τ.λ.). 
But, though the account is taken from 
the Hzstory of Eusebius, the sequence 
of eventsis suggested by the Chronicle 
of the same author ; see above, p. 449. 
At the same time the notices relating 
to Ignatius are our martyrologist’s 
own insertions in order to connect 
the correspondence of Pliny and 
Trajan with the fate of the martyr. 
Eusebius himself does not derive his 
information direct from Pliny, but 
from a Greek translation of Tertul- 
lian Afo/. 2, which he quotes. His 
knowledge is so entirely derived at 
second hand, that he does not even 
know the name of the province 
which Pliny governed, Chroz. Il. p. 


526 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


[x1 


/ ε , , 3 \ ΄σ , ΄σ 
(εκούνδον ἡγεμόνος, κινηθέντος ἐπὶ τῷ πλήθει τών 
/ “4 Ν᾿ εἴ « \ ~ 3 3 
γενομένων μαρτύρων καὶ ὅπως ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ἀἄνηρ- 
“ « \ 3 ΄σ / A , \ 
οὔντο, ἅμα δὲ ἐν ταὐτῷ μηνύοντος μηδὲν ἀνόσιον μηδὲ 
\ \ 7 / ᾽ / \ / J ~ 
παρα TOUS νόμους πράττειν αὐτούς, πλὴν TO γε ἅμα TH 
ἕῳ δι : yy X v Θεοῦ δίκην ὑμνεῖν" 
ἕῳ διεγειρομένους τὸν Χριστον τοῦ Θεοῦ δίκην ὑμ 
ε \ / 7 ς / \ \ / \ 
[ὑπερ τούτου δίκην ὑπέχειν]; τὸ δὲ μοιχεύειν Kat o- 
“ \ - 7 / / 
νεύειν καὶ τὰ συγγενῆ τούτοις ἀθέμιτα πλημμελήματα 
3 \ / ΄ / ? / 
καὶ αὐτοὺς ἀπαγορεύειν, πάντα TE πράττειν ἀκολούθως 


I ἡγεμόνος] LP; ἡγεμώνος V. 
lll. 33); νικηθέντος L; al. C. 


κινηθέντος] PVB (comp. Euseb. /. £. 
2 γενομένων) PV ; γινομένων L. 
ὅπως. LC; ὅπως P; ws ἀτρώτως V; om. B. 


καὶ 
ἀνῃροῦντο] Ρ ; ἀδίκως ἀναιροῦντο 
L; ἀναιρεθέντων VB; dant se sponte (1505) ad mortem sine timore pro fide etc. C. 
3 ταὐτῷ] LP Euseb.; τῷ αὐτῷ V. 
vuovra PV; al. C; def. Β. 

L; contrarium legibus B. 

LP Euseb.; éwa V. 

ale. AGG. Kat. V+ om. IP: τὸν Χριστὸν] PV Euseb.; χριστὸν L. 
τοῦ Θεοῦ δίκην] V ; θεοῦ δίκην Euseb.; stcut deum C; τοῦ θεοῦ (om. δίκην) PB (app., 
for it has caussa christi det hymnos canebant); τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ L. 
ὑμνεῖν] CB Euseb.; προσκυνεῖν LPV. Perhaps we should read προσυμνεῖν. 

6 ὑπὲρ] LP; καὶ ὑπὲρ V; def. CB, which omit the clause ὑπὲρ.. ὑπέχειν, wanting 
also in Euseb. τούτου] V; add. μόνου LP.  ἀθέμιτα! V; 
ἀθέμητα LP. 8 τε] PCB Euseb.; δὲ V. The words τε πράττειν axo- 
λούθως are omitted in L. ἀκολούθως] V[C][B] Euseb.; καὶ ἀκολούθως P ; 


μηνύοντος] καὶ μηνύοντος L; μη- 
4 παρὰ τοὺς νόμους] PV Euseb.; παράνομον 
5 ἕῳ] 
διεγειρομένους] LVB Euseb.; διατηρουμένους P ; 


τό γε] Euseb.; τὸ LP; τοῦ γεν. 


162 ‘Plinius Secundus cuiusdam pro- 
vinciae praeses.’ 

Πλινίου Σεκούνδου] This refers to 
the, ‘celebrated letter, Plin: ΞΖ 7220 7 Σ. 
97. The date of Pliny’s Bithynian 
government was variously placed by 
older critics from A.D. 103 or 104 
(Tillemont, Clinton) onward. But 
a recently discovered inscription (C. 
I... Wi. 777) has decided the time 
within narrow limits ; see Mommsen 
in Hermes 111. p. 55 sq. It appears 
from the correspondence of Pliny 
and Trajan (Plin. Afzs¢. x. 81 5; comp. 
51, 68, 70) that Calpurnius Macer 
was governor of the neighbouring 
province, Meesia Inferior, at the 
same time that Pliny held office in 


Bithynia; and the inscription just 
referred to, belonging to this pro- 
vince and bearing the date A.D. 112, 
mentions him as propretor. As 
the length of the tenure of such 
offices was from two to three years 
at the outside, a closely approximate 
date is ascertained. Arguing on this 
basis and following the sequence of 
the letters, Mommsen concludes that 
the correspondence extends from 
about Sept. 111 to Jan. 113 ; so that 
the letter relating to the Christians 
will have been written in the autumn 
or winter of 112 from Amisus or 
the neighbourhood. On the impossi- 
bility of reconciling this date with 
the other indications of time given 


tn 


χη ROMAN ACTS. 


ον 
[τοῖς νόμοις]. πρὸς ἃ τὸν Τραϊανὸν ἐπ᾽ ἐννοίας λα- 
) Bovta τὰ κατὰ τὸν μακάριον [καὶ ἅγιον] ᾿Ιγνάτιον (Av 
γὰρ πρόμαχος τῶν λοιπῶν μαρτυρῶν), δόγμα τοιοῦτον 
τεθεικέναι, τὸ χριστιανῶν φῦλον μὴ ἐκζητεῖσθαι μέν, 
ἐμπεσὸν δὲ κολάζεσθαι. τὸ δὲ λείψανον τοῦ μακαρίου 


7] 7 ΄- / \ 3 
᾿Ιγνατίου ἐκέλευσεν τοῖς θέλουσιν πρὸς ταφὴν ἀνελέσθαι 


΄ of \ \ \ ¢ / , - 

᾿ ἀκωλύτως ἔχειν. οἱ δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ρώμην ἀδελφοί, οἷς 
def. 1,. g τοῖς νόμοις] B Euseb.; om. PVC; def. L. πρὸς ἃ 
tov] LP Euseb. (see also BC in the next note); πρὸς αὐτὸν V. ἐπ᾽ ἐν- 


νοίας] P; ἐπ᾽ ἐννοίᾳ V; ἔννοιαν L. The renderings of this sentence in the versions 
are tratanus vero his auditis poenitens de his quae in beatum et sanctum ~gnatium in- 
gesserat B (as if it had read μετανοίᾳ λαβόντα) ; haec autem qguum cognovit traianus 
ex epistolis plini et consideravit apologias beatt ignatid C (which implies some part 
of ἔννοια). το Ta κατὰ] LV, and so prob. CB (see the last note); om. P 
(by homeceoteleuton). καὶ ἅγιον] LPVB; om. C. 
LP; add. mpoBavra V; dub. CB. 

χριστιανῶν] V Euseb.; τῶν χριστιανῶν LP. 
see the next note. 
cideret puniretur B; ἐμπεσὸν δὲ μὴ κολάζεσθαι P; εὑρεθὲν δὲ μὴ κολάζεσθαι LC; εὑ- 
τὸ δὲ λείψανον] C; resumes here. 


᾿Ἰγνάτιον txt 
12 τεθεικέναι] LP; τεθηκέναι V. 
μὴ] Β Euseb.; om. LPVC: 


13 ἐμπεσὸν δὲ κολάζεσθαι] Euseb.; sz guts tamen in- 


τοῦ μακαρίου] 
14. ἐκέλευσεν] P; ἐκέλευσε LVs. 


ρεθὲν δὲ μὴ ἀναιρεῖσθαι V. 
VC; sancti Β ; τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ μακαρίου LP. 


θέλουσιν] Ῥ; θέλουσι V; ἐθέλουσι L. 


sepeliendum B; sepelire C; πρὸς ταφὴν (om. ἀνελέσθαι) V. 


ἀκολύτως L. 


by our martyrologist, see above, p. 
377. See more fully I. p. 50 sq. 

5. τοῦ Θεοῦ δίκην] ‘after the man- 
ner of God, ‘as God, according to 
the classical usage of δίκην. But 
this use seems to have puzzled a 
later age, so that δίκην is struck out 
in some texts. The correctness of 
the reading δίκην is verified by the 
text of Eusebius. ‘The Latin of 
Tertullian (Afol. 2), from which 
this is ultimately derived, stands 
in the authorities generally ‘ad 
canendum Christo e¢ Deo,’ which 
Oehler retains and attempts to de- 
fend, but the emendation “μέ Deo’ 
for ‘e¢ Deo’ is certain ; for (1) Pliny’s 
own words are ‘carmenque Christo 
guast Deo dicere’; (2) The Greek 


πρὸς ταφὴν ἀνελέσθαι] LP; ‘Zollere ad 
15 ἀκωλύτω! PV; 


translation of Tertullian, as quoted 
by Eusebius, is τὸν Χριστὸν Θεοῦ 
δίκην ὑμνεῖν; (3) The natural order 
otherwise would be not ‘Christo et 
Deo,’ but ‘ Deo et Christo.’ 

Iz. μὴ ἐκζητεῖσθαι μέν] The vari- 
ous readings show that our author 
originally copied Eusebius, but that 
his text was subsequently corrupted 
by successive stages. The μὴ was 
first displaced and transferred to the 
second clause, so that the sentence 
then ran ἐκζητεῖσθαι μὲν ἐμπεσὸν δὲ 
μὴ κολάζεσθαι; but this was felt to 
be absurd, and it was emended by 
substituting first εὑρεθὲν for ἐμπεσὸν; 
and then ἀναιρεῖσθαι for κολάζεσθαι. 
The μὴ is omitted in the Armenian 
Chronicon (Il. p. 162). 


538 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [x1 


καὶ ἐπεστάλκει ὥστε μὴ παραιτησαμένους αὐτὸν τῆς 
μαρτυρίας τῆς ποθουμένης ἀποστερῆσαι ἐλπίδος, λα- 
βόντες αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα ἀπέθεντο [ἐν τόπῳ] ἔνθα ἦν ἐξὸν 
ἀθροιζομένους αἰνεῖν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ 
ἐπὶ τῇ τελειώσει τοῦ ἁγίου ἐπισκόπου καὶ μάρτυρος 5 
᾿Ιγνατίου" ΜΝΗΜΗ γὰρ AIKAIOY MET ἐγκωμίων. 

XII. Oidev δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ μαρτύριον Kat Εἰρηναῖος 
ὁ Λουγδούνου ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν αὐτοῦ 
μνημονεύει λέγων οὕτως" Εἰρηκέν TIC τῶν ἡμετέρων 
Ald THN πρός Θεὸν MapPTYPIAN KATAKPIOEIC πρὸοι 
@Hpia, TI Zitoc eimi TOF Θεοῦ, Kal At GAONTWN 


θηρίων AAHOOMAL, ἵν KABAPOC ἄρτος FENDMAL 


I ἐπεστάλκει] V3 commendaverat B; ἐπέσταλκεν L; ἀπεστάλκει P; scripsit C. 
ὥστε] PV ; ws L (see the note on ἀποστερῆσαι). παραιτησαμένους] V ; mapy- 
τησαμένους P; παραιτησάμενοι L. ‘The rendering in C is guod st prohibueritis me 
mori in christum, privabitis me spe ad quant respicto (but Cs is mutilated). αὐτὸν] 
LV; αὐτῶν P. τῆς μαρτυρίας τῆς ποθουμένη:)] LP; τῆς ποθουμένης μαρτυρίας 
Ν. 2 ἀποστερῆσαι] ἀποστερήσει V3; ἀποστερεῖσθαι P; ἀποστερήσειε L. ἐλπίδος] 
here, PV; before ἀποστερήσειε, L. 3 τὸ σώμα] PVC; religuias sancti [A]; 
τὰ περιλειφθέντα τῶν ἁγίων λειψάνων Ls see above, p. 534, l. 2. ἐν τόπῳ] 
VA (?); om. LPB; dub. C. The recurrence of similar letters -emToentTonw 
might have led to the omission. ἣν ἐξὸν] PVB; accidebat A; xaré- 
μενον ἐξ ὧν L (obviously corrupt). C translates «dz solebant congregari etc. 
4 ἀθροιζομένου] LVCAB; ὀρθριζομένους P. καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ] C; 
et filium ejus unigenitum A; καὶ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἰησοῦν χριστόν ΤΙΡΝ ; et αοηεῖ- 
num nostrum jesum christum filium ejus B. Add. καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα LPVA; 
in spiritu sancto [Β]; om. C. 5 ἁγίου] txt LPCAB; add. καὶ μακα- 
plov V. καὶ] txt LPCAB; add. μακαρίου V. 6 δικαίου] LPC; 
δικαίων VA; al. B. ἐγκωμίων] PA; add. γίνεται LV; add. es¢ [C]; al. B. 
7 δὲ] PVCB Euseb. 27. £. iii. 36; om. L[A]. αὐτοῦ] here, 1, Euseb.; 
after μαρτύριον, P; in both places, V. καὶ] LPAB Euseb.; om. V[C]. 
Hipnvatos] PV ; εἰριναῖος L; ὁ εἰρηναῖος Kuseb. 8 Aovydovvou] V ; Novy- 
δώνου P; Novyddvov L[C]; laudon A ; lugdunensis B; def. Euseb. καὶ] 
PVB Euseb.; om. C (?); ὃς καὶ 1, (ὃς being a repetition of the preceding syllable) ; 
sed et A. 9 Εἴρηκεν)] PL; εἴρηκε Vs; dixtt CA; ws εἶπε Euseb.; sicut... 
ait B. Io πρὸς Θεὸν] Euseb.; πρὸς θεοῦ V; secundum deum B; eis θεὸν LP; 
in christum Cs; quae ducit in christum Cm; det A. κατακριθεὶς πρὸς θηρία] 


6. μνήμη γὰρ κιτ.λ.}] From Prov. this chapter, containing the testi- 
Rif: monies of Irenzeus and Polycarp, is 
7. Oldev δὲ x.7.A.] The whole of | taken from Eusebius 74. £. iii. 36. 


χα] ROMAN ACTS. 539 


καὶ Πολύκαρπος δέ, ἐπίσκοπος wy τῆς ἐν Ομύρνη 
παροικίας, τούτων μέμνηται Φιλιππησίοις γράφων" 
Πδρὰκὰλῶ oyn πάντδο ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, TEIBAPYEIN 
Kal ACKEIN WACAN Ὑπομόνην, HN εἴδετε KaT’ 
OPOAAMOYC OY MONON EN τοῖς MAKAPIOIC Ἰγνδτίῳ 
Kal Poyd@ kal ZWCIM® ἀλλὰ Kal EN AAAOIC TOA- 
Aotc ToIc €Z ὑμῶν Kal ἐν δύτῷ Πδύλῳ Kal τοῖς 
που αὐτῷ TETICTEYKOCIN, ὅτι οὗτοι TANTEC ΟΥ̓Κ 
eic KENON ἔδραμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πίοτει KAl AIKAIOCYNH 
Kal GTI €1C TON ODEIAOMENON AYTOIC τόπον EICIN 


Tapa Kypia, ᾧ Kal ογνέπδθον᾽ OY γὰρ TON NYN 


' 
HTATTHCAN AIDNA, ἀλλὰ TON ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ATIOOa- 


2 , 


, \ \ ’ \ 
νόντὰ XPICTON KA ANACTANTA ἐπόθηοσοδν. καὶ 


LPBA Euseb.; παραδοθεὶς εἰς θηρία V; (morti) damnatus ut daretur feris 
τ: 11 τοῦ Θεοῦ] LP; θεοῦ Euseb.; ἐξέ CBA ; τοῦ θεοῦ pov V. 13 δέ] 
PV[C]B Euseb.; om. LA. ἐπίσκοπος ὧν] LPC; ὁ ἐπίσκοπος V ; episcopus 
A[B]; def. Euseb. ἐν Σμύρνῃ] LPC; σμυρναίων V ; smyrniarum (sic) Β : 
smyrnaecorum urbis A; def. Euseb. 14 τούτων] VC; τούτων αὐτῶν Euseb.; 
τοῦτο P; τούτου (not however here, but before καὶ modvxapros) L; tala A; efus 
B. μέμνηται Φιλιππησίοις γράφων] LP (both however writing φιλιππισίοις) ; 
commemorat et dicit...tn epistola quam philippensibus scripsit A; memintt scribens 
philippensibus ( philippis), dicens ita C; meminit...philippensibus scribens ac dicens 
B; μέμνηται ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ αὐτοῦ πρὸς φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολῇ φάσκων αὐτοῖς ῥήμασι 
Euseb.; μνημονεύει λέγων V. 15 οὖν πάντας] LBA Euseb. Polyc.; om. PVC. 
16 εἴδετε] V ; ἴδετε LP. 17 ᾿Ιγνατίῳ] LV; ἰγνάτιον P. 18 ‘Povdy 
καὶ Zwoluw)] LPVC (but om. καὶ ζωσίμῳ Cs) B Euseb.; ζωσίμῳ καὶ ῥούφῳ A Polyc. 

ἀλλὰ] LPCAB Euseb. Polyc.; om. V. 1g Tots pri.| PYVCAB Euseb. Polyc.; 
om. L. ὑμῶν] LPCAB Euseb. Polyc.; ἡμών V. αὐτῷ] txt 1, Euseb. Polyc.; 
add. τῷ PV. καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ πεπιστευκόσιν] P (but αὐτοῖς for αὐτῷ) V; et 
omnibus {{{15 qui crediderunt ex ipso C ; et ceteris qui cum co crediderunt B; καὶ τοῖς 
λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις πεπεισμένους Euseb. Polyc. A; om. L. The reading of our 
martyrologist seems to be an emendation of a corrupt text of Eusebius, πε- 


πιστευκόσιν being obtained from πεπεισμένους. 21 ἔδραμον] txt CB 
Euseb. Polyc.; add. οὐδ᾽ (οὐδὲ L) εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασαν LPVA (from Phil. ii. 16). 
ἀλλ] PsVs; ἀλλὰ L. 22 εἰσὶν] PV; εἰσὶ L. 24 ἠγάπησαν 
αἰώνα] LP Euseb. Polyc.; αἰῶνα ἠγάπησαν V. 25 Χριστὸν] PVCAB; 
om. Euseb. Polyc.; add. τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ L. ἀναστάντα] txt 


PVCA; preef. δὲ ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Euseb. Polyc.; pref. a deo B; preef. τῇ τρίτῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ L. 


MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [x1 


540 


\ ’ / \ > \ 3 ͵ \ 
μετα βραχέα δὲ Tac ἐπιοτολᾶς. Ἰγνδτίογ τάς TEM 
φθείοδο ἡμῖν YT δύτοῦ Kal ἄλλδο. ὅοδο εἴχομεν 


Tap’ ἡμῖν, [ἐπιοτολὰ] ἐπέμψαμεν ὑμῖν, KAOWC 


ἐνετείλδοθε' AITINEC ὑποτετὰγμένδι EICI TH ἐπι- 
CTOAH TAYTH’ ἐξ ὧν MEPAADA WHEAHOHCECHE περ!έ- 
χογοι γὰρ TICTIN KAl ὑπομονὴν THN εἰς TON Κύριον 
ἡ MON. 
Pond 9 7 A , ὃ / δὲ 3 
Τοῦτο ᾿Ιγνατίου τὸ μαρτύριον' διαδέχεται δὲ μετ 


> \ \ 3 , 3 \ 14 \W DA € 
QUTOV τῆν Ἀντιοχείας ETLOKOTNHV Ηρων. καὶ €OTLV ἢ 


μνήμη τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου καὶ γενναίου μάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνα- 
, \ , , 
τίου μηνὶ Π]Ἰανέμῳ νεομηνίᾳ. 

i dé) V[C]5 om. ἘΠ al. B Euseb.; def. A. 2 ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] LV Euseb.; map 
αὐτοῦ P. 3 ἐπιστολὰς] LPV; om. BC Euseb.; al. A. ἐπέμψαμεν] 
LPBA Euseb. Polyc.; ἔπεμψα VC. 4 ὑποτεταγμέναι εἰσὶ] L Euseb. (with v. 1. 
εἰσὶν); εἰσιν ὑποτεταγμέναι PV. 5 ταύτῃ] Ε LV; αὕτη (sic) P. μεγάλα] 
Ι, Euseb.; μεγάλως PV. περιέχουσι] LVB Euseb. Polyc.; παρέχουσι P; eru- 
diunt...super C; def. A. 6 Κύριον ἡμῶν] txt BC, Euseb. Polyc. (the two 
latter adding ἀνήκουσαν) ; add. ἰησοῦν χριστόν LPVCm; def. A. 8 Touro] LPC; 
τοιοῦτον yap V; al. AB. διαδέχεται δὲ wer αὐτὸν] PV Euseb.; μετὰ δὲ (om. δὲ 
C) τὴν αὐτοῦ τελείωσιν διαδέχεται LC (at least Cm, but the text is corrupted in Cs) ; 
excepit A; def. B. g ’Avrioxelas ἐπισκοπὴν] PVA Euseb. ; episcopatum urbis 
anttochiae C; ἐπισκοπὴν ἀντιοχέων L; def. B. Ἥρων7 V ; heron A; ἤρων 
(sic) P 5 ηρων Cm; φηρὼπ Cs; εἴρων L; ἥρως Euseb.; def. B. 11 μηνὶ Πανέμῳ 
νεομηνίᾳ] P (but, as usual, without any ¢ subscript); 27, 2720 mensis gut vocatur 
secundum romanos panemus, secundum aegyptios autem septimo epipht Cm; primo 
mensis gut vocatur panemus qui est epiphi secundum linguam aegyptiorum Cs; 
kalendis februarit [B] (but one Ms adds sed tramnslatio corporis eius non minort 
obsequio decimo sexto kalendas januarti colitur); in hrotitz mensis die primo (gut 
dies initium est) [secundum graecos Decembr. 20] A; μηνὶ δεκεμβρίῳ κ΄ V3; μηνὶ 
δεκεμβρίῳ εἰκάδι" ἐνεχθέντων δὲ ἐν ἀντιοχείᾳ τῶν τιμίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων μηνὶ lav- 

Add. in christo jesu domino nostro C; add. ἐν χριστῷ 
ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα Kal τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. ἀμήν L; add. 


νουαρίῳ εἰκάδι ἐννάτη 1,. 


χάριτι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ᾧ ἡ δόξα κιτ.λ. V; add. praestante domino 
nostro 7651: christo, qui vivit etc. [Β]. 


8. διαδέχεται δὲ κιτ.λ.}] This sen- is Dec. 20 according to the later 


tence also is from Eusebius l.c. 

9. καὶ ἔστιν κιτ.λ.] This is doubt- 
less the original reading of our Acts. 
The day of Ignatius is given accord- 
ing to the Egyptian calendar as 
Panemus (i.e. July) Ist: see above, 
Ὁ 423. In different recensions it is 
altered according to the usages of 
different churches. In LV the day 


Greek usage (see above, p. 422 sq), 
to which L adds Jan. 29 as the day 
of the translation of the reliques from 
Rome to Antioch; while in B it be- 
comes Feb.1 after the Latin calendar 
(see above, p. 428), where again at 
least one MS adds Dec. 17 as the day 
of the translation according to the 
Latin calendar. 


5 


I 


TRANSLATIONS. 


re Plot ΕΒ OF ΒΘ. ΤΟΝ ΠΟ: 


4. ΑΘ ΘΕ ΜΑΓΨΕΡΘΗ: 


(1) ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 
(2) ROMAN ACTS. 


ἘΠΕ ies OF S. IGNATIUS 


Ih. 


SO baie EPH ESTANS. 


GNATIUS, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath 
been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of God the 
Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for 
ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in 
a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ 
our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], 
worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus 
and in blameless joy. 

1. While I welcomed in God [your] well-beloved name, which 
ye bear by natural right [in an upright and virtuous mind] by 
faith and love in Christ Jesus our Saviour—being imitators of 
God, and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God, ye 
have perfectly fulfilled your congenial work—for when ye heard 
that I was on my way from Syria, in bonds for the sake of 
the common Name and hope, and was hoping through your 
prayers to succeed in fighting with wild beasts in Rome, that by 
so succeeding I might have power to be a disciple, ye were 
eager to visit me:—seeing then that in God’s name I have 
received your whole multitude in the person of Onesimus, 
whose love passeth utterance and who is moreover your bishop 
[in the flesh]—and I pray that ye may love him according to 


544 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


Jesus Christ and that ye all may be like him; for blessed is He 
that granted unto you according to your deserving to have such 
a bishop :— 

2. But as touching my fellow-servant Burrhus, who by 
' the will of God is your deacon blessed in all things, I pray 
that he may remain with me to the honour of yourselves and 
of your bishop. Yea, and Crocus also, who is worthy of God 
and of you, whom I received as an ensample of the love which 
ye bear me, hath relieved me in all ways—even so may the 
Father of Jesus Christ refresh him—together with Onesimus and 
Burrhus and Euplus and Fronto; in whom I saw you all with 
the eyes of love. May I have joy of you always, if so be I 
am worthy of it. It is therefore meet for you in every way 
to glorify Jesus Christ who glorified you; that being perfectly 
joined together in one submission, submitting yourselves to your 
bishop and presbytery, ye may be sanctified in all things. 

3. I do not command you, as though I were somewhat. 
For even though I am in bonds for the Name’s sake, I am 
not yet perfected in Jesus Christ. [For] now am I beginning 
to be a disciple; and I speak to you as to my school-fellows. 
For I ought to be trained by you for the contest in faith, in 
admonition, in endurance, in long-suffering. But, since love 
doth not suffer me to be silent concerning you, therefore was 
I forward to exhort you, that ye run in harmony with the mind 
of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind 
of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the 
farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ. 

4. So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the 
mind of the bishop; which thing also ye do. For your honour- 
able presbytery, which is worthy of God, is attuned to the 
bishop, even as its strings to a lyre. Therefore in your concord 
and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, each 
and all, form yourselves into a chorus, that being harmoni- 
ous in concord and taking the key note of God ye may in 
unison sing with one voice through Jesus Christ unto the Father, 


TO THE EPHESIANS. BAS 


that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good 
deeds to be members of His Son. It is therefore profitable for 
you to be in blameless unity, that ye may also be partakers of 
God always. 

5. For if I in a short time had such converse with your 
bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, 
how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined 
with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus 
Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious 
in unity. Let no man be deceived. If any one be not within 
the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread [of God]. For, if 
the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much 
more that of the bishop and of the whole Church. Whoso- 
ever therefore cometh not to the congregation, he doth thereby 
show his pride and hath separated himself; for it is written, God 
resisteth the proud. Wet us therefore be careful not to resist the 
bishop, that by our submission we may give ourselves to God, 

6. And in proportion as a man seeth that his bishop is 
silent, let him fear him the more. For every one whom the 
Master of the household sendeth to be steward over His own 
house, we ought so to receive as Him that sent him. Plainly 
therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself. 
Now Onesimus of his own accord highly praiseth your orderly 
conduct in God, for that ye all live according to truth, and 
that no heresy hath a home among you: nay, ye do not so 
much as listen to any one, if he speak of aught else save 
concerning Jesus Christ in truth. 

7. For some are wont of malicious guile to hawk about 
the Name, while they do certain other things unworthy of God. 
These men ye ought to shun, as wild-beasts; for they are mad 
dogs, biting by stealth; against whom ye ought to be on your 
guard, for they are hard to heal. There is one only physician, 
of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true 
Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and 
then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. 


IGN, II, 35 


546 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


8. Let no one therefore deceive you, as indeed ye are not 
deceived, seeing that ye belong wholly to God. For when no 
lust is established in you, which hath power to torment you, then 
truly ye live after God. I devote myself for you, and I dedicate 
myself as an offering for the church of you Ephesians which is 
famous unto all the ages. They that are of the flesh cannot do 
the things of the Spirit, neither can they that are of the Spirit 
do the things of the flesh; even as faith cannot do the things of 
unfaithfulness, neither unfaithfulness the things of faith. Nay, 
even those things which ye do after the flesh are spiritual; for 
ye do all things in Jesus Christ. 

9. But I have learned that certain persons passed through 
you from yonder, bringing evil doctrine; whom ye suffered not 
to sow seed in you, for ye stopped your ears, so that ye might 
not receive the seed sown by them; forasmuch as ye are stones 
of a temple, which were prepared beforehand for ἃ building 
of God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights through the 
engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and using for a rope 
the Holy Spirit; while your faith is your windlass, and love is 
the way that leadeth up to God. So then ye are all com- 
panions in the way, carrying your God and your shrine, your 
Christ and your holy things, being arrayed from head to foot in 
the commandments of Jesus Christ. And I too, taking part in 
the festivity, am permitted by letter to bear you company and 
to rejoice with you, that ye set not your love on anything after 
the common life of men, but only on God. 

10, And pray ye also without ceasing for the) Testeos 
mankind (for there is in them a hope of repentance), that 
they may find God. Therefore permit them to take lessons at 
least from your works. Against their outbursts of wrath be ye 
meek; against their proud words be ye humble; against their 
railings set ye your prayers; against their errors be ye stedfast 
in the faith; against their fierceness be ye gentle. And be not 
zealous to imitate them by requital. Let us show ourselves 
their brothers by our forbearance; but let us be zealous to be 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 547 


imitators of the Lord, vying with each other who shall suffer the 
greater wrong, who shall be defrauded, who shall be set at 
nought; that no herb of the devil be found in you: but in all 
purity and temperance abide ye in Christ Jesus, with your flesh 
and with your spirit. 

11, These are the last times. Henceforth let us have rever- 
ence; let us fear the long suffering of God, lest it turn into a 
judgment against us. For either let us fear the wrath which is to 
come or let us love the grace which now is—the one or the other; 
provided only that we be found in Christ Jesus unto true life. 
Let nothing glitter in your eyes apart from Him, in whom I 
carry about my bonds, my spiritual pearls in which I would fain 
rise again through your prayer, whereof may it be my lot to be 
always a partaker, that I may be found in the company of those 
Christians of Ephesus who moreover were ever of one mind with 
the Apostles in the power of Jesus Christ. 

12. I know who Iam and to whom I write. I am a convict, 
ye have received mercy: I am in peril, ye are established. Ye 
are the high-road of those that are on their way to die unto 
God. Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was 
sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all 
felicitation ; in whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, 
when I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh 
mention of you in Christ Jesus. 

13. Do your diligence therefore to meet together more 
frequently for thanksgiving to God and for His glory. For 
when ye meet together frequently, the powers of Satan are 
cast down; and his mischief cometh to nought in the concord 
of your faith. There is nothing better than peace, in which 
all warfare of things in heaven and things on earth is abo- 
lished. 

14. None of these things is hidden from you, if ye be perfect 
in your faith and love toward Jesus Christ, for these are the 
beginning and end of life—faith is the beginning and love is the 
end—and the two being found in unity are God, while all things 


3 re 


548 THE EPISTLE OF 8S. IGNATIUS 


else follow in their train unto true nobility. No man professing 
faith sinneth, and no man possessing love hateth. The tree is 
manifest from 115 fruit; so they that profess to be Christ’s shall 
be seen through their actions. For the Work is not a thing of 
profession now, but is seen then when one is found in the power 
of faith unto the end. . 

15. It is better to keep silence and to be, than to talk and 
not to be. It is a fine thing to teach, if the speaker practise. 
Now there is one teacher, who spake and it came to pass: yea 
and even the things which He hath done in silence are worthy 
of the Father. He that truly possesseth the word of Jesus 
is able also to hearken unto His silence, that he may be 
perfect; that through his speech he may act and through his 
silence he may be known. Nothing is hidden from the Lord, 
but even our secrets are nigh unto Him. Let us therefore do 
all things as knowing that He dwelleth in us, to the end that we 
may be His temples and He Himself may be in us as our 
God. This is so, and it will also be made clear in our sight 
from the love which we rightly bear towards Him. 

16. Be not deceived, my brethren. Corrupters of houses 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If then they which do 
these things after the flesh are put to death, how much more if 
a man through evil doctrine corrupt the faith of God for which 
Jesus Christ was crucified. Such a man, having defiled himself, 
shall go into the unquenchable fire; and in like manner also 
shall he that hearkeneth unto him. 

17. For this cause the Lord received ointment on His head, 
that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church. Be not 
anointed with the ill odour of the teaching of the prince of this 
world, lest he lead you captive and rob you of the life which is 
set before you. And wherefore do we not all walk prudently, 
receiving the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ? Why 
perish we in our folly, not knowing the gift of grace which the 
Lord hath truly sent? 

18. My spirit is made an offscouring for the Cross, which is 


TO THE EPHESIANS. 549 


a stumbling-block to them that are unbelievers, but to us salva- 
- tion and life eternal. Where is the wise? Where ts the disputer? 
Where is the boasting of them that are called prudent? For 
our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary 
according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of 
the Holy Ghost; and He was born and was baptized that by 
His passion He might cleanse water. 

19. And hidden from the prince of this world were the 
virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the 
death of the Lord—three mysteries to be cried aloud—the 
which were wrought in the silence of God. How then were 
they made manifest to the ages? A star shone forth in the 
heaven above all the stars; and its light was unutterable, 
and its strangeness caused amazement; and all the rest of the 
constellations with the sun and moon formed themselves into a 
chorus about the star; but the star itself far outshone them all; 
and there was perplexity to know whence came this strange 
appearance which was so unlike them. From that time forward 
every sorcery and every spell was dissolved, the ignorance of 
wickedness vanished away, the ancient kingdom was pulled 
down, when God appeared in the likeness of man unto wewuness 
of everlasting “fe; and that which had been perfected in the 
counsels of God began to take effect. Thence all things were 
perturbed, because the abolishing of death was taken in hand. 

20. If Jesus Christ should count me worthy through your 
prayer, and it should be the Divine will, in my second tract, 
which I intend to write to you, I will further set before you the 
dispensation whereof I have begun to speak, relating to the 
new man Jesus Christ, which consisteth in faith towards Him and 
in love towards Him, in His passion and resurrection, especially 
if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves 
together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in 
grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was 
of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the 


end that ye may obey the bishop and the presbytery without 


550 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine 
of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live 
for ever in Jesus Christ. } 

21. I am devoted to you and to those whom for the honour 
of God ye sent to Smyrna; whence also I write unto you with 
thanksgiving to the Lord, having love for Polycarp as I have for 
you also. Remember me, even as I would that Jesus Christ may 
also remember you. Pray for the church which is in Syria, 
whence I am led a prisoner to Rome—I who am the very 
last of the faithful there; according as 1 was counted worthy 
to be found unto the honour of God. Fare ye well in God the 
Father and in Jesus Christ our common hope. 


5, 
ΕΘ ibe ὙΜΑΟΝΈΘΒΘΙΑΝΘΒ: 


GNATIUS, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been 

blessed through the grace of God the Father in Christ Jesus 

our Saviour, in whom I salute the church which is in Magnesia 

on the Meander, and 1 wish her abundant greeting in God the 
Father and in Jesus Christ. 

1. When I learned the exceeding good order of your love in 
the ways of God, I was gladdened and I determined to address 
you in the faith of Jesus Christ. For being counted worthy 
to bear a most godly name, in these bonds, which I carry about, 
I sing the praise of the churches; and I pray that there may be 
in them union of the flesh and of the spirit which are Jesus 
Christ’s, our never-failing life—an union of faith and of love 
which is preferred before all things, and—what is more than 
all—an union with Jesus and with the Father; in whom if we 
endure patiently all the despite of the prince of this world and 
escape therefrom, we shall attain unto God. 

2. Forasmuch then as I was permitted to see you in the 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 551 


person of Damas your godly bishop and your worthy presbyters 
Bassus and Apollonius and my fellow-servant the deacon Zotion, 
of whom I would fain have joy, for that he is subject to the 
bishop as unto the grace of God and to the presbytery as unto 
the law of Jesus Christ :— 

3. Yea, and it becometh you also not to presume upon the 
youth of your bishop, but according to the power of God the 
Father to render unto him all reverence, even as I have learned 
that the holy presbyters also have not taken advantage of his 
outwardly youthful estate, but give place to him as to one pru- 
dent in God; yet not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, 
even to the Bishop of all. For the honour therefore of Him that 
desired you, it is meet that ye should be obedient without 
dissimulation. For a man doth not so much deceive this bishop 
who is seen, as cheat that other who is invisible; and in. 
such a case he must reckon not with flesh but with God who 
knoweth the hidden things. 

4. It is therefore meet that we not only be called Christians, 
but also be such; even as some persons have the bishop’s name 
on their lips, but in everything act apart from him. Such men 
appear to me not to keep a good conscience, forasmuch as 
they do not assemble themselves together lawfully according to 
commandment. 

5. Seeing then that all things have an end, and these two— 
life and death—are set before us together, and each man shall 
go to his own place; for just as there are two coinages, the one 
of God and the other of the world, and each of them hath its 
proper stamp impressed upon it, the unbelievers the stamp of 
this world, but the faithful in love the stamp of God the Father 
through Jesus Christ, through whom unless of our own free choice 
we accept to die unto His passion, His life is not in us :— 

6. Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I be- 
held your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise 
you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop 
presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after 


552 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons 
also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the 
diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the 
worlds and appeared at the end of time. Therefore do ye all 
study conformity to God and pay reverence one to another ; 
and let no man regard his neighbour after the flesh, but love 
ye one another in Jesus Christ always. Let there be nothing 
among you which shall have power to divide you, but be ye 
united with the bishop and with them that preside over you as 
an ensample and a lesson of incorruptibility. 

7, Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, 
[being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so 
neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters. 
And attempt not to think anything right for yourselves apart 
from others: but let there be one prayer in common, one suppli- 
cation, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy unblameable, which 
is Jesus Christ, than whom there is nothing better. Hasten to 
come together all of you, as to one temple, even God; as to one 
altar, even to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from One Father 
and is with One and departed unto One. 

8. Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated 
fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live 
after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received 
grace: for the divine prophets lived after Christ Jesus. For this 
cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to 
the end that they which are disobedient might be fully persuaded 
that there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus 
Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, 
who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him. 

9g. If then those who had walked in ancient practices 
attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths 
but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life 
also arose through Him and through His death which some men 
deny—a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this 
cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of 


TO THE MAGNESIANS. 553 


Jesus Christ our only teacher—if this be so, how shall we be 
able to live apart from Him ? seeing that even the prophets, being 
His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the 
Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, 
when He came, raised them from the dead. 

10. Therefore iet us not be insensible to His goodness. For 
if He should imitate us according to our deeds, we are lost. For 
this cause, seeing that we are become His disciples, let us learn 
to live as beseemeth Christianity. For whoso is called by an- 
other name besides this, is not of God. Therefore put away the 
vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour, and betake your- 
selves to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in 
Him, that none among you grow putrid, seeing that by your 
savour ye shall be proved. It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ 
and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in 
Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every tongue be- 
lieved and was gathered together unto God. 

11. Now these things I say, my dearly beloved, not because 
I have learned that any of you are so minded ; but as being 
less than any of you, I would have you be on your guard 
betimes, that ye fall not into the snares of vain doctrine; but be 
ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the 
resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship 
of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly 
done by Jesus Christ our hope; from which hope may it not 
befal any of you to be turned aside. 

12. Let me have joy of you in all things, if I be worthy. 
For even though I am in bonds, yet am I not comparable to one 
of you who are at liberty. I know that ye are not puffed up; 
for ye have Jesus Christ in yourselves. And, when I praise you, 
I know that ye only feel the more shame; as it is written The 
righteous man 15 a self-accuser. 

13. Do your diligence therefore that ye be confirmed in the 
ordinances of the Lord and of the Apostles, that ye may prosper 
wn all things whatsoever ye do in flesh and spirit, by faith and by 


554 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the begin- 
ning and in the end, with your revered bishop, and with the 
fitly wreathed spiritual circlet of your presbytery, and with 
the deacons who walk after God. Be obedient to the bishop 
and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according 
to the flesh], and as the Apostles were to Christ and to the 
Father, that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit. 

14. Knowing that ye are full of God, I have exhorted 
you briefly. Kemember me in your prayers, that I may attain 
unto God; and remember also the church which is in Syria, 
whereof I am not worthy to be called a member. For I have 
need of your united prayer and love in God, that it may be 
granted to the church which is in Syria to be refreshed by the 
dew of your fervent supplication. 

15. The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence 
also I write to you. They are here with me for the glory of 
God, as also are ye; and they have comforted me in all things, 
together with Polycarp bishop of the Smyrnzans. Yea, and — 
all the other churches salute you in the honour of Jesus Christ. 
Fare ye well in godly concord, and possess ye a stedfast spirit, 
which is Jesus Christ. 


a 
DOO ΠΕ ΑΝ 5: 


GNATIUS, who is also Theophorus, unto her that is beloved 
by God the Father of Jesus Christ; to the holy church 
which is in Tralles of Asia, elect and worthy of God, having 
peace in flesh and spirit through the passion of Jesus Christ, 
who is our hope through our resurrection unto Him; which 
church also I salute in the Divine plenitude after the apostolic 

fashion, and I wish her abundant greeting. 
1. I have learned that ye have a mind unblameable and 





TO THE TRALLIANS. 5.53 


stedfast in patience, not from habit, but by nature, according as 
Polybius your bishop informed me, who by the will of God and 
of Jesus Christ visited me in Smyrna; and so greatly did 
he rejoice with me in my bonds in Christ Jesus, that in him 
I beheld the whole multitude of you. Having therefore re- 
ceived your godly benevolence at his hands, I gave glory, 
forasmuch as I had found you to be imitators of God, even 
as I had learned. 

2. For when ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus 
Christ, it is evident to me that ye are living not after men but 
after Jesus Christ, who died for us, that believing on His death 
ye might escape death. It is therefore necessary, even as your 
wont is, that ye should do nothing without the bishop; but be 
ye obedient also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus 
Christ our hope; for if we live in Him, we shall also be found 
in Him. And those likewise who are deacons of the mysteries 
of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are 
not deacons of meats and drinks but servants of the Church 
of God. It is right therefore that they should beware of blame 
as of fire. 

3. In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus 
Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of 
the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as 
the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even 
the name of a church. And I am persuaded that ye are so 
minded as touching these matters: for I received the ensample 
of your love,and I have it with me, in the person of your bishop, 
whose very demeanour is a great lesson, while his gentleness 
is power—a man to whom I think even the godless pay reve- 
rence. Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I 
might write more sharply on his behalf: but I did not think 
myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order 
you as though I were an Apostle. 

4. I have many deep thoughts in God: but I take the 
measure of myself, lest I perish in my boasting. For now I 


550 THE EPISTLE OF 8. IGNATIUS 


ought to be the more afraid and not to give heed to those that ἢ 
would puff me up: for they that say these things to me are a ἢ 
scourge to me. For though I desire to suffer, yet I know not } 
whether I am worthy: for the envy of the devil is unseen in- 
deed by many, but against me it wages the fiercer war. So 
then I crave gentleness, whereby the prince of this world is 
brought to nought. 

5. Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? 
But I fear lest I should cause you harm being babes. So bear 
with me, lest not being able to take them in, ye should be 
choked. For I myself also, albeit I am in bonds and can 
comprehend heavenly things and the arrays of the angels and 
the musterings of the principalities, things visible and things 
invisible—I myself am not yet by reason of this a disciple. For 
we lack many things, that God may not be lacking to us. 

6. 1 exhort you therefore—yet not I, but the love of Jesus 
Christ—take ye only Christian food, and abstain from strange 
herbage, which is heresy: for these men do even mingle poison 
with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of honesty, 
like persons administering a deadly drug with honied wine, so 
that one who knoweth it not, fearing nothing, drinketh in death 
with a baneful delight. 

7. Be ye therefore on your guard against such men. And 
this will surely be, if ye be not puffed up and if ye be insepa- 
rable from [God] Jesus Christ and from the bishop and from 
the ordinances of the Apostles. He that is within the sanctuary 
is clean; but he that is without the sanctuary is not clean, that 
is, he that doeth aught without the bishop and presbytery and 
deacons, this man is not clean in his conscience. 

8. Not indeed that I have known of any such thing among 
you, but I keep watch over you betimes, as my beloved, for 
I foresee the snares of the devil. Do ye therefore arm your- 
selves with gentleness and recover yourselves in faith which is 
the flesh of the Lord, and in love which is the blood of Jesus 
Christ. Let none of you bear a grudge against his neigh- 


TO THE TRALLIANS. / 


bour. Give no occasion to the Gentiles, lest by reason of a 
few foolish men the godly multitude be blasphemed: for Woe 
unto him through whom My name ts vainly blasphemed before 
some. 

9. Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you 
apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David, who was 
the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was 
truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and 
died in the sight of those in heaven and those on earth and 
those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from 
the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion 
will so raise us also who believe on Him—His Father, I say, 
will raise us—in Christ Jesus, apart from whom we have not 
true life. 

10. But if it were as certain persons who are godless, 
that is unbelievers, say, that He suffered only in semblance, 
being themselves mere semblance, why am I in bonds? And 
why also do I desire to fight with wild beasts? So I die in 
vain. Truly then I lie against the Lord. 

11. Shun ye therefore those vile offshoots that gender a 
deadly fruit, whereof if a man taste, forthwith he dieth. For 
these men are not the Father’s planting: for if they had been, 
they would have been seen to be branches of the Cross, and 
their fruit imperishable—the Cross whereby He through His 
passion inviteth us, being His members. Now it cannot be 
that a head should be found without members, seeing that 
God promiseth union, and this union is Himself. 

12. I salute you from Smyrna, together with the churches 
of God that are present with me; men who refreshed me in 
all ways both in flesh and in spirit. My bonds exhort you, 
which for Jesus Christ’s sake I bear about, entreating that I 
may attain unto God; abide ye in your concord and in prayer 
one with another. For it becometh you severally, and more 
especially the presbyters, to cheer the soul of your bishop unto 
the honour of the Father [and to the honour] of Jesus Christ 


558 THE EPISTLE OFS. IGNATIUS 


i} 
] 


and of the Apostles. I pray that ye may hearken unto me in 
love, lest I be for a testimony against you by having so written. 
And pray ye also for me who have need of your love in the 
mercy of God, that I may be vouchsafed the lot which I am 
eager to attain, to the end that I be not found reprobate. 

13. The love of the Smyrnzans and Ephesians saluteth 
you. Remember in your prayers the church which is in Syria; 
whereof [also] I am not worthy to be called a member, being 
the very last of them. Fare ye well in Jesus Christ, submitting 
yourselves to the bishop as to the commandment, and like- 
wise also to the presbytery; and each of you severally love 
one another with undivided heart. My spirit is offered up 
for you, not only now, but also when I shall attain unto God. 
For I am still in peril; but the Father is faithful in Jesus 
Christ to fulfil my petition and yours. May we be found un- 
blameable in Him. 


4. 
DOVE, ROMANS: 


GNATIUS, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath 
found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High 

and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is 
beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all 
things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our 
God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country 
of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of 
honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of 
success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, 
walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; 
which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the 
Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united 


TO THE ROMANS. 559 


unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of 
God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign 
stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blame- 
lessness. 

I. Forasmuch as in answer to my prayer to God it hath 
been granted me to see your godly countenances, so that I have 
obtained even more than I asked; for wearing bonds in Christ 
Jesus I hope to salute you, if it be the Divine will that I 
should be counted worthy to reach unto the end; for the begin- 
ning verily is well ordered, if so be I shall attain unto the goal, 
that I may receive mine inheritance without hindrance. For 
I dread your very love, lest it do me an injury; for it is easy 
for you to do what ye will, but for me it is difficult to attain 
unto God, unless ye shall spare me. 

2. For I would not have you to be men-pleasers but to 
please God, as indeed ye do please Him. For neither shall I 
myself ever find an opportunity such as this to attain unto 
God, nor can ye, if ye be silent, win the credit of any nobler 
work. For, if ye be silent and leave me alone, I am a word 
of God; but if ye desire my flesh, then shall I be again a 
mere cry. [Nay] grant me nothing more than that I be poured 
out a libation to God, while there is still an altar ready; that 
forming yourselves into a chorus in love ye may sing to the 
Father in Jesus Christ, for that God hath vouchsafed that the 
bishop from Syria should be found in the West, having sum- 
moned him from the East. It is good to set from the world 
unto God, that I may rise unto Him. 

3. Ye never grudged any one; ye were the instructors 
of others. And my desire is that those lessons shall hold 
good which as teachers ye enjoin. Only pray that I may have 
power within and without, so that I may not only say it but — 
also desire it; that I may not only be called a Christian, but 
also be found one. For if I shall be found so, then can I also 
be called one, and be faithful then, when I am no more visible 
to the world. Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus 


560 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


Christ, being in the Father, is the more plainly visible. The 
Work is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of 
might, whensoever it is hated by the world. 

4. I write to all the churches, and I bid all men know, that 
of my own free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder 
me. I exhort you, be ye not an ‘unseasonable kindness’ to 
me. Let me be given to the wild beasts, for through them 
ican attain, unto God. ' I).am )God’s ,\wheat,wand 7 iam 
ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure 
bread [of Christ]. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may 
become my sepulchre and may leave no part of my body 
behind, so that I may not, when I am fallen asleep, be burden- 
some to any one. Then shall I be truly a disciple of Jesus 
Christ, when the world shall not so much as see my _ body. 
Supplicate the Lord for me, that through these instruments I 
may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not enjoin you, as 
Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they 
were free, but I am a slave to this very hour. Yet if I shall 
suffer, then am I a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise 
free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put away 
every desire. 

5. From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, 
by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst 
ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only wax 
worse when they are kindly treated. Howbeit through their 
wrong doings 1 become more completely a disciple; yet am I 
not hereby justified. May 1 have joy of the beasts that have ~ 
been prepared for me; and I pray that I may find them 
prompt; nay I will entice them that they may devour me 
promptly, not as they have done to some, refusing to touch 
them through fear. Yea though of themselves they should not 
be willing while I am ready, I myself will force them to it. 
Bear with me. I know what is expedient for me. Now am I 
beginning to be a disciple. May naught of things visible and 
things invisible envy me; that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. 


TO THE ROMANS. 561 


Come fire and cross and grapplings with wild beasts, [cuttings 
and manglings,] wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings 
of my whole body, come cruel tortures of the devil to assail 
me. Only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ. 

6. The farthest bounds of the universe shall profit me no- 
thing, neither the kingdoms of this world. It is good for me 
to die for Jesus Christ rather than to reign over the farthest 
bounds of the earth. Him I seek, who died on our behalf; 
Him 1 desire, who rose again [for our sake]. The pangs of a 
new birth are upon me. Bear with me, brethren. Do not 
hinder me from living; do not desire my death. Bestow not 
on the world one who desireth to be God’s, neither allure 
him with material things. Suffer me to receive the pure light. 
When I am come thither, then shall I be a man. Permit me 
to be an imitator of the passion of my God. If any man hath 
Him within himself, let him understand what I desire, and let 
him have fellow-feeling with me, for he knoweth the things 
which straiten me. 

7. The prince of this world would fain tear me in pieces 
and corrupt my mind to Godward. Let not any of you there- 
fore who are near abet him. Rather stand ye on my side, that is 
on God’s side. Speak not of Jestis Christ and withal desire the 
world. Let not envy have a home in you. Even though I 
myself, when I am with you, should beseech you, obey me not; 
but rather give credence to these things which I write to you. 
[For] I write to you in the midst of life, yet lusting after death. 
My lust hath been crucified, and there is no fire of material 
longing in me, but only water living fand speaking+ in me, 
saying within me ‘Come to the Father.’ I have no delight in 
the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire 
the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the 
seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, which 
is love incorruptible. 

8. I desire no longer to live after the manner of men; and 
this shall be, if ye desire it. Desire ye, that ye yourselves also 


IGN. II. 36 


562 THE EPISTLE OF 5. IGNATIUS 


may be desired. In a brief letter I beseech you; believe me. 
And Jesus Christ shall make manifest unto you these things, 
that I speak the truth—Jesus Christ, the unerring mouth in 
whom the Father hath spoken [truly]. Entreat ye for me, 
that I may attain [through the Holy Spirit]. I write not unto 
you after the flesh, but after the mind of God. If I shall suffer, 
it was your desire ; if I shall be rejected, it was your hatred. 

9. Remember in your prayers the church which is in Syria, 
which hath God for its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ 
alone shall be its bishop—He and your love. But for myself I 
am ashamed to be called one of them; for neither am I worthy, 
being the very last of them and an untimely birth: but I have 
found mercy that I should be some one, if so be I shall attain 
unto God. My spirit saluteth you, and the love of the churches 
which received me in the name of Jesus Christ, not as a mere 
wayfarer: for even those churches. which did not lie on my route 
after the flesh went before me from city to city. 

10. Now I write these things to you from Smyrna by the 
hand of the Ephesians who are worthy of all felicitation. And 
Crocus also, a name very dear to me, is with me, with many 
others besides. 

As touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome 
unto the glory of God, I believe that ye have received instruc- 
tions; whom also apprise that I am near; for they all are 
worthy of God and of you, and it becometh you to refresh 
them in all things. These things I write to you on the oth 
before the Kalends of September. Fare ye well unto the end 
in the patient waiting for Jesus Christ. | 


TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. | 563 


io fae PHILADELPHIANS: 


π᾿ who is also Theophorus, to the church of God 
the Father and of Jesus Christ, which is in Philadelphia 
of Asia, which hath found mercy and is firmly established in 
the concord of God and rejoiceth in the passion of our Lord 
and in His resurrection without wavering, being fully assured in 
all mercy; which church I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, 
that is eternal and abiding joy; more especially if they be at 
one with the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, and 
with the deacons that have been appointed according to the 
mind of Jesus Christ, whom after His own will He confirmed 
and established by His Holy Spirit. 

1. This your bishop I have found to hold the ministry 
which pertaineth to the common weal, not of himself or through 
men, nor yet for vain glory, but in the love of God the Father 
and the Lord Jesus Christ. And I am amazed at his forbear- 
ance ; whose silence is more powerful than others’ speech. For 
he is attuned in harmony with the commandments, as a lyre 
with its strings. Wherefore my soul blesseth his godly mind, 
for I have found that it is virtuous and perfect—even the im- 
perturbable and calm temper which he hath, while living in all 
godly forbearance. 

2. As children therefore [of the light] of the truth, shun 
division and wrong doctrines ; and where the shepherd is, there 
follow ye as sheep. For many specious wolves with baneful 
delights lead captive the runners in God’s race; but, where ye 
are at one, they will find no place. 

3. Abstain from noxious herbs, which are not the husbandry 
of Jesus Christ, because they are not the planting of the Father. 
Not that I have found division among you, but filtering. For 

30—2 


564 THE’ EPISTLE ‘OF S. IGNATIUS 


as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, they are with the 
bishop ; and as many as shall repent and enter into the unity of 
the Church, these also shall be of God, that they may be living 
after Jesus Christ. Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man 
followeth one that maketh a schism, he doth not inherit the king- 
dom of God. If any man walketh in strange doctrine, he hath 
no fellowship with the passion. 

4. Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for 
there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto 
union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, 
together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-ser- 
vants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God. 

5. My brethren, my heart overfloweth altogether in love 
towards you; and rejoicing above measure I watch over your 
safety ; yet not I, but Jesus Christ, wearing whose bonds I am 
the more afraid, because I am not yet perfected. But your 
prayer will make me perfect [unto God], that I may attain unto 
the inheritance wherein I have found mercy, taking refuge in — 
the Gospel as the flesh of Jesus and in the Apostles as the Ὁ 
presbytery of the Church. Yea, and we love the prophets also, 
because they too pointed to the Gospel in their preaching and 
set their hope on Him and awaited Him; in whom also having 
faith they were saved in the unity of Jesus Christ, being worthy 
of all love and admiration as holy men, approved of Jesus 
Christ and numbered together in the Gospel of our common 
hope. | 

6. But if any one propound Judaism unto you, hear him 
not: for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who 
is circumcised than Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if 
either the one or the other speak not concerning Jesus Christ, I 
look on them as tombstones and graves of the dead, whereon 
are inscribed only the names of men. Shun ye therefore the 
wicked arts and plottings of the prince of this world, lest haply 
ye be crushed by his devices, and wax weak in your love. But 
assemble yourselves all together with undivided heart. And I 





TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 565 


give thanks to my God, that I have a good conscience in my 
dealings with you, and no man can boast either in secret or openly, 
that I was burdensome to anyone in small things or in great. 
Yea and for all among whom I spoke, it is my prayer that they 
may not turn it into a testimony against themselves. 

7. For even though certain persons desired to deceive me 
after the flesh, yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God ; 
for it knoweth whence tt cometh and where it goeth, and it search- 
eth out the hidden things. I cried out, when I was among you ; 
I spake with a loud voice, with God’s own voice, Give ye heed to 
the bishop and the presbytery and deacons. Howbeit there 
were those who suspected me of saying this, because I knew 
beforehand of the division of certain persons. But He in whom 
I am bound is my witness that I learned it not from flesh of 
man; it was the preaching of the Spirit who spake on this 
wise; Do nothing without the bishop; keep your flesh as a 
temple of God; cherish union; shun divisions; be imitators of 
Jesus Christ, as He Himself also was of His Father. 

8. I therefore did my own part, as a man composed unto 
union. But where there is division and anger, there God abideth 
not. Now the Lord forgiveth all men when they repent, if 
repenting they return to the unity of God and to the council of 
the bishop. I have faith in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall 
strike off every fetter from you; and I entreat you, Do ye no- 
thing in a spirit of factiousness but after the teaching of Christ. 
For I heard certain persons saying, ‘If I find it not in the 
charters, I believe it not in the Gospel. And when I said to 
them ‘It is written,’ they answered me ‘That is the question.’ 
But as for me, my charter is Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter 
is His’ cross and His death and His resurrection, and faith 
through Him; wherein I desire to be justified through your 
prayers. 

g. The priests likewise were good, but better is the High- 
priest to whom is committed the holy of holies; for to Him 
alone are committed the hidden things of God; He Himself 


566 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


being the door of the Father, through which Abraham and 
Isaac and Jacob enter in, and the Prophets and the Apostles and 
the whole Church; all these things combine in the unity of God. 
But the Gospel hath a singular preeminence in the advent of the 
Saviour, even our Lord Jesus Christ, and His passion and re- 
surrection. For the beloved Prophets in their preaching pointed 
to Him; but the Gospel is the completion of immortality. All 
things together are good, if ye believe through love. 

10. Seeing that in answer to your prayer and to the tender 
sympathy which ye have in Christ Jesus, it hath been reported 
to me that the church which is in Antioch of Syria hath peace, 
it is, becoming for you, as a church of God, to appoint a deacon 
to go thither as God’s ambassador, that he may congratulate them 
when they are assembled together, and may glorify the Name. 
Blessed in Jesus Christ is he that shall be counted worthy of 
such a ministration ; and ye yourselves shall be glorified. Now if 
ye desire it, it is not impossible for you to do this for the name of 
God ; even as the churches which are nearest have sent bishops, 
and others presbyters and deacons. 

11. But as touching Philo the deacon from Cilicia, a man of 
good report, who now also ministereth to me in the word οὔ 
God, together with Rhaius Agathopus, an elect one who followeth 
me from Syria, having bidden farewell to this present life; the 
same who also bear witness to you—and I myself thank God 
on your behalf, because ye received them, as I trust the Lord > 
will receive you. But may those who treated them with dis- 
honour be redeemed through the grace of Jesus Christ. The 
love of the brethren which are in Troas saluteth you; from 
whence also I write to you by the hand of Burrhus, who was 
sent with me by the Ephesians and Smyrnzans as a mark of 
honour. The Lord shall honour them, even Jesus Christ, on 
whom their hope is set in flesh and soul and spirit, by faith, by 
love, by concord. Fare ye well in Christ Jesus our common 
hope. 





TO THE SMYRNAANS. 567 


6. 
ΠΕ (SMV RN ΝΘ: 


GNATIUS, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God 

the Father and of Jesus Christ the Beloved, which hath 
been mercifully endowed with every grace, being filled with 
faith and love and lacking in no grace, most reverend and 
bearing holy treasures; to the church which is in Smyrna 
of Asia, in a blameless spirit and in the word of God abundant 
greeting. 

1. I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such 
wisdom upon you; for I have perceived that ye are established 
in faith immovable, being as it were nailed on the cross of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and firmly grounded 
in love in the blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our 
Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the 
flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly 
born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness 
might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our 
sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which 
fruit are we—that is, of His most blessed passion); that He 
might set up an ensign unto all the ages through His resurrec- 
tion, for His saints and faithful people, whether among Jews 
or among Gentiles, in one body of His Church. 

2. For He suffered all these things for our sakes [that we 
might be saved]; and He suffered truly, as also He raised 
Himself truly ; not as certain unbelievers say, that He suffered 
in semblance, being themselves mere semblance. And accord- 
ing as their opinions are, so shall it happen to them, for they 
are without body and demon-like. 

3. For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even 
after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his 


568 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that 
7 am not a demon without body. And straightway they touched 
Him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His 
blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were 
found superior to death. And after His resurrection He [both] 
ate with them and drank with them as one in the flesh, though 
spiritually He was united with the Father. 

4. But these things I warn you, dearly beloved, knowing 
that ye yourselves are so minded. Howbeit 1 watch over 
you betimes to protect you from wild beasts in human form— 
men whom not only should ye not receive, but, if it were pos- 
sible, not so much as meet [them]; only pray ye for them, if 
haply they may repent. This indeed is difficult, but Jesus 
Christ, our true life, hath power over it. For if these things 
_ were done by our Lord in semblance, then am I also a prisoner in 
semblance. And why then have I delivered myself over to death, 
unto fire, unto sword, unto wild beasts? But near to the sword, 
near to God; in company with wild beasts, in company with 
God. Only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ, so that we 
may suffer together with Him. I endure all things, seeing that 
He Himself enableth me, who is perfect Man. 

5. But certain persons ignorantly deny Him, or rather have 
been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of the 
truth ; and they have not been persuaded by the prophecies nor 
by the law of Moses, nay nor even to this very hour by the 
Gospel, nor by the sufferings of each of us severally ; for they are 
of the same mind also concerning us. For what profit is it [to 
me], if a man praiseth me, but blasphemeth my Lord, not con- 
fessing that He was a bearer of flesh? Yet he that affirmeth 
not this, doth thereby deny Him altogether, being himself a 
bearer of a corpse. But their names, being unbelievers, I have 
not thought fit to record in writing; nay, far be it from me 
even to remember them, until they repent and return to the 
passion, which is our resurrection. 

6 Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly beings 


TO THE SMYRNAANS. 569 


and the glory of the angels and the rulers visible and invisible, 
if they believe not in the blood of Christ [who is God], judg- 
ment awaiteth them also. Se that receiveth let him receive. Let 
not office puff up any man; for faith and love are all in all, 
and nothing is preferred before them. But mark ye those who 
hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which 
came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. 
They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the 
orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for 
the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanks- 
giving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist 
is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for 
our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up. 

7, They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God perish 
by their questionings. But it were expedient for them to have 
love, that they may also rise again. It is therefore meet that 
ye should abstain from such, and not speak of them either 
privately or in public; but should give heed to the Prophets, 
and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto 
us and the resurrection is accomplished. 

8. [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. Do ye 
all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, 
and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay 
respect, as to God’s commandment. Let no man do aught of 
things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let 
that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or 
one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the 
bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus 
may be, there is the universal Church. It is not lawful apart 
from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but 
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; 
that everything which ye do may be sure and valid. 

9. It is reasonable henceforth that we wake to soberness, 
while we have [still] time to repent and turn to God. It is good 
to recognise God and the bishop. He that honoureth the bishop 


570 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge 
of the bishop rendereth service to the devil. May all things 
therefore abound unto you in grace, for ye are worthy. Ye 
refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ shall refresh you. 
In my absence and in my presence ye cherished me. May God 
recompense you; for whose sake if ye endure all things, ye 
shall attain unto Him. 

10. Philo and Rhaius Agathopus, who followed me in the 
cause of God, ye did well to receive as ministers of [Christ] 
God; who also give thanks to the Lord for you, because ye 
refreshed them in every way. Nothing shall be lost to you. 
My spirit is devoted for you, as also are my bonds, which ye 
despised not, neither were ashamed of them. Nor shall He, 
who is perfect faithfulness, be ashamed of you, even Jesus 
Christ. 

11. Your prayer sped forth unto the church which is in 
Antioch of Syria; whence coming a prisoner in most godly 
bonds I salute all men, though I am not worthy to belong to it, 
being the very last of them. By the Divine will was this vouch- 
safed to me, not of my own complicity, but by God’s grace, 
which I pray may be given to me perfectly, that through your 
prayers I may attain unto God. Therefore that your work may 
be perfected both on earth and in heaven, it is meet that your 
church should appoint, for the honour of God, an ambassador of | 
God that he may go as far as Syria and congratulate them 
because they are at peace, and have recovered their proper 
stature, and their proper bulk hath been restored to them. 
It seemed to me therefore a fitting thing that ye should send 
one of your own people with a letter, that he might join with 
them in giving glory for the calm which by God’s will had over- 
taken them, and because they were already reaching a haven 
through your prayers. Seeing ye are perfect, let your counsels 
also be perfect; for if ye desire to do well, God is ready to 
erant the means. 

12. The love of the brethren which are in Troas saluteth 


TO THE SMYRNAAANS. 571 


you; from whence also I write to you by the hand of Burrhus, 
whom ye sent with me jointly with the Ephesians your brethren. 
He hath refreshed me in all ways. And I would that all imitated 
him, for he is an ensample of the ministry of God. The Divine 
grace shall requite him in all things. I salute your godly 
bishop and your venerable presbytery [and] my fellow-servants 
the deacons, and all of you severally and in a body, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and 
resurrection, which was both carnal and spiritual, in the unity of 
God and of yourselves. Grace to you, mercy, peace, patience, 
always. 

13. I salute the households of my brethren with their wives 
and children, and the virgins who are called widows. I bid you 
farewell in the power of the Father. Philo, who is with me, 
saluteth you. I salute the household of Gavia, and I pray that 
she may be grounded in faith and love both of flesh and of 
spirit. I salute Alice, a name very dear to me, and Daphnus 
the incomparable, and Eutecnus, and all by name. Fare ye well 
in the grace of God. 


7: 
ΜΘ ς ΘΒ. ἐθύ  ανς 


GNATIUS, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp who is 
bishop of the church of the Smyrnzans or rather who hath for 

his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ, abundant greeting. 
I. Welcoming thy godly mind which is grounded as it were 
on an immovable rock, I give exceeding glory that it hath been 
vouchsafed me to see thy blameless face, whereof I would fain 
have joy in God. I exhort thee in the grace wherewith thou art 
clothed to press forward in thy course and to exhort all men 
that they may be saved. Vindicate thine office in all diligence 
of flesh and of spirit. Have a care for union, than which there 


572 THE EPISTLE OF S. IGNATIUS 


is nothing better. Bear all men, as the Lord also beareth thee. 
Suffer all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to 
unceasing prayers. Ask for larger wisdom than thou hast. 
Be watchful, and keep thy spirit from slumbering, Speak to 
each man severally after the manner of God. Bear the maladies | 
of all, as a perfect athlete. Where there is more toil, there is 
much gain. 

2. If thou lovest good scholars, this is not thankworthy in 
thee. Rather bring the more pestilent to submission by gentle- 
ness. All wounds are not healed by the same salve. Allay 
sharp pains by fomentations. Be thou prudent as the serpent in 
all things aud guileless always as the dove. Therefore art thou 
made of flesh and spirit, that thou mayest humour the things 
which appear before thine eyes; and as for the invisible things, 
pray thou that they may be revealed unto thee; that thou may- 
est be lacking in nothing, but mayest abound in every spiritual 
sift. The season requireth thee, as pilots require winds or asa 
storm-tossed mariner a haven, that it may attain unto God. 
Be sober, as 'God’s athlete. The prize is incorruptien’ and 
life eternal, concerning which thou also art persuaded. In all 
things I am devoted to thee—I and my bonds which thou didst 
cherish. 

3. Let not those that seem to be plausible and yet teach 
strange doctrine dismay thee. Stand thou firm, as an anvil 
when it is smitten. It is the part of a great athlete to receive 
blows and be victorious. But especially must we for God’s sake 
endure all things, that He also may endure us. Be thou more 
diligent than thou art. Mark the seasons. Await Him that 
is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became 
visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suf- 
fered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake. 

4. Let not widows be neglected. After the Lord be thou 
their protector. Let nothing be done without thy consent; 
neither do thou anything without the consent of God, as in- 
deed thou doest not. Be stedfast. Let meetings be held more 








TO S. POLYCARP. ΒΡ 


frequently. Seek out all men by name. Despise not slaves, 
whether men or women. Yet let not these again be puffed up, 
but let them serve the more faithfully to the glory of God, that 
they may obtain a better freedom from God. Let them not 
desire to be set free at the public cost, lest they be found slaves 
of lust. 

5. Flee evil arts, or rather hold thou discourse about these. 
Tell my sisters to love the Lord and to be content with their 
husbands in flesh and in spirit. In like manner also charge my 
brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to love their wives, as the 
Lord loved the Church. Vf any one is able to abide in chastity 
to the honour of the flesh of the Lord, let him so abide with- 
out boasting. If he boast, he is lost; and if it be known be- 
yond the bishop, he is polluted. It becometh men and women 
too, when they marry, to unite themselves with the consent of 
the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord and 
not after concupiscence. Let all things be done to the honour of 
God. 

6. Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed 
to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the 
presbyters, the deacons. May it be granted me to have my por- 
tion with them in the presence of God. Toil together one with 
another, struggle together, run together, suffer together, lie down 
together, rise up together, as God’s stewards and assessors and 
ministers. Please the Captain in whose army ye serve, from 
whom also ye will receive your pay. Let none of you be found 
a deserter. Let your baptism abide with you as your shield; 
your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your pati- 
ence as your body armour. Let your works be your deposits, 
that ye may receive your assets due to you. Be ye there- 
fore long-suffering one with another in gentleness, as God is 
with you. May I have joy of you always. 

7. Seeing that the church which is in Antioch of Syria 
hath peace, as it hath been reported to me, through your 
prayers, I myself also have been the more comforted since 


574 EPISTLE OF S/IGNATIUS TOS.) POLYCARP. 


God hath banished my care; if so be I may through suffer- 
ing attain unto God, that I may be found a disciple through 
your intercession. It becometh thee, most blessed Polycarp, to 
call together a godly council and to elect some one among you 
who is very dear to you and zealous also, who shall be fit to bear 
the name of God’s courier—to appoint him, I say, that he may go 
to Syria and glorify your zealous love unto the glory of God. 
A Christian hath no authority over himself, but giveth his time to 
God. This is God’s work, and yours also, when ye shall complete 
it: foc) ‘trust)in the Divine. gprace,(that ‘ye are teady donean 
act of well-doing which is meet for God. Knowing the fervour 
of your sincerity, I have exhorted you in a short letter. 

8. Since I have not been able to write to all the churches, 
by reason of my sailing suddenly from Troas to Neapolis, as 
the Divine will enjoineth, thou shalt write to the churches in 
front, as one possessing the mind of God, to the intent that they 
also may do this same thing—let those who are able send 
messengers, and the rest letters by the persons who are sent by 
thee, that ye may be glorified by an ever memorable deed—for 
this is worthy of thee. 

I salute all by name, and especially the wife of Epitropus 
with her whole household and her children’s. I salute Attalus 
my beloved. I salute him that shall be appointed to go 
to Syria. Grace shall be with him always, and with Polycarp 
who sendeth him. I bid you farewell always in our God Jesus 
Christ, in whom abide ye in the unity and supervision of God. 
I salute Alce, a name very dear to me. Fare ye well in the 
Lord. 


MAKTYKDOM OF 58. IGNATIUS. 


We 
ANE LOGELENES (Atl. 


I. Ne&t long after Trajan had succeeded to the empire of the 
Romans, Ignatius the disciple of the Apostle John, a man 
of apostolic character in all ways, governed the Church of the An- 
tiochenes. He had with difficulty weathered the past storms of the 
many persecutions in the time of Domitian, and, like a good pilot, by 
the helm of prayer and fasting, by the assiduity of his teaching, and by 
his spiritual earnestness, had withstood the surge of the enemy’s power, 
fearful lest he should lose any of the faint-hearted or over-simple. Thus 
while he rejoiced at the tranquillity of the Church, when the persecution 
abated for a while, he was vexed within himself, thinking that he had 
not yet attained true love towards Christ or the complete rank of a dis- 
ciple: for he considered that the confession made by martyrdom would 
attach him more closely to the Lord. Therefore remaining a few years 
longer with the Church, and like a lamp of God illumining the mind of 
every one by his exposition of the scriptures, he attained the fulfilment 
of his prayer. 

2. Itso happened that after these things Trajan in the ninth year 
of his reign, being elated with his victory over the Scythians and Dacians 
and many other nations, and considering that the godly society of the 
Christians was still lacking to him to complete the subjection, unless 
they chose to submit to the service of the devils together with all 
the nations, threatened [to subject them to] persecution and would have 
compelled all those who were leading a pious life either to offer sacrifice 


576 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


or to die. At that time therefore the brave soldier of Christ, being 
afraid for the Church of the Antiochenes, was taken of his own free will 
before Trajan who was staying at that moment in Antioch, making ready 
to march against Armenia and the Parthians. 

And when he stood face to face with Trajan [the king]; Who art 
thou, said ‘Trajan, thou wretch of a devil, that art so ready to transgress our 
orders, whilst thou seducest others also, that they may come to a bad end? 
Ignatius said; Vo man calleth one that beareth God a wretch of a devil; for 
the devils stand aloof from the servants of God. But if, because [ am 
troublesome to these, thou callest me a wretch toward the devils, 7 agree with 
thee: for having Christ a heavenly king, I confound the devices of these. 
Trajan said; And who is he that beareth God? Ignatius answered, Le 
that hath Christ in his breast. ‘Yrajan said; Dost thou not think then 
that we too have gods tn our heart, seeing that we employ them as 
allies against our enemies? Ignatius said; Thou art deceived, when thou 
callest the devils of the nations gods. For there is one God who made 
the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things that are therein, and 
one Christ Jesus Hts only-begotten Son, whose fricndship I would fain 
enjoy. Trajan said ; Speakest thou of him that was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate? Ignatius said; 7 speak of Him that nailed on the cross sin and 
ats author, and sentenced every malice of the devils to be trampled under foot 
of those that carry Him in their heart. Trajan said; Dost thou then 
carry Christ within thyself? Ignatius said ; Ves, for it is written, ‘I will 
dwell in them and will walk about in them.’ Trajan gave sentence; 77 zs 
our order that Ignatius who saith that he beareth about the cructfied in 
himself shall be put in chains by the soldiers and taken to mighty Rome, 
there to be made food for wild beasts, as a spectacle and a diversion for 
the people. The holy martyr, when he heard this sentence, shouted 
aloud with joy; 7 thank Thee, Lord and Master, that Thou hast vouchsafed 
to honour me by perfecting my love towards Thee, in that Thou hast bound 
me with chains of tron to Thine Apostle Paul. “Having said this and 
having invested himself in his chains with gladness, after praying over 
the Church and commending it with tears to the Lord, like a choice 
ram the leader of a goodly flock, he was hurried away by the brutal 
cruelty of the soldiers to be carried off to Rome as food for bloodthirsty 
brutes. 

3. So then with much eagerness and joy, in longing desire for 
the Lord’s passion, he went down from Antioch to Seleucia, and from 
thence he set sail. And having put in at the city of the Smyrnzans after 
much stress of weather, he disembarked with much joy and hastened 
to see the holy Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrnzeans, his fellow-student ; 


ANTIOCHENE ACTS. ow i’ 


for in old times they had been disciples of John. And being enter- 
tained by him on landing, and having communicated with him his 
spiritual gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he entreated them to aid him 
in his purpose—asking this in the first place of every church collect- 
ively (for the cities and churches of Asia welcomed the saint through 
their bishops and presbyters and deacons, all men flocking to him, in 
the hope that they might receive a portion of some spiritual gift), but 
especially of the holy Polycarp, that by means of the wild beasts dis- 
appearing the sooner from the world, he might appear in the presence 
of Christ. 

4. And these things he so spake and so testified, carrying his love 
towards Christ to such a pitch, as if he would storm heaven by his good 
confession and by the fervour of those who joined with him in prayer 
over his combat, while at the same time he recompensed those churches 
which came to meet him in the person of their rulers, by sending out 
letters of thanks to them shedding upon them the dew of spiritual grace 
with prayer and exhortation. Therefore when he saw that they all were 
kindly disposed towards him, being afraid lest haply the affection of the 
brotherhood might uproot his zeal for the Lord, when a goodly door of 
martyrdom was thus opened to him, he writes to the Church of the 
Romans in the words which are here subjoined. 


[Here follows the Epistle to the Romans.] 


5. Having therefore by his letter appeased, as he desired, those of 
the brethren in Rome who were averse, this done he set sail from 
Smyrna (for the Christ-bearer was hurried forward by the soldiers to be 
in time for the sports in the great city, that given to wild beasts in the 
sight of the Roman people he might by such a combat obtain the crown 
of righteousness); and thence he put in at Troas. Then departing 
thence he landed at Neapolis; and passing through Philippi he journeyed 
by land across Macedonia and the part of Epirus which lies by Epidam- 
nus. And here on the sea coast he took ship and sailed across the 
Hadriatic sea, and thence entering the Tyrrhene and passing by islands 
and cities, the holy man when he came in view of Puteoli was eager 
himself to disembark, desiring to tread in the footsteps of the Apostle 
{ Paul]; but forasmuch as a stiff breeze springing up prevented it, the 
ship being driven by a stern wind, he commended the love of the 
brethren in that place, and so sailed by. Thus in one single day and 
night, meeting with favourable winds, we ourselves were carried forward 
against our will, mourning over the separation which must soon come 
between ourselves and this righteous man; while he had his wish 


IGN. II. 37 


578 MARTYRDOM OF 8. IGNATIUS. 


fulfilled, for he was eager to depart from the world quickly, that he 
might hasten to join the Lord whom he loved. Wherefore, as he landed 
at the harbour of the Romans just when the unholy sports were drawing 
to a close, the soldiers were vexed at the slow pace, while the bishop 
gladly obeyed them as they hurried him forward. 

6. So we set out thence at break of day, leaving the place called 
Portus; and, as the doings of the holy martyr had already been 
rumoured abroad, we were met by the brethren, who were filled at once 
with fear and with joy—with joy because they were vouchsafed this 
meeting with the God-bearer, with fear because so good a man was on 
his way to execution. And some of them he also charged to hold their 
peace, when in the fervour of their zeal they said that they would stay 
the people from seeking the death of the righteous man. For having 
recognised these at once by the Spirit and having saluted all of them, 
he asked them to show him genuine love, and discoursed at greater 
length than in his epistle, and persuaded them not to erudge one who 
was hastening to meet his Lord; and then, all the brethren falling on 
their knees, he made entreaty to the Son of God for the churches, for 
the staying of the persecution, and for the love of the brethren one to 
another, and was led away promptly to the amphitheatre. Then forth- 
with he was put into the arena in obedience to. the previous orders 
of Czesar, just as the sports were drawing to a close (for the day called 
the Thirteenth in the Roman tongue was, as they thought, a high day, 
on which they eagerly flocked together), whereupon he was thrown by 
these godless men to savage brutes, and so the desire of the holy 
martyr Ignatius was fulfilled forthwith (according to the saying of 
Scripture Zhe desire of the righteous man is acceptable), that he might 
not be burdensome to any of the brethren by the collection of his 
reliques, according as he had already in his epistle expressed his desire 
that his own martyrdom might be. For only the tougher parts of his 
holy reliques were left, and these were carried back to Antioch and 
laid in a sarcophagus, being left to the holy Church a priceless trea- 
sure by the Divine grace manifested in the martyr. 

7. Now these things happened on the 13th before the Kalends of 
January, when Sura, and Senecio for the second time, were consuls 
among the Romans. 

Having with tears beheld these things with our own eyes, and having 
watched all night long in the house, and having often and again en- 
treated the Lord with supplication on our knees to confirm the faith of 
us weak men after what had passed, when we had fallen asleep for a 
while, some of us suddenly beheld the blessed Ignatius standing by and 


ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 579 


embracing us, while by others again he was seen praying over us, and 
by others dripping with sweat, as if he were come from a hard struggle 
and were standing at the Lord’s side with much boldness and unutter- 
able glory. And being filled with joy at this sight, and comparing the 
visions of our dreams, after singing hymns to God the giver of good 
things and lauding the holy man, we have signified unto you both the 
day and the time, that we may gather ourselves together at the season 
of the martyrdom and hold communion with the athlete and valiant 
martyr of Christ, who trampled the devil under foot and accomplished 
the race of his Christian devotion, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through 
whom and with whom is the glory and the power unto the Father with 
the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen. 


2. 
ROMAN ACTS. 


te [᾿ the ninth year of the reign of Trajan Cesar, being the second 

year of the 223rd Olympiad, in the consulship of Atticus Sur- 
banus and Marcellus, Ignatius who became bishop of Antioch the 
second in order after the Apostles (for he succeeded Euodius) was 
escorted under the strictest custody of guards from Syria to the city of 
the Romans on account of his testimony to Christ. Now his keepers 
were bodyguards of Trajan, ten in number, savage wretches with the 
tempers of wild beasts ; and they conducted the blessed saint a prisoner 
through Asia and thence to Thrace and Rhegium by land and sea, 
illusing the holy man day and night, although in every city they were 
kindly treated by the brethren. Yet none of these things appeased 
their fury, but they crushed the saint with implacable and pitiless eyes, 
as he himself bears witness, saying in a passage in one of his epistles; 
From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, |conducted| by land 
and sea, bound amidst ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who only 
grow worse, when they are kindly treated. 

2. Having set sail therefore from Rhegium they arrive in Rome; 
and they announced his coming to the emperor. Then the emperor 
commanded him to be brought before him in the presence of the 
Senate, and said to him; Azt thou that Lgnatius who turned the city 
of the Antiochenes upside down, insomuch that it hath come to my ears 


of 


580 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


that thou didst draw away all Syria from the religion of the Greeks to the 
religion of the Christians. Ignatius said; Would, O king, that 7 were 
able to draw thee also away from thine idolatry, and bring thee to the God 
of the universe, and present thee a friend of Christ, and make thine empire 
more secure to thee. Trajan said; Lf thou desirest to confer a favour on me 
and to be reckoned among my friends, abandon this mind and sacrifice to 
the gods, and thou shalt be high-priest of mighty Zeus and shalt share my 
kingdom with me. Ignatius said; 77 is right to confer those favours 
only, O king, which do no harm to the soul, not those which condemn to 
eternal punishment. But thy promises, which thou didst promise to bestow 
on me, I judge worthy of no account. For neither do I serve gods of 
whom I have no knowledge, nor do I know who this Zeus of thine ts, nor 
do I desire a worldly kingdom. ‘For what shall it profit me, if 7 shall 
gain the whole world and forfeit mine own soul?’ ‘Trajan said; Zhou 
seemest to me to be utterly devoid of sound sense ; and therefore thou holdest 
my promises cheap. So then, if thou provokest me to displeasure, 7 will 
punish thee with every kind of torture, not only as disobedient but also as 
ungrateful, and as refusing to submit to the decree of the sacred senate and 
sacrifice {to the gods|. Ignatius said; Do as seemeth fit to thee; for 7 
offer no sacrifice. For neither fire nor cross nor rage of wild beasts nor 
loss of limbs shall induce me to fall away from the living God: for I love 
not the present world, but Christ who died and rose for me. 

3. The Senate said; We know that the gods are immortal ; but how 
sayest thou, Ignatius, that Christ died? Ignatius said; AZy Lord, though 
He died, died by reason of a dispensation, but rose again after three days ; 
while your gods died as mortals and were not raised up. or instance 
Zeus is buried in Crete, and Atsculapius struck by a thunder-bolt in 
Cynosura ; Aphrodite is buried in Paphos with Cinyras ; fFTercules ts con- 
sumed by fire. For your gods deserved such punishments, since they were tn- 
continent and evildoers and corruptors of men; whereas our Lord, even though 
He was crucified and died, yet showed Hts own power by rising from the 
dead and avenging Him on His murderers by your hands. And again; 
your gods were made by Him to pay the penalty as workers of tniqutty ; 
whereas our Lord was slain in the flesh by wicked men who could not bear 
His rebukes, after He had shown all beneficence but had met with ingratt- 
tude from unbelievers. Trajan said; 7 advise thee to shun death and 
cling to life. Ignatius said; Zhou advisest me well, O king ; jor 1 flee 
from eternal death and take refuge in eternal life. Trajan said; And how 
many deaths are there? Ignatius said; Two; the one momentary, the 
other eternal. And so likewise there are two lives; the one for a brief 
space, the other eternal. Trajan said; Sacrifice to the gods and shun 


ROMAN ACTS. 581 


punishment ; for thou art not better than the Senate. Ignatius said; Zo 
what gods wouldest thou have me sacrifice? To him whowas shut up in a 
cask thirteen months for adultery? Or to the blacksmith with the crippled 
Jeet? Or to him who failed in his divination and was defeated by a woman ? 
Or to the man-woman who was torn to pieces by Titans? Or to those who 
built the walls of Ilium and were defrauded of their wages? Or to those 
goddesses who imitate the doings of men and forget the doings of women ? 
7 am ashamed to speak of gods who are sorcerers and violaters of boys and 
adulterers, changing themselves, as you say, into an eagle and a bull, and 
into gold, and into a swan and a dragon, not for any good purpose but for 
the subversion of others wedlock—gods whom ye ought to loathe and not to 
worship as ye do. To these deities your wives pray, that they may preserve 
their chastity for you! Trajansaid; 7 make myself an accomplice with thee 
in thy blasphemy towards the gods, because I do not torture thee. Ignatius 
said ; 7 have told thee long ago, that I am ready for every torture and every 
kind of death, since 7 am eager to go to God. 

4. Trajan said; 27) thou wzt not sacrifice, thou shalt repent of tt. 
Therefore spare thyself, before thou come to harm. Ignatius said; Unless 
7 had spared myself, I should have fulfilled thy commands. ‘Trajan 
said; Zorture his back with leaded thongs. Ignatius said; Thou hast in- 
tensified my longing for God, O king. Trajan said; Lacerate his sides with 
hooks and rub salt into his wounds. Ignatius said; My whole mind 
yearneth intensely towards God, and 7 make no account of what 7 suffer. 
Trajan said; Sacrifice to the gods. Ignatius said; Zo what gods? Per- 
chance thou biddest me sacrifice to the gods of the Egyptians, to a calf and a 
goat, to an ibis and an ape and a venomous asp, or to a wolf and a dog, 
Zo a lion and a crocodile, or to the fire of the Persians, or to the water of 
the sea, or to infernal Pluto, or to Hermes the thief. ‘Trajan said; 7 said 
unto thee, Sacrifice ; for thou wilt get no good by talking thus. Ignatius 
said ; 7 said unto thee, 7 do not sacrifice, neither forsake [ the one only God, 
who made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all things that are therein, 
who hath power over all flesh ; the God of spirits and King of everything 
sensible and intelligible. Trajan said; Why what hindereth thee from 
worshipping him as God, if he existeth, and these likewise whom we all 
acknowledge in common? Ignatius said; Natural discernment, when 12 ts 
unclouded, doth not confound falsehood with truth, darkness with light, 
bitter with sweet. For woe threateneth such as make no distinction between 
these. Lor ‘ What agreement hath Christ with Belial? Or what portion 
hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what concord ts there between a 
temple of God and idols ?’ 

5. Trajan said; Open out his hands and fill them with fire. Ignatius 


582 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


said ; LVeither fire that burneth nor teeth of wild beasts nor wrenching 
of bones nor manglings of my whole body, nay not the tortures of the 
devil, shall separate me from my love towards God. ‘Trajan said; Dip 
paper in oil and steep it till it is soft; then set fire to it and burn his 
sides. Ignatius said; Zhou seemest to me, O king, not to know that 
there is a God living within me, and He supplieth me with strength and 
hardeneth my soul; for otherwise I should not have been able to bear thy 
tortures. Trajan said; Zhou art made of tron, methinks, and art quite 
callous; for else thou wouldest have yielded after all this, with the pain 
of thy wounds, and have sacrificed to the gods. Ignatius said; /¢ zs 
not because I do not feel the tortures, O king, that I sustain and endure 
them, but because in the hope of good things to come my affection towards 
God doth relieve my pains: for neither burning fire nor drenching water 
shall ever have power to quench my love towards God. ‘Trajan said ; 
Bring fire and spread live coals on the ground, and make Lgnatius stand 
on them, that so at length he may be induced to submit to me and to sacrt- 
fice to the gods. Ignatius said; Zhe burning of this fire of thine leadeth 
me to remembrance of the eternal and unquenchable fire, though this 15 but 
Jor a season. Trajan said; 7 suppose tt ts by some sorcery that thou 
despisest the tortures: for otherwise thou wouldest have submitted to us, 
after suffering so much at our hands. Ignatius said; Zell me, how can 
men who abandon demons, as being rebels against God, and abominate idols, 
be sorcerers? Surely ye who worship these are more justly open to such 
reproaches; but for us it ts ordained by law that we suffer not wizards 
nor enchanters nor observers of omens to live; nay we are wont to burn 
even the books of those that practise curious arts, as infamous. Therefore tt ἐς 
not L that am a sorcerer, but ye, since ye worship the demons. ‘Trajan said ; 
By the gods, Ignatius, Lam weary of thee by this time, and 7 am at a loss 
what tortures I shall apply to thee to induce thee to submit to the orders 
which are given thee. Ignatius said; Grow not weary, O king, but either 
put me into the fire, or hack me with the sword, or cast me into the deep, or 
throw me to wild beasts, that thou mayest be convinced that none of these 
things ts terrible to us for the love we have to God. 

6. Trajan said; What hope thou hast in prospect, Ignatius, that thou 
art dying in these sufferings which thou endurest, 7 cannot say. Ignatius 
said; Zhey that are ignorant of the God who ts over all and of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, are tgnorant also of the good things that are prepared 
Jor the godly. Wherefore they consider that their existence ts confined to 
this world only, even as that of brutes without reason ; and they picture to 
themselves nothing better after their departure hence. But we who have 
knowledge of godliness are aware that after our departure hence we shall 





ROMAN ACTS. 583 


rise again and have an everlasting life in Christ, a life which shall never 
fail neither give place to another, and from which pain and grief and 
mourning have fled away. ‘Trajan said; J well destroy your heresy and 
will bring you to your senses and teach you not to fight obstinately against 
the decrees of the Romans. Ignatius said; And who ἐς able, O king, to 
destroy God's building? | for| if a man shall attempt it, he will gain 
nothing but to wage war against God. For Christianity will not only 
not be destroyed by men, but will increase daily by the power of Christ 
in growth and magnitude. It will advance in the same manner and 
in the same course, flashing out coruscations alike of splendour and of 
awe: for ‘The whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, 
as much water covereth the seas. Lut thou doest not well, O king, to 
call Christianity a heresy; for heresy is far apart from Christianity. 
αν, Christianity is the full knowledge of the true and very God and 
of Fits only begotten Son and of His dispensation in the flesh and Hts 
teaching, this infallible religion being accompanied also by the virtues of our 
outward life. But what men among us hast thou known to love faction 
and war, and not to pay obedience to rulers whereinsoever obedience ts 
Sree from peril, living peacefully and harmoniously in friendly inter- 
course, ‘paying to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, fear to 
whom fear, customs to whom customs, honour to whom honour, being 
careful to ‘owe no man anything save to love one another’? For we have 
been taught by our Lord not only to ‘love our neighbour’ but also to ‘do 
good to our enemy’ and to ‘love them that hate us’ and to ‘pray for them 
that evil intreat us and persecute us.’ But say wherein the preaching of 
Christianity hath thwarted thee, since tt began. Hath any strange disaster 
befallen the empire of the Romans? Nay, was not the rule of many 
exchanged for the rule of one? And did not Augustus thy ancestor, in whose 
time our Saviour was born of a virgin, and He who till then was God 
the Word became also man for our sakes, reign nearly a whole age, having 
jor fifty-seven whole years and six months besides swayed the empire of the 
Romans and ruled alone, as none other did of those who went before him 7 
Was not every tribe made subject to him, while the former separation of 
nations and thetr mutual hatred ceased from the time when our Saviour 
sojourned upon earth ? 

7. The Senate said; Yes, these things are so as thou hast said, 
Ignatius; but this wt 1s which vexeth us, that he abolished the worship of 
the gods. \gnatius said; O dlustrious Senate, just as He subjected the less 
intelligent nations to the rule of the Romans, which our oracles call ‘a rod 
of tron, so also He drove away from mankind the tyrannical spirits of evil, 
by proclaiming one only God, even Him that ts over all. And not only this, 


584 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


but He wrought deliverance also from the cruel bondage under their blood- 
thirsty and pitiless rule. Did they not revel in the death of those dearest to 
you? Did they not embrue you wrth civil wars? Did they not compel you to 
behave unseemly, exposing you naked as a spectacle, and carrying your wives 
naked in procession as tf they were prisoners of war, defiling the earth with 
bloodshed, and darkening the pure air with impurities? Ask the Scythians 
whether they did not sacrifice human beings to Artemis ; for assuredly, though 
ye may deny for very shame the slaughter of a virgin to Cronos, the Greeks 
glory in such human sacrifices, having derived this wicked practice from 
barbarians. Trajan said; Ly the gods, 7 admire thee, Lgnatius, for thy 
much learning, even though I praise thee not for thy religion. Ignatius 
said; And what dost thou condemn in our divine religion? ‘Trajan said; 
That ye worship not our lord the Sun, nor the Heaven, nor the holy 
Moon the common nurse of all. Ignatius said; And who would choose, 
O king, to worship the Sun which hath an outward shape, which falleth 
under the senses, which sheddeth and again replentsheth from fire the 
heat which it hath shed, which undergoeth eclipse, which can never change 
its own order against the mind of Him that ordered it to accomplish tts 
course? And how should the heaven be worshipped, which ts veiled with 
clouds, which the Creator ‘stretched out as a hide’ and ‘fixed as a vault?’ 
and set firm as a cube? or the moon which waxeth and diminisheth and 
qwaneth and ts subject to vicissitudes? But to say that because their light 
zs bright men ought therefore to worship them ts to say what ἐς altogether 
untrue: for they were given for wlumination to men and not for worship ; 
they were appointed to mellow and warm the fruits, to brighten the day 
and to wlumine the night. And the stars of the heaven too were appointed 
Jor signs and for seasons and for notes of time and to cheer and sustain the 
mariners. Lut none of these ought to be worshipped, neither water which 
ye call Poseidon, nor fire which ye call Hephestos, nor air which ye call 
flere, nor earth which ye call Demeter, nor the fruits. For all these 
things, though they have been made for our sustenance, are yet perishable 
and lifeless. 

8. Trajan said; Did 7 not then say rightly at the beginning, that thou 
art he who did turn the East upside down, forbidding it to reverence the 
gods? Ignatius said; And doth it vex thee, O king, that we advise 
men not to reverence things which ought not to be worshipped, but the true 
and living God, the maker of heaven and earth, and Hs only-begotten 
Son? for this is the only true religion, supreme and undisputed, taking 
delight in divine and spiritual doctrines. But the teaching of the Greek 
religion whith prevaileth among you is an atheist polytheism, easily up- 
set, unstable, veering about, an@ standing on no secure foundation: for 





ROMAN ACTS. 585 


‘The instruction that ts without reproof goeth astray. For how ts it not full 
of falsehoods of all kinds, when at one time it saith that the common gods 
of the universe are twelve in number, and then again supposeth them to be 
more? Trajan said; 7]. can no longer bear thine insolence, for thou revilest 
us shamefully, desiring to defeat us with thy glibness of speech. Therefore 
sacrifice; for thou hast said enough with all the fine words wherewith thou 
hast deluged us. If not, I will torture thee again and afterwards give thee 
to wild beasts. Ignatius said; How long dost thou threaten and not fulfil 
thy promises? For Lam a Christian and I offer no sacrifice to wicked 
demons, but I worship the true God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who ‘enlightened me with the light of knowledge, and ‘opened mine eyes 
to discern His marvellous things. Him I reverence and honour: for 
fle is God and Lord and King and ‘only Potentate.’ 

9. Trajan said; 7 put thee to death on a gridiron, unless thou re- 
pentest. Ignatius said; Repentance from evil deeds is a noble thing, O 
king, but repentance from good deeds ts criminal: for we ought to betake 
ourselves to a better course and not to a worse. Nothing ts better than 
godliness. Trajan said; Lacerate his back with hooks, saying to him, Obey 
the emperor and sacrifice to the gods according to the decree of the senate. 
Ignatius said; / fear the decree of God which saith ‘Thou shalt have none 
other gods but me, and ‘He that sacrificeth to other gods shall be put to 
death.’ But when senate and king bid me transgress the laws, 7 do not 
Listen to them: for ‘Thou shalt not accept the person of a ruler, so the 
laws distinctly say, and ‘Thou shalt not consort with numbers to do 
evil. Trajan said; Pour vinegar mixed with salt upon his wounds. 
Ignatius said; Al things that befall me for confessing God must be borne 
that they may be the harbingers of rewards: for ‘The sufferings of the 
present season are not worthy in comparison of the glory that shall be 
revealed.’ ‘Trajan said; Spare thyself, fellow, henceforth, and submit to the 
orders given thee; for, tf not, 7 will employ worse tortures against thee. 
Ignatius said; ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall 
tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or 
sword? For lam persuaded that neither life nor death’ shall be able to 
part me from godliness, being confident in the power of Christ. Trajan 
said; Zhinkest thou to gain a victory over me by thine endurance? for man 
as a creature fond of victory. Ignatius said; 7 do not think but believe 
that I have prevailed and shall prevail, that thou mayest learn how wide ts 
the gulf between godliness and ungodliness. Trajan said; Zake him and 
put him in trons and, when ye have made his feet fast in the stocks, throw 
him into the inner prison, and let no person whatsoever see him in the 


586 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. 


dungeon. And for three days and three nights let him eat no bread and 
drink no water, that after the three days he may be cast to wild beasts and 
so depart from life. The Senate said; We too give our assent to the sen- 
tence against him: for he insulted us all along with the emperor, in not 
consenting to sacrifice to the gods, but he persisted that he was a Christian. 
Ignatius said; ‘Avlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ 
who of His abundant goodness vouchsafed that I should be a partaker of 
the sufferings of Hts Christ and a true and faithful witness of His 
Godhead. 

to. On the third day Trajan, having summoned the Senate and 
the prefect, went forth into the amphitheatre, where also was a con- 
course of the Roman people; for they had heard that the bishop from 
Syria was to fight with wild beasts. And he ordered the holy Ignatius 
to be led in. And when he beheld him, he said to him; 77 wonder 
that thou art alive after so many tortures and so long famine. But now 
at length obey me, that thou mayest escape from the miseries which le in 
thy path, and thou shalt have us as thy friend, Ignatius said; Thou seemest 
Zo me to have the form of a man but the ways of a fox, which fawneth 
with its tail while it plotteth in tts mind; for thou feignest the words of 
one kindly disposed, and yet thy counsels are not sound. So understand hence- 
forth plainly, that 7 make no account of this mortal and frail life for 
Jesus sake whom I desire. I go my way to Him; for He is the bread 
of immortality and the draught of eternal life. Lam wholly His, and 7 
yearn for Him in my mind; and 7 despise thy tortures, and I spit upon 
thy glory. Trajan said; Sznce he ts insolent and contemptuous, bind him 
fast, and let two lions loose upon him, that they may not leave so much as a 
religue of him behind. But when the wild beasts were let loose, the blessed 
saint beholding them said to the people; Ye Aomans, who are spectators 
of this contest, 7 suffer these things, not for any base action or any blameable 
thing, but for godliness. For Iam the wheat of God, and I am ground 
by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread. But Trajan, 
when he heard these things, was greatly astonished saying; Great is 
the endurance of those who set their hope on Christ; | for| what Greek or 
barbarian ever endured for his own god such sufferings as this man 
endureth for him in whom he believeth? Ignatius said; /¢ ts no work of 
human power that I bear up against such sufferings, but of zeal and 
faith alone, which are drawn into conformity with Christ. And when he 
had said these things, the lions rushed upon him, and attacking him 
from either side crushed him to death only, but did not touch his flesh, 
so that his reliques might be a protection to the great city of the 


ROMAN ACTS. 587 


Romans, in which likewise Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded 
and Onesimus was made perfect by martyrdom. 

11. But Trajan rose up and was filled with wonder and amazement. 
Meanwhile letters reach him from Plinius Secundus the governor, who 
was troubled at the number of those that underwent martyrdom, seeing 
how they died for the faith. He also informed him at the same time 
that they did nothing impious or contrary to the laws; only they rose 
at daybreak and sang a hymn to Christ as God; [for this they under- 
went punishment;] but adultery and murder and horrible offences akin to 
these they were the first to forbid, and in all things their conduct was in 
accordance [with the laws]. Whereupon we are told that Trajan taking 
into consideration what had happened in the case of the blessed [and 
holy] Ignatius—for he led the van in the army of martyrs—issued a 
decree to the effect that the Christian people should not be sought 
out, but when accidentally found should be punished. And as regards 
the reliques of the blessed Ignatius he gave orders that those who 
wished to take them up and bury them should not be hindered. Then 
the brethren in Rome, to whom also he had written asking them not 
to sue for his deliverance from martyrdom, and thus rob him of his 
cherished hope, took his body and laid it apart in a place where they 
were permitted to assemble themselves together and praise God and 
His Christ for the perfecting of the holy bishop and martyr Ignatius; 
for Zhe memory of the righteous ts commended. 

12. And Irenzus also, the bishop of Lyons, is aware of his mar- 
tyrdom, and makes mention of his epistles in these words: Ouxe of our 
own people, when condemned to wild beasts for his testimony towards God, 
hath said ; 7 am the wheat of God and 7 am ground by the teeth of wild 
beasts, that I may be found pure bread. And Polycarp also, who was 
bishop of the brotherhood sojourning in Smyrna, makes mention of these 
things, when writing to the Philippians; 7 exhort you all therefore to be 
obedient and to practise all endurance, such as ye saw with your own eyes 
not only in the blessed saints Lenatius and Rufus and Zosimus, but also in 
many others of your own people, and in Paul himself and those who believed 
together with him, how that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and 
righteousness, and that they are gone to the place assigned to them in 
the presence of the Lord, whose sufferings also they shared. For they 
loved not the present world, but yearned after Christ who died and rose 
again for us. And again after a short space; Zhe letters of Lgnatius 
whith were sent to us by him, and all others which we had in our keeping, 
we send to you, as ye enjoined ; the which are subjoined to this letter. Where- 


588 MARTYRDOMVOF’ 5. IGNATIUS: 


Jrom ye shall set great profit, for they contain faith and patient endurance 
which looketh to our Lord | Jesus Christ}. 

Such was the martyrdom of Ignatius; and his successor in the 
bishopric of Antioch was Hero. Now the commemoration of the brave 
martyr Ignatius, who was very dear to God, is in the month Panemus, 
on the first day of the month. 


ADDENDA. 


Additional MSS of the Antiochene Acts including the Epistle 
to the Romans. 


THE Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom, which incorporate the Epistle to 
the Romans in its Middle (genuine) form, have been known hitherto only 
from a single MS, Parzs. 1451 (see 1. Ρ. 75, 11. p. 363). The recent researches 
of Prof. Rendel Harris, to whom I am deeply indebted, have revealed two 
other MSS in the libraries of the East. Unfortunately these Mss, like Parcs. 
1451, are comparatively late and belong to the same family; but it is a dis- 
tinct gain to have a threefold cord of evidence for the Greek text, which has 
hitherto hung on a single thread. 


(1) The first of these, designated A in the following collation, is 18 .S. 
Sad. in the Library of the Patriarch at Jerusalem. An account is given of 
this library by Prof. Rendel Harris in Haverford College Studies, no. 1, 
p- I sq. It comprises three collections of books now gathered under one 
roof, namely those of (1) the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem; (2) the Convent 
of Mar Saba near the Dead Sea; (3) the Convent of the Holy Cross about 
two miles from Jerusalem on the Jaffa road. 

The Ms in question belongs to the second of these. A photograph was 
procured from which the collation was taken. The Martyrdom of Ignatius 
is followed immediately by the Acts of the Cretan Martyrs, Theodulus, 
Saturninus, etc (Dec. 23). The MS seems to belong to the xth century, 


(2) The second of these MSS, designated B in the collation, is in the 
Library of the Monastery of Sinai (no. 519). It is briefly described in 
Gardthausen’s Catalogue of the Sinai Mss thus; 

Λόγοι πανηγυρικοί (m. Sept. Febr.) cod. membr. 38°5 x 38 Ὁ centim., binis 
columnis, scr. saec. x, quaamquam lineae summas litteras stringunt. 

Incipit primo folio (manu rec. scr.) martyrio Symeonis Stylitae, ξένον καὶ 
παράδοξον (Fabric. 5261. Graec. X. p. 324, Harles). Ultimus titulus; in fol. 
σμθ (verso) Martyrium Martiniani (m. Febr. d. xiii). Codex in fine mutilus 
est. 

This MS omits large portions of the Epistle to the Romans; but its 
omissions do not correspond either with those of the Curetonian Syriac or 
with those of the Metaphrast. 


590 ADDENDA. 


Vol. Π. p. 477. MAPTYPION ITNATIOY A] μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου peyado- 
μάρτυρος iyvatiov τοῦ θεοφόρου A; μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου ἰγνατίου τοῦ θεοφόρου B. 
2 ἀποστόλου] ΑΒ. 

p- 478. 1 év| mv A; ἣν B. ἀποστολικός] ἀποστολικῶς A. ἐκυβέρνα] 
ἐκοιβέρνα A ; preef. καὶ ΑΒ. 2 ᾿Αντιοχέων] add. ἐπιμελῶς ΑΒ. os] om. 
AB. χειμῶνας] χειμόνας A. μόλις] μόλης Α. 3 διωγμῶν] διογμῶν Α. 
κυβερνήτης] κοιβερνίτης A. οἴακι] ὕακι A. νηστείας] νιστείας Α. 5 τῇ 
συνεχείᾳ] pref. καὶ AB. τῷ τόνῳ τῷ πνευματικῷ] A; om. Β. 6 τῆς 
ἀντικειμένης ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμεως) τὴν ἀντικειμένην ἀντεῖχεν (ἀντῆχεν Α) ΑΒ. 
7 ὀλιγοψύχων] ὀλιγωψύχων A. ἀκεραιοτέρων ἀποβάλῃ] ἀκαιρεωτέρον ἀπο- 
βάλει Α. 

Pp. 479. 8 τοιγαροῦν] τοιγὰρ οὖν A. ηὐφραίνετο] ηὐφρένετο Α. ἐπὶ 
τῷ] ἐπὶ τὸ Α. 9 λωφήσαντος] λοφίσαντος A. διωγμοῦ] διογμοῦ Α. 
10 ἤσχαλλεν] ἤσχαλεν A. τῆς ὄντως] ΑΒ. II ἐφαψάμενος] A; ὑφαψάμε- 
νος Β. τελείας] τελίας Α. τοῦ] A; add. αὐτοῦ B. 12 μαρτυρίου] pap- 
τοιρίου A. γινομένην] ΑΒ. 13 πλεόν] ΑΒ. προσοικειοῦσαν] πρὸς 
οἰκείωσιν ΑΒ. 


p. 480. 1 ἔτι παραμένων] ἔτη παρὰ μένον A. καὶ] ΑΒ. 3 γραφῶν] 
θείων γραφῶν ΑΒ. ἐπετύγχανεν] A; ἐπετύγχανε yap B. 5 γὰρ] AB. 
evvaro| AB. ἔτει] B; ἔτη A. 6 τῇ νίκῃ τῇ] Bs; τὴν νίκην τῆς A. 
Δακῶν] ΑΒ. ἑτέρων πολλῶν] ΑΒ. νομίσαντος] B; add. αὐτοῦ A. 
9 σύστημα] σύστιμα A. εἰ μὴ] pref. καὶ ΑΒ. τῶν δαιμόνων] ΑΒ. 


Ῥ. 481. 10 ἕλοιτο λατρείαν] B; duro λατρίαν A. 11 διωγμὸν ὑπομένειν 
ἀπειλήσαντος] B; διογμῶν ὑπομένην ἀπολήσαντος A. πάντας] pref. ὁ φόβος 
ΑΒ. 12 τοὺς εὐσεβῶς ζῶντας] ΑΒ. 13 φοβηθεὶς] φοβειθὴς A. 
14 γενναῖος] γενναίως A. στρατιώτης] ΑΒ. 16 σπουδάζοντα] A; 
σπουδάζοντι B. 18 τοῦ βασιλέως] AB. κακοδαῖμον] κακοδαίμων A; κακό- 
δαιμον (sic) ἔφη B. 

p. 482. 1 διατάξεις ὑπερβαίνειν] διατάξης ὑπερβένην A. μετὰ τοῦ] μετὰ 
τὸ ΑΒ. 3 ἀποκαλεῖ κακοδαίμονα] ἀποκαλῆ κακωδαίμονα Α. 4 μακρὰν] om. 
ΑΒ. 5 εἰ δέ] ΑΒ. κακόν] A; preef. καὶ B. 6 ἀποκαλεῖς] ἀποκαλῆς A. 
ἔχων τὰς... καταλύω] AB. ὃ τίς] AB. 10 ἡμεῖς] ἡμῆς A. δοκοῦμεν] 
δωκοῦμεν Α. II ois| A; of B. χρώμεθα] χρόμεθα A. 13 ἐστιν] ἐστὶν 
Α; ἐστὶ Β. 14 τὸν οὐρανὸν] ΑΒ. 


Ρ. 483. 16 αὐτοῦ] τοῦ θεοῦ AB. φιλίας] βασιλείας ΑΒ. ὀναίμην] ὠναί- 
μην Α. 17 Πιλάτου] πηλάτου Α. 18 τὴν] add. ἐμὴν AB. 20 κακίαν] 
πλάνην καὶ κακίαν AB, τῶν αὐτὸν] τῶν αὐτών A; τὸν αὐτὸν B. 21 φορεῖς] 
φέρεις Β. 22 τὸν Χριστόν] τὸν σταυρωθέντα ΑΒ. 23 ἐνοικήσω] ἐνοι- 
κίσω A; pref. ὅτε Β. ἐμπεριπατήσω] ἐμπεριπατίσω Α. 25 λέγοντα] 
λέγωντα Α. 26 στρατιωτῶν] B; στρατιοτῶν A. μεγάλην] ΑΒ. 27 γε- 
νησόμενον] γεννησώμενον A. εἰς ὄψιν καὶ εἰς τέρψιν] εἰς τέρψιν AB. 28 μάρ- 
τυς] ΑΒ. 29 ἐβόησεν] ἐβώησεν Α. 

Ρ. 484. I τῇ πρός σε ἀγάπῃ] B; τῆς πρός σε ἀγάπης A. 2 δέσμοις... 
σιδηροῖς] δεσμοῖς...σιδήροις Β. συνδήσας] ΑΒ. 4 ἐπευξάμενος] AB. 


ADDENDA. 591 


6 ἐπίσημος] ἐπίσιμος A. 7 θηριώδους στρατιωτικῆς δεινότητος] θηριόδους 
στρατιοτικῆς δηνώτιτος A. 8 ὠμοβόροις] ἑμοβόροις A; αἱμοβόροις B. 
ἀπαχθησόμενος)] ἀπαχθησώμενος A. βοράν] ΑΒ. 9 προθυμίας] προθοιμίας 
Α. 10 ἐπιθυμίᾳ] ἐπιθοιμία A. κατελθὼν] κατελθὸν Α. II Σελευ- 
κείαν] σελευκίαν Α. 12 μετὰ πολὺν κάματον] AB. Σμυρναίων] σμυρνέων 
Α. 13 νηὸς] νεὸς Α. Πολύκαρπον τὸν Σμυρναίων] πολλοίκαρπον τὸν 
σμυρνέων Α. 


Ρ. 485. 15 ἐγεγόνεισαν] ἐγεγόνισαν A. Ἰωάννου] preef. τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου 
ΑΒ. 16 καταχθεὶς καὶ πνευματικῶν αὐτῷ κοινωνήσας] καταχθῆς καὶ πνευμα- 
τικόν αὐτῶ κοινονίσας A. 18 συναθλεῖν] ΑΒ. μάλιστα] μάλλιστα Α. 
Ι9 τῶν] Β; τὸν A. ἐπισκόπων καὶ] B; om. A. 20 καὶ prim.] AB. 
διακόνων) B; διάκονον A. 21 ἐκκλησίαι] αἰκλησίαι A. εἴ πως] ΑΒ. 
22 ἐξαιρέτως] ἐξερέτος Α. 23 Πολύκαρπον] πολοίκαρπον Α. θηρίων θᾶτ- 
tov ἀφανὴς] θειρίων θάττον ἀφανεῖς A. 24 τῷ προσώπῳ] B; τὸ πρόσωπον A, 
25 τοῦ Χριστοῦ] A; τοῦ Θεοῦ B. 


p- 486. I καὶ sec.| AB. διεμαρτύρατο] AB. 2 ἐπεκτείνων] ἐπεκτή- 
νον Α. πρὸς Χριστὸν] ΑΒ. 3 μέλλειν] ΑΒ. 4 συνευχομένων] 
συνευχωμένον A. 6 ὑπαντησάσαις] ὑπαντισάσαις A. αὐτῷ] ΑΒ. 7 ἐκ- 
πεμφθέντων] ἐπιτεθέντων ΑΒ. ὃ παραινέσεως] παρενέσεως Α. ἀποστα- 
ζόντων] AB. 9 χάριν] χάρην Α. τοιγαροῦν] τοὶ γὰρ ody A. εὐνοϊκῶς] 
ἐννοϊκῶς Α. 10 περὶ] ΑΒ. αὐτόν] B; αὑτῶν A. φοβηθεὶς μή ποτε ἡ] 
Β; φοβειθῆς μίποτε ἡ εἰ Α. 11 ἐκκόψῃ] ἐκκόψει Α. 12 ἀνεῳχθείσης] 
ἀνεωχθήσεις A. αὐτῷ] A; αὐτοῦ Β. θύρας] θοίρας Α. 13 ἐπιστέλλει 
Ῥωμαίων] ἐπιστήλη ῥωμέων. 


[The Epistle to the Romans begins.] 


Vol. 11. p. 189. ΠΡῸΣ PQOMAIOYS] iyvariov τοῦ θεοφόρου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς 
ῥωμαίους B. There is no title in A. I Ὁ Καὶ] A; om.o B. ἠλεημένῃ] 
ἰλεημένῃ Α. μεγαλειότητι] μεγαλιώτητι A. 2 πατρὸς ὑψίστου] ΑΒ. 
3 ἠγαπημένῃ] Β ; ἠγαπιμένη A. 4 τοῦ θελήσαντος] ΑΒ. 

p. 190. 1 πίστιν καὶ] om. AB. 2 τύπῳ χωρίου] AB. 

Pp: 192. 1 ἀξιοπρεπής]) ἀξιῶπρεπὴς (sic) A. ἀξιέπαινος] ἀξιέἔπενος (sic) A. 
ἀξιεπίτευκτος] ἀξιῶ, ἐπίτευκτος (sic) A. 2 ἀξίαγνος] ἀξιόάγνος (sic) A. 
χριστόνομος] χριστόνυμος A}; χριστώνυμος Β. 3 πατρώνυμος] πατρόνυμος Α. 


P- 193. 4 ἡνωμένοις] ἡνομένοις A. 6 παντὸς] B; πάντων A. 


Ρ. 194. I Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν] B; χριστῷ ἰησοῦ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν A. 
3 Θεῷ] ΑΒ. 
Ῥ. 195. 4 ἀξιόθεα] A; ἀξιοθέατα B. ὡς] AB. πλέον ἢ ἠτούμην] πλέον 


nrovpny ΑΒ. δεδεμένος] δεδεμίνος Α. 5 γὰρ] om. AB. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] 
ΑΒ. 6 θέλημα] add. τοῦ θεοῦ ΑΒ. ἦ τοῦ] A; om. τοῦ B. εἶναι] ΑΒ. 


p- 196. I εὐοικονόμητος] εὐοικονόμιτῶς A. ἐὰν πέρατος] ἐάνπερ χάριτος 


ΑΒ. 3 γὰρ] ΑΒ. τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην] ΑΒ. 4 ὑμῖν γὰρ] B; ὑμῆν γὰρ 
A. θέλετε] θέλεται A. 


592 ADDENDA. 


p. 197. 5 μὴ] om. AB. 7 γὰρ] after od AB. ὑμᾶς] AB. ἀνθρω- 
παρεσκῆσαι] ἀνθρωπαρεσκίσαι A. ἀλλὰ Θεῷ ἀρέσαι] ΑΒ. ὃ ἀρέσκετε] 
ἀρέσκεται Α. οὔτε] οὐ ΑΒ. ἐγώ ποτε ἕξω καιρὸν] A; ποτὲ ἐγὼ ἕξω καιρὸν 
B. τοιοῦτον] AB. 9 ἐὰν] A; ἂν B. 

Ῥ. 198. 1 σιωπήσητε] σιοπήσιτε A; σιωπῆτε Β. κρείττονι] κρίττωνι Α. 
ἔχετε] ἔχεται Α. 

Ῥ. 199. 2 γὰρ] ΑΒ. σιωπήσητε] B; σιωπήσιτε A. ἐγὼ] add. γενή- 
σομαι (γενίσωμαι) ΑΒ. λόγος Θεοῦ] θεοῦ (om. λόγος) AB. 

Ῥ. 200. I πάλιν ἔσομαι] πάλην ἔσωμαι A. φωνή] τρέχων ΑΒ. πλέον 
δὲ] πλέον (om. δὲ) AB. 2 παράσχησθε] B; παρασχέσθαι (sic) A. σπον- 
δισθῆναι] ΑΒ. ἔτι] ἔτη Α. 3 ἵνα...ἄσητε] AB. χορός] χωρὸς Α. 
4 τῷ πατρὶ] B; τὸ πατρὶ A. ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] ἐν χριστῷ ἰησοῦ ΑΒ. 

Ῥ. 202. I κατηξίωσεν ὁ Θεὸς] ὁ θεὸς κατηξίωσεν AB. 2 καλὸν] ΑΒ. 
δῦναι] Β ; δοῖναι A. ἀπὸ κόσμου] A; ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου B. 3 πρὸς Θεόν] 
ΑΒ. ἀνατείλω] AB. 

Ῥ. 203. 4 οὐδέποτε... βαρύς τινι γένωμαι (p. 208 1]. 3)] om. Β. οὐδενί] οὐ- 


Séva A; def. B. 


Ῥ. 204. 1 ἐντέλλεσθε] ἐντέλλεσθαι A. μοι δύναμιν αἰτεῖσθε] μοι δοίναμιν 
αἰτεῖσθε Α. 2 ἵνα μὴ 56ες.] A; def. Β. 3 ἐὰν γὰρ εὑρεθώ] om. A 
by homceoteleuton ; def. B. 4 καὶ τότε πιστὸς εἶναι] καὶ τότε πιστώς εἶναι A. 


ὅταν] A; def. Β. 5 φαίνωμαι] φαίνομαι A. οὐδὲν] οὐθὲν Α. 


Ῥ. 205. 6 καλόν] αἰώνιον: τὰ γὰρ βλεπώμενα πρόσκαιρα, τὰ δὲ μὴ βλεπόμενα 
αἰώνια A; def. B. Θεὸς] Κύριος A. 7 πεισμονῆς] σιοπὶς μόνης A; def. 
Β, ὃ ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμουν] om. A; def. B. 


p- 206. 1 πάσαις] om. A; def. B. ἐντέλλομαι] A; def. B. 2 ἐγὼ] 
A; def. B. ἀποθνήσκω) ἀποθνίσκω A. 3 κωλύσητε] κολύσιται Α. 
εὔνοια ἄκαιρος γένησθε] εὔνοια ἄκερος γενεσθαί Α. 4 θηρίων εἶναι] add. βορ- 
ρὰν A; def. B. 5 ἔνεστιν] ἐν ἔστιν (sic) A (ἔν prefixed in margin); def. B. 


Ρ. 207. 5 ἐπιτυχεῖν] ἐπιτυχὴν A. Θεοῦ] A. 6 ὀδόντων] ὀδόντον A. 
ἀλήθομαι] ἀλέθομαι A. 

p. 208. I rov Χριστοῦ! A; def. B. 2 γένωνται] γένονται A. καταλί- 
πωσιν] καταλείπωσιν A. τῶν τοῦ σώματός μου] τοῦ σώματός μου (om. τῶν) A; 
def. B: κοιμηθεὶς βαρὺς] κοιμηθῆς Bapois A. 3 γένωμαι] A; def. B. 
4 τότε κιτ.λ.] B resumes. τότε] A; add. γὰρ B. ἀληθῶς} AB. Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ] τοῦ χριστοῦ (om. ἰησοῦ) AB. 5 τὸν Κύριον] τὸν χριστὸν ΑΒ. 

p. 209. 6 Θεοῦ] om. AB. θυσία] θοισία A. διατάσσομαι] διατάσσωμαι 
Α. ὃ ἐγὼ] ΑΒ. 9 ἐγὼ δὲ] ΑΒ. ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν] aX ἐὰν A. 

p. 210. 1 ἀπελεύθερος] AB. Χριστοῦ] B; om. A. ἀναστήσομαι] ava- 
στίσωμαι A. ev αὐτῷ] ΑΒ. 2 νῦν μανθάνω] ΑΒ. μηδὲν] A; μηδ᾽ ἕν Β. 
ἐπιθυμεῖν] ἐπιθοίμειν A; add. κοσμικὸν ἤ μάταιον B; add. ἢ μάταιον (om. κοσμι- 
κὸν) A. 

Ρ. 211. 4 ἐνδεδεμένος] δεδεμένος ΑΒ. 


ADDENDA. | 593 


p. 212. 1 στρατιωτικὸν] στρατιωτῶν Β ; στρατιὸτῶν (sic) A. 
Pp. 213. 2 γίνονται] γίνωνται A. ἀδικήμασιν] ἀδικίμασιν Α. 


Pp. 214. I μᾶλλον] μάλλων A. 2 ὀναίμην] ὠνέμην A. τῶν θηρίων] 
A; om. B. 3 ἃ] om. AB. εὔχομαι] εὔχωμαι A. σύντομα] ἕτοιμα ΑΒ. 

Ρ. 215. 5 ἑκόντα μὴ θέλῃ] ἄκοντα μὴ θελήσῃ B; ἄκωντα μὴ θελίσει A. προσ- 
βιάσομαι] πρὸσ βι ἄσωμε (sic) A. 6 συγγνώμην... πέρατων τῆς γῆς (Ρ. 
Bio |. 2)| om. B. ἔχετε] ἔχεται A. 7 ἄρχομαι μαθητὴς] ἄρχωμαι μαθητῆς 
Α. μηθέν] Α. ζηλώσαι] ζηλώσει A. ὃ τῶν ἀοράτων] ἀοράτων (om. 
τῶν) A; def. B. 

p. 216. θηρίων τε συστάσεις] θηρίων καὶ συστάσεως A; def. B. ἀνατομαί, 
διαιρέσεις] ἀνατομαὶ διερέσις Α. 2 ὀστέων] ὠστέων A. συγκοπαὶ] συγκοπῆῇ 
(sic) A; def. B. 3 ἀλεσμοὶ] ἀλισμοὶ A. κακαὶ A; def. B. κολάσεις] 
κολάσις (sic) A. 

po217. 6 pe] A: def. B. ὠφελήσει] ὀφελήσει A. πέρατα] τέρπνα A; 
def. B. 7 οὐδὲ ai] ovda ἐ A. καλόν] μάλλον (sic) A; def. Β. 

218) τὶ δια" εἰς A; def. B. Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] χριστὸν ἰησοῦν A; 
def. B. βασιλεύειν] βασιλεύην A. 2 γῆς] add. τὶ γὰρ ὠφελείται 
ἄνθρωπος ἐὰν κερδείσι τὸν κόσμον ὅλον τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ζημιωθεῖ A; def. 
Β. ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ x.t.A.| B resumes. 3 θέλω] B; (nro A. δι᾿ 
ἡμᾶς] ΑΒ. ὁ τοκετός.. ἐπίκειται] om. B. 


p- 219. 4 σύγγνωτε] A. ἐμποδίσητε] ἐμποδίσηται A. 5 μὴ θελήσητε] 
μι θελείσητε A. με] ΑΒ. τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ θέλοντα] ΑΒ. 6 μὴ χαρίσησθε] 
B; μι χαρίσησθαι A. μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε] om. AB. 


p. 220. I καθαρὸν] καθαρῶν A. ἄνθρωπος] add. θεοῦ AB. 2 ἔσομαι] 
ἔσωμαι A. ἐπιτρέψατε] B; ἐπιστρέψαται A. μιμητὴν] μημιτὴν A, τοῦ 
πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ μου] ΑΒ. 3 εἴ τις.. οἷς γράφω ὑμῖν (p. 223 1. 4)] om. B. 
ἔχει] ἔχη Α 4 συμπαθείτω] συμπαθήτω Α. 

Ῥ. 221. 7 BovAera] βούλαται A. Ccov] A; def. B. διαφθεῖραι] 
διὰφθήραι (sic) A. ὃ μηδεὶς] μηδὶς A. τῶν παρόντων ὑμῶν] A; def. B. 
βοηθείτω] βοηθήτω Α. 

p. 222. I ἐμοὶ γίνεσθε] ἐμοῦ γένεσθαι A; def. Β. λαλεῖτε] λαλήται Α. 
2 ἐπιθυμεῖτε] ἐπιθυμίται Α. 3 παρὼν] om. A. πείσθητέ μοι] πίσθητέ 
μοι Α. 

Pp. 223. 4 πιστεύσατε] πίσθητε A. 5 ζῶν yap κιτ.λ.] Bresumes. γὰρ] 

ΑΒ. ἐρῶν τοῦ] A; ἐρῶ τούτου Β. 6 πῦρ φιλόδλον, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν καὶ 
λαλοῦν] ΑΒ. 

Pp. 224. 2 λέγον] B; λέγων A. τὸν πατέρα] B; πατέρα (om. τὸν) A. 
2 οὐχ ἥδομαι] Β : οὐκ εἴδομαι A. 

Pp. 225. 3 ἡδοναῖς] ndovas A. ἄρτον] ἄρτων A. Θεοῦ] ΑΒ. 

p. 226. 1 θέλω] add. ἄρτον οὐράνιον ἄρτον (ἄρτων A) ζωῆς ΑΒ. τοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ] ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ΑΒ. Add. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ AB. τοῦ sec.] add. γενομένου 
(γεναμένου Β) ἐν ὑστέρῳ ΑΒ. 

ΤΟΝ. Hi, 38 


594 ADDENDA. 


p. 227. 2 Aaveid] add. καὶ ἀβραάμ AB. πόμα] add. θεοῦ AB. 
3 ἄφθαρτος] add. καὶ aévyaos ζωή (ζωῆ A) AB. 

p. 228. I οὐκ ἔτι.. ἀναπαῦσαι (p. 234 1. 3)] om. B. οὐκ ἔτι] οὐκέτη A. 
ζῆν] ζεῖν Α. 2 θελήσητε] θελήσιται Α. 3 αἰτοῦμαι] αἰτούμαι (bis) A. 
4 ὑμῖν ταῦτα φανερώσει] ὑμῖν ταῦτα φαναιρώσει A. 5 ἀληθῶς λέγω] ἀλιθῶς 
ἐγὼ Α. τὸ] τώ Α. 6 ἐλάλησεν ἀληθῶς) ἀληθῶς ἐλάλησεν A; def. B. 
αἰτήσασθε] αἰτήσασθαι A. 7 ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ] om. A; def. Β. 

p. 229. 8 κατὰ γνώμην] κατὰ γνώμιν A. ἡ θελήσατε] Α. 9 ἀποδο- 
κιμασθῶ] ἀποδοκημασθῶ A. 10 μνημονεύετε] μνημωνεύεται A. προσευχῇ] 
Aden DB. II ποιμένι] ποιμένη A. 12 ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς] χριστὸς ὁ 
θεὸς (om. ἰησοῦς) A. ἐπισκοπήσειἿ ἐπισκοπίσει Α. 13 δὲ] A; def. B. 
αἰσχύνομαι] ἐσχύνωμαι A, οὐδὲ γὰρ] Α. 14 ἄξιός εἰμι] Α. 


p. 230. 2 δεξαμένων] δεξαμένον (sic) A. 


Ρ. 231. 4 προσήκουσαι] mpoceikovoa A. 5 πόλιν] πόλην A. προῆγον] 
A; def. B. 

Bese" τ δὲ} A: Σμύρνης] σμύρνις A. 2 ἀξιομακαρίστων] ἀξιωμακα- 
ρίστων Α. ἔστιν δὲ καὶ] A; def. Β. 3 καὶ Κρόκος] κρόκος (om. καὶ) A ; 
def. B. μοι] A; def. B. 

Pp. 233. 4 τῶν προελθόντων με] A; def. B. 5 τοῦ Θεοῦ] θεοῦ (om. τοῦ) 
A; def. Β. 

p. 234. 1 δηλώσατε] διλώσατε A. ἐγγύς] ἐγγοῖς A. τοῦ Θεοῦ] A; 
def, B. ὑμῖν ἐστιν] A; def. B. 3 ἔγραψα x.r.A.] B resumes, 4 Σεπ- 


τεμβρίων] add. τουτέστιν αὐγούστου (αὐδούστου A) εἰκάδι τρίτῃ (ky Β) ΑΒ. 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] add. ἀμήν AB. 


End of the Epistle to the Romans. 


Vol. 11. p. 487. 15 καταρτίσας] καταρτήσας A. ἡβούλετο] ἠβοὐλέτω 
(sic) A. 17 ἀναχθεὶς] avayOns A. Σμύρνης] μύρνης A. κατεπείγετο] 
κατεπίγετο A; κατηπείγετο B. 18 στρατιωτῶν] ΑΒ. τὰς] τῆς Α. 
19 πόλει] ῥώμῃ ΑΒ. 20 τῆς δικαιοσύνης διὰ τοιαύτης ἀθλήσεως] τῆς ἀθλήσεως 
ΑΒ. 21 Τρωάδι] τρωάδη Α. 22 καταχθεὶς] παταχθῆς A. Νεάπολιν] 
νέαν πόλην Α. διὰ Φιλιππησίων] διὰ φιλίππων (φίλιππον Α) ΑΒ. 23 πείῃ] 
Β; πεζεῖ Α. 


p. 488. 1 οὗ] om. AB. νηὸς] νιὸς Α. 2 ᾿Αδριατικὸν] ἀδριανικόν Β ; 
ἀδριανικῶν Α. 3 Τυρρηνικοῦ] A; τυρρανικοῦ B. παραμείβων] παρὰμίβων 
(sic) A. νήσους τε καὶ πόλεις] B ; νίσσους τε Kat πόλλης A. 6 Παύλου] 
ΑΒ. ἐπιπεσὸν] Β; ἐπιπεσὼν A. 7 πρύμνης ἐπειγομένης] πρύνης ἐπιγο- 
μένης Α. ὃ τῷ] τὸ Α. παρέπλει] παρέπλη Α. 9 τοιγαροῦν] τυγὰρ οὖν 
Α. νυκτὶ] νυκτῆ A. 10 ἀπηγόμεθα] ἀπιγόμεθα A : ἠπειγόμεθα Β. 

Pp. 409. ττῖτῷϊ τὸ 12 γίνεσθαι) B; γένεσθαι A. τῷ] τὸ Α. 
ἀπέβαινεν͵] ἀπέβενεν A. 13 ἀναχωρῆσαι] ἀναχωρίσαι Α. φθάσῃ] φθάσει 
Α. 14 λιμένας] λημένας Α. 15 λήγειν] λήγην A. 16 στρατιῶται] 





ADDENDA. 595 


AB. τῆς] B; τις A. noxadrov| ἤσχαλον A. 17 katereiyovow| 
katerriyovow A. 18 ἕωθεν ὁρμηθέντες] ἑωθήσαντες Α ; ἑωθίσαντες B. 
19 διεπεφήμιστο] διεφίμιστω A; διεφήμιστο B. ἤδη] ἴδει Α. 


Pp. 490. I συναντῶμεν] συν αὐτῶ μὲν A. 2 ἠξιοῦντο] B; ἄξιον τὸ A. 
3 συντυχίας, φοβουμένοις] συντιχίας: φοβούμενοι A. 4 τοιοῦτος] ὁ τοιοῦτος ΑΒ. 
τισὶ δὲ..«τὸν δίκαιον] om, Β. παρήγγελλεν] παρέγγειλεν A. 5 ἡσυχάζειν) 
ἡσυχάζουσιν A; def. B. καταπαύειν] καταπαύην A. 6 μὴ ἐπιζητεῖν] 
μὶ ἐπιζητῆν Α. ovs εὐθὺς γνοὺς] ὡς εὐθοῖς γνοὺς A; ὅς εὐθύς ἐπιγνοὺς Β. 
7 αἰτήσας τε] αἰτίσατε A. ὃ ἀληθινὴν] ἀληθινεῖν Α. 9 τῇ ἐπιστολῇ 
διαλεχθεὶς] ri ἐπιστολεῖ διαλεχθὴς A. πείσας μὴ] πίσας μι Α. φθονῆσαι] 
φθονίσαι Α. 10 τὸν Κύριον] Β ; κύριον A. γονυκλισίας] γονυκλησίας Α. 
12 διωγμοῦ] διογμοῦ Α. 

Pp. 491. 14 εὐθὺς] εὐθοῖς A. 16 καταπαύειν] καταπαύην A. 17 ἐδόκουν] 
ἐδώκουν Α. λεγομένη] λεγωμένη Α. “Ῥωμαϊκῇ φωνῇ] ῥωμαϊκεῖ φωνεῖ A. 
18 συνήεσαν] συνίησαν AB. 19 παρὰ τῶν ἀθέων] παρὰ τὠώναῶ A; παρὰ τὠναιὼ 
(sic) Β. παρεβάλλετο)] Β ; παρεβάλετο A. 20 παραυτὰ] παρ᾽ αὐτὰ Β. 
21 ἐπιθυμία] ἐπιθοιμία Α. 23 λειψάνου] λήψανου A. 24 ἐπιστολῇ] 


ἐπιστολεῖ Α. 


p- 492. 1 τραχύτερα] Β; βραχύτερα A. ἁγίων αὐτοῦ] ΑΒ. λειψάνων] 
λειψάνον Α. περιελείφθη] παρελείφθει A. 3 ληνῷ] Β; Awe A. ἀτί- 
μητος] ἀτίμιτος A. 


Ρ. 493. 5 ἐγένετο δὲ] Β ; ἐγένετο (om. δὲ) A. 6 ᾿Ιαννουαρίων] add. τουτ- 
έστιν (τοῦτεστιν A) δεκεμβρίω εἰκάδι ΑΒ. Σύρα] A; συρά B. 7 Σενεκίωνος] 
σεδεκίου AB, which punctuate thus σύρα: καὶ σεδεκίου τὸ δεύτερον. ὃ δακρύων] 
δακροίων Α. παννυχίσαντες}] A; παννυχεύσαντες Β. 9 γονυκλισίας] 
γονυκλησίας Α. δεήσεως] A; δεήσεων Β. 


Ῥ. 494. I πληροφορῆσαι τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς] πληρωφορίσαι τοὺς ἀσθενὴς A. 
2 ἐξαίφνης] ἐξέφνης Α. 3 περιπτυσσόμενον] B; περιπλακόμενον app. 
A. ἐβλέπομεν] ΑΒ. 4 πάλιν] πάλην A; om. Β. ἑωρῶμεν] 
AB. τὸν] τῶν A. 5 ἄλλοι δὲ.. ὑφ᾽ ἱδρῶτος] AB. ἱδρῶτος] ἱδρότος Α. 
6 παρεστῶτα] παρεστότα Α. μετὰ.. ἰδόντες] μετὰ πολλῆς (πολλεῖς A) τοίνυν 
χαρᾶς ταῦτα ἰδόντες (ἰδώντες Α) ΑΒ. ὃ συμβαλόντες.. .τῶν ὀνειράτων] ΑΒ. 
συμβαλόντες] B; συμβάλλοντες A. 9 τὸν δοτῆρα] τῶν δοτήρα A. 12 κοι- 
νωνῶμνε] κοινωνόμεν (sic) A. 13 γενναίῳ μάρτυρι Χριστοῦ] Β ; μάρτυρι 
γενναίῳ τοῦ χριστοῦ Α. καταπατήσαντι] καταπατίσαντι A. 14 καὶ τὸν... 
ἡμῶν] ΑΒ. τελειώσαντι] τελεώσαντα Α. 


= \ > > δῶ: > δ Ξε a 3. ΣῈ 
P- 495. 16 τῷ πατρὶ] ΑΒ. 17 εἰς αἰώνας εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων AB. 


38—2 


596 ADDENDA. 


Additional MSS of the Acts of the Metaphrast. 


Though it is no part of my work to deal with the text of the Metaphrast, 
I thought it might be useful to others if I included a collation which Prof. 
Rendel Harris procured of this text from $zz. 508. This MS is described by 
Gardthausen ; 

Λόγοι πανηγυρικοί (τη. Dec.) cod. membr. 33 x 25°6 centim., binis columnis 
saec. x scr., quamquam lineae summas litteras stringunt...In initio codex 
mutilus est. Primus titulus diei Danielis prophetae (Δεκ. εξ), ultimus Mela- 
niae Romanae (Aex. λα). Notae nonnullae additae sunt latine scriptae. 

It is designated S in the following collation. 


Prof. Rendel Harris has also collated (for the Epistle to the Romans 
only) a Jerusalem MS of the eleventh century, S. Se. vii f. 236, designated 
H in the collation. 


The collation has been made with Funk’s text in Opera Patrum Aposto- 
licorum (1881) vol. 2, pp. 246 sq. 


I 1. 6 Evodov] Evodoy S. τοῦ] 5. 2. 8 ἔτι] after τὸν Χριστὸν 5. 
2.12 δέξεται] δέξηται 5. 2.14 σαφῶς] σοφώς 5. 

111. 16 τῷ τῆς κατὰ Σμύρναν ἐκκλησίας] τῷ κατὰ.. «Σμύρναν ἐκκλησίας (a gap 
in the MS after xara) S. 3. 22 συχνῷ] S. (Pp. 247) Sea tenleee 
3. 2 ζῆλον καὶ διδασκαλίαν] 5. διάκονος ἤδη] ἤδη διάκονος S. 3. 4 θη- 
pious...mapadobeis| om. 5. ἀναλαβὼν] om. S. 

III 1. 10 εἴτουν étro (sic) S. 1. 11 ἐκείνως] ἐκεῖνος S. 1. 12 ov- 
τως] οὕτω S. 3. 18 τότε] τὸ de (Sic) 5. 4, 21 εἴη] εἴ 5. 4. 23 κατα- 
κριθέντα] 5. 

IV 1. 29 σὺ ef] od (om. εὖ) S. 1. 30 φησίν] ἔφη 5. (p. 248) ea 
πᾶσαν ἀνάστατον] ἀνάστατον πᾶσαν 5. 9. Aro WE] 9. 2.5 περιφέρων] 5. 
3. 6 περιφέρεις] S. φησίν] ἔφη 5. 4.9 φέρειν] 3. ὅ. 12 εἷς γὰρ] 5. 
Bats core] 5: | S. πολλῷ] 5. 5. 17 ἦσαν..-μονιμώτερα] ἦσαν καὶ 
κομιδῆ νομιμώτερα 5. 

V 1. 22 αὐτοὶ} S. 2. 23 Θεοφόρος] add. tyvaruos S. 2.24 ὦ] om. S. 
2. 25 ὅσῳ] ὅσα 5. ἀντιχαρίζεσθαι] ἀντιχαρίσασθαι 8. 2. 27 σφοδροτέραν] 
ϑ. (Ρ 249) 3. 1 coi] S. 3. 4 ἐμαυτὸν] ἑαυτὸν 5. 

V1 1.6 δὲ] om. 5. 1. 7 ἐπὶ Ποντίου σταυρωθέντι Ἰπιλάτου] ἐπὶ Ποντίου 
Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντι 5. 2. 13 ἐξηπάτησο] 5. 

VII 1. 22 ἀγχινοίας] 5. δῆθεν] 5. 1. 23 ἔφησαν] 5. 1.25 οὗτος] 
οὕτως 5. 2. 27 ἀφορμῆς] 5. 2. 29 θύραν] 5. 3. 33 τρίτην ἡμέραν] 
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 5. (p. 250) 3.2 dev] 5: 4.6 ἐπεδείξατο] 5. ὅ. 14. 0 
πρῶτος ὑμῖν καὶ μέγιστος] ὁ πρῶτος καὶ μέγιστος ὑμῖν 5. 5. 16 πυρὸς] 


Tov πυρὸς S. 5. 17 ἀνάλωται] S. 


ADDENDA. 597 


VIII 1. 20 εἶς} S. 1. 21 7 kai] 7 (om. καὶ) S. 1. 22 ἀνθήσειε] av- 
θήσῃ S. 1. 25 πῶς ἂν] πῶς (om. ἂν) 5. 1. 26 ὑπεξαγάγοι ζωῆς] S. 
2. 29 κοινωσαμένου] 5. pev] S. BA 5 dew | ia. φασίν] φησίν 5. 
(Ρ. 251) 2. 3 θηρσὶν] θηρίοις 5. 3. 4 ὑφέξει] ὑφέξειν 5. 

IX 1. 7 τούτου...ἀρέσαντος] 5. 2. 9 προσάγων] S. 2. II πλεῖον] 
πλείων 5. 3. 12 μήτε] S. 3. 14 ἐψηφισμένα] 5. 3. 15 περι- 
θεῖναι] περιθῆναι S. 

X 1. 20 ἀπόφασιν ἐκείνην] 5. 1. 25 παραθέμενος τῷ θεῷ] 5. 4, 28 ἐμ- 
βάλλεται] βάλλεται 5. 5. 32 σεμνυνόμενος ἐπὶ] 5. (p. 252) 6. 4 πολλοὶ] 
S. 6. 5 τῶν πόλεων] S. 

XI 1. 11 ἡγουμένους] S. 2.18 ἀθλήσεως] 5. 2. 20 αὐτῆς] add. 
ἐκείνης 5. 

XII 1. 24 κυρίου] μονογενοῦς S; om. H. τοῦ μόνου] H; om. S. 1.25 
ἐν θελήματι] SH. (p. 253) 2. 2 deo] SH. 3. 4 δεδεμένος] S; add. yap 
Hs. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] χριστῷ (OM. ἰησοῦ) 5; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ H. 4, 6 
εὐχὴ] S; ἀρχὴ Hs. 4. 10 φείσησθε] S; μὴ φείσησθε Hs. 

XIII 1. 12 ἀρέσκετε!] SH. 1.13 ἐγὼ 5: om. H. 2.15 παράσχεσθε] 
SH. ὡς ἔτι... ἔτοιμόν ἐστιν] H; om. S. 218 εἰς SH; τοῦτον] 5; 
om. Hs. 

mint. 22:6€]'S.; om. H. 2. 25 ὅτε] S; ὅταν Hs. 

XV 1. 30 γένησθέ μοι] γένοισθέ pou SH. 1. 31 ἔνεστι) 5; ἐστιν Hs. 
(p. 254) 2. 2 μᾶλλον] add. de SH. γένωνται] SH. 2. 3 καταλίπωσι] SH. 
2. 4 γένωμαι] 5; yévoua H. 2. 6 τούτων] 5; om. H. 

XVI 1.12 αὐτῆς] om. SH. 1. 13 δεδεμένος] S; om. H. L. τὰ Ὁ] SHA: 
2.19 παραβιάσομαι] SH. 3. 20 ἄρχομαι] SH. 

XVII 2. 30 ἀδελφοί...μοι] om. H by homceoteleuton. μηδὲ] SH. 
μὲν SH. 2. 32 μιμητὴν] H; μιμητὴς 5. (p. 255) 3. 2 pesee 

XVIII 1.5 γίνεσθε] γένεσθε SH. 1. 6 Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] SH. 3. 9:6] ΘΕ: 
3. II λαλοῦν ἐν] H; λαλοῦν S, followed by an erasure. λέγον] SH. 
4, 14 τοῦ γενομένου ev ὑστέρῳ] H; τοῦ γενομένου ὑστέρως 5. 4.15 ᾿Αβραάμ]) 


5; ᾿Αβραάμ H. 
XIX 2. 21 ἀληθῆ] S; ἀληθῶς Hs. 


XX 1. 24 ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ] ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ S. 2.27 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] H; ἰησοῦ (om. 
χριστοῦ) 5. 


XXI 2. 32 ποθητὸν] SH. (p. 256) 


XXII 2.9 ἐν ᾿Επιδάμνῳ] ἐπὶ δάμνῳ (om. ev) S prima manu. 2. 10 Tuppn- 
νικὸν] τυραννικὸν 5. τὰς] 95. 8. 12 μεταδοὺς ἀσπασμόν] ἀσπασμὸν 
μεταδούς 5. 

XXIII 1. 18 οὖν] 5 prima manu; erased by a later hand. 1. 19 πνεύ- 
ματος] pref. τοῦ 5 prima manu, erased by a later hand. 1. 22 ἀτρέστου] 
ἀτρέπτου 9. 2; 24 Ἐπὶ] preef.oi S. 2. 28 γένωμαι] 5. 3. 30 μόνων] 
μόνον 5. τῆς εὐχῆς τῷ ἀνδρὶ] 5. (p. 257) 3. 3 τῷ pri.| S. αὐτὸν] 


om. 5. 


598 ADDENDA. 


XXIV 1. 5 τέλος S. 1. 7 συνελθόντες] ἐλθόντες 5. 1. 9 εἰκάδα] 
εἰκάδι 5. 1. 10 ἄγοντος] 5. 2.12 δέσμιος ἐξ ᾿Αντιοχείας] ἐξ ᾿Αντιοχείας 
δέσμιος (δέσμιος added by a later hand), 2. 15 περιϊπτάμεναι] 5. 


ΣΟΥ 1: 20 καὶ Sec. | ‘om. 5. 2. 23 ἕτεροι δὲ] ἕτεροι (om. δὲ) 5. 
2. 24 τῶν] 5. 2.25 πᾶσι πιστοῖς] πᾶσι τοῖς πιστοῖς 5. 


ΧΧΥῚ 1. 27 τοιοῦτοι] 5. περιφανεῖς] περιμανεῖς 5. 2. 28 Λουγδάνων] 
λογδάνων 5. 3. 31 εὐαγγελιστοῦ τε] εὐαγγελιστοῦ (om. Te) 5. (Ρ. 258) 
4. ς οὐδὲ] οὐ οὐδὲ 5. 4. 7 κυρίου] κυρίῳ 5. ὅ. 12 μᾶλλον ψυχαῖς] 
ψυχαῖς μᾶλλον 5. 

XXVII 1. 14 γενναίως] 5. 1. 19 ἐγκράτειάν τε] ἐγκράτειαν (om. Te) 5. 
2. 22 τοιοῦτον ἐκθεῖναι] ἐκτεθῆναι τοιοῦτον 5. 2. 24 καθίστασθαι] 5. avat- 
ρεῖσθαι μέν] ἀναιρεῖσθαι (om. μέν) 5. 3. 30 καθαριότητος] 5. 


eee x 


: 
ΤΣ. 

τ 
? a 


5 





INDE: 


Abbreviations used, 10 sq 

Absolute use of terms by Ignatius, 37, 
85, 181, 195, 253, 290, 321 

Achilleion, 99 

Acta Fratrum Arvalium, 404, 405 

Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius; docu- 
ments, versions, and MSS, 363 sq; 
Ussher’s view, 367; Zahn’s solution, 
367; mutual relations of documents, 
368 sq; historical credibility, 377 sq; 
Greek text and notes of Antiochene, 
477 sq; of Roman, 496 sq; translation 
of Antiochene, 575 sq ; of Roman, 579 
sq; see further under <Aztiochene, Ar- 
menian, Bollandist, Roman, Syriac 
Acts, Acts of the Metaphrast 

Acts of the Metaphrast, 367; sources of, 
375 54, 389, 473, 4743 relation to Ar- 
menian Acts, 376 sq; incorporate the 
Ignatian Epistle to the Romans, 5, 9 ; 
introduce the story of the Θεοφόρος, 
376; not in this edition, 376; identi- 
fication of a MS of, 364; collation of 
additional Mss of, 596 sq; see also 
Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius 

Actsof Perpetuaand Felicitas, 187,212,214 

Adiabene, Trajan in, 395, 396, 414 sq 

Ado, Martyrology of, 368, 382, 428; Li- 
ber de Festiv. of, 428 

Adonai and Antonini confused, 497 

Adonis, legend of, 505 

Advents, the two, 275 sq 

Aésculapius, death of, 504 

Africanus, Julius, Chronography of, 452 
sq, 455 54; his date and history, 457 ; 
alleged schematism in his lists of 
bishops, 453 54; as a source of inform- 
ation to Eusebius, 453, 460, 467, 472 

Agape; references to, 87, 227, 3123 his- 
tory of, 312 sq; its relation to the Eu- 
charist, 313 sq 

Agathopus; see Rhatus Agathopus 

Alce; mentioned in the Ignatian Epistles, 
325, 359 56; 571, 574; sister of Nicetes 
the persecutor, 325 

Alexander of Jerusalem; his imprison- 


ment, 458 sq; his letter to the Antio- 
chenes, 458 sq 

Alexandrian Calendar, 381 

Alexandrian grammatical forms, 521 

Alexandrian origin of Roman Acts of 
Martyrdom, 380, 519 

‘ Altar’, use of word in Ignatius; see 
θυσιαστήριον 

Ammia, prophetess of Philadelphia, 243 ; 
claimed by the Montanists, 243 

Anacolutha, 28, 29, 110, I17, 155, 159, 
194, 251, 268, 288 

Analogy, transference of ideas by, 41 

Androcles, governor of Ephesus, 535 

Angelology, 164 sq, 303 

Anianus, bishop of Alexandria, 472 

Anointing of our Lord at Bethany, ex- 
plained symbolically, 72 

Anthemus of Tralles, architect of S. 
Sophia, 147 

Antioch in Pisidia, a colony of Magnesia, 
102 

Antioch in Syria; date of the foundation 
of the Church at, 472; mission to the 
Church at, 276 sq, 318, 356, 357 Sq; 
persecution at, 88, 139, 181, 277, 319, 
355 sq; earthquake at, 397, 409, 413, 
417 sq; Malalas’ account of it, 409, 
413, 436, 442 sq; Trajan at, 385, 395, 
409, 413 54; 442 54; alleged place of 
martyrdom of Ignatius, 437 sq, 4473 
reliques of Ignatius at, 369, 382, 385, 
387 sq, 431 sq, 487; devastated by 
Chosroes, 433; bishops of, see <Az- 
tiochene bishops 

Antioch, other cities of the name, 177 

Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom of Igna- 
tius; versions and MSS, 363, 380 sq, 
473; Narrative in, 368 sq; reason for 
name, 369; relation to Roman Acts, 
371 sq; credibility of, 383 sq; ex- 
ternal testimony to, 386 sq; date and 
origin, 389; circulation of, 389; may 
embody earlier document, 389 sq, 489; 
incorporate the Ignatian Epistle to the 
Romans, 5, 9,486; on day of martyr- 


602 


dom of Ignatius, 419, 423; on year of 
martyrdom, 448, 492; relation to Euse- 
bius’ Chronicon, 409, 450 sq ; text and 
notes, 477 54; translation, 575 sq; col- 
lation of additional Mss of, 589 sq; see 
also Acts of Martyrdom of lgnatius 

Antiochene bishops; list given in Eu- 
sebius’ Chronicon, 452 sq; Harnack 
on, 452 sq, 468 sq; Hort on, 463 
sq; its credibility and that of the Ig- 
natian Epistles, 471 

Antiochene reckoning of years, 436 

Antiochenes, Ignatian Epistle to the; 
its relation to Roman Acts of Martyr- 
dom, 380, 519 

Antitheses ; in Ignatius, 48; in Tertullian, 
48; in Melito, 48 

Aorist, uses of, 45 

Apellzeus, the month, 436, 443 

Aphrodite, burial of, 504 

Apocalypse i. ro explained, 129 

Apocryphal additions to Gospel narrative 
in the Ignatian Epistles, 80 sq, 294 sq 

Apocryphal sayings attributed to our 
Lord, 294, 299 

Apollinarianism, interpolations to avoid, 


49 

Apollonius of Tyana, on the Trallians, 
153» 154 

Apollonius, the presbyter, 102, 110Sq, 551 

‘ Apostles’, ‘ Gospels’, ‘ Prophets’, mu- 
tual relation of the terms, 260 sq 

Apostolical Constitutions, imitate the Ig- 
natian Epistles, 119 

Apostolici and apostoli, 479 

Apostolici virl, 479 

Apparatus criticus of this edition, 7 

Apphia, her day, 535 

Arabia Petrzea, conquered by Palmas, 
394, 406 54; 410, 480 

Arcadia, human sacrifices in, 523 

Archippus, his day, 535 

Ares, the bindings of, 506 

Arian controversy, 00 sq 

Aricia, the worship of Diana at, 523 

Armenian Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius, 
5, 9, 307, 371 sq, 4733 component ele- 
ments of, 372 sq; on the day of the 
festival of Ignatius, 234, 375, 422; see 
also Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius 

Armenian Calendar, 375, 422 sq, 429 

Armenian Chronicon, 449, 451, 455 Sq; 
463 sq 

Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicon, 
449, 451, 455 Sq ; ; 

Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 4, 
6, 7, 8, 9 ; when first published, 7; Pe- 
termann’s edition of, 7; Aucher’s claims 
on behalf of, 367; independent of the 
Metaphrast, 375 ; not necessarily known 
to the compiler of the Menza, 383 


INDEX. 


Artemis, 508, 5233 processions in Ephe- 
sus in honour of, 17, 54 sq, 56; Leu- 
cophryene, 98, Ioo sq 

Article omitted, 72, 85 

Asclepiades, bishop of Antioch, 454, 455, 
457 5 

Asia, fhe Roman province of, 151 

Assemani, 423, 431 

Athanasius (S.), passages illustrating the 
use of ἀγέννητος by, 90 sq 

Atheists; a designation of heathens, 160; 
of Christians, 44, 160; of Docetists, 174 

Athene, 508 

Athlete, typified in the Christian martyr, 
38 sq, 335, 494 

Attalus, king of Pergamos, 144, 237 

Attalus of Smyrna, 330, 359, 574 

Atticus condemns Symeon, son of Clopas, 
498 

ree of relative, 54, 74, 87, 88, 122, 
130, 133, 171, 227, 250 

Aucher; publishes the Armenian Acts of 
Martyrdom, 367; criticisms on, 367, 
372) 373: 424 i 

Augustus, length of reign of, 520 

Aurelius Victor, 399 

Autographs of the Gospels, 271 


ἀγαπᾶν, στέργειν, φιλεῖν, 341 

ἀγαπᾶν --ἀγάπην ποιεῖν, 307 

ἀγάπη and ἔρως, 222 

ἀγάπη combined with πίστις, 29, 67, 86, 
108, 137, 171, 282, 287, 289, 304, 325 

ἀγάπη ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 165, 190; Θεοῦ, 252 

ἀγάπη τινός (ἡ), 159, 180, 196, 229, 281; 
320 

ἀγάπην ποιεῖν, 307, 313; see also Agape 

ἄγε, aye, Τάργαρι, Φορτοῦνε, 441 

ἁγιοφόρος, 21, 56, 288 

ἁγνεία, 348 

ἁγνίζειν, -ζεσθαι, 51, 181 

ἅγνισμα, 51, 181 

ἀδιάκριτος, -ακρίτως, 39, 140, 153, 193) 249 

ἀδιαλείπτως, 57, 334 

ἄθεοι, of heathens, 160; of Christians, 
44, 160; of Docetists, 174 

ἄθεος πολυθεία, 527 

ἄθικτος, 273 

ἀθλητής, of martyrs, 38 sq, 335) 494 

ἀΐδιος, 126 sq 

αἷμα θεοῦ, 29 

αἷμα καὶ σάρξΞεσῶμα, 297 

αἱμοβόρος, 484, 521 

αἴτησις and προσευχή, 355 

αἰχμαλωτίζειν, 73 

αἰών, 80, 520 

ἀκίνητος, 253, 289 

ἄκκεπτα, 354 

ἄκμων, 342 

ἀκρόβυστος, 264 

ἀλείπτης, 38 


INDEX. 


ἀλείφειν and compounds, 38 

ἀλεσμός (form), 216 

ἀλήθειν (form), 207 

adigew, 134 

Αλκη, 325, 360 

ἀλλότριος, ‘ heretical’, 257 

ἀλυσμός (v. 1.), 216 

ἀλωπός, 381, 532 

ἀμέριστος καρδία, 181 

ἄμωμος, ἀμώμως, 27, 194, 288, 333 

ἀναγωγεύς, 54 

ἀναζωπυρεῖν, 29 

ἀναισθητεῖν, 133 

ἀνακίρνασθαι, 43, 

ἀνακτᾶσθαι ἑαυτόν, 170 

ἀναλαμβάνειν, 170 

ἀνανήφειν, ENO) 

ἀναπάρτιστος, 259 

ἀναπαύειν, 35 

ἀνασταυροῦν, 482 

ἀναψύχειν, 35 

ἀνδρόγυνος, 508 

ἀνεκλάλητος, 81 

ἀνέχεσθαι, 334 

ἀνήκειν, 252, 357 

ἀνήρ and ἄνθρωπος, 220 

ἀνθρωπαρεσκεῖν, -άρεσκος, -αρέσκεια, 197 
ἀνθρωπόμορφος, 208 

᾿ ἄνθρωπος and ἀνήρ, 220 

ἀντίδοτος, 87 

ἀντιμιμεῖσθαι, 59 

ἀντίψυχον, ΠΕ ΘΠ 210; 211, 391 

ἀνυστέρητος, 287 

ἀξιαγάπητος, 262 

ἀξίαγνος, 192 

ἀξιεπίτευκτος, ΤΟΙ 

ἀξιόθεος, TIO, 152, 101, 195, 321 

ἀξιομακάριστος, 27 

ἀξιόπιστος in bad sense, 167, 254, 341 

ἀξιόπλοκος, 128 

ἄξιος, in Ignatius, 33; compounds of, 41, 
IgI 

ἀξιοῦσθαι (κατ-), 57, 110 

ἀόρατος, 343 

ἀπάγεσθαι, 88 

ἀπαρτίζειν, 259 

ἀπάρτισμα, -αρτισμός, 276 

ἀπελεύθερος, 210 

ἀπερίσπαστος, 87 

ἀπεσκληκώς, 514 

ἄπιστοι, οἵ Docetists, 175, 293, 303 

ἀπέ in composition, 112 

ἀποδεικνύναι, 251 

ἀποδιυλίζειν, -λισμός, 193, 256 

ἀποδοκιμάζειν, 229 

ἀπολαμβάνειν, τοῦ 

ἀποστάζειν χάριν, 486 

ἀποστολικός, 478 

ἀποστολικὸς χαρακτήρ, 152 

ἀπόστολοι--Ν. T. Scriptures, 260 

ἀποτάξασθαι τῷ Bly, 281 


603 


ἀποτέμνειν, 118 

ἀπόφασις, 483, 530 

ἄρα ov and dpa οὖν, 176 

ἄρτον κλᾶν, 87 

ἄρτος Θεοῦ, 45, 87, 226 

ἄρτος καθαρός, 207 

ἀρχαῖα and ἀρχεῖα, 271 

ἀρχεῖα, 270 54; of Old Testament, 271 
ἀρχιερεύς, of Christ, 274 

ἄρχοντες, of angels, 165, 303 
ἀρχοντικός, 164. 

ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (0), 73, 76, 109, 


163, 265 


Ασιάρχης; see Asiarchs 


ἄστρον and ἀστήρ, 82 
ἀσφαλίζειν, 250 
ἀσύγκριτος, 326 
ἀσώματος, 294, 296 
[Ατταλος, 359 
αὐθαιρέτως, 118 
ἀφθαρσία, 73, 121, 276 
ἀφρὸς νίτρου, 239 
ἄχρονος, ἀχρόνως, 343 
ἀψηλάφητος, 553 

-aw and -ew, interchange of, 131 


Babylas, bishop of Antioch, 464, 467 

Baptism administered by the bishop, 312 

Baptism of Christ, motive for, 75, 290 

Baronio, criticism on, 433 

Basil (S.), day of commemoration of, 421 

Bassus, 102, III, 551 

Baur criticised, 52, 213 

Bede, Martyrology of ; see Ps-Bede 

Benediction, forms of, 322 

Bishopric; of Christ, 229; of the Father, 
IT4, 332» 359 

Bishops; Ignatius on the obedience due 
to, 43, 46, 121 sq, 138, 155, 268, 309; 
as the centre of unity, 36, 41 sq, 44, 
121, 169 sq, 258, 268) 310 50,222. 
3443 their functions, 312 sq, 349; their 
relation to presbyters, 33, 40 sq, 112 
Sq, 1109 121 sq, 138, 155, 269, 309, 312; 
as strings toa lyre, 40; as the Father to 

_ the Apostles, 119, 157, 309; as grace to 

law, 112; share the mind of Christ, 40; 
are stewards of Christ, 46; dispensers of 
blessings, 112; embodiments of law, 
181; see Episcopate, Ministry 

Bishops of Antioch; see Antzochene bishops 

Bishops of Rome, chronology of, 452 sq 

Bithynia; Pliny governor of, 377, 395; 
407, 536; date of the persecution in, 
395, 407, 536; Eusebius on, 449, 453; 
Jerome on, 449; see Pliny, Trajan 

Bochart criticised, 212 

Bollandist Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius, 
366 sq, 473, 474; extant only in Latin, 
366; Mss of, 367; Petermann’s edition 
criticised, 367 3 3 narrative in, 371 sq; 


604 


a combination of the Antiochene and 
Roman Acts, 371, 432, 473; known to 
Ado, Ps-Bede, etc., 382; on day of 
commemoration of Ignatius, 4223; errors 
of, 488; see also Acts of Martyrdom of 
Lenatius 

Bonds; Ignatius glories in his, 57, 61, 
108, 164, 195; parallels to this, 62 

Borghesi’s theory of the tribunician years, 
391, 399 Sq, 402 Sq 

Bread; varieties of, 207; metaphors from, 
207 

Bunsen; criticisms on, 81, I91, 267; 
emendations by, 162, 180, 293, 341 

Burrhus, deacon of Ephesus, 15, 34, 2433 
the amanuensis of the Epistles to the 
Philadelphians and Smyrnzeans, 34, 
243, 281, 320; mentioned in the lg- 
natian Epistles, 34, 35, 320, 544, 560, 
571 


βασκαίνειν, 202 
βασκανία, 222 

Βάσσος, 111 

βαστάζειν, 334 
βέβαιος, ‘valid’, 309 
Bios and ζωή, 225, 281 
βλασφημία, 58 

βοτάνη and λάχανα, 60 
βοτάνη, of heresies, 60, 166, 255 
Βοῦρρος, 34 

Bvew τὰ ὦτα, 53 
βῶμος, 43 


Cacodaemon, 482 

Czesarea, a name of Tralles, 145 

Calendars; Alexandrian, 381 ; Antiochene, 
436; Armenian, 422 sq, 429; Coptic, 
424; Ethiopic, 425 sq; Latin, 429; 
Syriac, 420s8q; Tyrian, 443 

Callatebus, site of, 23 

Calliope, the sacrifice of, 441 

Calpurnius Macer, 34, 232, 536 

Canonical Scriptures ; names for divisions 
of, 290 sq; early existence of collec- 
tion of, 261; documents of, 270 sq; 
additions to, in Ignatius, 80 sq, 294 
sq; coincidences with and quotations 
from, in Ignatius and Polycarp, see 
Index 11 in Vol. II 

Catholic Church ; see Church, the Catholic 

Cave of Treasures ; wrongly ascribed to 
Ephraem, 81; recensions of, 81; on 
the star of the Epiphany, 81 

Celibacy inthe early Church, 348 sq 

Celsus, 504, 511 

Cerinthus, 264 

Christ, called GoD, 26, 30, 169, 303, 316 

Christianity; spread of, 134 sq; social 
position of, 196; not prejudicial to 


INDEX. 


Roman Empire, 519 sq; its relation to 
marriage, 348, 350; to mythology, 503 
sq, 526; see Church, the primitive 

Christians, efforts on behalf of the con- 
demned, 196 

Christology ; of Ignatius, 48, 86, go sq, 
122, 126 sq, 290, 343; the preexist- 
ence of the Word, 127 sq; the eternal 
generation of the Son, go sq, 127; in 
antenicene times, 92 sq ; effect of Arian- 
ism on, 94 

Chromatic scale, 41 sq 

Chronicle, Syriac, 447, 448, 476 sq 

Chronicle of John Madabbar, 446 

Chronicle of Julius Africanus, as an au- 
thority for Eusebius, 452 sq, 455 sq 

Chronicon of Eusebius; see usebzus’ 
Chronicon 

Chronicon Paschale; on the Second Da- 
cian war, 406, 410; on the year of mar- 
tyrdom of Ignatius, 410, 448; on the 
date of Manes, 439; on Ignatius the 
pupil of S. John, 478 

Chronology ; of Trajan’s reign, 391 54; 
of Roman bishops, 452 sq; of Antio- 
chene bishops, 452 sq, 471 3 curiosities 
of, 463 sq, 469 sq 

Chrysostom (S.) ; his panegyric on Igna- 
tius, 202, 204, 379 sq, 386, 418 sq, 431; 
its relation to the Roman Acts, 379 54; 
to the Antiochene Acts, 436, 438; to 
the Acts of the Metaphrast, 376; shows 
coincidences with the Ignatian Epistles, 
202, 204, 380; coincidences elsewhere 
in his works, 223; on the day of com- 
memoration of Ignatius, 418 

Church, the Catholic; the name first in 
the Ignatian Epistles, 310; its mean- 
ing there, 311; in Martyrdom of Poly- 
carp, 311; in Muratorian Fragment, 
311; in Clement of Alexandria, 311; 
definitions of Athanasius, Cyril of Je- 
rusalem and Augustine, 311 sq; subse- 
quent history of the name, 311; com- 
pared to a ship, 339 

Church, the primitive ; funds of, 346; 
its relation to marriage, 348, 350; to 
celibacy, 348 sq ; see Christianity 

Cinyras, legends regarding, 504 sq 

Circumcision, when abandoned by Judais- 
ing Christians, 264 

Classical deities ; ridiculed by early Chris- 
tians, 503 sq; rationalised, 526 

Clement, Epistle of, allusions in Igna- 
tius to the, 203 

Clement of Alexandria; on S. John xii. 3 
sq, 72; ὉΠ star at the Nativity, 81, 
82; on magic overthrown by Christ, 83 ; 
on the descent into Hades, 132 ; quotes 
Gospel of the Egyptians, 166 ; on the 
symbolism of the Cross, 291; passages 


INDEX. 


emended in, 224; his use of word 
‘Catholic’, 311; his Protrepticon, 504 

Clinton, 492 sq 

Colbertine Acts; see Avtiochene Acts of 
Martyrdom 

Commemoration of Ignatius, day of, 418 
56 

compedagogita, 37 

Complimentary forms of address, 159 

Conjunctive in indirect questions, 59 

Constructions, loose, in the Ignatian 
Epistles, 67, 136; see also Anacolutha 

Consulates in Trajan’s reign, 392 sq, 
498; of Sura and Senecio, 394, 407; 
492 ; of Suburanus and Marcellus, 393, 
495, 497 56 

Contractions in proper names, I10 

contubernia, 348 

Coptic Calendars, 424 sq 

Coptic remains of Ignatian Epistles, 4, 9 

Coptic versions of Roman Acts of Mar- 
tyrdom, 364 sq, 383, 474; not Antio- 
chene Acts as Cureton states, 366; ex- 
tant in Memphitic and Sahidic, 364 sq; 
not independent of each other, and the 
Sahidic prior, 366; Zoega’s mistake as 
to their authorship, 366; their testi- 
mony to origin of these Acts, 381 sq 

Cotelier, criticisms on, 114, 274, 307, 323 

Crocus, 15, 34: 185, 544; 562 

Cronos, human sacrifices to, 522 

Cross of Christ; prominence given by 
Ignatius to the, 74, 78, 177, 249, 272 
sq, 289 sq; regarded as a tree of life, 
291; as a standard, 292; as a trophy, 
292; see also Passion of Christ 

cufa and kindred words, 525 

Cureton; his labours, 363; criticisms on, 
25, 77» 79. 3341 366 

Curetonian Abridgment; see /gnatian 
Epistles, Three Syriac 

Cynosura, 504 

Cyril of Jerusalem, on the Catholic 
Church, 311 sq 

Cyrillus, bishop of Antioch, 454 sq; a 
prisoner in Pannonia, 456; date of his 
death, 456 

Cyrus, 238 


καθ᾽ ἕνα, 179 
καθηλοῦσθαι ἐν, 289 
καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (ἣ), 310 sq 
καθολικός, 310 

καί in apodosis, 293 
καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, 85 
καινότης ζωῆς, 84 
καιρός, 330 
κακοδαίμων, 281 
κακοτεχνία, 265, 546 
καλοκαγαθία, 68 
καλὸν ἤ, 217 


605 


κἄν, 58 

κατά, uses of in Ignatius, 107, 125, 100 

κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῆν, 155, 228 

κατὰ Θεόν, 107 

κατ᾽ ἄνδρα (οἱ), 41 

κατὰ πάντα ἀναπαύειν, 35, 140, 178, 234, 
315, 321 

κατὰ σάρκα, 71, 86 

κατὰ χρῆσιν and κατὰ φύσιν, 153 

καταγγέλλειν εἰς, 262 

καταδεσμός, 84 

κατάκριτος, 209, 379 

καταξιοπιστεύεσθαι, 167 

καταξιοῦν, 85, 107, 110, 180, 202, 278, 
318, 333, 356, 359 

καταρητορεύειν, 523 

καταρτίζειν, 36, 269, 289 

καταρτιστήρ, 56 

κατάστημα, 159 

κατευοδοῦν, 137 

κατοικεῖν, 46 

κενοδοξία, -ξεῖν, 135, 252 

Κήρυγμα Ilérpov, 295 sq 

κλῆρος, of Church, 62; of martyrdom, 180, 
196, 260 

κοινόν (τὸ), 346 

κολακεύειν, 219, 338 

κοπιᾶν, κόπος, of athletes, 336, 351 

κοσμεῖν, 56 

κουπήϊον, 525 

κραβαττοπυρία, 528 

κραθῆναι and κρατηθῆναι confused, 297 

κραυγάζειν, 267 

κραυγή, 79 

κρίμα (accent), 61 

Κρόκος, 34 

κρύφιος, 115 

κτῆσις and χρῆσις, 153 

κτίζειν and γεννᾶν, go sq 

κύβος, 524 

Κυνοσούρα, 504 

κυοφορεῖν, 75 

κυριακή, 129 


χαίρειν πλεῖστα, 27 

χαρακτήρ, 117, 152 

χάρις, abs., 321, 357, 359; central point 
of Gospel dispensation, 125 

χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη, ὑπομονή, form of salu- 
tation, 322 

χειμών, meanings of, 417 sq 

χῆραι, 304 SG, 322, 344 

χθόνιος and ἐπιχθόνιος, 512 

χορός, 41, 201 

χρᾶσθαι, 112 

χρῆσις, φύσις, κτῆσις, 153 

χριστιανίζειν, -νισμός, 134, 264 

χριστιανός, 134 

χρίστο-, compounds of, 56 

χριστομαθία, 270 

χριστόνομος, 103 


606 


χριστοφόρος, -φορεῖν, 21, 56 
χρύα, 41 

χρυσοφορεῖν, 56 

χρῶμα, ‘scale’, 41; ‘colour’, 193 
χώρα, χῶρος, χώριον, ΤΟΙ 

χωρεῖν, 163, 304 


Dacian Wars of Trajan, 80 sq, 392 sq, 
404 Sq, 480 sq 

Dacians, called Getz, 410 

Dacicus, as a title of Trajan, 393, 404 sq 

Daillé, criticism on, 23 

Damas, bishop of Magnesia, 102, I10, 113, 
ae 

Daphne; grove of, 277; speaking foun- 
tain at, 224 

Daphne, legend of, 507 

Daphnitic gate at Antioch, 386, 431 sq, 
441; called the Golden Gate, 441; 
translation of Ignatius’ bones to ceme- 
tery there, 431 sq 

Daphnus, 326, 571 

Dative of person interested, 151 

De la Berge, criticised, 443 

De Rossi, criticisms on, 408 sq 

Deaconesses, order of, distinct from 
order of widows, 322 sq 

Deacons; 156 sq, 309; how addressed 
in the Ignatian Epistles, 33, 111, 316; 
their relation to bishops, 157; compared 
to Christ, 120, 157; coupled with 
bishops and presbyters, 111, 120, 138, 
156, 170, 250, 258, 267, 278, 300, 321, 
351; their duties, 156; see Bzshops, 
Episcopate, Ministry 

Deceiver (the) himself deceived, 76 sq 

Delegates from Asiatic Churches to Syria, 


277, 318 sq, 356 54. 
Demetrianus (Demetrius), bishop of An- 


tioch, 454, 456 sq 

Dependent clauses, arrangement of, 68 

Deponent verbs, passive use of, 309 

Descent into Hades, the early doctrine of 
the, 130 

Didache, 257, 305, 313 

Dierauer, 406, 407, 413, 414 Sq; 443 

Diodorus, on the removal of Magnesia, 99 

Dion Cassius; on the adoption of Trajan, 
399; on his tribunician years, 400 sq ; 
on his Dacian wars, 406 sq; on his 
Parthian expedition, 407 sq, 414 Sq; on 
his titles, 410, 411, 416sq; Xiphilinus’ 
abbreviation of, 408 

Dionysius of Corinth, on the Roman 
Church, 192 

Dionysus, death of, 507 

Discipleship, by martyrdom, 31, 130, 204 

Divine generation of the Son, go sq, 123, 
127 sq; see Christology, Logos 

Docetic distinction between λόγος and 


φωνή, 199 


INDEX. 


Docetism ; opposed by Ignatius, 16 sq, 25, 
74, 86, 130, 135, 147 etc.; but not in all 
his epistles, 173, 185, 329; how met, 
16; 25; 48, 75, 173, 2580.» 221; 15. | Ue 
daic character, 16, 103, 124, 130, 147, 
173, 242 sq, 285; compared with the 
heresy of the Colossian Church, 124; 
play on the name, 175 

Docetists; called ἄθεοι and ἄπιστοι, 175, 
2933 νεκροφόροι, 302; excluded from 
Ignatius’ salutation, 250; admit a spi- 
ritual resurrection, 322 

Dollinger, 489 

Domitian, persecution of, 196, 451, 479 

Domninus, the correspondent of Serapion, 


459 

Domnus, bishop of Antioch, 454 sq 

Donaldson, criticism on, 347 

Donatives to soldiers, 353 

Door, Christ the, 275 

Dress, fondness of Ephesians for, 57 

Dressel’s edition of Ignatian Epistles, 7, 
271, 292, 364; of the Roman Acts of 
Martyrdom, 474 

Drosine, martyrdom of, 404, 446 


δ in hieroglyphics, 496 

δαιμονικός for δαιμονιακός, 294 

δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον, 294 

δαίμων, Christian use of word, 296 

Aapds, 110 

Δαυείδ, ἐκ σπέρματος, 75 

Δάφνος, 326 

δεδεμένος, 305 

δειλαίνειν, 214 

δεπόσιτα, 353 

δέρειν, 342 

δεσέρτωρ, 352 

δέσμιος, the dignity of a, 37, 108, 164, 195 

δεσμός, ‘spell’, 83 

δέχεσθαι εἰς ὄνομα, 231 

διά, of representative, 35, 110, 387, 485: 
of amanuensis etc., 233 

διὰ τοῦτο ἵνα, 72 

διαβόητος, 51 

διάκονος, 316; see Deacons 

διαρπάζειν, 221 

διατάγματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, 169 

διδάσκειν, athletic term, 203 

δικαιοῦν, of martyrdom, 273 

δικαίως, 70 

δι’ ὀλίγων, 228 

διυλίζειν, -λισμός, 193 

δόγματα, 137 

δοξάζειν, abs., 154 

δοχή, 312 

δροσίζειν, 151 

δυσθεράπευτος, 47 

δυσσυνειδήτως, 116 

δυσωδία, 73 

δῶρα, of Eucharistic elements, 307 


INDEX. 


Earthquakes; at Tralles, 145; at Lao- 
dicea, 146; at Philadelphia, 239; at 
Antioch, date of, 397, 409, 413 54; 
Malalas on this last, 409, 413 54, 439, 
442 sq 

Eckhel, 399, 401, 407, 410, 414 

Egnatius, an African martyr, 430; day 
of his commemoration, 430 

Egyptian; months, 381, 423 sq; reckoning 
of time, 412, 498; transliteration of A, 
496; deities ridiculed by Christians, 510 

Elliptical; sentences, 59; use of infini- 
tives, 61 

Ephesians, Ignatian Epistletothe; whence 
written, 5, 15; motive for writing, 16; 
character of, 18; analysis of, 18 sq; 
text and notes, 21 sq; relation to S. 
Paul’s Epistle, 23; promise of a second, 
18, 85; translation of, 544 sq 

Ephesus; places of the name, 27; posi- 
tion of, 15; deputation to Ignatius from, 
2, 15; character of Church of, 16, 32; 
image-processions at, 17, 54 sq; festi- 
vals held at, 54 sq; connexion of apo- 
stles with, 62, 65; special importance 
of, 180; its connexion with Magnesia, 
101; a part called Smyrna, 288 

Epidamnus, 488, 577 

Epiphi, 381, 423 sq 

Epirus, 487, 577 

Episcopate; Pearson on the extent of, 40; 
Saumaise and others on origin of, 113 
sq; its establishment in Asia Minor, 
169; in Syria, 201; at Rome, 186; its 
position in the Ignatian Epistles, 119; 
in the Apostolical Constitutions, 119; 
interpolations in the Ignatian Epistles 
bearing on the, 274; instances of great 
length in the, 468 sq: of S. Peter, 467; 
see Bishops, Ministry 

Epithronian Orations of Severus of An- 
tioch, 421 

Epitropus, 358, 574 

Erbes, on the sources of Eusebius’ infor- 
mation, 452 

Eternity of the Son asserted by Ignatius, 
120, 128, 343 

Ethiopic Calendars, 423, 425 sq 

Eucharist; directly referred to in the Ig- 
natian Epistles, 45, 87, 257, 306, 309; 
indirectly, 66, 171, 226; the bond of 
unity, 66, 116, 257; violated by here- 
tics, 257 sq, 306, 309; a pledge of the 
reality of Christ’s death, 307 ; its rela- 
tion to the Agape, 87, 313 sq; patristic 
use of the word, 257; its validity, 116, 
309 sq; called μυστήριον, 64, 80, 156; 
see εὐχαριστία 

Eucharistic elements called δῶρα, 307 

Eucharistic metaphors in the Ignatian 
Epistles, 260 


607 


Euhemerus, 502 sq 

Euhodius, bishop of Antioch; his date, 
464 sq, 471 54, 498, 579 

Euplus, delegate of Ephesian Church, 15, 
95; 321, 544 

Eusebius’ Chronicon; on the year of 
the martyrdom of Ignatius, 409, 448 
sq, 4523; its relation to the Roman 
and Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom, 
450 Sq, 497, 535; Zohrab’s Armenian 
Version of, 449, 451, 455 sq; Har- 
nack on the list of Antiochene bishops 
in, 452 sq, 468 sq; Hort on, 463 sq; 
sources of the lists of bishops in, 452 
sq, 460, 461 sq, 466 ; relation to Chrono- 
graphy of Julius Africanus, 452 sq, 4603 
relation to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical His- 
tory, 453 sq, 467 sq; probably two 
aie of this as of other works of his, 
467 ; passage explained in, 475; Syriac 
epitome of, 447; Jerome’s recension of, 
449 sq, 463 sq; additions in that re- 
cension, 477; chronology of bishops in 
this recension and in the Armenian 
Version, 463 sq; on the martyrdom of 
Symeon, son of Clopas, 449, 451 sq 

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History; its re- 
lation to the Roman Acts of Martyr- 
dom, 382; imitated therein, 450, 500, 
516, 529, 535, 538; its relation to the 
Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom, 384, 
386; to the Chronicon, 453 sq, 467 sq; 
its date, 467; on the martyrdom of Poly- 
carp, 945 54; passages emended in, 73, 
319, 496 

Eutecnus, 326, 571 

Eutychianus, bishop of Rome, 454 sq 

Evagrius ; his coincidence with the Antio- 
chene Acts, 386 sq; on the place of 
martyrdom of Ignatius, 438; on the 
translation of the reliques of Ignatius, 
386 sq, 433) 434) 4923 date of, 388 sq; 
passage explained in, 387; sources of 
information, 389, 438 


ἑαυτοῦ Ξ- ἐμαυτοῦ, 159, 299 
ἐγγύς with dat., 7ο 
ἐγκεῖσθαι (constr.), 180 
ἑδράζεσθαι ἐν, 240, 280, 332 
ἑδρᾶσθαι (form), 325 

εἰ μή, ‘but only’, 57 
εἰδέναι, ‘value’, 315 

εἶναι εἰς, 24, 195 

εἰς τιμήν τινος, 34, 88, 139 
EKOLKELY, 333 

ἔκδοτον διδόναι, 299 
ἐκεῖθεν, 52 

ἐκκλησία, ἡ καθολική, 310 
ἐκλεκτός, I51 

EKTEVELA, 139 

ἔκτρωμα, 229 Sq 


608 


ἐκχεῖσθαι, of love, 259 

ἐλεεῖσθαι ἐν, 189, 249, 260, 287 

ἐλπίς, ἡ κοινή, =Christ, 30, 89, 263, 282 

ἐμβροχή, 337 

ἔμπλαστρον, 337 

ἔμπροσθεν, 358 

ἐνάρετος, 253 

ἐνδυναμοῦν, 300 

ἐνερείδειν, 49 

ἔνθεος, 172 

éyvaros and πέμπτος confused, 7, 496 

ἐνοξίζειν, 133 

ἑνότης, 42, 109, 269 

ἑνοῦσθαι, 25, 121, 193, 298 

ἐντολή, active, 181 

ἐνυπατεύειν, 407 

ἕνωσις, 108 sq; of marriage bond, 350 

ἐξ ὀνόματος, 86, 345 

ἐξαίρετος, ἐξαιρέτως, 179, 275, 308, 485 

ἐξασθενεῖν, 265 

ἐξεμπλάριον, 34, 159, 321 

ἔπαρχος, 531 

ἐπήρεια, TOO 

ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ, 436, 444 Sq 

ἐπιγράφειν, 198 

ἐπιείκεια, 59, 252 

ἐπιθυμία, 49 

ἐπίρρητος, ‘infamous’, 515 

ἐπισκοπή, 359 

ἐπίσκοπος; see L-piscopate, Bishops 

ἐπίτευκτος, compounds of, 191 sq 

᾿Επίτροπος, or ἐπίτροπος, 358 

ἐπιτυγχάνειν Θεοῦ, 65, 110, 139, 179, 181, 
τού, 197, 207, 230, 318, 339) 355 

ἐπουράνιος, 67 

ἔργον = εὐαγγέλιον, 68 

ἐρίθεια, 270 

ἑρμηνεύειν, 263 

ἔρρωσθε, 89 

ἔρως and ἀγάπη, 222 

ἔρως ἐσταύρωται, ὁ ἐμός, 222 Sq 

ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, 341 

ἑτεροδοξία, -ξεῖν, 124, 304 

ἐῦ πράσσειν, 42 

εὐαγγέλιον, = Book of the Gospels, 260 sq, 
271;=doctrine of the Gospels, 308; 
see Gospel, Gospels 

εὔλογος, 314 

Εἰὔπλους, 35 

εὐσταθεῖν, εὐστάθεια, 344 

εὐσυνείδητος, and deriv., 116, 265 

Εὔτεκνος, 326 

εὐχαριστία, ‘thanksgiving’, 66; ‘the 
eucharist’, 257, 306, 309; history of 
the word, 257 sq; see also Hucharist 

Ἔφεσος (name), 27, 28 

ἔφοδος, 55 


ἔχειν κατά, πρός, 172 


ἡγεῖσθαι (passive), 309 
"Ἤπειρος, 487 


INDEX. 


Fabius (Fabianus), bishop of Antioch, 
455 54., 467 

Fellow prisoners of Ignatius, 211, 429 

Flesh and blood of Christ; the test of 
His reality, 297; allegorically interpret- 
ed, 171, 227, 260 

Fronto, 15, 35, 321, 544 

Funds of early Church, 346 

Funk; his text of the Bollandist Acts, 
367; of the Acts of the Metaphrast, 
376 

Future conjunctive, 155 


Gavia, 325, 359, 571 

Genitive of apposition, 84 

Germanicus, as a title of Trajan, 392 

Gibbon’s panegyric on Philadelphia, 246 

Gladiatorial shows; order of Constantine 
respecting, 439; when abolished, 439 

Gnostic phraseology anticipated in Igna- 
tlus, 23, 24, 28, 80, 126 sq, 153, 193; 
224 Sq, 228, 280 

‘Gospel’ and ‘Gospels’, 260 sq, 271, 308; 
see εὐαγγέλιον 

Gospel according to the Hebrews; alleged 
quotation from, 290, 295; account 
in Jerome, 295; in Eusebius, 295; in 
Origen, 295; various recensions of, 
τ} 28 

Gospel according to S. Mark, coincidence 
in language with the alternative ending 
of, 296 

Gospel narrative, additions in the Igna- 
tian Epistles to, 80 sq, 294 sq 

Gospel of the Egyptians quoted, 166 

Gospels; names and designations of the, 
68, 260 sq, 308; when first distinguish- 
ed from ‘Apostles’, 261; autographs 
of the, 271 

Gregory Nazianzen (S.), day of com- 
memoration of, 421 

Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, 388 sq 

Guard of Ignatius, 210 sq 

Guidi, his assistance in this work, 365 


γαμεῖν and γαμεῖσθαι, 350 

Taovia, 325 

γεγεννημένος, 300 

γέγραπται, formula of quotation, 272 
γενητός and ἀγένητος, 48, 00 sq 
γεννητός and ἀγέννητος, 48, 00 sq 
γνώμη Θεοῦ, 39, 228, 358 

γνώμη Tod ILarpés (ἢ) =Christ, 40 
γράφειν διά, of amanuensis, 233 


Hadrian puts down human sacrifices, 524 

Harith-bar-Sisin, 76 

Harnack on list of Antiochene bishops, 
452 sq, 468 

Hebrews xiii. 10 explained, 123 


INDEX. 


Hebrews, Gospel according to the; see 
Gospel according to the Hebrews 

Hefele; his edition of the Ignatian E- 
pistles, 6, 73; criticised, 77, 86, 265, 
271, 202, 307 

Hegesias, the orator, 100 

Henzen, 402, 404 

Hepheestos, legend of, 506 

Heracleon the Valentinian; on the will of 
the Evil One, 85; on John i. 1, 14, 199 

Heraclides and Heraclitus, 511 

Heresy; called μοιχεία, 71; the form at- 
tacked by Ignatius, see Docetism 

Heretics; and the Eucharist, 257, 306, 
309; claimed the monopoly of truth, 
301; used magical arts, 346 

Hermas; on preaching to the spirits in 
Hades, 132; not alluded to in the Igna- 
tian Epistles, 203 

Hero, bishop of Antioch; successor of 
Ignatius, 370, 449; date of accession, 
454, 455, 461, 464, 465 sq 

Hero, Prayer of; date of, 383; Ussher on, 
383; Coptic Version of, 383; probably 
written in Greek, 383; position in 
Coptic Acts of Martyrdom, 366; per- 
haps by the author of the Roman Acts, 
383 

Herod the tetrarch, 291 

Herodes Atticus, 452 

Herodes the Irenarch, 325 

heteerize, suppressed by Trajan, 451 

Hilgenfeld criticised, 57, 161, 231, 271: 


39° 

Hippolytus (S.) of Portus, 489;  pas- 
sage emended in, 290; on the ship of 
the Church, 340; on John the Baptist 
preaching in Hades, 132 

Hort; on confusions between numerals in 
documents, 496; on the succession of 
Antiochene bishops, 463 sq 

Human sacrifices; among the Romans, 
522; among the Greeks, 524 

Humanity of Christ, enforced in Ignatian 
Epistles, 16, 25, 48, 75, 173, 289, 300, 
321 

Hyacinthus, legend of, 507 

Hyperbole, common to Ignatius and S. 
Paul, 65, 134 


Ignatian Epistles, Seven genuine; fall 
into two groups, 1 sq ; place of writing, 
1 sq; order of Epistles in Mss, 2 sq; 
documents of, 3 sq ; comparative value 
of the documents, 5; two periods in the 
history of the text, 6 sq; apparatus 
criticus, symbols, abbreviations, 7 sq ; 
text and notes, 15 sq; translation, 543 
sq; additions to gospel narrative in, 80 
sq, 294 Sq; scriptural passages found 
in, see /wdex 11 in Vol. III 


IGN. II. 


609 


Ignatian Epistles, Thirteen forged and 
interpolated (Long Recension) ; date of, 
43 critical value of, 4, 6; their place in 
this edition, 9 ; scriptural passages found 
in, see “παῖδα 71 in Vol. ΠῚ 

Ignatian Epistles, Three Syriac (Cure- 
tonian Abridgment); history of, 7; 
advocates of, 7; comparative value of 
Mss of, 78 

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch; possibly 
a slave, 210; early life of, 230, 294; 
the legend of the Θεοῴφόρος, 22, 230, 
294, 376, 431; coincidence of his life 
with that of S. Paul, 64; his alleged 
early connexion with 5. John, 477 sq; 
with S. Peter, 478; with Polycarp, 333, 
384, 485; date of his accession, 465, 
471 sq; his route to Rome, 2, 211, 231 
Sq, 241 Sq, 251, 267, 357, 484; as given 
in the Acts of Martyrdom, 368 sq, 384, 
576 sq, 579; as given by Eusebius, 
384, 386; by Chrysostom, 386; com- 
pared with the route of S. Paul, 64, 
368, 390, 487s ; fellow prisoners of, 211, 
429; guard with, 211; his meeting with 
Polycarp, 140, 329; his friendship with 
him, 88; his alleged interview with 
Trajan, 368 sq, 425 sq, 435 sq; year of 
his martyrdom discussed, 435 sq; con- 
clusion arrived at, 472; day of com- 
memoration of his martyrdom, 418 sq; 
only recognized late by the Latin 
Church, 430; special lesson for the 
day, 430; place of his martyrdom, 436 
sq, see Martyrdom of Ignatius ; his- 
tory of his reliques, see Religues of 
Lgnatius ; his humility, 31, 36, 63, 89, 
135, 161, 209; his attack on Docetism, 
see Docetism ; prominence given by 
him to the Passion, see Cross of 
Christ ; his views on Church order, 
see Bishops, Episcopate, Ministry ; on 
the Eucharist, see Hucharist ; on the 
doctrine of the Logos, 126 sq, 199 sq, 
see Logos; his Christology generally, 
48, 86, go sq, 123, 126 Sq, 290, 343 ; his 
use of metaphors, see Metaphors ; his 
view of the relation of the Old and New 
Testament, see Patriarchs and Prophets, 
Old Testament; his relation to Gnosti- 
cism, see Gnostic, Valentinian phrase- 
ology 

Ignatius, Acts of Martyrdom of; see Acts 
of Martyrdom of Ignatius 

Ignatius (Egnatius), an African martyr, 
430; day of his commemoration, 430 

Imperative, transition to the, 339 

Incarnation, the doctrine as it appears in 
the Ignatian Epistles, 78, 90 sq, 127; 
called οἰκονομία, 75 

Inscriptions illustrating Trajan’s reign, 


τς, 


610 


391 sq ; errors in, 393, 398, 401 Sq, 403 
sq, 400, 411, 412 

Interpolated epistles; see Zexatian LF pistles, 
Thirteen forged 

Irenzeus (S.); on an apocryphal passage 
in Jeremiah, 131; on the descent into 
Hades, 131 sq; on the death of S. 
John, 439; mentioned in the Roman 
Acts of Martyrdom, 587 ; use of the 
word εὐχαριστία by, 258 

Isaiah v. 26 explained, 292; lili. 5 ex- 
plained, 172 ; lviii. 6, frequently quoted, 
269 sq 


ἰατρός, 47 

ἱεραφόρος and ἱεροφόρος, 56 
iva, construction of, 161 
ἰουδαϊσμός, 125, 264 

-.rns, termination, 38 


Jacob of Edessa, extant Ms written by, 
420 

Jacobson, 6, 7, 165, 324, 435, 492 

Jerome (S.); on Hoseax. 1, 265 ; on Is. v. 
26, 292; on the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, 295; his inaccuracy, 294, 295 
Sq, 377, 378, 386; never saw the Igna- 
tian Epistles, 378; on the route of 
Ignatius, 386; on the reliques of Igna- 
tius, 386; his recension of Eusebius’ 
Chronicon, 449 sq, 463 sq, 4773 its 
relation to the Armenian version, 455 
sq; his Martyrology, 428 

Jews at Philadelphia, 240; proselytizing 
tendencies of, 2643; uprising in Cyrene 
by, 3973 see also Judazsm 

Joannes Laurentius, 237, 239 sq 

Joannes Rhetor, 388 sq, 438 sq 

John (S.); Malalas on the death of, 439; 
Syriac Chronicle on the death of, 448; 
Syriac Decease of, 34; alleged tutor 
of Ignatius, 450, 477 sq; establishes 
episcopacy in Asia Minor, 169 

John Damascene, explanation of a pas- 
sage in, 201 

John Madabbar; see AZadabbar 

John Malalas; see A/alalas 

John the Baptist ; his relation to Christ 
as φωνή to λόγος, 1993 according to 
5S. Hippolytus preached to souls in 
Hades, 132 

John the Monk, on a passage in the Ig- 
natian Epistles, 199 

Judaic Docetism; see Docetism 

Judaism and Christianity, 128 sq, 133 
sq, 240 54, 262 sq 

Julian, the emperor; a believer in magic, 
83; on the history of Trajan’s reign, 
406, 409, 410 

Julius Africanus; see Africanus 


INDEX. 


Jupiter Latiaris, human sacrifices to, 522 
sq 

Justin Martyr, on an apocryphal passage 
in Jeremiah, 131 


Klein, 391 


Labarum, 293 

Laodicea, earthquakes at, 146 

Laomedon, legend of, 508 

Larasius, title of the Trallian Zeus, 146 

Latin Calendars, 429 

Latin version; of the genuine Ignatian 
Epistles, 3, 8; of the Long Recension, 


4 

Latin words; adopted by Ignatius, 34, 
352 sq; by other Greek writers, 353 

Laus Heronis; see Hero, Prayer of 

Lazarus of Beth-Kandasa, 76 

Leclerc, 481, 485 

Lessing, criticism on, 261 

Lethzeus, the river, 98 

Leucophryene ; see Artemis 

Leucophrys; geographical relation to 
Magnesia, 98 sq; site of the city 
changed, 99 sq; origin of the name, 


9056 

Linus, bishop of Rome, 464 sq 

Lipsius; criticisms on, 77, 79, 80, 81, 113, 
200, 232, 463 sq; on the sources of Eu- 
sebius’ information, 452, 468 

‘Little Athens’, title of Philadelphia, 240 

Logos; the title in the Ignatian Epistles, 
126 sq; relation to φωνή in early 
fathers, 199 ; doctrine of Ignatius, 126 
sq, 199 sq; in the Roman Acts of 
Martyrdom, 5203; participated in by 
the saints, 200; see also Christology 

Long Recension; see /gnatian Epistles, 
Thirteen forged and interpolated 

Lord’s Day ; symbolism of the, 129; early 
fathers on the, 129; names for the, 
129 5 

Lucian ; illustrates the history of Ignatius 
generally, 196, 206, 213, 306, 313, 322, 
356; his evidence as to the place of 
martyrdom of Ignatius, 438 

Lusius, military operations of, 395, 397, 


414 Sq 


λαθροδήκτης (forms), 47 
λαίθαργος, 47 

λαλεῖν, 116; with acc., 46 
λάχανα and βοτάνη, 60 
λείπειν (constr.), 165 
λελυμένος, 306 
λεόπαρδος, 212 Sq 
Anvos, 492 

ληρώδημα, 515 

λόγον τινός, εἰς, 282 
λόγος, ‘reckoning,’ 115 


INDEX. 


λόγος, φωνή, ψόφος, τοῦ 

λόγος and φωνή, theological distinction 
between, 199 

λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς mpoehOwy,126 sq ; see Logos 

λόγος Θεοῦ, 288 

λοιμός (adj.), 336 

λοιπόν, 61, 314 

λυτροῦν, theological use of, 281 


Macarius Magnes, 38, 103, 123, 513 

Macedonian months, 423 

Madabbar, John; his date, 446; his 
Chronicon, 446; Ethiopic Version of, 
446; extracts from, 446 sq; coinci- 
dences with Malalas in, 446 sq 

Meeandropolis, 107 

Magi, significance of the visit of the, 84 

Magic; its position in heathen systems, 
83; overthrown by Christ, 83; prac- 
tised by heretics, 346 

Magnesia by the Menander; situation of, 
97 sq; designations of, 97 sq, 106 sq ; 
site changed, 98 sq ; relation to Leuco- 
phrys, 98 sq; to Ephesus, ror; to 
Tralles, 143 ; history of, 100 sq ; date 
of conversion of, 102; history of Church 
of, 102 sq 

Magnesia under Sipylus, 98, 105, 106 

Magnesians, Ignatian Epistle to the; 
place of writing, 1, 2; subject of, 
103 ; analysis of, 103 sq; title of, 105 
sq; Greek text with notes, 105 sq; 
translation of, 550 sq 

Malalas, John; on the Parthian expedi- 
tion of Trajan, 409, 441 sq; on the date 
of the earthquake at Antioch, 409, 413 
sq, 436, 442; Von Gutschmid’s defence 
of, 442; Wieseler’s, 443; on the mar- 
tyrdom of Ignatius, 436 sq; on the 
date of Manes, 439; on the abolition 
of gladiatorial shows, 439; on the death 
of S. John, 439; on the letter of Ti- 
berianus, 439; on persecutions under 
Trajan, 440 54; 446; on Anianus, 472; 
date of, 4373; his credibility examined, 
409, 437 Sq, 472; sources of certain 
errors Οὗ, 439, 444 Sq 

Manes, date of, 439 

manipulus, 213 

Marcellus of Ancyra; his doctrine of the 
Logos, 126 sq; its coincidence with 
language of Ignatius, 80, 126 sq, 298 

Marcellus, M. Asinius, consulship of, 17, 
493 

Marcion; on the descent into Hades, 
132 ; his explanation of Luke xxiv. 37, 
297; Tertullian’s answer to, 307 

Markland, 266, 271 

Marquardt, 440 

Marriage, relation of Christianity to, 348, 
350 


ΘΙΙ 


Martyrdom, the dignity of; Ignatius’ 
estimate of, 186, 197; the topic of his 
Epistle to the Romans, 186; it wins 
God, 30, 109, 165; gains life, 197, 218; 
completes discipleship, 31, 130, 204, 
215; forms the Christian’s heritage, 180, 
196, 260 

Martyrdom of Ignatius; date depends 
on chronology of Trajan’s reign, 391 
sq; days of commemoration of, 418 
54, 540; superseded by day of comme- 
moration of translation, 433 sq; year 
of martyrdom discussed, 435 sq ; theory 
of Ussher, 435; of Pearson, 435 sq; 
of Volkmar, 436 sq; date given in 
Roman and Antiochene Acts, 448, 492, 
496; testimony of Eusebius’ Chroni- 
con discussed, 448 sq; conclusion, 472; 
place of martyrdom discussed, 437 sq 

Martyrdom of Ignatius, Acts of, 363 
sq; see under Acts of Martyrdom of 
Ignatius, Antiochene, Armenian, Bol- 
landist, Roman, Syriac Acts, Acts of 
the Metaphrast 

Martyrdoms under Trajan, see Persecu- 
tions 

Martyrologies; of Ado, 368, 382, 428; 
of ps-Bede, 382, 428; of Jerome, 428; 
Syriac, 234, 280, 419; Armenian, 234; 
Roman, 433; Egyptian, 365 

Martyrs ; Christian devotion to, 213; 
wild beasts afraid of, 214; provoked by, 
215; compared to athletes, 38 sq, 335, 
494 

Matthew xxvii. 52, patristic interpreta- 
tions of, 133 

Maximinus, bishop of Antioch, 454, 459, 
460 

Melito, on Gen. xxii. 13 

Menza; for Jan. 29, 422; for Feb. 15, 
535; for Feb. 23, 485; for Nov: iz, 
535; for Dec. 20, 187, 202, 207, 208, 
383, 387, 422, 489 

Menander, 498 

Menology of Basil Porphyrogenitus, 383 

Metaphorical intermingled with actual, 
81 Sq, 202, 209 

Metaphors in Ignatian Epistles; from 
agriculture, etc., 52; 60, 166, 177, 2553 
from anvil, 342; from athletics, 38, 180, 
201, 203, 210; 255, 333 56; 340 Sq, 350; 
from childbirth, 218, 229; from en- 
gineering, 53 sq; from housebreaking, 
71; from medicine, 166, 337; from 
music, 41, 108, 201, 252; from reli- 
gious processions, 17, 54 54; 201; from 
straining wine, 193, 256; military, 292, 
352 56 ; nautical, 320, 339 sq 

Metaphrast, Acts of the ; see Acts of the 
Metaphrast 

Metaphrast, Symeon the, 376 


612 


Ministry, three orders of the; mentioned 
by Ignatius, 111, 120, 138, 156, 170, 
250; 250, 2075 %278, 200, 221) 3251» 
essential to a Church, 159; interpolated 
allusions to, 2743; see Bishops, Deacons, 
Lipiscopate 

Moesinger; first publishes the Curetonian 
Abridgment entire, 363; Latin Acts 
of Martyrdom of Ignatius published 
by, 367 

Mommsen; his chronological labours, 
391, 480, 497 54; 536 ; his theories on 
the tribunician years, 399, 400 sq; cri- 
ticisms on, 391, 401 sq, 403 Sq, 405, 406 

Monophysite quotations from Ignatian 
Epistles, 221 

Months; Alexandrian reckoning, 381; 
Armenian, 375, 4243; Egyptian, 381, 
424 sq; Ethiopic, 423; Macedonian, 
381, 423 sq 

Morel’s edition of Long Recension, 720 

munera, 487, 491 


Μάγνης, Μαγνῆτις, Μάγνησσα, Μάγνησις 
(forms), 105 

Μαγνησία (name), τού 

μαθητεύειν (constr.), 58, 203 

μαθητής, 31 

μαργαρῖται πνευματικοί, 62 

μαρμαρυγή, 517 

μαρτυρεῖν, -ρεῖσθαι, 64, 444 

μαρτυρία, 444 

μαρτύριον, εἰς, with dat., 179 

μάρτυς, 162 

μεγαλειότης, 189 

μέγεθος, ‘moral stature’, 23, 205; Valenti- 
nian term, 24 

μέλος, 178 

μερισμός, 254 

μετανοεῖν εἰς, 269, 303 

μηχανή, 53 

μιμητὴς Θεοῦ, 203, 268, 298 

μνημονεύειν, 65, 88 

μολυβίς, 506 

μόνον, ellipse after, 61, 216, 300 

μόρφων, 756 

μυήσις, 518 

μύθευμα, 124 

μύρον, 72 

μυστήρια κραυγῆς, 77, 79 Sq 

μυστήριον, 64, 80, 130, 156 


Namphanio, 280 

Natalitia, martyrdom the true, 218 

Nature sympathizing with Christ, 84 

Natures, Ignatius on Christ’s two, 48, 86, 
go sq, 290; see Christology 

Neapolis, the port of Philippi, 357, 487, 
5745 577 

Neoplatonists, rationalising tendency of 
the, 526 


INDEX. 


Nerva, accession of, 392, 493; adopts 
Trajan, 392, 398 sq; death of, 392, 477 

New Testament; its relation to the Old 
Testament in the Ignatian Epistles, 128, 
131, 260Sq, 275, 301; its canon in time 
of Ignatius, 260 sq; see Canonical 
Scriptures 

Nicephorus Callistus; his relation to 
Evagrius, 387; passage emended in, 
387 

Nicetes, 325 

Nirschl, criticised, 408 sq 

Nolte, 492 

Nouns used absolutely in the Ignatian 
Epistles, 321 


vaopopos, 21, 55 

ναός (metaph.), 70 

ναός and θυσιαστήριον, 43, 123 
Νεάπολις, 357 

vexpopopos, 302 

VEWTEPLKY τάξις, 112 

νήφειν, 340 

νόμισμα, 117 


Old Testament; its relation to the New 
in the Ignatian Epistles, 128, 131, 260 
54) 275, 301; called τὰ ἀρχεῖα, 271 sq 

Omission of substantive verb, 50, 210 

Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus, 32; meets 
Ignatius at Smyrna, 15; quiet cha- 
racter of, 46, 69; play on the name, 35, 
543, 544 

Onesimus, convert of S. Paul, 32; mar- 
tyred, 531, 587; his day, 535 

Onesimus, friend of Melito, 32 

Optative of hypothesis, 513 

Optimus, as a title of Trajan, 395, 410 
sq, 416 

Orac. Sibyll. viii. 65 explained, 496 

Origen; on λόγος and φωνή, 199; on 
Ign. Rom. 7, 223; on S. John vi. 53, 
260; on the date and place of martyr- 
dom of Ignatius, 438, 472; on the death 
of Zeus, 504 

Ostia, 489 

Oxymoron, 252 


οἰκονομία and θεολογία, 75, 85 
οἰκοφθόρος, 71 

οἰνόμελι, 168 

ὁμιλίαν ποιεῖσθαι, 347 
ὁμοήθεια Θεοῦ, 120, 335; 534 
ὁμοιότης with dat., 33 
ὁμοίως καί, 77 

ὁμόνοια Θεοῦ, 119, 140, 240 
ὁμοὸύσιος, QI Sq 

ὀναίμην, 35, 36 

᾿Ονήσιμος, 32 

ὄνομα, 28; (τό), 37, 47, 278 
ὅπλον, ‘shield’, 353 


IN DEX. 


ὁρατὰ καὶ ἀόρατα, 165, 215, 303 

ὄργανον, 209 

ὅταν with ind., 50 

ὅτι, 86 

οὐδὲν φαινόμενον καλόν, 204 

οὐχ ὅτι, 115 

ὄφελον, 321 

ὀψώνιον, 352 

ὠμοβόρος, 484 

ὡς with inf., 195; verb omitted after, 88, 
281, 315 

ὠφελεῖν with acc., 217 


Palestine divided into provinces, 440 

Palmas reduces Arabia Petrzea, 394, 406 
Sq, 410, 480 

Panemus, the month, 370, 381, 423 sq, 
428, 540, 588 

Papias, on the symbolism of the cross, 
201 

Boe 205 

Paronomasia in the Ignatian Epistles, 28, 
35 43, 105, 175, 301, 314, 332, 355 

Parthemaspates, king of the Parthians, 
441 

Parthia, Trajan’s expedition to, 385, 395 
54; 407 56, 441 Sq, 477 
Parthicus, as a title of Trajan, 395, 396, 

 412)8q, 415, 410, 418 

Participle, accusative absolute of, 136 

Paschal Chronicle; see Chronicon Pas- 
chale 

Passion of Christ ; prominence in the Ig- 
natian Epistles given to the, 74, 78, 152, 
177, 272 sq, 289 sq; coordinated with 
the Resurrection, 86, 135, 249, 203; 
208, 222: prophets and patriarchs wit- 
nesses to the, 262, 275, 301; see also 
Cross of Christ 

Passive use of deponent verbs, 309 

Pastoral Epistles, their relation to the 
Epistle to Polycarp, 329, 351 

Patriarchs and Prophets; Ignatius on 
their relation to the Gospel, 128, 131, 
260 sq, 275, 301; they witness to the 
Passion of Christ, 262, 275, 301 

Paul (S.); his connexion with Ephesus, 
62 sq, 65; with Rome, 209; Ignatius’ 
attraction towards, 64; their routes 
contrasted, 64, 390 

Pearson; on the extent of the episcopate, 
40; on its origin, against Saumaise, 
113; on the word λεόπαρδος, 212; on 
a passage in Jerome, 378; on the 
Eastern campaign of Trajan, 407; on 
the year of Ignatius’ martyrdom, 435 
Sq; criticisms on, 40, 65, 273, 291, 
307, 338 

Pedo, M. Vergilianus; date of his con- 
sulship, 396; killed in the earthquake 
at Antioch, 396, 413, 418 


613 


Pelagia (S.), day of commemoration of, 
418 sq, 422 

Pentecostal loaves, 207 

Peregrinus Proteus, and Ignatius, 196, 
200, 213, 306, 313, 322, 356 

Perpetua, 494 

Persecutions of the Christians under 
Trajan, 449 sq; at Antioch, 277, 384; 
in Bithynia, 395, 449 sq, 532; alleged, 
368, 384, 440, 446 sq 
‘Persian Vespers’, 441 

Person of Christ; see Christology, Logos 

Petau criticised, 113 

Peter (S.); episcopate of, 464 sq; date 
of martyrdom of, 465; combined with 
S. Paul in connexion with Rome, 209; 
in the chronology of Eusebius, 466 

Petermann; his edition of the Armenian 
Version, 7, 9; Armenian Acts in, criti- 
cised, 367, 371 sq, 473; translated from 
the Greek, 372 sq; Bollandist Acts in, 
criticised, 367 

Philadelphia; name of, 237, 248 sq; 
other cities of the name, 237, 2493 
probable founder of, 2373 situation of, 
237; history of, 238 sq; civil status of, 
239; festivals at, 240; Jews in, 240; 
its connexion with Smyrna, 240 sq; 
evangelisation of, 241; history of the 
Church of, 243 sq; martyrs from, 243; 
taken by Bajazet, 244; by Timour, 
245; wall of, 245; modern name of, 
245; present condition of, 245 sq; 
Gibbon on, 246; Ignatius at, 241, 251, 
267; his treatment there, 241, 265 sq 

Philadelphians, Ignatian Epistle to the; 
place of writing, 242; subject matter, 
241 sq; analysis of, 246 sq; text and 
notes, 248 sq; translation, 563 sq 

Philadelphus, princes bearing the name, 


237 
Philemon, his day, 535 
Philetus, bishop of Antioch, 452, 454, 


457 Sq : : 

Philip the Asiarch, a Trallian, 144 

Philip the Evangelist, his traditional con- 
nexion with Tralles, 147 

Philippi, Ignatius at, 487, 577 

Philippus, the physician, a Trallian, 146 

Philo, deacon of Cilicia, 242, 279, 319, 
324, 506, 570, 571; his connexion with 
Rhaius Agathopus, 242, 265, 278, 315, 
389; their journey, 242, 278 sq, 315; 
authorship of the Antiochene Acts 
assigned to them, 389 

Philo Judzeus ; metaphor borrowed from, 
55; passage explained in, 70 

Phlegon of Tralles, 146 

Pliny the Younger; date of his Pane- 
gyric, 392, 411; governor of Bithynia, 
377. 395 407, 449, 536; date of his 


614 


governorship, 377, 395, 536; his cor- 
respondence with Trajan, 408, 451, 
536; its assumed connexion with the 
martyrdom of Ignatius, 370, 377, 4513 
its date, 53; its bearing on the agape, 
313, 314; how known to Eusebius, 
531; character of Trajan’s rescript to, 
385; mentioned in the Roman Acts of 
Martyrdom, 587 

Polybius, bishop of Tralles, 147, 153 

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; his alleged 
early intercourse with Ignatius, 333, 
368, 383, 384, 485; meets Ignatius at 
Smyrna, 88, 140, 329; his success in 
winning heretics, 347; commemoration 
of martyrdom of, 430; mentioned in 
the Ignatian Epistles, 88, 140, 359, 
550, 554, 574; fellow martyrs of, 


243 

Polycarp, Ignatian Epistle to; place of 
writing of, 267, 329, 357; character of, 
329, 351; analysis, 330; text and notes, 
331 sq; translation, 571 

Pontiolus episcopus, 488 

Pontius Pilate, 135 sq, 174, 290 

Porphyrogenitus, Menology of, 383 

Porphyry, 522, 526 

Portus; date of its foundation, 490; and 
of Claudius’ harbour, 489 

Portus Augusti, 489 

Portus Trajani, 489 

Poseidon, legends regarding, 508 

Prayer of Hero, see Hero, Prayer of 

Prayers; take the place of sacrifices, 44: 
request for, 85, 88, 139, 181, 229, 273 

Preaching of Paul, 290 

Preaching of Peter, 296 

Prepositions, pregnant use of, 30, 63, 68, 
73> 195, 202, 269, 303, 319 

Presbyters; comparisons adduced by 
Ignatius, 119 sq, 138, 155, 158, 269, 
309; their relation to bishops, see 
Bishops, Deacons, Episcopate, Ministry 

Priesthood of Christ, 273 sq 

Prisoners, Christian solicitude for, 305 sq, 
322 

Processions; in honour of the Ephesian 
Artemis, 17 sq, 54 sq; their import- 
ance, 54; words in -gopos relating to, 
54; testimony of Xenophon to, 54, 56; 
of inscriptions, 55; in honour of other 
deities, 55 

Prophets and patriarchs ; their relation to 
the Gospel, 125, 128, 131, 260 sq, 275, 
301; they witness to the Passion of 
Christ, 262, 275, 301 

Proselytism, Jewish practice of, 264 

protector, 498 sq 

Protevangelium, 80 sq, 84; Syriac trans- 
lation of, 81 

Psalm 11. 9 explained, 521 


IN DEX. 


ps-Bede, Martyrology of, 382, 428; in- 
debted to the Bollandist Acts, 382 

Ptolemy Philadelphus, probably founder 
of the Lydian Philadelphia, 237 

Puteoli, 488, 535, 577 

Pythagoras, 503 

Pythagoreans, cenotaphs of, 265 

Pythodorus of Tralles, 144 


πάθος (τό), 25, 78; see Passion of Christ 

παλαιός, -οῦν, of Judaic Law, 124, 133 

παλαιστρίτης, 38 

πάλιν τρέχων, 200 

πανοπλία, 353 

παρὰ τοῦτο, 214 

παρακαλεῖν with imper., 166 

παραλογίζεσθαι, 115 

παράμονος, 24, 250 

παραπλέκειν, 166 

παραυτά, 177 

παραφυάς, 177 

πάρεδροι Θεοῦ, 352 

παρεμπλέκειν, 166 

παρθένοι αἱ λεγόμεναι χῆραι, 323 

παροδεύειν, 52, 231 

πάροδος, 55, 63 

παροξυσμώός, 337 

παρουσία, of the two Advents, 275 

mas anarthrous, 65 

πατρός and πνεύματος, confused in MSs, 
539 324 

πατρώνυμος and deriv., 193 

πέρας, πέρατα, 40, 196, 217 

περιφέρειν, of bonds, 61 

περίψημα, 50, 74, 181 

Περσικὸν πῦρ, 511 

πιθανός, 255 

πίστις (pass.), 3173 (obj.), 72; combined 
with ἀγάπη, 29, 67, 108, 137, 171, 282, 
287, 289, 304, 325 

πιστός with inf., 182 

πλανᾶν, 266 

πλεῖστα χαίρειν, 27 

πλέον, (constr.) 195; and πλήν, 349 

πληροφορεῖν, -εἶσθαι, 126, 128, 135, 250, 
289 

πλήρωμα, 23 Sq, 152 

πνεῦμα, opposed to σάρξ, 48, 60, 108, 
137, 152, 178, 193, 289, 347 

πνεῦμα and αἷμα confused, 152 

πνευματικός and σαρκικός, 48, 60, 322, 
325, 334) 338 

TVEVLATOPOpPOS, 22 

πολεμεῖν with acc., 163 

πολυεύτακτος, 107 

πολυπλήθεια, 32 

ΠΠοτίολοι, 488 

πράγματα, ‘troubles’, 128 

πραὐπάθεια, 170 

πρέπειν, O61 

πρέπον ἐστί, 36 


INDEX. 


πρεσβεία Θεοῦ, 277 

πρεσβεύτης and πρεσβύτης, 319 

πρεσβυτέριον, 36, 112, 158 

προελθεῖν and ἐξελθεῖν of the mission of 
the Son, 123, 126 sq 

πϑοετοιμάζειν, 53 

προκαθέζεσθαι, 119, 190, 192 

πρόκειται, 272 

προλαμβάνειν with inf., 39 

πρόξενος with gen., 529 

πρόοδος, 55 

πρός with acc., 136 

προσδοκεῖν and προσδοκᾶν, 131 

προσευχή, 300 

προσλαλεῖν, of letter, 37, 107 

προσλαμβάνειν, 112 

προσπτύειν with gen., 533 

πρόσωπον, 118 

προτίκτωρ, 498 

προφῆται-ΞΟ. T. Scriptures, 261 

προφυλάσσειν, 170 

Πρωτομαιανδρούπολις, 107 

πυκνότερον, 66, 116, 345 

πῦρ φιλόῦλον, 224 


φιλόνικος and φιλόνεικος, 530 
φιλοτιμίαι, ‘games’, 486 

- φιλοῦλος, 224 

-popos in Ignatius, 21, 54, 288 
φρικτός, epithet of μυστήριον, 80 
φροντιστής, 344 

φυλακτήριον, 534 

φυσιοῦν, 136 

φύσις and its opposites, 153 
φωνή, λόγος, ψόφος, 198 


ψόφος, φωνή, λόγος, 198 


Quadratus and Candidus, consulship of, 
393, 448 : 

Quadratus, martyr of Magnesia, 103 

Quattuor Coronati, 456 

Quotation, formule of in Ignatian Epi- 
stles, 272 

Quotations from apocryphal sources in 
Ignatian Epistles, 294 sq 

Quotations from Canonical Scriptures in 
Ignatian Epistles and in Epistle of 
Polycarp; see /udex 11 in Vol. III 


Reliques of Ignatius, 208, 431 sq; Antio- 
chene Acts on, 369, 382, 385, 487; 
Roman Acts on, 370, 530; Armenian 
Acts on, 374; Acts of Metaphrast on, 
376; S. Chrysostom on, 386, 431 sq; 
S. Jerome on, 386; Evagrius on, 386 
sq, 492; Nicephorus on, 387; their 
translation from Rome to Antioch, 
387 sq, 431 sq; from the cemetery 
there to the Tychzeum, 387 sq, 432 sq; 


615 


date, 388, 432; their alleged translation 
to Rome, 432 sq 

Renan; on the extravagances of the 
Tiibingen School, 437; criticised, 22, 
205 

Renier, 402, 406 

Resurrection; by Ignatius coordinated 
with the Passion, 249; the work of 
Christ, 293; and of the Father, 174, 
307; Ignatius on the state of the body 
after, 62, 208, 355; Docetics admit a 
spiritual, 322 

Revillout’s edition of the Coptic version 
of the Roman Acts of Martyrdom, 
365 sq 

Rhabanus Maurus, on the commemoration 
of Ignatius, 429 

Rhaius Agathopus; the names, 279 sq; 
a deacon, 281, 316; his possible in- 
timacy with Valentinus, 280; his con- 
nexion with Philo, 242, 265, 278, 315, 
389, 566, 570; their journey, 242, 278 
sq, 315; the authorship of the Antio- 
chene Acts ascribed to them, 389 sq 

Rhegium, 380, 499, 500, 579 

Ritschl criticised, 79 

Roman Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius; 
MSS and versions of, 364 sq, 474; nar- 
rative in, 369 sq; reason for name, 
370; relation to Antiochene Acts, 371; 
credibility of, 377 sq; place of writing 
of, 370, 381 sq, 428, 432; date of, 382 
sq; on date of commemoration of Ig- 
natius, 423 sq; on year of Ignatius’ 
martyrdom, 448 sq; not based upon 
an earlier writing, 377; the writer ac- 
quainted with the ps-Ignatian Epistles, 
380, 382; with the Ignatian Epistles, 
380 sq; indebted to Eusebius’ Chroni- 
con, 450 Sq, 5353; to Eusebius generally, 
450, 500, 516, 529, 538; inserted ina 
December martyrology, 364, 423; text 
and notes, 496 sq; anachronisms in, 
499, 518; translation of, 579 sq; see 
also Acts of Martyrdom of Lgnatius 

Roman Church; its purity in the age of 
Ignatius, 185 sq; its prominence, 190 
sq; influential members of, 186, 196; 
its charity, 192; messengers from Syria 
preceding Ignatius to the, 2, 186, 233; 
its connexion with S. Peterand S. Paul, 
209, 464 sq; episcopacy in the, 186; 
succession and chronology of its bishops, 
452 56 

Roman Empire; its relation to Christi- 
anity, 519 sq; typified in Psalm ii. 9, 
521 

Roman See; limits of its jurisdiction, 
190; its relation to the suburbicarian 
sees, 100 564 

Romans, Ignatian Epistle to the; autho- 


616 


rities for, 5 sq, 9; place of writing, 1, 
185; published by Ruinart, 6, 363; its 
distinct history, 5, 187; and character, 
185; its subject matter, 185 sq; its 
wide popularity, 186; a vade mecum 
of martyrs, 186; quotations from, 187; 
the only dated letter, 185, 234, 434, 
562; analysis, 187 sq; text and notes, 
189 sq; translation, 558 sq; in the in- 
terpolated form quoted in the Roman 
Acts of Martyrdom, 500, 5023 incor- 
porated in the Antiochene Acts, 5, 486 

Rossi (F.) edits the Sahidic version of the 
Roman Acts of Martyrdom, 365 

Rothe, 113 

Route of Ignatius; see Zezatius 

Rufus and Zosimus, 211, 429, 587 

Ruinart; publishes the Greek of the 
Epistle to the Romans, 6, 363; and 
the Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom 
which embody it, 363, 473 


Sabbath, abrogation of Jewish, 129 

sacramentum, 314 

Salutaris, Gaius Vibius, 17 

San Clemente, the reliques of Ignatius 
and the church of, 433 

Satan, ignorant of the Divine counsels, 
76 sq 

Saturn, human sacrifices offered to, 522 

Saturnalia, 490 sq 

Saumaise, on the origin of episcopacy, 
113 

Schism, condemned by Ignatius; see 
Unity 

Scriptures; see 
Gospel, Gospels 

Scythians, 480, 522 

Seleucia, 484, 576 

Senecio (Q. Sosius), consulships of, 394, 
407, 502 Sq 

Senses, transference of ideas by analogy 
between the, 41 

Serapion, bishop of Antioch, 454, 459 
sq, 466 

Severus of Antioch; on Ign. Magn. 8, 
126 sq; his Epithronian Orations, 421, 
438 

Severus, the persecution of, 458, 459 

Shepherd of Hermas and the Ignatian 
Epistles, 203 

Ship of the Church, metaphor of, 339 sq 

Shrines, portable, 55 sq 

Sigillaria, 490 sq 

Silence; of God the Father, 80, 126 sq; 
of Christ, 69; praise of, 69, 204, 252 

Simus, 100 

Smyrna; legendary history of, 285; its 
connexion with Philadelphia, 240 sq; 
designation of, 288, 331; visit of Ig- 
natius to, 2, 285; Ignatian Epistles 


Canonical Scriptures, 


INDEX. 


written from, 1, 2; salutations to the 
Church of, 285, 286, 320 sq; the name 
for a part of Ephesus, 288 

Smyrnzans, Ignatian Epistle to the; 
place of writing, 1, 285; subject matter, 
285 sq; analysis, 286; text and notes, 
287 sq; translation, 567 sq 

Soldiers; payment of, 352; equipment 
of, 353; donatives to, 353 sq; castrense 
peculium of, 354 

Solomon, a Syriac writer, 478 

Speaking fountains, 224 

Star of the Epiphany; Protevangelium 
on, 80, 82; Clement of Alexandria on, 
81, 82; ps-Ephraem on, 81; Ephraem 
Syrus on, 82 

Stobbe, on the tribunician years, 399 sq 

Stoics; their idea of @eopdpos, 22; their 
phraseology adopted by Ignatius, 253, 
3453; rationalised classical deities, 526 

Suburanus, S. Attius, consulships of, 17, 
369, 393, 405, 497 54, 579 

Suburbicarian sees and Rome, 100 sq 

sullibertus, 38 

‘Supernatural Religion’, criticisms on, 
268, 437 sq 

Sura, L. Licinius, consulships of, 369, 
384, 393 54; 405, 406, 492 54, 578 

Surbanus; see Suburanus 

Sylloge Polycarpiana, 3 

Symbols; employed for Mss and versions, 
9; of abbreviaticn, 10 sq 

Symeon, sonof Clopas; date of martyrdom 
of, 449 sq; the evidence of Eusebius 
to, 451, 498; Hegesippus on, 445; a 
Syriac chronicle on, 447 

Symeon the Metaphrast, 376 

Syria, mission to the Churches of, 276 sq, 
318, 356, 357 sq 

Syriac Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius, 5, 
9, 10, 473; see also Acts of Martyrdom 
of Ignatius, Antiochene Acts 

Syriac Calendars, 420 sq 

Syriac Epistles of Curetonian Abridg- 
ment; see Jenatian Epistles, Three 
Syriac 

Syriac Martyrology, 234, 280, 419; see 
Martyrologies 

Syriac version of the genuine Ignatian 
Epistles, fragments of a, 3 sq, 6, 8 


= and Z confused, 111, 331 

σαββατίζειν, 129 

σαρκικός and πνευματικός, 48, 60, 322, 
328, 334, 338 

σαρκοῴορος, 302 

σάρξ, opposed to πνεῦμα, 48, 60, 108, 137, 
152, 178, 193, 289, 347 

σὰρξ *Incot= Gospel, 260 

σὰρξ Kal αἷμα-ε σῶμα, 
Chirast,en7 1227 


297; of Jesus 


INDEX. 


Ziyn; see Szlence 

σιδήρεος (form), 514 

σκορπίζειν, 216 

σκορπισμὸς ὀστέων, 216 

Σουρβανός, 497 

σπέρμα Δανείδ, 75 

σπονδίζεσθαι, 201 

στερροποιεῖν, 514 

στέφανος, 138; and θέμα, 341 

στῆλαι, of men, 264 

στραγγαλοῦν, -λᾶν, -λίζειν, 163 

στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα, 2133 στῖφος, 500 

συγγενικός, 30 

συγγνωμονεῖν, 163 

συγκατατίθεσθαι, 257 

συγκοιμᾶσθαι, 351 

συγκοπιᾶν, 351 

συγχαίρειν, 154 

συγχρᾶσθαι, 112 

σύμβιος, 347 

συμμύστης, 63 

συναγωγή, 345 

συναθροίζεσθαι, 116 

σύνδεσμος, 158 

συνδιδασκαλίτης, 37 

συνδιυλίζειν, 193 

συνδοξάζειν, 320 

σύνδουλος, of deacons, 33, III, 259, 316, 
321 

συνεγείρεσθαι, 351 

συνέδριον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, of presbytery, 
269 

συνέδριον τῶν ἀποστόλων, of presbytery, 
119, 158 

συνειδός-εσυνείδησις, 318 

συνευρυθμίζειν, 252 

συνήγορος θανάτου, 301 

συνθεράπων, 33 

σύνοδος, 55 

σύντομος, 2143 and σύντονος, 357 

συντρέχειν, 39 

σύσσημον, 292 

δὀύστασις, 164, 216 

συστάσεις ἀρχοντικαί, 164 

σχίζειν (abs.), 257 

σχολάζειν, 356 

σωματεῖον and σωμάτιον, 319 sq 

Zwrds, III 


Table of contents, 1 sq 

Tacitus, a passage in Ann. iv. 
plained, 145 

Tarlusa, possibly the same as Tralles, 
148 

Teaching of Peter, 295 sq, 299 

Tertullian; on magic, 83; on the descent 
into Hades, 132; on Marcion, 307; 
on widows, 322 sq; passage emended, 
533; borrows from the Ignatian E- 
pistles, 48 

Teshri, 419 sq 


IGN, Tf. 


55 €x- 


617 


Themistocles, his connexion with Mag- 
nesia, 100 

Theodorus Studites, 223 

Theodosius, the younger; translates Ig- 
natius’ reliques to Tychzeum, 387 sq, 
432; date of this translation, 388 

Theophilus the Chronographer, 473 

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, 76, 
454, 460, 468, 473 

Theophorus; see Θεοφόρος 

Thimbron ; his campaigns, 90 ; removes 
site of Magnesia, 99 

Thorax, Mt, 98, 99 

Tiberianus, alleged letter to Trajan of; 
Malalas on the, 439; arguments against 
its genuineness, 439 sq 

Tillemont, on an early expedition of Tra- 
jan to the East, 408 sq 

Timeeus, bishop of Antioch, 454 sq 

Trajan ; chronology of his reign, 391 sq; 
his adoption by Nerva, 392, 398 sq, 
481; his association in the Empire, 
398 sq, 400; accession of, 392, 477; 
tribunician years of, 392 sq, 398 54; 
Parthian expedition of, 385, 395 sq, 407 
Sq, 435, 441 Sq, 477, 481; only one 
expedition, 407 sq, 441 sq; Dacian 
wars of, 392 sq, 404 sq, 480 sq; at 
Antioch, 385, 395, 409, 413 Sq, 442 
sq; alleged letter of Tiberianus to, 439 
sq ; his correspondence with Pliny, 536; 
character of his rescript to Pliny, 385 ; 
his alleged interview with Ignatius, 367 
Sq, 425 Sq, 435 54; Volkmar on this 
interview, 436 sq; his works at Ostia, 
489 ; his titles, Germanicus, 392; Pater 
Patriae, 392; Dacicus, 393, 404 sq; 
Optimus, 395, 410 sq, 416; Parthi- 
cus, 395, 396, 412 sq, 415, 416, 418; 
death of, 398, 415; persecutions un- 
der, real, 227, 384, 395, 449 Sq; and 
alleged, 368, 384, 440, 446 sq; Ma- 
lalas on, 439 sq; mentioned in the 
Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius, 368, 
384 Sq, 447 Sq, 500 Sq, 575 Sq, 579 sq 

Tralles; situation of, 143; wealth of, 
144; history of, 144; deities worshipped 
at, 146; games at, 146; famous men of, 
146; historians of, 147; evangelisa- 
tion of, 1473; history of the Church of, 
148; probably same as Tarlusa, 148 

Trallians, Ignatian Epistle to the; place 
of writing of, 1; subject matter of, 147 ; 
analysis of, 149; title, 150; text and 
notes, 150 sq; translation of, 554 sq 

Tralusa, probably the same as Tralles, 148 

Translation of bones of Ignatius; see Re- 
liques of Ignatius 

Tree of life explained of the Cross, 291 

Tribunician years of Trajan; table of, 
392 sq; old theory regarding, 398 ; 


40 


618 


theory of Borghesi, 399 sq ; theories of 
Mommsen, 391, 399, 400 sq; of Stobbe, 
399 sq; evidence of Aurelius Victor, 
Pliny and Dion Cassius, 398 sq 

Trinity, order of naming in the Ignatian 
Epistles, 137 

Troas ; Ignatius at, 1, 15, 34, 242, 277, 
278, 320; letters written from, 1, 2, 
34, 285, 320, 357; mentioned in Igna- 
tian literature, 281, 357, 487, 566, 
574: 577 

Tychzeum at Antioch; situation of, 432 ; 
translation of Ignatius’ reliques to, 386 
Sq, 421, 4323 called the Church of Ig- 
natius, 421; orations delivered in the, 
421, 434, 438 

Tychicus, perhaps founder of the Church 
of Magnesia, 102 

Tyrannus, bishop of Antioch, 454, 456 


τάγμα, 213 

τάξις, 113 

τάφος (metaph.), 208, 264 

τέλειος, of athlete, 335; ἄνθρωπος (6)= 
Christ, 300 

τελείωσις, 401 

ΤῸ ΤΟΥ TLS, 27 

τιμή, 88 

τις omitted, 72 

τοιοῦτος with inf., 197 

τοκετός (metaph.), 218; and τόκος, 219 

TOVOS, 479 

τοποθεσίαι ἀγγέλων, 164 

τόπος, pleonastic, 191; and τύπος con- 
fused, 119, 191; ‘office’, 304, 333 

τόπος ἴδιος, 117 

τύπος, 1τ0, 121; ἀπά τόπος confused, 119, 
ΙΟῚ 

Tian ss, Τραλλήσιος, Τράλλιος, 150 

Τράλλεις (form), 151 

τραῦμα, 337 

τροφὴ Χριστιανή, 166 

τυγχάνειν Θεοῦ, 58, 109, 315 


θέμα and στέφανος, 341 

θέλειν, 115, 189; θέλεσθαι, 228 

θέλημα, 85, 195, 290, 318, 357 

θελητός, Valentinian term, 228 

θεοδρόμος, 108, 255, 277, 356 

θεολογία and οἰκονομία, 75 

θεομακάριστος, 108, 292, 356 

θεοπρεπής, 108, 287, 317, 321, 356 

θεοπρεσβύτης, 108, 318 

θεοφόρητος, 22 

θεοφόρος, 21 Sq, 55, 139, 482 

Θεοφόρος ; title of Ignatius, 21 sq, 482; 
self-assumed, 22, 108, 482; legend 
founded on the title, 22, 294, 376, 4313 
authorities for the legend, 431 

Θεός applied to Christ, 26, 30, 169, 303, 
316 


INDEX. 


θεωρεῖσθαι (middle), 154 

θηριομαχεῖν, 176, 211 

θυσιαστήριον, 43 sq, 258; metaphorically, 
of Christ, 123; of congregation, 44, 
169, 258; of amphitheatre, 201; com- 
pared with βῶμος, 43; with ναός, 43, 
123; its application to the Eucharist 
later than Ignatius’ date, 258 


Uhlhorn; on the genuineness of the An- 
tiochene Acts, 383; criticisms on, 77, 
86, 113 

Unity; Ignatius on the necessity for, 40 
sq, 108 sq, 121 sq, 267 sq, 308 sq, 322, 
334; between the three orders of the 
ministry, 118 sq; the bishop the centre 
of, 36, 41 sq, 44, 121, 169 sq, 258, 268, 
310 sq, 346; in worship, 43 sq, 66, 86, 
122, 257 sq, 309; of will between the 
Son and the Father, 121, 298 

Ussher; and the Anglo-Latin Version 
of the Ignatian Epistles, 6, 363 ; pub- 
lishes the Latin version of the Acts of 
Martyrdom, 473, 474 

Usuard, Martyrology of; indebted to the 
Bollandist Acts, 382; on the date of 
the commemoration of Ignatius, 429 


ὕδωρ ζῶν ἁλλόμενον, 224 sq 
ὕλη, 219, 224 
ὑπαλείφειν, 38 
ὑπεραγάλλεσθαι, 259 
ὑπερβάλλειν (constr.), 82 
ὑπερδοξάζειν, 259, 332 
ὑπερεπαίνειν, 250 
ὑπέρκαιρος (form), 343 
ὑπερτίθεναι, 133 

ὑπό with acc., 64 

ὑπὸ χειμῶνος, 417 Sq 
ὑποδεικνύναι, 484 
ὑπωπιάζειν, 495 


Valentinian phraseology anticipated by 
the Ignatian Epistles, 23, 24, 80, 193, 
224 Sq, 228, 280 

Valentinus ; his possible connexion with 
Rhaius Agathopus, 280; his Evange- 
lium Veritatis, 301 

Vatican Acts, see Roman Acts of Martyr- 
dom of Ignatius 

Virginity of Mary deceived the Deceiver, 
76 sq 

Virgins, order of, 322, 348; its relation to 
widows, and deaconesses, 322 

Volkmar; on the date and place of Igna- 
tius’ martydom, 436 sq; criticism on, 
417 

Von Gutschmid, on the chronology of 
Malalas, 412, 441, 442 sq 

Vows of celibacy, 349 


IN DEX. 


Waddington; on the date of a coin, 402; 
on the date of Herodes Atticus, 452; 
inscriptions in, 145, 146, 240 

Wandalbert, on the commemoration of 
Ignatius, 51 sq 

Water sanctified by Christ’s baptism and 
passion, 75 

Waterland, 92 

Widows; care of the early church for, 304 
54, 322, 3443 duties imposed upon, 
322 ; the order of, 322 sq 

Wieseler; defends the genuineness of the 
Letter of Tiberianus, 439 sq; on the 
date of the earthquake at Antioch, 331, 
443; of Ignatius’ martyrdom, 451 sq, 

ΠῚ 

Wood’s discoveries at Ephesus, 17, 54, 

555 50, LOL, L10, 140 


Xerxes’ route through Asia Minor, 238 
Xiphilinus, abbreviator of Dion Cassius, 
408, 412 


ξενισμός, 81 


Zahn; on the history of the word Θεο- 
φόρος, 22 ; on γενητός and γεννητός, 943 
on the order of widows, 323; his edi- 
tion of the Ignatian Epistles, 7; criti- 


cisms on his readings in the Epistles 


619 


of Ignatius, 40, 45, 108, 109, 115, 134, 
137, 191, 292; on his renderings in the 
Epistles of Ignatius, 30, 33, 52, 66, 114, 
ΤΥ IOI, 195, 200, 227, 250, 272, 291, 
307, 341; his labours on the Acts of 
Martyrdom, 368, 473 sq; on the ori- 
gin of the Roman Acts, 377 sq ; misled 
as to Mss of the Roman Acts, 364; on 
the Antiochene Acts, 382; on the day 
of commemoration of Ignatius, 419, 
429, 434; on the date of the martyr- 
dom in the Roman Acts, 496; on the 
story of the connexion between Igna- 
tius and S. John, 477 sq 

Zeus ; his tomb at Gnossus, 503 sq; his 
amours, 509; Larasius at Tralles, 146 

Zoega, 366 

Zohrab, Armenian Chronicon of, 449, 451, 
455 Sq, 463 sq, 587 

Zonaras, 408, 412 

Zosimus and Rufus, 211, 429, 587 

Zotion, 102, III, 551 


Z and = confused, 111, 331 

ζῆλος, ζηλοῦν, of Satan, 162, 215 

ζῆν, as subst., 61, 73, τοῦ; 118, 175, 298; 
followed by κατά, 256 

Ζμύρνα, Zuvpvatos (form), 331 

ζωή and βίος, 225 

Δωτίων, 111 


CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 







πὴ. ΟΝ Tere . 
ἘΠ, νων" 40S ine, 


Sat ταν ὟΝ 4 ΟῚ 
᾿ δι } Whe. Ui i FAC τ te 44 ᾿ ἂν, εἴ Ὄ: ἘΠῚ τ i 


ἫΝ tn Ἂ να (ak μ τὴν ἘΣ Σιν ῃ ͵ ψ at ae 


ΠΑ ΡΣ ATE Plies πο 
νἀ Aa ke phe sty! 1 
Mee, Aa Μ | ἢ ΣΌΣ 

Ly A 

















anit, ome oat 
Bey aa mah, 
eas aisha! 5 aan 


πο Pik ae S ᾿ 
ie 4 hes Tate we roux (eS ae nf ἱ ἯΙ ; ' bs 
,»" nH ! ) ᾿ : Ak US Vids 7 9 i's ; “ἰῇ 


iW 
a | are ee 
ἌΡ We NE ML 


᾿ & } ᾿ ; 
an + ᾿ ᾿ ate th part foe 
+ a ie 
Wey ᾿ ᾿ i ἢ 
no. Μ ὔ ; 
a yee 4 εἶν aot 0 ’ 
ἊΝ ) ἵ ; 
pS ἢ 








᾿ ν 1 Ff ἢ ὶ . : 7 
p ᾿ vey ΓῚ Α » ὝΝ ᾿ ; 
4 ; . 
ἘΝ Ν / hel p 
: 
I Υ 7 
? : 
We 
) 
ty i Ν 
᾿ 4 
A ‘ 
᾿ Yr a 
᾿ ἐς 
i 
ᾷ ᾿ ᾿ : 
ue A 
ὯΝ i 
7 7 - 
᾿ } > 
᾿ ἡ ΤᾺ Tw 
Ρ ἀν 4 
Ν ‘ wh γ , ey : 
ἢ ᾿ τ- ἯΙ ᾿ 
; ᾿ , : 
᾿ 
; 
. 
, 
ἴ δ 
a 
i 
‘ 
[ % 
‘. 
- 
" ᾿ 
πον - 
’ - 
᾿- A = 
Ἢ 
Ψ Ὁ 
ὡ AY 
=< id Φ 7 ᾿ ie ᾿ 
Ὁ a on ) 
: Tee f 
τ Ὁ - - : ᾿ Η ᾿ > 
ec hy | | 
7 * > ae, Ν Ά ba 
. tig P 
ἡ τὺ) , ᾿ “ὋΣ yn 
fa ᾿ aX 
: ᾿ ᾿ ᾽ ὼ 
ΟΣ ὅν ναι te “ig eal A 






Peete mg esa ὁ τ ΓΤ 


' Ws, Peay 4 ies ΨΩ . ve a 


νυ iol eh ae 


ot ween 


; Pa 
MWe Oo 
ΑΕ Σ ete 
A ie ae 4 








sw Be, el 





ea Ls 





ae ὟΝ 


beet ΣῪΝ 


2 ewer : 
“A i a 
ΟΝ 
mead 
ἀπ} γῆς “ 


« 














FLLS BINDERY 
JAN. 1951 








lh 


500 





LLESLEY COLLEGE LIBRARY 
Tin 
35002 03023 301 4 





Apostolic Fathers (Early 
Christian collection). 


A PNM ARE MeN 
TRIM SACS BERA EM, 7