Full text of "The Apostolic Fathers"

See other formats

yet
aienen

Bis th ᾿

iit

Baars

BS ΠΣ ΣΌΛΩΝ
ΠΣ
ΤΣ

Αι 7

ἮΝ i τὸ

x, el Nie Z
His τι Ἶ κι
(ied) if ¢ f

ν᾿

Sty

.
ae

eg aD RO A, A
I LA LY OOP LER A
C— ; . f

4
fears

τ r ey
oe

» ὡ

a
Smee
“ποτ

x
-

ΐ
] i ἢ
ν

Mv,

ve
aay
AeA PM
‘ a) i ΧΗ
a :
aie

ee WS
SS τας πολυ τς

ὙΠ
} : δ
| |
j
Pe
We
bain. }
: |
ae

aoe ΤΣ
=o {a

wor
=

Contd

ΠΝ
ἦν if in
Wine oN

Se ee *

Seth ce Satan τ Gita ee as

δ os - -
δ᾿

*
Sec as
= — τ

ne a

τ
ma ἃ"

Soe ας

ont Ἶ ΦΩ͂Σ ον τι Uti :

ri VA a ἈΝ ΤΡ ΣΝ $f ἵ ‘
kth c eda has aera

ἯΙ LON Bathe oy

ἢ

᾿ " Ἶ
. se

. ᾿
BN

τῇ ἀπ} [ter rainy ef
Hoy Pi ce Pay
ΠΣ ἽΝ ἡ ἊΝ

δι οι τς ἂν ὦ

δι
ἢ ee

ον
δι ha eae > ys, a ary ὶ Ἢ ᾿

. oe vor ‘ j aye teben ied sy wer a cal τὰ hr ie a Leena Th
, visas Aart « . ΩΝ wha Iv ba vide= ebrgahh onvn PAN wa bode πνον
Δ ta ι ; ape,

‘ ᾿ κ᾿ / {
ee NOT a) jad eae “ὦ,

SOLD By
THOMAS BAKER,

85 Charlotte Street,
Lonpon, W.1. Eng.

ἐ
.
'
“»
᾿
Ny
~
Py
“ἢ
{ 4
‘ ¥
i
#
s
‘
re ᾿
“ ory

i . Ὶ
mn ‘
oe a ἃ Py .
» “. * Se) 4
fad we ἢ 5
‘ 4 1 7. .
ΕΣ " é A al are:
PaO ἃ '
> ST ἠϊ " "δ
᾿ ὁ «ἣν Ὁ
.-. ἊΣ A ᾿ ᾿ =

THE APOSTOLIC FPATHERS

SECOND PART

Vou. I. SECT: x

Cambridge :

PRINTED BY Ὁ. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SON,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,

fee ve Ce iC ΓΑΤΉΒ ΝΘ

PART Il.

Ὁ Le NAGE TVS.
SSE eek ¥CAKR P.

REVISED TEATS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, DISSERTATIONS,
AND TRANSLATIONS.

Weenie POOL, DD. DiC.L., LL.D,

BISHOP OF DURHAM.

VOL... SECT. i.

Dondon:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1885

LIBRARN

AUG 30 1932

TUBS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

SECOND VOLUME.

GENUINE EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

INTRODUCTION.

(x) 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.

1. ZO THE EPHESIANS

Introduction
Text and Notes ὶ ὶ : ΐ
Excursus on γεννητὸς and ἀγέννητος § 7

2. TO THE MAGNESIANS

Introduction

Text and Notes
a. TO THE TRALLIANS

Introduction

Text and Notes
4. TO THE ROMANS

Introduction
Text and Notes

“ΧΟ PRILADELPHIANS
Introduction
Text and Notes

6 TO THE SMYRNAANS
Introduction
Text and notes

w LO POLYCARP

Introduction
Text and Notes

PAGE
B35 5

a. oe
I5—20
21—89
90--Ὁ4
95—I40
97—104

. 105-,ΙἰἝ40

141I—182

. 143. 140
. 150—182

183-234

. 185—188
. 189—234

235—282

» 237-247
. 248—282

283—326
285, 286

. 287—326

327—360
329, 330

. 331—360

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS.

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM.

INTRODUCTION.

1. Different forms: (i) Avtiochene Acts, Greek, Latin, and Syriac;
(ii) Roman Acts, Greek and Coptic; (iii) Bollandist Acts ; (iv) Armenian
Acts; (v) Acts of Metaphrast [363—367].

2. Mutual relations. The Antiochene and Roman Acts independent.
Their contents. The other Acts composite [367—376].

3- Historic credibility, place, and date of the Roman Acts [376—382].
The same questions as regards the Antiochene Acts: internal evidence
[382—385]; external testimony (Chrysostom, Evagrius, the Menzea) [385—
388]. Possible nucleus of truth [388—39o0].

4. Chronology of Trajan’s reign. Tables [390—396]. Reckoning of
Tribunician years [397—402]. Notes on the tables with special reference
to Trajan’s Eastern campaigns [404—416].

5. The festival of Ignatius. (1) Oct. 17, the original day [416—420].
(2) Dec. 20, the later day with the Greeks [420, 421]. (3) July 1, the
Egyptian festival [421—427]. (4) Feb. 1, the Latin commemoration
[427429]. Lessons for his day [429]. Translations of the reliques
[429—433].

6. The year of the martyrdom. Pearson’s disquisition [433, 434].
Volkmar’s theory that he was martyred at Antioch [434]. The testimony
of John Malalas examined [435—444]. Statement of the Syriac Chronicle
[445]. Authorities for the gth year of Trajan [446]. Chronicon of Eu-
sebius [447—450]. Harnack’s theory examined [450—469]. Results of
the investigation [469, 470].

7. Authorities for the texts of the Antiochene and Roman Acts. Pre-
vious collations and editions [471, 472].

AS MANIIOCHENE ACTS.
Text and Notes

B. ROMAN ACTS.
Text and Notes

TRANSLATIONS.

GENUINE EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS

--
.

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM.

Antiochene Acts
Roman Acts

PAGE
363—472

. 473—491

- 492—536

. 539-—570

. 571--575
. 575—584

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

APPENDIX IGNATIANA.

I. ANGLO-LATIN VERSION

1. Introduction. Its contents [589, 590]. Previous collations and
editions ΠΡ ΉΞΘΕ Correspondence with the Virgin and 5. John [595,
; - ° ‘ : ° . : : ; . 589—596

- 597652

596] .
2. Latin Version of the Twelve Epistles
Text and Critical Notes.

3. Latin Correspondence with the Virgin, etc.
Text and Critical Notes.

II. SYRIAC REMAINS
[Edited by W. Wright, LL.D.]
1. Zhe Three Curetonian Epistles.

Text and Critical Notes
Translation

2. Hragments of the Lost Version.
Text and Critical Notes

3. Acts of Martyrdom.
Text and Critical Notes

Ill. GREEK EPISTLES OF THE LONG RECENSION

1. Introduction. (1) The Epistles contained in this recension;
. 7II—717

(2) Authorities for the text; (3) Previous editions

2. The Thirteen Epistles.
Text and Notes

IV. COPTIC REMAINS OF S. IGNATIUS
1. Fragments of the Epistles in the Thebaic Dialect

2. Acts of Martyrdom in the Memphitic Dialect
[Edited by P. le P. Renouf.]

V. ARABIC EXTRACTS FROM IGNATIAN LETTERS
[Edited by W. Wright, LL.D.]

Text and Critical Notes .
Translation

VI. PRAYER OF HERO

1. The Latin Version
2. Restoration of the Greek Text

PAGE
587—656

- 653—656

657—708

. 659—669
. 670—676

- 677—687

. 687—708

709—857

. 718—857

859—882

. 861—864
. 865—882

883—89o0

. 885—888
. 889, 890

891—894

. 893
. 893, So4

ὃ TABLE OF CONTENTS.

S. POLYCARP.

PAGE

THE EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP 897—934
Introduction. (1) Circumstances of writing; (2) Analysis; (3) Au-

thorities for the text; (4) History of the printed text : ‘ ; . 897—904
Text and Notes . : ; : . Ξ ; 7 : . + QO5—934

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAZAANS 935—998
Introduction. (1) Account of the document; (2) Analysis; (3) Au-

thorities for the text; Greek Manuscripts, Eusebius, and Latin Versions.

Syriac and Coptic translations from Eusebius. (4) ia of the printed

text . Ν : : ; ; : : : ᾿ : . 937—946
Text and Notes . : : : : : : : . - 947—986
EXCURSUS ON THE ASIARCHATE “ : . 987—998
History, purpose, and duties of the office aes Three points

especially considered. (1) Identity of the Asiarch and High-priest [99ο---

994]; (2) Duration of the office [994—997]; (3) Plurality of Asiarchs

[997, 998].

APPENDIX POLYCARPIANA.

1. POLYCARPIAN FRAGMENTS TOOI—1004

a. LIFE OF POL VCAR?P 1005— 1047
Introduction. The manuscript and editio princeps [1005]. Previous

use made of this Life [1005, 1006]. Character, purpose, and contents of

this Life [1006—1008]. It claims to have been written by Pionius [1008,

1009]. Who is this Pionius? [1009—r1011]. His date and locality [rorr,

to12]. Some features in this Life[1o12, 1012] . : : Ἵ . 1005—I014
Text and Notes : : ς : : : - . IOI5—I1047

TRANSLATIONS.
newt dO Le OF FOOLY CAGE . +. : : ‘ ‘ ; » LO5I—1056
2. LETTER OF THE SMYRNAANS . ; ; : + 1057—1067
a. MIPE OF POLVYCARP > : : : : : , . 1068—1086
INDICES.

1. INDEX OF SUBFECT MATTER : : , . 1087—1106

τὼ

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL ΘΑ ΘΟ. : - . 1107---1113

ΠΟΤΌΝ EPTSTLES

Ι,

HE REASONS for accepting as genuine the Seven Epistles in

Ι (δε 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 Smyrnzans, 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 is determined from notices in the epistles themselves.

The order in which they are printed here is the order given by
Eusebius (4/.Z. 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,

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 Smyrnzeans)
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 on
the banks of the Meander), 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. Smyrnzans 5. Philadelphians
2. Polycarp 6. Trallians’

3. Ephesians 7. Romans.

4. Magnesians

1 The Armenian Version however transposes Trallians and Philadelphians.

OF 8. 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,, S,) belonging to this version are preserved. But this defect is
made up to a considerable extent in two ways. /irst. 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

“
~

Ι ----..

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 AX 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 Smyrnzeans, 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. i

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 G L, 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 Epistle 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
(Sm) 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
(Sm), 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 (S) of which only a few
fragments remain, but which is represented, as before, by the Syriac
Abridgment (3) and the Armenian Version (A).

(3) The Long 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 editio 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
Hefele (ed. 1, 1839; ed. 3, 1847) and Jacobson (ed. 1, 1838; ed. 3,
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

ΟΕ 8. 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 texts 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 editor,
Zahn (1876), to make use of all the available materials and to construct
a text for the first time on sound and intelligible principles.

The text which I have given was constructed independently of
Zahn’s edition, and before I had seen it, 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 our views frequently differ, as must necessarily be the case
with two independent editors; and in some respects I have had the
advantage of more complete or more accurate materials than were

accessible to him.

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
the several versions which, however interesting and instructive in them-

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

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), i.e. of the Medicean ms in the Six Epistles, and of the
Colbertine in the Epistle to the Romans, are given zw ful/. ‘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
or 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 Zatin 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 w/timaze 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, 3, %,) of the Syriac Abridgment (%) are not generally given.
They will be found in the Appendix, where this version 15. 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
proportion of its many divergences deserves to be recorded as bearing

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 9

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 Copto-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, Sp), 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 A/etaphrast (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 is
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 ss).
G’. Paris fragment of the Epistle to the Ephesians.
IL. Latin Version.
L,, L,, the Mss of this version.
A. Armenian Version.
S. Syriac Version.
S,, 5,, 5, being the several collections of fragments belonging
to this version.

IO THE GENUINE EPISTLES

Coptic Version.

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

moa 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 /gnatianum.

The following marks and abbreviations are also used.

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

pref. \ 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.

τ 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 [6], 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. 1,7) refers the reader to the
Appendix for particulars as to the reading of the authority
which is so distinguished,

ὩΣ ΠΣ ἣν

et: Rea tk ON a qapen st POA ete dott al hahahah ee ett
ὌΝ beet ip + τ.

Δι

yh ᾿ eee ay syeemonn Roane yaks ying ks ὙΠ ot See LAr 0.
δ J ὶ ae Or al ; [ Ν ; Ν μι
ost ᾿ ; ὶ Sk Se GR A RE ATG SOOO Lawl pate ht a

Br! ἀνα Bee τς δὸν ther ον tet HA ΗΝ
ΝΥ ἀπ PH NRC τὸ alr yeh ARs ἡ
ae MSR a: CECH ΗΝ es Feu eae ae
Bid ioug yer) ΣΝ γι πο }}}

ὮΝ Ἢ γ᾽ ey ap ot iat el δ a4 ὦ j οὐ Ae at ee , ak tem + “kt NY?

| ᾿ ?

OME crt ieih) did (Nb ρον
ΠΥ νῦν eu" 6 wl} ' "ἡ , ' ‘
wee rook Drie Lalooony γίνη ht aed ne

ΓΝ | , Ἧ ᾿ (ny “Τῇ teh fi fal ,
Berane eet baie Sef) ἐδ. CE aol ote AY fim ΣΤΥ
πο Ἦταν wal! OF ae ny olien ae

5 ~ 2 « CF 4
Rs od air LT ΠΕ ΠΩΣ ee

= 2

: ‘ "

ἐπ asses δέ
ΝΣ ἈΝ δ ἯΙ iPro ὩΣ ΝΣ SAS ἡ
ἐ Ne ἄφιξιν ὴ int AY. as iy ©
ee ; ᾿ ᾿ x ‘ i rs Oo ts ἢ" na LU
“aS ὙΠΟ. pa ἜΝ ee i
; irl. ’ ΜΑΣ Δὸς iP ae
A? in Ἢ ae pb a}

7 2 } Ay f° 7
HON

ΠΤ DPikSrA NS:

ea ee

ie re et SANS.

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 (§§ 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
(S$ τ, 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 (M/agn. 15, Tradl. 13, Rom. 10). 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’ (δ 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 it as ‘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 (§ 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 (veperatvet). 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 lars, 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 (ἢ 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
ἀληθινῷβ. Hence also the prominence which he gives to the true
humanity of our Lord, where he has occasion to mention His two
natures (§§ 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. ty

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 1
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 birth-day 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 Discoveries at
Liphesus 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. ; 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 tney 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
§ 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 (§ 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 (/olyc. 8), perhaps also the direct inter-
ference of his guards (Rom. 5), may have prevented his carrying out his
intention.

The following is an analysis of the epistle :

‘IcnaTius 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 anght 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
(§ 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 (§ 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 (ὃ 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 (δ 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 (§ 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 (δ 9). Pray for the
heathen, since repentance is still possibie 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 (§ 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 (δ 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 (8 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 (§ 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
(§ 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 (δ 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

(ὃ 21).’

ree EOL CTO.

ITNATIOC, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῆ εὐλογημένη ἐν μεγέ-

ΠΡΟΟ ececioyc | πρὸς ἐφεσίους lyvdrios G (with y in the marg.); τοῦ αὐτοῦ
ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς ἐφεσίους g* (with ca in the marg.) ; égvatius ephesiis L3 [715] secunda

quae ad ephestos 2; ad ephesios A.

1 ὁ καὶ] GLg; gud est 2 (11, and so Rom., Polyc.) A (and so always, except

ffero, where it is gui 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 καὶ Geopopos| 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
(θεόφορος, borne along by God, in-
spired by God); Clem. Alex. Strom.
Vil. 13 (p. 882) θεῖος ἄρα ὁ γνωστικὸς
kal ἤδη ἅγιος, θεοφορῶν καὶ θεο-
φορούμενος; comp. Strom. vi. 12
(p.792). There can however be little
doubt that it should here be taken
actively and accentuated Θεοφύρος ;
for (1) We have the authority of
Ignatius himself below, § 9, where
the connexion of θεοφόροι with
ναοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφόροι, fixes
its meaning; see also the analogous
words σαρκοφύόρος, νεκροφόρος, Smyrn.
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. ill. 16. 3 ‘Aortante
homine et capiente et complectente
jilium Det, v.8. 1 ‘assuescentes capere
et Zortare Deum’ (quoted by Pearson
on Swzyrn. inscr.). See also the Latin
reading in I Cor. vi. 20 ‘glorificate
et fortate (tollite) Deum in corpore
vestro’; comp. Tert. de Resurr. 10,
16, de Pudic. 16, Cypr. Tes?. iii. 11,
Dom. Orat. 11. Hence Tertullian
elsewhere, adv. Marc. v. 7,‘ Quomodo
tollemus Deum in corpore perituro?’
Compare also Clem. Alex. ἔχε, Theod.
27 (p. 976) τὸ θεοφόρον γίνεσθαι τὸν
ἄνθρωπον προσεχῶς ἐνεργούμενον ὑπὸ
τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ καθάπερ σῶμα αὐτοῦ
γινόμενον. (4) Evenin later writers

-and in other connexions this active

sense prevails: e.g. Greg. Naz. 2:52.
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 V. ἢ
p- 521sq., Suicer 7/es.s.v. Similarly
χριστοφόρος seems to be always
active (see Phileas in Euseb, #7. £.

22 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

θει Θεοῦ πατρὸς πληρώματι, TH προωρισμένη πρὸ

I πληρώματι] Gg* (with ἃ ν.1.); perfectione A; et plenitudine L; et perfectae Σ :

see the lower note.

Vill. 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 Aufol. i. 9, ii.
22, Dionys. Rom. in Athanas. ΟΖ. 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 mvevpa-
topopos ‘a vehicle of the Spirit’: e.g.
in Herm. Mand. 11 (a reference
already cited) the word may be ex-
plained byan expression which occurs
in the neighbourhood, ἔχων ἐν 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.
fFragm. 123 (p. 193 Lagarde), and
several times in Philo, e.g. de Som.
i. 43, li. I (I. pp. 658, 659). The idea
involved in the word θεοφόρος is
found also in contemporary Stoic
writers; e.g. Epictet. Déss. ii. 8. 12,
13 Θεὸν περιφέρεις...ἐν σαυτῷ
φέρεις αὐτὸν κιτιλ. (Comp. il. 16.
33), Lucan Phars. ix. 563 ‘Ille Deo
plenus, tacita quem mente gerebat.’
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. Paul’s metaphor of ‘putting on
Christ’ might suggest this meaning.
The former sense indeed is impe-
ratively demanded below, § 9.

τῇ] txt GLE[A]; add. καὶ g.

It is more probable that this sur-
name was adopted by Ignatius himself,
as atoken of 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, Zrall. 4, Smyrn. 5. It occurs in
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 Nicaea; 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, 6 καὶ Θεοφόρος, shows;
comp. Acts xill. 9 Σαῦλος, ὁ καὶ Παῦ-
hos. This form of expression is ex-
tremely common in inscriptions; e.g.
Boeckh Ο 7. 2836 ᾿Αριστοκλῆς ὁ καὶ
Ζήνων, 2949 Μ. Αὐρ. Πετρώνιος Κέλσος
6 καὶ Μένιππος, 3282 Καστρίκιος ᾽Αρτε-
μίδωρος ὁ καὶ |’Ap |ucavds, 3309 Ἑρμείας
ὁ καὶ Λίτορις, 3387 Φλαουΐα Τρύφαινα
ἡ καὶ Ῥοδόπη, 3550 Mevéorparoy τὸν
καὶ Τρύφωνα, 3675 Τάϊος Γαΐου ὁ καὶ
Πίστος, 3737 Μαξίμα ἡ καὶ Ἡδονή,
4207 Ἑλένη ἡ καὶ "Αφῴιον, 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
θεόφορος being substituted for the
active Oeopopos and a literal sense
being attached to the word.

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

TO THE EPHESIANS.

by Zahn (/. v. A. p.69sq.). 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. 7. p. 520 sq.), who
shows that the converse was the case.

τῇ εὐλογημένῃ x.t.A.] 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 κόσμου,
εἶναι ἡμᾶς...«ἀμώμου ς..--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. iii. 11 κατὰ πρό-
θεσιν τῶν αἰώνων. Though S. 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 (§ 47) to the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, and
in Polycarp (δ 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
TlavAov...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.

ἐν μεγέθει] ‘ix greatness’ The
μέγεθος describes the moral and
Spiritual stature of the Ephesian

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 J. 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 A/eroma is used, as by S. Paul
and S. John, in its theological sense,
to denote the /otality of the Divine
attributes and powers: see the ex-
cursus on Colossians p. 257 sq. (ed.
2). The dative case is instrumental.
To participation in the jleroma
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 κιτιλ. The expression before
us should be compared especially
with Ephes. iii. 19 va πληρωθῆτε eis
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, 7va//.
inscr. ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν τῷ πληρώ-
part. For the prominence of the
pleroma in the Valentinian theology
see Colosstans 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

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

WY sy εἶ \ 3 / / 7
ALWVWY €ELVAL διὰ WTAaAVTOS εἰς δόξαν παράμονον aT peTr=

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

est (om. καὶ ἐκλελεγμένῃ) A.

notes on § 1 φύσει, Rom. 6, Magn. 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
school: comp. Iren. i. 2. 2 διὰ "Τὸ
μέγεθος τοῦ βάθους καὶ τὸ ἀνεξιχνί-
αστον τοῦ πατρός, and esp. Anon. in
Epiphan. Her. xxxi. 5 (see Stieren’s
Irenzus, p. 916 sq.) ἣν τίνες Ἔννοιαν
ἔφασαν, ἕτεροι Χάριν οἰκείως, διὰ τὸ
ἐπικεχορηγηκέναι αὐτὴν θησαυρίσματα
τοῦ μεγέθους τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ μεγέθους,
οἱ δὲ ἀληθεύσαντες Σιγὴν προσηγό-
ρευσαν, ὅτι dt’ 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, i. 14. 4,
and see also i. 13. 3. I find more-
over that in Syriac ‘the greatness’
(8129) 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,
p- 261. 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 this reading
καὶ πληρώματι is correct; but in the
extant authorities which have it the

In = the word spun) et perfecta 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 ἐδ) ) ΟῚ
‘and perfected ( fulfilled), asit stands
in the Curetonian Mss, but 8D1v2
‘tn (or by) the perfection (fulness),
or some similar expression, as the
Armenian rendering shows (see
Petermann ad loc.) |The word
show is the rendering of πλήρωμα
in Rom, xi. 12, Ephes. i. 23, iv. 13.
The substitution would be the more
easy, because the former word occurs
in the immediate context as the
rendering (or loose paraphrase) of
ἡνωμένῃ.

I. eis] For the construction εἶναι
eis ‘to be destined for, reserved for’
comp. Ephes. i. 12 eis τὸ εἶναι εἰς ἔπαι-
νον «.T.A.. Acts Vill. 23 εἰς χολὴν πι-
kplas...0p® σε ὄντα, I Cor. xiv. 22 ai
γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν.

παράμονον ἄτρεπτον] ‘abiding and
unchangeable.” Both adjectives must
be connected with δόξαν, even though
we should read ἡνωμένην x.t.X. after-
wards; comp. Clem. Al. Strom. vii.
10 (p. 866) ἐσόμενος, ὡς 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. 5
ἄτρεπτον yap [ὁ Θεὸς] καὶ ἀεὶ dv, Philo
Leg. Αἰ ἔρια. 15 (1. p. 53) ἄποιον αὐτὸν
[τὸν Θεὸν] εἶναι καὶ ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἄτρεπ-
τον.

2. ἡνωμένῃ κιτιλ.] I have ventur-

TO THE BPHESIANS.

> 4 7 ΄σ >
TOV, ἡνωμένη Kal ἐκλελεγμένη ἐν πάθει ἀληθινῷ ἐν

has occurred just before as the rendering of πληρώματι, and there is probably
therefore some corruption, as it does not represent ἡνωμένῃ. Cureton (1845) sug-

gested that 2 read ἡνυσμένην.
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 κιτ.λ., they are jus-
tifiable: comp. Winer Gramm. ὃ xliv.
p- 402, Ixvi. p. 782, Kiihner Il. p.
590sq. 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 τις ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ
γνώμῃ περιπατεῖ, οὗτος τῷ πάθει οὐ συγ-
κατατίθεται; for the latter, Zrad/. 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 (77a//. inscr.)
and the joy of another (Philad.
inscr.). Unto His passion the peni-
tent sinner must return (S7zy7v. 5) ;
from His passion the false heretic
dissents (PAzad. 3); into His passion
all men must die (lag. 5); His
passion the saint himself strives to

ἐν πάθει] GLAg; im signo 2: see the

imitate (Rom. 6); the blood of His
passion purifies the water of baptism
(Ephes. 18); the tree of the passion
is the stock from which the Church
has sprung (S7yrn. 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 (Ep~hes. 20, Mag. 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 Zyval/.9. As this is the
only passage referring to Docetism
in the Curetonian letters, and as the
Syriac MSS here read pZsaim ‘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 m@xsas ‘in Jassione,
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-
tasiastze of a later period’ (C. J.
p. 276 sq.). Anargument in favour
of Cureton’s reading is, that it pro-
duces another coincidence with S.
Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 1,

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

θελήματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ

ε ~ - 9 / a > / ~ ᾽ >
ἥμων, TH ἐκκλησίᾳ TH αἀξιομακαρίστῳ TH OVON ἐν

na fal Ὁ na ‘ a « “ ᾿ lel
1 τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ “I. X. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν) GL; θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν ‘I. X. τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν g; patris iesu christi dei nostri X; det et domini nostri tesu christt

[A] (omitting ἐν θελήματι) :
transposes the whole clause) g; om. 2.
gDA; χάριτι GL: see the lower note.

Il προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν k.T.d.
This view accordingly has been a-
dopted by several later writers, e.g.
Bunsen (//ippolytus I. Ὁ. 94, ed. 2),
Lipsius (Aecht. 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 mai 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 something dif-
ferent from πρόθεσις. (2) On the
other hand the Greek text has ἐν
πάθει, which is exactly represented

by τόσου. (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 Smyrn. 1 ἀπὸ τοῦ πάθους rendered
a signo (see Petermann p. xix), and
in Tradl. 11 ἐν τῷ πάθει rendered
signo. The Syriac of this latter
passage is preserved (C. /. p. 200),

τ 5 "».2. 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
τ 521 and the other zs95, the
latter being correct, as appears from
the Latin of Ruffinus (Clem. Recogn.
11. 58); and a fourth from Sexti Sez-

see the lower note.

3 τῆς “Acias] GL[A] (which
kal] GL g; om. ZA. 4 χαρᾷ)
5 ᾿Αποδεξάμενος] ἀρ ; acceptans L;

tentiae pp. 26, 27 (ed. Gildemeister),
where there is the same interchange

between the two words τάλας,
mzaisd, 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
traces of the letters so closely re-
semble each other that it naturally
would be so. (4) The Armenian
Version actually has zz passione here,
so that σού σα 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 6 Θεὸς
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη
κιτιλ., Rom. 3 ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν I. X., Polyc.
ὃ ἐν Θεῷ ἡμῶν Ἶ. Χ. εὔχομαι, Rom. 6
μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ μου;
or it has some defining words as in
Smyri. 1 Δοξάζω Ἶ. X. τὸν Θεὸν τὸν
οὕτως ἡμᾶς σοφίσαντα, Ephes. 7 ἐν
ἀνθρώπῳ. Θεός. The expression just
below δ I ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ can hardly
be regarded as an exception (see the
note there). In the really exception-
al passages there is more or less
doubt about the reading or the con-
nexion; Zval/. 7, Smyrn. 6,10. The
authority for the omission of καὶ here
is quite inadequate; but, even if καὶ
were genuine, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν must
be taken with I. X., and not (as Bun-

TO THE EPHESIANS.

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

ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ χαίρειν.

I. ᾿λποδεξάμενος [ὑμών] ἐν Θεῷ τὸ πολναγάπη-

guoniam acceptum mihi (supra me) ZX; quoniam acceptabilis est apud me A. Thére 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] (ἃ; πολυπόθητον g; multum dilectum LZ[A].

sen Br. p. 85) with τοῦ πατρός.

2. ἀξιομακαρίστῳ] ‘ worthy of felt-
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 A/o/. 34 has been al-
leged as an argument against the
genuineness of that treatise. On the
fondness of Ignatius for compounds
of ἄξιος see the notes on ἀξιονόμαστον
§ 4 below.

3. τῆς Actas] i.e. the Roman
province bearing this name. With
very much hesitation I have put the
words in brackets, as a possible in-
terpolation, since they are wanting in
the Syriac; and with a place so well
known as Ephesus the specification
is a little startling. It occurs how-
ever in Iren. 111. I. I Ἰωάννῆς...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 Μαιάνδρῳ.
case of ᾿Αντιόχεια τῆς Συρίας (ταί.
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 ev τῷ Νείλῳ, On
the authority of Hecatzeus): and the
addition here must be explained by

The .

the formal character of the address.
See also Xen. Aad. 11. 2. 6 ἐξ ’Ede-
σου τῆς Ἰωνίας.

4. ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ] Comp. Magn.
7 ἐν τῇ χαρᾷ τῇ 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., Swzyrn. inscr., Tradl. 1,
Polyc. t: comp. also § 4 (below),
Trall. 13.

πλεῖστα...χαίρειν)͵ This form of
salutation runs through six of the
seven Ignatian letters, sometimes
with words interposed as here and
Rom., sometimes in juxtaposition as
Polyc., Magun., Trall., Smyrn. The
exception is Phz/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. I,
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

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1

᾽ Δ ’ ῇ ᾽ ῇ 9 a \ ὃ ,
τον ὄνομα, ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει [ἐν γνώμη ὀρθῇ καὶ] δικαίᾳ

\ / \ 2 , ~ ~ a ΄σ
κατα πίστιν καὶ ἀγαπην ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ σωτῆρι

I φύσει... δικαίᾳ] natura (in) voluntate recta et Justa 23 revera immaculata volun-

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

preef. atgue etiam Z,.

zesu christi salvatoris nostri DA: see the lower note.

when you heard that I was on my
way from Syria, a prisoner for the
Name of Christ our common hope,
expecting to fight with wild beasts
in Rome and so to claima place asa
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-
comed’; comp. Polyc: 1,. Frail, 1,
He had welcomed them in the person
of Onesimus: see TZyal/. 1. The
- 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 οὖν.. ἀπείληφα
k.t.A. The opening of the letter to
the Romans fares in the same way.
See also similar phenomena in
Philad. τ, Smyrn. 1; comp. Magi.
ap Εν ‘

I. ὄνομα] ‘xame, 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,’ ‘Ephe-
sis Greece, destdertum 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

2 κατὰ] txt. GLA2Z,¢;
3 μιμηταὶ] Gg;

parallel passages as Rom. 10 Kpoxos
τὸ ποθητὸν μοι ὄνομα (see also the
note on "Adknyv, Smyrn. 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
zuum 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 σου, which
appears in Polyc. 1. Otherwise I
should adopt the reading of the Long
Recension ὑμῶν ἐν Θεῷ TO κιτιλ., aS
this pronoun occupies the same
early place elsewhere in the opening
addresses of Ignatius, Zag. 1, Rom.
5; ΟΣ ρας

φύσει)]͵ “ὧν nature)? and not by
accident or use or education. Here
again the expression has a Gnostic
tinge: see the note on 77va//. inscr.
“Apa@pov 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. Stvom.ii. 3(p. 433) ἐνταῦθα

1] TO THE EPHESIANS.

΄σ v7 ~~ , ’ ε7
ἡμῶν" μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ, ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι

quia tmitatores Τ,; the anacoluthon is obviated in ZA by conversion into a fi-

nite verb with a connecting particle ef estis imitatores.

αἀναζωπυρήσαντες]

ἀρ" [Sev. (Syr.) 213, 217] ; et reaccendentes Τ,; et incalescentes estis...et D3 def. A

(see the next note).

φυσικὴν ἡγοῦνται τὴν πίστιν οἱ ἀμφὶ
Βασιλείδην...ἔτι φασὶν οἱ ἀμφὶ Βασι-
λείδην πίστιν ἅμα καὶ ἐκλογὴν οἰκείαν
εἶναι.

2. πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην͵] A _ very
frequent combination in this writer;
Ge. § 14, 20, Magn. i. 13, Philad. τι,
Suyrn. 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
89. In 72γαϊί 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 3;
see Clem. Rom. 60 (p. 202). 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 ἀγάπῃ.
(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
Trall. 1; and see below § 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: sce the note on
inscr. τῇ εὐλογημένῃς. Comp. Clem.
Flom. xii. 26 χρὴ τὸν φιλανθρωπίαν
ἀσκοῦντα μιμητὴν εἶναι Tod Θεοῦ,
εὐεργετοῦντα δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, ὡς
αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς πᾶσιν ἐν τῷ νῦν κόσμῳ
τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τοὺς ὑετοὺς αὐτοῦ παρέ-

sitive use is not uncommon; e.g.

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
disjointed and ungrammatical preface
is explained by the unfavourable cir-
cumstances under which the letter was
dictated: Rom. 5. The grammar 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—KalakalkaTa.

ἀναζωπυρήσαντες) ‘kindled into liv-
wg fire, in an intransitive sense, i.e.
‘stimulated to activity.’ The intran-

[ῳ]
Gen. xlv. 27, 1 Macc. xiii. 7, the
only passages where it occurs in the
LXxX. So also Clem. Rom. 27, Plut.
Mor. p. 695 A, p. 888 F ἀναζωπυρεῖν
νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας, etc.

ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ] Tertull. ad Uvxor.
li. 3 ‘sanguine Dei.’ See also Acts
xx. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν
περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος,
where Θεοῦ is most probably the

THE. EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ

~ \ as af “ > ‘4 /

Θεοῦ, TO συγγενικὸν ἔργον τελείως ἀπηρτίσατε" ἀκού-

\ / 7 ΄- ΄

σαντες γὰρ δεδεμένον ἀπὸ (υρίας ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ

> / \ 5 7 5 aay lant ΄- ς ΄
α

ὀνόματος καὶ ἐλπίδος, ἐλπίζοντα Ty προσευχῇ ὑμων

1 Θεοῦ] ΟΤἿΣ Sev. (Syr.) 213, 217; def. A (but this defect witnesses to θεοῦ,
the whole clause having dropped out owing to the homceoteleuton); χριστοῦ g.
τελείως GLg Sev. (Syr.) 213, 2173 celeriter (as if ταχέως) 2; cum amore A.

ἀπηρτίσατε) g* LDA Sev. (Syr.) 213, 2173 ἀπαρτίσατε G.
δεδεμένον] GL; pe δεδεμένον σ΄; dub. ZA,
4 ἐπιτυχεῖν] GLg; om. ZA: see the lower note.

2*A.
syria A; ab operibus 2*.

2 γὰρ] GLg*; om.
ἀπὸ Συρίας] GLg; 7

διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν] per potiri L* ; per id guo dignor 2; quando hoc dignor et perfero
Aj; διὰ τοῦ μαρτυρίου g; διὰ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐπιτυχεῖν G: see the lower note.

correct reading; and comp. Foz. 6.
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
Philad. inscr.

1. συγγενικόν | ‘zatural, literal-
ly ‘connate, ‘congenital’; comp.
Plut. Wor. p. 561 Ε κακίας ὁμοιότητα
συγγενικὴν ἐν νέῳ βλαστάνουσαν ἤθει.
So συγγενικὸν νόσημα, Plut. Vez.
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 [redemptz?] 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. § Ixvi. Ὁ. 776
(Moulton), Kiihner Il. p. 469 sq. For
other similar constructions of prepo-
sitions comp. e.g. below, ὃ 12 τῶν
els Θεὸν ἀναιρουμένων, ὃ 14 εἰς Kado-
καγαθίαν ἀκόλουθά ἐστιν, ὃ 17 αἶχμα-
λωτίσῃ...ἐκ τοῦ...«ζ(ἣν, and not unfre-
quently in Ignatius. For the par-
ticular expression here see S7mzyru.
II ὅθεν δεδεμένος (comp. below, ὃ 21).

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

53... ἐλπίδος] So ὃ 21 ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστῷ τῇ κοινῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν, Philad.
11: comp. Philad. 5. For 7 €ntis
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. 13. His mar-
tyrdom was ¢he success, ¢he triumph,
to which he looked forward; see
esp. Rom. 8 αἰτήσασθε περὶ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα
ἐπιτύχω : comp. also Polyc. 7, Trald.
12, 13... So Mart. len. Ant. rot
στεφάνου τῆς ἀθλήσεως ἐπιτύχῃ.

διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν]! The genesis of

1] TO THE EPHESIANS. 31

3 ΄- a ε , ~ [72 \ ~ 5
ἐπιτυχεῖν ἐν Ρώμῃ θηριομαχῆσαι, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυ-

5 χεῖν δυνηθώ

\ ον ς 4
μαθητῆς εἶναι, ἱστορῆσαι ἐσπουδάσατε.

᾽ \ oy \ / ΄σ > , ~
ἐπεὶ οὖν THY πολυπλήθειαν ὑμῶν ἐν ὀνόματι Θεοῦ ἀπεί-

5 μαθητὴς εἶναι] L; add. “εἶ ZA; add. τοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἑαυτὸν ἀνενεγκόντος (-νέγκαν-
τος v. 1. ing) θεῷ προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν Gg (from 221. v. 2; 1 completes the quotation

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

ἱστορῆσαι ἐσπου-

dacare] videre (leg. visere?) festinastis L; studuistis ut veniretis et videretis me Σ; vos
studuistis recreare me A (as if it had read %331N°3N for °330IMN); om. Gg. Cureton
supplies the missing words, με ἰδεῖν ἐσπουδάζετε; Pearson, Petermann, Lipsius, and

Zahn, ἰδεῖν ἐσπουδάσατε : see the lower note.
(δὲ) 25 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
Tov μαρτυρίου for dia 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 S. Paul, ἘΡ 65. v. 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
ina 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] g* ;

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 viv yap ἀρχὴν ἔχω τοῦ
μαθητεύεσθαι ; comp. Tradl. 5, Rom. 5
(quoted below), and see Mart. Jen.
Ant. τ μήπω... 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. αὶ 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 x.r.d.] A resumption
of the original sentence ᾿Αποδεξάμενος

32 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1

3 3 / res) ele > / 3 “4 Rid \

Anpa ἐν ᾿᾽Ονησίμῳ, τῷ ἐπ᾽ ἀγαπη ἀδιηγήτωῳ, ὑμῶν δὲ
᾽ / \ 7 \ “ Ν
[ἐν σαρκὶ] ἐπισκόπῳ" ὃν εὔχομαι κατὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστον

ς ὃν > ‘og \ / ε = > “odie ἢ € , >
υμας αγαπαν, και TAVTAS υμᾶς αὐτῷ εν OMOLOTHTL 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.

Ag: see the lower note.
dominum nostrum 2; om. GLAg.

ἀπείληφα] GLAg; suscepimus 2.
altered to conform to the following ἐν σαρκὶ G; iz L*; dub. ZA.

om. =A (so that they take ἀδιηγήτῳ with ἀγάπη).
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν] GLEA; χριστὸν ἰησοῦν g. Add.

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

3 αὐτῷ ἐν ὁμοιότητι εἶναι] (ἃ; 2251 7711

similitudine esse Τ,; ἐν ὁμοιώματι αὐτοῦ εἶναι 5; 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 K.T.A.

πολυπλήθειαν
body, ‘your large numbers’; comp.
2 Macc. viii. 16 τὴν ἐθνῶν πολυπλή-
θειαν, Valentinus in Epiph. fer.
xxxi. 6 ὧν τὴν πολυπλήθειαν πρὸς
ἀριθμὸν ἐξειπεῖν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον. The
word occurs occasionally in Classical
writers, being found as early as
Sophocles Fragm. 583 ; comp. Arist.
Hist. An. v. 4 (p. 562) τὴν πολυπλή-
θειαν αὐτῶν. The expression is an in-
cidental testimony to the flourishing
condition of the Ephesian Church in
the beginning of the second century.
The word is written both πολυπλή-
Gera and πολυπληθία. The former is
more largely supported by analogy ;
but for the latter comp. Soph. Fragm.
342 κυκλεῖ δὲ πᾶσαν οἰκετῶν παμπλη-
θίαν, which however, as a poetical
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"

‘your numerous.

ἐθεώρησα ἐν πίστει κιτιλ. Comp. also
below, ὃ 2 δὲ ὧν πάντας ὑμᾶς κατὰ
ἀγάπην εἶδον, Magn. 2 ἠξιώθην ἰδεῖν
ὑμᾶς διὰ Δαμᾶ κιτ.λ., Tvall. τ ὥστε μὲ
τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι.

I. ἐν ᾽Ονησίμῳ] 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. £. 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. Ὁ. 310 sq. The name
occurs in an Ephesian inscription
Boeckh C. Δ no. 2983.

2. ev σαρκὶ] 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 δὲ. There is no reason to sup-
pose that the Syriac translator had
not the δὲ in his text, because he

1] TO THE EPHESIANS. 33

6
εὐλογητὸς yap ὁ χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν ἀξίοις οὖσιν τοιοῦ-
5 Tov ἐπίσκοπον κεκτῆσθαι.
11. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ συνδούλου μου Βούρρου τοῦ κατὰ

stmtles-estote ei A. 4 ἀξίοις] iGLEA; τοιούτοις σ. οὖσιν) οὖσι Gs.
5 κεκτῆσθαι] GL; κεκτῆσθαι ἐν χριστῷ σ ; om. DA. Similar omissions in Z occur Rom.
1 εἶναι, Polyc. 6 σχεῖν (ἔχειν). The translator probably had κεκτῆσθαι in his text here
but declined to translate it as a pleonasm. 2 stops here and resumes again ὃ 3 ἀλλ
ἐπεὶ K.T.X. 6 μου] GLA; ἡμῶν g. A read συμβούλου for συνδούλου.

Bovppov] G; durdo A (a confusion of the Syriac letters and 3, Zand7). For the

variations in the first vowel in Lg see Appx.
See also the notes on Swyru. 12, Philad. τι.

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 (Magz. 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
(1. 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.
il. 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 ¢hezr 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 Ἰησοῦν.

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

IGN,

All the authorities, except A, agree

see Kithner Gramm. 11. p. 372 56.
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, Tradl. 4, 13, Rom. 9, Smyrn.
9, 11, Polyc. 8. So also ἄξιος Θεοῦ
§§ 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. ovvdovAov] This expression
is with great propriety confined in
Ignatius to deacons, since the func-
tion which the bishop had in common
with them was wznistration , 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 ἃ συνθεράπων of

34 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [ur

A , ς ~ \ 9 ᾿ - 9 , J
Θεὸν διακονου ὑμῶν | καὲ] ἐν πᾶσιν εὐλογημένον, εὔχομαι
΄ι A > \ a ~ ’
παραμεῖναι αὐτὸν εἰς τιμὴν ὑμών καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου...
\ ¢ , A ΄- s/ \ ~ « ΕῚ
καὶ Kpoxos δὲ ὁ Θεοῦ ἀξιος καὶ ὑμῶν, ὃν. ἐξεμ-
1 καὶ Ag; om GL. 3 καὶ Κρόκος δὲ] GL; κρόκος δὲ δ; δέ mar-
cum (ὩΣ for g, m for %) A. ᾿ἐξεμπλάριον] GL; ws ἐξεμπλάριον g ;

secundum similitudinem A (omitting however ὃν, and adding em at the end of the
sentence), 4 ἀπέλαβον] GLA; ἀπελάβομεν g. 6 ἀναψύξαι]

bishops, Euseb. V. Ο ii. 69, iii. 12,

17, Socr. H. £. i. 9. For the relation ἡ

of the Ignatian usage of σύνδουλος
to S. 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-
test, 5, Ep. ad Iaci.2)-7,..where
presbyters and others are so address-
ed by a bishop.

Bovppov] This person is mentioned
again Philad. 11, Smyrn. 12. He
was the amanuensis of both those
‘Jetters, 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 Afocryphal Acts τι. 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. Apost. Apocr. p. 274).
In the corresponding passage of
pseudo-Abdias (4,12. Hist. v. 23) the
name is Byrrhus, as in the Syriac.

2. eis τιμήν] A common Ignatian

merely ‘a sample,

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

3. Κρόκος] mentioned likewise in
the letter to the Romans ὃ 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 δ᾽ 1 ἀξίοις
οὖσιν.

ἐξεμπλάριον͵] ‘a pattern, not
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. 222.
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
Hland-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 Zvall. 3 τὸ ἐξεμπλάριον τῆς
ἀγάπης ὑμῶν, Smyrn. 12 ἐξεμπλάριον
Θεοῦ διακονίας. It was natural that

π7 TO THE EPHESIANS. 35

, ~ ᾽ 3 « cx > , 3 4 A ,
πλάριον τῆς ap ὑμῶν ἀγάπης ἀπέλαβον, κατὰ πάντα
᾿ | % A ΄ na
5 Me ἀνέπαυσεν, ὡς Kal αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
᾽ , «“ 3 ,ὔ \ / \ of \
ἀναψύξαι, ἅμα ᾿Ονησίμῳ καὶ Bovppw καὶ Εὐπλῳ καὶ
/ © , ~ A , oh 3
Φρόντωνι, δι ὧν πάντας ὑμᾶς κατὰ ἀγάπην εἶδον" ὀναί-

GL; ἀναψύξει g (but refrigeret 1); dub. A.
explained by the confusion of similar letters in the Syriac).
Εὔπλῳ] G; εὔπλοϊ g*; euploL; 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.’.| The phrase
κατὰ πάντα ἀναπαύειν occurs several
times in Ignatius; JZagu. 15, Trall.
12, Rom. 10, Smyrn. 9, 12 (comp.
Smyrn. 10). The word dvaravew
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. ws καὶ avrov...avayyvéa] A remi-
niscence of 2 Tim. i. 16 πολλάκις pe
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 a
ovyx...emnoxuvOnre’ οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαι-
σχυνθήσεται ἡ τελεία πίστις, ᾿Ιησοῦς
Χριστός, a passage which in thought
closely resembles the one _ before
us. For ἀναψύχειν comp. also 7 ral.
12.

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

Bov’ppw! G; cendaro A (to be
L*g* have variations

coincidence of names, Εὔπλους ’Ova-
giuov. 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 mods, τῷ moi, in later
writers; see Lobeck Paral. p. 173
sq., Phryn. p. 453. In Alciphr. ZZ.
i. 18 I find it written Ἑὐπλόῳ. This
Euplus and Fronto are not named
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 Xom. 10.
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, δὺ ὧν] i.e. ‘as your repre-
sentatives’. For the general sense
sce the note on ἀπείληφα § 1, and for
διὰ comp. Magn. 2 ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς͵ διὰ
Δαμᾶ.

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, JZagn. 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

τῷ

~ x Ud / " ἐλ
μην ὑμών διὰ παντός, ἐάνπερ ἄξιος ὦ.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11

’ 5
πρέπον ουν

ἐστιν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον δοξαζειν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν

\ / ς ΄σ « 9 ΄σ ΄σ /
TOV δοξασαντα ὑμᾶς" ἵνα ἐν μιᾷ ὑποταγή κατηρτισμε-

; ’ ne | ld \ A“ /
νοι, ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ,

\ / Oy ,
κατὰ WAVTA NTE ἡγιασμένοι.

I πρέπον οὖν] txt GL; add. ὑμᾶς g; add. vodis A.

3 Karnp-

" φισμένοι] L3 ἦτε κατηρτισμένοι τῷ αὐτῷ νοὶ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε

πάντες περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἵνα Gg (from 1 Cor. i. 10).

This addition is wanting not

only in L, but also in A, where however the syntax is rearranged; jerfectos 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 ὦ] This doubt
about his ‘worthiness’ is common in
Ignatius; Magn. 12, 14, Tradl. 4, 13,
kom. 9, Smyrn. 11. See also the
note on ἠξιώθην, Magn. 2.

πρέπον... ἐστιν] This phrase ap-
pears again, JZagn. 3, 4, Rom. 10,
Philad. 10, Smyrn. 7; while πρέπει
occurs in ὃ 4 below, Magu. 3, Trall.
12, Smyru. 11, Polyc. 5, 7.

2. δοξάζειν..«τὸν δοξάσαντα] See
Philad. το δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα.. καὶ ὑμεῖς
δοξασθήσεσθε. For similar turns of
expression see the note on Szzyri.
5 μᾶλλον δὲ κιτ.λ.

3. κατηρτισμένοι] ‘joined toge-
ther, ‘settled’; comp. Philad. 8
els Evwow κατηρτισμένος, .5771}771. 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. Vv. 28 ἡ Μίλητος. -μνμοσήσασα és
Ta μάλιστα στάσι μέχρι οὗ 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 Of.
XIX. p. 461 (ed. Kuhn) καταρτισμός
ἐστι μεταγωγὴ ὀστοῦ ἢ ὀστῶν ἐκ τοῦ
παρὰ φύσιν τόπου 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
vot καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ. From
this passage οἵ 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. πρεσβυτερίῳβ! This is a com-
mon word in Ignatius; see below,
$: 4,°20, Magn. 2, 03, eae 2)"'7,
13, Philads Ay 55° 7» °SRPTRANG, 12.
In the Apostolic writings it occurs
only once of a Christian presbytery,
y Timsivieig

III. “1 do 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.

11]

111.

TO THE EPHESIANS, 37

VA ~ af
Οὐ διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν, ὡς ὧν Te εἰ yap Kal

, 3 a Si mel af 5) ’ > > ~
δέδεμαι ἐν TW ὀνόματι, οὔπω ἀἄπηρτισμαι ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ

os ron ie \ > \ af ~ / A

Χριστῷ: νῦν [γὰρ] ἀρχὴν ἔχω τοῦ μαθητεύεσθαι καὶ
(ese cia τας ε ’ " ary \ »/

προσλαλῶ ὑμῖν ὡς συνδιδασκαλίταις μου" ἐμὲ yap ἔδει

gLA; ἐπιτασσόμενοι G.

6 τι] gA; Tis GL.

ἡ ἐν TH ὀνόματι

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

tatis nomen A.

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

διὰ τὸ ὄνομα, but without doubt the words Christi, 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. Οὐ διατάσσομαι κ.τ.λ.] Trall. 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 ὡς διδάσκαλος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς
εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑποδείξω ὀλίγα k.T.A., 26.
4 ἐρωτῶ ὑμᾶς ὡς εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν ὧν, and
again οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς
πρέπει ἀγαπῶντι...«γράφειν ἐσπούδασα,
περίψημα ὑμῶν, Polyc. Phzl. 12 ‘nihil
vos latet; mihi autem non est con-
cessum modo.’ For the reading τι,
rather than ris, comp. I Cor. iil. 5, 7,
τί οὖν ἐστιν ᾿Απολλῶώς ; τί δέ ἐστιν
Παῦλος;... οὔτε ὁ φυτεύων ἐστίν τι
κιτιλ., where similarly, τίς... τίς is sub-
stituted for ri...ri in some copies;
see also Gal. ii. 6, vi. 3, εἶναί τι, and
1 Cor. xiii. 2, 2 Cor. xii. 11, οὐδέν ety.

καὶ δέδεμαι] ‘Even my bonds do
not perfect me; even my bonds do
not make me a full disciple, much
less a teacher’; comp. Magu. 12
εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι, πρὸς ἕνα τῶν λελυ-
μένων ὑμῶν οὐκ εἰμί, Tradl. 5 καὶ γὰρ
ἐγὼ οὐ καθότι δέδεμαι... παρὰ τοῦτο
ἤδη καὶ μαθητής εἰμι, πολλὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν
λείπει «.7.A. For the additional
dignity and authority which are con-
ferred by his bonds, see the notes on
δ 11 below, Magn. 1.

7. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι] ‘the Namie, i.e.

8 yap] 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 Ov ὑμᾶς μὴ
βλασφημῆται... βλασφημεῖται τὸ ὄνομα,
Hermas Sz. vili. 10 τὸ ὄνομα ἡδέως
ἐβάστασαν, ix. 13 ἐὰν τὸ ὄνομα μόνον
λάβῃς, 2b. ἐὰν τὸ ὄνομα φορῇς, 20. τὸ
μὲν ὄνομα ἐφόρεσαν, ix. 28 οἱ πάσ-
χοντες ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος, Apollon.
in Euseb. A. Ε. ν. 18 κέκριται... οὐ
διὰ τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἃς 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, dbonorum, in ὃ 7 below;
Domini, etc., in Philad. το; τοῦ Κυ-
pov, 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 § I μαθητὴς εἶναι; for the verb, the
note on § 10 μαθητευθῆναι.

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

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[111

πὰ. ΟΣ σε “- / , ε a
ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὑπαλειφθῆναι πίστει, νουθεσίᾳ, ὑπομονῇ, μα-

θυμί AN’ ἐπεὶ ἡ ἀγάπη οὐκ ἐᾷ τ ὶ
κροθυμίᾳ. α ἡ ἀγάπη οὐκ ἐᾷ ME σιωπᾷν περι

~ A > / ΄- a e
UMW), δια τοῦτο προέλαβον παρακαλεῖν ὑμάς, ὅπως

1 ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν G; παρ᾽ ὑμῶν [6].

accipere a vobis fidem etc. A; ὑπομνησθῆναι δ.

Inscr. Lat. 2818, 2819), and which
points to the meaning. These com-
pedagogite are the slaves trained
under the same fedagogus or in the
same pedagogium, and are called
elsewhere puert compedagogit (see
Fabretti 1. c.). The word is a mongrel
(con-madaywyirns), like sullibertus
(ovr-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 5.
Paul or any Apostle, but Christ ; see
δ 15 εἷς οὖν διδάσκαλος κιτιλ. Some
would explain the word ‘joct-teach-
ers’ (comp. August. Conf. i. 9 ‘con-
doctore suo’), and this meaning cer-
tainly suits the following ὑπαλειφθῆναι
well (comp. Plat. Vit. Pericl. 4 τῷ δὲ
Περικλεῖ συνῆν, καθάπερ ἀθλητῇ, τῶν
πολιτικῶν ἀλείπτης καὶ διδάσκαλος) ;
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. Ef. Ixvii (X. p. 336, ed.
Migne). (2) The analogy of other
words shows that the termination
-irns, signifies ‘one who has to do
with’ anything, e.g. ᾿Αρεοπαγίτης, ἐγ-
κρατίτης, ὁπλίτης, πολίτης, σωρίτης;
τεχνίτης, πρωτοκαθεδρίτης (Hermas
Vis. iii. 9), etc. So we have συμφυ-
Aakirns, not ‘a fellow-jailor,’ but a
‘fellow-prisoner’; συζυγίτης ‘a yoke-
fellow, husband’ (συζυγία) ; συνορίτης
‘a neighbour’ (συνορία) ; συνοδίτης ‘a
fellow-traveller’ (συνοδία); etc. (3)
The συν- would be pointless other-

υπαλειφθῆναι] G3 suscipi (VrornpOnva:) L;

2 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ x.7.A.] Z 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 K.7.A., not with the words imme-
diately preceding, if συνδιδασκαλίταις
is rightly interpreted ‘school-fellows’ ὃ
and to such a connexion the im-
perfect ἔδει ‘it weve meet’ (not det)
points. See the language of Ignatius
to the Romans § 3.

I. ὑπαλειφθῆναι] “210 have been a-
nointed’, as an athlete preparing for
the contest. Compare the metaphor
in Polyc. 2, 3, νῆφε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἀθλητής
...70 θέμα ἀφθαρσία... μεγάλου ἐστὶν
ἀθλητοῦ τὸ δέρεσθαι καὶ νικᾷν. For
the meaning of ὑπαλείφειν see Com.
in Plut. Vzt. Pomp. 53 ws ἅτερος
πρὸς Tov ἕτερον ὑπαλείφεται τῶ χεῖρε
θ᾽ ὑποκονίεται. This duty of oiling
the athlete fell to the trainer, hence
called ἀλείπτης (see e.g. Epict. Diss.
iil. 10. 8, iil.” 20. τὸ Wi 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 twa ‘to incite against a person’,
Polyb. ii. 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 (11. p. 569),
Quis rer. div. her. 24 (I. p. 490),
Clem. Alex. S¢vom. 11. 15 (p. 436).
For its application to a moral and
godly life generally, see Philo Ov.
prob. lib. 12 sq. (11. p. 458 sq.) τὸ
ἠθικὸν εὖ μάλα διαπονοῦσιν, ἀλείπταις
χρώμενος. τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις... .«τοιού-

σι

TO. THE. EPHESIANS: |.’ 39

; , 4 ~ , ~ ~ \ 8. » bs os
συντρέχητε TH γνωμή τοῦ Θεοῦ. καὶ γὰρ ᾿]ησοῦς Xpi-
9 , e ~ am ~ \
στός, TO ἀδιάκριτον ἡμών ζῆν, TOU πατρὸς ἡ γνώμη,

this one sentence, but nothing afterwards till 8 8 ὅταν γὰρ κ.τ.λ.
περὶ ὑμῶν] ἀρ; pro vobis L; de vobis A; a. vobis Σ (a Syriac
5 nuav] LA; ὑμῶν G; al. g.

ἐπειδὴ σ.
idiom).

τους ἡ δίχα περιεργείας ἑλληνικῶν
ὀνομάτων ἀθλητὰς ἀρετῆς ἀπεργάζεται
φιλοσοφία, γυμνάσματα προτιθεῖσα
τὰς ἐπαινέτας πράξεις (speaking of the
Mosaic law), Epict. Déss. i. 24.1 ὁ
Θεός oe, ws ἀλείπτης, κιτιλ., Clem.
Alex. Stvom. 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. vil. IL
(p. 872) ἡ ἀγάπη ἀλείφουσα καὶ
γυμνάσασα κατασκευάζει τὸν ἴδιον
ἀθλητήν. But it 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. Perf.
et Fel. 10 (Ruinart p. 84) ‘et ce-
perunt me fautores mei oleo defrigere
quomodo solent zz agonem, Tertull.
ad Mart. 3 ‘Christus Jesus...vos
spiritu wzxzt et ad hoc scamma pro-
duxit.’ So too Basil. EZ. clxiv (IL.
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. S.
Chrysostom, in his homily on Ig-
natius, repeats the saint’s own
metaphor; Of. 11. 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, condbine,

ἐπεὶ] G3

agree’; as e.g. Clem. Hom. xx. 22
συνέδραμον αὐτοῦ τῷ βουλήματι ; comp.
Ζό. 1. το. The sense is not uncommon
in later writers.

τῇ γνώμῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ] This expression
is characteristic of Ignatius: Rom. 8,
Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 8. So too γνώμη
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ here and Phz/ad. inscr.

5. ἀδιάκριτον] ‘zxzseparable’ ; comp.
Magn. 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ διὰ
παντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν. 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, i. 6 μηδὲν διακρινόμενος. So
elsewhere in these epistles, Magz.
15 κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, Trall,
I ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ;
comp. Heracleon in Orig. zz Joann.
xiii. § 10 (IV. p. 220) τὴν ἀδιάκριτον
καὶ κατάλληλον τῇ φύσει ἑαυτῆς πίστιν,
Clem. Alex. “ωζ. ii. 3 (p. 190) ἀδια-
κρίτῳ πίστει: see the note on adia-
κρίτως Rom. inscr. (2) ‘ Vndiscriminat-
ing, indiscriminate, indtscreet, reck-
less’; e.g. Clem. Hom. iii. § τοῖς διὰ
TO ἀδιάκριτον ἀλόγοις ζώοις παρει-
κασθεῖσι. (3) ‘Lmpartial’, e.g. Clem.
Alex. Strom. ii. 18 (p. 474) ἀγάπη...

x , > > a
ἀμέριστός ἐστιν ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀδιάκριτος,

κοινωνική. So the adverb, Zest. Duod.
Patr. Zab. 7 ἀδιακρίτως πᾶσι σπλαγχ-
νιζόμενοι ἐλεᾶτε. Its passive senses
are; (4) ‘luseparable, inseparate, as
here; comp. Aristot. de Somn. 3
(p. 458) διὰ δὲ τὸ γίνεσθαι ἀδιακρι-
τώτερον τὸ αἷμα μετὰ τὴν τῆς τροφῆς
προσφορὰν ὁ ὕπνος γίνεται, ἕως ἂν
διακριθῇ τοῦ αἵματος τὸ μὲν καθα-

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[111

ε % ἃ ὧν € A \ / ε θέ >
as Kal Ol ἐπισκοῖοι OL KATA TA περᾶατα ορισ EVTES EV

> ~ ~ / > ’
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ γνωμῃ εἰσίν.

a το ages ~ /
IV. Ὅθεν πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν TH TOU ἐπισκο-

ε ~ \ ? /
που γνώμη: ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε. TO γὰρ ἀξιονόμαστον

e “-- ΄ ΄“σ sf ef , .
ὑμῶν πρεσβυτέριον, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀξιον, οὕτως συνήρμοσται

1 ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώμῃ! G; in cesu christi voluntate A; iesu christi sententia
L, where the omission of ὃ (=7) was easy between delerminati and desu; al. σ΄

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

ρώτερον εἰς τὰ ἄνω τὸ δὲ θολερώτερον
εἰς τὰ κάτω. (5) ‘Indistinguishable,
as Athenag. Resurr. 2 κἂν πάνυ
παρ᾽ 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 (EX)
αἱ παροιμίαι (παιδεῖαι) Σολομῶντος ai
ἀδιάκριτοι. (7) ‘Undecided’ (of a con-
test), Lucian πρῴ. Trag. 25 (1. p. 671)
ὡς ἀποθάνῃ ἀήττητος, ἀμφήριστον ἔτι
καὶ ἀδιάκριτον καταλιπὼν τὸν λόγον.

ὧν] For this substantival use of
the word, see the note on § 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,
1.6. of the earth: comp. Rom. 6 οὐδέν
μοι ὠφελήσει τὰ πέρατα τοῦ κόσμου, 20.
βασιλεύειν τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς. The
expression [τὰ] πέρατα used absolutely
as here occurs, Ps. lxv (lxiv). 9 οἱ
κατοικοῦντες τὰ πέρατα : comp. also
Philo Leg. ad Caz. 3 (p. 548) οἱ μέχρι
περάτων, 20. 27 (p. 571) ἀπὸ περάτων
αὐτῶν, Celsus in Orig. c. 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. 2).
Mare. 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 (7. v. A. p. 564)
or τὸν πάτερα (ad. loc.), and Markland
suggests τὴν xapira; but the passages
which I have quoted amply justify
the absolute use of [τὰ] πέρατα. Zahn
rightly objects (1 v. A. p. 299) to
Pearson’s interpretation ‘episcopatum
fuisse ab apostolis ex voluntate
Christi institutum’ (V. 7. 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 arenow 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

oe aoe 4 ς 5 \ Od 5 \ - 9 ~ ¢
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ WS χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ. διὰ τοῦτο ἐν TH ὁμο-
7 e a A , τι 4 3 ~ \ ᾽
νοίᾳ ὑμῶν καὶ συμφώνῳ ἀγάπη ᾿Ϊησοῦς Χριστὸς ἄδεται.
\ ¢, 4 {ἢ \ \ , J / ᾽
καὶ ol κατ᾽ ἄνδρα δὲ χορὸς γίνεσθε, ἵνα σύμφωνοι ὄντες
3 ε 7 = ~ / ᾽ δα Κ᾽ " >
ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, χρῶμα Θεοῦ λαβόντες, ἐν ἑνότητι ἄδητε ἐν

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

Traut. 2, Smyrn. 4, Polyc. t, 4.

ἀξιονόμαστον] ‘worthy of record,
‘qorthy 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
Phitlad. τ συνευρύθμισται [ὁ ἐπίσκοπος]
ταῖς ἐντολαῖς, ὡς χορδαῖς κιθάρα.
Comp.)Clem. ΑἸ ξεν {ρ.:8)
ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος...τὸν 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.τ.λ.

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

8. of κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘the individual
members’ of the Church, who are to
‘form themselves’ (γίνεσθε) into a
band or chorus. For the characteristic
Ignatian expression of κατ᾽ ἄνδρα
comp. below ὃ 20, 7ral/. 13, Smyrn.
51a, Polyee 1.

χορός] So Rom. 2 ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ
χορὸς γενόμενοι ᾷσητε τῷ πατρὶ ἐν
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ : 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 [g]; facti estis 1,;} 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 ὡς εὖ κέκραται,
Plato ResP. x. p. 601 ἐπεὶ γυμνωθέντα
γε TOV τῆς μουσικῆς χρωμάτων τὰ τῶν
ποιητῶν, αὐτὰ ἐφ᾽ αὐτῶν λεγόμενα K.T.A.
(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 Chapters on
Language p. 207 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, Or χρῶμα simply,
as distinguished from the two other
scales used by the Greeks, the da-
tonic (διατονικὸν γένος or διάτονον)
and exharmonic (ἐναρμόνιον γένος or
ἁρμονία); see Aristoxenus Yarm. pp.
19, 23 sq., 44, Euclid. Jatv. Harm,

ΠΡ. 534 (ed. Gregory), Dion. Halic.

de Comp. Verb. 19, Plut. de Mus. 11,
32 sq. (or. pp. 1134, 1142 sq.),
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vi. p. 366,
Vitruv. Arch. Vv. 4, Macrob. Soman.
Scip. ii. 4. See on this subject West-
phal Harmonik u. Melopiie der
Griechen pp. 129 sq., 141 sq., 263
sq., Marquard on Aristoxenus //avm.
p. 246 sq. and elsewhere. Of the

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[iv

φωνῇ μιᾷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ πατρί, ἵνα ὑμῶν καὶ
ἀκούση καὶ ἐπιγινώσκη;, Ov ὧν εὖ πράσσετε, μέλη ὄντας
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. χρήσιμον οὖν ἐστιν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀμώμῳ
ἑνότητι εἶναι, ἵνα καὶ Θεοῦ πάντοτε μετέχητε.

ο΄, Εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἐν μικρῷ χρόνῳ τοιαύτην συνή-
θειαν ἔσχον πρὸς τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὑμῶν, οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνην

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

MIdAIA).
καὶ τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ I. X. κ.τ.λ,

chromatic scale itself there were three
recognised modifications; Aristox.
Harm. p. 50 τρεῖς δὲ χρωματικαί, ἥ
τε τοῦ μαλακοῦ χρώματος καὶ ἡ τοῦ
ἡμιολίου καὶ ἡ τοῦ τονιαίου (comp. Aris-
tid. Quint. p. 19, Sext. Emp. l.c.,
Euclid. Lc. p. 537 54... 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 τε καὶ Tas xpoas (see Marquard’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. lc. Ignatius may have
been chiefly led to choose a term
which pointed chiefly to the chro-
matic scale, because this scale was.
especially adapted to the instrument
which suggested this elaborate meta-
phor, the κιθάρα: comp. Philochorus
in Athen. xiv. p. 637 sq. Λύσανδρος
ὁ Σικυώνιος κιθαριστὴς πρῶτος pere-
στησε τὴν Ψιλοκιθαριστικὴν ..... χρώ-
para Te εὔχροα πρῶτος ἐκιθάρισε κ.τ.λ.,
Plut. Mor. p. 1137 Ε τῷ χρωματικῷ
γένει... κιθάρα... ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐχρήσατο:
see Westphal p. 131 sq. The Latin
translator here roughly renders χρῶμα
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 TH συμφωνίᾳ τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ

2 ἐπιγινώσκῃ] cognoscat LA;

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

2. Ot ov εὖ πράσσετε) ‘through
your good actions, as in § 14 δι’ ὧν
πράσσουσιν ὀφθήσονται; comp. ὃ 15
δι’ ὧν λαλεῖ πράσσῃ κιτιλ. There is no
ground for the conjectural reading
δι dv. The Latin has not per guem
(as it has hitherto been read), but
per que, and the Armenian trans-
lates zz bonis laboribus vestris. For
ed πράσσειν in the sense, not of
‘faring well’, but of ‘acting well,’
comp. S7zyra. 11.

μέλη] ‘members, as Trall. 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

ν] TO THE EPHESIANS. 43

> 9 4 , , se. ah ite ae 4
ovoav αλλα πνευματικήν, πόσῳ μάλλον ὑμᾶς μακαρίζω
\ / e/ ς 2
TOUS ἀνακεκραμένους οὕτως, ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ᾿Ι]ησοῦ Χρι-
- \ « 3 = ‘ a 7 J P
CTW καὶ WS Inoous Χριστος TW πατρὶ, ἵνα πάντα ἐν

«ες lA 2. : 2
ἑνότητι σύμφωνα n. μηδεὶς πλανάσθω" ἐὰν μή τις

“Ὁ \ aS 7 ΤΡ 7)
(4 ἐντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὑστερεῖται τοῦ ἄρτου [ τοῦ
‘

ἐπιγινώσκων G; al. g. 4 μετέχητε] μετέχετε Ὁ. 8 τοὺς
ἀνακεκραμένου:] g* (but vwv.ll.); τοὺς ἐνκεκραμένους (ἃ ; gut mixti estis As con-

junctos L: see the lower note.

11 ἢ ἐντὸς] G Rup. 772; 512} intra L; ἐντὸς ἢ δ.

τοῦ Θεοῦ] GLg Rup.; om. A.

the whole Church are all powerful.
Whosoever comes not to the con-

' gregation, is 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 9 κατ᾽
ἀνθρώπων βίον.

8. ἀνακεκραμένους ‘ closely attach-
ed’ to him. This, rather than ey-
Kexpapevous, Seems to be the proper
word, when attachment, friendship,
is meant. See Pollux Oxom. V. 113
ἐπιτηδείως ἀνακέκραμαι πρὸς αὐτόν,
where he gives συγκέκραμαι aS a
synonyme, but not ἐγκέκραμαι; and
so again, Vill. 151: comp. also Bekker
Anecd. p. 391 ᾿Ανακραθέντες" avake-
ρασθέντες, ὁλοψύχως κολλώμενοι. For
this “use “see” Epict. Dess. iv. 2. Ὁ
μή Tore dpa τῶν προτέρων συνήθων ἢ
φίλων ἀνακραθῇς τινι οὕτως ὥστε
κιτιλ., Μ. Antonin. x. 24 προστετηκὸς
καὶ ἀνακεκραμένον τῷ σαρκιδίῳ, Clem.
Hom, ix. 9 τῇ Ψψυχῇ ἀνακίρνανται
ΠΤ 15), Clem, “Alex.
Exc. Theod. 36 (p. 978) τῷ ἑνὶ τῷ δι᾿
ἡμᾶς μερισθέντι ἀνακραθῶμεν, Orig.
c. Cels, viii. 75 ἀνακραθῶσι τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ
λόγῳ: comp. also Philo de Prem.
et pen. 16 (11. p. 424), Plut. Vit. Rom.
29, Vit. Cat. 25, and the expression

in Eur. Hipp. 253 χρῆν yap μετρίας

οὕτως] GL; αὐτῷ [g]; cum eo [A].
ὑστερεῖται] ὑστερεῖτε G.

εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλίας θνητοὺς ἀνακίρ-
νασθαι (with Valcknaer’s note).

IO, μηδεὶς πλανάσθω] As Smyrn,
6. So too the Apostolic phrase
(S. Paul and 5. James) μὴ πλανᾶσθε,
ὃ 16 below, Magn. 8, Philad. 3
(see the note).

11. tov θυσιαστηρίου] The same ex-
pression occurs again Tyrall. 7 6
ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίον ὧν καθαρός
ἐστιν x.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 sacrarium), com-
pared with Can. 44 ov δεῖ γυναῖκας

> [οἰ , > 4
ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ εἰσέρχεσθαι

. (Labb. Conc. 1. pp. 1533, 1537, ed.

Colet.). This seems also to be its
sense in Rev. xi. I μέτρησον τὸν ναὸν
τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὸ 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 vaovd... καὶ
ἄλλος ἄγγελος [ἐξῆλθεν] ἐκ τοῦ θυσια-
στηρίου. (For the ναός, as confined to

44 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

Θεοῦ]. εἰ γὰρ ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου προσευχὴ τοσαύτην
ἰσχὺν ἔχει, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἥ τε τοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ πά-
ons τῆς ἐκκλησίας. ὁ οὖν μὴ ἐρχόμενος El τὸ αὐτὸ
οὗτος ἤδη ὑπερηφανεῖ καὶ ἑαυτὸν διέκρινεν: γέγραπται
σπουδά- 5

/ ς c ‘ > ,
yap, ὑπερηφάνοιο ὁ Oedc ANTITACCETAL

2 τε] Gg Rup.; om. LA.

ὑπερηφανεῖ] ὑπεριφανεῖ G, and so ὑπεριφάνοις just below.
διακρίνει Rup. ; condemnavit L; al. g; def. A.

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, 7radl. 7 ὁ δὲ
ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὧν ov καθαρός ἐστιν,
τουτέστιν, ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσ-
βυτερίου καὶ διακόνου πράσσων τι,
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
similarly in Polyc. δ 11. 4 γινωσκούσας

4 οὗτος] GA; sic (οὕτως) L; al. g.
διέκρινεν] G;
5 yap] GLA; δὲ

ὅτι εἰσὶν θυσιαστήριον Θεοῦ, it is ap-
plied to a section of the Church, the
body of ‘widows’; see also AZost.
Const..ili, 6,14, it

Thus S. 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. Oct.
32, Orig. c. Ceés. 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 6 ἐπίσκο-
πος καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία Corresponds
to θυσιαστήριον, while ἡ προσευχὴ is
the spiritual sacrifice therein offered ;
as e.g. Clem. Al. Zc. ἢ θυσία τῆς
ἐκκλησίας λόγος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ψυχῶν
ἀναθυμιώμενος, Orig. ὦ. ς. 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 mpocevey-
κόντας τὰ δῶρα. In Philad. 4 θυσιαστή-
ριον seems to be used (see the note
there) as here and in 77a/Z. 7 (already

v1]

TO THE EPHESIANS.

σωμεν οὖν μὴ ἀντιτάσσεσθαι τῷ ΠΝ, ἵνα ὦμεν

Θεοῦ ideal al
Vik
Rup. 7745 alg.

θεῴ Rup. Anton.; deo LS,; dub. A;

’ ~
Kat ὅσον. βλέπει τις σιγῶντα ἐπίσκοπον,

6 ovv] GLS,; om. A [Rup. 779] [Anton. 82]; al. g.
ἀντιτάσσεσθαι LA S, Rup. Anton.; ἀντιτάσσεσθε G; al. g.
al. g.
et quantum Τ,; ὅσῳ οὖν [6]; et quando A; guia quantum (quanto) S).

7 Θεοῦ] G;
8 καὶ ὅσον] ἃ Rup. Anton.;

ἐπί-

σκοπὸν] ἃ Rup. ; τὸν ἐπίσκοπον [5] Anton.

. 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 κιτιλ. 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
ἄμτος, Rom. 4. It will be seen from
the authorities that the words rod
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 κιτιλ.] An allusion to
our Lord’s promise, Matt. xviii. 19,
20, ἐὰν δύο συμφωνήσουσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν
K.T-A.

4. ἑαυτὸν διέκρινεν] ‘separates him-
self then and there” We 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 247-
fecti (δ 2), as if it were ἀπηρτισμένοι,
and ἀδιάκριτον (δ 4) zxcomparadvile, as
if it were ἀσύγκριτον.

5. Ὑπερηφάνοις κιτ.λ.] A quotation
from Prov. ili. 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 LXxX; but Ignatius is
alone in placing ὑπερηφάνοις first.

6. ὦμεν Θεοῦ κι-τ.λ.] ‘we may be
Goa’s by our subjection’; comp. ὃ 8

ὅλοι ὄντες Θεοῦ, Phtlad. 3 ὅσοι Θεοῦ

εἰσὶν...
ἐμοὶ (ν.]. ἐμοῦ) γίνεσθε, τουτέστιν τοῦ
Θεοῦ. The substitution of the dative
was so very obvious, and almost in-
evitable, to scribes, that I have pre-
ferred the genitive against the pre-
ponderance of authorities.

VI. ‘Ifa bishop is silent, he only

τ -
οὗτοι Θεοῦ ἔσονται, Rom. 7

46 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [νι

, ,
πλειόνως αὐτὸν φοβείσθω.
> ’ > as > , « ὃ ΄ ς ~ [ \
οἰκοδεσπότης εἰς ἰδίαν οἰκονομίαν, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτον

\ A
πάντα yap ὃν πέμπει ὁ

«ε /
δέχεσθαι, ὡς αὐτὸν Tov πέμψαντα.
~ /
δηλονότι ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν Κύριον δεῖ προσβλεπειν.

\ - Υ̓͂
TOV οὖν ἐπισκοπον

᾽ \
avuTOS

\ Oy > “4 ε mY ie ὧν \ ? ΘΟ a“ ?
μὲν οὖν ᾿᾽Ονήσιμος ὑπερεπαινεῖ ὑμῶν τὴν ἐν Gew εὑ-
/ « / \ ’ / A eh 3 chm
ταξίαν, ὅτι πάντες κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ζῆτε καὶ OTL ἐν ὑμῖν

1 πλειόνω:] G (written πλειόνωφαυτον) ; πλεῖον [6] ; πλέον Rup. 779 Anton.

πέμπει] GLg Rup. 779 Anton.; ἂν πέμπῃ Rup. 750 5 mittet A.

2 οὕτως δεῖ

ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν] GL Anton. ; οὕτως ἡμᾶς δεῖ Rup. 750; οὕτως δεῖ ὑμᾶς Rup. 779; οὕτως

αὐτὸν δεῖ ἡμᾶς g.
recipere Τ,.

οὖν] Gg Anton., and so S,A; γοῦν Rup. 779.
προσβλέπειν) g Anton. Rup., and so LS,A ; προβλέ-
5 μὲν οὖν] GL; atgue igitur A; μέντοι [6].

A Anton. Rup.
mew G.

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 § 15, without how-
ever mentioning the bishop. Simi-
larly he commends the quiet and
retiring disposition of the bishop of
Philadelphia (PAz/ad. 1), who is not
named; and he deprecates any one
presuming on the youth of Damas the
bishop of Magnesia (Vagz. 3).

2. ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης] Apparently an
allusion to the parable in Matt. xxi.
33 sq. The words eis τὴν ἰδίαν οἶκο-
vouiav are a condensed expression for
eis 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 pe, together with Matt.
X. 40 ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, καὶ
ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστεί-
λαντά με.

3 δέχεσθαι] Gg Rup. 779 Anton. ; ὑποδέξασθαι Rup. 750;
πέμψαντα] Gg Rup. 750; πέμποντα Rup. 779 Anton. ; dub. LA.

4 δηλονότι] GLS,; om.
8 ἢ περὶ]

7. κατοικεῖ] ‘has τί permanent
abode’; see the note on Clem. Rom.
inscr. At the same time though no
one had settled here, Ignatius speaks
of certain heretics as παροδεύσαντας
§ 9.
8. περὶ κιτ.λ.} Ihave ventured so to
emend the text, as the Armenian
Version suggests, and as the sense
seems to require, substituting Ηπε-
piticoy for HtepiHcoy; see the
faulty reading of A, womep for ὡς
περὶ, in [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 1. Com-
pare Philad. 6 ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότεροι περὶ
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ λαλῶσιν, οὗτοι
ἐμοὶ στῆλαί εἶσιν κιτιλ, and simi-
larly Zrall. 9 κωφωθῆτε οὖν, ὅταν
ὑμῖν χωρὶς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ λαλῇ τις.
Another simple emendation would be
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: comp. Magn. 10
ἄτοπόν ἐστιν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν λαλεῖν
καὶ ἰουδαΐζειν, Rom. 7 μὴ λαλεῖτε
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κόσμον δὲ ἐπιθυμεῖτε.
The Latin akguem amplius quam
Lesum Christum loguentent is 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

αι

vit]

TO THE EPHESIANS.

3 7, 74 ~ 3 ᾽ 2Qi\ > / , ΄
οὐδεμία αἵρεσις κατοικεῖ" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἀκούετέ τινος πλέον

Nv ~ ΄- ~ 9
ἢ περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ λαλοῦντος ἐν ἀληθείᾳ.

VIL.

ce! , / ~ rs
Εἰωθασιν yap τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ TO ὄνομα

af \ aid ε ~
το περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια Θεοῦ: οὖς δεῖ

δὰ ε Mh 3 “ S15, sgh \ / ΄
ὑμᾶς ὡς θηρία ἐκκλίνειν: εἰσὶν γὰρ κύνες λυσσῶντες,

λαθροδῆκται, ovs δεῖ ὑμᾶς φυλάσσεσθαι ὄντας δυσθερα-

/
TTEUTOUS.

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

2 3 ’ 3 \ \ ’
εις (αΤρος εστιν, σάαρκικος Kal TTVEUMATLKOS,

In A the sentence is translated

et non audiatis quemquam, si non in veritate de tesu christo loquatur vobiscum.

See the lower note.
boxorum A; add. χριστοῦ Rup. 772.

9 τὸ ὄνομα] txt GLg (Mss, but 1 adds christ’); add.
See § 3 for similar glosses.

Io ὥλλα

τινὰ] So app. most mss of g*, and Rup. (Lequien); ἀλλά τινα (sic) G3; sed

(ἀλλὰ) guedam Ly; et revera (om. Twa) A.
13 εἷς] txt GLA Athan. 761 Theodt. iv. 49 Gelas.

Ἀαθροδῆκτοι g (MSS).

Sev-Syr. 218 (twice); add. yap Anon-Syr,. 219; al. g.

12 λαθροδῆκται] G Rup. ;

σαρκικός] txt [L] [A]

Athan. Gelas. Theodt. Sev-Syr. (twice) Anon-Syr,.; add. τε G; al. g.

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 x.t.A.] Comp. Polyc.
Phil. 6 τῶν ψευδαδέλφων καὶ τῶν ἐν
ὑποκρίσει φερόντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
Κυρίου. For the absolute use of ro
ὄνομα see above § 3.

10, ἄλλα τινά] ‘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 Smyrn. 4 προφυλάσσω
δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἀνθρωπομόρ-
gov «rr. 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 τὸν μὲν προσιόντα
οὐδὲν ὑλακτοῦσιν κιτιλ. (OP. ΧΙ. p. 115

A); λαθροδῆκτος (?) in the correspond-
ing passages of the Pseudo-Ignatius:
λαθροδάκτης Pallad. V7. Chrys. (Chrys.
Op. XIII. p. 21); λαθραιόδηκτος, Photius
in Oecum. ad Phi/. iii. 2; λαθροδάκνης,
Antiphanes in Azthol. Gre@c. 11. p.
189 (Jacobs); λαθροδάκνος (?), Nilus
Epist. i. 309, p. 196 A (Migne). The
recognised classical equivalent was
λαίθαργος (λάθαργος), e.g. Arist. Lg.
1068. Phrynichus (Bekker A ecd. 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. Quis div. salv. 29
(p. 952) τούτων δὲ τῶν τραυμάτων μόνος
ἰατρὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς κιτιλ., Orig. ¢c. (ἦς ii.
67 (I. p. 438) ἦλθε σωτὴρ ὁ Κύριος
ἡμῖν μᾶλλον ὡς ἰατρὸς ἀγαθός κοτιλ.
For the connexion of ἰατρὸς and

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[vit

) | aye ν ἀνθρώπω Θεός. ἐν θανάτω
γεννήτος καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν ἄνθρωπε ) ͵

ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρώτον παθη-

~ \ ς , lod
τὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν.

1 γεννητὸς καὶ dyévynros] G, and so app. Athan. (though some Mss and the
edd. read γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος); genitus et ingenitus L; factus ed 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
Θεὸς] Athan. Theodt. Gelas. Sev-Syr. (twice) Anon-Syr,.; deus οἱ filius hominis
[A] (reading ae a filius hominis’ for ΩΣ Διο 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 et in morte vivus [A]; tm morte
vita eterna Gelas.; ἐν ἀθανάτω {wh ἀληθινῆ (the dative is intended, for this Ms

θηρίον see Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 2
τὸν προκαθεζόμενον δεῖ ἰατροῦ τόπον
ἐπέχειν, οὐ θηρίου ἀλόγου θυμὸν ἔχειν.
Compare ὃ I5 εἷς οὖν διδάσκαλος.

σαρκικὸς κιτ.λ.] 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 §10 below. The expressions
σαρκικός, γεννητός, ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ἐν
θανάτῳ, ἐκ Μαρίας, παθητός, here are
introduced to emphasize the veadlzty
of Christ’s humanity against the
phantom theory of the Docetics: see
the note on 7γαζ. 9. For the use
of πνεῦμα in early Christian writers,
as opposed to σάρξ and expressing
the Divine nature of Christ as the
Λόγον, see [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 9
Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος...ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον
πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σάρξ, with the note.
The alternative is that σαρκικὸς κιτιλ.
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 δρατόν, τὸν ἀψηλάφητον, [τὸν δι᾽
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 przefortem, 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 (Swyrzz.
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 ingenerate’, i.e. ‘generate as re-
gards His human nature and ingene-

vit] TO THE EPHESIANS.

VIIL.

5 ἐξαπατᾶσθε, ὅλοι ὄντες Θεοῦ.

49
y a a εν σήν, 5 , “ Δ
Μη οὖν τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατάτω, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ
e/ \ / ᾽
ΟτΤαν yap μηδεμία εσι-
7 x oF 3 ς« “ ε ὃ / ε > 7,
θυμία ἐνήρεισται ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ δυναμένη ὑμάς βασανίσαι,
does not write the iota subscript) G ; 2 zmmortali vita vera L; al. σ. 2 καὶ
ἐκ] GLA Athan. Theodt. Sev-Syr. (once); ἐκ (om. καὶ) Sev-Syr. (once) Gelas.
Anon-Syry. ; al. g. 3 ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν] A Theodt. Sev-Syr.
(twice) Anon-Syr,.; dominus noster zesus christus Gelas.; doniinus christus noster L;
om. ‘Gal. ¢. 5 ὅταν γὰρ] > commences again here and continues to the
end of the chapter. ἐπιθυμία] ZA g; ἔρις GL; see below. 6 ἐνή-
ρεισται] plantata est ZA; complexa est (évelpnrar?) 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: see the lower

note.

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 vy. See the excursus at the
end of this epistle.

I. 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 vots in Christ.

ἐν θανάτῳ x.t.A.| For His death is
our life, His passion is our resurrec-
tion; comp. e.g. Smyrn. 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. Swyrn. 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 παθητὸν,
but in these antitheses he commences
with the Aumanity, as being the point
attacked by the Docetic teachers,

IGN.

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

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

ἐπιθυμία] The combination οἵ
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 yuvatkapta ... ἀγόμενα ἐπιθυμίαις
ποικίλαις, 2 Pet. ii. 18 δελεάζουσιν ἐν

. ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκός (comp. ver. 10), Jude

16, 18. The reading ἔρις, though not
inappropriate in itself (comp. Clem.
Alex. Stvom. vii. 16, p. 894, ἔριν ἣν ἐν
ταῖς αἱρέσεσι mpoxpireov), 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)7)͵ ‘is inherent, ts
fixed” So it is necessary to read

ἄρα κατὰ Θεὸν ζῆτε.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

ἵν Π|

/ ς ~ \ € »
περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι

nn ᾽ / ~ / ~ +n
ὑμῶν ᾿Εφεσίων ἐκκλησίας τῆς διαβοήτου τοῖς αἰῶσιν.

-1 ἄρα] dpa G (so certainly).

περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι] G (but

with a smooth breathing ἀγνίζομαι) ; 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 ΜΒ render
the change obvious. Bunsen (4” 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, Ktthn) τῶν
ἐνηρεικότων στομάχῳ Kal 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. p. 344 C τοῖς
περὶ τὸν μαστὸν ἐνερεισθέντος ὀστέοις
καὶ καταπαγέντος. Comp. Clem. Alex.
Strom. ii. 20 (p. 487) ἀπάτη συνεχῶς
ἐναπερειδομένη TH Ψυχῇ, Whence ἐνα-
περείσματα ‘impressions’ in the con-
text. For the form of the perfect see
Lobeck Phryu. p. 33, Veitch Greek
Verbs 5. v. ἐρείδω ; and for the indica-
tive with ὅταν, Winer xlii. p. 388 sq.
(ed. Moulton). Merx would read
ἐρρίζωται Or ἐνερρίζωται (p. 41), be-
cause the Syriac and Armenian have
‘plantata est,’ but this seems to be
only a loose rendering of ἐνήρεισται.

I. περίψημα ὑμῶν] sc. εἰμι. For the
omission of the substantive verb, and
for the general form of the sentence,
comp. Rom. 4 ἀπελεύθερος Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ (sc. ἔσομαι) καὶ ἀναστήσομαι ἐν
αὐτῷ ἐλεύθερος. Otherwise we might
read περίψημά εἰμι 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,

mepixabappa, 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. 5.Ν.,) 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 : Comp.
A mphitoch, cxxxiil. (OP. I. Ὁ. 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 εἰς
ἅπαντα χρώμεθα, ὑστάτοις ἀφιγμένοι-
σιν, οἷσιν ἡ πόλις πρὸ τοῦ οὐδὲ φαρμα-
κοῖσιν εἰκῇ ῥᾳδίως ἐχῥήσατ᾽ ἄν. On
these human victims see Hermann
Griech. Alterth. Gottesdienst. § 60.
Hence the idea in the word as used
here is twofold: fvs¢, ‘I am as the
meanest among you,’ and secondly,
“1 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
οὐν περίψημα Tod παιδίου ἡμῶν γένοιτο,
1 Cor. iv. 13 ὡς περικαθάρματα τοῦ
κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα
ἕως ἄρτι. See also below ὃ 18 περί-
Ψψημα τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ σταυροῦ,
Barnab. 4 γράφειν ἐσπούδασα ἐγὼ
περίψημα ὑμῶν, 20. 6 ἐγὼ περίψημα τῆς
ἀγάπης ὑμῶν. Hence Origenzz Joann.
XXVlii. § 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

vill]

TO THE EPHESIANS. τ

\ \ A ῇ
οἱ σαρκικοὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ πράσσειν οὐ δύνανται οὐδὲ

ε \ \ 7 e/ Ah ~
Ol TTVEVJLATLKOL TAG ¢ σαρκικᾶ, ὠσπέρ οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις τὰ THS

/ 9 \ 7 \ ΄σ 7.
ἀπιστίας οὐδὲ ἡ ἀπιστια τὰ τῆς πίστεως.

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

3, of σαρκικο] GLAg (but 1 adds eximz) Dam. 687; οἱ γὰρ σαρκικοὶ

πράσσειν] G Antioch. Dam.; πράττειν g.
5 δὲ] GLA; γὰρ &.

note.
Σ [Antioch. 199].
Gg Antioch. ; οὔτε Dam.

third century, as appears from Dio-
nysius of Alexandria (Euseb. 17.£.
Vii. 22), περίψημά σου had become a
common expression of formal com-
pliment ‘your humble and devoted
servant’ (see Heinichen on Euseb.,
lc. 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-
Cerat [ἁγνίζετε 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,
cadayvitew); and ἅγνισμα is ‘an expi-
atory victim,’ e.g. Aisch. Lum. 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
Kiihner 11. p. 324), it can hardly be
considered out of place after ayvi-
ζεσθαι, when this secondary sense
predominates, Several corrections

ε \ ι
α ὃ Εἰ Kae
See the lower

οὐδὲ]

have been suggested; e.g. the sub-
stitution of dymopa for ἁγνίζομαι, or
the insertion of ὑφ᾽ or of ὑπέρ before
ὑμῶν. But, as 7γαϊί. 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 arazomai for
ἁγνίζομδι; 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 x.7.A| ‘renowned through
all ages, literally ‘bruzted about by
the ages.” The word occurs Clem.
Alex. Exc. Theod. 75 (p. 986), Orig. ἃ
Cels. i. 51, Euseb. A. £2. iit. 36, in
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. i. 2 ἦν δὲ

. , “
“διαβόητος τοῖς θεωμένοις ἅπασιν k.T.X.

The αἰῶνες are here ‘future genera-
tions,’ and the.dative is one of the

agent.
3. οἱ σαρκικοὶ κιτ.λ.}] A reminis-

cence of 1 Cor. il. 14 sq.

5. ἃ d€xatxraA.] 1. 6. ‘even your
secular business is exalted into a
higher sphere, is spiritualized, by your
piety.’

4—2

52 THE. EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [ΠῚ

κ ᾿ , ἴω , ’
κατὰ σάρκα πράσσετε, ταῦτα πνευματικὰ ἐστιν" ἐν

΄ ~ / /
"Incov yap Χριστῷ πάντα πράσσετε.

IX. "Eyvwv δὲ παροδεύσαντάς τινας ἐκεῖθεν, ἔχον-

’ ral > 7 ~ > ΄σ
τας κακὴν διδαχήν" οὗς οὐκ εἰάσατε σπεῖραι εἰς ὑμᾶς,

1 πράσσετε] GAg; fecistis 2; operata sunt (πράσσεται) L. And so again

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

GL; δὸ ὑμῶν [g]; ad vos A.

3 ἐκεῖθεν]
6 προητοιμασμένοι] πρ΄ ἡτοιμασμένοι ἃ

(written po, not προσ, as stated by Markland and others); patris, parati L;
patris vestri dei, parati Α ; θεοῦ... ἡτοιμασμένος [Antioch. 14]; εὖ paradd estis [1]

‘Ix. ‘At the same time I 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 "Edecor.
They had taken Ephesus on their
way, though they had not settled
there; see 86 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 (/. 8. p. 29) and
Hilgenfield (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. 2707.
P- 973 D τοῖς συνήθως παροδεύουσι
τὸν τόπον, Lucian Scyth. 10 σιωπῇ
παροδεύσας τηλικαύτην πόλιν. It is

used several times in the 1,ΧΧ, and
always in this sense: Ezek. xxxvi.
34,, Wisd.,..1.. 89. Us: Fou Ve Oe 24,
x. 8. See also the note on Rom. 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; Smyrn. 5
τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν, ὄντα ἄπιστα, οὐκ
ἔδοξέν μοι ἐγγράψαι, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ γένοιτό
μοι μνημονεύειν κα.λ. But what place
is meant? Bunsen (7. uv. A. p. 38) says
‘from Smyrna, translating it ‘from
here’; but ἐκεῖθεν could not have this
sense. Baur (/. 38. p. 29) answers
‘from Ephesus’ ; and this, if I under-
stand him rightly, is the view of
Zahn also (/. 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

ΙΧ]

TO THE EPHESIANS. 5.

5 βύσαντες τὰ ὦτα εἰς τὸ μὴ παραδέξασθαι τὰ σπειρό-
μενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτών' ὡς ὄντες λίθοι ναοῦ προητοιμασμένοι
εἰς οἰκοδομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός, ἀναφερόμενοι εἰς τὰ ὕψη διὰ
τῆς μηχανῆς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν σταυρός, σχοινίῳ

(all the previous part of § 9 being omitted); al.g: see the lower note. Σ

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

part of the chapter.
[5] ; templi spiritualis A.
que est 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, § 10. Here the ‘sowing’
is regarded as taking place through
the ear.

5. βύίσαντες τὰ ὦτα] Ps. lvii (Iviii).
4 ἀσπίδος κωφῆς καὶ βυούσης τὰ ὦτα
αὐτῆς. It was an action expressive
of horror, when any blasphemy was
uttered ; Acts vii. 57 σύνεσχον τὰ ὦτα
avtrov, Iren. in Euseb. H.£. v. 20
ἐμφράξας τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ (of Polycarp,
when he heard any heresy talked),
Iren. Hey. iii. 4. 2 ‘si aliquis annun-
tiaverit ea quze ab heereticis adin-
venta sunt...statim covcludentes aures
longo longius fugient,’ Clem. Recogn.
il. 37 ‘auves continuo obcludens, velut
ne blasphemia polluantur’ (comp. 2d.
it 40,52). In.Clem:.Alex. Protr.. 10
(pp. 73, 83) ἀποβύειν τὰ ὦτα is used of
resisting good influences;
Clem. Hom. i. 12 Biovres τῶν σώζεσ-
Oat θελόντων τὰς ἀκοάς. For the pur-
port comp. Zrall. 9 κωφώθητε οὖν
K.T.A.

6. λίθοι ναοῦ] The metaphor, and in
part even the language, is suggested
by Ephes. 11. 20-—22; comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 5. The metaphor is elaborately
carried out in Hermas Sz. ix. See
below § 15 (note). The transition in

comp. |

7 Θεοῦ πατρός] GL Antioch. ; θείαν πατρός
8 ὅς] G; 8 Antioch. ; per machinam...

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 ἤτοι-
μασμένοι, i.€. 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 ots προητοίμασεν ὁ
Θεός, comp. Rom. ix. 23 σκεύη
ἐλέους ἃ προητοίμασεν eis 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 Swyrn.
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 (p- 31 Lagarde) κλίμαξ 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
4 ἀγάπη ἀνεκδιήγητόν ἐστιν), Methodius
de Sanct. Cruc. 1 (p. 400, ed. Migne)
μηχανὴ Se ἧς οἱ els οἰκοδυμὴν εὐθε-
τοῦντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας κάτωθεν λίθου

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[1x

«ες

, o I A Co ε / \ A ς ἴω ΓΝ
χρώμενοι Tw σινευματι TW aylw 1] δὲ πιστις UMWY ανα-

\ ς “ ς δὲ ᾽ I 500 ε , 3 O /
γωγεὺς ὑμὼν, ἡ ὃὲ ἀγάπη Odos ἡ ἀναφερουσα εἰς Θεον.

I τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ] G3 τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι;

sanctus Σ.; τῷ πνεύματι [Antioch.]; def. A.
ἡμῶν Rup. 78s, and so in the next line; al. g Antioch.

τετραγώνου δίκην ἀνέλκονται, ἐναρμοσ-
θησόμενοι τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ (speaking of
the Cross). These two passages are
quoted by Cotelier.

ὅς] by attraction for 7; see the
note on Magn. 7, and Winer ὃ 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. Ofzsc. p.328 (ed. Tafel)
"Apyov ... ὃν 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 dvaywyeds
described by Eustathius is, as a
friend suggests to me, an engine like
Barker's Mill. The dvaywyets 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 succeeded in finding the
word in the Mathematici 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

spiritu sancio Ls; gui est spiritus
ὑμῶν] GLE; om. A;
dvaryywyeds] G 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 x.t.A.| The mention of
the ‘way’ suggests a wholly different
image to the 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 ἐπ᾿ ὦμοις
αἰρομένους. How large a place these
religious festivities occupied in the
life of a Greek may be inferred from
Aristoph. Zys. 641 sq. ἑπτὰ μὲν ἔτη
yeyao εὐθὺς ἡρρη φόρουν.. κἀκανη-
φόρουν wor οὖσα παῖς καλὴ x.T.A.
Hence such words as ἀνθοφόρος, δᾳ-
δρφόρος, eppnpopos, θυρσοφόρος, κανη-
φόρος, κιστοφόρος, λικνοφόρος, πασ-
τοφύρος, ὑδροφόρος, 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 sq.).
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-

1Χ]

TO THE EPHESIANS.

\ > \ ,
ἐστε οὖν Kal σύνοδοι πάντες, θεοφύροι καὶ ναοφόροι,

paraphrased πίστει ἀναγομένους [0]; ἀγωγεύς [Antioch.]; dux L; 2γιαῤαγαίογ A.
2 ἀναφέρουσα] G Antioch.; referens L; ἄνω φέρουσα Rup.; dub. 2A; al. g. εἰς]

G; εἰς τὸν Ant.; πρὸς Rup.; πρὸς τὸν [g].

paraphrased ναὸς Θεοῦ by Antioch.

γετικὰ «.t.A. Accordingly elsewhere
(Boeckh. C. J. no. 2963 c) we read of
οἱ τὸν.. «κόσμον Baoral ζοντες] τῆς μεγά-
Ans θεᾶς [᾿Δρτέμι]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 kal εἰκόνας εἰδώλων (Mari.
S. Ttmoth. in Ducange Gloss. Grec.
p. 607: see Lobeck A glaoph. p. 177).
But indeed this was not character-
istic of one or two special occasions.
At all the great festivals of Ephesus,
the Tavpeva, 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 (Il. p. 577) ἂν rais
ψυχαῖς ἀγαλματοφοροῦσι τὰς τῶν
διατεταγμένων εἰκόνας, 1.6., they carry
the commandments in their souls, as
the pagans bear the images of their
gods on their shoulders. So again
de Mund. Opif. 23 (1. p. 16) πρὸς ἕνα

\ oer eee ses ae > ΄
TOV Τῶν ὅλων EKELVOV, WS AV ἀαρχετῦύπον, ©

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

3 vaodopa) GLg; om, 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. Dzss. ii. 18. 12 sq.
θεὸν περιφέρεις, τάλας, καὶ ἀγνοεῖς"
δοκεῖς με λέγειν ἀργυροῦν τινα ἢ χρυ-
σοῦν ἔξωθεν; ἐν σαυτῷ φέρεις αὐτὸν
Καλ. Similarly Clem. Alex. Protr.
4 (p. 53) ἡμεῖς γάρ, ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν of τὴν
εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ περιφέροντες ἐν τῷ
ζῶντι καὶ κινουμένῳ τούτῳ ἀγάλματι,
τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κιτιλ. See also the note
on ἁγιοφόρος below.

3. σύνοδοι] ‘companions on the way.’
This word occurs several times in
Epictetus, Dass. 1. 14. 8, iii. 21. 5,
iv. I. 97, (and so it should be writ-
ten in ili. 13. 13). Similarly πάροδος
‘a wayfarer, Lxx 2 Sam. xii. 4,
Ezek. xvi. 15, 253 πρόοδος ‘a pre-
cursor,’ Clem. Hom. iii. 58, vill. 2,
xvi. 18, xx. 13, 14, 18; ἔφοδος ‘a
patrol,’ e.g. Polyb. vi. 36. 6.

θεοφόροι «.t.A.] 1.6. ‘each 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. ii.
63 τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ἐὸν ἐν νηῷ μικρῷ
ξυλίνῳ κατακεχρυσωμένῳ προεκκομί-
Covot κιτιλ., Diod. Sic. i. 97 τῶν ναῶν

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

ΠΧ

\ "ἢ /
χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφόροι, κατὰ πάντα κεκοσμημένοι ἐν
> σ᾿» “ a“ ic \ / /
ἐντολαῖς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: ois καὶ ἀγαλλιωμενος ἠξιωθην,.

Ἄν: τ τὶ ea ef
Ov ὧν γράφω, προσομιλῆσαι ὑμῖν, Kal συγχαρῆναι ὅτι

I χριστοφόροι] G3 et christiferi L; om. A [6]; recognized by Antioch. who has
θεοφόρος ἠγοῦν χριστοφόρος (the whole being transferred into the singular).

ἁγιοφόροῇῆ GLAg; Antioch. has ἁγιοδρόμος.

πάντα Antioch. ; ef omnino [A].

κατὰ πάντα] GLg; καὶ τὰ

κεκοσμημένοι] κεκοσμιμένοι G. ἐν)
L; om. G; ἐν ταῖς [6] ; (2) omnibus [A].

2 ἀγαλλιώμενος ἠξιώθην]

L [g]3 ἀγαλλιῶμαι ὅτε ἠξιώθην G. A begins ἃ new sentence ‘ exulto guod dignus
factus sum loqui vobiscum, et gaudeo in e0 quod scripst 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
xix. 24 (with the passages collected by
commentators). Comp. Amm. Mare.
xxll. 13 ‘deze celestis argenteum
breve figmentum, quocumque ibat,
efferre solitus.’ See also the con-
jectural reading of Wordsworth on
the Scholiast of Aristides, Athens
and Attica p. 108 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.
10 πάντοτε τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν
τῷ σώματι περιφέροντες, Magn. 12
Ἰησοῦν γὰρ Χριστὸν ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
The saint himself is called χριστοφό-
pos in Mart. Ign. Ant. 5. So Phileas
in Euseb. A. £. viii. 10 οἱ χριστοφό-
pot paptupes. Other compounds of
Χριστὸς in Ignatius are χριστομαθία
Philad. 8, 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 ceremo-
niarum, Firmic. Matern. Astron.
111. 11. 9. The word occurs again,
Smyrn. inscr.;. comp. ἱεροφόρος
Boeckh. C./. 1793 Ὁ, tepagopes 20.
2384 Ὁ (Appx.).. So too the Latin
‘sacra ferre’ (e.g. Virg. 42%. iii. 19)
of priests. But see esp. Plut. Jor.
352 B τοῖς ἀληθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἱερα-
φόροις καὶ ἱεροστόλοις προσαγορευο-
μένοις" οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον

.ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ φέροντες, ὥσπερ
ἐν κίστῃ, καὶ περιστέλλοντες (with
Wyttenbach’s note), Virg. Georg. ii.
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; compa ΒΕ τ.
av ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν
καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως
ἱματίων κόσμος κιτιλ., I Tim. ii. 9 sq.
μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν
ἑαυτὰς... .δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. See Xenoph,
Ephes. i. 2 ἔδει δὲ πομπεύειν πάσας
τὰς ἐπιχωρίους παρθένους κεκοσμη-
μένας πολυτελώς 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-
coveries Inscr. vi. pp. 32, 34 (comp.
lil. p. 20), .;This seems 10 mean

x] TO THE EPHESIANS.

’ 5) , , “Ὁ \ 3 ΄σ > ᾿ , A
KAT ἀνθρωπων βίον οὐδὲν AYATATE, El My μόνον τον

5 Θεόν.

Xa Kat ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἀδιαλείπτως

deranging the connexion of the words).

κατ᾽ ἄλλον βίον κιτ.λ. GL; see the lower note.

4 κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπων βίον K.7.X.]
My conjecture is supported by

the paraphrase in g οὐδὲ κατὰ σάρκα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλὰ κατὰ θεόν. 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; et fro

aliis A; super omnibus X. XZ 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 ᾿Αφροδίτῃ.. The fondness
of the Ephesians for fine dresses
is commemorated by the Ephesian
Democritus quoted in Athenzeus xii.
p..525; itis rebuked by S. Paul, 1
Tim. ii. 9, 10. The interpretation of
Hilgenfeld (4. V. p. 250), ‘durch die
Gebote Christi organisirt, geordnet,
seems to me quite impossible, whether
the preposition ἐν be retained or not.
2. ots καὶ κιτ.λ.] ‘wherein also
rejoicing 7 was permitted to associate
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, οἷς 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. J/agu. τ ἀγαλλιώ-
μενος προειλάμον ἐν πίστει ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ προσλαλῆσαι ὑμῖν᾽ καταξιωθεὶς
γὰρ κιτιλ.; and for ἀξιοῦσθαι, a cha-
racteristic expression of Ignatius, the
note on Magu. 2.

4. κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπων βίον] So I have
ventured to emend, ANON for ἄλλον ;
or perhaps read ANINON = ἀνθρώπινον 5

comp. Rom. ὃ οὐκέτι θέλω κατὰ
ἀνθρώπους 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.
xil. 4, Luke iv. 26, 27, etc., and see
the note: on Gal. τῷ: The com-
mentators fail to make anything of
κατ᾽ ἄλλον βίον. Zahn accepts Mark-
land’s conjecture καθ᾽ ὅλον βέον, 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

ὡ
7 * 99

᾿ \ 3 5 ~ \ /
προσεύχεσθε: ἔστιν yap [ἐν] αὐτοῖς ἐλπὶς μετανοίας,
΄ι / Ss - \ a
ἵνα Θεοῦ τύχωσιν. ἐπιτρέψατε οὖν αὐτοῖς κἂν ἐκ τῶν

πρὸς τὰς Opyas αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς

58 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

af ε ~ ~
ἔργων ὑμῖν μαθητευθῆναι.
/ ~ ipa Le
πραεῖς, πρὸς Tas μεγαλορημοσύνας αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ταπεινο-
\ / ᾽ ~ a \
φρονες, πρὸς Tas βλασφημίας αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς τὰς προσευ-

1 προσεύχεσθε] προσεύχεσθαι G. Add. deune L; add. ut redeant ad dewm A;
txt Gg. ἐν] GL: om. 2Ag (Mss, but inserted in 1). 2 ἐπιτρέψατε
κιτ.λ. The whole of this passage is loosely translated in 2 ex oferibus vestris magis
discipuli-fiant ; contra verba eorum dura in humilitate animi placabiles-estote et in
lenitate; contra blasphemias eorum vos estote precantes ; et contra errorem corum arite-
mini in fide; et contra ferocitatem eorum estote pacifict et tranguilli et ne admiremini
eos, where however the word JID INN admiremini, is probably an error of

transcription for JWIINN zmztemint.
Greek.
ov] GLg; om. ZA.

The Armenian substantially follows the
ἐπιτρέψατε] G3; monete L; rogate A; ἐπιστρέψατε g; om. 2.
8 ἀδελφοὶ... ἀθετηθ}ἢ In place of these words

Σ has simus autem tmitatores domini nostri in hunitlitate et clus qui magis injurias-

ii. 13, in connexion with prayer and
thanksgiving. See also Polyc. 1
προσευχαῖς σχόλαζε ἀδιαλείπτοις. 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 S. Paul,
In Polyc..1 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 padi’ ‘be constant’

might be intended to cover both
σχόλαζε and ἀδιαλείπτοις. 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.
.5.2772, Vill. 7 καὶ ἔτι, φησίν, ἔστιν ἐν
αὐτοῖς ἐλπὶς μετανοίας (comp. 20. § 10),
quoted by Zahn.

2. κἂν «t.dr.] Sat all events from
your works, if they will not listen to

your words.’ This use of κἂν is
elliptical for κἄν... μαθητευθῶσιν:
comp. Mark vi. 56, Acts v. 15, 2 Cor.
xi. 16, [Clem. Rem] ai. 7, 18." See
Winer Gramm. § \xiv. p. 730 (ed.
Moulton).

3. ὑμῖν μαθητευθῆναι] ‘to be your
disciples, ‘to go to school to you’;
a legitimate and not uncommon
construction with pa@nrevew (-εσθαι),
e.g. Plut. 2707. 832 B μαθητεύσας τῷ
πατρί, ἣν γὰρ σοφιστής, ᾧ καὶ ᾿Αλκι-
βιάδην φασὶν ἔτι παῖδα ὄντα φοιτῆσαι,
zh. 837 Ὁ, 840 F, Orig. ¢. Cels. ili. 29
ai... Χριστῷ μαθητευθεῖσαι ἐκκλησίαι,
Euseb. H. £. v. 13 μαθητευθεὶς ἐπὶ
Ῥώμης, ὡς αὐτὸς ἱστορεῖ, Τατιανῷ
(speaking of Rhodon), On this verb
see the note Rom. 3.

πρὸς tas ὀργὰς κιτ.λ.] See Matt.
v. 44, Luke vi. 27, 26, Rom: ἘΠῚ
14.sq. Comp. also 1 Pet. ii. 21, 22,
where our Lord’s example is dwelt
upon as here.

5. βλασφημίας] Not ‘dlasphemtes,’
but ‘slanderings, ‘ratlings’ ; comp.
Luke l.c. προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπη-

x] TO THE EPHESIANS.

χάς, πρὸς τὴν πλάνην αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἑλρδῖοι tH πίοτει,

πρὸς τὸ ἄγριον αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἥμεροι: μὴ σπουδάζοντες

2 7 3 / 3 \ ᾽ ΄σ ε ~ a

ἀντιμιμήσασθαι avTous. ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν εὑρεθώμεν τη

ἐπιεικείᾳ" μιμηταὶ δὲ τοῦ [Κυρίου σπουδάζωμεν εἶναι. Tis
é a

πλέον ἀδικηθῇ, τίς ἀποστερηθή, τίς ἀθετηθῆ" ἵνα μὴ τοῦ

patietur et opprimetur et defraudabitur. After ἀθετηθῃῇ it omits everything till the
last sentence of § 14 οὐ [γὰρ viv] ἐπαγγελίας x.7.X. The corresponding words in
A are sed (in) mansuetudine state et siniiles dei studeamus fieri, the sentence τίς
πλέον... ἀθετηθῇ 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] G2; τὸν κύριον g (with a different con-
struction) ; dec LA (comp. § 1). το ἀδικηθῇ... .ἀποστερηθῇ...ἀθετηθῇ]
ἀδικηθεῖ... ἀποστερηθεῖ....ἀθετηθεῖ (ἃ ; injustum patiatur ... fraudetur...conlemnatur
L; def. A. The construction is changed in [g], but the words ἀδικηθείς, ἀποστε-
ρηθῇ, ἀθετηθῇ appear. ‘The rendering of Σ᾽ (see above) points to the reading

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. iil. 8.

τὰς προσευχάς] The interpolator
has supplied this ellipsis by ἀντιτά-
ξατε; 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 κ. τ. Δ. (Comp.
1 Cor. xv. 58), Polyc. PAz/, 10 ‘ firmi
in fide et immutabiles” So too
Smyrn. 13 ἑδρᾶσθαι πίστει.

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

. ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν κιτιλ.] 1.6. ‘The
right way of showing our brother-
hood with them is not by imitating
their conduct, but by evincing: our
regard. Our zmilation must be of

ταραχή..«πόθεν x.T.D.

Christ, not of them. The word
ἐπιείκεια, aS denoting the spirit of
concession and forbearance, which
contrasts with strict justice, strict
retaliation, ishighly appropriate here:
see the notes on Phil. iv. 5, Clem.
Rom. 59 (p. 284). It was moreover
especially characteristic of Christ
(2 Cor. x. 1), whose example is en-
forced here.

9. τίς κατιλ]ῇ 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 pipnrai; comp. ὃ 19
For the con-
junctive in indirect questions, see
Kiihner § 394 (IL. p. 187). It is
unnecessary to emend the sentence
τίς 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 1 Cor.
vi. 7 διατί οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀδικεῖσθε ; διατί
οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀποστερεῖσθε ; κιτ.λ.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x

~ 3 ~ ’ ’ /
διαβόλου βοτάνη τις εὑρεθὴ ἐν ὑμῖν: ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παση
έ
ς / 5 a rad
dyveia καὶ σωφροσύνη μένετε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ σαρκι-

~ \ ~~
κως και πνευματικῶς.

AI, ἔσχατοι καιροί. λοιπὸν αἰσχυνθώμεν, φοβη-

2 μένετε] G3 maneatis L; wt stetis A; as if they had read μένητε, which is

perhaps correct; al. g.

Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] A [g]; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ GL.

4 "ἔσχατοι καιροί. λοιπόν κιτ.λ.1 So it seems to be taken in Rup. 777 ἔσχατοι
καιροί, ἀδελφοί, λοιπὸν αἰσχυνθῶμεν, and this is apparently the connexion intended

in L extrema tempora de cetero ete.

ἔσχατοι καιροὶ λοιπὸν εἰσιν; in A it is omitted.

αἰσχυνθῶμεν. See the lower note.

om. A.

I. βοτάνη) ‘weed’ Though the
word is quite neutral in itself and is
often used in a good sense (e.g. Heb.
vi. 7), yet it has a tendency to take a
bad meaning, ‘a rank or noxious
herb,’ ‘a weed’; e.g. Hermas S27. v. 2
εἶδεν τὸν ἀμπελῶνα βοτανῶν πλήρη ὅν-
τα... καὶ πάσας τὰς βοτάνας τὰς οὔσας
ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι ἐξέτιλλεν κιτιλ., 20, 1x.
26 ὡς γὰρ ἄμπελος ... ὑπὸ τῶν βοτανῶν
ἐρημοῦται κιτιλ.; comp. Clem. “7072.
xix. 15, 20, βοτάναι θανάσιμοι, κακαί,
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 7 (p. 770)
ἄγριαι Boravar. Hence βοτανίζειν ‘to
weed,’ e.g. Theophrast. τς iii. 20.
g. 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 z¢sedf 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. Rup. ; al. g.

In g λοιπόν is connected with what precedes

In G there is no stop till after
φοβηθῶμεν] Gg Rup.; e¢ timeamus L ;
ἡμῖν εἰς κρίμα) G (κρῖμα) L;

58 (see the note p. 169).

σαρκικῶς k.t.A.| Comp. 2 Cor. vii. I
καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ παύὐτὸς po-
λυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος. This
conjunction of ‘flesh and spirit, as
comprehending the whole nature of
man, 15 very common in Ignatius ;
Magn. 1, 13, Trall. inscr., 12, Rom.
inscr., Smy7rn) I, 12, 15; πο. 1,5,
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 ᾧρα ἐστίν, and esp. I Cor.
Vil. 29 ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστὶν τὸ
λοιπὸν ἵνα κιτιλ. So also Magn. 6 ἐν
τέλει ἐφάνη.

x1] TO THE EPHESIANS. 61

θ σ΄ \ § 7 ~ Θ ΄σ e/ \ Ch -~ ’ 7
5 ὕωμεν THY μακροθυμίαν του Θεου, ἵνα μη ἡμῖν εἰς κρίμα
\ \ \ , ᾽ \ » \
γένηται. ἢ yap τὴν μέλλουσαν ὀργὴν φοβηθῶμεν ἢ
A ΄ lA / e\ = ᾽
τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν χαριν ἀγαπήσωμεν, ἕν τών δύο" μόνον ἐν
σ᾿») ΄- ς σ΄ > δ. ᾽ \ ~ \
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εὑρεθῆναι εἰς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῆν. χωρὶς

͵ \ toa / 3 τ A \ ,
τούτου μηδὲν ὑμῖν πρεπέτω, EV ᾧ τὰ δεσμὰ περιῴφερω,
εἰς κρίμα ἡμῖν Rup.; vobis...in judicium A; al. g. 7 χάρι») GLA
Rup. ; χαρὰν g* (Mss, but 1 has gratiam). ἕν τῶν δύο] GL; ἐν τῷ νῦν
βίῳ g Rup. Something like this may have been the reading of A which translates
τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν χάριν κιτ.λ. gratiam quant habemus in hoc mundo; unless indeed

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

lower note.

.8 εὑρεθῆναι) G, and so too g (but inserting words ἔστω δὲ

κιτ.λ. to help out the construction); zzvenitur L*; εὑρεθῶμεν Rup.; inveniamur A.

ἀληθινὸν] GLA; ἀληθινῶς [g].

λοιπόν] ‘for what remains, and so
‘henceforth’; comp. Smyrn. 9 evdo-
yov ἐστιν λοιπὸν ἀνανῆψαι. For the
occurrence of λοιπόν or τὸ λοιπόν at
the beginning of the sentence see
ΘΟ ΧΙ 11; Phili: 111 πὴ π| αν. 8;
ae bess: iil. ᾧ;.2. ΤΊπὶ. iv. 8; Clem:
Rom. 58; and it should probably be
taken with what follows in 1 Cor. 1.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] “1: turn, sc. ἡ μακρο-
θυμία τοῦ Θεοῦ.

7. ἐν tov δυο See Phil. iii. 13
ἕν δέ, τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω κιτιᾺ. ; Compare
the classical use of δυοῖν θάτερον, and
for examples of similar constructions
see Kiihner 11. p. 244 sq., Winer
§ Ixvi. p. 774. See also Magu. 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 κ.τ.λ.] 1.6. μόνον [οὕτω ποιήσω-
μεν ὥστε] εὑρεθῆναι. For similar
elliptical uses of the infinitive see
Kihner Il. p. 590. There is a ten-
dency to ellipsis with μόνον : comp.
Rom. 5 μόνον ἵνα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπι-
τύχω, .5),2}771. 4 μόνον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ k.t.A., and see the note
on Gal. ii. Io.

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

9. τούτου] i.e. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

ὑμῖν πρεπέτω] ‘glitter in your
eyes, 1.6. ‘have any attraction for
you’; as e.g. Pind. Pyth. 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, AZagn. 1, Trad.
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

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ΧΙ

\ \ ὔ - / 7 ᾽
τοὺς πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας" ἐν οἷς γενοιτὸ μοι ἄνα-

al oo ~ ς ~ κὰ 7 , 5 \ /
στῆναι TH προσευχῆ ὑμῶν, ἧς γένοιτο μοι ἀεί μέτοχον
> / » δ > 14 € “ ΄ς ~ A
εἶναι, ἵνα ἐν κλήρῳ ᾿Εφεσίων εὑρεθῶ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, ot

\ ~ > β ; / /
καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πάντοτε συνήνεσαν ἐν δυνάμει

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

4 ἐνὴ Lg; ἑνὶ G; al. A; see Zfhes. 20 for a similar confusion of ev, 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 mvevpatixovs x.t.A.| Clem.
. Hom, xiii. 16 τιμίους μαργαρίτας περι-
κεῖται, τοὺς σωφρονίζοντας λόγους. See
also a similar image in Polyc. PAz/.
1, 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 LAistle
of the Gallican Churches, Euseb.
H.E.v.% ὥστε καὶ ta Seopa κόσμον
εὐπρεπῆ περικεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς, ὡς νύμφῃ
κεκοσμημένῃ ἐν κροσσωτοῖς χρυσοῖς
πεποικιλμένοις, Cyprian. £pzst. 76 (p.
829, Hartel) ‘ornamenta sunt ista,
non vincula, nec Christianorum pe-
des ad infamiam copulant sed clari-
ficant ad coronam,’ Victor V7¢. de
Pers. Vand. iii. ad fin. ‘rigentium
pondera catenarum quasi quedam
monilia pervidebat, quia non fuerunt
illa vincula, sed potius ornamenta’ ;
see Cotelier ad /oc., Pearson V. 7. p.
588, and comp. Jag. τ (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 mdpodds ἐστε] GL; παραδοθείς γε

other references to his condition at
the resurrection see Rome. 4, Polyc. 7
(v. 1.).

3. ἐν κλήρῳ] Comp. Philad. 5
ἵνα ἐν ᾧ κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην ἐπιτύχω, Ep.
Vienn. § 7 in Euseb. H.£. v. 1 [ev]
τῷ κλήρῳ τῶν μαρτύρων προσετέθη.
Voss, followed by some later editors,
reads ἐνὶ (for ἐν), 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 5. Andrew and S. Philip,
whom early tradition represents as
living in these parts; see Colosszans
p. 44 sq. The interpolator names
Paul, John, and Timothy ; but Timo-
thy was not an Apostle : see Gala-
tzans Ὁ. 96.

συνήνεσαν͵] 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 haye ever
escorted the martyrs on their way to
death. Ye were fellow-students of
the mysteries with Paul the blessed,

XI.

TO THE EPHESIANS.

Οἱὸ , 3 \ if fis: , \ /
loa TIS εἰμι καὶ τισιν γράφω. eyw κατα-

et , \ \ fe ε ΄σ >
KOLTOS, ὑμεῖς HAENMEVOL’ ἔγω ὑπὸ κίνδυνον, ὑμεῖς ἐστη-
> UP 4

ριγμένοι.

7 δό ΠῚ - >’ \ > ,
mapooos ἐστε τῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἀναιρουμένων,

7 / ~ 7 ~~
[Π}αυλου συμμυσται TOU ἡγιασμένον, του 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 ὑμῖν ἐκεῖνοι
ἀπόστολοι, ἐγὼ κατάκριτος κιτιλ., and
comp. Zyvall. 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. TZradd.
13 ἔτι yap ὑπὸ κίνδυνόν εἰμι. He
alludes to the danger οἵ his flinching
before the terrors of death, or other-
wise yielding to the allurements of
the world.

8. mapodds ἐστε] ‘ye are a way of
transit. They had escorted S. 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 5. Paul will hardly
be satisfied by the interview with the
Ephesian elders in Acts xx. 17 564.
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

The reading πάροδος underlies the rendering in A ad vos viatores

9 ἡγιασμένου] So G3 not ἁγιασμένου

shortly before his final trial and mar-
tyrdom (1 Tim. i. 3, 2 Tim. i. 18).
Probably Ignatius was thinking of
other martyrs also of whom we know
nothing. See e.g. Polyc. Phzl. 1
συνεχάρην ὑμῖν προπέμψασιν.... τοὺς
ἐνειλημένους τοῖς ἁγιοπρεπέσι δεσμοῖς
κιτιλ,, and 20. 9 ἀσκεῖν πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν
ἣν καὶ εἴδετε κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, οὐ μόνον
ἐν τοῖς μακαρίοις ᾿Ιγνατίῳ καὶ Ζωσίμῳ
καὶ Ῥούφῳ κοιτιλ.

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. § 1 dede-
μένον ἀπὸ Συρίας (with the note). The
word ἀναιρουμένων is a mapa προσδο-
κίαν, 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 Orig. zz Jes. 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 (i.e. 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 exceptionaily
long time (Acts xix. IO sq., xx. 31),
with whom he was on terms of the
most affectionate intimacy (Acts xx,
18 sq., 37), and who were the chief,
though probably not the sole, recipi-
ents of the most profound of all his

64 THE EPISTLE

/ / ec
μένου, ἀξιομακαρίστου, οὐ

epistles. The propriety of the lan-
guage here is still further enhanced
by the fact that S. Paul, in the
Epistle to the Ephesians more es-
pecially, dwells on the Gospel dis-
pensation as μυστήριον (i. 9, lll. 3, 4,
Q, V. 32, vi. 19). Elsewhere (Phil. iv.
12) he speaks of himself as pepun-
μένος. In later ecclesiastical lan-
guage the words μυστήριον, μύστης,
puotikds, ἄμυστος, ἀμύητος, etc., were
used with especial reference to the
sacraments, more particularly to the
eucharist (Bingham Christ. Ant. τ.
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 Apos-
tle, 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 seachéng of
S. John, his heart clings to the ex-
ample of S. Paul.

τοῦ μεμαρτυρημένου] ‘ attested, and
hence ‘approved, ‘of good report’;
ASG GUACtS Vs 3,)X. 22); Rv. 25) KXIL
5,1 Tim.v. 10. So Clem. Rom. 47
ἀποστόλοις μεμαρτυρημένοις ; see also

OF IGNATIUS [xr

/ / \ \ /
γένοιτο μοι UO TA ἰχνῆή

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 zzdirectly it may
_Tefer to his martyrdom; because this
is God’s chief act of attestation. But
the Anglo-Latin translator is wrong
in rendering it martyrizatz, 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 martyrizari
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 Πολύκαρπος
ov γένοιτο ἐν TH 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 Puteoli and so enter-
ing Rome by the Appian way as
S. Paul had done. Ὑπὸ ra ἴχνη here
stands for the more usual κατὰ τὰ
ἴχνη Or ἐν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν. With the accu-
sative ὑπὸ often signifies ‘close to,’
e.g. Thuc. v. 10 ὑπὸ τὰς πύλας,
Soph. £7. 720 ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐσχάτην
στήλην (see the note on ὑπεναντίος,

TO THE EPHESIANS. 65

εὑρεθῆναι, ὅταν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω" ὃς ἐν παάση ἐπιστολῇ

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 ἕλη νεώς ἐστιν
᾿Απόλλωνος. It almost universally
refers to objects which are more or
less raised. Comp. Ov. Mez#. ili. 17
‘ subsequitur pressoque legit vest7gza
gressu.. The Armenian translates
ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη ‘under his footstool.’

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

ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ] ‘22 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
(xv. 32, xvi. 8, 19), 2 Corinthians
(i. ὃ sq.), and the two Epistles to
Timothy. These references would
be quite sufficient to explain the hy-
perbole in the text; comp. e.g.
1 Thess. i. ὃ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, Col. i. 23
ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν 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. J. p. 487 sq., and ad Joc.
But for the omission of the definite
article with mas in this sense no
example has been produced which
is analogous, ‘The instances alleged

IGN.

are either proper names, as Matt. ii. 3
πᾶσα ἹἹεροσόλυμα, Seed, xl. 26 πᾶς
Ἰσραήλ (quoted by Hefele); or they
are highly poetical passages, as Eurip.
Med. 114 πᾶς δόμος ἔρροι (quoted by
Jacobson); or they are false readings,
as Ephes.5 καὶ πάσης ἐκκλησίας (quoted
by Pearson V. 1 p. 488, who has taken
the incorrect text of Voss, the ms
having καὶ πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας); or
they are misinterpreted, as 2 Tim.
lil. 16 πᾶσα γραφή (quoted also by
Pearson V. 7. lc. and wrongly ἐχ-
plained ‘tota scriptura’); or they
illustrate wholly different uses οὗ
mas, as Soph. 47. 275 κεῖνός τε λύπῃ
mas ἐλήλαται κακῇ (again quoted by
Pearson, l.-c.) ; or they are false
Latin analogies, as e.g. Cicero’s
‘omne corpus’ which might stand
quite as well for πᾶν τὸ 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.
I, 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

μ᾿

66
XITI.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[x11

> ,
Crovdatere οὖν πυκνότερον συνέρχεσθαι εἰς

᾽ 7 “- \ > / e/ \ lan ᾽ \
εὐχαριστίαν Θεοῦ καὶ εἰς δόξαν" ὅταν yap πυκνῶς ἐπὶ
~ e / la) ~

τὸ αὐτὸ γίνεσθε, καθαιροῦνται ai δυνάμεις τοῦ Catava,

\ / a af 3 os 9 ~ « 7 e ΄σ ~
kal λύεται ὁ ὄλεθρος αὐτοῦ ἐν TH ὁμονοίᾳ ὑμών τῆς

πίστεως.

᾿ > ᾽ ᾽ / > - lon ’ὔ
οὐδέν ἐστιν ἄμεινον εἰρήνης, ἐν ἡ πᾶς πόλεμος 5

~ 3 7 \ > /
καταρΎειται επουρανιῶν Kal ἐπιγείων.

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

[S,] ; om. A.

G Rup. 778; crebro L; συνεχῶς g; al. A.
καθαιροῦνται αἱ δυνάμεις] Gg; καθαιροῦνται

L; γένησθε (v.1. γίνησθε) g.

els δόξαν] GLS,A; δόξαν (om. els) σ΄.

πυκνῶς]
3 γίνεσθε] G Rup. ; convenitis

δυνάμεις Rup.; destruuntur potentiae ,; diruitur visS,; infirmatur vis A.

4 καὶ] GLA; om. Rup.; al. g.

6] G;.om, Rup. 5 alg

ὄλεθρος

αὐτοῦ] GL Rup.; αὐτοῦ... ὄλεθρος [6] ; 51 has casyRssard imperium cjus, but this
is probably a corruption of (ὯΔ 2:9 τε exitinm cjus. The rendering of A shows

another corruption, memoria ejus = cadstaa “.

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-
ing epistles, Magn. 15, Trall. 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.’

1. πυκνότερον] As Polyc. 4 πυκνότερον
συναγωγαὶ γινέσθωσαν, [Clem. Rom.]
il. 17 πυκνότερον προσερχόμενοι πειρώ-
μεθα προκόπτειν k.t.d.; see also Magu.
4 διὰ τὸ μὴ βεβαίως κατ᾽ ἐντολὴν συνα-
θροίζεσθαι (with the note). Compare

5 οὐδὲν] GLAg (but 1

for similar injunctions in early times,
Heb. x. 25 μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν
ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, Barnab. 4 ἐπὶ
τὸ αὐτὸ συνερχέμενοι συνζητεῖτε K.T.d.,
Clem. Hom, iii. 69 πρὸ δὲ πάντων, εἰ
καὶ δεῖ ὑμῖν λέγειν, συνεχέστερον συν-
έρχεσθε. The meaning οὗ πυκνότερον
is not ‘in larger numbers,’ as it is
taken by some (e.g. Pearson, here and
on Polye. \.c.3 Zahn Zs vid. opr gas;
and ad Joc.), but ‘more frequently,’
which sense is demanded alike by
the passage Polyc. 1. c. 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; Phzlad. 4
(see the note there). The genitive
Θεοῦ must be supplied also with
δόξαν. ᾿

xIv]

ΤΟ THE EPHESIANS,

XIV. “Wy οὐδὲν λανθάνει ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τελείως εἰς

΄- af \ ἤ \
᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἔχητε THY πίστιν καὶ THY ἀγάπην" ἥτις

> \ > \ a \ t ἢ \ \ ἢ ἢ \
ἐστιν ἀρχή ζωῆς καὶ TEAOS* ἀρχή μέν πίστις, τέλος δὲ

? Λ ᾿ \ δὲ δύ 9 ε ’ , Θ , . \
1oayaTn® Τὰ OE OVO EV EVOTHTL YEVOMEVA €OS ἐστιν, Ta

adds enim) [Dam. 354] [Anton. 131] ; add. γὰρ S,.
‘Dam. ; πᾶς ὁ πόλεμος Anton.; dub. LS,A.

πᾶς πόλεμος] Gg
6 καταργεῖται) g Dam.;

καταργεῖτε (ἃ ; evacuatur 1, ; καταλύεται Anton.; impediuntur A; frustrantur S,.

7 Tedeiws] GLAg; om. Rup. 785.
᾿ ἰησοῦν Rup.; χριστὸν [g].
(om. ἥτις).

3. καθαιροῦνται.. λύεται] See § 10,
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. mas 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-
ράνιοι, as applied to the powers of
evil, comp. Ephes. vi. 12 πρὸς τοὺς
κοσμοκράτορας TOU σκότους τοὔτου, 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

8 Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν) GL[A] ; χριστὸν

ἥτις ἐστὶν] Gg Rup.; guae sunt L; sunt A
9 πίστις... ἀγάπη] Gg; ἡ πίστις... ἡ ἀγάπη Rup.

10 γενόμενα] Gg; γινόμενα Rup. (Lequien),
θεοῦ ἐστιν G3; θεοῦ ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελεῖ g.

Θεός ἐστι» LA Rup.;

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 ἐστίν] An irregularity of
construction for αἵτινές εἶσιν. This
leaves an ambiguity, which is cleared
up by the explanatory clause ἀρχὴ
μὲν k.T.A.

9. ἀρχὴ ζωῆς κιτ.λ.)] See Clem.
Alex. Strom. vil. 10 (p. 864) ἄμφω
δὲ ὁ Χριστός, ὅ τε θεμέλιος ἥ τε ἐποι-
κοδομή, δι’ οὗ καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὰ τέλη...
ἥ τε ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, πίστις λέγω,
καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη κιτ.λ.; Comp. 2, li. 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.

10. Θεός ἐστιν] Comp. 7 γαϊ 11
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου ὃς
ἐστιν αὐτός. See also a similar
expression in Afagn. 15 κεκτημένοι
ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός. The combination of autho-
rities leaves no doubt about the

§—2

68 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[xiv

F / a
δὲ ἄλλα πάντα εἰς καλοκαγαθίαν ἀκόλουθα ἐστιν. οὐ-

\ / ? / ς / δὲ > ,
dels πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει OVOE ἀγαπήν

κεκτημένος μισεῖ. φδνερον τὸ δένδρον ἀπὸ TOY κἀρποῦ

; , oy eae : “Δ. ὧν
ἀὐτοῦ' οὕτως οἱ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι Χριστοῦ εἶναι, δ ὧν

/ . ῇ 3 \ > λί \
πράσσουσιν ὀφθήσονται. οὐ yap νῦν ἐπαγγελίας TO 5

Υ 3 a: 8 / 7 af e θῃ ᾽ 7
ἔργον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει πίστεως ἐὰν τις εὐρεθῆ εἰς τελος.

2 ἐπαγγελλόμενος] GLg Antioch. 104;
οὐδὲ] GLg Antioch,, and so prob. A; οὐδεὶς Rup.
_ 3 κεκτημένος) GLAg Rup. ; ἔχων Antioch. φανερὸν] GL Rup.; add. yap
' [Antioch.] ; praef. guoniam A ; ale", 4 αὐτοῦ GLA Rup.; om. αὐτοῦ

[5] (changing the whole context); γίνεται (om. αὐτοῦ) Antioch. οὕτως of
ἐπαγγελλόμενοι] GL Rup: ; ia et gui promittunt A ; οἱ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι [g] (om.
οὕτως) ; ὁ οὖν ἐπαγγελλόμενος [Antioch.], substituting the singular throughout.
Χριστοῦ] gA Rup. Antioch.; χριστιανοὶ GL. 5 ov κιτ.λ.] 2 commences
again here and continues as far as λαλοῦντα μὴ εἶναι § 15. γὰρ νῦν]

1 ἐστιν] Gg; εἰσιν Rup.
add. ἔχειν A Rup.

reading. The interpolator has sub- θέλημα (see note § 20 below), ἡ

stituted an easier expression for a
more difficult one.

“I. εἰς καλοκαγαθίαν κιτ.λ.7 1.6. ‘at-
tend upon these and lead to ρεῖ-
féction.’ For this pregnant use of
the preposition see the note on § i
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 καὶλ.]} Matt. xii. 33 ἐκ
γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον peas ;
comip: Luke vi. 44.

5. ov γὰρ νῦν Kod] for ἡ now fi 6:
in these evil times, in this season of
persecution) the Work is not a mere
matter of profession? For this ab-
solute use of ro ἔργον, meaning ‘the
preaching and practice of the Gospel,’
comp. Rom. 3 ov 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), [ro]

ἡ χάρις
(e.g. Smyrn. 12), and the like.
6. ἀλλ’ ἐν δυνάμει x«.7.d.] ‘but is
realised only zf a man be found in
the power of faith (with an effective
faith) fo-the end.” The words ἐν duva-

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, xi. 15 γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ.
The connexion εὑρεθῇ εἰς τέλος how-
ever is possible in itself (comp.
Rom. 2 εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν).

XV. ‘It is better tokeep 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-

xv] TO THE EPHESIANS. 69
XV. "Δ / 3 a \ oa "Ὁ ἴω
3 μεινον ἐστιν σιωπᾷν Kat εἰναι ἡ λαλοῦντα
‘ 5 A \ I 3% ς / ΄σ a
μὴ εἶναι: καλὸν τὸ διδάσκειν, ἐᾶν 6 λέγων ποιῆ. εἷς
> / Δ 3 ἈΠ ἢ Σ δι τ ἃ ω \
οὖν διδάσκαλος, OS εἶπεν Kal ἐγένετο καὶ a σιγῶν δὲ
/ xf Ved ’ > e > ~
πεποίηκεν ἀξια του παᾶατρος ἐστιν. O λόγον Ιησοῦ
7 9 lo I \ ~ € ᾽ ~
κεκτήμένος ἀληθῶς δύναται καὶ τῆς ἡσυχίας αὐτοῦ
᾽ / [2 / ἊΣ « Le ~ ΄
ἄκούειν, ἵνα τέλειος ἢ" ἵνα δι’ ὧν λαλεῖ πράσση καὶ δι᾽
GL Rup.; om. [Z][A]; al. g. 6. ἀλλ’ ev] GL; ἀλλὰ Rup.; al. Ag.
ἡ λαλοῦντα] GLZA; λαλοῦντας [Antioch. 507; al. g. 8 μὴ εἷναι] The
. next sentences’are omitted in 2, and the words ἵνα δι᾿ ὧν... σιγᾷ γινώσκηται follow

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

ὁ λέγων] GLg Antioch. 51; geod dicit (ὃ Ἀέγει) 81; al. A.
G3; ὁ διδάσκαλος Antioch.; dub. LA; al. g.

10 Ἰησοῦ] GLA; add. χριστοῦ Antioch.; al. g.
12 τέλειος ἢ] G[L]; ἢ τέλειος Antioch.; al. g,

(ed.); al. g.
λαλῇ πράσσει G; al. g.

ticulate. Even our most secret
thoughts lie open before the Lord.
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. "Apewov k.r.A.] Iren, ii. 30. 2 οὐκ
ἐν τῷ λέγειν, GAN ἐν τῷ εἶναι, ὁ κρείττων
δείκνυσθαι ὀφείλει : comp. om. 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 and retiring
disposition men were apt to presume:
see above § 6.

9. καὶ ἐγένετο] ‘and it came to pass,
taken from Ps. xxxii (xxxiii). 9, where
the 1ΧΧ 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.’
This reference explains the following
clause; ‘The effects of His silence
also, not less than of His speech, are
worthy of the Father.’

ἃ σιγῶν δὲ κιτ.λ.7 ‘yea, and what

9 διδάσκαλος]
és] GLA; ὡς Antioch.

λαλεῖ πράσσῃ] Antioch. ;

Fle hath wrought by His stlence, etc.
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 xxiii.
9, John xix. 9, Acts viii. 32, 1 Pet. ii.
23. There is 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 x.t.A.] 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 dv ὧν λαλεῖ κ-τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘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:

70 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [xv

-ε - r / \ , Α
ὧν σιγᾷ γινώσκηται. οὐδὲν λανθάνει τὸν Κύριον, ἀλλα

\ \ \ - \ ~ > , 35
καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἡμῶν ἐγγυς αὐτῷ ἐστιν. πάντα οὐν
~ m~ ἴῃ ~ ~ e/ 3 > ~
TOLWMEV, WS αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικοῦντος, ἵνα ὠμεν αὐτου

\ \ 3 \ > ce 7] e/ ἈΠ ΔΓ. \ /
ναοὶ καὶ avTos ἐν ἡμῖν Θεὸς" ὅπερ καὶ ἔστιν Kat φανη-

I γινώσκηται] G; γινώσκεται Antioch. (ed.); al. g.
2 αὐτῷ] Gg*; αὐτοῦ Antioch.
3 αὐτοῦ ναοὶ] GLg; templum cjus A; templa dé Sy.

Ag; add. yap Antioch,
Gg ; εἰσιν Antioch.
4 αὐτὸς] txt gL; add. 7G [S,][A].

Clem. Al. Ped. ii. 7 (p. 202) ὁ δὲ
ἐμὸς υἱός, ἐκεῖνον λέγω τὸν σιωπῶντα;,
οὐ παύεταε λαλῶν. Somewhat simi-
larly Clem. Rom. 21 τὸ ἐπιεικὲς τῆς
γλώσσης αὐτῶν διὰ τῆς σιγῆς φανερὸν
ποιησάτωσαν. The meaning of the
passage in Philo Quis rer. div. 53
(ip. 511) quoted by Zahn, o 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
meaning of γινώσκηται seems to be
‘may be recognized, understood by
others, as if he were speaking.’ Other-
wise γινώσκηται might refer to re-
cognition by God (a meaning which
would be suggested by the words
following οὐδὲν λανθάνει x.7.A.); but
this is hardly so appropriate.

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

2. αὐτῷ] For the dative with
ἐγγὺς comp. Ps, cxliv (cxlv). 18, Aets
ix. 38, xxvii. 8, Clem. Rom. l.c., Herm.
Vis. ii, 3; see Bleek Hebréerbr. it. 2.
p- 209. The genitive is the more
usual case, and in classical Greek
the dative is very rare; Kiihner 1.
Ρ. 357. The authorities leave no
doubt about the reading here.

4. ναοί] 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

οὐδὲν] txt GL [34]
ἐστιν]

Θεός] txt gS,3 add. ἡμῶν GLA

ἐνδόξως οἰκοδομηθῇ ... διὸ ἐν τῷ κατοι-
κητηρίῳ ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὁ Θεὸς κατοικεῖ ἐν
ἡμῖν, Tatian ad Grec. 15 εἰ μὲν ὡς
ναὸς fy κατοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ βούλεται Θεὺς
διὰ τοῦ πρεσβεύοντος πνεύματος.

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 κατοικεῖ. 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 κιτ.λ.} 1.6. 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 δ ὧν πράσσουσιν ὀφθήσονται.

5. δικαίως] ‘rightly, 1.6. ‘as in
duty bound’; comp. Magn. 9 ὃν
δικαίως ἀνέμενον, 1 Cor. xv. 34 ἐκνήψατε
δικαίως. Hence it sometimes signifies
‘truly’ ; see Lobeck on Soph. 47. 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

xv]

TO THE EPHESIANS. 71

\ , ~ (3 , ~
5 σεται TPO προσώπου ἡμών, EE wy δικαίως ἀγαπῶμεν

αὐτόν.
XVI.

BACIAEIAN

Ocof oY KAHPONOMHCOYCIN.

Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί μου" οἱ οἰκοφθόροι

> ἰοὺ \
εἰ οὖν οἱ κατα

᾿ ~ , > / / ~ > \
σάρκα ταῦτα πράσσοντες ἀἄπεθανον, πόσῳ μαλλον ἐαν

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

8rep...nuav] GL; om. S, A (perhaps owing to
7 oil] Gg; om. Rup. 772.
σοντες ἀπέθανον] GLA; πάσχοντες ἀπέθνησκον Rup.; al. g.

9] πράσ-
ἐὰν] G Rup.;

gui (plur.) A (omitting ἐὰν) ; s¢ guis L; al. g.

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

οἱ 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-
Oare ὅτι ναὸς Θεοῦ ἐστε, Kat TO
πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν; εἴ
τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φθείρει,
φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Θεός, combined with
vi. 9, 10, 19, μὴ πλανᾶσθε" οὔτε
πόρνοι ... οὔτε μοιχοί... βασιλείαν
Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν... οὐκ οἴδατε
ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν
ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν. Hence οἶκο-
φθόρος must be interpreted from 8.
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, οἶκο-
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
oikopOopia γαμετῶν, and perhaps in
Orac. Sibyl. ii. 258 δόλιοι τ᾽ οἰκοφθόροι
aivoi; comp. Crig. ¢. Cels. vii. 63
νοθεύειν τὴν 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. 1—Q, to which also S.
Paul alludes in the same epistle, x. 8
μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν
ἐπόρνευσαν, καὶ ἔπεσαν κιτ.λ. The in-
terpolator has got altogether on ἃ
wrong track, for he paraphrases εἰ δὲ
of τοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους οἴκους διαφθείρον-
τες θανάτῳ καταδικάζονται, πίσῳ
μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίαν
κιτ.λ. '
8. βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κιτιλ.] See
τ Cor. yi. 9,, 10,.Gal. v.21; comp.
Philad. 3, Polyc. Phz?. 5.

εἰ οὖν οἱ κατὰ σάρκα κιτ.λ.] Comp.
Clem. Hom, Ep. ad Iac. 7 πολὺ γὰρ
δεινὸν ἡ μοιχεία τοσοῦτον ὅσον τὰ dev-
τερεῖα ἔχειν αὐτὴν τῆς κολάσεως ἐπεὶ
τὰ πρωτεῖα τοῖς ἐν πλάνῃ οὖσιν ἀπὸο-
δίδοται, κἂν σωφρονῶσιν, 10. 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 main-
tained against such pernicious teach-

ing.

72 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[Xv1

πίστιν Θεοῦ ἐν κακοδιδασκαλίᾳ φθείρη, ὑπὲρ ἧς ᾿Ιησοῦς

\ ~ e
Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώθη. ὁ τοιοῦτος ῥυπαρὸς γενόμενος εἰς

\ a Ἂ sf 4 ’ \ /
TO πῦρ TO ἀσβεστον χωρήσει, ὁμοίως Kal ὃ ἀκούων

αὐτοῦ.

XVII. Διὰ τοῦτο μύρον ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς 5
> ~ e , εὖ 7 ΄σ > iy > /
[αὐτοῦ] ὁ Κύριος, ἵνα mven TH ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀφθαρσίαν. μη

1 Θεοῦ] GLA; om. Rup.; al. g.
G; al. g: comp. Prilad. 2.

al. g.

2 ὁ τοιοῦτος] GL; ὅτι οὗτος Rup. ; al. Ag.

κακοδιδασκαλίᾳ] Rup. ; κακῇ διδασκαλίᾳ

See Zyall. 6, where in ἃ similar case Rup. alone has
preserved the correct reading καταξιοπιστευόμενοι.

φθείρῃ! G; φθερεῖ Rup. ;
purrapos |

GL Rup.; al. A. As g paraphrases λιπανθεὶς καὶ παχυνθείς, he would seem to

have read τρυφερός.

I. πίστιν Θεοῦ] ‘the faith of God,
ie. ‘the teaching of the Gospel.’
For this objective sense of πίστις see
Galatians p. 155, and the notes on i.
23, ill. 23, vi. 10. 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 Kiihner 11. p. 32
sq-, Jelf § 373. 6.

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

3. τὸ πῦρ TO ἄσβεστον] See Matt.
lit. 12, Luke ‘itis 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, an
perish in our folly?’ |

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

6 αὐτοῦ] Gg; suo LA; om. g Antioch, 17.

15, comp. Magu. 9; though διὰ τοῦτο
sometimes refers to the preceding
clause, when followed by iva, e.g.
Eph. vi. 13.

μύρον e€daBev] A_ reference to
the incident in the Gospels; Matt.
xxvi. 7 Sq., Mark xiv. 3 sq., [ Luke vii.
37 sq.], John xii. 3sq. 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.
Ped. ii. ὃ (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 κιτιλ, 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. 4. Cels.
Vi. 79 ἐπεὶ Χριστὸς κεφαλή ἐστιν τῆς
ἐκκλησίας, ὡς εἶναι Ev σῶμα Χριστὸν καὶ
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τὸ μύρον ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς
καταβέβηκεν κιτιὰ. (with the whole con-
text), Macar. Magn. Afoer. iii. 14 (p.
23) τὸ οὐράνιον μύρον (said of Christ,
in reference to the incident at Beth-

xvil| TO THE EPHESIANS.

73
ἀλείφεσθε δυσωδίαν τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ

I-A ͵ \ > / € “- > ~ /
αἰωνος τούτου, μὴ αἰχμαλωτίιση ὑμᾶς EK TOU προκειμένου

Gi.

Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ὅ ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός; Ti μωρῶς

διὰ τί δὲ οὐ πάντες φρόνιμοι γινόμεθα λαβόντες

> / 9 ~ \ μὰ ε / -
ἀπολλύμεθα ἀγνοοῦντες τὸ χάρισμα ὃ πέπομφεν ἀλη-

θώς ὁ Κύριος ;

μὴ ἀλείφεσθε] GLA; μηδεὶς οὖν ἀλειφέσθω [Antioch.]; μὴ ἀλειφέσθω... ἡ ἁγία τοῦ

θεοῦ ἐκκλησία [g*].
ἀπιστίας Antioch. ; znzguitatis A.

It χάρισμα] GL[g]; χάριν [Antioch. 7]; dub. A, Zahn conjectures χρῖσμα.
is a v. 1. χάρισμα for χρῖσμα in 1 Joh. ii. 27.
A Antioch. (who paraphrases, ὑπὲρ ἧς πέπονθεν ἀληθῶς ὁ

any). Zahn truly remarks that the
allusion here implies a knowledge of
5. John’s Gospel (ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη
κιτιλ.), 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
on Col. 1. 20, 22.

ἀφθαρσίαν] ‘incorruptibility, ra-
ther than ‘mmortality, here, as the

preceding φθείρῃ requires; comp.

Ephes. vi. 24, and so prob. Magu. 6
eis 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. 1 πνοὴ ἀφθαρσίας).
Comp. Apost. Const. vii. 27 εὐχαρισ-
τοῦμέν Gol...kal ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐωδίας τοῦ
μύρου καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀθανάτου αἰῶνος
K.T.A.

7. δυσωδίαν] Liturg. D. Fac. p. 40
εὐωδίασον ἡμῶν τὸ δυσῶδες τῆς ψυχῆς
καὶ τοῦ σώματος ; comp. LA. Vienn. in
Euseb. H. £. ν. τ τὴν εὐωδίαν ὀδω-
δότες ἅμα τὴν Χριστοῦ ὥστε ἐνίους
δόξαι καὶ μύρῳ κοσμικῷ κεχρῖσθαι αὐ-
τοὺς, οἱ δὲ κατηφεῖς καὶ ταπεινοὶ καὶ
δυσειδεῖς καὶ πάσης ἀσχημοσύνης ἀνα-
πλέοι κιτιλ., Where perhaps we should
read δυσώδεις for δυσειδεῖς. See also

7 τῆς διδασκαλίας] G ; διδασκαλίας [g]; doctrinae 1, ;

10 6] G3; gui (ds) L; dub. A; al. g.
There
πέπομφεν) GL; πέπονθεν
kUptos); al. g.

Magn. 10 ἀπὸ ths ὀσμῆς ἐλεγχθή-
σεσθε.

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

ὃ, μὴ αἰχμαλωτίσῃ κ-τ.λ.}] ‘lest he
lead us captive and carry us away
Srom the life etc.’ For the condensed
expression αἰχμαλωτίζειν ἐκ τοῦ K.T.d.,
see the note on ὃ 1 δεδεμένον ἀπὸ
Συρίας. For αἰχμαλωτίσῃ comp. ,λ2-
lad. 2 αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν τοὺς θεοδρόμους,
2 Tim. il. 6 αἰχμαλωτίζοντες γυναι-
κάρια (the correct reading).

Tov προκειμένου ζῆν] ‘the life which
as set before us, i.e. ‘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] “ὄν receiving? It
might however be translated ‘ seeing
that we received, but the words in
the following clause, papas, ἀγνοοῦν-
res, point to the former interpretation,

10, 6 ἐστιν κιτ.λ.} Comp. Magn. 10
μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην 6 ἐστιν
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Col. il. 2 ἐπίγνωσιν

74
XVIII.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[XVIII

Περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ σταυροῦ,

ΠΑ A ~ 9 ΄σ΄ en δὲ VA
ὃ ἐστιν σκάνδαλον τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν, ἡμῖν OE σωτηρία

\ af \ 2 a " a

καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. ποΐ οοφός; ποῦ
o , ro

χῆσις τῶν λεγομένων TUVETWY 5

’ ΄σ΄ ὁ
CYZHTHTHC; ποὺ Kau-

ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν

1 περίψημα κ.τ.λ.1 Σ begins again here and continues to ἑωὴ αἰώνιος. It omits

the rest of the chapter and commences again with § 19.
GLIA} crucis tuae Anon-Syr., 219; al. 5.

crux=6s) L; dub. A Anon-Syr.,; al.g.

ὑμῖν 68D; sed vobis fidelibus A; τοῖς δὲ πιστοῖς [6].
GLAg; i salutem et in vitam aeternam Σ᾽ Anon-Syr.,

GLA Tim-Syr. 211; δυνατῶν g.

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

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. 111. 14 τὴν ἀγάπην 6 ἐστιν
σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος (the correct
reading). It is not uncommon in
these epistles; JZagz. l.c., Zrall. 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. Περίψημα] ‘ 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 δ] G3; quae (ie.

ἡμῖν δὲ] GL Anon-Syr., ;
σωτηρία... αἰώνιος]
4 συνετῶν»)

5 6] G; om, G’ Theodt. iv. 49; al. g.
Maptas] txt GLAg

in Ephraem Syrus Of. Syr. Il. 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 (οἵ. 1: 18,.252, 24:1 ΌΤΩΒ;
Gal. ν. 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 σκάν-
δαλον here, are the Docetics; see the
note on Philad. 8.

3. ποῦ σοφός x.t.A.] An inexact
quotation from 1 Cor. 1. 20 ποῦ σοφός;
ποῦ γραμματεύς; ποῦ συνζητητὴς τοῦ
αἰῶνος τούτου; Which words them-
selves are a free paraphrase of Isaiah
xxxili. 18. The following clause, ποῦ
καύχησις τῶν λεγομένων συνετῶν, 15
Ignatius’ own ; but it is suggested by
the quotation from Isaiah xxix. 14,
ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν
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 ἐν Κυρίῳ
καυχάσθω, a condensed quotation of
the passage in Jeremiah ix. 23, 24,

xvi]

TO THE EPHESIANS, 75

᾿Ιησοῦς 6 Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας Kat’ oixovo-

, 3 / \ A ὃ ᾿ς \ €.. 2B
μίαν, ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν Δανεὶδ πνεύματος δὲ ἁγίου"

ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ἵνα τῷ πάθει TO ὕδωρ

καθαρίση.

Tim-Syr. ; add. τῆς παρθένου G’.

κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν} κατοικονομίαν G.

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

dei GG’L Theodt. Tim-Syr.

6 Δαυεὶδ] δαδ GG’.

πνεύματος]

GG’Lg* (with a ν.1.); ἐκ πνεύματος Theodt., and so prob. Tim-Syr.; dub. A. For
μὲν... δὲ Tim-Syr. has a simple connecting particle ¢ semine dauid et ὁ spiritu sancto.
ἡ ἵνα... καθαρίσῃ! GG'L; ut aguas passibiles purgaret Tim-Syr., so that his trans-
lator apparently read τοῦ παθεῖν for τῷ πάθει ; ut purgaret aguae corruptionem A;

ἵνα τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν καθαρισθῇ Theodt.; al. g.

μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ
κιτιλ.) and elsewhere (Rom. iii. 27
ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις"). ᾿

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

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

ὑπὸ Μαρίας] See above, ὃ 7 with the
note.

kar’ οἰκονομίαν] ‘according to a
dispensation. The word οἰκονομία
came to be applied more especially
to the Incarnation (as here and below
§ 20 ἧς ἠρξάμην οἰκονομίας κ.τ.λ.), be-
cause this was jar 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. i. 10 els 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 (§ 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 Δαυείδ] This is
the way in which Ignatius delights
to represent the human nature of our
Lord; comp. ὃ 20 below, 7γαῤέ, 9,
Rom. 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 7 γαζί. 9, his object is merely to
assert the reality of the human na-
ture against the Docetics.

7. ἐγεννήθη] not ‘degotten, but
‘born, as in Tradl. 9; comp. Smyrn,
1. So Luke i. 13, 57, xxill. 29, etc.

iva τῷ πάθει κιτιλ.1] 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 sins’ (comp. Tertull.
adv. Fud. 8, de Bapt. 9); but it was
the death of Christ which gave their

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[xix

XIX. Kai ἔλαθεν τὸν ἄρχοντα TOU αἰῶνος τούτου

1 καὶ] GG’LAg Orig. iii. 938 (Gk, but omitted in Jerome’s version) Euseb.
Quaest, ad Steph. 1 Andr-Cret. (Pearson V. Z. p. 87) Tim-Syr. ; sed Anon-Syr., 219;

om. 2.

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.
III. p. 938 A), by Eusebius (Quest. ad
Steph. 1, Op. Iv. p. 881, ed. Migne),
by Basil (Hom. in Sanct. Chr. Gen.
3, Op. τι. p. 598 B), by Jerome
(Comm. in Matt. i. § 1, Op. VU. p.
12 B), by Jovius Monachus (de con.
vil, in Phot. 420/. ccxxii., p. 622);
by Andreas Cretensis (Hom. in
Nativ. B. Virg. ii., in Pearson V. J,
Ῥ. 87), and by an anonymous Mono-
physite writer preserved in a Syriac
version (Cureton C. 7. p. 219; see
zh. p. 359), besides Timotheus of

lexandria (Cureton C. 7. p. 211)

2 Mapias] txt GL etc.; add. τῆς ἀειπαρθένου καὶ θεοτόκου (α΄.

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 (25 Evang. i.,
Ῥ. 280 Otto), of. Ephraem Syrus
(Hymn. το, quoted by Merx, p. 74
sq.), of S. Ambrose on Luke i. 27
(Op. I. p. 1281 ‘ut virginitas Maria’
falleret principem mundi’), of Cyril-
lonas the Syrian poet (Bickell Cousf,’
Rer. Syr. Lit. pp. 34, 35, quoted by
Zahn J. v. A. p. 187), of Anastasius
(de Rect. Ver. Dogm. quoted by Pear-'
son V7. J. p. 81), and certainly of a
Syrian Commentator on S. John
(Cureton C. ἢ p. 285; this was either
Harith-bar-Sisin, or Lazarus of Beth-
Kandasa; see Wright Cafal. 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-
τανᾶς..-μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὐτοῦ τὴν κατά-
κρισιν, Hippol. Of. 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 πανούργημα...ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς
ἄνθρωπος λιτὸς καὶ ὑπόχῤεως ἁμαρτιῶν
ἔκλινεν τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ βαπτισ θῆ-
ναι κιτιὰλ. (a passage which may have
been suggested by’ the words of

ΧΙΧ]

TO THE EPHESIANS.

δὴν θ , M , \ e \ a δ e 7 \ 5
1] Tap Evid aplas Kat O TOKETOS αὐτῆς, OMOLWS καὶ O

τοκετὸς] GG’g etc.; τόκος Andr-Cret. .

avr7s...0 θάνατος] GG'LZ, (which

omits dpuolws) A (which has verum etiam for ὁμοίως καὶ) g Euseb, Andr-Cret.
Tim-Syr. Anon-Syr., (comp. Jov. in Phot. 4262. ccxxii καὶ τὴν σταύρωσιν) ; om,

2,: see the lower note.

Ignatius), zd. p. 146 τοῦτο δὲ οἶκο-
νομίᾳ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐγίνετο, iva μὴ ὁ
διάβολος συνίῃ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν
ἐν παραβολαῖς λελαλημένα κιτιλ. SO
too Greg. Nyss. Ογαΐ. Catech. 26 (I.
p. 68 Migne) ἀπατᾶται yap καὶ αὐτὸς
τῷ τοῦ 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
vu. a. Versohnung Ὁ. 73 sq.

2. ὁμοίως kaix.t.A.| For this mode
of connexion see § 16, 7γαϊί, 13:
similarly ὡσαύτως καὶ Clem. Rom. 43.

In one of the two Mss (Σ,) 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 (C. J. p. 284 sq.), Lipsius
(Aecht. Ὁ. 128 sq., S. Z. 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 το-
κετὸς αὐτῆς aS against ὁ 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 κιτ.λ. also. Cureton alleges
likewise the Pseudo-Ignatius (PAz-
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 6 θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου in
his text here, as his own recension
shows. (2) It is 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-

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 ro 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 ἥδεισαν. 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. 222
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 τοῦ 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 deginning 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’ (δ 18 be-
ginning); it closes with the reference
to the ‘dissolution of death’ through
the sacrifice of Calvary (§ 19 end).

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[x1x

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. 7x Psalm
xxxiv. 8 (commenting on the words
ἐλθέτω αὐτοῖς παγὶς ἣν ov γινώσκουσι
K.T.A., Op. II. p. 650) νομίζω περὶ τοῦ
σταυροῦ λέγειν αὐτόν, εἰς ὃν ἐμπέπτωκεν
ὁ διάβολος ἀγνοῶν κιτιλ., Comm, in
Matt. T. xiii § 6, OZ. 111. p. 583 (comp.
Comm.in Matth. T. xiii ὃ 9, OP. III.
p.583, ἵν᾽ of παραλαβόντες avrov...€k TOU
Κυρίου ἐκμυκτηρισθῶσιν, eis 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. Dzal. de
Rect. 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 (mhasma oniama

123) 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

ΧΙΧ]

TO THE EPHESIANS. 79

va , ~ e ᾽
θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου: τρία μυστήρια κραυγῆς, ἅτινα ἐν

Ι τοῦ Κυρίου] GG’LZAg Tim-Syr. Anon Syr.,; τοῦ χριστοῦ Euseb. Andr-Cret.
τρία μυστήρια] GG'LA (which adds miradilia) g Euseb. Andr-Cret. Tim-Syr.; e¢

tria mysteria Le Dg
lower note.

have been corrected from the Greek
text. But such a solution is highly
improbable in itself; for elsewhere
23 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 Σὰ (see Zahn 7. 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 mriassa ‘and her child-bear-

ing,’ and echasaa ‘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 roxerds is
rightly translated in the Curetonian
text dolores parius, but an extract
elsewhere preserved gives it with
the corrupt reading τόδ for

w πλαϑο, 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

Kpavyjs] GG'L2 etc.; φρικτὰ Andr-Cret. ; see the
ἅτινα] GG’'LZ εἰς. ; 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 (Evéstehung Ὁ. 578, ed. 1)
and Lipsius (Aech¢. 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. i. 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 i. 26 be called
κραυγῆς, seeing that they were strictly
private? Volkmar (see Lipsius S.
7. 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 6
θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου.

I. κραυγῆς] ‘of crying, of pro-
clamation, a stronger word than
κηρύξεως : see Athenag. Suppl. 11
ἐπιτρέψατε ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου ἐξακού-
στου μετὰ πολλῆς κραυγῆς yeyo-

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[x1x

ε ’ ΝΣ ἢ / ΄σ ἤν > / ἄν ΔΊΝΗΣ
ἡσυχίᾳ Θεοῦ ἐπράχθη. πώς οὖν ἐφανερωθη τοῖς αἰώσιν ;
> ~~ » ς \ / \ ’

ἀστὴρ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἔλαμψεν ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας,

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

πῶς otv...avrois]

In place of all this = has merely a@ /a¢ere (a Syriasm for ἀπὸ or ἐκ or παρὰ) stellae,

νότος ἐπὶ παρρησίαν ἀναγαγεῖν ὡς ἐπὶ
βασιλέων φιλοσόφων ἀπολογούμενον
(comp. Luke i. 42 κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ,
probably the correct reading). Comp.
also Phzlad. 7 éxpavyaca, 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 τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου
χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου ha-
νερωθέντος δὲ νῦν κιτιλ., Ephes. ili.
9 τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμ-
μένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ Θεῷ
...va γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ
ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις κιτὰλ,
(with the parallel passage Col. i. 26
sq.); comp.also 1 Cor. ii.7 sq. (already
quoted), 2 Tim. i. το. For the use
of μυστήριον in 8. Paul as suggesting
the idea of revelation, see the note
on Col. i. 26. The expression pv-
στήρια κραυγῆς involves ἃ studied
contradiction in terms ; for, as Chry-
sostom says (OP. II. p. 375), ἔνθα pu-
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. 11. 8. 5,
Hippol. p. 17 (Lagarde), Lt. D.,

Marc. p. 16, Lit. S: Basi, Gee
(ed. Neale). So in Chrysostom the
μυστήρια (i.e. the eucharist) are styled
φρικτά, φρικώδη, Of. VII. p. 310, VIII.
p-..273, X. p- .393).and: elsewhere.
Bunsen would read ἐναργῆ for κραυ-
γῆς.

ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ... ἐπράχθη] Comp. Magu.
8 ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ 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, 6 τι ποτέ ἐστι, τῆς
θείας εἰρήνης καὶ ἡσυχίας κιιλ. See
also the language of Marcellus of
Ancyra quoted on Magz. 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-
Kpuppevov 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’ 15 a step towards the
Valentinian phraseology, and affords
another illustration of the Gnostic
tinge which colours the language of
Ignatius.

2. ἀστήρ] 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, στε τοὺς ἀστέρας μὴ φαίνεσθαι.
[I may here mention by way of
caution, that Lipsius (Aechs. p. 135)

XIX |

TO THE EPHESIANS.

ΟῚ

-- al > / <y \ \ τ

καὶ τὸ φώς αὐτοῦ ἀνεκλαλητον nv, Kat ἕενισμον παρεῖ-
lan \ A \ / sf e/

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, &rzz.
Mus. Add. 14, 484, which Cureton
himself correctly gives as a Syriac
translation of this passage in the
Protevangelium (C. 7. p. 286). See
the account of the MS in Wright’s
Catal. p. 99]. Compare also Clem.
Alex. Exc. Theod. 74 (p. 986) ἀνέ-
τειλεν ξένος ἀστὴρ καὶ καινός, κατα-
λύων τὴν παλαιὰν ἀστροθεσίαν, καινῷ
φωτὶ οὐ κοσμικῷ λαμπόμενος, ὁ καινὰς
ὑδοὺς καὶ σωτηρίους τρεπόμενος, αὐτὸς
ὃ Κύριος ἀνθρώπων ὁδηγὸς κιτιλ., Where
the resemblances to this passage of
Ignatius are perhaps too great to be
accidental. Still more extravagant
is the extract which Cureton (C. J.
p- 287) gives from the Syriac work
called the Cave of Treasures, wrongly
ascribed to Ephraem: ‘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 Catal. p. 1064. A similar
account of the appearance of the
virgin and child in the star is found

also in the Athiopic 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 p. 9 sq., in Ewald’s Fahr-
bicher 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 iz the midst

IGN,

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... ἀνόμοιος
αὐτοῖς, is abridged into these words

a en A US ee = 8 latere

stelle,’ which, if it had been trans-
lated from the Greek, would pro-
bably represent ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀστέρος.
But even if it were possible to render
this ‘from the time of the star’s ap-
pearing’ with Weiss, Lipsius (Aechz.
p- 132), and others, no adequate sense
would result. Bunsen boldly sub-
stitutes 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. 1. 14. 5.

ξενισμόνἾ ‘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. I συγκινεῖ πὼς
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-

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ΧΙΧ

ay ἢ \ / \ 9 7 a > / 3 \ δὲ ΤᾺ
ἡλίῳ Kat σελήνη χορὸς ἐγένετο τῷ ἀστέρι, AUTOS OE HV

ς / \ lal ΄- ε / / i
ὑπερβάλλων TO φῶς αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ πάντα' ταραχή TE ἦν

1 χορὸς] G’; χωρὸς G (but with a blot which may be intended as a correction
into χορὸς). ἐγένετο] GG’; ἐγίνοντο g. 2 τε] GG’Ag; autem (δὲ) L.
3 ὅθεν] GG’; ἔνθεν [g]. From this point = reads εὖ hic in manifestatione filit
coepit aboleri magica 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 πᾶσα μαγεία (uayla), καὶ πᾶς δεσμὸς ἠφανίζετο κακίας, ἄγνοια καθῃρεῖτο (καθη-
ρῆτο), παλαιὰ βασιλεία διεφθείρετο, Θεοῦ κιτ.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 éuwpalvero σοφία κοσμική, “γοητεία ὕθλος ἣν καὶ γέλως ἡ
μαγεία, πᾶς θεσμὸς κακίας ἠφανίζετο, ἀγνοίας ζόφός 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 (Ξε ἐλύετο πᾶσα
μαγεία καὶ πᾶς δεσμὸς) et deceptiones mali finiebantur (ἠφανίζετο κακίας ἄγνοια) et
vetus regnum adestruebatur (καθηρεῖτο παλαιὰ βασιλεία) per revelationem dei etc.

ἐλύετο...διεφθείρετο, Θεοῦ x.7-r.]

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
Ephraem Syrus, Of. Syr. Iv. p. 416
‘A star shone forth suddenly with

preternatural 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. c. Aare.
li. 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.
z. 5

2. ὑπερβάλλων κιτ.λ.] ‘ surpassing

all in tts light? where τὸ φῶς is pro-
bably the cognate accusative, de-
scribing the thing in which the excess
took place; as e.g. Aristot. H. 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 /oc.).

ταραχή τε ἦν] 1. 6. ‘there was trouble,
perplexity, to know whence came
this strange appearance which was
so unlike them? For καινότης comp.
Orig. ¢. Cels..1. το 1 ἢς 375) 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. Aeopos

x1x] TO THE EPHESIANS. 83

Ἁ ε if ε 4. 5) ~ id, > / ΄σ
πόθεν ἡ καινότης ἡ ἀνόμοιος αὐτοῖς. ὅθεν ἐλύετο πᾶσα
αγεία καὶ πᾶς δεσμός, ἠφανίζετο κακίας ἄγνοια, καθ
μαγ μός, γνοια, καθή

(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
kal καθῃρεῖτο παλαιὰ βασιλεία καὶ κακίας ἄγνοια. From a comparison of the two
last it seems to follow that the Syriac Version, of which = is a tumbled abridg-
ment and from which A is a corrupt text of a secondary translation, must have
run somewhat thus; solvebatur omnis magica et omne vinculum et error malitiae
Jfiniebatur 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. 218 quotes only the latter part of the sentence, ignorantia
dissipabatur, regnum vetus corrumpebatur (destruebatur), where the last verb
Ni δε ΓΤ is a natural rendering of διεφθείρετο, which was perhaps already
‘in his text. 4 μαγεία] payla G’, δεσμός] GG'LZ; θεσμὸς [g];
al. A. καθῃρεῖτο)] g; adestruecbatur A; καθηρῆτο GG’; abdlata est L,
Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου] GG'L ; guum deus homo manifestaretur Sev-Syr. ;
θεοῦ ws ἀνθρώπου φανερουμένου g (treating the whole context paraphrastically) ;
per revelationem det qui incarnatus est A; in mantfestatione filii Σ (in an earlier

place in the sentence; see above).

is thus connected with édvero, 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. See e.g.
Tertull. de Jdol. 9, Orig. c. Cels. i. 60
(I. p. 374 sq.) 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.
l, c. f‘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
Apol. i. 14, Tertull. Afolog. 23, etc.
See the account of Hadrian in Ovac.
Szbyll. viii. 56. The lapse of Julian
into paganism was connected with
magical rites; Eunapius V7zt. Soph.
p. 89sq. (comp. Greg. Naz. Ovat. 4,
I. p. 102) For the prevalence of
magic at Ephesus see Acts xix. 19.
πᾶς δεσμός) ‘every spell’; comp.
Porph. 4p. ad Aned. p. 5 (ed. Gale)

σ ‘
δεσμεῖν τε ἱερούς τινας δεσμοὺς καὶ

᾿ λύειν τούτους. 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 Aisch. Lum. 303 ὕμνον δ᾽

6—2

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[xIx

ρεῖτο παλαιὰ βασιλεία, [διεφθείρετο], Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως

/ > , TO, a ee 5 \ δὲ aN /
φανερουμενου εἰς KAINOTHTA αἰδίον zwhc ἀρχήν ὁε ἐλαμ-

\ ΄σ " /
Bavev τὸ παρὰ Θεῷ ἀπηρτισμένον.

/ \ 7
ἔνθεν Ta πᾶντα

΄-: \ \ ΄- 7 ἊΝ
συνεκινεῖτο διὰ τὸ μελετάᾶσθαι θανάτου καταλυσιν.

2 εἰς... ζωῆς] GG’L Sev-Syr.; ad vitam novam acternitatis A3 om. 23 al. g.

. ἀϊδίου] ἀειδίου G’.

ἀκούσει τόνδε δέσμιον σέθεν (comp. ver.
318), Plat. Res. ii. p. 364 C ἐπαγω-
yais τισὶ καὶ καταδέσμοις ; comp.
Justin Dzal. 85 (p. 311 C) τῇ τέχνῃ,
ὥσπερ καὶ ta ἔθνη, χρώμενοι ἐξορκί-
ζουσι καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις
χρῶνται, Tertull. de Spect. 2 ‘vis ho-
micidium ferro, veneno, magicis de-
vincttonibus perfici ?’

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 kingdom, 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, ren.
lil. 16. 4, Tertull. adv. Fud. 9, adv.
Mare. iii. 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 ἀνθρω-
πίνως φανερουμένου 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 k.t.d.| 1.6. ‘so as
to introduce a new order of things,
which is everlasting life, ζωῆς being

dpxiv...carddvow] GG’ (the latter reading ἐκινεῖτο for

the genitive of apposition; comp.
Winer § lix. p. 666. See Rom. vi.
4, where also xaworns ζωῆς means
‘the new state which is life,’ as op-
posed to the old state which was
death. Comp. Magn. 9 εἰς καινότητα
ἐλπίδος.

ἀρχὴν δὲ κιτ.λ.] i.e. ‘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 «.7.A.| 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; 8 18 καὶ ἀνέβλεψα εἰς τὸν
ἀέρα καὶ εἶδον τὸν ἀέρα ἔκθαμβον καὶ
ἀνέβλεψα εἰς τὸν πόλον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν ἑστῶτα κιτλ. 80 too
Milton, ‘The stars with deep amaze
Stand fixt in stedfast gaze.’

4. θανάτου κατάλυσιν] Comp. I 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

XR πεν, ae καταξιώση ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν τῆ

Ae σ΄ \ uf 5 3 ~ / ,
προσευχή ὑμῶν, Kat θέλημα n, ἐν TH δευτέρῳ βιβλιδίῳ,

ὃ μέλλω γράφειν ὑμῖν, προσδηλώσω ὑμῖν ἧς ἠρξάμην

3 iE 2 A \ ᾽ ὙΦ ~ / >
οἰκονομίας εἰς Tov καινὸν ἀνθρωπον ᾿Ϊησοῦν Χριστόν, ἐν

συνεκινεῖτο) LAg Sev-Syr.; the order of the two sentences, ἀρχὴν δὲ x.7.d. and

ἔνθεν k.T.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, Rome.
2, Philad. 10, Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 1,
7, 8.

ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν] i.e. ‘through
your prayers.’ The same expression
occurs in a similar context, PAz/lad.
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 (δ 1, 11, Magn. 14, Philad.
5, 8, Smyrn. 11) or for the Church at
Antioch (Rom. 9, Tradl. 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, JZagn. 7,
Trall, 12, Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 1).

6. θέλημα] i.e. Sthe Divine will? ὁ

It is used thus absolutely several
times in Ignatius, either with the
definite article (Polyc. 8 ὡς τὸ θέλημα
προστάσσει) Or, aS here, without it
(Rom. 1 ἐάνπερ θέλημα ἢ τοῦ ἀξιωθῆναί
με Κιτιλ., «5),2γ777,. 1 υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ
θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν, 2b. 11 κατὰ θέλημα
δὲ κατηξιώθην).. Examples of both
kinds appear also in 5. Paul, Rom.

il, 17 Sq. 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. Strom. vi. 18 (p. 826) θελήματι
θέλημα καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι τὸ ἅγιον
πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν ἐθίζοντες. On the other
hand of the devil Heracleon said that
he μὴ ἔχειν θέλημα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας, Orig.
zn Loann, 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 absolute use of ἡ
χάρις, τὸ ὄνομα, etc.

ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ κιτ.λ.}] There is no
reason to think that this design was
ever fulfilled: see above, p. 18.

7. προσδηλώσω «.t.r.] “17 will go
on to expound the economy (of the
Incarnation) wfon which I com-
menced. See the note on ὃ 18 κατ᾽
οἰκονομίαν.

ὃ. εἰς τὸν καινὸν κιτ.λ.] ‘referring
to the new Man, Fesus Christ, the
words being closely connected with
οἰκονομίας. The καινὸς ἄνθρωπος of
Ignatius is equivalent to the ἔσχατος
᾿Αδάμ, the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, of S.
Paul (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). The Apostle
himself seems to use ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρω-
mos in a different sense, Ephes. iv. 24
ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, though

86 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [xx

τῆ αὐτοῦ πίστει καὶ ἐν TH αὐτοῦ ἀγάπη, ἐν πάθει αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἀναστάσει, μάλιστα ἐὰν ὁ Κύριός Ne ἀποκαλύψῃ:
Ὑδὅτι Τ οἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα κοινῇ πάντες ἐν χάριτι ἐξ ὀνόματος
συνέρχεσθε ἐν μιᾷ πίστει καὶ ἑνὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ A porn TO

κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ γένους Δανείδ, τῷ υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου καὶ υἱῷ

3 ὅτ] GL[A]; εἴ τι Theodt. iv. 49; om. Gelas. (treating συνέρχεσθε as an

imperative convenite); al. g: see the lower note.
4 ἑνὶ] Theodt.; i «no Gelas.; ἐν GL, and so S, (which has

Theodt.

it is quite possible that Ignatius
took this to mean ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν
Χριστόν.

ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ κ-τ.λ.] ‘consisting 7
faith towards Him and love towards
Him? This again must be closely
connected with οἰκονομίας ; comp.
1 Tim. i. 4 οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν
πίστει, TO δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας
ἐστὶν ἀγάπη. For the genitive case
see the note on om. inscr. So
again the following ἐν πάθει x.7.A.
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. .

4. foret κιτλ] ‘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 ‘if
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, I1, 12).
But the reading is rendered sus-
picious by the fact that Theodoret
has εἴ rt, while Gelasius treats συνέρ-
xeoGe as an imperative. Moreoverthe
dependent εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ὑμᾶς points
to a preceding imperative or condi-

χάριτι! Clg]; τῇ χάριτι

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 oi 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. Smyrn, 12
τοὺς κατ᾽ 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. Magu. 7 εἷς ἐστὶν
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, 2b. συντρέχετε...ἐπὶ
ἕνα ᾿Ιησοῦν 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. i. 13 μεμέρισται ὁ
Χριστός; Here, as in ὃ 12, Zahn sug-
gests the impossible form evi.

τῷ kata σάρκα κιτ.λ.} 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 ὃ 18 ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυείδ,

xx]

TO THE EPHESIANS.

a \ , ~ a , ae aes
Θεοῦ, εἰς TO ὑπακούειν ὑμᾶς τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Kal τῷ πρεσ-

᾿ / e/ a ΄σ- ς
βυτερίῳ ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ: ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅ
> / 7 ~ > er
ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν
~ ~ la \ ’
ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός.

XX,

ra / \ Cy
᾿λντίψυχον ὑμῶν ἐγώ, καὶ ὧν ἐπέμψατε

in una fide in iesu christo); al. Ag. See the converse error, Zphes. τι.

ΤΟ G; om. Theodt. ; al. g.

κλῶντος G.

7. ἀπερισπάστῳ] ‘ undistracted’ ;
Wisd: xvi: 11, Ecclus, xli. 1. So
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 ;
ΘΟ GE pict. i...29,, 52, li, 21; 22, etc.
M. Antonin. iii. 6,

ἕνα ἄρτον xdavres] 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. Phzlad. 4 σπου-
δάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι"
μία γὰρ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου κιτ.λ., Smyri.
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 «dav ἄρτον comp. Acts ii. 46
(comp. ver. 42), xx. 7, 11, 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.
εὐ δ] The right reading rather than és.
The 6 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
Irenaeus iv. 18, 5, v. 2. 3 (passages
quoted by Jacobson), who argues
that our fleshly bodies must inherit

5 Δαυείδ] δαδ G.
Θεοῦ] G; τοῦ ἀνθρώπου...τοὺῦ θεοῦ Theodt.; al. g.
6] gL; δὲ G; dub. A.

ἀνθρώπου...
7 κλῶντες] GLA;
10 ὧν] g (but 1 has guem); bv GLA.

eternal life, because they partake of
the eucharistic bread. We need not
however suppose that Ignatius had
this very material conception in view.

8, avridoros] This word, when
used as a substantive, is either ἡ
avridoros (sc. δύναμις, e.g. Strabo iii.
4. 14 ἀντιδότοις τισὶ δυνάμεσι ; see
E. A. Sophocles Lex. s. v.) or τὸ
ἀντίδοτον (sc. φάρμακον, e.g. Anthol.
Ad. 80, Ill. p. 166, τοῦτο yap ἐστι
κακῶν φάρμακον ἀντίδοτον) ; but never
apparently ὁ ἀντίδοτος. The femi-
nine is the more common, e.g. Cleme,
flom. 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 Swyrn. 10,
Polyc. 2, 6. The interpolator has

-caught up the phrase, as character-

istic of Ignatius, and introduces it
freely, Zarvs. 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

΄- \ /
εἰς Θεοῦ τιμὴν εἰς Ομύρναν'

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[XxI

« \ / ς« “ 3
ὅθεν καὶ Mere ἕω: axe

ριστῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, menor Πολύκαρπον ws Kal ὑμᾶς.

pnpovevere μον, ὡς Kal ὑμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. προσ-

εύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Cupia, ὅθεν δεδε-

3 καὶ] GAg; om. L (the omission of δέ after τε being easy).

γενοῦ.. «καθάρσιον αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι τὸ
ἐμὸν αἷμα, καὶ ἀντίψυχον (Vv. 1, ἀντὶ
ψυχῶν) αὐτῶν λάβε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν,
2ὁ. ver. 17 ὥσπερ ἀντίψυχον γεγονότας
τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας : comp. I
Kings xx. 39 καὶ ἔσται ἡ ψυχὴ σοῦ
ἀντὶ τῆς Ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, 10. 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. Ῥ.
44); comp. 1 John 111. 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,
“1 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-
ψημα 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 53 (Bux-
torf’s Lex. s. v. p. 1078, to which
Jacobson refers here). It is in a
different sense that Anselm said of
Osbern (ΣΦ 27:2. 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
eyo, but ἀντίψυχόν pov ὑμεῖς.

av] 1.6. ἐκείνων οὕς, referring to
Onesimus, Burrhus, Crocus, Euplus,
Fronto, and others; see §§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 ov would be extremely harsh
as well as ambiguous, since it might
stand for either ἐκείνου ov or ἐκεῖνος
ov, 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; Magu. 15, ©
Trall. 13, Rom. Το.

I. εἰς Θεοῦ τιμήν] 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 (aya-
πῶν Πολύκαρπον k.T.A.).

3: μνημονεύετέ pov] i.e. ἐν ταῖς προσ-
ευχαῖς ὑμῶν ; see Magn. 14, Trail.
13, Rom. 9.

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] SC. μνημονεύσει ΟΥ̓
μνημονεύσειε : See the note on ,572}7772.

προσεύχεσθε] The same request is
made in all the other letters written
from Smyrna; Magu. 14, Trall. 13,
Rom. 9.

4. ὅθεν δεδεμένος] As Smyrn. 11;
see also above § 1.

5. ἀπάγομαι) The word is com-
monly used of criminals led to trial
or execution ; comp. e.g. Matt. xxvii.

ΧΧΙ]

TO THE EPHESIANS. 89

/ , , Υ \ ~ ~ ~
5 μένος εἰς Ρώμην arrayoua, ἔσχατος wy τῶν ἐκεῖ πιστων,

ὥσπερ ἠξιώθην εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ εὑρεθῆναι.

"Eppwo be ἐν

Θεῷ πατρὶ Kat ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τῆ κοινῆ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν.

7 ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν] txt GL;
add. gratia vobiscum; amen A,

add, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ" [ἔρρωσθε]" ἀμήν" [ἡ χάρις] g* ;

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-
vat D has ἀποκτανθῆναι.

τῶν ἐκεῖ] 1.6. ἐν Συρίᾳ; comp.
Trall, 13 τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ, ὅθεν καὶ οὐκ
ἄξιός εἶμι λέγεσθαι, ὧν ἔσχατος ἐκείνων.
He uses similar language also, Magu.
14, Smyrn. 11, Rom. 9.

6. ὥσπερ] To be connected with
dedepevos...dmayopat.

"Eppoobe| This was a common
salutation at the close of a letter, as
χαίρειν was at the commencement;
Artemid. Onezr. iii. 44 ἴδιον yap πάσης
ἐπιστολῆς τὸ Χαίρειν καὶ τὸ ἜἜρρωσο
(quoted by Pearson on Smyrua. inscr.).

θρωποι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαλλαττόμενοι :

They correspond to the Latin Salve
and Vade respectively. Ἔρρωσο (ép-
ρωσθε), like vyiawe, was regarded
as essentially a farting salutation,
‘Farewell’; 20. i. 82 οὐ yap mposi-
ovres aAAnAos...radta λέγουσιν ἄν-
comp.
e.g. Boeckh C. 7. 3832, 3833, in
letters. The parting salutation in
all the seven epistles takes this
form; the attached words however
varying, e.g. ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ,
etc,

7. τῇ κοινῇ xtA.] See the notes
§ 1, Magn. 11.

go THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

> V4
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 yevytos and γεννητός,
between ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος ; 50 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 γεννητός even in His Godhead. See esp. Joann.
Damasc. de Fid. Orth. i. 8 (1. p. 135 Lequien) χρὴ yap εἰδέναι ὅτι τὸ
ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόμενον, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἢ TO μι γενόμενον
σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο vv γραφόμενον, δηλοῖ τὸ μὴ γεννηθέν
κιτιλ. ; whence he draws the conclusion that μόνος ὁ 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 ayé-
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 gendfus et ingenitus 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 κιτιλ., 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. (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 (gv. v. Ant. p. 564) supposed Athanasius
to have read and written the words with a single v, though in his

TO ΤῊΝ EPHESIANS. OI

subsequent edition of 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 wv. It is clear from
an earlier passage in the same treatise, De Synod. § 3 (1. p. 590), what
is Athanasius’ own view; τὸν πατέρα μόνον ἄναρχον ὄντα καὶ ἀγέννητον
γεγεννηκέναι ἀνεφίκτως καὶ πᾶσιν ἀκαταλήπτως οἴδαμεν" τὸν δὲ υἱὸν γε-
γεννῆσθαι πρὸ αἰώνων καὶ μηκέτι ὁμοίως τῷ πατρὶ ἀγέννητον εἶναι καὶ αὐτόν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τὸν γεννήσαντα πατέρα. He would therefore deny
that the Son was ἀγέννητος (in the sense in which he himself prefers
to use the term), whereas he again and again asserts that He was
ἀγένητος. In the passage before us, 2b. §§ 46, 47 (p. 607), he is defend-
ing the use of ὁμοούσιος at Niczea, notwithstanding that it had been
previously rejected by the Council which condemned Paul of Samosata,
and he contends that both Councils were orthodox, since they used
ὁμοούσιος in a different sense. As a 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, pyre δὲ
γεννηθὲν μήτε ὅλως ἔχον τὸν αἴτιον, Or (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, Kat 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, 1s 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. Vic. 28 (1.
Ρ. 184), Orat. c. Arian. i. 30 (1. 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
the readings in the several places, but ‘ingenerate’ is given as the

Q2 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

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 11. 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. Swf/. 4 with Otto’s note ; Theophil.
ad Autol. ii. 3, 4; Tren. iv. 38. 1, 33; Orig. ¢ Ces. vi. 66; Method.
de Lib, Arbitr. Ὁ: 57 Jahn (see Jahn’s note 1. p. 122); Maximus in
Euseb. Prep. £v. vii. 22; Hippol. Her. v. 16 (from Sibylline Oracles) ;
Clem. Alex. Stvom. 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 the
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 ἀνωλεθρόν ἐστιν, and by Agathon in
Arist. Zth. Nic. vi. 2 (p. 1139) ἀγένητα ποιεῖν aco ἂν ἡ πεπραγμένα
(comp. also Ovac. Sibyl. prooem. 7, 17); and ἀγέννητος in Soph.
Trach. 61 καξ ἀγεννήτων ἄρα μῦθοι καλῶς πίπτουσιν (where it is equivalent
to δυσγενῶν). Here the distinction of meaning is strictly preserved,
and so probably it always is in Classical writers; for in Soph. Zvrach.
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 ἀγένητος, 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 AZo/. 11. 6 (p. 44) ὄνομα
δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν... δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου 6
μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως vids, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ
γεννώμενος κ.Οτιλ., comp. 26. 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 κιτιλ. (comp. 26. 4); Theoph. ad Aut. ii. 3 εἰ γὰρ ἐγέννων καὶ
ἐγεννῶντο [θεοί], δῆλον ὅτι ἐχρῆν καὶ ἕως τοῦ δεῦρο γίνεσθαι θεοὺς
γεννητούς κιτιλ.; Tatian Orat. 5 ὁ λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ γεννηθεὶς ἀντε-
γέννησε τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ποίησιν (with the context); Rhodon in Euseb.
Hi. E. v. 13 τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστι μία 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 δι
οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο x.t.A.; Orig. 4 (εἰς. vi. 17 (p. 643) οὔτε γὰρ τὸν
ἀγένητον καὶ πάσης γενητῆς φύσεως πρωτότοκον κατ᾽ 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 Δ εἰ, Sacr. 11. p. 290 ὅτι ὁ
Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, εἷς, ἄναρχος, κιτ.λ.... τοῦτον δὲ τὸν υἱὸν γεννητόν, μο-
νογενῆ υἱὸν «.t.X.; Method. de Creat. 5 (p. 101 Jahn) γενητὸν τὸ μὴ
γενέσεως ἔχον ἀρχὴν φαίης av; ov δῆτα: εἰ γὰρ μὴ ὑποπίπτει γενέσεως
ἀρχῇ, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀγένητόν ἐστιν: εἰ δὲ γέγονεν, κιτιλ, In ΠΟ early
Christian writing however is the distinction more obvious than in
the Clementine Homilies, X. 10 τοῦ μόνου ἀγενήτου, ὅτε Ta λοιπὰ πάντα
γενητὰ τυγχάνει" ὡς οὖν τοῦ ἀγενήτου ἴδιον τὸ θεὸς εἶναι, οὕτως πᾶν
ὁτιοῦν γενόμενον θεὸς τῷ ὄντι οὐκ ἔστιν, XVI. 16 τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ μὴ γε-
γεννῆσθαί ἐστιν, υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι" γεννητὸν δὲ ἀγεννήτῳ ἢ καὶ
αὐτογεννήτῳ οὐ συγκρίνεται κιτιλ. (where the distinction is employed
to support the writer’s heretical theology): see also vill. 16 εἴτε ἀγαθοὶ
εἴτε κακοὶ οὐ 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. Her. vii. 28; Simon Magus, Hippol. “ler. vi.
17, 18; the Valentinians, Hippol. er. vi. 29, 30, and Ptolemzeus in
particular, Ptol. Zs. ad Hor. 4 (in Stieren’s Irenzeus p. 935); Basilides,
Hippol. /Zer. vii. 22 ; Carpocrates, Hippol. Her. vi. 32.

From the above passages it will appear that Antenicene writers were

94 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, οὐ ποιηθέντα, it became henceforth im-
possible to overlook the difference. The Son was thus declared to
be γεννητός, but not yevnros. I am therefore unable to agree with
Zahn (Marcellus pp. 40, 104, 223, len. 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, Aer. lxiv. 8
(p. 531) ws yap τινες fie. the Arians] ἡμᾶς βούλονται σοφίζεσθαι καὶ
λέγειν ἴσον τὸ γενητὸν εἶναι τῷ yevvyTd, οὐ παραδεκτέον δὲ ἐπὶ Θεοῦ
λέγειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ τὰ κτίσματα μόνον" ἕτερον γάρ ἐστι γενητὸν καὶ ἕτερόν
ἐστι γεννητόν, x.t.A,; where he is arguing against a passage of Origen
which ran (at least as Epiphanius read it) τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων Θεῷ διὰ
TOD σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Kal 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 γεννητός, 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 γεννητός as applied to the Son.
Hence the language of Epiphanius er. Ixxili. 19 (p. 866) ἐὰν οἱ καινοὶ
αἱρετικοὶ προσδιαλεγόμενοι ἀγέννητον λέγουσι Kal γεννητόν, ἐροῦμεν αὐτοῖς,
Ἐπειδὴ κακουργήσαντες τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ὄνομα ἐν χρήσει τοῖς πατράσιν
ὑπάρχον ὡς ἄγραφον οὐ δέχεσθε, οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς τὸ ἀγέννητον ἄγραφον ὃν
δεξόμεθα κ-τ.λ., i.e. ‘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
Cy PUNO. A (τὸ Po 2TS 50.;: Pr 227 δη.ν 0: 235) Wala ete
especially 20. iv (p. 283 sq.), in which last passage he argues at -
great length against the position of the heretics, εἰ ἀγέννητος, φασίν,
ὃ πατήρ, γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ vids, οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας. See also the argu-
ments against the Anomceans in [Athan.] Dzal. 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 γεννητός but not yevytos. And this
distinction is staunchly maintained in later orthodox writers, e.g. John
of Damascus (quoted above p. 90).

ΤΟ ΗΓ MAGNESIANS.

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.
NV. H. v. 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
Meeander 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 Mzeander 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 Meander’, in contradistinction to another Asiatic city of

IGN, 7

οϑ 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 Mzeander,
as this name would suggest, but on a tributary, the Lethzeus, at a
distance of some four miles (64 kilometres, Texier Aste Mineure 111.
p- 41) from the larger river ; comp. Strabo xiv. 1, p. 647, Μαγνησία πόλις
Αἰολὶς, λεγομένη δὲ ἐπὶ Μαιάνδρου: πλησίον yap αὐτοῦ ἵδρυται: πολὺ δὲ
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 Μάγνητος 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 Meeandrum 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 (W. J.
Hamilton’s Researches in Asia Minor τ Ὁ. 535); whereas Giizel-Hissar,
otherwise known as Aidin, is close to the site of the ancient Tralles, some
eighteen miles from Magnesia. These latter identifications alone agree
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 Asta Minor p. 242 sq.). The scenery and ruins of Mag-
nesia are described in Arundell Seven Churches p. 58 sq.; in Texier Asie
Mineure 111. Ὁ. 35 54.) p. 90 54.) and in some respects more fully in his
smaller work of the same name in Didot’s series LZ’ Univers p. 346 sq. ; in
Murray’s Handbook for Turkey in Asia p. 305 sq.; in Hamilton’s Asia
Minor τ. p. 5.38 564. ; and elsewhere. It stands on the nght bank of the
Lethzus 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 ope
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

πλησιαίτερον ὁ Ληθαῖος ἐμβάλλων εἰς τὸν Μαίανδρον.

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 calling
attention to a passage in an ancient

author which seems to have been alto-
gether overlooked, but which nevertheless
contains the key to the solution of the
difficulty.

The facts are these. (1) Xenophon (/72//.
iii. 2. 14), speaking of the campaign of

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

the east of the city, as it descends from its sources in Messogis to join
the Mzeander, 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 nv ’Apréusdos
ἱερὸν μάλα ἅγιον) and a lake more than
a stadium (in length), sandy and peren-
nial, of warm water fit to drink’. In a
later passage (2d. 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 viv πόλει) there is the temple of
Artemis Leucophryene’ etc.

Boeckh (C. Z. 11. p. 582) discerns the
true solution. Thecity of Magnesia stood
originally on another site, but was after-
wards transferred to Leucophrys, so that
the ancient temple of Artemis of Leuco-
phrys was now within the city of Magnesia
itself. This may perhaps be also the
meaning of Texier (Z’Uxzivers 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 (11. 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 wasstill
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 Mzan-
drum tribuitur’. [The words of the
treaty (about B.c. 244) are ἐμ Μαγνησίᾳ
TH πρὸς τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ἐν τῷ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος
τῆς Aevxodpunvns]. 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 αὐὖὐ-
τὴν πρὸς τὸ πλησίον ὄρος ὃ καλοῦσι
Θώρακα. Here then is the whole ac-
count 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 Aev-

_«oppus, " 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 asa
natural fortress. A few years later (A.D.
391), during Thimbron’s second cam-
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

7γ- “2

ΙΟΟ 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 (Thuc. i. 138 ; Diod. Sic. xi. 57 ; Strabo xiv. 1, p. 647 ; Athen. Lp.
29; Plut. Vit. Them. 30, 31, 32; see Grote’s Listory of Greece V. 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. ili. 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.D. 260—268 (Mionnet Supplement VII. p. 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 respect-
ive art (l.c. 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. Vit. 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 xiii. 1, p. 604; Diod. Sic. v.
83; Plin. W.A. v. 39 (31); Pausan. x.
14. 3; Hegesianax in Athen. ix. p. 393).
This accouut of the name seems far
more probable than Boeckh’s hypothesis
(11. p. 482) that the worship of Artemis
was imported hither from Tenedos. The
goddess was properly called Λευκοφρυή

or Λευκοφρύνη, but sometimes Λεύκοφρυς
(Nicander in Athen. xv p. 683, and fre-
quently on coins, Mionnet III. p. 147 sq.,
Supplement Vi. p. 236sq.). 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.

BT. MIOHAEL’S

OOLLEGE

TO THE MAGNESIANS. IOI

Her name and effigy occur constantly on the coins (Mionnet m1. p.
147 sq., Supplement vi. Ὁ. 235 sq.); and her priestesses are mentioned
in extant inscriptions (Boeckh C. Z 2914). She is commemorated
also in Anacreon /ragm. 1 (Bergk) δέσποιν᾽ ΓΑρτεμι θηρῶν 4 κου νῦν
ἐπὶ Ληθαίου δίνῃσι θρασυκαρδίων ἀνδρῶν ἐσκατορᾷς πόλιν χαίρουσ᾽ x.7.X.
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.
mm 62 7 Boeckh 'C. 73137. i 84, 11. Ὁ. 6975 Vitruv. Archiv. iii. 1,
vil. preef.). Strabo (l.c.) commends it as exceeding in size all the
temples in Asia but two, those of Ephesus and Didymi (Branchidz) ;
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 1. p. 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 (JZagn. 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 (V. H. 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 (Μαγνήτιδες πύλαι, Pausan. vil. 2. 9; Μαγνητικὴ πύλη, Wood's
Discoveries at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, pp. 32, 42). As an illustration of
the saying οὐδὲν γειτονίας χαλεπώτερον (Arist. Ref. 11. 21), we find
the Ephesians and Magnesians at war in early ages (Strabo xiv. 1,
p. 648; Hermippus in Diog. Laert. 1. 117; Atlian V. A xiv. 46, WV. .Π.
xi. 27; comp. Arist. Pol. 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
ΜΑΓΝΉΤΩΝ KA εφεοιῶν OMONOIA (Mionnet Supplement Vi. Pp. 242).
Among the not very numerous inscriptions recently discovered in the
temple of Artemis at Ephesus, at least two record services rendered
to the Ephesians by indiyidual..citizens of Magnesia (Wood’s Drs-

. 8 oe
we 4 ὁ ἢ.
A “ae

ΙΟ2 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

coveries etc. Inscr. ii. 3 ᾿Απολλώνιος Κόνωνος Μάγνης, 7b, 12 Θρασύμαχος
Ποσειδωνίου Mayvys).

This proximity of the two cities also answers another question.
How and when was the Gospel first preached in Magnesia? Whe
we read that during S. Paul’s three years residence in Ephesus (A.D.
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 Colossz, 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 conversion,
we might mention Tychicus. The name Tychicus seems to have been
especially common at Magnesia; see Boeckh Corp. Juscr. 2918,
Mionnet Ill. pp. 15,3, 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 15 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 of
the subordinate churches no mention is made in either case.

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 acknowledgment of the

attention which the Magnesians had thus shown to him that he wrete
this letter.

TO THE MAGNESIANS. 103

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 (δὲ 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’ (ὃ 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 reality of Christ’s birth, passion, and resurrection (δὲ 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 (§§ 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 11. 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 analysis of the epistle.
‘IcNnaTiIus to the CHURCH OF MAGNESIA ON THE M-£ANDER,
abundant greeting in the Father and in Jesus Christ.

1 Μακαρίου Md-yvnros, ᾿Αποκριτικὸς ἢ Movoyevys, 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 an end. ‘The
choice is between death and life. There are two coinages—the stamp
οὗ 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
(δ 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 (§ 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 (δ 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 (ὃ 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 (§ 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).’

TTPOC ΤΟΥ EN ΛΛΑΓΝΗΟΙΑΙ.

ITNATIOC, 6 καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ εὐλογημένη ἐν
Υ͂ ~ 9 ~ > ~ ΄ ΄σ ε ΄-
χαριτι Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ σωτῆρι [ἡμῶν],

ΠΡΟΟ TOYC EN MAPNHCIAt | ad illos qui in magnesia Sev-Syr. 213 (comp.
Land Avecd. τ. 32); τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς μαγνησίους (being numbered y) g* ; μαγνη-
σιεῦσιν ἰγνάτιος G; ignatius magnesiis L* ; ad magnesios A. See the lower note for

other authorities.

2 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] Lg; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ G; def. A.

def. A.

πρὸς τοῦς ἐν MArNHci4] The
proper Greek adjective correspond-
ing to Mayrnoia is neither Mayvn-
σιεύς (the form in the Ms of the gen-
uine epistles) nor Μαγνήσιος (the
form in the Mss of the interpo-
lated epistles), but Mayvns, the femi-
nine being sometimes Μαγνῆτις (e.g.
Boeckh C. J. 3381), sometimes May-
vnooa (e.g. Theocr. xxii. 79), sometimes
Μάγνησις (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 οἰκιστῇ. This statement is
confirmed by all ancient remains.

The legend on the coins is universally.

MAPNHTEC OF ΜΑΓΝΉΤΩΝ : see Mion-
net III. p. 142sSq., Suppl. VI p. 231 sq.,
for the city on the Maeeander, and
Mionnet Iv. p. 68sq., Sufp/. VII. p.
371 sq., for the city under Sipylus.
The same is also the form which
occurs in the inscriptions (Boeckh
C. 1. 2913, 2919 Ὁ Appx., 2933; Wood

ἡμῶν] GL; om. g*;

Discoveries at Ephesus Inscr. i. 3,
12). It alone is found in classical
writers of all ages (e.g. Herod. iii. 90,
Arist. Pol, iv. 3, Strabo xii. 8, p. 577,
xIv. I, p. 647 sq., Plut. Vit. Themist.

2, Appian. J7zthr. 21, Paus. i. 20. 5,
i 26, 4, Julian: Oret vil, ps ΞΖ 10).
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-
τῶν πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἦν ὀνόματι Μακά-
ptos (at the Oak Synod A.D. 403; ἃ
document in Photius 4702. 59) ; 2d. VII.
Ῥ. 1072 Πατρίκιος ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ ἐπίσκοπυς
τῆς Μαγνήτων περὶ Μαίανδρον πόλεως
τῆς ᾿Ασιανῶν ἐπαρχίας (comp. 26. p.
1100; at the third Council of Con-
stantinople, A.D. 680). Inthe 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

᾽ @. os ree A ᾽ , ‘ > > M ,
εν ω ATTACOUAL THV EKKANO LAY THY OVOAY EV αγνήσιᾳ

eee os M , ὃ ow ’ Θ - \ Y 4
Yi στρ αἰαν ρῶν» Kal EVVOMAL εν ew TWAT pl Kat εν

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ πλεῖστα χαίρειν.

2 πρὸς Μαιάνδρῳ)] προσμεάνδρω (sic) G.
v. 1.)); χριστῷ ἰησοῦ (om. ἐν) [6]; al. A.

(Cureton C. J. Ρ. 211). Nothing can
be inferred from Magnisoyé in a
quotation from the Syriac Version
(Cureton C. /. p. 197; comp. Ὁ. 200),
or from Magnisiatzis 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 Vzr.
Ill. 16 has Μαγνησιανούς, but this
simply is a transliteration of Je-
rome’s Latin. The proper form in
Latin is JZagnes, following the Greek
(ea. Cic): Bras.-91, Tac. Ann. 1:
47), but Jerome writes ad Magne-
stanos. In an ancient inscription
(Boeckh:.€) J..\3137), sabout,) B.c.
244, recording a treaty between the
Smyrnzans and Magnesians (pro-
bably of the city ad Szpylum,; 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 éxy) Μαγνησίας or οἱ ἀπὸ
Μαγνησίας. Similarly in two different
passages of Severus of Antioch pre-
served in Syriac versions (Cureton
Ὁ: 213, Land. A mecd. , Syr. ἄς 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 Tpoc TOYC EN ΜΑΓΝΗ-
Clal OF TIPOC TOYC MAPNHTAC. At
all events the facts alleged seem to
show that the extant title μαγνησι-
edow ἰγνάτιος must date long after

ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ 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 M ZANDER, blessed through
the grace of God in Christ, hearty
greeting in Christ.’

τῇ εὐλογημένῃ] Sc. 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-
δρῳ, Arist. Pol. iv. 3, Strabo xiv. I
(p. 647), Diod. Βα 757; Alenia.
p. 173, or ἐπὶ τοῦ Μαιάνδρου, Athen.
zd., but more commonly, as here,
πρὸς [τῷ] Μαιάνδρῳ, Boeckh C. J,
2910, 3137, Strabo mil’ 8 (p. $77),
Athen. xii. p. 525, Labb. Covc. VII. p.
1100; Ptol. ‘v...2. \S@metineEes: At is
simply Μαιάνδρου, Labb. Conc. 111.
p. 1088, IV. p. 506, 858, 894, VIII. p.
687; and occasionally περὶ Μαίανδρον,
7b, VII. p. 1072, comp. [Aéschines]
Epist. x. 8. Herodotus describes it
(iii, 122) as ἡ ὑπὲρ Μαιάνδρου ποταμοῦ
οἰκημένην. 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 OF ὑπὸ Σιπύλῳ
ΟΥ ὑπὸ Σιπύλου, and its inhabitants
Μάγνητες ἀπὸ Σιπύλου (see Boeckh
C. I. 2933, 3381, Mionnet Iv. p. 68 sq.,
Suppl. Vu. p. 371sq.). The two places
are mentioned in the same context,
Liv. xxxvli. 44, 45, Ptol. v. 2. Wes-

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

107

I Γ 4 ε Lal A λ , ~ A \
. [Γνοὺς ὑμῶν τὸ πολνεύτακτον τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν

lg , / ry
5 ἀγάπης, ἀγαλλιώμενος προειλάμην ἐν πίστει ᾿Ϊησοῦ

Χριστοῦ προσλαλῆσαι ὑμῖν. καταξιωθεὶς γὰρ ὀνόματος

5 προειλάμην] g3 προειλόμην α.

seling 7212. p. 658 states that it is
called ἡ Πρωτομαιανδρούπολις ; and
the writer in Smith’s Dict. of Geogr.
s. v. says ‘Later documents seem to
imply that at one time it bore the
name Meeandropolis.’ Both quote
as their authority ‘Concil. Constan-
tin. iii. p. 666.2 This however is
merely a corrupt text, πρωτομαιαν-
δρουπόλεως for πρὸς τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ
πόλεως: see Labb. Conc. VII. p. 1100.
The Meandropolis mentioned by
Pliny JV. Hv. 29 is a different place,
though identitied with Magnesia by
Spanheim de Usu et Prest. Numm.
ix. p. 889. When Phlegon, as quoted
by Steph. Byz. 5. v., says Μαιανδρού-
trots, Μαγνησίας πόλις, he means that
it belonged to the territory of Mag-
nesia. Our Magnesia is also desig-
nated ἡ ᾿Ασιανή (Thuc. i. 138), and its
inhabitants are Μάγνητες οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίῃ
(Herod. iil. 90), to distinguish them
from their Thessalian namesakes.

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. Tvods] ‘Having learnt, i.e.
probably from the reports of Damas
their bishop and the other Magnesian
delegates mentioned in § 2.

τὸ πολυεύτακτον] ‘the abundant

6 καταξιωθεὶς G; ἀξιωθεὶς [σ].

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. Quis ἦν. 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. £phes. 6, 20, Tradl. 1,2, Polyc.
6, etc.

κατὰ Θεὸν] ‘ix the way of God’,
a somewhat favourite Ignatian ex-
pression: comp. ὃ 13, 7 γαζί. 1, Philad.
4, Polyc. 6. So too κατὰ ᾿Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν, ὃ 8 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, § ὃ
κατὰ ἰουδαϊσμόν, ὃ 9 κατὰ κυριακήν,
§ 10 κατὰ χριστιανισμόν, δὲ 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 freser-
ence of the Magnesians over others,
as some commentators explain it,

ἐν πίστει κιτ.λ.}] i.e. ‘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

, ͵ ~ of ‘
θεοπρεπεστατου, ἐν ois περιφέρω δεσμοῖς ἀδω τὰς
> / > °° ε of \ \ /
ἐκκλησίας, ἐν ais ἕνωσιν εὔχομαι σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος

nw vl ΄΄ \ \ ε ~ “- / /
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν, πίστεως τε

2 ἕνωσιν] ἕνοσιν α.
GL*; om. A [Antioch. 14]; al. g.

(but this must be a misprint or misreading).

(see the note on Efhes. 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,
Orig. c. Cels. iii. 14. Or is it the de-
signation of θεοφόρος, as Pearson
(ΚΔ 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. go) and
others believe? But elsewhere Ig-
natius shrinks from any such boast-
ful title (see the note on Z7vall. 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. iii. 1, iv. 1, Philem.
1,9). This is his proudest distinc-
tion.

I. θεοπρεπεστάτου͵)͵ The word
occurs again, S7zyrm. inscr., II, 12,
Polyc. 7. It is found as early as
Diodorus (xi. 89, xvii. 75) and ap-
pears in Philo (721... Moys. ii. 3, p.
137). Compare the similar Ignatian
words, θεοδρόμος, θεομακαριστός, θεο-
πρεσβύτης.

ἐν οἷς K.T.A.] 1.6. ἐν 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 may] GA;

ἡμᾶς. (2) Lo": al ee τέ]
4 4s] GLA; al. g.; εἰς [Antioch.]
7 τευξόμεθα] G (certainly) ;

his bonds see £fhes. 11 τὰ Seopa
περιφέρω, τοὺς πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας
(with the note). See also the notes
on Philem. 9, 13, for the correspond-
ing idea in S. Paul. For the meta-
phor in ddew see Ephes. 4, Rom. 2,
with the notes on both places. The
words ἐν ois «.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 δι’ ὀνομάτων θεοπρεπεστά-
των, ἐν οἷς περιφέρω δεσμοῖς, ἰδεῖν τὰς
ἐκκλησίας κιτιλ.; but in his subse-
quent text he contents himself with
substituting ἰδὼν for ado, 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. ἕνωσιν κιτ.λ.} “47 pray that
there may be unity tn their flesh and
tx their spirit, which are Fesus
Christ’s’. It seems best so to explain
the words, rather than ‘wzion 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-
τος comp. Rov. inscr. κατὰ σάρκα καὶ
πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις, and below § 13 ἵνα
ἕνωσις ἢ σαρκική τε καὶ πνευματική.
These passages seem to show that
σαρκὸς kat πνεύματος must refer to the

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

109

= A 7
καὶ ἀγάπης, ἧς οὐδὲν προκέκριται, τὸ δὲ κυριώτερον,

- \ , - 7 \ a ,
5 ἰησοῦ καὶ πατρὸς" ἐν ᾧ ἱπομένοντες THY πάσαν ἐπήρειαν

΄σ of “ ~ 3. κ᾿ / \ , ~
TOU ἀρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου καὶ 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 Lphes. 4. The difference between
ἕνωσις and ἑνότης 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 Tov Κυρίου (the correct read-
ing), and see 1 Cor. vi. 20 (as read in
the received text) δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν
Θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν Kal ἐν TO
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 πνεύ-
paros: (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 Kal ἀγάπῃ, ἐν vid
καὶ πατρὶ κ.τ.λ.

3. τοῦ διὰ παντὸς κιτ.λ.] ‘our
never-failing life’; comp. Ephes. 3
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν,
Smyrn. 4. ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, τὸ ἀληθινὸν
ἡμῶν ζῆν. For this substantival use of
(nv see the note on Zphes. 11. There
is no sufficient reason for adopting
the ill-supported reading ἡμᾶς here
with Zahn (see ἢ, vw. A. p. 570), who

compares Lfhes. 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) nothing is preferable’:
comp. Smyrn. 6 πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη, ov
οὐδὲν προκέκριται. For προκέκριται,
comp. Xen. (77. 11. 3. 8, MZem. ili. 5. 19.

τὸ δὲ κυριώτερον κιτ.λ.] ‘and what
zs more tmportant than all, a union
in Fesus and the Father—in Jesus,
in whom tf we endure etc.’; where
ἐν @ must be connected with Ἰησοῦ,
as the sense requires. For ἕνωσις
ἸΙησοῦ 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. i. 16 τὴν ἅπασαν
μακροθυμίαν, Hermas JMJand. v. 1 τὴν
πᾶσαν ἐλπίδα, and see the note on
Gal. v. 14. For ἐπήρειαν comp.
Afpost. Const. viii. 8 τῆς παγίδος τοῦ
διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἐπηρείας τῶν δαιμόνων
(comp. 2d. § 11), Lucian Pro Laps.
int. Salut. 1 χαλεπὸν μέν, ἄνθρωπον
ὄντα, δαίμονός τινος ἐπήρειαν διαφυγεῖν,

~Philostr. 2252. 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 xt.A.] See the
note on Ephes. 17.

Θεοῦ τευξόμεθα] The phrase τυγχά-
νειν Θεοῦ occurs again FEphes. 10,

11.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

᾿Επεὶ οὖν ἠξιώθην ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς διὰ Aaya Tov

δ.» θέ . ΄σ΄ “ / \ f 5 / B /
acto €OU UMWY ETLOKOTTOU KL πρεσβυτέρων ἀξίων δ“

tr Δαμᾶ] δάμα 6.

Smyrn. 9. More common still is
ἐπιτυγχάνειν Θεοῦ, below ὃ 14, Ephes.
12, Tradl. 12, 13, Rom. 1, 2, 4, 9,
Smyrn. 11) Polyc. 2,7 ; and so also
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτυγχάνειν, Kom. 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 κιτιλ.)] The
sentence, thus commenced, is never
completed. The protasis is length-
ened out in recording the obedi-
ence of the deacon Zotion (οὗ ἐγὼ
...Incod Χριστοῦ), and this record
suggests a general injunction to the
Magnesian Church at large (καὶ ὑμῖν
δὲ πρέπει x.t.A.), Which again branches
off into subsidiary topics occupying
three chapters (88 3, 4, 5), the apo-
dosis being meanwhile forgotten. At
the beginning of the 6th chapter the
original protasis is again resumed,
ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις προσώ-
ποις κιτιλ.,) 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. 1 ἐπεὶ οὖν τὴν πολυπλήθειαν
K.T.A.

ἠξιώθην] A favourite word of Ig-
natius when speaking of himself;
Ephes. 9, 21, Rom. 1. The com-
pound καταξιοῦσθαι also occurs
several times in this connexion ; see
§ 1 above, Zvall. 12, Smyrn. 11,
Polyc. 1 (comp. Ephes. 20, Rom. 2).
See also the note on Lphes. 2 ἐάνπερ
ἄξιος ὦ.

2 ἀξίων] GLA; θεοῦ ἀξίων g.

διὰ] “271 the person of? For διὰ comp.
Ephes. 2 δ ὧν πάντας vpas...cidor,
Mart. Ign. Ant. 3,4; and for the idea
see the note on Zphes. I ἀπείληφα.

Δαμᾶ] This name occurs several
times in the inscriptions, e.g. Boeckh
C.I. 2880 Μάρκου OvAmiov [Φλα]βια-
νοῦ Δαμᾶ at Didymi; 2869 προφήτης
Κλαύδιος Δαμᾶς also at Didymi ; 3507
Μαρκοῦ Οὐλπίου Aaya παραδόξου kat
Κανιδίας Βάσσης θυγατέρα at Thyatira ;
3902 1 τῷ ἀνδρὶ Δαμᾷ at Eumenia ;
3983 Οὐάναξος Δαμᾶς τέκνῳ ἀώ[ρῳ]
Δαμᾶ[δ]. at Philomelium. See also
nos. 284, 2562, 3860. So too on
Milesian coins in the time of Nero,
em! . Tl. AamMa, Mionnet Π|. p. 168,
Suppl. Vi. p. 272. In the inscrip-
tions the name is commonly declined
Aapas Δαμᾶ. [In one instance how-
ever (no. 3983, already given) it is
declined Δαμᾶς Aapados, if Keil and
Franz are right (see Boeckh Vol.
Ill. p. 1107); and in a Christian in-
scription in Latin (Corp. Jnscr. Lat.
v. 1636) we have a dative DAMATI].
On the other hand we -find Adyas
Adpavros (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 ᾿Ἐπαφρᾶς, Znvas,
etc. For these contracted names
in as see the note on Col. iv. 15.
Assuming this to be the account of
the word, I have accentuated it
Δαμᾶ, as it appears in the editions of
interpolated epistles, rather than
Adpa, as it is written frequently,
even by the same editors (e.g. Cure-
ton, Dressel), in the genuine Ignatius.
On this hypothesis, it is worth men-

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

III

A , \ ~
σου καὶ ᾿λπολλωνίου καὶ τοῦ συνδούλου μου διακόνου

V4 ©. \ / e/ ~~ >
Ζωτίωνος, ov ἐγὼ ὀναίμην, ὅτι ὑποτάσσεται TO ἐπι-
έ

3 ᾿Απολλωνίου] ἀπολωνίου G (not ἀπολονΐου, as given in Dressel)

4 ZLurlwvos] Gg; sotionem A; zononem L* (an obvious miswriting for zotionem).

tioning that among the names occur-
ring on coins, inscriptions, etc., rela-
ting to Magnesia are Δημήτριος (Mion-
net III. p. 143), Δημόνεικος (2b. 111. p.
156, Suppl. VI. p. 252), Δημόστρατος
(zd. Ill. p. 157; comp. p. 148), and
Anpoxapis (Boeckh C. /. 2911, of the
date A. U. C. 850) ; that the name of
the same person is written Aameoy
and ΔΗΜΕΟΥ on different coins of
Magnesia (Mionnet Swfl. VI. p.
252); and that our Damas is called
Anpas in the spurious epistle Antioch,
13. The name Damas occurs also in
Latin inscriptions; e.g. Muratori
MCCXXXIII. 7, MCCCCLXXXIII. 7; see
also Corp. Inscr. Neap. 6473 (ed.
Mommsen) T . CLAVDIVS . DAMAS.
It is probably therefore the same
with the common slave-name Dama
Gore Sani. G,, 38, iis. 5.18, τοὺς it: 7.
54, Pers. Sat. v. 76,79, Corp. Inscr.
Lat, I. 5042, V. 4087), just as we
have in Latin the forms Apella, Her-
ma, Heracla, etc. Basil Apzsz. 252
(111. p. 388) mentions one Adyas
(Aauas ?) as a famous martyr of a
later date: «EHuseb.}iA/.)'Z. -iii, 36,
speaking of the Epistle to the Mag-
nesians, refers to this passage, ém-
σκόπου Aaya μνήμην πεποίηται. Da-
mas is mentioned twice in the

spurious epistles, Axtioch. 13, Hero

2. ἀξιοθέου] Applied again to a
bishop in Smyrn, 12. On the word
generally see the note on 7va//. inscr.

ἀξίων] Comp. Lphes. 4 πρεσβυτέ-
ριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄξιον.

Βάσσου κιτ.λ.] Apparently not an
uncommon name in these parts of
Asia Minor; see e.g. Boeckh αὶ /.

3112, 3148, 3151, 3493, Wood’s Dzs-
covertes at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, 17
(pp. 34, 66). At least two Smyr-
nezans bearing the name appear in
history ; see Pape-Benseler Wérterdé,
a. Griech. Eigennamen s.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 . PA. Baccoy . ΜΑΓΝΉΤΩΝ
under Caracalla (Mionnet III. p. 151),
em! . fp . BACcoY . ΜΑΓΝΉΤΩΝ under
Maximinus (ib. Suppl. VI. p. 248).
In a Samian inscription, C. 7. 2248,
the names Bassus and Apollonius
occur together, as here. The latter
is a frequent name in most places,
One Apollonius a Magnesian appears
in an Ephesian inscription, Wood’s
Discoveries Inscr. ii. 3 (p. 6) ἐπειδὴ
᾿Απολλώνιος Κόνωνος Μάγνης x.t.d.;
and two others, also Magnesians,
are named in a Trallian inscription,
Boeckh C. J. 2919 Ὁ (p. 1123) ᾿Απολ-
Awuos ᾿Απολλωνίου Μάγνης.

3. συνδούλου] Applied by Igna-
tius solely to deacons ; see the note
on £phes. 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,

3oeckh C. 1 202, 205. There is
some reason also for thinking that
the Seras of Euseb. H. £. v. 19 is
the same with the Ζωτικός of the pre-
ceding chapter. On the confusion

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

‘4 ᾿ , ΄σ ~ ’
σκόπῳ ws χάριτι Θεοῦ καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς νόμῳ

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

111.

Καὶ ὑμῖν δὲ πρέπει μὴ συγχρᾶσθαι TH ἡλικίᾳ

2 Χριστοῦ] For the addition in L see Appx.

of = and Z see the note on Polyc.
inscr.

ὀναίμην] i.e. ‘enjoy his com-
pany’; see the note on «2765. 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. 7rall. 13 ὑπο-
τασσόμενοι τῷ 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 pies. 2.

III. ‘I exhort you all in like
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 ‘to treat familiarly? ‘The
word occurs in the N. T. once only,
Joh. iv. 9 οὐ yap συγχρῶνται ᾿Ιουδαῖοι
Sapapeirats. The word signifies either
‘7) ‘to use together with another,’
as perhaps in Polyb. vi. 3. 10 oup-
ψεύδονται καὶ συγχρῶνται πάντες ot
μόναρχοι τῷ τῆς βασιλείας ὀνόματι ;
or (2) ‘to use constantly or fully or
familiarly,’ e.g. Epict. 1. 2. 7 ταῖς τῶν

ἐκτὸς ἀξίαις συγχρώμεθα, Orig. Ep. ad
Afric. 15 (I. p- 28) συγχρωμένους mpo-
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. Sz. 1 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.] Le. Shaving
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. 11].
7, Clem. Rom. 1, Aart. Polyc. 10.

6. ov προσειληφότας] ‘ not 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. oi hes. isi, ‘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 προσειληφότας see the next note.

νεωτερικὴν τάξιν] ‘his youthful sta-
tus or condition, a slightly awkward
but intelligible expression. The uses

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

113

om 9 , 3 \ \ / -- ‘ ~~
Tov ἐπισκόπου, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ πατρὸς πᾶσαν

\ Ἂ ὦ / \ »/
5 ἐντροπὴν αὐτῷ ἀπονέμειν, καθὼς ἔγνων καὶ TOUS ὡγίους
, U A /
πρεσβυτέρους οὐ προσειληφότας τὴν φαινομένην νεωτε-

4 δύναμιν] GLA; γνώμην g.

of τάξις elsewhere quite justify this
interpretation; see esp. Aristot. JZagu.
Mor. i. 34 (p. 1194) ὅταν ἤδη λάβῃ τὴν
τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τάξιν, ‘when he has now
arrived at man’s estate’, which is an
exact parallel: comp. also 27. A. ix.
7 (p. 612) τῇ περὶ τὸν πηλὸν ἀχυρώσει
τὴν αὐτὴν oun τάξιν ‘is of the same
nature as’, Aw. Gew. ill. 11 φ. 761)
βούλεται κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς εἶναι
τάξιν, Magn. Mor. i. 2 (p. 1183) ὅσα
eis δυνάμεως τάξιν ἥκει ‘pertain to
the category of power’, Plato Phzled.
49 C τὴν τῶν γελοίων εἴληχε τάξιν τε
καὶ φύσιν, Dion. Hal. de Adm. Vi
Dem. 40 δεσμοῦ δέ τινος ἢ KodAns
τάξιν... -παρεξομένας ‘ to take the place
of, ‘to serve the purpose of’, Diod.
Sic. i. 25 εἰς τὴν προὐπάρξασαν καθί-
στασθαι 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 ov πρὸς τὴν φαινομένην
ἀφορῶντας νεότητα, and of the Arme-
nian translator, who renders them
‘non spectant ad apparentem ztatem
pueritize ejus’; and it alone harmon-
izes with the preceding context, μὴ
ovyxpacOa 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.

πατρὸς] GLg; om. [A].

and the νεωτερικὴ τάξις was therefore
only a semblance. On the other
hand Saumaise (Afpar. 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, quee 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. Antv. 1700), while main-
taining the antiquity of the episco-
pate against him, was nevertheless
led astray by his misinterpretation
of ov προσειληφότας, ‘ wot recognising’
and so ‘repudiating, and himself
explained νεωτερικὴ τάξις ‘ novitia et
vecens 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
seniority 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 Anfange p. 43654.,
Uhlhorn p. 329 sq., Lipsius Clem.
Rom. Ὁ. 27. Yet it is open to the most

ὃ

114

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

A / rol ΄
ρικὴν τάξιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς φρονίμῳ ἐν Θεῷ σνγχωροῦντας
> ~ > > ~ a > \ ΄σ \ > a _
αὐτῷ" οὐκ αὐτῷ δὲ, ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ

/ / > \ Ss 7 val /
πάντων ἐπισκόπῳ. ELS τιμὴν οὖν ἐκεῖνον TOU θελήσαντος

΄. ͵ \ / \ / ς ls
ὑμᾶς πρέπον ἐστὶν ὑπακούειν κατὰ μηδεμίαν ὑποκρισιν"

1 φρονίμῳ] sicut sapienti 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

[Rup. 779]; al. g.

4 ὑμᾶς] A, and so [g] πρέπον οὖν ἐστιν καὶ ὑμᾶς ὑπακούειν
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑμῶν K.T.r.3 ἡμᾶς GL Rup.

ὑπακούειν] Rup. [g]; obedire

L; audire A; ἐπακούειν G: comp. Fphes. 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 κ-τ.Δ. imply that the example
of the presbyters corresponds to the
previous injunction, whereas this in-
terpretation makes it refey 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-
signed to it. 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 V. 2. p.
» sq. Zahn ὅ ποι ..294...ὄ (3) 01:
leaves φαινομένην unexplained, for
there could be no question of appear-
ances here, seeing that the age of
the episcopal office must have been
amatter 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.’ He thus 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 vewrepixy 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 cllius
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), ‘00 ad-
sumentes ea que manifesto juvents
(episcopi) swt munzia,

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. H. £. ii. 6 ἄνδρα νέον
μὲν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ προβεβηκότα δὲ ταῖς dpe-
σίν, speaking of Paulus when appoint-
ed bishop of Constantinople.

2. τῷ πάντων ἐπισκόπῳ] See the
note on Rom. 9. Somewhat similar-
ly Polycarp Phil. 5 διάκονοι.. -πορευό-

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

115

3 \ > J \ / ΄σ ,
5EMEL οὐχ OTL TOY ἐπίσκοπον τοῦτον τὸν βλεπόμενον
΄σ A \ /
πλανᾷ τις, ἄλλα τὸν ἀόρατον παραλογίζεται: TO δὲ
~ \ / / > \ \ \
τοιοῦτον, OV πρὸς GapKa ὁ λόγος ἀλλὰ πρὸς Θεὸν τὸν

τὰ κρύφια εἰδότα.

AV. Πρέπον οὖν ἐστιν μὴ μόνον καλεῖσθαι Χριστια-

nequaguam by Petermann); 716χαφηαηε L (this probably does not represent any

other Greek than οὐχ ὅτι); οὐχὶ Rup.; οὐ yap [g].

6 τὸν ἀόρατον

παραλογίζεται] txt GL; add. θεόν [Rup.]; add. τὸν μὴ δυνάμενον κιτιλ. g. A has

simply zxvistbilem (omitting mapadoy! tera).
ever has the form τοιοῦτο) ; τῷ δὲ τοιούτῳ Rup.; al. A.

τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον] GLg (which how-
9 καλεῖσθαι)

Gg Rup. 779; vocari LA; ἀκούειν Rup. 789.

μενοι κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Kupiov, 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 ra κρύφια εἰδότα.

3. εἰς tysnv] See the note on
Ephes. 21.

θελήσαντος ἡμᾶς] ‘who destred us’:
comp. Rom. 6 ἐκεῖνον θέλω, whereas
here the object is a person. For this
sense of θέλειν see 2b. 8 θελήσατε ἵνα
kal ὑμεῖς OeAn Ore, with the note.

4. κατὰ μηδεμίαν κιτ.λ.] The thought
is the same as in Ephes. vi. 6, Col.
111: 22.

5. οὐχ ὅτι] “7 will not say’; an
ellipsis for οὐ λέγω ὅτι: see Kuhner
525 (11. p. 800sq.), 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. mapadroyitera|] ‘attempts to
cheat’, literally ‘imposes upon with
false reasoning’; see the note on Col.
li. 4. So[Clem. Rom.] ii. 17 παραλο-
γισαμένους τὰς ἐντολὰς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
In Afpost. Const. viii. 11 God is in-
voked as ἀπαραλύγιστε.

τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον k.t.r.| ‘but 11: such a
case he will have to reckon not with
flesh but with God? For τὸ τοιοῦτον
see the note on /:phes. 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. Οὔ. 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. ἄς. Similar is the expres-
sion ἔσται αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, “he will
have to reckon with the god’, Boeckh
C. JI. 3890, 3902f, 3902n, 39020,
3962 Ὁ, 3980; comp. 3902 ἃ, 3963.

7. τὸν τὰ κρύφια κιτ.λ.}] Probably
suggested by Ps. xliii (xliv). 22 αὐτὸς
yap γινώσκει τὰ κρύφια τῆς καρδίας:
comp. “2165. 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 καλεῖσθω κ.Ῥτ.λ.]

’
8—2

116

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

\ ’ δ \ <2 .« , pee? ‘
vous ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰναι: ὡσπερ καὶ τινες ἐπίσκοπον MEV

ied \ \ ΄σ΄ ’
καλοῦσιν, χωρὶς δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα πράσσουσιν.

οἱ τοι-

οὔτοι [δὲ] οὐκ εὐσυνείδητοί μοι εἶναι φαίνονται διὰ τὸ
μὴ βεβαίως κατ᾽ ἐντολὴν συναθροίζεσθαι.

> \ 3 ’ \ : / ” \ /
V. “Emel οὖν τέλος τὰ πράγματα EXEL, καὶ προκει-

\ δύ ε a c/ , \ c / Sige
ται τὰ OVO OMOU, O TE θάνατος Kal ἡ ζωή, καὶ εκαστος

2 καλοῦσιν] ἃ Rup. 7793 vocant L; λέγουσιν [g]; al. A. ol
τοιοῦτοι δὲ] GL* (L,, but om. δὲ L,); δ gui sic cogitant As οἱ yap τοιοῦτοι

[6]; of τοιοῦτοι Rup.

3 εἶναι] GL[g]; om. Rup.; dub. A.

5 καὶ]

GLg; dub. A. Many editors omit it without authority for the sake of the

grammar.
ἐπίκειται G: see the lower note.
Bus ‘alse:
ἄρχοντος τῆς πονηρίας [6].

Comp. Rom. 3 ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγωμαι
Χριστιανός, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὑρεθῶ.

I. ἐπίσκοπον μὲν κιτ.λ.] ‘Shave 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 (J. v. A.
Ῥ- 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 Ephes. 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. evouveidnro.] The adjective
occurs again Phzlad. 6; comp. .52.
Vienn. et Lugd. in Euseb. H. E.v.1,
A post. Const. 11. 17, 49, Clem. Al.
Strom. vii. 7, 12, 13 (p. 858, 879, 882),
M. Antonin. vi. 30. So εὐσυνειδήτως,
Isidor. in Clem. Al. Strom. iii. 1 (p.

πρόκειται] g (but 1 has adjacet); proponuntur L; posita sunt A;

8 ὃ μὲν..:ὃ δὲ! L; ὃ μὲν...ὁ δὲ G; dub.

9 τοῦ κοσμοῦ 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. 1. 5,
ii. 38; δυσσυνειδησία, Clem. Hom. 111.
14.

4. συναθροίζεσθαι] Great import-
ance is attached in these epistles to
frequent meeting together; comp.
§ 7 below, Zphes. 13, 20, Polyc. 4,
and see the note on Lfhes. 13. Such
meetings were a symbol and a guar-
anteeof harmony. The evyapioriawas
the special bond of unity in these
gatherings : see Zphes. 5, 20, Phzlad.
4, Smyrn. 6, 8.

βεβαίως] ‘strictly, validly? It is
explained by Smyrn. 8 ἐκείνη βεβαία
εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκο-
πον οὖσα κιιλ. 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.

V. ‘All 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

TO THE MAGNESIANS. 117

᾽ A af , / = / , ,

εἰς Tov ἴδιον τόπον μέλλει χωρεῖν: ὥσπερ yap ἐστιν
7 , « λ ~ e\ \ , \

νομίσματα δύο, ὃ μὲν Θεοῦ ὃ δὲ κόσμου, καὶ ἕκαστον
~ ᾽ la / af εἰ poof ΄σ
αὐτῶν ἴδιον χαρακτήρα ἐπικείμενον ἔχει, οἱ ἀπιστοι τοῦ
Υ̓ 7 \ \ ts ~ ΄-
το Κόσμον τούτου, οἱ δὲ πιστοὶ ἐν ἀγάπη χαρακτῆρα Θεοῦ

\ ἣν ae A ~ 3 (Ὁ ΄ \ 3 ΄
πατρὸς διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐὰν μη αὐθαιρέτως

stitutes εἴκονα ἔχουσι, must have had the accusatiVe. On the other hand S,A
translate zmago sunt dei patris, as if they had read χαρακτήρ. 11 διὰ]
GLS,A; καὶ g. δι’ ov] GLg (Mss, but 1 propter gquod=8v 6); bv ὃν S, (et
si nolumus mort propter eum in passione eius) A (et st nolumus pati et mori prop-
ter nomen eius). 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. In Philad. 7 there is a similar v.1. δ ὃν (for ἐν $), where

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 γάρ
ἐστιν κιτιλ. This explanatory sen-
tence again is a protasis without an
apodosis. On these anacolutha in
the letters of Ignatius, see the note
on Lphes. 1.

ta πράγματα] ‘the business of life.’

πρόκειται] The common reading
ἐπίκειται would mean ‘ave at hand’,
‘are at the door’: comp. Rom. 6 o
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 Sz. ix. 4, 5, 12, and simi-
larly τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον, Clem.
Rom. 5, Polyc. PAz/. 9: see also the

τῆρα ἔχουσιν.

note on Clem. Rom. 1, c.

8. νομίσματα] ‘ coinages’. The
image was perhaps suggested by our
Lord’s words in Matt. xxii. 19 ἐπιδεί-
ξατέ μοι TO νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου κ.τ.λ.
A similar contrast between the good
coinage (ὀρθῶς κοπεῖσι καὶ κεκωδωνισ-
μένοις) and the bad (χθές τε καὶ πρῴην
κοπεῖσι τῷ κακίστῳ κύόμματι) appears
in a noble passage in Aristophanes,
Ran. 717 sq: comp. Acharn. 517.
See also Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 4 (p.
436) τό Te παρακεχαραγμένον καὶ τὸ
δόκιμον χωρίζειν καὶ διακρίνειν : Comp.
Philo de χες). 6 (II p. 433) παρακό-
Yas τὸ νόμισμα τῆς εὐγενείας. See
also Jer. vi. 30 ἀργύριον ἀποδεδοκιμασ-
μένον καλέσατε αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ.

ὃ μὲν...ὃ δὲὴ For τὸ μὲν.. τὸ δὲ :
see Winer ὃ xviii. p. 130.

9. τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] SC. χαρακ-
The reading of the
Syriac, τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ κόσμου τούτου,
deserves consideration.

10. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] i.e. ‘the faithful
whose faith manifests itself in love’;
comp. Gal. v. 6 πίστις δ ἀγάπης
ἐνεργουμένη.

11. διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Christ is
Himself the χαρακτήρ (Heb. i. 3) of

11ὃ

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

, \ > a 2 \ ΄σ / \ ~ > σ'
ἔχωμεν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς TO αὐτοῦ πάθος, τὸ ζῆν αὐτοῦ

a! ? ΄
οὐκ ἐστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

Vik

\ ᾽ > ~ / “
᾿Επεὶ οὖν ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις προσώποις

\ ~ ~ ᾽ , " , \ > 4
τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ἐθεώρησα ἐν πίστει καὶ ἠγάπησα,

1 ἔχωμεν] ἔχομεν G (not ἔχωμεν, as stated by Dressel).

3 προσώποι5]

GLg; add. episcoporum scilicet et presbyterorum et diaconorum S,. Similarly A
translates 7 eo quod antea scripsi de episcopo et presbyterts et diaconis.

4 τὸ πάν πλῆθος] GLg; add. vestrum 5.4.

ἀγάπη); dilectione LS, A.

ἠγάπησα] Gg* (but ν.].

f 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.

God, and this image is stamped upon
the Christian by union with the
Father through Him; comp. Clem.
Alex. Exc. Theod. 86 (p. 988) ἐπὶ TOU
προκομισθέντος νομίσματος ὁ Κύριος
εἶπεν..«τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή 5 :
οὕτως καὶ ὃ πιστὸς ἐπιγραφὴν μὲν ἔχει
διὰ Χριστοῦ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ κιτιλ.
On the Alexandrian interpretation
of εἰκών, as the λόγος, the ἀρχέτυπον
παράδειγμα, in Gen. i. 27 kar’ εἰκόνα
Θεοῦ, see the notes on Col. ili. Io.

αὐθαιρέτως] 2 Macc. vi. 19: 50
αὐθαίρετοι 2 Cor. viil. 3

I. εἰς TO αὐτοῦ πάθος) Comp. Row.
6 ἀποθανεῖν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, and see
the note on «2265. inscr. The lan-
guage of Ignatius is moulded on that
of 5. Paul; comp. Rom. vi. 5, viii. 17,
29, 2 Cor. iv. 10, Phil. ili. 10, 2 Tim.
i ΤΊ:

VI. ‘Well then, 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 x«.t.A.] The protasis
which commenced with the beginning

6 εἰς τύπον] εἰς τόπον GLg Sev-Syr. 213;

of § 2 ᾿Επεὶ οὖν ἠξιώθην x.7.A. is here
resumed, and at length matched with
its long suspended apodosis, παραινῶ
ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ K.T.X.

ἐν τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις κιτ.λ.] ‘772
the persons (or rather representatives)
already mentioned’ in § 2: see the
note on Ephes. τ Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὴν πολυ-
πλήθειαν ὑμῶν... «ἀπείληφα ἐν ᾿᾽Ονησίμῳ.
The word πρόσωπον here signifies
more than a ‘Jerson’; it is a ‘ per-
sonage, ‘representative’; comp. e.g.
Polyb. v. 107. 3 ἐζήτουν ἡγεμόνα καὶ
πρόσωπον ὡς ἱκανοὶ ὄντες βοηθεῖν αὐ-
τοῖς, XXVil. 6. 4 προθέμενοι τὸ τοῦ
βασιλέως Evpévous πρόσωπον (with
other passages given in Schweighzeu-
ser’s Lexicon). So in Clem. Rom. 1
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 a suit; Lobeck Phryx.
p. 380, and comp. Afost. Const. ii.
47, 49, 51. In all these uses it re-
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 τὰ Seopa pov ἃ ἠγάπησας.

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

119

σ΄ , ΄
5 παραινῶ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ σπουδάζετε πάντα πράσσειν,

A ~ / > / ΄- ΄
προκαθημένονυ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τύπον Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν

7 3 ’ ‘ ’ ~ >
πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων, Kal

ND5IDI 5. (where the word thus transliterated into Syriac would naturally
stand for τύπος, not for réwos; see Payne Smith Zhes. Syr. s.v.); tanquam A

(thus taking the Syriac word to represent τύπος).
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,; tanqguam angeli
regis A (an erroneous rendering of x20, which differently vocalized signifies rex

or consiliunt).

Though the versions favour the
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] ‘2x godly
concord’; comp. § 15, Phzlad. inscr.,
where the same expression occurs.
So too ἑνότης Θεοῦ ; see the note on
Philad. 8.

6. προκαθημένου] So προκαθέζεσθαι
is used of the bishop, Clem. Hom. Ep.
Clem. 12, 16, 111. 64, 66, 70, 72. Comp.
Apost. Const. ii. 26 ὁ yap ἐπίσκοπος
προκαθεζέσθω ὑμῶν ὡς 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 k.t.r. is

added by way of explanation, ‘see-—

ing that they have been entrusted
ec! ᾿

εἰς 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. AZost. Const. ii. 26 ἡ δὲ
διάκονος εἰς τύπον ἁγίου πνεύματος
τετιμήσθω ὑμῖν...οἱ δὲ πρεσβύτεροι εἰς
τύπον ἡμῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων νενο-
μίσθωσαν...αἵἴ τε χῆραι καὶ ὀρφανοὶ
ὑμῶν εἰς τύπον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λε-
λογίσθωσαν. As the whole context
in the Constitutions abounds in re-
miniscences of this passage of Ig-
natius (see the notes on προκαθημένου
above, and on ἄνευ rod πατρὸς κοτιλ.
§ 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 Θεου. See
also Clem. Hom. iii. 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 Afost. Const. 1. c.
the bishop is called ὑμῶν ἐπίγειος
θεὸς μετὰ Θεόν, with more to the same
effect: comp. 24, 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,
Trail. 3, where the presbyters are
compared to ‘the council of God
and company (see the note on σύν-

120 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

τῶν διακόνων τῶν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων, πεπιστευμένων
διακονίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὲ ἦν
καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. πάντες οὖν ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ λαβόν-
τες ἐντρέπεσθε ἀλλήλους, καὶ μηδεὶς κατὰ σάρκα βλε-
πέτω τὸν πλησίον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ ἀλλήλους 5

1 διακόνων] GLg; add. εἰς τύπον τῶν ἀποστόλων ΠΝ) NDDIDA) S,
(which does not continue the quotation further); add. 2 formis apostolorum
A (where again NDDIO is taken as standing for rUmos). Sev-Syr. omits the
clause καὶ τῶν διακόνων τῶν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων. 2 πρὸ αἰώνων] G; ante
secula Τ,; πρὸ αἰῶνος g (but ante secula 1); perpetuus A. Sev-Syr. has a plural,
but it depends on rzdzz. πατρὶ] G; τῷ πατρὶ g. 4 ἐντρέπεσθε
ἀλλήλους] ἐντρέπεσθε ἀλλήλοις G3 veneremini adinvicemn L*; ἀλλήλους ἐντρέ-

πεσθε Rup. (in Cotel. ad loc.); al. g:

g Rup.; 70 G.

see the lower note.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ! GLLA]; χριστῷ ἰησοῦ g; χριστῷ Rup.

5 τὸν]

ἀλλήλους διὰ παντὸς ἀγαπᾶτε] GL Rup.; om. g (here, but it is represented in the

δεσμον) of the Apostles.’ Ignatius is
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. 8 συνέδριον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου,
where again the reference is doubt-
less to the presbytery. Comp. AZosv.
Const. ii. 28 τοῖς δὲ πρεσβυτέροις...
διπλῇ 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, Zra//. 2, Smyrn. 8.
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.| 1.6. Sa service
under Fesus Christ, as their Κύριος :
comp. 7rall. 2 τοὺς διακόνους ὄντας

μυστηρίων Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Suyrn. 10
ὡς διακόνους [Χριστοῦ] Θεοῦ, Polyc.
Phil. αὶ ὡς Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ διάκονοι ;
comp. 2 Cor: xi: 23, ΘΟ] πὶ am.
iv. 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. Phi.
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 Zrad/. 3.

3. ἐν τέλει] Heb. 1. 2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου
TOV ἡμερῶν τούτων, 1X. 26 ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ
τῶν αἰώνων : comp. I Cor. x. II εἰς
ovs τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν.
See also Ephes. 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

TO THE MAGNESIANS. 121

‘ A A ΄σ \ ’ > os «

διὰ παντὸς ἀγαπᾶτε. μηδὲν ἔστω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ δυνήσεται
ro > , r ἊΣ

ὑμᾶς μερίσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἑνωθητε τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς προ-

7 2 / \ \ > 7
καθημένοις εἰς τύπον καὶ διδαχὴν ἀφθαρσίας.
.«“ Ψ ε > ~ ;

VIL. “ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν

> , ε , ᾽ ot , ς ΄σ΄ », Η͂ fr
10 ἐποίησεν [ἡνωμένος wy], οὔτε OL ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε διὰ τῶν

context). A abridges the whole sentence ἀλλ᾽ ἐν... ἀγαπᾶτε into sed amore iesu
christ.
σκόπῳ τῷ προκαθημένῳ A; τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ g (omitting καὶ τοῖς mpox. and substituting
ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ θεῷ κ.τ.λ.). 8 τύπον] G (but carelessly written) LS, ;
τόπον Rup.; al. g. The rendering of A conspectum bonum arises from a mis-
understanding of the Syriac NUIN, which differently vocalized signifies exemplar
and obdtutus. g ovv] GL* (but om. L,) g Rup.; δὲ 5; ὦ. A.

ὁ Κύριος] GLg; add. ἡμῶν Rup. [S,] [A]. 10 ἐποίησεν] GL[S,] Rup.;
faciebat A; ποιεῖ [g]. ἡνωμένος wv] GL; om. 5:4 [g] Rup.

7 τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς προκαθημένοι:] GLS, Rup. 779; τῷ ἐπι-

among yourselves,’ as Zahn takes it,
and as the preceding ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ
might suggest. See also μιμηταὶ
Θεοῦ, Ephes. τ, Trav. 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 σέ or
‘on account of’; a sense which would
be out of place here. There is a simi-
lar error in the Greek MS, 7val/. 7
φυλάττεσθε οὖν τοῖς τοιούτοις.

κατὰ σάρκα] 1.6. ‘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.] i.e. ‘both as
an example and as a lesson of in-
corruptibility” In Rom. vi. 17 we
have eis τύπον διδαχῆς. The idea of
ἀφθαρσία in Ignatius (Zphes. 17,
Philad. 9; comp. Polyc. 2) is not
merely immortality, but moral in-
corruption as carrying with it immor-
tal life ; see the note on Zphes. 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 τοῦ πατρὸς κιτ.λ. See
John viii. 28 ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν,
ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατήρ, ταῦτα
λαλῶ (see the note on ὃ ὃ κατὰ πάντα
εὐηρέστησεν Which is a reminiscence
of the context of this same passage) ;
comp. x. 37 εἰ οὐ mow τὰ ἔργα τοῦ
πατρός μου κιτιλ. See also Afost.
Const. ii. 26 ὡς ὁ Χριστός, ποιῶν ἀφ᾽
ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, τὰ ἀρεστὰ ποιεῖ τῷ πατρὶ

᾿ πάντοτε, ii. 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 reminiscence at once of these
passages in Ignatius and of the say-
ings in S. John’s Gospel on which
they are founded.

10. ἡνωμένος ὧν] ‘betng united with

[22

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

, « \ ~ a ΄ ’ \
ἀποστόλων, οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμεῖς ἄνευ TOU ἐπισκόπου καὶ

~ / \ / \ ’
τῶν πρεσβυτέρων μηδὲν πράσσετε: μηδὲ πειράσητε

᾽ / 5.7 ΄σ 5 \ \ ,
εὔλογόν τι φαίνεσθαι ἰδίᾳ ὑμῖν: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὲ TO αὐτὸ μία

/ ͵ / ° ~ / > / ,
προσευχή, pla δέησις, εἷς νοῦς, μία ἐλπίς, ἐν ἀγαπή, ἐν

΄σ ~ oot) / « > > ~ / €. a
TH χαρᾷ τῇ ἀμώμῳ, OS ἐστιν Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ov ἀμεινον 5

1 καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων] GLA; om. Rup. [g] (but g continues μηδὲ πρεσβύτερος,

μὴ διάκονος, μὴ λαϊκός).

πράσσετε] πράσσεται G,

3 φαίνεσθαι] φαίνεσθε G.

ὑμῖν] txt GLA Rup. (but the quotation ends here); add. seorsim ab episcopo S,

(an accidental repetition from the preceding sentence ?) ; al. g.

5 8s] guod

(the antecedent being gaudio) 1.; ὅ Antioch. 140; εἷς G; al. Ag: see the lower

note.

Him’; comp. S7zyrn. 3 πνευματικῶς
ἡνωμένος τῷ πατρί, said of Christ.

I. οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμεῖς κιτ.λ.] AZost.
Const. ii. 27 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἄνευ τοῦ
ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ποιεῖτε. The pre-
cept occurs again Tradl. 2,7, Philad.
7, Smyrn. 8.

2. μηδὲ πειράσητε x.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 (17. v. A.
Ῥ. 345 sq., and ad loc.) 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, ili. I.

5. τῇ χαρᾷ κιτλ] See Lphes.
inscr. ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ.

és] Ihave 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, ὅ and εἷς, and
explains both. For the confusion of
6 and és in the text of the Ignatian
Epistles, see below ὃ 10, Zvad/. 8, 11.
(2) This attraction accords with the
idiom of these epistles elsewhere;
see below ὃ 10 μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν
ζύμην, ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (v. 1.),
§ 15 ἔρρωσθε ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ κεκτημέ-
νοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς
Χριστός; comp. 7 γαζί. τι τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτός,
(where however there is a various
reading), Ephes. 9 διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς...
ὅς ἐστιν σταυρός (with the note). The
passages, § 15, Zvadl. 11, seem to
show that the relative refers not to
τῇ χαρᾷ TH ἀμώμῳ, but to the whole
idea of the sentence, ‘This perfect
unity is Jesus Christ... Compare the
still stronger expression, Lphes. 14
ἀρχὴ μὲν πίστις, τέλος δὲ ἀγάπη" 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 eis 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

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

123

sf)’ > “4 ς > «.« Ἁ / ~
οὐθέν εστιν. TTAVTES WS ELS EVA VAOV TUVT PEXETE t@eoo",

ς > ‘eh [4 > Ve cel, ’ ~ 4 ‘
ws ἐπι EV θυσιαστήριον, ἐπὶ ἕνα ᾿Ϊησοῦν Χριστὸν τον

pete) ἃ \ , ‘ 2 δε of 4 ,
ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθοντα καὶ εἰς Eva ὄντα καὶ χωρή-

σαντα.

ἐστερον [Antioch].
LAg; add. οὖν G [Antioch].
om. G,

6 οὐθὲν] G (not οὐδὲν as in Dressel).

els] GLA; εἷς els g.
συντρέχετε Θεοῦ] GL; θεοῦ συντρέχετε g.
Α. 7 ἐπὶ ὃν] Ο (ἐπὶ, not ἐπεὶ as suggested in Dressel’s note).

πάντες] txt
ἕνα] LA; τὸν [g];
Θεοῦ] GL[{g]; om.

ἐπὶ ἕνα] g*

(but ν.]. ὡς ἐπὶ ἕνα) ; in unum L, (but Le ut im unum); ὡς ἐπὶ ἕνα G; om, A.

clause, owing to the combination of
similar letters WCeICENANAON, while
the word εἷς found its way by a
reduplication (elceic) into the text
which the interpolator had before
him. (2) The ὡς before ἐπὶ ἕνα Ἰησοῦν
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 πρὺς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and see

the note on Epes. 5. For the 6v-

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.

}. 7. ii. 8. 5 καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμε-

νος παραγίγονται τὸ δειπνητήριον, Clem.
flom. ν. 21 ὥσπερ δ ὀργάνων τῶν
ἡμετέρων σωμάτων εἰς τὰς τῶν νοητῶν
φέρεται συνουσίας, Athenag. δ 222. 31
ὡς πρὸς στάθμην τὸν Θεὸν κανονίζεται,
Orig. c. Cels. 1. 55 (I. p. 370) ratra
προφητεύεσθαι ws περὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ ὅλου
λαοῦ: and, as regards classical writers,
see Kithner ὃ 451 (II. p. 479) for this
not uncommon phenomenon. 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. I ὁ
Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

χωρήσαντα] sc. εἰς ἕνα. As αἱ 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 "

124
VIII.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

Μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις μηδὲ μυθεύ-

~ - / > ? \ / ΄σ

μασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελεσιν οὐσιν" εἰ Yap μέχρι νυν
ee \ cond ~ ͵ \ >

κατὰ ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζώμεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μη εἰλη-

φέναι.

I πλανᾶσθε] πλανᾶσθαι G.
ἰουδαϊσμόν G; judaicam legem A;

Ἰησοῦν] GLA;

πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύο-
He πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἜΗΝ xlil. 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 areat least as
old as Plato (Theet. 190 E, 193 D),
but do not occur in the LXxx 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 8. 7.
MB; δὲ

μυθεύμασιν κιτιλ.] Comp. 1 Tim.
iv. 7 γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ, Tit. I.
14 μὴ προσέχοντες ᾿Ιουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις :
and for ἀνωφελέσιν see Tit. ili. 9

νόμον ἰουδαϊκόν [g].
ἰησοῦν χριστόν g Sev-Syr.
32). 5. ἐμπνεόμενοι] ἐνπνεόμενοι G.

ς \ / ~ \ \
οἱ yap θειότατοι προφῆται Kata Χριστον

3 ἰουδαϊσμὸν] judaismum Τ,; νόμον
4 Χριστὸν
213 (comp. Land Anecd. Syr. 1.
6 ὑπὸ] G3; ἀπὸ g.

μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ
ἔρεις καὶ 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 Ὁ. 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 Colossians
pp. 89 sq., 101 sq., 109sq. ‘This ac-
count 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 érepodoéia, and he
concludes with a similar warning
against κενοδοξία (δ 11). These two
he connects closely together (§ 11
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 (δὲ 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

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

s ᾿Ιησοῦν ἔζησαν.

125

\ “ \
διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐδιώχθησαν, ἐμπνεόμενοι

e \ lad / > ~ 3 \ ~ \
ὑπὸ THs χάριτος [αὐτοῦ] εἰς TO πληροφορηθῆναι τοὺς

> “- «“ Ξ 4 ? ς / ε \
ἀπειθοῦντας, ὅτι εἷς Θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν δια

lanl ΄σ΄ ΄σ΄ en. lad e/ 5" ~ ’
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὃς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος

αὐτοῦ] GL Sev-Syr.; om. Ag.

8 λόγος] txt A Sev-Syr.; add. ἀΐδιος

οὐκ GL Tim-Syr. 211; g paraphrases λόγος οὐ ῥητὸς ἀλλ᾽ οὐσιώδης, οὐ yap ἐστιν
λαλιᾶς ἐνάρθρονυ φώνημα ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεργείας θεϊκῆς οὐσία “γεννητή: see the lower

note.

in the words πεπληροφόρησθε ἐν τῇ
γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει κιτιλ. (δ 11), hav-
ing been alluded to previously in § 9 ὅν
(i.e. τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ) τινες ἀρνοῦνται.
The foe in question therefore was
Doceto-judaism. For the Docetic
element see the note on 77a/J. 9.

2. μέχρι. νῦν] ‘untzl now’, i.e.
when two or three generations have
passed since the true doctrine of
grace was revealed.

3. κατὰ iovdaicpoy] 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 a
cognate accusative with ¢jy—a con-
struction which Pearson (ad Joc.)
suggests only to reject. For dovdai-
σμός, denoting conformity to the
external rites of the Jews, see the
notes on Gal. i. 13, il. 14.

ὁμολογοῦμεν κιτ.λ.] Ignatius doubt-:
less had in his mind Gal. v. 4 xarnp-
γήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῖ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ
δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε
(comp. ii. 21 οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ
Θεοῦ). For χάρις, ἃ5 the central point
of the Gospel dispensation, see the
note on Col. 1. 6.

4. κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν] i.e. ‘in

expectation of a coming deliverer
and a redemption’. So also Phdlad.
5 καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ ἀγαπῶμεν διὰ
τὸ καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατηγ-
γελκέναι καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπίζειν καὶ αὐτὸν
ἀναμένειν (comp. 2b. 9). See too below
§ 9 of προφῆται μαθηταὶ ὄντες κιτιλ.
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 κιτλ] The same
idea which appears in Heb. xi. 16, 25,
26, 35 (and throughout this chapter
generally) : see also Clem. Rom. 17
ev 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. I Pet. i.
10 sq. προφῆται of περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς
χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, ἐραυνῶντες
εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν
αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ... οὐκ éav-
τοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά κοτιλ.,
where there are several ideas in
common with this passage of Igna-
tius; see the note on ὃ παρὼν ἤγειρεν
κιτιλ. Comp. also Barnab. 5 of mpo-
pirat, ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες τὴν 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 IGNATIUS

3 \ ~ ’ «ὰ \ / > / ~
ἄπο σιγῆς προελθων, Os κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν TH

’ > 7
πέμψαντι αὐτον.

I κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν] G; secundum omnia beneplacuit L; πάντα κατευα-
ρέστησεν g (MSS); 2 omnibus placuit Tim-Syr. Sev-Syr.; i omnibus gratus

Juit A.

who could test the prophecy by the
fulfilment and thus convince them-
selves: see 1 Pet. 1. c, For πλη-
ροφορεῖν, ‘to 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 προελ-
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
Father etc.’ It is 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-
Ψαντι αὐτόν. It is also more con-
sistent in itself; for σιγὴ and λόγος
are correlative terms, λόγος implying
a previous σιγή : comp. Iren. ii. 12. 5
‘impossibile est Logo presente Sigen
esse, aut iterum Sige przesente Logon
ostendi; hzec 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; Ephes.
19 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-
edto the fourth or fifth century. 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

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

with this statement of Ignatius: see
e.g. Eccl. Theol. iit. 9 (p. 114) a 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 (1.6. Simon Magus,
as Pearson, V. 7. p. 420, rightly sup-
poses), ὃς τὰ ἄθεα δογματίζων ἀπεφαί-
vero λέγων, Ἦν Θεὸς καὶ σιγή᾽ μετὰ δὲ
τὴν σιγὴν καὶ τὴν ἡσυχίαν προελθεῖν
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀρχῆ τῆς κοσ-
μοποιΐας δραστικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ κιτιλ. It
seems probable indeed for this and
other coincidences (see S7yru. 3),
that Marcellus was acquainted with
the Ignatian Epistles. See also on
this procession of the Logos from
Silence the passages quoted from
Marcellus, c. Marcell. ii. 2 (pp. 36, 41),
Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 100), ii. 8sq.
(p. 112 sq.), ii. 11 (p. 118), ili. 3 (pp.
163, 166). This mode of expression
would thus be discredited, and the
text altered in consequence.

This reading was advocated by me
as early as 1868 in the Yournal of
Philology 1. p. 51 sq.,and again later
in the Contemporary Review, Feb-
ruary 1875, p. 357 sq. 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 (/. v.
A. Ῥ. 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. /. pp. 213,
245). This sense would correspond
to the use of similar expressions in
various Gnostic systems, and it is
recommended to a certain extent also

127

by the parallels in Marcellus ; comp.
also Tatian ad Gre@c. 5 οὕτω καὶ ὁ
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.
ii. 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. xviii. 14, 15, ἡσύχου yap
σιγῆ ς περιεχούσης τὰ TWaVTA...0 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 xara
ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις
σεσιγημένου, φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν
(with other passages quoted on
Ephes. 19), and see also Clem. Alex.
Cohort. τ (p. 9) ἵνα τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ
φῶς, ὁ λόγος, τῶν προφητικῶν αἰνιγμά-
τῶν 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 πεμψάντι
αὐτόν), it is natural to refer ἀπὸ
σιγῆς προελθὼν to the same. See also
the parallel passage -phes. 19 (al-
ready quoted), which is strongly in
favour of this interpretation; and
comp. Rom. ὃ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς... «τὸ ἀ-
Ψευδὲς στόμα ἐν ᾧ ὁ πατὴρ ἐλάλησεν
ἀληθῶς. So too προελθεῖν has been
used just before of the Incarnation,
§ 7. Ignatius however does not
deny the pre-existence of the Word
here, though he does not assert it.
This was not the first time when

128

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

> > -
IX. Εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστρα-

» > , / 3 / ,
φέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατί-

1 ἐν] (ἃ ; om. g™ (the existing Mss).

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. § 6 above,
Polyc. 3.

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 x.T.X.| 1.6. ‘those
who were brought up in the practices
of Judaism.’ If the Jewish converts
gave up the observance of sabbaths,
a fortzort ought Gentile converts
not to barter Christ for Judaic rites.
Hilgenfeld (A. Vy. p. 232) refers these
words to the post-Mosaic prophets;
but this, as Zahn truly says (7. v. A.
Ῥ. 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-
text; for (1) μηκέτι implies a conver-
ston from the old to the new; and

πράγμασι] GLA; γράμμασιν g.

(2) the correct reading is unquestion-
ally κατὰ κυριακὴν ‘in the observance
of the Lord’s day,’ which could not
possibly have been predicated of the
prophets. Hilgenfeld has taken the
corrupt reading κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωήν.
πράγμασιν] See Orig. de Princ. iv.
3 (1. p. 160) πάντων τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν
πραγμάτων ἐν οἷς ἐσέμνυντο, referred
to by Zahn. There is a slight tinge
of depreciation in this word. It
points to the vexatiousuess of the
ordinances of Judaism. The read-
ing of the interpolator’s text, γράμ-
μασιν, is tempting: comp. Rom. vii.
6 κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ vopov...@aTE
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 mpay-
μασιν: (2) The γράμματα in this case
would naturally refer to the Old Tes-
tament Scriptures, and παλαιά must
suggest the idea of ‘andiguated.’ 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 (PAz/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. iii. 34 in Ephes.
5; Prov. xvii. 17 in A7agu.(123 Is.
111. 5 in Zva//. 8), and in two out of
three passages they are introduced

1Χ] TO THE MAGNESIANS.

129

4 4 A ~ > ΜΕ ε ΄
ζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ἡ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν

3 κυριακὴν] dominicam L.; dominicam diem sanctam et primam [A]; κυριακὴν

ζωήν G; al. δ.

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 Ὁ, Polyb. ix. 40. 3,
xi. 6. 3, xv. 26. 4, Euseb. A. Σ᾿ ix. 1.

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, 2. ad Diogu. 4,
Justin Dal. 12 sq. (p. 229 sq.), 19
(p. 236), 21 (p. 238), 23 (p. 240 54.),
29 (p. 246), Iren. iv. 16. 1, Tert. adv.
Fud. 4. The word σαββατίζειν is
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 κυριακήν] 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.
Vil. 12 (p. 877) οὗτος 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-
ξόζων, comp. 20. vii. 10 (p. 866).
Comp. also Barnab. 15 ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας
ὀγδόης...ὅ ἐστιν, ἄλλου κόσμου ἀρχήν"
διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην
εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ἧ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη
ἐκ νεκρῶν κιτιλ., Justin Aol. i. 67
(p. 99) ἐπειδὴ πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα, ἐν 7

IGN.

ὁ Θεὸς τὸ σκότος Kal THY ὕλην τρέψας
κόσμον ἐποίησε, καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς 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᾽ αὐτῶν τεθανατωμένου θανάτου
ἠλευθερώθημεν (ἔγασηι. 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,
HT, 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. 1. 10 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύ-
ματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ the inter-
pretation is doubtful, and there are
very good, if not conclusive, reasons
for thinking that the day of judg-
ment is intended; see Todd’s Dyes-
courses on Prophectes in the Apoca-
lypse pp. 59, 295 sq. If this be so,
the passage before us is the earliest
extant example of its occurrence in
this sense. In Barnab. 15 it is called
ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ὀγδόη, where however the
writer has a special reason for dwell-
ing on the e¢gAth day. With Justin
writing to the heathen it is ἡ τοῦ
ἡλίου ἡμέρα (Apo. i. 67), but to the

130 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1x

ἀνέτειλεν δι αὐτοῦ Kai τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ov τινες
ἀρνοῦνται" δι’ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν τὸ πιστεύειν, καὶ
διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν, ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν μαθηταὶ ᾿Ϊησοῦ
Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν: πῶς ἡμεῖς δυνη-

1 ὅν τινες] οἵτινες G3 guod guidam (8 twes) L. The paraphrase οἵ g ὃν τὰ

τέκνα τῆς ἀπωλείας ἀπαρνοῦνται points to the reading ὅν τινες.

either 6 τινες or ὅν tives; al. g.

Jews, ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων or ἡ ὀγδόη
ἡμέρα (Dial. 24, 41). Melito’s trea-
tise on this day was designated περὶ
κυριακῆς (Eus. H. £. iv. 26); and
Dionysius of Corinth also so calls it
by this name, τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν
ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, as if it were
the familiar title (Eus. H. . iv. 23).

The insertion ζωὴν in the Greek
text is condemned alike by the pre-
ponderance of authorities and by
the following words ἐν 7 κιτ.λ.

I. ἀνέτειλεν] For this metaphor
comp. Rom. 2, whereagainit is applied
to the resurrection from the dead.

ὅν] i.e. τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ. The al-
lusion is to Docetism, which denied
the reality of our Lord’s passion.
See the note on ὃ 8 μυθεύμασιν x.r.r.
for the connexion of this error with
Judaism here, and the note on 77av.
9 for the Docetism assailed in these
epistles generally. In ἃ parallel
passage, Smyrit. 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 ὅν we read 6, as some
authorities suggest. In this case 6

may be referred either (1) to the
whole sentence ἡ (w7 ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν
82 αὐτοῦ «.t.A., the denial of this
truth being involved in the denial of

A may represent

2 δι’ ov] GL; διὰ [A] (apparently).
3 ὑπομένομεν] LA; ὑπομένωμεν G; al. g.

5 οὗ] GLg Sev. (Cramer’s

the reality of the passion and resur-
rection ; or (2) to the words τοῦ @a-
νάτου αὐτοῦ alone. For this latter
use of 6 see Tvall. 8 ἐν πίστει 6 ἐστιν
σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου, Rom. 7 ἄρτον Θεοῦ
...0 ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; and
comp. Col. 111.14. Eph. v. 5. See also
below § 10, where the common text
has νέαν ζύμην 6 ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός.

2. Ov οὗ μυστηρίου] Zahn (7. v. A.
p- 455) quotes Justin Dza/. 91 (p. 318)
οἱ ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τούτου τοῦ
μυστηρίου (SC. τοῦ σταυροῦ) εἰς τὴν
θεοσέβειαν ἐτράπησαν x.t.d., 106. 131
(Ρ. 360) οἵτινες διὰ τοῦ ἐξουθενημένου
καὶ ὀνείδους μεστοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ
σταυροῦ κληθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ k.T.X.

καὶ διὰ τοῦτο x.t.A.] 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 Lphes. 17). The
apodosis to εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς κιτ.λ.
at the opening of the section begins
with πῶς ἡμεῖς κιτ.λ.

3. ὑπομένομεν] i.e. ‘ we endure per-
secution.’ For this connexion be-
tween suffering and discipleship in
the mind of Ignatius, see the note
on Zphes. τ 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]

/ o~ \ ? a
5 σόμεθα ζῆσαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ 5

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

131

οὗ καὶ οἱ προφῆται μαθη-

\ of ΄: / ς Ψ' > A 7
TAL OVTES Tw σνευματι ως διδάσκαλον QUTOV προσεδόκων.

\ ~ e\ , / \ » \
Kal διὰ τοῦτο, OV δικαίως ἄνεμενον, παρὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτοὺς

ἐκ νεκρῶν.

Cat. in τ Pet. iii. 19 54; comp. Land Axnecd. I. 32); ὃν A.
6 προσεδόκων] g Sev. ; mpoceddxow 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. ἢ v. A.
Ῥ. 462) attaches this to μαθηταὶ ὄντες ;
but the connexion with the following
words seems more natural, as well
as more consonant with 1 Pet. i. 11
ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ,
προμαρτυρόμενον K.T.A.

ὡς διδάσκαλον x.7.A.] 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 (7. 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 Steph.
Thes. 5. ν.; and for the interchange
of -ew and -aw generally in some
early dialects, and in the later Greek,
see Kiihner ὃ 251 (I. p. 606), Winer
§ xv. p. 104 (ed. Moulton), A. Butt-
mann pp. 38, 50.

7. δικαίως] ‘rightly, not ‘righteous

ly’; see the note on Lphes. 15.
παρὼν ἤγειρεν κιτ.ιλ.} ‘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-

oi] Gg ; om. Sev.
7 παρὼν] παρ ὧν (sic) G (not

phets in Hades, to have taught them
(ὡς διδάσκαλον κ-τ.λ.) the truths of
the Gospel, and to have raised them
(ἤγειρεν) either to paradise or to
heaven ; see Phzlad. 9 αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα
τοῦ πατρὸς Sv ἧς εἰσέρχονται ᾿Αβραὰμ
καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ οἱ προφῆται
κιατιλ., Comp. 26. 5 ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύ-
σαντες (SC. οἱ προφῆται) ἐσώθησαν,
with the note. I have already pointed
out (see the note on § 8 éumvedpevor)
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. 111. 19,iv.6. Other
passages in the N. T. which have
been thought to refer to it are
Ephes. iv. 9, Heb. xii. 23. This be-
lief appears in various forms in early
Christian writers. Justin Déal. 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
LXxX. What may have been its his-
tory we cannot say; but Irenzus
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;

9--2

122 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x

4 Ψ5 ~ ~ ’ ~
X. Μὴ οὖν ἀναισθητῶμεν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ.
xv ‘ ε “~ ’ Ἁ »)
ἂν yap ἡμᾶς μιμήσηται καθὰ πράσσομεν, οὐκέτι ἐσμέν.
\ ΄σ \ ΄σ , \
διὰ τοῦτο, μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι, μάθωμεν κατὰ χρι-

στιανισμὸν ζῆν.

I ἀναισθητῶμεν] G ; non sentiamus L; ἀναίσθητοι ὦμεν g3 al. A.

Tos] χριστότητος G.

See a8 56. ἡ, IV, 22. 5, Iv. 33:1, 12,
v. 31. 1. In the 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 que
sunt sub terra descendisse, evange-
lizantem et iilis adventum suum,
remissione peccatorum existente his
qui credunt in eum: crediderunt
autem in eum omnes qui sperabant
in eum, id est, qui adventum ejus
prenuntiaverunt...justi et prophetz
et patriarche 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, S27.
ix. 16 οὗτοι of ἀπόστολοι Kat οἱ διδά-
σκαλοι of κηρύξαντες TO ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ... ἐκήρυξαν καὶ τοῖς προκεκοι-
μημένοις...ἐκεῖνοι δὲ of προκεκοιμημένοι
k.7.A. 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, Szvom. ii. 9 (p.
452), quoting this passage of Her-
mas, explains it as including right-

2 dv γὰρ] G; ἐὰν (om. γὰρ) g; “1 enim L; al. A.
μιμήσηται] ἡμᾶς μιμήσεται G3 nos persequatur L3 μιμήσηται ἡμᾶς g.

e\ ‘\ ᾽ 4 ΄σ /
ὃς yap ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι 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 ped-
λων κἀκεῖσε κατελεύσεσθαι τὸν σωτῆρα
λυτρούμενον τὰς ἁγίων Ψυχὰς K.T.A.;
and so too Origen zz Luc. Hom. iv.
(III. p. 917), 2 Toann. ii. § 30 (IV. p.
gt). 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, Theodt. H../. 1. 245; see (Zahn
Der Hirt des Hermas p. 425 sq.
If this be so, it is a speaking testi-
mony to the hold which the belief

Χ]

’ 3 ᾽ ~ “-
5 τούτον, οὐκ ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

133

e / “Ὁ 4 ‘
ὑπέρθεσθε οὖν THY κακὴν

/ \ θ ~ \ 5 / \
ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθεῖσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μετα-
/ > 7 , “of ~
βαλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην, ὅς ἐστιν ᾿]ησοῦς Χριστός.

σομεν] £3 πράσσωμεν G.
add. avg.
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-A. 5
e.g. by Euseb. Dem. Ev. x. 8 (Ὁ.
501), and by Severus (Land Anecd.
Syr. 1. 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 ye salted in
Him, that ye may escape corruption.
It is monstrous to name the name
of Christ and to follow Judaism.
Christianity did not believe in Ju-
daism,. but Judaism in Christianity,
wherein all nations and tongues were
gathered unto God.’

I. ἀναισθητῶμεν] ‘be tnsensible to.

This verb not uncommonly takes a
genitive ; e.g. Jos. Anz. xi. 5. 8, B.
v3, 10, Pints Afor. p. 1062 Ὁ;
Athenag. Suppl. 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 0s] Gg; ὅστις Rup. 785.
πλέον] G3; πλεῖον g Rup.
6 μεταβάλεσθε] G; μεταβάλλεσθε g.
6G; dub. A; al. g: see the lower note.

γὰρ] G Rup.;
5 οὐκ] GL Rup.; pref. οὗτος
7 Os) gui L;

denial of Christ’s work ; see above
§ 8.

2. ἂν yap x.r.A.] i.e. ‘if He should
treat us with the same scorn and
defiance with which we treat Him’;
comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 26, 27 (Ps. xviii.
ag. 20).

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 szne
die” The word is used somewhat
similarly in Prov. xv. 22.

6. ζύμην «r.A.| From 1 Cor. v. 7
ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην x.t.d.;
comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 17 ὁ Θεὸς
αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ κακὴν ζύμην ἐξελεῖν
ἐβούλετο. On the metaphor gene-
rally see the note Gadatians v. 9.

παλαιωθεῖσαν)] Not simply παλαιάν.
See Heb. viii. 13 for this ‘anti-
quation’ of the Judaic law and
ritual.

ἐνοξίσασαν) ‘which has gone sour,
No other instance of the word is
given in the lexicons, though ὀξίζω
and παροξίζω occur elsewhere.

7. ὅς] 1 have preferred this to 4,
because it accords with the writer’s
idiom elsewhere in this epistle, § 15
ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ; see also the
note on § 7. On the other hand, 6
might stand, and be referred to νέαν
ζύμην. For this use of the neuter
relative see the note on § 9. The
Gospel is spoken of as leaven in the
parable, Matt. xiil. 33, Luke xiii. 21.

134 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x

΄σ΄ εὔ \ “- ’ on δ he
ἁλίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρῇ τις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐπεὶ
9 ~ ~ , ἊΣ / > Lge
ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς ἐλεγχθήσεσθε. ἀτοπὸν ἐστιν ᾿Ϊησοῦν

΄-:- > A \ ‘
Χριστὸν λαλεῖν καὶ ἰουδαΐζειν. ὁ γαρ χριστιανισμος
> > 3 “. \ > / > ae ὃ ee \ »
οὐκ εἰς ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἐπίστευσεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἰουδαΐσμος εἰς χρι-

’ «2 “ a / > \
στιανισμὸν, W πδοὰ FADCCA πιστεύσασα εἰς Θεὸν cyn-5

HY OH.

1 ἁλίσθητε! GL*; conjungamini (giving a wrong sense to the ambiguous

ἁλισθῆτε) A; αὐλίσθητε g. τι] GL; τι A; al. g.

2 ὀσμῆς] odore

L; sfiritu (a confusion of the Syriac NM spiritus and NN odor) A; ὁρμῆς

G; al. g.

Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν] gLA;

χριστὸν ἰησοῦν G.

5 ᾧ --συνήχθη] in quo omnis qui credidit ad deum congregatus est Sa; δέ 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. ii. 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. 2165. 17 δυσ-
wdiay τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ ἄρχοντος
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with the note.

3. λαλεῖν] ‘Zo profess. For the ex-
pression λαλεῖν Ἰ. 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 χριστιανισμός] The word oc-
curs again Rom. 3 (v. 1), Philad. 6;
see Mart. Polyc. 10, Clem. Alex.
Strom. vii. 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
xxvi. 28: and at the time of the
Neronian persecution (A. Ὁ. 64) it was
already a common designation of
the believers; 1 Pet. iv. 16, Tac.
Ann. xv. 44 ‘quos per flagitia in-
visos valgus Christianos appellabat,
Suet. Ver. 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 § 4,
Ephes. 11, 14 (v. 1.), Rom. 3, Polyc. 7
(comp. Zvall. 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 (/. v. A. p. 429,
and here) reads eis ὅν with the in-
terpolator ; but this reading must, I
think, be regarded as a paraphrase
of the interpolator after his usual
manner.

πᾶσα γλῶσσα] 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
nations and tongues should be gather-
ed to God; Is. lxvi. 18 συναγαγεῖν
πάντα ta ἔθνη καὶ τὰς γλώσσας
(comp. .xlv.)22, 23) Zac wal--23).
The language of Ignatius is some-

x1]

XI,

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

135

ΡΞ / 3 / ᾽
Ταῦτα δὲ, ἀγαπητοί μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων

\ > ς ΄σ « ᾽} > > ε / ς “σι
τινας ἐξ UMWY οὕτως ἐχοντας, αλλ᾽ ὡς μικρότερος ὑμῶν

/ ε σι = of ᾿

θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἀγ-
η [ ὃ 3 ~~

τοκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλα πεπληροφόρησθε ἐν TH

/ \ ΄ / 4 ~ —
γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει καὶ TH ἀναστάσει TH γενομένη
έ ‘ t

ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Tlovriov Πιλάτου: πραχθέντα

qui credit in eum ad deum congregatur As ὡς. συνήχθη G3; ut...congregaretur L*,
In g the passage runs els ὃν πᾶν ἔθνος πιστεῦσαν καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογη-

σαμένη εἰς θεὸν συνήχθη.
9. προφυλάσσεσθαι)] προφυλάσσεσθε G.

7 ἐπεὶ ἔγνων] GLA; ἐπέγνων g.

ἼΟ πεπληροφύρησθε] g (app., but

with vv. Il.); πεπληροφορεῖσθαι G; corroborati-estote A; certificemini L.

what hyperbolical as applied to his
own time, but not more so than
some expressions of S. Paul; e.g.
Romi; 8; :Col. i;'6, 23. Compare
the language of Justin Martyr (Dad.
117, p. 345), and of Irenzeus (i. 10. 2),
regarding the spread of the Church
in their own times respectively.

XI. ‘I say this, not because I
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.
Let no 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 «.t.d., 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/z. 11 ‘Ego autem
nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi.’

8. ws μικρότερος ὑμῶν] i.e. ‘as one
who has no right to dictate to you’;
comp. /phes, 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, Trail. 8,
Smyrn. 4. Similarly ἀσφαλίζομαι ὑμᾶς
Philad. 5.

10. κενοδοξίας] ‘foolish opinion.’
The word has two senses (1) ‘vain-
glory,’ as in Phil. ii. 3 (comp. κενόδοξος,
Gal. v. 26), Clem. Rom. 35, PAz/ad. 1,
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 7va/Z. 9.

12. Ποντίου Πιλάτου So again
Trall.9, Smyrn. i. Inall these places
the specification of the date is in-

126

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[x1

~ \ , A ΄σ ΄σο a 7
ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος
΄σ “Oe ΄σ \ ~ /
ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν γένοιτο.

ΧΙ].

3 , εἶν νὰ \ , >? of 4
Οναίμην UMWV κατα παντα, εανῆῖερ ἀξιος ω-

> \ \ \ e/ /, ς “ ?
εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι, πρὸς ἕνα τῶν λελυμένων ὑμῶν οὐκ

eds
εἰμι.

, ~
ἔχετε EV ἑαυτοῖς.

2 ὑμῶν] GL; ἡμῶν Ag* (but with a ν. 1.).
5 Χριστὸν] GLA; om. g.
6] G; om. g.

3 Ovalunr] dvaluny G.
GLA; γέγραπται (om. ὅτι) g.

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 Ox the Creed Art. iv. p. 371
(ed. Chevallier), The mention of
‘Pontius Pilate’ in connexion with
the crucifixion in early Christian
writings is of constant occurrence,
e.g. 1 Tim. vi. 13, Justin Ado. i. 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 ἐν τῷ γεννη-
θῆναι καὶ παθεῖν x.t.A. For various
loose constructions of the accusative
participle, see Kiihner II. pp. 646 sq.,
667 sq., Winer § xxxii. p. 290, lix. p.
669. The participle, thus isolated,
emphasizes the reality of the events.

1. ἀληθῶς] See the note on Ζ7γαϊ, 9.

τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν] As in Tradl.
inscr., 2. So also 1 Tim. i. 1. Comp.
Polyc. Phil. 8 προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ
ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν.. ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
For the longer expression ἡ κοινὴ
ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν see the note on £phes. I. -

οἶδα ὅτι οὐ φυσιοῦσθε: ᾿]Ιησοῦν yap Χριστὸν 5

\ ~ / “ ΄“ 5
καὶ μάλλον, ὅταν ἐπαινώ ὑμᾶς, οἶδα

γένοιτο] G3 γένηται g.
7 γέγραπται ὅτι]
9 σπουδάζετε] G ; σπουδά-

XII. ‘May I have comfort in you,
if I 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 is his 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 k.t.A.] “7 am not compar-
able to one of you who are free from
bonds” For this sense of πρὸς see
Kithner ὃ 441 (II. p. 450); comp. e.g.
Herod. ii. 35 ἔργα λόγου μέζω mapéye-
Tat πρὸς πᾶσαν χώρην (i.e. ‘in com-
parison with any country’), Plat.
Prot. 328 C οἱ Πολυκλείτου υἱεῖς...
οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰσί, Xen. Mem.
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] Tradl. 4,7, Smyrn. 6,
Polyc. 4. So too 1 Cor. iv. 6, 18, 19, v.
2, vill. I, xili. 4, Col. ii, 18; comp.
φυσίωσις 2 Cor. xii. 20. The word

x11]

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

137

e/ , e , e/ " ε “3,
ὅτι ἐντρέπεσθε: ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ λίκδλιος ἑλγτοῦῖ

KATHTOPpOC.

ADEE:

Crrovoatete οὖν βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγ-

΄σ ’ \ o~ / e/ ’ ao
μασιν τοῦ Κυρίου kat τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἵνα πάντα bc

TOIEITE Κἀτευοδλώθητε σαρκι και σνευματι, πίστει καὶ

> , > ca \ \ ΛΑ ΄ > ᾽ ~ \
αγαπή; εν ULW Και TAT Pl Kat EV TTVEUMATL, EV ἀρχῇ Kal

care g.

Il ποιεῖτε] g3 ποιῆτε G.

κατευοδωθῆτε] G; κατευοδωθήσεται σ΄" ;

prosperentur L; splendeatis A (\\WWD8N splendeatis for nnoyn prosperemini ; see

Petermann).

σαρκὶ] txt G[L][A]; add. reg. For L see the note on 7) rall, 9.

12 ἐν πνεύματι] GL* (but add. sancto 1,.) ; add. ἁγίῳ A; def. g.

is confined to S. Paul in the N. T.

"Inoovy yap x«7.A.| 2 Cor. xiii. 5
Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν, εἰ μή τι
ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε. They were χριστοφό-
po (Ephes.9). Thus bearing Christ,
they bore the mind of Christ, which
was ταπεινοφροσύνη (comp. Phil. ii.
5 sq.).

7. δίκαιος x.7.A.] From the Lxx of
Prov. xvili. 17. In the 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 /oc.). In the
LXxX 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 ii. 14. For one half of the
phrase comp. Barnab. 1 τρία οὖν δόγ-

para ως Κυρίου, and for the other
Acts xvi. 4 τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκριμένα
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων.

II. κατευοδωθῆτε) ‘ye may be pros-
pered, an adapted quotation from
Psalm i. 3 πάντα ὅσα ἂν ποιῇ κατευοδω-
θήσεται, where this prosperity is pro-
mised to those who take pleasure ἐν τῷ
νόμῳ Κυρίου. The compound κατευο-
δοῦν is not uncommon in the 1,ΧΧ, and
the simple word εὐοδοῦν occurs four
times in the N. T. Zahn (ὦ v. A.
Ρ- 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 guecungue factet
prosperabuntur, and after which he
has modelled the rest of the quota-
tion, would assist his mistake. Zahn
objects to the accusative after xarevo-

᾿ δοῦσθαι, but the Hebrew shows that

this is most probably the construc-
tion in the Psalm: comp. also 1 Cor.
XVi. 2 θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἂν εὐοδῶται.

σαρκὶ καὶ πνεύματι] See the note
on Lphes. 10,

12. ἐν υἱῷ κιτιλ.] The order is the
same as in 2 Cor. xiii. 13. It is more-
over a natural sequence. Through

138

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ΧΠῚ

> / \ “ “ / ΄σ
ἐν τέλει, META τοῦ ἀξιοπρεπεσταάτου ἐπισκόπου ὑμῶν

\ ᾽ ΄ι΄ ᾽ ΓΩῚ
καὶ ἀξιοπλόκου πνευματικοῦ στεφάνου τοῦ πρεσβυτε-

/ ie \ co \ \ ’
plou UMWVY καὶ Τῶν KATA Θεον διακόνων.

/ ~
UTOTAYNTE τῷ

> / \ / ΄σι vod
ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρὶ

A / \ ¢ > / ΄σ ΄σ΄ 4 ΄σ
[κατὰ σάρκα) καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τῷ

IS ὁ « ἘΣ és \ /
WAT Ply ἰἐνὰ EVWOLS ἢ σαρκικῆ TE Και πνευματική.
t

XIV. Εἰδὼς ὅτι Θεοῦ γέμετε, συντόμως παρεκά-

2 ἀξιοπλόκου] txt GL; ἀξιοπλόκου καὶ σ ; om. A.
5 κατὰ σάρκα] GL; om. Afg] (but g also omits

GLA; ὁ χριστὸς [6].

4 ᾿ἸἸησοῦς Χριστὸς]

several words which follow, app. owing to the homceoteleuton τῷ πατρὶ) : see the

lower note.

τῷ Χριστῷ] GL; tesu 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 πνεύματι).

the Sox is the way to the father
(Joh. xiv. 6): this union with the
Father through the Son is a com-
munion in the S#zrcz.

I. ἀξιοπρεπεστάτου] See the note
on Rom. inscr.

2. στεφάνου] Like the Latin ‘co-
rona,’ of an encircling attendance;
comp. Afost. Const. ii. 28, where the
presbyters are called σύμβουλοι τοῦ
ἐπισκόπου Kal THs ἐκκλησίας στέφανος.
In the primitive assemblies of the
Christians the bishop would sit in the
centre, surrounded by his presbyters ;
see the note on § 6 συνέδριον. This
sense of στέφανος may be illustrated
by such passages ase. g. Hom. /Z. xiii.
736 πάντη yap σε περὶ στέφανος πολέ-
μοιο δέδηεν, Plut. 7707. 228 E πόλιν
ἥτις ἀνδράσι καὶ οὐ 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 Θεόν] See the note on $1
above.

τῷ ἐπισπόπῳ K.T.A.] I Pet. v. 5 νεώ-
τεροι ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις, πάντες

7 συντόμως] GLg; 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.

καὶ 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 «.7.A. On the other
hand its omission might be account-
ed for by a homceoteleuton Tpi and
TINI, which are constantly confused :
see note on Swzyri. 13.

6. σαρκική τε x.t-A.}| See the note
on Ephes. 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

1οΟ

XIV |

λεσα vuas.

TO THE MAGNESIANS.

139

) ’ 3 ~ ~ ~~
μνημονεύετε μου ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ὑμῶν,

“ a Ἶ eS χὰ (De. ‘
wa Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω, καὶ τῆς ἐν Cupia ἐκκλησίας, ὅθεν οὐκ

/ / ΄-
ἀξιὸς εἰμι καλεῖσθαι.

ἐπιδέομαι γὰρ τῆς ἡνωμένης ὑμῶν

> ~ ~ 4 ᾽ / > ἢ >’ ~ \ >

ἐν Θεᾷ προσευχῆς Kat ἀγάπης εἰς TO ἀξιωθῆναι τὴν ἐν
Cupia ἐκκλησίαν διὰ τῆς ἐκτενείας ὑμῶν δροσισθῆναι.
/ « ~ , 3 ε

XV. ᾿λσπαζονται ὑμᾶς ᾿Εφέσιοι ἀπὸ (μύρνης, ὅθεν

\ ’ Cm / > / ~ « \

καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν, παρόντες εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ

fiducia (συντόνως ἢ A,
κέλευσα ἃ.
below; ἐκκλησίας GL; εὐταξίας [g].

παρεκάλεσα] g; deprecatus sum L; peto A; παρε-
10 καλεῖσθαι] καλεῖσθε G.

12 exrevelas] see

In A the sentence runs digna fiat et ecclesia

syriae ut stillent in ea preces vestrae οἱ firmitas.

by your fervent supplications.’

7. Θεοῦ γέμετε] They are θεοφόροι
in the fullest sense: comp. Zphes. 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. Zvall.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 ἐν Συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίας] See the
note on Lphes. 21 προσεύχεσθε.

ὅθεν οὐκ ἄξιος κιτ.λ.)] See the note
on “2165. 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, exrévera,with prayer
comp. Joel i. 14, Jonah iii. 8, Judith
iv. 9, 12, ,Luke xxi. 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 THY ᾿Αντιοχείας
ἐκκλησίαν ὅθεν κιτιλ., which would
seem to be taken from this passage.
The confusion between €KTENEIAC
and €KKAHCIAC would be easy, where
€KKAHCIAN had almost immediately
preceded. The purists condemned
these words, ἐκτενῶς, ἐκτένεια, etc.: see
Lobeck P&ryzx. p. 311.

δροσισθῆναι)͵ Pearson compares
Clem. Al. Ped. ii. το (p. 232) moa
ἡμεῖς of τῇ χάριτι δροσιζόμενοι τοῦ
Θεοῦ. The metaphor of course is
much older; Deut. xxxii. 2, Prov. xix.
12; etc.

XV. ‘Greeting from the Ephe-
sians who are in 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. ᾿Εφέσιοι] For these Ephesian
delegates who were with Ignatius,
see Ephes. 1, 2 (with the notes).

14. els δόξαν Θεοῦ] So too Rom.
10; comp. &£phes. 13, Polyc. 4. A
more common expression in Ignatius
is εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ; see the note on
E-phes. 21.

140
ε ad ἃ A /
ὑμεῖς, Ol κατὰ πάντα
᾽ 4 /
ἐπισκόπῳ ( μυρναίων.
a 9 ΄ a
τιμῇ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ

IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS.

/ ε -
ἀσπαζονται ὑμᾶς.

[xv

/ ε΄ ’
με ἀνέπαυσαν, ἅμα [Ἰ᾿ἰολνυκαρπῳ

\ \ \ /
Kal at λοιπαὶ δὲ ἐκκλησίαι ἐν

sf 3
ἔρρωσθε ἐν

~ ’ / ~ /
ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ, κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὃς ἐστιν

᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός.

1 ἀνέπαυσαν] GLA; ἀνεπαύσατε g.
4 Θεοῦ] GLA; om. δ.
μένοι ἀδιάκριτον in g); διάκριτον G,.
valete fratres; amen A.

2 ἐπισκόπῳ Σμυρναίων] GLA; om. g.

ἀδιάκριτον] gLA (the order being πνεῦμα κεκτη-

5 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] txt GL; al. g; add. ~

For the subscription of G see the title to Philadelphians. LA have no sub-

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 «.t.A.] For this fa-
vourite Ignatian phrase see the note
on Ephes. 2.

ἅμα ἸΠολυκάρπῳ] These words are
perhaps better taken with ἀσπάζονται
ὑμᾶς, than with the clause immedi-
ately preceding; comp. 7γαζί. 13
ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη Σμυρναίων καὶ
Ἐφεσίων.

2. αἱ λοιπαὶ κιτ.λ.] i.e. through their -

representatives, who also were with
him: comp. 7va//. 12 ἅμα ταῖς συμ-
παρούσαις μοι ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ.
The Trallians would be included
among ai λοιπαὶ here; comp. 7ra//.
1:
ἐν τιμῇ κιτ.λ.] i.e. ‘not the honour
which is implied in the ordinary
greetings of men, but the honour

which belongs to the sphere of, which
springs from, Jesus Christ.’ Thus it
is a fuller phrase for ἀσπάζεσθαι ἐν
Κυρίῳ (e.g. I Cor. xvi. 19).

3. ἔρρωσθε] See the note Zfphes. 21.

ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ] See above § 6
(note).

4. ἀδιάκριτον] ‘unwavering, stead-
Jast’?; comp. 7 γαζί, τ ἄμωμον διάνοιαν
καὶ ἀδιάκριτον, and see the note on
LEphes. 3.

ὅς ἐστιν κιτιλ.] See above ὃ 7 (ac-
cording to the reading adopted), and
compare the still stronger expressions,
Trall. 11 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.

Bey Cie. PRAT LIANS.

TO THE TRALLIANS.

; FTER 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, eis Τράλλεις
.««εἶτ᾽ εἰς Μαγνησίαν ἑκατὸν τετταράκοντα [στάδιοι], εἰς "Edeoov 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 Meander,
having the mountain range of Messogis to the north, and the river
and plain to the south; ‘a broiling and dusty journey,’ ‘estuosa et
pulverulenta via,’ as it is described by Cicero (ad Att. 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 (Aom. 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
Tas ἀνατολὰς ὁδοιποροῦσιν ἐξ ᾿Εφέσου). For a description of this road
see Hamilton Asia Minor 1. p. 533 56.

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᾽ κὶ μὲν τῶν Τραλλιανῶν πόλις ἐπὶ
τραπεζίου τινὸς ἄκραν ἔχοντος ἐρυμνὴν καὶ τὰ κύκλῳ δ᾽ ἱκανῶς εὐερκῆ). It

144 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

is said to have owed its origin and its name to a colony of the Thracian
Trallians (Strabo ἃ ¢ 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. Aidin 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 or-
chard of Asia Minor. Among its chief products now, as in ancient
times (Athen. ili. 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. δὲ A. xxxv. 49;
see also the inscription on a coin, Tpad . aTTAaAoy, Mionnet Swpf/. vil.
p. 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. I. 2934 [ap]xveparevovros). 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’ (fro 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 (7. ¢. συνοικεῖται καλῶς εἴ τις
ἄλλη τῶν κατὰ τὴν ᾿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 (AZart.

Polyc. 12, 21).

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

At the same time, while the chief citizens thus enjoyed

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. ἢ 145

high distinction at home, the lower population contributed to swell
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. iii. 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 Cesar 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 Czsar 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 looked upon the effigy of the conqueror
(Ces. Bell. Civ. iii. 105, Plut. Vit. Ces. 47, Dion Cass. xli. 61, Val.
Max. 1. 6. 12). In compliment to the victor the city took the name
of Czsarea. A boastful inscription speaks of it as ‘the most splendid
city of the Cesarean Trallians’ (Boeckh C. ἢ no. 2929 ἢ λαμπροτάτη
Καισαρέων Τραλλιανῶν πόλις). From this time forward till the end of
the first Christian century the coins commonly bear the legend
KAICAPEWN . TPAAAIANGON, and sometimes even KalcApewn alone (Mionnet
Iv. Ὁ. 181 sq., Suppl. vil. p. 462 sq.; comp. Eckhel Doctr. Num. 111.
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 (ill. 459, v. 287). On this occasion the
destruction which it caused was very considerable (Strabo xi. p. 579
τὸ γυμνάσιον καὶ ἄλλα μέρη συνέπεσεν : Agathias 11. 17, p. 101, ἐσείσθη
τε ἅπασα καὶ ἀνετράπη καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτῆς ὅ τι ἐσέσωστο : comp. Boeckh C. ἢ
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 ‘Aricinamater. Trallianam flourishing cities of Asia Minor, such as
aut Ephesiam putes dicere.’ In the eyes ‘Tralles or Ephesus.
of a Roman a small country-town like 2 The expression is commonly sup-
Aricia was far nobler than the most posed to mean insufficient wealth, but

IGN, IO

146 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

The patron deity of the city was Zeus (C. /. 2926 τῆς λαμπροτάτης
πόλεως... «ἱερᾶς τοῦ Διός) surnamed Larasius (Mionnet Iv. pp. 179, 183,
Suppl. Vil. pp. 462, 465, etc.), 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 the tradition or the theory that
Tralles was colonized from the Thessalian Larissa (Strabo ix. 2 ¢. tows
δὲ καὶ ὁ Λαρίσιος Ζεὺς ἐκεῖθεν ἐπωνόμασται); and the high-priest already
mentioned (p. 144) was doubtless the functionary of this god (Strabo xiv.
ὦ. ¢. ἔχων τὴν ἱερωσύνην τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Aapwraiov). But besides Zeus, we
read also of the worship of Demeter (C. Z 2937 ἱέρεια Δήμητρος), of
Dionysus (C. 7. 2919 Διονύσῳ Βακχίῳ τῷ δημοσίῳ ; comp. 22. 2934), and
of A‘sculapius (Vitruy. vil. 1). Among the games celebrated at Tralles
in honour of different deities are mentioned the Pythia (C. Z 2932,
2935, Mionnet Iv. pp. 181, 192, 194) and the Olympia (Wood’s Dzs-
coveries at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 14, 20, pp. 60, 70, Mionnet /. cc. etc.),
as well as those bearing the name of Hercules (C. 7. 2936 εἰν ἀέθλοισιν
ἀταρβέος] Ἡρακλῆος). The city boasted of several buildings, of whose
architectural character notices have been preserved (Vitruv. ii. 8, v. 9,
vii. 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 representa-
tives of the affected and florid Asiatic style, for which indeed this city
was famous (Cic. Ovator 234 ‘quasi vero Trallianus fuerit Demos-
thenes’). It had also an illustrious school of physicians, of whom two
are mentioned by name, Philippus and Thessalus (Galen Of. x11. p.
105, XIv. p. 684). 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
(Miiller Fragm. Hist. Gree. 111. Ὁ. 603 sq.), but whose fame chiefly rests
on the fact that he is quoted by Christian writers as a heathen witness
to the preeternatural darkness which shrouded the Crucifixion (Miller
4. ¢. Ὁ. 606 sq.) At a much later date Tralles gave birth to an

this interpretation may, I think, be ques- was also set aside on this occasion for

tioned. When we read just below ‘ pau-
lum addubitatum, quod Halicarnassii
mille et ducentos per annos xulo motu
terre mutavisse sedes suas, wvivogue 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

the same reason as Tralles, is elsewhere
commemorated for its wealth (Tac. Ann.
xiv. 27, see Colossians pp. 6 sq., 43 54:);
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

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 dif. i. 1, p. 174
ed. Bonn.). Altogether Tralles was invested with sufficient interest in
herself and her history to induce two authors at different times, Apol-
lonius of the neighbouring Aphrodisias (Miller /ragm. Hist. Grec. τν.
p. 310 Περὶ Τραλλέων) and Christodorus of the Egyptian Coptos (zd,
Ρ. 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 que
super Mzeandrum 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 ($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 (S§ 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-
where, union among themselves, and submission to the bishop and
other officers of the Church (§§ 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

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 (Tpd\Ay, 566 Colossians p. 45 Sq.

Mena). The story has this slender foun-
IO—z2

148 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

side of the heresy; but a comparison with his language elsewhere
shows these false-teachers to have been Judaizers also (see the notes,
Magn. ὃ, 9, 11, Philad. inscr., 5, 8, Zrall. 9). He acquits the Trallians
indeed of any complicity in this heresy hitherto, but he writes to put
them on their guard (§ 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
(Anz. 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. m1. p. 1024 sq., ed. Colet). He signs his
name in a way which furnishes an instructive parallel to the opening
of the Ignatian letters; “HpaxAéwy, ὁ καὶ Θεόφιλος, ἐπέγραψα (10. p.
1080; comp. p. 1222, where the second name is written in Latin
Theophanius: elsewhere he gives his first name only, Ill. pp. 996,
1024, Iv. p. 1135). At a later meeting held at Ephesus, the notorious
Robbers’ Synod, A.D. 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).
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

1 May not the unidentified ΝΟΥ placed at “ὃ. May not this Lud be
(Tarlusa or Tralusa), which is men- Lydia, rather than Lydda as Neubauer
tioned in the Jerusalem Talmud Taanith (Géogr. du Talm. pp. 80, 268) takes it Ὁ
iv. 8, be our Tralles? The incident Tralles is sometimes spoken of as a
which took place at Tarlusa is elsewhere Lydian city by classical writers.

TO THE TRALLIANS. 149

(v. p. 241 sq.). At later Councils of the Church also bishops of Tralles
were present.

The following is an analysis of the epistle.

‘Icnatius to the CuuRCH 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 (§ 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 (8 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 (δ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (δ 1r).’

‘I 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 (δ 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

(§ 13)’

ἀπ Oh, ΤΡΑΛλαν χε.

ἸΓΝΆΤΙΟΟ, 6 καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἠγαπημένη Θεῷ πατρὲ

3 fa “ > / ees “ of ᾽ /
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐκκλησίᾳ ayia TH οὔση ἐν Τραλλεσιν
‘

TIPOC TPAAAIANOYC | Tpadiavots ἰγνάτιος G (not written τραλλιανοῖς, as given
by Dressel) ; ignatius tralesiis L* ; τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τραλλησίους (with the
number ββ in the marg.) g* (but 1 has the form ad ¢rallianos); ad trallianos A.

I Θεῷ... Χριστοῦ] GL; παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ g3 a deo patre et

πρὸς TpAAAIANoyc] Steph. Byz.
s.v. Says of this city τὸ ἐθνικὸν Τραλ-
λιανός, 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
Greek (Boeckh C. /. 2926, 2929, 2935)
or Latin (Orell. Zuscr. 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. 2. ΤΙ. 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. Lex. Iv. p. 168), but it
refers toa Thracian people. Soagain
Τράλλιοι Occurs (see Steph. Byz. 5. v.
TpadXia), but it denotes the inhabi-
tants of the Bithynian town Trallium.
Pearson again (ad /oc.) is wrong in
saying ‘ Cives etiam ab antiquis Lati-
nis Tralles dicebantur, ut a Varrone
apud Apuleium’: Varro personifies
the city Tralles itself, Apul. “420. 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 Τραλλιαγνός and Τραλιανός, Corp.
Luscr. Lat. 11. pp. 1191, 1193.

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 Tpadrtavoi, Tralliani; while
conversely the Greek of the interpo-
lator and the Latin of the genuine
Ignatius read instead Τραλλήσιοι,
Tralesiz, Jerome again refers to it
as ad Trallenses (Vir. Ζ7{{. 16); in the
Parall. Rupef., ascribed wrongly to
John of Damascus (Of. Il. p. 772,
Lequien), it is entitled πρὸς Τραλλαεῖς ;
and in the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistle
Antioch. 13 the form seems to be
Τραλλαῖοι. Generally however the
correct form is given. So for in-
stance Theodt. Dza/. 1 (Iv. p. 51 ed.
Schulze), Chron. Pasch. 1. p. 417 (ed.
Bonn.), Sever. Ant. /ragm. (preserv-

TO THE TRALLIANS.

151

΄σ , ~ A /, ? >
τῆς ᾿λσίας, ἐκλεκτῇ Kat ἀξιοθέῳ, εἰρηνενούση ἐν σαρκὶ
‘

domini nostri tesu christi A (where ef seems to be the commencement of a correction,
intended to substitute the commoner form et domino nostro etc., but not carried

out).
trallianus) A.

ed in the Syriac, Cureton C. ἢ p. 213).
So too the Greek translator of Je-
rome (Vir. Jé/. 1. 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 (Cureton C. /. pp. 198, 200)
give ; ‘
‘Titiliyu. —These words are ob-
viously corrupt ; but possibly they

stand for aliz\, ‘Tralliyu, which

cannot have been derived from Tpad-
λιανοί and might represent Τράλλιοι,
but probably was invented by the
Syriac transcriber or translator him-
self. These facts showthat the present
heading of the Greek Ignatius, Tpa-
λιανοῖς Ἰγνάτιος, is very much later
than the epistle itself, and has no
authority whatever. I have therefore
substituted a title which conforms to
the others.

I. Θεῷ πατρί] 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 Gram. § 1xxxi.
p- 274 (ed. Moulton), Kiihner ὃ 423
(11. p. 368 sq.); comp. Neh. xiii. 26
ἀγαπώμενος TO 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 (eg. Juv. Saé. 11].
70; Orell. Juscr. 321, quoted below;
Corp. Inscr. Lat. Ul. no 144). Very
rarely however the singular Ὑράλλις
is found: e.g. Boeckh C. Δ 2936
πόλιος δ᾽ ἐγέρηρέ με δῆμος Τράλλεος
εἶν ἀέθλοισιν κιτ.λ., Inscr. in Agath.
Hist. ii. 17 (p. 102, ed. Bonn.) ὥρθωσε

2 Τράλλεσω] g 3 τράλεσιν G; tralesits L; in tralliano (from a nom.
3 τῆς Acias] GL; urbe asiae A; om. δ.

Τράλλιν τὰν τότε κεκλιμέναν, Orac. «516.
iii. 459 Τράλλις δ᾽ ἡ γείτων ᾿Εφέσου, 10.
v. 289 πολυήρατε Τράλλις (see Boeckh
C. J. Il. pp. 557, 1119), comp. Bekker
Anecd. p. 1193 Tpaddts, Τράλλιος :
and so in Latin, Plin. VV. 7. v. 29.

3. τῆς ᾿Ασίας] The Roman pro-
vince of ‘Asia’ is meant ; comp. Orrell.
Inscr. 132 ‘Natus in egregiis Tralli-
bus ex Asia,’ Agath. A/zs¢. il. 17
(p. 100) Τράλλεις ἡ πόλις ἡ ἐν TH Agia
νῦν καλουμένῃ χώρᾳ; comp. Strabo
xiv. I (ρ. 649). It is therefore a poli-
tical designation. Ethnographically
or topographically, Tralles was as-
signed sometimes to Lydia (Steph.
Byz. s. v.), sometimes to Caria (Plin.
NV. 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. gro Face. 27).
For similar instances of various eth-
nological attributions in the case of
towns in this neighbourhood see
Colossians p.17 sq. The addition 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, Tpaddts 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
churches in 1 Pet. v. 13 (συνεκλεκτή),
2 Joh. 1, 13. So also ἐκλεκτοί, ἐκλεκ-

152

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1

‘ , ΄σ / a va ΄σ Ὶ
καὶ πνεύματι τῷ πάθει ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος

ςε - > ΄σ > ᾽ \ > / rat \ > /
ἡμῶν EV TH εἰς αὐτὸν αναστασει" ἣν Kat ἀσπάζομαι ἐν

σ΄: ,7ὔ > ’ ΄σ “ \ sf
τῷ πληρώματι EV ATOTTONLKW χαρακτῆρι, καὶ εὔχομαι

πλεῖστα χαίρειν.

1 πνεύματι] σ; αἵματι GLA; see the lower note.

τῷ πάθει] Gs; εἰ

passione L; ἐν πάθει [g] (the context being much altered); om. A.

5 ἀδιάκριτον] GL[A]; ἀνυπόκριτον g.

τὸν γένος, of Christians generally, 1
Pet. i. 1, 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 Rom. inscr. it is applied to a
church as here; in all the other ex-
amples, to individuals.

ἐν σαρκὶ k.7-A.] 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 ai-
ματι in the authorities in Smyrn. 3.
With this reading we have the com-
mon Ignatian combination ‘flesh and
spirit’; see the note on Lphes. 10,
and comp. especially the opening
addresses in Magn. 1 ἕνωσιν εὔχομαι
σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος, Rom. inscr. κατὰ
σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις K.T.A.,
Smyrn. 1 καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ
«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 Phdlad. inscr. ἣν ἀσπά-
Comat ἐν αἵματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Smyri.
I ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῷ αἵματι
Χριστοῦ. The sentence would then
be directed against Docetic error,

6 κατὰ piow] GL; κατὰ

and would signify ‘reposing peace-
fully in the belief in and union with a
truly incarnate Christ’; comp. Smyru.
3 κραθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ TO
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 £phes. inscr. ἡνω-
μένῃ καὶ ἐκλελεγμένῃ ἐν 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] ‘in the pleroma,
the sphere of the Divine graces. It
is no mundane salutation which the
writer sends ; see the note on Magn.
15 ἐν τιμῇ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. For the
sense of πλήρωμα see the note on
Ephes. inscr. Other explanations,
such as ‘in the whole body of the
Trallian Church’ (Smith ad Joc.), or
‘in the plenitude of Apostolic power’
(Bunsen .57. p. 139, interpreting it
by what follows), or ‘in the fulness
of Christian good wishes’ (Zahn
I, v. A. Ὁ. 416), seem to be excluded
by the use of the word or by the
grammar of the sentence.

3. ἐν ἀποστολικῷ κ.τ.λ.] ‘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’ (e.g. Vedel. ad

1] TO THE TRALLIANS. 153

I, ᾿Ἀμωμὸν διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ

ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν'

καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ
παρεγένετο θελήματι Θεοῦ καὶ

κτῆσιν g3 sagact sapientia’ A,
κυρίου “I. X. x.7.r. δ.

loc. p. 18, Bunsen B&B”. p. 139, Lipsius
Aecht. p. 56); but this would make
the writer contradict himself, as Zahn
has pointed out (/. v. A. p. 415);
for just below, § 3, he disclaims
giving them orders ὡς ἀπόστολος.
On the other hand see Mart. 7971.
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. “Apuopoy κ-ιτ.λ.] See the eulogy
of the Trallians in Apoll. Tyan. £7.
69 (Philostr. Of. 11. Ὁ. 364, ed. Kay-
ser) εἰς τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμι
προκρῖναι Τραλλιανῶν ὑμῶν οὐ Λυδούς,
οὐκ ᾿Αχαιούς, οὐκ Ἴωνας κ-.τ.λ... νῦν δὲ
μόνον ὑμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καιρὸς ἄνδρας τε

‘ c , c “a « ‘ /
TOUS ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν, ὡς πολὺ κρείτ-.

τους τῶν παρ᾽ ἑτέροις ἀρετῇ καὶ λόγῳ
K.T.A,

ἀδιάκριτον κ. τ. Δ. ‘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

ἐπίσκοπος ὑμῶν, ὃς

\ “ ~ ᾽
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν

7 μοι] GLA; om. g* (Mss, but ins. 1).
8 Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) GL; domini nostri iesu christi A;

θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ

the Trallian Church.

6. οὐ κατὰ χρῆσιν κιτ.λ.] “ποΐ from
habit but by nature’; comp. Ephes.
I ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει...τὸ συγγενικὸν
ἔργον. See also Barnab. 1: οὕτως
ἔμφυτον δωρεᾶς πνευματικῆς χάριν
εἰλήφατε, 70. 9 ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν
τῆς διδαχῆς αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ὑμῖν. For
the opposition of φύσις and χρῆσις
see Plut. Mor. 1115 F, 11164; comp.
the passages in Jahn’s Methodius p.
124. The same contrast is repre-
sented elsewhere as between φύσις
and ἄσκησις (Plut. or. 226 A); be-
tween φύσις and παιδεία (Plut. Vie.
Them. 2); between φύσις and ἔθος
(e.g. Arist. Rez. i. 11, p. 1370, Plut.
Mor. 132 A); between φύσις and
τροφή (Plat. 77m. 20 A, Legg. 961 B) ;
between φύσις and θέσις (Macar.
Magn. iii. 13, iv. 26); etc. This is
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. Strom.
ii. 3 (p. 433). The interpolator has
κτῆσιν, Where φύσιν stands in the
text of the genuine Ignatius, and the
passage of Irenaeus 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, I.
Ρ. 547), ‘temporary occupation’ and
‘absolute possession,’ ‘wsvs’ and
‘mancipium’; comp. Cic. am, vil,

154

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1

at / \ «« , > ΄
μύρνη, καὶ οὕτως μοι συνεχάρη δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ

~ « ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~
᾿Ιησοῦ, ὥστε με TO πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι.
> / Φ \ , ΄σ
ἀποδεξάμενος οὖν τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν εὔνοιαν δι’ αὐτοῦ,
ον ἢ € \ διε τῴν δ \ » ~
ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, μιμητὰς ὄντας Θεοῦ.

/ \ ~ ε
Il. “Ὅταν γὰρ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑποτάσσησθε ws 5

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, φαίνεσθέ μοι οὐ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῶντες,

1 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] LAg;

bonam mentem vestram A.

meum tesum christum A; ἔδοξα Gg".
5 ὡς Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] GLS,A Sev-Syr. 213; ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ
6 κατὰ ἀνθρώπους] secundum homines L; sicut homines

cistis A; om. g.

g]; om. Rup. 779.

ἰησοῦ χριστῷ G.
G; speculer L; vidi A: see the lower note.
4 ἐδόξασα] gloriatus sum L; glorificavt dominum

2 θεωρῆσαι] g3 θεωρῆσθε
3 εὔνοιαν] GL; ὑμῶν εὔνοιαν g;

ws ἔγνων] GL; gquomodo et didi-

Sev-Syr. 214; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον Gg Rup. ; 7 corpore S,A: see the lower note.

29 ‘sum χρήσει μὲν tuus, κτήσει δὲ
Attici nostri: ergo fructus est tuus,
mancipium illius.’ At the same time
the substitution of κτῆσις for φύσις
would refommend itself as getting
rid of a questionable doctrine.

I. συνεχάρη δεδεμένῳ] ‘he re-
joiced with, or perhaps, ‘ congratu-
lated me in my bonds” For ovyxa-
ρῆναι comp. Ephes. 9, Philad. 10,
Smyrn. 11, and see note on Phzlip-
pians ii. 17.

2. ἐν αὐτῷ] i.e. as being the re-
presentative of the whole body. For
this use of the preposition comp.
Magn. 6 ἐν τοῖς mpoyeypappevors προσ-
mos, Ephes. τ ἐν ᾽Ονησίμῳ.

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 Szeph. Thes.
S. V.

3. ἀποδεξάμενος] Apoll. Tyan. 2252.
69 addressing the Trallians says, τίς
οὖν αἰτία, δὲ ἣν ἀποδέχομαι μὲν ὑμᾶς
K.T.A.

κατὰ Θεόν] On this Ignatian phrase
see the note J/agz. 1.

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! “1 gave glory to
God.’ For this absolute use comp.
Polyc. τ ᾿Αποδεχόμενός σου τὴν ἐν
Θεῷ γνώμην.. ὑπερδοξάζω, and see also
Ecclus. xliii. 28 δοξάζοντες ποῦ ἰσχύ-
σωμεν ; The reading ἔδοξα is self-con-
demned, independently of authority.

ὡς ἔγνων] ‘as 1 had been informed,’
referring back to the foregoing
ἔγνων.

μιμητὰς κιτ.λ.] See the note Zphes.
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,

11] TO THE TRALLIANS.

A \ ~ / Ἁ ν᾿ ΄
ἀλλὰ κατὰ ᾿Ϊησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν δι ἡμᾶς ἀποθανόντα

155

ἵνα πιστεύσαντες εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ TO ἀποθανεῖν
ἐκφύγητε. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε, ἄνευ
σ᾿} f \ / ε “ > > ς ,
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν πράσσειν ὑμᾶς: ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθε
καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, ws [τοῖς] ἀποστόλοις “Inco
έ έ

Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ἐν

7 ἡμᾶς] GS,Ag Rup. Sev-Syr. ; vos L.
credentes L; quando creditis S,A Sev-Syr.
ὑποτάσσεσθε] GSA; ὑποτάσσεσθαι L [ Antioch.

11 τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ] GL*g Antioch. ; pres-

10 πράσσειν] (ἃ; πράττειν g.
210] ; the authorities for g* vary.

byteris 51; sacerdotibus A (see below on § 7).

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 κιτ.λ.] Comp.
Magn. 5 ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτως ἔχωμεν τὸ
ἀποθανεῖν κ-τ.λ.

9. ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε] Comp. Zphes.
4, with the note.

ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου
Magn.7 with the note.

11. 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 Smyru. 8;
comp. Magu. 6 τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς
τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων (with
the notes), and below ὃ 3. Con-
versely the Apostles are called πρεσ-
βυτέριον ἐκκλησίας in Philad. 5.

12. ἐν ᾧ k.T.A.] 1.6. ‘if we live in

κιτιλ.] See

τ
εν @

ε' / > > 5
ᾧ διάγοντες [ἐν αὐτῷ]

‘

8 πιστεύσαντες) (ἃ; πιστεύοντες σ΄:
9 ὥσπερ] GLS,A; ὅσαπερ g.

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 ἐν
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 Xom. 4 iva...
εὑρεθήσομαι (not ἵνα... εὑρεθήσωμαιν is
substituted by the interpolator for
iva...yévopa of Ignatius. In 1 Cor.
xiii. 3 the authorities show that the
alternative is between the fut. indic.
ἵνα καυθήσομαι (not ἵνα καυθήσωμαι)
and the conj. aor. ἵνα καυχήσωμαι.

156

εὑρεθησόμεθα.

THE. EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11

ὃ col δὲ \ \ / xf
εἰ O€ καὶ τοὺς διακόνους ὄντας μυστη-

Α la ~ \ / qa
piwy ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον πᾶσιν ἀρέσκειν"

93 \ / ΄σ
οὐ yap βρωμάτων καὶ ποτῶν εἰσιν διάκονοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ-

I εὑρεθησόμεθα] Gg* (mss, but 1 has inveniamur); inveniamur L (=ebpe-
θησώμεθα, if it be not a slip of a Latin scribe). The Oriental Versions are; fa
ut imveniamur guod in ipso (NA ID MA=eodem) vivimus S, (which seems
certainly to have read ἐν αὐτῷ and perhaps εὑρεθησώμεθα); ut inveniatur vita
vestra cum tis 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; diaconos ministros existentes mysteriorum 1, (ministros being supplied to
assist the sense); diaconos gui sunt filii mysterii S,; diaconis gui sunt participes

mysteriorum A.

Antioch.; céborum L; βρωτῶν g.
514.

2 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS,A ; χριστοῦ ἰησοῦ g.
GLS, Antioch. 219; deo et hominibus A; om. g.

οὖν] ΟἿ» Antioch. ; et propierea A; om. 8.

πᾶσιν)
3 βρωμάτων] G
4 vmnpérat] GLg Antioch. ; om.
avrovs} GS,Ag*

(but 1 praccepta corum observare) Antioch. ; vos L (mss, doubtless a scribe’s error

for ¢os).

φυλάσσεσθαι τὰ ἐγκλήματα] G (φυλάσσεσθε, but corrected by a
later hand) 1, Anticch.; rd ἐγκλήματα φυλάττεσθαι g.
Antioch. ; sémiliter et L; δὲ ita 81; δὲ (om. ὁμοίως) A; al. g.

6 Ὁμοίως] G

τοὺς διακόνους...

πατρός] τοὺς διακόνους ὡς ἰησοῦν χριστόν, ὡς καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα υἱὸν τοῦ
πατρός G3; diaconos ut mandatum iesu christi, et episcopum ut iesum 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 (minisiers) of the
mysteries of Fesus Christ? This
assertion is justified by what fol-
lows, ov yap βρωμάτων κιτλ. The
reference here is to the deacons, and
not (as some have supposed) to the
presbyters. See Swmyrn. 10 ὡς δια-
κόνους Θεοῦ [Χριστοῦ], Polyc. Phzl. 5
ὁμοίως διάκονοι ἄμεμπτοι.. ὡς Θεοῦ καὶ
Χριστοῦ διάκονοι καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπων.
Comp. I 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 5.
Paul’s example, 1 Cor. x. 33 καθὼς
κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω.

3. βρωμάτων. «.t.A.] See Rom.
xiv. 17, Col. τῶ τ ΟΣ ἘΠΕ: τὰ τι sia ne
diaconate was originally instituted
διακονεῖν 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.

π] TO THE TRALLIANS. 157

κλησίας Θεοῦ ὑπηρέται" δέον οὖν αὐτοὺς φυλαάσσεσθα:
5 τὰ ἐγκλήματα ὡς πῦρ.

III. Ὁμοίως πάντες ἐντρεπέσθωσαν τοὺς διακόνους

ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, ὡς καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα τύπον

existentem filium patris L; a diaconis sicut a tesu christo et ab episcopo qui est in
Jorma (SDDYOA) patris S, (for δ ΒΘ see the note on Magn. 6); a diaconis sicut
a iesu christo e ab episcopo sicut a patre deo A; αὐτοὺς [i.e. τοὺς διακόνους] ὡς
χριστὸν ἰησοῦν, οὗ φύλακές εἰσιν τοῦ τόπου, ws Kal ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν
ὅλων τύπος ὑπάρχει σ᾽; τοὺς διακόνους ὡς ἰησοῦν χριστὸν καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ws 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 ὡς ἰησοῦν
χριστὸν (g however transposing and reading χριστὸν ἰησοῦν, but dominum 16 5147)2
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 ὡς is somewhat awkward, and the sentence would gain by
its rejection or transposition, καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ws ὄντα τύπον x.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 κ.τ.λ.] It
is 5. Paul’s injunction also, that the
deacons should be ἀνέγκλητοι, 1 Tim.
ili. 10; comp. Polyc. Phz?l. 5, Afost.
Const. li. 10, vill. 18. The reading
αὐτῶν is condemned by the authori-
ties even in the interpolator’s text,
and it interferes with the sense.

III. ‘At 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
representatives 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 dike manner must the
laity pay respect to the deacons.
For this vecifrocation introduced by
ὁμοίως, even where the duty is not
identical, comp. I Pet. iii. 7. The
πάντες here corresponds to the πᾶσιν
of the preceding sentence. As the
deacons have duties fowards all,
so can they claim respect /rom adi.

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 / ς , ΄
τοῦ πατρος, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέδριον Θεοῦ
‘ ς / ᾽ / \ / 3 /
καὶ [ὡς] σύνδεσμον ἀποστόλων" χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία

οὐ καλεῖται.

2 καὶ ws) G Antioch. ; καὶ (om. ὧς) LS,A [g].

\ (ἃ / ΄σ ε΄ » \
περὶ ὧν πέπεισμαι ὑμᾶς οὕτως ἔχειν" TO

σύνδεσμον) conjunctionem

L; δεσμὸν Antioch. ; σύνδεσμος ἃ ; g also has σύνδεσμος, but as a nominative, the

of Christ to the Father; comp. “2092.
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, 70. 30
ὡς γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς
οὐδὲν ποιεῖ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὁ διάκονος ἄνευ
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου κιτιλ., 26. 44 πάντα μὲν
ὁ διάκονος τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀναφερέτω, ὡς
ὁ Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί κιτιλ. See also
the note on Magn. 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 ὡς ἐντολὴν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and τοὺς διακόνους
ὡς Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. The former of
these was probably in the first in-
stance a marginal illustration taken
from another passage, S7yrn. ὃ τοὺς
δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ws Θεοῦ ἐν-
τολήν, or an emendation suggested
by this parallel. It would then dis-
place the original reading os Ἰησοῦν
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 Tov ἐπίσκοπον x.t.A.| The
sentence would be rendered much
smoother, if ὡς were transposed and
placed before ὄντα τύπον. 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 analogy 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 κιτ.λ. ‘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 (AZagz. 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 Tov 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 os, 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 Magu. 6 συνέδριον
τῶν ἀποστόλων, 2b. 13 στεφάνου τοῦ
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 iil. 14. It occurs with

TO THE TRALLIANS.

159

Α γ΄ ~ “ ΄ ᾽ ᾽
γὰρ ἐξεμπλάριον τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν ἔλαβον καὶ ἔχω

~ ae ah ΄ “- 4 >
5 μεθ᾽’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑμῶν, οὗ αὐτὸ TO KaTa-

/ / ε \ ΄ > ~ ,
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,
Mig 205; [ΘΙ ΣΙ. ὁ.

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 mpeo-
βυτέρους x.r.A. 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 (Rov. 5).

2. χωρὶς τούτων k.t.A.] i.e. ‘ 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 οὐ καλεῖται, ‘is not
spoken of’, ‘is not recognised’, as
in Heb. iii. 13 ἄχρις οὗ TO σήμερον
καλεῖται ; comp. Polyc. 7 ὃς δυνήσεται

Ocodpopos 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. ἐξεμπλάριον] 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. Pearson
explains ὃ 13 ἡ ἀγάπη Σμυρναίων and
Smyrn. 12 ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφῶν (comp.
Philad. 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 affection for the
martyr.

5. ἑαυτοῦ] For ἐμαυτοῦ ; see Winer
Gramm. xxii. p. 188.

κατάστημα) ‘demeanour’; 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. iil. 80 τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς
κατάστημα) ; and hence καταστηματι-
kos signifies ‘of calm demeanour,’
as in Plut. Vit. 77d. Gracch. 2 ἰδέᾳ
προσώπου καὶ βλέμματι καὶ κινήματι
πρᾶος καὶ καταστηματικὸς ἦν. See
Wetstein on Tit. ii. 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] I Pet. iii. 1
ἵνα...διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς
ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται. See also the
language which Ignatius uses respect-
ing Onesimus of Ephesus (£/fes. 6)
and Damas of Magnesia (J/ag. 3).

160 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [ru
ὃν λογίζομαι καὶ τοὺς ἀθέους ἐντρέπεσθαι. ἀγαπῶν

ς i « / / / /
ὑμᾶς οὕτως φείδομαι, συντονώτερον δυνάμενος γράφειν

ε \ ,
UTED TOUTOU*

5 c \ © \ > ~
[ ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἱκανον ἑαυτὸν] εἰς τοῦτο

a7 e/ ’ / ε > / i ͵
ῴηθην, ἰἐ νὰ ὧν κατάκριτος ως αποστολος υμιν διατάσ-

σωμαι.

1 ὃν] GLg*. There is a plural in A, which probably therefore read ὧν. This is a
possible reading, but ἐντρέπεσθαι elsewhere in Ignatius takes an accus. (see the note
on Magn. 6).
δυνάμενος γράφειν ὑπὲρ τούτου els τοῦτο φήθην K.T.r. (ἃ; diligentes quod non parco
ipsum aligualem potens scribere pro illo, in hoc existimer ut etc. L; etiam guoniam
amo vos, parco vobis scribere vehementer et glorificare ; sed et non sum sufficiens sicut
apostolus praecipere vobis, guoniam vir aliguis condemnatus sum A; ἀγαπῶν ὑμᾶς
φείδομαι συντονώτερον ἐπιστεῖλαι, ἵνα μὴ δόξω τισὶν εἶναι προσάντης ἢ ἐπιδεής K.T.A. σ΄.
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. (2) The coincidence of the same authorities shows that ἀγαπῶν is correct, and
that the corruption is in -ras ὡς ov. Having regard to the sense as given in Ag,

ἀγαπῶν ... φήθην K.T.r.] ἀγαπῶντας ws οὐ φείδομαι ἑαυτὸν πότερον

I. τοὺς ἀθέους] i.e. ‘the heathen,
who were ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, Eph. il.
72, See also: Clem. Hom: xv. 4,
Clem. Al. Protr. 4 (p. 52), P@d. ili. 11
(p. 300). Origen (c. Ceds. i. 1, iii. 73)
speaks of ἡ ἄθεος πολυθεότης ; 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. zd. 3),
where the cry against Polycarp is
αἶρε τοὺς ἀθέους, which he himself,
looking eis πάντα τὸν ὄχλον τῶν ἐν τῷ
σταδίῳ ἀνόμων ἐθνῶν, catches up and
repeats. See also Justin “4120. i. 6
(p. 56), 26. 13 (p. 60), Athenag. Suppl.
3, 4, 30, Clem. Alex. S7rem.. vu. ὁ
(p. 828 .sq.), Tertull. Aff τὸ sq.
Below, ὃ 10, the epithet ἄθεοι seems
to be applied to the Docetic teachers
(see the note there).

2. συντονώτερον] ‘more urgently’;
comp. Polyc. 7 ὑμῶν τὸ -ovvTorey τῆς

ἀληθείας. This emendation is mych
less violent than it seems at first
sight, CYNTON@TEPON for εἀὐτὸ TIO-
TEPON (see the note on ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ x.7.d.
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᾽ οὐχ «.7.A.] The state of the
text in the immediate neighbourhood
(e.g. at the beginning of this chapter ;
see also ὃ 4 of yap λέγοντες κιτ.λ., and
§ 6 οἱ καὶ ἰῷ x.t.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 ἐμαυ-
τὸν) here, because it better explains
the corruption of συντονώτερον just

1ν7}

TO THE TRALLIANS.

161

a 5 \ τι
IV. Πολλὰ φρονώ ἐν Θεῷ’ ἀλλ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν μετρώ,
a / ~ 7
ἵνα μὴ ἐν καυχήσει ἀπόλωμαι' νῦν yap με δεῖ πλέον
φοβεῖσθαι καὶ μὴ προσέχειν τοῖς φυσιοῦσίν με" οἱ γὰρ

/ a ~ /
λέγοντές MOL μαστιγουσὶν με.

~ A \ \
ἀγαπώ 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 els 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. 4 διατάσσωμαι] praecipiam
L; διατάσσομαι Gg (but in the latter the form of the sentence is altered, οὐχ ὡς
ἀπόστολος Siatdoooua). 6 Πολλὰ φρονῶ ἐν Θεῷ] GLE; 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 με δεῖ πλέον] G3 me ofortet plus L* (but
oportet me plus Ly); πλεῖόν pe Set [g] (but quoted by Max. 638 πλέον με δεῖ).

8 μὴ] GLZAg (but om. Max. Dam. 522). ol yap λέγοντές μοι
μαστιγοῦσίν we] GL; οἱ γάρ με ἐπαινοῦντες μαστιγοῦσιν g (but Max. Dam. quote
it ἐπαινοῦντες yap με μαστιγοῦσι[ν]) ; li enim qui dicunt mihi talia flagellant me = ;

def. A: see the lower note.

before. For the construction of ἵνα
comp. Luke i. 43 πόθεν pot τοῦτο ἵνα
ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ κιτιλ.,. I Cor. iv. 3 εἰς
ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν ἵνα ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀνακριθῶ,
1 Joh. iv. 17.

4. ὧν κατάκριτος k.t.A.] His posi-
tion as a condemned 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 Lphes. 3 ov
διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν ὡς ὧν τι (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
then I have every need of a gentle

IGN,

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-
μαι K.T.A.

ἐμαυτὸν μετρῶ] “7 take the measure
of myself’, ‘1 do not exceed my
proper bounds’; a reminiscence of
S. Paul, 2 Cor. x. 12, 13, ev ἑαυτοῖς
ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες... ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ εἰς
τὰ ἄμετρα καυχησόμεθα.

7. πλέον φοβεῖσθαι] So Philad. §
δεδεμένος φοβοῦμαι μᾶλλον, ws ὧν
ἀναπάρτιστος.

8. οἱ γὰρ λέγοντές μοι] This can
hardly be correct as it stands, and
probably some words have fallen
out: see the note, § 4 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ κιτιλ.,
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
him such as μάρτυς ἔσῃ (Smith ad
foc., Uhlhorn p. 23, Zahn 1. v. A. pp.

162

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[τν

παθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα εἰ ἀξιός εἰμι’ τὸ γὰρ ζῆλος

πολλοῖς μὲν οὐ φαίνεται, ἐμὲ δὲ [πλέον] πολεμεῖ. χρήζω

Ss f ᾽ ἢ" ς xf ΄- IF
ουν πραοτῆτος, εν ῆ καταλνεται O apXwv TOU Alwyos

,
TOUT OU,

1 τὸ] Gg (but the latter with a v. 1. 6).
It was perhaps interpolated from πλέον φοβεῖσθαι above.
Gg Dam. 650; mpairnros Anton. 147.

dub, ZA.

2 twréov] GL; om. ZAg.
3 mpadryros]
ἐν 7] GLg Anton.; ἐν ᾧ Dam.;

4 τούτου] txt GLZA; add. ὁ διάβολος g3 add. διάβολος Dam.

Anton, (but these writers are prob. quoting the interpolator’s text, not the genuine

Tgnatius).

6 νηπίοις οὖσιν] GLg; om. ZA.

παραθῶ] G; παραθῶμαι g.

5 Μὴ ov] (ἃ; nonne Ls μὴ γὰρ οὐκ g; om. ZA, δύ-
ναμα] ΑἸἿΣΑ ; ἐβουλόμην [g] (but 1 has Zoteram).

ὑμῖν] LZA[g]; om. G.
T-avyY-

νωμονεῖτε] G3 σύγγνωτε g. The converse change is made in Rom. 6,

416, 572 sq.); but there is no adequate
reason for the suppression. With
more probability Bunsen (&” p. 121)
supposes that the word paprus 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.
H.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. Smyrn. 5 τί yap [pe]
ὠφελεῖ, εἰ ἐμὲ ἐπαινεῖ tis, with the
note.

I. τὸ yap ζῆλος «7.A.] 1.6. ‘the
jealous opposition of Satan, who
attempts to rob me of the crown of
martyrdom’; comp. Rov. 5 μηθέν pe

ᾧλώσαι 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 theseare
the only places in Ignatius where
ζῆλος, 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 Joc., 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 p. 101;
but I do not see how the connexion
involved in yap can be explained on
this hypothesis.

2. πολλοῖς μὲν οὐ 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-
pecially to those Roman Christians
who were desirous of obtaining a

v] TO THE TRALLIANS.

163

\ a
V. My οὐ δύναμαι ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι;

“ἀλλὰ φοβοῦμαι μὴ νηπίοις οὖσιν ὑμῖν βλάβην παραθώ.
“καὶ συγγνωμονεῖτέ μοι, μήποτε οὐ δυνηθέντες χωρῆσαι

στραγγαλωθῆτε.

\ \ ᾽ , " / , \
καὶ yap ἐγώ, ov καθότι δέδεμαι Kai

μήποτε] ΟΙ,; μὴ σ᾽; cautus enim sum ne forte X; et caveo [A] (omitting the

remaining words of the sentence).

device to ease the awkwardness of the negatives.
strangulemini L; implicemini 23 στράγγαλον θῆτε G3 def. A.

The insertion in 2 is probably a translator’s

8 στραγγαλωθῆτε) g;
ἐγώ] txt

GLS,2Ag; add. λέγω (Ὁ) Sev-Syr. 217 (but om. in Land Amecd. 1. 32): see Zahn

fv. A. p. 180, Jen. & Fol. Ep. p. 355.

καθότι] The rendering of 1,

secundum quodcumgue seems to represent καθ᾽ 8 τι, not καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν, as Zahn sup-

poses.

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 οὐδεν. Itisa
_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.] Lphes. 13
καθαιροῦνται ai δυνάμεις τοῦ Σατανᾶ καὶ
λύεται ὁ GAcOpos αὐτοῦ ; Comp, John
xii. 31, xvi. 11, 1 Joh. iil. 8,

kal] GS,ZAg Sev-Syr. 217 (but om. Land 4.c.); sed L.

ὁ ἄρχων κιτ.λ.] See the note on
Ephes. 17.

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 x.t.A.] Suggested
by 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2, οὐκ ἠδυνήθην 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] ‘dear with
me’, i.e. ‘when I refuse to give you
this strong meat’: comp. Rov. 6
σύγγνωτέ pot. On the form ovyyve-
μονεῖν see Lobeck PAryn. p. 382.

χωρῆσαι] ‘fo take tt in,
word is used transitively
Smyrn. 6.

8. στραγγαλωθῆτε] ‘be choked’.
The word occurs Tobit ii. 3. Other
forms are otpayya\aw, στραγγαλίζω.
For the metaphor see Hieron, ἐδ,
84 (I. p. 525) ‘ne parvuli atque lacten-

11-

The
again

164

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

, ~ \ / \ \ ΨΥ, ‘
δύναμαι νοεῖν Ta ἐπουράνια καὶ τὰς τοποθεσίας Tas

\ \ \ , \ > / ’
ἀγγελικας καὶ Tas συστάσεις Tas ἀρχοντικας, ὁρατὰ

1 δύναμαι νοεῖν] gS, ZA Sev-Syr. 217 (and Land 1. 4); δυνάμενος (om. νοεῖν)

GL* (not fotens scire, as it is commonly read).
excludes the supposition that νοεῖν is a gloss: see the lower note. '
GLS,[A][g] Sev-Syr. 227; om. Sev-Syr. (Land).

δὴ) Lg Sev-Syr. 217 (and Land 4.¢.); om. S,ZA.

The consensus of authorities
2 καὶ]
3 769] G (written εἴ
μαθητής εἰμὴ GLE

(discipulus sum mihi) A g Sev-Syr. 217 (and Land 1.4}; discipuli estis φεΐλὲ
S, (doubtless an error of transcription in the Syriac, ᾿ 5") for NN).
4 ἡμῖν] GS, Sev-Syr. 217; vobis L (the Mss, but doubtless a scribe’s error for

nobis); μοι [g].

tes solidioris cibi edulio suffocemur ’,
Op. Imperf. in Matt. Hom. xxxviii
(Chrysost. Of. 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 sapientize
volueris dicere, angustam habens
fidem et sensum magis scandalizatur
quam eedificatur’ (comp. xlix, zd. p.
ccv), passages quoted by Pearson
(V. J. p. 517, and ad Joc.).

ov καθότι δέδεμαι] Comp. Zphes.
3 εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι,
οὔπω ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ"
νῦν γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἔχω τοῦ μαθητεύεσθαι.
On the manner in which Ignatius
regards his bonds, see the note
there.

1. ᾿ δύναμαι νοεῖν] ‘am competent
to understand.’ For this expression
comp. Hermas Sz. ix. 9, 143 50
Ephes. iii. 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; AYNAMENO for AYNAMENOC
(δύναμαι being written δύναμε).

tas τοποθεσίας k.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.

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 Ov ἑνὸς
σωζόμενοί τε καὶ σώζοντες διατετάχα-
ται. For τοποθεσία ‘a topographical
description’ see Cic. ad Alt. i. 13, 16.
Just such a τοποθεσία of the celestial
hierarchy is given in the Zest. Duod.
Patr, Levi 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 inci-

‘dental language of S. Paul: e.g.

Ephes. i. 20, 21 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς
καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως Kal κυριότητος
καὶπαντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου
κιτιλ., Col. i. 16 τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ
εἴτε ἐξουσίαι, and the condemnation
of θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων Col. ii. 18.
On this whole subject see the notes
Colossians i. 16, 11. 18; and to the
references there given add Papias
(Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 14), Hermas
Vis. iii. 4, and (for Jewish angelology)
the passages given in Gfrorer Fahrh.
des Heils 1, p. 357 54.,), Eisenmenger
Entd. Fudenth. 11. Ὁ. 374. See also
the discussion about angels in Orig.
c. Cels. vi. 30 56:7 especially c. 40,
where Celsus brings this charge
against the Christians, ἑωρακέναι mapa

ν] TO THE TRALLIANS,

165

‘4 9. ᾿ ~ I> \ , >
TE καὶ ἀόρατα, Tapa τοῦτο ἤδη Kat μαθητής εἰμι'
-~ , J ~
πολλὰ yap ἡμῖν λείπει, ἵνα Θεοῦ μὴ λειπώμεθα.

ΎΙ,

λειπώμεθα] GLS, Sev-Syr.; ἀπολειφθῷῶ [ρ].

“- » C218 ᾽ 3 \ > > ε ᾽ ,
IlapaxaXw οὖν ὑμᾶς, οὐκ ἔγω ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἀγάπη

The whole sentence πολλὰ...

λειπώμεθα is thus translated in the Oriental Versions; mudtum enim deficimus
ne a deo destituamur S,; multum enim deficiens sum a perfectione quae digna
est deo Σ; sed quod valde deficiens sum a similitudine dei A. Thus ZA seem
to give loose paraphrases of the original Syriac rendering, which is preserved
in S,. ,After this sentence = has estote incolumes perfecte in patientia iesu christé
dei nostri, which forms the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans (see on Rom,

10).

τισι πρεσβυτέροις τῆς ἡμετέρας δύξης
τυγχάνουσι βιβλία βάρβαρα δαιμόνων
ὀνόματα ἔχοντα καὶ τερατείας. For the
passage here comp. Smyrn. 6 τὰ
ἐπουράνια καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ οἱ
ἄρχοντες oparoi τε καὶ ἀόρατοι.

2. τὰς συστάσεις κιτ.λ.] ‘the as-
semblages, musterings, of the hea-
venly rulers’; comp. ἐθνικαὶ συστά-
ges, Polyb. xxiv. I. 3, xxx. 10. 6.
The ἄρχοντες here, like the ἀρχαί in
S. Paul, are angelic beings: comp.
Justin Dial. 36 (p. 255) of ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς ταχθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ apxov-
res (quoted by Jacobson on Smyra.
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 celes-
tial hierarchy. Jacobson would
translate συστάσεις ‘the conflicts’,
comparing Lphes. 13 πόλεμος ἐπουρα-
νίων καὶ ἐπιγείων, but such an idea
seems to be quite inappropriate to
this context. The word occurs again
Rom. 5.

ὁρατά τε καὶ ἀόρατα] The know-
ledge previously mentioned (τὰ ἐπου-
pama) 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

5 ἡ ἀγάπη) GLS,Ag; ἡ

χάρις Rup. 772.

of cognisance. So again in Smyrn.
6 (see the note). For ὁρατὰ καὶ ἀόρατα
see also Rom. 5.

3. παρὰ τοῦτο] ‘on this account’:
see Rom. 5 (with the note).

μαθητής εἰμι) See the notes on
Ephes. 1, 3.

4. πολλὰ yap κ.τ.λ.} i.e. Swe 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 V7s. iii.
I got δὲ πολλὰ λείπει ἵνα κιτιλ.; and
for the characteristic Ignatian play
on λείπει, λειπώμεθα, see the note on
Smyrn. 5 μᾶλλον δὲ x.7.A.

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 x.t.A.] 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, μόνη τῇ Χριστιανῆ πτροφῆ χρῆσθε,
᾽ , \ / ‘ 4 / wy ᾽ \ .«
ἀλλοτρίας δὲ βοτάνης ἀπέχεσθε, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἵρεσις"

1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS,g; τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. X. A Rup.

χριστιανῇ] GL3

χριστιανικῇ Rup.; christianismi A; gratiarum actionis (εὐχαριστικῇ ἢ) 8.11 al. g.
χρῆσθε.. ἀπέχεσθε] LSA; χρῆσθαι... ἀπέχεσθαι ἃ Rup. ; al. g: see the lower note.
3 of καὶ ἰῷ παρεμπλέκουσιν)] of καιροὶ παρεμπλέκουσιν ἃ ; Kai παρεμπλέκουσιν
Rup.; guae et inguinatis implicat Τ,; καὶ τὸν ἰὸν προσπλέκοντες τῆς πλάνης τῇ
γλυκείᾳ προσηγορίᾳ g. The renderings of the passage in the Oriental Versions
are: eorum gui commiscent semetipsos in (cum) jesu christo S,3 jam commuscent
semetipsos cunt 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

I. τροφῇ] Comp. Rom. 7 οὐχ ἥδο-
μαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς.

χρῆσθε] The imperatives, besides
being better supported than the in-
finitives, are more in the manner of
Ignatius, who prefers this mood with
παρακαλεῖν ; see below ὃ 12 παρακαλεῖ
«οὐδιαμένετε, Rom. 4 παρακαλῷώ ὑμᾶς,
μὴ...γένησθε, Phtlad. 8 παρακαλώ δὲ
ὑμᾶς, μηδὲν πράσσετε (where the infi-
nitive πράσσειν has been substituted
in some copies). So too παραινῶ
with an imperative in M/agn. 6. The
exception is Polyc. I 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. iii. 9
(p. 541).

3. ot καὶ ἰῷ] This emendation
involves avery simple change, Kallol
for Kaipol, For the construction ot
(i.e. of αἱρετικοί understood from the
preceding αἵρεσις) comp. e.g. Thucyd.
vi. 80 ἀπὸ Πελοποννήσου παρεσομένης
ὠφελείας, of τῶνδε κρείσσους εἰσὶ τὸ
παράπαν, and see Kihner ὃ 356, I1.

p. 49sq., Matthiz ὃ 435. For the
metaphor of ἰός, as used here, comp.
Hermas Szm. ix. 26, Clem. Hom.
x. 14. Sééalso €/a ΣΤΟΥΣ ams 55
οὐχ ἑρπετῶν ὁ ἰὸς εἰργάζετο, οὐ τῶν
κακῶν βοτανῶν ai ἐνέργειαι, for the
same connexion of words as here.
Zahn refers to Iren. i. 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 apostasize serpentis
venenum porrigentes eis.’
παρεμπλέκουσιν] ‘infuse’. An ob-
jection has been raised to such an
emendation as the one adopted on
the ground that it ‘vitio incongruze
metaphor 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.
vi. 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 arms against a sea
of troubles’. But usage entirely jus-
tifies the combination. It appears

vi] TO THE TRALLIANS.

167

A 4 »“- ’ > ~ ,

οἱ καὶ ἰῷ παρεμπλεκουσιν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, καταξιο-
Υ͂ J ,

πιστευόμενοι, ὥσπερ θανάσιμον φάρμακον διδόντες μετὰ

read of καὶ ῥυπαρ᾽ ἐμπλέκουσιν ; comp. Lphcs. 16, where ῥυπαρὸς is rendered
inquinatus (the only passage where the word occurs in Ignatius). The paraphrase
of g points to the true reading. Voss first suggested of καὶ lots, which some
later editors have accepted. I have substituted /@ for dots, 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)] Rup. (see the note on
Ephes. 16 κακοδιδασκαλίᾳ) ; κατ᾽ ἀξίαν πιστευόμενοι G; om. L (perhaps because
the translator could make nothing of the unusual word); wt simplices credere
faciant A; tta ut credatur-tis (credantur) S,; al. g. The renderings of AS, are

‘paraphrases of καταξιοπιστευόμενοι.

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 of 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
ἔχειν. The more common words
however in this sense in medical
writers are the single compounds,
παραπλέκειν, παραπλοκή; 6.5. Galen
Op. Χιν. p. 168 (ed. Kiihn) ἱερᾶς Bo-
τάνης μικρύν τι παραπλέκων, 20. p. 367
δέονται τῆς τῶν στυφύντων παραπλοκῆς
οὐὐπαραπλέκειν τι τῶν στυφόντων, 70.
Ῥ. 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-
ματι. See also Macar. Magn. iil. 37
(p. 133) συμπλέξαντες.. «ἵν᾽ ἡ συμπλοκὴ
τοῦ διαβεβλημένου φαρμάκου δοθεῖσα
κιτιλ.; COMP. 20. ἵν. 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-
kew occurs in other connexions in

Clem. Hom. vi.19 and zd. Ep. Clem. 5.

καταξιοπιστευόμενοι] ‘zmiposing by
their professions of honesty’ ; comp.
Polyb. xii. 17. I ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν τῶν
τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν καταξιοπιστεύεσθαι,
μνησθησόμεθα μιᾶς παρατάξεως x.t.d.
For the bad sense of ἀξιόπιστος, ‘spe-
cious, plausible’, and so ‘an impostor,’
see the parallel passage Philad. 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 ii. 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. Vzé. 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-
γυρεύεσθαι, etc. There can be no
doubt about the reading here, though

168

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi

> ἤ « e ? ~ ? ~ / ? e ~
οἰνομέλιτος, ὅπερ ὁ ἀγνοῶν ἀδεῶς λαμβάνει ἐν ἡδονῇ

~ A ς΄.
κακῇ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν.

VIL.

’ ἐκ A ,
Φυλάττεσθε οὖν τοὺς τοιούτους.

τοῦτο δὲ

᾽ | a / » > ΄σ
ἔσται ὑμῖν μὴ φυσιουμένοις καὶ οὖσιν ἀχωρίστοις [Θεοῦ]

1 ὅπερ...τὸ ἀποθανεῖν] see the lower note; ὅπερ 6 ἀγνοῶν ἡδέως λαμβάνει ἐν
ἡδονῇ" κακεῖ (so written and punctuated) τὸ ἀποθανεῖν G3 ὅπερ ὁ ἀγνοῶν ἡδέως λαμ-
βάνει, ἐν ἡδονῇ κακῇ τὸ ἀποθάνειν Rup. ; guod gui ignorat delectabiliter accipit et in
delectatione mala mori 1, (where οὐ is added to help out what seemed to be a
defective construction) ; fa ut is gui non novit in voluptate mortem accipiat Sy ;

ut ti quos non cognoscunt cum voluptate mortem accipiant A.
ovrous] Rup. [g] (but in g the verb is ἀσφαλίζεσθε) ; τοῖς τοιούτοις G,

it depends solely on the quotation in
the Parall. Rupef.

I. οἰνομέλιτος] ‘wine 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 ideain the
text comp. Theoph. ad Aufol. ii. 12
καθάπερ φάρμακόν τι δηλητήριον συγ-
κραθὲν μέλιτι ἢ οἴνῳ ἢ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ τὸ πᾶν
ποιεῖ βλαβερὸν k.t.A., A 20n. adv. Mare.
1. 85 (Tertull. Of. 11. p. 783, Oehler)
‘dulcique cruentum circumfert mi-
seris mixtum cum melle venenum’,
Lactant. D. J. v. 1 fincautos animos
facile irretire possunt suavitate ser-
monis...mella sunt hec venenum
tegentia...circumlinatur modo pocu-
lum czlesti melle sapientiz’, Ephrem
Syrus Of. 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. 7707. Ὁ. 13 Ὁ
ἰατροὶ τὰ πικρὰ τῶν φαρμάκων τοῖς
γλυκέσι χυμοῖς καταμιγνύντες τὴν τέρ-
Ww ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον πάροδον εὗρον,
Julian Cesar. p. 314 οὐκ οἶσθα, ὦ
Πρόβε, ὅτι τὰ πικρὰ φάρμακα μιγνύντες

3 τοὺς τοι-

4 Θεοῦ]

οἱ ἰατροὶ τῷ μελικράτῳ προσφέρουσι;
ἀδεῶς] ‘without apprehension’, as
e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 477 ἀδεῶς καὶ ἀνυ-
πόπτως. I venture on this conjecture,
which is suggested by the interpola-
tor’s paraphrase iva 6 πίνων, τῇ γλυκυ-
τάτῃ κλαπεὶς ποιότητι THY 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 τὸ
ἀποθανεῖν is tempting; but the paral-
lel passage Philad. 2 (quoted above
on καταξιοπιστευόμενοι) is decisive in
favour of κακῇ (rather than κἀκεῖ), and
this is also supported by the great
preponderance of authorities.

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-
rection was required in the MS,
Magn. © ἐντρέπεσθε ἀλλήλοις.

vit] TO THE TRALLIANS. 169

3 ~ ΄' 4 ΄ ’ ~~
5 ᾿]Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Tov ἐπισκόπου καὶ τῶν διαταγμάτων
΄σ / > ,
τῶν ἀποστόλων. ὁ ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὧν καθαρός ἐστιν,
\ \ , ᾿ -
ὁ δὲ ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου wy οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν: τουτέσ-

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 οἱ μακάριοι διετάξαντο ἀπόστολοι. See
the lower note. 7 ὁ δὲ...ὧν ov καθαρός ἐστιν] gui vero extra altare est
non mundus est LL; om. G (doubtless owing to homeeoteleuton). The clause is
recognised in g, where the sentence is abridged ὁ δὲ ἐκτὸς ὧν οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χωρὶς
k.T.X. For the whole sentence ὁ δὲ ἐκτός... τουτέστιν A has merely ef: 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,

4. μὴ pvovovpevois] Comp. Magn.
12 οἶδα ὅτι ov 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 Lphes. inscr. rod Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
Hence the awkwardness of the ex-
pression is at once apparent. For
other doubtful cases see Smyrn. 6,
10, 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 εἰς τιμὴν πατρός, ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, καὶ τῶν ἀποστολῶν, Philad. 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
organization 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-τιλ., Fragm.
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
Irenzeus iii. 3. 4 says of Polycarp
ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς 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 κ.τ.λ.] For
the meaning of θυσιαστήριον, ‘the
place of sacrifice’, ‘the court of the
altar’, and for the application here,
see the note on λές. 5. It sym-
bolizes the congregation lawfully
gathered together under its duly ap-
pointed officers,

170

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[vir

4 \ / \ \ , /
τιν, ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτερίον καὶ διακόνων
- / a ,
πράσσων TL, οὗτος οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν TH συνειδήσει.
‘

VIII.

1 ἐπισκόπου] G3 τοῦ ἐπισκόπου g.

9 9 \ «ἢ “ / 5) 4 ἔσκε 4 \
Οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τοιοῦτον τι ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀλλα

πρεσβυτερίου] GL*; τῶν πρεσβυ-

τέρων σ' ; 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 Tt] GL; τι πράσσων g.

4 προορῶν] πρὸ ὁρῶν G. 5 τὴν]

written above the line, though Arima manu, in G. Hence it is omitted by many

editors.

I. ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου k.t.A.] See
the note on Magn. 7.

διακόνων] This alteration is neces-
sary with mpeoBurepiov, 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. καθαρός x.r.A.| Comp. I Tim.

iii. 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.
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] ‘Lf keep watch
over you in good time’,as Smyrin. 4
προφυλάσσω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων

Give no opportunity to the’

6 ἀνακτήσασθε] Cotelier; ἀνακτίσασθε G (which similarly in

τῶν ἀνθρωπομόρφων: comp. Magn.
11. In Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 14 it is used
of the watch-dog, who is represented
as saying to the sheep ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Kat
ὑμᾶς αὐτὰς σώζων wore μήτε ὑπ᾽
ἀνθρώπων κλεπτέσθαι μήτε ὑπὸ λύκων
ἁρπάζεσθαι, ἐπεὶ ὑμεῖς γε, εἰ μὴ ἐγὼ
προφυλάττοιμι ὑμᾶς, ovd 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. Phd/lad. 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. Phzlad. 6.

5. πραὔϊπάθειαν] 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 (mpaorabeiv) occurs Philo de Prof.
I (I. p. 547), and the substantive
πραὔπάθεια ib. de Abr. 37 (IL. p. 31).

6. ἀναλαβόντες] ‘taking up’, i.e.

-*as your proper arms of defence’;

comp. e.g. Eph. vi. 13, 16, dvadaBere
A ’ > , ‘ ,
τὴν πανοπλίαν, ἀναλαβόντες τὸν θυρεόν.
ἀνακτήσασθε)] ‘recover, refresh’.
This is doubtless the right reading.
The phrase ἀνακτᾶσθαι ἑαυτὸν is com-

vit].

TO THE TRALLIANS.

171

: / δων <a) of 7 ΄-
προφυλασσω ὑμάς ὄντας μον ἀγαπητούς, προορῶν τὰς

5 ἐνέδρας τοῦ διαβόλου.

ε ~ > \ - /
ὑμεῖς οὖν THY πραὔπαθειαν

4 , F ᾽ / ε \ > 7 ΓΦ δ
ἀναλαβόντες ἀνακτήσασθε εαὐυτοὺυς EV ΖΠΙΟσΤΕΙ., O EOTIV

7 lo 7 ee > / ΟΣ ν.} πῇ > -
σαρξ τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπη, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ

' Philad. 6 writes κτίσωνται for κτήσωνται) ; recreate Τ, : reguiescere-facite S,A: see

the lower note.

0] guod L; ὅς G3 guae (or guod) S,; al Ag. The whole clause

runs in S,, i fide quae (quod) est in spe (NVADIA) et in convivio (jucunditate
NDIA) sanguinis jesu christi (where ἀγάπη is taken in the sense of a love-feast,
comp. Smyrn. 8); in A, fide et spe et caena sanguinis christi (where, as Petermann
foresaw, there is a confusion of the Syriac NDI caro and NAD 526).

mon; e.g. Epict. Diss. iii. 25. 4, Jos.
Ant. ix. 6. 4, Dion. Chrys. O7. 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
«.t.A.). The metaphor in both éva-
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. 6 ἐστιν σάρξ κ-τ.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. Ped.
i. 6 (p. 121) βρῶμα δὲ ἡ πίστις εἰς
θεμέλιον τῆς κατηχήσεως συνεστραμμένη,
7 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 (/. v. A. p. 349 sq.)
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
σάρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ...καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ
αἷμα αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος (with
the note). In Philad. § προσφυγὼν
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Inoov, we have
a different application of the eucha-
ristic metaphor. See also the notes
on E£phes. 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. 1.

172

Χριστοῦ.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

(viii

\ € ~ \ ΄σ / ᾽ ’ Ἁ
μηδεὶς ὑμῶν κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον ἐχέτω" MH

ἀφορμὰς δίδοτε τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἵνα μὴ Ot ὀλίγους
ἄφρονας τὸ ἔνθεον πλῆθος βλασφημῆται: ΟΥδὶ γὰρ

ΟΝ ἐπ Mand) OT KT
BAACQDHMEITAIL.

1 πλησίον] g Dam. 702.

TO ONOMA MOY ἐπί

ΤΙΝΩΝ

This is also the reading of G, though several edd.

print πλησίου, which appears also in the Casanatensian copy. ἐχ-
érw] txt G; add. τι here, Dam. 702; add. τι after ὑμῶν g; add. aliguid (before

habeat) L; add. stmultatem A.

3 τὸ &évOeov] Dam.; τὸ ἐν θεῷ G3 quae

in deo L (but in ὃ το ἄθεοι is translated sive 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. v. 23, Mark xi. 25; ἔχειν κατά
τινος, ὅτι κιτιλ. Apoc. 11. 4, 20. Zahn
refers to Hermas Mand. ii ἕξεις κατὰ
τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, Sz. ix. 23 of kat’ ἀλλή-
λων ἔχοντες (comp. V7s. iii. 6), for the
omission of the accusative here.
Comp. also 2 Cor. v. 12 ἔχειν πρός
twa, ‘to be able to answer another’.
The upper note shows how τι is
supplied differently in different texts.

μὴ ἀφορμὰς κ-τ.λ.} 1 Tim. v. 14
μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικει-
μένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν.

3. Οὐαὶ γὰρ x.7.A.] A loose quo-
tation from Is. 111. 5 θαυμάζετε καὶ
ὀλολύζετε" τάδε λέγει ὁ Κύριος, At ὑμᾶς
διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται
ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, a passage which is
likewise quoted indirectly by S. Paul
Rom, 11.124; comp: ft Tim.wi.a, Tit.
ii.5. See also Ezek. xxxvi. 23. None
of these other passages however ac-
count for the departure of the Igna-
tian quotation from the Lxx of Isaiah:
nor is it explained by the original
Hebrew. The interpolator brings
it somewhat nearer to the LXX; Οὐαὶ
yap, φησὶν ὃ προφήτης ws ἐκ προσώπου
τοῦ Θεοῦ, δι’ οὗ τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφη-
μεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, but the chief
peculiarity Οὐαὶ...δὲ οὗ remains. As
the Armenian Version omits the whole

βλασφημῆται] βλασφημεῖται G.

clause Οὐαὶ γὰρ...ἐπί τινων βλασφη-
μεῖται, 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. to ‘Vz autem [111] per quem
nomen Domini blasphematur’, and
twice in the Afost. Const. i. 10, 111. 5,
Οὐαὶ yap, φησι, δι’ οὗ τὸ ὄνομά pov
βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (but with-
out the Οὐαὶ in a third passage, ν]].
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 homeoteleu-
ton βλασφημῆται, βλασφημεῖται. There
is no trace of the Ovai in the Hexa-
plaric Versions; and Justin (Déa/. 17,
p. 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.r.A.,
as here, see Cotelier on A fost. Const.
i. 10. In [Clem. Rom.] ii. 13 we have
apparently this same passage quoted
in two forms (see the note there).

IX. ‘ Therefore stop your ears,.
when any man would deny or ignore

1Χ] TO THE TRALLIANS. 173

IX. Κωφώθητε οὖν, ὅταν ὑμῖν χωρὶς ᾿Ιησοῦ

Χριστοῦ λαλῆ τις, τοῦ ἐκ γένους Δανείδ, τοῦ ἐκ
« Ε] oe 3 »

Μαρίας, os ἀληθώς ἐγεννήθη, ἔφαγέν τε καὶ ἔπιεν,

Οὐαὶ... βλασφημεῖται] GL; and so g (with additions and variations); om. A:
see the lower note. 6 οὖν] GLg Theodt. iv. 49; om. [S,] A. ὅτ-
av] G (ὅτ᾽ dv) LS,g Theodt.; 271. omni quod A. ὑμῖν] here, Gg; after
χριστοῦ Theodt.; after Joguwatur [S,]; om. A. 7 Aaveid] 5a5 G.

8 ds} This is clearly the reading of G. te] GS,(?)A(?) Theodt.; om. g [1].
In this matter the authority of L is of little value; it sometimes reproduces τε
(e.g. Magn. 1, Trall. 5, Smyrn. 1, 12), but more commonly omits it (e.g. Magn. 5,

Trall. 12, Rom. 3, Smyrn. 6, 12, 13, Polyc. 1).

Christ. Believe 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 tomen 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 κιτ.λ.] See the note
on Ephes. 6 ἢ περὶ Ἰησοῦ x.t.X.

7. ἐκ γένους Δαυείδ] Enforcing
the reality of Christ’s humanity, as
elsewhere in Ignatius; see the note
on 2265. 18.

ἐκ Mapias] Another mode of ex-
pressing Christ’s human nature, as in
Ephes. 7, 18; so too Smyrn. 1 yeyev-
νημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου.

8. ἀληθῶς] The watch-word against |

Docetism; as in Magu. 11, Smyrn.
iy.

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 appear at all. The
letter to the Ephesians contains allu-
sions to it, but they are indirect (inscr.
the reality of the passion,§18 the scan-
dal of the cross, ὃ 7, 20, the stress laid
on Christ’s humanity). In the four re-
maining letters heresy is directly at-
tacked. In 7yva/J. (inscr., 2,9, 10, 11)
and even more fully in Swzyrm. (§$1—8)
Docetism, as such, is denounced at
length. In Jagan. (δὲ 8,9, 10) and in
Phitad. (§§ 5, 6, 8, 9) he appears to
be attacking Judaism rather than
Docetism; but from incidental no-
tices (Wagn. 9 ὅν τινες ἀρνοῦνται, ὃ II
πεπληροφορῆσθε ἐν κιτ.λ., πραχθέντα
ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ; PAzlad. inscr.
ἀγαλλιωμένῃ κιτ.λ., § 3 τῷ πάθει οὐ
συγκατατίθεται, § 5 ὡς σαρκὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ, § 8
ὁ 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

ΠΧ

ἀληθῶς ἐδιώχθη ἐπὶ Ποντίον Πιλάτου, ἀληθῶς ἐσταυ-
, \ > / ͵ ΄σ΄ > / \
ρώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν, βλεπόντων [τῶν] ἐπουρανίων Kal

᾽ / \ ε 7 « \ > ΄σ > / > \
ἐπιγείων καὶ ὑποχθονίων: ὃς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ

΄σ΄ , \ nw \ ~ τ κ
νεκρῶν, ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν τοῦ πατρος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ TO

/ « \ o A / ~ ε
ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ ἡμᾶς TOUS πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ οὕτως 5

1 Ποντίου Πιλάτου] GLAg ὙΠεοάϊ, : Πιλάτου ἹἸΤοντίου Sj.

GLS,[g]; om. [A] [Theodt.].

ἀληθῶς]
ἐπου-

2 τῶν] G Theodt.; om. g.

ρανίων] G [Theodt.]; οὐρανίων g. Theodt. is alone in transposing the order and

reading ἐπιγείων καὶ ἐπουρανίων.
[Theodt.] (after Phil. ii. το).

et secundum similitudinem nos credentes ipst sic resuscitabit etc. L;

I. ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου] On the
significance of this form of expres-
sion, as giving force to the protest
against Docetism, see the note Magu.
Il.

2. βλεπόντων κ-τ.λ.] Comp. Phil.
ii. 10 πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ
ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων : see also I
Cor. iv. 9.

3. καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη] See Orig. ὦ
Cels. ii. 16 ἡμεῖς τὸ δοκεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ
παθεῖν οὐ τάσσομεν, ἵνα μὴ Ψευδὴς
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις ἧ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθής" ὁ
γὰρ ἀληθῶς ἀποθανών, εἰ ἀνέστη, ἀληθῶς
ἀνέστη, ὃ δὲ δοκῶν ἀποτεθνηκέναι οὐκ
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, 1 Thess. iv.
14 εἰ γὰρ πιστέυομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθα-
νεν καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς
κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει σὺν
αὐτῷ : see also Rom. viii. 11. So too
Polyc. Phil. 1 ὁ δὲ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ
νεκρῶν καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐγερεῖ.

κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα κ-ιτ.λ.] For the
sense see Rom. vi. 5 ἀλλὰ καὶ [ovp-
φυτοι τῷ ὁμοιώματι] τῆς ἀναστάσεως
ἐσόμεθα, which passage Ignatius pro-
bably had inhis mind. The sentence
would be simplified by the transpo-
sition, ds καὶ κατὰ TO ὁμοίωμα for κατὰ
τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὃς kal, as suggested by the

3 ὑποχθονίων] G; καταχθονίων g

4 κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὃς Kal K.7.r.] G3 gui

tata ut et nos

versions; but in a transposition they
are not a safe guide. Zahn goes
further and reads οὗ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίω-
pa. An easier correction would be
ws for ὃς, so that κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ws
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. ὁ 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 isobviously due tothe Arme-
nian translator or to some transcriber.

τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῆν]! See the note on
Ephes. τι.

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, x.7.d.] ‘godless men, I

1x]

ἐγερεῖ ὃ πατὴρ
ἀληθινὸν ζῆν οὐκ ἔχομεν.

TO THE TRALLIANS.

175

αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. ov ὶ )
UT ν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ov χωρὶς τὸ

ε \ ᾽
X. Εἰ δέ, ὥσπερ τινὲς ἄθεοι ὄντες, τουτέστιν

» / \ “ον ’ 5 >
ἄπιστοι, λέγουσιν τὸ δοκέϊν πεπονθέναι αὐτόν, αὐτοὶ

qui credimus in eum itidem resuscitabit etc. 51; itidem et nos credentes in eum
secundum eandem vrationem resuscitabit A; al. g: see the lower note.

6 ὁ πατὴρ... Ἰησοῦ] GL; pater jesu christi S, (the change of a single letter Δ΄
for Ἵ would produce pater eius in jesu christo, which was doubtless the prior

form of the Syriac); om. A (as being superfluous); al. g.
G; τῷ δοκεῖν [5]; secundum vidert L.

mean disbelicvers’. 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. ¢. Cels. ii. 3 αἱρέσεων ἀθέων καὶ
Ἰησοῦ πάντη ἀλλοτρίων. So Tertull.
de Carn. Chr. 15 ‘merito ethnici
talia, sed merito et heretici: num
quid enim inter illos distat, nisi quod
ethnici non credendo credunt, at
hezretici credendo non credunt?’,
speaking also of a form of Docetism.
The same epithet ἄπιστος is applied
to these Docetics in Smyrn, 2, 5, as
not believing in the reality of Christ’s
birth, life, and death. Comp. Iren.
iii. 18. 7 ‘Venit...omnibus restituens
eam que est ad Deum communio-
neue: igitur qui dicunt eum putative
manifestatum, neque in carne natum
neque vere hominem factum, adhuc
sub vetert sunt daninatione...non
devicta secundum eos morte’. Igna-
tius seems to have the same idea
here. It is 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
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (Ephes. ii. 12). See also

9 τὸ δοκεῖν]

Cyrill. Hier. Caz. iv. 9 (p. 56) φαγὼν
ὡς ἡμεῖς ἀληθῶς καὶ πιὼν ὡς ἡμεῖς
ἀληθῶς" εἰ γὰρ φάντασμα ἦν ἡ ἐνανθρώ-
πησις, φάντασμα καὶ ἡ σωτηρία.

9. τὸ δοκεῖν] “271 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. 1 ‘et partus virginis et
ipsius exinde infantis ordo τὸ δοκεῖν
haberentur’, where some editors read
τῷ δοκεῖν. But the dative is read in
the interpolator’s recension here and
in S7zyr. 2, 4; and so also in Philo
Leg. ad Cat. 34 (p. 584), 42 (p. 594),
Orig. in Hieron. ¢. Joann. Hieros. 25
(Il. p. 431), Hieron. c. Pelag. ii. 14
(1. 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 k.7.A.] ‘being themselves
nothing but outward professton’.
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; //e@r. vill. 11

176 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x
ὄντες TO δοκεῖν, ἐγὼ τί δέδεμαι ; τί δὲ Kal εὔχομαι
θηριομαχῆσαι ; δωρεὰν οὖν ἀποθνήσκω. ἄρα οὖν κατα-
ψεύδομαι τοῦ Κυρίου.

> \
XI. Qevyere οὖν τὰς κακὰς παραφυάδας Tas

1 τί δὲ καὶ] L* (but with a v. 1.) Sev-Syr. 214; τὶ δὲ Gs δὲ guare S,A; καὶ
[g]. 2 dpa οὖν] Voss; dpa ov GL; guare S, (the same interrogative
with which it has twice translated τί just before); dpa (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 δέδεμαι. 5 οὗ GLg Rup. 773 Sev-Syr.
There is no authority for the reading ὧν, I do not quite understand Zahn’s
statement, “ὧν Sf1, 15 [1.6. S,] A, quorum hic ad fructus, ille ad propagines traxit
pronomen, uterque enim καρπους θανατηφορους habet.’ S, translates the sing.
καρπὸν here (as it does καρπός just below) by the plur. of NINDS, this being a
common practice with Syriac translators, and necessarily therefore it substitutes a
plural in place of οὗ, 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. In S, the

δοκητὰς ἑαυτοὺς προσηγόρευσαν ὧν ov ment shows. The θηριομαχεῖν of 5.

τὸ δοκεῖν εἶναιτινὰς κατανοοῦμεν μα-
ταΐζοντας, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ τοσαύτης ὕλης
δοκὸν ἐν ὀφθαλμῷ φερομένην διελέγ-
χομεν. Pearson (on Smyrn. 2) com-
pares Epiphan. Her. Ixxvi. Io (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 oi péovres,
Theat. 181 A.

I. ἐγὼ τί dSédepa] i.e. ‘The atone-
ment becomes an unreality, and there-
fore my sufferings for Christ are
vain’. The argument is put in a
somewhat different form in Smyrz. 4
εἰ yap τὸ δοκεῖν ταῦτα ἐπράχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ
Κυρίου, κἀγὼ τὸ δοκεῖν δέδεμαι.

εὔχομαι θηριομαχῆσαι] “17 pray that
7 may fight with wild beasts’: comp.
Ephes. 1, 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 k.T.A.. as the argu-

Paul however is probably metaphori-
cal, while that of Ignatius is literal.

2. δωρεὰν οὖν κιτ.λ.] Comp. Gal.
il. 21 dpa Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.

dpa οὖν κιτ.λ.}] ‘22 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. I2 sq.: see especially ver. 15
εὑρισκόμεθα δὲ καὶ Wevdouaprupes τοῦ
Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ
ὅτι ἤγειρεν τὸν Χριστὸν καιτιλ. For ἄρα
οὖν comp. Rom. v. 18, vii. 3, 25, viii.
I2, etc. The reading ov (which re-
quires to be read interrogatively, dpa
ov=xoune) 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-

x1] TO THE TRALLIANS.

177
: , \ / Z he / ,
5 yevvwoas καρπον θανατηφόρον, οὐ εαν γευσηταῖ τις,
ὯΝ Ἁ oS >
OUTOL yap οὐκ εἰσιν φυτεία
/ > \ Zz > / Vv 7 ~ -
πατρος" εἰ γὰρ ἧσαν, ἐφαίνοντο ἀν κλαδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ,

παραυτὰ ἀποθνήσκει.

eg \ ay < “
καὶ ἦν av ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν ἄφθαρτος" Ot οὗ ἐν τῷ πάθει

existing text has the fem. 1" 72), which would refer to παραφυάδας, but this is
doubtless a scribe’s error for the masc. }1i131. γεύσηται] yetonre (with ac
written above, but whether Jrima manu, is doubtful) G. Tis] here, GL
Rup.; before γεύσηται g. 6 παραυτὰ] παρ᾽ αὐτὰ G; παραυτίκα [g] Rup.

yap] GLS, Rup.; om. [g] A. 7 warpos] GLS,Ag; τοῦ πνεύματος
Rup. For the not uncommon confusion of τνς and προ see the note on Smyrn. 13.

ἦσαν] GLA; add. φυτεία πατρός S,; add. rod πατρὸς κλάδοι [g]. 8 καὶ
ἦν ἂν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν κιτ.λ.} GL; et fructus eorum incorrupti manerent in
passione crucis domini nostri cujus membra estis S, 3 et fructus eorum permanens.
zam signo crucis domini nostri vos membra estis eius A (for the substitution of signo
for passione see above, p. 26); al. g. The Syriac translator must have had a

mutilated text, which omitted δι’ 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. Ped. i. 8
(p. 138) καθυλομανεῖ yap μὴ κλαδευο-
μένη ἡ ἄμπελος, οὕτως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄνθρω-
mos’ καθαίρει δὲ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐξυβριζούσας
παραφυάδας ὁ λέγος, 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 εἰσι τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης
τοῦ δένδρου βλαστάνοντα, but Theo-
phrastus δα Plant. ii. 2. 4 con-
templates their springing from other
parts besides the root, for he says
ἐὰν ἀπὸ ῥίζης mapadvas 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.

allegory of the παραφυάδες in Hermas
Sm. Vili. I sq.

6. παραυτά] ‘forthwith’; comp.
Mart. Ign. Ant.6. It isa good classi-
cal word: see Lobeck P&ryn. p. 47.

φυτεία πατρός] So again Philad. 3
διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτοὺς φυτείαν πατρός.
The reference is to Matt. xv. 13
πᾶσα φυτεία nv οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ
μου ὁ 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,
Philad. 8, Smyrn. 1, with the notes.

8. ἄφθαρτος] For the Cross is the
true ξύλον ζωῆς.

δι’ οὗ] sc. τοῦ σταυροῦ ; comp. Gal.
vi. 14, Eph. ii. 16, Col. i. 20. See
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
Lphes, scr.

178

~ — ΄- 7 ~
αὐτοῦ προσκαλεῖται ὑμᾶς, ὄντας μέλη αὐτοῦ.

/ Ὁ
δυναται οὖν κεφαλὴ χωρὶς

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[x1

>
οὐ
~ sf ΄σ con
γεννηθῆναι ἄνευ μελών, TOU

“σε > / / ᾽ ? /
Θεοῦ ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου, OS ἐστιν AUTOS.

ΧΙ].

/ 4 > 7 a
᾿λσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ (Ομύρνης, ἅμα ταῖς

, > 7 ΄σ ΄σ “A \ /
συμπαρούσαις μοι ἐκκλησίαις TOU Θεοῦ, Ol Κατα TAVTAaA

, / \

με aVETAVTAY σαρκί TE Kal
\ / « «

τὰ δεσμά μου, ἃ ἕνεκεν

3 6s] Ὁ quod L; al. A; def. g.
miht Ls; μον 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 is said of Christ.

μέλη] As in Rom. xii. 4 sq., 1 Cor.
vi. 15, Eph. v. 30, and especially
1 Cor. xii. 12 sq., which last passage
has suggested the words following
here: comp. ver. 21 ov δύναται... ἢ
κεφαλὴ κιτιλ. See also Clem. Rom.
37, 46; comp. also Ephes. 4.

ov δύναται οὖν] ‘Now 1 ts not
possible (in the nature of things) zhat
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.] i.e. ‘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 καιλ. With ὅς ἐστιν αὐτός
comp. Ephes. 14 τὰ δὲ δύο ἐν ἑνότητι
γενόμενα Θεός ἐστιν, and see the note
Magn. 15. For the attraction of
ds see the note on Magn. 7. The
interpretation suggested by Smith,
‘gut Deus est tpse Christus, is quite
out of place.

πνεύματι. παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς
΄- om /
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ περιφερω,

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
I 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 k.t.A.]
The churches who were present
in the person of their representa-
tives; comp. Magn. 15 καὶ ai λοιπαὶ
δὲ ἐκκλησίαι.. «ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς. Among
these were the Ephesians (Z£fhes.
I sq.) and the Magnesians (JZagz. 1),
from both which churches several
delegates were present with him.

5. κατὰ πάντα x.t-A.] On this
common Ignatian phrase see the
note Lphes. 2.

6. σαρκί te x7.A.] See the note
on «2165. το.

παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς κιτ.λ. For similar
appeals in 5. Paul see Eph. iv. 1 παρα-
καλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος k.T.X.,
Philem. 9 μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ, τοιοῦτος
ὧν ὡς Παῦλος...δέσμιος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ;
comp. Col. iv. 18.

x11}

TO THE TRALLIANS.

179

, ΄ ~ , > cat
αἰτούμενος Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν: διαμένετε ἐν TH ὁμονοίᾳ
‘ ‘

ὑμῶν καὶ TH μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων προσευχῇ.

πρέπει γὰρ

ar ~ 4 ἢ 9 e \ ~ ’
το ὑμῖν τοῖς Kal’ ἕνα, ἐξαιρέτως καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις,

4 , \ > / > \ \ \ >
ἀναψύχειν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον εἰς τιμὴν πατρὸς [kat εἰς

\ " ~ x ΄σ΄ ΄σ > /
τιμὴν] yoov Ἄριστου καὶ τῶν αποστολων,

᾿
EVXOMAL

ε “ > > , > ~ £ .« \ > , >
υὑμας ἐν αγαπή ακουσαι MOU, ινα μῆ εις μαρτυριον ω

6 pe] here, GL; before κατὰ [eg].

11 καὶ els τιμὴν "I. X.] gs et uni-

genitt eius domini nostri jesu christi εἴς. A; Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (om. καὶ els 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 Magn. 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 ὃ 6 χρῆσθε above.

10. τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕνα] See Eph. v. 33
for this expression. Similarly οἱ κατ᾽
ἄνδρα below, ὃ 13 (see the note on
Ephes. 4). In Rom. xii. 5 we have
the strange expression τὸ καθ᾽ εἷς.

ἐξαιρέτως καί] The transposition
καὶ ἐξαιρέτως, suggested by Jacobson,
seems unnecessary ; comp. ὃ 13 ὁμοίως
kai (with the note). For the adverb
ἐξαιρέτως Comp. Smyri. 7 (with the
note), and for the corresponding ad-
jective ἐξαίρετος, Philad. 9. Neither
word is found in the N.T., but ἐξαί-
peros occurs in the LXx, Gen. xlviii.
22, Joby. 5.

11. ἀναψύχειν] See the note on
LEphes. 2.

εἰς τιμὴν k.t.A.] For this Ignatian
mode of expression see the note on
LEphes. 21.

πατρὸς κιτιλ.] 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
K7.A., 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. els μαρτύριον ὧὦ] Comp. PAzlad.
6 καὶ πᾶσι δὲ, ἐν ois ἐλάλησα, εὔχομαι

ul
va μὴ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτὸ κτήσωνται.

The ev should probably be retained,
in which case ypawas will stand by
itself, ‘by my writing.” The inter-
polator has omitted the preposition
in conformity with the very common
idiom εἰς μαρτύριόν τινι, Matt. viii. 4,
x. 18, xxiv. 14, Mark i. 44, vi. Τί,
etc.

180 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x11

[ἐν] ὑμῖν γράψας. καὶ περὶ ἐμοῦ δὲ προσεύχεσθε,
~ > rae ~ ” / , 4 na > / ΄ ee
τῆς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀγάπης χρήζοντος ἐν τῷ ἐλέει τοῦ Θεοῦ,
‘
εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναί pe τοῦ κλήρου οὗπερ ἔγκειμαι
ἐπιτυχεῖν, ἵνα μὴ ἀδόκιμος εὑρεθώ.
ε a ᾽ \
XIII. ’᾿λσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη Cuvpvaiwy καὶ 5
᾿Εφεσίων.

ἐν Cupia ἐκκλησίας: ὅθεν [kal] οὐκ ἄξιός εἰμι λέγεσθαι,

/ 3 ~ ~ ΄σ΄ al
μνημονεύετε ἐν Tals προσευχαῖς ὑμῶν τῆς

1 ἐν] GL; om. Ag.

3 οὗπερ ἔγκειμαι ἐπιτυχεῖν] Bunsen; οὗ περίκειμαι

ἐπιτυχεῖν Gg: gua conor potiri L; accipere (sortes) ad guas vocatus sum A.

6 ἐν rats προσευχαῖς] GLA; om. g.
G; om. LAg.

3. καταξιωθῆναι] See the note on
Ephes. 20.

τοῦ κλήρου] i.e. the glory of mar-
tyrdom, as in Rom. 1 eis τὸ τὸν
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; Jar‘.
Polyc. 6 ἵνα ἐκεῖνος τὸν ἴδιον κλῆρον
ἀπαρτίσῃ, Ep. Vienn. et Lugd. § 3
(in Euseb. H. Z. v. 1) ἀνελήφθη καὶ
αὐτὸς εἰς τὸν κλῆρον τῶν μαρτύρων.

οὗπερ ἔγκειμαι K.t.A.] ‘which I am
eager to attain.’ 1 know no better
emendation of the obviously corrupt
ov περίκειμαι than this conjecture of
Bunsen’s (87. p. 141), corresponding
to the Latin gua conor potirt; but I
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 ‘fo obtain the lot with
which I am invested’ (ov by attrac-
tion for ὅν), but this is hardly sense.

4. ἵνα μὴ ἀδόκιμος κ-τ.λ.] Suggested
by 1 Cor. ix. 27. The idea of a race
seems to be present here (e.g. in

8 ἐκείνων] GL; τῶν ἐκεῖ g; al. A.
GL; ἐν κυρίῳ ἰησοῦ χριστῷ g (MSS, but ix christo jesu 1) Α.

ὑμῶν] GL [g*]; om. A. 7 καὶ]
ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ]
9 ὡς

ἔγκειμαι ἐπιτυχεῖν), as in 5. Paul.

XIII. ‘The Smyrnzans 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. 1 ἀγάπη «t.A.] Comp. Rom. 9,
Philad, 11, Smyrn. 12. This is not
a mere complimentary title, as Pear-
son and others would take it; see
the note on ὃ 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. το. See the
notes on Lphes. 1,2. Ephesus and
Smyrna were regarded as the ‘two
eyes’ of Asia; Plin. WM. Hi v. 31
‘Ephesum alterum lumen Asiz’ (in

x11]

\ ᾽ > /
ων εσχατος ΕΚεινωὼν.-

TO THE TRALLIANS.

181

ἔρρωσθε ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, ὑπο-

/ ~ ’ ΄:- + ~
τασσόμενοι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ WS TH ἐντολῆ, ὁμοίως Kal
έ ‘

ο τῷ βυτερίω- καὶ οἱ ᾿ ἄνδρα αλλήλους a t
1 Tw TT PET UT plw Kat Ol KAT AV pa a λους AYATTATE

ἐν ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ. ἁγνίζεται ὑμῶν TO ἐμὸν πνεῦμα,

3 Nd ~ 3 \ δ, er alee /
οὐ μόνον νῦν ἀλλα καὶ ὅταν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω.

J
ETL γὰρ

e \ , 4 > > \ \ ε \ 3 > ~
ὑπο κίνδυνον εἰμι’ ἀλλα πιστὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ᾿Ϊησοῦ

TH ἐντολῇ] Gs om. g3 add de LA.

πρεσβυτέροις καὶ τοῖς διακόνοις g ; sacerdotibus A (see above on § 7).

10 τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ] GL*; τοῖς
11 ἁγνί-

ἕεται ὑμῶν] ἁγνίζετε ὑμῶν GL; ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς g (MSS, but castificet vos 1);

desiderat erga vos A.
tm sollicitudine A.

13 ὑπὸ κίνδυνον] GL; ἐπικίνδυνον g (MSs, but see Appx.);
ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] GL* (but L, 2 christo tesu); ἰησοῦ

χριστοῦ g ; domini nostri zesu christi [A].

reference to Smyrna mentioned pre-
viously).

τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίας] This request
appears in all the letters written from
Smyrna; see the note on Zphes. 21.

7. ὅθεν «r.r.] Comp. Magn. 14
ὅθεν οὐκ ἄξιός εἰμι καλεῖσθαι.

ὃ. ὧν ἔσχατος κιτ.λ.] Comp. £-
phes. 21 ἔσχατος ὧν τῶν ἐκεῖ πιστῶν
(with the note).

ἔρρωσθε] See the note on Lphes.
21.

9. os τῇ ἐντολῇ] So too Smyrn.8
τοὺς διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς Θεοῦ
ἐντολήν: comp. also Magn. 2 τῷ
πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς νόμῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(with the note). In our passage ἡ
ἐντολὴ is used absolutely, as in Rom.
vil. ὃ ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ
τῆς ἐντολῆς κιτιλ.,. I Tim. vi. 14 τη-
ρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον k.T.A,
Not satisfied with this, the translators
have added ‘Dei.’ This absolute
use is not consistent with Pearson’s
interpretation of Smyrz. 1. ο. § ¢am-
guam Det precepto institutos, i.e.
‘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

orders. The sense of ἐντολὴ here is
active, not passive; ‘the voice or-
dering,’ not ‘ the thing ordered.’

ὁμοίως καί] See the note on Ephes.
19.

10. οἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘each individu-
ally’; see the note on Zphes. 4.

II. ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ] So again
Philad. 6. Thus also διάνοιαν ddia-
Kptrov ὃ 1, ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ Ephes.
20.

ἁγνίζεται 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. Zfhes. 8
περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι ὑμῶν
(with the note).

12. ὅταν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] i.e. ‘by my
martyrdom’; see above § 12.

13. ὑπὸ κίνδυνον] Comp. Zphes. 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 6 πατήρ] Compare S. Paul’s
πιστὸς ὁ Θεὸς and similar expressions;
1 Cor. i. 9,x- 13, 2 Cor. i. 18, 1 Thess,
v. 24, 2 Thess. iii. 3.

182 IGNATIUS TO THE TRALLIANS. [XIII

΄“- ΄σ ;ὔ \ } ΄ὸ
Χριστῷ πληρῶσαί pou τὴν αἴτησιν καὶ ὑμῶν" ἐν ᾧ
e ᾽"ὕ
εὑρεθείημεν ἄμωμοι.

2 εὑρεθείημεν] Ag; εὑρεθείητε GL. A single letter might make the difference
—Hmeé for -HTE. ἄμωμοι] GL; add. gratia vobiscum omnibus. amen A;
add. ὀναίμην ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ g.

There is no subscription toGLA. For g see the Appx.

I. πληρῶσαι] An infinitive after αὐτῷ «rA.; comp. Ephes. 11 μόνον
πιστός, as in Neh. xiii. 13. ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εὑρεθῆναι, and see
ἐν | i.e. Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, asin Phil. also § 2 of this epistle.
iii, 9 ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν

TO THE ROMANS.

PURMOR

᾿ r
x
:
7
.
᾿ ;
es
᾿ Ἐ Ὶ
: \ . μ
Ἢ ‘i *
᾿ ΔΝ A }
’
‘
a — [Ὁ
-
᾿ -
" 7 ——-.
a *

ἣν
‘ Ἵ
,
; uy ok ἡ τὴν
᾿ ὍΝ, ἼΩΝ ‘Oe ἡ τ
Fi Mas Pia SO Y iy ; ἪΝ
ἵν
ty
NP ed

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 ro).

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 Judo-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
correlative topic also, the duty of obedience to the bishop and other

186 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

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 p. 252 sq., Appendix ; 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 ὃ 1 φοβοῦμαι x.7.A.). 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 (§ 4)? It will be an act of jealousy (δ 5 ζηλώσαι),
a display of envy (§ 3 ἐβασκάνατε, ὃ 7 βασκανία), an infliction of wrong
(§ τ ἀδικήσῃ), an outbreak of hatred (δ 8 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 (ὃ 7).
Martyrdom is the new birth, is the true life, is the pure light (ὃ 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 (8 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 (δὲ 4, 5).
Crowned by martyrdom, his life becomes an utterance of God; robbed
of martyrdom, it is a vague unmeaning cry (§ 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 Ὀναίμην
κιτιλ. ; comp. also the note on ὃ 4 ἀπελεύθερος κιτ.λ.). Moreover in the
Menea for Dec. 20, the day assigned to S. 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 sq.).

The following is an analysts 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 (§ 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, as wellas to say. 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 (8 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. I am
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 (§ 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 (8 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 (δ 10).’

TTPOC PQMAIOYC.

ἼΓΝΑΤΙΟΟ, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, TH ἠλεημένη ἐν μεγα-
λειότητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου

| ro ~ > , \ , >
υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένη καὶ πεφωτισμένη ἐν

, ΄ , \ , a» Ἁ
θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος τὰ TavTa ἃ ἔστιν, κατα

προς ρωμδιουο] τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς ῥωμαίους g* ; ignatii epistola ad
romanos L* ; epistola tertia (eiusdem sancti ignatii) X*; ad romam urbem A, There

is no title in G Am Sm M.

I ὁ καὶ] M; gui est Am; om. Sm.
Lphes. inscr.
ὑψίστου θεοῦ πατρός g.
def. 2.

For the other authorities see the note on
2 πατρὸς ὑψίστου] GLEAAgM ; excelsi (om. πατρόθ) Sm;

καὶ] GLAmSm [M] g (but omitted in 1); om. A ;
3 ἠγαπημένῃ]!] GLAmSmM : ἡγιασμένῃ [5] ; sancti A (translating
as ifit had read the sentence υἱοῦ τοῦ ἡγιασμένου καὶ φωτίζοντοΞ) ; def. Σ.

4 τοῦ

Oehjcavros] GLAAmM ; τοῦ ποιήσαντος [g]; cus qui ligat et tenet omnia Su.

I. τῇ ἠλεημένῃ κιτ.λ. ‘which has
Sound 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
il, 11 τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ). It oc-
curs in other connexions, Jer. xxxiii,
(xl). 9, 3 Esdr. i. 4, Acts xix. 27.

3. 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. 1 Cor. i. 2) to be substituted
in this connexion by a scribe. This
very substitution has been made in
many MSS of Jude I τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ
ἡγιασμένοις, Where ἠγαπημένοις is the
correct reading.

4. τοῦ θελήσαντος κιτ.λ.}] ‘of Flim
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 κιτ.λ.}] ‘in
Setth and love towards Fesus Christ?
The genitive case is objective and
probably refers to both the preceding
substantives, as in “λές, 20 ἐν τῇ
αὐτοῦ πίστει καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀγάπῃ;

‘

190

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

, i / 3 ~ ~ a a. «£ “ /
πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ Tov Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἥτις
\ / > / , ε 7 3 /
καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος,

Ι πίστιν καὶ gAAn; om, GLSin M; def. 2.

loco chori L; regione Sm.

2 τόπῳ χωρίου] GZAA,M g;

ἀξιόθεος... ἀξίαγνος] txt GLA (with variations

explicable through the medium of the Syriac; see the next note) Am Sm g ; αὔρα deo
(ἀξιόθεος) εἰ digna vita (ἀξιοπρεπής, for NN vita is doubtless a corruption of NX

comp. 26. 14 ἐὰν τελείως εἰς Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν ἔχητε τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγά-
anv. See also Ephes. 1 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 “hes. 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. ΟΖ,
xxxv (p. 68) τῆς τε Φρυγίας προκάθησ-
Oe καὶ Λυδίας κιτιλ. (of the town of
Celzenz), Galen XIX. p. 22 (Kuhn)
ἡ ξίωσάν τινες τῶν ἀξιολόγων ἰατρῶν ἐν
προεδρείᾳ καθεζόμενοι κ-τ.λ., Schol. to
Soph. Electr. 234 Μυκῆναι ἡ προκα-
θεζομένη Tov” Apyous. Pearson quotes
an edict ascribed to the Dictator
Czesar in Joann. Malal. Chron. ix. Ὁ.
216 (ed. Bonn.) Ἔν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τῇ μη-
τροπόλει, ἱερᾷ καὶ ἀσύλῳ καὶ αὐτονόμῳ
καὶ ἀρχούσῃ καὶ προκαθημένῃ τῆς ἀνατο-
λῆς, Ἰούλιος Taios Καῖσαρ κιτιλ. See
also Greg. Naz. Ov. xlili. 14 (I. p. 780)
τὸ Βυζάντιον, τὴν προκαθεζομένην τῆς
ἑώας πόλιν.

ἐν τόπῳ x.t.A.] These words pro-
bably describe the limits over which
the supremacy or jurisdiction ex-
tends; comp. Tert. de Prescr. 36
‘percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud
quas ipse adhuc cathedrz apostolo-
rum suzs locis president’ 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 form-

ed a sort of college under the bishop
of Rome as their head—a constitu-
tion 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 Hzppolytus 1. p. 422 sq., ed. 2;
Milman Lazé. Christ. I. p. 41; comp.
Ruggieri de Port. Hippol. Sed. ii. 8
in Lumper Ast. Sauct. Patr. Vill.
p- 518sq.), 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 Wzppolytus u. Kallistus
p- 108sq. The τόπος χωρίου Ῥωμαίων
therefore will have a looser significa-
tion, denoting generally ‘the country
or district of the Romans’ (comp.
Macar. Magn. Afgocr. 111. 38, Ὁ. 135,
ἐν σκήπτρῳ καὶ χώρᾳ Ῥωμαίων ἀναπα-
tov); and the Church of Rome itseif
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 other hand it might be υγροά
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

TO THE ROMANS.

IQI

5 ’ > 7 > / 3 ,
ἀξιοπρεπής, ἀξιομακάριστος, ἀξιέπαινος, ἀξιεπίτευκτος,

decorum, as Cureton and Petermann suggest) e¢ deatitudine (ἀξιομακάριστος) et laude
(ἀξιέπαινος) e¢ memoria (perhaps=délayvos, δ.) 2 }Ἵ memoria being a corruption of

ND) purificatio) et digna prosperitate (ἀξιεπίτευκτος) =; om. M.

3 ἄξιε-

πίτευκτος] g* (but 1 has fide dignae) G (written ἀξιοεπίτευκτος) Σ (see the last note)
AnSm; digne ordinata L; digna precibus A: see the lower note.

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 (iii. 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 of 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
Adbgar in Euseb. H. £. i. 13 σωτῆρι
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
original; e.g. Acts ii. 9, 10, iv. 36,
El. LO, αν σή xvi, 7, 8, xviii, 2, xx. 2,
etc.,in the Peshito. In Origen zz
Loann, ii, 12 (IV. p. 172) πεποίηκεν
ἐκεῖ TOU 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.
Ῥ. 311 sq., and ad Zoc.), 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 εἰς
τύπον OF ws τύπος in this case; and
indeed the extreme awkwardness of
the whole expression condemns it.

χωρίου] ‘region.’ The words χῶ-
pos (‘place’), χώρα (‘country’), and
χωρίον (‘district’), may be distinguish-
ed as implying Jocality, extension,
and dimitation, 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. iii. 42 (p.
147) ταῦτ᾽ ἐκ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου καὶ
χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου πλαττόμενα μορφώ-
ματα ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον.

ἀξιόθεος κιτ.λ.}] On the frequency
of these compounds of ἄξιος in Igna-
tius see the note on /phes. 4 ἀξιονό-
paorov. In this passage, though
symmetrical in composition, they are
hardly so in meaning, but take their
complexion from the other compo-
nent element, ‘worthy ef praise,’
‘worthy zz purity,’etc. Forthe word
ἀξιόθεος itself see 7 raz. inscr. (note).

3. ἀξιεπίτευκτος] The meaning of
the word may be doubtful. Accord-
ing as an active or a passive sense is

Ι02

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

΄“- ’
ἀξίαγνος, καὶ προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης, χριστόνομος,

[4
πατρωνυμος"

«' \ > / > pelt 3 a“
ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ϊησοῦ

~ en 7 A / ~ 4
Χριστοῦ υιου WaT pos* Κατα σαρκα καὶ σνευμα ἡνωμένοις

I χριστόνομος] g* (though the common text has xpiordvupos); christi habens
legem L; in lege christi [2] Sm; lege christi A; χριστώνυμος G; def. M. Am gives

assigned to -em:revxros, it will signify
‘worthy of success’ or ‘worthy of
associating with.’ Jacobson indeed
says of this latter sense, ‘mire Vede-
lius dignissima gue 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 (8 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 ; ἄζρηα prospe-
ritate 3; digna assecutione (desideri-
ovum) Am; digna tis gue petit Sm:
and this fact may perhaps be allowed
to decide the meaning. Of the others,
digne ordinata in L represents ἀξιε-
mitaxros, and fide digna in 1 ἀξιο-
miotevtos, While digua precibus in
A is due to a corruption in the

Syriac text (ash

cosh \ sal prosperitate) which the

Armenian translator had _ before
him, as Petermann has pointed out.
Yet δυσεπίτευκτος seems to have a
passive sense ‘difficult of attainment’
(unless indeed its meaning is ‘diffi-
cult of success’) in Diod. Sic. xvil. 93
ὁρῶν δυσεπίτευκτον τὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς Tav-
δαρίδας στρατείαν οὖσαν, 10. ΧΧΧΙΪ. EXC.
εἰς πολλὰς ἐπιβολὰς δυσεπιτεύκτους
ἔσχε τὰς πράξεις, and so certainly
Methodius Cov. 1.1 (p. 11, ed. Jahn)

precationefor

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. Pvoph.
Eccl, 28, p. 997).

I. ἀξίαγνος] ‘worthily pure.’ Bun-
sen (47. p. 115) conjectures ἀξίαινος,
supposing that the previous ἀξιέπαινος
is a transcriber’s gloss to explain the
unusual word a&iawos. 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 «.t.A. 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
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-
youvras’ δ᾽ ὧν πέμπετε ἀρχῆθεν ἐφο-

TO THE ROMANS.

193

I > ~ 5 ~ 7 / me, %
πασή ἐντολῃ αὐτου, πεπληρωμένοις χαριτος Θεοῦ ἀδια-

’ \ ? ὃ , 3 \ \ > / /
κρίτως καὶ aTroowAtopeEevols ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρω-

both readings, christi-habens-legem (aut; christi-habens-nomen).

which follows, 2 is greatly abridged.

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. H. £. iv.
23. The Epistle of Clement itself is
a happy illustration of this spirit.

xptatovopos] ‘observing the law
of Christ??: comp. I Cor. ix. 21 ἔννο-
μος Χριστοῦ, and see also Gal. vi. 2
ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
Magn. 2 ὡς νόμῳ ᾿ἸἸησοῦ 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.

2. πατρώνυμος] See Ephes. iii. 14, 15,
πρὸς Tov πάτερα 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 Aschylus
Lers. 151 τὸ πατρωνύμιον γένος ἡμέτε-
pov (where Blomfield would read τὸ
πατρώνυμον ὧμ «k.T.A.). This same
play also offers a good analogy to the
preceding word in Περσόνομος ver.
916.

3. σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα) See the note
on “2169. 10.

nv@pevois| ‘united to’, and so ‘act-
ing in unison with’; comp. Jag. 6,
Smyrn. 3.

4. ἀδιακρίτως] not ‘zuseparably’,
but ‘wthout wavering, with undt-
vided allegiance, with singleness of

IGN.

In the passage

heart’; comp. Piilad. inscr. ayad-
λιωμένῃ ἐν TH πάθει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
ἀδιακρίτως. See the note on ἀδιάκρι-
τον, Ephes. 3. Comp. also such ex-
pressions as apepiot@ καρδίᾳ Trall.
13, ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ Ephes. 20.

5. ἀποδιυλισμένοις] ‘strained clear’,
‘filtered’; comp. Philad. 3 οὐχ ὅτι παρ᾽
ὑμῖν μερισμὸν εὗρον GAN’ ἀποδιυλισμόν.
The single compound διυλίζειν occurs
literally in Amos vi. 6, Matt. xxili. 24
(comp. Clem. Alex. S7rom. 11. 20, p.
489), and metaphorically in Clem.
Alex. Proph. Ecl. 7 (p. 991) τὸ καὶ
πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα συμπεπλεγμένα. TH
ψυχῆ διυλίζεσθαι κιτιλ. For the sub-
stantive see Iren. i. 14. 8 ἔν τε πόνοις
kal ταλαιπωρίαις ψυχὴ γενομένη εἰς
διυλισμὸν αὐτῆς (explaining the Va-
lentinian teaching), Clem. Alex. Ped.
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)...rov αὐτὸν οὖν τρόπον καὶ
ἡμεῖς.. .διυλιζόμενοι βαπτίσματι x.T.A,
For another compound see Clem.
Alex. Exc. Theod. 4% (p. 979) ἐν @
συνδιυλίσθη κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ τὰ σπέρ-
ματα συνελθόντα αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλήρωμα.
For coincidences with the Valenti-
nian phraseology in Ignatiussee the

notes: on “phes. inscr., Magn. 8,

Trall. τ. The construction and meta-
phor here are well illustrated by a
fragment attributed to Archytas in
Stobzus Flor. i. 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.

194

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

~ > > ΄ ΄σ ΄σ ~ £ ~ > /
ματος, πλεῖστα ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ TH Θεῷ ἡμῶν ἀμώμως

χαίρειν.

Α ῇ ΄. ~ ~~
I. ᾿Επεὶ εὐξάμενος Θεῷ ἐπέτυχον ἰδεῖν ὑμῶν Ta

1 ὮἿ. X. τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν] GLAm Sm; Ἷ. X. τῷ θεῷ (om. ἡμῶν) Μ; ἾἿ, X.
(om. τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν) A; θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἶ. X. σα ; om. Σ (see the last
note). 3 ᾿Επεὶ evéduevos] GAA» Mg* (but 1 has deprecans) ; deprecans
(érevéduevos) 1. The following are doubtful; jampridem deum oravi ut dignus
Jierem...nunc autem ligatus etc 23 oravi et datum est mihi ut viderem etc Sm; but
_ they seem to be attempts to mend the anacoluthon of ἐπεὶ εὐξάμενος k.7.X. See the
lower note. Θεῷ] GM; τῷ θεῷ g. 4 ἀξιόθεα! G2Sm g ;
ἀξιοθέατα M (but ν. 1. ἀξιόθεα); digas visione L (but this does not necessarily imply
ἀξιοθέατα, since αξιόθεα might have been so interpreted, though wrongly; see the
lower note); vestras dignas visione facies (aut, vestras deo dignas facies) Ay (this
might imply merely alternative renderings of ἀξιόθεα, but probably intends alterna-
tive readings, αξιόθεα and ἀξιοθέατα) : om. A. ws] GL; οὖς g* (Mss, but | has
sicuti) 3 quod (or quem, or guos) A}; id guod Sm (but this does not imply any other

I. πλεῖστα..«χαίρειν] See the note
on £phes. inscr.

τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν] See the note on
Ephes. inscr.

ἀμώμως] On this word in the open-
ing salutations of the Ignatian Epis-
tles see the note 2: 2245. 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.] 6 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. Forsimilar instances
in the openings of these epistles
see Ephes. τ ᾿Αποδεξάμενος (wi

ST. MICHAEL'S
OOLLEGE

note). The anacoluthon here has a
close parallel also in Magn. 2 ᾿Επεὶ
οὖν ἠξιώθην x.T.r. (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-
ἑάμενος for ᾿Επεὶ εὐξάμενος (Vedelius,
Ussher, Pearson, etc, with the Latin
Versions and some MSS of the Meta-
phrast), or the reading Πάλαι ἐπευξά-
pevos (Bunsen after the Syriac), or
the omission of yap after δεδεμένος ©
(the editors commonly after the Me-
dicean MS).

ἐπέτυχον] “7 have been successful’,
“2 has been granted me’; not mean-
ing that he had already seen them,
but that circumstances were such as
to have already insured the fulfilment
of his prayer.

4. ἀξιόθεα] See the note on 77va//.
inscr. The authorities for ἀξιοθέατα
are too slight to justify its adoption,
hough plausible in itself. I cannot

1] TO THE ROMANS. 195

ἀξιόθεα πρόσωπα, ὡς Kal πλέον ἢ ἠτούμην λαβεῖν" δεδε-
/ \ > τς ὦ “- > / ε ΄σ ᾽ /

5 μένος yap ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐλπίζω ὑμᾶς ἀσπάσασθαι,
> αὶ f , > ~ ᾽ ~ 7ὔ > / τ, ς
ἐάνπερ θέλημα ἦ τοῦ ἀξιωθῆναί με εἰς τέλος εἶναι" ἡ

reading than ws); def. 2M. For Ay see the next note. πλέον ἢ ἠτούμην
see below; πλέον ἠτούμην GLAg; ex multo tempore petebam Sm (perhaps a bad
rendering of πλέον rather than a v.1. πάλαι) ; def. 2M. Am has guantum petii, plus
etiam accept, which gives the same sense as my conjectural reading. 5 yap]
gL Am; unc autem [2] (see a previous note); ef nunc A; om. ΟΜ ; al. Sm (but
the existing text seems to have been corrupted from one which had γάρ; see
Meesinger p. 25). Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] GLAmSmM g; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ ZA.
ἀσπάσασθαι] GLAA,Meg; venire et salutare Sm ; accipere et salutare X (where
_accipere seems to represent λαβεῖν, which has been preserved from the omitted
context). 6 θέλημα] gLUS,,; add. τοῦ θεοῦ GAM ; add. domini Ay: see
the lower note. εἶναι] GLg; οὕτως εἶναι M3 pervenire Am} sustinere
haec Sm; om. SA. ‘The variations of the Oriental Versions seem to be mere

expedients of translators, and not to imply any v. 1. in the Greek.

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 Joc. he is dis-
posed to retract this opinion). In
Boeckh C. J. 4943 ἀξιθέους in ver. 3
has not the same meaning as ἀξιθέω-
pov in ver. 4 but refers to the ‘shrines’
which are mentioned in the same
line. Alciphron ΞΖ. iii. 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 martyr’s chaplet.
For the ideas associated with δέσμιος
in the mind of Ignatius see the notes
on Lphes. 3, 11, Magn. 1. For ὡς
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. Jt is not very uncommon. in

‘
. AT

classical authors, e.g. Esch. Zum. 36,
Xen. Anab. i. 5. 10, i. 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 ἠτούμην for
πλέον ἠτούμην (comp. e.g. the vv. 1]. in
Gal. v. 1, Clem. Rom. 35, ii. 8). An-
other simple emendation would be
πλέον ὧν for πλέον, as the ὧν might
easily have been omitted owing to
the homcoteleuton; comp. Po/yc. 1
αἰτοῦ σύνεσιν πλείονα ἧς ἔχεις, 20. 3
πλέον σπουδαῖος γίνου οὗ εἶ.

6. ἐάνπερ θέλημα 7] ‘tf ἐξ should
be willed’. For this absolute use of

θέλημα, referring to the Divine will,

see the note on Zphes. 20. Here, as
in most other passages where it oc-
curs, the transcribers have added
explanatory words. See the critical
note.

εἰς τέλος εἶναι] ‘to arrive at the
end’: comp. Luke xi. 7, and see A,
Buttmann p. 286, See also the note
on § 2 εὑρεθῆναι εἰς δύσιν. For similar

13—2

3—

196 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ
μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὴ εὐοικονόμητός ἐστιν, ἐὰν πέρατος ἐπι-
τύχω εἰς τὸ τὸν κλῆρόν μου ἀνεμποδίστως ἀπολαβεῖν.
φοβοῦμαι γὰρ τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην, μὴ αὐτή με ἀδικήσῃ:
ὑμῖν γὰρ εὐχερές ἐστιν, ὃ θέλετε ποιῆσαι, ἐμοὶ δὲ

1 ἐὰν πέρατος ἐπιτύχω) si finem etiam inveniam A; st dignus-fiam perduct ad
finem Σ 3 ἐάνπερ χάριτος ἐπιτύχω GL ; ἐάνπερ τῆς χάριτος ἐπιτύχω M. Hitherto we
have had two separate words χάριτος and πέρατος. In the authorities which follow
they are combined; wt usgue ad finem assequar hance gratiam Sm; δὲ finem etiam
gratiae assequar Am; and so too the presence of both words is betokened in the

| adaptation of g, ἐάνπερ χάριτος ἐπιτύχω els τὸ τὸν κλῆρόν μου els πέρας ἀνεμπο-

δίστως ἀπολαβεῖν. See the lower note.

patienter is a mere gloss unsupported by any other authority.
τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην] GM ; τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν g.

GL2M g; sed AAy Sn.

uses in Classical writers (e.g. Herod.
i. 21 és τὴν Μίλητον ἦν) see Kuhner II.
Ρ. 471. It is unnecessary to read
ἰέναι With Young.

I. εὐοικονόμητος] So too δυσοικονό-
μητος, e.g. Artem. Onezr. ii. 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
ἀφίξῃ τῆς εὐχῆς. This reading, which
I have restored, seems to follow from
a comparison of the authorities as
given above. Wecan there trace the
genesis of the variations. The ori-
ginal reading would be emended thus

xape ,
ἐὰν πέρατος, whence would arise two
variations; (1) ἐάνπερ χάριτος, the read-
ing of GL; (2) ἐὰν πέρατος χάριτος,
the reading of Am, which is also the
foundation of Sm g.

2. τὸν κλῆρόν pou] See the note
on 7Zrall. 12 for this use of κλῆρος,
referring to his martyrdom. In ἀπο-
λαβεῖν, ‘to secure’, the preposition
probably denotes that it was his
proper, destined lot: comp. [Clem.

2 ἀπολαβεῖν] The addition of =
3 γὰρ]

Rom.] ii. 8, and see the notes on Ga-
latians iv. 5.

3. φοβοῦμαι x.r.r.] For the con-
struction see Winer § lxvi. 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 p. 256 sq.,
Appendix). Although Ignatius had
been condemned to death, yet the
intercession 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. Her. ix. 12. The strenuous
efforts of the Christians under like
circumstances are described in Lu-
cian Peregr. 12 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὖν ἐδέδετο, of
Χριστιανοὶ συμφορὰν ποιούμενοι τὸ
πρᾶγμα πάντα ἐκίνουν ἐξαρπάσαι πειρώ-
μενοι αὐτόν. Ignatius appears to have
heard that such efforts were contem-
plated on his behalf. -

5. Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν] See the note
on Magn. τ.

μὴ φείσησθέ pov] ‘if you should

1] TO THE ROMANS.

197

7 £ ~ ~ ~ ε ~
δύσκολον ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν, ἐάνπερ ὑμεῖς μὴ

7 ,
φείσησθε μου.

II. Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀνθρωπαρεσκῆσαι ἀλλὰ

Θεῷ ἀρέσαι, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀρέσκετε.

A \ ,
οὔτε yap ἔγω ποτε

ε \ ~ ~ 9 ~ » ε ~
ἕξω καιρὸν τοιοῦτον Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν: οὔτε ὑμεῖς, ἐὰν

4 γὰρ] GLAM g3 autem =; scio enim quod Sm; om. A,

LA g* (but with a v.1.); om. GS Am (substituting zc) M.
after ob GLM; after θέλω g; om. AA,; al. 5. ; def. =.

app. L; ὑμῖν G.
abridgment) ; om. Sm; def. 2.
gL Sm(?); οὐ GM2(?) A(?) An(?).

ἕξω ποτε καιρὸν) ; ἕξω καιρόν ποτε M ; habebo aliguando tempus L.
It is omitted altogether in M.

οὔτον] (ἃ; τοιοῦτον ὥστε g.

not spare me’, i.e. ‘should inter-
pose to rob me of my desire.’ To
Ignatius martyrdom is life: comp.
§ 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 (δ 3 οὐδέποτε
ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί, ὃ 7 βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν
μὴ κατοικείτωθ. 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 δ 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
the flesh, I shall be reduced again to
an inarticulate cry. Permit me—I
ask nothing more—to pour out my

5 μὴ]
7 γὰρ]
ὑμᾶς] gM, and

ἀλλὰ Θεῷ ἀρέσαι] GLAM g; sed deo A (a translator’s

8 ἀρέσκετε] ἀρέσκεται G. οὔτε)
ποτε ἕξω καιρὸν] Gg* (but with a ν.].
9 To-

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 x.t.A.] 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. lii.7;
comp. [Clem. Rom.] 11. § 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 Phryn. 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 pov just be-
low.

9. καιρὸν τοιοῦτον κιτ.λ.} ‘an
opportunity like the present’, For
the infinitive after καιρὸν τοιοῦτον
comp. e.g. Hom. Od. vii. 309 οὔ μοι

‘

198 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [ur

σιωπήσητε, κρείττονι ἔργῳ ἔχετε ἐπιγραφῆναι. ἐὰν

2 γὰρ] GLAA™ Sms om. Σ Joann-Mon. 206, 207, M (but with a ν. 1, οὖν) ; τε
γὰρ δ. ἐγὼ] txt L; add. γενήσομαι GMg. Other authorities supply different
words; sum Am; sum mihi S., Joann-Mon. 207 ; evo 2 Joann-Mon. 206; fiam 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 GLAA,,Mg Joann-Mon. 206, and is represented, though less emphatically,
. inthe swm mihi of Sp Joann-Mon. 207. λόγος θεοῦ] L*ZS,, Joann-Mon. 206, 207 ;
θεοῦ (om. λόγος) GMg; ego verbum sum (aut ; ego dei sum) Ay (where both readings
are recognised, but the first imperfectly, for there is no other evidence for ἐγὼ λόγος
without θεοῦ). A has si siletis @ me verbo ego pars dei fam. ‘This departure from

τοιοῦτον ἐνὶ στήθεσσι φίλον κῆρ μαψι-
δίως κεχολῶσθαι, and see Kuhner IL.
pp. 580, ΙΟΙ1.

I. κρείττονι x.t.A.] ‘have your
name attached to, have ascribed to
you, win the credit of, any nobler
achievement’; as e.g, Plut. Jor. p.
326 F τὴν τύχην τοῖς κατορθώμασιν
ἑαυτὴν ἐπιγράφουσαν, Dionys. A. RX.
Vii. 50 τοῖς ἐκβαίνουσι παρὰ Tas ὑμετέ-
ρας συνθήκας οὐ τὴν τύχην ἀλλὰ τὴν
ὑμετέραν ἐπιγράφει διάνοιαν, AZlian
ΕΠ. A. viii. 2 τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ἑαυτὸν
πόνοις οὐκ ἐπιγράφων. Sometimes the
dative is omitted, and ἐπιγράφειν τινά
signifies ‘to give the credit to a per-
son’, e.g. Clem. Hom. ix, 16, 17, 18,
xii. 11, while ἐπιγράφεσθαι is ‘to have
the credit’, 24, xi. 9. So in Latin Se-
neca de Brev. Vit. 16 ‘quid aliud est
vitia nostra incendere, quam auctores
illis zuscrzbere deos’, The metaphor
"15 taken from a public tablet, where
the name of the person is added to
the mention of the achievement.

2. σιωπήσητε ἀπ᾽ 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
alone.’

λόγος Θεοῦ κ-τ.λ.7] ‘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. Probl. xi. 55 (Ὁ.
905) λόγου κοινωνεῖ μόνον (ἄνθρωπος),
τὰ δὲ ἄλλα φωνῆς, de Interpr. 4 (p. 16)
λόγος δέ ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντικὴ k.T.r.
It was a Stoic definition also that
λόγος ἀεὶ σημαντικός ἐστι (Diog. Laert.
vii. 57). See Lersch Sprachphilos. d.
Alten iii, Ὁ. 32 Sq.,42 sq. Thus φωνή,
as Aristotle says elsewhere (de Gen.
An. ν. 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 animaté creature,
whether articulate or not; (3) amere
confused indistinguishable sound ;
comp. Arist. de Ax, ii, 8 (p. 420) ἡ
φωνὴ ψόφος ris ἐστιν ἐμψύχου. They
are respectively ‘an utterance’, ‘acry’,
and ‘a noise’. It will be seen from

1] TO THE ROMANS.

199

\ ’ Re a “ > \ , OQ = > \ δὲ >
yap σιωπήσητε at ἐμου, Eyw λογος Θεοῦ" ἐαν de ἐρασ-

the Syriac may be explained in several ways; (1) A may have read -διλ- 9

verbo for -διὶ- verbum, and pars dei may represent θεοῦ; (2) There may
have been in the Syriac text of the translator a corruption τόδ» portio for

wala 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 rod
λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος ἐστὶ σημεῖον, διὸ
καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει ζώοις...ὁ δὲ
λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ δηλοῦν ἐστι τὸ συμφέρον
καὶ τὸ βλαβερόν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ
τὸ ἄδικον τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τὦλλα ζῶα
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 tis ἐστὶν ἄλογος καὶ ἀσή-
μαντος, λόγος δὲ λέξις ἐν φωνῇ σημαν-
τικῇ διανοίας ; comp. Plato Zheet. p.
203 B ev ἔχει λέγεσθαι αὐτὰ ἄλογα, ὧν
γε τὰ ἐναργέστατα..-«φωνὴν μόνον ἔχει,
λόγον δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὁντινοῦν.

This distinction οὗ λόγος and φωνὴ
was at once pressed into the service
of Christiantheology. Melito(/ragm,
xv, ed, Otto: see Cureton SPzczl, Sy.

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 Mis with ridui. So

again Heracleon the Valentinian saw
this distinction in Johni. 1, 14, where

our Lord is called ὁ λόγος, 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(Οτ!ρ. 71 Joann,
vi ὃ 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 5. John, and
argues at length from it, the φωνὴ
being the minister and forerunner of
the λόγος (20, ii § 26, p. 85 ; vi ὃ 10, p.
118 sq.; comp. ¢. Cels. vi. 9). The
Docetz too in Hippolytus (He. viii.
9) base some of their speculations on
this distinction. See also Clem.
Alex. Protr. 1 (p. 8) πρόδρομος *Twar-
νής, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ πρόδρομος τοῦ λόγου
κιτιλ.: comp. Strom. viil. 2, p. 914 Sq.
From Origen more especially the
distinction found its way into some
later fathers; comp. e.g. Meletius in
Epiph. Her. lxxiii. 30 (p. 878).

The passage of Ignatius is ex-
plained accordingly by John the Monk
in the latter part of the fourth cen-
tury (Cureton Cor/, Jen. pp. 206 54.»
239 sq.), 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

ὥς ΄ι / / ᾽}
θῆτε τῆς σαρκος μου; πάλιν ἐσομαι φωνή.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11

πλέον [ de |

μοι μὴ παράσχησθε τοῦ σπονδισθῆναι Θεῷ, ws ἔτι θυ-

1 φωνή] L*2S, Joann-Mon. 206 sq. (several times); τρέχων GAMg. As
before, Am recognises both readings, t/erwm ero mera vox (aut, iterum 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 altera-
tions 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. 6¢] MLg; jam Ay; igitur Sm;
om. G2A. 2 μὴ] GLE AAn Sm3 om. g* (the existing authorities)
M. παράσχησθε] ἃ; παρέχεσθε 5; παράσχεσθε M3; éribuetis L (the

Mss, but we should probably read ¢riduatis).

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 Aoyos 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. By
τρέχων he meant that Ignatius, in-
stead of receiving the crown of
victory, would be put back again to

σπονδισθῆναι) gM; σπονδιασ-

run the race (comp. Macar. Magn.
111. 40, p. 138, κέκλεισται τῶν πόνων καὶ
τῶν δρόμων τὸ στάδιον...καὶ σὺ πάλιν
ἀνοίγεις καὶ τρέχειν ἐπιτάττεις κιτ.λ.:
and for the metaphor see also Polyc.
I προσθεῖναι τῷ δρόμῳ σου; SO too τρέ-
χείν in 1 Cor, ix. 24, 26, Gal. il. 2, v.
7, Phil. ii. τό, etc., and δρόμος Acts
xx, 24, 2 Tim, iv. 7)) But he has
spoiled the antithesis. From the
interpolator it has got into the
Greek Ms of Ignatius. Cureton sug-
gested ἠχὼ 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
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

1] TO THE ROMANS.

201

/ 4 ’ > / “ 5 7 \ ,
OlLaTTHPLOV ετοιμον ΕΟ Τιν. tVa ἐν ayary Xopos yevo-

A ~ \ “Ps ΄ oO J \ >
μενοι ἀσητε TH πατρὲ ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, ὅτι τὸν ἐπί-

θῆναι G.
e glorificetis X (probably only a loose paraphrase); Ζαγιζμ7),2. (cum) amore state et
una-voce gloriosum facite A; sed in coetu amoris estote mihi cantatores et glorificate Sm.

4 τῷ πατρὶ] GLAA,SmMg (but deo patril); deo patri =. ἐν "I noob
Χριστῷ] L; per tesum christum AywSm; tm tesu christo domino nostro Σ 3 ἐν χριστῷ
ἰἱησοῦ GMg; domint nostri iesu christt A. ὅτι... μεταπεμψάμενος] txt
GLA Mg (with the variations in GM noted below); γμοαΐ episcopum (syriae)
dignificavit ut sit det, gum vocaverit eum ab oriente in occidentem X (where [τοῦ]
θεοῦ is perhaps read for ὁ θεός, and where wt si¢ represents εὑρεθῆναι; see however
the lower note for another possible explanation); gui episcopum syriae dignatus
est vocare ab oriente in occidentem A (not reading ὃς for ὅτι, but so translating the
ambiguous Syriac 3); guod dignificavit episcopum syriae ut in confessione dei inve=

3 ἵνα... ἄσητε] GLA,Meg; ut in amore sitis in uno consensu

niretur in occidente mitssus 171. vincults ex ortente Sm.

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 5. Paul, Phil. 11. 17 εἰ καὶ σπέν-
δομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ κιτ.λ., 2 Tim. iv. 6,
ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι. Ιῃ 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. £f. ad Theoph. 18 (1. p.
639) ὑπὸ τοῦ μαθηματικοῦ ‘EBpaiov τῷ
διαβόλῳ σπονδιζόμενος, The lexicons
give the meaning ‘to be reconciled’
(-- σπένδομαι) in both passages. This
meaning might be possible in John
Damascene, as the word might there
be middie, but in Ignatius neither
the voice nor the sense of the context
will admit it.

ὡς ἔτι θυσιαστήριον κ-.τ.λ.7 ‘while
yet there ts 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. 3 265. 4 καὶ of κατ᾽ ἀν-
dpa δὲ χορὸς γίνεσθε. The metaphor
is taken from a heathen sacrificial
rite; see K. F. Hermann Gof#tes-
dienstl, Alterth. ii. § 29. For a
similar figure borrowed from a
heathen religious procession see
Ephes. 9 ἐστὲ οὖν καὶ σύνοδοι k.t.X.

4. τὸν ἐπίσκοπον Συρίας] ‘the bishop
belonging to Syria’, 1.6. ‘from the dis-
tant east’; the genitive denoting, not
the extent of his jurisdiction, but the
place of his abode. Onthesupposition
that episcopal jurisdiction is implied,
objection has been taken to Συρίας
(which is wanting in one copy of the
Curetonian Syriac) asananachronism
in the time of Ignatius, and there-
fore as an indication of the spurious-
ness of the Greek Epistles (Bunsen
Lr. 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-

202

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11

σκοπὸν Cupias κατηξίωσεν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρεθῆναι εἰς δύσιν,

᾿ \ 3 od /
ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς μεταπεμψάμενος.

\ \ ~ \
καλὸν TO δῦναι ἀπὸ

/ \ / / > > \ > /
κόσμου πρὸς Θεὸν, iva εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατείλω.

t Συρίας] GLE;,AAmSm Mg (comp. Mart-Rom. 10); om. 2».

karnilwoev

ὁ Θεὸς] gLAm; ὁ θεὸς κατηξίωσεν GM; al. TAS,» (see the previous note, p. 201).

μεταπεμψάμενος] txt GL[g]; pref. τοῦτον M.
Sev-Syr. 215 3 add. mihi AZ, Joann-Mon. 207; add. autem S,.
tions in the authorities for g see the Appendix.

Sev-Syr.; zntrare Am; congregari A; τὸ διαλυθῆναι οἷ,

2 καλὸν] txt GLZ,A,,Mg*
For the complica-
δῦναι] GLZS,,M Joann-Mon.

3 πρὸς Θεόν] GL

AAySmMg; om. Sev-Syr. (but he quotes the passage leosely from memory donum

est occidere a mundo et orirt in christo).

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 ex-
cision practised by a later scribe.

I. εὑρεθῆναι εἰς δύσιν) Comp, Esther
i. 5 τοῖς ἔθνεσι τοῖς εὑρεθεῖσιν εἰς τὴν
πόλιν, Acts viii. 40 Bidurmos δὲ εὑρέθη
εἰς "Αζωτον. So too φανῆναι eis, e.g.
2 Macc. i. 33. See also the note on
δ 1 εἰς τέλος eiva. 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, OP. 11. p. 598 (ed Bened.)
καθάπερ ἥλιός Tis 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 Mene@a Dec. 20 τοῖς δρόμοις τῆς
πίστεως, ὡς ἥλιος, τὴν γῆν γενναίως
διέδραμες ἀπ᾽ ἄκρων οὐρανοῦ, καὶ δύνας
ἀδύτως ἀπὸ γῆς εἰς Χριστὸν τὸ φώς
συναστράπτεις αὐτῷ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας,
besides several other allusions to this
passage more or less direct. See
also Ephraem Syrus Of. Grec. 111.
p. 261 ἔδυσαν ἀπὸ κόσμου καὶ πρὸς
Χριστὸν ἀνέτειλαν, quoted by Zahn.

ἀνατείλω] GLZAg Joann-Mon.;

2. καλὸν τὸ δῦναι x.7.A.] 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
turn in 2 Tim. ii. 9 ἐν @ 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 be called, but be found a Christian.
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
is a thing of energy and power, when
it is hated by the world.’

4. ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί) ‘erudged any
one’, i.e. the triumph of martyrdom:

nr] TO THE ROMANS. 203

TET, ἄλλους ἐΣδι-
5 δάξατε. ἐγὼ δὲ θέλω ἵνα κἀκεῖνα βέβαια ἢ ἃ μαθη-

“Ὁ 7 > / > ’
Οὐδέποτε ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί:

ἀνατείλωμεν M3 ογίαγ (aut, fiam ογ16715) Ay (which seems to offer an alternative
reading ἀνατολὴ ὦ for ἀνατείλω) ; tandem (ad finenr) 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 G3 οὐδὲ Ay (on unguam invidistis nobis, et non alios etc.). As the
case affects the meaning, the testimony of the versions is important; dvidistis
in aliguo LL; invidistis cuiguam ZASm; fascinastis aliguem 1 (which requires

οὐδένα, not οὐδενὶ as in g): see the lower note.

GLA; SmMg ; om. ZA.

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 111. I.
The dative is required here: for Bac-
καίνειν τινά is either ‘to bewitch’ or
‘to calumniate’, while βασκαίνειν τινί
is ‘to envy’; see Lobeck Phryn.
p- 463.

ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατε͵] ‘you instructed
others’, i.e. in the training of the
Christian athlete; comp. “phes. 3
“tp ὑμῶν ὑπαλειφθῆναι πίστει, νου-
θεσίᾳ, ὑπομονῇ, μακροθυμίᾳ (with the
note), Rome had hitherto been the
chief arena of 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 myself’.
Perhaps however ἄλλους here means
‘others besides yourselves’. In this
case Ignatius would refer to the
exhortations of the Romans, whether
by letter or by delegates, to foreign
churches. More especially we may
suppose that he had in his mind

5 ἐγὼ δὲ... ἐντέλλεσθε)

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.TA.,
§ 46 τοιούτοις οὖν ὑποδείγμασιν κολλη-
θῆναι καὶ ἡμᾶς δεῖ κιτιλ., ὃ 55 wa δὲ
καὶ ὑποδείγματα ἐθνῶν ἐνέγκωμεν κ.τ.λ.
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 (/.
v. A. p. 313) supposes that Ignatius
alludes also to the Shepherd of
Hermas, which is directed to be sent
eis Tas ἔξω πόλεις (715. ii. 4) ; but this
assumes the early date of Hermas,
which is more than doubtful.

5. ἐγὼ δὲ θέλω «rA.| ‘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 μαθητεύειν as a transitive
verb; comp. ὃ 5 below, and Zffes.
3, 10. So too Matt. xiil. 52, xxvill, 19,
Acts xiv. 21, and probably also Matt.
xxvii. 57, where however there is av. 1.
ἐμαθήτευσεν for ἐμαθητεύθη: but in

204

THE -EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [π|

“ἢ ’ t , ’ ~ of ,

τεύοντες ἐντέλλεσθε. μόνον μοι δύναμιν αἰτεῖσθε ἔσωθεν
ἈΠ J \ Γ / ᾽ \ \ 4 «

τε καὶ ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ μόνον λέγω ἀλλὰ καὶ θελω" ἵνα

\ , r , \ ἢ \ \ Ue
μὴ μόνον λέγωμαι Χριστιανὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ εὑρεθώ.

ey |
εαν

΄' \ , / \ / \
yao εὑρεθῶ, Kal λέγεσθαι δύναμαι, καὶ τότε πιστὸς

> .« / \ ͵
εἰναι, ὅταν κόσμῳ py φαίνωμαι.

οὐδὲν φαινόμενον

r μοι δύναμιν αἰτεῖσθε] GL; μοι δύναμιν αἰτήσασθε [M]3 δύναμιν αἰτεῖσθέ

μοι σ.

2 ἵνα μὴ sec.] GM; ὅπως μὴ g (comp. Smyrn. 11, where there is

the same substitution, and /o/yc. 2, where there is the converse); wf mon Sy;

non ut LL; et non ut X; et non AA.

yap kalG; al. AS, ; def. M.

3 ἐὰν γὰρ] gLZA,,3 ἐὰν
4 καὶ τότε πιστὸς εἶναι] GLMg; et tunc

fidelis possum fieri Am; et tunc sim fidelis A; tunc sum fidelis Σ Joann-Mon. 207;
et fidelis (creditus) ero [Sm] (τότε being transferred to the former clause).

5 ὅταν] GL; ὅτε g (Mss) M.
M (with a v.1.); appareo L.
Syr. 210]; add. yap 25,,M.

φαίνωμαι] Gg* (with a v.1.); φαίνομαι

οὐδὲν] txt GLAAng (but 1 add. ez) [Tim-
6 καλόν] bonum LAA; pulchrum (87)

ZSm3 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

classical writers (e. g. Plut. dor. 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, Ephes.
3 (quoted above).

I. povov] ie. ‘This is the only
interposition on your part, which I
wish.’

ἔσωθέν τε κ.τ.λ.}] 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 κιτ.λ.] Comp.
Ephes. 15 ἄμεινον x.t.A. with the note.

3. μὴ μόνον λέγωμαι] Clem. Hom.
iii. 37 μόνος yap οὗτος καὶ λέγεται καὶ
ἔστιν.

ἐὰν γὰρ κιτιλ.}] ‘If I am proved a
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
τότε 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 μαθη-
τής.

5. οὐδὲν φαινόμενον κιτ.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.. οὗ which passage the latter
part has been foisted into the text of
Ignatius in many copies here. S.
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]

/
καλον.
nN ~ ’
ων, μάλλον φαίνεται.

TO THE ROMANS.

205

ε ‘ \ 4 τ να ᾽ ~ , Π \
ὁ yap Geos ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ἐν πατρὲ

> ΄σ \ »/ 3 \
οὐ πεισμονῆς TO ἐργον ἄλλα

/ \ / / on ε \
μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμὸς, ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ

I
κόσμου.

Syriac renderings (see e.g. καλὸν in § 6). [The above note was written, before I
noticed Zahn’s Add. et Corr. He there quotes Origen οὐδὲν φαινόμενον καλόν ἐστιν
k.T.X. (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.
LZAAySm Tim-Syr. ὁ γὰρ.. φαίνεται] GLAA,,S,, Tim-Syr.; om. 2g;
def. M. ἡ πεισμονῆς] gLZA,, Tim-Syr.; desiderii Sm; vanitatis A;
σιωπῆς μόνον G; def. M. ἔργον] ἔργων Ὁ. 8 χριστιανισμός]
G2AAng” (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, δὲ 2}
vr for STAY opus, thus rendering christianus necessary) Tim-Syr.; def. M.

ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου] g*LA,, Tim-Syr.; guando odit eum mundus ZA;
quando mundum odit S,, (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 2: 2165. inscr.

ἐν πατρὶ ὧν κιτ.λ.] 1. 6. Sis 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 wmeioporns «.t.rA.| * The
Work ts not of persuasive rhetoric’ ;
comp. I Cor. ii. 4 ὁ λόγος μου καὶ τὸ
κήρυγμά μου οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας
λόγοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ
δυνάμεως, I Thess. i. 5 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη eis ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ
μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει κιτιλ, For
πεισμονή comp. Gal. v. 8 with the
note. On τὸ ἔργον ‘the Work’, asa
synonyme for the Gospel, see the

note on the closely parallel passage
Ephes. 14 οὐ yap viv ἐπαγγελίας τὸ
ἔργον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει πίστεως x.7.X.
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. Ido 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,’ ase. g. Mart. Polyc.
17 τὸ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ τῆς μαρτυρίας ;
comp. /phes. inscr., Smyrn. 11.

ὁ χριστιανισμός] See the note on
Magn. το.

μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου] Comp. John
vii. 7, xv. 18, 19, xvii. 14, 1 Joh. iii. 13.
This last clause has dropped out of
the Greek MS. There is a similar
omission in § 6 μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε.

206 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [iv

\ / , ~ \
IV. ᾿Εγὼ γράφω πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, καὶ ἐν-
/ ~ e/ ς = >
τέλλομαι πᾶσιν OTt [ἐγὼ] ἑκὼν ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποθνήσκω,

“ ς ΄σ \ σ΄ ε on \ »
ἐάνπερ ὑμεῖς μὴ κωλύσητε. παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, μὴ εὖ-

1 πάσαι9] g S.SsSAAm Tim-Syr. ; om. GLS,,M. ἐντέλλομαι] GL*S,S,=
AAnSmM Tim-Syr.; ἐντελοῦμαι g* (Mss but mando 1). 2 ἐγὼ] GM; om. g.
It is not expressed in LAA,,Sm Tim-Syr., and doubtfully in Σ 5.3. 3 εὔνοια
ἄκαιρος γένησθε] GMg ; concordia (σύννοια Ὁ) intempestiva (nom. or abl.) fiatis Li; sitis
in amore intempestivo Σ᾽ (εὐνοίᾳ dxalpw, unless it is a loose paraphrase); facitadis
amorem...intenipestive A; inutiliter (aut; incongrue) curas ostendere Ay (this is
perhaps an alternative translation, not an alternative reading); compatiamini inant-
ter, sitis amatores inanes Sy (a double translation): see the lower note.

4 θηρίων εἶναι] S.S32Sm; add. βορράν G; add. βοράν M ; add. βρῶμα g; add. cibum
LA; @ destits devoraré Ay. 5 éveorw] GM (with a v.1.); ἔστιν g; est

IV. ‘I 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. Ido not command you, as if
I were Peter or Paul. I am only a
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 (§ 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. ὃ ἐπεὶ πάσαις
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐκ ἠδυνήθην γράψαι

κατιλ. 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.
wasinopportune. An easy alteration
would be εὐνοίᾳ ἄκαιροι, but the text
is probably correct as it stands. It
seems to bea reference to the proverb
ἄκαιρος evvor οὐδὲν ἔχθρας διαφέρει
(Zenob. Parem. i. 50); comp. ὃ 8
ἐὰν ἀποδοκιμασθῶ, 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. Swyra.
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. 1.

6. ἀλήθομαι] “7 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 more Attic than ἀλήθειν ; see
Lobeck Phryn. p. 151. The latter

1] TO THE ROMANS. 207

a , , Sf / 7 ἣν
νοιὰ ἄκδιροος γένησθε μοι. ἄφετέ με θηρίων εἶναι,

5 δι’ ὧν [ἔν-Ἰεστιν Θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν. σῖτός εἰμι Θεοῦ, καὶ
δι ὀδόντων θηρίων ἀλήθομαι, ἵνα καθαρὸς ἄρτος εὑρεθώ

LAm; Zossum Sy; al. A. otros K.T.A] This saying is quoted several times
in the Aenea 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. (AZeneza Dec. 20); τοῦ Θεοῦ g Mart-Rom. 10; dei LS,S;2AAmSm
Beda Comm. in Afoc. xviii; christi Iren. Vv. 28.4 (Lat., but quoted θεοῦ in Euseb.
fH. £. iii. 36) Beda Martyr. viii Kal. Dec. 6 ἀλήθομαι] Mg (but 1 has
molar) Iren. Mart-Rom. (but Copt. has molar) Theod-Stud. ; ἀλέθομαι (ἃ ; molor
SeS3sZAApnSm; molar L (Ξε ἀλήθωμαι, if indeed it is not intended for a future ;
comp. Hieron. Caza/. τό, and see Zahn J. v. A. Ρ. 339): see the lower note.

εὑρεθῶ] GLZ εἰς. ; γένωμαι (v. 1. γίνωμαι) Mart-Rom.

form however occurs in other dia-
᾿ lects, and even in Pherecrates (quoted
by Suidas s.v.) ἀνὴρ (δὲ) γέρων ἀνο-
δόντος 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. Azz. 111. 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, Ul. p. 483,
Meineke) ἄρτος καθαρὸς eis ἑκατέρῳ,
ποτήριον ὕδατος, of the Pythagoreans;
Hermeias (Athen. iv. p. 149 E) ἔπειτα
ἑκάστῳ παρατίθεται ἄρτος καθαρός, οἵ a
sacred banquet; Lamprid. V72. Alex.
Sev. 37 ‘panis mundus’, opposed to
‘panis sequens’ (i.e. ‘seconds’).
The purest bread (ὁ καθαρώτατος ἄρ-
ros), according to Galen, was called
in Latin σιλιγνίτης (i.e. ‘siliginea’),
the next quality in point of pureness
being σεμιδαλίτης (Of. VI. p. 483,
Kihn.). As symbolical of purity,
ἄρτοι καθαροὶ were offered in sacrifice ;

e.g. Herod. ii, 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 ὃ 2.
See the (Zen@a (Dec. 20) σῖτος Θεοῦ
καθαρὸς εἰμί, ἔλεγες, καὶ dv 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. A γέ. 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
τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν συγκεχωρημένον,

208 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [iv

~ ~ ~ / \ / e/
[τοῦ Χριστοῦ]. μᾶλλον κολακεύσατε Ta θηρία, ἵνα

ef \ 7 ΄σ ΄σ

μοι τάφος γένωνται, καὶ μηθὲν καταλίπωσιν τῶν τοὺ
/ / c/ \ \ / /

σώματός μου, iva μὴ κοιμηθεὶς βαρύς τινι γένωμαι.

/ af \ > ~ 3 : ~ ~ ε΄ ὮΝ

τότε ἔσομαι μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, OTE οὐδε

\ ~ / ε ’ » / \
TO σῶμά μου ὁ κόσμος ὄψεται. λιτανεύσατε τον 5

1 τοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS,,M; θεοῦ (before εὑρεθῶ) g; dei 5.5: ΣΑ ΑΝ Iren-Lat. Beda
Martyr.; om. Tren-Gr (Euseb.) Mart-Rom. Hieron. Catal. 16 Beda Comm. in
Apoc. It seems probable from a comparison of these authorities that the genitive
should be omitted altogether. If indeed θεοῦ (contracted 0%) 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 els 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. An. It is ap-
parently intended to be expressed by the strong forms, Arovocando provocate, adu-
lando adulamini, in 8,5,2S yp. 2 μηθὲν] μὴθὲν (sic) G3; μηδὲν M. The Mss
of g vary. καταλίπωσιν] κατὰλίπωσι (sic) G3 καταλείπωσιν (or -σι) gM (the
latter with a v. 1.). τῶν τοῦ σώματός μου] g; corum quae corporis met L; e

I. μᾶλλον] Referring to the clause p. 1096) θηρία πεπλησμένα, τάφους τρέ-

μὴ εὔνοια ἄκαιρος γένησθέ μοι.
κολακεύσατε] ‘coax, humour, en-
zZice’, 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 Sudl. 111. 2). Our
own Spenser has the expression ‘ to
be entombed in the raven or the
kight’, Fairy Queen ii. 8.16. The last
two passages, with others from Latin
writers, are given by Munro on Lu-
cret. Vv. 993 ‘ Viva videns vivo sepe-
liri viscera busto’. Compare Suicer
Thes. s.v. tapos for other illustra-
tions. See also Soph. £7. 1487 κτα-
vov προθὲς ταφεῦσιν, ὧν τόνδ᾽ εἰκός
ἐστι τυγχάνειν, ἄποπτον ἡμῶν, Eur. lon
933 θηρσὶν φίλον τύμβευμα; and a-
mong Christian fathers, Athenag.
Suppl. 36 τίς ἂν ὧδ᾽ ἀνάστασιν πεπισ-
τευκὼς ἐπὶ σώμασιν ἀναστησομένοις
ἑαυτὸν παράσχοι τάφον, Amphiloch.
Lamb. ad Sel. 148 (Greg. Naz. Of. Il.

χοντας. \

μηθὲν καταλίπωσιν] In one Martyr-
ology, the Antiochene (§ 6), it is re-
lated that the saint’s wish was almost
literally fulfilled, ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν ἀδελ-
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... -προσπεσόντες 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

1v] TO THE ROMANS.

209

4 ~ ε \ ~ ΄σ
Κύριον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα διὰ τῶν ὀργάνων τούτων Θεοῦ

θυσία εὑρεθώ.

Οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσο-

~~ ~ Γ᾿ 5» A | ~
μαι ὑμῖν: ἐκεῖνοι aTOTTOAOL, ἔγω κατάκριτος" ἐκεῖνοι

ἐλεύθεροι, ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος.

»\ /
ἀλλ᾽ ἐαν πάθω,

corporibus meis A, (probably the plur. is intended to represent the τῶν); τοῦ
σώματός μου (om. τῶν) GM; e corpore meo S2S,ZA (but in such a matter the Oriental

Versions do not count for much).

g*; inveniar L; appaream Am; def. A.
ἀληθῶς] GL* Ay; 2” veritate X ; ἀληθής “ΑΜ.

et tunc A.
ΤΙ ΣΑ͂, δ᾽; τοῦ χριστοῦ GAS,M.
GLSy 3 τῷ χριστῷ Μ.

2 γένωμαι] ΑΣΜ ; sim Sm3 εὑρεθήσομαι

4 τότε] GLZAS mM ; τότε δὲ ;
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)
5 τὸν Κύριον] S,2ZAAng; τὸν χριστὸν

6 Θεοῦ] g* (but om. θεοῖ 1; and some Gk Mss

read θεῷ); dei L; deo or dei (probably the latter) AA; deo S;2Sy,; om. GLM

(which last reads θυσία καθαρά) : see the lower note.

ἐγὼ δὲ [g] (altering the context freely) 2S,,3 e¢ ego AAn.
GS; 2M[g]; e¢ ego AAm; ἐγὼ (om. δὲ) LSn.
should be admitted here, but rejected in the previous clause.

8 ἐγὼ] GLS3M ;

9 ἐγὼ δὲ]
There can be little doubt that δὲ
The testimony of

some authorities however (g2AA,,) is weakened here by their insertion of a con-

necting particle in the former case.

of his reliques in the words βαρύς
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 Zphes. 1.

6. τῶν ὀργάνων τούτων] ‘these in-
struments of my purification’, i.e. the
wild beasts.

Θεοῦ θυσία] The omission of Θεοῦ
in some texts must be explained by
the similar letters θγθγοιὰ. For
this reason Θεοῦ is to be preferred to
Θεῷ. See however the v.1. 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 (Scera-
ξαντο) to the Roman Church; 566
the note on “phes. 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,

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 x.t.A.| ‘ 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-
Oepo. comp. I Cor. ix. I οὐκ εἰμὲ
ἐλεύθερος ; 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 παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι). For
this intermingling of the symbol and
the thing symbolized see the note on
§ 2 καλὸν τὸ δῦναι x.r.A. For the whole
sentence comp. 7yad/. 3 ἵνα ὧν κατά-
κριτος ws ἀπόστολος ὑμῖν διατάσσωμαι,
Ephes. 12 ἐγὼ κατάκριτος, ὑμεῖς ἠλεη-
pevus (with the notes).

9. μεχρὶ νῦν δοῦλος] It has been

210

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[iv

> / > ~ ΄σ \ Ε] , ΕῚ 9 ~
ἀπελεύθερος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἀναστήσομαι ἐν αὐτῷ
> / / Sv / \ ᾽ ΄-
ἐλεύθερος. νῦν μανθάνω δεδεμένος μηδὲν ἐπιθυμεῖν.

I ἀπελεύθερο] GM; add. γενήσομαι g. The versions naturally supply νατγΐοιιβ᾽

words; fam L; fio A; inveniar Am; ego sum S,D3 sum mihi Sm
Χριστοῦ] LS,ZAA,S,,.Mg; om. G.

note.
cumt ¢o Ams; om. LA.

: see the lower
ἐν αὐτῷ] GSyESmM¢g ;

2 νῦν] GA,Mg ; e¢ munc LEA; nunc autem Syn-
μανθάνω] txt GLEAA,S M3; add. ἐν αὐτῷ σ᾽ (Mss, but om. 1).
txt LZEAAnSm; add. κοσμικὸν ἢ μάταιον GMg.

ἐπιθυμεῖν]
3 γῆς καὶ Caddoons]

GLA, S,[M]g Euseb. .Χ. 45. iii. 36 Mart-Rom. 1; θαλάσσης καὶ γῆς ZA Euseb-

inferred from this (Bunsen Jez. p.
58, Ritschl. Althath. Kirche p. 412),
that Ignatius was, or had been, ac-
tually a 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 79. v. A. p. 410 54.

I. ἀπελεύθερος x.t.r.] ‘a freed-
man’, the idea being taken from
I Cor. vil. 22 ὁ γὰρ ἐν Κυρίῳ κληθεὶς
δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν:
comp. Mart. Fustin. et Soc. 4 Ev-
έλπιστος δοῦλος Καίσαρος ἀπεκρίνατο,
Καγὼ Χριστιανός εἰμι, ἐλευθερωθεὶς
ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ, Cyprian 2252. 76 (p.
829, Hartel) ‘O pedes in szeculo ad
preesens ligati, ut sint semper apud
Deum liberi, Act. SS. Did. et Theod.
1 ‘Judex dixit /ugenua es, an an-
cilla? Theodora respondit Fame ¢2bz
dixt, Christiana sunt; Christus autem
adveniens me liberavit’ (Ruinart Act.
Mart. Sinc, p. 428, Ratisbon. 1359).
Similarly Epictetus Dzss. ili. 24. 68
ἐξ ov p ᾿Αντισθένης ἠλευθέρωσεν,
οὐκέτι ἐδούλευσα᾽ πῶς ἠλευθέρωσεν;
κιτιλ., ἵν. 7. 17 ἠλευθέρωμαι ὑπὸ τοῦ
Θεοῦ, ἔγνωκα αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐντολάς, οὐκέτι
οὐδεὶς δυυλαγωγῆσαί με δύναται (comp.
iv. 1. 35). For the form of the sen-
tence (with the omission of the sub-

stantive verb) comp. Ephes. 8 mepi-
ψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγνίζομαι ὑμῶν.

2. νῦν μανθάνω κιτ.λ.] “Αἱ pre-
sent I am only a learner ; my bonds
are teaching me to abandon all
worldly desires’: comp 5 μᾶλλον pa-
Onrevoua...vdv ἄρχομαι μαθητὴς εἶναι,
and § 7 ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται k.T.X.

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. "Amo Supias «r.A.] ‘Shall I
encounter wild-beasts only then at
length, when I arrive in 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-

ν] TO THE ROMANS.

ans

V. Ao Cupias μέχρι ‘Pwpns θηριομαχῶ, διὰ γῆς

\ / \ fo («ἰ. F 3 / ΄
καὶ θαλάσσης, νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, ἐνδεδεμένος δέκα λεο-

Syr. Hieron. Catal.16. 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.

recorded here ; they will be found in their proper place.

Nor again are all the vv. 11, of Mart-Rom.

4 ἐνδεδεμένος]

g Euseb. Mart-Rom.; vinctus inter ZA; vinctus cum AywSm 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 ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, but it has
reference to the literal θηριομαχία
which awaits him. See the saying
of Pompeius in Appian Be/Z. Czv. ii.
61 οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα, and Lucian
Pisc. 17 οὐ yap τοῖς τυχοῦσι θηρίοις
προσπολεμῆσαι δεήσει μοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλαζό-
σιν ἀνθρώποις καὶ δυσελέγκτοις, quoted
in Wetstein on 1 Cor./.c. For ἀπὸ
Συρίας κιτιλ. comp. Boeckh C. ἢ 3425
στεφανωθέντα ἱεροὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς ἀπὸ
τῆς οἰκουμένης πάντας ἀπὸ Καπιτω-
λείων ews ᾿Αντιοχείας τῆς Συρίας.

διὰ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης] This ex-
pression has been thought to militate
against the statement in Mart. Jen.
Ant. 3 κατελθὼν ἀπὸ ᾿Αντιοχείας εἰς
τὴν Σελεύκειαν, ἐκεῖθεν εἴχετο τοῦ πλόος
καὶ προσχὼν μετὰ πόλυν κάματον τῇ
Σμυρναίων πόλει κιτιλ., as the few
miles from Antioch to ἰἰϑυ ροῦί 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,
fH, E. iii. 36 τὴν δ’ ᾿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 αἱ 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, J. v. A. p. 253) they
should have taken ship from Se-
leucia to some Cilician or Pamphy-
lian 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. eévdedepevos] 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 ‘ cuzsfo-
dia militaris’ see Philippians p.
8 sq. 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 (P72. 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

212

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

/ « \ ἕ A \
Tapools, ὅ ἐστιν στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα, οἱ καὶ εὐεργε-

1 ὅ ἐστιν) GLMg Euseb. (Gk Mss, Hieron., Rufin.) ; οἵτινές εἶσι Mart-Rom.

(v. 1); 2 gut sunt Sm; gui sunt DAA, Euseb-Syr.

στρατιωτικὸν] gM

Euseb. Mart-Rom. ; militaris L; στρατιωτῶν G3; 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 (Vv. 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 (Of. V.
p. 134, Kithn) ἐπὶ λεόντων καὶ λεαινῶν
καὶ παρδάλεών τε καὶ λεοπάρδων, ἄρκτων
τε καὶ λύκων, οἱ τὰς σάρκας αὐτῶν
ἡδέως ἐσθίοντες ἀφίστανται τοῦ σπλη-
νὸς 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. 1. p. Ixxviil. 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, lezene, pardi,
leopardi, panthere,’ among commo-
dities hiable 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),
2b. ‘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. V7z¢. He?. 21) that he ‘ha-
buit leones et leopardos exarma-
tos in deliciis, and again (zd. ὃ 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 ieopards
should occur to Ignatius as naturally
as lions or tigers. In the edict of
Diocletian also leopards are men-
tioned, Corp. Inuscr. Lat. 111. p. 832
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.

Bochart (Hzerozoicon Pars 1. Lib.
111. 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. J. p. 456 sq.),
and Cotelier (ad loc.), besides other
considerations, referred to the Acts
of Perpetua and Felicitas in reply.
But they overlooked the earlier pas-
sages from Galen and the Digests,
which, so far as I know, are ad-
duced here for the first time; and
the Aadict of Diocletian was yet un-

ν] TO THE ROMANS. 213

7 f
TOUMEVOL χείρους γίνονται.

> δὲ ~ ᾽ 7 > -~
ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀδικήμασιν αὐτῶν

(the Greek word στρατιώτης being transliterated in ZS,, Euseb-Syr.): comp. Ps-Ign.

ad Mar. 4 ἡ στρατιωτικὴ ppovpa.

The Syriac Versions are of no account here,

as they could hardly have translated otherwise.

discovered. Bochart’s objection was
revived by Baur (Ursprung des Epis-
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 Azecd. Ὁ. 1394) treats
it as Greek, and justifies it by the
analogy of γεροκόμος (from γέρων),
᾿Απολλογένης, ᾿Απολλοφάνης (from ’A-
πόλλων). In Athanas. Vit. Anton. 9
(1. p. 640), where λεοσάρδων occurs,
there is a v. 1. Aeomapdadwy (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) ‘ Aigenera dicuntur ant
malia ex diverso genere nata, ut
leopardalis ex leone et panthera’
(where for leopardalis inferior MSS
have /eopardus), Philostr. Vit. Apol?.
ii. 14 (p. 30) λέγεται δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν
λεαινῶν λόγος, ὡς ἐραστὰς μὲν ποιοῦνται
τοὺς παρδαλεὶς κιτ.λ....στικτὰ γὰρ τίκ-
τουσιν. On the animals intended by
the ancients under the several names
mavOnp, πάρδαλις, pardus, etc., see
Wiegemann in Oken’s 7525 1831, p.
287 sq.

6 ἐστιν κι. 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
svldiers’ 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;
‘Centuriz in contubernia divisze
sunt, ut decem mulitibus sub uno
papilione degentibus unus quasi prz-
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 100 or
120 men; see Marquardt Rom,
Alterth, iii. 2, p. 458 sq. (comp. 26,
p- 253 sq.). The Greek τάγμα 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 in Dion. Halic. A. R. vi. 42
of a legion; comp. Dion Cass, Ixxi.
9 καλοῦσι δὲ τὸ τάγμα of Ῥωμαῖοι
λεγεῶνα ; but more properly it de-
noted an ‘ordo’ or maniple, as in
Polyb. vi. 24. 5.

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.
I, p. 511) who, to illustrate this mode
of procuring comforts for Christian
ceonfessors and martyrs, cites Lucian
Peregr. 12 συνεκάθευδον ἔνδον per
αὐτοῦ διαφθείροντες τοὺς δεσμο-
φύλακας" εἶτα δεῖπνα ποικίλα εἰσεκο-
μίζετο κιτιλ., Apost. Const. V. 1 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
τύχῃ, ἵνα ὅσον τὸ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν μὴ θλίβηται

214

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [ν

μάλλον μαθητεύομαι" ἀλλ OY TAPA τοῦτο AEAIKAIO-

Mal.

/ ~ / ~ " \ ς /
᾿Οναίμην τῶν θηρίων των EOL ἡτοιμασμένων,

‘ » / / ΄σ « \ /
ἃ καὶ εὔχομαι σύντομα μοι εὑρεθῆναι: a καὶ κολακεύσω

/ ~~ « ~ /
συντόμως ME καταφαγεῖν, οὐχ ὥσπερ τινῶν δειλαινόμενα

2 τῶν ἐμοὶ ἡτοιμασμένων] GMg (comp. ad Mar. 2 ὀναίμην τῶν δείνων τῶν ἐμοὶ

ἡτοιμασμένων) ;
sunt (manent Ay) ZAAmSm Euseb-Syr.
is omitted also in 2S,, Euseb-Syr.

σύντομα] g Euseb.; veloces.

τῶν ἐμοὶ ἑτοίμων Euseb.; mihi esse paratis L*; gue mihi parate

3 ἃ] g Euseb. AA,,; om. GLM. It

, but the Syriac idiom would suggest the omission.
..in tempore suo Sy3 confestim X (the same word which

renders συντόμως just below) A (the following συντόμως is not represented) ; prompte
Ay (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]
GLAAmMg Euseb.; αὖ alits hominibus X (but τινῶν of g is translated 272 aliis
by 1; while Jerome freely renders Euseb. here szcut aliorum martyrum, and the

Syriac version of this same historian has αὖ aliis); a multis Sm.
μενα οὐχ ἥψαντο] GLAmS,Mg Euseb. (but with a v. 1. ἥψατο).

δειλαινό-

Σ Euseb-Syr.

have metuens αὖ aliis (add. hominibus Σ) et non appropinquans iis, as if they had

read δειλαινόμενος οὐχ ἥψατο.

ὁ μακάριος ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, Act. Perp.
et Fel. 3 ‘Tertius et Pomponius, be-
nedicti diaconi, qui nobis ministra-
bant, constituerunt premio ut paucis
horis emissi in meliorem locum
carceris refrigeraremus,’ with other
passages.

I. μαθητεύομαι)] See the note on
§ 3. ᾿

οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο x.t.A.| Taken from
1 Cor. iv. 4 οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι.-
For παρὰ τοῦτο ‘on this account’,
where παρὰ ‘ along of’ denotes causa-
tion, comp. Zral/. 5 mapa τοῦτο ἤδη
καὶ μαθητής εἶμι. So too I Cor. xii.
15, 16, ov παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ TOU
σώματος, Clem. Hom. xv. 10, xviii. 18.
In all these passages it is with a
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 11.
Ρ. 444 54.

2. Ὀναίμην κιτ.λ.] So Act. Perp.

5 ἑκόντα μὴ θέλῃ] δ ; volentem non velint

et Fel. 14 ‘ut bestias lucraretur’.
Pearson has given a wrong turn to
the expression, when he writes “2ο-
tear feris; potius ferzs quam Ais
leopardis’. For ὀναίμην see the note
on Ephes. 2.

3. σύντομα] ‘prompt’, ‘expedi-
tious’, as frequently. The emenda-
tion σύντονα suggested by Voss is
not an improvement.

4. δειλαινόμενα] See for examples
Euseb. #7. £. viii. 7 (quoted in a
subsequent note), Act. SS. Tarach.
Prob. etc. τὸ (in Ruinart Act. Mart.
Stuc.p.473). 80 ἴοο of Blandina, EA.
Vienn. in Euseb. v. 1 μηδενὸς ἁψαμέ-
vou τότε τῶν θηρίων αὐτῆς.

5. κἂν αὐτὰ δὲ κιτ.λ.] The autho-
rities point to ἑκόντα as the original
reading; and, if so, it is perhaps
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’.

v] TO THE ROMANS. 215

οὐχ ἥψαντο' Kav αὐτὰ δὲ ἑκόντα μὴ θέλη, ἐγὼ προσ-
5 οὐχ ἥ μὴ θέλῃ, ἐγὼ πρ

᾽ 7 / > ‘

βιάσομαι. συγγνώμην μοι ἔχετε" τί μοι συμφέρει éyw

7 lol Sf \ > /

γινώσκω" viv ἀρχομαι μαθητῆς εἶναι" μηθέν με ζηλώ-
σι ς ΄σ \ ΄σ > hy .« 3 ΄σ ΄σ

σαι τών ὁρατών καὶ τῶν ἀοράτων, ἵνα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Ι,; ἄκοντα μὴ θέλῃ Euseb.; ἄκοντα μὴ θελήσῃ (ἃ; ἄκοντα μὴ θελήσειεν M; non
velint AnSm; non velint appropinquare mihi XA Euseb-Syr. This last seems to
represent a reading ἑκόντα μὴ ἔλθῃ, the confusion of Ελθη and OEAH being easy.
Possibly however appropinguare is supplied after θέλῃ from the previous ἥψαντο, which
is translated ‘approach’ in all the three. 6 éyo...elvar] GLS,AA,S,Mg
Euseb, Euseb-Syr.; om. 2. A line seems to have dropped out in the copy from
which this abridgement was made. 7 μηθέν] G; μηθέν or μηδέν g 3 μηδέν
Euseb.; def. M. ζηλώσαι] ζηλωσαι g (accentuated as infin. ζηλῶσαι in
the Mss) Euseb. (Jerome treats it as an infin.; Rufinus and the Syriac as an
optat.) ; ξηλῶσαι (for it is treated as an infin.) LAA, 3 zxvideat (ζηλώσαι or ζηλώσῃ)
5.5 Joann-Mon. 207; ζηλώση G. The original reading therefore was doubtless
ζήλωσαι (not ξηλώσῃ), and the sense requires ¢nX\woa rather than ἕξηλῶσαι: see the

lower note.

8 τῶν ἀοράτων] gS, Euseb-Syr. (the two latter repeating

ex 115 gue); ἀοράτων (om, τῶν) ἃ Euseb,; dub. ΤΙΣ (which repeats gue only)

AA,,; al. Sm; def. M.

προσβιάσομαι)] So Mart. Polye.
3 (of the martyr Germanicus) éav-
τῷ ἐπεσπάσατο τὸ θηρίον προσβιασά-
μενος, Euseb. JZart. Pal. 6 (of Aga-
pius) δρομαῖος ἄντικρυς ἀπολυθείσῃ
κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄρκτῳ ὑπαντιάσας, ταύτῃ
τε ἑαυτὸν ἀσμενέστατα ἐπιδεδωκὼς εἰς
βόραν, Act. SS. Tarach. Prob. etc. 10
‘sanctus vero Andronicus posuit
caput suum super ursum et insti-
gabat eum ut irasceretur etc.’ This
provocatto was not purely volun-
tary in some cases; Euseb. ZH. £.
Vill. 7 τῶν ἀνθρωποβόρων ἐπὶ πλείονα
χρόνον μὴ προσψαύειν μηδὲ πλησιά-
ἕειν 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 κιτ.λ.] 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 x.T.X.

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, ὃ 7 βασκανία, with the
notes. Zahn however gives it a dif-
ferent sense; ‘¢nAodv τινά, i. 6. studt-
ose gratiam alicutus guerere omnt-
busque artificits aliguem captare’, as
i Cel. BVe ty Ὁ Gols hey ae ee
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. ὁρατῶν ... ἀοράτων] See Tyrall/.
5 (note).

216

ἐπιτύχω.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

πῦρ Kal σταυρὸς θηρίων Te συστάσεις, | ἀνα-

/ \ > 4 \
τομαί, διαιρέσεις], σκορπισμοὶ ὀστέων, συγκοπαὶ με-

“ δ ἂν σ΄ / \ / ro
λών, ἀλεσμοὶ ὅλον τοῦ σωματος, κακαὶ κολάσεις TOU

1 συστάσει] GLA,Mg; σύστασις Euseb. (Laemmer, but ν.]. συστάσει5) Sy
Euseb-Syr. (the two latter owing to absence of vidui). S,ZA have bestie que
parate sunt (mihi). ἀνατομαί, diacpécers] GA, ΘΜ ; διαιρέσεις (or rather
διαίρεσις, omitting ἀνατομαί) SeA ; om. altogether, LZ Euseb. Euseb-Syr.

. 2 σκόρπισμοι... μελῶν] GLS2AAnS»~Mg Euseb, Euseb-Syr. (the minor variations
in these authorities are given below); εὖ adbscissio membrorum et dispersio os-
sium X (transposing the two clauses; comp. Rom. inscr., Zphes. 19).
σκορπισμοὶ GLMg Euseb. Mart-Rom. 5. (v. 1.); dispersio ZAAmSm Euseb-Syr.
(but the sing. in ZAS, Euseb-Syr. is explained by the absence of vidwi, and Ay,
renders διαιρέσεις, dvaroual, σκορπισμοί, ἀλεσμοί, also by singulars). ὀστέων
ὠστέων G, συγκοπαὶ] g Euseb. Euseb-Syr. [Mart-Rom.] ; συγκοπή
GLS,ZAA,SmM ; but the Oriental Versions are of no account here (see the
last note). μελῶν] μελλῶν G, 3 ἀλεσμοὶ] gM Euseb. (but
ν. 1. ἀλησμοί) Mart-Rom.; ἀλησμοί ἃ. There is no authority for ἀλυσμοί, unless
it be A,, which has contritio (aut, contritio et adissolutio), where the words in

brackets perhaps mean a v. 1. giving both words, ὠλεσμοὶ καὶ ἀλυσμοί.

I. συστάσεις] ‘conflicts, grap-
plings with’. As συστάδην μάχεσθαι is
a common phrase for‘comminus pug-
nare’, 50 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). It is indirectly defined in Plat.
Legg. viii. p. 833 A ἡ ἐν Tats συμ-
mAokais μάχη καὶ σύστασις. The word
occurs in a different sense, 7vad/. 5.

2. σκορπισμοὶ ὀστέων͵ἢ] Ps. xxi
(xxii). 15 διεσκορπίσθη πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ
pov; 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-
taeus, andreappears 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 PAryn. Ὁ. 218, and comp.

κακαὶ]

Pathol. p. 295. For similar instances
see Galatians vi. 6, and p. 92; Phi-
lippians 1. 28, 11. 14.

3. ἀλεσμοὶ] For this form see
the note on ἀλήθομαι ὃ 4. The read-
ing ἀλυσμοί, ‘restkessnesses’, ‘ 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) inthe Cod. August,
of the interpolator’s text.

κακαὶ koAdcetsk.T.A.] Pearson quotes
Justin Dzal, 131 (p. 360C) κολάσεις
μεχρὶ 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 Ephes. 11.

VI. ‘The kingdoms of this world

ν] TO THE ROMANS.

217

διαβόλου ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐρχέσθωσαν" μόνον ἵνα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ

7
5 ἐπιτύχω.

Vik

“Ὁ ΕῚ / \ ’ ~ 7
Οὐδὲν με ὠφελήσει τὰ πέρατα τοῦ κόσμου,

. \ ε ΄- “ Δ. ἤ , >
οὐδὲ αἱ βασιλεῖαι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου" καλόν μοι ἀπο-

GL; e¢ male S,A (the conjunction is of no account); dure Σ; δέ omnes AmSm}
καὶ gM Euseb-Syr.; om. altogether, Euseb. Nothing can be inferred from the
loose quotation of Sev-Syr. 216 ignis et bestia et mille species tormentorum veniant

super me.
ἐρχέσθω for ἐρχέσθωσαν) Euseb-Syr.

solum A Sev-Syr. ; δέ solum So=S,, Euseb-Syr.

Euseb. Euseb-Syr. Sev-Syr.; om. Am.

κολάσει9] GLSZZ AAS m(?)M Euseb.; κόλασις g (reading also

4 μόνον wa] GLA,Mg Euseb. ;
Ἰησοῦ] GLZS AS,,Mg
5 ἐπιτύχω] 2 breaks off here and

(with the exception of the words ὁ τοκετός μοι ἐπίκειται § 6) contains nothing till

§ 7 ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως x.7.X.

6 we] gM; μοι G.

πέρατα] gLSoAmSin

(written however "ΠῚ 2) ofera for "ΠῚ ἽΝ) termini); thesaurus A; τέρπνα GM.
7 τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου] GLAnSmMg; eus Se; hujus A. The Syriac had already

exhausted the proper equivalent to αἰών, ΝΟ, in translating κόσμος.

καλὸν]

gM; donum Τϑ9Α, Tim-Syr. 2τι; pulchrum Sm; μᾶλλον G3 melius (?) Am.

μοι] GM; ἐμοὶ δ.

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 trulya 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 Kiihner II. pp. 251, 252.

Ta πέρατα Tov κιτιλ.] ‘the boun-
daries of the earth’, i.e. ‘the whole
eatth from one end to the other.’
In the LXX τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς (τῆς

οἰκουμένης) is ἃ Common expression :
see esp. Ps. ii. ὃ δώσω.... τὴν κατά-
σχεσίν σου Ta 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. ai βασιλεῖαε κιτ.λ.] This was
the temptation offered to Christ
Himself ; see Matt. iv. 8, Luke iv. 5.

καλὸν x.t.d.] Suggested by 1 Cor.
ix. 15 καλὸν yap μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν
ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου κιτιλ. For καλὸν... ἣ
(without μᾶλλον) comp. Matt. xviii. 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. It was perhaps originally written
above the line to supply the defective
construction καλὸν... %, and after-
wards displaced καλόν.

218

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi

~ ye ~ ’ ΄σ
θανεῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, ἢ βασιλεύειν τῶν περάτων

τῆς γῆς.

> ~ ΄σ΄ \ \ c ~ " /
ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ, TOV ὑπερ ἡμῶν αἀττοθανόντα"

> an / \ > ~~ >
ἐκεῖνον θέλω, Tov [de ἡμᾶς) ἀναστάντα. 6 τοκετός μοι

1 διὰ] g (but 1 translates 22) 1, Tim-Syr.; ἐν M; εἰς G; zz SgAAy (they may

have read either é or els); cum Sy.

Tim-Syr.; χριστὸν ἰησοῦν (or χριστῷ ἰησοῦ) GAS pM.
GLApSmMg Tim-Syr.; sper omnes terminos ΘΑ.

Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] LS,Ag
τῶν περάτων]
2 γῆ] txt

LSgAApSm Tim-Syr.; add. τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος ἐὰν κερδήσῃ τὸν κόσμον
ὅλον (τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ g) τὴν δὲ ψύχην αὐτοῦ ζημιωθῇ (τ. δὲ ψ. αὐτοῦ
ἀπολέσῃ g, καὶ § τ. Ψ. αὐτοῦ M) GMg from Matt. xvi. 26: comp. Mart-Rom. 2.
3 δι’ ἡμᾶς] GLA,[Sy] Tim-Syr.; om. S,A[g] Mart-Rom.; def. M.

ὁ roxeros] [Z]AmSm; ὁ δὲ τοκετός GL* (reading however ὅδε for ὁ δὲ, and

mistranslating roxeros Zcrum) Tim-Syr.; et dolores mortis So (reading τῷ cass

mortis for lass; partus ; see above p. 78 sq.) ; dolores mortis (om. δὲ) A;
def. Mg. Am has partus meus (aut; fenus et lucrum meum), where the words
in brackets may imply another reading τόκος or another interpretation of roxerds.
μοι] GLZAS,, Tim-Syr.; wou Am; om. 52; def. Mg. 4 σύγγνωτε] GM;
συγγνωμονεῖτε g: see the converse change in 7ra//. 5. 5 μὴ θελήσητε]
GLS,AS,, g Tim-Syr.; μηδὲ θελήσητε Μ΄; velttis (secundum alios ; ne velitis) Ay.
There is no other trace of this v. 1. θελήσητε for μὴ θελήσητες ‘The omission of the
negative has an exact parallel in § 1 [μὴ] φείσησθε, the motive being the same.

pe] gM and perhaps 1, (velétis me); μοι G. The rest are doubtful. TOV
τοῦ Θεοῦ θέλοντα] G Sy Tim-Syr. ; τοῦ θεοῦ θέλοντά με ZA,,(?); det volentem...me L;

est angelorum’, a passage which has
more than. one resemblance to the

3. 6 τοκετός κιτ.λ.}] ‘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 ‘natalitia’ of his higher life.
For the metaphor, as regards the
mother, comp. Gal. iv. 19 τεκνία μου,
ovs πάλιν ὠδίνω κιτιλ.; and as re-
gards the child, e.g. August. Sevm.
381 de Natali Apost. (Vv. p. 1481)
‘Natalitio ergo Petri passus_ est
Paulus, non quo ex utero matris in
numerum fusus est hominum, sed
quo ex vinculo carnis in lucem natus

language and thoughts of Ignatius
here. As this interpretation was
written down some years before
Zahn’s book appeared, I am con-
firmed in its correctness by finding
that he has expressed independently
and in other language the same view
respecting the double reference in
roxeros (/. v. A. p. 561 sq.). The
word takes a genitive either of the
mother (£phes. 19, Job xxix. 1, 2)
or of the child (Ecclus. xxiii. 14).

On the other hand the Latin Ver-
sion renders it ‘/ucrum’, and the
Armenian Martyrology gives as an
alternative translation ‘fenus et lu-
crum. So also some modern critics,
e.g. Smith p. 99, Denzinger p. 62,
who compare Phil. i. 21 τὸ ἀποθανεῖν

νη ΤῸ THE ROMANS. 219.

7 / > / \ » 7 ΄
σύγγνωτέ μοι, ἀδελφοί: μὴ ἐμποδίσητέ μοι
5 ζῆσαι, μὴ θελήσητέ με ἀποθανεῖν. Tov τοῦ Θεοῦ θέ-

λοντα εἶναι κόσμῳ μὴ χαρίσησθε, μηδὲ ὕλη κολακεύσητε.

ἐπίκειται.

def. Μ. S,A favour τὸν... θέλοντα as against θέλοντά με, but otherwise they have a
corrupt text: see the next note. 6 xaplonobe] gAmSm (which has dedu-

catis, a loose rendering) Tim-Syr. (for doubtless we should read -“αλιλ for

résalsa); χαρήσησθε G3; 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 guz non volo manere in mundo, ne honoretis sic.
The explanation of this rendering seems to be this ; (1) Some letters dropped out,
τον [τουθε]ογθελοντὰ, owing to the recurrence of similar letters, so that it was
read τὸν ov θέλοντα k.T.X.; (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
Petermann not unnaturally supposed, but existed already in the Syriac Version.

μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε] see the lower note; wegue per materiam seducatis L 3 negue
per hylen adulemini (blandiamini) me Tim-Syr.; neque provocetis-me-ad-emulationem
per ea que videntur S_; et ne emulatorem faciatis visibilium A ; neque labefactetis me

(om. ὑλῃ) Sm (but for the verb ot GL labefactavit, peccare fecit, we ought surely
to substitute | yx. 2/anditus est, which is used in Tim-Syr.) ; 726 elementis (mate-

rialibus) guibusdam seducamini Am (reading perhaps κολακευθῆτε, but a single
letter makes the difference betwen the active and the passive in the Armenian, as in
the Greek) ; om. Gg; def. M.

κέρδος, and similarly Leclerc. This
arises from a confusion of words.
While τόκος frequently bears this
secondary sense of ‘ interest’, roxeros
seems never to have it.

6. μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε] For
ὕλῃ ‘matter’, i.e. ‘external things’,
see the note on φιλόῦλον ὃ 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 (/. v. A.

λακεύσητε, because it explains a@//
the versions better than ἐξαπατᾶτε
(ἐξαπατήσητε) or παραζηλώσητε, while
moreover παραζηλώσητε does not give
the right sense. The verb baw, which
the translator of Timotheus uses
here, occurs in = as the rendering
of κολακεύειν in Polyc. 2, and the
substantive from the same root ap-
pears in the Peshito of 1 Thess. ii. 5
for κολακεία. The word in the Syriac
Version S, (from which the Armenian
A is translated), {30 (Aphel, prove-

p- 560, and zz /oc.). Zahn has rightly
substituted μηδὲ for μήτε, since there
is no reason for introducing a con-
nexion py...unre which is only not
soleecistic. The word ὕλη is pre-
served in the Syriac of Timotheus.
For the verb I have preferred κο-

care ad zelum, stimulare), though
neither well suited to the context
nor a good rendering of κολακεύειν,
is closely allied in meaning to 173
(excttare) which is used by Σ in Rom.
4, 5, the only remaining passages
where κολακεύειν occurs in Ignatius;

220

THE .EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v1

> \ ~ ~ , , ’
apeTé με καθαρὸν φῶς λαβεῖν" ἐκεὲ παραγενόμενος ἄν-

θρωπος ἔσομαι.
πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ μου.

> , / \ > ΄΄
ἐπιτρέψατε μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι TOU
γ 3 \ ε ~ αἴ
εἰ τις αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχει,

“ ἃ / \ / 27> \ \ /
vonoatw ὃ θέλω Kal συμπαθείτω μοι εἰδὼς τὰ συνέ-

/
χοντα ME.

1 ἅνθρωπος] LS, Tim-Syr.; homo perfectus SgA; in luce perfectus Sq (but this

is clearly a corruption, YNAID tx luce for CLI homo, as Sy shows) ;
ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ GMg. The ferfectus of the Syriac and Armenian, and the θεοῦ of
the Greek copies, are evident glosses. In A,, the sentence ἐκεῖ.. ἔσομαι runs mvc
homo sum, sed illuc tens angelus fiam, the seemingly unmeaning ἄνθρωπος being
displaced by a paraphrase. 2 ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι] GMg; ἐάσατε Anast-Sin.
Flodeg.i. 12. The singular permitte in Sev-Syr. 217 is doubtless an error of tran-
scription, as the plural appears im two other places 213, 216. μιμητὴν] ἃ
(written pijunrhv) LSsAA,S,Mg Anast-Sin. Tim-Syr. (twice) 211, 212, Sev-Syr.

and indeed the two roots are con-
nected together in the Peshito ren-
dering of 2 Cor. ix. 2 τὸ ὑμῶν ζῆλος
ἠρέθισεν τοὺς πλείονας. On the
other hand in the Latin Version
blandiré is the consistent rendering
of κολακεύειν in these epistles else-
where, while seducatis occurs here.
For the sense of κολακεύειν comp.
Clem. Hom. xx. 4 κολακευούσῃ apap-
ria, and see the note on Polye. 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; iS a mere paraphrase).
Here however the case is different,
Ignatius speaks of the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος,
the man regenerate, in whom the
Divine image (Gen. i. 26) is renewed.
So used, it is higher than ἀνήρ ; for
while ἀνήρ implies either maturity
(opposed to νήπιος, e.g. I Cor. xiii. 11
ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ) or courage (opposed

to γυνή, e.g. Hom. 71. 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, ὡς πο-
λίτης, ὡς θνητὸν ζῶον,Χ. 15 ἱστορήτωσαν
οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἄνθρωπον ἀληθινὸν κατὰ φύ-
σιν ζῶντα, xi. 18 ἄρξαι ποτὲ ἄνθρωπος
εἶναι, ἕως (ys. 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 μεθ᾽
ἡμέραν ἅψας, "Ἄνθρωπον, ἔφη, ζητῶ,
and in another story of this same
philosopher (2d. vi. 60) ἐπανήει ἀπὸ
᾿Ολυμπίων᾽ πρὸς οὖν τὸν πυθόμενον εἰ
ὄχλος ἦν πολύς, Πολὺς μέν, εἶπεν,
ὄχλος, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἄνθρωποι. See also
;Clem. Rom.] Fragm. I (p. 213) διὰ
τοῦτό ἐσμεν ἄνθρωποι καὶ φρόνησιν
ἔχομεν κιτιλ. Scribes and translators,
not understanding this use, have
helped out the meaning in different

vu]

Vit

TO THE ROMANS.

22%

« ~ > nd ,
O apxwy τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου διαρπάσαι με

βούλεται καὶ τὴν εἰς Θεόν μου γνώμην διαφθεῖραι. μη-

\ Ss ΄ ξ΄ ςε ~ ’ 3 ~ ~
dels οὖν τῶν παρόντων ὑμών βοηθείτω αὐτῷ: μᾶλλον

(three times) 213, 216, 217, Anon-Syr,.219 Anon-Syr;.220. 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. τοῦ πάθους] GM Anast-Sin. ;
πάθους g. 3 τοῦ Θεοῦ μου] GLS3;ASm Anast-Sin. Tim-Syr. (twice) Sev-
Syr. (three times) 213,216 (while elsewhere p. 217 he quotes it ‘my God’ for ‘of
my God,’ but probably a letter Ἵ has dropped out of the existing text) Anon. Syr,.
Anon-Syr3.; χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ μου g 3 τοῦ χριστοῦ Μ΄; domini met Ay.
4 εἰδὼς] GLA,S»Mg Tim-Syr.; hoc dico guod scio A, but this is probably a translator’s
insertion to refer εἰδώς (wrongly) to the rst person. 7 Θεόν] GM; τὸν θεόν g.
8 τῶν παρόντων ὑμῶν] Gg ; presentium de vobis 1, (which probably is a mis-
_ interpretation of the same Greek); ὁ vodis (om. τῶν παρόντων) AA; τῶν παρόντων
(om. ὑμῶν) SM. αὐτῷ] There is no v.1. here. For L see the Appx.

ways, as the critical note shows.
The reading of the Greek MS ἄνθρω-
mos Θεοῦ was probably suggested to
the scribe as a scriptural expression,
eee ΠΥ FY, 2 Tim, 111. 17.

2. μιμητὴν εἶναι κιτ.λ.}ὺ Comp.
Ephes. 1 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
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. ‘O ἄρχων κ.τ.λ.] See the note
on Lphes. 17.

διαρπάσαι] The word used in the
parable of the strong man’s house,
Matt. xii. 29 (v. 1.), Mark iii. 27; which
passage may have suggested its em-
ployment here.

7. τὴν εἰς Θεὸν x.t.X.] ‘my mind
which ts to Godward’, ‘my heaven-
ward thoughts’; comp. PAzlad. 1
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 martyrgom.’ It
corresponds to the following παρών,
‘when I am among you.’

222 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vir

᾽ \ / 4 ΄σ ΄- ~ re
ἐμοὶ γίνεσθε, τουτέστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. μὴ λαλεῖτε ᾿Ιησοῦν

\ / As a ~
Χριστὸν κόσμον δὲ ἐπιθυμεῖτε. βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ

/ 3 \ > \ \ ~ - ΄σ
κατοικείτω" μηδ᾽ ἀν ἐγὼ παρὼν παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, πεί-

1 ἐμοὶ γίνεσθε] gM; ἐμοῦ γίνεσθε G; mei fiatis L, (which would suit either read-
ing); ad meum latus estote AAm (where ἐμοὶ the possessive pronoun seems to be
mistaken for the dative of the personal pronoun); al. S,.
παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς] GM ; μηδὲ ἐὰν ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς παρὼν παρακαλῶ g3 megue uligue ego vos
presens (v. 1. presens vos) deprecor L. 4 μοι]
GLAA,M ; 7/i Sy (perhaps a corruption in the Syriac text, ἐγώ having been
already dropped, so that a third person takes the place of rapaxadG); om. g.
πιστεύσατε] gA (prob., for it has credatis here, but obtemperetis (obediatis) for
πείσθητε above) A, (prob., for it has credite here, but convincamini (consentiatis)
above) Sm3 πεισθῆτε GML* (prob., for it uses the same verb cvedere in both cases).

5 yap] gLM (which has ἐξ ὧν γὰρ...ἐρῶ); om. GAS; def. Am: see Clem. Rom.
62 (note). ὁ ἐμὸς] GLAASmM (v.1. ἐμὸς) g Dion-Areop. Div. Vom. iv. 12
Theod-Stud. Catech. 3 Menza Dec. 20; e¢ meus [2]; meus autem Orig. 111. 30.
= resumes here and continues (with omissions) to the end of the chapter.

6 ἐσταύρωται] GLZA (see below) S,,Mg Orig. Dion-Areop. Theod-Stud. Menzxa;
but A,, has meum desiderium a patre est (secundum alios; meum desiderium vel meus
anor crucifixus est), where the corrupt reading ἐκ πατρός ἐστι (for ἐσταύρωται)

3 μηδ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼ παρὼν

πείσθητε) πείσθειτε G.

I. ἐμοὶ γίνεσθε] ‘take 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 Tod 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), ὃ 5
μηθέν pe 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. Cav yap κτλ} 1.6. Ὁ Invthe
midst of life, with all its attractions,
I write deliberately and desire death’;
where ζῶν is emphatic.

ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως] ‘my earthly passion’ ;
comp. Gal. v. 24 τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύ-

pwoav 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 γυναῖκος
x.t.A. In the New Testament it
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. Aor. p.
709 ἀγάπης ὧν has been rightly
corrected into ἀγαπήσων). Igna-
tius therefore would necessarily use
épws in a bad sense to denote the
passions of his former unregene-
rate life. His ἀγάπη, we might say,
was perfected, when his ἔρως was
crucified.

His meaning therefore being clear,
it is strange that Origen should have

vir] TO THE ROMANS. 223

- , ΄ \ - ay = ,
σθητέ μοι, τούτοις δὲ μᾶλλον πιστεύσατε, οἷς γράφω
~ ΄σ \ / ~ ~ ~ > - ες
sumiv. ζῶν [yap] γράφω ὑμῖν, ἐρῶν τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν: ὁ
/ > , > 5 ΄σ
ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ πῦρ

is partially explained by the usual contractions of πατρός and σταυρός (with its
derivatives). The double rendering in A amor meus crux est, meum desiderium

crucifixum est, is owing to the ambiguous N2°5¥ of the Syriac, which may be either
crux oY crucifixus. ἔστιν] ἔστην G. πῦρ φιλόῦλον, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν καὶ
λαλοῦν] ἃ ; πῦρ φιλόῦλον, ὕδωρ δὲ μᾶλλον fav καὶ λαλοῦν M Theod-Stud. (Menzea
Dec. 20); πῦρ φιλοῦν τι, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν ἁλλόμενον g (] omits πῦρ φιλοῦν τι and trans-
lates the remaining words agua autem viva alia manet, i.e. ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν ἄλλο μένον) ;
ignis amans aliquam (leg. aliam?) aguam sed vivens et loguens est (πῦρ φιλοῦν τι
ὕδωρ ζῶν δὲ καὶ λαλοῦν) L; ἐργιῖς in amore alio (v.1. amoris alius) = (perh. πῦρ
φιλόαλλον, a corruption of φιλόῦλον ; the rest of the words are omitted); adixs calor
amoris. agua bona et vivida...existit (πῦρ φιλόαλλον͵ ὕδωρ καλὸν καὶ ζῶν) A; ignis
amandi (alienum guidguam). agua vivida et loguens est Am (where the words in
brackets may be merely an explanatory gloss or may betoken a v. l.); igvis alienus,
diligo enim aquas vividas et loguentes Sm. The Menza (Dec. 20) have οὐκ ἔσχες πῦρ
φιλόῦλον ἐν σοί, lyvdrie, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν μᾶλλον καὶ λαλοῦν... ὕδωρ τὸ ἀλλόμενον K.T.r.
Thus the authorities exhibit a strange confusion of -υὐλον, ἄλλο, καλὸν, μᾶλλον,

ἀλλόμενον: see the lower note.

given a wholly different interpreta-
tion to the words; Prol. zx Cant.
Ill. p. 30 ‘Nec puto quod culpari
possit si quis Deum, sicut Joannes
[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. Διο.
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, Cazech. 3
(Grabe «5226. 11. p. 229) ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως
ἐσταύρωται Χριστός (where Χριστός is
his own gloss), ib. amb. 70 (p.
1797 Migne) ἔχων ἔρωτα Χριστὸν ἐν
σῇ καρδίᾳ. Hence too in the AZenea
(Dec. 20) ὡς τετρωμένος ἔρωτι ἀγάπης
τοῦ Κυρίου σου, ‘O ἐμὸς ἔρως, ἐβόας,

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. iv. 6, Wisd. viii. 2) to the
pursuit of Divine wisdom ; comp.
Justin Dial. 8 (p. 225 B) ἐμοὶ δὲ πα-
ραχρῆμα πῦρ ev τῇ ψυχῇ ἀνήφθη καὶ
ἔρως εἶχέ με τῷν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν
ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων οἵ εἰσι Χριστοῦ φίλοι,
Clem. Al. Cok. 11 (p. 90) 6 γέ rou
οὐράνιος καὶ θεῖος ὄντως ἔρως, ib.
fragm. p. 1019 βαθύν τινα τὸν τοῦ
κτίστου περιφέρωμεν ἔρωτα. So Chry-

sostom says of Ignatius himself (ΟΖ.

Il. Pp. 599) τοιοῦτοι γὰρ οἱ ἐρῶντες"
ὅπερ ἂν πάσχωσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐρωμένων,
ped 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

224 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vir

φιλοῦλον, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν 1 καὶ λαλοῦν ἐν ἐμοί, ἔσωθέν
μοι λέγον: Δεῦρο πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. οὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ

1 ἔσωθεν] GMg; ἔνδοθεν Theod-Stud. (Menzea), 2 λέγον] M Theod-Stud.
(Menzea); λέγων (sic) G; λέγει g (but 1 dicens); dicens Sev-Syr. 216; dicit L; et
dicit A; et...clamat et dicit Ay. The two last seem to have had the participle
rather than the indicative. S, renders the sentence ἔσωθέν μοι λέγων guum sit

and πῦρ are synonymous here, as_ written or unintelligible to the scribe ;
they are in the passage of Justin. (3) Conversely it is not usual for
See the saying ascribed to Buddha, a transcriber to show such intelli-
Dhammapada 251 ‘There is no fire gence as appears in the substitution
like passion’ (Buddhaghosha’s Pa- of an unusual word φιλόδλον for
rables, by Rogers, p. Cxxviii). either φιλοῦν τι or φιλοῦν ἄλλο.

I. φιλόδλον] ‘ matter-loving, ‘sen- ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν] Doubtless a refer-
suous, ‘carnal’; comp. ὃ 6 μηδὲ ence to John iv. 10, 11, as indeed
ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε. The word ὕλη has the whole passage is inspired by
here its secondary sense ‘matter,’ as the Fourth Gospel. This water at
e.g. in Wisd. xi. 18, xv. 13, Clem. once quenches the fires of sensual
Rom. 38. It is too fanciful to see passion and supplies an unfailing
(with Zahn p. 563) a reference also draught of spiritual strength ; comp.
to its primary sense, as if Ignatius Justin, Dza/. 114 (p. 342 B) τῆς καλῆς
had in view the same metaphor as° meérpas...udap ζῶν ταῖς καρδίαις τῶν Ov
in James 111. 5 ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην αὐτοῦ ἀγαπησάντων τὸν πατέρα τῶν
ὕλην ἀνάπτει (comp, Is. x. 17, Ecclus. ὅλων βρυούσης.

XXVill. 10). There seems indeed to Ἑκαὶ Aadody+] According to Jor-
be the double reference in the pas- tin (Zccles. Hist. τ. p. 356 sq., quoted
sage to which he refers, Clem. Alex. by Jacobson) there is an allusion to
Ped. ii. τ (p. 164) of παμφάγοι, καθά- the heathen superstition that certain
περ TO πῦρ, τῆς ὕλης ἐξεχόμενοι (Where waters communicated a prophetic
however we should perhaps read power to the person drinking them ;
ἐξεχόμενον) ; but it is there brought e.g. Anacreont. 11 (13) δαφνηφόροιο
out by the form of the sentence. Φοίβου λάλον πιόντες ὕδωρ (comp.
For the compound φιλόϊλος, which Stat. Sylv. i. 2. 6, v. 5.2). As there
is very rare until a later age, comp. was one of these ‘speaking’ foun-
Orig. Fragm. in Luc. φιλούλων καὶ tains at Daphne (Sozom. A. £. v.
φιλοσωμάτων λόγοι πιθανοί (III. p.982, 109, Evagr. i. 16) the famous suburb of
Delarue). For the Gnostic (Valen- Antioch, he supposes that the image
tinian) tinge of the sentiment see the would readily suggest itself to Igna-
notes on “hes. inscr. tius. This reference seems to me

I have adopted φιλόῦλον here on more than doubtful, even if the text
authority which elsewhere would were correct. But I am disposed to
not deserve a preference, for several believe that the right reading is
reasons. (1) It is so obviously the preserved in the interpolator’s text,
best reading; (2) It explains the ἁλλόμενον for καὶ λαλοῦν. The various
other main variations, φιλοῦν τι and __— readings show that the text here has
φιλοῦν ἄλλο, which would be substi- been much tumbled about in very
tuted for φιλόῦλον, if either mis- early times; and this being so, Aa-

vit]

TO THE ROMANS.

225

φθορᾶς οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου: ἄρτον Θεοῦ

mihi dominus meus intus dicens mihi, doubtless reading the masculine λέγων (with

G) and wishing accordingly to give it a personal application.

Similarly Severus

translates πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ad patrem meum, thus giving a personal reference to

the participle, and he too perhaps read λέγων : see the lower note.
3 Θεοῦ] ΑΜ; τοῦ θεοῦ g.

ἥδομαι] οὐκήδομαι ἃ.

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 ἀλλο-
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. Her. v. 9 ἔδωκεν
ἄν σοι πιεῖν ὕδωρ ζῶν ἁλλόμενον ; of
the Sethians, zd. v. 19 ἀπελούσατο καὶ
ἔπιε TO ποτήριον ζῶντος ὕδατος ἀλλο-
μένου ; of Justin the Gnostic, 7d. v.
27 ὅπερ ἐστὶ AovTpoy αὐτοῖς, ὡς vopi-
ζουσι, πηγὴ ζῶντος ὕδατος ἁλλομένου.
This makes the combination the more
probable here. MHeracleon in Orig.
in Ioann. xiii. ὃ 10 (IV. p. 220), the
earliest commentator on this Gospel,
lays great stress on ἁλλομένου.

2. λέγον x.r.A] Similarly PAzlad. 7
τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐκήρυσσεν, λέγον τάδε"
Χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου κιτιλ. See also
Dion. Alex. in Euseb. 27. £. 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 Philad. 1. c.

τροφῇ φθορᾶς] Suggested by
John vi. 27 ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν
τὴν ἀπολλυμένην.

3. ἡδοναῖς κιτιλ.] The phrase ἡδο-
νῶν τοῦ βίου occurs Luke viii. 14.

IGN.

2 οὐχ

This sentence involves a distinction
between Bios and ζωή (in ὕδωρ av’,
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 ζωὴ is some-
times used of the earthly life, Bios is
never used of the heavenly. This
distinction holds in the writings of
the Apostclic 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, véta guam vivimus,; comp.
Athenag. Resurr. 19 ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ζωὴ καὶ σύμπας ὁ Bios. Hence Aris-
totle could say βίος ἐστὶ λογικὴ ζωή
(Ammonius 5. v. Bios); for with him
Bios was the higher term of the two.
See esp. Trench J. 7. Sym. § xxvii.
p- 86 sq. But in Christian philo-
sophy the principle of life is not
physical, but spiritual; and thus,
while βίος remains at its former level,
ζωὴ has been translated into a higher
sphere and takes the precedence.
Accordingly, while θάνατος is opposed
to ζωή, it may be identical with
Bios; [Clem. Rom.] ii. 1 ὁ Bios ἡμῶν
ὅλος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἦν εἰ μὴ θάνατος. Con-
trast I Joh. ili. 15 ζωὴν αἰώνιον with
ib, ver. 17 τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου, or the

226

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[vir

/ e/ > Ἁ ~ van ΄σ- > ,
θέλω, ὃ ἐστιν σαρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος

t θέλω] txt LEAASn ; add ἄρτον οὐράνιον, ἄρτον ζωῆς GMg.
(with a ν. 1. 8s) g3 dub. ZAA,,S, 3 vulg. ds.

8] GLM
τοῦ Χριστοῦ] g* LZ; ἰησοῦ

χριστοῦ GAAySmM. After χριστοῦ add. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ GMg; om. L[Z]AAmS pn.
Tov] txt L (jus gui ex genere) Sm (gui est ex genere); add. γενομένου GAA,Mg
(but the versions AA,, are not of much weight in this matter); def. 2: see the

lower note.

same Apostle’s absolute use of ὁ βίος
in I Joh ii. 16 with his absolute use
of ἡ ζωὴ elsewhere, e.g. iii. 14, v. 12.
Contrast also the expression τοῦ
βίου τούτου here with τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης
in Acts v. 20. See too Clem. Hom.
Ep. Clem. 1 αὐτὸς τοῦ viv 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 zd. i. 14 we
have τὸν πάντα μου τῆς ζωῆς βίον, but
there an only half-converted heathen
is speaking; Clex. Alem. Ped. ii. 1
(p. 168) of ταπεινόφρονες, χαμαιγενεῖς,
τὸν ἐφήμερον διώκοντες βίον, ὡς ov
ζησόμενοι (COMp. 20. p. 163), Orig.
c. Cels. iii, 16 (1. p. 457) περὶ τῆς ἑξῆς
τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ ζωῆς, Macar. Magn.
A pocr. ili. 12 (p. 82) ἀμέμπτῳ δὲ βίῳ
τὴν ζωὴν ἐμεγάλυνεν.

ἄρτον Θεοῦ] Here again is δὴ 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
source of Ignatius’ inspiration, and
has introduced expressions freely
from the Gospel; ‘the heavenly
bread’ (vi. 31, 32, 50, 58), ‘the bread

After τοῦ [γενομένου] add. ἐν ὑστέρῳ GMg; om. LAA,S pm; def. 2.

of life’ (vi. 48), ‘eternal life’ (ζωὴ
aidvios, Vi. 27, 40, 54). For dpros
Θεοῦ compare also Zfhes. 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 “£fhes. 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 tothe 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,
being somewhat more highly sup-
ported ; but it ought probably to be
omitted. There was an gbvious mo-
tive for inserting it, so as not to

vit] TO THE

Aaveid, καὶ πόμα θέλω TO
A
ἀφθαρτος.
2 Δαυείδ] After δανεὶδ
def. 2.
add. καὶ ἀένναος (dévaws G) ζωή GMg"* ;
seems to be recognised).

545 G.

overlook the preexistence and Di-
vinity of Christ ; comp: S7zyr7. 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 Zvad/. 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. Ped.
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 fromthe parallel passage
in 7rad/. ὃ, 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. Ped. ii. 2 (Ρ. 177) τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι
πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῆς κυριακῆς
μεταλαβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας, ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ
λόγου τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα σαρκός, Qurs
div. salv. 23 (p. 948) ἄρτον ἐμαυτὸν
διδούς, οὗ γευσάμενος οὐδεὶς ἔτι πεῖραν
θανάτου λαμβάνει καὶ πόμα καθ᾽ ἡμέραν
ἐνδιδοὺς ἀθανασίας. ‘I desire,’ Ignatius
appears to mean, ‘that heavenly sus-
tenance which is derived from union

add. καὶ ἀβραάμ GMeg;
πόμα] gLZAASm 3 add. θεοῦ GM.
comp. Mart-Rom. τὸ (where this addition
In Am δ vita aeterna is added in brackets as a v. 1.

ROMANS. 227

οὖ; ΤΑ 5
3 agpGapros] txt LEAS, ;

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 (/.v. A.

p- 348 sq., 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, i. e. ‘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 a part. 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 ἥ ἐστιν πίστις
ἄτρεπτος κιτιλ. ; and in amore 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, Tradl, 8.
' 3. ἄφθαρτος] The interpolator
adds καὶ ἀένναος ζωή, an expression
occurring in the LXX apparently only
in 2 Mace. vii. 36, and never in the
N.T. But it was doubtless suggested
by ζωὴ αἰώνιος which occurs several
times in John vi.

“- “Ὃψγψ᾿
10---2

228

VIL.

δὲ »"" > \ e ΩΝ /
εἔσται, ἐαν ὑμεῖς θελήσητε.

θεληθηῆτε.
στεύσατέ μοι.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[viir

Οὐκ ἔτι θέλω κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῆν" τοῦτο

/ / δ ΄-
θελήσατε, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς

/ , a ΄-
δ᾽ ὀλίγων γραμμάτων αἰτοῦμαι ὑμᾶς" πι-
a o δὲ ‘ € ~
noous δὲ Χριστὸς ὑμῖν ταῦτα φανε-

/ / 3 a ’ . \ ᾽ 4 / 3 Ἕ «
ρώσει, ὃτι ἀληθῶς λέγω: τὸ ἀψευδὲς στόμα, ἐν ᾧ ὁ

πατὴρ ἐλάλησεν [ ἀληθώς |.
ἐπιτύχω [ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ].

> , ‘a ae ~ /
αἰτήσασθε σέρι εμου, tva

\ , ~~
οὐ κατὰ σαρκα ὑμῖν

2 θελήσητε] GM; θέλητε g. The omission of the following words in some
texts (see the next note) points to a homeeoteleuton, θελήσητε, θεληθῆτε, and

therefore favours θελήσητε.

θελήσατε...θεληθῆτε] GLAmSmM; om. Af[g].

With θελήσατε connecting particles appear in some texts; autem LS; οὖν M;

jam Am.

3 θεληθῆτε] GLMSp; def. Ag. Ay has wt δέ vos auxilium
enveniatis (aut; ut et vos optati fiatis, id est accept).

The alternative azzxzliume

imveniatis seems to represent a ν.]. ὠφεληθῆτε, but there is no trace of it else-

where.
GLMSm; om. AA; al. g.

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.’

I. κατὰ ἀνθρώπους] i.e. ‘accord-
ing to the common, worldly, concep-
tion of life’; comp. 7val/. 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] i.e. ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ
‘may be desired, may be looked upon
favourably, by God’: comp. Clem.
Flom. xi. 25 εἰ δὲ καὶ μετὰ τὸ κληθῆναι
οὐ θέλεις ἢ βραδύνεις, δικαίᾳ Θεοῦ
ἀπολῇ κρίσει, τῷ μὴ θελῆσαι μὴ
θεληθείς, Athan. c. Arian. iii. 66
(Op. τ. p. 487 sq.) ὁ υἱὸς τῇ θελήσει

δι’ ὀλίγων] ΑἸ ΘΜ; pref. ὃ (ord) AAm.

4 δὲ]

ὑμῖν ταῦτα φανερώσει] ΑΜ; φανερώσει ὑμῖν

7 θέλεται παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ταύτῃ καὶ
αὐτὸς ἀγαπᾷ καὶ θέλει καὶ τιμᾷ τὸν
πατέρα, Greg. Naz. Ογαΐ. xxix. 7 (I. p-
527) ἢ TO μὲν αὐτοῦ θέλησαν, τὸ δὲ
θεληθέν. The passive occurs not
very commonly of things (e.g. Epict.
Diss. iv. 1. 59), and still more rarely
of persons (e.g. Clem. Hom. xiii. 16 ἡ
σώφρων εἰς 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).

dv ὀλίγων γραμμάτων] “172 a brief
letter’; comp. Polyc. 7. So 8’ odi-
yov, I Pet. v.12, Ptolem. ad Flor. 4
in Epiph. Her. xxxill. 7; διὰ Bpa-
χέων, Heb. xiii. 22.

5. «ἐν ᾧ κιλ.} So He is styled
τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ γνώμη in Lphes. 3.

ὃ, γνώμην Θεοῦ] Comp. . 2 2716-. 3,
Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 8. The expression
itself does not occur in the N.T. (see
however Rev. xvii. 17).

ἠθελήσατε] ‘Ye have done me the
favour which I asked’. It is best

vit]

ἔγραψα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ γνώμην Θεοῦ.

TO THE ROMANS.

229

ἐὰν πάθω, ἠθελη-

\ ~ /
cate: ἐὰν ἀποδοκιμασθώ, ἐμισήσατε.

7 Ἢ σι: ~ 5 ~ ΄σ ᾽
IX. Μνημονεύετε ἐν τῇ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν τῆς ἐν

C / 5 λ / / > \ > ~ / ~ O ΄ι ~ ᾿
υριᾳ εκκλήσιας, τις αντι ἐμου σοιμέενι TW εω χρῆται

͵ \ ΄σ \ / \ - ε ΄σ
μόνος αὐτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος ἐπισκοπήσει καὶ ἡ ὑμῶν

ἀγάπη.

΄σ΄ / \
ἐγὼ δὲ αἰσχύνομαι ἐξ αὐτῶν λέγεσθαι" οὐδε

\ xf / \ of ΄σ \ of > ᾽
yap ἀξιὸς εἰμι, WY ἔσχατος αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκτρωμα" ἀλλ

ταῦτα g ; vobis manifestabit haec L.
M; al. g.

secundum voluntatem Ay.
def. M.
anywhere use the word εὐχή.

5 ἀληθῶς) GLA; om. A,Sm; def.

7 ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ] [6] ; spiritu sancto A; om. GLA,S,,M.
8 κατὰ γνώμην ͵ GLSwMg; spirit et voluntate A;
ἠθελήσατε) GLAA)Sm3 ἠγαπήσατε g;
10 προσευχῇ! ΑΜ; εὐχῇ g. The genuine Ignatius does not
13 δὲ] GLAA;Sm; δὲ καὶ g; def. M.

secundum spiritum et

οὐδὲ γὰρ] G; οὐ yap g3; non enim L3 guia non A; guoniam non Am}; non Sm}

def. M.
dignus L; def. M.

not to understand τὸ παθεῖν, but to
refer ἠθελήσατε to the preceding ἐὰν
ὑμεῖς θελήσητε.

9. ἀποδοκιμασθῶ] See Tradl. 12
ἵνα μὴ ἀδόκιμος εὑρεθῶ (with the note).

LX%.; “Pray. ἴον 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. Μνημονεύετε x.7.A.| For this
injunction, which occurs in all the
four letters written from Smyrna,
see Ephes. 21.

11. ἥτις) ‘seeing that zt’, thus
giving the reason for their prayers :
see Philippians iv. 3 (note).

ποιμένι k.t.A.| In connexion with
ἐπισκοπήσει Which follows, this pre-

14 ἄξιός εἰμ] G (but writing tue for el); elue ἄξιος g; sum

sents a close parallel to 1 Pet. ii. 25
ἐπεστράφητε νῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ
ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (comp.
I Pet. ν. 2 ποιμάνατε...ἐπισκοποῦντες,
but ἐπισκοποῦντες is very doubtful) :
see also Ezek. xxxiv. II sq.

12. ἐπισκοπήσει) ‘be its bishop’:
comp. Polyc. inscr. μᾶλλον ἐπεσκο-
πημένῳ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, and Magn. 3 τῷ
πατρὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ 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
Trall, 3.

13. οὐδὲ yap ἄξιος x.r.A.] See the
note on Lphes. 21 ἔσχατος ὧν τῶν
ἐκεῖ πιστῶν.

14. ἔκτρωμα] ‘animmature 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
εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος x.T.A.
Objection was taken to ἐκτιτρώσκειν,

230

> / / ἫΝ .}Ὁ ~ , ,
ἠλέημαί τις εἰναι, ἐαν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ΙΧ

> / ε “~
ἀσπαζέεται ὑμᾶς

» \ ~ \ > / ΄: > ~~
TO ἐμὸν πνεῦμα Kal ἡ ἀγάπη τών ἐκκλησιῶν τῶν δεξα-

3 ᾽ 3 “ ~ > « /
μένων με eis ὄνομα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὐχ ὡς mapodevoyTa*

2 καὶ ἣ ἀγάπη τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν] ΟΤΙΣ 5. (so doubtless originally, but the present
text has amor et ecclesiae) Mg ; et amor omnium ecclesiarum Ay ; et omnes ecclestae A.
3 els] GL (ὧι nomine, but εἰς is often so translated in L) AnMg* (but v. 1. os);

propter Sm (probably representing els); ws = (now ‘YN, not ws els as Petermann

ἔκτρωμα, etc., in this sense, instead of
the approved words ἀμβλίσκειν, ἄμ-
βλωμα, etc., by purists (see Lobeck
Phryn. 208 sq.); but they occur as
early as Hippocrates and Herodotus
(iii. 32); and ἔκτρωμα is mentioned by
Aristotle as a common word, de Gen.
An. iv. 5 (p.773) κυήματ᾽ ἐκπίπτει παρα-
πλήσια τοῖς καλουμένοις ἐκτρώμασιν.
In the same sense it occurs also in
the’ Lex, Num, κα 12. [0 {1 τὸ;
Eccles. vi. 3. See also references to
other writers in Wetstein on 1 Cor.
l.c. For the metaphorical use com-
pare Philo Leg. Ad/. i. 25 (L Ῥ. 59)
οὐ yap πέφυκε γόνιμον οὐδὲν τελεσφο-
ρεῖν ἡ τοῦ φαύλου ψυχή, ἃ δ᾽ ἂν δοκῇ
προσφέρειν, ἀμβλωθρίδια εὑρίσκεται καὶ
ἐκτρώματα (referring to Num. xii. 12
ὡσεὶ ἴσον θανάτῳ, ὡσεὶ ἔκτρωμα ἐκπο-
ρευόμενον ἐκ μήτρας μητρός), Clem. Alex.
Exc. Theod. 68 (p. 985) ἀτελῆ καὶ
νήπια καὶ ἄφρονα καὶ ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἄμορφα,
οἷον ἐκτρώματα προσενεχθέντα, Iren. i.
8. 2, ἐν ἐκτρώματος μοίρᾳ. The idea
in the metaphor, as used by S. Paul
and by Ignatius, is twofold: (1) irre-
cularity 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 Fphes.

inscr.) and cannot be reconciled with
his expressions here. It is very pos-
sible that his early life had been
stained with the common immorali-
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 /. v. A. p. 403 sq. Inthe
letter of the Gallic Churches, Euseb.
fl, E.v.1, the same metaphor is twice
similarly applied. In § 4 it is said
of some who shrank from martyrdom,
ἐφαίνοντο δὲ οἱ ἀνέτοιμοι καὶ ἀγύμνασ-
τοι καὶ ἔτι ἀσθενεῖς, ἀγῶνος μεγάλου
τόνον ἐνεγκεῖν μὴ 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, éveyivero
πολλὴ χαρὰ τῇ παρθένῳ μητρὶ [1]. 6. τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ], οὃς ὡς νεκροὺς ἐξέτρωσε,
τούτους ζῶντας ἀπολαμβανούσῃ.

GAN ἠλέημαι κιτ.λ.] Again an echo
of S. Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 13 ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην
ὅτι κιτιλ., 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. τ.

2. τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα] Comp. Zphes.
18, Zrall. 13, Smyru. το. This again
is a Pauline expression, I Cor. v. 4.

ἡ ἀγάπη] See the notes on Zra//.
3, 13.

τῶν δεξαμένων κιτ.λ.] The Churches
of the Ephesians and Smyrnzeans

1x]

TO THE ROMANS. 231

\ \ / ἤ ~ ear ΄σ ᾿ 7,

\ / lal
κατὰ TONY με TPOHYOV,

gives it, δ being merely the sign of the accus.) [A].
τῇ κατὰ σάρκα] GLZA,S,~M; om. gA.

om. 2,: see the lower note.

4 μὴ] GLE,AAaSmMeg;

5 προῆγον] .GM ; προήγαγον g. It is translated by an imperfect in 2, and by an

aorist or perfect in LAA,,Sy.
see the lower note on I'pddw δὲ, p. 233.

are meant in the first instance;
comp. MZagu. 15, Trall.13. He was
also attended about this time by
several delegates from the Magne-
sians (AZagu. 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] 1.6. ‘having regard
to the name’, i.e. ‘because I bear
the authority of’, ‘because I repre-
sent Christ’: comp. Matt. x. 41,
42, ὁ δεχόμενος προφήτην eis ὄνομα
προφήτου... ὁ δεχόμενος δίκαιον εἰς
ὄνομα δικαίου : and see Buxtorf Lex.
Talm. Ὁ. 2431 for the correspond-
ing usage of DW, Ienatius seems
here to have
context of this same passage of
S. Matthew, ver. 40 6 δεχόμενος
ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται : comp. Lphes. 6
οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι ὡς
αὐτὸν τὸν πέμψαντα κιτιλ. 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 εἰς into ὡς to produce
uniformity with the words following,
οὐχ ὡς mapodevovra. Independently
of this reason, the tendency is to
change eis into ὡς in such cases;
e.g. Potter on Clem. Alex. Stvom. 1.
I5 (p. 359) ov... εἰς θεὸν τετιμήκασι
writes ‘seu potius ὡς Oedv’, though

in his mind the.

At this point 2 departs from the text of Ignatius:

εἰς θεὸν τιμᾶν is excellent Greek; (3)
Considering the meaning of δέχεσθαι
eis, 1t cannot be assumed that those
versions which give a rendering equi-
valent to ὡς had ὡς in their text.

οὐχ ὡς παροδεύοντα] ‘not as a
chance wayfarer, a mere Passer by’,
as e.g. Ezek. xxxvi. 34; comp. £phes.
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 (4. V. p. 191
sq.) here, as in Ephes. 9, gives to
mapodevery the sense ‘to take a
by-way’, understanding it of one who
has deserted the true path of the
Gospel, which is par excellence ‘the
way’, and supposing that an an-
tithesis is intended between this odds
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. καὶ yap ai μὴ κιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘for
ssot 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 33, 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 Cuvpyns δι’ ᾿Εφεσίων

τῶν ἀξιομακαρίστων.

of \ Aves ? \ \ »}
ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἅμα ἐμοὶ σὺν ἀλ-

λοις πολλοῖς καὶ Κρόκος, τὸ ποθητόν [μοι] ὄνομα.

1 δὲ] GLSnMg; om. AA,

GLg; after πολλοῖς M.
aliis (om. πολλοῖς) Ay.

δι GM; διὰ g.
GL; ἔστιν δὲ (om. καί) gM; est or sunt AAnSm-

2 ἔστιν δὲ καὶ]
ἅμα ἐμοὶ] before σὺν

ἄλλοις πολλοῖς] GLM ; πολλοῖς καὶ ἄλλοις g ;
For AS,, see the next note.

3 καὶ Kpoxos]

LAM; κρόκος (om. καὶ) Gg. The two remaining authorities take a different form ;

as favouring the priority of the Cure-
tonian letters by Lipsius (S. 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 (3;),
and the latter elsewhere preserves
the correct reading as against the
former; see Ephes. 19 with the
note. 5. Chrysostom indeed says
of Ignatius ai yap κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πόλεις
συντρέχουσαι πάντοθεν ἤλειφον τὸν
ἀθλητὴν καὶ μετὰ πολλῶν ἐξέπεμπον
τῶν ἐφοδίων κιτιλ. (Οὗ. τι. 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 zof lie on the actual
route.

τῇ kata 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. Lphes. τ ὑμῶν δὲ [ἐν σαρκὶ] ἐπι-
σκόπῳ.

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 Joc.) translates
ai μὴ προσήκουσαί μοι, ‘which do not
belong to me’, i.e. ‘are not under my
jurisdiction’, separating τῇ ὁδῷ k.T.A.;
and so too Smith ‘ multi ab ecclesiis
non mei juris et ad me neutiquam
spectantibus [μὴ προσήκουσαί μοι],
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 przces-
sere’, It will be seen that Zahn
(1 uv. A. p. 254) is mistaken, when he
charges Smith with giving to odds
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 I5 or 16 miles (130
stades, Procopius Bell. Pers. ii. 11,
I. p. 199 ed. Bonn. ; 120 stades, Strabo
Xvi. 2, p. 751). For the double dative
comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7 ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ
τῇ σαρκί, and see Kiihner ὃ 424 (II.
Ῥ- 375 sq.), Winer § xxxii. p. 276.
κατὰ πόλιν «.t.A.] ‘went before
me from city to city’, 1. 6. SO as to
make preparations and welcome him

x] TO THE ROMANS.

233

Ilept τῶν προελθόντων pe ἀπὸ Cupias eis ‘Pwuny εἰς

5 δόξαν [τοῦ] Θεοῦ πιστεύω ὑμᾶς ἐπεγνωκέναι. ois Kal

sunt mecum et alit multi fratres dilecti A (omitting κρόκος); sunt autem. mecum

etiam alii multi crescus (sic) Sm:
Smyrn. 13, Polyc. 8.

μοι] GLAn; om. SmMg; al. A: comp.

4 τῶν προελθόντων με] G; gui praevenerunt me A;

qui comitati sunt et deduxerunt me Sp (this also seems to represent προελθόντων ;
comp. Luke xxii. 47); τῶν προσελθόντων (om. pe) g; advenientibus mecum Ls; τῶν

συνελθόντων μοι [Μ]; gud venerunt Ay: see the lower note.

θεοῦ gM.

on his arrival, For κατὰ πόλιν comp.
Dime Vil. 1. 4, Acts xv. 21, xx. 23;
for προάγειν, Matt. xiv. 22, xxvi. 32,
gaviu. 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 mpoeA-
θεῖν το. 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; endureunto
the end in Christ Jesus,’

I. Τράφω δὲ x.7.A.] The Syrian
epitomator here leaves the text of
this epistle. He first makes up a
sentence of his own;
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 κ.τ.λ.

dv Ἐφεσίων] For the names of
some of the Ephesian delegates who

‘Now I am

5 τοῦ Θεοῦ] G;

were with Ignatius at Smyrna, see
Ephes. 1, 2. These delegates are
mentioned also in Magn. 15, Trall.
13. For the whole expression comp.
Phitad. 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 I Pet. v. 12 dia Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν...
dv 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.
Hf. 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 Ephes. 2.

4. τῶν προελθόντων με] 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

ὃ ΄ > / 7 , / > 7 be ΄σ
NAWOATE EYYUS ME οντα πᾶντες yap εἰσιν ἄξιοι [ τοῦ]
a \ ~ « / δ jm > \ / ?
Θεοῦ Kal ὑμῶν: οὗς πρέπον ὑμῖν ἐστιν κατὰ πάντα ἀνα-

“ Sf es “- a \ ? /
παῦσαι. ἔγραψα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα TH πρὸ ἐννέα καλαν-
έ

~ / sf 3 Ys > ε ὅπ. 3 ~~
dwv (επτεμβρίων. ἔρρωσθε εἰς τέλος ἐν ὑπομονῆ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ. 5

1 δηλώσατε] G; δηλώσετε g (but 1 mandastis or mandatis); manifestatis L;

' notificate AmSm; def. AM. τοῦ Θεοῦ] G; θεοῦ g; def. M. 2 ὑμῖν
ἐστιν] G3 ἐστὶν ὑμῖν g; est vos L; def. M. 3 δὲ] GLSyg (but om. 1);
om. ΑΜ. τῇ...Σεπτεμβρίων] txt LMg (but σεπτεμβρίου in M); add.
τουτέστιν αὐγούστου εἰκάδι τρίτῃ G; ante ix kalendas septembres, mense augusto qui
dies 22 erat A; ante tx kalendas ahekani (gr. et lat. septembris, hoc est 24 augustt)
A, The difference in the calculations in GAA,, shows that the additions have
been made independently. S,, substitutes for the clause a local reckoning of time,
undecimo (die) mense ab, 4 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLMg; add. det nostri 2;
preef. domini nostri Am ; add. gratia domini nostri vobiscum omnibus A; add. estote

incolumes. gratia vobiscum Sy.

sense; Kpoxos, τὸ ποθητὸν ὄνομα, τῶν
συνελθόντων μοι ἀπὸ Συρίας εἰς δόξαν
Θεοῦ. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν κ-τ.λ.

I. ἐγγύς με ὄντα] 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. vw. A. p. 251.

ἄξιοι τοῦ Θεοῦ k.t.A.] See Ephes. 2,
where the same expression occurs.

2. κατὰ πάντα ἀναπαῦσαι] See the
note on Lphes. 2.

3. τῇ πρὸ éevveank.t.A.] 1.6. August 24.

The Armenian martyrology alone has

correctly reckoned the day. The
others give the 21st, the 22nd, or the
23rd. The 2151 is the equivalent to
the 11th of Ab in the Syriac Mar-
tyrology (Mcesinger p. 26). For the
common construction τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα
K.T.A. comp. e.g. Plut. 2207. 203 Α 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. Joh.
ΧΙ. 1 πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα, and

Add. ἀμήν GAS,,M ; om. ZLAng.
There is no subscription in GLAA,SmM.

For 2g see the Appx.

see Winer § lxi. p. 697, together with
the instances in Kypke Ods. Sacr. I
p. 393sq. Itis the Greek equivalent
to ante diem nonam Kalendas Sep-
temobres, though the construction in
Latin is somewhat different.

4. ἔρρωσθε! See the note on
LEphes. 21.

ἐν ὑπομονῇ κιτ.λ.] Comp. 2 Thess.
lil. 5 κατευθύναι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας εἰς
τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπο-
μονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. In Rev. i. 9
ὑπομονῇ Ἰησοῦ, the right reading is
ὑπομονῇ ἐν Ἰησοῦ. The expression
apparently has the same sense here
as in 2 Thess. iii. 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 κιτ.ιλ., and see also Rom.
vill. 25. In the LXxX it is a transla-
tion of MPD TPN, etc., ‘expectatio’,
‘spes’, e. 5. Ps. Ixii (1xi), 5, lexi (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.

fey THE PHILADELPHIANS.

rath Med ry | bys

* Ἕ.
ee =
ὃς
" ᾿
ha)
mo
᾿ » = 7 ᾿
ρον
ἃ ar Oa mM: ᾿

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

i ete 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. 5: 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 AZens. ili. 32, Ὁ. 45,
ed. Bonn., ore τὴν ἐν Λυδίᾳ Φιλαδέλφειαν Αἰγύπτιοι ἐπόλισαν) ; and this
notice would seem to point to Ptolemy Philadelphus, who had large
possessions in Asia Minor (Theocr. “να. 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. WV. H. v. 30 ‘ Philadelpheni et ipsi in radice Tmoli
Cogamo flumini appositi,’ Joann. Lyd. de Magistr. ii. 26, p. 218, τῆς
ἐνεγκούσης με Φιλαδελφείας τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ TywAw καὶ Avdia κειμένης). It

238 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS
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 Meeander 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 Meander
(Xen. Anab. i. 2. 5, see Ainsworth’s Zravels in the Track of the Ten
Thousand Greeks p. 13 sq.) ; 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. Asie Eccles. Not. p. 32s8q.; Chandler Zravels in Asia Minor etc.
I. p. 303 sq. (ed. Churton); Arundell Seven Churches p. 163 sq.;
W. J. Hamilton Researches in Asia Minor etc. τι. p. 370 sq.; Ainsworth
l. c.; Fellows Asta Minor and Lycia p. 216 sq.; Texier Asie Mineure
Ill. p. 23 54. For the physical features of the region see Tchihatcheff
Aste Mineure P. 1. p. 235.sq., 470 sq., P. Iv. Vol. 3. p. 229 sq.
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. iil. 8 μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν) of the Christian Church here
probably reflected the comparative size of the city itself. It lies indeed

1 Herod. vii. 31 ἱέναι παρὰ Καλλάτη-
Bov πόλιν, ἐν τῇ δημιοεργοὶ μέλι ἐκ μυρίκης
τε καὶ πυροῦ ποιεῦσι κιτ.λ. Philadelphia
is still famous for a similar confection,
called Zalva ; von Hammer Gesch. d. Os-
man. Reiches 1. p. 220, Texier L’ Univers
ΟΡ. 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 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 i. 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, 5. v. Philadelphia, ‘not far
from the Meander’; 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

‘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.
11. 98, Plin. VV. Z. v. 30, xiv. 9). But this physical characteristic was
at the same time its mast terrible scourge. It borders on the region
called Katakekaumene, which is to Asia Minor what the Phlegrean
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 foliow 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, p. 579, xiii. 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. Azz. 11. 473 see also the
Puteoli marble, 7757. Regn. Neap. Lat. 2486, ed. Mommsen). Doubt-
less 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-men-
tioned writer, Joannes Laurentius, also speaks of the hot springs in
this region, as connected with its volcanic energy (de Ostent. 53, Ὁ. 340,
ed. Bonn.)’.

In the age of Pliny (MV 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 54.) 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 (ΟΖ. 1. p. 530, ed. Dindorf,
Kupot τὴν χειροτονίαν ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ [v. 1. Φιλαδελφείᾳ] δικαστηρίοις
ἀπόντος ἐμοῦ ; see Masson Vit. Aristid. tb. ul. p. cxvill sq.). No great
weight can be attached to the fact that the epithet ‘splendid’ 15
given to Philadelphia in a Smyrnzan inscription of the age of Valerian
and Gallienus (Boeckh C. 7. 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 _ ...olés ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ Φιλαδελφείας κομιζόμενος
the highest quality of the commodity τῆς ἐν Λυδίᾳ. For the substance meant
which the ancients called sfuma nitri; by ἀφρὸς νίτρου see the reff. in Steph.

Dioscorid. Mat. Med. v. 130 ἀφρὸς virpov Thes. 5. v. 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 ὁ λαμπρότατος δῆμος, Boeckh C. ἢ 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,
Mixkpas ᾿Αθήνας ἐκάλουν τὴν Φιλαδέλφειαν διὰ τὰς ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τῶν
εἰδώλων). This statement is borne out by the not very numerous ex-
tant inscriptions found in or near the city. Among the festivals
celebrated there we read of the Yovzalia Solaria (Acta Λλεια Φιλαδέλ-
φεια [Ὁ] C. ἢ 3427, Acta ἽΔλεια ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ no. 3428, μεγάλα “Areva
no. 3416; see Boeckh’s note, 11. p. 804 54.), of the Communta Asie
(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, panegyriachs, xystarchs, ephebarchs, hip-
parchs, 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., Swop/. 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, Swpp/. vil. pp. 400, 401). The
Anthology again contains a couplet recording some honour which
Philadelphia, μνήμων ἢ πόλις evvopins, had paid to a statue of one
‘Philip ruler in Smyrna’ (Anthol. 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. 3206). And lastly we hear
of Philadelphian Christians crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna about
the middle of the second century (A/art. Polyc. 19 ; see below, p. 243).

The earliest notice of Christianity in Philadelphia is the passage in
the Apocalypse (iii. 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 Meander, his guards had taken the nght-
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. ΤῸ 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 (ὃ 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 (§ 8).

IGN, 10

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 (§§ 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 Z7ra//. 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’ (δ 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
(8 6). The Judaisers allege the ancient charters: but to himself Jesus

hrist—His Cross and Resurrection—is the one inviolable charter (ὃ 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 (§ 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 (δὲ 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 (§ 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 (ἢ 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 or 156 (Mart. Polyc. 19). We are also told of one Ammia a pro-
phetess of Philadelphia (ἡ ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ ᾿Αμμία) who appears to have
flourished early in the second century, for her name is mentioned in
connexion with Quadratus more especially (Anon. in Euseb. H. £.
v. 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 Niceea this Lydian Philadelphia is represented by her
bishop Hetcemasius (.Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 535, Cowper Syriac Miscellanies
pp- 11, 28, 33), as is also-the Syrian by her own bishop Cyrion. On

16—2

214 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 (2d. p. 37, Labb.
Conc. τ. Ὁ. 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. p. 347) there was present
one Quirius (Κύριος) bishop of Philadelphia (see Labb. Cone. 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. Cone. "τι. p. 922). At Ephesus (a.p. 431) the
Lydian Philadelphia is represented by Theophanes or Theophanius
(Labb. Cone. 111. 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 JVotitie 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 Czesars 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 ἡ τῆς Λυδίας πόλις εὐνομουμένη

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 245

‘EAAnvis (Chalcocond. de Reb. Turc. ii. p. 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 I. c.
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, is Allah Shehr, ‘the city of God.’ The true form
however seems to be A/a Shehr, ‘the pied or striped city’ (ν. Hammer
Gesch. d. Osman. Reiches τ. p. 219, not ‘the white city,’ as in Texier
LPUnivers 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 (Rey. iii. 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 A/a 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

1 T. Smith Sept. As. Eccles. Not. p. 33, guilty. This wall is a mass of vegetable

speaking of this victory of Bajazet, writes ;
‘Sola conjectura est, quam jam profero,
hujus stragis, cujus ille 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 irze suze 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

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 seem in the
Woodwardian Museum at Cambridge.
Tchihatcheff (P. 1v. 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. Ata 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 is a scene of ruins; a pleasing example, that the paths of
honour and safety may sometimes be the same (Dec/ine and Fall c. \xiv).’

The following is an avadyszs of the epistle.

‘Icnatius to the CHURCH OF PHILADELPHIA which is rooted
firmly in the conviction of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ;
greeting in the blood of the Jesus Christ which is abiding joy, so long
as there is 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 (§ 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). I
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. 1 told you plainly to obey your bishop and presbyters and
deacons. It was the voice of the Spirit, enjoining unity (δ 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 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 (δ 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).’

TPOC ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΕΙΟ.

ἸΓΝΆΤΙΟΟ, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεοῦ πα-

πρὸς καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆ οὔση ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ τῆς
ρ p 1] L é

5p ἤ ἮΝ “ \ τὸ , ? ε / 6) ~ \
Olas, ἢ εημενῇ καὶ ἢ βασμεέενη εν ομονοίᾳᾷ €OU Kal

προς Φιλάδλελφειο] μαγνησιεῦσιν φιλαδελφεῦσιν lyvdrios ἃ (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.) σ᾽; ad philadelphenses (the form uncertain) A.

I ὁ kai] See Lphes. inscr.

πρὸς idadeAdeic] 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. v. Φιλα-
δέλῴφεια, 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 κ΄ τῆς
ἸΙουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας. Yet the same
Josephus, who there (Azz. xx. 1. 1)
uses Φιλαδελφηνοί, in an earlier pas-
sage (xiil. 8. 1) has Φιλαδελφεῖς, both
passages referring to the Syrian
Philadelphia, The same variation oc-
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
(Iv. p. 103). In the inscriptions too

2 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] L; κυρίου "I, X. Gg;

the form. is most commonly Φιλα-
δελφεύς, e.g. Boeckh C. /. 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. “1262. vii. 16,
Ῥ. 341 sq. (ed. Bonn.). In Suidass. v.
Σέξτος we have ‘Hpodorov τοῦ Φιλαδελ-
φαίου, a form which seems not to
occur elsewhere. The Latins com-
monly say Phzladelphenus, Plin. JV.
HT. vi 29 (30); Tac. Am mage Eat
the version of Ignatius has ‘ Phila-
delphicis (-sis),’ and the version of
the interpolated text ‘Ad Philade-
phienses’; while in the printed texts
of. Jerome Vzr. ///,-16 it, is) Ad
Philadelpheos.’

2. Φιλαδελφίᾳῃῃ The form Φιλα-
δέλφεια with the diphthong appears
in the inscriptions (e.g. Boeckh C. Δ

σι

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

249

ἐγαλλιωμένη ἐν τῷ πάθει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ἀδιακρί
αγαλλιωμενή ἐν τῳ παῦθει του Κυρίου ἡμων αδιακρίτως

\ ~ > / > ~ / >
καὶ ἐν TH ἀναστάσει αὐτοῦ, πεπληροφορημένη EV παντὶ
έ

2251: christi domini nostri A.
tuting ἐν ἀγάπῃ).
om. A,

τῆς ᾿Ασίας] GL: urbe asiae A; om. g (substi-
3 ἡδρασμένῃ!] ἠδρασμένη (sic) ἃ.
4 ἀγαλλιωμένῃ!] G3 ἀγαλλομένῃ g.

Θεοῦ] Gg;
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν] GL*

(but L, domini iesu christi) g* (prob. but the Grk Mss add ἑἰησοῦ or ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ).
[A] omits τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν here and substitutes chris¢i for αὐτοῦ in the next clause.

1068, 3428 four times), and gene-
rally in the best MSS of ancient
writers ; comp. Moschop. Περὶ σχεδ.
Pp. 121 Φιλαδέλφεια πόλις τὸ φει δί-
φθογγον, φιλαδελφία δὲ ἰῶτα (quoted
fm ‘Steph. 7%es. s. v., δά; Hase et
Dind.). So too it is scanned in
Anthol. Il. p. 450 Ἔκ Φιλαδελφείης
ξεινήϊα κιτ.λ.; comp. also Anon, in
Euseb. H. &. v. 17, and Eusebius
himself (speaking of this epistle)
H. E. iii. 36 (though with a v.1.).
Accordingly it is written PAzladel-
phea on the Puteoli marble, Momm-
sen Juscr. Regn. Neap. Lat. 2486.
In Apoc. i. 11, iii. 7, however the
uncial MSS are generally agreed
in the form Φιλαδελφία, and so it
occurs on coins, Mionnet IV. pp. 98,
100, Suppl. VII. p. 399, and in an
inscription Boeckh C. /. 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 Zradi. inscr.). The same words
however are added in most texts in
the case of Ephesus, where such
specification .was unnecessary (sec

Ephes. inscr.). Politically Philadel-
phia was in ‘Asia,’ but ethnographi-
cally it was in Lydia (Dioscorid. J/az.
Med. ν. 130 (131) Φιλαδελφίας...τῆς ἐν
Avdia, Steph. Byz. 5. v. πόλις Λυδίας,
Ptol. v. 2. 17, and the Wotztie gene-
rally), or in Mysia (Strabo xiii. Io,
p. 628).

3. ἤλεημένῃ] See the note Rome.
inscr. Here it is used absolutely,
‘having found mercy.’

ἡδρασμένῃ ἐν] For this construc-
tion see Smyrn. 1, and possibly
Polyc. τ (see the note).

ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ] See Magu. 6, with
the note.

4. ἀγαλλιωμένῃ κ.-τ.λ.] ‘rejoicing
in the passion; we. ‘joyfully recog-
nising it and the benefits derived
from it.’ For the prominence of ‘the
passion’ in these letters, see the note
on £phes. inscr. The connexion of
‘steadfastness in concord’ and ‘re-
joicing in the Passion’ is to be
noticed. The Docetic teaching at
once threatened 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
LEphes. 3.

5. καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει x.t.A.] This
is perhaps best taken with the pre-
ceding words ἀγαλλιωμένῃ «.t.A., rather
than with the following πεπληροφο-
ρημένῃ. For this co-ordination of
the passion and the resurrection see

250

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

5 / <A > « > e/ > ~ ~ e/
ἐλέει" ἣν ἀσπάζομαι ἐν αἵματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, yrs

> \ \ Te ἢ \ 7 / a | > es
ETTLV χαρὰ αἰώνιος καὶ Trapapovos’ μάλιστα Eav EV EVL

5 \ na , \ mo \ lol /
ὦσιν σὺν TW ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ πρεσβυτέροις

\ / ? / ᾽ / > ~ a
καὶ διακόνοις ἀποδεδειγμένοις ἐν γνώμη ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

2 παράμονος] GAg; txcoinguinatum (ἄμωμος Ὁ) L.

ἐὰν ἐν ἑνὶ dow] Ο ; si

in uno simus (v. 1. sumus) L; ἐν évi Gow g* (MSs, but prob. ἐὰν has been accidentally
omitted); sz stet’s 172 concordia A. For the change of persons in AL see the lower

below § 9, Efhes. 20, Magn. ΤΊ,
Smyrn. 7, 123; comp. Smyrn. 1.
There is however no objection to the
construction πληροφορεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ
ἀναστάσει ‘to be convinced of the
resurrection’; comp.e.g. Wag. II.

πεπληροφορημένῃ κ.τ.λ.] ‘being fully
convinced, i.e. of their reality. On
the meanings of πληροφορεῖν itself,
and on its different connexions with
ἐν, see the note Colossians 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 ἠλεημένη καὶ
ἡδρασμένῃ K.T.A.

I. ἀσπάζομαι ἐν αἵματι κ.τ.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 eis
ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, and comp.
Ephes. τ ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι
Θεοῦ, Smyrn. 1 ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπῃ
ἐν τῷ αἵματι Χριστοῦ.

ἥτις κ'ιτιλ.} ‘seeing that 77. i.e.
αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the gender of the
relative being thus attracted to χαρά,
as e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; comp. Winer
§ xxiv. p. 206sq. For similar in-
stances of attraction in these epistles
see the note Magn. 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. On the other hand Zahn
(I. v. A. p. 350) takes the antecedent
to ἥτις to be the whole sentence ἀγαλ-
λιωμένῃ κι.λ. But the interposition
of another feminine relative ἥν, 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. mapapovos| Comp. £phes. inscr.
eis δόξαν παράμονον κιτιλ. The word
occurs occasionally in_ classical
writers, but not in the Lxx or N.T.

μάλιστα ‘k.7.A.] To be connected
with ἀσπάζομαι x.t.A.; comp. Polyc.
6 ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ K.T.A,

ἐὰν κιτιλ.] “77 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

A A \ ! / ~
5 οὗς κατὰ TO ἴδιον θέλημα ἐστήριξεν ἐν βεβαιωσύνη τῷ
‘

ες / > ~ £
αγίῳ AUTOU πνευματι.

I. Ὃν ἐπίσκοπον ἔγνων οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲ δι᾽

note.

3 σὺν αὐτῷ] GL; om. Ag.
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν x.7.d. afterwards); gzz A (adding mos afterwards).

5 οὖς] GL; és [g] (adding

Thus 6s seems to

have been an early corruption, which obliged Ag to supply the object to ἐστήριξεν

in different ways.

subsequent passage. After the words
ἣν καὶ 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 (ἀποδε-
δειγμένοις x.T.A.), and more especially
into a eulogy of the bishop (ov ἐπί-
σκοπον ἔγνων).

4- ἀποδεδειγμένοις] ‘ designated,
‘appointed to office’; comp. Susann.
5 καὶ ἀπεδείχθησαν δύο πρεσβύτεροι
ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ κριταί k.T.A., 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 ἐν
γνώμῃ «.t.r. show.

ἐν γνώμῃ] i.e. ‘with the approval
of’; comp. /phes. 3 of ἐπίσκοποι οἱ
κατὰ Ta πέρατα ὁρισθέντες ἐν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ γνώμῃ εἰσίν (with the note).

5. ovs κατὰ κ.τ.λ.} i.e. 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 οὕ.

7 οὐκ] οὐχ ΕΑ.

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 ina lyre. 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 x.t.A. above. The inter-
polator has straightened the con-
struction, Θεασάμενος ὑμῶν τὸν ἐπί-
σκοπον ἔγνων κ.τ.λ.

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 κιτ.λ.}] An obvious
reflexion of Gal. i. 1 οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων
οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου, where see the note
on the difference of prepositions.
Neither did he himself originate
(ἀπό), nor aid other men confer (da),
the office which he held.

252 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [

᾽ θ / σι \ , \ , \ \
ανῦρωπων κεκτῆσθαι τὴν διακονίαν τὴν εἰς TO κοινὸν
> / “αι \ 5 ’ / ~
ἀνήκουσαν, οὐδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ayarn Θεοῦ
\ \ , ~~ - /
πατρὸς Kat Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: οὗ καταπεπληγμαι
\ 3 / « a 7 , ~ 7
τὴν ἐπιείκειαν, ὃς σιγῶν πλείονα δύναται τῶν λαλούν-
/ \ ~ ~ « ~~
των" συνευρύθμισται yap ταῖς ἐντολαῖς, ὡς χορδαῖς 5

τ διακονίαν») Gg; administrationem Τ,; dispensationem (domus-administrationem
Ξε οἰκονομίαν) A. There is no reason to suppose (with Petermann) that L read
οἰκονομίαν. In 1, οἰκονομία elsewhere (Zphes. 6, 18, 20) is always disfensatio,
whereas διακονία is rendered by ministratio in § 10 below, Magn. 6, by ministerium
in Smyrn. 12, and by this very word administratio 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. τὸ] gL; τὸν G, and this was also the reading of A, which translates
quae decet communem hominem. 2 Oeov...Xpicrot] GLA; Ἰ. X. καὶ θεοῦ
πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος x.7T.r. [ρ]. 4 πλείονα] GL; πλέον σ' ; al. A.
τῶν λαλούντων] guam loguentes (rationales) A; τῶν μάταια λαλούντων GL; τῶν
πλέον λαλούντων g* (the Grk Mss, but 1 om. πλέον). The Armenian word means
properly ‘persons gifted with λόγος,᾽ i.e. ‘speech, reason, intelligence,’ and its em-
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

I. εἰς τὸ kowov κτλ] Comp. ‘on, forbearance? See the notes

Smyrn. ὃ τῶν ἀνηκόντων eis 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 τῇ ἀμώμῳ βουλήσει, 70.
62 τῶν ἀνηκόντων τῇ θρησκείᾳ ἡμῶν,
Herm. S77. v. 2 ἀνήκουσαν th νη-
oreia, and so in Polyc. 7.

2. οὐδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν] “7107. with
vain-glory. Add to this the expres-
sion in § 8 μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσ-
cere, 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, 11.

Θεοῦ] The subjective genitive, as
the antithesis to οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ x.r.X.
suggests; comp. Zva//.6. God’s love
conferred the office upon him. The
genitive is perhaps objective in Rom.
inscr. (see the note).

3. οὗ] Sc. τοῦ ἐπισκόπου.

4. ἐπιείκειαν] ‘modesty, modcra-

on Clem. Rom. 58, Ign. Zphes. το.
There is an oxymoron in καταπέ-
πληγμαι, Since ἐπιείκεια is the quality
to reassure, not to dismay. Similarly
in the following clause silence is said
to be more eloquent than speech.
Comp. Ephes. 6 ὅσον βλέπει τις σι-
γῶντα ἐπίσκοπον, πλειόνως αὐτὸν φο-
βείσθω. See the note there.

ὃς σιγῶν κιτ.λ.}] Comp. Aristoph.
Ran. 913 sq. οἱ δ᾽ ἐσίγων. ATO. ἐγὼ
δ᾽ ἔχαιρον τῇ σιωπῇ καί με τοῦτ᾽
ἔτερπεν οὐχ ἧττον ἢ νῦν οἱ λαλοῦντες.
The interpolator and transcribers
have enfeebled the expression by in-
serting πλέον or paraa. The editors
have retained the latter, apparently
without misgiving.

5. συνευρύθμισται] ‘zs tuned in
harmony with’; comp. Ephes. 4 τὸ
«-«ὡπτπρεσβυτέριον.. οὕτως συνήρμοσται TO
ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ. Here
however the metaphor is not so
clear. It is not easy to see in what

1] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 253

κιθάρα. διὸ μακαρίζει μου ἡ ψυχὴ τὴν εἰς Θεὸν αὐ-
τοῦ γνώμην, ἐπιγνοὺς ἐνάρετον καὶ πέλειον οὖσαν, τὸ
ἀκίνητον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἀόργητον [αὐτοῦ] ἐν πάση ἐπι-
εικείᾳ Θεοῦ. ζῶντος.

᾽ν

Τέκνα οὖν [pwros| ἀληθείας, φεύγετε τὸν μερι-

g. See the lower note. 5 συνευρύθμισται] (ἃ; patiens est et concordans est A;
συνήρμοσται g; concordes estis (συνευρύθμισθε:) L*. χορδαῖς κιθάρα] GL;

chordae citharae (χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ or KiOdpas) A: χορδαὶ τῇ κιθάρᾳ g. 6 els
Θεὸν] GLg; divinam (évOeov ?) A; comp. the v. 1. in 7γαΐζ. 8. ἡ τέ-
λειον] G; τελείαν g. 8 αὐτοῦς sec.] G; om. Lg; al. A. 9 ζῶντος]

GLg. The rendering of A is scio quod perfecta est (om. ἐνάρετον) ea et non unguam
‘conturbatur et trascitur sed vivit onini humilitate cum deo (per deum). Petermann
suggests that the translator read ζῶν for ζῶντος, or that he misunderstood the Syriac
NM NPN «dei viventis,’ separating the last word and interpreting it wt. 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 See the lower note.

10 Τέκνα] GLA Rup. 779; ws τέκνα δ. φωτὸς ἀληθεία:)] GL* (but a v. 1.

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 ἐντο-
Aais, used absolutely, see the note
on Trall. 13. If the lexicons may
be trusted, not only is συνευρυθμίζειν
a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, but neither evpvd-
μίζω nor συνεύρυθμος occurs else-
where.

6. τὴν εἰς Θεὸν κιτ.λ.] The same.

expression occurs Rom. 7: comp.
Polyc. τ σου τὴν ἐν Θεῷ γνώμην.

7. ἐνάρετον]! The word does not
occur .inothe: LXx or N..T., but is
found in 4 Macc. xi. 5, and in
Clem. Rom, 62 τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων
els 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. Phedr. Ὁ.

249 C, Leg. x. p. 951 B, Aristot. Zh.
Wits Wit, t4-(p. 1153); Pol. iS tm
1252), and frequently. Compare δῆ-
Nos [Clem. Rom.] ii. 12.

TO ἀκίνητον x.t.A.| In apposition to
τὴν εἰς ©. 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] i.e. ‘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 va 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.’

10. Τέκνα kt.A.] Τέκνα φωτὸς oc-

254 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [π

\ \ \ / « ν; / ᾽
σμὸν καὶ τὰς κακοδιδασκαλίας" ὅπου δὲ ὁ ποιμὴν ἐστιν,

> ~ . ~ \ \ / > /
ἐκεῖ ὡς πρόβατα ἀκολουθεῖτε: πολλοὶ yap λύκοι ἀξιο-

ς ~~ ral ᾽ / \ a“ 4 >
πιστοι ἡδονῇ κακῇ αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν Tous θεοδρόμους
έ

5 δΝ fn ἐξ / ς aia 3 « ΄
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῆ ἑνότητι ὑμών οὐχ ἕξουσιν τόπον.
ἐ

inserts ef) g Rup.; Zucis et veritatis A.

It is clear therefore that φωτὸς ἀληθείας is

older than any existing authorities, though probably corrupt. The remedy how-

ever is not to insert a καὶ, as is commonly done: see the lower note.

1 δὲ] ἃ

(but the Casanatensian transcript has μὲν) g Rup.; autem L; et A. 4 ἑνό-

TyTt] ἑνώτητι ἃ.

οὐχ ἕξουσιν] Gg; non habent L; non est illis A (but the

freedom elsewhere used by A in translating the Syriac future deprives it of weight).
5 ᾿Απέχεσθε] GL [Rup. 773]; add. οὖν g; jam (ergo) A (prob. representing οὖν,

curs, Ephes. v. 8; υἱοὶ [rod] 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 (viol)
φωτός.

μερισμὸν] So again §§ 3, 7, 8,
Smyrn. 8. The word occurs both
in the LXx, and in the N. αν (Heb.
ii. 4, iv. 12), but not in this sense.

1. κακοδιδασκαλίας)] See [Clem.
Rom.] ii. 10 κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες, with
the note.

2. λύκοι] So 5. Paul, Acts xx.
29 λύκοι βαρεῖς...μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ
ποιμνίου ; comp. John x. 12. In ἀξιό-
πιστοι there is perhaps an allusion
to the ‘sheep’s clothing’ of Matt.
vii. 15 (comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 35,

Iren. i. preef. 1, Clem. Alex. Profr. τ.
p. 4). For the metaphor see also
Epictetus D7ss. iii, 22. 35 τί οὖν εἶ;
ποιμὴν ταῖς ἀληθείαις. οὕτω yap κλάεις,
ὡς οἱ ποιμένες, ὅταν λύκος ἁρπάσῃ τι
τῶν προβάτων αὐτῶν" καὶ οὗτοι δὲ πρό-
Bara εἰσιν οἱ ὑπὸ σοῦ ἀρχόμενοι : Comp.
2b. i. 3. 7 οἱ μὲν.. λύκοις ὅμοιοι γινόμε-
θα, ἄπιστοι καὶ ἐπίβουλοι καὶ βλαβεροί"
οἱ δὲ λέουσιν κιτιλ. Rhodon (in Euseb.
HT, E. 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-
ceitful, as in Polyc. 3 (where how-
ever the bad sense is not so directly
prominent) ; comp. Zval/. 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᾽ ὃ
πιστὸς καὶ δόκιμος καὶ ἀξιόχρεως. For
this later and bad sense comp.
Epist. ad Diogn. ὃ τοὺς κενοὺς καὶ
ληρώδεις ἐκείνων λόγους ἀποδέχη τῶν
ἀξιοπίστων φιλοσόφων, Lucian Alex.
4 πιθανὴν καὶ ἀξιόπιστον καὶ ὑποκριτι-
κὴν τοῦ βελτίονος, Charito iv. 9 ἐμνη-
μόνευσε Καλλιρόης ἀξιοπίστῳ τῷ προσ-
emo (comp. 2 1. 4), Apollon. in
Euseb. H. £. v. 18 Θεμίσων ὁ τὴν

111]

111,

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

255

9 7 ΄σ ~ ~ [2 >
ἈΔπέχεσθε τῶν κακών βοτανῶν, ἅστινας οὐ

τὰ ἢ ~ f A \ \ ἊΣ 5 \ /
γεωργεῖ ἰησοῦς Χριστος, διὰ τὸ μῆ εἰναι αὐτοὺς φυτείαν

if it be not
ΧΙ Gh;
obviously a
(omitting the rest of the sentence).

read αὐτάς) Rup.; zfsos L (not zfsas, as commonly given); def. A.

therefore no authority for αὐτάς.

ἀξιόπιστον πλεονεξίαν ἠμφιεσμένος.
So too ἀξιοπιστία, Joseph. B. F. ii.
13. 3 παντάπασιν ὑπ᾽ ἀξιοπιστίας ἦσαν
ἀνεύρετοι, Tatian ad Gr@c. 25 κεκρα-
γὼς δημοσίᾳ per ἀξιοπιστίας, Aristid.
Art. Rhet. i. 4 (Op. I. p. 745, ed.
Dind.) ἀξιοπιστίας δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐπικατα-
ψεύδεσθαι (with the whole chapter,
which treats of ἀξιοπιστία in all its
forms) ; and ἀξιοπίστως, Polyb. ili. 33.
17 τοῖς ἀξιοπίστως Ψευδομένοις (comp.
XM. Ou 5: XXviil, 4: 10), “Tatian ad
Gr@c.2aktoriaras ἡσωτεύσατο, Joseph.
Bi Feis25-2;Anon, in Euseb, 77. £2:
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.
Περι ‘Apion: i 1, 20, ν᾽ 37;
Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 2 (p. 327), li. 5,
6 (pp. 442, 445), vii. 8, 9 (p. 862).
The manner in which it slips into a
bad sense will appear from Clem.
Alex. Ped. iii. 11 (p. 302) μὴ μόνον
εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀξιοπίστους φα-
νῆναι.

3. ἡδονῇ κακῇ] This is the bait

which they hold out to their victims ;
see the parallel passage Zyrad/. 6,
where the same phrase occurs.
_ αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν]! As in 2 Tim. 11].
6; and so Iren. I. pref. 1 διὰ τῆς
πανούργως συγκεκροτημένης πιθανότητος
«««αἰχμαλωτίζουσιν αὐτούς (comp. 722.
i. 3. 6), quoted by Pearson. In all
these cases it is said of the machina-
tions of heretical teachers.

an insertion of a translator or of a scribe).
ἅστινας "I, X. οὐ γεωργεῖ σ᾽; ὧν χριστὸς ἰησοῦς γεωργεῖ Rup. (Lequien),
corrupt text; guas dominus noster tesus christus non plantavit A

A ~
ἀστινας ov γεωργεῖ

6 αὐτοὺς] Gg* (mss, though edd.
There is
φυτείαν] φυτίαν G,

θεοδρόμους] ‘the runners in the
stadium of God, who is the great
ἀγωνοθέτης. It is the metaphor of
the Christian δρόμος, which occurs
so frequently in S. Paul; see the
note on om. 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 érpe-
xeTe καλῶς᾽ Tis ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν; The
word Oeodpopos occurs again Polyc. 7,
but in a somewhat different sense,
‘God’s courier.’

4. 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.’

5. βοτανῶν] ‘weeds.’ See the
note on 77va//. 6, where the same
metaphor occurs.

6. γεωργεῖ] Comp. John xv. 1

-O πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν, I Cor. iii,

9 Θεοῦ γεώργιον... ἐστε. Here the

256

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[111

͵ ' 3 « > ca 4 = 3 ᾽ >
TATPOS. OVX OTL παρ υμῖν μερισμὸν εὑρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπο-

διυλισμόν.

« ~ ~ ~
ὅσοι yap Θεοῦ εἰσιν καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Φ \ “ / > / Nef \ /
οὗτοι META τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰσίν" καὶ ὅσοι ἂν μετανοή-

᾽ > \ \ See! 4 ~ 3 / \
σαντες ἔλθωσιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Kal

τ ὌΝ “aT «7 5 4° & ~ \
οὗτοι Θεοῦ ἔσονται, ἵνα wow κατὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν 5

1 πατρός] σ; τοῦ πατρὸς Rup.

ἀποδιυλισμόν] abstractionem L (comp. Rom.

inscr. ἀποδιυλισμένοις, translated adbstractis); ἀποδιῦλισμένον G3; clamor A. The

rendering of A is explained by Zahn 7. 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. 5. ν.
dei sunt A; χριστοῦ εἰσιν [g].

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
Boravait. ‘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, 7ral/. 11 φεύ-
γετε οὖν τὰς κακὰς Tapadvddas...ovTOL
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 7γαϊί, 11 already
cited. There is also doubtless an in-
direct reference to the parable of the
tares sown by the Evil One, Matt.
xlll. 24 5ᾳ. 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 γὰρ κιτιλ. are
connected with the previous sen-
tence, dorivas...matpos. For this cor-
rective οὐχ ore see the note on
Magn. 3.

εὗρον] ‘J found. This implies that

2 Θεοῦ εἰσιν καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GLS, ;

6 ἀδελφοί μου] GLS, Rup. 773 Anon. Syr,

Ignatius had himself visited Phila-
delphia ; see above p. 241, and the
notes on ὃ I ὃν ἐπίσκοπον ἔγνων, ὃ 6
ὅτι ἐβάρησα xT. § 7 ἐκραύίγασα
μεταξὺ ὦν.

ἀποδιυλισμόν] ‘filtration’ See the
note on Rom. 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 2 2765. 5.

5. κατὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν κιτ.λ.} So again
Magn. 8. Similarly, κατὰ χριστια-
νισμὸν ζῆν Magn. το, κατὰ Θεὸν ζῆν
Ephes. 8, κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ζῆν Ephes. 6,
κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῆν Magn. 9, κατὰ iov-
δαισμὸν ζῆν Magn. 8, κατὰ ἀνθρώπους
ζῆν Trall. 2, Rom. 8.

6. μὴ πλανᾶσθε] As in 1 Cor.
Vi. Ὁ, xv. 33, Gal. vi. 75 James a.riG:
Here the phrase is clearly suggested
by 1 Cor. vi. 9 sq., whence the words
βασίλειαν Θεοῦ οὐ KAnpovopet also are
borrowed. Comp. Zfhes. 16, where
there is the same connexion of
phrases suggested by S. Paul’s lan-

guage,

111] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 257

ζῶντες. μὴ πλανάσθε, ἀδελφοί pov: εἴ τις σχίζοντι

~ ’ a ᾽ a γ
ἀκολουθεῖ, Βὰσιλείὰν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομεῖ'" εἰ τις

> > / , ~ 5 a / >
ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ γνωμὴ περιπατεῖ, οὗτος τῷ πάθει οὐ συγ-

/
KaATATL θεται .

᾿ς ἊΝ ~ 3 / ΄σ
IV. Οπουδάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι:

218 (but for the Syriac authorities see S. Clement of Rome p. 321 Appendix); fratres
(here) A; ἀδελφοί (before μὴ πλανᾶσθε) g. σχίζοντι] txt GL Rup.; add. ἀπὸ
τῆς ἀληθείας [g]; add. ecclesiam Anon.Syr,.; add. ecclestam det 81; separatoris ec-
clesiae A. 7 κληρονομεῖ] GLA Rup. Anon-Syr,.3 κληρονομήσει g; haere-
ditabit 5... The future is taken from S. Paul, τ Cor. vi. 9, 10, Gal. v. 21.

8 τῷ πάθει] GL; add. christiS,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. § 16 (III. p. 462) οὐ σχίζων ar
αὐτῆς (1.6. τῆς συναγωγῆς), Dion. Alex.
Ep. ad Novat. (in Euseb. HZ. £. 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 N. T.

8. ἀλλοτρίᾳ] ‘ strange, i.e. ‘here-
tical,” as in Zyval/. 6 ἀλλοτρίας Bo-
tavns, Rom. inscr. ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος,
Papias in Euseb. ZH. £. iii. 39 τοῖς
τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσιν.
So too ξένος, Heb. xiii. 9.

τῷ πάθει] See the note on Lphes.
inscr.

ov συγκατατίθεται] ‘has no part or
agreement with, ‘ dissociates himself
Srom’; 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-

IGN.

selves from the true eucharist of the
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
one eucharistic 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 «.t.A.]| 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 Smyrna. 6,
and perhaps £phes. 13) are the
earliest instances of εὐχαριστία ap-
plied to the Holy Communion:
comp. Justin Martyr Afol. i. 64, 65
(p. 97 54.) μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχα-
ριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος
...kal ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ᾽
ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία... τὴν δι εὐχῆς λό-
γου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν
τροφήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ
μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ
σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ

258 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [iv

, \ Ἁ ΄σ΄ K / ε ΄σ > c ΄σ \ ἃ
μία yap σαρξἕ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕν
“ > « a e/ > ΄σ « ,
ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ: ἕν θυσιαστη-
ε Φ 3 , e/ ~ / \
ριον, ὡς εἷς ἐπίσκοπος, ἅμα τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ Kal δια-
4 σι / « a6 / \
κόνοις τοῖς συνδούλοις μου: ἵνα ὃ ἐὰν TPATONTE, κατα
\ /
Θεὸν mpaconte.
2 els ἕνωσιν] GL; concordiae 81; om. A; al. g. 3 ws] G; ef L (but
perhaps we should read 2; see the converse error in Rom. 4, and comp. Lphes. 21);

sicut et A; καὶ [5]. Should we read ws καὶ with A? διακόνοις] G3 τοῖς δια-
κόνοις [5]. 6 ᾿Αδελφοί μου] not omitted in A, as stated by Petermann; but

αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι (comp. Dial.
117, p. 345), Iren. iv. 18. 5 ἡμῶν δὲ
σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη TH εὐχαριστίᾳ...
ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανό-
μενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκέτι
κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία,
Καὶλι, Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 2 (p. 178)
εὐχαριστία κέκληται, χάρις ἐπαινουμένη
καὶ καλή, Orig. ¢. 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.
xi. 18, 20 πρῶτον μὲν yap συνερχο-
μένων ὑμῶν ev ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσ-
ματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν.. .συνερχομένων
οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, οὐκ ἔστιν κυ-
ριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν κιτιλ. 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 Smyri. 6, ὃ.

I. μία yap σὰρξ «.t.A.] Doubtless
suggested by 1 Cor. x. 16, 17 τὸν
ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ
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

eucharistic loaf betokening the union
in the one body of Christ.

2. els 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 MZagz. 1.

ἐν 6votacrnptov| Comp. Cyprian
Epist.” xiii. 5 τ. 509 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 ; Haz. iv. 18. 6 ‘ offerimus
eum el, 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 Ephes. 5, and see Philip-
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 Lphes. 5, Trail. 7. For

ν]

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

259

ι] -: . ~
V. ᾿Αλδελφοί pov, λίαν ἐκκέχυμαι ἀγαπῶν ὑμάς,

/ ὔ ε - > ᾽ \ ,
kal ὑπεραγαλλόμενος ἀσφαλίζομαι ὑμᾶς: οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ,

ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ἐν ᾧ δεδεμένος φοβοῦμαι μάλλον,

sf \ ,
WS ETL WY ἀναπαρτιστος.

ἀλλ᾽ ἡ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν [εἰς

Θεό ίσει. ἵνα ἐν ᾧ κλήρῳ ἠλεήθην ἐπιτύχω
cov] με ἀπαρτίσει, ἵν ; now ἠλεηθη χω,

attached to the former sentence.
els Θεόν] Gg; om. L [A].

9 ἀναπάρτιστος] gLA; ἀνάρπαστος G.
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 requiescam.

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 Θεόν] See the note on Alagn.
i

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. Ves. 1469,
Lucian Salt. 81, Polyb. v. 106. 7 εἰς
πάντας τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἐξεκέχυντο, i.e.
‘were lavish in their loyalty and
devotion’; see also Clem. Alex.

Protr. 2 (p. 27). So the Latin ‘ef-
fundi,’ e.g. Cic. Ad. 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.
LXX Neh. iii. 15, Wisd. xiii. 15;
comp. Clem. Hom. ii. 45 ὁ τὸ περιέ-
χον σῶμα ἐν ἀπείρῳ πελάγει πνεύματι
βουλῆς ἀσφαλισάμενος. See Bekker
Aneca. p. 456 τὸ ἀσφαλίζεσθαι βάρ-
βαρον. It is however a common word
from Polybius downward.

8. ἐν ᾧ δεδεμένος] Comp. ὃ 7,
Ephes. 3, Trall. 1, Rom. 1... For the
feeling of Ignatius respecting his
bonds see the notes on Zphes. 3, 11,
Magn. τ.

φοβοῦμαι μᾶλλον] Comp. Tradl. 4
νῦν yap pe Set πλέον φοβεῖσθαι.

9. ἀναπάρτιστος) See the parallel
passage Lphes. 3 εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, οὔπω ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷῃ:Ἠ 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 dvapracros here.

10. ἀπαρτίσει) The word was
condemned as a soleecism by the
purists; but the condemnation must

po.
17—2

260

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

‘ ~ ’ / ε A > ~ \ ~
προσφυγων Tw εὐαγγελίῳ ws σαρκι Ιησοῦ καὶ τοῖς

1 Ἰησοῦ] GL; ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ g3 christi A.

be taken with some qualification. It
is used several times by Aristotle.
See Lobeck Phryx. p. 447 sq.

κλήρῳ] Of martyrdom; see the
note 7 γαϊζζ, 12.

ἠλεήθην] After 5. Paul’s manner of
speaking, 2 Cor. iv. 1 καθὼς ἠλεήθη-
μεν, οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν, I Tim. i. 13, 16
ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην.. ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην :
comp. Rom. xi. 30, 31. So too 1 Pet.
ii, 10. See also Rom. inscr. (note).
For ἐλεεῖσθαι ἐν comp. Swzyrm. inscr.

ἐπιτύχω] The construction is ἵνα
ἐπιτύχω τοῦ 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. Zvrall. 12 τοῦ κλήρου οὗπερ
ἔγκειμαι [MS οὗ περίκειμαι] ἐπιτυχεῖν,
Rom. 1 εἰς τὸ τὸν κλῆρόν μου ἀνεμπο-
δίστως ἀπολαβεῖν. So too Mart, Polyc.
6 τὸν ἴδιον κλῆρον ἀπαρτίσῃ.

I. προσφυγὼν] This can hardly
be connected with ἠλεήθην (as Zahn
. proposes J. v. A. p. 575), seeing that
ἐπιτύχω intervenes. Nor is there
any objection to connecting it with
iva...emurvyo. 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 iva.

ὡς σαρκὶ k.T.A.] 1.6. because it gives
the earthly life, records the actual
works of Christ, as the Logos zzcar-
nate; comp.§9 ἐξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχει
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ
Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθος
αὐτοῦ, κιτιλ. The metaphor is eucha-
ristic. Somewhat similarly Origen
in Lev. Hom. vii. § 5 (I. p. 225)
interprets the words of John vi.
53 54.) ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα K.T.A,,
‘carnibus et sanguine verbi 581...Ρο-
tat et reficitomne hominum genus’;
and so too Euseb, Καῖ, Theol. iii.

12 ὥστε αὐτὰ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα Kal τοὺς
λόγους αὐτοῦ τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὸ αἷμα
κιτιλ., Anon. Brev. in Psalu. cxlvii
(Hieron. 02. VU. p. 530 Appx) ‘ Ego
corpus Jesu evangelium puto, sanctas
scripturas puto, doctrinam ejus; et
quando dicit Quz zou comederit car-
nem meam etc. These passages are
quoted by Ussher. See also the
notes on 7γαζί. 8, Rom. 7, for similar
eucharistic metaphors. There is
probably an indirect allusion to
Docetism here.

τοῖς ἀποστόλοις κιτ.λ. The Apostles
stand in the same relation to the
Church at large, in which its own
presbytery does to each individual
church. So conversely TZvall. 2
ὑποτάσσεσθαι καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, ws
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (comp.
Smyrn. ὃ). See the notes on 2772471.
6,93), 7721. 3

The expression obviously points
to some authoritative wrztings 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, ro εὐαγγέλιον the Gospel
or Gospels, and of ἀπόστολοι the
Apostolic Epistles (perhaps includ-
ing the Acts), or to one only, οἱ 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 Jztro-
duction to the Gospels p. 416, and
Hilgenfeld Linlectung in das N. T.
p- 72; while Zahn (JZ. v. A. p. 431
sq.) and others interpret εὐαγγέλιον

v| TO.THE PHILADELPHIANS.

᾽ ’ ς / > /
ἀποστόλοις ws πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας.

261

\
καὶ TOUS προ-

2 πρεσβυτερίῳ] GLg; ministris (diuconis) A.

in the latter way, not of the book, but
of the teaching. The parallel pas-
sages are ὃ 9 below oi yap ἀγαπητοὶ
προφῆται κατήγγειλαν εἰς αὐτόν, τὸ δὲ
εὐαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίας,
Simyrn. 5 ovs οὐκ ἔπεισαν αἱ 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. κα into
‘the Prophets’ and ‘the Law of
Moses.’ But the use of εὐαγγέλιον
in the context here (eis τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
κατηγγελκέναι and συνηθροισμένοι ἐν
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 D) τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστό-
λων ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν
ἀναγινώσκεται, or the language in the
so-called Second Epistle of Clement
δ 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 οἵ the second century the
separation of the ‘Gospels’ from the
‘Apostles’ becomes common, e.g.

Iren. i. 3.6 τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν
ἀποστολικῶν, Clem. Alex. Stvom. vii.
3 (p. 836) τό τε εὐαγγέλιον 6 τε ἀπό-
στολος, Tertull. de Prescr. 36 ‘ evan-
gelicis et apostolicis literis,’ and
elsewhere; see Reuss Gesch. der
hei. Schr. N. T. ὃ 300. There is
indeed nothing to prevent the same
author from using both modes of
speaking in different places; comp.
e.g. Clem. Alex. Stvom. ili. 10 (Ὁ.
543) νόμος τε ὁμοῦ καὶ προφῆται σὺν

. A “ > ri > a 4 “
Και. τῷ ευαγγε ἰῳ εν ονοματι ρίιστου

εἰς μίαν συνάγονται γνῶσιν, with 2d,
v. 5 (p. 664) τοῦ evayyeAiov 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 (δ γι), Schrift.
RE ΟΣ ΠΡ. 12075) 167: 237, ed. : Malt-
zahn ; passages referred to by Zahn
I. v. A. pp. 431 sq., 575). He stated
that there was no trace of a collection
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-
yov τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἐκκλὴη-
σίας ὡς ἀποστόλοις" καὶ τοὺς διακόνους
δὲ ἀγαπῶ, ὡς προφήτας Χριστὸν καταγ-
γείλαντας καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πνεύματος
μετασχόντας οὗ καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι.

2. καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ x.r.A.]

262

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

, es ’ na \ \ ‘ 3 \ > 4 ᾽ ͵
φητας δὲ ἀγαπώμεν, διὰ TO καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέ-

\ > \ ? / \ \
lov κατηγγελκέναι καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπίζειν καὶ αὐτὸν

8 / ? - \ , > / > /
ἀναμένειν" ἐν ᾧ Kal πιστεύσαντες ἐσώθησαν ἐν ἑνότητι

~ ~ 7 3 / \ ᾽ /
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὄντες ἀξιαγάπητοι καὶ ἀξιοθαύμαστοι

I ἀγαπῶμεν] GL; diligamus L; ἀγαπῶ g; diligo A. Perhaps it was treated

as two words ἀγαπῷ μὲν : see the lower note.

5 καὶ συνηριθμημένοι

GL; om. g. A translates the passage gzuos ¢estificatus est dominus noster jesus

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 τις ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἑρμη-
νεύῃ k.T.A., 1.6. ‘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 88 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
ὃ 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. 7γαζί, 4 ἀγαπῶ μὲν γὰρ
τὸ παθεῖν κιτ.λ.

εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον x.T.A.] For the
construction and sentiment alike
comp. ὃ 9 of ἀγαπητοὶ προφῆται κατήγ-
yetAav εἰς αὐτόν, Barnab. 5 of προφῆται,
ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες τὴν χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν
ἐπροφήτευσαν. For the sentiment
see also the notes on Magu. ὃ, 9;
for the construction comp. λέγειν eis,
Acts ii: 25, Ephes. vy. 32, and see
Winer § xlix. p. 495.

3. ἐν ᾧ καὶ KrAr.] ‘772 whont also
(i.e. when He actually appeared to
them) ¢hey 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 Jagz. 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 aavra
ταῦτα εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ.

4. ἀξιαγάπητοι)] ‘worthy of this
Jove, which we accord to them,’ a
reference to καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ
ἀγαπῶμεν. On the compounds of

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

263

ἅγιοι, ὑπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεμαρτυρημένοι καὶ συνη-
ριθμημένοι ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλπίδος.
VI. Ἐὰν δέ τις ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἑρμηνεύη ὑμῖν, μὴ

/ and af / \
ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ. ἀμεινον γάρ ἐστιν παρὰ ἀνδρὸς περι-

christus quod fideles computantur (numerantur) in evangelio, thus clearly recognising

συνηριθμημένοι.
byiv] 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. fincluded a-
mong those who participate in the
privileges of the Gospel’ It is
wrongly explained by Smith “270-
phete cum apostolis zz evangelio
connumerait, utpote de quibus utris-
que insigne testimonium illic reliquit
Christus. There is no reference
to the written record in εὐαγγελίῳ
mera:

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 Ephes.
I, Magu. 11. Zahn (/.v. A. pp. 430,
435) suggests reading τῆς καινῆς ἐλπί-
δος, comparing JZagi. 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 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

and συνηριθμημένοι) that all alike,
whether they lived before or after
the coming of Christ, are united in a
common Saviour.

VI. ‘But if any one so interprets
them as to find Judaism in them,
listen not to him. It is better to

7 Gel Gy vt A ΤΌΣΩ} [5]:

tts] GA[g]; om. L.

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. lovduicpov] See the note on
Magn. 8.

ἑρμηνεύῃ}] ‘profound’; as Celsus
in Orig. c. Ceds. ili. 58 (1. 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.

ὃ, ἄμεινον γάρ κιτ.λ.}] Who is
meant by the ἀκρόβυστος in this
sentence? Is he to be identified
with the rs in the preceding clause,
so that ἀκούειν mapa ἀκροβύστου in
the latter place corresponds to ἀκού-

264 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi

\ ᾽ \ ‘
τομὴν ἔχοντος χριστιανισμὸν ἀκούειν ἢ
/ “. /
βύστου ἰουδαϊσμόν.

\
Tapa akpo-
ιν \ 3 / \ > τ
ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότεροι περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ
xX a“ \ “ © ᾽ \ “- ae \ ,
ριστου μὴ Nadwow, οὗτοι ἐμοι στήλαι εἰσιν καὶ τάφοι
mY Se “ / / / > /
νεκρῶν, ep ols γέγραπται μόνον ὀνόματα ἀνθρωπων.
/ > \ / / ~ of
φεύγετε οὖν Tas κακοτεχνίας Kal ἐνέδρας TOU ἀρχοντος 5
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, μήποτε θλιβέντες τῇ γνώμη αὐτοῦ
έ

7 ἐξασθενήσετε] δ; ἀξασϑενήσεται G; infirmemini LA.

é L.
9 μου] GLA; om. [g].

ere αὐτοῦ in the former? In this case
the zeachers would be represented,
not as Jewish Christians, but as
Gentile Christians with strong Ju-
daic tendencies. This seems the
most natural interpretation; nor
can I with Zahn (Z. v. A. p. 368
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 (§ 8
ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις x.T-A.. Comp.
Smyrn. § ovs οὐκ ἔπεισαν ai 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 hand
it is possible, though I think not
probable, that the ἀκρόβυστος is the
recipient, not the Jromulgator, of the
false interpretation. Under any cir-
cumstances the iovdaicpos, i.e. Jewish
manner of living, which was enforced,
would include the observance of
sabbaths (comp. JZagx. 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

8 εὐχαριστῶ δὲ] GL; εὐχαριστῶ (om. δέ) A[g*] (but v. 1. edxapioras).
11 ἐν μικρῷ! GL; ἢ ἐν μικρῷ g; dub. A (where
ἢ...ἢ may perhaps be represented by wel etiam).

δέ] GL* (but a ν΄, 1. omits

dxpoBuarov 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 ἰουδαϊσμὸς ἀπὸ
μέρους, aS Epiphanius describes the
Judaism of Cerinthus (/7@ry. xxviii. 1).

I. χριστιανισμόν] See the note on
Magn. το.

ἀκροβύστουὨ͵ ὁ 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] i.e. whether περιτο-
μὴν ἔχων Or ἀκρόβυστος.

περὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κιτ.λ.] Sce the
note on Ephes. 6.

3- “στῆλαι κιτ.λ.} Comp. Matt.
XXlll. 27 παρομοιάζετε τάφοις κεκονια-
μένοις. So old men are styled τύμβοι,
Eur. Med. 1209, Heracl. 168, Arist.
Lys. 372; comp. Lucian Déal. Mort.
Vi. 2 ἔμψυχόν twa τάφον ; and σόρος,
e.g. Athen. xiii. p. 580. So too the
Latin ‘sepulcrum, Plaut. Psead. i. 4.
19. The closest parallel however

vi] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 265

> , > ~ > , > A , ᾽ ι A > \
ἐξασθενησητε ἐν TH aYyaTN’ ἄλλα παντες ἐπὶ TO AVTO
ίνεσθε ἐν ἀμερίσ Ola. εὐ 0 δὲ τῷ Θεῴ
γίνεσθε ἐν ἀμερίστῳ καρδίᾳ. εὐχαριστώ OE τῷ ῷ
« / / > > ~ ᾽
μου, ὅτι εὐσυνείδητος εἰμι ἐν ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐκ ἔχει τις καυ-

χήσασθαι οὔτε λάθρα οὔτε φανερῶς, ὅτι ἐβάρησά τινα

> ny ay ῇ
ἐν μικρῷ ἢ ἐν μεγαλῳ.

\ ΄σ ᾿ς ᾽ “4 ,
καὶ πάσι δέ, ἐν οἷς ἐλάλησα,

/ 4 \ / \ /
εὔχομαι ἵνα μὴ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτὸ κτήσωνται.

δὲ); om. gA (but A omits καὶ also).

12 μαρτύριον] G3; μαρτυρίαν g.

κτήσωνται] x; possideant L; κτίσωνται G; fiat tis A. So in 7γαϊί. 8 G has ἀνα-

κτίσασθε for ἀνακτήσασθε.

is in Laberius (Macrob. Saz. ii. 7)
‘sepulcri similis nil nisi nomen re-
tineo,’ quoted by Voss; comp. also
Lucian 77. 5 ἦν 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. p. 105),
referred to by Ussher, explains στῆ-
Ag imi the. 1, ; Hos,..x. .1, of} the
heretics, because ‘terraze suze 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. ¢. Ceés. il. 12, 11].
51) to those who were untrue to the
principles and practice of their
school; comp. Clem. Alex. .5270772.
v. 9 (p. 680) στήλην én’ αὐτῷ γενέσθαι
οἷα νεκρῷ, Iambl. Vit. Pythag. 17
στήλην δή τινα τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ μνημεῖον
οὐὐχώσαντες, 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 κιτ.λ.} See Polyc. 5

τὰς κακοτεχνίας φεῦγε (with the note). ©

τοῦ ἄρχοντος x.t-A.] See the note
on £phes. 17.

6. θλιβέντες κιτ.λ.}] ‘worn
wearied, dy his suggestions,

7. ἐξασθενήσητε] ‘grow weak’;
comp. Matt. xxiv. 12 ψυγήσεται ἡ
ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν, Apoc. ii. 4 τὴν

out,

ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες.

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ k.T.A.] ‘meet together,
i.e. for public worship and the eu-
charist ; comp. 4 σπουδάσατε μιᾷ ev-
χαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι. For ἐν ἀμερίστῳ
καρδίᾳ comp. 7ral/. 13.

9. εὐσυνείδητο)]͵ See Magn. 4
with the note.

10. ὅτι ἐβάρησα κ.τ.λ.Ἷ 2 Cor. xi. 9
ἐν παντὶ ἀβαρῇ ἐμαυτὸν ὑμῖν ἐτήρησα,
xii. 16 ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς (ν. 1.
κατενάρκησα), I Thess. ii. 9 πρὸς τὸ μὴ
ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν (comp. 2 Thess.
iii. 8). See also the protest of Samuel,
2 Sam. xii. 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 5. Paul’s language would
rather suggest that he is speaking of
using his position and authority ty-
rannically, whether (as in S. 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 Ἢ v. A. p. 266 sq.

11. καὶ πᾶσι δέ κιτ.λ.] ‘yea, and
for all those among whom I spoke, 1

266
Vii.

a ᾽ \ A - > - \ -~ sf
πλανῆσαι, ἀλλὰ TO πνεῦμα οὐ πλανᾶται, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ov

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vir

᾽ ᾿ \ ’ "52"
Εἰ yap καὶ κατὰ σάρκα pe τινες ἠθέλησαν

\ ͵ 3 n ε ’ \ \
οἶλεν yap πόθεν EpyeTal κδὶ ποῦ yTarel, καὶ Ta

1 καὶ] GLA; om. g.
πνεῦμα] GLA; add. pov [g].
of g add γάρ); add. zgttur Sj.

τινες ἠθέλησαν] GL; ἠθέλησάν τινες σ΄, 2 τὸ
4 ἐκραύγασα] GLAg* (but some texts

μεταξὺ ὧν] GLS,A; μεταξὺ ὧν g* (vulg.):

see the lower note. 5 Θεοῦ φωνῇ] 1,51. ; paraphrased οὐκ ἐμὸς ὁ λόγος
ἀλλὰ θεοῦ g; om. G. 6 dtaxdvois] G3 τοῖς διακόνοις g. οἱ δὲ
κιτ.λ.] οἱ δὲ πτέσαντές με ὡς προειδότα τὸν μερισμόν τινων λέγειν ταῦτα" μάρ-
tus δέ μοι κιτιλ. G3 guidam autem suspicati (add. sunt Τ..) me ut praescientem
divistonem quorundam dicere haec; testis autem mihi etc L; et sunt guidam qui
cogitaverunt de me quod tanguam cognoverim divisiones guorundam haec dixerim ;

pray that they may not find my
words a ¢estimony against thent’ ;
comp. 7γαζί. 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.t.r.] ‘desired to
lead me astray, i.e. to impose upon
me by their deceit’; comp. AZagz. 3
οὐχ ὅτι τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τοῦτον τὸν βλε-
πόμενον πλανᾷ τις K.T.A. Markland’s
interpretation of πλανῆσαι ‘ decepto-
rem esse’ (i.e. ‘would make me out
a deceiver’) is refuted by the [0]-
lowing οὐ 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. Ephes. 8
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. To ρεῦμα! ie. ‘the Spirit
which is working in me.’

3. oldev yap x.7.r.] 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.’

kal τὰ κρυπτὰ x.t-A.]| Comp. I Cor.
ii. 10 TO yap πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, xiv.

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. 267

vit]

\ ᾽ , > / La 7 ; ’
κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει. ἐκραύγασα μεταξυ wy, ἐλαλουν με-
7 ΄- ΄“ ee ~ ᾽ δ / \
5 yarn φωνῆ, Θεοῦ φωνή" Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε καὶ
a y \ / ε
τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ καὶ διακόνοις. οἱ δ᾽ ὑποπτεύσαντές

testatur autem nobis etc 51; et sunt quidam qui cogitaverunt de me quomodo cognovi
ego divistones guorundam et dixi hoc; testatur mihi etc A; el δὲ ὑποπτεύετέ με ὡς
προμαθόντα τὸν μερισμόν τινων λέγειν ταῦτα, μάρτυς μοι K.T.rA. σ᾽ (but 1 has Az vero
despexerunt me etc, thus showing that the earlier reading of g more closely followed G).
It seems clear that the original of all these was οἱ δ᾽ ὑποπτεύσαντες με ὡς mpoedéra
τὸν mep. TW. hey. ταῦτα, μάρτυς δέ μοι κιτ.λ. G has preserved this with the corruption
of πτέσαντες for ὑποπτεύσαντες; L has translated it literally (for the sent 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 τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ
γίνεται, Ephes. v. 12, 13 μᾶλλον δὲ
καὶ ἐλέγχετε᾽ τὰ γὰρ κρυφῆ γινόμενα
K-T.A.

4. ἐκραύγασα] For the expres-
sion see Joh. xi. 43 φωνῇ μεγάλῃ
ἐκραύγασεν: comp. Tatian Oraz. 17
κεκραγότος ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ μετεώρου
Κατακούσατέ pov, and see the note on
Ephes. 19 μυστήρια κραυγῆς. Bunsen
(Zen. p. 73) translates ἐκραύγασα ‘ 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 ὧν] ‘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
(1 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 homeeo-

. 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 κ-τ.λ.] Comp. Polyc. 6
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε.. .«ἀντίψυχον
ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ,
πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις.

6. οἱ δ᾽ ὑποπτεύσαντες x.t.d.] ‘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 [VII

με, WS προειδότα τὸν μερισμόν τινων, λέγειν ταῦτα.
μάρτυς δέ μοι ἐν ᾧ δέδεμαι, ὅτι ἀπὸ σαρκὸς ἀνθρωπίνης
οὐκ ἔγνων" τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐκήρυσσεν, λέγον τάδε’
Χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ποιεῖτε" τὴν σάρκα ὑμῶν
ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ τηρεῖτε: τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀγαπᾶτε: τοὺς aa
σμοὺς φεύγετε' μιμηταὶ γίνεσθε ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὡς καὶ
αὐτὸς τοῦ 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 προορών
Trail, 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-

εἰδότα.

note.
GLS,A Antioch. Rup.; & ὃν g:

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. For similar instances, where
in the hurry of dictating under pres-
sure of circumstances sentences are
left unfinished, see the notes, Lp/es.
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 ὃ 5 with the
note.

ἀπὸ σαρκὸς κιτιλ.)] Matt. xvi.
σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψεν k.T.X.

3. λέγον x.t-A.] 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 a case. There is the .

same v. 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. Ὁ. 273, ed. 2: see West-

2 δέ] GLS,; om. [A] [g] [Antioch. 219] [Rup. 779]:
μοι] GL[A]g Antioch.; μου Rup.; nobis (1 for Ὁ) S,.
see the note on A/agn. 5.

see the last

ἐν ᾧ]
ἀπὸ σαρκὸς

cott Cazon 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 x.7.A.]| Comp. [Clem.
Rom.] ii. 9 δεῖ οὖν ἡμᾶς ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ
φυλάσσειν τὴν σάρκα, with the note.
See also the notes on 2265. 9, 15.

5. ἕνωσιν] Comp. Polyc. 1 τῆς
ἑνώσεως φρόντιζε, and see the note
on Magu. 1.

τοὺς μερισμοὺς φεύγετε] Comp. ὃ 2
above (with the note), and S7zyrn. 8.

6. μιμηταὶ «.7.A.] 1.6. of His ἐπι-
είκεια ; comp. «2265. το, 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 ail who
repent and return to the unity of
God and to tellowship 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

VIII]

MITE.

? e/ ,
εἰς ἕνωσιν κατηρτισμένος.
3 / \ ~
ὀργή, Qeos οὐ κατοικεῖ.

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

269

"E \ \ » \ 10 > , ε »
Yw μεν OUY TO LOLOV ETTOLOUV, WS ἄνθρωπος

“' \ , \
ov δὲ μερισμός ἐστιν Kal

πᾶσιν οὖν μετανοοῦσιν ἀφίει

[1 ky ἀκ / > ς / ΄- \ ,
O υρίος, εαν μετανοήσωσιν εἰς EVOTHTA Θεοῦ καὲ συνε-

~ , ~ =
δριον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. πιστεύω τῆ χάριτι "nooo Χρι-
ἐ

~ “ἃ / ~ , ’ὔ wn
στοῦ, os λύσει ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν παντα δεσμόν: παρακαλῶ δὲ

ἀνθρωπίνης] GL Antioch, Rup.; αὖ hominibus 51Α.; ἀπὸ στόματος ἀνθρώπου g.
3 ἐκήρυσσεν] G Antioch. [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. Rup.: see the lower note.
5 τηρεῖτε] g Rup.; τηρῆτε G.
νοοῦσιν] (ἃ; τοῖς μετανοοῦσιν g.

dpiov] G; συνεδρείαν (or συνεδρίαν) g*; concilium Τ,; coetus A.
ὑμῶν] GLA; ἡμῶν οἷ",

GL; ὅτι g; quod zs A.
(but autem 1); om. A,

some persons saying J wll not be-
lieve it, unless I find it in the

charters. I said to them, /¢ 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. In these I hope to be
justified through your prayers.’

8. τὸ ἴδιον] ‘my own part’; as
e.g. Isocr. Archid. ὃ (p. 117) εἰ δεῖ
τοὐμὸν ἴδιον εἰπεῖν, Lucian de Mere.
Cond. 9 ὡς ἔγωγε τοὐμὸν ἴδιον x.7.A.,
passages quoted in the lexicons.

9. κατηρτισμένος] ‘settled? The
Latin translator here, as elsewhere,
has rendered it ‘perfectus, as if
ἀπηρτισμένος. On the meaning of κατ-
αρτίζειν ‘to settle, reconcile, pacify,’
see the note on 2265. 2.

11. εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ] Comp. § 9
below, Smyrn. 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. Swyrn. 5 μετανοήσωσιν

4 τοῦ] ἃ Antioch.; om. g Rup.

6 καὶ] GLA[g]; om. Rup. IO μετα-
11 Κύριος] GL*A; ὁ θεὸς g. συνέ-
13 ds]

δὲ] G3 autem L; 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 AZost. Const. ii. 28
the presbyters are styled σύμβουλοι
τοῦ ἐπισκύπου καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας στέ-
φανος" ἔστι γὰρ συνέδριον καὶ βουλὴ τῆς
ἐκκλησίας. See the notes on Magn,
6, 13, Zrall. 3. A civil συνέδριον τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων at Philadelphia is men-
tioned Boeckh C. ἢ 3417 (comp. 3422).
13. λύσει κιτιλ.] Is. vill. 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 AZo/. i. 37
(p. 77), Déal. 15 (Ὁ. 233), Iren. iv. 17.
3, Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 18 (p. 470),
A post. Const. 11. 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

[ΚΠῚ

ee \ > 2° f / 9 \ \
ὑμᾶς, μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν πράσσετε ἄλλα κατὰ χριστο-

μαθίαν.

1 πράσσετε] σ; facite A; πράσσειν GL: see the lower note.
μαθίαν] G3; χριστομαθείαν g* (with a v, 1. -μαθίαν).
ALI all render xpioro- not xpyoTo-.

value for χρηστομαθείαν.

tended to mean ‘a conspiracy’ (comp.
ver. 9 σύνδεσμον καὶ χειροτονίαν), as it
is used in Jer. xi. 9 and elsewhere
in the LXx. In Afost. Const. ii. 53
ἐξακολούθει τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου νόμῳ Ave
πάντα σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας" ἐπὶ σοὶ γὰρ
ἐξουσίαν 6 σωτὴρ ἔθετο ἀφιέναι ἁμαρ-
τίας κιτιλ., 20. Vili. 5 λύειν δὲ πάντα
σύνδεσμον κατὰ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἣν ἔδωκας
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, it is understood of
the remission of sins (comp. Matt.
xvi. I9, xvill. 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 Lgfhes. 19 ὅθεν ἐλύετο πᾶσα
μαγεία καὶ πᾶς δεσμός k.t-A,

I. κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν] “7722 a@ sectarian
spirit? From Phil. ii. 3 μηδὲν κατὰ
ἐρίθειαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν : see the
note on ὃ 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 Trail.

χριστομαθίαν] So χριστομαθής, Mo-
dest. Excom. in B. Virg. 1 ὅσοι φιλο-
μαθεῖς ἤγουν χριστομαθεῖς (Patrol.
Gre@c. LXXXVI. p. 3080, a reference
given in E. A. Sophocles s.v.); comp.
χριστόνομος Aon. inscr.

> \ ᾽ἅᾺ , / e/ "Ea \ "
ἐπεὶ ἠκουσὰ τινων λεγόντων OTL Cav py εν

χριστο-
There is no authority of any
2 ἐπεὶ

2. ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις] “7721 the ar-
chives’ For ἀρχεῖον comp. Dion.
Hal. A. A. ii. 26 μέχρι τῆς eis τὰ
ἀρχεῖα (v. 1. ἀρχαῖα) τὰ δημόσια eyypa-
φῆς, Jos. c. Af. 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
κιτλ., Apollon. in Euseb. H. £. v. 18
τὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀρχεῖον, African. in
Euseb. ..7. £. 1. 7 ἀναγράπτων eis τότε
ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις ὄντων τῶν Ἑ βραϊκῶν
γενῶν, Euseb. HH. Ε΄. 1. 13 τῶν ἐπι-
στολῶν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχείων ἡμῖν ἀνα-
ληφθεισῶν. The word occurs in
the following inscriptions found at
Smyrna itself; Boeckh C. Z. 3137,
3264, 3266, 3281, 3282, 3286, 3295,
3318, 3335, 3349, 3356, 3382, 3386,
3394, 3400. It signifies originally
‘the government house,’ ‘the ma-
gistrates’ office.’ Hence it comes
to mean ‘the record-office’; and
hence, like the English word ‘ar-
chives,’ 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.
ΔΝ) and in Syriac (see Payne
Smith hes. Syr. 5. v. rate).
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

vit]

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

271

~ " , e/ ~ / 7
τοῖς ἀρχείοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω" καὶ

ἤκουσα] G; guia audivi Ls; ἤκουσα γάρ g3 sed guoniam audivi A.

3 ἀρ-

xelous] g; scripturis antiguis ( prioribus) A; ἀρχαίοις (ἃ ; veteribus L. év
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ] GL; τὸ εὐαγγέλιον or τοῦ εὐαγγελίου g*. A also seems to have
read τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, for it translates σὲ im 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 [Clem. Rom.] 11. 14
τὰ βιβλία καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι. A wholly
different interpretation however has
not uncommonly been given to the
passage, e.g. by Voss (apparently),
Smith, and several later writers ; τὰ
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 os av μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια
τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας
(quoted by Zahn 7. wu. 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 ἀρχείοις ought to be read here;
as by Voss, Cotelier, Smith, Rothe
(Anfange Ὁ. 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 dpxeios 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
dpyaia. (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 ἀρ-
xaia for ἀρχεῖα see Wyttenbach on
Plut. Mor. p. 218 6. On the other
hand Credner (Bettrége 1. Ὁ. 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 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός,
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
it.

3. ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ x.t.A.] The
construction is, if I mistake not,
‘Unless I find it (the point at issue)
in the archives, I do not believe itt
(because it appears) 7” the Gesfel?
The parallelism demands this. [This

272

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[VIII

/ , , ~ εἶ / , iO ,
λέγοντος MOU αὑτοῖς OTL [ εγραπται, απεκριϑησαν μοι

" /
ὅτι Πρόκειται.

3 ΄σ “ /
ἐμοὶ δὲ dpxeia ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος,

\ sf ’ _ ς \ , a αν ἣν 6 / ao
Ta ἀθικτα αρχέειᾶ O aoTavpos αὐτου Kat O UAVaATOS Kal ἢ

2 Πρόκειται] GL, and so too [g*] (but with a v. 1. mpoxplverac) ; seperfluum est

A. ἀρχεῖα] Gg; principium L; scriptura prior A.
3 ἄθικτα] ἄθηκτα G3; inopproximabilia Ly; gui non

ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς σ΄.

construction I find is supported by
Hilgenfeld Zedtschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol. XVIl. p. 116; but he reads
ἀρχαίοις for dpyxeios.] 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 54., and ad loc.)
after Holsten (in Dressel, p. 180),
‘Unless I find it in the archives,
that is, 2 the Gospel, I do not believe
20: 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.

I. Τέγραπται] 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. 4, 14,-17, 29, 36, etc.
Though it is not impossible that
Ignatius might have applied γέ-
yparrac to some Evangelical or
Apostolical writings (as e.g. Barnab.
4; comp. Polyc. PAzl. 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;

objectors on their own ground;
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.X. will
suggest. The old question εἰ παθη-
ros ὁ Χριστός (Acts xxvi. 23 ; comp.
Justin. Dzal. 36, 76, pp. 254, 302)
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 7γαζί. 9. It was therefore
necessary to show from the Hebrew
Scriptures, not only (as in the Apos-
tolic age) ὅτι τὸν Χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν
καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν (Acts xvil. 3;
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. Avs Rhez. vii.
5 (p. 274) οὐ περὶ αὐτοῦ viv πρόκειται,
Plut. AZor. p. 875 A, Galen Of. v. p.
126, Clem. Hom. xix. 12 νῦν ἀποδεῖξαί
μοι πρόκειται (comp. 20. v. 8, xix. 13),
Clem. Alex. Strom. v. ὃ (p. 676) mpo-
κειται δ᾽ ἡμῖν τί ποιοῦντες... «ἀφικοίμεθα
(comp. 152707,2. i. 10, p. 344, il. 21, p.
500, vi. 15, p- 801, vii. I, 10, pp. 829,
867), Athenag. Suppl. 18 οὐ yap mpo-
κείμενόν μοι ἐλέγχειν, Orig. ¢. Ces. i.
22, li, 3, ili, 1, iv. “3852, 53a. 2,
vi. 19, 41, 51, vii. 2, 30, 48,-and so

vit]

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

273

2 pil ο , " 7 - 4 6 / ε > > ~ > = /
ἀναστασις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ πίστις ἡ Ov αὐτοῦ" ἐν ois θέλω

5 ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν δικαιωθῆναι.

rapitur A (attaching it to Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς and omitting ἀρχεῖα).

In the corre-

sponding place g* has ἄθικτον, fur which some texts substitute αὐθεντικόν.

ἀρχεῖα] G; princifia L; om. A; ἀρχεῖον [6].

τούτων g3 ojus A.

frequently. Hence τὸ προκείμενον
‘the subject under discussion’; e.g.
Joseph. Ὁ. Afion. i. 22, 35, Epict. iv. 1.
46, Clem. Hom. xix. 1, Clem. Al. Quzs
av. salv. 26 (p. 950), Orig. ¢. Cels. i.
2A, 44, ν: ZI, V. I, Vi. I, viii. 16, 65 ;
and ra προκείμενα Joseph. “4:2. 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 V1. p. 208) ‘It is rejected by
us’; by Credner (Bezttrage 1. Ὁ. 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. All 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, ὅτι ov πρόκειται, and the
conjecture of Pearson (see Smith p.
84), who substitutes ovr: for ὅτι, may
likewise be dismissed, notwithstand-
ing the great names of their authors,
They do not gain any support from
the language of the interpolator,
ov γὰρ πρόκειται (v. 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

IGN,

4 ἡ δὲ αὐτοῦ] 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.
2. ἐμοὶ δὲ x.r.A.] 1.6. ‘ Though I have
condescended to argue, though I
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-
phetz preedixerint, sed ideo magis
credendum esse prophetis, quod vere
prophete sint, quia eis testimonium
Christus reddat, etc.’

3. ἄθικτα] ‘zzviolable’; an appro-
priate epithet of ἀρχεῖα, being used
especially of sacrosanct places and
things.

5. ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ κ.ῬΟτ.λ.] 1.6.
‘through your prayers’; compare
Ephes. 20 with the note.

δικαιωθῆναι] Comp. Rom. 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-

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1x

274
ς κι ~ \ A

IX. Καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς" κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς

c ΄σ ξ «\ / 7

ὁ πεπιστευμένος τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ὃς μόνος πεπί-
oo ao \ 3 , o

στευται τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ: αὐτὸς wy θύρα τοῦ
, : - ᾽ , A \ \ "| \ \
πατρός, Ov ἧς εἰσέρχονται ᾿λβρααμ Kat ᾿Ισαακ Kat

1 Καὶ] GL; μὲν g: om. A, κρεῖσσον] GL; κρείσσων g* (though some
MSS read κρείσσω); dub. A, 3 αὐτὸς wv] GL; οὗτός ἐστιν [g] (but
the whole context is changed); εὖ zc est A (but A commonly changes participles

into finite verbs). 4 εἰσέρχονται] GLA; εἰσῆλθον [g]. 6 Θεοῦ]

told Him; 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-
Aol μὲν οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ of τοῦ λόγου
διάκονοι, κρείσσων δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς K.T.A.,
interpolating several words so as to
disconnect αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα from dpxte-
ρεύς, 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 (Azfange I. p. 732) applies it
to the Christians of Philadelphia
generally, as the fepeis of the new
dispensation (comp. Rev. i. 6, v. Io,
ἘΣΘ

But what form of antagonism has
the writer in view, when he says
καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς Is the statement
aggresstveé, as against those who dis-
paraged the Old Testament dispen-

sation? or comncessive, 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 ὃ lviii. p. 649 sq.

ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς] After the Epistle to
the Hebrews, ii. 17, ili. I, iv. 14, v. 5,
10, Vi. 20, Vil. 26) νι Mie τι:
see esp. vil. 7, 10, 22, 23, 20, vio
TOU κρείττονος... ἐπεισαγωγὴ κρείττονος
ἐλπίδος...κρείττονος διαθήκης...οἱ μὲν
πλείονές εἶσιν 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 26. 61 διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ προ-
στάτου τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν, Melito
fragm. τῷ (Otto) ‘in sacerdotibus
princeps sacerdotum,’ Clem. Alex.
Protr. 12 (p. 93), Stvome. in 2s (5:
633), Tertull. adv. Mare. iii. 7 ‘verus

1x]

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

275

~ \ e 5] / \
᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ ot προφῆται καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ ἡ ἐκκλη-

/
old.

7 σ΄ > ε ’ O ΄σ + , 7
πάντα ταῦτα εἰς ἑνότητα Θεοῦ. ἐξαίρετον δέ τι

“ \ / \ / ΄σ ΄-
ἔχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, THY παρουσίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος,

GA[g]. The reading of the Mss of L, Μαϊρὶ, is obviously corrupted from de’, The

reminiscence of Ephes. iy. 13 would assist the corruption.

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 ἡμῶν “Inood Χριστοῦ.

summus sacerdos patris, Christus
Jesus,’ iv. 35 ‘authenticus pontifex
Dei patris’ (comp. iv. 9).

2. ὁ πεπιστευμένος k.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.

ὃς «.7.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 dv θύρα] ‘He not only
enters into the presence-chamber of
the Father, but is Himself the door’;
doubtless an allusion to John x. 9
ἐγώ εἶμι ἡ θύρα" δι ἐμοῦ ἐάν tis
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 K.T-r.

4. ᾿Αβραὰμ κ-τ.λ.] For the man-
ner in which Ignatius regards the
privileges of the Gospel as extended
to the patriarchs, etc., see the notes
on ὃ 5 above, and esp. on JZagn. 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, 1.6. the Church ;
Sl. 1X! Ay- 15;

6. πάντα ταῦτα κιτ.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 évorns
Θεοῦ see the note on ὃ 8.

ἐξαίρετον xr.A.] Comp. Swyrn. 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, 7Jesé
Duod. Patr. Levi 8, Juda 22, Clem.

Flom, ii. 52, Clem. Recogn. i. 59
‘ preesentia et adventus Christi,’ Iren.
iv. 7. I, iv. 10, 1 sq. Clem. Alex.

13—2

276

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ΙΧ

lo la ΄σ real ’
Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἀνά-

στασιν.

οἱ yap ἀγαπητοὶ προφῆται κατήγγειλαν εἰς

> / \ ᾿ , / 5) / tg 5 /
αὐτόν: TO δὲ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμα ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίας.

/ a“ gaa. | \ > / /
TAaVTA ὁμοῦ καλα ἐστιν, ἐαν ἐν ἀγάπη πιστευητε.
ἐ

> \ \ \ \ ε a \ A
X. “Ered κατὰ τὴν προσευχὴν ὑμῶν, καὶ κατα

1 Κυρίου] GLA; om. [g].

πάθος also and otherwise alters the form of the sentence).
inserted, in the other omitted, See.the lower note.

lates it after τὴν ἀνάστασιν); αὐτὴν g.

L; κατήγγελον [g] (Mss, but with a v. 1.) ; predicaverunt A.

Strom. i. 5 (p. 331), i. 18 (p. 370).
Early writers are careful to distin-
guish the two παρουσίαι of Christ ;
e.g. Justin AZol. i. 52 (p. 87), Deal.
14 (p. 232), 32 (p. 249); comp. 20. 49
(p! , 268), 120 (p. 350); Eren:yiv. 553:
θα; Can. Dfurat.(p.35 (ed. Tre-
gelles); Tertull. Apol. 21; Clem.
Recogn. i. 49, 69. The passages in
the Recognitions I should have over-
looked, but for Hesse Das Murat.
Fragm. Ὁ. 112.

I. τὸ πάθος κιτ.λ] 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.

τὴν] g; καὶ τὴν GA (but A inserts et before τὸ

In one Ms of L é is
αὐτοῦ] GLA (which trans-
2 κατήγγειλαν] G3; 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, Smzyrn. 7
quoted above. In 1 Kings vii. 9
(Symm.) ἀπαρτίσματα are the coping
stones, the tops of the walls, com-
monly called θριγκοέ. The word
differs from dmaptiopos (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.] li. 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 καλὰ] i.e. ‘whether be-
longing to the old dispensation or
the new’; comp. καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς
κιτιλ., and πάντα ταῦτα κ.τ.λ.

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,

Χ] TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

277

\ / [ \ ν»ὕἵ͵ , an) > /
Ta σπλάγχνα a ἔχετε ἐν Χριστῷ Inoov, ἀπηγγέλη μοι

3 / \ > / \ > > / σ /
€lONVEVELY τῆν ἐκκλησιαν τὴν EV Ἀντιοχείᾳ TNS Cupias-

, 3 \ eA ς ᾽ / - on
πρεπὸν ἐστίν υμῖν, ὡς εκκλησίᾳ Θεοῦ, χειροτονῆσαι

A ΄σ ~ ΄σ >
διάκονον εἰς TO πρεσβεῦσαι ἐκεῖ Θεοῦ πρεσβείαν, εἰς TO

το συγχαρῆναι αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ γενομένοις καὶ 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).
9 διάκονον] GL; ministrum aliquem (unum) S,; aliquem bonum ministrum A;

ἐπίσκοπον σ΄.

10 συγχαρῆναι] GLS,A; συγχωρηθῆναι g.

καὶ δοξάσαι)

GLg; δἰ 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 κιτλ] 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 2265. 21.
By the time that he arrived at Troas
however, or soon after, he had heard
that the persecution was ended, and
in the three letters written from thence
he charges his readers to send dele-
gates to congratulate this church
on the restoration of peace; comp.
Smyrn. 11, Polye. 7. The words κατὰ
τὴν κιτιλ. 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 Svpias] As in Smyrn. 11,
Polyc. 7. So it is specified also
Clem. Hom. xi. 36, xii. 1: see also
e.g. Boeckh C. /. 3425. The ad-
dition was not unneeded, though
this was the principal place bearing
the name; for Appian (Sy~. 57) re-
lates that Seleucus founded (ἔκτισεν)
sixteen cities which he called ’Avrid-
χεια after his father, and Steph. Byz.

5. v. enumerates fourteen bearing the
name. Ignatius however inserts such
specifications where there was not
this reason ; see e.g. /-phes. inscr.
ev ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, Smyri. 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.
2. p. 749, Joseph. Azz. xvii. 2. 1) or
ἡ ἐπὶ Δάφνης (Plut. Vit. Lucull. 21;
comp. Plin. VV. H. v. 18 ‘Epidaphnes
cognominata’) or ἡ πρὸς Δάφνην
(Hierocl. «ογηδεάῖ, 711) or ἡ πρὸς
Δάφνῃ (Mionnet Vv. p. 36 sq.) or ἡ
περὶ Δάφνην (Steph. Byz. s.. vv. ΓΑκρα,
Mepon); but the associations con-
nected with the grove of Daphne
would not recommend this designa-
tion to Ignatius.

ὃ, πρέπον ἐστὶν κιτ.λ.} See the
similar directions to the Smyrnazans
in Smyru. 11, Polyc. 7.

9. Θεοῦ πρεσβείαν] A similar mes-
senger is called θεοπρεσβύτης Smyrn.
II, Oeodpopos Polye. 7.

10. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ «.t.A.] ‘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 τὸ αὐτό in tdipsum, but commen-
tators (e.g. Smith, Jacobson) have
misapprehended it.

καὶ δοξάσαι] It is possible to con-

278

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x

A / / ν ~ 9 ~ «ἃ ’
τὸ ὀνομα' μακάριος ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ϊησοῦ, os καταξιωθη-

co ’ / πὰ 3 ΄ “A
COETAL Τῆς TOLAVUTHS διακονίας" και UMELS δοξασθήσεσθε.

/ δὲ δ᾽ τας > Sf 4Ὁ ἡ es Me
θέλουσιν δὲ ὑμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδύνατον ὑπὲρ ὀνόματος

΄ ε \ ¢ »/ ΠῚ / ᾽ ?
Θεοῦ: ws καὶ al ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι ἔπεμψαν ἐπι-

’ ε \ / \ /
σκόπους, at δὲ πρεσβυτέρους Kal διακόνους.

τ τὸ ὄνομα] GL; add. τοῦ θεοῦ g; add. domini S,A.

ΘΑ; ἰησοῦ χριστῷ GLS).
future, 51 a present.
3 δὲ] GLg; om. S,; e¢ A.

est A; οὐ πᾶσιν g.

Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ]

καταξιωθήσεται] GL; κατηξιώθη g. A has a

2 δοξασθήσεσθε] GLg; glorificabitis S,; dub. A.
οὐκ ἔστιν] GL; non est...hoc 5,3 mon quidquam
4 καὶ αἱ ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησία) (ἃ; et guaedam propinquae

ecclesiae L* (see appx); καὶ ἀεὶ αἱ ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι g3 sanctae ecclesiae illae quae Si3

nect these words with either χειρο-
τονῆσαι OY πρεσβεῦσαι OF 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 Ephes. 3.

καταξιωθήσεται)] See the note on
Ephes. 20.

2. καὶ ὑμεῖς x.7.A.] Perhaps to
be connected closely with δοξάσαι τὸ
ὄνομα, the intervening words μακάριος
...dtakovias being parenthetical; comp.
e.g. § 11 εἰς λόγον Tins’ τιμήσει av-

,τοὺς ὁ Κύριος k.T.A.

3. O€dovow δὲν xz7.r.] ‘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. αἱ δὲ] ‘dut 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 Smyrneans have sent with
me to do honour tome. The Lord
Jesus Christ in whom they trust will
do honour to them. Farewell in
Christ Jesus, our common hope.’

6. «Περὶ. δὲ x.7.A.] The persons
here mentioned had followed in the
track of Ignatius. They would
therefore pass through Philadelphia,
as he had done (see § 1, 6, 7, with
the notes), From Philadelphia they
went to Smyrna, where also they
were hospitably entertained (Swzyrn.
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, ἀξ, ὃ 13 Set de

x1]

XI;

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS.

279

Περὲ δὲ Φίλωνος τοῦ διακόνου ἀπὸ Κιλικίας,

5 \ 4 «Ὁ \ ~ > / ~ -

ἀνδρὸς μεμαρτυρημένου, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἐν λόγῳ Θεοῦ ὑπη-
ἂν e/ ε 7 > / 4 > \ > ΄σ «

ρετεῖ μοι, ἅμα “Paiw ᾿λγαθόποδι, ἀνδρὲ ἐκλεκτῷ, ὃς

sanctae ecclesiae quae A. Petermann supposes that this reading is to be explained by

a confusion of τώ δι. RO sanctae and τῷ

το propinguae. It seems quite

as likely however that arial may have been corrupted from ΚΑΙΔΙ, the word éy-

ytora being omitted.
κίας g.

7 Θεοῦ] GLA; om. g* (but 1 adds dez).

6 ἀπὸ Κιλικίας ἀνδρὸς] GLA; ἀνδρὸς ἀπὸ κιλι-

8 Ῥαίῳ

᾿Αγαθόποδι] see the lower note; pew. ἀγαθόποδι (with the interpunctuation) G;
veo agathopode Τ,; reo fratre et agathopode A; γαίῳ (or yavig) 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. J. 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 (δ 7 τούτων αὐτόπται γενόμενοι).
So for instance Ussher (422. len.
p. 54), Ruinart (Act. Siuc. Mart. p.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 I. v. A.
Pp. 42.

τοῦ διακόνου x.t.A.| The Pseudo-
Ignatius makes him a deacon of
Tarsus, Zars. 10 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς
Φίλων ὁ διάκονος ὑμῶν (a letter pur-
porting to be written from Philippi).
In the genuine Ignatius, Swzyrn. 13,
he sends a salutation to the Smyrn-
geans,

7. ἀνδρὸς μεμαρτυρημένου]]͵Ἡ The
same phrase is used of the Seven
in Acts vi. 3. On the meaning of
μεμαρτυρημένου see the note on Lphes.
12.

ἐν λόγῳ Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘the preaching
of the Gospel,’ as e.g. 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,
ete,

ὑπηρετεῖ] By doing the work of a
deacon or attendant; comp. Acts
Xill. 5 εἶχον δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννην 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. 11. 1129, 4975, ΠῚ. 6183,
v. 4078, Muratori pp. 483, 1395,
1598; and the feminine Raia, Cor/.
Inscr. Lat. 11. 3499, Ul. 2400, 2502,
Vv. 973, Muratori p. 1598. (2) This
form explains both the readings of
the Mss. By a common itacism it
would become ‘Pé@, as in the ΜΒ of
Ignatius; by a slight corruption,
rata! for patil, it would produce
the Γαΐῳ of the interpolator’s text.
As Raius is a nomen, and Agathopus
a cognomen, the combination is cor-
rect. In a Greek inscription at
Palmyra (Boeckh C. /. 4482) the
name ‘Paaios occurs.

᾿Αγαθόποδι] A common name, more
especially in the case of slaves and

280

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[xt

ἰπὸ Cupias μοι ἀκολουθεῖ ἀποταξάμενος τῷ βίῳ" οἱ Kal
ἀπὸ Cupias μ υθεῖ ἀποταξάμενος τῷ Bla

μαρτυροῦσιν ὑμῖν.

᾽ \ “ ~ > ~ ε \
κάγω τῷῴ Θεῴ εὐχαριστῶ ὑπερ

Ἐς ΚΝ « ἢ ᾽ Ui € We τὰ ε / ε
ὑμῶν, OTL ἐδέξασθε αὐτούς, ὡς καὶ Uuas ὁ Κύριος. οἱ

Ι amoratduevos] GLA; ἀποταξάμενοι g.
(substituting ὑπὲρ ὧν for ὅτι in the next clause).

2 ὑπὲρ] G; proLA; περὶ g
4 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] gl;

τοῦ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ G3; domini nostri iesu 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 ἀδελφῶν] GAg; multorum L.

6 Bovppov]

G; durrum L; βούργου g (without any v. 1.); A has éurdum here, as also in

LEphes. 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

freedmen ; see for Greek inscrip-
tions, Boeckh C. J. 268, 270, 1380,
2454, [2837], 2878, 3847 d, 3977,
4716d, etc.; Wood’s Dzscoveries at
Ephesus vi. 4 (p. 48); for Latin,
Corp. Inscr. Lat. 11. 2431, 2864, 4463,
4550, ΠΙ. 633, 1825, 2113, 3017, 3141,
3959, V. 744, 806, 1128, 1185, 1251,
6388, etc. In Corp. Iuscr. Lat. 1.
4463 it is connected with other fami-
liar names, CVRA . AGATHOPI . TRO-
PHIMI . POLYCARPI . LIBERTORVM.
As an early Christian name it ap-
pears in the Roman catacombs (de
Rossi Roma Sotterranea 11. Ὁ. 47 $q.,
III. p. 286 (?); comp. Bull. di Arch.
Crist. Gennaro 1863), being some-
times confused with Agapetus. It is
also found as the name of a con-
fessor in the Ancient 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. 4%. 17 ad
Max. (II. p. 22) ‘ Namphanio [ἃ Punic
proper name] quid aliud significat
quam boni pedis hominem, i.e. cujus
adventus afferat aliquid felicitatis,
sicut solemus dicere, secundo pede
introisse, cujus introitum prosperitas
aliqua consecuta sit?’, quoted by
Pearson on Swmyrn. 10 (but he
wrongly calls it an epistle of Maxi-

mus fo Augustine). The meaning
will account for the frequency of the
name, as one ‘ fausti ominis.’ Cle-
ment of Alexandria, S¢vom. iii. 7 (p.
538), quotes a letter of the heretic
Valentinus to one Agathopus. Voss
(on Smmyrn. 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. J, p. 645 sq., ed. Churton).
This identification is hkewise main-
tained by Pearson (on Swyrn. 10)
and by Grabe (Sfic. Pair. Il. 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, Tradl. i,
Rom. 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 Smyrn.1o. There can be little
doubt however that this is a mis-
take; for (1) The addition ἀνδρὶ

ΧΙ]

TO THE PHILADELPHIANS,

281

aN 9 z > \ / > ~ / >
δὲ ἀτιμάσαντες αὐτοὺς λυτρωθείησαν ἐν TH χάριτι ’In-

σοῦ Χριστοῦ.

᾿λσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφῶν

τῶν ἐν Τρωάδι: ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Βούρρου πεμ-

Greek reading underlying this authority would be Bovpyov.

:
This explanation

might pass here and in Swyrz. 12, where also g has βούργου ; but it fails to account
for the reading of A in Zphes. 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 Zpfes. 2; that it arises from a confusion

of the Syriac letters Δ and t, dand γ. The substitution of Bovpyos for Bovppos,

here and in Smyrn. 12, has a parallel in the substitution of yalw for palw just above.

ἐκλεκτῷ κιτλ. shows that a single
person is mentioned; (2) In the
spurious Ignatian Epistles (Azz. 13,
Philipp. 15; comp. 7.7.5. 10) only
two persons are represented as being
with Ignatius on this journey, Φίλων
καὶ ᾿Αγαθόπους οἱ διάκονοι. 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 S7yrn. 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.1] ‘having
bidden farewell to this lower “fe’;
comp. Philo Leg. ad Caz. 41 (II. p. 593)
iva μὴ ὁ σὸς ᾿Αγρίππας ἀποτάξηται τῷ
βίῳ, [Clem. Rom.] 11. 6 δεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς
τούτῳ [τῷ αἰῶνι] ἀποταξαμένους ἐκείνῳ
[τῷ μέλλοντι] Ἀρᾶσθαι, with the note.
For the distinction between βίος the
lower and ζωὴ the higher life, see the
note on Lom. 7.

2. μαρτυροῦσιν ὑμῖν] i.e. ‘bear
witness to your hospitality’: comp.
3 Joh. 5, 6, els τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ

cal ’ , -
τοῦτο ξένους, ot ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ

ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας «k.T.X.

3. ὡς καὶ ὑμᾶς] 1.6. ἀποδέξεται
or ἀποδέξαιτο: comp. Lphes. 2 κατὰ
πάντα με ἀνέπαυσεν, ὡς Kal αὐτὸν 6
πατὴρ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναψύξαι ἴν. 1.
ἀναψύξει), Smyrn. 9 κατὰ πάντα με
ἀνεπαύσατε, καὶ ὑμᾶς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός
(with the note). See also the note
on Smyrn. 5 μᾶλλον δὲ κιτιλ. 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. δλυτρωθείησαν] ‘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.]
11. 10.

5. ἡ ἀγάπη] See the note on
Trall. 3.

6. διὰ Bodppov|] He acted as the
amanuensis of Ignatius. For this
Burrhus see the note on L£fhes. 2,
and for the meaning of the preposi-
tion διὰ the note on Xow, 10,

πεμφθέντος] In accordance with
the wish expressed /phes, 2 εὔχομαι
παραμεῖναι αὐτὸν K.T.A,

282

IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS. [x1

ε /
φθέντος ἅμα ἐμοὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Εφεσίων καὶ Cyupvaiwy εἰς

λόγον τιμῆς.

« ΄“ /
τιμήσει αὐτοὺς ὁ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος,

> e\ 7 7 ΄σ' /
εἰς ὃν ἐλπίζουσιν σαρκί, ψυχῆ, πνεύματι, πίστει,

᾽ / ς /
aYyaTN, ομονοίᾳ.
/ ς ΄σ
ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν.

1 ἐμοὶ] GLA; om. g.
norabit A; ods ἀμείψεταν [g].
Gg; sperent L; def. A.

A; σαρκί, ψυχῇ (om. πνεύματι) G.
Ἰησοῦ] GLA; κυρίῳ ἰησοῦ χριστῷ g.

ἔρρωσθε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, TH κοινῆ

2 τιμήσει αὐτοὺς] G; honoret ipsos Τ,: guos ho-

ὁ Κύριος] GLg; om. A.
σαρκί, ψυχῇ, πνεύματι] Lg; corpore et spiritu et mente
migra] GLg; om. A.

3 ἐλπίζουσιν

4 Χριστῷ

κοινῇ] GLg; om. A. 5 ἡμῶν]

txt GL; add. ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι g; add. gratia vobiscum: amen A,
There is no subscription in GLA. For g see the Appx.

I. ἀπὸ ᾿Εφεσίων κιτ.λ.)] Though
himself an Ephesian, he was the
joint delegate of both churches ; see
Smyrn. 12.

eis λόγον τιμῆς] “20 do me honour,
eis λόγον meaning ‘to the account
of, ‘on the score of’; comp. S7yrn.
10 eis λόγον Θεοῦ, and see the note
on Philippians iv. 15.

2. τιμήσει αὐτοὺς] This responds to
the foregoing τιμῆς ; comp. Smyri. 9
ὁ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τετίμηται.

3. σαρκί, ψυχῇ, πνεύματι)͵͵ For
this threefold division of the human
personality see the notes on 1 Thess,
v. 23. The omission of πνεύματι
(contracted πΝ}) in some authorities
is easily explained owing to the be-
ginning of the next word Tr-.

4. ἔρρωσθε] See the note on
Lphes. 21.

τῇ κοινῇ ἐλπίδι] See the notes on
Ephes. τ, Magn. 11.

tO LHe. SMYRNAAANS.

1
7
. '
Π "
y γ᾿
= 4.
΄
» *
wae
«
A Ἂ
, ᾿ . ‘=
ῃ ἡ a
4 -
,
iJ
j 3

ἣν 2 F
iy ὺ

γὴν

! > ᾿ .
ὶ

[Ὁ
" 'ν ,"

δ:
, ” ‘

A A ' Μ “᾿'» Jt: ; ween 7 Ps ἕξ Η ἘΦ 1
. se 1 ὃ 5" a? A Ay Z ὃ geé
ν Ce | Bw meas ἂν ED ὰ tee di ie» ied
᾿
i

iT
ὟΝ > Ῥ
an
,
.
ΙΓ oe
1
.
s
͵
2 7 ἢ
ξ ~
4 2 a
ὶ Η c=
My
᾽
‘
mick
, ῃ
a
t
Ὑ
i i aa
wy
. ’
4 ἢ Γ
i
¥
'
,
γυ «-

7Ὲ
oie”

ΤῸ ἘΠῈ SMVRNACANS:

Sy 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 fersonne/ there-
fore is the same. Burrhus is again his amanuensis (§ 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
(§ 11). 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 SMYRNEANS.

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 (88 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 (δ 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 conse-
quence.

The following is an avalysis of the epistle.

‘Icnatius 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 (§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 (ἢ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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).’

TTPOC CMYPNAIOYC.

ἼΓΝΑΤΙΟΟ, 6 καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεοῦ πα-

τρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἠλεημένη ἐν

\ f ΄ 3 ’ \ > -
παντὶ χαρίσματι, πεπληρωμενή EV πίστει καὶ ἀγαπῆ;
> / af \ / /
ανυστερήτῳ OVTH παντὸς χαρίσματος, θεοπρεπεστατη

προς CMYPNAIOYC | τοῦ ἁγίου lyvariov ἐπιστὸ σμυρναίοις (numbered a in the
marg.) G; τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς σμυρναίους g* ; ad smyrnacos A ; item alia epistola
sancti ignatit martyris gui vocatur theophorus, quod est gui 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. ὑψίστου g.

add. guz scribit 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,
or ‘Hzs beloved’; comp. Ephes. i. 6
ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ. So
too Barnab. 3 ὃν ἡτοίμασεν ἐν τῷ
ἠγαπημένῳ αὐτοῦ, 10. 4 ἵνα ταχύνῃ ὁ
ἠγαπημένος αὐτοῦ, ἡ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου
Ἰησοῦ [διαθήκη], Clem. Rom. 59 τοῦ
ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ἠγαπη-
μένου παιδός σου. This title ‘ Dilec-
tus’ is the common designation of
the Messiah in the Ascensio Tsaia,
€.g. 1. 4, 5, 7, 13, iii. 19, ¥7, 18, iv. 3,
6, etc.

ἠλεημένῃ ἐν] Shaving been pitied
i,’ i.e. ‘having in God’s mercy been

I ὁ καὶ]
ΘεοφόροΞ] txt GLAg ;
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 ws ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ
Κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι, Ign. Rom. g ἠλέ-
ημαί τις εἶναι.

3. ἐν πίστει κιτ.λ.] For this pre-
position with πληροῦν see Ephes. v.
18, Col. i. 9, and perhaps Ephes. i.
23. With πληροφορεῖν it is more
common; see the note, Colossians
iv. 12. For the connexion πίστει καὶ
ἀγάπῃ see the note on pikes. τ.

4. ἀνυστερήτῳ κιτ.λ.} Probably sug-
gested by 1 Cor. i. 7 ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ
ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι; Comp.
Polyc. 2 ἵνα μηδενὸς λείπῃ καὶ παντὸς
χαρίσματος περισσεύῃης. The word
ἀνυστέρητος, though a very obvious
form, is not very common,

θεοπρεπεστάτῃ] See the note on
Magn. τ.

288

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ

A ae , - 4 > / ma (9 / > , ’
καὶ ἁγιοφοόρῳ, TH οὔση ἐν (μύρνη τῆς ᾿λσίας, ἐν ἀμώμῳ
πνεύματι καὶ λόγῳ Θεοῦ πλεῖστα χαίρειν.

ὔ rod \ \ \ A e/
I. Δοξαζω ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν Tov οὕτως

lod 7 / \ ε “ / >
ὑμᾶς σοφίσαντα' ἐνόησα yap ὑμᾶς 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. 214; δοξάζων G.

λόγῳ] txt GLAg; add. sancto (app.) C

3 Δοξάζω) LA

Sev-Syr. (comp. Ephr-Ant.); zeswm christum gui etc. (om. τὸν θεὸν) AC ; τὸν θεὸν

καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἴ. Χ, τὸν δύ αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. g.

I. ἁγιοφόρῳ] ‘ferax sanctorumy
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 κιτιλ. 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 Po/yc. inscr.

τῆς ᾿Ασίας] On this specification
see the notes Ephes. inscr., Tradl.
inscr., Philad. 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. 1, 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, Kom. inscr.
πλεῖστα ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν
ἀμώμως χαίρειν. The words ἐν ἀμώμῳ
x.7.A. 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. I Joh. i. 10,
li. 14, and see the note on Codossians
111: LG,

πλεῖστα χαίρειν]
Ἐ22}6ς. 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. Δοξάζω] 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 Lphes. 1 ᾿Αποδεξάμενος x.t.d., Rom.

See the note

1] TO THE SMYRNAANS.

289

3 , / J / > ΄- a ΄
5 ἀκινήτῳ πίστει, ὥσπερ καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ

/ ~ ~
κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύματι, Kal

ew ow ff / ° 3 σ΄ « =~
ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπη ἐν τῷ αἵματι Χριστοῦ, πεπληρο-

Syr.; om. L (but see Appx).

4 γὰρ] GLCg Sev-Syr.; om. A.

5 Tou

Κυρίου] txt GCg* (but Grk Mss add. ἡμῶν) ; add. xostri 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. imscr., τὸν 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 (420/. 229, p. 258), refers
to this passage, καὶ ὁ θεοφέρος 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.r.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 TONONTONOYTOQS.

οὕτως ὑμᾶς σοφίσαντα] ‘made you
thus wise, as described in the open-
ing salutation. For the expression
comp. 2 Tim. ili. 15 τὰ δυνάμενά σε
σοφίσαι «7A. See also Ps, xviii
(xix). 8, civ (cv). 22, cxvili (cxix).
98.

4. ἐνόησα] “7 perceived, when I
was staying among you.’

κατηρτισμένους] ‘settled’; sce the
note on /phes. 2.

IGN,

6 καὶ
7 Χριστοῦ] ἃ ; τοῦ χριστοῦ g.

5. ἀκινήτῳ] Comp. Phzlad. 1, Polyc.

I.
ὥσπερ καθηλωμένους)] Col. ii, 14

προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ. For the
metaphor see Gal. il. 20 Χριστῷ συν-
εσταύρωμαι (comp. vi. 14), Rom. 7 ὃ
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 ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ
μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ. See also
Trall, 11 ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ
σταυροῦ, Ephes. 18 περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν
πνεῦμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, Philad. ὃ 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. Ram. 618 ἐν κλίμακι
δήσας. So the Latin ‘ figere 2 cruce,
2m parietibus.’

6. σαρκί re x.7.A.] For this fa-
vourite Ignatian phrase see the note
on Lphes. το.

7. ἡδρασμένους ἐνὶ 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 Phi/ad. inscr.

πεπληροφορημένους k.T.A.| ‘having a
full conviction with respect to our
Lord as being truly descended from
David etc? For the different mean-
ings of mAnpodopety see the note on
Colossians iv. 12.

290

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [τ

, > A 7 r co , ΄ yf > /
φορημένους εἰς TOV Κύριον ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ γένους
\ \ , nw
Aaveid κατὰ σάρκα, υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα Kal δύναμιν,

’ ΄- > /
γεγεννήμενον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου, βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ

I ἡμῶν] txt GC Theodt. iv. 49 Sev-Syr.; add. ἰησοῦν χριστόν gLA.

ἀλη-

6s] GL Theodt. (after πεπληροφορημένους, Schulze) Sev-Syr.; ὡς ἀληθῶς g (trans-
posing it and placing it after πεπληροφορημένου:); vere C (connecting it with

mwemdnpopopnuévous); om. A,

Sev-Syr.; zaturam A; θεότητα Theodt.; def. g.
add. θεοῦ GLC Sev-Syr.; def. g: see the lower note.

2 Δαυεὶδ] 545 GC.

θέλημα] GLC
δύναμιν] txt A Theodt. ;

3 γεγεννημέ-

vov] Theodt. (Schulze); guz satus est A Sev-Syr.; genitum ΤΟ ; γεγενημένον G;

def. g.

I. ἐκ γένους Δαυεὶδ] See the note
on Lphes. 18.

2. υἱὸν Θεοῦ] For the same an-
tithesis comp. £fhes. 20 (with the
note). See esp. Rom. i. 3 τοῦ γενο-
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 2165. 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-
Anya. 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 20. 128 (p. 358) γεγεννῆσθαι ἀπὸ
Tov πατρὸς δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ,
Tatian ad Gr@c. 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. -yeyevyvnuevov| So we must
certainly read with Theodoret (as
printed by Schulze, but Sirmond
has γεγενημένον), as e.g. Justin Dzal.
66 (p. 291) ἐκ παρθένου γεγέννηται :

ἀληθῶς] not omitted in A, as stated by Zahn, who is misled by

comp. Lfhes. 18 ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ
ἐβαπτίσθη, Trall. 9 ὃς ἀληθῶς ἐγεν-
νήθη. This word should probably
be read also in Hippol. Heer. 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.A.] According
to Matt. ili. 15 οὕτω yap πρέπον ἐστὶν
ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. No-
thing is said respecting the mozzve
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. ¢. Pelag.
lil, 2 (II. p. 782) ‘In Evangelio juxta
Hebrzos ... 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
Predicatio Pauli also it is said that
Christ ‘ad accipiendum Ioannis bap-
tisma paene invitum a matre sua
Maria esse compulsum,’ Retract. de
Bafpt. 17 (Cyprian. Of. 111. p. 90, ed.
Hartel).

5. Ποντίου Πιλάτου] For the reason

1] TO THE SMYRNEANS.

291

uy , e/ a na ’ es , ~ >
WavYOU ἱνᾶὰ TAHPWOH πᾶρὰ AIKAIOCYNH ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀλη-

5 θώς ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ ᾿Ηρώδου τετράρχου καθη-

7 ε \ ς ~ > / " ᾽ = ~ Ἂ “- > \
λωμενον ὑπὲρ NUWY εν σαρκι" ap OU Kap7rOU ἡμεῖς απὸ

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

SOND is very commonly used in the plural, as a rendering of καρπός : see the

note on Zrall. 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 ΧΙ]. I, to distinguish
him from his predecessor Herod the
Great who is ὁ βασιλεύς (Matt. ii. 1,
comp. Luke 1. 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 emi...
Ἡρώδου τετράρχου ‘before Herod as
tetrarch,’ or more probably ‘when
Herod was tetrarch’ (=rerpapyotvros
«Ἡρώδου Luke iii. 1).

6. af’ οὗ καρποῦ] ‘from which fruit’;
comp. Tertull. adv. Fud. 13 ‘Et lig-
num, inquit, attulit fructum suum[Joel
ii. 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 ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ καὶ 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 Déa/. 86 (p.
312 D), Clem, Alex. Strom. v. 11 (p.

ἡμεῖς] GLC; add. ἐσμὲν g.

689 54.) ἀλληγορῶν 6 Μωῦσῆς ξύλον
ζωῆς ὠνόμασεν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ πεφυ-
τευμένον...ἐν τούτῳ ὁ Λόγος ἤνθησέν τε
καὶ ἐκαρποφόρησεν σὰρξ γενόμενος καὶ
τοὺς γευσαμένους τῆς χρηστότητος αὐ-
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 σταῦρον,
and Clem. Alex. (S¢vom. 1. c. p. 690)
so applies also the ξύλον ζωῆς (which
however he quotes δένδρον ἀθανάσιας)
in Prov. iii. 18. If the reading xap-
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. 1c. The Latin

translator renders ἀφ᾽ οὗ καρποῦ a

cujus fructu, which Pearson explains
‘ligni quod hic subintelligitur,’ taking
ξύλου to be the antecedent of οὗ.
But it is more naturally rendered
a gua fructu. Zahn takes the same
construction as Pearson, but makes
Χριστοῦ the antecedent of ov. The
clause dq’ οὗ..«πάθους must be taken

19—2

292

TOU

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x

~ / e/ ” ͵ ᾽
θεομακαρίστον αὐτοῦ παθους" ἵνα ἄρῃ cYccHMON εἰς

5 “σ- A ΄ ᾽ / > \ € / \
TOUS αἰῶνας διὰ τῆς AVATTAGDEWS ELS TOUS aytous Kat

\ 3 “ of > > 7 » > sf > . Ἁ
πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ, εἴτε ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίοις εἴτε ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐν ἐνι

/ ΄σ΄ > 7 ΄-
σώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ.

EH.

Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἔπαθεν δι’ ἡμᾶς [ἵνα σωθώ-

1 θεομακαρίστου g ; divine beatissima L (i.e. θεομακαρίστου, the word having been
mistaken for a superlative); θεομακαρίτου G; dub. A Sev-Syr.; deati (μακαρίου) C.

3 εἴτε ev... εἴτε ἐν] gC3 ἔντε ev... ἔντε ἐν G; δέ in...ctinL.

Sev-Syr.; om. C.
marg.).
ut salvemur); om. C[g].

ἑνὶ GLAg

5 γὰρ] GLg Sev-Syr.; om. CA (but supplied in the
ἵνα 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.

ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτόν]

GL Sevy-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. § (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. 10 (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 ᾿Ιουδαίοις 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
signum in nationibus procul et stbi-
labit ad eum ade finibus terre 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. Jus?. 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. Sic. xi. 22, 61, xx.
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 soloecism (ed. Lobeck, p. 418).
There is mention of the ‘ vexzllum
crucis’ in /ragm. 5 of the passages
ascribed to Polycarp by Victor of Ca-
pua. The word τρόπαιον is frequently

σι

n] TO THE SMYRNANS.

293

~ af ς \ > ~ > 7@
μεν] καὶ ἀληθώς ἔπαθεν, ws Kat ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησεν

e / 4 « sf 7 / A ~
EaAUTOLY’ οὐχ ὠσπέερ aTlLOTOL TLVES λεγουσιν TO δοκεῖν

3 \ iA 3 \ \ ~ sf \ ‘

αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι, αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες: καὶ καθὼς
~ \ ~ Ἵ 3 /

φρονοῦσιν, καὶ συμβήσεται αὐτοῖς, οὖσιν ἀσωμάτοις Kal

το δαιμονικοῖς.

vesurrextt a mortuis A 3 resurrexit C.

MSS); secundum videri L. And so again just below.

passage, and ofinzo in the second.
[g]; al. Ὁ;

kal] GLA; om. C; al. g.

7 τὸ δοκεῖν] G3; τῷ δοκεῖν g (some
A has ofinione in the first
8 αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι] GLA; πέπονθεν

9 ἀσωμάτοις καὶ δαιμονικοῖς]

GL ; daemonia sine corpore C3; incorporei 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 would gain currency
through the ZLasarum 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-
σῶώμον, which is adopted by Bunsen,
destroys the point of the expression.

3. πιστοὺς] The Docetists, who
denied the reality of the Cross, did
not fall under this category ; see the
note on ἄπιστοι ὃ 2.

ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] Doubtless a remi-
niscence of S. Paul’s teaching, Ephes.
li. 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), ili.
6 εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη...σύσσωμα, iv. 4 ἕν
σῶμα καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα, εἴς. ; comp.
Hermas Sz. ix. 18 ἔσται ἡ ἐκκλησία
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕν σῶμα. And for the exact
expression see Col. i. 18 τοῦ σώματος
τῆς ἐκκλησίας (comp. ver. 24, Ephes.
i, 23, iv. 12 Sq., Vv. 23, 29, 30). The
corresponding part of the image,
μέλη, appears in Ephes. 4, Tradl. τι.
Pearson writes on ἑνὲ 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 dve-
στη; as Jacobson points out. Below,
§ 7, the doctrine is stated in the
scriptural way, σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σω-
τῆρος...ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ

NYELper.
7. ἄπιστοι]. He calls the Doce-

tae unbelievers, because they denied
the reality of Christ’s humanity ;
comp. also below § 5 τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα
αὐτῶν ὄντα ἄπιστα k.t-A. See the note
on 7 γαϊί. το, where they are likewise
so called.

8. αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν κιτιλ.] See the
note on 7yva//. 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. i. 9, Phil.
i. 20, 1 Joh. ii, 18, and see Winer
§ liii. p. 548 sq., A. Buttmann p. 311.

294
Ill.

1 yap] GL Theodt. iv. 127; δὲ C[g] Euseb. 1. 25. iii. 36; atguz A.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[111

"E. A \ \ \ \ > , > \
yw yap Kal μετὰ THY αἀναστασιν εν σάαρκι

2 ol-

da] GLCAg Euseb. Theodt.; vidi L (prob. a mistranslation rather than a νυ. l.

The passage is wrongly punctuated
in the common editions. For the
sense comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 1 ἐν
τῷ yap φρονεῖν μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ
καὶ ἐλπίζομεν λαβεῖν.

ἀσωμάτοις x.t.r.| ‘being unsubstan-
tial and phantom-like, in their opin-
ions : comp. Hieron. Comm. in Isat.
xviii (Of. IV. p. 774) ‘nec demonia
subsistant, quia jam a Deo qui vere
est exciderunt, nec sectz hereti-
corum, quae nullam retinent verita-
tem, sed in umbrarum similitudinem
transeunt et intereunt,’ where there
is a similar comparison. For δαιμον-
tkois see the note on δαιμόνιον ὃ 3.
In dowparos 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. Sufp/. 25, Clem. Alex.
Strom. vi. 12 (p. 789), as well as in
Plutarch. Pearson distinguishes be-
tween δαιμονικός (=Sdatporwdys) and
δαιμονιακός (-Ξεδαιμονιαζόμενος). 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 didso. 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. καὶ pera «r.A.] 1.6. ‘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 etiam post resurrectionem,
cum manus et pedes suos discipulis
inspiciendos offert, Aspicite, dicens,
etc,’

ἐν σαρκὶ κιτ.λ.] “17 know and be-
lieve Him to be in the flesh? For
οἶδα καὶ πιστεύω comp. Rom. xiv. 14
οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι. Jerome (Vir. 7{{.
16), clearly deriving the quotation at
second hand from Eusebius and re-
ferring the passage by inadvertence
to the Epistle zo Polycarp, 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 Geodopos (see on Lphes.
inscr.), that he was the child whom
our Lord blessed. Chrysostom dis-
tinctly states the opposite, Hom. zz
S. Ign. 4 (11. p. 599) τὸν οὐδὲ éwpa-
κότα αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἀπολελαυκότα αὐτοῦ
τῆς συνουσίας. Pearson conjectured
that the false interpretation arose
from John xx. 8 καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐπί-
στευσεν.

2. καὶ ὅτε x.7.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,
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς...Ψηλαφήσατέ pe καὶ
ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ
ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα. The
words however, in which it is told,
are different. Eusebius (4. £. 111.
36) is at a loss to say from what
source this incident was taken (οὐκ

111]

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

295

\ 5 \ / sf \ εὖ κ κ
αὐτὸν οἶδα καὶ πιστεύω ὄντα" καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὲ

εἶδον, since Jerome so translates the οἶδα of Euseb.).

ὄντα] GLg Euseb.

Theodt.; oc modo (οὕτως) C; dominum A.

oid 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 Hebreos, et
quod a me nuper in Grecum Lati-
numque sermonem translatum est,
quo et Origenes szepe utitur’ (Vz.
fil. 2), and which at this time he
was disposed to regard as the ori-
ginal Hebrew of 5. Matthew; ‘Ip-
sum Hebraicum [Matthzei] habetur
usque hodie in Czesariensi biblio-
theca quam Pamphilus martyr stu-
diosissime confecit; mihi quoque a
Nazareis, qui in Bercea urbe Syrize
hoc volumine utuntur, describendi
facultas fuit’ (Vir. 77/7. 3): though
afterwards he spoke less confidently
on this point ; zz Zaz. xii. 13 ‘quod
vocatur a plerisgue Matthzi authen-
ticum’ (Of. VII. p. 77); ¢. Pelag. iii. 2
‘in Evangelio juxta Hebreos...sive ut
plerique autumant, juxta Mattheum,
quod et in Cesariensi habetur biblio-
theca’ (O/. 11. p. 782). In another
passage also Comm. in Isat. xviii.
pref. (Of. IV. p. 770) he writes
*‘quum enim apostoli eum putarent
spiritum, vel, juxta evangelium quod
Hebreeorum lectitant Nazarzi, zzcor-
porale demonium, dixit etc.’ But
this statement, though thus repeated
and explicit, is attended with diffi-
culties; for (1) Eusebius was well
acquainted with the Gosfel accord-
ing to the Hebrews. There was a
copy preserved in his own city,
Czesarea, in the library which’ had
been collected by his friend Pamphi-
lus, was probably attached to his
own Church or palace, and certainly

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. pref. 8 (I. p. 49)
‘Si vero quis velit nobis proferre ex
illo libello qui Petri Doctrina ap-
pellatur, ubi salvator videtur ad dis-
cipulos dicere, Non suum demonium
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. iii.
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
Cesarean library would represent

206

THE EPISTLE OF. IGNATIUS

[111

σ΄ of - ’ ͵ ἢ ‘
Πέτρον ἦλθεν, εφη αὐτοῖς" Λάβετε, PHAADHCATE ME, KAI

ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ AAIMGNION ἀοώμδτον.

\ 5 \ 5
καὶ εὐθὺς av-

~ ef \ , r a 1 ᾽ “-
του ἥψαντο, καί ἐπιστευσαν κραθέντες TY σαρκι αὐτου
a

1 ἦλθεν] Gg Theodt.; ἐλήλυθεν Euseb.

3 kpabévres] (ἃ; convicts

(κρατηθέντες ?) 1, : guum prehendissent eum C; al. σ. A has crediderunt qui eucha-
ristiae-participes-juerunt (lit. communicaverunt) et coenaverunt antea corpus et san-

guinem 6715.

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 Bercea: 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
μα σάρ

ἔχει).

Ι.: τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον] i.e. τοὺς
ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, as the
company gathered together on this
occasion is described in the parallel
narrative, Luke xxiv. 34. The ex-
pression οἱ περὶ Πέτρον might in
late Greek signify Peter alone (see
Kihner Il. p. 231, Winer § xlix. p.
506 sq.); but it commonly implies
others as well (e.g. Acts xiii. 13), and
here the plurals following, αὐτοῖς,
AaBere, etc. are decisive. Zahn points
out that it is the expression used in
the alternative ending to S. Mark’s

4 αἵματι] Α ; πνεύματι GLC; al. δ:

Gospel found in L and some other
authorities, τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντό-
pos ἐξήγγειλαν.

2. δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον] ‘an Ζ71-
corporeal spirit’? Origen (lL. 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 da-
μόνια ἀσώματα εἴρηται, οὐχ ὡς σῶμα
μὴ ἔχοντα᾽ ἔχει γὰρ σχῆμα᾽ διὸ καὶ
συναίσθησιν κολάσεως ἔχει" GAN ὡς
πρὸς σύγκρισιν τῶν σωζομένων σωμά-
των πνευματικῶν σκιὰ ὄντα, ἀσώματα
εἴρηται. As the Preaching of Peter
(Knpvypa 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
yap), that we have a direct citation;
but the inference 15. 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

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

297

a J ‘ “ \ / /
καὶ τῷ αἵματι. διὰ τοῦτο Kat θανάτου κατεφρόνησαν,

5 ηὑρέθησαν δὲ ὑπὲρ θάνατον.

\ δὲ \ , ΄
μετὰ O€ THY αναστασιν

/ ~ \ / «ες /
[καὶ] συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς Kat συνέπιεν ὡς σαρκικός, καίπερ

΄σ , ΄σ 7]
πνευματικώς NVWMEVOS τῷ πατρί.

see the lower note.

5 ηὑρέθησαν δὲ] GL; ηὑρέθησαν γὰρ C; def. A
(doubtless owing to homceoteleuton) ; al. g.

6 καὶ συνέφαγεν] g (the

connexion of the sentences however being different) C Theodt. iv. 128; συνέ-

φαγεν (om. kal) GLA.

αὐτοῖς] here, GLCg; after συνέπιεν [A] Theodt.

ὡς σαρκικός, καίπερ πνευματικῶς] GL; ὡς σαρκικῶς καὶ πνευματικῶς Theodt.; al. g.
The sentence is rendered e¢ erat corpore et spiritu et unitus cum patre in A, and

a neutral word, but det ἐπὶ τῶν
φαύλων ἔξω τοῦ παχυτέρου σώματος
δυνάμεων τάσσεται τὸ τῶν δαιμόνων
ὄνομα, πλανώντων καὶ περισπώντων
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, c. Cels. v. 5 (I. 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)’ ‘Quz ratio tortuositatis
istius!’, exclaims Tertullian. The
way in which Apelles. disposed of
such passages in the Gospels may
be seen from Hippol. er. 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. γᾷ. x.
65 οὔτε γῆρας οὐλόμενον κέκραται ἱερᾷ
γενεᾷ, Olymp. x. 123 ὥρᾳ κεκραμένον,
Plato Phedr. 279 A ἤθει γεννικωτέρῳ
κεκρᾶσθαι, Lpist. vii. 326 C ovy οὕτω
θαυμαστῇ φύσει κραθήσεται. So also
συγκεκρᾶσθαι, e.g. Arist. Plut. 853
πολυφόρῳ συγκέκραμαι δαίμονι, and
see the note on ἀνακεκραμένους Lphes.
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. i. 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; e.g. Act. Paul. et
Thecl. 9 κρατεῖται ἐπιθυμίᾳ καινῇ,
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 13 (p. 755)
Ψυχὰς τινὰς κρατουμένας φύσει τῷ

σώματι, Exc. Theod. 32 (p. 977) ἐκρα-

ees Pa alae *
τήθη, ὥσπερ τοῖς ὅλοις, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τῷ

παρακλήτῳ.

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. xvi. 17, 1 Cor. xv. 50,
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 7ye//. inscr.,
where there is the same confusion of
πνεύματι and αἵματι in different texts.

298

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[Iv

IV. Ταῦτα δὲ παραινώ ὑμῖν, ἀγαπητοί, εἰδὼς ὅτι

\ ε ~ e/ af / \ ε ~ > \ ~
καὶ ὑμεῖς οὕτως ἔχετε: προφυλάσσω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν

δ ΄σ ᾽ / A > , ~ © 2 \
θηρίων τῶν ἀνθρωπομόρφων, ovs οὐ μόνον δεῖ ὑμᾶς μή

παραδέχεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽, εἰ δυνατόν, μηδὲ συναντᾷν [αὐτοῖς]"

/ ς \ ΄σ΄ / /
μόνον δὲ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, ἐάν πως μετανοή-

existens carnalis et spiritualis (ὧν σαρκικὸς καὶ πνευματικός) existens unus cum patre
in C. Possibly the correct reading may be ὡς 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 ἀν-

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).

δεῖ

ὑμᾶς μὴ] GL, and so prob. C; οὐ δεῖ ὑμᾶς Theod-Stud.; mon ofportet vos A

Anon-Syr,. 219; al. g.

pera δὲ κιτιλ.} 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 ;
(1) Luke xxiv. 30, 35; (2) Luke xxiv.
42, ἀπ (3) John xxi. 12, 13.

ἡνωμένο)͵ Compare Magn. 7
ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν ἤνω-
μένος ὦν. See also Marcellus in
Euseb. c. Marc. ii. 2 (p. 37) and
Eccl. Theol. ii. 4 (p. 106) 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

4 δυνατόν] txt 1, Theod-Stud. Anon-Syr,.; add.
ἐστι G; al. g. The verb substantive is naturally supplied in AC.

αὐτοῖς]

on Lphes. 4 ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε.

προφυλάσσω] Comp. 7γ7γαΖ. 8 ἀλλὰ
προφυλάσσω ὑμᾶς ὄντας μου ἀγαπητοὺς
κιτιὰλ., With the note.

3. ἀνθρωπομόρφων] Philo de «467.
6 (II. p. 6) κυριώτερον δὲ εἰπεῖν, ἀνθρω-
πομόρφου θηρίου. So too ἀνθρωποειδῆ
θηρία, Vit. Moys. i. 8 (11. p. 87), de
Decal, 16 (11. p. 194). This last ex-
pression occurs also Afost. Const. ii.
21. These passages are collected
by Cotelier. See also Suicer s. v.
ἀνθρωπόμορφος.

6. ὅπερ] SC. τὸ μετανοεῖν. For the
whole passage compare Iren. iii. 2.
3 ‘adversus tales [hereticos] cer-
tamen nobis est, 0 dilectissime, more
serpentum lubricos undique effugere
conantes. Quapropter undique 7e-
sistendum est illis, si quos ex his
retusione confundentes ad conver-
stonem veritatis adducere possimus.
Etenim si zon facile est ab errore
apprehensam resipiscere animam,
sed non omnino impossibile est er-
rorem effugere, apposita veritate.’

7. (nv) Used as a substantive ;
see the note on 2 2265. 11.

ei yap «.t.A.] To be connected
with the preceding chapter, the in-

Iv] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 299

J / , Ν᾿ τῇ , / 3 ΄σ
σωσιν, ὅπερ δύσκολον: τούτου δὲ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ᾿Ιησοῦς
/ A > \ ε ΄σ “- 3 \ \ -
Χριστός, τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμών ζῆν. εἰ yap τὸ δοκεῖν
΄σ' / \ ~ / e ~ > \ ΄σ ~
ταῦτα ἐπράχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, κἀγὼ τῷ δοκεῖν
/ δ \ δι ie \ sf / ΄σ /
δέδεμαι. τί δὲ Kal ἑαυτὸν ἔκδοτον δέδωκα τῷ θανάτω,
΄σ \ , \ / ᾽ ἃ .4 > \
το 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. 5 προσεύχεσθε] C Anon-Syr;.; προσεύχεσθαι GLAg* (mss, but
orate 1). 7 yap] GCg Theodt. iv. 50; autem LS,; at A. τὸ

δοκεῖν] G; secundum videri L; 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.

Ο; ergo et ego L* (but with a v.1. δ ego) A.
10 ὁ ἐγγὺς] S,AC (which however translates

Theodt.; meipsum L.

8 κἀγὼ] GS.,g Theodt.; ego et ipse etiam

9 ἑαυτὸν] G3; ἐμαυτόν g

just below as if ὁ μεταξὺ θηρίων) Theodt.; ἐγγὺς (om. 6) GL; al. g.

termediate words ταῦτα δὲ.. ζῆν being
parenthetical. The return to the
subject however was suggested by
the expression τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν,
which here, as in 7γαζ, 9, has a
reference to Docetic error.

τὸ δοκεῖν] For this expression, and
for the sentiment, see the notes on
Trall. 10.

9. ἑαυτὸν] Of the first person, as
in Tradl. 3 (see the note).

ἔκδοτον κιτ.λ.] We find ἔκδοτον διδό-
ναι, e.g. Demosth. ¢. Aristocr. 217 (p.
692), Polyb. iii. 20. 8, xx. 10. 5, xxviii.
4. 11, Bel et Drac. 22; ἔκδοτον mapa-
διδόναι, 6.5. Diod. Sic. xv. 10; ἔκδο-
τον προδιδόναι, Polyb. vi. 49. 5. The
corresponding ἔκδοτον λαμβάνειν Oc-
curs Acts li. 23.

10. πρὸς πῦρ «.t.A.] Tertull. ὦ.
Marc. iv. 29 ‘Qualis .macheera, 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, Ixxxviii. 8 διό
φησιν ὁ σωτήρ, Ὃ ἐγγύς μου ἐγγὺς τοῦ
πυρός, ὁ δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ μακρὰν
ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας (p. 1488, ed. Migne) ;
see Westcott Introduction to the

Gospels p. 455 (ed. 4). It is men-
tioned also by Origen Hom. xx in
Teren. § 3 (Ill. p. 280) ‘ Legi alicubi
quasi salvatore dicente, et quzro,
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 (Il. p. 19, ed. Caillau) Kap-
νουσα yap Ψυχὴ ἐγγύς ἐστι Θεοῦ, φησί
που θαυμασιώτατα λέγων ὁ Πέτρος.
This latter saying is quoted again
by him anonymously, Ovaz. 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. Οὐ. 11. p. 895, Migne) remarks
ἐν τῇ Διδασκαλίᾳ Πέτρου keira’ Κάμ-
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. Rom. 5),
for fire, sword, and wild-beasts all
alike were possible ; but extremely
improbable in a forger writing after

200

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[τν

μαχαίρας, ἐγγὺς Θεοῦ: μεταξὺ θηρίων, μεταξὺ Θεοῦ"

7 4 > , ΄σ ΄σ Σ \ σ:-
μόνον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὸ συμπαθεῖν

> ΄ι
auTW.

τελείου ἀνθρώπου.

’ / Y ΄- 3 ; ΄ ~
παντὰα ὑπομένω, αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος TOU

« = “ σ᾿ \
V. “Ov τινες ἀγνοοῦντες ἀρνοῦνται, μᾶλλον δὲ

Ι μεταξὺ θηρίων μεταξὺ Θεοῦ] GLS,AC; om. Theodt. (from homceoteleuton);

def. g.

qui mortuus est propler nos Sg; al. g.
Tov 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,3 tesu christo deo nostro A; def. g: see the lower note.

5 dpvotvra] GLS,AC Theodt.; ἠρνήσαντο g.

προφῆται C; prophetia prophetarum A.

the occurrence had excluded all al-
ternatives but one; see Zahn /. v. A.
Ῥ. 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 (§ 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 a
similar ellipsis with μόνον comp.
Rom. 5, and see the note on £fhes.
11. The common punctuation (Us-
sher, Voss, Smith, Jacobson, Cureton)
which attaches μόνον κιτὶλ. 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.
7.

3. πάντα ὑπομένω] This sentence
is modelled on Phil. iv. 13 πάντα
ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί pe. For
πάντα ὑπομένω Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10,

4 προφητεῖαι)] GLg ;
8 Μωσέως] G3 ὁ μωσέως g. It was

and see also ὃ 9 below, Polyc. 3,
Polyc. Phzl. 8. The word ἐνδυναμοῦν
is especially Pauline in the N. T.;
it occurs also several times in Her-
mas, Mand. v. 2, xii. 5,6, Sz. vi. 1,
Vii, ix. ἘΣ

Tov τελείου ἀνθρώπου] Zahn refers
to Melito Fragm. 6 (p. 416 Otto)
Θεὸς yap ὧν ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος
τέλειος ὁ αὐτός. The addition yevo-
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.
a Tim. its.

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

οι

ν] TO THE SMYRNAANS.

301

/ c ~~ >! ’ oe
ἠρνήθησαν um αὐτοῦ, ὄντες συνήγοροι τοὺ θανάτου

eS ΠῚ la / e\ ᾽ ε oa
μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας: οὕς οὐκ ἔπεισαν αἱ προφητεῖαι

\ / \ / ΄-
οὐδὲ 6 νόμος Μωσέως, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μέχρι νῦν TO εὐαγγέ-

29\ 1 fe SC MER 4 - Αἱ. δῇ / \
λιον, οὐδὲ τὰ ἡμέτερα τῶν κατ᾽ ἀνδρα παθήματα" Kal

to be expected that L* after the Vulg., and C as an Egyptian version, should take the

form μωῦσῆς moyses with the νυ.

account in such a question of orthography.

The Grk mss however are too late to be of any

ἀλλ GLAg; om. C.

9. παθήματα] GLC (τὰ ἡμέτερα τῶν κατ᾽ ἄνδρα παθήματα being rendered victoria
laborum) g. The clause is translated scripturas nostras quas singulos docemus in A,
which must therefore have read μαθήματα (not γράμματα, as Petermann supposes) ;
see the confusion of παθητής, μαθητής, in Polyc. 7 (comp. Clem. Rom. pp. 36, 400).

will not mention their names. I will
strive to forget them; until they
repent and believe in the Passion.’

5. Ὅν τινες x.7.A.] Comp. Magn.
9 (with the note).

μᾶλλον δὲ κιτ.λ.] See 2 Tim. ii. 12
εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, 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-
ns, μᾶλλον ἐπεσκοπημένῳ, 1ὖ. 3 πάντα
ὑπομένειν ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς
ὑπομείνῃ, Trall. 5 πολλὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν
λείπει ἵνα Θεοῦ μὴ λειπώμεθα, Rom. ὃ
θελήσατε ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς θεληθῆτε. See
also such expressions as Phzlad. 10
δοξάσαι τὸ dvopa.+.cal ὑμεῖς δοξασθή-
σεσθε, 2b. τι ἐδέξασθε αὐτοὺς ὡς καὶ
ὑμᾶς ὁ Κύριος (with the note), Polyc.
6 τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε ἵνα καὶ ὁ
Θεὸς ὑμῖν, and below ὃ 10 οὐδὲ ἐπῃσ-
xvvOnre* οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυνθήσεται
K.T.A.

6. συνήγοροι x.t.A.] ‘advocates of
death, because by denying the verity
of Christ’s passion and resurrection,
they practically denied the immor-
tality of man; comp. vexpoddpos
below.

7. τῆς ἀληθείας] It is probable
that these heretics, like many others
since, arrogated to themselves a

monopoly of ‘the truth. Thus the
Valentinians had their Evangelium
Veritatis (Iren. iii. 11. 9); Celsus
entitled his work ᾿Αληθὴς Λόγος (Orig.
c. Cels. i. 40 μετὰ πολλῆς θρασύτητος
καὶ ἀλαζονείας ἐπιγράψας κ.τ.λ.)}; and
Hierocles similarly named his own
attack on Christianity Φιλαλήθης (Eu-
seb. c. Hizerocl, 1, Ὁ. 511, etc.).

ai προφητεῖαι «.t.A.] 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. 9, 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
XVii. 3).

8. μέχρι νῦν] i.e. 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, see 77a//.
το (with the notes).

τῶν κατ᾽ ἄνδρα) i.e. Sour 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 οἱ
κατ᾽ ἄνδρα see the note on Lphes. 4.

302 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

\ \ € ΄σ \ > 4 7 , / > ~
yap περὶ ἡμῶν TO αὐτὸ φρονοῦσιν. τί yap [με] ὠφελεῖ
> 9 \ > ~ \ \ / / - \
εἰ ἐμὲ ἐπαινεῖ Tis, Tov δὲ Κύριόν pov βλασφημεῖ, μὴ
e ~ > \ / ε \ ΄σ \ /
ὁμολογῶν αὐτὸν TapKodopoy; ὁ δὲ τοῦτο pH λέγων

/ > \ > / \ / \ δὲ Ε ,
τελείως αὐτον ANHOVHTAL, ὧν νεκροφορος. Ta O€ OVO-

> ~ af sf ᾽ “ > /
ματα αὐτῶν, ὄντα ἀπιστα, οὐκ ἔδοξέν μοι ἐγγράψαι"

1 μὲ] GL (after juvat) AC; om. g Theodt. iv. 50. ὠφελεῖ] ὀφελεῖ G.
2 εἰ ἐμὲ] Gg; εἴπερ με Theodt.; εἰ ἐμὲ (or με) μὲν C3 sz... me A.
gA Theodt.; after ὠφελεῖ GLC, 3 σαρκοφόρον] txt GLAC Theodt.;
add. θεόν g. μὴ] GL[A]g; om. Ὁ. 4 ὧν] gLA; ὧν G (see the
note § τι below). Theodt. has ὡς νεκροφόρον for ὧν vexpoddpos. C is mutilated, but
app. had ὧν νεκροφόρος. 5 οὐκ] GLAC ; viv οὐκ g. ἡ els TO...
ἀνάστασι9] GLAC (but τὸ πάθος is paraphrased passionem salvatoris nostri in A,
and mortem domini nostri tesu christi in C)3; om. g.

tis] here,

10 πιστεύσωσιν
LAC Tim-Syr. 210 Anon-Syr. 219; πιστεύσωμεν G3 πιστεύσῃ g (the sing. being

I. τὸ αὐτὸ φρονοῦσιν] To be ex-
plained by § 4 εἰ yap τὸ 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 autem 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
“Lea, A

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 ἐν “Ayala
νεκροφόρων ἐκκομισθῶσι, Appian Bell,
Civ. ἵν. 27 πλεονάζουσιν οἱ νεκροφύροι.
For other applications of the meta-
phor see Philo Flacc. 19 (II. p. 540)

στέλλομαι yap ὁ κακοδαίμων ἐγὼ τρό-

A ~ > Ἁ a
Tov τινὰ νεκροφορῶν ἐμαυτὸν ὥσπερ

εἰς ἠρίον, de Agric. 5 (I. p. 304) ἄχθος

al > ~
τοσοῦτον οὐκ ἀποτίθεται νεκροφοροῦσα,

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, de Somn. ii. 36, I. Ὁ: 690),
Greg. Naz. Of, 11. 246 vexpod pos
(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. ZZ. 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
εἰσιν καὶ τάφοι νεκρῶν. But why
are they called νεκροφόροιῦ' Pearson
quotes such passages as 1 Tim. v. 6
ζῶσα τέθνηκεν, Apoc. iil. I (ys καὶ
νεκρὸς εἶς It may possibly have this
reference to their moral state also;

ν] TO THE SMYRNAANS.

393

IAN ‘ δὲ ’ ΝᾺ > ~ , / δ

ἀλλα μηδὲ γένοιτὸ μοι αὐτῶν μνημονεύειν, μέχρις οὗ
/ 3 \ , ἘΦ. ε ΄σ /

μετανοήσωσιν εἰς TO Taos, ὃ ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἀνάστασις.

MeL

Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω.

\ \ > / \
Kal Ta ἐπουρανια Kal ἡ

/ ~ > , \ e ᾽ e / \
δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ορατοὶ TE καὶ

a 7 \ \ / 3 “ ~ -
10 ἄορατοι, ἐᾶν μή πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ [τοῦ

necessary to harmonize with changes in the context).

τοῦ Θεοῦ] gui est deus

Anon-Syr.,; gut est det Tim-Syr,. (where the relative may refer either to αἷμα or
to χριστοῦ) ; om. GLAC (which last renders the sentence, 772 dominum nostrum jesum
christum et sanguinem eius 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 xno for ΠΟ Ν Ἢ in the Syriac, or conversely. See the lower note.

but I believe that it points more
directly to their doctrinal posttion.
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. § 2 ὥσπερ ἄπιστοί
τινες λέγουσιν.

ἧς eis τὸ πάθος] For the con-
struction comp. Phdlad. 8 peravon-
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,’

8. Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω] See Lphes.
5 with the note.

καὶ τὰ ἐπουράνια κιτιλ) See Tradl.

5 μὴ οὐ δύναμαι τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι...
δύναμαι νοεῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια κ.τ.λ.

ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων) i.e. ‘the angels
notwithstanding all their glory.’

9. ἄρχοντες] For this word as a
designation of angels comp. 7 γαζί §
with the note, and see Hort’s article
in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biogr.
s. v. Archon.

Opatoi τε καὶ ἀόρατοι)] The same
expression occurs again in a similar
connexion, 7ra//. 5 ras συστάσεις τὰς
ἀρχοντικάς, ὁρατά τε καὶ ἀόρατα (see
the note there).

10. tov Θεοῦ] ‘who zis God’ I
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 £pfes.
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 a transcriber’s
reminiscence of Ephes. 1 ἐν αἵματι
Θεοῦ. See the notes on § Ito below,
and on 7γαϊ, 7, and compare the
variation of the Syriac Version above
in ὃ 4 τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου.

204 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi

~ 4 , / c val '
Θεοῦ], κἀκείνοις κρίσις ἐστίν. ὁ χωρῶν χωρείτω. τόπος
"ὃ / ͵ a \ \ « > \ / . /
μήδενα φυσιούτω" TO yap ὅλον ἐστὶν πίστις καὶ ἀγαπή;
εν ioe , f / \ \ ς
ὧν οὐδὲν προκέκριται. καταμάθετε δὲ τοὺς ἑτεροδοξ-
~ > \ / ΄σ ΄σ \ ε ~ > ~
οὔντας εἰς THY χάριν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦ-
1 τόπος] GCg Tim-Syr.; φρμαϊἼ (τὸ mas) L; def. A. The same corruption of
τόπος appears in Clem. Rom. 54. 3 δὲ] GLC; etiam A; οὖν [g].

4 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL; domini nostri jesu christi C; dei A; al. g. 7 ov
περὶ θλιβομένου οὐ περὶ Sedeuévov] GL; oppressorum et ligatorum A; aut alicuius

I. ὁ χωρῶν χωρείτω] ‘Let him the frequent conjunction of πίστις

that receiveth receive, taken from
Matt. xix. 12 ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν xo-
peiro. It is a mysterious truth, and
beyond the capacity of the common
hearer. Similarly in 7vad/. 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 χωρῆσαι
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.X.
Perhaps the reading πιστεύσωμεν
may be due to the same cause.
S. Jerome (quoted by Smith) says,
Comm. in Ephes. iv. 10 (VII. 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 [i.e. πρωτοκαθεδρίας, where the
MSS have ‘concessionis’] tumore elati
sunt.’

πίστις kat ἀγάπη] See the note on
Ephes. 14 ἀρχὴ Cons κιτιλ.; and for

and ἀγάπη in Ignatius, the note on
Ephes. 1.

3. ὧν οὐδὲν προκέκριται] ‘to which
nothing ἐς (justly) preferred) ‘than
which nothing is better’; comp.
Magn. 1 with the note.

karapabere | ‘mark well, as in Matt.
vi. 28 ; comp. Polyc. 3, and see also
Clem. Rom. 7.

ἑτεροδοξοῦντας] See the note on
Magn. 8. 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. wept 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 ynpas κιτλ.} 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]

~ , 3 \ ~ ’ - -:
σαν, πῶς ἐναντίοι εἰσὶν TH γνωμη τοῦ Θεοῦ.

TO THE SMYRN-EANS. 305

Tepe

> / 3 / 3 - 3 \ , ᾽ ψ ὦ ~
ἀγάπης οὐ μέλει αὐτοῖς, OV περὶ χήρας, οὐ TEDL ὀρφανοῦ,

οὐ περὲ θλιβομένου, οὐ περὶ δεδεμένου [ἢ λελυμένου], οὐ

indigentis aut alicuius oppressi C (thus transposing the two words and reading δεομέ-
vou or ἐνδεομένου for δεδεμένου); θλιβόμενον ... δεδεμένον [5] (changing the form of the

sentence).

ἢ λελυμένου] GL; om. AC[g].

The omission in g however is

of little account, since this recension contains nothing corresponding to the re-
mainder of the section οὐ περὶ πεινῶντος K.T-D.

also (besides Barnab. 20 just quoted)
Polyc. 4 χῆραι μὴ ἀμελείσθωσαν,
Polyc. Phil. 6 μὴ ἀμελοῦντες χήρας ἢ
ὀρφανοῦ ἢ πένητος, Hermas Vis. ii. 4
νουθετήσει τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφα-
νούς, Mand. viii χήραις ὑπηρετεῖν,
ὀρφανοὺς καὶ ὑστερουμένους ἐπισκέπ-
τεσθαι, Sim. 1 ἀντὶ ἀγρῶν οὖν ἀγορά-
ζετε ψυχὰς θλιβομένας.. καὶ χήρας καὶ
ὀρφανοὺς ἐπισκέπτεσθε καὶ μὴ παρα-
βλέπετε αὐτούς, .51771, v. 3 δώσεις αὐτὸ
χήρᾳ ἢ ὀρφανῷ ἢ ὑστερουμένῳ (comp.
Sim. ix. 26, 27), Justin Afol~. i. 67
(p. 99) ἐπικουρεῖ ὀρφανοῖς τε καὶ χήραις
καὶ τοῖς διὰ νόσον ἢ δι’ ἄλλην αἰτίαν
λειπομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἐν δεσμοῖς οὖσι
k.T.A., Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 8 τοῖς
μὲν ὀρφανοῖς ποιοῦντες τὰ γονέων ταῖς
δὲ χήραις τὰ ἀνδρῶν, 111. 71 τιμᾶτε...
χήρας εὖ βεβιωκυίας, ὀρφανοὺς ὡς
ἐκκλησίας τέκνα, Tertull. Apol. 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
sectze alumni confessionis suz fiunt,’
Apost. Const. il, 24 οἰκονομείτω dp-
φανοῖς καὶ χήραις καὶ θλιβομένοις καὶ
ξένοις ἀπορουμένοις, Cyprian 2251. 8
(p. 487) ‘sive viduze sive thlibomeni
qui se exhibere non possunt, sive hi
qui in carceribus sunt etc.’ (comp.
Lipist. 7, p» 485; Test. 113, p. 181).
For the practice of the Roman
Church see Cornelius in Euseb. 17. ΚΕ.
vi. 43 χήρας σὺν θλιβομένοις ὑπὲρ

ΤΟΝ.

τὰς πεντακοσίας, ovs πάντας ἡ τοῦ δε-
σπότου χάρις καὶ φιλανθρωπία δια-
τρέφει.

7. θλιβομένου͵ῇἢ In addition to
the passages in the last note, where
the word occurs, comp. Clem. Alex.
Strom, vi. 12 (p. 873) ἀμέλει θλιβό-
μενον ἐπικουφίζει, παραμυθίαις, παρ-
ορμήσεσι, ταῖς βιωτικαῖς χρείαις ἐπι-
κουρῶν.

δεδεμένου] 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 δεσμί-
os συνεπαθήσατε, Xili. 3 μιμνήσκεσθε
τῶν δεσμίων ὡς συνδεδεμένοι, Clem.
Rom. 55 ἐπιστάμεθα πολλοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν
παραδεδωκότας ἑαυτοὺς εἰς δεσμὰ ὅπως
ἑτέρους λυτρώσονται κ-ιτ.Ὰλ., 74. 59 λύ-
τρωσαι τοὺς δεσμίους ἡμῶν, Hermas
Mand. viii ἐξ ἀναγκῶν λυτροῦσθαι
τοὺς δούλους τοῦ Θεοῦ (with Sz. ἢ
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 κιτιλ. (comp. 26.
iii. 69, xi. 4, xii. 32, where nearly the
same words are repeated), Dionys.
Cor. in Euseb. Hi. £. iv. 23 (of the
Roman Christians) ἐν μετάλλοις δὲ
ἀδελφοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἐπιχορηγοῦντας
καιιλ᾿, Afpost. Const. ἵν. 9 ῥυόμενοι
δούλους καὶ αἰχμαλώτους, δεσμίους ἐπη-
ρεαζομένους, ἥκοντας ἐκ καταδίκης διὰ
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὸ τυράννων εἰς

106

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v1

΄“ Ω] ΄σ / \ ~
περὶ πεινῶντος ἢ διψῶντος" εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς

4 \ \ \ a \ / ,
ἀπέχονται διὰ TO My ὁμολογεῖν THY εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα

> ΄ ΄σ a ΄ ~ \ \ ΄σ
εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, THY ὑπερ τῶν

1 πεινῶντος] C breaks off at this word.

μονομαχίαν καὶ θάνατον, v. I εἰ δὲ καὶ
οἷός τε ἐστὶν ἅπαντα τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ
ἀποδόμενος ῥύσασθαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ
δεσμωτηρίου, μακάριος ἔσται (with the
whole context), Hippol. “77. ix. 12;
Cyprian Efzst. 72 (p. 698) and fas-
sim. See especially, as the testimony
of a heathen, Lucian Pevegr. 12 ἐπεὶ
δ᾽ οὖν ἐδέδετο [6 Περεγρῖνος], of Χρι-
στιανοὶ συμφορὰν ἡγούμενοι τὸ πρᾶγμα
πάντα ἐκίνουν ἐξαρπάσαι πειρωμένοι
αὐτόν" εἶτ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἦν ἀδύνατον, ἥ γε
ἄλλη θεραπεία πᾶσα ov παρέργως ἀλλὰ
σὺν σπουδῇ ἐγίγνετο καὶ ἕωθεν μὲν
εὐθὺς ἦν ὁρᾶν παρὰ τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ
περιμένοντα γράδια χήρας τινας καὶ
παιδία ὀρφανά κιτλ. For passages in
the early Liturgies see the note on
Clem. Rom. 59.

ἢ λελυμένου͵ 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
xiii. 16 tavrnv...nv ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς...
οὐκ ἔδει λυθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ δεσμοῦ Tov-
του; Clem. Hom. xii. 18 γυνὴ ὅλη
ὑπὸ πάθους Twos συνδεθεῖσα : and for
λελυμένος, Lpist. Vienn. in Euseb.
H. Ε. ν. τ ὑπὸ τοῦ γήρως καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς
νόσου λελυμένου (of Pothinus), Greg.
Naz. Of. 11. p. 276 ἑκαντοντάρχοιο
λελυμένον ἥδρασε παῖδα in allusion to
Luke vii. 2 sq. (comp. λύσις 2d, 11. p.
278, λυσιμελής 26. pp. 860, 946).
But, though each word singly might
refer to some kind of disease, the
odd antithesis of ‘ bound and loosed’
in this sense is quite inconceivable ;

εὐχαριστίας Kal προσευχῆς ἀπ-

not to say that parallel passages
make the sense of δεδεμένου ‘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 (ἢ 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 7 quite a different
sense from that which it has in the
next clause περὶ πεινῶντος ἢ διψῶντος.
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
§ ὃ (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 8 ἐκείνη βεβαία
εὐχαριστία κιτ.λ.), and therefore he
says here εὐχαριστίας ἀπέχονται. The
προσευχῆς is the public prayer of the
Church, more especially that which
accompanied the eucharist. Theo-
doret Of. IV. I. p. 231 quotes the
passage loosely, εὐχαριστίας καὶ mpoo-
φορὰς οὐκ ἀποδέχονται K.T.A.

2. διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν κιτ.λ] The
argument is much the same as Ter-

v1]

TO THE SMYRNAANS. 307

~ ~~ ΄σ εὰ ΄σ /
ὡμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῆ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ

ἤγειρεν.
VII.

a /
συζητοῦντες ἀποθνησκουσιν.

éxovra] GLA;
al. g.

tullian’s against the Docetism of
Marcion, adv. Marc. iv. 40 ‘ Accep-
tum panem et distributum discipulis
corpus suum illum fecit, oc 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-
rist ; 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 κιτιλ.)] Comp. 7γαζί 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, as in 85. Paul,
Rom. v. 1§ sq., 2 Cor, ix. 15 5; comp.

εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσφορὰς οὐκ ἀποδέχονται Theodt.
6 τῇ δωρεᾷ] G; huic dono (τῇδε δωρεᾷ) 1,; donis A;

> / ~ ~ ~~ ~
Οἱ οὖν ἀντιλέγοντες τῇ δωρεᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ
έ

/ \ > ΄σ ᾽
συνέφερεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγα-

iv. 2313
al. g.

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 κιτ.ιλ.)] This was the
point in which they were at fault,
περὶ ἀγάπης ov μέλει αὐτοῖς § 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 Joh. iii. 14 ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι μετα-
βεβήκαμεν ἐκ Tov θανάτου eis τὴν
ζωήν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς"
ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ.
Many commentators (Cotelier, Pear-
son, Aldrich, Hefele, Zahn) would
take ἡμῶν σὐθμέλην ποιεῖν ‘to hold
an agape’ (see § 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.

20—2

308

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[vil

~ «“ δ oe a ’ 5 \ /
πᾷν, ἵνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν. πρέπον [οὖν] ἐστὶν ἀπέχεσθαι

΄σ “ \ / , 3.) \ ’ ~ ~
τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ μήτε κατ᾽ ἰδίαν περὶ av’TwY' λαλεῖν

“ “τὴν / \ ~ / 3 / \
MNTE KOlWn* προσέχειν δὲ τοῖς προφήταις, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ

a 3 4 > Cy \ / ea / \ ε
Tw εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν w τὸ πάθος ἡμῖν δεδήλωται καὶ ἡ

> / 7
ανασπασις τετελειωται.

VIII.

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 K.T.r.; nostra (Ξε ἡμών) A,
GL (but om. 1.) δ; ὦ A; om. [Rup. 772].

Τοὺς [de] μερισμοὺς φεύγετε, ὡς ἀρχὴν

οὖν]
2 περὶ] Gg* (but v. 1. per’); de L;

4 ἡμῖν] GL, and this reading seems to be recognised in the

6 δὲ]

7 ws Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς

τῷ πατρί] GL Dam. 514 Rup. 779; ὡς ὁ χριστὸς ἰησοῦς τῷ πατρί g3 sicut

zesu.christo et patri deo A.

I. πρέπον οὖν ἐστὶν] See the note
Ephes. 2.

2. περὶ αὐτῶν] This expression
suggests that the previous τῶν τοιού-
τῶν may be neuter, and not mascu-
- line, as it is generally taken. See
however ὃ 5 τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν
K.T.A.

3. τοῖς προφήταις] On the pro-
phets as witnesses ‘to ‘the passion
and resurrection see § 5 above, and
Philad. 5, 9, with the notes.

ἐξαιρέτως δὲ] ‘but preeminently’;
comp. Phzlad. 9 ἐξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχει
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κιπιλ. For ἐξαιρέτως
see the note on 7 γαΐζ, 12. ’E€apéros
δὲ 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
Céls.: iL. 50, 76; v.)56)2) Pearson’s
question ‘An unum tantum evange-
lium viderat?’ is quite out of place.
For the distinction between ‘the
Gospel’ and ‘the Gospels,’ comp.
Iren. iii. 11. 9 of ἀθετοῦντες τὴν ἰδέαν
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου kal εἴτε πλείονα εἴτε

8 πρεσβυτερίῳ] txt GL Dam.; add. δὲ g;

ἐλάττονα τῶν εἰρημένων παρεισφέροντες
εὐαγγελίων πρόσωπα, and again ‘in
nihilo .conveniens apostolorum evaz-
gels, ut nec evangelium quidem sit
apud eos sine blasphemia’ (comp.
2b. § ὃ ‘neque rursus pauciora capit
esse evangelia :-quoniam...firmamen-
tum ecclesiz est evangelium etc.’),
Orig. c. Cels. il. 13 ἐν Tots evayye-
λίοις γέγραπται... οὐδὲν δὲ εἶχεν ἔξω-
θεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου φέρειν (comp. 1.
44, 45, li. 27, 34).

5. teredciwra] ‘has been fully
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 x.r.A.] Comp.

vill]

κακῶν.

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

309

’ ΄ ’ ’ > ~ ς ᾽ ~
πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ws ᾿Ιησοῦς

Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀπο-

7 \ \ / 3 / ς ΄σ 7
στόλοις" τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν.

\ \ / , ΄σ > 7 >
Io μηδεὶς χῶώρις ἐπισκόπου Tet πρασσέτω τῶν ανήῆκοντων ELS

\ 5 £
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.

3 / / > / ’
εκεινῆ βεβαία εὐχαριστια ἡγείσθω 7)

ς \ \ 5, Ss \ ὭΣ o\ a= ἃ ? ,
ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, ἢ ᾧ ἀν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψη.

sacerdotibus A (see the note on 7 γαζ,. 7, p. 170).

Rup.; add. διακονοῦντας g Dam.
ἐπισκόπου G.

9 ἐντολήν] txt GLA
10 ἐπισκόπου] g Dam. 514 Rup.; τοῦ

els Thy ἐκκλησίαν] GLg Dam.; ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ Rup.; al. A.
11 ἐκείνη] GLg Dam.; om. A (?) Rup.

12 ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον] GLg; ὑπὸ

τῶν ἐπισκόπων Dam.; ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου A (translating guaccumgue ab episcopo effi-

clatur) Rup.
def, Dam.

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.

9. &s ἸησοῦφΤ᾽ «7.A.] For this
analogy see Magu. 6, 7 προκαθημένου
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τύπον Θεοῦ... ὥσπερ
οὖν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν
ἐποίησεν K.T.A., 20, 13 ὑποτάγῃτε τῷ
ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ᾿Ἰησοῦς
Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, Trall. 3. τὸν ἐπί-
σκοπὸν ὄντα τύπον τοῦ πατρός, with
the respective notes.

ὃ, ὡς 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 κ.τ.λ.,
76. 3 τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέ-
δριον Θεοῦ καὶ ὡς σύνδεσμον ἀποστό-
λων, and conversely Phzlad. ς τοῖς
ἀποστόλοις ὡς πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας,
with the several notes.

9. ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν] not Sas the
ordinance enjoined by God’ (so Pear-

6] GAg Rup.; guod (δ) L; def. Dam.

ἂν] Gg; ἐὰν Rup.;

son ‘tanquam Dei precepto insti-
tutos’), but ‘as the voice 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 77ra//.
13 ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς TH
ἐντολῇ, and compare the v. I. in the
Latin of Zyvall; 3 ‘vereantur dia-
conos ut mandatum Jesu Christi,’
which is probably borrowed’ from
this passage. See also I Cor. xiv.
37 ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἃ γράφω ὅτι Κυρίου
ἐστὶν ἐντολή. The interpolator has
inserted διακονοῦντας to govern ἐν-
roAnv and thus relieve the sense.

10. μηδεὶς χωρὶς x.t.A.] See the
note on Magz. 7.

τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς] See the notes
on Philad. τ and Clem. Rom. 45.

11. ἐκείνη κιτιλ.}] This passage
shows that the heretics celebrated
the eucharist separately; see also
below οὐκ. ἐξόν k.r.X.

βεβαία] ‘valid, as e.g. Rom. iv. 16,
Heb. ii. 2, ix. 17 3. comp. Hom. 3.

ἡγείσθω] ‘de 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

[vii

«" \ ~ ae ΠῚ ~ \ a »/ /
που ἂν pavy ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ TO πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ

1 ὁ ἐπίσκοπος] Gg Rup. Dam.; ἐπίσκοπος Antioch. 210.

Antioch. Dam.; om. Rup.

ἔστω] Gg; ἤτω

2 ὅπου ἂν ἢ] G3; ὅπου ἐὰν ἢ Rup.; ὅπου dv

(om. 7, Lequien) Dam.; ὅπου (om. ἂν ἢ) g ; ὅπουπερ ἂν ὀνομασθῇ Antioch,; wtique

βιάζομαι, λογίζομαι, ὠνοῦμαι : Comp.
Kiihner 11. p. 106, Winer § xxxviil.
Ῥ. 325, Cope on Arist. Pez. I. p. 299
sq.; and for δέχεσθαι, προσδέχεσθαι;
etc., see Poppo on Thuc. iv. 19 (comp.
e.g. the passive προσδεχέσθω in
A post. Const. ii. 58, viii. 31). But I
have not found an instance of the
present or imperfect of ἡγεῖσθαι in
an active sense, for in Herod. 111. 14
ἡγεόμενον, ‘being led,’ the reading is
highly doubtful. The perfect τὰ ayn-
μένα OCCurS as a passive in an oracle
in Demosth. Mac. p. 1072, and nyn-
θήσεται also is passive in Hippol.
fler. i. procem. p. 3. The commenta-
tors do not notice the difficulty.

2. ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία) “ the τι711-
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. il.
ὃ, p. 828, καθολικῶς) ; and Zeno the
Stoic wrote a work called Καθολικὰ
‘Universals’ (Diog. Laert. vil. 4).
It occurs several times in Polybius,
e.g. vi. 5. 3k ἔμφασις ‘a general
exposition,’ viii. 4. 11 x. ἱστορία ‘uni-
versal history.’ So also Philo V7z.
Moys. iii. 32 (11. p. 172) καθολικώτερον
νόμον, c. Flacc, 29 (11. p. 574) τῆς

καθολικωτέρας πολιτείας, Dion. Hal.

de Comp. Verb. p. 68 καθολικὴν πε-
pin uw, Epictet. ii. 20. 2 καθολικὸν
ἀληθὲς (comp. ii. 2. 25, iv. 4. 29, iv.
12. 7), Quintil. ii. 13. 14 ‘preecepta
quze καθολικὰ vocant, id est (ut di-
camus quomodo possumus) w#xzver-

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.
Ῥ. 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.
ἀνάστασις ‘the general resurrection’,
Justin Dzal. 82 (p. 308), Theoph. ad
Autol. i. 13 (p. 18); καθ. διαθῆκαι
Iren. lil. 11. 9; καθ. σωτηρία Clem.
Alex. Ped. i. 6 (p. 116); καθ. ὁμολογία
(opposed to pepixn) Strom. iv. 9
(p. 595); καθ. κίνησις καὶ μετάθεσις
(speaking of Matt. xxvii. 52) Strom.
vi. 6 (p. 764); καθ. λόγος, Strom. i.
4 (p. 330), vie 8 (p. 773); τὰ καθ.
στοιχεῖα (of the letters of the -alpha-
bet), καθ. θεωρήματα, Strom. viii. 8
(p. 928); ‘cath. bonitas’ (said of God)
Tertull. adv. Marc. ii. 17; ‘cath.
Dei templum’ (applied to our Lord),
adv. Marc iii. 21; ‘cath. patris

γ111]

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

211

J nN Ss A ~ ~ \
ὅπου av ἢ Χριστος ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

ubi est Ls; ubi sit A.

(ἰησοῦ χριστός Lequien); ὁ χριστὸς Dam.

Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς] GL Antioch.; ἰησοῦς χριστός A Rup.

ἐκκλησία] txt GLA (which how-

ever inserts sé¢ or esto) Rup. Dam.; add. ἐπισυνάγεται [ Antioch. ].

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 or a
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 τύπον
τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παρ-
οἰκίαις, ὃ ὃ πάσης τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκου-
μένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, § 19 Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν..-ποιμένα τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκου-
μένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ; but in all
these passages it still signifies ‘ uni-
versal.’ In a 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 Zettschr. f. Hist. Theol. 1875,
Ῥ. 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-
cias...piay 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. fist. liii (11. p. 119)
‘KaOodtky 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

312 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vil

nm ’ yf 6
οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς TOU ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν

1 τοῦ] Gg Antioch. Dam.; om. Rup.

ἅπαντα τὰ els 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 ΞΕ 22:2. xciii. 7 (II.
p- 240) calls a Donatist adversary
to account because he explained
‘Catholicze nomen non ex totius or-
bis communione sed ex observatione
preceptorum 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-
nullz particule etiam in diversis in-
veniuntur heeresibus, etc.’

I. οὔτε βαπτίζει) Tertull. ad
Lafpt. 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
to. relax the rule and extend the
power to others; Cypr. Efzs¢. Ixxiii.
7 sq: (p. 783 sq., Hartel) ‘intellegi-
mus nonnisi in ecclesia przpositis
...licere baptizare...nec’ posse quen-
quam contra epzscopos et sacerdotes
usurpare sibi aliquid’; Can. AZoszt.
c. 47 ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τὸν
κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἔχοντα βάπτισμα ἐὰν
ἄνωθεν βαπτίσῃ x.t.A. (comp. c. 46,
49, 50), Apfost. Const. iii. 11 οὔτε τοῖς

2 ἀγάπην] GLA (see Petermann)

λοιποῖς κληρικοῖς ἐπιτρέπομεν βαπτί-
(ew, οἷον ἀναγνώσταις k.T.A., ἢ μόνοις
ἐπισκόποις καὶ πρεσβυτέροις, ἐξ-
υπηρετουμένων αὐτοῖς τῶν διακόνων,
[Cypr.] de Rebapt. το (p. 82, Hartel)
‘aut si a minore clero per necesst-
fatem traditum fuerit.’ Yet theoreti-
cally the power still remained with
the bishop; see esp. Hieron. δ᾽ Lucz/.
9 (II. p. 181 sq.) “Non quidem abnuo
hanc 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. da
Sacram, 111. τ (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 Christt.
Archiol. 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 προσκομίζειν οὔτε
δοχὴν ἐπιτελεῖν. For this last clause
comp. Afost. Const. ii. 28 τοῖς eis
ἀγάπην ἤτοι δοχήν, ὡς ὁ Κύριος
ὠνόμασε, προαιρουμένοις καλεῖν K.T.A-
(where the reference is to Luke xiv.
13 ὅταν ποιῇς δοχήν x.t.A.). For
δοχή, aS a synonyme for ἀγάπη, see
the emperor Julian Fragm. Epist.
p- 305 Spanh. (I. p. 392, ed. Hert-
lein) τῆς λεγομένης map αὐτοῖς ἀγάπης
ἢ ὑποδοχῆς καὶ διακονίας τραπεζῶν,
where he is speaking of the ‘impious

EEE
»»““-πα ᾿

viit]

TO THE SMYRNZANS. 313

of 4 , ΄- ? et) ae » ΄ , ΄
οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν: ἀλλ᾽ ὃ ἀν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάση, τοῦτο

Antioch. Dam.
Antioch, Dam.

᾽
; ᾧ Rup.
Galileans.’ For this use οὗ ἀγάπη in
the earliest ages of the Church see
Jude 12 ἐν ταῖς dydras ὑμῶν σπιλάδες
(compared with 2 Pet. ii. 13, ἐντρυ-
φῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν, συνευω-
χούμενοι ὑμῖν, where the v. 1. ἀπάταις
is an obvious error), Clem. Alex.
Ped. ii. 1 (p. 165) ὃν ἀγάπην τινὲς
τολμῶσιν καλεῖν...δειπνάριά τινα.. «ποτῷ
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. 111. 2 (p. 514) eis τὰ δεῖπνα
ἀθροιζομένους, ov yap ἀγάπην εἴποιμ᾽
ay ἔγωγε τὴν συνέλευσιν αὐτῶν (speak-
ing of the Carpocratians), Celsus in
Orig. δ. Cels. i. 1 (I. p. 319) βούλεται
διαβάλλειν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χρισ-
τιανών κιτιλ., 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 ccenam liberam sed
agapen ccenarent,’ Tertull. Afo/. 39
‘Coena nostra de nomine rationem
sui ostendit: id vocatur quod d-
lectio penes Grecos etc.’ (where it
is described), ad Mart. 2 *Quz justa
sunt caro non amittit per curam ec-
clesiz et agapen fratrum,” de Fejun.
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 agape
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-

ἀγάπας S, (owing to rzbuz) Rup.; δοχὴν [6].
dv] Gg Antioch. Dam.; ἐὰν Rup.

8] GLS,Afg]

quod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne
latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent
...quibus peractis morem sibi disce-
dendi fuisse, rursusgue [coeundi| ad
capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen
et innoxium: quod ipsum facere
desisse post edictum meum, quo
secundum mandata tua hetaerias
esse vetueram’; and Lucian dad
Mort. Peregr. 12 εἶτα δεῖπνα ποικίλα
εἰσεκομίζξετο καὶ λόγοι ἱεροὶ
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 after times however the agape
was held at a separate time from the
eucharist. 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.g ‘Non permittitur mulieri
in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere
nec tinguere nec offerre, de Exh,
Cast. 7 ‘et offers et tinguits 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

>, cot
αὐτῶν»

314 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [ΥΠῚ

A a “ / ε > / ~
καὶ τῷ Θεῷ εὐάρεστον, iva ἀσφαλὲς ἡ καὶ βέβαιον πᾶν
ὃ πράσσετε.

᾽ ΄ ΄σ oS
IX. Εὔλογόν ἐστιν λοιπὸν ἀνανῆψαι ἡμᾶς, ὡς [ἔτι]

\ of > \ = ΄ af \ \
καιρὸν ἔχομεν εἰς Θεὸν μετανοεῖν. καλώς ἔχει Θεὸν Kat

/ > ’ ς ΄- ¢ \ ~ ,
ἐπίσκοπον εἰδέναι. ὁ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ Θεοῦ TETI-

/ ΄σ /
penta ὁ λάθρα ἐπισκόπου τὶ πράσσων τῷ διαβόλῳ

1 καὶ] GL Antioch. Rup.; om. 5:4 Dam. τῷ Θεῷ] GLS,A Antioch.
Dam.; paraphrased κατ᾽ evapéornow θεοῦ g ; τῷ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ (sic) Rup. (Le-
quien). wa] g Rup.; ἵν᾽ G. 2 ὃ πράσσετε] guod facitis 81; quid-
quid et faciatis A; ὃ πράσσεται GL Rup.; ὃ δ᾽ ἂν πράσσητε g (attaching it to the
next sentence). 3 ἀνανῆψαι ἡμᾶς] g Rup.; wt evigilemus S, (VYYNNII);
vigilem stare A (the Syriac form for the 3rd pers. sing. and the ist pers. plur.
being the same); ἀνανῆψαι (om. ἡμᾶς) GL. Add. καὶ GL (so that μετανοεῖν is
made dependent on εὔλογόν ἐστιν); om. S;Ag Rup. Thus καὶ seems to have

displaced ἡμᾶς.

would not dispense with the men-
tion here, where it is imperatively
demanded. The interpolator, living
morethantwo centuries after the εὐχα-
ριστία had been separated from the
ἀγάπη, feels this necessity and inserts
words accordingly, οὔτε προσφέρειν
οὔτε θυσίαν προσκομίζειν. 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 7% con-
seguence of Pliny’s edict prohibiting
these Christian hetzriz. For dif-
ferent views on the relation of the

ἔτι] GLg; om. S,A Rup.

5 ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ Θεοῦ]

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 Zhes. 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. Cic. cd Agi, πο Ba.
22. The word occurs in the same
sense as here in Magn. 7. The
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" λοιπὸν ai-
σχυνθῶμεν.

ἀνανῆψαι) ‘to recover our senses.

1x] TO THE SMYRNAANS.

λατρεύει.
oS / >
ἀξιοι yap ἐστε.
> lad /
Incovs Χριστός.

315

/ 5 em / ’
παντὰ οὖν ὑμῖν ἐν χάριτι περισσευέτω,
A , 5 / ε -
κατὰ TAVTA ME ἀνεπαύσατε, καὶ ὑμᾶς

/ \ / /
ἄποντα ME καὶ παροντα ἠγαπήσατε"

3 / δι κα ’ > « / ς , > ~
10 duel Bor ὑμῖν Oceos, δι ὃν mavTa ὑπομένοντες αὐτοῦ

τεύξεσθε.

Χ, φίλωνα καὶ ἹΡαῖον ᾿λιγαθόπουν, οἱ ἐπηκολού-

Gg Rup. Dam.; τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Antioch. 219.

τετίμηται]

GL Rup. Dam. 514 ; τιμᾶται Antioch. ; honoratur S,A; τιμηθήσεται [6].
8 κατὰ πάντα] G; secundum enim omnia L; nam in omni A; καθὰ (om. πάντα)

[g]. 9 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] G; ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστός g.

retribuat Ἱ, ; servabit A; ἀμείψεται [g].
G; ὁ θεός δ.

10 ἀμείβοι] ἀμοίβει G;

ὑμῖν] G; vobis L; ὑμᾶς σ. Θεός]

12 ‘Paiov] ῥέων (ἃ ; veum L; γάϊον g; agrium (ἄγριον) A, This

last may perhaps be a confusion of the two readings PAION (peon) and ΓΔΙΟΝ,

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] G3; aga-

thopum Ly; ἀγαθόποδα g (but 1 has agathopum); dub. A.

The word occurs in the same con-
nexion, 2 Tim. ii. 25 δῴη αὐτοῖς ὁ
Θεὸς μετάνοιαν eis ἐπίγνωσιν adn-
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) “10 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 or ἐπιγινώσκειν ;
but εἰδέναι Θεὸν is a somewhat fami-
liar expression.

ὁ τιμῶν K.7.A.] Comp. Philad. 11
πεμφθέντος ἅμα ἐμοὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Εφεσίων καὶ
Σμυρναίων εἰς λόγον τιμῆς τιμήσει
αὐτοὺς ὁ Κύριος «7A. For such
modes of expression in Ignatius ge-
nerally see the note on § 5 above.

8. ἄξιοι x7.A.] See the note on
Lphes. 1.

κατὰ πάντα κιτ.λ.}] See the note on

Ephes. 2 for this favourite Ignatian
phrase.

kat ὑμᾶς] SC. ἀναπαύσει OF ἀναπαύ-
cece; comp. Lphes. 21 ὡς καὶ ὑμῶν ἾἸ.
X., Philad. τι ὡς καὶ ὑμᾶς ὁ Κύριος.
The future is suggested by § 10 οὐδὲ
ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυνθήσεται «.t.r.; the
optative aorist by Ephes. 2 ws καὶ
αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ “I. X. ἀναψύ Eat.

9. ἀπόντα κιτ.λ.] Comp. Phil. ii.
7

ἠγαπήσατε] See the note on Polyc.
a

10. πάντα ὑπομένοντες] See the
note on § 4 above.

αὐτοῦ τεύξεσθε] See the note on
Magn. 1.

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.’

12. Φίλωνα κιτλ.)] On the two
persons here mentioned see the notes
to Philad. 11. They had evidently

316

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

/ > / ΄σ ΄σ ᾽ ε ,
θησαν μοι εἰς λόγον Θεοῦ, καλῶς ἐποιήσατε ὑποδεξα-

μενοι ὡς διακόνους [Χριστοῦ] Θεοῦ: οἱ καὶ εὐχαριστοῦ-

“ \ ΄σ « ᾽ 8 - / \
σιν Tw Κυρίῳ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, OTL αὐτοὺς ἀνεπαύσατε κατα

,
σαντα τρόπον.

:. Ἐπ λα ᾽ \ ᾽ ΄-
οὐδὲν ὑμῖν οὐ μὴ ἀπολεῖται.

> /
αντι-

ε σ΄ \ o / \ \ / «
Wuyov ὑμών TO πνεῦμα μου, καὶ Ta δεσμὰ μου ἃ οὐχ 5

2 Χριστοῦ Θεοῦ] G; dei christi L3 θεοῦ (om. χριστοῦ) A.

In g the passage is

paraphrased of ἐπηκολούθησάν μοι els λόγον θεοῦ διάκονοι χριστοῦ ὄντες, καλῶς
ἐποιήσατε ὑποδεξάμενοι ὡς διακόνους χριστοῦ, in the Greek mss, but 1 has wzzz7s-
tros dei in this last place, and perhaps διακόνους θεοῦ was the original reading of g

here. If so, the paraphrase may point
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. ὡς 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,
2 Cor. vi. 4, 1 Thess. iii. 2. (v. 1.) ; da-
xovos [τοῦ] Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor. xi. 23, Col.
i. 7 (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6): and both
are combined by Polyc. Phzl. 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
which Ignatius speaks of Christ as

to χριστοῦ θεοῦ as standing in the text

God, see the note on £phes. 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 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See also the
note on “2145. 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 «.7.r.]| Comp. Polyc.
2 κατὰ πάντα σου ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ καὶ Ta
δεσμά μου ἃ ἠγαπήσας. For the mean-
ing of ἀντίψυχον see the note on
Ephes. 21. :

5. οὐχ ὑπερηφανήσατε] Comp. Gal.
iv. 14.

οὐχ ἐπῃσχύνθητε] Suggested by 2
Tim. i. 16 τὴν ἅλυσίν pov οὐκ ἐπῃ-
σχύνθη (see the note on Epheés. 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 x.7.A. It
will be seen that there is considerable
authority for ἐπαισχύνθητε here; and
in 2 Tim. i. 16 ἐπαισχύνθη is the best

x] TO THE SMYRNAANS.

317

j ήσατε οὐδὲ ἐπησχύνθητε: οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυν-
ὑπερηφανήσατ ησχύνθη VOE υμ x

/ e / / > ~ ,
θήσεται ἡ τελεία πίστις, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς.

XI.

\ ~ ~ > 4
Ἢ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν ἀπῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

~ 4
τὴν ἐν ᾿λντιοχείᾳ τῆς Cupias: ὅθεν δεδεμένος θεοπρε-
~ / >
το πεστάτοις δεσμοῖς πάντας ἀσπάζομαι, οὐκ wy ἀξίιος

which the paraphrast had before him.

5 ὑμῶν] LAg; ἡμῶν G.

6 ὑπερηφανήσατε] ὑπεριφανήσατε G.

See however the lower note.
ἐπῃ-

σχύνθητε] ἐπαισχύνθητε ἃ. The mss of g vary between ἐπαισχύνθητε and ἐπῃ-

σχύνθητε : see the lower note.
GL; ἐλπίς gA: see the lower note,

supported reading. Probably this
was a common, though incorrect,
form of the word, and perhaps it
should be retained here.

6. ἐπαισχυνθήσεται] Comp. Mark
Vill. 38 ὃς yap ἂν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με... καὶ
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται
κιτιλ. (Luke ix. 26).

7. πίστι] Here in its passive
sense ‘ ¢rust-worthiness, fidelity, as
e.g. in Rom. iii. 3. See Galatians
Ὁ: 155, and the note on v. 22. For
the idea compare Heb. vi. 10 ov γὰρ
ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου
ὑμῶν κιτιλ. In this mention of Christ’s
fidelity there is probably a reference
to His Aromise, 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
you thus to show your sympathy with

οὐδὲ sec.] GLA; διὸ οὐδὲ σ΄.

7 πίστις]
Χριστός] G3 ὁ χριστός [95].

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. ‘H προσευχὴ] See the note on
Philad. το.

ἀπῆλθεν ἐπὶ] ‘ went forth unto, ‘has
been directed towards, as e.g. Luke
Xxiv. 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
Philad. το.

ὅθεν Sedepevos] 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. PAzl. τ τοὺς ἐνειλημένους τοῖς
ἀγιοπρεπέσι δεσμοῖς said with re-
ference to Ignatius and others, 2. Δ
Vienn. in Euseb. 7. Ε΄. v. τ ra Seopa
κύσμον εὐπρεπῆ. See the note on
Ephes. 11. For the word θεοπρεπής
see the note on A/agn. 1.

10. οὐκ ὧν ἄξιος] See the notes on
Ephes. 2, 21.

Συρία] See the note

318 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [xt

bf] ~ > of ᾽ “~ / A / "4
ἐκεῖθεν εἶναι, ἔσχατος αὐτῶν wy" κατὰ θέλημα κατηξιω-
3 3 / ᾽ Ὁ / ~ «“ Sf ‘
θην, οὐκ ἐκ συνειδότος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ χάριτος Θεοῦ, ἣν εὔχο-
’ “ « Β - σε a a
μαι πελύννν γῶν δοθῆναι, ENED τῇ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν Θεοῦ
> ε ΄σ ’
ἐπιτύχω. ἵνα οὖν τέλειον ὑμῶν γένηται TO ἔργον και
ΜΝ ὦ ~ Ay .9 3 - / 9 ‘ σι:
ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ, πρέπει εἰς τιμήν Θεοῦ χειροτο- 5

αὐτῶν] GLg; ἀνθρώπων (ΔΝ ων)
wv] LAg; ὧν G (connecting it with what

1 elva] GL; vocart A; om. g*.

A (vilior quam omnis homo).
follows).

Dressel adopts this reading, which however yields no tolerable sense.
For similar false aspirates in G see the note on PAzlad. 7.

κατὰ θέλημα]

txt L* (but αρέορε 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 L.; mente A; συνειδήσεως ἐμῆς δ.

1. θέλημα] ‘the Divine will’;
see the note on L£phes. 20. 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 συνειδότος] The participle,
when used for συνείδησις, generally
has the article. For instances of its
omission however see Lzturg. D.
Mare. 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. Ahez.
21 οὗτος συνειδότος φεύγει (het. Grec.
Il. p. 145, Spengel), 26. 30 (p. 152) τὸν
πατέρα κρίνει συνειδότος, ἡ γυνὴ συνει-
δότος φεύγει, Joseph. Azz. i. 1. 4 οὐ
γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀρετῇ τὴν σιωπὴν ἄγεις GAN ἐπὶ
συνειδότι πονηρῷ, Orig. ¢. (οἶδ. vill. 62
μετὰ συνειδότος τοῦ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῶν
ὅλων καθαρῶς εὐσεβοῦς, Euseb. H. 5.
x. ὃ συνειδότι φαύλῳ τοῦτο λογιζό-
μενος, Chrysost. Hom. tn Rom. xiii
(IX. p. 552) τί yap ἀλγεινότερον, εἶπέ
μοι, συνειδότος πονηροῦ :...οὐδὲν οὕτως
ἀνέχει, καὶ μικροῦ πέτεσθαι ποιεῖ, ὡς
συνειδὸς ἀγαθόν. See also προειδὸς in
Dion. Cass, (Epit. Xiph.) lxix. 4
ἐξ οὐ 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, i.e. ‘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 τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν] See the
note on «2265. 20.

Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω] See the note on
LEphes. 1.

4. τέλειον] With a reference to
the preceding τελείαν, as the em-
phatic position of ὑμῶν shows; ‘I
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 καὶ φρονεῖτε.

5. εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ] See the note
on 2265. 21.

6. θεοπρεσβύτην]) ‘an ambassador
of God’; comp. Philad. 10 εἰς τὸ
πρεσβεῦσαι ἐκεῖ Θεοῦ πρεσβείαν eis τὸ
συγχαρῆναι αὐτοῖς ὅτι εἰρηνεύουσιν.
More particular directions are given
about this delegate in the companion
epistle, Polyc. 7, where he is called

x1]

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

319

΄- A ’ / ς ~ , 3 \ ,
νῆσαι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὑμων θεοπρεσ βύτην εἰς τὸ γενο-

«.« / ~ = J > /
μενον ἕως Cuplas συγχαρῆναι αὐτοῖς OTL εἰρηνεύουσιν καὶ

> / Ru of / \ > / > ~ \
ἀπέλαβον To ἴδιον μέγεθος καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη αὐτοῖς TO

af a
ἴδιον σωματεῖον.

ἐφάνη μοι οὖν ἄξιον πρᾶγμα πέμψαι

εὐχαῖς [g] (but it has substituted αἱ προσευχαὶ for ἡ προσευχὴ above, p. 317). Δ

also has a plural, but this is the common Armenian usage.

g: see the note on Kom. 3.
ἔργον τέλειον γένηται g.
ρανῷ] G3 τῆς γῆς... τῷ οὐρανῷ g.
om, A.
lower note.

4 ἵνα] G3 ὅπως

τέλειον ὑμῶν γένηται τὸ ἔργον] GL; ὑμῶν τὸ
καὶ ἐπὶ] GL; ἐπὶ (om. καὶ gA.

5 γῆς... οὐ-
εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ] GL; εἰς θεοὺ τιμὴν σ΄;

6 θεοπρεσβύτην] Gg ; deo venerabilem L ; praecursorem A: see the
7 ἕως Συρίας] GL; ἐν συρίᾳ g; zm syriam A.
τεῖον] G3; σωμάτιον g; corpusculum L; perfectio A.

9 σωμα-

ἄξιον] Gg; deo digna

(ἀξιόθεον, perhaps written ARIOON) L; gratum deo A.

θεοδρόμος (see the note there). 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 κιτ.λ.

εἰς τὸ κιτιλ.] ‘that he may visit
Syria and congratulate them. For
γενέσθαι ἕως, ‘to arrive as far as’,
comp. Rom. 2 εὑρεθῆναι eis δύσιν,
with the note.

ὃ. ἀπέλαβον κ-τ.λ.} ‘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. H. £. x. 5
(an imperial law) ἅτινα πάντα τῷ
σωματίῳ τῶν Xpiotiavar...rapadidoc bat
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 σωμα-
τεῖον 15 aterm of enhancement. The
proper distinction between the two
words is recognised in Chcerobosc.
Orthogr. s.v. (Cramer Anecd. 11.
Ῥ. 262) Σωματεῖον᾽ 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 ὍΛΟΝ. 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 is so
written, σωμάτιον. The word is
mentioned by Pollux side by side
with προσωπεῖον, μορμολυκεῖον. So
Lucian Ὑπό. 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 ols of

320 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [x1

\ ~ ε ῇ , ee) ΄σ « ὃ / 4
TWA τῶν ὑμετέρων μετ᾽ ἐπιστολῆς, ἵνα συνδοξαση THY
\ \ 3 ΄:-: / "7 δ ov, ἠδ
κατὰ Θεὸν αὐτοῖς γενομένην εὐδίαν, καὶ OTL λιμένος HON
9 , ΄- ων | a / » / \
ἐτύγχανον TH προσευχῇ ὑμῶν. τέλειοι ὄντες Tee Kal
nw ie A ~ 3 / 4 «
φρονεῖτε" θέλουσιν γαρ ὑμῖν εὖ πρασσειν Θεὸς ἕτοιμος

? \ -~
Els TO παρασζχειν.

AIT,

- '§ ~ ~ ~~
᾿λσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῶν

ἐν Τρωάδι, ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Βούρρου, ὃν ἀπε-

2 5n] GL; subst. εὐόρμου [g]; om. A.

3 ἐτύγχανον] pervenerunt in A;

ἐτύγχανεν GL; rerixnxag. 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. 534 Rup. 747.

ἡμῖν Rup. (Lequien).
εὖ πράττειν g Max. Rup. Dam.
ἕτοιμός ἐστιν ὁ θεός οἷ.

ὑποκριταὶ διασάττουσιν αὑτούς. (3). Α
corpus, or collection, of writings’,
as e.g. Iren. 1. 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, Boeckh. C. 1. 2826,
2829, 2835. Though these same in-
scriptions elsewhere have εἰ for 4,
they do not so write where the « is
certainly short, as it is in σωμάτιον.
It must be confessed that no stress
can be laid on manuscripts, so far
as regards the distinction between
ec and εἰ, and withsome 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 in the sense
which it has here, this form seems
quite out of place. The word σω-
ματεῖον διὰ τῆς εἰ διφθόγγου is ex-
pressly recognised by a writer in

4 ὑμῖν] GLAg Max. Dam. 314;

εὖ πράσσειν] G (not εὐπράσσειν, as commonly stated) ;

Θεὸς ἕτοιμος] GL Max. Rup. Dam.; καὶ

5 παρασχεῖν] Gg; παρέχειν Max, Rup. Dam.

Cramer Axecd. 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. Polzt. V. 9 (p. 1310).
Otherwise it is rare until a later date.

2. λιμένος] The simile occurs al-
so Polyc. 2.

3. τέλειοι x.7.A.] See Phil. iii, 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.’.

XII... ‘The . brethren. St Troas
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 κιτ.λ.] See the notes
on 7ral/. 3, 13.

7. διὰ Βούρρου] See the note on

ΧΙ] TO THE SMYRNAANS. 323

Ws ~ e/ / ~ ~ ~
στείλατε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἅμα ᾿Εφεσίοις τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὑμῶν"
“ \ / / \ sf / >
OS κατὰ TAaVTa με ἀνέπαυσεν. καὶ ὄφελον πάντες av-

\ 2 “ sf > e a / ᾽ /

TOV ἐμιμοῦντο, ὄντα ἐξεμπλαριον Θεοῦ διακονίας. ἀμεί-
\ / \ / ,

ψεται αὐτὸν ἡ χάρις κατα πάντα. ᾿λσπαζομαι τὸν

/ / \ \ /
ἀξιόθεον ἐπίσκοπον Kat θεοπρεπὲς πρεσβυτέριον, [ Kat |

\ , / \ \ ᾽}
τοὺς συνδούλους μου διακόνους καὶ τοὺς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα καὶ

rant 7 , ΄σ΄ ἴω \ ΄σ΄
κοινῇ πάντας, ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ TH σαρκὲ

6 ἀδελφῶν] GLA; add. ὑμών g.

dium A; βούργου gz see the notes on “Zphes. 2, Philad. τι.
G; fratribus LA; συναδελφοῖς g* (but with a v.1.).

Tov κυρίου g.

7 Βούρρου] durrum L; βύρρου G3; dbyr-
8 ἀδελφοῖς]
11 ἡ χάρις] GLA; add.

112 ἐπίσκοπον] GL; add. vestrum A; add. ὑμῶν πολύκαρπον g.
θεοπρεπὲς] gL[A?]; θεοπρεπέστατον G.
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL; χριστοῦ inoov g3 domini nostri tesu christi A.

καὶ sec.] L[A][g]; om. G. I4

τῇ

σαρκὶ] GLA}; τῆς σαρκὸς g (MSS, but 1 has 222 carne).

Philad. 11, where the same expres-
sion occurs.

ὃ, dua "Edecios κιτ.λ.] ‘jointly
with your brethren the Ephesians’.
The Smyrnzans had joined with the
Ephesians in commissioning Bur-
rhus: see Phzdad. 11. Smith there-
fore is wrong when he explains ἅμα
"Edecios τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, ‘Euplo et
Frontone’, who are stated in Ephes.
2 to have been among the Ephesian
delegates in Ignatius’ company at
Smyrna. Evidently ἅμα ᾿Εφεσίοις is
connected with the subject, not the
object of ἀπεστείλατε, as the parallel
passage, Pizlad. 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 /phes. 2.

9. κατὰ πάντα x.t.A.] For this
phrase see the note on £phes. 2.

ὄφελον] ‘L would’, as 1 Cor. iv. 8,
2 Cor. xi. I, Gal. v. 12 (see the
note), Apoc. 111. 15: see Winer § xli.
p- 377. The word so used is properly
the Ist pers. sing., ‘I ought (sc. to

oo")
IGN.

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, 10.
ὃ ἔσται ἡ χάρις pet αὐτοῦ. For this
absolute use of ἡ χάρις in the N. T.,
see the note Philippians i. 7. Com-
pare in Ignatius the similar uses of
[τὸ] θέλημα (see note on “2165. 20),
τὸ ὄνομα (see the note on Lphes. 3), ἡ
ἐντολή (see note on Zrad/. 13).

12. ἀξιόθεον! See the notes on
Magn, 2, Tralv. inscr.

θεοπρεπὲς} See the note on Magu.
I.

13. συνδούλους] Appropriated by
Ignatius to deacons ; see the note on
Ephes. 2.

τοὺς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘individually’; see
the note on £phes. 4.

14. καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ κιτ.λ.] A farewell
warning against the false doctrine of
the Docetics ; comp. ὅδ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6.7,

ΑΙ

322

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[x11

~ \ ~ / , 4 / ~
αὐτοῦ Kal τῷ αἵματι, πάθει TE καὶ ἀναστάσει σαρκικῇ

\ ΄σ > ε / ΄σ \ _
TE Kl πνευματικῇ; εν EVOTHTL Θεοῦ Kal UMW.

χάρις

en ta » > / € \ \ /
ὑμῖν, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη, ὑπομονὴ διὰ παντος.

2 πνευματικῇ] txt LAg; add. ἐν ὀνόματι G.
ἐν] GL; om. g (but 1 has zm).

ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοὺῦ Χριστοῦ above.

I. σαρκικῇ τε κιτ.λ.}] A_ spiritual
resurrection was not denied by the
Docetics. Hence Ignatius asserts
both ; see [Clem. Rom.] ii. 9, with
the note.

2. ἐν ἑνότητι κιτ.λ.] 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 ἑνότης Θεοῦ
see Philad. 8, Ὁ, 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 «.7.A.] 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 iS 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, Exist. 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 x.t.A.] 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. It is certainly re-
ferred to in Hermas zs. ii. 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-
vovra γρᾷδια χήρας τινάς (i.e. ‘ widows
as they call them’; comp. 26. ὃ 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-
také. 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]

XITTI.

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

323

᾿λσπάζομαι τοὺς οἴκους τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου
μ μ

\ ‘ \ Ζ \ \ /
5 συν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις, καὶ Tas παρθένους Tas Ἀεγο-

transmitted through the Syriac, has no authority on this point.

3 ἔλεος,

εἰρήνη, ὑπομονὴ] Gg; et salus et patientia A; et musericordia et pax et sustinentia L*.
4 ᾿Ασπάζομαι x.r.A.] 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 ν. 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 ii.
58, 111. 15, the widows in iii. I—8;
while in ii. 26 the two are mentioned
apart, and in iii. 7 the widows are
ordered to be submissive to the
deaconesses), and in the latter (sepa-
rate directions are given for the ap-
pointment of the two—for the deacon-
esses in viii. 18 sq., for the widows
in viii. 23—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 Azz.
li. 21. 2 Sq., Vil. 4. 9, by Probst Kzrch-
liche Disciplin p. 143 sq.. and by
Dollinger Christenthum τε. Kirche p.
326, etc. S. Paul however did not

contemplate anything of the kind,
for his directions point to widow-
hood in the strictest sense, 1 Tim. v.
IO μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα,
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 discipline przestare 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

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ XIII

7 έ x / 4 / 7 - 7
μεναᾶς χῆηρᾶς. ἔρρωσθε μοι εν δυνάμει TAT POS. ασ Τα"

ἂν. ἣν \ > δ᾽ A ᾽ / \ >
ζεται ὑμᾶς Φίλων, σὺν ἐμοὶ ὧν. ἀσπάζομαι TOV οἶκον

τ πατρός] LA}; πνεύματος G (contracted ms) g* (MSS, but 1 has dei patris).
_ 3 Taovlas] γαυΐας g: gaviae A: raovias G; ¢haviae 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. Stvom. vii. 12 (p.
875) 6 yap ἐπιθυμήσας καὶ κατασχὼν
ἑαυτοῦ κάθαπερ ἡ χήρα, διὰ σωφρο-
σύνης αὖθις παρθένος..«αὗται δέ
εἰσιν αἱ γνωστικαὶ Ψυχαὶ ἃς ἀπείκασεν
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον [Matt. xxv. I 54.] ταῖς
ἡγιασμέναις παρθένοις ταῖς προσδεχο-
μέναις τὸν Κύριον᾽ παρθένοι μὲν γὰρ ὡς
κακῶν ἀπεσχημέναι k.T.A. (comp. «5.27 0771.
iii. 16, p. 558 ἤδη τινὲς καὶ τῆς παρθέ-
νου 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, quze nullam formee
vel zetatis occasienem preemissis ma-
ritis sanctitati anteponunt ; malunt
enim Deo nubere; Deo speciose,
Deo sunt puelle,) 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 a lavacro, gv@ aut in matrimonio
purificat ex consensu aut 27 vzduitate
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 Apédtres 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 Légale 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. «5.2» 771.
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 Agam.
196 ‘An te morantur virgines viduze
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 is not uncommon,
owing to the contractions ΠΡΟ, TINC,
etc. So 7γαζί. τι φυτεία πατρὸς is
quoted φυτεία τοῦ πνεύματος in [loann.
Damasc.] Par. Rupes. a. Ἰχκχνὶ. (ΟΖ. τι.
Pp. 773); see also the notes on Ephes.

x11]

TO THE SMYRNAANS.

325

aA « ᾽ ε ΄σ 7 ἢ , _
[ aovias, 7ν εὐυχόομαι ἑδράσθαι TlOTEL Και αὙαπη σαρκικῇῃ

\ ~
TE καὶ πνευματικῇ.

ἑδρᾶσθαι] ἐδρᾶσθαι G; ἡδρᾶσθας σ.

/ / \ /
ἀσπάζομαι ΓΑλκην, τὸ ποθητὸν

4 "Αλκην] ἅλκην ἃ, The other authori-

ties, LAg, write it without an aspirate: comp. Polyc. 8.

a oe) 1. Cor xv. '24 F has a.'y, |.

πνι for πατρί. In Iren. V. .5. 1 τῶν
πνευματικῶν, the Latin has ‘ patrum’,
which must have arisen in the same
way ; just as in Hippol. “747. vii. 33
the MSs has πατρικόν where the sense
requires πνευματικόν. Again in Jus-
tin Dial. 30 (p. 247) the common
reading is μετάνοιαν τοῦ πατρός, where
the sense requires πνεύματος. The
critics there refer to Tatian Ovat. 5,
Method. Coxv. p. 93, where the Mss
exhibit a similar confusion. In Euseb.
FI, E-. 1. 13 παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς there is
a ν.]. πνεύματος.

3. Ταουΐα)]) There cannot be
much doubt about the word here.
The names Gavius, Gavia, are fre-
quent in the Latin inscriptions!
see also Jul. Capitol. Anton. Pius 8.
Gavius appears also in a Greek in-
scription, Boeckh C./. 5979. On the
other hand I have not observed any
example of Tavia, and only one or
two of Tavius or Thavius, Muratori
MCCCXCV. I0, Corp. Inscr. Lat. Ul.
6248.

ἑδρᾶσθαι πίστει] Comp. Lpfhes. 10
ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει, with the note. The
form ἑδρᾶσθαι, for ἡδρᾶσθαι, is pos-
sible; see D’Orville on Charito
p. 404.

σαρκικῇ κιτιλ] See the note on.

Ephes. το.

4. ἔΛλκην] She is saluted also in
the companion letter, Polyc. ὃ, and in
the same terms, τὸ ποθητόν μοι ὄνομα.
The name occurs also in the ac-
count of Polycarp’s martyrdom (A.D.
155 or 156) § 17 ὑπέβαλε γοῦν Νικήτην
τὸν tov Ἡρώδου πατέρα ἀδελφὸν δὲ

"Adkns «k.t.A., 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 Christiane, frater eius in-
tercesserat fro Polycarpfo’. 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. 7. 3268)
is at Smyrna, while the other (ὦ 7
7064) is on a gem of uncertain
locality. Jacobson (Polyc. 8) sup-
poses that in τὸ ποθητὸν μοι ὄνομα
there is a play on the word ἀλκή,
‘robur, fortitudinem desiderabat ad
martyrium subeundum’. But this
can hardly be; for Ignatius uses
the same expression of Κρόκος, Rome.
10, where no such play is possible
(see also the note on /phes. 1).

326

IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAANS.

[ΧΠῚ

of \ / 4 / \ »
μοι ὄνομα, καὶ Δάφνον τὸν ἀσύγκριτον καὶ Αὐτεκνον

\ / Sf
Kal παντας κατ᾽ ὄνομα.

1 μοι] σ; mht L; μον G; al. A. See also Polyc. 8, Rom. 10.

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. Δάφνον] This name occurs
from time to time in the inscrip-
tions. In one, Reines. /zscr. Ὁ, 693,
it is found in connexion with ano-
ther name which occurs in this con-
text, Ὁ. M. GAVIAE. QVADRATILLAE
...C . GAVIVS . DAPHNVS. PATER. IN-
FELICISSIMVS. Pearson also refers
to Daphnus the Ephesian physician,
who is an interlocutor in Athenzeus
i Dod,

ἀσύγκριτον] ‘incomparable’: Her-
mas Mand. 7 ἡ πρᾶξίς σου ἀσύγκριτος
ἔσται, Clem. Hom. i. 21, 11. 43, 45, Ul.
40, ΧΙ 12, Gic. Test. £17 Pair. 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 some-
what common epithet in Latin in-

For g see Appx.

scriptions ; and ἀσύγκριτος itself oc-
curs on epitaphs in Jewish cemeteries
at Rome (Garrucci Déssert. Archeol.
Il. pp. 179, 182). In Rom. xvi. 14
it appears as a proper name; but
this is apparently rare.

Evrexvoy| 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. Bz6/.
Graec. V. Ὁ. 601, ed. Harles. Zahn
writes εὔτεκνον and treats it as an
epithet, but this is awkward.

2. κατ᾽ ὄνομα] 3 Joh. 15 ἀσπάζου
τοὺς φίλους κατ᾽ ὄνομα, Polyc. ὃ ἀσπά-
ζομαι πάντας ἐξ ὀνόματος. See also
the note on ἐξ ὀνόματος Ephes. 20,

ἔρρωσθε] See the note on Lphes.
21.

ἜΘ Υ Τὸ

2 te. 4

ἐν Or λιν COA

Ἄν: 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 Smyrmzan 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 Smyrnzans,
so here special salutations are sent to individual persons (¢é.). 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (ἢ 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 (ὃ 8).’

TTPOC TOAYKAPTION.

a / 7 /

IFNATIOC, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, Πολυκάρπῳ ἐπισκό-

3 , / ΄σ 3 / e \

mw ἐκκλησίας Cuvpvaiwy, μάλλον ἐπεσκοπημένῳ ὑπὸ

~~ . ~ ~ ~

Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πλεῖστα χαίρειν.

TTPOC TIOAYKAPTION | σμυρναιοῖς ἀπὸ Tpwddos πρὸς πολύκαρπον lyvdrios (num-

bered β in the marg.) G (the first three words being the subscription to the pre-

vious epistle); efzstola 2a ignacii smyrnets. a troade policarpo L* (where the two
are confused); ad polycarpum episcopum zmyrnae urbis As epistola [domini] ignatit

[epescopi antiochiae] Σ᾿ ; τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς πολύκαρπον ἐπίσκοπον σμύρνης g.

I ὁ καὶ] See Zphes. inscr.
zmyrnae urbis S,;A; zmyrnae =.

Ἄς ἐπεσκοπημένῳ) σ᾽; ἐπισκοπημένῳ G.

ἰησοῦ 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 4H. £. iii. 36 (Cu-
reton °C, 7. ps 261, 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. i. II, il. 8) it
is spelt with S in the Syriac. The
forms Ζμύρνα, Zuvpvaios, are common
in Greek inscriptions ; e. g. Boeckh
ον" 9092, 9903, ΠΟΙ, 9270 ..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 Deéscoveries at
Ephesus Inscr. vi. 20, p. 70). On
the coins too this name is written
indifferently with a Σ or a Z: see
Eckhel Doctr. Num. ἘΠ. Ὁ. 545 sq.
In the earliest coins the Z seems
to be preferred, in the latest the 3,
while about the age of Ignatius
both seem to be used impartially ;
see Mionnet III. p. 302 sq., Suppl.
ὙΠ ΡΣ 190 sg. In Rey. ἃ ἘΠῚ tuo,
it is Zuvpva in δὲ, and Zwyrna in the
Cod, Amiat. Nor is this form very
uncommon in Latin Mss elsewhere
(e.g. 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, 76. p. 88). Lucian

332

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [1

I. ᾿Αποδεχόμενός σον τὴν ἐν Θεῴ γνώμην ἡδρα-

/ « > \ , ae ς /¢
THEVHY WS ETL πέτραν AKLVNTOV, ὑπερδοξαζω κατα-

\ “ / ΄σ / ΣΌΝ /
Ewbels τοῦ προσώπου σου τοῦ ἀμώμονυ, OV ὀναίμην ἐν

1 cou τὴν ἐν Θεῷ γνώμην] G; tuam in deo sententiam L3 τὴν ἐν θεῷ σου γνώμην

o; dub. ZA.

GLg; om. ZA.

() κα. 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 ¢uapaydo., ‘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 ὃ ἐν
ἑνότητι Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπῇ, Magn. 3
τῷ πατρὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ πάντων
ἐπισκόπῳ ; comp. also I Pet. 11. 25.
For this use of the verb, referring to
God’s supervision, comp. Orig. de
Orat. 31 (I. Ῥ- 268) ὑπηρεσίᾳ τοῦ
θείου βουλήματος ἐπισκοποῦντος τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν...οἷ τοιοῦτοι... οὐκ ἐπισκοπη-
θήσονται. There is perhaps the same
play, as here, intended by Polycrates
in Euseb. #. £. v. 24 MeAirova...os
κεῖται ἐν Σάρδεσι περιμένων τὴν ἀπὸ
τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπισκοπήν κιτιλ., and in
Eusebius himself 27. £. 111. 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 S7zyri. 5.

2 ὑπερδοξάζω) GLg; add. deum ZA.
4 ἐν χάριτι] For the addition in L see Appx.

3 τοῦ 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 τὸ πολυαγάπητον ὄνομα,
Trall. τ ἀποδεξάμενος οὖν τὴν κατὰ
Θεὸν εὔνοιαν δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐδόξασα κ-τιλ.

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. Her. xi. 8 (p. 512).
Perhaps however they are better
taken with γνώμην ; comp. Lom. 7
τὴν εἰς Θεόν μου γνώμην, and 7γαϊ 1
(quoted above).

2. ἐπὶ πέτραν] As in the parable,
Matt. vii. 24, 25, Luke vi. 48.

ὑπερδοξάζω] Used absolutely, like
ἐδόξασα in Tvall. τ quoted above
(see the note there). The Syriac
and Armenian versions, followed by
Petermann, supply ‘Deum, from not
appreciating this usage. For ὑπερ-
δοξάζω see Orig. Comm. in Loann.
xiii (OP. IV. p. 235), and comp. ὑπερ-
ευφραίνομαι Barnab. 1, ὑπερευχαριστῶ
Barnab. 5.

1 TO POLYCARP.

333

~ ~ ᾽ ° / - > ~
Θεῷ. παρακαλῶ oe ἐν χαριτι ἡ ἐνδέδυσαι προσθεῖναι
έ
΄σ΄ / \ , a ε
5 τῷ δρόμῳ σου, καὶ πάντας παρακαλεῖν ἵνα σώζωνται.

? / \ 7 / > / ΄σ
ἐκδίκει σον τὸν τόπον ἐν παση ἐπιμελείᾳ σαρκικῆ τε καὶ
{

παρακαλεῖν] GLg; fetas pro omnibus hominibus ( filiis hominum) =; petere pro

filtis hominum A.
GLZAg; om. Antioch,

καταξιωθεὶς κιτ.λ.] ‘Shaving 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 JZart.
Ign. Ant. 3 that Polycarp had been
a fellow-disciple (ovvaxpoarns) of Ig-
natius under S. John. For the fre-
quency of καταξιοῦν in Ignatius see
the note on Lfhes. 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.

ov ὀναίμην ‘and may I have joy of
zit” See the note on . 2265. 2.

4. προσθεῖναι κ-τ.λ.] “ἕο add to thy
race, i.e. ‘to run thy race with in-
creased vigour.” The words are
copied by the pseudo-Ignatius Hero
Ι 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 Spopov 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 Rom. 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 (Ill. p. 531) of
τὸν τύπον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐκδικοῦντες

6 σου τὸν τόπον] GLg (and so Antioch. 197 αὐτοῦ τὸν
τύπον) ; convenientia (decentia) ZA+ see the lower note.

σαρκικῇ τε καὶ]

χρῶνται τῷ ῥητῷ, ὡς ἹΤέτρος, Cornelius
in Euseb. A. £. 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 τόπον] ‘thy place; i.e. ‘thine
office’; comp. Smyrn. 6 τόπος μηδένα
φυσιούτω. See also Acts i. 25 τὸν
τύπον τῆς διακονίας (the correct read-
ing), Clem. Rom. 40 τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν
ἴδιος ὁ τόπος προστέτακται, 7. 44 μή
τις αὐτοὺς μεταστήσῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱδρυμένου
αὐτοῖς τόπου, Polyc. PAz/. 11 ‘ignoret
is Jocum qui datus est ei, Maré.
Vienn. in Euseb. H. £. v. 4 εἰ yap
ἤδειμεν τόπον τινὶ δικαιοσύνην περιποι-
εἶσθαι, ὡς πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας κ.τ.λ.,
Afpost. Const. ii. 2 καθίσταται ἐν τῷ
τόπῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, li. Il γνωρίζων
τὸν τόπον σου καὶ τὴν ἀξίαν, ii. 18
ἀξίως τοῦ τύπου σου ἐν τῷδε τῷ βίῳ
ἀναστρέφου, ll. 35 τῆς ἱερωσύνης τοῦ
τηλικούτου τύπου, Alexander in Euseb.
ΜΠ. E. vi. 11 Νάρκισσος ὁ πρὸ ἐμοῦ
διέπων τὸν τόπον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς τὸν
ἐνθάδε, Orig. Comm. tn Matt. 1. c.
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 £fisv. ili (p. 469 ed. Hartel)
‘immemor sacerdotalis loci tui et

334 THE EPISTLE

OF IGNATIUS [1

Ἢ a ee. τ @ Ne »
πνευματικῆ. τῆς ἑνώσεως φρόντιζε, ἧς οὐδὲν ἄμεινον"
/ “ ς / ς / id >. tS
πάντας βάσταζε, ὡς καί σε ὁ Κύριος: πάντων ἀνέχου

> 3 / </ \ κι
εν AYATN, ὥσπερ και ποιεῖς"

προσευχαῖς σχόλαζε ἀδια--

> a 7 / ΗΒ xf ’
λείπτοις: αἰτοῦ σύνεσιν πλείονα ἧς ἔχεις" Ὑρηγορει

2 ws καῇ GLAg Dam. 514 Antioch.

140, 197; szcut (om. καὶ) Σ. ὁ Κύ-

ptos] GLg Antioch. 140, 197, Dam.; add. 2ογίαξ 2; add. 2ογίαυϊέ A: see a simi-

lar addition of ZA in § 6 ὡς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν.

(om. καὶ) = (see above 1. 2); def. Dam.
Dam. Antioch. 197 (who paraphrases

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 amplorem locum reli-
gionis suze.’ 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. 2. 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
Smith Zhes. Syr. 5. v. eéss\a).
But in uncial characters TONTOTION
might easily be read ΤΟΠΡΕΙ͂ΤΟΝ, the
confusion between N, TT and between
€, 0, being very frequent where the
MS is blurred ; and the plural is ex-
plained by vzbzz.

σαρκικῇ te x«.T.A.]| As we should
say ‘secular as well as_ spiritual.’
For this favourite combination in
Ignatius, see the note on ΖΦ 2265. το.

I. τῆς ἑνώσεως] See the note on
Magn. τ.

οὐδὲν ἄμεινον] Comp. Lphes. 13,
Magn. 7.

2. πάντας βάσταζε] i.e. ‘support

3 ὥσπερ καὶ] GL* Ags; sicut
Antioch. ἀδιαλείπτοι5)] Τρ
προσευχέσθω ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀδιαλείπτως) ;

the burdens of all men’; comp. Rom.
xv. I, Gal. vi. 2. So Epist. ad Diogn.
IO τὸ Tov πλησίον ἀναδέχεται βάρος.
See Apost. Const. i. 1 βαστάζετε οὖν,
οἱ δοῦλοι καὶ viol τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλήλους,
O μὲν ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα K.T.A.

ὡς καί σε ὁ Κύριος κιτ.λ.7] An allu-
sion to Isaiah 111]. 4 as paraphrased
in Matt. vill. 17 αὐτὸς tas ἀσθενείας
ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν.
The influence of the Evangelist’s
paraphrase is clear, when we com-
pare the words used just below,
πάντων Tas νόσους βάσταξε: forthe
LXX rendering is quite different, οὗ-
Tos Tas 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.A. 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
kat ἀπέχου, Aul. Gell. xvii. 19. This
verb generally takes the genitive in
the.N; T.

3. ἀδιαλείπτοις] See Ephes. το ἀδι-
αλείπτως προσεύχεσθε with the note,
where the omission of ἀδιαλείπτοις in
some texts here is discussed.

1] TO POLYCARP.

335

7 a ΄ = Sf
ἀκοίμητον πνεῦμα κεκτημένος: τοῖς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα κατὰ

ς 7 ΄:- / / \
ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ λάλει: πάντων τὰς νόσους βάσταζε,

7 id / / / \
ws τέλειος AOANTHS* ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος.

om. ZA (seemingly, but see the note on Z/fhes. 10).
6 ὁμοήθειαν] g* (but adjutorium 1): consue-

ὄμμα Dam.; def. Antioch.

tudinem LL; voluntatem XA; βοήθειαν G.
ὅπου] txt GLAg (but add. exim 1) Dam.;
πλείων] g*L Antioch. Dam.; πλεῖον G3; multus DA.

ὁ ἀθλητής Dam. (Lequien).
add. yap 2 Antioch.

5 πνεῦμα] GLZAg;

ἀθλητής] Gg Antioch ;

πολὺ] GLg (but preef. 202 etiam 1) Dam.; add. ettam ZA; add. καὶ τὸ Antioch,

5. πνεῦμα] The substitution of
ὄμμα in the quotation of Damascene
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 (Il. p.
219).

τοῖς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα] ‘to each singly’:
see the note on L£fhes. 4 for this
characteristic Ignatian phrase.

κατὰ ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ] ‘22 conformity
with God’ If the balance of au-
thorities had left any doubt about
the reading, it would have been
settled by Magu. 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. to.
For ὁμοήθεια see Clem. Alex. Strom.
vii. 12 (p. 878), Philostr. Vzt. Afol7. 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.
v.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 ws τέλειος
ἀθλητής, With ver. 48 ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς

τέλειοι ὡς O πατὴρ ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ., and
καλοὺς μαθητὰς ἐὰν φιλῇς κιτιλ. with
ver. 47 Sq. ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς
ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε
K-T.A,

6. τὰς νόσους κιτ.λ.] See the note
On ws καί σε κιτ.λ. above.

7. τέλειος ἀθλητής] So Polyb. ii.
20. 9 ἀθληταὶ τέλειοι γεγονότες τῶν
κατὰ πόλεμον ἔργων ; Comp. 20. i. 59.
I2 ἀθλητὰς ἀπετέλεσε. In this ap-
plication of the word ‘athlete’ Igna-
tius had already been anticipated by
Clement of Rome, ὃ 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. AZart.
Polyc. 18, Epist. Vienn. in Euseb.
H. 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 Jancratiast (πάν-
των k.T.A.), in whom all the faculties
were on the alert, and all the muscles
brought into play; so Panetius in
Aul. Gell. xiii. 28. 3 ‘ Vita hominum
qui eztatem 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

id.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11

\ \ 54 ~ / ’ ᾽
Καλοὺς μαθητας ἐὰν φιλῆς, χαρις σοι οὐκ ἐσ-

~ \ / > “Δ ε /
τιν᾽ μάλλον τοὺς AOLMOTEPOUS EV πραὕτητι VTOTAGGE,

1 φιλῇεῖ txt GLg Dam. Antioch (φιλῇ) Anton, 114 (φιλεῖ); add. tantum ZA.

ἔστιν] or ἔστι GLE Ag Antioch. Anton. ; ἔσται Dam.
Anton. ; μᾶλλον δὲ σα; ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον Antioch. ; sed fotius A.

2 μᾶλλον] ΟἿΟΣ Dam.
τοὺς λοιμο-

répous] Gg; deteriores L; malos ZA; τοὺς ἀπειθεστέρους Antioch. Dam, Anton.

tet animo prompto semper atque in-
tento, ut sunt athletarum qui pan-
cratiaste vocantur: nam sicut ill
ad certandum vocati etc.’ For τέ-
λειος Pearson compares Plato Legg.
vii. p. 795 ὁ τελέως παγκράτιον ἠσκη-
kos k.t.A., Galen de San. iii. 2 (VI. p.
168 sq., Kiihn) οὐδ᾽ of πλεῖστα πο-
voovres ἀθληταὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλο τι γυμνάσιον
ἐφεδρεύοντα κόπον ἔχουσι πλὴν τὸ
καλούμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τέλειον, and
again τὸ τελεώτατον ἐκεῖνο γυμνάσιον
ὃ δὴ καὶ κατασκευὴν ὀνομάζουσι.

ὕπου πλείων K.7.A.] ‘ The more pain
the greater gain” So 5. 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 (1. p. 706) αὐτὸ τὸ καμεῖν πλέον,
πλείων μισθὸς κιτιλ. The word κόπος
is used especially of the athlete’s
training: comp. e.g. Galen 1. c., and
see the note on συγκοπιᾶτε § 6.

Il. ‘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

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 x.t.A.] Luke vi. 32 εἰ
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία
ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν ; κιτιλ. (see the note
on § I κατὰ ὁμοήθειαν Θεοῦ), I Pet. 11.
18 οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς" τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις
κιτιλ. See also [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 13
οὐ 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. c. 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;
e.g. I Sam. 1. 16 θυγατέρα λοιμήν,
Barnab. 10 ὄντα λοιμὰ τῇ πονηρίᾳ av-
τῶν. This usage is most common in
the Lxx ; comp. also Acts xxiv. 5.
But I have not found an earlier in-
stance of the comparative. Zahn
refers to Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 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).

πραὔτητι)])͵ Probably the correct

11] wo. FTOLYCARP.

337

~ 5 ΄σ > mans /
οὐ πᾶν τραυμὰ TH αὐτὴ εμπλαστρῳ θεραπεύεται" τοὺς

παροξυσμοὺς ἐμβροχαῖς παῦε.

πραὔτητι] g (but with av. 1.) Anton. ; πραότητι G Antioch. Dam.
οξυσμοὺς] GLg Antioch. Dam. Anton. ; a@bscisstonent X ; abscissam A.

φρόνιμος γίνου ὧς

3 τοὺς παρ-
4 ἐμ-

βροχαῖς] g* (but with ν. 1.) Dam. Anton.; ἐν βροχαῖς GL Antioch.; (in) lenitate

2; Jenitate A.

form here. See the note on Ga/a-
Lians V. 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. Fragm.
p. 1020 (Potter) ev 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 emp/lastrum,
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. v. 19,
Galen de Comp. Med. per Gen. 1.
4 sq. (XIII. p. 375 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 zeris
alieni,’ quoted by Gellius 1. c., and
by the remarks of Gellius himself
on it. With the expression here
comp, Apost. Const. il. 41 ὡς συμπα-
Ons ἰατρὸς τοὺς ἡμαρτηκότας πάντας
θεράπευς...μὴ μύνον τέμνων... ἀλλὰ

IGN,

kal...kataBpéxa@v λόγοις παρακλητι-
κοῖς" ἐὰν δὲ κοῖλον ἦ τὸ τραῦμα,
θρέψον αὐτὸ δι᾽ ἐμπλάστρων κοΟτιλ.,
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.r.A.
Zahn quotes Orig. Hom. in Fes. Nave
vii. ὃ 6 (IL. p. 414) ‘si oleo perunxi-
mus, si emplastris mitigavimus, si
malagmate mollivimus, nec tamen
cedit tumoris duritia, solum superest
remedium desecandi.’ See also Epict.
11, 21. 20 Sq. τὰ yap κολλύρια οὐκ
ἄχρηστα τοῖς ὅτε 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 [μάλισταϑ!]
ἀκούομεν ὅτι Οὐ πᾶν τραῦμα TH αὐτῃ
ἐμπλάστρῳ θεραπεύεται.

4. παροξυσμούς) ‘sharp pains or
inflammations’; a medical term with
a much wider meaning than the
derived English ‘paroxysm.’ [15
Latin equivalent is ‘ accessio.’

euBpoxais] ‘emdrocations’ or $ fo-
mentations,’ Galen Of. XIV. pp. 314,
316; comp. Plut. 2,707. p. 42C οὐδὲ
ζητεῖν μυρίζεσθαι, δεόμενον ἐμβροχῆς
καὶ καταπλάσματος. For parallels to
the metaphor see also Plut. J/or. p.
74 Ὁ οὔτε γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τέμνοντες ἐν τῷ
πονεῖν καὶ ἀλγεῖν καταλείπουσι τὸ πε-
πονθὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐνέβρεξαν προσηνῶς κ.τ.λ.,
A post. Const. ii. 41 (quoted above) κα-

ταβρέχων λόγοις παρακλητικοῖς : Comp.

Galen Of. ΧΙ. p. 210 παρηγο-

“5
~~

338 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [11

ε ” ᾽ = ‘ > ͵ > \ ε e
0 Odic EV WaAGW KAI AKEPAIOC ELOMEL WC H TEPI-

͵ \ Ψ΄- \ a \ / e/ \
CTEPa. διὰ TOUTO OAPKLKOS εἰ Kal σνευματίικος, νὰ TA

/ , > / é \ \ "7
φαινομενὰα σοὺ εἰς πρόσωπον κολακευήῆς" Ta δὲ αορατα

1 ὁ ὄφι5] g* (but with a v. 1. ὄφι9), and so prob. Antioch. who substitutes the plur.
ol ὄφεις ; ὄφις (om. ὁ) ἃ. Zahn (Λ v. A. p. §97) is not altogether correct about
the authorities. The clauses are balanced, ὁ ὄφις against ἡ περιστερά. πά-
ow] or πᾶσι g Antioch.; ἅπασιν G. εἰσαεὶ] g (but om. 1, which like-
wise omits ἐν πᾶσιν in the first clause); ad ea guae requiruntur (els ἃ δεῖ) 2;
zs quae digna (or gui dignt) 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 αἱ περιστεραί : ὡσεὶ vulg. 3 σοὺ els πρόσωπον] ἃ;
in ἐμαη faciem L; coram facie tua ZA; σοι εἰς πρόσωπον g Dam. 514. In Antioch.
it stands αὐτῶν els πρόσωπον, where αὐτῶν corresponds to gov, but as the context
is in the 3rd person s¢wgudar we should prob. read αὐτῷ corresponding to σοι.
KoAakevys] GLE Dam.; κολακεύῃ Antioch. (transferred to the 3rd pers.) ; /ucreris A;
ἐπανορθώσῃς δ΄. 4 αἴτει] G Dam., and this was prob. the reading of
g*, though the existing authorities vary ; ete ZA; pefas L, Antioch. has αἰτῇ,

plas μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν δεῖται ἣ Bias ἐν correct reading) By ‘the things

τοῖς παροξυσμοῖς κιτιλ. (comp. 20. p.
182 sq.).

φρόνιμος x.7.A.] A reference to the
saying in Matt. x. 16 γίνεσθε οὖν φρό-
νιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις καὶ ἀκέραιοι ws ai
περιστεραί. Ignatius has substituted
the singular, and inserted ἐν πᾶσιν
and εἰσαεὶ in the respective clauses.

2. διὰ τοῦτο κιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘You are
composed of two elements ; of flesh,
that you may be able te 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
wa comp. Magn. 9.

3. σοὺ] This seems to be the
right reading; and if so, it should
probably be taken with eis πρόσωπον.
This position of the pronoun, even
when there is no special emphasis,
. is common in Hellenistic Greek (e.g.
Matt. vi. 17, ix. 6, xvi. 18, etc.), and
occurs, as here, even with an inter-
posing preposition, e.g. Luke vii. 44
εἰσῆλθόν σου εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, Joh. ix. 15
ἐπέθηκέν μου ἐπὶ i Bia ie (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, Rom.
4 κολακεύσατε τὰ θηρία, 20. 5 ἃ καὶ Ko-
λακεύσω, and (as I have restored the
Greek) 26. 6 μηδὲ ὕλῃ κολακεύσητε.
The word is used here in a good
sense, as in Clem. Hom. xii. 25 ὑπ᾽
ἐλέου κολακευθεῖσα ἐπέπειστο εὐεργέτις
γενέσθαι κ-ιτιλ., ΧΙ]. 16 ἡ σώφρων τὸν
ἄνδρα ἐνδιαθέτως φιλεῖ.. κολακεύει, ἀ-
ρέσκει (comp. Afpost. Const. i. 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

ST. MICHAEL'S
OOLLEGE

1] TO POLYCARP. 339

sf e ~ e/ \ / \ ‘
αἴτει ἵνα σοι φανερωθῆ" ἵνα μηδενὸς λείπη, καὶ παντὸς
έ
7 / Ἁ ~ ‘
5 χαρίσματος περισσεύης. ὁ καιρὸς ἀπαιτεῖ σε, ὡς κυβερ-
΄σ 7 \ / ᾽ὔ \ ~
νῆται ἀνέμους καὶ WS χειμαζόμενος λιμένα, εἰς TO Θεοῦ

which corresponds to αἰτῇς, when transferred from the third person to the second.
See the lower note. φανερωθῇ] G Dam.; φανερωθείη g; dub. Antioch.

ἵνα sec.] g Antioch. Dam.; ὅπως ἃ, The change seems to have been made to
avoid the repetition of wa; comp. the note on Rom. 3. μηδενὸς] GLEA
Antioch. Dam.; μηδέν σοι g. 5 ὁ καιρὸς ἀπαιτεῖ ce] GL, and so
Antioch. (transferred to the 3rd pers. ; see the next note) ; add. εὔχεσθαι g 3 tem-
pus poscit (or posce) &* ; pete tu tibi in tempore A. ws κυβερνῆται ἀνέμους]
GL; sicut sapiens gubernator ventum A; ut gubernator navem X. The sentence
is paraphrased in g*, ὥσπερ yap κυβερνήτῃ ἄνεμος συμβάλλεται καὶ ὡς νηΐ χειμαΐο-
μένῃ 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 yap
ἀπαιτεῖ αὐτόν, ws κυβερνήτην πρὸς τοὺς ἀνέμους καὶ Tas τρικυμίας Kal (das τῶν πνευ-
μάτων τῆς πορνείας στῆναι γενναίως καὶ ὁδηγεῖν τοὺς χειμαζομένους ἐπὶ τὸν λιμένα
τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ θεοῦ. See the lower note.

read, as the evidence suggests. The
form of the sentence is suddenly
changed. Otherwise we should ex-
pect ra δὲ ἀόρατα αἰτοῦντί σοι φανερω-
θῇ, or words to that effect. For this
sudden transition to an imperative
in the antithetical clause comp.
Magn. τὶ πεπληροφόρησθε, Trall. 2
ὑποτάσσεσθε, Smyrn. 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.

gavepw6n| The other reading φα-
νερωθείη would perhaps seem more
apt here, as expressing greater diffi-
dence; but in the N. T. at all events
final particles like ἵνα are never found
with the optative ; comp. Winer § xli.
p. 360.

μηδενὸς λείπῃ κιτ.λ.] James i. 4 sq.
ev μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι" εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν
λείπεται σοφίας, αἰτείτω x.7.A., I Cor.
i. 7 ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ
χαρίσματι.

5. ὁ καιρὸς κιτιλ.] Hippol. de
Antichr. καὶ (p. 4 Lagarde) ἐπειδὴ και-
pos λοιπὸν ἀπαιτεῖ κιτιλ., where La-

garde refers to Herodian i. I. 5
μερισθεῖσα ἐς πλείους δυναστείας ἢ ὁ
χρόνος ἀπήτει. Cureton here quotes
Period. Joann. in Birch’s “ποία.
Cod. Apocr. p. 265 καὶ yap ὁ καιρὸς
ἀπαιτεῖ Tov ταῦτα γενέσθαι.

ὡς κυβερνῆται x.t.A.] There was
perhaps some early corruption in
the text here. The Syriac wt gu-
bernator navem hardly makes sense,
for we should naturally expect σε
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 ὡς 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

oOo” 9
-.» τ

340

επιτύχϑειν.

\ . \ 2. 7 ἥν. \ \ /
καὶ ζωή αἰώνιος, περὶ ἧς καὶ σὺ πεπεισαι.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS ΠῚ

νῆφε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἀθλητής" τὸ θέμα ἀφθαρσία

\ ,
KATA σαντα

’ / ς \ \ \ / A i$
σου ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ καὶ Ta δεσμά μου a ἠγάπησας.

1 τὸ θέμα] GL; οὗ θέλημα g3 guicguid promissum est nobis Σ ; qguoniam guod-

cungue promisit nobis A. The paraphrase of ZA points to θέμα.

ἀφθαρσία

καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος] Gg; incorruptio vita aeterna (om. καὶ) L3; vila quae tm acternum

sine corruptione X;

GL*g; aliguid 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 (67,2.
Flom. 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 k.t.A., where the
writer dwells chiefly on the Jersonsel
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 6 κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ
ἡ ἐκκλησία ὡς ναῦς ἐν πελάγει χειμάζε-
ται μὲν GAN οὐκ ἀπόλλυται, ἔχει γὰρ μεθ᾽
ἑαυτῆς τὸν ἔμπειρον κυβερνήτην Χριστὸν
κιτιλ., Where this father dwells espe-
cially on the furniture 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; Ped. iii.
II (p. 289) vats οὐριοδρομοῦσα (for so
it should be read). On the use of

vita saeculorum quae non transit A.

is) Gens ΡΤ

4 ἀξιόπιστοι)

5 στῆθι] Gg; στῆκε Rup. 788 Anton, 152; al.

this particular symbol as an orna-
ment, see Smith and Cheetham’s
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,
In the AZost.
Const. ii. 57 we have probably the
earliest instance of the application
of this metaphor to the material
building, ὅταν συναθροίζης τὴν τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν, ὡς ἂν κυβερνήτης νηὸς
μεγάλης...καὶ 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. 18 (Bergk), a pas-
sage which has been imitated in the
familiar ode of Horace Carm. 1. 14.
In Plato Res. vi. p. 488 it appears at
some length (comp. “οί. 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 l. c.

I. νῆφε] ‘be temperate? as an
athlete training for the contest :
comp. I Cor. ix. 25 mas δὲ ὁ dyau-
ζόμενος πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται" ἐκεῖνοι μὲν
οὖν ἵνα φθαρτὸν στέφανον λάβωσιν
κιαλ. Comp. Tertull. ad Mart. 3
‘athlete...continentur a luxuria, a
cibis lztioribus, a potu jocundiore
δὲς.» Epict. Dzss. iii. 15. 2 sq. (comp.

11]

IIT.

~ / 7
5 σκαλουντες μή σε καταπλησσετωσαν.

Antioch. 151.

TO POLYCARP.

341

Οἱ δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροδιδα-

στῆθι ἑδραῖος,

Add. δὲ gS,2A; txt GL [Rup.] [Anton.]; al. [Antioch.].

ἑδραῖος] GLg, and so Antioch, (substituting édpatoc to conform to other changes
which he has made); zz veritate S,ZA (which doubtless represents ἑδραῖος) ; om.

Rup. Anton.

Ench, 29) θέλω ᾿Ολύμπια νικῆσαι...
δεῖ σε εὐτακτεῖν, ἀναγκοφαγεῖν, ἀπέ-
χεσθαι πεμμάτων...μὴ ψυχρὸν πίνειν,
μὴ οἶνον, or’ ἔτυχεν κιτιλ., Plut. Zor.
59 Ε ὥσπερ ἀθλητὴν ἀλείπτης ἐῶν
μεθύειν καὶ ἀκολασταίνειν, Horace Ars
Poet. 412 sq. This is probably the
idea also in the parallel passage,
2 Tim. iv. 5 σὺ δὲ νῆφε ἐν πᾶσιν, κα-
κοπάθησον, as the direct reference to
the ἀγὼν and δρόμος in ver. 7 seems
‘to show. |

τὸ θέμα] ‘the prize’; see e.g.
Boeckh C. J. 2758, 2759, 2954, 3082,
3493 (at Aphrodisias, Ephesus, Troas,
and Thyatira), and esp. Orac. 7d. 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 ore-
φανῖται or apyvpira (Athen. xiii. p.
584 C) ; for which latter word θεμα-
τικοὶ Or θεματῖται WaS a synonyme
(Pollux iii. 153). Two Smyrnzan
inscriptions make mention of θεμα-
τικοὶ ἀγῶνες, Boeckh C. 7, 3208, 3209.

3. ἀντίψυχον κιτ.λ.} “7 am thy
devoted friend, [ and my bonds which
etc”; comp. Smyrn. 10. For apri-
ψυχον see the note on Zphes. 21.

ἠγάπησας] ‘didst welcome, caress,
Sondle’; see Smyrn. 9 ἀπόντα pe καὶ
παρύντα ἠγαπήσατε. The word seems
originally to have referred to the
outward demonstrations of affection.
In Hom. Od. xxiii. 214 it is used of
welcoming a new comer: in Eurip.
1761. 937 πρόσω σφ᾽ ἀπόντα δακρίοις

dv 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 dyara(w. The application of the
term to the zzward 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 (/. 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 U%. ii.
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. © καταξιοπιστευόμενοι (with the
note). For the bad sense of ἀξιό-
motos see the note on PAz/ad. 2.

ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες] Comp. 1 Tim.
1. 3, Vi. 3. SO ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος, He-
gesipp. [?] in Euseb. 4. £. iii. 32.
See the notes on κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες
[Clem. Rom.] ii, 10, and on ἑτεροδοξία
Magn. 8.

5. στῆθι ἑδραῖος κιτ.λ. 1 Cor.

ee a a\ ὦ . δι ,
Vil. 37 ὃς δὲ ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ

342

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[111

€ st ’ 7 ᾽ \ 0 ΄σ΄ \ δέ

ὡς ἄκμων τυπτόμενος. μεγάλου ἐστὶν ἀθλητοῦ [το] δε-
\ ~ / A. “ef ~ / ς

ρεσθαι καὶ νικᾶν. μάλιστα δὲ ἕνεκεν Θεοῦ πάντα ὑπο-

/ € “ “- « \ ᾽ \ ε ΄σ ς /
μένειν nas δεῖ; ιἰ(ν᾿ὰ Καὶ AUTOS ημας υπομεινῇ.

σλεον

1 ἄκμων] GLg Antioch. Rup. Anton.; wir fortis (0) S,A; athletes

non) >.
add, exim S,2A.
Rup. Anton.

μεγάλου] GLg (but add. evim 1) Antioch. Rup. Anton. ;
ἐστὶν ἀθλητοῦ] Gg; ἀθλητοῦ ἐστιν (or ἐστι) Antioch.
τὸ] G; om. g Antioch. Rup. Anton,

2 δὲ]

GLg Antioch. Rup. Anton.; om. ZA (Petermann’s transl, is misleading).

ἑδραῖος. Comp. Lphes. 10 πρὸς τὴν
πλάνην αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει,
of these same false teachers.

I. ὡς ἄκμων κ.τ.λ.] fas an anvil
struck with the hammer’; comp.
Job xli. 15 ἕστηκε δὲ ὥσπερ ἄκμων
ἀνήλατος. This passage of Ignatius
is plainly in the mind of Ephraem
Syrus Pavren. de Pat. (Op. Gree.
Il. p. 367) γενώμεθα ὡς Akpoves
τυπτόμενοι Kal μὴ evdidovres...O€ po-
μενοι νικήσωμεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον διὰ
τῆς ὑπομονῆς" καὶ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν
πάντα ὑπήνεγκε διὰ τὴν ἡμῶν
σωτηρίαν. For the image comp.
fEsch. Pers. 51 λόγχης akpoves (quoted
by Jacobson), Aristophon 1 (2 7477.
Com. Ill. p. 357, Meineke) Kaza-
νεύς, ὑπομένειν πληγὰς ἄκμων, Callim.
flymn. Dian. 146 τοῖος γὰρ ἀεὶ Τι-
ρύνθιος ἄκμων ἕστηκε πρὸ πυλέων,
Shakespeare Corio/. iv. 5 ‘Here I
clip the anvil of my sword,’

δέρεσθαι x.t-r.] ‘to be bruised
and conquer’; comp. Epict. ili. 10,
7 οἷον εἴ τις πληγὰς λαβὼν ἀποσ-
Tain τοῦ παγκρατιάζειν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν
ἔξεστι καταλῦσαι καὶ μὴ δαίρεσθαι
(ν.1. δέρεσθαι), ἔνθαδε δ᾽ κιτιλ. 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 Fragm. Com.
III. 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...ceedi se vexarique
patiuntur... marcet sine adversario
virtus: tunc apparet quanta sit
quantumque polleat, cum quid pos-
sit patientia ostendit,’ de Jra ii. 14
‘Athletae quoque...ictus doloresque
patiuntur, ut vires cazedentis exhau-
riant etc.,’ Lfzst. 13 ‘Non potest
athleta magnos spiritus ad certamen
adferre, qui numquam suggillatus
est: ille 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,’ . 22:2. 78,
‘Athlete quantum plagarum ore,
quantum toto corpore excipiunt...
nos quoque evincamus omnia...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. 1. p. 1161, Migne), where Epi-
phanius writes to Chrysostom ἀθλητὰ
ἸΙωάννη, παίου καὶ νίκα.

2. πάντα ὑπομένειν] For this phrase
see the note on .5722772. 4; and for
the turn of expression in this sen-
tence, the note on Smzyri. 5 μᾶλλον
δὲ x.T.A.

4. τοὺς καιροὺς x.t.A.] See esp.
Matt. xvi. 3 τὰ σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν οὐ

σι

11)

΄- , ee
σπουδαῖος γίνουν οὗ εἶ.

TO POLYCARP.

343

\ \ / \
TOUS καιρους καταμανθαγε: τον

\ 4 \ >/
ὑπὲρ καιρὸν προσδόκα, τον αχρονον, τον ἀόρατον, τὸν

΄ ς / \ ~ 4
Ov ἡμᾶς ὁρατόν, Tov ἀψηλάφητον, Tov ἀπαθῆ, τὸν δι᾽

ἕνεκεν Θεοῦ] Gg Rup. Anton.; θεοῦ ἕνεκεν Antioch.
GLg; ἡμᾶς ὑπομένειν Rup. Απίοη,; al. Antioch.
καιρὸν G3; vmépxpovov Antioch.; al. g.

ὑπομένειν Tuas]
5 ὑπὲρ καιρὸν] ὑπερ-
6 ἀψηλάφητον) GLEA Sev-

Syr. 213: add. δι’ ἡμᾶς δὲ Ψψηλαφηθέντα [Antioch.]; add. δι᾽ ἡμᾶς δὲ ἁπτὸν καὶ
ψηλαφητὸν ἐν σώματι [g]; see the lower note.

δύνασθε [διακρίνειν] : comp. Luke
xii. 56. The suspicion of Mill on
Rom. xii. 11, that Ignatius had the
reading 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 ὃ \vii. 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. Ρ. 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. 2707. p. 393 ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς...
καί ἐστι Kar’ οὐδένα χρόνον ἀλλὰ κατὰ
τὸν αἰῶνα τὸν ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄχρονον:
comp. Greg. Naz. £Aisé, 1o1 (11. p.
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, Ὁ. 829. Oc-
casionally it has the opposite mean-
ing ‘instantaneous,’ and so ‘brief,

‘short-lived,’ e.g. Plut. 7707. p. 908
δυστυχεῖς Kal ἀχρόνους (comp. Clem.
Alex. Strom. viii. 9, p. 931). The
corresponding adverb dypoves too
has both meanings; (1) ‘ eternally,’
e.g. Hippol. Her. viii. 12, Julian.
Orat. iv. p. 156 Spanheim ; (2) ‘in-
stantaneously,’ e.g. Philo de Sacr.
Ad. e¢ Ca. 13 (I. p. 172).

τὸν ἀόρατον k.t.A.| See Melito
Fragut. 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 etc.,’ Greg. Naz.
Orat. xxxvill (I. p. 664) ὁ ἀόρατος
ὁρᾶται, ὁ ἀναφὴς ψηλαφᾶται, ὁ ἄχρονος
ἄρχεται, Lpist, ci (11. p. 85) παθητὸν
σαρκί, ἀπαθῆ θεότητι, περιγραπτὸν
σώματι, ἀπερίγραπτον πνεύματι, τὸν
αὐτὸν ἐπίγειον καὶ οὐράνιον, ὁρώμενον
καὶ νοούμενον, χωρητὸν καὶ ἀχώρητον,
κιτλι See also the Christological
passage, /pfhes. 7.

6. ἀψηλάφητον] The preponder-
ance of authority forbids the inser-

344 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [111

ἡμᾶς παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ὑπο-
μείναντα.

IV. Χῆραι μὴ ἀμελείσθωσαν: μετὰ τὸν Κύριον σὺ
αὐτῶν φροντιστὴς ἔσο. μηδὲν ἄνευ γνώμης σου γι-
νέσθω, μηδὲ σὺ ἄνευ Θεοῦ γνώμης͵ τι πρᾶσσε' ὕπερ 5

I κατὰ πάντα τρόπον] GLg Sev-Syr.; πάντα [Antioch]; omnia omnimodo ZA
(thus inserting another πάντα). 3 Χηραι! G; αἱ χῆραι δ. μετὰ]

ΟἹ; propter Σ; def. A; see the lower note.

Op. vi. 41053 τῆς γνώμης g.

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
τὸν ἄχρονον stood alone before a
similar antithesis τὸν ddparov...opa-
τόν.

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. Xfpa| On the care taken of
widows in the early Church see the
note on Swyrzu. 6. .

μετὰ τὸν Κύριον] ‘after the Lord,
who is before all ‘the Father of the
fatherless and Judge of the widows,’
Ps. Ixviii, 5 (comp. cxlvi. 9). The

Syriac translator in writing N=

‘metul’ for μετὰ 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 Anad. Syr. p. 150
IG; py t7 ak ee:

4 γνώμης] G Chrysost.

5 Θεοῦ γνώμης] σ 3 yrwuns θεοῦ Chrysost. ;
θεοῦ γνώμης or γνώμης θεοῦ TA; θεοῦ (om. yreyys) GL.

πρᾶσσε] Gg ;

4. φροντιστής)] ‘guardian, pro-
tector, trustee, a semi-official term :
comp. Diod. Sic. Exc. xxxvi ad fin.
(11. 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 εἰς Ῥώμην
καταλείψας δωδεκαετῆ (Clement is here
speaking of his father). It corre-
sponds to the Latin ‘curator’; e.g.
φρόντισμα = ‘curatio,’ Conc. Chale.
Can. 2 (Labb. Cone. 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. 1. 3612 φροντιστὴν Δρούσου Kai-
gapos, where the officer intended
was probably ‘ curator’ (or ‘ procura-
tor’) ‘fisci’ to this prince.

μηδὲν x.r.A.| 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. JZagz. 7 with
the note.

6. εὐστάθει] ‘be firm.” The word
occurs two or three times in the
LXxX; alSo in Hermas Mand. v. 2,
Stm. vi. 2, vil, Clem. Hom. Ep.
Clem. 15 εὐσταθείτωσαν οὖν οἱ ἐπι-

ιν} TO POLYCARP.

AN lA > 7
οὐδὲ πράσσεις. εὐσταθει.

νέσθωσαν.

? oP ony a / /
ἐξ ὀνόματος πάντας ἅπτει.

345
/
πυκνότερον συναγωγαὶ γι-

ςς /
δούλους καὶ

/ ἥτε ἢ / > \ S \ 3 \
δούλας μὴ ὑπὲρηφανει" ἀλλα pyoe αὑτοι φυσιούσθωσαν,

᾽ > y ~ / / ε
ἀλλ᾽ εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πλέον δουλευέτωσαν, ἵνα κρείτ-

πρᾶττε Chrysost.
εὐσταθής G3 εὐσταθές (apparently) L*.

6 πράσσει: G3 πράττεις g.

εὐστάθει)] gDA;

8 ὑπερηφάνει] ὑπεριφάνει ἃ. φυσι-

ούσθωσαν] 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.
Θεοῦ] Gg Anton.; τοῦ θεοῦ Rup.
πλείονα g* Nicon (see Cotelier).

βάται ἑδραῖοι. The substantive ev-
στάθεια occurs Clem. Rom. 61, 65
(59). It is naturally a favourite
Stoic word; e.g. in M. Aurel. v. 18
ἐπιδεικνύμενος μεγαλοφροσύνην εὐστα-
θεῖ, Vi. 10 σέβω καὶ εὐσταθῶ, and in
Epictetus frequently, e.g. ill. 9. 17
Tivos οὖν ἔχῳ χρείαν ;...ToU 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. Cyci.
ii. 90, Schol. Venet. on Hom. 72. 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 «.t.A.] See for this in-
junction the note on £phes. 13, where
the meaning of πυκνότερον is dis-

cussed. See also Magn. 4 with the »

note.
avvaywyai| ‘ 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 WV. 7. Syn. § 1, p. 1 sq.

9 ἀλλ] GLg Rup. 778 Anton. 98; ἀλλ᾽ ws DA.

πλέον] ἃ Anton.; τὸ πλεῖον Rup. ;

See also Zest. xiz Patr. Benj. 11
ἐν 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 τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑ-
αυτῶν «.T.A.; comp. Hermas Mand.
xi ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃ ἔχων τὸ
πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν
δικαίων (and several times in the
context), Theoph. ad Auztol. il. 14
δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ κόσμῳ κυμαινομένῳ
...TaS συναγωγάς, λεγομένας δὲ ἐκκλη-
σίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς καθάπερ λιμέσιν κιτ.λ.

7. ἐξ ὀνόματος] Like the Athe-
nian general at Syracuse, Thuc. vii.
69 ἕνα ἕκαστον ἀνεκάλει πατρόθεν τε
ἐπονομάζων καὶ αὐτοὺς ὀνομαστὶ κ.τιλ.
See the note on ἐξ ὀνόματος, Ephes.
20.

9. πλέον δουλευέτωσαν) A remi-
niscence of 1 Tim. vi. 2 μὴ καταφρονεί-
τωσαν ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον
δουλευέτωσαν: see also 1 Cor. vil. 21
εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι,
μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, according to one,
though not the most probable, in-
terpretation (see Lféstles to Colos-
sians etc. Ὁ. 324 sq.) See also
Ephes. vi. 6 sq., Col. iii. 22 sq.

κρείττονος ἐλευθερίας] τ Cor. vii. 22
ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν.

346

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [Iv

aN 6 , ἐλ ΔᾺ A ’ i. oe ee |
TOVOS EAEU Eplas am7vrO Θεοῦ τυχῶώσιν" μῆ ερατωσαν avo

τοῦ κοινοῦ ἐλευθεροῦσθαι, ἵνα μὴ δοῦλοι εὑρεθῶσιν ἐπι-

θυμίας.

1 ἀπὸ Θεοῦ τύχωσιν] GL Anton. ; ὑπὸ θεοῦ τύχωσιν Rup.; τύχωσιν ἀπὸ θεοῦ g ;

τύχωσι παρὰ τοῦ θεοὺ Nicon.

Gg* Δπίοη. ; κοινοῦ Rup.

I. ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ) ‘from the
common fund, the public money.
See Afost. Const. iv. 9, where it 15
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 ro
κοινὸν see e.g. Herod. vii. 144,
Thucyd. vi. 6, Polyb. x. 17. 2, Orig.
Comm. in Matt. xv (111. p. 674); and
even without the article, so that
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ is ‘from the common
stock,’ Xen. Anad. iv. 7. 27, V. 1. 12,
Arist. Pol. ii. 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 7. v. A.
p. 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

épdrwoav] Gg* Rup. Anton. ; desiderent L ;
ament ZA. For the v. 1. aipérwoay in g see the Appx.

2 τοῦ κοινοῦ)

5 ποιοῦ] ΟἸΣΑρΡ, For the reading μὴ ποιοῦ

their union. Let all things be done
for the honour of God.’

4. Τὰς xaxorexvias| The meaning
here is not obvious in itself, but is
shown bythe parallel passage, Phz/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. 8 (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.
3sq.), Theodt. H./. i. I τῆς τούτου
[rod διαβόλου] κακοτεχνίας ὑπουργὸς
ἀνεφάνη (speaking of Simon Magus).
So too κακοτέχνως, Hippol. Her. 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. V7t. 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-
paxeia), 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
Handlex. des Rom. Rechts s.v. But

vy] TO POLYCARP.

347

V. Tas κακοτεχνίας φεῦγε, μᾶλλον δὲ περὲ τού-

« / ~~
των ομιλιαν ποιοῦ.

ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς μου προσλάλει

3 ~ \ / \ ~ , > ~ \
ἀγαπᾶν tov Κύριον καὶ τοῖς συμβίοις ἀρκεῖσθαι σαρκὲ

in some texts of g see Appx.

The reading of 2 is a corruption

6 τὸν Κύριον] GLAg ; i domino nostro =.
an, eed for ¢ ial, as A shows ; the cor-

ruption 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. /.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 (ἢ νυ. A.
Ρ. 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 κιτιλ. 7 This qualifies the
previous prohibition, ‘Shun them
indeed, but do not forget to warn
your hearers against them’; where
τούτων refers to the foregoing kako-
texvias, and not (as it is taken by
Pearson and some others) to what
follows. For μᾶλλον δὲ comp. 1 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 Irenzus,
lll. 3. 4 πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων
αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
τοῦ Θεοῦ, μίαν καὶ μόνην ταύτην ἀλή-
θειαν κηρύξας ὑπὰ [ἀπὸ ἢ] 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
TOV γραφῶν τῶν προφητικῶν ὁμιλίας
ποιούμενον, 2b, 28 (p. 245) ἀπό τε
τῶν γραφῶν καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων τάς τε
ἀποδείξεις καὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας ποιοῦμαι.
For this use οὗ ὁμιλία, “ἃ conver-
sation,’ ‘discourse,’ and so even
a ‘sermon,’ ‘homily,’ comp. also
Justin Dzal. 68 (p. 294), Clem. Hom.
Ep,.. Clem..: 24) i4y, 18, 10, 464, ἜΣΧΟΝ
Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 1, Clem. Alex.
Strom. iv. 13 (p. 603). In Prov. vii.
21 πολλῇ ὁμιλίᾳ it is a translation of
Mp? ‘instruction.’

6. τοῖς συμβίοι.] The word ovp-
Bios 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.
ait Pair. Jud. 23, Clem. Hom. xiii.
5, xiv. 6, 11, xx. 18, Hermas Vs.
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, Boeckh C. ἢ
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

\ ,
καὶ πνευματι.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v

e / \ - > ~ /
ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μον Tapay-

5 ΕῚ / > ~ ΄- > σ᾿ \ /
γελλε ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀγαπᾶν Tas συμβίους,

ε ε , \ > ' »" Id
ὡς ὁ Κύριος THN ἐκκληοίδν. εἴ τις δύναται ἐν ay-

2 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] GL*g; pref. domini nostri DA.

Gl g ; ecclesiam suam ZA.
Anton. 153 τοῦ κυρίου τῆς σαρκὸς G.

3 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

4 τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Ἰζυρίου] GLZA Antioch. 49

ἐν ἀκαυχησίᾳ] ΑΣΑΡ [Antioch.]

Anton.; add. domini L (the word has probably crept in from the preceding clause).

5 καὶ ἐὰν] GLAg Anton.; ἐὰν (om. καὶ) 2.

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. A post. 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 Ὁ. 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. i
ἀρκεῖσθαι] ‘to be content. Besides
Apost. Const. viii. 31 (see last note)
comp. Alexander in Joseph. 2. F. ii.
7. 4 σὺ δὲ οὐκ ἀρκεσθεῖσα τούτῳ [Ssc.
τῷ γάμῳ], Epiphan. Ancor. 104 (p.
107) μὴ ἀρκουμένης τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἄνδρα-
σιν, quoted by Pearson. The Anglo-
Latin translator has stumbled, and
translates it ‘sufficere,’ as if ἀρκεῖν.

3. ὡς ὁ Κύριος «.7.A.] A reminis-
cence of Ephes. v. 29, where however
the correct reading is καθὼς καὶ ὁ
Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.

εἴ τις δύναται κιτ.λ.] Comp. Clem.

6 γνωσθῇ] Gg Anton. ;

Rom. 38 ὁ ἁγνὺς ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἥτω καὶ
μὴ ἀλαζονεύεσθω, with the note (comp.
2b. § 48), Minuc. Felix 31 ‘Casto
sermone, corpore castiore, plerique
inviolati corporis virginitate perpetua
fruuntur potius quam gloriantur.’ In
this place dyveia 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 (e.g. Tit. 11. 5, 1 Pet.
lili. 2, Clem. Rom. 1, Polyc. PAz/. 4).
The language of S. Paul (1 Cor. vii. 1
sq.) 15 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, Aol. i. 15 (p. 62),
SayS πολλοί τινες Kat πολλαὶ ἑξηκον-
τοῦται καὶ ἑβδομηκοντοῦται, of ἐκ παί-
δων ἐμαθητεύθησαν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἄφθοροι
διαμένουσι᾽ καὶ εὔχομαι κατὰ πᾶν γένος
ἀνθρώπων τοιούτους δεῖξαι: see also
Athenag. Suppl. 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 K7irchliche 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 Smyrn. 13.

4. τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου] “ the
flesh, the body, of the Lord’; which
is explained by 1 Cor. vi. 15 sq. ovk

ν] TO POLYCARP. 349

7 J ᾽ \ ἴω \ ~ > >
VELA μένειν ELS τιμὴν τῆς TAOKOS TOU Κυρίου, εν aAkadu-

/ / a4 7 9
5 χησίᾳ μενέτω" ἐαν καυχήσηται, ἀπώλετο: Kal ἐὰν

΄ ~ / ᾽
γνωσθῇ πλέον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἔφθαρται. πρέπει δὲ

inventatur A (probably a misunderstanding of the Syriac, rather than a corruption
of the Armenian, as Petermann supposes); videri velit L (where L departs from its

usual literalism and gives a paraphrase).

ter) 112 Δ 5 ; 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. 2 2152. lxii (p. 699
Hartel) ‘Membra Christo dicata et
ad zternum continentize honorem pu-
dica virtute devota’; comp. Method.
Conv. 11]. 8, iv. 5, v. 4.

5. ἐὰν γνωσθῇ κιτιλ.}] “77 tt 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. Magu. 7 μηδὲ ὑμεῖς
ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκύπου καὶ 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 Anton. ; extra (prae-

War περὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν πλὴν θανάτου,
Herod. v. 71 ὑπεγγύους πλὴν θανάτου,
Plato Resp. v. p. 469 σκυλεύειν... τοὺς
τελευτήσαντας πλὴν ὅπλων, | Arist.] de
Plant. ii. 4 (p. 825) οἱ δὲ τόποι of
Wuxpol, εἰ καὶ οὗτοι τὸ ὅμοιον ποιοῦσί
ποτε, πλὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου, Polyb. xii.
22.1 μακρὸν ἂν εἴη λέγειν πάντα, πλὴν
τελέως ὀλίγων (comp. xi. 25. 6).
There is no sufficient reason how-
ever for displacing the reading πλέον
here ; comp. Magn. 10 ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι
καλεῖται πλέον rovTov. 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 Kiihner
Il. 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 ἐξ corrupted) i.e.
‘his chastity is violated by the very
publicity given to it, the word φθεί-
pew 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 bonz stupri passio est,’ 7d. 13
‘utique primo illicitum, ut gloriz

350

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

~ ἐν \ ΄σ / \ , ~
τοῖς γαμουσι καὶ Tals γαμούσαις μετὰ γνωμήῆς TOV

΄ \ e/ oa εἶ e / 5 \
ἐπισκόπου τὴν ἕνωσιν ποιεῖσθαι, iva ὁ γάμος ἡ κατὰ

/ \ \ > <3 /
Κύριον καὶ μὴ κατ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν.

γινέσθω.

ΥΙ.

I γαμούσαι9] σ΄; γαμουμέναις G Anton.

3 Κύριον] σΣΑ ; θεὸν G Anton.
ἐπιθυμίαν] GLZA; κατὰ αἰσχρὰν ἐπιθυμίαν Anton.
5 ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν] GLg, Antioch. 219; ὑμῖν ὁ θεός Rup. 779.
piv] GLg Antioch. Rup.; add. προσέχῃ S,;AZ; see above § 1.
ψυχον ἐγὼ] GLg Antioch.; ἐγὼ ἀντίψυχον Rup.
GL[S,J=[A]g Rup.; τῷ ὑποτασσομένῳ Antioch.

om. LL.

δὲ 2.

libidinosum ; gloria enim illicitum
est eis quorum probatio in omni
humiliatione constat, 2b. 14 ‘ipsa
concupiscentia non latendi non est
pudica; patitur aliquid quod non
virginis sit etc.’ Cyprian de Had.
Virg. 9 (p. 191 sq.) ‘maculis te con-
cupiscentize carnalis aspergis, cum
integritatis candidata sis et pudoris,’
Method. Conxv. xi. 1 οὐδέ ye, ὁπόταν
+. ὑπεραίρηται φυσιούμενος αὐτῷ δὴ
τούτῳ τῷ δύνασθαι τῶν τῆς σαρκὸς
ὑπεκκαυμάτων κρατεῖν, καὶ πάντας οὐδὲν
ἡγῆται, ἁγνείαν τιμᾷ ἀτιμάζει γὰρ
αὐτὴν ὑβρίζων ὑψηλοφροσύνῃ k.T.X.

I. τοῖς γαμοῦσι] On the sanction
given by the Church to marriages in
the early ages see Probst Sakra-
mente Ὁ. 438 sq., Bingham A zz. xxii.
oro, Sei. A. 1 50):

yapovoas| In so reading I have
followed the Mss of the interpolator’s
text, whereas the MS of the genuine
Ignatius has the more correct ya-
povpevas. 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-

/ > \ ΄σ
πάντα εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ

“ 3 7 / «.« \ ε Ο \
Τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε, ἵνα Kat ὁ Θεὸς 5

2 ὁ γάμος] GZAg Anton. ;

For L see the Appx. kar’
πάντα] GLAg; add.
6 ὑ-
ἀντί-
τῶν ὑποτασσομένωνἾ
τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ] α ; ἐπι-

phanes says ἐγημάμην (see Porson on
Eurip. Jed. 264); comp. also Clem.
Alex. Ped. ili. 3 (p. 264). Accord-
ingly Irenzeus writes v. 9. 4 νύμφη
γαμῆσαι οὐ δύναται, γαμηθῆναι δὲ dv-
vara [the passive however is for-
bidden by Pollux 1. c.], ὅταν ἔλθῃ
καὶ 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 active is used
of the woman by S. Paul, 1 Cor. vii.
28, 34, 1 Tim. Y. τ 345 pean
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
γαμούσαις.

2. κατὰ 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. 21.

ν] TO POLYCARP.

ὑμῖν.

351

᾿ , 3 \ ~ e / ~ ’
ἀντίψυχον ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων [τῷ ἐπι-

/ / / > > ~ \
σκόπῳ, πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις: μετ᾽ αὐτῶν μοι TO

/ I ~ \ “
μέρος γένοιτο σχεῖν mapa Θεῷ.

συγκοπιᾶτε ἀλλήλοις,

συναθλεῖτε, συντρέχετε, συμπάσχετε, συγκοιμᾶσθε,

/ ς ~ ᾽ / \ / Vee
το συνεγείρεσθε, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμοι καὶ πάρεδροι καὶ ὑπη-

σκόπῳ (om. τῷ) g Rup. [Antioch.].

τε καὶ Antioch.; et presbyteris et S\ZA 3 πρεσβυτερίῳ g Rup.
S,2Ag Antioch. Rup.; καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν GL.

7 πρεσβυτέροι:] GL; πρεσβυτέροις
μετ᾽ αὐτῶν]

8 σχεῖν] G3 ἔχειν g* Antioch. ;

capere L; om. S,ZA Rup. For = see the note on Lfhes. 1 κεκτῆσθαι.
παρὰ θεῷ] g* (with a v. 1. παρὰ θεοῦ); apud deum SjZA; ἐν θεῷ GL Antioch.

Rup. 9 συναθλεῖτε] συναθλήτε G.
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.d.] Ignatius
here turns from Polycarp individually
and addresses the whole Church of
Smyrna. In the subsequent part of
the Jetter, whenever he has any mes-
sage directed specially to Polycarp,
he mentions him by name; e.g. § 7
πρέπει, ἸΤολύκαρπε x.t.A., and § ὃ τοῦ
πέμποντος αὐτὸν Πολυκάρπουι Like
the Pastoral Epistles of 5. Paul, this
letter was obviously intended to be
made known to the Church also.
Polycarp (P72. 13) apparently puts
it in the same category with the
Epistle to the Smyrnzans, speaking
of the two as τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ᾿Ιγνατίου
ras πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. For
the admonition see P/zlad. 7.

ἵνα καὶ «.7.A.] See the note on
Smyrn. 5 μᾶλλον δὲ «.r.A.

6. ἀντίψυχον] Comp. ὃ 2, and
see the note on 2 2}65. 21.

7. per αὐτῶν x.t.A.] 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. συγκοπιᾶτε] This word pre-
pares the way for συναθλεῖτε, συντρέ-
χετε, since κοπιᾶν is used especially
of the toilsome training for an ath-
letic contest; comp. Phil. 11. 16 οὐκ
eis κενὸν ἔδραμον οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπί-
aga, Col. i, 29 εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ἀγωνι-
ζόμενος, I Tim. iv. 10 εἰς τοῦτο κοπι-
ὥμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα, [Clem. Rom.]
ii. 7 of πολλὰ κοπιάσαντες καὶ καλῶς
ἀγωνισάμενοι. So Anthol. Ill. p. 166
μὴ τρέχε, μὴ Konia. 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 al-
together out of place.

10. Θεοῦ οἰκονόμοι] The expres-
sion occurs Tit. 1. 7; comp. 1 Cor. iv.

352 THE

EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [vi

/ , , “ / ν᾽ > τ \ \ 3 /
ρέται. ἀρέσκετε ᾧ στρατεύεσθε, ἀφ᾽ ov καὶ Ta ὀψώνια

/ / ε ~ in ἢ c ~ \ 7
κομίσεσθε. μήτις ὑμῶν δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῆ. τὸ βαπτισμα
“

1 dpéoxere ᾧ στρατεύεσθε] GLe ; placete [et] et servile ei ZA.

2 Kopl-

σεσθε] g* (with a v. 1. κομίσησθε) [Z][A], and so app. Antioch. 162 (in a loose

1, I Pet. iv. 10. The reference here
is not to the Christian pastors, but,
as the context (esp. ἀντίψυχον k.7.).)
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 S.
Paul’s Θεοῦ συνεργοί (I Cor. ill. 9, I
Thess. iii. 2 v. 1.), but it is immedi-
ately qualified by ὑπηρέται. For ὑπη-
pérns in connexion with οἰκονόμος
comp. I Cor. iv. I.

I. dpéoxere κιτ.λ.} ‘please the
Captain under whom you serve, pro-
bably a reminiscence of 2 Tim. 11. 3,
4, οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς
τοῦ βίου πραγματείαις, ἵνα τῷ στρατο-
λογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ.

τὰ ὀψώνια] ‘soldier's pay, as e.g.
1 Cor. ix. 7 τίς στρατεύεται idiots
ὀψωνίοις ποτέ, Luke 111. 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. So always in the
LXX, I Esdr. iv. 56, 1 Macc. iii. 28, xiv.
32. It is the Greek equivalent to the
Latin ‘stipendia’; for the word οὖ-
sonia 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,

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᾽
oi pev πεζοὶ λαμβἀάνουσι...σιτομετροῦνται
oi μὲν πεζοὶ κιτιλ., Boeckh C. /. 3137
Ta τε μετρήματα καὶ τὰ ὀψώνια (an
inscription found at Smyrna itself) ;
comp. Dion. Halic. A. R. ix. 36. 5 τὸ
τ᾽ ὀψώνιον τῇ στρατιᾷ Kal TO ἀντὶ τοῦ
σίτου συγχωρηθὲν.. ἀργυρίον (where
the rations could not be supplied in
kind). In Greek ὀψωνία 15 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 obsonium has a different sense.
From ὀψωνεῖν the Romans adopted
obsonarz, ‘to purchase delicacies, to
cater,’ and from this they used the
substantive odsonzum 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, 2b.
§ 28 τῶν αὐτομολούντων ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ,
Clem. Hom. xi. 16 ὁ μὴ ποιῶν τὸν νόμον
ἐκ τοῦ μὴ πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ λιποτακτεῖ
(comp. Ep. Clem. 12, 17).

The adoption of Latin words in a
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
(Rom. 5), nothing else was to be ex-

vi] TO POLYCARP.

353

e ~ “4 e e/ « 7ὔ ε , c
UMWV μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα, ἡ πίστις ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ

> £ ς f ες ς A c 7 A /
αγαπή ws δόρυ, ἢ ὑπομονή ὡς πανοπλία" τὰ δεπόσιτα

reference) κομισώμεθα ; κομίζεσθε GL.

δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῇ] GAg* ; rebellet

=; otiosus inveniatur L. G has a marginal gloss ἀργὸς to δεσέρτωρ, whence the

rendering of L.

pected. For similar instances see
Epictet. ili. 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-
κίοις ἢ ‘officiis’), Herm. Κ725. 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. Vil. pp.
34, 726), Evang. Nic. 2 sq. κούρσωρ,
atyva, φακεώλιον, etc.; besides the
instances familiar to us in the N. T.,
e.g. centurio, euraquilo, flagellum,
legio, lintium, membrana, pznula,
preetorium, quadrans, semicinctium,
sudarium, etc. The only other in-
stance in Ignatius is ἐξεμπλάριον ; see
the note on Efhes. 2. The gloss
ἀργὸς which appears on δεσέρτωρ in
the Greek MS is taken from Ps-Ign,
Tars. 9.

3. ὡς ὅπλα] ‘as your shields}
as the context requires. The Latin
translator rightly renders it sczfz.
Comp. Xen. Awad. i. 2. 17 ἐκέλευσε
προβαλέσθαι τὰ ὅπλα (where however
it might include spears as well), Polyb.
i. 22. 10 ὑπὲρ τὸν δρύφακτον ὑπερτιθέ-
μενοι τὰς ἴτυς τῶν ὅπλων. This sense
seems to be more frequent in Helle-

nistic Greek; LXxX 1 Kings x. 17

τριακόσια ὅπλα χρυσᾶ xK.r.r., Ps, xc.
(xci). 5 ὅπλῳ κυκλώσει σε ἡ ἀλήθεια
αὐτοῦ (and several times elsewhere
in the LXxX), Aquila Hos. xi. 8 ὅπλῳ
κυκλώσω oe (where the LXX has ὑπερ-
aom@ gov), Test. xit Pair. Levi 5
ἔδωκέ μοι ὅπλον καὶ ῥομφαίαν, Barnab.
12 τίθησιν οὖν Μωυσῆς ἕν ἐφ᾽ ἕν ὅπλον.

IGN,

4 δεπόσιτα) εὖ; διπόσητα G,

See also Macar. Magn. Afoer. ii. 7
(p. 6) πίστιν ἔχοντες τὸ ξίφος καὶ ὅπλον
τὸν σταυρόν. This meaning of 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,’ 6. g.
Boeckh C. Z. 124 εἰκόνα γραπτὴν ἐν
ὅπλῳ (see Boeckh’s note, 11. p. 664).
This sense explains μενέτω; ‘Hold
out your baptismal vows, your baptis-
mal 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. tmavordia] 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. Tarach.
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

‘Tey fixer

ra δεπόσιτα] When adonative 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. ii. 20); and
the fund was managed by a special

2?
“J

354

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS [v1

ε ΄σ Ὅς « ~ ε \ ᾽ ε ΄σ » 7

ὑμῶν τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν, ἵνα τὰ ἄκκεπτα ὑμῶν ἀξια κομί-
/ s ἜΣ: / > .“",

σησθε. μακροθυμήσατε οὖν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἐν πραὕὔτητι,

ws ὁ Θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.

3 / ε ΄σ \ /
ὀναίμην ὑμῶν διὰ παντος.

1 τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν] ἀρ ; opera bona ZA; opera (om. ὑμῶν) L* (but the varying

position of vestra in the Mss should be noticed).

τὰ ἄκκεπτα ὑμῶν ἀξια]

GL; add. θεοῦ g; donum (or dona) dei, sicut justum est Σ; dona a deo (om.

ἄξια) A.
οὖν] GLg; om. ZA [Rup.] [Anton].
G Antioch.

officer entitled ‘curator fisci’ (e. g.
Orell. Zzscr. 3462). We read also of a
‘librarius depositorum’ (Dzg. 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. Alterth.
Ill. 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 (‘que sunt parta
labore militize’), that it was secured
to the man himself, and was accord-
ingly exempted from the Jatria 2ο-
zestas, on the principle enunciated
in [Juv.] xvi. 58sq., ‘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. 11, 20
‘Miles...qui sumptus suos scit apud

2 μακροθυμήσατε] Gs; μακροθυμεῖτε g Rup. 788 Anton. 152.

πραὔτητι] g* Rup. Anton. ; πραότητι

3 ws] GLZA Rup. Anton.; καὶ g3; ὡς καὶ [Antioch. 162].
μεθ DAg Rup. Anton, Antioch; om. G ; dub. L.

ὑμῶν pri.] GLZAg

signa -depositos, de deserendo nthil
cogttai, 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. v. 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 szguum (σύσσημον) appears in the
companion epistle, Smyrz. 1.

I. ἄξια] ‘due’, i.e. ‘correspond-
ing to the deposita) as in Juv. xvi.
56 ‘Hunc labor eguus provehit et
pulcro veddi¢ 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 ἔγγυς, ap-
parently led astray by the Armenian
mis-rendering ‘quasi Deus sit in
mediis vobis.’

ὀναίμην] See the note on Ephes.
Ξ

VII. ‘I hear that the Church of
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

vil]

VII.

TO POLYCARP.

355

3 \ 3 ε ~
Ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ ἐν ᾿λντιοχείᾳ τῆς Cu-

7 5 / ς “5 Α \ ~ ~ c ~~
5 plas eipnvever, ws ἐδηλώθη μοι, διὰ τῆς προσευχῆς ὑμῶν,

3 \ 3 3 , > 2 ΄σ >
κἀγὼ εὐθυμότερος ἐγενόμην ἐν ἀμεριμνίᾳ Θεοῦ, ἐάνπερ

ὃ \ ΄σ΄ ΄ ~ 9 / 3 \ ς ἴω / > -~
ia τοῦ παθεῖν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω, εἰς TO εὑρεθῆναι με EV TH

Rup. (Lequien) ; ἡμῶν [Anton.] [Antioch.].

παντός] Here & breaks off,

and has only two sentences more, § 7 χριστιανὸς x.T.A. and § 8 ἀσπάζομαι τὸν μέλ -

λοντα κ.τ.λ.

5 διὰ τῆς προσευχῆς] g ; fer orationent 1, (which prob. repre-

sents the gen., since L commonly translates διὰ with the accus. correctly prop-

ter); διὰ τὴν προσευχὴν G3; precibus 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”

Phitad. το.

6. ἀμεριμνίᾳ 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 Magu. I.

ev τῇ αἰτήσει ὑμῶν] ‘through your
supplication. For the expression
see L:phes. 20 ἐάν pe καταξιώσῃ Ἶ. X.
ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν, Philad. ὃ θέλω
ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν δικαιωθῆναι,
Smyri. 11 ἵνα ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν
Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω. The word αἴτησις
occurs only once elsewhere in Igna-
tius (Zvad/. 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.

26. 257), Herod. i. 207. τὰ δέ μοι
παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα
γεγόνεε, Philo-de Leg. Spec. 6 (Il. p.
340) ἵν᾽ ἐκ τοῦ παθεῖν μάθῃ, with other
passages quoted by Wetstein and
Bleek on Heb. v. ὃ ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν
ἔπαθεν.

This reading is to be preferred, both
on account of the parallel passage in
the companion epistle, Smyrz. 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 as θέλημα for θέμα above ὃ 2,
ἁγνοτάτης 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 ἀναστάσει, would make
very good sense; comp. ἄλλες. 11
ἐν οἷς γένοιτό μοι ἀναστῆναι ἐν τῇ 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. /ffes. 3 with
the note.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS | VIL

356
/ € o / ΓΝ 7
αἰτήσει ὑμών μαθητήν. πρέπει, Πολύκαρπε θεομακα-
/ / σι / ‘
ριστότατε, συμβούλιον ἀγαγεῖν θεοπρεπέστατον Kal
~ « \ 7 ᾽ Raat
χειροτονῆσαί τινα ὃν ἀγαπητὸν λίαν ἔχετε Kal ἄοκνον,
« 7 ΡῈ 7 ~
ὃς δυνήσεται θεοδρόμος καλεῖσθαι: τοῦτον καταξιῶσαι,
« : \ ? / / ς ΄σ \ sf > /
iva πορευθεὶς εἰς Cuptay δοξάσῃ ὑμῶν τὴν ἄοκνον aya-
> ΄-: \ e ~ > ͵ 5
σὴν εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ. χριστιανὸς ἑαυτοῦ ἐξουσίαν οὐκ
» > \ ΄σ 7 ΄σ΄ \ } ΄- >
ἔχει ἀλλὰ Θεῷ σχολάζει. τοῦτο TO ἔργον Θεοῦ ἐστιν
4

ι αἰτήσει] g* ; Avecidbus A (the same word which is used just before to trans-
late διὰ τῆς προσευχῆς) ; dvacrdce GL (there is no v. 1. in the mss of L; see

the Appx).

error.
gut S,; eos gui A; et τινα g.
31. καταξιῶσαι] g* ;

G 5Pdei A:
christianus enim Sy 3
1. πρέπει!) See the note on
Liphes. 2.

θεομακαριστότατε] See the note on
Smyrit. 1.

3. χειροτονῆσαί τινα] Similar in-

structions are given in the companion

letter, Syzyrz. 11. Polycarp himself
refers to this intended delegate, P27.
13 ᾽᾿Εγράψατέ μοι καὶ ὑμεῖς καὶ Tyvarios
ἵνα, ἐάν τις ἀπέρχηται εἰς Συρίαν,
τὰ Tap ὑμῶν ἀποκομίσῃ γράμματα"
ὅπερ ποιήσω... εἴτε ἐγὼ εἴτε ὃν πέμψω
τρεσβεύσοντα καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν.

4. θεοδρόμος] ‘God’s courier” The
word is used here in reference to
the sfectal mission, which he was
promptly (doxvov) to execute. In
Smyrn. 11 he is styled θεοπρεσβύτης.
On the other hand in Phzlad. 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

μαθητήν] gLA; παθητήνα:
πρέπει] GLAg; add. δὲ zgitur 8.
4 καλεῖσθαι] GLe; fert A;
καταξιῶσς (an itacism) G; divtebinads * (MSs) ;
gersuadeatur (lit. hic persuadeatur) S,; al. A.
xXptorcavos] G Dam. 7243 ὁ χριστιανὸς σ᾽; christianus L[Z] ;
ergo christiano A.

see also Smyrn. 5 for a similar
3 τινα ὃν] GL; wdlum
ut sit et vocetur
huic
6 Θεοῦ] gS, ;" χριστοῦ

ἑαυτοῦ ἐξουσίαν] GL Dam.;

, \
διαθήκας τινὰς καὶ παραινέσεις καὶ
,
νόμους" kai τινας ἐπὶ τούτῳ πρεσβευ-
΄“ ΄
τὰς τῶν ἑταίρων ἐχειροτόνησε νε-

, A ,
Kpayyéhous καὶ νερτεροδρόμους
προσαγορεύσας.

καταξιῶσαι] ‘to commission’, ‘ac-

credit’; comp. Philad. το ὃς καταξιω-
θήσεται τῆς τοιαύτης διακονίας of a
similar person. For the use of this
word in Ignatius generally see the
note to £& Bie 20.

5. πορευθεὶς eis Συρία» 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
Θεῷ. The sentiment here has refer-
ence to the Smyrnzans generally,
but to the individual messenger
more especially.

Θεοῦ...καὶ ὑμῶν]
as of yourselves,

‘of God, as well
where Θεοῦ ex-

vit]

TO POLYCARP.

357

~ ‘ 7 7] \ ~~
Kal ὑμών, ὅταν αὐτὸ ἀπαρτίσητε. πιστεύω yap TH
ἐ

ye ε ε / 3 A σ΄ ,
χάριτι, ὅτι ἕτοιμοί ἐστε εἰς εὐποιΐίαν Θεῷ ἀνήκουσαν.
3 \ ε vad \ / =~ 3 > a £ σ΄ κ(ὦ»
εἰδὼς ὑμῶν τὸ σύντονον τῆς ἀληθείας δι’ ὀλίγων ὑμᾶς

γραμμάτων παρεκάλεσα.

VEE.

7 Pl 5 /
᾿Επεὶ πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐκ ἠδυνήθην

γράψαι διὰ τὸ ἐξαίφνης πλεῖν pe ἀπὸ Τρωάδος εἰς
Νεάπολιν, ὡς τὸ θέλημα προστάσσει, γράψεις ταῖς

ἐξουσίαν ἑαυτοῦ g.
enim 51} et hoc A.
(see the next note).

that the previous word was probably read αὐτοὶ).
σύντονον] G3; σύντομον σ΄ 3 compendium L3;

οὖν G3 nam et scio A.

7 Θεῷ] Gg; τῷ θεῷ Dam.
8 αὐτὸ] g*S,A; αὐτῷ G3 ipst (αὐτῷ or αὐτοί) L*
ἀπαρτίσητε] GS,Ag; perfecti estis (ἀπαρτισθῆτε) L (so

τοῦτο] GLg; hoc

10 εἰδὼς] txt gL; add.

pracparationem ( promptitudinem) A (‘videtur legisse ἕτοιμον ᾿ Petermann; see the

v. 1. in Rom. 5).
Gg; guae supra nos sunt A; alis L.

plains and justifies the preceding
Θεῷ σχολάζει.

ὃ, τῇ χάριτι] ‘the Divine grace’;
see below § 8, and the note on
Smyrn, 12.

9. Θεῷ ἀνήκουσαν) See the note
on Philad. τ.

10. τὸ σύντονον] ‘intensity, direct-
ness’, properly ‘¢enszon’ ; comp. Philo
Leg. ad Cai. § 20 (p. 565 M) τὸ τάχος
καὶ σύντονον τῆς σπουδῆς. This there-
fore is probably the reading here,
rather than τὸ σύντομον ; but the words
are constantiy confused. Sometimes
they occur together ; e.g. Plut. 2707.
P- 759 Ὁ σύντονον ὁμοῦ καὶ σύντομον
εὑρηκέναι πορείαν εἰς ἀρετήν, Clem.
Alex. Ped. i. 3 (p. 103) τὰς συντόμους
ὁδοὺς kal συντόνους eis ἀϊδιότητα, Julian.

Orat. vii (p. 225 C) τὴν σύντομον,

φησίν, ὁδὸν καὶ σύντονον ἐπὶ τὴν dpe-
τὴν εἰσιοῦσιν.

τῆς ἀληθείας] ‘ your sincerity, ‘your
fidelity’; comp. Polyc. Phil. 4 στε-
yovoas τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας ἐν πάσῃ
ἀληθείᾳ. In the LXX ἀλήθεια is ἃ
frequent rendering of M18, ‘sted-
fastness,’ ‘constancy,’ which is also

12 Ἐπεὶ] txt GA; add. οὖν Lg.

14 Tals ἔμπροσθεν

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 J. v. A. p. 283.

14. εἰς Νεάπολιν] The port-town
of Philippi (Acts xvi. 11), where he
would take the great Egnatian road
across the continent to Dyrrhach-
ium ; see Philippians p. 47 sq.

τὸ θέλημα] ‘the Divine will’;
see the note on //hes. 20, There is

358 THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

[ν ΠῚ

sf 9 / a / / Ε]
ἔμπροσθεν ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς Θεοῦ γνώμην κεκτημένος, εἰς
\ \ \ \ \ ~ ἢ \ ,
TO καὶ αὐτοὺς τὸ αὐτὸ ποιῆσαι--οἱ μὲν δυνάμενοι
\ / ε \ \ \ ~ ς /
πεζοὺς πέμψαι, οἱ δὲ ἐπιστολὰς διὰ τῶν ὑπὸ σου πεμ-
: ἵνα ὃ θη ἰωνίῳ Epyw—ws ἄξιος ὦν
πομένων, ἵνα δοξασθῆτε αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ j
3 / / 3 Sx 7, \ \ ~~ "E
λσπαάζομαι πάντας ἐξ ονόματος, Kat τὴν τοῦ ᾽Επι- 5
/ « a »/ ~ \ ΄σ / > /
τρόπου σὺν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτῆς Kal τῶν τέκνων: ἀσπα-
1 εἰς τὸ καὶ αὐτοὺς κιτ.λ. For the reading of L see the Appx. 2 τὸ αὐτὸ]
GA; τοῦτο δ} om. (ἢ) L*. 4 δοξασθῆτε] GAg; glorificeris L. al-
wly ἔργῳ] GL; ἐν αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ δ ; 7 operibus aeternitatis A. ws ἀξιος wr]
GLg*; guomodo et digni estis A. 6 τῶν τέκνων] GLg. Petermann trans-

lates A filiis (=rékvos), but the case is ambiguous and may be either filiorwm or
Μη. 7 τὸν μέλλοντα...πορεύεσθαι] GLg (but g omits τοῦ) : eum fratrem qui

paratus est ire in Syriam A (ποτέ for iar) ; “lum qui dignatur ire ad

antiochiam pro me, sicut praccepi tibi X (but Z, for praecepi ἐδ] reads praecepisti nobis

no reason for departing from the or- others send letters.’ The sentence,

dinary use of Ignatius, and explain-
ing it here of the will of the emperor
or the Roman authorities.

ταῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐκκλησίαις] “116
churches lying tn front, i.e. nearer
to Syria than Smyrna itself. The
writer naturally imagines himself
looking towards Antioch, whither the
delegates are to be sent. 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 Evpa@mns, but he himself prefers
explaining it by the Semitic use of
Dp ‘in front,’ i.e. eastward. This
is quite unnecessary. Other expla-
nations which have been suggested
hardly deserve Consideration.

I. Θεοῦ γνώμην x7.d.| ‘possessing
the mind of God? For Θεοῦ γνώμη
see the note Lphes. 3.

3. πέμψαι] sc. πεμψάτωσαν, i.e.
‘Let those who are able to send
messengers, send them, and let the

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 κ-τ.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. Phil. 13, quoted above on ὃ 7
χειροτονῆσαί τινα. |

4. wa x«rr.| ‘that ye, i.e. all
who participate in this mission, ‘ay
be glorified by an ever-memorable
work,

5. ἐξ ὀνόματος] See the note on
§ 4.

τὴν τοῦ ᾿Ἐπιτρόπου] ‘the widow,
rather than the wife, ‘of Epztropus,’
as the words following seem to show.
The name appears to be very rare;

viii] TO POLYCARP.

359

7 \ > / > / \
ζομαι ἤλτταλον Tov ἀγαπητόν pov: ἀσπάζομαι τὸν
7 ~~ ΄σ > /
μέλλοντα καταξιοῦσθαι τοῦ εἰς Cupiav πορεύεσθαι"
of / " ΄σ \ \ rq
ἐσται ἢ χάρις μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ δια παντὸς, καὶ TOU πέμπον-
3 \ f > ~ € ~ \ \ 3
τος αὐτὸν [Πἰολυκάρπον. ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς ἐν
~ e ro > ΄σ΄ ΄σ »/ > G / >
Θεῴ ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ εὔχομαι, ἐν w διαμείνητε ἐν
Coats ~ \ > ΄σ > , ᾽ A
ἑνότητι Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπή. ἀσπάζομαι λλκην τὸ

Α͂ yj ᾽ > /
ποθητὸν μοι ὄνομα. ἔρρωσθε ἐν Κυρίῳ.
διαμείνητε] Gs δια-
ἡκὰ,

13 μοι] 5;
ἔρρωσθε ἐν ἸΚυρίῳ]

by the change of a letter). 11 Χριστῷ] χριστοῦ G.
μείνατε or διαμείνετε (sic) g*. 12 ἐπισκοπῇ] GLg*; ἐπισκόπου A.
kyv] ἅλκην ἃ. There is no aspirate in LAg; see Smyrn. 13.
mihi LL; wouG; al. A. See also Smyrn. 13, Rom. 10.
GLg; om. A.

Subscription πρὸς Πολύκαρπον ἃ. There is no subscription in LA. For 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 orpa-
τηγός OY ἐπίτροπος τῆς στρατηγίας
(Boeckh C. 7. 3151, 3162), and per-
haps this officer may be meant.
Another Smyrnzan inscription speaks
of ὁ ἐπίτροπος τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ (C. J.
3203). This woman is not impro-
bably the same with Gavia men-
tioned in the companion epistle,
Smyrn. 13 τὸν οἶκον Taovias κιτ.λ.

7. “Arradov| This name appears
many times in inscriptions and coins
belonging to Smyrna, Boeckh C. /.
3141, 3142, 3239, 3288, 3289, 3299,
3304, 3331, Mionnet III. pp. 232, 233,
Suppl. V1. p. 309 (Ὁ), 344. The coins
belong to the time of M. Aurelius.

τὸν μέλλοντα κιτ.λ.)] The θεοδρό-
μος, about whom he has given direc-
tions in the preceding chapter. The
Syriac epitomator, having struck

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 ὃ 7 πιστεύω τῇ χάριτι (see the
note).

II. Θεῷ ἡμῶν] See the note on
Ephes. 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 κιτιλ. There is therefore much
propriety in his ending with διαμείνητε
«7A. The reading ἐπισκόπου however

260

is ancient, as the Armenian Version
shows, though its presence in any
Greek texts has no authority. It
would make good sense; comp.
Smyri. 9 Θεὸν καὶ ἐπίσκοπον εἰδέναι,
Trall. 7 οὖσιν ἀχωρίστοις [Θεοῦ] Ἰη-
σοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. 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.

[ν πὶ

to adopt ἐπισκοπῇ in preference.

Αλκην] See the note on Smyrn.
13.

τὸ ποθητὸν μοι κιτ.λ.} So Rom.
10, Swiyrn. 13. Similarly Eusebius
speaks of his friend Pamphilus as
τὸ ποθεινόν μοι ὄνομα, Act. Pamph. 1,
6 (Οὗ. τι. 1441, 1445, Migne).

13. ἔρρωσθε] See the note on
Ephes. 21.

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

pote TLS,

vay) any i i [ hi ae es ee : i i ) ‘ ri 4) f bn
Υ 4 ) Ἷ 4 ἮΝ,
ἡ} ᾿ ᾿ i le Ψ 1
ἐλ . { ἢ Δ ἢ i
' πὶ ᾿ Ἶ ad) ᾿ Oy
" 4p ᾿
‘ τὶ wy an
' ‘ ‘ ‘ ἢ
>») 1 f . Ἵ
a i ᾿ Ti!
+ ha Ἀ ΐ Π ‘ Wy
4 “" Φ wy ‘fit one hat δε
ΟΝ Gy ΜῊ" δὶ Nae ney ee
4 Ty 1 } a)
4 ΜΝ Ἢ ta’ ΨΩ, piety Pane ih
(i , ΑΝ" pe
Ν δε." ἡ , Υ ἘΠ nh Τὰ ἫΝ aie Ὁ 4 Pe
| | ΣΥΝ
' ah ys
} } ye Ἢ ΤΩΣ Ni at Ge! δι
Φ iN |
ἣ , ἤ ¢ ix itr hyip ͵ oak Ἧι ne adh ΑΝ (4
i) i iy ΝΥ es Th Hiss pry i ne, All A Ae f
ae DN aa pa aad
‘i Di nee ἣ Ἵ ἴννν 074} ᾽

᾿ a"? ‘
ay Ae aie A ae ἰ

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

cs HD eH A ge Ὁ

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. Sine. 1689,
p. 605 sq.) No other Greek Ms of these Acts is known to exist.

(ii) ZA77N; attached to the Anglo-Latin Version of the Igna-
tian Epistles discovered and published by Ussher in his edition (1644)
from two MSS.

(ili) SYRZAC; first published in part by Cureton (Corp. Jen.
p. 222, London, 1849) and afterwards entire by Moesinger (Supplementum
Corports Ignatiani, 1872, p. 7 sq.). Three 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 languages 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.

264 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.

(2) Vatic. 866. From this Ms Dressel first published these Acts
in his edition of the Patres Apostolic’ (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-
tolze sanctorum, similiaque adhuc parum cognita.’

(ὁ) Boal. Laud. Grac. 69, fol. 245 b—255 a. This s is de-
scribed in Coxe’s Catal. Cod. Grec. Bibl. Bodl. p. 552 sq. It is
a large fol. in parchment, of the 11th century, and contains a Mar-
tyrology for December. The Martyrdom of Ignatius is preceded by
μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου Bovnpariov καὶ πολιτεῖα ayAatdos fol. 240 Ὁ, 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 Jenatii et Polycarpi Epistole 1644, and in his Appendix
Ignatiana 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) Paris. Bibl. Nat. Grec. 1491 (formerly Colbert. 450), fol. 86 a,
col. 2—fol. 93 b, col. 2. (See the Catal. Bibl. Reg. τι. p. 338.) It is
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 Rios τοῦ ὁσίου πρς
ἡμῶν βλασίου, and succeeded (fol. 94 a) by τοῦ ὁσίου mps ἡμῶν Kat
ὁμολογητοῦ θεοδώρου κατήχησις ἐπιτάφιος εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ μητέρα. 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.

(ii) CoP7rc, This version is in the Memphitic dialect. Of these
Coptic Acts I am only acquainted with two mss.
(a) Vatic. Copt. \xvi. This Vatican ΜΒ is described by Quatre-

1 Zahn (. 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 (.Sfzcz/. 11 p. 4) refers tothe ambiguous), Smith is certainly in error ;
Laudian Ms for the Acts of Martyrdom for the Martyrdom of Ignatius in Bavoce.
quoted by Ussher, he infers that these 102 is that of the Metaphrast,

OF S. IGNATIUS. 365

metre Recherches sur la Langue et la Littérature de ? Egypte 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 Martyrdom 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 tran-
script is now probably in the Naples Library, with the other patristic
and kindred mss belonging to the Borgian collection. Professor Guidi
has, with his habitual kindness, made a transcript of the Vatican Ms
for me; and from his transcript this Coptic Version is now published
for the first time in my Appendix.

(ὁ) Zaurin. Papyrus τ, in the Egyptian Museum at Turin; de-
scribed by Peyron in his Lexicon Lingue Coptice p. xxv. It is a
papyrus of 63 leaves and contains (1) ‘Martyrium 5. Ignatii Antiochiz
Episcopi’; (2) ‘Martyrium 5. Gioore’; (3) ‘Historiam, seu potius
fabulam virginis Eudoxiz imperatoris Constantini sororis, que post
Persas a fratre devictos Hierosolymam contendit etc.; hzec vero contige-
runt anno 365 post Christi resurrectionem.’

Cureton (C. /. p. 362), while giving an extract from Peyron, speaks
of this Coptic Version as if it were a translation of the Colbertine or (as
I prefer to call them) the Axztzochene Acts, though Peyron’s own words
ought to have saved him from this erroneous identification. Zoega
(1. 5.) writes somewhat carelessly, ‘Auctor videtur esse Heron quidam,
nam circa finem inter alias invocationes S. Ignatii legitur aprbmevs
MienwHpY πρὼπ Memento filit 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. uv. 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 BoLtanpist Acts, extant only in Latin. <A portion of
these was published by Ussher in his Appendix Lenatiana (1647) from

1 Tattam in a letter to Cureton (Cor. Cod. xviii of vol. lxvi Vatic. in Zoega’s
Ign. p. 362) writes loosely, ‘It is marked Catalogue of the Borgian Mss’,

466 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

a Cotton ms. This was, I suppose, Otho p. 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
pluribus eisque vetustissimis codicibus Mss desumpta, et cum Rosweydo
olim, tum nobis communicata: eorum precipui sunt Lobiensis, Audo-
marensis, Ultrajectinus, aliusque Burgundicus a Chiffletio nostro trans-
missus’. 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. Zroyes 412; Brussels 5510; Brussels 703 (per-
haps a transcript from the preceding) ; Paris Bibl. Nat. 1639 (formerly
Colb. 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. Boal. Laud. Lat. 31,
fol. 118 a; Laud. Miscell. 114, fol. 61 Ὁ; 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 |
1810—1814), and reprinted from him by Petermann in this 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 Acrs or THE MerapHrast. As these also contain the
Epistle to the Romans, they have been noticed already in the account
of the mss of the Ignatian Epistles.

The short Latin Acts, published by Moesinger (Suppl. Corp. Lgnat.
p. 18 sq.) from a Ms in the Vallicellian Library at Rome (see zd. p. 5),

1 Tt is necessary to warn readers who mann. This paragraph certainly appears

use Petermann’s edition for these Acts,
that he has omitted a long paragraph,
‘Fuerunt autem custodientes ... pejores
fiunt’, at the end of § 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 con-
cerned 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 omit-
ted it through inadvertence, as his purpose
is to give these Acts complete. Zahn
(Δ νυ. A. p. 18, note) is misled by Peter-

in the only two Mss which I have con-
sulted for this part, Zaud. 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 inter-
polation 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 inter-
polated them from the Roman Acts, is
highly improbable.

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 367

may be dismissed at once; as they are put together from Rufinus’
Latin version of Eusebius and the account of Ignatius in the Mar-
tyrology of Ado (see Zahn J. v. A. p. 30).

The next point is to determine the mutual relations 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 Antiochene 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). Weare 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.

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 vu. A.
p- 10 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 my-
self investigated these relations and ar-
rived at the same results, Indeed a care-
ful comparison of the documents them-

selves can only lead to one conclusion.
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 Petermann 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 (7/heolog. Quartalschr.
LY. p. 115 Sq., 1873) discussed the various
Acts of Ignatius, but did not trace their
relations.

368 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

It more resembles the progress of a conqueror than the transportation
of a convict. 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 (§ 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 (§ 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
(§ 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 ‘thirteenth’ day, and
the spectacle is already drawing to a close. He had prayed that his
remains might not give any trouble to the brethren. 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 xii 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 Antiochene 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.

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 369

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 (88 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 (§ 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. 1. £.
iii. 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.

IGN,

370 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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. §§ 1—5),
with two unimportant exceptions in § 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. 366, note). As soon as Ignatius arrives in the metropolis,
the latter account is taken up and continued to the close (art. 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 joing runs thus: ‘ Denique una die et
ea nocte prosperis ventis usi 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 Mart.
Rom. 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 succéssful 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

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 371

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. Τὸ 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. 372),
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 (7 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, p. 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 :

85 1—5 (pp. 497—505, ed. Petermann), ‘Paulo ante... male pereant,’
from Mart. Ant. §§ τ, 2, ἴΔρτι διαδεξαμένου ... κακῶς ἀπολοῦνται : but the
notice § 1 ‘etenim Evodium excepit’ is taken from JZart. Rom. 1; in
§ 3 a paragraph is inserted from JZart. Rom, 1 (see above, p. 366, note);
and in ὃ 5, where Mart. Ant. 2 has ὡς δὲ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔστη Τραϊανοῦ,
it substitutes ‘et ut stetit coram Trajano e¢ senatu,’ in order to account
for the senate taking part in the proceedings as represented in Jar‘.

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.

25 9°

472 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

Rom., which is afterwards followed. In § 4 it is worthy of notice that,
whereas in one place Ignatius voluntarily goes to Trajan (after AZart.
Ant. 2 ἑκουσίως ἤγετο), in another he is represented as ordered into the
emperor’s presence (after Mart. 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.

ὃ 5 (p. 505) ‘qui et Antiochenorum ... christianismum,’ from AZa7t.
Rom. 2 ὁ τὴν ᾿Αντιοχέων ... εἰς τὸν χριστιανισμόν.

§ 6 (p. 505) ‘Ignatius dicit, Deo vestitum ... malitiam dzmonum,’
from Mart. Ant. 2 ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν Οὐδεὶς θεοφόρον ... καταλύω ἐπιβουλάς.

88. 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 § 34, ‘etenim festinabat
in Armeniam et ad Parthos,’ taken from Mart. Ant. 2 σπουδάζοντα ...
ἐπὶ ᾿Αρμενίαν καὶ Πάρθους. In this portion of the Armenian Martyrdom
there is also a long passage inserted (§§ 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 ὃ 17 has no counterpart in either the Roman or the
Antiochene Acts.

88. 36—46 (pp. 533-541) ‘Trajanus dicit ; Cruci affixum...festinabat
deinde intrare in theatrum,’ from Mart. Ant. 2—6 Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν"
Tov σταυρωθέντα ... ἀπήχθη μετὰ σπουδῆς εἰς τὸ 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.

§§ 47, 48 (pp. 542, 543) ‘et quum hec 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 hec dixisset, καὶ ταῦτα εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ 777. R.10.
bestiis ferocibus projiciebant οὕτως θηρσὶν ὠμοῖς παρὰ τῶν
eum impil carnifices ; ἀθέων παρεβάλλετο MZ. A. 6.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 37

Armenian.

cabant beatum, et absumserunt
sanctum corpus ejus,

et implebatur desiderium ejus
secundum dictum divinze scripturze
quod desiderium 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
bestiz totum corpus sancti, paul-
lum quidquam e magnisossibus reli-
querunt, quod postea abstulerunt in
Antiochenorum urbem, thesaurum
incomparabilem in testimonium
gratize sanctze ecclesiz relictum.’

‘Sed tunc conventum instituen-
tes sancti fratres qui Rome 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-
torum cum laude, proverbiorum
auctor dixit.’

Greek.

> £ , a - ’
ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν προσπεσόντες
of , > μὴ Ν 2
ἀπέπνιξαν μόνον, οὐκ ἔθιγον δὲ αὐ-
τοῦ τῶν σαρκῶν MZ. λ΄. το.

ε “
ὡς παραυτὰ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος

> , “ ‘ > ,
Ἰγνατίου πληροῦσθαι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν
κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐπιθυμία δι-
καΐου δεκτή, ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν ἀδελ-
φῶν ἐπαχθὴς διὰ τῆς συλλογῆς τοῦ
λειψάνου γένηται, καθὼς φθάσας ἐν
a; s An \ ἰδί 2 6 ,
TH ἐπιστολῇ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπεθύμει ye-
νέσθαι τελείωσιν. μόνα γὰρ τὰ τρα-

, »“" 6' δ 3 A ,
χύτερα τῶν αγίων αὑτοῦ AeuwWavwv
περιελείφθη, ἅτινα εἰς τὴν ᾿Αντιό-
χειαν ἀπεκομίσθη καὶ ἐν ληνῷ κατε-
, . We ey mi ts
τέθη, θησαυρὸς ατίμητος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν
“A , ’ se Ἃ
τῷ μάρτυρι χαρίτος τῇ ayia. ἐκκλησίᾳ
καταλειφθέντα 77. A. 6.

\ Ν ε ,
ot δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ρώμην ἀδελφοί,
e σ ἈΝ
οἷς καὶ ἐπεστάλκει ὥστε μὴ παραιτη-
‘ a
σαμένους αὐτὸν τῆς ποθουμένης pap-
’ὔ > “A ΕἸ tA ,
Tupias ἀποστερῆσαι ἐλπίδος, λαβόν-
> A So Ὑψὰ me. ,- > ,
TES αὐτοῦ TO σῶμα ἀπέθεντο [ἐν τόπῳ]
μὲ δὲ 9δ 3 ; > ὄχ ‘
ἔνθα ἦν ἐξὸν ἀθροιζομένους αἰνεῖν τὸν
A A A , ε Lal > ~
Θεὸν καὶ tov Κύριον ἡμών Inoovv
‘ ἈΝ Ae -“
Χριστὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα [νν. 1].]}
ἐπὶ τῇ τελειώσει τοῦ ἁγίου ἐπισκό-
‘ 3
που καὶ μάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου" μνήμη
4 ’ὔ > > ,
γὰρ δικαίου pet ἐγκωμίων 77.
Me tke

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

374 ACTS’ OF MARTYRDOM

‘crushing’ is retained, but the qualifying adverb ‘only’ (μόνον) is omitted,
and the beasts proceed to devour the body. (ii) 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 JZart. Ant. 7 ἐγένετο δὲ Tatra... μακαρίσαντες τὸν
ἅγιον ; but the date is transferred from the beginning to the end of this
section ; the day is altered from xiii 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 Irenzus and Polycarp respecting Ig-
natius.

§ 52 (p. 547) runs ‘ Pone verba Polycarpi addit Eusebius ///ud qui-
dem, quod de sancto Lgnatio erat et martyrium ejus hucusqgue; excepit
episcopatum Anttichie Heron’ ‘This corresponds to Mart. Rom. 12
τοῦτο ᾿Ιγνατίου τὸ μαρτύριον... Ἥρων, where however the name cf 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 athlete Ignatii in Hrotitz men-
sis die primo [secundum Greecos
Decembr. 20] manifestavimus vobis
et diem ut tempore martyrii con-
gregati participes fiamus...in se-
cula szeculorum. Amen.’

kal ἔστιν 4 μνήμη τοῦ θεοφιλε-
στάτου καὶ γενναίου μάρτυρος ᾽Ἴγνα-
τίου μηνὶ πανέμῳ νεομηνίᾳ AZ. R. 12.
ἐφανερώσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν
καὶ τὸν χρόνον, ἵνα κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν
τοῦ μαρτυρίου συναγόμενοι κοινωνῶ-
pev...eis αἰῶνας. ἀμήν MW. A. 7.

This date, rst Hrotitz (i.e. 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

OF 3. IGNATIUS. 375

of Symeon the A/e/aphrast 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 inttoduces 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 (Of. 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 @eogopos 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 § 4 καὶ ri ἐστι θεοφόρος ; and 27. τί δὲ ἡμεῖς ; οὐ σοὶ δοκοῦμεν
κιτιλ. οἵ the Metaphrast, which are adopted and adapted from 27αγί.
Ant. 2, or again to § 27 ἀκούσας δὲ πολλὰ x.7.X. of the Metaphrast, which
is taken from the account of Pliny’s letter to Trajan in AZart. 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* ᾿Ἐνοικήσω κιτ.λ., and ὃν εἰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπέγνως ... μονι-
μώτερα, which appear at an interval of 30 chapters and in the reversed
order in the Armenian version (§ 36, and ἃ 6). It seems probable

1 It did not seem worth while to reprint value. They will be found in the edi-

the Acts of the Metaphrast in the present tions of Cotelier, Petermann (p. 472),
volume, as they have no independent Dressel (p. 350), and Zahn (ρ. 316).

276 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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.

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 Azstorical 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 (8 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 (§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.p. 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 (Z. v. A. p. 31 sq.), but his evidence to my mind
fails to establish his point.

(1) His first witness is Jerome. This father (Caza/. 16), after giving
an account of the letters of Ignatius which is taken altogether from
Eusebius (17. £. iii. 36), adds; ‘Quumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias,
ardore patiendi, cum rugientes audiret leones, ait, Arumentum Christi
sum; dentibus bestiarum molar, ut panis mundus inventar. Passus est
anno decimo (ν. 1. undecimo) Trajani. Reliquiae corporis ejus Antio-
chiae jacent extra portam Daphniticam in coemeterio.’ Like Jerome, our
martyrologist ascribes these same words to Ignatius (§ 10), when he is

OF S. IGNATIUS. 377

actually in the amphitheatre and sees the wild beasts let loose’. And
as Jerome was several times at Antioch from Α. Ὁ. 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) 1s a stock passage from “Lphes.
1g, and occurs in a work of Origen Hom. vi in Luc. 1 (OP. U1. p. 938),
which Jerome himself translated. The other (adv. Pelag. il. 2, Op. τι.
p. 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 falls into a strange
blunder. Misled by an expression of Eusebius (τῇ Σμυρναίων ἐκκλησίᾳ,
ἰδίως τε τῷ 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 (Smyrn. 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; I am 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 has transferred the saying to the time of the mar-
tyrdom, embellishing it with a rhetorical flourish of his own, ‘quum
rugientes audiret leones.’ The author of these Acts, who likewise

1 Pearson (Vind. Zgn. p. 189) suggests With more cogency Pearson urges (pp.
that Jerome did not really mean to as- 180 sq., 610) that it does not matter what
cribe these words to Ignatius at the time Jerome meant, since his information is
of martyrdom; but I agree with Zahn derived at second hand from Eusebius.
(p. 32) in considering this view untenable,

378 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

had Eusebius before him, has done the same thing, though not un-
acquainted with the epistles themselves.

(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. 11. 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 (kat μάλα εἰκότως) ; for while it invited
him to gehenna, their mouths escorted him to a kingdom.’ There are
indeed passages in our Acts (§§ 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

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 waprvpiov but refer solely to the actual martyrdom.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 379

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 (ἢ 6) Ignatius,
addressing Trajan, describes the Christians as ‘obedient to rulers
whereinsoever the obedience is free from peril’ (ὑποτασσομένους ἄρχουσιν
ἐν οἷς ἀκίνδυνος ἡ ὑποταγή); while to the Antiochenes he is made to
write (ὃ 11), ‘Be ye obedient to Cesar, whereinsoever the obedience is
free from peril’ (τῷ Καίσαρι ὑποτάγητε ἐν ots 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 "Apavres
οὖν ἀπὸ Ῥηγίου) ; and the name of this same place occurs in one of the
spurious epistles (PA7lipp. 15 συντυχὼν περὶ Ῥήγιον), but no where else
(so far as I 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 tov viv ἀγαπῶ αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ἀποθανόντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα Χριστόν, compared with a passage in Rom. 6, which stands
in the genuine Ignatius ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα, ἐκεῖνον
θέλω τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀναστάντα, but is read by the interpolator ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ
τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀναστάντας Moreover in other passages
our martyrologist reproduces expressions that were first inserted into

380 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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, ib, τί γὰρ ὠφεληθήσομαι ἐὰν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσω
τὴν δὲ ψυχήν μου ζημιωθῶ with Rom. 6 τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος ἐὰν κ.τ.λ.,
§ 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᾽ Luijs...xal mopa...aevvaos ζωή. It is
worthy of notice also that the rare word ἀλωπός occurs both in
these Acts ὃ τὸ and in Ps-Ign. Antioch. 6 (though only as a various
reading), and that 2 Cor. vi. 14 sq. is quoted both by our martyrologist
§ 4, and in Ps-Ign. Ephes. τό.

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. 369).
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 rst 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
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

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 381

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 ¢me of writing can only be determined within very rough limits.
The writer is evidently acquainted with the Lcclescastical History of
Eusebius. Several facts and expressions in the opening chapter (e.g.
μετὰ ἐπιμελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακῆς, ἀπὸ Συρίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ρωμαίων πόλιν,
τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν ἕνεκα μαρτυρίας, διὰ τῆς ᾿Ασίας) are taken from this
father’s account of Ignatius (2: Z£. ill. 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 (27. £. 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 quem, 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. "ἢ. 87 5) 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
therefore allow time for its combination with the Antiochene Acts
and for translation into Latin before this date. The corresponding

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.

282 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

Greek witnesses are later. The J/enwa 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 (7 Ὁ. A. p. 28) argues from the expression σιδηροῖς ὄνυξι
(p. 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 ferrets ungulis, where
the Greek has merely τοῖς ὄνυξι (δ 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 MMenology of Basil
Porphyrogenitus also (circ. A.D. 980), under Jan. 29, a knowledge of
these Acts appears (Patrol. Gree. cxvil. 284, Migne). The Zaus 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 (Zev. e¢ 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 7. v. A. p. 38). But the discovery of a Coptic
version, which is published now for the first time, 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 proceeded 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 pro-
bably 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 (Dze lenatianischen Briefe p.
248 sq.) and Zahn (1 Ὁ. 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.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 383

1. The znternal 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 x.7.r.). 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 (. &. iii. 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’ (Rom. 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 (//d/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 (Hom. 5) he speaks of travelling ‘by land
and sea’—an expression which is explicable indeed, but appears some-
what 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 (Po/yc. 1); in our Acts on the other hand
they are represented as having been fellow disciples under S. John in
years gone by (§ 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 (Pz/ad. 10, Smyrn. 11,
Polyc. 7). But in our Acts the persecution is coextensive with the
empire. It is a resolute determination on the part of Trajan to crush

384 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

the Gospel, as he had already crushed the Dacians and Scythians, as
he intended shortly to crush the Parthians (§ 2).

(iii) 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 (8. 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. 405 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 con-
temporary writer, however prejudiced. It is equally irreconcilable with
Trajan’s own rescript to Pliny, in which, so far from entertaining 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 excite-
ment (17. £. ili. 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 (§§ 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’ (§ 6)? Later ages might be in-

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 385

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. 383), 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 if it were the earliest written
narrative of the kind with which he was acquainted (2. Z. iv. 15
ἀναγκαιότατον δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος ἐγγράφως ἔτι 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 (ai xara τὴν ὁδὸν πόλεις... ἐξέπεμπον κιτ.λ., ταῦτα διδάσκων κατὰ
πᾶσαν πόλιν, ταῖς ἐν τῷ μέσῳ κειμέναις πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις διδάσκαλος κ.τ.λ.),
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. ΝΟΥ͂ again is there
any reason for supposing that Jerome (Vir. ΖΔ 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

IGN, 26

486

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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. H. Z. i. τό Thre καὶ ᾿Ιγνάτιος
ὁ θεσπέσιος, ws Ἰωάννῃ τῷ 'Ρήτορι σὺν
ἑτέροις ἱστόρηται, ἐπειδή γε ὡς ἐβούλετο
τάφον [MS τάφων] τὰς τῶν θηρίων ἐσχηκὼς
γαστέρας ἐν τῷ τῆς Ῥώμης ἀμφιθεάτρῳ
[ἐτελειώθη] καὶ [ἔπειτα] διὰ τῶν ὑπολειφ-
θέντων ἁδροτέρων ὀστῶν, ἃ πρὸς τὴν ᾿Αν-
τιόχου ἀπεκομίσθη, ἐν τῷ κοιμητηρίῳ [κατε-
τέθη], μετατίθεται πολλοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις,
ὑποθεμένου τοῦ παναγάθου Θεοῦ Θεοδοσίῳ
τὸν θεοφόρον μείζοσι τιμῆσαι τιμαῖς, ἱερόν
τε πάλαι τοῖς δαίμοσιν ἀνειμένον (Τ υχαῖον
τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις ὠνόμαστο) τῷ ἀθλοφόρῳ καὶ
μάρτυρι ἀναθεῖναι" καὶ σηκὸς εὐαγὴς καὶ
τέμενος ἅγιον τῷ ᾿Ιγνατίῳ τὸ πάλαι Τὺυ-
χαῖον γέγονε, τῶν ἱερῶν αὐτοῦ λειψάνων
μετὰ πομπῆς ἱερᾶς ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν én’
ὀχήματος ἐνεχθέντων καὶ κατὰ τὸ τέμενος
τεθέντων. ὅθεν καὶ δημοτελὴς ἑορτὴ καὶ
πάνδημος εὐφροσύνη μέχρις ἡμῶν τελεῖται,
πρὸς τὸ μεγαλοπρεπέστερον τοῦ ἱεράρχου
Τρηγορίου ταύτην ἐξάραντος. γέγονε δὲ
γαῦτα ἐκεῖθεν ἔνθεν [.........], τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς
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 ὅθεν
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
H, £. xiv. 64 (Migne’s Patrol. Grec.
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 τὴν Αντιόχου ἀνήγαγε χρόνου
παραρρνέντος πολλοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ
κοιμητηρίῳ σεμνῶς κατατίθησιν, ἱερόν τὲ
μέγα δαίμοσιν ἀνειμένον, ὃ τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις
Tuxaiov ὠνόμαστο, τῷ θεοφόρῳ καὶ μάρ-
τυρι ἐχαρίξετο, thus making Theodosius
transfer the reliques from Rome to
Antioch, and identifying the sepulchre
in the Cemetery with the Tychzeum. It
may be well to add by way of caution
that in the opening sentence of Nices
phorus, Ἐν δὲ τῷ τότε καὶ 6 θεοφόρος
Ἰγνάτιος ἐκ Ῥώμης εἰς τὴν Κωνσταντίνου
dvexoulfero, 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 ὑπολειφθέν-
των ἁδροτέρων ὀστῶν, see the note on
Magn. 2 διὰ Aaa. It is not easily trans-
lated in its connexion here,

OF S. IGNATIUS. ἡ 387

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 Tychzeum (or Temple
of Fortune) by the people of the place. Thus the ancient Tychzum 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.D. 526 (Evagr. HZ. £. 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 a. 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.
439—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
(δ 6 μόνα γὰρ τὰ τραχύτερα τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων περιελείφθη, ἅτινα

26--

388 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

cis τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἀπεκομίσθη K.t.A.), and may have been taken directly
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 1 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 J/enea. 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 (Z 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 xvi. 17, xx. 5).
Here on the contrary there is no such propriety in its presence or
absence. If the writers were Philo and Rhaius Agathopus, whom we
learn from the letters to have been in the martyr’s company at Troas
(Philad. 11, Smyrn. 10, 13), aS Many critics suppose, the ‘we’ might
be expected to appear, while the martyr was still on the shores of the

OF 5. IGNATIUS... 389

Egan (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
approaching the Italian shore (ὃ 5 οὐρίοις ἀνέμοις προσχρησάμενοι ἡμεῖς
μὲν «.t.A.). 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. V. 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. S. 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 (Vita 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 S. Paul (Zphes.
12 ov γένοιτό μοι ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη εὑρεθῆναι), 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 (ἢ 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 (§ 7 ἐφανερώσαμεν ὑμῖν κιτ.λ.). 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-

390 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

taining an account of the journey from Philippi and the death, though
freely interpolating and altering it, where he was so disposed. But
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.

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 Fast, 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 Lebensgeschichtle des jiingeren
Plinius in Hermes i. Ὁ. 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,
such as Mommsen’s Juscriptiones Regni
Neapolitani, Renier’s Luscriptions Ro-
maines de f Algérie, and above all the
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum of the
Berlin Academy, compiled by Mommsen
and his fellow-labourers. The full and
well arranged indices of this last named
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
without 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, Z. 111. p. 866 (comp.
pp. I110, 1124) June 30 of Tih. Pot. xi
is assigned to A.D. 108, whereas it belongs
to 107 on either reckoning; and in C. /. 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 instrip-
tions.

OF 8. IGNATIUS. 391

CONSULS. Eee EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS,

A.D. | C. Antistius Vetus Domitian slain Sept. 18. Acces-

96 | C. Manlius Valens sion of Nerva.
A.U.C.

$49

A.D. | Limp. Nerva Augustus 11 | 1 | Trajan adopted about October.

97 | L. Verginius Rufus 1 The rst year of his 772d. Pot.
AWOL: begins then (1).

850

A.D. | mp. Nerva Augustus tv | 2 | Nerva dies towards the end of

98 |Llmp. Nerva Trajanus January (2). Accession of Tra-
A.C, Caesar (afterwards Au- jan at Cologne. He is already

851 gustus) ΤΙ Imperator and Germanicus (Plin.

Paneg. 9). The title Pater Pa-
triae assumed this year,

C. Δ. 2. τι. 4933 AVG. GERM. PON-
TIF .MAX.IMP.TRIB.POTEST.II.
COS. 1, P.P.: comp. Ii 4yan,

4934, Ill. 3924.

A.D. | A. Cornelius Palma 3 | Trajan enters Rome.
99 | Q. Sostus Senecio C. Z. £. vi. 563 AVG.GERM.P.M.
A.U.C. THs. WL. COS. IF. Ps Pas πόθι,
852 Ill.-p. 863 (Aug. 14), AR. WV.
5205.

Orelli 449 AVG.GERM. PONT.MAX.
TRIB. POT.COS. II. P.P.DES, III. ;
comp. Cohen JZéd. Jmp. τι.

Pp. 53:
A.D. | Lup. Nerva Trajanus| 4 | Pliny’s Panegyric in September.
100 Augustus 11 C. 5 2. Vi. 451 AVG. GERM. PON-
A.U.C. | Sex, Julius Frontinus 1ΠῚ TIFICI. MAXIMO. TRIB. POT. III.
853 cos. ΠῚ. DEsI[G. 1111] (Dec. 29);

comp. II. 4900, Ill. 1699. See
also Cohen 11. pp. 53, 82 sq.

A.D. |Lmp. Nerva Trajanus| 5 | The First Dacian War breaks out

101 Augustus IV (3). Trajan leaves Rome in
A.u.c. | Q. Articuleius Paetus March. Jwperator i.
854 C. 1 2. vi. 1239 AVG. GERMANIC,

PONTIF, MAX. TRIB. POTEST.V,
COS. III. P. P. (several times).
C.J. 2. vi. 2184 [TR. POTES|TATE.

V.IMP.1II.COS.IIII. P.P.

392

A.D.
102

A.U.C.

855

A.D.
103

A.U.C,

856

AAT):
104

AsU.G:
857

A.D.
105

Ἄς. Ca

858

A.D:
106

ΠΡΟΣ
859.

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

CONSULS, foe EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS.

C. Julius Ursus Servia-| 6 | Continuance of the First Dacian
nus 11 War. Jmperator iii, iv.

L. Licinius Sura τι (4) I. R. N. 6267 AVG.GERMANICVS.
PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. VI. IMP.
II. COS. III. PATER. PATRIAE $
Cohen 11. Ὁ. 57, no. 352,353,
AVG. GERM.P.M.TR. P.VI, with
R. IMP. III. COS. III. DES. V.
ἐπ 76.

Imp. Nerva Trajanus| 7 | The title Dacicus (perhaps at the

Augustus V close of the previous year). Re-
M”’. Laberius Maximus τὶ turn and Triumph of Trajan.
C.f. 2. ut. p. 864 [D]ACICVS. PON-
TIFEX. MAXIMV[S.TRIB|VNIC . PO-
TESTAT. VII. IMP. ἘΠῚ P,P.COS.
v (dated Jan. 19).
C. ἡ. £. τι. 4796 AVG. GER.DAC.
PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. VII. IMP.
Illl . COS . Vs Bs Pap aes, 11,
4797, VI. 955, 123983 Renier
f. A. 2η1τ, Cotten δ ὃς,

ΠΟ. 540 sq.

Sex. Attius Suburanust1| 8 |C. ZL. vi. 956 AVG. GERM. DA-

M. Asinius Marcellus (5) CICO. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. VIII.
IMP. IIII. COS.V.P.P.OPTVMO.
PRINCIPI.

—

Ti. Julius Candidus Ma-\| 9 |The Second Dacian War breaks

rius Célsus I out. Trajan leaves Rome in
C. Antius A. Julius Quad- June (6).
ratus 11 C. /. £. 111..p. 865 sq. κυ ΤΥ.

GERMANICVS . DACICVS . PONTI-
FEX . MAXIMVS . TRIBVNIC . PO-
TESTAT. VIIII. ΜΡ, IJII. COS.V.
p.p.(May 13); comp foe 2.
Vi. 957, Vil. 100g, awe

6251.
L. Cetonius Commodus| to |The Second Dacian War con-
Aurelius Annius Verus tinues. Conquest of Arabia
... Luccius Cerialis Petraea by Palmas about this

time (7).

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 393

AD.

108
A: U.C.

861

A.D.

109
AG.C.

862

A.D.

110
A.U.C.

863

A.D.
III
A.U.C.
864

Ap. Annius Trebonius 12

‘FRIB.
CONSULS. aie
7. Licinius Sura ut II

Q. Sosius Senecio τι (8)

Gallus
M. Atilius Metilius Bra-
dua

... Baebius Tullus

Orfitus
M. Peducaeus Priscinus

M. Vettius Bolanus

EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS.

End of the Second Dacian War
(if not at the close of the pre-
ceding year). Trajan is now
Imperator Vi.

I. R&R. WN. 453 AVG.GERM. DAC.
PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. XI. IMP.
VI. COS.V.P.P., at Brundisium.

C. Δ 2. τπ|. p. 867 AVG.GERMANIC.
DACICVS. PONTIF . MAXIMVS . TRI-
BVNIC . POTESTAT. XI. IMP. VI,
cos.v.P.P. (June 30); comp.
4, y 24575 2523:

Orelli 787 AVG.GERM. DACICO. PON-

TIFICI. MAX. TRIBVNIC. POTEST.
Mil. IMP NT Cost By eae
VICTIS:. DACIS;: comp. ἔν ἐς
11 2627, 6273.

A. Cornelius Palma τι 83. Οὐ" Z ZL. vi. 1260 alvc]. GERM.

DACIC.[PO]NT . MAX.TR. POT.
XI IME Vis ΟΞ Pee.
AQVAM . TRAIANAM . PECVNIA .
SVA.IN.VRBEM . PERDVXIT.

727. R. NV. 6290 AVG. GERM. DAC.
PONT. MAX. TR. PO[T]. XIII.
IMP. VI.COS.V.P.P.VIAM.ET.
PONTES . BENEVENTO . BRVND[I]-
SIVM . PECVNIA. SVA (similarly
6289); comp. C. /. Z. vi. 452,
Pod, JV: 6241, ὦν A. 3267.

Ser. Scipio Salvidienus| 14 | C. Δ LZ. ut. p. 868 avG. GERM.

DACICVS . PONTIF . MAX . TRIBV-
NIC. POTESTAT. XIIII. IMP. VI.
cos. v.P.P.(Feb. 17) ; comp.
De Big AVE SA:

C. Calpurnius Piso 15 | Pliny assumes the government of

Bithynia (9).

I. R. N. 6261 AVG. GERMAN. DA-
cicvs . ΡΟΪΝ]ΤΙΕ. [MA]xIMvs .
TRIB. POTESTATIS . XV. [I|MP.
vi. Cos. V.[P. Ρ.] SVBSTRVCTIO-
NEM.CONT|RA. L]ABEM , MONTIS.
FECIT,

394 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

CONSULS, esi EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS.

.«--....-.-

ap. | Jmp. Λίεγυα Trajanus| 16 | Persecution of the Christians in

112 Augustus Vi Bithynia. Statue erected in the
A.v.Cc. | Zi Sextius Africanus Forum of Trajan and inscribed
865 (C. 1.2. vi. 959) νῦν.

GERMANICO . DACICO . PONTIF.
MAX. TRIBVNICIA . POTEST. XVI.
IMP. VI.COS.VI.P.P.OPTIME.
DE. REPVBLICA. MERITO. DOMI.
FORISQVE; comp.C. J. 2. VI. 542.

‘ap. | LZ. Publilius Celsus 17 | The Column of Trajan dedicated
113 | C. Clodius Crispinus and inscribed (C. Z. Z. vi. 960)
A.U.C. AVG . GERM . DACICO. PONTIF .
866 MAXIMO. TRIB. POT. XVII. IMP.

VI.COS.VI.P.P.

In the autumn Trajan starts for his
Parthian expedition (10), passes
through Athens and Asia Minor,
and winters at Antioch.

AD. | Q. Minnius Hasta 18 | Armenia and Mesopotamia subju-
114 | £. Dlanilius Vopiscus gated. Trajan marches to Adia-
Ase; bene. Operations of Lusius.
867 The senate confers the title of

Optimus (11) upon Trajan. He
is afterwards designated Partht-

cus (12). This year also he is
Imperator vii, vill, ix. He win-
ters again at Antioch.

C. I. LZ. 11. p. 869 OPTIMVS. AVG.
GERM. DACIC. PONTIF. MAX. TRI-
BVNIC . POTESTAT . XVIII. IMP.
VII. COS. Viv PP (abet. 2), a
military diploma at Carnuntum
in Pannonia.

I. R. N. 1408 OPTIMO. AVG, GERMA-
NICO . DACICO . PONTIF. MAX.
TRIB . POTEST . XVIII . IMP. VII.
COS. VI. P, P. FORTISSIMO. PRIN-
CIPI. SENATVS.P.Q.R., on the
arch at Beneventum.

σι I. Z. 11. 2097 OPTIMO. AVG.
GERM . DACICO. PARTHICO . PON-
TIF. MAX. TRIB. POT. XVIII. IMP.
VII. COS. VI. PATRI. PATRIAE, In
Baetica. :

OF S. IGNATIUS. 395

CONSULS.

ΓΈΡΑ Vipstanius Messalla

τι | MZ. Vergilianus Pedo
A.U.C.
868

EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS,

Borghesi Giuvres v. 22 OPTIMVS.
AVG.GERMANICVS. DACICVS. PON-
TIFEX . MAXIM. TRIB. POT .XVIII.
IMP. VIII. P.P. FACIENDAM. CV-
RAVIT, at Ferentinum.

Eckhel vi. p. 449 apict. Kal. ceB.
rep.Aak. with R. 10yYMEWN. TOON.
Kal. AAOAIKE@N . BZP (the 162nd
year of Laodicea began in the
autumn A.D, 114).

19 | The great earthquake at Antioch,

in which Pedo is killed (13).
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 xu.

C. f. £. vi. 543 OPTIMI. [AVG .
GERM. DA|cici. (Id. Jan.).

Orelli 792 OPTIMO. AVG . GERMA-
NICO. DACICO. PONT. MAX. TR.
POT . XVIII. IMP. VIIII. COS. VI.
P . P. PROVIDENTISSIMO . PRIN-
CIPI. SENATVS.P.Q.R., on the
arch at Ancona.

Ephem. Epigr. WX. p. 38 sq. (1876)
OPTIMO . AVG. GER. PARTHICO.
DACICO. PONTIF. MAXIM. TRIBVN .
POTEST . XVIII . IMP. XI. COS.
vi. P. P.(acorrection of C. ἢ. 2.
11. 1028), in Baetica.

Fabretti Jnscr. 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. Jnscr. Gree. 4948
L . 10 . AYTOKPATOPOC . KAICAPOC .
NEPOYA . TPAIANOY . APICTOY . (Ε-
BACTOY . FEPMANIKOY . AAKIKOY .
TAXWN .A(Pachon 30 = May 24).

206 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

CONSULS, EVENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS.

A.D. | Z. Lamia Aclianus 20 | Trajan’s expedition to the Persian
210 6) ΘΟ Vetus Gulf. He returns to Babylon.
AUG, Revolt of the subjugated na-
869 tions. Operations of Lusius and
other lieutenants against the re-
volt. <A king given to the Par-
thians. Uprising of the Jews in
Cyrene, Egypt, and Cyprus.
Imperator xii.
I. R. NV. 2488 OPTIMO. AVG. GERM.
DACIC . PARTHIC . PONT . MAX.
TRIB. POTEST. XX. IMP. XII. COS.
VI. PATRI. PATR., from Puteolli.
There is a similar Tunisian in-
scription; see Borghesi Buz.
Lnst. Corr. Archeol. 1859, p. 120.
C. J. L, 10. ps S76 ΡΤ Ave.
GERM. DACIC. PARTHIC. PONTIF.
MAX. TRIB. POTESTAT. XX.IMP.
XIII. PROCOS. COS. VI. P. P. (Sept.
8), at Wiesbaden.
Cohen Il. p. 54 OPTIMO. AVG. GERM.
with R. DAC. PARTHICO. P.M.
TR. P. XX ΒΒ

A.D. pith E uk . LViger 21 | Lusius crushes the rebellion of the

117 |... btlus Apronianus Jews. Illness of Trajan. He
A.U.C. leaves the army under Hadrian
870 andreturnshomeward. Hisdeath
at Selinus in Cilicia, August 11.
The following inscription (which I
give in full) belongs to a statue
voted in his life-time, but com-

pleted after his death ;
C. λ 7. i. 2054 Ie. Caneaes.
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.

ΝΟ.

ΟΕ S. IGNATIUS. 397

(1) 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 tribunicia potestas was conferred on Trajan about the end
of October a.D. 97', three months before the death of Nerva, which
took place towards the end of January a.D. 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 other solution which would explain these phenomena.

1. Borghesi first applied himself to the problem (Cuures v. 19 sq. ;
see also his letter to Henzen Bull. Lust. di Corrisp. Archeol. 1859,
p- 119 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.D. 98 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 (eg. C ZZ. m1. p. 864,

1 This follows from a comparison of
Aur. Victor. 2.222. xii. g ‘Hic [Nerva]
Trajanum in liberi locum inque partem
imperii 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.
8 9 ‘jam Caesar, jam imperator, jam
Germanicus, absens et ignarus’). Thus.
Trajan was adopted as son and made
Czesar about the same time, perhaps even
on the same day. Then after a short
interval he was associated in the empire
and the tribunician power. 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 Ixviii. 3, 4, ὁ Nepovas...
ἀνέβη τε els τὸ Καπιτώλιον καὶ ἔφη yeyw-
νήσας.. -Τραϊανὸν ποιοῦμαι" καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα
ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Καίσαρά τε αὐτὸν ἀπέδειξε
K.T-r...00Tw μὲν ὁ Τραϊανὸς Ἱζαῖσαρ καὶ μετὰ
τοῦτο αὐτοκράτωρ ἐγένετο. 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 ¢ribunicia potestas to the
next January, as Stobbe does (Piilologus
XXXII, p. 34 sq., 1873).

398 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

given above under A.D. 103). To account for those which still
remained, Mommsen (//ermes 111. Ὁ. 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.D. 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 Dze
Tribunenjahre der Romischen Kazser Ὁ. 1 sq. in Philologus xxx, 1873.
He maintained that some extraordinary event, especially the association
of a colleague in this office, would lead the emperor to a fresh assump-
tion of the ¢vibunicia 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-
nician 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.p. 98, for this
emperor died towards the end of the month) is found connected not
only with Trib. Pot. u, but also with Trib. Pot. iii, in inscriptions.
On this hypothesis therefore the rst tribunician year of Trajan actually
began on some early day in January A.D. 98; but by a fictitious
reckoning this 1st year was counted as the 2nd year, the previous
threé months since his adoption as Cesar being thus retrospectively
regarded as his first year. ‘This hypothesis 15 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.
756, ste Aufl. 1875; 1. p. 775 sq., 2te Aufl. 1877) has replaced his former
hypothesis by another. He now supposes that Trajan’s second tribu-
nician year began not on Jan. 1, A.D. 98, but on Dec. 10, A.D. 97.
This latter day, Dec. 10, was the ancient day for the election of the
tribunes, and Dionysius (At. Rom. vi. 89) says explicitly that it
remained so in his time (ὥσπερ καὶ μέχρι τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γίνεται).
Now Dion Cassius (lili. 17) tells us that the years of the emperors’
relgns were counted by the tribunician power ‘on the assumption

OF S. IGNATIUS. 399

that they received it year by year together with those who for the
time being held the office of tribune’ (δ αὐτῆς καὶ ἡ ἐξαρίθμησις τῶν
ἐτῶν τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν, ὡς κατ᾽ Eros αὐτὴν μετὰ τῶν ἀεὶ δημαρχούντων
λαμβανόντων, προβαίνει. It appears therefore that, as a rule, the
tribunician years of the emperors commenced with Dec. 10. 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 (dies imperii).
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
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 imperit. 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. 10, 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 λοι. Epigr. 11. p. 339 IMP-NERVAE:
CAESARI-AVG- PONTIF-MAX-TRIB-POT-I11-COS-111. 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. 10. Thus
the inscription belongs to some date between Dec. 10 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.

400 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

x. The base of a statue set up to Trajan at Aratispi in Baetica
gives the emperor’s honours (C. 7 Z. 11. 2054; see above, p. 396)
TRIB-+POTEST+XXI-IMP-XIII-COS-vI. Coins also bear the inscription
AHMAPX.EZ-KA; see Eckhel vi. Ὁ. 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 2z1st year of his tribunician power is only explicable on some
hypothesis as regards the mode of reckoning, which anticipates the
actual anniversary .

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. 7 Z. m1 p. 868, Henzen 5443, "
gives TRIBVNIC-POTESTAT-XIIII-IMP-VI-COS-v, and is dated 13 Kal.
Mart. of the consulate of Salvidienus Orfitus and Peducaeus Priscinus,
i.e. Α.Ὁ. 110. Thus againin C. ZZ. 11. p. 865, Henzen 6857, we have
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, Οἱ Z 2. 11. 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. 100.
Again in another, C. Z Z. ul. p. 870, dated 6 Id. Sept., he is described
TRIB-POTESTAT-XX ; and this must refer to A.D. 116, since Trajan was
no longer living in September 117.

This point therefore must be regarded as settled. But hitherto

1 Two recorded inscriptions how-
ever exceed the 21st year, and these are
not explicable on any reckoning. (1)

dropped in transcription TRIB. POT .xX
[XI.IMP.]XIII.cOS.vVI, if not left out
by the stone-cutter himself. As an offi-

Mommsen / 2. WV. 5619 OPTIMO. AVG.
GERMANICO . DACICO. PARTHICO. PONT.
MAX. TRIB. POT. XXII¥.COS.VI. PATRI.
PATRIAE . SENATVS . POPVLVSQ. ROM.
found at Avezzano. Orelli (I. p. 191)
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 ex-
plains the error, some letters having been

cial inscription was not likely to omit
the imperatorial titles, this explanation
seems very probable. (2) Renier Z. 4.
1482 AVG.GERM.DAC. PART. PONT.MAX.
TRIB. POT.XXIII.IMP.XVIII.COS.VI.P.P.
at Thamugas. This again, if correctly
transcribed, can only be explained by
carelessness of the stonecutter or of the
transcriber. It ought perhaps to be
TRIB . POT. XVIII. IMP. VIII.

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 401

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. I. Z. ut. p. 864 (see above, p. 392), a military diploma dated
14 Kal. Febr. (=Jan. 19) of the consulate of Μ᾽. Laberius Maximus 0,
Q. Glitius Atilius Agricola 11, Trajan is designated TRIBVNIC- POTESTAT-
VII-IMP-I11I-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 1. 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
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 Méd. Lip. 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 1. c.) ;
but he was afterwards satisfied by M. Waddington that it was neither
spurious nor misread (Sfaatsrecht τι. Ὁ. 777, note 1). There are
other coins also (Cohen 11. 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. 398 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 ifinthe to the new reckoning it was the second.

earlier years of Trajan’s reign we found
some wavering in the inscriptions between
the old reckoning and the new.
I am unable to understand many of the
statements of Mommsen Staatsréché 11.
p- 776, note 2. The diploma(C. Z. Z. 1.
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

IGN.

But

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. Δ Z. 111. p. 863) of Aug. 14,
which has Trib. Pot. iii, and says that on
both systems this belongs to 100, not 99

402 ACTS OF 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.

(2) See the note on Aart. Ant. 1 "Apr διαδεξαμένου κιτ.λ.

(3) The frst 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.D. 1867—1871) of the Acta Lra-
trum Arvalium afford more precise information. Here we find these
officials sacrificing, Q-ARTICVLEIO-[PAETO], SE[X-ATT|IO-SVBVRANO-
COS - VIII-K-APR-+IN-CAPITOLI[O - 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 ete.’
(ὦ 7.2. vi. 2074; comp. Henzen Act. γα Aro) ppg; ease.

[as he himself gives it in C. 7. Z. 1.c.].
But it is fixed to A.D. 99 by the addition
cos. 11, for Trajan was COS. II in A.D.
100; and according to the old system
Aug. 14, A.D. 99, would belong to the
and tribunician year. Again he adduces
another diploma, Orelli 782 (=C. Z Z.
VI. 451, given above, p. 391), 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. 1111]; but Dec. 29, A.D. 100,
would fall in the Αγ tribunician year
according to the new reckoning, as the
year began on Dec. 10. 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.

At the same time Mommsen omits to
mention some inscriptions which, if cor-

rectly transcribed, are opposed to his
theory. Thus C. 7 2.11, 2552. ΟἹ Julipa
in Betica is given TRIB. POT. IIII.Cos.
1Π1|. Here we must read COS. III, if it is
to harmonize with either of Mommsen’s
theories; though, as it stands, it is con-
sistent with Borghesi’s. The case is simi-
lar also with Δ 35. WV. 2487 AVG. GERM.
DACICO.PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. XV. IMP.
VI.COS.VI.P.P.OPTIMO.PRINCIPI, which
is reconcilable with Borghesi’s view but
not with either of Mommsen’s. Here
however cos. Vv would set all straight,
and it appears from Mommsen’s own
collation that this reading is given in one
transcription. Both these examples would
be explicable on the old system of reckon-
ing by complete years from the day of the
first assumption of the tribunician power,
but this view must be regarded as defi-
nitively abandoned.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 403

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. τοῦ; 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, nO. 354. IMP-+-CAES-NERVA-TRAIAN-AVG-GERM-P-M-TR-
P- VII
Ἐς IMP-III-COS-IIII-DES-V-P-P-+S-C-

(b) Ῥ. 57, NO. 355. IMP-CAES-NERVA+TRAIAN+AVG:GERM:DACICVS>
Pe sfee WEEP
R. IMP-IIII-COS-IIII-DES-V+P+-P+S°Ce

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. 1o—Dec. 31 of the year (see above,
p- 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.D. 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. 401), the ground
for objecting to the others (the combination of TR-P-viI with Cos- 1111)
has been cut away. ‘Two other types of coins, likewise bearing the
name DACICYS in conjunction with cos-11I, 1.6. not later than A.D. 102,
are also given by Cohen, p. 15, nos. 78, 79.

(4) For the consuls of this year see the note on Mart, Ant. 7.

(5) On the names of the consuls for this year, and on their trans-
position with those of the preceding year, see the note on JZar¢,
Rom. τ.

(6) 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. 7. LZ. Vi. 2075 (comp.

27—2

404 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

Henzen Act. Hair. Arv. p. 124). Here we find these officials assem-
bled aD-VOTA-SYSCIPI[ENDA + PRO-IT|V- ET- REDITV - [IMP - CJAESA[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 Zmperator iv. On June 30,
A.D. 107, he is Jmfperator vi. These two additional attributions of the,
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 Jmferator vy have been discovered ; for,
though the words inscribed on the bridge at Alcantara (C. ZZ. τι. 759)
are certainly TRIB-POTES:-VIII-IMP-V-Cos-v (the tribunician year being
written vil, and not vilil, as it has been read; see Renier’s note
on Borghesi Cuvres 1v. Ὁ. 122), this must be a stone-cutter’s error,
since Trajan was still Jmferator iv in the following year, and pro-
bably therefore rmp-1v should be substituted for imp-v. Here there-
fore we receive no assistance as regards the matter in question.
Mommsen (C./Z. 1. 550), combining the sequence of Hadrian’s
honours as recorded in an Athenian inscription with the account
of the same in Vt, Hadr. 3, arrives at the result that the Second
Dacian War extended into a.D. 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, Ixviil. 14). On-the other
hand Julian (Ces. 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. 106.
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 offhand statement au pied de la lettre. On the other
side Dierauer (p. 106, note) decides positively that the war must have

ΟΕ S. IGNATIUS. 405

been concluded before the end of 106, because Sura, one of Trajan’s
generals in this war, was consul in 107.

(7) Dion Cassius (Ixviii. 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 Petrsa at
any time between about midsummer A.D. 105 and midsummer a.pD.
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
reckoned their years from this date. This probably means, as Clinton
says, that the year of the Seleucid which began in the October
falling within this consulship was counted as the rst year of the
Petreean era. The fact would imply that Arabia Petreea was conquered
and made a Roman province some time between Oct. 105 and Oct.
106. Whether early or late in this period, it would probably be
before the close of the Secand Dacian War. If so, /mperator v
belongs to the conquest of Arabia, and Jmperator vi to that of
Dacia.

(8) For the consuls of the year 107 see the note on Mart.
Ant. ἡ.

(9) For the date of Pliny’s propretorship in Bithynia, and the
persecution. of the Christians connected therewith, see the note on
Mart. Rom. τι.

(ro) 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. WV. vi. p. 450 sq., Francke Geschichte Trajans pp. τό 54.»
253 sq., Dierauer Geschichte Trajans Ὁ. 152 sq., Mommsen Οἱ /. Z. ΠΙ.
p. 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 9th, and in this he is followed

406 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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-
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 a.pD. 113. Thus for instance
there is no accession to the emperor's titles. He is Jmperator vi
in June A.D. 107, and he remains so as late as A.D; 113 when the
column is erected. ‘The next accumulation, Jmperator 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. 111-112), 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 (Zmpereurs 11. p. 196 sq., 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 Zodesjahr des Hl. Ignatius) has made an elaborate attempt
to prove that Trajan made three several expeditions to the East,
A.D. 107, A.D. 110, and a.p. 116. And even de Rossi (laser. Christ.
Urb. 1. 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.

OF 8. IGNATIUS.’ 407

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 (Ixviii. 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
events, as given by Dion, is confirmed in all respects by the genuine
_ coins and inscriptions. It should be added also that Julian (Ces.
Ρ. 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 παρ᾽ αὐτῶν, οὐκ μην
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. 382 sq.), they are discredited by various
considerations, apart from this difficulty about the date.

(ii) 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 (éreotparevoe τῷ ιβ΄ ἔτει τῆς βασι-
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 Tparavod 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

408 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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
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 (i.e. A.D. 105). Then under the
following year (A.D. 106) he writes, πολέμου χαλεποῦ ἐπιβάντος τῇ “Popavia
ὑπὸ Περσῶν καὶ Τόθων καὶ ἑτέρων ἐθνῶν, Tpatavos ἀπερχόμενος εἰς 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. 403 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.D. 114, and yet they bear
the legend TIGRIS, or INDIA, OF PARTHICVS, OF 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

1 Julian (C@s. p. 327) calls the Da- καὶ τὸ Παρθικὸν τρόπαιον, τῆς τῶν Τετῶν
cians ‘Getz’ throughout; τό τε Τετικὸν ὕβρεως, τὸ Τετῶν ἔθνος ἐξεῖλον,

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 409

ever-increasing mass of epigraphic and numismatic evidence, which
betrays no knowledge of any such stirring events’.

(11) The designation Oftimus 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
[Trajani] et proprium arrogantia priorum principum fecit’; and again
c. 88 ‘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 A.D. 100, this must refer to the very beginning of Trajan’s
reign.

(ii) Dion Cassius (Ixviii. 23), as abridged by Xiphilinus, says of
Trajan τά τε ἄλλα ἐψηφίζετο αὐτῷ πολλὰ ἡ βουλή, καὶ ὄπτιμον, εἴτ᾽
οὖν ἄριστον, ἐπωνόμασεν, and a little lower down, καὶ ὠνομάσθη μέν,
ἐπείδη καὶ τὴν Νίσιβιν εἷλε καὶ τὰς Βάτνας, Παρθικός, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον
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. Itis 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. ΤῸ 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 ἢ

1 Eckhel vi. p. 451 sq. ‘Bellam — ras, cerberos, centauros, quam inauspi-

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-

catus is partus erit, wt mec fes nec caput
uni reddatur formae’.

2 Several types of coins are given by
Fabretti Co/. Zraj. p. 292 (see Francke
Geschichte Trajans p. 16) with apicToc

410 ACTS OF MARTYRDO)

(12) The date of the assumption of the title ‘ Parthicus’ presents
some difficulties. Dion Cassius (Ixvili. 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 (xl. 21) however
represents it as conferred by the senate, ἡ 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. 411 sq.), this would be towards the end of A.D. 114.
At a later point Dion (Xiphilinus), describing a subsequent cam-
paign (Ixviii. 23), says that when the emperor entered Ctesiphon as
victor, he was saluted (ἐπωνομάσθη) imperator, and ‘confirmed the
epithet of Parthicus’ (τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ΠΠαρθικοῦ ἐβεβαιώσατο)ῆ. 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, ina military diploma of Trajan dated Sept. 1st, with imp-vu, it is
wanting *. So also in the inscription on the arch at Beneventum, erected
by the senate, likewise with Imp-vu, 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 Imp-vul, it appears on a monument in Beetica.
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

before ceBacToc, dated AHMAPY. €Z.1Z.
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
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
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.

1 These inscriptions are given above,
Ῥ' 305sq. In C. Z πα 0. dared
Sept. 1, the one side of the tablet has
XVIII, and the other xvul, for the tribu-
nician years. ‘The titles of Trajan, OPT.
AVG, and TRI. POT. VII, show that the
former is correct, and the latter the stone-
cutter’s blunder.

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 411

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
again in another Beetican 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.

(13) The year ofthe great earthquake at Antioch 15 fixed as A.D. 115
by the notice in Dion (Ixviii. 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 wétering at Antioch. But
the alternative still remains that the winter in question was 114 or
113, 1. 6. that the earthquake took place at the beginning or the end of
If Malalas is worthy of credit, it happened on Dec. 13 of this
But several modern critics (e.g. Eckhel vi. p. 453 sq., Clinton

EIS.
year.

1 See above, p. 395-

4 Boeckh, C. 7: G. 4948, given
above, p. 395. The Egyptian year began
on Aug. 29, and the second year of
Trajan in Egyptian reckoning would be
from 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 Yournal des Savans
1824, p. 240 sq., Mommsen Svaatsrecht
11, 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.

3 Ephem.
quoted above, Ρ. 395.
had previously been deciphered incor-
rectly (e.g. in C. Z Z. 1. 1028). Its
correct decipherment has antiquated
much that has been written on the title
Parthicus; e.g. by Borghesi Bul’. Corr,
Inst. Archeol. 1859, p. 119 sq., by Noel
des Vergers C, R. Acad. Jnscr, et Belles
Lettres 1866, p. 85, and by Dierauer,
Ρ- 166 sq.

Epigr, ἘΠῚ. p. 38 sq.,
This inscription

412 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

fast. Rom. sub ann. 115, Borghesi Ciuvres v. p. 19) ΟἹ 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
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 Dio, ‘he made an expedition against the
Armenians and Parthians’ (Ixviil. 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.D. 113. The subsequent events
are as follows.

(a) 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
(ἀμαχί)δ. Adenystree, a strong fortress, opens its gates to the Romans,
the garrison having been massacred (c. 22). The emperor receives

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 413

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 cafts to the Tigris. A bridge across the river is constructed
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 Zmferaior and ‘confirms’ the title Farthicus. ‘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

Aid ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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 113, we should get two whole years for the operations (a),
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
drageed 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. 394, 409)
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 Betica (see above, p. 410 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 S. IGNATIUS. 415

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,
1. 6. 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.

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 ix, 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
Ase DIG; «τό,

On these- grounds I have assumed that the winter of the earthquake
was 114, not 11%; 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, is 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 11s,
and that the winter 117 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

1 Dion Cass. Ixviii, 28 ὑπὸ δὲ δὴ in ὑπὸ χειμῶνος ὃ Es heisst nicht etwa
χειμῶνος τῆς Te τοῦ Τίγριδος ὀξύτητος καὶ ὑπὸ Thy χειμῶνα, sondern durch einen
τῆς τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ ἀναρροίας ἐκινδύνευσε. Sturm etc.’ But (1) Dion would certainly
Volkmar (Rhein. Mus. N. F. X11. p. 508), never have made χειμὼν feminine. (2)
answering Francke, says ‘Und worin liegt He would not have used the accusative
nun das Ueberwintern? Sollte der ge- case, unless he had meant something dif-
lehrte Historiker wirklich gedacht haben ferent, e.g. ‘under cover of winter’, or

416 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

with the description of the danger it points naturally to the winter
or the very early spring. The documents are quite consistent with
this view. The oficial assumption of the title Parthicus was, as we
have seen (p. 410), 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.ZZ. vi. 1984, 2404, 2411). These
therefore have no bearing on the question. ‘The only two which have a
date both belong to the month of January (ὦ ZZ. 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.

δ.

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. OcroBER 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.

(i) Chrysostom in his panegyric on S. Ignatius states that the
festival of the martyr followed immediately on that of S. Pelagia; Hom.
in S. Lgnat. (Op. τι. p. 592 8q.). The grace of the Spirit, he says, sets
᾿ before us its banquets of the martyrs in rapid succession (συνεχεῖς ἡμῖν
kal ἐπαλλήλους τὰς τῶν μαρτύρων παρατίθεται τραπέζας). Only the other

‘at the approach of winter’. (3) The χειμῶνος πονῶσιν, εὐδίας γενομένης παύ-

article is as frequently omitted as inserted,
when winter is intended; e.g. Thucyd.
Vi. 34 ἐξωσθῆναι ἂν τῇ ὥρᾳ els 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 7 γαῖ. i. 2. 1
(p. 116) οἱ δυστυχοῦντες, ὁπόταν μὲν ὑπὸ

ovrat: (2) ‘severe climate’, as at high alti-
tudes, e.g. Herod. viii. 138 οὖρος κέεται,
Βέρμιον οὔνομα, ἄβατον ὑπὸ χειμώνος : (3)
‘winter season’, e.g. Thucyd. ii, Tor ὑπὸ
χειμῶνος ἐταλαιπώρει (comp. Cc. 102 τοῦδε
τοῦ χειμῶνος), Herod. iv. 62 ὑπονοστέει
γὰρ δὴ αἰεὶ ὑπὸ τῶν χειμώνων.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 417

day it was a young virgin Pelagia who entertained us; to-day the valiant
Ignatius has succeeded to her festival (πρώην γοῦν ἡμᾶς κόρη κομιδῆ νέα
καὶ ἀπειρόγαμος ἡ μακαρία μάρτυς Πελαγία.. 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
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 (1 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 S. Pelagia, which gives μηνὶ ὀκτωβρίῳ η΄, as
the date of its delivery (Of. 11. p. 584).

(ii) The Syriac ms Arit. Mus. Add. 12,150 is described in
Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac MSS p. 631. It is probably the oldest
dated Ms in existence, having been written a.D. 411. At 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 Vl. pp. 45 54., 423sq. 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. εὐ 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

IGN. 28

418 ᾿ ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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 Jen. e¢ Pol. Ep. Ὁ. 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 Avtiochene Acts of Lgnatius,
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. 421). 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 Syr. xxxvii, described in
Assemani Bibl. Apost. Vatic. Cod. MSS Catal. Pars 1. Tom. 11. p. 244,
a volume of miscellaneous contents brought from Mesopotamia. On
p- 2508q. is ‘Kalendarium per anni circulum festorum Domini et sanc-
torum ordinatum a sancto Jacobo Edesseno.’ It contains these notices;

Oct. 15 ‘Isaiah of Aleppo; and the decease of Mar Asia [sor
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
Capharszan, 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-

1 See Assem. Bid]. Orient. 110 pp. 351, 365.

OF 8. IGNATIUS. 419

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 is dated a.p. 675, and was probably written
by the hand of the famous Jacob of Edessa himself (see Wright’s
Catalogue of Syriac Mss Ὁ. 3308q.). It contains chiefly Hymns of
Severus and others (among these a Hymn on Ignatius, and another on
Basil and Gregory); but beginning on fol. 84 α is a calendar of Saints’
Days ‘perhaps written by a different hand.’ It furnishes these notices;

maser srtzota Whaors ἴω a 435. 1.9
fol. 84@ ++ PEATLAA ωοουταν ον wo culos
0 0s\ thor’ τύςΣ. ΠΩ so οἵσὸιθ jmshays
fol. 855 + “οαλλιοοτ 9 ΟἾΝΟΝ
‘On the 1st 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 Lpithronian
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 p. 534 sq., Cureton C. ΔΛ
p. 215 sq., 247 sq.). Respecting four of these we are told that they
were delivered in the Church of Ignatius, that is, no doubt, in the
ancient Tycheum, 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

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.

428....2

420 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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.

(vi) Another trace of this day appears in the Bollandist Aca
Sanctorum Feb. 1 (1. p. 14, ed. nov.), where, after mention of the proxi-
mity to 5. 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 quedam annotata mss excipiantur Carthusia-
norum Bruxellensium, in quibus xvii Octobris traditur B. Ignatii
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 Menea contain two festivals of our saint.

Dec. 20. The anniversary of the martyrdom (Μνήμη τοῦ ἁγίου
ἱερομάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου τοῦ Θεοφόρου).

The στίχοι are

Λέουσιν, ᾿Ιγνάτιε, δεῖπνον προὐτέθης,
Κοίνωνε δείπνου μυστικοῦ, θάρσους λέον.
Εἰκάδι ᾿Ιγνάτιος θάνε γαμφηλῇσι λεόντων.

Jan. 29. The return of the reliques (‘H ᾿Ανακομιδὴ τῶν Λειψάνων τοῦ
ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος ᾿Ιγνατίου τοῦ Θεοφόρου).

The στίχοι are

Χάρις λέουσιν, ᾿ἸΙγνάτιε, παμβόροις
Σοῦ σώματος λιποῦσι καὶ πιστοῖς μέρος.
Τῇ δ᾽ ἐνάτῃ ἐπάνουδος ᾿Ιγνατίῳ εἰκάδι τύχθη.

This second festival is almost as prominent in the Menea as the
first.

The Armenian calendar agrees substantially with the later Greek as
regards the day of the martyrdom, though it exhibits slight variations.

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 421

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 xiii 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. 418) 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 the Armenian months at that time did not exactly synchronize with
the beginnings of the Greek months. In the same way Dee. 20 is Choiak
24 in the Egyptian, and Tahsas 24 in the Ethiopic calendar (see below
p- 423). 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 (L767.
Orient. 11. p. 648, 654) it is neither Dec. 24 nor Dec. 20, but Dec. 17.
Whether this shght variation again can be explained by some fluctuation
in the Armenian year or not, I am unable tosay. Itshould be observed
however that this last date agrees with some early forms of the Latin
calendar (see below p. 428). 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 Lgnatius (§ 7 τῇ πρὸ δεκατριῶν καλανδῶν ‘lavvov-
apiwv). Notwithstanding the various reading of the Syriac version
mentioned above (p. 418), 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
(ξ 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. Juty 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
(§ 12) καὶ ἔστιν ἡ μνήμη τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου καὶ γενναίου μάρτυρος Ἰγνατῶν
μηνὶ πανέμῳ νεομηνίᾳ, ‘in the month Panemus on the rst day,’ as it
appears in P, the best of the three Greek Mss. ‘The retention of thus

422 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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 Coptic version, necovar Mnrahot eyarmory} epoy KATA
MIPWMEOC BE NAMEMOCT KATA MIPEMMIQCHA AE Mecoy J πέπηπ,
‘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
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. U1. pp. 360, 363, Ideler Handb. d. Chron. τὶ Ὁ, 143 sq.
So too the heading of these Acts in this Coptic Version describes the
martyrdom as taking place tcov Ὁ Mmsahot emsm, ‘on the seventh of
the month Epiphi.’ And again the corresponding notice in the Armenian
Acts of Martyrdom (δ 52), taken from these Roman Acts, runs ‘Me-
moriam Deo dilecti et fortis propugnatoris Ignatii in Hrotitz mensis die
primo [secundum Grzcos Decembr. 20] manifestavimus vobis etc.’
(Ρ. 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. 374) that this
statement is quite inconsistent with an earlier notice in these same
Armenian Acts (δ 49), ‘Facta est res heec ante ix [secundum Greecos xiii]
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 neliques Jan. 29, ἐνεχθέντων δὲ ἐν Arne τῶν
τιμίων αὐτοῦ λειψάνων μηνὶ ᾿Ιαννουαρίῳ εἰκάδι ἐννάτῃ.

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. ll. pp. 50, 52, and p. 169, respectively. In the present Jacobite
Coptic calendar also the martyrdom of Ignatius is commemorated on

OF S. IGNATIUS. 423

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. 16, 34, of the calendar)’. The translation is
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 Mail.c., 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, zd. pp. 103, 117, which under Abib 7 has ‘Martyrium
Ignatii pape Rome, qui Petrum excepit imperante Trajano,’ and
under Choiak 24 ‘Martyrium sancti Ignatii patriarchze Antiochie,
discipuli sancti Johannis evangeliste.’ The designation ‘Papa Rome’
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 Atribe et Melige, et ab 4115 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. A:thiop. Bibl. Bodl. p. 37 54., where we have the following
entries ;

Tahsas 24. ‘Martyrium Ignatii, patriarchee Antiocheni’ [p. 49].
Hamilé 1 ‘Commemoratio Martyrii Ignatii patriarch’ [p. 63}.
Hamilé 7 ‘Martyrium Ignatii, patriarchee Romani post Petrum’ [p. 64]:

1 This is also the case in Brit. Aus. dar Epiphi is wanting. Conversely in

Add. 5996, where Shenuti alone is com-
memorated on Epiphi 7. In Brit. AZus.
Oriental 425, dated A.D. 1307, a MS of
the Gospels with a calendar appended,
Ignatius is commemorated on Choiak 24 ;
while owing to a mutilation of the calen-

Brit. Mus. Oriental 1321, dated A.D.
1346, a lectionary with calendar, She-
nuti alone without Ignatius is comme-
morated on Epiphi 7; but the month of
Choiak is not included in this volume.

424 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

and similarly in Zotenberg Catal. des MSS Ethiop. de la Bibl. Nation.

pp. 169, 189, 190.

Several such Ethiopic Synaxaria are described in Wright’s Catal. of
LEthiop. 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.’

‘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 baptised 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 Caesar; and they said unto him:
Ignatius 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 if 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:

ΟΕ 5. IGNATIUS. ἢ 425

77 thou wouldest believe in Christ, He would make thee raise 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 ts it better to worship the sun, which hath been created, and to
JSorsake the Creator, whose kingdom doth not fail? And the king said
unto him: Zhou 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 I have drawn the
people from worshipping tdols and have brought them unto the worship
of Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, who was before the world,
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 I will
not sacrifice unto devils, but I will sacrifice unto my God, who is 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:
Flearken unto my voice, O men of the city of Rome who are assembled
here, and know that tt ts not because of pride and vainglory that I
patiently endure this torture, but my patience ts because of my Lord
Fesus Christ, my God. Andlo, my soul desireth that these lions should
crush me like wheat, because my soul desireth now to go to my Lord Fesus
Christ.

‘And when the king heard what he said, he marvelled and was as-
tonished and said: How great ts the patience of the Christians under
these tortures! Who ts 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 sout
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 62.

‘Hail to Ignatius, the chosen of God
Who preached the truth unto those who had gone astray!

426 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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’.’

Hamilé 1 ‘And again on this day was the martyrdom of Ignatius the
patriarch, may his blessing be with, edc.’

Hamlé 7 ‘And again on this day the holy father Ignatius, patriarch
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

1 mss consulted, Brit. Mus. Oriental and Orient. 670, Agrtyos.
660, 667, 656, 658; see Wright’s Cafa- 3 Orient. 670, f. 78 a, col. 2; collated
logue p. 152 sq. : with Orient. 661, f. τοῦ ὁ, col. 3, and
2 Orient. 659 has Agnatyos; Orient. Orient. 657, ἴ. 147 6, col. 2.
657, Gnatyos; Orient. 661, Anagtyos ;

OF 5. IGNATIUS. | 427

Roman Acts. This is an additional indication of the Egyptian origin
of those Acts (see above p. 380).

4. FEBRUARY I. The ultimate usage of the Latin Churches is
represented in the Martyrology of Ado (Tf 4.p. 875);

Feb. 1 ‘Eodem die apud Antiochiam, beati Ignatii episcopi et martyris.’

Dec. 17 ‘Translatio S. Ignatii episcopi et martyris qui tertius post

beatum Petrum apostolum Antiochenam rexit ecclesiam.’

See also his Lzber de Festiv. p. 191 (Migne), where an account of the
saint is given, and the same days are mentioned. ‘The account con-
cludes, ‘Reliquize ejus Antiochiam relate jacent extra portam Daphni-
ticam in ccemiterio ecclesiz, xvi Kalendas Januarias delate.’ 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 J. v. A. p. 27 sq.). This is the case for instance in the Hierony-
mian Martyrology. In the original Beda (Of. v. 1134, Migne), Dec. 17
is given as the day, not of the translation, but of the martyrdom’;

xvi Kal. Jan. ‘Natale S. Ignatii episcopi et martyris qui tertius
Antiochiz post Petrum apostolum episcopus duodecimo Trajani anno ad
bestias vinctus Rome []. Romam] missus est. Reliquize tamen corporis
ejus Antiochiz jacent (extra portam Daphniticam in ccemeterio ec-
clesize)’;

while no other day is commemorated in connexion with this saint.
The same is also the case with Rhabanus Maurus (Of. Iv. 1186, Migne),
who repeats almost the same words; and with Wandalbert (Migne’s
Patrol. Lat. ΟΧΧΙ. p. 622), whose verses on Dec. 17 are,

‘Ignatius sanctus deno sextoque triumphat,
Antiochenz 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 PAi/. 9. These facts seem to show that, when Dec. 17

1 In the poetical Martyrology how- Migne), Dec. 20 is given; *Ter decimas
ever, attributed to Bede (Of. v. 606, Daciani Ignatius wque Kalendis.’

428 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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 (7 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
Martyr. Hieron. Dec. 25, Hieron. Of. 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 (l.c.), by proximity to the festival of the African martyr bearing
the same name Ignatius or Egnatius (see Cyprian fist. xxxix. 3,
p. 583 Hartel), who was already commemorated on Feb. 3 (see the
Bollandist Act. Sanct. 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. Alartyr. 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

1 See however the same phenomenon
in some Armenian calendars noticed
above, p. 421.

2 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 /. v. A.

p. 28 sq.

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 429

a firm footing in our northern calendars, whether Celtic or English.
This appears, I think, from the calendars published in Hampson’s
Medi 4vi Kalendarium, and in Forbes’s Kalendars of Scottish Saints.
Even in those which belong to as late a date as the 14th 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
to the legend, founded on a misinterpretation of the name Geoddpos,
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.p. 1216, of which an account
is given by Assemani διό. Vat. Cod. MSS Catal. τι. p. 103 sq. ; see
Ῥ. 121. In a Syriac Praxapostolos, likewise Melchite, described by
Assemani (l.c. p. 137 sq.), of which the date is A.D. 1041, and which
was written in the neighbourhood of Antioch, I find a lesson from
Heb. iv. 14 sq. Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν κιτ.λ. assigned to Dec. 20
‘Coronatio episcopi Ignatii.? 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 «.7.A., 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 Cafalogue (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

430 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

Eusebius (see above p. 376 sq.), 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 5. Chrysostom, when he pronounces his panegyric on
Ignatius, 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
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 Tychzeum 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 (p. 386 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-

OF S. IGNATIUS. 431

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. 370,
381) 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.’ Put by this time the Antiochene story
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. Of 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
modesily 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 stillat Antioch. In another passage however,
in his Annales, Baronio states the case so as to evade this difficulty.
Under the year A.D. 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 iisdem
Mahometanis et Sarracenis capt sunt nobilissime 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
tune 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

432 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

—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 Saznt Clement and his Basilica p. 305 sq.

It has appeared from the above investigation that the original
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 Tychzeum 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 Tychzeum. If so, it was
probably December 20, as Zahn (/. v. A. p. 53, Len. et 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 in itself. Ignatius wrote his Epistle to the Romans
on August 24 (Zom. 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

ΟΕ S. IGNATIUS. 433

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.

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 quo S. Ignatius a Trajano
etc., first printed from his papers by Smith in S. Zenatit Epistole
Genuine 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.p. 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’.

1 This opinion is definitely attributed molesto partim Smyrnz, partim Troade,

to Pearson by Smith, p. 42.

2 In his earlier work (Vind. Zgn. Ὁ.
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

IGN,

et quidem decimo imperii Trajani, vul-
garis «re Christiane septimo post cen-
tesimum anno, anno Christi vero, ut
ego quidem existimo, 113, epistolas scrip-
sisse.’ Jacobson (Patr. A fost. 11. Ὁ. 569,
note) explains this as meaning that Pear-

son believed Ignatius to have been taken

434 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

Pearson’s dissertation held its ground as quite the most important
contribution to the subject till recent years. But it turned wholly on
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 αὶ priori nega-
tive the question of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. Owing
to the important. consequences which thus flow from it, rather than

the subject over. So again in Vind. Len.
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

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
arguinent, and he could therefore pass

in this year.

1 Of. τι. p. 600 τῆς τοῦ τυράννου γλώσ-
ons (see above p. 378). The whole pas-
sage looks like a rhetorical venture.
Chrysostom betrays no knowledge of the
tyrant’s name, and he does not say
whether the interview took place at
Rome or at Antioch.

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 435

to any inherent probability which it can claim, his theory requires a
full investigation once for all.

John Malalas (Chronogr. xi. p. 275, ed. Bonn.) states that the
earthquake at Antioch in Trajan’s reign took place ‘on the 13th of
the month Apellzus, 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
A.D. I15.

After some intervening matter the same writer (p. 276) adds; ‘Now
the said king Trajan was residing in the said city (Antioch) when the
visitation (7 θεομηνία) took place. And in his presence (ov 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 ὁ 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 zoth of December, Volk-
mar frames his theory (Handbuch der Einlettung in die Apokryphen τ. p.
49 Sq., p. 121 sq.; comp. Zur Chronologie des Trajanischen Partherkriegs
in the Rhenisches Museum N. F. xu. 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. In the 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. Bid. Gree. vil. p. 447, ed.

29—2

436 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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
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 Irenzus 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. [gn. 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. UL. p. 938 τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ ἐν Ρώμῃ 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.

1 See above, pp. 206, 213, 356.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 437

2. As a matter of fact however, he is the very reverse of all 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-
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.

(z) ‘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 (κυνηγίων,
venationum) was devised in their stead.’ The gladiatorial shows were
not abolished till the time of Honorius (Theod. 4. £. 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. Fust. 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. Ixvill. 15). The origin of the misstatement in Malalas may be
partially explained from Dion Cass. Ixviii. 2.

(Ὁ ‘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 Irenzeus, men of the greatest wisdom,
have recorded’ (p. 269). Africanus and Irenzeus assuredly never wrote
anything of the kind. As regards Africanus, we have not the means
of confronting this statement with the fact. Irenzeus merely says that

1 Some of these fabulous statements unnecessary for my present purpose to
he shares in common with the faschal investigate their source.
Chronicle (p. 469 sq.) ed. Bonn.) It is 5 See Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 25.

438

John survived to the time of Trajan (ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 3); of his mys-
terious disappearance not a word,

(7) 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’.

(ec) The next statement relating to Christian history is the notice
of the martyrdom of Ignatius (p. 276) with which we are concerned.

(7) Inthe 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. As if this were not enough, he goes on
to relate how Trajan made a furnace, and ordered any Christians, who

ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

1 The genuineness of this letter has
recently found an advocate in Wieseler
(Christenverfolgungen der Cisaren Pp.
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. (4) Tiberianus himself
is designated ‘governor of Palestina
Prima’ (ἡγεμὼν τοῦ πρώτου Παλαιστινῶν
ἔθνους) ; whereas this division of Pales-
tine into different provinces is not known
to have taken place till much later. Mar-
quardt (Rom. Alterth. 1v. p. 261, ed. 2)
escapes the difficulty by supposing that
this designation was no part of the ori-
ginal document, 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 gene-
rally believed. If the document had
come to us on earlier and more trustworthy
authority, we should have felt bound to
give full consideration to such possibili-
ties, though they could hardly have been
regarded as satisfactory solutions; but,
where the sole voucher for its genuine-
ness is a blunderer and fabulist like
Malalas, they are :powerless to remove
the objections. This being so, the docu-
ment stands self-condemned by its ex-
travagance of language.

OF 8. IGNATIUS. 439

desired, to throw themselves into it—an injunction which was obeyed
by many. ‘At that time,’ he concludes, ‘the holy Drosine and many
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.

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—260], 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’ (dye, aye, Γάργαρι,

440 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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
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 |[i.e. 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 12th year, ie. A.D. 108 or
109, as we have already seen (pp. 407, 439). It should be added that
in a previous date which he has given (see above, pp. 407, 412) 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. 109 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; rer and 107°.

1 Volkmar (Rhein. Mus. N. F. ΧΙ].
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 r2th 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, Ail [arn ?| for
Ail. 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-

ΟΕ 5. IGNATIUS. 441

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.
411 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 (Ixviii. 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

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. I15, was a Sunday, and Dec. 13,
A.D. 115, 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
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. 11}. 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
when it is removed. In C. de la Berge’s

Essai sur le Rogne de Trajan pp. 160,
174 54. (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 ιγ΄. In an 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 Apelleeus
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 /aéer in
the year than the supposed day of the
martyrdom,

442 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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
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 vevzatio was held in the amphitheatre, in which a victim
formally 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. 432)
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. 434), 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

1 The same ambiguity appears in Ori- 2 The former ambiguity is suggested by
gen, quoted by Euseb. H. .5. iii. 1, τί de@ ~~ Lipsius (5S. Z. p. 7), the latter by Zahn
wept Παύλου λέγειν...ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ (L. uv. A. p. 67), to account for the error
Νέρωνος μεμαρτυρηκότος ; of Malalas.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 443

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.

Hegesippus in Euseb. H LZ. iii. 32 οὕτω μαρτυρεῖ ἐτῶν dv 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, Kal ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἡμεραῖς
αἰκιζόμενος ἐμαρτύρησεν.

Chron. Pasch. p. 471 Ἐπὶ τούτου τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ εὐαγγε-
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.

Georg. Hamartol. Chron. 135 (p. 339, ed. Muralt) “Ext αὐτοῦ [τοῦ
Τραϊανοῦ] Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλεόπα ὁ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπίσκοπος Kat ᾿Ιγνάτιος
ὁ 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. Ὁ. 747 (ed. Bonn.) “Ext τούτου [τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ]
᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ θεοφόρος ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐμαρτύρησε θηρίοις βορὰ παραδοθείς.

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 ‘Emi 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 KAora...€uap-
τύρησεν κιτ.λ....τότε καὶ ὁ θεοφύρος ᾿Ιγνάτιος καιτιλ, But, when separated
from its context by Malalas or his predecessor, it would assume quite
a different reference.

444 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

This supposition that the error of Malalas is due to his having mis-
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 Hist. Parr.
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. de la Bibl. Nation. p. 223 8q., Wright Catal. Ethiop. MSS Brit.
Mus. p. 300 sq.). In great portions it runs parallel with John Malalas,
so that the two accounts were evidently derived from the same source.
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’.

1 The following extract from this
Chronicle is taken from the British Mu-
seum MS, Orient. 818, f. 61a. 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 Arwas [Nerval], Endré-
yanés 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 [Agnatyés] the patriarch of An-
tioch [Anséktya], 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 (or 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 xarkla avaxwoas (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, Zhey 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 Y6na the daughter
of the patrician Filasanrin. And yet
many other virgins suffered martyrdom at
the hand of this infidel by the burning of
fire.’

‘And while Endréyanés was at An-
tioch, the earth was sore afflicted and

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 445

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 Axecd. 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
Cleopz episcopus Hierosolyme.

Anno 419 [A.D. 108] Trajanus Armeniam subjecit. Eodem anno Ignatius
Antiochiae [1. 6. in Antiochia] martyrium subiit, qui discipulus erat
Ioannis evangeliste.

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 9 for 9, ‘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

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 Riités (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
translation was made, for the story of the

martyrdom of the five virgins wants a
beginning. It is clear from the sequence
of the Chronicle that Trajan is meant by
Endréyands. In the index of chapters
appended to the work, the passage is thus
epitomized; ‘Concerning the death of
Ignatius the God-clad and the women

who were martyred with him.’

446 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 moreover in neither case belong to the 9th
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 9th 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 9th year also is the date in the Chronicon
Paschale p. 471 (ed. Bonn.), where moreover the consuls for the 9th year
(A.D. 105) are correctly given, Candidus and Quadratus. It appears also,
though amidst much confusion, in a Syriac Chronicle, Brzt. Mus. Add.
14, 642 (described in Wright’s Catalogue, 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 9th 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 oth 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 9th 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. 447
This portion of the Chronzcon is as follows ;

Ol. ;Ann. Abr.| Traj.

220 2116 3 g. Trajanus de Dacis et Scythis triumphavit.
i £ 2117 4h | Δ. Trajanus Daciam in provinciam redegit.
2118 5 ἡ. Romanorum ecclesiae episcopatum excepit v Alex-
Z 2119 6 ander annis X.

221 2120 7k | k. Romae aurea domus incendio consumpta est.
2121 81} 1. Terrae motus magnus factus Menesiae terrae iv urbes
2122 9 concussit, Eliam, Mirinam, Piitanem, et Cisem, et
2123 | 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 to of the years of Trajan. This
account is in accordance with his treatment of these incidents in the
History, where they are not only undated, but recorded in a different
order: (1) Martyrdom of Symeon (ili. 32); (2) Persecution in Bithynia
(iil. 33); (3) Martyrdom of Ignatius (iil. 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 Ca?alogue 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.

448 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

In like manner also they are divided in Zohrab’s version of the Ar-
menian Cronicon, 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 gth year.

The writer of the Amntiochene 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
§ 1 Ἰωάννου 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 Lclesiastical History of Eusebius (see the notes § 1,
IO, 11, 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. 447) 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 L£vc/esiastical 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-

? The notice in Jerome is obviously taken from Eutropius viii. 3.

OF S. IGNATIUS. 449

graphers who give the 9th year of Trajan for the date of the martyrdom.
The obvious inference therefore would seem to be that all these
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 gth 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. 447). The 6th, 7th, and 8th years are each
supplied with their special notice. The gth 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 Chronzcon of Eusebius all
the notices which assign the martyrdom of Ignatius to the gth year of
Trajan.

But what grounds had Eusebius himself for placing the martyrdom
where he does in the Chronicon? Wieseler (Christenverfolgungen d.
Casaren Ὁ. 125 sq.), who himself would date it in the roth year [the.
11th tribunician year] of Trajan, a.D. 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 ‘hetzeriz’ 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. 447). 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. £. iii. 33). He cannot even tell the name of the province, and he is
obviously quite ignorant of the date (see the note on Aart. Rom. 11).
In the same way Wieseler urges in favour of his view the fact that

1 Plin. Zp. 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. x. 43. When Pliny _ persecution of Domitian,

IGN. 30

450 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

‘the martyrdom of Symeon the son of Clopas...according to Eusebius
and Jerome happened a short time before,’ and that ‘according to
Waddington (fastes des Provinces Asiatiques p. 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 //ésfory he interposes the Bithynian
persecution (which happened about A.D. 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 1oth 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 Ignatius 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. Ὁ. 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.
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

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 451

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
(19. v. Ant. Ὁ. 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 (Chron. p. 172 sq., Schone), 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 /7zstory 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
of details, our difficulties increase. ‘The chronological relation of the

30—2

452 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

Antiochene to the Roman bishops in the Chronicon, as stated by
Harnack, stands thus :

Order. Antioch, A. Abr. Intervals. Rome. A. Abr. | Order.

10 | Philetus 2233 4 years after Callistus 2229 15

1 | Zebinus 2245 1 year before Pontianus 2246 17

re ei beg 2270 Li τ e Xystus 2271 23

14 | Demetrianus 2272

15 | Paulus 2278 1 year before Dionysius 2279 24

16 | Domnus 2283

17 | Timzeus 2288 1 year before Felix 2289 25

18 | Cyrillus 2297 Te ig) ving Eutychianus 2298 26

19 | Tyrannus 2319 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 Chronicon.

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,

3) 3) 4, 4) 45 55 4 4; [1] 4.

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 5. IGNATIUS. 453

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
in the case of Asclepiades we substitute the number of years after the
preceding Roman bishop, as in the other cases, we get:

3,3) [ |, 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 Timzeus 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 ;

1 This is also the view of Harnack
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
doubt’? Is Eusebius likely to have had
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 These bishops are called Fabius and

454 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.

Demetrianus by Jerome in accordance
with Euseb. 17... 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 of
Tyrannus the successor of Cyrillus is
placed by Jerome in the 18th year of
Diocletian, which began Sept. A.D. 301;
but Cyrillus appears on the scene in
the account of the martyrdom of the
Quattuor Coronatt, who apparently suf-
fered Nov. 9, A.D. 306 (see Harnack
p- 53 sq.). 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. 455

But again; there is no clear frontier line between the earlier
and later lists, such as Harnack’s theory requires. On the one hand
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
Literaturzeitung, 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 (Α. Ὁ. 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. u. p. 178, Hieron. Vir. Li. 63, Chron. Pasch. Ὁ. 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.p. 185 (Clinton ust. Rom. 1. p. 183), and
Africanus (Routh Rel. 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. H. Z. 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, is

456 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

placed A.D. 215, i.e. five years before his Chronography ended, and
(as we must suppose) while he was already engaged on his work. If
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? MHarnack 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 (17. 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’ (κατὰ 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 Chronicon (11. p. 176)
during the persecution in the roth year of Severus, 1.6. 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
Kuseb. Z. £. 1. c., Clinton Fast. Rom. 1. pp. 209, 211), whether rightly or
wrongly, condemn the date A.D. 210 as impossible, and themselves place
the accession of Asclepiades seven or eight years earlier’. These con-

1 Harnack himself argues that the date since Eusebius would not otherwise have
. in the Chronicon must be nearly right, altered the schematism of Africanus to

OF S. IGNATIUS. 457
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 (4. £. 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 δηλου-
μένων χρόνων), and alleging for his statement a constant tradition
(κατέχει λόγος). In a later passage (#7. #. 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

substitute it. He suggests that the see had lapsed from Christianity to Judaism

remained vacant for a time, and he places
the accession of Asclepiades about A.D.
209 (p. 46 sq.). This however does not
explain the notice in Alexander’s letter.
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 (4/7. 4. vi. 12) mentions Se-
rapion writing to a certain Domninus who

‘at the time of the persecution’ (παρὰ
Tov τοῦ διωγμοῦ καιρόν). Harnack infers
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 Chronicon
in other cases, even where the prima facte
interpretation of authentic notices seems
imperatively to demand it, e.g. the acces-
sion of Maximinus.

458 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

after the Apostles’ (καθ᾽ ots καὶ τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας ὄγδοος ἀπὸ τῶν
ἀποστόλων ὁ πρόσθεν ἤδη δεδηλωμένος ἔτι τότε. Σαραπίων ἐπίσκοπος
ἐγνωρίζετο. Again, Eutychius patriarch of Alexandria (see Harnack
p- 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 (Azz. 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 Autol. 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 Chronicon 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 oth 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,

OF 5. IGNATIUS. 459

From these facts it will have appeared, unless I am mistaken,
that Harnack’s theory is not built on a secure foundation. For the
general predominance of the interval of four years, 1.6. 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. If the frequent recurrence of the number 4 be not accidental,
it is most naturally explained in this 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 may have been 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 thernselves, which,
for the accessions from Euodius to Philetus inclusive are as follows ;

pees. 4, OL 212. 2, OF ἘΖῚ. 4, OL 227. 1, OL 230. ὦ, OL 277. 2,
m1, 220. 2, OL 2432.3, 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 ;
Ο, I, 5, 7; 9, T1, 12, 13, 13, 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, ‘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. p. 3, ed. Schone).

460 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

But, though this recurrence of the number 4 may perhaps be due
to some cause such as I have suggested, it appears on the whole more
probable that its frequency here is a mere chronological accident.
From this point of 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 ΧΥῚ.

1783 Accession of Louis xvi1 (end of French Monarchy).

1804 Accession of Napoleon as Emperor.

1814 Accession of Louis ΧΥΤΙΙ.

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 ΧΥ͂Ι,
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 is complete. From this point onward
.a different principle prevails. The new French Monarchy begins with
Louis Philippe, Α. Ὁ. 1830. This king dies Α. Ὁ. 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, Α. Ὁ. 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

OF S. IGNATIUS. 461

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 proceeded on the assumption that
the Armenian dates give the chronology of Eusebius himself; but
another very important aspect of the question is presented in the
following communication which I have received from Dr Hort.

‘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
aAntiochene 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
in years of Abraham for Antioch, and replaces the Armenian by the
Hieronymian dates for Rome. Schone’s text is followed, the years

1 The recent chronology of the two of Prussia? Accession of the great

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

Elector Frederick William A.D. 1640;
Accession of the great King Frederick II
A.D. 1740; Accession of Frederick Wil-
liam 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

50; and the chronographer, 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 intermediate dates
at his pleasure.

462 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

given in mss cited by him, where they are different, being added in.
brackets.

‘It will be seen at once that the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh
Antiochene dates exactly synchronize with Roman dates: the cor-

Antioch Arm. Hier, Rome Hier
Euhodius 2058 Peter 2058
2060 (59)
Ignatius 2084—5 | Linus 2084
2085
Anencletus 2096
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 2153
Anicetus 2173 (1)
Theophilus 2185 2185 Soter 2185
Maximinus 2193 2193 Eleutherus. 2193
Serapion 2206 2200 (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 5
Fabianus 2255
Babylas [2270] |?
Fabius 2270 2268 Cornelius 2269 (8)
Demetrianus 2269
Lucius oe
Stephanus ΤῸ
[Xystus II. 2271]
2272
Paulus 2277 (8)
2278
Dionysius 2282 (1)
Domnus 2283 2283 (4)
Timaeus 2288
Felix 2204
Cyrillus 2207
Eutychianus 8
Gaius ang
; Marcellinus 2313
Tyrannus 2319
Eusebius 2321

ΟΕ 8. 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 Schone’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.
᾿ς €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 Schone’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

464 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

of Rome stands at 2125. Here Eusebius had a historical landmark
independent of any artificial coordination 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 2124

2125 Alexander
Cornelius 2144 Telesphorus
Eros 2158 Pius
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 knowledges, 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 te place the accession of Ignatius, and the perse-
cution under Trajan might easily suggest the persecution under Nero,
in which S. 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

ay OF S. IGNATIUS. 465

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.’

This solution, as a whole, seems to me to deserve the highest con-
sideration. The Chvonicon and the Aiistory appear to have been com-
pleted 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 dates of the Armenian Version to be due to some

1 The Chronicon was carried down to
the Vicennalia of Constantine, A.D. 325
(11. p. 191, Schéne); the History, unless
internal evidence is altogether delusive,
was written before the death of Crispus
(A.D. 326). But may not Eusebius have
issued two editions of the Chronicon, as
he certainly did of other works, e.g. the
Martyrs of Palestine and the Two Books
of Objection and Defence read by Photius
(Bibl. 13)? This hypothesis would ex-
plain many difficulties, Thus in the
Eclog. Prophet. i. 1 (Ρ. τ Gaisford) Euse-

IGN.

bius directly refers to the Chronicon ; yet
elsewhere in this same work, i. 8 (p. 26),
he speaks of the ‘present persecution,’

Again in Pracp. Ev. x. 9. 11 there is a

reference to the Chronicon; yet indica-
tions are not wanting that the Praepa-
vatio and Demonstratio were written
during the persecution and in the years
immediately succeeding (Tillemont 7. £.
Vil. p- 53 8q-). On this hypothesis, the
Armenian will be a mixture of the two
recensions, for it also mentions the V7-
cennalia (1. pp. 71, 131).

466 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

later reviser. But, even if the Armenian Version does give the original
Eusebian dates for the Roman bishops, the possibility still remains 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
Chronicon by Jerome for that of Eusebius. As regards details, the
procedure which Dr 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 respec-
tively, 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 berate him from the
suspicion even of the moderate artifice which Dr 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, Dr 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 Cronicon. 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.D. 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.
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 named as
appointed directly by Apostles; and that he was obliged accordingly
to stretch out the duration of their tenure of office on the Procrustes-
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.

467

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 middie 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
i.e. 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

OF S. IGNATIUS.

1 Tn 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. Ὁ. 1768—1848, or
80 years, and from A.D. 1783—1862, or
79 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-
lations; in London from Α. Ὁ. 1675—
1761, or 86 years, though all the four

were translations; in Winchester from
A.D. 1734—1827, or 93 years, and again
from 1761—1869, or 108 years; in Dur-
ham from A.D. 1632—1730 (with the
vacancy of one year), or 97 years, and

-again from A.D. 1660— 1750, or 00 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 ΤΟῚ years,
though all were translations; in Lincoln

3I—2

468 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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. 190—283, or 93 years; Alexander, Athanasius,
Petrus 11, Timotheus 1, from a.D. 313— 385, or 72 years; Timotheus 1,
Theophilus, Cyrillus, Dioscorus, from a.D. 377—452, or 75 years: and
at Jerusalem Narcissus, Alexander, Mazabanes, Hymeneus, 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 I10 years; Joannes 1, Prayllus, Juvenalis,
Anastasius, from A.D. 388—478, or 90 years. In fact at Alexandria 13
successive bishops, from Demetrius to Cyrillus inclusive, cover from
A.D. I90—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 A.D. 190—478, 1.6. 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
to test every name, though the test is sometimes rough; and in no
case is the divergence from known or suspected fact very wide. The
greatest discrepancy, which can be considered at all certain, is in the
accession of Maximinus ; and this, as we have seen, does not amount
to more than five years.

But the value of Harnack’s investigations is quite independent of
the particular theory which he founds upon them. He has raised

from A.D. 1787—1869, or 82 years, 1 No account is here taken of intruders
though all were translations; in Worces- who were thrust into the sees during the
ter from A.D. 1781—i861, or 80 years, lifetimes of the regular bishops, as e.g.
though all were translations. These ex- in the case of Athanasius.

amples might be multiplied.

ΟΕ 8. IGNATIUS. 469

definitely the question what degree of credit is due to the chronolog

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 specula-
tive criticism, rather than to traditional report. If Dr Hort’s syn-
chronism with the Roman bishops be not accepted, these two accessions
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’;

1 The famine prophesied by Agabus after, the accession of Euodius. In the
(Acts xi. 28) is placed in the Armenian Acts this prophecy and its fulfilment are
the year before, and in Jerome the year recorded in the same paragraph which

470 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM

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 Africanus lived in a neigh-
bouring country, and must have been born within a single life-time
of the alleged date. However this may be, we have the indisputable
testimony of a contemporary of Africanus to the same effect. Origen
(fom. in Luc. c. 1, Op. 11. 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*. Ongen,
it should be observed, had himself resided at Antioch before this
(Euseb. H. Z. vi. 21; about A.D. 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. 1oo—118, without attempting to fix the year more

precisely *.

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.

1 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.

2 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.

3 If Malalas were a more trustworthy
writer, we might be disposed to listen to
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 4
blunder akin to the erroneous statement
of Malalas about Irenzeus and Africanus
quoted above (p. 437). Otherwise Theo-
philus might have been looked to, as a
primary source of information respecting

ΟΕ S. IGNATIUS. 471

The two Acts of Martyrdom which I have designated the Avtiochene
and the oman 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 [6], which I have collated anew for this
edition.

(2) Zhe Latin Version|], of which a revised text will be found
in the Appendix.

(3) Zhe Syriac Version [5], 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. 365, 370).
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. 366, 370 sq.). Petermann’s re-
print of Aucher has been used for these.

(6) Zhe Acts of the Mctaphrast [M], which are compiled partly
from these Acts (see above pp. 366, 374 sq.), and may be used oc-
casionally for textual purposes.

As G is a late and poor ms, 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 (Act.
Mart. Sine. p. 605 sq., Paris, 1689) from the Colbert Ms G, the Latin
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

the Antiochene bishoprics. As it is, the statement of Malalas with too much
Harnack (p. 43 sq-) seems to me to treat respect.

472 ACTS OF MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS.

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 predecessors.
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) Zhe Three Greek MSS |V\|L][P], described above, p. 364.

(2) Zhe Coptic Version [(], of which an account is also given
above p. 364 sq.

(3) Zhe Bollandist Acts [Β], in which is oo a very large
portion of these Roman Acts (see above pp. 365 sq., 370).

(4) Zhe Armenian Acts [4], which likewise contain a large
portion of these Acts (see above pp. 366, 370 sq.).

(5) Zhe Acts of the Metaphrast |M], in which use is made of the
Roman Acts (see above p. 374 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 Κυνοσούρῃ (ὃ 1), τοῦ ἡλίου for ᾿Ιλίου (ὃ 1),
᾿ἐμφρόνου for ἔμφρονος (§ 2), χαλκῷ for χαλκεῖ (§ 3), Μωῦὐσέως for μυήσεως
(§ 6), while in one place (§ 3 εἰ καὶ ἐσταυρώθη κ-τ.λ.) several lines had
dropped out owing to a homeeoteleuton. 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 Version preserves a text in some respects more
ancient than any other authority, and from it I have extracted readings
which, though evidently correct, do not appear elsewhere. The chrono-
logical notices at the beginning and end of these Acts in the present
edition 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. or this reason I have
thought it worth while to add full explanatory and illustrative notes,
which hitherto they have lacked.

MAPTYPION
A.

IT NATIOY

I. λρτι διαδεξαμένου τὴν Ρωμαίων ἀρχὴν Tpaia-

΄σ >’ £ ε ΄σ΄ > / > , lA > \
νοῦ, ᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ᾿Ιωάννου μαθητής, ἀνὴρ

MAPTYPION ΙΓΝΔΤΙΟΥ a] μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος ἰγνατίου τοῦ θεοφόρου
G; martirium sancti ignacii episcopi antiochie sirie L* ; martyrium ignatii episcopi
imperante traiano (in regno traiant) in roma urbe S* (but with vv. 1].).

2 ἀποστόλου] G; add. evangelistae S; add. et evangelistae LA[B].

1. “Apre διαδεξαμένου x.t-r.] 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. lxviii.
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

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 J. v. A. Ὁ. 46sq. Eu-
sebius in his Chronicon (11. p. 162
sq. ), speaking of S. John, says μεθ᾽
ov 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 Zmyrnezus et
Ignatius Antiochenus.’ We may how-
ever question whether, as Zahn as-
sumes, Jerome himself supposed Ig-
natius to have been a disciple of
S. John. In his notices of Ignatius
and Polycarp, Vir. 77d. ὃδ 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

474 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [1

ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀποστολικός, ἐκυβέρνα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
᾿λντιοχέων" ὃς τοὺς πάλαι χειμῶνας μόλις παραγαγὼν
τῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ διωγμῶν, καθάπερ κυβερ-
νήτης ἀγαθός, τῷ οἴακι τῆς προσευχῆς καὶ τῆς νηστείας,
TH συνεχείᾳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, TH τόνῳ τῷ πνευματικῷ,
πρὸς τὴν ζάλην τῆς ἀντικειμένης ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμεως,
δεδοικὼς μή τινα τῶν ὀλιγοψύχων ἢ ἀκεραιοτέρων ἀπο-
1 &] L[AJBS* (but with a ν. 1.); ἦν G. ἐκυβέρνα] txt L[A][B]; preef.

καὶ G[S]. 2 ᾿Αντιοχέων] txt L[S][A]B; add. ἐπιμελῶς (. és] LA(Q?);
om, .G: cf Sal. B. 5 τῇ συνεχείᾳ] L; preef. καὶ GLB]; preef. gad et [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 8.

GLS.

τῷ τόνῳ] (ἃ; robore L (so also it
Pref. ef AB; om.

τῷ πνευματικῷ] LAB; τῶν πνευματικῶν S; τῷ πνι (-- πνεύματι G.

6 τῆς ἀντικειμένης ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμεως] Zahn; adversantis se opposuit potentiae L* ;
potentiae (gen.) tnimict restitit S (potentiae inimici 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 ex-
cuses 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 (II. p. 214,
Schéne), ‘post quem, qui eum audive-
rant innotuerunt Papias Ierapolita-
nus et Polycarpos episcopus eorum
qui Smyrnze sedem (suam) collocave-
rant, preeterea autem Ignatios epis-
copus Antiochenorum’; and this ren-
ders it probable that the name of
Ignatius was added in some Greek
copies of Eusebius, the addition
being perhaps suggested by the con-
nexion of the names in Euseb. A. £.
111,36. 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

“8 Ul ΜᾺ. 4 Ld ‘
ὁ ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ θεολύγου γνήσιος μαθητὴς

γεγονώς, in the Hymn of 5. Joseph 3
(Anal. Sacr. Spice. Sol. i. p. 389)
μαθητευθεὶς ... τῷ ἱεροφάντορι καὶ θεο-
λόγῳ κιτιλ., and in the Menza Dec.
20. So also in two Syriac chronicles
(Cureton C. Z. pp. 228, 255: comp.
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
zn the Brit. Mus. pp. 1040, 1041),
and in the Syriac writer Solomon,
author of the Bee (Cureton Οἱ. αὶ
pp. 220, 251), who flourished about
A.D. 1220 (Assem. &2b/. Orient. 111,
p. 309). On the other hand Socrates
(H.£. 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
5. Peter, EZzst. v. 39 Δ Axast.
‘magistrum ejus apostolorum princi-
pem,’ ‘ejusdem principis discipulum’
(Op. VII. p. 320, Venet. 1770).

I. ἀποστολικός]) Said of Polycarp
in Mari. Polyc. 16,and of Barnabas

». eee

1]) ANTIOCHENE ACTS.

, ~ Ε] / \ > \ ΄σ “ > /
Barn. τοιγαροὺυν ηὐφραίνετο Mev ἐπὶ TW τῆς ἐκκλησίας
ἀσαλεύτω,. λωφήσαντος πρὸς ὀλίγον υ ὃ ῦ

Ὁ, pn p γον τοὺ διωγμοῦ,

475

»/ δὲ θ᾽ ε \ ες / ~ af > x \
10 yoyvahAev 0€ KAU EaVTOYV ὡς μήπω τῆς ὄντως εἰς ἄριστον

> f > / δὲ ω 7 ΄σ a

ἀγάπης ἐφαψάμενος μηδὲ τῆς TErElas τοῦ μαθητοῦ

/ ? \ \ \
τάξεως. ἐνενόει γὰρ THY διὰ μαρτυρίου γινομένην

- / / 3 \ ΄σ A 7
ὁμολογίαν πλέον αὐτὸν προσοικειοῦσαν τῷ Κυρίῳ.
έἕ

ἀντικειμένης δυνάμεως) ; adversabatur (om, τῆς ἀντικειμένης and δυνάμεως) A; incum-
bentem ... sua virtute averlebat (τὴν ἀντικειμένην ἀντεῖχεν δυνάμει) Bs τὴν ἄντι-
κειμένην ἀντεῖχεν G. The corruption of τῆς ἀντικειμένης into τὴν ἀντικειμένην
has led to the rejection or alteration οἵ δυνάμεως. 7 dKxepaorépwv] 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 szmplex in the Vulg. of
me D.-1.; Matt..x..76, Rom. xvi. 19, Phil. ii.. 15. 9 λωφήσαντος) λο-
φήσαντος ἃ. Io τῆς ὄντως] GS; vere (Ξε ὄντως, om. THs) L; zx plenum
[B]; om. A. 12 γινομένην] G; factam B; st contigerit et evenerit super
tpsum S; om. L[A]. 13 πλέον] So G, not πλεῖον as commonly given.

προσοικειοῦσαν] The infin. adducere in L does not imply a v.1l. 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 virt from
apostoli, using the term with the
meaning ‘ disciples of apostles’ (e.g.
de Prescr. 32, adv. Mare. 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. Ζγαζί, inscr.
ἐν ἀποστολικῷ χαρακτῆρι.

2. παραγαγὼν) ‘having passed by,
escaped, or perhaps ‘having turned
aside, diverted? For this latter
meaning see Herod. i. ΟἹ 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 τὰς αἰφνιδίους καὶ ἐπαλ-
λήλους [γινομ͵]ένας ἡμῖν συμφορὰς κ.τ.λ.
withthe 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 JZen@a Dec. 20 €Boas,
ἀθλητάς Μηδεὶς ὀχλείτω, μηδείς μου
θρύψει τὸν τόνον (p. 141, ed. Venet.
1863). It is used by Plutarch to de-
scribe the ‘atrocem animum Catonis’,
Vit. Pomp. 44; comp. also Aristid.
Op. τ. p. 524 τὸν τόνον τῆς 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.

11. τῆς τελείας x.t.A.] See Tradl.
5 οὐ. -παρὰ τοῦτο ἤδη καὶ μαθητής εἶμι,
Rom. 5 νῦν ἄρχομαι μαθητὴς εἶναι, 2. 4
τότε ἔσομαι μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς κιτ.λ., With
the notes on £phes. 1, 3.

476

MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [1

J af δ »" , a ᾽ , \
ὅθεν ἔτεσιν ὀλίγοις ETL παραμένων TH ἐκκλησίᾳ, [και]
‘

λύχνου δίκην θεϊκοῦ τὴν ἑκάστου φωτίζων διάνοιαν διὰ

~ “~ ~ / / iid
τῆς τῶν ypadwv ἐξηγήσεως, ἐπετύγχανεν τῶν κατ᾽

> /
εὐχὴν.

> 5 / 3 “4 > \ ~ /
αὐτοῦ βασιλείας ἐπαρθέντος ἐπὶ TH νίκη
lol \ ~ \ / ~ , ΄σ
(κυθῶν καὶ Δακῶν καὶ ἑτέρων πολλών ἐθνῶν

“ ~ \ \ ΄σ > /
Τραϊανοῦ yap μετὰ ταῦτα ἐννάτῳ

af ~

eTer THs 5
a \

ΤΉ κατα
έ

\ /
και νομι-

᾽} / > ΄σ A ΄σ΄ ς \ \
σαντος ἔτι λείπειν αὐτῷ πρὸς πᾶσαν ὑποταγὴν TO

co va \ / > \ \ ~
τῶν Χριστιανῶν θεοσεβες σύστημα, εἰ μὴ τὴν τῶν

1 καὶ] GLA; om. 5[8].

3 γραφῶν] LSB; θειῶν γραφῶν G3 seripturarum

sacrarum A, For ἐπετύγχανεν τῶν κατ᾽ εὐχὴν S has guae revelabantur ipsi per precem

(22 prece).
(iv for ix).
num in L* (but see Appx).

Α΄ (thus giving both readings).

multas et diversas L.; diversarum B; def. A.
9, εἰ. wh] txt LSAB; pref. καὶ (α
δαιμόνων] (ἃ; daemonum suorum A; daemoniacam L; al. BS.

add. decere ipsi et S.

5. ἐννάτῳ ἔτει] See above, p. 446
Sq.
7. Σκυθῶν καὶ Δακῶν] For the
chronology of the Dacian Wars see
Borghesi Guvres IV. p. 121 sq.,
Henzen Ann. dell’ Inst. di Corrisp.
Archeol, XXXIV. p. 137 sq. 1862,
Mommsen Hermes 111. pp. 45, 30 56.»
Corp. Instr. Lat. ΤΠ. p. 102 58.
Dierauer Geschichte Trajans p. 63
sq. (in Bidingers Unters. 2. Rom:
Kaisergesch. vol. 1), besides Clinton
and older writers, e.g. Tillemont £7-
pereurs 11. pp. 553 54.) 560 sq., Eckhel
Doct. Num. Vi. p. 414. Recent dis-
coveries have added to our know-
ledge on this subject; see above p. 402
sq. The First Dacian War began
A.D. 101 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

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; guarto L

ἑτέρων πολλῶν] GS (comp. M); alteras
νομίσαντος] txt GLA[B];

TOV
10 ἕλοιτο]

in connexion with the Dacians is
borrowed from Euseb. Chron. 11. 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.

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.
Ixviil. 14 (comp. Chron, Pasch. 11. p.
472); see above p. 405.

0. ef μὴ «t.A.| Euseb. . £. 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

1] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 477

ὃ 7 +o ὃ Ῥ , \ , 5 G /
10 δαιμόνων Ἵ ἕλοιτο λατρείαν μετὰ πάντων ὑπεισιέναι
ἊΝ > ~ \ ε rs > 7 ,
τῶν ἐθνών, διωγμὸν [ὑπομένειν | ἀπειλήσα[ ντο]ς, πάντας
\ > ΄σ- ~~ 3\ I 3\ ~ /

Tous εὐσεβώς ζῶντας ἢ θύειν ἢ τελευτᾶν κατηνάγκαζεν.
/ , \ \ lan 3 >
τότε τοίνυν φοβηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς ᾿Δντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας
¢ ~ ~ ΄σ / ς >
ὁ γενναῖος τοῦ Χριστοῦ στρατιώτης ἑκουσίως ἤγετο
\ oe / , \ 3 -
15 πρὸς Tpatavoy, διάγοντα μὲν κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν
\ 7 / / \
κατα τὴν ᾿λντιόχειαν, σπουδάζοντα δὲ ἐπὶ ᾿Δλρμενίαν
\ / Pea \ , ᾽ Ἢ “-
καὶ [lapGous. ὡς δὲ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔστη Τραϊανοῦ

[τοῦ βασιλέως]; Τίς εἶ, κακοδαῖμον, τὰς ἡμετέρας

G; cogeret LSA; inclinaret B; so that all the versions would seem to have had
another reading, possibly ἐπείγοι. 11 ὑπομένειν] G; om. L; dub. SA
(which are too loose to allow any inference) ; def. B.
comminans (as if dredjoas) L.

ἀπειλήσαντος)] G3
πάντας] txt LSAB; preef. ὁ φόβος G.
12 τοὺς εὐσεβῶς ζῶντας) G; 225ο5 dei cultores existentes (αὐτοὺς εὐσεβεῖς ὄντας) L;
det cultores B; christianos A; sanctos 8. 14 στρατιώτης] txt GL; add.
zgnatius S* (as a v.1.) AB. 18 τοῦ Baoi\éws] GLB; om. S[A]. Add.
traianus dixit LB; add. dixit ili (traianus) S*; add. et senatu, interrogabat eum rex
et dicebat A (see above, p. 371); om. G.

“

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
Pp. 405 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. Oras. xxiii. p. 514 ἀπόκριναί

o ς ΄“- ” > ,
μοι ὅτι ἡγῶμαι ἄνθρωπον εὐδαίμονα

> ge ee δ 4 Nee | ae.
εἶναι. A. dp οὗ ὁ δαιμὼν ἀγαθὸς ἐστιν,
τοῦτον εὐδαίμονα εἶναι φῆς, οὗ δὲ μοχ-
θηρός, κακοδαίμονα; and again p. 515
ἀναγκὴ κακοδαίμονα φάσκειν ἐκεῖνον
'᾿ , 4 \ ’
κακῷ δαίμονι συνεζευγμένον καὶ λατρεύ-
ovra, Arist. Plt. 850 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων
«οὐκαὶ τρὶς κακοδαίμων. ..καὶ μυριάκις...

a , , ,
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 evepyotpevoy, ut

‘loquamur, ecclesiastico more, seu

a malo demone 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

478 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. (11

7 is ΄:-
σπουδάζων διατάξεις ὑπερβαίνειν μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἑτέρους

? / .« os > ~ > / <p

ἀναπείθειν iva κακῶς ἀπολοῦνται ; ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν"
? \ / 2 ~ / > /

Οὐδεὶς θεοφόρον ἀποκαλεῖ κακοδαίμονα: ἀφεστήκασι

\ \ 3 \ “ / a ΄σ \ /
yap μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῶν δούλων τοῦ Θεοῦ Ta δαιμόνια.
> / « ig 5 / » / \ \
εἰ δέ, OTL τούτοις ἐπαχϑῆς εἰμι, κακὸν ME πρὸς τοὺς

Ν ΄σ' on \ \ a”
δαίμονας ἀποκαλεῖς, συνομολογῶ: Χριστὸν yap ἔχων
> / / \ 7 7 5 ,
ἐπουρανιον βασιλέα τὰς τούτων καταλύω ἐπιβουλας.

Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Καὶ τίς ἐστιν θεοφόρος ; ᾿Ϊγνάτιος

> Ψ ς \ 4 3 / oe \
ἀπεκρίνατο" O Χριστὸν ἔχων ἐν στέρνοις. Tpatavos

> = 3 ΄ \ ~ \ 3}
εἶπεν: Ἡμεῖς οὖν σοι δοκοῦμεν κατὰ νοῦν μὴ εχειν

7 -ε \ , / \ \ 7
θεούς, οἷς καὶ χρώμεθα συμμάχοις πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους §
> , 3 Ἢ Τὰ ὃ / ΄σ΄ > ~ \

lyvatios εἶπεν: Ta δαιμόνια τῶν ἐθνῶν θεοὺς προσα-
, , @ , > < ,
γορεύεις πλανώμενος" Els yap ἐστιν Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας
\ 4 Η, 4 A ΄- \ \ VA \
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θαλασσαν καὶ
/ \ 9 fq \ - \ ΄σ eo N
πάντα Ta ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ εἷς Χριστὸς ᾿Ϊησοῦς ὁ υἱος

1 ὑπερβαίνειν] ὑπερβένειν G. μετὰ τοῦ κ.τ.λ.7 cum et alteros persuadere Τ,;
μετὰ τὸ κιτ.λ. ἃ; the other versions SAB probably had τοῦ, for they render
loosely et alits persuades. 4 μακρὰν] Zahn ; longe LB; longo intervalloS; om.
G. The frocul sunt of A is doubtful, and possibly represents ἀφεστήκασι alone.

5 εἰ δέ] GLSA; scio quidem (οἶδα) B. κακόν] txt L[S][A]; preef. καὶ G;
pref. propierca B. 6 ἔχων τὰς...καταλύω] GEAB; ἔχω τὸν... καταλύοντα S.
oir] °GLS Bs vie Ms; 51. A. 14 τὸν οὐρανὸν] GLB; pref. ταῦτα
mdvra Κατὰ S; def. A. 16 αὐτοῦ] LSB; τοῦ θεοῦ G (comp. M); def. A.
ov] ov G. φιλίας] amicitia L; amicitiam B; tn amore S; amoris A;
βασιλείας G (comp. M). 18 τὴν] txt LSABM; add. ἐμὴν G.

θεοφόρος. The word isnaturalisedin quivalent to ἐν στέρνοις, ἐν καρδίᾳ,

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=riva τῶν τὸν Θεὸν ἐν
καρδίᾳ φορούντων.

10. κατὰ νοῦν] ‘in our mind’, e-

which occur in the context.

18. τὸν ἀνασταυρώσαντα] ‘who sus-
pended on the cross, who crucified’ ;
comp. I Pet. il. 24 ras 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 JZ. F. ii. 14. 9, v.. IT. I,
Ant. ii. 5. 3, xi. 6. 103, see Bleek: on
Heb. vi. 6. The Greek and other

11] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 479

> ~ e / iD ~ / > / “ \
αὐτοὺ ὁ μονογενής, οὗ τῆς φιλίας ὀναίμην. Τραϊανὸς
5 \ is , 5
εἰπεν᾽ Tov σταυρωθέντα λέγεις ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου ;
f Ss \ ᾽ 7 \ [2
‘Iyvatis εἶπεν: Τὸν ἀνασταυρώσαντα τὴν ἁμαρτίαν
A ~ , ς ΄“΄ \ ΄σ
PETA TOV TavTHS EUPET OU καὶ “Τα σαν καταδικάσαντα
ΝᾺ A 7 \ A γος vad 5 \ >
20 OALUMOVLKYHY KAKLAV ὑπο TOUS ποῦας τῶν αὐτον ἐν καρδίᾳ
(‘4 “ \ a 4 = > € ~ ~
φορουντων. Tpatavos E€L7TEV* Cu OVV εν €aAUTW φορεῖς
\ ’ 2 / > 7 , /
tov Χριστον; “Ilyvatios εἶπεν: Nate γέγραπται yap,
ENOIKHCW EN AYTOIC KAl ἐμπεριπάτηοω. Τραϊανὸς
> / > / / \ ? ε ae
ἀπεφήνατο' ᾿Ϊγνάτιον προσεταξἕαμεν, Tov ἐν ἑαυτῷ
/ \ , / ε \
25 λέγοντα περιφέρειν Tov ἐσταυρωμένον, δέσμιον ὑπὸ
~ tg / \ \ 7
στρατιωτῶν γενόμενον ἄγεσθαι παρὰ Thy μεγάλην
/ ΄σ΄ VA / 3 ᾽ \ ᾽
ἱΡωμην, βρῶμα γενησόμενον θηρίων εἰς ὄψιν καὶ εἰς
ye ΄σ΄ he , / / 3 fi
τέρψιν τοῦ δήμον. ταύτης ὁ ἅγιος μάρτυς ἐπακούσας
a , \ ~ >3Q7 > -
τῆς ἀποφάσεως μετὰ χαρᾶς ἐβόησεν: Εὐχαριστώ σοι,
20 κακίαν] LS; malitias A; πλάνην καὶ κακίαν G; al. Β. 21 φορεῖς]
φέρεις G; gestas B; circumfers (περιφέρει) LA (comp. ΜῈ; amictus es...et indutus
S. The versions BS seem to require φορεῖς, which accordingly I have substituted
for φέρεις. 22 τὸν Χριστόν] LSABM; τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἃ. The νν. 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 Tov ἐσταυρω-
μένον. μεγάλην] This
epithet appears in all our authorities, GLSAB. 27 els ὄψιν καὶ els τέρψιν
in spectaculum et in oblectationem A; delectentur (delectetur) videntes quid acciderit et

26 orparwrov] GLAB; ῥωμαίων S.

S; 2 spectaculum (els 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,

20. ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας) Rom. xvi. 20
συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας
ὑμῶν.

23. ἐνοικήσω] Taken word for
word from 2 Cor. vi. 16, where it is
a loose quotation from Levit. xxvi.
TI, 12, καὶ θήσω τὴν σκήνην μου ἐν
ὑμῖν,. καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν ; Comp.

28 μάρτυς]

Ps-Ign. Hero 6 σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει,
ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκητήριον κιτιλ. See also
λές. 15 ὡς αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικοῦν-
τος, ἵνα ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοί, with the
note.

25. περιφέρειν x.t.A.] Comp. 2 Cor.

iv. 10 πάντοτε τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ

ἐν τῷ σώματι περιφέροντες. Trajan is
made to speak the language of 8.
Paul.

29. ἀποφάσεως] ‘sentence’ (from
ἀποφαίνω), as e.g. Dion Cass. xlvi. 6
ras τῶν δικαστῶν ἀποφάσεις ; comp,

Mart. Rom. 9.

480 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [Π

/ e/ 7 ὼκ ῬΑ , - / ΄σ
δέσποτα, ὅτι με τελείᾳ τῇ πρός σε ἀγαπὴ τιμῆσαι
/ ~ > / / /
κατηξίωσας, τῷ ἀποστόλῳ σου [ἰαύλῳ δεσμοις συν-
a σι > ᾽ /
δήσας σιδηροῖς. ταῦτα εἰπὼν καὶ μετ εὐφροσύνης
3 / ~ ᾽
περιθέμενος τὰ δεσμά, ἐπευξάμενος πρότερον TH ἐκ-
7 ~ /
κλησίᾳ καὶ ταύτην παραθέμενος μετὰ δακρύων τῷ Κυρίῳ,
ς ᾿ > ΄σ c / \
ὥσπερ κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἀγέλης καλῆς ἡγούμενος, ὑπὸ
΄-- /
θηριώδους στρατιωτικῆς δεινότητος συνηρπάζετο, θηρίοις
> 3 \ € / 3 / \
ὠμοβοροις ἐπὶ τὴν ‘Pwynv ἀπαχθησόμενος πρὸς βοραν.
111.

σ᾿ / > \ /
ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦ πάθους, κατελθὼν ἀπὸ ᾿Αλντιοχείας εἰς

Μετὰ πολλῆς τοίνυν προθυμίας καὶ yapas,

\ 7 > - 7 ~ / \ \
τὴν (ζελευκείαν ἐκεῖθεν εἴχετο τοῦ πλοῦς" Kal προσχὼν
\ \ , a , 7 ΒΕ
μετὰ πολὺν καματον τῇ Cuvpyaiwy πόλει, σὺν πολλῇ
ἐ {

a \ - \ ᾽} \ of /
χαρᾷ καταβὰς τῆς νηὸς ἔσπευδε τὸν ἅγιον TloNvKap-

Ι τῇ πρός σε ἀγάπῃ] GL; amore tuo SA, and in tua dilectione B (as if they
had read τῇ σῇ ἀγάπῃ). 2 συνδήσας] G; εἰ ρασίξ [5]; colligari (corrupted
into collocari) L* (probably reading συνδῆσαι, just as ἀποδοῦναι in § 4 is translated
reddit), and similarly alligari 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. 8 ὠμοβόροις] crudivorantibus L*; αἱμοβόροις ἃ;

perhaps should be retained. It oc-
curs in the Mart. Rom. 7; comp.
Euseb. 27. 45. villi. 7 ἐν θηρσὶν αἱμοβό-
pots. The same v. 1. αἱμοβόρον, ὠμο-
βόρον, appears in Alciphr. “2252, 111.
21}

IO. 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

6. ὥσπερ κριὸς ἐπίσημος] Mart.
Polyc. 14 προσδεθείς, ὥσπερ κριὸς ἐπί-
σήμος 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. ὠμοβύροις] ‘carnivorous’, as e.g.
Philo de Somm. 11. 13 (Ὁ. 670) ἄρκτον

τις ἢ AéovTa...eEaypraiver καὶ ἀνερεθίζει,

‘ cy ~ , cad “-“
μητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ μου.

κατελθὼν κιτιλ.} As Acts xiii. 4

ὅπως θοίναν καὶ εὐωχίαν ὠμοβόροις ἀνη-
λεεστάτην εὐτρεπίσῃ ἑαυτόν: and so
ὠμοβορία Tatian ad Grec. 2. But
αἱμοβόροις 1s unobjectionable in it-
self (comp. e.g. Aristot. Ζῆνα, Ax.
Vili, II, p..596,4 Macc, xw7),vand

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

it; comp. Rom. 6 ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μι-

Π1] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 481

\ / ig
mov τὸν Cuvpvaiwy ἐπίσκοπον τὸν συνακροατὴν θεά-
/ \ / 3
τό σασθαι: ἐγεγόνεισαν γὰρ πάλαι μαθηταὶ ᾿Ϊωάννου.
© \ \ “ 5 ~~
ᾧ καταχθεὶς καὶ πνευματικῶν αὐτῷ κοινωνήσας

Tap
1 \ ~ =~ ,
χαρισμάτων Kal τοῖς δεσμοῖς ἐγκαυχώμενος, παρεκάλει
~ ΄σ΄ 3 ΄σ ͵ / \ ~ ~
συναθλεῖν τῇ αὐτοῦ προθέσει, μάλιστα μὲν κοινῇ πᾶσαν
> / > ~ \ \ e/ 4 ~ > ,
ἐκκλησίαν (ἐδεξιοῦντο yap τὸν ἅγιον διὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων
\ / Pe / e ~ ᾽ ,ὔ ,
2ο καὶ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων αἱ τῆς ᾿Ασίας πόλεις
\ ὔ , , \ , 4
καὶ ἐκκλησίαι, πάντων ἐπειγομένων πρὸς αὐτόν, εἴ πως
, 7 / ~ > / \
μέρος χαρίσματος λάβωσι πνευματικοῦ), ἐξαιρέτως δὲ
we “ , “ \ - ᾿ -
τὸν ἅγιον TloXvKaprov, ἵνα διὰ τῶν θηρίων θᾶττον
gis \ ΄σ , , > - ~ /
apavys τῷ κόσμῳ γενόμενος ἐμφανισθῆ τῷ προσώπῳ
25 τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
crudelisstmis (Ὁ) [B] (which paraphrases); om. A. The equivalent for θηρίοις ὦμο-

βόροις in S is NIW NWN ferae voraces. βοράν] βορράν] G. I2 με-
τὰ πολὺν κάματον] GLB; cum (2) multo labore (μετὰ πολλοῦ καμάτου) AS*.

Σμυρναίων] σμυρνέων G; zmyrnacorum A; zmyrnam S.
nacorum LLB; σμυρνέον (sic) (ἃ; zmyrnae [S]A.
preef. τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου GA; add. afostoli B; preef. afostoli S.
αθλεῖν] GLSA3 24 ad (συνελθεῖν ?) Β,

14 Σμυρναίων] smyr-
15 ᾿Ιωάννου] txt L (comp. M);
18 συν-

20 καὶ prim.] GS[B]; om.

LA. 21 εἴ mws] G; ut fortasse SA; ut B; st quo aliquam L (as if εἴ

πού (?) Tt).

above pp. 232, 241, 251, 265, 266, 267;
comp. p. 218.

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
Menea Feb. 23 say of Polycarp,
οὗτος ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ θεολόγῳ ᾿Ιωάννῃ
καὶ εὐαγγελιστῇ σὺν ᾿Ιγνατίῳ τῷ θεο-
φόρῳ.

18. συναθλεῖν κιτ.λ.] See his own
language in Polyc.6 συγκοπιᾶτε ἀλ-
Andros, συναθλεῖτε.

πᾶσαν ἐκκλησίαν] ‘every church’,
Rom. 4 ᾿γὼ γράφω πάσαις ταῖς
ἐκκλησίαις καὶ ἐντέλλομαι πᾶσιν, ὅτι

ΤΟΝ,

ἐγὼ ἑκὼν ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποθνήσκω k.7T.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 x.t.A.| For
the preposition comp. ὃ 4 διὰ τῶν
ἡγουμένων below, and see the note
on Magn. 2 διὰ Aaa. See also the
note on Ephes, I ἀπείληφα.

22. μέρος χαρίσματος x.t.A.] Rom.
i. 11 ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευ-
ματικόν.

ἐξαιρέτως] As in Smyrn. 7, Τγαΐ.
12; comp. Philad. 9.

24. ἀφανὴς x.t.A.] Suggested by
Rom. 3 καὶ τότε πιστὸς εἶναι, ὅταν
κόσμῳ μὴ φαίνωμαι k.7.r., 20, 4 ὅτε οὐδὲ
τὸ σῶμά μου 6 κύσμος ὕψεται.

482 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [1v

\ ~ « TA
IV. Kat ταῦτα οὕτως ἔλεγεν, [καὶ] οὕτως διε-
, ΄σ > , \ \
μαρτύυρατο, τοσοῦτον ἐπεκτείνων τὴν πρὸς Χριστὸν
> / > ~ / > 4 A ~
ayamnv, ws οὐρανοῦ μέλλειν ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι διὰ τῆς
ΩΣ / \ ~~ rt € 4X ς.
καλῆς ὁμολογίας καὶ τῆς τῶν συνευχομένων ὑπὲρ τῆς
" / ~ ~ \ \ ~ >
ἀθλήσεως σπουδῆς, ἀποδοῦναι δὲ τὸν μισθὸν ταῖς ἐκκλη-
/ ~ / ΄σ \ ~ ς /
σίαις ταῖς ὑπαντήσασαις αὐτῷ διὰ τῶν ἡγουμένων,
/ / Ἁ /
γραμμάτων εὐχαρίστων ἐκπεμφθέντων πρὸς αὐτάς,
A 3 ~ \ , 5 /
πνευματικὴν MET εὐχῆς καὶ παραινέσεως ἀποσταζόντων
Ψ
χάριν.
7 4 / \ "A - > 7
μένους περὶ AUTOV, φοβηθεὶς μή ποτε ἡ τῆς ἀδελφότητος
A 5 | A , 3 ~ \ 3 , ~
στοργή τὴν πρὸς Κύριον αὐτοῦ σπουδὴν ἐκκόψη, καλῆς
ΕἸ , ΄σι ie ~ 7 - \ \
ἀνεωχθείσης αὐτῷ θύρας τοῦ μαρτυρίου, οἷα πρὸς τὴν
> , 3 ’ ε / ε ,
ἐκκλησίαν ἐπιστελλει Ρωμαίων ὑποτέτακται.

΄ A , ς a 9 oe ΄-
TOLYAPOVV TOUS παντας ορων EVVOLKWS διακει-

[Here follows the Epistle to the Romans.]

1 καὶ sec.}] GS; om. L; al. As; def. B.
al. A; def. B. 2 πρὸς Χριστὸν] G3 civea (περὶ) christum L; christi[S]A;
def. B. 3 μέλλειν] G3 guidem (μὲν) L; def. B. Zahn accepts μὲν, but μέλ-
New (or μέλλων) seems to be recognised by the paraphrases, et sfes [cordis] ejus (erat)
ut assequeretur caclestia S; donec fiet mihi caelestia apprehendere A. 6 aire]
GSA; christz L* (the ss); def. B. ἡγουμένων] L wrongly connects this
with the follpwing 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-
pression is taken from 1 Tim, vi. 12,
13, in which latter verse it is used
of our Lord’s witness before Pilate.

8. ἀποσταζόντων χάριν] Prov. x.

διεμαρτύρατο] GL; διεμαρτύρετο S;

φιλοτιμίας] ‘ Dublic entertainments’,
‘shows’. The word denotes a ‘dis-
play of public spirit’, ‘an act of
munificence’, ‘a benefaction’ (e.g.
Boeckh C./, 108), whether in the

32 χείλη ἀνδρῶν δικαίων ἀποστάζει
χάριτας, quoted by Zahn. So we meet
with σταΐζειν χάριν or χάριτας else-
where.

12. ἀνεῳχθείσης κιτ.λ.} I Cor. xvi.
9, 2.Cor. i. 12. Cok iv. 2: “eum
Apoc. ii. 8,

15. xataptioas| ‘have guieted’,
literally ‘adjusted’; see the note on
Ephes. 2.

18. χριστοφόρος] See the note on
Ephes. 9.

form of a public building (Plut. Vz.
Dion. 29 τὴν φιλοτιμίαν καὶ τὸ ἀνάθημα
τοῦ τυράννου), or of a largess, or of
a public spectacle or entertainment,
as the case may be. For the last of
these meanings comp. Plut. Κ22. Nic.
3 χορηγίαις ἀνελάμβανε καὶ yupvac-
ταρχίαις ἑτέραις τε τοιαύταις φιλοτιμίαις
τὸν δῆμον κιτιλ., Vet. Phoc. 31 φιλο-
τιμίας τινὰς ἔπεισε καὶ δαπάνας ὑποστῆ-
ναι γενόμενον ἀγωνοθέτην, Lucian.
Asin. 53 ἐν ἣἧ τὰς φιλοτιμίας ἦγεν

[9]

v] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 483

is V. Καταρτίσας τοίνυν, ὡς ἠβούλετο, τοὺς ἐν
‘Pan τῶν ἀδελφών akovTas διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, οὕτως
ἀναχθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς Cuvpyns (κατεπείγετο γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν
~ - / / \ / >
στρατιωτῶν ὁ χριστοφόρος φθάσαι τὰς φιλοτιμίας ἐν
TH μεγάλη πόλει, ἵνα ἐπ᾿ ὄψεσι τοῦ δήμου Ρωμαίων

ἢ μεγάλῃ , οὔ δήμ μ

A > \ 3} ~~ 7

20 θηρσὶν ἀγρίοις παραδοθεὶς τοῦ στεφάνου τῆς δικαιοσύνης
διὰ τοιαύτης ἀθλήσεως ἐπιτύχη) πρόσεσχε TH Τρωάδι.
εἰτα ἐκεῖθεν καταχθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν Νεάπολιν, διὰ Φιλιπ-
πησίων παρώδευεν Μακεδονίαν πεζῇ Kat τὴν "Ηπειρον

ρίστων] S3 εὐχαριστῶν GL; εὐχαριστίαν A; def. Β. S translates the whole
clause δέ deduxerunt eum cum (A) literis gratiarum-actionis with its characteristic
looseness, as if it were ἐκπέμποντες for ἐκπεμφθέντων ; but if it had read διὰ γραμ-
μάτων (as Zahn supposes and as he himself reads), it would probably have ren-
dered by 7°, not by the simple 4. 8 ἀποσταζόντων] G[A] (but rendered
paraphrastically) ; amplexantes (ἀσπαζομένων) L; communicantes-invicem et addentes
[S]; def. B. 10 περὶ] G[A]; ad (mpds) L; adversus S. 16 dkov-
tas] GSA; adsentes (ἀπόντας) L; def. B. 18 στρατιωτῶν] GLA[M};
ῥωμαίων S; def. B. ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ πόλει] LA; ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ῥώμῃ G; ro-
manorum S; def. B. 20 τῆς δικαιοσύνης διὰ τοιαύτης ἀθλήσεως] justitiae Per
tale certamen LA; justitiae in (3) hoc certamine S ; τῆς ἀθλήσεως G (the words δικαιο-
σύνης διὰ τοιαύτης have been omitted by homceoteleuton) ; def. B. 22 διὰ
Φιλιππησίων] per philippenses L; per philippesios B, but with a v. 1. phil-
tppos; διὰ φιλίππων GA(?)[S] (and so M). 23 πεζῇ] weft G (not περὶ,
as it has been hitherto read). Critics have restored πεζῇ from the versions, which
all (LSBA) read thus; and so too M.

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

ἐμὸς δεσπότης. With this meaning
it corresponds to the Latin munera;
see Lactant. Dzv. Just. vi. 20 ‘ vena-
tiones quae vocantur munera’, with
Lenglet-Dufresnoy’s note; and Eu-
seb. Mart. Pal. 6 ras φιλοτίμους θέας

...TAetov Te καὶ παράδοξον χρῆν ὑπάρξαι
ταῖς φιλοτιμίαις, where, as here, the
subject is amartyrdom. There is an
approach to this sense in Demosth.
_ de Cor. Ῥ. 312 χορηγεῖν, τριηραρχεῖν,
εἰσφέρειν, μηδεμιᾶς φιλοτιμίας μήτε
ἰδίας μήτε δημοσίας ἀπολείπεσθαι.

22. Νεάπολιν] As 5. Paul does in
Acts xvi. 11. See the language of Ig-
natius himself Polyc. ὃ διὰ τὸ ἐξαίφ-
νης πλεῖν με ἀπὸ Τρωάδος εἰς Νεάπολιν.

in his letter to this church ὃ 9 (comp.
§ 1). The spurious letters to the
Tarsians (§ 10), to the Antiochenes
(ξ 14), and to Hero (δ 8), profess to
have been written from Philippi ;
and the pseudo-Ignatius writes after-
wards to the Philippians themselves
from the neighbourhood of Rhegium
(Philipp. 15).

23. τὴν “Hrretpov] The word is
probably intended as a proper name

20 >
~Te

484 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS. [ν

\ i / ἃ © 3 ios , ‘
τὴν προς Επίδαμνον᾽ ov ἐν τοῖς παραθαλαττίοις νῆος
\ »/ We \ 7 ~ \
ἐπιτυχων ἔπλει TO λδριατικὸν πέλαγος; κἀκεῖθεν ἐπιβὰς
σ- a 4 , , \ ’
TOU Τυρρηνικοῦ Kal παραμείβων νήσους TE καὶ TOAELS,
- / ΄σ΄ ε 7 / ‘ \ “-
ὑποδειχθέντων τῷ ἁγίῳ Π}οτιόλων, αὐτὸς μὲν ἐξελθεῖν
9" I / / a 7
ἔσπευδεν, κατ᾽ ἴχνος βαδίζειν ἐθέλων τοῦ ἀποστόλου
td ς \ > \ 7 ra > ‘4
[Παύλου]. ws δὲ ἐπιπεσὸν βίαιον πνεῦμα οὐ συνεχώρει;
΄- \ / 5 ’ 7] \ “4
τῆς νῆος ἐκ πρύμνης ἐπειγομένης, μακαρίσας THY ἐν
> 7 ΄σ / ΄σ 3 ~ .9 8 J ,
ἐκείνῳ TW τόπῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀγάπην οὕτω παρεπλει.
΄σ 9 a ra / \ \ ΄σ΄ > lad Week ὁ ae a
τοιγαροῦν ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ VUKTL TH αὐτῆ, οὐρίοις avE-

μοις προσχρησάμενοι, ἡμεῖς μὲν ἄκοντες ἀπηγόμεθα

1 ov] caus L (wrongly translated, as if Epidamnus had been masc.); e¢ 202 [A];

atgue exinde [B]; tunc S; om. G,

et civitates LS; et insulas multas (νήσους καὶ πολλάς ?) A; def. B.

Nov] GLA[B]; om. 5.
S; wer perficiebamus A; al. B.

here. As such, it would still have a
tendency to retain the definite ar-
ticle. ;
4. ὑποδειχθέντωνἨἢἡ Acts xxi. 3
ἀναφάναντες (v.1. dvadavevres) δὲ τὴν
Κύπρον. So aperire, Virg. Aen. iii.
206, 275; and of the opposite, zd. 111.
291 ‘ Phaeacum abscondimus arces.’
Ποτιόλων] The word Ποτίολοι is
the proper Greek form (e.g. Boeckh
C. 7. 5853, an inscription at Puteoli
itself) corresponding to the Latin
Puteoli, which is derived from 22ε762
(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 ν 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
(p. 5, ed. Tisch.), and a miracle is
founded on this bad spelling, τὴν πό-
λιν ἐκείνην τὴν καλουμένην Ποντιόλην
πεποντισμένην, and again ἐκ τῆς πό-
λεως Ποντιόλης τῆς ποντισθείσης

3 νήσους τε καὶ modes] G; ἐρμεμίας
6 Παύ-

10 ἀπηγόμεθα] G; abducimur (ἀπαγόμεθα) Ls zhamas
16 στρατιῶται] GLA; ῥωμαῖοι S (as before,

ἀπήγγειλαν τῷ Καίσαρι cis 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 ‘theTyrrhene 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 5. Pon-
tiolus was made into a bishop by
some scribe to account for his sudden
appearance on the scene. The Bol-
Jandist editors are content to sug-
gest Puteolono (Puteolano?), and

ν _ ANTIOCHENE ACTS.

485

στένοντες ἐπὶ τῷ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν μέλλ 0 τοῦ
Tes ἐπὶ TW ad ἡμῶν μέλλοντι χωρισμῳ TOU

ὃ , / a“ \ > > \ ᾽ , /
ικαίου γίνεσθαι, τῷ δὲ κατ᾽ εὐχὴν ἀπέβαινεν σπεύδοντι

cal a ΄σ / ε «
θάττον ἀναχωρῆσαι Tov κόσμου, iva φθάση πρὸς ὃν

ἠγάπησεν Κύριον.

Vs ~ > \ ,
καταπλεύσας youv εἰς Tous λιμενας

15 Ρωμαίων, μελλούσης λήγειν τῆς ἀκαθάρτου φιλοτιμίας,
οἱ μὲν στρατιῶται ὑπὲρ τῆς βραδύτητος ἤσχαλλον,

τὰ 7 ’ὔ / /
ὁ δὲ ἐπίσκοπος χαίρων κατεπείγουσιν ὑπήκονεν.

VI.

"Exeidev γοῦν ἕωθεν ὁρμηθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ καλ-
Ύ ρμ

ουμένον Πόρτου (διεπεφήμιστο γὰρ ἤδη τὰ κατὰ τὸν

for we should doubtless read N°D119 for $935).
ὑπήκουσεν, as it has hitherto been read), and so obediebat L.

17 ὑπήκουεν] G (not
18 ἕωθεν

ὁρμηθέντες] see below; excitati (expergefacti) inde primo mane Aj; expulst
(ἐωθέντες taken for woOévres) L; ἐώθησαν G3 mane (tempestive) duxerunt eum

(IDIPN) 5.

leave the context as it is. Two copies
at least of these Latin Acts, which I
have seen, omit efzscopo, which is
therefore a later introduction; Paris
Libl. Nat. 1639, Bodl. Laud. Lat. 31.

5. κατ᾽ ἴχνος x.t.A.] Suggested
by Zphes. 12 Παύλου...οὗ γένοιτό μοι
ὑπὸ Ta ἴχνη εὑρεθῆναι; see the note
there. His imitation of S. Paul isa
frequent topic in the Wen@a Dec. 20.
See the Hymn of S. 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. 388 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,
€w|OeNOpMH]OENTEC became €0-
θεντεο, 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
of the river. Trajan afterwards added
an inner basin which was called
after him Portus Trajanz. In the
neighbourhood of this twofold har-
bour grew up the town of Portus—
the present Porto—with which the
name of Hippolytus is connected,
But it would hardly, I think, have
been mentioned, as it is in our mar-
tyrology, at the date of Ignatius’
death, when Trajan’s part of the work
can only have been very recently
constructed, if it existed at all. Dél-
linger Hippolyius and Callistus p.

486 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [vi

«ε΄ / ~ ΄-: ᾽ ~ / \
ἅγιον μάρτυρα) συναντῶμεν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς φόβῳ Kat
an / 7 \ > “ > ~
χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένοις, χαίρουσιν μὲν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἠξιοῦντο

ra ΄σ΄ / / / \ /
τῆς τοῦ Θεοφόρου συντυχίας, φοβουμένοις δὲ διότι περ
> / ~ ᾽ \ /
ἐπὶ θάνατον τοιοῦτος ἤγετο. τισὶ δὲ καὶ παρήγγελλεν
rd / / 4 , / \ ς.
ἡσυχάζειν, ζέουσι καὶ λέγουσι καταπαύειν τον δῆμον
\ \ \ 3 con 5 / \ 7 « 5 \
πρὸς TO μὲ ἐπιζητεῖν ἀπολέσθαι τὸν δίκαιον" os εὐθὺς
\ an / \ / , la > /
γνοὺς τῷ πνεύματι Kal πάντας ἀσπασάμενος, αἰτήσας
5 ~ \ , , 7 I
τε Tap αὐτῶν τὴν ἀληθινὴν ἀγάπην, πλείονά TE τῶν
3 ὅτι Ὁ = \ ἢ / 4 ΄ ΄-
ἐν τῆ ἐπιστολῇ διαλεχθεὶς καὶ πείσας μή φθονῆσαι TH
, \ A / .« \ /
σπεύδοντι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, οὕτω μετὰ γονυκλισίας
΄- ~ ’ A € σ΄ la
πάντων τῶν ἀδελφῶν παρακαλέσας τὸν υἱον τοῦ Θεοῦ

᾿ oes oe fan - \ - ay a ,
ὑπὲρ των ἐκκλήσιων, ὑπερ Τῆς. FOU διωγμοῦ KATaATAU-

2 ἠξιοῦντο] dignificabantur LA}; ἠξιῶντο (sic?) G; al. S. The edd. have re-

tained ἠξιῶντο, without correcting the accent.
ζέουσι] GL; sed ili fervebant (ζέουσι δὲ) A (thus chang-
ing the participles into finite verbs); vzdens guod ferverent S.

54 ; ἡσυχάζουσιν G.

5 ἡσυχάζειν] selere L, and so

6 ovs] guos

L; et cos qua tla cogitabant 8; et...cogitationes eorum A; ὃς ἃ, The renderings of
SA suggest that some words have dropped out, such as οὕτω φρονοῦντας or Tatra

72 sq. (Eng. Trans.) gives reasons for
supposing that there was no town at
Portus even as late as the third cen-

tury.
9. μὴ φθονῆσαι] Rom. 5 μηθέν pe
(yiwoa τῶν ὁρατῶν κατιλ.,) 2. 7

βασκανία ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ κατοικείτω.

18, τρισκαιδεκάτη] i.e. the ‘thir-
teenth beforethe Kalends of January ’,
as stated in § 7. The Saturnalia
had originally occupied one day
only, xiv Kal. Jan. (Dec. 19). But
Czsar’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. «542. i. 10, 2—6, 23. After-

wards the festival was still further
prolonged by the addition of the
Stgillaria, which commenced xiii
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. 10. 24 ‘ Sigillariorum ad-
jecta celebritas in septem dies discur-
sum pyblicum 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

vi] ANTIOCHENE ACTS.

487
σεως, ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπης,
> / θ \ δῆ > \ 3 / 7 77) \
ἀπήχθη μετὰ σπουδῆς εἰς TO ἀμφιθέατρον. εἶτα εὐθὺς
» \ \ \ / / .-
ἐμβληθεὶς κατὰ TO πάλαι πρόσταγμα τοῦ Καίσαρος,
΄ I ~ ~ > 9
μελλουσῶν καταπαύειν τών φιλοτιμιῶν (ἦν γὰρ ἐπι-
/ € / 7 ~~ "᾿ ~ ~
φανῆς, ws ἐδόκουν, ἡ λεγομένη TH “Pwpaixkn φωνῆ
‘ i ‘
/ > εὰ / ε
τρισκαιδεκάτη, καθ᾿ ἣν σπουδαίως συνήεσαν), οὕτως
θ \ 3 ~ \ ~ 5 / f / c
ἡρσὶν ὠμοῖς mapa τῶν ἀθέων παρεβάλλετο, ὡς
| Lan 7 / ~
παραυτὰ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος “lyvatiov πληροῦσθαι
\ > 7 \ Ἁ ’ > ’ ,
τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐπιθγμίδ AIKAIOY
’ .« \ ~ ~ > ~
AekTH, ἵνα μηδενὲ τῶν ἀδελφών ἐπαχθὴς διὰ τῆς
~ ~ / / πὶ
συλλογῆς τοῦ λειψάνου γένηται, καθὼς φθάσας ἐν τῆ
᾽ σ΄ \ ἰδί 3 θύ / / , ‘
ἐπιστολῇ THY ἰδίαν ἐπεθύμει γενεσθαι τελείωσιν. μόνα

διαλογιζομένους. 19 παρὰ τῶν ἀθέων] as Zahn correctly; αὖ hominibus que
sine deo S; ab impiis L; παρὰ τῶ ναῶ ἃ. A has certainly ἄθεοι, though changing
the form of the sentence. Smith had conjectured παρὰ τῷν ἀνοσίων or ἀνόμων from
L, but AS supply the right word; and ἄθεος is translated zmpius by L in Tradl. 3,

though not in Z7ra//. 10. In G some letters have been dropped τωνα[θε]ω[ν].

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. i. 11. 50 ‘ideo
Saturnalibus talium commerciorum
coepta celebritas septem occupat dies,
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 praclia notum Decertasse
foro ; nunc sibi arena suos Vindicat ;
extremo qui jam sub fine Decembris
Falcigerum placant sanguine Caeli-
genam’, Lactant. Div. Inst. vi. 20
‘venationes quae vocantur munera
Saturno sunt attributae’ (see the note

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 e-
vents’, ‘then and there’, ‘forth-
with’; see the note on 7y¥a//. 11.

21. ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ.] From the Lxx
Prov. x. 24.

23. φθάσας x.r.d.] ‘ already in his
epistle’. The reference is to Rom,
4 μηθὲν καταλίπωσιν κιτιλ. On the
whole subject of the reliques, see
pp. 385 54., 429 sq.

24. τελείωσιν] The word was early

488

MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS.

[vi

5 | la - ΄-- /
ὰἃρ τὰ τραγύτερα τῶν ayiwy αὐτοῦ λειψνάνων περιε-
γὰρ τὰ τραχύτερ ρ

/ é / > \ Ἰὰ / > / θ ae
λειῴθη, ἅτινα εἰς τὴν ᾿Δντιόχειαᾳν ἀπεκομισθη καὶ ἐν

΄ , \ > ,ὔ ξ \ land ΄
ληνῷ κατετέθη, θησαυρὸς ἀτίμητος ὑπο τῆς ἐν τῷ

V4 / ~ ς / > / /
μαρτυρι χάριτος TH ayia ἐκκλησίᾳ καταλειφθέντα.

1 ἁγίων αὐτοῦ] GL; justi (τοῦ δικαίου) 5.; om. [A].
glossocomo S ; λίνῳ G; def. A: see the lower note.

3 ληνῷ] capsa L;

5 πρὸ δεκατριῶν κα-

λανδῶν ᾿Ιαννουαρίων] GL; ante ix (secundum graecos xiii) kalendas januarias A;

decimo septimo tishri posterioris S.

After ’Iavvovapiwy add. τουτέστιν δεκεμβρίω

εἰκάδι G3 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. Stvom. iv. 4
(p. 570) τελείωσιν TO 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. £. ili. 35 τοῦ Supedvos τὸν

δηλωθέντα τελειωθέντος τρόπον, Viil. 6, -

and frequently. See Suicer 7hes. 5.
VV. τελειοῦν, τελείωσις.

μόνα γὰρ κ-τ.λ.] For the relation of
this account to the statement of
Fivaerias 7 Εν '1.- 26; see’ above
pp- 387 sq., 432.

2. ἐν ληνῷ] “77 a coffin’, ‘a sarco-
phagus’. 1 have restored this read-
ing from the versions for ἐν λίνῳ.
Jacobson writes, ‘ev λίκνῳ hariolatur
Noltius’, but Nolte was on the right
track.
Phrynichus Bekker Anecd. Ὁ. 51
Anvovs’ ov μόνον ἐν ais τοὺς βότρυς
πατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς τῶν νεκρῶν
σοροὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμοιότητος τῆς κατα-
σκευῆς : comp. Pollux Oxzom. iii. 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). 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 Any (for Aiv@).

For Anvos, ‘a coffin’, see ἡ

3. ὑπὸ τῆς κιτιλ.] ie. Sby 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 Ill, Q. Sosius
Senecio 11; see Mommsen in Hermes
Ill. Ὁ. 138. 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 Pan-
vinio Fastz p. 217 ‘L. Licinio Sura
I1I, 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
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 (Zzvres 1. p. 507), though he
afterwards corrected his mistake (see
the otherreferences in this note). This
interpretation seemed to be favoured
by an inscription on a lead weight

vit]

ANTIOCHENE ACTS.

489

VII. Εγένετο δὲ ταῦτα ™ πρὸ δεκατριῶν κα-

λανδῶν ᾿Ιαννοναρίων, ὑπατευόντων παρὰ “Ρωμαίοις (ύρα

’ \ / , 3 / ,
καὶ Cevexiwvos TO δεύτερον. τούτων αὐτόπται γενόμενοι

/ ὟΝ; ’ \
μετὰ δακρύων κατ᾽ οἰκὸν TE παννυχίσαντες Kal πολλὰ

\ 7 \ , / \
μετὰ γονυκλισίας Kat δεήσεως παρακαλέσαντες τὸν

ῇ “ \ > ~ ε ~ > \ ~
10 Κύριον πληροφορήῆσαι Tous ἀσθενεῖς ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τοῖς προ-

7 Levekiwvos] S; senecio (abl.=cevexiov) L; σεδεκίου ἃ (which punctuates σύρα.
καὶ σεδεκίου τὸ δεύτερον, so as to confine τὸ δεύτερον to the second name); def. A.

9 γονυκλισίας] γονυκλὴσίας G.

in the Borgian Museum, SOSETSVRA
COSIT, taken to mean ‘Sosio et Sura
consulibus iterum’, but Borghesi
(see de Rossi /uscr. Christ. Urb.
Rom. 1. p. 4 sq.) 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 (Cor.
Inscr. Lat. Vi. 2185) shows that the
consuls of that year were C. Julius
Ursus Servianus 11, L. Licinius
Sura 11; see Visconti Anz. 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 praetorship of Hadrian
to a wrong year (see Visconti l.c.,
Mommsen C. /, 2.111. 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./. Z. τι. 4536—4548,
Il. 356. Forthis Sura see Borghesi
CGuvres V. p. 34 sq., C./. LZ. I. p.
602 sq., VI. p. 315; comp. Julian
C@s. p. 327. Both he and Sosius
were highly honoured by Trajan;
Dion Cass. Ixviii. 15, 36.

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. 397); 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. 400 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.

10. τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς ἡμᾶς} ‘us, weak
mien as we were’; comp. Clem. Rom.

490 MARTYRDOM OF S. IGNATIUS.

[v1I

γεγονόσιν, μικρὸν ἀφυπνώσαντες, οἱ μὲν ἐξαίφνης ἐπι-
στάντα καὶ περιπτυσσόμενον ἡμᾶς ἐβλέπομεν, οἱ δὲ
πάλιν ἐπευχόμενον ἡμῖν ἑωρῶμεν TOV μακάριον ᾿Ιγνάτιον,
ἄλλοι δὲ σταζόμενον ὑφ᾽ ἱδρῶτος εἷς ἐκ καμάτου πολλοῦ

/ ΄σ 4 \ σ΄
παραγενόμενον καὶ παρεστῶτα τῷ Κυρίῳ μετὰ πολλῆς 5

/ \ ᾽ / 7 \
ἱπαρρησίας Kat ἀνεκλαλήτου δόξης: πλησθέντες δε]
a vol > / \ ἢ \ I ὅτι
χαρᾶς ταῦτα ἰδόντες καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ὄψεις τῶν
> / ς Ἷ \ \ \ ΄σ΄ ΄ 3
ὀνειράτων, ὑμνήσαντες τὸν Θεὸν τὸν δοτῆρα τών aya-
a“ / \ J > 4 a
θῶν καὶ μακαρίσαντες τὸν ἅγιον, ἐφανερώσαμεν ὑμῖν
/ \ \ / .« \ \ \ “-
καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ TOY χρόνον, ἵνα κατὰ TOV καιρὸν TOU
7 , ΄- ς 9 rol \
μαρτυρίον συναγόμενοι κοινωνώμεν τῷ GOANTH καὶ
7 ω / \ 7
γενναίῳ μαρτυρι Χριστοῦ καταπατήσαντι τὸν διάβολον
\ \ “- 7 3 lal 3 7 4
καὶ τὸν τῆς φιλοχρίστου αὐτοῦ ἐπιθυμίας τελειώσαντι

2 ἐβλέπομεν] GS; videbant LA. 3 ἑωρῶμεν] G; videbant LS[A] (but
A transposes). In this case and the last the change of person is simply a ques-
tion of idiom. 4 ἄλλοι δὲ σταζόμενον ὑφ᾽ ἱδρῶτος] GSA; om. L. 5 με-
τὰ... ἰδόντες] im (1. cum?) multa confidentia et ineffabili gloria. impleti autem gaudio
haec videntes Τ,; μετὰ πολλῆς τοίνυν χαρᾶς ταῦτα ἰδόντες G; et haec videntes magno
gaudio implebantur omnes A; gaudio magno. et quum haec autem vidissent S.
It appears therefore that a whole line has dropped out in GS. " συμ-
βαλόντες...τῶν ὀνειράτων] GS; om. L (a line probably omitted, the eye passing
from the υμ- of συμβαλόντες to that of ὑμνήσαντες); intelligentes bonam et mirabi-
lem vevelationem A (the translator seems to have had the clause, and to have
changed it because it did not harmonize with his form of narrative). 13 καὶ
τὸν.. ἡμῶν] G, and so substantially SA; οὐ huius insidias in finem prostravit
[glorificantes] in ipsius venerabili et sancta memoria dominum [nostrum] jesum

6 ai ἀσθενεῖς for the definite article,
and see the note on [Clem. Rom.]
ii. 19 of 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 SPzcz7. I. p. 22, and
Zahn J. v. A. p. 43). But, on the
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
ἀσθενεῖς refers more naturally to the

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.

4. σταζόμενον x.t.r.] The image
is taken from the athlete, just as in
the dream of Perpetua on the eve
of her martyrdom (Act. Perf. et
felic. 10) she sees herself anointed
for the contest, ‘ coeperunt me favi-
tores mei oleo defrigere, quomodo
solent in agonem.’ —

vir] ANTIOCHENE ACTS. 491

a fr ΄σ , ΄ Φ
δρόμον ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν" δι’ οὗ Kai
© land / \ \ Fg r ε
15 μεθ᾽ οὗ τῷ πατρὲ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος σὺν τῷ adyiw
΄σ 7
πνεύματι εἰς αἰῶνας. ᾿ΑΔμην.

christum L*, 14 ἐν Χριστῷ.. ἡμῶν] GA; dominum [nostrum] jesum christum
[L]; 2 tes christo domino nostro 5. δί ov καὶ μεθ᾽ οὗ] GL; cud et per quem
S; cui A; pe’ οὗ [M]. 15 τῷ πατρὶ] GL; deo patri S; cum patre A.
ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος] GLA; gloria et honor et magnitudo S. 16 πνεύματι]
txt GSA; add. 27 sancta ecclesia L.

Subscription. ints martyrit sancti domini ignatit episcopt antiochiae. et deo
gloria 8. There is none in G, and none is recorded for A. For L see the Appx.

MAPTYPION
B.

IF NATIOY

5) ΄σ ory ~ /
I. Ἐν ἔτει ἐννάτῳ τῆς βασιλείας Τραϊανοῦ Kai-

od / , 4 7 >
σαρος, τουτέστι τῆς TKY ὀλυμπιαδος δευτέρῳ ἔτει, ἐν

MAPTYPION IPNATIOY Β] μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου (add. ἱερομάρτυρος LP) lyvariouv
{add. τοῦ θεοφόρου L) ἐπισκόπου (ἀρχιεπισκόπου L) ἀντιοχείας LPV; martyrium
sancti ignatit gut dicitur theophorus, id est is qui fert deum, is qui erat episcopus
wntiochiae post praedicationem apostolorum, qui complevit martyrium suum in roma
seplimo mensis epipht in pace dei, amen C.

1 ἐννάτῳ] LC: πέμπτῳ PV.

Τραϊανοῦ] LPV; ILAILT Ppasastoc (perhaps a

confusion between Namtpramoc Aadviani, and Wwrpasamoc ¢vaiani) 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 50
as to make it conform to the Anti-
ochene story (ὃ 10 σπαράξαντες κατέ-
Sovro k.t.A.). But this solution is no
longer possible. This version also
shows how the corruption arose ; for
it is written with the numeral ὁ. (ἐν-
νάτῳ), which would easily be altered
into € (πέμπτῳ). Hence the not un-
frequent confusion of 5 and g 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 ᾿Αρμένιος...δημαρ-
χικῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ πέμπτον καὶ [τὸ] δέ-
κατον, ὕπατος τὸ τρίτον. If 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.

Tpaiavovd] 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
dueto 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, viii. 65 τὸν μέτα τρεῖς
ἄρξουσι πανύστατον ἦμαρ ἔχοντες, Οὔνο-

1] ΚΟΜΑΝ

ACTS. 493

ὑπατείᾳ ᾿λττίκου CovpBavot καὶ Μαρκέλλου, ᾿Ϊγνάτιος

where the emperor’s name is consistently given Tpasastoc in these Acts; see the

lower note.

2 τουτέστι τῆς oxy’ ὀλυμπιάδος δευτέρῳ ἔτει] quod est secundus

annus ducentesimae vicesimae tertiae olympiadis C ; δευτέρῳ ἔτει P; καὶ δευτέρῳ ἔτει

V; δευτέρῳ μηνί L.
C; évurarlas V.

ἐν ὑπατείᾳ] P; ἐν ὑπατίᾳ L; in consulatu (στὰ τ τὰ)
3 ᾿Αττίκου] LPC[B]; ἀττήκου V.

Σουρβανοῦ]

surbonis (cophum) Ὁ ; καὶ σουρβανοῦ L; καὶ σουρβούνου Ῥ ; καὶ σουρβίνου V; om.

[Β].

μα πληρώσαντες ἐπουρανίοιο Θεοῖο, the
connexion between the name of the
Antonini and Adonai is much closer
thah the commentators generally
seem to be aware, because the latter
might be represented in Egyptian
writing (and probably in Egyptian
pronunciation also) as Avtonaz.

2. τουτέστι κιτιλ.)] 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 ὑπατίᾳ (or
ὑπατείᾳ), SO as to read ‘and in the
second year of the consulship of etc.’
The substantive ἐνυπατία (or ἐνυπα-
reia) does not occur elsewhere, nor
is it justified by the occurrence of
the verb ἐνυπατεύειν (Plut. 7707. p.
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 σ = 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

from Eusebius, if not from tradition
(see above p. 446sq.); (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 be-
ing the date of Trajan’s sojourn there.
Having got these dates from differ-
ent sources, he put them together
without enquiring whether they coin-
cided. 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 ;
e.g. Socr. H. £. 1. 40, ii. 47, iv. 38,
etc.

3. ᾿Αττίκου x.r.A.] The true names
of the consuls for this year, A.D.
104, are Sextus Attius Suburanus 11,
Marcus Asinius Marcellus, as ap-
pears from a Greek inscription re-
cently published, Wood’s Discoveries
at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 1, p. 363 see
Mommsen Hermes 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 suffectus; see C.J. 1.
vi. 2074. The substitution of A7Z¢i-
cus for Attivs may perhaps have
been owing to a reminiscence of
Hegesippus as quoted by Euseb.

494

MARTYRDOM ΟΕ 5. IGNATIUS. [1

ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ᾿Αντιοχείας δεύτερος μετὰ TOUS ἀπο-
στόλους γενόμενος (Εὐόδιον γὰρ διεδέξατο) μετὰ ἐπι-
μελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακῆς ἀπὸ Cupias ἐπὶ τὴν
“Ρωμαίων πόλιν παρεπέμφθη τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν ἕνεκα

μαρτυρίας.

Ss \ ε / > oe CC
ἦσαν δὲ οἱ φυλάσσοντες αὐτὸν Τραϊανοῦ 5

, , \ ᾽ / ey , \ /
7 POTLKT OPES δέκα τον ἀριθμὸν, ανήμέροι τινες KQL θηρίων

1 τῆς “Avrioxelas] C3 τῆς ἐν ἀντιοχείᾳ ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας LP; τῆς

ἀντιοχέων τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας V.
λου P.
φρουροφυλακῆς V.
μαίων πόλιν] V Euseb.3 ῥώμην LPC.
χριστὸν V.

2 Εὐόδιον)] VC; εὐώδιον LP.
ἀπὸ Συρίας] LPV Euseb.; om. [C].

τοὺς ἀποστόλους] LVC3 τοῦ ἀποστό-

2 φρουρῶν φυλακῆ9] LP Euseb. ;
4 Ῥω-
Χριστὸν] LP Euseb.; τὸν

6 τὸν ἀριθμόν] txt LPVB; add. haec autem sunt nomina

corum, cornelios, phison, jubinos, sedos, bautos, lelarchos, palmas, lymen, barbaros,

H. 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 acoin, and have assigned Sudz-
ranus 11) Marcellus, to A.D. 103, giv-
ing Imp. Nerva Trajanus Aug. v,
M’. Laberius Maximus 11, the pro-
per consuls of A.D. 103, to A.D. 104;
(see C. J. L. Ill. p. 864, v. 4067,
VII. 1193). So e.g. Clinton, Eckhel
Doctr. Num. Vi. p. 415 sq., and even
Borghesi Zuvres 11. p. 70. Momm-
sen (Hermes 111. 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 beread. If
the reckoning be by tribunician years,
the date of the martyrdom (July 1)
would fall in the one case in A.D.
ΤΟΙ and in the other in A.D. 105.

If on the other hand the Egyptian
computation be followed (see p. 411,
note 2), as is not improbable, July 1
in the 5th year would be A.D. 102,
and in the goth A.D. 106.

I. ἐπίσκοπος κιτ.λ.] From Euseb.
HI, E. iii. 36 Ἰγνάτιος τῆς κατ᾽ ᾿Αντιό-
χειαν Πέτρου διαδοχῆς δεύτερος τὴν ἐπι-
σκοπὴν κεκληρωμένος, compared with
zb. iii. 21 τῶν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας Evodiov
πρώτου καταστάντος, δεύτερος ἐν τοῖς
δηλουμένοις ᾿Ιγνάτιος ἐγνωρίζετο.

2. μετὰ ἐπιμελεστάτης κιτ.λ.] From
Euseb. 27. £. iii. 36 λόγος δ᾽ ἔχει τοῦ-
τον ἀπὸ Συρίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ρωμαίων πόλιν
ἀναπεμφθέντα θηρίων γενέσθαι βορὰν
τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν. οὗτος
δὴ οὖν τὴν δι’ ᾿Ασίας ἀνακομιδὴν μετ᾽
ἐπιμελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακῆς ποι-
ούμενος K.T.A-

6. προτίκτορες] 1.6. ‘pProtectores,’
‘body-guards’; comp. Menander
Exc. p. 418 (ed. Bonn.) ὁ δέ ye τῶν
μεθορίων λεγόμενος προτίκτωρ (δηλοῖ δὲ
παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις τὸν ἐς τοῦτο καταλεγό-
μενον ἀξίας, τὸν βασίλειον προσκε-
παστήν) καιτιλ. This writer was him-
self a ‘protector’: see Suidas 5, v.
Μένανδρος. Comp. also Cod. Theod.

‘vi. 24. 9 ‘Devotissimos protectores,

1] ROMAN

ACTS. 495

7 ᾽ δ \ ΓΙ, 7 U z ‘
τρόπους ἔχοντες" οἱ Kai OL ᾿λσίας δέσμιον ἦγον Tov

/ 3 -Q/ πο. ἢ \ / ‘38 / \
μακάριον" ἐκεῖθέν τε ἐπὶ τὴν Θράκην καὶ ἱΡήγιον διὰ

΄σ \ / ε / \ c/ ε / \
γῆς kal θαλάσσης, ὑπωπιάζοντες τὸν ὅσιον ἡμέρας καὶ

/ / > ὑφ , 7 > / c \
IO vUKTOS, καίτοι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν εὐεργετούμενοι ὑπὸ

~~ Oo ΕῚ \ / Jue -~ \
τῶν ἀδελφών" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν τούτων ἐπραῦνεν αὐτῶν τὰς

lymppos (sic) C.
᾿Ασίας] 1, Euseb.; διὰ τῆς ἀσίας PV.

already inserted τὸν ἅγιον after οἱ καὶ).

κην] PV; τὴν θρᾷκην L.

θηρίων τρόπους] LPCB; θηριώδη τὸν τρόπον V.

" δι
τὸν μακάριον] PVC; om. L (having
8 re] LP; et C; δὲ V. Opa-

Q ὑπωπιάζοντες] ὑποπιέζοντες PV ; ὑποπιαίζοντες L.
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός] ΝΟ; νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας LP.

10 καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν]

LPV; but, as Chas κατὰ modArsc, perhaps we should read κατὰ πόλιν ‘ from city

to city.’
add. scilicet ut indulgerent sancto C.

B has guotidie=kxad’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν.

1t ἀδελφῶν] txt LPVB;
αὐτῶν] LPCB; τῶν ἀνημέρων V.

τὰς ὀργάς] PV; tracundiam BC ; θηριώδη προαίρεσιν 1,.

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.
Lib. vi. Tit. xxiv (Il p. 130 sq.),
Ducange Gloss. Lat. s.v. protector.
They are styled in the inscriptions
‘protectores Augusti’ or ‘Augus-
torum’ (e.g. Corp. Lusc. Lat. Ul. 327,
3126, 3424); the name of the empe-
ror being sometimes added e.¢. ‘pro-
tector Aureliani Augusti’ (26. III.
327); also ‘ protectores lateris divini’
(26, 111. 1805, an inscription of the
year A.D. 280). A soldier so serving
was said ‘protegere’ (zd. 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. Fust. xii. 17.1, 2). The
career of such a person is sketched
‘out in C./. Z. 111. 371 ‘militavit in
vexillatione Fesianesa annis xxiii,
unde factus protector, idequi (1. in-

deque oy 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; e.g. Act. SS. Philem.
et Afpoll. 9 ὁ Διοκλετιανὸς ἀπέστειλε
προτίκτορας πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ Θηβαΐδι
καὶ μετεκαλέσατο avTov...oi προτίκτορες
συνέλαβον αὐτὸν καὶ ὑπὸ ἀσφαλείας
ἐποίησαν, quoted in Ducange G/oss.
Lat. s.v.: see also his Gloss. Grec.
s.v. But the name is an anachronism
in the time of Trajan. In the inscrip-
tions the office is mentioned under
Gallienus A.D. 267, C. 7. Z. Il. 3424.
Spartianus (Vt. Carac.) writes ὃ 5
‘cum protectoribus’, and § 7 ‘inter
protectores suos’, speaking of Cara-
calla; but perhaps he was uncon-
sciously attributing to a former age
an institution with which he was
familiar in his own time.

8. Ῥήγιον] See above, p. 379.

9. ὑπωπιάζοντες] ‘oppressing, mal-
treating’; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 26, where
there is the same v. 1. ὑποπιέζω, as
here. See Lobeck PAryz. p. 461.

496 MARTYRDOM OF 5: IGNATIUS. [1

> / ’ \ / ~ /
ὀργάς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνηκέστοις Kal ἀνηλεέσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐξε-
.« « ‘ ? “-
θλιβον τὸν ἅγιον, ὥς που καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἐπιστολῆ
on / 9 ‘ , ‘ c ,
μαρτυρεῖ λέγων: “And Zypiac μέχρι Ῥώμης OHPIO-
May@ λδλιὰ γῆς Kal θάλάοροης [ἀγόμενοοϊ, ENAEAE-
μένος AEKA λεοπάρλοιος, οἵτινές εἰσι CTPATIWTIKON
οτῖφος: of κἀὶ εὐεργετούμενοι χείρογς γίνον-
TAl.
, Loy ,
II. ’Amwapavtes οὖν ἐκ ‘Pyyiov παραγίνονται ἐν
~ Ῥ / \ , € “ α 3 / \ sf
TH Pwyn. Kal προσήνεγκαν Tw αὐτοκράτορι THY ἀφιξιν
~ α΄. ἢ / > ΄ /
αὐτοῦ. Kal ἐκέλευσεν ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ εἰσαχθῆναι αὐτὸν,
/ \ “ “ ’ \ /
παρούσης Kal τῆς συγκλήτου, Kal φησιν προς αὐτὸν"
\ Ὅν Ὁ , ς \ > , ’ 9
Cv εἶ ᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ τὴν ᾿λντιοχέων πόλιν ἀναστατον
, es ε \ 3 3 \ > \ 3 σι e/ -~ \
ποιήσας: ws καὶ εἰς dkoas ἐμὰς ἐλθεῖν OTL πᾶσαν τὴν

/ / 3 \ Cons ‘an > \
Cupiav μετέβαλες ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ εἰς TOV χριστι-

/ U4 > " “ ARI A "
ανισμόν. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν. Εἴθε, βασιλεῦ, otos τε ἡμην:

1 ἀνηκέστοις] ἀνικέστοις P; ἀνεικέστοις Τ,: zmpudentibus (ἀναιδέσιν or perhaps a
paraphrase of ἀνηκέστοι) C; ἀτάκτοις V. The clause stands cradelibus cculis et
manibus (1. cmmanibus τὴ in B. ἀνηλεέσιν] ἀνιλεέσιν LP 3 tmmisericordibus C;
ἀναιδέσιν V. For B see the previous note. 3 μαρτυρεῖ] LPCB; γράφει V.
θηριομαχῶ!] PB; θηριομαχῶν LV; dub. C. 4 ἀγόμενος] V3 ἤχθην L (a
change necessitated by the previous θηριομαχῶν) ; om. PB (with Rom. 5). For
θηριομαχῶ... ἀγόμενος C has iter facto (or factens) cum ferts. 5 οἵτινές elo] V
[C]; οἵτινές ἐστι Ls ὃ ἐστὶν PB (after Rom. 5). στρατιωτικὸν στῖφο9] LP;
στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα V (after Rom. 5); 7:1Π1]1αγὲ5 custodia B; milites C. 6 γί-
vovrat] LVCB; ἐγένοντο P. 8 ’Amdpavres] LP; ἄραντες V3; Zol-
lentes B. Ῥηγίου] txt PV; add. τὸν ἅγιον L; add. τὸν δίκαιον C; add. deatum
ignatium [B]. παραγίνονται] LV; παρεγένοντο P[C]. 9 avro-
κράτορι] txt CB; add. τραϊανῷ LPV. 10 ἐκέλευσεν] LP; ἐκέλευσε V.

11 καὶ pri] PV[M]; om. LB; al. Ὁ. φησιν] P; φησι LV. 13 ποιήσας]
txt ΡΝΟ[ΒΊΑ; add. τοῦ μὴ σέβεσθαι θεούς L. ἐμὰ] VCA; ἡμῶν LP;
def. B. 14 Zuplay] PVCBA; ἀνατολὴν L. ὁ 15 nunv] PV; εἰμί
Ι,. 16 καὶ σὲ] here PV[A]; before οἷός re L[B]. μεταστῆσαι...
καὶ προσαγαγεῖν] L; μεταβαλεῖν...καὶ προσαγαγεῖν V; μεταστήσαΞ...προσαγαγεῖν Ἐ:

2. ἐν ἐπιστολῇ! The reference Euseb. Mart. Pal. 4. Our hagiolo-

is to Rom. 5. gist shows himself a diligent reader
6. στῖφος] This word seems to οἵ Eusebius.
have been substituted by the author 12. ἀνάστατον ποιήσας] Acts xvii.

himself for τάγμα of Ignatius. The 6 οἱ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀναστατώσαντες
expression στρατιωτικὸν στῖφος occurs οὗτοι καὶ ἐνθάδε πάρεισιν.

11] ROMAN ACTS. 497

\ \ ~ , \ ΄σ
καὶ σὲ μεταστῆσαι ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας καὶ προσα-
΄ ΄σ > e/ ~ \ , ~
yayev τῷ τῶν ὅλων Dew καὶ φίλον Χριστοῦ παρα-
-~ \ /
στῆσαι Kal ἰσχυροτέραν σοι καταστῆσαι THY ἀρχήν.
Τ es \ > > / / / \
patavos εἶπεν: Ei βούλει μοι χάριτας καταθέσθαι καὶ
> ~ = / σ΄ / =~
20€v τοῖς ἐμοῖς φίλοις καταριθμεῖσθαι, μετατιθέμενος τῆς
/ / ~ - ~ \ »f \ ΄σ
γνώμης ταύτης θῦσον τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ Eon ἀρχιερεὺς TOU
, \ \ , \ > f 2 ’
μεγάλου Διὸς καὶ βασιλεύσεις σὺν ἐμοί. ᾿]γνάτιος
εἶπεν: Χάριτας δεῖ παρέχειν, βασιλεῦ, τὰς μὴ βλα-
/ / \ / 3 , ,
πτούσας ψυχήν, οὐ Tas ἀπαγούσας εἰς αἰώνιον KoAacw.
\ δὲ ᾽ / “Ὁ 5 7 ,
25 τὰς δὲ ἐπαγγελίας σου, as ἐπηγγείλω διδόναι μοι,
ὃ \ ΄ γς..7 / sf \ a ἣν 3 “
ovdevos Noyou ἀξίας κρίνω: οὔτε yap θεοῖς οἷς οὐ γινω-
, / \ \ / >
σκω λατρεύω, οὔτε ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ Gos Tis ἐστιν ἐπίσταμαι,
Sf / ~ ’ ͵ ‘ ἢ
οὔτε βασιλείας κοσμικῆς ἐφίεμαι: τί rap ὠφεληθη-
COMAl, ἐὰν τὸν KOCMON ὅλον κερδῆήοω THN δὲ

avertere,..et introducere B; convertere...et offerre A; convertere,,.ad offerendum C,
ἀπὸ] PV; om. L. eldwroXaTpelas] VLs; εἰδωλολατρίας P. 17 τῶν
ὅλων] LPVBA; om. [C]. παραστῆσαι καὶ... καταστῆσαι] παραστήσας...
καταστῆσαι 1,:; ποιήσας...καταστῆσαι P; καταστῆσαι καὶ...ποιῆσαι V; constituere ac
.. facere A; facere...ut corroboret C. B is deficient in the first clause and has constt-
tuere in the second. 18 ἰσχυροτέραν) LP; ἰσχυρωτέραν V. co] LP
BA; σου VC. 20 καταριθμεῖσθαι] PV; συναριθμεῖσθαι LC [?]: conmnumerart
B; aestimari A. μετατιθέμενος τῆς γνώμης ravrys| 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 δεῖ] PVCBA; δὴ L. Ba-
σιλεῦ] LP; βασιλεύς Vi 24 ψυχήν] LPVCB; om. A. αἰώνιον
L; αἰωνίαν P; τὴν αἰώνιον V. 27 λατρεύω] V; sacrifico B; λατρεύσω
LP; def. A. Ζεὺς 6 σὸς rls] Ῥ; zeus quidem, quem dicts,...cujusmodt
sit (feds ὁ obs, ὅστις ἢ C3 feds ὅστις L; ὁ feds ὅστις V3 aramazdum omnino,
guisnam sit A; jovem, quis sit B. 28 ὠφεληθήσομαι) P; ὀφεληθήσομαι L;
ὄφελος θήσομαι V; prodest mihi B; lucrabor AC. 29 τὸν κόσμον ὅλον
LP; ὅλον τὸν κόσμον V3 mundum totum [A]; totum mundum B; hunce mundum
totum [(]. The order differs in the different evangelists. — κερδήσω τὴν δὲ
LV; lucrer εἰ BA; κερδήσας τὴν Ῥ; dub. C,

23. τὰς μὴ βλαπτούσας κιτ.λ.)] See Rom. 6 οὐδέν pe ὠφελήσει τὰ πέρατα
Mart. Polyc. 10 δεδιδάγμεθα γὰρ ἀρ. τοῦ κύσμου οὐδὲ αἱ βασιλεῖαι τοῦ

χαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ reray- αἰῶνος τούτου, and 70. 4 νῦν μανθάνω
μέναις τίμην κατὰ τὸ προσῆκον, τὴν μὴ δεδεμένος μηδὲν ἐπιθυμεῖν [κοσμικὸν ἣ
βλάπτουσαν ἡμᾶς, ἀπονέμειν. μάταιον]. See above, p. 380.

28. οὔτε βασιλείας κιτ.λ.}] Comp. τί γὰρ ὠφεληθήσομαι] Taken from

IGN. 33

498 MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS. [Π

YYYHN MOY Ζημιωθῶ;
4 ᾽, > \ - > /
αἰσθήσεως ἔμφρονος ἄμοιρος εἶναι, διὰ τοῦτο ἐξευτελι-

\ > 7 .«“ A ᾽ ’ ΄ ,
Ces μου Tas ἐπαγγελίας. ὅθεν, ἐαν εἰς ἀγανακτησὶν με

“" > , /
Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν" "Cotas μοι

, , δ... “ὦ , / ς
ἀγάγης, πάσαις αἰκίαις TE τιμωρήσομαι, οὐ μόνον ὡς
έ
δι 3 \ \ ¢ ἢ / A 48 3 θό
avynkoov, ἄλλα καὶ ὡς αχαριστον καὶ ws οὐ πειῦθομενον

ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου δόγματι καὶ θύοντα [θεοῖς]. ᾿Ιγνάτιος

3. “- al ᾽ \ \ ? /
εἶπεν: Ποίει τὸ δοκοῦν σοι, βασιλεῦ, ἐγὼ yap οὐ θύω.
’ ‘al ᾽ » \ oS
οὔτε γὰρ πῦρ οὔτε σταυρὸς οὔτε θηρίων θυμὸς οὔτε

͵ , σι \ an
ἀφαίρεσις μελῶν πείσουσίν με ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ

ι ζημιωθῶ] PVC; ἀπολέσας ξημειωθῶ (sic) 1,; 2εγάαηε BA. 2 &udpovos]
LP; ἐμφρόνου V (?), in which the edd. have acquiesced. διὰ τοῦτο] ΝΟ; καὶ
διὰ τοῦτο LPBA. ἐξευτελίζει5] LP; ἐξεοτελί fers (sic) V3 annzadllas (v. 1. anni-
hilas) B (‘legisse videtur ἐξουθενίζεις᾽ Zahn) ; contemnis A. The word in C, uywuyey,
vituperare, contumelits afficere, is a rendering of ἐξουδενοῦν, Job xxx. 1, but would
stand quite well for ἐξευτελίζειν. 3 ἐὰν] ἂν here, P; ἐὰν before eis, V; om. L;
a7 AY ἀπὸ. Cy det. B. 4 ἀγάγῃς] PV; ἄγεις L. τιμωρήσομαι] PVA;
τιμωρίσασθαι (sic) L (necessitated by the previous ἄγεις for ἐὰν dydyys); dub. C;
def. B. 5 ws οὐ] LP; μὴ (om. ws) V. There is nothing corresponding to ws
in CAB. 6 δόγματι] LPB (sexatusconsulto); δόγμασι C 5 decretis A; om. V.
θύοντα] L[B]; οὐ θύοντα PVC[A]. The omission or insertion [OT]JOT- 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

Matt. xvi. 26. See Rom. 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 x.t.A.] See
Polyc. Phzl. 9 οὐ yap τὸν νῦν ἠγάπησαν
αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα
καὶ Ov ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναστάντα.
For the first part of the sentence see

δεικνῦσιν᾽ ἐν δὲ τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ κεῖνται
Ἥλιος μέν τις ἐν "Atpots, Σελήνη δέ τις
ἐν Κάρραις, Ἑρμῆς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τις
ἄνθρωπος, ΓΑρης ἐν Θράκῃ, ᾿Αφροδίτη
ἐν Κύπρῳ, ᾿Ασκλήπιος ἐν ᾿Ἐπιδαύρῳ,
κιτιλὶ; 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

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 x.t.A.] Comp.
Clem. Hom. vi. 21 οὕτως τελευτήσαν-
tos [τοῦ Διὸς] τὸν τάφον Κρῆτες ἐπι-

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. 2222. 13 ‘ Eu-
hemerus qui de sacris inscriptionibus
veterum templorum et originem Jovis
et res gestas omnemque progeniem

π] ROMAN ACTS. 499

aad > \ ‘ ΄“΄ > ΄ 3 A >
10 CwvTos. οὐ Yap TON NYN ἀγὰπῶ δἰῶνδ, ἀλλὰ τὸν
ε \ > ~ ᾽ / \ ᾽ ΄
ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα Χριστόν.

ΔῈ

\ / , > A \ val _ .
θεοὶ ἀθάνατοί εἰσιν’ σὺ δὲ πώς His, ᾿Ιγνώτιε, ὅτι ὁ

« / Ω ΄ » ε
Η σύγκλητος εἶπεν: Ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι οἱ

7 a ε ,

Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ; ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: ‘O ἐμὸς Κύριος, εἰ

\ / \ ‘

15 καὶ ἀπέθανεν, Ot οἰκονομίαν τινὰ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ
΄σ΄ ~~ eve ς \ ε / >

τριών ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη: οἱ δὲ ὑμέτεροι θεοὶ ἀπέθανον μὲν

ε 7 4 ᾽ / , > , ΄σ κ A >
ws θνητοί, οὐκ ἠγέρθησαν δέ. αὐτίκα γοῦν Ζεὺς μὲν ἐν
of authority. 7 εἶπεν] PV; εἶπε L.
Jicabo); pref. diis B; add. οὐδὲ προσκυνῶ δαίμοσιν L, 8 oravpds] LPVAB;
tavpoc C. 9 πείσουσιν] Ῥ; πείσωσι L; persuadent B; possunt persuadere
A ; praevalebunt C (translating ἀποστῆναι as if ἀποστῆσαι); ποιοῦσιν V. II
kal ἀναστάντα] VCA; om. P; εὖ gui a deo resuscitatus est B; καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
ἀνάσταντα 1,. 13 φῆ:] LPCAB; ἔφης V. 14 ἀπέθανεν] ΤΡΝΑΒ;
add. guz deus est C. 15 δύ οἰκονομίαν τινὰ] PAB; δι᾿ οἰκονομίαν V; διὰ
τὴν σωτηρίαν ἡμῶν ἑκουσίως L, comp. [M]; secundum (κατὰ) oeconomiam 2γοῤέον
nostram salutem C. ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη] V, and so
substantially AB (but they both omit the previous εἰ καὶ ἀπέθανεν), comp. [M];
ἀπέθανεν (alone) L; resurrexit tertio die C; δι ἡμερῶν τριῶν πάλιν ἀνέστη (alone)
Bi; 17 ἠγέρθησαν δέ] txt LPCBA; add. ὡς θεοί V. αὐτίκα γοῦν] PV;
ut sctatis C; guod manifestum est, quia B; idem utique (αὐτὸς γοῦν ?) A; ἀμέλει 1,.

οὐ θύω) txt PVCA (saert-

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. Div. Just. i. 11).
His work was doubtless a rich store-
house of materials ready to hand for
the Christian apologists (comp. e.g.
Clem. Alex. Protr. 2, p. 20, Minuc.
Octav, 21).

Ζεὺς μὲν κιτ.λ.} Callim. ym. ad
ον. 8 sq. Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται" καὶ
γὰρ τάφον, ὦ ἄνα, σεῖο Κρῆτες ἐτεκτή-
ναντο, σὺ δ᾽ ov θάνες (with Spanheim’s
note), a passage quoted by Athenag.
Suppl. 30, by Clem. Alex. Protr.
p. 32, and by Orig. δ. Ceds. iii. 43, and
alluded to by Tatian ad Graec. 27.
Chrysostom Hom, in Ep. ad Tit. 3
(Op. XI. p. 744) ascribes these verses
to Epimenides. The inscription on

Ῥ. 335 54. (comp. p. 297 sq.).

tius “£Zz¢. 13, on the authority of
Euhemerus as reproduced by Ennius
(comp. Div. Just. i. 11). Pythagoras is
said by Porphyry (V7zt. Pyth. 17) to
have written on the tomb some verses
(ἐπίγραμμα ἐπεχάραξεν ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ),
which began ὯΩδε θανὼν κεῖται Ζᾶν ὃν
Δία κικλήσκουσιν. Hence Chrysostom
(l.c.) gives the actual inscription on
the tomb as ’Evrav@a Zay κεῖται ὃν
Δία κικλήσκουσι. See Hoeck Ave/a il.
Comp.
also the mockery of Lucian 7¥mon
6, de Sacrif. το. This was a com-
mon place of apologists and others
in their attacks upon the pagan
mythology ; e.g. Clem. Hom. ll. cc.,
Clem. Recogn. \.c., Athenag. lc,
Tatian lLc., Theoph. ad Axtol. i.

33°74

500

MARTYRDOM OF 5. IGNATIUS.

{111

Κρήτη τέθαπται, ᾿λοσκλήπιος δὲ κεραυνοβοληθεὶς ἐν

Κυνοσούρῃ, ᾿λφροδίτη ἐν Πάφῳ μετὰ Κινύρου τέθαπται,

᾿Ηρακλῆς πυρὲ ἀνήλωται.

1 δὲ] PLCBM; om. VA.
κεραυνῷ βληθεὶς V (comp. M).

ῇ ΄σ of
τοιούτων γὰρ τιμωριῶν aELOL

κεραυνοβοληθεὶς) Ῥ : κεραυνωβοληθεὶς (sic) L;
2 Κυνοσούρῃ] P; κοινοθύρῃ L; κυθήνῃ V;

o...e07pHe C (the word being mutilated) ; cithaerone (vy. 1. cithero) B; kitheron

monte boeotiae A.

Πάφῳ] LPVBM; pafho cypri A; τάφῳ C.

Kwipov] V;

κυνήρου P; κύρου L; cennis (stsmHItItOc) C; cyvene (secundum alios; venatore) A;

venatore (=Kvvyyov) B.
tterum loco etc. A.

το, ii. 3, Clem. Alex. Protr. 2 (p. 32);
Minuc. Octav. 21, Tertull. AZol. 25,
ad Nat. ii. 17, Cyprian Quod Idola
etc. 2, Firm. Matern. 7, Arnob. adv.
Gent. iv. 14, 25, Lactant. Il. cc.,
Euseb. Praep. Ev. ii. 2. 48, 111. 10. 21,
etc. So too Orac. Szbyll. viii. 48 ὧν
Κρήτη καύχημα τάφους ἡ δύσμορος ἕξει
(a passage quoted by Lactant. Dv.
Inst. i. 11), where the Sibyllist in-
cludes Cronos and Rhea. Celsus
complained of the treatment of this
myth by the Christians ; Orig. ¢. Ceds.
lii. 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
ποιοῦσι. Origen controverts his
tropological explanation of the story.
I. ἐν Kvvocovpn] Cic. de Nat.
Deor. iii. 22 ‘Is [1.6. ‘Aesculapius
secundus’, for he mentions three],
fulmine percussus, dicitur humatus
esse Cynosuris’: comp. Clem. Alex.
Protr. 2 (p. 26) otros μὲν οὖν [ὁ
᾿Ασκλήπιος] κεῖται κεραυνωθεὶς ἐν τοῖς
Κυνοσουρίδος ὁρίοις, Lactant. 222. 8
‘Cynosuris, ut Cicero ait, sepultus,
cum esset ictu fulminis interemtus’
(comp. Div. Inst. i. 10). The place
intended was perhaps the Spartan
Cynosura, of which see Miller Dorz-
ans 11. p. 48 (Eng. Trans.), Leake

3 ἀνήλωται] LPVC3; add. 2; tyro B; add. zn alio
γὰρ] PV; igitur B; εὐ A; om. LC.

4 ὑμῶν] here, LP;

Travels in the Morea 1. p. 178,
Boeckh Corp. Juscr. 1. p. 609; or it
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 ‘Cithzerone’ is an at-
tempt to get an intelligible name
out of a mutilation or corruption
KY6HPH or KYOHP®, to which the
readings of LV point, but no tradi-
tion placed the death or burial of
fEsculapius on Cithzron. As re-
gards the termination, I have retain-
ed that which alone the authorities
support here; but in the parallel
passages it is -pis -pidos, or -pa -ρων.

2. pera Κινύρου] Cinyras held
the foremost place in Cyprian legend.
The myths respecting him are mi-
nutely investigated in Engel’s Kypros
II. p. 94 sq. (comp. 20. I. p. 203
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 Cinyrade; he was the
beloved of the goddess herself; he
met with a violent death; and he
was buried in the sanctuary of Aphro-

ST, MIOHAEL’S

OOLLEGE

111]

ROMAN ACTS.

501

΄σ iy © ~ lo
ὑμῶν ἦσαν οἱ θεοί, ἐπεὶ ἀκρατεῖς Kal κακοποιοὶ [ὑπῆρχον)
\ ΄ \
5 καὶ ἀνθρώπων φθορεῖς: ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος Κύριος, εἰ καὶ
> ῇ ΄σ
ἐσταυρώθη Kat ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔδειξεν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δύνα-

, \ ᾽ ΄σ \ \ ᾽ / ya. ᾽
μιν αναστας ΕΚ VEKPWV Kat TOUS aveXovTas QUTOV δι

after θεοί, V.
evant A; fuerunt B; om. P.

ἐπεὶ LV; ἐπειδὴ P.

ὑπῆρχον] LV; sunt C;
5 ὁ δὰ ἡμέτερος... ἐργάται κακίας]

LPCBA (but A contains also much additional matter); om. V (obviously owing

to the recurrence of ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος κύριοΞ).

add. ἑκουσίως LC; def. V.
ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν ἔδειξεν L,

dite, where also the remains of his
descendants lay. On this last point
see Clem. Alex. Protr. 3 (p. 40) IIro-
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
κεκηδεῦσθαι. So too Arnob. adv,
Gent. vi. 6, who mentions the same
factonthe 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. 20. pp. 13, 29), Arnob. adv,
Gent. iv. 25 ‘Quis rege a Cyprio,
cujus nomen Cinyras est, ditatam
meretriculam Venerem divorum in nu-
mero consecratam...prodidit?’ (comp.
7b. v. 19), Firm. Matern. 10 ‘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 PBA;

GAN ἔδειξεν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν] P; ἀλλὰ τὴν

The tomb however is mentioned in
Clem. Hom, v. 23, vi. 21, Clem.
Recogn. x. 24, and in the passage
of Czsarius 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 ’Adpodirns ὁ τάφος δείκνυται
ἐν lap.’ It would hardly be possi-
ble to crowd more blunders into a
single reference. The quotation is
taken from the Metaphrast’s JZartyr.
Ignat. §7 (and therefore derived ulti-
mately from our martyrologist) and
appears in Cotelier’s note as an illus-
tration of the statement in (θη.
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 xewupov; 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.

502 MARTYRDOM OF 5S. IGNATIUS. [ΠῚ

ὑμῶν τιμωρησάμενος" καὶ οἱ μὲν ὑμέτεροι θεοὶ ἀπ᾽
αὐτοῦ δίκην εἰσεπράχθησαν ὡς ἐργάται κακίας, ὁ δὲ
ἡμέτερος Κύριος ἀνηρέθη κατὰ σάρκα ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων
πονηρῶν οὐ φερόντων αὐτοῦ τοὺς ἐλεγμούς, πᾶσαν μὲν
εὐεργεσίαν παρεσχηκώς, ἀχαριστηθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ ἀπίστων.
Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: ᾿Εγώ σοι παραινῶ ἐκκλῖναι Tov θάνα-
Tov καὶ προσδραμεῖν τῇ ζωῇ. ᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Καλώς
παραινεῖς μοι, βασιλεῦ: φεύγω γὰρ τὸν αἰώνιον θανα-

το ὶ προσφεύγω τῆ αἰωνίῳ ζωῆ
ν καὶ προσφευγ n iw Cw.

4 ἐλεγμούς] P; ἐλέγχους LV.
...kal ἀχαριστηθεὶς V3 al. CAB.

μοι] L; παραινεῖς με Ῥ; μοι παραινεῖς V.

[A]. φεύγω] LPCA; φύγω VB (?).
νον Ῥ.
al. B. 10 εἰσὶν] LP; εἰσὶ Vs.

PV; ἡ δὲ ἀΐδιος L.

10. ὁ μὲν πρόσκαιρος κιτ.λ.}] See
the interpolated text of Rom. 3, where
the words of 2 Cor. iv. 18 are intro-
duced.

15. τῷ δεκατρεῖς «.7.A.] For the
allusion see Hom. //. v. 385 sq. τλῆ
μὲν “Apns, ὅτε μιν Ὦωτος κρατερός τ᾽
᾿Εφιάλτης, παῖδες ᾿Αλωῆος, δῆσαν κρα-
τέρ ἐνὶ δεσμῷ, χαλκέῳ δ᾽ ἐν κεράμῳ δέ-
δετο τρισκαίδεκα μῆνας, Firm. Matern.
12 ‘Otiet Efialtae edicto Mars...ferrea
catenarum vincla sustinuit’, Tertull.
A pol. 14 ‘Martem tredecim mensibus
invinculis paene consumptum (comp.
ad Nat. i. 10). When our martyro-
logist adds διὰ μοιχείαν, he apparent-
ly confuses this binding of Ares by
the Aloidz with the other binding of
the same god by Hepheestos as told
also by Homer Od. viii. 295sq. The
adultery of Ares with Aphrodite is
a frequent topic of the apologists ;
Tatian ad Graec. 34, Athenag. Suppl.
21, Minuc. Océ. 23, Firm. Matern. 12,
Cypr. αὐ Donat. ὃ, Lactant. Div. List.

Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν"

πᾶσαν μὲν... ἀχαριστηθεὶς δὲ] LP; πᾶσαν
6 co] LV; ce P. 8 παραινεῖς
βασιλεῦ] LP; ὦ βασιλεῦ V[C][B]

αἰώνιον] LVCAB; ἀνθρώπι-

9 προσφεύγω] PV; προστρέχω L3 festino ire in C; curro ad A;
εἶπεν] PV; εἶπε L.
Vs similiter autem et B; ὡσαύτως καὶ L; οὕτως P; def. CA.
14 ἀμείνων] Vs; ἀμείνω LP.

II οὕτω δὲ καὶ]
12 ἡ δὲ αἰώνιος]
θέλει5] V3; om.

i. 10 (comp. 2122. i. 8), Arnob. v. 41,
43, Clem. Alex. Protr. 2 (p. 29).
Arnobius (Il. c.) deals with the alle-
gorical interpretation which heathen
apologists put upon the story.

16. τῷ πεπεδημένῳ k.t.d.] “209 the
blacksmith with the crippled feet,
The reference is to the common
story of Hephestos, as told from
Homer (ZZ. i. 590 54.) onward. Allu-
sions to the lameness of this god
and its cause in Christian apologists
appear in Tatian ad Graec. 8,
Theoph, ad Autol.i.3, Minuc. Octav.
22, Firm. Matern. 12, Arnob. iv. 24,
Clem. Alex. Protr. 2'(p. 25). For
this sense of πεπεδημένος, ‘maimed,
crippled’, see Hom. 71. xili. 435 πέ-
δησε δὲ φαίδιμα γυῖα (comp. iv. 517).

χαλκεῖ] Hepheestos is so called in
Hom. 74, xv. 309. Again in Od. viii.
277 he goes to his ‘smithy’ (βῆ p’
ἔμεν εἰς χαλκεῶνα). So too his festi-
val at Athens was called χαλκεῖα. See
also Tertull. ad Nat.i. 10 ‘In Vulcano

11]

ROMAN

ACTS. 993

\ fa none r oats U > ; oes
10 Kat πόσοι εἰσὶν θάνατοι; ᾿]γνάτιος εἶπεν: Avo, ὁ μὲν

/ ε \ “ ἢ ε \ \ κ / ε A
a.pos ἰώ αἱ ζωαὶ δύο,
πρόσκαιρος, ὁ δὲ αἰώνιος" οὕτω δὲ καὶ ζωαὶ δύο, ἡ μὲν

> / ε \ Ε
ὀλιγοχρόνιος, ἡ δὲ αἰωνιος.

Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: Θῦσον

y fs \ ι , ἢ \ > \ a
Tots θεοῖς καὶ Tas τιμωρίας ἔκκλινον" οὐ γὰρ εἶ σὺ τῆς

/ ,
γερουσίας ἀμείνων.

᾿Ιγνάτιος εἶπεν: Ποίοις θεοῖς θέλεις

15 θύσω ; τῷ δεκατρεῖς μῆνας διὰ μοιχείαν ἐν πίθῳ κατειρ-

θέ 4 x\ lal ὃ / \ B , “ys ~e 3\ ~
χῦεντι; ἢ TW TETEOCHMEVW Tas βάσεις χαλκεῖ; ἡ TW

7 ΄σ ΄σ \ \ \ /
ἀστοχήσαντι τῆς μαντικῆς καὶ ὑπο γυναικος νικηθέντι:;

a’ a“ ε \ , f 5 / Ἢ >\ ~ \
ἢ τῷ ὑπὸ Τιτάνων διασπωμένῳ ἀνδρογύνῳ ; ἢ τοῖς TA

LPCAB.
τρεῖς μῆνας.

15 δεκατρεῖς] PV; δεκὰ καὶ τρεῖς L. C omits the words δεκα-
κατειρχθέντι] V3; καθειρχθέντι LP.

16 χαλκεῖ] fabro-

Serrario C3 χαλκῷ LPV; aenets vinculis A (but he seems to have omitted ἢ, 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 νι-

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 k.t.A.] 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. ὃ 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 Ὑάκινθον διεχρήσατο.

Ζέφυρος x.r.A. (comp. 26. 19), Athenag,
Suppl. 21 ὦ μάντι καὶ σοφὲ καὶ προει-
δὼς τοῖς ἄλλοις τὰ ἐσόμενα, οὐκ ἐμαν-

, “~ 3 ’ ‘ , > \
τεύσω TOU ἐρωμένου τὸν φόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἔκτεινας αὐτοχειρὶ τὸν φίλον, Theoph.
ad Autol. i. 9 ᾿Απόλλωνα.. τῆς Δάφνης
ἐρῶντα καὶ τὸν Ὑακίνθου μόρον ἀγνοοῦντα,

[Justin] Or. ad Graec, 2 ὁ Λητοΐδης, ὁ
μαντικὴν ἐπαγγειλάμενος, ἑαυτὸν ἤλεγξεν
ὅτε ψεύδεται. Δάφνην ἐδιώξεν, ἣν οὐ
κατέλαβε, καὶ τῷ ἐρομένῳ αὐτὸν [ἐρω-
μένῳ αὐτοῦ ?] 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 κ-ιτ.λ.] i.e. Dio-
nysus: comp. Diod. Sic. iil. 61 τὸν
θεὸν [Διόνυσον] ἐκ Διὸς καὶ Δήμητρος
τεκνωθέντα διασπασθῆναι μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν
Τιτάνων, πάλιν δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς Δήμητρος
τῶν μελῶν συναρμοσθέντων κιτιλ. (with
Wesseling’s note); comp. 7. v. 75
διασπώμενον ὑπὸ τῶν Τιτάνων, and see
Pausan, vii. 18. 4, vill. 37. 5. For
Christian writers see Clem, Hom, vi.
2 τὸν Διόνυσον... ὃν ὑπὸ Τιτάνων e-
σπαράχθαι λέγουσιν, Clem. Recogi. x.
20 ‘ Persephonae...ex qua Dionysum
genuit, quia Titanis discerptus est,’

504 MARTYRDOM OF 5.

IGNATIUS. [Π|

;Ἴ / > ὃ / . / \ \ ‘ Ἵ
λίον οἰκοδομήηήσασιν τείχη καὶ τὸν μισθὸν ἀποστερη-

΄ \ con \ ~ ᾽ / \ \ -
θεῖσιν; ἡ Tals Ta ἀνδρών ἔργα μιμουμέναις, Ta δὲ τῶν

~ »" / > ΄σ / \
γυναικών ἐργὰα ἐκλαθομέναις ; αἰδοῦμαι λέγειν θεοὺς

, \ ~ Ὁ \ / 2 ᾽ \ \
yontas Kal φθορεῖς TALOWY και MOLYOUS, εἰς GETOV Kat

a \ \ ᾿ς
ταῦρον καὶ χρυσὸν καὶ κύκνον καὶ δράκοντα, [ws ὑμεῖς

/ , ᾽ > ad
AeyeTe,| μεταβαλλομένους, οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ τινι, ἀλλ᾽

3 Α > A ᾽ /
ἐπὶ διαλύσει ἀλλοτρίων γάμων: os ἔχρην βδελύττε-

\ \ \ =~ / ~ ᾽}
σθαι, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ προσκυνεῖν. τούτοις ὑμῶν εὔχονται

1 Ἰλίου] A; ϑυλιος C; ἡλίου LP; τοῦ ἡλίου V; def. Β.
ἀποστερηθεῖσιν] txt PVCA[B]; ἀποστερηθεῖσι τῶν

4 καὶ ταῦρον] LPCB; ταῦρον V; om. [A]. 5 καὶ

καὶ κύκνον] VA; καὶ λέοντα C3; om. LP[B].

Ρ; οἰκοδομήσασι LsV.
ἐργασθέντων 1,.
χρυσὸν] LPV; om. C[A][B].
ws ὑμεῖς λέγετε] LPV; om. CAB.

Clem. Alex. Protr.2 (p. 15) of Teraves
διέσπασαν ἔτι νηπίαχον ὄντα, ὡς ὁ τῆς
τελετῆς ποιητὴς ᾿Ορφεύς φησιν ὁ Opa-
κιος x.T.A., Where the story is given
at length (comp. 74. p. 19 παιδίον
ὑπὸ Τιτάνων διασπώμενον) ; Arnob. v.
1g ‘ut occupatus puerilibus ludicris
distractus ab Titanis Liber sit etc.’

ἀνδρογύνῳ] Suidas ᾿Ανδρόγυνος.
᾿ὁ Διόνυσος, κατιλ. So Cosmas explains
ἀνδρογύνους in Greg. Naz. as ἃ re-
ference to Bacchus; see Greg. Naz.
Of. IV. pp. 402, 403 (ed. Migne). Comp.
also Porphyr. in Euseb. Pracp. Ev.
lil, 11. 11 ὁ δὲ Acovucos...€ate θηλύμορ-
os, μηνύων τὴν περὶ τὴν γένεσιν τῶν
ἀκρυδρύων ἀρρενόθηλυν δύναμιν. He
was also called δίμορφος, Diod. Sic.
iv. 5. The effeminacy of Bacchus is
held up to scorn in [Justin] Ovat. ad
Gent. 2 (p. 38) Διονύσου τὸ θηλυκόν,
Arnob. vi. 12 ‘Liber membris cum
mollibus et languoris feminei disso-
lutissimus laxitate’, Firm. Matern.
7, 12, Clem. Hom. v. 15.

τοῖς τὰ ᾿Ιλίου κιτ.λ.)] The ‘Laome-
donteae perjuria Trojae,’ when Posei-
don and Apollo the builders were
defrauded of their wages; Clem.

οἰκοδομήσασιν

9 ὑμῖν] here, LP; before τὴν

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 δία 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. //. vii. 452 τὸ ἐγὼ καὶ

Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων ἥρῳ Λαομέδοντι πο-
λίσσαμεν ἀθλήσαντε (comp. Pind. OZ,
Vill. 31); but where the story is told
at length (72. xxi. 442 sq.), Poseidon
is represented as building the walls,
while Apollo tends the cattle.

2. ταῖς τὰ ἀνδρῶν x.7.r.| Athene
the warrior and Artemis the hunter ;

1] ROMAN ACTS.

505

αἱ γυναῖκες, ἵνα τὴν σωφροσύνην ὑμῖν φυλάξωσιν.
10 Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν" ᾿Εγώ σοι παραίτιος τῆς εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς
βλασφημίας γέγονα, μὴ αἰκιζόμενός σε.
πεν: Εἴρηκά σοι καὶ πάλαι, ὅτι ἑτοίμως ἔχω πρὸς

> , >
ἰγνάτιος εἶ-

πᾶσαν αἰκίαν καὶ παντοῖον θανάτου τρόπον, ἐπειδὴ
σπεύδω πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
15 IV. Τραϊανὸς εἶπεν: ᾿Εὰν μὴ θύσης, μεταμελη-
᾿Ιγνάτιος

/ 53 “ἢ ~ ΄-:
θηση. πρὶν οὖν παθεῖν, φεῖσαι σεαντοῦ.

σωφροσύνην, V. 10 θεοὺς] twice in L. 11 αἰκιζόμενος] LP; αἰκι-

σάμενος ΝΟΡΊΑΓ[Ι; αἰκισαμένους (or αἰκιζομένους) B.
13 παντοῖον θανάτου τρόπον] PVCA3; παντοίων θανάτων
14 τὸν] txt LPCAB; add. ἀθάνατον V.

16 σεαυτοῦ] PV; σαυτοῦ L,

πάλιν λέγω L.
τρόπον 1,; omnem mortem B.
15 Ovons] LP; θύσεις V.

comp. Justin Or. ad Graec. 2 (p. 39)
διδάξατε ᾿Αθηνᾶν καὶ [Αρτεμιν τὰ τῶν
γυναικῶν ἔργα καὶ Διόνυσον τὰ ἀνδρῶν.
4. εἰς ἀετὸν «.t.A.| The amours
and transformations of Zeus were ἃ
fertile theme of invective for Christian
writers in their attacks upon pagan-
ism. The fullest list is in Clem.
flom. 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.
tive in Arnob. ad Nat. v. 20 sq.
So too [Justin] Ovat. ad Gent. 2 én’
᾿Αντιόπῃ μὲν ὡς σάτυρος, καὶ Δανάῃ
χρυσός, καὶ ἐπ᾿ Εὐρώπῃ ταῦρος ἦν,
ἐπτεροῦτο δὲ παρὰ Λήδᾳ, Tertull. Apod.
21 ‘squamatum aut cornutum aut
plumatum amatorem, in aurum con-

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Apostolic Fathers"

See other formats