An Evaluation of "SEVEN REASONS TO REJECT THE EPISTLES OF "IGNATIUS" AS SPURIOUS"

 

 Introduction

A Protestant content maker who goes by Akemi on Twitter and 'Puritan Posts' on YouTube made a fairly spicy Twitter thread asserting that the 7 Epistles of Ignatius are in fact forgeries. I say 'spicy' because - as far as I'm aware - the theory has been totally abandoned by scholarship. I do not say this to unduly kneecap Akemi's argument; scholarly consensus does precisely nothing to prove or disprove a claim. Rather, I'm acknowledging what I just stated; it is a spicy take, and so will invite response, maybe even ridicule. I won't give the latter, but I will give the former in this post.

As an aside, Akemi/Puritan Posts recently put up a response video to Jay Dyer on Protestantism, which is an extremely rare occurrence, I believe due to the inevitable hate storm one incurs from the Dyerites, and having watched part way through it appears fairly good, exposing core errors in Dyer's reasoning. You can watch the video here.

Now, onto the present issue. I unrolled the Twitter thread here so that it can be read on a single page, rather than a clutter of Twitter replies. I exhort the reader to read the full argument first (it's barely a page long) before continuing on, as I will reply to it assuming that the reader knows what I am referring to.

I'll commence with a summary of my method. Historical sources, in the process of logical thought, ought to be treated as innocent until proven guilty; that is, these sources are honest and their claims are reliable unless reason or evidence shows us otherwise. This is the opposite of what skeptical and liberal apologists do in their casting doubt on long accepted history and the reliability of the biblical record. Rather, they assume skepticism towards sources that counteract their preconceived narrative. This, of course, is impossible to maintain consistently, lest one wishes to claim that we know virtually nothing about the past and people are generally deceived liars, since it is always possible to find a chink in the armour of an account and thus declare it unreliable. So this can only be applied inconsistently, which therefore requires an arbitrary cherrypicking of what sources to trust as anchors and which to cast doubt upon prima facie. 

I raise the method above because I believe Akemi unintentionally adopts the historical "method" of atheists hell bent on discrediting the reliability of the Gospels, or their authorship, or the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, among other skeptic tropes. How I believe this is the case will be demonstrated in this critique. 

I also happened to find a long response essay by W.D. Killen to J.B. Lightfoot from his own time, which sought to refute his arguments for the authenticity of the epistles. So I will occasionally look at this source in response to arguments which Akemi draws from it, since he himself says that this is the source he draws from. 

I will now respond to each point according to their number in the original thread.

I - Polycarp's Testimony

I believe this is among the strongest points of the thread, but the claims here rely on reading in extra implications that are merely possible but not required by the text. For sub-point 'a', that Ignatius is said to be with other would-be martyrs contradicts his "solo" procession to Rome does not follow. A single, mundane line from the conclusion of Polycarp's epistle is appealed to for this claim, which (in the Michael Holmes translation) reads: "As for Ignatius himself and those with him, if you learn anything more definite, let us know." {I} 

This reminds me of Ehrman-esque claims of Gospel contradictions, whether Jesus went to Jerusalem or Galilee after His resurrection. What this doesn't consider is, por que no los dos? Why couldn't have Ignatius joined with other Christian captives at some point in his journey or at Rome itself? Where is the evidence that rules this out? Heck, where does Ignatius' own letters say he was entirely solo in the journey? How is any of this entailed by the short line cited above? Our sources are minimal from this period, so it should not be a surprise when different information comes to light from one source that isn't covered in another.

On sub-point 'b', the implications that Akemi draws from the text rely on - in my opinion - a misleading translation of the Greek text. Not that the original translation (Lightfoot's?) intended this. Rather, I suspect it's a misleading artefact of that older, more refined 19th century English, but which implies something different today. "and in others also among yourselves" does seem to imply that Polycarp considers all the preceding figures as Philippians, including Ignatius, thus separating this Ignatius from the Ignatius of Antioch. However, consider the Greek text of this very line (with Holmes' translation):

... like that which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus but also in others from your congregation...

... ἣν καὶ εἴδατε κατ̓ ὀφθαλμοὺς οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς μακαρίοις Ἰγνατίῳ καὶ Ζωσίμῳ καἰ Ρούφῳ ἀλλα καὶ εν ἄλλοις τοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν...

Holmes' translation more closely preserves the word order and in turn paints a different picture. Whereas "in others also among yourselves" directly entails that the prior referents were of the latter group ("also among yourselves"), the closer rendering of "also in others from your congregation" does not, and only leaves such as one of multiple possibilities. The 'and' (καί) in the Greek text adds to the persons in whom the Philippians saw "unlimited endurance", which the Holmes translation conveys, whilst Akemi's translation used the καί to modify "others" and conjoin them with the former mentioned persons as if to say that both are from Philippi. So, I believe Akemi's point here falls flat on account of proper translation.

II - Irenaeus' Testimony

The arguments presented here more explicitly parallel with atheistic apologetics. It is an example of a poor argument from silence, which doesn't abide by clear criteria as to what is a genuine silence that speaks against an idea. The criteria I hold to are best articulated by Fr. Gilbert Garraghan in his "A Guide to Historical Method", which are A: The author would certainly have known the idea, and B: The author would certainly have made mention of the idea in this context, and failing to do so would greatly injure him in some manner. A sub-criteria to the second criteria was given by Dr. David Falk in our interview on historiography, that the second criteria can be solidly confirmed if the author provides another idea in the place of the one in question. I hold that this third criteria is not *strictly* necessary but it does make life much easier.

Point being, the argument from silence needs to be well thought through and the evidence carefully examined before asserting silence as proof of something. In this case, many questions can be asked; in what context did Irenaeus cite these sources? Were they all against Gnosticism or other contexts? Are there other relevant sources we know predate Irenaeus yet which he neglects to use? Is it possible that Irenaeus simply didn't have access to (most of) Ignatius' letters? Without considering these questions, an appeal to silence is meaningless. It is akin to atheist polemics, where because certain early Christian authors did not quote from certain Gospels or name their authors directly, that is evidence against their Apostolic authorship.

Now, this argument as summarised by Akemi is also flatly false; Irenaeus does in fact quote Ignatius' letter to the Romans in his Against Heresies, V.28:

And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff, indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is, those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire, they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: "I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God." {II}

Now, I recognise Akemi's thread was Twitter based and so couldn't posit *every* argument he may have wanted to, so that I don't take issue with. Addressing Killen's arguments - including his response to the quote by Irenaeus - would take another essay, so I won't do that here.

What further renders this argument from silence ineffective is the fact of 1st Clement, written in the mid or late first century (I prefer mid, see the beginning of my presentation here). He is a leader of the church in Rome, a near certain contemporary of the Apostles, and makes direct appeal to Paul's first letter to Corinth (since he is writing to the Corinthian church). And yet, nowhere does he quote  Paul's letter to Rome, which was certainly written before and thus certainly should have been known by Clement. Sure, he makes allusions to it, pulls very similar language from it, yet just as with Killen's argument for scepticism of Irenaeus' above quote of Ignatius' letter to Rome, perhaps the letter to the Romans just drew from Clement's language in the forging process. And why, for example, wouldn't Clement appeal to the very same Paul whom he raises to Corinth in his language on justification, which he makes extensive comments on?

This is why arguments from silence are notoriously tricky and require clear criteria in order to make sense of the evidence, and not cause problems in other settled matters.

III - Late Appearance

This argument assumes that Irenaeus' quote - the late 2nd century - is not Ignatian, which Killen tries to argue with a mix of vague silences and sterile conjecture. If Akemi replies and appeals to such arguments, I'll respond to them. But I'll point out that I'm not convinced of Ignatius of Antioch being a disciple of John, though that be the popular opinion. The earliest reference to such I have found is centuries after the fact, and I think early silence on this is significant (and may explain why Irenaeus does not quote from Ignatius extensively). So that element of the silence does not work against my view. Nonetheless, it's a mere repetition of the prior argument, and so my responses are the same here. It is very reasonable to explain the silence by Ignatius' letters simply not being circulated widely as quickly as major texts like Clement's epistle, or Justin Martyrs' Dialogue and Apologies, or Papias' Expositions. They were very short local letters, so it's a reasonable explanation, which is perfectly acceptable in history, especially in such a period like this from which so much data has been lost.

IV - Letters from Prison are Ridiculous

I had a small chuckle at this claim, no disrespect to Akemi. It's apparently ridiculous that Ignatius, guarded by 10 guards, would be accompanied by an "entourage" of co-religionists. This isn't mentioned by Ignatius at all so this doesn't matter. But even more funny is how ridiculous it apparently is for Ignatius to have shipped letters from prison to other parts of the Empire; you know, like Paul did...

And that's where I got my chuckle.

In saying that, prisons in the ancient period - chiefly for holding people awaiting execution - were not sealed off from loved ones with strict conjugal hours like we have. People could quite freely see friends and family in prison, give them food or other items, and receive things from them, like letters. We see this with Paul, and we see this with Ignatius.

V - Differing Ecclesiologies

Here we have another of the stronger points. How Ignatius and other works like 1st Clement and the Didache fit ecclesiologically is a major dispute, and I myself believe that we see significant development from those sources to Ignatius, who becomes our earliest source for the monepiscopacy. But this "contradiction" does not entail forgery, and the contradiction itself is not as stark as commonly believed.

First, I argue in my recent response to Trent Horn and Joe Heschmeyer that Ignatius is not strictly demanding adherence to a monepiscopacy model, but obedience to those church authorities which happen to be monepiscopal in those areas to which he writes. So the perceived tension between Ignatius dogmatically requiring a monepiscopacy despite earlier churches and possibly even Polycarp himself being of a plural episcopacy is not a strong tension anymore.

Second, Ignatius does call Polycarp "Bishop" (I prefer 'Overseer') of the Smyrneans, but this can be interpreted comfortably in a plural episcopacy context as well, especially since he does not include a definite article before 'Overseer' (ἐπίσκοπος), and so does not require us to read him as "the Bishop". It *could* still be definite; anarthrous nouns are not indefinite by necessity (contra the New World Translation), especially if the usage is titular (which is possible but not a given here). But a title could still be spread among multiple persons, and even a definite usage may not be emphasising the subject as the only one of his kind, but as an exemplary instance of such or an identifier of the named individual (cf. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). Whatever one prefers, there are a number of ways to interpret this, including within a plural episcopacy, so Ignatius' letter to Polycarp need not be read in flagrant contradiction to Polycarp himself (who does appear to witness to a 2-fold hierarchy and plural episcopacy). But some like Alistair C. Stewart in his The Original Bishops even attempt to interpret Ignatius in harmony with the earlier sources. Many avenues of possibility are open to us.

VI - Contradicting Theologies

To directly answer the final line of this argument, whether the theological contradiction or false authorship of the Ignatian Epistles is more likely, I gladly assert the former given all the evidence we have, even granting that there is such a contradiction. Ignatius was not inspired, nor Polycarp, nor anyone beyond the authors of scripture. Direct contemporaries and disciples of the Apostles are shown to be going even further astray than Ignatius' alleged sin, such as the Colossian proto-Gnostics, or the Corinthians Super-Apostles, or Demetrius opposing John directly.

But I will respond to the alleged contradiction. The quote from the Smyrnean church cited by Killen and repeated by Akemi comes from the Martyrdom of Polycarp. When read in context, it portrays a very different picture to what Killen paints. The fuller quote, and its preceding context, are contrasting the accounts of a righteous martyr with a coward who betrayed the faith:

But thanks be to God, for the devil did not prevail against any of them. For the most noble Germanicus encouraged them, fearful though they were, by his own patient endurance; he also fought with the wild beasts in an outstanding way. For when the proconsul wishes to persuade him and asked him to consider his youthfulness, he forcibly dragged the wild beast toward himself, desiring to be released as quickly as possible from their unrighteous and lawless life. So after this the whole magnitude, marveling at the bravery of the God-loving and God-fearing Christians, began shouting, "Away with the atheists! Find Polycarp!"

(Now there was one man, Quintus by name, a Phrygian recently arrived from Phrygia, who, when he saw the wild beasts, turned coward. This was the man who had forced himself and some others to come forward voluntarily. The proconsul, after many appeals, finally persuaded him to swear the oath and to offer the sacrifice. For this reason, therefore, brothers and sisters, we do not praise those who hand themselves over, since the gospel does not so teach.)

As we can clearly see, the authors explicitly praise a man who, having been captured, refused to give up his faith, and even coaxed the beasts to kill him quicker, just as Ignatius desires (Rom. 4). But they do not praise one who just gives themselves up only to become cowardly and offer sacrifices to the Roman gods, and because the 'Gospel' does not teach so. Presumably, this refers to the example of Christ and the Apostles only reaching martyrdom as a result of their ministry, not actively seeking martyrdom when it doesn't come to them first. Now, does Ignatius himself or any other source state that Ignatius dropped his episcopal ministry and turned himself into Roman authorities for execution? As far as I have read, no. Ignatius does not thus fall under those unvirtuous Christians who turn themselves in out of some vainglory. Ignatius in all of his letters is already on his way to execution. To him, stopping now would effectively be denying the faith (Rom. 3 - 4), and that would likely be the only thing he could do to avoid his fate, as Quintus did, and as Pliny the Younger in one of his letters to Trajan attests {III}.

So, Ignatius does not contradict the beliefs of the Smyrneans.

Finally, there is no seventh argument, so that's where we'll end it.

Conclusion

I went on for much longer than I expected, in hindsight because of just how much background information is really packed into this otherwise short thread. If Akemi is reading this, I hope you gained some meat to chew on, and likewise for anyone else interested in this debate.

If you want to support my ministry, I highly recommend becoming a Patron. God bless.

~~~

I - Epistle to the Philippians, 13:2. Polycarp of Smyrna.

Latin text: Et de ipso Ignatio et de his qui cum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis, significate.

II - Against Heresies, V.28.4. Irenaeus of Lyons.

III - Letters, X.96. Pliny the Younger.