Yes, the Ignatian epistles are a contentious subject and have been badly abused (both by those who interpolated them and those who quote from them today.)Paidion wrote:Quote from Evangelion:An excellent question, Evangelion! And one that requires an answer from anyone tending to believe that the so-called "Trinitarian formula" of baptism found in Matthew 28 was added to the text of Matthew at a later date.How do you account for its appearance in the Didache and the various texts from early Church Fathers such as Iganatius and Cyprian (who quotes it pefectly, along with the entire verse as we have it today)?
The earliest post-biblical Christian writers were the apostle Paul's fellow-labourer, Clement [A.D. 30-100] and his contemporary Ignatius [A.D. 30-107]. As you are probably aware, there is extant a shorter and a longer recension of the main writings purporting to be those of Ignatius. The quote "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is found only in the longer recension. Most experts consider the shorter one as more likely
to be what Ignatius actually wrote. Other experts believe that we do not possess any genuine writings of Ignatius today.
The "writings of Ignatius" which we possess today, uphold the elder-overseer distinction, a distinction which was not made by Paul, Peter, or any of the other apostles. In his letters to the churches, the writer recommended regarding that the believers regard the overseer (or "bishop") as they would regard Jesus Christ Himself. This does not seem characteristic of the first-century apostolic practice.
The question of his views on the role of the bishop is not easily resolved, since the matter turns largely upon the nature of the translation. Ignatius can be made to sound more or less Catholic (I use this word in the denominational sense) depending on the way in which his instructions are rendered by the translator.
Remember that even Paul himself once wrote "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."
It is possible to read a wealth of significance into this statement, should one be so inclined - and the statement itself is very similar (both in content and very different to the one ascribed to Ignatius in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
- All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance of God.
- For when ye are subject unto the bishop as unto Jesus Christ, ye appear unto me not to live according to man, but according to Jesus Christ who died for us, that ye, by believing on his death, might escape death.
It is necessary, therefore, that ye should do nothing without the bishop, as indeed ye do, and that ye should submit yourselves to the presbytery also, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we shall be found walking.
[...]
In like manner, let all men reverence the deacons, and the bishop likewise, even as Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Father; and the presbyters as the council of God, and as the bond of the Apostles. Without these there is no Church;
Of course, this presupposes that the passages above are a legitimate part of the text - which they may not be.
I personally take the view that Ignatius' ecclesiology was consistent with (though not identical to) that of the Didache, comprising a two-tiered system of management within the church (ie. first bishops, then deacons and presbyters.)
This may not be absolutely identical to Paul's model - but that is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be identical, because Ignatius is writing at a later period in which the church has already grown much larger and now requires a more sophisticated model of government.
IMHO, the bottom line is that Ignatius' ecclesiology contains no theological implications that might put it at odds with the apostolic model.
None of this in any way suggests that Matthew 28:19 is interpolated. In fact, since Cyprian quotes the entire verse in the form that we have it today (and references it as a quote), we can be sure that the verse existed in that form at an earlier date.Third-century Cyprian lived in a day when Trinintarian thinking was common in the church, although the dogma was not universally accepted.
His contemporary, Novatian, wrote an article about the Trinity.
The Didache shows no sign of later interpolation. If such a thing had been done, there would be evidence of it in the form of doctrinal elaboration, and "updating" to reflect the newer theology.The didache certainly gives evidence of having been written at a very early date. Yet, some of the advice given therein seems to be ritualistic ---- again not characteristic of age. Perhaps portions of the didache were also interpolated by later writers. Some of these later writers were unscrupulous in their practice of adding their ideas to Christian texts in order to make them appear to have validity.
The ritualism is very characteristic of age, since it reflects an earlier period in which ritual - particularly Jewish ritual - was common. For example, it speaks of prayer three times a day, and we know from the book of Acts that some of the early Christians did indeed pray three times a day (see the story of Peter and Cornelius.)
I am aware that Tertullian fell away into heresy. However, his heresy had nothing to do with Trinitarianism and there is no record (let alone evidence) of Tertullian tampering with the Greek texts - which would have been unlikely, since he wrote and spoke in Latin.Tertullian [A.D. 145-200] was at some point a Montanist for a period of time. This sect was later declared a "heresy" by the main church. Tertullian held to a sort of proto-type of the Trinitarianism that later developed. He was the first known to use the word "Trinity" in a writing. Indeed, it may have been he who initially copied the "Trinitarian Formula" into Matthew 28.
