The Date and Authenticity of the Ignatian Letters: An Outline of Recent Discussions

Abstract

This article examines recent studies of the date and authenticity of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Although the debate has a long history, this article focuses on the most recent period of this debate—from roughly 1997 through 2018. While not wanting to diminish the differences between contributors to this debate, three general views can be adduced. This article begins by highlighting the major players and formative contributors to each view. Of particular note in this most recent phase of debate is the separation of the date of the letters from the question of their authenticity. The article next turns to consider the primary pieces of evidence that are utilized when considering Ignatius’s date: the historical value of the Eusebian evidence, the possibility of interpolations within Polycarp’s Philippians, and Ignatius’s interactions with Second Sophistic rhetoric. The conclusion inquires about whether there is other evidence that might be utilized to aid scholars in dating and evaluating the Ignatian letters more securely.

Keywords

authenticity Allen Brent date Eusebius of Caesarea Reinhard M. Hübner Ignatius of Antioch Thomas Lechner letters Andreas Lindemann Polycarp of Smyrna second century

Introduction

Although the authenticity of the Ignatian letters has been disputed since at least the seventeenth century (Schoedel 1992; Barnes 2008: 119-22; Cobb 2017: 181-85; Hartog 2018), the debate has received renewed energy since the late 1990s and shows few signs of slowing. While Ignatian scholars have continued to study the various textual recensions in which Ignatius’s letters are found (e.g., Smith 2006; Stewart 2013: 111-34; Cobb 2017; Gilliam 2017; Brennecke 2018), the ongoing discussion about date and authorship interrupts the consensus that Ignatius’s letters are authentically Ignatian and date to the early second century. This consensus was worked out in large part by Theodor Zahn (1873: 491-541; see also Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn 1876: v-xiii) and J.B. Lightfoot (1889: 1.328-430). Although Ignatian authenticity was challenged during the twentieth century by Turmel ([Delafosse] 1927), Weijenborg (1969), Joly (1979) and Rius-Camps (1980), and the works of Joly (1979) and Rius-Camps (1980) elicited the most immediate responses (Schoedel 1980; Hammond Bammel 1982; Dehandschutter 1989), the consensus held through most of the twentieth century (Munier 1992). However, it remains difficult to explain every peculiarity within the Ignatian letters if they are dated early in the second century. Reinhard Hübner’s work on second-century theology thus inspired hope in at least one Ignatian scholar during the 1990s that our understanding of the letters’ date and authenticity would be sharpened. Citing Hübner (1989), Christine Trevett wrote that ‘Reinhard Hübner may shed light on this issue in the near future’ (Trevett 1992). While Hübner’s arguments have hardly settled the issue of when Ignatius’s letters should be dated, his studies have had a powerful effect on all Ignatian scholarship that has followed and have opened the possible dates for Ignatius’s letters to include any of the years between roughly 105–180 ce.

This article examines recent scholarship on the question of the date and authenticity of the middle recension of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. It begins by looking at the work of Hübner and others who have proposed that Ignatius’s letters are inauthentic and should be dated to the second half of the second century. However, not all have been convinced that Ignatius’s letters should be dated so late. The next section thus examines scholars who have defended a position that resembles the previous consensus, namely, that the letters are authentic and originated in the first third of the second century. The effect of Hübner’s scholarship becomes clearest, though, when one observes that difficulties with both the late and traditional dates have opened a middle way for dating Ignatius’s letters. For this via media, the letters are understood as authentically Ignatian compositions but should be dated in the middle of the second century, roughly in the second quarter of the century. Following this sketch of the debate, the article concludes by examining the evidence upon which these arguments have been made, by exploring whether there is any further evidence that might shed light on this issue, and by briefly considering the implications of this debate for early Christian studies.

Inauthentic Letters and Late Dates

Recent proponents of viewing Ignatius’s letters as inauthentic owe much to the work of Robert Joly (1979). Joly cites anomalies in Ignatius’s terminology and the ambiguous language about Ignatius in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 9.1; 13.2) as reasons for seeing the Ignatian corpus as the work of a forger in the latter half of the second century. Ignatius appears to be grouped among martyrs who have recently died in Pol. Phil. 9.1, while Polycarp asks the Philippians for further information about Ignatius in Pol. Phil. 13.2, suggesting that Ignatius’s status is presently unknown to him. Joly (1979: 17-37) argues that Pol. Phil. 13.2 is the work of the same forger as the Ignatian corpus. He also finds the use of μιμήματα in Pol. Phil. 1.1 to be an interpolation from the same pseudepigraphical hand. He argues that Ignatius’s instruction to act well in the presence of outsiders is accompanied by a citation of Isa. 52.5 (Ign. Letter to the Trallians [Trall.] 8.2) and is dependent upon Pol. Phil. 10.2-3, where similar language and a citation from Isa. 52.5 are also found (Joly 1979: 29-31).

Joly’s arguments were not widely accepted in the years following their initial publication (e.g., Hammond Bammel 1982; Paulsen 1985: 4; Schoedel 1985: 6-7). However, Reinhard Hübner’s 1997 study built upon Joly’s foundation and is continuing to have a significant impact on Ignatian studies, having been reprinted in Hübner (2017: 63-92). Hübner (1997: 48-50) follows Joly particularly closely when discussing the possible discrepancy between Pol. Phil. 9.1; 13.2. He also highlights text-critical issues in the Ignatian textual tradition, particularly in Ignatius’s Letter to the Ephesians (Eph.) 1.2; Letter to the Magnesians (Magn.) 8.2. If one follows the Greek manuscripts of these texts, Ignatius appears to use terminology that fits the second half of the second century (Hübner 1997: 50-52). However, Hübner’s most significant addition to the discussion of Ignatius’s authenticity comes when he places Ignatius in dialogue with the writings of Noetus. Noetus flourished in the middle of the second century and, according to Hippolytus, was a modalist who conflated the Father and the Son.

ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγει καὶ πατέρα οὐδεὶς ἀγνοεῖ. ¹¹λέγει γὰρ οὕτως, ὅτε μὲν οὖν μὴ γεγένητο ὁ πατὴρ, δικαίως πατὴρ προσηγόρευτο. ὅτε δὲ ηὐδόκησε γένεσιν ὑπομεῖναι, γεννηθείς, ὁ υἱὸς ἐγένετο αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, οὐχ ἑτέρου.

Everybody knows that Noetos says that the Son himself is also the Father. ¹¹For he speaks as follows: When the Father had not been born, he was rightly called ‘Father’. But when the Father deigned to endure birth, he was born and became his own Son—not the Son of another. (Hippolytus, Haer. 9.10.10-11; text and translation from Litwa [2016: 640-41])

Hübner highlights particular similarities between Noetus’s use of adjectives beginning with an alpha-privative in Hippolytus, Haer. 9.10.9-10; 10.27.1-2 and Ignatius’s use of similar terms in Ign. Eph. 7.2; Letter to Polycarp (Pol.) 3.2. Both Ignatius and Noetus employ paired adjectives such as γεννητός-ἀγέννητος and ὁρατόν-ἀόρατον (Hübner 1989; 1997: 53-59; 1999: 39-94). This leads Hübner to the conclusion that Noetus and the Ignatian letters are arguing against the same christological opponents in Asia Minor (1997: 59-60). Hübner (1997: 60-63) thus situates Ignatius’s theology alongside early Christian texts from the middle of the second century, including Melito’s Peri Pascha, Sibylline Oracles 8, and Tatian’s Oratio adversus Graecos. In light of these similarities to texts in the middle of the second century and Irenaeus’s citation of Letter to the Romans (Ign. Rom.) 4.1 at the end of the second century (Haer. 5.28.4), Hübner finds the most likely date for the Ignatian letters to be around 160–180 ce. If so, the letters are forged in the name of Ignatius of Antioch, whose martyrdom made him a prime candidate to become an authoritative voice with which to address believers at that time (Hübner 1997: 67-70).

Thomas Lechner largely agrees with and expands the theses set out by his Doktorvater. He sets out a detailed case for dating the Ignatian corpus after most of Polycarp’s Philippians, examines the reception of Ignatius in Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius, and explores similarities between the portrayals of Ignatius’s martyrdom and the life of Peregrinus Protetus in Lucian of Samosota’s De morte Peregrini (Lechner 1999: 6-117). Following this extensive case for understanding the Ignatian letters as pseudepigraphic compositions, Lechner attempts to set Ignatius in a particular historical and theological context by examining the Ignatian letters alongside Valentinian theology. He reads the so-called star hymn of Ign. Eph. 19.2-3 alongside the astral imagery in Theodotus’s writings as they are recorded in Clement of Alexandria’s Excerpta ex Theodoto. This differs from interpreters who read Ign. Eph. 19.2-3 alongside the star tradition in Mt. 2.1-12 (e.g., Grant 1966: 51). Just as Theodotus described the descent of the Redeemer as the descent of a star, so Ignatius portrays Christ’s incarnation in cosmic terms (Lechner 1999: 246-300). Lechner sets Ignatius’s letters, or at least Ign. Eph. 19.2-3, in a different theological conversation from Hübner’s juxtaposition of Ignatius and Noetus. However, Lechner’s study results in a similar date for the forged Ignatius’s letters, namely, 165–175 ce.

Markus Vinzent has likewise followed Hübner’s arguments for a late date while attempting to show how the Ignatian letters might be placed in a different historical and theological context. Vinzent focuses on Ignatius’s understanding of resurrection, particularly as it is expressed in Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn.) 3.1-3. Whereas some interpreters juxtapose the resurrection traditions in Ign. Smyrn. 3 with those found in Luke 24 or John 21 (e.g., Lightfoot 1889: 1.92-93), Vinzent places Ignatius alongside responses to Marcion’s teachings about resurrection (1999; see also 2002: 89-92; 2011: 104-10, 152-55). Of particular interest to Vinzent are the traditions in the Preaching of Peter (Kerygma Petri) and the Teaching of Peter (Doctrina Petri). After an extensive discussion of these fragmentary sources (Vinzent 1999: 242-60), Vinzent explores them alongside Ign. Smyrn. 3 as anti-marcionite interpretations of Lk. 24.37-39. Ignatius agrees with its antidocetic emphasis (‘in der antidoketischen Betonung’; Vinzent 1999: 266), and Ign. Eph. 20.1; Magn. 11; Trall. 9 exhibit similar tendencies regarding their understanding of the resurrection (Vinzent 1999: 265-67; 2011: 153-55). By dating these Petrine traditions to the middle of the second century and following Hübner’s arguments for placing Ignatius alongside mid-second-century confessional formulae, Vinzent likewise regards the letters as pseudepigraphic and dates them to the second half of the second century (Vinzent 1999: 267-73, 286; 2011: 105).

Walter Schmithals and Otto Zwierlein largely accepted these arguments for a late and inauthentic Ignatian corpus. They also build upon earlier arguments in order to further their own studies of early Christianity in the second century. After sketching previous arguments from Hübner and Lechner, Schmithals (2009) turns his attention to the audience of the Ignatian epistles. He notes that Hübner and Lechner place the Ignatian letters in dialogue with sources from Asia Minor (e.g., Hübner 1989; 1997: 59-60; Lechner 1999: 306-307), suggesting that the Ignatian letters were addressed to cities in Asia Minor. This assumes that, although the letters are forged, they are addressed primarily to the communities mentioned in the greetings. Schmithals (2009: 196) challenges this assumption by noting that the communities that are depicted in the forged epistles may either be real or idealized. Instead of reading the Ignatian letters as compositions addressed to an Asian audience, he proposes instead that the primary addressees lived in Rome. Ignatius’s Romans stands out in the composition because it does not mention a bishop, and Schmithals (2009: 197) proposes that ‘the Ignatians want to support the introduction of monepiscopacy in Rome’ (‘Die Ignatianen wollen die Einführung des Monepiskopats in Rom unterstützen’). The letters are indirect in the way that they seek to achieve their purpose. However, by establishing a contrast between Rome and the communities in Asia Minor, the Ignatian corpus promotes monepiscopacy in Rome as a means by which to win the battle with Gnosticism (Schmithals 2009: 201).

Zwierlein (2010; 2013; 2014) has furthered the arguments for viewing Ignatius’s letters as pseudepigraphic compositions dating from the time of Marcus Aurelius in a series of publications on second-century Christianity. In a monograph that explores traditions about Peter’s place in Rome and offers critical editions of the Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, Zwierlein observes that Ign. Rom. 4.3 assumes that both Peter and Paul had been to Rome. He then sets this alongside Dionysus of Corinth’s testimony about Peter and Paul in Rome, noting that Dionysus flourished around 170 ce (Zwierlein 2010: 31-33). After this suggestive observation, Zwierlein (2010: 183-237) offers an extensive case for dating Ignatius’s letters to 160–180 ce, preferring a date after 170. Zwierlein follows Hübner in understanding Ignatius’s letters as a response to Valentinian thought and highlights links to Ptolemy in particular (Zwierlein 2010: 481-82; 2011: 458-60; 2013: 21-22; see also Hübner 1997: 57). Zwierlein uses the Ignatian letters as one piece of evidence for his argument that Roman traditions about Peter developed in Rome in the second century. His arguments about Peter’s place in early Christianity continue to be debated but lie outside of the scope of this article (Heid 2011; Barnes 2015; Schnelle 2015: 305). What is of more interest is the development of Zwierlein’s arguments for a late date of Ignatius’s letters in his critical edition of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. In light of the focus of the book, Zwierlein (2014: 2.321-37) gives particular attention to possible interpolations in Pol. Phil. 1.1; 13.2. He also explores the development of later martyrdom traditions surrounding both Polycarp and Ignatius (Zwierlein 2014: 2.337-77). According to Zwierlein, Polycarp’s letter is to be dated prior to the Ignatian letters, and ‘the fictive letter-corpus of the Ignatians belongs to the time around 180’ (‘das fiktive Briefcorpus der Ignatianen gehört in die Zeit um 180’; Zwierlein 2014: 2.378-407; quotation at 2.407).

Michael Theobald (2016) has likewise explored the Ignatian letters while studying another area of early Christianity. In his case, the primary area of study has to do with another area of significant controversy in studies of the New Testament and early Christianity, namely, the origins of the Pastoral Epistles. Theobald dates the Ignatian letters to the second half of the second century. He views the letters as inspired by Pol. Phil. 9.1, which he dates around 140 ce. Like Joly, Hübner, and others, Theobald sees Pol. Phil. 13 as an interpolation in Polycarp’s original letter (Theobald 2016: 317-25). He takes a position similar to Schmithals by arguing that the letters originated in Rome and that their purpose was to provide a foundation for the development of Roman monepiscopacy (Theobald 2016: 309-14). Theobald finds evidence that Ignatius knew the Pastorals, so his dating of the Ignatian letters provides a terminus ante quem for the origins of the Pastorals. If, as Theobald argues, Polycarp also knew the Pastorals and his Philippians predates the Ignatian letters, Polycarp’s letter would provide an earlier terminus ante quem (Theobald 2016: 314-30). Theobald argues that the Pastorals originated in Asia Minor during the second quarter of the second century (Theobald 2016: 330-31).

A number of essays in a recent collection studying motifs, strategies, and contexts in and around the Ignatian letters take up the question of Ignatian authorship. Although the essays in Thomas Johann Bauer and Peter von Möllendorff (2018) are not written from the same perspective—an observation to which we will return later—several authors argue that the Ignatian letters are most likely pseudepigraphic documents from the second half of the second century. One of these essays comes from Lechner (2018), who offers an extensive review of Allen Brent’s (2006b) study of Ignatius alongside Second Sophistic rhetoric. He also takes up Theobald’s (2016) study and concludes that Ignatius’s letters are best understood in the context of the second half of the second century. Josef Lössl (2018: 69-74) likewise follows Theobald (2016) and dates Ignatius’s letters to the late 160s or 170s. Bauer’s (2018) study of Ignatius argues that the prescripts and postscripts of the letters depict Ignatius as a second Paul and were consciously composed as part of a letter collection. Bauer (2018: 124-25) leaves open the possibility that the letters were pseudepigraphically composed and concludes that they must at least have been thoroughly revised. Ferdinand Prostmeier (2018: 169-71) arrives at a similar conclusion by building on an earlier study of Ignatius (Prostmeier 2002) and by asking the question cui bono. He answers this question by arguing that the Roman community is most likely to have benefitted from the Ignatian epistles. Thus, the Ignatian letters are best understood as a collection that was composed in the second half of the second century to substantiate monepiscopacy in Rome (Prostmeier 2018: 181-89). The essays in Bauer and Möllendorff (2018) provide a mirror of current scholarship on Ignatius (Bauer and Möllendorff 2018: 7). As will be evident from the essays in this volume as well as from this summary of scholarship, a significant number of Ignatian researchers views the Ignatian letters as pseudepigraphic compositions and dates them to the end of the second century.

In bringing this section to a close, it may be worth noting that the most important voices arguing that the Ignatian letters are pseudepigraphic are German-speaking. While it will become clear in the remainder of this article that not all English-speaking scholars are convinced of precisely when Ignatius’s letters were written, the chief Anglophone example offering a late date for Ignatius’s letters is found in the study of Roger Parvus (2008). Parvus modifies the study of Turmel ([Delafosse] 1927) and argues that the Ignatian letters were composed in stages. Theophorus, a purported follower of Apelles, composed the Ignatian letters in the middle of the second century. These letters were then edited at the end of the second century by a proto-catholic corrector. This convoluted case for Ignatian authorship has not received much critical support or attention.

Authentic (and Early?)

Even while this most recent chapter in the controversy over the Ignatian question has persuaded a number of scholars that the Ignatian letters are forged letters from the second half of the second century, not all have been convinced by the arguments of Hübner, Lechner, and others. Four immediate challenges came in the following fascicles of the Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, the journal in which Hübner (1997) first published his theses.

Andreas Lindemann furthered the conversation with Hübner by finding value in Hübner’s article. Lindemann believes that the dating of the Ignatian letters is a matter that remains unclear but that Hübner’s challenge to the consensus is ‘valuable and warranted’ (‘wertvoll und berechtigt’; Lindemann 1997: 194). Following Hübner’s article, Lindemann makes clear that he thinks that the problem of the letters’ authorship must be separated from their dating (Lindemann 1997: 186). This is a significant observation. It is not necessarily the case that late letters require a pseudepigraphic corpus. Nevertheless, Lindemann (1997: 186-87, 194; see also Lindemann 2002: 158-59; 2005: 17) does not follow Hübner in finding evidence for pseudepigraphy in Polycarp’s Philippians. Lindemann likewise contests Hübner’s reading of Ignatius alongside Noetus. Rather than understanding Ign. Eph. 7.2; Pol. 3.2 in terms of the middle of the second century, Lindemann (1997: 188-90) points out that high christological statements as well as terse summaries of Jesus’ person and actions can also be found in first-century documents now collected in the New Testament. Lindemann’s observation draws into question a key point in Hübner’s account of why the pseudepigraphic Ignatian epistles were written, namely, that Ignatius’s letters were employed in second-century anti-gnostic polemic (Hübner 1997: 52-64). Although Lindemann (1997: 193) regards Hübner as right in noting both the oddity of the Ignatian letters in the second century and the rhetorical care with which they were constructed, he points out that it is not at all clear why Ignatius, who on Hübner’s account is known only from a fleeting reference in Pol. Phil. 9.1, should be used as the pseudepigraphal voice to advance such key early Christian polemic against gnostic authors and for monepiscopacy. No precise date is proposed in Lindemann 1997, but the article argues that the letters are authentic.

Georg Schöllgen followed Lindemann’s article in the next year by probing three matters that Schöllgen regards as undermining Hübner’s theses. First, he argues that Ignatius is an unlikely candidate for the author of a pseudepigraphal corpus of letters (Schöllgen 1998: 17-20). Although early martyrs may have been respected, it is doubtful that they would have had sufficient authority to put forward the challenge to community leadership that Hübner’s (1997) reading requires. In addition, Ignatius makes much of his spiritual and prophetic authority as the grounds by which he and other bishops are to care for the church (Schöllgen 1998: 23). Like Lindemann (1997), Schöllgen finds it implausible that Pol. Phil. 9.1 warrants sufficient evidence to posit Ignatius as an authoritative figure in whose name letters could be written (Schöllgen 1998: 20-21). Ignatius likewise hopes to write a second letter to the Ephesians (Ign. Eph. 20.1; Schöllgen 1998: 23-24). It is difficult to explain this detail in only one letter if the letters are forged. If Ignatius’s martyrdom is the key to his authority, why promise a second letter? If the promise of a second letter plays another role, such as demonstrating care for the congregations, why would a forger not include more promises in other letters? Finally, Schöllgen acknowledges the weakness of the data that can be amassed for an early date. He observes, however, that there are grounds for seeing the ἐπίσκοπος in the Pastorals as a singular leadership figure (Schöllgen 1998: 24-25). If this interpretation of the Pastorals is followed and the Pastorals dated ca. 100 ce, then the Ignatian letters may stand in a similar tradition regarding how the church is to be organized.

Later in the year Mark Edwards (1998) entered into what had to this point been a largely German-language conversation with the first major Anglophone response to Hübner (1997). Edwards notes that Hübner’s arguments ‘turn on probabilities’ but finds little in the arguments that firmly establish the collection of probabilities to which Hübner draws attention (Edwards 1998: 215). Edwards adduces examples of ways in which a forger from the end of the second century would have employed terminology that was not in keeping with the end of the second century, a feature that would have been all the more surprising if the forger’s purpose was to support monepiscopacy. Such evidence is utilized to challenge Hübner’s probabilities (Edwards 1998: 215-17). Edwards then takes up the christological elements of Hübner’s theses with a particular focus on the connections that Hübner (1997: 53-59) makes between Noetus and Ignatius. In most cases, Edwards highlights individual parallels between Ignatius’s supposedly anachronistic—for the early second century—terminology and highlights parallels with early Christian texts from the first and early second centuries (Edwards 1998: 217-22). Yet, even if the parallels ‘are unique in combination, that does not decide the question of priority’ (Edwards 1998: 221). Edwards then takes up Ignatius’s references to God and silence. Rather than seeing Ignatius responding to Valentinianism, Edwards argues that Heracleon, Ptolemy, and Valentinus are more likely to be taking up Ignatius. Ignatius thus forms a midpoint between Pauline language and its reception by Valentinian authors (Edwards 1998: 222-26).

The final ZAC contribution in the years immediately following Hübner’s article comes from Hermann Josef Vogt (1999; see also Vogt 2000; 2001). Vogt’s contribution focuses on exegesis of the Ignatian letters with a focus on four particular passages: Ign. Magn. 8.2; Eph. 7.2; Pol. 3.2; Smyrn. 2. Whereas Hübner understands Ign. Magn. 8.2 as a response to Valentinianism (Hübner 1997: 51-52), Vogt argues that the reading ‘his word that came forth from silence’ (αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών) is more likely to be the earliest reading to which textual critics can return and can be capably understood within the view that Ignatius’s letters are authentic (Vogt 1999: 50-53). Vogt also rejects Hübner’s links between Ignatius and Noetus by noting similarities between the language of Ign. Eph. 7.2 and first-century texts that are now included in the New Testament, drawing particular attention to the antithetical statements in Rom. 1.3-4 (Vogt 1999: 54-58). If Hippolytus’s discussion of Noetus in Haer. 9.10; 10.26-27 draws from third-century Noetians (see further Vogt 2002), this would cast further doubt on Hübner’s arguments for viewing Ignatius alongside Noetus. Vogt takes a similar argumentative strategy regarding Ignatius and first-century documents when examining Ign. Pol. 3.2 (Vogt 1999: 58-61) and Ign. Smyrn. 2, where he highlights similarities between Ignatius’s thought and the language of Jn 2.19-22 (Vogt 1999: 61-63). If the links that Vogt suggests are accepted, then Ignatius’s language may not be quite as anomalous in the early second century as it is sometimes made out to be.

These four contributions represent a significant response to Hübner’s theses, all of which took place in the pages of the Zeitschrift f ür Antikes Christentum. Indeed, the editors included a note following Vogt (1999), stating that Vogt’s contribution ‘concludes the discussion on Reinhard M. Hübner’s article on authenticity and dating of the Ignatian letters’ (Vogt 1999: 63). The next full-length discussion of Ignatius’s date and authenticity in ZAC appeared ten years later (Schmithals 2009). However, the longest and perhaps most forceful response to Hübner has come from Brent (esp. 2006b; 2007), who situates the rhetoric of the Ignatian middle recension alongside Second Sophistic rhetoricians. Brent (2006b: 11-14) appeals to Wittgensteinian family resemblances in order to place Ignatius within the mainstream of Hellenistic culture in Asia Minor during the second century. Highlighting Ignatius’s threefold depiction of ecclesial authority—a phenomenon that is most often either thought to be unusually early or to provide evidence for a late date of Ignatius’s letters—Brent argues that Ign. Magn. 6.1; Trall. 3.1 use imagery that belongs to the language game of Second Sophistic rhetoric (Brent 2006b: 41-120). Whereas 1 Clem. 42.1-5; 44.2 locates the authority of leaders in their connections to the apostles, Ignatius legitimizes the leaders whom he meets by appealing to their place in relation to divine realities (so also Brent 1992). Brent (2006b: 43-86) finds that Ignatius’s discourse parallels language from the Second Sophistic in which priests act dramatically on behalf of the people around them. Brent likewise argues that Ignatius employs terminology in ways that are reminiscent of Hellenistic religious and political processions, drawing particular attention to τύπος and θεοφόρος. While exact terminological parallels may not always be found in the epigraphic evidence that Brent cites, he follows his methodology by arguing that Ignatius is partaking in the same language game as the inscriptions and statues found in his world (Brent 2006b: 121-230; see also Harland 2003).

Brent (2006b: 231-311) next draws attention to ways in which Ignatius’s emphasis on ὁμόνοια, ἕνωσις, and εἰρήνη mirror concerns that were also found in Flavian and Antonine imperial rhetoric. Around the same time, John-Paul Lotz (2007) published a full-length study that argued for understanding Ignatius’s concerns for harmony alongside other sources in the late-first and early-second centuries. Lotz looks not only to political rhetoric but appeals also to numismatic, early Jewish, and early Christian evidence. Yet it is the question of Ignatius’s place alongside imperial and Second Sophistic terminology that has proved to be most interesting to Ignatian scholarship (e.g., Maier 2005; Lechner 2018). Brent (2006b: 312-18) also examines Ignatius alongside Polycarp and argues that Pol. Phil. 1.1 shows evidence that Polycarp has misunderstood Ignatius’s mimetic terminology. If so, then Ignatius’s letters must predate Polycarp’s and originate from a different pen than the one who wrote Ignatius’s letter. In response to those who utilize discrepancies within Polycarp’s letter as evidence that the Ignatian corpus was forged, the misunderstanding also makes it unlikely for Pol. Phil. 1.1 to be the work of the same forger who wrote the Ignatian letters (see further Brent 2006a). Although not limiting himself to the Trajanic date posited by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.22, 36), Brent (2006b: 318) nevertheless positions Ignatius ‘in the world of the early second century’.

Brent has put forward a strong and extended series of arguments for viewing the Ignatian letters as authentic letters composed in the early second century. The previous two paragraphs have focused on the most extensive version of his argument (Brent 2006b). Yet Brent has devoted much of his academic career to the study of Ignatius, and a number of the arguments developed in response to Hübner and Lechner can be traced prior to or simultaneous with their publications. He explored the threefold order of Ignatius’s understanding of church leadership in a 1992 article (Brent 1992), while his studies of Ignatius’s use of imperial and cultic imagery developed at roughly the same time as the studies of Hübner and Lechner (Brent 1998; 1999: 210-50). He furthered his study of Ignatius’s rhetoric alongside that of Roman-era mystery cults in Brent (2005), while Brent (2006a; 2006c) develop arguments that are found elsewhere in Brent (2006b). Perhaps the most notable publication to mention in relation to the questions surrounding Ignatius’s date and authenticity come in his 2007 book (Brent 2007). Much of the book makes the detailed argumentation in Brent (2006b) available to a wider audience. However, Brent (2007: 95-143) spends significant time critiquing the specific arguments of those who, up to that time, had argued that Ignatius’s letters are pseudepigraphic. His arguments have been updated most recently in Brent (2016), although the planks of the argument remain in place from his earlier work.

Others have also developed new arguments in favor of Ignatian authenticity or at least remained unconvinced by the arguments of those who want to date Ignatius later in the second century. Étienne Decrept (2006; 2008) has explored the circumstances in which Ignatius’s letters may be read and argued for a Trajanic date. However, he rejects the Eusebian placement of the letters around 107 ce and instead reads John Malalas (Chronicle 11.276; for the text, see Dindorf 1881: 273) alongside the Acts of Drosis in order to date the letters at the end of Trajan’s reign. Decrept (2003) also pays attention to the Antiochian Acts of Ignatius as well as Trajan’s activity in the eastern part of the Roman Empire in response to the uprisings at the end of his reign. Based on these sources, Decrept (2006) concludes that Ignatius was killed during Apollo’s festival in July 116 ce. On Decrept’s reading, Ignatius was one of several Christians to be killed around this time in response to the earthquake that struck Antioch at the end of 115 ce. Gregory Vall (2013) has likewise posited a date for the Ignatian letters nearer the end of Trajan’s reign than the beginning. Vall (2013: 27) follows Stevan Davies (1976) in arguing that Ignatius was likely killed in Rome in 113 ce, prior to Trajan’s departure for the eastern Roman Empire.

Paul Trebilco (2004: 629-32; 2006: 20; 2013: 297) has likewise challenged the arguments of Hübner and Lechner and argued that the Ignatian letters are best dated slightly earlier in Trajan’s reign, perhaps between 105–110 ce (see similarly Trevett 1992: 3-9; Lookadoo 2018a: 15-22). This argument agrees with the date of 107 ce that Eusebius gives in his Chronicon (for text, see Karst 1911: 228) and also suggests that Ignatius’s letters were most likely written before the time of Pliny the Younger’s correspondence with Trajan regarding early Jesus followers (Ep. 10.96-97). Mikael Isacson (2004: 12-14) does not offer an extended defense of Ignatian authenticity but counters the arguments made by Hübner and Lechner. More significantly, Isacson argues that, if the letters are understood as genuine compositions, they must be read as individual compositions. He thus recommends a differentiated understanding of Ignatius’s letters (Isacson 2004: 18-20 and passim). Hermut Löhr (2009: 107-109; 2010: 93-95) likewise argues that the Ignatian letters were composed during the time of Trajan, but he leaves the precise date during Trajan’s reign open. Ferdinando Bergamelli has also argued that the Ignatian letters are authentic and has followed the traditional dating. He has made his arguments in extended footnotes within a number of publications (e.g., Bergamelli 2000: 421 n.1; 2001: 34 n.6; 2004: 651 n.5; 2013: 49 n.1).

Perhaps the most notable recent arguments for the authenticity of Ignatius’s letters can be found in contributions to Bauer and Möllendorff (2018). Karen Piepenbrink (2018) reflects on Ignatius’s understanding of church order and argues that it is characterized by two elements. First, Ignatius’s self-understanding as a prospective martyr influences how he discusses ecclesial leadership. Second, the letters display evidence for experiences of conflict when Ignatius considers how communities should be organized. Rather than arguing about what stage of doctrinal development may belie Ignatius’s description of community leadership, Piepenbrink (2018: 147) concludes that Ignatius’s letters come out of particular situations and are thus best understood as authentic letters. In an exploration of Ignatius’s spatial imagery, Möllendorff (2018) likewise argues that Ignatius’s letters are best understood as authentic compositions. He understands Smyrna to stand at the center of the world that is constructed in the letters, while Rome and Antioch remain at the periphery. Following this study of space in the Ignatian letters, Möllendorff (2018: 166) highlights similarities to Revelation, 1 Clement, and the Pastoral Epistles that lead him to date Ignatius’s letters to the first quarter of the second century.

Authentic and Later: A via media?

The ongoing debates have also broadened the range of dates for which Ignatian scholars have argued. Rather than dichotomizing the options into late and inauthentic, on the one hand, and early and authentic, on the other, some have proposed that Ignatius’s letters should be dated to the middle of the second century but also seen as authentically Ignatian compositions (Stewart 2014: 239; 2018: 145). After noting difficulties with the Eusebian date early in the second century, Paul Foster (2007: 87) argues that the theological character of Ignatius’s writings is out of sync with what is elsewhere known about contemporaneous early Christian texts. While not accepting the late date put forward by Hübner and Lechner, Foster finds the Eusebian date to be ultimately untenable. If the letters are accepted as genuine—which Foster regards as most likely—Polycarp’s martyrdom (ca. 155–177 ce) can provide a terminus ad quem since the letters must have been written prior to his death (Foster 2007: 88-89). Foster (2007: 89) proposes the most likely date for the composition of the letters to be ‘at some stage during the second quarter of the second century, i.e. 125–50 ce’.

Timothy D. Barnes (2008) builds upon Foster’s work in his own study of Ignatius’s date. After sketching a history of the debate about the dates of Ignatius’s letters (Barnes 2008: 119-22), Barnes argues that the letters show evidence that he knew the writings of Ptolemy, who was a disciple of Valentinus. Barnes (2008: 123-25) highlights the use of ψηλαφητός and ἀψηλάφητος in Irenaeus’s description of Ptolemy (Haer. 1.6.1) and Ignatius’s description of Jesus (Ign. Pol. 3.2). He also follows Foster (2007) in recognizing Polycarp’s death as a terminus ante quem (Barnes 2008: 127). Ignatius’s knowledge of Ptolemy along with his death prior to Polycarp allows Barnes (2008: 127-28) to argue that Ignatius wrote in the 140s. If so, Ignatius’s letters may be regarded as authentic, while also allowing for some knowledge of at least some gnostic writings.

Alistair Stewart has furthered this trend of placing Ignatius later in the second century than the Eusebian date while arguing along rather different lines. Whereas Barnes dates Ignatius to the time of Antoninus Pius, Stewart places Ignatius in Hadrian’s reign (2014: 238-41; 2018: 144-47). His argument proceeds along historical lines by noting the oddity of Ignatius’s route across Asia and by comparing the language of an Ignatian letter with the terms used to describe a Roman legion. After noting that the route depicted by the Ignatian letters is unusual, Stewart (2014: 239-40; 2018: 145) follows Davies (1976: 177) in proposing that the legion in charge of Ignatius may not have had the transportation of Ignatius as their primary duty. Working from Ignatius’s reference to his guards as ‘leopards’ (Ign. Rom. 5.1), Stewart proposes that this is a reference to Cohors I Lepidiana, a Roman cohort known from other inscriptions (see further Saddington 1987). Stewart (2014: 240; 2018: 146) allows that Ignatius’s references to his own death and procession have countercultural cultic overtones, but he finds a date during Trajan’s lifetime to be unlikely. Instead, he proposes that Ignatius may have been transported to Rome as part of the victory procession led by Hadrian following the Bar Kokhba revolt. As in Ignatius’s letters, Hadrian also returned from Antioch to Rome overland through Asia. This context may also help to make sense of Ignatius’s discussions of Judaism and Christianity (Ign. Magn. 8.1-10.3; Letter to the Philadelphians [Phld.] 6.1–9.2; Stewart 2018: 146-47).

Ongoing Issues in the Consideration of Ignatius’s Letters

The last two decades have thus seen a great deal of discussion about precisely when Ignatius should be dated in the second century and about whether his letters should be understood as authentic or pseudepigraphic compositions. Two significant consequences have come about as a result of these debates and complicate the picture for those who want to study Ignatius’s letters. First, it is no longer sufficient to pit two alternative dating schemes against one another. The simple bifurcation between an early date for Ignatius’s letters some time during the reign of Trajan or early in the time of Hadrian, on the one hand, and later in the second century during the time of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, on the other, has now been problematized. The possible range of dates span most of the second century from ca. 105–180 ce. The second consequence is closely related to the initial observation. Where earlier scholars may have linked authenticity and date, such that an early date required an authentic corpus while a later date indicated that the letters were pseudepigraphic, this close connection no longer stands. To be sure, for those who opt for dates at the early and late ends of the range of possibilities, it remains possible to link date and authenticity. Yet this can no longer be assumed, and dates in the middle of the range are more complicated. Simply because one knows that a scholar dates Ignatius’s letters in the middle of the second century, this does not necessarily allow one to draw a safe conclusion about that scholar’s view on the letters’ authenticity. Similarly, if Bauer’s (2018) conclusions are followed and one sees evidence of editing across the Ignatian corpus, one may still allow for an authentic corpus that has been edited by a later redactor or argue for a pseudepigraphic corpus whose original author has compiled a coherent letter collection.

A key issue in moving this discussion forward will be a consideration of what evidence is best to consider when reflecting on the date and authenticity of Ignatius’s letters. Three pieces of evidence are particularly central to this discussion. To begin with, one must evaluate whether Eusebius’s date is trustworthy, or at least approximately right. A broader way of framing this issue would be to evaluate whether the combined voice of premodern church historians is accurate. In particular, John Malalas’s dating of Ignatius’s death keeps his death during the time of Trajan but stands independent of Eusebius by positing a date after the Antiochian earthquake of 113 ce (Chronicle 11.276) . If one regards Eusebius or John Malalas as providing reliable testimonies, the early and authentic date will likely appear right. If these testimonies cannot be trusted, Ignatius’s date becomes considerably harder to pinpoint with confidence.

The next piece of evidence to consider pertains to Polycarp’s Philippians. In particular, how does one evaluate the apparent discrepancy between Pol. Phil. 9.1 and 13.2. When Polycarp asks for more information about Ignatius and ‘those who are with him’ (qui cum eo sunt; Pol. Phil. 13.2), does Polycarp assume that Ignatius is alive by using the present tense copulative verb? If so, Polycarp seems to contradict what he said earlier in the letter when he alludes to Ignatius’s death in Pol. Phil. 9.1, and Pol. Phil. 13.2 may be understood as the work of the same forger who authored the pseudepigraphic Ignatian epistles (so, e.g., Joly 1979: 17-37; Hübner 1997: 48-50; Theobald 2016: 317-25). Or can Pol. Phil. 13.2 be understood with reference to a translator’s choice and a request on the part of Polycarp for additional information? If one observes that the Latin translator adds a copulative verb in Pol. Phil. inscr.; 3.2, 3; 9.1 where the Greek text records only a participle (Lightfoot 1889: 1.589), then it is possible that the translator has again added a copulative verb to a Greek participial clause in Pol. Phil. 13.2. This solution was proposed as far back as Pearson (1672: Pars prior, 71-73; see also Lightfoot 1889: 3.349; Bauer 1920: 298; Schoedel 1987; Brent 2006b: 315-18). If such a solution is followed, then Polycarp’s request for information about Ignatius may be seen as a request for more specific information without implying that he thinks that Ignatius is still alive. Polycarp’s letter may then be read without reference to an interpolator, and any decision about the Ignatian corpus remains unaffected by one’s interpretation of Polycarp’s epistle.

An additional piece of evidence is also worth noting, namely, Ignatius’s relation to the Second Sophistic rhetorical movement. While scholars have become increasingly cognizant of the importance of the Second Sophistic for studying second-century Christianity (e.g., Lechner 2011), Brent (esp. 2006b; 2007) and Lotz (2007) have argued specifically that a comparison between Ignatius, cultic inscriptions, numismatic evidence, and figures such as Dio Chrysostom and Aelius Aristides reveal that Ignatius’s letters fit the rhetorical environment of the Second Sophistic world during the first half of the second century. Lechner (2018) has recently countered the arguments of Brent (2006b) and argued that Ignatius’s letters cannot be placed so specifically within the second century on the grounds of similarities to Second Sophistic rhetoric alone. Wolfgang Wischmeyer (2014) has also studied Ignatius’s letters in the context of Second Sophistic, though with less attention to its implications for Ignatius’s date. In light of the breadth of the Second Sophistic movement and the length of time during which this movement was popular (from roughly the second half of the first century to the middle of the third century), it may prove increasingly difficult to use the Second Sophistic to date Ignatius precisely even if the arguments of Brent and Lotz prove hard to counter definitively.

This leads to a final consideration to be mentioned for future studies of the authenticity and date of the Ignatian letters, namely, what other evidence is helpful to consider? Since decisions about Eusebius, Polycarp, and the Second Sophistic have not proved unanimous, is there anything else that may be helpful?

Recent studies have sought to answer this question by narrowing the evidence that can be profitably considered when reflecting on Ignatius’s date. Verbal similarities between Ignatius’s letters and other early Christian texts have been tested in order to see whether Ignatius’s writings can be placed more securely. However, the answers have tended to highlight ways in which other evidence leaves open the date of Ignatius’s letters and may thus make the task of dating Ignatius’s letters securely even more difficult. For example, Hübner (1989; 1997: 53-59) highlights verbal similarities between Ignatius and Noetus in order to support his thesis that Ignatius’s letters must be dated to the second half of the second century. On the other hand, Edwards (1998: 217-22) and Vogt (1999: 54-58) find significant precedents for Ignatius’s language in first-century texts (e.g., Rom. 1.3-4). Similarly, one may wonder if the reference to personified αἰῶνες in Ign. Eph. 19.2 indicates that Ignatius’s letters should be dated to the second half of the second century (Lechner 1999: 267-70). Since allusions to aeons that behave in personified ways are most widely known with reference to some of Irenaeus’s opponents (e.g., Irenaeus, Haer. 1.1.1, 3; see also Hippolytus, Haer. 5.9.5; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.21.2), one may consider Ignatius to be working with similar opponents in view. In light of the fact that earlier texts can also refer to personified αἰῶνες (1 En. 1.9; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.5.13; Euripides, Heracl. 900), however, this evidence is unlikely to clarify when Ignatius’s letters should be dated (Lookadoo 2018b). At this point, it is difficult to see how verbal similarities are likely to advance the current debates in meaningful ways.

The same is true when it comes to comparing theological motifs and concepts in Ignatius’s letters with other second-century texts. Two recent essays in Bauer and Möllendorff (2018) demonstrate this difficulty clearly. Uta Heil (2018) explores Ignatius’s understanding of the Lord’s Day (κυριακή) in Magn. 9.1 and places Ignatius’s language in the context of other second-century discussions of Sunday. Yet her discussion does not allow one to settle on a particular date for Ignatius’s letters. Although Vinzent (2011: 213) has suggested that Ignatius’s language about the Lord’s Day accords with Marcion, Heil argues that one would expect more explicit focus on Marcion if Ignatius had Marcion in view (2018: 217; see similarly Paget 2012: 86-87). Her comparison of Ignatius to a variety of second-century texts is enlightening when considering developments in the second century, but the chapter simultaneously illustrates the difficulty that scholars encounter when attempting to date Ignatius’s letters precisely in the second century. Wilhelm Pratscher (2018) comes to a similar methodological conclusion by exploring the way in which Ignatius’s letters and the Preaching of Peter (Kerygma Petri) talk about God. There are similarities between the two texts, at least insofar as the Preaching of Peter can be reconstructed (Dobschütz 1893: 18-27; Cambe 2003: 1). However, there is no hint of literary dependence, and ‘nothing substantial’ (‘nichts Substantielles’) is to be found by comparing these two texts with a view to Ignatius’s date (Pratscher 2018: 245). Further methodological clarification is required in order to answer how best to understand the similarities between Ignatius’s language and texts from the first century, early second century, and late second century.

Conclusion

The ramifications of debates about when Ignatius’s letters were written and whether they were authentic are significant for Ignatian studies, New Testament studies, and the study of the Jesus movement in the second century. When one considers Ignatius’s letters authentic, there is good reason to read the letters individually as occasional compositions in much the same way that the Pauline epistles are read with regard for differences in Paul’s rhetoric and audiences (Isacson 2004; see also Sieben 1978; Cavellero 1997; Lookadoo 2018a: 22-24; Piepenbrink 2018). If the letters were written as a collection by a pseudepigraphic author, one may ask if one letter stands at the center of the collection. For example, Prostmeier (2018) argues that Ign. Rom. should be understood as the midpoint of the collection not only in terms of its placement (fourth out of seven letters) but also in terms of its rhetorical aims. On the other hand, Möllendorff (2018) understands the Ignatian letters to be authentic but to place Smyrna at the center of the epistolary geography that Ignatius constructs. These considerations become all the more complicated if one considers the Ignatian letters to be authentic letters that have been edited and placed into a collection, a possibility considered by Bauer (2018: 124-25). Considerations of the date of the Ignatian epistles may also affect how one dates New Testament writings. Raymond Brown (1997: 273-74) argues that Ignatius knows the Gospel of Luke (cf. Ign. Smyrn. 3.1-3; Lk. 24.36-43). Since Brown dates Ignatius early in the second century, he reasons that Luke must be dated to the last quarter of the first century. While this date for Luke’s Gospel may hold regardless of when one dates Ignatius’s letters, the way in which the argument can be made will need to be reconsidered if one dates the Ignatian epistles later in the second century. A more challenging question concerns Ignatius’s reception of documents now included in the New Testament (e.g., Nagel 2000: 207-51; Hill 2004: 421-43; Lieu 2010; Smith 2011; Bergamelli 2013; Kirk 2015: 74-87; Downs 2017; Maier 2017; Still 2017; Norelli 2018). Should Ignatius’s reception be placed alongside a document such as 1 Clement in the late-first or early-second century, or are Ignatius’s letters better read in dialogue with Justin in the middle of the second century? Alternatively, should one consider Ignatius’s reception of the New Testament with Theophilus and Irenaeus at the end of the second century? Finally, one’s dating of Ignatius’s letters will impact how one considers Ignatius’s letters to contribute to our knowledge of the second-century Jesus movement. The perennial questions about how to understand Ignatius’s insistent comments about ecclesial order as well as the way in which one evaluates his descriptions about his opponents will differ significantly depending on how one evaluates Ignatius’s date and authenticity (see further Marshall 2005; Myllykoski 2005; Verheyden et al. 2018). These differences become particularly clear if one places Ignatius at either end of the current dating range.

Although this article has made no attempt to wade deeply into Ignatius’s importance for other facets in the study of Christian origins, it has examined the history of the debate about the authenticity and date of his letters. Perhaps the most important thing to observe is that one’s decision about the date of the letters is not settled by one’s decision about the authenticity of the letters. While there are a multitude of differences in the ways in which one can argue for Ignatius’s date, three primary options have appeared over the past 20 years. One can view the letters as inauthentic compositions dated to the second half of the second century. Alternatively, one might also consider the letters to be authentic compositions dated to the first third of the second century. Finally, one might argue for an authentic group of letters that date to the second quarter of the second century. Key pieces of evidence include the trustworthiness of the Ignatian date given by Eusebius, the way in which the descriptions of Ignatius in Pol. Phil. 9.1; 13.2 relate to one another, and Ignatius’s place alongside the Second Sophistic. It remains to be seen whether other pieces of evidence can be used in a way that does anything other than support decisions that one has already made about Ignatius’s date.

While the question of when Ignatius’s letters should be dated and of whether the letters are authentically Ignatian remains open, it is important to note that the study of Ignatius’s letters can nevertheless proceed in valuable directions. Like Trevett’s (1992) study prior to Hübner’s (1997) theses, the essays in Bauer and Möllendorff (2018) illustrate this claim well. Although the implications drawn from each chapter may differ based on an author’s decision about the date and authenticity of the corpus, each of the essays in this volume contain insightful observations about the middle recension. Yet it is not only Ignatian studies that are affected by this debate about when the letters were written. In light of how near Ignatius’s letters may be chronologically to certain documents in the New Testament and how close the composition of Ignatius’s letters may have been geographically to cities that were also important for the first-century Jesus movement, scholars whose focus is primarily on the New Testament should nevertheless be aware of ongoing developments in the discussion of Ignatius’s letters. Regardless of where the Ignatian letters are dated and how their authenticity is evaluated, it remains the case that the world of Ignatius’s letters maintains important connections to thoughts and language found in documents that are now included in the New Testament.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

ABG Arbeiten zur Bibel und Geschichte

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

BibAC The Bible in Ancient Christianity

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CCSA Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum

ConBNT Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series

Diatr. Epictetus, Diatribai

EMS Early Modern Studies

Ep. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae

ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

ExpTim Expository Times

GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte

Haer. (Hippolytus) Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium

Haer. (Irenaeus) Irenaeus, Adversus haereses

Heracl. Euripides, Heraclidae

Hist. eccl. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

Ign. Eph. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians

Ign. Magn. Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians

Ign. Phld. Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians

Ign. Pol. Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp

Ign. Rom. Ignatius, Letter to the Romans

Ign. Smyrn. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

Ign. Trall. Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians

inscr. inscription

ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly

JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JRH Journal of Religious History

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies

MS Millenium-Studien

MTZ Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift

NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus

OrChrAn Orientalia Christiana Analecta

Pol. Phil. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians

PPSD Paul and Patristic Scholars in Debate

REAug Revue des études augustiniennes

RevScRel Revue des sciences religieuses

RSR Religious Studies Review

SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity

SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

StPatr Studia Patristica

TQ Theologische Quartalschrift

TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geshichte der altchristlichen Literatur

UALG Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte

VC Vigiliae Christianae

VCSup Vigiliae Christianae Supplements

WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZAC Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum

References

Barnes

T.D.

2008 ‘The Date of Ignatius’, ExpTim 120: 119-30.

Barnes

T.D.

2015 ‘Another Shall Gird Thee: Probative Evidence for the Death of Peter’, in Bond

H.K.

Hurtado

L.W.

(eds.), Peter in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 76-95.

Bauer

T.J.

2018 ‘Ignatios—alter Paulus? Die Präskripte und Postskripte der Ignatianen’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 93-129.

Bauer

T.J.

von Möllendorff

(eds.) 2018 Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien: Motive, Strategien, und Kontexte (MS, 72; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).

Bauer

1920 Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna (HNT, Ergänzungsband; Die apostolischen Väter, 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Bergamelli

2000 ‘Dal Padre al Padre: Il Padre come principio e termine del Cristo’, Salesianum 62: 421-31.

Bergamelli

2001 ‘Gesù Cristo Porta del Padre (Filadelfiesi 9,1): Il Cristo Mediatore e Rivelatore del Padre in Ignazio di Antiochia’, in Frigato

(ed.), ‘In Lui ci ha scelti’ (Ef. 1,4): Studi in onore del Prof. Giorgio Gozzelino (Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano) 33-43.

Bergamelli

2004 ‘“Fede di Gesù Cristo” nelle lettere di Ignazio di Antiochia’, Salesianum 66: 649-64.

Bergamelli

2013 ‘La figura dell’Apostolo Paolo nelle Ignazio di Antiochia’, StPatr 65: 49-61.

10.

Brennecke

H.C.

2018 ‘Die recension longior des Corpus Ignatianum’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 249-69.

11.

Brent

1992 ‘The Ignatian Epistles and the Threefold Ecclesiastical Order’, JRH 17: 18-32.

12.

Brent

1998 ‘Ignatius of Antioch and the Imperial Cult’, VC 52: 30-58.

13.

Brent

1999 The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian (VCSup, 45; Leiden: Brill).

14.

Brent

2005 ‘Ignatius and Polycarp: The Transformation of New Testament Traditions in the Context of Mystery Cults’, in Gregory Tuckett (eds.) 2015: 325-49.

15.

Brent

2006a ‘The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch’, JEH 57: 429-56.

16.

Brent

2006b Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: A Study of an Early Christian Transformation of Pagan Culture (STAC, 36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

17.

Brent

2006c ‘Ignatius’s Pagan Background in Second Century Asia Minor’, ZAC 10: 207-32.

18.

Brent

2007 Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London: T&T Clark Continuum).

19.

Brent

2016 ‘Ignatius of Antioch in Second Century, Asia Minor’, in Bingham

D.J.

Jefford

C.N.

(eds.), Intertextuality in the Second Century (BibAC, 11; Leiden: Brill) 62-86.

20.

Brown

R.E.

1997 An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York: Doubleday).

21.

Cambe

2003 Kerygma Petri: Textus et Commentarius (CCSA, 15; Turnhout: Brepols).

22.

Cavallero

1997 ‘La retórica en la Epístola a los romanos de San Ignacio de Antioquia’, Helmantica 48: 269-321.

23.

Cobb

L.S.

2017 ‘Neither “Pure Evangelical Manna” nor “Tainted Scraps”: Reflections on the Study of Pseudo-Ignatius’, in Still Wilhite (eds.) 2017: 181-202.

24.

Davies

S.L.

1976 ‘The Predicament of Ignatius of Antioch’, VC 30: 175-80.

25.

Decrept

. 2003 ‘L’arrière-plan liturgique et ecclésial des Actes d’Ignace’, REAug 49: 131-66.

26.

Decrept

. 2006 ‘La persécution oubliée des chrétiens d’Antioche sous Trajan et la martyre d’Ignace d’Antioche’, REAug 52: 1-29.

27.

Decrept

. 2008 ‘Circonstances et interpretations du voyage d’Ignace d’Antioche’, RevScRel 82: 389-99.

28.

Dehandschutter

1989 ‘L’authenticité des épîtres d’Ignace d’Antioche’, StPatr 18: 103-10.

29.

Dindorf

1881 Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia (Bonn: Weber).

30.

Dobschütz

E. von

1893 Das Kerygma Petri: Kritisch untersucht (TU, 11.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs).

31.

Downs

D.J.

2017 ‘The Pauline Concept of Union with Christ in Ignatius’, in Still Wilhite (eds.) 2017: 143-61.

32.

Edwards

M.J.

1998 ‘Ignatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Hübner’, ZAC 2: 214-26.

33.

Foster

2007 ‘The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch’, in Foster

(ed.), The Apostolic Fathers (London: T&T Clark) 81-107.

34.

Gebhardt

von de Harnack

Zahn

(eds.) 1876 Patrum apostolicorum opera: Ignatii et Polycarpi episulae, martyria, fragmenta (Leipzig: Hinrichs).

35.

Gilliam

P.R.

2017 Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (VCSup, 140; Leiden: Brill).

36.

Grant

R.M.

1966 Ignatius of Antioch (The Apostolic Fathers, 4; Camden, NJ: Thomas Nelson).

37.

Gregory

A.F.

Tuckett

C.M.

(eds.) 2005 Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

38.

Hammond Bammel

C.P

. 1982 ‘Ignatian Problems’, JTS 33: 62-97.

39.

Harland

P.A.

2003 ‘Christ-Bearers and Fellow-Initiates: Local Cultural Life and Christian Identity in Ignatius’ Letters’, JECS 11: 481-99.

40.

Hartog

2018 ‘A Multi-Faceted Jewel: English Episcopacy, Ignatian Authenticity, and the Rise of Critical Patristic Scholarship’, in Ransom

Gazal

Bastow

(eds.), Defending the Faith: John Jewel and the Elizabethan Church (EMS; University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press) 263-83.

41.

Heid

(ed.) 2011 Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (Freiburg: Herder).

42.

Heil

2018 ‘Ignatios von Antiochia und der Herrentag’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 201-27.

43.

Hill

C.E.

2004 The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

44.

Hübner

1989 ‘Die antignostische Glaubensregel des Noët von Smyrna: (Hippolyt, Refutatio IX,10,9-12 und X,27,1-2) bei Ignatius, Irenaeus und Tertullian’, MTZ 40: 279-311.

45.

Hübner

1997 ‘Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien’, ZAC 1: 44-72.

46.

Hübner

1999 Der Paradox Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert (VCSup, 50; Leiden: Brill).

47.

Hübner

2017 Kirche und Dogma im Werden: Aufsätze zur Geschichte und Theologie des frühen Christentums (STAC, 36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

48.

Isacson

2004 To Each Their Own Letter: Structure, Themes, and Rhetorical Strategies in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ConBNT, 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).

49.

Joly

1979 Le dossier d’Ignace d’Antioche (Université libre de Bruxelles: Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, 69; Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles).

50.

Karst

1911 Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischen Kommentar (GCS, 20; Leipzig: Hinrichs).

51.

Kirk

A.N.

2015 The Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered (WUNT, 2.406; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

52.

Lechner

1999 Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien (VCSup, 47; Leiden: Brill).

53.

Lechner

2011 ‘Very Sophisticated? Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in der Welt der Zweiten Sophistik’, Millennium 8: 51-86.

54.

Lechner

2018 ‘Ignatios von Antiochia und die Zweite Sophistik’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 19-69.

55.

Lieu

2010 ‘The Battle for Paul in the Second Century’, ITQ 75: 3-14.

56.

Lightfoot

J.B.

1889 The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp: Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations (3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 2nd edn).

57.

Lindemann

1997 ‘Antwort auf die “Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien”’, ZAC 1: 185-94.

58.

Lindemann

2002 Review of Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien, by T. Lechner, VCSup 47, Leiden: Brill, 1999. In ZAC 6: 157-61.

59.

Lindemann

2005 ‘Paul’s Influence on “Clement” and Ignatius’, in Gregory Tuckett (eds.) 2005: 9-24.

60.

Litwa

M.D.

2016 Refutation of All Heresies (WGRW, 40; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).

61.

Löhr

2009 ‘Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien’, in Pratscher

(ed.), Die Apostolischen Väter: Eine Einleitung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 104-29.

62.

Löhr

2010 ‘The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch’, in Pratscher

(ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (trans. Wolfe

E.G.

; Waco: Baylor University Press) 91-115.

63.

Lookadoo

2018a The High Priest and the Temple: Metaphorical Depictions of Jesus in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (WUNT, 2.473; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

64.

Lookadoo

2018b ‘A Note on the Use of Αἰών in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch’, ETL 94: 693-703.

65.

Lössl

2018 ‘Die Motive Reden, Schweigen und Hören als Mittel brieflicher Kommunikation’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 69-92.

66.

Lotz

J.-P.

2007 Ignatius and Concord: The Background and Use of the Language of Concord in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Patristic Studies, 8; New York: Peter Lang).

67.

Maier

H.O.

2005 ‘The Politics and Rhetoric of Discord and Concord in Paul and Ignatius’, in Gregory Tuckett (eds.) 2005: 307-24.

68.

Maier

H.O.

2017 ‘Paul, Ignatius and Thirdspace: A Socio-Geographic Exploration’, in Still Wilhite (eds.) 2017: 162-80.

69.

Marshall

J.W.

2005 ‘The Objects of Ignatius’ Wrath and Jewish Angelic Mediators’, JEH 56: 1-23.

70.

Möllendorff

P. von

2018 ‘Sonne über Smyrna: Überlegungen zur Konstruktion von Kirche und Raum in den Briefen des Ignatios von Antiochia’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 153-67.

71.

Munier

1992 ‘Où en est la question d’Ignace d’Antioche? Bilan d’un siècle de recherches 1870–1988’, in Haase

(ed.), ANRW 27.1, Part 2, Principat (New York: W. de Gruyter) 359-484.

72.

Myllykoski

2005 Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs: The Riddle of the Heretics in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, in Ådna

(ed.), The Formation of the Early Church (WUNT, 183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 341-77.

73.

Nagel

2000 Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur (ABG, 2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).

74.

Norelli

2018 ‘La tradition paulinienne dans les lettres d’Ignace’, in Schröter

Butticaz

Dettwiler

(eds.), Receptions of Paul in Early Christianity : The Person of Paul and His Writings through the Eyes of His Early Interpreters (BZNW, 234; Berlin: W. de Gruyter) 519-52.

75.

Paget

J.C.

2012 ‘Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book’, JTS 35: 74-102.

76.

Parvus

2008 A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Other Apellean Writings (Bloomington: iUniverse).

77.

Paulsen

1985 Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna (HNT, 18; Die apostolischen Väter, 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

78.

Pearson

Johannes

1672 Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii (Cambridge: John Hayes).

79.

Piepenbrink

2018 ‘Zur Perzeption des kirchlichen Amtes durch einen “Märtyrerbischof”: Die Perspektive des Ignatios und ihre historische Kontextualisierung’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 131-52.

80.

Pratscher

2018 ‘Die Rede von Gott im Kerygma Petri und in den Ignatiusbriefen’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 229-47.

81.

Prostmeier

2002 ‘Ignatius von Antiochien’, in Döpp

(ed.), Lexicon der antiken christlichen Literatur (Freiburg: Herder, 3rd edn) 346-48.

82.

Prostmeier

2018 ‘Cui bono’, in Bauer Möllendorff (eds.) 2018: 169-99.

83.

Rius-Camps

1980 The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, the Martyr (OrChrAn, 213; Rome: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum).

84.

Saddington

D.B.

1987 ‘St. Ignatius, Leopards, and the Roman Army’, JTS 38: 411-12.

85.

Schmithals

2009 ‘Zu Ignatius von Antiochien’, ZAC 13: 181-203.

86.

Schnelle

2015 Die ersten 100 Jahre des Christentums: 30–130 n. Chr. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

87.

Schoedel

W.R.

1980 ‘Are the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch Authentic?’ RSR 6: 196-201.

88.

Schoedel

W.R.

1985 Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress).

89.

Schoedel

W.R.

1987 ‘Polycarp’s Witness to Ignatius of Antioch’, VC 41: 1-10.

90.

Schoedel

W.R.

1992 ‘Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch’, in Haase

(ed.), ANRW 27.1, Part 2, Principat (New York: W. de Gruyter) 272-358.

91.

Schöllgen

1998 ‘Die Ignatianen als pseudepigraphisches Briefcorpus: Anmerkung zu den Thesen von Reinhard M. Hübner’, ZAC 2: 16-25.

92.

Sieben

H.J.

1978 ‘Die Ignatianen als Briefe: Einige formkritische Bemerkungen’, VC 32: 1-18.

93.

Smith

C.B.

2011 ‘Ministry, Martyrdom, and Other Mysteries: Pauline Influences on Ignatius of Antioch’, in Bird

M.F.

Dodson

J.R.

(eds.), Paul and the Second Century (LNTS, 412; London: T&T Clark International) 37-56.

94.

Smith

J.D.

2006 ‘On Pseudo-Ignatius’ Fourth-Century Antiochene Assertion of Episcopal Supremacy’, StPatr 42: 231-36.

95.

Stewart

2013 Ignatius of Antioch (Popular Patristics Series, 49; Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press).

96.

Stewart

2014 The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic).

97.

Stewart

2018 ‘Ignatius’ “Docetists”: A Survey of Opinion and Some Modest Suggestions’, in Verheyden

Bieringer

Schröter

Jäger

(eds.), Docetism in the Early Church: The Quest for an Elusive Phenomenon (WUNT, 402; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 143-73.

98.

Still

T.D.

2017 ‘Ignatius and Paul on Suffering and Death: A Short, Comparative Study’, in Still Wilhite (eds.) 2017: 136-42.

99.

Still

T.D.

Wilhite

D.E.

(eds.) 2017 The Apostolic Fathers and Paul (PPSD, 2; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark).

100.

Theobald

2016 Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe (SBS, 229; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk).

101.

Trebilco

P.R.

2004 The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT, 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

102.

Trebilco

P.R.

2006 ‘Christian Communities in Western Asia Minor into the Early Second Century: Ignatius and Others as Witnesses against Bauer’, JETS 49: 17-44.

103.

Trebilco

P.R.

2013 ‘Studying “Fractionation” in Earliest Christianity in Rome and Ephesus’, in Breytenbach

Cilliers

Frey

Jörg

(eds.), Reflections on the Early Christian History of Religion: Erwägungen zur frühchristlichen Religionsgeschichte (AJEC, 81; Leiden: Brill) 293-333.

104.

Trevett

1992 A Study of Ignatius of Antioch in Syria and Asia (SBEC, 29; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen).

105.

Turmel

Delafosse

1927 Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche (Paris: Rieder).

106.

Vall

2013 Learning Christ: Ignatius of Antioch and the Mystery of Redemption (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press).

107.

Verheyden

Bieringer

Schröter

Jäger

(eds.) 2018 Docetism in the Early Church: The Quest for an Elusive Phenomenon (WUNT, 402; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

108.

Vinzent

1999 ‘“Ich bin kein körperloses Geistwesen”: Zum Verhältnis von κήρυγμα Πέτρου, “Doctrina Petri”, διδασκαλία Πέτρου und IgnSm 3’, in Hübner

(ed.), Der Paradox Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert (VCSup, 50; Leiden: Brill) 241-86.

109.

Vinzent

2002 ‘Der Schluß des Lukasevangeliums bei Marcion’, in May

Greschat

(eds.), Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung: Marcion and His Impact on Church History (TU, 150; Berlin: W. de Gruyter) 79-94.

110.

Vinzent

2011 Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Farnham: Ashgate).

111.

Vogt

H.J.

1999 ‘Bemerkungen zur Echtheit der Ignatiusbriefe’, ZAC 3: 50-63.

112.

Vogt

H.J.

2000 ‘Vertreten die Ignatius-Briefe Patripassianismus?’ TQ 180: 237-51.

113.

Vogt

H.J.

2001 ‘Sind die Ignatius-Briefe antimarkionitisch beeinflusst?’ TQ 181: 1-19.

114.

Vogt

H.J.

2002 ‘Noet von Smyrna und Heraklit: Bemerkungen zur Darstellung ihrer Lehren durch Hippolyt’, ZAC 6: 59-80.

115.

Weijenborg

1969 Les lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche: Étude de critique littéraire et de théologie (Leiden: Brill).

116.

Wischmeyer

2014 ‘Die Briefe des Ignatios von Antiochia und die zweite Sophistik’, in Lang

(ed.), Ein neues Geschlecht? Entwicklung des frühchristlichen Selbstbewusstseins (NTOA, 105; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 170-78.

117.

Zahn

1873 Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Perthes).

118.

Zwierlein

2010 Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage (UALG, 96; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2nd edn).

119.

Zwierlein

2011 ‘Petrus in Rom? Die literarischen Zeugnisse’, in Heid

(ed.), Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (Freiburg: Herder) 444-67.

120.

Zwierlein

2013 Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom: Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten (UALG, 109; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).

121.

Zwierlein

2014 Die Urfassungen der Martyria Polycarpi et Pionii und das Corpus Polycarpianum (2 vols.; UALG, 116; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).