Few documents from the apostolic fathers have provoked as much scholarly fervor as the Ignatian Epistles. Their importance is twofold: they represent a key pillar in the debate over episcopal authority, and they exist in numerous conflicting versions. These variant forms—Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Armenian—suggest not only a common historical nucleus but also raise pressing questions about editorial integrity and the evolution of early Christian doctrine. Renan, with characteristic flair, dubbed the Ignatian problem the most complex in early Christian literature after the Johannine question.
1. The Larger Greek Recension
Fifteen epistles once circulated under the name of Ignatius, though only seven would ultimately be vindicated. Four were first published in Latin in Paris (1495); eleven more by Faber Stapulensis (1498); and later, twelve in Greek by Valentine Hartung (1557) and again by Andreas Gesner in Zurich (1560). Early Catholic scholars, including Baronius and Bellarmine, defended the majority as authentic. However, Protestant reformers such as Calvin and the Magdeburg Centuriators dismissed the entire corpus as spurious. By the seventeenth century, even Roman Catholic scholars began to abandon the more egregious forgeries—such as two Latin letters to St. John, one to the Virgin Mary (with an alleged reply), and five fantastical Greek letters to individuals and communities including Maria Castabolita, the Tarsians, and the Philippians.
These pseudonymous letters bristle with historical and chronological absurdities. Entirely unknown to Eusebius and Jerome, they represent a grotesque distortion of the real Ignatius, whose memory was eclipsed by these fictions for over a millennium. Their longevity is a sobering testimony to the necessity of historical criticism in preserving the integrity of the church’s heritage.
2. The Shorter Greek Recension
The seven epistles recognized by Eusebius were rediscovered in a more sober and plausible form. A Latin translation appeared in 1644 through Archbishop Ussher, followed by Isaac Vossius’s Greek edition from a Medicean Codex (1646), and Th. Ruinart’s text from the Codex Colbertinus in 1689. Cureton later uncovered fragments of a Syriac version, and Petermann examined an Armenian version likely derived from the Syriac.
The longer recension soon lost all serious defenders—save eccentrics like Whiston (1711) and F. C. Meier (1836). Scholars such as R. Rothe and K. F. L. Arndt refuted these remnants decisively. Even Roman Catholics, including Petavius, Cotelier, Dupin, Hefele, and Funk, acknowledged the authenticity of the shorter recension, albeit with varying degrees of certainty. Nevertheless, three interpretative camps emerged:
(a) Advocates of Genuineness and Integrity
Leading this group were Pearson (1672), Gieseler, Möhler, Rothe, Huther, Düsterdieck, Dorner, Jacobson, Hefele, Denzinger, Petermann, Wordsworth, Churton, Uhlhorn, Zahn, Wieseler, Funk, Canon Travers Smith, and Lightfoot. Their conviction rested on internal coherence, early patristic testimony, and rigorous philological analysis.
(b) Moderates Suspecting Interpolation
This view held by Lardner, Mosheim, Neander, Thiersch, Lechler, Robertson, and Donaldson, suggests that only those letters corresponding to the Syriac three were genuine, and the others likely interpolated.
(c) Radicals Rejecting All Recensions
Among Calvinist polemicists (Salmasius, Blondel, Dallaeus, Basnage, Killen) and the Tübingen school (Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld), the epistles were viewed as second-century fabrications designed to bolster episcopacy and anti-Gnostic orthodoxy. These critics argue that the elaborate journey to Rome and ecclesiastical polemics reflect a later context alien to the early second century. Renan accepted only the Epistle to the Romans, praising its elevated martyr-spirit, while dismissing the rest as partisan works.
(d) A Qualified Affirmation of Authenticity
Admittedly, the seven shorter epistles are not immune to suspicion. Their transmission alongside demonstrably spurious works—especially in the Armenian version with thirteen epistles—casts a shadow on their textual integrity. Still, several compelling arguments uphold their essential authenticity:
- (1) Affirmation by early fathers, notably Eusebius and Polycarp.
- (2) A vibrant literary character difficult to fabricate.
- (3) Minimal New Testament quotations, suggesting early origin.
- (4) Combatting early Judaizing Gnosticism consistent with second-century context.
- (5) Theological reticence—bold Christological affirmations, yet doctrinal simplicity.
- (6) Emphasis on episcopacy as local and embryonic, not yet diocesan.
- (7) Complete silence on Roman primacy, even in the epistle to Rome.
These internal and external indicators suggest that the Ignatian epistles, though possibly interpolated, reflect the ecclesial climate of the early second century and the growing synthesis of martyrdom, episcopacy, and orthodoxy.
3. The Syriac Version
The Syriac version contains only three epistles—to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans—in markedly reduced form, less than half the length of their Greek counterparts. It concludes with the subscription: “Here end the three epistles of the bishop and martyr Ignatius,” which Bunsen overemphasizes. Even if the statement originates from the translator and not a later scribe, it does not preclude the existence of other letters.
These manuscripts were discovered by Rev. Henry Tattam in 1839 and 1843 in a Libyan monastery, along with 365 other Syriac texts. Cureton published them in 1845 and again in 1849, supplemented by a third manuscript (1847). Proponents included Lee, Bunsen, Ritschl, Weiss, Lipsius, de Pressené, Böhringer, and initially Lightfoot.
Although the Syriac texts offer a cleaner, more restrained version of Ignatius—free from the excesses of hierarchical dogma and mystical excess—they cannot stand against the historical and textual weight of the Greek corpus. Eusebius knew seven epistles; the Syriac manuscripts are at least four centuries removed from the author’s era. Moreover, the Syriac texts often lack logical sequence and coherence, betraying their nature as abridged extracts rather than original compositions. Baur, Hilgenfeld, Uhlhorn, and Zahn demonstrated these deficiencies with irrefutable clarity.
Even former supporters, such as Lipsius and Lightfoot, have revised their views. Lightfoot’s magisterial 1885 edition of Ignatius and Polycarp settles the matter definitively in favor of the seven shorter Greek epistles, which alone bear the imprint of authenticity and the voice of the historical Ignatius.
Final Judgment
As the dust of centuries settles, only one Ignatius remains—the man of the seven short Greek epistles. These letters, forged not in fiction but in the crucible of martyrdom, stand as monuments to a fervent spirit whose voice still echoes through the corridors of the Church’s early memory.
