The Apostolic Fathers From International Standard Bible literature.” Only on the basis of tradition, Encyclopedia remembering the subsequent influence which the “Apostolic Fathers” have had on the Any attempt to classify the Christian literature Christian Church, can such a procedure be of the second and early third centuries under justified. These documents have functioned as a distinct headings is bound to be somewhat kind of secondary “canon” for centuries, and as arbitrary. The original editors of ISBE included such are entitled to separate treatment. The in “Subapostolic Literature” the writings more only misconception to be avoided is that they commonly known as the “Apostolic Fathers” offer anything like a complete picture of the era (except for the Martyrdom of Polycarp) plus the immediately following the death of the last fragments of Papias, and two of the early apostles. apologists, Aristides and Justin Martyr. These were the documents believed to have been With these considerations in mind, this article written before A.D. 156, the date of the death of will confine itself to the works included in the Polycarp who was, according to Irenaeus, a series The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation disciple of the apostle John and therefore and Commentary, ed Robert M. Grant (1964). presumably the last surviving disciple of an apostle. Excluded from the list (even if they fell I. First Clement within the stipulated dates) were writings This epistle is the earliest and best known of falsely attributed to apostles (i.e., the NT the so-called “Apostolic Fathers.” It is extant in Apocrypha) and writings which by later two Greek MSS: the fifth-century biblical Codex standards were judged to be “heretical” (e.g., Alexandrinus, where it stands at the end of the the fragments of the Gnostics Basilides and NT, and the Constantinople MS written in 1056 Valentinus). and rediscovered by Philotheos Bryennios in Such a method of classification exhibits many 1873, containing both 1 and 2 Clement, as well arbitrary features and creates a number of as Barnabas, Didache, and a long recension of problems. For example, there is now wide the letters of Ignatius. In addition there are agreement that the so-called Epistle to Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions of 1 Clement, Diognetus belongs not to this early period but as well as extensive quotations by Clement of to the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the Alexandria. 3rd century. Moreover, the thirteen papyrus The salutation of this letter designates it as an codices discovered in 1945 near NAG HAMMADI epistle from the church at Rome to the church on the banks of the Nile in Upper Egypt, have at Corinth. No author is mentioned by name, enriched and virtually revolutionized our but tradition uniformly identifies the author as picture of this “subapostolic age.” Although they Clement. As early as A.D. 170 Dionysius bishop may generally be described as Gnostic, some of of Corinth wrote to Soter bishop of Rome in them, such as the Valentinian Gospel of Truth answer to a letter received from Rome by the and Epistle to Rheginos, stand almost as close Corinthian church: “Today we observed the to “orthodoxy” (depending on how that term is holy day of the Lord, and read out your letter, defined) as parts of the Apostolic Fathers and which we shall continue to read from time to the Apologists. The “subapostolic age” was in time for our admonition, as we do with that any case a period in which the bounds of which was formerly sent to us through orthodoxy and heresy had not yet been firmly Clement” (EusebiusHE iv.23.11). Clement of established. All sides on virtually every Alexandria quotes this letter frequently, question seem to have claimed support for their referring to it both as “the letter of the Romans views in some kind of apostolic tradition. It is to the Corinthians” (Misc v.80.1) and as the historically misleading to abstract one group of letter of “Clement” (i.38.5), or even “the apostle early second-century writings, no matter how Clement” (iv. 105.1). diverse a group it may be, from the rest and distinguish it with the title of “subapostolic Apostolic Fathers 2 This Clement of Rome is probably to be what these troubles were, but possibly the identified with the Clement whom Eusebius reference is to provocations against Christians mentions as the third bishop of Rome after late in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (A.D. Peter (HE iii.4.9; iii.15.1f). Eusebius’ 81–96). The threat in Corinth, however, was assumption that the Roman church at this early from within, an “abominable and unholy period was ruled by a single bishop is in all schism” (1:1) in which there had been a likelihood an anachronism, even though it was rebellion against those in authority in the believed already by Irenaeus near the end of church (3:1–4). The description becomes more the 2nd cent (Adv. haer. iii.3). Much earlier, explicit later on when the author states that “in when Ignatius wrote his letter to the Roman spite of their good service you have removed church, the monarchical bishop is some from the ministry which they fulfilled conspicuously absent, while 1 Clement itself blamelessly” (44:6). He contrasts the present speaks consistently in terms of a body of sedition with an idealized past when presbyters rather than a single ruling bishop. Corinthians were obedient to their leaders and Clement was therefore most likely one of the wholly at peace among themselves (1:2–2:8). chief presbyters in the Roman church near the The reader of the NT will think that the end of the 1st cent and wrote his epistle on divisions Paul faced at Corinth have been behalf of the congregation (cf. EusebiusHE overlooked, but Clement later qualifies this iii.38.1). In the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis 2:4:3) simplistic picture by admitting that when “the a Clement is mentioned whose duty it was, blessed Paul the Apostle” wrote his epistle, presumably in the church of Rome, to send “even then you had made yourselves partisans” messages to other cities, and it is possible that (47:3). But in those days they had at least the same individual is in view. aligned themselves with apostles (cf. 1 Cor. Two other identifications are more speculative: 1:12), “men of high reputation,” while now they the ancient one of Origen and Eusebius that this had overturned all authority, so that “on Clement is also Paul’s co-worker mentioned in account of one or two persons the old and well- Phil. 4:3, and the modern one that he is the established church of the Corinthians is in same as, or belonged to the household of, the revolt against the presbyters” (47:6). consul Titus Flavius Clemens who was put to The central section of 1 Clement (4:1–36:6) death about A.D. 95 for disloyalty to the gods draws on many sources for examples to combat and pro-Jewish tendencies (Dio Cassius Hist the rebellion. Jealousy and envy have brought lxvii. 14). These are no more than guesses. about all kinds of evil in the past, not only in the Essentially 1 Clement is not the product of an OT (4:1–13) but in “our own generation” in the identifiable “great personality,” but a letter trials which confronted Peter and Paul and the from one important church to another in other martyrs (5:1–6:4). But God has always response to a particular crisis. given repentance to those who will turn to Him, The situation in the Corinthian church is and according to the “venerable rule of our sketched in the first three chapters. Chs. 4–36 tradition” (7:2) has made this repentance consist of a general discourse on the Christian available to all through Jesus Christ (7:1–8:5). virtues (with the Corinthian problem in view). Thus Clement anticipates the outright appeal for repentance which he will make in ch 57. He Chs. 37–61 bring the argument to bear on the immediate crisis. Chs. 62–65 function as a similarly extols the virtues of obedience, summary and final exhortation from the Roman faithfulness, and hospitality as exemplified in church. such OT figures as Abraham, Lot, and Rahab (9:1–12:8). These were evidently the qualities The author begins by apologizing for the he felt to be conspicuously lacking in the rebels congregation’s delay in addressing itself to the at Corinth. The frequent mention of hospitality predicament of its sister church. He refers in particular suggests that antagonism had been vaguely to “misfortunes and calamities” in directed not only toward the Corinthian Rome which have hindered this ministry of presbyters, but perhaps toward emissaries exhortation (1:1). We have no way of knowing from other churches as well, possibly to Apostolic Fathers 3 messengers from Rome (cf. 63:3; 65:1). What is 1 Clement has considerable historical needed above all else is humility, and Clement importance as a witness to the authority speaks of many who exemplified this virtue exercised by the church of Rome over a sister (13:1–19:1), preeminently Christ Himself church near the end of the 1st century. Such (16:1–17) and David (18:1–16). authority is not surprising in view of the city of The keynote of the next subsection is peace and Rome’s relation to Corinth as a Roman colony, harmony, which Clement illustrates from the and in any case it should not be forgotten that natural creation (19:2–20:12). He reinforces his two decades later Ignatius bishop of Antioch appeal to the Corinthians by pointing to the does not hesitate to instruct the churches of reality of divine judgment and the hope of Asia Minor. There is therefore no reason to resurrection (21:1–28:4). Creation and assume that the authority reflected in 1 redemption are inextricably bound together as Clement belonged to the Roman church in any the basis on which he presses home his exclusive way. argument. To support the idea of a future II. Second Clement resurrection he can appeal without much distinction to Scripture, to the raising of Jesus The designation of Clement’s epistle as “first” is Christ, to the regularity of nature, and even to really a misnomer, for there is no authentic the strange legend of the phoenix bird who “second” letter from him to any church. The renews himself every fifty years (25:1–5), a document known in tradition as 2 Clement is legend which is paralleled in several of the not an epistle but an anonymous sermon of pagan “natural histories.” Clement brings to a uncertain date. Doubt was expressed about its close his general discourse on the Christian life authenticity as early as Eusebius (HE iii.38.4). It with an emphasis on holiness as the way to the generally circulated with 1 Clement in the later blessedness that comes from God (29:1–36:6). Church, and is extant in the same two Greek Here his argument is heavily laced with manuscripts and Syriac version as the other Scripture citations, not only from the OT but writing, though it is not found in the Latin or from the NT as well (esp in ch 36, the Epistle to Coptic versions. Codex Alexandrinus breaks off the Hebrews). The words of 36:6, “Who then after ch 12 so that the complete Greek text was are the enemies?” anticipate the last main unknown until the Bryennios discovery of the section of 1 Clement, which turns once more to Constantinople manuscript in 1873. This find the Corinthian situation. made it clear that the document was indeed a Clement adopts military imagery as the sermon, for a specific occasion of public framework for his solution to the problem worship is presupposed. The hearers are afflicting the church. He reiterates the divinely exhorted to “pay attention” both “now” and established order which must govern all things “when we have gone home,” and to “try to come (37:1–43:6) and simultaneously pleads with here more frequently” (17:3; cf. 19:1). and warns those who he feels have violated this The traditional association with 1 Clement order (44:1–48:6). After a short excursus on suggests that it was written in Rome, though its love (49:1–50:7) he renews his appeal for non-epistolary character weakens Harnack’s repentance (51:1–59:2), closing with a long theory that it is the lost letter of Bishop Soter to liturgical prayer for harmony (59:3–61:3) and a the Corinthian church. Certain similarities with summary of his argument (62:1–65:2). The the Shepherd of Hermas (e.g., 2Clem 8:6) tend epistle is carried from Rome to Corinth by to confirm Roman origin. The use of material “faithful and prudent men, who have lived otherwise more familiar to us in Gnostic among us without blame from youth to old age, writings suggests that 2 Clement comes from a and they shall be witnesses between you and time and place in which orthodox and Gnostic us” (63:3). These three messengers are named alike drew on a common stock of traditions. In in 65:1 with the request that they be allowed 12:2–6 the author takes a saying now known to quickly to return to Rome, hopefully with news us from the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas of reconciliation. Logion 22 and (with no trace of polemic) Apostolic Fathers 4 attaches to it a wholly orthodox interpretation III. Barnabas (much as the Gnostics took apostolic traditions and without hesitation interpreted them in Once again the title (the Epistle of Barnabas) is Gnostic fashion). R. M. Grant feels that such a a misnomer. Though Clement of Alexandria practice points to the time around A.D. 140 (e.g., Misc. ii.31.2) and Origen (Contra Celsum when such Gnostic teachers as Marcion and i.63) attributed it to Barnabas the companion of Valentinus were active in Rome without being Paul, it is an anonymous work, and Eusebius immediately rejected as heretics. This is classed it among the “spurious” (HE iii.25.4) or possible, though there is every likelihood that at least “disputed” (vi.13.6; 14.1) books this kind of fluidity between “orthodox” and circulating in the ancient Church. Yet its “Gnostic” traditions existed in many times and inclusion in the fourth-century Greek places in the 2nd century. manuscript of the Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, testifies to the great esteem and near-canonical This ancient Christian sermon begins with a status it enjoyed in some sectors of the Church. reflection on the salvation which God has In addition it is contained in the Constantinople granted to the gentile hearers (1:1–4:5). They manuscript (see above under First Clement), must not take lightly either the salvation itself and in a family of nine Greek manuscripts in or Jesus Christ through whom it has come. He which Barn 5:7ff is abruptly joined to must be acknowledged as Lord, along with God Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians (after 9:2) the Father, not only with words but with deeds without a break of any kind. There is also a as well. The preacher appeals to Isa. 54:1 and to Latin version, in somewhat abridged form, of certain sayings of Jesus (cf. Mk. 2:17; Lk. 19:10) the first seventeen chapters of Barnabas, as to make his point that those who were lost are well as a few Syriac fragments and a number of now saved (2:1–7). It is perhaps significant for quotations by Clement of Alexandria. an understanding of authority in the second- century Church that the author appeals to The date of this work cannot be established Scripture and tradition, and to the OT and “the with any certainty. A statement in 16:4 Gospel” (8:5; cf. 2:4) in much the same way. He indicates that the Jerusalem temple is in ruins, confronts his hearers with the choice between thus supporting a date between A.D. 70 and 135, this world and the world to come (5:1–7:6) and but attempts to be more specific are only calls them to repentance (8:1–20:5). This conjectures. The reference in 4:4 to the ten repentance is defined as “self-control” (15:1) or kingdoms of Dnl. 7:24 is simply traditional “keeping the flesh pure” (8:6). This demand is apocalyptic language and should probably not grounded in the complicated argument that to be made the basis for any conclusions about Christ (and with Him the Church) was originally the epistle’s date. “spirit” but became “flesh,” and that in the Though it cannot be proved that Barnabas the resurrection the flesh will rise again as it companion of Paul did not write this book, “receives the Spirit” (9:1–5; 14:1–5). More neither the range of possible dates nor the broadly and simply, the demand is grounded in nature of the document itself makes the the fear of judgment and hope of the kingdom tradition that he did very plausible. The author of God (10:1–12:6; 16:1–3; 17:4–7). Again and is apparently writing to Gentiles who have been again the preacher renews his call to saved out of darkness and idolatry (14:5–8; repentance (8:1f; 13:1; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1), urging 16:7), and he claims to write as one of their that if they repent, his hearers will save both own (1:8; 4:6). The most obvious affinities of themselves and him their counsellor (15:1; cf. Barnabas are with Alexandrian Christianity, as 19:1). Like the ancient prophets, he sees his evidenced on the one side by similarities in its own fate intertwined with those to whom he OT exegesis with Philo, and on the other by the ministers. acquaintance with Barnabas shown by Clement and Origen. Barnabas is more likely the work of a gentile Christian of Alexandria in the early 2nd cent than of the Jewish Christian from Cyprus mentioned in the book of Acts. Apostolic Fathers 5 The introduction (1:1–2:3) is rather general The heart of the Epistle of Barnabas is the and gives only a slight indication of what is to contrast between the old covenant and the new, follow. The author presents himself as one with the assertion that God’s true covenant whose task it is to impart perfect knowledge to belongs not to the Jews but to the Christians his readers (1:5), not as a teacher (which he (13:1–14:9). Correspondingly the ancient apparently is), but as a father to the children he sabbath has given way to the Christian “eighth loves. This knowledge has to do with the past, day,” or Sunday, in which Jesus rose from the the present, and the future (1:7; cf. 5:3). The dead (15:1–9), just as the physical temple in knowledge about the future turns out to be Jerusalem has been replaced by the spiritual conventional eschatological teaching (e.g., ch temple, the Christian community where God 4); the knowledge of past and present, which has made his dwelling (16:1–10). Chapter 17 comprises most of the epistle, turns out to be a reads like a conclusion; though there is more he series of allegorical interpretations of the OT. could write about present and future (cf. 1:7; In the ancient prophetic tradition, the author 5:3), it is “hidden in parables” and he judges makes it clear that God does not desire that what he has said is sufficient (17:2). ceremonial fasts and sacrifices, but justice and There is thus a definite break at the end of ch mercy (2:4–3:6). The readers are called on to 17 and in fact the Latin version ends at this be ready for the eschatological crisis and not to point. But the Greek manuscripts make a new be lured into the false security that deceived beginning with the words, “But let us move on the Jews under the old covenant (4:1–14). He to other knowledge and teaching” (18:1). This underscores the greatness of the Christian begins the famous “Two Ways” section of calling by a discussion of the work of Christ, Barnabas (18:1–21:9), which is paralleled in who suffered to prepare a new people and to Did 1:1–6:2. The way of light (ch 19) is under bring to completion the sins of the old Israel. He the rule of God through his angels, while the illustrates many aspects of Jesus’ career by way of darkness (ch 20) belongs to the angels quotations and allegorical interpretations of OT of Satan (18:1f). This “Two Ways” teaching is by passages (5:1–8:7). Especially elaborate is his no means profound or “hidden in parables,” but exegesis of Gen. 1:26, 28 and Ex. 33:1, 3 (6:8– sounds more like elementary instruction for 19), of the ritual of the Day of Atonement (7:3– new converts (which is exactly how it functions 11) and of the red heifer ritual of Nu. 19:1–10 in the Didache). Older commentators argued for (8:1–7). Then he offers “spiritual” literary dependence of Barnabas on the interpretations of such Jewish institutions as Didache or of the Didache on Barnabas, but the circumcision and the various Mosaic food laws more recent tendency has been to favor the (9:1–10:12). His procedure is to reinterpret dependence of both on a common primitive ceremonial rules as moral and ethical source. There are, for example, close parallels exhortations. Even though he employs these between the “Two Ways” tradition and the interpretative principles in the framework of a Qumrân Manual of Discipline (1QS 3:18ff). It is polemic against the Judaism of his day, the surprising to find in such an anti-Jewish author of Barnabas had ample precedent for his document as Barnabas a section like this in sometimes fanciful exegesis within Judaism which there is little or nothing that is itself (notably Philo and the Letter of Aristeas). distinctively Christian, but in which all that is Turning his attention to what is distinctly said can function appropriately in either a Christian, “Barnabas” finds many subtle Christian or a Jewish setting. The most intimations in the OT of the water of baptism, plausible explanation is that Barnabas comes the wood and the shape of the cross, and even from a gentile Christian community in which the name and person of Jesus Himself (11:1– the basic instruction given to new converts 12:11). Here Barnabas exhibits several of the from idolatry and paganism necessarily focused same interpretative traditions which show up as much on general moral principles and things in more detail in the writings of Justin Martyr. which Christianity inherited from Judaism as it did on the distinctively new Christian message of the cross. New converts needed to be taught Apostolic Fathers 6 to love each other and give alms, and to shun the Apostolic Fathers was enlarged by one. It idolatry, murder, lies, and witchcraft. Nothing then became possible to go back and see that could be assumed. There is some evidence that the Didache in Greek was actually to be found “Barnabas” is at times alluding to this moral (in a somewhat revised form) in book vii of the catechism even in the earlier parts of his epistle fourth-century Egyptian Apostolic (e.g., 1:4; 2:9; 4:1, 10; 5:4), and chs 18–21 give Constitutions. In addition there are fragments the impression that the author (or someone in Greek (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1782), Coptic, else) has simply appended the full text of his and Ethiopic, and a complete Georgian version. source for the sake of completeness. Certainly For the “Two Ways” section there is (besides the Latin tradition witnesses to the fact that the witness of Barn 18–20) a Latin version (the Barnabas circulated without this material as Doctrina) the fourth-century Apostolic Church well as with it. But in any case the author or Order, and three other manuals of the 4th cent final editor has attached a summary which or later. There is no way of being sure that the draws together chs 1–17 and 18–20 and serves Constantinople MS represents the “original” as the conclusion to both (ch 21). The very first Didache nor even what the term “original” verse of this concluding statement makes it exactly means in such a context. We are not clear that “Barnabas” has made use of the dealing here simply with textual variants as we primitive “Two Ways” material in written form do when studying the NT, but with a developing (21:1). Like the NT writers, the author knows tradition, and our various witnesses to the that his readers are never too mature to be Didache merely afford us glimpses of this reminded of what they have been taught at tradition at various stages. Total agreement is conversion. seldom possible as to which forms are primitive and which are later adaptations. Therefore it is IV. Didache difficult to speak about dates, but the compilation of purportedly apostolic material The longer title of this work, “The Teaching of under the name of the apostles as a group the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the indicates that the apostles are already figures of Gentitles,” gives a clue to its nature. It seems to the past. This together with the apparent use of be a work conceived against the background of Matthew’s Gospel tends to suggest a date of Mt. 28:18–20, purporting to give the content of composition in the 2nd cent, though many that which the twelve apostles taught to the specific elements (e.g., the prayers, the “Two “Gentiles” or “nations” of the things which Jesus Ways,” and the eschatological teaching) may the Lord had commanded. It therefore stands in well go back to the apostolic age and even a tradition somewhat different from the one perhaps to the early days of the Jerusalem which sees Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles church. par excellence and the Twelve as missionaries The “Two Ways” section of the Didache comes to the Jews (cf., e.g., Gal. 2:9); instead the at the beginning (1:1–6:2) rather than at the Twelve, representing the whole Church, are end as in Barnabas. The “way of life” is found in sent to the whole world, and indeed especially 1:2–4:14 and the “way of death” in 5:1f, with a to the Gentiles. Shorter variations of this title brief summary in 6:1–3. The parallels with (e.g., Teaching [or Teachings] of the Apostles) Barnabas are rather close, though by no means are cited by several patristic writers (e.g., verbal. Didache contains an interpolation in its EusebiusHE iii.25.4; Athanasius Festal Letter “Two Ways” material, consisting of words of 39; the ninth-century Stichometry of Jesus based on Matthew and Luke and/or an Nicephorus), but there is no way to be sure that unknown collection of traditional sayings they are identical to the work now known by (1:3b–2:1). This section is missing from the this name. “Two Ways” both in Barnabas and in the This work really came to light for the first time Doctrina. It has been inserted here as the in the Constantinople MS discovered by “teaching” or explanation of the negative form Bryennios. As a result of the publication of the of the Golden Rule found in 1:2. Thus 2:2–7 full text of the Didache in 1883, the “canon” of (which does belong to the “Two Ways”) Apostolic Fathers 7 becomes the second such explanation (2:1), this from the false (11:1–12:5); the responsibility of time using a traditional list of prohibitions the congregation to those who are found to be based on the Ten Commandments. worthy (13:1–7); the Sunday gatherings for Didache 3:1–6 is another interpolation into the worship (14:1–3, possibly eucharistic again as “Two Ways,” this time designed to warn against in chs 9f); the qualifications for resident leaders certain attitudes and practices which lead to (bishops and deacons) with an appeal to have the more serious sins enumerated in ch 2. In respect for them and to be at peace with one good rabbinic fashion the author or compiler is another (15:1–4); and finally a chapter of “building a fence around the law” (cf. Mish Pirke eschatological instruction, including a call to Aboth i.1) by avoiding even that which might readiness and a small apocalypse (not unlike lead to sin. Unlike the NT, however, the Mt. 24) which sets forth the events leading up Didachist seems to locate the real sin in the act to the end of the age and the return of Christ rather than in the heart. The attitudes are (16:1–8). dangerous because of what they engender, not Thus the Didache as we know it is a because they indicate a sinful nature already at compendium of practical teaching on various work. In his appended conclusion to the “Two subjects which must have come up in the Ways” (6:1–3) the editor adds a pragmatic course of the Church’s fulfillment of its touch to bring the commands within reach of commission to teach the Gentiles. The Jewish or everyone: if the readers can bear the whole Jewish Christian origin of much of the material “yoke of the law” they will be perfect, but if not, makes the Didache (along with Matthew) an they must simply do the best they can (6:2). important witness to the fact that segments of In 7:1–4 the theme is baptism, with a clear Jewish Christianity besides the Apostle Paul indication that the “Two Ways” material has took seriously their calling to be a light and a functioned in the Didache as instruction blessing to the nations. Syria is a plausible designed for baptismal candidates. After locale for such a community of Jewish reviewing “all these things” the community is to Christians. Though recensions of the Didache, “baptize in the name of the Father and of the or parts of it, can be traced to Egypt, Ethiopia, Son and of the Holy Spirit” (7:1). This closely Rome, etc., many scholars have suggested Syria parallels Mt. 28:19f, where “teaching the or Palestine as the setting of the form of the Gentiles” to obey Jesus’ commands is linked to tradition found in the Bryennios MS. The baptism involving the same trinitarian formula. parallels with Matthew and the references to Ch. 8 deals with fasting and prayer, centering bread or wheat gathered from the “mountains” on a version of the Lord’s Prayer quite similar (9:4) point in this direction, but no one really to that found in Matthew. Here for the first time knows. a doxology is attached to the prayer; this V. Ignatius doxology is repeated twice in chs 9f, and along with a shorter formula (“To thee be glory The letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch at the forever”) is used to punctuate the eucharistic beginning of the 2nd cent, are known to us in meal prayers found in those chapters. These three recensions. prayers, before (9:1–5) and after (10:1–7) the (1) The short recension, accepted today as the meal, are traditional and very ancient, exhibiting a number of parallels with Jewish authentic collection of Ignatius’ writings, table prayers, and embodying traces of a consists of the seven letters mentioned by primitive Palestinian Christology which Eusebius in HE iii.36.5–11: four from Smyrna, described Jesus as God’s servant or as the “holy to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Vine of David.” and Rome; and three from Troas (after leaving Smyrna), to the churches of Philadelphia and The rest of the Didache addresses itself to other Smyrna, and to Smyrna’s bishop, Polycarp. They concerns of the ancient Church in no were said to have been written while Ignatius particularly logical sequence: the testing of was en route from Syria to Rome to suffer traveling teachers and prophets to tell the true martyrdom (HE iii.36.3f; cf. Ign Rom. 5:1). Apostolic Fathers 8 (2) The long recension consists of thirteen he was taken on short notice from Troas to letters in all, in the following order: two from Neapolis on the Macedonian coast. He asks Antioch — one from a certain Mary of Polycarp to write to the churches that lay ahead Cassobola (a neighboring town) to Ignatius, and on his itinerary, so that they might have news Ignatius’ letter to her in reply; the four from of Ignatius and send messengers or letters to Smyrna and three from Troas found in the short him (Ign Polyc 8:1). The first of these churches recension; three from Philippi, to Tarsus, would be the one at Philippi, and we have Antioch, and Hero (Ignatius’ successor as Polycarp’s letter to this church, in which he bishop of Antioch); and one from Italy to states clearly that he is sending them “the Philippi. In addition there are some extensive letters of Ignatius, which were sent to us by interpolations in the seven letters from Smyrna him, and others which we had by us” (Polyc and Troas mentioned by Eusebius. In the early Phil. 13:2). Presumably these would include Middle Ages this collection was enlarged still Ignatius’ letters to Smyrna and to Polycarp as further by two letters to the apostle John, one to well as copies of the four letters written from Mary the mother of Jesus, and one from Mary to Smyrna (i.e., all the letters except that to the Ignatius in return! Even though these latter Philadelphians, a copy of which may have been were soon rejected as forgeries, the works of sent to Polycarp as well). Thus Polycarp was Ignatius continued to be known in the Church the earliest collector of the Ignatian corpus and only in the long recension until the middle of the person chiefly responsible for its the 17th century. preservation. (3) The Syriac abridgement, discovered by W. Without discussing each of Ignatius’ letters in Cureton in 1845, is a Syriac version consisting detail, it can be said that they share a common of only three epistles (to the Ephesians, to the structure which enables the reader to know Romans, and to Polycarp), similar in form to the more or less what to expect: first there is an short recension. elaborate salutation with praise for the church The dominance of the long recension began to and its bishop; then often an appeal to live in be broken in 1644 when Archbishop James harmony with the bishop; then usually some Ussher published an edition of Ignatius based attention to the particular heresy threatening on two medieval Latin MSS which, while the church; and finally some reference to containing all the letters of the long recension, Ignatius’ own situation and that of the church in provided an uninterpolated text of the seven Syria. core epistles known to Eusebius. Soon The theology and Christology of Ignatius arises afterward a Greek MS was found which out of a life situation in which three factors confirmed the existence of the short recension. were at work: (1) his sense of impending It contained the epistles of the short recension martyrdom, (2) his awareness of the threat of in the same uninterpolated form, except for heresy and schism, and (3) his concern for Romans; a martyrological text discovered a few unity in the churches under the authority of the decades later supplied this lack with a similarly bishop. short text of Romans. Since then, as the result of (1) The factor of martyrdom looms largest in careful investigations of Theodor Zahn, J. B. his letter to the Romans, where his aim is to Lightfoot, and others, scholarship came to a make sure that the church at Rome does point of virtual consensus in favor of the short nothing to prevent his execution by the Roman recension. Though some for a time defended authorities. For him to die as a martyr is to the originality of the Syriac abridgment, the “attain to God” (Ign Rom. 1:2; 2:1; 9:2) or to consensus still stands. In addition to the Greek Christ (5:3), to “become a disciple” (4:2; 5:1, 3) and Latin witnesses and the Syriac abridgment or a true Christian (3:2), to be reborn (6:1) and mentioned above, there are fragments in Greek, thus fully to “become a man” (6:2). His death is Syriac, and Coptic, and an Armenian version. a sacrifice (2:2; 4:2), sometimes specifically a In his letter to Polycarp, Ignatius states that he eucharistic sacrifice. For Ignatius, violent death was unable to write to all the churches because means participation in the sacrifice of the flesh Apostolic Fathers 9 and blood of Jesus Christ. To be martyred is to acknowledge that we have not received grace” receive the sacrament of the eucharist in the (Ign Magn 8:1; cf. Ign Philad 6:1). He argues ultimate sense (7:3). He longs to be devoured that even the ancient prophets were disciples of by wild beasts and ground as wheat so as to Jesus Christ in the Spirit (Ign Magn 9:2; cf. 8:2), become the “pure bread of Christ” (4:1). If the and that we who stand in their tradition must beasts are reluctant, he will entice and compel therefore observe not the sabbath but the them to destroy him (5:2). Such language has Lord’s Day, on which Christ rose from the dead led to a widespread characterization of Ignatius (9:1). Though Ignatius retains and respects the as morbid and fanatical in his longing for self- OT, his supreme authority is Jesus Christ whom annihilation, but two qualifying factors must be he knows first of all not through ancient Jewish kept in mind: first, his language is only an prophecies but through the proclaimed extension and a heightening of similar phrases message of the gospel (Ign Philad 8:2; 9:2). used by the apostle Paul (e.g., Phil. 1:23; 2:17; Having placed his faith firmly in Christ on this 3:10; Col. 1:24; ff); second, he saw his death as basis, Ignatius then goes back and “after the virtually inevitable and so addressed his fact” sees the prophets and the OT scriptures as concern to the one church which, for its own witnesses to him. His answer to the Judaizers is sake, most needed to see Ignatius’ death as a to test the Jewish Scriptures by means of the victory and to interpret it in this way to other new Christian tradition, not the tradition by the Christians and to the world. Scriptures. It is no accident that he seems much Ignatius draws freely on Pauline language, and more influenced by Paul and John and certain a case can be made that he, like Paul, sees freely quoted sayings of Jesus than by the OT. himself as a decisive figure in the redemptive We have no way of knowing who these historical plan of God for the world. Though Judaizers were, but one statement (Ign Philad (like Paul) he is the “least” and like an 6:1) suggests that they may have been gentile “untimely birth” (Ign Rom. 9:2; cf. 1 Cor. 15:8f), converts to Judaism and Jewish Christianity his great journey from East to West is as crucial who developed an extreme zeal for the law. We to him as Paul’s collection journey to Jerusalem are reminded of the references in the book of (and from there to Rome and possibly Spain) Revelation (2:9; 3:9) in letters to Smyrna and was to the apostle (cf. Paul in Rom. 15:16–33; Philadelphia (!) to “those who claim to be Jews, also 1Clem 5:5–7). Mal. 1:11 seems to stand but are not.” behind Ignatius’ thinking here as a kind of With regard to Docetism, the second heresy hidden Scripture citation: observance of the which he faced, Ignatius even provides us with eucharist in the gentile churches “from furthest the derivation of the term. He speaks of those east to furthest west” is the proof that now who say that the suffering of Jesus was unreal, a God’s name is “great among the nations” (cf. Did semblance (Gk tó dokeín), and condemns them 14:3; Justin Martyr Dial 41.2; 117:1). To by claiming that it is they who are unreal, for Ignatius this eucharistic sacrifice finds supreme they shall become like phantoms, without expression in the sacrifice of his own life (Ign bodies (Ign Trall 10:1; cf. Smyrn 2:1). He Rom. 2:2; 7:3). affirms that Christ really suffered and really (2) The threat of false teaching comes to the rose from the dead (Ign Smyrn 2:1). Because they deny this, the heretics abstain from the surface especially in his letters to the Magnesians, Trallians, Smyrneans, and eucharist, which witnesses to the reality of Philadelphians. Heresy is compared to a deadly Jesus’ flesh (7:1). Once again Ignatius’ appeal is poison (Ign Trail. 6). It seems to have to the validity and necessity of this sacrament, confronted Ignatius in two forms: a re-Judaizing the “medicine of immortality” and antidote to of the Christian message not unlike the threat all such poisonous teachings (Ign Eph. 20:2); which Paul faced, and a docetic denial of the more immediately, he argues from his own reality of Jesus’ human nature. With regard to experience of imminent death. If Christ’s the first, Ignatius follows Paul in warning that sufferings are unreal, then why is Ignatius a “if we are still living according to Judaism, we prisoner, longing for the sword and the beasts of the arena? (Ign Smyrn 4:2; Trall 10:1). His Apostolic Fathers 10 campaign against heresy is thus not waged in a elaborate imagery. At Ephesus the presbytery vacuum but always and inevitably within the “is attuned to the bishop like the strings of a context of his life (and death) situation. harp” so that “by your concord and harmonious (3) The third concern of Ignatius has to do with love, Jesus Christ is sung” (Ign Eph. 4:1). Unity church order and submission to the bishop’s is essential to the Church, and for Ignatius this authority. His theology may be described as means unity with the bishop, even as the sacramental in both a narrower and a broader Church is united with Jesus Christ and Jesus sense. In the narrow sense it is clear that he with the Father (5:1). The bishop is sent from puts great emphasis on the sacrament of the the Lord and is therefore to be regarded as if he Lord’s Supper. But in the broad sense his were the Lord himself (6:1; cf. Mt. 10:40). thought is sacramental in its insistence that Sometimes the bishop represents Jesus Christ spiritual realities must find their embodiment (e.g., Ign Trall 2:1); at other times the bishop in that which is visible and physical. Just as represents the Father, while the deacons Jesus was no phantom but actually “became represent Christ the servant, and the flesh” (cf. Jn. 1:14), so the Spirit must “become presbytery the apostles (Ign Trall 3:1; cf. Magn flesh” in different ways in order to have any 6:1). While on the one hand he is the divine validity or authority. Flesh is not a worldly or representative, on the other he is the evil principle opposed to the Spirit, as it is embodiment of the whole congregation, sometimes in Paul, but rather as in John the especially as it ministers to the needs of natural and appropriate sphere in which the Ignatius himself, the prisoner (e.g., Ign Eph. 1:3, Spirit must express Himself. This is clear in Trall 1:1). The churches must recognize and Ignatius’ theology of the eucharist, which builds submit to his authority and do nothing apart upon Jn. 6:52–58 with its demand to eat the from him, just as Jesus did nothing apart from flesh and drink the blood of the crucified and the Father (Ign Magn 7:1; Trall 2:2). Even risen Lord (see Ign Eph. 20:2; Smyrn 7:1). But though his function is not primarily that of where John limited his insistence on “flesh” to prophecy or teaching, his authority is beyond the sacrament and to the historical reality of question (Ign Eph. 6:1; 15:1), for he is the Jesus Christ, Ignatius extends it also to the administrative leader of the church. There can matter of church organization. In fact there can be only one bishop even as there is only one be no valid eucharist unless the bishop (or eucharist (Ign Philad 4:1). Nevertheless, someone he appoints) is present to celebrate it Ignatius knows that the bishop is not absolutely (Ign Smyrn 8:1f; cf. Magn 4:1). John’s essential for a church. His own church at sacramentalism is combined with virtual Antioch is of course without its bishop for a silence about particular offices or ministries, time. God is its shepherd in place of Ignatius, but to Ignatius spiritual realities must find their and Jesus Christ alone is its bishop (Ign Rom. embodiment in the structure of the institutional 9:1). For this reason, however, the other Church. Ignatius is the first real advocate of churches are to support Antioch with their episcopacy in the ancient Church — probably prayers. The one church in which nothing is not episcopacy in the modern sense of one said of a bishop is the church of Rome, and it is bishop supervising a group of churches each possible that the supreme authority there still with its individual pastor, but in an incipient lies with the presbytery, as it did a short time form involving “one man rule” in each local earlier according to the witness of 1 Clement. congregation. This is of course a form of There is every indication that these major “episcopacy” which is found today in the vast theological concerns of Ignatius are all tied majority of Christian denominations, even together in his mind. His martyrdom is a kind of those which follow a “congregational” type of ultimate expression or illustration of the reality church government, but it is not characteristic of the eucharist; the eucharist depends for its of the NT period. validity on the authority of the bishop; the Ignatius undergirds his high view of episcopal sacrament and the episcopal office together authority with theological arguments and bring about and guarantee the unity of the Church so as to furnish the antidote to the