DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH.
|
1. Volkmar: see above. | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
| i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.
|
| It will be observed on turning to
| the passage "above" (10), to which
| Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes
| a single sentence containing merely
| a concise statement of facts, and
| that no indication is given to the
| reader that there is anything beyond
| it. At p. 136 "the same statement
| is repeated briefly." Now either
| Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most
| serious charge against my work, based
| upon this "one example," has actually
| not taken the trouble to examine my
| reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.,"
| and p. 50 ff., to which he would
| have found himself there directed,
| or he has acted towards me with a
| want of fairness which I venture to
| say he will be the first to regret,
| when he considers the facts.
|
| Would it be divined from the words
| opposite, and the sentence "above,"
| that Volkmar enters into an elaborate
| argument, extending over a dozen
| closely printed pages, to prove that
| Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all,
| but suffered martyrdom in Antioch
| itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115,
| probably as a sacrifice to the
| superstitious fury of the people
| against the [Greek: atheoi], excited
| by the earthquake which occurred on
| the thirteenth of that month? I shall
| not here attempt to give even an
| epitome of the reasoning, as I shall
| presently reproduce some of the
| arguments of Volkmar and others in a
| more condensed and consecutive form.
|
| Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.
|
| Volkmar repeats the affirmations which
| he had fully argued in the above
| work and elsewhere.
|
2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc., | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
Tüb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3, | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.
p. 149 f. |
|
"In this passage Baur discusses | Baur enters into a long and minute
generally the historical | examination of the historical
character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of
he considers, as a whole, to be | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian
'doubtful and incredible.' To | Epistles, and pronounces the whole
establish this result he notices | to be fabulous, and more especially
the relation of Christianity to | the representation of his sentence
the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He
which he regards as inconsistent | shows that, while isolated cases of
with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under
and the improbable circumstances | occurred during Trajan's reign may
of the journey. The personal | justify the mere tradition that he
characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no
history of Ignatius, are, in his | instance recorded in which a
opinion, all a mere creation of | Christian was condemned to be sent
the imagination. The utmost he | to Rome to be cast to the beasts;
allows is that he may have | that such a sentence is opposed to
suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.) | all historical data of the reign of
| Trajan, and to all that is known of
| his character and principles; and
| that the whole of the statements
| regarding the supposed journey
| directly discredit the story. The
| argument is much too long and
| elaborate to reproduce here, but I
| shall presently make use of some
| parts of it.
|
"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863,
1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1. | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.
|
"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_ | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in
und die Abführung dazu nach Rom | the year 115, when Trajan wintered
... mag auch unter Trajan nichts | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered
zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein, | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a
aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte | sacrifice to popular fury
seines Märtyrerthums auch nach | consequent on the earthquake of
der Vertheidigung derselben von | that year. The rest was developed
Lipsius ... höchst | out of the reference to Trajan for
unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische | the glorification of martyrdom."
ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J. |
115, als Trajan in Antiochien |
überwinterte, in Folge des |
Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in |
Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer |
der Volkswuth zum Märtyrer |
wurde.' |
|
4. Davidson: see above. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19.
|
| "All (the Epistles) are posterior
| to Ignatius himself, who was not
| thrown to the wild beasts in the
| amphitheatre at Rome by command of
| Trajan, but at Antioch, on December
| 20th, A.D. 115."
|
5. Scholten: see above. | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
| p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are
| declared to be spurious for various
| reasons, but partly "because they
| mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius
| to Rome, the unhistorical character
| of which, already earlier recognised
| (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838,
| p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848;
| Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii.
| p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost.
| Väter_, p. 210 ff.; Réville,
| _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is
| made all the more probable by
| Volkmar's not groundless conjecture.
| According to it Ignatius is reported
| to have become the prey of wild beasts
| on the 20th December, 115, not in the
| amphitheatre in Rome by the order of
| the mild Trajan, but in Antioch
| itself, as the victim of superstitious
| popular fury consequent on an
| earthquake which occurred on the
| 13th December of that year."
|
6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch. | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_,
Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative
[A discussion of the date of the | reference to establish the important
beginning of Trajan's Parthian | point of the date of the Parthian
war, which he fixes in A.D. 115, | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch.
but he decides nothing directly | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf."
as to the time of Ignatius' |
martyrdom.] |
|
7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p. 214 ff.
p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's
points out the objections to the | argument which is referred to
narrative in the Acts of the | above, and while declaring the
Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more
refers to the period between | especially the journey to Rome,
Eusebius and Jerome: setting | incredible, he considers the mere
aside this detailed narrative he | fact that Ignatius suffered
considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding
of the general statements in the | which the possibility has been made
letters. The mode of punishment | out. He shows [97:1] that the
by a provincial governor causes | martyrology states the 20th
some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,' | December as the day of Ignatius'
he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were
andre Punct, die Versendung nach | buried at Antioch, where they still
Rom.' Why was the punishment not | were in the days of Chrysostom and
carried out at Antioch? Would it | Jerome. He argues from all that is
be likely that under an Emperor | known of the reign and character of
like Trajan a prisoner like | Trajan, that such a sentence from
Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite
fight in the amphitheatre? The | unsupported and inconceivable. A
circumstances of the journey as | provincial Governor might have
described are most improbable. | condemned him ad bestias, but in
The account of the persecution | any case the transmission to Rome
itself is beset by difficulties. | is more doubtful. He shows,
Having set out these objections | however, that the whole story is
he leaves the question, casting | inconsistent with historical facts,
doubt (like Baur) upon the whole | and the circumstances of the
history, and gives no support to | journey incredible. It is
the bold affirmation of a | impossible to give even a sketch of
martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over
December, A.D. 115.'" | five long pages, but although
| Hilgenfeld does not directly refer
| to the theory of the martyrdom in
| Antioch itself, his reasoning
| forcibly points to that conclusion,
| and forms part of the converging
| trains of reasoning which result in
| that "demonstration" which I
| assert. I will presently make use
| of some of his arguments.
At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows:
"In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments
in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the
references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most,
what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1]
It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of
the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in
support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon
any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate
idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but
I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to
Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be
evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he
expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity
of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer
to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to
be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it.
A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient,
but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all
when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld
is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say:
"It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results.
Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe,
agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which
runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous
and misleading"--[99:1]
Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his
own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and
misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has
been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy
of my references.
As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in
regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot,
and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme
brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and
must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to
suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the
Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing
Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his
journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as
well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various
Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding
the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases,
however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is
assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should
receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything
but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many
cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of
Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai
euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes,
the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the
leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described
by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing
approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be
pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua,
even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very
different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the
extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the
contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not.
Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a
Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes
letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with
Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible
to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and
Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the
story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the
latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a
Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a
Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly
declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds
(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he
had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one
which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with
beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten
leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different
treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come
and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is
said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and,
gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome
he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him
(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house
(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under
which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.
"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is
derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case
of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate
than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know
little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as
serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus,
a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes,
found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his
travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and,
according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his
hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and
ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him
as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he
was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real
service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in
prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which
Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the
Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about,
living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last
they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some
forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself
into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An
earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out
from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after,
Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by
the fire.
Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct
satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the
history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any
of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is
obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to
prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to
Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of
the satire.
There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account
of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as
evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this
narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking
coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was
acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters."
These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in
referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not
express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is
conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners
were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On
the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true
that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles
and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as
independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the
treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be
shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical
value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man
confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and
not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius
condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement,
cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of
pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of
Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free
intercourse as they represent.
I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of
the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott,
in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,
demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered
martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into
the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and
I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the
source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when
necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies
set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at
least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch
during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in
the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,
he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more
difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by
himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to
secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but
all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he
"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely
receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being
molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to
accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely,
but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches,
which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words
which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled
with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the
episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions
of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.
When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by
historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known
of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as
of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that
Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a
provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts.
It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of
Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent
members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular
fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom
of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not
condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the
purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In
fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although
Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is
no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to
Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of
Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by
Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere
fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined
with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open
demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by
persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and
the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the
policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this
severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation
excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a
long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some
of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various
Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the
fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have
been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and
enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results
of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to
accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole
tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the
Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore
cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well
as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild
beasts." [106:2]
If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan
himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor,
the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that
such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition
to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor
did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in
Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the
more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the
clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_
would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is
besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution,
of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome
is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that
Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death
during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with
some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians,
to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not
without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.
It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is
A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake
occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to
excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here
the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he
mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still
associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:
"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with
singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch
... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and
destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most
appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for
the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings
from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;
houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:
the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped
through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some
days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of
the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards
the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,
was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of
public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the
panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe
that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by
the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,
the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome."
[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution
in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the
earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took
place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His
remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact,
interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the
only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome
but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against
the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake.
I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just
made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first
place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December.
I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important
statement. He says:--
"The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing
in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the
earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop
of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:
emarturêse]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was
exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1]
Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.
He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters,
and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece
of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere
may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish
stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything
else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are
disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot
also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced
by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who
gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to
the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts
it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before
him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by
the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the
Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas
is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the
main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually
makes use of the following extraordinary argument:--
"But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some
earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.
The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used
especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense,
including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression
[Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either
'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A
blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either
expression." [110:1]
This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not
sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his
language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:
marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament,
were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius
which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express
martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in
the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so
implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.
"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify
'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese]
only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's
own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such
quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems
excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.
That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the
Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that
none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian
Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,
Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and
Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is
the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and
different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to
Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas
lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is
objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet
he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against
Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of
Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,
and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,
some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly
have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have
been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have
shaped the prevailing tradition.
The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,
long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the
time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and
ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had
previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that
the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum
and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some
centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome
to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch
to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead
of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in
Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they
had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which
reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend
of the Ignatian Epistles.
The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in
the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is
undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated
on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin
Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that
this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was
evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively
contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci
vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta
testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus
reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn
[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was
celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance
which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]
On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess
regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that
Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and
all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles
themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in
Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the
statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based
upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in
discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And
what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles
and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says,
are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles
all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down
together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin
only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of
which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven
there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter,
known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected
as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics
assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure.
Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only,
the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine
letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal
and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form.
The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I
venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous
than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the
simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample
justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot,
that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification
and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as
genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this
mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents
which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove
anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the
value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in
favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.
I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their
attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles,
and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of
"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally
advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is
impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,
to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but
I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to
think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the
actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has
been made.