In another thread, a tangent developed concerning the dating of Luke and Acts as 1st century works. Ignatius was cited as a source, and is said to quote from these works in some of his epistles. Now, there is a difference in the way "New Testament Scholars" go about "confirming such things that differs in the way historians go about it in other areas. First and foremost, all evidence is internal. What this means is that the evidence is considered "authentic" if they can find slight references to other works within the same structure (i.e. early Christian writings). It has no external evidence, sources outside said structure, which is usually an ingredient most historians consider necessary in order to claim whatever historical event that is being studied "highly probable".
Quote:
|
Ignatius quotes from the Acts of the Apostles (Mag. 5:1). In addition, he quotes from Luke which universally scholars hold to be the same author as Acts (Smyr. 3:1-2).
|
Now, it should be important to note the use of such words as "quotes". In neither of the two above passage does Ignatius "quote" the book of Luke or Acts. What is believed is that Ignatius gives an allusion to these books, but nothing about them suggests a definitive link. At most, all that can be said is that some of the stories about the young religion were in verbal circulation that were later added into Luke and Acts. This in no manner dates either of these books.
Normally, historians would stop there. But, New Testament Scholarship is willing to accept this specious tie as evidence, so we'll play along. Let's say, for argument's sake, Ignatius is quoting Luke and Acts. How do we verify the authenticity of the Ignatius Epistles themselves? I'm going to quotw from Casselss examination,
Supernatural Religion:
Quote:
Towards the end of the second century, Irenaeus
makes a very short quotation from a source unnamed,
which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an epistle
attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century,
quotes a very few words which he ascribes to Ignatius,
although without definite reference to any particular
epistle; and in the fourth century, Eusebius mentions
seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other
evidence.
|
As we can see, all internal verification, and actually very few direct references within that. Wait, it gets even sketchier:
Quote:
There are, however fifteen epistles extant,
all of which are attributed to Ignatius, of all of
which, with the exception of three which are only
known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and
Latin versions.
|
So how do we choose which are the seven "authentic" one described by Eusebius since he doesn't name any of them?
Quote:
Of seven of these epistles - and they
are those mentioned by Eusebius - we have two Greek
versions, one of which is very much shorter than the
other
|
For those unfamiliar, the general rule in determining "authenticity" is that the shorter version is usually the more authentic.
Quote:
and finally we now possess the Syriac version
of three epistles only in a form still shorter than
the shorter Greek version, in which are found all the
quotations of the Fathers, without exception, up to
the fourth century.
|
So, the shortest version of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are the Syriac version, which do not include the letters referenced above which are supposed to date Luke and Acts by way of allusion to the first century. As noted, all of the early Church Fathers only quote these Epistles using the three found in the Syriac version.
This is why I consider the Epistles to be spurrious and the so called "quotations" not to be evidence of an early dating of Luke or Acts. This would seem to be enough, but we could continue. We could cast light as to whether the Syriac three are even authentic. We could do this by examining the official Church version in how Eusebius comes to write these epistles:
Quote:
We have not, however, finished. All of these epistles,
including the three Syriac recensions, profess to have
been written by Ignatius, during his journey from
Antioch to Rome in the custody of Roman soldiers in
order to be exposed to wild beasts, the form of
martyrdom to which he has been condemned. The writer
describes the circumstances of the journey as follows,
"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts,
by sea and by land, by night and day; being bound
amongst ten leopards, which are the band of soldiers;
who even when good is done to them render evil." Now
if this account be in the least degree true, how is it
possible to suppose that the martyr could have found
means to write so many long epistles, entering
minutely into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the
most deliberate and advanced views regarding
ecclesiatical government? Indeed it may be asked why
Ignatius should have considered it necessary in such a
journey, even if the possibility be for a moment
conceded, to address such epistles to communities and
individuals to whom, by the showing of the letters
themselves, he had just had opportunities of
addressing his counsels in person. The epistles
themselves bear none of the marks of composition under
such circumstances, and it is impossible to suppose
that soldiers such as the quotation above describes
would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for
professing Christianity, deliberately to write long
epistles, promulgating the very doctrines for which he
has been condemned. And not only this, but on his way
to martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles,
perfect freedom to see his friends. He receives the
bishops, deacons, and members of various Christian
communities, who come with greetings to him, and
devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All
this without hinderance from the "ten leopards," of
whose cruelty he complains, and without persecution or
harm to those who so openly declare themselves his
friends and fellow believers. The whole story is
absolutely incredible.
|
Incredible indeed! These are the circumstances that New Testament Scholars either have to overlook or attempt to explain in declaring these works "authentic". If someone was trying to sell you on this, would you buy in?
For those interested, here is Cassels' book online:
Supernatural religion [by W.R. Cassels]. - Google Book Search
Here also is another more modern examination:
The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?