apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 247
9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, Ro7n. 3, 8, Magn. i, 8, 9, 10, 12, Trail. 7, 8, 10,
Philad. 3, 4, 9, Smyrn. 2, 3, 6, 9). This feature is
reproduced in the
additional letters, more especially in the Epistles to the Tarsians and
Antiochenes, which not being letters to private individuals contain
more direct doctrinal teaching (see esp. Tars. 2 — 7,
Anl. 2— 5, 10,
Ifero I, 5).
Allied to this feature is the frequent reference to Scriptural characters,
which distinguishes the epistles of the Long Recension. When
the writer breaks loose from the restraints of the Middle Recension, on
which his work is founded, he very frequently exercises his freedom in
this \\a.y {Ephes. 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, Alagn. 3, 12, Trail. 7, Philad. i,
4, 9, Smyrn. 7).
This feature again is faithfully reproduced
in the
Additional Epistles {Mar. Ign. 2— 4, Tars. 2, 3, Ant. 10, Hero 3, 5).
Of the New Testament worthies who are mentioned both in the Long
Recension and in the Additional Epistles, a prominence is given to
Stephen as the model deacon {Trail. 7, Tars. 3, Hero 3). There is
also a special fondness for coordinating the Apostles
S. Peter and S.
Paul, for which the genuine Ignatius had furnished the precedent {Rom.
4),
and which this later interpolator uses on every possible occasion
{Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 5, 7, Magn. 10, Tars. 3, Philad. 4, Ant. 7),
connecting the joint names not only with Rome {Ign. Afar. 4, Trail.
7) as the genuine Ignatius had done, but also with Antioch {Magn. 10,
Ant. 7).
Even beyond the limits of the New Testament examples are
sought; the early bishops of Rome and Antioch — Linus, Anacletus,
Clemens, Euodius— are brought forward in the Additional Epistles not
less than in the Seven, as occasion serves {Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 7,
Philad. 4, Ant. 7). If the three private letters do not afford such
numerous instances of Scriptural quotations as the other two, they do
not fall at all behind them in the production of Scriptural characters.
The letter from Mary to Ignatius — a singularly clumsy and inartistic
work— is from beginning to end a mere expansion of a section in the
Epistle to the Magnesians (§ 3), where the supposed Ignatius defends
the youth of a certain bishop and ransacks the Bible for instances of
youthful piety and wisdom — such as Samuel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Solomon,
Josiah— in defence of his position. The self-consciousness of the
writer, as he thus reproduces his own work, betrays itself curiously,
when he makes this Mary apologize to Ignatius for reminding him of
what he must well know and for thus appearing to make a superfluous
display of learning (§ 5 TreptTTos cTi'at So'^w koX (^avrjriQcra).
(b) Of the doctrinal features nothing need be said here. When the
proper time comes for the discussion of this subject, it will appear that