apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

278 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
likewise the arbitrary changes, even where this reason did not exist (e.g. § 7 irpori-
outw diaKe'.adai. for
fiare for eTridv/uLeire), are altogether after his manner (e.g. Trail. 3
ovTus ^x^')' Again the breaking up and recombining of sentences, such as we have
in § 3 6 x/)t(maj't(r/x6s Srav ixKTTJrai virb Kdcr/nov, ^tXetrat Trapd Qeov, is a device in which
the interpolator indulges elsewhere (e.g. Trail. 3, 4, ovx ws dTrio-xoXos Siaraffffo/xat,
dXX' i/^avrbv /lerpw, Ephcs. 10 kav ti^ ifkiov ddiKTidels irXeiova vTrofxeivr], ovtos fiaKapios
/C.T.X.).
(7) The doctrinal changes are not less decisive than the literary. More especially
in the Christological passages can we trace the identity of authorship. There is the
same anxiety to maintain the supremacy of the Father and to represent the agency of the
Son as dependent on the Father, which we find in the other epistles and this anxiety
;
expresses itself in the same way. In inscr. alone four changes are made, all tending
in this direction. In the sentence Trarpb^ v^plarov Kal'lrjaoO Xpiarov tov fibvov viou avrou,
he prefixes Qeov to Trarpos and substitutes (xovoyevovs for /Jidvov (comp. /gn. Mar. inscr.,
Hero inscr,, Smyrn. inscr., Ephes. 20), the word novoyevTjs being a specially favourite term
with the Ignatian interpolator (see above, p. 255). In 'Itjctov Xpiarov rod Qeov rj/xuv he
adds Kal aujTTjpos after Qeov to break its force, this term auiryp again being introduced
elsewhere in the interpolations (e.g. Ephes. inscr.. Trail. 1).
For Tijo-ou Xpiarov
v'lQv Trarpos he substitutes GeoC TravroKparopos Kai'lTjeov Xpiarov rov v'lov avrov, where
(as I have already remarked) iravroKpa.rup is a favourite term of the interpolator.
And lastly, for iv 'Iriaov Xpiari^ toi avrriv iwiaKoin-^aei, apparently to avoid the
inferential identification of Geos with 'Irjaovs Xpiarbs. So too the introduction of the
Spirit, where the other two Persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the
genuine Ignatius (inscr., § 8), is characteristic of the Ignatian forger (e.g. Trail. 1,
Philad. 9, II, Smy-n. 13). In the former passage xP'-'^tovohos, Trarpwvv/xos, irvev/uLaro-
(f>6po%, the word Trvev/jiarocpopos (like the allied word xpioro^dpos) is not only, as I have
already remarked, a special favourite of the Ignatian forger, but has likewise been
introduced by him in another passage under similar circumstances and from the same
motive {Ephes. 9).
Thus the doctrinal manipulations are equally significant with the
literary and altogether
it is inconceivable that an independent writer should have
;
introduced into this separate letter so many and various changes all so closely resembling
in character the interpolations with which the Ignatian forger
the other six.
has enriched