apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

THE GENUINENESS. 369
have seen that the saint himself had a conflict with certain false teachers
at Philadelphia (see above, p. 363 sq). It appears also that, though
Philo and Agathopus were kindly received by the
Philadelphians generally,
yet 'certain persons treated them contumeliously' (ari/Aao-avTcs).
7"he party which showed its hostility to Ignatius himself was not likely
to entertain any cordial feelings
towards his followers. Of the coincidence
in
the name of Agathopus with the surroundings of Ignatius, as
they appear in other passages, I
shall have occasion to speak elsewhere
(see below p. 388, and 11. p. 280 sq).
But the injunctions respecting the delegates whom the martyr
desires to be sent to Syria suggest another coincidence also. This
desire is
expressed to the Smyrnseans, both in the epistle addressed to
the Smyrnffian Church as a body and in the epistle addressed to their
bishop Polycarp specially, though obviously intended to be read to the
church at large, as it
appeals in the latter part (§§ 6, 7, 8) to the
Smyrnsean Christians
generally and reminds them of their duty to their
bishop and to one another. What is the relation of the injunctions
regarding these delegates in the two epistles respectively
At first sight they seem to be mere duplicates ;
but this superficial
view is soon corrected. The injunction in the Epistle to Polycarp
presupposes the injunction in the Epistle to the Smyrnseans. In the
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans the object in sending a delegate is distinctly
stated {Smyrn. 11 a-vyxapyvai aurots K.T.X.), but nothing
is said about
the qualifications of the person to be sent. In the Epistle to Polycarp
on the other hand the object of the mission is mentioned in such vague
terms [Po/yc. 7 tva...8o|acrr; vfxwv rrjv aoKvov dya-rnqv) as would have
been quite unintelligible, if nothing had gone before ; whereas great
stress is laid on the character necessary in the person to be chosen as
delegate. The comparison of the two therefore suggests the priority of
the Epistle to the Smyrnseans. How does this agree mth the more
direct notices of time in the two epistles } Here again there is entire
harmony. The Epistle to Polycarp is represented as written on the eve
of his hurried departure from Troas (§ 8).
On the other hand in the
case of the Smyrnsean letter, likewise written from Troas, there is no
indication that his sojourn there was drawing to a close. Again, in the
Smyrnaean letter there is mention of the Ephesian Burrhus as still
remaining with him and acting as his amanuensis {Smyrn. 12). In the
letter to Polycarp there is no such mention. Burrhus seems to have
left him meanwhile '.
^
See Zahn, I. v. A. p. ^%'^.
IGN. I.
24