apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

THE GENUINENESS.
4^9
fused, the diction is bombastic. Thus the letters are altogether unworthy
of an Apostolic father.
But assuming that these criticisms are just, why should not Ignatius
have been guilty of all these faults What security did his position as
an Apostolic father give that he should write simply and plainly, that
he should avoid solecisms, that his language should never be disfigured
by bad taste or faulty rhetoric As a matter of fact however, not a
few of these charges have arisen from a misunderstanding of his words.
Thus Blondel (p. 41) complains of the confused simile in Polyc. 6 to
(SdTTTLcrfJLa ifiiZv fieveroi cos OTrXa, ij TrtcTTts ws TrepLKeff^aXata
k.t.X.
'
Quid
enim,' he asks, 'fides, dilectio, patientia, conferunt jam per baptisma
armato T His language convicts him of ignorance that in this passage
oTrXa does not mean 'arms' but 'shields' (see the note 11. p. 353).
Then again both Blondel (p. 40) and Daille (p. 406) attack the passage
in Ephes. 9 o-woSot Travres, Oeo(fi6poi, kol vaocftopoi, y^pifnofliopoi, ayiocfiopoL,
K.T.X. ,
and it has also been assailed by more recent opponents. It is
clear however that the assailants have not entered into the spirit, probably
have not apprehended the meaning, of the metaphor. To the
Ephesians in the age of Ignatius, as I have shown elsewhere (11. pp. 1 7
sq, 55 sq), this language would speak with singular force and aptitude,
owing to a fresh development which the practice of bearing images
and sacred vessels in solemn procession had recently received in their
city.
No metaphor therefore could have been more expressive or welltimed.
The same is the case with several other expressions to which
exception has been taken. Ignatius is not an easy writer. The ideas
seldom lie on the surface of the language. His images more especially
are almost always unusual and sometimes obscure. They require some
little patience to master their significance.
In other cases they may not
commend themselves to the critical judgment. But what then It
may not be considered very good taste — for instance to draw out the
metaphor of a hauling engine {Ephes. 9) to compare the Holy Spirit
to the rope, the faith of the believers to the windlass, and so forth
(Daille, p. 409). But on what grounds, prior to experience, have we any
more right to expect either a faultless taste or a pure diction in a
genuine writer at the beginning of the second century, than in a spurious
writer at the end of the same
The more special accusations under this head are fourfold: (i)
Elaborate Compounds; (2) Latinisms; (3) Reiterations; (4) Anachronisms.
(i) On the first head little need be said. Even if the charges were
proved to the full, it would be no argument against the genuineness of