The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

The Journal of Ecclesiastical

History

http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH

Additional services for The Journal ofEcclesiastical History:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

ALLEN BRENT

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume null / Issue 03 / July 2006, pp 429 - 456DOI: 10.1017/S0022046906007354, Published online: 21 June 2006

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022046906007354

How to cite this article:

ALLEN BRENT (2006). The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch. The Journal ofEcclesiastical History, null, pp 429-456 doi:10.1017/S0022046906007354

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH, IP address: 130.49.198.5 on 31 Aug 2014

The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

by ALLEN BRENT

If we a!rm against recent criticism the authenticity of the Middle Recension of the Ignatian letters, we arenevertheless left with the enigma of Ignatius’ relations with Polycarp. This paper explains that enigma interms of two distinct cultural worlds of early second-century Christianity that come together in the meetingof these two church leaders. Ignatius was the first great missionary bishop who reinterpreted church order,the eucharist and martyrdom against the backcloth of the Second Sophistic in Asia Minor, with its paganprocessions, cult and embassies that celebrated the social order of the Greek city state in relation to imperialpower. Much of Ignatius’ iconography was alien to Polycarp, though the latter was finally to canonise bothhim and his writings by focusing on his impressively enacted refutation of Docetism through his portrayal ofhis forthcoming martyrdom.

A rchbishop James Ussher and Nicolaus Vedelius rediscovered theMiddle Recension of the Ignatian letters as a corpus in actualmanuscripts. Thus they confirmed what was previously a purely

literary hypothesis. Videlius’ discovery of a Greek manuscript (CodexMediceus, Florent. Lauren. Plut. LVII.7), in particular, in addition toUssher’s locating Grosseteste’s Latin translation (Codex Caiensis 395),confirmed the six letters of Ignatius of Antioch in the form in which they

CA=Les Constitutions apostoliques, i–ii, ed. M. Metzger (SC cccxx), Paris 1985–7; CIL=Corpusinscriptionum latinarum, ed. T. Mommsen, G. Henzen, J.-B. De Rossi and others, Berlin1862–1996; ICLV=Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, ed. E. Diehl, Berlin 1925 ;I.Delos=Inscriptions de Delos, ed. F. Durrbach, Paris 1929; I.Eph.=Die Inschriften von Ephesos, ii,ed. C. Borker and others, Bonn 1979, vii/2, ed. R. Meric and others, Bonn 1981;IG=Inscriptiones graecae, ed. U. Koehler, G. Kolbe, G. Kaibel and others, Berlin 1873–1994;IGRR=Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes, ed. R. Cagnat and others, Paris 1906–27;IGUR=Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae, i–iv, ed. L. Moretti, Rome 1968–; ILS=Inscriptioneslatinae selectae, ed. H. Dessau, Berlin 1892–1916; JAA=American Journal of Archaeology ;SEG=Supplementum epigraphicum graecum, ed. H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud, and J. H. M.Strubbe, Amsterdam 1971–; Syll.3=Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum a Guilelmo Dittenbergero conditaet aucta, nunc tertium edita, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1915–24; TAM=Tituli Asiae Minoris,collecti et editi auspiciis Academiae Litterarum Vindobonensis, ed. E. Kalinka, Vienna 1901–;VCS=Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae ; ZAC=Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum

Unless otherwise stated references to the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp are from Ignaced’Antioche ; Polycarp de Smyrne, ed. P. T. Camelot (SC x), Paris 1958.

Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 57, No. 3, July 2006. f 2006 Cambridge University Press 429doi:10.1017/S0022046906007354 Printed in the United Kingdom

existed in the Middle Recension.1 The text of the seventh (Romans) had beentransmitted separately.2 Since those discoveries (in 1644 and 1646), the debateon the authenticity of the Middle Recension continued until the work ofBishop Joseph Lightfoot and Theodor Zahn inaugurated more than half acentury of consensus on the issue.3 That consensus, challenged initially byJoseph Rius-Camps and Robert Joly,4 has recently been further assailed byReinhard Hubner and Thomas Lechner, who assert that the letters ofIgnatius are late second-century forgeries attacking a developed form of laterValentinianism.5

I have no intention in this paper of resurrecting a modern version ofancient Vindiciae that defend yet another previous position, in a debate thathas continued since the seventeenth century in an apparently never-endingcycle. I am well satisfied with a number of reviewers’ comments critical of thearguments of Hubner and Lechner.6 The letters do not contain a kind of laterMarcionite Docetism that regarded only the resurrection body of Jesus asincorporeal.7 Their use of negative terms in the description of the godheaddoes not betray a lateness reflecting the anti-Valentinian creed of Noetus.8

1 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, London 1889, ii/1, 72–86.2 Romans was absent from the eleventh-century Medicean manuscript but was found in

Codex Colbertinus n. 460 (Paris, BN gr. 1451) and related manuscripts between chs iv and v ofthe Martyrium Ignatii, and not along with the other six. A great deal was made of this isarguments that Romans was the one uninterpolated letter : J. Rius-Camps, The four authenticletters of Ignatius the Martyr, Rome 1980, 16–23; C. P. Hammond Bammel, ‘ Ignatian problems’,JTS xxxiii (1982), 63–5.

3 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, and T. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha 1873.4 Rius-Camps, Four authentic letters ; R. Joly, Le Dossier d’Ignace d’Antioche, Bruxelles 1979.5 R. Hubner, ‘Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von

Antiochien’, ZAC i (1997), 42–70, and Der paradox Eine : Antignostischer Monarchiansimus im zweitenJahrhundert : mit einem Beitrag von Markus Vinzent (VCS l, 1999) ; T. Lechner, Ignatius adversusValentinianos ? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien(VCS xlvii,1999).

6 Hammond Bammel, ‘ Ignatian problems’ ; A. Lindemann, ‘Antwort auf die Thesen zurEchtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien’, ZAC i (1997), 185–94;G. Schollgen, ‘Die Ignatien als pseudepigrahisches Brief-corpus : Anmerkung zu den Thesenvon Reinhard M. Hubner ’, ZAC ii (1998), 16–25; M. J. Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the secondcentury : an answer to R. Hubner ’, ZAC ii (1998), 214–26; H. J. Vogt, ‘Bemerkungen zurEchtheit der Ignatiusbriefe ’, ZAC iii (1999), 50–63.

7 In particular see M. Vinzent, ‘ Ich bin kein korperloses Geisteswesen’, in Hubner, DerParadox Eine, 241–86, as a commentary on Ignatius, Smyrnaeans iii.1–3, in Apostolic Fathers, ii/2,1.My problem is that the Gospel of John can clearly be interpreted against a backcloth ofDocetism, and that the plea to Mary Magdalene: ‘Touch me not ’ (John xx.17) in contrast tothat to Thomas (John xx.27) can equally be interpreted as directed against such a form of post-resurrection Docetism. Is the Fourth Gospel therefore late second-century anti-Marcion? Seealso Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the second century ’, 224–5.

8 Hubner, Der Paradox Eine, 80–7, 101–9; cf. Lindemann, ‘Antwort auf die Thesen zurEchtheit ’, 189–90; Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the second century’, 217–19; Vogt, ‘Bemerkungenzur Echtheit ’, 54–5.

430 ALLEN BRENT

The star-hymn in Ephesians has no exclusively Valentinian features.9

Moreover, the alleged reference to aeon speculation rests on a disputedreading in the manuscript tradition of the phrase ‘ the word not proceedingfrom silence’.10

The point that I wish to emphasise here is that such criticisms have notdealt with the resolution of the fundamental enigma surrounding Ignatius ofAntioch that is the starting point of all arguments assailing the authenticity ofthe letters. We need to explain why Irenaeus, and, perhaps, Origen refer tohim circumspectly and even hesitantly, and only later in the second century.11

We need to explain the di!erences between the church order implied by theIgnatian letters and that of Polycarp’s Philippians if we wish to maintain thatthe latter collected together the corpus of the Middle Recension.12 It is with asolution to this enigma that this paper will be concerned.Fundamental to the argument, however, will be that recent criticism has

seriously erred in assuming that the background against which Ignatius is tobe read is basically an esoteric one within the Christian community. Rather,Ignatius’ language and project is a missionary one that recasts thesignificance of the Christian ministry and the eucharist in terms comprehen-sible to the pagan and Hellenistic world of the city states of Asia Minor in theSecond Sophistic. Ignatius’ world is that of pagan processions, with chorusand lyre, singing in celebration of o Jm!oonoia or concord in the city state.13 It isa world in which sophists are elected as ambassadors to conclude treatiescelebrating Hellenic unity, with their attendant festivals of sacrifice andthanksgiving.14 Part of the celebration of mysteries was also in the imperial

9 Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos ?, pt II (for criticism see E. Ferguson’s review inChurch History lxxi (2002), 169–70 See also Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the second century’, 222–4.

10 ‘ the eternal word (l!oocoz ja!i >i >dioz) not proceeding from silence (Sige) (ouj k jap"oo sicg 'zproelh!vvn) : Ignatius, Magnesians viii.2. See Vogt, ‘Bemerkungen zur Echtheit ’, 50–3 (whoregards this as a reference to Wisdom xviii.14), and C. Lucca, ‘ Ignazio di Antiochia e ilmartirio : un analisi di Romani 2 ’, Salesianum lix (1997), 624. See also Lindemann, ‘Antwort aufdie Thesen, 187–8, and Hammond Bammel, ‘ Ignatian problems’, 75–6.

11 Irenaeus (Rufinus), Adversus haereses v.28.4, ed. A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau and others,Paris 1965–82, quotes Ignatius, Romans iv.1 but anonymously (quidam … de nostris), for whichEusebius gives us the Greek (tiz tv'n gJmet!eervn) in Historia ecclesiastica iii.36.12, ed. G. Bardy,Paris 1952, 1955, 1958. Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos ?, 69–74, argues that Origen’scitations were before Rufinus’ Latin anonymous too, although he admits there is a Greekfragment of Homiliae in Lucam vi, ed. M. Rauer, Leipzig 1930, with Ignatius expressly named(p. 70).

12 Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos?, chs ii, iv ; Hubner, Der Paradox Eine, 136–7.13 Dio Chrysostom, Orationes xxxix.2, 4, ed. H. Lamar Crosby, Cambridge, MA.–London

1962; cf. Ignatius, Ephesians iv.1.14 Ignatius, Ephesians iv.1–2; 13.1 ; Magnesians vi.1 ; Trallians xii.2 ; cf. D. Kienast, ‘Die

Homonoia Vertrage in der romischen Kaiserzeit ’, Jahrbuch fur Numismatik xiv (1964), 51–64.See also A. A. R. Sheppard, ‘Homonoia in the Greek cities of the Roman empire ’, Ancient Societyxv–xvii (1984–6), 231–2. For sophists as ambassadors see Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum 515, 520,

THE EN IGMA OF IGNAT IUS OF ANT IOCH 431

cult and its own version of a mystery procession.15 Each of these will berepresented in Ignatius’ view of Christian church order.

My evidence will be mainly epigraphic. I will show in this paper thatIgnatius’ use of such phrases as prokahgm!eenoz e jiz t!uupon, are to be readin the context of such pagan cultic concepts as heow!ooroi, naow!ooroi andaJciow!ooroi. The language of the election of diaconal ambassadors(heopresb!uutai) to proclaim the peace of the Church at Antioch reflectsstereotyped references to the institutions of ambassadors in relations betweenthe Greek city states as these are documented in epigraphic evidence. Theparallels between such terms and institutions are too close to allow us tocontinue to interpret Ignatius in the context of Jewish Christianity, and to seeepiscopal church order as arising from such an historical source.16 Ignatius’recasting of both the vocabulary and the concepts in which church order andliturgy are expressed represents therefore a radical secularisation in terms ofHellenistic paganism of early Christian understanding of such institutions.

Let us now therefore explore, in the light of this background, some specificpassages in Ignatius that illustrate this general case.

Ignatius and Polycarp

If the letters are genuine, then Polycarp’s Philippians has in fact come down tous as he wrote it without an alleged forger’s interpolations. But in this case theenigma begins, not with Irenaeus’ references but with Polycarp’s actualrelations with Ignatius. If the letters of the Middle Recension are genuine,and written by a martyr-bishop, Ignatius by name, his death must be datedsometime before Polycarp’s own martyrdom, traditionally dated at 23February 155.17 If Polycarp’s letter is uninterpolated, its account of Ignatius’

530–1, ed. W. C. Wright, Cambridge, MA–London 1968; cf Ignatius, Philadelphians x;Smyraeans xi.1–2; Polycarp vii.2-8.1.

15 H. W. Pleket, ‘An aspect of the imperial cult : imperial mysteries ’, Harvard TheologicalReview lviii (1965), 331–47 ; A. Brent, The imperial cult and the development of church order (VCS xlv,1999), 193–201, and ‘John as theologos : the imperial mysteries and the Apocalypse’, Journal forthe Study of the New Testament lxxv (1999), 69–86.

16 Cf. A. Ehrhard, The apostolic succession in the first two centuries, London 1953, 48–61, 74–82;W. Telfer, The o!ce of a bishop, London 1962, 68–83.

17 W. Schoedel, ‘Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch’, in H. Temporini and W.Haase (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt : Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung, Berlin–New York 1992, II/27/i, 354–5, with bibliography and variousproposed dates. As matters stand, therefore, Ignatius’ journey to Rome could be anywherebefore that date, and not necessarily around AD 115 in the reign of Trajan. Given the integrityof Polycarp’s Philippians, the authenticity thesis is not tied to the artificial Chronology ofEusebius or to the allegedly genuine tradition of Julius of Africanus, pace Lechner, Ignatiusadversus Valentinianos?, 98–102.

432 ALLEN BRENT

procession, coming through Smyrna, and the reference to the collection ofthe Ignatian corpusmust be true.18 A defence of the authenticity of the MiddleRecension is thus tied to a defence of the integrity of Polycarp’s Philippians, orif not, a thesis that we have two original, genuine letters of Polycarpcombined into one.19 But if either of these alternatives is the case, thereremains still the enigma of why the church order of Polycarp’s communityis not that of Ignatius’ letters. Even if, as I believe, Ignatius does not re-present episcopal government in a later monarchical or scholastic form,20

nevertheless Polycarp shows no understanding of the former’s central point,and its theological justification, that each individual Church must begoverned by a single bishop with a council of presbyters and attendantdeacons.In Polycarp the three-fold order is not explicit. Polycarp does not use nor

claim to be the one e jpiAskopoz, and it seems strange that he should disregardthe title that Ignatius clearly gives to him in that sense.21 There appears tobe a college of presbyters,22 with a number of deacons23 and an order ofwidows,24 as also in the Pastoral Epistles. In the latter, though the terme jpiAskopoz is used, it would appear to be in a generic sense, which suggeststhat there was more than one of them, as in Clement of Rome, who appearsto use e jpiAskopoi and presb!uuteroi in the plural as interchangeablegroups.25

The letter begins : ‘Polycarp and his fellow-presbyters (Pol!uukarpoz ka"iioi J s"uun aujtv'/ presb!uuteroi) ’. Though these words seem to indicatePolycarp’s de facto pre-eminence, they do not seem to suggest that he heldan o"ce distinct from the presbyterate that he could exercise de iure,as Ignatius claims about the bishop’s o"ce would require. There is asuggestive parallel here with the pseudonymous writer of 1 Peter v.1 whenhe says : ‘ I exhort presbyters amongst you (presbut!eerouz ou\n e jnuJmi 'n parakalv' ) who am your fellow presbyter (!oo sumpresb!uuteroz) andwitness of the su!erings of Christ (ka"ii m!aartuz tv'n tou' Xristou'pahgm!aatvn). ’In the meeting of Ignatius and Polycarp, given the literary integrity of

Philippians, there are therefore two distinct, early Christian worlds. I wish now

18 Polycarp, Philippians i.1 ; xiii.19 N. P. Harrison, Polycarp’s two epistles to the Philippians, Cambridge 1936; cf. W. Schoedel,

‘Polycarp’s witness to Ignatius of Antioch’, Vigiliae Christianae xli (1987), 1–10.20 A. Brent, ‘The Ignatian epistles and the threefold ecclesiastical order ’, Journal of Religious

History xvii (1992), 18–32. 21 Ignatius, Polycarp Inscr.22 Polycarp, Philippians vi.1, cf. 1 Timothy v.17, 19; Titus i.5, cf. Philippians i.1.23 Philippians v.2–3; cf. 1 Tim. iii.8, 12 ; cf. Phil. i.1.24 Philippians iv.3 ; 6.11 ; cf. 1 Tim. v.3–16.25 Clement, Corinthians xlii.4–5, ed. B. D. Ehrmann, Cambridge, MA–London 2003, cf.

xliv.5 and xlvii.6.


to tease out the roots of Ignatian church order in the pagan context of theSecond Sophistic, with its mystery processions led by priests who bore imagesof the deities that they represented. Those deities in turn embodied thecollective and corporate personality of their particular city. I will argue thatIgnatius understood both the gathering for the eucharist and his own martyr-procession as a mystery cult of the same sort, duly sanitised andchoreographed, and that he conceptualised his view of church order on thebasis of such a model.26 Though Polycarp accepted such a processionbecause it provided an enacted refutation of Docetism, he otherwise foundIgnatius’ conceptualisation of order quite unintelligible. Here we have theexplanation of the enigma of Ignatius, and the reason why he was held atarms length, mentioned so circumspectly by Irenaeus, and his imagery onlycanonised in the Didascalia and Constitutiones apostolicae at the expense of aradical reinterpretation of his original concepts.27

Ignatian church order

Ignatius’ highly idiosyncratic view of church order was as alien to Irenaeusas it was to the latter’s hero, and ‘orthodox’ predecessor, Polycarp. It wasIrenaeus’ concept of one particular presbyter as a teaching successor whoheaded a school (di!aadoxoz), and, therefore, the one e jpiAskopoz de iure andnot a presbyter whose authority was merely de facto amongst his council ofsunpresb!uuteroi that was the next stage in the development of thepresbyteral church order that Polycarp knew.28 But for Ignatius the bishopis neither the successor of the Apostles nor does he perform an act ofordination upon presbyters, deacons or one who is to join him as a fellowbishop over another congregation.29

For Ignatius, the apostolic order of ministers is to be found in the council ofthe presbyterate. The bishop does not exercise the apostolic ministry butrather that of God the Father, whose image he is to project in the liturgical

26 For an account of the choreographing of the martyr-procession see W. Schoedel, Ignatiusof Antioch : a commentary on the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Philadelphia 1985, 11–12; cf. A. Brent,‘ Ignatius of Antioch and the imperial cult ’, Vigiliae Christianae xlix (1998), 111–15!.

27 A. Brent, ‘The relations between Ignatius of Antioch and the Didascalia apostolorum ’,Second Century viii (1991), 129–56 See also G. Schollgen, Die Anfange der Professionalisierung desKlerus und das kirchliche Amt in der Syrischen Didaskalie, Munster 1998, 119–20.

28 For an account of order as diadox!gg see A. Brent,Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the thirdcentury : communities in tension before the emergence of a monarch-bishop (VCS xxxi, 1995), 420–4, 476–82.

29 Idem, ‘The Ignatian epistles ’, 24–8, and ‘History and eschatological mysticism inIgnatius of Antioch’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses lxv (1989), 311–13. See also Schollgen,Professionalisierung, 24–5.

434 ALLEN BRENT

assembly. The representatives of Christ, whether at the eucharist or in thecommunity generally, are the deacons.30 As Ignatius says :

Likewise let all revere the deacons (oJmoiAvz e jntrep!eeshvsan to"uuz diak!oonouz) as JesusChrist ( Jvz jIgsou'n Xrist!oon), even as they do the bishop who is the image of theFather ( Jvz ka"ii t"oon e jpiAskopon o[nta t!uupon tou' patr!ooz), and the presbyters as God’scouncil (to"uuz d"ee presbut!eerouz Jvz sun!eedrion heou') and as a band of Apostles (ka"ii Jvzs!uundesmon jap!oost!oolvn) : without these a church cannot be summoned (xvr"iiz to!uutvne jkklgsiAa ouj kalei 'tai).31

Similarly he says :

Be eager to do all things in God’s concord (e jn oJmonoiAa/ heou' spoud!aafete p!aantapr!aassein) with the bishop presiding as an image of God (prokahgm!eenou tou'e jpisk!oopou e jiz t!uupon heou') and the presbyters as an image of the council of theApostles (ka"ii tv'n presbut!eervn e jiz t!uupon sunedriAou tv'n japost!oolvn), and ofthe deacons … entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ (ka"ii tv'n diak!oonvn tv'npepisteum!eenvn diakoniAan jIgsou' Xristou').32

It is important to note that in these texts there is no mention of the later orderof Christendom in any of the concepts used. If, as Lechner argues, theIgnatian letters had been deliberately forged in order to prove the later,Hegesippan and Irenaean, claim based upon equally forged succession lists,then they would have reflected that later order with which, in fact, they haveno real fit.33 Undoubtedly for Ignatius the three-fold order authenticatesthe gathering of believers as the Church. But it does not do so in anything likethe sense of Hegesippus and Irenaeus since there is no model of diadox!gg.There is no trace of an idea of the bishop as teaching successor to the

Apostles being able to guarantee his validity and authenticity by theelaboration of a diadox!gg or list of teachers in lineal, chronological descent,as for Greek philosophical schools.34 Ignatius makes no mention, any more

30 In additions to quotations in the text above see Trallians i.1–2.31 Trallians iii.1. See also Philadelphians v.1.32 Magnesians vi.1. I follow Lightfoot and Zahn in adopting the reading t!uupoz (along with

the [abridged] Syriac [S] and Armenian [A]) versions, and not t!oopoz even though the latter isattested by both Greek and Latin versions of the Middle Recension (G and L) as well as theGreek (g) and Latin (l) of the Long Recension. The reading is also supported by Severus ofAntioch (c. 515). However, the reading t!uupoz in Trallians iii.1 is secure, which must be apowerful support for not reading t!oopoz instead in this similar passage. Furthermore Didascaliaii.26 attests such an Ignatian usage, which was misunderstood by that writer as type in anexegetical, Old Testament sense. This would explain why Severus and later scribes replaced itwith t!oopoz which by that time described the physical space assigned to the various clericalorders in the architectural arrangement of the basilicas of eastern Christendom. See, however,Schoedel, Ignatius, 141. 33 Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos?, 110–11.

34 E. Molland, ‘Irenaeus of Lugdunum and the apostolic tradition’, this JOURNAL i (1950),12–28, and ‘Le Development de l’idee de succession apostolique ’, Revue d’histoire et de philosophiereligieuse xxxiv (1954), 1–29; A. Brent, ‘Diogenes Laertius and the apostolic succession’, thisJOURNAL xliv (1993), 367–89.


than does Polycarp in the case of a presbyter, of any act of ordinationby the imposition of hands, or of Peter as his apostolic predecessor.The case for pseudepigrapha or pseudepigraphic interpolations herewould require something far more like the letters of Peter to Clement, andClement to James which we meet at the beginning of the Pseudoclementinehomilies.35

For Ignatius the public role of the bishop, with his presbyters and deacons,is focused in, and demonstrated by, their role in the liturgical drama.36 Itis because of the character of their role-play that without them there isno gathering as e jkklgsiAa (xvr"iiz to!uutvn e jkklgsiAa ouj kalei 'tai). In thecommunity gathered for the eucharist the bishop, seated in pre-eminentview (prokahgm!eenoz), creates the image of God the Father (e jiz t!uupon heou' oras o [nta t!uupon tou' patr!ooz). The Seer of the Apocalypse had seen in heaventhe presbyterate seated around the throne of God, and of the Lamb, ‘ slainfrom the foundation of the world’. In Ignatius’ liturgical assembly, theprominently seated Father-bishop has positioned around him the circle ofthe presbyters who create the image of the spirit-filled Apostles at theJohannine Pentecost :

Be eager to be confirmed (spoud!aafete ou\n bebaivhg'nai) in the teachings of the Lordand of the Apostles (e jn toi 'z d!oocmasin tou' KuriAou ka"ii tv'n japost!oolvn) … togetherwith your worthily esteemed bishop (met ja tou' jajioprepest!aatou ejpisk!oopou uJmv'n),and the worthily woven spiritually garlanded presbyterate (kai jajiopl!ookoupneumatikou' stew!aanou tou' presbuteriAou), and of the deacons according to God(ka"ii tv'n kat ja heon diak!oonvn).37

We may also conclude that the deacons, who were previously described as tobe ‘revered (e jntrep!eeshvsan)… as Jesus Christ ( Jvz jIgsou'n Xrist!oon) ’, or as‘entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ (pepisteum!eenvn diakoniAan jIgsou'Xristou') ’, create, as t!uupoi, the image of Jesus Christ.

According to John xx.22 the risen Christ breathed (ejnew!uusgsen) the HolySpirit into the twelve gathered in the upper room and inaugurated theChurch as the extension of the incarnation. In a typical allusive reference tothe Johannine tradition, Ignatius refers to this scene when he says : ‘For thiscause the Lord received anointing on his head (di"aa tou'to m!uuron e [laben e jp"iitg 'z kewalg 'z aujtou' o J K!uurioz) that he might breathe incorruption upon theChurch ( {ina pn!eeg/ tg'/ e jkklgsiAa/ jawharsiAan). ’38

35 For references and discussion see Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 477–501.36 For discussion of the Ignatian typology see idem, ‘History and eschatological mysticism’,

311–16; Cultural episcopacy and ecumenism: representative ministry in church history from the age of Ignatiusof Antioch to the Reformation, with special reference to contemporary ecumenism, Leiden 1992, 84–5, andImperial cult, 213–23. 37 Magnesians xiii.1.

38 Ephesians xvii.1. Schoedel, Ignatius, 81, detects, in addition, parallels in the Odes of Solomon11.15, in the Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi codex I, 33, 39–34.34), ed. H. W. Attridge, Leiden

436 ALLEN BRENT

For Ignatius, therefore, the significance of ministerial o"ce is that thethree kinds of o"ce-holders (bishop, priests and deacons), create the Churchby reflecting in the images or t!uupoi that they wear, the corporate, liturgicallife of the community in the ongoing drama of redemption. Flowing throughthe bishop is the divinity of God the Father, of whom he is a human image orlikeness, giving from his throne ‘ the bread from heaven to eat ’.39 Thepresbyterate recalls and realises afresh the Spirit given to the apostolic circlein John on the evening of the Resurrection. The deacons, as they take theeucharistic gifts from the Father-bishop and give them to the people, issuingtheir appropriate eucharistic instructions, thus represent the Christ whocomes from the one Father (t"oon jaw ’ Jenoz patr"ooz proelh!oonta) and returns tohim who is one again (ka"ii e jiz e {na o[nta ka"ii xvr!ggsanta).40

This is a whole world away from Irenaeus’ view of order in terms ofdiadox!gg in a lineal, historical descent. There is no mention of any act ofordination producing a legitimate succession that precludes false teachersfrom any right to practice as the true di!aadoxoi.We must now seek the cultural and historical context within which such a

view of church order is not even slightly understood by Ignatius’ successors,as seen in the recasting of his concepts in a far di!erent though to him moreintelligible form by the author of the Constitutiones apostolicae.41

What, therefore, is the origin of the apparently rather odd description of abishop, or the presbyterate, or a deacon, as presiding as an image(prokahgm!eenoz e jiz t!uupon) ? How, and in what context, can images be saidto preside?

t!uupoz and cultic processions

The essential meaning of t!uupoz is that of an impression left by a seal or a dieon wood, stone, metal or clay; it thus comes to be used of an image on a coinor a tattoo mark or brand on an animal or slave.42 It is also used of a wooden

1985, and in the Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi codex II, 77.35–78.12), ed. F. Wisse, Leiden1989. 39 John vi.32.

40 p!aantez Jvz e jiz e {na na"oon s!uuntr!eexete heou', Jvz e jp"ii e }n husiast!ggrion, e jp"ii e }na jIgsou'nXrist!oon, t"oon jaw j Jen"ooz patr"ooz proelh!oonta ka"ii e jiz e {na o[nta ka"ii xvr!ggsanta : Magnesiansvii.2. 41 See n. 32 above and related text.

42 ‘Mot issu de la meme racine que t!uuptv, un t!uupoz est d’abord l’empreinte en creux(imprime) ou en saillie (repoussee) que laisse la frappe d’une matrice, l’embleme figure surcette matrice et que la frappe reproduira. Ainsi appelle-t-on t!uupoz le coin monetaire et le typeimprimee par le coin sur le flan de metal, cachet de bois qui sert a timbrer, sur l’argile fraıche,les amphores ou les tuiles, le fer marquer en relief, assujetti a l’extremite d’un kaut!ggr pourimprimer a chaud une marque sur un animal, un esclave, un criminel. Le t!uupoz est aussi lemoule creux utilise par le coroplathe et l ’epreuve d’argile qui sortira de ce moule, le reliefobtenu au repousse sur une feuille de metal ’ : G. Roux, ‘Le Sens de t!uupoz ’, Revue des etudesanciennes lxiii (1961), 5.


cast for tiles that decorate scenes on an altar.43 But it is also used to refer toportable images of deities.

Josephus, when he uses t!uupoz of idols, specifically refers to portable statueswhere he describes again the scene in Genesis xxxi.32 in which Rachael hasstolen the teraphim or portable gods of her father Laban.44 Thus Josephusrefers to Rachel’s small, portable idols or teraphim as t!uupoi : they are not bas-reliefs.45 There is here a further feature of t!uupoi or portable teraphim in thecultural context in which Flavius Josephus is writing (Domitian, AD 93–4).Rachael’s t!uupoi tv'n hev'n are, clearly, patriAoi. These terms clearly refer tothe lares et penates, the gods of hearth and home carried after the destruction ofTroy by Aeneas. To his Graeco-Roman readers t!uupoi were clearly portableimages, which could be used to transfer a cult and found it on new shores.Josephus followed the LXX in his understanding of t!uupoz, a word that thelatter rarely uses but then only of portable images.46 But his usage was notidiosyncratic when he used the term for teraphim, which were clearlyportable, rounded statues.

In 1838, in Rome on the Via di Ripetta, a marble base was uncovered. Itwas inscribed ‘The statue of Marcianus, proconsul of Greece [sc. Achaia],stands resplendent (Markianou' stiAlbei t!uupoz Ell!aadoz janhup!aatoio). ’47

Clearly such a base did not originally support a bas-relief but a roundedstatue of Marcianus, here designated a t!uupoz.48 Moretti’s photograph showsthe base for the statue that was erected upon it ; such a statue is called t!uupozwhich was not therefore only applied to a bas-relief. Similarly, the ‘ statuestanding upright (t!uupoz o [rhioz) ’ found at Ephesus and set up again couldnot have been simply a bas-relief : ‘This upright statue which you see (tou'ton

43 The Inventory of Hieropes, does mention a ‘wooden pattern (t!uupon j!uulinon) for thetitles that are on the Ceraton (keramiAdvn tv'n ejp"ii t"oon Keratv'na) ’. The latter was an altar,described in I.Delos 442 B.172 and discussed in Roux, ‘Le Sens de t!uupoz ’, 12–14.

44 JPax!ggla ka"ii to"uuz t!uupouz tv'n hev'n (ou}z s!eebein patriAouz o[ntaz n!oomimon g\n,sunanelom!eeng sunapediAdraske met"aa tg 'z jadelwg 'z ; per"ii m!eentoi tv'n i Jervm!aatvn e jk!eeleuene [reunan poiei 'shai. dejam!eenou d"ee Lab!aanou t"ggn e[reunan, JPax!ggla punhanom!eeng, katatiAhgsito"uuz t!uupouz e jiz t"ggn s!aacgn tg 'z wero!uusgz aujt"ggn kam!gglou. : Josephus, Antiquitates 1.322 (10),ed. H. St. J. Thackeray, Cambridge, MA.–London 1967.

45 Contrary to Roux, ‘Le Sens de t!uupoz ’, 5.46 janel!aabete t"ggn skgn"ggnMol"oox ka"ii t"oo a[stron tou' heou' uJmv'n Paiw"aan, to"uuz t!uupouz aujtv'n

ou }z e jpoi!ggsate Jeautoi 'z : Amos v.26 (LXX), quoted in Acts vii.44. An immovable idol is calledan e jik!vvn in Isaiah xl.19–20 (LXX): m"gg e jik!oona e jpoiAgsen t!eektvn, g[ xrusox!oooz xvne!uusazxrusiAon periexr!uusvsen aujt"oon, !oomoiAvma kateske!uuasen aujt!oon ; j!uulon ca[ r a[sgpton e jkl!eecetait!eektvn ka"ii sowv'z fgt pv'z st!ggsei e jiko'na aujtou', ka"ii {ina m"gg sale!uutai.

47 IGUR, 67. See comments in D. Feissel, ‘Notes d ’epigraphie chretienne (vii) xx: quelquesdedicaces de statues decernees par les empereurs ’, Bulletin de correspondence hellenique cviii (1984),545–58 at p. 547 n. 1.

48 L. Robert, Hellenica : recueil d ’epigraphie de numismatique et d’antiquites grecques, Paris 1948, iv.16 n. 3.

438 ALLEN BRENT

o{n e jisor!aaa /z t!uupon o [rhion) of Antoninus ( jAntvneiAnou) concealed [in theground] at Ephesus, Dorotheus rededicated (Dvr!ooheoz Ptel!eeg/ h!ggkatokrupt!oomenon). ’49 In consequence we can infer from the collections ofepigrams in the Anthologie de Planude, whose autograph is MS Marcianusgraecus 481, that they are copied from similar bases on which similar loststatues were erected.50

It must be further noted that the word t!uupoz is to be found on aninscription on the base of a mutilated statue, not a flat bas-relief, a statue ofScholastica.51 On its pedestal base we read: ‘You are looking on the image ofmy godly wife, o so wise Scolastica, o stranger … (t!uupon cunaik"ooz eujsebo~uuzliAan sowg 'z SxolastikiAaz moi tou'to(n) v\ j!eene bl!eepeiz).52 Here t!uupoz clearlyrefers to an image in the form of a rounded statue.Ignatius nowhere uses t!uupoz in the predominant, New Testament, sense of

an Old Testament figure, object, or event to be interpreted figuratively orallegorically.53 To what extent are we entitled to interpret Ignatius’ use oft!uupoz as analogous with this, pagan sense of ‘portable image’?Ignatius describes the clerics who join his martyr-procession in the

following way:

You are all therefore (e jst"ee ou\n) cult associations (s!uunodoi p!aantez)54, God-bearers(heow!ooroi) and temple-bearers (ka"ii naow!ooroi), Christ bearers (xristow!ooroi), bearersof holy things (aJciow!ooroi), in every way adorned with the commandments of JesusChrist (kat"aa p!aanta kekosmgm!eenoi e jn e jntolai 'z jIgsou' Xristou').55

Here Ignatius’ usage parallels precisely mystery cults in whose processionso"cials bore various images by those described with -wor!ooz adjectives.Ignatius describes the Ephesians as ‘ fellow initiates (Pa!uulou summ!uustai, tou'g Jciasm!eenou) ’, and the Trallians as having those ‘who are deacons of themysteries (to"uuz diak!oonouz o [ntaz m!uustgrivn) ’.56

49 Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, ed. J. Franz, A. Kirchho!, E. Curtius and A. Boeckh, ii,Berlin 1828, 2967.

50 This manuscript forms the basis of R. Aubreton and F. Bu"ere, Anthologie greque, II :Anthologie Planude, xiii, Paris 1980.

51 F. Miltner, ‘Vorlaufiger Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos ’, Jahreshefte desosterreichischen Instituts in Wien xliii (1956), Beiblatt xxi, 26 abb. 15. 52 I.Eph. ii. 453.

53 1 Corinthians x.6–11 ; Romans v.14 ; Acts vii.44 : kat"aa t"oon t!uupon o{n Jevr!aakei=Exodusxxv.40: kat"aa t"oon t!uupon t"oon dedeicm!eenon soi e jn tv'/ o[rei ; Hebrews viii.5.

54 The s!uunodoi are not merely ‘companions ’, nor even the anachronous ‘ fellow pilgrims’of recent translations. One of the registers of meaning of this term is ‘members of a commoncult or guild ’. The usual s!uunodoz appears as a plural here because the churches are joining hismartyr-procession through their representatives, and therefore each church individually isviewed as its own cult. Furthermore, the term has close associations with mystery cults. Fors!uunodoz in this sense see SEG vi.59 (=IGRR iii.209) ; xliii.773.32, 33; 1135; IGUR, 143 ; 246.B.2–9 (=IG xiv.253) ; Syll.3, 851.7–9; 26–7; IG v.2.269 and 270. 55 Ephesians ix.2.

56 Ephesians xii.12; Trallians ii.3. See also the tri!aa must!ggria kraucg 'z in Ephesians 19.1. Formimgt!ggz in this sense see also Ephesians i.1 ; Trallians i.2 ; Romans vi.1.


Diodorus describes those who participated in Philip of Macedon’sdeification shortly before his death in 365 BC as accompanied by the statuesof the twelve gods in procession ‘adorned marvellously with the greatestresplendence of wealth (ka"ii tg'/ lampr!ootgti tou' plo!uutou haumastv'zkekosmgm!eena) ’. Thus those who accompany Ignatius as human t!uupoi are‘vested’ or ‘adorned with the commandments of Christ (kekosmgm!eenoie jn tai 'ze jntolai 'z jIgsou' Xristou') ’.57 The procession in which Philip is enthronedwith the twelve gods began when the crowd ‘ran together (sun!eetrexen) ’,58

like Ignatius exhorting the Churches to ‘run together (suntr!eexein) ’, to‘ form a chorus (xor"ooz ciAneshe) ’ with their ‘ inspired multitude (e [n hev']plg 'hoz) ’,59 or to ‘run together to one temple-shrine of God (p!aantez Jvze jiz e {na na"oon suntr!eexete heou') ’.60

There is clear evidence of the role of those who bore images of gods inprocession. In 1926 a three-sided marble pillar was unearthed on the viaTusculana between the via Labicana and the via Latina.61 Here we have a listof names of a Dionysiac s!uunodoz or hiAasoz, in columns, stating the namesof the ‘priests and priestesses (i Jerei 'z and i J!eereiai) ’,62 the ‘Hierophant or ofthe sacred (i Jerow!aantgz) ’63 and otherwise assigning each member to theirrole in the mystery drama.64 Its heading clearly reads: ‘ [In honour of]Pompeia Agrippinilla the priestess ( ’[Acr]ippeiniAllan t"ggn i J!eereian) theinitiants into the mysteries who are listed beneath (m!uustai oi JuJpocecramm!eenoi). ’

From the way in which this inscription continues, we can appreciate whyand in what sense clerics who join his procession from the various Churchesare described as bearing images of God (heow!ooroi), Christ (xristow!ooroi),miniature shrines (naow!ooroi) or sacred vessels (aJciow!ooroi) generally. Wefind these paralleled in Robert’s list of functionaries in religious rituals, wherecompounds with -woroz refer quite literally to those who carry sacredobjects, such as ‘ [miniature] altar bearer (bvmow!ooroz) ’, ‘casket bearer(kistow!ooroz) ’, ‘fire bearer (purw!ooroz) ’, ‘ fan bearer (liknaw!ooroz) ’, ‘basketbearer (kangw!ooroz) ’, ‘bearer of olive shoots (hallow!ooroz) ’, ‘phallus bearer(wallow!ooroz) ’ and ‘god bearer (heow!ooroz) ’.65 Apuleius, moreover, also

57 Ephesians ix.2.58 Diodorus Sicilicus xvi.92.5, ed. C. Bradford Welles, Cambridge, MA–London 1970.59 Thus John Damascene reads e [nheon plg'hoz in Ignatius, Trallians viii.2, which has a

di!erent reading in the Latin and Greek of the Middle Recension and the Coptic.60 Magnesians vii.2 ; cf. Ephesians iv.1–2; iii.2. 61 Dedication to Agrippinilla : IGUR, 160.62 Ibid.160.IA.5–15. See also F. Cumont, ‘La Grande Inscription bachique du

Metropolitan Museum, II : Commentaire religieux de l’inscription’, JAA xxxvii (1933), 215–63.63 IGUR, 160.IA.16–17.64 A. Vogliano, ‘La grande iscrizione bacchica del metropolitan museum’, pt I, plates xxvii-

xxix, JAA xxxvii (1933), 215–31; Cumont, ‘La Grande Inscription’, 232–63.65 L. Robert, ‘Recherches Epigraphiques : VI inscriptions d’Athenes ’, in his Opera minora

selecta : epigraphie et antiquites grecques, i–vii, Amsterdam 1969–90, ii. 839 n. 6 (=Revue des etudes

440 ALLEN BRENT

gives examples in the Isis mysteries in which ‘the foremost high priests(antistites sacrorum proceres) … carried before them the distinctive attributes ofthe most powerful gods (potentissimorum deum proferebant insignes exuvias) ’. Butthese heow!ooroi were also accompanied in the goddess’s procession by asecond group, who ‘carried with both hands an altar (manibus ambabus gerebataltaria) ’. Clearly the altar in question was miniature ; thus we havebvmow!ooroi as counterparts to Ignatius’ naow!ooroi or aJciow!ooroi.66

In the Attis mysteries, the kistow!ooroz bore the chest containing theentrails of the god provided by the self-mutilation of the priest in question.We have a marble relief on a base inscribed in memory of L. Lartius Anthus67

who is a kistow!ooroz of the temple of Ma-Bellone.68 Indeed, like Ignatius’heow!ooroz, the title of his position and function in the cultic procession is usedalmost like the cognomen that Ignatius gives himself in the inscription of everyletter.Lartius is depicted on the relief, wearing a laurel crown decorated with

three medallions portraying divinities. In his left hand are two double axes,and in his right a laurel twig with which to sprinkle the blood produced byself-mutilation with the axes. On the ground, to the right of Lartius, is a cistuswith a closed lid, evidently made of basket-work.The reception of Ignatius as heow!ooroz is well described as the Ephesians

heard and sent representatives to his procession as he passed along the upperroute to Smyrna via Philadelphia. His martyr-procession too is a celebrationof Christ’s death, which can be seen in Ignatius’ body. He speaks of theEphesians as greeting his procession and becoming part of it, like bacchicmaenads, or as we have seen, the worshippers of Attis roused to ecstasyor ‘ inflamed ( janafvpur!ggsantez) ’ by ‘ the blood of god (ejn a {imati heou') ’in the drama in which they participate through mimesis : ‘being imitatorsof God (mimgta"ii o [ntez heou') being inflamed by the blood of God( janafvpur!ggsantez e jn a {imati heou'). … in order that I might be able toachieve my goal of becoming a disciple ( {ina di"aa tou' e jpituxei 'n dunghv'mahgt"ggz ei \nai) ’.69

anciennes lxii (1960), 323 n. 6). See also idem, ‘Le Serpent Glycon d’Abonouteichos a Athenes etArtemis d’Ephese a Rome’, Opera minora, v. 747–69 (=Comptes rendus des seances : Academie desInscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1981), 519–35).

66 Apuleius, Metamorphoses xi.10, ed. J. A. Hanson, Cambridge, MA–London, 1989.67 CIL vi. 2233. See also E. Strong, ‘Sepulchral relief of a priest of Bellona’, Papers of the

British School at Rome ix (1920), 207 : ‘L. Lartio Antho Cistophoro aedis Bellonae Pulvinensisfecit C. Quinctius Rufinus Fratri et Domino suo pientissimo cui et monumentum fecit interiusagro Apollonis Argentei Quinctius Rufinus. (C. Quinctius Rufus has made this for L. LartiusAnthus Cistophoros of the Temple of Bellona for his most pious brother, for whom alsoQuinctius Rufinus made a monument in the neighbourhood of the field of the silver Apollo) ’.

68 Ma-Bellone was the divine Mother in Cappadocia and Pontus, assimilated to the Romancult of Bellona from the time of Sulla when introduced at Rome. She was associatednevertheless also with Magna Mater : Strong, ‘Sepulchral relief ’, 207. 69 Ephesians i.1–2.


We have seen how, for Ignatius, the bishop as prokahgm!eenoz e jiz t!uupon is‘pre-eminent as an image’ of the Father. Ignatius does not always make thelater distinctions between persons in a triune godhead, and clearly his Father-God is a su!ering god.70 In joining the procession with its enacted drama,they participate in the saving events of the martyr-bishop, the t!uupoz of thesu!ering and rising God:

You are the highway of those slaughtered for God (p!aarad!ooz e jste tv'n e jiz he"oonjanairoum!eenvn), fellow initiates of Paul (Pa!uulou summ!uustai) the most blessed who has

been sanctified, who has been martyred (tou' g Jciasm!eenou, tou' memarturgm!eenou,jajiomakariAstou). May I be allowed to be found in his footsteps (ou| c!eenoit!oo moi uJp"oo

t"aa i[xng euJ rehg'nai) when I attain to God (o{tan Heou' e jpit!uuxv).71

Ignatius does not, however, speak of himself as tupow!ooroz, which is nototherwise found in any case, however much his role as heow!ooroz may carrythat implication. But that he does not use such terms as e jik!oonez ora[calmata of what he bears may betray considerable sophistication in theway in which he is manipulating the pagan imagery of his discourse, bothverbal and iconographic, in his reconceptualisation of early Christianecclesial order.

We must first note that the verb worei 'n, from which the ending of -worozis derived, embraces the English concept of ‘ to wear’ as well as ‘ to carry’.Though tupow!ooroz as the bearer of a portable image of a deity occursneither in pagan literature nor epigraphy, such t!uupoi are carried indirectlyby a stewangw!ooroz (stewangworei 'n) in a context that will now beconsidered.

L. Lartius Anthus, kistow!ooroz of Ma-Bellona, whose inscribed stele hasalready been referred to,72 wears a crown, possibly originally golden, of alaurel leaf design, which was adorned with three medallions depictinghelmeted divinities. The central medallion was probably of Bellona, withMars on the right and Minerva on the left.73 Here are t!uupoi set in ast!eewanoz worn by a priest who heads a procession. We have many examplesof such st!eewanoi bearing three or sometimes multiple t!uupoi whether ofmembers of the imperial family, the Capitoline Triad or gods of the citystate.74

70 The author of the Long Recension corrects Ignatius’ ‘Patripassianism’ at this point with :janafvpur!ggsantez ejn a {imati Xristou'. 71 Ephesians xii.2.72 See n. 67 above and related text.73 Strong, ‘Sepulchral relief ’, 208–9, and plate xxvi. See also Cumont, ‘La Grande

Inscription’, 51, plate ii/2. See also Robert, ‘Nouvelles Remarques sur l ’edit d ’Edit d’Ezira ’,Opera minora, ii. 967–8 (=Bulletin de correspondance hellenique [1930], 263).

74 J. Inan-E. Alfoldi Rosenhaum, Roman and early Byzantine portrait sculpture in Asia Minor,London 1966, 128, catalogue no. 151, plate nos lxxxiii/4, lxxxvii/1–2 (Izmir Museum, inv. no.648, negs. E.R. xvi, 37, 38, 39) ; 137, catalogue no. 169, Ephesus, Alexander Severus, plateno. xcviii/4 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. No. I, 922. Neg. Osterreichisches

442 ALLEN BRENT

Though a kistow!ooroz was not necessarily, any more than a gallus, a fullyordained priest, Strong notes that in a di!erent epigraph one NoniusElphideforus is defined as coronatus cistifer and that in the list of cistiferi(kistow!ooroi) of Virtus-Bellona some are called sac. (=sacerdos) as well,presumably indicated by the st!eewanoz.75 Thus we may say that Ignatius isthe coronatus in that he wears in the procession the t!uupoz of the su!eringGod, as well bearing that image of God himself (heow!ooroz). Those clericswho join his procession are the t!uupoi in the liturgical assembly of theire jkklgsiAai where they act the drama of replay. In the martyr-procession theymay indeed play a lesser role as naow!ooroi, aJciow!ooroi and xristow!ooroi,describing that which they bear in support of the martyr-bishop, who wearsthe t!uupoz patr!ooz in his own flesh.We can see Ignatius’ imagery reflected in a decree of Oinoanda. On 5 July

AD 125 the city council of Oinoanda in Lycia formalised by decree thebenefaction of C. Iulius Demosthenes, who had founded a music festival andcompetition (a[cvn mousik!ooz) associated with the imperial cult and approvedby a letter of Hadrian to the Termessians (29 August 124).76 Here we haveheow!ooroi, now replaced by sebastow!ooroi, whose function it is to carry inprocession images of both the imperial family and of the ancestral god(Apollo), as well as a portable altar :

(61) …ten sebastophoroi should also be chosen by him (ai Jrei 'shai uJp j aujtou' ka"iisebastow!oorouz iA v) (62) who, wearing white robes and crowns of celery (o {i[ti]nezworou'ntez e jshg 'ta leuk"ggn ka"ii st!eewa[non se]liAninon) will carry (bast!aasousi) andlead forward (ka"ii pro!aajousi) and escort (ka"ii propompe!uusousi) the images of theemperors (t"aaz sebastik"aaz e jik!oonaz) and (63) the image of our ancestral god Apollo(ka"ii t"ggn [tou'] patr!v/v/ou gJmv'n heou' jAp!oollvnoz) and the previously mentioned holyaltar (ka"ii t"oon p[rod]glo~uumenon i Jer"oon bvm!oon).77

But the priest who leads the procession is to wear the t!uupoi of the imperialfamily and ancestral god (Apollo) in a st!eewanoz, as we learnt at thebeginning:

(51) he has promised (e jpgnceiAlato) that in addition (52) at his own expense to makeready (kataskeu!aasai e jk tv'n jidiAvn) and dedicate to the city (ka"ii jan[ahei 'nai tg'/ p!oo]lei)both a golden crown (ka"ii st!eewanon xrusou'n) carrying relief portraits (e [[xo]ntae [ktupa pr!oosvpa) of the emperor Nerva Trajan Hadrian (Aujtokr!aatoroz N!eeroua

Archaeologisches Institut, no. I. 352), and Romischen und fruhbyzantinische Portratsplastik aus derTurkei, Mainz 1979, 210, cat. no. 186, plates 138/1, 139, 140/3; 274 (Geyre (Aphrodisias)Grabungs Inv. No. 64–222 (Head) and 64–221 (Body) (Neg. : E.A.R. I, 31–34; M.A.D. 1964–5).See also G. F. Hill, ‘Priester-Diademe’, Jahreshefte des osterreichischen archaologischen Institutes inWien ii (1899), 245!. and Taf.viii, who identifies well-preserved busts with members of theimperial family. 75 Strong, ‘Sepulchral relief ’, 209–11, commenting on ILS ii.5432.

76 SEG xxxviii.1462.A.1–9. 77 Ibid. C.61–3.


Traianou' JAdria[nou']) (53) Caesar Augustus (KaiAsaroz Sebastou') and ourLeader the ancestral god Apollo (ka"ii tou' prokahg[c!eet]ou gJ[mv']n patr!v/v/ou heou'jAp!oollvnoz), which the agonothete will wear (o{n wor!ggsei o J jacvnoh!eetgz), and analtar decorated with silver (ka"ii bvm!oon peri!aarcuron) which has an inscription (54) ofthe dedicator (e [xonta e jpicra[w"ggn] aujtou' tou' janateheik!ootoz).78

We note furthermore the appropriateness of calling such images t!uupoi, sincethey are described as e [ktupa pr!oosvpa. Pr!oosvpon, of course, had a wideapplication as meaning ‘ face’, ‘mask’ and even ‘person’. Here the term isentering a discourse of pagan theology that bears witness to a confluence ofpolytheistic imagery combined into a kind of pantheistic order around theimagery of the one divinised imperial family. I have argued elsewhere thatIgnatius engages with this too.79 In view of later, Christological usage, a punmay be forgiven at this juncture: we are seeing three distinct pr!oosvpa unitedinto one god-headdress.

There is a second point regarding the reason why Ignatius should chooseto use the term t!uupoz as the images to be created by the three-fold order ofbishop, presbyters and deacons. He is clearly not a polytheist, and he willhave no literal, plastic imagery in his procession. To have spoken of his clericsas a[calmata or e jik!oonez would perhaps have been altogether too crass. t!uupozis within a rich semantic field which extends to other possible meanings. Thisterm can invoke cultic and processional imagery whilst making clear that it isoperating as an analogy.

t!uupoz as bridging the phenomenal and spiritual

t!uupoz refers to the bridge between the carnal and spiritual order of things,since it is the mark in phenomenal stone or flesh of a transcendental essence.As such it will enable Ignatius to speak intelligibly to his contemporaries ofhimself and of members of his entourage as bearers of divine imagery(heow!ooroi), even though he cannot allow such images to be in a plastic form.For him it is participation in the eucharistic drama of replay, informed by theroles of the three-fold order of bishop, presbyters and deacons, that leads tounion (e{nvsiz or Jen!ootgz). We shall now see how the logic of the Judaeo-Christian language game operates with such notions at the interface withpagan philosophical theology.

There is a memorial of one Cassandrus for his wife Sentia. This, from itsdedication HK, the Greek equivalent of D[is] M[anibus] =H(eoi 'z)K(atgxhoniAoiz) would appear to be pagan: ‘She has allowed those images(g[as!ee te e jik!oonaz) to be mirror impressions [of herself] ( jantit!uupouz) which shebore in travail (a }z vjdei 'sin e [tikten) in her boy children (e jm jpais"iin jarrenikoi 'z)

78 Ibid. C.51–4. 79 Brent, Imperial cult, 169–77, 220–3, 226–71, 310–28.

444 ALLEN BRENT

and reached the end of her life (ka"ii e [sxe t!eeloz bi!ootoio). ’80 jantiA tupoz is used inprecisely the same sense as t!uupoz has been so far in connection with thevisible expression of succeneiAa. The janti prefix here is clearly not anindication of an opposite but a reinforcement of the sense of t!uupoz as exactreplica of a real original. The e jik!oonaz here are her children, and they areimages (t!uupouz) striking in their replication ( janti) of her. Similarly, in theNew Testament, the ‘Holy places made with hands (xeiropoiAgta … a{cia)are images or impressions of what is heavenly and real ‘ ( jantiA tupa tv'njalghinv'n) ’.81

t!uupoz emerges as the ‘ form of one’s true self ’, convincing and real, asopposed to an e jik!vvn which is an image whose correspondence with reality isneutral, unless duly qualified as an jantiAtupoz. t!uupoz therefore describes animage that reflects reality, forming a bridge with eternal and spiritualessences through its impress in human flesh, or in otherwise inanimate stone,wood or metal. A false image that appears to be Heracles is called an e jik!vvnbut not a t!uupoz.82 Plato reminds us that one can form mental images of bothtrue and false belief.83

But t!uupoz also refers to a complete image of one’s true self, like aphenomenal particular that mirrors its Platonic Form rather than conceals orobfuscates it. The relationship between a deceptive e jik!vvn and t!uupoz as a trueimage is also evident in Nonnos, who described Narcissus as one:

who long ago (o]z p!aaroz) in the dumb form of a beautiful deceiver (gjperopg'oze j!uuxorooz e[dei > kvwv'/ ) seeing the water changed into the complete image of hisown self (e jiz t!uupon aujtot!eeleston jid"vvn morwo!uumenon u{dvr), died (k!aathane), as hegazed upon the shadowy phantom of his shape (paptaiAnvn skioeid!eea w!aasmatamorwg 'z).84

We see here therefore that a t!uupoz is a complete image (aujtot!eelestoz),formed (morwo!uumenon) from a pattern in water of a real, primary image(ei \doz) : it parallels the distinction made in a more technical sense between areal, enduring, eternal Platonic Form (ei \doz) and the particular piece ofphenomenal matter on which it is impressed.

80 IGUR, 1327. 81 Hebrews ix.24.82 Lucian, Dialogi mortuorum xi (16).402.1, ed. M. D. MacCleod, Cambridge, MA–London

1961, in which the shade bearing Heracles’s name asserts ‘For he is not dead (ouj c"aar e jkei 'nozt!eehngken), but I am his image ( jall j e jc"vv gJ e jik"vvn aujtou) ’. The explanation is that this falseimage has been sent to the nether-world of the dead in order to fool Pluto: xi (16).403.2.

83 Images can be either true or false as in Plato, Philebus 39c : ai J m"een tv'n jalghv'n dojv'n ka"iil!oocvn jalghei 'z, ai J d"ee tv'n yeudv'n yeudei 'z. Previously Plato has spoken of how, as we readthe words of a book, a ‘workman in our souls (dgmiourc"oon gJmv'n e jn tai 'z yuxai 'z) ’ who is ‘anartist who, following the words of the writer (fvcr!aawon, o{z met"aa t"oon crammatist"ggn tv'nlecom!eenvn), paints images in our soul (e jik!oonaz e jn tg'/ yuxg'/ to!uutvn cr!aawei) ’.

84 Nonnos, Dionysiaca xlviii.584–7, ed. W. H. D. Rouse, H. J. Rose and L. R. Lind,Cambridge, MA–London 1962–3.


Wood, clay, stone, marble or paper do not of themselves communicate themeaning of words or abstract images whether human or divine. They requirean idea ( jid!eeai, ei \doz) or an image (e jik!vvn) or a form (morw!gg) to be represented.These images or forms, shaped into a plastic medium furnishing clear anddistinct representations of them, are called in Greek t!uupoi. Thus a definitivestatement in written form of a considered intention is called a t!uupoz becauseit is the expression of words, in stone or on paper, of a clear and distinct set ofmeanings and images, just as a tattoo in human or animal flesh. t!uupoz forms,as it were, a mediating bridge between the mental and spiritual and thematerial and physical, but partaking of the nature of both.

Thus Philo, when describing the creation of Adam, can speak of t!uupoz assuch a mediating bridge between the spiritual and physical in general, with-out application to a plastic medium. Adam as the archetypal human being isdescribed, as a result of God breathing into him his logos-Spirit, as the bearerof the transcendental forms. Like a trained architect, God is described byanalogy as : ‘Having received in his own soul, as it were in wax the images ofeach object (v[sper e jn kgrv'/ tg'/ Jeautou' yuxg'/ to"uuz Jek!aastvn dej!aamenoz t!uupouz),he bears the image of the noumenal city ( jacalmatoworei ' nogt"ggn p!oolin). ’85

Here, clearly, a[calma ( jacalmatoworei ') is associated with t!uupoz metaphori-cally as a psychological description of how the individual mind or soul cangrasp the transcendental forms existing in the mind or reasoning of God(hei 'oz l!oocoz).86 The nogt!gg p!ooliz is imaged accurately because its a[calmabears the t!uupoi that are accurate shapes of that transcendental world. Notevery mental image corresponds as this one does to its jarxet!uuponparadeiAcma :

since images do not always correspond to their archetypal model (e jpe"ii d jouj s!uumpasae jik!vvn e jmwer"ggz jarxet!uupv / paradeiAcmati), and many are unlike it (polla"ii d"ee e jis"iinjan!oomoioi), he brought out his meaning (proepesgm!ggnato) by adding (ejpeip"vvn) ‘after

the likeness ’ to the words ‘after the image (tv'/ kat j e jik!oona t"oo kah joJmoiAvsin) ’, thusshowing that an accurate cast bearing a true impression (e jiz e [mwasin jakribou'ze jkmaceiAou tran"oon t!uupon e[xontoz).87

Clearly, for Philo, a t!uupoz is not simply an e jik!vvn but an e jik!vvn kah jo JmoiAvsin.It is to be emphasised that Philo in speaking of Adam, like Ignatius of hisclerical representations, is here speaking of a t!uupoz not imprinted in stonebut in human flesh that accurately corresponds with the spiritual entity ofthat of which it is an image.

This is clearly the case when Philo describes the beauty of Adam. Of hisdescendants (to"uuz d"ee japoc!oonouz) it could be said that :

participating as they did in his original form (tg'z e jkeiAnou met!eexontaz jid!eeaz) [they]must preserve still the marks though faint ones ( janackai 'on e ji ka"ii jamudro"uuz jall jou\n

85 Philo, De opificio mundi iv (18), ed. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Cambridge,MA–London 1962. 86 Ibid. v (20). 87 Ibid. xxiii (71).

446 ALLEN BRENT

e [ti s!v/v/fein to"uuz t!uupouz) of their kinship with their first father (tg'z pr"ooz t"oonprop!aatora succeneiAaz).88

t!uupoz is the clear mark in human flesh of participation in a Platonic Form(met!eexontaz jid!eeaz). It marks the resemblance of physical kinship (succeneiAa),just as it did in the case of Cassandrus in speaking of his deceased wife,Sentia.89 Similarly, scriptural images are : ‘not mythical fictions (ouj m!uuhoupl!aasmata) … but modes of making ideas visible ( jall"aa deiAcmata t!uupvn),drawing us to allegorical interpretation (ejp j jallgcoriAan parakalou'nta)through rendering what lies beneath their surface (kat"aa t"aaz di j uJponoiv'njapod!ooseiz) ’.90 Thus the distinction between marks or t!uupoi in human flesh

that participate in the spiritual forms is now applied to the distinctionbetween descriptions of events that are symbolic representations (deiAcmatat!uupvn) of the spiritual that is behind them.For Plotinus too a t!uupoz is a mental impression that encapsulates a real

and transcendent Form. It is what makes it possible for the individual soul,after its purification, to grasp reality behind an appearance already familiar.On the soul’s conversion (e jpistrow!gg), it sees the transcendental worldbecause of ‘a vision (h!eea) and impression (ka"ii t!uupoz) of what is seen implanted(tou' ojwh!eentoz) and working in it (ka"ii e jnercv'n), like the relation betweensight and its seen object ( Jvz g J o [yiz per"ii t"oo oJr!vvmenon) ’. The t!uupoz itself,therefore, is infallible and does not deceive. It is the unpurified intellect that isdeceived in that it cannot recognise the Form in its phenomenal mould:‘ [The soul] had not transcendental objects (ei \xen d"ee ouj k aujt!aa), but theirmoulds ( jall"aa t!uupouz) ; it is necessary therefore (dei ' ou\n) [for the soul] tocombine the mould with the real objects of which they are the moulds (t"oont!uupon toi 'z jalghinoi 'z, v|n ka"ii oi J t!uupoi). ’91 Clearly t!uupoz here links the twoworlds of Plato and his heirs, whether Jewish or pagan, as indicating theinfallible image or mould in a sensible particular of the transcendental Formthat it contains.In this respect it contrasts with deceptive images that Plotinus calls not

t!uupoi but ei[dvla.92 t!uupoi are made ‘ from the objects that come from theintellect (tv'n e jk tou' nou' ji!oontvn) ’.93 The true order of the world resulted when‘matter (g J u[lg) was inscribed (periecr!aaweto) with the image of the universe(t!uupv / k!oosmou) ’.94 The mind of the creator contains each real object (ei \doz)that is eternal :

[The Maker] will not think of what is not yet existence (ouj t"aa e jn tv'/ m!ggpv o[ntiou|toz no!ggsei) in order that he might make it ( {ina aujt"oo poig'/ ). Those Forms must existbefore the universe (pr"oo to"uu k!oosmou a[ ra dei ' ei \nai e jkei 'na), not as images (ouj t!uupouz)from things that are [utterly] di!erent ( jaw j Jet!eervn), but as archetypes ( jall"aa ka"ii

88 Ibid. li (145). 89 See n. 80 above and corresponding text. 90 De opificio lxvi (157).91 Plotinus, Enneads i.2.4.18–25, ed. A. H. Armstrong, Cambridge, MA–London 1966–88.92 Ibid.ii.9.12.5–10. 93 Ibid. v.3.2.10. 94 Ibid. ii.9.12.23.


jarx!eetupa) and primary substances (ka"ii prv'ta) and the essence of Intellect (ka"ii nou'oujsiAan).95

We thus see that there cannot be t!uupoi of what is ‘di!erent ’ from what theyrepresent but must be ‘moulds in the shape of first principles ( jarx!eetupa) ’.Once again t!uupoz emerges as the bridge between the material substance ofthe phenomenal world, and the world of eternal and spiritual realities.

For Ignatius t!uupoz clearly has this bridging function performed by theclerical icons that express their corresponding divine and saving realities. It isthrough these t!uupoi that the liturgical assembly find e {nvsiz with the divine,and a Jen!ootgz of flesh and spirit. Those in union with the three-fold orderbecome the spiritual and eternal that they image as t!uupoi. Ignatius frequentlyclaims that the three-fold order is the bridge uniting the fleshly and spiritualrealms:

Be subject to the bishop (uJpot!aacete tv'/ e jpisk!oopv /) and to each other (ka"ii jall!ggloiz) asJesus Christ was to the Father ( Jvz jIgsou'z Xrist"ooz tv'/ patr"ii), and the Apostles wereto Christ (ka"ii oi J jap!oostoloi tv'/ Xristv'/ ) and to the Father (ka"ii tv'/ patr"ii), in order thatthere may be a union of the fleshy and spiritual realm ( {ina e {nvsiz g\/ sarkik!gg te ka"iipneumatik!gg).96

Accordingly, he assures the Ephesians, ‘ it is beneficial for you therefore to bein blameless unity ( xr!ggsimon ou\n ej jstin uJma'z e jn jam!vvmv/ Jen!ootgti ei \nai), in orderthat you may evermore participate in God ( {ina ka"ii heou' p!aantote met!eexgte) ’.97

It is by joining in the eucharist as mystery, by encountering the human t!uupoiof the Christian God, that the laity become ‘ infused with the divine (e [nheion) ’and escape corruption. Union with bishop and presbyters was with the t!uupoijawharsiAaz.98

Whilst not literally carrying plastic images in procession, the naow!ooroi,xristow!ooroi, aJciow!ooroi and heow!ooroi in Ignatius’ procession can by a clearand quite systematically worked out analogy be said to bear images of divinepersons or events. At their head in the eucharist is the bishop, or, in the caseof the martyr procession Bishop Ignatius, as of the su!ering Father-God. Andwhen I say ‘can’ in such a context, I do not mean ‘can’ as a move permittedby the logic of our discourse in the twenty-first century but ‘can’ in terms ofthe discourse of the second century, recoverable both from literary andepigraphical remains.

However much t!uupoz may function at an abstract level of Hellenisticphilosophical theology, it does not break with a web of meaning in which itinterconnects with pagan cultic artefacts, ritual and acts. The agonothete wholead Demosthenes’ jac!vvn mousik!ooz wore the t!uupoi of his imperial and

95 Ibid. v.9.5.20–4. 96 Magnesians xiii.2. See also Trallians xi.2 ; Philadelphians iv ; vii.2.97 Ephesians iv.2. See also Philadelphians ii.2 ; iii.2 ; viii.1 ; ix.1 ; Polycarp viii.2.98 Magnesians vi.1–2. See also n. 59 above and adjoining text.

448 ALLEN BRENT

ancestral gods in his st!eewanoz, as we have seen.99 Ignatius as leader of hisprocession had no literal st!eewanoz, any more that did a bishop at theeucharist. Yet the presence of such a st!eewanoz in some sense was importantfor Ignatius in terms of the analogous imagery with which he sought toreconceptualise early Christian ecclesial order. It was the presbyterate ast!uupoz s!uunedriou tv'n japost!oolvn that constituted the st!eewanoz in thecelebration of the Christian mysteries. The disciples that Ignatius callsthe s!uundesmoz japost!oolvn become in its liturgical circle ‘ the spiritual,crown of the presbyterate ( jajiopl!ookou pneumatik!ooz st!eewanoz tou'presbuteriAou) ’.100

But if this is the case with t!uupoz, what is the meaning of prokahgm!eenoz e jizt!uupon in Ignatius’ discourse?

prokahgm!eenoz and pre-eminence

The word prokahgm!eenoz is invariably translated as ‘presiding’, even thoughthe verb when used in this sense is normally followed by a genitive indicatingthat over which the action of the verb is exercised. The qualification e jizt!uupon was so little understood that both the Didascalia and Constitutionesapostolicae, and the author of the Long Recension, alter the phrase in variousways.101 The latter reads e jiz t!oopon in Magnesians vi.1, which has led to sometextual corruption in the case of the Middle Recension, and removes thephrase altogether in vi.2.102 In Trallians iii.1 the bishop is simply described astou' patr"ooz tv'n o{lvn t!uupoz. Clearly the phrase was problematic for laterwriters.It was di"cult to see how an image could preside, or how someone

presiding could do so in order to create an image. I wish now to invoke what Iregard as a more natural sense of ‘be pre-eminent’ since the word basicallymeans to ‘sit forward’, and thus to ‘ stand out ’ from the context in which itssubject is found. A cleric can be said to be ‘pre-eminent in creating animage’. By so construing, we can, I believe, locate the context of Ignatius’meaning in the world of processional images that we have argued t!uupoz toform part.One fundamental problem for our interpretation of Ignatius within the

confines of our twenty-first century western discourse is that he claims on the

99 SEG xxxviii.C.53. See also n. 77 above and adjoining text.100 Magnesians xiii.1. See also n. 36 above and adjoining text.101 See CA ii.25.5 (27–8)=The Didascalia apostolorum in Syriac, i, ed. A. Voobus, (Corpus

Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 401), Louvain 1979, viii (pp. 91.26–92.1) ; CA ii.25.7(39–41)=Didascalia ix (p. 100.3–21).

102 For Jen!vvhgte tv'/ e jpisk!oopv/ ka"ii toi 'z prokahgm!eenoiz e jiz t!uupon ka"ii didax"ggn jawharsiAazLRec reads : Jen!vvhgte tv'/ e jpisk!oopv / uJpotass!oomenoi tv'/ hev'/ di jaujtou' en Xristv'/ . For textualcorruption of t!uupoz for t!oopoz in Magnesians vi.1 see n. 32 above.


one hand that bishop, presbyters and deacons are images or t!uupoi of Father,Spirit-filled apostolic council, and Son, and yet on the other they arerepresentatives of the divine, corporate life of their communities. Ignatiusfrequently laid claim to being able, as a result of a mystical interchange withthe bishops who visited him in prison on his way to martyrdom, to see thecorporate personality in their individual persons of the Churches which theyrepresent. In Onesimus their bishop, he informs the Ephesians, ‘ I receivedyour whole corporateness (ejpe"ii ou\n t"ggn poluplghiAan uJmv'n japeiAlgwa) ’.103

It is by such charismatic means that Ignatius identifies the bishop andaccordingly accepts the validity of the ecclesial community that he hasnot seen.

Ignatius claims that their ‘conversation of mind (toia!uutgn sun!ggheian) ’ wasa supernatural exchange, in which he saw them in spiritual union with thethree-fold typology. He thus was able to see their ‘whole community (t"ggnpoluplghiAan) ’ mystically in the bishop’s person.104 poluplghiAa contained theword plg 'hoz, which is Ignatius’ usual theological term for the gatherede jkklgsiAa.105 Likewise, in Polybius of Tralles, Ignatius could see theircorporate ‘unwavering and blameless mind (a[mvmon di!aanoian ka"iijadi!aakriton) ’.106 Here he could rejoice because ‘I saw your whole gathered

church in him (v{ste me t"oo pa'n plg'hoz uJmv'n ejn aujtv'/ hevr shai) ’.107 In hisdescription of the Magnesian clergy we find the three-fold typology witnessedin relationship to the corporate personality of the community: ‘ I was deemedworthy to see you (gjji!vvhgn jidei 'n uJma'z) through Damas your godly esteemedbishop (di"aa Dama' tou' jajioh!eeou uJmv'n e jpisk!oopou) ’, as well as through thepresbyters and deacons.108

I will now argue that the logic of prokahgm!eenoz is that of gods andgoddesses, or rather their images, that stand out pre-eminently over theircities, or at the head of their processions. Since such deities represent thecorporate personality of the city of which they are the icons, they representthat corporate personality of the city. Furthermore, such deities arepre-eminent in the appearance of their priests, since the latter wear theirimages on their st!eewanoi and act for them in their cult in handling andbearing the holy objects used in their rite. In this way pagan priests, likeIgnatian clerics, could project divine images to their people, but at thesame time represent the corporate life since such divine images were alsoicons of that corporate life. The jacvnoh!eetgz who led Demosthenes’sprocession wore a st!eewanon xrusou'n with one of its e [ktupa pr!oosvpa

103 Ephesians i.3.104 Ibid. v.1 : ‘ in a short time I had such fellowship with your bishop (e jc"vv e jn mikrv'/ xr!oonv /

toia!uutgn sun!ggheian e [sxon pr"ooz e jpiAskopon uJmv'n) as was not human but spiritual (ouj kjanhrvpiA ngn ou\san, jall"aa pneumatik!ggn) ’. 105 Magnesians vi.1.106 Trallians i.1. 107 Ibid. i.2. 108 Magnesians ii.1.

450 ALLEN BRENT

that of the god Apollo described as Prokahgc!eetgz or leader of theprocession.109

Let us see how the logic of that discourse works in greater detail.Deities are described using a variety of terms such as (pro)kahgcem!vvn,

progcgt!ggz, progcem!vvn, and heoiA prop!oolevz, prokahgm!eenoi and proestv'tezetc.110 Though the meaning of the one term shades into that of the other asthe discourse develops dynamically in a social and historical context, it wouldappear that the terms closest in meaning to each other are the last two on thislist. Those who preside (proestv'tez) over cities, or their institutions, suchas e jkklgsiAa, dg'moz, boul!gg or cerousiAa, occupying the seats (proedriAai)which give them their particular rank, would also be visually pre-eminent,like the a[ rxontez prokah!eefomenoi or Ignatius’ e jpiAskopoi or presb!uuteroiprokahgm!eenoi. I would argue that such a visual sense predominates whenprokahif!eeshai is used in place of proi?stanai. The following examples maybe cited:

1. From Pergamon AD 129 there is a reference to ‘Demeter and Kore (tg'/ te[D!gg]mgtri ka"ii tg'/ K!oor[g'/ ), the goddesses who are predominant over the city(tai 'z p]rokahgm!eenaiz [he]ai 'z tg'z p!oolevz g Jm[v'n) ’.111

2. A bronze statue of Herakles from Seleukeia on the Tigris, with adedication, carried by the Parthian king Vologaeses IV from Mesene(Charakene) to Seleukeia (AD 150-1). There is a Greek inscription on theright thigh and a Parthian (in Aramaic) on the left. The former reads :

‘This bronze image of the god Herakles (e jik!oona ta!uutgn xalkg'n HJ rakl!eeouz heou')which was removed by him from Mesena (t"ggn metanexhei 'san uJp j aujtou' jap"oo tg 'zMes!ggngz), he dedicated ( jan!eehgken) in this temple of the god Apollo (e jn i Jerv'/ tv'/deheou' jAp!oollvnoz) who sits out over the bronze gate (tou' xalkg 'z p!uulgzprokahgm!eenou) ’.112

109 SEG xxxviii.1462.C.52–3. See n. 76 above and adjoining text.110 Robert argued that proest!vvz, kahgcem!vvn and prokahgm!eenoz are synonymous terms: J.

Robert and L Robert, La Carie : histoire et geographie historique, avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques,II : Le plateau de Tabai et ses envirions, Paris 1954, 226. See also, and particularly, L. Robert,Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, I : Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions, Paris 1983, 172: ‘Lesinscriptions precisant sa primaute emploient les termes suivants : e jiz t"oon proe[s]t~vvta t~gg[z]p[!oole]oz gJm~vvn he"oon Di!oonuson, ou bien to~uu prokahgcem[!oonoz t~ggz p!oolev]z heo~uu Dion!uusou,or t~v/v/ [kah]gcem!ooni he~v/v/ Dion!uusv/. See also J. Nolle, ‘Zur Geschichte der Stadt Etenna inPisidien’, in E. Schwertheim (Hrsg), Forschungen in Pisidien, Bonn 1992, 81–3.

111 Syll.3, 694, l. 50–4, and A. Wilhelm, ‘Griechische Grabgedichte aus Kleinasien’,Sitzungsberichte. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1932), 803 (=Kleine Schriften, pt ii, ed. W.Peek and others, Opuscula : Sammelausgaben seltener und bisher nicht selbstandig erschienenerwissenschaflicher Abhandlungen, VII/2: Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Leipzig 1971,347). See also Brent, Imperial cult, 223–48.

112 SEG xxxvii.1403.20, lines 16–23. See also A. Invernizzi, ‘Heracles a Seleucie du Tigre’,Revue archeologique i (1989), 65–113.


3. A decree from Side (c. AD 220), honouring Aurelius MandrianusLonginus (AD 143) because ‘he acted as a priest together with his wifeAurelia Killaramontiane Ies (sunieras!aamenon tg'/ cunaik"ii aujtou' E jig/ jAurgliAa/Killaramvtiang'/ ), for the goddess Athena who is pre-eminent (tg'/prokahefom!eeng/ hev'/ jAhgna'/), for a five-yearly cycle (pentaetgriAdi) ’.113

4. Dedication of P. Aelius Menekrates for Demeter and the god Men inwhich he declares that he has

consecrated a silver basket (kahier!vvsanta k!aalahon peri!aarcuron) which he has leftbehind for the mystery rites (t"oon leiAponta toi 'z mustgriAoiz) and for Men who headsthe village (ka"ii tv'/ prokahgm!eenv/ tg 'z k!vvmgz Mgni), a silver symbol which will processbefore his mystery rites (sgm!ggan peri!aarcuron t"ggn propompe!uusasan tv'n mustgriAvnaujtou').114

5. A funerary inscription from Galatia :

You see Istele ( jIst!gglgn ejsora'/z), engraven (kataf!vvcrawon), but note (n!oogson) : sheoccupies the tomb (g} t!uumbon kat!eexei) of beautiful Tateia (TateiAaz kalg'z i JereiAgz) thepriestess of Artemis (Art!eemidoz), of the queen’s village (k[!vvm]gz basilgi >jdoz) whichshe heads (g} prok!aahgtai) : whom for the sake of his grief (g}n jistorcg'z e {neken) herhusband ( jan"ggr Je"ooz) here commemorated her (e jnh!aad je [teisen).115

Prokahgm!eenoz, in its various forms, is a term extremely di"cult to translatein these examples. Clearly (2) will only admit of a visual and spatial meaning:the bronze statue of Heracles physically protrudes out over the gate of thecity. But in the case of (1) and (3) Athene as well as Kore and Demeter haveimages that likewise visually are prokahgm!eenai from their temples, prominentin their city centres. Such epigraphic descriptions are no mere abstractconstruals. Though they may ‘sit out over ’ their cities from their standingtemples, (4) shows how a he!ooz prokahgm!eenoz might be portable: Men,revealed sitting over the village (ka"ii tv'/ prokahgm!eenv / tg'z k!vvmgz Mgni) in theform of ‘a silver image (sgm!ggan peri!aarcuron) ’, is carried ‘ in the procession ofthe mystery rites (propompe!uusasan tv'n mustgriAvn) ’. The firm focus thatunites (1) and (3) with (2) is that the goddesses in question have physicalimages, whether on temples or carried in procession, that make theirheadship of their cities visually overwhelming: they ‘head’ their city or theirprocession because they are visually ‘pre-eminent’.

In consequence, as we can see in (5), the description of Artemis and herpriestess Tatia, the divinity and the representative priest become fused intoone. The priestess presides or heads the cult by bearing the image of the deity

113 J. Nolle, Side im Altertum: Geschichte und Zeugnisse, i, Bonn 1993, 195, 3.2.1, lines 6–8.114 I.Eph. vii.1.3252.5–9.115 Wilhelm, ‘Griechische Grabgedichte ’, 803–4 (=Kleine Schriften, 346–8=TAM

ii.174E.12–13) prefers k!vvmgz to ko!uurgz which I here follow. See also J. G. C. Anderson,‘Explorations in Galatia Cis Halym, part II’, Journal of Hellenic Studies xix (1901), 306, no. 246.

452 ALLEN BRENT

whose priestess she is (g } prok!aahgtai). We find in Caracalla’s letter to Ephesus(AD 200–5) : a} d"ee p]roepr!eesbeuen g J p!aatrioz uJmv'n he"ooz j!Artemiz =‘yourancestral goddess Artemis heads the embassy’.116 In this passage we see, as inIgnatius, pagan priests presiding as an image of the goddess that theyrepresent in a visual form so that both she and they can be said to be ‘pre-eminent in ’, or ‘at the head of ’ her procession just as bishop, presbytersand deacons are e jiz t!uupon of divine persons or spirit-filled Apostles. Butwe can also see that ambassadors, who bear a deity who is p!aatrioz andthus embodies the divinised, corporate personality of the city, in so doingrepresent the ‘whole multitude (poluplghiAa) ’ of their community, as didOnesimus, bishop of Ephesus.117 Ignatius characterises travelling clerics asheopresb!uutai, duly elected for their representative role.118

Thus Ignatius has taken a pagan theology of corporate personality andremoved the idolatrous features, but has retained nevertheless the essentialform of that theology. For him the o"ce of bishop reflects the corporatepersonality of the community marked by the saving acts in which the Father-bishop sends the diaconal Son, with the co-operation of the Spirit throughthe apostolic council. Like pagan priests wearing the t!uupoz of his god in hisst!eewanoz, and acting as prokahgc!ggtgz of a mystery procession, the three-foldorder of the Christian community wear those t!uupoi, surrounded by thosewho as members of the cult assembly (s!uunodoz) bear sacred objects relevantto their roles in the mystery drama (heow!ooroi, xristow!ooroi, naow!ooroi,aJcioworoi). At the head of the martyr-procession, in which he is jantiAyuxon,as an extension of the eucharist, he is pre-eminent as cult leader(prokahgm!eenoz).

Polycarp, Lucian and Ignatius’ reception

The Ignatian letters do not represent a pseudepigraphic reply to a later formof Valentianism, as Hubner and Lechner’s thesis required. Rather, Ignatiusis a Christian missionary prophet of the Second Sophistic proposing a highlyarticulate and radical secularisation of ecclesial order in terms of the pagantheology of the mystery cults of his contemporaries. Clearly his proposalwould have seemed strange to Polycarp, and indeed Irenaeus and perhapseven to Origen and his successors, as would other contemporary expressionsof Christianity.Polycarp had little comprehension of the semi-pagan typology of order

that he heard in Ignatius’ words and witnessed in his acts. The only second-century writer who discerned the logic of Ignatius’ conceptualisation of

116 Robert, Le Serpent Glycon, 764–5. 117 Ephesians i.3.118 Philadelphians x.1–2; Smyrnaeans xi.1.


ecclesial order was in fact Lucian of Samosata, whose satire on the kind offigure that the former presented is to be found in his Peregrinus Proteus.

Lucian’s role as a commentator on Ignatius has been much discussed.Opponents of the authenticity of the Middle Recension have claimed thatrather than Lucian having read Ignatius and fashioned his story of Peregrinusupon him, as Lightfoot claimed, the forger had as his model Lucian’s ownaccount.119 Both arguments presuppose that the relationship betweenIgnatius’ letters and Lucian must be a literary one. But the parallels,though close, are hardly those of literary dependence whether in onedirection or another.

Indeed Lucian’s references to Ignatius bear the marks of oral reports ofprocessions of diaconal ambassadors, the election and sending of whomIgnatius mentions in three letters.120 Lucian in turn reflects the general e!ectof such arrangements on the pagan population, and popular responses,when they were witnessed first-hand. Lucian speaks of his subject as writingletters legislating for Christian communities.121 He then ‘chose certainambassadors for this purpose from amongst his comrades (kaiA tinaz e jp"ii to!uutv/presbeut"aaz tv'n JetaiArvn e jxeirot!oongse), giving them their titles as messengersfrom the dead and underworld couriers (nekracc!eelouz ka"ii nerterodr!oomouzprosacore!uusaz) ’. The heopresb!uutai and heodr!oomoi of Smyrnaeans xi.2 andPolycarp vii.2 have become for Lucian presbeutaiA who are nekracc!eeloi ka"iinerterodr!oomoi. That these elected ambassadors should be characterised interms of death and the underworld shows that Lucian’s contemporarieswere ‘on message’ regarding the martyrological character of Ignatius’procession.

Lucian describes his Christian leader, after Ignatius, as ‘prophet and cultleader (prow!ggtgz ka"ii hias!aarxgz) ’, who had introduced ‘a new mystery (kain!ggtelet!gg) ’.122 Furthermore, he is a hias!aarxgz whose role is associated with adivine image. Theagnes, shortly before his self-immolation, had describedhim in such words as : ‘But now ( jall"aa nu'n) this holy image will depart frommen to the gods (e jj janhr!vvpvn e jiz heo"uuz t"oo a[calma tou'to o jix!ggsetai). ’123

Lucian’s sarcastic comment, in view of his earlier life, was : ‘ the (divine)image was not yet completely fashioned for us (ka"ii oujd!eepv e jntel"eez a[calmag Jmi 'n dedgmio!uurcgto) ’.124 We have here, I submit, a commentary on Ignatius’theology of t!uupoz cruelly distorted, as witnessed in spoken word and gesturein his martyr-procession and not simply derived from his written page.Furthermore Lucian is presenting a parody parasitic by its nature on an

119 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ii/2, 356; cf. Joly, Le Dossier, 103–4; Lechner Ignatius adversusValentinianos ?, ch. iii ; J. Bompaire, Lucien ecrivain : imitation et creation, Paris 1958, 617–19.

120 Philadelphians 10; Smyrnaeans xi.1–2; Polycarp vii.2–8.1.121 Lucian, De morte peregrini xli, ed. A. M. Harmon, Cambridge, MA.–London 1961.122 Ibid xi. 123 Ibid. vi. 124 Ibid. x.

454 ALLEN BRENT

experience of Ignatian themes: pseudo-Ignatius could not simply havederived his bare words from Lucian’s description.125

Yet Polycarp, given the integrity of Philippians, greeted Ignatius’ processionwarmly and treated it according to the terms in which the latter regarded it.Polycarp records the arrival of Ignatius’ procession, and, in the use ofcharacteristic Ignatian vocabulary, indicates what a clearly more than visibleimpression it made upon him.126 As he says :

I greatly rejoice with you in our Lord Jesus Christ (sunex!aargn uJmi 'n mec!aalvz e jn tv'/kuriAv/ gJmv'n jIgsou' Xrist~v/v/ ), since you made welcome the imitations of true love,(dejam!eenoiz t"aa mim!ggmata tg 'z jalghou'z jac!aapgz), and conducted forward (ka"iiprop!eemyasin), as opportunity fell to you ( Jvz e jp!eebalen uJmi 'n), those bound withbonds that befit their sanctity (to"uuz e jneilgm!eenouz toi 'z aJcioprep!eesin desmoi 'z) whichare the diadems of those truly chosen by God and our Lord (a}tina e jstin diad!ggmatatv'n jalghv'z uJp"oo heou' ka"ii tou' kuriAou g Jmv'n e jklelecm!eenvn).127

Thus Polycarp a"rmed that the Philippians had treated him and hisentourage as a propomp!gg (prop!eemyasin).128 In using such language he wasinterpreting Ignatius’ procession in terms of a pagan procession like that ofDemosthenes. In the latter case sebastow!ooroi were elected who would escortforward (propompe!uusousi) the divine images (e jik!oonaz). But Polycarp workswith some di"dence since he found what must have seemed to be Ignatius’semi-pagan representation of church order so alien to his own assumptions.Notwithstanding his failure to understand and embrace Ignatius’ typology oforder, why did he therefore find Ignatius su"ciently acceptable and so wishto assemble his corpus?I would suggest that this was for one reason and one reason alone: the

anti-Docetic message of the choreographed procession that came throughSmyrna. It was a dazzling piece of enacted, sophistic rhetoric andencapsulated a message that Polycarp found most serviceable to his needs.The message of the martyr-bishop in his procession to Rome, despite all itssemi-pagan cultic imagery, was of

Jesus Christ … who was really born (o{z jalghv'z e jcenn!gghg), who both ate and drank(e [wacen te ka"ii e [pien), who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate ( jalghv'ze jdi!vvxhg e jp"ii PontiAou Pil!aatou), who really was crucified and died ( jalghv'ze jstaur!vvhg ka"ii jap!eehanen), who really was raised from the dead (o{z ka"ii gjc!eerhg jap"oo

125 See also n. 15 above.126 The presence of such Ignatian imagery plays a vital role in all interpolation theories so

necessary to removing the pivotal place of this letter as evidence to the authenticity of theMiddle Recension: see Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos?, 6–18.

127 Polycarp, Philippians i.1.128 prop!eempein was used in this sense in Philadelphians x.2 : ‘ the nearest Churches sent

bishops, and others presbyters and deacons ( Jvz ka"ii ai J e [ccista e jkklgsiAai e [pemyane jpisk!oopouz, ai J d"ee presbut!eerouz ka"ii diak!oonouz) ’. For the use of this term in theDemosthenes inscription discussed above see nn. 76, 99, 109.


nekrv'n) ; But if, as some atheists (e ji d"ee v{sper tin"eez a[heoi o[ntez), that is unbelievers(tout!eestin a[pistoi), say he su!ered in appearance only (l!eecousi t"oo dokei 'npeponh!eenai aujt!oon), … why am I in chains, (e jc"vv tiA d!eedemai), and why do I praythat I can fight with wild beasts (t"ii d"ee eu [xomai hgriomaxg 'sai) ?129

Polycarp clearly recognised the pagan connotations of Ignatius’ self-description of a bishop as the heow!ooroz. When, in his procession, he asaJciow!ooroz visibly shook his aJcioprepei 'z desmoiA , this was an enacted, culticmiAmgsiz that Polycarp was just about prepared to describe abstractly : thebonds were t"aa mim!ggmata tg'z jalghou'z jac!aapgz rather than the icon of apersonal deity. The symbolism of the cultic procession was for Polycarp abreathtaking refutation of Docetism: Ignatius’ eloquent testimony ofmartyrdom in the flesh justified Christ’s true birth and su!erings. All itsother features could be ignored in the light of so visually compelling a re-enactment of Christ’s real su!erings.

In the light of this discussion, the reception of Ignatius can be comparedwith that of the Fourth Gospel, both emerging from the Hellenistic shadowsof the early second century.130 The theology of that Gospel was poorlyunderstood and, until Irenaeus’ time, treated circumspectly if not positivelyrejected.131 Nevertheless that theology was destined to provide thephilosophical model, again distorted out of all recognition, for theologicallydefining the nature and character of the incarnation. Ignatius, too,conceptualised a theology of ecclesial order that only became that of laterChristendom by a gross distortion of its original framework. The Johanninecommunity perhaps fares even worse than Polycarp, since he never cites theFourth Gospel, however much he may rely on the anti-Docetic texts drawnfrom the Johannine epistles, as he relies on the visual theatre of Ignatius tothe same end.132

It was by reason of the martyr-procession, the final and spectacularrefutation of Docetism, and for this reason alone, that Polycarp wasconvinced of the basic soundness of the strange and enigmatic figure thatcame through. The strangeness that constitutes the enigma of Ignatius wasthe product of his proximity to the culture of the Second Sophistic.

129 Trallians ix.1–2, 10.130 For an incisive analysis of such a positioning of Ignatius see Hammond Bammel,

‘ Ignatian problems’, 89–97.131 C. E. Hill, The Johannine corpus in the early Church, Oxford 2004, has recently challenged

significantly the regnant hypothesis that this corpus was only accepted with di"culty by thelate second century. He argues convincingly that a developed ‘orthodoxy’ that rejected‘heresies ’ by the late second century did not include the Johannine corpus in what theycondemned. It does not follow, however, that that corpus did not arise in a widely di!erentcommunity than other streams in early Christianity, between which there was no clearcomprehension at an earlier stage.

132 1 John iv.2–3 and 2 John 7, quoted in Polycarp, Philippians vii.1.

456 ALLEN BRENT

Date post:	26-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	applicative
View:	73 times
Download:	12 times

The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

Documents