Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (128 page)

In the interpolations there is a steady effort to expand upon what is already found in the authentic letters, not always in theologically, or at least christologically, interested ways. And so, for example, in Magnesians 5, instead of the Ignatian comment “there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it” we have

Two different characters are found among men—the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God but by the devil. If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince….

Such expansions dominate the interpolations. The author is especially extravagant in his use of Scripture, in particular the writings that by his time had constituted the New Testament. And so, for example, in Ephesians 9, where Ignatius himself may indeed allude to both 1 Peter and John 12, the forger provides nine explicit citations to provide scriptural backing for his views, drawing from John 14, 16, 17; Psalm 119; 1 Peter 2, and Ephesians 1. Similar abundance can be found in Ephesians 10; Magnesians 8, 10, 12; Trallians 11; and Romans 8, 9.

In a number of instances the author tries to clear up difficult passages, often using more theologically loaded but still nuanced language. And so, in Magnesians 6, the Ignatian reference to deacons who are “entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the ages and has been manifest at the end” gets modified to language more acceptable to an author embroiled in later debates: “are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only begotten son, and remains the same forever; for ‘of his kingdom there shall be no end.’” Here, as we will see, is not just theology, but theological polemic, directed against those (of the fourth century) who denied that Christ was the Son before he became incarnate and those (same ones) who maintained that in fact the kingdom of Christ would indeed come to an end.

At other times the author’s interests coincide roughly with those of Ignatius, who was thought to have not, perhaps, stressed a point with sufficient emphasis. Thus, on the question of the relationship of Christ and “Judaizers,” Ignatius said in Magnesians 10: “It is outlandish to proclaim Jesus Christ and practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.” This gets changed to “it is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one….”

The most obvious and striking feature of the Pseudo-Ignatians is their theological investments. Theology is prominent in the author’s mind; the letters written to the churches (Tarsians, Antiochians, Philippians) all begin, immediately after the letter openings, with strong theological polemic. And so, for example, in the letter to the Tarsians, after extending an epistolary greeting, the author launches into his attack: “I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to
disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance…. Others, again, hold that He is a mere man, and others that this flesh is not to rise again …” (
ch. 2
). So too the letter to the Antiochenes, “[Guard] against those heresies of the wicked one which have broken in upon us, to the deceiving and destruction of those that accept them …” (
ch. 1
).

Many of the interpolations as well involve true and false belief, and it becomes quite clear, especially here, that the author sees doctrine as a matter of life and death—or rather of eternal life and eternal damnation: the one who “sets at nought His doctrine shall go into hell” (Eph. 16); “If any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell” (Philad. 3). It is hard to imagine anything more important, then, than true teaching.

This teaching, for the author, involves a clear affirmation of the Trinity, a doctrine that is inserted throughout the authentic letters of Ignatius. And so, for example, in Trallians 1, the phrase “By the will of God and Jesus Christ” becomes “by the will of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, with the cooperation of the Spirit”; in the preface to Romans the statement “is named from Christ, and from the Father” becomes “is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit”; and in Philadelphians 4, the phrase “according to [the will of] God” becomes “there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of Truth.”

In many other instances, the theological affirmations are presented in ostensibly polemical fashion. As noted, the polemics appear, on the surface, to be directed against older heresies presumably imagined as obtaining in the days of Ignatius. Despite the anachronisms, the polemical objects can all be assigned the second century, rather than the late fourth century. And so we find the warning of Tarsians 2:

Certain ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born only in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others that He is not the son of the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. Others, again, hold that He is a mere man, and others that this flesh is not to rise again.

Here then are attacks on docetism (“in appearance”), Gnosticism (or Marcionism; “not the son of the Creator”), Sabellianism (“God over all”), psilanthropism (“mere man”), and a condemnation of the flesh, such as found in the Gnostic works discussed in Chapter Thirteen.

A similar list applies to Antiochians 5, where some false teachers are said to declare “that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ.” Others confess Christ, “yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the Law and prophets have proclaimed.” Others “[reject] the incarnation,” and others declare “Christ to be a mere man.” Here then one might think of Jewish Christianity (the unity of God
without the divinity of Christ), Gnosticism, docetism, and adoptionism (or psilanthropism). A similar set of opponents is found in Hero 2, all of them second-century “deviations,” but some of them post-Ignatian.

Such opposition is also found outside the congregational letters, especially in the exchange with Mary Cassobola, the predominant purpose of which is to support the possibility of young men serving as bishops, but in which theological affirmations nonetheless appear, in clear opposition to such groups as the adoptionists on the one hand and the Marcionites on the other (Christ preexisted but became human through the Virgin Mary, in fulfillment of the prophets,
ch. 1
). It occurs in the interpolations as well, as in Trallians 6:

They alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.

Even though, as we will see, some of this is coded language for theological conflicts of the author’s own day, a good deal of it could be directed against second-century Marcionites, adoptionists, docetists, Gnostics, and Sabellians. So too with an interpolation in Philadelphians 6, which explicitly attacks Simonians and Ebionites, and without naming them takes on the Marcionites, the Gnostics, the psilanthropists, and the docetists for good measure, not to mention those who are either excessively ascetic (calling “lawful wedlock, and the procreation of children, destruction and pollution” and deeming “certain kinds of food abominable”) or heedlessly licentious (affirming that “unlawful unions are a good thing” and placing “the highest happiness in pleasure”).

If we examine what the author affirms, and not merely what he rejects, a clearer picture of his place in the theological and christological debates of the fourth century begins to emerge. To start with, the forger stresses that there is one God, who alone is unbegotten,
(Hero 6; Eph. 7; cf. Antioch. 7; Magn. 7). It is only the heretics that teach that Christ too is
(Philip. 7; Trall. 6). The one God is above all things (
Hero 7; Philip. 1), and he alone is almighty
Magn. 8.) This, as we will see, sets God the Father in contrast to his
, who is mentioned alongside him, but is begotten, not unbegotten, and is not God over all things, and does the will of the Father (e.g., Philip. 1; Philad. 4; Eph. 3). Throughout his work, the forger tries to walk the tightrope that led to the fall of many a fourth-century theologian, by avoiding clearly heretical teachings from different ends of the spectrum. And so, from Philippians 2, we learn that for him there is “one God and Father, and not two or three,” just as there are not “three Sons or three Paracletes.” There is, instead, “one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete.” But also,
and equally important, there is not “one [person] having three names, nor … three [persons] who became incarnate.” And so the author is determined to avoid a Sabellian view on the one hand, but some kind of tritheism on the other. For him, there may be one God, but there are “three” (what? beings?) who are “possessed of equal honour” (
). The latter phrase, as we will see, has wreaked no little havoc among interpreters trying to make sense of the author’s views (is
the same, or equivalent, to
Or not?).