The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 57, No. 3, July 2006.
f 2006 Cambridge University Press 429

doi:10.1017/S0022046906007354 Printed in the United Kingdom
The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

by ALLEN BRENT
If we affirm against recent criticism the authenticity of the Middle Recension of the Ignatian letters, we are
nevertheless left with the enigma of Ignatius’ relations with Polycarp. This paper explains that enigma in
terms of two distinct cultural worlds of early second-century Christianity that come together in the meeting
of 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 pagan
processions, cult and embassies that celebrated the social order of the Greek city state in relation to imperial
power. Much of Ignatius’ iconography was alien to Polycarp, though the latter was finally to canonise both
him and his writings by focusing on his impressively enacted refutation of Docetism through his portrayal of
his forthcoming martyrdom.
A rchbishop James Ussher and Nicolaus Vedelius rediscovered the

Middle Recension of the Ignatian letters as a corpus in actual
manuscripts. Thus they confirmed what was previously a purely
literary hypothesis. Videlius’ discovery of a Greek manuscript (Codex
Mediceus, Florent. Lauren. Plut. LVII.7), in particular, in addition to
Ussher’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=Corpus
inscriptionum latinarum, ed. T. Mommsen, G. Henzen, J.-B. De Rossi and others, Berlin
1862–1996; ICLV=Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, ed. E. Diehl, Berlin 1925 ;
I.Delos=Inscriptions de Délos, ed. F. Durrbach, Paris 1929 ; I.Eph.=Die Inschriften von Ephesos, ii,
ed. C. Börker and others, Bonn 1979, vii/2, ed. R. Meriç 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=Inscriptiones
latinae 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 condita
et 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 für Antikes Christentum
Unless otherwise stated references to the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp are from Ignace
d’Antioche ; Polycarp de Smyrne, ed. P. T. Camelot (SC x), Paris 1958.
430 ALLEN BRENT
existed in the Middle Recension.1 The text of the seventh (Romans) had been
transmitted separately.2 Since those discoveries (in 1644 and 1646), the debate
on the authenticity of the Middle Recension continued until the work of
Bishop Joseph Lightfoot and Theodor Zahn inaugurated more than half a
century of consensus on the issue.3 That consensus, challenged initially by
Joseph Rius-Camps and Robert Joly,4 has recently been further assailed by
Reinhard Hübner and Thomas Lechner, who assert that the letters of
Ignatius are late second-century forgeries attacking a developed form of later
Valentinianism.5
I have no intention in this paper of resurrecting a modern version of
ancient Vindiciae that defend yet another previous position, in a debate that
has continued since the seventeenth century in an apparently never-ending
cycle. I am well satisfied with a number of reviewers’ comments critical of the
arguments of Hübner and Lechner.6 The letters do not contain a kind of later
Marcionite Docetism that regarded only the resurrection body of Jesus as
incorporeal.7 Their use of negative terms in the description of the godhead
does 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 of
the Martyrium Ignatii, and not along with the other six. A great deal was made of this is
arguments that Romans was the one uninterpolated letter : J. Rius-Camps, The four authentic
letters 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. Hübner, ‘Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von
Antiochien ’, ZAC i (1997), 42–70, and Der paradox Eine : Antignostischer Monarchiansimus im zweiten
Jahrhundert : mit einem Beitrag von Markus Vinzent (VCS l, 1999) ; T. Lechner, Ignatius adversus
Valentinianos ? 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 zur
Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien ’, ZAC i (1997), 185–94 ;
G. Schöllgen, ‘ Die Ignatien als pseudepigrahisches Brief-corpus : Anmerkung zu den Thesen
von Reinhard M. Hübner ’, ZAC ii (1998), 16–25; M. J. Edwards, ‘Ignatius and the second
century : an answer to R. Hübner ’, ZAC ii (1998), 214–26 ; H. J. Vogt, ‘Bemerkungen zur
Echtheit der Ignatiusbriefe ’, ZAC iii (1999), 50–63.
7
In particular see M. Vinzent, ‘ Ich bin kein körperloses Geisteswesen ’, in Hübner, Der
Paradox 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 of
Docetism, and that the plea to Mary Magdalene : ‘Touch me not ’ (John xx.17) in contrast to
that 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? See
also Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the second century ’, 224–5.
8
Hübner, Der Paradox Eine, 80–7, 101–9; cf. Lindemann, ‘Antwort auf die Thesen zur
Echtheit ’, 189–90 ; Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the second century ’, 217–19; Vogt, ‘Bemerkungen
zur Echtheit ’, 54–5.
THE ENIGMA OF IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH 431
The star-hymn in Ephesians has no exclusively Valentinian features.9
Moreover, the alleged reference to aeon speculation rests on a disputed
reading in the manuscript tradition of the phrase ‘ the word not proceeding
from silence’.10
The point that I wish to emphasise here is that such criticisms have not
dealt with the resolution of the fundamental enigma surrounding Ignatius of
Antioch that is the starting point of all arguments assailing the authenticity of
the letters. We need to explain why Irenaeus, and, perhaps, Origen refer to
him circumspectly and even hesitantly, and only later in the second century.11
We need to explain the differences between the church order implied by the
Ignatian letters and that of Polycarp’s Philippians if we wish to maintain that
the latter collected together the corpus of the Middle Recension.12 It is with a
solution 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 to
be read is basically an esoteric one within the Christian community. Rather,
Ignatius’ language and project is a missionary one that recasts the
significance 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 the
Second Sophistic. Ignatius’ world is that of pagan processions, with chorus
and lyre, singing in celebration of oJmonoia or concord in the city state.13 It is
a world in which sophists are elected as ambassadors to conclude treaties
celebrating Hellenic unity, with their attendant festivals of sacrifice and
thanksgiving.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 in
Church History lxxi (2002), 169–70 See also Edwards, ‘ Ignatius and the second century ’, 222–4.
10
‘the eternal word (locoz ai>j dioz) not proceeding from silence (Sige) (ouj k ap j o sicg'z
proelhv n) : Ignatius, Magnesians viii.2. See Vogt, ‘Bemerkungen zur Echtheit ’, 50–3 (who
regards this as a reference to Wisdom xviii.14), and C. Lucca, ‘ Ignazio di Antiochia e il
martirio : un analisi di Romani 2 ’, Salesianum lix (1997), 624. See also Lindemann, ‘Antwort auf
die 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 which
Eusebius gives us the Greek (tiz tv' n gJmetervn) in Historia ecclesiastica iii.36.12, ed. G. Bardy,
Paris 1952, 1955, 1958. Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos ?, 69–74, argues that Origen’s
citations were before Rufinus’ Latin anonymous too, although he admits there is a Greek
fragment of Homiliae in Lucam vi, ed. M. Rauer, Leipzig 1930, with Ignatius expressly named
(p. 70).
12
Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos ?, chs ii, iv ; Hübner, 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 Verträge in der römischen Kaiserzeit ’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik xiv (1964), 51–64.
See also A. A. R. Sheppard, ‘ Homonoia in the Greek cities of the Roman empire ’, Ancient Society
xv–xvii (1984–6), 231–2. For sophists as ambassadors see Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum 515, 520,
432 ALLEN BRENT
cult and its own version of a mystery procession.15 Each of these will be
represented in Ignatius’ view of Christian church order.
My evidence will be mainly epigraphic. I will show in this paper that
Ignatius’ use of such phrases as prokahgmenoz eizj tupon, are to be read
in the context of such pagan cultic concepts as heoworoi, naoworoi and
oroi. The language of the election of diaconal ambassadors
aJ ciow
(heopresbutai) to proclaim the peace of the Church at Antioch reflects
stereotyped references to the institutions of ambassadors in relations between
the Greek city states as these are documented in epigraphic evidence. The
parallels between such terms and institutions are too close to allow us to
continue to interpret Ignatius in the context of Jewish Christianity, and to see
episcopal church order as arising from such an historical source.16 Ignatius’
recasting of both the vocabulary and the concepts in which church order and
liturgy are expressed represents therefore a radical secularisation in terms of
Hellenistic paganism of early Christian understanding of such institutions.
Let us now therefore explore, in the light of this background, some specific
passages in Ignatius that illustrate this general case.
Ignatius and Polycarp
If the letters are genuine, then Polycarp’s Philippians has in fact come down to
us as he wrote it without an alleged forger’s interpolations. But in this case the
enigma begins, not with Irenaeus’ references but with Polycarp’s actual
relations with Ignatius. If the letters of the Middle Recension are genuine,
and written by a martyr-bishop, Ignatius by name, his death must be dated
sometime before Polycarp’s own martyrdom, traditionally dated at 23
February 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 Theological
Review 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 for
the 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 office 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 römischen Welt : Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der
neueren Forschung, Berlin–New York 1992, II/27/i, 354–5, with bibliography and various
proposed dates. As matters stand, therefore, Ignatius’ journey to Rome could be anywhere
before that date, and not necessarily around AD 115 in the reign of Trajan. Given the integrity
of Polycarp’s Philippians, the authenticity thesis is not tied to the artificial Chronology of
Eusebius or to the allegedly genuine tradition of Julius of Africanus, pace Lechner, Ignatius
adversus Valentinianos ?, 98–102.
procession, coming through Smyrna, and the reference to the collection of
the Ignatian corpus must be true.18 A defence of the authenticity of the Middle
Recension is thus tied to a defence of the integrity of Polycarp’s Philippians, or
if not, a thesis that we have two original, genuine letters of Polycarp
combined into one.19 But if either of these alternatives is the case, there
remains still the enigma of why the church order of Polycarp’s community
is 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 be
governed by a single bishop with a council of presbyters and attendant
deacons.
In Polycarp the three-fold order is not explicit. Polycarp does not use nor
claim to be the one ejpiA skopoz, and it seems strange that he should disregard
the title that Ignatius clearly gives to him in that sense.21 There appears to
be a college of presbyters,22 with a number of deacons23 and an order of
widows,24 as also in the Pastoral Epistles. In the latter, though the term
ejpiA skopoz is used, it would appear to be in a generic sense, which suggests
that there was more than one of them, as in Clement of Rome, who appears
to use ejpiA skopoi and presbuteroi in the plural as interchangeable
groups.25
The letter begins: ‘Polycarp and his fellow-presbyters (Polukarpoz kai
oi J s uteroi)’. Though these words seem to indicate
un auj tv'/ presb
Polycarp’s de facto pre-eminence, they do not seem to suggest that he held
an office distinct from the presbyterate that he could exercise de iure,
as Ignatius claims about the bishop’s office would require. There is a
suggestive parallel here with the pseudonymous writer of 1 Peter v.1 when
he says: ‘ I exhort presbyters amongst you (presbuterouz ou\ n ejn
uJ mi 'n parakalv' ) who am your fellow presbyter (o sumpresb uteroz) and
witness of the sufferings of Christ (kai martuz tv' n tou' Xristou'
pahgm atvn).’
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
21
History xvii (1992), 18–32. 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.
434 ALLEN BRENT
to tease out the roots of Ignatian church order in the pagan context of the
Second Sophistic, with its mystery processions led by priests who bore images
of the deities that they represented. Those deities in turn embodied the
collective and corporate personality of their particular city. I will argue that
Ignatius understood both the gathering for the eucharist and his own martyr-
procession as a mystery cult of the same sort, duly sanitised and
choreographed, and that he conceptualised his view of church order on the
basis of such a model.26 Though Polycarp accepted such a procession
because it provided an enacted refutation of Docetism, he otherwise found
Ignatius’ conceptualisation of order quite unintelligible. Here we have the
explanation of the enigma of Ignatius, and the reason why he was held at
arms length, mentioned so circumspectly by Irenaeus, and his imagery only
canonised in the Didascalia and Constitutiones apostolicae at the expense of a
radical reinterpretation of his original concepts.27
Ignatian church order
Ignatius’ highly idiosyncratic view of church order was as alien to Irenaeus

as it was to the latter’s hero, and ‘ orthodox’ predecessor, Polycarp. It was
Irenaeus’ concept of one particular presbyter as a teaching successor who
headed a school (diadoxoz), and, therefore, the one ejpiA skopoz de iure and
not a presbyter whose authority was merely de facto amongst his council of
sunpresb uteroi that was the next stage in the development of the
presbyteral church order that Polycarp knew.28 But for Ignatius the bishop
is neither the successor of the Apostles nor does he perform an act of
ordination upon presbyters, deacons or one who is to join him as a fellow
bishop over another congregation.29
For Ignatius, the apostolic order of ministers is to be found in the council of
the presbyterate. The bishop does not exercise the apostolic ministry but
rather 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, Ignatius
of 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), 111–15ff.
27
A. Brent, ‘The relations between Ignatius of Antioch and the Didascalia apostolorum ’,
Second Century viii (1991), 129–56 See also G. Schöllgen, Die Anfänge der Professionalisierung des
Klerus und das kirchliche Amt in der Syrischen Didaskalie, Münster 1998, 119–20.
28
For an account of order as diadoxg see A. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the third
century : 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 in
Ignatius of Antioch’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses lxv (1989), 311–13. See also Schöllgen,
Professionalisierung, 24–5.
assembly. The representatives of Christ, whether at the eucharist or in the
community generally, are the deacons.30 As Ignatius says:
Likewise let all revere the deacons (oJmoiA vz ejntrepeshvsan touz diakonouz) as Jesus
Christ (vzJ jIgsou' n Xriston), even as they do the bishop who is the image of the
Father (vzJ kai ton ejpiA skopon o[nta tupon tou' patroz), and the presbyters as God’s
council (touz de presbuterouz vzJ sunedrion heou' ) and as a band of Apostles (kai vzJ
sundesmon ap olvn): without these a church cannot be summoned (xvriz to
j ost utvn
ejkklgsiA a ouj kalei 'tai).31
Similarly he says:
Be eager to do all things in God’s concord (ejn oJmonoiA a/ heou' spoud
afete panta
prassein) with the bishop presiding as an image of God (prokahgmenou tou'
ejpisk upon heou' ) and the presbyters as an image of the council of the
opou eizj t
Apostles (kai tv' n presbutervn eizj tupon sunedriA ou tv' n apost
j olvn), and of
the deacons … entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ (kai tv' n diakonvn tv' n
pepisteumenvn diakoniA an jIgsou' Xristou' ).32
It is important to note that in these texts there is no mention of the later order
of Christendom in any of the concepts used. If, as Lechner argues, the
Ignatian 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 have
no real fit.33 Undoubtedly for Ignatius the three-fold order authenticates
the gathering of believers as the Church. But it does not do so in anything like
the sense of Hegesippus and Irenaeus since there is no model of diadoxg.
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 the
elaboration of a diadoxg 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 tupoz (along with
the [abridged] Syriac [S] and Armenian [A]) versions, and not topoz even though the latter is
attested by both Greek and Latin versions of the Middle Recension (G and L) as well as the
Greek (g) and Latin (l) of the Long Recension. The reading is also supported by Severus of
Antioch (c. 515). However, the reading tupoz in Trallians iii.1 is secure, which must be a
powerful support for not reading topoz instead in this similar passage. Furthermore Didascalia
ii.26 attests such an Ignatian usage, which was misunderstood by that writer as type in an
exegetical, Old Testament sense. This would explain why Severus and later scribes replaced it
with topoz which by that time described the physical space assigned to the various clerical
orders in the architectural arrangement of the basilicas of eastern Christendom. See, however,
33
Schoedel, Ignatius, 141. Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos ?, 110–11.
34
E. Molland, ‘Irenaeus of Lugdunum and the apostolic tradition ’, this JOURNAL i (1950),
12–28, and ‘Le Dévelopment de l’idée de succession apostolique ’, Revue d’histoire et de philosophie
religieuse xxxiv (1954), 1–29 ; A. Brent, ‘ Diogenes Laertius and the apostolic succession ’, this
JOURNAL xliv (1993), 367–89.
436 ALLEN BRENT
than does Polycarp in the case of a presbyter, of any act of ordination
by the imposition of hands, or of Peter as his apostolic predecessor.
The case for pseudepigrapha or pseudepigraphic interpolations here
would require something far more like the letters of Peter to Clement, and
Clement to James which we meet at the beginning of the Pseudoclementine
homilies.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 It
is because of the character of their role-play that without them there is
no gathering as ejkklgsiA a (xvriz toutvn ejkklgsiA a ouj kalei 'tai). In the
community gathered for the eucharist the bishop, seated in pre-eminent
view (prokahgmenoz), creates the image of God the Father (eizj tupon heou' or
as o[nta tupon tou' patroz). The Seer of the Apocalypse had seen in heaven
the presbyterate seated around the throne of God, and of the Lamb, ‘ slain
from the foundation of the world ’. In Ignatius’ liturgical assembly, the
prominently seated Father-bishop has positioned around him the circle of
the presbyters who create the image of the spirit-filled Apostles at the
Johannine Pentecost:
Be eager to be confirmed (spoud afete ou\ n bebaivhg'nai) in the teachings of the Lord
and of the Apostles (ejn toi 'z docmasin tou' KuriA ou kai tv' n apost
j olvn) … together
with your worthily esteemed bishop (meta j tou' ajioprepest
j opou uJ mv' n),
atou ejpisk
and the worthily woven spiritually garlanded presbyterate (kai ajiopl j okou
pneumatikou' stew anou tou' presbuteriA ou), and of the deacons according to God
(kai tv' n kata j heòn diakonvn).37
We may also conclude that the deacons, who were previously described as to
be ‘revered (ejntrepeshvsan)… as Jesus Christ (vzJ jIgsou' n Xriston) ’, or as
‘ entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ (pepisteumenvn diakoniA an jIgsou'
Xristou' ) ’, create, as t upoi, the image of Jesus Christ.
According to John xx.22 the risen Christ breathed (ejnewusgsen) the Holy
Spirit into the twelve gathered in the upper room and inaugurated the
Church as the extension of the incarnation. In a typical allusive reference to
the Johannine tradition, Ignatius refers to this scene when he says: ‘ For this
cause the Lord received anointing on his head (dia tou' to muron e[laben ejpi
tg'z kewalg'z auj tou' oJ K urioz) that he might breathe incorruption upon the
Church (ina { pneg/ tg'/ ejkklgsiA a/ awharsi
j A an).’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 Ignatius
of Antioch to the Reformation, with special reference to contemporary ecumenism, Leiden 1992, 84–5, and
37
Imperial cult, 213–23. Magnesians xiii.1.
38
Ephesians xvii.1. Schoedel, Ignatius, 81, detects, in addition, parallels in the Odes of Solomon
11.15, in the Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi codex I, 33, 39–34.34), ed. H. W. Attridge, Leiden
For Ignatius, therefore, the significance of ministerial office is that the
three kinds of office-holders (bishop, priests and deacons), create the Church
by reflecting in the images or tupoi that they wear, the corporate, liturgical
life of the community in the ongoing drama of redemption. Flowing through
the bishop is the divinity of God the Father, of whom he is a human image or
likeness, giving from his throne ‘ the bread from heaven to eat’.39 The
presbyterate recalls and realises afresh the Spirit given to the apostolic circle
in John on the evening of the Resurrection. The deacons, as they take the
eucharistic gifts from the Father-bishop and give them to the people, issuing
their appropriate eucharistic instructions, thus represent the Christ who
comes from the one Father (ton aw j ’enoz
J patroz proelh onta) and returns to
him who is one again (kai eizj e{na o[nta kai xvrgsanta).40
This is a whole world away from Irenaeus’ view of order in terms of
diadox g in a lineal, historical descent. There is no mention of any act of
ordination producing a legitimate succession that precludes false teachers
from any right to practice as the true diadoxoi.
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 different though to him more
intelligible form by the author of the Constitutiones apostolicae.41
What, therefore, is the origin of the apparently rather odd description of a
bishop, or the presbyterate, or a deacon, as presiding as an image
(prokahgmenoz eizj tupon) ? How, and in what context, can images be said
to preside?
upoz and cultic processions

t
The essential meaning of tupoz is that of an impression left by a seal or a die

on wood, stone, metal or clay; it thus comes to be used of an image on a coin
or 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, Leiden
39
1989. John vi.32.
40
p
antez vzJ eizj e{na na untrexete heou' , vzJ ejpi e}n husiast
on s grion, ejpi e}na jIgsou' n
on, t
Xrist on awj j en
J oz patr
oz proelh onta kai eizj e{na o[nta kai xvrgsanta : Magnesians
41
vii.2. See n. 32 above and related text.
42
‘Mot issu de la même racine que tuptv, un tupoz est d’abord l’empreinte en creux
(imprimé) ou en saillie (repoussée) que laisse la frappe d’une matrice, l’emblème figure sur
cette matrice et que la frappe reproduira. Ainsi appelle-t-on tupoz le coin monétaire et le type
imprimée par le coin sur le flan de métal, cachet de bois qui sert à timbrer, sur l’argile fraı̂che,
les amphores ou les tuiles, le fer marquer en relief, assujetti à l’extrémité d’un kautgr pour
imprimer à chaud une marque sur un animal, un esclave, un criminel. Le tupoz est aussi le
moule creux utilisé par le coroplathe et l’épreuve d’argile qui sortira de ce moule, le relief
obtenu au repoussé sur une feuille de métal ’: G. Roux, ‘Le Sens de tupoz ’, Revue des études
anciennes lxiii (1961), 5.
438 ALLEN BRENT
cast for tiles that decorate scenes on an altar.43 But it is also used to refer to
portable images of deities.
Josephus, when he uses tupoz of idols, specifically refers to portable statues
where he describes again the scene in Genesis xxxi.32 in which Rachael has
stolen the teraphim or portable gods of her father Laban.44 Thus Josephus
refers to Rachel’s small, portable idols or teraphim as tupoi : they are not bas-
reliefs.45 There is here a further feature of tupoi or portable teraphim in the
cultural context in which Flavius Josephus is writing (Domitian, AD 93–4).
Rachael’s tupoi tv' n hev' n are, clearly, patriA oi. These terms clearly refer to
the lares et penates, the gods of hearth and home carried after the destruction of
Troy by Aeneas. To his Graeco-Roman readers tupoi were clearly portable
images, which could be used to transfer a cult and found it on new shores.
Josephus followed the LXX in his understanding of tupoz, a word that the
latter rarely uses but then only of portable images.46 But his usage was not
idiosyncratic when he used the term for teraphim, which were clearly
portable, rounded statues.
In 1838, in Rome on the Via di Ripetta, a marble base was uncovered. It
was inscribed ‘The statue of Marcianus, proconsul of Greece [sc. Achaia],
stands resplendent (Markianou' stiA lbei tupoz Elladoz anhup j atoio). ’47
Clearly such a base did not originally support a bas-relief but a rounded
statue of Marcianus, here designated a tupoz.48 Moretti’s photograph shows
the base for the statue that was erected upon it ; such a statue is called tupoz
which was not therefore only applied to a bas-relief. Similarly, the ‘ statue
standing upright (tupoz o[rhioz) ’ found at Ephesus and set up again could
not have been simply a bas-relief : ‘ This upright statue which you see (tou' ton
43
The Inventory of Hieropes, does mention a ‘ wooden pattern (tupon julinon) for the
titles that are on the Ceraton (keramiA dvn tv' n ejpi ton Keratv' na) ’. The latter was an altar,
described in I.Delos 442 B.172 and discussed in Roux, ‘Le Sens de tupoz ’, 12–14.
44
JPax
gla kai touz tupouz tv' n hev' n (ou}z sebein patriA ouz o[ntaz n omimon g\n,
sunanelomeng sunapediA draske met a tg'z adelwg'
j atvn ejkeleuen
z ; peri mentoi tv' n i Jervm
e[reunan poiei 'shai. dejamenou de Lab
anou t gn e[reunan, JPax gla punhanomeng, katatiA hgsi
touz t
upouz eizj t
gn sacgn tg'z werousgz auj t
gn kam glou. : Josephus, Antiquitates 1.322 (10),
ed. H. St. J. Thackeray, Cambridge, MA.–London 1967.
45
Contrary to Roux, ‘ Le Sens de tupoz ’, 5.
46
anel
j abete t gn skgn gn Mol ox kai t
o a[ stron tou' heou' uJ mv' n Paiw
an, to uz t
upouz auj tv' n
ou}z ejpoi
gsate eautoi
J 'z : Amos v.26 (LXX), quoted in Acts vii.44. An immovable idol is called
n in Isaiah xl.19–20 (LXX) : m
an eikj v g eik j ona ejpoiA gsen tektvn, g[ xrusox ooz xvne usaz
xrusiA on periexrusvsen auj t moiA vma kateske
on, o uasen auj ton; j ulon ca[ r a[ sgpton ejklecetai
tektvn kai sowv' z fgt pv' z st gsei eiko'
j na auj tou' , kai ina
{ mg sale utai.
47
IGUR, 67. See comments in D. Feissel, ‘ Notes d ’épigraphie chrétienne (vii) xx: quelques
dédicaces de statues décernées par les empereurs ’, Bulletin de correspondence hellenique cviii (1984),
545–58 at p. 547 n. 1.
48
L. Robert, Hellenica : recueil d’épigraphie de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, Paris 1948, iv.
16 n. 3.
o{ n eisor
j aa/z t upon o[rhion) of Antoninus ( Antvnei
j A nou) concealed [in the
ground] at Ephesus, Dorotheus rededicated (Dvroheoz Pteleg/ hgkato
krupt omenon). ’49 In consequence we can infer from the collections of
epigrams in the Anthologie de Planude, whose autograph is MS Marcianus
graecus 481, that they are copied from similar bases on which similar lost
statues were erected.50
It must be further noted that the word tupoz is to be found on an
inscription on the base of a mutilated statue, not a flat bas-relief, a statue of
Scholastica.51 On its pedestal base we read: ‘You are looking on the image of
my godly wife, o so wise Scolastica, o stranger … (tupon cunaikoz euj sebo~uz
liA an sowg'z SxolastikiA az moi tou' to(n) v\ jene blepeiz).52 Here t
upoz clearly
refers to an image in the form of a rounded statue.
Ignatius nowhere uses tupoz in the predominant, New Testament, sense of
an Old Testament figure, object, or event to be interpreted figuratively or
allegorically.53 To what extent are we entitled to interpret Ignatius’ use of
tupoz 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 (ejste ou\ n) cult associations (sunodoi p antez)54, God-bearers
(heoworoi) and temple-bearers (kai naoworoi), Christ bearers (xristow oroi), bearers
of holy things (aJ cioworoi), in every way adorned with the commandments of Jesus
Christ (kat anta kekosmgmenoi ejn ejntolai 'z jIgsou' Xristou' ).55
a p
Here Ignatius’ usage parallels precisely mystery cults in whose processions
officials bore various images by those described with -woroz adjectives.
Ignatius describes the Ephesians as ‘ fellow initiates (Paulou summustai, tou'
gJciasmenou) ’, and the Trallians as having those ‘ who are deacons of the
mysteries (touz diakonouz o[ntaz mustgrivn) ’.56
49
Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, ed. J. Franz, A. Kirchhoff, E. Curtius and A. Boeckh, ii,
Berlin 1828, 2967.
50
This manuscript forms the basis of R. Aubreton and F. Buffière, Anthologie greque, II :
Anthologie Planude, xiii, Paris 1980.
51
F. Miltner, ‘ Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, Jahreshefte des
52
österreichischen Instituts in Wien xliii (1956), Beiblatt xxi, 26 abb. 15. I.Eph. ii. 453.
53
1 Corinthians x.6–11 ; Romans v.14 ; Acts vii.44 : kat a t
on t J akei=Exodus
upon o{ n evr
xxv.40 : kat a ton tupon ton dedeicmenon soi ejn tv'/ o[rei ; Hebrews viii.5.
54
The sunodoi 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 common
cult or guild ’. The usual sunodoz appears as a plural here because the churches are joining his
martyr-procession through their representatives, and therefore each church individually is
viewed as its own cult. Furthermore, the term has close associations with mystery cults. For
s unodoz in this sense see SEG vi.59 (=IGRR iii.209) ; xliii.773.32, 33; 1135 ; IGUR, 143 ; 246.B.
55
2–9 (=IG xiv.253) ; Syll.3, 851.7–9 ; 26–7 ; IG v.2.269 and 270. Ephesians ix.2.
56
Ephesians xii.12; Trallians ii.3. See also the tri a must gria kraucg'z in Ephesians 19.1. For
mimgt gz in this sense see also Ephesians i.1 ; Trallians i.2; Romans vi.1.
440 ALLEN BRENT
Diodorus describes those who participated in Philip of Macedon’s
deification shortly before his death in 365 BC as accompanied by the statues
of the twelve gods in procession ‘ adorned marvellously with the greatest
resplendence of wealth (kai tg'/ lamprotgti tou' ploutou haumastv' z
kekosmgmena)’. Thus those who accompany Ignatius as human t upoi are
‘ vested ’ or ‘adorned with the commandments of Christ (kekosmgmenoiejn tai'z
ejntolai 'z jIgsou' Xristou' ) ’.57 The procession in which Philip is enthroned
with the twelve gods began when the crowd ‘ ran together (sunetrexen) ’,58
like Ignatius exhorting the Churches to ‘ run together (suntrexein)’, to
‘ form a chorus (xoroz ciA neshe) ’ with their ‘inspired multitude (e[n hev']
plg'hoz)’,59 or to ‘run together to one temple-shrine of God (p antez vzJ
on suntrexete heou' ) ’.60
eizj e{na na
There is clear evidence of the role of those who bore images of gods in
procession. In 1926 a three-sided marble pillar was unearthed on the via
Tusculana between the via Labicana and the via Latina.61 Here we have a list
of names of a Dionysiac sunodoz or hiA asoz, in columns, stating the names
of the ‘ priests and priestesses (i Jerei 'z and i eJ reiai) ’,62 the ‘ Hierophant or of
the sacred (i Jerowantgz) ’63 and otherwise assigning each member to their
role in the mystery drama.64 Its heading clearly reads: ‘ [In honour of]
Pompeia Agrippinilla the priestess ( ’[Acr]ippeiniA llan tgn i eJ reian) the
initiants into the mysteries who are listed beneath (mustai oi J
uJ pocecrammenoi). ’
From the way in which this inscription continues, we can appreciate why
and in what sense clerics who join his procession from the various Churches
are described as bearing images of God (heoworoi), Christ (xristoworoi),
miniature shrines (naoworoi) or sacred vessels (aJ cioworoi) generally. We
find these paralleled in Robert’s list of functionaries in religious rituals, where
compounds with -woroz refer quite literally to those who carry sacred
objects, such as ‘ [miniature] altar bearer (bvmoworoz) ’, ‘casket bearer
(kistoworoz)’, ‘ fire bearer (purworoz) ’, ‘ fan bearer (liknaworoz) ’, ‘basket
bearer (kangworoz)’, ‘ bearer of olive shoots (halloworoz)’, ‘phallus bearer
(walloworoz) ’ and ‘ god bearer (heoworoz)’.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
different 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 Muséum, 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 Épigraphiques : VI inscriptions d’Athènes’, in his Opera minora
selecta : épigraphie et antiquités grecques, i–vii, Amsterdam 1969–90, ii. 839 n. 6 (=Revue des études
gives examples in the Isis mysteries in which ‘the foremost high priests
(antistites sacrorum proceres) … carried before them the distinctive attributes of
the most powerful gods (potentissimorum deum proferebant insignes exuvias) ’. But
these heoworoi were also accompanied in the goddess’s procession by a
second group, who ‘carried with both hands an altar (manibus ambabus gerebat
altaria) ’. Clearly the altar in question was miniature ; thus we have
bvmow oroi as counterparts to Ignatius’ naow oroi.66
oroi or aJ ciow
In the Attis mysteries, the kistoworoz bore the chest containing the
entrails 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 kistoworoz of the temple of Ma-Bellone.68 Indeed, like Ignatius’
heow oroz, the title of his position and function in the cultic procession is used
almost like the cognomen that Ignatius gives himself in the inscription of every
letter.
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 by
self-mutilation with the axes. On the ground, to the right of Lartius, is a cistus
with a closed lid, evidently made of basket-work.
The reception of Ignatius as heoworoz is well described as the Ephesians
heard and sent representatives to his procession as he passed along the upper
route to Smyrna via Philadelphia. His martyr-procession too is a celebration
of Christ’s death, which can be seen in Ignatius’ body. He speaks of the
Ephesians as greeting his procession and becoming part of it, like bacchic
maenads, or as we have seen, the worshippers of Attis roused to ecstasy
or ‘ inflamed (anafvpur
j gsantez) ’ by ‘the blood of god (ejn aimati { heou' ) ’
in the drama in which they participate through mimesis: ‘being imitators
of God (mimgtai o[ntez heou' ) being inflamed by the blood of God
(anafvpur
j gsantez ejn aimati
{ heou' ). … in order that I might be able to
achieve my goal of becoming a disciple (ina { di
a tou' ejpituxei 'n dunghv'
mahgt gz ein\ ai)’.69
anciennes lxii (1960), 323 n. 6). See also idem, ‘ Le Serpent Glycon d’Abônouteichos à Athénes et
Artémis d’Éphèse à Rome’, Opera minora, v. 747–69 (=Comptes rendus des séances: Académie des
Inscriptions 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 Pulvinensis
fecit C. Quinctius Rufinus Fratri et Domino suo pientissimo cui et monumentum fecit interius
agro Apollonis Argentei Quinctius Rufinus. (C. Quinctius Rufus has made this for L. Lartius
Anthus Cistophoros of the Temple of Bellona for his most pious brother, for whom also
Quinctius 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 Roman
cult of Bellona from the time of Sulla when introduced at Rome. She was associated
nevertheless also with Magna Mater: Strong, ‘Sepulchral relief ’, 207. 69 Ephesians i.1–2.
442 ALLEN BRENT
We have seen how, for Ignatius, the bishop as prokahgmenoz eizj tupon is
‘ pre-eminent as an image’ of the Father. Ignatius does not always make the
later distinctions between persons in a triune godhead, and clearly his Father-
God is a suffering god.70 In joining the procession with its enacted drama,
they participate in the saving events of the martyr-bishop, the tupoz of the
suffering and rising God :
You are the highway of those slaughtered for God (p aradoz ejste tv' n eizj heon
anairoum
j envn), fellow initiates of Paul (Pa
ulou summ ustai) the most blessed who has
been sanctified, who has been martyred (tou' gJciasmenou, tou' memarturgmenou,
ajiomakari
j A stou). May I be allowed to be found in his footsteps (ou| cenoito moi uJ p
o
uxv).71
a i[xng euJ rehg'nai) when I attain to God (o{ tan Heou' ejpit
t
Ignatius does not, however, speak of himself as tupoworoz, which is not

otherwise found in any case, however much his role as heoworoz may carry
that implication. But that he does not use such terms as eik j onez or
a[ calmata of what he bears may betray considerable sophistication in the
way in which he is manipulating the pagan imagery of his discourse, both
verbal and iconographic, in his reconceptualisation of early Christian
ecclesial order.
We must first note that the verb worei 'n, from which the ending of -woroz
is derived, embraces the English concept of ‘ to wear’ as well as ‘to carry’.
Though tupoworoz as the bearer of a portable image of a deity occurs
neither in pagan literature nor epigraphy, such tu poi are carried indirectly
by a stewangworoz (stewangworei 'n) in a context that will now be
considered.
L. Lartius Anthus, kistoworoz of Ma-Bellona, whose inscribed stele has
already been referred to,72 wears a crown, possibly originally golden, of a
laurel leaf design, which was adorned with three medallions depicting
helmeted divinities. The central medallion was probably of Bellona, with
Mars on the right and Minerva on the left.73 Here are tupoi set in a
stewanoz worn by a priest who heads a procession. We have many examples
of such stewanoi bearing three or sometimes multiple tupoi whether of
members of the imperial family, the Capitoline Triad or gods of the city
state.74
70
The author of the Long Recension corrects Ignatius’ ‘ Patripassianism’ at this point with :
71
anafvpur
j gsantez ejn aimati
{ Xristou' . 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 ’édit d’Édit d’Ézira ’,
Opera minora, ii. 967–8 (=Bulletin de correspondance hellénique [1930], 263).
74
J. Inan-E. Alföldi 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, plate
no. xcviii/4 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. No. I, 922. Neg. Österreichisches
Though a kistoworoz was not necessarily, any more than a gallus, a fully
ordained priest, Strong notes that in a different epigraph one Nonius
Elphideforus is defined as coronatus cistifer and that in the list of cistiferi
(kistoworoi) of Virtus-Bellona some are called sac. (=sacerdos) as well,
presumably indicated by the stewanoz.75 Thus we may say that Ignatius is
the coronatus in that he wears in the procession the tupoz of the suffering
God, as well bearing that image of God himself (heoworoz). Those clerics
who join his procession are the tupoi in the liturgical assembly of their
ejkklgsiA ai where they act the drama of replay. In the martyr-procession they
may indeed play a lesser role as naoworoi, aJ cioworoi and xristoworoi,
describing that which they bear in support of the martyr-bishop, who wears
the tupoz patroz 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 the
benefaction of C. Iulius Demosthenes, who had founded a music festival and
competition (a[ cvn mousikoz) associated with the imperial cult and approved
by a letter of Hadrian to the Termessians (29 August 124).76 Here we have
heow oroi, now replaced by sebastow oroi, whose function it is to carry in
procession 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 uJ p j auj tou' kai
sebastow orouz iA v) (62) who, wearing white robes and crowns of celery (oi [{ ti]nez
worou' ntez ejshg'ta leuk gn kai stewa[non se]liA ninon) will carry (bast
asousi) and
lead forward (kai pro ajousi) and escort (kai propompe usousi) the images of the
emperors (t az sebastik az eik j onaz) and (63) the image of our ancestral god Apollo
(kai tgn [tou' ] patr ollvnoz) and the previously mentioned holy
v/ ou gJmv' n heou' jAp
v/
altar (kai ton p[rod]glo~umenon i Jeron bvmon).77
But the priest who leads the procession is to wear the tupoi of the imperial
family and ancestral god (Apollo) in a stewanoz, as we learnt at the
beginning :
(51) he has promised (ejpgnceiA lato) that in addition (52) at his own expense to make
ready (kataskeu j vn) and dedicate to the city (kai anj [ahei 'nai tg'/ p
asai ejk tv' n idiA o]lei)
both a golden crown (kai stewanon xrusou' n) carrying relief portraits (e[[xo]nta
e[ktupa prosvpa) of the emperor Nerva Trajan Hadrian (Auj tokr atoroz Neroua
Archäeologisches Institut, no. I. 352), and Römischen und frühbyzantinische Porträtsplastik aus der
Türkei, 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 österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in
Wien ii (1899), 245ff. and Taf.viii, who identifies well-preserved busts with members of the
75
imperial family. Strong, ‘ Sepulchral relief ’, 209–11, commenting on ILS ii.5432.
76 77
SEG xxxviii.1462.A.1–9. Ibid. C.61–3.
444 ALLEN BRENT
Traianou' JAdria[nou' ]) (53) Caesar Augustus (KaiA saroz Sebastou' ) and our
Leader the ancestral god Apollo (kai tou' prokahg[cet]ou gJ[mv' ]n patr v
v// ou heou'
ollvnoz), which the agonothete will wear (o{ n wor
jAp etgz), and an
gsei oJ acvnoh
j
altar decorated with silver (kai bvmon periarcuron) which has an inscription (54) of
otoz).78
the dedicator (e[xonta ejpicra[wgn] auj tou' tou' anateheik
j
We note furthermore the appropriateness of calling such images tupoi, since
they are described as e[ktupa prosvpa. Prosvpon, of course, had a wide
application as meaning ‘face ’, ‘mask ’ and even ‘person’. Here the term is
entering a discourse of pagan theology that bears witness to a confluence of
polytheistic imagery combined into a kind of pantheistic order around the
imagery of the one divinised imperial family. I have argued elsewhere that
Ignatius engages with this too.79 In view of later, Christological usage, a pun
may be forgiven at this juncture : we are seeing three distinct prosvpa united
into one god-headdress.
There is a second point regarding the reason why Ignatius should choose
to use the term tupoz as the images to be created by the three-fold order of
bishop, presbyters and deacons. He is clearly not a polytheist, and he will
have no literal, plastic imagery in his procession. To have spoken of his clerics
as a[ calmata or eik
j onez would perhaps have been altogether too crass. t upoz
is within a rich semantic field which extends to other possible meanings. This
term can invoke cultic and processional imagery whilst making clear that it is
operating as an analogy.
upoz as bridging the phenomenal and spiritual

t
upoz refers to the bridge between the carnal and spiritual order of things,
t
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 of
himself and of members of his entourage as bearers of divine imagery
(heoworoi), 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 the
roles of the three-fold order of bishop, presbyters and deacons, that leads to
union (e{nvsiz or en J otgz). We shall now see how the logic of the Judaeo-
Christian language game operates with such notions at the interface with
pagan philosophical theology.
There is a memorial of one Cassandrus for his wife Sentia. This, from its
dedication HK, the Greek equivalent of D[is] M[anibus] =H(eoi 'z)
K(atgxhoniA oiz) would appear to be pagan : ‘She has allowed those images
(g[ase te eik
j onaz) to be mirror impressions [of herself] (antit
j upouz) which she
bore in travail (a}z vj dei 'sin e[tikten) in her boy children (ejm j paisin arrenikoi
j 'z)
78 79
Ibid. C.51–4. Brent, Imperial cult, 169–77, 220–3, 226–71, 310–28.
80
and reached the end of her life (kai e[sxe teloz biotoio). ’ anti
j A tupoz is used in
precisely the same sense as tupoz has been so far in connection with the
visible expression of succeneiA a. The anti j prefix here is clearly not an
indication of an opposite but a reinforcement of the sense of tupoz as exact
replica of a real original. The eikj onaz here are her children, and they are
images (tupouz) striking in their replication (anti j ) of her. Similarly, in the
New Testament, the ‘ Holy places made with hands (xeiropoiA gta … a{ cia)
are images or impressions of what is heavenly and real ‘(anti j A tupa tv' n
alghinv'
j n) ’.81
upoz emerges as the ‘ form of one’s true self ’, convincing and real, as
t
opposed to an eikj v
n which is an image whose correspondence with reality is
neutral, unless duly qualified as an anti j A tupoz. t upoz therefore describes an
image that reflects reality, forming a bridge with eternal and spiritual
essences 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 eikj v n
but not a tupoz.82 Plato reminds us that one can form mental images of both
true and false belief.83
But tupoz also refers to a complete image of one’s true self, like a
phenomenal particular that mirrors its Platonic Form rather than conceals or
obfuscates it. The relationship between a deceptive eikj v n and t upoz as a true
image is also evident in Nonnos, who described Narcissus as one:
who long ago (o]z p aroz) in the dumb form of a beautiful deceiver (gjperopg'oz
xorooz e[dei> kvwv'/ ) seeing the water changed into the complete image of his
eju
own self (eizj tupon auj toteleston idj v umenon u{ dvr), died (k
n morwo athane), as he
gazed upon the shadowy phantom of his shape (paptaiA nvn skioeidea w asmata
morwg'z).84
We see here therefore that a tupoz is a complete image (auj totelestoz),

formed (morwoumenon) from a pattern in water of a real, primary image
(ei \doz): it parallels the distinction made in a more technical sense between a
real, enduring, eternal Platonic Form (ei \doz) and the particular piece of
phenomenal matter on which it is impressed.
80 81
IGUR, 1327. 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 ar ejkei 'noz
tehngken), but I am his image (all gJ eikj v
j j ejcv n auj tou)’. The explanation is that this false
image 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 men tv' n alghv'
j n dojv' n kai
locvn alghei
j 'z, ai J de tv' n yeudv' n yeudei 'z. Previously Plato has spoken of how, as we read
the words of a book, a ‘ workman in our souls (dgmiourcon gJmv' n ejn tai 'z yuxai 'z)’ who is ‘an
artist who, following the words of the writer (fvcr awon, o{ z met
a t
on crammatist gn tv' n
lecomenvn), paints images in our soul (eik j onaz ejn tg'/ yuxg'/ to
utvn crawei)’.
84
Nonnos, Dionysiaca xlviii.584–7, ed. W. H. D. Rouse, H. J. Rose and L. R. Lind,
Cambridge, MA–London 1962–3.
446 ALLEN BRENT
Wood, clay, stone, marble or paper do not of themselves communicate the
meaning of words or abstract images whether human or divine. They require
an idea (idj eai, ei \doz) or an image (eikj v
n) or a form (morw g) to be represented.
These images or forms, shaped into a plastic medium furnishing clear and
distinct representations of them, are called in Greek tupoi. Thus a definitive
statement in written form of a considered intention is called a tupoz because
it is the expression of words, in stone or on paper, of a clear and distinct set of
meanings and images, just as a tattoo in human or animal flesh. tupoz forms,
as it were, a mediating bridge between the mental and spiritual and the
material and physical, but partaking of the nature of both.
Thus Philo, when describing the creation of Adam, can speak of tupoz as
such a mediating bridge between the spiritual and physical in general, with-
out application to a plastic medium. Adam as the archetypal human being is
described, as a result of God breathing into him his logos-Spirit, as the bearer
of the transcendental forms. Like a trained architect, God is described by
analogy as: ‘ Having received in his own soul, as it were in wax the images of
each object (v[ sper ejn kgrv'/ tg'/ eautou'
J yuxg'/ to uz ek
J astvn dej upouz),
amenoz t
he bears the image of the noumenal city (acalmatoworei j ' nogt
gn polin). ’85
Here, clearly, a[ calma (acalmatoworei
j )' is associated with tupoz metaphori-
cally as a psychological description of how the individual mind or soul can
grasp the transcendental forms existing in the mind or reasoning of God
(hei 'oz locoz).86 The nogtg poliz is imaged accurately because its a[ calma
bears the tupoi that are accurate shapes of that transcendental world. Not
every mental image corresponds as this one does to its arxet j upon
paradeiA cma :
since images do not always correspond to their archetypal model (ejpei d j ouj sumpasa
n ejmwer
eikj v gz arxet
j upv/ paradeiA cmati), and many are unlike it (pollai de eis j in
j omoioi), he brought out his meaning (proepesgm
an gnato) by adding (ejpeipv n) ‘after
the likeness ’ to the words ‘ after the image (tv'/ kat j eik o kah j oJmoiA vsin) ’, thus
j ona t
showing that an accurate cast bearing a true impression (eizj e[mwasin akribou' j z
ejkmaceiA ou tran upon e[xontoz).87
on t
Clearly, for Philo, a tupoz is not simply an eikj v

n but an eikj v
n kah j oJmoiA vsin.
It is to be emphasised that Philo in speaking of Adam, like Ignatius of his
clerical representations, is here speaking of a tupoz not imprinted in stone
but in human flesh that accurately corresponds with the spiritual entity of
that of which it is an image.
This is clearly the case when Philo describes the beauty of Adam. Of his
descendants (touz de apoc
j onouz) it could be said that :
participating as they did in his original form (tg'z ejkeiA nou metexontaz id j eaz) [they]
must preserve still the marks though faint ones (anackai
j 'on ei j kai amudro
j uz all
j j ou\ n
85
Philo, De opificio mundi iv (18), ed. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Cambridge,
86 87
MA–London 1962. Ibid. v (20). Ibid. xxiii (71).
e[ti s
v/ fein to
v/ upouz) of their kinship with their first father (tg'z pr
uz t oz t
on
prop atora succeneiA az).88
tupoz is the clear mark in human flesh of participation in a Platonic Form

( metexontaz id j eaz). It marks the resemblance of physical kinship (succeneiA a),
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 muhou
pl asmata) … but modes of making ideas visible (all upvn),
j a deiA cmata t
drawing us to allegorical interpretation (ejp j allgcori j A an parakalou' nta)
through rendering what lies beneath their surface (kata taz di j uJ ponoiv' n
apod
j oseiz) ’.90 Thus the distinction between marks or t upoi in human flesh
that participate in the spiritual forms is now applied to the distinction
between descriptions of events that are symbolic representations (deiA cmata
tupvn) of the spiritual that is behind them.
For Plotinus too a tupoz 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 (ejpistrowg), it sees the transcendental world
because of ‘a vision (hea) and impression (kai tupoz) of what is seen implanted
(tou' ojwhentoz) and working in it (kai ejnercv' n), like the relation between
sight and its seen object (vzJ gJ o[yiz peri to oJrv menon)’. The tupoz itself,
therefore, is infallible and does not deceive. It is the unpurified intellect that is
deceived in that it cannot recognise the Form in its phenomenal mould:
‘ [The soul] had not transcendental objects (ei \xen de ouj k auj ta ), but their
moulds (all j a t upouz); it is necessary therefore (dei ' ou\ n) [for the soul] to
combine the mould with the real objects of which they are the moulds (ton
tupon toi 'z alghinoi
j upoi). ’91 Clearly t
'z, v| n kai oi J t upoz here links the two
worlds of Plato and his heirs, whether Jewish or pagan, as indicating the
infallible image or mould in a sensible particular of the transcendental Form
that it contains.
In this respect it contrasts with deceptive images that Plotinus calls not
tupoi but ei[dvla.92 t upoi are made ‘ from the objects that come from the
intellect (tv' n ejk tou' nou' ioj ntvn)’.93 The true order of the world resulted when
‘ matter (gJ u[lg) was inscribed (periecraweto) with the image of the universe
(tupv/ kosmou) ’.94 The mind of the creator contains each real object (eid\ oz)
that is eternal:
[The Maker] will not think of what is not yet existence (ouj t a ejn tv'/ m
gpv o[nti
gsei) in order that he might make it (ina
ou| toz no { auj t o poig'/ ). Those Forms must exist
before the universe (pro tou kosmou a[ ra dei ' ei \nai ejkei 'na), not as images (ouj tupouz)
from things that are [utterly] different (aw j j et J ervn), but as archetypes (all j a kai
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 93 94
Ibid.ii.9.12.5–10. Ibid. v.3.2.10. Ibid. ii.9.12.23.
448 ALLEN BRENT
j etupa) and primary substances (kai prv' ta) and the essence of Intellect (kai nou'
arx
ouj siA an).95
We thus see that there cannot be tupoi of what is ‘different ’ from what they
represent but must be ‘moulds in the shape of first principles (arx j etupa)’.
Once again tupoz emerges as the bridge between the material substance of
the phenomenal world, and the world of eternal and spiritual realities.
For Ignatius tupoz clearly has this bridging function performed by the
clerical icons that express their corresponding divine and saving realities. It is
through these tupoi that the liturgical assembly find e{nvsiz with the divine,
and a enJ otgz of flesh and spirit. Those in union with the three-fold order
become the spiritual and eternal that they image as tupoi. Ignatius frequently
claims that the three-fold order is the bridge uniting the fleshly and spiritual
realms :
Be subject to the bishop (uJ pot opv/) and to each other (kai all
acete tv'/ ejpisk j gloiz) as
Jesus Christ was to the Father (vzJ jIgsou' z X ristoz tv'/ patri), and the Apostles were
j ostoloi tv'/ Xristv'/ ) and to the Father (kai tv'/ patri), in order that
to Christ (kai oi J ap
there may be a union of the fleshy and spiritual realm (ina { e{nvsiz g\/ sarkik g te kai
g).96
pneumatik
Accordingly, he assures the Ephesians, ‘it is beneficial for you therefore to be

in blameless unity ( xrgsimon ou\ n ej jstin uJ ma' z ejn amj v J otgti ei \nai), in order
mv/ en
that you may evermore participate in God (ina { kai heou' p antote metexgte) ’.97
It is by joining in the eucharist as mystery, by encountering the human tupoi
of the Christian God, that the laity become ‘ infused with the divine (e[nheion) ’
and escape corruption. Union with bishop and presbyters was with the tupoi
awharsi
j A az.98
Whilst not literally carrying plastic images in procession, the naoworoi,
xristow oroi, aJ ciow
oroi and heow oroi in Ignatius’ procession can by a clear
and quite systematically worked out analogy be said to bear images of divine
persons or events. At their head in the eucharist is the bishop, or, in the case
of the martyr procession Bishop Ignatius, as of the suffering Father-God. And
when I say ‘ can ’ in such a context, I do not mean ‘ can ’ as a move permitted
by the logic of our discourse in the twenty-first century but ‘ can ’ in terms of
the discourse of the second century, recoverable both from literary and
epigraphical remains.
However much tupoz may function at an abstract level of Hellenistic
philosophical theology, it does not break with a web of meaning in which it
interconnects with pagan cultic artefacts, ritual and acts. The agonothete who
lead Demosthenes’ acj v n mousik oz wore the t upoi of his imperial and
95 96
Ibid. v.9.5.20–4. 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.
99
ancestral gods in his stewanoz, as we have seen. Ignatius as leader of his
procession had no literal stewanoz, any more that did a bishop at the
eucharist. Yet the presence of such a stewanoz in some sense was important
for Ignatius in terms of the analogous imagery with which he sought to
reconceptualise early Christian ecclesial order. It was the presbyterate as
t
upoz s unedriou tv' n apost
j olvn that constituted the stewanoz in the
celebration of the Christian mysteries. The disciples that Ignatius calls
the sundesmoz apostj olvn become in its liturgical circle ‘ the spiritual,
crown of the presbyterate (ajiopl j okou pneumatik oz stewanoz tou'
presbuteriA ou) ’.100
But if this is the case with tupoz, what is the meaning of prokahgmenoz eizj
upon in Ignatius’ discourse ?
t
prokahgmenoz and pre-eminence
The word prokahgmenoz is invariably translated as ‘ presiding’, even though

the verb when used in this sense is normally followed by a genitive indicating
that over which the action of the verb is exercised. The qualification eizj
upon was so little understood that both the Didascalia and Constitutiones
t
apostolicae, and the author of the Long Recension, alter the phrase in various
ways.101 The latter reads eizj topon in Magnesians vi.1, which has led to some
textual corruption in the case of the Middle Recension, and removes the
phrase altogether in vi.2.102 In Trallians iii.1 the bishop is simply described as
tou' patro poz. Clearly the phrase was problematic for later
z tv' n o{ lvn tu
writers.
It was difficult 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 I
regard as a more natural sense of ‘be pre-eminent’ since the word basically
means to ‘sit forward ’, and thus to ‘ stand out ’ from the context in which its
subject is found. A cleric can be said to be ‘pre-eminent in creating an
image’. By so construing, we can, I believe, locate the context of Ignatius’
meaning in the world of processional images that we have argued tupoz to
form 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. Vööbus, (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
hgte tv'/ ejpisk
For enJ v opv/ kai toi 'z prokahgmenoiz eizj t upon kai didax gn awharsi
j A az
LRec reads : enJ v hgte tv'/ ejpisk
opv/ uJ potass omenoi tv'/ hev'/ di j auj tou' en Xristv'/ . For textual
corruption of tupoz for topoz in Magnesians vi.1 see n. 32 above.
450 ALLEN BRENT
one hand that bishop, presbyters and deacons are images or tupoi of Father,
Spirit-filled apostolic council, and Son, and yet on the other they are
representatives of the divine, corporate life of their communities. Ignatius
frequently laid claim to being able, as a result of a mystical interchange with
the bishops who visited him in prison on his way to martyrdom, to see the
corporate personality in their individual persons of the Churches which they
represent. In Onesimus their bishop, he informs the Ephesians, ‘ I received
your whole corporateness (ejpei ou\ n tgn poluplghiA an uJ mv' n apei j A lgwa)’.103
It is by such charismatic means that Ignatius identifies the bishop and
accordingly accepts the validity of the ecclesial community that he has
not seen.
Ignatius claims that their ‘conversation of mind (toiautgn sungheian) ’ was
a supernatural exchange, in which he saw them in spiritual union with the
three-fold typology. He thus was able to see their ‘whole community (tgn
poluplghiA an)’ mystically in the bishop’s person.104 poluplghiA a contained the
word plg'hoz, which is Ignatius’ usual theological term for the gathered
ejkklgsiA a.105 Likewise, in Polybius of Tralles, Ignatius could see their
corporate ‘unwavering and blameless mind (a[ mvmon dianoian kai
j akriton)’.106 Here he could rejoice because ‘ I saw your whole gathered
adi
church in him (v{ ste me to pa' n plg'hoz uJ mv' n ejn auj tv'/ hevr shai) ’.107 In his
description of the Magnesian clergy we find the three-fold typology witnessed
in relationship to the corporate personality of the community: ‘I was deemed
worthy to see you (gjjiv j 'n uJ ma' z) through Damas your godly esteemed
hgn idei
bishop (dia Dama' tou' ajioh
j opou) ’, as well as through the
eou uJ mv' n ejpisk
presbyters and deacons.108
I will now argue that the logic of prokahgmenoz is that of gods and
goddesses, or rather their images, that stand out pre-eminently over their
cities, or at the head of their processions. Since such deities represent the
corporate personality of the city of which they are the icons, they represent
that corporate personality of the city. Furthermore, such deities are
pre-eminent in the appearance of their priests, since the latter wear their
images on their stewanoi and act for them in their cult in handling and
bearing the holy objects used in their rite. In this way pagan priests, like
Ignatian clerics, could project divine images to their people, but at the
same time represent the corporate life since such divine images were also
icons of that corporate life. The acvnoh j etgz who led Demosthenes’s
procession wore a stewanon xrusou' n with one of its e[ktupa prosvpa
103
Ephesians i.3.
104
Ibid. v.1 : ‘in a short time I had such fellowship with your bishop (ejcv ejn mikrv'/ xr
onv/
toia utgn sun gheian e[sxon pr oz ejpiA skopon uJ mv' n) as was not human but spiritual (ouj k
105
anhrvpi
j A ngn ou\ san, all
j a pneumatik gn) ’. Magnesians vi.1.
106 107 108
Trallians i.1. Ibid. i.2. Magnesians ii.1.
that of the god Apollo described as Prokahgcetgz or leader of the
procession.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)kahgcemv n,
progcgt gz, progcemv n, and heoiA prop
olevz, prokahgmenoi and proestv' tez
etc.110 Though the meaning of the one term shades into that of the other as
the discourse develops dynamically in a social and historical context, it would
appear that the terms closest in meaning to each other are the last two on this
list. Those who preside (proestv' tez) over cities, or their institutions, such
as ejkklgsiA a, dg'moz, boulg or cerousiA a, occupying the seats (proedriA ai)
which give them their particular rank, would also be visually pre-eminent,
like the a[ rxontez prokahefomenoi or Ignatius’ ejpiA skopoi or presbuteroi
prokahgmenoi. I would argue that such a visual sense predominates when
prokahifeshai is used in place of pro i?stanai. The following examples may
be cited:
1. From Pergamon AD 129 there is a reference to ‘ Demeter and Kore (tg'/ te
[Dg]mgtri kai tg'/ Kor[g'/ ), the goddesses who are predominant over the city
(tai 'z p]rokahgmenaiz [he]ai 'z tg'z polevz gJm[v' n) ’.111
2. A bronze statue of Herakles from Seleukeia on the Tigris, with a
dedication, carried by the Parthian king Vologaeses IV from Mesene
(Charakene) to Seleukeia (AD 150-1). There is a Greek inscription on the
right thigh and a Parthian (in Aramaic) on the left. The former reads :
‘ This bronze image of the god Herakles (eik utgn xalkg'n HJ rakleouz heou' )
j ona ta
which was removed by him from Mesena (tgn metanexhei 'san uJ p j auj tou' ap j o tg'z
Mes gngz), he dedicated (an
j ehgken) in this temple of the god Apollo (ejn i Jerv'/ tv'/ de
heou' jApollvnoz) who sits out over the bronze gate (tou' xalkg'z p ulgz
prokahgmenou) ’.112
109
SEG xxxviii.1462.C.52–3. See n. 76 above and adjoining text.
110
Robert argued that proestv z, kahgcemv n and prokahgmenoz are synonymous terms: J.
Robert and L Robert, La Carie : histoire et géographie 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 : ‘Les
inscriptions précisant sa primauté emploient les termes suivants : e izj ton proe[s]tv ~ ta t~g[z]
p[ole]oz gJmv ~ n he
on Di
onuson, ou bien to~ u prokahgcem[o noz t~ gz p olev]z heo~ u Dion usou,
or t~ v/ [kah]gcem
v/ oni he~
v/ Dion
v/ usv/. See also J. Nollé, ‘Zur Geschichte der Stadt Etenna in
Pisidien ’, 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 selbständig erschienener
wissenschaflicher 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, ‘Héraclès a Séleucie du Tigre’,
Revue archéologique i (1989), 65–113.
452 ALLEN BRENT
3. A decree from Side (c. AD 220), honouring Aurelius Mandrianus
Longinus (AD 143) because ‘ he acted as a priest together with his wife
Aurelia Killaramontiane Ies (sunierasamenon tg'/ cunaiki auj tou' Eig/j jAurgliA a/
Killaramvtiang'/ ), for the goddess Athena who is pre-eminent (tg'/
prokahefomeng/ hev'/ jAhgna'/ ), for a five-yearly cycle (pentaetgriA di)’.113
4. Dedication of P. Aelius Menekrates for Demeter and the god Men in
which he declares that he has
consecrated a silver basket (kahierv santa k alahon peri arcuron) which he has left
behind for the mystery rites (ton leiA ponta toi 'z mustgriA oiz) and for Men who heads
the village (kai tv'/ prokahgmenv/ tg'z kv mgz Mgni), a silver symbol which will process
before his mystery rites (sgmgan peri arcuron tgn propompe usasan tv' n mustgriA vn
auj tou' ).114
5. A funerary inscription from Galatia :
You see Istele ( jIstglgn ejsora'/ z), engraven (katafv
crawon), but note (n ogson) : she
occupies the tomb (g} tumbon katexei) of beautiful Tateia (TateiA az kalg'z i JereiA gz) the
priestess of Artemis (Artemidoz), of the queen’s village (k[v m]gz basilgi>jdoz) which
she heads (g} prok ahgtai) : whom for the sake of his grief (g}n istorcg'
j z e{neken) her
husband (an oJ z) here commemorated her (ejnh
j gr e ad j e[teisen).115
Prokahgmenoz, in its various forms, is a term extremely difficult to translate

in 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 the
city. But in the case of (1) and (3) Athene as well as Kore and Demeter have
images that likewise visually are prokahgmenai from their temples, prominent
in their city centres. Such epigraphic descriptions are no mere abstract
construals. Though they may ‘ sit out over’ their cities from their standing
temples, (4) shows how a heoz prokahgmenoz might be portable: Men,
revealed sitting over the village (kai tv'/ prokahgmenv/ tg'z kv
mgz Mgni) in the
form of ‘a silver image (sgmgan periarcuron)’, is carried ‘ in the procession of
the mystery rites (propompeusasan tv' n mustgriA vn)’. The firm focus that
unites (1) and (3) with (2) is that the goddesses in question have physical
images, whether on temples or carried in procession, that make their
headship of their cities visually overwhelming : they ‘ head’ their city or their
procession because they are visually ‘ pre-eminent’.
In consequence, as we can see in (5), the description of Artemis and her
priestess Tatia, the divinity and the representative priest become fused into
one. The priestess presides or heads the cult by bearing the image of the deity
113
J. Nollé, 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 kv mgz to ko urgz 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.
whose priestess she is (g} prokahgtai). We find in Caracalla’s letter to Ephesus
(AD 200–5): a} de p]roepresbeuen gJ patrioz uJ mv' n heoz Artemiz
j =‘ your
ancestral goddess Artemis heads the embassy’.116 In this passage we see, as in
Ignatius, pagan priests presiding as an image of the goddess that they
represent 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, presbyters
and deacons are eizj tupon of divine persons or spirit-filled Apostles. But
we can also see that ambassadors, who bear a deity who is patrioz and
thus embodies the divinised, corporate personality of the city, in so doing
represent the ‘ whole multitude (poluplghiA a) ’ of their community, as did
Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus.117 Ignatius characterises travelling clerics as
heopresb utai, duly elected for their representative role.118
Thus Ignatius has taken a pagan theology of corporate personality and
removed the idolatrous features, but has retained nevertheless the essential
form of that theology. For him the office of bishop reflects the corporate
personality of the community marked by the saving acts in which the Father-
bishop sends the diaconal Son, with the co-operation of the Spirit through
the apostolic council. Like pagan priests wearing the tupoz of his god in his
stewanoz, and acting as prokahgc gtgz of a mystery procession, the three-fold
order of the Christian community wear those tupoi, surrounded by those
who as members of the cult assembly (sunodoz) bear sacred objects relevant
to their roles in the mystery drama (heoworoi, xristoworoi, naoworoi,
aJ cioworoi). At the head of the martyr-procession, in which he is antij A yuxon,
as an extension of the eucharist, he is pre-eminent as cult leader
(prokahgmenoz).
Polycarp, Lucian and Ignatius’ reception
The Ignatian letters do not represent a pseudepigraphic reply to a later form

of Valentianism, as Hübner and Lechner’s thesis required. Rather, Ignatius
is a Christian missionary prophet of the Second Sophistic proposing a highly
articulate and radical secularisation of ecclesial order in terms of the pagan
theology of the mystery cults of his contemporaries. Clearly his proposal
would have seemed strange to Polycarp, and indeed Irenaeus and perhaps
even to Origen and his successors, as would other contemporary expressions
of 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
116 117
Robert, Le Serpent Glycon, 764–5. Ephesians i.3.
118
Philadelphians x.1–2 ; Smyrnaeans xi.1.
454 ALLEN BRENT
ecclesial order was in fact Lucian of Samosata, whose satire on the kind of
figure 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 that
rather than Lucian having read Ignatius and fashioned his story of Peregrinus
upon him, as Lightfoot claimed, the forger had as his model Lucian’s own
account.119 Both arguments presuppose that the relationship between
Ignatius’ letters and Lucian must be a literary one. But the parallels,
though close, are hardly those of literary dependence whether in one
direction or another.
Indeed Lucian’s references to Ignatius bear the marks of oral reports of
processions of diaconal ambassadors, the election and sending of whom
Ignatius mentions in three letters.120 Lucian in turn reflects the general effect
of such arrangements on the pagan population, and popular responses,
when they were witnessed first-hand. Lucian speaks of his subject as writing
letters legislating for Christian communities.121 He then ‘ chose certain
ambassadors for this purpose from amongst his comrades (kaiA tinaz ejpi toutv/
presbeut az tv' n etai ongse), giving them their titles as messengers
J A rvn ejxeirot
from the dead and underworld couriers (nekraccelouz kai nerterodromouz
prosacore usaz)’. The heopresb utai and heodr omoi of Smyrnaeans xi.2 and
Polycarp vii.2 have become for Lucian presbeutaiA who are nekracceloi kai
nerterodr omoi. That these elected ambassadors should be characterised in
terms of death and the underworld shows that Lucian’s contemporaries
were ‘on message ’ regarding the martyrological character of Ignatius’
procession.
Lucian describes his Christian leader, after Ignatius, as ‘ prophet and cult
leader (prowgtgz kai hiasarxgz) ’, who had introduced ‘a new mystery (kaing
telet g) ’.122 Furthermore, he is a hias arxgz whose role is associated with a
divine image. Theagnes, shortly before his self-immolation, had described
him in such words as: ‘ But now (all j a nu' n) this holy image will depart from
men to the gods (ejj anhr j v pvn eizj heo
uz t j gsetai). ’123
o a[ calma tou' to oix
Lucian’s sarcastic comment, in view of his earlier life, was: ‘the (divine)
image was not yet completely fashioned for us (kai ouj depv ejntelez a[ calma
gJmi 'n dedgmio urcgto) ’.124 We have here, I submit, a commentary on Ignatius’
theology of tupoz cruelly distorted, as witnessed in spoken word and gesture
in 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 adversus
Valentinianos ?, ch. iii ; J. Bompaire, Lucien écrivain : 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.
122 123 124
Ibid xi. Ibid. vi. Ibid. x.
experience of Ignatian themes: pseudo-Ignatius could not simply have
derived his bare words from Lucian’s description.125
Yet Polycarp, given the integrity of Philippians, greeted Ignatius’ procession
warmly and treated it according to the terms in which the latter regarded it.
Polycarp records the arrival of Ignatius’ procession, and, in the use of
characteristic Ignatian vocabulary, indicates what a clearly more than visible
impression it made upon him.126 As he says:
I greatly rejoice with you in our Lord Jesus Christ (sunex argn uJ mi 'n mecalvz ejn tv'/
kuriA v/ gJmv' n jIgsou' Xrist~ v/ ), since you made welcome the imitations of true love,
v/
(dejamenoiz t a mimgmata tg'z alghou'j z ac j apgz), and conducted forward (kai
propemyasin), as opportunity fell to you (vz J ejpebalen uJ mi 'n), those bound with
bonds that befit their sanctity (touz ejneilgmenouz toi 'z aJ cioprepesin desmoi 'z) which
are the diadems of those truly chosen by God and our Lord (a}tina ejstin diadgmata
tv' n alghv'
j o heou' kai tou' kuriA ou gJmv' n ejklelecmenvn).127
z uJ p
Thus Polycarp affirmed that the Philippians had treated him and his
entourage as a propompg (propemyasin).128 In using such language he was
interpreting Ignatius’ procession in terms of a pagan procession like that of
Demosthenes. In the latter case sebastoworoi were elected who would escort
forward (propompeusousi) the divine images (eikj onaz). But Polycarp works
with some diffidence 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 of
order, why did he therefore find Ignatius sufficiently acceptable and so wish
to 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 through
Smyrna. It was a dazzling piece of enacted, sophistic rhetoric and
encapsulated a message that Polycarp found most serviceable to his needs.
The message of the martyr-bishop in his procession to Rome, despite all its
semi-pagan cultic imagery, was of
Jesus Christ … who was really born (o{ z alghv'
j ghg), who both ate and drank
z ejcenn
(e[wacen te kai e[pien), who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate (alghv' j z
xhg ejpi PontiA ou Pil
ejdiv atou), who really was crucified and died (alghv' j z
ejstaurv j ehanen), who really was raised from the dead (o{ z kai gjcerhg ap
hg kai ap j o
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 the
Middle Recension : see Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos ?, 6–18.
127
Polycarp, Philippians i.1.
128
propempein was used in this sense in Philadelphians x.2 : ‘the nearest Churches sent
bishops, and others presbyters and deacons (vzJ kai ai J e[ccista ejkklgsiA ai e[pemyan
ejpiskopouz, ai J de presbuterouz kai diak onouz) ’. For the use of this term in the
Demosthenes inscription discussed above see nn. 76, 99, 109.
456 ALLEN BRENT
nekrv' n) ; But if, as some atheists (ei j de v{ sper tinez a[ heoi o[ntez), that is unbelievers
(toutestin a[ pistoi), say he suffered in appearance only (lecousi to dokei 'n
peponhenai auj t on), … why am I in chains, (ejcv tiA dedemai), and why do I pray
that I can fight with wild beasts (ti de eu[xomai hgriomaxg'sai)?129
Polycarp clearly recognised the pagan connotations of Ignatius’ self-
description of a bishop as the heoworoz. When, in his procession, he as
oroz visibly shook his aJ cioprepei 'z desmoiA , this was an enacted, cultic
aJ ciow
miA mgsiz that Polycarp was just about prepared to describe abstractly: the
bonds were ta mimgmata tg'z alghou'
j j apgz rather than the icon of a
z ac
personal deity. The symbolism of the cultic procession was for Polycarp a
breathtaking refutation of Docetism : Ignatius’ eloquent testimony of
martyrdom in the flesh justified Christ’s true birth and sufferings. All its
other features could be ignored in the light of so visually compelling a re-
enactment of Christ’s real sufferings.
In the light of this discussion, the reception of Ignatius can be compared
with that of the Fourth Gospel, both emerging from the Hellenistic shadows
of the early second century.130 The theology of that Gospel was poorly
understood and, until Irenaeus’ time, treated circumspectly if not positively
rejected.131 Nevertheless that theology was destined to provide the
philosophical model, again distorted out of all recognition, for theologically
defining the nature and character of the incarnation. Ignatius, too,
conceptualised a theology of ecclesial order that only became that of later
Christendom by a gross distortion of its original framework. The Johannine
community perhaps fares even worse than Polycarp, since he never cites the
Fourth Gospel, however much he may rely on the anti-Docetic texts drawn
from the Johannine epistles, as he relies on the visual theatre of Ignatius to
the same end.132
It was by reason of the martyr-procession, the final and spectacular
refutation of Docetism, and for this reason alone, that Polycarp was
convinced of the basic soundness of the strange and enigmatic figure that
came through. The strangeness that constitutes the enigma of Ignatius was
the 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 difficulty by the
late 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 they
condemned. It does not follow, however, that that corpus did not arise in a widely different
community than other streams in early Christianity, between which there was no clear
comprehension at an earlier stage.
132
1 John iv.2–3 and 2 John 7, quoted in Polycarp, Philippians vii.1.

The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 57, No. 3, July 2006.

f 2006 Cambridge University Press 429

The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch

A rchbishop James Ussher and Nicolaus Vedelius rediscovered the

Ignatius and Polycarp

530–1, ed. W. C. Wright, Cambridge, MA–London 1968; cf Ignatius, Philadelphians x;

Ignatian church order

Ignatius’ highly idiosyncratic view of church order was as alien to Irenaeus

upoz and cultic processions

The essential meaning of tupoz is that of an impression left by a seal or a die

Ignatius does not, however, speak of himself as tupoworoz, which is not

upoz as bridging the phenomenal and spiritual

We see here therefore that a tupoz is a complete image (auj totelestoz),

Clearly, for Philo, a tupoz is not simply an eikj v

tupoz is the clear mark in human ﬂesh of participation in a Platonic Form

Accordingly, he assures the Ephesians, ‘it is beneﬁcial for you therefore to be

prokahgmenoz and pre-eminence

The word prokahgmenoz is invariably translated as ‘ presiding’, even though

Prokahgmenoz, in its various forms, is a term extremely diﬃcult to translate

Polycarp, Lucian and Ignatius’ reception

The Ignatian letters do not represent a pseudepigraphic reply to a later form

You might also like