Comments on: Igniting an Ignatius Explosion

By: Daniel N. McNamara

Daniel N. McNamara — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:43:25 +0000

Schoedel’s Commentary was the last major commentary on the Ignatian letters. Robert M. Grant’s (mid 1960s)remains very helpful and insightful in spite of its age. The two differ in their views of many significant issues. So you might want to have access to both while reading Ignatius. I haven’t received my copy of Howell’s work as yet. But he “has a tough act to follow” on the heels of these two commentators. I would look in his study for “new directions” and some fresh thinking both of which this field needs.

By: Kevin Scull

Kevin Scull — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:36:45 +0000

I was wondering how Howell’s commentary compares to Schoedel’s Hermeneia volume. Although my specialty is Paul of Tarsus, I find Ignatius to be of tremendous importance and have been looking for an update to Schoedel’s great volume as 1985 is starting to be a bit dated. (Yikes that’s a hard pill to swallow!) I would appreciate any comparisons you could provide.

By: Carl Sommer

Carl Sommer — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:00:41 +0000

Robinsons’s book sounds interesting. This is the second time in recent months I’ve encountered this argument for the early episocpacy. Both Ignatius and Paul (in the Pastorals) assumed that the early communities were led by bishops. They were not creating a new church order out of thin air; they were describing and defending an existing order. The conclusion is inescapable. The “monepsicopate” (what an unwieldly term!)preceded both Ignatius and the pastorals.