Let us now find out the truth regarding the letters written by lgnatius, the Bishop of Antioch. Lardner said in vol. 2 of his commentary;

           Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his letters. Apart from these some other letters are also attributed to him, which are generally considered by most of the scholars to be false and concocted.  My opinion is no different. There are two copies of his seven letters, the large and small. Except for Mr. Weston and a few of his followers, all the scholars have decided that additions have been made in the larger one, the smaller version, however, can possibly be ascribed to him.

           I have carefully made a comparative study of both the texts and my study revealed that the smaller version was turned into a larger one by the inclusion of many additions and insertions. It is not the case that the larger was turned into the smaller through the exclusion of some of the contents. The ancient writings, also, are more in accordance with the smaller version.

           The question whether Ignatius really did write these letters remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagreement on this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in expressing their opinions. The study of the writing of both the camps has made the question all the more complicated. However, in my opinion, this much is settled and decided; that these are the sames letter which were present in the time of Origen and were read by Eusebius. Some of the sentences are not appropriate to the time of Ignatius. It is therefore better if we accept that these sentences are later additions instead of rejecting all the letters on the ground of these sentences, especially keeping in view the crisis of shortage of copies which we are facing.

           It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius36 might have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the larger Additions may also have been made by others.

 Paley writes in his footnotes:

           "In the past, the translation of three letters of lgnatius were present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton. It is almost certain that the smaller letters, which were revised by Ussher, contained many additions.”

           The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the following facts:

 1.      All the 1etters except these seven letters are definitely fabricated and forged according to the Christian scholars and are therefore unacceptable.

 2.      The larger version of the letters is similarly not genuine in the opinion of all the scholars except Mr. Weston and a few of his followers.

 3.         As far as the smaller collection is concerned, there is great dispute and difference of opinion among great scholars with regards to its authenticity. Both the groups of scholars have their own arguments against or in favour of its authenticity. The group of scholars who have favored it also admit its having been subjected to later modifications their by Arius or by others, with the result that this collection also appears to be equally of doubtful authenticity.

           It seems most probable that this collection of letters was also put together in the third century AD similarly to the other letters. This should not present too much of a surprise, in view of the general practice of the theologians of early centuries who frequently prepared false writings and attributed to other writers to suit their whims. Historical records bear witness to the fact that there were not less than seventy-five gospels which were falsely attributed to Christ, to Mary and to the disciples of Christ. It does, therefor, not seem particularly  far-fetched to assert that these seven letters, too, were prepared and attributed to Ignatius, similar to other such letters and similar to the gospel of Tatian [1] which was falsely attributed to him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary:

           The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has disappeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubtful in the eyes of most of the scholars, and they are right in their suspicion.  

           Let us ignore all the above points for a moment and take it that the 1etters in question really were originally written by lgnatius. Even these does not help much because, after the additions and modifications inserted by later people, they have lost their originality and are no longer acceptable.

           According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were certainly added later on and so there is nothing to remove suspicion from other sentences which are supposed by them to be original. They, likewise, might have been added to or modified in subsequent times.

           Eusebius said in chapter 23 of the fourth volume of his history:

           Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, admitted that he had written several letters on the request of some of his friends, but those deputies of Satan filled them with profanities and altered some parts and added others. This made me all the more, aggrieved. Therefore, there is no wonder if someone made intentional additions in the holy books of our Lord, because they had no qualms in respect of the books of other authorities.

 Adam Clarke has said in his introduction to his commentary:  

          The great works of Origen have been lost and several of his Commentaries which are available contain an abundance of unfactual and imaginary comments which in itself is a powerful argument in favour of the fact that they have been interpolated.”

           Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic work, Ajwibatu’l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one, chapter 10: 

           As far as their habit of distorting the statements of the ancients, we should first produce our arguments so that our position may not be similar to these of our opponents, that is to say, so that our claims may not be considered as baseless as theirs. We proceed to say that the book Afshin which is attributed to John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth,[2] and which is recited in the churches during the services of consecration, presents different texts. That is, the text recited by one group is different from the text recited by others. For, in the copy of the Orthodox, the Father God is besought to make descend his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine and turn them into flesh and blood, while in the text of the Catholics it is said that he should send the Holy Ghost on the bread and wine so that they may be transformed. But in the time of Maximus, it was changed by the people and they started to say that both the transformable things have39 fled away for the reason that the Orthodox had claimed against it. But the Catholics of Syria say it with these words, ’Send thy Holy Spirit upon this bread that is the secret of the body of Christ.’ There is no word denoting transformation present in this text. It is possible that this statement might have been of Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth) as the preaching of transformation was not introduced in his time. And Major Bobi Tompter, who had converted to Catholicism said in his speech to the Orthodox in 1722: ”I have compared these books with the Orthodox version possessed by the Basilians, [3]and we did not find a single word in these books denoting transformation. This story of transformation of the bread and wine was invented by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and is ridiculous. Now, when they could have made a play of such a pious text as Afshin and altered its contents to suit their unholy intentions and when they did not hesitate to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and distorting the texts of their ancestors.

           We have had our own experience in recent years that Deacon Ghariel of Egypt, who was a Catholic, took great pains and spent a lot of money in correcting the translation of the commentary of Chrysostom from the original Greek copy. The Orthodox scholars, who were expert in the Greek and Arabic languages, compared it in Damascus and testified to its accuracy, and then a certified version was prepared. But Maximus did not allow its publication in Tyre.41

           This copy was given to Bishop Alexis of Spain who made a thorough examination of the book. Both of them were totally ignorant of the original Greek version. In order to make it correspond with the teachings of the Pope they made many changes through additions and omissions using their own discretion. Having so spoilt the whole book they attested to it with their stamps and then it was allowed to be published. It was not until the publication of its first volume, when it was compared with the original manuscript which was in safe custody with the Orthodox, that their unholy act of manipulation was uncovered, with the result that they became the subject of common reproach. Ghariel was so appalled at this incident that he never recovered and died of shock.

 Musaka further said:

          We produce the unanimous witness of their elders from one of the Arabic books generally available there. This is a report which was unanimously passed in a meeting, along with all its various parts, by the priests of the Maronites, their patriarchs and scholars, with the permission of Monsignor Samani. This report bears the seal of the Church of Rome. It was printed in Tyre with the permission of the chiefs of the Catholics. Discussing the ritual of the offerings this report said that the old liturgies were still present in the churches, free from errors and faults, but they have been attributed to some saints and the pious men who were not the authors of these books, nor could they possibly have written them. Some of them were included by the copiers only to suit their unholy needs. It is more than enough for you to admit that your churches are full of fabricated and forged writings.

 He further said:

           We are fully aware that our enlightened generation would not dare to make alterations in the holy books, as they are fully wise to the fact that they are watched by the eyes of the protectors of the gospels. However we are not sure of the circumstances which prevailed from the fifth century to the seventh century AD, known as the dark ages, when the Popes and the priests enjoyed a barbarous kingdom of their own. Some of them did not even know how to write and read and the helpless Christians of the East were living a very distressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What happened in that period is best known to them alone. Whenever we come to know the history of that terrible age, and think of the conditions ruling over the Christian church, which had become a symbol of corruption, our grief and sorrow knows no limits.

 Keeping in view the facts reproduced above, we leave the judgment to our readers to see the truth of our claim themselves.

 

[1]  This is also called Diatessaron of Tatian. According to G.T.  Menley this was put together by combining the present four gospels, but it is not known if it was in the Greek or in the Syrian language.

 [2]‏ Chrysostom, being a great orator, was called the Golden Mouth. He was born in 347 AD and was later made bishop of Constantinop1e. 

 [3]This was a Christian sect who were the followers of Basilius who was the bishop of Caesarea from 329 - 379 AD