Silence in Philadelphians

Abstract

The letters of Ignatius of Antioch contain disparate references to silence. Silence is variously associated with God, bishops, and the notion of authenticity, while at other times silence interacts with speech or provides the backdrop against which God’s salvific activity is worked out. Prior studies have synthesized the role silence plays in Ignatius’s thought by reading silence univocally across the letters. This article critiques such synthetic readings of silence for failing to account adequately for the individuated nature of how Ignatius’s letters were sent and, thus, how they were encountered by their first readers. The article then interprets silence as it is used in one Ignatian letter, namely, Philadelphians. Silence in Philadelphians must be understood in light of Ignatius’s expansive understanding of unity, which is emphasized throughout the letter, as well as the conflict that Ignatius experienced while there. In this light, the silence of the Philadelphian bishop is not primarily an attempt to whitewash a character flaw. Rather, it is a reason to laud the bishop and his interaction with schismatic teachers. Whereas Ignatius confronted those same teachers verbally and must now write to account for his actions in the letter, the Philadelphian bishop acts wisely and in keeping with the advice of other Greco-Roman ethicists by not speaking garrulously and simply refusing to engage with false teachers.

1. Introduction

The words intriguing and enigmatic, which Scott Harrower (Harrower 2021) has well used to characterize the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, fit well as a descriptor of the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch typically included as a member of this body of early Christian texts.1 Ignatius’s letters present readers with many puzzles to consider. The manuscript tradition contains different numbers of letters ascribed to him (Vinzent 2019, pp. 266–464; Vinzent 2024, pp. 28–34; Batovici 2025). The limited number of Greek manuscripts attesting to the second-century versions of the letters, along with the late date of the manuscripts, requires interpreters to examine late antique translations of the letters. In addition to the spotty transmission of the text, manuscripts of Ignatius’s epistles contain letters of varying lengths. These are conventionally known as the short, middle, and long recensions (Foster 2021, 2025). Recent scholarship has further complicated this nomenclature (Given 2022). Finally, the date and authenticity of the letters—a point of conflict going back to the seventeenth century—remains disputed in contemporary scholarship. Current scholarship on the date of Ignatius’s letters can be categorized into four broad views: (1) authentic letters in the early second century (ca. 100–130) (e.g., Lindemann 1997; Brent 2006; Lookadoo 2018, pp. 15–22; Lookadoo 2023, pp. 3–10); (2) authentic letters in the second quarter of the second century (ca. 125–150) (e.g., Foster 2006, 2019, 2021, 2025; Barnes 2008; Stewart 2013); (3) pseudepigraphic letters in the second half of the second century (ca. 160–180) (e.g., Hübner 1997; Lechner 1999, 2018; Zwierlein 2010; T. J. Bauer 2018; Prostmeier 2018); (4) an authentic set of letters that is closer to the short recension followed by an expansion similar to the middle recension in the later second century (Vinzent 2019; Bremmer 2021; Bull 2023).2

Among the enigmatic features of Ignatius’s letters, the Syrian leader’s treatment of silence stands as a particularly challenging concept to interpret. Although not many in the scope of the seven letters most often considered earliest in the Ignatian corpus, scattered allusions to silence (σιγή; σιγάω; σιωπάω [Eph. 3.2; 6.1; 15.1–2; Magn. 8.2; Rom. 2.1; Phld. 1.1]) and quiet (ἡσυχία [Eph. 15.2; 19.1]) have nevertheless elicited attention from scholars whose differing interpretations suggest both a genuine hermeneutical problem to solve as well as a need for an improved interpretive framework (e.g., Bieder 1956; Bueno Ávila 2022; Budd 2023; Chadwick 1950; Loessl 2018; Pizzolato 1970).

A review of scholarship in the next section will demonstrate the breadth of interpretations to which readers of Ignatius’s letters have arrived when encountering silence in his letters. However, despite the high degree of variance in results, one hermeneutical aspect of the above interpretations remains largely consistent across scholarship. Previous interpretations have largely examined silence as a single concept employed univocally across Ignatius’s corpus, drawing their final conclusions without due attention to where the references to silence occur within a particular letter or what the structure of each letter might be trying to accomplish within each document. This paper illustrates that a vital intermediate step is missing in interpretations of how Ignatius understands silence. Between asking what silence means in a specific passage (e.g., Eph. 6.1; Magn. 8.2; Phld. 1.1) and extending these findings to the whole of his corpus, one must recognize that Ephesians, Magnesians, and Philadelphians were first and foremost documents sent to individual communities of Jesus-followers in distinct cities across western Asia and Rome.3 This recognition necessitates a consideration of how references to silence function within the individual letters in which the language is located. The claim of this paper is not that extensions to the whole of Ignatius’s corpus are illegitimate tout court. Rather, this paper aims to demonstrate that a jump from the interpretation of a text immediately to the whole letter corpus misses the role that silence plays in the specific letter in which Ignatius mentions it. Allusions to silence are not found in every letter, nor are they equally dispersed across the letters in which such language is used. Rather, the Syrian leader employs references to silence intermittently and for particular purposes within individual letters. More attention is thus owed to the context of individual Ignatian letters in which such allusions take place than has been found in Ignatian scholarship over the past century.

This article will substantiate the need for such a methodological adjustment by turning its attention to the role of silence in Philadelphians. Silence appears only once in this letter, where it is mentioned with reference to the bishop. This differs from the letters to Ephesus, where the concept is repeated (Eph. 6.1; 15.1–2), and to Magnesia on the Maeander, where silence is alluded to with reference to God (Magn. 8.2). After sketching the key themes and rhetorical aims of Philadelphians, the article will interpret silence in the context of Phld. 1.1–2. The interpretation will argue that silence is a way of describing both a lack of garrulity and a refusal to engage with false teaching. The unnamed Philadelphian bishop is lauded for applying silence appropriately and thus being someone worthy of affirmation. Moreover, the Philadelphian bishop stands in contrast to Ignatius’s more complicated choice to engage verbally with his opponents. This interpretation offers a more satisfying understanding of silence in Phld. 1.1 and its significance for the author’s communicative aims in the rest of the letter.

2. Prior Scholarship

Before turning to Philadelphians, it will be helpful to locate this study within current scholarship by observing how silence has been understood in Ignatius’s letters. Three strands of interpretation have been predominant within Ignatian scholarship.

More than a century ago, the silence of the bishops was understood with reference to a lack of ability or a deficient personality trait. Walter Bauer proposed that episcopal silences in Eph. 6.1 and Phld. 1.1 designated both bishops as missing the gift of eloquence (W. Bauer 1920, p. 206). Three decades earlier, J. B. Lightfoot argued that Onesimus had a quiet personality on which there was a tendency to presume. He likewise understood the deeds that Jesus accomplished in silence with reference to Jesus’s childhood, his decision not to make his miracles unduly public, and especially his silence at his trials. In short, Jesus’s silence designates the passive side of our Lord’s life, while the bishop’s silence alludes to unassuming tendencies in their characters (Lightfoot 1889–1891, p. 2.2.69).4 In his notes to Eph. 6.1, James Strawley referred to the bishop’s “quiet and modest demeanour,” noting similar passages in Eph. 15 and Phld. 1 (Strawley 1900, p. 42 n. 6). In addition to their chronological proximity near the turn to the twentieth century, these readings of Ignatius’s silence share two elements: (1) an understanding of silence as either a lack of gifting or a personality limitation in leadership and (2) an unexamined assumption that silence refers to the same phenomenon in different letters.

Another strand of scholarship has identified the silence of the Ephesian and Philadelphian bishops with a particular kind of missing speech, namely, prophecy. Meinhold’s (1958) study of silent bishops proceeded letter-by-letter through his study, but he found Ignatius using silence in the same way across his letters to believers in Asia.5 Bishops in Asia Minor were purportedly in conflict with an older model of leadership in which charismatic prophets preside over eucharistic celebrations. In this context, silence was Ignatius’s way of turning the bishop’s lack of a spiritual gift into a positive (Meinhold’s 1958, p. 478). Meinhold understood Ignatius’s comments about silence in light of an appeal to gnostic or Stoic ideas (Meinhold’s 1958, p. 470). His study was developed by Trevett (1983), who drew on Acts, Matthew, and the Didache to propose anti-episcopacy as a third error combated by Ignatius alongside his more widely recognized opposition to docetism and Judaism.6 For Trevett, Ignatius must defend the bishops from an expectation among some believers that God would speak through them in ways that others could hear and obey. Both Meinhold (1958, p. 470) and Trevett (1983, pp. 9–11) drew attention to Did. 10.7 as a text that exemplifies the freedom given to prophets in charismatic traditions with different understandings of authority from Ignatius.7 While rejecting the suggestion of a gnostic background for Ignatius’s conception of silence, Pizzolato (1970) holds that silence is characteristic of an ideal disciple and thus points to the authority of the one who sent him. Brent (2006, 2007) locates Ignatius’s conceptual background within the world of Second Sophistic rhetoric. However, he likewise sees Ignatius opposing charismatic authority with his insistence on the bishop’s right to rule even when the bishop is silent and cannot prophesy (Brent 2007, pp. 30–31). Norelli (2007) posits that Ignatius’s opponents are a prophetic group with an ecclesiology similar to that found in the Asc. Isa. 3.13–4.22. The silence of the bishop refers to an inability to pronounce a prophetic word, particularly in liturgical settings. While holding different positions on many issues in Ignatius’s letters, Meinhold, Trevett, Pizzolatto, Brent, and Norelli share an understanding of the bishop’s silence as a failed ability to prophesy or to engage in other forms of pneumatic speech.

A third answer to the question of what silence means in the Ignatian letters begins with divine silence rather than the silence of human figures (see esp. Eph. 15.1–2; Magn. 8.2). Chadwick’s (1950) short study on Ignatius and silence marks a different starting point and inaugurates a tradition of studies that begins their analysis of silence with the divine, only working back to the bishop secondarily. Since silence is characteristic of God and bishops are earthly representatives of God, Chadwick views the silence of the Ephesian and Philadelphian leaders as a form of imitating God (see similarly Fischer (1956, p. 147 n. 24)). Along the way, Chadwick notes similarities between Ignatius and Valentinian terminology. Writing a few years later, Bieder (1956) contends that silence surpasses speech in Ignatius’s understanding because silence is linked so closely to God. Bueno Ávila (2022) has similarly argued for influence between Ignatius and later “gnostic” writers with regard to the concept of silence.8 However, he proposes mutual influence rather than insisting on linear development. Limiting the scope of his study to silence in Eph. 14.1–15.3, Budd (2023) argues that Ignatius attributes a mystical notion to Christ’s silence.9 When one can learn Christ’s silence, they are able “to understand Christ’s hidden and mysterious Godhead” (Budd 2023, p. 451). While different backgrounds may be posited, this third strand of scholarship shares a starting point in Ignatius’s letters by prioritizing divine references to silence. With the exception of Budd’s more focused study, other representatives of this view move across the corpus of Ignatius’s letters with minimal regard for how silence contributes to the larger aims of the letter in which Ignatius mentions it.

To be sure, not every study of silence in Ignatius’s letter fits into this heuristic schema.10 What becomes clear in the light of the threefold outline employed here is that Ignatius’s appeals to the silence of bishops and God have remained far from clear to interpreters. This challenge in interpretation partly accounts for the variance in how silence has been defined. Interpreters have also appealed to different backgrounds to support their accounts of silence. The most common include gnostic and Stoic backgrounds, although appeals to biblical or other Jewish Christian literature can also be found. Such disparity in interpretive possibilities marks the topic of silence as a concept in need of additional study within Ignatius’s letters. What the majority of previous scholarship shares, however, is a methodology that amalgamates Ignatius’s references to silence into a single concept that is then understood univocally across the letters. Trebilco (2004, pp. 655–58) and Budd (2023) are among the few who deviate from this way of reading.11 Following Isacson (2004), this study reads Ignatius’s letters as differentiated compositions sent to discrete communities.12 The definition of silence cannot then be assumed to be the same in each letter, nor can Ignatius’s earliest readers in, say, Ephesus or Philadelphia, be assumed to have had immediate access to the rest of Ignatius’s letters. To move studies of silence forward, therefore, one must interpret silence within the context of each individual letter, exploring what it means and how it contributes to Ignatius’s larger communicative aims. Since Trebilco and Budd have already begun discussions on Ephesus, this study will focus on Philadelphia.

3. Unity and the Circumstances Addressed in Philadelphians

3.1. Unity: A Flexible and Multi-Faceted Concept Within Philadelphians

When Ignatius stopped in Philadelphia while being transported from Antioch to Rome, he encountered a community of Jesus-followers with whom he was able to have at least a few conversations. The precise nature of these conversations can only be partially reconstructed based on his polemical account, but his letter to Philadelphian Jesus-followers, written from Troas a short time later, leaves one with the impression that Ignatius found flaws in the community and was pained by suspicions raised against him by some in the assembly. In response to this division, Ignatius urges unity.13 For the arrested bishop of Antioch, unity is a multi-faceted concept that extends to every party connected with the assembly of believers in Philadelphia. It encompasses the Father, Son, bishop, elders, deacons, and all other believers in the city, reaching even to co-religionists in other cities whom many in Philadelphia would not have met.

Ignatius admonishes the Philadelphians to make the bishop, along with the presbyters and deacons, central to their practice of unity. A factor that contributed to Ignatius’s emphasis on unity with the bishop was likely the disputed nature of the bishop’s authority.14 Unity is also characteristic of God within Ignatius’s thought. God does not dwell where there is division or anger (Phld. 8.1). Union with God extends beyond the leadership hierarchy to include all believers and their relationships with the divine. The two-pronged emphasis on unity between leaders and members as well as God and human beings spills over to include bonds between other entities and individuals. Although Ignatius prioritizes Jesus’s death and resurrection, he makes it clear that God’s actions have been united across time (Phld. 9.2).15 Ignatius finds unity within the divine life as he portrays the Father and Son acting jointly (Phld. inscr.; 7.2). Accordingly, Jesus now mediates between God and God’s people as the high priest and door (Phld. 9.1) (Lookadoo 2018, pp. 58–99). In light of the union within God, Ignatius insists that harmony should characterize all Philadelphian believers (Phld. 2.1–2; 6.2; 7.2) (Lotz 2007, p. 170). Indeed, the bonds of union should extend beyond the city of Philadelphia. The Philadelphians are instructed to send someone to Antioch to celebrate with the recently restored church there, while Ignatius passes along greetings from believers hailing from Syria, Cilicia, Ephesus, and Troas (Phld. 11.1–2). Rhetorically, Ignatius locates the whole community of Philadelphian Jesus-followers within a web that crisscrosses the community and reaches into the eastern Mediterranean world.

3.2. The Circumstances at Philadelphia

In light of the importance that Ignatius attributes to unity, consideration should be given to the concrete circumstances that drove Ignatius to focus on this matter in Philadelphians. Here a range of possibilities must be weighed together.

Since concord is not a wholly unique topic addressed only in Philadelphians,16 it is possible that Ignatius emphasizes unity solely because it is core to his conception of what it means to be faithful to Jesus Christ.17 Yet the unusual repetition of “division” (μερισμός) suggests there were distinctive circumstances underlying this letter (Speigl 1987, p. 361). Another explanation for the emphasis on unity within Ignatius’s letters may derive from his experiences either in Antioch or in Philadelphia. If Ignatius’s arrest and verdict were due in some part to a division among Jesus’s followers in Antioch becoming known to Roman officials in the city, his admonitions for communities in Roman Asia to be united may stem from a desire to protect believers there from the fate he experienced in Syria.18 Alternatively, the heated exchange between Ignatius and some antagonists in Philadelphia may have provoked him to write about unity when sending letters to other communities (Speigl 1987).

The wide-ranging manner in which Ignatius incorporates unity into his thought suggests that it was fundamental to his theological considerations. The degree to which experiences in Antioch or Philadelphia influenced his letters to other communities is impossible to determine with a high degree of confidence, even if the possibility must be left open. That the experience in Philadelphia influenced what Ignatius wrote to believers in the city, however, is evident from the letter. Ignatius describes the suspicion he encountered, what was said to him, and what he heard from others (Phld. 7.1–2; 8.2). These descriptions suggest some kind of fragmentation among believers in the city. Nevertheless, he maintains that he has a clean conscience and was acting in the conflict as a man wholly devoted to unity (Phld. 6.3; 8.1).

Despite the importance attributed by some to Ignatius’s prophetic activity as an act done in opposition to a group who preferred leadership be entrusted to charismatic or prophetic figures (e.g., Meinhold’s 1958; Pizzolato 1970; Trevett 1983; Norelli 2007), the issue that Ignatius elevates is not the fact that he can prophesy but rather the contents of his prophecy (Phld. 7.1–2). The central conflicts in the letter revolve around teaching about issues including Judaism, circumcision, and the reading of scripture (Phld. 6.1; 8.2). Reconstructing the precise nature of the conflict may be left open. Suffice it to say that the conflict at least involved some who accepted teaching that Ignatius regarded as false.19 He thus sets division (μερισμός) and evil teaching (κακοδιδασκαλία) parallel to one another as entities that the Philadelphians must flee (Phld. 2.1). Such doctrinal disagreement may have been related to other issues in the community, such as ethnicity, hermeneutical practice, or Torah observance.

Under what circumstances may such differences over teaching have arisen? It is difficult to imagine that the unnamed Philadelphian bishop was already a monepiscopal leader of all Jesus-followers in the city (Trebilco 2004, pp. 660–9). While Ignatius sometimes speaks as if this was the case (e.g., Phld. 3.1), allowing him to portray the opposing teachers as leaving the community, envisioning the leader as a powerful monepiscopal figure does not match the fragmented situation that underlies the letter. The audience in Philadelphia is more likely to have been composed of two or more communities of Jesus-followers that federated to accomplish several tasks in collaboration.20 These tasks may have included the distribution of resources to members in need or occasional common meetings.21 Differences in teaching, ethnicity, practice, or even mundane limitations concerning when and where to meet may have contributed to the ongoing reality of multiple discrete but federated communities of Jesus-followers within the city.22 Ignatius perceived this federation as insufficiently cohesive, indeed, as divided. His solution to unite believers in Philadelphia involved centralizing eucharistic and pedagogical authority in a single city-wide leader of Jesus-followers. This would likely have represented a significant expansion of the bishop’s power and responsibilities.

3.3. Unity and the Letter Opening

The significance that Ignatius assigns to unity in the fragmented situation he left behind after his visit to Philadelphia becomes evident when one notes that his reference to the bishop, elders, and deacons derails the greeting convention that Ignatius employs in other letters (Phld. inscr.). In every letter, Ignatius addresses his audience with a lengthened form of a typical Greek epistolary greeting: X, to Y, greetings.23 Each Ignatian letter opens with a florid formulation that underscores the importance that Ignatius attributes to the audience. He marks the transition from the address of the audience to the salutation proper by using a first-person form of address, “I greet” (ἀσπάζομαι; Magn. inscr.; Trall. inscr.; Rom. inscr.; Phld. inscr.). When writing to Magnesia, Tralles, and Rome, the last word of the salutation is “greetings” (χαίρειν). This word marks the end of the salutation and demarcates the greeting from the body of the letter that follows (see also Eph. inscr.; Smyrn. inscr.; Pol. inscr.). Only Philadelphians lacks this standard word at the end of the greeting formula.

The lack of a final greeting is accompanied by a clumsy transition from the greeting to the letter body. The bishop is mentioned already in the greeting (Phld. inscr.). When Ignatius refers to him again within the body of the letter, he employs a relative pronoun (ὅν) whose antecedent lies in the greeting. In the only other letter in which a bishop is mentioned in the first sentence after the greeting, Ignatius mentions the bishop by name and employs his title (Πολύβιος, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ὑμῶν; Trall. 1.1). The use of the word χαίρειν divides the greeting from the body of the letter. Although the bishop is never named in Philadelphians, the use of a relative pronoun, lack of a name, and missing conclusion to the greeting blur the lines between the inscription and letter body.

The reason for the missing greeting in Philadelphians and resulting porous boundary between greeting and body is the eruption of an additional clause in Ignatius’s greeting. He greets the Philadelphian assembly “in the blood of Jesus Christ, which is eternal and abiding joy” (ἐν αἵματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν χάρα αἰώνιος καὶ παράμονος; Phld. inscr.).24 The distinctive element in Ignatius’s letter comes in the additional qualification to this phrase. The Philadelphians may be described as an eternal joy, “especially if they are at one with the bishop and elders and deacons with him who have been appointed from the mind of Jesus Christ whom he strengthened according to his own will with establishment by his Holy Spirit” (μάλιστα ἐὰν ἐν ἑνὶ ὦσιν σὺν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ πρεσβυτέροις καὶ διακόνοις ἀποδεδειγμένοις ἐν γνώμῃ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὓς κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον θέλημα ἐστήριξεν ἐν βεβαιωσύνῃ τῷ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ πνεύματι; Phld. inscr.). This clause highlights the importance of the Philadelphians’ unity with their leaders to maintain their status as a community of joy. The intruding qualification also derails the rest of the introduction and sends Ignatius into an immediate defense of the bishop he has just mentioned (Phld. 1.1–2). The union of the Philadelphians with their ecclesial hierarchy impinges on the greeting and leads Ignatius’s lengthy but otherwise typical formula off course.

This article now turns to examine how silence functions within Ignatius’s defense of the bishop.

4. Silence in Philadelphians

The sole reference to the bishop’s silence within the letter comes immediately after the introduction, which is interrupted by the topic of unity. Ignatius elevates the bishop by attributing his position to divine appointment rather than ambition or human motivations.25 He then adds that he is amazed by the bishop’s forbearance (ἐπιείκεια), before stating that the bishop accomplishes more through silence than others accomplish by speaking (Phld. 1.1). This laudatory description of the bishop is followed by further affirmations of his character. Ignatius employs a vivid metaphor in which the Philadelphian leader is attuned to God’s commandments like a lyre is attuned to its strings (Phld. 1.2). Before directly instructing the Philadelphians to leave division behind (Phld. 2.1), Ignatius blesses the bishop’s mind because it is set on God, virtuous, and perfect (Phld. 1.2). Finally, he lauds the bishop’s steadfastness (τὸ ἀκίνητον) and lack of anger (τὸ ἀόργητον).26 Ignatius alludes to the bishop’s silence in the middle of a list of virtues that he attributes to the Philadelphian leader. Whatever else Ignatius means by referring to the bishop as silent, it is a characteristic that he regarded as praiseworthy in the same way that forbearance, steadfastness, and a mind set on God are.

Still, when Ignatius declares that the bishop “accomplishes more while silent than those who speak” (σιγῶν πλείονα δύναται τῶν λαλούντων; Phld. 1.1), the nature of the contrast between the relative power of the bishop’s silence compared to those who speak is not immediately clear. If these words are read in a strictly literal fashion, Ignatius may contrast the mere fact of silence over and against speech, affirming that the bishop is more powerful precisely because he is quiet-natured or unable to engage in a certain kind of unspecified speech. Alternatively, the words may suggest that the bishop works, either with his hands or merely by accomplishing the tasks required in his position. Ignatius may thus contrast the Philadelphian bishop with those in the city whom he perceives as talking without enacting anything. The textual tradition of Phld. 1.1 indicates still another interpretive option. Indeed, the majority of witnesses to the so-called middle recension of Phld. 1.1 locate the contrast between the bishop’s silence and “those who say foolish things” (τῶν λαλούντων μάταια). This is the reading in Codex Mediceo-Laurentianus 57.7 (G) and represented in the Latin (L) and Coptic (C) translations.27 While the Armenian translation (A) contains a shorter text that does not include a corresponding term for μάταια. The latter is likely also the earliest reading of Phld. 1.1 to which textual critics can return.28 Even so, the longer readings in G, L, and C suggest an early interpretation. With the addition of a substantive adjective after the participle, two different types of speech are contrasted: (1) a wise form with fewer words practiced by the bishop and (2) a foolish loquaciousness evinced by unnamed others in the community. Although the shorter text is more likely to be the earlier reading, the longer text attests to an interpretive possibility that is latent in the shorter reading.

Each interpretive option may remain open when the phrase is read in the abstract or in conjunction with references to silence elsewhere in Ignatius’s letters (e.g., Eph. 6.1; 15.1–2; Magn. 8.2). However, in the immediate epistolary context of Philadelphians, the third interpretive option should be preferred. Of particular note, the author’s praise of the bishop’s steadfastness and lack of anger suggests a way forward for understanding the silence of the Philadelphian bishop. These virtues, which Ignatius attributes to the Philadelphian bishop, are likewise upheld in Hellenistic moral writings. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius praised control of one’s temper as a virtue (Epictetus, Diss. 3.20.9; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 1.1). God was likewise held to be incapable of being disturbed or aroused to passion (Philo, Post. 29; 1 Clem. 19.3; Diogn. 8.8). (Schoedel 1985, p. 196, n. 2).

In light of such similarities between Ignatius’s language and Hellenistic rhetoric, Maier (2004) has rightly recognized that silence was likewise a feature of Greco-Roman ethical and rhetorical training. In the late fourth or perhaps early third century BCE, Theophrastus satirized those who cannot remain silent in at least two of his characters: the chatterbox (ἀδολέσκης; Char. 3) and the talker (λάλος; Char. 7).29 Both characters talk incessantly, variously annoying their listeners by flitting from topic to topic (the chatterbox) or pursuing a topic of speech without let up (the talker). In a comic roast, Theophrastus even portrays the talker recognizing his inability to live the better way when he says, “It is hard for me to keep quiet” (χαλεπόν μοί ἐστι σιωπᾶν; Char. 7.9). Before Theophrastus, Plato used the analogy of a ship commander to contrast the aimless babbler and the seasoned politician in terms of their effectiveness in leading their sailors (Plato, Resp. 6.488a–489a). Unsurprisingly, the babbler is ineffective. While Aristotle created a distinction between “idle chatterers” (ἀδολέσχας) and intemperance in his discussion of virtues, the fact that Aristotle needed to draw this distinction suggests that he anticipated the audience might associate chatterers with a kind of intemperance and thus, in Aristotelian terms, with vice.30 Denigrations of talkativeness are likewise found in Second Temple Jewish literature.31 Ben Sira, for example, states that a talkative man (ἀνὴρ γλωσαώδης) is feared in his city (Sir. 9.18), while the silent person (σιωπῶν) is regarded as wise (φρόνιμος; Sir. 20.1).32 Pseudo-Phocylides warns readers to “keep the word hidden in your mind” (κρυπτὸν λόγον ἐν φρεσὶν ἴσχειν) in a passage likewise urging the wise to practice silence (Ps.-Phoc. 20).33 Josephus also portrays silence as a characteristic of the wise when he tells the story of Nathan and David, declaring that Nathan kept quiet about what he received from God (Josephus, A.J. 7.147).34

Closer to Ignatius’s time, Plutarch wrote an entire treatise entitled “On Talkativeness” (περὶ Ἀδολεσκίας; de Garrulitate).35 Plutarch’s description of idle chatterers can be vicious. He compares them to vipers and pipefish who burst while giving birth (Garr. 508d).36 Such is the picture of a talkative person bursting forth with words. Plutarch draws from history and daily life to illustrate the dangers of chatter and the concomitant benefits of silence. The treatise opens with a story about a would-be assassin of Nero, who disclosed his plan to a fellow-prisoner the night before he was to kill the Emperor, only to have his plan foiled when the prisoner opted for his own safety and told Nero (Plutarch, Garr. 505c–d).37 The barber provides an opportune moment for garrulity to abound in everyday life. Plutarch thus holds out King Archelaus as a positive example because he preferred to have his hair cut “silently” (σιωπῶν; Garr. 509a). The example of Archelaus points to the core solution that Plutarch puts forward as an answer to idle chatter, namely, silence. He insists, “For no one has benefitted more from a word spoken than from the many that were left unsaid” (οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὕτω λόγος ὠφέλησε ῥηθεὶς ὡς πολλοὶ σιωπηθέντες; Garr. 505f).38 Simonides embodies this truism. He never repented of being silent (σιωπήσας) but often repented of speech (λαλήσας; Garr. 515a).39 Silence is held up as a virtue in relation not to speech as a mere action but to a kind of foolish, overzealous, or otherwise mistaken speech.

Such a contrast between silence and speech is precisely the one that Ignatius draws between the Philadelphian bishop and other unnamed babblers (Maier 2004). Ignatius’s portrayal of the bishop as a silent leader is thus in keeping with his other descriptions of the bishop as incomparable and lacking in anger. These descriptions characterize the Philadelphian leader as a model for the community to follow, since the traits he exhibits among the Philadelphians coincide with the recommendations of other Greco-Roman moralists. Such a reading is in keeping with Ignatius’s praise of the bishop throughout Phld. 1.1–2. He is not covering a flaw in the bishop’s character or qualifications for leadership.40 Instead, he elevates the bishop because he speaks in a suitable manner.

The reference to silence can be further specified in Phld. 1.1. Ignatius not only attributes a propriety to the Philadelphian leader’s speech when describing him as silent but contrasts his silence with that of others who speak. This differs from other traits in Phld. 1.1–2, which are listed in praise of the bishop without negative contrast. Ignatius lauds the bishop’s silence, on the other hand, over and against the speech of others. Despite the apparent generality of this acclamation, the rest of the letter illustrates that this claim occurs in a contested environment in which different teachings are at stake (Stewart-Sykes 2005). Other teachers advance a view that Ignatius characterizes as Judaism (Ἰουδαϊσμός; Phld. 6.1).41 The celebration of the bishop in the opening of the letter should thus be understood against the polemical environment in which Ignatius writes. The talkers (οἱ λαλοῦντες) in Phld. 1.1 presage the opponents who were suspicious of Ignatius during his visit there, and who questioned the relationship between the gospel and “archives” (ἀρχεῖα) in ways that Ignatius found inappropriate (Phld. 7.1–8.2).

If the people who speak are identified, or at least linked to the opponents, the proper speech exercised by the bishop can be understood more precisely. The bishop’s silence refers to his refusal to engage with opposing teachers in the city of Philadelphia (Pettersen 1990). Ignatius’s additional descriptions of the bishop in Phld. 1.2 support this interpretation. His mind is set on God (τὴν εἰς θεὸν αὐτοῦ γνώμην). It is virtuous and complete (ἐνάρετον καὶ τέλειον). He is characterized by immovability (τὸ ἀκίνητον) and a lack of wrath (τὸ ἀόργητον). This lack of wrath is practiced with all gentleness (ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιεικείᾳ).42 These descriptive traits coalesce to depict a bishop who is calm, not easily swayed in his judgments, and gentle in his dealings with others. His calmness becomes clear in his rejection of false teachers and concomitant refusal to engage with them. It is this trait that Ignatius describes as silence and contrasts with the false teachers who talk.

Silence is thus a virtue embodied by the bishop in keeping with popular Greco-Roman ethical teaching and exhibited in a refusal to engage in false teachings. Whatever the Philadelphians who knew the bishop might have made of Ignatius’s analysis of the bishop’s character, the silent rejection of opponents by the Philadelphian leader is in keeping with additional descriptions of him in Phld. 1.1–2.43 Other interpretations of the bishop’s silence in terms of a lacking character trait, a mystical union with God, or a failure to be able to prophesy may have merits to varying degrees in other letters. At the beginning of Philadelphians, however, these interpretations are less plausible than the interpretation put forward here, namely, that the Philadelphian bishop is lauded for his appropriate silence and concomitant refusal to engage with teachers in the city in keeping with popular Greco-Roman morality.

5. Further Situating Silence in Philadelphians

The article has so far been at pains to demonstrate how the Philadelphian bishop’s silence relates to the larger theme of unity in the letter’s polemical setting, the greeting and initial praise of the bishop, the context of Greco-Roman popular morality, and Ignatius’s characterization of him as not engaging with false teachers. Yet the bishop’s silence can be further embedded within the rhetorical emphasis of Philadelphians by briefly noting three ways in which it relates to other elements in the letter.

First, since silence is one of the bishop’s virtues enumerated in Phld. 1.1–2, it lends support to Ignatius’s instructions for the community to be united with him in Phld. 2.1–4.1. Although Ignatius grounds unity with the bishop in a theological rationale in Phld. 2.1–4.1 and the significance of this rationale only grows throughout the letter amid his concerns about disharmony among believers in the city, the virtues that the bishop exhibits provide additional reasons why the Philadelphians should demonstrate unity. The bishop’s gentleness, steadfast character, and attention to God’s commandments prepare readers for the call to be united with the bishop. On this reading, silence joins the other virtues in Phld. 1.1–2 by paving the way for the call to join with the bishop.

Second, since the bishop’s silence in the face of false teaching is put forward as a model, readers are implicitly urged to follow him in virtuous non-engagement with Philadelphian false teachers. If the Philadelphians join Ignatius in his amazement at the bishop’s silence and imitate what the bishop does, they will find themselves amenable to Ignatius’s instruction to flee the traps of the ruler of this age, among which Ignatius locates the teachers who opposed him (Phld. 6.2).44 In so doing, they will be united with the bishop while simultaneously rejecting the false teachers.

Third, the bishop’s silence provides an implicit contrast with Ignatius’s actions in Philadelphia and his clarification of them in the letter. While the bishop is silent, Ignatius spoke in opposition to the teachers when he visited the city (Phld. 7.1–2; 8.2). The letter to believers in Philadelphia functions as an apology in which he defends his earlier actions and continues to develop his teaching (Phld. 8.1; 9.1–2). Although Ignatius holds himself to be justified concerning his actions in the city, it is far from clear that he was regarded by Philadelphian believers as a clear winner in any debates that he had while there.45 The bishop’s silence, in contrast, may not only be a trait that amazes Ignatius (Phld. 1.1) but could have looked to Ignatius like a comparatively wise course of action in light of his personal experience of difficult interactions with opponents there.

6. Conclusions

This article has argued that the silence of the Philadelphian bishop must be understood on its own terms without reference to other usages of silence in different letters. The reason for this methodological presupposition is twofold. First, it is possible that Ignatius enfolded his arguments with distinct nuances when addressing different communities. The concepts that he utilized in these arguments may likewise have been employed somewhat differently in each letter. Second, regardless of what Ignatius’s intended meaning may have been, the initial readers in Philadelphia most likely encountered only the letter addressed to their city if the letters are authentic. If the letters were copied and circulated as a group at a later stage, it may be that readers then encountered multiple Ignatian letters. Yet, for the first readers of Philadelphians, it is probable that the only letter of Ignatius that they initially received was the letter sent to them.46

In line with the likely experiences of first readers of the letters, this article has interpreted silence in a way that differs from most prior studies of the topic by limiting itself to its usage in a single letter, namely, the silence of the Philadelphian bishop (Phld. 1.1). After providing a critical map of previous studies, the article took up the importance of unity as a multifaceted guiding light toward which Ignatius orients his entire letter. Unity is so important that it sends the greeting of the letter off-track, resulting in a blurring of the boundaries between the greeting and body of the letter. In this context, praise of the bishop’s silence is best understood as a virtue alongside the other laudatory traits listed in Phld. 1.1–2. It is neither a mystical union with God, nor an attempt to paper over something missing in the bishop’s character or gifts. Rather, silence stands over and against garrulity, in line with Greco-Roman ethical teaching. By praising the bishop’s silence, Ignatius elevates the Philadelphian leader’s non-engagement with the teachers whom he opposed in the city. Such a reading coincides with other Ignatian interests in the letter by paving the way for his call to be united with the bishop, providing an implicit model for other Philadelphian leaders to follow, and providing an interesting contrast with Ignatius’s own actions there.

Looking forward, future studies of Ignatius’s silence should likewise take care to distinguish how he employed this puzzling concept in individual letters. Such studies may also probe whether silence is integrated into other letters in a similar way to the Philadelphian bishop’s silence and its resonance with other elements in the letter. A similar method may be deployed to explore other rhetorical motifs in the Ignatian letters. In so doing, such studies might better account for how the earliest readers of the letters encountered Ignatius’s rhetoric.