INTRODUCTION
found throughout the early Christian communities (cf. Sumney). Other recent scholars have argued that Ignatius is at tacking specific Gnostic groups that we know about from a later period (Valentinus and his followers), and that, as a result, the letters must be re-dated to the second half of the second century (Lechner; cf. Hiibner). Most scholars, however, have remained unpersuaded by this thesis, and find sufficient grounds for accepting the traditional date. What is clear is that Ignatius insisted on doctrinal pu rity: he praises the Philadelphians, for example, for not having division in their ranks, but a "filter" (Ign. Phil. 3.1). For him this meant understanding, on the one hand, that Jesus was fully human ("he was truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted at the time of Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died . . . was also truly raised from the dead" Ign. Trail. 9.1-2) and that, on the other hand, he was the fulfillment of the Jewish law, making it unneces sary for Christians to continue to adhere to the ways of Ju daism ("It is outlandish to proclaim Jesus Christ and prac tice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity," Ign. Magn. 10.1). Moreover, this quest for purity is related to his insistence on the unity of the church—a resounding theme of his letters—which is secured through submitting to the ruling bishop at all times and engaging in no church activities (for example, baptism or eucharist) without him: "Be subject to the bishop as to the commandment" (Ign. Trail. 13.2); "we are clearly obliged to look upon the bishop as the Lord him s e l f (Ign. Eph. 6.1); "you should do nothing apart from the bishop" (Ign. Magn. 7.1). Two issues that are less clear-cut involve the situation 207