The author of 2 Clement
believed that 1 Clement was an inspired document and cites 1 Clement
23.3-4 with the words “for the prophetic word also says” (λεγει γαρ και ο προφητικος λογος) (2 Clem. 11.2). These are
the usual words that designate writings as inspired. Clement of Rome (ca.
90-95) told his readers that Paul’s letter, 1 Corinthians, was written “with
true inspiration” (επ’
αληθειας πνευματικως) (1 Clem. 47.3), but later
claimed inspiration for himself, saying that his own letter was “written
through the Holy Spirit” (γεγραμμενοις δια του αγιου πνευματος) (1 Clem. 63.2). Ignatius
also emphasized his own inspiration: “I spoke with a great voice—with God’s own
voice . . . But some suspected me of saying this because I had previous knowledge
of the division among you. But the one in whom I am bound is my witness that I
had no knowledge of this from any human being, but the Spirit was preaching
and saying this [το δε πνευμα εκηρυσσεν, λεγον ταδε]” (Ign. Phld. 7.1b-2, LCL,
emphasis added). (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Christian Religious
Texts as Scriptures,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New
Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and
Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 108;
McDonald places 2 Clement from 140-160 [“Forming Christian Scriptures as
a Biblical Canon,” ibid., 123)
Commenting on Ignatius’ words in his epistle to the Philadelphians, Schodel noted that:
Ignatius traces his outbursts to
God's Spirit. He shared with many others in the Graeco-Roman world the belief that
a sudden loud utterance marked the inrush of the divine. The bishop clothes
this perception in traditional Christian language when he denies that
"human flesh" made the situation known to him (cf. Matt 16: 17; Gal
1: 16; 1 Cor 2: 13) and in specifically Johannine terms when he describes the
Spirit as knowing whence it comes and whither it goes (cf. John 3:8). Here we
have the strongest possibility in Ignatius of a dependence directly on the
Fourth Gospel. Yet in the absence of other positive evidence of such dependence
the question must be left open. Moreover, the Johannine writings speak of knowing
the whence and whither of figures other than the Spirit, and this suggests that
we are dealing with a formula that could have been known to Ignatius apart from
the gospel. In any event, Ignatius appears before us here as one moved by
the Spirit (cf. Rom. 7 .2), yet as one who also takes it for granted that the
Spirit speaks through and on behalf of established authority (cf. Phd. inscr).
(William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of
Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the
Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 205-6)