or of the
Didache (c. 10. 6. See my note on the passage), and Tatian questioned
the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, which was strongly emphasised by Ignatius;
nay, Barnabas even expressly rejects the designation "Son of Man" (12.
10; [Greek: ide palin Iesous, ouchi huios anthropou alla huios tou
theou, tupo de en sarki phanerotheis]). A docetic thought, however, lies
in the assertion that the spiritual being Christ only assumed human
flesh, however much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. The
passage 1 Clem. 49. 6, is quite unique: [Greek: to haima autou edoken
huper hemon Iesous Christos ... kai ten sarka huper tes sarkos hemon kai
ten psuchen huper ton psuchon humon]. One would fain believe this an
interpolation; the same idea is first found in Irenaeus. (V. 1. 1).]

[Footnote 263: Even Hermas docs not speak of Jesus as [Greek: anthropos]
(see Link). This designation was used by the representatives of the
Adoptian Christology only after they had expressed their doctrine
antithetically and developed it to a theory, and always with a certain
reservation. The "[Greek: anthropos Christos Iesous]" in 1 Tim. II. 5 is
used in a special sense. The expression [Greek: anthropos] for Christ
appears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage Smyrn. 4. 2:
[Greek: autou me endunamountos tou teleiou anthropou genomenou], apart
from the [Greek: genomenou], is critically suspicious, as well as the
fourth, Eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in connections
which seem to modify the humanity; see Eph. 20. 1: [Greek: oikonomia eis
ton kainon anthropon Iesoun Christon], Eph. 20. 2: [Greek: toi huioi
anthropou kai huioi theou].]

[Footnote 264: See above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. We have no sure
evidence that the later so-called Modalism (Monarchianism) had
representatives before the last third of the second century; yet the
polemic of Justin, Dial. 128, seems to favour the idea, (the passage
already presupposes controversies about the personal independence of the
pre-existent pneumatic being of Christ beside God; but one need not
necessarily think of such controversies within the communities; Jewish
notions might be meant, and this, according to Apol. I. 63, is the more
probable). The judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were
numerous formulae in practical use which could be so understood, as if
Christ was to be completely identified with the Godhead itself (see
Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2, besides Melito in