There are certain statements in Ignatius that lead one to think that Ignatius taught some kind of Logos Christology, which presumably he would have learned from the apostle John, and would confirm that Jesus literally (pre)existed before his birth in Bethlehem - which leads to Trinitarianism, though, as far as I know, there are no explicitly Trinitarian statements in Ignatius. These "proto-Trinitarian" statements are sometimes brought forth by Trinitarians to show that John must have taught the concept of the Trinity. An example of this would be the Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 7:

 

"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin."

 

There are two versions of the Epistle to the Ephesians. One is the Long Version, one is the Short Version. The quote is from the Long Version. The passage quoted does not exist in the Short Version. All the writings of Ignatius have been subjected to much interpolation. Consider this:

 

Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. - Catholic Encyclopedia

 

Clayton Jefford, author of Reading the Apostolic Fathers writes:

 

"Unfortunately for modern scholars, however, some of the manuscripts were edited and reshaped by copyists of devout faith who wanted the writings to represent their own theological perspectives or the doctrinal positions of the institutional church. Perhaps the best illustration of this process is found in the letters of Ignatius, which became expanded and corrupted by scribes over the years."

 

The Encyclopedia Britannica writes:

 

"In the 4th century these letters were corrupted by the heavy insertions of an interpolator, and the collection was augmented by six letters forged under Ignatius' name."

 

The following is my position:  The paragraph from which this quote is taken does not exist in the Short Version. It is an interpolation. To cast it in the most positive light possible, it is 4th century Trinitarian (more probably Arian) "commentary" on the previous paragraph, which occurs in both versions. Here is the relevant part of the paragraph from which the quote was taken:

 

"But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh". Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts."

 

Notice that this is NOT Trinitarian. The ONLY true God is unbegotten and unapproachable (unapproachable - Greek, not Hebrew! "Draw near to God and he will draw near to you."). This God is the "begetter" of the Son. Jesus is the Son and Logos who was begotten before time began, but who "afterwards" became a man. He was NOT begotten as a man; he (the Son-and-Logos) was begotten before time began. I suppose this could mean "eternally-begotten" in the Trinitarian sense but it sounds Arian to me.

 

(As an aside (rant alert!), "Before time began" is a ridiculous, oxymoronic, meaningless concept, common in Greek Philosophy. "BEFORE" is a word that can only be understood in the context of time. Time cannot "begin". In order for there to be a "beginning" there must already be time.)

 

Here is the relevant part of the previous paragraph (which I believe is authentic) that I think the interpolator is "commenting" on:

 

"There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

I'm going to comment on this quickly without giving a lot of scripture. You can probably anticipate the scriptures I'd use anyway.

 

"Flesh and spirit" refers to Jesus' earthly life and his resurrected life.  Born, lived, died, and buried as a body of flesh and raised as life-giving spirit.

 

"Generate and ingenerate" means that he was born human and became immortal.

 

"God in man" doesn't mean "God IS man" or "God as man"; it means that God was in Jesus even as the scriptures say.

 

"True Life in death" refers to physical immortality coming to light through the death of Jesus.

 

"Son of Mary and Son of God" is self-explanatory. "Son of God" does NOT mean, "God." No son is his own Father. If "Son of God" means that Jesus IS God then "Son of Mary" means that Jesus IS Mary.

 

"First passible and then impassible" means that he was FIRST subject to change (i.e. increased in wisdom and stature, learned obedience through suffering etc) and THEN became perfected, "...he was made perfect..."

 

"Jesus Christ our Lord" means Jesus, the Anointed, our Lord. There is no implication of Deity in this title.

 

I must also point out that "first passible" is incongruent with a Trinitarian position since in that scheme he was first impassible, became passible, and then became impassible again. (If he was first impassible, then passible, he wasn't REALLY impassible to begin with, was he?) The order of the words is significant: Flesh first, spirit second. Generate first, ingenerate second. First passible, then impassible. As Paul says when speaking of the resurrection of the dead in I Cor 15, "...it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual."

 

All this is congruent with the position that Jesus was completely and only human, did not literally preexist, was literally fathered by God, and achieved preeminent authority due to his performance-in-life i.e. "was made perfect" through his death and resurrection. There is NOTHING in Ignatius that is Trinitarian. All implicit Trinitarian statements are interpolations. This thesis can be supported in many ways. I will not go into the arguments here. The fact that the Long Version of Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians is chock full of "Trinitarian" interpolations is acknowledged even by Trinitarians. (There are interpolations in the Short Version as well, but we'll just leave it at that.) The Catholics think it's so bad that the texts we have "are incapable of bearing witness to the original form." Bottom line, I believe that the "uninterrupted Trinitarian thread, from Jesus to John to Ignatius" doesn't exist. In fact, the two versions of Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians definitively demonstrate Trinitarian interpolations.

 

Even if you disagree with my conclusions, and the conclusions of scholars the world over, about Ignatius, and accept ALL of the Ignatius corpus that we have as authentic, he still did not know of any triune God. He only stated that Jesus was God. It seemed to be more of a Modalist view if anything. One would also then have to wonder what he meant by the word "God." Back in the first century it had more meanings than it does today. It was used as a term for the Hebrew king, or rulers to whom the word of God had come to. But Ignatius by no means was a Trinitarian. He never once mentioned the Holy Spirit as a part of anything, especially a part of a triune God.

 

The most that can be said is that in his epistle to Polycarp (3:2) there is an indication of the notion of pre-existence. Whether this was altered is unclear, but I suspect it was.