"But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Coreton"s text is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the Greek original of
{xlvii}
this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text, and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" (l)
Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to introduce this argument, on the ground that "a discussion which, while a.s.suming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an account" Now all this is sheer misrepresentation. I do not a.s.sume the priority of the Curetonian Epistles, and I examine all the pa.s.sages contained in the seven Greek Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.
Pa.s.sing on to another point, I say:
"Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that number were mentioned by Eusebius."(2)
Another pa.s.sage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon this he writes as follows:
This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing on the question. (1). Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2). The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long Recension in the first instance. (3). They abound in anachronisms which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their composition.(3)
Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are advanced in favour of the seven Epistles,
{xlviii}
I contend that, reduced to its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius," the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret. Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has conferred upon the rest The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the "prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them."(1) The argument (2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian Epistles.
The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which I have reserved till now as it requires more detailed notice. It is this:
"It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally p.r.o.nounced to be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal honour."(2)
{xlix}
I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot"s comment on this, in contrast with the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:
Dr. Lightfoot. (4). "It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles are mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and Latin MSS., as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come after the others; and this circ.u.mstance, combined with the facts already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition, borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian letters."(1)
Dr. Tregelles. "It is a mistake to speak of seven Ignatian Epistles in Greek having been transmitted to us, for no such seven exist, except through their having been selected by editors from the Medicean MS.
which contains so much that is confessedly spurious;--a fact which some who imagine a diplomatic transmission of seven have overlooked."(2)
I will further quote the words of Cureton, for as Dr. Lightfoot advances nothing but a.s.sertions, it is well to meet him with the testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement Cureton says:
"Again, there is another circ.u.mstance which will naturally lead us to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of St.
Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious. Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only ground which has. .h.i.therto been a Note to "Home"s Int. to the Holy Scriptures," 12th ed., 1869, iv. p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
1 "Contemporary Beview," February, 1875, p. 347. Dr.
Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note:
"The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 111."
{l}
a.s.sumed for their separation has been the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of any mention of the others.""
"The external evidence from the testimony of ma.n.u.scripts in favour of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the Philip-pians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which have been received." They are found in all the ma.n.u.scripts, both Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the circ.u.mstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Cains College, Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted.... In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to Hero, from the circ.u.mstance of their being placed after the others in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi, at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained." (2)
Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the princ.i.p.al MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined table I shall mark A,(3) and which also exhibits the order of Cod. Vat 859, a.s.signed to the eleventh century.(4) The next (B) is a Greek MS.
edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557,(5) and the order at
{li}
the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150.(1) The third (C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published by Archbishop Usher.(2) The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean MS.
a.s.signed to the eleventh century, and published by Vossiusin 1646.(3) This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G. V. 14.(4) I italicise the rejected Epistles: (See scanned page in the html file, Ed.)
I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and the spurious, it contains
{lii}
three of the false Epistles, and _does not contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot"s own expression, "embedded in the Martyrology,"
which is as spurious as any of the epistles. This circ.u.mstance alone would justify the a.s.sertion which Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.
I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my references which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations. Dr.
Westcott says:
"I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings, arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress the general reader with a vague feeling that all "profound" critics are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by evidence and by argument and not by authority."(1)
Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a ma.s.s of learned and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of little more than a pa.s.sing word of pious indignation. At the same time, therefore, that I endeavour, to
{liii}
the best of my ability, to decide these questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to works where they may find them dis-. cussed. I must be permitted to add, that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and recognize that belief is not so easy and matter of course a thing as they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as English divines have often seemed to represent it Dr. Westcott, however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.
Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to investigate. He says:
"Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion which is involved in their characteristic a.s.sumptions. And more than this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One example will show that I do not speak too strongly."(l)
Dr. Westcott has scrutinized this work with great minuteness, and, as I shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.
The idea of ill.u.s.trating the vast ma.s.s of references in these volumes by a single instance is somewhat startling, but to insinuate that a supposed contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be unfair. The example selected is as follows:
"It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 2()th December, a.d. 115
{liv}
when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.4"" The references in support of these statements are the following: 8 Baur, Urspr. d. Epiec.Tub.
Zeitschr. f.Theol. 1838, H. 3, p. 155 anm.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, &c, p. 185; Bleek, Einl.N. T., p. 144; Guericke, H*bucht Kt #., i p.
148; Hagenbach, K. G., i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T.,i. p. 19; Mayerhoff, Eitll. petr. Schr., p. 79; Scholten, Die Sit. Zeugnisse, p.
40, p. 50 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 52; R"buch Einl. Apocr., i. p.
121 f., p. 136.
4 Volkmar, Wuch Einl. Apocr., i. p. 121 ff., 136 f.; Der Ursprung, p.
52 ff.; Baur, Ursp. d. Episc. Tub. Zeitschr. f. Th. 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; Gesch. chr. Kirehe, 1863, i. p. 440, anm. 1.; Davidson, Introd. N.
T., Lp. 19; Scholten, Die Hit. Zeugnisse, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, Zur Gesch. Trojans, u. s. w. 1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vster, p.
214.