uses the Curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in which they are known since Usher"s time, are not yet entirely removed. For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius."(1) Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." Dr.
Light-foot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach,
Kestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty_, p.r.o.nounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."(2) The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name in order.
_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have
{x.x.xvii}
shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main_ the genuine epistles of Ignatius." _Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l"authenticite" des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas veritables, elles ne laissent pas d"etre fort anciennes; et l"opinion, qui me paroit la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont ete inter-poises."
_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for the shorter (Vossian) Epistles "many doubts arise which make them suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these and other difficulties is to affirm that all the pa.s.sages which cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as difficult to prove which are the interpolated pa.s.sages." In fact it would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.
_Grtesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
but to make sufficient extracts to ill.u.s.trate this would occupy too much s.p.a.ce.
_Neander_.--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from the English translation of the first
{x.x.xviii}
edition of Neander"s History given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from p.r.o.nouncing "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been cla.s.sed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose the correctness of this suspicious legend, do not bear throughout the impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian Epistles," he recognizes a decided "design" (absichtlichkeit) and then he continues: "as the tradition regarding the journey of Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which pre-suppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me with faith in their authenticity." He goes on to state additional grounds for disbelief.
_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note he excepts only the pa.s.sages quoted by the Fathers.
{x.x.xix}
He seems to agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic interest. Some years later he remarked that inquiries into the Epistles, although not yet concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations (Ueberarbeitungen) from interpolations. This very cautious statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material of the letters cannot be ascertained.
Dr. Lightfoot"s objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.
1 Dr. Lightfoot doubts, and a large ma.s.s of critics recognize _that the authenticity of none_ of these Epistles _can be established_ and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions."
He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour, and characterizes it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been possible, Dr. Light-foot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose"
of my notes, although he has recognized how important it is to ascertain this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he a.n.a.lyses the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement which he altogether disregards:--
"Further examination and more References to twenty authorities comprehensive knowledge of the are then given, as belonging to the subject have confirmed earlier a large ma.s.s of critics who recognize
{xl}
that the Ignatian Epistles, "can only be considered later and spurious compositions.""(1)
There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively p.r.o.nounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does not.
It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the extant, letters cannot be established without denying that there may have been some original nucleus upon which these actual doc.u.ments may have been based. I will a.n.a.lyse the six references.
Bleek.--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite opinion."
Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions. I have already partly stated Bleek"s view. After pointing out some difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He refuses
{xli}
to make use of a pa.s.sage because it is only found in the Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and, next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek is certainly not altogether certain, but.... in the highest degree probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which we possess them."(1) In fact he did not consider that their authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him here at all.
_Gfrorer_.--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a reference to his remarks.
_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must "decidedly reject with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times" the opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are "altogether spurious," and proceeds to treat a pa.s.sage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension."
This is a mistake. Harless quotes a pa.s.sage in connection with Paul"s Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is in
{xlii}
part removed through the circ.u.mstance that both Recensions have the pa.s.sage." He recognizes that the completeness of the proof that ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of Ignatius. He did not in fact venture to consider the Ignatian Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.
_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that "the external testimonies oblige him to recognize a genuine substratum," though he is not satisfied with either existing recension."
Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless, without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds: "The external testimonies oblige me to recognize a genuine substratum--Poly-carp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."
_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."
If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and least hierarchical text give the impression of being an epitome. "But
{xliii}
even if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they would be a significant doc.u.ment at latest out of the middle of the second century." These last words are a clear admission of his opinion that the authenticity cannot be established. _Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension, but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case; and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be established.
Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and consequently
{xliv}
erroneously cla.s.sed him, and I withdraw a third whose doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in dealing with such a ma.s.s of references, or a difference of a shade more or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can only say that I am only too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of "misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable."(l)
There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with unhesitating boldness:--
One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version (so far as regards the doc.u.mentary evidence) _has been felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton"s later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhom, whom he cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_.
Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the 1 "Contemporary Review," February, 1875, p. 183.
{xlv}
priority of the Curetonian Epistles in this book myself, indeed I express no personal opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles.
Dr. Lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian version, and I call special attention to the pa.s.sages in the above quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and as Dr.
Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann"s publication, which appeared while his own _brochure_ was pa.s.sing through the press, in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian question, two years after,(1) he does not even allude to the Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann"s work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all So much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.
As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century": Cureton apparently did not think it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of Petermann
{xlvi}
after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann"s arguments in a few pages of his "Hippolytus";(1) Baur, who wrote against Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot"s representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,(2) refers to Petermann"s Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them;(3) Hefele(4) supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar, Tischendorf, Bohringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them worthy of special notice, at any rate none of these nor any other writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into the controversy at all.
The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to introduce into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the reader to Bunsen"s reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the following lines: