apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

74 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Dianu. The Epistle to the Tarsians breaks off abruptly in the middle
of a word, aVcTrio-Taroi yup cicru' rov kl- (§ 7)\ These words form the
last line of fol.
252 b, which leaf is also the end of a quaternion. Thus
it is plain that the imperfection of the ms was caused by the loss of
some sheets". It was doubtless originally complete and, like the
corresponding Latin Version, contained all the twelve epistles (excluding
the Epistle to the Philippians), the Epistle to the Romans probably
being embedded in the Martyrology, as in Colbert. 460. This ms
has been collated more or less imperfectly from time to time since the
appearance of Voss's edition, and recently with greater care by Jacobson.
Still more recently Dressel himself and his friends for him
'inspected it again in the principal places with scrupulous care' (p. Ixii).
I myself also have collated it throughout the six genuine epistles for
this edition, and have found a few not very serious omissions in
previous collations. This ms is ascribed to the eleventh century. It
contains no iotas either subscript or (with one or two exceptions, e.g.
Trail, inscr. twi TrXrjiJwixaTL) adscript.
Casanatensis G. v. 1 4, in the Library of the Minerva at Rome ; first
collated by Dressel for his edition (1857). The volume (it
is a paper
ms) contains several tracts written by different
and on different sized paper, bound up loosely together.
hands, at different dates,
The Ignatian
Epistles may have been written in the 15th century. In a later part of
the volume the Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas are found ;
but they
have no connexion in handwriting or otherwise with the Ignatian
Epistles, and owe their proximity to the accident of binding.
Dressel at
first
supposed rightly that this ms was copied from the Medicean but
;
he afterwards changed his opinion, because '
ex comparatione amborum
Mss accuratius inter se instituta apparet notabilior lectionum discrepantia,'
adding ' Credibile tamen est utrumque codicem ex eodem
vetustissimo archetypo, per ambages quidem, emanasse ' (p. Ixi).
I
think that few who compare Dressel's own collations will agree in this
opinion. The differences are very trifling, being chiefly blunders or
corrections of the most obvious kind, such as the alteration of itacisms,
the interchange of e and at, and the like. The most important divergence
that I have observed is the reading ottov /jxv for ottov Se in
Philad. 2. The headings of the epistles also are copied from the Medi-
^
The language of Dressel (p. 262) on ^
k-^a.d6irov%. Tars. 10, he writes {Apleaves
the impression that this ms reads pcndix p. 103) 'desideratur hoc nomen in
dveiriaTaToi yap elal tou vou tov ki- witli Graeco Mediceo.' The end of the epistle
others. This is not the case. is
aUogether wanting in this Ms.
^
Ussher is misled and misleading, when