apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

76 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
double columns, has uncial characters occasionally intermixed with
the cursives, even in the middle of a word, and is without iotas
subscript, but has breathings and accents (which however are very
frequently wrong). This MS was collated again by Jacobson, and I
myself have recoUated it.
3. Paris. Graec. 950, a paper MS of perhaps the 15th century,
contains (fol. 165 sq) an extract from the Epistle to the Ephesians, § 18
o yap ©COS rjjxijiv... § 19 davdrov KaraXvo-iv. I have collated it anew.
As Laur. Ivii. 7 and Paris. Graec. 1451 supplement each other, the
latter supplying the Epistle to the Romans which is wanting
former, so that they do not clash,
in the
I have used the same letter G to
designate both. The fragment in Paris. Graec. 950
I have called G'.
(ii)
Latin.
The history of this version is especially interesting to Englishmen.
J Ussher observed that the quotations from S. Ignatius in three English
V writers, Robert (Grosseteste) of Lincoln (c. a.d. 1250), John Tyssington
(c. A.D. 1381), and William Wodeford (c. a.d. 1396), while they differed
considerably from the text of this father as hitherto known (the Greek
and Latin of the Long recension), agreed exactly with the quotations in
Eusebius and Theodoret {Polyc. et Ign. Epist. p. xv).
He therefore
concluded that the libraries of England must somewhere contain mss of
a version corresponding to this earlier text of Ignatius, and searched
accordingly. His acuteness and diligence were rewarded by the discovery
of the two mss, which will be noticed below. When at length
he saw this Latin version, he expressed a suspicion that Grosseteste
was himself the translator. He noticed that Grosseteste's quotations
were taken from this version. He found moreover in one of the two
MSS several marginal notes, in which the words of the translation were
compared with the original Greek', and which therefore seemed to come
from the translator himself. One of these marginal notes however (on
Polyc. 3) betrayed the nationality of their author; 'Incus est instrumentum
fabri dicitur ; Anglice anfeld [anvil].' But if the translator were an
Englishman, no one could be named so likely as Robert Grosseteste
(p. cxlii). Ussher's suggestion has been worked out by Churton, the
learned editor of Pearson {Viiid. Ign. p. 109), who has shown that this
view of the authorship
is in the highest degree probable. The Ignatian
Epistles are not quoted (except at secondhand from Rufinus or Jerome
by Gildas and Bede) by any English writer before the time of Grosseteste,
or included in any patristic lists. Grosseteste himself was one of
^
See below, p. 84.