apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

I04 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
rendered ' thesauri sint vestri bona opera vestra ut accipiatis dona
a
Deo
'
in A, and ' et sint vestra opera bona ut accipiatis dona a Deo
in Sj (where a comparison with S shows that ' thesauri-vestri ' has
fallen out of the text of S^).
In Ephes. 14 lav rcXeiw cis 'Ir/croiJv XpicrroV
f-yy\T(. TTjv TTLo-TLv Kol TTjv dyaTrrjv is rendered ' si perfecte
habeatis in
vobis Jesum Christum ;
fides et amor etc' in A, and ' si perfecte sit
vobis (^habeatis) Jesum Christum; fides et amor etc' in S^. In
Ephcs. 16 o'iKocjiOopoi is translated 'qui amant facultates (res)' in A, and
this strange rendering is explained by the fact that the rendering in S,,
is 'qui amant domos', where however >.»n m'^ 'amant' is a clerical
error of some Syriac scribe for .«\-i yf-n 'corrumpunt'. In Magn. 6
o/xo-^Oeiav @eov is translated ' similitudinem et unionem (unanimitatem)
Dei ' in A, and ' similitudinem unanimitatis Dei ' in S^,
where A probably
preserves the original form of the Syriac text, and we should read
O for .1 , there being a double rendering of o/xo-qOeiav.
The conclusion from the facts adduced is irresistible. We have
plainly in these fragments portions of the lost Syriac version from
which the Armenian text was translated.
But the evidence, if it still needed strengthening,
is
strengthened by
another important consideration. For
(iii) It is strange that Cureton should not have been struck by the
close resemblance between the Syriac fragments (S, Sj S3),
and the
Syriac version of the three epistles in the Short recension (2),
in those
passages which are common to both ;
and this evidence has been
materially strengthened by the recently discovered group of fragments,
S^.
The coincidences indeed are so striking when the passages
from the two are written out side by side, as is done for instance by
Denzinger {Aechtheit des bisher. Textes der Ignat. Briefe App. x. p. i ;
see p. 96), that no escape from the inference is possible. I shall not
occupy space here by going over the ground again, but content myself
with referring to Denzinger's tables, or to the various readings in the
present edition, warning the reader however that, inasmuch as my
apparatus criticus does not aim at reproducing the peculiarities of the
Syriac, except so far as they point
to a difference in the Greek text
used, the various readings there given represent very inadequately the
extent of the resemblance. But in fact any one may satisfy himself
of the truth of this statement by comparing the two in Cureton's own
volume. As a rule, they differ only where the recensions differ. Where
these coincide, the Syriac versions also coincide, presenting the same
paraphrastic renderings, the same errors and caprices of translation.
'