apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 105
the same accidental order, and sometimes even the same corruptions
of the Syriac text itself.
It cannot be doubted therefore that the one was derived from the
other. Either 2 is an abridgment of S, in which case all the evidence
for the genuineness of the Short recension (r
disappears S is
; enlarged
from 2 by translating the additional passages of the Middle form
from the Greek, in which case we get a result favourable as far as it
goes to the genuineness of the Short recension as against the Middle.
Cureton failed to see the resemblance, and therefore did not enter
into this question, though it was one of paramount importance to him,
inasmuch as his theory of the genuineness of the Short recension stands
or falls as it is answered. On the other hand critics like Denzinger,
Merx, and others, who have taken some pains to establish the connexion
of the two Syriac versions and succeeded in doing so, assume that
the
shorter must have been abridged from the other, and that therefore
the Middle recension (whether the genuine work of Ignatius, as
maintained by Denzinger, or a forgery, as Merx believes) represents
the original form of the Ignatian Epistles. This is the more obvious
explanation. But still the possible alternative remains, that a Syrian,
having in his possession the Short recension in a Syriac version and
coming across a Greek copy of the Middle recension, might have
supplied the additional matter by translation from the Greek and thus
have produced a complete Syriac version of the Middle recension
grafted on the other. The case therefore must not be hastily prejudged.
To this question I shall revert hereafter. At present we are only
concerned with the connexion between the Syriac and Armenian
versions of the Middle form (S and A); and the Syriac version of
the Short form (2) was mentioned merely as a link in the chain of
evidence. For 2, which has been shown to be closely connected with
Sj S^SjS^, is also very nearly allied to A. Here again the resemblance
may be traced, though (for the reason already stated) only partially,
in the apparatus criticus to the present edition and
; may be more
fully
seen by comparing the two, passage by passage, as they appear in
Petermann, or as placed in parallel columns by Merx {Melete/>iata
Ignatiana, Halae Saxonum, 1861). The connexion is not less patent in
after due allowance has been made for the
this case, than in the former,
errors, caprices, and vicissitudes of the Armenian version. And the fact
is
important. For while S, S., S3 S^ consist only of short detached
passages, 2 covers a considerable extent of ground, so that we get
independent evidence of the existence, in large portions of these
epistles beyond the limits of S, S^ S3 S^, of a complete Syriac version