apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

I20 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
MS. But it occurs in some printed texts, and I have been able to trace
its
history.
It appears first in Ussher, and for the moment I was perplexed
to explain its appearance. But turning to the Antwerp edition
of Ignatius printed by Plantinus (a.d. 1572) I found the solution. The
last words of the last line on p. 53 in this edition are ei /xrj etti, and
below is written twv irpoi- according to a common practice of giving
the catch words to carry the eye forward, as the next page begins with
Twv TrpwTOTrXao-Twv.
Ussher must have had his text printed from a copy
cTTi Twv TTpco j
of this edition'; and the compositor has carelessly read on continuously
T(2v TTpwTOTrXacTTwi/. Usshcr ittdccd found out the misprint,
for in his table of errata Trpwrwv is directed to be omitted ;
but
Voss, not seeing this, prints
i-n-l tQv Trpwrcov TrpoiTOTrkdaToiv after Ussher.
A happy blunder ;
for it enables us to detect the imposture of
AUatius. Allatius, professing to transcribe a Vatican ms, really transcribes
the text of Ussher or Voss. Nor is this the only case in which
he is clearly detected. Thus in Smyrn. 6 the transcript
of Allatius
reads ov T17S ^o>^s almviov, for on ^0)579 aluiviov. This position of the
article is a solecism in Greek, and it is not found in any
But the sense seemed to
other ms.
require a negative (which appears also in the
Latin version), and accordingly the early editor Morel (a.d. 155S)
substituted ov t^s for on. He would have respected Greek usage more,
and have diverged less from ms authority, if he had read ov simply for
oTi. But his solecism was perpetuated in later editions, till it reached
Ussher and Voss, and from one or other it was taken by Allatius.
Again in Tars. 9 this transcript reads dv^Tricn-qTOL with the printed
editions, though the word does not occur elsewhere and could hardly
be used in the sense required here. The other mss vary between
avcTTto-Tarot and aveTrioraTr^Tot, both these words being found elsewhere,
and both perhaps possible in this context. Again in Philipp. 11, where
the editio princeps had T^Kcto-as, Morel boldly substituted e^wcras and is
followed by later editors ; accordingly e^wcras is found in this transcript,
though no MS has any reading at all resembling it. Again in Magn. 13
the correct reading is a^iOTrXoVou koX Trvevy-aTLKOV o-Te^avov Tov irp^afiv-
Tcpiov v/xwi/.
where by a fanciful metaphor the circle of presbyters seated
round the bishop are regarded as a spiritual wreath ' fitly woven ' about
him. In some mss however irpeo-jSvTepiov has been corrupted into
7rpeo-/5wTepov, and arecfidvov is in consequence changed into a proper
name ' Stephen.' In this connexion the epithet d^ioirXoKov is quite out
of place, and Morel substituted d^LoviKov 'sua authoritate', as Ussher
^
Cureton {Vi7id. Ign. p. 13) wrongly that Ussher printed his text from that
infers from a remark of Hammond of Vedehus.