apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. I
23
decisive in itself, since this marginal reading is quite unique. Two
readings are also given as from Letccstrensis, which agree with the
Bodleian ms, tQv kut' dVSpa Smyrn. 5 by Pearson {Ep. Ign. p. 15) and
cVto-KOTTou Polyc. 8 by Smith {Ep. Ign. p. 70). Hitherto therefore all the
facts conspire to identify the Anglicanus
and Leicestrensis with each
other', and with the Bodleian ms. But there is one statement which
seems inconsistent with this identification and which Churton ( V. I. p. 58)
urges as fatal to it. In his treatise de Annis Primorum Romae Episcoporum
[Minor Theol. Works 11. p. 443) Pearson adduces 'AvaKXT^Vw as
the reading of Leicestrensis in the spurious epistle ad Mar. § 4, which
epistle is not contained in our ms. This however was a posthumous
work left unfinished by Pearson ;
and there is probably some confusion
with the parallel passages in Trail. 7, where our ms does write this name
'Am/cXT^Tos". There is therefore no sufficient ground for questioning
the identification.
But if so, it becomes important to ascertain the character and history
of this MS, since Pearson (F. /. p. 57 sq), when discussing the genesis
of the Ignatian Epistles, grounds an argument on the fact that it contains
only seven letters, though in the long form.
From this MS Whiston {Primitive Christianity Revived) gives various
readings, designating it B (as being already in the Bodleian Library).
With this exception it has been overlooked by Ignatian editors, and no
one seems to have examined it carefully before myself^ When I first
turned over the leaves, I saw at once that it had been written after the
Ignatian controversy had arisen, and that the transcriber had consequently
picked out the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius and
isolated them from the rest, as alone genuine*. I supposed however that
they might have been copied from some older ms. But a further
^
Against the identification of Angli- while giving the reference and quoting
caniis with Leicestrensis Churton (1. c.) the words of the passage. See also my
writes 'id quominus credam, obstat quod notes on Philad. 11 'A7a^67ro5t (n.p. 2S0),
duos codices distinguit Smithius Nott. and on Sinyni. i^'AXk-qv (ii. p. 325).
p. 70.' This is a ^ mistake. Smith there It has since been examined by Funk
mentions Augustamis, but not Angli- (Patr. Apost. 11, p. xxix).
canns, in connexion with Leicestrensis. •*
This is done, for instance, by Ve-
Lipsius {Syr. Text. d. Lgn. p. 48) falls delius in his edition of 1623, some years
into the mistake of treating Leicestrensis before Ussher's discovery of the genuine
as distinct from Pearson's MS. Ignatian text. Vedelius divides the
" Careful as he was, Pearson could epistles into two books 'quorum prior
sometimes make great mistakes even in continet epistolas genuinas, alter suphis
finished works. Thus in K /. p. 517 posititias.'
he writes Tertullianiis for Hieronymiis,