apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

QUOTATIONS AND -REFERENCES. 22 1
'
is a sloping uncial of a period at least as early as the ninth century.' So far as
regards the Ignatian fragments, its contents are nearly identical with those of the
Vatican MS. I have not therefore thought it necessary to print them separately; but
have contented myself with supplying in brackets the few sentences which are wanting
in Lequien's reproduction of the Vatican MS and giving for the rest a collation of
the various readings oi Far. Reg, 923 at the foot of each passage. In my apparatus
criticus the readings of the Paris MS are not recorded as distinct from those of the
Vatican, except where they vary or where there is some other good reason for recording
them. In my first edition I made use of Lequien's second edition (Venet. 1748),
in which the Greek headings to the Ignatian fragments were omitted. I have now
restored them from his earlier edition (Paris, 17 12).
(B) The Parallela Rupefucaldina were taken by Lequien from a MS which once,
as the name implies, belonged to Card. Rochefoucauld. This is the same MS from
which Cotelier quotes some Ignatian fragments, designating
it Claromontamis. It
was supposed to be lost, but Rendel Harris discovered and identified it in the Middlehill
collection {Phillips \\e^o
= Meer)nan 94). On fol. i it has a colophon which gives
its previous history ;
ex dono emi-
'
Collegii Claromontani Parisiensis Societal. Jesu
nentiss. Cardinal. Rupefucaldi. ' In the Caial. Cod. MSS Coll. Claroviotitani it is
numbered 150. A description of this MS will be found in Harris's Fragments of Fhilo
pp. X sq, XX sq. Harris has likewise given a collation of the Ignatian fragments
{Ignatiana p. 93 sq), adding two or three which are omitted by Lequien. He points
out also that Lequien 'very seldom reprinted an extract which he had already given
under the Vatican Parallels.' Some of Lequien's errors are important. Thus, where
Lequien (p. 789) has irphs 'E^ecrlous as the heading of a quotation from Magn. 4, the
Rts gives the name of the Epistle correctly. In the present edition I have followed
Harris's corrections of Lequien for these fragments, as I have had no opportunity of
consulting the MS myself.
In the Vatican extracts use is made of the Long Recension (e.g. Fs-Trall. 4 kS.v
ippu}fjt.4voi w K.T.X.), as well as of the Middle Form (the genuine Ignatius).
In the Rochefoiicaitld
extracts on the other hand, though the collector quotes the spurious Epistle
to the Antiochenes, there is no distinct example of the use of the interpolated epistles.
In some cases indeed his quotations coincide with the text of the Long Recension
(e.g. Ephes. 11 iv rep vxiv ^iijp, see II.
p. 61; Polyc. 6 Trpea^vTepiij));
but these are
questions of reading, not of recension. The same may perhaps be said of Trail. 4
6 apxuf rod alQjvos tovtov 5ta/3oXoy, as Harris maintains (p. 95 sq). It would seem
therefore that the collector of the Rochefoucauld extracts used a MS, in which the
spurious epistles were attached to the seven genuine letters in their uninterpolated
form, as we find them in GL. Harris indeed has objected (p. 96) to this statement
of mine. He writes :
'
I have shown reason to believe that the passage Fs-Trall. 4 is
quoted in all three recensions of Parallels [Vat., Reg., Rtipef.}; and therefore, as far
as it is concerned, they all quote from the Long Form or some other, and no distinction
is to be made between the recensions etc' Here he has apparently fallen into
a confusion between two passages quoted in these Parallels from Trail. 4. The
one, XPV^^ K.T.X., appears in all the sets of Parallels, as he has shown, though
not recorded in Rupcf. by Lequien. It is evident from his context that he is referring
to this passage. The other, ko.v ippu^^vos u, he has nowhere shown, so far as I
can discover, to be in Rupef. Yet this is not found in any but the Long Recension
of the Ignatian Epistles. It was to this latter that I mainly referred. Further
it is