apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

264 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
author has by an accidental error ascribed to Abeddadan (Obed-Edom)
the words and deeds assigned in the BibUcal narrative to Sheba
(see III. p. 167). Here also our Ignatian writer has trusted the author
of the Constitudons too implicitly. Again, in Ephes. 15 we have the
statement that Jesus Christ 'first did and then taught (Trpwroy iTroL-qaev
Kal TOTE eStSa^ev), as Luke beareth witness.' The reference is not
apparent till we turn to Apost. Const, ii. 6, where the expression
is
'
began first to do and then to teach ' {rjpiaTo -n-pwrov
Trotetv koL to'tc
StSacTKetj/),
whence we see that the passage in question is Acts i. i (see
III. p. 262). Again in A7itioch. 9 wives are bidden to honour their
husbands and ' not to dare to call them by name'. The meaning of
this prohibition is only then explained, when we refer to Apost. Const.
vi.
29, where the same injunction to obey and honour husbands appears
with the added sanction 'as the holy Sarah honoured Abraham, not
enduring to call him by name but addressing him as lord' (see iii. p. 239).
In several other passages also the Ignatian Epistles are elucidated by
the Constitutions. Thus in Ant. 12 the deaconesses are designated 'the
keepers of the sacred doors,' as if it were their main or only business;
while in Apost. Const, ii. 57 we find this assigned to them as their
special function. Again in Magn. 9 the statement that the purpose of
the sabbath was the study of God's laws {juKixt] vofjioiv)
is
explained by
the fuller treatment of the same topic in Apost. Const, ii.
36, vi. 23 (see
III. p. 172). In other passages likewise, where there are parallels, the
priority of the Constitutions may be inferred from the additions in the
Ignatian letters. Thus in the enumeration of church officers. Ant. 12,
'
the mention of the copiatae, the grave-diggers,' which is absent from the
corresponding passages of ihQ Apost. Const, iii. 11, viii. 12, suggests that
the office had been created, or at least that the name here assigned to
it had been given, during the interval which elapsed between the
composition of the two works (see iii. p. 240 sq).
Thus the priority of the Apostolic Constitutions seems to be decisively
established. Moreover the plagiarisms
are taken from the work
as we have it now. Modern critics are disposed to attribute the 7th
and 8th books to a different hand from the earlier six. This is a question
into which we need not enter. The obligations to these two last
books, more especially to the eighth, are hardly less considerable in
comparison with their length than to the earlier and larger part of the
work. Of the references given above (p. 262), the following refer to
these two books; iii. pp. 152, 158, 159, 167, 168, 176, 177, 182, 193,
202, 216, 218, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 264. Though Zahn (/.
v. A.
p. 146 sq) disputes the inference, the strength of the parallels compels