apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

276 EPISTLES OF S. IGNAinUS.
which tampered with the rest of the Seven Epistles and forged the six Additional
Epistles. The presumption is certainly strong in favour of this view. The Epistle to
the Romans is found in all the extant Greek MSS of this recension. It appears also
in the Latin Version, which certainly dates as far back as the earlier part of the ninth
century and was translated from a Greek text which the corruptions show to have had
even then a long history. Zahn however (/. v. A. pp. 115, 128, 161 sq, Ign. Ep, p.
vii sq) gives his reasons for supposing that it was only added to the other twelve
epistles of this collection at a later date, having been interpolated by some other hand.
As this view, if admitted, involves some not altogether unimportant consequences,
it is
necessary to consider his arguments at length.
In the first place he sees an argument in favour of this view in the fact that in
(i)
this collection the Epistle
to the Romans stands last in the series (see the table, p. 234).
But owing to its subject-matter this would be its most natural position. Though
actually written before some others, yet as dwelling solely on the closing scene of the
saint's life, it forms the proper sequel to the rest. Accordingly in the Armenian
collection it is placed last of the Seven Epistles ;
and in the Greek collection, represented
by the Medicean and Colbert MSS and by the Anglo-Latin Version, it is
embedded in the Martyrology which closes the series of letters.
(ii) Again he finds his view still further confirmed by the phenomena of the
epistle itself as it now appears in the Long Recension, observing that it '
has not
undergone the systematic interpolation which characterizes the pre-Eusebian letters in
this collection.' To this the answer is twofold.
First. The interpolations, though fewer than in other epistles where the contents
suggested or encouraged interpolation, are yet decidedly more considerable than in the
Epistle to Polycarp. Zahn indeed (/. v. A. p. 165) has endeavoured to dispose of
this parallel by anticipation but his is
argument too subtle to command assent.
;
There is certainly more matter provocative of interpolation by way of doctrinal statement
in the letter to Polycarp, than in this epistle. Yet the interpolator has
escaped the temptation to interpolate largely in the one case, and there is no reason why
he should not have escaped
it in the other. As regards ecclesiastical organization
again, of which the Epistle to Polycarp is full, there is absolutely nothing in our
Zahn may be right or
letter which would afford a convenient handle for a digression.
not in supposing that the interpolator waived the opportunity in the Epistle to Polycarp,
because he had already discussed matters of ecclesiastical order in the Epistle to
Hero, though in other cases he is far from showing such self-restraint (e.g. the eligibility
of young men for the episcopate treated at length alike in Magt. 3 and in Mar.
this con-
Ign. 1, 3, 4) but at all events the ; Epistle to the Romans is untouched by
sideration. The solution of the question respecting identity or difterence of authorship
must be sought in the character of the changes themselves. But what do we find
Secondly. The interpolations and alterations are exactly the same in kind as in
the other epistles.
(a)
There is the same insertion o{ scriptural texts: 2 Cor. iv. 18, John xv. 19, in
§ 3 Matt. xvi. 26
; (Mark viii. 36, Luke ix. 25) in § 6 ;
Gal. ii. 19, Ps. cxvi. 12, in § 8 ;
John X. 1 1 in § 9. So also, where the language of Ignatius has been influenced
by some scriptural passage (e.g. § 7 a.pTov tov GeoC k.t.X. from John vi. 31 sq, or § 9
iroi/i^vi from John x. 11), other words are inserted from the scriptural context, or the
text itself is directly quoted, just as the Ignatian interpolator is in the habit of doing
elsewhere (e.g. Polyc. i. Trail. 11, Ephes. 5, 10, Magn. 7, Philad. 2, 3, Sniyrn. 3).
(/3)
The literary and dictional changes are of the same character. Tlius in § 2 for