apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

I
;20 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
3. Under the third and last head we have to consider the topics
which the two recensions respectively comprise. Here the Curetonian
letters differ from the Vossian almost wholly in the direction of omission.
The topics may be roughly classed under three heads, theological, ecclesiastical,
and personal.
(i)
As regards the theological topics, it would be difficult to show
that any difference exists between the two recensions. No adequate
doctrinal motive can be alleged either for the omission of the missing
portions in the Curetonian letters or for the insertion of the additional
portions in the Vossian.
A characteristic feature of the Ignatian theology is the accentuation
of the twofold nature of Christ— His deity and His humanity. A
crucial passage appears in the Curetonian letters Polyc. 3,
Lord is described as ' He
where our
that is without time, He that is invisible, He
that was seen for our sakes, He that is impalpable, He that is impassible,
He that suffered for our sakes.' Flowing from this twofold nature we
have on the one side the human birth from a virgin, Ephes. 19 'the
virginity of Mary was unperceived by the prince of this world ' on the
;
other, the theopaschite language describing His passion, Ephes. i '
the
blood of God.' Moreover it is not only the positive theology of
Ignatius that remains unaffected, whichever recension we adopt. His
polemics are also the same. The characteristic feature in the polemical
theology of the Vossian letters is the constant antagonism to Docetism.
This appears in the Curetonian letters also — in a single passage only
it
is true, but one passage
is as convincing as many, so far as regards the
question at issue. Addressing the Ephesians he describes the Church
of Ephesus as ' united and elect in a real passion ' {Ephes. inscr. ijvuiixivr]
KOL eKXeXeyiiii'r]
iv TrdOeL dXrjBLvw) ;
for it cannot be doubtcd (see II. p.
25 sq) that this is the true reading in the Curetonian letters, as well as
in the Vossian. In these respects therefore no gain is effected,
for no
ing' (see above, p. 221); but I hope I in these Parall. Damasc; (i)
A passage
from S. James quoted as ^lyvarlov
have proved irrefragably (and the evidence
might be largely increased, if necessary)
that this sohition of the Ignatian or passages as 'lyvariov Trpos TldKiiKapwov ,
Tpos TpaWus, (2) An unknown passage
question at all events is untenable and
(3)
A passage from Ignatius to Polycarp
that the Curetonian form is
merely a as BacrtXeioi; tt/jos lioMKapTrov. Whether
.Syriac abridgment of a Syriac version. the ascription arose from the close proximity
of Romans and Trallians in the Mss,
It is indeed strange that Prof. Harris
should attach so much weight to this assisted perhaps by the transposition of
ascription, when on the same page, in some leaves (see below, p. 325), or from
which he gives this passage, he records some other cause, it can only be treated
not less than three other false ascriptions as an error.