04.01.2015 Views

apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

324 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.<br />

the theory is<br />

placed in a more advantageous position by<br />

such a restatement,<br />

and this is in effect what the Reviewer meant. Thus restated,<br />

the theory has this prima fade ground, that a considerable<br />

number of the mss in this Nitrian collection contain Monophysite<br />

works or are derived from Monophysite sources. It is even possible<br />

that one or other of the mss containing this abridgment may have been<br />

transcribed by Monophysite hands. But the theory itself is sufficiently<br />

refuted by these three considerations, (i)<br />

The contents of the three<br />

MSS in which the Curetonian Epistles are preserved do not betray<br />

any special Monophysite leanings. They comprise various patristic<br />

treatises, some doctrinal, some practical, some historical, mostly<br />

by well-known writers, Basil, the two Gregorys, Cyril, etc. (see<br />

Cureton C. I. p. xviii sq). (2) The great Monophysite leaders, Timotheus<br />

of Alexandria (see above, p. 173 sq)<br />

and Severus of Antioch<br />

(p. 178 sq), not to mention other anonymous advocates of Monophysite<br />

doctrine (p. 194 sq), persistently use the Middle Form of the Ignatian<br />

Epistles ;<br />

and there is no trace whatever in them of acquaintance with<br />

the Curetonian Abridgment. They quote freely from all the seven<br />

epistles; and even in the three epistles, wherever the two recensions<br />

differ, their quotations are taken from the Middle, not the Short Form.<br />

(3) So far from betraying Monophysite purposes, this abridgment is<br />

much less serviceable to Monophysite interests than the Vossian letters.<br />

By omitting altogether four out of seven epistles, it omits many passages<br />

which were held to favour Alonophysitism (e.g. Smyrn. i. 2, 5, 6, Magn.<br />

6, 8); but even in these three, which it it<br />

preserves, strikes out some of the<br />

texts which were most important from a Monophysite point of view; e.g.<br />

Polyc. 8 Iv ©ew 7jfj.wv \'r]aov ^pi(TT(Jo, Ep/ies. 3 l-qcrovs Xpto"Tos...Toi} Trarpos<br />

q yvwfjLT], Ephes. 7 €V dvOpuiTrw ©eos, EpJies. 180 yap ©€os 7^^v,<br />

Rom. 3 d yap ©€os r\p.i^v 'Irycrous Xptcrro k.tX., Rom. 6 iiviTpixpaTi<br />

fxot fjLcix-qrriv<br />

elvai tov 7ra.0ov

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!