apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

426 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
instance runs on the same lines with the Parallela Vaikana {ste. p. 228).
Secondly ; though all these writers had thirteen Ignatian Epistles before
them (if
we include the Epistle to the Romans), yet the three together
only quote seven out of the thirteen (Antonius, four; Far. Vat., five;
Far. Rupef., seven), so that five others besides the Epistle to the Romans
are altogether unquoted. Lastly; as Antonius and the Farallela Vaticana
quote the Epistle to the Trallians from the Long Recension, and
as the Long Recension comprised the Epistle to the Romans, either
they or the earher collectors of extracts from whom they borrowed must
have had this epistle in their collection. Zahn indeed has given reasons
for supposing that the Epistle to the Romans originally formed no part of
the collection in the Long Recension. If this were true, it would be a
strong argument for his view that Polycarp's Sylloge, on which this
Recension would naturally be founded, only contained six epistles and
omitted the Roman letter. But it has been shown above (p. 275 sq)
conclusively, as I venture to think, that this view is untenable.
Again the order of the epistles in the Middle Form, as represented
by the Greek and Latin copies, seem to Zahn to indicate the same fact.
The Epistle to the Romans in this collection (see the table, p. 234) is
embedded in the Acts of Martyrdom which forms a sort of appendix to
the letters ;
and hence he infers that this epistle had no place there
until the Martyrdom was added. But the more probable account of the
matter is
suggested by a comparison with the Armenian Version of
this Middle Form. Doubtless it originally stood in the Greek collection
last, as it stands in this version of the seven genuine epistles ;
but
when, either simultaneously with or later than the addition of the six
spurious epistles, the redactor thought fit to append the Acts of Martyrdom,
its removal from its original place was a matter of obvious
expedience, since otherwise it would occur twice.
The Sylloge Folycarpiana therefore seems to have contained all the
Seven Epistles. But what was their order The order in Eusebius
may
be at once dismissed from our consideration. There is no reason
for supposing that it represents any manuscript authority. It is a
chronological sequence which he himself establishes on critical grounds
from an examination of the letters themselves. There remain the
Armenian and the Greek and Latin orders respectively. The Armenian
stands thus (see above, p. 86);
1.
Smyrnasans 5. Trallians
2.
Polycarp 6. Philadelphians
3. Ephesians 7. Romans.
4. Magnesians