'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a mass of
falsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if
the Epistle [to the Smyrnæans] were genuine, which it is not, to base
any such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:--
'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the
Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the
end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they
possess any value at all.' [62:3]
And immediately afterwards:--
'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,
for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the
Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held
to be spurious.' [63:1]
The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such
very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his
subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the
most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author
with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. It
becomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that
accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching
weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments.
I will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the
Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The
author writes as follows:--
'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which
space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics
to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the
letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of
those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
Epistles.' [63:3]
No statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the results of the
Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than
this. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in
one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided
on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and
Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and
Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.
But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The
misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to
think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the
Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the
Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian
Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case,
for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]
and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like
Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have
observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention
to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position
was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters,
in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tübingen views of early
Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life
and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian
Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be
accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far
back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.
Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen
by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius,
Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up
the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from
the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception
by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of
Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at
one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his
former opinion on both questions alike [64:8].
But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his
own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I
have named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very
passages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light
on this point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the
course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. He writes
as follows:--
'These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest
scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and
consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess
(^1). As early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest
doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the
Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first
attacked them, and Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious
(^1), an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallæus, and others,
and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed
throughout the seventeenth century (^2), and onward to
comparatively recent times (^3), although the means of forming a
judgment were not then so complete as now. That the Epistles were
interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and more
comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier
doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise that the authenticity
of none of these Epistles can be established, and that they can
only be considered later and spurious compositions (^4).'
The first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:--
'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei ächt. u. d.
vier unächt. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145;
Böhringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The
Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845;
_Vindiciæ Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch.
d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d.
Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i.,
1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p.
7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk.
Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.'
[The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be
quoted.]
These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more
immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who
do not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine
letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of
seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the
letters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared
to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters
as spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty,
while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain
the genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2].
As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered
that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the
discovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were
weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the
Long Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The
criticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages
which are found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows
contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share the opinion
that they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes them several times as
authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many
places to strengthen the position of the Papal power etc.' [66:3]
The note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:--
'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau,
etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton,
_Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, 1846, appendix.'
Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it
easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus,
while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters.
It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up
together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian
Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the
Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose
for which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be
interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of
any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these
[67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account
of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says
nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them
also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all.
Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated,
but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them
'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624)
denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does
not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far
from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some
of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's
objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of
Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2].
Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the
opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and
afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens
et justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.
The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:--
[Wotton, _Præf. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into
original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826,
vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p.
88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184;
Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre,
_Hist. Crit. de Manichée, etc._, 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti,
_N. Theol. Biblioth._, 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _de Rebus
Christ._, p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._,
1745, p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._, 1763, p. 492;
Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._, 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach,
_Opuscula Academ._, 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist. Interpr.
Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._, 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. in
Epist. ii. Petri_, 1784, Præf.; Kestner, _Comm. de. Eusebii H.E.
condit._, 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 357, anm. 1];
Baumgarten-Crusius. _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1832, p. 83, cf.
_Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1840, p. 79; [_Niedner, Gesch. chr. K._,
p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit_, p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._,
i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, _Vind. Ign. append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen_, u.s.w., 1798, p.
16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S.
Ignat._ in _Henke's Mag. f. Rel. Phil._, u.s.w. [1795; cf.
_Biblioth. f. Krit._, u.s.w., _N.T._, i. p. 463 ff., _Urspr. kath.
Kirche_, II. i. p. I f.]; _H'buch Chr. K.G._, i. p. 200.
The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made
such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this
note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the
Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years'
reading. It is important to observe however, that every one of these
references, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in
the appendix to Cureton's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, where the passages are
quoted in full. Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been
compiled in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the
order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is
chronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing
into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he
thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among
the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
references on which it has no bearing?
Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions
directly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance
[69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly,
and at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer
the Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and
genuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly'
by Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the
main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of
Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only
doubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to
regard the Curetonian as excerpts. Of the rest a considerable number, as
for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner,
Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or
uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus [69:2].
The next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as
unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as
belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian
Epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of
these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite
opinion. Gfrörer declares that the substratum (_Grundlage_) of the seven
Epistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced
interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long
Recension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject
with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the
opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are 'altogether
spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands
in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension [70:1].
Schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to
recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either
existing recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote
before the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase
commits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven
Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their
genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters
are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of
having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the
Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I
have been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect
that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are
quoted by our author.
I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if I
may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself
responsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.'
[70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the
work, and their effect on its reception has been far from
inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was
therefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I
may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind.
If it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more
irksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer,
might well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in
_Supernatural Religion_ is quite unique, so far as my experience goes,
in works of any critical pretensions.
In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost
entirely on Cureton's preface to his _Ancient Syriac Version_, to which
indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding
the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already
mentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have
exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. One
highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from
first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version
(so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been felt to be the key
to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its
publication. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the
Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration,
for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This
version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in
which Cureton's later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and
therefore was unknown to him [71:1]. Its bearing occupies a more or less
prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially
discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century.
This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he
cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to
cite. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;--(1) This
Armenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together
with other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous
Syriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by
Cureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the
_Corpus Ignatianum_, though he failed to see their significance. (2)
This Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian
letters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the
Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this
version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian
letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of
letters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the
latter is _a priori_ more probable; and therefore a discussion which,
while assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this
version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to
give an account.
I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own
view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered
inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has
followed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since
studied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question
or not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:--
'Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
number were mentioned by Eusebius.' [72:1]
And again:--
'It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
Latin MSS with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
honour.' [72:2]
with more to the same effect.
This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius with
the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented themselves
to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing
on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, betrays no
knowledge of any other Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the
use of the confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century
at the earliest. (2) The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in
style from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which
interpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed
part of the Long Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in
anachronisms which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of
their composition. (4) It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles
are mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and
Latin MSS as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come
after the others [73:1]; and this circumstance, combined with the facts
already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition,
borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian
letters.
Indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point
without being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or
misleading. Thus, summing up the external evidence, he writes:--
'It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth
century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius,
exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.'
[73:2]
In this short statement three corrections are necessary. (1) Our author
has altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius from _Ephes._ 19,
because it happens not to be in the Ecclesiastical History, though it is
given in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ [73:3]. (2) Of the two quotations
in the Ecclesiastical History, the one which he here reckons as found in
the Syriac Epistles is not found in those Epistles in the form in which
Eusebius quotes it. The quotation in Eusebius contains several words
which appear in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian; and as
the absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are
characteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really important
for the question under discussion [73:4]. (3) Though Eusebius only
directly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical History, yet he gives
a number of particulars respecting the places of writing, the persons
named, etc., which are more valuable for purposes of identification than
many quotations.
Our author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the
main question under discussion. The fact remains true, when all these
corrections are made, that the quotations in the second and third
centuries are confined to passages which occur both in the Curetonian
and in the Vossian Epistles, and therefore afford no indication in
favour of either recension as against the other. The testimony of
Eusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them.
Hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the
genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His reasons, even on
his own showing, are valid only so far as to give a preference to the
Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. When therefore he declares
the whole of the Ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and
fraud,' [74:1] we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which
he makes this very confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we
find to be twofold.
(1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as represented in the
Epistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he says [74:2]:--