"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." [59:1]
It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one
who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however,
Dr. Lightfoot admits: "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." He seems to
consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or
six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation
of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the
five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles
may be added those of Milman, Böhringer, de Pressensé, and Dr. Tregelles,
which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he
limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I
certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the
three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly
of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still
consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the
Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With
regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say
that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this
edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity
prefer the Curetonian version. The Tübingen school are not unanimous
on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,
for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the
priority of the Curetonian "im höchsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar,
Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:
"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." [60:2]
Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has
only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,
whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are
spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He
first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:
"An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der
kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In
the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in
zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard
to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only
matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny
the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.
Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by
analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject
given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems
to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather
tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his
attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the
accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error
and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is
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,
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, Dallaeus, 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)" [62:1]
In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer,
Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot
proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his
explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both
to call more immediate attention to the point:
THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
|
_Many of the ablest critics have | "These references, it will be
pronounced them to be the only | observed, are given to illustrate
authentic Epistles of Ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps
whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that
that even these are genuine letters | writers '_who do not admit that
emanating from Ignatius, _still | even these_ (the Curetonian
prefer them_ to the version of | Epistles) _are genuine letters
seven Greek Epistles, _and consider | emanating from Ignatius, still
them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of
letters_ which we possess. | seven Greek Epistles, and consider
| them the most ancient form of the
| letters which we possess.'" [62:2]
It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this
sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian
Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that
sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether
of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative
priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main
statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws
light" upon the point by the following remarks:--
THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
|
_Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will
Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that
maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers
genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. | condemns the Ignatian letters
_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves
distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some
in any form. Of the Vossian | uncertainty while inclining to
Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die | Bunsen's view; the other eight
Echtheit dieser Recension ist | distinctly maintain the
keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian
priority of the Curetonian "in the | letters." [63:1]
highest degree probable." |
|
_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles, |
as I have already said, but |
maintains the priority of the |
Syriac. |
Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of
the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but
would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note
was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.
Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the
ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so
early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed
regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared
them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of
Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the
Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at
that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections
were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]
This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of
Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:
"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, &c.'" [64:4]
Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for
Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles
as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts
of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg
Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing
them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were
before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:
"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece
leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non
referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas
epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in
ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius
are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis
igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:
transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum
regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he
"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon
the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my
critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade
more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received
from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.
Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and
here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as
follows:
"(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
&c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."