Please provide footnote text
CHAPTER 1 The Arian Controversy and the ‘Authentic’ Letters of Ignatius of Antioch
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate significant Christological tex- tual variants within the seven ‘authentic’ letters of Ignatius of Antioch and, therefore, to reveal that the text tradition of the middle recension, like the long recension (though to a lesser degree), has been affected by the fourth-century Arian controversy. My findings may be surprising to some due to the current concrete consensus concerning the authenticity of the seven Ignatian letters mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History 3.36). The monu- mental works, in relatively modern times, of Theodor Zahn and J.B. Lightfoot have served as a mighty bulwark against any who wish to argue for the authen- ticity of the long recension or for the authenticity of the short recension (otherwise known as the Curetonian letters).1 It may be, however, that Stephen Neil and Tom Wright are correct when they say:
In a sense he [Lightfoot] had done it too well. Every elementary text-book of Church history today takes for granted the authenticity of the letters
1 Theodor Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1873) and J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Part 2, 3 vols.; Ignatius, St. Polycarp; 2nd ed.: London and New York: Macmillan and Co., 1889). It must be remembered, as stated in the introduction, that at one time Lightfoot himself favoured the authenticity of the Curetonian letters over the middle recension. See J.B. Lightfoot, “Two Neglected Facts Bearing on the Ignatian Controversy,” Journal of Philology 1.2 (1868): 47–55. It must also be stated that Cureton’s ini- tial argument for the authenticity of the short recension, as well as his defence against his opponents, is masterful. See, for example, William Cureton, Vindiciae Ignatianae; or The Genuine Writings of St. Ignatius, As Exhibited in the Ancient Syriac Version, Vindicated From the Charge of Heresy (London: Rivingtons, 1846) and William Cureton, Corpus Ignatianum: A Complete Collection of the Ignatian Epistles, Genuine, Interpolated, and Spurious; Together with Numerous Extracts from them as Quoted by Ecclesiastical Writers Down to the Tenth Century; In Syriac, Greek, and Latin: An English Translation of the Syriac Text, Copious Notes, and Introduction (London: Francis and John Rivington, 1849). In the end, it seems to me, that internal considerations finally win the argument in favour of the Curetonian epistles serv- ing as an abridgment of the more lengthy letters of the middle recension, rather than as the authentic letters themselves. As they stand, the Curetonian letters are not complete.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004342880_003 The Arian Controversy and the ‘Authentic’ Letters 9
of Clement and of the seven letters of Ignatius, and uses them as primary source material for the history of the sub-apostolic age. As a result the majority of theological students do not even know that their authentic- ity was even seriously questioned, and that one of the greatest critical battles of the century was fought about them.2
Likewise, it seems that in the appropriate admiration for the work of Zahn and Lightfoot, there is very little scholarly discussion concerning the reality that there is a complex textual tradition underneath any modern edited eclec- tic text of the Ignatian corpus. Lightfoot, for example, constructs his Ignatian text from three different recensions (short, middle, and long), six different lan- guages (Greek, Latin, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic), and as many as fifty-one manuscripts.3 Many of the differences between these manuscripts and versions are insig- nificant. They include changes in word order, spellings, the addition and sub- traction of the definite article, and omissions due to homoioteleuton. My research, however, yields that within this mass of insignificant textual variants of various types, there are several significant Christological textual variants that can be traced to the Arian controversy.4 Scholars have made this observation for many years in relation to the long recension of Ignatius’ letters, even before the discovery of the middle recension and before the discovery of the short
2 Stephen Neil and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 61. Though this book represents an excel- lent piece of New Testament scholarship, the treatment of the past Ignatian controversy is equally superb. See pp. 44–64. 3 For his discussion of “Manuscripts and Versions” see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2.1.70–134. Lightfoot does conclude that some of these manuscripts are worthless for text critical pur- poses and thus does not record the readings of them all. Nonetheless, his catalogue gives an impressive inventory of the number of manuscripts known to be in existence containing all or parts of the Ignatian corpus—both spurious and authentic. Since Lightfoot’s work in the nineteenth century an additional manuscript—Berlin papyrus 10581—has been discov- ered. It is dated to the fifth century and contains Smyrn 3.3–12.1. In addition, it appears that Lightfoot did not know about Codex Taurinensis for the Roman letter. Karl Bihlmeyer states about this codex, “… eine Kollation der bisher unbenützten Taurinerhs., auf die übrigens schon J. Pasini 1749 aufmerksam gemacht hatte (vgl. Funk-Diekamp, Patres Apost. II, LXX f.) stellte mir Prof. Diekamp in Münster gütigst zur Verfügung.” See Karl Bihlmeyer, ed., Die Apostolischen Väter: Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr