Ben C Smith

On another thread from several years ago Andrew Criddle wrote:

Andrew, I am interested in your thoughts on the three epistles you listed. Have your suspicions been either soothed or stoked since 2005? On what are (or were) they based? Conversely, what is it about the remaining four (Philadephians, Romans, Ephesians, and Polycarp, presumably) that seem(ed) more authentic?

To this point, at least, I have provisionally been accepting the authenticity of the middle recension, but would like to take a closer look at all the Ignatiana with this very thing in mind.

Ben.

DCHindley

I guess the consensus that the Middle recension represents Ignatius' actual letters is represented in works by Theodore Zahn (Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873) and J B Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers vol 2 Ignatius & Polycarp, 1885).

There is a summary of challenges to the consensus in Wm R Schoedel's Hermeneia volume Ignatius of Antioch (Fortress, 1985). However, I do not see any that seem to specifically question these three books. All of them to some extent contain apparent anachronisms, or allusions to relatively late books such as Hermas, or use of Christian technical terms that seem to betray a level of development that seems too complex or formal for Ignatius' time.

I have never found these kinds of things to be especially convincing for a number of reasons, as most of them rely on assumptions that are common but by no means proven.

It is unfortunate that the online translations of the Ignatian letters only seem to reproduce the Middle recension, and as far as I know do not include the Shorter Syiac or Longer Greek recensions (I do not see them on your Text Excavation site).

It looks as though Reinoud Weijenborg makes a side by side comparison in Les lettres d'Ignace d'Antioche (Brill, 1969) but I do not know if this is in the original languages or in French translation, or both.

Weijenborg thinks the Middle recension is a shortened version of the Longer recension, and thus all of them in all recensions are bogus. J. Ruis-Camps (The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, The Martyr, 1979) thinks Ignatius originally wrote four letters (Romans, Magnesians, Trallians & Ephesians, somewhat longer than the surviving versions of the Middle recension). The other three, associated with Troas, were later creations partly created by breaking off parts of the longer letter to the Magnesians to create Philadelphians, breaking off parts of Ephesians to create Smyrneans and also Polycarp (which also contains a made-up section = ch 1-5). Finally, Robert Joly (Le dossier d'Ignace d'Antioche (1979) also thinks the Middle recension is completely forged (with the Longer an expansion of it), for a variety of reasons, but of the three gives the most sober assessment of why he thinks so.

A summary of these three positions is in Wm R Schoedel's article "Are the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch Authentic?" in Religious Studies Review 6 (1980, 196-201), but I have no access to it here.

DCH

Ben C Smith

I agree. I have thought about getting the longer recension up, but it would take more time and resources than I usually have.

One of the ECW pages used to contain shorter and longer versions of each separate chapter from the middle recension.

Ben.

DCHindley

Looks like it is there: For each chapter - first the shorter [Middle] recension then the Longer recension below it.

DCH

Ben C Smith

What is missing, I think, is the extra (entire) epistles from the longer recension.

Ben.

DCHindley

For his alleged epistles to the Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero of Antioch, Philippians, 2 epistles to John the Apostle, an epistle to the Virgin Mary, and the epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius and his reply to her, one still has to go to the print version of volume 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers series (1867/1885 but reprinted everywhere by everyone, especially Eerdmans).

Perhaps someone with a hardcopy might consent to OCR scan it in order to make it available on the net. I might of I can find the time. I might also create a table (again, me and tables) with ETs of the Short, Middle & Long recensions side by side so the parallel materials line up, but that could take a while.

Even so, assuming the Middle R is more or less authentic, and the Longer R is an expansion of the Middle R, and the shorter (Syriac) R an abbreviation of the Middle R, I think such an accursed table would be really interesting if only for the opportunity to study several texts by a single author that have been edited by addition as well as by abbreviation!

DCH

andrewcriddle

For all the Ignatian letters see Apostolic Fathers at Roger Pearse's site.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

First of all, on the basis of early citation Ephesians and Romans are the most likely to be authentic. Hence the question is whether the other letters contain material that may be suspicious and is not paralleled in Romans and Ephesians.

Now Trallians Magnesians and Smrynaeans all have some rather peculiar and inconsistent material about the spiritual significance of bishops presbyters and deacons (eg in Trallians deacons correspond to Christ the bishop to God the Father and presbyters to the Apostles) This sort of stuff is not paralleled in the other four letters.

Secondly, however, as I have become more convinced that the authentic letters of Ignatius date from Hadrian not Trajan, I am more inclined to regard them all as authentic. Material that seems anachronistic in the very early 2nd century is no longer a problem.

Andrew Criddle