Chrysostom's homily on Ignatius, the martyr

In my Writing the History of Early Christianity (CUP 2019, 301-302), I claim that "reference is made to the ‘name’ of Ignatius; he is called ‘holy’, ‘blessed’, ‘divine’, ‘the glorious martyr’, the ‘martyr’, the ‘apostolic man’, the ‘bishop of Antioch’ etc." without mentioning Chrysostom's homily on Ignatius, the martyr (PG 50, 587-596) explicitly, but indirictly - ‘the glorious martyr’, the ‘martyr’, the ‘apostolic man’ refer to this homily, and then add that "the first to call him θεόφορος is Severus of Antioch in the years 518–513 CE".

Recently, the argument was made that before Severus, Chrysostom in the mentioned homily had called Ignatius "Theophorus". This, however, is not as straightforward as a short look into PG 50 seems to suggest.

The title of the homily (see PG 50) is: εἰς τὸν ἱερομάρτυρα Ἰγνάντιον. The further subtitle with 'theophorus' is only preserved in one of the two manuscripts.

That the shorter title of the one Ms is the older and correct one, while the second Ms shows an enlargement of the title in light of the 13 Letter Collection, particularly, as “discovery of the Ignatian relics and the redaction of the long recension belong together” (Gilliam, Ignatius, 190), derives from the homily itself. 

Chrysostom's homily widely deals with Ignatius, the martyr, even talks about the triple designation of Ignatius (martyr, bishop, apostle), then Chrysostom adds four more crowns by which he praises Ignatius - but nowhere does he touch once at the (later) title of Theophoros that is indicated in the subtitle of one manuscript. 

If the subtitle of the homily had been part of the original title of this homily, why would Chrysostom avoid praising Ignatius for a title that features so prominently in the subtitle and could have helped him to claim Ignatius for the Nicenes (against the Neo-Arians), particularly as he seems to make use of the 'middle recension' (so Gilliam, Ignatius, 209-210). The more likely answer seems to be that the subtitle was added to the original, short title that correctly describes the content of the homily, when Ignatius had become known through the 13 letter collection in the long version as the 'theophoros' and that this title of Ignatius had also been entered in the version of the 7 letter collection. 

Hence, the homily in its content and textual transmission is rather proof than counter-proof of what I have stated in my Writing of Early Christian History, and claims for an earlier use of the title is part of the hagiographical repositioning of the second century martyr.

Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans 7 - when did David and Abraham enter this letter?

Prof. Markus Vinzent,

 

My name is ... and I’m a professor of historical theology at ,,.  I am reaching out to you regarding your work on Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans.  Aware that there are at least four Greek manuscripts for this letter as well as various translations, due to limited resources I am unable to track down which manuscript(s) support the reading of Romans 7:3 “I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life” as found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1867 reprinted 1973), 77.  Of particular interest is the wording “and [of] Abraham.”  This wording is not supported in J.B. Lightfoot’s 1889 Greek text and English translation The Apostolic Fathers, eds. J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1984), 122 & 152, nor in SC 10:116/17.  Arguably, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson must have had some basis for translating as “the seed of David and Abraham.”  I am presuming it is that of Symeon Metaphrastes as found in PG 114:1281B.  I am hoping you can enlighten me as to which other manuscript(s) support(s) this reading as well as the date of the witness.  According to William R. Schoedel, Cod. Parisiensis-Colbertinus 1451, Cod. Hierosolymitanus S. Sabae 18, and Cod. Sinaiticus 519 date to the tenth century [William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 4].  I confess my ignorance, Is the 10^th century text found in PG 114 based on one of the three manuscripts above, or is this yet another text?  Of course, all of them being recensions.

 

From your blogpost 13 October 2017 “The many recensions of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch” I know that you have been studying the recensions and thus must have access to several, if not all.  I would be most grateful if you would enlighten me regarding the wording καὶ Άβραὰμ.  Is it found in any Syriac manuscript, etc ?

 

Knowing the busy life of a professor, I realize you may not have time to even reply, let alone research this (though I am hoping I have piqued your interest). 

Dear colleague,

thanks for your kind email and for reaching out to me. As you may have seen from my recent CUP book on 'Writing the History of Early Christianity', we are lacking an editio maior critica of the Ignatian letters, this is why questions like yours are utterly important and can not be answered by the editions and translations that we have. Although many people write about Ignatius, our studies lack the basis for interpretation.

When we compare the texts with regards to your question, Ignatius to the Romans is the most complex and at the same the most important one. As it is first not transmitted together with the six other letters in the collection that is being called the middle recension, but separately together with one of Ignatius' martyrdoms (see my mentioned book), this letter proves that we are not talking about three different recensions, but rather about at least five or six or rather many more. Now, as one of the most important witnesses for Ignatius' martyrdom and therefore for his letter to the Romans is Metaphrastus - but Metaphrastus has not been critically edited and Obeid (Obeid, Joseph. 1996. ‘Ignace d’Antioche, lettre aux romains’, Parole de l’Orient, 21: 65–109, 66) noted that the transcriptions of the Syriac and Arabic manuscripts of different scholars differ widely and we have no reliable edition of these either (Metaphrastus has far over 100 manuscripts extant), your question can not be fully answered at this time.

Let me, nevertheless, attempt to shed some light on the question.

Perhaps the oldest version of the text is preserved in the Syriac three letters collection which may reflect for this instance a text from shortly after the mid second century. Here we simply read: 'I seek the bread of God, which is the flesh of  Christ.'

In the Greek Codex Colbertinus (10/11th c.) as Metaphrastus in PG (but see my note above!), the Latin and Armenian of the 7-letters collection and the Armenian and Syrian translations of the Martyrdom, then read 'Jesus Christ'. The Colbertinus with Metaphrastus and the Greek mss. of the 13 letters collection (this need to be checked again for all manuscripts) also adds τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, though this reading is missing in the Latin and Armenian translations of the 7-letters collection and in the Armenian and Syrian translations of the martyrdom.

The Colbertinus with Metaphrastus, the Armenian and Syrian translations of the martyrdom then also add τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυείδ. The crucial text καὶ ἀβραάμ is only present in the Colbertinus with Metaphrastus, but omitted in the Latin, Armenian translations of the 7-letters collection and in the Armenian and Syrian translations of the martyrdom.

When we add the Arabic translations, though, as noted above, we do not have a reliable transcription to date, it seems that Sinai Arab. 443 reads 'and of Abraham', while we have other Arabic manuscripts which have not even been transcribed.

It seems to me that the simple formula of the three letters collection was broadened with 'Jesus' and, therefore, to enhance his human side, by reference to Rom. 1:3 with the mention of David and, as the further note on Abraham is missing in the important Latin translation of the 13-letters collection, it seems that this addition was even later.

Sorry that all these caveats show the mess that we are in with regards the Ignatian letters at present. Before any further interpretation of these letters can be undertaken, we need to get a proper critical edition done by having reliable transcriptions of all extant manuscripts in all available ancient translations.

Nevertheless, I hope this helps. If you do not mind, I will post the question and answer on my blog to help others and underline the importance of a critical edition

yours Markus

My CUP book on Writing the History of Early Christianity is about to appear

Here the blog post of Cambridge University Press that appeared today:

 http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/02/writing-the-history-of-early-christianity-a-new-book-by-markus-vinzent/

Looking forward to holding the book in my hand.

The many recensions of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch

When comparing the various recensions in which the letters of Ignatius of Antioch have been transmitted, scholarship, so far, has only talked about the Short, the Middle and the Long Recensions. The Short one was dismissed as an extract of the Middle Recension, while the Long one was seen as a later extension of the Middle Recension. Hence, the Middle Recension of the seven letters is regarded as the authoritative and authentic version from either the beginning (majority of scholars) or the later second century.

In a forthcoming book 'Retrospective Patristics', I am also looking into the Ignatiana, of which I am only want to present here the snapshot on Ignatius' letter to the Romans, as we are having more witnesses to this (often separately transmitted) letter than the other six.

IgnRom Praef.

Long	Ms. Sinaï ar. 443, ff. 135r-140r[1]	Symeon Metaphrastes (PG 114,1269-1285)[2]	Middle	Short
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has been pitied in the greatness of the              Most High God the                   Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; his Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; which                 presideth in the place of the country of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,             worthy of being deemed holy, and which presideth over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son:              to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit,                  to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, I wish abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.	By Ignatius              called clothed by the divinity the bishop of the holy Church of God in Antioch of Syria to the Church which has been pitied in the greatness of the Father             Most High    and of              His only          Son, our Lord Jesus Christ beloved and enlightened by the will of Him, who wants all things who is through the                   love of                                    our God our brother, who                presideth over the country of the Romans, which I     salute in the name of            Jesus Christ both according to the flesh and spirit, because it is united to every one of His commandments, filled   with      the grace of God,                     in the Lord Jesus Christ, peace be with you.	Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, the bishop of the holy Church of God in Antioch to the Church which has been pitied in the greatness of the               Most High                      Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, His only- begotten Son; his Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him, who formed all things that are according to the                            love of Jesus Christ, our God; which                    presideth in the place of the country of the Romans,          which I also salute in the name of            Jesus Christ             to those             who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit,                     to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with        the grace of God,      I wish                       in God,                    Jesus Christ.	Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has been pitied in the greatness of the Father,            Most High, and Jesus Christ, His only            Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the                         love of Jesus Christ our God,                     which also presideth in the place of the country of the Romans,      worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presideth over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father,                       which I also salute in the name of          Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father:            to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit,                 to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with        the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, I wish abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.	Ignatius, who is  Theophorus, to the Church which has been pitied in the greatness of the Father              Most High;              to her who       presideth in the place of the country of the Romans, who is worthy of God, and worthy of life and happiness, and praise, and remembrance, and is worthy of prosperity,           and presideth in love, and is perfected in the law of Christ blameless, much peace.

Long	Symeon Metaphrastes	Middle	Short
Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι ὑψίστου θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ         Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ, αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ ἐν θελήματι θεοῦ τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὰ πάντα, ἃ ἔστι κατὰ πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, ἥτις προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος, ἀξιοπρεπὴς ἀξιομακάριστος ἀξιέπαινος ἀξιοεπίτευκτος, ἀξίαγνος καὶ προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης, χριστώνυμος, πατρώνυμος, πνευματοφόρος, ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι θεοῦ παντοκράτορος, καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις πάσῃ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμένοις πάσης χάριτος θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως καὶ ἀποδιϋλισμένοις ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος πλεῖστα ἐν       θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ, καὶ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ἀμώμως χαίρειν.	Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ, αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ ἐν θελήματι θεοῦ τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὰ πάντα, ἃ ἔστι κατὰ πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, ἥτις        προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων,                          ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,                  κατὰ σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένην πάσῃ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμένην          χάριτος θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ θεῷ               χαίρειν.	Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου καὶ          Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ              ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ ἐν θελήματι         τοῦ θελήσαντος τὰ πάντα, ἃ ἔστιν, κατὰ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ                ἡμῶν, ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος, ἀξιεπίτευκτος, ἀξίαγνος καὶ προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης, χριστώνυμος, πατρώνυμος,                          ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,        υἱοῦ πατρός· κατὰ σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις πάσῃ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμένοις            χάριτος θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως καὶ ἀποδιϋλισμένοις ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος πλεῖστα ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν, ἀμώμως χαίρειν.	Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου            ἐκκλησίᾳ,                        ἥτις προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος, ἀξιεπρεπὴς ἀξιομακάριστος, ἀξιέπαινος [ἀξιομνημονεύτος] ἀξεπίτευκτος,                          καὶ προκαθημένη [ἐν] ἀγάπῃ, καὶ πεπληρωμένοις ἐν νόμῳ Χριστοῦ ἀμώμως, πλεῖστα χαίρειν.
		le; hi; fu1;

---

[1] This is a translation from the French translation, provided by (Obeid 1996)

[2] See also (Halkin 1957) BHG 815; see also BHG 813: PG 5, 980-983. While most texts of the Menologion have been published according to one manuscript only, here IgnMart makes an exception, and yet, the history of its publishing is a labyrinth which would need to be assessed in a critical edition. Ehrhard has listed seven editions of IgnMart for which a total of 15 different manuscripts (not always the same) have been used. Which edition used which manuscript is listed in (Ehrhard 1936: II 519 n. 1) The edition that is based on most manuscripts is that by (Diekamp and Funk 1913) and it is used here.

Ignatius, qui et Theophorus, misericordiam consecutae in magnitudine Dei altissimi Patris        Jesu Christi unigeniti ejus filii,          Ecclesiae sanctificatae, et illuminatae in voluntate Dei, qui fecit omnia, quae sunt secundum fidem et dilectionem Jesu Christi, Dei et Salvatoris nostri: quae et praesidet in loco regionis Romanorum; Deo dignae, eminentia dignae, beatudine dignae, laude dignae, fide dignae, castitate dignae fundatae in dilectione et fide Christi, paternum nomen habenti, spiritiferae: quam et saluto in nomine Dei omnipotentis, et Jesu Christi filii ejus, qui est secundum carnem et spiritum; adunatis in mandato ejus, repletis gratia Dei inseparabiliter, et ablutis ab omni alieno colore, atque immaculatis; plurimam in Deo Patre et Domino Jesu Christo, salutem.	Ignatius, qui et Theophorus, misericordiam consecutae in magnitudine Dei altissimi Patris        Jesu Christi unigeniti ejus filii,          Ecclesiae sanctificatae, et illuminatae in voluntate Dei, qui fecit omnia, quae sunt secundum fidem et dilectionem Jesu Christi, Dei et Salvatoris nostri: quae et praesidet in loco regionis Romanorum; Deo dignae, eminentia dignae, beatudine dignae, laude dignae, fide dignae, castitate dignae Christi, paternum nomen habenti, spiritiferae: quam et saluto in nomine Dei omnipotentis, et Jesu Christi filii ejus, qui est secundum carnem et spiritum; adunatis in mandato ejus, repletis gratia Dei inseparabiliter, et ablutis ab omni alieno colore, atque immaculatis; plurimam in Deo Patre et Domino Jesu Christo, salutem.	Ignatius, qui et Theophorus, habenti propitiationem in magnitudine Patris altissimi et Jesu Christi solius filii ipsius,            Ecclesiae dilectae et illuminatae in voluntate volentis omnia, quae sunt secundum            dilectionem Jesu Christi, Dei nostri, quae et praesidet in loco chori Romanorum; digna Deo, digna decentia, digna beatitudine, digna laude, dignae ordinata, digne casta, et praesidens in charitate, Christi habens legem, patris nomen, quam et saluto in nomine Jesu Christi filii Patris: secundum carnem et spiritum unitis in omni mandato ipsius, impletis gratia Dei inseparabiliter, et indivisum, et abstractis ab omni alieno colore, plurimum in Domino Jesu Christo Deo nostro immaculate gaudere.
fide] lege Cod. Magdal., Cod. Petav.

The opening gives us a good insight into the nature of the different Recensions, even though Lightfoot does not see the need ‘for examination’ of this passage.[1] We can see that they are mostly literally identical, albeit with significant differences in details. By ranging them Long – Ms. Sinaï ar. 443[2] – Symeon Metaphrastes[3] – Middle – Short, I am not intending to give a genealogical order, as in places, we will see, they all rely on older versions, and do, in places, provide an older text, and are certainly not directly dependent on each other. And yet, as we will discover, the order Long – Ms. Sinaï ar. 443 – Symeon Metaphrastes – Middle – Short seems to reflect the principal age of these texts.

Starting from the Long Recension in comparison to that of the 10^th c. of attested by Symeon Metaphrastes, we notice that the bold elements (3 x ‘God’, ‘faith and’, ‘and Saviour’, ‘Almighty God’, ‘even the Father’, ‘Lord’) are additional divine epithets and creedal allusions. In these the Long Recension is richer than the others, although ‘Lord’ also appears in the Arabic, ‘God’ in Metaphrastes and the Middle Recension. The added ‘and is possessed of the Spirit’ which is part of a longer addition which is partly also present in the Middle Recension, but without the ‘and is possessed of the Spirit’, indicates that the Long Recension, as we have it, seems to be a developed version which represents at least doctrinal developments of the late fourth century with the emphasis on the Spirit and the developed creed. Symeon Metaphrastes, the Arabic and Short Recensions may have here preserved an older text.

When we compare the Recensions, the Long, Arabic, Symeon Metaphrastes’ and the Middle Recensions have elements in common. They share the ‘only[-begotten]’, also that the Father ‘willed’ all things, and yet, only the Long Recension here adds ‘God’, ‘faith and’, ‘Saviour’. On the other hand, there are also commonalities of the Long, the Middle and Short Recensions over and against the Arabic and Symeon’s Recension, so the longer passage ‘worthy of God … presideth over’. In this respect, the Arabic and Symeon’s Recension are very similar. This similarity begins already in the opening address, where only these two mentione that Ignatius is ‘the bishop of the holy Church of God in Antioch’. In this respect, they represent a different tradition from the rest of the Recensions and because of the literalness need to be based on a common ancestor recension. Then, however, the Arabic version seems to reflect an older stratum which is less parallel to the Middle and Long Recensions, as Metaphrastes sides with these two on ‘his Church which is’.

Why the entire praise of the Church of Rome is missing in the Arabic and Symeon is not clear, as some elements are also present in the Short recension. Either already the Short Recension is here an expanded version, or the Arabic and Symeon’s Vorlage has left the passage consciously out. As it is a praise of the Roman Church, one could easily imagine that the passage had been skipped in a Byzantine redaction at a time when Rome was no longer the centre of the Empire and the epithets may have sounded misleading. Equally, however, one could assume that here not the Short Recension, but the Arabic-Symeon Recensions preserved the unexpanded older version. In the salutation we have the phenomenon that the Lond, Arabic, Symeon’s and the Middle Recensions go together against the text largely missing in the Short Recension, whereas here the Long Recension seems to be a clear expansion of the others. In the very end the Arabic and the Short Recensions go together with their wish for ‘peace’.

When comparing the four versions to the Short Recension, both the bold of the Long, the Arabic and Symeon’s Recensions, and the underlined text of the Middle Recension display a similarly doctrinal tendency that alludes to the creed with the added ‘Jesus Christ, His only[-begotten] Son … God.’ If one where to think of the short version as of an abbreviation one would need to answer the question why a Christian scribe took out the first reference to Jesus Christ in the introduction of a Christian letter? As the second mention of the Christological formula in the Long, Arabic, Symeon’s and the Middle Recensions show (‘love of [Jesus Christ], our God’), where it seems that the Arabic with its ‘love of our God our brother’ sounds the older tradition with the term ‘brother’ skipped by Symeon and the Middle Recension and altered by the Long Recension into ‘Saviour’, it seems that doctrinal views led to changes, alterations, shortenings and broadenings of an existing text. Again, it is hardly likely that the Short Recension would have taken out the entire Christological statements of the beginning of this letter.

Compared to all other Recensions, the Middle Recension has an added elevated and emphatic tendency by turning the straight forward ‘worthy of credit’ or ‘worthy of prosperity’ into a spiritual ‘worthy of obtaining her every desire’. It seems that in this passage, the Long Recension preserved the older tradition, shared with the Short Recension.

Overall, with the exception of the missing praise of Rome in the Arabic and Symeon’s Recensions which has been touched upon before and which might be a further development or a kind of contamination between the Short, Middle and Long Recensions, the Short Recension seems to represent the oldest text of this preface which does not yet reflect the clear differentiation between ‘the Father Most High’ and the ‘only[-begotten] Son’, let alone ‘the Spirit’. On the contrary, there is only mention of ‘the Father Most High’, of ‘God’ and the Church which ‘is perfected in the law of Christ’, a Monarchian expression without further binitarian or trinitarian differentiation which cannot be explained as a later abbreviation.[4] If the praise of Rome was part of the older text and left out by the Arabic and Symeon’s Recension, then the simple praise of Rome, ‘worthy of life and happiness’, contrasted with the ‘worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness’ of the Long/Middle Recensions. These latter than show emphatic locutions which are signs of a reworking of the Short Recension. We can conclude from these observations that in this preface to IgnRom the Short Recension, as preserved in the Syriac tradition, may give us the oldest text that has come down to us of this letter, unless the praise of Rome might have been later added, as it is missing in the Arabic and Symeon’s Recensions.

The textual relations are even more complex, if we add the Latin translations. Quite clearly, these translations reflect the Longer, and the Middle Recensions more than the Arabic, Symeon’s or the Short Recensions, yet they seem to rely on different Vorlagen. This can be seen with the missing ‘et’ in front of ‘Jesu Christi’ which is present in the Greek of the Long, Symeon’s and the Middle Recension, but only preserved in the Latin translation of the Middle Recension. Similarly, the αὐτοῦ in front of ἐκκλησίᾳ, present only in the Long and Symeon’s Recension, has not been rendered into Latin. In the following translation of ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ the Latin of the Long and Symeon’ Recensions (‘ecclesiae sanctificatae’) seem to be a later development, as they stand against an ‘ecclesiae dilectae’ of the Latin Middle Recension which translates the Greek present in three Recensions (Long, Symeon, Middle). Then, we have the case, where the Latin translation of Symeon goes with the text of the Middle Recension with the missing ‘Dei’ after ‘voluntate’ against the Greek text of Symeon, yet, then, Symeon’s Latin translation sides twice with the Long recension by translating the Greek πίστιν with ‘fidem’, and καὶ σωτῆρος with ‘et Salvatoris’, not present in Symeon’s Greek text. Interesting is also the Latin rendering of ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου by ‘in loco chori’ in the Latin Middle Recension against ‘in loco regionis’ in the Long and Symeon’s Recension. Also note the different rendering of the Latin praise of Rome, where the Latin of Symeon has the passage that is missing in the Greek, and also the Latin of the Middle Recension is more extensive than its Greek text. Noticeable is the translation of πνευματοφόρος, only present in the Long Recension by ‘spiritiferae’ in the Latin of both the Long and Symeon’s Recensions. The same case we have with the translation of θεοῦ παντοκράτορος of the Long Recension by ‘Dei omnipotentis’ in both the Latin Long and Symeon’s Recensions. Also the ending in the three Recensions is noteworthy. Symeon’s Latin translation follows the Long Recension, although the Long Recension’s Latin omits to translate the ἀμώμως, present there, and in this case reflects Symeon’s text against the other recensions.

In conclusion:

1) We are lacking an editio maior of the Ignatiana which is an urgent desideratum for any further scholarship on the letters.

2) We need to take into account all extant witnesses. I have not checked for this repliminary study the versions of other languages, not gone beyond the three handful of Greek manuscripts that have been used for the critical text of Symeon’s Recension. But it has become clear from this exercise, the Arabic Recension as well as that of Symeon, but then quite independently all the Latin translations are textual witnesses, as they show both dependency and in places independency and reflect lost manuscript traditions.

3) The rough cut of three Recensions is far from reflecting the manuscript evidence. There are certainly Recensions and traditions, as can be seen, for example, from the proximity of the Arabic and Symeon’s Recensions, but there are more than three and all Recensions show signs of cross-contamination.

4) The scholarly settlement on the Middle Recension as the oldest, authentic text of Ignatius is more than dubious. If at all, then the Short Recension shows signs of being an older text, yet even in this case, there are doubts whether the version that we have got has not also been contaminated by later Recensions.

To test and deepen the first impression, in the book I will look into another passage of IgnRom, this time into chapter 3, and the results there confirm the observations here.

---

[1] (Lightfoot 1889a: 317)

[2] On this Recension see more below, the manuscript is dated to the 12^th c. CE.

[3] On Symeon Metaphrastes see more below; his text is dated to the 10^th c. CE. From the comparisons we will see that this text does not fall into the category of ‘oral reformulation’, ‘taken down in shorthand’ and being rephrased by Symeon, hence it could have well been included in the first category which Ehrhard had established and Høgel adopted, see (Ehrhard 1936: II 697-99; Høgel 2002: 91-93)

[4] It does not convince, when Robert M. Grant (n a letter of 28 April 1961 to Fritz Guy) sees in this ‘something like a monophysite doctrine’, as he still cannot account for the cutting out of the reference to Jesus Christ, the extract of his letter is quoted in (Guy 1964: 6 n. 17)

Name-dropping in Ignatius of Antioch (Short, Middle and Long Recension)

Working on the final chapter (Ignatius of Antioch) of my new, forthcoming book on 'Retrospective Patristics - A Guide to Early Christians' (hence I have been less productive on the blog here as I did primary research), I noticed an interesting phenomenon, related to the appearance of names. I'd like to share this as a snippet to discuss this with you.

            In order to get a sense of links that are made through names (not listed are biblical names, and names of heretics), the following table lists the names that appear in the letters of Ignatius (often, but not exclusively in salutations) (x set in bold means that the name also appears in the Short Recension, x set in brackets means that the name only appears in the Long Recension where letters exist also in the Middle or Short Recensions):

Pol

Eph

Rom

Mag

Tral

Philad

Sm

Phil

Tar

Ant

Her

Mar

MarCIgn

Polycarp

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Epitropus’ wife

x

Attalus

x

Alce

x

x

Crocus

x

x

Burrhus

x

x

x

Euplus

x

Fronto

x

Onesimus

x

x

x

Bassus

x

Apollonius

x

Sotio

x

Anencletus

x

Bitus/Philo

(x)/x

(x)/x

x

x

x

x

Gaius/Rheus

(x)/x

(x)/x

Agathopus

x

x

x

x

x

Damas

x

x

x

Polybius

x

x

x

Tavias

x

Daphnus

x

Eutecnus

x

Linus

(x)

x

Clement

(x)

(x)

x

Hero

x

x

Cassian

x

x

x

Maris

x

x

Evodius

(x)

Mary

x

x

x

Vitalius

x

Euphanius

x

Eulogius

x

Sobelius

x

The three main Ignatian Recensions are very different in their dealing with names. While the Middle Recension is a real name-dropper, the Short Recension only gives us three names: Ignatius himself (not listed here) as author of the letters and the two addressees, Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus, and Polycarp. Ignatius – his cognomen ‘Theophoros’, as shown above, seems to be a 6^th c. addition – is introduced and right in the beginning of IgnEph 1 etymologically (ܪܬܚܢ; ἀναζωπυρήσαντες) explained. ‘Ignatius’ means the one who is ‘kindled’, ‘sparked’ or ‘heated’ by God’s blood. Likewise, the name of ‘Onesimus’ has an etymological meaning which is indicated by the way he is introduced when mention is made that Ignatius has ‘received your abundance in the name of God’, ‘Onesimus’ meaning ‘aiding, succouring, beneficial’ (LSJ). The only person’s name that is not etymologically explained is that of Polycarp, an indication that this might have been the only self-explanatory one with a historical figure behind it.

            In contrast to the sparse and particular use of names in the Short Recension, we see a sheer name-dropping in the Middle Recension, one of its characteristics. It gives us a network of twentyone different names. Interestingly, from the nine names that the Middle Recension has in the three letters that are also present in the Short Recension, IgnPol, IgnEph, and IgnRom, only those three names will re-appear in the Long Recension which can be found presicely in the three letters of the Short Recension, Ignatius, Onesimus and Polycarp – not a single one of the other six. Moreover, only three of the other twelve names that the Middle Recension has in the other four letters, will re-appear in the Long Recension (Agathopus, Damas, Polybius), two will be replaced by other names, Bitus by Philo, Gaius by Rheus, in both cases potentially based on misspellings during the transmission. It is certainly of importance that the Long Recension introduces a very different spectrum of names than those which are given by the Middle Recension, while the Long Recension only adheres to the names of the Short Recension. If the Short Recension had been an abbreviation of the Middle Recension this would be hardly explicable, whereas the redactor who expanded the Middle Recension into the Long Recension still must have known the Short Recension with the three names, and even taken this Recension as historically a more reliable reference text in terms of names than that of the Middle Recension. In any case, based on the occurence of names, the Long Recension appears as a competing version to that of the Middle Recension.