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.
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.
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
le; hi; fu1;
|
|
[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 10th 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.
[3] On Symeon Metaphrastes see more below; his text is dated to the 10th
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment