Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben wrote:

"(I am going from memory here, as I am away from my stuff right now.) Those explicit quotations, however, amount, apparently, to only three: one from Irenaeus and two from Origen. And one of the quotes from Origen contains a clue that it came from the middle recension, not from the Syriac. And, if one counts potential allusions instead of outright quotations, they are from all over the middle recension, not just from the shorter."

I'll look into this more, but off the bat I see the argument for what you are saying being made in this book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oZgwA ... US&f=false

John2 wrote:Ben wrote:

"(I am going from memory here, as I am away from my stuff right now.) Those explicit quotations, however, amount, apparently, to only three: one from Irenaeus and two from Origen. And one of the quotes from Origen contains a clue that it came from the middle recension, not from the Syriac. And, if one counts potential allusions instead of outright quotations, they are from all over the middle recension, not just from the shorter."

I'll look into this more, but off the bat I see the argument for what you are saying being made in this book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oZgwA ... US&f=false

Right. That is a link to Lightfoot's arguments, the ones that swayed the field (and changed his own mind on the matter). He points out in that same context that the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians probably refers to the middle recension, as well, when it speaks of "epistles" (plural) that have been sent "to us" by Ignatius. The epistles (plural) would be that to Polycarp and that to the Smyrnaeans. (The statement in that same epistle about the "other letters, as many as he had" also sounds more appropriate as applied to a handful of epistles rather than just to the remaining two [after the one to Polycarp] in the short recension.) This is, then, probably another pre-Eusebian reference to the middle recension.

And on page 287 he mentions the evidence of Lucian too, pointing out that he says that Peregrinus "'sent about letters to nearly all the famous cities'" and that this "might indeed be met by the expression in Rom. 4, 'I wrote to all the churches,' though it finds a much more natural explanation in the existence of a body of letters like the Seven of the Middle Form, with which Lucian may be supposed to have been acquainted."

John2 wrote:And on page 287 he mentions the evidence of Lucian too, pointing out that he says that Peregrinus "'sent about letters to nearly all the famous cities" and that this "might indeed be met by the expression in Rom. 4, 'I wrote to all the churches,' though it finds a much more natural explanation in the existence of a body of letters like the Seven of the Middle Form, with which Lucian may be supposed to have been acquainted."

And the bit about writing to "all the churches" is in the Syriac version of Romans, too. If the short recension came first, then "all the churches" must mean "only you and Ephesus."

What I have not yet checked out is Lightfoot's long list of stylistic similarities between phrases found in and not found in the short recension. I have skimmed it, but not done the legwork yet.

I've already noticed your consistent mental blindspot. "All the churches" does not have to mean "just you and Ephesus." Dio mio.

Among the various and often complex lines of argument that have been introduced for and against the "middle" and "short" recensions, the most impressive evidence for the "short" recension is the fact that for 200 years after Ignatius, the church fathers did not clearly allude to any of his writing outside of that which appears in the "short" recension in Syriac; there is no indisputable evidence for a corpus of seven letters until Eusebius, early in the fourth century.1

Secret Alias wrote:Since Ben has given up I'd love to hear from anyone else giving us an example of a shorter and longer version of a text in early Christianity where the longer text is acknowledged to be the most original. My bet is that we can't find one (i.e. we can't find an example of large sections being 'cut out' of a given text).

You know, I think you make a good point. We are far too sanguine about the seven letter Greek edition. It is, unsurprisingly, an example of inertia. Lightfoot and Zahn are still the touchstones for modern "consensus" on Ignatius, which mostly amounts to, "this is really complicated and so I'd rather not say anything definite as long as I can pursue my area of expertise without having to resolve these questions regarding the epistles of Ignatius." This is what passes for consensus in this field: some late 19th century debate that has since had a patina of dust settle over it and which nobody dares to disturb, so long as they can tiptoe around it.

If it pleases you and you can find the time, you should gather all the data you can for your hypothesis and publish, especially if you can enlist someone with proficiency in Greek and Syriac (that last one is the other reason that this tends to be a dead issue - Syriac experts are relatively rare in the field of NT and Christian origins).

An important point -

Secret Alias wrote: Among the various and often complex lines of argument that have been introduced for and against the "middle" and "short" recensions, the most impressive evidence for [primacy of] the "short" recension is the fact that for 200 years after Ignatius, the church fathers did not clearly allude to any of his writing outside of that which appears in the "short" recension in Syriac; there is no indisputable evidence for a corpus of seven letters until Eusebius, early in the fourth century.1

Does the 1 signify anything?

and I would say " ...for 200 years after [after the alleged time of] Ignatius... "

- Ignatius seems like a literary device

Footnote from unacknowledged source