Abstract
In this lightly revised version of his doctoral thesis, Gilliam argues that not only is the long recension of the Letters of Ignatius subject to alteration for doctrinal purposes, but that the same phenomenon can be detected in manuscripts of the middle recension in response to the Arian controversy.
The volume is arranged with an introduction and conclusion and five main chapters. The first two main chapters set out the textual data for the discussion. Gilliam’s primary contention is that not just for the long recension, but also for the middle recension ‘there are several significant Christological textual variants that can be traced to the Arian controversy’ (p. 9). In the first chapter Gilliam lays out eighteen variants for consideration in the middle recension that show variant readings in ‘God language’, or are what he calls ‘free standing Arian controversy variants.’ This data is helpfully tabulated on pp. 11–12. Based on his analysis of these variants Gilliam suggests that there are ‘significant fourth-century Christological variants’, and he also suggests that his discussion ‘has demonstrated the instability of the textual tradition behind the middle recension of the Ignatian letters’ (p. 46). While Gilliam has shown the variability in several ‘God language’ variants, there may be more work required to demonstrate the textual instability of the middle recension as a whole. The evidence-base from which that conclusion is drawn is not sufficiently broad to make such a general statement. It would be fair to say that in fourteen of the eighteen cases considered Gilliam has demonstrated significant variation, but this may not translate to a more general conclusion concerning instability in the wider textual tradition of the middle recension—more work would be required to demonstrate that result. This leads on to a further area where there might be some room to enlarge on the discussion. In footnote 19 (p. 17) Gilliam lays out the names of various manuscripts of the middle recension in Greek, Latin Armenian, Syriac, Coptic and Arabic. However, the specific readings of individual manuscripts are rarely discussed. Instead one is presented with summaries such as ‘Lightfoot, again favours the Armenian translation … against the Greek of the middle recension’ (p. 26). It would, perhaps, have increased the value of this study if the readings of specific manuscripts had been described in detail, rather than clusters of Greek and versional witnesses.
The discussion of the long recension in chapter two is rich, and draws several interesting conclusions. It is suggested that this recension developed in two stages. First the development of the seven authentic letters, and then the addition of ‘the six additional forgeries to round out this fourth-century version of the Ignatian corpus’ (p. 96). The next three chapters contextualise this textual analysis. Here, Gilliam contends that the Ignatian long recension could have been in circulation by 350, especially if the theory that the Macrostichos was a source for this recension is correct (p. 132). The final two chapters admirably demonstrate the ongoing legacy of Ignatius in the fourth century by showing the use made of Ignatius and his writings by Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom.
This is a fine study, which advances knowledge of the reception of Ignatius in the fourth century and deepens scholarly understanding of the theological usages to his writings. This careful study generates new ways of thinking about the afterlife of the Ignatian corpus, and it will be a work that is consulted with much profit.