Liturgies, eastern and western : being the texts, original or translated, of the principal liturgies of the church / edited with introductions and appendices by F.E. Brightman on the basis of the former work by C.E. Hammond. Vol. 1. Eastern liturgies.

  • Charles Edward Hammond
Date:
1896
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Liturgies, eastern and western : being the texts, original or translated, of the principal liturgies of the church / edited with introductions and appendices by F.E. Brightman on the basis of the former work by C.E. Hammond. Vol. 1. Eastern liturgies. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    30/714
    Magn. 4, 7, Smyrn. 9: TTapaicXrjTos Philip. 2, 3, Philad. 4: the ‘witness’ in Philip. 8: the denial of our Lord’s human soul is put more strongly and explicitly, Philad. 6, cp. Philip. 5: the same polemic against early heresies Trail. 6, Philad. 6, Smyrn. 6, Tars. 2-6, Philip. 7 (docetism is added in imitation 5 of the real Ignat., Philip. 3, &c.): the association of creation and providence Philad. 5, 9 : baptism into the death of our Lord, Philip. 1 : the sabbath Magn. 9. In contrast with A. C. i-vi d/ykvvrjTos is constantly used of the Father, Trail. 6, Philip. 7, Philad. 4, Ant. 14, &c. (in A. C. i-vi only vi. 10; so viii. 47 epil.), and Geos is used absolutely of the Son, Trail. 10, Tars. 1. The proof of identity from 10 such characteristics is of course supplemented by the other indications of identity of date and place. 4. The compiler was a divine of unorthodox but otherwise not clearly determinable theological affinities, who wrote at Antioch or in its neighbourhood in the latter half of the fourth 15 century. (1) On the theology see Funkpp. 98-107, 120-123, 165-168,284-311: Lightfoot pp. 266-273. ^he data are more strongly marked in the Epistles than in A. C., whether because the former allowed more scope or because the writer’s ten- dencies were intensified with time. The fixed points are that he was not an 20 Arian, and that he denied our Lord’s human soul. From the latter Funk still argues that he was an Apollinarian : but Lightfoot’s objections still hold, and his conclusion must be acquiesced in, that ‘ it seems impossible to decide with certainty the position of the Ignatian writer,’ p. 272. (2) On his home see Funk pp. 96 sq., 118, 164 sq., 314; Lightfoot p. 274. Syria generally is in- 25 dicated by the use of the syro-macedonian kalendar in v. 14 § 1, 17 § 2, 20 § 1 (see Funk p. 96); by the slip in Philip. 8 where he refers to the return of the holy family from Egypt as km ra Trjfie kwarodos (see Lightfoot ad loci): Palestine is excluded by the references (v. 13, viii. 33 § 2) to Christmas, which was not observed in Palestine till after 425 (Duchesne Origines du culte chretien, p. 248) : 30 while Antioch is suggested by the precedence given to it in vii. 46 § 1, viii. 10 § 2, and perhaps by the interest shown by the pseudo-Ignatius in the towns ecclesiastically dependent upon it (Mar.-Ign. 1, Hero 9). What is more important is that in A.C. v. 13 and Philip. 13 the holy week is not included in the forty days of Lent but forms a seventh week: this was the usage from 35 Constantinople to Phoenicia (Soz.H. A. vii. 19 : for Antioch see S. Chrys. in Gen. xxx. 1 [iv. 294 a]) as distinguished from that of Palestine, Egypt and the west, where the holy week was included in Lent. And again the principal source of the Apostolic canons is the council of Antioch of 341. (3) The dates assigned to the writer range over sixty years. Harnack {die Lehre d. zwolf Apostel, 40 pp. 241-268) puts A. C. between 340 and 360, with a preference for 340-343 : Funk (pp. 78-96, 116-118, 161-164, 311-314) at the beginning of the fifth century: Lightfoot (p. 273) assigns the pseudo-Ignatius merely to the latter half of the fourth century. The positive indications seem to converge on