to make use of reminiscences in the “Ignatian Epistles,” “because it is still very doubtful how the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which we possess them.” [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their authenticity could be established.  I do not, however, include him here at all.

Gfroerer.—­Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
    this writer like the others, but by a “Cf.” merely suggest a
    reference to his remarks.

Harless, according to Dr. Lightfoot, “avows that he must ’decidedly
    reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
    recent times’ the opinion maintained by certain persons that
    the Epistles are ‘altogether spurious,’ and proceeds to treat a
    passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
    as in the Long Recension.”

This is a mistake.  Harless quotes a passage in connection with Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark:  “In this case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is in part removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have the passage.”  He recognises that the completeness of the proof that ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of Ignatius.  He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.

Schliemann, Dr. Lightfoot states, “says that ’the external testimonies
    oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,’ though he is not
    satisfied with either existing recension.”

Now what Schliemann says is this:  “Certainly neither the Shorter and still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles can lay claim to authenticity.  Only if we must, nevertheless, without doubt suppose a genuine substratum,” &c.  In a note he adds:  “The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine substratum—­Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his Epistle.  But that in their present form they do not proceed from Ignatius the contents sufficiently show.”

Hase, according to Dr. Lightfoot, “commits himself to no opinion.”

If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what that opinion is with sufficient clearness.  The Long Recension, he says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not fully attested either.  The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome.  “But even if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the second century.”