further statements.  He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the Vossian.  Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three Epistles as genuine.  He says distinctly:  “These three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts.  But on the other hand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in which they are known since Usher’s time, are not yet entirely removed.  For no MS. has yet been found which contains only the seven Epistles attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius.” [70:1] Thiersch, therefore, does express “doubts, more or less definite.”  Dr. Lightfoot then continues:  “Of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus.” [70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained.  I must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine “nucleus” on the part of some of these writers, by no means excludes the expression of “doubts, more or less definite,” which is all I quote them for.  I will take each name in order.

Lardner says:  “But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves
    are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a
    question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens
    of the ablest critics.  And whatever positiveness some may have
    shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult
    question.”  The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: 
    “it appears to me probable, that they are for the main part
    the genuine epistles of Ignatius.”

Beausobre says:  “Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l’authenticite
    des Lettres de St. Ignace.  Si elles ne sont pas veritables, elles
    ne laissent pas d’etre fort anciennes; et l’opinion, qui me paroit
    la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont ete interpolees.”

Schroeckh says that along with the favourable considerations for
    the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, “many doubts arise which make them
    suspicious.”  He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and
    anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon
    the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these
    and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which
    cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are
    interpolations of a later time.  He concludes with the pertinent
    observation:  “However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as
    difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages.”  In fact it
    would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly
    doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.