“’(3) Baur, Urspr. d.  Episc., Tueb.  Zeitschr. f.  Theol. 1838, H.3, p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, &c. p. 185; Bleek, Einl.  N.T. p. 144; Guericke, Handbuch, K.G. i. p. 148; Hagenbach, K.G. i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, Introd.  N.T. i. p. 19; Mayerhoff, Einl. petr.  Schr. p. 79; Scholten, Die aelt.  Zeugnisse, pp. 40, 50 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 52; Handbuch Einl.  Apocr. i. pp. 121 f., 136.

“’(4) Volkmar, Handbuch Einl.  Apocr. i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.; Der Ursprung, p. 52 ff.; Baur, Ursp. d.  Episc.  Tueb.  Zeitschr. f.  Theol. 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; Gesch. chr.  Kirche, 1863, i. p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, Introd.  N.T. i, p. 19; Scholten, Die aelt.  Zeugnisse, p. 51 f.; cf.  Francke, Zur Gesch.  Trajans u.s.w. 1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die ap.  Vaeter, p, 214.’”

Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks: 

Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their testimony as to the two points affirmed.” [88:1]

Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed being significantly varied.  For instance, in note 3, the reference to Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are made in the pages.  The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is made.  I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3, although it does not affect note 4.  Readers are probably aware that there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius.  I have in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.  The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add to the note:  “The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or 115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later date.”  Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the text with this, I removed it with the design