a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot
be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does
not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the
extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may
have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may
have been based. I will analyse the six references.

_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a
previous note) expresses no definite opinion."

Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek
directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions.
I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some
difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin
of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He
refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the
Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he
does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The
authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and,
next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this
Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek
is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree
probable." In another place he refuses 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.