Not at all. Read the work. He is not leaning on his name alone. Lightfoot dropped the ball.
So, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Patristic Scholars are in agreement as to the extant Ignatian corpus to be valid [...]
Of course they do... the entire body of tradition hinges upon the early Anti-Nicaean fathers being valid. Without them, the whole works comes tumbling down. So why should I believe a tradition that is only (or nearly so) self verifying?
and the majority of the 19th century Patristic Scholars, which is when Protestant Scholars began to translate the Fathers into English, etc also agree that they are valid.
Simply not true. Read Killen through.
roamer_1:
So do you believe this Killen Fellow. I understand that in the 19th century, which the Anti-Nicene Fathers were published, there was a heated debate among Protestants in the U.K.
The Anglican Patristic Scholars who had first done English Translations of the CHurch Fathers were criticized because their translations were considered “Toooooo Catholic”. So the Anti-Nicene Fathers was translated by a Presybeterian Publishing Company and the footnotes in that tried to refute everything in the Fathers that was considered too Catholic.
However, the consenus is the ANglican Divines, Lightfoot, Funk, Von Harnack [who was actually a German-Reformed or Luteran I think who worked in England] does agree that the Ignatian Corpus is valid.
It is only the Scotish-Irish Presbyterians of the 19th century who think otherwise as I read your link and saw that Killen was published by the same group that published the Anti-Nicene Fathers, and that was a Scotish-Presbyterian outfit
So what we have, at least based on your post and mine is that Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Patristic Scholars all agree that Ignatius’s Letters are valid.
And that Scottish-Irish-Presbyterians scholars, at least those in the 19th century, claim they are dubios.
More recent Protestant Patristic Scholars are in agrement with the Catholic, ORthodox and Anglican Divines from the 19th century. These would include Lutheran Patristic Scholar Jaroslav Pelikan [he became Ortodox before he died] and the 20th century Anglican Patristic Scholars JND Kelly and Henry Chadwick who all agree the Ignatian corpus is valid.
I doubt very much there are Pentecostal, Baptist, Health-welfare, Emergent Church, Protestant Patristic Scholars so what we are left, at least, from what I can gather, is that the position of this fellow Killen is a very, very, very, minority opinion.