The Letter to the Magnesians, and 1 Clement

On the hunt for the Lachrymose Letter in Patristics, I raised that 1 Clement might still know it. Next stop (skipping Luke) is Ignatius of Antioch. He likewise cites 1 Corinthians but not 2 Corinthians as far as I read him; but - for Paul - I find nothing outside the ambit. I did find other considerations...

The longer Magnesians in the third chapter - as plus to the version most agree upon (the "medial": pdf) - goes on a long excursus upon examples of Biblical characters opposing their Divinely-appointed superiors; among them, Dathan and Abiram. Hannah further noticed that Magnesians 8, in the longer version only, gets around to citing 2 Corinthians. I suggest that the longer version had recourse to 1 Clement 4:10-12.

This does not narrow down very much. 1 Clement was highly regarded in the Church to the point it entered into some New Testaments - most-famously Alexandrinus. This is Alexandrian - for Paul; Byzantine for the Gospels. Griesbach considered its Catholic Epistles as "Western" - I must assume, D/06 Claromont; either way, "Western" often signifies collections before the later canons. Despite the Byzantine decisions, "Western" texts hung on, in the West, hence the name. As late as the Middle Ages, Ibn Khaldun noted 1 Clement in some (Sicilian?) codices.

Since Streeter, I understand it is scholarly consensus that Ignatius although not as fluent in the Old Testament as was 1 Clement, had inherited 1 Clement's "ecclesiology". The letter to the Romans seems conversant with 1 Clement 54-6. For Magnesians 3, I couldn't rule that catena of Biblical exemplars out.

Hannah thought the pericope early too, albeit still forged. He argued that the longer Magnesians is of AD 140. This got forcefully rebutted by Brown four years later; Brown seems consensus as of 2017.