Further evidence that Ignatius faced old deniers of the historicity of Jesus

[Giuseppe]

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord;

The comment by Salomon Reinach:

2°. Ignace écrit vers 115 (Philad., 8):

Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις εὕρω ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω.

Le texte est sur; cela signifie:

«J'ai entendu dire à certaines gens que, ce qu'ils ne trouvent pas dans les archives, ils ne veulent pas le croire dans l'Evangile».

Quelles archives? M. Loisy, reprenant une vieille explication, veut que les archives mentionnées par Ignace soient «les Écritures de l'Ancien Testament, qui sont les archives dont ces adversaires se réclament» (p. 265). Personne ne me fera jamais croire que «les archives» tout court signifient «l'Ancien Testament» ; il en faudrait d'autres exemples; il n'y en a pas l'ombre. Et Ignace continue: «Mes archives à moi, c'est J.-C.; mes archives inviolables sont sa croix, sa mort, sa résurrection, la foi qui vient de lui, etc.». Ainsi Ignace jetterait par-dessus bord l'Ancien Testament? Ce serait le cas de dire : déjà ! J'ai émis l'hypothèse nouvelle que les archives en question sont celles de la province romaine, archives où des gens malintenti onnés, mais doués d'esprit critique. des intellectuels, a dit M. de Genouillac - - cherchaient, sans la trouver, une confirmation des récits évangéliques. La difficulté subsiste et il faudra que M. Loisy l'aborde à nouveau pour qu'on puisse la considérer comme résolue.


Je passe rapidement sur un autre texte d'Ignace (Ephes., 19), où il est question du Diable et où j'ai cru voir une allusion aux mêmes satanées archives. M. Loisy se tire d'affaire en prêtant à Ignace «une théologie assez bizarre» et en concédant que «le bon Ignace» ne connaît même pas les miracles qui accompagnèrent la mort de Jésus. Le «bon Ignace» est encore plus maltraité que Jérôme. Chose singulière! Chaque fois que M. Loisy croit réfuter une de mes hypothèses, il est obligé de dire que le texte sur lequel je l'appuie est l'œuvre d'un ignorant ou d'un sot, ou encore qu'il ne signifie rien du tout. Cela devient plus sensible encore dans ce qui suit.

My translation:

Ignatius writes around 115 (Philad., 8):

Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις εὕρω ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω.

The text is sure; it means:

“I have heard some people say that for the fact that they do not find nothing in the archives, they do not want to believe in the Gospel.”

What archives? Mr. Loisy, taking up an old explanation, wants the archives mentioned by Ignatius to be “the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which are the archives from which these adversaries claim” (p. 265). No one will ever make me believe that “the archives” simply mean “the Old Testament”; other examples are needed; there is not a shadow of it. And Ignatius continues:

“My own archives are J.-C.; my inviolable records are his cross, his death, his resurrection, the faith that comes from him, etc..”

So Ignatius would throw the Old Testament overboard? It would be the case to say: already! I put forward the new hypothesis that the archives in question are those of the Roman province, archives where people with malicious intentions, but gifted with a critical spirit, intellectuals, said Mr. de Genouillac, were looking for, without finding, a confirmation of the Gospel stories. The difficulty remains and Mr. Loisy will have to address it again so that it can be considered resolved.

I quickly move on to another text from Ignatius (Ephes., 19), where it is about the Devil and where I thought I saw an allusion to the same diabolic archives. Mr. Loisy gets out of the problem by attributing to Ignatius “a rather bizarre theology” and by conceding that “the good Ignatius” does not even know the miracles which accompanied the death of Jesus. “Good Ignatius” is even more mistreated than Jerome. Singular thing! Each time Mr. Loisy thinks he refutes one of my hypotheses, he is obliged to say that the text on which I base it is the work of an ignoramus or a fool, or even that it means nothing of the All. This becomes even more noticeable in what follows.

Some remarks:

• if the 'archives' are a reference to Jewish Scriptures, then it would be unthinkable for Ignaius reject them all under the pretext that the archive is Jesus Christ, not when he had to insist on the continuity between Jewish Scriptures and the Jesus against the docetics who would have willingly rejected the Jewish scriptures.

• It makes a lot of sense for Ignatius the fact that not only the world was without an evidence, in all the archives, of the historicity of Jesus, but also "the prince of this world" was without a such evidence.

[GakuseiDon]

• if the 'archives' are a reference to Jewish Scriptures, then it would be unthinkable for Ignaius reject them all under the pretext that the archive is Jesus Christ, not when he had to insist on the continuity between Jewish Scriptures and the Jesus against the docetics who would have willingly rejected the Jewish scriptures.

Where do you get the idea that Ignatius is rejecting them? For Ignatius, the prophets announced the coming of Christ (obviously in the ancient writings, as signified by Ignatius use of "it is written"), and the Gospel is the perfection of that announcement:

I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the archives, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

... the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality.

It seems to me that Ignatius is claiming that some were saying that the doctrine of Jesus Christ was not in the archives, and so they didn't believe the Gospels. But Ignatius believed that it was found in the archives, with the Gospel being the fulfillment of those prophecies.

• It makes a lot of sense for Ignatius the fact that not only the world was without an evidence, in all the archives, of the historicity of Jesus, but also "the prince of this world" was without a such evidence.

No, the prince of this world was ignorant of the virginity of Mary and the birth and death of the man who was in fact "the Lord":

Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block (1 Corinthians 1:18) to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man? Where the disputer? (1 Corinthians 1:20) Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God.

So nothing to do with historicity as far as I can see.

[Giuseppe]

Where do you get the idea that Ignatius is rejecting them?

do you realize the irony by Reinach?

So Ignatius would throw the Old Testament overboard? It would be the case to say: already!

The "archives" cannot be the Old Testament because otherwise Ignatius would have rejected them, by answering: "The archive is Jesus Christ".

So the rest of the your argument collapses.

[Giuseppe]

No, the prince of this world was ignorant of the virginity of Mary and the birth and death of the man who was in fact "the Lord":

you have to do only a further logical step: the prince of this world was ignorant because the world was ignorant. Ignatius saw the ignorance of the devil behind the people who didn't find nothing about Jesus in the archives of public memories.

You have failed completely to explain how could the "doctrine of Jesus" be found in the archives of public memories.

In the archives of public memories some people wanted to find a mention of Jesus, not the doctrine of Jesus.

[GakuseiDon]

Where do you get the idea that Ignatius is rejecting them?

do you realize the irony by Reinach?

So Ignatius would throw the Old Testament overboard? It would be the case to say: already!

The "archives" cannot be the Old Testament because otherwise Ignatius would have rejected them, by answering: "The archive is Jesus Christ".

So the rest of the your argument collapses.

No, I'm reading Ignatius to be saying that the Jesus Christ fulfills the archives. "For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality."

[Giuseppe]

I resume the status of the discussion with the historicist GakuseiDon:

• If the archives are the Old Testament, then the historicist can't explain why Ignatius is rejecting them in the tranchant answer "the archives is Jesus Christ".

• If the object of the research was the "doctrine of Jesus", then the historicist cannot explain why a such "doctrine of Jesus" was going to be searched in archives of public memories, i.e. in the wrong place.

The conclusion is unavoidable: there were deniers of the historicity of Jesus in the Antiquity.

[GakuseiDon]

You have failed completely to explain how could the "doctrine of Jesus" be found in the archives of public memories.

It hardly matters. Ignatius said "it is written". So whatever the archives are, Ignatius found them. Some people didn't, but Ignatius did.

In the archives of public memories some people wanted to find a mention of Jesus, not the doctrine of Jesus.

Even if your reading of "archive of public memories" is correct, Ignatius said the references were there. Some people didn't find them, but so what? Ignatius found them!

[Giuseppe]

Even if your reading of "archive of public memories" is correct, Ignatius said the references were there.

sorry, but this is a clear misunderstanding by you. By answering "for me the archives are Jedus Christ, it is too much obvious that Ignatius was eluding the problem by finding refuge in the blind faith. For your knowledge: the "problem" was that there was none mention of Jesus in the archives of public memories.
Zero. Nicht. Nada. Nil.

[GakuseiDon]

• If the archives are the Old Testament, then the historicist can't explain why Ignatius is rejecting them in the tranchant answer "the archives is Jesus Christ".

My view is: he wasn't rejecting them. "Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity". Ignatius means that Jesus Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection were found in the archives and fulfilled in the Gospel. Some didn't think they were found in the archives and so didn't believe the Gospel.

• If the object of the research was the "doctrine of Jesus", then the historicist cannot explain why a such "doctrine of Jesus" was going to be searched in archives of public memories, i.e. in the wrong place.

Surely the burden is on you. Ignatius wrote "It is written". Can you explain why Ignatius found them there, then? What did he find, in your view?

[GakuseiDon]

Even if your reading of "archive of public memories" is correct, Ignatius said the references were there.

sorry, but this is a clear misunderstanding by you. By answering "for me the archives are Jedus Christ, it is too much obvious that Ignatius was eluding the problem by finding refuge in the blind faith. For your knowledge: the "problem" was that there was none mention of Jesus in the archives of public memories.
Zero. Nicht. Nada. Nil.

So what did Ignatius mean by "it is written"?