Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by GakuseiDon » Tue May 23, 2017 6:31 am

Giuseppe wrote:Clearly you don't want to see what followed the first answer by Ignatius to these opponents:
the objectors, even when they were exhorted a second time to find Christ in the Old Testament, they didn't found nothing about him and pointed out: 'This is the problem'. If the Old Testament was not sufficient, and if the canonical Gospels could only refer the readers simply to the Old Testament, how could Ignatius convince them of the existence of Jesus?
Replace your last word "Jesus" with "Christ", and we are in agreement.
Giuseppe wrote:At that point Ignatius made the logical fallacy of the petitio principii:
''Jesus in not in the archives because Jesus is the archive''.
Hmmm. This is what Ignatius wrote: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html
  • When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, 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.
I see this as Ignatius saying that Jesus Christ really was predicted in the Old Testament, with "His cross, and death, and resurrection" being "undefiled monuments of antiquity", which seems to me to relate to the idea that they can be found there. He asks for prayers from his audience that his view can be justified. I'm not sure how else to read it.
Giuseppe wrote:
The question wasn't "was there a historical person?" but "was that historical person the Christ?" It would be strange for either side to argue over whether there was a recent historical person by using the Old Testament.
No, it would be strongly expected since the objectors weren't doing any distinction (at contrary of you) between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the faith. For them, no trace of the Christ in the Old Testament did mean only a thing: no trace of the Christ in the history itself.
Yes, "Christ", NOT "Jesus". I doubt that the objectors cared if there was some kind of Jesus who was NOT the Christ. Rather, the point of contention is whether that Jesus was indeed the Christ, and the only way to show that is by 'finding' that the death and resurrection of the Christ could be found predicted in the Old Testament.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by Giuseppe » Tue May 23, 2017 6:55 am

Yes, "Christ", NOT "Jesus".
I insist: you can do this distinction (between ''Christ'' and ''Jesus'') only as you are a modern living person in the year 2017.
The ancient Christians didn't do that distinction, therefore we cannot do it, too.

Therefore nothing prevents us from the assumption that to ask evidence for ''Christ'' in the 'archives', for an ancient anti-Christian objector, is equivalent to ask evidence for ''Jesus''.

And the passage quoted from Ignatius is evidence of this question.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue May 23, 2017 7:54 am

“I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel. And as I replied to them : It is written (in the Old Testament) they answered : ‘ That is the very question.’ But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”

It looks to me that the archives for "Ignatius" is Christian "common" knowledge. From where would that "common" knowledge come in the times of "Ignatius": faith in the Gospel about delivering the truth (what else!).

And the quoted declaration is somewhat explained in the next chapter (to the Philadelphians, 9) (how the OT connects with the Gospel):
9:1 "The priests likewise were good, but better is
the High-priest
[Jesus, as in 'Hebrews'] to whom is committed the holy of
holies; for to Him alone are committed the hidden
things of God; He Himself being the door of the
Father, through which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob
enter in, and the Prophets and the Apostles and the
whole Church; all these things combine in the unity of
God."

9:2 "But the Gospel hath a singular preeminence in
the advent of the Saviour, even our Lord Jesus Christ,
and His passion and resurrection. For the beloved
Prophets in their preaching pointed to Him; but the
Gospel is the completion of immortality. All things
together are good, if ye believe through love."


The argumentation is just rhetorical and does not prove or disprove anything.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by Giuseppe » Tue May 23, 2017 8:42 am

PREMISE 1) Assume that the 'archives' are the Jewish scriptures.
PREMISE 2) Assume that the only evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ is for Ignatius the Jewish Scriptures.

The objectors were claiming that, since they didn't see Jesus prophetized in the Jewish scriptures, then the Gospel (that claims that Jesus is prophetized in the Jewish scriptures) is false (and, as mere corollary, that Jesus didn't exist).


We all agree (I would hope!) that Jesus Christ is not in these archives (the Old Testament). Therefore Ignatius, when he is pointed to that (real) problem, ignores simply it and insists that Jesus Christ is the 'archives'. That is equivalent to say: the canonical Gospels are the New Testament. Therefore the petitio principii by Ignatius is evident.

Which is the proof that the PREMISE 2 is true?

The fact that the only independent source behind the claims of historicity of Jesus is the Gospels, i.e. the first of them (assume Mark).
+ the fact that the Gospel is simply a practical manual ''to find'' Jesus in the Jewish Scriptures.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by davidbrainerd » Tue May 23, 2017 9:05 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mr. Robertson, in the Literary Guide for April, 1926, pointed out that such evidence is contained in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. And the evidence is not affected by the genuineness or otherwise of the passage, which runs :—
“ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel. And as I replied to them : It is written (in the Old Testament) they answered : ‘ That is the very question.’ But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”
The meaning of this is that when Ignatius was asked for proof of the Gospel story he could only refer the objector to the Old Testament. The latter, naturally, did not consider Old Testament statements to be a proof of events which were supposed to have happened afterwards. Whereupon Ignatius could do nothing but beg the question, quite in the manner of modern theologians. Of course, the objectors to whom the writer refers in the passage quoted need not have been Jews, but the evidence proves that there were deniers of the historicity of Jesus even in the second century. There is, however, evidence that the denial was made by Jews. For Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, . . .
(Gordon Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 225, my color)
I think Rylands is really stretching here because he wants so bad to believe mythicism on blind faith and will twist and contort subconsciously to get there. Is not Ignatius writing about Christian unity? This has been ripped out of context then.
7:2 .....Do nothing apart from the bishop; keep your flesh as the temple of God; love unity, avoid divisions; be imitators of Jesus Christ, even as he is of his Father.
8:1 I therefore performed my proper work, as a man perfectly prepared for unity. For where there is division and anger, God dwelleth not. God, therefore, granteth forgiveness unto all who repent, if they repent in accordance with the unity of God, and the council of the bishop. I trust in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall loose from you every chain;
8:2 and I exhort you to do nothing of contention, but according to the discipline of Christ. Since I have heard certain men say, "Unless I find it in the [archives], I believe it not in the Gospel." And when I said unto them that "It is written," they replied, "[That is the very question]." But my archives are Jesus Christ; his cross and his death, his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are inviolable archives, through which I desire to be justified by means of your prayers.
He's not talking about outright unbelievers in Jesus, nor (how silly considering the context) mythicists. He's talking Christian division. Those who follow the bishop believe Jesus is prophecied in the Old Testament, but some others say "prove it." They believe in Jesus too, but not that he's prophecied in the OT (i.e. they're Marcionites).

The phrase "Unless I find it in the archives, I believe it not in the Gospel" doesn't mean "I believe nothing about Jesus that's not in the OT" but rather "I believe no OT prophecy claim in the gospel that cannot realistically be substantiated by reading the OT in context."
9:1 Good, too, are the priests; but better is the High Priest, who is entrusted with the Holy of Holies, who alone is entrusted with the secret things of God: he being the gate of the Father, through which enter Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church; all these come into the unity of God.

9:2 But the gospel hath something peculiar; namely, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, his suffering, and the resurrection. For the beloved prophets were heralds for him; but the gospel is the perfecting of incorruption. All things are alike good, if ye believe in love.
I.e. "stop saying only the gospel is good, that it is pure and the OT corrupt; the gospel actually purifies further what was already good. Stop being Marcionites."

No mythicists to see here but in Rylands imagination.

Edit: "My archives are Jesus Christ..." is like today "So what I can't find 'he shall be called a Nazarene' in the OT; Matthew's still right. So what Hosea 3's 'out of Egypt I called my son' is about Israel in Exodus; Mathhew is still right. My OT is the NT, not the OT. OT citations in the NT are my OT, I don't need no stinking context."

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by davidbrainerd » Tue May 23, 2017 9:32 am

Further proof the letter is about Marcionites not mythicists:
3:2 For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the bishop; and as many as have repented, and have entered into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall be of God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.

3:3 Be not deceived, my brethren; if any one followeth a schismatic, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God; if any man walketh in an alien opinion, he agreeth not with the passion of Christ.

CHAPTER 4

4:1 Be diligent, therefore, to use one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup, for union with his blood; one altar, even as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, who are my fellow-servants, to the end that whatever ye do, ye may do it according unto God.

CHAPTER 5

5:1 My brethren, I am exceedingly poured out in my love for you, and, with joy above measure, I confirm you, yet not I, but Jesus Christ; and though I am in bonds for his sake, I fear the more as being not yet perfected in suffering. But your prayer unto God shall perfect me, to the end that I may attain unto that lot which, in mercy, hath been given unto me, flying for refuge unto the gospel as unto the flesh of Jesus, and unto the Apostles as to the presbyters of the Church;

5:2 and let us love the prophets also; because they were heralds of the gospel, and hoped in him, and waited for him; in whom having also believed, they were saved in the unity of Jesus Christ, being saints holy and worthy of love and admiration, witnessed to by Jesus Christ, and numbered together in the gospel of the common hope.
Ah, but those who say "Unless I find it in the archives, I believe it not in the Gospel" will say "prove it" and Ignatius will say "it is written...." and they'll say "That is the very question." The very question is, is Jesus a rival god to the OT god or the same god. Hence all the emphasis on "the unity of God" throughout the epistle. The very question is, were the prophets heralds of the gospel? Should we love the prophets also in addition to the apostle?

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by GakuseiDon » Tue May 23, 2017 9:12 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Yes, "Christ", NOT "Jesus".
I insist: you can do this distinction (between ''Christ'' and ''Jesus'') only as you are a modern living person in the year 2017.
The ancient Christians didn't do that distinction, therefore we cannot do it, too.
But they did make that distinction, as per my post on the last page where I actually quoted from other early texts on this matter.

For example: The character Paul, in "Acts of the Apostle", Ch 17:
  • 17.1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
    2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
    3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ
    .
    4. And some of them believed...
Another example: Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE in his First Apology:
  • For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man
Don't those quotes indicate a distinction between 'Jesus' and 'Christ'?
Giuseppe wrote:Therefore nothing prevents us from the assumption that to ask evidence for ''Christ'' in the 'archives', for an ancient anti-Christian objector, is equivalent to ask evidence for ''Jesus''.

And the passage quoted from Ignatius is evidence of this question.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 24, 2017 12:55 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:
Yes, "Christ", NOT "Jesus".
I insist: you can do this distinction (between ''Christ'' and ''Jesus'') only as you are a modern living person in the year 2017.
The ancient Christians didn't do that distinction, therefore we cannot do it, too.
But they did make that distinction, as per my post on the last page where I actually quoted from other early texts on this matter.

For example: The character Paul, in "Acts of the Apostle", Ch 17:
  • 17.1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
    2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
    3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ
    .
    4. And some of them believed...
Only the Jews could be interested about the right definition of Christ, but the Philadelphians (addressed by Ignatius) were gentiles.
Another example: Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE in his First Apology:
  • For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man
Don't those quotes indicate a distinction between 'Jesus' and 'Christ'?
To be 'Christ' is not equivalent to be ''the first-born of the unbegotten God''.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation.
Surely I disagree with you since I think that the 'archives' quoted by ignatius were historical records:
“ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel. And as I replied to them : It is written (in the Old Testament) they answered : ‘ That is the very question.’ But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”
Therefore we have evidence of gentiles who doubted about the entire Gospel since they didn't find Jesus in the historical records. Ignatius pointed them to the Old Testament, and the objector answered: 'that is the very question', meaning that just because the Old Testament is ambiguous as source, they did need of a historical source in the archives confirming the historicity of Jesus. It would do no sense for Ignatius to point them again to the same source, if the archives firstly used by them were the same Old Scriptures.

Therefore the dialogue between Ignatius and the objector is the following:

the objector: If I do not find (a certain thing) in the (historical) archives, I do not believe in the Gospel

Ignatius: It is written (in the Old Testament)

the objector: ‘ That is the very question.’

Ignatius: But for me the (historical) archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”


In conclusion, Peter is wrong when he says that the 'archives' are the Jewish Scriptures.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by davidbrainerd » Wed May 24, 2017 9:06 am

Giuseppe wrote: Only the Jews could be interested about the right definition of Christ, but the Philadelphians (addressed by Ignatius) were gentiles.
Also to gentiles who found it an easy way to disprove Christianity by arguing like a Jew.
Giuseppe wrote: Therefore we have evidence of gentiles who doubted about the entire Gospel since they didn't find Jesus in the historical records. Ignatius pointed them to the Old Testament, and the objector answered: 'that is the very question',
Nope. Because he's talking about rival Christians who cause disunity by not believing what the bishop tells them. HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT OUTRIGHT UNBELIEVERS.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mythicists met by 'Ignatius'

Post by davidbrainerd » Wed May 24, 2017 9:21 am

Giuseppe wrote: Therefore the dialogue between Ignatius and the objector is the following:

the objector: If I do not find (a certain thing) in the (historical) archives, I do not believe in the Gospel

Ignatius: It is written (in the Old Testament)

the objector: ‘ That is the very question.’
Considering he is talking about rival Christians who won't just believe what the bishop tells them to believe, not unbelievers, if we fill in an example of a "certain thing" it will be clearer.

the objector: If I do not find (that there is a prophecy Christ will be born of a virgin) in the archives, then I do not believe it (the claim of prophecy fulfillment) in the Gospel either.

Ignatius: It is written (in Isaiah 7:14 "Behold a virgin shall conceive...")

the objector: ‘ That is the very question. (I.e. if that's really even about the Messiah at all, much less about Chrestos, because its clear its not about either.)’

So a rival group of Christians rejects the claim of Jesus' connection to the OT and won't submit to the bishop saying it is so and you must believe it. Its very clear. Marcionites not mythicists are in view.

Post Reply