Did Ignatius say that Pilate crucified Jesus?

[arnoldo]

Ignatius says that Pilate sentenced Jesus.

On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... onger.html

No, this is only found in the ‘longer’ recension of Ignatius to the Trallians. (I apologize if the page isn’t clear enough.)

Thanks, however the long and short of it may be that it makes no difference according to the following source.

In the Greek manuscript tradition we find numerous manuscripts of a collection of 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic father. This is known as the long recension; for 7 of these letters have reached us, but only just, in a handful of manuscripts in a shorter version, which we will refer to as the short version. The differences between the two seem to relate to late 4th century theological arguments, with an Apollinarian or Arian tinge. Finally there is a Syriac epitome of 3 of the letters, and I have seen a reference in Aphram Barsoum to Syriac texts of other letters.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013 ... -ignatius/

[arnoldo]

It seems Ignatius mentions Pilate and Herod primarily to argue against docetic doctrines regarding the death of Jesus rather than to fix a date.

I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who
bestowed such wisdom upon you; for I have perceived
that ye are established in faith immovable, being as
it were nailed on the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ,
in flesh and in spirit, and firmly grounded in love in
the blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our
Lord that He is truly of the race of David according
to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and
power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John
that _all righteousness might be fulfilled_ by Him,
truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under
Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

¿ Pero, que se yo?

I am saying that to fix a date for Jesus death is part of the polemic against docetism. For example, if I insist saying that Hitler died in 1945 is surely to polemize against who says that the news about his death was mere Sovietic propaganda (because the real Hitler lives still today in Argentina).

That's like claiming that dating the terrorist attack on 9/11 is a polemic against those who claim it only appeared to have been a terrorist attack. Both sides agree something happened on said date but disagree on it's significance. Regarding Ignatius' stance toward docetism, and his polemic against it, Philip A Harland has the following podcast.

Podcast 3.3: Docetic and Judaizing Opponents of Ignatius, part 1

There are two main groups of opponents combated by Ignatius of Antioch in his letters to followers of Jesus in Asia Minor: Docetic and Judaizing opponents (part 1 of 2). This episode introduces Ignatius (who wrote in the early second century) and explains the position of his docetic opponents, who thought that Jesus only appeared to be human when in fact he was a divine being. This is part of series 3 (“Diversity in Early Christianity: ‘Heresies’ and Struggles”) of the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean podcast

[neilgodfrey]

That's like claiming that dating the terrorist attack on 9/11 is a polemic against those who claim it only appeared to have been a terrorist attack.

It would be like that if we lived in a world like Ignatius's and were addressing the same sorts of issues as Ignatius -- viz, that some people were saying that terrorist attacks were fiction and not really happening in real life. In such a world then yes, saying the words "nine eleven" would indeed be an argument for the historical reality of terrorist attacks.

Guiseppe's logic and argument is valid.

You may disagree with it, but it is a valid and logical point that he presents.

[Peter Kirby]

Ignatius says that Pilate sentenced Jesus.

On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... onger.html

No, this is only found in the ‘longer’ recension of Ignatius to the Trallians. (I apologize if the page isn’t clear enough.)

Thanks, however the long and short of it may be that it makes no difference according to the following source.

In the Greek manuscript tradition we find numerous manuscripts of a collection of 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic father. This is known as the long recension; for 7 of these letters have reached us, but only just, in a handful of manuscripts in a shorter version, which we will refer to as the short version. The differences between the two seem to relate to late 4th century theological arguments, with an Apollinarian or Arian tinge. Finally there is a Syriac epitome of 3 of the letters, and I have seen a reference in Aphram Barsoum to Syriac texts of other letters.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013 ... -ignatius/

What are you trying to imply by saying "it makes no difference"?

[arnoldo]

Ignatius says that Pilate sentenced Jesus.

On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... onger.html

No, this is only found in the ‘longer’ recension of Ignatius to the Trallians. (I apologize if the page isn’t clear enough.)

Thanks, however the long and short of it may be that it makes no difference according to the following source.

In the Greek manuscript tradition we find numerous manuscripts of a collection of 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic father. This is known as the long recension; for 7 of these letters have reached us, but only just, in a handful of manuscripts in a shorter version, which we will refer to as the short version. The differences between the two seem to relate to late 4th century theological arguments, with an Apollinarian or Arian tinge. Finally there is a Syriac epitome of 3 of the letters, and I have seen a reference in Aphram Barsoum to Syriac texts of other letters.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013 ... -ignatius/

What are you trying to imply by saying "it makes no difference"?

That the longer version "may" not be a forgery as per Pearse.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, however the long and short of it may be that it makes no difference according to the following source.

In the Greek manuscript tradition we find numerous manuscripts of a collection of 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic father. This is known as the long recension; for 7 of these letters have reached us, but only just, in a handful of manuscripts in a shorter version, which we will refer to as the short version. The differences between the two seem to relate to late 4th century theological arguments, with an Apollinarian or Arian tinge. Finally there is a Syriac epitome of 3 of the letters, and I have seen a reference in Aphram Barsoum to Syriac texts of other letters.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013 ... -ignatius/

What are you trying to imply by saying "it makes no difference"?

That the longer version "may" not be a forgery as per Pearse.

The word "forgery" has a special meaning for Pearse here. "Forgery" speaks of intent ("E. however believes that we know the author intended forgery because of the author’s “attempts at verisimilitude”"). So Pearse would find no contradiction with saying that the long version of the letters of Ignatius were produced in the fourth century, expanding the short version, but they were not forgeries... for example.

The relevant question -- in terms of quoting it as the words of Ignatius -- is touched upon only lightly in the quoted internet article by Pearse (which doesn't really intend to address the question at all). Without demurral, Pearse refers to "the discovery in the 17th c. by Archbishop Ussher that the long version had been tampered with, and the recovery of the short version," as the secondary nature of the long Greek version to the short Greek version is about as uncontroversial as anything can be in this field.

The initial quote you made in this thread was essentially based on a mistake. I recommend not compounding that mistake. Pursuing something like "the longer Greek version of Ignatius is original" is something that should be pursued very carefully and deliberately, if at all. (Otherwise, what you're doing is like defending a flat earth because of a casual reference made to the sun rising, which you'd like to make literally consistent.)

[DCHindley]

Thanks, however the long and short of it may be that it makes no difference according to the following source.

In the Greek manuscript tradition we find numerous manuscripts of a collection of 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic father. This is known as the long recension; for 7 of these letters have reached us, but only just, in a handful of manuscripts in a shorter version, which we will refer to as the short version. The differences between the two seem to relate to late 4th century theological arguments, with an Apollinarian or Arian tinge. Finally there is a Syriac epitome of 3 of the letters, and I have seen a reference in Aphram Barsoum to Syriac texts of other letters.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013 ... -ignatius/

[So,] ... the longer version "may" not be a forgery as per Pearse.

Yes, there are some peculiarities about the manuscript tradition that make a distinction between a "middle" and longer recensions less than a slam dunk. These recensions have to be deduced from a number of manuscripts and citations by church fathers in three or four different languages.

But, assuming that there *are* longer and middle recensions, and the texts of these are the same as those available at the Ruslan Khazarzar (sp?) web sites (Epistulae vii genuinae for the middle and Epistulae interpolatae et suppositiciae for the longer), my own effort in the "Ignatz" thread convinced me that there is not really much difference between them. Sure, there are more NT & OT texts quoted or alluded to in the longer than the "middle" and some doctrinal or confessional differences.

Whether one or the other recension is a forgery, I had for some time believed that the "middle" (shorter Greek) recension was probably original and the longer an expansion. Now all I am prepared to say is that the question of priority of these two recensions is not settled to my satisfaction. And one recension does not necessarily have to be a *forgery* or the other *original*. My present opinion is that they may be *alternate* versions by the same author.

That Ignatz! What a Krazy Kat, man. <Ignatz and Krazy Kat were characters in old newspaper and short animation cartoons, so my phrase is meant to conflate them in a way that sounds like something Sammy Davis Jr. might have said in a "Brat Pack" movie, in case anyone sees fit to nit-pick>

DCH

[Secret Alias]

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the issue at hand which is that in the original Christian myth the Jews effectively crucified Jesus and as a result were punished with the catastrophe of the second revolt. That's the myth. The gospel story is the 'Chekov's gun' i.e. the first act where the 'gun' (viz. the blindness of the Jews) is introduced. The fact that Pilate is not identified as crucifying Jesus has nothing to do with any discrepancy or uncertainty on the part of the dating of the event. It is because the Jews are the crucifiers who in the end (i.e the final act) become crucified en masse during the revolt.

[Giuseppe]

The fact that Pilate is not identified as crucifying Jesus has nothing to do with any discrepancy or uncertainty on the part of the dating of the event.

are you saying that the entire myth is post-70 and that the dating of the "event" could only and only be that because 70-40=30 CE i.e. Pilate?

And who are for you the archons of 1 Cor 2:6-8?

[Secret Alias]

I am saying the myth part was clearly post-70 CE. That doesn't mean that beneath the myth is some historical kernel and who knows to what degree history might have matched the myth. But the story is the story. Who knows where the reality is.

It's like what is going on in football (calcio) right now. Brazilians are mental cases. They are extremely talented on the one hand but child-like imbeciles at the same time. You see it with all the players. Neymar, Coutinho, Dani Alves. Talented mental cases. Trying to get to the bottom of what happened with the Neymar move to PSG or Coutinho wanting to go to Barca or Dani Alves bouncing around from team to team is like decoding the gospel myth. You're never going to get a better explanation than 'they are fucking idiots, they are fucking retarded.'