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

[Giuseppe]

• 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.

I agree with you that Ignatius praised the Scripture: even more reason to conclude that he could never answer: "for me the Scripture is Jesus Christ". Marcion could answer so, but not Ignatius. Is it more clear now why the archives can't mean "scripture"?

• 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?

Ignatius didn't find them since when he answered:

"it is written"

he wasn't meaning:

"it is written in the archives"

but he was meaning:

"it is written in the Gospel"

to which the obvious answer was:

"It is just that the problem",

i.e. the "problem" is that the only witness of the historicity of Jesus was based only on the Gospel, none trace of Jesus being found in the archives of public memories.

[Peter Kirby]

And some offer homage to the holy Ezra himself, while others, since it is stated in the conclusion of the book, say that in the archives (ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις), as friends of Job, pleased with the accomplishment, they deposited the writing concerning this matter.

the book of Job was a "historical" book in the eyes of the people who deposited it in the archives, not a book of prophecies (afterall, where are the prophecies in Job?). Hence the point still stands

I didn't find this attempt at a counterpoint to be actually persuasive.

[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.

I agree with you that Ignatius praised the Scripture: even more reason to conclude that he could never answer: "for me the Scripture is Jesus Christ". Marcion could answer so, but not Ignatius. Is it more clear now why the archives can't mean "scripture"?

I agree with you now that the Roberts-Donaldson translation of "archive" as "ancient Scriptures" is wrong. I think it is what Ignatius actually meant, in that I assume the archives included the OT and other writings, but it isn't the best translation. However I don't get your point above about Marcion I'm sorry.

Going forward with your idea about archives being of "public memories": There's the question of where those "archives of public memories" were housed. The Philadelphians were in Asia Minor. What documents of "public memories" would they have expected to have seen talking about a Jewish man walking around Judea 70 years earlier? A Judea that had been smashed by the Romans 40 years earlier. Would anyone be surprised if they didn't find public memories about that Jewish man?

• 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?

Ignatius didn't find them since when he answered:

"it is written"

he wasn't meaning:

"it is written in the archives"

but he was meaning:

"it is written in the Gospel"

What a moment, that makes no sense. "It is written in the Gospel"???

There are two scenarios: either (1) "it is written" refers to the archives, or (2) "it is written" refers to the Gospel.

Here is the key passage again:

... 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.

If Ignatius means "it is written in the Gospel", then he is right. It IS written in the Gospel. That his critics respond "that remains to be proved" is neither here nor there, from Ignatius' perspective. His critics don't even say it is NOT there. Only that "it remains to be proved".

If Ignatius means "it is written in the archives" then Ignatius has in fact found the info in the archives, at least from his perspective. He has actually found his info in the archives! Again, his critics don't even say that it isn't there, only that "it remains to be proved".

But the most obvious reading for me is that Ignatius is referring to prophecies of the coming of a crucified and resurrected Christ that can be found in the archives, the archives containing prophetic works that people can check, like the library of Ptolemy as per my comment in the other thread . His critics argue that Ignatius have yet to prove those prophecies refer to Ignatius' Christ. Ignatius then claims that the Gospel proves the prophecies in the archives were fulfilled by Ignatius' Christ. That's my position. I'll let you have the last word on this. Nice chat!

[Peter Kirby]

I found this reference from Sextus Julius Africanus.

Sextus Julius Africanus Hist. (c. A.D. 2-3), Epistula ad Aristidem (2956: 004)
“Die Briefe des Sextus Julius Africanus an Aristides und Origenes”, Ed. Reichardt, W.
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909; Texte und Untersuchungen 34.3.
Page 61, line 9
ἀναγράπτων δὲ εἰς
τότε ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις ὄντων τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν γενῶν καὶ τῶν ἄχρι
προσηλύτων ἀναφερομένων ὡς Ἀχιὼρ τοῦ Ἀμμανίτου καὶ Ῥοὺθ
τῆς Μωαβίτιδος τῶν τε ἀπ' Αἰγύπτου συνεκπεσόντων ἐπιμίκτων
ὁ Ἡρώδης οὐδέν τι συμβαλλομένου τοῦ τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν γένους
αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ συνειδότι τῆς δυσγενείας κρουόμενος ἐνέπρησεν
αὐτῶν τὰς ἀναγραφὰς τῶν γενῶν οἰόμενος εὐγενὴς ἀναφανεῖσθαι
τῷ μηδ' ἄλλον ἔχειν ἐκ δημοσίου συγγραφῆς τὸ γένος ἀνάγειν
ἐπὶ τοὺς πατριάρχας ἢ [προσηλύτους] τοὺς [τε] καλουμένους γειώρας
[τοὺς ἐπιμίκτους].

Written into then existing archives (ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις) of the Hebrew tribes and the proselytes mentioned, such as Ahiohr son of Amminadab and Ruth the Moabitess, and also including the mixed multitude that had come with them from Egypt, Herod contributed nothing to the noble descent of the Israelite race. And aware of his ignoble descent, he (Herod) burned their genealogies, thinking that by doing so he would appear noble and not have anyone trace his lineage back to the patriarchs or to the proselytes also known as mixed-race.

He says that the public records were destroyed but that some kept private records of genealogies:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... i.vii.html

But as there had been kept in the archives (ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις) up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

This looks like a reference to a Jewish scripture (the book of Job) being placed ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις.

Didymus Caecus Scr. Eccl. (c. A.D. 4), Commentarii in Job (1–4) (2102: 001)
“Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zu Hiob, pt. 1”, Ed. Henrichs, A.
Bonn: Habelt, 1968; Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 1.
Codex page 8, line 5
καὶ οἱ μὲν
τῷ ἁγίῳ Ἔσδρᾳ αὐτὸ προσνέμου-
σιν, vacat
οἱ δὲ καὶ ἐπε[ὶ] ἐν τῶι τέλει τοῦ βι-
βλίου εἴ[ρ]ηται vacat
vacat φασίν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις ἅτε
βασιλε[ῖς ὄ]ντες οἱ φίλοι τοῦ Ἰὼβ
ἀρεσθέντες τῶι κατορθώματι τὴ(ν)
περὶ τούτου γραφὴν ἀπέθεντο.

And some offer homage to the holy Ezra himself, while others, since it is stated in the conclusion of the book, say that in the archives (ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις), as friends of Job, pleased with the accomplishment, they deposited the writing concerning this matter.

In addition, William R. Schoedel writes (Ignatius of Antioch, p. 208):

Any lingering doubt as to whether "archives" can mean the Scriptures (OT) is set aside by the curiously neglected parallel provided by Josephus. In his Contra Apionem (1.29) the Jewish historian treats the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. 1.37-38) as literary phenomena parallel to the demosai anagrafai ("public records") of the Greeks (1.20-22) and of the societies of the Ancient Near East (1.28; cf. 1.9). Such public records, of course, are archives. This is confirmed by the fact that elsewhere Josephus employs the term "archives" itself with particular reference to the Phoenician records (C. Apion. 1.143; cf. Ant. 8.144; 9.283, 287).

Schoedel further mentions references in Philo to scripture as records (anagrafai) or sacred records (ierai anagrafai) in Congr. 175; Fuga 132; Somn. 1.33, 48; 2.265, 301; Pram,. 2. Philo and Josephus (as referenced by Schoedel, pace Giuseppe) support the idea that Jewish scriptures were the kind of texts that could be placed in the archives according to Jews.

Robert M. Grant writes (The Apostolic Fathers, volume 4, p. 106):

These critics were presumably Judaizers; Ignatius replied by stating, “It is written” (the usual formula for Old Testament quotations; cf. Eph. 5:3; Magn. 12:1), and they answered, “That is the question.” In other words, they did not accept his Old Testament exegesis, probably the kind indicated in Magnesians 8:2-9:2 and about to set forth here in chapter 9.

J. B. Lightfoot provides a discussion over a few pages here:

https://archive.org/details/apostolicfa ... 0/mode/2up

Hence it comes to mean ‘the record-office’ ; and hence, like the English word ‘archives,’ it is used indifferently of the place where the documents are kept and the collection of documents themselves ; nor is it always easy to separate the one meaning from the other. ...

The meaning here is as follows. The opponents of Ignatius refuse to defer to any modern writings, whether Gospels or Epistles, as a standard of truth; they will submit only to such documents as have been preserved in the archives of the Jews ...

Some support for what Lightfoot mentions here was found earlier: viewtopic.php?p=168978#p168978

Lightfoot and Schoedel reject the suggestion that a different word (other than the one we've been discussing) was used in the text.

Robert M. Grant's argument (re: "It is written") is decisive in itself and is supported from the context.

[Giuseppe]

Robert M. Grant writes (The Apostolic Fathers, volume 4, p. 106):

These critics were presumably Judaizers; Ignatius replied by stating, “It is written” (the usual formula for Old Testament quotations; cf. Eph. 5:3; Magn. 12:1), and they answered, “That is the question.” In other words, they did not accept his Old Testament exegesis, probably the kind indicated in Magnesians 8:2-9:2 and about to set forth here in chapter 9.

Robert M. Grant's argument (re: "It is written") is decisive in itself and is supported from the context.

assuming that you agree with me that the archives include both historical sources and holy books, the only point that remains to be discussed is: what Ignatius meant by replying in a first moment: "it is written".

Assuming that Ignatius meant "it is written, i.e. prophetized, in the scriptures" (basically, the same claim found in a gospel), then the next reply by his opponents goes to reiterate the first point: that a mention about Jesus is absent in the archives, hence confirming thr absence of a reference to Jesus in all the books found in the archives, beyond if of historical or religious character.

Thereupon Ignatius is obliged to conclude that the only "archive" worthy of faith for him is Jesus Christ, i.e. an implicit recognition of the pure and simple fact that in the real archives there was no trace at all about Jesus.

Could Ignatius be obliged to talk as Marcion there? By reducing Jesus to something totally different from everything is found in the archives? Yes, he could, only under the condition that the accusation by his not-Christian opponents was the total absence of Jesus in all the possible books found in an archive (not only religious books, but also the kind of sources used by Josephus to write Jewish War, for example).

[Peter Kirby]

Robert M. Grant writes (The Apostolic Fathers, volume 4, p. 106):

These critics were presumably Judaizers; Ignatius replied by stating, “It is written” (the usual formula for Old Testament quotations; cf. Eph. 5:3; Magn. 12:1), and they answered, “That is the question.” In other words, they did not accept his Old Testament exegesis, probably the kind indicated in Magnesians 8:2-9:2 and about to set forth here in chapter 9.

Robert M. Grant's argument (re: "It is written") is decisive in itself and is supported from the context.

assuming that you agree with me that the archives include both historical sources and holy books, the only point that remains to be discussed is: what Ignatius meant by replying in a first moment: "it is written".

Assuming that Ignatius meant "it is written, i.e. prophetized, in the scriptures" (basically, the same claim found in a gospel), then the next reply by his opponents goes to reiterate the first point: that a mention about Jesus is absent in the archives, hence confirming thr absence of a reference to Jesus in all the books found in the archives, beyond if of historical or religious character.

Thereupon Ignatius is obliged to conclude that the only "archive" worthy of faith for him is Jesus Christ, i.e. an implicit recognition of the pure and simple fact that in the real archives there was no trace at all about Jesus.

William R. Schoedel (mentioning "misguided efforts to find here a reference to actual city archives") disagrees with an assumption that this is an actual reference to actual archives being searched, rather than just a rhetorical reference that takes place in the context of the Jewish scriptures that could be found in the archives preserved by Jews. Ignatius refers to his opponents saying that they look in the archives and disagreeing with Ignatius about whether it is found in scripture, i.e., whether it is written. The dispute is explicitly over whether it is in scripture. It need not be supposed that either party to the dispute had made an exhaustive search of local archives, rather than merely mentioning the phrase when saying they refer to the scriptures.

I'm also not clear on exactly which city's archives you think they'd be searching for records of Jesus under your hypothesis.

[Peter Kirby]

Regarding what may have been happening with the opponents in view, William R. Schoedel writes (Ignatius of Antioch, p. 209):

The specific issue under debate may have come down to whether the Scriptures themselves anticipated a time when they would render themselves more or less obsolete and take second place to the gospel. If so, Ignatius was obviously much less skillful than writers like the authors of Hebrews or Barnabas in finding passages to support the thesis. The use of the term "archives" by Ignatius' opponents may give us a clue to the situation. Hellenistic Judaism's picture of the Jewish records as more ancient and impressive than Greek historical writings (Josephus, C. Apion. 1.1-18) could have provided the spiritual anchor needed by Christians as well as by Jews. Such a Scripture would have proved attractive to gentiles for two main reasons: (a) as Josephus' discussion of the "constitution" of the Jews shows, a description of a way of life based on their archives could be remarkably free of reference to the observance of religious practices (C. Apion. 2.145-296); (b) as Philo's allegorization of the "sacred records" shows, Christians were left free to find Christian meaning in the Jewish texts and to lose themselves in endless theological speculation. lt was the latter that evidently disturbed Ignatius.

[Giuseppe]

I'm also not clear on exactly which city's archives you think they'd be searching for records of Jesus under your hypothesis.

my scenario assumes gratuitously only one hypothesis:
that the enemies of Ignatius were not Christians.

Once conceded it, the rest implies directly my thesis (the enemies were deniers).

Since you can't deny that the archives include any kind of texts (both religious and historical and pseudo-historical sources), therefore the claim (reiterated two times by the Ignatius's opponents) that there was no mention of Jesus at all (beyond if prophecies, holy books, historical references, pseudo-historical references) implies that the enemies were obliged to question everything about what Christians claimed about Jesus, even his same existence.

It is equivalent to the modern case where modern mythicists deny not only the presence of Jesus in the OT, but also the presence of Jesus in Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, etc.

Hence you may like the fact that my only gratuitous premise is the not-Christian identity of the opponents of Ignatius.

[Peter Kirby]

my scenario assumes gratuitously

You said it, not me.

[Giuseppe]

my scenario assumes gratuitously

You said it, not me.

have you proved that they were Christians of a particular sect? Isn't it as well an analogous gratuitous assumption?