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

[Peter Kirby]

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?

You have admitted to an epistemological crime and given a confession.

The only analogy would be for someone else to "assume gratuitously" something and argue on the basis of that, but that would only make you both epistemological criminals, to be named as such also.

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).

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

I have committed no such crime here. I have nothing to confess.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Firstly, I want to note that when γεγραμται is used elsewhere in Christian writings and in similar contexts, it clearly refers to the Old Testament writings (cf. Matthew 2:5, 4:4, 4:6, 4:7, 4:10, 11:10, 21:13, 26:24, 26:31; Mark 1:2, 7:6, 9:12, 9:13, 11:17, 14:21, 14:27, Luke 2:23, 3:4, 4:4, 4:8; Acts 1:20; John 8:17; Romans 1:17; 1 Corinthians 10:7; 2 Corinthians 9:9; Galatians 3:10; Hebrews 10:7; 1 Peter 1:16). This same word is used by Ignatius. This term γέγραπται is an immediate sign we are talking about Jewish scriptures in this context. Giuseppe cannot get out of this implication.

So, this is certainly the context of what Ignatius is talking about. We can also confirm this is what Ignatius meant by looking at how other early Christians interpreted the phrase. For instance, the Latin translations of Ignatius rendered this variously as scripturis antiquis and scriptura prior. Thus, it is fairly certain that we should be interpreting this as ancient scripture. I.e., the opponents are saying, "If we do not find it in scripture, we do not believe in it." Additionally, we have Josephus and others who used the language of "public records" and such for Hebrew scriptures (cf. Contra Apionem chap. 1). In chapter 1 of Contra Apionem he specifically equates ἐκ τῶν ἀρχείων with the records of the Priests, i.e., scriptures.

Another problem for Giuseppe here is that the reference to the gospel (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) in Philadelphians 8 is likely a marginal gloss. Bammel notes that ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ changes case frequently and also it is different places as well, indicating it was a floating insertion without a stable location in the passage originally, see C. P. Hammond Bammel, "Ignatian Problems," Journal of Theological Studies 33, no. 1 (1982): 62-97 at 74.

So, it is (A) not clear they are rejecting the gospel specifically, and secondly even if the "gospel" reference here is authentic, rejecting the "gospel" does not equate to rejecting the historicity of Jesus. In early Christianity, the term "gospel" was not equated fully with the entire life of Jesus, but instead a specific message stemming from what they garnered of his life. I.e., Paul's gospel to the gentiles is not equivalent to the life of Jesus as Galatians makes clear. (B) It is fairly obvious that "archives" here is being used to refer to the Hebrew scriptures. It is not talking of all public archives anywhere.

Giuseppe is just once again seeing mirages of mythicism. Even if these are not Christians, nothing Giuseppe argued actually follows from the available evidence. It requires several assumptions that are not in evidence. The evidence, however, pretty clearly shows that he is talking of opponents who disagree with him on the basis of scripture. There is no reference here to Ignatius' opponents going and searching all public records and rejecting everything about the life of Jesus. That is not in evidence, nor does Ignatius intimate anything similar. This is something that Giuseppe inferring and taking said inference as fact.

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe is just once again seeing mirages of mythicism. Even if these are not Christians, nothing Giuseppe argued actually follows from the available evidence. It requires several assumptions that are not in evidence. The evidence, however, pretty clearly shows that he is talking of opponents who disagree with him on the basis of scripture.

You can confute my scenario as you will, but not, absolutely not, on the only gratuitous assumption required by me (and by the academic Salomon Reinach), i.e that the Ignatius's opponents are anti-Christians.

Once you concede that premise, there is none reason at all why they selected (for the research), in the archives, only and uniquely holy scriptures and not rather all the files found in the archives, including historical records and pseudo-historical records. It follows logically from the definition of "archives" as public memories of which a subset is also religious "memory." If one search for something in the archives, it is evident that he has examined all the files found in the archives, and not only a mere subset of it.

Hence, I interpret the discussion as the following:

Anti-Christians:

If I do not find it in the archives, I will not believe the Gospel;

Ignatius:

It is written in the holy scriptures (found in the archives)

Anti-Christians:

That remains to be proved (implicit: because it is not in the archives).

Ignatius:

But to me Jesus Christ is the archive: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity;

[Chrissy Hansen]

Even if they were anti-Christians this has no bearing as discussed above. As I noted above, "the gospel" does not equate to the life of Jesus, and additionally is an interpolation. They may simply be referring to the miracles of Jesus or prophecies in the Old Testament, i.e., "if it is not in the Old Testament, I will not believe."

Even on your "gratuitous assumption" it does not follow. Even if I conceded your position that these are "anti-Christians" I would just argue they are Jewish anti-Christians, arguing from scripture. There is absolutely nothing to indicate any differently. Thus, your assumption gets you nowhere. You do not have enough evidence to even validate your assumption, let alone validate your conclusions based on that assumption.

[Giuseppe]

even if the "gospel" reference here is authentic, rejecting the "gospel" does not equate to rejecting the historicity of Jesus. In early Christianity, the term "gospel" was not equated fully with the entire life of Jesus

you are right: taken alone, the term 'gospel' is not strictu senso the entire life of Jesus. But when compared to public memories (both historical and religious memories found in the archives), the absence of a Gospel claim in a public memory implies, and especially so in a polemical context as that found in Philadelphians 8, the calling in question of that same Gospel claim. By logical extension, the calling in question of everything is found in the gospel (included the birth of a Jesus).

[Giuseppe]

Even if I conceded your position that these are "anti-Christians" I would just argue they are Jewish anti-Christians, arguing from scripture. There is absolutely nothing to indicate any differently.

In yellow your error. DCH has made it clear, that the archives for the vast majority of the cases included public memories, hence both historical, pseudo-historical and religious memories. There is none reason at all why the anti-Christians had to limit their search for corroboration of the Gospel content only and exclusively to holy scriptures (ignoring the rest).

Even today, it doesn't seem to me that atheists limit themselves to point out the absence of Jesus in the OT. They point out also the absence of Jesus in the survived "archives".

[Chrissy Hansen]

As I noted above, in this case the archives is clear, and it is made clear by the verb that Ignatius uses for "it is written." This is an immediate notation to an audience he is referring to scripture. And again, I also noted that this is how the text was universally interpreted. The Latin translation also refers to the "scriptorum" or scriptures as well. You have no case here G.

There is no evidence here that "archives" refers to "public memories" in this passage. Taken in context, along with that verb and its common use elsewhere, indicates we are talking of scripture. I even noted samples from Josephus on this as well. So, until you prove that "archive" refers to "public memories," you cannot make any clear or convincing case that this refers to the life of Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

A) the fact that Ignatius refers to scriptures (by answering 'it is written') doesn't affect minimally on the content of the 'archives' referred by the his enemies. At contrary, there is even the concrete possibility that the 'archives' (of the accusation) are not the same scriptures meant by Ignatius (in the answer), because otherwise Ignatius would be denying the result of the search just done by the his opponents in the same archives. It would be equivalent to a discussion where a guy says: "I don't find the term in the English dictionary". And the other guy answers: "it is in the English dictionary". But it is clear that Ignatius is going to concede to his adversaries that their research in the archives was intellectually honest: in the archives there was no mention of Jesus at all. Only so it is explained why the last desperate defence of Ignatius was the blind fideism: "for me the archive is Jesus. Period".

B) as noted independently by both DCH and S. Reinach, the term 'archives' included public memories for the vast majority of the cases. In order to argue the contrary, strong evidence is required: but a such evidence of the contrary is not found in the immediate context of Philadelphians 8, therefore I am titled to the moral certainty that 'archives' here refers to public memories in the broadest sense of the term (profane and religious memories).

[Giuseppe]

Note that the essential has been already said by Salomon Reinach in the his own concise terms:

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.

Well said. I may say the same: with all the her best intentions, Chrissy can't make me believe that the 'archives' are strictu senso religious scriptures and only them, at least not when the people who are searching in the archives for corroboration of the Gospel content are assumed to be anti-Christians.

[Peter Kirby]

the people who are searching in the archives for corroboration of the Gospel content are assumed to be anti-Christians.

You might as well close shop here, since you already said you have no evidence that doesn't rely on a gratuitous assumption, which is equivalent to just saying that you have no evidence.