IgnMagn 10:3

[Peter Kirby]

It is inconsistent to name the name of Christ Jesus, and to live after the manner of the Jews. For Christianity did not believe upon Judaism, but Judaism upon Christianity, so that every tongue which believed might be gathered together unto God.

ατοπον εστιν Ιησουν Χριστον λαλειν και Ιουδαιζειν. ο γαρ Χριστιανισμος ουκ εις Ιουδαισμον επιστευσεν, αλλ Ιουδαισμος εις Χριστιανισμον, {ω} πασα γλωσσα πιστευσασα εις θεον συνηχθη.

... seriously, some people actually believe that a bishop of Antioch put this in a letter to the Magnesians on his way to the lions at Rome in 105-117 AD.

Otherwise, "Christianity" first shows up in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (ca. 160s AD?), the True Doctrine of Celsus (ca. 170 AD?), and Clement of Alexandria (even later in the second century). It is very sparse, actually, overall: once in Mart. Poly., once in Clement, multiple times in Celsus, and then many times in Eusebius and after him. But it shows up three more times in the "genuinae (recensio media)" of Ignatius, when performing a search of TLG by lemma.

He's also the first witness to the term "catholic," half a century before the Martyrdom of Polycarp and a pentad of writers that incorporate eclectic traditions that form the emerging orthodoxy of the the late second and early third century (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen).

Tooth fairy stuff, really. Ignatius dates at minimum to the second half of the second century. There was a time when scholars knew this as being, at best, a subject of debate where some still advanced their genuineness. Now the question has been largely closed, with the rousing cheer that we are so much better off than the "Bad Old Days" when mavericks like the dutch radicals and the Tubingen school were part of the landscape of scholarship. They are now set off in a triptych to the left of "real scholarship," which takes place comfortably between the lunatics on the left and the fundamentalist/evangelical right, a tradition that they feel more at home engaging and respecting (a game of boundary-drawing intended only to move the whole center decidedly in a conservative direction). Maybe this is just an Anglo thing, as the English tradition in scholarship, now given extra weight by the publications of American scholars increasing after WW2, has always stood to the right of the German tradition (often very consciously so).

[arnoldo]

It is inconsistent to name the name of Christ Jesus, and to live after the manner of the Jews. For Christianity did not believe upon Judaism, but Judaism upon Christianity, so that every tongue which believed might be gathered together unto God.

ατοπον εστιν Ιησουν Χριστον λαλειν και Ιουδαιζειν. ο γαρ Χριστιανισμος ουκ εις Ιουδαισμον επιστευσεν, αλλ Ιουδαισμος εις Χριστιανισμον, {ω} πασα γλωσσα πιστευσασα εις θεον συνηχθη. . .

That quote illustrates the central problem of an entire book that examines the alleged split between Christianity and Judaism.

We have thus identified the main problem of this study: namely, if the Jesus movement started out as a Jewish messianic faction, how can it be explained that a representative of that same movement, about eighty years later, finds the basic religious outlook of Judaism to be incompatible with the movement he represents? What mechanisms lie behind a development that makes Christianity an anti-Jewish religion, entirely separated from Judaism?

The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity by Magnus Zetterholm

Magnus Zetterholm is a professor from a University located in Sweden, however I'm not sure what his nationality is, or even if it matters.

[DCHindley]

Ask any Christian fundamentalist here in the US of A whether Christianity developed out of Judaism and they will respond "Of course not! The Jewish scriptures were written in the expectation of the appearing of the Christ of the Christians, meaning that Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and the prophets were all truly Christians. Judaism represents the physical descendants of Abraham who proved to be inherently unable to recognize this 'fact,' and thus Judaism itself is a heresy."

DCH

We have thus identified the main problem of this study: namely, if the Jesus movement started out as a Jewish messianic faction, how can it be explained that a representative of that same movement, about eighty years later, finds the basic religious outlook of Judaism to be incompatible with the movement he represents? What mechanisms lie behind a development that makes Christianity an anti-Jewish religion, entirely separated from Judaism?

The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity by Magnus Zetterholm

Magnus Zetterholm is a professor from a University located in Sweden, however I'm not sure what his nationality is, or even if it matters.

[andrewcriddle]

It is inconsistent to name the name of Christ Jesus, and to live after the manner of the Jews. For Christianity did not believe upon Judaism, but Judaism upon Christianity, so that every tongue which believed might be gathered together unto God.

ατοπον εστιν Ιησουν Χριστον λαλειν και Ιουδαιζειν. ο γαρ Χριστιανισμος ουκ εις Ιουδαισμον επιστευσεν, αλλ Ιουδαισμος εις Χριστιανισμον, {ω} πασα γλωσσα πιστευσασα εις θεον συνηχθη.

... seriously, some people actually believe that a bishop of Antioch put this in a letter to the Magnesians on his way to the lions at Rome in 105-117 AD.

Otherwise, "Christianity" first shows up in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (ca. 160s AD?), the True Doctrine of Celsus (ca. 170 AD?), and Clement of Alexandria (even later in the second century). It is very sparse, actually, overall: once in Mart. Poly., once in Clement, multiple times in Celsus, and then many times in Eusebius and after him. But it shows up three more times in the "genuinae (recensio media)" of Ignatius, when performing a search of TLG by lemma.

He's also the first witness to the term "catholic," half a century before the Martyrdom of Polycarp and a pentad of writers that incorporate eclectic traditions that form the emerging orthodoxy of the the late second and early third century (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen).

Catholic in Ignatius

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

means the whole universal church. I see no evidence that is has in Ignatius the later meaning of orthodox/true/non-heretical church.

Ignatius clearly had an unusual personal preference for the word Christianity This is true wherever in the 2nd century he is dated and is not in itself evidence of date. The main dating issue is that Christianity as a term must be later than the time when Christian became the standard name for followers of Jesus. This may cause problems for a date in the time of Trajan (depending on the history of usage of Christian) but causes no problem for a date in the time of Hadrian which I would choose on other grounds.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

As a stand-alone argument, it's not viable, since other considerations would be more important than this. It is more by way of illustration and to lead into my rant than it is my summary of argument for the dating of Ignatiana. And while you don't seem to see it as evidence at all, in any degree, that doesn't seem sustainable either.

Christian is not the same as Christianity. This is not mere nit-picking. We have fairly solid evidence inside and outside the Christian texts (Tacitus, Pliny, Acts, 1 Peter) that the Christians came to be called Christians... by others. The silence reads as strongly as these statements because the early texts have many favored terms for insiders, used frequently, and Christian is certainly not one of them. Placing the exact transition as a term of outsiders to a term of insiders is, of course, precarious. But the evidence for the term *Christianity* is also first attested in the context of dialogue between pagans and the movement, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and Celsus, in the mid second century. The enthusiastic adoption of the idea of Christianity and Christians as an evident term of choice for the faith and the faithful is an appropriation of these terms in a positive way in the late second century. It may have a solitary witness in Ignatius before then, but that's only if we have other, more solid reasons for putting the Ignatiana that early. By itself, this is a token of evidence.

The phrase catholic church doesn't even require any such detailed argument to see its value as evidence. Nor does its value as evidence require hair splitting over its exact meaning in the text of Ignatius. Even if your reading is correct about its significance to the author, it's still evidence.

Like I said, it's not going to be the most important stuff on an analysis of the epistles of Ignatius. Even in the style and terminology department, it may not be the most important. The middle recension of Ignatius scores extremely high for eclecticism and broad use of terms--whether christological, self-identification-wise, or leadership-wise--despite their relatively short length (compared to some other bodies of work). By high, I mean in spitting range of the milieu of 200 AD, with only the writers of Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian being more comprehensive in their eclecticism. The text also, despite common assertions to the contrary, attests to the evolution of the term Gospels to refer to books.

Tables here:
http://peterkirby.com/a-table-of-leadership-terms.html
http://peterkirby.com/self-identifications.html
http://peterkirby.com/a-table-of-christ ... itles.html

And even with all this, I'm not saying that stylistic considerations of this sort are necessarily the most important. Other things could be more important, and the most fundamental question to ask of the texts is whether they are authentic correspondence or not. Then it's just a matter of attempting to figure the most probable dating if they are not authentic. Dating them to the time of Hadrian is more defensible than the time of Trajan in any case.

[andrewcriddle]

............................
And even with all this, I'm not saying that stylistic considerations of this sort are necessarily the most important. Other things could be more important, and the most fundamental question to ask of the texts is whether they are authentic correspondence or not. Then it's just a matter of attempting to figure the most probable dating if they are not authentic. Dating them to the time of Hadrian is more defensible than the time of Trajan in any case.

Hi Peter

Just to clarify. IMO dating the middle recension of Ignatius to the time of Hadrian rather than Trajan does not imply inauthenticity. It merely means that Eusebius (or his source) is dating the early bishops of Antioch too early. Maybe in order to connect them more closely with apostolic times than their true dates would justify.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

Just to clarify. IMO dating the middle recension of Ignatius to the time of Hadrian rather than Trajan does not imply inauthenticity. It merely means that Eusebius (or his source) is dating the early bishops of Antioch too early. Maybe in order to connect them more closely with apostolic times than their true dates would justify.

That's how I understood you, but thanks for clarifying.

Reading through J.B. Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, I see that he is also very big on carefully distinguishing between "early" use of the term "Catholic" and its later use by the heresiologists. I don't know if he is the first, but he definitely popularized the idea.

[stephan happy huller]

It is worth noting that katholikos has a secondary meaning - 'treasury.' First the standard understanding:

A. general, huderos Hp.Int.26 ; katholikon, to, generic description, Stoic.2.74; katholika, ta, title of work by Zeno, ib. 1.14; emphasis (v. sub voc.) Plb.6.5.3, cf. 1.57.4; k. kai koinê historia Id.8.2.11 ; k. perilêpsis D.H.Comp.12 ; k. paradoseis Phld. Rh.1.126S. ; k. theôrêma Cic.Att.14.20.3 ; k. praecepta, Quint.2.13.14 ; -ôteroi logoi general, opp. eidikoi, S.E.P.2.84, cf. Hermog.Meth. 5; k. prosôidia, title of work by Hdn.Gr. on accents; nomos -ôteros Ph.2.172 ; k. epistolê an epistle general, 1 Ep.Pet.tit.; of general interest, BGU19i5(ii A.D.); universal, k. tis estin kai theia hê tautotês kai hê heterotês Dam.Pr.310 . Adv. -kôs generally, apophênasthai Plb. 4.1.8 ; eipein in general terms, Str.17.3.10 , cf. Phld.Rh.1.161 S.; k. heurisketai ti Hermog.Inv.3.11 ; k., opp. plêthikôs ('in the majority of cases'), OGI669.49(Egypt, i A.D.); universally, Porph.Sent.22: Comp. -ôteron Plb.3.37.6 , Gal.18(1).15; -ôterôs Tz.ad Lyc.16.

The second meaning had everything to do with contemporary politics and government administration:

II. as Subst., katholikos , ho, supervisor of accounts ( [hoi katholou logoi] ), = Lat. procurator a rationibus, Euphratês ho k. Gal.14.4 , cf. Jahresh.23 Beibl.269(Ephes., ii A.D.); in Egypt, = Lat. rationalis, PLond.3.1157 (iii A.D.), IGRom.1.1211 (Diocletian), POxy.2106.25(iv A.D.), etc.; also, = consularis, Gloss.; in cent. iv, also, = rationalis summarum, Teôrgiôi k. Jul.Ep.188 , 189 tit.

The interesting thing is that Semitic speaking cultures (Christian or otherwise) never lost sight of this secondary meaning as the word was absorbed into Aramaic and Syriac as a term which meant 'controller of the treasury' or 'officer' in the Imperial administration.

I came across a document from the Syrian Orthodox Church which notes for instance that:

The term ‘Catholicos’ (Katholikos) is derived from the Greek words ‘Kath-Holikos’, meaning ‘General Primate’ or ‘General Vicar’. Even before the primates of the Church adopted this title, it existed in the Roman Empire where its Government representative who was in charge of a large area was called as ‘Catholicos’. The Government servant, who was in charge of State treasury, too was known in that name. In due course, the secular administrative heads in Persian Empire also adopted this title.

The Churches (mainly outside the Roman Empire) started to use this term for their chief Bishops much later, probably by 4th or 5th centuries. Now the primates of the Orthodox Churches in Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and India, use the title ‘Catholicos’. ‘Maphriyono’ (Maphrian) is derived from the Syriac word afri, “to make fruitful’, or "one who gives fecundity". This title came to be used exclusively for the head of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the East (Persia), after the prelates who occupied the office of the Catholicate since late 5th century adopted Nestorian Christology and separated from the rest of Christendom. From the mid 13th century onwards, a few occupants of the Maphrianate were referred also as ‘Catholicos’, but the title never came into extensive usage. However in the 20th century when this office of the Maphrianate under the Holy See of Antioch was reinstated in India, the chief of the local church assumed the title ‘Catholicos’. It is this title that is being used in India today, while the title ‘Maphriyono’ (Maphrian) has fell out of popular use.

I happen to think that Maphriyono goes back to Polycarp (a strange name which means the same thing). Yet notice that the Eastern churches still retain the use of katholikos as a title. This is well recognized.

Jastrow notes in his Dictionary of Jewish Aramaic that the term was incorporated in this non-Christian culture in the same original sense. In other words to mean 'financial officer, controller' and was used in Judaism to denote 'an officer of the Temple treasury.' [Exodus Rabba s. 37, beg.]

It would stand to reason that the title katholikos was used to denote 'financial officer' while the Temple stood thus long before the second century period where it shows up in Catholic Christianity to denote the supposedly 'universal' Church.

Some notable examples of this term katholikos in the rabbinic literature include

like a king that had a friend, and when he wanted to appoint a controller (financial officer), he appointed him over the entire treasury. [Y'lmad to Gen. XLIX; Numbers Rabba s. 18]

Korah who was the controller of Pharoah's palace and had in charge the key etc. [Y. Shek. V 49a]

there were never more than two katholici in the Temple treasury [Cant. Rabba to VII. 9]

The point of course is that if Jews and other Semitic speaking were using the term katholikos to denote an officer of the treasury as early as the first century CE (i.e. when the Temple was still standing) it is hard to argue that when Irenaeus reports a contemporary Marcionite criticism of his church controlling (or being controlled by) the treasury of the Emperor Commodus there was an underlying connection to the world katholikos that has not been recognized hitherto.

The section in Irenaeus' Against the Heresies (IV.30.1) begins:

Those, again, who cavil and find fault because the people did, by God's command, upon the eve of their departure, take vessels of all kinds and raiment from the Egyptians," and so went away, from which [spoils], too, the tabernacle was constructed in the wilderness, prove themselves ignorant of the righteous dealings of God, and of His dispensations; as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus; that is, in the faith in which we have been established, and by which we have been brought forth from among the number of the Gentiles.

As Hill notes (Lost Teachings of Polycarp p. 55) the 'presbyter' mentioned by Irenaeus is Polycarp. Hill argues that Irenaeus argument is that the status that Irenaeus and others had in the Imperial court of Commodus represented a kind of restoration of the Israelites who had been thrown out of Egypt. As he writes:

It may well be that the reference to the acquisition of the 'mammon of unrighteousness' (cf. Lk 16) which follows was an example given by the presbyter (Polycarp). Certainly throughout the remainder of 40.30.1-4 Irenaeus refers to the situation in his own day. As Bacq says Irenaeus' addresses to his contemproraries (30.1.1,3,4) and his allusion to believers in the royal court (30.1.line 23) and to the Roman peace (30.3.line 71) reveal the hand of Irenaeus himself. It is in 4.30.1 where Irenaeus refers to believers in the royal court who get their living from what belongs to Caesar. This is, of course, is a reference to his contemporaries and, I have suggested, to Florinus himself.

Yet it clearly refers also to Irenaeus himself and is rooted in the identification of his community as a 'Catholic' Church. We read in what follows in Irenaeus again that;

For in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness. For from what source do we derive the houses in which we dwell, the garments in which we are clothed, the vessels which we use, and everything else ministering to our every-day life, unless it be from those things which, when we were Gentiles, we acquired by avarice, or received them from our heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them?--not to mention that even now we acquire such things when we are in the faith. For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain good value from the seller? Or who is there that carries on a trade, and does not do so that he may obtain a livelihood thereby? And as to those believing ones who are in the royal palace, do they not derive the utensils they employ from the property which belongs to Caesar; and to those who have not, does not each one of these [Christians] give according to his ability? The Egyptians were debtors to the [Jewish] people, not alone as to property, but as their very lives, because of the kindness of the patriarch Joseph in former times; but in what way are the heathen debtors to us, from whom we receive both gain and profit? Whatsoever they amass with labour, these things do we make use of without labour, although we are in the faith.