The Ignatius's opponents according to Richard Carrier

[Giuseppe]

Veey a good point.

So Ignatius is not writing about Docetists in the ancient sense. Nor can he be writing about Docetists in the fabricated modern sense. He does not say his opponents said Jesus only “appeared” to descend from David, be born to Mary, eat and drink, get crucified to death by Pilate, and rise from the dead. He says his opponents denied anyone witnessed these things, implying they must have been something like allegorical myths for cosmic events and truths

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/24006

Always wondered/surprised about the nonchalance by which Alfred Loisy meant docetists here.

And not mythicists.

[Peter Kirby]

Big if true.

[Giuseppe]

It is true:

And this conclusion is not an assumption. We have evidence: 2 Peter and the other NT passages confirm this was the worry, that there were Christians claiming these stories were just allegories, “cleverly devised myths,” not things that really happened. And yet they did not claim the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection never happened (2 Peter, for example, never accuses them of that). Rather, they claimed no one saw them—which means they must have happened in some distant realm, known only by revelation and secret codes in Scripture.

(my bold)

[GakuseiDon]

Veey a good point.

So Ignatius is not writing about Docetists in the ancient sense. Nor can he be writing about Docetists in the fabricated modern sense. He does not say his opponents said Jesus only “appeared” to descend from David, be born to Mary, eat and drink, get crucified to death by Pilate, and rise from the dead. He says his opponents denied anyone witnessed these things, implying they must have been something like allegorical myths for cosmic events and truths

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/24006

That's just wrong though. No-one is denying that "Jesus only “appeared” to descend from David, be born to Mary, eat and drink, get crucified to death by Pilate, and rise from the dead" in 2 Peter. Carrier is painting with too broad a brush.

Here is the passage from 2 Peter:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... r-kjv.html

2 Pet 1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The "witness" is to that one incident, and not everything else that Carrier claims was a reference to.

Ignatius is next in my series of reviewing OHJ, so I'll have more to say about Carrier's analysis of Ignatius shortly.

[Giuseppe]

Are you able to interpret both Ignatius's insistence on Pilate and the related passage in 2 Peter without doing reference to docetism?

The question is rethorical, since the category of docetism is very dubious. Dr Carrier has raised rightly the problem:

And none of the other texts accredited as referring to Docetism can be talking about this anyway—for example, Marcion, even by Tertullian’s dubious account, never claimed Jesus didn’t eat or drink or that he evaded being crucified by Pilate or that he wasn’t witnessed doing these things, so Ignatius cannot have been speaking of any such doctrine as Marcion’s.

(my bold)

It is time to define Alfred Loisy that mere apologist he was.

[GakuseiDon]

It is true:

And this conclusion is not an assumption. We have evidence: 2 Peter and the other NT passages confirm this was the worry, that there were Christians claiming these stories were just allegories, “cleverly devised myths,” not things that really happened. And yet they did not claim the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection never happened (2 Peter, for example, never accuses them of that). Rather, they claimed no one saw them—which means they must have happened in some distant realm, known only by revelation and secret codes in Scripture.

(my bold)

Here is a link to the text of 2 Peter. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... r-kjv.html

Can you show where the text suggests that the author was reacting to a claim that "no one saw" "the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection" please? Thank you.

[GakuseiDon]

Are you able to interpret both Ignatius's insistence on Pilate and the related passage in 2 Peter without doing reference to docetism?

The question is rethorical, since the category of docetism is very dubious.

I think you mean that Carrier finds the category of docetism very dubious, since it partly shuts the door on Ignatius reacting to celestial mythicist ideas.

Dr Carrier has raised rightly the problem:

And none of the other texts accredited as referring to Docetism can be talking about this anyway—for example, Marcion, even by Tertullian’s dubious account, never claimed Jesus didn’t eat or drink or that he evaded being crucified by Pilate or that he wasn’t witnessed doing these things, so Ignatius cannot have been speaking of any such doctrine as Marcion’s.

(my bold)

Okay, so Ignatius is not talking about Marcion there. Why does Ignatius only have to be talking about Marcion? Why not other heresies as well? Carrier knows the probable candidate about dodging the crucifixion (Basilides), he just assumes that Ignatius can only be talking about one group of heretics. I'll quote him in a moment.

According to Irenaeus:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

[Basilides claimed that Jesus] did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.

Compare that with Ignatius in Trallians:

He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead

Carrier's view, as per your link:

So what we have here is simply the doctrine of Basilides—we might call it “Basilidinism”—not an example of some “sectarian trend” to warrant its own label. Ignatius, and the authors of the canonical Johannine literature (Gospel and Epistles), weren’t complaining about anyone saying Jesus skipped out on the crucifixion and flew back to heaven instead. No other Christian author claimed any such thing either, nor did anyone else complain that any were. So, like Gnosticism, where much of what gets crammed under that title is actually just Marcionism and so should simply be called Marcionism, this teaching of Basilides warrants no such label as Docetism. It should simply be defined as the Basilidene heresy. It’s just one guy and his sect’s doctrine; not a genre of doctrines shared across sects. Nor can this serve any use in interpreting any other text alleged to be Docetic, as we’ve seen.

And so on. Carrier is concerned about the definition of "Docetism" and its scope. Okay, I get that. Fair enough if he wants to be critical. But Ignatius doesn't need to be talking about just one group of heretics.

[Giuseppe]

Once docetism is not more in view, virtually the only other polemical target that is left is mythicism. Can one imagine others?

Unless one is able to prove that precisely Basilidism is meant.

I have mentioned Loisy because he wrote that Ignatius was polemizing against Marcion. Begging clearly the question (as if Marcion had problems with Pilate).

[GakuseiDon]

Once docetism is not more in view, virtually the only other polemical target that is left is mythicism. Can one imagine others?

And there we have it.

Here are some of the claims by heretics that Ignatius is complaining about:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html

Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be...

Let's put it this way. Here is my Antithesis:

1(a). Ignatius complains about Christians who claimed that: Jesus wasn't incarnated
1(b). Carrier's Mythicist theory: Jesus was incarnated

2(a). Ignatius complains about Christians who claimed that: Jesus didn't suffer
2(b). Carrier's Mythicist theory: Jesus suffered

3(a). Ignatius complains about Christians who claimed that: Jesus wasn't crucified
3(b). Carrier's Mythicist theory: Jesus was crucified

4(a). Ignatius complains about Christians who claimed that: Jesus wasn't resurrected
4(b). Carrier's Mythicist theory: Jesus was resurrected

I doubt that Ignatius had Carrier's particular mythicist theory in mind.

Unless one is able to prove that precisely Basilidism is meant.

Why "precisely"? That's a ridiculous and arbitrary limitation. Ignatius isn't writing a polemic against heretics. His "truly" this and "truly" that is describing "true" Christianity. Yes, we can infer what his opponents were claiming based on those "truly"s, but Ignatius didn't have to be writing against one heresy in particular. Where do you even get that idea from? Please quote the source.

I have mentioned Loisy because he wrote that Ignatius was polemizing against Marcion. Begging clearly the question (as if Marcion had problems with Pilate).

Well, that might be interesting to read. If you can quote Loisy, I'd love to have a look. Carrier and yourself may have valid points in that regard.

[Peter Kirby]

M. D. Goulder has an article relevant to this subject: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584688