The Ignatius's opponents according to Richard Carrier

[rgprice]

Let's add Justin Martyr to the list:

But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias [Elijah] come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," I said. "For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

2 Peter:

2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.

Ignatius:

Stop your ears when anyone speaks to you at variance with the Jesus Christ who was descended from David, and came through Mary; who really was born and ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who really was crucified and died in the sight of witnesses in heaven, and on earth, and even under the earth; who really was raised from the dead, too, His Father resurrecting Him, in the same way His Father will resurrect those of us, who believe in Him by Jesus Christ, apart from whom we do not truly have life.

In this context together, certainly it appears that the big issue was the idea that the stories themselves were "cleverly devised myths", not things that actually happened.

What is interesting about this, as RC points out, is that these are among the earliest writers to talk the issue of disbelief. It wasn't believing that Jesus was "an incorporeal spirit", the issue was believing that the stories ere not credible.

[neilgodfrey]

In determining the beliefs of Ignatius’ opponents we may examine next the solution which posits that they were purely docetic, believing that Jesus “had no contact, however fleeting, with matter.” Such a definition of Docetism is widely, if unreflectively, employed,24 though it does not really fit many 2nd century Christologies; indeed Peter Weigandt, whose definition this is, does not find it clearly manifested prior to the Acta Johannis.25 The term is used rhetorically with such an implication of John by Ernst Käsemann,26 but such rhetoric is unhelpful in the extreme; it is attributed to Satorninus,27 in which case the complete absence of any evidence for his teaching is convenient, and similarly to Cerdo,28 a figure of similarly absolute obscurity. But unless we can show that this was the Ignatian opponents’ belief the use of the term may prove to obfuscate more than it illuminates. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . may, moreover, be aimed as much at a separationist Christology . . . .

. . . . .

. . . although an assertion that Christ was truly baptized, or truly raised from the dead, may be contrasted implicitly with a statement that he did so in appearance only, it may also be contrasted with an assertion that these things occurred solely to the man Jesus and were not undergone in any sense by God.

. . . . .

Moreover, if we were to assume that phantasmal Docetism is the issue, then we have to ask, as we did in discussing angel-Christology, how Ignatius’ response fits the opponents’ position. He points out that he is suffering in reality and not in appearance. To this the opponent might be singularly unimpressed, for the point simply is, for a Christological docetist, that Ignatius is not Jesus and that Jesus is distinct. Ignatius’ response hardly meets the problem of phantasmal Christology as such. . . . .

• Stewart, Alistair C. “Ignatius’ ‘Docetists’: A Survey of Opinions and Some Modest Suggestions.” In Docetism in the Early Church: The Quest for an Elusive Phenomenon: 402, edited by Joseph Verheyden, Reimund Bieringer, Jens Schröter, and Ines Jäger. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. pp 149, 150, 151, 152

[Peter Kirby]

For convenient study, I once collected a set of "possible references to docetic-type beliefs":

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1305

[Secret Alias]

φάντασμα was the word Josephus used to describe the divine Man who wrestled with Jacob. φάντασμα was a nuanced terminology. The Church Fathers deliberately ridiculed it. We are left only with the parody of the original Jewish understanding.

[Peter Kirby]

φάντασμα was the word Josephus used to describe the divine Man who wrestled with Jacob. φάντασμα was a nuanced terminology. The Church Fathers deliberately ridiculed it. We are left only with the parody of the original Jewish understanding.

Good to know!

[Giuseppe]

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.

I had quoted Loisy here:

Well, Loisy claims that the false "Ignatius" interpolated Pilate in the Epistle to Trallians (originally a marcionite epistle), explicitly against Marcion.

Ecoutons encore Théophore (x):

Il est insensé de parler Jésus-Christ et de judaïser. Car le christianisme n'a pas cru au judaïsme, mais le judaïsme au christianisme, en qui tous les langues se sont réunies croyant en Dieu. Ainsi le christianisme n'a rien à voir avec le judaïsme; et par conséquent, ceux qui judaïsent, ce sont les chrétiens qui pactisent avec le judaïsme en retenant l'Ancien Testament.

Notre Théophore pouvait conclure (xi) «Je veux que vous ayez la certitude absolue de notre espérance, dont je souhaite qu'aucun de vous ne s'écarte.» Le rédacteur lui fait dire:

Je veux que vous ayez la certitude absolue de [la naissance, de la passion et de la résurrection advenues au temps du gouvernement de Ponce Pilate, réalisées vraiment et réellement par Jésus-Christ] notre espérance, dont je souhaite qu'aucun de vous ne s'écarte.

On reconnaît le rédacteur à sa gaucherie, à sa préoccupation de «la naissance», à son acharnement contre le docétisme. Au fond, il récite le symbole de foi que l'Eglise catholique a précisé contre Marcion, et c'est pourquoi il n'oublie pas Ponce Pilate. Même cas dans la lettre aux Tralliens (ix):

Soyez donc sourds lorsque quelqu'un vous parlera en dehors de Jésus-Christ [qui est de la race de David, qui est de Marie, qui vraiment est né, a mangé et a bu, vraiment a été persécuté sous Ponce Pilate, vraiment a été crucifié et est mort, à la vue des (êtres) célestes, terrestres et infernaux ; qui vraiment aussi est ressuscité des morts, son Père l'ayant ressuscité; aussi à son image, nous qui croyons en Lui, son Père nous ressuscitera en Christ Jésus] hors de qui nous n'avons pas de vie véritable.

(Remarques sur la Littérature Épistolaire du Nouveau Testament, p 464, my bold)
https://archive.org/details/MN41487ucmf ... r&q=ignace

...and in the next post:

Always Loisy reiterates the point of the use of Pilate against Marcion in p. 166:

La «belle confession» du Christ martyr est assurément celle dont parlent les Evangiles, mais ce n'est pas directement des Evangiles que vient la mention de Ponce-Pilate, elle vient d'une formée déjà officielle de la profession de foi chrétienne, dont notre texte n'est que la paraphrase très consciente. Que cette profession de foi ait été antimarcionite dans son intention principale, la façon même dont elle est ici présentée invite à l'admettre. C'est contre Marcion qu'est affirmée si hautement l'identité du seul Dieu éternel, maître de tout, et du Dieu créateur du monde et Père de Jésus-Christ. Nous sommes donc ici au plus fort de la réaction antimarcionite, entre 150 et 170.

You don't mention Pilate against Marcion unless Marcion had some problem with Pilate.

[GakuseiDon]

Well, Loisy claims that the false "Ignatius" interpolated Pilate in the Epistle to Trallians (originally a marcionite epistle), explicitly against Marcion.

I'm using Google Translate to look at that, and I can't see where Loisy claims that the false "Ignatius" interpolated Pilate into Trallians explicitly against Marcion. I'm guessing you mean this part?

On reconnaît le rédacteur à sa gaucherie, à sa préoccupation de «la naissance», à son acharnement contre le docétisme. Au fond, il récite le symbole de foi que l'Eglise catholique a précisé contre Marcion, et c'est pourquoi il n'oublie pas Ponce Pilate. Même cas dans la lettre aux Tralliens (ix):

Soyez donc sourds lorsque quelqu'un vous parlera en dehors de Jésus-Christ [qui est de la race de David, qui est de Marie, qui vraiment est né, a mangé et a bu, vraiment a été persécuté sous Ponce Pilate, vraiment a été crucifié et est mort, à la vue des (êtres) célestes, terrestres et infernaux ; qui vraiment aussi est ressuscité des morts, son Père l'ayant ressuscité; aussi à son image, nous qui croyons en Lui, son Père nous ressuscitera en Christ Jésus] hors de qui nous n'avons pas de vie véritable.

Which Google Translate translates as:

We recognize the editor by his awkwardness, his preoccupation with "birth", his relentlessness against docetism. Basically, he recites the symbol of faith that the Catholic Church has specified against Marcion, and that is why he does not forget Pontius Pilate. Same case in the letter to the Trallians (ix):

So be deaf when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ [who is of the race of David, who is of Mary, who truly was born, ate and drank, truly was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, truly was crucified and died, in sight of the celestial, terrestrial and infernal (beings); who also truly rose from the dead, his Father having raised him up; also in his image, we who believe in him, his Father will raise us up in Christ Jesus] apart from whom we have no true life.

Do you mean that "that is why he does not forget Pontius Pilate" is a reference that he believes the editor into Ignatius' letter interpolated the name of "Pilate"? Because the passage in Trallians reads "truly was persecuted under Pontius Pilate". The reconstructed version of Marcion's Gospel shows a Pilate who didn't scourge Jesus, and I guess that may be what that refers to. Might this be what Loisy is referring to?

Always Loisy reiterates the point of the use of Pilate against Marcion in p. 166:

La «belle confession» du Christ martyr est assurément celle dont parlent les Evangiles, mais ce n'est pas directement des Evangiles que vient la mention de Ponce-Pilate, elle vient d'une formée déjà officielle de la profession de foi chrétienne, dont notre texte n'est que la paraphrase très consciente. Que cette profession de foi ait été antimarcionite dans son intention principale, la façon même dont elle est ici présentée invite à l'admettre. C'est contre Marcion qu'est affirmée si hautement l'identité du seul Dieu éternel, maître de tout, et du Dieu créateur du monde et Père de Jésus-Christ. Nous sommes donc ici au plus fort de la réaction antimarcionite, entre 150 et 170.

Google Translate:

The "beautiful confession" of Christ the martyr is certainly that of which the Gospels speak, but it is not directly from the Gospels that the mention of Pontius-Pilate comes, it comes from an already official formation of the profession of faith Christian, of which our text is only the very conscious paraphrase. That this profession of faith was anti-Marcionite in its main intention, the very way in which it is presented here invites us to admit it. It is against Marcion that the identity of the only Eternal God, master of all, and of the God creator of the world and Father of Jesus Christ. We are therefore here at the height of the anti-Marcionite reaction, between 150 and 170.

If I understand correctly, Loisy's point is that interpolations into the letters of Ignatius occurred between 150 and 170 CE, as an anti-Marcionite reaction (I'm guessing, thus forming the longer recensions?). And IIUC, your point is that the interpolator actually inserted the name "Pilate" into the text of Ignatius's letters, which wasn't there previously. Is that right?

You don't mention Pilate against Marcion unless Marcion had some problem with Pilate.

I agree. I'm just not understanding how this backs up the claim you made at the start.

Here is your claim again:

"Loisy claims that the false "Ignatius" interpolated Pilate in the Epistle to Trallians (originally a marcionite epistle), explicitly against Marcion."

So, what's the exact passage or passages from Loisy where he argues that "Pilate" was interpolated into Ignatius's epistle? The exact quote please! If you've already given it as above, then fair enough.

[Giuseppe]

the passage in Trallians reads "truly was persecuted under Pontius Pilate". The reconstructed version of Marcion's Gospel shows a Pilate who didn't scourge Jesus, and I guess that may be what that refers to. Might this be what Loisy is referring to?

As Carrier points out, Marcion believed that Pilate crucified Jesus, so I don't see why Loisy assumes so easily, with so much nonchalance, that the Catholic interpolator used Pilate in function anti-marcionite. Your emphasis on "persecuted" as possibly different from "crucified" doesn't work.

[GakuseiDon]

the passage in Trallians reads "truly was persecuted under Pontius Pilate". The reconstructed version of Marcion's Gospel shows a Pilate who didn't scourge Jesus, and I guess that may be what that refers to. Might this be what Loisy is referring to?

As Carrier points out, Marcion believed that Pilate crucified Jesus, so I don't see why Loisy assumes so easily, with so much nonchalance, that the Catholic interpolator used Pilate in function anti-marcionite. Your emphasis on "persecuted" as possibly different from "crucified" doesn't work.

You may well be right, but I'm still trying to understand what you mean. Loisy writes "he recites the symbol of faith that the Catholic Church has specified against Marcion, and that is why he does not forget Pontius Pilate". Is he saying that the Nicene Creed refers to Pilate, so that is why the interpolater put that in? Or what? Can you give me an actual quote from Loisy that you think is the problem with the mention of Pilate?

Here is your claim again:

"Loisy claims that the false "Ignatius" interpolated Pilate in the Epistle to Trallians (originally a marcionite epistle), explicitly against Marcion."

[Giuseppe]

I don't see where is the difficulty. Loisy thinks that the quote of interest was interpolated by the Catholics against Marcion. Period. It is too much clear from the quotes given above.
Idem for the other references in the Pastoral epistle: Pilate was added against Marcion. As if Marcion is defeated by simply naming Pilate.

It is absurd, I know, but that is what you gain if you think that the polemic against docetism is in view there.