Where I diverge from Bruno Bauer

[Giuseppe]

The following is IMHO the greatest contribution by DCH to the forum (my bold):

The word that is being variously translated Public Records or Archives is ἀρχείοις, from

ἀρχεῖον , τό, neut. of an Adj. ἀρχεῖος, α, ον : ῾ἀρχή II):—
A. town-hall, residence, or office of chief magistrates, Hdt.4.62 (dub.), Lys.9.9, X.Cyr.1.2.3, Isoc.5.48, Arist.Mu.400b16; “τὰ ἀ. καὶ βουλευτήρια” D.10.53, cf. IG2.475.21, al., OGI268.18 (Nacrasa, iii B. C.), PGrenf.2.30, al. (ii B. C.).
2. τὰ ἀ. public records, archives, prob. in SIG684.7 (Dyme, ii B. C.), cf. D.H.2.26, PTeb.397.19 (ii A. D.).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... i\#lexicon

The records being referred to here are the kind to be found in the local town hall, or at best, a regional hub of something, possibly as big as a province to just the HQ of a military unit.

Why couldn't these fine folks have been suggesting that unless it is something affecting their locale directly, it is not important to them? There were no "public libraries" in the Roman empire, except maybe private libraries, or libraries dedicated to Senate business, state sanctioned cults related to Roman culture, and few others, in Rome itself. Locally, some folks ran off circulars to pass around town periodically to gossip about who was seen with whom and doing what.

I do not see anywhere that Judean holy books were described by this word, or there would have been a note of it in LSJ.

DCH

[GakuseiDon]

Ignatius, IMO, is arguing that Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection can be found predicted in the ancient Scriptures.

you are using the wrong translation. The Greek text reads arxeia, i.e. archives, public memories, not holy texts. Think about the sources used by Josephus to write Antiquities.

Didn't Josephus use the Septuagint as a source? I know nothing about ancient Greek, but it seems to me that "archives" would have to include holy texts, since we've agreed that Ignatius and his critics were referring to prophecies about Christ. Are you able to confirm that arxeia (archives) cannot include holy texts?

[GakuseiDon]

The following is IMHO the greatest contribution by DCH to the forum (my bold):

... Why couldn't these fine folks have been suggesting that unless it is something affecting their locale directly, it is not important to them? There were no "public libraries" in the Roman empire, except maybe private libraries, or libraries dedicated to Senate business, state sanctioned cults related to Roman culture, and few others, in Rome itself. Locally, some folks ran off circulars to pass around town periodically to gossip about who was seen with whom and doing what.

I do not see anywhere that Judean holy books were described by this word, or there would have been a note of it in LSJ.

DCH

It's not that the word "archive" means "Judean holy books", but was a location to where one can find such books. For example, Tertullian wrote about the origin of the Septuagint:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian01.html

Now in ancient times the people we call Jews bare the name of Hebrews, and so both their writings and their speech were Hebrew. But that the understanding of their books might not be wanting, this also the Jews supplied to Ptolemy; for they gave him seventy-two interpreters-men whom the philosopher Menedemus, the well-known asserter of a Providence, regarded with respect as sharing in his views. The same account is given by Aristaeus. So the king left these works unlocked to all, in the Greek language. To this day, at the temple of Serapis, the libraries of Ptolemy are to be seen, with the identical Hebrew originals in them. The Jews, too, read them publicly. Under a tribute-liberty, they are in the habit of going to hear them every Sabbath.

So it doesn't matter for my argument how the word is translated, as long as the word doesn't exclude holy texts. If Ignatius and his critics were referring to prophecies, then the reason to go to the archives would be to search for texts that contain those prophecies.

[Peter Kirby]

Xenophon apparently uses ἀρχεῖα once to refer not to government buildings but rather to the "ancient things" or text record "archives" themselves. This is noted in the Suda.

Suda, Lexicon
Alphabetic letter alpha, entry 4089, line 1
<Ἀρχεῖα:> ἔνθα οἱ δημόσιοι χάρται ἀπόκεινται, χαρτοφυλάκια·
ἢ τὰ χωρία τῶν κριτῶν· ἢ ἀρχαῖα, ὡς Ξενοφῶν Ἱστοριῶν.

<Ἀρχεῖα:> Archives where public documents are kept, record offices; or the districts of the judges; or ancient things, as Xenophon in Histories.

I think this is the reference:

Xenophon Hist., Cyropaedia
Book 1, chapter 2, section 3, line 6
ἔστιν αὐτοῖς ἐλευ-
θέρα ἀγορὰ καλουμένη, ἔνθα τά τε βασίλεια καὶ τἆλλα
ἀρχεῖα πεποίηται.

Xenophon Hist., Cyropaedia
Book 1, chapter 2, section 3, line 6

"They have a free market called the Agora, where the royal records and other archives are kept."

The bulk of the evidence of usage does tend to support what DCH and Giuseppe are saying.

a location to where one can find such books.

So it doesn't matter for my argument how the word is translated, as long as the word doesn't exclude holy texts.

It would be easier to support your argument, GakuseiDon, if you could show other references to this particular word in Greek in the context of a building/location that was housing Jewish scriptures among other things.

[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.

[GakuseiDon]

So it doesn't matter for my argument how the word is translated, as long as the word doesn't exclude holy texts.

It would be easier to support your argument, GakuseiDon, if you could show other references to this particular word in Greek in the context of a building/location that was housing Jewish scriptures among other things.

True. Though Ignatius's use of "it is written" is suggestive.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

[GakuseiDon]

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

Thanks for finding those examples, Peter.

[Giuseppe]

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: Enemies of Ignatius searched for Jesus in the archives of public memories but they didn't find nothing about Jesus. The answer of Ignatius: "Jesus himself is the archive" proves that Jesus was the object of the search in the archives, not a specific detail of the gospel.

[Giuseppe]

The curious thing is that in the original Greek there is not the equivalent of "it":

ἐπεἀ ἥκoνσἀ τινων λεγóντων ὅτι ἐἁν μὴ τoῖς ἀρχαίoις (ἀρχείoις, GL) εὕρω ἐν τῶ εὐαγγελίῳ oὺ πιστεύω

So the literal translation is:

If I don't find in the archives, I don't believe in the gospel

And not:

If I don't find it in the archives, I don't believe in the gospel

...therefore the answer of Ignatius, as I have specified above, implies that the best translation is:

If I don't find him in the archives, I don't believe in the gospel