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

[Giuseppe]

In response to your last comment to me: No that is not what I said. It is always evident that you are grasping at straws when you don't bother representing what we say correctly and go on wild tangents.

And your second paragraph is incomprehensible.

what would be incomprehensible? My claim that only Marcion could have a such disregard for the Old Testament, by saying that Jesus is the new and only scripture ("Solus Paulus"), and the rest (Jewish Scriptures) doesn't matter? I invite you to learn better about Marcion.

As to the your numerous attacks ad hominem, I invite you to read again what DCH wrote (in particular the part in 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

[Giuseppe]

Do you think that the archives are not the "Old Testament" but the Jewish scriptures ?

No. Here you have fallen into the same error as Reinach of misrepresenting what you're reading.

in whiletime you have not answered to my question: please show an example of a holy Jewish book that doesn't figure in the Old Testament.

I already said that what you have offered is a misrepresentation. It is incredible that you would ask me anything based on a misrepresentation.

I don't know what you mean for archives. It seems to me that you mean "public library" but you are assuming that only Jewish scriptures ("old testament") were consulted in it by the enemies of Ignatius. Which makes right the Reinach's remark: that the Ignatius's answer "the archive is Jesus" can be translated in: "the Old Testament is Jesus", with the absurd result that Ignatius would be talking here as a Marcionite.

[Chrissy Hansen]

what would be incomprehensible? My claim that only Marcion could have a such disregard for the Old Testament, by saying that Jesus is the new and only scripture ("Solus Paulus"), and the rest (Jewish Scriptures) doesn't matter? I invite you to learn better about Marcion.

As to the your numerous attacks ad hominem, I invite you to read again what DCH wrote (in particular the part in bold):

All due respect to DCH, I don't really care. I have already given evidence of Josephus using this language to describe Jewish holy books, and so have other scholars. So the point is over.

As for the rest, nothing in Ignatius indicates disregard for the Jewish Scriptures. His statement that Jesus is his archive is not dissing Hebrew scripture. You are just inserting your own assumptions on the text and claiming fact. Also, I find your claims about Marcion unevidenced at best.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't know what you mean

That's fair, but I don't have unlimited time. Please start by reviewing everything I've already written again, carefully.

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.

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.

In addition, William R. Schoedel writes (Ignatius of Antioch, p. 208):

Any lingering doubt as to whether "archives" can mean the Scriptures (OT) is set aside by the curiously neglected parallel provided by Josephus. In his Contra Apionem (1.29) the Jewish historian treats the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. 1.37-38) as literary phenomena parallel to the demosai anagrafai ("public records") of the Greeks (1.20-22) and of the societies of the Ancient Near East (1.28; cf. 1.9). Such public records, of course, are archives. This is confirmed by the fact that elsewhere Josephus employs the term "archives" itself with particular reference to the Phoenician records (C. Apion. 1.143; cf. Ant. 8.144; 9.283, 287).

Schoedel further mentions references in Philo to scripture as records (anagrafai) or sacred records (ierai anagrafai) in Congr. 175; Fuga 132; Somn. 1.33, 48; 2.265, 301; Pram,. 2. Philo and Josephus (as referenced by Schoedel, pace Giuseppe) support the idea that Jewish scriptures were the kind of texts that could be placed in the archives according to Jews.

Robert M. Grant writes (The Apostolic Fathers, volume 4, p. 106):

These critics were presumably Judaizers; Ignatius replied by stating, “It is written” (the usual formula for Old Testament quotations; cf. Eph. 5:3; Magn. 12:1), and they answered, “That is the question.” In other words, they did not accept his Old Testament exegesis, probably the kind indicated in Magnesians 8:2-9:2 and about to set forth here in chapter 9.

J. B. Lightfoot provides a discussion over a few pages here:

https://archive.org/details/apostolicfa ... 0/mode/2up

Hence it comes to mean ‘the record-office’ ; and hence, like the English word ‘archives,’ it is used indifferently of the place where the documents are kept and the collection of documents themselves ; nor is it always easy to separate the one meaning from the other. ...

The meaning here is as follows. The opponents of Ignatius refuse to defer to any modern writings, whether Gospels or Epistles, as a standard of truth; they will submit only to such documents as have been preserved in the archives of the Jews ...

Some support for what Lightfoot mentions here was found earlier: viewtopic.php?p=168978#p168978

Lightfoot and Schoedel reject the suggestion that a different word (other than the one we've been discussing) was used in the text.

Robert M. Grant's argument (re: "It is written") is decisive in itself and is supported from the context.

William R. Schoedel (mentioning "misguided efforts to find here a reference to actual city archives") disagrees with an assumption that this is an actual reference to actual archives being searched, rather than just a rhetorical reference that takes place in the context of the Jewish scriptures that could be found in the archives preserved by Jews. Ignatius refers to his opponents saying that they look in the archives and disagreeing with Ignatius about whether it is found in scripture, i.e., whether it is written. The dispute is explicitly over whether it is in scripture. It need not be supposed that either party to the dispute had made an exhaustive search of local archives, rather than merely mentioning the phrase when saying they refer to the scriptures.

Regarding what may have been happening with the opponents in view, William R. Schoedel writes (Ignatius of Antioch, p. 209):

The specific issue under debate may have come down to whether the Scriptures themselves anticipated a time when they would render themselves more or less obsolete and take second place to the gospel. If so, Ignatius was obviously much less skillful than writers like the authors of Hebrews or Barnabas in finding passages to support the thesis. The use of the term "archives" by Ignatius' opponents may give us a clue to the situation. Hellenistic Judaism's picture of the Jewish records as more ancient and impressive than Greek historical writings (Josephus, C. Apion. 1.1-18) could have provided the spiritual anchor needed by Christians as well as by Jews. Such a Scripture would have proved attractive to gentiles for two main reasons: (a) as Josephus' discussion of the "constitution" of the Jews shows, a description of a way of life based on their archives could be remarkably free of reference to the observance of religious practices (C. Apion. 2.145-296); (b) as Philo's allegorization of the "sacred records" shows, Christians were left free to find Christian meaning in the Jewish texts and to lose themselves in endless theological speculation. lt was the latter that evidently disturbed Ignatius.

If Reinach has properly understood what others are saying, then he is engaged in a game of misrepresentation in order to deliver his argument when he uses the phrase "an equivalent." He proceeds to test what is said by "almost all theologians" by plugging in the phrase “the Old Testament” for τὰ ἀρχεῖα as though it were "an equivalent" phrase in Greek.

Yet we have already seen from Schoedel (who wrote later) and Lightfoot (who wrote before Reinach) that they do not believe that the phrase "τὰ ἀρχεῖα" was an equivalent in Greek to “the Old Testament,” παλαιὰ διαθήκη. Two different Greek phrases that are not equivalent can sometimes have the same referent and sometimes a different referent. So the position, which is misrepresented here, is that Ignatius is referring to what his opponents consider to be in τὰ ἀρχεῖα in the first reference to the phrase. Ignatius still has to agree with his opponents that such a reference regarding the Old Testament is appropriate, which is why he would attempt to argue on the basis of scripture with them, only to be rebuffed by them disagreeing with the attempts to make the argument from scripture.

More devoted readers of Reinach can try to determine whether he misunderstands what he is attempting to refute or simply doesn't care that he is misrepresenting it. Reinach prevaricates:

If Ignatius had meant ‘Scripture’ in setting forth the objection of the unbeliever, Loisy’s interpretation, which is the current one, would cause him to say: ‘My Old Testament is Jesus Christ, His cross, etc,’ which makes bald nonsense.

As we know, the phrases are not simply equivalent, so Ignatius can first refer to his opponents mentioning "the archives" in one way, then refer to himself mentioning the "archives" or "the inviolable archives" in another way. Every interpretation acknowledges this. Loisy himself was no slouch and could not have been impressed by the little game played by Reinach here, who disrespects himself and his reader with this so-called proof.

William R. Schoedel suggests that Ignatius had difficulty refuting his opponents solely from the OT (Ignatius of Antioch, p. 209):

... it is still a challenge to the bishop's assertion that he can find what he wants in the OT. Evidently he was having difficulty in establishing his point from that quarter. (5) Consequently, Ignatius appeals to an even higher authority. For him the "archives" are Jesus Christ himself; or (as he rephrases it) the "inviolable archives" are "his cross and death and his resurrection and faith through him."

J. B. Lightfoot writes of its introduction with ἐμοὶ δὲ by Ignatius (The Apostolic Fathers, part II, volume 2, p. 273):

ἐμοὶ δὲ κ.τ.λ.] i.e.. ‘Though I have condescended to argue, though I have accepted their appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures, yet to myself such an appeal is superfluous: Jesus Christ is the archives; He contains in Himself the documentary proofs of His person and mission’: comp. Clem. Recogn. i. 59 ‘non ideo credendum esse Jesu, quia de eo prophetae praedixerint, sed ideo magis credendum esse prophetis, quod vere prophetae sint, quia eis testimonium Christus reddat, etc.’

William R. Schoedel footnoted Reinach when mentioning "misguided efforts to find here a reference to actual city archives."

I have highlighted some sections for you, but please read it all.

It is my hope that you will be able to understand what I'm saying from what I have already written at some length.

[Peter Kirby]

Please be moderate in your rhetoric.

All due respect to DCH, I don't really care. I have already given evidence of Josephus using this language to describe Jewish holy books, and so have other scholars. So the point is over.

Your only evidence is a mere mention of Josephus:

" 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.

...against the vast majority of cases where the archives are meant to include also not-religious chronicles.

But note that even the Josephus's quote doesn't prove that the archives include only religious texts. And the records of the Priests are not only religious texts. Josephus himself was a Priest but the content of the his writings would prove the contrary.

As for the rest, nothing in Ignatius indicates disregard for the Jewish Scriptures. His statement that Jesus is his archive is not dissing Hebrew scripture.

I disagree here and I have already explained the reason: Marcion could ignore completely the Old Testament, by introducing Jedus as the new scripture, but not, absolutely not, the proto-Catholic Ignatius, since, as yourself say, "nothing in Ignatius indicates disregard for the Jewish Scriptures". Therefore the phrase "the Old Testament is Jesus" makes zero sense on the mouth of a proto-Catholic as Ignatius.

The contradiction has been realized also by Schoedel who can only give the following harmonization (that is not even a harmonization):

If this is what the passage means, it represents a remarkable reliance on the “gospel” and the events of salvation as opposed to the formal authority of the (Old Testament) Scriptures.

I would like that Peter Kirby read that phrase used by Schoedel: "as opposed" to the Old Testament.

To my knowledge, I know only a guy who talked loudly about oppositions between old and new.

Only, he was not called Ignatius.

He was called: Marcion.

[Joseph D. L.]

Giuseppe, are you saying that Ignatius is a witness to people who denied the historicity of Jesus?

For one thing, if he is I don't see how that is an argument in favour of mythicism because the two, historicity and mythicism, are relatably different and demand two different categories of evidence to prove or disprove. Disbelief does not automatically equate to right or wrong.

Secondly, when would this denial come about? Only after Christianity appeared, which presupposes a historical Jesus, and which sceptics would admittedly acknowledge as self evident. So it seems to me that in trying to prove the unhistoricity of Jesus your argument here depends on a historical Jesus if only rhetorical.

[Chrissy Hansen]

All due respect to DCH, I don't really care. I have already given evidence of Josephus using this language to describe Jewish holy books, and so have other scholars. So the point is over.

Your only evidence is a mere mention of Josephus:

Incorrect. I also gave several references to the New Testament as well, which demonstrates the context we are talking about in Ignatius seems to be scripture. Until you prove that "archives" means "public memories" or includes "public memories" in this context, there is no reason to assume so. You have given me no reason to assume "public memories" are a part of this at all.

Until you provide actual evidence, and not your random meanderings, there is no reason to take your case on Ignatius as legit.

You've also ignored that the "gospel" is not even mentioned originally. That is an interpolation, as Bammel demonstrated. So you cannot even demonstrate the opponents were opposing the life of Jesus or the gospel.

[Giuseppe]

Status of the discussion:

Chrissy Hansen has failed to prove that for the opponents of Ignatius the archives are only Old Testament and not also prophane chronicles, ignoring that in the 99.9999% of the cases "archives" means public memories.

Peter Kirby has failed to prove that Reinach has misinterpreted Loisy, since Schoedel has just conceded that Ignatius, under the Chrissy's interpretation that "archives" are "Old Testament" (in the mind of the opponents), is going to OPPOSE old and new, by replying "Jesus is the Old Testament!". Why is this impossible? For the simple reason that this would make Ignatius a marcionite, in his tranchant opposition between old and new. But this opposition is only possible in the mouth of Ignatius only if Ignatius post-dates Marcion and is influenced by Marcion. But if we assume the traditional dating of Ignatius (i.e. before Marcion) then Reinach is completely right to signal the contradiction: Ignatius could not disregard so much the Old Testament, by replacing them totally with Jesus in an antithetical way that would have been possible only in Marcion and after Marcion. Therefore the more probable reading of "archives" is not "Old Testament", pace Chrissy et Schoedel, but "public memories".

Which makes the Ignatius's opponents ipso facto anti-Christian deniers of the historicity of Jesus.

Why is this important (replying to Joseph D L)? Because I am tired to hear the apologetical motive that none doubted about the historicity of Jesus in the Antiquity.

ADDENDA:

So Reinach against Loisy:

Ignatius would throw the Old Testament overboard? It would be the case to say: already!

I.e. already before Marcion!

[Peter Kirby]

Why is this important (replying to Joseph D L)? Because I am tired to hear the apologetical motive that none doubted about the historicity of Jesus in the Antiquity.

It will be difficult to change the conversation if your focus when you write is truly only about convincing yourself.

[maryhelena]

Because I am tired to hear the apologetical motive that none doubted about the historicity of Jesus in the Antiquity.

What people believed - christian 'fathers' - in Antiquity is of no benefit to a historical investigation of the gospel Jesus story. Today, as in the past, people believe all sorts of interpretations of the gospel story. Why, then, would one take the words of any ancient 'church father' when today the words of any 'church father' are questioned ? Antiquity does not confer rationality - just as rationality can escape the ideas of modern day writers.

The historicity or the non-historicity, of the gospel Jesus figure is not going to be established by interpretation, by words or by any show of hands. Richard Carrier, titled his book - On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. The opposite approach is to trust the gospel story that some variant of it's Jesus figure lived and was crucified under Tiberius and Pilate. One approach - the trust approach - produces, at best, a safe harbour from the wild storms produced by the doubters. But a static safe place not only prohibits growth and thus change - it cannot, ultimately, stop the ever blowing winds of change that swirl around it. Christianity has been driven by heresy not by creating safe places.

Those who trust need to look to the future instead of placing their hope in the words of long dead men. Those who doubt need to look backwords to history in order to open a road forward.