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

[Peter Kirby]

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.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

[Peter Kirby]

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.’

[Giuseppe]

So the position is that Ignatius is referring to what his opponents consider to be in τὰ ἀρχεῖα in the first reference to the phrase.

it seems to me that you are victim of a false view about the argument by Reinach, insofar it appears here that you are thinking about the first answer by Ignatius: it is written.

Can we agree that both you and I agree that "it is written" means "it is written in the New Testament"? So Reinach, too.

Ignatius is pointing to a source apparently not consulted by the his opponents when the latter had queried the archives: the Old Testament.

Because otherwise it would be surprising, i.e. unexpected, i.e. improbable, that Ignatius refers the his interlocutors to the same object already consulted by them.

Do you understand now what is the first logical difficulty in your scenario?

(Here is Giusrppe who talks. Carrier has not yet answered).

[Peter Kirby]

So the position is that Ignatius is referring to what his opponents consider to be in τὰ ἀρχεῖα in the first reference to the phrase.

it seems to me that you are victim of a false view about the argument by Reinach, insofar it appears here that you are thinking about the first answer by Ignatius: it is written.

You are free to continue to elucidate the arguments by Reinach. Thank you for doing so.

Can we agree that both you and I agree that "it is written" means "it is written in the New Testament"?

I don't believe that is the interpretation of the letter of Ignatius, no.

That the opponents disagreed that "it is written," as a matter of interpretation ("that is the question"), supports an OT reference.

So Reinach, too.

I can accept that you / Reinach believe that.

Ignatius is pointing to a source apparently not consulted by the his opponents when the latter had queried the archives: the Old Testament. Because otherwise it would be surprising, i.e. unexpected, i.e. improbable, that Ignatius refers the his interlocutors to the same object already consulted by them.

I don't agree, given that the passage indicates that they had different views of what things are supported by scripture, so the opponent's objection is indeed that they refer only to the Old Testament (the wording of their objection in Ignatius has been discussed at length). Against their objection, Ignatius wants to make two counterpoints: (a) he is supported by scripture - although his opponents question that - and (b) beyond that, what Ignatius has to say is somehow supported by Jesus Christ himself (but it's hard to read this bit about his "inviolable archives" as more than a rhetorical flourish which, at the same time, shows that Ignatius seemingly did not refer to the gospels as scripture, which would be less awkward to say than that his archives are Jesus Christ).

Currently I see no indication that scripture for Ignatius means anything other than what we would call Old Testament.

Do you understand now what is the first logical difficulty in your scenario?

(Here is Giusrppe who talks. Carrier has not yet answered).

I think I understand how you are reading the passage.

I consider it to be true that the reading I have offered presents the least genuine difficulties.

I appreciate that you are arguing in good faith and against what I have suggested.

[Giuseppe]

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.

it is a wrong reading. Ignatius is already assuming that (1) a search has been made and (2) rather exahustively, therefore it makes no sense that, by answering "it is written in the Old Testament", he would refer his interlocutors to the same scriptures by them already consulted...
....unless these scriptures were not what they queried by their research in the archives.

[Peter Kirby]

Ignatius is already assuming that (1) a search has been made and (2) rather exahustively

What in particular in Ignatius indicates clearly that "a search has been made and rather exahustively"?

edited to add: I'm not sure why I'm asking rhetorically. Those words are not there.

Other than that, your argument repeats the one I just replied to.

[Giuseppe]

Ignatius is already assuming that (1) a search has been made and (2) rather exahustively

What in particular in Ignatius indicates clearly that "a search has been made and rather exahustively"?

the character of accusation in the first claim by the opponents:

If I don't find (a certain thing) in the archives, in the Gospel I don't believe.

None would raise a such accusation against the credibility of a certain thing unless he/she has already queried the database.

In alternative: None would raise a such accusation against the credibility of a certain thing unless he/she has already a sufficient knowledge of the entire database that justifies him/her to raise the accusation.

In both the cases, the answer by Ignatius cannot be: please query again the same database, it is found there in an implicit way. Or: please remember better, it is found there.

[Peter Kirby]

Ignatius is already assuming that (1) a search has been made and (2) rather exahustively

What in particular in Ignatius indicates clearly that "a search has been made and rather exahustively"?

the character of accusation in the first claim by the opponents:

If I don't find (a certain thing) in the archives, in the Gospel I don't believe.

None would raise a such accusation against the credibility of a certain thing unless he/she has already queried the database.

In alternative: None would raise a such accusation against the credibility of a certain thing unless he/she has already a sufficient knowledge of the entire database that justifies him/her to raise the accusation.

In both the cases, the answer by Ignatius cannot be: please query again the same database, it is found there in an implicit way. Or: please remember better, it is found there.

For the sake of argument if nothing else and as an expression of my good will (at least), let's work with the Greek text that is reflected behind your translation, with its reference to "in the gospel" (pace Hansen).

There are essentially two hypotheses:

(a) this reference to "archives" refers to what is in a store of material that includes various secular records (this is supposed to summarize your hypothesis, suggest any modifications, clarifications, or extensions that you like)

(b) this reference to "archives" refers to what is in the scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament)

With reference to hypothesis (a), then I can potentially see how you can argue, "None would raise a such accusation against the credibility of a certain thing unless he/she has already a sufficient knowledge of the entire database that justifies him/her to raise the accusation." Not that your argument is necessarily secure, as people make claims like this all the time without checking personally (witness this forum). But it's not interesting to argue either way because the result isn't that important, unless we've already accepted (a) for some reason - and then we wouldn't be having this argument. That's because this is merely an exploration of the implications of (a), which doesn't have to be assumed. More interesting - especially for your purposes of potentially refuting it - is to explore the implications of (b).

Under (b), it's clearly incorrect that there wouldn't be an argument about what's in the Old Testamant. This is highly plausible both because of the nature of religious argument and the history of argument over the Old Testament specifically. Moreover, under (b), the next few lines explain that there is a disagreement over what is in scripture - i.e, "it is written" and "that is the question." Therefore, what is implied under (b) is both highly plausible and completely supported by the text itself.

[Giuseppe]

It can be now that you have understood the Reinach's argument but I have not realized your point.

Your scenario assumes:

‘

‘I have heard certain men say, If I do not find (a certain thing) in the Old Testament found in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel, And as I replied to them: It is written [in the Old Testament] they answered: ‘That is the very question.’ But for me the Old Testament is Jesus Christ, His cross, His death, His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”

Can you explain me why the answer "it is written" is going to move the opponents to consult again and/or better the same Old Testament by them already consulted and/or remembered?

Can you explain me why the second answer "the Old Testament is Jesus Christ" is not exposed to the accusation of marcionism in an epistle written before Marcion, given that it makes tabula rasa of all the holy scriptures and replace them with Jesus Christ?