GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 4:58 pm
The Syriac version refers to Paul and Peter ...
Yes, it does.
Jack Bull notes:
"... In IgnRom 4 [the author, 'Ignatius'] admits he is not on the same level as the apostles, Peter and Paul, but there is still a recognition of his authority and his right to be able to instruct and command the faithful."
"IgnRom identifies that Peter and, more importantly, Paul are not slaves, but this is precisely the opposite of how Paul identified himself. We find in Rom 1:1, Gal 1:10 and Phil 1:1 that Paul explicitly refers to himself as a ‘slave of Christ’ (δοῦλος Χριστοῦ) ..."
• ἐλεύθερος:[1,2] In IgnRom 4:3 twice and nowhere else in either [the short or middle letter collection]; the author uses the noun to describe Peter and Paul and juxtaposes their freedom with his lack of freedom as a δοῦλος.
from
'A textual analysis and comparison of the various textual witnesses of Ignatius' letters to Polycarp, the Ephesians and the Romans'
(c) 2024 by Jack Bull, all rights reserved.
[a draft version of a thesis to be] submitted in part completion of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Kings College, London
Publication forthcoming.
But
Jack Bull wrote:
"... one could argue that a later redactor, again, perhaps at the end of the second century, added in [the] references to the gospels and Paul [to] root Ignatius in the tradition of the Apostles and Paul, while at the same time providing an early witness to the canonical texts."
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:24 amBut I will say:
5. The fact that the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans mentions Paul and Peter - as Apostles - is not evidence for the 'historicity' of Jesus.
Who cares whether it's evidence for historicity or not. It's all fan fiction anyway.
You appeared to care whether the Ignatian Letters were evidence for Jesus' 'historicity' last night (among your apparent concern about the argument that the Short Recension is very unlikely to be a later truncation of a traditionally-thought 'primary Middle Recension') when you said:
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:55 am
The shorter one includes references to Paul and Peter, Jesus as the seed of David, Jesus dying and rising again, a quote from the Synoptic Gospels ("For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?"). The longer one contains in addition one reference to crucifixion, a few additional quotes, and not much more than that, from what I can see. So why preposterous?
And you still seem to care:
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 4:58 pm
So I look forward to an examination of the short recension letters which refers to Paul and Peter but nonetheless don't mention references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews. How do we explain that?
"... one could argue that a later redactor, again, perhaps at the end of the second century, added in [the] references to the gospels and Paul [to] root Ignatius in the tradition of the Apostles and Paul, while at the same time providing an early witness to the canonical texts."
So: a later redactor includes Paul and Peter, but does NOT include "references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews, that the Middle Recension does". That's interesting in itself.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 4:58 pmWho cares whether it's evidence for historicity or not. It's all fan fiction anyway.
You appeared to care whether the Ignatian Letters were evidence for Jesus' 'historicity' last night (among your apparent concern about the argument that the Short Recension is very unlikely to be a later truncation of a traditionally-thought 'primary Middle Recension') when you said:
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:55 am
The shorter one includes references to Paul and Peter, Jesus as the seed of David, Jesus dying and rising again, a quote from the Synoptic Gospels ("For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?"). The longer one contains in addition one reference to crucifixion, a few additional quotes, and not much more than that, from what I can see. So why preposterous?
Surely you know that Doherty and Carrier can explain all those under a mythicist rubric. But since they are tied into Paul, then knowledge of Paul without (apparent) knowledge of Jesus’ crucifixion (whether on earth or above it) and resurrection or to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews is a point of interest. The author (whether original or redactor) didn't know or care to refer to those things.
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:04 pmAnd you still seem to care:
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 4:58 pm
So I look forward to an examination of the short recension letters which refers to Paul and Peter but nonetheless don't mention references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews. How do we explain that?
Well, you quoted an author that suggested the short recension didn't mention Paul and Peter at all, that it was an interpolation. So I guess that's the explanation: a redactor decided to refer to Paul and Peter but decided not to provide "references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews, that the Middle Recension does".
"... one could argue that a later redactor, again, perhaps at the end of the second century, added in [the] references to the gospels and Paul [to] root Ignatius in the tradition of the Apostles and Paul, while at the same time providing an early witness to the canonical texts."
So: a later redactor includes Paul and Peter, but does NOT include "references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews, that the Middle Recension does". That's interesting in itself.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:27 pm
... knowledge of Paul without (apparent) knowledge of Jesus’ crucifixion (whether on earth or above it) and resurrection or to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews is a point of interest.
Fair enough.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:27 pm
Well, you quoted an author that suggested the short recension didn't mention Paul and Peter at all ...
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:24 am
The Short Recension of Three Letters - discovered and championed by Cureton - the Epistles to Polycarp, to the Ephesians and to the Romans - were almost certainly the first, original letters of Ignatius.
They do not include references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews, that the Middle Recension does (nor to other significant themes, such as the offices of presbyter and deacon).
So, they may not have been witness to 'the historicity of Jesus' themselves, let alone been arguing for one or against anyone denying it.
I don't know the Ignatian Letters so if this is immature ignore it, but from the point of view of Early Ebionaen Christianity:
they may have believed there was no resurrection - just survival
they make no reference to the Eucharist
they are the relationship of Christianity with Judaism
So could the Short Recension of Three Letters discovered and championed by Cureton be an
early Ebionaen version?
Perhaps in haste I concluded that the Ignatius letters are too much of a mess to say anything.
If the Short Recension were almost certainly the first, original letters of Ignatius, I should look again. The key question I wanted to answer was do the letters of Ignatius refer to the Pauline Epistles in a way that is above and beyond what could be Paul-in-Acts, because if so they call into question my conclusion that Paul's letters are all derived by/from MarcionOrLater
The middle (Greek) recension reads like real letters with personal details irrelevant to a later redactor. The short (Syriac) recension leaves it unclear for example where Ignatius is writing from.
In ancient texts, where shadows fall and rise,
The tale of Ignatius, through ages, flies.
Shorter Syriac epistles catch our eyes,
Against the lengthy Greek, where truth vies.
In Cureton's find, a glimpse of the authentic lies,
A version stripped of later, elaborate ties.
Here, Ignatius' voice, in its original guise,
Speaks to us, beyond centuries' disguise.
The figure of Polycarp, in history, sighs,
A seraph's mantle, his early cries.
Predicting flames, his martyrdom's prize,
Yet, in life's turn, a different path he tries.
Back from Rome, with a vision that defies,
Polycarp shapes the church, under open skies.
Ignatius, once a prelude to his demise,
Now, in letters, his teachings arise.
The Syriac texts, simplicity's allies,
Lack the Greek's elaborate enterprise.
Polycarp's hand, in the longer versions, applies,
Crafting Ignatius' praise, in heavy supplies.
Questioning why, the narrative implies,
A prisoner's journey, full of formal goodbyes.
In Smyrna's stop, where the story lies,
A meeting of Christians, the text specifies.
Letters penned with fervor that never dies,
To Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, he flies.
And to Rome, a plea that subtly ties,
His martyrdom wish, under scrutinizing eyes.
Yet, from Syriac to Greek, the text multiplies,
Expanding stories, under the same skies.
The shorter, more likely to hold the prize,
Of authentic words, where truth never dies.
In these verses, the essence of inquiry lies,
Exploring Ignatius through historical spies.
The Syriac epistles, where authenticity flies,
Against the Greek length, where suspicion ties.
Thus, through poetic lines, the inquiry ties,
A quest for truth, in ancient cries.
The shorter letters, where our trust lies,
Point to a past, where the real story flies.
In this exploration, our spirit tries,
To uncover truths, beneath historical skies.
The Syriac Ignatius, in simplicity, vies,
Against the Greek, where complexity lies.
Let us then, with open eyes,
Seek the paths where authenticity lies.
In the shorter epistles, truth defies,
The lengthy Greek, where our inquiry sighs.
Through verses woven, the story ties,
To ancient texts, where our interest lies.
In the search for truth, our spirit flies,
Back to Ignatius, where authenticity lies.
In the echoes of history, a tale unfolds,
Of Ignatius, the fiery one, in ancient texts told.
A name intertwined with Polycarp, bold,
A seraph's whisper, in the early days, cold.
From Polycarp's lips, a prophecy foretold,
Of a fiery end, his fate would hold.
Yet, in Rome's shadow, his story rolled,
A martyr's journey, prematurely sold.
Cureton's discovery, in manuscripts old,
Reveals Syriac letters, authenticity bold.
A generation removed, yet stories unfold,
Of Polycarp, the fiery one, in tales retold.
In these Syriac scripts, details bold,
Of a life once hidden, now stories told.
After Rome, Polycarp's destiny would mold,
A church worldwide, his vision scrolled.
Ignatius emerged, a figure rolled,
From Polycarp's persona, a narrative tolled.
An opening act, history would hold,
For Polycarp's martyrdom, in stories bold.
Scholars debate, in arguments cold,
The authenticity of texts, in languages old.
But Ignatius' name, in Aramaic, sold,
Hints at origins, in Syriac letters bold.
These letters, free from Greek's elaborate mold,
Carry the essence of a story untold.
Without subscriptions, their authenticity rolled,
A testament to Polycarp, the fiery one, bold.
Why then, was Ignatius allowed to scold,
In Smyrna's embrace, his letters tolled?
A prisoner, yet his messages bold,
To churches far, his words would unfold.
In Smyrna, the story takes hold,
Deputations came, their support bold.
Letters of exhortation, love untold,
Against heresy, his warnings rolled.
But how could a prisoner, in chains cold,
Command such homage, his story told?
A series of greetings, too bold,
For a man to Rome, his fate sold.
Yet, in this mystery, truths unfold,
From Syriac to Greek, the stories told.
Expand and change, in manuscripts old,
The fiery one's tale, forever bold.
In the quest for authenticity, our hearts hold,
To Ignatius and Polycarp, in stories bold.
The fiery one, in letters scrolled,
A legacy of faith, in history's mold.
In days past (2015), whilst I was busy with my comparison of the Longer and Shorter (aka "Middle") Greek recensions of epistles where both shorter and longer Greek existed, I did compare them to the ANF version of Cureton's epistles.
Interesting thing was, there are only three actual Syriac epistles (Romans, Ephesians & Polycarp). All have strong parallels to the shorter Greek recensions of the similarly named Syriac epistles. There is an exception, in the a section of Ep to the Romans between the equivalent of Greek chapters 9 & 10, there is a segment that bears resemblance to shorter recension of Greek Trallians chapters 4 & 5.
And to Polycarp? Really? Scholarship has, for a good while now, doubted the epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp is authentic. In the shorter Greek recension, it is quite different from the other epistles. I'll be interested in seeing how your buddy explains this.
So, maybe there were 4 epistles and somehow the Cureton mss is conflated into three, or three Syriac epistles served as the basis of 4 Greek epistles.
All 3 (or 4) Syriac letters have strong parallels to both the shorter and longer Greek recensions.
For whatever value they might add to this discussion, English translations of Cureton's Syriac epistles compared to English translations of the shorter & longer Greek recensions, will be found below. You will be able to see exactly where each version (Syriac, Shorter Greek & Longer Greek) differs from one another, and in what way (in translation).
The original analysis was based on the Greek texts of the Shorter and Longer recensions. I know no Syriac so for those Syriac epistles, I had to rely on English translation, my only fluent language. Boo hoo ...
Apparently I have reached a size limit for attachments (mebbe 1 Mb), so I'll have to add the comparison of the ET of Syriac Trallians compared to shorter and longer Greek, separately.
DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Mon Apr 01, 2024 7:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Here is that last one. The ET of the Syriac was already in the Romans epistle file, but here at least you can see what the the rest of the shorter & longer Greek recensions have to say.
To my untrained eye, the Syriac versions seem to be summaries of sections of the shorter Greek recension. I am not afraid of being shown the error of my ways, though.
