Mr. Robertson, in the Literary Guide for April, 1926, pointed out that such evidence is contained in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. And the evidence is not affected by the genuineness or otherwise of the passage, which runs :— “ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) 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 archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”
The meaning of this is that when Ignatius was asked for proof of the Gospel story he could only refer the objector to the Old Testament. The latter, naturally, did not consider Old Testament statements to be a proof of events which were supposed to have happened afterwards. Whereupon Ignatius could do nothing but beg the question, quite in the manner of modern theologians. Of course, the objectors to whom the writer refers in the passage quoted need not have been Jews, but the evidence proves that there were deniers of the historicity of Jesus even in the second century. There is, however, evidence that the denial was made by Jews. For Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, . . .
(Gordon Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 225, my color)
The logical fallacy made by Ignatius is surely the petitio principii.
But I wonder: are the 'archives' only the Jewish Scriptures?
Or did they include also historical records?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Mr. Robertson, in the Literary Guide for April, 1926, pointed out that such evidence1 is contained in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. And the evidence is not affected by the genuineness or otherwise of the passage, which runs :—
“ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) 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 archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.” [Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chap 8, v.2].
The meaning of this is that when Ignatius was asked for proof of the Gospel story he could only refer the objector to the Old Testament. The latter, naturally, did not consider Old Testament statements to be a proof of events which were supposed to have happened afterwards. Whereupon Ignatius could do nothing but beg the question, quite in the manner of modern theologians. Of course, the objectors to whom the writer refers in the passage quoted need not have been Jews, but the evidence2 proves that there were deniers of the historicity of Jesus even in the second century3. There is, however, evidence that the denial was made by Jews. For Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, . . .
(Gordon Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 225, my color) [underlining mine]
The logical fallacy made by Ignatius is surely the petitio principii.
But I wonder: are the 'archives' only the Jewish Scriptures? Or did they include also historical records?
1 What is 'such evidence' that Rylands refers to? The same as at 2 ?
3 The Ignatian texts seem likely to be later than we have been led to believe.
Mr. Robertson, in the Literary Guide for April, 1926, pointed out that such evidence1 is contained in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. And the evidence is not affected by the genuineness or otherwise of the passage, which runs :—
“ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) 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 archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.” [Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chap 8, v.2].
The meaning of this is that when Ignatius was asked for proof of the Gospel story he could only refer the objector to the Old Testament. The latter, naturally, did not consider Old Testament statements to be a proof of events which were supposed to have happened afterwards. Whereupon Ignatius could do nothing but beg the question, quite in the manner of modern theologians. Of course, the objectors to whom the writer refers in the passage quoted need not have been Jews, but the evidence2 proves that there were deniers of the historicity of Jesus even in the second century3. There is, however, evidence that the denial was made by Jews. For Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, . . .
(Gordon Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 225, my color) [underlining mine]
The logical fallacy made by Ignatius is surely the petitio principii.
But I wonder: are the 'archives' only the Jewish Scriptures? Or did they include also historical records?
1 What is 'such evidence' that Rylands refers to? The same as at 2 ?
Yes. The evidence that some doubted.
@Peter
Notice that Ignatius does not refer to a gospel text (backed by a witness) or to an apostolic tradition regarding the life of Christ.
Ignatius maintains that the birth/death of Jesus Christ is an article of faith.
But if 'Ignatius' is a forger, then he is referring implicitly to a gospel text (or to an apostolic tradition) even if he shows apparently it as an article of faith. Isn't so?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
MrMacSon wrote:The Ignatian texts seem likely to be later than we have been led to believe.
Giuseppe wrote:But if 'Ignatius' is a forger, then he is referring implicitly to a gospel text (or to an apostolic tradition) even if he shows apparently it as an article of faith. Isn't so?
I'm not the one making assumptions here.
The questions are complicated and permit several answers regarding both date and authorship.
Even if forgery is considered fait accompli, that doesn't establish the date.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Mr. Robertson, in the Literary Guide for April, 1926, pointed out that such evidence is contained in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. And the evidence is not affected by the genuineness or otherwise of the passage, which runs :— “ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) 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 archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”
(Gordon Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 225, my color)
The archives are the scriptures. The scriptures are what we might call the "Old Testament," of course.
(If you want to read whatever you want into things, just go ahead and dispense with all the pretense and do so.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:
The questions are complicated and permit several answers regarding both date and authorship.
Even if forgery is considered fait accompli, that doesn't establish the date.
Giuseppe wrote:
But if 'Ignatius' is a forger, then he is referring implicitly to a gospel text (or to an apostolic tradition) even if he shows apparently it as an article of faith. Isn't so?
DCH wrote:
The author [of Magnesians] did not like the practice of Judaism at all. He complains about Christians observing the Sabbath by abstaining from work and even eating food prepared in advance and avoiding extended travel. He expounds on the idea popular in early Christian circles that Jesus "fulfilled" the Judean law, which the ancient prophets "saw" in advance by the help of the spirit of God and thus were inspired to drop hints as to the events that would transpire when Jesus would come. To Iggy, Jews should become more like Christians, and not Christians adopt Judean practices. There is a tie-in with the other thread about "Myths and endless genealogies" in 1 Timothy 1.
eta: previous to that commentary, DCH wrote "the letter displays some themes that are shared with the letter to the Ephesians: primarily fascination with the tradition of the Virgin Mary, and how her virgin birth of Jesus and his subsequent death & resurrection were "mysteries" that were hidden from the devil. "
