toejam wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:28 am
^Ignatius wasn't writing with the intent of being as succinct and economical as possible. The texts are polemic. Ignatius wants to
stretch his points, not be economical. Your assumption that Ignatius didn't need to mention Pilate to make his point is over stated.
Two objections to your claim that Ignatius is not
deliberately economical:
1) If Ignatius wanted not be economical in the his polemic aganst banal docetists - or, alternatively if ''Pilate'' is so irrelevant for Ignatius
also -, then why did
not Tertullian - himself in polemic against
really a
historicist docetist (Marcion of Sinope), and surely not someone who was ''of few words'' - mention Pilate
in any moment of the his polemic against Marcion?
2)
really, what Ignatius says about a Gospel Jesus is truly
only a minimal part of what a Gospel Jesus
is:
Jesus Christ… was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died… He was also truly raised from the dead.
(Trallians 9)
''under Pontius Pilate'' is really an
useless expression
if meant as an anti-docetic expression. In another point Ignatius reports in a negative form what is the belief of the his enemies:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
(Smyrneans 7)
See what is clearly missing: these Christians deny that that ''flesh ... suffered for our sins'', but there is no mention of Pilate there. So what is the entire point behind the mention of Pilate by Ignatius?
And moreover, of a so strange
temporal expression as
''under Pilate'' ?
I can
insist that Hitler died in 1945 only in polemic against who says that Hitler is still alive in Argentina. I can insist that America was discovered the first time ''by Colombo'' only in polemic against who says that Vikings discovered America
before Colombo. So Ignatius could insist that Jesus died
''under Pilate'' only in polemic against who placed Jesus in an
undefinite past (hence my implication of ''outer space'' as the undefinite space
par excellence).
Look at all the cards that have to fall in your favor in order for your hypothesis to hold: Firstly, Ignatius' foes can't just be run-of-the-mill docetists, they have to have believed that Jesus was crucified in outer-space. But no where does Ignatius say this.
I repeat again: for me ''outer space'' or a ''time different from Pilate'' ''pari sono'' (translated: are equivalent things). So please don't misrepresent my arguments.
Secondly, you're asking us to assume that this form of doceticm Ignatius criticizes was around in Paul's day too. Assuming authenticity, Ignatius' epistles date at least to the late 1st / early 2nd Century - a generation before Paul's heyday. We are then required to assume that Paul himself held to this retrojected form of docetism, despite that Paul's epistles make numerous explicit and implicit reference to Jesus' earthly activity.
Against any your (only presumed) Pauline reference to Jesus's ''earthly'' activity, it is surely more important and more strong, alone, the great evidence of
pre-pauline
docetism found in the
pre-pauline Hymn to Philippians:
''in form of men'' ≠ ''
fully man''.
To do this, we are asked to follow speculative unattested interpolation theories and interpretive leaps beyond plain readings. Paul's numerous references to Jesus being a born of a woman under the [Mosaic] law,
It is very
surprising that ''among so many cards that have to fall in your favor'' there is a
particular card that falls (coincidentially?) in
my favor:
These things are being taken allegorically.
(Galatians 4:24)
his being an Israelite and descendant "according to the flesh" of David and Jesse,
the Messiah has to be
by need so.
Even if he is seen only in hallucination:
He [Moses Al-Dar'i] informed them that the Messiah had come, as was divinely revealed to him in a dream.
(
Maimonides,
Epistle to Yemen, 12th century)
And note that your loved prof Ehrman is greatly mistaken when he says that the Jews couldn't never invent a suffering Messiah: they already had identified Cyrus as the Messiah,
and Cyrus was crucified!
For instance, when Cyrus the king of the Persians, the mightiest ruler of his day, made a campaign with a vast army into Scythia, the queen of the Scythians not only cut the army of the Persians to pieces but she even took Cyrus prisoner and crucified him; and the nation of the Amazons, after it was once organized, was so distinguished for its manly prowess that it not only overran much of the neighbouring territory but even subdued a large part of Europe and Asia.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... html#ref25
his being a brother to James,
As any baptized Christian. (per Romans 8:28-29)
his teachings involving handling bread and cups one night "after supper",
just as in the Mthras cult (per some angry Father of the Church).
his crucifixion in Judea/Zion that Paul blames on Judean Jews,
were then ''the Jews'' the rulers of the world? Only for the ''anti-Semite'' Sejanus.
his burial, etc.
Yes, ''according to scriptures'' all is possible.
are all to be understood as either allegory or 'alternatively' interpreted. It's simply too much of a stretch for all this to fall in place.
I would be grateful if you attempt a confutation of my views only about the Ignatius's mention of Pilate (that is the real subject of this thread, thanks).