Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote:I really wish this field wasn't dominated by sons of myopic religious extremists. Even atheists who blog about things related to early Christianity come from this background. If this wasn't so, if this field didn't draw from individuals whose brains were shaped by religious fanatics we'd have more people like me participating in these discussions. The facts are that Parvis's entire theory rests on the middle Greek recension being original - something which is highly dubious.
I haven't reread Parvus' texts now, but what I remember of the thesis, I think you are a bit disingenuous here. Isn't the theory exactly that the texts are nothing but original? The whole setup, with some captive dragged all the way through Asia Minor from Antioch to Rome while using it at the same time as some kind of triumphal march with audiences to all the churches of the area screams "fake". Also, the texts have two very distinctive layers of incompatible theological ideas. Why does this qualify as "resting on the middle Greek rescension being original"?

You may lament that the Syriac texts are not considered, but "treating the text as original" is not what this is about. Of course, I may have more vivid memories of the original Marcionite thesis here than the one about Apelles, or mix the two up.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by MrMacSon »

I agree with what you say Ulan, although my impression of the the term "nothing but original" is it means 'totally original'.

Why is the term 'original' being used for *this set of texts* anyway? They can't all be original. Maybe none of them are.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by MrMacSon »

This is disingenuous, too -
Secret Alias wrote:So it's not possible or very unlikely that the short Syriac text 'cut out' these references to secretaries of Ignatius any more than Marcion 'cut out' Luke and all the references in OUR Pauline letters to Paul entrusting 'helpers' in his letters.
It's false equivalence and gish-gallopish


re
Secret Alias wrote: The original Paul (no less than the original Ignatius) was a direct manifestation of God to the world.
Do you mean the Pauline texts & the Ignatian texts were both read or thought to be as "direct manifestations of God to the world" ??

How do you know what the 'original' versions of these works were?


This is interesting -
Secret Alias wrote: Ignatius = seraph = (fiery) angel. The theme of a 'church network' of 'reasonable' (rather than 'enthusiastic') divine spokesmen is a later development. It manifested itself in a period when the Church was trying to appeal its message to 'reasonable' (middle class) men = late second century CE.
RParvus
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:16 am

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by RParvus »

DCHindley wrote: Now that I am reading his book (US $6 from publisher), ultimately he may see fit to say more as I comment about his book as I read it. Parvus proposes that Ignatius/Theophorus is the same as the Peregrinus who was parodied by Lucian. Peregrinus was said to have been a "Christian" before being booted out and ultimately becoming a Cynic philosopher. Apparently he had a death wish, which was frustrated by the Roman governor of Syria who canceled his planned execution and set him free. The "Christians" were said to have expelled him for some dietary sin (although this may be Lucian's guess). He then became, formally, a Cynic philosopher and teacher, and ultimately realized his frustrated death wish by throwing himself onto a burning pyre before a throng of witnesses. Parvus suggests that Peregrinus was, during his Christian period, a follower of Apelles. The letters were later adapted by a proto-orthodox editor who made numerous "clumsy" changes to them in order to make Peregrinus into a proto-orthodox, as opposed to a heterodox, Christian.
Hi David,

As Ulan noted, my Ignatian theory can be read for free on Vridar. There I attempted to present the argument more clearly. I first argued that Ignatius was Peregrinus, and then went on to present the case that his brand of Christianity was Apellean. The Vridar series also includes some additional material at a few points and a couple of things I had changed my mind about in the meantime. For instance, in the 5th post of the series I wrote:

“When I was writing my book in 2007 I was of the opinion that the central part of the above inscription” (of the letter to the Romans) “was an interpolation. I now think that only a single word was changed: ‘Romans’ was substituted for ‘Syrians.’ “

And I then explain my thinking regarding that change.

I also now have a different take on one of pseudo-Tertullian’s quotes regarding Apelles: “Solo utitur et apostolo sed Marcionis, id est non toto.” When I wrote the book I was inclined to agree with Harnack that the quote must have suffered some kind of corruption in transmission. Harnack, found it scarcely credible that Apelles could have accepted none of the church’s Scriptures except Marcion’s version of Paul’s letters. He thought Apelles must have also retained Marcion’s gospel. (pp. 74-75 of Harnack’s “De Apellis Gnosi Monarchia: Commentatio Historica,” pp. 74-75).

In the book I speculated that perhaps the original quote had Apelles using only one of Paul’s letters. Now, however, I am inclined to accept the quote “as is.” That is to say, I think the when Apelles broke with Marcion, the only Scriptures he took with him were Marcion’s version of the Pauline letters. In place of Marcion’s gospel Apelles wrote his own (“the Manifestations”) using the revelations of his prophetess associate Philumena. Pseudo-Tertullian mentions this special lectionary right after the quote in question.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by Secret Alias »

I know MrMacson. You don't have the benefit (or curse) of actually knowing or understanding what the pre-existent paradigms which Christianity inherited from Judaism. I know, I get it. Christianity is 'really' a pagan religion which developed myths for Gentiles. I know, there doesn't need to be any real evidence for this POV. I know it's tempting for people like me when they encounter this level of stupidity to see the interest in Gentile myths as really a way of avoiding to come to terms with Jewish myths. Pardon me for continuing to persist in this 'error.'

But moving that aside and moving forward with the notion - wrong as it may seem for the ignorant - whenever someone comes along calling themselves 'the fiery' (one) within the context of a Jewish tradition it's hard not to see this as a reinforcement of pre-existent ideas within Judaism (again acknowledging that you might not see this because you have more 'rudimentary' knowledge of Jewish myths). At the pinnacle (pardon the pun) of the Jewish mythical experience is Moses standing beside a fiery one. You get that right. Moses goes into the fire and takes on the fiery nature of the fiery one right? So the odds that someone just happened to be called 'the fiery (one)' at the beginning of Christianity is unlikely to be wholly coincidental right?

Ok.

So there is always a 'fiery one' and then there is his apostle. Moses is 'the apostle' because of Exodus 3:10. https://books.google.com/books?id=Zdam8 ... ne&f=false Right? There is the fiery one on the mountain and Moses. Ignatius and Polycarp have a similar relationship in the Greek middle recension. Perhaps the relation is implicit in the Syriac recension. But note also Irenaeus's relationship with Polycarp. He is in many ways Polycarp's 'spokesman.' Notice also Irenaeus never names Ignatius as the author of to the Romans too.

Was there some stage where Polycarp = Ignatius, the fiery one? I think it is highly plausible though unproven.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by Ulan »

MrMacSon wrote:I agree with what you say Ulan, although my impression of the the term "nothing but original" is it means 'totally original'.
Oops, yes, sorry about my English.
MrMacSon wrote:Why is the term 'original' being used for *this set of texts* anyway? They can't all be original. Maybe none of them are.
I'm pretty sure about the latter when it comes to what they tell us in the way they reached us.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by MrMacSon »

Ulan wrote:
MrMacSon wrote: Why is the term 'original' being used for *this set of texts* anyway? They can't all be original. Maybe none of them are.
I'm pretty sure about the latter when it comes to what they tell us in the way they reached us.
Yes, good point (my question was a general, rhetorical one; not one to put you on the spot, yet your point is very good).
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
DCHindley wrote:Roger Parvus had a while back poked his head into this thread, where I was describing my amazement at Ignatius' fanatical desire to be chewed up by wild beasts, maybe even have himself tortured on the rack, but has not since then had anything to say.

Now that I am reading his book (US $6 from publisher).... I'd say that $6 is cheap enough that anyone here can affords to buy the book, A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellian Writings (2007), so I encourage our members to do so and participate as best they can (as do I).
Thanks for that. I did not realize it was so inexpensive. I have only read his Vridar series so far.

Ben.
It is an e-book, in PDF format, so no special reader is required.

I have not looked at the posts on Vridar, yet.

There are also a series of posts by Parvus at the old FRDB, which are still in the archives, and to a lesser extent in the Jesus Mysteries board, where he outlines his positions on the Ignatian corpus.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
DCHindley wrote:Roger Parvus had a while back poked his head into this thread, where I was describing my amazement at Ignatius' fanatical desire to be chewed up by wild beasts, maybe even have himself tortured on the rack, but has not since then had anything to say.

Now that I am reading his book (US $6 from publisher).... I'd say that $6 is cheap enough that anyone here can affords to buy the book, A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellian Writings (2007), so I encourage our members to do so and participate as best they can (as do I).
Thanks for that. I did not realize it was so inexpensive. I have only read his Vridar series so far.

Ben.
It is an e-book, in PDF format, so no special reader is required.
I bought it this morning. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Ignatz: Krazy Kat or Krazy editors?

Post by DCHindley »

RParvus wrote:Hi David,

As Ulan noted, my Ignatian theory can be read for free on Vridar. There I attempted to present the argument more clearly. I first argued that Ignatius was Peregrinus, and then went on to present the case that his brand of Christianity was Apellean. The Vridar series also includes some additional material at a few points and a couple of things I had changed my mind about in the meantime. For instance, in the 5th post of the series I wrote:

“When I was writing my book in 2007 I was of the opinion that the central part of the above inscription” (of the letter to the Romans) “was an interpolation. I now think that only a single word was changed: ‘Romans’ was substituted for ‘Syrians.’ “

And I then explain my thinking regarding that change.

I also now have a different take on one of pseudo-Tertullian’s quotes regarding Apelles: “Solo utitur et apostolo sed Marcionis, id est non toto.” When I wrote the book I was inclined to agree with Harnack that the quote must have suffered some kind of corruption in transmission. Harnack, found it scarcely credible that Apelles could have accepted none of the church’s Scriptures except Marcion’s version of Paul’s letters. He thought Apelles must have also retained Marcion’s gospel. (pp. 74-75 of Harnack’s “De Apellis Gnosi Monarchia: Commentatio Historica,” pp. 74-75).

In the book I speculated that perhaps the original quote had Apelles using only one of Paul’s letters. Now, however, I am inclined to accept the quote “as is.” That is to say, I think the when Apelles broke with Marcion, the only Scriptures he took with him were Marcion’s version of the Pauline letters. In place of Marcion’s gospel Apelles wrote his own (“the Manifestations”) using the revelations of his prophetess associate Philumena. Pseudo-Tertullian mentions this special lectionary right after the quote in question.
Hey Roger,

Well, you had noted in a follow up post in the JM forum that you would change a few things after the fact, but you do a credible job of tying together a lot of the aporia (a literary term, meaning "odd things that make one pause and think") that the Greek text seems to exhibit. Today a person thinking like that would probably be committed as a danger to herself or himself.

While I am aware that you think his brand of Christianity was Apellian Christianity, it seems that he would have had some background in Cynic philosophy if he could in short order after being cast out of the Apellian assemblies become able to support himself as a Cynic teacher. I am not seeing much in the way of Cynic philosophy in what is stated in the letters, but that is partly what chapter 4 is all about, so allow me a day or so to read that far. I am not especially well versed on Greek philosophy.

DCH
Post Reply