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.