DCHindley

Well, I did download his book and found it very interesting, if only because I have proposed a similar corpus of interpolated letters of Paul. As a result, I have to be careful about my criticisms, as I do not want them to turn around and nip at my own heels.

That being said, I wonder if anyone else might want to do the same and discuss his hypothesis. It is connected to a series of posts here on the relationship between the Ignatian letters and Revelation as well as other topics related to the Gospel of John and the Marcionite gospel.

DCH

DCHindley

INTRODUCTION .................................................. .......................v
Chapter 1: WAS THEOPHORUS A MARCIONITE?............... 1
Chapter 2: THE ERSTWHILE DISCIPLE OF MARCION .... 17
Chapter 3: FROM SYRIA TO ROME?..................................... 37
Chapter 4: HE WITH THE MOST NAMES OF ALL THE
CYNICS............................................ ....................... 53
Chapter 5: THE E/I (EDITOR/INTERPOLATOR) ................ 64
Chapter 6: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER ........................... 69
THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS.........................................70
THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN MAGNESIA......................................79
THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN TRALLES..........................................8 4
THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN ROME ..............................................89
THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA..............................94
THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN SMYRNA ........................................100
THE LETTER TO POLYCARP.......................................... ..........................107
Chapter 7: OTHER APELLEAN WRITINGS........................ 113
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... .................................. 153
Appendix: THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE
PHILIPPIANS....................................... .................... 160

What Parvus does is present the following case:

"the author of the Ignatians [whom he refers to as Theophorus] was a Marcionite, and that his letters were later worked over and interpolated in the interest of making them serviceable to the proto-Catholic church."

This is built on the work of two individuals:

French Catholic priest, Joseph Turmel, under the pseudonym ‘Henri Delafosse’:

"Turmel argued that the Ignatian letters were in large part written by a Marcionite bishop named Theophorus, sometime between 135 and 190 C.E., and that later, sometime between 190 and 210, they were interpolated and edited by a Catholic Christian. Turmel contended it was the editor/interpolator who created the fictitious figure of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, by combining the Marcionite bishop Theophorus with a martyr named Ignatius who met his end at Philippi and is mentioned in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. The same editor/interpolator, according to Turmel, also inserted two passages in Polycarp’s letter, and thereby furnished the newly reworked version of the Ignatians with a personal recommendation from Polycarp himself."

French Catholic priest, Alfred Loisy:

"Loisy examines Turmel’s Ignatian theory and concludes that, though questionable in many particulars, Turmel’s basic contention is correct: the original letters were written by a Marcionite bishop and were later interpolated in the proto-Catholic interest."

Most of what Parvus identifies as interpolations by his Proto-Catholic editor/interpolator are "passages [that] have every appearance of being interpolations" (bolding is mine). Unfortunately, aside from comments about abruptness and subject matter, he does not try to justify his choices by reference to principles of textual or literary criticism.

Parvus claims that interpolation best explains the "mix of doctrines contained in the Ignatians." To help justify his choices of interpolated passages, he uses what we know of the teachings of Marcion's disciple Apelles, who broke with his teacher sometime around Marcion's troubles with the Roman church in 144 CE. These doctrines and the interpolator's proto-Catholic reactions to them, Parvus claims, best explain the "mix of doctrines" noted above.

Parvus summarizes the gist of Apelles' doctrine as follows, derived mainly from Tertullian:

After his separation from Marcion, Apelles continued to hold several of his former master’s teachings. He apparently retained the belief that Christ came down to earth as an adult in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Lk III:1; IV:31—the opening of Marcion’s Gospel). And he continued, like Marcion, to reject Christ’s conception and birth (virginal or otherwise) by Mary, and so his descent from David. But Apelles decisively repudiated some very significant elements of Marcionism.

In particular:

(1) He abandoned Marcion’s ditheism, and returned to belief in one God.
“Now this Apelles and his school claim that there are not three first principles or two, as Lucian and Marcion thought. He says there is one good God, one first principle …” Apelles’ first principle, however, was not the creator of the visible world. That distinction belonged to one of God’s angels, “a certain angel of great renown … who had the spirit, and will, and power of Christ for such operations.” This angel attempted to make the visible world in the image of the invisible, but he did not succeed. His work was imperfect. Yet another angel, a fiery angel, fell away completely from the supreme God and became the ruler of evil. It was this fiery angel who—according to Apelles—led the Jews astray and was the source of the falsehoods and fables that constitute the Law and the Prophets.

(2) Apelles set aside Marcion’s docetism and replaced it with a doctrine peculiar to himself. He held that Christ possessed truly human flesh, but it was not obtained by means of a human birth: “They (Apelleans) assert it for a certain principle, that a body without nativity is nothing to be astonished at … He (Christ) borrowed, they say, his flesh from the stars, and from the substance of the higher world.” In the previous chapter we saw how Theophorus’ ‘New Man’ concept, as applied to Christ, is apparently derived from I Corinthians XV. According to Tertullian, the Apelleans used a verse from this same part of I Corinthians to defend their teaching on Christ’s flesh: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven” (I Cor. XV:47).

(3) Although Apelles retained Marcion’s rejection of the Jewish Scriptures, his position differed significantly from that of his former teacher. Marcion rejected those writings as religiously irrelevant, whereas Apelles rejected their credibility and trustworthiness.

DCH

DCHindley

Mr H, you ignorant turd!

Have you not noticed that Parvus does not treat the issue of the authenticity of the Paulines? The Dutch Super Radicals, intent on questioning even the so-called authentic letters of Paul, assumed that the citations of "authentic" letters of Paul in the Ignatian letters must be explained as the latter being fabrications to support the former (Pauline) fabrications?

Only an addled brain apologist could not see the obviosity of this fact, visible only to super smart extra super duper and really good extreme skeptics such as myself, Stephan Huller and Joe Wallack.

Harumph!

Skippy

stephan huller

I can't comment directly on these specific arguments because I haven't read them. Nevertheless I think I am fairly informed about the Ignatian epistles. The letters may well have been Marcionite originally. I've even heard it argued that Polycarp had Marcionite beliefs. Perhaps the place to start is the name Ignatius/Nuronos means 'fiery one' and probably derives from the Aramaic Seraph which also means 'angel' or 'angelic being.' One of the Syriac Church Fathers (I forget which) said that Ignatius was the beloved disciple.

One of the Dutch Radicals (I forget whom) noted that they were developed to be read in the order they appear in the canon (i.e.2 assumes knowledge of 1, 3 of 2 and 1 etc.) I think that's a valid observation.

With regards to the points you bring up, I think we should start with the expansion of the long letters to the longer and note that they inevitably contain more specific references to Gospels and texts which don't seem to have been known to the previous expansion (i.e. from short to long recension). That's important. Also why doesn't Irenaeus identify Ignatius by name?

DCHindley

Stephan, you super smart extra super duper and really good extreme skeptic, I believe you may have read such a thing about Ignatius being the beloved disciple of the Gospel of John in Fr. Raymond Brown's The Community of the Beloved Disciple (1979). Parvus goes into great detail to show how the author is Theophorus, the familiar name Ignatius being added by the proto-Catholic editor. The teachings of this Theophorus he links to the teachings of Marcion's disciple Apelles. He links Theophorus with Peregrinus, as described by the second-century satirist Lucian of Samosata in his book The Death of Peregrinus. On page 53, Parvus says : "Using the information provided by Lucian, Peregrinus’ Christian years fell somewhere between 145 and 155 C.E., probably in the first half of this period rather than the second. Apelles and Marcion are thought to have still been active during those years." Theophorus/Peregrinus' docetic opponents are identified by Parvus as Marcionites, the Judaizers he addresses are identified as proto-Cathiolics. The final editor Parvus identifies as a proto-Catholic, who files off Theophorus/Peregrinus' heretical edges and makes him a fit and good proto-Catholic like himself.

I couldn't confirm that, but I can relate what is said about the various recensions in Wm Schoedel's Hermeneia commentary Ignatius of Antioch (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1985):

The order of the letters varies widely in all these sources [i.e. the manuscripts]. Modern editions of the middle recension of the letters follow the order suggested by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.36), though there is reason to believe that he was wrong about the first three of them (see on Mag. 15). [pg 4]

For reference, here is Eusebius' order:

Ephesians
Magnesians
Trallians
Romans
Philadelphians
Smyrneans
Polycarp

The modern order of Ignatius' letters is derived not from the manuscripts -- which present a very confused picture on this score -- but from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.36), who must have worked out the order on internal grounds. He saw that Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans were written from Smyrna, and Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp from Troas. There are obvious enough reasons for putting Romans and Philadelphians where they are. But there are no comparable guides for the order of Ephesians, Magnesians, and Trallians. It is likely, then, that Eusebius (like those who first arranged the Pauline epistles) simply arranged them in order of their length. ... Eusebius' order, then is artificial; and closer examination of the materials suggests that Magnesians and Trallians were written before Ephesians. [pg 132]

Parvus limits his analysis to the "middle" recension (shorter Greek, which admittedly are longer than the Syriac versions, which appear apocryphal to me). As a result, I don't think that discussion of how the longer Greek (your "longest") were produced from the shorter Greek (your "long"), is irrelevant - unless it shows that some part of Parvus' interpolation theory is flawed.

The longer Greek are clearly interpolated versions of the shorter Greek, but the relationship carries some mystery. Aside from obvious additions of quotes from the NT (and lots of them) and the occasional digression on some doctrine from later ages, the longer Greek unexpectedly leaves out key sentences from the shorter Greek, adds citations of otherwise unknown gospels above and beyond the cases in the shorter Greek, etc, making it hard to judge exactly what sources lay before the editor.

I just installed BibleWorks ver. 8 on our new laptop, and it contains the original shorter Greek text, but not the original longer Greek text. However, it does include the English translation of both shorter and longer Greek versions, so maybe someday I can create a table comparing them side by side, sentence by sentence, as I am wont to do.

DCH

stephan huller

Hi DCH

I didn't get my information from Brown. I read the original text at archive.org but I forget the name of the ancient author. I also have a recollection somewhere that someone important questioned whether Theophorus is a real name because the same figure is identified as 'Christophorus' somewhere else (i.e. that 'God' and 'Christ' are interchangeable).

I haven't thought about the topic of Ignatius in ages. But it is good sometimes to allow your mind to refresh and see things from a new perspective (i.e. having a conversation with you and others).

In my way of thinking the Syriac was more original (although not completely original) and the Greek texts added information to make the author seem more orthodox. I was always particularly intrigued by three things:

1. the connection with Polycarp
2. the impending visit to Rome
3. parallels between Polycarp's death and the implications of the name 'Ignatius'

I have always thought that the letters of Ignatius were rebaptized addresses associated with the historical Polycarp. You see Polycarp ultimately died a fiery death. The name Ignatius could well have been a title of Polycarp or a description associated with Polycarp's death albeit moved back to an earlier period.

I noted in an article published at Detering's site that Lucian's Peregrinus (= stranger) might well describe Polycarp's death during the rule of the Antonine's. In that account the stranger repeatedly declares that he will die by flames many times over the course of the various Olympiads. Eventually he actually builds the pyre himself and throws himself in the flames in order to secure his martyrdom. What I have always wondered is whether the Ignatian corpus derives from one of those failed martyrdoms mentioned in the death of Peregrinus (i.e. him declaring 'I am going to die' but then he changed his mind or nothing happened).

Polycarp was the fiery one but then Irenaeus changed the letters to first make a new figure 'Ignatius' endorse Polycarp (thus making him a separate figure). Over the course of time the Syriac texts were translated into Greek and the invented figure of Ignatius becomes a witness for the early Church headquartered in Antioch (like Acts). This probably occurred c. 170 - 180 CE. Then the longer recension (which are cited in Against Heresies) witness the canonical gospels and the other things Irenaeus developed and backdated to the earliest days of the church.

The argument is complex but the simplest way to look at it is to see that there was no Catholic Church or 'Great Church' before Polycarp. Ignatius represents one level of backdating a generation. The development of a fictitious figure named 'Flavius Clement' from other of Polycarp's writings is another 'backdating.' The gospels which are associated with Ignatius is another.

Yet most interesting of all is the consistent theme of the empty throne of Antioch (owing to Ignatius's alleged martyrdom in Rome). I have a feeling this was originally developed to make Polycarp less of a wandering prophet but he was ultimately fixed at Smyrna. The figure of Onesimus is assigned to Ephesus and introduced as a witness for both Polycarp, Ignatius (and their separate identies) and then tossed into Philemon to prove the existence of Paul. He may well have been a historical figure too but clearly a slave so his testimony wasn't worth much in antiquity.

So you basically have two historical figures Polycarp (whoever that was) and Onesimus and Irenaeus working from the death of Polycarp (cf. the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp) reshaping the historical circumstances of Polycarp's life and death.

One more thing. Most people simply discount the so-called Pseudo-Epistles of Ignatius but that is a gross error. For they contain a very interesting subplot about a certain 'Hero' or who is supposedly nominated by Polycarp (who also acts as Ignatius's secretary for the long letters) and comes to sit on the empty throne in Antioch to replace Ignatius.

There is an important figure in the Martyrdom of Polycarp/Death of Peregrinus tradition named Herod Atticus who was one of the wealthiest men of the age. The historical figure behind Polycarp/Peregrinus seems to have attached himself to Herod, flattered him and then became incensed when Herod pushed him away as an annoying rogue. The death of Polycarp/Peregrinus seems intimately tied up with a feud with Herod. I wonder whether the invention of 'Hero' (the root of the name 'Herod') is somehow another gloss over the circumstances of that feud vividly recorded in Lucian's work.

If Ignatius and Hero/Eros are eliminated from the Catholic see of Antioch then the first 'real' bishop of Antioch would be Theophilus, the likely addressee of the Luke-Acts corpus which was unknown before the age of Theophilus of Antioch.

DCHindley

Ignatius, Romans 4:1 - I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.

Fragments of Papias 4.1 - [Jesus] said that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man. (Pap 4:1 APE)

Didache: 9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; 7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom

Hmmmmm

DCH

stephan huller

That's interesting DCH. But notice that you'd expect Ignatius's bread reference to have a fire component. The beasts are elsewhere identified as those guarding him (from memory - I think in the Acts of Ignatius). The bread metaphor is always used in conjunction with fire. After all a lump of dough is still unfinished. The way the story now reads he is just ripped apart by actual beasts in the arena. Scholars have noted that the same reference (i.e. being fed to wild beasts) appears in the martyrdom of Polycarp even though it is utterly unlikely that there were such displays at the Olympic games during the reign of the Antonines. I think there is a common source behind all of this. Ignatius gets the 'beasts' - Polycarp gets the 'fire.' Originally the beasts were the police, Herod the police chief, the fire was the means of death hence the name 'Ignatius'

DCHindley

Ignatius to the Magnesians 10:2 - Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savor ye shall be convicted.

So, as I see this, Ignatius wrote to the Magnesians, knowing of their Milk, which is base, and when mixed with the sour leaven, results in esters and salt.

In response to Stephan, who suggests that Ignatius is a fire, I quote Ignatius again:

Romans 7:2 - My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything

DCH

stephan huller

It's not that I suggest that's what it means. Ignatius comes from the Latin 'fiery one' and this is confirmed by the Syriac Church which calls him Nurono