stephan huller

Maybe the Gospel of Mark doesn't have suicide references but what about this:

"Lazarus is dead" ... "Let us go that we may die with him."

stephan huller

Consider also Dauzat's insightful analysis of the crucifixion in John:

Tertullian spoke in a similar vein, stressing the fact that Jesus died on the cross with such abnormal rapidity that he could only be understood to have died as and when he chose.

stephan huller

As Jack Miles notes suicide could also be an expression of sheer devotion, as can be seen in a remarkable passage in PauI's Letter to the Philippians:

rlogan

Or he's just a pussy.

I'm intrigued by the Polycarp connection to Acts/Luke. He hails from Smyrna so here again we have the whole Greek axis. I'm out of my league here but I like how it sounds.

While we're at it the story as a Greek Tragedy format puts the crucifixion in a somewhat different light as ironic drama. The original ending is more fitting to that genre.

stephan huller

Maybe. It all doesn't quite fit together. We never get a clear picture about Polycarp - perhaps deliberately.

stephan huller

The reference is

It doesn't actually say anything about him actually being at Smyrna. Indeed Irenaeus doesn't even say that he saw him in Smyrna, despite the fact that the two statements stand side by side. It seems far more like - given the parallels in the account of Peregrinus - that Polycarp never quite stayed long enough in any place that after he died they (= Irenaeus) picked some place to make him bishop which didn't have a Catholic bishop. Notice that the Ignatius corpus FROM THE BEGINNING (= the short Syriac epistles) foists the title of bishop on to Polycarp - in this case from Ignatius (who is really Polycarp again the 'fiery one).

I don't know how you interpret that sentence:

Is there three classes of people being referenced here:

Probably not. Is Ignatius one of the 'apostles in Asia'? Strictly speaking he wasn't an apostle. He too met John according to legend. So why would Ignatius be an apostle and Polycarp not? Irenaeus never mentions the name 'Ignatius' interestingly even when he is quoting the Ignatius corpus. Also Polycarp's name is blotted out or goes unmentioned when Irenaeus is citing his teachings. What was the original formulation here? Was John one of the 'apostles in Asia'? I think so. Who else was there?

Also what about this:

Is Irenaeus referencing two meetings that he had with Polycarp? I have always taken the reference to him being 'an old man' as having nothing to do with Irenaeus. But it just might be worth taking a second look at the original Greek.

stephan huller

The claim that he was installed by apostles has always been questioned because none of this comes up in the Life of Polycarp. Yes the Life of Polycarp contains a long narrative of his ordination at Smyrna but then immediately following it breaks off to him becoming a wandering preacher like Peregrinus. He visits bishops in other cities - just as he came to confer with Anicetus at Rome. I can't imagine a real bishop being able to adopt this itinerant lifestyle. When you throw in the Letter to the Philippians his concerns seem to be everywhere but Smyrna.

My question has always been - is the connection with John and Ignatius developed because Ignatius was already understood to be something more than a mere bishop - i.e. a bishop of the bishops, or as the Epistle to Hero puts it - a 'minister of the bishops'? I think so. Antioch's position was established in Acts for this very reason.

rlogan

I'm on some very thin ice here stephan huller. It's been a while but Detering had me well convinced of the spurious nature of the Ignatia and 1 Clement, which I had read in connection with their alleged support for the letters of Paul.

Polycarp is ground I am too unfamiliar with and what attracted me was anything fitting into my pet "Out of Ancient Greece" theory of Christianity. My first impression is that being appointed by apostles from Asia is a red flag. I don't have it figured out how Antioch fits into the actual history, but I suspect like everything else that has been fabricated. Please forgive me for being not well enough versed though to be of much value here.

Bingo the Clown-O

What about the atonement motif in Deuteronomy 32:43?

4QDeutj:
"Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people."

LXX:
"O heavens, rejoice with him, bow to him, all sons of God. O nations, rejoice with his people and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons. Be vengeful and render vengeance and recompense justice on his enemies, and recompense those who hate him, and the Lord will cleanse the land of his people."

MT:
"Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will atone for the land of his people."

Yahweh’s sons were warrior gods.

Deuteronomy 33:2-3
"Yahweh came forth from Sinai, he beamed forth from Seir upon us, he shown forth from Mount Paran, with him were myriads of holy ones, at his right hand warriors of the gods, even the consecrated of the peoples."

1QM 15:12-15, 16:1-2:
"Strengthen yourselves for the battle of God, for this day is an appointed time of battle by God against all the peoples [to execute] judgment against all flesh. The God of Israel is raising his hand with his marvellous power against all the wicked spirits and [at his right hand] the mighty ones of the gods gird themselves for battle, and the formations of the holy ones are mustered for the day of [vengeance]... for the God of Israel has called out a sword against all the nations and by the holy ones of his people he will do mightily."

Are you aware of the allegation from Otto Eissfeldt et al. that “moloch” as it is used in the OT is not a god, but rather a type of fiery human sacrifice?

Bingo the Clown-O

What are your thoughts on this? It looks like some sort of chant – or some sort of song to sing at a moloch ritual.

Isaiah 30:29-3
Such shall be your song, as on a night a
feast is celebrated with gladness of
heart, as when one marches in procession
with the flute, to enter the mountain of
Yahweh, to the Rock of Israel. Yahweh
has made heard the crash of His voice,
the down-sweep of His arm he has
displayed, with hot wrath and flame of
consuming fire, cloudburst and flood and
hailstones. Yes! At the voice of Yahweh
Assyria will cower- with His staff He
will beat him. Every passage of the rod
of His punishment which Yahweh will lay
upon him will be to the sound of
timbrels and lyres; with battles of
offerings He will fight against him. For
his Tophet has long been prepared, He
himself is installed as a victim [moloch].
Yahweh has made its fire-pit
deep and wide, with fire and wood in
abundance. The breath of Yahweh, like a
torrent of sulphur, sets it ablaze!

There appears to be a polemic against “moloch” here:

Leviticus 20:2
You are to say to the Israelites, “Any man from the Israelites, or from the sojourner who sojourns who gives any of his children to moloch must be put to death; the people of the land must pelt him with stones.”