RParvus

Similarities between Ignatius of Antioch and Peregrinus Proteus have long been noticed. Ignatius and Peregrinus were both Christian leaders in the 2nd century Antiochene church. Both either claimed prophetic ability or were reputed to possess such. Both wrote Christian literature. When arrested, both loudly professed their desire for martyrdom. Both conferred titles on their errand-runners: Ignatius called them “God’s Ambassadors” and “Couriers of God,” while Peregrinus called his “Death’s Messengers” and “Couriers of the Grave.” Both figures went by more than one name: Ignatius is careful in all seven letters to refer to himself as “Ignatius who is also Theophorus”; while Peregrinus, who is known to have adopted the names Proteus and Phoenix, probably used other names as well since Lucian of Samosata mockingly calls him “He with the most names of all the Cynics.”

Such similarities have led some scholars (Daniel Volter, Jacques Schwartz) to conclude that Ignatius and Peregrinus were one and the same person. This post will provide a few additional arguments in support of this theory. I will argue that it was Peregrinus who underwent literary transformation into Ignatius, and that the so-called Ignatian letters were in fact originally letters written by Peregrinus. Two of the letters in particular—those to the Romans and to Polycarp—still contain many traces of the transformation. Before looking at these letters, however, it will help to briefly summarize what is known about Peregrinus.


Peregrinus

Peregrinus (c. 100–165 CE) was from Parium on the Hellespont. Most of what is known of him is derived from Lucian of Samosata's “On the Death of Peregrinus” written shortly after Peregrinus' self-immolation at the Olympic games held in 165 CE. It should be kept in mind that Lucian was a satirist and, as such, his portraits are caricatures to some extent. He clearly dislikes Peregrinus and considers him a charlatan. In Lucian's eyes, much of what Peregrinus did and said was motivated by unrestrained vanity and publicity-seeking.

Of Peregrinus' early life little is known. After the death of his father—a death Peregrinus was rumored to have caused—he imposed on himself a sentence of banishment from Parium and took to the road. During his wanderings he visited Palestine and became a Christian. He soon attained a position of authority among the Christians and authored several Christian writings (no longer extant). At some point he was arrested by the Roman authorities and was imprisoned at Antioch in Syria. During his imprisonment he received much support from his fellow Christians. Lucian notes that Christians came “even from the cities in Asia” (i.e. the Roman province of Asia) to encourage him. Although Peregrinus expected to suffer martyrdom and expressed his great desire for this, the governor of Syria, “fully aware that Peregrinus was enough of a lunatic to welcome a death that would give him a martyr’s acclaim,” decided to release him. Upon release, he returned home to Parium. There he publicly renounced his inheritance, dividing the money among the populace, and then resumed his wandering.

Eventually he was expelled by the Christians, allegedly for having eaten something forbidden. He then went to Egypt where, under the tutelage of a certain Agathobulus, he embraced Cynicism. Already as a Christian he seems to have had leanings in that direction, for when he returned to Parium after his release from jail, he presented himself in a way usually associated with that discipline: “a crop of long hair… an old coat on his back, a sack over his shoulder, and a staff in his hand.” From Egypt he made his way to Rome. There his preaching took aim at the the Roman authorities, including criticism of the emperor Antoninus Pius. This soon led to his expulsion from Rome by the city prefect. He then went to Greece where, at Elis, he continued his incitation of the people against the Romans. Moving on to Athens, he taught his Cynic philosophy there to a number of pupils, amongst them Aulus Gellius. At the Olympic games (probably those held in 153 CE) he infuriated those in attendance by his criticism of the wealthy philanthropist Herodes Atticus. (Herodes had paid for the construction of an aqueduct at the site of the games. Peregrinus viewed the provision of such a convenient source of water as unnecessary, and he scolded Herodes for financing it). Finally, having announced at the Olympic games of 161 that he would put an end to his life at the next Olympiad by throwing himself onto a funeral pyre, he made good on his promise and publicly burned himself to death on the final night of the games in 165.

Peregrinus' self-cremation was well-attended, for he had “sent letters to just about all the important towns, as a sort of last will and testament,” and had “appointed certain of the brethren with the titles of ‘Death’s Messengers’ and ‘Couriers of the Grave’” to publicize the event. In a pre-demise oration to the assembled crowd he explained that the motive behind his dramatic suicide was his wish “to benefit mankind by showing them the way in which one should despise death.”


Ignatius

Let’s now turn our attention to Ignatius. According to the Ignatian letters as they currently stand, all seven letters were written by Ignatius while a prisoner under military escort. The convoy’s final destination was to be Rome; its starting point was Antioch in Syria. From the letters we learn that the church in Antioch had recently experienced serious internal turmoil, most likely dissension of some sort. (It was once widely held that the trouble in Antioch was external persecution by the state. However, since P. N. Harrison’s 1936 study of the Greek words used in the letters to describe the situation, the persecution theory has been more and more abandoned. The difficulties referred to by the letters, though never clearly specified, appear to have arisen from within the Antiochene church—not from outside).

Ignatius' first four letters (Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans) were written during a stop at Smyrna. When he wrote these letters the problem at Antioch had not yet been resolved, and he accordingly requests prayers for the troubled church. His final three letters (Philadelphians, Smyrneans, Polycarp) were written at Troas while he was waiting to board ship for Neapolis, the port near Philippi. These last three letters seem to have been occasioned, at least in part, by Ignatius’ reception of news that peace had been restored in the church at Antioch. In his letters to the Philadelphians and the Smyrneans he requests that they appoint “Ambassadors of God" to go to Antioch and celebrate the restoration of peace there. Since these letters were written at Troas which is not far from Smyrna, and since there is no indication that the stop at Smyrna was lengthy, the last three letters were presumably written only days after the first four.

The seven Ignatian letters provide no clear indication of what route was taken from Antioch to Smyrna. Most hold that the journey to Smyrna passed through Philadelphia, and that the Antioch-to-Philadelphia segment was traversed either entirely by land, or partly by sea (Antioch-to-Attalia) and then by land to Philadelphia. Some, however (e.g. Rius-Camps), hold that the convoy did not pass through Philadelphia at all. It went by ship from Antioch to Ephesus, then by land to Smyrna. In my opinion, it is this last possibility which is best supported by the letters. Ignatius’ letter to the Philadelphians contains no indication that he was a prisoner at the time of his visit with them. And, on the other hand, in his letter to the Ephesians he calls Ephesus “the passageway of those on their way to die for God.” The route, then, appears to have been by way of Ephesus, not Philadelphia. Ignatius' visit to the church of Philadelphia must have occurred at some earlier date prior to his arrest.

Of the seven Ignatian letters, two in particular have provoked the most questions: the letter to the Romans and the letter to Polycarp. In regard to the first, it has often been asked why Ignatius was not executed at Antioch instead of Rome. And why was such an unusual route taken to Rome? And why is it that only in the letter to the Romans does Ignatius call himself a bishop? And did the early 2nd century Roman church really possess the preeminence that Ignatius accords it in his letter? And why does Ignatius, on the one hand, seem to be familiar with the recipients of his letter, and yet on the other hand, does not greet a single one of them by name? He speaks as if he knows from experience of their deep love for him yet—in contrast to the other letters—he seems to know none of their names, not even that of the leader or leaders of the Roman church. Is it really possible he didn’t know the name of anyone in the church that he praises so lavishly in the inscription to the letter?

The letter to Polycarp is equally puzzling. There is, first of all, the question of why a letter like this was written to Polycarp at all when Ignatius had just come from Smyrna and had there met with him. Many items in the letter are the sort of thing that one expects would have been covered in Ignatius’ face to face meeting with Polycarp; things like Polycarp’s responsibilities to the members of his church who are widows, or married, or slaves (IgnPoly 4 & 5). The usual explanation is that the proffered advice was not really intended to instruct Polycarp but rather to show support for him. Its intent was to bolster Polycarp’s authority in the eyes of his flock. But if that was Ignatius’ purpose, wouldn’t he have accomplished it better by including his remarks in the letter he wrote to the Smyrneans? That was the way he reinforced the local bishop’s authority in his other letters. Why, in his correspondence with the church he had just left behind, were two letters necessary instead of one?

But the most mysterious part of the letter is Ignatius’ request that Polycarp convene a “most God-pleasing council” (IgnPoly 7:2). The purpose of the council is supposedly to choose someone who is to go and congratulate the church of Antioch on the restoration of peace in that church. Does such a task really require a council? It didn't require one in Philadelphia. In his letter to that church he requested that a representative be sent to Antioch; no suggestion is made or hint given that a council would be needed to accomplish that task. Why, then, does Ignatius twist the arm of the Smyrnean church for a council? And why does he think that the council’s sending of a congratulator to Antioch will require “resolute” love (IgnPoly 7:2) on the part of the Smyrneans? And why in this matter does he feel it necessary to appeal to the Smyrneans’ “zeal for the truth” (IgnPoly 7:3) and to remind them that “a Christian does not have authority over himself?” And why does the reward he holds out for compliance with his request seem all out of proportion to the good deed? He calls it a work “truly worthy of God” (IgnPoly 7:3) and one “that will live forever” (IgnPoly 8:1).


“Ignatius” is Peregrinus

Something more is going on with this “most God-pleasing council,” but what? In my opinion a correct understanding of this council is all-important for figuring out the identity of the author of the Ignatian letters. Once we realize what the real object of this council was, the puzzles in the letters to the Romans and the letter to Polycarp practically solve themselves. And the key is this: Ignatius and Peregrinus are one and the same, and Ignatius’ most God-pleasing council is one and the same as the gathering of Christians at Antioch that, according to Lucian, took place for the purpose of encouraging Peregrinus! But how can that be? The most God-pleasing council was to be at Smyrna; the gathering for Peregrinus occurred at Antioch. The answer is that the most God-pleasing council was also at Antioch. The two puzzling letters— to the Romans and to Polycarp—have been readdressed by a proto-orthodox editor/interpolator. Both letters were in fact written to the church of Antioch. Once we read them with that in mind, their meaning becomes clear.

The first (so-called Romans) was written before the problems at Antioch had been resolved. That is why “Ignatius” writes at once so familiarly to the recipients, and yet mentions no names. He was unsure which members had remained faithful, and which had gone their own way during the recent troubles. His intent in writing the letter was to alert any who had remained faithful that he was on his way to Antioch for execution, and to beg them to do nothing to hinder the martyrdom he so very much desired.

“Ignatius” (i.e. Peregrinus) wrote the second letter to Antioch (so-called “to Polycarp”) when he learned that peace had been restored in that church. The restoration entailed the installment of a new bishop, presbyters, and deacons (as some scholars have suspected, e.g. B.H. Streeter). And these new officers were no doubt chosen in large part based on how they had conducted themselves in the recent upheaval. This explains why Ignatius (i.e. Peregrinus) praises the new bishop’s “godly resolution” (IgnPoly 1:1) and urges him to continue on the same “course” (IgnPoly 1:2). The problems at Antioch had caused a split in that church. That is why in his advice to the new bishop Ignatius (i.e.. Peregrinus) stresses the importance of unity (IgnPoly 1:2), of healing “wounds” (IgnPoly 2:1), and of “standing firm” and “undaunted” against those who caused the split (“Those who have a trustworthy appearance but teach strange doctrine”). This scenario too explains why in IgnPoly 6 he warns the new officials “Let none of you be found a deserter.” And the installation of the newbie bishop explains why Ignatius (i.e. Peregrinus) feels it necessary to impart general instructions regarding care for widows, the married, and slaves (IgnPoly 4 & 5).

But most important of all, “Ignatius” (i.e. Peregrinus) will soon be in Antioch and, with peace restored in that church, there is nothing to prevent a council being held to thank God for the gift of martyrdom that is being bestowed on one of their own. Or, rather, there is only one thing that might derail the blessed sacrifice: the love of his Antiochene brethren for him. That is why “Ignatius” says that their love must be “resolute.” It must be resolute because the calling of a council to thank God for his martyrdom requires that his brethren overcome their natural affection for him, their natural desire to get him released. They know the truth, namely that martyrdom is the ultimate worship of God. And “Ignatius” had already assured them in his previous letter (see IgnRom 8:2-3) that he was telling the truth when he said he wanted to die a martyr’s death. Therefore, their “zeal for the truth” (IgnPoly 7:3) must overrule any merely human feelings they have for the would-be martyr. By setting up the council or sending delegates to it, his coreligionists will be participating in a deed “that will live forever.” That is why “Ignatius” tells them: “You too will be glorified!” (IgnPhil 10:2).

If “Ignatius” was headed towards Antioch, that means the same interpolator who readdressed two of the letters also turned the itinerary around. Where, then, was “Ignatius” (i.e. Peregrinus) arrested? According to Lucian, Peregrinus was jailed at Antioch, but he doesn’t explicitly say where it was that Peregrinus was arrested. What he does say is that immediately upon release, Peregrinus went back home to Parium because he wanted to put to rest the rumors regarding his murder of his father. So he went to Parium and distributed his entire inheritance among the townspeople. I suspect that when he was arrested he was at Parium engaged in this same matter of setting things right. Apparently he was accused of some wrongdoing at Antioch, apprehended at Parium, and brought back to Antioch for—he hoped—execution.

Now, Parium was just north of Troas, on the Hellespont. If the above scenario is on target, the interpolator has reversed the would-be martyr’s direction of travel. His actual journey under military escort was from Parium → Troas → Smyrna. At Smyrna “Ignatius” (i.e. Peregrinus) wrote the first four letters (IgnEph., IgnMag., IgnTral. And IgnRom). Then he continued on to Ephesus where, after having learned that peace had been restored in the church of Antioch, he wrote the last three letters (IgnPhil., IgnSmyr. and IgnPoly.). He expected to board ship shortly for Antioch, his final destination.


That the above is the true direction of the would-be martyr’s itinerary can be teased out of the letters in another way. The letters several times use the word ‘onaimen’ (the optative of ‘oninemi) which is usually translated as “May I have (the) joy of.” ‘Onaimen’ is used in conjunction with the person or thing that is the source of the desired joy. In IgnRom 5:2 onaimen is used to express the would-be martyr’s desire to be in the presence of the wild beasts who will be the instruments of his martyrdom: “May I have joy of the wild beasts prepared for me” (IgnRom 5:2); for “to be in the presence of the wild beasts is to be in the presence of God” (IgnSmyr 4:2). I suspect that this was the usual way that “Ignatius” (i.e. Peregrinus) used the word ‘onaimen’, to express the desire to be in the presence of someone or something. It was, I believe, the word he employed to express: “I am looking forward to seeing you, to being with you.” But because the itinerary has been tampered with by an editor/interpolator, translators have understandably missed his meaning. They see no more in it than a wish for some kind of vague, unspecified joy. Let’s look at the other contexts in which “onaimen” is used.

- The letter to the Ephesians: “Ignatius” was at Smyrna when he wrote to the Ephesians: “As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may stay with me longer, both for your honor and that of your bishop. And Crocus also, worthy both of God and you, whom I have received as the manifestation of your love, hath in all things refreshed me, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ shall also refresh him; together with Onesimus, and Burrhus, and Euplus, and Fronto, by means of whom, I have, as to love, beheld all of you. May I have joy of you [always], if indeed I be worthy of it” (IgnEph 2:1-2). In this passage “Ignatius” (1) asks to keep Burrhus with him. (2) expresses gratitude for the refreshing visit he has had with the representatives of the Ephesian church and (3) expresses the hope that he will have joy of the other members of that church, if God deems him worthy of that. I submit that the joy that he hopes for from them is the joy of being amongst them soon and conversing with them. An editor/interpolator has disguised this by adding the word “always” or —more likely—by replacing a word like “soon” with “always.” The sense of the original reading was: “May I have the joy of seeing you soon.” And if indeed “Ignatius”, when writing this letter from Smyrna, was looking forward to seeing the church of Ephesus soon, it is clear that he expected his route would be through that city. His expected direction of travel was from Smyrna to Ephesus—not from Smyrna to Troas, as the interpolated letter would have it.

- The letter to the Magnesians: Magnesia, though not on the would-be martyr’s intended route, was only 15 miles from Ephesus. Since the Magnesisan church sent several representatives as far as Smyrna to see the would-be martyr, he apparently expected that other members of that church would make the short trip to Ephesus to see him there. Accordingly, in his letter to them, he writes: “May I have joy of you [in every way], if I be worthy” (IgnMag 12:1). Again, I suspect, the editor/interpolator has replaced “soon” with “in every way.”

- The letter to the Trallians: Tralles was not on the convoy’s intended route. Moreover, compared to Magnesia, it was twice as far from Ephesus. Distance explains why the sole Trallian representative to visit “Ignatius” in Smyrna was their bishop Polybius. And distance also explains why the expression “May I have joy of you” is absent from the Trallian letter: Ignatius did not expect to meet up with any Trallian brethren at Ephesus.

- The letters to the Philadelphians and the Smyrneans: The letters to these churches do not contain the expression “May I have joy of you.” This makes sense since these cities were not on the projected route.

- In IgnPoly 1:1 “Ignatius” writes: “I rejoice that I have been found worthy to see your blameless face. May I have joy of it [in God].” Commentators usually take this to refer to Ignatius’ past meeting with Polycarp. But in fact it refers to a future meeting—not with Polycarp—but with the new bishop of Antioch. “Ignatius”, by being arrested and led back to Antioch, will see the face of the new bishop there. Notice again how ‘onaimen’ (“May I have the joy of”) is connected with the idea of seeing or being in the presence of someone. Later in the so-called letter to Polycarp (IgnPoly 6:2), “Ignatius” expresses the same joyful expectation of seeing the other officers of the Antiochene church.


Summary: A proto-orthodox editor/interpolator has literarily transformed Peregrinus into Ignatius of Antioch. The journey of Peregrinus/Ignatius under military escort has been reversed by an editor/interpolator. The original route was from Parium (located on the Hellespont just north of Troas) to Antioch, by way of Troas, Smyrna, and Ephesus. Antioch was the final destination, not the starting point of the journey. The editor/interpolator took the Troas - Smyrna - Ephesus - Antioch segment of the journey, turned it around, and used it as the first leg of a journey from Antioch to Rome.

The gathering at Antioch that, according to Lucian, drew Christians from even as far away as the cities of Asia Minor to encourage Peregrinus, was initiated by the requests in the so-called Ignatian letters that delegates be dispatched to Antioch. The purpose of the gathering at Antioch was not primarily to celebrate the restoration of peace in the Antiochene church, but rather to glorify God for the martyrdom that he was bestowing upon Peregrinus/”Ignatius”: “Grant me nothing more than to be poured out as a libation to God while there is still an altar ready, so that forming a choir in love you may sing to the Father in Jesus Christ” (IgnRom 2:2). However, what “Ignatius”/Peregrinus feared most came to pass: he was released by the governor of Syria. Upon release, he returned home to Parium and, by distributing his inheritance to the townspeople, dispelled rumors about his involvement in the death of his father.

The proto-orthodox editor/interpolator wanted the so-called Ignatian letters to be the letters of a real martyr—not letters of an almost-martyr, especially an almost-martyr who ended badly by being expelled from the church. (I also think Peregrinus had a third strike against him: he was an Apellean. But that is a separate issue). So, the editor/interpolator tied the Ignatians to a martyr named Ignatius who was mentioned in chapter 9 of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians.

I have attempted in this post to summarize some of the arguments I make in my book “A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings.” Those interested in a fuller exposition of the theory should refer to chapters 3 and 4 of the book.

Roger Parvus

Littlejohn

Hello RParvus!


In the thread "Lucian of Samosata and his Peregrinus" I mentioned that in fact the character of Luciano, Peregrinus, indeed it conceals a second, to which the satirical writer has applied the tag of "Proteus", precisely because this character "hidden" had a remarkable tendency to change "skin", that is identity (Proteus, in the Hellenistic world of mythology, was a singular deity that changed its appearance in continuation).

Peregrinus was a real figure of cynical philosopher, whose traces are in Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius and Tertullian, who cites him simply as a cynical philosopher. The thing that should not go unnoticed is that Tertullian makes no mention of the fact that he was a prominent Christian: this is absurd since Luciano says that Peregrinus was almost worshipped as a God! ..How could he not mention a similar event, if it was a truly genuine fact? .. If don't other for evil say of him, if he had not received the approval of the authorities of Christian! So it is quite clear that Peregrinus and Proteus were two distinct characters, "merged" into a single literary character. Please note that this mechanism of "fusion" (or, as opposed to "splitting") has been made a broad abuse in the context if the New Testament, confirming that this technique was very widespread in some cultural and literary circles, especially those philo-hellenistic

For all that, therefore, I believe it is imperative to strive to understand when Luciano speaks of Peregrinus and when of Proteus. Regarding the presence in Athens, it is certain that the reference is made to both the characters. Concerning the notorious stake on which Peregrinus made self-immolation, we only know it through the Luciano's news and therefore we can not understand whether this was a reality or merely a literary invention. If indeed there was such a stake, it is certain then that regarded the only figure of Peregrinus and not that of Proteus.

The "strangulation" of his father, by Peregrinus (actually in this case "Proteus") is only a mere literary device that Lucian used it to recall facts in which Proteus was somehow involved. To kill his father however was not him. Very likely is the fact that he decided to leave his native place because his acquaintances, and part of his disciples, was convinced that he had played a role in the violent death of his father. (I personally doubt that it is gone so)

Many other events tell by Lucian, certainly concerned "Proteus", but one can not exclude to prior (on the first) that at least some of them have also regarded Peregrinus.

In the light of all this, I believe that there is evidence that an identification "tout-court" of the caracter "Peregrinus" and of the character Ignatius, would be quite risky, although not be ruled out that "Ignatius", in turn, could have been a further nick of the character that Luciano has labelled as "Proteus": further testimony that such caracter was usually to change "skin" frequently!


Best regards


Littlejohn
.

Toto

Helping LittleJohn with his English

Toto

RParvus' book can be downloaded in Adobe e-book format here, with a preview.

For those with access to the JM list check

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM.../message/29227
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM.../message/37914
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM.../message/38395

and a more recent thread.

Littlejohn

Thanks you, very much!


All my best

Littlejohn



PS: ".. [If other for evil do not say of him,] (sorry I can not make this out)"
Excuse me. In italian this sentence sound so: "Magari per dirne male" I have not been able to give this a better translation of what I proposed. However I wanted to say that if the story about the philosopher Peregrinus (and therefore not Proteus) was true, some of the fathers of the church (and thus also Tertullian) should talk about, perhaps, or at least to speak evil of Peregrinus. Is it 'understandable so? ... How would you explained this concept?

"..To kill his father however was not [like?] him". Sorry, I meant that to kill the Proteus' father don't was Proteus. Is clearly so?...

..

youngalexander

"..To kill his father however was not the sort of thing that he would do". or
not characteristic of him.

In this case like means: similar to, in the manner of, characteristic of


in other cases: find agreeable, enjoy, satisfactory
or: wish for, want, prefer

was not [like] Proteus

Littlejohn

OK!...Thanks you!


All best

Littlejohn

.

RParvus

Hi LittleJohn,

In my book I argue not only that the author of the so-called Ignatian letters was Peregrinus, but also that his brand of Christianity was Apellean, i.e. he belonged to the sect started by Apelles. So I don’t think that Tertullian’s failure to mention Peregrinus’ brief stint in that heretical sect is particularly significant. For a time (perhaps a few years in the 140s) Peregrinus may have been a hero to the Apelleans, but already by around 150 CE the infatuation had worn off to the point that he was booted out of their church. As you know, he went on to make a name for himself as a Cynic.

Peregrinus’ Apellean writings would have been soon forgotten not only by the Apelleans, but by everyone if a certain proto-orthodox Christian had not dusted them off, corrected their errors, and appropriated them under another name for the proto-orthodox cause. I think the transformation of Peregrinus’ writings was accomplished around the year 180 CE. And my guess is that the proto-orthodox editor/interpolator who worked that magic was Theophilus of Antioch. He is at the right time and the right place (late second century Antioch). And he has the same fascination with names. In his “Apologia to Autolycus” he is careful to point out to Autolycus that his name ‘Theophilus’ means ‘Beloved of God.’ This is so Peregrinus-like that one thinks of the adage “Like father, like (spiritual) son.” Remember that the second name of “Ignatius” (i.e. Peregrinus) is ‘Theophorus.’ In the letters mention is made of a deacon from Cilicia named Philo “a man well spoken of, who is now ministering to me in the word of God” (IgnPhil. 11:1; also IgnSmyr. 10:1). Perhaps this Philo later converted to the proto-orthodox version of Christianity and is known to posterity as (Theo)philus of Antioch. If so, Philo’s close association with Peregrinus on his journey to Antioch would help explain why the seven letters were collected and kept, even after Peregrinus’ apostasy: They were Philo’s (i.e. Theophilus’) mementos too, and he found a way to salvage them for a good cause.

Another possible pointer to Theophilus of Antioch as the culprit is provided by a comment of Jerome’s in chapter 25 of his “On Illustrious Men..” Jerome says he knows of two writings that are under the name of Theophilus of Antioch but that, according to Jerome, have a very different style from his other writings. The two questionable writings are a commentary on the gospel and a commentary on the book of Proverbs. Now, according to Lucian, Peregrinus “expounded and commented on their (the Christians) sacred writings and even authored a number himself.” Could the commentaries that were, according to Jerome, wrongly attributed to Theophilus be the commentaries written by Peregrinus? Remember, only twice in the seven letters does their author use the formula “For it is written…”, and both times the quote is from the book of Proverbs.* I think it is quite possible that Theophilus of Antioch not only transformed the letters of Peregrinus into the letters of Ignatius, but also corrected and appropriated under his own name the commentaries of Peregrinus.

I provide a fuller exposition of the theory that Theophilus of Antioch was the proto-orthodox editor/interpolator of the so-called Ignatian letters in chapter 5 of my book.

Roger Parvus

* Someone might object: How can Peregrinus be an Apellean and at the same time quote the book of Proverbs as Scripture? Didn’t the Apelleans reject the Old Testament? The answer is that while the Apelleans did reject the Law and the Prophets, it is known that they did accept some parts of the Old Testament. But which parts? The problem, as Harnack observed, is that “not a single Old Testament passage that Apelles traced back to the World-Creator or to Christ is mentioned by name” (Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God (or via: amazon.co.uk), Labyrinth Press, 1999, p. 171). If my identification of Peregrinus as an Apellean is correct, we would now know at least one Old Testament book that the Apelleans accepted as Scripture: the book of Proverbs.

Littlejohn

Hello RParvus!

Unfortunately your reconstruction does not take into account data that I currently know and that is why it is significantly different from mine.

I have not read your book and then I do not know what is the bond that has led you to locate Peregrinus as a "Apellean" (Ignatius allegedly)(*), namely as belonging to the sect founded by Apelles, which, if I am not mistaken, was a pupil of Marcione. I know that H. Detering associated precisely at this latter the figure of Peregrinus. I imagine therefore you have followed a search with path similar to Detering ..

As I stated in my speech, in order to emerge from the mists of ancient patristic mystifications the real figure of the character that Lucian of Samosata wanted to "label" Proteus Peregrinus, you must take note that Proteus Peregrinus, in fact, identify TWO distinct personalities: one lived in the second century and one in the first.

Peregrinus, as mentioned above, was really a cynical philosopher and he almost certainly did not had anything in common with the world "Catholic-Christian" and nothing also with the "Gnostic-Christian" (**)

Unlike you and Detering, I identified the figure of Proteus (and therefore NOT that Peregrinus) with the figure of PAUL OF TARSUS. This, for reasons relating to the data I collected, is consistent with the choice of Lucian to call it "Proteus".

Best wishes and greetings

________________

Notes:

(*) - Keep in mind, however, that a certain part of what we know of Ignatius is consistent with what we know of Paul of Tarsus (he wrote letters, like Paul; was imprisoned by the Romans as Paul, see Acts of Paul and Tecla and Acts of the Apostles; was travelling, like Paul, etc.).

(**) - Other Tertullian, who cites simply he as a philosopher, we do not find any other trace of him in patristic literature, which leads us to conclude that he didn't had anything in common with the Christian world or that everything that has written about him Luciano, with regard to his Christian "spent", is the result of mere literary invention


Littlejohn

.

RParvus

Hi Littlejohn,

Apelles was at one time a pupil of Marcion's but he broke with him, repudiated several of his doctrines (e.g. his ditheism, his docetism, his canon), and founded his own sect. So Apelles should not be considered a Marcionite.

As for the Apellean affiliation of the author of the Ignatian letters (i.e. Peregrinus), here are a few examples of passages that betray him as an adept of Apelles:


- 1. “Do not be deceived by false doctrines or by old fables that are worthless. For if we still live according to Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.” IgnMag. 8:1.

This reference to Judaism as false doctrines and old, worthless fables is obviously not of proto-orthodox provenance. Nor is it Marcionite. Here is how Harnack summarizes Marcion’s position vis-ê-vis the Old testament: “It is highly remarkable that Marcion acknowledged the Old Testament as a self-contained whole, assumed it had no adulterations, interpolations, or such, and did not even regard the book as false; instead he believed it to be trustworthy throughout.” (Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Labyrinth Press, 1990, p. 58). So, if not proto-orthodox, and not Marcionite, whose view of Judaism is reflected by IgnMag. 8:1? I vote for Apelles. Without question he was acknowledged as the leading proponent in the early church of the idea that the Law and Prophets were no more than fables and falsehoods. Origen describes him as “that disciple of Marcion’s, who became the founder of a certain sect, and treated the writings of the Jews as fables.” (Against Celsus 5:54). Hippolytus writes: “He (Apelles) composed his treatises against the Law and the Prophets and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods.” (Refutation of All Heresies, 10:16) Likewise Pseudo-Tertullian: He (Apelles) “has his own books, which he has entitled Syllogisms, in which he seeks to prove that whatever Moses has written about God is not true, but is false.” (Against All Heresies 6) And from Ambrose’s On Paradise we know that the Syllogisms of Apelles consisted of at least thirty-eight volumes.

The proto-orthodox editor/interpolator of the letters could not let stand, of course, such an unqualified repudiation of Judaism. His solution was to render the above Magnesians passage harmless by inserting immediately after it a creedlike statement praising the Old Testament prophets: “For the most divine prophets lived in accordance with Jesus Christ…” Apelles rejected the prophets. So by issuing this pass for the prophets, the editor/interpolator countered Apelles’ position and disguised the radical Apellean rejection of Judaism present in the original passage. The editor/interpolator’s insertion left a rough editorial seam in IgnMag. 8 where the transition is made from disparagement of Judaism to praise of the Old Testament prophets. It was Joseph Turmel, alias Henri Delafosse, who first called attention to it in his Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche (Rieder, 1927, p. 109).



- 2. “Nothing visible is good.” IgnRom. 3:3

It is unlikely that this statement (“Nothing visible is good”) was written by someone of the proto-orthodox persuasion, for they accepted the Genesis account of creation and its attestation that “God saw that it was good.” Nor is it likely that the statement was written by a Marcionite, for Marcion viewed the visible world much more negatively. By him “nature is regarded as evil because it was created out of evil matter and by a just creator.” (Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies, 3, 3, 12) And so a statement like “Everything visible is evil” better describes Marcion’s position than does the statement in IgnRom 3:3.

“Nothing visible is good” lies somewhere between the positions of the proto-orthodox and the Marcionites. It is a statement that the Apelleans would have been comfortable with. They did not accept the account of creation in Genesis. They believed instead that the world was created by “a glorious angel” of God but that, unfortunately, his work was flawed: “By him (the glorious angel) he (Apelles) will have it appear that the world was originated in imitation of a superior world. With this lower world the glorious angel mingled remorse throughout because he had not made it so perfectly as that superior world had been originated.” (Pseudo-Tertullian. Against All Heresies 6). The work of the glorious angel was imperfect and he was ashamed of it, but it was not evil. It was neither good nor evil, but something in-between.

The Apellean character of the statement that “Nothing visible is good” becomes clearer when we consider the verse that follows it:

“Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is all the more visible.”

Who does not see that this passage, as it currently stands, does not make sense. To say “Nothing visible is good” and then immediately follow it with the statement that Jesus is “all the more visible” is, logically, to deny goodness to Jesus—which clearly could not have been the intent of the author. The nonsense is due to clumsy tampering by the editor/interpolator. In all likelihood the original passage was:

“Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is visible NO MORE” (my emphasis).

The proposed change restores the natural flow to the passage: nothing visible is good; for the one temporary exception to that rule—Jesus during his time on earth—is no longer visible. Why not? Why is Jesus no longer visible? Because, according to Apellean doctrine, Jesus set aside the elements of his body during his ascent to the Father. He returned to the Father in spirit only (bodiless). Pseudo-Tertullian testifies to the Apellean belief that “Jesus, in the course of his ascent, restored to the several individual elements (in the starry regions) whatever he had borrowed in his descent: and thus—the several parts of his body dispersed—he reinstated in heaven his spirit only.” (Against All Heresies, 6)

I believe the editor/interpolator was very much aware of what the Apellean author of IgnRom 3:3 meant by “Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is visible no more.” Such an error could not be allowed to remain in the text. So the editor/interpolator attempted to fix it by changing “is visible no more” to “is all the more visible,” thereby reasserting the proto-orthodox belief that Jesus is in heaven body and soul. His awkward substitution turned the passage into nonsense but, to his credit, he did succeed in disguising the Apellean error that the original passage contained.



- 3. “You are fellow-initiates of Paul, who was sanctified, approved, worthy of blessing, in whose footsteps may I be found when I attain to God, who in every letter makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.” IgnEph. 12:1.

This passage from the letter to the Ephesians has always drawn comment. What on earth was its author thinking of when he said that Paul makes mention of the Ephesians in EVERY (my emphasis) letter? Paul doesn’t mention Ephesus or the Ephesians in even half of his letters. The statement is indefensible and commentators have had no other recourse than to excuse it as pious exaggeration. I think, however, there is another explanation. We have seen in the two previous examples how clumsy the editor/interpolator is in his corrections of Apellean errors in the letters. This is, I believe, another instance of his clumsiness. How so?

According to Pseudo-Tertullian, Apelles used only one Pauline letter (Against All Heresies, 6). He doesn’t specify which letter it was, but Tertullian, in chapter eight of his De Carne Christi, implies that the Apelleans appealed to I Cor. 15:47 to defend their teaching regarding the nature of Christ’s flesh. I Corinthians, then, would appear to be the one Pauline letter accepted as authentic in Apellean circles. Now, I Corinthians is also the only Pauline letter that the author of the Ignatians definitlely knows: “Certain usage by Ignatius of Paul can be established only for I Corinthians.” (William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (or via: amazon.co.uk). Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985., p. 90). I Corinthians, moreover, contains a reference to Ephesus both in chapter 15 verse 32 and chapter 16 verse 8. And so, in light of this, I would propose that IgnEph 12:1 originally read as follows:

“You are fellow-initiates of Paul, who was sanctified, approved, worthy of blessing, in whose footsteps may I be found when I attain to God, who in HIS (my emphasis) letter makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”

The editor/interpolator knew that the original author of the so-called Ignatian letters was an Apellean and that, as such, he regarded I Corinthians as the only legitimate Pauline letter. To correct this Apellean error the editor/interpolator changed “his” to “every” ’ in IgnEph. 12:1. Although his choice of substitute has left Ignatian scholars with no other out than to chalk it up to “pious exaggeration,” it must be acknowledged that it did accomplish the purpose: to hide the Apellean character of the original reading.

It should also be noted that in this letter to his Christian brethren in Ephesus, the would-be martyr makes mention of the Apostle Paul, but not of John the Apostle or John the Elder (Presbyter John). If the Ignatian author were proto-orthodox this would be a very strange omission indeed, in light of the early tradition connecting these Johns with Ephesus. If however, in accordance with my theory, the author was an Apellean, the mystery is solved. Apelles, like his former teacher Marcion, honored Paul in opposition to the rest of the apostles.



- 4. “From the ruler of this age were hidden Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing, in like manner too the death of the Lord. Three mysteries are these to be cried aloud, accomplished in the silence of God. 2. How then did he become manifest to the aeons? A star shone forth in the heavens more brightly than all the stars, and its light was greater than words can tell, and its novelty caused astonishment. And all the other stars, with the sun and moon, formed themselves into a choir round the star. But the star itself surpassed them all in its brightness. And there was confusion amongst the stars over whence came this novelty so different from themselves.” IgnEph. 19:1-2

Ignatian scholars generally concede that the meaning of this passage continues to elude them. It has defied all their best efforts to make its star into the star of Bethlehem. I believe its intractability is—once again—due to the editor/interpolator’s tampering with it.

The star, according to the text, is God becoming manifest to the aeons: “How then did he become manifest to the aeons? “ (Bart Ehrman’s translation, The Apostolic Fathers (or via: amazon.co.uk), Harvard University Press, vol. 1). But this manifestation among the stars makes best sense in an Ascension setting, especially since one of the hidden mysteries is the death of the Lord. Now, according to the teaching of Apelles, Jesus, in the course of his ascension into heaven, restored the elements of his body to the starry regions. And since the divine is described by the Ignatian author as “pure light” (IgnRom 6:2), it makes sense that the pure light would shine forth once Jesus returned the elements of his body to the starry regions. It was by this setting aside of his body that Jesus manifested himself to the aeons and made them aware that his crucifixion was “the death of the Lord.”

The proto-orthodox editor/interpolator could not countenance, of course, this Apellean version of the ascension. In particular, Jesus’ setting aside of his body in the course of his ascent was unacceptable. The editor/interpolator’s way of rendering the passage harmless was to add two mysteries to it: Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing. He hoped to thereby establish at least a flimsy connection with the star of Bethlehem. (To Alfred Loisy, by the way, belongs the credit of recognizing that the passage originally only contained one hidden mystery: the death of the Lord—that same hidden mystery that Paul calls attention to in I Cor. 2:7-8. See Loisy’s Remarques sur la Littérature Épistolaire du Nouveau Testament, Librairie Émile Nourry, 1935, p. 161).

Those interested in further investigating the proto-orthodox attack on Apelles’ version of the ascension can find much interesting material in Epiphanius’ Panarion.



- 5. “Let no one be deceived: Even for the heavenly powers and the glory of the angels and the rulers both visible and invisible there is judgment, if they do not believe in the blood of Christ.” IgnSmyr. 6:1

First it should be noted how closely the terminology here (i.e. powers, angels, rulers) corresponds to that used by the Apelleans. According to Pseudo-Tertullian: “He (Apelles) introduces one God in the infinite upper regions, and states that He made many powers and angels.” (Against All Heresies, 6) And we know from Tertullian that the Apelleans used the word ‘ruler’ (Latin: praeses mali, ruler of evil) for the fiery angel who, according to their system, fell away completely from the supreme God (De Carne Christi, 8). “Praeses” was also the word used during the second century for Roman governors (the visible rulers of IgnSmyr. 6:1), largely replacing the Latin word for procurator.

But what is most interesting in this passage of the Smyrneans letter is the expression
“the glory of the angels.” Who is this glory of the angels? Ignatian scholars are unable to say. It bears, however, a definite similarity to the “glorious angel” who in Apelles’ system was the creator of the world: “Doubt was felt more readily about the Son than about the Father… until Apelles fashioned some kind of glorious angel (angelum gloriosum) of the higher God as the creator.” (Tertullian. On the Prescription of Heretics, 34). I suspect that the proto-orthodox editor/interpolator, worried that someone might recognize the glorious angel, has thinly disguised him as “the glory of the angels.”

For a more in-depth discussion of the theory that the author of the Ignatian letters was an Apellean, see my book “A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings.”

Best regards,

Roger Parvus