Nazarene Space

Has anyone read the Syriac versions of his letters? Only three of them
survive, those to the Romans, the Ephesians, and to Polycarp. Among
them, there are huge portions of text that are absent in the Greek.

To Polycarp (Syriac)
To the Ephesians (Syriac)
To the Romans (Syriac)

I cannot find anything in them that is antinomian. If these are indeed
the genuine letters, and the Greek are later forgeries, would Ignatius
be vindicated?

(I made this post elsewhere, but got no responses; so I decided to make it its own post.)

Views: 207

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm not sure I understand the ideas behind blaming Ignatius.
I mean, yes, historical research is interesting and usually worthwhile - but when people try to "blame Ignatius" for the very EXISTENCE of anti-nomianism, institutionalized anti-nomianism, et al, I get very confused and a little put off.
So, the "vindication of Ignatius" is something I support in the sense of not giving him such unheard responsibility.
Anti-nomianism has existed since Moshe's time.

So far, I've read a few of the "chapters" in the letter to Ephesus, because I'm doing a study of Ephesus and the possible relation to Ephraim/Joseph/USA (the message given to the church of Ephesus in the Book of Revelation is very interesting to read with this mind......) and the relation between Greeks and the Scattered Tribes in general.
Hopefully I won't find any explicit anti-nomianism in Ignatius' other writings, but I honestly don't buy the idea of blaming him for all the world's antinomianism, the exitence of Roman-Catholicism, nor the idea that he has to be either a great saint or great sinner.
Some people are just not hot or cold.
Yeah, my whole thing with Ignatius has been that he was known as...

A) ...a disciple of John. John was obviously not antinomian in any way, shape, or form. How could a man who studied under the tutelage of John be antinomian, and encourage changing the Sabbath?

B) ...a close friend of Polycarp. According to tradition, Polycarp was a fervent Sabbath keeper, was martyred on “the Great Sabbath” (i.e. Passover); he was even called “a Nazarene” by Jewish Rabbi Ifaac in the 15th century CE. Interestingly enough, in his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp encourages them to read "the letters of Ignatius", but does not specify which ones, or how many Ignatius had written. Why would a Torah observant church father like Polycarp encourage a congregation to read antinomian letters? I believe he may have only written these three.

Christian said:
I'm not sure I understand the ideas behind blaming Ignatius.
I mean, yes, historical research is interesting and usually worthwhile - but when people try to "blame Ignatius" for the very EXISTENCE of anti-nomianism, institutionalized anti-nomianism, et al, I get very confused and a little put off. So, the "vindication of Ignatius" is something I support in the sense of not giving him such unheard responsibility. Anti-nomianism has existed since Moshe's time.

So far, I've read a few of the "chapters" in the letter to Ephesus, because I'm doing a study of Ephesus and the possible relation to Ephraim/Joseph/USA (the message given to the church of Ephesus in the Book of Revelation is very interesting to read with this mind......) and the relation between Greeks and the Scattered Tribes in general.
Hopefully I won't find any explicit anti-nomianism in Ignatius' other writings, but I honestly don't buy the idea of blaming him for all the world's antinomianism, the exitence of Roman-Catholicism, nor the idea that he has to be either a great saint or great sinner.
Some people are just not hot or cold.
I generally like Polycarp, so if they were actual colleagues with mutual respect in relation to dogma, then this could be significant.

Applying the same arguments used to stigmatize Ignatius, why not give Aharon, who built the golden calf, the responsibility for creating (proto-)anti-nomianism as well?
But we don't see "AARON STARTED TEH APOSTASY" blogs, now do we?
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians is AWESOME...

Hey, I'm putting together a collection of the text of the earliest "church fathers". It's nearly completed. Want to proof read it for me? It will earn you a free copy of the finished product. That's about all I can afford for payment, lol.

Christian said:
I generally like Polycarp, so if they were actual colleagues with mutual respect in relation to dogma, then this could be significant.

Applying the same arguments used to stigmatize Ignatius, why not give Aharon, who built the golden calf, the responsibility for creating (proto-)anti-nomianism as well?
But we don't see "AARON STARTED TEH APOSTASY" blogs, now do we?
It's Shabbat here now, so I couldn't negotiate a better deal anyway :D
I would very much like to read your material, and hopefully I'll be able to provide something more than an auto spell-check can.

J. Jury said:
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians is AWESOME...
Hey, I'm putting together a collection of the text of the earliest "church fathers". It's nearly completed. Want to proof read it for me? It will earn you a free copy of the finished product. That's about all I can afford for payment, lol.
Sweet. As soon as its done I will arrange to have a printed copy of the rough draft shipped over to you, complete with a red pen for editorial purposes! I (of course) encourage any and all feedback.

It's Sabbath already there? Wow... Still mid afternoon here. I forget Nazspacers are so spread out in the time zones!

Christian said:
It's Shabbat here now, so I couldn't negotiate a better deal anyway :D
I would very much like to read your material, and hopefully I'll be able to provide something more than an auto spell-check can.

J. Jury said:
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians is AWESOME...
Hey, I'm putting together a collection of the text of the earliest "church fathers". It's nearly completed. Want to proof read it for me? It will earn you a free copy of the finished product. That's about all I can afford for payment, lol.
I posted links to the Syriac versions of his letters. They were included in the infamous "Ante-Nicene fathers" volumes produced in the 1920's. I guess there are about 14 letters attributed to Ignatius in the Greek; scholars generally accept 7 as accurate, and the remaining 7 as falsely attributed. But when you compare even the Greek to the Syriac, you will notice substantial differences in the 3 that exist in the Syriac.

Greg Olson said:
J. Jury,

I am very interested in what you are doing. My theory in reading the Western writings of Ignatius is that the Catholics used his name to forge doctuments and promote Catholic ideas that were created the third and fourth centuries, destroying the originals. I would suspect, if there were an "Ignatius" who lived in teh early part of the first century, he would write nothing against the Sabbath, nor against the Torah. The oral Apostolic teachings of obedience to Torah were well established in Ignaius' day and didn't change for a while. I believe Contantine was in direct communication with the enemy through visions and revelation, and he was used to hijack the Assemblies to turn them from Torah and its Hebrew roots. I would be very interested to know if the facts in the Eastern writings support this theory. I did not read them, for it broke off after Constantine and I assumed the writings are poluted as well.

Greg
the problem is that i see that if we are to listen to "church fathers" then we are to call ourselves christians and our religion christianity.. i'd rather stick with Nassaria and Judaism
The Roman Catholics claim them as "church fathers"; but I don't believe that Clement, Polycarp, (nor Ignatius for that matter) would even understand what you were talking about if you said that to them. I feel comfortable to claim that both Clement and Polycarp were very much pro-Torah; Clement was Peter's traveling companion, and a friend of Paul. Polycarp (and Ignatius) were disciples of John. I don't see how they can be called "church fathers" when the essence of "the church" wasn't contrived until years later. I don't mind referring to them as "Apostolic Fathers", or "Post-Apostolic Fathers" or something like that. But really they can't be associated with "the church" due to their position within the time-line of events.

Serkan said:
the problem is that i see that if we are to listen to "church fathers" then we are to call ourselves christians and our religion christianity.. i'd rather stick with Nassaria and Judaism
IF ANYTHING, "Nazarene" would have to be the official name of the "sect", or "eresia" as the greek version says, which simply means "teaching".
So those who follow Yeshua the Messiah's teachings, are his Nazarenes.
But I don't think the text makes a big deal out of having an "official" name and label, and the word "Nazarene(s)" is very seldom used....

Christian just means a follower of Christ. And Christ is just another name for Messiah, or Meshiach. It refers to being a follower of Yeshua. Nothing wrong with that.

People should call themselves what they want,
why do we need to make technical terms of everything and label everything so strictly ?

Serkan said:
the problem is that i see that if we are to listen to "church fathers" then we are to call ourselves christians and our religion christianity.. i'd rather stick with Nassaria and Judaism
Yes, I have no issue fellowshipping with "Christians" who have the right mindset.

Christian said:
IF ANYTHING, "Nazarene" would have to be the official name of the "sect", or "eresia" as the greek version says, which simply means "teaching".
So those who follow Yeshua the Messiah's teachings, are his Nazarenes.
But I don't think the text makes a big deal out of having an "official" name and label, and the word "Nazarene(s)" is very seldom used....

Christian just means a follower of Christ. And Christ is just another name for Messiah, or Meshiach. It refers to being a follower of Yeshua. Nothing wrong with that.

People should call themselves what they want,
why do we need to make technical terms of everything and label everything so strictly ?

Serkan said:
the problem is that i see that if we are to listen to "church fathers" then we are to call ourselves christians and our religion christianity.. i'd rather stick with Nassaria and Judaism
Seemingly a legitimate comment and question....I'll apply my 2 cents worth here not intending to offend or thread drift.

As far as the term "Christ" being another name for the Meshiach I must say I beg to differ. Here's some etymological research a brother has done on the subject...

The Greeks used both the word Messias (a transliteration) and Christos (a translation) for the Hebrew Mashiach (Anointed). The word Christos was far more acceptable to the pagans who were worshiping Chreston and Chrestos.
According to The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, the word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning "good." According to a French theological dictionary, it is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, and Christiani and Chrestiani were used indifferently by the profane and Christian authors of the first two centuries A.D.
The word Christianos is a Latinism, being contributed neither by the Jews nor by the Christians themselves. The word was introduced from one of three origins: the Roman police, the Roman populace, or an unspecified pagan origin. Its infrequent use in the New Testament suggests a pagan origin.
According to Realencyclopaedie, the inscription Chrestos is to be seen on a Mithras relief in the Vatican. According to Christianity and Mythology, Osiris, the sun-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. In the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mount Hermon, built in the third century A.D., the Messiah's title is spelled Chrestos. According to Tertullian and Lactantius, the common people usually called Christ Chrestos.


Concerning your comment about making "technical terms of everything" and "labeling everything so strictly" I think is a bit amiss and probably not actually what you meant literally. The study of the origin words (etymology) came up early in my researches.

Thanks in part to Lew White's findings, I discovered the origin of many of the "English" words we know and grew up being taught, as you most likely know, is chock full of pagan terms. I finally came to the conclusion enough was enough and began putting forth my best effort to rid myself of words, as far as possible, in my opinion are unbecoming of someone "working out their salvation with fear and trembling" ...such as myself.





Christian said:
Christian just means a follower of Christ. And Christ is just another name for Messiah, or Meshiach. It refers to being a follower of Yeshua. Nothing wrong with that.

People should call themselves what they want,
why do we need to make technical terms of everything and label everything so strictly ?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2018   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service