Ignatius vs Ignatius: Polycarp

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
  • In this video, Mark and Jack discuss the epistle of Saint Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp. They compare the short recension and the middle recension of the letters in an attempt to better understand their origins and content.
    Please subscribe to Patristica and to Mark's channel ‪@vocesanticae‬!
    (c) 2024 by speakers, distributed under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 international license.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 13

  • @simonodowd2119
    @simonodowd2119 4 дні тому +2

    This is great, I've been looking forward to this!
    Is that word doc available at all? Would love to be able to read through and refer back to it.
    Thanks again for all you do. Your research really gives a new perspective to the field.

    • @Patristica
      @Patristica  4 дні тому +3

      @@simonodowd2119 it isn't yet. I'm going to refine the translation then put it up!

  • @EinarGrondal
    @EinarGrondal 7 днів тому +3

    I keep having this thought that whoever redacted Paul also redacted Ignatius. The redaction changes the character of the letter from condescending toward Polycarp to almost admiring (as I'm understanding it) and then my mind wants to know who gains by such a change. I always come back to Ireneus of Lyons. Ireneus who inflates Polycarp into a great Bishop etc... just thinking out loud.

  • @chemnitzcubing4771
    @chemnitzcubing4771 7 днів тому +2

    On the question of supplying the pronoun in "our Lord" in the SS3L, the Peshitta to Luke does the same thing. Where all Greek manuscripts of Luke have "the Lord," the Peshitta typically has "our Lord."

  • @Gatesofhistory3858
    @Gatesofhistory3858 7 днів тому +2

    Having the privilege to be the first comment ❤️🌹

  • @DrWrapperband
    @DrWrapperband 7 днів тому +4

    More evidence Ignatius never existed? Eusebius (c. 325 CE) - The first detailed description of Ignatius, but Eusebius is notorious for fabricating or editing historical material to support Nicene Christianity.

    • @JC-vq2cs
      @JC-vq2cs 7 днів тому +2

      Dr. Livesey just published a book arguing for a fictional Paul & forged letters if I understand correctly. Wow, I heard Trobisch also speculate on this, given the literary function of epistles & his own research. Blew my mind. I am not a Christian or religious at all but just assumed all of these people, Jesus too, existed. My New Testament course at a prominent liberal arts college told me so! ;)
      I am open to reconsidering everything based on new evidence & research. After listening to Dr. Bull's presentations I had the same thought, Ignatius was invented as a witness to the early church, then elaborated.
      I love the sleuthing & forensic detective work, 2K years later! I know a lot of fiction writers + live amidst the Mormons whose scriptures were composed as bible fan fiction + moundbuilder myth mashup & beliefs were invented whole cloth only 200 years ago. And Mormons fervently believe despite overwhelming evidence its false. Humans are strange and create social apes.

  • @richardfellows4734
    @richardfellows4734 7 днів тому +1

    Ignatius does use the term "theophorus" in one of his letters, doesn't he?

    • @Patristica
      @Patristica  6 днів тому +2

      Yes. It's how he introduces himself in Ep.Poly., no matter which version/recension apparently.

    • @richardfellows4734
      @richardfellows4734 6 днів тому +1

      @@Patristica I was not clear. What I meant was that, contrary to what you said, Ignatius mentions God-bearers in chapter 9 of his letter to the Ephesians.

    • @Patristica
      @Patristica  6 днів тому +2

      Thank you for your request for us to run Chi-Squared Tests. I've endeavored to do that and have provided results on my Patreon and recorded a related episode on @Vocesanticae. - mgb

    • @richardfellows4734
      @richardfellows4734 6 днів тому

      @@Patristica I do not know how to access these.

  • @julessamuels4588
    @julessamuels4588 14 годин тому

    I appreciate you Jack, but as you well know I still think you’re wrong!