Was Ignatius' claim that Christians didn't keep the Sabbath correctly translated?

[Kilk1]

Hello! According to this Sabbatarian source, Ignatius' statement, normally translated thus, is incorrect (emphasis mine):

If then those who had walked in ancient prac-
tices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives
after the Lord's day, on which our life also
arose through Him and through His death
which some men deny -- a mystery whereby
we attained unto belief, and for this cause we
endure patiently, that we may be found disci-
ples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.​

This translation contrasts observing Sabbaths with focusing on the Lord's Day. However, the Sabbatarian source linked to above says that "day" is not in the original (I take it that the translation above must believe it's implied), and that "those who had walked in ancient practices" were the Old Testament prophets. Since the Old Testament prophets did keep the Sabbath, he says the translation above is incorrect and that the following translation is better (emphasis mine):

If then those who had walked in ancient practic-
es attained unto newness of hope, no longer
{Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the
Lord's way of life...​

This would suggest that it isn't a contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day but rather a contrast between observing the Sabbath Judaically (perhaps legalistically?) and observing the Sabbath according to the Lord's way.

Which translation is better? Is it accurate that "those who had walked in ancient practices" are the Old Testament prophets (the assumption on which the second translation is based), or are they perhaps the first-century Christians/apostles observing the Lord's Day (which would favor the first translation)? Thanks!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The entire passage Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;” and again, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am;” how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, “He will come and save us.” Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, “whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things,” who are “lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men’s possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[trophy33]

Which translation is better? Thanks!

You did not provide the Greek text, though.

 

[Kilk1]

You did not provide the Greek text, though.

According to the source I provided, this would be the Greek text:

Εί ούν οί έν παλαιοîς πράγμασιν
άναστραφέντες είς καινότητα έλπίδος ήλθον,
μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, άλλά κατά κυριακήν
ζώντες, έν ή καί ή ζωή ήμών άνέτειλεν δι’
αύτού καί τού θανάτου αύτού, <öν> τινες
άρνούνται, δι’ ού μυστηρίου έλάβομεν τò
πιστεύειν, καί διά τούτο ύπομένομεν, ïνα
εύρεθώμεν μαθηταί 'Iησού Χριστού τού
μόνου διδασκάλου ήμών·

 

[trophy33]

According to the source I provided, this would be the Greek text:

Εί ούν οί έν παλαιοîς πράγμασιν
άναστραφέντες είς καινότητα έλπίδος ήλθον,
μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, άλλά κατά κυριακήν
ζώντες, έν ή καί ή ζωή ήμών άνέτειλεν δι’
αύτού καί τού θανάτου αύτού, <öν> τινες
άρνούνται, δι’ ού μυστηρίου έλάβομεν τò
πιστεύειν, καί διά τούτο ύπομένομεν, ïνα
εύρεθώμεν μαθηταί 'Iησού Χριστού τού
μόνου διδασκάλου ήμών·

"... they are not [doing, keeping] sabbath anymore, but they are living according to the [day] of the Lord."

The word "day" is not in the text, but "kyriaké" meant Sunday, the day of the Lord, in the first church, so its implied.
Κυριακή - Wiktionary
https://www.wordsense.eu/Κυριακή/

Even in the modern Greek, Sunday is still kyriaké, they preserved it till today:
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/greek-word-for-bc5dd045b8623ddfc4bd0bce98ca5fda42accf88.html

So, this would be still a valid, more dynamic translation:
"... they are not keeping sabbath anymore, but they are living according to Sunday"
(but it sounds wrong, because in English Sunday is "the day of sun", so the meaning is quite lost).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

According to the source I provided, this would be the Greek text:

Εί ούν οί έν παλαιοîς πράγμασιν
άναστραφέντες είς καινότητα έλπίδος ήλθον,
μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, άλλά κατά κυριακήν
ζώντες, έν ή καί ή ζωή ήμών άνέτειλεν δι’
αύτού καί τού θανάτου αύτού, <öν> τινες
άρνούνται, δι’ ού μυστηρίου έλάβομεν τò
πιστεύειν, καί διά τούτο ύπομένομεν, ïνα
εύρεθώμεν μαθηταί 'Iησού Χριστού τού
μόνου διδασκάλου ήμών·

So Myst's translation is dynamically correct as the literal reads along these lines:
άλλά κατά κυριακήν ζώντες
But after Lord's day of the living.
(But living after the Lord's day)

In the Greek Orthodox church, Saturday is still called Sabbaton. Services on this day are in memory of monastics and ascetics and of those in the grave. On Holy Saturday, the day before Easter, one of the hymns reads:

Moses, the great Prophet, mystically prefigured this day saying, "Then God blessed the seventh day." For this is the blessed Sabbath; this is the day of rest, on which the only-begotten Son of God rested from all His works, observing the Sabbath rest in the flesh, through the dispensation involving death. And returning once again to what He was, through the Resurrection, He granted to us eternal life, for He alone is good and He loves humanity.

 

[Leaf473]

Hello! According to this Sabbatarian source, Ignatius' statement, normally translated thus, is incorrect (emphasis mine):

If then those who had walked in ancient prac-
tices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives
after the Lord's day, on which our life also
arose through Him and through His death
which some men deny -- a mystery whereby
we attained unto belief, and for this cause we
endure patiently, that we may be found disci-
ples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.​

This translation contrasts observing Sabbaths with focusing on the Lord's Day. However, the Sabbatarian source linked to above says that "day" is not in the original (I take it that the translation above must believe it's implied), and that "those who had walked in ancient practices" were the Old Testament prophets. Since the Old Testament prophets did keep the Sabbath, he says the translation above is incorrect and that the following translation is better (emphasis mine):

If then those who had walked in ancient practic-
es attained unto newness of hope, no longer
{Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the
Lord's way of life...​

This would suggest that it isn't a contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day but rather a contrast between observing the Sabbath Judaically (perhaps legalistically?) and observing the Sabbath according to the Lord's way.

Which translation is better? Is it accurate that "those who had walked in ancient practices" are the Old Testament prophets (the assumption on which the second translation is based), or are they perhaps the first-century Christians/apostles observing the Lord's Day (which would favor the first translation)? Thanks!

I think we talked about this before, but as early as the Didache it was the standard practice to say "the Lord's" when referring to Sunday.

Except "the Lord's" isn't really a good English rendering, because it's using the possessive form of "Lord". I believe in Greek it's the adjective form.

The best existing English word I know of would be "Dominical". A good coined word would be "Lord-ish".

That at such an early date someone could simply say "the Lord-ish" and expect everyone to know what it meant indicates to me that a great deal of importance was already being attached to Sunday.

And I think that's what Ignatius is saying, too. Of course, translation involves some amount of interpretation. And when interpreting, people tend to find what they're looking for. Confirmation bias happens everywhere.

Great thread topic!

 

[Kilk1]

I think we talked about this before, but as early as the Didache it was the standard practice to say "the Lord's" when referring to Sunday.

Except "the Lord's" isn't really a good English rendering, because it's using the possessive form of "Lord". I believe in Greek it's the adjective form.

The best existing English word I know of would be "Dominical". A good coined word would be "Lord-ish".

That at such an early date someone could simply say "the Lord-ish" and expect everyone to know what it meant indicates to me that a great deal of importance was already being attached to Sunday.

And I think that's what Ignatius is saying, too. Of course, translation involves some amount of interpretation. And when interpreting, people tend to find what they're looking for. Confirmation bias happens everywhere.

Great thread topic!

That seems to make sense! I remember reading something like that before. It was probably your post a while back I was thinking of, haha!

 

[BobRyan]

Hello! According to this Sabbatarian source, Ignatius' statement, normally translated thus, is incorrect (emphasis mine):

If then those who had walked in ancient prac-
tices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives
after the Lord's day, on which our life also
arose through Him and through His death
which some men deny -- a mystery whereby
we attained unto belief, and for this cause we
endure patiently, that we may be found disci-
ples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.​

This translation contrasts observing Sabbaths with focusing on the Lord's Day. However, the Sabbatarian source linked to above says that "day" is not in the original (I take it that the translation above must believe it's implied), and that "those who had walked in ancient practices" were the Old Testament prophets. Since the Old Testament prophets did keep the Sabbath, he says the translation above is incorrect and that the following translation is better (emphasis mine):

If then those who had walked in ancient practic-
es attained unto newness of hope, no longer
{Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the
Lord's way of life...​

This would suggest that it isn't a contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day but rather a contrast between observing the Sabbath Judaically (perhaps legalistically?) and observing the Sabbath according to the Lord's way.

Which translation is better? Is it accurate that "those who had walked in ancient practices" are the Old Testament prophets (the assumption on which the second translation is based), or are they perhaps the first-century Christians/apostles observing the Lord's Day (which would favor the first translation)? Thanks!

1. About half of Ignatius' letters are considered by almost all scholars to be forged - Calvin said that it was such a mess it was safer just to reject all of them.

2. Acts 20 Paul says after his departure men would arise from within the church teaching strange doctrine.

 

[trophy33]

1. About half of Ignatius' letters are considered by almost all scholars to be forged - Calvin said that it was such a mess it was safer just to reject all of them.

Sources for such claims are needed.

1. That almost all scholars... etc
2. That this specific letter we talk about is in the "half"
3. That Calvin said this, best to quote him in context.

Thanks.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Sources for such claims are needed.

1. That almost all scholars... etc
2. That this specific letter we talk about is betwen the "half"
3. That Calvin said this, best to quote him in context.

Thanks.

The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century.

Seven original epistles:

• The Epistle to the Ephesians,
• The Epistle to the Magnesians,
• The Epistle to the Trallians,
• The Epistle to the Romans,
• The Epistle to the Philadelphians,
• The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,
• The Epistle to Polycarp, a bishop of Smyrna.

 

[trophy33]

The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century.

Seven original epistles:

• The Epistle to the Ephesians,
• The Epistle to the Magnesians,
• The Epistle to the Trallians,
• The Epistle to the Romans,
• The Epistle to the Philadelphians,
• The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,
• The Epistle to Polycarp, a bishop of Smyrna.

So the one we are talking about is not in question...

 

[GreekOrthodox]

So the one we are talking about is not in question...

Right, the quote is from the Epistle to the Magnesians.

 

[BobRyan]

Sources for such claims are needed.

1. That almost all scholars... etc
2. That this specific letter we talk about is in the "half"
3. That Calvin said this, best to quote him in context.

Thanks.

ok - point taken --

One example will help and more for those interested in reading that side of the discussion.

==========================


From - John Calvin: Ignatian Epistles (c. 110) Not Authentic

(writing in opposition to Calvin – yet admitting to what Calvin did teach about Ignatius)

Begin quote

John Calvin: Ignatian Epistles (c. 110) Not Authentic
August 11, 2016 by Dave Armstrong

Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-1889): Anglican biblical scholar, translator of the early Church fathers and Bishop of Durham. He was a key advocate of the authenticity of the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*** (6-7-09) ***

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“St. Ignatius of Antioch”) provides an overview summary, with which we can begin our closer examination (my blue coloring):

“At intervals during the last several centuries a warm controversy has been carried on by patrologists concerning the authenticity of the Ignatian letters. Each particular recension has had its apologists and its opponents. Each has been favored to the exclusion of all the others, and all, in turn, have been collectively rejected, especially by the coreligionists of Calvin. The reformer himself, in language as violent as it is uncritical (Institutes, 1-3), repudiates in globo the letters which so completely discredit his own peculiar views on ecclesiastical government. The convincing evidence which the letters bear to the Divine origin of Catholic doctrine is not conducive to predisposing non-Catholic critics in their favor, . . .​

Calvin exclaimed in his Institutes:

“With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration. (Book I, Chapter 13, Section 29)​

And again in his commentary for Philippians 4:3:

“Those who maintain this, quote Clement and Ignatius as their authorities. If they quoted correctly, I would not certainly despise men of such eminence. But as writings are brought forward from Eusebius which are spurious, and were contrived by ignorant monks, they are not deserving of much credit among readers of sound judgment. Let us, therefore, inquire as to the thing itself, without taking any false impression from the opinions of men.​

Presbyterian W. D. Killen wrote a book in 1886, entitled, The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Here is an excerpt, where he mentions Calvin:

“The question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch has continued to awaken interest ever since the period of the Reformation. . . . Calvin–who then stood at the head of Protestant theologians–did not hesitate to denounce the whole of them as forgeries.​

Elsewhere in the book, he greatly extolled Calvin for his (now thoroughly discredited) opinions:

“it is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin that upwards of three centuries ago he passed a sweeping condemnation on these Ignatian epistles. . . . Calvin knew that an apostolic man must be acquainted with apostolic doctrine, and he saw that these letters must have been the production of an age when the pure light of Christianity was greatly obscured. Hence he denounced them so emphatically; and time has verified his deliverance. (cited in Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, John McClintock, pp. 492-493)​

Robert Ellis Thompson (Presbyterian) notes:

“In 1557 Valentin Pacaeus published in Greek twelve epistles bearing the name of Ignatius of Antioch. Their genuineness was at once called into question by Calvin and other good scholars, ...​

(The Historic Episcopate, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1910, p. 76)


Protestant historian Philip Schaff concurs:

“The Larger Greek Recension of Seven Epistles with eight additional ones. Four of them were published in Latin at Paris, 1495, as an appendix to another book; eleven more by Faber Stapulensis, also in Latin, at Paris, 1498; then all fifteen in Greek by Valentine Hartung (called Paceus or Irenaeus) at Dillingen, 1557; and twelve by Andreas Gesner at Zurich, 1560. The Catholics at first accepted them all as genuine works of Ignatius; and Hartung, Baronius, Bellarmin defended at least twelve; but Calvin and the Magdeburg Centuriators rejected them all, and later Catholics surrendered at least eight as utterly untenable. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, chapter 13, § 165. The Ignatian Controversy)​

William Cureton, an important and key Ignatian scholar, also confirms this assessment:

". . . others, with J. Calvin, did not scruple to denounce the whole as a barefaced and stupid forgery. (Corpus Ignatianum: A Complete Collection of the Ignatian Epistles, London: Francis & John Rivington, 1849, p. xvii)​

Catholic scholars generally defended the authenticity of the letters because of the obvious polemical value of Ignatius’s early date and emphasis on the monepiscopal form of church structure, while Protestants generally denied their authenticity for similar reasons. . . . Not until the independent work of Theodor Zahn (1873) and J. B. Lightfoot (1885) was general recognition of the authenticity of the seven letters contained in the middle recension attained

“So, not only did Calvin not accept what St. Ignatius taught in his epistles; he didn’t even accept them as genuine. So he can hardly have incorporated the data therein into his anti-Catholic apologetic. For him, the Ignatian corpus was entirely out of the equation of Protestant-Catholic disputation.”​

 

[trophy33]

Calvin exclaimed in his Institutes:

“With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration. (Book I, Chapter 13, Section 29)​

And again in his commentary for Philippians 4:3:

“Those who maintain this, quote Clement and Ignatius as their authorities. If they quoted correctly, I would not certainly despise men of such eminence. But as writings are brought forward from Eusebius which are spurious, and were contrived by ignorant monks, they are not deserving of much credit among readers of sound judgment. Let us, therefore, inquire as to the thing itself, without taking any false impression from the opinions of men.​

Thanks. It seems that Calvin simply complained about the quality of quotes from Ignatius and Eusebius in his time. Its true that in his time period, there were not many solid resources for old writings, not even for the Bible.

Anyway, as it was said above, the Ignatius' Epistle to Magnesians we have today is generally considered to be authentic.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks. It seems that Calvin simply complained about the quality of quotes from Ignatius and Eusebius in his time. Its true that in his time period, there were not many solid resources for old writings, not even for the Bible.

Anyway, as it was said above, the Ignatius' Epistle to Magnesians we have today is generally considered to be authentic.

Ignatius would have written in the 2nd century - Calvin lived in the 15th century - the historic sources show that he rejected all of the 15 supposedly attributed to Ignatius - I don't know of a single historian having evidence that Calvin affirmed even one of the supposed letters of Ignatius. Do you have one?

In those references we see that it is the letters themselves that Calvin is dubious of - not simply a quote from the letters.

It looks like historians note this as in the example given above..

“The Larger Greek Recension of Seven Epistles with eight additional ones. Four of them were published in Latin at Paris, 1495, as an appendix to another book; eleven more by Faber Stapulensis, also in Latin, at Paris, 1498; then all fifteen in Greek by Valentine Hartung (called Paceus or Irenaeus) at Dillingen, 1557; and twelve by Andreas Gesner at Zurich, 1560. The Catholics at first accepted them all as genuine works of Ignatius; and Hartung, Baronius, Bellarmin defended at least twelve; but Calvin and the Magdeburg Centuriators rejected them all, and later Catholics surrendered at least eight as utterly untenable. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, chapter 13, § 165. The Ignatian Controversy)​

 

[trophy33]

Ignatius would have written in the 2nd century - Calvin lived in the 15th century - the historic sources show that he rejected all of the 15 supposedly attributed to Ignatius - I don't know of a single historian having evidence that Calvin affirmed even one of the supposed letters of Ignatius. Do you have one?

When I said that the Epistle to Magnesians is generally considered to be authentic, I did not mean Calvin. I meant our today state of knowledge.

In the day of Calvin it was even hard to find and authentic Bible, most ancient authors or philosophers were in bad Latin translation etc. We have a different situation today.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

When I said that the Epistle to Magnesians is generally considered to be authentic, I did not mean Calvin. I meant our today state of knowledge.

In the day of Calvin it was even hard to find and authentic Bible, most ancient authors or philosophers were in bad Latin translation etc. We have a different situation today.

Sigh, and everyone forgets about the Orthodox church in historical discussions. We're still using Koine Greek as our official text.

 

[trophy33]

Sigh, and everyone forgets about the Orthodox church in historical discussions. We're still using Koine Greek as our official text.

Calvin lived in the West, though. So he did not have access to byzantian writings.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Calvin lived in the West, though. So he did not have access to byzantian writings.

I know... bunch of barbarians who don't speak a civilized tongue