Talk:Ignatius of Antioch
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"In his Chronicle, Eusebius gives the date of his death as AA 2124, the 11th year of Trajan, i.e.108 AD."
What are the conventions here re: C.E./B.C.E. vs. A.D./B.C.? If we are using A.D. rather than C.E., then the letters ought to precede the year rather than follow it. So:
"...AA 2124, the 11th year of Trajan, i.e.A.D. 108"
, or else
"...AA 2124, the 11th year of Trajan, i.e.108 C.E."
.131.183.93.184 (talk)18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God man! The criticism you give about this article on Ignatius is that the author didnt put the A.D. before the year,but after the year?! OH MY!—Precedingunsigned comment added by12.129.246.4 (talk)21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm not comfortable about my identification of Philadelphia in this article withAmman; I seem to remember that there was a Philadelphia in Anatolia (which is mentioned inBook of Revelations), but so far there is no Wiki article about it, nor is it mentioned in thePhiladelphia (disambiguation) page. (I'm adding this information from memory, without any of my references at hand.) --llywrch 16:40 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
What's the deal with the fact that he wrote in run-on sentences?Mydotnet
I have translatedTheophorus "vessel of God." would 'instrument of god" be more accurate in this context? I have added a good deal more and aCatholic Encyclopedia link. Better vet my additions. --Wetman 19:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Theophoros literally means "God-bearer." It comes from the word meaning "to carry." In Greek usage, something that is _____phoros is something that carries _____. For instance, a rassophore monk is a monk who wears a rasso (a kind of garment). InOrthodox Christian theology (the Church which still seems to pay the most attention to Ignatius), at least, there is a strong sense that Christians are all called to be bearers of God, i.e.,theophoroi, bearing God inside of themselves.
I've now twice removed the anonymous addition of theCatholic martyrs category. The reason is that it's somewhat anachronistic to claim a 2nd century bishop of Antioch as a "Catholic martyr." Such a distinction as "Catholic" hadn't really taken by that point, and the almost necessary association that would be made by inclusion in such a category would be to the modern day Roman Catholic Church (especially since the category is a sub-category ofCategory:Roman Catholics), which Ignatius certainly would not have had a sense of himself belonging to, certainly not as something which is so clearly out of communion with the church he was bishop of.
If any such distinction is to be made, he would be an "Orthodox martyr" rather than "Catholic," especially since he tends to be much more highly regarded by Orthodox Christians than by Roman Catholic ones. A whole patriarchate of the Orthodox Church regards him as their patron. But of course when St. Ignatius was martyred, the two churches were still one. To claim him for either "side" is implicitly to deny that.
In any event, "Christian martyrs" is good enough, it seems to me. To claim Ignatius as a "Catholic," especially as some subset of "Roman Catholic," is to do injustice to the historical reality. —Preosttalkcontribs20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is theCatholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
That doesn't say much though. The Orthodox most certainly consider themselves Catholic, in the literal sense of the word. Just calling Roman Catholics, "Catholics", is a relatively new thing, and calling Orthodox, "Orthodox", is a new thing. Roman Catholics most certainly consider themselves orthodox, in the literal sense, and Orthodox consider themselves catholic, in the literal sense. It is more accurate to call Orthodox "The Eastern Catholic Church" (except that title already is taken by Eastern Rite Catholics), and the Catholics, "The Western Catholic Church," because arguably, the Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (before it fell of course, and even after the schism) could legitimately call themselves Roman Catholics.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.234.188.55 (talk)01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a rather long passage that appeared to be an apologia written by a Seventh-Day Adventist - a long, convoluted attempt to "prove" that Ignatius was not actually advocating Sunday worship, when he obviously was.Carlo02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just removed a slab of quotations that did nothing more than to confirm that, yes, Ignatius did use the word "bishop". --llywrch04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To give some insight ,according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Ignatius of Antioch, along with his friendPolycarp, were with great probability auditors of the Apostle St. John.[1]
What is the basis for the following: "Ignatius, who also called himself Theophorus ("bearer of God"), was most likely a disciple of both Apostles Peter and John."? It sounds like christian guesswork and/or wishfull thinking62.79.77.25220:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Ignatius WAS a student or disciple of x, seems quite misleading to me. I've changed it so it is less certain since that's the truth of it... --ShadowFusion (talk)13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why "auditors" - what is meant by this? Can we use a clearer term or be more explanatory about their probable dealings with/relationship to the apostle ?Orlando098 (talk)04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been instructed to post my website:http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.htmlfor review.Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so.Bernard Muller
"He died as a martyr in the arena." Despite exhaustive searching, admittedly with limited resources, I am unable to find any evidence that he died at Rome.
NBeddoe22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question Eusebius the historian, referenced in the article, apparently wrote that he had evidence Ignatius "became food for wild animals" in Rome. It is believed from Eusebius that this occurred during the reign of Trajan.
The rest of the events in Rome seem to be from a document of questionable authenticity called "The Martyrdom of Ignatius", discussed in the article under "Martyrium Ignatii" - the Latin title. A translation of that document can be found online here from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0123.htmChrisbak03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is taking a position which is too supportive of biased historians. Outside of Eusebius we have no reason to tie the Ignatius of the letters to being a Bishop. I think we need at least a paragraph or two addressing the issue what we actually know very little about him other than that he wrote 7 letters unless we consider 4th century sources reliable.jbolden1517Talk15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard who?-LOL—Precedingunsigned comment added by12.129.246.4 (talk)22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the quote in the article following the line "St. Ignatius is claimed to be the first known Christian writer to argue in favor of Christianity's replacement of theSabbath with theLord's Day:" I believe I should mention that some scholars have considered that rather than "Lord's Day" another possible translation would be "Lord's life", which is important as that changes a key part of the passage. I'm uncertain as to how to work this into the article, however.Lord Seth (talk)23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It the context of the passage, especially since he mentions that the Lord's way is in contrast to those who Judaize and observe sabbaths, it looks as though he is advocating Sunday.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.234.177.26 (talk)03:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found another quote from Ignatius in his letter to the Magnesians that clearly states that the Lord's day is the 8th day:
"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,'"Epistle to the Magnesians Chapter IX.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.234.171.60 (talk)03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the doubts about the authenticity of the Ignatius letters as a whole mentioned in the article. There appears to be an old tradition within criticism that doubts whether any of the letters were really written by Ignatius. Here is an paper stemming back from the late 1800s that considers these spurious, for instance:
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/KillenIgnatius.pdf
Perhaps there has been more modern evidence for the authenticity of these letters, but in that case it would be interesting to include a discussion in the article. I know very little about this topic, so perhaps someone who knows more about this topic could give their impression?Martijn Faassen (talk)22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"generally regarded as authentic" Christ, those religious people that feel entitled withouth reading academic text, to declare such statment really shows they are not scholar and must for themself declare its true.
"generally regarded as authentic by christians who only speak english" is more correct.
People have said it is wrong for catholics to say he was catholic. I believe that any church today that was part of the church then should be able to claim him as back then there was only one church and it has branched. So the Catholics and the orthodox, in other words any denomination that is from the original church should be able to claim him.Peppermintschnapps (talk)02:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and probably Lutherans and Anglicans would all claim Ignatius (I'm sure I'm leaving out others). Most Protestants (low church) would probably reject Ignatius' views on the Eucharist and perhaps a few other teachings that come from the few preserved writings of Ignatius. I'm not sure if on Wikipedia we could classify Ignatius under a denomination since that would violate POV rules, although there is probably some truth to your statement. Perhaps instead we could list what churches claim him, or believe him to be a saint.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.234.174.185 (talk)02:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mar. 15 2011 : The page has apparently been haphazardly altered, taking out much important information and even showing some text code.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRlongman (talk •contribs)20:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
February 11, 2012 (Feast Day of Saint Ignatius) The article mentions Saint Ignatius being martyred in the Coloseum, however some sources indicate it was in the Circus Maximus. This should be checked with an authoritative hagiography.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.159.214.198 (talk)13:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article on Ignatius is particularly weak, for it does not explain what Ignatius was charged with,even if he was indeed charged,nor what crime he was accused of. Wikipedia standards please! In short, why was he (Ignatius) sent to the colosseum in the first place? Perhaps our Spanish speaking friends could furnish an answer...
– — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §— Precedingunsigned comment added byPontificateus (talk •contribs)03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignatius seems to have been a native speaker of Syriac. Is there any direct information about this?— Precedingunsigned comment added by86.171.217.231 (talk)14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source given for the martyrdom story is[1], which states "There is a legend that the emperor Trajan himself, who wintered in Antioch in the year 115, examined the aged Bishop Ignatius in the year 115...According to the legend, Trajan ruled that Ignatius should die. He was bound and conveyed to Rome, to be devoured by wild beasts in the Colosseum...According to tradition, (Ignatius) reached Rome on December 20, the last day of the games, and was brought at once before the prefect, to whom the Emperor's letter was delivered. At the prefect's command, the prisoner was hurried off to the Colosseum, where, we are told, two fierce lions were let out and Ignatius was at once killed..." and refers to these "legendary and fictitious elements". Yes, he wrote letters on the way to Rome but there is nothing beyond legend, tradition and fiction to say that Ignatius was killed by wild beasts in the Colosseum. WP should not report legends as historical facts.Smeat75 (talk)19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything that directly mentions a denial of immortality of the soul (the term annihilation or a similar term may have very well been used), so I think this tag is inappropriate.2601:0:4180:7D1:985E:84A7:8ED1:B381 (talk)16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section on his life is a travesty of terrible scholarship. It presents Catholic beliefs as true, without reference to any historical or critical scholarship, and without acknowledging these are Catholic beliefs. It vastly over-claims even that evidence. The whole section needs to be carefully reworked, hopefully by someone with some expertise and access to the scholarly literature, to make clear consensus scholarly opinion and degree of certainty for probably every statement. Some specific issues follow:
Seriously, the life section is so deficient relative to other readily available sources, even on the internet (seehttp://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/, which is vastly more reliable), that its not even worth reading past the life section - I can only imagine the evident poor scholarship infuses the whole article. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:F145:1DBC:D2FC:F6BD (talk)18:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text says, "Ignátios Antiokheías; ad c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117[1]), also known . . . ." I regret that those numbers don't express anything clear. Could someone please clarify them? Do they mean, "Iggy was born either around AD 35 or precisely on AD 50, and he died somewhere in the range of years 98-117"? Do they mean, "Iggy was born around AD 35 or in the range of time AD 50-98, with the possibility that he was not born until AD 117"? (EnochBethany (talk)06:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, you seem to have some concerns with my edits. Straight forward, newadvent.org and earlyjewishwriting/earlychristianwritings are considered blogs because they are personal sites of its creators. Please readWP:NOTBLOG. Over the years, the Wikicommunity has decided to remove or replace these links with academic sources. Any content that is typed up as a claim or controversy without a reliable source can be removed. Claims written only in the lead section of the article must also be supported in the body of the article with reliable sources perWP:LEAD. —JudeccaXIII (talk)05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have always applied NOTBLOG for removing blogs as sources in articles, and been thanked for it by other editors .I would hope that you and whoever these other editors are would have read it first given that, even if we were discussing a blog, that section ofWP:NOT does not pertain to sourcing.
Since this needs clarification, readWP:SPS.I am familiar withWP:SPS. It does not, however, necessarily prohibit self-published republications of works originally published by respected presses. If it did, it would prohibit the citing of sources from Wikisource. Would you suggest that to also be prohibited? The reality is, the sources we are working with in this case is an article byHerbert Thurston in theCatholic Encyclopedia (edited byCharles G. Herbermann,Edward A. Pace,Condé B. Pallen,Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne) and epistles attributed to Ignatius translated byAlexander Roberts andJames Donaldson and included inAnte-Nicene Fathers (edited by the two translators alongsideA. Cleveland Coxe).142.161.81.20 (talk)23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t continue on in the discussion, sorry for wasting everyone’s time. —JudeccaXIII (talk)01:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII,Walter Görlitz, and142.161.81.20:
The above discussion does not touch the really significant point as I see it:New Advent is makes available an encyclopedia which is over a hundred years old and reflects opinions of its own epoch. The last 50 years have seen enormous changes in Catholic thinking at an academic level. The real problem is not over whether it is a blog or not, but whether [[Catholic Encyclopedia] is still a reliable source. So far asEarly Christian Writings are concerned in so far as they provide public domain translations of early Christian documents, they are a reliable source. More recent translations would be preferable, but there are copyright problems and they can be difficult to access. However, the notes and introductions have passed their "sell by" date. —Jpacobb (talk)23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, the translation to Rome in 637, as the article claims, is difficult to sustain. I checked the Italian version - usually a good source on saints - refers to the "roman martyrology", whatever that might mean in this context. A short google search was, however, illuminating, cf:https://books.google.be/books?id=yvXeCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=translation+ignatius+san+clemente&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWm_-egK_tAhW9WxUIHdCKCssQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=translation%20ignatius%20san%20clemente&f=false
I think this article needs also in this respect an update.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2A02:2C40:100:B001:0:0:1:3A1B (talk)09:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
Please find a more authentic portrait. This one screams of paganism and hellenism. Garbage.2601:194:300:D600:2873:CD45:A7FE:8CC3 (talk)14:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
