Blui

I seem to recall that the one who mentioned this was Irenaeus, and possibly Eusebius, though itis Irenaeus who is the primary one who advocates Polycarp being taught by John (and apparently, other Apostles).

From what i read, Papias contradicts Irenaeus in that John was martyred and did not die of old age in... (cant remember, some place starting with 'e').

Could anyone give me more information? is this disputed? could he be lying or got mixed up with John the Presbyter (as that has happened in early Church traditions).

Thanks.

Doug Shaver

Irenaeus did say that Polycarp was taught by John. Eusebius only tells us that Irenaeus said so. That isn't corroboration, that's just Eusebius saying that he believes Irenaeus's story about Polycarp.

Nothing that survives of Polycarp's own work says anything about his having ever met John. It think it improbable that he would have written nothing about it or that if he had, the document would not have survived.

If I remember correctly, Irenaeus claims to have gotten the story from Polycarp himself. However, that was when he (Irenaeus) was a young man, and he was writing the story in his old age. I think it most likely that his memory was embellishing things a bit.

I don't remember Papias saying anything about how John died. In any case, as Eusebius himself notes, if you read Papias carefully, you know he never actually met any of the apostles. He just claimed to known some people who had met some of them -- or who claimed to have done so. Eusebius also makes it clear that in his own opinion, Papias was not a reliable source.

andrewcriddle

Philip of Side says George the Sinner says How reliable these accounts are about what Papias said is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

POLYCARP: (69 -- 155).
Saint, Bishop of Smyrna, Martyr.
Only one Epistle, addressed to the Philippians, remains of
Polycarp, and of it CE. discusses the "serious qucstion" of its
genuineness, which depends upon that of the Ignatian Epistles, and
vice versa, above discussed; it says: "If the former were
forgeries, the latter, which supports -- it might almost be said
presupposes -- them, must be a forgery from the same hand." (CE.
xii, 219.) Poor Church of God, cannot you produce something of your
Saints that isn't a forgery?

But if Saint Polycarp did not write anything genuine, his
Church of Smyrna did itself proud in doing honor to his pretended
Martyrtioin, in A.D. 154-5, or 165-6 (lb.) -- so exact is Church
"tradition." In one of the earliest Encyclicals -- (not issued by
a Pope) -- the wondrous tale is told. It it; addressed: "The "The
Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God
sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the holy
and Catholic -- [first use of term] -- Church in every place"; and
proceeds in glowing words to recount the virtues, capture, trial
and condemnation to death by fire, of the holy St. Polycarp. Just
before his capture, polycarp dreamed that his pillow was afire; he
exclaimed to those around, "prophetically, 'I am to be burned
alive.'" The forged and fabling Epistle proceeds: "Now, as Polycerp
was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from
heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and show thyself a man, O Polycarp.' No
one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who
were present heard the voice" (Ch. ix). Then the details of his
trial before the magistrates, and the verbatim report of his prayer
when led to his fate (xiv). Then (Chap. xv):

"When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his
prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the
fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom
it was given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have
been preserved that we might report to others what then took
place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch.,
like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed
as by a circle of fire the body of the martyr. And he appeared
within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is
baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnsce. Moreover,
we prececived such a sweet odor (coming from the pile), as if
frankincene or some such precious spices had been smoking
there. (Ch. xvi.) At length, when those wicked men perceived
that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they
commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through
with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove,
and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was
extinguished"! (Letter of the Church at Smyrna, ANF. i. 39-44;
CE. xii, 221.)

Even this holy Encyclical, at least as to its appended date,
is not without suspicion; for, "The possibility remains that the
subscription was tampered with by a later hand. But 155 must be
approximately correct." (CE. xii, 221.) Oh, for something saintly
above suspicion!


PAPIAS: (about 70-155 A.D.); Bishop of Hieropolis, in Phrygia, of whose "life nothing is known" (CE. xi, 459); who, after
the Apostles and contemporary with the early Presbyters, was the
first of the sub-Apostolic Fathers. He was an ex-Pagan Greek, who
flourished as a Christian Father and Bishop during the first half
of the second Christian century; the dates of his birth and death
are unknown. He is said to have written five Books entitled
"Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord" -- that is, of the Old
Testament "prophecies"; these are now lost, "except a few precious
fragments" (CE. vi, 5), whether fortunately or otherwise may be
judged from the scanty "precious fragments" preserved in quotations
by some of the other Fathers. According to Bishop Eusebius (HE.
iii, 39), quoted by CE. (xi, 549), "Papias was a man of very small
mind, if we may judge by his own words"; -- though again he calls
him "a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well
acquainted with the [O.T.] Scriptures." (HE. iv, 36,) As examples,
Eusebius cites "a wild and extraordinary legend about Judas
Iscariot attributed to Papias," wherein he says of Judas; "his body
having swollen to such extent that he could not pass where a
chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that
his bowels gushed out." (ANF. i, 153.) This Papian "tradition" of
course impeaches both of the other contradictory Scriptural
traditions of Judas, towit, that "he went and hanged himself"
(Matt. xxvii, 5), and Peter's alleged statement that "falling
headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed
out." (Acts i, 15-18.) Bishop Eusebius says that Bishop Papias
states that "those who were raised to life by Christ lived on until
the age of Trajan," -- Roman Emperor from 98-117 A.D. Father Papias
falls into what would by the Orthodox be regarded as "some" error,
in disbelieving and denying the early crucifixion and resurrection
of Jesus Christ -- evidently not then a belief; for he assures us,
on the authority of what "the disciples of the Lord used to say in
the old days," that Jesus Christ lived to be an old man; and so
evidently died in peace in the bosom of his family, as we shall see
explicitly confessed by Bishop Irenaeus. Father Papias relates the
raising to life of the mother of Manaimos; also the drinking of
poison without harm by Justus Barsabas; which fables he supported
by "strange parables of the Savior and teachings of his, and other
mythical matters," says Bishop Eusebius (quoted by CE.), which the
authority of so venerable a person, who had lived with the
Apostles, imposed upon the Church as genuine." (Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. Bk. III, ch. 39.) But Father Papias -- this is important to
remember -- is either misunderstood or misrepresented, in his claim
to have known the Apostles, or at least the Apostle John; for, says
CE., in harmony with EB. and other authorities: "It is admitted
that he could not have known many Apostles. ... Irenaeus and
Eusebius, who had the works of Papias before them, understood the
presbyters not to be Apostles, but disciples of disciples of the
Lord, or even disciples of disciples of the Apostles." (CE. xi,
458; see Euseb. HE. III, 39.) This fact Papias himself admits, that
he got his "apostolic" lore at second and third hand: "If, then,
any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after
their sayings, -- what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by
Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by
any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the
presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that
what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what
came from the living and abiding voice." (Papias, Frag. 4; ANF. i,
153.)

One of the "wild and mythical matters" which good Father
Papias relates of Jesus Christ, which is a first-rate measure of
the degree of his claimed intimacy with John the Evangelist, and of
the value of his pretended testimony to the "Gospels" of Matthew
and Mark, to be later noticed, is the "curious prophecy of the
miraculous vintage in the Millennium which he attributes to Jesus
Christ," as described and quoted by CE. In this, Papias assures us,
on the authority of his admirer Bishop Irenaeus, that he "had
immediately learned from the Evangelist St. John himself," that:
"the Lord taught and said, That the days shall come in which vines
shall spring up, each having 10,000 branches, and in each branch
shall be 10,000 arms, and on each arm of a branch 10,000 tendrils,
and on each tendril 10,000 bunches, and on each bunch 10,000
grapes, and each grape, on being pressed, shall yield five and
twenty gallons of wine; and when any one of the Saints shall take
hold of one of these bunches, another shall cry out, 'I am a better
bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me.'" The same infinitely
pious twaddle of multiplication by 10,000 is continued by Father
Papias with respect to grains of wheat, apples, fruits, flowers and
animals, precisely like the string of jingles in the nursery tale
of The House that Jack Built; even Jesus got tired of such his own
alleged inanities and concluded by saying: "And those things are
believable by all believers; but the traitor Judas, not believing,
asked him, 'But how shall these things that shall propagate thus be
brought to an end by the Lord?' And the Lord answered him and said,
'Those who shall live in those times shall see.'" "This,
indicates," explains Bishop Irenaeus, who devotes a whole chapter
to the repetition and elaboration of this Christ-yarn as "proof" of
the meaning of Jesus, that he would drink of the fruit of the vine
with his disciples in his father's Kingdom, -- "this indicates the
large size and rich quality of the fruits." (CE. xi, 458; Iren.
Adv. Haer. IV, xxxiii, 4; ANF. i, 564.) How far less wild a myth,
one may wonder, is this prolific propagation than that fabled by
this same John the Evangelist in his supposed "Revelation," wherein
he saw in heaven the River of Life proceeding out of the Throne of
God and of the Lamb, and "in the midst of the street of it, and on
either side of the River, was there the Tree of Life, which bare
twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the
leaves of the Tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev.
xxii, 1, 2.) Verily, "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou
hast perfected praise"! (Mt. xxi, 16.)


IRENAEUS: (120-c. 200) Saint, Martyr, Bishop of Lyons; ex-
Pagan of Smyrna, who emigrated to Gaul and became Bishop;
"information of his life is scarce, and [as usual] in some measure
inexact. ... Nothing is known of the date of his death, which may
have occurred at the end of the second or beginning of the third
century." (CE., vii, 130.) How then is it known that he was a
Martyr? Of him Photius, ablest early critic in the Church, warns
that in some of his works "the purity of truth, with respect to
ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious
readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx); -- though why this invidious
distinction of Irenaeus among all the clerical corruptors of
"tradition" is not clear. The only surviving work of Irenaeus in
four prolific Books is his notable Adversus Haereses, or, as was
its full title, "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely
so Called," -- though he succeeds in falsely subverting no little
real knowledge by his own idle fables. This work is called "one of
the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity." Bishop St.
Irenaeus quotes one apt sentiment from Homer, the precept of which
he seems to approve, but which he and his Church confreres did not
much put into practice:

"Hateful to me that man as Hades' gates,
Who one thing thinks, while he another states."
(Iliad, ix, 312, 313; Adv. Haer. III, xxxiii, 3.)

JESUS DIED OF OLD AGE!

Most remarkable of the "heresies" attacked and refuted by
Bishop Irenaeus, is one which had just gained currency in written
form in the newly published "Gospels of Jesus Christ," in the form
of the "tradition" that Jesus had been crucified to death early in
the thirties of his life, after a preaching career of only about
one year, according to three of the new Gospels, of about three
years, according to the fourth. This is rankly false and
fictitious, on the "tradition" of the real gospel and of all the
Apostles, avows Bishop Irenaeus, like Bishop Papias earlier in the
century; and he boldly combated it as "heresy." It is not true, he
asserts, that Jesus Christ died so early in life and after so brief
a career. "How is it possible," be demands, "that the Lord preached
for one year only?"; and on the quoted authority of John the
Apostle himself, of "the true Gospel," and of "all the elders," the
saintly Bishop urges the falsity and "heresy" of the Four Gospels
on this crucial point. Textually, and with quite fanciful
reasonments, he says that Jesus did not die so soon:

"For he came to save all through means of Himself -- all,
I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and
children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore
passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus
sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying
those who are of this age; a youth for youths, and thus
sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man
for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not
merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as
regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and
becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came
on to death itself, that He might be 'the first-born from the
dead.'

"They, however, that they may establish their false
opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that he preached for
one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In
speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage,
destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both
more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He
excelled all others. ...

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year,
every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year
a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,
even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were
conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,
(affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. AND
HE REMAINED AMONG THEM UP TO THE TIMES OF TRAJAN [Roman
Emperor, A.D. 98-117]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only
John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same
account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of
] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?" (Iren.
Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 3, 4, 5; ANF. I, 891-2.)

The Bishop's closing question is pertinent, and we shall come
back to it in due course.

Irenaeus also vouches his belief in magic arts, repeating as
true the fabulous stories of Simon Magus and his statue in the
Tiber and the false recital of the inscription on it; and as a
professional heresy-hunter he falls upon Simon as the Father of
Heresy: "Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all heresies derive
their origin. ... The successor of this man was Menander, also a
Samaritan by birth; and he, too, was a perfect adept in the
practice of magic." (Adv. Haer. I, xxiii; ANF. i, 348.)


-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930



Pete Brown

Blui

Hey Much thanks guys, in particular mountainman for finding me such direct material.