spin

As often is the case, I think they are wrong. It's the same old story: argue for everything as early as possible to make up for the lack of direct evidence.

In an empire when there was usually only one ruler, Polycarp tells his readers to pray for (the) kings, potentates and princes (orate etiam pro regibus, potestatibus et principibus -- text only preserved in Latin here), we have the plural rulers, potentates are the minor local kings of the empire and great men, while princes were all the other politicos in power. The only time when there was more than one ruler during the 2nd century was when Lucius Verus ruled with Marcus Aurelius in the 160s.

We rely on Eusebius for the date of Ignatius, whereas Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, based on the indication just mentioned for dating it, would place Ignatius in the 160s as well, as he is reputedly still alive at the time of the letter.


spin

Amaleq13

Just to clarify, the "persecution" described is only as a result of someone accusing another of being a Christian. Pliny is explicitly instructed not to seek them out on his own. In addition, the accuser cannot remain anonymous and the accused is given the chance (which, apparently, several did take) to deny the claim by praying to Roman gods.

andrewcriddle

If the reference to Statius Quadratus being proconsul at the time of Polycarp's death (Ch 21 of the Martyrdom) is reliable (which is IMO probable but not certain) then a date for Polycarp's death later than 160 is unlikely and more probable dates are 155 to 159.

In this case Polycarp would have been dead before the accession of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius in 161

Andrew Criddle

spin

Interestingly, Eusebius and Jerome date the death to 166 and 167 respectively.

When did the appendix mentioning Statius Quadratus get added to the Martyrdom of Polycarp which ostensibly ends with chapter 20??


spin

Steven Carr

So Paul's 'martydom' could just have been his stoning in Acts.

andrewcriddle

Whether chapter 20 was part of Eusebius's copy is not certain.
He only quotes part of the letter and may not have known when Statius Quadratus was serving as proconsul.
So the fact that he doesn't mention chapter 20 and puts the death at 166, doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't in his copy.

IMHO it was not part of Eusebius's copy and hence is presumably a later addition. Not necessarily much later, the archetype of the Greek and Latin copies of the martyrdom is probably not a descendant of the text known to Eusebius. This archetype claims to be based on Irenaeus's copy, possibly Irenaeus added the chronological information.

One piece of chronological information that was known to Eusebius is that Philip is Asiarch at the time of the death. Apparently Philip was appointed highpriest for life at Tralles in 137 and had previously been Asiarch in 149-153
It may be somewhat unlikely that he would have been Asiarch around 166 when if alive he must have been an old man.

(Returning to an earlier point I'm not sure how significant the reference to kings in Polycarp to the Philippians is. There is a parallel in 1 Timothy 2:2)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I believe as I said before that 2 Timothy is evidence of an early tradition of Paul's death for his faith.

Without such evidence the reference in Clement might indeed be ambiguous.

Andrew Criddle

Victor Reppert

Steven: Is it your position that there were no first-century Christian martyrs? I mean, James' death was reported by Josephus. Now I know you don't really want to defend theft-conspiracy theories, just argue that they can't be refuted by martyrdom arguments.

My original point when I wrote the article was not to defend the Resurrection, but to explicate Hume. Let's take a theory that doesn't have much going for it, like the theft conspiarcy theory. Let's further suppose that all sorts of people, faced with the threat of torture and death, refused to recant, even though recantation would have prevented painful deaths. Suppose the evidence for these martyrdoms is rock-solid. Even then, Hume says we should prefer the naturalistic theory, with all it problems, to a theory that has Jesus rising from the dead.

I think most skeptics about the Resurrection don't want to go as far as Hume goes. Keith Parsons, for example, in his debate with Craig, just says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the evidence for the resurrection isn't extraordinary, therefore we shouldn't accept the resurrection. He does admit that if the sort of theophany that is described in N. R. Hanson's "Why I don't believe" were to occur, then "he would be on the front row of the church."

Here's the Hanson passage:
Suppose . . . that on next Tuesday morning, just after breakfast, all of us in this one world are knocked to our knees by a percussive and ear-shattering thunderclap. Snow swirls; leaves drop from trees; the earth heaves and buckles; buildings topple and towers tumble; the sky is ablaze with an eerie silvery light. Just then, as all the people of the earth look up, the heavens open - the clouds pull apart - revealing an unbelievably immense and radiant Zeus-like figure, towering above us like a hundred Everests. He frowns darkly as lightening plays across the features of his Michelangeloid face. He then points down - at me! - and exclaims for every man who man and child to hear, " I have had quite enough of your too-clever logic-chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured Norwood Russell Hanson, that I do most certainly exist!"

Then he remarks, "The conceptual point is that if such a remarkable event were to transpire, I, for one, would certainly be convinced that God does exist."*

But suppose instead of it happening to you, you hear about it from a bunch of people who, as a group, are pretty skeptical and realiable. If you're David Hume, you still have to say it didn't happen.
Victor Reppert

Steven Carr

And James was not a disciple, so your arguments are as logical as they always are. (Somebody who produces an Argument from Reason should once or twice produce reasonable arguments)

Why suppose things which aren't true?

So you aren't claiming to refute the theft theory at all, you are just saying that it would be refuted , if there was a refutation??

Please refute the theory that Joseph of Arimathea stole the body.

Please show that Josephus records how James could have recanted and saved his life. (Your ability to get all that from Jospehus is remarkable)

Steven Carr

*All* the people in the world are knocked to the ground and yet there are people who hear about it only from their friends??? Victor, are you trying to destroy your reputation as a logician???