PhilosopherJay

Hi Vinnie,

It does seem to me that the extraordinary ages involved here present a serious problem for regarding Polycarp's story as historical.

A detail in a story does not have to be impossible for us to doubt the truth of it. It just has to be far beyond the norm. For example, if I said a stranger told me that his father ran a marathon, I should believe it unquestionably, because, while unusual, it is not extraordinary. On the other hand, if some one told me that his father ran a marathon at the age of 85, I would be a bit more skeptical. Certainly, it is not beyond the realm of possibility, but still difficult to believe. If the man were offering to sell me a tonic that he claims his father took regularly before running his marathon, I would have strong grounds to disbelieve the tale. If he further claimed that his mother too ran a marathon at the age of 85 after taking the same elixir, I would believe the man was almost certainly making up the marathon tales to enhance the possibility of a sale.

Note (http://www.leapanywhere.com/page/show/121):

In this case we have two texts that we have to examine as best we can to see if we are getting an extraordinary history or a fable. We have to examine both "Against Heresies" and "Church History."

Church History, written circa 315, gives us the date of 100 C.E. for the apostles' appointment of Polycarp as Bishop and the date of 161 C.E. for the death of Polycarp. This suggests that the two apostles were more than 90 years, if they were 20 when they followed Christ, and Polycarp served for 61 years as Bishop of smyrna. If we assume an age of appointment at 25, it seems that he was 86 when he died.

Obviously, 90 + apostles and 86 + Bishops have to be seen as far from usual in societies where few people (less than 2%) reached 65.

We mustn’t forget that Eusebius doesn’t give us only Polycarp as a martyred bishop in extreme old age. He also gives us the Bishop of Lyon, before Irenaeus, Pothinus ( H.E. 5.1.29-31):

So it seems that according to Eusebius, Irenaeus knew at least two Bishops (Polycarp and Pothinus) who were martyred in their 90’s. While surviving being beaten by a furious mob isn’t nearly as impressive as having your blood put out fire, as Eusebius tells us Polycarp did, neither matches the amazing fortitude of Blandina:

Also, we should consider that not only his age, but the length of Polycarp's rule over his church was extraordinary. We should consider that the two emperors who reigned the longest were Augustus (27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E.) who ruled for 40 years and Theodosius II who ruled for 48 years from 402-450 C.E. If we believe Eusebius, Polycarp ruled over his church 13 years longer than any of about 175 emperors ruled the Roman Empire from 27 B.C.E. to 1502 when Andreas Palaiologos the last claimant to the throne died. We would have to say that holding a top management position for 40-50 years was extraordinary in ancient times, 60 years, miraculous.

We also have to consider that when we say that Eusebius paints a picture of 90 + year Apostles and 90 year old Bishops, we are trying to put Eusebius’ calculations in the most favorable light. That is favorable in terms of our believing Eusebius. In fact, Eusebius lived in a time when demographic information was quite poor. While, we know that living to 90 in ancient Rome probably happened to just one in a hundred thousand people, the people of that time did not know it. In fact, they took living to 90 for a relatively common occurrence and we have many reports of people living to 90, 100 and far longer.

The reasons for this are not hard to understand. In our culture today, we generally envy youth. It is not uncommon for people in their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s to pretend or claim to be three, or four or five years younger, especially in situations where it is to their advantage and there is little chance of being found out. In ancient times, age was more respected. In communities where few people reached 70 or 80, anybody who did would win some respect. They could drastically increase that respect by adding five, ten or twenty years to their age. Since most of the people who knew them when they were young would be dead and no birth records were kept, people in their 70’s and 80’s could easily deceive the younger members of their communities. In small villages where only a few people were alive in their 50’s, the one or two men in their 70’s could easily claim to be 90 and 100 without fear of detection. It would no doubt be beneficial to them, instead of being considered useless and tired old men of 70 or 75, with a small lie, they could become known as ancient men and women of wisdom. They would be recognized as holy people, nearer to the time when the Gods walked the Earth. The lying about their age did them no harm and brought them all kinds of respect, honors, authority and other perks.

Therefore, it seems likely that Eusebius not only wanted his readers to believe the apostles and bishops lived into their 90’s, but even into their 100’s. The fact that they reached the age of 100 or 110 would not have been seen as signs that Eusebius was making up stories about them, but as signs that they had lived good, long lives, and God had granted them long lives because they were doing God’s work.

Therefore, I think we have to be totally skeptical of Eusebius' dating.

On the other hand, understanding that Eusebius is fabricating concerning dates, does not necessarily mean that we understand the relevant texts in chapter 3 of Against Heresies, The writer here doesn't do such specific dating of Polycarp. There are no dates in the text at all, just a notice that Polycarp lived a long life.

In chapter 3, the author claims that he is writing a document in the time of Eleutherius, (171-193 C.E.) but does not even say what year it is. The text somehow manages to name the order of twelve bishops of Rome and claim that Polycarp was appointed by apostles as Bishop of Smyrna without offering any dating for any of these events.

This strange type of ordering, but non-dating of events, suggest a fictional story. In fictional stories, events are often not datable, but are simply ordered in relationship to each other because they are meant to be examples of universal situations. Jane Austen does not tell us the year that Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy came to the town of Longbourn. Since they are simply meant to represent eligible young bachelors and we know that Pride and Prejudice is a fictional tale meant for our amusement and moral edification, there is no need for a date.

However, if we presume the author of “Against Heresies” is actually trying to prove that certain heretics lived at certain times, then dates are absolutely necessary for the argument. For example, if I wish to say that the Romantic poets Shelley, Keats and Byron lived before Abraham Lincoln, I do not need to give a list of the order of presidents, I simply need to give the dates of Shelley, Keats, Byron and Lincoln to prove my case.

So, it is easy to see why Eusebius gives what we consider outrageous dates to apostles and bishops of 90 and 100 years. It is for the same reason he speaks of their blood putting out fire or martyrs enduring endless tortures. It is to promote his church as a producer of great miracles in the world.

It is harder to see why there are no dates in the arguments in book 3, chapter 3 of Against Heresies. The Bishops of Rome list and the account of Polycarp should both contain them for the arguments to be effective. It seems that the writer knew he was writing fiction and that is why they do not contain dates.

Seeing chapter 3 of Against Heresies as an interpolation by Eusebius would make sense of this. I am wondering if anybody has any other explanation.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi PJ. Keep in mind that Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") is dating Jesus' demise to Claudius (who just happened to be born in Lyons, yes, that "Lyons") which could be as late as 54. Clearly Irenaeus is trying to create a witness link between himself and Jesus. Polycarp is the most famous OCD Christian between Irenaeus and Jesus. Thus his selection.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Verses:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

the brave and truthful Skeptic should note that Eusebius quoting Irenaeus says "We too saw him in our early youth" while extant Irenaeus says I also saw in my early youth.

It's possible that Irenaeus originally wrote "we" per Eusebius with the possible meaning that it was actually members of Irenaeus' circle that supposedly knew Polycarp and not Irenaeus himself (the supposed Letter to Florinus though also uses "I" and provides more details). The use of "early youth" sounds like an apology for an unlikely stretch of witness over too long of a time period. Note the extremes in the link:

1) Jesus lives to old age.

2) "John" lives unusually long.

3) Polycarp lives unusually long.

4) Polycarp is seen in Irenaeus' unusually early youth.

Irenaeus otherwise explains that 50s is old age. Why the stretch? Why not a more normal generational link? All this from one who is the source of almost every important OCD historical first:

Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"). 7 Firsts @ the XXX Olympiads. The Conversion of Revelation to Historical Witness



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

aa5874

When dealing with Against Heresies, it must never be forgotten what the writer called Irenaeus is trying to establish.

Irenaeus is trying to establish that an implausible character Jesus the God/man did actually exist and had disciples one of which was Peter who was the first bishop of Rome.

Such an endeavour can only be acheived through fiction.

There is simply no evidence that the Word or God became flesh and dwelt among men. No evidence that there were characters called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Now, if the Gospels are examined it will be noticed that the Gospels called Matthew and John are not harmonised, they each presented essentially different characters called Jesus. It must be that either none of them or only one was a disciple of Jesus.

Irenaeus was erroneous. It would have made more logical sense if Irenaeus would have claimed that the disciple called John wrote gLuke since gLuke is compatible in many instances with gMatthew.

But, how is it that Irenaeus although writing fiction, about 140 years before Eusebius, would write exactly what the Church needed to compile the history of the Church?

Against Heresies, either partially or in whole, was written long after the 2nd century precisely for Eusebius or whoever wrote Church History.

The writings of Justin Martyr reflect that Jesus the God/man was just a story primarily compiled from Hebrew Scripture and simply believed to be true.

There are no post-ascension activities of the disciples and Paul in Justin's writings after Jesus ascended to heaven, it was the devil that took over with people like Simon Magus. Justin was not aware that it was Peter and Paul that were preaching and converting thousands to believe in Jesus with astounding miracles being filled with the Holy Ghost.

Justin wrote nothing about witnessing any miracles or being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.

It would appear that the post-ascension history of the disciples and Paul, from the supposed ascension to the middle of the 2nd century, as found in Against Heresies, is fiction.

How could Irenaeus independently produced fiction that synchronised with Church History by Eusebius?

It would appear that Against Heresies was wholly or in part produced, long after the 2nd century, for the author of Church History.

spamandham

If the author has a clear propaganda motive, then even this standard is too high. It is reasonable to doubt anything that supports that motive, so that even a rather trifling incongruity is enough to declare it likely BS.

The appropriate standard is the one we apply to used car/snake oil salesmen.

jakejonesiv

Justin Martyr had already taught in the previous generation that Jesus Christ actually existed, and had an apostle named Peter. It was already accepted doctrine amoung the proto-orthodox.

Jake

aa5874

Jesus of the NT was just a story inserted into the 1st century there could have been no post-ascension history of the disciples and Paul.

It would appear that both Justin and Irenaeus either believed the Jesus stories or wanted their audience to believe the Jesus story was true.

But, it will be noted that after the supposed ascension of the so-called Jesus, Justin and Irenaeus would tell different stories.

Justin Martyr's post-ascension history is consistent with Jesus being just a story that ended with the supposed ascension. After Jesus left for heaven, Justin Martyr wrote nothing about the disciples or Paul, he wrote about Simon Magus and his disciple Menander who were magicians.

Irenaeus' post-ascension story would bring the disciples to life and the fiction characters like Peter would meet Paul, another 1st century fiction character, carry out amazing miracles after being filled with the Holy Ghost, and become the 1st bishop of Rome.

jakejonesiv

Justin was just as much a historist as Ireneaus, ergo Ireneuas did not invent the concept of the "historical" Jesus. That was done sometime prior to Justin.
justin writes of the Logos "who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ." Apology 1.5.

And you are so wrong when you state that Justin didn't mention the disciples. "For Christ called one of His disciples--previously known by the name of Simon--Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ." Trypho chapter 100.

But you, aa⁵⁸⁷⁴, have said that Justin is credible in your eyes.
I do not find his historical statements credible. Why do you?
Do you find it credible that Jesus was born of a Virgin? Justin did.
Hey, you are wrong about Justin story ending with the supposed ascension . See in Red below.

And you find all this credible?

Best,
Jake

aa5874

As I have said before Justin Martyr appeared to have believed that the Jesus story as found in the Memoirs of the Apostles, The Acts of Pontius Pilate and Revelation by John, in conjunction with the writings of the prophets, was true.

Justin Martyr wrote about his conversion in Dialogue with Trypho 3-8, when he met an old man and this is how he concluded the meeting.
Dialogue with Trypho 8 Now, read Acts 9 where an author wrote about the conversion of Saul/Paul where Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light or read the Pauline letters where an author claim he could not recall.


Acts 9.3-5
2Cor 12:2 - Irenaeus claimed the author of Acts and the Pauline writer were close companions but their stories don't seem to be consistent.


I was referring to the post-ascension history of the disciples. I did already show that Justin mentioned an apostle John who wrote a Revelation.

Justin Martyr appear to be only aware that the apostles wrote the Memoirs and that John wrote a Revelation. That is the end of Justin's post ascension history.

In antiquity there were people who believed it was credible that Gods could have been born of a virgin. Pagans in antiquity believed such things. The virgin birth of Jesus was a plausible belief in antiquity.

There is a big difference between belief and credibilty.

Justin clearly appeared to believe the Jesus story.

The author using the name Irenaeus, on the hand, made statements that are likely to be knowingly false.

Irenaeus claimed that he knew a person called Polycarp who knew the apostles. Jesus the god/man did not exist, he had NO apostles. Irenaeus wrote fiction. He knew no person who could have known any real apostles.

Irenaeus claimed the apostle John lived until the time of Trajan, that is completely false. No apostle of Jesus the God/man could have existed.


So, where is the post-ascension history of the disciples and Paul?

Where did Justin mention that the Apostles received the Holy Ghost and were given the gifts of Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, healing people and converting thousands to Jesus?

Where did Justin mention Saul/Paul, his conversion, his letters,and the churches he started all over the Roman Empire?

You have failed to show that Justin Martyr wrote a post-ascension history of the disciples and Paul. You have simply highlighted a prediction not a post-ascension story of the disciples and Paul.

I wiil show you Justin's post ascension history. Justin's Martyr's post-ascension history was just predictions found in the writings of the prophets. That is all.

First Apology It is absolutely clear that Justin's belief about Jesus was based on assumed so-called prophecies. He knew nothing of the post ascension activities as found in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Justin wrote no post-ascension fiction about the conversion of anyone by Jesus from heaven with a bright light, or Peter healing people by simply having the sick in his shadow and that Paul got revelations from Jesus about his betrayal on earth.

Now, Ireaneus claimed the author of Acts and the Pauline writer were close companions but the writer who used the name Irenaeus did not realise that one day it would be found out that there were many writers who were using the name Paul.

Which Paul did the author of Acts know?

The author that used the name Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" was a fiction writer. He is not credible. And to confirm it, he claimed Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered under Pilate after he was begininning to be about thirty years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Justin wrote no such things.

He did not claim to know any one who spoke in tongues or had carried out miracles or knew any of the apostles, and it must be noted that Justin predated Irenaeus. He wrote nothing about Polycarp, Papias or the bishop of his church or any church anywhere.

Justin Martyr appears to me to be credible.

jakejonesiv

Justin Martyr had already taught in the previous generation that Jesus Christ actually existed, and had an apostle named Peter. It was already accepted doctrine amoung the proto-orthodox.

Justin Martyr believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Justin may be credible to you, but he was a liar.

Justin Martyr supported a forged reading of the Jewish scriptures that Jesus was born of a Virgin. Isaiah 7:14 says no such thing in Hebrew, and Trypho pointed this out to him. "But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to [discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ." CHAPTER XLIII.

There you have it. Justin lied to the face of Trypho! the only difference is that Ireneaus had thirty more years to add to the tales.

Jake

aa5874

A person is not a liar simply because he believed some information was true that turned out to be false.

It is just absurd to say that a person who was decieved becomes a liar.


But, it would then appear that Justin was not aware that the passage had "woman" and not "virgin". If Justin was using the LXX and could not read Hebrew Scripture then it may be that the LXX had "woman" instead of "virgin".

Now, even today my KJV Bible has "virgin" instead of "woman".

You have NOT proved that Justin lied at all. You must show that Justin had a text of Isaiah 7.14 clearly with the word "woman" and then told Trypho that the word was "virgin".

And further what document did Trypho produce when he claimed Isaiah 7.14 had "woman" and not "virgin"? Was it just Trypho's word against Justin's?

You have utterly failed to show that Justin was lying.