gurugeorge

As a fan of Robert Price who hasn't yet read any of his books, but has read most of his online stuff and listened to the Bible Geek podcasts, I recently became interested in a theory he's often mentioned in passing - that Polycarp may be the guy who kicked off the orthodox Canon as a response to Marcion's Apostolicon, by reworking and interpolating the Pauline letters, re-working a hypothesized "ur-Luke" (the gospel used by Marcion), and fabricating Acts.

On reading the following passage from Irenaeus' Against Heresies, it struck me just how much this guy Polycarp looks like what we call in the UK a "chancer". (My bold)

To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus [Note: 150-167] caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Another thing that strikes me about this passage is the picture it gives, almost in passing, almost inadvertently, of a Church that largely follows people like Valentinus and Marcion (who of course are largely followers of "Paul", whoever he was), and of this Polycarp as being a chancer who comes on the scene: "Oh yes, I knew the apostle John personally, you'd better believe it!" This fits in with Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy, which I'm gradually coming to think is probably the key scholarly investigation for coming to understand what really went on in those days.

Again, this is all the the context (from my point of view) of the idea that pre-Diaspora Christianity (if it existed at all) was a small but diverse occult/mystical (as we might call it nowadays) movement with several roots (kind of like the "New Age" of its day), and that what we call orthodoxy was initially an offshoot, but eventually took over, by virtue of the invention of the notion of "apostolic succession". (i.e. the very earliest apostles never claimed to know the god-man Jesus personally, they were just messengers of a mythical entity, in much the same way as any modern "New Age" ditz; the pseudo-precise historicization came later, post Diaspora, and was retro-conned into the Christ story because it was necessary in order to give authoritative weight to the proto-orthodox "bishops")

No particular argument or defence here, I'd just like to hear people musing on it (although if anyone wants to argue with Price, or his inspiration in this, Trobisch, I'll get my popcorn ).

dog-on

It all fits very nicely. Now, what "facts" argue against this. Can the hypothesis be debunked?

gurugeorge

Well there are all sorts of hypotheticals (e.g. possible literary/archaeological finds to come) that might debunk it, but in terms of the evidence we have (so far as I understand it in my amateur investigations), a fair chunk of the evidence we have seems to point in this direction. (Primary being Walter Bauer's "smoking gun" - i.e. the fact that the earliest "orthodox" writings complain of "heresy" being already established wherever they go. I think all serious investigations have to start from this.)

I think a debunking might come from the lines of argument (e.g. Detering, our own aa5874 here) that involve quite late datings and a "falsified Paul". One would have to re-jig the whole picture a bit - but even then, it would only amount to knocking out the existence of a Christian cult prior to 70 CE).

But if we go with more or less standard datings, and a standard understanding of "Paul" as the earliest authentic (pre 70CE) Christian writing we have, then I don't see any way out of it.

We have means and motive, and someone in the right place at the right time

dog-on

Indeed. I am not interested in hypothetical evidence, I am interested in actual evidence that would serve to exclude Polycarp from consideration because, reading Price's article, it sure makes a lot of sense to me.

gurugeorge

Well, I'm hoping we'll hear from our stout defenders of orthodoxy such as Roger, Andrew, etc.

dog-on

Here is the Trobisch article, referred to by Price:

http://trobisch.com/david/CV/Publica...Bible%20BW.pdf

I am not sure that Polycarp being the original publisher of the NT should be too much of an issue for Orthodox adherents. It is providing evidence that Polycarp actually did so, that would seem to be the problem.

aa5874

First of all Irenaeus is NOT a credible writer. In "Against Heresies" virtually all his claims about authorship, dating, chronology and contents of the NT Canon are full of ERRORS.

Once the very passage you have provided about Polycarp from Irenaeus is examined it can be deduced that the claims about Polycarp are likely to be false or invented.

Once it has been deduced that Jesus the Messiah was a fictional/mythical character then all writers, like Irenaeus, who claimed that Jesus was on earth, did have apostles and they KNEW persons who heard or saw Jesus and any of his 12 apostles are fiction writers and the character they claimed saw or heard Jesus or his apostles are most likely fiction characters.

In other words , Polycarp could NOT have known or heard from anyone who personally knew Jesus or his apostles.

And, most importantly, Irenaeus himself most likely did NOT personally know, see or hear Polycarp. And it is most likely to be false that Polycarp did actually claim that he knew, heard or saw PEOPLE who knew Jesus and his apostles.

All the Church writers who provided witnesses or statements from witnesses to prove that Matthew 16.18 did come to pass are FICTION writers and fabricated their witnesses OR their statements .

Mt 16:18 - The stories provided by Irenaeus about Polycarp are most likely wholly fictional and it cannot be shown that Irenaeus was a credible or reliable writer.

stephan huller

Robert Price has always been a big fan of my work on Polycarp. I think Trobisch - though a superior scholar to me in every way - can't explain the origins of the canon through Polycarp. There has to be some kind of involvement from Irenaeus who helps define the existing portrait of 'Polycarp.'

Believe it or not, it is a step up from the Lucian of Samosata's account.

One thing though 'Polycarp' isn't a proper name. There was no one with this name before Irenaeus applies it to his teacher. 'Polycarp' quite simply isn't the name of an individual. It is an absurdly literal Greek rendering of a traditional title of a leader within the Syrian Church. The use of the Aramaic title Maphryānā - i.e. 'many fruit' or 'consecrator' - undoubtedly goes back to pre-Christian times as the Biblical name Ephraim has always been associated with the coming of a messianic leader in Israel.

Irenaeus claims to have met our stranger in a royal court in Asia Minor and speaks of a continued presence of Catholic Christians in the Imperial court of Commodus, the wicked Emperor who ruled for most of the time that Irenaeus was active writing about Church dogma and history.

Irenaeus not only adopts the traditional title Maphryānā as our stranger's proper name but interestingly only references this supposed appellation in only one place in his massive one thousand page, five volume work the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called - Book 3, Chapter 3.4. The inherent strangeness of our Stranger is most perfectly demonstrated by the fact that even Irenaeus himself most often refers to him simply as ὁ πρεσβύτερος - 'the presbyter.'

Lucian suggests that his persona was somehow developed from the Eleatic Stranger of Plato. In other words, he had no name but emerged as some sort of mystic prophetic philosopher who became widely influential because of his dramatic personality.

The list of documents counterfeit by Polycarp are likely quite extensive.

aa5874

It should be understood by now that Irenaeus was NOT a credible or reliable writer.

It most incredible that Irenaeus would write "Against Heresies" claiming that the Church of God was UNIFIED in the beliefs about Jesus while in the very same book made claims about Jesus that were HERETICAL or NOT taught by any Church writer BEFORE or AFTER him.

Much of Irenaeus' information in "Against Heresies" cannot be externally corroborated while some are internally contradicted.

There appears to be virtually no accurate history of Jesus believers or the NT Canon in "Against Heresies"

gurugeorge

I absolutely agree - but couldn't he have existed, as Irenaeus said he did, but lied that he'd known the apostle John?