gurugeorge

According to quotes on earlychristianwritings Irenaeus mentions Polycarp by name twice in other places - in his Letter to Florinus and Letter to Pope Victor.

stephan huller

Yes that's true. But I was making a statement about the relative proportionality between references to the same stranger as (a) 'Polycarp' and (b) ὁ πρεσβύτερος WITHIN ONE BOOK. The bottom line is that it is impossible to determine what the ratio is outside of the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called. Within the five volume work the number of places that the terminology is used is about five to one with the one section where the title/name 'Polycarp' is specifically mentioned being AH 3.3.4.

Charles Evan Hill details the many places where ὁ πρεσβύτερος is used instead. He also makes the case that the Letter to Diognetus was from Polycarp's hand; again it survives with an anonymous ascription for the author. I happen to think that the Ignatian canon was a reworking of Polycarp's original letters which preceded his visit to Rome in the middle of the second century only reworked and projected back as being associated with a figure named 'fiery one' from a previous generation.

Most people have noticed also that Polycarp's letter has been reworked. Someone has added on the ending. I think the editor in all cases is Irenaeus.

It is important to emphasize that Polycarp has no history as a name before these mentions. It must be something else with a title being the most obvious choice. Given that Maphryānā was also used to note a leader within the Church - dating as I noted back to the mystical signfiicance of the name Ephraim in the traditional Israelite religion - it is more than likely that 'Polycarp' was just an attempt to preserve this barbaric title in Greek. Perhaps the original Aramaic sounded too close to 'Phrygian' i.e. the crazy sect of second century Christianity. Just a guess.

aa5874

You mean Polycarp lied?

What benefit would there be to Polycarp to lie that he met John the supposed apostle?

The supposed historical information in "Against Heresies" was NEEDED by Eusebius but virtually all of the supposed historical information has turned out to be in ERROR.

It was NOT Polycarp who lied. It most likely was the writer who USED the name "Irenaeus", it was the person, whatever their real name was, who INVENTED the "Polycarp" character.

When one examines the writings of Justin Martyr it will be noticed that he could NOT find the BARE FOOTSTEPS of those before him.

Justin appeared UNAWARE of any ORTHODOXY among Christians.

Justin wrote ZERO about the post ascension "history" of Jesus believers as found in the writings of Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

ZERO.

But what is even more remarkable is that Justin Martyr mentioned many of the so-called Heretics found in "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus".

Justin mentioned the so-called Heretics like Simon Magus, Meander, the Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcians, Saturnilians, Empodocles, and Marcion.

Justin mentioned Socrates, the Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans.

Justin mentioned Josephus and Philo.

But Justin wrote ZERO on writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Saul, Paul, Jude, James, Peter, Barnabas, Silas, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, the bishops of Rome called Peter, Clement, Linus, Anacletus, Sixtus.

Justin seemed completely UNAWARE of the history of the Church as found in "Against Heresies".

Justin DEFENDED his belief in JESUS WITHOUT the ASSISTANCE of a single Christian writing of the Church.

The "first church historian", Eusebius, did NOT use Justin Martyr for the "history of the Church" he used him for the "history of the Heretics".

Justin Martyr knew or wrote that Simon Magus was in the time of Claudius but he did NOT know or write about Saul/Paul.

Irenaeus KNEW or wrote about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Saul, Paul, James, Peter, Barnabas, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, the bishops of Rome called Peter, Clement, Linus, Anacletus, and Sixtus.

Where did "Irenaeus" get his "history of the Church"?

It was NOT from Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr ONLY had the HISTORY of the Heretics.

The "history of the Church" in "Against Heresies" was INVENTED.

It would appear that No HERETIC in the 2nd century heard or saw "Against Heresies".

mountainman

chancer - an unscrupulous or dishonest opportunist
who is prepared to try any dubious scheme
for making money or furthering his own ends.

The ubiquitous early Gnostic heretics are being cast as vile, filthy chancers and Polycamp is the good guy knight in the squeeky clean and shining orthodox armor. Irenaeus is very entertaining retrojected pseudo-history. The modus operandi of the author of the "Historia Augusta" and "Historia Ecclesiastica" should be compared with objectivity.

My musing on your BOLDED NOTIONS is that Polycamp was a literary and non historical stooge planted by an unscrupulous or dishonest literary opportunist who is prepared to try any dubious scheme for making money or furthering his own ends or that of his sponsor. Enjoy the popcorn.

Doug Shaver

Yeah, assuming he actually said it. My guess is that he never did. We have only Irenaeus's word for it that he claimed to have known John. The claim is not in any of Polycarp's extant writings and there are no references to any writing of his in which he mentions it. I find it hard to believe he never would have written anything about it, or that the document would have vanished without a trace if he had.

We need to keep in mind, too, that reporting Polycarp's claim, Irenaeus was writing in his old age about a conversation the two of them had when he, Iraenaeus, was a young man. It is hardly improbable that his memory was deceiving him.