In this third installment of my blog post series on the early Church Fathers, I am going to look at Polycarp of Smyrna. Along with Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp was among the earliest Church Fathers after the age of the actual apostles. He was born in AD 69, right around the time the Jewish War of AD 66-70 was coming to a tragic close, and he lived until AD 155, when he was martyred in Smyrna by being burned at the stake.
Polycarp’s Life in History
Polycarp’s life really was part of that transition after the Jewish War in which Christianity developed from what once was a Jewish sect that had been reaching out to Gentiles to a full-fledged and distinct religion from Judaism, finding its way in the thoroughly pagan world of the Roman Empire. It is fascinating to think that during Emperor Domitian’s persecution of Christians, in particular during the Apostle John’s exile on the island of Patmos in the mid-90s, when he wrote the Book of Revelation, Polycarp was a member of the Church of Smyrna. Think about that—when John addressed the Church in Smyrna in Revelation 2:8-11, Polycarp would have probably been there. He had lived through and endured the same persecution that John endured at that time.
Polycarp is quite a unique figure, in that we know about him from a number of different sources. Ireneaus of Lyons (AD 130-202) tells us that Polycarp was appointed as the bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John, who ended up living in Ephesus as an old man. Ireneaus also tells us that just as Polycarp sat under the teaching of John, so did Irenaeus himself sit under the teaching of Polycarp.
Not only that, but his life overlapped another early Church Father, Justin Martyr (AD 100-165). In fact, as a young man Justin Martyr had moved to Ephesus to study Greek Philosophy, and it was in Ephesus (about 49 miles from Smyrna) that he became a Christian. He later ended up moving to Rome and starting his own Christian philosophical school. He would have been living in Rome when Polycarp visited there (as I will talk about in the next paragraph).
Although we don’t know a whole lot about what Polycarp did during his years as the bishop of Smyrna, Irenaeus does tell us a few other interesting things. One of the things that was a point of debate among the Christians in the mid-2nd century was when to celebrate Easter, the time of the resurrection of Christ. And so, around the time Polycarp was 80 (AD 150ish), the bishop of Rome, Pope Anicetus, invited Polycarp to come to Rome to talk to him about it. Essentially, the issue boiled down to this: The churches in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) followed the Jewish lunar calendar and celebrated Easter on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan every year, when the Jews celebrated Passover. Churches elsewhere, though, celebrated Easter on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. It turned out that Anicetus and Polycarp couldn’t come to an agreement, and so they agreed to disagree—it wasn’t seen as non-negotiable, bedrock issue of the faith.
Interestingly enough, presumably during Polycarp’s time in Rome, Irenaeus tells us that at one point Polycarp bumped into Marcion of Sinope. If you don’t know, Marcion is today considered a heretic because he tried to push his own brand of Gnosticism into the Church by saying that the God of the Old Testament wasn’t the true God of Jesus Christ. Thus, the God of the Jews was responsible for making this dirty, stinking, material world, and Jesus, who didn’t really have a material body, came to save us from it. Not surprisingly, Marcion completely rejected the Old Testament as inspired Scripture. In fact, he made up his own authoritative list of inspired Scripture: An edited version of Luke and edited versions of ten of Paul’s letters. What did Marcion edit out? Simple—anything that sounded too Jewish, spoke of the God of the Old Testament as the true God, or suggested Jesus was a real human being.
In addition to all that, apparently Marcion had quite the ego. So, when Polycarp passed him by in Rome, Marcion basically asked Polycarp, “Don’t you know who I am?” To which Polycarp replied, “Oh yes, I recognize who the offspring of Satan is!” Irenaeus highlights this to emphasize that one of the things Polycarp fought against during his life was the rise of Gnosticism, particularly the brands put forth by the likes of Marcion and another man named Valentinus.
On top of that, we also know that Polycarp knew Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 107), for among the seven letters Ignatius wrote in AD 107 as he was being taken to Rome to be martyred, he wrote a letter to both the Church in Smyrna and a personal letter to Polycarp himself. Thus, when Ignatius was martyred, Polycarp would have been around 38 years old. In addition to all that, we also have a letter that Polycarp wrote to the Church in Philippi sometime in AD 107, shortly after Ignatius had been taken on to Rome. Finally, we have the written account of Polycarp’s own martyrdom in Ephesus in AD 155.
Ignatius’ Letter to Polycarp
In Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp in AD 107, Ignatius tells him a few interesting things. First, he encourages Polycarp to keep the faith. Second, he gives Polycarp some teaching advice: Don’t focus on the bright students—they’ll get along fine learning the Christian faith. Instead, devote more time to the troublesome students—they’re the ones that need more attention. Third, he encourages Polycarp to care for the poor and widows in his church, to preach against heresy, and to instruct Christians to lead holy and faithful life. He encourages Polycarp to oversee Christian weddings and to give his blessing over the newlyweds. Finally, Ignatius asks Polycarp to send someone to Syria (i.e. Antioch, from where he was arrested) to check in on and encourage the church there—after all, they had just lost their bishop!
Polycarp’s Letter to the Church in Philippi
After Ignatius was taken further on in the journey to Rome, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Church in Philippi, thanking them for caring for Ignatius when he came through Philippi. The bulk of his letter consisted of advice, encouragement, and a little bit of teaching. He encouraged them from not getting caught up in the worthless teachings of both the Gnostics.
In doing so, Polycarp hammers home the vital importance of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, his bodily resurrection. The fundamental Christian hope, after all, isn’t that we “fly away to heaven” as spirits after we die. It is that since Jesus Christ was bodily resurrected, his material body resurrected and transformed into a new kind of life, that Christians too, though they will die, will one day resurrect just as Jesus was. The Christian hope is thus one of a resurrected and transformed material creation. And that is why Gnosticism and Docetism (a form of Gnosticism that denied Jesus had actually come in the flesh) was considered heretical. Polycarp goes so far to say that anyone who denies that Jesus had come in the flesh was actually anti-Christ.
In addition to that, Polycarp stresses the importance of teaching women and widows, as well as young men, to be strong in the faith and to live holy lives. He says that the clergy should be known for their generosity and their compassion toward others. In light of that, Polycarp expresses his sorry over a man named Valens (a member of the clergy) who, along with his wife, had done something wrong (something to do with the love of money) and had really damaged his reputation. Basically, he screwed up somehow. Interestingly, Polycarp doesn’t tell them to deal harshly with him or banish him. Rather, he encourages them to be gentle with him and show him mercy—if they can heal the damage, it would be better for the entire church.
Finally, Polycarp encourages them to pray for those in authority—meaning Roman authorities. Pretty amazing, when you realize that they had just had to deal with the fact that the Roman authorities were hauling Ignatius to Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
Of course, what Polycarp is most known for is his own martyrdom that took place in Smyrna in AD 155. We know all about it because the Christians in Smyrna wrote an account of it and sent it to the Church in Philomelium, about 300 miles east of Ephesus in central Asia Minor. The story is quite amazing. I’ll provide my own “easy-to-read version” at the end of the post.
At some point in AD 155, shortly after Polycarp must have returned from Rome, a persecution broke out in the area of Smyrna, during some sort of “Asia Games” that were taking place. Initially, a Christian named Germanicus was thrown to the wild beasts and killed. Another man named Quintus, who had basically “talked tough” and volunteered to be arrested, upon seeing the wild beasts (and what had happened to Germanicus) caved—he swore an oath to Caesar to spare his life.
At that point, the authorities sent the police to arrest Polycarp (who was by this time 86 years old). Initially, he left the city to stay at a place in the country, but soon had to be moved to another farmhouse when the police got close to the first house in the country. It was at that second farmhouse where Polycarp had a vision of his pillow in flames—he told those with him about it and said he believed he was going to be burned alive.
As it turned out, a house servant that the first house told the authorities where Polycarp was staying. When the police arrived at the house, though, they were shocked when Polycarp came down, let them in and invited them to dinner. He then asked them to give him an hour to pray before they took him back to Smyrna. The next day, he was brought back to Smyrna. This is where the drama really stars.
First, before he was taken into the arena, the police commissioner tried to convince Polycarp that if he just swore an oath to Caesar, they’d release him. Polycarp refused and was immediately taken into the arena, where the crowds were screaming for his death. Upon his entering the arena, a voice was heard over the crowds, saying, “Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man!” No one knew who said it, but the Christians who heard it were convinced it came from heaven.
Polycarp was taken up to the governor, who told him to swear by the fortune of Caesar and to say, “Down with the atheists!” (At that time, Christians were called “atheists” because they didn’t worship idols). Polycarp, in response, did something quite cheeky! He motioned to the screaming crowd of heathens and said, “Okay, down with the atheists!” The governor then told him to revile Christ. At that point, Polycarp famously said, “I’ve served him for 86 years, and He has never done me wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?” The governor then basically said, “Okay, then just swear by the fortune of Caesar, and we’ll call it even!” To which Polycarp said, “If you think for one second that I am going to swear by the fortune of Caesar, then you really don’t know me at all. Let me be as clear as I can be. I am a Christian. If you want to learn more about Christianity, just name the date and I’ll teach you all about it.”
Clearly offended, the governor said Polycarp should try to teach the crowd, to which Polycarp replied and basically said, “No, that would be a waste of time” The governor threatened to throw him to the wild beasts, and Polycarp basically said, “Bring it on!” Then another threatened to burn Polycarp alive, to which Polycarp said, “That’s fine. The fire you threaten me with can’t burn for too long. It will soon go out. But what you don’t realize is that the flames of the future judgment and everlasting torment are waiting for the ungodly. Stop wasting my time and just bring out whatever you have in mind to do.”
And so, they burned him alive. At first though, the flames didn’t burn him, but instead swirled around him. The writer said that, instead of burning, Polycarp was essentially getting a tan—he was like a loaf of bread in an oven. At that point, the governor ordered that Polycarp be stabbed through the flames. When he was, the writer says his soul departed (the image is that of a dove flew up to heaven) and his blood put out the fire. Once he was dead, the authorities burned up his body, leaving only the bones. After that, the Christians collected his bones and buried them in a secret location, where they would regularly gather to commemorate Polycarp’s death—what they called his “birthday” of his martyrdom.
Final Thoughts
A lot can be said about, not only Polycarp, but of Clement and Ignatius as well. They were men who lived through very real persecution—both Ignatius and Polycarp were literal martyrs. It wasn’t that they (or other Christian martyrs) really wanted to be persecuted and martyred. But they understood the real cost of what following Christ was. We today might here, “Take up your cross and follow me,” and take that to mean that maybe someone will make fun of us for being a Christian, or maybe we will need to go without coffee for Lent. For these early Christian Fathers, it literally meant that they might have to suffer and die for Christ. The reason they embraced it, though, wasn’t some sort of masochistic desire. It was a declaration, a testimony, of the future resurrection of Christ. Death wasn’t the end. In Christ, death was defeated and there would be a future resurrection. It is humbling to see that kind of faith on display.
Another observation I had, both when I read about Polycarp’s reaction to Marcion and to his response to the governor to “denounce the atheists,” was that the man, although full of resolve and compassion for others, was positively an unflappable beast when it came to confronting evil. Not only did stand up to it, he mocked it to its face. Yes, we are to show compassion and mercy toward others, but when it comes to Satan, Polycarp basically “spit him in the eye.”
He truly is an amazing figure to learn about.
“Polycarp is quite a unique figure, in that we know about him from a number of different sources. Ireneaus of Lyons (AD 130-202) tells us that Polycarp was appointed as the bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John, who ended up living in Ephesus as an old man. Ireneaus also tells us that just as Polycarp sat under the teaching of John, so did Irenaeus himself sit under the teaching of Polycarp.”
Do you have a respected source which states that Ireneaus claimed that Polycarp was appointed bishop by the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, one of the original Twelve? It is my understanding that Ireneaus referred instead to someone called “John, the Elder”. It is very interesting to note that if one reads Polycarp’s writings, never once does he quote the Gospel of John, whereas he does quote Paul and other Gospel authors. Would a disciple of John the Apostle not quote that apostle’s gospels his letters to fellow Christians and churches??
…that apostle’s gospel in his letters…
The only writing we have from Polycarp is a single letter he wrote to the Church of Philippi in AD 107, shortly after Ignatius had been moved on to Rome to face death. To conclude he knew nothing of the Apostle John because he doesn’t mention or quote him in one letter is quite the unreasonable stretch.
I am not concluding Polycarp did not know John, the son of Zebedee, I am simply pointing out that there is no good evidence he did.
GARY: I am not concluding Polycarp did not know John, the son of Zebedee, I am simply pointing out that there is no good evidence he did.
LEE: Gary, why this paranoid hyper-skepticism? Really, it strikes me as irrational and unnecessary. You’re trying too hard to bolster your atheism by confusing a paranoid hyper-skepticism with critical thinking. Being a critical thinker doesn’t require such an intense mistrust of any evidence that doesn’t tend to support your atheistic worldview.
Refusing to seriously consider any evidence which, if true, would tend to refute your atheism, isn’t critical thinking at all. In Alabama where I’m from, we call that sticking your head in the sand.
You say Evangelicals and Fundamentalists do that. I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it seems to me that I’m witnessing a skeptic do it.
Pax.
Lee.
I second, third, and fourth what Lee said.
But again, here is a quote from Louth, ” Irenaeus, who records the vivid impression Polycarp had made on him in his youth, reports that he had been a disciple of St. John and that his DIRECT TESTIMONY to the teaching of the Apostles was much valued long after their death, for Polycarp lived to a great age.”
Would you kindly provide Irenaeus actual statement.
Why bother? I’ll provide the quote and you will (a) dismiss it because it comes from Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, and (b) claim Irenaeus was talking about John the Elder.
It is quite evident that no matter what evidence and writing I quote, you will find a way to discard it so that you can continue to hold to your pre-conceived agenda.
Thank you. Irenaeus talks about a “John the Elder”. He never states that this John was the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve.
Is it possible that this John was John the Apostle, one of the Twelve? Sure. But “possible” is not historical fact. This is yet another example of how “possibly’s” and “maybe’s” hold together the Christian Story.
Okay Gary, two different passages for you (pay attention to the bold)
3. The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. 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 steadfast 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 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 bathhouse 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, “Do you know me? “”I do know you, the firstborn 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 a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, 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.
–Against Heresies 3.3.4
For when I was a boy I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, doing brilliantly in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it, so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his conversations with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the word of life, Polycarp related all things in harmony with the scriptures.
–Eusebius’s Church History (5.20.4-8) on a letter of Irenaeus to Florinus about Polycarp
OKAY, so Gary:
1) What does “Clement had seen the blessed apostles and was conversant with them” mean?
2) What does “Polycarp was instructed by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ” mean?
3) What does it mean that Polycarp spoke of his “conversations with John and with the others who had seen the Lord”?
4) And what do you think it means that Polycarp received the teaching and accounts of the miracles of Jesus by “eyewitnesses”?
My Prediction of Gary’s Response: “That proves nothing. That’s just Church Tradition. It’s not credible. Irenaeus is mid-2nd century. It’s all hearsay!”
It really is amazing how well one’s claim hold up when you automatically reject any and all evidence and testimony that refutes your speculation.
” Upon his entering the arena, a voice was heard over the crowds, saying, “Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man!” No one knew who said it, but the Christians who heard it were convinced it came from heaven.”
As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”
The Jewish people believe that their invisible god Yahweh spoke to several million Hebrews camped at the foot of Mount Sinai from out of the sky.
Possibilities:
–invisible gods sometimes speak from the sky
–scientifically ignorant human beings sometimes mistake rushes of wind or other noises in the environment (lightening) as the voice of a supernatural being speaking to them (an illusion).
–human beings invent tall tales to support their religious superstitions.
Polycarp: “The fire you threaten me with can’t burn for too long. It will soon go out. But what you don’t realize is that the flames of the future judgment and everlasting torment are waiting for the ungodly.”
Doesn’t sound like Polycarp was an annihilationist, does it?
If Eusebius was born in 260 CE and Polycarp was born in circa 70 CE, how on earth did Eusebius ever meet Polycarp “as a boy”?? Polycarp would have been 190 years old when Eusebius was born!! What am I missing here?
If John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, was 20 years old at the time of Jesus’ death (circa 30 CE), he would have been 60 years old when Polycarp was born in circa 70 CE. Polycarp would have been 60 years old when Irenaeus was born in 130 CE. So there is no way that Irenaeus ever met John, the son of Zebedee, or any other disciple of Jesus. Too much time had passed before he was born. But Irenaeus doesn’t claim to have ever personally met one of the Twelve. It is certainly possible that Polycarp knew one or more of the Twelve, but he never mentions or even infers that he did in the writings we have from him. All our information about who Polycarp knew comes from second hand information, Irenaeus.
But Irenaeus never claims that Polycarp claimed to be a disciple of “John the Apostle, son of Zebedee”? Never. Irenaeus does claim that Polycarp had claimed to have been “instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia“. So that is evidence of a continuous chain of custody of the Jesus’ Story. But how good is that evidence?
Can we trust Irenaeus’ claims on this issue? It is important to note that the document in which we find these statements is titled “Against Heresies“. Would Irenaeus the Heresy Hunter invent fictional stories to bolster the proto-Orthodox position against the many sects of heretics which existed in his day or was he telling the truth?
I don’t know. But think about this: We know that the authors of the Gospels invented some of their stories. Even conservative Christian NT scholars such as Michael Licona and Richard Bauckham admit this. So if Christian authors would “fudge” on stories about Jesus, why wouldn’t they “fudge” on stories about Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement if it served their theological purposes?? There is no evidence they did nor evidence they didn’t. You, the reader, must make a judgment call.
However, what is true is this: Christianity cannot say:
“We can provide undisputed evidence of a continuous chain of custody of the Jesus Story.”
They can’t do that. And without an undisputed chain of custody, it is very possible that all kinds of rumors, legend, and other fiction entered into the Jesus Story.
Christianity has very shaky evidence, full of so many “possibly’s” and “maybe’s”. There is no good reason why modern, educated people should believe the fantastical, supernatural claims of Christianity based on this weak evidence except for emotional comfort.
Eusebius is quoting a letter from Irenaeus.
Polycarp is writing about how Polycarp knew John the Apostle, as well as other eyewitnesses to Jesus.
Yes, we can trust Irenaeus’ claims. Your comments about “the heresy hunter making things up” are ludicrous–now who is guilty of baseless speculation?
You are STILL misunderstanding the writing of the Gospels, and your misunderstanding of that is feeding into your willful distortion of the ECF’s writings.
No, you are wrong. Throughout the ECF, perhaps the biggest thing they harp on is “apostolic succession,” because it served to ensure that the appointed Church leaders preserved the original apostolic teaching. You are wholly out of your depth here.
The bottom line with all your objections boils down to this: “I reject all testimonies and written evidence, and once I do that, I can triumphantly proclaim there is no evidence.”
I think you’ve summarized Gary’s MO pretty well here.
Pax.
Lee.
“Polycarp is writing about how Polycarp knew John the Apostle,”
There is no solid evidence that Polycarp knew John, the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve.
““I, Joel Anderson, reject all testimonies and written evidence by Muhammad and Joseph Smith, and once I do that, I can triumphantly proclaim there is no evidence.”
Why do you insist that I accept the written statements of Irenaeus and Eusebius as historically accurate but reject more recent written testimony by Muhammad and Joseph Smith? Do you have any evidence that Muhammad and Joseph Smith were “making things up”?
When you have a personal letter from Irenaeus to a childhood friend in which he reminisces about how both of them sat under Polycarp and listened to him tell them about what he learned from John the disciple and other eyewitnesses to Jesus–that is called evidence.
As for Muhammad and Joseph Smith, I don’t doubt the historical events that led to the rise of Islam and Mormonism. I don’t doubt that what is in the Quran contains the actual utterances of Muhammad. Whether or not one BELIEVES their truthfulness is another story. I believe that the people mentioned in the story of Muhammad were real people who really knew him, etc. I don’t doubt that Joseph Smith claimed what he claimed, and don’t doubt that he showed SOMETHING to some people who testified they were golden plates. And again, I don’t doubt that the people in the Mormon story who claim to have known Joseph Smith really knew him.
That’s what you are missing and can’t seem to grasp. I don’t doubt the historical claims of who knew who. I reject the teachings of Islam and Mormonism because I find them to be false.
But again, this is your MO–you reject the evidence and written accounts that say, “Clement knew Peter and Paul, Polycarp knew John,” etc., and then triumphantly turn around and proclaim there’s no evidence. I know you think you’re being clever, but it is a really juvenile argument that is only fooling those who are already pretty hostile to Christianity in general.
“When you have a personal letter from Irenaeus to a childhood friend in which he reminisces about how both of them sat under Polycarp and listened to him tell them about what he learned from John the disciple and other eyewitnesses to Jesus–that is called evidence.”
I agree. It is evidence. But if you are inferring that John “the disciple” was John, son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, then you are making an assumption. It may have been that John, it may have been another John.
“But again, this is your MO–you reject the evidence and written accounts that say, “Clement knew Peter and Paul, Polycarp knew John,” etc., and then triumphantly turn around and proclaim there’s no evidence.”
Clement never claimed to know Peter and Paul. People living more than a hundred years later made that claim.
Bottom line: Islam and Mormonism have much better chains of custody of their stories than does Christianity.
Lee put it perfectly: “You’re trying too hard to bolster your atheism by confusing a paranoid hyper-skepticism with critical thinking. Being a critical thinker doesn’t require such an intense mistrust of any evidence that doesn’t tend to support your atheistic worldview.”
There is no point in arguing any further.
GARY: I don’t know. But think about this: We know that the authors of the Gospels invented some of their stories. Even conservative Christian NT scholars such as Michael Licona and Richard Bauckham admit this.
LEE: And yet Bauckham authored a book, *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* which argues that the gospels are based upon eyewitness testimony.
Regardless, not all Evangelical/conservative scholars agree with Licona here. And if Bauckham IS right, and the stories in the gospels ARE based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses, knowing what we know about oral tradition at the time, tradents were not free to just invent stuff willy-nilly. They HAD to get the stories right or they’d be called on it by the community.
GARY: There is no evidence they did nor evidence they didn’t. . . .
LEE: So why all the noise about them possibly inventing stories? If there’s no evidence either way?
If you accept, as I do (for a myriad of other reasons I’ve shared before), that the gospels are fundamentally trustworthy, then you’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on matters which cannot be independently verified.
Seriously, who reads Plato on Socrates and argues that because we can’t independently corroborate everything Plato said that Socrates said that that means Socrates probably didn’t say it? You don’t approach a text assuming the author is lying without some extremely good reasons to do so.
Just because the text in question is a religious text and you’re a skeptic or atheist doesn’t let you off the hook here.
To quote Prof. Kirke from Lewis’ *The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: ” What are they teaching them in these schools?”
Pax.
Lee.
“They HAD to get the stories right or they’d be called on it by the community.”
By which community?
GARY: By which community?
LEE: The larger community within which the stories circulated. Oral tradition was sort of a two-way street. If a tradent/tradents messed up the story by either adding/subtracting anything significant the community of believers within which the stories of Jesus eventually recorded in the gospels circulated could/would correct them.
As JP Moreland says, “This wasn’t simply what Joe was having for dinner Wednesday night,” it was a body of teaching/tradition which they considered SACRED, on the same level as their Jewish cousins held Torah. Thus they would not have been as careless and sloppy as Prof. Ehrman and other critics assert.
This idea that until the “proto-Catholic Church” began to emerge in the mid-2nd century and began repressing/oppressing everyone nobody much cared what the *real* Jesus did or said to me is ludicrous.
Might I recommend *The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition,* by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd?
They discuss oral tradition and how it functioned both in antiquity and modern times in great detail and build a convincing case for the overall reliability of the synoptic tradition.
Pax.
Lee.
” If a tradent/tradents messed up the story by either adding/subtracting anything significant the community of believers within which the stories of Jesus eventually recorded in the gospels circulated could/would correct them. As JP Moreland says, “This wasn’t simply what Joe was having for dinner Wednesday night,” it was a body of teaching/tradition which they considered SACRED, on the same level as their Jewish cousins held Torah. Thus they would not have been as careless and sloppy as Prof. Ehrman and other critics assert.”
How does JP Moreland or any other modern Christian know this to be a fact? How does any modern person know that a small group of Galilean peasants maintained their oral stories with the same care and exactitude as that of Temple scribes?
GARY: How does JP Moreland or any other modern Christian know this to be a fact? How does any modern person know that a small group of Galilean peasants maintained their oral stories with the same care and exactitude as that of Temple scribes?
LEE: How do we know for a “fact” that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at Ford’s Theater in April of 1865? I wasn’t there and neither were you.
But to answer your question, studies have been done of how oral cultures like that of the ancient Jews functioned, and since the earliest Christians were mostly Jewish, we can safely assume that they would carry over those same cultural norms regarding oral tradition. Really, the whole ancient Mediterranean put a high value on accurate transmission of oral tradition, being largely illiterate as those cultures mostly were.
Rhodes and Bird cite several modern studies conducted by anthropologists in so-called “primitive” cultures that demonstrate their continued ability to communicate important oral tradition essentially unchanged over many generations.
So I can’t “prove” for a “fact” this was actually done, any more than I can “prove” that John Wilkes Booth actually shot Abraham Lincoln, however at a certain point, after one has carefully investigated the issue, one has to have faith, both that contemporary sources accurately reported Lincoln’s assassination–despite the fact that neither your or I was there to witness it–and that, knowing what we know about the oral cultures that produced the New Testament, that they took at least a modicum of care to remember and record accurately.
Gary, man, you’re too much a child of the 18th c. Enlightenment, and have unknowingly inherited and uncritically work from its prejudices and biases; you’ve gotta stop viewing this through the lens of a 21st c. skeptic from a post-modern culture, and try to see it through the lens of the ancient cultures who produced the New Testament.
The New Testament wasn’t written primarily to resolve all of the issues skeptics would raise in 2021, but instead was written to a) bolster the faith of believers b) persuade FIRST CENTURY AD Skeptics.
Again, I commend the Rhodes and Bird book to you.
Pax.
Lee.
“Might I recommend *The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition,* by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd?”
These authors compare the traditions of modern nomadic Arab tribesmen with first century Jews. It is laughable to assume that the habits of one group can be assumed to reflect those of the second.
Gary, one day I hope you come to realize that paranoid hyper-skepticism is actually the polar opposite of sober, critical thinking.
I hold the same positions on most issues related to the Bible as scholars Bart Ehrman, Gerd Luedemann, and John Dominic Crossan. I am not a mythicist. I believe that Jesus existed. I also believe that the empty tomb is probably historical. So much for being a hyper-skeptic!
Good for you.
GARY: I hold the same positions on most issues related to the Bible as scholars Bart Ehrman, Gerd Luedemann, and John Dominic Crossan. I am not a mythicist. I believe that Jesus existed. I also believe that the empty tomb is probably historical. So much for being a hyper-skeptic!
LEE: Which only demonstrates that you’ve read a handful of authors who already agree with your position.
How is that open-minded?
As for your being a hyper-skeptic, you are, just maybe not as regards those specific issues.
Pax,.
Lee.
GARY: These authors compare the traditions of modern nomadic Arab tribesmen with first century Jews. It is laughable to assume that the habits of one group can be assumed to reflect those of the second.
LEE: You need to actually read the book. They talk about lots of ancient–and modern–cultures and those cultures’ ability to accurately pass on oral tradition.
Pax.
Lee.
Just curious: I know you believe that the Gospels are historically reliable accounts. But I think you will agree that the eyewitness status of the Gospels is disputed. The eyewitness status of the Mormon eyewitnesses is not disputed. You have said previously that you don’t believe the Mormon eyewitness claims because the historical claims made in the BOM have not been confirmed. But isn’t it possible that God has hidden this evidence to confound the wise?
Bottom line: Why do you reject the supernatural claims of the undisputed Mormon eyewitnesses but believe as fact the supernatural claims of disputed orthodox Christian eyewitnesses? “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
I reject the historical claims made in the Book of Mormon because there is absolutely zero historical evidence to back up any claim made in it. No evidence to support the existence of any of it. Forget any supernatural claims. Just consider the basic historical claims…zero.
Traditionalist Mormon scholars and archaeologists say you are wrong, Joel. These experts are very confident that there IS historical evidence that supports the claims made in the Book of Mormon:
John E. Clark, a respected authority on the archaeology of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, teaches at Brigham Young University. In 2005, he published an article on archaeology and the Book of Mormon titled “Archaeology, Relics and Book of Mormon Belief” (see “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies” 14/2 (2005) publications.mi.byu.edu).
“The Book of Mormon,” he points out, “is unique in world scripture because its claimed divine origins can be evaluated by checking for concrete evidence in the real world. Prove the existence of Zarahemla, for example, and the validity of the rest follows. The logic is simple and compelling.”
“If Joseph Smith made the book up,” he explains, “then its peoples did not exist, its events did not happen, and there should be no trace of them anywhere. If, after a reasonable period of diligent searching, material evidence is not found, then the Book of Mormon would be shown to be imaginary, and by implication, Joseph Smith would be exposed as a liar and the church he founded unveiled as a hoax.”
However, while it’s easy to imagine something that might demonstrate the Book of Mormon true to all reasonable people — say, a stela bearing the name “Nephi, son of Lehi” and identifying him having built a temple patterned after one in his homeland across the sea — a decisive proof that the Book of Mormon is false is somewhat harder to picture. And how much time spent in “diligent searching” would be “reasonable”?
Nonetheless, many critics happily announce that the game is over, that the Book of Mormon has been proven false. The Bible’s claims, conservative Protestant critics of Mormonism often like to argue, are corroborated by geography and archaeology. But those of the Book of Mormon, they insist, are not. Decades of desperate archaeological research in Mexico and Central America, often (they say) sponsored by the LDS Church, have (they say) yielded absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon.
(On this latter issue, see my article “On the New World Archaeological Foundation,” which is online at publications.mi.byu.edu)
Professor Clark, however, is unimpressed by such critics: “They believe they are winning the day,” he writes, “but 175 years of falsehoods and weak arguments (have) not scratched the book’s credibility.” In his 2005 article, though, he spends little time rebutting critics’ claims. Instead, he offers positive support for the Book of Mormon in multiple areas, including the placing of metal records in stone boxes and the discovery of ancient Mesoamerican writing systems.
Until three or four decades ago, he notes, the Book of Mormon’s claims about fortifications and warfare were ridiculed by famous scholars. The peaceful peoples of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica were simply devoted, said the authorities, to cultivating their fields of maize and beans. But, says Clark, things have changed: “Now that Maya writing can be read, warfare appears to have been a Mesoamerican pastime.”
The cities, temples, towers and palaces depicted in the Book of Mormon, Clark notes, match Mesoamerican structures in striking ways, including, very specifically, the use of cement. So do the kings and monuments that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
“The book’s claim of city societies was laughable” in 1830, he further says, “but no one is laughing now.” Moreover, Clark finds notable parallels between the Book of Mormon and the geography of the Old and New worlds.
“The Book of Mormon’s metaphors,” he remarks, “make sense in the Mesoamerican world.” Similarly, intriguing parallels exist between the timekeeping and prophesying described in the Book of Mormon and what we’re learning about ancient Mexico and Central America. Likewise, the cycles of civilization that archaeologists have been able to discern in Mesoamerica correspond with what the Book of Mormon depicts, as does Mesoamerican demographic or population history.
“A trend of convergence” is appearing, Clark writes, between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. And that, he correctly observes, is remarkable.
Gary: So there ARE archaeologists, Joel, who say that there is good evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that archaeologists and other experts who reject this evidence do so because they have a bias against Mormonism.
So since at least some experts do believe there is evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon, why not believe the supernatural claims of the undisputed Mormon witnesses??
source: https://www.deseret.com/2017/8/24/20618162/archaeology-relics-and-book-of-mormon-belief#:~:text=But%20those%20of%20the%20Book,for%20the%20Book%20of%20Mormon.
Because there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the BOM. Stop playing games, Gary.
Are you an archaeologist? The above respected archaeologist states that there IS evidence to support the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. The majority of archaeologists may say he is wrong, but you can’t say there is “no historical evidence” if a minority of archaeologists say there is.
And how is this any different from the claims of Jesus? Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of Moses’ Law. The author of the Gospel of John claimed that Jesus was the Passover lamb. Yet the overwhelming majority of modern archaeologists say there was no mass enslavement of ancient Hebrews in Egypt, no Passover in Egypt, no Exodus, no forty years in the Sinai, no conquest of Canaan. No Moses! There is no evidence that any of this happened.
You are claiming that since the majority of experts reject the existence of archaeological evidence that supports the historical claims made in the Book of Mormon, critically thinking people should reject Mormonism. Yet the majority of experts reject the existence of archaeological evidence for the historical claims of Jesus and the Gospel authors. Why shouldn’t critically thinking people also reject orthodox Christianity?
If the historical claims made in the BOM are false, Joseph Smith was a fraud. If the historical claims made by Jesus are false, Jesus was a fraud.
Gary, you simply can not be this obtuse, can you? Really? Just stop. There is clear historical evidence for the existence of Pilate, Jesus, Herod, etc., and there is clear geographical evidence for locations like Nazareth, Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. Stop being stupid.
Excuse me?? I am not claiming Jesus did not exist. I am not claiming that Joseph Smith did not exist. I am claiming that most experts believe there is no evidence for the HISTORICAL claims of Jesus or Joseph Smith.
Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of Moses’ law. The author of John claimed Jesus was the Passover lamb. If the Passover and Exodus did not occur, Jesus was a fraud.
So why do you believe the Christian eyewitnesses and not the Mormon eyewitnesses?
I invite you to go to Starbucks, get a coffee, and contemplate everything that is wrong and absurd with what you are putting out there. I’m not going to help you with this.
Typical reaction when a Christian is backed into a corner.
Jesus and Joseph Smith both made historical claims which most archaeologists say are false.
No, just a typical reaction to ignorant blather. This post was about Polycarp of Smyrna, and you going on about Joseph Smith? Do some self-reflection.
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
–Jesus of Nazareth
No mainstream Bible scholar today believes that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That is sufficient evidence to label Jesus just as much a fraud as Joseph Smith.
Think a little more…a bit more self-reflection, please. Try to figure out what is absurd about your comparison and question. I’m not going to help you.
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
–Jesus of Nazareth
There are two big problems with this (alleged) statement by Jesus of Nazareth. First, most modern Bible scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Clever Christian apologists try to resolve this problem by saying that just because Moses did not write the Pentateuch does not mean he couldn’t have written another statement or letter about Jesus. Problem solved! Wrong. The second problem is that most modern archaeologists believe that the stories of Moses and the Exodus are pure fiction. Clever Christian apologists attempt to resolve this problem by saying “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Yet when Mormons use this exact excuse for the lack of evidence for their prophet’s claims, Christians scoff and hand wave away their claims.
Admit it, Christians. You believe this tall tale not because of good evidence but simply because you so desperately want to!
Clearly, you are choosing not to do some self-reflection and critical thinking. And since this actual post was on POLYCARP, I will kindly ask you to stop blathering on about Mormonism and pushing an absurd comparison. Thank you.
hi gary i like everything you’ve stated as i have randomly come across this internet beef for a school project stay woke king
also thank you joe for a plethora of information as i study polycarp and his influential life and death, big thanks 🙂