A Question From a Reader About My Interpretation of Polycarp

Raymond dropped me an email (I still don't understand why so many people refuse to leave comments) questioning a statement I made about Polycarp in my last post especially this line:

The argument that Irenaeus ends up developing is that not only is there an apostolic succession at Rome but that Polycarp - who is not a bishop of any city - was a witness of John in the same way as the Roman bishops were heirs to Peter.

Raymond asked me 'aren't you forgetting that Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna.' My response of course is to direct people to that article that Hermann Detering published at his site the day my son was born (yes it's true, his response was funny too - he called me the first Marcionite to have children).

The point of that article was to demonstrate that when you blend together Lucian's portrait of Polycarp's martyrdom and that of the 'official document' that was filtered through Irenaeus (see the conclusion of the Moscow manuscript and the presence of Irenaeus' friend 'Marcianus' again) it is impossible to see Polycarp as anything other than a wandering preacher. With all that travelling he could not have been the 'bishop of Smyrna.' Indeed already we see Metrodorus as the Marcionite bishop in the city. Was there a Catholic Church already in this period? No certainly not. The material from Lucian shows quite clearly that there was a proto-Catholic Church developed around the personality of Polycarp and his desire to die a martyr.

The other thing that gets lost in any discussion of Polycarp is the fact that Irenaeus' claims about Polycarp were disputed by Florinus in Rome. Florinus was a 'Valentinian' and so he must have thought that Polycarp reflected his inherited belief system. I think that Gaius also had his issues with Polycarp (owing to the fact that Polycarp was the chief witness for 'John' and Gaius was opposed to the Johannine revelation generally).

More to follow ...