Lucian makes explicit that followers of Polycarp/Peregrinus were continuing to write letters for him after his martyrdom in 165 CE - viz "the story is that he despatched missives to almost all the famous cities—testamentary dispositions, so to speak, and exhortations and prescriptions—and he appointed a number of ambassadors for this purpose from among his comrades, styling them 'messengers from the dead' and 'underworld couriers.'" [Morte 41]
One cannot underestimate the significance of all of this - a 'follower' or 'followers' of Polycarp were responsible for not only 'correcting' his letter to the Philippians, nor also the Ignatian canon, but the New Testament canon as well. For Koester, von Campenhausen and others have all argued that it was Polycarp himself who took a pen and 'corrected' the text of 1 Clement to make it accord with the synoptic gospels.
As I have noted here many times before, this is a stupid argument for it doesn't even consider the other possibility - i.e. that these aforementioned 'underworld couriers' - i.e. the followers of Polycarp - might be responsible for the changes.
Scholars of the New Testament and the Church Fathers only prefer the other hypothesis because it doesn't challenge the authenticity of the New Testament and related Patristic writings.
Yet it is intellectually dishonest to say on the one hand that it was Polycarp - way back in the middle of the second century - who was trying to make Clement's writings 'agree' with the synoptic gospels but when evidence comes forward that the 'correction' effort might have happened AFTER his martyrdom (i.e. after 165 CE) to utterly dismiss the idea because it challenges their inherited presuppositions.
Again I can't stress how significant this is because THE DIATESSARON HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE MIX OF THINGS CORRECTED by those Lucian mockingly identifies as Polycarp's 'underworld couriers.' This was a massive correction effort. It was intimately connected to the establishment of the New Testament canon and we can lay the evidence right on the doorstep of Irenaeus who HOLDS UP POLYCARP'S LETTER TO THE PHILIPPIANS as proof of Polycarp's orthodoxy during the course of his proof for the holiness of the Roman See (which we just cited in its entirety a few posts ago). The passage in question reads:
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 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 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 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.[Irenaeus AH iii.3.4]
The point is that IF ANYONE had motive to alter the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians so as to make the gospel citation agree with the new canonical gospels (via the Diatessaron) it was Irenaeus. JUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE - i.e. the Epistle of the Philippians is a lynch pin in the argument for the Catholic 'system of truth.' This can't be argued against. Traditional scholars can do their best just to ignore it.
Yet I want to alert my readers to one more VERY IMPORTANT thing which again might otherwise escape their attention. When we put this Letter to the Philippians under a microscope it reveals a critical 'missing link' to answer how the Roman Catholic Church got established in the fifteen years after the death of Polycarp. Indeed, scrutinizing the text will reveal that Commodus rise to power and his connection with the Christian concubine Marcia was something of an unexpected windfall for the Maphrian (i.e. fruitful) Church.
Every indication from the nexus of texts that come out of the generation before this development (i.e. the Acts of the Apostles AND the Ignatian canon) can be used to demonstrate that they were planning to set up their headquarters in Antioch rather than Rome. When the Roman option appeared they simply TRANSFERRED the honorific titles they were preparing for the Antiochene See to Rome.
It is for this reason, for instance that Rome is identified as 'the See of Peter and Paul.' Clearly this applies much better to Antioch given what is written in Acts. Nevertheless, one must imagine that there must have been considerable haste when the inner circle around Commodus was given the opportunity to set up shop in the most prestigious address in the Empire (I suspect that this is the reason why the 'Valentinians' are so called i.e. from the Aramaic word for Palatine, the residence of Caesar).
The point is that when we scrutinize the purpose of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, its purpose is unquestionably to tie the promotion of the Ignatian canon with Polycarp rather than Irenaeus. Yet the purpose of the Ignatian canon when taken as a whole was clearly designed to establish Antioch as the center of the Church. By the time that Irenaeus got around to referencing the Letter to the Philippians when writing the Third Book of the Refutations and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called, he has to make the letter fit within an argument for Roman episcopal primacy and Antioch is strangely absent from his writings as a whole.
What makes this strange again is that it is impossible not to read the Acts of the Apostles in any other way than as a testimony speaking on behalf of the primacy of the episcopal see of Antioch. Indeed the arguments of the Ignatian canon often draw from Acts and form a logical cohesiveness which is entirely lacking in Irenaeus' arguments for the Roman See c. 189 CE.
The point of course is that Irenaeus didn't need to have arguments make sense any longer when he had 'Imperial muscle' to back him up.
Indeed if we go back for a moment to that citation I just lifted from Irenaeus' Against the Heresies referencing Polycarp WITHIN the greater argument for Roman episcopal primacy it is impossible to notice that something just doesn't make sense about all of this. Irenaeus begins by saying how old the Roman tradition is and proceeding to go down through its supposed 'Papacy' to the time of Polycarp - i.e.:
then after him Anicetus. Soter 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. [ibid]
Yet it is impossible not to see Irenaeus 'jump the tracks' when he talks about Polycarp in the section which immediately follows these words, for Polycarp has no connection with Rome. Indeed Irenaeus has to address a confrontation that occurred between Polycarp and Anicetus (which Irenaeus does his best to recast as a modern 'Peter and Paul' agreeing 'to disagree'). Yet when we go back to Lucian's more honest recollection of the incident it becomes even clearer how bad an impression Polycarp must have made while in the capitol:
From there, thus equipped, he set sail for Italy and immediately after disembarking he fell to abusing. everyone, and in particular the Emperor [Antinonus Pius] knowing him to be mild and gentle, so that he was safe in making bold. The Emperor, as one would expect, cared little for his libels and did not think fit to punish for mere words a man who only used philosophy as a cloak, and above all, a man who had made a profession of abusiveness. But in our friend’s case, even from this his reputation grew, among simple folk any how, and he was a cynosure for his recklessness, until finally the city prefect, a wise man, packed him off for immoderate indulgence in the thing, saying that the city had no need of any such philosopher. However, this too made for his renown, and he was on everybody’s lips as the philosopher who had been banished for his frankness and excessive freedom, so that in this respect he approached Musonius, Dio, Epictetus, and anyone else who has been in a similar predicament.[Morte 18]
The point is that in both traditions Polycarp/Peregrinus are acknowledged to have had only one visit to Rome and it was certainly confrontational.
As such it is utterly incongruous for Irenaeus to incorporate Polycarp into the argument for primacy of the Roman Church given that Polycarp obviously clashed with its leadership then. Of course the only way that Irenaeus could have 'made this idea work' - i.e. that Polycarp was indeed 'compatible' with the Roman leadership - is if Irenaeus took himself to be part of the new ruling elite which used the original conflict to establish a 'new ecumenicism' modeled after the lie of Acts.
The point however is that Acts is lurking in the background of Irenaeus' discussion in Book III Chapter 3. The argument for Roman primacy was developed from an original argument that Irenaeus developed for Antioch through the Ignatian canon. We will demonstrate all of this shortly, but for the moment let us simply remind the readers how mendacious most scholarship on the Ignatian canon is.
Indeed if we really look carefully the Ignatian canon is certainly lurking in the background of Irenaeus' conflict with Florinus. The context is 'who speaks for the real Polycarp.' And notice that they all seem to have met in a 'royal court':
These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to you. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing yourself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: O good God, for what times have You reserved me, that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he dispatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.[Fragment, Irenaeus Epistle to Florinus]
It's just scandalous that the current batch of scholars are allowed to have ANY SAY on ANYTHING relating to the earliest period of Christianity. I am not a particularly gifted thinker. But I have CLEARLY uncovered IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the man we call 'Irenaeus' was at the heart of a campaign of falsification related to the New Testament canon.
It would be nice if we had more information from this attack against Florinus, but the reality is that it should be obvious that Florinus is denying Irenaeus' claims about the 'orthodoxy' of Polycarp.
Translation - Irenaeus' version of Polycarp is a lie.
Yet, notice HOW Irenaeus responds to these charges. He always goes back to 'HIS Epistles' that HE sent out. This is clearly also refuting the charges of Lucian that the real historical individual behind the mask of 'Polycarp' died and then his disciples - NAY IRENAEUS - sent out Epistles in his name.
That is why it is so careful to PAY ATTENTION to the specific language that Irenaeus uses here. He does not say that Polycarp sent out 'Epistles of Ignatius' BECAUSE FLORINUS WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IGNATIUS WAS A MIRAGE. Polycarp was held to be 'the fiery one' viz. 'the seraph' or the Angel of the Presence to his community of loyal followers. Irenaeus can't pull the wool over Florinus' eyes so - in light of this AND the report of Lucian of Samosata - Irenaeus is forced to select his words very carefully:
This fact, too, can be made clear, from his epistles which he dispatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them
My God! It is amazing how scholars WANT to read this information. They claim that Irenaeus is saying that Polycarp sent out 'the letters of John' to 'neighboring churches' and 'to certain of the brethren' merely because John is referenced in the first part of the letter.
There is absolutely NO evidence that 1 John and 2 John were sent around in a separate letter writing campaign by Polycarp or anyone else. All of the evidence suggests - as Trobisch notes - that they were ALWAYS bound together with a/the New Testament canon as part of a 'system of truth.'
Given the fact that Irenaeus references Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians earlier in his Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called and given that this letter EXPLICITLY references a letter writing campaign on behalf of the Ignatian canon and moreover given the fact that the Ignatian canon as a whole is sent to 'neighboring churches' and 'certain of the brethren' (i.e. 'to Hero,' 'to Maria the Proselyte,' 'to Mary at Neapolis,' 'to St. John' etc.) it is ABSOLUTELY SCANDALOUS to suggest that Irenaeus was doing anything other than answering contemporary charges that he and others sent out letters purporting to be from Polycarp to these 'neighboring churches' and 'certain of the brethren' long after Polycarp had died.
The one obstacle that they will certainly raise is that the Letter to the Philippians references Polycarp explicitly acknowledging that he is sending letters on behalf of Ignatius:
Both you and Ignatius wrote to me that if anyone was going to Syria he should also take your letters. I will do this if I have a convenient opportunity, either myself or the man whom I am sending as a representative for you and me. We send you, as you asked, the letters of Ignatius, which were sent to us by him, and others which we had by us. These are subjoined to this letter, and you will be able to benefit greatly from them. For they contain faith, patience, and all the edification which pertains to our Lord. Let us know anything further which you have heard about Ignatius himself and those who are with him.[Polycarp to the Philippians 13]
Ah, but remember the universal consensus of scholars that chapters 12 and 13 represent a 'separate letter.' Remember how stupidly the 'greats' of Patristic literature explained this. Someone 'innocently combined' two authentic letters of Polycarp?
Now we know better don't we? Now we understand I hope. Chapters 12 and 13 were spurious editorial editions after 'Polycarp' and 'Ignatius' were developed into separate people. It's simply scandalous not only that these people haven't pieced this all together. It is even more scandalous that they will IGNORE this evidence, that they will refuse to publish it as a scholarly article.
How do I know? Because I tried to get the article on Polycarp and Peregrinus published at the Journal of Early Christian Studies and David Brakke effectively blamed Bart Ehrman for refusing to allow its publication.
I am not bitter about being rejected. I was young and the article certainly wasn't perfect. But when you see the IDEA of this magnitude revealing itself, why not assist its dissemination? Why not tell me, 'here's what you need to do in order to get it accepted.'
I have now went ten thousand miles above that article. It has led to a revelation about how the how canon was developed. I am going to have to publish it as part of a book devoted to the Imperial cabal in the Commodian age.
Oh, I just just let the cat out of the bag. I must be a 'conspiracy nut' for entertaining such ideas as this. Call the police. I have just proved that I am clearly not worthy of being published in a 'serious' academic journal ...
