Who remembers Polycarp?

[Josh]

I would consider his letter as Scripture.

Interesting. Why?

For one, the one letter he wrote has no conflict with Scripture, for another, it was in my eyes just as scriptural as say Jude.

Ask yourself, why do you accept what is called canon by your church. Do you know? Why is this book rejected, or that book, why was this accepted or that. Do you know your church history?

Why was there several lists floating around of canon and none of them agreed completely? Who decided what was to be included? when was the apocrypha rejected? Who did it? What did Menno Simon's quote from? Did he regard more as canon then you?

The apocrypha was rejected in the 1800s, which always seemed odd to me.

[Joy]

My students knew who he was from my teaching them church history.

[JimFoxvog]

Looks like my first reply on this topic disappeared (or I failed to post it correctly).

Yes, I remember reading his Letter to the Philippians many years ago. I think it a helpful view into the teachings of the early church. I don't think it says anything different from the New Testament, neither adding nor contradicting. A good encouraging letter to those who don't have the whole New Testament yet.

It's easily found online. Here's one link: https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Polyca ... ppians.pdf

[joey_the_ox]

His name has been far better remembered in Catholic circles than Anabaptist ones, by virtue of HRCC veneration of the dead and usage of many of their writings. It has only been in the last 20-30 years that stories and lessons from Polycarp have really made a resurgence in popularity among Anabaptists, and Mennonites in particular, outside of reference to Van Braght's "Martyr's Mirror." The other thing to consider is that David's book didn't necessarily seem to be aimed at one particular denomination. I respectfully submit that neither you nor he are entirely incorrect.

I can agree with your final statement. As I read farther into the book, Bercot often references "evangelicals," and the subtitle of the book is "a new look at today's evangelical church in the light of early Christianity." So if his statement that "the name of Polycarp has been largely forgotten" is taken to refer to evangelicals in particular then it is more accurate.

An interesting thing about Polycarp in connection to your mention of "veneration of the dead" is that the record of his martyrdom is the earliest known record pointing to the "cult of the saints." ("Cult" here in a technical sense.) From the Martyrdom of Polycarp (I'm using the translation given in Early Christian Fathers, edited by Cyril Richardson):

But the jealous and malicious evil one, the adversary of the race of the righteous, seeing the greatness of his martyrdom and his blameless life from the beginning, and how he was crowned with the wreath of immortality and had borne away an incontestable reward, so contrived it that his corpse should not be taken away by us, although many desired to do this and to have fellowship with his holy flesh. He instigated Nicetas, the father of Herod and brother of Alee, to plead with the magistrate not to give up his body, "else," said he, "they will abandon the Crucified and begin worshiping this one." This was done at the instigation and insistence of the Jews, who also watched when we were going to take him from the fire, being ignorant that we can never forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those who are saved, the faultless for the sinners, nor can we ever worship any other. For we worship this One as Son of God, but we love the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord, deservedly so, because of their unsurpassable devotion to their own King and Teacher. May it be also our lot to be their companions and fellow disciples!

It is interesting that the objection was that by having "fellowship with his holy flesh" the Christians would abandon the worship of Christ for the worship of Polycarp, which continues to be a contemporary objection to the cult of the saints in some circles. But the early Christians saw no conflict here, distinguishing the "worship" given to Christ from the "love" given to the martyrs. The account continues:

The captain of the Jews, when he saw their contentiousness, set it [i.e., his body] in the midst and burned it, as was their custom. So we later took up his bones, more precious than costly stones and more valuable than gold, and laid them away in a suitable place. There the Lord will permit us, so far as possible, to gather together in joy and gladness to celebrate the day of his martyrdom as a birthday, in memory of those athletes who have gone before, and to train and make ready those who are to come hereafter.

Here we see both relics (the bones of Polycarp) and the practice of annually memorializing someone on a specific day (in this case, the day of his martyrdom).