Like Papias, Polycarp is not merely a Church Father, he’s also counted as an Apostolic Father, having reportedly known one or more of the apostles (in his case, reportedly John). He was also reportedly a companion of Papias of Hieropolis.
Polycarp is noted for several things: First, his association with the apostle John; second, his martyrdom; third, that he’d been mentor to Ignatius of Antioch who later became Christianity’s “martyr in chief”; fourth, he was a mentor to Irenaeus of Lyons, who went on to become Christianity’s first serious “heresy hunter”; and fifth, because of that, Polycarp was a linchpin in Irenaeus’s “chain of tradition” (as it were) that later became the foundation for his own model of Christian authority.
According to St Jerome, it was the apostle John himself who ordained Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna. Unlike other early Church figures whose connections with apostles are perhaps more remote than any of them would have wanted to admit to, there are more references, in more places, to Polycarp’s association with John than is the case for others.
According to Irenaeus, Polycarp was born a slave who’d been converted to Christianity by a woman who’d owned him (or, possibly, adopted him as a son). At some point after this, he became known to the apostle John and in some way was his associate.
After John’s passing, based on his having known him, Polycarp was viewed as a regional authority on what Jesus and the apostles had actually said and done. As noted in a number of other ways, there appear to have been questions about some of the stories that had been told, re-told, re-re-told, etc., so Polycarp’s direct knowledge of John was considered valuable, and his word on such matters was trusted.
It was this notion of apostolic pedigree that Irenaeus would later lean on in order to give his own pronouncements some authority. Direct “descent” from an actual apostle was key to knowing what “true Christianity” was. Irenaeus cited Polycarp as his mentor, and pointed out that the apostle John had mentored him. This meant Irenaeus was an inheritor of Polycarp’s own apostolic pedigree — and in his eyes, that’s what made him a credible authority on Christian doctrine and dogma.
Polycarp wrote at least one document that survives, an epistle to the Church at Philippi. This letter is a curious one. It’s a list of instructions on how Christians should conduct themselves and how the churches should work. In this regard, it’s a bit similar to other “church orders” documents (such as Didache).
Polycarp’s list of instructions, though, contains numerous quotations of, and references to, Old and New Testament material. In fact, some passages are literal patchworks of quotations and references with only just a few words of Polycarp’s own to stitch them together.
He refers to epistles of Ignatius of Antioch as well as his own correspondence with him. And he quotes the apostle Paul liberally, pointing out to the Philippian churches that Paul had worked with them. In fact, he — associate and possible protégé of John that he was — appears to go out of his way to paint Paul (rather than John) as the primary conveyor of Christian tradition and teaching. Additionally, Polycarp mentions a presbyter (priest) named Valens, who at the time he wrote was either no longer a priest, or no longer in Philippi, for reasons that aren’t made clear.
In terms of theology, Polycarp condemns Docetism, quoting 1 Jn 4:3 in the process and insisting there had been a resurrection. He doesn’t name any particular such notions or anyone who taught them, he simply condemns them generally and out-of-hand. He also condemns some other notions, similarly in very general ways.
While this document was explicitly written in the form of a letter to the churches of Philippi, and it references a couple of figures known to Christians there (e.g. the defrocked or exiled Valens), the material in it is of general interest, and agrees with other similar Christian works — many of which Polycarp had known, given the number of them that he referred to or quoted outright.
At some point later in his career, Polycarp traveled to Rome and visited with a Christian leader there named Anicetus. This visit took place just prior to, or just after, Anicetus was named Pope (i.e. bishop of Rome). The reason for his visit was to iron out a number of differences between the practices of the eastern and western churches.
While most of those differences (including liturgical variations) were resolved, one was not, and that was how Easter was dated. In Anatolia at least, and elsewhere in the east, Easter was celebrated on the same day Jews celebrated Passover, no matter which day of the week it fell on. In the west, Easter was celebrated on the Sunday after the full moon that immediately followed the spring equinox. Essentially the two men agreed to disagree on when Easter was to be celebrated.
Why Polycarp was chosen to present the eastern or Anatolian perspective is not known. That he did this is typically taken as a sign of the deep, abiding respect afforded him by eastern Christendom.
Polycarp was reportedly martyred in his old age (in his 80s), and in legendary fashion: He was burned at the stake, but the flames refused to consume his flesh, leaving him unharmed. So the Romans stabbed him with a spear.
This tale is reported in a document (Martyrdom of Polycarp) that survived in a number of manuscripts (several in Greek which was its original language, and one in Latin). The date of Polycarp’s martyrdom is typically taken to have been around 155 CE (although Eusebius of Caesarea, writing much later, provides a later date).
Along with the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, this story became the foundation for what would become Christianity’s martyrdom tradition: The notion that the highest expression of what it means to be a Christian, is to be martyred for Jesus of Nazareth. In a rather macabre way, Martyrdom of Polycarp was viewed almost as a “how-to manual” for the manner in which Christians should approach their martyrdom.
↵ Go back up to Early Christian History menu.