More than anything, they want “to have fellowship with his holy flesh.” The Jews, however (who are often maligned as bogeymen in Christian martyrdom stories), already know that Christians venerate the remains of their martyrs, and they convince the governor of Smyrna not to hand over Polycarp’s body, lest the Christians “abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this one.” The story’s narrator rejects this accusation, explaining that Christians worship Christ alone. A torrent of blood quenches the flames.Īfter Polycarp’s death, the Christians of Smyrna set out to retrieve his remains. Once it is clear to those present that the fire will not kill Polycarp, his persecutors run him through with a sword. The fire gracefully envelops him, “like a linen sail filled by the wind,” and from within his flaming cocoon, Polycarp’s body becomes “like gold and silver being refined in a furnace.” From the fire wafts the sweet smell of frankincense, which in the parlance of Christian martyrdom stories is the olfactory sign of his holiness. But, like Daniel in the fiery furnace, Polycarp does not burn. Recall what happens when Polycarp is about to be executed: he thanks God for deeming him worthy to share the cup of Christ with those who have been martyred before him. Instead, I focus on the popularity of the martyrs and the long endurance of stories (like Polycarp’s) that have fundamentally shaped the culture of Christianity for centuries. That being said, I deliberately avoid the “so are these stories true or not?” sorts of questions in my newest book, Cult of the Dead: A Brief History of Christianity. My own scholarly work on early Christian martyrdom narratives often engages with similar sorts of questions, and I agree with Bart’s assessment of Polycarp’s authenticity-or lack thereof. Specifically, he has focused on questions about the date, authorship, and integrity of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, arguing that it’s likely a later forgery that wasn’t written by an eyewitness to the events it describes. Lately on the blog, Bart has been discussing this text. We can see the beginnings of this at work in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. In this way, all the apostles and martyrs who are said to have followed Jesus in death could continue to intervene in the world. Think about it like this: as Christians have understood it, Jesus’s resurrection opened a bridge between the land of the living and that of the dead. It’s to celebrate the popularity of the martyrs and all the ritual practices by which they’ve been remembered and venerated-all the relics, shrines, feast days, miracles, and pilgrimages-that are the cultural centerpiece through which the story of Christianity itself can be told. I know our minds go straight to the sinister, to the Jim Joneses and David Koreshes of the world, when we hear the word “cult,” but to call Christianity a cult of the dead isn’t to condemn it. Short answer? Yes, Christianity is a cult of the dead. His ideas appear to be accepted both in Catholic publications and in academia. I have been reading progressively more about this topic over the years, but never seen it phrased quite so clearly. He recently published Cult of the Dead: A Brief History of Christianity. Kyle Smith (Prof./History of Religions, Univ. This below is an interesting piece written by Dr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |