Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Text and translation. · Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Text and translation.

Victor, Bishop of Capua, from the response to the chapters of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, disciple of John the evangelist. ¹

§ 1. Matthaeus Dominum dixisse testatur, quod	§ 1. Matthew testifies that the Lord said that
Moyses scribit Adam locutum fuisse hos modo Hoc nunc os ex ossibus	Moses writes that Adam spoke in this way: Now this is a bone from my
meis et caro ex carne mea propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem	bones, flesh from my flesh, because of this a man will leave [his] father
etc. [Matt 19:5] Sed non concordant Domini verba cum Moysis sermonibus.	and mother etc. [Matt 19:5] But the words of the Lord do not agree
Quia enim Adam praebens officium inspiratione divina prophetavit, ipse a	with the discourses of Moses. For, because Adam, showing deference,
Moyse hoc dixisse refertur; Deus vero, qui per inspirationem divinam in	prophesied by divine inspiration, he was related by Moses to have said
corde Adam ista verba formavit, ipse pater a Domino recte locutus fuisse	this; yet God, who formed these words in the heart of Adam by divine
refertur. Nam et Adam hanc prophetiam protulit et pater, qui eam	inspiration, the father himself was related correctly by the Lord to have
inspiravit, recte dicitur protulisse.	spoken. For both Adam produced this prophecy and the father, who inspired
	it, is rightly said to have produced.2
§ 2. Idem ad haec verba Christi: Calicem	§ 2. The same to these words of Christ: you
meum bibetis etc. [Matt 20:23]	drink my cup etc. [Matt 20:23]
Per hujusmodi potum significat	By this kind of drink he means the
passionem, et Jacobum quidem novissimum martyrio consummandum, fratrem	passion that James indeed was to most recently perfect by martyrdom, yet
vero ejus Joannem transiturum absque martyrio, quamvis et afflictiones	his brother John to depart without martyrdom, although he also withstood
plurimas et exsilia toleravit, sed praeparatam martyrio mentem Christus	many afflictions and exiles, but Christ judged the mind prepared for
martyrem judicavit. Nam apostolus Paulus Quotidie, inquit, morior; cum	martyrdom to be a martyr. For the apostle Paul said I die daily; while it
impossibile sit quotidie mori hominem ea morte qua semel vita haec finitur.	is impossible for a person to die daily, in his death by which this life
Sed quoniam pro evangelio ad mortem jugiter erat praeparatus, se mori	is ended once. But since for the gospel he is continually prepared for
quotidie sub ea significatione testatus est. Legitur et in dolio ferventis	death, he testified about himself to die daily under this meaning. It is
olei pro nomine Christi beatus Joannes fuisse demersus.	also read that the blessed John had been plunged in a vat of boiling oil
	in the name of Christ.3
§ 3. Idem de initio evangelii secundum	§ 3. The same on the beginning of the gospel
Marcum.	according to Mark.
Rationabiliter evangelistae principiis diversis utuntur, quamvis una	Reasonably, the evangelists used different beginnings although the one
eademque evangelizandi probetur intentio. Matthaeus, ut Hebraeis scribens,	and the same purpose of evangelization is represented. Matthew, as writing
genealogiae Christi ordinem textuit, ut ostenderet ab ea Christum	to Hebrews, composed the order of the genealogy of Christ, so that he
descendisse progenie, de qua eum nasciturum universi prophetae cecinerant;	would show that Christ had descended from this progeny, from which all the
Joannes autem ad Ephesum constitutus, qui legem tamquam ex gentibus	prophets had foretold him to be born. But John, based in Ephesus, made the
ignorabant, a causa nostrae redemptionis evangelii sumpsit exordium; quae	beginning of the gospel from the reason of our redemption, of us who from
causa ex eo apparet, quod filium suum Deus pro nostra salute voluit	the gentiles as it were did not know the law, which reason is evident from
incarnari. Lucas vero a Zachariae sacerdotio incipit, ut ejus filii	him that God wished his son to be incarnated for our salvation. Luke,
miraculo nativitatis et tanti praedicatoris officio divinitatem Christi	however, began from Zacharias the priest so that he would declare the
gentibus declararet. Unde et Marcus antiqua prophetici mysterii	divinity of Christ to the gentiles by the miracle of the birth of his son
competentia adventi Christi declarat, ut non nova sed antiquitus prolata	and by the office of so many preachers. From which Mark too declares the
ejus praedicatio probaretur vel per hoc. Evangelistis curae fuit eo uti	ancient qualifications of the prophetic mystery of the coming of Christ so
prooemio, quod unusquisque judicabat auditoribus expedire. Nihil ergo	that his preaching had been proven not to be new but uttered from ancient
contrarium reperitur, ubi licet diversis scriptis ad eandem tamen patriam	times or account of that. The evangelists were concerned with using
pervenitur.	introductions, which each decided to set forth that for the listeners.
	Thus nothing is found to the contrary where even for different writings
	the same basis is arrived at.
§ 4. Idem in illud: Noli vocare amicos	§ 4. The same in this: I do not want to
tuos sed pauperes et debiles etc. (Luke 14:12-13)	call your friends but the poor and the weak etc. (Luke 14:12-13)
Praecipit non amicos, sed infirmos quosque vocandos ad prandium. Quodsi	He teaches that not friends but whoever are sick are to be called to a
claudus aut quilibet eorum sit amicus, sine dubio talis pro amicitia	meal. But if the lame or anyone of them would be a friend, without a doubt
minime est rogandus, unde ipsa quasi videntur se impugnare mandata. Nam si	such is at least to be called for friendship, where these com-mands almost
non amici, sed claudi et caeci sunt invitandi, ipsosque quoque amicos esse	seem to oppose each other. For if not the friends but the lame and blind
contingat, nequaquam rogare debemus. Sed amicos arbitror intelligi hoc	are to be invited, it would affect those that are friends too, then we
loco debere illos, quos mundi hujus terrena consideratione diligimus, non	should by no means call. But, I decide to understand first to owe them in
pro divinae contemplationis intuitu. Hi sunt igitur amici relinquendi.	this place whom of this would esteem the earthly considerations, not in
Denique ideo debilium exempla proposuit, quos pro nullius possumus	view of divine contemplation. These are, therefore, friends to be left.
appetere necessitate, nisi tantum pro fructu retributionis aeternae.	Accordingly, he proposed examples of weakness, which we can necessarily
	desire for none, unless so much for the fruit of the eternal reward.
§ 5. Idem in illud: Opus consummavi quod	§ 5. The same in this: I have completed the
dedisti mihi, ut faciam(John 17:4).	work you have given me to do (John 17:4).
Quomodo opus salutis humanae adimplesse commemorat, cum necdum crucis	How does he commemorate the fulfillment of the work of human salvation
vexillium conscenderat? Sed definitione voluntati, de qua cuncta	when he had not yet climbed the standard of the cross? But by the
venerandae passionis insignia adire decreverat, jure se opus perfecisse	determination of his will, by which he decided to undergo all the marks of
significat.	the venerable passion, he properly means that he completed the work
	himself.

Perhaps the most accessible discussion of the Pseudo-Polycarp fragments along with Latin text (but with no translation) can be found at J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp (1889; repr. Hendricksons, 1989), vol.3 pt.2, pp.419-422. These fragments were translated from Lightfoot. They have been attributed--successfully in my opinion--by Harnack back in 1921 to a certain Latinius Drepanius Pacatus who wrote the a Latin response to Porphyry in the early 5th century. Harnack's argument can be found conveniently at: https://archive.org/stream/HarnackPorphyrius-GegenDieChristen/HarnackPorphyriusGegenDieChristen1916#page/n115/mode/2up

The odd part about this fragment is that Matt 19:5 does not include the citation of the "bone from my bones and flesh of my flesh" bit from Gen 2:23.

The detail of John being plunged in boiling oil is usually conjectured to have been in the lost beginning of the late-second-century apocryphal Acts of John and has generally been responsible for the skepticism for the attribution to Polycarp.

This text was written by Stephen C. Carlson in 2004 and edited by Roger Pearse, 2006. Update to footnote 1 in 2015. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

	Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts