Thank you for your response. I am a lawyer. By my credentials, I have an authority of office by which I am permitted to appear before the court and make my case. But if I made my case on strictly my lawerly office, how far would that get me? "Your honor, I am a lawyer, therefore when I say my client is innocent, it must be true." Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Indeed, such an action would probably draw a sanction from the judge.
But when I want to win my case, what do I do? I use the authority of my office to cite to the real authority, statutory law and the case law that interprets it. I am recognizing in that act that the true authority does not rest in my office, but in legal truth (such as it is).
By the same token, while it is entertaining to speculate about photographic memories, in truth the jury is free to infer that copious and exacting reference to Scripture very well could be an indication that said Scripture was in the possession of Polycarp, and if not for the pressure of your argument to find otherwise, would naturally lead to that conclusion.
But more importantly, whether by memory or by reference to a physical text, Polycarp is following in a long tradition, exampled by both Christ Himself and His apostles, of citing to the word of God as the dispositive authority in any contest of ideas about God and Christian truth. And in truth, if Christ is our only true Master, and God our only true Father, how else could it be?
Peace,
SR
But, that knife cuts two ways. The heretics were not ignorant of Holy Scripture. As much as I find snip quotes sometimes tedious, I will submit:
A new reformation was therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself entrusted with this commission, and the church which he gathered recognized this vocation of his to be the reformer. 35 He did not appeal to a new revelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As the Pauline Epistles and an authentic "evangelion of the Lord" were in existence, it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine Paulinism which was just the Gospel itself.
Marcion From Adolf Von Harnack, History of Dogma
But when I want to win my case, what do I do? I use the authority of my office to cite to the real authority, statutory law and the case law that interprets it. I am recognizing in that act that the true authority does not rest in my office, but in legal truth (such as it is).
Was not Marcion doing exactly this? And it worked, requiring several ecumenical councils over hundreds of years to continue to refute the heresy and preserve the chain of orthodoxy (right belief).
Is it fair to say that the Holy Scripture is "statutory law" and the councils are "case law"?