Notes: Polycarp of Smyrna
1. References to Polycarp in the Early Church
Ignatius
Eph 21.1
| May my soul be given for yours, and for them whom you sent in the honour of God to Smyrna, whence I also write to you, thanking the Lord, loving Polycarp as I do also you. |
Mag 15
| The Ephesians greet you from Smyrna, whence also I am writing to you. They, like yourselves, are here for the glory of God and have in all things given me comfort, together with Polycarp the bishop of the Smyrnaeans. |
Smyrn 12.2
| I salute the godly bishop (aspazomai ton axiotheon episkopon), and the revered presbytery, and the deacons my fellow servants, and you all, individually and together, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in his flesh and blood. |
Poly 7.2
| It is right, O Polycarp, most blessed of God, to summon a godly council, and elect someone who is very dear to you (plural) and is zealous, who can be called God's courier; appoint him to go to Syria to glorify your (plural) zealous love to the glory of God... |
Poly 8.2c
| I greet him who shall be appointed to go to Syria. Grace will be with him through all, and with Polycarp, who sends him. |
Apart from the salutation and two problematic references, there is no indication that this writing (Ign. Poly) was originally addressed to Polycarp.
Irenaeus
AH 3.3.4 (= Eusebius EH 4.14.1-9)
| And Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which Christ has handed down, and which alone are true... a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness to truth, than Valentinus and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics.
He it was also who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles - that, namely, which is handed down by the Church... [Accounts of John's encounter with Cerinthus and Polycarp's encounter with Marcion follow.] |
| There is also a powerful (gegrammenę ikanôtatę) Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth. |
AH 5.33.4
| These things are borne witness to in the writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book... |
Tertullian PH 32
| If there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops... For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John... |
Eusebius
EH 3.36.10 Eusebius observes that Ignatius
| conversed in writing from Troas with those in Philadelphia and with the church of the Smyrnaeans, especially with Polycarp, who then was head of this church. He knew well that Polycarp was an apostolic man and like a good shepherd commends the flock at Antioch to him, asking him to be zealous in his care for it. |
EH 3.36.13-15
| In his account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Eusebius observes that "Polycarp, too, mentions these same things in the letter to the Philippians bearing his name...," followed by citations of Poly. Phil 9 and Poly. Phil 13. There is no indication here at all, however, that Eusebius himself possessed a collection of Ignatian letters appended to Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. In fact, the entire passage in EH 3.36.12-15 was probably appropriated by Eusebius from the Roman Acts of Martyrdom, ch 12. |
EH 4.14.1-9
| Eusebius relates that "while Anicetus was ruling the church of Rome, Irenaeus relates that Polycarp was still alive and came to Rome and conversed with Anicetus about some difficulty as to the day of Passover. The same writer tells another story about Polycarp... It runs as follows." This is followed by an extended citation from Irenaeus, AH 3.3-4 (see above).
Eusebius then observes: "Moreover, Polycarp, in his above-mentioned letter to the Philippians, which is still extant, has made some quotations from the first epistle of Peter"-which probably indicates is that Eusebius was familiar with Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, although this is a strange way to characterize it. |
EH 4.15
| At this time (during the reign Marcus Aurelius Verus), Polycarp was consecrated by martyrdom when great persecutions again disturbed Asia, and I think it most necessary to give in this history the account of his end, which is still extant in writing. The document purports to be from the church of which he was the leader (estin de hę grafę ek prosôpou hęs autos ekklęsias hęgeito), and gives to those in the region (tais kata to ponparoikiais) the following account of what happened to him. |
This is followed (4.15.3-45) by an extended reproduction of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, as found in the Epistle of the Smyrnaeans.
SCHAFF observes (Vol 2., 83, n. 4) that "some of the startling phenomena related in the Martyrium Polycarpi by the congregation of Smyrna are omitted in the narrative of Eusebius (IV.15), and may be a later interpolation."
EH 5.8
| When Pothinus was consecrated with the martyrs in Gaul at the age of full ninety years, Irenaeus received the episcopacy of the diocese in Lyons, of which Pothinus had been the head, and we have been told that he had been a listener to Polycarp in his early youth. |
EH 5.20.4-8 Letter of Irenaeus to Florinus
Eusebius here reproduces an extended citation from a letter which Irenaeus supposedly wrote to Florinus, who once had sat with Irenaeus at the feet of Polycarp, but had since adopted "doctrines not in accordance with the church," which "not even heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim."
| I remember the events of those days more clearly that those which happened recently... so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to the people, how he reported his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures... |
2. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians
Manuscripts
Greek MSS All known Greek MSS of Polycarp's Epistle include only chapters 1-9, are very late, and derive from a common archtype represented by Vaticanus 1859, dated from the 11th century (Lightfoot, 546, 111ff). In all cases, the text at 9:2 (apothanonta di' hęmas hupo) continues without a break with Barnabas 5:7 (ton laon ton kainon k.t.l.). In most MSS the Polycarp Epistle (together with Barnabas) is appended to the thirteen "authentic" and "spurious" Ignatian letters. Those few MSS in which the Epistle of Polycarp (with Barnabas attached) is found apart from the Ignatian Epistles are even later, and derive from the same archtype.
According to LIGHTFOOT (546), such observations have "no such close and immediate connexion with the literary transmission, and therefore with the the question of integrity and genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle, as in the case of the Ignatian letters." For the connection of the Epistle of Polycarp with the Ignatian letters in the extant Greek MSS "is in no sense due to to historical transmission from the original copy, in which Polycarp attached the letters of Ignatius to his own" (547). According to Lightfoot, Polycarp's Epistle was probably circulated independently, as well as in connection with the Ignatian letters, and "a late transcriber would naturally be anxious to include the works of the two contemporary Apostolic fathers in the same volume... though he might have to transcribe them from different manuscripts."
This apologetic speculation simply assumes what must be demonstrated, namely, that the Polycarp epistle is genuine (and the Ignatian writings as well), and leaves many questions unanswered. If the connection of Polycarp's Epistle with the letters of Ignatius in the Greek MSS is the work of a "late transcriber," we have no real evidence that Polycarp's Epistle was ever circulated at some earlier date "in connection with the Ignatian letters." Even if Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other early Christian writers seem to have had in their possession both the Epistle of Polycarp and the letters of Ignatius (which is not certain), it does not necessarily follow that "the two were still attached in their copies, as they had been in the original document sent to the Philippians." (547)
One question would be whether chapters 10-13 were present in the Greek archtype for these manuscripts. Koester observes (Literature, 306) that chapters 10-13 were already "missing" from the Greek archtype. But the question is whether they were ever present.
Latin MSS The complete text of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (including chs 10-13) is found only in a number of Latin MSS --- also together with the "authentic" and "spurious" Ignatian letters, and other Ignatian related writings, such as the Acts of Martyrdom. Although possibly deriving from a Greek text earlier than the archtype presupposed by the Greek MSS (Lightfoot, 317), the translation is relatively poor. The Latin version, however, is our sole authority for the text of chs 10-12 and ch 14---chapter 13 being independently preserved by Eusebius (HE 3.36.14-15).
Literary Unity
It is now widely perceived that the received form of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians does not represent a literary unity. P. N. Harrison (1936) identified chs 13-14 as a cover letter for a collection Ignatian letters sent by Polycarp to Phillipi, written soon after Ignatius passed through Phillipi on his way to Rome; chs 1-12, however, represent a much later letter dealing with specific community problems in Philippi. Other interpreters (Kleist: 1948; Fischer: 1955) regard only ch 13 as an early cover letter and identify ch 14 with the later letter (see Vielhauer, 558f). According to Koester (306), Philippians 1-12 "was written several years or, more likely, several decades (!) later."
When were these two writings combined? How do we know that chs 1-12 are authentic?
Discussion
The style and content of chs 1-12 is much like that of the Pastoral Epistles. (Koester, 306) Again and again, we find exhortations - to wives, children, widows, deacons, young people, and presbyters - and catalogues of virtues and vices. Similarly, we find vague warnings against false teachings. The Philippians are exhorted to "submit yourselves to one another" (10:4), which is remeniscent of Paul (Phil 2:4), but is actually closer to Paul of Ephesians (5:21), particularly when elaborated with the words, "having a manner of life above reproach by the heathen." The writer of chs 1-12 seems to recognize no apostolic authority other than Paul (Koester, 307), which in itself is somewhat remarkable for the supposedly orthodox writer Polycarp.
SCHAFF observes (669): "Of all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the Epistle of Polycarp is the least original, but nearest in tone to the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, and fullest of reminiscences from the New Testament."
According to Koester, it is possible that Polycarp knew Marcion, who must have appeared on the scene while Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna (Koester, 307). And it is even possible that Polycarp's polemic against false teachers (Phil 7:1) has Marcion in mind (Koester). But since the integrity of chs 1-12 is suspect, it is possible that these teachings represent later attributions. Remembered as an "elder" from ancient times who rejected the teachings of Marcion and other heretics, Polycarp would have been a very important witness for ecclesiastical Christianity, and functions in such a way for Irenaeus.
It is often observed that Polycarp must have been very familiar with the letters of Paul. This is only true, however, for chs 1-12, which may or may not derive from Polycarp himself. And even here the issue is not so clear. In general, we have to do here with what Walter BAUER refers to as "the marshy ground of 'reminiscences' and 'allusions' " (219). According to Bauer (217), it seems clear that the writer of these chapters was familar with 1 Corinthians, and probably Romans as well (which would have certainly been true for the Roman community). Bauer also suggests that the writer may have known Galatians and Ephesians, and the same might be said for Philippians (3:2 refers to "letters" [plural] written by Paul to the Philippians, and 2:1 seems to include a clear quotation from Phil 3:21). But definite conclusions are very uncertain. We do not know in what form the writer "knew" these writings, or whether he simply knew traditional teachings identified with Paul, or traditional material that also found its way into the Pauline writings.
LINDEMANN argues (Paulus, 232): When such a letter is characterized throughout by both open and indirect allusions to the Pauline tradition, "the conclusion is permitted that Paul represents an authoritative norm for Polycarp-not the only, but obviously the most important." At the same time, when in the context of references to Paul and quotations from Paul there is not one word of apologetic or polemic, "it must at least be regarded as very improbable that the authority of Paul was threatened in Smyrna or Philippi." Polycarp thus confirms the impression we receive from Irenaeus that in the first half of the second century "the Pauline tradition was fully recognized in Asia Minor, that letters of Paul were known and read, and that the conflict concerning certain false teachings in any case had nothing to do with the transmission of Pauline theology."
The absence of polemic or apologetic, however, does not prove that conflicts with false teachings had nothing to do with the transmission of Pauline theology. All that is obvious is that by this time ecclesiastical Christianity, represented by Polycarp, had appropriated Paul for themselves (Irenaeus). Lindemann seems to assume that the issue would have concerned differing interpretations of Paul, when in fact the basic issues were church-political.
Authenticity
The integrity of the epistle was challenged by Ritschl (Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2nd edition, 584-600), Renan (Journal des savants, 1874), and the author of Supernatural Religion (Vol 1, 274-278). SCHAFF (666) does not find their arguments persuasive: "The testimony of Irenaeus, who knew it (AH 3.3.4), is conclusive." But only if this is not a later gloss (see above).
3. The Martyrdom of Polycarp
Atestation
Eusebius (EH 4.15) Eusebius presents an extended reproduction of an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp found in a letter from the Smyrnaeans to the church at Philomelium in Phrygia.
Codex Parisinus Graecus 1452 (10th century) is a collection of "lives, martyrdoms, and eulogies of various saints for the month of February" (Lightfoot, AF 2.3.423), which includes a wonderous (and fictional) Life of Polycarp ascribed to Pionius, a Smyrnaean martyr killed during the reign of Decius and immortalized in Martyrdom of Pionius. This then is directly followed by a copy of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans, which in a postscript is also ascribed to a certain Pionius, who may or may not be the famous martyr and is thus referred to as Pseudo-Pionius. (see Lightfoot, 2.1, 638-642; Weidmann, 2f.)
LIGHTFOOT: "Unhappily it (Pionius's Life of Polycarp) has no points of contact with authentic tradition. If it contains any grains of truth, we have no means of sifting them from the huge heap of falsehood" (2.1, 435, cf. 642-645).
Date
Polycarp is thought to have suffered martyrdom either c. 155 CE during the reign of Antoninus Pius (Lightfoot, et. al.) or after 160 CE during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Koester, 306). The martyrdom of Pionius is thought to have taken place about 100 years later, c. 250 (Lightfoot, AF 2.1, 715ff). Eusebius presumes not only that the martyrdom of Polycarp took place under Marcus Aurelius but that the martyrdom of Pionius also took place at this time. Lightfoot explains (647), "Eusebius here connects together all the incidents relating to the persecution of Christians, which he supposed to have taken place about this time. He had no knowledge of the precise year or years in which they occurred." Lightfoot conjectures that "Eusebius seems to have been misled by the opening notice of these Acts, in which it is stated that Pionius was celebrating 'the birth-day of Polycarp', and to have jumped at the conclusion that he was a contemporary of Polycarp's" (641).
Authenticity
With regard to external evidence of authenticity, Lightfoot points (605f) out that both Irenaeus (AH 3.3.4) and Polycrates (= Eusebius HE 5.24) attest to the fact of Polycarp's martyrdom.
Lightfoot also observes that parallels between this writing and the Letter of the Gallican Churches (Eusebius, HE 5.1) "are too strong to be accidental" (606). It is unclear what significance this has for his argument, but for a critical scholar it would seem to speak against authenticity.
As further evidence that "the circumstances of Polycarp's death were a matter of interest to his fellow citizens within two or three generations after its occurance" Lightfoot appeals to the Martyrdom of Pionius, where we are told that Pionius was arrested on Polycarp's birthday (which was also the day on which Polycarp was supposedly martyred). Lightfoot presumes, of course, that the Martyrdom of Pionius is authentic (see pp. 638-642).
Lightfoot observes, however, that "the first reference to the document, as a document, is in Eusebius" (607)! But for him this signifies nothing with regard to the document's authenticity.
With regard to "internal evidence" of authenticity, LIGHTFOOT maintains that "the question we have first to ask and to answer is; What does this document profess to be? By what persons and under what circumstances does it purport to have been written?" Contrary to Lightfoot, however, whatever the answers to these questions might be, the real question is why should we believe what the document professes?
Lightfoot begins by telling us that "the idea of literal conformity to the sufferings and death of Christ runs like a thread through the whole document" (610), and then presents numerous parallels with the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion (above all with John), which for any critical reader would indicate a literary work, not historical. Lightfoot observes, however, "An overhasty criticism has found in this feature of the narrative an argument against its genuineness and veracity," but that "it is difficult to see the force of this argument," since "throughout all ages of the Church. even from earliest days, there has been a tendency to find in the lives of saints and martyrs a literal conformity to the sufferings of Christ" (621) -- which really is to say that in all such cases we are dealing largely with legends rather than history (although this is certainly conttrary to Lightfoot's own view).
Then Lightfoot advances a very strange argument. We are now told that the very difficulty of constructing such parallels, the fact that the parallels are forced and arbitrary, affords "sufficient evidence that the narrator was dealing with historical facts and not with arbitrary fictions which he might mould as he pleased" (613). "We might say that the violence of the parallelism is a guarantee of the accuracy of the facts " (614). All this argument seems to say, however, is that poor writing is a sign of historical accuracy.
We are told that among the martyrs in Smyrna, Polycarp alone is "especially remembered by all, so that he is spoken of even by the Gentiles in every place," and Christ is referred to as "the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world" (19). Keim pointed to such language as an indication that the writings must be relatively late. According to Lightfoot, however, there is nothing in the words quoted "which is inconsistent with a date (say) a year or more after the occurances. But an interval as long, or even longer, might well have elapsed before the letter was written" (617). Lightfoot also argues that "confessedly also the language is hyperbolical; but hyperbole is common in such cases" (617). But the task of the historian is to demonstrate the plausibility of an assumed historical situation. At what point could it be said that Polycarp was "spoken of by Gentiles in every place"? Or if this is merely hyperbole, why would this not be true for everything else in the writing?
Lightfoot tells us that "the external evidence, if not abundant, cannot be regarded as deficient. It is as full as we have a right to expect, and as we get in most similar cases." (605) This is apologetic pleading. If Polycarp's fame was so widely spread, even among Gentiles (§ 19), it is very odd that his name appears so rarely in the writings of early Christianity. Either Polycarp was famous or he wasn't. And if he was famous, we certainly "have a right" to see this reflected in early Christian history.
