JESUIT-KRAUSS- MCCORMICK LIBRARY | =

|i i p - 6 8253

‘
1C
a7 ewe = ws ie
vw g
"PAMOY
:
OMI LAI Cory ® KACTHPION |

peo] bad
rN Harris Fragments and Their Challenge
the ater ory.Tradition - a

rederick W, Weidmann
 ae x
JESUIT-KRAUSS-McCORMICK§
LIBRARY Pd
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2024

https://archive.org/details/polycarpjohnharrO000weid
 i. e/a
e | if i} ; _

ft no
-

» 7
I Le ee
Polycarp & John
 Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series

Gregory E. Sterling, Series Editor

WOIEIOIMNE, 12!

The University of Notre Dame Press gratefully acknowledges

the generous support ofJack and Joan Conroy of Naples, Florida,
in the publication of titles in this series.
Polycarp & John

The Harris Fragments and

Their Challenge to the
Literary Traditions

FREDERICK W. WEIDMANN

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS

Notre Dame, Indiana
 Copyright © 1999 by
University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, IN 46556
All Rights Reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America

The author and publisher are grateful to the British Library

for permission to reproduce photographs of fragments in the
Harris collection of Coptic papyri, OR.7561, nos. 55, 56,
63, and 64, British Library, London.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Weidmann, Frederick W.
Polycarp and John : the Harris fragments and their challenge to
the literary traditions / Frederick W. Weidmann.
p. cm.— (Christianity and Judaism in antiquity series : v. 12).
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-268-0385 1-1 (alk. paper)
1. Martyrdom of Polycarp. 2. British Library. Manuscript.
Oriental 7561. 3. Manuscripts, Coptic—England—London.
4. Polycarp, Saint, Bishop of Smyrna. 5. John, the Apostle, Saint.
6. Christian martyrs—Biography—History and criticism. 7. Church
history—Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. I. British
Library. Manuscript. Oriental 7561. Selections. _ II. Title.
Ill. Series: Christianity and Judaism in antiquity ; v. 12.
BR1720.P7W45_ 1999
272'.1'092—dce21 98-50200

cc The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

JESUIT - KRAUSS - MeCORMICK - LIBRARY

1100 EAST 55th STREET
MLIRAnR af
 Christianity and Judaism in
Antiquity Series (CJAS)

The Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Program at the University of

Notre Dame came into existence during the afterglow of the Second Vati-
can Council. The doctoral program combines the distinct academic dis-
ciplines of the Hebrew Bible, Judaism, the New Testament, and the Early
Church in an effort to explore the religion of the ancient Hebrews, the di-
verse forms of Second Temple Judaism, and its offspring into religions of
Rabbinic Judaism and the multiple incarnations of early Christianity. While
the scope of the program thus extends from the late Bronze and Early Iron
Ages to the late antique world, the fulcrum lies in the Second Temple and
Early Christian periods. Each religion is explored in its own right, although
the program cultivates a History-of-Religions approach that examines their
reciprocally illuminating interrelationships and their place in the larger con-
text of the ancient world.
During the seventies a monograph series was launched to reflect and pro-
mote the orientation of the program. Initially known as Studies in Judaism
and Christianity in Antiquity, the series was published under the auspices
of the Center of the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity. Six
volumes appeared from 1975-86. In 1988 the series name became Chris-
tianity and Judaism in Antiquity as the editorship passed to Charles Kan-
nengiesser, who oversaw the release of nine volumes. Professor Kannengies-
ser’s departure from Notre Dame necessitated the appointment of a new
editor. At the same time, the historic connection between the series and
the CJA doctoral program was strengthened by the appointment of all CJA
faculty to the editorial board. Throughout these institutional permutations,
the purpose of the series has continued to be the promotion of research into
the origins of Judaism and Christianity with the hope that a better grasp of
the common ancestry and relationship of the two world’s religions will not
only illuminate the ancient world but the modern world as well.

Gregory Sterling
Series Editor
To YVONNE
 Contents

Preface xili
List ofAbbreviations

Introduction

The Occasion for This Book

1. Polycarp’s Martyrdom and the Martyrdom of Polycarp
2. Polycarp in Ancient Christian Literature
3. The Harris Fragments: A Unique Work on Polycarp
Modern Description of the Fragments on Polycarp
Ancient Production and Preservation
of the Harris Fragments
Original Location of the Work
4. Goal and Scope of This Book

CHAPTER ONE

Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp

1. Introduction
Physical Description of the Fragments
Sigla
Format
2. The Fragments
x Contents

CHAPTER TWO
Translation 4]

1. Introduction Al
Objectives 4]
Possible Restorations 4]
Sigla 4]
2. Translation 42

CHAPTER THREE
Apostolicity and Martyrdom: An Introduction to
the Narrative Strategy of the Text 49

1. Missing Title and Contents 49

2. Narrative Structure 50
5) . Part One: Polycarp’s Apostolic Credentials (via John) Sy
> Part Two: Polycarp’s Martyrdom
(via John’s Divine Reprieve) 53

CHAPTER FOUR
Commentary aye)
1. Introduction oy)
2. Commentary 60

CHAPTER FIVE
Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John:
Hagiography and Rivalry in Asia Minor 125
1. John and Polycarp: How Can It Be? 126
Irenaeus: Confused, Lying, or Proponent of a Tradition 126
Irenaeus as Confused 127
Irenaeus as Liar Vz
Irenaeus as Proponent of a Tradition 130
 Contents xi

2. Why Is John’s Peaceful Death So Troublesome? 33

The Problem 133
An Alternate Tradition: John as Martyr 134
The Prominent Tradition and Attempts
at Compensation 136
The Prominent Tradition, the Gospels, and Polycarp 137
3. Smyrna versus Ephesus: John, Polycarp, and a Rivalry
Both Sacred and Profane 141
Under Roman Imperial Rule 141
Under Christian Rule 144
John and Polycarp in an Ephesian Inscription 144
The Harris Fragments on Polycarp
as a Smyrnaean Document 146

Plates of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 149

Bibliography 157
Index of Ancient Sources 17,
Index of Modern Authors 184
Subject Index 187
 ~ =o 1 oe as
i : i a)
2 # «| s"tegaall Sa t St | = 4°
: ae
Pe ee
| ee
ae ~ - i te

u = ms = .
it‘ ar aSoa ae
a ee :
a 7 => os. 7
= hy -
= 7 -
-
: ; S a
a =

7
a;
f Aa aT a >
- (ore
ae a
=
ae hl
’
7 t ~
—
ae
EP
iat
-
=

= ae Lh
& = J = -
be: i - TSS =— =.

a 7
: a

: _ 1

7
a “<

=
—
_ _ —=

ee i er _ : 7 -
-_ = -_
Wage ARs Ne cre
 Preface

The rediscovery of an ancient text for modern scholarly consideration is

always an exciting occurrence. My own encounter with the Harris Frag-
ments on Polycarp would have been most unlikely were it not for the
influence of Professor Bentley Layton of Yale University. The lion’s share of
the work for this presentation and study of a “new” ancient text on Polycarp
of Smyrna began as a dissertation written under his direction at Yale Uni-
versity. Besides Professor Layton there are many colleagues, from Yale and
elsewhere, whose advice and criticism during the dissertation phase of my
work are evident (at least to me) in what follows. Among these are David
Brakke, Leo Depuydt, Stephen Emmel, Rowan Greer, Leander Keck, Re-
becca Krawiec, Abraham Malherbe, Wayne Meeks, Paul-Hubert Poirier,
Robert Ritner, James Smith, and Craig Wansink. Thanks are due also to the
staffs of several libraries within Yale University for their kind assistance, es-
pecially those of the Divinity School Library, Sealy G. Mudd Library, and
Sterling Memorial Library.
Without the opportunity to see the text firsthand, my work would have
been significantly hampered and limited. To Dr. Vrej Nersessian and the
staff of the British Library's Oriental and India Office Collections for
making me welcome to study these ancient papyrus fragments, I extend
sincere thanks.
More recently, my work has been supported through a research grant
from the Society of Biblical Literature, which has been most helpful in
securing printed resources, as well as technical and clerical assistance. Sev-
eral colleagues within the Society of Biblical Literature, particularly mem-
bers of the Intertextuality in Christian Apocrypha Seminar, have offered

xlil
Xiv Preface

helpful comments and assistance. Among these are David Cartlidge, Den-
nis MacDonald, and Christopher Matthews.
I have been fortunate to be supported in a number of ways by the admin-
istration, faculty colleagues, students, and staff of Union Theological
Seminary in New York, to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. The staff
of the Burke Library, including Seth Kasten, director of Reader Services;
Drew Kadel, reference librarian; and Caroline Bolden, coordinator of inter-
library loans, have been particularly long-suffering. Further, | want to thank
Gay Byron, who has acted as my research assistant on this project, for her
careful work and good humor.
The University of Notre Dame Press has been supportive of—and pa-
tient with—me as I worked to bring the current manuscript to completion.
Professor Gregory Sterling, editor of the Christianity and Judaism in An-
tiquity Series, and Professor Harry Attridge both read early drafts and made
helpful suggestions. Particular thanks are due to them and to Rebecca
DeBoer, Jeannette Morgenroth, and Ann Rice of the Press’s editorial staff.
My family has supported this work in any number of ways. My brother,
K. Timothy Weidmann, proofread a final draft of the manuscript and of-
fered helpful suggestions. From Yvonne and our children, Joshua and Katie,
I derive encouragement and strength more than they can know. Finally,
I want to express my deep gratitude to that individual who supports me
and shares her love with me on a daily basis—it is to Yvonne that | dedicate
this book.
 List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations used are those found in the Journal of Biblical Literature 107
(1988) 583-596, except:

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

AH Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses

AJn the Acts of John

BIF Bulletin de linstitut francais darchéologie
orientale 1 (1901)—
Boh Bohairic; the Bohairic version of MartPol
FrgPol The ancient work attested by the Harris Fragments
on Polycarp
GIBM C. T. Newton et al., eds., Collection ofAncient Greek
Inscriptions in the British Museum (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1874-1914)

HE Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

IvE Die Inschriften von Ephesos Ia (1979)—
Jh Jahreshefte des 6sterreichischen Archdologische Institutes
in Wien | (1898)—

MartPol Polycarp’s martyrdom as recounted in MPol and HE 4.15

MPion the Martyrdom of Pionius

XV
xvi List of Abbreviations

MPol Martyrdom of Polycarp, Ps-Pionian version

(i.e., not HE 4.15)
NT the New Testament
OT the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)
Vir Jerome, De Viris Illustribus
VPol Ps. Pionius, Life of Polycarp
 Introduction

The Occasion for This Book

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, “Science tends to be diffi-

cult, subtle, ambiguous, and biased by all manner of social and psy-
chic prejudice—although surely directed in a general way toward an in-
creasingly better understanding of a real world ‘out there.’ But every once
in a while, we do achieve the reward of a simple, pristine, and undeni-
able fact—and then we can rejoice.”' The Harris Fragments on Polycarp
(FrgPol)? are just such an “undeniable fact.”
FrgPol provides an important and unique complement to the ancient
literature associated with Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and with the apostle
John. At a time when the traditions about John are receiving renewed
attention? and scholarship on the Martyrdom of Polycarp and related docu-
ments is being increasingly sharpened and codified,’ the “new” witness of
this ancient text is particularly pertinent.

1. Stephen Jay Gould, “A Lesson from the Old Masters,” Natural History 105.8 (1996) 19.
2. The abbreviation “FrgPol” will be used to indicate the literary work attested by these
fragments.
3. See, for example, R. Alan Culpepper, John, Son of Zebedee: The Life of aLegend (Stud-
ies on Personalities of the New Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1994), and M.-E. Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean L'Apétre (Cahiers de las Revue Biblique 35;
Paris: J. Gabalda, 1996).
4. See, for example, both the extended article and book by Boudewijn Dehandschutter,
“The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993) 485-522, and
Martyrium Polycarpi: Een Literair-Kritische Studie (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologi-
carum Lovaniensum 52; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), and the extended article
2 Polycarp and John

More broadly, FrgPol contains a particular understanding of martyr-

dom which is unique within the whole body of extant literature on early
Christian apostles, apostolic figures, and martyrs. The following text edi-
tion, translation, commentary, and supplementary chapters are presented
with the hope of accomplishing two major objectives: (1) making the
unique narrative of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp available to the
scholarly community and, more generally, to all interested in early Chris-
tian literature; and (2) locating the narrative within the literary traditions
on Polycarp, John, and the greater body of literature about apostles, mar-
tyrs, and related figures. For the student of early Christianity these frag-
ments are truly a treasure which provides the opportunity for a greater
understanding of the world of ancient Christianity.

1. Polycarp’s Martyrdom and the Martyrdom of Polycarp

Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna, between the mid-150s and the mid-160s
cE.’ The so-called Martyrdom of Polycarp (MartPol) is an account of
his martyrdom, along with a report of the martyrdom of eleven other
Christians, written in letter form and sent from a Christian community
at Smyrna to a Christian community at Philomelium. MartPol is known
through two separate text traditions, the Ps-Pionian (MPol) and the Euse-
bian. The former is preserved through menologia for the month of Feb-
ruary. The latter is found in Eusebius’ Church History (HE), sections
4.15.3—45, in which Eusebius of Caesaria includes a recounting of the

by William Schoedel, “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993)
272-358. Just published is a commentary by Gerd Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp
(KAV 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998).
5. For recent discussion and bibliography on the debate over the date of Polycarp’s mar-
tyrdom, see Dehandschutter, “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” 497-503;
Schoedel, “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch,” 354-355; and Schoedel, “Polycarp,
Martyrdom of,” ABD 5.392a—393a; not mentioned in any of the above is the short and help-
ful discussion in Gary A. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii (Harvard
Dissertations in Religion 22; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 119-121. See also T. D.
Barnes, “Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum,” JTS 19 (1968) 510-514; and Dehandschutter, Mar-
tyrium Polycarpi, 191-219. The discussion in J. B. Lightfoot, ed. and tr., The Apostolic
Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (1889-1890; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1989) 2.1.646—722, remains important.
 Introduction 3

letter, slightly abridged,° along with some of his own comments.” It appears
that the full text of MartPol “claims to be the work of eyewitnesses (MPol
15:1) written within a year of the event (MPol 18:3).”8 Provided that evi-
dence of later editing and interpolation is acknowledged, the scholarly con-
sensus is that MartPol was, in fact, written shortly after Polycarp’s death.°
Besides the Greek texts of MPol and HE 4.15, there are several ancient
versions of MartPol. Latin versions exist both in Rufinus’ translation of
HE and in an independent form." There is a Slavonic version which seems
to rest on the Ps-Pionian tradition. Of the versions in other languages,
B. Dehandschutter concludes that “none of these versions—Armenian,
Syriac, or Coptic—has any independent value, all being adaptions of the
Eusebian text” of MartPol.!!
It ought to be noted, however, that the Coptic version in the Bohairic
dialect (Boh), though clearly indebted to the Eusebian text tradition, in-
cludes significant, unique characteristics.!? Among these are a change in

6. Relative to MPol.
7. The relationship of HE 4.15.3—45 to MPol is debated by scholars. Leslie W. Barnard,
“In Defence of Pseudo-Pionius’ Account of Saint Polycarp’s Martyrdom,” Kyriakon: Festschrift
Johannes Quasten (ed. Patrick Granfield and JosefA.Jungmann; Miinster: Aschendorf, 1970)
192-204, argues for the relative genuineness of MPol, rejecting a scholarly movement begun
by observations recorded in Eduard Schwartz, De Pionio et Polycarp (Gottingen: Dieterich,
1905), and Hermann Miiller’s monograph, Aus der Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Polykarp-
Martyrium: Eine hagiographische Studie (Paderborn: Bonifacius, 1908), and essay, “Das
Martyrium Polycarpi: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Heiligengeschichte,” RQ 22 (1908)
1-16. This movement found a thorough statement in Hans Frhr. von Campenhausen, Bear-
beitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarpmartyriums (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1957), in
which the author locates several layers of interpolation in MPol and identifies the account in
HE as containing narrative more original than that of MPol.
8. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias (The Apostolic Fathers:
A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Robert M. Grant, vol. 5; Camden, N.J.: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1967) 48.
9. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 48; Barnard, “In De-
fence of Pseudo-Pionius’ Account of Polycarp’s Martyrdom,” 192-194. The abbreviation
“MartPol” is employed herein to refer inclusively to the text traditions extant in both MPol
and HE 4.15; fora parallel edition of the texts of MPol and HE 4.15, see Dehandschutter,
Martyrium Polycarpi, 112-127.
10. Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 48-52; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.358;
also John van Bolland, ed., Acta Sanctorum vol. 2 (“Januarii Tomus”), esp. 701—707.
11. Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 275-276.
12. For the text and a modern Latin translation of Boh, see I. Balestri and H. Hyvernat,
Acta Martyrum II “Textus” (1924; CSCO 86, Scriptores Coptici 6; Louvain: L. Durbecq,
1953) 62-72, 363-364, and Hyvernat, Acta Martyrum II “Versio” (CSCO 125, Scriptores
Coptici ser. 3, no. 2; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1950) 43-50. This supersedes the Coptic text
4 Polycarp and John

presentation (it circulated independently from HE); a change in—or, at

least, assertion of—genre (it bears the titular heading, “martyr-account”);
and the inclusion of additional comments about Polycarp,'* found at the
beginning and end of the narrative."
Conventionally, a simple reference to “the Martyrdom of Polycarp”
may refer directly to the Ps-Pionian text, or more generally to the martyr-
account as contained in both/either the Ps-Pionian and/or Eusebian text
traditions.’’ Within this study it is necessary to make available to the reader
a greater level of precision. Hence the distinct abbreviations, MartPol,
MPol, HE, and Boh, as indicated in the discussion above and in the pre-
ceding list of abbreviations.

2. Polycarp in Ancient Christian Literature

Besides MartPol, various ancient Christian works remember Polycarp. Pri-

mary among these is Polycarp’s own letter to the Philippians (Pol. Phil.).'°
The occasion of the letter involves a request from Christians at Philippi for
Polycarp’s instruction on a matter of community discipline'!’—an apparent
indication of the reputation and authority Polycarp enjoyed among Chris-
tians even outside his own city and province. In addition, the Philippians
requested copies of the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, which were
in Polycarp’s possession.'®

found in Amélineau, “Les actes coptes du martyre de St. Polycarpe”; further, Amélineau’s
French translation is unreliable due to its reliance on the text of MPol (and not HE).
13. Derived in large part from Irenaeus, Detection and Overthrow of Pretended But False
Gnosis (AH) 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.3-8).
14. Reference to, and citation of, Boh is included throughout the Text Edition (ch. 2) and
Commentary (ch. 4).
15. For an example of the ambiguity of meaning of “MPol’ as referring to the Ps-Pionian
text tradition and/or the martyr-account more generally, see recently Dehandschutter, “The
Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research.”
16. If Polycarp’s student Irenaeus is to be believed, Polycarp wrote many other epistles
and treatises as well (Irenaeus, “Letter to Florinus,” preserved in Eusebius, HE 5.20.8).
17. See esp. Pol. Phil. 11.4-12.1.
18. Pol. Phil. 13.2. On the question of the chronological relationship between the draft-
ing of Pol. Phil. and Ignatius’ martyrdom, as well as the possibility of two separate Philippian
correspondences, see recently Schoedel, “Polycarp, Epistle of,” ABD 5.390a—392a, and the
monograph by P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1936).
 Introduction 5

The passing of Ignatius through Asia en route to his martyrdom in Rome

accounts for the personal association of Ignatius and Polycarp. After leaving
Smyrna, Ignatius wrote separate letters to Polycarp and to the Smyrnaeans,
and mentions Polycarp in other letters as well.!? Among other pieces of
information, these letters contain the earliest references to Polycarp as
“bishop.””°
The so-called Life of Polycarp (VPol), ascribed to Pionius,”! provides a
sustained, independent treatment of Polycarp from his early youth through
his ordination and activities as bishop of Smyrna. It is extant in one manu-
script, the tenth-century Codex Parisinus Graecus 1452 (a collection of
“lives, martyrdoms, and eulogies of various saints for the month of Febru-
ary’), in which it immediately precedes MPol.”* A leaf of text is missing at
the end of chapter 28 and beginning of chapter 29.”8

19. Ign. Eph. 21, Ign. Magn. 15. J. Ruis-Camps, The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius,
the Martyr (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 213; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium
Studiorum, 1980), has argued against the authenticity of the letters to Polycarp and to his
Smyrnaean congregation (as well as Ign. Phld.) based largely on internal evidence; for a
rejection of the hypotheses of Ruis-Camps, see William R. Schoedel, Ignatius ofAntioch:A
Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius ofAntioch (ed. Helmut Koester; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1985), esp. 5b—6a.
20. Polycarp does not call himself “bishop” in Pol. Phil. Besides the letters of Ignatius,
Polycarp is also mentioned in the Acts of Ignatius 3—for the text, see ch. 2, register of paral-
lels, (b) 6-8; for a recent survey of the secondary literature on the Acts of Ignatius, and an
argument in favor of a second-century date for at least part of these Acts, see Bisbee, Pre-
Decian Acts, esp. 133-151.
21. The Smyrnaean martyr who was killed under the emperor Decius and is the central
figure in the Martyrdom of Pionius (MPion), and who may also be identical with the Pionius
named in the postscripts to MPol (MPol 22.3, and the “Moscow Epilogue” 5); for discussion
and bibliography, see Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 63-64, 277; Schoedel, Polycarp,
Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 80-81; Hippolyte Delehaye, Les passions des mar-
tyrs et les genres littéraires (2d ed.; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1966) 33—45, and
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3, esp. 426-427. For discussion of the “Moscow epilogue . . .
this special appendix” in the so-called “Moscow manuscript” of MPol, see Schoedel, Poly-
carp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 81, and recently, Dehandschutter, Mar-
tyrium Polycarpi, 33.
22. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.423; see recently, Dehandschutter, Martyrium Poly-
carpi, 28. In the secondary literature the author of VPol is commonly called “(Pseudo-)
Pionius,” while the text tradition of MPol (as distinct from HE 4.15) is called “(Pseudo-)
Pionian” (based on the proximity of MPol to VPol in the Paris manuscript and the mention
of Pionius in MPol postscripts); however, it is well to remember the caveat offered by
Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 277: “One must recognize that this theory is largely
conjectural . . . There is no reason to identify the Pionius of MPol 22 with the author of the
Vita, an anonymous writing that does not refer explicitly to the Martyrdom.”
23. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.423, 461.
6 Polycarp and John

The noted nineteenth-century scholar J. B. Lightfoot provided the as-

sessment of VPol which has remained most influential among students of
early Christianity. Lightfoot maintained that VPol was compiled “not earlier
than the middle of the fourth century,” and “is altogether valueless as a con-
tribution to our knowledge of Polycarp.”** Others, including the prominent
New Testament scholar B. H. Streeter, would salvage all, or at least parts,
of VPol for consideration.” Of course, regardless of the value of the infor-
mation VPol conveys regarding Polycarp as a historical figure, it is impor-
tant as a work within the literary tradition about Polycarp and his Smyr-
naean church.
Lightfoot himself mined VPol for proof that there had existed within
early Christianity a kind of collected works by and about Polycarp, a so-
called Corpus Polycarpianum. In conjunction with the study of other manu-
script evidence pertinent to the literary tradition, Lightfoot recorded the
following observations about VPol:
In chapter 3 the author promises a list of the earliest bishops of Smyrna.
This never appears. Again in chapter 12 he states his intention of insert-
ing [Polycarp’s] Epistle to the Philippians; but we hear nothing more of it.
Again in chapter 20 he defers his account of Polycarp’s scriptural exposi-
tions till a later point, but we find nothing more about them or at least
nothing which satisfies this pledge.*°
A Corpus Polycarpianum, should it have existed, would have included,
presumably, the texts of VPol, MPol, and Pol. Phil., a list of Smyrnaean
church leaders, and an account of Polycarp’s interpretation of Scripture.’
It should be noted that one might also have expected to find within it

24. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.429, 431; similarly, Delehaye, Les passions des martyrs,
43-44; recently, Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 69-71, 277.
25. P. Corssen, “Die Vita Polycarpi,” ZNW 5 (1904) 266-302, argues for authorship by
the martyr Pionius; Cecil John Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna: A History of the City from the Earli-
est Times to 324 A.D. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1938) 306-310, argues for a third-century
date—‘after 190. . . no later than about 300,” 306—based on considerations of theology
(anti-quartodeciman) and the lack of any mention of John (which, according to Cadoux,
would have been very unlikely after HE was published); B. H. Streeter, The Primitive
Church: Studied with Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry (New York:
MacMillan, 1929) 95-98, 271-278, argues for the “historical value” of, at least, the report
about the apostle Paul and the early Smyrnaean bishops in VPol 2-3. For further discussion
of VPol and the statements of Irenaeus about Polycarp, see ch. 5.
26. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.424.
27. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 307-308.
 Introduction i

a fuller account of Polycarp’s revelation to Pionius, for, according to the

postscript of MPol: “I, Pionius, wrote from the aforementioned copy, after
having made a search for it according to a revelation shown to me by the
blessed Polycarp, just as I will explain in the sequel.” As is argued persua-
sively by Dehandschutter, whether the author of VPol or anyone else in an-
tiquity ever compiled a Corpus Polycarpianum cannot, at least given our
present knowledge of extant literature, be known.”*
Regardless of the identity of the Pionius in the postscript of MPol and,
more generally, the Pionius associated with VPol and the Corpus Polycarpi-
anum, it is important to consider the Martyrdom of Pionius (MPion) within
ancient literature on Polycarp.” MPion records the trial and execution
of Pionius of Smyrna, “teacher” and “apostolic one,”?! who was martyred
under the emperor Decius. According to Robin Lane Fox, it was “ninety-
five years” after Polycarp’s execution” that Pionius, accompanied by a small
circle of followers, “knew, one day before the anniversary of Polycarp’s mar-
tyrdom,*’ that it was necessary that on that day** they would be seized”
(MPion 2.2). Those responsible for MPion, perhaps including the martyr
himself, were eager to associate Pionius and his death with Polycarp.
According to Dehandschutter, the compilers of MPion “certainly knew”
MartPol.* Indeed, even among the vast body of early Christian martyr-
doms and related works in which Polycarp is not named, there are sev-
eral which indicate some reliance on MartPol, including, for example, the
well-known Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, and Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and
Agathonicé.*°

28. Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 66-67, 227.

29. For a recent treatment in favor of the martyr Pionius as the copyist identified in the
MPol postscripts, see Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1986) 472—473; for further discussion and bibliography, see n. 21 and n. 22 above.
30. MPion 19.6; see also 1.2, 4.7. In MPion 4.7 Pionius states, “and I am struggling not
to change the things I first learned, and later taught”; cf. FrgPol (c) 11-16. For Polycarp as
“teacher” see (d) 4—6 and ch. 4, comments on (c) 16—21 and (d) 4—6; also MPol 12.2 = HE
4.15.26 = Boh 68.15 and MPol 16.2 = HE 4.15.39 = Boh 70.29.
31. MPion 1.2. For Polycarp as “apostolic” see MPol 16.2 = HE 4.15.39 = Boh 70.29; see
also below, comment on (e) 14—21, Obs. 3.
32. Fox, Pagans and Christians, 472; regarding the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, see
above, n. 5.
33. Lit., “Polycarp’s birthday.”
34. Lit., “on this day”; however, the following sentence clarifies that it is the anniversary
day, not the day preceding the anniversary, on which the foreknown arrest is to occur.
35. Dehandschutter, “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” 501.
36. For discussion and bibliography, see ibid., 501-502.
8 Polycarp and John

Polycarp is mentioned by Christian writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian,

and later, Jerome.*’ Chief among these is Irenaeus, a native of Smyrna, who
claims to have heard Polycarp teach.** Irenaeus’ comments have been in-
fluential in establishing the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom” and in recon-
structing Polycarp’s early Christian influences and ecclesiastical training,
including, of course, his relationship with John.*°
Besides those writings discussed above, consideration of Polycarp is in-
cluded in various synaxaria, menea, chronicles, histories, and other writings
from the ancient period.*!

3. The Harris Fragments: A Unique Work on Polycarp

In the Harris collection of Coptic literary fragments owned by the British

Library are four papyrus leaves which contain a text, written in the Sahidic
dialect of the Coptic language, about Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. The frag-
ments are catalogued as Or. 7561, nos. 55, 56, 63, 64. In their reconstructed
state they provide six pages of text of which no one page is complete.
Modern Description of the Fragments on Polycarp
Early in this century the eminent Coptic scholar, Walter Ewing Crum, pub-
lished a brief description of FrgPol. In comparing it to MartPol, he wrote:
“This interesting text is wholly different in detail from the Greek Martyr-
dom (Letter of Smyrneans).”*? More than fifty years later, in his Catalogue
of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired since the Year
1906, Bentley Layton describes FrgPol as “a recension different than the
Greek, different also than Balestri’s Bohairic version.”** Yet this important

37. Particular references are included in the text edition (ch.1) in the register of parallels;
see esp. (b) 6-8, (b) 8-10.
38. See AH 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.3—7), AH 5.33.4 (= HE 3.39.1), the “Letter to Florinus”
(HE 5.20.4—8), and the “Letter to Victor” (HE 5.24.11-17).
39. In his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, Irenaeus discusses a trip by Polycarp to visit
Anicetus, bishop of Rome, 154—155 cE; see recently Schoedel, “Polycarp, Martyrdom of,”
393, who accepts the report without question, and Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi,
203-204, who discusses problems raised by Irenaeus’ report.
40. For further discussion see ch. 4, esp. comments on (a) 11—12, (b) 6-8, 9, (c) 6-8,
11-15, and ch. 5.
41. See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.1.552-577.
42. Walter Ewing Crum, Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes (2 vols.; New York: Metro-
politan Museum ofArt, 1926) 1.205.
43. Bentley Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Ac-
quired since the Year 1906 (London: British Library, 1987) 201; see 201-203 for a general
 Introduction 9

work has remained virtually unknown to the scholarly community and, due
to the lack of an edition, unavailable for general use and consideration.
So far as I can determine based on the written record, the literary frag-
ments of the Harris collection were first described by Arthur Des Riviéres
in a letter to Mr. Harris dated 29 February 1848.** Though little is known
about Mr. Des Riviéres, it is certain that he copied and made French trans-
lations of several Coptic works while based in Cairo and/or Alexandria.** As
a matter of fact, it is Des Riviéres’ transcripts which enabled ongoing schol-
arly consideration of various texts within the Harris collection even when
the actual fragments of the collection were thought to be lost.‘°
In his letter about the texts within the Harris collection, Des Riviéres
grants FrgPol pride of place, after making the general statement that
“many of these [fragments] are of great interest regarding the history of the
Church.”*’ His very identification of FrgPol as a work “on the martyrdom of
Saint Polycarp, student of Saint John the evangelist” provides some indica-
tion of the distinctiveness of FrgPol, since nowhere in the familiar report of
Polycarp's martyrdom, MartPol, is the Smyrnaean bishop associated with
John.*8
The Harris collection of Coptic fragments has been associated with
some degree of intrigue, including its presumed loss following the bom-
bardment of Alexandria in 1882. Several fragments which were earlier
identified as part of the collection are still missing. It appears certain, based
on written records, that none of the texts contained on the missing papyrus
leaves is concerned with Polycarp.””

discussion of these fragments and the codex of which they are a part. The Bohairic version re-
ferred to is the same as that discussed above (Boh).
44. Published in Bulletin de l'institut francais d'archéologie orientale (BIF) 5 (1906)
88-91.
45. See Joseph Aumer and Karl Felix Halm, Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum Bib-
liothecae Regiae Monacensis III.4: Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften der k. Hof-
und Staatsbibliothek in Miinchen mit Ausschluss der hebritischen, arabischen und persischen
(Munich: Palm, 1875) 103; see also Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts, xxxiv,
225-226.
46. For discussion and bibliography see Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts,
xxxiv; also Crum, “Coptic Texts Relating to Dioscorus of Alexandria,” Proceedings of the So-
ciety of Biblical Archaeology 25 (1903) 267.
47. BIF 5 (1906) 89.
48. BIF 5 (1906) 89; for further discussion see ch. 4, esp. comments on (a) 11-12,
(b) 6-8, 9, (c) 6-8, 11-15, (e) 14-21, and ch. 5.
49. Fora survey of the modern history of the Harris collection, see Layton, Catalogue of
Coptic Literary Manuscripts, xxxiii—xliv.
10 Polycarp and John

Ancient Production and Preservation of the Harris Fragments

The fragments of the Harris collection are from papyrus codices which
were copied in the Sahidic dialect (Sah). As described by Layton, their con-
tents comprise a range of literature: “biblical texts (from both testaments),
a Biblical lectionary, and a number of edifying miscellanies containing Acts
of Martyrs, lives and encomia of saints and holy persons (many Egyptian),
homilies, moralizing epistles, etc.”*” The geographical source of the frag-
ments is not known. Crum’s chapter on “Literature” within his important
work on the Egyptian monastery of Epiphanius contains the ony sustained
treatment of the question of the provenance of the collection.”
With the goal of describing as nearly as possible those works “read by
Theban ascetics about the year 600,”” Crum’s study centers on a unique
find—an ancient catalogue written on an ostracon.”* Using this catalogue,
“actual remains’ of literary works, and “chance references occurring in the
texts,” Crum develops a “combined list” of works available in monastery
libraries in seventh-century Thebes.™* FrgPol is included in that recon-
structed list.”
Unfortunately, since the core of the reconstructed list is an ancient cata-
logue whose provenance is itself unknown,” the study's conclusions can
be accepted only with caution. Nonetheless, until paleographers and codi-
cologists can with confidence confirm, or seriously question, this projected
list of works read by Theban ascetics about the year 600, it will provide ten-

50. Ibid., xxxiii.

51. Crum, Monastery of Epiphanius 1.196—208.
52. Ibid., 1.196.
53. U. Bouriant, “Notes de voyage, 1: Catalogue de la bibliotheque du couvent d’Amba
Helias,” Recueil de travaux relatifs a la philologie et a l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes ||
(1889) 131-138.
54. Crum, Monastery of Epiphanius |.196—206.
55. lpsol,, tlPADS).
56. The published report by U. Bouriant indicates that he obtained the ostracon cata-
logue in December 1888, “through a shopkeeper of Luxor . . . [who] assured me that he had
purchased this ostracon from Gournah [at the site of ancient Thebes].” Bouriant goes on to
speculate that the limestone fragment must have been brought to Gournah by an inhabitant
of Kos (or, Qous) since “the ruins of Qous are extensive and for many years exploited by the
Arabs with little impunity” (Bouriant, “Notes de voyage 1,” 131).
Bouriant’s incorrect translation of the Coptic phrase TKA@EKH HMKwwe as “The instruc-
tion (of the diocese) of Kos” (“Notes de Voyage 1,” 134), doubtless led him to associate the
catalogue with Kos (or, Qous). Crum, Monastery of Epiphanius 1.198 n. 6, recognized that
Kwwe is not a place name, but rather the Coptic word for “burial” or “funeral”; see also René-
Georges Coquin, “Le catalogue de la bibliothéque du couvent de Saint Elie ‘du Rocher,” BIF
75 (1975) 207-239, esp. 207.
 Introduction 1]

tative historical context to the occasion for the copying and maintenance of
the fragments of the Harris collection.”
Original Location of the Work
The author, date, and provenance of this work on Polycarp are not known.
Broadly set, the termini for the date of composition can be stated as follows:
(1) the work must have been written before the seventh century, which
is when the fragments in the Harris collection were, apparently, copied;
(2) the work must have been written after the middle of the second century,
following Polycarp’s martyrdom. The original language of composition is
unknown. Among the goals of this work are the consideration of several cri-
teria which allow for some narrowing of these broadly stated termini. In my
opinion, it is likely that this work was composed in Greek during or after
the third century, within the Christian community at Smyrna.*®

4. Goal and Scope of This Book

Without a critical edition of the Sahidic text on Polycarp found in the

Harris fragments, this unique work cannot be studied effectively. The pre-
sentation of such a critical edition is found in chapter 1. Following a dis-
cussion of editorial method and the physical characteristics of the frag-
ments, the text is edited in literary format. Two registers are included in the
critical edition: (1) Parallels to other ancient literature, particularly in works
associated with Polycarp or John;” (2) Text Critical Notes which make
comments, as necessary, about the ink traces on, and physical characteris-
tics of, the papyrus surface; also included here are possible restorations of
missing text.°°

57. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts, xxiv: “The science of Coptic pale-
ography and codicology is still in its infancy’; see also Layton’s essays, “The Recovery of
Gnosticism—The Philologist’s Task in the Investigation of Nag Hammadi,” Second Century
1 (1981) 85-99, and “Towards a New Coptic Paleography,” Acts of the Second International
Congress of Coptic Study, Rome 22-26 September 1980 (ed. 'T. Orlandi and F. Wisse; Rome:
CIM, 1985) 149-158, esp. 152.
58. For further discussion, see ch. 5.
59. Ancient works are, for the most part, cited in the (Greek, Latin, or Coptic) original;
Syriac and Ethiopic texts are cited in English translation. The reader unacquainted with a
given ancient language can follow up most references quite readily through published trans-
lations.
60. For further explanation of editorial method, including symbols used, see ch. 1.
he Polycarp and John

Chapter 2 provides an English translation of the text. Along with the

translation is included a register of Possible Restorations which make avail-
able to the English reader the textual restorations suggested within the Text
Critical Notes. Those who do not know Coptic but are familiar with Greek
and Latin may take almost full advantage of the register of parallels in chap-
ter 1; simply locate the parallels for a given line or lines (the line references
in the translation match those of the critical edition). Those who do not
know the ancient languages may likewise locate the parallels for a given
line or lines and then consult translations of the sources cited.
Chapter 3 is a short essay on the narrative strategy of FrgPol, including
an outline of the work. It will orient the reader to the whole of FrgPol, to the
degree that that can be known, before a sustained treatment of its parts is
taken up in the Commentary. Of particular interest are the methods by
which the ancient author depicts Polycarp and John, and the differences of
the narrated action in FrgPol as compared to that of MartPol.
The Commentary in chapter 4 is arranged in a conventional format:
a given lemma followed by a comment or a series of comments. This for-
mat allows for the examination of particular descriptions of Polycarp and
John in light of other ancient literature, Christian and pagan, as well as
archaeological data. Further, the variations between FrgPol and MartPol
are discussed, with reference to both text traditions of MartPol.°!
The final chapter provides the opportunity to pursue in detail certain
central matters which have not received sustained consideration within the
Commentary. The isolation of certain characteristics—the particular treat-
ment of John, the particular treatment of Polycarp as a student of John,
and the unique understanding of the necessity of Polycarp’s martyrdom—
provides the opportunity to locate a historical context for the authorship of
this work.
FrgPol provides a unique witness to early Christian understandings of
Polycarp, the apostle John, and more broadly, matters of apostolicity and
martyrdom. The chapters in this book, beginning with the text edition and
translation, are meant to build on each other in providing an informed in-
troduction to, and understanding of, this unique work and the literary tra-
ditions which it engages.
All translations of ancient literature and of secondary literature in lan-
guages other than English are mine unless otherwise noted.”

61. Including Boh which, as noted above, is part of Eusebian text tradition.
62. All translations of FrgPol are identical with those provided in the translation in ch. 2;
however, in the interest of readability, line breaks are not indicated elsewhere than in ch. 2.
 CHAN PEER: ONE

Text Edition of the Harris

Fragments on Polycarp

1. Introduction

The Sahidic text on Polycarp which is edited below is found on four

papyrus fragments in the Harris collection of Coptic papyri in the British
Library, London: Or.7561, nos. 55, 56, 63, and 64. The fragments have
been reconstructed as three separate papyrus leaves in accordance with
their presentation in Layton’s Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in
the British Library Acquired since the Year 1906.' Each papyrus leaf ex-
hibits text on both of its sides, making a total of six pages of text. For ease
of reference, I have assigned each page of the reconstructed text a con-
secutive letter.
Physical Description of the Fragments
The measurements of the papyrus fragments recorded below were made
by me at the British Library, Oriental and India Office Collections, in May
1992. Most of the other observations recorded herein were also made at
that time. In addition, I have regularly consulted photographs of the frag-

1. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts, 201-202, provides the following re-
construction of the order of the fragments: (63v), (63r), (64r + 56v), (64v + 56r), (55v), (55r).
Of the significance of the identifications “recto” and “verso,” Layton writes: “in the descrip-
tions, the ‘recto’ of the papyrus (and other) fragments refers merely to the side with British
Museum/Library label; this term has no relationship to the true recto side of the fragment as
it was anciently found” (lix).

13
14 Polycarp and John

ments produced by the British Library in 1985 and graciously loaned to me

by Bentley Layton.
The descriptions below regularly include such observations as “| stan-
dard letter is lacking.” A “standard letter’ unit = a lacuna sufficient to suit
1 standard letter (1: being the standard) plus | interliteral space.

1. Page (a) = frag. 63v. 122 x 141 mm (maximum); written area, 117 x
116 mm (maximum); damaged fragment of a much larger manuscript leaf.
13 lines of text are extant; ? lines of text are lacking before the first extant
line; ? lines of text are lacking after the last extant line. At the left margin,
approx. 3—4 standard letters are lacking in each extant line; at the right
margin, 3—5 standard letters are lacking in lines 1-3 and 12-13.
2. Page (b) = frag. 63r. Height and width are the same as page (a); writ-
ten area is 120 x 122 mm (maximum). 13 lines of text are extant; ? lines of
text are lacking before the first extant line; ? lines of text are lacking after
the last extant line. At the left margin, 3-5 standard letters are lacking
in lines 1—3 and line 13 (traces of the bottoms of letters are visible at line 4;
traces of the tops of letters are visible at line 12); at the right margin, ap-
prox. 6 standard letters are lacking in each extant line.
3. Page (c) = frags. 64r + 56v. The manuscript leaf of which this page
represents one side, is reconstructed from two separately labeled frag-
ments. 24 lines of text are extant, including the last line of the page; ? lines
of text are lacking before the first extant line.
For the first 10 lines, page (c) = 64r. 91 x 92 mm (maximum); written
area is 89 x 84 mm (maximum). At the left margin, 4 standard letters are
lacking in each extant line; at the right margin, 3 standard letters.
For lines 11-24, page (c) = 56v. 179 x 183 mm (maximum); written
area, 135 x 150 mm (maximum). At the left margin, 1 standard letter is
lacking in lines 11—16, traces of the first letter of the line are visible in lines
17-19; for the last 5 lines the text is complete; at the right margin the text is
complete. In the middle of the manuscript page a piece is torn away leaving
a fraying hole, affecting lines 19-24.
4. Page (d) = frags. 64v + 56r. This page is the reverse side of the same
reconstructed manuscript leaf of which page (c) is a part. 24 lines of text
are extant, including last line on page; ? lines of text are lacking before the
first extant line.
For the first 10 lines, page (d) = 64v. Height and width are same as the
first 10 lines of page (c), 64r; written area, 90 x 84 mm (maximum). At the
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 15

left margin, approx. 3 standard letters are lacking in each extant line; at
the right margin, approx. 4 standard letters.
For lines 11-24, page (d) = 56r. Height and width are the same as
lines 11—24 of page (c), 56v; written area, 139 x 148 mm (maximum). At
the left margin the text is complete; at the right margin, 1-2 standard let-
ters are lacking in lines 11-18; for lines 19-24 the text is complete. In the
middle of the manuscript page a piece is torn away leaving a fraying hole,
affecting lines 19-24.
5. Page (e) = frag. 55v. This is the best-preserved single manuscript
leaf, 226 x 200 mm (maximum); written area, 190 x 157 mm (maximum).
21 lines of text are extant, including the first line on page; ? lines of text
are lacking after the last extant line. Parts of the top of the manuscript leaf
are broken off with attendant fraying: at the left margin, | standard letter
is lacking in line 1 and ambiguous traces of two standard letters are visible
in line 2; at the right margin, 1—2 standard letters are lacking in lines 1-3.
Also, the bottom of the papyrus leaf is broken and frayed: at the left mar-
gin, 2 standard letters are lacking in lines 18-20; the final extant line of
text is badly damaged.
6. Page (f) = frag. 55r. Height and width are the same as page (e); writ-
ten area, 191 x 158 mm (maximum). 21 lines of text are extant, including
the first line of the page; ? lines of text are lacking after the last extant line.
Parts of the top of the manuscript leaf are broken off with attendant fray-
ing: at the left margin, 2 standard letters are lacking in line 1, and | stan-
dard letter in lines 2—3; at the right margin, | standard letter is lacking, and
ambiguous traces of another are visible, in lines 1-2. Also, the bottom of
the papyrus leaf is broken and frayed: at the right margin, 2 standard letters
are lacking in lines 18—20; the final extant line of text is badly damaged.

Sigla
A. Editorial Signs
[] lacuna in manuscript
[---] lacuna of unspecified length
[.] lacuna long enough to suit 1 standard letter (n being the standard)
and 1 interliteral space; [..], 2 letters and 2 interliteral spaces, etc.,
up to 5
[©] lacuna long enough to suit 6 standard letters and 6 interliteral
spaces; [ 7 ], 7 letters and 7 interliteral spaces, etc.
unidentified letter trace
16 Polycarp and John

d paleographically ambiguous letter trace

raised point in manuscript
hook or apostrophe in manuscript
‘ dot on line in manuscript
|or || new line of manuscript commences (|| every 5th line)
- Hyphenation added by the modern editor
vacat; blank space sufficient for | standard letter (1) and | interliteral
space; °” space for 2 letters and 2 interliteral spaces, etc.

B. Abbreviations

Gk Greek (language)
pap. the reading of the papyrus; text of the manuscript
poss. possibly
Sah Sahidic (dialect of the Coptic language)
SC: scilicet, namely
superlin. superlinear stroke
UV ultraviolet

Format
Following the presentation of each page of text are two registers.
The register of Parallels identifies particular phrases and units of nar-
rated action found in FrgPol and other ancient literature. The words and
phrases which most directly parallel the text of FrgPol are underlined for
easy identification. For further discussion of particular phrases and units of
narrated actions, see chapter 4. For comparison of the narrative structure
of FrgPol with that of MartPol, see chapter 3.
The Text Critical Notes include paleographical notes about the state of
the manuscript, as well as possible restorations. Only restorations which
meet criteria of physical size? and grammatical and syntactical compati-
bility are registered.

2. The proposed restoration must fit the given lacuna. [N.B. The number of letters in the
proposed restoration may exceed the number of standard letter units for a given lacuna due
to one or both of the following factors: in this manuscript, certain letters consistently occupy
less space than the standard letter unit (e.g., i and o); letters at the end of a line are some-
times crowded (this affects the restoration of lacunas at the ends of lines).|
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 17

2. The Fragments

(a) = 63v

one or more lines lacking; possibly 2 or more pages precede]

[8 }vepL....] | [....Je fnenxoei[c...]|

[....].
ye Boa on[....]|

3 [...].BWK EBOA INTOIKOY || [MEN]H THPG,

eTpenoya Moy | [A MMJOOY XWK EROA NNEY|LAPO]MOC SNATOU‘

ENTAY|[TOWMJOY Epooy*

10 eayxak| [EROA] HNTAMEOEI NI |[TAN]Tepo NA[N]HYe

ETOM|[NEIC]MNT THPY KATATMAPI [TYPHUS
ANANMOCTOAOC..]|

[.... JEAXYXONTOL..JLIL.II

[one or more lines lacking]

PARALLELS

1-8 ---]TEp[ to [TOWJOY EpOOY

---]ter[ to [assigned] to them:

Matt 24:14 kai knpux8noetat TovTO TO EvayyéeAtov Tis Bactrelas Ev

OAQ TH
OlKOULEVY Els LapTUPLOV TGOW Tols EBveoW, Kal TOTE
NEet TO TEAOS.
Matt 28:19 tropevdévtes ov pabnTevoaTte TavTa TA EON...
Mark 16:15 Kai eitev avtots (sc. “the eleven”) Topevbévtes Els TOV
KOOMLOV ATavTa KnpVEATE TO EVayyEXLOV TAO TH KTLOEL
Luke 24:47 kai KnpuxOfvat ett TH OVOLAaTL avTOD pLETAVOLaV Eis
apeow apapTav cis Tavta Ta EVN apEdpevor ATO "JepovoaAT.
byets (sc. “the eleven... and those who were with them”) aptupes
TOUTWW.
John 17:18 KaOds Epé (sc. “Jesus”) dTEOTELAAS Eis TOV KOOLOV KAYO
atéotetka avtovs (sc. “his disciples”) eg TOV KOdpLOV
18 Polycarp and John

1 Clem. 42.1-4 ot dttéoTodoL .. . KATA _XWpPAS OvV Kal TOAELS KNPUO-

OOVTES KABiOTAVOV TAS ATIAaPXAS AUTOV
Kerygma Petri 3a? (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI.5.43) Ata TodT6
dnow 0 Tlétpos eipnkévat TOV KUPLOV TOLS GTOOTOAOLS . . . WETA
(S€) SW5eka ETN ECEAVETE ELS TOV KOOHOV...
Kerygma Petri 3b (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI.6.48) kal atoo-
TOAOUS TLOTOUS Tynodpevos eElvat TéuTW ET TOV KOGLOV
evayyed\loaobat TOUS KATA THY OLKOULEVNVY AVOPWTTIOUS .. .
Epistula Apostolorum 30* Go (gwk) you and preach to the twelve tribes
and preach also to the gentiles . . .
Acts of Thomas 1.1> Kat SteiAaev (sc. “we apostles”) Ta kM\ipwaTta THs
olkoupévns, OTWS Els EKaOTOS NOV Ev TO KAiaTL TO AAXOVTL
avT@ Kal Eis TO EBVOS EV @ O KUPLOS aUTOV aTEOTELAEV TOpEvOA
Syriac History of John® When these words had been spoken among the
blessed assembly of the Apostleship, they parted from one another

3. Chapter numbers as found in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “The Kerygma Petri,” in New

Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses, and Related Sub-
jects (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; tr. R.McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1992) 34-41.
4. Tr. and chapter divisions, C. Detlef G. Miiller, “Epistula Apostolorum,” in New Tes-
tament Apocrypha, vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, tr.
R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 249-284, 267.
5. For departure statements in other apocryphal acts, see Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “Les
scénes d’attribution des champs de mission et de départ de l’apétres (Eusébe, HE III,1,
1-3),” Les actes apocryphes des apétres: Christianisme et monde paien (Francois Bovon, et al.;
Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de I'Université de Genéve 4; Geneva: Labor et Fides,
1981) 249-264, esp. 252-259. Not included therein are: Acts of Peter and the Twelve V1,1
5.12-14, “It is necessary for us to spread the word of God in every city harmoniously” (tr.
Douglas M. Parrott and R. McL. Wilson, “The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles [VI,1],”
in James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English [3rd ed.; San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1988] 287-294, 291); and, The Letter of Peter to Philip, “Then, when the
apostles had come together (133.17—19) .. . the apostles answered and said . . . : ‘How did we
come to this place?’ And: ‘In what manner shall we depart [awk]? (134.18—26).... Then the
apostles parted from each other” (140.23—24; tr. Frederik Wisse, “The Letter of Peter to
Philip [VHI,2],” in Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 431-437). For the
Coptic text of The Letter of Peter to Philip, see Frederik Wisse, ed. and tr., “NHC VIII,2:
Letter of Peter to Philip,” in John H. Sieber, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex VIII (NHS, no. 31;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991) 234-251. For another occurrence of “depart” (8wk) in The Letter of
Peter to Philip, see 140.19.
6. Tr. W. Wright, “The History of John, the Son of Zebedee, The Apostle and Evangelist,”
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (London: Williams and Norgate, 1871) 2.2-60, 4—5; for Syriac
text, see 1.465, 5.
The Syriac History ofJohn is posterior to the Acts ofJohn (AJn); perhaps fourth century. For
discussion, see Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Acta Iohannis (Corpus Christianorum,
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 19

in the body . . . Each of them then went to such country and

region as he was charged by the grace (of God).
HE 3.1.1 TOv d€ LepOv Tov GwTfpos Hav aTOOTOAWwY TE Kai LadnTaV
Ed ATACAVY KATAOTIAPEVTWY THY CLKOULEVV
Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms’ oi Tod owTipos Hav padyntai Kai
amooTonot, Kai evayyeAtoTal, tT} Te AoLTY a’TOU OTpaTeEia...
KTH LSLov TOLNOAPEVOL SLEvEelLaVTO Eis GAANAOUS....[TOV...
aTooTOAWY EkaoTos] Ta EE EOVGV EkANpOdTO OKUAA.
Didascalia Apostolorum 238 Cum autem diuidissemus inter nos
duodecim uncias saeculi et exiuimus ad gentes ut in omni mundo
praedicaremus verbum

8-11 eGayxak| [E8OA] to NEiC]WNT THPY

while they com| [pleted] to the whole of [this cr]eation:

Matt 24:14 kal knpvx8njoeTat ToUTO TO EvayyéALov Tis Baotdetas Ev

OAN TH OLKOVLEV ELS LAaPTUPLOV TGOLW Tois EBVEeoLY, Kal TOTE
Neel TO TEXOS.
Mark 16:15 Kai citev avtois (sc. “the eleven”) topevdévtes Eis TOV
KOOLOV aTavTa KNnpvEATE TO EvaYYEALOV TdON TH KTiCEL.
Luke 9:2 kal améoTetAev avTous Knptvocetv THY BaolreLav TOU BEot
Kal \do8at...
Luke 24:47 kai knpuxOfvat etl TH OVOLATL AUTOD LLEeTaVOLAaV Eis
abeow ayapTidv eis TavTa Ta €O8vn apEdpevor ato ‘lep-
OUOAAT]LL. UpeEts (sc. “the eleven . . . and those who were with
them”) pdptupes TOUTW.
1 Clem. 42.1-3 ot amdéoToAo .. . evayyeALCOpevot THY BactreLav TOD
Peov LéAAELV Epxea#at
AH 4.34.5 suos Apostolos misit [Salvator] in mundum, pure adventum
ejus annuntiantes

Series Apocryphorum 1—2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983) 2.707—7 17; Knut Schaferdiek, “Acts of
John,” in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles,
161; and Wright, ApocryphalActs of the Apostles 1 .ix.
7. PG 697c. The “apostles” named in this section are (in order) Paul, Peter, and John.
8. For a second reference in Didascalia Apostolorum to the assigning of territories, see
ch. 25; for the Syriac version, see Arthur Védbus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac,
II: Chapters XI-XXVI (CSCO 407, Scriptores Syri 179; Louvain: CSCO, 1979) 229: for
ch. 25, 240.
20 Polycarp and John

Epistula Apostolorum 19° and preach concerning the (heavenly) kingdom

of my Father !°
Epistula Apostolorum 42!! — for you have revealed to them . . . the things of
the Kingdom of heaven (NTMNTppo NNnHyYe)
HE 3.24.3 Tis Tov ovpavav Baotrtetas THY yvdow etl Tdcav
KATHY YEAAOV THY OLKOULEVV

For similar descriptions of the preaching of particular apostles, see also

Acts 8:12, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31, as well as the non-canonical acts.

TEXT CRITICAL NOTES

1-2 ]repl....JIL...1e: for ¢ can also be read € or 9 (bottom right curve

plus vertical tail): for similarly shaped omicrons, see (a) 6, (f) 8
poss. NJTEp[ENnano]|[CTOAO]c¢ for pl. subject see(a) 5, Moya Moya; for
NAMOCTOAOC see (b) 12; for AMOCTOAOC MMXOEIC see (e)15
2 MNENXOEIC...]: poss. HNENXOEILC COOY2], see Acts 10:27, 15:6;
The Mysteries of St. John and the Holy Virgin (in E. A. Wallis Budge, Coptic
Texts [5 vols; 1910—1915; New York: AMS, 1977] vol. 3, 59), aqrpeoyk-
AOOAG KWTE ENEXWPA THPOY ETEPENAMOCTOAOC NoHToy
accooy2oy e20yn; The Letter of Peter to Philip 140.13, ayw aycwoy2
wanely]epny (sc. “Peter and the other apostles”); also Acts ofAndrew and
Matthias 1 tavtes ot aTOOTOXOL ETL TO AUTO GUVAXBEVTES Kal ELEPLCOV
EAUTOLS TAS XWPAS
reading of lacuna poss. ends with a dot on line (,); see (b) 12, (d) 21, (f)
3,8
Sales a poss. [AYMO]OWE
ON.[....]: for letter trace can be read @, N, or M (top left horizontal stroke);
fore a ee shape see (b) 13
poss. 2N-eflAnM], see Luke 24:47

9. This section extant only in Ethiopic.

10. Tr. Miiller, “Epistula Apostolorum,” 259. Two of the five extant manuscript witnesses
to the Ethiopic version contain “heavenly”; Carl Schmidt, ed., Gespriiche Jesu mit Seinen
Jiingern nach derAuferstehung: Ein katholisch-apostolisches Sendschreiben des 2. Jahrhunderts
(TU 43; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1919) 62.
“The kingdom of the father” is used in Gos. Thom. 113 as a synonym for the “the kingdom
of heaven” or “the kingdom of God.”
11. Tr. Miller, “Epistula Apostolorum,” 273.
 ‘Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 21

reading of lacuna poss. ends with a raised point(*)

4 [...].BWK: poss. [AYW AJYBWK; more than three (less than four) standard
letters fit in lacuna
10 "n]Tepo: superlin. above T not extant due to tear in papyrus leaf;
for o can be read €, @, or C
11 [(neicjwnt: for w can be read o or w; for cwnT, see Mark 16:15b
Sah, NTETNTAMEOEIW HNEyaArreEAlon HMNCWNT THPG; for the demon-
strative article mei, see Ps 73:18 Sah, aprmMeeye HNEicwnT ATAK
12 MnanocToaoc: for ¢ can be read Q or €; trace of top of letter
remains; surface layer of papyrus fibers broken off at left border of letter
trace
13 xonTo: for o can also be read €, @, or © (top left curve of letter
extant)
Superlin. visible three standard letter spaces from end of line
22 Polycarp and John

(b) = 63%

[one or more lines lacking]

[> Jone ?? j| L..JKON NtTMapefenta...JI[..JeE NAC

5 enmMa\lNn.....JIL].NTCHYE MNN[® J|| MNNBACANOC N-
WP Ny
NA[IKACTH]|PION

AUMORN AE [...]|CMU NOYMAOHTHIC....]| PAN ME

MOAYKAPM[OC
10 AYO]| AGAAU NENMICKON[OC EXN]||CMYPNA TNOAIC..L....]|

NTEPOYNKOTK AE T[HPOY]| N6INATIOCTOAOC,

AL... JIL. JKEMXAOHTHC EML....]|

[one or more lines lacking; possibly 2 or more pages lacking before (c)]

PARALLELS

6—-8a aqwmwxn to NMOAYKAPN[OC

There remained to Polycar[p:

Boh 62.10-12 a1 (sc. Polycarp) eTaquwm HMAOHTHC

NNIAMOCTOAOC EAGMOW! NEMOYMHY) ETAYNAY EMSC
HE 3.36.1 Avtétmpetev ye pv Kata ToUTOUs ET Tis Actas TaV aToo-
TOAWY OLLANTHS TloAvKapTIOSs
HE 4.14.3 = AH 3.3.4 kat HodvKaptros 5€ ov LOvov UTO ATOOTOAWY
pabytevbets Kal ouvavaotpadels TroAdOts Tots TOV KUPLOV
EOPAKOOWW
HE 5.20.6 (Irenaeus, “Letter to Florinus”) kai Thv peta "lwdvvou
ovwvavaoTpodny ws aTyyeArev (sc. Polycarp) kat THY PETA TOV
AOLTOV TOV EOPAKOTWVY TOV KUPLOV
HE 5.24.16 peta “Iwavvov tot paSntod tod Kupiou nav Kai TOV
hoiTaV ATOGTOAWY Os (6 ModAvKaptos) GuVdteTpUbev
Vir 17 Joannis apostoli discipulus . . . qui nonnullos apostolorum, et
eorum qui viderant Dominum, magistros habuerit et viderit (sc.
Polycarp)
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 23

Actslg 3 pa®ntat Iwdvvov (sc. Ignatius and Polycarp)

Acts of John by Prochorus 188.9-12!* 6 dméoTodos Tod xpLoTod (6
‘Twdvns) . . . KataduTdv éxetoe tpdeSpov BovKorov Kai
HodvKaptov, Tovs avtod pabytds...

8—10 AYO]| AYAdC tO TNOAIC..[....]

and] he made him to the [---] city:

Boh 62.12-13 $a eTayT2ENCOY NEMICKONOC VEN FACIR Exen-

TEKKAHCIA ETIEN CMypPNa; see also Boh 62.10—12 above
Tertullian, On the Prescription against the Heretics, 32.2 Hoc enim modo
ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnaeorum
ecclesiae Polycarpum ab Iohanne collocatum refert
HE 3.36.1 Tis kata Lpvpvav ExkrAnolas pds TOV avToTTaV kal
UTMNPETOV TOU KUPLOU TV ETLOKOTIT EYKEXELPLOLEVOS
HE 4.14.3 = AH 3.3.4 kai umd atootéAwy Kataotabeis cis TH
‘Aotav €v Th ev Luvpvy exkAnoia etioKoTos
Vir 17 ab eo (loanno) Smyrnae episcopus ordinatus
VPol 23 oi ov Stdkovot Tpoonyayov Tpds Thy bd TOV yELPaV TOV
ETLOKOTIWWY KATA TO EBOS YLoLeVnV XELpoPectav
Acts of John in Rome 14!? 6 ‘Iwdvuns . . . yevopnevos 8€ ynpadéos Kai
LETAAAGOOWY ETLOKOTEVELY THY EKKANOiav T@ ToAvKdpTW
EVEKENEVOATO

11-13 NTeEpoyNKOTK AE T[HPOY]] N6SINAMOCTOAOC to KEMXO@HTHC

After alll] the apostles had died to other disciple|[s]:

Vir 19. Quadratus apostolorum discipulus

See also above parallels to (b) 6-8, 8-10, esp. Acts ofJohn by Prochorus
188.9-12, Vir 17, and Acts of John in Rome 14.

12. A fifth-century (or later) work; for further discussion see esp. Junod and Kaestli, Acta
Iohannis, 7-8, 147, 748. References to the Greek text are to page and line in Theodor Zahn,
ed., Acta Joannis (Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1880) 3-165.
13. Acts of John in Rome is dated to the “post-Constantinian” era by Junod and Kaestli,
Acta Iohannis, 857-860, who argue for its dependence on the third book of HE.
24 Polycarp and John

TEXT CRITICAL NOTES

1 extended superlin. above 2n not extant due to broken papyrus leaf

2 }Kon: for K can be read a or A
nape: for @ can be read €, 0, or ©
3 Ma: dread from small, ambiguous trace
4 superlin. above w not visible due to broken papyrus leaf
5 NNAL: misplaced papyrus flake is partially covering the letter trace
A(IKACTH]|PtlOnN: for HRACANOC MMAIKACTHPION see the Martyrdom of
St. Coluthus, 89r1; for AiKACTHPION see (e) 9, 13, 19
6 Ae: misplaced papyrus flake is partially covering the letter trace
6-7 [...]|CwY: poss. [MNN]|cwq
7-8 ....]|PAN: poss. EMEq]|PAN
9 Ex]: see Boh 62.12—13 (in register of parallels, above), Exen
10 NOAIC..[: poss. read NOAIC[.].[; ambiguous traces (the bottom of a
vertical stroke, a curve below the line)
11 superlin. above w? not visible due to tear in papyrus leaf.
12 Ns: N read from small, ambiguous traces
12-13 aL...JIL..J: poss. A[YS6M N]|[6IN]JKEMACHTHC
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 25

(c) = 64r + 56v

[one or more lines lacking; possibly 2 or more pages lacking after (b)]

[ ° J.NCANeYOL.JIL...NE]JONHY THPOY’Y

L.JIL..GUPE NOENWAHA.L.
JIL...) MOYN GBOA AL...]||
5 [...]}e1y"!/*Y GROA XEFIL...]] L... AQT MAyalad
Nj [MMa}onTHC NNanoc[ro}]|[Aoc*!/2%y

NECQWOON AE NL...]|[NTE]KKAHCIA THPC

10 LIT L-YI2AA0 Ne EqaNawed{To]] [Njpoune*!/2¥

NEQMOOWE AE [OINNKANWN ENTAUTCABO| [E]POOY

15 XINTEUMNTKOY| [E]BOA DITNIMZANNHC Mal |[MOCTOAOC,

WANTUNWw2| [E]TEWHAIKIA NTEISOT™

ayw| NEYWINE Ncwd

ENAY EPOY| N6INEXPICTIANOC THPOY|

ENTAYCWTM ENEY\BIOC,
20 N||ee NoEnwMHpe NCNHCIOC|
eywine Acan[e]yewwT

neilovoT AG ON N[E]GwWoon Naq| ne

ETNTPEd[P]NwEw Npwl|Me nim E[(NTAY]AMANTA EPod’

PARALLELS

2 NEJCNHY THPOY
all [the] siblings:

Boh 64.6—-7!4 nicnHoy Ac ETenneqKwt

HE 4.15.11)? Tav aderdbav
Boh 64.24-25 Wrenicnnoy

14. Greek parallels to this passage in Boh do not refer to Polycarp's circle as adehdot:
ot TAEtous, MPol 5.1; tots aud avtov, HE 4.15.9.
15. The parallel to this passage in MPol (6.1) includes no reference to Polycarp’s circle.
26 Polycarp and John

3 El]|pe NOENWAHA
ma|ke prayers:

MPol 5.1 viKta kal nlépav ovSEV ETEPOV TOLWV N TPOGEVXOWLEVOS

HE 4.15.9 vvxtwp kai ped’ népav ovTL ETEPpOV TPaTTOVTA 7 Tats
TPOS TOV KUPLOV SLAKAPTEPOUVTA EVXAtS
Boh 64.10-11 arra AmeE200y NEMMIEXwWp2 NAUGMHN MMAYATC NE
ENIMAHA MIM6C
MPol 5.2 kai TpodevxdpEvos EV OTTTAGLa YE YOVEV
HE 4.15.10 kat 5 evxouevov, Ev OTTTACLa
Boh 64.15-16 Roy2opama SwpH NA EBOA MMEXWP2 ECUVAHA
MPol 7.3 ota8els tpoonvEato
HE 4.15.14 avaotas nuyxeTto
Boh 65.14—15 aqTwnq AqaAHA
MPol 15.1 avatépbavtos S€ avTOv TO ALN Kal TANPWOAVTOS THY
EUXT
HE 4.15.36 avatéudsavtos S€ avTot TO apy Kal TANPWOAVTOS THY
TIPOGEVYNV
Boh 70.7-8 ETaAqoywpn AG ENWWi MMAMHN OYODX ETAUXWK EBROA
NTECGNPOCEYXH

4 MOYN GBOA
perseverance:

Boh 62.14 Ne AgWCK rap NE OYO? NEAYEPLEAAO EMAWW

See also above parallels to (c) 3, Boh 64.10—-11 mun.

7-8 MMAJGHTHC NNAMOC[TO]|[AOC]

the di]sciple[s] of the apos|[t] [les]:

Boh 62.2—3 MOAIKAPMOC PMASHTHC NNIAMOCTOAOC

Boh 62.10-11 mimakapiloc NOAIkapnoc ar ETAqMwWM MMSOHTHC
NNIAMOCTOAOC

See also above parallels to (b) 11-13.

 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp a7

8—9 NECWMOON AE NL... J|[NTE]KKAHCIA THPC

He was [---] [of the] whole [c]hurch:

Boh 70.28-71.1 at etTaqwwm Noao OYO2 NAMOCTOAOC Oyo?

MMPOPHTHC OYO? NEMICKOMOC NTE TKAGOAIKIKH!© HEKKAHCIA
HPC

10 [..YJ2AAO ne
[---] old man:

Boh 62.15 Neaqbearo EMawaw

MPol 7.2) thy AAtKktav avTod . . . TovodTov TpeaRUTHY dvbpa
HE 4.15.13 1T@ Tis nAtkias avtov tadkar®@ .. ., ToLovTov .
TpeoRUTHV
Boh 65.7-10 enetTniMt NTETECOHAIKIA ... OYKLEAAO HNaipHt
MPol 7.3 = HE 4.15.14 S8eotpeTh tpeoBiTHV
Boh 65.18-19 Nnawearo Anaiput... eTont at
HE 4.15.30!8 po Ths TOALaS
Boh 69.11 nme 2sentuEeTbEr,r,0
VPol 17 €tei SE AOLTOV OONLEpPat Kal NALKiG TPOEKOTITEV, T TE TIPO-
S5powos Tov ynpous ETNVOEL TOALA Kal AEUKT] TLS UTEP KPOTAdwV
OpiE NpXETO PELo.av

10-11 eEqanawed[To]| [N]poune

being one hundred and f[our] years of age:

MPol 9.3 oydorjKovta kai cE ETN EXW SovAEVWY AUTO

HE 4.15.20 oydojKkovta kai €€ ETN SovAEVW AUTO
Boh 67.3. tC HE NPOMM Wapooy FOl NBWK MMNA6SC

16. Suggested reading, tkaxeoaikn; Balestri and Hyvernat, Acta Martyrum II (Tex-
tus), 71.
17. Greek parallels to this passage (MPol 16.2; HE 4.15.39) include no equivalent to
THPC, “all.”
18. The parallel to this passage in MPol (13.2) includes no reference to Polycarp’s age.
28 Polycarp and John

11-15 nNequoowe to nal|[njocToAoc

He continued to walk to the a[pJostle:

Boh 62.15-17 eytcrw NCHOY NIBEN ENH ETAYSICBW EPWOY EROA

NTOTOY NNIANMOCTOAOG
AH “Prologus Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis I”'? Hyrenaeus, episcopus
civitas Lugdunensis, instructus_a Polycaro discipulo Johannis
apostoli...
HE 4.14.4 = AH 3.3.4 tatta &ddEas dei a Kal Tapd TOV aTOOTOAWY
Eyadev, d Kal N EKKANnOLa Trapadidwow”
HE 5.20.6 (Irenaeus, “Letter to Florinus”) kat tThv peta “Iwavvou
OvvavaoTpodny ws aTnHyyedrev Kal THY LETA TOV AOLTAV TOV
EOPAKOTWY TOV KUPLOV, Kal WS ATELYNWOVEVEV TOUS AOYOUS
avuTav
MPol postscript (Moscow MS only) Eipyvaios . . . Tap’ avtod
(IloduKdptros) Epadev ... Kal TOV EKKANOLAOTLKOV KaVvova Kal
KABOALKOV, WS TapéAaBEV Tapa TOU ayiou, Kal TapEdSwkEV
VPol 12 kai avtov (sc. Polycarp) vumo Kuptouv tatéev8fvat Kai €v
EkkKANnOla TOV THs KaTHXIGEWS ToIjoadPat Adyov. €560n OvV
uTO Xptotot TO EV TPMTOV SLdacKadias OpbSs EKKANOL-
AOTLKOS KABOALKOS KAVOV
Sozomen, Church History 7.19 ot 5€ €k Ths Aolas ‘Iwdavvn TO evayye-
ALOTH akodovbetv LaxuplCovToO

15-16 WanTynwg| (e]TEi2HAKia NTEIGOT

until he reached the stature of such a great age:

MPol 9.2 = HE 4.15.18 aidéoOnti cov Thy NAtKiav

Boh 66.20 aim 2dT2H ATEKIYAHKIA

See also above parallels to (c) 10.

19. In W. Wigan Harvey, Sancti Irenaei, Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Adversus
Haereses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857) 1 .clxxvii.
20. See similarly HE 4.14.5.
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 29

16-19 ayu| neyawine to eneqsioc

And all . . . who had heard about his way of life used to seek
after him:

VPol 21 Oxdot .. . ot Lev EiSd6TES, ol 5€ ETLBULOdVTES Ek TOD dKovELW

Tepl avtov Tov ModvKaptrov SedaacPat

Pat n[e]yYeElwt
th[ei]r father:

MPol 12.2 = HE 4.15.26 6 Tathp Ta ypLtoTLavav

Boh 68.15-16 eE¢iwTt ne NNIXpHCTIXZNOC
VPol27 [Camerius, a deacon, addresses Polycarp] pakdpte Tatra

21-23 neilgMoT Ac ON N[EJQ(MOoOon Naq| ne

He had this gift:

MPol 7.3 tANpNs OV THs xdpLTOS TOU Heo

HE 4.15.14 €tAews Ths xapltTOs Wy Tov KUpPtoU
Boh 65.15 GqNes EROAVEN MYNOT NTEN6SC

23-24 eETMTPEU[P]NwB® Npw|Me NIM E[NTAYJAMANTA EPO

that he never [forgot any of those w[ho] had come into contact
with him:

MPol 8.1 = HE 4.15.15 pvnpovetoas atdavtwy Tv Kal TwTOTE

OupPEePANKOTWY AUTO
Boh 65.20-21 aqeppMey! NOYON NIREN NEMNH ETAYEPANANTAN
epod

TEXT CRITICAL NOTES

1 superlin. above n not extant due to broken papyrus leaf;

}.Nca: for c can be read €
30 Polycarp and John

meqo: for o can be read &, 9, C or 6

1-2 the narrative unit ending with the raised point (*) at line 2 must
have included line 1 (in extant pap. all narrative units followed by * are
more than one line long)
2 nejenny: for © can also be read €; Cnny is either the object of a
preposition or the actor following Nei
THpoy’: or THPOY !-!/2v. for “!-1/2v see (e) 10
3 eupe: cf. 1 Tim 2:1 Sah, erpeTNeipe NoENCONC MNVENAHA; Gk,
TOLELGDAL SENDELS TIPODEVXAS
WAHA: second A partially covered by mislaid papyrus fiber originating
above right; the ink trace on the fiber is part of the letter immediately after
(AHA, poss. hore
5 |IL...Je1y: poss. ||[Noyo]eiw; lacuna too small for foyoyojeiw
GROA xen: or Mi; left vertical stroke and superlin. are extant
6 MAYALAC AJI[FiMa}eHTHC: a read from small, ambiguous trace; a mod-
ern library label is partially covering the letter trace
for @ can also be read O
MAYA[AC N-], 1.e., MAYA[AC IN-]
7—8 anoc[: for c can also be read €, @ or O
[roc*!/"): for raised dot (°) before ne (preterite) + Bipartite + Ae see (c)
il
8 AL..J: poss. N[Cadg] or N[ewT], lacuna is too small for NfemcKonoc};
for Cag see (d) 4—6 and parallels, for ewT (c) 21 and parallels; also poss.
NLOYHHB], see VPol 29 0 TOV AE YOLEVWY XPLOTLAVGV LEpEUS
9-10 L...JI L-y] 2AA0 ne: more than three (less than four) standard letters
in lacuna at end of line 9; poss. [Nai Ae]||[NEY]JAAO Ne or [Ayo]||[NEY]-
JAAO NE
10 SAA0: 2 read from small, ambiguous trace; extended superlin. above
24 not extant above 2 due to broken papyrus
we: for € can also be read 9 or C
15 mwa: 2 confirmed with UV light
16 6oT*: as at (c) 21, no extra space after the raised point (*)
17 ney: read from small, ambiguous trace
18 xpictianoc: spelled xpeictianoc at (d) 6
19—24 ink traces surrounding the lacunas read under UV light
19 eneq: for € can also be read @, O orc
21 elwT’: as at (c) 16 no extra space after the raised point
24 e[NTay]: see Boh 65.20—21 (=MPol 8.1; HE 4.15.15), agepnueyi
NOYON NIBEN NEMNH ETAYEPAMANTAN;, E[NTAC] is paleographically
less likely
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp S1

(d) = 64v + 56r

[one or more lines lacking]

[.. TE]KKAH [Cla] [ © ]IL.Joq AsiWioyaati....]|

[.QH]PWAHC

EYXwW VL... JIL.) Hoya

XEMOAY[KAPNOC]|| [..}TEeiMOAIC Encals ne

N}I[NE]xpeicTianoc*

L...JILJK NOYON NIM QL...J/L-TE}QMaria®

10 EUKl....]| LLY ETM POPolc...]||L. OJYAE ETHIE

NN]|NoyTe Mnppo*Y

2HPW[AHC]| Ae NTEpEqcwTM Enai

Aqd]|SWNT euaTte*

AYW adk[e]|AcYE ETPEYNTG Naq

x[e]||KAc eqenooyTty *!/2"

NT[E]|POYEIME AEG N6INECNH[Y

xe]|CEKwWTE NCwY EMNOOYT{[G,]|

aydlTy
AY2ONC QWNOYH[d]|

NTEPO,YEIME AE ON
20 xece||KwTe Acwy unma eTulMay,!/2¥
AYN[OJONEY EBOA N|TEYWH N6[NECNHY
aYxiTul exema Y

[..]. ON AYEINE’ |
ETBHHTOLY N6UNioy Aad

PARALLELS

MOAY[KAPMOC] to mcals Ne Nj|[NeE]xpercTIANnoc

Poly[carp] to the teac[her of] [the] Christian[s]:
32 Polycarp and John

VPol 28 0 TMV xpLoTLaVav SLddoKaAos Ov AEyouvot THoAvKapTrOV

MPol 12.2 otvtés éoTw 0 Ths doeBelas SiSdoKaAos, 0 TaTNHpP TOV
XPLOTLAVOV
HE 4.15.26 ovtés éoTtw 0 Ths Aotas &8d0KaXos, 6 TaTHp TaV XpLo-
TLAVOV
Boh 68.15-16 #a1 ne 1Ca2 NTACI& THPC ElWT NE NNIXPHCTIANOC

8 TE]UMALrIA
[hi]s magic:

VPol 25 Tov bt aUTOU yevoLEvuW PLEeyahetwv

VPol 28 eyeveto 5€ kal ETEPOV PEyaAetov bt aVTOU TOLOUTOV

8-11 eyk{ to NjJ|NoyTe Nnppo

while he [ to the] god[s] of the emperor:

MPol 12.2 = HE 4.15.26 ‘O toddots b&tddoKwv pry Ovew pndée

TIPOOKUVELV
Boh 68.16-17 Eqytcaw NoyMHW EWTENEPEYCIX OYOD EWMTENOY WUT
NWOY

15-18 NtT[e]|poyeime Ac N6INECNH[yY to INOYM[A]

Aft[e]r the sibli[ngs] knew to somewhlerle:

MPol 5.1 ot d€ TAELous ETELBoV avTOV UTEEENElV. Kal UTEENADEV Eis

ayplSLov ov LaKpav aTEXOV ATO THs TOAEWS
HE 4.15.9 trevo8evta ye nv avTiBorovot Tots dud’ avTov Kal Ws dv
UTE€ENOL TAPAKANOGL, TPOENEtV Eis OV TOPPW SLEGTATA THs
TOAEWS AYPOV
Boh 64.6-9 NICNHOY AG ETeEMNEYkwWt ayt2zo Eepoq eepeqwe
EBOA VENTNOAIC OYO? ETAGOETNOYIHT AYWE EROA EOYKOL
ECOYHOY EBOA NTNOAIC
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 33

19-23 NTepo,yeine to EkeMa

After they knew to another place:

MPol 6.1 kai _€ttpevovtwv TOV CnTovvTwy adTov pETEBN Eis ETEPOV
ayptdvov
HE 4.15.11 étiketpwevwr 8) ovv obv Tdon oTovdSh TOV dvatnToWVTWW
avTov, alts UT THs TOV _dSeddGv BiabécEws Kal OTOPYtis
ekBeBiacpevov peTtaPfvai daow €d’ ETEpov aypdv
Boh 64.23-25 ETayYNOYN AG GROA EYKWT NCWY IENCHNOYAH NIBEN
AYSITGY NXONC ON GROA 2ATAIACECIC NTENICNHOY EORE-
NOYMEl G20YN EpoYy AGOYMTER EMINd

TEXT CRITICAL NOTES

] TE]KKAH[: tt read from small, ambiguous trace

3 €YXw NL....J|: for i can be read n, f or 4; superlin. above fi not extant
due to broken papyrus leaf
4 [..] Hoya: for f can be read 4; traces of superlin. are visible
poss. €Yxw Nl(gEenwajl[xe] Hoya, cf. Acts 6:11 Sah, eqxw Noen-
waxe Noya; Gk, AadkovvTos pyyata PrAdodynya
5 L.Jreinoaic: T read from small, ambiguous trace; € confirmed using
UV light
poss. [Ma}Teinoaic; lacuna too small for (npMyTeinoaic;
mca(g2}: for a can be read 4 or x; for Cag (St8doKados) see above, par-
allels to (d) 4-6, and Commentary
6 xpeicTianoc: x read from ambiguous letter trace; spelled xpic-
TIANOC at (c) 18
XPEICTIANOC : extra space may follow punctuation mark
6-8 [...JILJK Hoyon nm @L..JILTE]GMaria®: poss. [AYW Eq]|[CW]K
NOYON NIM W[aBoal|[ATE}]GQuaria®
8-9 GEUKL....]| LLY: slightly less than three standard letters can fit in
lacuna at line 9
poss. Epk[wpw]| [EPO]OY
9-10 etMtopote...J||L. poss. eTHT}opo[c HM] |(Ppo; cf. Luke 20:22
Sah, €36CTI NAN EtPopoc Frippo. See ch. 4, comment on (d) 8-11,
Obs. 2
10 o]yAe: see parallels to (d) 8-11, esp. pnd€, and ch. 4, comment on
(ay.8—1 1, Obs:.2
34 Polycarp and John

11 oHpwLanc]: w faded, confirmed with UV light

15 Nt[ejlpoy: p faded, confirmed with UV light
16 cnu[y: signs of erasure evident at NH
19 Ntepo,y: arbitrary ink trace, size and placement resemble standard
scribal dot on line (,)
xece||: for c can be read @
19-24: ink traces surrounding the lacunas read under UV light
20 Ncwu: for c can also be read O
23 Ma’: at least one space (") is vacant before text resumes
[.]. on: lacuna is too small for [NTO]q ON, poss. [AY] ON; see com-
ment.
eime: arbitrary ink trace, placement similar to standard raised point,
but considerably thinner
24 ETBHHTO[Y N6NioyAai: for o can be read q, ¢, &, or @ (ink trace
at top left border of letter); for an omicron of similar shape, see (a) 4,
GBOA
eTeunty not possible (no superlin. visible above T; manuscript leaf is
complete above T)
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp cs)

(e\n= 55¥

[Possibly 2 or more pages lacking after (d)]

[JY2YNOKPING MMpAn{.]|
TC N6INGCNHY E2[pat]] EXNoyMa fxaere™!/2v
5 AT[oq]] AG NEgxXNoY FMOOY me||
XEETREOY NOW TETN|KWTE NMMAT KATAMA”|

AYW NEYPp20TE Ne ETAMOKU|

XEENNECKWAY MMOOY|
10 NUBMK MAYAAC EMAIKA||CTHPIoN*!-!/2v

NEAYCWTH| rap Epoy ne N22 NCcon,

e€q|xXW MMOC
XEIANIC ETPA|MOY IMMAIKACTHPION
15 KA|TAGE ENTACTAMOL N6i||MAMOCTOAOC MNXOEIC
eq|xw HMOc™
XEENELAH AMXO|EIC XAPIZE Nai
ETPAMOY|
[E1JQMNASAOS,
2AIC EPOK| [NE]
20 ETPEKMOY' SMMAIKA||[CT]HPION”
xEEpEoymwm|
[? m7 JI
a-B [two or more lines lacking]

Y ['° ] [noay-]

PARALLELS

16-18 eMmeliAn to 2MMASAOG

Since to on my bed:

AJn 111,115 ‘Iwdvyns . . . atodvetat Ta ipdtia a Hpdieoto Kal

ETIBAAAEL GUTA WOTEP TWA OTPWLVNV EV TH PdGEL TOU OKAL-
watos ... (115) kaTeKALOn ET TOU okdppaTos Eva TA tata
avTOU UTEOTPWOEV . . . TAPESWKE TO TVEDLA Xaipwv
36 Polycarp and John

AJn (Coptic) 111,115 Tote aqkaaq KagHy NNQOITE ETTO 2IMMq

AUNOXOY EMECHT EnToMoc NATayswxe HMOYy EnecuT Mne-
CMOT Noyua eqnop@... (115) aqyosq enecuT enwik NATAay-
MAKTG MMA ETENEGIOITE NOPM NHHTG
Augustine, Tractate 124, 2 “On the Gospel of John’: Quem (sc. John)
tradunt etiam (quod in quibuscum scripturis quamuis apocryphis
reperitur) quando sibi fieri iussit sepulcrum, incolumen fuisse prae-
sentem .. . ibi se tamquam in lectulo collocasse, statimque eum
esse defunctum

TEXT CRITICAL NOTES

1 [| more than one (less than two) standard letters can fit in the
lacuna
poss. [AY] or [EY]
pan[: for N can be read M or H (vertical stroke at bottom left of letter)
2..7q: also possible is... Tq; TY written over erasure of the letter n
superlin. above xn in the shape of a circumflex, “~”
9 aikal|cTupion*!-!/", unusually wide space after *; for no extra space
after AIKACTHPION’ see (e) 13, 20
16 xoleic: o confirmed with UV light
18 of 9, superlin. is definite, 9 read from ambiguous traces
19 erpexmoy: e! confirmed with UV light
20 www: slight ink traces of the tails of both shai’s visible
y: restoration of [(N0Ay-] based on the sequence of pages, see (f) 1 and
above, Physical Description of the Fragments
 Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 37

(f) =55r

K]APNOC 2WC EMXENTAN[E]|[M]PHM ETIXWY PWRI

ay[w]| [NJTEePEqnerce
AUXOOC E|NECNHY
xe2anc ne ETpey||PoKST eions*!/2v
Ayo tpn |pe
XeEnNnNoywine Ncwi walMmooy’’

Nadi Ae Hrepeqxoloy,!/2"
dypine Net Necnny
eYy|Cooyn
10 XEAq2wn E2oyYn el| TPEYUITY NrooToy*!/2"

dAd|TAPKOOY AG
ETPEYTAYO Epoy| ATaTIa®!/2¥

AYW asy2oNoao|ret!/2v

TOTE AGMOPOY
eTu|Tpey2onu xiInhineinay’ ||

ie) AYW ACW

EqWAXE NMMAY|
EUCOACA MMOOY

EYUxW M|MOC
XEMNPOYWAC NounT|
OYAT6OM rap ne
ETPEN[XO]|EIC KW NCWY MNEqAafoc]||
20 OYAG NYNAOBOA AN EMIL..JIL..NTE]GKAHP[OJNOM[Ld]|

[one or more lines lacking; possibly one or more pages of text follow]

PARALLELS

1-5 KjAapmoc to ETpey||POK2T Eions

calrp to that I be burned alive:
38 Polycarp and John

MPol 5.2 kali tpocevxydpevos Ev OTITAGLa YEYOVEV TPO TPLOV NLEPaV

TOD ovAANdOAVat avTov, Kal Eldev TO TPOOKEddAGLOV aVTOD
umd Tupds KaTakatouevov. kal_otpadeis eitev TpdS ToOvS
OUVOVTAS AUTO TPOdNTLKdS Sel Le COvTa kavOjvat?!
HE 4.15.10 kai 87 evydpevov, Ev OTTAGLa TPLMV TPOTEPOV HLEPOV
THS GVAANMEWS VUKTWP LSetVvY TO UTO KEdadfs AUT OTPOLA
aOPdws OUTWS UTO TUPOS hAEX GEV SeSaTravhobar EEvtVoV S ett
TOUTW YEVOLEVOV, EVOUS LUdEpUNnVEtoat Tots TAapOVEL TO davev,
WOVOV OvXL TO LEAAOV TPODEOTICAaVTA GadwsS TE AVELTOVTA
Tots apd’ avTOV OTL S€0 aUTOV Sta Xprotov tupl THY Conv
WETAAAGEAL
Boh 64.14-22 oatTon AG NF NEVOOY HNATOYTAZOY ROYI2OPAMA
SWPI NAC, EROA MMEXWP2 ECWAHA ICKEK NAUGNAY ENEGI2ROC
ETIXWG ErUypwWK? 2IOYCON MNAIpHt 2WC ETAUPWKI JITE-
NOYXPWM OYO2 ETAUTWNY 2ENOYXWAEM ACXW MIwwpn
GROA NNH ETZATOTY EYEPWOPH NEPCYNMENIN NWOY NH
EONAMWM MMOYOYO? EYTAMO MNWOY 2ENOYTAXPO XE2WT
ne NTEGCXWMK MMEYMRIOC EROA DITEN OYXPWM EGOREMXC
MPol 12.3 det pe COvta kavOfvat
HE 4.15.28 det we C@vTa Kafvat
Boh 68.28 C#Hu) NHI EOPOYPOKIT ElOND

5 AYW AGSW EYWAXE NMMAY

And he remained, talking with them:

MPol 5.1 TloAvKaptios . . . dtéTpLBEv eT’ OAL Ywv

HE 4.15.9 TodvKaptrov .. . &tatpiPew Te avv Od yots EvTadOa
Boh 64.9 aAqool MAY NEM2ANKEXWOYNI

18-21 oOyaT6oM to NTEJYGKAHP[O]NOM[IA]

it is impossible to hi]s inher[i]tan[ce]:

21. kav@fvat is found in four extant manuscripts, and is preferred by Dehandschutter,

Martyrium Polycarpi, 115; the majority of extant manuscripts have kafvat; see Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers 2.3.371, and Karl Bihlmeyer, ed., Die apostolischen Véter (Sammlung aus-
gewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften; Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1924) 1.123.
 ‘Text Edition of the Harris Fragments on Polycarp 39

Ps 93:14 (94:14) LXX Ott ovK atwWoeTa KUPLOS TOV dadV adTOD Kal
THY KANPOVOLLAV AVTOV OK EyKaTare let
Ps 93:14 (94:14) Sah” xefinxoeic NAkwW NCwy an Finegqaxroc* ayw
NQNAOBWG AN ETEGKAHPONOMIA

TEXT CRITICAL NOTES

I kKjApnoc: a read from ambiguous trace touching p; for a and p as a

ligature, see (b) 2, (f) 11
NTAm[e]: superlin. read from ambiguous traces above the left and right
vertical strokes of N; part of manuscript leaf missing above n
tread from small, ambiguous trace
2 MMKD ay[w]: K, 9, and & confirmed with UV light; y read from small,
ambiguous trace
3 xooc: C confirmed with UV light
9 e2oyn: left, right, and top borders of 0 are straight lines; for o with
straight borders, see note to (d) 23 above
18 etpe: for € can be read 6, O orc
18-19 m[xo]leic: tread from small, ambiguous trace
20 oyAe NYNAOBwM: A faded, traces of left upward stroke visible
ii faded; for fi can be read Mi; superlin. read from ambiguous traces
above the letter trace
q faded; superlin. read from ambiguous traces above the letter trace
em: mM read from small, ambiguous trace
21 KAHp[oJNOoufia]: for N can also be read q; 4 read from small, am-
biguous trace

22. As in E. A. Wallis Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter (London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Truebner, 1898) 101b; for a variant text, see Carl Wessely, Griechische und Koptische
Texte theologischen Inhalts (Studien zur Paleographie und Papyruskunde 9; Amsterdam:
Hakkert, 1966) 1.46, no. K9850.2, in which there is no A preceding nxoeic.
 - ry 6

4
a i 4
a

>=.

>

—~

= ——

=
—
ae
7 —

\
 GHAP
HT ER. TW.O

Translation

1. Introduction

Objectives
This translation has as its primary goal to translate the text as it is found on
the papyrus fragments in the Harris collection. Secondarily it is intended to
accomplish the very closely related task of translating the untitled work on
Polycarp which is witnessed by this text. Therefore, the concern to present
a concise translation of the text is, for the most part, favored over consider-
ations for offering a more fluid, stylistic translation into the vernacular.
Consequently, pronouns are translated literally, including the masculine
pronoun referring to “the [Lo]rd” as found on page (f). Line breaks in the
manuscript are indicated in the translation.
Possible Restorations

The translated restorations correspond to those restorations which are pre-

sented as “possible” in the Text Critical Notes in chapter 1, where sup-
porting evidence is cited. Only restorations which meet criteria of physical
size (i.e., they must fit the given lacuna) as well as grammatical and syn-
tactic compatibility are presented in the Text Edition.!
Sigla
[---] text missing owing to physical damage (i.e., a lacuna)?
|or || new line of manuscript commences (|| every fifth line)
3) line number of the manuscript

1. For further discussion, see ch. 1, Introduction.

2. For more precise information on the size of a given lacuna, see ch. |.

4]
42 Polycarp and John

2. Translation

(a) = 63v

[one or more lines lacking; possibly 2 or more pages precede]

[---]ter[---]|[---]s of our Lor[d ---]| [---]ed out

5 from [---]|, [---] went out in the whole|| inha[bite]d

world so that each on|[e of t]hem might complete his|

[coJurse within the regions which were| [assigned] to

them, while they com|[pleted] the preaching about||

10 [the kin]gdom of [hJeaven throughout] the whole
of [this cr]eation, according to the testi|[mon]y of
the apostle [---]|
[---]while they bega[n ---]|
[one or more lines lacking]

POSSIBLE RESTORATIONS

1-2 Jter[---]|[---]: af]ter [the apo]|[stle]s

2 Lor[d ---]: Lor[d had gathered]
3a___[---]ed: [they travell]ed
3b from [---]: from [Jerusalem]
4 [---] went: [and they] went
 Translation 43

(b) = 63r

[one or more lines lacking]

[--] in [--]] [-Jic? [--] ofvirginity —]

[---]to him instead [of ---]|[---] of the sword and
5 the [---]s|| and the tortures of the [lawcou]|rts.

There remained [---]|ter him a discipl{e ---]|

name was Polycar[p, and]| he made him‘ bisho[p over]||
10 Smyrna, the [---] city].
After a[ll] the apostles| had died? [---]| other
disciple|[s]® to [---]|
[one or more lines lacking; possibly 2 or more pages lacking before (o)]

POSSIBLE RESTORATIONS

6—7 [---]|ter: [af]|ter him

7-8 discipl[e ---]| name: discipl[e whose]| name
12-13 [---]| other disciple[s]: [the] other disciples
[remain]ed; lit., “they remained, namely the other disciple[s]”

3. A borrowed Greek word whose ending (-[t]kov) indicates that it is an adjective, pre-
sumably modifying an inanimate entity.
4. Polycarp.
5. Lit., “After they alll] had died,| namely the apostles [---]|”; for “died,” lit., “fallen
asleep.”
6. Or, “disciple.”
44 Polycarp and John

(c) = 64r + 56v

|one or more lines lacking; possibly 2 or more pages lacking after (b)]

[---] his’ [---]|[---] all [the] siblings.® [---]|

5 [--- ma]ke prayers [---]|[---] perseverance? [---]||
[---] because [---]| [---] he alo[ne] remained] [among
the di]sciple[s] of the apos[t]|[les].
He was [---]| [of the] whole [c]hurch [---]||
10 [---] old man, being one hundred and f[our]| years of
age. He continued to walk!9| [i]n the canons which
15 he had learned] during his youth] from John the al|[p]ostle, until he
reached] the stature of a very great age.|
And all the Christians] who had heard about his
20 way of life] used to seek after him to see him, li||ke
genuine children] seeking after th[ei]r father."!
Moreover, he| had this gift|, that he never
[forgot anly w[{ho] had come into contact
with him.

POSSIBLE RESTORATIONS

4-5 perseverance [---]|| [---]: perseverance [---]]|

[--- a tilme
8 He was [---]: He was [teacher]; or, He was [father];
also possible, He was [priest]
9-10 [---]]| [---] old man: [and he was]|| [an] old man

7. Or, “after his.”

8. For an argument, based on social-historical and literary context, for the use of “sib-
lings” as opposed to the arguably more literal “brothers,” see ch. 4, comment on (c) 2. For the
purpose of conciseness I have felt it unadvisable to expand a one-word label into a phrase
such as “sisters and brothers.”
9. Or, as part of an adverbial phrase, “continually.”
10. Lit., “walked” (=Greek imperfect).
11. Lit., “they used to seek after him to see him,| namely all the Christians] who had
heard about his way of life.”
 ‘Translation 45

(d) = 64v + 56r

[one or more lines lacking]

[--- the c]hur[ch ---]| [---] the Jew[s ---]!?|

[--- He]rod, saying| slanderous [---][---]:
“Poly[carp] |, [---] this city, [is] the teac[her of]|
[the] Christian[s]; [---]|[---] everyone [---]| [hi]s
magic; while he [---]|[---] them neither to give
10 tribu[te ---]||[--- nJor to worshi[p the]| god[s] of the
emperor.”
Hero[d]|, after he had heard these thin[gs, was]|
very angry. And he o[r]|dered that he!* be brought to
15 him i[n]]|| order that he might kill him.!*
Aft[e]|r the sibli{ngs] knew! [that]| he!® was
being sought after in order to be killed , they took
him and they hid him somewhler]e]. After they knew
20 again that he]| was being sought in that pllace, the
siblings tr[a]nsferred him by| night!” and took him|
to another place.
[---] once again the Jews!® knew| about th[em].

POSSIBLE RESTORATIONS

slanderous [---]|[---]: slanderous [wor]|[ds]

Polycarp]|, [---] this city: Polycarp||, [a person
of] this city

. Lit., “namely the Jew[s]” (the subject of apreceding verb).

. Polycarp.
. Polycarp.
”
. Lit., “After they knew, namely the sibli[ngs]
. Polycarp.
. Lit., “they tr[aJnsferred him by night, namely the siblings.”
. Lit., “they knew about th[em], [namely] the Jews.”
46 Polycarp and John

6-8 — [---]|[---] everyone [---]] [hi]s magic: [even while

he is]| u[tterly] [begu]iling everyone [with]| [hi]s
magic
8-9 while he [---]|[---] them: while he [persu]|[ades]
them
9-10 neither to give tribu[te ---]||[--- nJor: neither
to give tribu[te to the]|| [emperorey
23 [---] once again the Jews knew: [And] once again the Jews knew
 Translation 47

(e) = 55v

[Possibly 2 or more pages lacking after (d)]

[---]they assume[d]!? the name”°[---]] [---]him, the

siblings,| to a deserted place.
5 As for hi[m] , he was asking them], “Why are
you”’| going around with me from place to place?”|
And they were afraid to tell him| lest he forbid
10 them| and go alone to the law||court. For they
had heard| him say many times|: “It is necessary that
I| die by?? the lawcourt, in the man|ner that the
15 apostle of the Lord|| told me*4| when he said, ‘Since
the Lo|rd granted to me that I die| on my bed, it is
20 necessary that you??| die by the law]|[co]urt, so
that an equilibrium might|[---]|
”

[two or more lines eeking||

[---] [Poly-]

19. Or, “they feigned’; or, present tense: “assume,” “feign.”

20. Or (rare), “the condition of.”
21. Lit., “namely the siblings” (the subject of a preceding verb, possibly also the subject
of “assume[d]”).
22 eon pl
23. Le., “by agency of.”
24. Lit., “in the manner that he told me, namely the apostle of the Lord.”
25. “You,” sing.
48 Polycarp and John

(Pen55r

calrp, as if the| bedspread over him were burning.

And| [w]hen he woke he said to] the siblings,

5 “It is necessary that|| | be burned alive; and |

marvlel that they have not sought after me as of|
today.”
After he had said these things], the siblings
cried*°| knowing that it would be soon|| that he would
be taken from them. He| made them swear that they
would tell him| the reason;?’ and they confes|sed.
Then he bound them not to| hide him, beginning from
this hour|}.
5) And he remained, talking with them] and consoling
them, saying]: “Do not be discouraged], for it is
20 impossible for the [Lo]|rd to abandon his peo[ple] ?

neither will he forget the [---]] [--- of hi]s

inheritan[ce]|.”°
[one or more lines lacking; possibly one or more pages of text follow]

26. Lit., “they cried, namely the siblings.”

27. Le., “the reason” for their crying. The Greek loanword aitia may also mean: “cause,”
“indictment,” or “motive.”
28. For the purpose ofconciseness, | have translated the pronouns literally.
 CHA PAGE Ro 1 REE

Apostolicity and Martyrdom

An Introduction to the
Narrative Strategy of the Text

1. Missing Title and Contents

The title of this work on Polycarp will probably never be known. The only
extant witness to the text are papyrus leaves from an ancient codex which
contains several other works as well. All the extant papyrus fragments from
that codex have been catalogued as a “Miscellany (Acts of Martyrs).”!
There is one work from the ancient codex for which a title is extant: “The
Memorials (Utopvipata) of James the Persian.”? Did (all) other works in
that codex bear the same title, “memorials”? Even if that could be con-
firmed, it would not necessarily indicate an original or earlier title under
which the work might have been known. What this work on Polycarp might
have been titled, how it might have circulated before its inclusion in a par-
ticular codex of collected works, or for what purpose it might have been
written, cannot be discovered from the extant manuscript itself.
Besides the missing title, neither the beginning nor the end of the text
are extant. On both internal and external evidence,* one may assume that
the first line of page (a) lies very near the beginning of the work; perhaps

1. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts, 201.

2. Ibid., 202.
3. For possible social-historical and literary context, see esp. ch. 5.
4. See ch. 4, comment on (a) 1-8.

49
50 Polycarp and John

within a few lines. Further one may assume that the narrative continued
well beyond the final lines of page (f), wherein Polycarp is awaiting arrest.
A full text would likely include descriptions of his arrest, trial, execution,
and perhaps other items.

2. Narrative Structure

Of the six pages which have survived, the first half, pages (a)—(c), are
concerned with material which might be considered introductory or pre-
narrative. Included in these pages are significant descriptions of John’s
activity and Polycarp’s relationship with that apostle. On page (d), the nar-
ration of a continuous sequence of events begins.
The following is a summary in outline form of the content of the work:

I. Polycarp’s apostolic credentials (via John)

A. Account of the division of the world among the apostles for the
purposes of missionary preaching
B. Description of the ministry of the apostle John
1. John as virgin
2. John’s reprieve from a death by martyrdom
C. Introduction of Polycarp
1. Disciple of John
2. Bishop ordained by John
D. General statement about the death of the apostles
E. Polycarp as the sole remaining “disciple of the apostles”
1. Polycarp is exceedingly old (104 years)
2. Polycarp lived according to the “canons” he learned from John
3. News of Polycarp’s ministry spread and drew followers to him
4. Polycarp never forgot any of those with whom he had come
into contact

I]. Polycarp’s martyrdom (via John’s divine reprieve)

A. “The Jews” are in discussion with a government official
1. A list of “slanderous” charges is presented
2. The official is angered and orders Polycarp’s execution
3. The search for Polycarp begins
B. Polycarp’s community hears about the search
1. The community hides Polycarp
2. The community transfers Polycarp to a more secure place
 Apostolicity and Martyrdom 5t

3. The community and Polycarp are together in a “deserted

place”
C. Polycarp questions the community
1. The community members are “afraid” to answer, for fear that:
a. Polycarp will forbid them to move him again
b. Polycarp will “go alone to the lawcourt”
2. The community remembers what Polycarp said “many times”:
a. “It is necessary” that Polycarp be martyred in lieu of John
D. Polycarp has a vision and interprets it
1. Polycarp confirms the “necessity” of his martyrdom
2. The community members cry
3. The community confesses that it has been hiding Polycarp
4. The community is “bound” to cease from hiding Polycarp
“from this hour”
E. Polycarp “consoles” the community
1. Polycarp recites Ps. 93:14 (LXX)

3. Part One: Polycarp’s Apostolic Credentials (via John)

The preliminary description of Polycarp indicates that the scope of this

work is broader than one might expect from a martyrdom or acts of a mar-
tyr. More specifically, its scope is broader than that of MartPol, whose
interest is bounded by a particular local action against a group of Chris-
tians. At the same time, it bears little resemblance to VPol: there is no
sustained narrative of an event or series of events from Polycarp’s ministry
before the consideration of his last days, and no recounting (or even men-
tion) of the hero’s exhortations on ethical behavior or of the performing of
miracles, both of which are characteristic of VPol and the genre of saint’s
lives generally.’
Preceding any discussion of Polycarp is a report about the division of the
world among the apostles for their missionary enterprise. This recounting
of the apostles’ departure is typical of, though not limited to, the apoc-
ryphal acts of the apostles, where it often appears at the beginning of the
work.® The presence of this departure narrative as introductory material to
a work on Polycarp, who is not one of the apostles, is in itself quite note-

5. Fora discussion of martyrdoms, lives, and other genres, see ch. 4, comment on (a) 1-8,
Obs. 6.
6. See ch. 4, comment on (a) 1-8, esp. Obs. 4.
By Polycarp and John

worthy. Following the departure narrative is a discussion of John’s career,

including his “virginity” and reprieve from a martyr’s death. Polycarp’s
direct association with John is then recorded, along with the description of
Polycarp as the sole remaining “disciple of the apostles.”
There can be no doubt that the author has intended to portray the hero
Polycarp as “apostolic.”’ The portrait is multifaceted. Polycarp is apostolic:
(1) by direct association, having been taught and ordained by John; (2) by
chronology, owing to his great age and status as the only remaining student
of an apostle; (3) by demeanor, living according to the “canons” he learned
from John.
Does the author assume or promote more than “apostolic” status for
Polycarp? Yes. This is a work whose fictive world is introduced to the reader
through the narrative of the assignment of the regions of the world for mis-
sionary preaching, a motif associated with the apostles and literary acts of
the apostles. Further, as the narrative unfolds, Polycarp’s martyrdom is pre-
sented as a surrogate for that of the apostle John; since John has not
suffered a martyr’s death, Polycarp must.® Polycarp is the central figure of a
work which begins with a classic account of the ministry of the apostles
and which records a martyr death that was itself allotted for an apostle. To
the extent that the author's purpose is—or, at least, includes—presenting
Polycarp’s martyrdom as a surrogate for John’s (lack of a) martyrdom, the
preliminary descriptions of John and Polycarp are vital to the plot, prepar-
ing the reader for the major plot development: Polycarp’s martyrdom is to
be accounted for as that of the apostle John.
Specifically, the first part of the work provides a vantage point from
which to develop a unique understanding of Polycarp: his major act, i.e., his
martyrdom, is an apostle’s martyrdom. Such an authorial strategy is unique
within ancient Christian literature. No other ancient Christian document,
so far as |am aware, makes such an assertion about Polycarp, or any other
individual who is not recognized as an apostle.
There are other descriptions, besides those which serve to develop the
notion of Polycarp’s martyrdom as being equivalent to an apostle’s, which

7. For a discussion of the adjective “apostolic,” see L.-M. Dewailly, Envoyés du pére: Mis-
sion et apostolicité (Paris: Editions de !Orante, 1960) 46-1 13, esp. 50: “It designated a person
or a thing in direct contact with the apostles”; for the adjective “apostolic” (amooToAtKds) as
applied to Polycarp, see MartPol (MPol 16.2 = HE 4.15.39 = Boh 70.28-71.1) and HE
3.36.10; for the possibility that Boh 70.28—71.1 includes a description of Polycarp as “apos-
tle,” see ch. 4, comment on (e) 14—21, Obs. 3.
8. See ch. 4, comment on (e) 14—21; for further discussion, see ch. 5.
 Apostolicity and Martyrdom 23

connect the introductory material with the narrative of events. For ex-
ample, the preliminary portrayal of the community leader Polycarp as one
pursued by followers who are “like genuine (yvjotos) children seeking
after th[ei]r father,” is built on several motifs familiar within panegyrics and
biographies of philosophers written in the imperial period.° In turn, the
narrated action includes many descriptions reminiscent of the portrayal of
persecuted teachers within popular philosophical literature: for example,
the “slanderous” charge of “magic” and the hero awaiting execution sur-
rounded by a cadre of his followers.!°
Though it is likely that the length of the narrative of events, were it extant
in its entirety, would far exceed that of the preliminary description, this
work appears to be more than a martyrdom with a few preliminary, intro-
ductory remarks. The distinct parts of the work, as is evidenced even in
their fragmentary state, make up an integral and integrated whole.

4. Part Two: Polycarp’s Martyrdom (via John’s Divine Reprieve)

This work likely contained a complete account of Polycarp’s martyrdom.

Unfortunately, the extant text breaks off as Polycarp, surrounded by his
followers, is awaiting arrest. Among the passages recorded in the register
of parallels in chapter 1 are all particular episodes and descriptions which
FrgPol shares with MartPol. When the narrated action of the two accounts
are compared, one finds that particular episodes and descriptions found in
both FrgPol and MartPol often occur in different locations within the over-
all narrative structure. It is important to consider elements shared by both
FrgPol and MartPol, as well as elements unique to FrgPol and lacking in
MartPol.
Of less scholarly value is a consideration of elements unique to MartPol
and lacking from FrgPol. Since only part of FrgPol is extant it is incon-
clusive, and therefore less helpful and potentially misleading, to render
any judgment based on the observation of items contained in MartPol not
found in the extant text of FrgPol.
That said, it may be worthwhile to note the apparent lack in FrgPol of a
given episode or detail from the narrative line running through the move-

9. For further discussion, see ch. 4, comment on (c) 16-24.

10. For further discussion of “slanderous” charges, see ch. 4, comment on (d) 3-4; for a
discussion of the use of “magic,” see comment on (d) 8; for a discussion of scenes of consola-
tion and waiting, see comment on (f) 7-15.
54 Polycarp and John

ments of Polycarp before his arrest (that is, through the point in the nar-
rated action at which the extant text of FrgPol breaks off). Among the
items which can tentatively be considered to be lacking from FrgPol are:
(1) any mention of the execution of other Christians within the same local
persecution—compare (d) 1-15 with MPol 2.2—3.2 and HE 4.15.4—6;
(2) a description of the first hiding place—compare the stark description,
“somewhere’ (d) 18, with “little farm” in MPol 5.1 or “farm” in HE 4.15.9;
(3) any indication of the location of the first hiding place, such as “outside
of” or “not far from” the city (as in MPol 5.1 and HE 4.15.9, respectively);
(4) any exhortation directed to the reader (as in MPol 1.2 and 4 and, toa
lesser extent, HE 4.15.8); and (5) direct mention of the motif of imitatio
Christi (as in MPol 1.1).
Among the episodes and descriptions shared by MartPol and FrgPol is
one which is actually found in Part One of FrgPol. Consideration of that
will be followed by discussion of items found in Part Two of FrgPol.
A. In FrgPol the narrator states that Polycarp “never [florgot any of those
wlho] had come into contact with him” ({c] 23—24). Within MartPol, a
parallel statement occurs in a summary of the content of the prayer which
Polycarp speaks upon his arrest (MPol 8.1 = HE 4.15.15). Since the last
extant lines of FrgPol depict Polycarp awaiting his arrest, one cannot know
whether a similar description occurs in that work at the point of Polycarp’s
arrest.
What is certain, however, is that FrgPol includes the parallel sentence as
one of several descriptions used to develop a portrait of Polycarp in the first
part of the work. It follows the statement, familiar in contemporary literary
depictions of teachers, that followers sought after him “like genuine chil-
dren seeking after th[ei]r father” ([c] 17—21).!! In comparison with Mart-
Pol, both (1) general context! and (2) immediate context! are different.
B. Within FrgPol, the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom begins with a dis-
cussion between “the Jews” and a certain “Herod” ([d] 4—5).!4 At (d) 5-11,
a set of charges against Polycarp is presented which contains three basic
elements: Polycarp (1) is “the teac[her of] [the] Christians”; (2) is associ-
ated with “magic”; and (3) urges his followers “neither to give tribu[te ---]
[--- nJor to worshi[p the] god[s] of the emperor.”

11. For further discussion, see ch. 4, comment on (c) 16—24.

12. Narrated action in MartPol versus preliminary description in FrgPol.
13. Prayer in MartPol versus attraction to the community leader in FrgPol.
14. For consideration of the identity of this Herod, see ch. 4, comment on (d) 2-3.
 Apostolicity and Martyrdom 55

Within MartPol a set of charges sharing, in part, two of these three ele-
ments (nos. | and 3) is recorded following Polycarp’s trial, not preceding
his arrest.!° Therein it is called out by “the crowd of gentiles and Jews”
who are in “the stadium’—the location, in MartPol, of Polycarp’s trial.'®
The occurrence in FrgPol of a formal set of charges at or near the be-
ginning of the account of the last days is significant for several reasons. In
FrgPol the search and eventual trial of Polycarp are not initiated by mob
action.!’ There is a clear list of charges and one collective accuser, “the
Jews.”!8 Further, Polycarp’s trial and execution are treated as a closed set
of independent or isolable events; unlike MartPol, there is apparently no
mention of, and definitely no narrative reliance on, a preceding trial of
fellow Christians which escalates into the action against Polycarp.
C. Like MartPol, FrgPol records the movement of Polycarp to two
separate hiding places ([d] 15-23). Unlike MartPol, FrgPol includes no
consideration of the state of Polycarp’s mind or any repartee between him
and his circle before the first move (nor is there any text missing at this
point in the narrative).!? Further, unlike MartPol, there is no description
of Polycarp’s demeanor, nor any narrative action recorded, at the first
hiding place (nor is there any text missing at this point in the narrative).7°
By way of contrast, while MartPol contains neither a description of Poly-
carp’s demeanor nor a record of any action at the second hiding place prior
to the arrival of the government forces, FrgPol contains extended descrip-
tions of dialogue and action at the second hiding place.
The relationship of FrgPol and MartPol on the matter of the hiding
of Polycarp and the activities/state of mind recorded, might be charted as
follows:

15. See MPol 12.2 and HE 4.15.26; for further discussion, see ch. 4, comments on
(d) 4-6, 8-11.
16. It should be noted that in MartPol the search for Polycarp is prompted by the
demand of “the crowd”: “Take away the atheists. Let Polycarp be searched for” (MPol 3.2 =
HE 4.15.6). Implicit in the crowd’s words is the charge of “atheism’; for further discussion of
that, and other charges against Christians, see Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans
Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), esp. ch. 3; and G. E. M. de Ste Croix,
“Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted,” Past and Present 26 (1963) 6—38, 27 (1964)
28-33, andA. N. Sherwin-White, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted: An Amend-
ment,” Past and Present 27 (1964) 23-27.
17. Compare MartPol (MPol 3.2, HE 4.15.6).
18. For discussion of “the Jews,” see ch. 4, comment on (d) 2—3, esp. Obs. 4-9.
19. Compare MPol 5.1, HE 4.15.9.
20. Compare MPol 5.1—2, HE 4.15.9-10.
56 Polycarp and John

*Prior to first move

MartPol: Narrates activities/state of mind

FrgPol: Does not narrate activities /state of mind
*At first hiding place
MartPol: Narrates activities/state of mind
FrgPol: Does not narrate activities/state of mind
*At second hiding place
MartPol: Does not narrate activities/state of mind prior to the arrival
of government forces
FrgPol: Narrates activities/state of mind?!

D. The episode of Polycarp’s dream and subsequent interpretation is

shared by both MartPol and FrgPol. In MartPol it occurs at the first hiding
place, while in FrgPol it does not occur until Polycarp is at the second
hiding place ({f] 1-7). Therein it is part of a complex of narrated events
and dialogue which serves to indicate Polycarp’s state of mind and lack of
awareness of his community’s action on his behalf.
After arriving at the second hiding place, Polycarp asks the community,
“Why are you going around with me from place to place?” ([e] 5-6). The
choice of verb within Polycarp’s question, “going around,” stands in con-
trast to that used by the voice of the narrator, who has already told the
reader that Polycarp’s circle “took him” to the first hiding place and
“tr[a]nsferred him” to the second ([d] 18, 21). Furthermore, it is recorded
that the community members are “afraid” to answer the question posed by
Polycarp, “lest he forbid them and go alone to the lawcourt” ([e] 7-10).
The message to the reader is clear: Polycarp does not recognize that his
community is moving him around for purposes of fleeing the authorities.
The dream sequence in FrgPol appears to parallel that of MartPol fairly
closely. However, the subsequent interpretation includes an additional
sentence not found in MartPol: “and I marvel that they have not sought
after me as of today.”* Of course, within the narrative line of MartPol

21. Up to the point in the narrative at which FrgPol breaks off, there has been no arrival
of government forces. One cannot simply assume that such an event would be narrated in
the full text of FrgPol (were it available).
22. Fora discussion of the use of the Coptic preposition wa (“until”), see ch. 4, comment
on (f) 5-7.
 Apostolicity and Martyrdom 57

such a statement would make no sense, since Polycarp had “heard” that
he was being sought out before his circle’s first attempt to hide him (MPol
5.1, HE 4.15.9).
In addition, unlike MartPol the interpretation of the vision in FrgPol is
followed by dialogue between Polycarp and his circle. The interpretation
elicits an emotional response from the community—they know what their
beloved teacher does not know; Polycarp is indeed being sought after by
government forces—which leads, in turn, to a discussion in which Poly-
carp learns of his followers’ (neatly masked) efforts to hide him. Once Poly-
carp had become aware that he was being sought, he “bound them not to
hide him” any longer.
Within this work, the narrated action of Polycarp’s dream and interpre-
tation, followed by the community response, is central to Polycarp’s under-
standing of his immediate plight and of the community’s action in hiding
him. Unlike the Polycarp of MartPol, this Polycarp is not “persuaded” to
flee; rather, he is duped for a time. Once he becomes aware that a search
is on, he orders the community no longer to move him and remains where
he is.??
In sum, FrgPol and MartPol contain many similar descriptions and epi-
sodes. However, by way of paraphrasing Yogi Berra, Jr., their similarities are
different. Maintaining a keen awareness of these differences is important.
As for the “expansions” into the narrated action which are found in Part
Two of FrgPol (as compared to MartPol), the descriptions in Part One serve
to orient the reader to these. For example, regarding items such as the
particular set of charges and the particular descriptions of community con-
solation narrated in Part Two, the inclusion in Part One of conventional
motifs found in literary portrayals of teachers have already provided the
reader a context for understanding. Further, having been reminded in Part
One of John’s “virginity” and lack of a martyr’s death, the reader is provided
with a broader hagiographical framework within which to place the recol-
lection of the community that Polycarp had said “many times” that his
martyrdom was necessitated by the reprieve granted to John. Finally, where
the accounts of other martyrdoms at the top of MartPol provide the context
for elevating Polycarp as “the only one remembered by all,” whose action
puts an end toa local persecution as though “having sealed it,’*4 the recol-
lection of the division of the world among the apostles at the top of FrgPol

23. Compare MPol 5.1, HE 4.15.9; see also MPol 6.1 and HE 4.15.11.
24. MPol 19.1 = HE 4.15.45; MPol 1.1 = HE 4.15.3.
58 Polycarp and John

provides the greater context for portraying Polycarp as one who accom-
plishes an apostle’s martyrdom.
The narrative strategy of FrgPol is unfolded deliberately and artfully.
Even in its fragmentary state this ancient work provides clear evidence of
the care and skill with which it has been composed.
 GVA PERF Os

Commentary

1. Introduction

No commentary is exhaustive, nor should it mean to be. This commentary

has as its primary objectives the observing and describing of literary and
social phenomena indicated in and by the text, with the goal of under-
standing this unique work. Secondarily, |hope that many of the comments
contribute more broadly to our understanding of the literary traditions
regarding both Polycarp and the apostle John; the commentary does on oc-
casion speak directly to one or both of those matters. The “observing and
describing” undertaken herein means to be “historical,” that is, governed by
the conventions of historiography in the service of locating phenomena
which might reasonably be considered to have been available to those who
produced and were among the first to experience—through reading and/or
hearing—this work. Comments range from the observation of a particular
grammatical or lexical phenomenon to broad considerations of a theologi-
cal development or a literary motif.
The commentary is arranged according to conventional format; the ci-
tation of a given section of text is followed by the comments on that text.
The lengthier comments are organized into a series of “observations” (abbr.
ODS 70.
Quotations are taken from the full translation found in chapter 2,
though the indications of line breaks have been removed. For an explana-
tion of the editorial signs used, see Sigla at the beginning of chapter 2.

59
60 Polycarp and John

2. Commentary

(a) 1-8 [---]ter[---][---]s of our Lor[d ---] [---]ed out from [---], [---]
went out in the whole inha[bite]d world so that each on|[e of t]hem
might complete his [co]urse within the regions which were [as-
signed] to them

Obs. 1. The whole of lines 1-11 recount the legend of the di-
vision of the world among the apostles for the purpose of missionary
preaching.! At least one summary statement that the apostles went out
into the regions of the world following the earthly ministry of Jesus is
extant in late first-century literature.” In one of the classic scholarly essays
on the subject, Richard Lipsius states that “the legends of the activity of
the apostles in the various lands of the earth are struck up already in the
Second Century.” The conclusion of Adolf von Harnack, that “apostolic
mission reports” were circulating by approximately the end of the second
century or beginning of the third century, has generally been accepted.4
By way of clarifying the content of these early “apostolic mission re-
ports,” Eric Junod writes, “the most ancient [reports] never give a com-
plete list of the apostles with the region of the mission of each.” Further,
Junod notes that there are five particular apostles who appear in an early
mission report and about whom the earliest acts of the apostles were writ-
ten: Thomas, Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul.°

1. Besides the works cited below, see Walter Bauer, “Accounts [of the Apostles in Early
Christian Tradition],” in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles,
Apocalypses, and Related Subjects (ed. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher,
tr. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965) 35-74, esp. 45, and more
recently, Wolfgang A. Bienert, “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition,” in
Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, 5-27,
esp. 18-27.
2. 1 Clem. 42.1-4; for text, see ch. 1, register of parallels, (a) 1-8; see also therein cita-
tions from the canonical Gospels in which Jesus commands the “apostles” or “disciples” to
“go out.”
3. Richard Lipsius, “Die Legende von der Aposteltheilung,” Die apokryphen Apostel-
geschichten und Apostellegenden (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1883) 1.11.
4. Adolf von Harnack, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Ori-
genes zum Hexateuch und Richterbuch (TU 42.3; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918) 16.
5. Eric Junod, “Origéne, Eusébe et la tradition sur la répartition des champs de mission
des apdtres,” in Les actes apocryphes des apétres (Francois Bovon et al.; Publications de la Fac-
ulté de Théologie de l'Université de Genéve; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 243.
6. Ibid., 248 (similarly 233), commenting on the report of Origen recorded by Eusebius
(HE 3.1):
 Commentary 61

Obs. 2. As stated by Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “no one, ancient and

coherent tradition regarding the division of the mission fields [among the
apostles] is found.”” After observing the broad range of elements and
motifs which are extant within the ancient literature, one might consider
such items as: (A) initiative—is it Christ’s (through a vision), the apostles’
collectively, or Peter's? (B) is a full list of the apostles and their respective
regions included? and (C) does Peter accompany the individual apostle to
his allotted region?® In the early non-canonical acts,” the apostles act as a
group (with no stated impetus from Christ or Peter), a complete list of
apostles and their allotted territories is not included, and there is no report
of Peter accompanying the individual apostle.
Given the extent of the lacunas within and surrounding page (a), it is
impossible to be sure how each of the three elements outlined above
might have been treated in FrgPol. What can be stated with certainty is
that, given the extant text, there is no reason that the tradition as narrated
in FrgPol must be placed any later than the second or third century. That
is, the contents of the text contain elements all of which are recognizable
within the early strata of mission reports.
Obs. 3. Within those apocryphal acts which include an account
of the division of the world, that account does not always occur at the be-
ginning of the work.!° Does the departure narrative as contained in FrgPol
mark the beginning of this work? One cannot be certain. However, since
the main character, Polycarp, is introduced at (b) 5—6, well after the depar-
ture narrative, and since a summary statement about the character and
ministry of the central secondary figure, John, begins on page (a) sometime
after the departure narrative, it is unlikely that any narrative content pre-

7. See Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “Les scénes d’attribution des champs de mission et de

départ de l'apétre dans les actes apocryphes,” in Bovon et al., Les actes apocryphes des apotres,
264.
8. See Kaestli, “Les scenes d’attribution,” throughout.
9. As typified by the Acts of Thomas.
10. See esp. Acts of Philip 8; see also Acts of Peter 5, “God was already preparing Peter for
what was to come, now that the twelve years in Jerusalem which the Lord Christ had
enjoined on him were completed” (tr. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “The Acts of Peter,” in
Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, 290), and
Kerygma Petri 3a, “For that reason Peter records that the Lord had said to the disciples . . .
And after 12 years go ye out into the world” (tr. Schneemelcher, “The Kerygma Petri,” 39).
In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve, the disciples set out together in one boat (VI.1.1) and
later announce, “It is necessary for us to spread the word of God in every city harmoniously”
(VI-5.12=14); see ch. 1, n. 5.
62 Polycarp and John

cedes (a) 1—-11.!! If the departure narrative of FrgPol lies at the beginning
of the work, which is probable based on internal evidence and which is the
case in the early Acts of Thomas,'* then the beginning of the full text of
FrgPol occurred just one or several lines before the first line of extant text.
Obs. 4. The beginning of the Acts of John (AJn) is not extant. Of
the early acts of the apostles, Acts of Thomas includes a summary state-
ment of the division of the world at the top of the work; Acts of Peter and
Acts of Paul do not; the beginning of the Acts of Andrew is not extant.
Among related literature associated with the apostle John, both the Syriac
History of John and the Acts of John by Prochorus include such a statement
at the top of the work.
Since it includes a summary statement about the division of the world
which, at least in its extant form, is consistent with the early literature, and
since it displays a close association with traditions about the apostle John,
the reading of FrgPol may be used as evidence to support the argument
that a statement about the division of the world was present at the begin-
ning of AJn.!°
Obs. 5. In the entry on Polycarp in the slavonic Menology of
Dimitrius of Rostov, it is noted that Polycarp joins the apostles in their
world mission. That claim is not made in FrgPol or, to my knowledge, in
any extant works from the early or late antique periods.
Nevertheless, such a claim is not wholly foreign to extant, early Chris-
tian discussion which might relate indirectly to Polycarp. The following
description of those “possessing the first rank in the succession from the
Apostles” occurs at HE 3.37.1, immediately following an extended refer-
ence to Polycarp’s depiction of the martyr Ignatius (HE 3.36.13—15):
And others besides them were well known at this time, possessing the
first rank in the succession from the apostles. These, being pious dis-
ciples of such great ones, in every place built upon the foundations of
the churches laid by the apostles, increasing even more the preaching

11. Though (a) 11, “the apostle,” may signal previous text in which that character is in-
troduced; for discussion of the identity of “the apostle,” see below comment on (a) 11—12.
12. See below, Obs. 4.
13. For an argument against the likelihood of a summary statement about the division
of the world being present at the beginning of the Acts of John, see Kaestli, “Les scénes d’at-
tribution,” 262; Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden 1.13, sug-
gests that AJn began with such a statement; for further discussion, see below, comment on
(b) 2-6, Obs. 8.
 Commentary 63

and spreading the saving seed of the kingdom of heaven into the
whole inhabited world.
The reference to a definable and describable group of “disciples” of “apos-
tles” and to the missionary preaching of the apostles are notable parallels
to the early, extant lines of FrgPol. One wonders whether Eusebius, his
source(s), and, more broadly, early Christians familiar with Polycarp would
have included Polycarp among those described in a report such as that
found in Eusebius.!4
Obs. 6. The presence of a summary statement about the division
of the world among the apostles, as introductory matter, raises the question
of the genre of this work. Does the departure narrative signal the genre
“acts” of an apostle?
Among those works of early Christian literature which include a sum-
mary statement on the division of the world one finds various genres
represented: gospel, letter or epistle, heresiology, commentary, church his-
tory, and acts of the apostles. Further, as noted in Obs. 4 above, many acts
do not begin with such a summary statement. So, to conclude that this
work means to present itself as—or means to mimic—literary acts of the
apostles would be premature or misleading.
Nonetheless, it is apparent from the subsequent content of FrgPol that
it does not present itself as a gospel, a letter or epistle, a heresiological
work, a biblical commentary, or a church history. Are there any genres or
kinds of ancient Christian literature other than that of the acts of an apos-
tle for which FrgPol might be considered a candidate?
The genre “Life” or Vita fails as a possibility if one takes it to be charac-
teristic of that genre that “while the saints die a martyr’s death, this event,
far from being the central narrative interest of the story, comprises but one
element in a complex tale.”!> Though the extant text of FrgPol indicates
that its author is concerned with more than a simple recounting of the mar-
tyr’s death,'® “the central narrative interest” is that of Polycarp’s last days.'”
It has recently been suggested that “the title ‘Martyrdom of’ (passiones
or martyria) is given to Christian accounts whose focus is upon descrip-

14. For further discussion of the designation “disciple of the apostles,” see comments on
(b) 6-8.
15. Alison Goddard Elliot, Roads to Paradise: Reading the Lives of the Early Saints
(Hanover: University Press of New England, 1987) 21.
16. See above, ch. 3.
17. See the transition from page (c) to page (d) and following.
64 Polycarp and John

tions (purportedly of eyewitnesses or contemporaries) of the last events

and heroic sufferings of martyrs.”!® Though it does appear that the “focus”
or narrative interest of FrgPol is on Polycarp’s “last events,”!? the departure
narrative and other material on pages (a)—(c) present serious intrusions
into the “martyrdom” genre.”°
Given the very close relationship with the apostle John which is devel-
oped in FrgPol, especially surrounding the martyr's death,7! it is likely that
the departure narrative is meant to present the reader with at least a motif
(division of the world), if not a genre (acts), which is associated directly
with the apostles.
Obs. 7. The restoration of the text in the lacunas of page (a) is
complicated by the variety of detail within the tradition on the division
of the world among the apostles. For example, a possible restoration for
(a) 3 is “Jerusalem,”?? a reading which is consistent with relevant passages
in the NT?? as well as later tradition. However, a specific location within or
around Jerusalem may have been identified. In works associated with John,
the Syriac History of John includes the “upper room’ as the setting in which
the apostles gather for the division of the world, while the Mysteries of
St. John and the Holy Virgin identifies the Mount of Olives as the setting.
Obs. 8. In Sah, “region” and “assigned” are cognates, an associ-
ation not readily made in an English translation. A similar pair of cognates
available to the Greek stylist would be xopa and xwpiCw, though I find no
extant Greek parallel which employs these. ;

(a) 8-11 while they com[pleted] the preaching about [the kin]gdom of
[h]eaven throughout the whole of [this cr]eation

Obs. 1. The departure narrative in FrgPol contains both (A) a

statement regarding the division of the world into assigned territories, and
(B) a description of the content of the apostles’ preaching. The second ele-

18. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii, 5.

19. Given such an understanding, (a)—(c) are introductory to the action that begins on
(d); the emphasis on “lawcourt” at (e) 10, 13, 19, and possibly (b) 5 may indicate to the
reader such a “focus on last events and heroic sufferings.”
20. See, for example, the corpus of texts in Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian
Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).
21. See below, esp. comment on (b) 2-6, (e) 14-21; also ch. 3, ch. 5.
22. As suggested in the text critical notes; see above, ch. 1.
23. Esp. Luke 24:47; see also ch. 1, parallels to (a) 1-8.
 Commentary 65

ment, a description of the content of the apostles’ preaching, is not com-

monly found in reports of the division of the world from the second and
third century. For example, it is not found in either HE 3.1 or Acts of
Thomas 1. However, it is present in texts that predate these.
1 Clem. 42.3—4 includes both elements: “they went out announcing the
good news that the kingdom of God was coming, preaching throughout the
regions and cities.” Several NT passages, notably Mark 16:15, include both
elements: “And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the
good news to the whole creation.’”*4
The vocabulary and content of the departure narrative in FrgPol are con-
sistent with the earliest (first- and second-century) records of the apostolic
division of the world.
Obs. 2. The syntax of the Sah phrase is ambiguous due to the
relative pronoun, “which.””? A literal translation would be “while they
com[pleted] the preaching of [the kin]gdom of [h]eaven which is in all of
[this crJeation.” Is it “the preaching” (about the kingdom of heaven) or “[the
kin]gdom of [h]eaven,” “which is in all of [this cr]eation”?
Obs. 3. Given the strength of the parallels presented,*° and the
tradition of the division of the world for the apostolic preaching, the former
is to be favored as the probable meaning of the text: it is “the preaching,”
accomplished by the apostles, “which is in all of [this cr]eation.” Such is
the understanding presented in the translation given in chapter 2. The
somewhat unusual use of “creation” in this context can be explained by the
influence of Mark 16:15.?’

24. NRSV; see similarly, Matt 24:14, Luke 24:47; see also ch. 1, parallels to (a) 1-8 and
(a) 8-11.
25. Bare eT.
26. See ch. 1, register of parallels.
27. “In the whole creation” (Gk, taon TH KTicet; Sah, HnCwNT THPq). The apparent
presence of the demonstrative pronoun “this” before “creation” does not find a parallel in
Mark 16:15. However, the pronoun “this” (Gk, aut; Sah, nei) is coupled with “creation” in
Ps 73:18 (LXX): “Remember this creation of yours.”
If this phrase in (a) 8-11 does indicate the influence of Mark 16:15, the occurrence is
noteworthy, since many of the earliest manuscript witnesses to the second Gospel do not in-
clude the so-called “longer ending” of Mark, 16:9—20. According to Kurt Aland and Barbara
Aland, Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and
Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (tr. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerd-
mans, 1987) 287:
in Codex Vaticinus . . . as well as in Codex Sinaiticus . . . the Gospel of Mark ends at
Mark 16:8, as it did also in numerous other manuscripts according to the statements
66 Polycarp and John

Obs. 4. What of the less likely possibility, that it is “[the kin]g-

dom of [h]eaven which is in all of [this cr]eation”? Such a notion may be
found within early documents associated with the apostles generally, and
with the apostle John specifically.
A) The book of Revelation includes such statements as “the kingdom of
the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah.”?8 As
recorded by Eusebius, Dionysius of Alexandria states that he does not
agree with the assertion in Rev that “the kingdom of Christ will be on
earth.”*? Here the grammatical tense and, presumedly, the state of affairs
being commented on are in the future.
In Gaius’ criticism of Rev, as recorded also by Eusebius (HE 3.28.2), An
time element is less clear. Not the indicative but the infinitive is used in
summarizing the teaching which Gaius finds disagreeable: “that after the
resurrection the kingdom of Christ be earthly.” Since the adverbial phrase
“after the resurrection” is itself ambiguous, one cannot know for certain
whether Gaius assumes this earthly “kingdom” to be a future event. If the
adverbial phrase, “after the resurrection,” points back to the resurrection of
Christ which has already occurred, then presumedly, “the kingdom” might
be understood to be (already) “on earth.” If, as is more probable, the phrase
points to a future resurrection of believers,*? then this earthly “kingdom” is
necessarily a future occurrence.

of Eusebius of Caeserea and Jerome. The same is true for the Sinaitic Syriac sy®, the
Old Latin manuscript k of the fourth/fifth century, and at least one Sahidic manuscript
of the fifth century. ...
On the other hand, according to Biblia Patristica 1.318-319 and 3.285, Mark 16:15 is
cited by such early Christian writers as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, as
well as in several non-canonical or apocryphal works, including the Epistula Apostolorum (for
the possible influence of Mark 16:15 in the latter, see Epistula Apostolorum 30; in Miller,
“Epistula Apostolorum,” 267 [translation], 282 [notes], and Schmidt, Gespriiche Jesu, 94-95).
Perhaps more pertinent, as stated by Werner Georg Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testa-
ment (rev. ed.; tr. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984) 100, the longer end-
ing is “known to Tatian and Irenaeus (who knows it as the end of Mark).” Irenaeus, of course,
hails from Smyrna and claims to have been Polycarp’s student; his knowledge of Mark 16:
9-20 may indicate the presence of that manuscript tradition in Smyrna from as early as the
time of Polycarp.
28. Rev 11:15b (NRSV); see also Rev 12:9—10, 14:6.
29. HE 3.28.5, 7.25.3. Dionysius attributes Rev to Cerinthus, stating that the book is
falsely circulating under John’s name (HE 7.25.1—2; similarly Gaius, 3.28.1—2); for a discus-
sion of the association of Cerinthus with the Montanism and chiliasm of Phrygia and Asia
Minor, see Benjamin G. Wright, “Cerinthus apud Hippolytus,” SecCent 4 (1984) 103-115,
esp. 112-113.
30. Apparently the meaning which Dionysius, writing after Gaius, understood.
 Commentary 67

Though unlikely, it is possible that the reading of FrgPol is alluding to a

tradition associated with Rev that the heavenly “kingdom” would be or per-
haps, already is, “on the earth.”
B) The following summary statement occurs within the Syriac History
of John: “And when the apostles had travelled about in the countries,
and had planted the cross, and it had spread over the four quarters of the
world. . . .”°! The mission of the apostles is equated with the planting
of “the cross.”
Since “cross” and “kingdom” are closely associated in certain early
Christian texts,** the statement in the Syriac History might be understood
as a parallel to the reading of FrgPol. Though unlikely,*? it is possible that
the reading of FrgPol is alluding to a tradition in which “the kingdom
of heaven” is considered to be “in the world” as a result of the apostolic
mission.*#
C) Gos. Thom. 113 presents the following dialogue between Jesus and
“his disciples”:
His disciples said to him, “When will the kingdom come?” “It will not
come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Behold, here’ or ‘Behold,
there.’ Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth,
and people do not see it.”*
The last sentence as preserved in Coptic emphasizes the adverbial ele-
ment, “upon the earth,” through the use of the second tense. There
appears to be no ambiguity here: it is “upon the earth” that the “kingdom of
the Father” is now, already “spread out.” Fueled in part by the Jesus Semi-
nar’s interest in reconstructing the sayings of the historical Jesus, recent
scholarly discussion on Gos. Thom. 113 and (possibly) related texts has

31. W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: Edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the Brit-
ish Museum and Other Libraries (London: Williams and Norgate, 1871) 2.58; for the Syriac
text, see 1.63.
32. For example, Barn. 8.5: “the kingdom of Jesus is on the cross”; see the discussion
below regarding Martyrdom of Peter 9.
33. See above, Obs. 3.
34. See also above, comment on (a) 1—8, Obs. 5, for HE 3.37.1.
35. John S. Kloppenborg, Marvin W. Meyer, Stephen Patterson, Michael G. Steinhauser,
Q - Thomas Reader (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990) 154; includes translation (as cited
above) and Coptic text. For a critical edition with translation, see Bentley Layton, ed.,
Thomas O. Lambdin, tr., “The Gospel According to Thomas,” Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7,
together with XIII.2, Brit. Lib. Or. 4962(1), and P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (NHS 20; Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1989) 52-93.
68 Polycarp and John

sought to delineate a “cluster of sayings” of Jesus which indicate “that

God's imperial rule had arrived.’*° Though unlikely, it is possible that the
reading of FrgPol remembers a Christian—or, at least, a Jesus—tradition in
which “the kingdom” is reckoned to have already arrived.
Regardless of the relationship of Gos. Thom. 113 with the other kingdom
sayings of Jesus, consideration of the use of the verb “spread out” in the
context of other early Christian literature might shed light on (a) 8-11.
Metaphysical discussions associating Christ or “the cross” with the order-
ing principle of the universe that is “spread out,” “hung,” or “extended” are
familiar in early Christian literature. In the First Apology 60, for example,
Justin equates “the cross” with the crosswise arrangement of the universe
as described in Plato’s Timaeus, thereby recognizing “the word” (i.e.,
Christ) as the ordering principle.*’ Within the traditions associated with
John, AJn 97-101 presents a vision from “the Lord” in which John learns
that it is “this Cross then, which has made all things stable . . . and sepa-
rated off what is transitory*® and inferior.”*?
But how does one move from “cross” or “Christ” to “kingdom”? Martyr-
dom of Peter 9 presents an answer.*® In his final speech, made while sus-
pended (upside down) on the cross, Peter uses his own predicament to
launch a metaphysical discussion about “the first man” who “being drawn
down . . . cast his first beginning down to earth” and “established the
whole of this cosmic system, being hung up. . . .”4! The speech closes with
the appeal to “recognize the Kingdom. 42

36. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search
for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993) 531-532. A consideration of
the particulars of the debate regarding the meaning of Gos. Thom. 113 and (possibly) related
texts cannot be undertaken here. For recent discussion besides The Five Gospels, see Ste-
phen Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1993) 72; for fur-
ther discussion and bibliography, see Jacques-E. Ménard, L'Evangile selon Thomas (NHS 5;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975) 209, and LE vangile selon Philippe: Introduction, texte-traduction,
commentaire (Paris: Letouzy and Ané, 1967) 168-170; also Ernst Haenchen, Die Botschaft
des Thomas-Evangelium (Theologische Bibliothek Topelmann 6; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann,
1961).
37. See similarly the cosmology of Ptolemy (the Valentinian) as recounted in AH, esp.
12a, 3:
38. Lit., “generated.”
39. Tr. Schaferdiek, “The Acts of John,” 185.
40. Martyrdom of Peter 9 = Acts of Peter with Simon 38.
41. Tr. Schneemelcher, “The Acts of Peter,” in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apoc-
rypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, 315.
42. In the Gospel of Philip, the “Son,” who is present on earth, is equated with both
“Father” and “Kingdom”; sentences 81 and 96 in Ménard, L'Evangile selon Philippe; see also
above, Obs. 4B on the Syriac History of John.
 Commentary 69

Against the backdrop of extant second-century Christian descriptions

about the significance of Christ for the ordering of the universe, the phrase
“[the kin]gdom of [h]eaven which is in all of [this creation” might be
understood as a summary of the content of the apostolic preaching.
Though unlikely,*? it is possible that the reading of FrgPol is alluding to
a cosmological tradition in which “the kingdom of heaven’ is considered
to be “in the world.”

(a) 11-12 according to the testi[monly of the apostle

Obs. 1. The identity of “the apostle” cannot be known with

certainty given the fragmentary nature of the text at this point. Has “the
apostle” already been introduced by name (previous to the first line of
extant text)? Is it simply assumed that the reader will know the identity
of “the apostle” given the association with (A) Polycarp, or (B) the report of
division of the world among the apostles? There are several factors to be
considered.
Obs. 2. Internal evidence indicates that “the apostle” is John.
John is named as Polycarp’s teacher at (c) 11—15. Also within the extant
text are two extended references to John’s life and ministry—one beginning
after (a) 13 and continuing to (b) 11, the other, (e) 13-21. Both link Poly-
carp’s ministry and martyrdom very closely to John. One can be reasonably
certain that John is “the apostle” here.
Obs. 3. A simple garnering of evidence from other literature
associated with Polycarp might suggest Paul as a more likely candidate for
“the apostle” who has influenced Polycarp.
A) In Pol. Phil. the only apostle named is Paul (four times).*4 “The apos-
tles” are referred to twice, once alone (Pol. Phil. 6), once as “Paul and the
rest of the apostles” (Pol. Phil. 9.1). Pauline quotations and allusions pre-
dominate.*? As for the language of Johannine literature, it can be identified
in, at most, three phrases within the letter.*° Given these data, is it even
possible to consider a John in Polycarp’s past?

43. See above, Obs. 3.

44. Chs. 3, 9, 11 (twice).
45. See esp. C. M. Nielsen, “Polycarp and Marcion: A Note,” TS 74 (1986) 297-299; for
further discussion and bibliography, see Schoedel, “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius ofAnti-
och,” esp. 276-285.
46. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.321-350, 522-523, cites for Pol. Phil. 7, 1 John 3:8
and 4:2ff; for Pol. Phil. 12, John 15:16.
70 Polycarp and John

Martin Hengel, who argues for “unmistakable” Johannine influence only

at Pol. Phil. 7, finds it significant that therein Polycarp “addresses a ‘dog-
matic problem.’”” Therefore, for Hengel this one instance of Polycarp’s
allusion to Johannine material is particularly telling: the warning in Pol.
Phil. 7 “sounds not so much like a scriptural quotation as like a well-tried
battle-cry which comes from the Johannine school, though we may of
course assume that Polycarp knew the letters (and the Gospel).” Hengel
concludes: “above all in the polemic Polycarp seems to have remained . .
a disciple of John.”*” R. Alan Culpepper, citing the earlier work of Ray-
mond Brown, likewise finds a “distinct echo” of Johannine material in
Pol. Phil. 7 and posits a tradition of Johannine usage “from Papias to Poly-
carp and then to Irenaeus.”*® If there is no evidence of direct association
with someone named John, there is, at least, evidence of distinct usage
of Johannine literature and, perhaps, identity with a Johannine school or
tradition.
On the other hand, many scholars have downplayed or even dismissed
Polycarp’s identification with John or a Johannine school. Most recently
M.-E. Boismard, who, not unlike Hengel, identifies “one sole allusion” to
Johannine material, writes: “This is truly little for such a one who would
have been a disciple of John!’*? In his own recent consideration of the
matter, Helmut Koester suffers no consideration of Johannine influence:
“Polycarp is a church leader in the tradition of Paul, to whom he referred
explicitly, and whose tradition he interpreted . . . it is certain that [Polycarp]
did not know the Gospel of John.”>° (Curiously, Koester does not mention
the Johannine epistles). In two classic studies, that of von Loewenich re-
garding Johannine literature, and that of von Campenhausen on Polycarp’s
letter, the findings are similar to that of Boismard, if not Koester.?!

47. Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (tr. John Bowden; London: SCM Press,
1989) 15-16.
48. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 92.
49. Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean, 67.
50. Helmut Koester, “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature” (in idem, ed., Ephesos: Me-
tropolis ofAsia [Harvard Theological Studies 41; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
1995]) 135.
51. W. von Loewenich, Das Johannes Verstiéndnis im zweiten Jahrhundert (Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche 13;
Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1932) 25, comments that even if Polycarp’s use of 1 John is “by
design,” there remains no question that “for him, the apostle is Paul.” Hans Frhr. von Camp-
enhausen, Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, no. 2; Heidelberg: Carl
 Commentary 71

There is an important consideration which has, by and large, been lack-

ing in the scholarly literature devoted to this matter: in Pol. Phil. Polycarp
is writing to a community founded by Paul. For purposes of comparison
one would like to have extant a letter from Polycarp to a Johannine—or, at
least, a non-Pauline—community. The Johannine scholar Rudolf Schnack-
enberg speaks to this point: “the silence of the Bishop of Smyrna in his
letter to the Philippians must not be overstressed, especially as he wished
to honour St. Paul, on account of the recipients.”°?
B) Consideration of MartPol arguably offers no candidate for the role
of “the apostle” in Polycarp’s life. No apostle is named and, as is shown in
Dehandschutter’s recent studies, the influence of various biblical and
apostolic writings may be evident, including possible allusions to both Jo-
hannine literature and the Pauline letters. However, it should be noted that
both Hengel and von Loewenich, who disagree on the matter of Johannine
influence in Pol. Phil., have argued for significant Johannine influence in
MartPol.*?
C) In VPol, Paul is twice referred to as “the apostle,” and Polycarp is
linked with Paul through the bishops Strateas and Bucolos. John is absent.
With the exception of a reference to Peter at the close of the work, no other
apostle besides Paul is considered.”*
D) According to the MPion 2, the martyr Pionius, a presbyter at Smyrna
during Decius’ reign, was arrested on the anniversary of Polycarp’s martyr-

Winter, 1951) 42—43, writes, “For purposes of comparison, the Johannine literature gener-
ally does not come into question.”
52. Rudolf Schnackenberg, The Gospel according to John, vol. | (tr. Kevin Smyth; 1968;
New York: Crossroad, 1990) 79.
53. See two works by Dehandschutter: “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Re-
search,” 503-507, and Martyrium Polycarpi: Een literair-kritische Studie, 233-258. In
neither discussion does Dehandschutter reach a conclusion in favor of the influence of any
one apostle over another, or of the local influence of an apostle or apostles over that of a writ-
ten text.
Hengel, The Johannine Question, 5, asserts that “in the Martyrdom of Polycarp we find
some allusions to the Johannine passion narrative which prove that its usage in Smyrna was
a matter of course between 160 (150?) and 170 cx”; earlier, Loewenich, Das Johannes Ver-
stindnis, 23-24, argued for MartPol’s direct dependence on the passion account in the
Fourth Gospel for various descriptions of Polycarp’s martyrdom. Even if one accepts that
MartPol displays dependence on the Fourth Gospel, one may remain cautious regarding
Hengel’s assertion that “its usage was a matter of course between 160 (150?) and 170”; see
Campenhausen, Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarpmartyriums, 12 and through-
out, for the influence of a later “‘gospel’ redactor” upon the text of MartPol.
54. See VPol 1-3, 31.
72 Polycarp and John

dom. Further, MPol 22 includes a postscript by Pionius in which his loyalty

to Polycarp’s memory is striking.” In MPion 14, “the apostle” is Paul.
Obs. 4. The immediate context of the departure narrative in
FrgPol raises another possibility for the identity of “the apostle.” Peter fig-
ures prominently in many recountings of the apostolic division of the
world.*® For example, even at the beginning of the Syriac History of John
in which John, of course, is the prominent character, it is only after Peter’s
speech that the apostles agree, en masse, to engage in their missionary ac-
tivity. Could “the apostle” be Peter?
Obs. 5. Within second-century literature, such as AJn and the
works of Ptolemy, Heracleon, and Theodotus, John is referred to as “the
apostle.”*’ In the Epistula Apostolorum 2, John holds the prominent po-
sition as the first-named of the apostles.”®
Obs. 6. John is cast as the disciple who is privy to special discus-
sions with, and visions of, Jesus in both canonical and non-canonical
literature. Within the Gospels, John is one of a handful of disciples who is
granted a “privileged witness” of such events as the Transfiguration.’ Fur-
ther, according to the narrative about transfiguration found in AJn 90-91,
John and Jesus engage in their own private conversation on the mountain-
top, while in AJn 98 John is chosen as the “one . . . to hear’ about the mys-
tery of the cross.
In at least two works, the narrator indicates that John has occasion to
share his special knowledge with his colleagues. At the close of The Secret

55. See recently Fox, Pagans and Christians 472-473, 483-484; also Lightfoot, Apostolic
Fathers 2.1.638—645, and 2.3.427—431.
56. See above, comments on (a) 1-8, Obs. 1, and Kaestli, “Les scénes d’attribution,” esp.
260.
57. “The apostle of Christ,” AJn 57; for John as “the apostle” in Ptolemy, Letter to Flora,
and the writings of Heracleon and Theodotus, see Hengel, The Johannine Question, 8-9, and
Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 116-117; for all citations of John as “the apostle” in the
Excerpts of Theodotus, see M. R. Hillmer, “The Gospel of John in the Second Century”
(Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1966). In The Johannine Question, esp. 2-5, 7-9, 146
n. 44, Hengel argues for “a special tradition from Asia Minor’ in which John is not called “the
apostle”; in so doing, Hengel ignores AJn and diminishes the importance of such passages as
AH 1922:
58. For a recent statement regarding the “origin” of the “Epistula Apostolorum” in “about
the middle of the 2nd century,” see Miiller, “Epistula Apostolorum,” 251; similarly Culpep-
per, John, the Son of Zebedee, 119.
59. As noted by Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean, 73; cf. Matt 17:1-8, Mark 9:2—8, Luke
9:28—36.
 Commentary 73

Book according to John it is reported that John “came to his fellow disciples
and began to tell them about the things the savior had told him.” In the
Mysteries of St. John and the Holy Virgin the gathering of the apostles at
Jerusalem is the setting for John’s heavenly journey, which ends with his
eventual return to earth for a final meeting with the apostles before “each
one departed to his own country.”®!
Could “the testi[{mon]y of the apostle” be a particular message asso-
ciated with John or, more specifically, a special revelation from (the resur-
rected) Jesus to John?

Obs. 7. The direct association of Polycarp with John is found in

various Christian writings, in particular from two prominent writers of the
late second century, Tertullian and Irenaeus, the latter of whom claims to
have been taught by Polycarp.°?
Based on both internal and external evidence, “the apostle” is most
likely John.

(b) 2-6 [---Jic [---] of virglinity ---][---] to him instead [of ---]
[---] of the sword and the [---]s and the tortures of the
(lawcoulJrts.

Obs. 1. Virginity is an important characteristic of John’s hagio-

graphical biography,°* and more generally of literature associated with
John.
Within AJn 113, John’s final prayer celebrates and remembers his vir-
ginity. This section of the prayer begins with an address to God: “you who

60. Berol, 77 (NHC II.32.4), as found in W. Till and H.-M. Schenke, Die gnostischen
Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (2d ed.; TU 60; Berlin: Academie, 1972)
194.
61. For the text, see ch. 1, register of parallels, (a) 1-8; see also the Muratorian Canon
10—34 on John, esp. 10-16:
When his fellow disciples and bishops urged him he said: “what will be revealed to
each one let us relate to one another.” In the same night it was revealed to Andrew,
[one] of the apostles, that, while all were to go over [it], John in his own name should
write everything down. [tr. Harry Y.Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making
and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 93]
62. See ch. 1, register of parallels, (b) 6-8 and (b) 8-10; for discussion, see ch. 5.
63. See Eric Junod, “La virginité de l’apétre Jean: recherche sur les origines scripturaires
et patristiques de cette tradition,” in Lectures anciennes de la Bible (Cahiers de Biblia Patris-
tica, no. 1; Strasbourg: Centre d’Analyse et de Documentation Patristiques, 1987) 113-135;
see also below, ch. 5.2.
74 Polycarp and John

have guarded me until this hour for yourself, pure and untouched from
intercourse with a woman.” John then recalls Jesus’ series of interventions
in order to prevent John from marrying, culminating with the third inci-
dent: “the third time I wished to marry, you prevented me immediately,
saying tome ..., John, if you were not mine, | would have allowed you to
marry.” Following these recollections, John thanks God, “who contained
me from the foul madness associated with flesh, took me from a bitter
death, appointed me for you [sc. God] only.” Between two motifs already
familiar within the prayer, John’s virginity and his special status vis-a-vis
God,” is included the short phrase “[you] took me from a bitter death.” It
is that phrase, or more generally the tradition which it engages, which lies
behind the assertion of (e) 16—20.
In his description of the “second Epistle of John,” Clement of Alexandria
notes that it is “written to virgins.”©’ Culpepper suggests that later church
tradition which identifies the intended addressee of John’s first letter as
“the Parthians” rests on “a corruption of an earlier superscription which
read either “the Epistle of John to the Virgins” . . . or “The Epistle of John
the Virgin.”©°
Obs. 2. Within FrgPol, the discussion of John’s ministry which
follows the report of the division of the world among the apostles includes
the statement that John received the “[---]Jic [---] of virg[inity]” “instead
[of]” the bitter death of the martyr who is subject to “the sword” and vari-
ous “tortures” which are meted out by the “[lawcouJrts.” The tradition
about the peaceful death ofJohn is alluded to again in FrgPol at (e) 16-20,
wherein John’s charge to Polycarp begins: “Since the Lord granted to me
that I die on my bed... .”°’ The portrayal of John in FrgPol is consistent
with the descriptions contained in AJn.
Obs. 3. In its discussion of the feast day of the “Translation of
John” (December 30), the Synaxarium Alexandrinum records that “on ac-
count of his virginity and purity, [John] was not killed by the sword, as were
the rest of the disciples.”®*

64. Le., “for himself,” “mine,” “appointed for me.”

65. ANF 2.576.
66. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 169, citing the similarity of the Greek
Tap€evos, “virgin,” with the place name.
67. InAJn, upon finishing his prayer, John lies down inside the trench/grave, in which he
had previously “spread out his clothes like a mattress” (AJn 111, 114). For further discussion,
see below, comment on (e) 14—21.
68. Tr. Forget, Synaxarium Alexandrinum 1.308.
 Commentary ie:

Obs. 4. In our text “sword” is stated as one of the means of

punishment meted out by the “[lawcour]ts.” The famous sophist Polemo, a
contemporary of Polycarp, established a school in Smyrna and curried
much royal favor for his adopted city. He too associates justice with the
“sword,” declaring the following about certain heinous criminals, including
“those who commit sacrilege”: “a judge who possesses a sword is required
for them.”©?
Obs. 5. Many descriptions of the different tortures which were
meted out in the amphitheater, prison, and courtroom are extant in both
pagan and Christian literature.’ Within its discussion of those Christians
who were executed with Polycarp, MartPol includes descriptions of various
tortures. In a summary statement MPol records: “Likewise, those con-
demned to the wild beasts endured terrible punishments, being stretched
over shells and punished with various other tortures.”’! The missing text of
FrgPol presumably includes items such as “wild beasts” (@npta) or “punish-
ments” (KOAaOLS).

Obs. 6. In the Eusebian account of MartPol, the same noun for

“lawcourt” is used in the statement that Quintus “rushed to the lawcourt”
(HE 4.15.8). The narrative about Germanicus and Quintus—a positive
and negative model, respectively, for the would-be martyr—follows the
description of “all kinds of punishments and tortures” which the “other
martyrs” endured.’
Obs. 7. A phrase similar to that found in FrgPol, “in the law-
courts,” occurs in discussions of torture within both Hellenistic biography

69. Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 532; “judge” (6tkaoTHs) and “lawcourt”
(StxacoTHpLov) share the same root in Greek.
70. For a general discussion of the methods used, with reference to the extant literature,
see Craig Steven Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's Impris-
onments (JSNTS 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) esp. 46-55; within the
NT, Hebrews 1 1:35—37 identifies various means of torture and execution.
71. MPol 2.4; see similarly HE 4.15.4 and Boh 62.27—63.3; the same (Greek and
Coptic) noun “torture” as used in FrgPol (b) 5 is included in both the MPol and HE pas-
sages, while Boh employs the cognate verb form. The same (Greek and Coptic) noun
“sword” as used in FrgPol (b) 4 appears in Boh 70.23 to describe the instrument with which
the executioner pierces and kills Polycarp; MPol 16.1 and HE 4.15.38 use a different term
for that instrument.
72. HE 4.15.4: “tortures” is the same noun used in FrgPol. MPol 4 does not mention “the
lawcourt” in its description of Quintus; MPol 2.2—3 includes verbal and nominal cognates of
“torture” in describing the experience of the martyrs. For further discussion of “lawcourt,”
see comments on (e) 2—13, Obs. 3.
76 Polycarp and John

and Coptic martyrdoms. In the Martyrdom of St. Victor the General, for ex-
ample, the emperor asks, “do you think that there is no punishment or
torture in the lawcourt?’’”? In his Lives of the Philosophers 461, Eunapius
explains that the renowned, eclectic philosopher Iamblichus became in-
terested in the realia of torture while working on a biography of Alypius. In
the biography [amblichus “shows the magnitude of the punishments and
sufferings in the lawcourts.”
Obs. 8. As discussed above,”* the beginning of AJn is not extant.
In his consideration of departure narratives in the non-canonical acts,
Jean-Daniel Kaestli suggests that given the significance placed on John’s
virginity within the final prayer of AJn, that work may have begun with
an incident or set of incidents associating John with virginity rather than
with a recounting of the legend of the division of the world among the
apostles.”°
It must be observed, however, that in AJn John’s final prayer begins
with an address recalling the mission of the apostles to the world: “O you
who elected us to be an apostolate to the nations, O God who sent us into
the inhabited world” (AJn 112). Might the preliminary missing chapters of
AJn, like the final prayer found therein, have contained both a recounting
of the division of the world and a narrative about the virginity of John?
The text of FrgPol, for example, includes as prefatory material both of
these elements: a statement about the division of the world, followed by a
discussion of John’s status as a virgin. Given the close association which
FrgPol displays with the traditions about the apostle, FrgPol might be used
as evidence to support an argument that the beginning of AJn contained
both a statement about the division of the world and a narrative about
John’s virginity.

(b) 6-8 There remained [---|]ter him a discipl[e ---] name was Poly-
car[p

Obs. 1. In second-century literature about John, he is cast as one

who has “disciples.” The voice of the narrator in AJn 92 refers to “all of us

73. Budge, Coptic Texts 4.11; Budge’s own translation, Coptic Texts 4.264, is misleading
in its use of “prison-house” for 6ukaoTnptov. See similarly, Martyrdom of Coluthus 89 R i:
“The governor said to him, ‘The tortures of the lawcourt are many.”
74. See comment on (a). 1—8, Obs. 4.
75. Kaestli, “Les scénes d’attribution,” 262—263; see also Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohan-
nis 1.76—-86, and Culpepper, John, Son of Zebedee, 190-191.
 Commentary ale

who are his disciples.” In the Hypotyposeis, Clement narrates that John was
“urged on by his pupils” to write his Gospel.”
Obs. 2. The figure of John is central to the depiction of Polycarp
within FrgPol. Polycarp is John’s “discipl[e],” he is appointed bishop by
John, (b) 8-10, his career is defined by “the canons” associated with John,
(c) 11-15, and his martyr-death is inextricably tied to John, (e) 13-21. The
extant text of FrgPol records no contact of Polycarp with any apostles other
than John. Irenaeus, who records Polycarp’s association with “John,””’ also
mentions that Polycarp had come into contact with other “apostles” and
witnesses of the Lord;’* for example, he writes that Polycarp had been
“taught by apostles.””? Does the fact that Polycarp is described as John’s
disciple exclude the possibility, for the author of FrgPol, that Polycarp had
contact with other apostles and eyewitnesses?*®°

(b) 9 he made him bisho[p

Obs. 1. The inscription of Pol. Phil. records that it is a letter

from “Polycarp and the presbyters who are with him.” Nowhere does Poly-
carp refer to himself as “bishop.”
Obs. 2. That Polycarp was known as “bishop” is evident in early
sources.®! Within his letters, Ignatius twice refers to Polycarp, his con-
temporary, as a “bishop.”®* Within MartPol, Polycarp is referred to as a
“bishop,” while VPol records his ordination.*?

76. As recorded in HE 6.14.7; the word translated “pupil” (yvwptpos) is different than
that translated “disciple” herein. For a different account of the urging of John to write, see
Muratorian Canon 10-16, as quoted in a note above, comment on (a) 1 1—12, Obs. 6.
77. For further discussion, see ch. 5.
78. In AH 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.3), AH 5.33.4 (= HE 3.39.1), the “Letter to Florinus”
(HE 5.20.4— 8), and the “Letter to Victor” (HE 5.24.11—17); for texts, see ch. 1, register of
parallels.
79. See Hengel, The Johannine Question, 15: “Irenaeus stresses . . . that Polycarp
knew John of Ephesus . . . [yet] even for Irenaeus, Polycarp is no ‘exclusive’ disciple of
John.”
80. Jerome, Vir 17, reports that Polycarp, “disciple of the apostle John,” “had for a teacher
and saw some of the apostles and those who had seen the Lord”; for the text, see ch. 1, reg-
ister of parallels.
81. See Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 7.
82. Ign. Magn. 15, Polycarp, inscr.; see also Ign. Smyrn. 12.2.
83. MPol 16.2 = HE 4.15.39; MPol 23; for texts, see ch. 1, register of parallels. See also
VPol 3.
78 Polycarp and John

Obs. 3. An alternate tradition, in which there is no record of

Polycarp being listed among the early bishops of Smyrna, is preserved in
the Apostolic Constitutions
.*4

Obs. 4. After reporting that Polycarp had been instructed by the

apostles and had been in the company of other eyewitnesses of the Lord,®°
Irenaeus states that Polycarp “was also installed as bishop in the church
at Smyrna by the apostles who were in Asia.”°° Several sentences later
he records Polycarp’s association with John.®’ Tertullian, writing after Ire-
naeus, states that “Polycarp was established at the Church of Smyrna by
John just as, at Rome, Clement was ordained by Peter.”** It has been sug-
gested that in this passage, Tertullian “spins out the remark by Irenaeus in
a tendentious way.”®?
Does FrgPol, in remembering a Polycarp ordained by John, “spin out”
the tradition reported by Irenaeus for its own purposes?”

Obs. 5. There is a tradition, evident in the second century, that

John had practiced ordination in Asia Minor. Besides the statements by
Tertullian,?! Clement of Alexandria records that “the Apostle John,” after
serving his term of exile on Patmos, settled in Ephesus, “and used also to
go, when called on, to the neighboring districts of the gentiles, in some
places ordaining (ka8toTnpL) bishops, in others uniting whole churches,
and in others appointing (kAnpdw) a given individual pointed out by the

84. “At Smyrna, Ariston is first, after whom is Strateas, the son of Lois, and thirdly, Aris-
ton,” 7.46.8; Streeter, The Primitive Church, 95-96, asserts that this list “pre-dates Irenaeus”
and “goes back to an early tradition.”
85. See above, comment on (b) 6—8, Obs. 2.
86. AH 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.3); in his own comments earlier in HE, Eusebius like-
wise records Polycarp’s truck with the apostles, but on the matter of ordination does not in-
clude “the apostles,” writing instead that Polycarp “had been appointed to the episcopate of
the Church at Smyrna by the eyewitnesses and attendants of the Lord” (HE 3.36.1); for the
texts, see ch. 1, register of parallels.
87. AH 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.6).
88. On the Prescription against the Heretics 32.2.
89. Hengel, The Johannine Question, 153 n. 90. Certainly it is consistent with Tertul-
lian’s agenda to recognize an apostle at the foundation of important local Christian
communities; for commentary on the origin of the churches in the cities named in Rev 1-2,
see Adv. Mare. 4.5.2: “We have also the churches fostered by John . . . [which], tracing their
line of bishops to its beginning, stand on John as their founder.”
90. For further discussion, see ch. 5.
91. As commented on in Obs. 4, above.
 Commentary 7?

Spirit.”’? When, in discussing John, the Muratorian Canon mentions “his

own bishops,””’ might it be referring to bishops ordained by John?

(b) 10 Smyrna, the [---] city.

Obs. 1. Ancient literature about Polycarp, including Ignatius’ let-

ters to Smyrna and to Polycarp, is consistent in placing him in Smyrna.
Pol. Phil. does not contain any reference to the city.
Obs. 2. The missing text most likely modifies the noun “city.”?>
There were a number of impressive epithets used by the ancients to de-
scribe Smyrna.”°

(b) 13 other disciple[s]

The “other disciple[s]” are presumably “disciples of the apostles” other

than Polycarp, who has already been described as “a discipl[e]” of John.?’
Like Polycarp, these “other disciple[s]” would be ones who had survived
their teachers and carried on the traditions in which they were trained.”®
For discussion of the category “disciple of the apostles,” see below com-
ment on (c) 6—8, Obs. 3.

92. Clement, Quis Dives Salvetur, as recorded in HE 3.23.6.

93. Muratorian Canon 10; for translation of Muratorian Canon 10-16, see above com-
ment on (a) 11—12, Obs. 6.
94. For further discussion, see ch. 5.
95. The lacuna falls at the end of the Coptic sentence, after “the city’; possibly an n-
attributive construction followed. The size of the lacuna and the extant traces following it
do not accomodate €T-.
96. For “beautiful” (kddAos) and “most beautiful,” see, respectively, MPion 4.2 and Life of
Apollonius of Tyana 4.7; VPol 30 employs the cognate “very beautiful” (Teptkaddyjs). Aelius
Aristides, esp. Orat. 17—21 (in Charles A. Behr, tr., P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works,
vol. 2: Orations XVII-LIII (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981]), sings the praises of—and labels—
Smyrna variously; see also Strabo, Geography 14.1.37 (646). For examples of municipal and
imperial titles, such as are inscribed on coins, steles, and buildings, see T. R. S. Broughton,
“Roman Asia” (in Tenney Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome [orig. pub. 1938,
New York: Octagon Books, 1975] vol. 4) 742; see further GIBM 3.153-155 and CIG,
nos. 3199, 3202-3205; also Jh 53 (1981-1982) 90. For further discussion see Broughton,
“Roman Asia,” 750-752; Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, esp. 291-294; David Magie, Roman Rule
in Asia Minor: To the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1950) esp. 635-637, 684-685; and below, ch. 5.
97. (b) 7.
98. (b) 11-13, (c) 11-16.
80 Polycarp and John

(c) 2 all [the] siblings

Obs. 1. A simpler translation of the Greek term ad5ehds might

be “brothers”; however, within Hellenistic literature generally, and Chris-
tian literature specifically, the term is used for members of a group with-
out any assumption as to gender.”? For example, in the Coptic Martyrdom
of Shenoufe and His Brethren, one of the “brethren” is “a woman . . . So-
phia.”!°° In the Acts ofJohn by Prochorus, John addresses that group which
has previously been identified with the Greek term d5edbds (160.9) as
follows: “my sons and daughters” (161.3—4).!°! In earlier literature asso-
ciated with Smyrna and Polycarp, the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne em-
ploys the term repeatedly to refer to groups of Christians which include
women, 102 while MPion reports that one of Pionius’ circle was a woman
named Sabina. 103

Obs. 2. “The siblings” is consistently used within FrgPol to indi-

cate Polycarp’s circle of attendants.!°* No other term is used in FrgPol to
refer to this group.

Obs. 3. Within the narrative of MartPol several descriptions

are used to indicate Polycarp’s attendants, such as, “those around him,”!”
“the whole,”!° “a few,”!” “those present,”!°8 “those with him,”!? and
“the siblings.”!!° The only instance of “the siblings” as a designation for
Polycarp’s circle within the Greek versions is recorded in the Eusebian

99. See BAGD 15b—16b.

100. Sophia is introduced into the text at 106 Ri.
101. As explained in ch. 1, n. 12, the references given are to page and line numbers in
Zahn’s edition (Acta Joannis). There is, to my knowledge, no English translation available,
though Culpepper, John, Son of Zebedee, 206-222, includes a helpful and somewhat detailed
narrative summary.
102. Recorded in HE 5.1.3—5.2.8; see esp. 5.1.32, 5.2.8.
103. Introduced into the text at MPion 2.
104. See also (d) 16, 22; (e) 2; (f) 4, 8.
105. HE 4.15.9 and 4.15.10.
106. MPol 5.1.
107. MPol 5.1 = HE 4.15.9.
108. HE 4.15.10.
109. MPol 5.2.
110. HE 4.15.11=Boh 64.25.
 Commentary 81

tradition of MartPol.''! Boh uses “the siblings” in the same place in the
narrative as does HE, as well as in one other instance. !!2

(c) 3-5 [--- ma]ke prayers [---][---] perseverance [---][---] because

[=]
Obs. 1. The extant text is very incomplete in this section.
At least three elements correspond to a particular section of MartPol:!!3
(1) prayers, (2) perseverance, and (3) a sentence-ending subordinate
clause introduced by “for” or “because.” Two other elements may corre-
spond: (4) the reference to the circle around Polycarp in line 2,!!* and
(5) the reference to a period of time.!!° Though several elements corre-
spond, the context here is not that of MartPol: the arrival of Polycarp at his
first hiding place.''®
Obs. 2. In his letter to Polycarp, Ignatius urges his colleague to
“allow time for continuous prayer” ( Ign. Pol. 1.3.). Prayer figures promi-
nently also in the portrait of Polycarp within MartPol. After first reporting
that “Polycarp prayed constantly, night and day,” MartPol describes three
specific occasions of prayer.!!’
VPol 27 suggests a Polycarp who is more inclined to use the night hours
“to study the Scriptures” than to pray. A certain deacon tells Polycarp: “you

111. MPol simply does not use “the siblings” within the narrative to indicate Polycarp’s
attendants. However outside the narrative, in the remarks at the conclusion of the letter,
there are references to “our sibling Marcianus’” and “the distant siblings.”
112. Compare “those around him’ (HE 4.15.9) with “the siblings who are around him”
(Boh 64.6-7).
113. MPol 5.1 = HE 4.15.9 = Boh 64.3—14, wherein Polycarp has just arrived at his first
hiding place.
114. For discussion of the use of “sibling(s)”’ among the versions of MartPol, see above
comment on (c) 2.
115. See ch. 1, Text Critical Notes, and ch. 2, Possible Restorations, for a possible
restoration in the lacuna following “perseverance.” MartPol (similarly Boh) includes a refer-
ence to “night and day,” while Rufinus has “night” only, the latter suggesting an allusion to
Luke 6:12.
116. For comparison of the structure of FrgPol with that of MartPol, see ch. 3.
117. See ch. 1, register of parallels for (c) 3, and below comment on (c) 21-24, Obs. 1;
for further discussion of prayer in MartPol, see Frederick W. Weidmann, “Polycarp’s Final
Prayer (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14),” in Mark Kiley, ed., Prayer from Alexander to Constantine:
A Critical Anthology (New York: Routledge, 1997) 285-290, and Dehandschutter, “The
Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” esp. 507-508.
82 Polycarp and John

are always studying the Scriptures and therefore awake, you have not even
slept.” However, later in VPol two incidents involving Polycarp at “prayer”
are recorded.!!®

(c) 6-8 healo[ne] remained [among the di]sciple[s] of the apos[t][les]

Obs. 1. In a classic scholarly essay on “Apostles and Disciples of

the Apostles in Asia Minor,” Theodor Zahn states that “these disciples of
the apostles had completely died out by about 145 [cE].”!!? The exception
is Polycarp who, according to Zahn, outlived the other “disciples of the
apostles” by ten years.!?°
Obsa2. Irenaeus describes Polycarp as one “whom we also saw
in our youth” and who “was always teaching these things which he learned
from the apostles.”!*! Therefore Irenaeus writes from the point of view of
one who is a step removed from direct contact with “the apostles”; that is,
he claims to have had contact with someone who had been taught by “the
apostles.”
The narrator of FrgPol can mark time, it appears, based on the collec-
tive passing of two important categories of persons: “the apostles,” (b) 11,
and “[the diJsciple[s] of the apos[t][les],” (c) 7-8.!?? As such, FrgPol is
narrated from the point of view of one who is removed from direct contact
with “the apostles” at least to the degree of Irenaeus.
Obs. 3. Among second-century Christian writers, recognition
was accorded those who had themselves been taught by the apostles. For
example, in the Stromata Clement of Alexandria writes of the “blessed and
truly praiseworthy individuals” from whom he was privileged to learn: “But
they were preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly

118. VPol 30 and 31-32.

119. Theodor Zahn, Apostel und Apostelschiiler in der Provinz Asien (Forschungen zur
Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 6; Leipzig:
A. Deichert, 1900) 38.
120. Ibid., 275.
121. AH 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.4).
122. For similar recognition of the passing of the era in which the followers of the apos-
tles were influential, see AH 5.33.4 (= HE 3.39.1). Irenaeus, who had been taught by
Polycarp when a child and was flourishing in the 180s, refers to Papias (fl. 130) as “the
hearer of John,” “a companion of Polycarp,” and a “man of the old time’; italicized phrase
trans. by Hengel, The Johannine Question, 159 n. 123; for further discussion of Irenaeus’ ac-
counts, see below, Obs. 3, and ch. 5.
 Commentary 83

from Peter, James, John, and Paul, the holy apostles; child receiving it from
father. . . .”!*3 As recorded also by Clement in the Stromata, the reason that
Basilides’ followers are able “to boast” of their teacher's relationship with a
certain Glaucias is, no doubt, the latter’s direct association with Peter, !24
For Irenaeus in AH, the collective label, “disciples of the apostles,” may
represent a distinct, fixed group.'*? He refers both to “a presbyter” who
is “a disciple of the apostles” (4.32.1) and to “presbyters” (5.5.1) who are
“disciples of the apostles.”!7° One of Irenaeus’ primary concerns in these
passages, as throughout AH,!’ is to indicate the succession of individuals
and teachings from the apostles through his teacher(s) and, finally, to
himself. !28
According to Zahn, Irenaeus portrays Polycarp as “a model for the whole
class of disciples of the apostles.”!*? The same might be said of FrgPol’s
portrayal of Polycarp. First, given its use of “disciples”!?° and “[di]sciple of
the apos[t][les],” FrgPol, like AH, conveys the sense of a distinct group.
Secondly, the Polycarp presented by FrgPol, given both his association
with John and his own career, appears to hold impeccable credentials as a
member of that group. Further, Polycarp survives all the others within his
group, making him—for a time—the sole survivor of that group and the
only direct witness to the tradition he represents.

123. Strom. 1.11 (= HE 5.11.3-6).

124. Strom. 7.17.
125. Zahn, Apostel und Apostelshiiler, 69.
126. Fora discussion of the relationship of the label “presbyter(s)” to “disciple(s) of the
apostle,” see Zahn, Apostel und Apostelschiiler, esp. 65-69, and John Chapman, John the
Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911) esp. 13-19.
127. And not unlike Clement of Alexandria and the Basilideans in the passages cited
above.
128. Zahn, Apostel und Apostelschiiler, 67, likens Irenaeus’ approach to “the symbol of a
canal . . . through which the apostolic tradition has flowed to him’; for Irenaeus as an early,
perhaps the earliest, proponent of “apostolic succession,” see Zahn, Apostel und Apostel-
schiiler, 27, and Arnold Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the
Church (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953), esp. 109; for a general discussion of the concept
of “apostolic succession,” which represents a series of issues related to, but distinct from, the
particular matter under discussion herein, see Dewailly, Envoyés du pére, 46-113.
For “the presbyter” as denoting different individuals in different passages within AH,
see comments by Harvey, Sancti Irenaei, Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque adversus
Haereses, 2.254 n. 5, and Chapman, John the Presbyter, 13-16.
129. Zahn, Apostel und Apostelschiiler, 73, commenting on AH 3.3.4 (= HE 5.20.4); see
similarly Hengel, The Johannine Question, 15, who writes that for Irenaeus, John is “an au-
thority from the very early period which reaches right back to the time of the eyewitness and
apostles.”
130. (b) 13, following “apostles”; see above, comment to (b) 13.
84 Polycarp and John

Obs. 4. In the preface of Boh, within a section (62.10-17)

which closely follows Irenaeus’ remarks as recorded in AH 3.3.4 (=HE
4.14.3-4), it is reported that Polycarp “was a disciple of the apostles.”!>!

(c) 8 He was [---] [of the] whole [c]hurch

As suggested in the textual apparatus within both chapters | and 2, the
text in the lacuna is probably a title.!** Several possibilities are presented
above.

(c) 10-11 [---] old man, being one hundred and f[our] years of age.

Obs. 1. The parallels in MartPol mention “eighty-six years.”

During his trial, Polycarp says, “I have served [Christ] for eighty-six years”
(MPol 9.3; HE 4.15.20). As summarized by J. B. Lightfoot over a century
ago, the question is “whether Polycarp means that he was a Christian from
his birth and was now 86 years old, or that it was 86 years since he became
a Christian,”!?? perhaps through baptism. That question has continued to
exert primary influence in scholarly consideration of this passage. 134
Obs. 2. Since the text of FrgPol breaks off while Polycarp is
awaiting arrest, it is impossible to know, firstly, whether the full narra-
tive recounted the trial scene, and secondly, whether Polycarp makes the
same—or a similar—statement regarding his eighty-six years. What ap-
pears certain is that within FrgPol Polycarp was martyred at the age of one
hundred and four. For FrgPol the soon-to-be-martyred Polycarp cannot
have been eighty-six years old.

131. Boh 62.10—11; compare HE 4.14.3: “But Polycarp also had not only been taught by
the apostles and had conversed with many who had seen the Lord. . . .”
132. For the Coptic construction, woon fi-, see Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Coptic Grammati-
cal Categories: Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic (AnOr 53; Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1986) 39—40.
133. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.379 n. 8.
134. In his short comment in Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 65,
Schoedel concludes (citing P. Nautin, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des Ie et IIe siécles [Pa-
tristica, vol. 2; Paris, 1961] 72 n. 1): “It means. . . ‘I have always served Christ and I am not
going to cease doing so at the age of eighty-six.’” According to Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte
der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, part 2, Die Chronologie, vol. 1 (Leipzig: J. C. Hin-
richs, 1897) 342, “the most obvious sense of Polycarp’s own words is, ‘I have been a Christian
since birth, and am 86 years old’”; Zahn, Apostel und Apostelschiiler, 96, counts Polycarp’s
“eighty-six” years from the time when “he was baptized as a youngster, at 10-14 years of age.”
 Commentary 85

Obs. 3. If the figure one hundred and four, as it appears in

FrgPol, is consistent with Polycarp’s statement that he had “served [Christ]
for eighty-six years,” then he would have had to have begun that service at
the age of eighteen or nineteen. According to VPol 3, Polycarp was a “little
child” (tatSdptov) at the time of his adoption by the Christian, Callisto.
Certainly the term “little child” cannot refer to an eighteen-year-old. No
other statement of the age at which Polycarp became a Christian survives.
Where might the figure one hundred and four have come from, and what
might it indicate?
Papylus’ confession in the Greek recension of the Martyrdom of Carpus,
Papylus, and Agathonice 34 suggests a possible solution.!*> To the procon-
sul’s question, “Are you going to sacrifice, or what are you going to say?”
Papylus replies: “I have served God since my youth” (vedtns). Both the
text and context of this dramatic sentence bear a resemblance to Polycarp’s
statement about his eighty-six years. It may not be coincidental that just as
Papylus reckons his career of service from (some point in) his “youth,” so
VPol 11 preserves a tradition in which it is recorded that Polycarp was “en-
rolled . . . in the order of deacons” when he had reached “young adulthood”
(0 véos THs NAtktas). Indeed, “youth” and cognate terms may have been
used with a kind of technical meaning among some early Christians, not
least among them Polycarp himself.!*°
During the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the term “youth” was used,
with some fluidity, to refer to someone who was eighteen years of age or
more, somewhat akin to the American-English “young adult” or, when

135. See Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, xv—xvi, 22-37. Though the Martyrdom
of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice does not stand in the Polycarp tradition in the manner of
MPion, it is associated with both MPion and MartPol from an early date (at least mid-late
third century) and may be dependent to some degree on MartPol; see Dehandschutter, “The
Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” 501, and HE 4.15.46—48.
136. Besides the literature already cited, see 1 Clem. 63.3 in which the term is used to
describe certain “faithful and prudent ones who have lived among us from youth to old age
irreproachably.” In Pol. Phil. 5.3, within a discussion of the role of deacons and presbyters,
Polycarp exhorts “young ones’ to hold to certain guidelines of appropriate behavior (“virgins”
are also addressed). Is Polycarp using “young ones” (vewTepot) in a technical sense to refer to
a particular group, with particular functions, within his community (contra Schoedel, Poly-
carp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, and Fragments of Papias, 21)?
In the story which appears at the end of Clement of Alexandria's Quis Dives Salvetur, and
which is recounted by Eusebius in HE 3.23, the apostle John takes interest in a particular
youngster living in a city nearby Ephesus (which Chronicon Paschale identifies as Smyrna).
After having strayed, the “youth” (veavioxos) is “restored to the church” by John (HE
3.23.5-19).
86 Polycarp and John

referring specifically to a male, “young man.” The age of eighteen itself was
used to mark the entry into adulthood.!*’
Perhaps Polycarp’s eighty-six years are to be reckoned neither from
his birth nor, if he was baptized as a youngster, from his baptism into a
Christian community. Reckoning his own career of service to be from his
“youth,” in a manner consistent with other early Christians, and perhaps
more precisely from the generally acknowledged age of maturity (i.e., eigh-
teen), the one-hundred-and-four-year-old Polycarp would have been
engaged in Christian service for eighty-six or eighty-seven years. The record
of Polycarp’s age in FrgPol may be a gloss on Polycarp’s statement in Mart-
Pol. If independent of the statement about eighty-six years, the age refer-
ence in FrgPol preserves either a piece of realia (i.e., the actual age of Poly-
carp when he was killed), or a unique tradition about the great age of the
bishop.

(c) 11-15 He continued to walk [i]n the canons which he had learned
during his youth from John the a[p]ostle

Obs. 1. The Coptic verb for “walk” (uoowe), like its Greek
counterpart (TepttaTtéw), is used figuratively in Hellenistic literature, in-
cluding both Pauline and Johannine writings, with regard to “the walk
of life.”!78 Polycarp himself uses the Greek verb in precisely this manner
in Pol. Phil. 5.1 (“We ought to walk worthily of [God's] commandment and
glory’) and Pol. Phil. 5.3 (“Wherefore it is necessary . . . that the virgins
walk in a blameless and pure conscience’).
Obs. 2. The use of “canons” is similar to that found in traditions
about both John and Polycarp. Within the literature on Polycarp, the ex-
tended postscript included at the end of the Moscow manuscript of M Pol
includes a report from Irenaeus that he was taught the “canons” of his
faith by Polycarp.!*? In AJn 57 John is approached by a stranger who re-
quests that the apostle pray for him. The narrative continues: “after in-
structing him and giving him canons, [John] sent him away.”

137. See pertinent articles in OCD, 3rd ed.: “Age,” 38a—b, “Education, Greek,”
506a—509a, esp. 508b, “Epheboi,” 527a-b; also EpnBos, and vedtns and cognates, in LSJ.
See also Philostratus, Life ofApollonius of Tyana 2.30: “18 years . . . the measure of maturity.”
138. BAGD 649.
139. For the text, see ch. 1, register of parallels, (c) 11-15.
 Commentary 87

Obs. 3. The Coptic verb translated “learned” (tTcago) has as its

basic meaning “to teach,” with the passive meaning “be taught.” It does
not appear here in the passive voice. Rather, its particular usage appears
to be an ingressive one, bearing the meaning “to become taught” or “to
learn.”!40
Obs. 4. FrgPol portrays Polycarp as one standing within a tra-
dition of teaching which is received from John and, apparently, passed
along by Polycarp to his students. Such a description is consistent with
that found within the writings of Irenaeus and later authors.!*!
Obs. 5. Pionius’ self-description in MPion 4.7 appears con-
sistent with the description of his hero Polycarp in this passage: “and I
struggle not to change the things which | first learned and later taught.”
Obs. 6. At the close of the Acts of John by Prochorus, 160.9—10,
John addresses his followers: “Children, hold fast to the traditions which
you received from me. . . .” Both the addressees, “children,” and the con-
tent of the message are consistent with descriptions in FrgPol.

(c) 16-21 And all the Christians who had heard about his way of
life used to seek after him to see him, like genuine children
seeking after th[ei]r father.

Obs. 1. This description of crowds who come “seeking after”

Polycarp is unique within the Polycarp tradition.'*? It is a motif in the
philosophical school tradition. Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, records
that the young “flocked to Athens because of their desire for [Herodes’]
words.”!*? Soon after, in a description 4 propos to the situation of Poly-
x

140. Lam indebted to Prof. Stephen Emmel, Institut Agyptologie/Koptologie, Miinster,

for consulting with me about this particular usage. In a personal correspondence, he cites
Athanasius, Ep. Fest. 39, as “an unambiguous example” of this Coptic verb employed with an
ingressive meaning: ‘NTACTCABO Pap AN VITHKEOYA EPCag, For it was not from someone
else that he [Jesus] learned to be a teacher.”
141. Though see Irenaeus as quoted above, comment on (c) 6-8, Obs. 2, and Hengel,
The Johannine Question, 15: “even for Irenaeus, Polycarp is no ‘exclusive’ disciple of John’;
also 82, for a description of Polycarp as “a patriarch who formed a tradition.” For references
to primary material, see ch. 1, register of parallels to (c) 11-15; for further discussion, see
Zahn, Apostel und Apostelschiiler, esp. 66-67.
142. Though see below, comment on (c) 21-24, Obs. 2.
143. Lives of the Sophists 562; see also 520, 571; see also Philostratus, Life ofApollonius
of Tyana 7.40, as quoted below, Obs. 3E, and similarly Eunapius, Lives 458, 482.
88 Polycarp and John

carp’s followers, Philostratus reports that these seekers and all Athenians
mourned Herodes loss like “children bereft of an excellent father.”!**
Obs. 2. The descriptions in FrgPol, and in the MartPol parallels
to (c) 16-19 and 23-24, suggest that Polycarp is consistently remembered
as one who was generally available to, and cognizant of, others. Within the
philosophical tradition, availability to students and others is an important
component of the profile of the teacher. Dio Chrysostom, a younger con-
temporary of Polycarp, writes that “[Socrates] made himself accessible
to all who wished to approach and converse with him.”!*? In FrgPol these
descriptions of crowds “seeking after” Polycarp and his openness to them
immediately follow comments on Polycarp’s training, status, and manner
of life. !4¢
Obs. 3. The descriptions “genuine children” and “father” strongly
suggest the teacher-student relationship and draw on various traditions
with which Polycarp and his hagiographers would likely have been conver-
sant. The latter, “father,” is familiar within the literature on Polycarp and
will be considered in Obs. 4. The former, “genuine children,” as used with
regard to Polycarp’s followers, is unique to FrgPol.
A) Within the Pastoral Epistles, both Timothy and Titus are addressed
as Paul’s “genuine child.”!*” Elsewhere, Paul’s rhetoric draws on the same
metaphor: “my beloved children . . . you do not have many fathers .. .
I became your father” (1 Cor 4:14—15).!48 ;
B) Within 1 John, “little children” is used repeatedly (seven times) as
a form of address. Similarly, the Fourth Gospel records a saying of Jesus
in which the disciples are addressed as “little children” (John 13:33). Once
among the extant Pauline letters are the addressees referred to as “little
children” (Gal 4:19).

144. Lives of the Sophists 566.

145. Dio Chrysostom 54.3; see also Plato, Crito 44E—45E.
146. See also below, Obs. 4.
147. 1 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4. In light of this close parallel, it is worth noting that similarities
between Polycarp’s rhetoric in Pol. Phil. and the Pastoral Epistles has long been recognized;
see Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians, 241-255. Campenhausen, Polykarp
von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe, 49-50, 51, treats seriously the notion of Polycarp’s au-
thorship of the Pastorals: “If the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Polycarp of Smyrna,
they must have arisen in his proximity and, so to speak, under his eyes . . . but it would surely
be simpler to make Polycarp himself the author.”
148. NRSV; for another citation from Paul, see Obs. 3B.
 Commentary 89

C) Within the early martyr literature, the Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus

and Agathonice 32 employs the metaphor. When asked if he has any chil-
dren, Papylus responds “Yes,” and continues, “in every province and city are
my children in God.” In MPion the hero twice refers to his “Christian sib-
lings” as “little children.”!4°
D) In AJn 27-28 a follower of John is referred to as “child,”
!5° while in
AJn 45 John comforts his community with the words, “I will not leave you
until I have weaned you, like children from their wetnurse’s milk.”!>!
E) Within the philosophical school tradition writers draw heavily on fa-
milial language, often describing the student or other interested listener as
“child.”!>? In his discussion of the philosopher Lucius, Philostratus men-
tions three youngsters whom the philosopher nurtured and thought of “as
[his] genuine [children]” due to their “love of learning.”
!>? In a similar vein,
Philostratus writes of the prison-mates of Apollonius of Tyana: “And when
the prisoners in the free prison saw him again, they all flocked round
him .. . for they entertained the same affectionate longing for Apollonius as
children do for a parent. . . .”!°4

149. “Christian siblings” is the term used by the narrator. The first use of “little children”
in MPion 12 occurs within a quotation from Paul (Gal 4:19). Given the question of Pauline
and Johannine influences within the literature associated with Polycarp—see esp. above,
comment on (a) 11—12—one would value knowing whether Pionius or his hagiographers
were familiar with this term only through its one Pauline usage, or through its Johannine
usage as well.
150. See below, Obs. 4B.
151. Regarding the matter of kinship language, it is worth noting that the term “wet-
nurse” (tTpdd0s) could also be used in reference to the biological mother. Paul employs the
same metaphor in | Thess 2:7.
152. For discussion and bibliography see Benjamin Fiore, Function of Personal Example
in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); Peter
Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,” JRS 61 (1971) 80-101,
in Peter Brown, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1982) 103-152, 149-150; Henri Crouzel, ed., Grégoire le Thawmaturge: Remercie-
ment a Origene suivi de la lettre d'Origene a Grégoire (SC 148; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1969)
175 n. 11; Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelman, Pastoral Epistles (tr. Philip Buttolph and
Adela Yarbro; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) 13; Bentley Layton, ed., The
Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi (HDR 12; Missoula: Scholars Press,
1979) 38; Abraham J. Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background of | Thess ii,”
NovT 12 (1970) 203-217.
153. Lives of the Sophists 558; see also Lives 576 regarding Alexander, who upon his
(natural) father’s death “began studying as the most genuine [child] of Favorinus”; similarly
Eunapius, Lives 459.
154. Life ofApollonius of Tyana 7.40, tr. F. C. Conybeare (LCL; London: William Heine-
mann, 1912) 2.261.
90 Polycarp and John

Obs. 4. Polycarp is referred to as “father” in MartPol and VPol as

well as FrgPol.!>? It may well be the case that the usage in MartPol (MPol
12.2=HE 4.15.26) is the earliest extant reference to a bishop being called
“fatherst°6
A) The equation of “teacher” with “parent” or “father” is standard within
the Greek philosophical tradition. Within Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists,
the metaphor is first used by the same Herodes discussed in Obs. 1. It is
reported that he “regarded [Socrates] as his teacher and father.”!*’ In turn,
Herodes’ student Polemo refers to Herodes as “father.”!°8
In Apology 97, Apuleius, a contemporary of Polycarp, recalls that his
close associate Pontianus “called me his parent, his master, his instructor.”
In Plato’s Phaedo, the (first-person) voice of the narrator reports, “we felt
that [Socrates] was like a father to us and that when bereft of him we
should pass the rest of our lives as orphans.”!>?
B) As Christian literature developed, the metaphor assumed more
clearly the academic connotation of the philosophical tradition. It is only
in the Pastorals, for example, that the same Paul who calls his addressee
“genuine child”!©° refers to himself as a “teacher.”!®! In AJn, wherein “the
Lord” appears to John as a “teacher” (97) and John himself is called “the
teacher’ (37), the reciprocal terms “father” and “child” are used in a con-
versation between John and one of his followers (AJn 27—28).!°
Within other ancient literature about John, the early tradition about
the troublesome teenager in Smyrna recounted by Clement of Alexandria,

155. See ch. 1, register of parallels, (c) 21. See also Synaxarium Alexandrinum as quoted
in comment on (f) 7-15, Obs. 2D, below.
156. Guido Bosio, “Policarpo,” Biblioteca Sanctorum (Filippo Caraffa, ed.; Rome: Insti-
tuto Giovanni XX11 della Pontificia Universita Lateranense, 1968) 987.
157. Lives of the Sophists 490.
158. Ibid., 537; see also 566, 587, 617.
159. Plato, Phaedo 116A; tr. Harold North Fowler, Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito,
Phaedo, Phaedrus (LCL, Plato, 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971; orig. pub.,
1914) 395.
160. See above, Obs. 2A.
Mile VW Aine 7 2 Vive thetile
162. Gregory Thaumaturgos considers himself and his colleagues to be “true sons” of
their teacher, Origen, who is “truly our Father”; in Oration and Panegyric to Origen 16. Ear-
lier, Clement of Alexandria wrote that each student is a “son” to the teacher (Strom. 1.2.1).
MPion has likewise been influenced by the philosophical school tradition. Pionius is “the
teacher” of the “cult or sect” (@pnoketav 7 alpeow) which he calls “catholic,” ch. 19; see also
MPion 17 for a reference to Socrates as one who previously suffered a similar ordeal to that
of Pionius.
 Commentary ai

and preserved by Eusebius, contains the following question, as put by

John to his charge: “Child, why are you fleeing me, your own father?” (HE
3.33.17). In the Acts of John by Prochorus 161.2, John is called “father”
by his followers, whom he refers to as “children” (160.9, 161.2), as well as
“my sons and daughters” (161.3—4).
C) In VPol 10 the apprenticeship of Polycarp under Bucolos, bishop of
Smyrna, !°? is recounted as follows:
Therefore Bucolos, the bishop who preceded [Polycarp], loved him
and made much of him from his childhood. Being enthusiastic, he
had great hopes for him, just as the fathers of excellent sons rejoice
in having prudent successors. [Polycarp] responded to Bucolos as
one who loves his parent.
Later in the narrative, Polycarp is called “father” by one of his deacons.!®4
Like Herodes in Philostratus’ Lives, Polycarp in VPol finds himself to be
in a particular line of succession in which he eventually attains the status
“father.”!©
Obs. 5. In The Johannine Question,'®° Martin Hengel includes
a discussion of ancient literature in which one finds “the designation of
‘pupils’ as tratdes [lit., “children”] and the bearers of tradition as ‘old
men’ (yepovTwv avdpav).” It has already been observed that FrgPol par-
ticipates in that tradition in which the teacher-student relationship was
described in terms of parent-child. Note that herein the description
of Polycarp as an “old man,” (c) 10, immediately precedes his depiction
as one who bore the tradition (“the canons”) with integrity, (c) 11-15, and
as one whom followers seek out and relate to as “father.” The reference to
Polycarp’s age in (c) 10 arguably participates directly and consistently in
the portrayal of Polycarp as teacher and bearer of tradition.

163. The extant text of FrgPol does not include consideration of Bucolos. For a different
description of the relationship of Polycarp to Bucolos, see Acts of John by Prochorus
188.912, as cited in ch. 1, register of parallels, (b) 6-8, wherein both are referred to as
“[John’s] disciples.”
164. VPol 27; see also ch. 1, register of parallels, (c) 21.
165. The term “successors” (6ta86Eot) as used in VPol 10 is jargon for the successor to a
teacher. As a technical term, it is part of the philosophical school tradition at least since the
time of Sotion of Alexandria (c. 200 BCE). The classic scholarly work on the ancient doxo-
graphical tradition is Hermann Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929;
orig. pub., 1879). This is now being updated by J. Mansfield and D. T. Runia, Aetiana: The
Method and Intellectual Context of aDoxographer (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997—).
166. Hengel, The Johannine Question, 28-29, with 164 n. 18.
92 Polycarp and John

(c) 21-24 Moreover, he had this gift, that he never [f]orgot any w{ho]
had come into contact with him.

Obs. 1. This sentence in FrgPol includes two motifs reminiscent

of MartPol’s description of Polycarp at prayer just prior to being taken away
by his captors. Firstly, MartPol records that Polycarp is “filled with grace”
before he prays. The Coptic noun 2NoT, like its Greek counterpart xapts,
can mean either (or both) “grace” or “gift.” Secondly, during the prayer,
Polycarp “remembered all who had ever encountered him, both small and
great, noteworthy and unnoted, and the catholic church throughout
the world.”!9’
Obs. 2. VPol presents a very different characterization of Poly-
carp than do FrgPol and MartPol:
And of those also who came to see him and desired his conversation,
he was wont to shun and avoid, if he possibly could, the garrulous
and foolish talkers, on the plea that he was intent on some important
business and had not noticed the person who met him... . Such was
his behavior towards those from whom no benefit could be got.!®°

(d) 2-3 the Jew[s ---] [--- He]rod, saying

Obs. 1. Though the extant text is quite fragmentary at this point,

it is certain, according to the principles of Coptic grammar, that “the
Jew|s]” are the actors (i.e., subject) within this sentence.

Obs. 2. The name “Herod” appears here for the first time in
FrgPol.!®? No title is given with Herod’s name. It is possible that this char-
acter is introduced into the narrative along with a title within the missing
lines of text preceding (d) 1.
This “Herod” is presumably the same who is referred to as the eirenarch
or “chief of police” in MartPol.'’° In proconsular Asia “the duties of the
eirenarch included . . . the arrest and interrogation of bandits . . . [and]

167. MPol 7.3-8.1 = HE 4.15.14-15 = Boh 65.20-23; see ch. 1, register of parallels,
(ce) 21=23 andi(@))\23=24"
168. VPol 7; tr. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.491, emphasis mine.
169. The name appears one other time, (d) 11, also without a title.
170. MPol 6.2 and MPol 8.2 = HE 4.15.15; at MPol 17.2 = HE 4.15.41, Herod is named
without a title.
 Commentary 93

under his command was a body of troopers called diogmitae, who made
the actual arrests.”!”! The actions of Herod in FrgPol appear to be consis-
tent with those of an eirenarch.
Obs. 3. The charges which precede and prompt the search for
Polycarp in FrgPol are very similar to those which follow the arrest—and
result from the trial of—Polycarp in MartPol.!7* Their placement within
the narrated action of FrgPol is significant given contemporary Roman law.
In his well-known response to the inquiry of Pliny, governor of Bithynia-
Pontus in northwestern Asia Minor, the emperor Trajan writes regarding
“persons charged with being Christians” that “these people must not be
hunted out.”'73 Nonetheless, in MartPol!”4 it is recorded that in the ab-
sence of any formal charges having been brought or recognized, “all the
crowd . . . shouted, ‘Away with the atheists; Let Polycarp be sought for,’”
and a search was undertaken. That search as described in MartPol is ap-
parently “contrary to the rescript of Trajan.”!”°
The narrated action within FrgPol presents a different situation than
that of MartPol. Before the search for Polycarp begins, clear charges are
levied. The search for Polycarp in FrgPol would apparently not contradict
Trajan’s guidelines. Further, the events described in FrgPol appear to be in
keeping with the rescript of the emperor Hadrian as preserved at the con-
clusion of the First Apology of Justin. On the matter of accusations brought
against Christians, Hadrian, according to the record preserved by Justin,
states: “if, therefore, someone brings charges and shows the individual has
acted contrary to the laws, a legitimate trial can be had.”!’°
Obs. 4. According to FrgPol, it is “the Jew[s]” who make the al-
legations, while in MartPol it is “the whole crowd of gentiles and Jews
living in Smyrna” that calls out the charges.'”’

171. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 647.

172. For discussion regarding the placement of the charges within the narrative of
FrgPol, see ch. 3.
173. Pliny, Ep. 97.1-2, tr. Betty Radice, Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus (LCL; Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1969) 2.291; emphasis mine.
174. MPol 3.2 = HE 4.15.6 = Boh 63.16—19; text of Boh adds the comment, “atheists
who are Christians,” emphasis mine.
175. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 57.
176. 1 Apol. 68.10; for further consideration of Hadrian’s rescript, see below, comment
on (d) 3—4, Obs. 4.
177. MPol 12.2 = HE 4.15.26 = Boh 68.12—13. For the charges, see ch. 1, register of
parallels, (d) 4-6, 8-11.
94 Polycarp and John

Obs. 5. According to FrgPol, “the Jew[s]” make the allegations

directly to Herod.
A) In MartPol there is no direct contact between “the Jews” and Herod.
However, after Polycarp has been killed, it is reported in MartPol that
“the Jews” are able to pressure a certain Nicetas into asking the governor
(0 nyepov) that the corpse be withheld from Polycarp’s Christian follow-
ers (MPol 17.2, HE 4.15.41, Boh 71.17—18). This Nicetas is “the father of
Herod” (MPol 17.2 = HE 4.15.41 = Boh 71.13) who, along with Herod,
rides out of town to meet the recently arrested Polycarp (MPol 8.2 = HE
4.15.15 = Boh 65.26-27).
B) Accounts of “the Jews” making charges against Christians are extant
within early martyr literature, including MPion. In a speech, the impris-
oned Pionius lists charges which “you have heard that the Jews say” against
Jesus (MPion 13). In the Martyrdom of Conon 6 the governor himself re-
ports that he has “learned accurately from the Jews” about Christianity.
Tertullian, who writes often about martyrdom, refers to synagogues as
“sources of persecution” (Scorpiace 10). Several episodes in the New
Testament book of Acts, along with the well-known Passion narratives in
the canonical Gospels, include narrative descriptions of Jewish individu-
als or groups bringing charges against Jesus or an individual or group of
Christians.
Obs. 6. Following (d) 2, “the Jews” appear once more within
FrgPol, (d) 24.!78 It cannot be known how many times “the Jews’*might
have appeared in the complete text.
In MartPol, “the Jews” are mentioned in connection with four incidents.
Two have been mentioned above: (1) their influence over Nicetas, and
(2) their presence in the crowd which calls out the charges against Poly-
carp. The two further occurrences are: (3) following the report that “a
crowd” had gathered to prepare the fire for Polycarp’s execution, the voice
of the narrator states, “and the Jews were especially eager [to help], as is
their custom” (MPol 13.1=HE 4.15.29, Boh 69.3); and (4) it is reported
that the centurion sets out Polycarp’s bones and burns them after seeing
“the contentiousness of the Jews” (MPol 18.1 = HE 4.15.43, Boh 72. 1-3).

Obs. 7. Consistent with MartPol, pejorative statements regard-

ing “the Jews” occur in both VPol and MPion. VPol 28 associates “the
Jews” with fire as follows:

178. See below, comment on (d) 23—24, Obs. 2.

 Commentary 2)

the Jews . . . always present themselves uninvited at a fire: for they

assert that conflagrations cannot possibly be stopped in any other
way but by their presence. This is an artifice of theirs to plunder the
property in the houses.!”°
Within the same speech mentioned in Obs. 5B above, Pionius warns
his hearers,

Do not become with [“the Jews”] rulers of Sodom and people of Go-
morrha, whose hands are tainted with blood. We did not slay our
prophets nor did we betray Christ and crucify him.!®°

Obs. 8. Besides the more clearly pejorative descriptions, the ex-

tant literature does provide suggestive, if somewhat ambiguous, data re-
garding “the Jews” and their identification in and with Smyrna. Through
the particular use of the cognate verbs TapotKéw (sojourn) and KaTouKéw
(dwell, reside), the voice of the narrator in MartPol provides an under-
standing of “the Jews” as ones aligned with “the [non-Christian] gentiles,”
while the Christian community remains unaligned. Compare (1) “God’s
community which sojourns at Smyrna” (MPol inscr. = HE 4.15.3), with
(2) “The whole crowd of gentiles and Jews residing in Smyrna” (MPol
12.2 = HE 4.15.26). As in MartPol, so in FrgPol, “the Jews” appear active
and engaged.
Jewish literature from roughly the same period presents a very differ-
ent picture. Though it is more likely indicative of a sentiment associated
with the Jewish community in mid-second-century Egypt (where it is
presumed to have been written) than with that of Polycarp’s Smyrna,
the Sibylline Oracles, book 5, does in fact contain harsh statements
about Smyrna reflective of “the alienation of the Jewish community
from its environment.”!*! There is no indication in FrgPol of such a sen-
timent among “the Jew|s]
”

179. Tr. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.508.

180. MPion 13, tr. Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 153.
181. John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testa-
ment Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City, N.Y.
Doubleday, 1983) 392. The statements are: “Smyrna will one day weep . . . She who was
once revered and famous will perish” (lines 122—123), and “Smyrna also will come, bewail-
ing its musician . . . and she herself will truly perish” (lines 306-307), tr. Collins, 396,
400. The phrase, “its musician,” is an allusion to Homer, who is likewise remembered in
MPion 4.2.
96 Polycarp and John

Obs. 9. It is worthy of note that neither Polycarp in Pol. Phil., nor

Ignatius in his letter to Polycarp, make any mention of “the Jews.” In the
letter to the Smyrnaeans, in which “the Jews” do appear, Ignatius writes of
the “Lord Jesus Christ” who is crucified “under Pontius Pilate and Herod
the tetrarch .. . for his saints and faithful people, whether among Jews
or among Gentiles” (Ign. Smyrn. 1.2).!8? The anti-Jewish sentiment within
the Polycarp traditions are not based on extant writings by Polycarp or
extant works written to Polycarp or Polycarp’s community.

(d) 3-4 saying slanderous [---]

Obs. 1. The Sah word oya, found in FrgPol as part of the adjec-
tival construction which is translated “slanderous,” is used in the Sah NT
to translate a narrow range of Greek verbs. For example, within the com-
pound infinitive x1-oya it translates both “revile” (kakokoyéw, Acts 19:19)
and “slander” (Svodnpéw, | Cor 4:12—-14), while in a noun construction it
translates “blasphemy” (BAaodnyta, Rev 2:9).

Obs. 2. Rev 2:9 associates “blasphemy” with those at Smyrna

“who say, ‘We are Jews.’” The Greek term “blasphemy,” like its Sah coun-
terpart, has a range of meaning. For example, in the Pastorals it is used in
the context of slandering an individual.!®? Similarly Rev 2:9 understands
the “blasphemy” of “the Jews” to be “slander” against the PETEMET ES)
who are addressed in Rev 2:9-11.
As discussed in the comments on (d) 2—3 above, esp. Obs. 6-9, begin-
ning with MartPol one can trace an ongoing anti-Jewish sentiment in—or
at least, associated with—Smyrna. Does FrgPol provide evidence of a
Smyrnaean tradition stemming from Rev 2:9-11, or a similar tradition,
which specifically associates “the Jews” with “slander”?
Obs. 3. “Slander” against the philosopher-hero is a recurring
motif in the philosophical tradition. For example, in his Apology against

182. Tr. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.2.567. If Ignatius’ letters to Polycarp and to his
Smyrnaean church are authentic, then these two letters along with Pol. Phil. represent the
earliest stratum of literature associated with Polycarp. For a case against the genuineness of
Ignatius’ personal relationship with, and letters to, Polycarp and his Smyrnaean church, see
Rius-Camps, Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, the Martyr, esp. 81-139; recently Schoedel,
“Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch,” 291-292, writes of Rius-Camps’ “highly origi-
nal view”: “it remains doubtful that [it]... has been proved.”
183. Titus 3:2; similarly | Tim 6:4.
 Commentary ae

the charge of practicing magic, the second-century philosopher Apuleius

speaks repeatedly about the maledicta of his accusers.!** Another of Poly-
carp’s contemporaries, Adrian, also faced the charge of practicing magic.
For Philostratus, Adrian’s was just another case in which ignorant op-
ponents had “slandered” a philosopher.'*° Not surprisingly, according to
Plato Socrates had likewise been slandered.!*¢
In a telling variation on the motif of slander against philosophers, Justin,
whose career as a Christian teacher in Rome is concurrent with Polycarp’s
leadership among Christians at Smyrna, writes of the slanders he was privy
to during his association with a Platonist school: “For even as I was myself
rejoicing in the teachings of Plato, I would hear the Christians being slan-
dered” (2 Apol. 12.1).
Obs. 4. In the rescript of Hadrian on the matter of bringing
charges against Christians,!*” the emperor states that his interest is in as-
suring that “neither may [would-be accusers] promote confusion nor may
occasion be given for the vicious tactics associated with slanderers.”!8° By
labeling the charges levied against Polycarp as “slanderous,” FrgPol may be
associating them directly with those accusations which are, according to
Hadrian’s rescript, “vicious” and unacceptable.'®?

(d) 4-6 Poly[carp], [---] this city, [is] the teac[her of] [the] Chris-
tian[s]

Obs. 1. Beginning with line 4, the text of FrgPol includes several

charges which are made against Polycarp. With the exception of the men-
tion of magical activity, (d) 6-8, the charges recorded in (d) 4—11 closely

184. For discussion, see below, comment on (d) 8, Obs. 4A.

185. Lives of the Sophists 590; similarly 523. The term for “slander” preferred by Philo-
stratus is 5taBdadAw, which is also used by Plato in recounting Socrates trial. In Clement of
Alexandria, Ecl. 30, 5aBoAn and BAaodnyta are closely associated.
186. “As a slanderer [the accuser] goes into court, knowing such slanders to be well ac-
cepted by the people,” Euthyphro 3B.
187. Discussed above, (d) 2—3, Obs. 3.
188. In Justin, | Apol. 68.7.
189. Hadrian also condemns those accusations which are “mere shouts” (vats Boas;
in Justin, 1 Apol. 68.8); Karl Bayer, ed., Justin, Philosoph und Martyrer: Die Erste Apologie
(Munich: Késel, 1966) 142, assumes that this section, like Hadrian’s earlier comments, is
against “slander” (Nachrede). In MartPol, the search for Polycarp commences after “all the
crowd .. . shouted” against Polycarp (MPol 3.2, €meBonoev; HE 4.15.6, eTBodv).
98 Polycarp and John

parallel those recorded in MartPol (MPol 12.2 = HE 4.15.26 = Boh

68.15-17).

Obs. 2. According to the familiar narrative of MartPol, the

charges are “called out” by the crowd at the close of Polycarp’s trial. In
FrgPol the charges are levied directly to Herod by “the Jew[s]” before Poly-
carp has been arrested or tried.
Obs. 3. According to the charges recorded in MartPol, Polycarp
is “the . . . teacher, the father of the Christians.” FrgPol does not include
“father” in this passage, though the voice of the narrator does employ that
metaphor in describing Polycarp, (c) 21.!?° Like MartPol, FrgPol does in-
clude the modifying phrase “[of] [the] Christian[s],” though in the latter it
modifies only “teacher” and not “father.” Apparently neither of the terms
used in MartPol to modify “teacher” (“impious,” MPol, “of Asia,” HE) is in-
cluded in FrgPol.
Obs. 4. Given the information included in Obs. 3, it might be
noted that the charges recorded in the Eusebian tradition of MartPol link
Polycarp to a geographic locale, “Asia.” With the inclusion of “this city’—
presumably Smyrna, (b) 10—the list of charges in FrgPol links Polycarp
even more closely to a given locale.
Obs. 5. As is evident throughout FrgPol, particularly in the de-
scriptions on page (c) and in the dialogue and narrated action of page (e),
the portrayal of Polycarp is consistent with various motifs and phrases as-
sociated with the ideal teacher within both contemporary Christian and
philosophical school traditions. Some of these motifs may be evident in
this list of charges, as is discussed below.

(d) 8 [hi]s magic

Obs. 1. Among the charges leveled against Polycarp is that he

possesses or practices “magic.” This charge has no parallel in MartPol or
any other literature on Polycarp.
Obs. 2. What is “magic”? In an important discussion of “Magic
and the Study of Magic,” Sue Garrett regards as “accurate” the assessment
of Morton Smith “that ancient wonder-workers were labelled one way by

190. See above, comments on (c) 16-21.

 Commentary 99

their supporters and another way by their enemies. . . .”!9! In the Greco-
Roman world, what was approvingly labeled a “miracle” or “great deed”
might disapprovingly be called “magic.” Regardless of the activity or activi-
ties it connoted, “magic” held social meaning and suggested intent.
In the discussion below, Obs. 3 considers extant descriptions of Poly-
carp and other early Christians in light of activities which were labeled
“magic” in the ancient world. Obs. 4 pursues the findings of Obs. 3, in-
cluding discussion about social meaning and intent.
Obs. 3. VPol 10 records that “many persons who were sick and
afflicted with devils were restored to sound health” by Polycarp.!9* VPol
also records at least two visions that Polycarp experienced, and appears to
suggest that there were more.!”?
On the matter of visions, MartPol reports that Polycarp received a
vision while in bed, “in a trance,”!?4 while FrgPol (f) 1—5 narrates a similar
event, though no report of a “trance” survives. Both the MartPol and
FrgPol narratives report that Polycarp is able to foretell the manner of his
impending death following the vision. Healing the sick, doing exorcisms,
receiving visions, and foretelling future events are activities associated
with magic in the ancient world.!”°
Obs. 4. The activities which VPol, MartPol, and FrgPol ascribe to
Polycarp are ones associated with Jesus, the apostles, and other Christians
within earliest Christian literature. It is perhaps not surprising that the
charge of magic is relatively common in pagan polemic against the Chris-
tians.!°© Further, Christian literature from at least the middle of the sec-
ond century records magic as a charge under which Christians were prose-
cuted. Among the many extant, dramatic statements by an apostle facing

191. Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 24.
Among the works of Morton Smith cited by Garrett is Jesus the Magician (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1978). For a discussion of the distinction or equation of “miracle” and
“magic,” see also Georg Luck, Arcana Mundi: Magic and Occult in the Greek and Roman
Worlds (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985) esp. 135-140; and David Aune,
“Magic in Early Christianity,”ANRW 2.23.2 (1980).
192. Tr. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.493.
L938. VPollOs1 727.
194. MPol 5.2 = HE 4.15.10; “in a trance,” BAGD 576.
195. See Luck, Arcana Mundi, esp. 133-159, 161-225, 227-305; also below, Obs. 4A.
196. See Stephen Benko, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Cen-
turies A.D.,” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1055-1118, esp. 1061, 1075-1076, 1090-1091, 1102;
also, Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, esp. 21-67.
100 Polycarp and John

imminent execution is that of Thomas: “I thank you, Lord, that for your
sake I was called a sorcerer and a magician.”!?”
Given the descriptions of Polycarp and his tradition as preserved in
FrgPol, from what activities might the charge of magic have arisen, and
what might it indicate?
A) DIVINATION. In 157 CE (possibly the same year as Polycarp’s
trial),!°° Apuleius was tried in North Africa for using magic to seduce a
woman older, and wealthier, than he.!”? In his Apology, Apuleius states, “It
is a common and general error of the uninitiated to bring the following
accusations against the philosophers.”2°° What is the correlation between
“the philosophers” and “accusations” of magic?
In Philostratus’ Life ofApollonius of Tyana 6.11, the reader is told that
“the faculty of foreknowledge” (Tpoytyvwoketv) distinguishes the philoso-
pher. In 8.7, Apollonius, in his own defence against the charge of being a
magician or “wizard” (yors),7°! argues that he is being tried under the
simplistic notion that magic is the foretelling (tTpoetTeiv) of events. At the
beginning of the work, 1.2, the same argument is made through the voice
of the narrator. Further, in 5.12 the narrator is at pains to distinguish his
hero by declaring that Apollonius “was gaining foreknowledge not from
wizardry, but from that which the gods revealed.”
It appears that Philostratus, writing in the early third century, is aware
that a charge of magic based on the simple notion that an individual who
foretells the future is a magician remains viable. But if that notion were
true, his Apollonius suggests, then any number of eminent philosophers
would have to face the same charge: “What then will Socrates say here of
the lore which he declared from his demonic genius? Or what would

197. Acts of Thomas 107; see also 20, 21, 96, 98, 102, 104.
198. See T. D. Barnes, “Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum,” JTS 19 (1968) 510-514; for bibli-
ography, see Introduction, n. 5.
199. For the possibility that Apuleius’ chief accuser may have been a Christian, see
Apuleius, Apol. 56, and Benko, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Cen-
turies A.D.,” 1091.
200. Apol. 27; tr. H. E. Butler, The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1909; repr. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1970) 57; see similarly Apol. 3.
Reference to the ignorance of the accuser is similarly employed in Christian literature;
see the Martyrdom of Apollonius 38: “he was despised by the uneducated, like the righteous
and the philosophers who preceded him.” In MartPol (MPol 10.1 = HE 4.15.21), Polycarp
asserts that the proconsul is “acting with ignorance.”
201. According to Luck, Arcana Mundi, 21, “The term goeteia is a synonym for mageia,
but has even more negative undertones.”
 Commentary 101]

Thales and Anaxagoras . . . say, of whom one foretold a plenteous crop of

olives, and the other not a few meterological disturbances???
Returning to Apuleius, the reader is informed that indeed, Socrates
and others actually were suspected of activity associated with magic. In
Apol. 27, after providing a list of prominent philosophers who were charged
with being a magus, Apuleius states,
a similar suspicion attached to the “purifications” of Empedocles, the
“demon” of Socrates and the “good” of Plato. I congratulate myself
therefore on being admitted to such distinguished company.23
Further, in Apol. 42, Apuleius relates: “For this we know is the prize of
magical incantations, namely divination and prophecy.’?" In the early im-
perial period, philosophy and magic are associated through the activity of
divination (foretelling the future).2°
Apuleius’ association of “divination” and “prophecy” is telling. FrgPol
and MartPol are consistent in reporting that Polycarp foretells the future
following a vision he had received. MPol is most explicit in stating that
Polycarp spoke “prophetically.” The charge of engaging in magic as found
in FrgPol is another distinction that the portrait of Polycarp in FrgPol
shares with contemporary depictions of philosophers and teachers. The
incident of Polycarp’s dream and the following interpretation may have
suggested magical activity to a pagan or Jewish critic, as well as to a Chris-
tian hagiographer.
B) VIRGINITY. In the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Acts of Thomas,
magic is associated with promoting chastity. In the former, chapter 15, the
crowd calls for the removal of “the magician” Paul because “he corrupted
all our wives” and “does not permit the virgins to marry.” In the Acts of
Thomas 96, when the husband of Mygdonia learns of her refusal to engage
in sexual relations, he immediately suspects Thomas’ influence: “for |
heard that that magician and deceiver teaches this.”
In FrgPol, Polycarp is associated with “the apostle” John who is speci-
ally graced with “virg[inity].’2°° In the extant text there is nothing stated

202. Tr. Conybeare, The Life ofApollonius of Tyana 2.321.

203. Tr. Butler, The Apologia and Florida ofApuleius of Madaura, 57-58.
204. Ibid., 77.
205. Besides those texts already mentioned above, see also The Life of Apollonius of
Tyana 4.35, 3.41. For further examples of “the equivalence between philosophus and magus”
as recorded by ancient authors, see MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, 110 n. 16.
206. (b) 2; see above, comments on (b) 2-6.
102 Polycarp and John

directly about Polycarp’s own preaching or practice regarding chastity,

though his adherence to the “canons” of John is mentioned in (c) 12. Mart-
Pol is quiet on the subject. But elsewhere in the literature on Polycarp the
connection is made.
VPol 14, for example, states that Polycarp “was careful to deliver rea-
soned exhortations on the subject of continence and virginity,’?°’ while
according to VPol 9, Polycarp was himself unencumbered by “the fetters of
marriage.” In an encomium on Polycarp attributed to John Chrysostom,2°
Polycarp is remembered as one who “subdued and enslaved the body . . .
for he remains eternally the righteous one.”*””
In his own letter to the Philippians, Polycarp appears less severe
than is suggested by these later descriptions. He does, however, include
such commands as “the virgins must walk in a blameless and pure con-
science” (Pol. Phil. 5). It may be Polycarp’s association with chastity—
either through his own teaching or via his relationship to John, or some
combination thereof—that gives rise to the charge of magic in FrgPol.
Obs. 5S. In the Acts of John by Prochorus, John is repeatedly ac-
cused of being a magician. There are three reasons given for the charge.
The first is stated by the crew of the boat on which John is traveling, who
suspect him of “wishing to take the boat’s cargo and depart” (10.1—4),
while the third is given by a (rival?) magician who simply tells those gath-
ered, “[John] is deceiving you through magical delusions” (98.14—15).
In the second episode involving charges of magic against John, the
people of Ephesus, via a formal letter to the emperor Trajan, state that
“[John and Prochorus], while preaching certain new teachings, overturned
the temples of the greatest gods through magical skill” (45.5—6).2!° Such
a charge recalls the account of the destruction of the Artemis temple in
AJn 37-44 (in which no accusation of “magic” is made). It also resembles
an item in the list of charges in MartPol (“the destroyer of our gods’;
MPol 12.2 = H.E. 4.15.26) which is absent from the text of FrgPol. As in
FrgPol, and unlike MartPol, the charges are presented before the hero has
been apprehended.

207. See similarly VPol 9, 16.

208. Published by A. Hilgenfeld, “Des Chrysostomos Lobrede auf Polykarp,” ZWT 45
(1902) 569-572.
209. From the Greek text as found in ibid.
210. See similarly 81.9-11. In 47.5 John is again called a “magician,” but no basis for the
charge is given.
 Commentary 103

(d) 8-11 while he [---][---] them neither to give tribu[te ---] [--- nJor to
worshilp the] god[s] of the emperor.

Obs. 1. In the parallels to this sentence within MartPol, the verb

used of Polycarp’s activity is “teach.” The verb is lacking in FrgPol except
for the first letter, kappa. There is no Sah verb beginning with k meaning
“teach.”

Obs. 2. In FrgPol, there is a grammatical object (“gods of the

emperor’) following the verb “worship.” Further, there is a lacuna follow-
ing “give tribute” and preceding “[n]or.” Since a conjunction or negative
reinforcer is not expected preceding “[n]or,” and since an object following
“give tribu[te]” would create a parallelism with “god[s] of the emperor” in
the following phrase, the missing text is probably the object of the verb
“give tribu[te].”
The MartPol parallels include no grammatical object following either
“offer” or “worship.” The verb “offer” (@0w) often appears without an object
as a kind of technical term.*!! However, a cognate of “offer” does appear
in MPion 8:4 followed by an object: “therefore make an offering to the
absolute ruler.”
The same Greek loanword used within the verb construction in FrgPol,
“give tribu[te],” appears in The Life ofApollonius of Tyana 7.4, followed by
the objective genitive, to describe the offering made on the emperor's be-
half: “the tribute (bopd) of Domitian.” Plutarch’s Antony 24.3—5 includes
colorful descriptions of “all Asia” making tribute to Antony.
The original reading of FrgPol may have been: “while he persuades them
neither to give tribute to the emperor nor to worship the gods of the em-
peror.

Obs. 3. There is in FrgPol no parallel to the phrase “the destroyer

of our gods,” which in MartPol immediately precedes the charge that Poly-
carp “teaches many neither to sacrifice nor to worship.”

(d) 11-15 Hero[d], after he had heard these thin|gs, was] very angry.
And he o[r]dered that he be brought to him i[n] order that

211. See also the Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice, and MPion; in the
Church Histories, see HE, esp. book 8, and Sozomen, esp. 3.17.2.
104 Polycarp and John

he might kill him. Aft[e]r the sibli[ngs] knew [that] he was

being sought after in order to be killed
Obs. 1. In MartPol it is not Herod but “the whole crowd” which
calls for the apprehending of Polycarp (MPol 3.2 = HE 4.15.6 = Boh
63.14-19). No order by Herod to apprehend Polycarp is recorded in
MartPol.
Obs. 2. The unnamed recipient of Herod’s order would most
likely have been the body of diogmitae who were under the control of the
eirenarch.*'2
Obs. 3. This comment about Herod's anger is unique within the
extant literature on Polycarp. In Matt 2:16 in the Sah NT, upon realiz-
ing that the magi have evaded him, Herod becomes “very angry” (SWNT
EmMate) and orders all children in Bethlehem to be killed (MooyT=).
Scholars have long recognized in MartPol apparent quotations from, or al-
lusions to, accounts of Jesus’ passion.?!? Even Dehandschutter, who is
cautious about ascribing particular items in MartPol to canonical Gospel
sources, nevertheless recognizes that “in general, there is little question
that the idea of imitation [of Christ] plays an important role in the acts of
the martyrs of the Second Century (and beyond), . . . imitation is the Leit-
motiv of the martyrological literature.”*!4
Of the Herod in MartPol Leslie Barnard (196) writes:

there is only a faint resemblance between the position of Herod, the

captain of police in Smyrna, who takes Polycarp into custody, and
that Herod whose part in the passion drama was confined to mockery
and who pronounced Jesus innocent of the charges brought against
him (Luke 23:15). Surely a later redactor would have secured a
better parallel.
Has FrgPol’s description of Herod as one who becomes “very angry” and
wants to “kill” Polycarp been colored by a “better parallel” derived not from

212. See above, (d) 2—3, Obs. 2; see also MPion 15.
213. The current discussion remains shaped, in large part, by Campenhausen, Bear-
beitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarpmartyriums, esp. 7-16, and Barnard, “In Defence
of Pseudo-Pionius’ Account of Saint Polycarp’s Martyrdom,” esp. 193-197.
214. Dehandschutter, “Le martyre de Polycarpe et le développement de la conception du
martyre au deuxiéme siécle,” Studia Patristica 17.2 (1982) 664; see similarly Delehaye, Les
passions des martyrs, 21.
 Commentary 105

Herod Antipas in Luke’s passion narrative, but from Herod the Great of
Matthew’s birth narrative? Further, if one were to narrow the focus on the
stated desire to “kill,” one might even suggest the influence of the Lukan
portrait of Herod Antipas, Luke 13:31b.
Obs. 4. E. A. E. Reymond and J. W. B. Barns, among others,
have observed that many of the extant Coptic martyrdoms “abound in
passages which may be matched word for word elsewhere.”2!> In such
martyrdoms, for example, the judge typically becomes “angry’—and often,
“very angry’— every time an apprehended Christian, during the trial or in
prison, causes a calamity to occur or is miraculously healed of wounds re-
ceived from torture.*!°
It is notable that the extant text of FrgPol, though recorded in Cop-
tic, shows so few correspondences to Coptic martyrdoms. Even here, the
narrative context for Herod’s anger—occurring, as it does, pre-trial, even
pre-apprehension—is different than would be expected in a Coptic mar-
tyrdom.

(d) 18-23 they took him and they hid him somewh[er]e. After they
knew again that he was being sought in that place, the siblings
tr[a]nsferred him by night and took him to another place.

Obs. 1. The narrative in this section of FrgPol is terse. For a com-

parison with the relatively discursive parallels in MartPol, see chapter 3.
Obs. 2. In the narrative of FrgPol, Polycarp, as the object of the
verb, is consistently acted upon: “they took him,” and “the siblings tr[a]ns-
ferred him . . . and took him.” For the implications which such activity on
the part of Polycarp’s followers has on Polycarp’s own reaction to the im-
minent threat of martyrdom, see below comment on (f) 5—7, Obs. 2.

Obs. 3. In the MPol parallels, Polycarp is consistently the sub-

ject of the verb: “he went out” (vmeEfASev; MPol 5.1) and “he departed”

215. E. A. E. Reymond and J. W. B. Barns, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan
Coptic Codices (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) 2.
216. See, for example, Martyrdom of S.S. Paese and Thecla 59 V ii and 84 R ii and Mar-
tyrdom of S. Shenoufe and His Brethren 121 R ii; for similar descriptions, see the texts in
Budge, Coptic Texts vol. 4.
The classic scholarly essay on this literature is Delehaye, “Les martyrs d’Egypt,” AnBoll
40 (1922) 5-154, 299-364; recently, Theofried Baumeister, “Martyrology,” Coptic Encyclo-
pedia 5.1549b-1550a.
106 Polycarp and John

(weTéBn; MPol 6.1). In the Eusebian text tradition, the status of Polycarp
as actor is less clear. In HE 4.15.9, for example, in the place of the indica-
tive verb form of MPol 5.1 stands an optative, which is used by the
narrator to indicate the content of the followers’ concern: Polycarp “should
go out” of the city in order to hide. There is no narrative statement record-
ing that Polycarp did go out. In 4.15.11, the narrator reports that Polycarp
is “forced to depart” (EkBeBtacpévov eTaBhVvat) to another location. In-
terestingly, Boh renders both of these instances simply with Polycarp as
the subject of a finite verb.7!”
Obs. 4. In MartPol, both of the places in which Polycarp hides
are referred to as “farms.”*!® FrgPol, as is clear in the translation, is less
definitive. Boh includes a close parallel to “farm” for the first location,?!?
while referring to the second as simply “the place.”?°

(d) 23-24 [---] once again the Jews knew about th[em].

Obs. 1. The possible restoration provided for the lacuna at (d) 23,
“[And] once again” (Ayw on), is not exhibited within the extant text. It is,
however, employed in Sah NT (John 6:11, Acts 26:6), and is appropriate
at this point in the narrative.**! Further, FrgPol does employ the similar
AE ON at (c) 22 and (d) 19.

Obs. 2. According to FrgPol “the Jews” are aware of the move-

ments of Polycarp and his companions. Might this report suggest to the
reader that “the Jews” are in pursuit of Polycarp; perhaps even as the un-
named (in the extant text) recipient of Herod’s order to seize Polycarp??”?
Or, are “the Jews” privy to information which they will pass along to
Herod's forces? In MartPol it is the household slaves from the first hiding

217. “He went out” (apae eRoa), Boh 64.8 (cf. HE 4.15.9); “he transferred”
(apoywtes), Boh 64.25 (cf. HE 4.15.11).
218. First location: T6 aypté.ov, MPol 5.1; 6aypés, HE 4.15.9. Second location: Etepov
ayptdvov (“another farm”), MPol 6.1; €tTepos aypdév (“another farm”), HE 4.15.11.
219. Kot, Boh 64.8. W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939)
92b, does not give “farm” as a definition for this noun, which in the Bohairic dialect means
“oftenest . . ., field”; see the translation in Hyvernat, Acta Martyrum 2.44, agrum.
220. mma (lit., “the place”), Boh 64.25. Unlike MartPol and FrgPol, Boh does not in-
clude the modifier “another.”
221. See Shisha-Halevy, Coptic Grammatical Categories, 165, for the “Colon final’ use of
ayYw + enclitic.
222. See above, comment on (d) 11—15, Obs. 2.
 Commentary 107

place who pass along information about Polycarp’s whereabouts (MPol

9:1, HE 4.14.11).

(e) 1-2 [---]they assume[d] the name[---] [---]him, the siblings

Obs. 1. A preceding lacuna of indeterminable size and a lacuna

within the passage severely limit the possibility of identifying both the im-
mediate context and the content of these lines.?
Obs. 2. Reference to “the name” has particular significance in
canonical Gospel material regarding John. As summarized by Alan Cul-
pepper, ‘the only scene in the synoptic Gospels in which John is named
alone as the speaker for the disciples . . . is a pronouncement story that
is linked to its context by the phrase ‘in your name’ (Mark 9:37; Luke
9:48).”224 It is possible that this section of FrgPol contains a reminiscence
or allusion to John.

Obs. 3. Polycarp’s letter, as well as other early Christian—and

related—sources, discusses “the name’ in relation to suffering and per-
secution. In Pol. Phil. 8.2, Polycarp writes: “Let us become imitators, then,
of [Christ’s] endurance; and if we should suffer on account of [Christ’s]
name, let us glorify [Christ].” The notion of “suffering on account of
[Christ’s] name”?*? or “as a Christian”?*° appears early in Christian litera-
ture, both within and outside of the New Testament. Reference to “the
name’ is also extant in the early second-century correspondence of Pliny,
governor of Bithynia-Pontus, with the emperor Trajan. Regarding those
who call themselves “Christian,” Pliny asks whether “the name itself” is
punishable.?”

223. Though see below, comment on (e) 2—13, esp. Obs. 1.

224. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 41.
225. See Acts 5:41, 9:15—16, 15:26, 21:13; also the Shepherd of Hermas Sim. 9.28.2;
similarly Ign. Eph. 3.1.
226. See | Pet, esp. 4:15—16.
227. nomen ipsum, Ep. 10.96.2. For discussion, see G. E. M. de Ste Croix, “Why Were
the Early Christians Persecuted?” Past and Present 26 (1963) 6-38, repr. Moses I. Finley,
Studies in Ancient Society (Past and Present Series; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1974) 210-249, esp. 215; Ste Croix, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted: A Rejoin-
der,” Past and Present 27 (1964) 28-33, repr. Finley, Studies in Ancient Society, 256-262, esp.
259: and A. N. Sherwin-White, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? An Amend-
ment,” Past and Present 27 (1964) 23-27, repr. Finley, Studies in Ancient Society, 250-255,
esp. 251.
108 Polycarp and John

The “name” referred to within FrgPol may well be “Christ” or “Chris-

tian.”
Obs. 4. Pliny, in the same letter mentioned above, discusses both
(1) those who “denied” they were Christians,?*° and (2) those who “con-
fessed” to being Christians.?*? In the Shepherd of Hermas Sim. 9.28.4, the
same two options are listed in a consideration of those who are called on
to “suffer for the sake of the name”: they may “deny” (apvéopat) or “con-
fess” (O“oAoyéw). The verb of affirmation which one expects to be used
in conjunction with “the name’ is “confess.”*?° That is not what one finds
in FrgPol.
Obs. 5. The verb employed within FrgPol, the Greek loanword
UToKpivoyat, has as its classic meaning “to answer.” During the Hellenistic
and Roman periods, however, it increasingly assumes the connotations
“pretend,” “feign, ”231 or as it is often interpreted in modern translations,
“act hypocritically.”
A) Within Christian literature the verb (and, more generally, its root)
takes on a decidedly negative connotation. In Gal 2:13, for example, the
Sah NT records Paul using the verb to describe those who, in his opinion,
“engaged in hypocrisy” through their particular exercise of table fellow-
ship (in the Greek, the cognate noun is employed).?*? Within the second-
century Greek literature, the Shepherd of Hermas Sim. 9.19.3 uses the verb
in its warning against those who “played the hypocrite,” while Athenagoras,
in a discussion of the “name Christian” within Supplicatio 2.3, writes that
“no Christians are evil unless they act hypocritically with regard to the
teaching.” In the Coptic Discourse on Mary Theotokos by Cyril, Archbishop
of Jerusalem, the voice of Cyril employs the same verb to berate those who
“utter the Name of Christ with their mouths only,” while “they make a pre-
tence in their hearts.”2°?

228. nego, Ep. 10.96.5, 6; see also 10.97.2.

229. confiteor, Ep. 10.96.3.
230. For further examples, see G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1961) 965a and 957a. For an example in Coptic, see The Testimony of
Truth, Nag Hammadi Codex IX.3.31.23: “if they confess, ‘We are Christians.’” “Confess” is
employed in FrgPol, though not in conjunction with “the name”: goModorei (f) 12-13.
231. See Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1450a, and BAGD 845a; contra Philostratus,
Life ofApollonius of Tyana 2.37, “expound, interpret, explain” as cited in LSJ 1885b.
232. See similarly Luke 20:20, Rom 12:9, 2 Cor 6:6, | Tim 1:5, 1 Pet 1:22, Jas 3:17.
233. Tr. Budge, Coptic Texts 5.1.61 and 5.2.638.
 Commentary 109

Within FrgPol, is one to understand that “the siblings” and/or another

grammatical subject are engaging in some form of hypocrisy vis-a-vis “the
name?”
B) Also within Christian literature, however, the verb may have a posi-
tive connotation. In his Thirty-Fifth Catechetical Oration, Gregory of
Nyssa discusses how “we assume the salvific burial and resurrection” at
baptism.**4 Such a use of the verb is consistent with that found in the
second-century historian Appian. In the Civil Wars 4.46 he describes how
Apuleius and Arrontius first “assumed the character” of military leaders,
then collected their respective forces, and finally came to blows.??> Based
on the extant text of FrgPol, one might presume that it is “the siblings” who
“assume the name’ in a positive sense; perhaps in a manner consistent
with that of Polycarp’s discussion in Pol. Phil. 8:2 about imitating Christ.**¢
Obs. 6. There is another possibility, which is premised in part on
the assumption that the three Coptic letters which form the word “name”
might here represent two separate Coptic morphemes, the first being com-
posed of two letters, the second, one.?*” Arthur Des Riviéres, whose early
scholarly association with this text is discussed in the Introduction, re-
corded the following Latin translation for line 1: Simulantes actionem.?*®
The notion of “the siblings” “pretending” to engage in a certain “action” or a
state of affairs is arguably consistent with the dialogue of pages (e)—(f), in
which Polycarp displays his ignorance both that a search for him is already
underway and that his companions have already taken him to two sepa-
rate hiding places.**? Have “the siblings” neatly concealed their motives
through some pretence?
It is possible that FrgPol records that Polycarp’s followers “assumed the
condition of . . .”; that is, “they acted like. .. .”

234. As cited in Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1450b.

235. Tr. Horace White, Appian’s Roman History (LCL; 1912; repr. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1971) 4.217.
236. As quoted in Obs. 3 above.
237. Rather than interpreting the letters p, a, and n as the Coptic noun pan (“name”),
one may interpret them as the noun pa, “state” or “condition,” followed by an attributive
n- (only the bottom left stroke of this letter is extant; a superlinear stroke may or may not
have been present). The use of pa is rarely attested (Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 287a) and is
not found elsewhere in the extant text of FrgPol.
238. Fora description of the collection of Des Riviére’s transcriptions and translations,
see Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts, 225-226.
239. (e) 3-6, (f) 5—7, and comments; see also ch. 3.
110 Polycarp and John

(e) 2-13. the siblings, to a deserted place. As for hi{m], he was asking
them, “Why are you going around with me from place to
place?” And they were afraid to tell him lest he forbid them
and go alone to the lawcourt. For they had heard him say many
times: “It is necessary that I die by the lawcourt

Obs. 1. The context and meaning of this section of text are some-
what obscure. It shares four elements with Luke 4:42—43:79 (1) location,
“a deserted place”; (2) a group of followers which joins the hero; (3) the
group is concerned that the hero will “go” from them; (4) the hero responds
that “it is necessary’ to engage in a certain course of action. In FrgPol steps
3 and 4 are known only through the voice of the omniscient narrator, who
describes the concern which is in the (collective) mind of “the siblings.”
That concern starts to unfold in the narrated action begining with (f) 4—5.
This section may provide another example of the Polycarp tradition
adopting motifs associated with Jesus in the Gospels and employing them
to describe Polycarp and his actions.4!
Obs. 2. The prepositional phrase “to a deserted place,” as used in
FrgPol, probably connotes an elevated “deserted place.” The frequently
used compound e2pat ExN may assume either of two distinct, basic mean-
ings, “up onto” or “down upon.”?** The latter, “down upon,” is associated
particularly with the Bohairic dialect. “Up onto,” on the other hand, is typi-
cal for the Sah dialect in which FrgPol is preserved. An example from
the Sah NT is the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5:1:
“But when he saw the crowds, he went up onto the mountain.”
MartPol includes no topographical data regarding either of Polycarp’s
two hiding places. What might the suggestion of elevated topography as
found in FrgPol connote? Along the southern outskirts of Smyrna “there
runs east and west a broad continuous chain of irregular mountain-
masses.”“4> Polycarp is associated by local lore with a particular mountain,
Mt. Mastousia or the Two Brothers, which is located within this chain; it is

240. See also Mark 1:35-38.

241. See also above comment on (d) 11—15, Obs. 3.
242. Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univer-
sity Press, 1983) 27; see also Georg Steindorff, Koptische Grammatik, mit Chrestomathie,
Worterverzeichnis und Litteratur (Porta Linguarum Orientalum 14; Berlin: Reuther und Re-
ichard, 1894) 161.
243. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 8.
 Commentary 11]

one of the traditional locations of Polycarp’s tomb.244 Among the recorded

locations for the tomb, this is the only one which lies outside of the city’s
stadium compound. One imagines that the activities around the tomb
which are mentioned in MartPol (MPol 2-3 = HE 4.15.43-4) might
have been engaged in more safely at a considerable distance from the city’s
interior.

Obs. 3. The use of the Greek loanword “lawcourt” (StkaoTHptov)

as found in FrgPol is unique in the Polycarp tradition.?4> In MartPol, Poly-
carp is tried in “the stadium.”?4°
A) Gary Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts and Commentarii, 121-122, recognizes
that it is highly unlikely that either the trial or the execution of Polycarp
would actually have occurred in the stadium. FrgPol assumes that a more
plausible location, the “lawcourt,” is to be the location of the trial.
According to a report by a seventeenth-century author, Thomas Smith,
who presumably would not have been familiar with FrgPol, there were vis-
ible remains on Smyrna’s Mt. Pagos of “what seems to be a judicatorium,’?*”
that is, a lawcourt.?*° Further, Smith and others identified a building in the
immediate vicinity of this judicatorium as the “Chapel of St. Polycarp.”*4?
Consistent with this interpretation of the archaeological evidence, FrgPol
associates Polycarp with a “lawcourt” in Smyrna.

244. E.G. Holweck, A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1924)
822; for more detail about the location, see Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 8 nn. 2 and 17.
Another site for Polycarp’s tomb is in the vicinity of the stadium; see recently George E.
Bean, Aegean Turkey (rev. ed.; London: John Murray, 1989) 28. The precise location within
the stadium compound has varied considerably; for a thorough treatment of references since
the seventeenth century, see F. W. Hasluck, “The “Tomb of S. Polycarp’ and the Topography of
Ancient Smyrna,” Annual of the British School at Athens 20 (1913-1914) 80-93, pls. 10 and
11. Fora possible reference to Polycarp’s tomb in the inscription found at the Church of St.
Mary, Ephesus, see Josef Keil, “Johannes von Ephesus und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” Strena
Bulciana: Commentationes Gratulatoriae Francisco Bulic (Zagreb/Split, 1924) 371 n. 8.
245. Besides (e) 9, 13, see also (b) 5 and (e) 19; as noted above, comment on (b) 2-6,
Obs. 6, the same word does occur in the Eusebian tradition of MartPol within the narrative
about Quintus (HE 4.15.8 = Boh 63.27).
246. otdS.ov, MPol 8.3 = HE 4.15.16 = Boh 66.8-9.
247. Thomas Smith, Septem Asiae Ecclesiarum Notitia (London: Excudebat T. R., 1676)
36.
248. The Latin term Smith uses is a direct synonym of the Greek loanword employed by
FrgPol; Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1955; Ist ed., 1879) 1015b.
249. See F. W. Hasluck, “The ‘Tomb of S. Polycarp,’” esp. 88-92.
112 Polycarp and John

B) As recounted in both Plato and Xenophon, and alluded to by subse-

quent philosophers and other speakers and writers, Socrates’ trial occurred
in a ‘lawcourt.” For various philosophers and teachers in the Roman impe-
rial period, who were familiar with the consequences of calling forth the
wrath of the State, Socrates’ actions surrounding and within his trial pro-
vided a model.?°? ;
A classic expression of this motif from a Christian teacher is provided by
Justin, a contemporary of Polycarp, who recalls Socrates’ and other phi-
losophers 'trials:

And those [pagan thinkers] who were born prior to Christ, in trying to
examine and prove things according to human reason, were led into
lawcourts (StkaoTNpta) as impious ones and busybodies. Socrates,
who was more adamant than all of them in this matter, was charged
with the same things that we are.??!

Such invocation of the accused Socrates is typical in Christian martyr

literature as well. For example, in MPion 17, Polycarp’s admirer Pionius
equates his position with that of Socrates before the Athenian lawcourt.?°4
Does the term “lawcourt” indicate the presence in FrgPol of another ele-
ment familiar within the traditions of moral philosophy and panegyric??”?

Obs. 4. “The siblings” recall having heard Polycarp say, “it is

necessary”? that I die by the lawcourt.” This direct statement regard-
ing the necessity of the death is unique among extant descriptions of Poly-
carp. It is, however, present in literature related to Polycarp within the
narrative of MPion, and it represents a motif familiar within descriptions
of the deaths of philosophers. It is also a motif associated with Jesus’

250. Fora general discussion of the portrayal of Socrates in Hellenistic (including Chris-
tian) sources, see Arthur Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyr-
dom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), esp.
ch. 2, “The Death of Socrates and Its Legacy’; Klaus Doring, Exemplum Socratis: Studien zur
Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynisch-stoischen Popularphilosophie der friihen Kaiserzeit und im
frithen Christentum (Hermes: Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie 42; Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner, 1979); and MacMullen, Enemies of theRoman Order, ch. 2, “Philosophers.”
251. 2 Apol. 10.4—5. For a fine example of the motif as used in contemporary pagan liter-
ature, see Epictetus, Dis. 2.5.18—20.
252. Similarly, the Martyrdom of Apollonius, esp. 19 and 41; see also 38.
253. See esp. above, comments to (c) 16-24, (d) 3-4, (d) 8, and several comments
below, esp. (f) 7-15, 15-16; see also ch. 3.
254. 2afic = Gk, det.
 Commentary 113

prediction of his forthcoming Passion in the canonical Gospels, most fre-

quently in Luke.
A) In MPion it is reported that Pionius “knew, one day before the an-
niversary of Polycarp’s martyrdom, that it was necessary (Set) on that day
that [he and a group of followers] would be seized.” No reason for this “ne-
cessity” is recorded.?”°
B) In Tacitus’ Annals 15.61, the voice of the narrator speaks of Nero’s
call for Seneca’s “voluntary death” as Seneca’s “final necessity” (ultimam ne-
cessitatem). In Socrates’ general understanding of plights such as his own, it
is “God” who “would send a certain necessity (avadykn),” thereby making
death inevitable.*°° To his supporter Crito Socrates explains simply, “it is
necessary (Set) for me to die now.”??’ Similar words from Polycarp’s mouth
may have elicited memories of Socrates’ plight.
C) In the canonical Gospels, Jesus presents the first passion prediction
to his followers through the use of the term “necessity” (Set; Matt 16:21,
Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22). This is the only such usage in Mark and Matt,
though Matt 26:54 suggests a related understanding. Luke employs the
term in the context of Jesus’ imminent suffering several more times: be-
sides 9:22, see 13:33, 17:25, 24:7, 24:26. In light of the other possible
Lukan allusions in this section of FrgPol,?°° the frequency of the Lukan
usage is notable.

(e) 14-21 in the manner that the apostle of the Lord told me when he
said, ‘Since the Lord granted to me that I die on my bed, it is
necessary that you die by the law[co]urt

Obs. 1. According to FrgPol the martyr death of Polycarp is so

closely associated with the apostle John that it is made necessary by the
apostle’s own reprieve from a martyr death. Polycarp’s enduring of a martyr
death fills the lack left by John’s reprieve. The notion which informs such
an arrangement is summarized by Harald Riesenfeld: “Suffering unto
death is a necessary part of an apostle’s vocation.”*>?

255. For possible reasons, see Fox, Pagans and Christians, 472-473, 484-487.
256. Plato, Phaedo 62B; similarly Xenophon, Apol. 7.
257. Crito 43C; for further discussion and citations, see Droge and Tabor, A Noble
Death, ch. 2.
258. See esp. Obs. 1, above.
259. Harald Riesenfeld, “The Ministry in the New Testament,” in Anton Fridrichson
et al., The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology (London: Dacre, 1953) 117; for fur-
ther discussion see below, ch. 5.
114 Polycarp and John

Obs. 2. As is discussed in chapter 5, from early on (at least the

second half of the second century) John’s hagiographical biography is rich
with explanations both as to why this apostle had not had to experience the
death of a martyr and why a given activity or divine dispensation might
serve as the equivalent of a martyr death in John’s case. FrgPol participates
in this hagiographical tradition by providing a striking and unique compen-
sation for the lack that was felt in John’s career as an apostle vis-a-vis the
matter of martyrdom.
Obs. 3. The question arises, if Polycarp dies not only a martyr’s,
but also an apostle’s death, might Polycarp then be considered an apostle?
The Greek versions of MartPol are consistent in labeling Polycarp “an
apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop” (MPol 16.2 = HE 4.15.39).
Such use of “apostolic” as a modifier, meaning “having the qualities of an
apostle,” is extant in other early Christian literature in association with
early, prominent figures such as Barnabas and Ignatius.?©°
The only possible instance in the extant literature in which Polycarp is
actually labeled “apostle” is in the Boh parallel to the MartPol passage cited
above. According to the modern Latin translation of Hyvernat, which I
translate into English, the passage reads: “[Polycarp] was teacher and apos-
(lege
Though a possible—and fascinating, if accurate—rendering, Hyvernat’s
is arguably not the most likely way the Coptic sentence was intended to be
read. The question regarding the Coptic syntax is simply this: Does “apos-
tle” modify “teacher” or stand in apposition to it? A comparison with the
Greek clearly suggests the former; that is, the morpheme “apostle” does
not stand on its own, but rather modifies “teacher.” For a discussion of N-
modifiers and predicative complements, see Shisha-Halevy, Coptic Gram-
matical Categories, 39-40. It is most likely that Boh simply repeats the sen-
tence as found in the Greek versions of MartPol, in which “teacher” is
modified by “apostolic.”
Obs. 4. In an early tradition about John and a troubled youngster
in Smyrna, the apostle offers his own death as a substitute for another. The
apostle says to the youth: “Should it be necessary (Set)*°* 262 I will endure your

260. For a handy short list, as well as broader discussion, see Lampe, A Patristic Greek
Lexicon, 210b.
261. Hyvernat, Acta Martyrum 2.49: “qui fuit magister et apostolus et propheta et epis-
copus totius catholicae Ecclesiae quae est Smyrnae” (Boh 70.28-71.1).
262. Here, in the subjunctive mood.
 Commentary 115

death willingly, as did the Lord on account of our [death]; on account of

you, I will give up my own life” (HE 3.13.17).
Obs. 5. In the Acts of John by Prochorus the apostle orders Pro-
chorus to a particular death, using this same motif of “necessity”: “Enter
Jerusalem, for it is necessary (Set) that you die there” (163.10).
Obs. 6. The verb translated “granted” is a Greek loanword,
xaptCw. In the Panarion 79.5.3, Epiphanius uses a cognate noun in de-
scribing John’s special death as a “gift” (xapis) from God.?63

(f) 1-5 calrp, as if the bedspread over him were burning. And [w]hen
he woke he said to the siblings, “It is necessary that I be burned
alive.”

Obs. 1. The content (bed furnishings are burning) and interpre-

tation (imminent execution through burning) of the vision in FrgPol are
equivalent to those in MartPol. In FrgPol, Polycarp goes on to make a
statement in (f) 5—7 which has no parallel in MartPol. Strictly speaking,
that statement is not part of the interpretation of the dream and is treated
separately below.
Significantly, the immediate context of the dream and interpretation is
unique in FrgPol: in MartPol the vision is received at the first hiding place,
while in FrgPol it is received at the second.764
Obs. 2. FrgPol presents Polycarp’s interpretation as a direct
quote, as does MPol 5.2. In the Eusebian account the interpretation is
given through the voice of the narrator.?°
Obs. 3. In HE 4.15.10 (= Boh 64.16), before a description of
the content of the vision, it is recorded that Polycarp received the vision
“at night.” In the same two versions, it is stated that after having seen the
vision Polycarp “awoke” (€€utvos, Gk; etTaqtwnd, Boh). The account in
MPol contains neither of these details.
In FrgPol, there is probably narrative material from the vision report
which is not preserved in the extant text. In the extant text, however, im-

263. Text in Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, ed. Karl Holl (GCS 3.2; Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs, 1933).
264. See below, comments on (f) 5—7 and (f) 7-15; also see above, ch. 3.
265. Later in the narrative of MartPol, however, when it is reported that the crowd in the
stadium calls for Polycarp to be burned, Polycarp’s interpretation is recalled in a direct quote;
MPol 12.3 = HE 4.15.28, Boh 68.28; for the texts, see ch. 1, register of parallels. It cannot
be known if the full text of FrgPol would likewise have recalled Polycarp’s words.
116 Polycarp and John

mediately following the description of the vision, it is reported that Poly-

carp “awoke” (Negce). Presumably in FrgPol, as in the Eusebian tradition
of MartPol, Polycarp received the vision while sleeping.
Obs. 4. In FrgPol the interpretation of the vision is simply
stated: “It is necessary that I be burned alive.” Regarding this sentence,
FrgPol finds a direct parallel in the Ps-Pionian branch of the MartPol tra-
dition (MPol 5.2). In the parallel text of the Eusebian tradition Polycarp’s
words are not presented as a direct quote and an additional modifying
phrase, “for Christ’s sake,” is present (HE 4.15.10, Boh 64.21—22). Fur-
ther, the account in FrgPol also shares with MPol 5.2 the use of “said,”
rather than “interpreted” (UVdepptpvjoKkw; HE 4.15.10).7°°
Obs. 5. In FrgPol there is no attendant commentary regarding
the extent of the fire. Simply, the bedding “was burning.” In the MPol 5.2,
the report includes the (arguably redundant) “by fire,” while in the Eu-
sebian tradition the bedding has been burned “completely by fire” (HE
4.15.10, Boh 64.17-18).

Obs. 6. The Eusebian tradition of MartPol contains more detail

regarding the description of the bedding: “the spread bunched up under
his head,” HE 4.15.10; “his pillow,” MPol 5.2. Boh, though consistent
with the Eusebian tradition in providing a level of detail, appears to differ
markedly with HE in the content of that detail: “his bedding which was
over him.”*°’ 267 FrgPol and Boh are consistent in recording that it was the
bed furnishings which were over him which Polycarp saw burning.
Obs. 7. As discussed in the comments on (c) 3—5, above, FrgPol
is consistent with MartPol and other ancient literature in associating Poly-
carp with prayer. Early in this century, P. Corssen suggested that Poly-
carp’s vision might have resulted from his prayer.7°8 For substantiation of
that claim Corssen cited Ignatius’ words to Polycarp in Ign. Pol. 2.2: “and
ask about the invisible things so that they might be revealed to you.”
Particularly in light of the possible association of Polycarp with divina-
tion, as discussed in the comments on (d) 8, Obs. 4A, above, Corssen’s

266. Curiously, Boh 64.19 also employs xw, which generally means simply “said.”
267. ney280c eT2Ixwd, Boh 64.16—-17; Hyvernat relegates the literal reading of the
Coptic to a note (“quae [erat] super eum”) and translates the passage, “vestem suam qua erat
indutus’; Acta Martyrum 2.44.
268. Corssen, “Die Vita Polycarpi,” 283.
 Commentary 117

suggestion is pertinent. Unfortunately, much of the text surrounding the

reference to prayer in (c) 3—5 is missing, as is the text immediately pre-
ceding this vision report.

(£) 5-7 and I marvel that they have not sought after me as of today.

Obs. 1. Since the Coptic preposition wa is generally translated

“until,” a simple translation of Polycarp’s statement might be: “I marvel that
they have not sought after me until today.” However, the simple translation,
“until,” is ambiguous: Does Polycarp’s statement assume that (1) as of now
“they” have begun to search for him, or (2) as of now “they” still have not
begun to search for him?
The significant difference in the understanding of the force of the prepo-
sition can be seen in the contrast of meaning between the German bis (“as
far as”, “up to”; denoting the end of a period of time) and bis zu (“right into”,
indicating duration or contemporaneity). In his classic nineteenth-century
Coptic grammar, Ludwig Stern includes both (“as far as” and “right into”) as
possibilities.7°7
Obs. 2. Given the former possibility, that in Polycarp’s under-
standing the period of time in which “they have not sought after me” has
already ended, both the preceding and the following dialogue make no
sense. Through his question, “Why are you going around with me from
place to place?” ([e] 5—6), Polycarp reveals that he is unaware that his
movements are being controlled by “the siblings.” Meanwhile, through the
omniscient voice of the narrator, the reader knows both that (1) a search
for Polycarp is on; and (2) far from simply following their leader around, it
is “the siblings” who “took” Polycarp to each of the hiding places.
Further, and in a most telling fashion in (f) 7-15, the narrator reports
that “the siblings .. . cried . . . knowing that it would be soon that he would
be taken from them.” Polycarp is not privy to the information about his
imminent capture; he must make those with him “swear” to “tell him the
reason’ for their tears. It is only then that they “confess” their knowledge
that a search is on, and consequently, Polycarp becomes aware of the
search. Consideration of that section follows.

269. Ludwig Stern, Koptische Grammatik (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1880) para. 543; the
English translations of the German prepositions are from Harold T. Betteridge, ed., Cassell’s
German-English, English-German Dictionary (rev.; London: Cassell, 1978) 118 a—b.
118 Polycarp and John

In the narrative, Polycarp believes that up to and including the present

time, there is no search on.

(f) 7-15 After he had said these things, the siblings cried knowing that
it would be soon that he would be taken from them. He made
them swear that they would tell him the reason; and they con-
fessed. Then he bound them not to hide him, beginning from
this hour.

Obs. 1. As discussed in the previous comment, according to the

narrator ‘the siblings” have been controlling Polycarp’s movements since
becoming aware of Herod’s search for their leader. Presently, Polycarp as-
sumes control of the situation by (1) holding his retinue to an oath that
they not meddle; and (2) choosing to remain at his present location, pre-
sumably either in anticipation of the arrival of his captors or until he sees
fit to “go alone to the lawcourt” ([e] 9-10) as his followers fear.

Obs. 2. Though Polycarp has known for some time that he must
die as a martyr,*”° he has chosen this particular moment in which to meet
that fate. According to Philostratus’ report, Apollonius of Tyana, while
himself in prison, once remarked: “Philosophers must wait for the right
opportunities when to die; so that they be not taken off their guard, nor
like suicides rush into death, but may meet their enemies upon ground of
their own good choosing.”*”!
Obs. 3. That Polycarp’s circle “cried” and, at least so far as
Polycarp supposed, continued to harbor notions of protecting their hero,
would appear to be natural human reactions under the circumstances.
They also represent motifs familiar within the extant accounts concern-
ing the deaths of notable individuals, sometimes called “exitus liter-
ature:’2/?
A) According to Acts 21:12—-14, after the circle of Paul’s followers had
heard Agabus’ prophecy about Paul’s impending arrest in Jerusalem, they
“urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.” Paul’s response begins, “What are
you doing, weeping and breaking my heart?” It is, perhaps, not surprising
that the Sah NT employs the same word for “weep” (pine; Greek, KAaiw)

270. See esp. (e) 10-21.

271. Philostratus, The Life ofApollonius of Tyana 7.31; tr. Conybeare, The Life ofApollo-
nius of Tyana 2.239.
272. For an introduction to the literature, see Alessandro Ronconi, “Exitus Illustrium
Virorum,” RAC 6.1258—1268, and MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, esp. 72-92.
 Commentary ie)

as is found in FrgPol. The description of the actions of Polycarp’s circle

may suggest an allusion to that of Paul’s followers.
Further, the narrator's confirmation that Paul “ would not be persuaded”
is familiar in the exitus literature, and is also discussed in sections (B) and
(D) below.
B) After a larger retinue of followers (“all” of whom were crying) left his
presence, the younger Cato said to Demetrius and Apollonides:
So it has been given to you to detain in this life a man of such an age,
and by sitting by him in silence to guard him . . . but since I have al-
ready decided [what to do], it is necessary (Set) that I be master over
those things that I have known to be necessary.?”?
Similarly, according to both Plato and Xenophon, Socrates’ students felt
sorrow and sadness during their final discussions with the great teacher.*”4
Further, according to both Plato and Xenophon, an escape plan was
hatched in which Socrates refused to take part.?”°
According to Alessandro Ronconi, it is the account of Socrates’ death
in Plato’s Phaedo which serves as “archetype” for later exitus literature; one
might safely expand that notion to include all of Plato’s works on Socrates’
trial and final days (Phaedo, Crito, Euthyphro, and Apology), if not Xeno-
phon’s Apology as well.*”°
C) Among the non-canonical acts, The Acts ofAndrew, particularly the
“Martyrdom” account, displays most directly the characteristics discussed
in (A) and (B) above.?””
D) The Synaxarium Alexandrinum records that those accompanying
Polycarp,
while crying and mourning his departure, said to him: “we will not
allow ourselves, Father, to be left behind as orphans; we will give our
lives for you.” However, he was not able to be detained by them, but
leaving, went to the governor. . . .2”

273. Plutarch, Cato the Younger 69.1—2.

274. Crito 43B—C, Xenophon, Apol. 27.
275. Crito 44B, Xenophon, Apol. 23.
276. Ronconi, “Exitus Illustrium Virorum,” 1258; see also Droge and ‘Tabor, A Noble
Death, ch. 2, “The Death of Socrates and Its Legacy.”
277. See Jean-Marc Prieur and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “The Acts of Andrew,” in
Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, 101-151,
esp, 135-151.
278. My translation from the modern Latin translation in Forget, Synaxarium Alexan-
drinum, 515; for the Arabic text, see Forget, Synaxarium Alexandrinum vol. 2; for discussion
of kinship language as used herein, see above, comments on (c) 16-24.
120 Polycarp and John

On reading this account in light of FrgPol, one wonders: (1) whether

the missing text of FrgPol includes such a statement by “the siblings’;
(2) does Polycarp, according to a full text of FrgPol, continue “to remain”
with his followers until his arrest, or does he “go alone to the lawcourt,” as
“the siblings” fear in (e) 9-10, and as is indicated here?
Obs. 4. The question of the propriety of going on one’s own to
the authorities is broached within MartPol. In HE 4.15.8, a certain Quin-
tus, along with unnamed “others,” are said “to have rushed recklessly to
the lawcourt” (or, “tribunal”; ETmiTSfjoat TO SukaoTHplw). In MPol 4 the
“lawcourt” is not mentioned, but implied in the report that Quintus put
pressure on himself and others “to come forward voluntarily” (tTpooed9etv
exovtas). Significantly, the actions of Quintus and his companions are
condemned by the voice of the narrator in MartPol.
Obs. 5. MartPol includes references to “the hour,” both at the
point of Polycarp’s arrest and at his execution.” In the later instance,
during his final prayer, Polycarp thanks God that “you have considered me
worthy of this day and hour” (MPol 14.2 = ME 4.15.33). The presence of
the term “the hour” in MartPol, as well as in FrgPol, may represent paral-
lels to the accounts of Jesus’ passion.?8° A far less likely, though inter-
esting, referent, given FrgPol’s association of John with Polycarp, is the
statement regarding the beloved disciple in John 19:27: “from that hour
the disciple took [Mary]... .”

(f) 15-16 And he remained, talking with them and consoling them,
saying: “Do not be discouraged

Obs. 1. MartPol records no words of Polycarp to his circle fol-

lowing the dream interpretation and preceding his arrest.
Obs. 2. Polycarp’s words to the circle of supporters gathered
around him, like the reports of their crying and plotting to protect him dis-

279. At both times, too, the hero prays; MPol 8:1 = HE 4.15.15, Boh 65.24; MPol 14.2 =
HE 4.15.33, Boh 69.26—27 (Boh 69.26—27 does not include the reference to the “cup of
Christ” which appears in the MPol and HE parallels). See similarly MPol 2.3 regarding the
martyrs’ “one hour” of suffering, which has no parallel in the Eusebian text tradition.
280. See Matt 26:45; Mark 14:35, 41; Luke 22:14, 53; John 4:23, 5:28, 12:23, 27, 13:1,
16:32, 17:1; see also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 3.3.387, Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of
Polycarp, Fragments of Papias 61, 70, and Campenhausen, Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen
des Polykarpmartyriums, esp. 13.
 Commentary 121

cussed in the comments on the previous section, contain motifs familiar

in the exitus literature. Arthur Darby Nock draws on several examples
from exitus literature and other material to develop a smaller, related cate-
gory which he calls “consolation literature.”*®! This section of FrgPol con-
tains much that is familiar within exitus literature generally, and “conso-
lation literature” particularly.
Though it may happen the other way around, usually it falls to the hero,
in the face of imminent death, to comfort the surrounding followers.2®2 So,
according to Tacitus, Seneca responded to his supporters’ “tears” through
such questions as, “Where are the precepts of your philosophy?”?*? In a
similar circumstance Demonax, according to Lucian, quoted some “verses
of the heralds” to those accompanying him.754 Among Socrates’ last words,
according to Plato’s Apology 41D, are: “Nothing bad comes upon one who
is good, either while living or having died, neither are the activities of that
one neglected by God.” Socrates’ “God,” like that of Polycarp in FrgPol, is
not one to neglect those who would be in God's charge.
Obs. 3. The Coptic term “discouraged” used herein (oywxc
NenT) is found with a similar meaning in the Sah NT, Col 3:21.78 In a
more parallel context, that of the Last Supper as recorded in the Fourth
Gospel, Jesus says to his disciples: “Do not let your hearts be troubled”
(John 14.1). A different verb is used therein.?°°
Among Andrew’s closing words to his circle in the Acts of Andrew 17
are: “And as for the thing that is about to happen to me, let it not disturb
you in any way.’2°7

(f) 18-21 for it is impossible for the [Lo]rd to abandon his peo[ple],
neither will he forget the [---] [--- of hi]s inheritan[ce].

Obs. 1. Polycarp’s words of comfort to “the siblings” are taken

from Ps 93:14 LXX (94:14).

281. Arthur Darby Nock, Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1926; repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966) xxx—xxxii.
282. See Tacitus’ consideration of Petronius’ death, Ann. 16.19.
283. Tacitus, Ann. 15.52; see also Ann. 16.24—35 regarding the final days of Thrasea.
284. Lucian, Demonax 65; tr.A. M. Harmon, Lucian (LCL; 1913; repr. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1971) 173. According to Nock, “Poetic quotations are a constant
feature of . . consolations,” Sallustius, xxx.
285. Gk, abupew.
286. Gk, Tapdoow; Coptic, wTopTP.
287. The same Greek verb is used here as is found in John 14:1.
i22 Polycarp and John

Obs. 2. The reading of FrgPol and the extant Sah versions?°*

differ in two ways: the negation of the first proposal, and the grammatical
object of the second proposal.
A) Negation. FrgPol uses the introductory oyAT6ONM to render the first
proposal an impossibility. The Sah versions display the typical Nv...An nega-
tion in verse 14a.7?
Along with the Sah versions, FrgPol employs n...AN to negate the second
proposal, 14b. But where the Sah versions have ayw at 14b, the reading of
FrePol is oyvc.
B) Object. FrgPol includes a more complex grammatical object than do
the Sah versions. In the extant text of FrgPol there is a lacuna preceded by
the masculine definite article which indicates that there is a substantive,
whose grammatical gender is masculine, preceding “[hi]s inheritan[ce].”
This substantive is possibly drawn from another biblical source, such as
Ps 73:2, “the tribe of your inheritance”; Mic 7:14, “the flock of your inher-
itance”;?”° or Eph 1:18, “the glory of his inheritance.”
In summary, the extant Sah versions, with their (A) simple negation,
(B) use of the conjunction “and” to introduce the second proposal, and
(C) lack of a substantive preceding “his inheritance,” are closer to the ex-
tant Greek text than is the reading of FrgPol.??!
Obs. 3. Use of this verse is unique within the literature on Poly-
carp. Further, with the possible exception of FrgPol, there is no extant
Christian literature from the second or third centuries which makes use
of Ps 93:14 LXX (94:14).2?2 In the fourth century, the verse is cited by
Eusebius of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa in their exegetical works on
the Psalms,??* while Gregory Nazianzus, in his Fourth Discourse, 4.15—16,
cites verse 14 as part of a catena of verses displaying “God's consoling”
(Tapakadێw).274

288. For the texts, see ch. 1, register of parallels to (f) 18-21.
289. Though see Wessely, Griechische und Koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts 1.46, an
only in 14a.
290. Such a substantive, were it a part of the text, would suggest an allusion which may
be extant in Polycarp’s own letter: Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.3.332 n. 5 and 473, sees a
possible biblical referent in Pol. Phil. 6, “turning back the sheep that are gone astray.”
291. There are no variants to 93:14 cited in A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta Societatis Scien-
tarium Gottingensis Auctoritate X: Psalmis cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1931) 244.
292. See Biblia Patristica, vols. 1-3.
293. Ibid., 4.177 and 5.221.
294. See Jean Bernardi, ed., Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 4—5 contre Julien (SC 309;
Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1983) 108-109.
 Commentary 123

Obs. 4. Without parallel in the extant Greek witnesses to Mart-

Pol, Boh employs the motif of inheritance in its closing remarks, using the
same word as does FrgPol. In Boh 72.18—20 it is stated that “those who
hear” the story of the martyrdom of Polycarp become “heirs” with him of
the eternal rest.
Obs. 5. The verb “abandon’*?? does appear in MartPol within
the narrator's statement that the community, though desirous of the re-
mains of their hero Polycarp, “would never be able to abandon Christ”
(MPol 17.2 = HE 4.15.41).

TW.
295. Gk, katadeittw; compare Ps 93:14b LXX, eEyKaTanet
 Hf

iy

ue
 GAA
RT EAR vive

Remembering Polycarp,
Remembering John
Hagiography and Rivalry in Asia Minor

As is discussed in chapters 3 and 4, the descriptions and accounts of Poly-

carp contained in FrgPol tie the martyr very closely to the apostle John. In
so doing, this ancient work not only borrows from but also contributes to
two broad and varied tradition-complexes, that regarding Polycarp and that
regarding John. Though reminiscent of much that is written by and about
Polycarp elsewhere, the understanding of Polycarp and, in particular, his
death which is contained in FrgPol is quite unique. At the same time,
though clearly conversant with much that is familiar within John’s ha-
giographical profile, this text includes particular descriptions about the
apostle and a solution to the perceived lack of a martyr’s death which is
strikingly unique among the reports which have heretofore been recognized
as extant.
In this chapter, the matters of (1) Polycarp’s place in the traditions
regarding John, and (2) John’s special death, as it is variously remembered,
will be pursued in order to locate this work within the broad traditions
regarding each of these two monumental figures. After that, matters of set-
ting and function are broached: How would this work have functioned?
What is a likely setting for its composition?

125
126 Polycarp and John

1. John and Polycarp: How Can It Be?

MartPol, which is probably the most familiar extant document regarding

Polycarp, does not provide any direct statement about his past, his training,
or those who influenced him within a given Christian community or tra-
dition. As is discussed in the comments on (a) 11—12, the one letter of
Polycarp which has survived provides ambiguous data for those who would
mine it for a clear indication of Polycarp’s influence(s). Is there one par-
ticular apostle with whom Polycarp can be most directly identified?
Heretofore, scholars have had at their disposal only one hagiographi-
cal document dedicated to him which is at pains to place him in a particu-
lar tradition. VPol unambiguosly sets Polycarp within a tradition founded
by Paul. FrgPol, which also provides direct information about Polycarp’s ec-
clesiastical pedigree, associates him directly with John. While the broad
goal of this chapter is to develop an understanding for FrgPol, and for its
depiction of John, within the ongoing rivalry between Smyrna and Eph-
esus, the immediate concern is that of locating a foundation for FrgPol’s
understanding ofJohn as the apostle in Polycarp’s past.
Irenaeus: Confused, Lying, or Proponent of a Tradition

Polycarp’s association with John is recorded in several of Irenaeus’ writ-

ings: AH 3.3.4 (= HE 4.14.1-8), AH 5.33.4 (= HE 3.39.1), the “Letter
to Florinus” (HE 5.20.4—8), and the “Letter to Victor” (HE 5.24.11-17).
Writing at the beginning of this century, P. Corssen notes, “the authority
of Irenaeus indisputably governs the literary tradition.”! A survey of the
history of modern scholarship on the question of Irenaeus’ influence over
the understanding of Polycarp’s Christian pedigree would indicate that
Corssen is indisputably correct in his assessment. Irenaeus’ record must
be dealt with.
B. H. Streeter, who favored the historicity of VPol over Irenaeus’ record,
dismissed the influential work of J. B. Lightfoot with the charge that the
great scholar of the late nineteenth century “accepts unreservedly all that
Irenaeus says about Polycarp’s relations with the Apostle John.”* Most re-
cently, Boismard, in arguing that John, the son of Zebedee, might actually
have died as a martyr in the early 40s CE, recognizes that an important

1. Corssen, “Die Vita Polycarpi,” 299-300.

2. Streeter, The Primitive Church, 272-273.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 127

building block in such an argument must be to provide a more nuanced

understanding of seemingly unambiguous statements by Irenaeus and,
more generally, to indicate that Irenaeus’ testimony is itself “very ques-
tionable.”?
Irenaeus as Confused
Irenaeus names no other apostle besides John in his accounts of Polycarp.
But, why John? And more pointedly, which John? It is a tribute to the com-
plexity of the debate regarding the identity or identities of John that the
following statement by Culpepper makes perfect sense and is, arguably, in-
sightful: “If the Elder was the evangelist, Irenaeus has misunderstood the
tradition he received about the apostle. . . ."4 Elder, evangelist, apostle—
three persons, two persons, or one?
Though thorough consideration of the matter is beyond the scope of
this study, the issue of John’s identity must be considered insofar as it re-
lates to Polycarp and, more generally, to traditions about John’s activity in
Asia Minor. Two prominent scholars, William Schoedel and C. K. Barrett,
the former identified with scholarship on Polycarp and the latter with Jo-
hannine studies, have concluded that Irenaeus may simply be confused
about which John influenced Polycarp. Writes Barrett: “while one may
admit the truth of Irenaeus’ views on youthful memory as regards vividness,
they may well be questioned as regards accuracy. That Irenaeus, in good
faith, made a mistake is a possibility to be taken very seriously.”” Similarly,
for Schoedel, Irenaeus’ association of Polycarp with the apostle John “rests
on a misunderstanding.”°
Within the debate on Irenaeus’ representation of John, the account of
the second-century bishop Papias, as preserved by Eusebius in HE, looms
large. Within a passage which is controversial for, among other things, its

3. Boismard, Le Martyre deJean, 77; see also 67 for the following explanation of Irenaeus’
use of John in the “Letter to Florinus”: “if Irenaeus mentioned John more specially, it is not
because Polycarp had known John more than the other apostles, but perhaps simply because
the witness of John was more important than that of the other apostles in order to convince
Florinus.”
4. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 124.
5. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John:An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978) 105.
6. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 3; following Alan H.
McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament (2d ed., rev. C. S. C. Williams;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953) 282—284; see also R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegeti-
cal Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
1920) xlix.
128 Polycarp and John

arguably illogical narrative structure and its confusing manner of labeling

groups, Papias mentions a certain “John the Elder” (HE 3.39.3—4).
That use of “elder” is not the first in this short passage. “Elders” are men-
tioned before the naming of several “disciples.” All of these “disciples” are
familiar from (among other places) Gospel accounts, and one of them is
John. Following the list of familiar “disciples” another group is identified in
which there are two members, a certain “Aristion” and “John the Elder.”
Both the group of familiar “disciples,” and the following group of which one
is called “the Elder,” are referred to as “disciples of the Lord.”
One must ask, does Papias present three groups (unnamed “elders,”
named “disciples,” and an unlabeled group of two named individuals, one
of which happens to be called “the Elder”) or two groups (“elders” and
“disciples,” with the latter category sandwiched between two descriptions
of the former; or “elders” and “disciples,” with the latter group expanded to
include individuals not familiar from Gospel accounts) or one group (vari-
ously identified as both “disciples” and “elders”)? Further, informed in part
by one’s answer to that question, one may then ask, does Papias present
distinct and distinguishable Johns, or simply one John? If one opts for two
Johns, and if one assumes that Irenaeus might have been subject to con-
fusion, then one finds a possible solution to that which Schoedel terms
Irenaeus’ “misunderstanding.”
The influential figure about whom Polycarp spoke, with the young
Irenaeus and others, might have been John the Elder. As summarized by
Alan McNeile, whose own work may have influenced both Schoedel and
Barrett, the confusion might have arisen because Irenaeus was “mistaken
in the recollections from boyhood” or—as is substantiated by the canoni-
cal Acts and even elsewhere in Irenaeus’ own writings—because Irenaeus,
like other ancient writers, simply confused personages who share the same
name.’
As for the broader issue succinctly stated in Culpepper’s statement
about “Elder . . . evangelist . . . apostle,” a viable solution is most difficult to
substantiate given the conventions of historiographical method and the
ambiguity of the data. The Johannine scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg, who
believes that “the two Johns in the quotation from Papias should be kept
apart,” is likewise cautious about the Fourth Gospel: “The question as to
who the beloved disciple was . . . is without a solution”; and, “whether the

7. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 283; see also Charles, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xlix.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 129

‘presbyter John’. . . is to be brought into any kind of connection with the

beloved disciple of the Johannine church, is scarcely to be determined.”®
Three Johns, two Johns, or one? For Schnackenburg the answer is, most
probably, three. For Culpepper, as indicated in the statement quoted
above, two is a possibility. For Irenaeus, the answer is one. If confusion is
indeed the explanation for Irenaeus’ understanding of the role of John in
Asia Minor, then it is an explanation which rings true for the contemporary
student of the matter. The matter is confusing.’
Irenaeus as Liar
Immediately prior to asking “which John?” I presented the question “why
John?” Another possibility for understanding Irenaeus’ treatment ofJohn is
to cast Irenaeus as one who consciously presents false information in order
to forward his own agenda. Near the beginning of this century, the influ-
ential scholar E. Schwartz wrote vividly in Latin about the “the guile (dolo)
of Irenaeus” who “imposed . . . a lie (mendacium) that Polycarp was a dis-
ciple of John the apostle.” Another scholar, P. Corssen, wrote no less vividly
in German about Irenaeus’ “bold lie” (dreiste Falschung).!° Recently Hel-
mut Koester has written pointedly about “a fiction that Bishop Irenaeus of
Lyons created.”!! Strong words indeed.
It must be observed that Irenaeus’ “lie,” if it is such, is as complex and
subtle as it is simple (one John), involving such distinguishable “lies” as the
apostle John’s advanced age, his presence in Asia Minor, and his author-
ship of the Fourth Gospel and other New Testament literature, as well as
the matter of contact with Polycarp. As explained by Streeter, the reason
for Irenaeus to forward such an agenda is simple and clear: “To Irenaeus,
Polycarp was the link between himself and the apostolic tradition.”!?
Culpepper writes descriptively of Irenaeus’ ambitious objectives: “In his
writings Irenaeus sought to refute the heresies of Marcion, the Gnostics,

8. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to Saint John 1.81; 3.383, 386; Schnacken-
burg’s “presbyter John” and he whom I refer to as “the Elder John” are, of course, the same
person—scholars variously transliterate (Schnackenburg) or translate (as herein) the Greek
word meaning “elder.”
9. For further discussion, see Hengel, The Johannine Question, esp. 1-31.
10. Schwartz, De Pionio et Polycarpo, 33; Corssen, “Die Vita Polycarpi,” 302. In response
to Corssen, who favored the historicity of VPol, A. Hilgenfeld turned the same phrase against
that document: A. Hilgenfeld, “Eine dreiste Falschung in alter Zeit und deren neueste Vertei-
digung,” ZWT 48 (1905) 444-458.
11. Koester, “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature,” 138.
12. Streeter, The Primitive Church, 99.
130 Polycarp and John

the Montanists, and probably Gaius . . . Drawing on scripture and tradi-

tion, Irenaeus gave the church a powerful anti-Gnostic theological syn-
thesis.”!? It is notable that Irenaeus’ presentation of John shores up both
pillars of his two-fold foundation, scripture and tradition. Via a direct asso-
ciation with the great Polycarp, who himself had direct contact with John,
Irenaeus enhances his own status as a—perhaps, the—legitimate, living
spokesperson for a particular Christian tradition. Via confirmation of apos-
tolic authorship for the Fourth Gospel, “the battle for the fourfold Gospel,”
which Irenaeus favored, “was won.”!#
And on the other hand, as Boismard notes, any move in the direction of
removing the apostle John from Asia Minor “ruins the authority of the
Fourth Gospel” for Irenaeus. Further, it severs the association with Poly-
carp which then, in turn, weakens Irenaeus’ authority as an interpreter of
John for Florinus.!°
Irenaeus as Proponent of a Tradition
Regardless of whether one judges Irenaeus as confused, willfully fabricat-
ing evidence, or some combination thereof, one might consider that, even
as early as the time of Irenaeus’ writing, there may have been no one ac-
count of Polycarp’s predecessor(s) and mentor(s).!° Further, and more to
the point, many and varied accounts of John’s activity provide the basis for
recognizing the existence of both pre-Irenaean and para-Irenaean tradi-
tions about the ministry of the apostle John in Asia Minor and, specifically,
in Smyrna. ,
From at least the middle of the second century, John the Apostle is
depicted as having actively engaged in a ministry in Asia Minor which
includes, in some reports, ordaining bishops. AJn, for example, places the
apostle in Asia Minor and describes his active ministry there. It is regret-
table that much of the narrative around John’s stay at Smyrna is lack-
ing from the extant text of AJn.!’ One would like to know more about how
John’s ministry in and around Polycarp’s city was described.

13. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 123.

14. Ibid., 127.
15. Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean, 77; see also 67.
16. See, for example, the list of early Smyrnaean bishops in the Apostolic Constitutions
7.46: Through the second bishop, a certain “Strateas, son of Lois,” an association with Paul is
suggested (see 2 Tim 1:5), while through “Ariston,” a name which is seemingly shared by
both the first and third bishops, Johannine Christianity may be suggested (see Cadoux, An-
cient Smyrna, 314-315, who believes “Ariston” is the equivalent of Papias “Aristion”).
17. See Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis 2.524, and Schaferdiek, “The Acts of John,”
191-192.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John is

Tertullian, who writes after Irenaeus, states in On the Prescription against

the Heretics 32.2. that “Polycarp was established at the Church of Smyrna
by John just as, at Rome, Clement was ordained by Peter.” In response to
Hengel’s assertion that Tertullian “spins out the remark by Irenaeus in a
tendentious way,”!® one might suggest that Tertullian, who is himself con-
versant with traditions about the activity of another apostle—Paul—in
Asia Minor,'? is portraying a John consistent with both Irenaeus’ reports
and the greater Johannine traditions of which Irenaeus’ reports are a part.
But even if Tertullian can be charged with a simple spinning out of an
Irenaean account, Clement of Alexandria cannot. The sheer length and
level of detail of the extended account of “John the Apostle” which is
recorded by Clement makes clear that it rests on far more than statements
like those found in Irenaeus. Indeed, according to Clement's own tes-
timony, that which he records is “an account [which has been] handed
down . . . and guarded in memory.””° At the beginning of this account is the
record that “the Apostle John,” after serving his term of exile on Patmos,
settled in Ephesus, “and used also to go, when called on, to the neighbor-
ing districts of the gentiles, in some places ordaining (ka®toTnLL) bishops,
in others uniting whole churches, and in others appointing (kAnpd6w) a
given individual pointed out by the Spirit.”!
Clement preserves a tradition about an active ministry of John which in-
cludes, among other things, ordaining bishops. In light of that tradition one
might raise up the suggestive language of the Muratorian Canon which, in
discussing the apostle John, mentions “his own bishops.”?? A reasonable
understanding is that the text is referring to bishops (purportedly) ordained
by John.

18. Hengel, The Johannine Question, 153 n. 90. Certainly it is consistent with Tertul-
lian’s agenda to recognize an apostle at the foundation of important local Christian com-
munities; for commentary on the origin of the churches in the cities named in Rev I—2, see
Adv. Marc. 4.5.2: “We have also the churches fostered by John . . . [which], tracing their line
of bishops to its beginning, stand on John as their founder.”
19. See On Baptism 17 for Tertullian’s comments on the origin of the Acts of Paul and
Thecla.
20. Clement, Quis Dives Salvetur, as recorded in HE 3.23.6. On the potential antiquity
of this particular tradition regarding John, Koester has suggested that “the story may come
from a time before Polycarp became bishop of [Smyrna]” (Koester, “Ephesos in Early Chris-
tian Literature,” 138).
21. Clement, Quis Dives Salvetur, as recorded in HE 3.23.6.
22. Muratorian Canon 10; for translation of Muratorian Canon 10-16, see above com-
ment on (a) 1 1—12, Obs. 6.
132 Polycarp and John

Even Irenaeus’ own letter to Florinus suggests, if not confirms, an un-

derstanding regarding the activity of the apostle John which is broader and
earlier than Irenaeus’ own written account. It is significant that Irenaeus
prefaces his own reminiscences of Polycarp and John by reminding Flori-
nus, “While I was still a youth I saw you in Asia Minor with Polycarp . . .
attempting to be pleasing to [Polycarp]” (HE 5.20.5). As Culpepper writes,
“Since he appeals to Florinus’s memory of their shared experience [with
Polycarp], it is most unlikely that Irenaeus would have fabricated any of
this. Presumably, Florinus’s memory was as clear as Irenaeus’s.”2?
If Irenaeus’ childhood memories regarding Polycarp’s association with
John were confused then so, apparently, were Florinus’. More broadly,
as suggested by Schnackenburg, it may not be individual, but corporate
memories which lie at the root of Irenaeus’ testimony: “Irenaeus may have
been misled from the start by the error of the Church of Ephesus.”*4
Schnackenbure’s suggestion, if correct, provides further confirmation that
Irenaeus’ testimony is part of a greater and broader tradition.
In sum, the rhetorical posturing within Irenaeus’ letter to another of
Polycarp’s students indicates that a local reminiscence of Polycarp’s asso-
ciation with the apostle John predates Irenaeus. In light of the evidence
provided by AJn and the tradition preserved by Clement of Alexandria, if
not the Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, and Polycrates’? as well, it is evident
that Irenaeus’ work stands within a broader tradition about John’s ministry
in Asia Minor.
Whatever the debt that FrgPol may owe to Irenaeus, either directly or
indirectly, for the idea of Polycarp’s association with John, it may also be
indebted to Irenaeus for the very notion of (the perceived need for) an
identifiable line of apostolic succession through John. In his well-known
study on apostolic succession, Arnold Ehrhardt, after observing that “Ire-
naeus . . . insisted on apostolic succession,” writes: “and his witness is less
valuable for the history of the doctrine before his time than for its forma-
tion in subsequent times.”*° The raw material needed for a narrative about
John and Polycarp may have been in place before Irenaeus; the codification
of the significance of a direct line of succession from the apostle John
through Polycarp may arguably be linked directly to Irenaeus.

23. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 126.

24. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to Saint John 1.81.
25. See HE 5.24.23, in which Eusebius quotes Polycrates, who regards John, “who was
lying on the Lord’s chest,” to be among the “great stars who are sleeping in Asia.”
26. Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of theChurch, 109.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 133

C. K. Barrett, who was unaware of FrgPol, writes: “It is impossible to

doubt that a local biographer would have recounted Polycarp’s association
with John if he could have found a shred of evidence to suggest it.”27 Such
is precisely the lacuna which this ancient work fills in a very unique way
through an extended narrative piece. Drawing on particular traditions
regarding John’s activity in Asia Minor and John’s lack of a martyr death,
FrgPol develops the association of Polycarp and John to a degree unwit-
nessed, so far as we know, either before or since. Barrett’s comment, as it
turns out, is prophetic.

2. Why Is John’s Peaceful Death So Troublesome?

The Problem
Within depictions of John which have survived from the early centuries,
one can detect a concern about the extent of the sufferings which had
been endured by this apostle. According to the prominent tradition, John
had died peacefully. Yet, as an “apostle,” it would have seemed appropriate
that John suffer a martyr’s death. As stated by Karl Rengstorf, “participation
in the suffering and death ofJesus” is the “essence of the consciousness of
the apostolic calling and office.”*8
Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms, which is only partially preserved
and, unfortunately, not available in a modern text edition, contains perti-
nent records of early Christian consideration of the matter. Regarding “the
twelve .. . apostles,” Eusebius writes that “Aquila was saying, ‘Their blood
will be honored .. .”” and Symmachus, “Their blood will be an honor.” In-
terestingly, Eusebius goes on to write, “each one endured variously the goal
(téhoS) of martyrdom.””? If Eusebius is preserving actual reports or para-
phrasing in a trustworthy manner, then a clear statement of the under-
standing that each apostle must or would endure martyrdom is traceable
(through Aquila) to at least the first half of the second century.
Even given such a general understanding of the martyrdom of apostles,
the case of John may involve a unique difficulty. According to Walter Bauer,

27. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 105.

28. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Apostolate and Ministry: The New Testament Doctrine of the
Office of the Ministry (tr. Paul D. Pahl; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1969) 41;
similarly, Walter Schmithals, The Office of the Apostle in the Early Church (tr. John E. Steeley;
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969) 47, “It belongs to the nature of the apostolate that the
apostle must suffer.”
AY, IAG Dak (IAG.
134 Polycarp and John

it is not necessarily a general understanding of the role of the apostle which

gives rise to the compensation stories regarding John’s martyrdom, so much
as it is “the desire to square Jesus’ prediction in Mark 10:39 = Matt 20:23,
which had already pointed antiquity to a martyrdom that was in prospect,
with the tradition that the apostle had lived long and had not died a violent
death.”?°
Regardless of whether they stem from a broader concern for the aposto-
late, a narrower concern for John, or some combination thereof, a number
of direct explanations for John’s reprieve from a martyr death are extant
from the second century on. Through presenting Polycarp’s martyrdom as
being necessitated by John’s peaceful death, FrgPol sets itself within the
prominent tradition about John.
Before examining that tradition, it is important to recognize that there is
evidence—perhaps early evidence—that John had, in fact, died as a martyr.
An Alternate Tradition: John as Martyr
It is possible that as early a witness as Papias, whose confusing descrip-
tion of “John the Elder’ is discussed above, had confirmed that John, son
of Zebedee, died a martyr. Reports of John’s martyrdom are extant in two
works—a seventh-—eighth century epitome of the Church History of Philip
of Side, and a ninth-century manuscript of the Chronicon of George the
Sinner—which claim Papias as their authority:
Papias reports in his second book that John the Theologian and James
his brother were killed by the Jews. [Philip of Side, Church History,
Codex Baroccianus | 42]

For Papias . . . in the second book of the Sayings of the Lord says that
[John] was killed by the Jews. [George the Sinner, Chronicon, Codex
Coislinianus 305]

If a report about John’s martyrdom had in fact been included in the

conveyed text of Papias, which is now known principally through HE 3.39,
then it is not known when it might have fallen out, though some scholars
have suggested that Eusebius himself is the culprit.?! Culpepper asks the

30. Bauer, “Accounts,” 52.

31. Hengel (The Johannine Question, 21), for whom “this often neglected tradition seems
to me to be more trustworthy than it is usually supposed to be,” suggests that Eusebius might
have had his reasons for dropping a report about John’s martyrdom. For further discussion see
Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, 117-121; H. Latimer Jack-
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 135

question, “did [Eusebius] suppress the report in favor of the tradition that
the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel?” That is, if the apostle John had
indeed been martyred very early on, say 43—44 CE, then it would have
been impossible for him to have composed the Fourth Gospel in the form
in which that Gospel has circulated (see esp. John 21:21—23).
In answering his own question, Culpepper recognizes that the explana-
tion of suppression on the part of Eusebius “is difficult to accept since
Eusebius assumes the five books of Papias are still available. . . .”32 The
preservation of reports about the martyrdoms of “the twelve . . . apostles,”??
as contained in Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms (cited above), further
complicates any consideration of Eusebius’ writings and motives.
At the top of the most recent study of “the martyrdom ofJohn the Apos-
tle,” Boismard lists the reports found in Philip of Side and George the
Sinner along with a report of John’s martyrdom in the early sixth-century
Martyrology of Carthage as “the three ‘proofs’ on which is founded the
thesis according to which John the apostle might have died a martyr.”*4 In
fact Boismard builds his case on much more, and provides exhaustive tes-
timony to the tradition that John had died as a martyr, perhaps as early as
43-44 cE»?
With Boismard’s recent work, that which H. Latimer Jackson stated in
1918 rings even more true today: it “is no longer possible”*® to ignore evi-
dence indicating a persistent tradition that John, son of Zebedee, had died
as a martyr. Simply, two disparate traditions about John’s death must be
recognized. That said, there is no dismissing the overwhelming testimony
to the fact that from at least the second century onwards John was regu-
larly depicted as one who had not died as a martyr.*” It is this prominent
tradition which FrgPol engages, and within which it is to be understood.

son, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918)
142-150, “Excursus I: The Death of John Son of Zebedee”; and Zahn, Apostel und Apos-
telschiiler, 103 n. 1. For further bibliography, see Kaestli, “Le réle des textes bibliques dans la
Genése et le développement des légendes apocryphes: Le cas du sort final de l'apétre Jean,”
Augustinianum 23 (1983) 320 nn. 4—5.
32. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 155.
33. Among whom are included “the sons of Zebedee”; PG 23, 812C.
34. Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean, 10.
35. Ibid., 10-13 and throughout. | do not find in Boismard’s work any consideration of
the statements in Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms.
36. Jackson, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel, 150.
37. Kaestli, “Le réle des textes bibliques,” 320, writes: “This tradition [of John’s martyr
death] has been completely supplanted by the legend of the longevity of the apostle and of
his natural death in Ephesus.”
136 Polycarp and John

The Prominent Tradition and Attempts at Compensation

Both of the central components of the prominent tradition—recognition of
the longevity of the apostle John’s life, as well as compensation for John’s
lack of a martyr death—are evident by the end of the second and the
beginning of the third centuries. For example Tertullian, in a discussion of
the “apostolic churches” (ecclesiae apostolicae), writes as follows about the
church at Rome:
How fortunate is the church to whom the apostles have poured out all
of their teaching along with their blood: where Peter undergoes suf-
fering like that of the Lord; where Paul is crowned in a death like that
of John (the Baptist); where the apostle John, being submerged in
boiling oil did not suffer [harm], and was afterwards exiled to the
island.*®
For Origen it is not any gruesome torture miraculously endured, but simply
the exile itself which accounts for John’s “martyrdom” (tapTvptov).*?
The second-century AJn has been discussed previously in this chapter
and several times in the Commentary. In AJn 113, the elderly apostle, who
has already stepped down into the grave which he asked “the youths” (ot
veaviokot) to prepare for him (111), prays to “you who have guarded me
until this hour for yourself, pure and untouched from intercourse with
a woman, who appeared to me when as a youth | was wanting to be mar-
ried... who took me from a bitter death. . . .”, The complex address, quoted
here only in part, is followed by a petition or, more precisely, a series of pe-
titions, which begins: “Now, therefore, since | have completed the program
(oikovopta) to which I have been entrusted (ttoTevw) by you... .” InAJn
it is clear that John’s peaceful death at an advanced age is no aberration, it
is the divinely appointed outcome of a life’s program dutifully fulfilled;
John is an excellent apostle.*°
Concern about John’s peaceful death continues through the centuries.
Augustine of Hippo is puzzled by reports he has received about miraculous

38. On the Prescription against the Heretics 36.3; for comments, see R. F. Refoulé, ed.,
and P. de Labriolle, tr., Tertullien: Traité de la prescription contre les hérétiques (SC 46; Paris:
Editions du Cerf, 1957) 137-138.
39. Origen, “Commentary on Matthew” 16.6 (commenting on Matt 20:20—24, the re-
quest on behalf of the sons of Zebedee). For a report of the exile of “the apostle” John to the
island of Patmos, see Clement, Quis Dives Salvetur 42.2., discussed above.
40. For the full narrative of John’s final words, prayer, and death, see AJn 111—115; fora
discussion of other, related (second-century) traditions, see Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis
1.156—-158.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John tae

dust at the site of John’s tomb*! and reasons that such a wonder likely has
as its purpose “to commend the value of [John’s] death, since it was not
commended by martyrdom (since he did not suffer persecution for the
faith of Christ).”*? As the tradition of John’s peaceful death continues to
develop through late antiquity and into the medieval period, he is asso-
ciated with prominent biblical figures such as Elijah and the Virgin Mary,
who, it was believed, departed from earthly life neither violently nor in a
natural way.*?
There is also this fascinating statement about John as “martyr” in the
classic medieval work ofJacob of Voragine, The Golden Legend, 8:
For there are three kinds of martyrdom: the first is willed and en-
dured, the second willed but not endured, the third endured without
being willed. Saint Stephen is an example of the first, Saint John of
the second, the Holy Innocents of the third.*4
When the notion of a martyrdom which is “willed but not endured” might
first have been formulated for John is not known.*°
The Prominent Tradition, the Gospels, and Polycarp
The overt statement of Polycarp’s martyrdom as compensation for John’s
peaceful death as found in FrgPol is unique among the extant sources. But,
more broadly understood, the notion that Polycarp’s death is associated
with John’s death—at least as the latter was foretold by Jesus in the Synop-
tic record—is indicated in the narrative of MartPol.
In the final prayer in MartPol (MPol 14.2 = HE 4.15.33—34), Polycarp
assumes that his imminent martyrdom will allow him “a share . . . in the
cup of your Christ.” As reported by Dehandschutter,*® scholars have long
recognized the phrase, “the cup of your Christ,” as an allusion to canonical

41. Fora description of this dust, see Schaferdiek, “Acts of John,” 258.
42. Augustine, Tractate 124, “On the Gospel of John,” 3.
43. For the influence of biblical (and related) traditions, see Kaestli, “Le role des textes
bibliques”; see also Martin Jugie, La mort et l'assomption de la Sainte Vierge: Etude historico-
doctrinale (Studi e Testi, 114; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944), Excursus
D: “La mort et l’'assomption de Saint Jean I'Evangeliste.”
44. William Granger Ryan, tr., Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the
Saints (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 1.50.
45. According to Ryan, ibid., xiv, “The Golden Legend is basically the work of a com-
piler’; J.- B. M. Roze, La légende dorée de Jaques de Voragine (Paris: Edouard Rouveyre, 1902)
].xv—xvi, has identified several sources from the first through the thirteenth centuries.
46. Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi, 252.
138 Polycarp and John

Gospel material, including Mark 10:35—40 (par. Matt 20:20—23), the

request by*’ James and John, the sons of Zebedee.
In the Gospel accounts, that request elicits the following response from
Jesus: “The cup that I drink you will drink” (Mark 10:39, NRSV); “You will
indeed drink my cup” (Matt 20:23, NRSV). Jesus is noncommittal in an-
swering the actual request, stating only that heavenly privilege “is for those
for whom it has been prepared (€Totsd¢w)” (Mark 10:40, Matt 20:23).
Had it been “prepared” for James and John? The Synoptic report does
not say.
Recently these verses have been cited by Boismard to suggest the likeli-
hood that John did meet an early death.*® Others such as Bauer, who is
quoted above, would see this Gospel material as precisely the catalyst for
the compensation component in the prominent tradition regarding John’s
peaceful death.
Regarding ancient Christian understandings of Polycarp’s death vis-a-vis
the prominent tradition about John, what is of interest is the scope of the
allusion in Polycarp’s prayer. If one makes the supposition that the phrase
“the cup of your Christ” in MartPol directs the reader's attention to the
first quote of Jesus cited above (Mark 10:39; Matt 20:23), then one ought
further to consider whether the second quote cited, Jesus’ statement about
preparation, is also alluded to in Polycarp’s final prayer. According to Mart-
Pol, Polycarp states within his prayer that God has “prepared beforehand”
(TpoeTotLdcw) for Polycarp to “be received among [the number of mar-
tyrs] in your presence this day.” What is a potentiality in the Synoptic story
about James and John—Jesus cannot say that it will have been “prepared”
for them—is actualized in MartPol: Polycarp is confident that his place has
been “prepared beforehand.”
Does Polycarp’s final prayer, as recorded in MartPol, bear witness to
an understanding of Polycarp’s martyrdom in which Polycarp, in his man-
ner of death, accomplishes something that John did not? It is impossible
to say, since MartPol indicates nothing about John as martyr or as one who
experienced a peaceful death. Nonetheless, if one approaches MartPol
with the assumption that John has not died a martyr, then one will likely
learn that Polycarp accomplished what John has not: Polycarp has drunk

47. Or, on behalf of; see Matt 20:20.

48. Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean, 78; see also Jackson, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel,
142-150; Kaestli, “Le réle des textes bibliques,” 320—323, includes a short consideration of
both the Synoptic and the Johannine passages.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 139

from the “cup” of martyrdom; further, his place in the afterlife was “pre-
pared beforehand” by God.
There is a second potentially relevant Gospel pericope which speaks not
to manner of death, but to longevity of life. Toward the close of the Fourth
Gospel, in response to Peter's request for information about his fellow dis-
ciple, Jesus replies:
If it is my will that [the beloved disciple] remain until I come, what is
that to you? .. . So the rumor spread quickly that this disciple would
not die. Yet Jesus did not say to [Peter] that [the beloved disciple]
would not die, but, “Ifitis my will that he remain until I come, what is
that to you?” (John 21:21—23, NRSV)

Does this passage furnish information regarding the longevity of John’s life?
In light of modern scholarship on the text, there is no readily available
answer to the question. The pericope may or may not furnish information
about the lifespan of the beloved disciple; that character may or may not be
John. In approaching an area of study in which “the questions are numer-
ous and so too the answers—numerous and embarrassing,’*? one must, at
best, be tentative.
In light of FrgPol, it is interesting that in a recent assessment of this pe-
ricope Richard J. Cassidy writes, “Jesus strikingly foretells . . . that [the
beloved disciple] will not experience a martyrdom.”*® Further, it is notable
that in a classic article on the matter, Maurice Goguel states the intent of
this pericope as follows: “the author would persuade his readers that if the
beloved disciple had not .. . suffered martyrdom, this was not because he
was inferior, but because the Lord had disposed otherwise.”?! Some at-
tempt at compensation appears to be evident.
Rudolf Bultmann, in his classic commentary on the Fourth Gospel, does
not disagree with the understanding that the beloved disciple lived to a
great age, but he feels that “it is hardly likely that wv. 20—22 are a defence of
the belittling of the beloved disciple on the ground that he did not suffer a
martyr’s death’; rather, the precipitating problem was “that the idea arose

49. Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Function and Background of the Beloved Disciple in
the Gospel of John,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (ed. Charles W.
Hedrick and Robert Hodgson; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986) 115.
50. Richard J. Cassidy, John’s Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of
Roman Power (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992) 74.
51. Maurice Goguel, “Did Peter Deny His Lord?” HTR 25 (1932) 17.
140 Polycarp and John

that he would remain alone until the parousia.”®* Nevertheless George R.

Beasely-Murray, who translated Bultmann’s work into English and then
wrote his own commentary, proceeds in the vein of Goguel: “By the time
chapter 21 was written and the Gospel went into circulation both disciples
had died, [Peter] with the glory of martyrdom and [the beloved disciple]
with a peaceful end at Ephesus (we would certainly have heard to the con-
trary had it been otherwise).””?
Whatever the precipitating events which may lie behind the narrative of
John 21, however ancient readers might have understood Jesus’ words in
that chapter, and whoever the beloved disciple was or might have been,
two points are of interest: at least by the time of Irenaeus, the apostle John
was considered to be “the beloved disciple”; at least by the time of the Acts
ofJohn (150-160 CE), John was considered to have lived to an old age and
died peacefully. By the second half of the second century, the prominent
tradition about John and the descriptions within the Fourth Gospel were
informing each other. Such cross-fertilization may have influenced the
portrait of John in FrgPol, though one can undertand the extant text of
FrgPol, and the prominent tradition which it engages, independently from
John 21.
Beasely-Murray suggests that the problem or conflict behind John 21
may be a kind of rivalry:
Is it reasonable to suggest that this presentation of the relations of
Peter and the Beloved Disciple, to the Lord and to each other, was
made for the benefit of the churches which were inclined to exalt
one over against the other? The tendency to favor one apostle more
than another is seen in the Corinthian correspondence of Paul. . .
CEGorg 3—4)>4
It is indeed reasonable to approach portrayals of apostolic and other promi-
nent figures in such a manner as Beasely-Murray suggests, not only in light
of such evidence as is provided by the early chapters of 1 Cor, but more
specifically in light of a history which can be plotted between and among
Christian communities. Regardless of its efficacy in the matter of John 21,
such an approach illumines FrgPol.

52. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (tr. and ed. G. R. Beasely-
Murray; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971) 716.
53. George R. Beasely-Murray, John (Word Biblical Commentary 36; Waco, Tex.: Word
Books, 1987) 410.
54. Ibid.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 141

In FrgPol, it is because of a lack in John’s hagiographical biography that

someone else must die a martyr’s death. The martyr Polycarp becomes a
kind of surrogate for the apostle John; he endures the martyr death on
John’s account. What context might have given rise to such an understand-
ing of Polycarp’s martyrdom?

3. Smyrna versus Ephesus: John, Polycarp,

and a Rivalry Both Sacred and Profane

Under Roman Imperial Rule

The ongoing rivalry among several prominent cities in western Asia Minor
is well attested in the ancient sources.°? As George Bean writes: “where
once the support or the hostility of Ephesus or Smyrna could make or mar
the fortunes of a Hellenistic King, the cities were now reduced to striving
merely for titles and honours: ‘First and greatest Metropolis of Asia, ‘Four
times temple-warden of the emperors, such are the phrases proudly re-
peated in the official inscriptions.”°® Another current writer, Anthony D.
Macro, considering “the proud display of grandiose titles on coins or in-
sciptions or both,” puts it thus: “Warfare was now waged by propaganda
and advertisement.”?”
To one who experienced such “striving” firsthand, the philosopher
Dio Chrysostom, the cities involved seemed driven by “vanity and self-
deception and empty, foolish pride”; their goal of gaining rank among their
neighbors being merely “an ass’s shadow.”® For our purposes it is relevant

55. Besides the works engaged in the discussion below, see R. Merkelbach, “Der
Rangstreit der Stadte Asiens und die Rede des Aelius Aristides iiber die Eintracht,” Zeitschrift
fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32 (1978) 287-296; Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, esp.
599, 635; Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, esp. 274-275, 291-294; and Joachim Marquardt,
Rémische Staatsverwaltung (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1881) 1.343-346.
56. Bean, Aegean Turkey, 17; for inscriptional evidence, see GIBM 3.153—155 and CIG,
nos. 3199, 3202-3205; also, an inscription published fairly recently in which there is
evidence of an erasure, likely indicating a disagreement about whether Ephesus, under Cara-
calla, was “two times” or “three times” a temple warden, in Dieter Knibbe, Helmut Engel-
mann, Biilent Iplikcioglu, “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XI,”Jh 59 (1989) 165-168, no. 5.
57. Macro, “The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium,” ANRW 2.7.2 (1980)
658-697, 683.
58. 34.47, 48; tr. J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby, Dio Chrysostom (LCL, Dio
Chrysostom, 3; 1940; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961) 381, 383. “Smyrnaeans
with Ephesians” appears as the third and final pair of quarreling citizens which Dio lists.
142 Polycarp and John

that among the rivalries which Dio has in mind is that between Ephesus
and Smyrna. Ina classic treatment of the economic history of “Roman Asia
Minor,” T. R. S. Broughton writes simply, “[Smyrna’s] rivalry with Ephesus
was proverbial. . . .”°?
Though observers both ancient and modern might find such “warfare . . .
by propaganda’ to be “trivial,” it was a very serious matter, as is evidenced,
for example, by the fact that it was “expensive,” sometimes to the point of
being “deleterious to the financial welfare of the cities.”°° Of course the
reason a city would expend such effort promoting itself or trying to check
the “propaganda” with which a rival city promoted itself was precisely
because of the wealth and power which heightened status could bring.
Steven Friesen has recently reiterated the notion that “the reason that
political rivalry continued after the loss of autonomy . . . was . . . compe-
tition for material resources”; further, in commenting on five particular
cites, including Smyrna and Ephesus, Friesen writes: “The use of mu-
nicipal titles in coins and inscriptions suggests that the primary function of
such titles was to influence perceptions of status and order among the
larger cities. . ."°! Simply stated, matters pertaining to wealth and power
were worthy of the “warfare” of “propaganda.”
When the emperor Tiberius sought a location suitable for the building
and maintaining of a new cult site, Smyrna and Ephesus were among the
cities petitioning for yet another temple. As Tacitus reports, the represen-
tatives of Smyrna, who worked diligently to establish, among other things,
“the antiquity” (vetustas) of their city, were finally successful in gaining
the temple for their city (Annals 4.56).°? Yet, according to Annals 3.61, the
senate was so troubled by the “acrimony of the discussion” which pervaded
all the cities’ presentations that it “passed a number of resolutions . . . and
the applicants were ordered to fix the brass records actually inside [their

59. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 742.

60. Macro, “The Cities of Asia Minor,” 683.
61. Friesen, “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos: Temple Wardens, City
Titles, and the Interpretation of the Revelation of John,” in Koester, Ephesos, 238, 240. For a
representative list of such titles, see Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 740-744.
62. Annals 4.56; tr. John Jackson, Tacitus: The Annals, Books IV—-VI, XI-XII (LCL, Taci-
tus, 4; 1937; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970) 101. For discussion of the report
in Tacitus’ Annals, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in West-
ern Asia Minor (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1980) 57, and Merkelbach, “Der Rangstreit
der Stadte Asiens,” 287.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 143

existing] temples, both as a solemn memorial and as a warning not to lapse

into secular intrigue under the cloak of religion.”°?
Smyrna’s early victory over Ephesus in the imperial propaganda wars was
fairly short-lived. Beginning with Vespasian (69-79), it would seem that
emperors generally favored Ephesus over Smyrna and other cities.“ Dieter
Knibbe has referred to the second century generally as a “golden age” for
Ephesus,® while Friesen, commenting specifically on the establishment
of the “Temple of the Flavian Sebastoi” in Ephesus, writes: “The innovation
that began Asia’s temple of the Sebastoi in Ephesos changed the public dis-
course of religion and identity in the eastern Mediterranean for centuries to
come.”°°
Ephesus had gained the upper hand.°’ Needless to say, that “enhanced
the rivalry with Smyrna.”®* As described by Macro, “Ephesus’ assump-
tion of the title ‘First and greatest Metropolis of Asia’ caused such ill-
feeling with Smyrna that the Emperor . . . felt the need to intervene.”®
Actually that particular incident, which occurred in the middle of the
second century under Antoninus Pius (138—161), is somewhat more com-
plicated.
It seems that Smyrna, in a formal letter addressed to Ephesus, had ne-
glected to include a certain title appropriate for that city; most likely, “First
and greatest Metropolis of Asia.” At the formal request of Ephesus, which
felt snubbed by its rival, the Emperor intervened.”° It is noteworthy that
several years following this episode, the famous rhetorician Aelius Aris-

63. Tr. Jackson, Tacitus: The Annals, Books 1—-III (LCL, Tacitus, 3; 1931; Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1969) 623. According to Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 709, the episode is
significant because “the lines of future rivalry among the cities . . were already being drawn.”
64. Dieter Knibbe and Biilent Iplikcioglu, “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos VIII,”Jh 53
(1981-1982) 90.
65. Dieter Knibbe and Wilhelm Alzinger, “Ephesos vom Beginn der rémischen
Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit,”
ANRW 2.7.2 (1980) 775.
66. Friesen, “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos,” 232, 236.
67. Which is not to say that Smyrna did not continue to enjoy the attention of emperors;
see Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 744—745, regarding Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius.
68. Erich Lessing and Wolfgang Oberleitner, Ephesos: Weltstadt der Antike (Vienna: Carl
Ueberreuter, 1978) 52c; see also Dieter Knibbe, “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos I,” Jh 48
(1966-1967) 1-22, 19-29.
69. Macro, “The Cities of Asia Minor,” 683.
70. GIBM 3.154b and 155a, no. 489; see recently Knibbe and Iplikcioglu, “Neue In-
schriften aus Ephesos VIII,” 90, no. 6, “Die erste und gréste Metropole Asiens”,; also Henri
Grégoire, “Epigraphie chrétienne II: Inscriptions d’Ephése,” Byzantion | (1920) 714.
144 Polycarp and John

tides, who was himself variously claimed by Smyrna, Ephesus, and Perga-
mum,’! delivered an oration “Concerning Concord,””? in which he called
on these three cities to end their rivalries.”?
Under Christian Rule
After the transition to Christian imperial rule, Smyrna formally fell within
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Ephesus, the Metropolitan of Asia.”
The archaeologist Clive Foss would receive no argument from the ancient
Smyrnaeans for writing this comment on the matter of church governance:
“Smyrna was evidently a worthy rival of Ephesus, whose ecclesiastical pri-
macy she constantly attacked.””° In an incident in Ephesus in 441, several
Smyrnaeans apparently shouted words or slogans offensive to Ephesus;
they were then pardoned against the Ephesians’ will.’° In 451, following
a successful course of political maneuvering, Smyrna became an auto-
cephalous bishopric.’’ It was not until the ninth century, however, that the
bishop of Smyrna would attain the status of “Metropolitan.””®
John and Polycarp in an Ephesian Inscription
Among the many discoveries which archaeologists have made in Ephesus
are two inscribed marble tablets found in the immediate vicinity of the
Church of St. Mary, which have been dated to the time of Justinian.’”? The
texts of both fragments are incomplete and badly damaged.

71. Not an unusual honor; according to Yamauchi, The Archaeology of New Testament
Cities in Western Asia Minor, 164 n. 6, “athletes and famous rhetors were claimed by adoptive
cities.” Homer was claimed by more than one city, among them Smyrna; see Cadoux, Ancient
Smyrna, 75.
72. English translation in Charles A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works
(2 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981) 2.26-44.
73. For further discussion see Merkelbach, “Der Rangstreit der Stadte Asiens,’ and
Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 274-275.
74. Clive Foss, Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 5.
75. Clive Foss, “Archaeology and the “Twenty Cities’ of Byzantine Asia,’ American Jour-
nal ofArchaeology 81 (1977) 482a.
76. IvE 4.189-190, no. 1352; the same inscription is cited by Foss, Ephesus after Antiq-
uity, 16.
77. Fora consideration of the “struggle” at the Council of Chalcedon in which the repre-
sentatives of Smyrna fortuitously sided with the Bishop of New Rome (Chalcedon), see Keil,
“Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” 369.
78. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1919b-1920a.
79. IvE 1a.281—284, no. 45, “Kaiserbrief (?) tiber Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarp
von Smyrna,” 281; all translations, including text restorations, in the discussion below are
based on the text edition found on 282-283. This ancient text was earlier edited and de-
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 145

Foss, consistent with others who have commented on the text, assumes
that it was occasioned by a “dispute . . . [which] seems to have arisen from
a claim of the church of Smyrna to the higher rank of Metropolis.”8° That
may be right. Regardless, what appears clear is that the inscribed text is at
pains to clarify John’s status in response to claims which have been made
about Polycarp.
As summarized earlier in this century by the eminent archaeologist
Josef Keil, the first tablet, Frg. A, is “concerned solely with the person of
St. John.”8! Therein John is variously described as “disciple [of God, more]
beloved [than] al{] (others)],” “the first, who reclined on [God’s] chest,”
“the theo[logian],” “the son of thunder,” and “[most holy a]postle.”®? Twice
within the extant text there is evidently direct reference to the “[honor]” of
which John is worthy.®?
Frg. B begins with a consideration of Polycarp, of whom it is said, “but
he himself would never accept [the heightened glo]ry of the apostles
and the disc[iples].”64 Of course, regardless of what amount of glory Poly-
carp may or may not find appropriate, the text of FrgPol casts him as one
who suffers an apostle’s martyrdom. Had attempts been made, perhaps by
the Smyrnaeans—who are mentioned in Frg. B°°—to bestow “heightened
glory” on Polycarp? The Ephesian inscription suggests as much. Why
else would the proposition (“That he would never accept [the heightened
glory”) be made—no less, inscribed?

scribed by Keil, “Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarpos von Smyrna’; see also Grégoire,
“Epigraphie chrétienne II,” 712-716, and L. Robert et al., eds., Supplementum Epigraphi-
cum Graecum vol. 4 (Amsterdam: A. W. Sijthoff, 1929) 99-100, no. 517.
80. Foss, Ephesus after Antiquity, 6; similarly IvE 1a.281; Francois Halkin, “Inscriptions
grecques relatives a I’hagiographie: LAsie Mineure” (in Halkin, Etudes d'épigraphie grecque
et d'hagiographie byzantine [London: Variorum Reprints, 1973], essays nos. 5 and 6) 80; Keil,
“Johannes von Ephesus und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” esp. 37 1-372; Grégoire, “Epigraphie
chrétienne II,” esp. 714-715.
81. Keil, “Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” 371.
82. A.2-4, 6-7,15; my translation is based on the restored text as found in IvE
1a.282—283.
83. “to be deemed [wort]hy of such [honor],” A.1—2; “And such is the magnitude [of his
honor], A.10—11.
84. B.6-7.
85. “Sml[yrnaeans],” B.7; there is a second reference to Smyrna at B.11 according to the
restored text as found in Keil, “Johannes von Ephesus und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” 370,
Grégoire, “Epigraphie chrétienne II,” 713, and L. Robert et al., Supplementum Epigraphicum
Graecum 4.100.
146 Polycarp and John

The Harris Fragments on Polycarp as a Smyrnaean Document

When Smyrna, under the emperor Tiberius, sought to bolster its petition
for consideration as a temple site, its officials researched and presented
evidence for the “antiquity” of their city. As noted recently by Vasiliki Lim-
beris, that strategy had changed little by the time of the first ecumeni-
cal councils, though it had been adapted to the Christian circumstance:
“Rome, Ephesos, and many other cities stressed apostolic foundation as
the criterion for honor, precedence, and position.”°° Indeed, as Oscar Cull-
man points out in his classic study on Peter, that strategy is even evident
among Christian communities from at least the latter half of the second
century. Citing Roman accounts of Peter's burial and Polycrates’ descrip-
tion of various prominent figures associated with Asia (in HE 5.24.2-9),°”
Cullman writes: “It is true that a purely topographical tradition is not free
from the influence of partisan interests.”
For Ephesus, the tracing of a glorious Christian antiquity was an easy
endeavor: it was a church which could claim to have been founded by Paul,
to have hosted Paul and his entourage for an extended period of time,
and to have been led by Paul's companion Timothy;*? further, as described
by Keil, it could claim an even “greater flowering . . . with John, a person-
ality of the highest reputation and far-reaching influence.””° For its part,
Smyrna’s great hero was Polycarp. Keil observes that in a simple com-
parison of Christian origins, “the proportion of power between the two old
rivals was very uneven.”?!
In the context of the ongoing rivalry between Smyrna and Benes the
strategy evident in FrgPol appears to fit a Smyrnaean agenda. That agenda
might be stated as follows: identify a vulnerable point in the prominent tra-
dition on John (the lack of a martyr death and need for compensation) and
capitalize on it by transferring the martyr death which had been accounted
to John onto Polycarp.

86. Limberis, “The Council of Ephesos: The Demise of the See of Ephesos and the Rise
of the Cult of the Theotokos,” in Koester, Ephesos, 334.
87. John among them.
88. Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Library of History and Doctrine; 2d ed.,
tr. Floyd V. Filson; London: SCM Press, 1962) 120.
89. Interestingly, Timothy is also named in the inscription from St. Mary's, along with the
title “the apostolic one” (B.8). Polycarp is similarly identified as “apostolic” in MartPol; see
ch. 4, comments on (e) 14—21, Obs. 3.
90. Keil, “Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” 369; similarly Dieter
Knibbe, “Ephesos,” PW, Suppl. 12.293—295. See also Knibbe and Alzinger, “Ephesos vom
Beginn der rémischen Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit,” 783.
91. Keil, “Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarpos von Smyrna,” 368.
 Remembering Polycarp, Remembering John 147

Josef Keil, who was unaware of FrgPol, wrote of Ephesus and Smyrna:
“it would be astonishing if the old rivalry between the two cities should
not have been repeated, in some form, in the Christian era.”®? Of course,
the evidence of the Ephesian inscription shows that it was repeated. FrgPol
quite likely represents another expression of that rivalry.
When FrgPol may have been written, and whether it played a direct
or indirect role in eliciting the response extant in the inscription from
St. Mary's, is unknown. Nonetheless, probable termini can be established.
FrgPol cannot reasonably have been produced before both the prominent
tradition about John’s peaceful death (including the perceived need for
compensation) and the tradition about Polycarp’s relationship with John
had been established. Positively stated, FrgPol could have been produced
as early as the beginning of the third century; there is nothing in the extant
text of FrgPol that would not have been available to a writer/compiler at
that time.
On the other hand, the inscription at St. Mary’s is reasonably explained
as a reaction to some heightening of Polycarp’s status which poses a (per-
ceived) threat to the status of John. There is no extant ancient text, save
FrgPol, which can reasonably be understood to accomplish that. Given the
available data, it is not unreasonable to assume that FrgPol, or something
very like FrgPol, was composed and circulating either before or during the
turmoil which resulted in the publishing of the inscription at St. Mary’s. It
is likely that FrgPol, or something quite like it, had been composed and
been circulating in and around Smyrna by the early- to mid-sixth century.
If FrgPol was produced in or around Smyrna between the third and sixth
centuries, then it was almost certainly composed in Greek. When a Greek
text of FrgPol might have been translated into Sahidic cannot, of course, be
known. According to Bruce Metzger, “about the beginning of the Third
Century portions of the New Testament were translated into Sahidic.””? As
the codices within the so-called Nag Hammadi Library attest, a broad array
of literature had been translated from Greek into Sahidic by the end of the
fourth century.* The translation might have been made at any point after
composition in Greek.

92. Ibid.
93. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration (3rd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) 79.
94. The books found near Nag Hammadi were “buried around 400 C.£.”; see James M.
Robinson, Introduction, in idem, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3rd ed.; San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988) 2.
 7 7
> 4) ‘ 7 : — 7
4 a ies. -
~=
90 al,
i ‘ Viv? wy os ase ra

—"-§ — —
i, a

ges
-
CE Ts ige't.:); a—_eatar s77,
: , 7 a > as
i a 4 : hig! Le J hp cag.

ima
—
eh ae a, fa *94 ere oe “J
we, 7b 2 ; 2

Pr Bical alps, : ete Dp apeitewst ° %

_ = vy -

vi ; . :
—- Se
A
Soa iy tet sae
eae. 5

Pt ee ee: =
tS = ORS is
art. = a
Ar ; .
7 - ; ? f,

af - — ; is = |
<7 5 >

- : i”
al ’ : eo Hl
2
Skyoh ~“ —= :
—} ie¥ = L
2 ie i oa =
wes _& = moe '¢ Pela
a : oo oa
(23a ate et Psy 3
ae
ER
*_ a f .
, *
: \
7% 7 i

4 r 1) OW» alee
: —
; ies! eek od
_

' : at J : see
: ork cei iiss
Th i a, ahi

: ae ri, J
ai ie 9

:
tao
‘ ie ] vy

, hs Sarr
a,"
1 .

ee

ay vt 7?

i] 7
n =
= —

“4 sal Ae
—>—— 3
—~ yo P

———

——

& S55
ony : wy

- aa
a
1 re

vd : U 4 hea Ree 7 a
=
ea
OR.7561, no. 55r
British Library
ORS61 tno: 5¥
British Library
OR.7561, no. 56r
British Library
OR.7561, no. 56v
British Library
OR.7561, no. 63r
British Library
OBY7/S61 me. ov
British Library
OR.7561, no. 64r
British Library
OR. 7561, no. 64v
Br itish Library
 Bibliography

I. Primary Sources: Individual Authors or Works

Acts of Andrew and Matthias. Die lateinischen Bearbeitungen der Acta Andrea et
Matthiae apud Anthropophagos: Mit sprachlichen Kommentar. Edited by Franz
Blatt. Giessen: Alfred Tépelmann, 1930.
Acts of John. Acta Iohannis. 2 vols. Translated by Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel
Kaestli. Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum, nos. 1—2. Turnhout: Bre-
pols, 1983.
“The Acts of John.” Translated, with introduction and notes, by Knut Schaferdiek.
In New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apoca-
lypses, and Related Subjects. Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and translated
by R. McL. Wilson, 152-209. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
Acts of John by Prochorus. In Acta Joannis. Edited by Theodor Zahn, 3-165. Erlan-
gen: Andreas Deichert, 1880.
Aelius Aristides. Orations XVII-LIII. Vol. 2, P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete
Works. Translated by Charles A. Behr. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.
. P. Aelii Aristidis Opera Quae Exstant Omnia. Edited by Charles A. Behr.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.
Apostolic Constitutions. Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. Edited by Fran-
cis Xavier Funk. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1905.
Appian. Appian'’s Roman History. 4 vols. 1912. LCL, 1971.
. Prooemium; Iberica; Annibaica; Libyca; Illyrica; Syriaca; Mithridatica; Frag-
menta. Vol. 1, Appiani Historia Romani. Edited by P. Vierick and A. G. Roos, with
corrections and addenda by E. Gabba. Academia Scientarum Germanica Beroli-
nensis. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1962.
Apuleius. The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura. Translated by H. E.
Butler. 1909. Reprint, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1970.

lies
158 Bibliography

. L'Apologia (La Magia), Florida. Torino: Unione, 1984.

Artemidorus. Artemidori Daldiani: Oneirocriticon Libri V. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,
1963.
Athanasius. Epistula ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae. PG 25.537-593.
. Orationes Tres contra Arianos. PG 26.12—468.
Chronicon Paschale: 284-628 AD. Translated by Michael Whitby and Mary
Whitby. Translated Texts for Historians, no. 7. Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press, 1989.
Clement of Alexandria. Stromata Buch I-VI. Edited by Otto Stahlin. GCS, no. 15,
Clemens Alexandrinus, no. 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906.
. Stromata Buch VII und VIII; Excerpta ex Theodota; Eclogae Propheticae;
Quis Dives Salvetur; Fragmente. Edited by Otto Stahlin and Ludwig Friichtel.
1909. GCS, no. 17, Clemens Alexandrinus, no. 3. Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
L970.
Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac. 2 vols. Edited by Arthur Vodbus. CSCO, nos.
401, 407, Scriptores Syri, nos. 175, 179. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1979.
Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and Accompanied by the
Verona Latin Fragments. Translated by R. Hugh Connolly. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1969.
Dio Chrysostom. Dio Chrysostom. 5 vols. LCL, 1932-1956.
Epiphanius. Ancoratus und Panarion. 3 vols. Edited by Karl Holl. GCS, nos. 25,
31,37; Leipzig: JOG: Hinrichs, 1915-1935.
. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990.
Epistula Apostolorum. Gespriiche Jesu mit seinen Jiingern nach der Auferste-
hung: Ein katholisch-apostolisches Sendschrieben des 2. Jahrhunderts, nach einem
koptischen Papyrus des Institut de la Mission Archéol. Francaise au Caire unter
Mitarbeit von Herrn Pierre Lacau, derzeitigem Generaldirektor der Agypt. Mu-
seen. Edited and translated by Carl Schmidt. TU 43. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1919.
“The Epistula Apostolorum.” Translated by C. Detlef G. Miiller. In New Testament
Apocrypha. Vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings. Edited by Wilhelm
Schneemelcher and translated by R. McL. Wilson, 249-284. Louisville: West-
minster/John Knox, 1991.
Eunapius. Philostratus and Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists. LCL, 1922.
Eusebius. “Commentary on Psalms.” PG 23, 24.10-75.
. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili, 265-339, Bishop of Cae-
sarea: Syriac Text, Edited from the Manuscripts in London and St. Petersburg,
with a Collation of the Ancient Armenian Version by Adalbert Merx. 1898. Edited
by William Wright and Norman McLean. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1975.
. The Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. LCL, 1932.
 Bibliography 159

. Kirchengeschichte. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. 1914. Leipzig: J. C. Hin-

richs, 1955.
Gospel of Thomas. John S. Kloppenborg, Marvin W. Meyer, Stephen Patterson,
Michael G. Steinhauser, Q - Thomas Reader. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Discours 4-5 Contre Julien. Edited and translated by Jean
Bernardi. SC, no. 309. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1983.
Gregory Thaumaturgus. Grégoire le Thawmaturge, Remerciement a Origéne suivi de
La Lettre d'Origéne a Grégoire. Edited and translated by Henri Crouzel, S.J. SC,
no. 148. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969.
Irenaeus. Contre les hérésis. 5 vols (in multiple parts). 1952. Edited and translated
by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Coutreleau, S.J., and (vol. 5 only) Charles Mer-
cier. SC, nos. 100, 152, 153, 210, 211, 263, 264, 293. Paris: Les Editions du
Cerf, 1969-1979.
Jacob of Voragine. Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints.
2 vols. Translated by William Granger Ryan. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1993.
. Legend Aurea Vulgo Historia Lombardicadicta: Ad Optimorum Librorum
Fidem Recensuit. Edited by Th. Graesse. Dresden: Arnod, 1846.
. La légende dorée de Jacques de Voragine. Translated by J.-B. M. Roze.
Paris: Edouard Rouveyre, 1902.
Jerome. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Edited by Rudolf Heim and Ursula Treu.
GCS, Eusebius Werke, no. 7. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984.
. Hieronymus: Liber De Viris Inlustribus; Gennadius: Liber De Viris Inlus-
tribus. Edited by Ernest Cushing Richardson. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1896.
John Chrysostom. “Homilia in S. Ignatium.” Quoted in The Apostolic Fathers,
Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Edited and translated by J. B. Lightfoot,
2.1.157—166. 1890. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989.
Justin. Justin, Philosoph und Miirtyrer: Die Erste Apologie. Edited by Karl Bayer.
Munich: Késel, 1966.
“Kaiserbrief (?) iiber Johannes von Ephesos und Polykarp von Smyrna.” In IvE la.
Edited by Hermann Wankel, no. 45, 281-284. Inschriften Griechischer Stadte
aus Kleinasien, no. 11.1. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1979.
Kerygma Petri. “The Kerygma Petri.” Translated, with introduction and notes, by
Wilhelm Schneemelcher. In New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2, Writings Relating
to the Apostles, Apocalypses, and Related Subjects. Edited by Wilhelm Schnee-
melcher and translated by R. McL. Wilson, 34—41. Louisville: Westmin-
ster/John Knox, 1992.
Lucian. Demonax. In Lucian 1.141—173. LCL, 1913.
Mark. Das Markusevangelium Saidisch: Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr.
182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569. Papyrologica Castroctaviana,
Studia et Textus, no. 4. Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1972.
160 Bibliography

Michael Glykas. “Epistola XVI... Utrum Beatus Joannes Evangelista Morti Con-
cesserit, sive non.” PG 158.899-904.
Muratorian Canon. “The Codex Muratorianus.” Edited by E. S. Buchanan.
JTS 8
(1906-1907): 537-545.
Origen. Origenes Matthduserklirung. GCS, no. 40, Origenes, no. 10. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs, 1935.
Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. 2 vols. Translated by F. C. Cony-
beare. LCL, 1912.
. “The Lives of the Sophists.” Philostratus and Eunapius: The Lives of the
Sophists. LCL, 1922.
Photius. Bibliothecque. 2 vols. Edited and translated by René Henry. Collection
Byzantine. Paris: Société D’Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1959-1960.
(Pseudo-)Pionius. “Life of Polycarp.” In The Apostolic Fathers. Edited and trans-
lated by J. B. Lightfoot, 2.3.423—468, 488-506. 1890. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1989.
Pistis Sophia. Edited by Carl Schmidt and translated by Violet MacDermot. NHS,
no. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978.
Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. 1914. LCL, 1971.
Pliny. Letters and Panegyricus. 2 vols. LCL, 1969.
Plutarch. Antony. In Plutarch’s Lives 9.137—332. 1920. LCL, 1968.
. Cato the Younger. In Plutarch’s Lives 8.235412. 1919. LCL, 1969.
Psalms. The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter: The Text, in the Dialect of Upper Egypt,
Edited From the Unique Papyrus Codex Oriental 5000 in the British Museum.
Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner and
Co., 1898. ;
Roman Martyrology. The Roman Martyrology: Published by Order of Gregory XIII,
Revised by Authority of Urban VIII and Clement X, Augmented and Corrected in
1749 by Benedict XIV. Translated by Raphael Collins. Westminster, Md.:
Newman Bookshop, 1946.
Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. 8 vols. LCL, 1917-1932.
Synaxarium Alexandrinum. Translated into Latin by J. Forget. CSCO, no. 78,
Scriptores Arabici, no. 12. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1953.
“Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae.” In Propylaewm ad Acta SS. Novem-
bris. Edited by Hippolyte Delehaye. Acta Sanctorum 64.
Tacitus. The Annals. 3 vols. Translated by John Jackson. 1931-1937. LCL, Taci-
tus, vols. 3—5. 1969-1970.
Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem. 2 vols. Edited and translated by Ernest Evans.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
. Traité de la prescription contre les hérétiques. Edited by R. F. Refoulé,
O.P., and translated by P. De Labriolle. SC, no. 46. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,
ie
Xenophon. Apology. In Xenophon 4.637—663. 1923. LCL, 1978.
 Bibliography 16]

II. Primary Sources: Collections

Aland, Kurt, et al., eds. Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece. 1979.

Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibilgesellschaft, 1983.
Balestri, G. I., and H. Hyvernat. Acta Martyrum II: Textus. 1924. CSCO, no. 86,
Scriptores Coptici, no. 6. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1953.
Bihlmeyer, Karl. Die Apostolischen Véter: Neuarbeitung der Funkschen Aus-
gabe. Sammlung Ausgewahlter Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichtliche Quellen-
schriften, Series 2, no. 1.1. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1924.
Boeckhius, Augustius, et al. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin:
G. Reimeri, 1828—1877.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. Coptic Texts. 1910-1915. Reprint, New York: AMS, 1977.
DuBois, Dom Jacques, and Genevieve Renaud. Edition pratique des martyrologes
de Bede, de l'anonyme lyonnais et de Florus. Paris: Editions du Centre National
de la Recherché Scientifique, 1976.
Goodspeed, Edgar J. Die dltesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitung. Gottin-
gen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1914.
Horner, G. (unacknowledged). The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the
Northern Dialect, Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic, with Introduction,
Critical Apparatus, and Literal English Translation. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1898-1905.
. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise
Called Sahidic and Thebaic, with Critical Apparatus, Literal English Translation,
Register of Fragments, and Estimate of the Version. 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1911-1924.
Hyvernat, H. Acta Martyrum II: Versio. CSCO, no. 125, Scriptores Coptici, Series
3, no. 2. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1950.
Klostermann, Erich. Reste des Petrusevangeliums, Der Petrusapokalypse, und
des Kerygma Petri. Vol. 1, Apocrypha. Kleine Texte fiir Theologische und Philol-
ogische Vorlesungen und Ubungen, no. 3. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber,
1908.
”
Knibbe, Dieter, and Biilent Iplikcioglu. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos VIII.
Jh 53 (1981): 87-150.
Knibbe, Dieter, Helmut Engelmann, Biilent Iplikcioglu. “Neue Inschriften aus
Ephesos XI.”Jh 59 (1989): 161-138.
Kiirzinger, Josef. Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments.
Eichstatter Materialien, no. 4. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1983.
Layton, Bentley, ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2—7, together with XIII, 2, Brit. Lib.
Or.4926(1), and PROXY. 1, 654, 655, with Contributions by Many Scholars.
NHS, no. 20. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.
Lipsius, Richard Adelbert (vol. 1), and Maximilian Bonnet (vols. 2—3), eds. Acta
Apostolorum. 3 vols. 1891-1903. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1972.
162 Bibliography

Musurillo, Herbert. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
IQ.
Newton, C. T., et al. Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British
Museum. 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1874-1916.
Parrott, Douglas M., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2—5 and VI with Papyrus Beroli-
nensis 8502, 1 and 4. NHS, no. 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979.
Reymond, E. A. E., and J. W. B. Barns. Four Martyrdoms From the Pierpont
Morgan Coptic Codices. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Fran-
cisco: Harper and Row, 1988.
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1, Gospels and Re-
lated Writings, translated by R. McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox, 1991. Vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses, and Related
Subjects, translated by R. McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
OO2e
Seiber, John H., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex VIII. NHS, no. 31. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
OO.
Till, W., and H.-M. Schenke. Die gnosticschen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus
Berolinensis 8502. 2d ed. TU 60. Berlin: Akademie, 1972.
Wessely, Carl. Griechische und Koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts. Studien zur
Paleographie und Papyruskunde, no. 9. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966.
Wright, W., ed. and tr. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Edited from Syriac Manu-
scripts in the British Museum and Other Libraries. 2 vols. London: Williams and
Norgate, 1871.

III. Secondary Sources

Akurgal, Ekrem. Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey: From Prehistoric Times
until the End of the Roman Empire. Istanbul: Mobil Oil Tiirk A.S., 1969.
Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to
the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism.
Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987.
Andrea Palladio: The Churches of Rome. Translated, with commentary, by Eunice
D. Howe. Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Rennaissance Texts and Studies,
SN:
Aumer, Joseph, and Karl Felix Halm. Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum Bib-
liothecae Regiae Monacensis II.4: Verzeichniss der orientalischen Handschriften
der k. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in Miinchen mit Ausschlus der herbraeischen,
arabischen und persischen. Munich: Palm, 1875.
Aune, David. “Magic in Early Christianity.” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980).
Bacon, B. W. “John and the Pseudo-Johns.” ZNW 31 (1932): 132-150.
 Bibliography 163

Badcock, F. J. The History of the Creeds. London: SPCK, 1938.

Barnard, Leslie W. “In Defense of Pseudo-Pionius’ Account of Polycarp’s Martyr-
dom.” In Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten. 2 vols. Edited by Patrick
Granfield and JosefA.Jungmann, 1.192—204. Miinster: Aschendorff, 1970.
Barnes, T. D. “Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum.”
JTS 19 (1968): 510-514.
Barrett, C. K. “The Apostles in and after the New Testament.” In Svensk Exegetisk
Arsbok, vol. 21. Edited by Harald Riesenfeld. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956.
. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.
. The Signs of an Apostle: The Cato Lecture, 1969. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972.
Bauer, Walter, “Accounts [of the Apostles in Early Christian Tradition].” In New
Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses, and
Related Subjects. Edited by Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher and
translated by R. McL. Wilson, 35-74. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.
Baumeister, Theofried. “Martyrology.” Coptic Encyclopedia 5.1549b-1550a.
Bean, George E. Aegean Turkey. 2d ed. 1979. Reprint, London: John Murray,
1989.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentaries, no. 36. Waco,
Tex.: Word Books, 1987.
Bell, Nancy R. E. Lives and Legends of the Evangelists, Apostles and Other Early
Saints. London: George Bell and Sons, 1901.
Benko, Stephen. “Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Centuries
A.D.” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980): 1055-1118.
Bienert, Wolfgang A. “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition.” In
New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses,
and Related Subjects. Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and translated by
R. McL. Wilson, 5—27. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
Bisbee, Gary A. Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii. Harvard Disserta-
tions in Religion, no. 22. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Boismard, M.-E. Le Martyre de Jean L'Apétre. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 35.
Paris: J. Gabalda, 1996.
Bosio, Guido. “Policarpo.” In Biblioteca Sanctorum. Edited by Filippo Caraffa,
985-988. Rome: Instituto Giovanni XXII della Pontificia Universita Latera-
nense, 1968.
Bouriant, U. “Notes de voyage, 1: Catalogue de la bibliotheque du couvent
d’Amba Helias.” Recueil de travaux relatifs a la philologie et a l'archéologie égyp-
tiennes et assyriennes 11 (1889): 131-138.
Bousset, Wm. “Platons Weltseele und das Kreuz Christi.” ZNW 14 (1913):
273-285.
Braun, F.-M. Jean Le Théologian et son évangile dans |église ancienne. Paris: J. Ga-
balda, 1959.
164 Bibliography

Brind’Amour, Pierre. “La date du martyre de Saint Polycarpe (le 23 Février 167)
”

AnBoll 98 (1980): 456-462.

Brockhoff, Wilhelm. Studien zur Geschichte der Stadt Ephesos, vom IV.
nachchristlichen Jahrhundert bis zu ihrem Untergang in der ersten Hiilfte des XV.
Jahrhunderts. Inaugural Dissertation. Jena: G. Neuenhahn, 1905.
Broughton, T. R. S. “Roman Asia.” In An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome. Vol. 4,
Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor. Edited by Tenney Frank. 1938. Reprint, New
York: Octagon Books, 1975.
Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity.
Haskell Lectures on History of Religions, no. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981.
——.. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” In Society
and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Peter Brown, 103-152. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1982. (First published in JRS 61 [1971]: 80-101.)
Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist
Press, 1979.
Brune, Lucien. Liantica serie di ritratti papali della basilica di S. Paolo fuori le mura.
Rome: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1934.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated and edited by
G. R. Beasely-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.
Biirchner, L. “Smyrna.” PW. 2d series. 5.727—765.
Buschmann, Gerd. Martyrium Polycarpi—Eine formkritische Studie: Ein Beitrag
zur Frage nach der Entstehung der Gattung Martyrerakte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche,
no. 70. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.
. Das Martyrium des Polykarp. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern,
no. 6. Géttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998.
Cadoux, Cecil John. Ancient Smyrna: A History of the City from the Earliest Times
to 324 A. D. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1938.
Camelot, P. Th., O.P. Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne: Lettres, Martyre de
Polycarpe. SC, no. 10. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969.
Campenhausen, Hans Frhr. von. Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarp-
martyriums. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, no. 3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1957.
. Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe. Sitzungsberichte der Heidel-
berger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, no. 2.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1951.
Cassidy, Richard J. John’s Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities
of Roman Power. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992.
Cave, Wm. Apostolici: Or, the History of the Lives, Acts, Death, and Martyrdoms of
Those Who Were Contemporary with, or Immediately Succeeded the Apostles.
London: 1716.
 Bibliography 165

Chapman, John. John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1911.
Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John.
2 vols. ICC. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1920.
Clebsch, Wm. A. Christianity in European History. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1979.
Collins, John J. “Sibylline Oracles.” In The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha. Vol. 1,
Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, 392.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983.
Coquin, René-Georges. “Le catalogue de la bibliothéque du couvent de Saint Elie
‘du Rocher.” BIF 75 (1975): 207— 239.
Corssen, P. “Die Vita Polycarpi.” ZNW 5 (1904): 266-302.
Crum, Walter E. Coptic Ostraca: From the Collections of the Egypt Exploration
Fund, the Cairo Museum and Others. London: The Egypt Exploration Fund,
1902.
. ‘Eusebius and Coptic Church Histories.” Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 24 (1902): 68-84.
. Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes. 2 vols. New York: Metropolitan
Museum ofArt, 1926.
. Theological Texts from Coptic Papyri. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic
Series, no. 12. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
Cullmann, Oscar. Peter—Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological
Study. 1953. 2d ed. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. London: SCM, 1962.
Culpepper, R. Alan. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Studies on Per-
sonalities of the New Testament. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1994.
Dehandschutter, B. “Le martyre du Polycarpe et le développement de la con-
ception du martyre au deuxiéme siécle.” Studia Patristica 17.2 (1982):
659-668.
. “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research.” ANRW 2.27.1
(1993): 485-522.
. Martyrium Polycarpi: Een Literair-Kritische Studie. Bibliotheca Ephe-
meridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum, no. 52. Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1979.
Delehaye, Hippolyte, S.J. Cing lecons sur la méthode hagiographique. Subsidia Ha-
giographica, no. 21. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1934.
. The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography. Translated
by V. M. Crawford. 1907. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press,
1961.
. “Les martyrs d’Egypte.” AnBoll 40 (1922): 5-154, 299-364.
. Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. 2d ed. Brussels: Société des
Bollandistes, 1966.
166 Bibliography

Des Riviéres, Arthur. “Lettre a M. A. C. Harris d’Alexandrie sur divers fragments

de papyrus coptes de sa collection.” BIF 5 (1906): 88-91.
Devos, Paul. “META ZABBATON’ chez Saint Epiphane.” AnBoll 108 (1990):
293-306.
Dewailly, L.-M. Envoyés du pére: Mission et apostolicité. Paris: Editions de LOrante,
1960.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by
Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Hermeneia Series. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972.
Diels, Hermann. Doxographi Graeci. 1879. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929.
Drijvers, Hans J. W. “The Saint as Symbol: Conceptions of the Person in Late An-
tiquity and Early Christianity.” In Concepts of Person in Religion and Thought.
Edited by Hans G. Kippenberg, Yme B. Kuiper, and Andy F. Sanders, 137-157.
Religion and Reason, no. 37. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter, 1990.
Ehrhardt, Arnold. Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church.
London: Lutterworth Press, 1953.
. The Framework of the New Testament Stories. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1964.
Elliott, Alison Goddard. Roads to Paradise: Reading the Lives of the Early Saints.
Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1987.
Esbroeck, Michel van. “La passion arménienne de S. Gordius de Césarée.”
AnBoll 94 (1976): 357-386.
Feltoe, C. L. “St. John and St. James in Western ‘Non-Roman’ Kalendars.”
JTS 10
(1909): 589-593.
Fieger, Michael. Das Thomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommetar, und Systematik.
Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Neue Folge, no. 22. Miinster: Aschendorff,
Oe
Fiore, Benjamin, S.J. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and
Pastoral Epistles. Analecta Biblica, no. 105. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1986.
Foss, Clive. “Archaeology and the “Twenty Cities’ of Byzantine Asia.” In History
and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor. Clive Foss, essay no. 2. Aldershot: Vari-
orum, 1990. (First published in American Journal of Archaeology 81 [1977]:
469-486.)
. Ephesus After Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986.
Friesen, Steven. “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos: Temple Wardens,
City Titles, and the Interpretation of the Revelation of John.” In Ephesos: Me-
tropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and
Culture. Edited by Helmut Koester, 229-250. Harvard Theological Studies
Series, no. 41. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995.
 Bibliography 167

Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The
Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke's Writ-
ings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Goguel, Maurice. “Did Peter Deny His Lord?” HTR 25 (1932): 1-27.
Goodenough, E. R. The Archaeological Evidence from the Diaspora. Vol. 2, Jewish
Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Bollingen Series, no. 37. New York: Pan-
theon Books, 1953.
Goodspeed, Edgar J. The Twelve: The Story of Christ's Apostles. Philadelphia: John
C. Winston, 1957.
Grégoire, Henri. “Epigraphie chrétienne II: Inscriptions dEphese.” Byzantion |
(1924): 710-716.
. “La véritable date su martyre de S. Polycarpe (23 Février 177) et le
‘Corpus Polycarpianum.”” AnBoll 69 (1951): 1-38.
Hackel, Sergei, ed. The Byzantine Saint: University of Birmingham 14th Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies. San Bernadino: Borgo Press, 1983.
Haenchen, Ernst. Die Botschaft des Thomasevangelium. Theologische Bibliothek
Tépelmann series, no. 6. Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1961.
Hagiographie, cultures et sociétés, [Ve—XIle siécles: Actes du colloue organisé a Nan-
terre et a Paris, 2~S Mai 1979. Centre de Recherches sur |’Antiquité Tardive et
le Haut Moyen Age, Université de Paris, no. 10. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,
1981.
Halkin, Francois. “Inscriptions grecques relatives a l’hagiographie: L’Asie Mi-
neure.” In Etudes d'épigraphie grecque et d'hagiographie byzantine. Francois Hal-
kin, essays nos. 5 and 6. London: Variorum Reprints, 1973. (First published in
AnBoll 71 [1953]: 74-99, 326-354.)
. ‘Le prologue inédit de Nicétas, Archeveque de Thessalonique, aux Actes
de l'apotre saint Jean.” In Etudes d épigraphie grecque et d'hagiographie byzantine.
Francois Halkin, essay no. 7. London: Variorum Reprints, 1973. (First published
in AnBoll 85 [1967]: 16-20.)
. Recherches et documents d‘hagiographie byzantine. Subsidia Hagiograph-
ica, no. 51. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1971.
Harnack, Adolf von. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 3 vols.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893-1904.
. Der Kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der Exegetischen Arbeiten des Origines
zum Hexateuch und Richterbuch. TU 42.3. Edited by Adolf von Harnack and
Carl Schmidt, 1-96. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918.
. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries.
Translated and edited by James Moffat. 1908. Reprint, New York: Harper Torch-
books, 1962.
168 Bibliography

. Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologie der antiochischen Bischéfe bis
Tyrannus nach Julius Africanus und den spiiteren Historikern nebst einer Unter-
suchung iiber die Verbreitung der Passio S. Polycarpi im Abendlande. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs, 1878.
Harrison, P. N. Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1936.
Harvey, W. Wigan. Sancti Irenaei, Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinge Adversus
Haereses: Textu Graeco in Locis Nonnullis Locupletato, Versione Latina cum
Codicibus Claromontano ac Arundeliano denuo Collata, Praemissa de Placitis
Gnosticorum Prolusione, Fragmenta Necnon Graeca, Syriace, Armeniace, Com-
mentatione Perpetua et Indicibus Variis. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1857.
Hasluck, F. W. “The “Tomb of S. Polycarp’ and the Topography of Ancient
Smyrna.” Annual of the British School at Athens 20 (1913-1914): 80-93.
Head, Thomas. Hagiography and the Cult of the Saints. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. Translated by John Bowden. London:
SCM Press, 1989.
Hilgenfeld, Adolf. “Des Chrysostomos Lobrede auf Polykarp.” ZWT 45 (1902):
569-572.
. ‘Eine dreiste Falschung in alter Zeit und deren neueste Verteidigung.”
ZWT 48 (1905): 444-458.
Hillmer, M. R. “The Gospel of John in the Second Century.” Th.D. diss., Harvard
Divinity School, 1966.
Holl, Karl. Der Osten. Vol. 2, Gesammelte Aufséitze zur sels enone Ttibin-
gen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1928.
Holweck, F. G. A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints, with a General Introduc-
tion on Hagiology. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1924.
Jackson, H. Latimer. The Problem of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1918.
Jameson, Anna. Sacred and Legendary Art. Edited by Estelle M. Hurll. Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1896.
Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2d ed. Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1971.
Jugie, Martin. La mort et l'assomption de la Sainte Vierge: Etude historico-Doctrinale.
Studi e Testi, no. 114. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944.
Junod, Eric. “Origéne, Eusébe et la tradition sur la répartition des champs de mis-
sion des apétres.” In Les actes apocryphes des apétres. Edited by Francois Bovon
et al., 233-248. Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de |'Université de
Genéve. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981.
. ‘La virginité de l’apétre Jean: recherche sur les origines scripturaires et
patristiques de cette tradition.” In Lectures anciennes de la Bible. 113-135.
 Bibliography 169

Cahiers de Biblia Patristica, no. 1. Strasbourg: Centre d’Analyse et de Docu-

mentation Patristiques, 1987.
Junod, Eric, and Jean-Daniel Kaestli. L’histoire des actes apocryphes des apotres du
IIle au IXe siécle: Le cas des Actes deJean. Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et
de Philosophie, no. 7. Geneva: Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie, 1982.
Kaestli, Jean-Daniel. “Le réle des textes bibliques dans la Genése et le dévelop-
pement des légendes apocryphes: La cas du sort final de I’Apétre Jean.”
Augustinianum 23 (1983): 319-336.
. ‘Les scénes d’attribution des champs de mission et de départ de l'apétre
dans les actes apocryphes.” In Les actes apocryphes des apotres. Edited by Fran-
cois Bovon et al., 249-264. Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de
l'Université de Genéve. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981.
Karwiese, Stefan. “The Church of Mary and the Temple of Hadrian Olympios.” In
Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Re-
ligion, and Culture. Edited by Helmut Koester, 311-320. Harvard Theological
Studies Series, no. 41. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Kasser, Rodolphe. L'Evangile Selon Thomas: Présentation et commentaire
théologique. Paris: Editions Delachaux et Niestlé, 1961.
Keil, Josef. “Johannes von Ephesus und Polykarpos von Smyrna.” Strena Bulciana:
Commentationes Gratulatoriae Francisco Bulic. Zagreb/Split, 1924.
Kiley, Mark, et al., eds. Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology.
New York: Routledge, 1997.
Knibbe, Dieter. “Ephesos.” PW. Supplement. 12.248-297.
Knibbe, Dieter, and Wilhelm Alzinger. “Ephesos vom Beginn der rémischen
Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit.” ANRW 2.7.2
(1980): 748-830.
Koester, Helmut. “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature.” In Ephesos: Metropolis
of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Cul-
ture. Edited by Helmut Koester, 119-140. Harvard Theological Studies Series,
no. 41. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Koester, Helmut, ed. Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach
to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture. Harvard Theological Studies Series,
no. 41. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Kraabel, Alf Thomas. “Judaism in Western Asia Minor under the Roman Empire,
with a Preliminary Study of the Jewish Community at Sardis, Lydia.” Th.D.
diss., Harvard University, 1968.
Kiimmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Translated by
Howard Clark Kee. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984.
Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon, Ga.: Mercer Uni-
versity Press, 1983.
Lampakes, Georgios. OJ EIITA AYTEPEY THY ATTOKAAYWEQZ. Athens: Th.
Tzabella, 1909.
170 Bibliography

Layton, Bentley. Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Ac-
quired since the Year 1906. London: British Library, 1987.
. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introduc-
tions. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987.
. The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi. Harvard Disser-
tations in Religion, no. 12. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.
. "The Recovery of Gnosticism—The Philologist’s Task in the Investigation
of Nag Hammadi.” SecCent | (1981): 85-99.
. “Towards a New Coptic Palaeography.” In Acts of the Second International
Congress of Coptic Study, Roma, 22-26 September, 1980. Edited by Tito Orlandi
and Frederick Wisse, 149-158. Rome: C. I. M., 1985. '
Lessing, Erich, and Wolfgang Oberleitner. Ephesos: Weltstadt der Antike. Vienna:
Carl Ueberreuter, 1978.
Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Revised Texts,
with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations. 5 vols. 1885—1890. Re-
print, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989.
. “The Name and Office of an Apostle.” In The Epistle of St. Paul to the Gen-
tiles. J.B. Lightfoot, 92-101. 1865. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987.
Limberis, Vasiliki. “The Council of Ephesos: The Demise of the See of Ephesos
and the Rise of the Cult of the Theotokos.” In Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An
Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture. Edited by
Helmut Koester, 321-340. Harvard Theological Studies Series, no. 41. Valley
Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Lipsius, Richard Adelbert. Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegen-
den: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte. 2 vols. Braunschweig:
C.A. Schwetschke, 1883, 1887.
Loewenich, W. von. Das Johannes-Verstiéndnis im zweiten Jahrhundert. Beiheft zur
Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren
Kirche, no. 13. Giessen: Alfred Tépelmann, 1932.
Lucchesi, Enzo. “Deux nouveaux fragments coptes des Actes d’André et Bar-
thélemy (BHO 57).” AnBoll 98 (1980): 75-82.
Luck, Georg. Arcana Mundi: Magic and Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.
Luttikhuizen, G. P. “The Letter of Peter to Philip and the New Testament.” In Nag
Hammadi and Gnosis: Papers Read at the First International Congress of Coptology
(Cairo, December 1976). Edited by R. McL. Wilson, 96-102. NHS, no. 14.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978.
MacMullen, Ramsey. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation
in the Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Macro, Anthony D. “The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium.”
ANRW 2.7.2 (1980): 658-697.
Magie, David. Roman Rule in Asia Minor: To the End of the Third Century after
Christ. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.
 Bibliography ileal

Malherbe, Abraham J. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Society of Biblical Lit-
erature Sources for Biblical Study, no. 12. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
. “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background of 1 Thess ii.” NovT 12
(1970): 203-217.
. Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. Library of Early Chris-
tianity, no. 4. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.
Mansfield, J., and D. T. Runia. Aetiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a
Doxographer. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997-.
Marquardt, Joachim. Rémische Staatsverwaltung. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1881.
Massaux, Edouard. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Lit-
erature before Saint Irenaeus. Vol. 2: The Later Christian Writings. Translated by
Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht, edited with introduction and addenda by
Arthur Bellanzoni. New Gospel Studies Series, no. 5/2. Macon: Mercer Uni-
versity Press, 1992.
McNeile, Alan H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. Revised by
C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.
Meinardus, Friedrich August. St. John of Patmos and the Seven Churches of the
Apocalypse. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Caratzas Bros., 1979.
Ménard, Jacques-E. L'Evangile selon Philippe: Introduction, texte-traduction, com-
mentaire. Paris: Letouzy and Ané, 1967.
, LEvangile selon Thomas. NHS, no. 5. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975.
. ‘Les Problémes de lEvangile selon Thomas.” Studia Patristica 14 (1976):
209-228.
. “La sagesse et le logion 3 de I'Evangile selon Thomas.” Studia Patristica
10 (1970): 137-140.
Merkelbach, R. “Der Rangstreit der Stadte Asiens und die Rede des Aelius Aris-
tides tiber die Eintracht.” Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32 (1978):
287-296.
Miltner, Franz. Ephesos: Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Vienna: Franz
Deuticke, 1958.
Miiller, Hermann. Aus der Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Polykarp-Martyrium: Eine
hagiographische Studie. Paderborn: Bonifacius, 1908.
. “Eine Bemerkung zum Martyrium Polycarpi.” TGI 2 (1910): 669-670.
. “Das Martyrium Polykarps: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Heiligenge-
schichte.” RO 22 (1908): 1-16.
Nautin, Pierre. “La date du ‘De Viris Inlustribus.’” Revue D'Histoire Ecclésiastique
56 (1961): 33-35.
Nielson, C. M. “Polycarp and Marcion: A Note.” TS 74 (1986): 297-299.
Nock, Arthur Darby. Essays on Religion and the Ancient World: Selected and edited,
with an Introduction, Bibliography of Nock’s Writings and Indexes. 2 vols. Edited
by Zeph Stewart. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
. Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe. 1926. Reprint, Hilde-
sheim: G. Olms, 1966.
172 Bibliography

Norden, Eduard. “Beitrage zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie.” Jahr-

biicher fiir classische Philologie 19 (1893): 365-462.
O'Leary, De Lacy. The Saints of Egypt. London: SPCK, 1937.
Parrott, Douglas M. “Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples in the Second and Third
Centuries.” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity. Edited by
Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr., 193-219. Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson, 1986.
Patterson, Stephen. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge Press,
O93.
Pearson, Birger A. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Studies in An-
tiquity and Christianity, no. 5. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Pervo, Richard I. “Johannine Trajectories in the Acts of John.” Apocrypha 3 (1992):
47-68.
Pococke, Richard. A Description of the East and Some Other Countries. 2 vols.
London: W. Bowyer, 1745.
Poirier, Paul-Hubert. La version copte de la prédication et du martyre de Thomas
avec une contribution codicologique au corpus copte des acta apostolorum apoc-
rypha par Enzo Lucchesi. Subsidia Hagiographica, no. 67. Brussells: Société des
Bollandistes, 1984.
Polotsky, H. J. Collected Papers. Jersusalem: Magnes Press (Hebrew University),
Ale
. Grundlagen des koptischen Satzbaus. 2 vols. American Studies in Papy-
rology, nos. 28-29. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987, 1990.
Poupon, Gérard. “Laccusation de magie dans les actes apocryphes.” In Les actes
apocryphes des apétres. Edited by Francois Bovon et al., 71-93. Publications de
la Faculté de Théologie de l'Université de Genéve. Geneva: Labor et Fides,
NOSE
Ramsay, Wm. M. Historical Geography ofAsia Minor. 1890. Amsterdam: Adolf M.
Hakkert, 1962.
. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the
Apocalypse. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904.
. The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor. 1941. Amsterdam:
AdolfM. Hakkert, 1967.
Reardon, B. P. “Aspects of the Greek Novel.” Greece and Rome 23 (1976): 118-131.
Rengstrof, Karl Heinrich. Apostolate and Ministry: The New Testament Doctrine of
the Office of the Ministry. Translated by Paul D. Pahl. St. Louis: Concordia Pub-
lishing House, 1969.
Reuning, W. Zur Erkliirung des Polykarpmartyriums. Darmstadt: C. F. Winter, 1917.
Riesenfeld, Harald. “The Ministry in the New Testament.” In The Root of the
Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology. Edited by Anton Fridrichsen et al., 96-127.
Westminster: Dacre Press, 1953.
 Bibliography 173

Rius-Camps, J. The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, the Martyr. Orientalia

Christiana Analecta, no. 213. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Stu-
diorum, 1980.
Robert, L., M. N. Tod, and E. Ziebarth, eds. Supplementum Epigraphum Grae-
cum. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: A. W. Sijthoff, 1929.
Ronconi, Alessandro. “Exitus Hlustrium Virorum.” RAC 6.1258—1268.
Schenke, Hans-Martin. “The Function and Background of the Beloved Disciple
in the Gospel of John.” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity.
Edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr., 111-125. Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986.
Scherrer, Peter. “The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period to Late An-
tiquity.” In Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its
Archaeology, Religion, and Culture. Edited by Helmut Koester, 1-26. Harvard
Theological Studies Series, no. 41. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
O95:
Schmithals, Walter. The Office of the Apostle in the Early Church. Translated by
John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. Vol. 1, translated by
Kevin Smyth (1968); vol. 2, translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis McDonagh,
David Smith, and Richard Foley, S.J. (1979); vol. 3, translated by David Smith
and G. A. Kon (1982). Reprint, New York: Crossroad, 1990.
Schoedel, William R. “Are the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch Authentic?” RelS Rev
6 (1980): 196-201.
. Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.
Hermeneia Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
. “Papias.” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 235-270.
. “Polycarp, Epistle of.” ABD 5.390a—392a.
——.. “Polycarp, Martyrdom of.” ABD 5.392a—395a.
. Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias. Vol. 5, The Apostolic
Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary. Edited by Robert M. Grant.
Camden, N.J.: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967.
. “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch.” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993):
272-358.
Schwartz, E. De Pionio et Polycarp. Gottingen: Officina Academica Dietrichiana,
TOYS x.
. Ueber den Tod der Séhne Zebedaei: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Jo-
hannesevangeliums. Abhandlungen der kéniglischen Gesellschafter der Wissen-
schaften zu Gottingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, New Series 7.5. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1904.
. “Unzeitgemiasse Beobachtungen zu den Clementinen.” ZNW 31 (1932):
151-199.
174 Bibliography

Segal, Alan F. “Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition.” In Studies in

Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions: Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion
of his 65th Birthday. Edited by R. van den Broeck and M. J. Vermaseren, 349—
375. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.
Seufert, Wilhelm. Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Apostolates in der christ-
lichen Kirch der ersten zwei Jahrhundert: Eine kritische-historische Untersuchung
auf Grund der Schriften des Neu Testaments under der weiteren christlichen Litera-
tur. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1887.
Shepherd, Massey Hamilton, Jr. “Smyrna in the Ignatian Letters: A Study in
Church Order.”JR 20 (1940): 141-159.
Sherwin-White, A. N. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? An Amend-
ment.” In Studies in Ancient Society. Edited by M. I. Finley, 250-255. Past and
Present Series. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. (First published in
Past and Present 27 [1964]: 23-27.)
Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. Coptic Grammatical Categories: Structural Studies in the
Syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic. AnOr 53. Rome: Pontificum Institutem Bib-
licum, 1986.
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978.
Smith, Thomas. Septem Asiae Ecclesiarum Notitia. London: Excudebat T. R.,
1676.
Stahlin, Otto. Die Altchristliche Griechische Litteratur. Munich: H. Beck, 1924.
Ste Croix, G. E. M. de. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?” In Studies
in Ancient Society. Edited by M. I. Finley, 210-249. Past and Present Series.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. (First published in Past and Present
26 [1963]: 3-38.)
. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? A Rejoinder.” Studies in
Ancient Society. Edited by M. I. Finley, 256-262. Past and Present Series. Lon-
don: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. (First published in Past and Present 27
[1964]: 28-33.)
Steindorff, Georg. Koptische Grammatik, mit Chrestomathie, Worterverzeichnis
und Litteratur. Porta Linguarum Orientalum 14. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard,
1894.
Stern, Ludwig. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1880.
Streeter, Burnett H. The Primitive Church: Studied with Special Reference to the
Origins of the Christian Ministry. New York: MacMillan, 1929.
Veter, P. “Uber die armenische Ubersetzung der Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius.”
TQ 63 (1881): 250-276.
Wansink, Craig Steven. Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's
Imprisonments. JSNTS, no. 130. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Ward, Philip. Apuleius on Trial at Sabratha. Stoughton, Wis.: Oleander Press, 1969.
Wilson, Stephen. Saints and Their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore,
and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
 Bibliography 175

Wright, Benjamin G., III. “Cerinthus apud Hippolytus: An Inquiry into the Tradi-
tions about Cerinthus’s Provenance.” SecCent 4 (1984): 103-115.
Yamauchi, Edwin. The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor.
London: Pickering and Inglis, 1980.
Zahn, Theodor, ed. Acta Joannis. Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1880.
. Apostel und Apostelschiiler in der Provinz Asien. Vol. 6, Forschungen zur
Geschichte des neutestamenlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur.
Leipzig: Andreas Deichert, 1900.
. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 2 vols. 1888, 1890. Reprint,
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1975.
. Die Wanderungen des Apostels Johannes.” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 10
(1899): 191-218.
 ii oe Gr) 2b Se Ye ies § > oie

oP ie | at A a a See ee ee 7

a 7 eis late ry — = ‘i
Sa =! Me. Bee ee eee ee SP a)
ee
a
¥ cell 4 al
a =>
arias ee — es __

wes G8 ce a a ae © => 4) oun

= *) Sel =e Di Z

pone gaat ‘oe

Gi GY > : Nie —— gee =~ in td wt Pa

gs Ty Aiag. *- i = ; > = ¢@
 Index of Ancient Sources

Biblical Literature
Hebrew Bible

Psalms
73:2 LXX (74:2) 122 9:2-8 UPS
73:18 (74:18) ZAR ODINE 2 10:35—40 138
93:14 LXX SOR 10:39 134, 138
(94:14) 23295 10:40 138
14:35 120 n.280
Micah
14:41 120 n.280
7:14 122
16:9-20 65 n.27, 66n.27
New Testament 16:15 N74, WES) PAL ian, (5:
n.27, 66n.27
Matthew
5s 110
Luke
2:16 104-105
112-113
16:21 aS
4:42-43 110
17:1-8 TANS,
9:2 19
20:20 138 n.47
9:22 1
20:20—23 138
9:28—-36 T2009
20:25 134, 138
9:48 107
24:14 17, 19, 65 n.24
13:31 105
26:45 120 n.280
13:33 1S
26:54 1s 113
PAS:
28:19 Ly, 108 n.232
20:20
Mark 20:22 35
1:35-38 110n.240 22:14 120 n.280
8:31 113 225 120 n.280
9:3/ 107 PRS MS, 104-105

LAee
178 Index of Ancient Sources

2A eS, 412-14 96
24:26 is 4:14-15 88
24:47 h7, 19; 64.123,
2 Corinthians
65 n.24
6:6 108 n.232
John Galatians
NO, WAS Bes 108
4:23 120 n.280 4:19 88, 89 n.149
Seas 120 n.280
6:11 106 Ephesians
is 120 n.280 1:18 [2
2227 120 n.280 Colossians
Seal 120 n.280 Bll 12]
ess 88
1 Thessalonians
14:1 AIL, WAI vat PAS
Dy), 89n.151
1b 6 69 n.46
16:32 120 n.280 1 Timothy
ial 120 n.280 ile 88
7A} WW, eS) 108 n.232
SEH 120 oak 30
2 140 227 90
21:20-22 139
2 Timothy
21:21-23 139
185) 130
Acts Iai 90
5:41 LOW 25 Titus
Sale 20 1:4 88
6:11 33
9:15-16 107 n.225 James
10:27 20 S27 108 n.232
15:6 20 1 Peter
126 107 n.225 E22 108 n.232
19:8 20 4:15-16 107 n.226
Iie, 96
1 John
20:25 20
88
21:12-14 118-119
3:8 69 n.46
Dale, 107 n.225
4:2 ff. 69n.46
26:6 106
28:23 20 Revelation
28:31 20 1-2 78 n.89
29 96
Romans
2:9-11 96
12:9 108 n.232
eS 66 n.28
1 Corinthians 12:9-10 66n.28
3:3-4 140 14:6 66 n.28
 Index of Ancient Sources 179

Early Christian Literature

Acts of Andrew Athanasius
Gye IS). Ep. Fest
87
Acts of Andrew and Matthias
20 Athenagoras
Supplicatio
Acts of Ignatius
108
Din AO), 23:
Augustine
Acts of John (see also Acts of John
Tractate 124, “On the Gospel
in Rome, Acts of John by Prochorus,
of John”
Mysteries of St. John and the Holy
36, 136-137
Virgin, and Syriac History of John)
35, 36, 62, 68, 72, 72 1.57, 73-74, Barnabas, Letter of
74 n.67, 76—77, 86, 89, 90, 130, 132, 67 n.32
136, 136n.40
1 Clement
Acts of John in Rome 18, 19, 60 n.2, 65, 85 n.136

25
Clement of Alexandria
Acts of John by Prochorus Hypotyposes
DER OU ASO OTe ole 9 Lime OS LOZ. 77
LO2mZTOFI IS Quis Dives Salvetur
78-79, 85 n.136, 90-91, 131,
Acts of Paul 136n.39
62 Stromata
82-83, 90 n.162
Acts of Paul and Thecla
101 Didascalia Apostolorum
LOOMS
Acts of Peter (see also Martyrdom
of Peter) Dimitrius of Rostov
61 n.10, 62 Menology
Acts of Peter and the Twelve 62
18 n.5, 61 n.10
Discourse on Mary Theotokos
Acts of Philip by Cyril, Archbishop of
61 n.10 Jerusalem
108
Acts of Thomas
18, 62, 65, 99-101 Epiphanius
Apocryphon of John. See Secret Book Panarion
according to John eS

Apostolic Constitutions Epistula Apostolorum

78, 130 n.16 UG 205702
180 Index of Ancient Sources

Eusebius Magnesians
Commentary on Psalms DM 7 Wto
WO UD in 7, WSS. WSIS) Polycarp
The Ecclesiastical History Eig BA, Sb. WIS
(see also Irenaeus, Adversus Smyrna
Haereses, “Letter to Florinus,” TEIN S296
“Letter to Victor”; Clement of
Irenaeus
Alexandria, Hypotyposes, Quis
Dives Salvetur; Martyrdom of Poly- Adversus Haereses
Ain DS idsie, WE Qe, Ley AS.
carp; Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne;
Papias, “Fragments”) 77 n.78, 78, 78 0.87, 82-84,
83 n.129, 126
VS), AD), 22s 22s, B85 D4, SO 1, O,, OS.
66, 66n.29, 78 n.86, 85n.135, 103, “Letter to Florinus”
132, 146 4n.16, 8n.38, 77 n.78, 126,
IP e3, 32)
George the Sinner “Letter to Victor”
Chronicon 8 n.38-39, 77 n.78, 126
134
Jacob of Voragine
Gospel of Philip The Golden Legend
68 W37

Gospel of Thomas Jerome

20 n.10, 67 De Viris Illustribus
PED Bi. TI ie)
Gregory of Nazianzus
Fourth Discourse John Chrysostom
122 Encomium on Polycarp
102
Gregory of Nyssa
Catechetical Oration 35 Justin
109 Apology 1
68, 93, 97 nn. 188-189
Gregory Thaumaturgus Apology 2
Oration and Panegyric to Origen DH, WZ Ty25)I
90 n.162
Kerygma Petri
Harris Fragments on Polycarp 18
7 nn.30—31, 13-123 passim
Letter of Peter to Philip
History of John. See Syriac History 18 n.5, 20
of John
Life of Polycarp
Ignatius 29, avy Gone, 30, Fail Was
Ephesians 770.83, 79 n.96, 81-82, 85, 90-92,
Dito, 107 1.225 94-95, 99, 102, 102 n.207, 126
 Index of Ancient Sources 181

Martyrdom of Apollonius Martyrdom of Shenoufe

100 n.200, 112 n.251 and His Brethren
Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and 80, 105 n.216
Agathonice Martyrdom of St. Victor
85, 89, 103 n.211 the General
Martyrdom of St. Coluthus 76
24, 76n.73 Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne
Martyrdom of Conon 80
94
The Memorials of James the Persian
Martyrdom of Paese and Thecla 49
105 n.216
Muratorian Canon
Martyrdom of Peter PE OOM WILKS, 7S), Ie
68
Mysteries of St. John and
Martyrdom of Pionius the Holy Virgin
7, 7nn.30—31, 33-34, 71-72, 20, 64, 73
79 n.96, 80, 87, 89, 89 n.149,
JOmalG2) 9 e035 10422. Origen
112-113 Commentary on Matthew
136
Martyrdom of Polycarp
BT sala OSI POs DSi. 25). Papias
25 nn.14—15, 26, 27, 27 nn.17—18, “Fragments”
28 2520 ge95- 50,532,959, 30, 127-128, 134
Siohineall SVAN Ie Sk SyS).
Philip of Side
55 nn.15—17,18—20, 57,
Church History
57 nn.23—24, 71, 75, 75 nn.71-72, 134
77 n.83, 80-81, 81 nn.11 1-113, 84,
86, 90, 92-95, 97-100, 100 n.200, Polycarp
102-106, 106 nn.217—218, 107, 111, Philippians
111 nn.245-—246, 114-115, 4,4nn.17-18, 69, 69 n.46, 70, 77,
DIS nope ioml 20 e120 n.2779- 85 n.136, 86, 96, 102, 107, 109
123, 126, 137-138
Preaching of Peter. See Kerygma
Martyrdom of Polycarp Petri
(Bohairic Version)
Secret Book according to John
7 nn.30—-31, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
72-73
28529230; B25, Dil 20.71,
81, 81 nn.112—113, 84, 93-94, 98, Shepherd of Hermas
104, 106, 106 nn.219—220, 107 n.225, 108
111 nn.245-246, 114-115,
115 n.265, 116, 116 nn.266—267, Sibylline Oracles
120in.270,423 35, Sy ine |e
182 Index of Ancient Sources

Sozomon On Baptism
Church History 3s ilsiae, US:
28, 103 On the Prescription against
the Heretics
Synaxarium Alexandrinum
FSU MS
Hess XO) say.13)5y, US)
Scorpiace
Syriac History of John 94
18, 62, 64, 67, 72
Testimony of Truth
Tertullian 108 n.230
Adversus Marcionem
78n.89, 131n.18

Other Ancient Literature

Aelius Aristides Lucian

Orations Demonax
79 1.96 2

Appian Philostratus
Roman History (“Civil Wars”) The Life of Apollonius of Tyana
109 TINS OnSOMe aio Mao.
100-101, 101 n.205, 103, 108 n.231,
Apuleius
118
Apology
The Lives of the Sophists |
90, 96-97, 100, 100 n.199, 101
75, 87-88, 87 n.143, 89, 89 n.153,
Dio Chrysostom DO), Dia, WSS, OH, D7 inMSs
Orations
88, 141, 141 n.58 Plato
Apology
Epictetus IIS), 2
Discourses Crito
M225 Some ors Son, 25; eal 9
Eunapius Euthyphro
The Lives of the Sophists iL, DT inSKE, MNS
76, 87 n.143 Phaedo
90, 113 n.256, 119
Hadrian
“Rescript” (on the matter of Pliny
bringing charges against the Epistle 97
Christians) 93, 107-108, 107 n.227,
O, 108 nn.228—229
 Index of Ancient Sources 183

Plutarch Tacitus
“Antony” (Plutarch’s Lives Annals
9.137—332) 113, 120, 421] nn.282—283,
103 142
“Cato the Younger” (Plutarch’s Lives
8.235—412) Trajan, Reply to Pliny. See Pliny,
119 Epistle 97

Strabo Xenophon
Geography Apology
79 n.96 Sine Orel

Inscriptions
CIG “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos”
79 n.96, 141 n.56 series, edited by Dieter
Knibbe et al.
GIBM
79 n.96, 141 n.56, 143 n.70
791.96, 141 1.56, 143 n.70

IvE
144-145, 144 nn.76, 79,
145 nn.83,85, 146n.89
 Index of Modern Authors

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland, 65 Brown, Peter, 89 n.152

n.27 Brown, Raymond E., 70
Alzinger, Wilhelm, 143 n.65, 146 n.90 Budge, E.A. Wallis, 76 n.73,
Aumer, Joseph, 9 n.45 105 n.216, 108 n.233
Aune, David, 99 n.191 Bultmann, Rudolf, 139—140

Balestri, G. I., 27 n.16 Cadoux, Cecil John, 6 n.25, 79 n.96,

Barnard, Leslie W., 3 n.7, 104, 110 n.243, 111 n.244, 130n.16,
104n.213 141n.55, 144n.71, 73
Barnes, [. D., 100 n.198 Campenhausen, Hans Frhr. von,
Barns,J.W. B., 105 71n.53, 88n.147, 104n.213,
Barrett, C. K., 127, 128, 133 120 n.280
Bauer, Walter, 60 n.1, 133-134, 138 Cassidy, Richard J., 139
Bayer, Karl, 97 n.189 Chapman, John, 83 nn.126,128
Bean, George E., 111 n.244, 141 Charles, R. H., 127 n.6
Beasley-Murray, George R., 140 Collins, John J., 95 n.181
Benko, Stephen, 99 n. 196, 100 n.199 Conzelman, Hans, 89 n.152
Bienert, Wolfgang A., 60 n.1 Coquin, René-Georges, 10 n.56
Bihlmeyer, Karl, 38 n.21 Corssen, P., 6n.25, 116, 126, 129
Bisbee, Gary, 5n.20, 64n.18, 111 Crouzel, Henri, 89 n.152
Boismard, M.-E., 70, 72 n.59, Crum, Walter E., 8, 8 n.42, 9 n.46,
PASS Paes, SIO) isis), S35) 10, 10 nn.51—52,54—-55, 56,
iMsiay Ske! 106 n.219
Bosio, Guido, 90 n.156 Cullmann, Oscar, 146, 146 n.88
Bouriant, U., 10 nn.53,56 Culpepper, R. Alan, 70, 72 nn.57—58,
Broughton, T. R. S., 79 n.96, 142, 74, 74 n.66, 76 n.75, 80 n.101, 107,
142 n.61, 143 nn.63,67 L223 129-1350, 1325 185

184
 Index of Modern Authors 185

Dehandschutter, B., 3, 4.15, - Hoover, Roy W., 68 n.36

5 nn.21—22, 7, 8n.39, 38n.21, Hyvernat, H., 27 n.16, 114, 114n.261,
71 n.53, 81 n.117, 85 n.135, 104, 116 n.267
137 n.46
Delehaye, Hippolyte, S.J., 5 n.21 Jackson, H. Latimer, 134 n.31, 135,
Des Riviéres, Arthur, 9, 109 138 n.48
Dewailly, L.-M., 52 n.7, 83 n.128 Jesus Seminar, The, 68 n.36
Dibelius, Martin, 89 n.152 Jugie, Martin, 137 n.43
Diels, Hermann, 91 n.165 Junod, Eric, 18 n.6, 23 nn.12—13, 60,
Droge, Arthur, 112 n.250, 113 n.257, COM65 730165976 nel sO mel7.
119n.276 136 n.40

Ehrhardt, Arnold, 83 n.128, 132 Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, 18 nn.5—6,

Elliott, Alison Goddard, 63 n.15 23 nn.12—13, 61, 62 n.13,
Emmel, Stephen, 87 n.140 (Qin OF LO OmeDel Oma
135 nn.31, 37, 136n.40, 137 n.43,
Fiore, Benjamin, S.J., 89 n.152 138n.48
Foss, Clive, 144, 145 Keil, Josef, 111 n.244, 144 n.77, 145,
Fox, Robin Lane, 7, 7 n.29, 72 n.55, 145 nn.79—80, 85, 146, 147
isin 5 Knibbe, Dieter, 143, 143 n.68,
Friesen, Steven, 142, 143 146 n.90
Funk, Robert W., 68 n.36 Koester, Helmut, 70, 129, 131 n.20
Kiimmel, Werner Georg, 66 n.27
Gamble, Harry
Y.,73 n.61
Garrett, Susan R., 98-99 Lambdin, Thomas O., 110 n.242
Goguel, Maurice, 139 Lampe, G. W. H., 108 n.230, 109
Gould, Stephen Jay, | n.234, 114n.260
Grégoire, Henri, 145 nn.79—80, 85 Layton, Bentley, xiii, 8, 8 n.43, 9
nn.45—46,49, 10, 11 n.57, 13, 13
Halkin, Francois, 145 n.80 n.1, 14, 49n.1, 67 n.35, 89n.152,
Halm, Karl Felix, 9 n.45 109 n.238
Harnack, Adolf von, 60, 84 n.134 Lessing, Erich, 143 n.68
Harrison, P. N., 4n.18, 88 n.147 Lightfoot, J. B., 5 nn.21-22, 6, 8n. 41,
Harvey, W. Wigan, 28 n.19, 83 n.128 38 n.21, 69n.46, 72 n.55, 84,
Hasluck, F. W., 111 nn.244,249 120 n.280, 122 n.290, 126
Hengel, Martin, 70, 71, 71 n.53, Limberis, Vasiliki, 146
FINO sd NelDy OM? 62.122, Lipsius, Richard Adelbert, 60,
Sa 20 SS MeL OIe 29 9: 62n.13
137 4351 ni8, 1340.4) Loewenich, W. von, 70, 70n.51, 71,
Hilgenfeld, Adolf, 102 n.208, 129 n.10 Wines)
Hillmer, M. R., 72 n.57 Luck, Georg, 99 nn.191,195,
Holweck, F. G., 111 n.244 100 n. 201
186 Index of Modern Authors

MacMullen, Ramsey, 101 n.205, Schenke, Hans-Martin, 139 n.49

112 m2 OM Sine272 Schmidt, Carl, 20 n.10
Macro, Anthony D., 141, 142 n.60, Schmithals, Walter, 133 n.28
143 Schnackenburg, Rudolf, 71, 128, 129,
Magie, David, 79 n.96, 93 n.171, E32
141 n.55 Schoedel, Wm. R., 3 nn.8—9, 4n.18,
Malherbe, Abraham J., xiii, 89 n.152 5n.21,8n.39, 77 n.81, 84n.134,
Mansfield,J.,91 n.165 85n-136,93 n.b75, 96 n.182,
Marquardt, Joachim, 141 n.55 120 n.280, 127, 128, 134n.31
McNeile, Alan H., 127 n.6, 128 Schwartz, E., 3n.7, 129
Ménard, Jacques-E., 68 nn.36,42 Sherwin-White,A. N., 55 n.16,
Merkelbach, R., 141 n.55, 142 n.62, 107 n.227
144 n.73 Shisha-Halewy, Ariel, 84 n.132,
Metzger, Bruce, 147 n.93 106 n.221, 114
Miiller, Hermann, 3 n.7, 72 n.58 Smith, Morton, 98, 99 nn.191,196
Musurillo, Herbert, 64 n.20, 85 n.135, Smith, Thomas, 111
95 n.180 Ste Croix, G. E. M. de, 55 n.16,
NOM 27
Nautin, Pierre, 84 n.134 Steindorff, Georg, 110 n.242
Nielson, C. M., 69 n.45 Stern, Ludwig, 117
Nock, Arthur Darby, 121, 121 n.284 Streeter, Burnett H., 6, 6n.25,
78 n.84, 126, 129
Oberleitner, Wolfgang, 143 n.68
Tabor, James D., 112 n.150,
Patterson, Stephen, 68 n.36 Sine 57 ime 26
Poirier, Paul-Hubert, xiii Tod, M. N., 145 nn.79,85

Rengstrof, Karl Heinrich, 133 Wansink, Craig Steven, xiii, 75 n.70

Reymond, E. A. E., 105 Weidmann, Frederick W., 81 n.117
Riesenfeld, Harald, 113 Wessely, Carl, 39 n.22, 122 n.289
Rius-Camps, J., 5n.19, 96 n.182 Wilken, Robert, 55 n.16
Robert, L., 145 nn.79,85 Wright, Benjamin G., III, 66 n.29
Robinson, James M., 147 n.94 Wright, W., 18 n.6, 19 n.6, 67 n.31
Ronconi, Alessandro, 118 n.272,
119n.276 Yamauchi, Edwin, 142 n.62,
Roze, J.-B. M., 137.45 144 n.71
Runia, David T., 91 n.165
Ryan, William Granger, 137 n.45 Zahn, Theodor, 23 n.12, 82, 83,
83 nn. 126-129, 84 n.134, 87 n.141,
Schaferdiek, Knut, 19 n.6, 130 n.17, 135n.31
137 n.41 Ziebarth, E., 145 nn.79,85
 Subject Index

acts of an apostle (literary genre), 63 crying, literary motif. See exitus

Acts of John, 62 n.13, 73-74, 76, 102 literature
Acts of John by Prochorus, 23 n.12, 102
Acts of John in Rome, 23 n.13 Dionysius of Alexandria, 66
Aelius Aristides, 143—144 dreams (see also ‘magic, divination’),
apostles, 19 n.7 37-38, 48, 56, 99, 115-116
disciples of, 79, 82-84
division of the world for mission, Ephesus, city in Asia Minor, 77 n.79,
17-19, 19 n.8, 20, 42, 51-52, (8285 e156" VO2a126;
60-65 141-147
missionary preaching (content of), Epiphanius, Egyptian monastery of, 10
64-69 Epistula Apostolorum, 20 nn.9-10
suffering and martyrdom of, 113, Eusebius, Church History, 18 n.5
133 exitus literature, 118-119,
apostolic (see also ‘Polycarp, as 120-121
apostolic’), 7, 7 n.31, 50,
Sane Gaius, 66
atheism (as an accusation/charge), Gospels, the, 71 n.53, 88, 94,
55n.16 104-105, 107, 110, 112-113,
120-121
Bucolos, 71, 91, 91 n.163
Harris Fragments on Polycarp, 1-2,
Cato, the younger, 119 8-123, 140-141, 146-147
Cerinthus, 66 n.29 ancient production and preservation
consoling, literary motifs. See exitus Of LO=U1
literature ancient title of, 49
Corpus Polycarpianum, 6—7 commentary on, 59-123

187
188 Subject Index

content “kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven,”

agendas and strategies, 51-58 17, 19-20, 20 n.10, 42, 66-69
critical text edition of, 13-39 kinship language
narrative structure (outline of children (or orphans), 87-91, 119
contents) of, 50-51 father, 90-91, 119
translation of, 42-48 siblings (or brothers), 25, 31, 32,
early scholarly description of, 8-10 44, 45, 80-81, 89, 105, 107,
physical description of, 13-15 NOS WA, LA, IT Sc WA,
provenance of, 11, 146-147 120-121
social-historical context of, 125-147
Heracleon, 72 life (literary genre), 63-64
Herod, 31, 45, 54, 92-94, 103-105, Life of Polycarp, 5—6, 51-52, 126
106
Herodes, 87, 90-91 magic
as a charge/accusation, 31—32,
Ignatius, 5 45-46, 53, 98-102
Letters of, 5 n.19 divination, 100
Irenaeus, 4 n.16, 8, 83, 126-132 and virginity, 100-101
martyrdom (literary genre), 63-64
Jerome, 8 martyrdom, necessity of, 35, 47,
Jesus. See ‘Gospels, the’ 112-113, 114-115
“Jews, the,” 31, 45-46, 54, 92-96, Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and
106 Agathonice, 7
John, apostle, evangelist, presbyter (see Martyrdom of Pionius (see also
also Acts ofJohn, Acts of John by ‘Pionius, martyr’), 7, 80,
Prochorus, Acts ofJohn in 90 n.162
Rome), 1, 8, 25, 28, 44, 61-62 Martyrdom of Polycarp (see also
as “the apostle,” 47, 69, 72-73 ‘Dreams’, ‘Herod’, “Jews, the,”
association with Polycarp, 9, 12, 25, ‘magic, divination’, ‘Polycarp’,
28, 44, 50-52, 57-58, 70, 73, ‘Prayer’), 1, 2-4, 3n.7, 51,
74, 77, 83, 86, 101-102, 53-58, 71, 75, 80-81, 92-123
113-114, 120, 126-134, passim
137-138, 145-146 Coptic Version (Bohairic Dialect),
charges against, 102 3-4
and his disciples, 22-23, 43, 76-77 “the crowd,” 55, 55n.16, 98, 104
as martyr, 126, 134-136, 137, 138 and execution of others besides
ordaining others, 22—23, 43, 78-79, Polycarp, 54
130-132 Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, 7
reprieve from martyrdom and
peaceful death of, 25, 44, 52, “name, the,’ 35, 47, 107-108
113-114, 136-141 necessity. See ‘martyrdom,
as virgin, 52, 57, 73—74, 136 necessity of’
 Subject Index 189

Papias, 127-129 prayer, 25—26, 44, 54, 73-74, 76,

Passion Narratives. See ‘Gospels, the’ 81-82, 92, 116-117,
120, 136
Pastoral Epistles, the, 88 n.40, 137-138
Paul, apostle, 6 n.25, 69, 71-72, 126, Ptolemy, Christian writer, 72
131
Peter, apostle, 61, 61 n.10, 71-72, 83, Seneca, 113, 121
146 slander, 31, 45, 96-97
Pionius, martyr (see also Martyrdom of Smyrna, 6, 22, 23, 43, 66 n.27, 71,
Pionius), 5, 5.n.21, 7, 7 n.30, (ANS 5. Ds On 80:
71-72, 87, 89 n.149 851n. 136, 93, 95-95.
author of Life of Polycarp (?), 5 Shs) inl eile Shek exe SOIL,
nn.21—22 141-147
copyist of the Martyrdom of earliest Christian bishops at, 71, 91,
Polycarp, 7, 7 n.29 91n.163, 130n.16
Polemo, 75, 90 sites associated with Polycarp at,
Polycarp (see also Corpus 110-111
Polycarpianum, Harris Socrates, 88, 90, 90 n.162, 97, 97
Fragments on Polycarp, Life n.185, 100-101, 111-113,
of Polycarp, Martyrdom of 19 127
Polycarp), 2, 4, 4n.16, 8 n.39, successors (see also ‘apostles, disciples
22-39, 43-48 of’, ‘John, and his disciples’,
age of, 25, 27-28, 44, 84-6 ‘kinship language’), 91
as apostle, 114 Syriac History of John, 18 n.6
as apostolic, 25-28, 44, 51-52, 114
association with apostles’ mission, Tertullian, 8
62-63 Theodotus, 72
association with John, 9, 12, 25, 28, Tiberius, Emporer, 142
44, 50-52, 57-58, 70, 73, 74, Timothy, companion of Paul, 88,
77, 83, 86, 101-102, 113-114, 146
120, 126-134, 137-138, tortures/punishments, 22, 43,
145-146 75-76
charges against, 31-32, 45-46,
54-5, 93, 97-103 Vespasian, Emperor, 143
date of his death, 2 n.5, 8 n.39 virginity (see also ‘John, as virgin’), 22,
hiding places and strategies, 35, 43, 100-102
37-38, 47-48, 54-57,
105-106, 110-111, 117-118 women martyrs. See ‘kinship language,
Letter to the Philippians, 4, 4 n.18 siblings’
Frederick Walter Weidmann is Assistant Professor of New Testament at
Union Theological Seminary in New York and author of numerous essays
on the New Testament and the Early Christian period.
t \ y a < \ {
iv
aie.

a”
BR1720.P7 W45 1999

Weidmann, Frederick W.
Polycarp & John : the Harris
fragments and their challenge t

39967000368253

DEMCO