The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

Edited by

Paul Foster

.
t I!.t c1aTk
Published by T&T Clark
A CONTINUUM imprint
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEI 7 NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 1 0038

www.continuumbooks.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Copyright © 2007 Paul Foster and contributors

Reproduced from Expository Times

with permission from SAGE
Publications Ltd (© Sage
Publications)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset,

UK. EISBN 978056703 1 068

 CONTENTS

Preface
vii
Abbreviations
XIV
List of Contributors
XVll

Chapter 1
THE ApOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE STRUGGLE
FOR CHRISTIAN IDENTITY
Helmut Koester

Chapter 2
THE DIDACHE
13
Jonathan A. Draper

Chapter 3
1 CLEMENT: AN INTRODUCTION
21
Andrew Gregory

Chapter 4
2 CLEMENT AND THE MEANING OF THE CHRISTIAN
32
HOMILY
Paul Parvis

Chapter 5
42
THE FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS
Charles E. Hill

Chapter 6
THE ApOLOGY OF QUADRATUS 52
Paul Foster

Chapter 7
63
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
Joseph Verheyden

Chapter 8
72
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
James Carleton Paget
vi The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

Chapter 9
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
81
Paul Foster

Chapter 10
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA, EPISTLE tfO tfHE
PHILIPPIANS 108
Michael Holmes

Chapter 11
THE MARtfYRDOM OF POLYCARP 126
Sara Parvis

Chapter 12
THE EPISTLE tfO DJOGNEtfUS 1 47
Paul Foster

INDEX 1 57
 PREFACE

1. The Collection of Texts

As is noted by many of the contributors to this volume, the collection

of writings that is known by the title of 'the Apostolic Fathers' is in
fact an artificial corpus, and in its current form a modern construct.
The eleven texts that are treated here reflect different genres and
diverse theological outlooks. The range of forms embraces a Church
rule, various epistles, an early Christian homily, statements of
defence of the Christian faith (apologies), visionary texts, fragments
concerning early Christian trad itions, and an account of the
martyrdom of the author of one of the texts included in this corpus.
This may rightly seem to be an odd jumble of texts. Yet this very
diversity reflects the creativity and the different ways in which
nascent Christianity expressed various aspects of its message prior to
the end of the second century. To read the writings of the Apostolic
Fathers is to gain a greater sense of such pluriformity. Also these
texts provide an understanding of the battles that were fought as
attempts were made to unify disparate groups by transforming this
spontaneous and charismatic religious phenomenon into a
structured, sustainable and stable movement.
Although it is true that the collection of writings is in large part
artificial, based upon similarities in dating and the perception that
such writings were proto-orthodox, there was already a tendency
prior to the modern age to group some of these writings together.
The First and Second Epistles of Clement circulated together as early as
the fifth century as part of the biblical Codex Alexandrinus. This
seems to suggest that at least in some circles these writings were
considered scriptural. It might be argued that it is unsurprising that
these two writings were grouped together since they are the first
and second epistles of a common author. But closer examination
reveals that the second is not an epistle at all (unlike the first of
these writings), and in fact neither text bears the name Clement -
that is a later addition. So the mystery is how the name Clement
became attached to both these writings - one an epistle, the other a
homily, how they became grouped together, and why they were put
on an equal footing by some early Christians with biblical texts.
Similarly, two very different texts, the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas, are both included at the end of the fourth-
century Codex
Vlll The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

Sinaiticus, another great biblical manuscript. Here is a further

example of the status afforded to some of these writings.
The next major piece of evidence in the formation of this evolving
corpus dates to 1056 CE, when the so-called Jerusalem codex was
written (also known by the Latin title, Codex Hierosolymitanus, and
represented by the letter H). This manuscript contains the previously
unidentified document known as the Didache, along with the Epistle
ofBarnabas, 1 and
2 Clement, and the longer recension of the Ignatian letters. It was
discovered in 1873 in the library of the Jerusalem Monastery of the
Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople by Philotheos Bryennios, the
Metropolitan of Nicomedia.
In the modern era the first printed edition of texts that could be
labelled as the Apostolic Fathers was produced by J.B. Cotelier in
1672. The two volumes he published were entitled SS. Patrum qui
temporibus apostolicis
floruerunt . . . opera . . . vera et supposticia. This collection included the
l
writings of Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp. Over
subsequent generations the collection was expanded to include the
Epistle to Diognetus, the fragments of Papias, the fragment of the
Apology of Quadratus and finally the Didache.

2. The Discussions of the Texts in this Volume

There has been a growing recognition of the significance of this

collection of texts in recent years, as is evidenced by the ever-
increasing body of research. This interest is in part stimulated by a
desire to know what happened immediately after the close of the
New Testament period. It should be noted, however, that some of
the texts in the Apostolic Fathers are perhaps contemporary with, or
even earlier than, the last writings of the New Testament. Also, many
scholars have investigated these writings in their own right, since they
provide a window into early second-century Christianity and the
religio-social forces that shaped the various expres sions of this
movement during this period of rapid change and transformation.
The introductory essay is a contribution by Professor Helmut Koester,
who has been writing on this topic for more than fifty years. His
incisive
survey here tackles much broader questions than his doctoral
dissertation, which investigated the use of the New Testament in
the Apostolic
Fathers.2 That initial research was carried out under the supervision
of
Professor Rudolf Bultmann, a colossus in the twentieth century in the

I. See M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts with English Translations
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1 999), 3.
2. H. Koester, Synoptische Oberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Viitern, Texte und
Untersuchungen 65 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957).
 Prefac ix
e
study of the New Testament and Christian origins. This pedigree
produces a chain of tradition for this volume that characters like
Quadratus and Papias would be happy to boast about! Koester's
essay is a breath of fresh air, weaving together the insights he has
gained from his fifty years of research. In many ways this is not a
traditional introduction to the corpus
- enough of those are available elsewhere. Instead it is a creative
appreciation of the writings of the Apostolic tfathers as reflections of
the forces that were at work in the second century reshaping
Christianity. To read this essay is to enter into the vibrant and
polemical struggles at work in the emergent movement.
Professor Jonathan Draper is an acknowledged world expert on the
3
Didache. Again his contribution is a rich source of fact and reflection
upon the text. Readers may be surprised to learn that this text
contains the earliest known Christian prohibitions against pederasty
and abortion, but more significantly it gives a glimpse into the life of
an early Jewish Christian community, describing its baptismal and
Eucharistic liturgy. Draper argues that the Didache is not dependent
on Matthew's Gospel; rather, the dependence is reversed, and it is
Matthew which is dependent on the Didache. The consequence of
this, according to Draper, is that the Didache could be an extremely
early Jewish-Christian text dating back as far as the mid-first
century.
In the essay on 1 Clement, Dr Andrew Gregory d iscusses the
purpose of this occasional letter, which attempted to resolve a
conflict in Corinth. He highlights the fact that there already existed a
communication network between some of the early churches, and
although the author of this epistle does not claim any intrinsic
authority over the Corinthian congregation, he is extremely keen for
harmony to return to this group. Gregory argues that 1 Clement is
very much a product of the Hellenistic world and utilizes the
rhetorical conventions that existed in that context.
The discussion of the use of the New Testament in 1 Clement reflects
his previous research into this text.4
The artistry with which Dr Paul Parvis writes his essay on 2 Clement
makes reading this piece a sheer pleasure. In fact, with due respect
to the author of 2 Clement, without this sympathetic and insightful
introduction one could look upon this text in the Apostolic tfathers as
dull and uninspiring. Yet the text is rescued by Parvis, who again and
again produces perceptive pearls of wisdom about the nature and
purpose of this earliest extant Christian homily. Parvis's forthcoming
work on Justin

3. See for instance J.A. Draper (ed.), tfhe Didache in Modern Research (Leiden: Brill,
1996).
4. A. Gregory, '] Clement and the Writings that Became the New Testament', in A.
Gregory and CM. Tuckett (eds), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic
Fathers (Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press, 2005), 129-57.
Martyr is testimony to his ongoing contribution to research into
Christianity in the second century. 5
tfool, or faithful transmitter of tradition? That is the question that
confronts those who wish to evaluate the contribution of the early
Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis. What makes this question
difficult is the fact that his writings are only preserved in fragmentary
citations embedded in the works of others, primarily in the Historia
Ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea. Professor Charles Hill takes a
scholarly and sympathetic approach to assessing the contribution of
this author. There are detailed discussions of some of the fragments
from Papias' five-volume work Expositions of the Dominical Logia. Hill's
wider interest in the Apostolic tfathers is apparent from his recent
volume which identifies the
author of the Epistle to Diognetus as none other than Polycarp of
Smyrna. 6
The single fragment of the Apology of Quadratus that is contained in
the writings of Eusebius may provide the earliest preserved example
of a Christian apology. Interestingly, the fragment offers a defence of
the Christian faith based on the testimony of those who had
experienced healing or resurrection from death directly from Jesus.
Such an argument was only tenable while representatives of this first
generation of the Jesus movement were alive, or at least while people
who had first-hand contact with them could pass on the accounts of
their miraculous healing. It is perhaps for this reason that this
argument is not reproduced by later apologists. This oft-neglected
fragment is given equal acknowledgement in this volume alongside the
other texts in the corpus, rather than being relegated to a learned
footnote.
'Peculiar' is the adjective that Professor Joseph Verheyden uses to
describe the text known as the Shepherd of Hermas, and it is debatable
whether a more apt description could be found. Yet despite its
apparently strange apocalyptic air, at least to modern tastes, it was
remarkably popular in the early Church and is preserved in a number
of manuscripts and cited by various Church tfathers. Verheyden
characterizes the author as both a preacher and a prophet based in
Rome, yet apparently without any official status. Thus it appears that
the numerous house churches in Rome may have retained a loose
confederacy, but that any form of structured episcopacy was late in
coming to the imperial capital. Verheyden has written previously on
second-century Christianity and

5. Parvis is currently producing a new critical edition of the Apologies of Justin Martyr
with Dr Denis Minns of Blackfriars, Oxford.
6. C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus' Apostolic
Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006).
recently produced a study on the use of the New Testament in the
Shepherd of Hermas.7
Dr James Carleton Paget skilfully leads readers through the
problem atic issues that surround the Epistle of Barnabas. Perhaps the
most fascinating aspect of the discussion is the author's attitude
towards Judaism and Jewish traditions. The Epistle of Barnabas appeals
to the Old Testament repeatedly, but promotes non-literal
interpretations which appear quite consciously to contrast with
Jewish interpretations. While the author is happy to 'take over' the
Jewish scriptures, he nonetheless adopts an extremely separatist
stance towards Jews. Carleton Paget perceptively questions whether
this indicates a situation where absolute division between the two
communities has taken place, or rather reflects a
complex form of interaction. Carleton Paget has previously made a
major contribution to research on the Epistle of Barnabas in a
monograph tackling a range of issues raised by this writing.8
Every critical issue surrounding the epistles written by Ignatius of
Antioch appears to be contested. Although most scholars are happy
to adopt the middle recension of the shorter forms of the seven
epistles as representing the genuine Ignatian corpus, there are still
dissenting voices - some of whom suggest that the entire corpus is a
later fabrication. The dating of the epistles is extremely problematic,
and linked to both the dating of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians and
the accuracy of dating provided by Eusebius in his Chronicon. The
theological issues contained in the epistles raise perennial questions
about the emergence of ecclesiastical structures, the threefold pattern
of ministry, monarchical episcopacy, the real presence in the Eucharist,
and the theology of martyrdom. Despite one's predilections
concerning such matters, it is hard not to have some glowing
admiration for the way in which Ignatius heroically approaches his
fate in the Roman arena.
Professor Michael Holmes's treatment of Polycarp's Epistle to the
Philippians makes what may be the most significant rebuttal of
theories which suggest that two separate fragments of previous
epistles have been joined together to produce the current textual
form. Holmes also highlights the centrality of the concept and
language of 'righteousness' in this epistle. Holmes convincingly
suggests that this is a unified perspective which sees 'right beliefs'
and 'right behaviours' as intrinsically linked. According to Polycarp, if
one of these is defective, the other is also likely to be deficient. This
explains Polycarp's denounciation of Valens,

7. J. Verheyden, 'The Shepherd of Berrnas and the Writings that Later Formed the New
Testament', in Gregory and Tuckett (eds), The Reception of the New Testament in the
Apostolic Fathers, 293-329.
8. J.C. Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background, WUNT 2.82 (Tiibingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1 994).
 Prefac xiii
e
since as Holmes states, 'Valens denies by his deeds what the
"heretics" deny by their words.' Holmes is best known for his
editions of the texts of the Apostolic tfathers, 9 and he is currently
engaged in writing the
Hermeneia commentary on this text.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp is one of those texts which emblazons
itself on the mind of both pious and scholars alike. Apart from the
graphic description of Polycarp's death, the text communicates much
of the value inverting attitudes of early Christians towards death.
Martyrdom is the means of life, suffering is the path to exaltation,
and dying for Jesus enables one to rise with him in glory. Dr Sara
Parvis elucidates these aspects in the thought of this martyrdom
account. Her earlier work focused on the Arian controversy, and in
particular upon the role of
Marcellus of Ancyra. 1O Here she examines a problematic and much
discussed text and produces fresh arguments for its authenticity and
integrity. Of particular interest is the original discussion of Roman
legal procedures and the way this impinges on understanding the
irregularity of judicial conduct in sentencing Polycarp.
The Epistle to DioGNETUS comes to us as 'one untimely born'
and unfortunately, also, as one with an untimely demise. Not cited
by the Church tfathers, this text was discovered in a fishmonger's shop
in the fifteenth century, and then destroyed by fire during the tfranco-
Prussian war in 1 870. tfortunately a number of transcriptions were made
which still survive. These transcriptions preserve various marginal
notes from the original which make it clear that the work is a
composite, with the final two chapters being attached at some stage to
the initial ten (the larger section also being lacunose in at least one
place). The first ten chapters are an apology addressed to a certain
Diognetus, attempting to convince this figure of the claims of the
Christian faith. The epistle is an intellectually muscular defence of the
faith, which exudes a confidence in the superiority of the author's belief
system in comparison to the beliefs held by the main competitors of the
day, namely paganism and Judaism.

3. The Value of the Apostolic Fathers

The collection of texts of the Apostolic tfathers is of interest as a

historical artefact reflecting Christianity during the second century.
Yet, both individually and cumulatively, these texts offer much more
than mere historical curiosity. They are a rich theological resource
and explain many of the developments and trajectories that emerged
in Christianity. The

9. M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers in English, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006). For the Greek text consult LHH. (see Abbreviations, below).
10. S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345,
Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
thinking enshrined in these writings helps explain the initial stages of
the transformation of a collection of individual communities l oosely
linked by their common belief in Jesus as God's Messiah to an
organization with a
structured hierarchy and empire-wide links. In short, one sees the
11
beginning of the understanding of the Church as a universal entity.

Paul tfoster
The tfeast of the Martyrdom of St Ignatius of Antioch
1 tfebruary 2006

11. The chapters contained in this volume are in the process of appearing in Expository
Times 1 1 7:4 (January 2006) to 118:4 (January 2007).
 ABBREVIATIONS

Primary Texts
Atf The Apostolic tfathers
AH Irenaeus, Adversus
Barn. Haereses Epistle of Barnabas
Cels. Origen, Contra Celsum
Chron. Eusebius, Chronicon
1 Clem. 1 Clement
2 Clem. 2 Clement
Comm. Ezek. Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
De Cam. Christi Tertullian, De Carne Christi
De Obis Pseudo-Tertullian, De Obis
De Prine. Origen, De Principiis
De Vir. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus
Dial. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho
Did. Didache
Did. Ps. Didymus, Expositio in Psalmi
Did. Zech. Didymus, Fragmenta in Zechariah
Diog. Epistle to Diognetus
HE Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
Hom. vi in Luc. Origen, Homily Six on Luke
Ign. Eph. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians
Ign. Mag. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians
Ign. Philad. Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians
Ign. Poly. Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp
Ign. Rom. Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans
Ign. Smyr. Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
Ign. Trail. Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians
M. Pol. Martyrdom of Polycarp
Poly. Phil. Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians
P. Oxy. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus
Praescr Terfullien, De Praescriptione
. SH Haereticorum Shepherd of Hermas
Mand. Mandates
Sim. Similitudes
Vis. Visions
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
 Abbreviations xv

Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis

Vito Poly. Life of Polycarp

Secondary Sources:
ABD D.N. tfreedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
AGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums
und des Urchristentums
ANRW H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der romischen Welt (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1972- )
BR Biblical Research
EDNT H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds), Exegetical
Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols ET (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 990-3)
ESCJ Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Etudes sur Ie
christianisme et Ie judalsme
ExpT Expository Times
tfRLANT tforschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Atten
und Neuen Testaments
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAV Kommentar zu den Apostolischen
LCL Vatern Loeb Classical Library
LHH J.B. Lightfoot, J.R. Harmer and M.W. Holmes
(eds), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations of their Writings, 2nd edn (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1 999)
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NTS New Testament Studies
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
RB Revue Biblique
RSPh Revue des sciences philosophique et theologique
Th RHR Revue de l'histoire des religions
SC Sources Chretiennes
SecCent Second Century
xvi The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

StPatr Studia Patristica

ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift
Vigiliae Christianae
VCSupp Vigiliae Christianae, Supplement Series
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament
ZAC Zeitschrift fur antikes Christenturn
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestarnentliche
Wissenschaft
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Jonathan A. Draper is Professor of New Testament at the University

of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Paul Foster is Lecturer in New Testament Language, Literature and
Theology at the University of Edinburgh.
Andrew Gregory is Chaplain of University College and a member of the
tfaculty of Theology at the University of Oxford.
Charles E. Hill is Professor of New Testament at Reformed
Theological Seminary, Orlando, tflorida.
Michael Holmes is Professor of Biblical Studies and Early Christianity
at Bethel University, St Paul, M innesota.
Helmut Koester is John H. Morison Research Professor of Divinity and
Winn Research Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity
School.
James Carleton Paget is Lecturer in New Testament at the University
of Cambridge.
Paul Parvis was formerly Regent of Blackfriars, Oxford and is
currently a private scholar based at the University of Edinburgh.
Sara Parvis is Lecturer in Patristics at the University of Edinburgh.
Joseph Verheyden is Professor of New Testament at Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Netherlands.
 Chapter I

THE ApOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR CHRISTIAN

IDENTITY

Helmut Koester

It does not have to be repeated here that the tenn 'Apostolic

tfathers' is an artificial designation originating in the period of the
Renaissance. But different from other writings produced around the
turn of the first century
CE and during the early decades of the second century CE -

excluding those that were incorporated into the canon of the New
Testament! - most of
the documents included in this corpus enjoyed some reception
among the Church tfathers of the following period and some were
even considered as possible candidates for the canon of the New
Testament. Dionysius of Corinth wrote to the Romans in the middle
of the second century that they were still reading the letter that had
been sent from Rome to Corinth
by Clement. 2 The Shepherd of Hermas was widely used at an early time
and debated later in the Canon Muratori with respect to its possible
canonical status. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch played a
significant role in the Trinitarian controversies in Antioch, where
revised editions of these letters were produced in the fourth century.
But already at the time of their writing early in the second century
they served as instruments for admonishing and for ordering the life
of churches; this is evident from the
letter(s) of Polycarp of Smyrna, who distributed copies of Ignatius'
letters to other churches.3 The Epistle of Barnabas as well as 1
Clement and the Shepherd ofHermas appeared early in biblical
manuscripts. 4 The Didache,
though not often copied in antiquity, was nevertheless very
influential as its materials entered into several later church orders
and liturgies. All these were therefore documents that the later
church neither forgot nor rejected.

I. Namely, I Peter, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles.

2. Eusebius, HE 4.23.11.
3. Poly. Phil. l3 .2.
4. The Epistle ofBarnabas and the Shepherd ofHermas were found in the fourth-century
Codex Sinaiticus, 1 Clement in the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.
2 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
1. The Formation of Christian Identity

All these documents reflect the struggle for Christian identity that
took place in the post-apostolic period, and all of them represent to
various degrees a position that p oints to the preservation of the
apostolic heritage for the founding of viable Christian communities.
In order to understand this struggle other writings of this period
should be studied together with
the Apostolic tfathers, especially the Letter to the Ephesians, the tfirst
Epistle of Peter5 and first and forem ost the Pastoral Epistles6 of the
New
Testament, and to a certain degree the Gospel of Matthew and the
Acts of the Apostles. The Apostolic tfathers can no longer be
separated from the contemporaneous documents that happened to
be included in the canon of the New Testament. The purpose and
intent of much of this literature has traditionally been described as an
effort to establish order and ecclesiastical authority. While this is
undeniably true, this effort is only a part of a larger struggle. In order
to understand that struggle it is necessary to give a brief analysis of
the very beginnings of the attempts to define the heritage of Jesus'
message and fate.
The two earliest documents that provide s ome evidence for the very
first developments after the death of Jesus are the genuine letters of
Paul and the Synoptic Sayings Gospel (Q). B oth were composed
during the first generation after the death of Jesus7 and both grasp
the fact that Jesus' ministry was that of a prophet. As a prophet,
Jesus called for a new
obedience which is demanded in the recognition that no earthly ruler
or Messiah but God is king. tfurthermore, Jesus suffered the fate of
the prophet in the conduct of his ministry, being despised and
rejected and eventually killed. But the Sayings Gospel presents a
very different interpretation of this prophetic heritage in comparison
to the perspective contained in the writings of Paul.
The interpretation dominating the earliest form of the Sayings
Gospel is highly religious and ultimately individualistic. 8 While it
tries to preserve
the eschatological aspects of Jesus' proclamation, it calls the
individual into a special personal commitment, wisdom and conduct
that is appropriate for the coming rule of God. In such conduct the
presence of this divine rule is already realized. That, however,
required a withdrawal from the ways of the existing society. The
community of these followers of

5. Both probably written at the very beginning of the second century.

6. The Pastoral Epistles, in my opinion, may have been written as late as the middle
of the first half of the second century.
7. Although the final edition of the Synoptic Sayings Gospel should probably be dated
after the year 70 CE, an earlier draft of this Gospel must have appeared at about the time of
Paul's ministry.
 The STRUGGLE for Christian 3
8. I am guided here by the analysis in J.S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, Studies in
Identity
Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 987).
Jesus was a 'sectarian' organization of those who had committed
themselves to a life according to the commands of the divine rule
that was present in Jesus' sayings. Perhaps the Eucharistic prayers
of the Didache preserve the central community ritual for these circles
of Jesus' followers. In the later stage of the development of the
Sayings Gospel, the groups of followers of Jesus who were guided by
this document apparently had to face a political decision: should they
follow the call for a revolutionary uprising in Palestine against Roman
occupation or should they d istance themselves from such messianic
propaganda? Prophets guiding these groups proclaimed that the
future would not be fulfilled by a messianic war; rather, the Son of
Man would appear suddenly and unexpectedly forjudgement of the
world and salvation of the faithful. This prophetic message shaped
the later form of the Sayings Gospel that was adapted by Matthew
and Luke into their writings.
But, at the same time, the interpretation by other followers, who
also
saw in the heritage of the words of Jesus the guiding principle of
their religious commitment, thoroughly individualized the message of
these sayings. This is visible in the development of the sayings
tradition that is preserved in the Gospel of Thomas. Here, the sayings
of Jesus call for a complete separation not only from the structures of
the existing society but altogether from the earthly and material
world. The 'single one' is the one who will not taste death but
realizes the immortality of the imperishable ultimate self. It does not
matter whether or not this interpretation of Jesus' sayings is labelled
as 'Gnostic'. What is at stake here is the fact that the heritage of
Jesus' message and ministry is understood in purely religious terms.
' Religion' for this interpretation is the singular concentration upon
the concept of the salvation of the individual in the overcoming of
death, unsullied by any political, social or other worldly concerns.
The ideal of a new community of Christ in this world has
disappeared completely.
On the other hand, for Paul and his work, as it is documented in
his genuine letters, the prophetic heritage of Jesus' ministry is
reduced to the concept of the suffering and death of the prophet as a
result of the faithful conduct of his office. Here the office of the
prophet is understood in political terms. The prophet is seen as the
one who announces God's justice in the midst of the disobedience of
the people. The prophet is not just sent to Israel but also to the
nations. This understanding of the prophetic office had already been
universalized in the tradition of Israel,
as is most evident in the prophetic book of Second Isaiah. 9 As Jesus,
the

9. See especially Isa. 49.6. The inspiration for this understanding of Deutero-Isaiah is
due to K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55, Henneneia (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 200 1). See also my essay 'Suffering Servant and Royal Messiah: From
Second Isaiah to Paul, Mark, and Matthew', Theology Digest 51 (2004), 1 03-24.
prophet, has atoned already for the disobedience and sinfulness of all
people through his suffering and death, this event becomes for Paul
the turning point in the course of the world which ushers in the
possibility of the realization of God's rule of justice and equity for all
people.
The task of the apostle therefore has uniquely political dimensions:
he is commissioned to call all people into a new community of love,
justice and equity, the ecc/esia, that is, the assembly of all people of
a new society authorized by the righteousness of God. Specific
'religious' values play no role here. Paul never speaks about
conversion as an individualistic process, by which one achieves a
new status of piety. He considers the exercise of special religious
and spiritual gifts as highly problematic and
possibly destructive. 1O The Eucharist should not be abused for the
documentation of individual piety but is the realization of unity and
respect for all in a new community; the poor should not be despised.
II
Spiritual gifts are useless as long as they demonstrate nothing but
individual religious achievement; they are legitimately exercised solely
for
the building of the community, which is the body of Christ. 12
There are, however, two problems with this political interpretation
of the heritage of Jesus that confronted the post-apostolic generation.
tfirst, Paul's concept of the new community is framed by an
eschatological perspective. It could be called utopian; in fact, the
image of the body of Christ is spelled out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12
in patterns that draw from the utopian Hellenistic vision of the ideal
city. The new community, which is the body of Christ, is asked to
create now in its own midst what will be realized fully in the future.
Only in the future, at the return of Christ, will this political vision be
fully realized. This future is expected to
be very near. Second, while the ritual law is rejected because it
would only perpetuate the division between Jews and Gentiles, the
moral law of the
tradition of Israel is radically reduced to the commandment of love.
13 As Paul spells out the demands of the new conduct, he does not
seek guidance
by returning to the moral law of Israel; rather, he details the various
aspects of a loving conduct in which the good of the other is the
foremost concern. 14 This does not imply that Paul condones
transgressions of
Jewish and Roman law, such as murder, theft and adultery; these
are simply outside of the concerns for the building of the
community.IS But at
the same time, the utopian elements of Paul's vision of justice and
equity in the new community cast aside the established structures upon
which the
10. Of particular significance are 1 Corinthians 8 and 14.
1 1 . 1 Cor. 1 1 .1 7-34.
12. 1 Cor. 13.1 -3; 12.4-31.
13. Rom. 13.8-10 and elsewhere.
14. 1 Cor. 13.4-7; Gal. 5.22-4.
1 5 . 1 Cor. 5. 1 -8; Rom. 1 3 . 1-7; and elsewhere.
piety and morality of the Roman world was established, especially the
preservation of ethnic identities and the differentiations in gender
and social status. 1 6 Because such distinctions would jeopardize the
vision of
the new community of justice and equality, Paul has no interest in
accommodating Christian conduct to the piety and morality of the
Roman world. Although this justice and equality for all, the
righteousness of God, would be generally established only at the
return of Christ in the near future, it is to be realized right now in
anticipation of that return of Christ. The evident consequences of this
interpretation of the heritage of Jesus are that the delay of the
return of Christ would call for a new orientation of the concept of the
building and preservation of the community.
In the post-apostolic period, the expectation of the eventual return
of Christ for the establishment of a new world is indeed upheld. That
this return of Christ would come soon, however, is no longer a
functioning principle of the orientation of the churches and their
conduct in this world. Indeed, talk of a return of Christ in the near
future could even become a threat to the well-being of the Christian
churches. That is clearly shown in the deutero-Pauline Second Letter
to the Thessalonians, and it was to reappear a century later in the
polemic of the anti-Montanist writers. It soon became evident that
the Christian churches were here to stay in this world for the time
being. That implied, however, that these churches had to adjust their
moral conduct to the established moral and social norms of the
Roman world in which they existed, unless they wanted to accept the
alternative presented by the radical interpreters of the sayings of
Jesus, which increasingly denied the relevance of all social and
worldly structures in favour of the achievement of an individualistic
religious concept of salvation as it is recommended in the Gospel of
Thomas. That, however, would also have destroyed the possibility of
defining Christian existence in the context of communal structures -
Christian existence as bound into a community of love, support and
respect.

2. Roman Responses to the New Religious Movement

An additional factor played a role in this struggle for the definition of

Christian identity. The Romans, with their imperialistic ideals of a
functioning society, had been extremely suspicious, ever since the
Dionysiac crisis of the Hellenistic period, of any movements that did
not respect the piety and morality of society at large. Rome was
quick to prosecute any groups that did not adhere to these
standards. tfor Rome,

16. Gal. 3.28.

what was at stake here was the maintaining of 'piety' against
'supersti tion'. The letter which Pliny the Younger as governor of
Bithynia sent to the emperor Trajan at the beginning of the second
century, and Trajan's rescript, illuminate the problemY To be sure,
both reveal that the Christians did not do anything that was
punishable by existing laws. On the contrary, Pliny acknowledges
that the Christians even took oaths that they would not wrong
anyone. But they not only met early in the morning, in their
stubbornness they also refused to demonstrate their piety by
sacrificing to the gods and the emperor and they had slave women
who were leaders (deacons) in their assemblies, which was
considered an offence against generally accepted moral standards.
Anonymous accusations, however, were not deemed acceptable,
and there was no incentive for the ruling authorities to seek out
Christians. A few decades later, Hadrian sent a rescript to
Minucius tfundanus,
governor of the province of Asia, in which those bringing wrong
accusations against Christians were threatened with punishment. 1 8 The
implications of such policies are evident: as long as Christians did
not do anything that offended their neighbours they did not have to
fear persecutions. The questions of piety and morality did not have
any place in Paul's eschatological concept of the new community.
But if Christian communities wanted to continue living unscathed
within the pious and moral order of Rome's world, they evidently had
to reflect upon orders of piety and morality that did not offend the
Roman order. It seems that there was no possible compromise with
respect to the worship of the emperor as a god - not to speak of the
worship of any pagan gods. These, however, were not issues with
which Christians, Jews or any others were confronted in their daily
life. There may have been occasional situations, such as the building
of the first neokorate temple of the city of Ephesus at the time of the
emperor Domitian, to which the prophet of the Revelation of John
responds. But on the whole, during most of the period from the end
of the first century to the times of Marcus Aurelius (after 1 60),
worship of the gods of the Roman people and the emperor seems
not to have been generally demanded by the authorities. In this
respect, Christians could rest in peace as long as they made it
evident that they respected political authority and prayed for the
emperor, as 1 Peter,
the Pastoral Epistles and the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
recommend. 19

17. See Pliny, Letters ofPliny the Younger to Trajan, 10.96. 18.
Eusebius, HE 4.8. 6-.9.3.
19. I Pet. 2.1 3-14; I Tim. 2.2; Poly. Phil. 12.3.
 3. Ordering the New Community

The other question, however, remained: how could the life of the
Christian communities be ordered in such a way that no offence
would be given to their non-Christian neighbours and friends? And
could these communities, at the same time, maintain their vision of
being a people that belonged to a kingdom that was not of this
world? Attempts to respond to these questions characterize most of
the writings of the Apostolic tfathers as well as other documents of
the period and make them fascinating documents, which should be
read with an empathy that rejects all modern approaches, which are
only too eager to condemn these writings for their anti-feminism,
their condoning the institution of slavery, and their submission to
hierarchical structures. The wisdom, courage and prudence of the
writers of these documents deserve to be investigated with all
necessary humility.
Attempting to find resources for the ordering of churches in the
new situation of the post-apostolic age, the Apostolic tfathers first
turned to the heritage of Diaspora Judaism. This included, of course,
the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Israel's scriptures. This
marks a fundamental difference from those followers of Jesus who
cherished the tradition of Jesus sayings as their guide; references to
scripture are astoundingly rare in that branch of the early Christians.
In Diaspora Judaism, however, these scriptures had already been
transformed from being a guide to correct ritual into a resource for
morality and piety. This had elevated the Decalogue to a
distinguished position as the enshrine ment of a supreme moral code
that could be interpreted for the definition of whatever was good and
beneficial for the individual and for the community. The description
of the 'way of life' in the first chapters of the Didache (and in the
Epistle of Barnabas), which was part of the heritage of Diaspora
Judaism, is nothing but an interpretation of the Decalogue.
Analogous arguments can be found in the Mandates of the Shepherd of
Hermas. It was this understanding of the Decalogue that had enabled
Diaspora Judaism to establish itself in the daily conduct of its
members as a legitimate part of the required morality of the Roman
world. On this basis the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria had
recommended the
Decalogue as the foundation both of a perfect philosophical life and
of the moral legislation of a perfect society.2o
The second element of the heritage of the Jewish Diaspora and its
Bible was the mining of this Bible for examples of good moral
conduct and of the consequences of immorality. This process was
guided by catalogues of virtues and vices that had been developed in
popularized Stoic philoso phy. Catalogues of vices could be used
unaltered as a description of the

20. See Philo's treatise De Deca/ogo, which is part of his apologetic writings.
 ,
'Way of Death 21 or expanded into admonitions for moral conduct.22
But these catalogues were also turned into a tool for the search for
fitting biblical examples. 1 Clement, in chapters 3--23 and elsewhere,
presents very well-structured examples of the teaching of moral
conduct on the basis of corresponding biblical stories. tfirst, a
traditional catalogue of
vices is quoted: 'jealousy and envy, strife and sedition, persecution
,
and disorder, war and captivity .23 Then the first of these vices,
jealousy, and
its bad consequences are demonstrated with biblical examples:
Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron and Miriam, Dathan and Abeiron,
etc.24 The
Epistle of Barnabas, on the other hand, utilizes methods of allegorical
and typological exegesis that had been learned from the sages of
the Jewish Diaspora.
tfor the liturgical requirements of gatherings of the community the
Apostolic tfathers also made use of the tradition of Diaspora
Judaism. The Eucharistic prayers of Didache 9-10 are well known as
modifications of Jewish meal prayers. 25 The great prayer at the end
of 1 Clement (chaps
59-61) is based on prayers of the Jewish Diaspora. Psalms sung at the
gatherings of the community are certainly the psalms of the Bible of
Israel.26 Prayers for the emperor also imitate the practice of the
Jewish Diaspora. It can be argued that the Lord's Prayer which is
quoted in
Didache 8 derives ultimately from Jesus himself. But in the form in
which it appears here, probably not dependent upon Matthew 6, it
27
has many
parallels in Jewish prayers.
tfrom the piety and morality of the established Graeco-Roman
world in general the literature of this post-apostolic period inherited
the tables of 'household duties'. They appear already in the Epistles
to the Colossians and to the Ephesians and in 1 Peter. That Did. 4.9-1
1 utilizes these tables as part of the Two Ways suggests that these
tables have also been inherited from the Jewish Diaspora, although
they ultimately derive from Stoic teachings. The ideal of good
citizenship closely follows Greek concepts. These ideals appear not
only in the Pastoral Epistles but also in 1 Clement and in the Letter of
Polycarp. Requirements for leadership in the Church are spelled out
according to Greek patterns in the Pastoral Epistles as well as in
Ignatius' Epistle to Polycarp.
It is surprising that specifically Christian resources, such as Gospel

21. Did. 5; Barn. 20.

22. For example, Eph. 4.25-31 and elsewhere.
23. 1 Clem. 3.2.
24. 1 Clem. 3--6.
25. See K. Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary. ET Hermeneia (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1998), 150-67.
26. Eph. 5. 19.
 27. H. Koester, Synoptische Oberliejerung bei den Apostolischen Viitern, Texte und
Untersuchungen 65 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957), 203-9.
materials and the genuine letters of Paul, play a comparatively small
role in these attempts of the post-apostolic churches to reorient
themselves to a
new situation that is no longer dominated by a utopian
eschatological vision. To be sure, sayings of Jesus are occasionally
quoted.28 But where they appear, they have become moral and
liturgical instruction, as in 1
Clem.13.2; 46.8; Did. 8; 9.5. Ignatius can on occasion refer to
sayings of Jesus, but he never quotes them explicitly. Written
Gospels existed at the time, including several Gospels that were
later not incorporated into the
canon of the New Testament.29 But whatever Gospel materials appear
in
the Apostolic tfathers are apparently not drawn from any of these
Gospels but derive from the oral tradition of sayings of Jesus.
Narrative materials of the Gospel tradition are not utilized. While the
sayings of Jesus quoted in 2 Clement reflect the existence of the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the author seems to have drawn these
sayings from a collection that was composed on the basis of these
two Gospels and which also contained apocryphal materials. Polycarp
of Smyrna must have been familiar with
Matthew's and Luke's Gospel; once he quotes a saying of Jesus that
30
is drawn from the Gethsemane narrative (Matt. 26.41). But what
matters
for him is the fact that this was something 'the Lord said'.
Gospel materials are not understood here as the saving message
but as instructions for moral conduct and for the building of
community. This explains the concentration upon the sayings of
Jesus, which here became part of the general instruction for piety
and morality that was primarily inherited from the Jewish Diaspora.
The insertion of sayings from the Sermon on the Mount into the
opening chapter of the Jewish Two Ways (Did. 1 .2-4) appears
therefore as quite appropriate. On the other hand, the difference
between this utilization of Jesus' sayings and their use in the
tradition of the Synoptic Sayings Gospel and the Gospel of Thomas is
striking?! In the Apostolic tfathers, sayings of Jesus are closely
connected to the moral tradition of the Jewish Diaspora, while this
particular Jewish heritage is completely absent in the development of
the Sayings Gospel. At the same time, emphasis upon the creation
of a piety and morality that builds up community makes it possible
for these Christian communities to survive in the Roman world
relatively, though not completely, free from persecution and
rejection.

28. On Gospel materials in the Apostolic Fathers in general, see Koester,

Synoptische Oberlieferung, passim.
29. For example, the Gospel of the Hebrews that is mentioned by Papias of Hierapolis,
the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly also the Gospel of Peter and the Unknown Gospel of
Papyrus Egerton 2.
 30. Poly. Phil. 7.2.
31. It is characteristic that Matt. 5.3-12 transforms the prophetic beatitudes of the
Sayings Gospel (= Luke 6.20-1) into a catechism. The sayings of Jesus quoted in I
Clem.
13.2 also appear in the form of a moral catechism.
 The use of Paul's letters is analogous. Where they are explicitly
referred to, as once in 1 Clement (47. 1-2), 32 or used implicitly, as, for
example,
frequently in Ignatius of Antioch, Paul's words are primarily
instructions for individual behaviour or for the edification of the
community. Otherwise, Paul is primarily the prototype of the
exemplary martyr.33
'Paul the theologian' does not make an appearance in the Apostolic
tfathers. That is perhaps quite appropriate because Paul understood
himself not as a 'theologian' but as a builder ofcommunities. On the
other hand, Paul wanted to build communities of believers on an
eschatological model, whereas Christian communities are now built
on a modified model of the piety and morality of the Roman world.
This development also implies that the eschatological expectation,
wherever it is upheld, assumes a different role. In Paul's genuine
letters, this expectation determined the structures of the building of
the new community. In the post-apostolic period, this expectation is
closely related to the morality of the individual believer. Most writings
of the Apostolic tfathers adhere to the expectation of a return of
Christ - although at some undetermined future date - but emphasize
that Christ is coming for judgement, reward and punishment. The
Shepherd of Hermas, which tries to renew the urgency of the
eschatological expectation and even sees the unblemished community,
not just the individuals, as the entity that Christ expects to find at
his return, nevertheless defines this community as the
sum total of morally unblemished individuals.34 Where the
eschatological expectation is absent, as in the letters of Ignatius of
Antioch, it has been
transformed into an ideology of martyrdom. In a grandiose vision,
Ignatius' journey to his martyrdom in Rome is depicted by him as
analogous to the triumphal procession of the victorious emperor. 35
But
although Ignatius sees this victorious journey of the martyr as
happening on behalf of the Church, he remains an individual human
being, whose authority will be elevated to those of the apostles by
his martyrdom. What is also accomplished by Ignatius' efforts,
especially in his rejection of the docetists - who most likely had
deep religious insights - is the emphasis upon the realities of
physical and fleshly human existence, in which true spirituality is
becoming a reality. This effort is also evident in the attempt to
preserve normal marriage structures, directed against ascetic move
ments demanding sexual abstinence.
The Apostolic tfathers enabled the Christian movement to survive
and to be built in the form of viable communities that were not just
moral and pious but also concerned with principles of love and
mutual care,

32. See also Poly. Phil. 3.2; 9.2.

33. 1 Clem. 5.5-7 and Ign. Rom. 4.3, both times side by side with Peter.
34. SH, Vis. 3.3-7; SH, Sim. 9.3-8.
35. See A. Brent, 'Ignatius of Antioch and the Imperial Cult', VC 52 (1998), 30-58.
hospitality and concern for the poor, widows and orphans, and ritual
that would bind the communities together in common celebration.
They thus accomplished what the Gnosticizing followers of the Jesus
tradition were unable to do. While those followers explored the
depths of Jesus' sayings and also the profound theological insights of
Paul's letters, they were unable to show the way for the building of
viable communities in which the heritage of love, care and respect
for each other could become a reality.

4. The Transformation of Egalitarianism into Hierarchy

The question remains of the price that had to be paid for this
definition of Christian existence. One of the problems was the
introduction of hierarchical structures. A central administration in
major cities, especially of a central treasury for services to the
needy, was certainly unavoidable. Christians would continue to meet
in increasing numbers of small assemblies in house churches, while
a meeting of all Christians in one place in a city would have been
impossible. The supervision by one bishop in each city of these small
assemblies and their charitable giving was therefore a necessity. The
letters of Ignatius of Antioch give some good insights into this new
episcopal organization of the churches. But the term 'monarchical
episcopate' is misleading. Ignatius' letter to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna
makes clear that the bishop is not the principal ruler of the Church
but its primary servant and caretaker. It is also interesting to note
that qualifications for the office of bishop were not spelled out in
terms of
spiritual achievements but in terms of the accepted general moral
requirements for offices in the Graeco-Roman world. 36
Another price that was paid was the disappearance of the
egalitarian status of all members of the congregations. Paul's
'neither male nor female' (Gal. 3.28) no longer applies, as the duties
and relationships of the different genders in their daily lives and in
their status in the churches are spelled out in the tables of household
duties. In the reproduction of Gal.
3.28 in Col. 3. 11 the phrase 'neither male nor female' is omitted. 1
Tim.
2. 1 1-12 even forbids women to speak and teach in the
congregational assembly. While the Apostolic tfathers do not repeat
this regulation explicitly, it seems that they shared the desire to
keep women out of ecclesiastical offices. It is difficult to know what
actually happened in the organization of communities. The mention
in the letter of Pliny to Trajan of slave women he had apprehended
who claimed to be deacons
( = preachers?) 37 seems to prove that the recommendations of the

36. See especially the materials in the appendix of M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The
Pastoral Epistles, Henneneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 158-60.
37. Pliny, Letters of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, 10.96.
Pastoral Epistles regarding women were not generally in force. On the
other hand, hierarchical structures were not only introduced into the
organization of the churches, they were also maintained in the affairs
of the household and family according to the moral and social orders
of the day - to be sure, with the modification that love and mutual
respect 'in the Lord' should accompany all family relationships.
One may lament and criticize the acceptance of Graeco-Roman
morality and piety in the post-apostolic churches as evident in the
Apostolic tfathers and other Christian writings from that period. The
legacy of the price that was paid then is still a burden for many
churches today. Yet in the absence of a definition of Christian
existence and community under an eschatological perspective such
accommodation to existing mores of society seems unavoidable. The
task of the interpreter must be guided by an empathy that critically
explores all of the issues related to the decisions made by these
earliest fathers of the Church.
 Chapter 2

THE DIDACHE

Jonathan A. Draper

tfew of the wntmgs of the Apostolic tfathers have occasioned such

controversy and such a flood of literature as the Didache or 'Teaching
,
of the Twelve Apostles .l Published first in Athens by Archbishop
Bryennios
in 1883 from a twelfth-century manuscript containing a variety of
texts, it
was popularized by the learned text and commentary of the great
2
German scholar Adolf von Harnack in 1884. A work of this title had
been known
from its listing among the 'disputed' writings in Eusebius' canonical
texts (HE 3.25) and the stichometry of Nicephorus, but had been
lost. There remains some doubt as to whether Eusebius is referring
to the full text of the Didache or to the shorter text of the Two Ways
found in chapters 1-
6, whose independent circulation is attested by the Latin text Doctrina
apOSTOLORUM. 3 In any case, the entire work is taken up (and revised)
in
Apostolic CONSTITUTIONS 7 and is treated as 'scripture' by a number of
early Christian writers. Additional evidence for the text of the Didache
has been found in a fragment from Oxyrhyncus, a Coptic translation of
part of the text, and an Ethiopic translation of part of the text
incorporated into the Ethiopic CHURCH Order.

1. Date and Origin of the Text

Harnack found in this short text the key to the evolution of the early
Christian church, since it portrays a community which still knows
active

1. Many texts and commentaries on the Didache are available. The best critical text
of the Greek, together with an excellent commentary, is provided by W. Rordorf and A.
Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Ap6tres (Didache), 2nd edn (Paris: Editions du Cerf,
1998). A cautious historical-critical (redactional) approach is provided by K.
Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, ET Hermeneia (Minneapolis: tfortress
Press, 1998).
2. A. von Harnack, Die Lehre der zw6/f Apostel nebst Untersuchungen zur iiltesten
Geschichte der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1884).
 3. The text of the Doctrina apostolorum is provided in Rordorf and Tuilier, La Doctrine
des Douze Apotres, 207-10.
1 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

apostles and prophets and which is beginning to elect bishops and

deacons. He saw here a bridge in the process of 'early catholicization'
of the Church from a charismatic to an institutional form, and this
thesis formed the basis of his widely influential work translated into
English in
1908 as The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First
Three CENTURIES.4
This early enthusiasm for the text was overturned some thirty
years later by the scepticism of a group of influential English
scholars, who argued that the Didache was dependent on the Epistle
of Barnabas and
Matthew in particular, but in addition had borrowed from virtually
every book of the New Testament to reconstruct a fraudulent and
tendentious picture of life in the early Church.5 As the eminent J.
Armitage Robinson
expresses it in his Donnellan Lectures in 1920: 'He disguises his
borrowings indeed; but he also disguises the actual conditions of his
own time. The result is that he contributes almost nothing, except
doubtful exegesis, to advance our knowledge of the early Christian
ministry.' 6 In the face of this uncertainty, few scholars referred any
longer
to the Didache in their historical reconstructions of Christian origins,
except for those interested in the evolution of the Eucharist.7 Even
the late date in the third century given by Robinson still means that
it provides the earliest extant Eucharistic prayer.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revolutionized the
situation once again, since, as demonstrated by the tfrench
Canadian scholar Jean-Paul Audet, the Two Ways teaching, found in
the first six chapters of the Didache and also in the Epistle ofBarnabas,
shows clearly that both Christian texts are dependent on an earlier,
possibly Jewish,

4. A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten (1905), ET The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries, 2 vols (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1908).
5. J.A. Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache: Donnellan Lectures at the
University of Dublin (London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1920); R.H. Connolly, 'The
Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas', JTS 33 (1932), 237-53, and 'The Didache
and Montanism', Downside Review n.s. 36 (1937), 339--47; J. Muilenburg, The Literary
Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (diss. Yale
University; printed Marburg, 1929); F.E. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache: Fact, Fiction,
Heresy or Catholicism? (London: SCM Press, 1938). There were strong dissenting English
voices, e.g. J.V. Bartlet, 'The Didache Reconsidered', JTS 22 (1921), 239-49; B.H. Streeter,
'The Much-Belaboured Didache', in B.H. Streeter, The Primitive Church (London: Macmillan,
1936), 369-74. But they were swept away in the tide of disillusionment.
6. Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache, 102.
7. For example, G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (Westminster: Dacre, 1945), and more
recently, E. Mazza, The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical
Press, 1995).
source best attested by the Doctrina apOSTO[ORUM. I n addition, the
8
watershed study of the New Testament in the Apostolic tfathers
undertaken by Helmut Koester cast doubt on the dependence of
the
Didache on Matthew's Gospe1.9 While the debate over the
relationship between the two writings has still not been settled, 10
and some, myself included, would argue contrariwise for a
dependence of Matthew on the
Didache, 11 few scholars now date the text later than the end of the
first
century CE or the first few decades of the second. 1 2 If dependence
on Matthew is ruled out, then there is little to establish the date of
the text
except for internal evidence, so that a number of recent studies have
even argued for a very early date in the mid-first century. 13 In any
case, the recent shift in the dating of the Didache has led to a flurry of
attention and a further flurry of books arguing for the importance of
the work in understanding the evolution of the Church.
The place of origin has also been a matter of much dispute, but it
is now widely accepted that the text originates from the general area
of Syria, or more narrowly from Antioch. It seems to originate
from a lewish
Christian community trying to remain faithful to the Torah, even
though it has opened itself to Gentile converts. 1 4 It also relates in
some way to the
Gospel of Matthew, with which it shares obvious parallels and to
which it may well be subordinated in its final redactional phase (Did.
15.4).

8. l.-P. Audet, 'Affinites litteraires et doctrinales du "Manuel de Discipline" RB 59

"

(1952), 21 9-38, ET 'Literary and Doctrinal Relationships of the "Manual of Discipline" in

I.A. Draper (ed.), The Didache in Modern Research (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 129-47. Audet went
on to write a major commentary arguing for apostolic authorship in two redactional phases with
interpolations: La Didache: Instructions des ap6tres (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), which has carried
rather less conviction.
9. H. Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Viitern, Texte und
Untersuchungen 65 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957), 159-241.
10. See, for example, the dissenting voices in H. van de Sandt (ed.), Matthew and the
Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish- Christian Milieu? (Assen: Royal Van
Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).
II. A.J.P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (London and
New York: T&T Clark, 2004); I.A. Draper, 'Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an
"Irrevocable Parting of the Ways" with Judaism?', in van de Sandt (ed.), Matthew and
the Didache, 21 7-41.
12. A. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian
Communities, 50-70 CE (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2003); Garrow,
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache.
13. See Milavec, The Didache, pp. xxvi-xxxiii, 693-739.
14. This has been most substantially argued by the recent work of H. van de Sandt and
D. Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity
(Assen: Royal van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002). See most recently M. del
Verme, Didache and Judaism: The Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (New
York and London: T&T Clark, 2004).
 2. The Yoke of the Lord

One of the most intriguing issues raised by the Didache, if it is Jewish

Christian and Antiochene in origin, is the reference to the 'yoke of the
Lord' at the conclusion to the Two Ways instruction (6.3), since it then
appears to relate to the issue of Torah observance and table fellowship,
which lay at the centre of a controversy in the earliest Christian
communities that Acts describes as resolved amicably at the Council of
Jerusalem (1 5.6-29). Gentiles joining the Didache community are not
obligated to become 'perfect' Torah-observant Jews by 'taking the whole
yoke of the Lord' upon themselves, but they are nevertheless instructed
to keep as much of the Torah and the food laws as they can 'bear' and to
keep strictly away from food offered to idols. Paul, on the other hand,
forbids the Gentiles in Galatia to keep the Torah (to submit to the 'yoke
of slavery', Gal. 5.1 ) or risk losing their salvation (Gal. 5.4), and also
argues that eating food from the market which may have been offered to
idols is no problem unless someone makes an issue of it (1 Cor. 10.25-
30). The Didache may thus be a key text in understanding the nature of
the issues between Paul and his opponents. IS While the Didache is
usually known by its shorter title, there is a second title, which has
sometimes been taken as an interpolation but may indeed have been
part of the
original text: Teaching of the Lord THROUgh the Twelve Apostles to
the Gentiles/ Nations. 1 6

3. The Two Ways

The Two Ways instruction in Didache 1-6 is found in many forms in

Jewish and early Christian writings, 1 7 where it passes into the monastic
tradition in the RULE of St Benedict. Its function in the Didache is
to provide catechesis for the preparation of new Gentile converts in
extensive training at the hands of an instructor (4. 1-2) prior to baptism
('Having said all these things beforehand, baptize . . . ': 7 . 1 ) . In the
Didache the two ways are ethically conceived as ways of life and death
(cf. Deut. 30. 1 5), rather than drawing on the cosmic opposition of
angels of light and darkness found in Qumran and the Epistle of
Barnabas. Opening with the

15. See M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003); J.A. Draper, 'A Continuing Enigma: The "Yoke of the Lord" in
Didache 6.2-3 and Early Jewish-Christian Relations', in P.J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry,
The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (Tiibingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 2003), 106-23.
16. The provenance of this title has been the subject of much debate. See the extensive
discussion in Audet, La Didache, 91-103.
17. See, for example, IQS 3 . 14-.26, Testament of Asher, Derek Eretz, Epistle
of Barnabas, Doctrina Apostolorum, Apostolic Church Order, Epitome, Life of Shenudi.
double command to love God and neighbour as oneself, followed by
the negative form of the Golden Rule, the Two Ways consists mostly
of an elaboration of the ethical sections of the Ten Commandments.
It targets particular Gentile practices regularly abhorred by Jewish
writers: pederasty, abortion, exposure of infants, astrology, magic,
idolatry and so on.
One of the interesting aspects of the Two Ways section is that a
block of Jesus tradition is inserted at the beginning of the Way of Life
as a first instruction ( 1 .3 6), relegating the legal material to the status of
-

a 'second commandment' (2. 1). There is no indication in the Didache

that this comes from Jesus, nor that it is part of the 'gospel'. The
teaching comes mostly from Q material organized by Matthew in the
Sermon on the Mount and by Luke in the Sermon on the Plain. It
follows neither of these canonical Gospels in its structure and exact
wording, though it is closer to Matthew than to Luke. This supports
an interpretation of the origin of this Q material as a block of
catechetical instruction, set on the lips of Jesus by the Evangelists to
underpin its authority. In any case, the Two Ways
material presents a rare glimpse of the kind of ordered programme
18
of initiation undertaken by an early Christian community.

4. Baptism and Eucharist

The Didache presents evidence of the utmost significance for the

study of the origins of Christian liturgy and worship, since it offers
the earliest picture of baptism (chs 7-8) and Eucharist (chs 9-10) in
the early Church. It differs strikingly from traditional pictures and
later practice, offering a markedly Jewish emphasis. Moreover, since
liturgical practice was likely to have been long-established in the
community before it was written down and collected in the Didache, it
offers witness to a practice pre-dating the text by some time.
The emphasis in the baptismal instruction is not on repentance
and forgiveness of sins, of which there is no mention, but on the
ritual purity and therefore the purifying nature of the water (7.2-3).
There is no mention of baptism into the death of Christ as this is set
out in Paul (Rom.
6. 1-1 1), and although baptism is 'in the name ofthe tfather, Son and
Holy Spirit' in chap. 7, there is a suspicion that this may have been
a later redaction, since 9.5 speaks of baptism 'in the name of the
Lord'. tfasting by the initiand and the officiator for one or two days is
required before the baptism (7.4) and subsequent to baptism for two
days a week, on Wednesdays and tfridays. Likewise, the Didache
specifies that the newly

18. For an extensive presentation of this position see Milavec, The Didache, esp. 70--168,
and also J.A. Draper, 'The Role of Ritual in the Alternation of Social Universe: Jewish
Christian Initiation of Gentiles in the Didache', Listening 32 (1997), 48-67.
baptized person should pray the Lord's Prayer three times a day
(8.2-3). In both instances, it appears that the instruction is
intended to differentiate the new member from members of the
community led by the 'hypocrites', probably the Pharisaic party.
Even more surprising is the Eucharistic liturgy provided in chaps 9-
1 0, since it contains no mention of the 'Words of Institution' or of the
sacrificial death of Christ. The blessing over the cup precedes the
blessing over the broken bread, followed by a full meal and then by a
further set of blessings (probably involving, though this is not
mentioned, a further cup
of wine in the Jewish fashion found also in Luke's description of the
Last Supper, 22. 1 7-20). 1 9 The EUCHARISTIA over the cup gives thanks
to the tfather for the 'holy vine of David' made known to the
community in Jesus 'your son/servant' (rrolS , 9.2), reflecting a
Davidic Christology found also in the final acclamation of the liturgy,
'Hosannah to the house
of David' (1O.6)? O The Davidic emphasis matches the emphasis on
the 'kingdom' into which members are gathered 'like broken bread
which was
scattered on the mountains' in the EUCHARISTIA over the bread ( 10. 3--4)
and in the EUCHARISTIA after the meal ( 1 0.5). As with baptism, the
Eucharistic prayers reveal a concern with ritual purity: the
unbaptized must be excluded from the meal because 'you shall not
give what is holy to the dogs' (9.5), and only the holy may partake:
'If anyone is holy let that person come; if anyone is not let that person
repent' ( 1 0.6; cf. 14. 1-3).
While the usual officiant at the Eucharist is not mentioned, an
unexpected concluding instruction, which prepares the hearer for
what follows, allows a prophet to 'eucharistize as she or he wills'
(10.7).

5. Apostles, Prophets, tfeachers, Bishops, Deacons and Visitors

What first excited Harnack continues to fascinate and perplex

interpreters of the Didache: itinerant apostles and prophets are
envisaged as still active in the community, alongside bishops and
deacons elected by the community itself. There seem to be tensions
between 'charismatic' figures appointed by the Spirit, who wish to '
settle down' in the community, and this emerging local 'hierarchy'
(1 5 . 1-2). Moreover, much in the descrip tion of the apostles and
prophets in chap. 1 1 echoes themes running through the Gospel
tradition: apostles are to move on after a stay of one or two days
and should receive food but no money; prophets speak 'in the Spirit'
and may not be contradicted for 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

19. For a summary of the discussion of the problems associated with the textual tradition of
Luke at this point see B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd
edn (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 173-7.
 20. Following the Coptic witness to the text, where the manuscript of Bryennios (H54)
has 'God of David' and the Apostolic Constitutions has 'son of David'.
cannot be forgiven'. The renewed search for the 'historical Jesus' and
his community has led to an increasing interest in this material,
particularly in the light of Gerd Theissen's theory that Jesus 'the
bearer of revelation' initiated a movement of wandering charismatic
ascetics supported by a network of local communities, which has
been taken up by J. Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack, Leif Vaage and
many others?l
Another point of view would make the apostles emissaries of
Jerusalem, carrying letters of authorization for their final destination
but entitled to hospitality along the way. Any attempt by such people
to stay for a longer
period than a few days living off the community's goodwill would
suggest that they were not genuine.22 People who wish to settle
must support
themselves or else they are 'Christ traders' (13.5). Prophets, on the
other hand, appear to be welcome settlers, whose charismatic work
entitles them, like (full-time) teachers, to community support ( 1 4. 1-2)
from the 'first fruits' of their labour (14.3-7).

6. The Return of the Lord

The Didache concludes with eschatological teaching alluding back to

the Two Ways instruction: 'Watch over your life' (16 .1). It also
echoes the Q material found in Matthew 24 and Luke 1 2.35-40,
again in words and an order which indicate independent use of the
same tradition. It envisages a time when members of its community
will turn against that community, when lawlessness will increase and
a 'world deceiver' will emerge to perform signs and wonders to lead
the world astray and inaugurate a time of 'fiery testing' (16.4-5).
Three 'true signs' indicate the coming end of all things: a sign
'spread out in the sky', the sound of the trumpet and the
resurrection of the righteous departed. Finally the Lord comes on the
clouds with his holy ones (16.6-7). Interestingly, Matthew seems to
structure his use of the apocalypse in Mark 13 around these three
signs, while the Didache shows no knowledge of the Markan
material in
Matthew at all, raising again the questions about redaction and priority
with which this chapter began?3 The text seems to break off
suddenly in mid-sentence at the end of the apocalypse (1 6.8), where
one would expect

21. G. Theissen, The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of Earliest

Christianity (ET London: SCM Press, 1978); J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life ofa
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco: 1991); B. Mack, The
Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1993); For a contrary viewpoint, see (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, L. Vaage,
Galilean Upstarts: Jesus' First Followers According to Q).
22. See l.A. Draper, 'Weber, Theissen, and "Wandering Charismatics" in the Didache',
JECS 6 (1 998), 541-76.
 23. See 1.S. Kloppenborg, 'Didache 16:6-8 and Special Matthean Tradition', ZNW 69-
70 (1 978-9), 54-67.
a description of the judgement of the wicked and the vindication of
the righteous, and this has led to many attempts at reconstruction by
scholars.24

7. Conclusions

The survival of the Didache as an independent text is, to some

extent, accidental. It presents us with a moment frozen in time, a
community which still lived within the Jewish worldview and practice,
competing with the successors of the Pharisees for control of the
same social space. It remains focused on the Torah and its fulfilment
in practice, even though it admits Gentiles without requiring them to
become Jews. It is concerned about ritual purity in baptism and
Eucharist. Its Christology is Davidic and it envisages a return of the
Lord on the clouds, accompanied by the righteous departed, to
gather the Church from the four winds into the kingdom (10.5,
perhaps echoing Ezek. 37.7-14), probably to establish it 'on earth as it
is in heaven' (8.2). The Church's local elected leadership of bishops
and deacons seems to be in contention with Spirit-inspired prophets
and teachers, while apostles might present themselves at its door
claiming their right to support on their journeys. This is a picture
much at odds with the Church as it emerged in subsequent centuries.
lewish Christian communities which tried to continue this kind of
tradition were marginalized and even demonized as heretics, while
few traces of their life and witness to Jesus have survived. The
Didache is thus particularly valuable as evidence of, and a witness
today to, the roots of the Christian movement in Torah-faithful
Judaism.

24. See R.E. Aldridge, 'The Lost Ending of the Didache', VC 53 (1 999), 1-15; Garrow,
Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, 29--{i6.
 Chapter 3

1 CLEMENT: AN INTRODUCTION

Andrew Gregory

Letters make up an important part of such early Christian literature

as survives from the end of the first and the beginning of the second
centuries. I By far the longest and perhaps the most significant of
these letters is that of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth,
commonly known as 1 Clement. I shall follow scholarly convention in
using this title, and referring to its author as Clement, even though
this may be slightly misleading. Not only is there no internal
evidence to associate the letter with an author named Clement, there
is also no reason to identify this letter as the first of more than one
by the same author; the text conventionally known as 2 Clement is not
a letter but a homily, and it is not clear why each text first came to
be associated with the other. 1 Clement may be the oldest Christian
writing apart from those included in the New Testament, but the
same claim might be made of either the Didache or the Shepherd of
Hermas. Its importance for our knowledge of the development of
Christianity can hardly be overestimated, even if assessments of its
significance have varied considerably at different times,

1. It is striking that 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament are written in the form of
a letter. Two of the remaining six (Acts and the Apocalypse) each include letters within
their texts (see Acts 15.22-35; Revelation 2-3, cf. 1 .4). Only the Gospels are without
any obvious influence from the form of the letter. The letter is also the most dominant
genre in the texts referred to as the Apostolic Fathers. The other letters in that collection
include the Epistle of Barnabas (described famously by Johannes Quasten as 'A
theological tract and a letter only in appearance'), Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, the
letters of Ignatius and the Epistle to Diognetus (an apology for Christianity composed in
the form of a letter). The Martyrdom of Polycarp is also cast in the form of a letter and the
opening of the Didache suggests the influence of the letter form. The only 'non-letters' in
the collection are 2 Clement (usually considered a homily), the Shepherd ofHermas (an
apocalypse) and the fragments of Papias. Perhaps surprisingly, however, there are
relatively few letters among the texts in the standard collections of New Testament
apocrypha.
22 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
not least according to the particular theological commitments of its
readers?

1. Text and Influence

The text of 1 Clement is preserved in two Greek manuscripts, the

Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Hierosolymitanus. Codex
Alexandrinus, usually dated to the fifth century and now in the
British Library, contains (with the exception of some missing leaves)
a complete text of the Greek Bible (i.e. the Septuagint and the New
Testament) and also 1 and 2 Clement. These texts appear immediately
after the Apocalypse; the last page of 1 Clement (57.7-63.4) and part
of 2 Clement are missing, as are the Psalms of Solomon that followed
them (as we know from an ancient table of contents prefixed to the
manuscript). Codex Hierosolymitanus, dated to 1056, was
discovered in Constantinople in 1 873. It too contains both 1 and 2
Clement as well as other writings. These include an introduction to the
Old and New Testaments and (from among the Apostolic tfathers)
the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache and the longer recension of the
letters of Ignatius. Two Coptic manuscripts of 1 Clement are also
partially extant, and there is a complete eleventh-century Latin
manuscript that might go back to a translation made in the second
or third century,3 which appears to have been corrupted sometime
in the early Middle Ages in order to promote the importance of the
Pope.4 The
final manuscript is a twelfth-century Syriac manuscript of the New
Testament, now in Cambridge, in which 1 and 2 Clement appear after
Acts and the Catholic Epistles but before the Epistles of Paul. 1
Clement is headed The Catholic Epistle of Clement the disciple of
Peter the apostle to the Church of the Corinthians', and both letters
are divided into lessons in the same way as are Acts and the
preceding Catholic Epistles.
1 Clement is quoted frequently in the early Church, particularly in
the East by Greek-speaking authors. Significant parallels between 1
Clement and Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians suggest a literary
relationship between these two texts; if 1 Clement may be dated
securely as the earlier of these two letters, Polycarp is the first
secure witness to its reception,

2. See J. Fuellenbach, Ecclesiastical Office and the Primacy of Rome: An Evaluation

of Recent Theological Discussion of First Clement (Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press, 1980), for a survey of Protestant and Roman Catholic scholarship on
aspects of the understanding of church office and ministry in the letter.
3. It was rediscovered only in 1894, i.e. after the important edition of Lightfoot had been
published (J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 1, Clement (London: Macmillan, 1889-
90).
4. These alterations come at 60.4-61.1. By omitting the word 'our' the Latin
translation suggests that it is to Clement and the Roman Church that God has given
authority, not to temporal rulers and governors.
 I Clement: An IntrodUCTIon 23

though some see an allusion to it in Ignatius. (See Ign. Rom. 3. 1,

where he writes that the Romans have taught others. If Ignatius is
referring to written teaching, he might be thinking of I Peter, 1
Clement or both - and/ or other texts no longer extant.) Irenaeus
makes use of the letter, but it is Clement of Alexandria who quotes
it most frequently. On occasion he cites it as scripture. Didymus the
Blind appears to have considered it part of his canon of scripture,
and an approximately contemporary Syriac work, the Apostolic
Canons, lists both 1 and 2 Clement as part of the New Testament. In
this list, which does not include the Apocalypse, 1 and 2 Clement
appear last, after the Catholic Epistles. It is difficult to know whether
or not Didymus' canon is earlier or later than the thirty-ninth tfestal
Epistle of Athanasius (dated 367), which is our earliest evidence for
the recognition of a New Testament canon identical to the twenty-
seven books accepted as canonical today. However, the Apostolic
Canons can be more confidently dated c. 380.
1 Clement appears not to have circulated widely in the Middle Ages. It
seems to have been eclipsed by other writings associated with the figure
of Clement - the PSEUDo-Clementine Recognitions and the PSEUDo-
Clementine Homilies, two versions of an early Christian novel or
romance that identifies Clement as the disciple and successor of Peter.
We do not know how 1 Clement was received at first in Corinth.
Eusebius, the fourth-century historian on whom we rely for so much
of our knowledge of pre-Nicene Christianity, notes that it was known
to Hegesippus c. 1 70(?), whose testimony is presented in such a
way as to imply that the church in Corinth 'remained in the true
doctrine' after receiving this letter (HE 4.22. 1). Eusebius also quotes
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, (c. 1 70) also writing to Rome c. 1 70
and saying that the Corinthians shall continue to read the letter to
which he is now responding, just as they continue to read the letter
sent to them through Clement (HE 4.23. 1 1 ). This is in all
probability a reference to 1 Clement, and is the first surviving example
of the letter being associated with a person named Clement. The
reason why Dionysius made this association is unclear; the fact that
the Shepherd of Hermas refers to a certain Clement as responsible for
Rome's letters with other churches may be important (SH, Vis.
2.4.3). There the Clement to whom Hermas refers is clearly a
functionary, not a leader, of the church at Rome.

2. Authorship

Irenaeus (AH 3.3.3) dates this letter to the time when an individual
named Clement was said to be third in the line of bishops (after
Linus and Anacletus). These bishops are portrayed as the successors of
the apostles Peter and Paul, whom Irenaeus identifies as the
founders of the church at
 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

Rome. Irenaeus stops short of naming this Clement as its author, but
other early (and uncontested) traditions make this leap. Clement's
name appears in the titles of each manuscript in which the letter
survives.
Various proposals have been made as to the identity of this
Clement. According to Origen (Commentary on John 6.36), he was the
Clement to whom Paul refers in Phil. 4.3. Eusebius also identifies
him as the companion of Paul and as the third bishop of Rome (HE
3.4.8-9; 3. l 5 . 1 ;
3.34. 1). According to Tertullian (Prescription against Heresies
32, followed by Epiphanius, Panarion 27.6) and the PSEUDo-
Clementines, Clement succeeded Peter directly. The PSEUDo-Clementines
also identify him as a Roman citizen of noble birth, and various modern
scholars have identified him in one way or other with tflavius Clemens,
consul in 95 and cousin of the emperor Domitian, or with a member of
his household.
Such traditions notwithstanding, we simply do not know the name
of the author of this letter, let alone whether he was a Gentile or a
Jew. He was a Greek-speaker thoroughly at home in Rome, but it is
unclear whether the rhetorical devices he uses and the topics that he
discusses, apparently with great ease, require that he had enjoyed a
pagan higher education, or whether such forms and motifs are no
more than popular commonplaces with which many Hellenistic Jews
of a certain standing would have been familiar. 5 The letter describes
itself as being from 'The Church of God that dwells at Rome to the
Church of God that dwells at Corinth' (prescript) and names three
(or perhaps two) envoys who carry it, but no individual who is
responsible for its composition. The letter is written in the plural (it
refers to 'we' and to 'us', not to 'I' and to 'me') and may include
some further evidence to suggest that there was no single leader in
the church at Rome (see 44. 1-2). Also, the fact that Ignatius fails to
mention a monarchical bishop at Rome, though he refers to such
bishops in other churches, has caused many scholars to question
whether
monarchical episcopacy was present in Rome by the early second
century, the period to which Ignatius' letters are usually dated.6

3. Occasion and Purpose

The purpose of the letter and the occasion that gave rise to it are dearly
stated, even if precise details are lacking. The church in Rome is aware
of conflict in the church at Corinth, and writes to them in order that
peace may be restored (1 . 1 ; 63.4; 65.1). Some younger men have
deposed the elders (or presbyters) even though their conduct was
honourable and blameless (3.3; 44.6), with the result that there is now
factionalism and

5. For a comprehensive discussion, see P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at

Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 206-17.
6. For an account of recent debates on this subject, see Chapter 9 below.
 1 Clement: An 25
IntrodUCTION
internal dissent (OT<XOIS) in the church, albeit at the instigation of
only a few (47.6; 1.1 ). Reports of this factionalism have reached
Rome and appear to have come to the attention both of Christians and
of others, leading to blasphemy against the Lord's name and danger (of
damna tion?) for those in Corinth (47.7).
To those who have tolerated the situation, the Romans appeal to
them to restore the presbyters who have been deposed (44.3-6; 46.4;
47.6; 48 .1) and seek forgiveness for what they have done (5 1. 1).
To those who have caused it by deposing those very leaders, the
Romans appeal to them to consider giving up their own position for
the sake of the community as a whole, accepting voluntary exile (54.2).
They should subject themselves to the elders whom they have
deposed and repent for what they have done (57 . 1-2). This exile - if
that is what the believers at Corinth collectively consider to be
appropriate - is presented not so much as a punishment, but rather
as an opportunity for the exiles to gain recognition and welcome
among Christians wherever they may go. This rosy perspective may set
it apart from the punishment more typically associated with exile in the
Roman world. It is nevertheless noteworthy that the Roman
Christians appeal to this way of dealing with a problem rather than
to Paul's approach to dealing with troublesome offenders in 1
Corinthians 5, which itself appears to be modelled on the Jewish
practice of putting people out of the synagogue. Clement appeals to
a model that stands quite outside the Jewish tradition, but is familiar
in Roman culture. The letter from Rome appears to have been
written at the initiative of its senders. They have heard news from
Corinth (47.6), but there is no suggestion that they have received
an official request for help or a letter of any kind. According to its
authors, it is motivated by concern for the reputation of the
Corinthians ( 1 . 1 f.), by their fervent and prayerful hope that peace be
quickly restored (63.2, 4; 65. 1), and by the wish that their own
consciences be clear (59.2). If they do not speak, perhaps they will
appear to give assent to what has happened in Corinth, just as the
majority of Christians there appear to have done already (46. 1--48
.6; 59.2). Thus the church at Rome shows concern for the situation
in Corinth, but makes no claim of authority over the Christians
there. tfor the Corinthians, they pray for submission not to Rome but
to the will of God (56. 1); for themselves, they pray that they may
be innocent of such factionalism as the Corinthians face (59.2). They
write not to condemn, but in full awareness that they are engaged in
the same struggle as those
whom they address (7. 1). It is the problem ofinternal strife at Corinth
that concerns them, not questions of church order as such.?
The observation that most of this information about the situation
that the letter addresses is found in only a small part of the letter
raises

7. See further below, sect. 4.

questions about how the main body of the letter relates to its
apparent purpose. 8 The fact that the information given is not very
detailed also
raises questions about the extent to which the church in Rome was
informed about the details of the situation in Corinth. However, as
recent scholarship has demonstrated, both concerns may be easily
addressed in terms of the genre of the letter and the conventions it
therefore presupposes.

4. Genre

As Willem vanUnnik has demonstrated,9 1 Clement is best

understood as belonging to the literary genre of the
crull�ouAEUTIKOV. This is a form of address that is identified in
rhetorical handbooks and found in other texts that are contemporary
with 1 Clement. It is used by those who wish to persuade others to
reach for themselves a successful resolution to difficulties that they
face, not to force them to submit to those who offer them this
counsel.
The identification of 1 Clement as a OUJ.�OUAEUTIKOV, a form of
deliberative rhetoric that is attempted to persuade rather than to
compel, depends on a number of factors. tfirst, the letter describes
itself as an appeal or petition (EVTEUK0I5) and refers to its content as
counsel (crull�ouAT)), something rather stronger than disinterested
advice. Each word is typical of the genre, and indicates that the author
of the letter knows that he must appeal to the goodwill of his
audience. He hopes to persuade because he cannot compel or
command, and he knows that he cannot take it for granted that those
whom he addresses will welcome and act on the counsel that he
gives. He avoids the use of the imperative, and speaks instead in the
second person plural. This is why - the second key indication of its
genre - the type of rhetoric that Clement uses is classified as
deliberative. His purpose is to give advice to those who deliberate on
a certain matter (in this case, the deposition of leaders in Corinth),
so his goal is to make clear what is detrimental and what is good,
and to persuade his audience to reject the former and to embrace the
latter.
Third, the letter emphasizes the need for peace and harmony,

8. 1 Clement alludes to the difficulties in Corinth in chap. I and returns to them at the
end, in chap. 65, but the majority of information about the nature of the problems in
Corinth comes in chaps 42-44 and 47.
9. W.C. van Unnik, 'Studies on the So-called tfirst Epistle of Clement', tr. L.L. Welborn, in
C. Breytenbach and L.L. Welborn (eds), Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter
of Clement, AGAJU 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 11 6-81. tfor a fuller historical-rhetorical
analysis of the letter, see O.M. Bakke, 'Concord and Peace': A Rhetorical Analysis of the
Language of the First Letter of Clement with an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and
Sedition, WUNT 2. 143 (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 200 1).
ubiquitous concerns in the early second century. His letter is an
appeal/ petition for peace and harmony (EVTSUKOlS TTEpl El PTjVTjS KCXl
0j.0VOlCX), a concern instantly recognizable to contemporary Greeks
and Romans, who would recognize it as the opposite of divisions and
factionalism in public life (OTCXOlS), which is how Clement identifies
the situation in Corinth. Both peace and harmony (in Latin, pax et
concordia) were dominant concerns in the Roman Empire, so
Clement's use of this language is suggestive of the serious and
political nature of the situation that he addresses. OTOOlS has been
the downfall of many a city; will that be the case for the Corinthian
church? tfourth, the letter offers numerous examples of the need for,
and benefits of, harmony (0j.0VOlCX). This is the characteristic
exemplified by the examples he chooses. The idea of 'harmony'
indicates the dominant concern of the letter, which demon strates
why his long discussion of these examples is not a digression, but is
in fact directly relevant to the situation he addresses. Such examples
are part of his strategy of persuasion, for they are introduced in order
to counter any resistance that his addressees might feel towards the
counsel he offers. They not only function as illustrations and proofs of
the opinions that Clement expresses, but also give form to the ideal
of Christian life. Those in Corinth should respect these examples and
imitiate them in their lives (63.1).
At least two important corollaries follow from this understanding of
1
Clement as belonging to the genre of the OUj.�OUAEUTlKOV. The first is
that there is no need to believe that the Romans lacked detailed
knowledge of the situation in Corinth on the grounds that in their letter
they speak of the situation in Corinth in only the most general terms.
This is completely in accord with the conventions of the genre, for the
letter aims to give advice that might bring a future resolution to a
conflict, not a narrative account of what has already taken place.
Modern readers may regret that we do not know more of what had
happened in Corinth, but there is no reason to suppose that our
ignorance was shared any more by those in Rome than it was by those
in Corinth. As van Unnik observes, we should
be grateful rather that in chaps 44ff. Clement has in fact told us more
than
10
was demanded by the conventions according to which he worked.
The second corollary is confirmation that this letter offers no
evidence for the primacy of Rome at the time of its composition. The
church at Rome writes to the church at Corinth of its own free will,
but the form in which it does so makes clear that it could not take
for granted that its counsel would be either welcome or in any way
binding at Corinth. Nowhere does the Roman church demand
obedience to its own authority, but only to that of God, as revealed
in the Greek Bible and in certain Christian texts and traditions. Rome
does not claim to speak in the name
10. van Unnik, 'Studies on the So-called First Epistle of Clement', 164.
of the Lord, but always refers to the scriptures, to which authority
the writer knows that the church at Rome is also subject (9. 1; 13.3; 14.
1). The Christians in Corinth should be obedient to God's will, not to
Rome, for he alone is able to change hearts (56.1).

5. Date

1 Clement is customarily dated to c. 96, but there have been

important challenges to this consensus. I I The case for such precise
dating depends on the interpretation of 1. 1, where the author appeals
to external events to explain why Rome has been slow to address
the situation in Corinth. Much hinges on the translation of two nouns,
OUIl<j>OPcX5 and mpI lTlc.)oEI5.
If translated as 'misfortunes' and 'calamities' - as Kirsopp Lake translated
them in his influential Loeb edition, published in 1912 1 2 - then it is possible
to see how they could be taken, if other supporting evidence were
available, to refer to persecution. However, it is much more difficult
to
take them in this way if they are translated 'misfortunes' and 'setbacks',
as is the case in Bart Ehrman's new Loeb edition. 1 3 This more
accurate
translation, together with the recognition that firm independent
evidence for persecution under Domitian is lacking, makes it difficult
to date 1 Clement to the period around the end of the emperor's life,
on the grounds that his alleged persecution of Christians would have
come to a stop around the time of his death. This does not preclude
a date around the end of the first century, but it does mean that
such a date must be based on other evidence than the very
questionable view that the letter refers to persecution under
Domitian.
Other factors may also be taken into account. Intenial evidence
suggests that the deaths of Peter and Paul are some time in the past (5. 1-
7); and that there has been time for presbyters appointed by the
apostles to have died (44.2), and perhaps also their successors (44.3).
The church at Corinth is called ancient (47.6); and the emissaries
sent by Rome are said to have lived blamelessly as Christians from
youth to old age (63.3). Such statements are usually thought to
demand a date no earlier than the 80s or 90s, although the
evidence for this is not compelling. The deaths of Peter

11. See L.L. Welborn, 'On the Date of First Clement', BR 24 (1984), 34-54, repr. in
Breytenbach and Welborn (eds), Encounters with Hellenism, 197-216, and T.J. Herron, 'The
Most Probable Date of the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians', StPatr 21 (1989),
1 06-21. Their arguments are summarized in A. Gregory, 'Disturbing Trajectories: 1 Clement,
the Shepherd of Hermas and the Development of Early Roman Christianity', in P. Oakes
(ed.), Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002).
12. K. Lake (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 19 12).
13. B.D. Ehrman (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2003).
and Paul are described as having been in the very recent past (a
superlative rather than comparative form is used). If presbyters (elders!)
appointed by the apostles were already quite old, it is quite possible that
their successors were appointed from the 60s. Corinth might be said
to be ancient (OPX010V) not because it is very old but because it
goes back to the founding of the church at the beginning (Cxpxfi) of
Paul's preaching. If Roman emissaries have lived blamelessly at Rome
since their youth, not necessarily as Christians, we have no way of
knowing their age. Thus it is possible that the TERMINUS a QUO for the
writing of 1 Clement may be brought forward from the 80s to the 70s.
One piece of internal evidence sometimes used to provide a TERMINUS ad
QUEM for the composition of the letter is the fact that it appears not to
quote from the written Gospels, 1 4 but this is a dubious argument from
silence. The author might have known written Gospels even if he chose
not to quote from them, and there remains continuing debate as to
when the written Gospels were widely available. External evidence
suggests that Hegesippus may have seen the letter in the mid- to late-
second century, and Dionysius of Corinth sometime after that. If it
could be shown that literary parallels between Polycarp's Epistle to
the Philippians and 1 Clement were evidence that Polycarp drew on
Clement, not vice versa, this would bring forward even earlier the
TERMINUS ad QUEM that external evidence can supply.

6. Authorities and Sources

Approximately one quarter of 1 Clement is given over to quotations

from the Jewish scriptures - about 75 in total 1 5 - and there appear to be
many
allusions as well. Some may depend on testimonia collections, but the
fact that the author uses so much Septuagintal language and draws
on it both extensively and coherently to support the point he wishes
to make suggests that he knew the Greek Jewish scriptures very
well. At the same time he is creative in his approach to these
writings, and not afraid to present them in a novel way in order to
support the argument that he advances. Thus he uses the Jewish
scriptures to emphasize the importance of OIlOV010, even when that
concern is not present in the scriptural text or in earlier extant
traditions. For example, there is no precedent to his claim that the
animals enter the ark in homonoia (9.4), or that the sin of Lot's wife
was her failure to remain in homonoia with her husband ( 1 1 .2).
Clement blends biblical examples with contemporary Graeco-Roman
mores and it is difficult to point to one or the other as more
important to

14. See further below, sect. 6.

15. D.A. Hagner, The Use of the Oldand New Testaments in Clement ofRome,
NovTSup 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 22.
his thought, although the introductory formulae that he uses leave no
doubt that he considered the Jewish scriptures to be divinely inspired.
Thus he refers to the one who speaks through scripture as God ( l0.4;
18. 1; 33.5; 53.2), as Lord (8.2; 36.4), and as the Holy Spirit (13. 1;
16.2). It is to the holy and true scriptures given through the Holy Spirit
that he appeals
in addressing the Corinthians (45.2; 53. 1). 16
Clement appeals also to a number of Christian writings that were
later included in the New Testament, 17 as well as to the words of
Jesus. He tells the Corinthians to take up a letter from Paul, and
refers to enough of its content to leave no doubt that he means 1
Corinthians (47. 1-8) . In so doing he assumes that it is self-evident
that he should appeal to Paul, and that Paul's letter was still
available in Corinth as well as in Rome. Clement
appears to draw on 1 Corinthians at various points in his letter, and
there is evidence to suggest that he very probably knew Romans and
Hebrews as well. Clement refers to Peter as well as to Paul by name
and as apostles (5.3-7), but there is no clear evidence that he used
any letters associated with the former. Most scholars agree that
there is no evidence to demonstrate that Clement used any of the
Gospels later included in the New Testament, although he appeals
to sayings of Jesus that were included in Matthew and in Luke (l
Clem. 13.2; 46.7-8). He also appears to allude to the parable of the
sower (24.5 ), but in the context of a discussion of the resurrection of
the body in which he draws on 1 Corinthians 15 and makes no
reference to the teaching of Jesus. There is no evidence to
demonstrate any knowledge of John or of Acts.
Clement also draws on other sources in addition to the Jewish
scriptures and Christian writings and traditions. These include the legend
of the phoenix (25. 1-5 ), possibly Stoic images of harmony (20. 1-12;
37. 1-3, but cf. Paul and Jesus), and various examples drawn not only
from Jewish but also from Gentile (i.e. Graeco-Roman) history (6.2, 4;
55. 1). These appeals have sometimes been used as evidence of the
extent to which he has been influenced by non-Jewish and Christian
traditions, but it is probably more important to note how few, rather
than how many, such examples he notes. By far the majority of his
examples and appeals to other sources of authority are drawn from
Jewish scripture or from Christian tradition.

16. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement ofRome, 1 10-1 1.
17. For a fuller discussion, see A. Gregory, '1 Clement and the Writings that Became the
New Testament', in A. Gregory and CM. Tuckett (eds), The Reception of the New Testament
in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1 2�57.
 7. Conclusion: Between Jerusalem, Corinth and Rome

Commentators have variously evaluated 1 Clement as either an

essentially Hellenistic (often with particular reference to Stoicism in
its Roman form) or Jewish-Christian text. Such debates seem futile,
however, for it is very difficult to understand categories such as Jewish-
Christian (whatever this very problematic term is taken to mean),
Hellenistic and Roman as necessarily mutually exclusive. The Jewish
scriptures that Clement quotes are a product of the Hellenistic world,
just as the Greek that he writes from the capital of the Roman
Empire to a church in a Roman colony in the Roman province of
Achaia is a product of the confluence of Greek and Roman culture in
the period of the Second Sophistic, a major resurgence of interest in
Greek culture at this point in the history of the Roman Empire. Nor
is Clement innovative in this respect. He shows greater facility than
Paul in his use of Graeco-Roman rhetorical conventions, but Paul
before him was a Jew who drew on Roman imagery in letters written
in Greek. Clement no more 'encounters' Hellenism than does Paul,
for each is a product of the Hellenistic world. The fact that all
surviving Christian texts from the early second century were written
in Greek, as were those that may have pre-dated 1 Clement, can
hardly be exaggerated.
 Chapter 4

2 CLEMENT AND THE MEANING Otf THE CHRISTIAN HOMILY

Paul Parvis

Of the motley collection of documents that make up the Apostolic

tfathers, 2 Clement is in many ways the most unprepossessing. Its
great nineteenth-century editor, J.B. Lightfoot, concluded rather sadly
that it is 'confused in thought and slipshod in expression' and 'as a
literary work is almost worthless'. I More than a thousand years
earlier, Photius, the
learned and discriminating Patriarch of Constantinople, had decided
that 'the ideas [in 2 Clement] are somewhat scattered and do not
maintain a coherent continuity'. 2
And yet - paradoxically - much of the interest and importance of
the document lies precisely in that apparently unprepossessing
character. In order to see why that might be so, we have to look at
what kind of text 2 Clement is. And in order to understand the
evidence for that, we have to say something about the history of its
transmission - something about the process by which the text has
come down to us - and something about its integrity as a literary
work (whether or not it is 'almost worthless').

I. J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I, Clement of Rome, vol. 2 (London:
MacMillan, 1 890), 206, 208. Lightfoot includes a translation (306- 1 6) as wel1 as a critical
edition of the Greek text with commentary (21 1 -6 1). A handy recent edition of the
Greek text with facing English translation is in B.D. Ehrman (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic
Fathers, vol. I, 24 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2003), 153-99. There is a
useful commentary on an English text of the letter in R.M. Grant and H.H. Graham, The
Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, vol. 2, First and Second Clement (New
York:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965), 107-38, and an excellent German commentary in A.
Lindemann, Die Apostolischen Viiter, vol. I, Die Clemensbriefe, HNT 17 (Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1992), 1 83-26 1.
2. Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 1 26. Photius is actually referring to both letters of
Clement ('the ideas in them'), but in the context he has just been ,peaking about the
second letter in particular, and his remarks apply to it much more than they do to the
first.
 33

1. How the Text Came to Us

Eusebius of Caesarea, in his great Ecclesiastical History, the last edition

of which was produced towards the end of the year 324, knows of
the existence of two letters of Clement, the second of which -
presumably identical with our text - 'we do not acknowledge as
recognized, as we do the first, because we are not aware that it too
was used by those of olden times' (HE 3.38 .4).
The fact that Eusebius bothers to say that he does not 'recognize'
the letter of course itself implies that there were others who did -
others, that is, who regarded it as authoritative and, indeed (once
the concept was formulated), as canonical. That view is represented
by a collection of disciplinary regulations known as the Apostolic
Canons, which probably comes from Antioch towards the end of the
fourth century. The last canon
in the collection (85) numbers among 'our books, that is the books of
the New Covenant, . . . two epistles of Clement'. 3
The text Eusebius and the Apostolic Canons are referring to was,
however, completely unknown in the Latin West until 1 627, when the
magnificent manuscript of the whole Greek Bible known as Codex
Alexandrinus arrived at the British court, a present from Cyril Lucar,
the controversial, Protestantizing Patriarch of Constantinople, to
James I of England and VI of Scotland. The manuscript probably
dates from the fifth century and contains, at the end of our New
Testament, 1 and 2 Clement, undifferentiated in any way from the
'canonical' texts that have preceded them. But 2 Clement is
incomplete and breaks off in the middle of a sentence, since the last
pages of the manuscript are missing. It was in this truncated and
mutilated form that it was first edited, in 1633, by Patrick Young.
Recovery of the full text had to wait until the last quarter of the
nineteenth century - and it was only then that the genre of the work
could really be understood. In 1875 the Orthodox scholar Philotheos
Bryennios published, for the first time, the document in its entirety,
from an eleventh-century manuscript in Constantinople. And then, a
few months later, a Syriac version of the complete text came to
light, in a manuscript acquired by the Cambridge University Library.
In Bryennios's manu
script, 2 Clement appears with other works which we would class as
belonging to the Apostolic Fathers,4 but in the Cambridge Syriac

3. Text in M. Metzger (ed.), Les Constitutions Apostoliques, vol. 3, Livres VII et VIII, SC
336 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1987), 308.
4. Indeed, it was in this same manuscript that the Didache also first edited by Bryennios
-

- was discovered.
 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

manuscript, as in Codex Alexandrinus, it is found with the books that

make up our New Testament. Here, though, 1 and 2 Clement come not
at the end, but sandwiched between the Catholic Epistles and the
letters of Paul. These three manuscripts - two Greek and one Syriac
- remain the only primary witnesses to the text of 2 Clement (there
are also a few quotations in later patristic writings).

2. The Homily and Its Context

What kind of document do these manuscripts attest? Though known

as the Second Letter of Clement to the Corinthians,5 the text is not
a letter,
does not claim to be by anyone named Clement, and has no clear
connection with Corinth. It is in fact a homily, and it is apparent
from the full text that it was valued enough in at least one church to
be itself read out to the congregation after the reading of the
scriptures. Indeed, if - as we will see is most likely - it belongs to
the middle of the second century, it is in fact the earliest surviving
Christian homily, apart from the polished and literary sermons which
Luke includes in Acts. (The next candidate
would be the paschal homily by Melito of Sardis, which was perhaps
written some twenty years later.6)
The literary unity of the text has been a matter of some debate.
The theory that seems to me overwhelmingly likely is that there is a
suture near the end of the work, at the beginning of the nineteenth
of the 20 chapters into which the text is divided.? That is apparent
partly on stylistic grounds
and partly from content. Thus, the first 18 chapters repeatedly address
the audience (in the second person plural) as 'brethren' ( 1 . 1 ; 4.3; 5.1 ; 7.
1; 10. 1;
1 1 . 5; 1 3 . 1 ; 14.1; 16.1 ), while chaps 1 9-20 speak of 'brothers and
sisters' (19. 1; 20.2). That is actually quite a suggestive change.
'Brothers' is O:OsA<j>ol; 'sisters' is the corresponding feminine form
aoEA<j>ol. Normal Greek usage, pagan as well as Christian, would
have been to address a group of mixed gender as o:oEA<j>ol. The
differentiation of aoEA<j>ol from o:oEA<j>ol may suggest a setting in which
men are seated or standing on one side of the assembly and women on
the other - as became the norm in the ancient church and was
perhaps already true of the synagogue; we can

5. That is the title in both the Bryennios and Cambridge manuscripts. In Alexandrinus
the title would have come at the end of the work, rather than at the beginning, and the
ending is lost, but in the list of contents prefixed to the whole manuscript it is called
Second Epistle of Clement (with no mention of the Corinthians).
6. There is an excellent edition of this work in Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and
Fragments, ed. and tr. S.G. Hall, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1979); for the date, see pp. xxi-xxii.
7. See the very good discussion in Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe, 1 90-1 and 255--6.
 2 Clement and the Christian Homily

even imagine the speaker turning from one to the other as he

proceeds.8 In other words, in chaps 1 9-20 we may be hearing an
echo of a more fully developed, more carefully articulated liturgical
context.
In terms of content, these last two chapters look more like an
introduction than a conclusion. The beginning of this section
professes to explain what is going on:
So, brothers and sisters, after the God of truth, I am reading you a
supplication to pay heed to what has been written, that you might save
both yourselves and the one who is reading in your midst. For I ask as
my payment that you repent from your whole heart, giving yourselves
salvation and life. (1 9.1 )

The text that is here being referred to - the 'supplication' - seems,

then, to have followed the reading of scripture ('the God of truth')
and to be a set piece, read rather than delivered spontaneously.
Moreover, this introduc tion to the last section picks up themes and
phrases from the main body of the text. In 15. 1 the preacher had
said (as if concluding), 'And I think I have given no small counsel
about chastity; anyone who has fulfilled it will not be sorry, but will
rather save both himself and me, the counsellor. tfor it is no small
reward to turn a wandering and perishing soul toward salvation.'
And in chap. 17, in a sort of peroration, he had urged, 'Let us, then,
repent from our whole heart . . . And let us not only seem to believe
and to pay heed now while we are being admonished by the
presbyters, but when we have gone off home too let us remember
the commandments of the Lord' ( 17. 1, 3).
Now, it seems distinctly odd for someone reading a text actually to
say 'I am reading you' a text about what the audience has just
heard. But it would make sense if chaps 1 9-20 were really a sort of
trailer for chaps 1-18. We then get quite a vivid snapshot of a
Christian service in the middle of the second century.
There were scripture readings: Justin Martyr, writing in Rome at
almost the same time, says that 'the memoirs of the apostles or the
writings of the prophets are read - as much as there is time for' (1
Apology 67.3). Then there were exhortations, applying the readings
and driving them home, delivered by the various presbyters who were
present. Our original homily
- 2 Clement 1-18 was one of them, and, for whatever reason, a written
-

copy of it was preserved. Perhaps the presbyter who delivered it had

written it down to be used again; perhaps it was taken down by
stenographers, as frequently happened to sermons later in the
patristic period. In any event, on one occasion when it was reused -
perhaps by a presbyter diffident about his own abilities as a speaker
- it was preceded

8. See E. Schiirer, The History ofthe Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ, new English
version, ed. G. Vennes et al., vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 447 with n. 98.
by a short explanation,9 and the composite document, chaps 1-18
plus 1 9-20, became the fountainhead of our thin manuscript
tradition.
We can say more about the situation of the preacher and his
audience. The basic opposition between confessing and denying - so
fundamental to the rhetoric and the reality of life in the second-
century church - does occur, but the emphasis is almost entirely
moral. The threat of persecution may be in the background, but it is a
long way off, like the rumble of thunder on a warm summer evening.
We are to confess
the one through whom we were saved. And how do we confess him?
In doing what he says and not disobeying his commandments . . . So
then, brethren, let us confess him in works - in loving one another, in
not committing adultery or slandering one another or being jealous,
but rather chaste, merciful, good. And we ought to show compassion
for one another and not love money. In these works let us confess him
and not in their opposites. (3.3-4; 4.3)

And, conversely, the temptation to deny Christ has to be resisted in

daily life at least as much as it does before the magistrate's tribunal:
The righteous who have done wen and endured torments and hated the
disturbance of the soul by sweet pleasures will give glory to their God
when they see how those who have gone awry and denied Jesus in their
words or in their deeds are punished with terrible torments in
unquenchable fire. (17.7)

It is, moreover, a community that seems open to its pagan neighbours

and indeed basks in their approbation. The problem is living up to their
expectations: 'Let us not wish to please ourselves alone, but also people
outside, on the basis of our righteousness, that the name might not be
blasphemed because of us' (13.1 ). And it is blasphemed when we fail
to do what the Lord wants:
For the Gentiles, when they hear the words of God from our mouth, are
amazed at them as being beautiful and great. Then, when they realize
that what we do is unworthy of what we say, they are turned to
blasphemy, declaring that it is some myth and deceit. (13.3)

When and where would we find such a context? 2 Clement belongs to

the middle of the second century. That is the virtually unanimous
view, and it

9. The assumption here, following Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe, 1 52-3, is that

when the papers were gathered up to be recopied, 1-18 and 1 9-20 were, in effect, put
in the wrong order. But the essential point would not be affected if it were assumed that
the explanation actually followed the reading of the written text of the original homily.
 37

must, I think, be right. 10 There is no external evidence earlier than

the fourth century, so we have to rely largely on our evaluation of
the feel of the piece. The most compelling single piece of evidence is
the way it cites texts, and especially sayings of Jesus. On the one
hand, the work appeals to the authority of 'the books and the
apostles' (14.2), but, on the other as we will soon see - appeals
several times to strikingly non-canonical sayings. In other words, it
belongs to a time when the idea of a normative collection of
writings, including Christian, 'apostolic' ones, has emerged, but there
is as yet no notion of a closed canonical list, even of Gospels. We
are still a long way from Irenaeus' assertion (in the 1808) that there
must be four and only four Gospels just as there can be four and
only four winds (AB 3. 11 .8).
Geographical location is more uncertain. Rome, Alexandria and
Corinth have all been favoured candidates. The most attractive
suggestion is based on an athletic analogy in chap. 7, where the
homilist appeals to the example of the 'many' who 'sail down to
perishable games' (7.3). Zahn in 1876 and Lightfoot in 1 890 both
saw in that a topical reference to the Isthmian Games, which were held
every other year, about ten miles east of Corinth, and which drew
competitors and spectators from all over the Graeco-Roman world. A
Corinthian origin would also, of course, offer at least a partial
explanation of the way in which 2 Clement became attached to 1
Clement in the manuscript tradition, if both documents were
preserved in the archives of the same church. This theory is
speculative, but remains the best bet.
The second century, for both pagans and Christians, darkened
towards the end. Our text comes from a time of openness and
possibility. It lets us see a church still at peace, reflecting on what it
is and what it needs to do.

3. The Preacher 's Message

And the message this mid-second-century preacher addresses to his

audience is that they have to pull up their moral socks. But though the
theme of repentance appears over and over again (8 . 1-3: 'let us
repent from our whole heart, that we might be saved by the Lord, while
there is still time for repentance'; 9.8; 1 3 . 1 ; 16.1; 17. 1), it would be
a mistake to think of 2 Clement as a clarion call to radical conversion -
and that for two reasons.

10. See the discussion in Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe, 195, who concludes that 'a
more precise affirmation than "middle of the second century" does not appear to be
possible'. Lightfoot preferred 1 20-40, but thought that a date either earlier or later could
not be excluded (Clement of Rome, 202). I would myself prefer a date rather nearer 1 50
on the grounds of the covert polemic against Gnosticizing views, for which I will argue
below.
 tfirst, repentance is only one of the virtuous responses toward
which the congregation is admonished. The author can say, for
example,

Almsgiving is a good thing, as is repentance of sin. Fasting is better than

prayer, but almsgiving is better than both. And love covers a multitude
of sins, but prayer from a good conscience rescues from death. Blessed is
everyone who has been found full of these things, for almsgiving
lightens the burden of sins. (16.4)

When commentators on this passage try to sort out a logical

sequence, they miss the point. Repentance is one of a whole
package of attitudes and actions which together constitute the life to
which the Christian is ever being called.
And the second reason why repentance from sin should not be
uniquely privileged as the message of 2 Clement is that it is only one of
the models used to describe the renewal the Gospel brings. Our sight
was dim and our vision fogged, but 'we regained our sight, laying aside
the cloud that surrounded us' (1 .6; see also 9.2). We should entrust
ourselves to the God who brings health, 'while we have time to be
healed' (9.7). 'Let us at last repent,' the preacher says, but he
immediately adds, 'Let us sober up towards the good, for we are full of
much folly and evil' (13. 1). The prevalent language of sin and
repentance is, then, nuanced and qualified by other images - blindness
and sight, sickness and healing, moral drunkenness and sobriety. It is
not - or at least not just - a sort of camp meeting conversion
experience to which the homilist is calling his audience; it is, rather, a
process - a process of growth and conversion: 'Praying more
frequently, let us attempt to make progress in the commandments of
the Lord, that we might all, being of one mind, be brought together in
life' (1 7.3); 'Let us pursue virtue all the more, and let us leave behind
vice, as the forerunner of our sins' (10. 1).
As the threat of persecution is but the rumble of distant thunder, so the
theological and ecclesial climate seems to be largely tranquil as well.
Here, though, appearances could be deliberately deceptive.
There are 'evil teachers of innocent souls' (10.5), but it is moral,
not doctrinal, evil that they teach, 'preferring enjoyment here to the
promise that is to come' (l0.4), and the threat of heresy is never
adverted to. But there is a stress on the value and importance of the
flesh, so typical of second-century polemic against docetists and
gnostics of various persua sions: 'Let none among you say that this
flesh is not judged or does not rise' (9.1 ). And in varied and
complex ways llesh is made the bearer of the divine.
There is a fundamental tension and contrast between flesh and
Spirit. Thus (as often in second-century thought) 'Spirit' designates
the divine aspect of Jesus, and 'flesh' the human aspect: 'Christ the
Lord, who saved us, being first Spirit, became flesh' (9.5). But that
tension and contrast is
 2 Clement and the Christian Homily 39

not a simple opposition, and the same duality is used to express the
underlying reality of Christian life.
'The first Church . . . was created before sun and moon' (14. 1 1 In
1).
other words, it belonged to the realm of Spirit, but was realized and
concretized in the realm of flesh in a movement that is at once
parallel to and an expression of the appearance in flesh of the
spiritual Christ: 'tfor it was spiritual, as was our Jesus too, but he
was made manifest in the last days that he might save us. And the
Church, being spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ'
(14.2-3).
The complex relationship between Christ and his Church is expressed
in terms of the Pauline idea that 'the living Church is the body of
Christ', but also in terms of the sexual imagery of Gen. 1 .27, 'God
made the human being male and female', where 'the male is Christ,
the female is the Church' (14.2). At first these pictures seem to sit ill
together, and certainly the progression in the whole passage is
kaleidoscopic rather than strictly logical. But in fact it is coherent
because the payoff, as always for 2 Clement, is moral.
The conclusion drawn from the fact that the Church, like Christ,
was made manifest in flesh is that
if any of us keeps it [that is, the Church] in his flesh and does not
corrupt it, he will receive it in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh
corresponds to and
l2
expresses the Spirit . . . Keep the flesh that you might partake of
the Spirit. And if we say that the flesh is the Church and the Spirit is
Christ, then the one who has abused the flesh has abused the Church.
Such a person will not, then, partake of the Spirit, which is Christ.
(14. 3-4)

This strongly theological stress on the significance of flesh is, I

think, both significant and deliberate. It represents a covert polemic
against those in the second-century Church who denied its reality or
its worth. But instead of engaging in head-to-head polemic - as
Ignatius of Antioch does, for example 2 Clement prefers to turn its
-

back on overt debate and to imply instead that the important thing is
not so much what you say about the flesh as what you do with it
and in it.
The author makes the same move elsewhere. There are several texts in 2
Clement which are presented as authoritative sayings of Jesus, but which

11. The idea of the pre-existence of the Church is also found in the Shepherd of Hermas:
she 'was created first of all things' (SH, Vis. 2.4. 1).
12. I have used the phrase 'corresponds to and expresses' to translate 'is an antitype
of'. The idea is that a type is something that leaves an impress that represents it and
replicates it in a different order of reality, like a seal leaving its imprint in wax or a die
40 The Writings of the Apostolic
stamping a coin. Fathers
do not in fact come from our canonical Gospe1s Y Perhaps the most
revealing is that cited in 12.2:
For the Lord himself, when someone asked him when his kingdom
will come, said, 'When the two will be one and the outside will be as
the inside and the male with the female will be neither male nor
female.'

Again, as in the discussion of the primeval Church, there is an

appeal to sexual imagery. And, again, there is a lot going on behind
the scenes. The text turns out to have a very close parallel in the
riddling and enigmatic collection of sayings of Jesus that make up
the Gospel of Thomas, preserved in the Coptic Gnostic library that was
discovered at Nag Hammadi in the middle of the last century. There
we read,

Jesus said to them, 'When you make the two one and you make the
inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the top like the
bottom and you make the male with the female a single one so that the
male is not male and the female is not female . . . then you will go in to
the kingdom.' (logion 22)

In Thomas sexual differentiation is an integral part of a deep mystery,

a central part of the existential puzzle and religious problem of unity
and diversity, the one and the many. It has an ultimate, mythical,
cosmic significance.
2 Clement's exegesis moves on an entirely different plane:

The two are one when we speak the truth to one another, and there is
one soul, without pretence, in two bodies. And this is what 'the outside
like the inside' is saying: the inside means the soul and the outside means
the body. Just as your body, then, appears to view, so let your soul too
be manifest in good works. And this is what 'the male with the female
neither male nor female' means, that when a brother sees a sister, he
should think nothing about her sexually, nor should she think anything
about him sexually. When you do these things, he says, the kingdom of
my Father will come. (12. 3-6)

The interpretation in 2 Clement is, typically, moralizing. Does that

mean that the homilist is trivia1izing something he fails to understand?
Or does it rather mean that for him the mystery at the heart of things
finds expression, not in cosmic myth, but in the practicalities of
living together with honesty and integrity?
If we take the latter view - as I think we must - we can see why it
is precisely in the apparent banality of the text that its real
significance lies. The flesh 'corresponds to and expresses' - is the
'antitype' of - the Spirit.

13. See 4.5 ('the Lord said . . . ) and 5.2--4 (a conversation between Jesus and Peter). In
'

11 .2--4 a long non-canonical saying is introduced by the phrase, 'For the prophetic word too
says . . . '
Ultimate meaning and value and truth find expression in and through
our material world and our fleshly, bodily lives. To approach such a
text with notions of works-righteousness derived from much, much
later debates would be to miss the whole point of it. It would be to
miss precisely what made it, in that world, Good News.
The homilist has a deep sense of what Christ has done for his
people: 'Our whole life was nothing other than death'; 'In us' was
'much error and destruction'; but 'he gave us the light; he named us
sons as a father does; he saved us when we were perishing'. In
short, 'he called us when we were not and willed that we come into
being from non-being' (1 .4-8). And so 'we who are living do not
sacrifice to dead gods and we do not worship them, but through him
we have come to know the tfather of truth' (3.1 ).
2 Clement is not a profound theological text, and, as critics from
Photius on have not failed to observe, it is neither well written nor
well organized. But what it is struggling to give expression to is the
idea that it is precisely in the nitty-gritty of everyday life that we can
see the Gospel at work. It spoke to the men and women of the
second century of new possibilities for the transformation of human
life, and that is what made it, for them, something worth reading
and rereading, copying and recopying, and preserving for us.
 Chapter 5

THE FRAGMENTS Otf PAPIAS

Charles E. Hill

If there is one figure from the early Church who battles a persistent
Jekyll and Hyde image, it is Papias of Hierapolis. On the one hand,
the primitive nature, and therefore intrinsic importance, of his
testimony cannot be denied; and indeed, interest in his information
about the Gospels of Mark and Matthew has never waned. On the
other hand, Eusebius of Caesarea, one of his earliest, educated
readers, who ought to have been in basic sympathy with him, called
him 'a man ofexceedingly small intelligence' (HE
3.39. 1 3). And some have concluded that Eusebius was being charitable!
The variety of interpretations to which Papias' statements seem
open may at least tell us he was not the clearest of writers, though
perhaps Eusebius bears some blame for short-changing us on
context. Eusebius' remark about Papias' intelligence pertained
explicitly to the latter's chiliastic traditions. Eusebius also might have
had in mind the grotesque and, at best, 'exaggerated' account,
preserved only by Apollonius of Laodicea, about Judas the Betrayer's
final end (LHH, fro 1 8).
Yet, his disparagement of Papias notwithstanding, the church
historian also valued many of the things Papias recorded as
historically reliable. One essential thing should be kept in mind:
Papias was above all a collector of traditions, and some traditions
will necessarily be more trustworthy than others.

1. Life, Times and Sources

Papias was probably born sometime around 70 CEo He wrote

perhaps as early as about 1 10 and probably no later than the early l
30s, with several recent scholars opting for the earlier end of the
spectrum. 1 It is not known

1. For example, U.H.J. Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag ZUR Geschichte des
fruhren Christenturns, FRLANT 133 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983); R.W.
Yarbrough, 'The Date of Papias: A Reassessment', JETS 26 (1983), 1 8 1-91 ; W.R. Schoedel,
'Papias', ANRW 2.27. l, 235-70.
 The Fragments of 43
Papias
when he died. His residence in Asia Minor at this early time makes it
possible that he had contact with primitive, Palestinian Christian
emigres to his region. He personally heard stories from the
'daughters of Philip' (HE 3.3-9, though Eusebius is confusing here: is
this the apostle or the evangelist?) who settled in Hierapolis in later
life. According to Irenaeus, Papias was both an Asian companion of
Polycarp and a hearer of John (AH 5.33.4) - Which John is not quite
clear. Most (including Eusebius) have understood him to mean the
apostle, but Eusebius searched Papias' five-volume Expositions of the
Dominical Logia (see sect. 2 below) and determined that Papias had
known none of the apostles, but had known an elder named John,
whom he often quoted.
To prove his reading, Eusebius quotes from Papias' introduction:
I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations,
everything I carefully learned then from the elders and carefully
remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For unlike most people I did
not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the
truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else's
commandments, but those who remember the commandments given
by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if
by chance someone who
had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I enquired about
the words of the elders - what Andrew or Peter said, 2 or Philip, or
Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's
disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord's
disciples,
were saying. For I did not think that information from books would
profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice. (HE
3.39.3--4)3

In this excerpt Papias never uses the term 'apostle', but only 'disciples'
and 'elders'. He uses 'the Lord's disciples' to describe both Jesus'
apostles (Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and Matthew)
and another group, which included Aristion and the other John.
Whether this means that the last two knew Jesus personalIy is
unclear; Eusebius apparently concluded that Papias had no direct
contact with any who had known the Lord. In fact, from this
quotation alone we cannot even be sure that Papias ever heard
Aristion or the elder John in person (though Eusebius assumes that
he had). Papias speaks of his actual sources as 'elders', or as 'followers
of the elders'. The elders could be (i) apostles of Jesus; (ii) disciples
of apostles (as in Irenaeus, AH 5.36.2); or (iii) later elders. It is

2. This is probably not to be taken as appositional to 'the words of the elders', but as the
content of their words. That is, Papias was interested in what the elders reported of the
sayings of the men he goes on to name.
3. Michael Holmes's translation, LHH 565.
also possible that by 'elders' he means 'aged ones'4 and not
necessarily those who held church office. The only person definitely
named as 'elder' is the famous second 'John'. While some identify
this man as the apostle, and therefore understand 'elders' in the entire
passage to mean apostles,
he is evidently called 'elder' to distinguish him from the apostle John,
who has just been mentioned.5 Others, including recently Martin
Hengel and
Richard Bauckham, argue that this second John was the author of
some or all of the Johannine literature.6

2. Expositions of the Dominical Logia

The essential (though not exclusive) contents of Papias' only known

work, the five-volume Expositions of the Dominical Logia, as both the
title and the surviving fragments suggest, had to do with interpretations
and oral traditions relating to things Jesus had said in certain written
Gospels. Even the 'unwritten' eschatological saying attributed to
Jesus in AH 5.33.3 (LHH, fro 1 4) appears to be an 'exposition' of a
Gospel passage, Matt. 26.27-9. According to the earliest sources
(Irenaeus and Eusebius), these 'expositions' contained a wide
assortment of intriguing information, including: circumstances of the
writing of (at least some of) the Gospels; a saying about the fecundity of
the earth in the coming kingdom, attributed to Jesus himself; the tale
about Judas already mentioned; a story about a woman accused of
many sins before the Lord, which must have some relation to the
pericope adULTERAE, which appears in some manuscripts of John (7.53-
8 . 1 1); a story Papias heard from one of Philip's daughters about the
raising of a corpse; and an account of Justus Barsabbas, mentioned
in the book of Acts, drinking deadly poison and suffering no ill effects.
Much of the information alleged to be culled from Papias by post
Eusebian writers has been treated with greater suspicion by scholars.
Late reports have Papias as none other than John's amanuensis, who
wrote the Gospel at the Evangelist'S dictation (LHH, frs 19, 20).
Another attributes to him the statement that John, like his brother
James, was killed by the Jews. Despite recurring speculation, this
last item, even if not spurious, does not imply that John's death was
early.
In addition, several of Irenaeus' appeals to tradition from unnamed

4. 'The old fathers', as von Campenhausen calls them: H. von Campenhausen, The
Formation of the Christian Bible, tr. l.A. Baker (Philadelphia: tfortress Press, 1972), 1 3 1 .
5. l. Munck, 'Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord in Papias', HTR 52 (1959), 223--43;
Schoedel, 'Papias', 251.
6. M . Hengel, Die johanneische Frage: Ein LO"sungsversuch (Tiibingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1993); R.l. Bauckham, 'Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the tfourth Gospel',
JTS n.s. 44 (1993), 24-69.
'elders' also appear to have come from Papias' book. 7 These include
eschatological traditions about Paradise and about the final abodes of
the saved, and the reading 666 (as opposed to 616, a reading which
has lately turned up in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus) from Rev. 13. 18.
The fragmentary state of our information about Papias and his
teaching has resulted in major differences in the editions of his work.
Lightfoot took an inclusive approach, accepting in his collection
statements about Papias or his views in ancient authors, as well as actual
quotations. Most questionably, he even printed the pericope ADULTERAE
from Codex Bezae as from Papias, based on his interpretation of
Eusebius' words in HE
3.39. 17. The latest Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes edition (used here) con
tains 26 fragments, including three Armenian ones (whose authenticity
8
has been questioned) only published in 198 1 , plus five 'traditions of the
elders' which Irenaeus very likely found in Papias' book. Bihlmeyer
took a narrower approach, printing only 13 fragments which contain
actual citations or summaries.9 This approach is reflected in the
recent Loeb
edition by Bart Ehrman, which contains 16 fragments of direct
quotations (and does not include the Armenian fragments). 10

3. Gospels Tradition

Probably the most widely discussed aspect of Papias' witness is his

testimony concerning written Gospels. It is from him that we first hear
that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic,
and that Mark's is based on the preaching of the apostle Peter. The
use of the word logia, sayings, in the title and fragments has
prompted some to seek a connection with 'Q' or some other
hypothetical source for Jesus' words. But the logia must be essentially,
ifnot strictly, the sayings (or even narratives) Papias knew from the
written Gospels, or a name for the Gospels themselves. I I This is
deduced from near-contemporary sources (Justin, Dial. 17; 2 Clement
13), from the bulk of the remaining Papian fragments,

7. F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen
Quellen bei Irenaeus, Texte und Untersuchungen 46 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), 31 1-12.
8. F. Siegert, 'Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei armenischen Schriftstellern', NTS 27
(1981), 605-14. One ofthe Armenian fragments is a translation of a portion of Andrew
of Caesarea's commentary on Revelation; two are from Vardan Vardapet's thirteenth-
century Explanations of Holy Scripture.
9. K. Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen Vater: Neubearbiteung der Funkschen Ausgabe
(Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1924).
10. B.D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, LCL 2S (Cambridge, Mass. and London:
Harvard University Press, 2003), 92-1 19.
11. H.J. Lawlor, 'Eusebius on Papias', Hermathena 19 (1922), 1 67-222; A.D. Baum,
'Papias als Kommentator evangelischer Ausspriiche Jesu: Erwiigungen zur Art seines
Werkes', NovT 38 (1996), 257-76.
and from HE 3.39. 1 5-16, where the elder speaks of both Mark and
Matthew as containing the logia of the Lord.. These show that Papias
was using at least these two written Gospels (or some early version of
them); and his description of Mark as containing 'the things either
said or done by Christ' shows that these books contained narrative
accounts as well.
In HE 3.39. 1 5-16 Eusebius quotes Papias, who quotes 'the elder'
(probably John the elder), who used to say that Mark wrote down
what he had memorized of Peter's teaching. The elder also gives a
sort of apology for Mark, who did not produce an 'orderly
arrangement' because his writing was based upon the preaching of
Peter, who used to teach as need arose. Mark only made sure not to
omit anything he had heard and not to falsify anything. Matthew by
contrast, he says, did make an 'orderly arrangement' of the logia of
Jesus, in Hebrew (or Aramaic), which each interpreted as best he
could.
These tantalizing bits, precious as they are, have left scholars
with a host of things to puzzle over. Already in the elder's day 'Mark'
had come under some degree of criticism, but by whom, and for
what exactly? And what are we to make of the assertion that
Matthew wrote originally in a
Semitic dialect, 1 2 when scholars today are all but unanimous that
Matthew was originally written in Greek?
And what about Luke and John, not mentioned in HE 3.39. 1 5-
16? Did Papias say nothing about these or any other Gospels? This
would be unlikely, as some of the fragments and traditions of the
elders appear to reflect knowledge of John, in particular, I3 but also
Luke (LHH, fro 24). tfurthermore, ancient authors who knew Papias'
words about Mark and Matthew also speak in similar strains about
Luke and John (but no other Gospels), which could suggest that they
were indebted to Papias regarding these too. A satisfying resolution of
this problem may be achieved if we recognize that Eusebius did not
give Papias' tradition about John in
3.39. 1 5-16 because he had already given it some chapters earlier, in
3.24.5- 13, though without mentioning Papias' name. I have recently
argued that this passage contains Eusebius' paraphrase of Papias'
tradition about John
(and to a lesser degree, Luke, in 3.24. 1 4-1 6), preserving much of
Papias' original vocabulary. 14 Both passages (3.24.5-16 on John
and Luke and
3.39. 1 5-16 on Mark and Matthew) discuss several common topics,
including (i) that each Gospel had its origin in the preaching of one
or more of the apostles of Jesus, (ii) that the Evangelists wrote at the
request

12. J. Kiirzinger, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments
(Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1983), interprets this as Semitic 'style'.
13. Cf. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 79-87.
 14. C.E. Hill, 'What Papias Said About John (and Luke): A "New" Papian Fragment',
JTS n.s. 49 (1998); C.E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004), 385-94, 409-16.
of others, (iii) a form of the word 'remember' (cf. John 14.26) to
describe these Gospels as firsthand reports of the Lord's disciples,
(iv) a concern for the 'order' or 'arrangement' of their contents, and (v)
the attempt to find an 'endorsement' for each Gospel from another
accepted, apostolic source. Recognizing these passages as 'new'
Papian material would also enable us to explain much of the tradition
concerning the four Gospels in later writers who are known to have
used Papias' work.
All of this would mean not only that these four Gospels were
known to the elder at around the turn of the second century, but
that they were already becoming or had become textual authorities,
held to be the direct or indirect preaching of Jesus' eyewitness
disciples. tfairly sophisticated efforts were already being made at
that time to account for their origins, expound their meaning, and
deal with some of the difficulties they posed.

4. Papias and Other New Testament writings

Papias, then, is an extremely early witness to the interested and in

some sense authoritative use of certain new books in the Church.
Most probably these included Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1 Peter, I
John, Revelation and, though this is disputed, Acts. In none of the
earliest fragments is there a mention of Paul or a clear allusion to
anything he wrote, and this has led some to conclude that Papias
held the apostle to the Gentiles in disrepute. Yet a recently published
Armenian fragment from Andrew of Caesarea and two of the elders'
traditions do contain Pauline allusions. Papias' book was concerned
foremost with sayings (and acts) of the Lord, not with apostolic
writings as such. Even his references to I Peter and I John (only
reported, not excerpted, by Eusebius) evidently were only used to
support the interpretation or the authenticity of the Gospels. Any
Pauline references therefore would most likely have been illustrative
or corroborative.

5. Papias and Oral Tradition

Perhaps the single most quoted line from Papias is his comment, 'for I
did not think that information from books would profit me as much
as information from a living and abiding voice' (HE 3.39.4; for the
context see the quotation in sect. 1 above). This seems to reflect a
common and proverbial preference for oral instruction from qualified
teachers over what can be derived solely from books. IS The contrast
should not be seen

15. L. Alexander, 'The Living Voice: Scepticism towards the Written Word in Early
Christian and in Graeco-Roman Texts', in D.l.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl and S.E. Porter (eds),
The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years ofBiblical Studies in
the University of Sheffield, lSOTSup 87 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1 990), 221-
47.
as a blanket disparagement of books, or what would be the sense of
adding five more to the world? Nor does it make sense to interpret
them, as some have done, as a swipe at the written Gospels. Such
Gospel books
were, after all, the chief if not exclusive source of 'the Lord's logia'
for him, 16 and a negative attitude towards them does not square
with the
interest expressed in the traditions he gives about them. The 'books'
here being contrasted to the living and abiding voice are clearly an
alternative
to the tradition he recorded, both apparently intended in some way
to expound the logia.
17
In this light, it is even possible that Papias' words had something to
do with the curiously similar reports about one of his contemporaries,
the 'Gnostic' Basilides, active in Alexandria, according to Clement of
Alexandria (Strom. 7.1 06.4), during the reign of Hadrian (1 1 7-38).
Agrippa Castor reported that Basilides wrote 24 books 'on the Gospel'
(Eusebius, HE 4.7.7). Papias wrote five books on ' the Lord's oracles'.
The titles, too, are similar, the work of Papias being called Exposition [or
Exegesis] of the Dominical Logia (AOYIWV KUPIOKWV 'e��YTIO\S), that
of Basilides going under the title Exegetica (Strom. 4.8 1. 1), possibly
Exegetica concerning the Gospel (e�T)YTITIKCx mpl TaU eUOyyeAIOU).
Another one of Clement's sources tells us that Basilides claimed he got
his Gospel tradition from a man named Glaucias, who is said to have
been Peter's interpreter (ep�T)VEO, Strom. 7.106.4). This sounds like a
counter to the elder's tradition that Mark the author of the Gospel was
the interpreter (ep �T)veu� s) of Peter. These aspects of Basilides'
work might
well have been a response to that of Papias. 18 Yet we cannot be
quite sure that the dependence was not the other way around. The
claim about Glaucias may indeed have been developed in antithesis
to the one which
accompanied Mark, 1 9 but Basilides need not have learned of the Markan
tradition from Papias. Since Papias learned it from the elder, this
tradition about Mark goes back at least another generation, to about
the end of the first century if not earlier. It is likely that already in
the first century this tradition accompanied Mark's Gospel to
Alexandria, where Basilides could have known it well before Papias
wrote. It would then be possible to suppose that Papias, writing
perhaps around 1 20-5, when contrasting the traditions he had
collected on the words and deeds of Jesus to what could

16. As W.R. Schoedel notes, 'he clearly is also well disposed to his written sources':
'Papias', in ADD, vol. 5, 141.
17. J.B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London and New
York: Macmillan, 1893), 60; Hill, 'What Papias Said', 623-4.
18. See M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel ofJesus Chris: An Investigation
of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. tr. by J. Bowden (Harrisburg, Pa.:
Trinity Press International, 2000), 58.
 19. So also M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, tr. by J. Bowden (London: SCM
Press, 1985), 153 n. 64, 167 n. 46.
 The Fragments of Papias

be gained 'from books', criticizing at the same time those who 'have
a great deal to say', and who 'recall the commandments of others',
is alluding to the likes of Basilides' 24 books on the Gospel, based
partly on the alleged tradition from Glaucias. The coincidences are
certainly suggestive, but so much remains unknown that this
explanation too must remain a conjecture.

6. Papias and Eschatology

Some of the traditions attributed to Papias are of an eschatological

nature. There are two quotations of Papias and one statement about
him in Andrew of Caesarea's commentary on Revelation (LHH, frs 10,
11 , 24, the last of these among the newly recovered Armenian
fragments). These comments are a bit out of character with the rest of
the fragments in two respects. First, they appear to be substantive
comments of Papias himself, not traditions of others reported by him.
Second, they appear to be comments based upon Rev. 12.7-9, the
account of the war in heaven and the defeat of the Dragon and his
hosts, not on Gospel-like acts or sayings of Jesus (though the citation of
Luke 1 0.18 in the midst of the preserved comments may indicate a
Gospel source).
Other eschatological traditions recorded by Papias show that at
least some Christians of Asia Minor in his day maintained significant
contact with Jewish apocalyptic ideas. The best known of these is a
long saying passed down by Irenaeus about the marvellous fecundity
of nature and peacefulness in the natural order during the coming
earthly kingdom (LHH, fr. 1 4). The saying predicts a time when
every vine will produce ten thousand shoots, every shoot ten
thousand branches, every branch ten thousand twigs, etc., with each
individual grape yielding 25 measures of wine. Irenaeus tells us he
read the saying in Papias' book; Papias attributed it to certain
'elders' who allegedly heard it from 'John, the
disciple of the Lord', who in turn attributed it to Jesus himself. Yet
today, all seem to agree that this chain of tradition breaks down at
some point, 20
for the quotation does not resemble anything attributed to Jesus in any
of the Gospels. What it does resemble, and very closely, is a passage
from the Jewish apocalypse 2 (Syriac) BARUCH, where the saying
about nature's bounty in the kingdom appears as a prophecy given to
Baruch, the scribe of the prophet Jeremiah (2 Bar. 29.5-6). Another
point the Papian fragment has in common with Jewish apocalyptic
eschatology is in the answer Jesus gives to Judas, who asks,
incredulous, how such growth could be accomplished by the Lord.
Jesus is said to have responded,

20. Most likely, with the unnamed 'elders', whose persons or stories were not properly
vetted.
5 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

'Those who live until those times will see.' This sounds like the view of 4
EZRA (7.28; 1 3.24), in which the Messiah's kingdom is 'seen' only by the
last generation of humans, who 'live until those times'. By contrast, the
'millennial reign' of Christ with his saints in the Christian
apocalypse written by John (Rev. 20. 1-10) is explicitly for those who
have already 'died' and 'come to life' as partakers in 'the first
resurrection'.
Then there is a tradition about Paradise which Irenaeus attributes to
certain elders, probably through the medium of Papias (LHH, tradn 2).
According to them, Paradise during the present age is the dwelling place
only of those few men who had been preserved from death and
translated bodily thereto? ! This view of Paradise, too, like the
previous saying recorded by Papias, has much more in common with the
views of 2 BARUCH
and 4 EZRA than with Revelation, 22 or with Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 12.3), or with
anything said by Jesus in the Gospels (cf. Luke 23.43).
Thus Papias' millennial traditions in particular would seem to signify
the presence in Asia Minor in his day of Jewish converts23 who
carried over eschatological ideas from nationalistic apocalypses and
perhaps from
the synagogues?4 Possibly, however, these 'elders' were not Jewish in
origin but were closely engaged in Jewish-Christian dialogue and
debate. As we see more clearly in Justin, one approach of Christians
involved in such dialogues (whether Jewish or Gentile) was to claim
and adapt as much of Judaism as possible for Christianity, in this
case including the expectation of a glorious messianic kingdom on
earth. That such hopes were prominent among Diaspora Jews in
Papias' day is evidenced not only in the apocalypses mentioned
above, but also in the Jewish insurrections which broke out, first in
Cyrene in 115 CE, then elsewhere in the immediately ensuing years
and then, climactically, in the Bar Cochba revolt in Palestine in 132.
The stinger for those Christians who sought to adapt this eschatology
was therefore not a denial of the coming kingdom but the claim that
the people chosen to populate it, alongside the risen patriarchs and
prophets, would not be Jews but Christians, the spiritual seed of
Abraham (cf. Justin, Dial. 80. 1; 135; Irenaeus, AH

21. See C.E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in the Early Church
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 200 1), 22-3.
22. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 227-35; cf. Kartner, Papias von Hierapolis, 1 04.
23. Some have suggested that Papias himselfwas a Jew. See e.g. A.C. Perumalil, 'Are
Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?', ExpT 91 (1 980), 335.
24. Cf. also the exegetical 'midrash' involving the 'many mansions' of John 14.2, the
parable of the sower (Matt. 13.3-23), the parable of the marriage feast (Matt. 22. 1-14),
and I Cor. 15.25 preserved in one of Irenaeus' traditions of the elders (LHH, tradn 5), in
which the hundred-, sixty-, and thirty-fold fruit of Matt. 13 .8, 23 are said to represent
heaven, Paradise, and the city as eschatological abodes of the saints. This
eschatological 'midrash', however, while it shows the influence of Jewish exegetical
techniques (see Hill, The Johannine Corpus, 407-9), is not necessarily chiliastic.
 The Fragments of Papias 51

5.32.2). Whether ethnically Jewish themselves or not, the

originators of these eschatological traditions repeated by Papias
reflect a situation in which contemporary Jewish views continued to
exercise an influence on the development of Christian eschatology.

7. Conclusion

Is Papias of Hierapolis then Dr Jekyll - a responsible guide, exuding

qualities which inspire implicit trust, or is he a Mr Hyde - a gullible
addict of rumour and legend, in whom 'everything is sinking back
,
into the flood
of chaotic tradition ?25 The answer, of course, is that he is neither. Both
his traditions and his commentary should be scrutinized with care. Close
attention has to be paid to the historical and literary contexts, great parts
of which we often lack, not only of the fragments themselves but also of
the secondary authors who preserve them. But while the historical value
of his traditions is uneven and their interpretation seldom
straightforward, Papias of Hierapolis will remain a key figure in
the study of early Christianity. tfor despite all the enigmas, this early
Asian bishop still puts us in touch with a generation of Christians -
actually two - about whom far too little is known. The information he
passes on from 'the elder' about Gospel origins has a permanent
place among the ins TRUMENTA STUDIORUM of both Church and academy.
And the few samples of New Testament exegetical traditions
recoverable in his fragments are still among the earliest we have.
Any new discoveries of fragments (or convincing new interpretations
of old ones) would hold great potential for enhancing our understanding
of Christianity in this critical time and place.

25. von Campenhausen, tfhe Formation of the Christian Bible, 1 34; in full, 'In Papias
everything is sinking back into the flood of chaotic tradition, whether written or oral, which
despite his alleged sifting is at most only a little restricted by his own theological judgment,
and is mostly in practice uncontrollable, bursting all banks and defences and spreading far
and wide'.
 Chapter 6

THE ApOLOG Y OF Q UADRA TUS

Paul Foster

Of all the writings discussed in this book, the Apology of QUADRATUS is

the only one for which the complete extant text will be provided. The
reason for this is simple. Only one small quotation of this apology is
preserved, in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea. The place of
QUADRATUS among the writings known as the Apostolic tfathers is
somewhat contentious. Although the matter is not explicitly discussed,
many editions of these texts simply omit the fragment. The original
Loeb edition, produced by
Kirsopp Lake, does not include QUADRATUS, although it also omits
the fragments of Papias. 1 Similarly, the Lightfoot edition, most
conveniently available in the revised form edited by Michael Holmes,
omits this text as
a separate entry2 (while it includes the Papias fragments3). The
text, however, is printed in the revised Bihlmeyer version,4 and the
new Loeb
edition, edited by Bart Ehrman.5 Yet, both in terms of the text's claims to
antiquity and its generic similarities to the Epistle to DiognETUS, it has at
least equal claim to inclusion in comparison to some of the other
writings in the admittedly artificial corpus that has become known as the
Apostolic tfathers.

I. K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols, LCL 24 and 25 (Cambridge, Mass. and
London: Harvard University Press, 1912, 1913).
2. Holmes discusses Quadratus in relation to the question of the authorship of the Epistle
to Diognetus: M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations,
2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 529--30.
3. The discussion relating to the fragments of Papias is contained in Holmes, The
Apostolic Fathers, 556-95.
4. A. Lindemann and H. Paulsen, Die Apostolischen Vater: Griechisch-deutsche
Parallelausgabe (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1 992); see 302-3.
5. B.D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, LCL 25 (Cambridge, Mass. and London:
Harvard University Press, 2003), 86-91, 1 18-19.
 The Apology of Quadratus 53

1. The Text

The fragment of the Apology of QUADRATUS has no independent

extant manuscript tradition outside that represented by copies of
Eusebius of
Caesarea's Historia Ecclesiastica, where it is cited in 4.3. The textual
history of the Historia Ecclesiastica is itself extremely complicated,
with the primary manuscripts falling into two main groups. 6 Among
the Greek
manuscripts even the earliest, Codex Laurentianus (E), is dated to the
tenth century. tfortunately, none of these textual problems, especially the
divergences between the two major manuscript groupings, appears
to impinge greatly on the QUADRATUS citation. In addition to quoting a
short extract from the apology, Eusebius also provides some
interesting background about QUADRATUS, such as the date of
composition, the intended addressee, and the purpose of the writing.
The brevity of the description and the citation mean that it can be given
in full:

When Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Aelius Hadrian
succeeded to the sovereignty. To him Quadratus addressed and
delivered a writing in which he set forth a defence of our religion,
since some wicked men were attempting to cause a disturbance in our
affairs. It is still in circulation among most of our brothers; we have a
copy ourselves, from which one can see clear signs of his intelligence
and apostolic orthodoxy. He shows his early date by what he reveals in
his own utterances:
But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were
true - those who were healed, those who were raised from the
dead, who were not only seen when healed and raised, but were
always present - and not just while the Saviour was here, but
even when he had gone they remained for a long time, so that
some of them survived even to our own time.
Such a person was he. Also Aristides, a man of faith and committed to
our religion, like Quadratus left an apology, on behalf of the faith,
addressed to Hadrian. His writing, too, is still preserved among most
people. (HE 4.3)

Although details are lacking, if the dating described by Eusebius

is accurate, the text provides a glimpse into the intellectual thought-
world of Christianity during the second or third decade of the second
century. In the face of growing opposition to Christianity, which
characterized the new religion as morally depraved, socially destabilizing
and intellectually discredited, the response was robust, portraying the
new movement as superior to other religions or philosophical schools of
thought. QUADRATUS, like a number of other apologies, was
unashamedly addressed to the

6. See K. Lake (ed.), Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Books I-V, LCL 153 (Cambridge,
Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1 926), pp. xxvii-xxx.
54 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
supreme political authority, the emperor himself, although it may be
doubted whether the holder of the imperial office ever read the
treatise.

2. Date and Setting for the Apology

Eusebius states that the apology composed by Quadratus was

written during the reign of Hadrian. In fact the opening reference in
the passage to Trajan may appear to be no more than an extraneous
detail, until it is read in the wider context of Book 4 of the Historia
Ecclesiastica. The previous two chapters describe events that took
place during the reign of Trajan (98-1 17 CE). One event in particular
is described in detail: the rebellion of Diaspora Jews. This sedition
appears to have had its origins in Alexandria and Cyrene, but the
ramifications were felt as far away as Mesopotamia. Eusebius
describes this revolt as starting 'in the course of the eighteenth year'
(HE 4.2. 1) of the Trajanic reign, i.e. 1 1 5 CEo Griffin notes the
geographical scope of the uprising when she comments, 'tfailing in
health, Trajan sent Lucius Quietus to Judaea to put down a Jewish
revolt that had started under a messianic leader in Cyrene and
spread to
Cyprus, to Palestine and to the new province of Mesopotamia.' 7 The
rebellion was protracted, especially since it had multiple epicentres,
and was finally suppressed during the final year of Trajan's reign, 11
7 CEo
Apart from the account of the revolt provided by Eusebius, another
brief description is found in the epitome of Dio, although Goodman
notes the somewhat divergent features in these accounts.8 It is
claimed by Dio that Jews killed up to 220,000 Greeks and Romans in
Cyrene and a further 240,000 in Cyprus. Bennett's comments on these
figures appear sensible: 'While the alleged atrocities are likely to be
grossly exaggerated, as is usual in such cases, some measure of the
seriousness that Trajan attached to the matter was his dispatch of
Marcius Turbo to (probably) Alexandria to
help subdue the disturbances.' 9 Thus, having mentioned the final
significant religio-political event that occurred during the Trajanic period,
Eusebius continues his history of the Church by describing events of
relevance to Christianity that happened at the beginning of
Hadrian's imperial office. The first of these is the production of the
apology written by Quadratus, which was presented to the emperor
(HE 4.3. l).
Immediately after relating this description concerning the Apology
of QUADRATUS, Eusebius describes the death of Alexander the bishop of
Rome

7. M. Griffin, 'Nerva to Hadrian', in A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone (eds),

The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn, vol. 1 1 , The High Empire, A.D. 70-192
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 125.
8. M.D. Goodman, 'Judaea', in Bowman, Garnsey and Rathbone (eds), The High
Empire, A.D. 70-192, 669-7 1.
9. J. Bennett, Trajan: Optimus Princeps (London: Routledge, 1997), 20 1.
 The Apology of Quadratus

in the third year of Hadrian's reign, i.e. 1 20 CE (HE 4.4). Assuming the
events are described in chronological order (which is indeed the general
pattern of Eusebius' work), this would appear to imply a date for
the composition of the apology after the accession of Hadrian in 1 1 7 CE,
but prior to the death of Alexander in 1 20 CEo The issue of dating,
however, is not this simple. In another work by Eusebius, his Chronicon,
it is stated that Quadratus addressed a discourse to Hadrian containing
an apology, during a visit which the emperor made to Athens in 1 24 or
125 CEo There appears to be no decisive way to arbitrate between these
two competing dates, apart from an assessment of the relative
chronological accuracy of the two works. The few scholars who refer to
QUADRATUS opt for the later date, but there is no discussion of the
alternative possibility of a date in the earlier range of 1 1 7-20 CEo
Perhaps it is best to conclude that either set of dates is possible.
tfurthermore, while the Historia Ecclesiastica gives no clue to the
geographical locale in which the apology was composed, the
Chronicon links the composition with Athens (Chron., ad ann. Abrah.
204 1). The tradition that associates Quadratus with Athens is taken
up and expanded by Jerome, who makes reference to Quadratus on
two occasions (De Vir.
3. 19; Ep. 70, ad MagnUM). The account in De Viris IllUSTRIBUS is the fullest:
Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, after Publius bishop of Athens had
been crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith in Christ, was
substituted in his place, and by his faith and industry gathered the
church scattered by reason of its great fear. And when Hadrian passed
the winter at Athens to witness the Eleusinian mysteries and was
initiated into almost all the sacred mysteries of Greece, those who hated
the Christians took opportunity without instructions from the Emperor
to harass the believers. At this time he presented to Hadrian a work
composed on behalf of our religion, indispensable, full of sound
argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching. In which,
illustrating the antiquity of his period, he says that he has seen many
who, oppressed by various ills, were healed by the Lord in Judea as well
as some who had been raised from the dead.
The identification of Quadratus the apologist with Quadratus the
Bishop of Athens, who held office around 180 CE, appears to be
erroneous on chronological grounds. 1O Notwithstanding the opinion,
expressed in The

10. Even this dating appears to be extremely generous. The official succession lists of the
Greek Orthodox Church in Athens seem to acknowledge a lacuna in the list between Publius
(161-80 CE) and Quadratus, whose date is listed simply as 'about 200': see 'The Bishops of
Athens', available on the Archdiocese of Athens website (at <www.ecclesia.gr/English/
EnArchdiocese/EnArchdiocese_bishops.html» . It presents Quadratus as the sixth named
person on the list, although there are obvious gaps at a number of points. If the date of 200
CE correctly indicates that bishop Quadratus was in office at this point, his identification with
the apologist would make him at least one hundred years old.
56 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian CHURCH , that 'there is also perhaps

no compelling reason for rejecting his identification with the Bp. of
11
Athens', precisely the opposite seems to be the case. It may appear to
be possible to force the data to cohere by assuming that the apology was
written around
125 CE, when Quadratus was young, perhaps in his twenties, and
exhibiting a precocious talent. Then, approximately 55 years later,
when Quadratus may have been an octogenarian, he ascended to the
bishopric. However, this fails to take into consideration the fact that
the most natural way to read Jerome's account is to assume that the
apology was composed subsequent to Quadratus being installed in the
episcopal office. Hence, it seems that Jerome has incorrectly conflated
traditions about two separate figures named Quadratus, one an
apologist, the other a bishop of Athens. Thus it is best to reject the
tradition provided by Jerome that Quadratus, the writer of the
treatise addressed to Hadrian, also held episcopal office in Athens
towards the end of the second century.
More productive is consideration of the social and political climate
in which Quadratus wrote, at some stage during the first decade of
Hadrian's reign. The proconsul of Asia, Licinius Silvanus Granianus,
consulted Hadrian concerning imperial policy in relation to those
practising the Christian faith. The surviving version of the emperor's
reply (by the time it was composed it was addressed to Granianus'
successor, Minicus tfundanus) counsels that Christians could only be
prosecuted for specific crimes and not for confession of being
Christians alone. The problem in determining whether this is an
accurate version of the imperial corres pondence revolves around the
fact that the text of the edict is preserved only through Eusebius'
Historia Ecclesiastica. As Birley comments, 'It looks like Christians
may have "adapted" his rescript: other evidence
indicates that there was no change in the practice followed by Pliny
,
and confirmed by Trajan. 1 2 The general imperial policy that was in
force
during the first half of the second century appears to have held sway
during Hadrian's reign: Christians were not to be actively sought out
for persecution; if, however, they confessed their faith to the
authorities, or were denounced as Christians, they were required to
sacrifice to the emperor to gain immunity from punishment or
persecution. Practice differed from province to province, with some
officials adopting a particularly lax attitude, while others were more
rigorous in the suppression of Christianity. During this partially
tolerant era, Christians were able to begin developing intellectual
arguments in order to support the validity of their faith. The work of
the apologists had twin aims: to

II. 'Quadratus, St', in tf.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church, 3rd rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1363.
12. A.R. Birley, Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (London: Routledge, 1997), 127.
 demonstrate that the claims of Christianity were legitimate, and also
that the religion was not a threat to the social fabric of the empire.

3. The Argument given by Quadratus

The single argument that is preserved in the QUADRATUS fragment revolves

around establishing the veracity of the miracle tradition associated with
the ministry of Jesus. The testimony that is invoked is the survival of
those who had received healing from the period when Jesus was alive
until what Quadratus describes as 'our own time'. The verbal aspect of
the entire description implies that such survivors from the time of Jesus
had died by the time of the composition of the apology. However, there
were people among the current generation of Christians who could
remember those who claimed to have received dominical healing. Such
a conclusion is suggested by the phrasing which Quadratus uses. This
states that those healed 'were always present', employing the imperfect
tense to imply a continual state in the past. Thus, ultimately what
Quadratus presents as confirming the truth of the claim that Jesus was a
true miracle-worker is first-hand testimony presented over many years
by the recipients of healing, although in Quadratus' own
contemporary setting this has become second-hand testimony,
mediated through those who knew the earlier generation. .
Interestingly, this 'chain of tradition' argument also surfaces in
the fragments of the writings of Papias, who wrote during the period
roughly contemporaneous with QUADRATUS. In a fragment preserved in
the writings of Eusebius, Papias comments on his practice of consulting
visitors who had been companions of the elders, to learn what
'
those travelling Christians remembered of the words of the
foundational figures of the faith. Thus Papias states,
But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the
elders, I would carefully enquire after their words, what Andrew or
Peter had said, or what Philip or Thomas had said, or James or John or
Matthew, or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things
Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did
not suppose that things that came out of books would benefit me as
much as that which came from a living and abiding voice. (HE 3.39.4)

In addition to general similarities with QUADRATUS in advocating 'a chain

of tradition', Papias, also in common with QUADRATUS, places much
weight on the value of the testimony of living witnesses. 13
Another possible purpose of the argument contained in the QUADRATUS

13. For a fuller treatment of the issues surrounding this fragment of Papias, see Chapter
5 above.
fragment, suggested by Otto, 1 4 is that it was an attempt to respond
to claims of performing healings and miracles made by groups
labelled heretical by their opponents. As an example of a similar
argument, Otto cites Irenaeus' response to the miracles performed
by the Carpocratians
and the followers of Simon Magus (who became the eponymous
arch heretic in much early Christian literature). 1 5 The contrast is
drawn
between the enduring quality of true and abiding miracles performed
by genuine followers of Jesus, and the false and fleeting tricks that
opponents attempted to pass off as miracles:
And if they [i.e. Carpocratians and the followers of Simon] have in
truth accomplished anything by means of magic, they strive
deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real
benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert
power; but, bringing forward mere boys, and deceiving their sight,
while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure
even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our
Lord, but Simon the magician. It is certain, too, from the fact that the
Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to
His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven, that,
inasmuch as these men die, and do not rise again, nor manifest
themselves to any, they are proved as possessing souls in no respect
similar to that of Jesus. (AH 2.32.3)

Thus for Otto, the rhetoric in QUadraTUS, which both describes

'some wicked men who were attempting to cause a disturbance in our
affairs' and affirms that 'the works of our Saviour were always present,
for they were true', is responding to the same problem that Irenaeus
tackles more explicitly. That is, it refutes the opponents' miracles as
ephemeral and illusory, while the works of Jesus have a permanence
which is unmatched. There are a number of problems with this
argument. tfirst, if, as Eusebius informs his readers, the work was
an apology addressed to Hadrian, it is a little strange that Quadratus
describes an internal dispute. Secondly, the identity of the 'wicked men'
can just as easily be understood as being either Jewish or pagan
opponents of Christianity. Thirdly, unlike Irenaeus, Quadratus does not
use labels such as 'Carpocratian' or 'Simon Magus' . This may be because
the tormentors were in fact Roman officials, and in addressing the
emperor Quadratus preferred some indefinite description rather than
directly accusing Roman administrators of being
'wicked' in their persecution of Christians.
Grant speculates that the argument presented by Quadratus was
not deemed persuasive, for it is not employed by later apologists or
other Christian writers. He states, 'It is unlikely that Quadratus'
apology enjoyed any success, for its theme is not repeated by later
apologists of the

14. J.C.T. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, vol. 9 (Jena: Mauke, 1872), 333--41.
15. See Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, vol. 9 , 339--40 .
 ,
2nd century. 1 6 This reasoning may not be entirely cogent. First,
the vagaries of manuscript survival, especially extra-canonical Christian
texts that may have circulated in the first half of the second century,
means that such arguments from silence are dubious. Secondly, the
argument presented in QUADRATUS is predicated on a short chain of
tradition, and with the passing of time the reasoning cannot be
presented as successfully. Thirdly, Irenaeus describes the ongoing
practice of healings in some sections of the Christian church as
evidence of the power of the faith (AH
2.3 1 .2, 2.32.4), which demonstrates the ongoing use of the
miracle tradition for apologetic purposes. Moreover, while this single
argument may not have resurfaced in extant works in a particularly
visible manner, it is impossible to judge whether the presumably
more extensive non extant portions of Quadratus' apology shaped
the subsequent thinking of later apologists. Hence, it appears that
nothing can be concluded concerning the success, or otherwise, of
the writing of this Christian apologist.

4. Quadratus Among the Apologists

Quadratus is often described as the 'earliest known Christian apologist'
17 or 'the first of the Christian apologists' . 18 Such a description
may not be entirely accurate, and it may be better to describe
Quadratus as a
representative of the first stage in the apologist tradition. After providing
the citation from the Apology of QUADRATUS Eusebius continues
by mentioning Aristides, who, like Quadratus, also presented an apology
to Hadrian. While Eusebius mentions Aristides after Quadratus, their
close proximity in the account means they cannot be separated
chronologically. In addition Jerome, though perhaps dependent upon
Eusebius, provides further evidence for seeing the two men as
contemporaries. He writes,

Aristides, a most eloquent Athenian philosopher, and a disciple of

Christ while yet retaining his philosopher's garb, presented a work to
Hadrian at the same time that Quadratus presented his. The work
contained a systematic statement of our doctrine, that is, an Apology
for the Christians, which is still extant and is regarded by philologians
as a monument to his genius. (De Vir. 3.20)

Unlike the work of Quadratus, which has been lost apart from the
single short quotation preserved in the Historia Ecc/esiastica, there are
a number of manuscripts or fragments of the Apology of Aristides.
These

16. R.M. Grant, 'Quadratus', in ABD, vol. 5, 583.

17. Grant, 'Quadratus', 582.
18. P.J. Healy, 'Quadratus', in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12 (New York: Robert
Appleton, 191 1), available at <www.newadvent.org/cathen/1 2589b.htm> .
consist of two fourth-century Greek papyrus fragments discovered at
Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 1778); 19 an Armenian fragment published in
1878
by the Mechitarists of Venice; and a complete copy of a seventh-
century Syriac version of the apology discovered in the monastery of
St Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1889 by Rendell Harris?O Once the
Syriac text had
been discovered, J.A. Robinson realized that most of the Apology
of Aristides had been preserved as part of the Greek novel
Barlaam and Josaphat, attributed to John of Damascus? 1 It is
impossible to fathom any legitimate criterion that includes
QUADRATUS in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers (although
admittedly it is on the periphery of that collection), but excludes
Aristides.
As an aside, it should be stated that the dating of both QUADRATUS and
Aristides has been questioned by Birley. He notes the tendency of
Eusebius to confuse the names of the Antonines, because of the overlap
in nomenclature. He comments, 'Quadratus and Aristides are assigned
to Hadrian's reign by Eusebius who states they addressed that emperor
(HE 4.3.3); but he may have confused Hadrian with Pius (who
included
Hadrian's names in his full style).'22 In support of Birley's thesis, it can be
observed that the Syriac version of Aristides is addressed to Antoninus
(Pius), but it remains speculation to suggest that QUADRATUS was likewise
addressed to Pius. For, unlike the Apology of Aristides, Eusebius
actually claims to have seen and read the work produced by Quadratus.
Another
speculative proposal is that Quadratus was the author of the Epistle to
DiogNETUS. 23 Three factors tell against accepting this identification. First,
there is no overlap between the fragment preserved in HE 4.3
and
DiogneTUS; secondly, whereas the former was addressed to Hadrian
(according to Eusebius), the latter is directed to Diognetus; and thirdly,
there is no significant similarity in stylistic features to suggest that the
same author is at work in both documents.
While QUADRATUS and Aristides may be viewed as the first flowering of
the apologist movement, the pattern developed in their works continued
throughout the second century. This consisted of presenting a reasoned

19. A.S. Hunt (ed.), Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, pt 15 (London: Egypt Exploration Society,
1924). For photographs of the fragments see: <www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy> .
20. For further discussion of the discovery of the Greek fragments and their bearing on
the Syriac tradition, see I.R. Harris and I.A. Robinson, The Apology of Aristides, Texts and
Studies 1/1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893); recently republ. as I.R. Harris
and I.A. Robinson, The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the Christians, Text and Studies,
First Series, vol. I, no. I (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004).
21. Again, see Harris and Robinson, 'Preface' to The Apology of Aristides, n.p.
22. A.R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius: A Biography, 2nd edn (London: Batsford, 1987; repr.
London: Routledge, 2000), 258.
 23. See 'Quadratus', in Cross and Livingstone (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, 2nd rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 1149.
defence of the Christian faith addressed to those in authority, often
the emperor. The best-known representative among the apologists,
Justin Martyr, principally addressed his First Apology to Hadrian's
successor, Antoninus Pius, although other members of the imperial
household, the
Senate, and the whole people of Rome are included in the super
scription.24 By contrast Tatian, Justin's pupil, addressed his
apology, Oratio ad Graecos, as the name implies, to the Greeks. The
Epistle to
DIOGNETUS, included .among the Apostolic Fathers, is addressed to
an otherwise unknown 'most excellent Diognetus' (Diog. 1 . 1 ). If
this appellation represents a real person, and not just a literary cipher,
then this may be a Roman citizen of equestrian rank?5 Other second-
century
examples of apologetic writing are to be found in the works of
Athenagoras, SUPPlication for the Christians, addressed to the
emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad
A UtolYCUM; and Hermias, The Mockery of Heathen Philosophers. It
is, however, incorrect to confine the work of the apologists strictly
to the second century. The arguments they developed and their
form of writing continued into the third century as an ongoing
attempt to rebut the charges brought against Christianity by its
opponents. Two of the most
significant third-century apologies were the OctaVIUS of Minucius Felix,
and Origen's classic defence, Contra CelSUM. 2
6

5. Conclusion: The Contribution of Quadratus

It would be a mistake to overplay the significance of the single fragment

of text of the Apology of QUADRATUS preserved in the Historia
Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. Like the work of Aristides, it attests the
activity of Christian
apologists as early as the beginning of the reign of Hadrian. The
author, Quadratus, is adjudged to be 'orthodox' by Eusebius?7 The
precise basis

24. The Greek text of Justin's works has recently been re-edited by Miroslav Marcovich,
Iustini Martyris: Apologiae pro Christianis Dialogus cum Tryphone, PTS 38 (Berlin: de
Gruyter, combined edn of the Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho, 2005; the Apologies
volume was originally printed separately in 1994).
25. See H.G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1 949), 92-3, and Chapter 12 below.
26. See H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (repr. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1 965).
27. It is anachronistic to apply the term 'orthodox' to the time of Quadratus: see W.
Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1972). The
term 'proto-orthodox', as coined by Ehrman, is to be preferred as a description of those
who held beliefs during this period which were later viewed as aligning with the emergent
orthodox position of the fourth and fifth centuries. See the discussion in B. Ehrman, The
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect ofEarly Christological Controversies on the
Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), esp. 3-46.
for this assessment is not clear, although such 'orthodoxy' is
described as being apostolic in nature. Eusebius' judgement may
therefore be due to the chain of tradition on which Quadratus himself
places so much weight, which is the measure that Eusebius employs
to deem him orthodox in the sense that his beliefs aligned with those
of the apostles - at least as those beliefs were understood by
Eusebius in the fourth century. Alternatively, Eusebius also praises
the intelligence of Quadratus along with his orthodoxy, so perhaps
the very arguments employed by Quadratus were seen as
establishing his orthodox credentials. Of course these options are not
mutually exclusive, and Eusebius may have viewed them as acting in
concert to establish the soundness of both the person and teaching of
Quadratus.
The citation that Eusebius preserves from the apology is also of
much interest. It represents a form of argument that is not explicitly
taken up by the later Christian apologists, namely that the veracity
of the claim that Jesus was a true worker of miracles was
established by the continuing and abiding testimony of those who
were healed, and that although they were no longer living, their
confession of the miraculous cures of which they were recipients was
remembered by those still alive in Quadratus' day. It is understandable
that the impact of such 'eyewitness' testimony diminished with the
passage of time. However, it is significant that the single extant
fragment of the apology shows how early generations of Christians
may have revered the words of those who had had first-hand
contact with Jesus.
 Chapter 7

The SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

Joseph Verheyden

In many respects the Shepherd of Hermas (SH) is a quite peculiar work

among the writings of the post-apostolic age and much about it
remains debated and puzzling. 1 The work is commonly listed among
the so-called Apostolic Fathers, though one sometimes also finds it
mentioned among the New Testament apocrypha. Its title as given
above is a modern construct. The manuscripts offer various other
titles, shorter (nOIMHN,
i.e. 'Shepherd') and longer ones.

1. The Textual Witnesses and Style of Writing

SH was regarded very highly in the ancient Church. It was first

mentioned by Irenaeus in the West and by Clement of Alexandria in
the East, and it was known to several other ancient authors. At one
time it was even very much in the running for acceptance in the
canon. Originally written in Greek, it was translated into Latin
(twice) early on, and, somewhat later, also into Coptic. The Greek
text had long been thought to be lost. In 1855, however, a fifteenth-
century manuscript was discovered on Mt Athos with an almost
complete version of the work, except for the last chapters (Sim.
9.3 1 .3ff. [ 108-14]). In addition we now also possess a good number of
other witnesses of the Greek text, all partial or even just
fragmentary, and some offering rather variant versions. Most
important among these are the biblical Codex Sinaiticus, which
contains a significant portion of SH (up to Mand. 4.3.6 [3 1 .6]), Papyrus
Michigan 1 29 (Sim. 2.8-9.5. 1 [5 1 .8-
82. 1)), Papyrus Bodmer 38 (the first three Visions), and also ms.
Paris. gr. 1 143, Papyrus Amherst 1 90, fro 7, and Papyrus Oxyrynchus
404, all three

1. In the literature, passages from SH are referred to in two ways, an older one that
distinguishes between the three parts that together constitute the work, and a more
recent one that divides the whole of SH into 1 14 chapters. I use both, with the latter in
square brackets: thus, for example, Vis. 1.3 .1 1 [1 9].
6 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
of which contain fragments of the missing chapters that otherwise
have to be complemented with the Latin?
SH is imbued with symbolism and allegorization. On this there is
broad agreement. But too often SH's interest in symbols and
allegories has played tricks on commentators discussing the usual
introductory ques tions regarding this work, as well as its content
and purpose. For one, SH does not offer any reliable and
straightforward information on when it was composed. The
Muratorian Canon dates the work towards the middle of the second
century. This information has been much debated, but so far no
convincing arguments have been brought against it and plausible
alternative proposals are lacking. Some elements in the text, such
as the references to persecutions and to the way the community is
structured, would point to an earlier date. However, there is no
reason to do away with these elements by 'allegorizing' them. The
picture of a threatened community can equally well be explained as
echoing a recent past, or even, given the scarcity of our information,
the real-life situation of mid-second-century communities, or again,
the way these Christians perceived certain tensions with the outside
world ('persecutions'). Moreover, what SH has to say about
hierarchical structures in the communities was most probably not
meant as a blueprint of Church hierarchy.

2. Setting in the Early Church

The situation is somewhat better with regard to the question of

where the work was composed. SH situates the opening scene in
Rome and refers to places in or near Rome, but once also speaks of
'Arcadia'. The poetic and symbolic use of the latter is massively
documented in ancient literature, and SH is most probably not
different in this respect, but it does not have to mean that the
'Roman' geography is totally imaginary.
The author identifies himself as one Hermas, a freedman. There is
no reason to suspect that the information he provides about himself,
his troublesome family (his wife's 'immoral' behaviour and his
unreliable children), and his ill-fated professional career (he seems
to have been preoccupied too much by his 'business' and yet also to
have gone bankrupt) is wholly untrustworthy, even though he has
clearly picked out only such elements as can help to illustrate one or
another point of his

2. For a more detailed discussion of the manuscript evidence, and the standard
introductory issues of dating and provenance, see the following: N. Brox, Der Hirt des
Hermas, KAV 7 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1991); R. loly, Hermas Ie Pasteur,
SC 53 (Paris: Editions Cerf, 1958, 2nd edn 1968); C. Osiek, Shepherd ofHermas, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999); M. Whittaker, Der Hir! des Hermas, Griechischen
Christlichen Schriftsteller 48 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956, 2nd edn 1967).
 The Shepherd of Hermas 65

argument. Hermas is a Christian, but he does not appear to have

any formal function in the community. As the privileged subject of
visionary experiences, he acts like a kind of prophet, but while he
clearly has great sympathy for persons who have been granted this
charisma, which was rapidly becoming more and more disputed, he
does not refer to himself by that title and he takes care to distinguish
in detail between 'true' and 'false' prophets, the latter speaking
under false pretences and without the support of the Spirit,
something Hermas always avoids by painstakingly describing both
the setting in which he receives his visions and the dialogues he has
with the divine messenger.

3. The Genre and Structure of the Work

The genre and structure of the work are most difficult to establish.
SH contains features of an apocalypse, with Hermas in the role of the
visionary mediating a series of divine messages. On the other hand,
however, SH is not interested in revealing hidden schemes of world
history or in speculating about the sequence of the events
announcing the end-time. Its message rather is about what should
be done in the here and now to prepare oneself for the end. At best
this could be described as apocalyptic procedure in action, but with a
clear-cut focus on the present and serving catechetical and pastoral
purposes.
As for its structure, the work seems to be a composite. SH consists of
three parts of different natures and different extents - five Visions (
Vis.; chs 1-25), ten Commandments or 'Mandates' (Mand. ; chs 26-9),
and twelve Parables or 'Similitudes' (Sim.; chs 50-1 14) - that are only
loosely connected to each other ( Visions 5 serves as a sort of
introduction to Mandates) and partly repetitious and overlapping (see
e.g. Visions 3 and SIMILITUDES 9). This strange combination of
subgenres has made some scholars suspicious about the unity of the
work and has given rise to various quite speculative and contrasting
hypotheses of multiple author ship, none of which have met with much
success. There is no straight forward logic or development in the
treatment of the subject-matter. The author rather likes to take up a
restricted set of topics time and again, looking at them from different
angles and perspectives and introducing slight variations, as a way of
imprinting the message on the audience. Perhaps the best we can come
up with as an explanation for now is that SH was composed by one
author pondering the same questions over and over again over a rather
long time-span, with clearly pastoral concerns. This would account for
both the repetitious and at times somewhat contradictory treatment
of the same material, in part using the same symbols and allegories.
6 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
4. Key Themes and Topics

SH deals with a number of topics, among them the Spirit, community

building, church structures, virtues and vices and the foundations of
ethical behaviour in general, salvation, God and the Son of God, but
also persecution, relations and social tensions between the faithful,
and conversion and/or penance. Most of these are dealt with in
relation to others. In any case it would certainly be wrong to argue
that SH is a systematic treatise on one or more of these topics.
Hermas did not receive any formal theological training and has only a
very limited acquaintance with theological reasoning and
argumentation. It is above all the practical dimension that dominates
his teaching. Clearly not all of these topics are equally important to
him, to judge from the space he gives to each, but it has proven a
most difficult question to find out what are the major points of
interest to Hermas and for what purpose he is tackling these.
Three topics in particular seem to have attracted a great deal of
SH's attention and they have all been mentioned in the literature as
represent ing the core message of the work.

(i) Repentance
Many have said that SH is above all, if perhaps not exclusively,
about repentance - more specifically, about the possibility of
repenting as a Christian. SH speaks repeatedly and at length about
how to be and how to remain a member of the Church, and
especially how to regain
membership of the Church. The Greek word metanoia is a key notion
of its paraenesis3 and much energy is devoted to describing in full
detail the criteria one has to meet to be judged a worthy member of
the community,
be it in the form of ethical instruction in Mandates, or in the more
poetic forms of the stone imagery in Visions 3 and SIMILITUDES 9 or
of other similes from nature that are used throughout SIMILITUDES. There
can be no doubt that metanoia is a central concept of SH.
However, there is a two-fold problem. tfirst, the word has often
been mistakenly understood to refer to a 'discipline of penance'.
Nothing of this sort can be found in SH. It has therefore been argued
to the contrary that metanoia should be taken as referring to an
experience one has to go through as an individual and not some kind
of rite of 'public amendment', and consequently that it should perhaps
best be translated as 'conversion' rather than as 'repentance' or
'penance'. But perhaps this view draws too sharp a distinction
between the (psychological) process of conversion and the formal-
procedural ('canonical') one of returning into the community after
performing an act of repentance. Clearly, SH is not interested in

3. The rhetorical tone adopted by an author or orator when givingexhortation, advice

or counsel to the audience.
 The Shepherd of Hennas 67

spelling out fonnal procedures for confessing sins and being accepted
again by the community leaders and members, but it is equally
obvious that metanoia is not just a matter of personal experience but
of meeting 'objective' criteria. Second, it has been much debated
what precisely SH is arguing for and what this meant for the
community. On at least two occasions it clearly seems to promote
the view that it is possible for one to be forgiven even those sins
committed after baptism into the Church (see Vis. 2.2.4-5 [6]; Mand.
4.3 [3 1]). The fact that this is 'revealed' to Hennas by the
angel/Shepherd, and that he himself at first seems to object to it,
would indicate that this represents a fairly new view on the question
of how to deal with post-baptismal sin. But in what sense is this 'a
new teaching'? It has been taken as a way of propagating lax
attitudes, and SH has understandably been blamed for that by
partisans of more rigorous minded movements, as witnessed by
Tertullian's 'Montanist' critique. Modern scholars have shown more
subtlety, and it has also been argued that SH actually was intent upon
defending a more rigorist position than the one commonly held in
Christian communities, admitting only one such 'conversion' as
acceptable. The latter view has little to recommend itself, in as much
as it faces serious problems trying to explain Tertullian's criticism,
which may well have been correct in pointing out what was really
innovative in Hennas' teaching.

(ii) The CHURCH

A second theme that receives a lot of attention in SH is that of the
Church and what it represents. To capture its essence SH erects a whole
battery of images and allegories. The Church is called the first of
God's creation ( Vis. 2.4. 1 [8]), and it is further likened variously
to a woman and a building. The first image serves above all a didactic
and parenetic, rather than a dogmatic, function in summoning repentant
sinners and making them aware of their true identity as members
of the Church. The symbolism of the woman is developed in Visions in
different ways which single out different aspects. As 'Lady' (Kupia, Vis.
1 . 1 . 5 [ 1 ]), the Church is characterized as authoritative, but the image
also incorporates aspects of the biblical Wisdom tradition. When
depicted as 'an old woman' (rrpEcr�UTepa) , the emphasis instead is
on its decline as a result of the misbehaviour of some of its members
( Vis. 2 . l [5]; 3 . 1 0-1 3 [ 1 8-20]). When described as a virgin
(rrap8evoS", Vis. 4.2. 1 [23]) it is the ethical dimension and the purity of
the community that are stressed. tfinally, the Church is also indirectly
presented as a mother addressing her children ( Vis. 3.9. 1 [ 1 7]), which
puts its pedagogical tasks in the foreground. The symbolism of the
mighty tower, developed in full detail in SIMILITUDES 9, opens up yet
another perspective. The key for correctly understanding this symbolism
within the context of the interest in conversion and remission
68 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
of sins is to be found in Sim. 9 . 1 3. 5 [90] and the image of the
'monolithic' tower. The whole symbolism revolves around the tension
between the real and the ideal. The Church is a project still under
construction. It is a dynamic process of ongoing inspection and
improvement. tfor now the Church may be a CORPUS mixTUM, but the
goal is and should be ultimately to reach perfection. This should not
be acquired, however, simply by throwing away all of the building
material that is judged to be imperfect, but rather by trying to 'save' and
'recuperate' as much as possible in the firm conviction that perhaps not
all of it can be made useful again, but also that under no condition will
'damaged goods' be allowed to remain in use. Behind the imagery one
clearly sees a sincere concern for maintaining and furthering the moral
qualities of the community and of its members, as well as a strong
sentiment of realism which takes seriously the facts as they are.

(iii) Sin and Weakness

A third topic that occupies the author's attention is that of the sins
and weaknesses that threaten the members of the Church. The long
catalogues of advice and warnings that make up Mandates give a fairly
complete overview. This may not be the most inventive section of
the work, though at times the author shows a certain empathy with
the psychology of the 'sinner' and also succeeds in introducing a
personal touch (he is fond of the notion of 'double-mindedness' -

dipsychia which in the New Testament occurs only in James). But the
-

list of opposing qualities of character is not limited to those

mentioned in the Mandates. Two other issues in particular are worth
mentioning because they may give us some insight into the
composition, real-life situation and social network of Roman
communities.

5. Persecution and the Christian Community in Rome

In Vis. 2.2.7 [6] and again in Vis. 2.3.4 [7], 4. 1 . 1 [22], 4.2.4-5 [23] and 4.3.6
[24], SH speaks of 'the great affliction (8AI\jJEIS")' that is to come.
But besides this clearly eschatological perspective Hermas also
knows of community members who have suffered and endured all
kinds of persecutions in the (recent) past. As a result, these
members are granted a privileged status in the community
gatherings ( Vis. 3.1.9 [9]) and in the Church ( Vis. 3. 5.2 [1 3]), and
their suffering is described in more detail in Vis. 3.2. 1 [1 0]. It has
been argued that this does not actually represent the current
situation of the Church at the time of Hermas, because there is no
strong and reliable evidence that Roman Christians were persecuted in
the first decades of the second century. SH alludes instead to the
'collective memory' of the community, recalling the horrible events
under Nero
 The Shepherd of Hennas

which had nearly brought about the end of the newly founded
community in Rome. But perhaps it is not a question of either/or.
There are those who have suffered in the past, but the Church as
Kupia instructs Hennas about their fate so that he too will be given
an opportunity to 'sit at her right hand', which he is still forbidden to
do at present ( Vis. 3. 1. 9 [9]). This suggests the observation that SH
is reckoning with the possibility that Christians will continue to be
threatened while at the same time explaining how they can make
sense of it for the good of the community and the benefit of their
own salvation. What little can be gained in this respect from Roman
literary sources should not lead us astray. One should distinguish
between 'facts' and the perception and assessment of Christians
constantly trying to cope with feelings of insecurity.
My second observation has to do with the social mix of
Roman Christianity according to SH. Hennas is much concerned with
urging the well-to-do members of the community to take up their
responsibilities. A long list of passages could be quoted that deal with
'business' and how to use its gains for the relief of the poorer members.
Among the recurrent themes are that of the rich person who is in
danger of losing out on the more important share because of his wealth
( Vis. 1 . 1 . 8 [1]; 3.9.2- 1 0 [ 1 7]) and that of the rich person needing the
poor for his own salvation, a theme that is developed at length in
SIMILITUDES 2 [5 1-2] through the image of the vine (the rich one) leaning
on the elm tree (the poor). As a matter of fact this appeal to care for the
poor and the destitute is present throughout the work until the very last
chapter, where it is once more expressed in most dramatic language:
Tell everyone who is able to do what is right not to stop practicing good
works; for doing them is useful. But I say that everyone should be
helped out of his misfortunes. For the one who is destitute and suffers
misfortunes in his daily life is in great torment and misery. And so,
whoever helps such a person out of his misery obtains great joy for
himself. For many who experience this kind of calamity, when they
can no longer bear it, take their own lives. And so, whoever knows that
someone like this is suffering calamity and does not help him out of it
has committed a great sin and bears the guilt for his blood. Therefore,
you who have received something from the Lord should do good works;
otherwise the building of the tower may be completed while you delay.
4
(Sim. l0. 4.2� [11 4))

But there is still another way in which Roman Christianity seems

to have been a composite entity. Hermas has no need to reveal or
identify his sources. Only once does he say he is quoting another (
Vis. 2.3.4 [7]: from the otherwise lost apocryphal Book of Eldad and
Modad). But he must

4. Translation from B.D. Ehrman (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, LCL 25
(Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 473.
70 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
have read at least some of Judaism's sacred literature, as he was
most probably also familiar with some of the earliest Christian writings.
Among these may have been one of the Gospels (Matthew) or
possibly more, some letters of Paul, and also the Epistle of James. But it
is very difficult to point to convincing evidence that he actually also
used these writings in composing SH, though in the recent past scholars
may have been all too sceptical. Hermas addresses an audience that is
clearly acquainted with certain doctrines which were widespread in
Jewish milieus, be they matters of anthropology (the word 'flesh' (sarx)
designating the whole person in Sim ILITUDes 5), or more esoteric ones,
such as angelology. But SH also contains a fair number of ideas
and notions that have their closest parallels in various Graeco-
Roman philosophical traditions, both literary (note the almost exact
similarity between the descriptions of vices and virtues in Vis. 3.8 [ 1 6]
and in the so-called 'Tables of Cebes', a document that combines Stoic
with Cynic wisdom) and more popular (e.g. the guardian angel of
Vis. 5.3.4 [25]). It would appear rather improbable that Christianity in
cosmopolitan Rome was still uniformly or even predom inantly of
Jewish stock in at the time of Hermas, if it ever was. But it would
certainly also be too simple an explanation to assign all of the
'pagan' material to the impact of Gentile converts, with Hermas
accommodating both sides. SH cannot be split up into a 'Jewish' and a
'Gentile' part. Elements from various traditions could find expression in
one and the same document and apparently both could be understood
and appreciated by the audience.
Hermas does not link this two-fold form of social diversity of the
communities he addresses in any specific way to the leadership.
Nowhere is it said that wealth is a condition for becoming an 'elder'.
The original background of the leaders - Jewish or Gentile - must
have had some influence on the way they taught and preached, but
the Christian community functioned as a bridge to cross cultural
differences. Hermas can first quote from an obscure Jewish book (
Vis. 2.3.4 [7]) and then in the following lines (2.4. 1 [8]) once more
identify the elderly woman of his visions with the Sibyl, a character
that may have called forth rather different associations among his
Gentile-Christian and Jewish-Christian readers.

6. Conclusions
SH may often be rather too repetitious and verbose for our taste, but
this did not prevent it from becoming quite popular in subsequent
generations of the early Church. One may assume that the rich
imagery and parabolic teaching must also have appealed to its very
first audience. Hermas does not present himself as a leader of any
sort, yet he speaks with divinely
 The Shepherd of Hennas 71

inspired authority. His teaching is rooted in Jewish and Christian

tradition alike, both of which are handled with the freedom that
characterizes the homilist and the prophet. The subjects Hennas
deals with are more diverse than some modern commentators have
been willing to grant. By associating social praxis and salvation he is
fundamentally in line with basic Christian teaching. In calling for
conversion and for endurance, he displays a sense of urgency that
he may have felt was slipping away from the communities he was
addressing. These topics offer us an insight into the life of the
community. As such they also demonstrate that Hennas may
perhaps behave as a prophet, but his aims and intentions are
primarily pastoral.
 Chapter 8

The Epistle of Barnabas

James Carleton Paget

The Epistle ofBarnabas was probably a popular text in the early Church -
its place at the end of the Codex Sinaiticus, between Revelation and
the
Shepherd of Hermas, and its incidental and confident citation by
Clement of Alexandria, 1 Origen,2 Didymus the Blind3 and Jerome,4
together with
its place on the fringes of the canon,5 would suggest as much. And
yet in spite of this evidence of its popularity, to many modern scholars it
appears
a strange and peculiar document. 6 In part this judgement arises
from its somewhat lumbering argumentative style, which makes it very
difficult at
times to follow the author's train of thought. 7 But more particularly
strangeness is associated with the author's singular mode of
interpreting
the Old Testament, especially as this relates to the Jewish law. In a
number of passages, and in what some, but not all, scholars have
perceived as a strongly anti-Jewish manner, the author claims not
only that people should desist from observing the law in a literal way
but that the law should never have been observed in such a way. A
related peculiarity is the author's unscriptural claim that the Jews
lost their covenant as a result of worshipping the golden calf. The
questions of where such ideas came from

I. Strom. 2.6.3 1; 2.7.35; 2. 1 5.67; 2. 1 8.84; 2.20. 11 6; 5.8.51-2; 5.10.63.

2. De Prine. 3.2.4; Cels. 1.63.
3. Did. Zech. 259.21-4; Did. Ps. 300. 1 2-13.
4. Comm. EZEK. 43.19.
5. See Eusebius, HE 3.25. 1 f., where Barnabas is placed in group 3 amongst the spurious
books (notha). But the same author states that Clement of Alexandria placed Barnabas in
group 2 amongst the disputed books (antilegomena). For a discussion of these two categories
and the implication of Barnabas' place in the Sinaitic Codex see J .C. Paget, The Epistle of
Barnabas: Outlook and Background, WUNT 2.64 (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994), 25 1-3.
6. See P. Vielhauer Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (New York and Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1975), who describes Barnabas as 'early Christian literature's strangest document'
(612).
 7. Precisely this lumbering style has suggested to some that Barnabas contains
interpolations. This seems unlikely: see Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 73-8.
 The Epistle of Barnabas 73

and for what purpose the author has used them has elicited much
discussion.

1. The Tex l

A complete version of Barnabas in Greek exists in Codex Sinaiticus �)

and Codex Hierosolymitanus (H), the latter of which also contains the
Didache, 1 and 2 Clement and the longer form of the letters of Ignatius.
A family of manuscripts whose archetype is Codex VaTICANUS GRAECUS
859
(G) contains a version of the epistle running from 5.7 and
immediately following Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. Additional to
these are a papyrus (PSI 757b) containing Barn. 9. 1-6, dated between
the third and the fifth century; a possibly third-century Latin
translation (Codex Petropolitanus, normally referred to as L), where
the epistle appears between Pseudo-Tertullian's De Cibis and the
Epistle of James, and which often witnesses to shorter readings; and
Syriac fragments of verses from
chaps 1, 19 and 20. The major Greek witnesses do not differ greatly
between themselves,9 although there are some significant variants,
to
which we shall have reason to refer below. Indirect witnesses to the
text are found most importantly in Clement of Alexandria and also
Origen, Didymus and Jerome. The first version of the text (in Latin)
was produced by James Ussher but it was destroyed by a fire in
Oxford in 1 644, and the editio princeps appeared a year later in 1 645.
A Greek version of the text only appeared more than 200 years later
when Tischendorf published the Codex Sinaiticus (1862) and then, 13
years later, when Bryennios published the Codex Hierosolymitanus
(1875).

2. Authorship, Date and Provenance

Clement of Alexandria, the earliest author to cite Barnabas, attributes

the epistle to Paul's companion, the apostle Barnabas. ! O This
attribution is explicitly found in some manuscripts! ! and later
authors. 1 2 Most would

8. For the fullest discussions of the question of the text of Barnabas see P. Prigent and
R.A. Kraft, L'Epftre de Barnabe, SC 1 72 (Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1971 ), 49-<i6, and F.R.
Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief, KAV 8 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999), 1 1-
62.
9. � and H usually agree with each other against G, which sometimes has readings in
common with L.
10. See Strom. 2.6.31; 2.7.35; 2.20.1 16; 5.10.63.
11. See G and L.
12. See the references in nn. 2-4 above.
 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

now argue that such an attribution is wrong.I 3 Not only does the
date of the epistle - certainly after 70 CE, and probably much later
than that - make it unlikely, but most scholars agree that the
content of Barnabas
would not appear to be compatible with what we know of Paul's
companion. 1 4 Some even doubt that Barnabas is a genuine
pseudepigraph,
not least because there seems to be no attempt in the actual body
of the text to exploit the attribution to the apostle. 1 5 If this is so,
and the
ascription is secondary, then this raises the interesting question as
to why the text was ever attributed to Barnabas. A variety of
answers have been
offered, none of which is entirely satisfactory. 16
Whether or not the author was originally a Jew is unclear. In favour of a
Jewish origin are the presence in the epistle of what look like
rabbinic traditions, 17 the use and knowledge of Jewish exegetical
methods, 1 8 and an outlook shared with some Jewish apocalypsesl9
and the Two Ways material (chaps 1 9-20). But none of these points
need indicate a Jewish provenance, and the fact that at one point the
author refers to a time before
'we believed in God' (16.7) might make a Gentile origin more likely.
Scholars have identified two cruces in their attempts to date
Barnabas,
4.3-5 and 16. 3--4. The first passage appears to cite, somewhat loosely,
two passages from Daniel 7 in which an excrescent horn (the word
rrcxpcxq>ucXOIOV, the word translated 'excrescent', is an addition to
the Danielic text) appears to destroy three big horns at one stroke or
at the same time. Scholars have suggested a variety of candidates
for the excrescent horn, including Vespasian, who succeeded the three
emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius, and Nerva, whose reign brought
to an end the dynasty of three tflavian emperors. But some have
deemed the passage irrelevant to the question of date, arguing that
it comes from an earlier source calling its audience in a general way
to attend to the signs of the time. The same scholars have usually
attributed more significance, at least with respect to date, to 16.3--4.
Here, in a passage in which Barnabas attacks the Jewish decision to
build a temple, he cites Isa. 49. 17 (,See, those who destroyed this
temple will themselves build it up'), and then

13. tfor an exception see S. Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Geoffrey Chapman,
1989), 44.
14. Would the Levite Barnabas, who had shown himself somewhat conservative on
occasions in relation to the Jewish law (Gal. 2.1 1 f.), have subscribed to Barnabas' radically
hostile attitude to literal implementation of the Jewish law?
1 5. See H. Windisch, Die apostolischen Vater, vol. 3, Der Barnabasbrief, HNT
Ergiingzungsband (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1 920), 413.
16. See Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 5-7.
17. See chaps 7 and 8.
 18. See esp. chap. 10.
19. See, for instance, the strongly anti-Roman tone of 4.3-5 and compare this with 4 Ezra
1 1- 12, 1 3 and Sib. Or. 5.403-33.
 The Epistle of Barnabas 75

goes on to note: 'It is happening. tfor because of their war, it was

destroyed by their enemies. And now the servants of the enemies
will
themselves rebuild it.' Aside from the fact that there exist some
potentially important textual variants here,2o it is not
straightforwardly clear what in fact is being referred to. Most scholars
opt for the view that the passage
refers either to a mooted rebuilding of the Jewish temple at the time of
Hadrian, although the evidence for this is quite slim? or l the same
emperor's decision to build a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the site
of the destroyed temple, either before or after the Bar-Cochba
revolt?2 Either way the developing consensus would seem to be for a
Hadrianic date sometime in the 1 30s.23
The question of provenance is an equally contested one. Egypt is
favoured by a large number of scholars, mainly on the grounds that
the epistle seems to have some traditions in common with known
Alexandrian
sources, in particular Philo, and because of its earliest attested use by
Egyptian Christians.24 Neither argument is, of course, infallible and the
unconvinced have been led to suggest alternative provenances such
as Syria or Asia Minor. 25 But these proposals seem to have less in
their favour than those associated with Egypt.

3. Genre and Content

Barnabas is described as an 'mloToM or letter in the manuscripts in

which it is found and by the ancient authors who refer to it. Some
have suspected, however, that such a description is misleading and
overlooks what they take to be the extent to which Barnabas does not
display typically epistolary features. In particular they note the
absence of a superscriptio in which the sender's name is mentioned
and of any reference to the name of the addressee, and what they
take to be the rather general
tone of the text. On the basis of these observations Windisch was led to
describe Barnabas as a 'Traktat', 26 and others have preferred such
designations as 'homily' or 'word of exhortation'. But some more
recent

20. � and H omit the words 'It is happening'; and � reads 'And now they and the
servants of the enemies will rebuild it.'
21. See Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 22.
22. Cassius Dio, Roman History 69. 12, records that Hadrian did this before the revolt,
whereas Eusebius, HE 4.6.4, states that Hadrian rebuilt the temple after the revolt.
23. See R. Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant, WUNT 2.82 (Tiibingen:
Mohr, 1 996), 23. He prefers a date before the outbreak of the revolt, not least because he
sees no indication in Barnabas that the revolt has started.
24. See Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 30--42.
25. See Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant, 44, for general scepticism on
the subject.
76 The Writings of the Apostolic
26. Windisch, Der Fathers
Barnabasbrief, 4 11 , followed by Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief, 87-8.
research has tended in the main to support the epistolary designation,
arguing in particular that the perceived deviations from the letter
form are not as telling as some have thought,27 that there are other
features of Barnabas which would point more strongly to an epistolary
genre,28 and that the personal character of many of Barnabas'
interjections (1 .8; 4.6, 9; 6.5; 6.7, 9; 7.4; 9.9; 15.4; 16.8) as well as
the apparent evidence of the existence of opponents points away
from seeing the text as too general to
support an epistolary classification. Others have gone further and
sought to give Barnabas a more specific genre definition, with Hvalvik
most recently suggesting the designation 'protreptic epistle'. 29
In the end, arriving at a conclusion on this matter is very difficult.
We are probably right to accept some sort of epistolary classification
even if attempts to explain away Barnabas' deviation from this form
are not always convincing. Certainly it is true that attempts at
arguing for other classifications have proved unconvincing. But to
what extent a clear genre definition for the work is a necessary
prerequisite for its interpretation is unclear.
Barnabas divides itself up into broadly two sections. After the
introductory chapter, in which the author greets his readers and in
somewhat vague terms states that his purpose in writing to them is
'that you may have perfect knowledge to accompany your faith' (1.
5), he proceeds with an extended section which runs from chap. 2 to
chap. 16. Here he presents his readers with various teachings,
almost all of which
have as their central concern the interpretation of scripture, that is,
the Christian Old Testament.30 Some of this teaching concerns the
right interpretation of the Jewish law. So chap. 2 concerns sacrifice,
chap. 3
fasts, chap. 9 circumcision, chap. 10 the food laws, chap. 15 the
Sabbath, and chap. 16 the temple. In all of these chapters the clear
implication is that these commandments should never have been
observed literally, or put another way, as commandments they have
an ongoing legitimacy as long as they are interpreted in a non;,.literal
way. 31 Other chapters are taken up with the subject of Christ's death
and its meaning (see chaps 5-
7). Here, amongst other things, it is made clear that this event was
foreseen in the scriptures. tfinally there are chapters devoted to the

27. See Hvalvik, The Strugglefor Scripture and Covenant, 72-4. Amongst other things
he notes that it might have been quite common at the time of Barnabas to put the writer's
and the addresee's name on the outside of a letter.
28. See Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant, 76-8.
29. This is an essentially persuasive text in which one way of life is attacked and another
way of life exhorted. See Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant, 1 59.
30. Barnabas' knowledge of the New Testament is much disputed. Some think that he
quotes Matt. 22.1 4 at 4. 1 4 but this is uncertain.
3 I. For a clear endorsement of the Mosaic law seen through the prism of Barnabas' own
interpretation, see 10.11 and the words, 'Do you see how well Moses has legislated?'
 The Epistle of Barnabas

covenant (chaps 4 and 1 3-14), in which Jewish loss and Christian

ownership of that covenant are emphasized, and baptism (chaps 1 1-
1 2). Chapter 16 is then followed by a transitional chapter (1 7) and
then an exposition of the Two Ways, 'the path of light and the path
of darkness', described by Barnabas as 'another area of knowledge'.
The epistle ends with a hortatory chapter in which Barnabas' readers
are called to righteous behaviour and to 'fulfil every commandment'
(21 .8).
Broadly speaking we might then categorize the distinctions between
the two identified sections as exegetical and ethical, although this would
be to overlook the strongly ethical thrust of much that is written in
chaps 2-
1 6. 32 Certainly it would be somewhat glib to follow Muilenberg and
describe the two sections as haggadic and halakhic respectively.33 What
is clear is that any interpretation of the epistle must make sense of
the presence of these two sections in determining its purpose.

4. Major Concerns

As noted above, a central concern of Barnabas lies in the

interpretation of scripture. The author asserts that he is writing to a
privileged community, 'tfor through the prophets the Master has
made known to us what has happened and what now is; and he has
given us the first fruits of the taste of what is yet to be' (1 .7; see
also 5.3; 7. 1; 21. 1, 5). As such a privileged community Christians are
uniquely placed to understand the meaning of scripture and interpret
it correctly. Central to this is a correct under standing of Torah, and
at strategically important places in the epistle (chaps 2-3 at the
beginning, 9-1 0 in the middle, and 1 5-1 6 at the end),
we find extended attempts to interpret these Jewish laws. Some of these
interpretations are allegorical,34 some literal,35 and some
typological, 3 6 but all aim at presenting a non-literal understanding
of these laws.
Radically, and in contrast to Paul and other New Testament and
early Christian writers, Barnabas asserts that this non-literal
interpretation, which he appears quite consciously to contrast with
Jewish interpretation
- although neither of the terms 'Jew' and 'Jewish' ever appear in the
epistle37 - comports with the original meaning of the scriptural text.
Such

32. See inter alia 4. l f. and chap. 10.

33. J. Muilenberg, 'The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', diss., Yale University (Printed Marbury, 1929).
34. See esp. chap.10.
35. See 2.6-7.
36. See 9.7f.
37. Note the frequent occurrence in the epistle of the words 'to them' and 'to us': see esp.
78 The Writings of the Apostolic
2.7, 9, 10; 3.1, 3, 6; 7.5; 9.5; 1 1 .1. In the Latin translation 'them' is sometimes replaced with
Fathers
judaei.
a view might be said to reach its most extraordinary expression in the
assertion that the commandment literally to circumcise oneself was
given by an evil angel (9.4). When we also note the possibility that
some of Barnabas' community appear intent upon Judaizing (3.6; 4.6b;
9.6; 1 2. 1 0), the fact that the author is noticeably concerned to assert
that the Christians are now the rightful heirs of the covenant - a
covenant which the Jews in fact lost after they worshipped the golden
calf (4.8f.; chaps 13 and 1 4) - and the author's appropriation for the
Christians of central Jewish symbols such as the land (chap. 6) and the
temple (16.7f.), then a view of the epistle as implying the presence of a
perceived Jewish threat can come to seem inevitable. Barnabas' radical
position, in which scripture is viewed almost monolithically as only ever
having had one reference and that a Christian one, and only ever
referring to one covenant, the Christian covenant, emerges out of a
straightforwardly polemical situation.
But for many years such a view of Barnabas has been challenged.
Windisch, for instance, argued that Barnabas perceived the Jews in
abstract terms and as no actual danger.38 The absence of any reference
to
a perceived Jewish threat in the opening and closing chapter of the
epistle seemed to support such a view. More recently scholars have
argued that Barnabas is nothing more than a medley of sources and
from this observation have gone on to assert that his anti-Judaism
was simply part
of his heritage and should not, therefore, be interpreted as implying
anything specific about the circumstances he is addressing.39 In
most of these views of the epistle, paranaesis, or general building-
up, of the community emerges as the author's central concern.40
None of these points is straightforwardly convincing. A purely
abstract interpretation of the Jews in Barnabas underestimates the
frequency with which the terms 'to them' and 'to us' appear. The
absence of reference to the Jews or Judaizing in the opening and
closing parts of the epistle is
potentially more problematic but can be explained in a way that is
compatible with a polemical interpretation of the epistle. 4 1 While we
need
not doubt that Barnabas has used sources, and the evidence for this is
good,42 it does not follow that his selection of material should be
seen as

38. Windisch, Der Barnabasbrief, 323.

39. See e.g. R.A. Kraft, The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, vol.
3, Barnabas and the Didache (New York and London: Thomas Nelson, 1 965), 2-16, 1 9-22, 59--
65.
40. Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief, 86-9.
41. See Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 64-5.
42. The use of sources is suggested by 1.5a, where Barnabas refers to handing over a
portion of what he has received; by the presence of what Klaus Wengst ( Tradition und
Theologie der Barnabasbriefes (New York and Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971), 14-15), referred
to as 'ad hoc Bildungen', or seams composed by the author, which seem to act as connections
irrelevant to his purpose. Moreover, it can be convincingly argued that
Barnabas does not hail from a unitary tradition to whose views he
gives uncritical expression, but rather that he is responsible for some
of the more radical opinions expressed in his epistle.43
In the end the difficulty in arriving at a clear view of Barnabas'
purpose lies in making sense of the strongly paranaetic and ethical
element of chaps 1 and 21, together with the Two Ways section
(chaps 1 9-20), and
the more polemical/anti-Jewish character of chaps. 2-1 6. There
have been serious attempts to do this, in particular in the work of
Hvalvik,44 and more recently, Rhodes,45 but no one solution
appears entirely
satisfactory.
However we perceive Barnabas' major concern, it is clear that he is
keen to point to the urgent character of the present time (cf. esp. 4.
I f.) and to make plain that even though Christians may be the
rightful inheritors of the covenant and may in fact be those who are
reborn, embodiments of a revitalized temple ( 1 6. 1 1 f.; see also 1 1 . 1 1),
they are still waiting for their final redemption (6. 19). That final
redemption appears to involve a return of Christ (7.9f.) and possibly
a millennial kingdom (chap. 1 5). Christ's return follows on naturally
from his suffering, death and resurrection. Barnabas pays particular
attentionto Christ's passion and death, showing how, in a variety of
ways, they fulfil the scriptures (see esp. chaps 5 and 7; see also
chap. 12, with its interest in finding types for the cross). Christ, the
central point of scriptural reference (12.5, 9), through his death
brings about the creation of a new covenant in which Christians'
hearts are

between different types of material (see 4.9a; 5.3; 6.5; 7.1); and by some evidence of the use
of testimonies or collections of Old Testament citations (see esp. 2.5-10 and the discussion
of this passage in Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 103-5).
43. This can be illustrated in at least two ways. First. we can demonstrate how in
various chapters Barnabas has arrived at his final position by drawing together
arguments from different quarters. See in this respect esp. chap. 9. Second, we can show
how at certain points in his epistle there are shards of opinions not compatible with
Barnabas' final opinion. See esp. 2.6, with its reference to a 'new law of Christ', apparently
in contradiction of his own view that there is one law, the Mosaic law interpreted correctly.
44. Hvalvik argues that the way of light and the way of darkness, referred to in 18.1,
are to be associated with Christianity and Judaism respectively: The Struggle for Scripture
and Covenant, 200-1. The positive ethical dimension of the letter is linked to Barnabas'
desire to show what the right interpretation of scripture actually is.
45. J.N. Rhodes, The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition, WUNT 2.
188 (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004) argues that Barnabas' principal concern is to warn
Christians, by reference to Jewish failure - manifest in their worship of the golden calf,
their killing of Jesus and the subsequent fall of the temple - of the consequences to them
of their sins. In this interpretation, Rhodes emphasizes in particular the fact that chap. 4
can be read to support such a view (see in particular his own reading of 4.6b in terms of
those who pile up sins by saying the covenant remains ours). In this reading he also lays
particular stress upon what he sees as the nomistic character of Barnabas' language, and
the covenantall Deuteronomic character of his language.
redeemed from darkness, and which, by extension, enables the
Christian to understand the meaning of the covenantal commands (see
4.8f. and 14.5f.). In much of this Barnabas seems to embody an
eschatological viewpoint continuous with that of Paul, in which there
is a tension between what we already are and what we will become
(see 4. ! Of.).

5. Some Concluding Observations

Whether or not we perceive Barnabas to be enigmatic, in at least two

ways it reflects important themes in early, and specifically second-
century, Christian history. The first of these relates to the place of
the Old Testament. Almost more than any of the other Apostolic
tfathers, with the possible exception of 1 Clement, Barnabas attributes
ultimate importance to this body of texts. Even if his interpretative
take on these texts is singular, his dependence upon them is very
typical of early Christian writers of the second century. The second
of these relates to the question of Jewish-Christian interaction. The
extent to which Barnabas reflects viva voce contact with non-
Christian Jews itself feeds into a broader debate about Jewish-
Christian interaction in this period and the extent to which texts
allow us a clear view of this matter. On one reading Barnabas might
be said to reflect an absolute division between the two communities.
On another reading the letter could be seen to reflect a
complex form of interaction.46
So Barnabas may in various ways be strange, and may lack a clear
trajectory backwards or forwards, but it is a text reflecting some of
the major concerns of the early part of the second century and this
may in part account for its popularity in some parts of the Roman
Empire.

46. It is possible to see Barbabas as an inter-Jewish text, one which need not imply
separation between something called Judaism and something called Christianity. In arguing
this case, one would highlight the many points in the epistle which betray Jewish influence;
the failure of the author to refer to the Jews explicitly; and the continuity of his radical position
on the law with opinions attributed to other Jews by Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 89-94).
Appropriation of the covenant and other Jewish symbols has its analogue in the writings of
the sect at Qumran. For something approximating to this opinion see W. Horbury, 'Jewish--
Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr', in W. Horbury (ed.), Jews and Christians in
Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 127-61, and for general scepticism
about a separation between Judaism and Christainity before the fourth century see in
particular A.Y. Reed, 'Jewish Christianity after the Parting of the Ways: Approaches to
Historiography and Self-Definition in the Pseudo-Clementines', in A.Y. Reed and A.H. Becker,
The Ways that Never Parted (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003), esp. 23 1.
The whole discussion of this book is related to the use of the categories 'Judaism',
'Christianity', and 'Jewish Christianity', and the relationships between these groups in
the aftermath of the destruction of the temple in 70 CEo
 Chapter 9

The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch

Paul Foster

With two exceptions, the authors of the texts known as the Apostolic
tfathers remain shadowy or even totally invisible figures. One of the
exceptions is Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, for whom we have a
graphic description of the events surrounding his martyrdom, an
epistle written by him to the Philippians, and an epistle addressed to
him. I The writer of that last document, the epistle addressed to
Polycarp, is the other exception to the general phenomenon of
anonymous or shadowy authors of the texts in the corpus of the
Apostolic tfathers: Polycarp's earlier contemporary, Ignatius, Bishop
of Antioch. Like Polycarp, we have a martyrdom account for Ignatius
(although because of its late date this is not included among the
Apostolic tfathers) and epistles written by Ignatius. Yet while
Ignatius emerges from the shadows of anonymity, the epistles he
composed come from a very brief period of his life, all being penned
while he journeyed to Rome to face martyrdom. Although the epistles
may have been written in as little as a few weeks, they provide a
remarkable insight into the nature of the person facing martyrdom,
as well as conveying much about the beliefs and theological positions
he held.

1. How Many Epistles?

Open any modern version of the writings of Ignatius and it will

contain seven epistles. tfive of these are addressed to communities
with which Ignatius had had contact during his journey to Rome,
namely the epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians,
Philadelphians and Smyrneans. Another is addressed to the Roman
church prior to the arrival of Ignatius

I. Ehrman makes a similar assessment concerning Polycarp: 'In some ways we are better
informed about Polycarp of Smyrna than any other Christian of the early second century.
Among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there is one text written to him (by Ignatius),
another written about him (the Martyrdom of Polycarp), and yet another written by him, a
letter sent to the Christians of Philippi': B.D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, LCL
24 (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2003), 324.
8 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

in the imperial capital. In that letter he counsels them not to intervene

on his behalf by trying to prevent his martyrdom (Ign. Rom. 4. 1). The
remaining letter is directed to Polycarp, urging him to be steadfast and
dignified in his episcopal office (Ign.Poly. 1.2; 3. 1; 6. 1).
Yet this consensus surrounding a sevenfold corpus of Ignatian
epistles took a long time to establish itself. In the late Middle Ages at
least 13 letters written in Greek circulated in various collections
under the name of Ignatius. Such collections contained letters
written to the Bishop of Antioch. These additional epistles included a
letter from a certain Mary of Cassobola and the reply from Ignatius,
letters to the Tarsian, Philippian and Antiochean communities, as well
as an epistle addressed to Hero, deacon in Ignatius' see of Antioch.
To this corpus was often added the prayer written by Hero to
Ignatius. These letters, in conjunction with expanded versions of the
seven letters printed in modern critical editions, form what is termed
the Long Recension of the epistles? tfurthermore, although not
usually referred to in the discussion of the Ignatian writings,
additional texts are ascribed to the Bishop of Antioch in the Latin
tradition. These consist of correspondence with St John the elder and
the Virgin Mary. As no Greek manuscript evidence exists for these
documents
and their textual history cannot be traced back earlier than the
Middle Ages, scholars regard these letters as spurious. 3
When one reads the theological orientation of the Ignatian epistles
it becomes fully apparent why they were not congenial to Puritan
writers, who espoused and even intensified many of the anti-
ecclesiastical notions of certain Reformation thinkers. Thus, the entire
corpus was deemed by Puritan writers to be a forgery, while Roman
Catholic writers affirmed the authenticity of the entire collection.
This impasse was overcome by the careful and scholarly work of
James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh. Ussher noted the divergence
between the form of text that tfaber Stapulensis had published in 1
498 and the quotations given by medieval English writers - Robert
(Grosseteste) of
Lincoln (c. 1250), John Tyssington (c. 138 1), and William Wodeford
(c. 1 396) - which agreed with those of the Church tfathers.4
Conjecturing
that the printed text represented an interpolated recension, and
observing that English authors appeared to know a shorter form,
Ussher went manuscript hunting around the libraries of England. His
labours did not go unrewarded. Ussher discovered two Latin
manuscripts, Caiensis 395,

2. For what is still the most readily accessible cataloguing of the manuscripts of the Long
Recension see the work of J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and
Polycarp, 3 vols (London: Macmillan, 1889-90), vol. I, 1 09-34.
3. The Latin text of the correspondence with 8t John and the Virgin Mary is given in
Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers. part 2. Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 3, 69-72.
4. 'Ignatius, 8t.', in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edn, ed. F.L.
 The Epistles of IgNATIUS of 83
Cross and E.A. Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 822.
Antioch
held at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and Monticutianus,
now lost, but part of the library of Richard Montague, Bishop of
Norwich
5
1638--41. These manuscripts contained the short form of the seven
epistles, the same text that appears in modern printed editions, now
known as the Middle Recension, along with the other epistles in the
same form as they appear in the Long Recension. Ussher was able to
conclude that the additional epistles were spurious, and that the
genuine Ignatian
letters had originally circulated in a shorter form. His one mistake
was to judge the letter to Polycarp to be spurious.6 This Middle
Recension was first published in its Latin form by Ussher in 1 644.
7
Two years later Isaac
Voss published the first printed edition of the Greek version of the
Middle Recension,8 based upon the manuscript Mediceo-
Laurentianus 57.7, housed in tflorence. This manuscript was
lacking the Epistle to the
Romans, which has had a transmission history different to that of the
rest of the corpus.9 This letter was published in its Middle Recension
form in
1689 by Ruinart, from the manuscript Parisinus Graec. 1451, housed
in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Since these initial publications
three further manuscripts of the Middle Recension of Romans have
been discovered, but of the other six epistles of the Middle Recension
only a single fragment of Smyrneans 3.3-12. 1 (Berlin Papyrus, Codex
1058 1) has come to light. The significance of this fifth-century
manuscript is that it pre-dates other Greek texts of the Middle
Recension by at least five centuries.
The textual problems surrounding the form of the epistles
appeared to have been finally settled by the meticulous investigations
of Ussher and his fellow seventeenth-century scholars. However, this
consensus, which held sway for almost exactly two hundred years, was
challenged when, in 1845,
William Cureton published three Syriac manuscripts of the epistles of
Ignatius. 10 The earliest of these manuscripts, British Museum Add.
12175, dated to the first half of the sixth century, contained only the
Epistle to
Polycarp. The other two manuscripts, British Museum Add. 14618,
dated to the seventh or eighth century, and British Museum Add.
171 92, dated by Cureton to the sixth or seventh century, but by
Wright to the tenth century, II both contain the Epistle to Polycarp,
Ephesians and Romans in

5. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. I, 76-86.
6. 'Ignatius, St.', Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 822.
7. J. Ussher, Polycarpi et IgnaW Epistolae (Oxon., 1 644).
8. As stated in the article on Ignatius in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, Voss was directed to this manuscript by Ussher: 'Voss edited the corresponding
Greek text which Ussher had traced to a Florentine MS (Laur. Plut. l.vii.7)' (822).
 9. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 214.
10. W. Cureton, The Ancient Syriac Version ofSaint Ignatius (London: Rivington, 1845).
II . W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac MSS in the British Museum (London: British
Museum, 1 870-2), 778.
that order. tfrom this evidence Cureton postulated that this three-
letter Syriac collection represented the whole of the authentic
Ignatian
correspondence. This became known as the Short Recension.
Without rehearsing the arguments of Zahn 1 2 and Lightfoot 1 3 in
favour of the
opinion that the Short Recension is an epitome or abbreviation of the
Middle Recension, we can add one important piece of evidence to the
discussion: the discovery of the fragment of Smyrneans 3. 3-12 . 1 dated
to the fifth century. This undermines the claim that whereas the Short
Recension is attested in the manuscript tradition as early as the first
half of the sixth century, the additional four epistles of the Middle
Recension cannot be dated prior to the tenth century. Thus the
consensus which has emerged in modern scholarship and is reflected
in printed editions is that the seven epistles of the Middle Recension
represent the genuine form of the epistles of Ignatius, though
perhaps it would be better from a text critical perspective to say that
they represent the earliest recoverable stage of the textual
transmission of the Ignatian letters.
The differences between the various recensions are summarized in Table 1.

MIDDLE RECENSION Seven epistles written in Greek: Ephesians,

Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians,
Smyrnaeans, Epistle to Polycarp
LONG RECENSION Expanded forms of the seven epistles of the Middle
Recension, with six or seven further works in
Greek - letter from Mary of Cassobola, letter to
Mary of Cassobola, letters to the Tarsian,
Philippian and Antiochean communities, a letter
to Hero, and the Prayer of Hero - and
sometimes four additional works in Latin - two
letters to John the Elder, one epistle to Mary
the Christ-bearer and a letter from Mary
SHORT RECENSION Three epistles in a Syriac collection: Ephesians,
Romans, Polycarp

2. Ignatius and the Date of the Epistles

Information about the life of Ignatius is derived primarily from the

seven epistles of the Middle Recension, early Christian writers,
especially the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, and an account of
the martyrdom of Ignatius, which may date to the fourth or fifth
century. tfrom his own

12. T. von Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Perthas, 1 893).

13. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 1, 280-327.
hand we learn that Ignatius was also known by the name 8SO
¢>Op05 ('Theophoros' 'God-bearer'), that the occasion of writing these
=

letters was during his transportation to Rome to face martyrdom

(Ign.Eph. 2 1 . 1- 2; Romans 4-5), and that he was the Bishop of
Antioch (Ign.Rom. 2.2). The place of Ignatius in the episcopal succession
lists of Antioch has been seen as confused, because of supposedly
conflicting information provided by the Church tfathers (in particular
the two references contained in Eusebius). Without stating the name
of his predecessor, Origen describes Ignatius as the second bishop of
Antioch (Hom. vi in LUC. 1 ). Eusebius both confirms and expands upon
this tradition. tfirst, he states, 'Ignatius was famous as the second bishop
at Antioch where Euodius had been the first' (HE 3.22. 1 ) . Later,
however, in book 3 Eusebius still maintains that Ignatius was the second
to hold episcopal office in Antioch, but provides a more famous
predecessor, although not labelling him as 'bishop'. Describing
distinguished church leaders in Asia Minor Eusebius writes, 'Ignatius,
still a name of note to most men, the second bishop of Antioch, received
the succession from Peter' (HE 3.36. 1). This tradition, which does not
mention Euodius, appears to imply that Ignatius was second in a
chain instigated by Peter, although Peter himself is not counted part of
that episcopal succession. 1 4 The Apostolic CONSTITUTIONS likewise refer
to
Ignatius as bishop of Antioch, but it may in fact envisage a
joint episcopacy shared by Euodius and Ignatius, although it is still
possible to read the tradition as describing Ignatius as the second bishop
of Antioch. Providing succession lists for prominent cities it comments,
'Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me, Peter; and Ignatius by Paul'
(7.46). The historical value of this tradition is questionable, and it
may be more concerned to demonstrate apostolic succession than to
represent accurate history. Ehrman comments that 'early tradition holds
that he [Ignatius] was second bishop there [Antioch], after Peter (Origen,
Hom. 6 in LUKE) or third, following Peter and Euodius (Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. 3.22.36 [sicD' Y This is only partially true. The consistent
testimony of early Christian writing is to describe Ignatius as the second
bishop of Antioch, although there is some confusion surrounding his
predecessor. This role is most commonly ascribed to Euodius, but an
alternative tradition lists Peter as the predecessor. Modern scholarship
has at times tried to harmonize this data by suggesting that in some
traditions Ignatius is presented as the

14. Later succession lists for Antioch from the fifth century onwards mention Peter as
the first bishop, but Eusebius does not designate Peter as Bishop of Antioch.
15. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 203-4; the correct reference is presumably HE
3.22, 36.
third bishop of Antioch after Peter and then Euodius. This
formulation, however, does not occur in ancient sources. 16
The date of the seven epistles is related to the period during which
Ignatius lived. This remains the case even if the letters are a forgery
circulated in his name, since they must be written after the period
when the martyrdom of Ignatius appeared imminent. Fixing the date
of even Ignatius' death is not, however, as straightforward as is
often assumed. Eusebius places the description of the martyrdom of
Ignatius in the context of events during Trajan's reign in the third
book of his Ecclesiastical History. However, unlike the notice about
Clement of Rome's death - 'In the third year of the aforementioned
emperor [i.e. Trajan], Clement . . . departed this life' (HE 3.34. 1) -
there is no temporal indication of when the martyrdom of Ignatius
took place. For this reason it may be the case that Eusebius has
decided to locate the tradition he had concerning Ignatius during the
Trajanic period, without any external indication of the date. In his
Chronicon Eusebius provides further information about the date of
martyrdom. In that work, under the entry for the tenth year of
Trajan's reign (i.e. 107--8 CE), Eusebius lists three
undated events: the martyrdom of Simon the son of Cleopas, the
martyrdom of Ignatius and the persecution in Bithynia. 17 Having
referred to Trajan at the beginning of the undated paragraph inserted
after the
data for the tenth year of the reign, Eusebius specifically states,
'ltidem Antiochensium episcopus [Ignatius] martyrium passus est'
(Chron., seg.
Ann. Abr. 2123). Thus, this undated entry appears to be the basis on
which subsequent writers have affirmed that the martyrdom of
Ignatius took place in the tenth (or ninthl 8) year of Trajan's reign.
The accuracy of
the Chronicon in relation to dates surrounding the life of Ignatius is
called into further question by the fact that it places his elevation to
episcopal office in Antioch in the year 69 CEo This seems improbably
early. Lightfoot himself, while maintaining that the martyrdom
occurred during
Trajan's reign, preferred the slightly later date of 'within a few years of
,
A.D. 1 10, before or after . 19 This left open the possibility that the
Eusebian date was still correct.
The problem with a date in the first or second decade of the second

16. Lake baldly states, 'He was the third bishop in Antioch in Syria' and in a footnote
asserts, 'According to tradition Peter was first and Euodius the second (Hist.Ecc!. 3.22)': K.
Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, LCL 24 (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard
University Press, 1912), 1 66. Similarly the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
comments that 'Acc. to Origen he [Ignatius] was the second Bp. of Antioch, the successor of
St Peter, acc. to Eusebius he was the third, following St Peter's successor Euodius, C. 69'
(,Ignatius, St.', 822).
17. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 2, 449.
18. See the Chronicon Paschale and Brit. Mus. Add. 14642.
19. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. I, 30.
century is not based on uncertainty about the occurrence of
martyrdoms during this period: they undoubtedly took place and are
well documented. Rather, it is the theological character of the very
writings of Ignatius, which seems somewhat discordant with what is
known of early second century Christian writers. If the year 1 10
were indeed the correct date, it needs to be remembered that some
of the New Testament writings would
be roughly contemporaneous. The Gospel of Luke may have been written
only twenty years earlier,20 the Pastorals towards the end of the
first century, the Johannine epistles around the beginning of the
second
century, and 2 Peter maybe as late as 130. The problem is that the
ecclesial concepts so prominent in the seven epistles of Ignatius are
noticeable by their absence from these supposedly contemporary
Christian writings. The later New Testament writings and the Epistles
of Ignatius appear to inhabit different thought-worlds and very
different stages in the develop ment of church order in Christian
congregations. The same problem was highlighted by Lightfoot
(although he did not explore the implications) in relation to the
corpus of the Apostolic Fathers. Commenting specifically on 1 Clement
he wrote,

The transition from the first to the second Apostolic father - from
Clement to Ignatius - is rapid; but, when it is made, we are conscious
what a wide chasm has been passed. The interval of time indeed is
not great. Twenty years at the outside separate the Epistle of Clement
to the Corinthians from the letters of Ignatius. But these two decades
were a period of exceptionally rapid progress in the career of the
Church - in the outward extension of the Christian society, in its
internal organ
ization and government, in the progress and ramifications of theological
21
opinion.

Yet the writings of the New Testament that may well date from the
reign of Trajan show that the developments evidenced in the epistles
of Ignatius had not touched upon all strands of Christianity in the
first quarter of the second century. How is this to be accounted for?
Two basic explanations are possible. Either Ignatius represented a
localized ecclesial development in the Antiochene church, being
himself the harbinger of monarchical episcopacy and a host of other
theological

20. In fact Raymond Brown uses what he takes to be the secure date of the Ignatian
corpus to date Luke's Gospel. He states, 'a date no later than 100 is indicated. The Gospel's
symbolic interest in Jerusalem as a Christian center does not match the outlook of 2d-century
Christian literature. For Asia Minor in particular and specifically for Ephesus the writer of Acts
seems to know only a church structure of presbyters (Acts 14:23; 20: 17). There is no sign of
the developed pattern of having one bishop in each church so clearly attested by Ignatius for
that area in the decade before 1 10': R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New
York: Doubleday, 1997), 273-4, italics in original.
21. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. I, I.
innovations, or his epistles have been misdated. Both of these
alternatives have had proponents, although the first option is more
often than not supported de facto rather than overtly stated. Disquiet
over the suitability of placing the theological ideas of Ignatius in the
context of the early second century has led to a number of
alternative proposals. It has been argued that although the historical
Ignatius may have lived at the beginning of the second century, the
letters associated with his name were forged at a later period in that
century. Rius-Camps maintains that only
four of the letters are genuine,22 while Joly suggests that the whole
collection of seven epistles is a fabrication?3 Alternatively, Hubner
argues that the epistles show knowledge of texts that were not
composed before the mid-second century and, moreover, that they
suppose a more
developed form of Gnosticism which is not consistent with a date in the
first few decades of the second century?4 The arguments put forward
by Hubner have been expanded and developed by his student
Thomas
Lechner.25 Basically Lechner's study falls into two major parts. In
the first he demonstrates the extremely weak foundation upon
which the
traditional dating of Ignatius' letters is based. The second part seeks
to demonstrate that the 'Hymn of the Star' (Eph. 19) is a parody of
Valentinian myth. Hence he argues that some of the polemic
contained in
the epistles is an intentional attack on Valentinian gnosis.
Consequently he dates the epistle to the period between 165 and
175 CE.26
SO far the scholarly consensus has not shifted to any marked extent
because of the arguments mounted by Lechner and Hubner. In part this
is because the points of literary contact between the epistles of Ignatius
and Valentinian writings appear weak. The majority of scholars
retain the traditional dating proposed by Lightfoot of around 1 10
CE, without showing awareness of its flimsy basis. It remains
possible to maintain Ignatian authorship of the seven genuine epistles,
but to recognize that the date of their composition could be
significantly later than usually assumed. A TERMINUS ad QUEM can be
established if the epistles are from Ignatius' own hand, for the letters
would pre-date the martyrdom of Polycarp (a problematic date in
itself, with opinion encompassing the range of dates from 15 5-77 CE,
most scholars favouring the earlier period) and Polycarp's Epistle to
the Philippians, which refers to the death of

22. I. Rius-Camps, The Four Authentic Letters ofIgnatius (Rome: Pontificium

Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1980).
23. R. Ioly, Le dossier d'Jgnace d'Antioche, Universite libre Bruxelles, Faculte de
philosophie et lettres 69 (Brussels: Editions de l'Universite de Bruxelles, 1979).
24. R.M. Hiibner, 'Thesen zur Echtheit und Datienmg der sieben Briefe des Ignatius
Antiochen', ZAC 1 (1 997), 44-72.
 25. T. Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschich
tliche Studien zu Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochen, VCSupp 47 (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
26. Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos?, 306-7.
Ignatius (Poly. Phil. 9. 1) as well as the letters written by Ignatius (Poly.
Phil. 13.2). In fact, as Holmes suggests, 'Chapter 13 [of Polycarp's
epistle] was probably written within a month or two following 24 August
(cf. Ign. Rom. 1O.l-3) in the year in which Ignatius was apparently
martyred ..2 7 Although many date Polycarp's epistle around 135 CE,28
various partition theories make this a less than straightforward
datum.29 Therefore, taking
a cue from Eusebius' uncertainty in his Chronicon about the dating of
information concerning Ignatius, one may conclude that the letters
could have been composed at some stage during the second quarter
of the second century, i.e. 125-50 CE, roughly corresponding to
Hadrian's reign or the earlier part of Antoninus Pius' period in office.

3. Ignatius ' Opponents

In Ignatius' discussion of the role of the bishop, one issue was the
need for Ignatius to defend the development of episcopal leadership
in the face of opposition. The identity of such opponents can be
traced through the information Ignatius provides in his epistles. One
of the fundamental
issues that has arisen in scholarly debate is the number of groups of
opponents to which Ignatius refers. 3o The problem revolves around the
different ways in which Ignatius describes his detractors in the
individual
letters. In the Epistle to the Ephesians there is a generalized description
of the heresy he is attacking, although the addressees are
commended for 'speaking truthfully about Jesus Christ' (Eph. 6.3) and
Ignatius describes
Christ as 'both fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn, God come in
the flesh, true life in death, from both Mary and God, first subject to
suffering and then beyond suffering' (Eph. 7.2). When writing to the
Trallians and describing similar tendencies, he is more explicit
concerning the descrip tion of the opponents: 'But if, as some who
are atheists - that is, unbelievers - say, that he only appeared [OOKEI V]
to suffer, it is they who are the appearance [OOKElV)' (Trail. 10.1).
The same critique of heretics emerges in addressing the Smyrneans.
This attacks the notion that Jesus Christ accomplished his
redemptive work in appearance or semblance alone (Smyr. 4.2), and
Ignatius continues by declaring,
For how does anyone benefit me if he praises me but blasphemes my
Lord, not confessing that he bore flesh? The one who refuses to say this

See futher Chapter 10, sect. 6(ii) below.

28. W.R. Schoedel, 'Polycarp, Epistle of, in ABD, vol. 5, 390.
29. For the original statement of the partition theory, see P.N. Harrison, Polycarp 's Two
Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936). For a fuller
discussion of partition theories, see Chapter 1 0, sect. 6(i) below.
30. For a brief summary see CN. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1 996), 61-2.
 denies him completely, as one who bears a corpse. But I see no point in
recording their disbelieving names. I do not even want to recall them,
until they repent concerning the Passion, which is our resurrection.
(Smyr. 5.2-3)

Employing language reminiscent of that used against the secessionists

by the author of 1 John, Ignatius levels against his opponents the charge
that they likewise deny the reality of Christ appearing and suffering in
the flesh. Trebilco, specifically discussing the situation Ignatius addressed
in Ephesus, suggests that 'what Ignatius says about the CURRENT threat
of docetists as he writes shows that the Johannine secessionists are still
in
town, have developed their teaching further in the docetic direction,
and that Ignatius is concerned that they might continue to gain, a
hearing . 3 l
Furthermore, the suggestion that the docetists were actively
engaged in missionizing is supported by the presence of similar
teachings among the
Smyrneans and Trallians, as well as by the observation that those
described in 1 John with such Christological views had gone into the
world and 'the world listens to them' (l John 4.5). 32 For Ignatius, those
who hold such beliefs are blasphemers and have no hope of
partaking in the resurrection, since by denying the physical suffering
of Christ they deny the efficacy of the redemptive act. 33
When one looks at the description in the other Ignatian epistles
of opposition or false beliefs a noticeably different characterization
emerges. The tendency towards maintaining Jewish practices is
contested in vitriolic terms, most fully in the Epistle to the
Magnesians (8. 1-1 0.3). Thus, Ignatius declares in tones of obvious
exasperation,

It is outlandish to proclaim Jesus Christ and practise Judaism. For

Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity - in
which every tongue that believes in God has been gathered together.
(Mag. 10.3)

In specific terms the practices Ignatius criticizes include living by

'false opinions and old fables' (Mag. 8.1) and observing the Sabbath
rather than 'living according to the Lord's day' (Mag. 9.1). The
critique resembles that contained in the Pastoral Epistles, where
Timothy is charged to instruct
the congregation to 'have nothing to do with godless and foolish
myths' (l Tim. 4.7) and Titus is instructed to rebuke those who 'give
heed to Jewish
myths' (Titus 1.14). 3 4 The correspondence between the Pastorals and

31. P. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus /rom Paul to Ignatius (Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 695, italics in original.
32. For a fuller explanation of this suggestion see Trebilco, The Early Christians in
Ephesus, 695.
33. See Ign. Smyr. 5.2-3.
34. For an extended discussion see Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 2, 1 24.
Ignatius' description of his opponents here is much less explicit than
that between Ignatius' docetic adversaries and the Johannine
secessionists. For this reason we do well to heed Schoedel's warning
that 'we cannot assume
that the situation in the Pastorals and in Ignatius was the same
simply because they share a common polemical vocabulary' .35 The
critique of Judaism presented by Ignatius also occurs in the
Epistle to the
Philadelphians, although the reference is far more fleeting (Phil. 6. 1-
2). It includes the rather enigmatic advice that 'if anybody should
interpret Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear
Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one
who is uncircumcised' (Phil. 6.1). The possibility of hearing Judaism
from an uncircumcised person suggests that those whom Ignatius
describes are not ethnic Jews or even proselytes to the Jewish faith,
but rather certain Gentiles who held to a form of Christian faith that
promoted Jewish observance without the necessity of circumcision.
Here Grant is surely incorrect when he states that 'Ignatius seems to
have Gentile converts to
Jewish Christianity in mind, not unlike those whom Paul describes as not
,
keeping the law but advocating circumcision (Gal 6. 13) . 36 Rather,
Schoedel's explanation is far more plausible: 'no one was actually
recommending circumcision, and the issue had probably been
injected into the debate under the influence of Pauline models ,.3 7
Ignatius' confrontation with both Jewish and docetic tendencies has
led to a protracted debate concerning the number of groups of
opponents that Ignatius confronted. Lightfoot argued for a close
connection between these two tendencies and saw the Judaizing
aspect that Ignatius rejects as closely aligned to the false teaching
under discussion in Colossians. Hence,
he suggested that the 'old fables' to which Ignatius refers were
'probably' myths relating to cosmology and angelology', 38 as may
be the case in Col.
2. 18. This in turn is characterized as a Gnosticizing form of
Judaism which embraces docetic tendencies. Lightfoot then announces
,
that 'the foe in question therefore was Doceto-judaism . 39 Others
have not been as
convinced by the connections that Lightfoot draws, nor even persuaded
that 'Doceto-judaism' really existed. Bauer argued that part of the
confusion was due to the tendency of Ignatius to collapse
differentiated categories into a closer association for the sake of
polemic.4o Similarly,

35. W.R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, Henneneia (Philadelphia: tfortress Press, 1985),
119.
36. R.M. Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 4, Ignatius ofAntioch (Camden, NJ: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1966), 103.
37. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 203.
38. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 2, 1 24.
 39. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 2, 125.
40. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church, tr. R. Kraft and G. Krodel
(London: SCM Press, 1 972), 61-94.
Schoedel argues for the existence of two discrete groups, but sees
Ignatius as intentionally confusing categories. He states, 'It is my
view that in Mag. 8-1 0 ignatius is speaking about the observance of
Jewish customs (based
on what he regards as a mistaken approach to Scripture); that such
Judaizing was not characterized by docetic thinking; and that the
link between Judaizing and docetism was invented by Ignatius.'4 1
Recently, the alternative views of either a single group or two
separate opposing parties have again been articulated. Marshall
draws on Jewish speculation concerning angels attested by the Qumran
scrolls to argue that an angelomorphic Christology was part of the
belief system of Ignatius' opponents. He concludes that 'the people
against whom Ignatius warns
his readers may be understood as a single group of Jewish
Christians who understand Jesus to be an angel'.42 It is then
suggested that the stress
Ignatius places on the corporeal reality of the sufferings of Christ was
intended as a counter to such 'angel christologies', which by their
very
nature stood in opposition to the affirmation of Christ suffering in the
flesh.43 By contrast, Myllykoski distinguishes two groups of
opponents.
The first, evidenced in correspondence to the Philadelphian and
Magnesian communities, is a Jewish Christian group which,
according
to Myllykoski, views 'Jesus as the true and last high priest and prophet in
a long chain of these anointed ones in the history of Israel'.44
However, according to Myllykoski, such a view reflected an ongoing
adherence to
the Jewish priesthood and an appeal to the Old Testament scriptures
in such a way that the Christian gospel was placed in a position of
subservience to these authorities (cf. Phi/ad. 8.2, where Ignatius
declares, 'For I heard some saying: "If I do not find it in the ancient
records, I do not believe in the Gospel" '). What is new in
Myllykoski's treatment is the way he characterizes the other group of
opponents. The term 'docetic' is
rejected as an inadequate description of this group, not only because 'the
idea of Docetism is obscure',45 but more significantly because this group
of opponents 'did not carry the idea so far as to assume that the
,
Roman soldiers crucified a ghost or a phantasma .46 It may be fairly
asked if any
precision is available in determining what this group of opponents
believed. Moreover, just because the term is obscure from a modern
perspective, it does not follow that it was not clear to ancient
audiences,

41. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 1 18.

42. l.W. Marshall, 'The Objects of Ignatius' Wrath and lewish Angelic Mediators',
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 56 (2005), 1 7-18.
 43. Marshall, 'The Objects of Ignatius' Wrath', 20- 1.
44. M. Myllykoski, 'Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs: The Riddle of the Heretics in the
Letters of Ignatius', in l. Adna (ed.), The Formation of the Early Church, WUNT 183
(Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005), 358.
45. Myllykoski, 'Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs', 367.
46. Myllykoski, 'Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs', 367.
though admittedly in the heresiological controversies terms are cast
at opponents more for impact than accurately. Instead Myllykoski
states
that 'The heresy opposed in Ephesians, Traliians, and Smyrneans, in turn,
denied the incarnation, virgin birth, true bodily suffering and
resurrection of Jesus (particularly in Trallians 9-1 0 and Smyrneans
1---4).'47 This list
seems to present key aspects of what many scholars would understand
the term 'docetic' to represent, even if this does not encompass the
full-blown development of a system of docetic and Gnostic ideas that
separated the highest form of divinity from the taint of the material
realm. Notwithstanding reservations about the way in which
Myllykoski
describes the second group,48 his arguments for maintaining a distinction
between two groups appear to be the more compelling way to read
the texts. This is primarily because on the whole Ignatius treats these
heresies in distinct letters, even if he occasionally uses similar language
to lambaste those whom he labels as heretics.

4. Theological Concepts and Ideas

What made the letters of Ignatius so controversial in the seventeenth

century were the ideas they contained. To employ an overused term,
they can be viewed as promoting 'early catholicism'. Such a
designation can too easily be misunderstood, so it is important to
look in detail at the actual ideas that Ignatius puts forward about
church order - his core theological beliefs on this issue and his
attitude to his opponents.

(i) Ecclesiology, Episcopacy and EUcharist

In his letters Ignatius espouses the threefold pattern of ministry,
consisting of deacons, presbyters and bishops. The vigorous manner
in which Ignatius advocates this system may well suggest that this
pattern was something of an innovation, at least in terms of the
hierarchical structure being described, or that it had come under
attack. But it is important to bear in mind Grant's note of caution:
'Before we draw too sharp a line
between the various orders, however, we should note that all the
ministers are viewed as apostolic.'49 The model that Ignatius deems as
normative is leadership in the form of a single 'ElTlOKOTT05 (bishop)
supported by a

47. MylJykoski, 'Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs', 373.

48. The main reservation is MylJykoski's reticence to apply the label 'docetic' to this
group when so much of Ignatius' description would align with what is reported about this
group's beliefs. Admittedly, docetism was not a monolithic entity, and this makes
MylJykoski's demand for an explicit statement concerning the separation 'between the earthly
Jesus and the heavenly Christ' an unreasonable datum. See MylJykoski, 'Wild Beasts and
Rabid Dogs', 373.
49. Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 21.
1TPEO�\JT SptOV (presbytery, eldership) along with those filling the role
of OtOKOV05 (deacon). This pattern recurs in a number of his letters.
All three titles are seen in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Onesimus is
described as the one 'whose love passes utterance and who is
moreover your bishop in the flesh'. Following on from this the
congregation are exhorted to 'pray that you may love him according
to Jesus Christ and that you all may be like him; for blessed is He
that granted unto you according to your deserving to have such a
bishop' (Eph. 1.3). A little later in the same epistle the office of
deacon and the presbytery are also mentioned. A certain Burrhus is
described as 'your godly deacon who is blessed in all things' (Eph. 2.
1). Then the eldership is mentioned in conjunction with the bishop
when Ignatius exhorts Ephesian believers to lead a sanctified life: 'be
holy in all respects, being made complete through a single subjection,
being subject to the bishop and presbytery' (Eph. 2.2). Similarly, the
pattern is repeated in Magnesians, where the bishop Damas is named
(Mag. 2.1). In Trallians
the three offices are discussed in even closer connection, being
viewed as a focal point for establishing Church unity: 50
And so - as is already the case - you should do nothing without the
bishop; but be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus
Christ our hope; for if we live in Him, we shall also be found in Him.
And those likewise who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ
must also be pleasing in every way to all people. For they are not
deacons of foods and drinks, but servants of the Church of God. And so
they must guard themselves against accusations as against fire. ( Trail.
2.2-3)

Furthermore Ignatius makes a spiritual comparison between these

figures and divine and heavenly beings:
In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as
they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the
presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart
from these there is not even the name of a church. ( Trail. 3. 1)

Ignatius focuses on the office of bishop more than on the roles of

deacon or the presbytery. The relationship of believers to the bishop
reflects the union between the Church and Jesus, and that of Jesus
to the Father (Eph. 5. 1). Moreover, according to Ignatius, opposition
to the bishop is a sign that one is not subservient to God (Eph. 5.3;
Trail. 2.1). It is necessary to defer to a bishop as a possessor of the
wisdom of God (Mag. 3. 1), and nothing should be done by members
of the congregation without the consent of the bishop (Mag. 4. 1;
7.1). In relation to Mag. 4. 1 Schoedel comments that 'obedience to
the bishop is of such decisive

50. On the relationship between the offices and unity, see Schoedel, Ignatius of
Antioch, 140.
 importance to Ignatius that he goes on virtually to define being
Christian in terms of it'. 5 1 Ignatius declares that he has received the
embodiment of
the love that exists among the Trallian community in the person of
Polybius their bishop ( Trail. 3.2). Only those who remain in
fellowship with their bishop belong to God and Jesus Christ (Phil.
3.2), and the only valid Eucharist is that presided over, or sanctioned
by, the local bishop (Phil. 4. 1; Smyr. 8. 1). In fact the passage
contained in Smyrneans 8-9 is IgI,latius' most fulsome description of the
authority and status of bishops.
Nothing involving the Church can be done without episcopal
permission, both baptism and Eucharist are invalid without the
bishop's presence or oversight,52 and whatever he approves is
acceptable to God. Furthermore,
by honouring the bishop one honours God. Finally, in the piece of
correspondence addressed to Polycarp, but intended to be heard by
the whole congregation, Ignatius makes it clear that he views his
death as vicarious, but not as an efficacious offering for those who
renounce episcopal authority. He writes, 'I am giving my life in
exchange for those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters and
the deacons' (Poly. 6. 1). What is to be made of the repeated, highly
laudatory and theologically significant comments about bishops?
First, the fact that Ignatius has to insist on the primacy of the
episcopacy and its authority suggests that this was not a universally
held view even in the cities where the various named bishops held
office. In fact the epistles bear witness to opposition to the
authority of the bishop. Grant notes that the clear implication of
,
Smyr. 8 . 1 2 is 'that the heterodox had their own Eucharist . 5 3 The
-

response
Ignatius presents to those who refuse the authority of Polycarp in Smyrna
is to reject the validity of the opponents' cultic rituals. As Schoedel states,
'Ignatius wishes to make it doubly clear that only the bishop can give
approval to such meals.'54 Thus, Ignatius seeks to impose a standardiza
tion of structure upon the various churches he comes across during
his journey. Sociologically, the epistles may be reflecting the
transition of early Christian communities from a pattern of
charismatic leadership to a more structured and clearly defined
system of authority, and the tension
resulting from this. Such routinization of the charisma is a common
phenomenon in later generations of new religious movements. 55 In
fact, Maier argues that 'Ignatius' authority is best understood as

51. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 1 09.

52. Sullivan observes that 'the new note introduced here is that the bishop can also
delegate someone else to preside': F.A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development
of Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001), 11 9.
53. Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 120.
54. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 243.
 55. W.S. Bainbridge, The Sociology of New Religious Movements (New York and
London: Routledge, 1997), 220--2.
charismatic',56 although he uses his authority to promulgate a more
regulated pattern of leadership that led to the emergence of a single
episcopal figure in each geographical centre.57 Prior to the arrest
and
deportation of Ignatius, his own church in Antioch appears to have
been suffering considerable upheaval and he writes about the return
of peace that has been communicated to him while he is travelling to
Rome (Phil. 10.1; Smyr. 11 .2-3; Poly. 7. 1-2; 8. 1). It is likely that
Ignatius himself was the major source of such discord and this could
have been due to his attempt to impose a more hierarchical
leadership model on the church in Antioch. This may perhaps have
created internal divisions within the community, especially among
members who wished to retain a more traditional charismatic
leadership structure. It is not impossible, however, that Ignatius'
attempts to suppress alternative forms of church structure and
leadership resulted in his opponents betraying him to Roman
authorities in Antioch.
Second, it is interesting to note that the only church where Ignatius
does not name the bishop is the church in Rome. Although he had
not arrived in the imperial capital at the time of writing to that
community, his silence on this matter may suggest that the office of
bishop had not yet assumed
significance in Rome, or even that there was not a single figure at
this stage who was the leader of the Christians in Rome. 58 The
latter
alternative is supported by Lampe, who puts forward the thesis that

the fractionation in Rome favoured a collegial presbyterial system of

governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the
second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the
city
. . . Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no
59
monarchical episcopacy for circles mutually bound by friendship.

56. RO. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings ofHermas.
Clement and Ignatius, ESCJ I I (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier, 2002), 170.
57. Trebilco's study of early Christianity in Ephesus draws attention to competing strands
within that city. In relation to Ignatius' description of those who 'resist the bishop' (Eph. 5. 1-6.
1) Trebi1co attempts to identify those who are opposing the model of authority resting with a
single episcopal figure: 'Those who oppose these developments may well have included some
who favoured a greater emphasis on the forms of authority which John the Seer made use of
in Revelation and others who were from the Johannine community and so favoured a much
more collegial church structure': The Early Christians in Ephesus, 647.
58. In order to try to counter this implication Sullivan notes that Ignatius does not
mention presbyters in his Epistle to the Romans, yet most scholars would still argue for
the existence of a presbytery. While this is true, it does not account for the overwhelming
attention that Ignatius devotes to the office of bishop in his letters and its remarkable
absence from the Epistle to the Romans.
59. P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries
(London: T&T Clark, 2003), 397.
By 'fractionation' Lampe is referring to the scattered and largely
discrete house congregations that operated in Rome. This lack of
centralization may reflect both the geography of the imperial capital
and also the desire of believers to remain inconspicuous.
Third, there is debate surrounding the correct use of terminology:
whether it is appropriate to label the system being advocated by
Ignatius as 'monarchical episcopacy', or if 'monepiscopacy' should be
used as a more neutral term. Obviously the system proposed by
Ignatius is not the full-blown monarchical episcopacy of the late
antique or early medieval periods. For this reason, scholars such as
Sullivan prefer the term
'monepiscopal' for the single-bishop leadership structure that is being
advocated in the seven genuine epistles.6o While this may be a
helpful neutral term, it perhaps fails to acknowledge adequately the
immense
privileges and theological significance that Ignatius attributes to this
office, and perhaps his thinking is best understood as proto-
monarchical episcopacy, because of its obvious resonances with the
system that emerged over the course of the ensuing centuries.
Schoedel notes that 'Ignatius' high view of the authority of the
bishop is probably still the
single most important reason for doubting the authenticity of the
,
middle recension .6 1 In fact, this is one of Joly's fundamental
reasons for rejecting the genuineness of the seven letters.62 However,
if, as has been suggested
above, the letters were written in the second quarter of the second
century by Ignatius, they can still be affirmed as authentic and the
developed episcopal doctrine becomes less problematic.
Notwithstanding all the complexities surrounding Ignatius' view of
the office of bishop, it must be acknowledged that considerable
development has occurred in terms of the leadership structure
envisaged, especially in comparison to that suggested in the Pauline
letters and other early Christian documents. Perhaps one may
justifiably feel that the ideas put forward by Ignatius would have a
little more integrity ifhe himself were not a holder of episcopal office,
with his own authority being threatened by dissenting voices. His
high view of bishops appears somewhat self-aggrandizing, and
perhaps was even an attempt to silence those voices in Antioch who
wished to retain a more spontaneous or charismatic form of
leadership.
The understanding of the Eucharist is another highly significant
and controversial theological development in the thinking of
Ignatius. Yet again care is required in relation to the terminology
employed. It would be anachronistic to discuss his ideas in the light
of later debates about transubstantiation. Perhaps a more
appropriate way to discuss his understanding is in light of the place
of cultic meals in the wider milieu
60. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 104.
61. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 22.
62. Joly, Le dossier d'Ignace d'Antioch, 75-85.
of Graeco-Roman religions. Just as Paul can describe the eating of
idol meat as partaking in idols (1 Cor. 10.20), Ignatius sees the
consumption of the Eucharistic elements as a participatory event.
Thus Schoedel summarizes the perspective of the epistles in the
following manner: 'The eucharist is the center of worship for Ignatius
(cf. Eph. 5.2; 1 3 .1; Phd. 4;
Smyr. 7. 1; 8.1) and serves as the focus for a sense of the presence of
saving power in the Christian community (cf. Eph. 20.2).' 6 3 A close
association
between the elements of bread and wine and the physical body of
Christ does emerge in Smyr. 7. 1, where Ignatius attacks his
opponents' absence from the cultic meal performed under the
authority of the bishop: 'They abstain from the eucharist and prayer,
since they do not confess the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour
Jesus Christ, which suffered on behalf of our sins and which the
Father raised in his kindness' (Smyr. 7.1). Yet even here the
formulation is so tied up with combatting the opponents' denial of
the reality of the sufferings of Christ that it is perhaps best to
exercise caution rather than to overload this single reference with too
much theological freight. Rather, Ignatius is happier to describe the
Eucharist as the 'medicine of immortality' (Eph. 20.2), which in some
sense denotes the real salvific presence of Christ in the elements, and
affirms the significance of the Eucharist as a participatory event for
the
community, as a demonstration of both their fellowship with Christ
and their fealty to the bishop.64

(ii) Christology
Traditionally an analysis of an author's beliefs concerning the nature
of Jesus has been undertaken by investigating the titles that are
employed as descriptions of status. One of the classical exponents of
this approach is Oscar Cullmann. Describing his desire to be
analytical in his methodology for deriving the Christological concepts
of the New Testament, Cullmann provided the following explanation:
This does not mean that we shall investigate in turn each New
Testament writing with all the different titles that appear in it, but
rather that we shall examine in its precise meaning each Christological
65
title for itself as it appears throughout all the New Testament books.

Although privileging this titular approach, Cullmann acknowledges

that in some ways it creates a false dichotomy between the person
and the work of Christ. He states, 'The New Testament hardly ever
speaks of the

63. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 21.

64. . Further on these points see Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 21.
65. O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, tr. S.c. Guthrie and C.A.M.
Hall (London: SCM Press, 1959), 6.
 ,
person of Christ without at the same time speaking of his work. 66
Thus in discussing the Christology that Ignatius implicitly presents, it is
necessary to consider both the titles used and the significance he
attributes to the work of Christ. Tuckett notes the protest made by a
number of scholars against the overuse of titles, but cautions
against throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water. Thus
he comments that 'we cannot ignore key christological terms or
"titles" completely. In any case, many of these
key terms or titles became important in subsequent Christian history
when they were adapted and used as key descriptions of who Jesus
was.' 67
Discussing the names Ignatius uses to refer to Jesus, Grant
observes that the favoured term employed 'is the double name
,
"Jesus Christ" ( 1 1 2
times) .68 This compares with 'Christ Jesus' (13 times), 'Jesus' (3 times),
and 'Christ' (4 times). Often the name 'Jesus Christ' is conjoined to
other Christological titles.69 Ignatius is not shy about calling Jesus
'God'. In the
inscriptions of Ephesians and Romans he speaks confidently of 'Jesus
Christ our God'. In one of his creedal affirmations he declares that
Jesus is 'God come in the flesh' (Eph. 7.2), and in addressing the
Romans, he speaks of 'the passion of my God' (Rom. 6.3). Further
examples could be given where Ignatius freely identifies Jesus as
God, in a manner that
assumes this is a natural and uncontested designation, at least among
the recipients of his letters.7o From these data Grant concludes that
'Ignatius
is insisting upon the divine function, and also upon the divine nature,
,
of the incarnate Lord . 7 l Yet, in the face of docetic opposition,
Ignatius is equally strong in his affirmations of the humanity of
Jesus,72 and in a
number of the creedal statements he utilizes carefully balanced
pairings that support! the divine/human duality of Christ. 73 Perhaps
one of the
most striking examples of this occurs in Eph. 7.2, where Ignatius
describes Jesus as the 'one physician' who is 'both fleshly and
spiritual, begotton and unbegotten, God come in the flesh'. While
both sides of Jesus' nature

66. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 3.

67. C.M. Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and his Earliest Followers
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 200 1), II.
68. Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 7.
69. Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 7.
70. Cf. 'the blood of God' (Eph. 1. 1); 'our God in us' (Eph. 15.3); 'our God, Jesus
Christ, was conceived by the virgin Mary' (Eph. 18.2); 'God became manifest in human
form' (Ign. Eph. 1 9.3); 'our God, Jesus Christ' (Rom. 3.3); 'Jesus Christ, the God who
made you so wise' (Smyr. 1.1 ); 'farewell in our God, Jesus Christ' (Poly. 8.3).
71. Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 8.
72. This point is noted by Hurtado. He states, 'For his part, Ignatius, too, certainly
affirms Jesus' divinity. Indeed, he is as noticeable for the way he does this as he is for
his emphasis on Jesus' humanity': L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in
Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 637.
73. See Eph. 7.2; Smyr. 1. 1�2; Poly. 3.1.
are confessed, no attempt is made to explain how these twin aspects
are held together in union.
Hurtado comments on the purpose of these formulae, which
function as both doxological and doctrinal declarations. That is,
while they may reflect the language of praise employed by Ignatius
they also represent intellectually formulated beliefs about the nature of
Jesus. Hurtado states,

Of course, these all directly reflect Ignatius's deeply felt piety, but they
are not simply emotionally tinged rhetoric. In the context of all that
Ignatius attributes to Jesus, his application of the epithet theas to him
74
surely signals that Jesus is genuinely divine.

There was much distance yet to be travelled between the primitive

Christological statements articulated by Ignatius and the more
detailed and reflective creeds and discussions of the fourth and fifth
centuries, which were formulated as responses to the Christological
controversies of their own times. Notwithstanding this caveat,
Ignatius can be seen as one who, at least in embryonic form,
resonates with key features of those later 'orthodox' statements. He
relentlessly declares the humanity and divinity of Christ, and his views
of divinity incarnated in human form reveal that he does not hold to
adoptionistic interpretations of Christ being clothed with divinity at
either his baptism or resurrection. The resurrection, however, does
represent a stative change as Jesus is transformed from a passible to
an impassible being (Eph. 7.2).

(iii) The Virgin Mary

Another area in which Ignatius appears to show some noticeable
development in thinking is the way in which he depicts Mary, the
mother of Jesus. It should be noted, however, that the epistles
evidence none of the Marian devotion that became so prominent
later, especially in the Middle Ages. Instead, references to Mary serve
the related purposes of affirming the real humanity of Jesus and
undermining those who deny that he came and suffered in the flesh.
It is interesting to observe that Mary is only referred to in three
epistles, those three which have been seen as refuting docetic
adversaries, namely Ephesians, Trallians and Smyrneans. In the former,
Mary is mentioned on three separate occasions. First, in what may
be an early creedal or hymnic formulation that celebrates the duality
of Jesus' nature as 'both fleshly and spiritual, begotten and
unbegotten' (Eph. 7.2) Ignatius continues by affirming Christ as being
from 'both of Mary and of God', yet without clarifying how this
occurs. Schoedel's observation that Ignatius 'emphasized the
historical side of Christ's being here in opposition to what he
regarded as

74. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 639.

 ,
the heart of the false teaching of the opponents - namely doceticism 75
correctly places the comment in the context of the controversy it is
addressing.
In another carefully structured sequence of affirmations, Jesus is
described as being 'conceived by Mary according to the plan of God'
(Eph. 18.2). This again presents the physical reality of the
incarnation, even if this statement is not used in a context which is
explicitly polemical. 76 The final reference to Mary in Ephesians occurs
as part of a
triad of cosmological events that remained hidden from the 'ruler of
this age'. The first two elements in the triad refer to Mary: 'the
virginity of Mary and her giving birth eluded the ruler of this age'
(Eph. 19. 1). These affirmations form the introduction to the so-called
'Hymn of the Star' that follows, which Ignatius employs to illustrate
the salvific implications of the incarnation at a cosmic level. The
outlook here is markedly different from that of Rev. 12. 1 3-17, where
the dragon is fully cognizant of the woman and her male child and
actively seeks to destroy both of them. According to Grant, here
'Ignatius is amplifying a Pauline statement
[1 Cor. 2.8] by relating it specifically to Jesus' birth and death'. 77 While
Ignatius' knowledge of 1 Corinthians makes this possible, it is not
necessarily the most likely explanation.
Both of the remaining two references to Mary again affirm the
reality of incarnation. The first states, 'Jesus Christ, of the family of
David, of
Mary, who was truly born" both ate and drank, was truly persecuted
under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died' ( Trail. 9.1).
,
Schoedel describes this as a ' quasi-credal form 78 and notes that it
is formulated to
counter the teachings of the false teachers. Finally, although not
directly mentioned by name, Jesus is described in a further series of
affirmations concerning the reality of his fleshly existence as 'truly
born of a virgin' (Smyr. 1. 1). With the possible exception of the
cosmological triad in Eph.
19. 1, Mary forms an important part of Ignatius' theological
understand ing of the incarnation. There is no interest exhibited in
her apart from the support that her role provides in declaring the
physical reality of the birth of Christ from a human woman, albeit
through a miraculous virginal conception. Ignatius does not show
any knowledge of the ideas of the perpetual virginity of Mary, nor
does he see her as an object of piety and devotion. Such concepts
were to emerge at a later stage.

75. Schoedel, Ignatius ofAntioch, 61.

76. This formulation is seen as being traditional by Schoedel 'since the verb
(KUO<j>OpSIV) does not appear elsewhere in Ignatius': Ignatius of Antioch, 84-5.
77. Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 103.
78. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 1 52.
 (iv) Martyrdom
Was Ignatius a stoic believer facing death in the full confidence of his
own faith, or was he a somewhat twisted individual seeking his own
destruction and exhibiting all the classic signs of a martyr complex?
Either formulation is loaded with the presuppositions one brings to
the text, but there can be little doubt that the prospect of death in
Rome shaped Ignatius' thinking and the rhetoric he employed
throughout all seven epistles. However, it is in the Epistle to the
Romans that Ignatius provides his fullest reflection on martyrdom.
Perhaps the reason for this stems from the fact that he was not
concerned to refute opponents in that letter, nor to establish
episcopal authority; rather, as he turns his face to Rome in
writing, he has space to consider the significance of the events that
await him.79
In Romans Ignatius provides his readers with the location,
Smyrna, and the date of writing, the 24th of August,80 but
unfortunately no year is
given. Some of the language used by Ignatius to describe his
impending martyrdom echoes that supposedly employed by Paul in 2
Timothy. Ignatius refers to his death as being 'poured out as a
libation [OTTovolo Vol] for God' (Rom. 2.1), which may intentionally
pick up the phrase 'for I am already being poured out as a drink-
offering [OTTEVOOIlOI]' (2 Tim. 4.6). Thus, for Ignatius there may be
a certain resonance between the fate he is about to face and that
endured by prominent Christians before him, although he is careful
to distinguish certain differences. He writes, 'I am not enjoining you
as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned; they
were free, until now I have been a slave' (Rom. 4.3). The final phrase
illustrates that Ignatius saw his impending death as the means by
which he would attain true freedom.
Frend, however, is correct when he observes that Ignatius' letters
,
'display a state of exultation bordering on mania . 8 1 The images he
uses to
anticipate his martyrdom have a certain morbidity: for example, 'I
am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts'
(Rom. 4. 1); 'coax the wild beasts, that they may become a tomb for
me and leave no part of my body behind' (Rom. 4.2). But while such
an outlook may sound somewhat discordant with modern sensitivities,
it finds its antecedents in the New Testament, although many of the
images of death have been domesticated to such a degree that they
are not recognized for what they are. Ignatius is doing no more than
following Jesus' example of taking up his cross. In many ways, early
Christianity, or at least certain strands in it,

79. See in particular Romans 4-5.

80. Here Ignatius employs the typical Roman system of dating, describing the day
as 'the ninth day before the calends of September' (Rom. 10.3).
81. W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford: Blackwell,
1965), 197.
may accurately be described as a martyr cult. Ignatius represents the
belief in a reversal, or inversion, of worldly values and attachments.
In his bondage he has become free; in his death he will be made
alive. By 'learning to desire nothing while in chains' (Rom. 4.3) he is
learning to desire Christ more completely. Thus he understands the
destruction of the flesh as producing the perfection of the disciple:
Fire and cross and packs of wild beasts, cuttings and limbs being torn
apart, the grinding of the whole body, the evil torments of the devil -
let them come upon me, only that I may attain to Jesus Christ. (Rom.
5.3)

Such an attitude, although unpalatable to certain minds,82 reflects

the countercultural attitudes exhibited in early Christianity, whereby
acts of martyrdom became world-negating events that served to rob
the Roman empire and the dominion of the Satan of their power,
and in an uncompromising way demonstrated the victory of Christ
over the world. Therefore Ignatius can say, 'it is better for me to die
in Jesus Christ than to rule the ends of the earth' (Rom. 6.1). These
divergent cosmological outlooks confronted each other in the
imperial edicts that sought to make Christians conform to acts of
socio-religious piety such as reverencing the emperor, and the
stubborn refusal of followers of Jesus to comply. As a consequence,
the arena was not viewed as a place of defeat for the fledging
Christian faith; rather, it was seen as the venue where one attained
to Christ and received true illumination.83

(v) IgnatiUS ' Use of the New Testament

The ongoing debate concerning the emergence of the biblical canon
has sought some clarification by consulting the practices of Ignatius
in citing the writings that later became collected as the New
Testament. Only one citation of scripture is prefaced with an
introductory formula and that is from the Old Testament, when
Ignatius draws upon Provo 3.34, 'For it is written, "God opposes the
haughty'" (Eph. 5.3). The use of the New Testament is more
problematic, and it needs to be remembered that as Ignatius
composed his epistles during transportation to Rome it was
extremely unlikely that he had direct access to written copies of
documents that were later included in the canonical New Testament.
Notwithstanding these physical circumstances, it is interesting to note
the accuracy and range of texts cited by Ignatius while writing his
seven epistles. A thorough analysis of this topic was undertaken in
1905 by
W.R. Inge, who adopted a maximalist position, declaring even faint
echoes to be evidence that Ignatius knew certain New Testament

82. See, for example, Grant, Ignatius of Antioch, 13.

83. See Rom. 5.3; 6.3.
writings.84 Others have revisited this question, especially in relation to
the use of the Gospels by Ignatius. Koester adopts an extremely hard
line for proving the use of a Gospel by a later writer. He maintains
that one must be able to demonstrate the clear use of redactional
material to ensure that
the actual Gospel in question is being quoted, and not just some Gospel
like tradition. 85 Hence he claims that at no point in the seven
epistles is it demonstrable that Ignatius was citing material drawn
from any of the four
canonical Gospels. By contrast, Massaux finds clear and repeated
evidence of the use of Matthew's Gospel in the writings of
Ignatius.86
In part, these divergent findings represent alternative
methodological presuppositions. Koester avoids the problem of
allowing a few shared words or the faintest echo to become the basis
of asserting that an author knew a text that was later deemed
canonical. However, when there appears to be a clear case of
Ignatius citing a piece of redactional material from Matthew's Gospel,
Koester finds a less likely explanation to exclude
what appears to be the obvious conclusion, namely that Ignatius
knew and cited the first Gospel. 8? The text in question is drawn from
Matt. 3.15
and cited in Smyr. 1.1. Discussing Jesus' baptism Ignatius states that
it was done 'in order to fulfil all righteousness', a comment made
only by Matthew. It should be noted that Matthean scholars have
long recognized
the term 'righteousness' as being part of the preferred vocabulary of
the first Gospel. 88 This is the clearest example for demonstrating
Ignatius' use
of Matthew; all other examples cited by scholars show far fewer
points of contact, but they are of value for building a cumulative
case for Ignatius' use of the first Gospel. 89
While Matthew may be the only Gospel for which it is possible to
suggest that Ignatius is citing the text, more fruitful results can be

84. W.R. Inge, 'Ignatius', in Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament
in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 905), 61-83.
85. H. Koester, Synoptische Oberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Viitern, TU 65 (Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1957), 24-61.
86. E. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature
before Saint Irenaeus, book 1, The First Ecclesiastical Writers, New Gospel Studies 5/1
(ET, Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1990), esp. 85-122.
87. See Koester's discussion of Smyr. 1.1, in Synoptische Oberlieferung bei den
Apostolischen Viitern, 57-9.
88. For instance, Davies and Allison note 'righteousness' as being a 'special
favourite of our evangelist' and observe that Matthew uses the term seven times,
whereas it is absent in Mark and only used once in Luke: W.D. Davies and D.C.
Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol.
I, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 325.
89. Further on this see my recent discussion, The Use ofthe Writings that Later
Formed the New Testament in the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch', in A. Gregory and
C.M. Tuckett (eds), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005), 1 59-86.
determined for the Pauline epistles. The wide-ranging use of 1
Corinthians is apparent at various points through the seven letters of
Ignatius.9o Inge
was so impressed by the use of 1 Corinthians that he stated, 'Ignatius
must have known this Epistle almost by heart..91 There is no reason to
dissent
from this assessment. If the case for Ignatius knowing and citing 1
Corinthians is beyond doubt, his use of the Pauline letter to the
Ephesians is almost as certain. Again the comment made by Inge is
apposite: 'Though the correspondences between Ignatius and this
Epistle are not nearly so numerous as in the case of 1 Corinthians, it
may be considered almost certain that they are not accidental..n
Perhaps the two most compelling examples are the parallels between
Ignatius' introduction to his own epistle to the Ephesians and Eph.
1.3-14, as well as Poly. 5. 1b and Eph. 5.25. Perhaps only two
other epistles can be shown to be used by
Ignatius with any certainty: 1 and 2 Timothy.93 Interestingly,
Ignatius makes a comment in his own writings concerning the scribal
habits of the
apostle Paul. He states, while addressing the Christian community in
Ephesus, that 'you are fellow initiates with Paul . . . who mentions
you in every epistle in Christ Jesus' (Eph. 12.2). The majority of
commentators, if they have discussed the issue at all, have taken
,
the statement that Paul
remembers the Ephesians in every letter as mere 'hyperbole .94
Schoedel states, 'the whole passage is highly idealized and tends to
make sweeping
claims on the basis of a few instances' .95 Similarly, Lightfoot mentions
the various hermeneutical devices that have been attempted to
remove the
apparent difficulty, including the alteration by the person responsible
for the Longer Recension, 'who always in his prayers makes mention
of you'
(oS lTcXVTOTE EV TeilS OE�OEO"lV CX\JTOV IJVTJIJOVEVEI UlJwv). Yet Lightfoot
himself uses the term 'hyperbole' to describe Ignatius' claim.96 The
tension arises since Paul does not in fact mention the Ephesians 'in
every letter',
but only in four of the epistles that form the Pauline corpus. 97 These are

90. Some of the most obvious examples are: Eph. 16.1:1 Cor. 6.9-10; Eph. 18.1:1
Cor. 1.18, 20; Mag. 10.2: 1 Cor. 5.7-8; Rom. 5. 1:1 Cor. 4.4.
91. Inge, 'Ignatius', 67.
92. Inge, 'Ignatius', 69.
93. See my discussion in Foster, 'The Use of the New Testament in the Epistles of
Ignatius', 185.
94. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 73 n. 7.
95. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 73.
96. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 2, 65-6.
 97. Lightfoot sees references to the Ephesians contained also in Rom. 16.5,
AOTTCLOOO8E 'E TToivETOV TDV AYOTTTJTOV �OU, Os- EOTIV ATTOPXTL TItS' 'AoioS' EIS' XPIOTOV and
2 Cor. 1 .8, Ou yap eEAO�EV u�aS' aYVOEIV, ACSEA�oi . UTTep TItS' 8AiljlEcuS' ��WV TItS'
YEVO�EVT)S' 'EV T1l 'Aoic;c Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 2, 65. These references to
'Asia' obviously do not explicitly mention the Ephesians, although, as Revelation 1-3
makes clear, Ephesus was undoubtedly considered part of the Roman province of Asia
by Christian writers.
1 Corinthians, 98 Ephesians,99 1 TimothylOO and 2 Timothy. l O l What
has not been considered until recently is the possibility that Ignatius'
rhetoric
at this point was not hyperbolic, but was in fact accurate, at least as
far as he knew the facts. 102 An examination of the text of the
seven letters appears to support the hypothesis that Ignatius knew
the very four
Pauline letters which explicitly make mention of the Ephesians. Thus
to reiterate a statement I have made elsewhere,

One must, therefore be content with the conclusion that a strong case
can be mounted for Ignatius' knowledge of four Pauline epistles and
the
Gospel of Matthew. An interesting 'canon' for those who wish to draw
lo
wider implications from these findings! 3

5. Conclusions

When one opens the pages of the seven epistles of Ignatius one is
struck by the force of the author's personality, perhaps more so than
by any other writer in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers. Thus, his
death in Rome was surely not the only way in which Ignatius
imitated his apostolic hero Paul. His certainty in the face of
approaching martyrdom may be described in the epistles in
somewhat mawkish terms, but it has also acted as an inspiration to
countless members of the band of martyrs throughout the centuries.
Yet when one sets admiration of this early church figure to one side
and critically assesses the epistles, one is confronted by a plethora of
contested and controversial issues.
In summary the positions espoused in this chapter are as follows.
The seven epistles known as the Middle Recension are authentically
Ignatian. The dating suggested by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History
and Chronicon is extremely tenuous and may represent little more than
his own guess at when the martyrdom of Ignatius took place. The
theological tendencies in the epistles appear to make better sense if
ascribed to the

98. In I Corinthians Ephesus is mentioned twice towards the end of the epistle: in
15.32, where Paul mentions fighting with wild beasts; and in 16.8, in the disclosure
of the plan to remain in Ephesus until Pentecost.
99. In Ephesians, Ephesus in mentioned in the majority of manuscripts in the
opening verse, TOIS OYIOlS Tois OOOIV EV 'E<j>so'l; significantly, however, the words EV
'E<j>so'l are
omitted in the three earliest manuscripts which are extant for Eph. 1.1: p46. �* and B,
although later scribes inserted the reference to Ephesus into both �2 and B2.
Moreover, the
subscriptio which is included after 6.24 in many manuscripts, including the original hand of
both � and B, describes the epistle as being rrpOs 'E<j>EOIOUS.
100. 1 Tim. 1.3, Timothy being urged to remain in Ephesus.
101. 2 Tim. 1.18; 4. 12; and some forms of the subscriptio that occurs after 4.22.
102. See Foster, 'The Use of the New Testament in the Epistles of Ignatius', 162--4.
103. Foster, 'The Use of the New Testament in the Epistles of Ignatius', 186.
second quarter of the second century, and this may be a more
appropriate period to which to date the epistles. Ignatius' support of
a system of centralized episcopal leadership appears to be a
significant innovation which was being opposed by those who
favoured a more traditional charismatic structure within the Christian
communities of Asia Minor. In his epistles Ignatius tackles two
groups of opponents, those with proclivities towards Jewish
practices - although not requiring circumci sion, and another group
who deny the reality of Christ's physical incarnation, suffering and
redemption. This latter group may be labelled 'docetic' in the wide
sense, as long as it is acknowledged that this term
encompasses a spectrum of beliefs and can be evidenced among
later groups who also marry docetism with Gnostic speculations.
104 For
Ignatius it is not even appropriate to call such people Christians.
Ignatius shows a limited knowledge of some of the writings that
were later accepted into the New Testament canon. It can only be
determined with certainty that he knew the Gospel of Matthew and
four Pauline epistles: I Corinthians, Ephesians and 1 and 2 Timothy.
Regardless of whether Ignatius is viewed as the suppressor of
diversity or the upholder of Christian truth, the instigator of a rigid
hierarchy or an advocate of ordered communities, a self-interested
power-hungry indi vidual or a self-sacrificing humble servant of his
master, he remains the most significant figure in the Christian
movement from the first half of the second century and without
grappling with the issues raised in his writings one can never fully
understand the development in theology and ecclesial thinking that
helped localized charismatic communities transform them selves into
a universal church with a vision of their own significance and
permanence.
 Chapter 10

POLYCARP OF SMYRNA, EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS

Michael Holmes

The Epistle to the Philippians penned by Polycarp of Smyrna is

sometimes dismissed as an example of a proof-texting moralism,
indicative of the post-apostolic church's fall from the heights of
Pauline Christianity. Read on its own terms, this complex
exhortatory letter reveals a vigorous, pastorally sensitive effort to
integrate both behavioural and theological aspects of 'righteousness'
as Polycarp seeks to maintain the stability and integrity of the
Philippian congregation. I

1. Polycarp

Polycarp of Smyrna may well have been the most important

Christian leader in Asia Minor in the first half of the second century
CEo Probably born about the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE,
Polycarp was already Bishop of Smyrna when his older friend and
mentor, Ignatius of Antioch, visited him and later sent him a letter of
encouragement and advice as Ignatius, already condemned to the
arena, made his way to Rome
(possibly as early as 1 10-20). Several decades later, at age 86 (c. 1 55-
602), Polycarp died a martyr's death, condemned to the flames for
his refusal to
deny Christ and sacrifice to the emperor. Details of Polycarp's arrest,
trial and execution were recorded by a member of his congregation
in a letter now known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp. It portrays (in
sometimes touching detail) both his steadfast commitment to his
Lord (9.3, 'For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has
done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved meT)
and his heroic valour as an 'apostolic and prophetic' 'teacher of all
Asia' (16.2, 12.2) who fearlessly exemplfied 'a martyrdom in accord
with the Gospel' ( Ll ) .

I. The following is a substantially expanded version of the introduction to this

document in M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers in English, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, forthcoming). For the Greek text consult M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts with English Translations (Baker, Book House, 1999), 202-2l.
2. Cf. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts with English Translations, 223.
 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 109

Irenaeus (who as a young man met and was instructed by

Polycarp) preserves a number of details and anecdotes about him.
He reports that Polycarp's colleagues included both Papias (AH 5.33
.4) and Florinus (Eusebius, HE 5.20.4-8), and mentions a trip to Rome
in the early 1 50s, at which time Polycarp (a staunch Quartodeciman)
debated the proper date
for observing Easter with Anicetus, Bishop of Rome (neither,
apparently, persuaded the other). 3 He also recalls a testy
confrontation between
Polycarp and Marcion, an occasion when Polycarp dismissed Marcion
as the 'first-born of Satan'. 4
Polycarp's life and ministry spanned the time between the end of
the apostolic era and the emergence of catholiG Christianity, and as
a proto orthodox leader he was deeply involved in the central issues
and challenges of this critical era. These included the increasing
possibility of conflict with the Roman state, the challenge of the
emerging 'Gnostic' movement and its charismatic leaders (such as
Cerinthus and Marcion), the development and expansion of the
monepiscopal form of ecclesiastical organization, and the beginnings
of the formation of a canon of early Christian writings. Irenaeus and
Eusebius both considered him to be a significant link in the chain of
apostolic tradition (a concept of increasing importance throughout the
second century). Conservative and traditional, Polycarp exercised
influence far beyond Asia as he sought to protect and maintain the
proto-orthodox strand of the early Christian movement.

2. Polycarp as Author

Tradition portrays Polycarp as a prolific writer. Irenaeus speaks of

him as the author of several 'letters which he sent either to the
neighbouring
churches, strengthening them, or to some of the brethren, exhorting
and warning them'. s The anonymous author of the (historically
worthless)
Life of Polycarp is even more extravagant, attributing to Polycarp
,
'many treatises and sermons and letters . 6 Also, a canon list
attributes a Didaskalia to Polycarp. 7
Of all these many writings attributed to Polycarp, however, only a
single one survives under his name8: a letter he wrote to the Christian

3. Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4; Eusebius, HE 5.24; 4. 14. 1-5.

4. Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4; Eusebius, HE 4. 14.7.
5. Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus, in Eusebius, HE 5.20.8.
6. Vito Poly. 12, in 1.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Po/ycarp, 3
vols (London: Macmillan, 1885, 2nd edn 1889-90), vol. 3, 494.
7. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 1, 447, 351 n. I.
8. The Life of Polycarp 'explains away' the loss of many documents by attributing
their destruction to the same pagans who instigated Polycarp's martyrdom: 'He wrote
also many treatises and sermons and letters, but in the persecution which arose on his
account, when he
110 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
community in the Macedonian town of Philippi. Irenaeus o ffers the
earliest testimony to this document: 'There is also a letter of
Polycarp written to the Philippians, a most powerful one, from which
those who so desire and are concerned about their own salvation can
learn both the character of his faith and the message of the truth' (AH
3.3.4; cf. Eusebius. HE 4. 1 4.8).
Has anything by Polycarp survived without his name attached?
Victor of Capua attributes some extant comments on Gospel
passages to
Polycarp, but 'parts of these are manifestly spurious and the remainder
,
are discredited by this base companionship . 9 Hans von
Campenhausen's claim that Polycarp also authored the Pastoral Epistles
has rightly met with little acceptance. 1 O More promising is the
intriguing proposal (now
the subject of a major monograph by Charles Hill) that Polycarp is the
author of the anonymous apology known as the Epistle to DIOGNETUS.
11
More probable is the prospect that some of Polycarp's oral teachings
may be embedded in Irenaeus' writings. In Against Heresies (4.27. 1-
4.32. I ), Irenaeus apparently passes on from memory the teaching of
a presbyter, one who was, according to Irenaeus, 'a disciple of
apostles, who heard and
saw apostles and their disciples' (4.27. 1). A number of scholars have
now argued that this anonymous elder is, in fact, Polycarp of Smyrna
12 - who may also be, in Hill's opinion, the source for the 'catalogue
of heresies' in
AH 4.23-27. 1 3

3. The Epistle to the Philippians

Brief, direct, and stylistically unpretentious, Polycarp's Epistle to the

Philippians is a good example of what Stowers terms a 'letter of
exhortation and advice', one that combines aspects of a paraenetic

Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 1, 473.

9.
H. von Campenhausen, 'Polykarp und die Pastoralen', repro In H. von
10.
Campenhausen, Aus der Fruhzeit des Christentums (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1963), 197-
252.
II. P.F. Beatrice, 'Der Presbyter des Ireniius, Polykarp von Smyrna und der Brief
an Diognet', in E. Romero-Pose (ed.), Pteroma Salus Carnis: Homenaje a Antonio Orbe. S.J.
(Santiago de Compostela: Imprenta Aldecoa, 1990), \79-202; C.E. Hill, From the Lost
Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus' Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad
Diognetum (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006).
12. F.D. Gilliard, 'The Apostolicity of Gallic Churches', HTR 68 (1975), 29 n. 30;
Beatrice, 'Der Presbyter des ireniius, Polykarp von Smyrna und der Brief an Diognet';
Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, 7-24.
13. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, 24-3 1 .
 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians III

(exhortatory) letter, a letter of advice, and a letter of admonition. 1 4

Specific aspects of a paraenetic letter (the writer is the recipients'
friend or moral superior, who recommends habits of behaviour and
actions that conform to a certain model of character, in a letter
typically directed 'at
those who had already been initiated into a social group and needed
to habituate the initial learning. I 5 ) are clearly evident in Philippians,
especially chaps 2-1 0. The Philippians apparently have approached
Polycarp as their social and ecclesiastical superior (his demurral in 3.
1-2 notwithstanding), and he responds appropriately. Moreover,
much of what he writes seeks to reinforce existing behaviour or
affirm things
already known. 16
In chapter 1 1 , characteristics of letters of advice (aul1�OUAEUTlKCX1)17
and admonition (VOU6ETllT1 KCX1)18 are evident as Polycarp combines
traditional maxims (e.g. 'avoid love of money', 1 1 .2) with his own opinion
regarding how the Philippians should treat Valens ('be reasonable', 1 1 .4) in
an effort to restore the congregation's sense of oW<!>POOUVT] (,self-
control' or 'moderation').
Another style of discourse, the 'word of exhortation' (ADYOS' lTCXPCX
KAllOEWS'),19 seems also to have influenced the document, especially in
chaps 2-1 0. The basic pattern of this widely occurring form consists of
(1) presentation of exempla, i.e. authoritative sayings (often
scriptural) or examples, (2) a conclusion based upon the exempla
indicating their relevance or significance for those addressed, and (3)
an exhortation based
upon that conclusion (which may also anticipate exempla and
conclusions to follow). 2o This basic pattern occurs frequently in
Philippians.2 1
With respect to its rhetorical features, the body of the letter may be

14. S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1986), 91-6.
15. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 96, 95.
16. Reinforcement of existing behaviour: 'you believe', 1.3; 'continue in the faith', 4.3;
'if we continue to believe', 5.2; 'persevering', 7.2; 'continue to hold steadfastly and
unceasingly', 8. 1; 'continue to stand fast', 10. 1, 'maintaining', 10.2; 'self-control in
which you live', 10.3. Affirmation of things known: 'knowing', 1.3, 4. 1, 5. 1;
'remembering', 2.3, 12. 1; Paul taught and wrote them, 3.2; 'return to the word delivered
to us from the beginning', 7.2; 'what we have believed', 8.2; 'which you saw', 9.1; 'do
we not know', 11 .2; 'you are all well trained', 12.1.
17. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 1 07-8.
18. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 125-7.
19. See L. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity',
HTR 77 (1984), 277-99, as refined and developed by C.c. Black II, 'The Rhetorical Form of
the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills', HTR 81
(1988), 1-18.
20. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity', 279,
28 1-2, 284-5.
21. Poly. Phil. 1 .3-2 . 1 ; 4. 1 ; 5 . 1 -2; 8. 1 -9 . 1 a; 9 . 1 b-1O.3.
11 The Writings of the Apostolic
2 Fathers
characterized as epideictic rhetoric, a type whose goals included
enhance ment of an audience's existing beliefs. 22 This confirms what the
epistolary
features suggest: that maintainance of the community, with respect
to both its beliefs and behaviour, was a key goal of the author.23
In short, the letter is a complex hortatory letter that employs a
homiletic style of discourse, and which also displays throughout an
awareness of Hellenistic epistolary conventions and rhetorical theory.
For many of his exempla Polycarp draws upon the scriptures, in the
form of the Septuagint. Schoedel suggests that he makes use of
Psalms,
Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Tobit,24 a list which, if revised,
might require reduction?5 At the same time, the frequency with which
Polycarp's language and vocabulary are illumined by the Septuagint
suggests that his acquaintance with it may run deeper than his
references
or allusions indicate?6
Polycarp also makes considerable use of early Christian writings.
He is quite familiar with 1 Peter and 1 Clement, and also uses 1
Corinthians and
Ephesians. He probably made use of 1 and 2 Timothy and 1 John,
and perhaps Romans, Galatians and Philippians.27 While none of
these
documents are cited as 'scripture' (the reference to Ephesians in 12. 1
being a possible exception), the way in which Polycarp refers to them
indicates that he considered them authoritative writings. He also
cites, as equally authoritative, at least one saying found nowhere
else in early Christian
sources.28

22. Black, 'The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian
Sermon', 5, summarizing the discussions of Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian on this
point; cf. G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel
Hill, NC and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984, 19: epideictic 'seeks
to persuade [the audience] to hold or reaffirm some point of view in the present'.
23. Cf. H.O. Maier, 'Purity and Danger in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians:
The Sin of Valens in Social Perspective', JECS 1 (1 993), 229-47, esp. 244-7.
24. W.R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias (Camden,
NJ: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967), 5; cf. the earlier work by Daniel Volter, Polykarp
und Ignatius und die ihnen zugeschriebenen Briefe (Leiden: Brill, 191 0), 29-30.
25. Apparent allusions to the three major prophets may all be indirect or mediated.
26. A.E. Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1941), 1 70, aptly notes that Polycarp displays a 'freedom of rendering as though
he were quoting from memory. Instead of making his references direct and formal, he
usually works the ideas and expressions into statements of his own.'
27. M.W. Holmes, 'Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and the Writings that Later
Formed the New Testament', in A. Gregory and C.M. Tuckett (eds), The Reception of the
New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 187-227.
There are possible allusions to other documents (e.g. the four canonical Gospels, Acts,
2 Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews and 2 John), but insufficient evidence
to demonstrate their use. This does not mean that Polycarp was unacquainted with
these, only that he does not appear to have made use of them in this particular letter.
28. Phil. 6.1; cf. Holmes, 'Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians', 188-9.
 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 11 3

It is worthwhile to observe how Polycarp utilizes his resources.

The letter is often dismissed as little more than an unreflective
pastiche of quotations and allusions. 29 But Polycarp is no mere
'seedpicker' (cf. Acts
17 .1 8-2 1) mechanically stringing things together: he not only
abridges or alters his sources in the process of incorporating them
into his letter, but
in so doing often changes the meaning or point to serve his own
purposes.30 In short, his heavy use of traditional materials is not
without
evidence of thought and originality - indeed, it likely reflects a
strategic decision on his part.

4. Occasion and Central Concerns

Philippians was penned by Polycarp in response to a letter from

Philippi (cf. 3 .1; 13. 1). On the basis of his response, it seems
probable that the Philippians mentioned their reception of Ignatius (cf.
1. 1); it is certain that they asked Polycarp to discuss the subject of
righteousness (3. 1), to assist their participation in the embassy to
Antioch (13. 1), and to send them a copy of Ignatius' letters (1 3.2).
They may have raised the matter of Valens (an avaricious presbyter)
on their own initiative as well (alternatively,
however, it is possible that Polycarp learned of this matter via the
letter carrier3 ! ). In the absence of further evidence, we can only
speculate about
why the Philippians wrote to Polycarp rather than someone else
(though his repeated commendation of Crescens in chap. 14 implies
some prior relationship32), what else they may have said in their
letter, what
circumstances prompted them to write, and whether they saw any
link between their request for a discussion of 'righteousness' and the
matter of Valens.
Whether or not the Philippians saw a connection between their
request for a discussion of righteousness and the matter of Valens, it
is quite possible that Polycarp did. Indeed, a major interpretive
question is the relationship (or lack thereof) between these two main
issues and the extensive exhortation.

29. See for details B. Dehandschutter, 'Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians: An

Early Example of "Reception" ', in J.M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early
Christianity (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1 989), 275; also K. Berding,
Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp 's
Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 4-6; P. Hartog, Polycarp
and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the Epistle to the
Philippians and its Allusions to New Testament Literature (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002).
30. See e.g. his use of Ephesians and 1 Peter in Phil. 1. 3-2.
1. 3 \. Cf. in this respect 1 Cor. 1 . 1 1 ; and 7. 1.
32. See the discussion in P. Oakes, 'Leadershipand Suffering in the Letters of
Polycarp and Paul to the Philippians', in A. Gregory and C.M. Tuckett (eds),
Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 370-3.
11 The Writings of the Apostolic
4 Fathers
P.N. Harrison exemplifies a traditional approach, which generally
(1) sees no connection between the two issues, and (2) thinks that the
problem of 'heresy' (which Harrison argues was sparked by Marcion)
is the major
problem. 33 Schoedel, who similarly sees no intrinsic link between 'love of
money' and 'heresy', 34 nonetheless reads the letter as an
interconnected whole by viewing the two issues as equally
symptomatic of a profound
moral failing in Philippi, to which Polycarp responds by scrutinizing both
issues through the lens of (what he considers to be) a proper
understand ing of 'righteousness'. 3 5
One of the first to argue in a thoroughgoing way for a connection
between the two issues was Meinhold. Reading chaps 1 1- 1 2 in light of
chaps 3 and 7, and convinced that Marcion (whose teachings he
thinks sparked a 'debate' about righteousness in Philippi) was the
target of Polycarp's comments in chaps 2-1 0, he finds a link with chaps
1 1-12 by
suggesting that Valens' sin was the acceptance of a monetary gift
from Marcion.36
Steinmetz, reading chaps 2-1 0 in light of 1 1-12, achieves a unified
reading of the letter by reducing the central issues to just one (the
mention of 'heresy' in 7. 1 being, in his estimation, almost entirely
pro forma, of little significance with respect to the occasion of the
letter): the case of Valens, who is symptomatic of a problem
infecting the whole congrega
tion. The substantial paraenetic emphasis reflects Polycarp's belief
that virtue is the flip side of the coin of 'righteousness'. 37
Maier's sociologically oriented analysis (which takes for granted
the existence of two problems) combines a reversal of Harrison's
evaluation of the relative importance of the two issues with
Steinmetz's view that chaps 1 1-12 offer the key to the situation:
'While Polycarp was anxious about the spread and reception of false
teaching, his ethical exhortation reveals a more profound concern
with group solidarity and purity, phenomena compromised by
Valens' abuse of wealth.' For Maier 'righteousness' is primarily a
moral rather than a theological term, and
'the main focus of the letter is the protection of the purity of the
,
Philippian church .38

33. P.N. Harrison, Polycarp's Two Epistles to the PhilipPIANS (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1936), 1 69, 1 29-30.
34. Schoedel, Polycarp, 17, 31.
35. W.R. Schoedel, 'Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch', ANRW 2.27. 1 (1
993), 282.
36. P. Meinhold, 'Polykarpos', Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopiidie der classichen
Attertumswissenschaft 2 1 ( 1952), 1 686-7. (When Marcion joined the church in Rome, he
is reported to have given it a gift of 200,000 sesterces: so Tertullian, Praescr. 30.2.)
37. P. Steinmetz, 'Polykarp von Smyrna iiber die Gerechtigkeit', Hermes 100 (1972),
63- 75.
38. Maier, 'Purity and Danger in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians', 246, 246 n. 67.
 Po/ycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 115

Maier's rich sociological analysis reveals the shortcomings of

purely theological readings (which stress the 'anti-heretical' aspects
at the expense of other elements, and thereby fail to do justice to the
paraenetic aspects of the letter); at the same time, it is unable
adequately to account for the historical particularities of the
situation. Furthermore, recent investigations, despite their shared
belief that the letter exhibits a thematic unity, have differed regarding
the nature or identity of that unity.
Steinmetz and Maier point us in a fruitful direction in two respects.
First, they remind us of the need to take seriously the paraenetic
character of the document. Second, they rightly downplay the role or
importance of
7.1 in the letter. (Indeed, I would argue not only that 7. 1 plays a
minimal role in the document, but also that whatever role it does
play reflects Polycarp's situation in Smyrna rather than
circumstances in Philippi, and
that Marcion is nowhere in view. 39) Contra Steinmetz and Maier,
however, I am not convinced that chaps 1 1-12 hold the key to
the letter. One topic that we know the Philippians raised in their
letter, and to which Polycarp devotes by far the greatest portion of
his letter, is the subject of righteousness. This observation should
therefore be given substantial weight in any assessment of the letter.
The observed inability to find a connection between the two
sections of the document in the occasion of the letter suggests that
it may lie elsewhere, perhaps in Polycarp's goals or his own theological
perspective. The letter's epistolary and rhetorical features, 4o its
sociological aspects,
and key aspects of the historical context suggested above (namely, that
the 'anti-heretical' elements likely reflect the situation in Smyrna and
that Marcion is not in view) lead one to suggest that Polycarp's own
theological understanding may provide the key to the letter's unity.
That is, Polycarp believed that wrong behaviours were prima facie
evidence of wrong beliefs, and that wrong beliefs inevitably
produced wrong behaviours. Further, wrong beliefs and/or
behaviours are characteristic

39. On the generic, non-particular character of the polemic in 7.1 (note, for
example, the repeated Os av, 'whoever'), cf. N. Dahl, 'Der Erstgeborene Satans und der
Vater des Teufels', in N. Dahl, Apophoreta (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), 70-84, and
Steinmetz, 'Polykarp von Smyrna', 73. In favour of Smyrna rather than Philippi, the
following can be said: in view of
(I) Ign. Smyrn. 4. 1-5.3 (cf. 2. 1, 6.1-7.2), where Ignatius specifically identifies in
Smyrna 'certain people' whose teaching bears a very close resemblence to that
proscribed by Polycarp, and (2) the absence in Philippians of evidence of sectarianism in
Philippi, it seems likely that the target(s) of Polycarp's remarks lived not in Philippi but
in or around Smyrna; cf. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 69-70. Against Marcion as Polycarp's target, see
e.g. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 89-108.
40. Stowers notes that such a letter usually offers a 'model ofwhat it means to be a
good person in a certain role' and 'attempts to persuade and move the audience to
conform to that model and to elicit corresponding habits of behaviour': Letter Writing in
Greco-Roman Antiquity, 94.
116 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
of outsiders, not insiders. Consequently Valens' problematic
behaviour with regard to finances represents a major threat both to
the Philippian community's stability (in that it blurs the boundary
between insiders and outsiders) and its theological self-
understanding (in that it leads to questions or uncertainty about the
meaning of righteousness).
This understanding of the letter makes sense of the way Polycarp
stresses so strongly the behavioural aspects of what is usually
,
viewed as a purely 'theological' concept, i.e. 'righteousness . 41 For
him, orthopraxy is
the other side of the coin of orthodoxy; if the community is behaving
properly, it is also likely believing properly. This position may explain
the vigour with which he reinforces (what he thinks should be) the
community's sense of behavioural norms and standards throughout
the letter. His key goal was to maintain and protect the integrity of
the community in terms of both its beliefs and behaviours. Thus
throughout the letter he displays a primary, overriding concern: that
the Philippian congregation continue to 'follow the example of the Lord,
firm and immovable in faith, . . . cherishing one another, united in
truth, . . . despising no one' (10. 1), and thereby maintain a proper
boundary between themselves and the Gentiles among whom they
live.

5. Key Theological Themes

On the basis of such a short and so clearly occasional letter it is

unwise to attempt to say anything of a comprehensive nature about
Polycarp's theology. But because he does devote a substantial part
of his letter to the topic of 'righteousness' - and because the preceding
paragraph has already raised the question of what he means by that
term -it seems appropriate to attempt a sketch of his views on some
selected topics (to the extent that they are revealed in the letter).

(i) Salvation
Before turning to 'righteousness' it will first be helpful, in order to create
a suitable context, to summarize Polycarp's views about salvation.
Salvation for Polycarp is first and foremost something that God has
accomplished through Jesus Christ: it is a matter of 'grace' - that is,
'by the will of God through Jesus Christ' - not 'works' (1 .3). It
involves 'faith' or 'trust' (1 .3; 5.2) - itself a gift (3.2) - in the God
who has raised from the dead (1 .2; 2. 1 .2; 9.2; 12.2) Jesus Christ,
who 'endured for our sins' (1 .2),

41. It also takes account ofthe fact that in both sections ofthe letter Polycarp's
primary concern is with the community: even in chaps 1 1-12 he devotes considerably more
attention to the community than he does to Valens and his wife.
 Poiycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 11 7

that is, 'who bore our sins in his own body upon the tree' (8. 1),
'who died on our behalf (9.2).
Furthermore, while salvation is to some extent a present experience
('you have been saved', 1.3), it definitely is eschatological in character
and orientation, with resurrection the primary focus: the God who raised
Jesus from the dead 'will raise us also' (2.2; cf. 5.2, 'we will receive the
world to come as well, inasmuch as he promised to raise us from the dead
and . . .
we will also reign with him'; see also 5.3; 8. 1; 12.2), and the Jesus
who died for us will return as the eschatological Judge (2. 1; 6.2).
But if salvation is a divine gift and promise, it is at the same time
a matter of human achievement. For whether the past divine act on
our behalf will in fact become actualized in the future depends a
great deal, in Polycarp's understanding, on how humans respond in
the present. God will raise up believers from the dead 'if they 'do his
will' (2.2), ' if, that is, they 'please him in this present world' and
'prove to be citizens worthy of him' (5.2; cf. 5.3; 8. 1; 10.2). But
response is notjust a matter of behaviour; it also entails the
acceptance of certain beliefs about God and especially Jesus (cf. 7.
1).
In short, Polycarp works with a synergistic understanding of salvation;
salvation (especially with reference to resurrection) is for Polycarp
both a gift and an achievement.42 It is a gift because it is the result
of God's will
and grace as manifested in the sacrificial actions of Jesus; it is an
achievement in that its attainment at the eschatological judgement
requires a response of faithful obedience, of acknowledging certain
facts
about Jesus, of endurance under trial, of keeping the divine
command ments in accordance with God's Will.43 For Polycarp, as
for 1 Peter, 'faith

42. For the language of this last phrase and much of the next sentence I am indebted to
F. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1 994), 58.
43. This equal emphasis on both giftand achievement stands contra some who think that
human achievement has become more decisive than the divine gift in Polycarp's theology, an
alleged development which is then seen as revealing either 'a real failure to apprehend the
death of Christ' and 'to grasp the meaning of grace' (T.F. Torrance, The Doctrine ofGrace in
the Apostolic Fathers (Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1948), 93, 96), or a serious
departure from the New Testament, especially Paul, in that faith is not so much a gift and
therefore a presupposition ( Voraussetzung) of resurrection, but has instead something of the
character of a work and thus is a condition (Bedingung) of resurrection (A. Bovon Thurneysen,
'Ethik und Eschatologie im Philipperbrief des Polycarp von Smyrna', ThZ 29
(1973), 256, 247-8, 250), or evidence of the Hellenization of the Gospel (H. Lohmann,
Drohung und Verheissung: Exegetische Untersuchungen zur Eschatologie bei den Apostolichen
Viitern (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1989), 194; cf. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in
the Apostolic Fathers, 97) - or perhaps all three at once.
Such formulations do not adequately represent Polycarp's understanding of human
achievement or obedience, for at least three reasons: (1) they pay insufficient attention to the
polemical context in which he writes, (2) they give insufficient consideration to Polycarp's
11 The Writings of the Apostolic
8 Fathers
validates itself in action, to the extent that faith and action are
,
indistinguishable .44

(i) RighTEOUsnesi5
Whereas Paul uses 'righteousness' (oIKoloaUvll) in a distinctive eschato
logical sense, there is as well a broad stream of Jewish and early
Christian tradition which understands the concept more in terms
of behaviour conforming to God's will. Indeed, 'the use of the concept
of righteoUSNESS in connection with the demand for authenticating deeds'
is characteristic of 'a relatively broad early Christian tradition, in
which olKolocrUvll
['righteousness'], in contrast to its theological usage in Paul,
becomes a major parenetic motif. 46
It is with this broad stream of early Christian tradition that Polycarp
aligns himself with respect to his understanding of righteousness.47
For Polycarp, the 'righteous' person is the one who, in response to
the
gracious divine initiative and acts, aligns both one's beliefs and
behaviours with those proclaimed about, prescribed by, and
exemplified by the one
through whom God has both accomplished and made the offer of
salvation, namely Jesus.48
Righteousness is thus a richly evocative and paraenetically useful
term for Polycarp, one that primarily has to do not with divine activity
on behalf of humans (as in Paul), but with how humans respond to
divine activity and initiative on their behalf. It is a term that brings
to mind for Polycarp a broad and probably clearly defined (though in
this letter not fully stated) complex of beliefs and behaviours that
ought to characterize authentic Christian existence.
This understanding of righteousness means that the term also plays an

initial statements about grace (cf. 1.3) and the persistent indicative-imperative dialectic
throughout the letter (cf. 1.3�2.3; 5.2; 8. 1 -2), and (3) they impose upon the discussion a
false either-{)r dichotomy that is often deeply shaped by later theological formulations or
concerns (cf. esp. Torrance, who works with a narrow neo-orthodox understanding of
Paul and
charges any Apostolic Father who fails to repeat that precise understanding with a failure
to understand the 'true' meaning of grace).
44. J.R. Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary 49 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books,
1988), p. Ixxiv.
45. See also Steinmetz, 'Polykarp von Smyrna', 69-75, and R. Bultmann, Theology ofthe
New Testament, vol. 2 (New York: Scribner, 1955), 171-3). Meinhold, 'Polykarpos', 1685-6,
offers an interpretation in terms of an anti-Marcionite polemic.
46. K. Kertelge, 'litKatooUVl]', EDNT, vol. 1, 330.
Similarly Steinmetz, 'Polykarp von Smyrna', 73.
48. In emphasizing Jesus as saviour, teacher and model, Polycarp closely parallels 1 Peter,
a document he apparently knows very well, and which represents, as Michaels notes,
'the work of one who, more than the Apostle Paul, made every effort to do justice equally
to the teaching, the example, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ': Michaels, 1
Peter,
p. lxxv.
 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 11 9

important 'diagnostic' function for Polycarp. For him, the presence of

certain beliefs and behaviours - i.e. 'righteousness' - among the
Philippians is a reassuring indicator that they are indeed 'enduring'
(9. 1) or 'bearing
fruit' (1 .2) or holding 'steadfastly and unceasingly to our hope and
the guarantee of our righteousness', Christ Jesus (8.1 ),49 and thus
have hope
of being raised up by God. Conversely, the absence of either certain
beliefs (e.g. among the errorists in 7.1) or behaviours (cf. for
example the quotation of 1 Cor. 6.9 in 5.3) indicates, to Polycarp, at
least a strong probability of receiving a negative verdict when Jesus
returns as eschatological Judge. Thus the concern for Valens: his
present behaviour raises questions about his future fate. Such an
understanding of righteousness in terms of present behaviour cannot
easily be separated from the idea of a future judgement (a theme
Polycarp stresses in 2. 1-2; 5.2-3; 6.2; 1 1 .2), and here may be the
key to understanding the close link in Polycarp's mind between false
teaching and wrong (i.e. 'unrighteous') behaviour in general, and the
'deniers' mentioned in 7.1 and Valens in particular. In short, Valens
denies by his deeds what the 'heretics' deny by their words.

(i) Imitation
Closely linked to and explicable in terms of his understanding of
righteousness is Polycarp's use of the theme of
'imitation'(f.11f.1T]T]0l5). Apart from a passing mention in 2.2, the references
to this topic are clustered in 8.2-10. 1 . While both Jesus' suffering
and endurance are mentioned, it is the latter that receives the primary
emphasis: endurance is the virtue urged upon the Philippians, while
suffering is only a possibility. But Jesus is not the only one who
exemplifies endurance: Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, 'others from your
congregation', Paul, and the 'rest of the apostles' are also brought
forward as examples of those who 'exercised unlimited endurance' (9.1)
and therefore are to be imitated.
Because Polycarp grounds his call for endurance upon the sacrificial
death of Jesus (8. 1 ; 9.2), and thus sharply distinguishes Jesus from the
other (merely human) examples, it is probable that Polycarp here
is working with 'imitation' more in the sense of Nachfolge ('following
after' as a response) than NaCHAHMUNG ('imitation' as an achievement),
although it is not clear that he would distinguish the two so sharply.
What unites Jesus and the other examples is that they all have
been 'raised by God' (9.2) - that is, all have experienced
resurrection as the outcome of their endurance, and thus Ignatius,
Paul and the others can

49. This is the only instance in Philippians in which 'righteousness' may bear something
of the Pauline sense of the term (as noted by Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol.
2, 1 72).
12 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
now be said to be 'with the Lord' (9.2). Thus the goal of 'imitation' is
not so much to recapitulate the Lord's suffering (though in some
cases that might happen), but similarly to experience resurrection, the
goal towards which he urges the Philippians. 50

(ii) Holy Spirit

A striking aspect of Polycarp's letter is the complete absence of any
trace or mention of the Holy Spirit. While the term 'spirit' (lTVEUIlO)
does occur twice in Polycarp, at 5.3 and 7.2, in both instances it
apparently refers to the human spirit rather than the Holy Spirit. But
a discussion of the Holy Spirit in Polycarp's letter is not merely a
matter of an argument from silence, since these are allusions to
pneumatological activity using other terminology. For instance, in
8.1 there is a reference to 'guarantee' or 'pledge' (appol3wv), which
in Paul is always the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5; Eph. 1. 14; cf.
Rom. 8.23), is identified by Polycarp as 'Christ Jesus'. A
consequence of this substantial difference is that whereas Paul
under stands Christian existence primarily in terms of divine
empowerment, Polycarp apparently views it more as a matter of
human effort or achievement. 5 I That is, v.hat for Paul are 'fruits of
the Spirit' have for Polycarp more the character of virtues to be
pursued. The differences between these two ways of understanding
the dynamic of a life of faith are not inconsequential.

6. When Was it Written? Has It Been Tampered With?

As noted earlier, Polycarp probably died sometime between 155 and

1 60 CEo Thus his lifespan provides a window of some fifty or more
years for the writing of Philippian , one that encompasses, in effect,
the entire first half of the second century. Where the letter is placed
within this range is dependent on the question of its integrity,
because it has been suggested that Philippians as we now know it
preserves two letters, not just one.

50. On resurrection as the goal of imitation, cf. J. Liebaert, Les enseignements moraux
des Peres Apostoliques (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970), 70--3.
51. Cf. Schoedel, Polycarp, 9-10; also Bultmann, Theology o/the New Testament, vol. 2,
171. On this issue Ignatius would seem to occupy a position somewhere between Paul and
Polycarp. What Schoedel says with respect to the difference between Paul and Ignatius -
'this shift of emphasis has more to do with his [i.e. Ignatius'] conception of the way in which
people are empowered to live godly lives than with his view of the way in which godly living is
related to the final destiny of the believer' (N.R. Schoedel, Ignatius 0/ Antioch, Hermeneia
(Philadelphia: tfortress Press, 1985), 30) - would appear to be even more applicable to the
difference between Paul and Polycarp.
 Po/ycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 121

(i) Integrity
The uncertainty regarding the document's integrity arises out of a
feature intrinsic to the letter itself: the apparent tension between two
of its references to Ignatius. In 9.1 (cf. 1.1 ), Polycarp seems to
assume that Ignatius already has been martyred, whereas in 13.2 he
appears to ask for information about his fate. These references have
long been understood as indicating (1) that sufficient time had passed
since Ignatius' final departure for Rome for Polycarp to assume that
Ignatius had, by the time of writing,
already been martyred, but (2) he had not yet received a
confirmatory report. 52 Thus the letter is customarily dated not long
after the time of
Ignatius' death.
Some scholars, however, most notably Harrison, have proposed
that Philippians is really two letters: chaps 13-14 are a brief cover
note written to accompany a copy of the letters of Ignatius which
Polycarp sent to Philippi very soon after Ignatius' departure from
there but before his arrival in Rome, while chaps 1-12 comprise the
substance of Polycarp's
response to a later 'crisis letter' from Philippi, penned several years
after Ignatius' martyrdom. 53
The wide acceptance of Harrison's partition theory in the decades
following its publication says more about a climate of opinion 54
than it
does about the strength of his case, which effectively rests on a
single assertion: that Polycarp could not have written chap. 9 prior
to learning for certain that Ignatius had indeed been martyred. As
Harrison puts it,

52. Cf. similarly H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der
Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna, 2nd edn (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985), 1 12-13.
53. Harrison, Polycarp 's Two Epistles, 1 5-16, 225, 267-8. The suggestion that chap. 14
belongs with chaps 1�12 (so J.A. Kleist, The Didache, The Epistle ofBarnabas, The Epistles
and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias, The Epistle to Diognetus
(Westminster, Md.: Newman and London: Longmans, Green, 1 948), 71, 82, 196 n. 100; and
P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die
Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Viiter (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1 975), 559 -
strongly; but cf. 154) is, on the basis of transcriptional considerations alone, extremely
unlikely: cf. R. Joly, Le dossier d'Ignace d'Antioche (Brussels: Editions de l'Universite de
Bruxelles, 1979), 23-8.
54. In some quarters, it is thought that on the traditional (early) dating of the letter, certain
features of its contents (such as its use of the term EUexYYEAIOV, 'gospel') are 'too early',
and Harrison's partition thesis, which posits a considerably later date for the bulk of the letter,
neatly 'resolves' the perceived difficulties. Cf., for example, A. Bellinzoni: 'The question of the
use of Matthew (and Luke) in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians is simplified by Harrison's
thesis. It is not in the earlier letter ( 1 10-1 17) but in the later letter (13 5 or later) that we find
clear use of Matthew, Luke, and 1 Clement. The results, therefore, conform to our picture of
the other early Apostolic Fathers, i.e. they reflect no use of our canonical gospels': 'The Gospel
of Matthew in the Second Century', SecCent 9 (1992), 209. But as Everding observes, 'it
seems rather too convenient to transport this data out of the earliest part of the century due to
source critical arguments': H.E. Everding, Jr, 'A Response to Arthur J. Bellinzoni', SecCent 9
(1992), 261.
12 The Writings of the Apostolic
2 Fathers
'Polycarp was much too experienced and much too sensible a person
to shut his eyes to the inherent uncertainty of human affairs'; 'how
could Polycarp dare to write such a thing without knowing whether
or not it was true? . . . Must it not have occurred to any sensible
man in Polycarp's place that to use language of this kind just then
might be somewhat
premature, indeed that he was running a risk of making himself
,
ridiculous? 55
Those less certain than Harrison of our ability to 'know' what a
figure such as Polycarp would or would not do have not found his
rhetorical questions compelling - es ecially as Harrison, in attempting
to eliminate one tension, created another. He suggested that the
second letter was composed some twenty years or so after the first,
but reviewers quickly recognized that the mention of Ignatius in 1 . 1
appears to reflect a fresh memory of Ignatius on the part of the
Philippians. This new tension was
resolved largely by dating the second letter contra Harrison to within
a year or so of the first. 56
But this proposal does not fully solve the problem: the Philippians,
one may suggest, would have been far more likely to have
mentioned Ignatius in theirfirst letter to Poly arp after Ignatius' visit
(which, on the two-letter hypothesis, would be the request for a
copy of Ignatius' letters) than in the second. Furthermore, it
eliminates the key reason Harrison's proposal proved so popular,
namelly that it permitted a 'late dating' of what on the traditional
dating were perceived to be 'problematic' portions of
Philippians.
A grammatical irregularity in 1. 1-2a57 suggests that if Philippians
does
consist of two letters, then the first one likely comprises the prescript plus
1 . 1 plus chaps 1 3-14, while the second consists of all of 1 .2 (less
the initial Kat, 'and') through the end of chap. 12. On this scenario,
(1) the longer second letter was horn not just of its postscript (as in
Harrison's proposal) but also of its prescript and a following aorist
verb which would have opened the letter proper (equivalent to, if
not identical with, the 'I rejoiced' which opens 1. 1); (2) the
prescript and opening lines of the short cover note (i.e. the prescript
and 1 . 1 of the extant letter) were affixed to it

55. Harrison, Polycarp 's TI1,o Epistles, 140, 1 5 1 .

56. See, for example, the reviews o f Harrison by c.J . Cadoux, JTS 3 8 ( 1 937), 267-70, of
which an essay by L.W. Barnard, reads in many respeds like an extended version (L.W.
Barnard, 'The Problem of St. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians', in L.W. Barnard, Studies
in the Apostolic Fathers and the!'r Background (New York: Schocken and Oxford: Blackwell,
1966), 31-9); H.-C. Puech, RHR 1 19 (1939), 96-102; and H.D. Simonin, RSPhTh 27
(1938), 258-60.
57. Namely, the non-parallel use first of a participial phrase (oEKol.uivol, 'you having
welcomed') and then a OTI (,because') clause to express Polycarp's two 'reasons for joy'. For a
full discussion (and a satisfymg alternative explanation) see W.R. Schoedel, 'Polycarp's Witness
to Ignatius of Antioch', VC 41 (1987), 1-10.
 Poiycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 123

instead, and (c) the remainder of the cover note (chaps 13-14) was
placed where it made the most sense, that is, after rather than
before the body of the second letter.
But is any partition theory necessary? The only substantive basis
for the various partition theories remains Harrison's claim that chap.
9 could not have been written at the same time as chap. 13 - that
is, that Polycarp could not have expressed himself as he does in
chap. 9 in advance of learning for certain of the fate of his friend. At
least three considerations, however, strongly suggest otherwise.
First, as Harrison himself notes, Polycarp 'knew that Ignatius had
been condemned by the Roman authorities in Antioch to be killed by
wild beasts in the Flavian amphitheatre common sense probably
told him
truly that the Romans could be trusted to take care that no one robbed
,
Ignatius of his crown . 58 However much allowance one might wish
to make for the contingencies of human events, Polycarp had no
reason to
think that events might turn out differently than expected. Second, the
emphasis in chap. 9 is more on Ignatius' ENDURANCE than his death. This
aspect of Ignatius' life was as true and vivid before his death as it was
after. Third, the example of Ignatius himself shows how it is possible for
someone simultaneously to acknowledge the element of contingency in
the future yet speak of it in advance in quite certain terms. There are
clear expressions of contingency in Ign. Rom. 1 . 1 ('if it is his will'; cf.
3.2) and 1 .2-4. 1 (he appeals to the Roman Christians not to interfere),
yet in 4.2 Ignatius can say, 'I am [e'l � i ] God's wheat, and I am
being GROUND (CxAr1aO�at] by the teeth of the wild beasts.' In short, so
vivid is his vision of the future that he can speak of it as already
present, his own
uncertainties notwithstanding.
Therefore, the document is more likely a single unified letter59
than it is a combination of two.60

(ii) Date
Chapter 13 was probably written within a month or two following 24
August (cf. Ign. Rom. 10. 1-3) in the year in which Ignatius was
apparently martyred. For those who accept the unity of Philippians,
determining that

58. Harrison, The Two Epistles of Polycarp, 1 52.

59. Recent 'single letter' advocates include Schoede1, Polycarp, 4, 29, 37-8, with
Schoedel, 'Polycarp of Smyrna', 277-83; Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und
der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna, 1 12; Dehandschutter, 'Polycarp's Epistle to
the Philippians', 276-9; P. Nautin, 'Polycarp', in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Early
Church, vol. 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 701; Hartog, Polycarp and the
New Testament, 1 48 -69.
60. Recent 'two letter' advocates include: Barnard, 'The Problem of St. Polycarp's
Epistle to the Philippians', 31-9; Meinhold, 'Polykarpos', 1683-7; J.B. Bauer, Die
Polykarpbriefe (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1995), 1 8-19; Berding, Polycarp
and Paul, 1 5-24.
12 The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

year will establish the date of the letter's composition. But as is

evident from Paul Foster's discussion of this question in the previous
chapter,
determining that year is no easy matter. 6 1 Efforts to identify a specific
year for his arrest and/or death rest upon hypothetical reconstructions
or
external testimony of uncertain reliability, and internal evidence is both
sparse and vague. Perhaps the most that can be said with any
degree of confidence is that Ignatius probably died sometime during
the first third of
the second century.62
On Harrison's division of the letter, which includes 1 . 1 as part of
the second letter, the apparently fresh and still-vivid memory of
Ignatius presupposed by 1 . 1 would almost require that it be dated
within a year or so of Ignatius' death. On the preferable alternative
partition hypothesis discussed (but not accepted) above, which joins
the prescript plus 1 . 1 with chaps 1 3-14, the second letter (basically
1 .2-1 2.3) could have been written any time between the death of
Ignatius and the death of Polycarp. The absence of any identifiably
Marcionite references in chap. 7 and the mention of Ignatius in chap.
9 suggest (but certainly do not require) a time closer to Ignatius'
martyrdom than to Polycarp's.

(iii) AUThenticity
Questions about the authenticity of Philippians whether it has been
-

forged, for example, or whether there are interpolations - arise from

the circumstance that it offers the earliest testimony to the existence
of the Ignatian correspondence (whose collection Polycarp apparently
initiated; cf. Phil. 13.2). This means that anyone challenging the
authenticity of
Ignatius' letters must also argue that Philippians was either forged or
expanded with interpolations by whoever forged the Ignatian
corpus. 63
The challenge to the authenticity of Philippians, in other words, is really a
corollary to the challenge to the authenticity of Ignatius' letters, and
therefore properly belongs to the discussion of that vexed
question.64

61. See Chapter 9, sect. 2 above.

62. The same point is made by Schoedel, 'Polycarp of Smyrna', 347-58, and C. Munier,
'OU en est la question d'!gnace d'Antioche? Bilan d'un siec1e de recherches 1870-1988',
ANRW 2.27.1, 380, 484.
63. tfor recent examples cf. R.M. Hiibner, 'Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben
Briefe des Ignatius Antiochien', ZAC 1 (1997), 44-72, and T. Lechner, Ignatius adversus
Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Briefen des Ignatius von
Antiochien (Leiden: Brill, 1999); for surveys of the question consult Harrison, The Two
Epistles of Polycarp, 27-72, and Schoedel, 'Polycarp of Smyrna', 276-85; cf. also M.J.
Edwards, 'Ignatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Hiibner', ZA C 2 (1998), 21 4-
26.
64. On this question see now tfoster's remarks in Chapter 9, sect. 2 above.
 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians

7. Conclusion

Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians offers an important glimpse into the

life of two churches and the mindset of an important Christian leader
in the early second century, a tumultuous time of conflict, challenge
and change. His concern for order, stability and tradition (an ethos
which he shares with the Pastoral Epistles) as he seeks to maintain
the stability and integrity of these two congregations is motivated
throughout by a theologically informed faith and hope committed to
'love for God and Christ and for our neighbour' (Phil. 3.3). If this one
surviving letter is at all typical of the man, it is possible to
appreciate why many (pagans and believers alike, according to his
martyrologist) esteemed him as a faithful and distinguished teacher
(cf. M. Pol. 19. 1).
 Chapter 1 1

THE MARTYRDOM OF POL YCARP

Sara Parvis

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is probably the most readable of the works

commonly grouped under the title 'Apostolic Fathers'. 1 It has a
pace unmatched by 1 or 2 Clement, an immediacy which is lacking in,
say, Barnabas or Hermas, and a narrative flow not shared even by the
Didache or the epistles of Ignatius. It does, however, share with most
of these works their problems of date, unity or otherwise of
composition, and even authenticity, as well as their quality of
providing vital and illuminating snapshots of early Christianity in the
making.
Nevertheless, in the case of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the stakes
are higher. It is worth considering in some detail the problems of the
dating, composition and authenticity of the work, for the following
reason: it is not too strong to say that the whole notion of an
unbroken doctrinal tradition accessible to us now, for those who care
about such a thing, depends on what we can securely say about
Polycarp. If the Apostolic Fathers are generally thought of as the
bridge between New Testament times and the emergence of the
great Christian writers of the latter half of the second century such
as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, it is Polycarp who holds that bridge
together, since he is uniquely claimed to have spanned the whole
period with his own life, knowing the apostles in his youth and
Irenaeus in his old age. In the case of the other sub-apostolic works,
we are lucky if we have a credible named author, a definite
geographical setting, or a single plausible date. In the case of the
Martyrdom, we have a work set in a specific time and place, about a
specific individual and a specific series of events, which seems to have
been written less than a year

I. Translations from the work in this chapter are my own, generally following the text of
the classic edition by J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, Ignatius and Po/ycarp, vol.
3 (London: MacMillan, 1 890), 363-403. Convenient editions with facing translation may be
found in the Loeb Classical Library: K. Lake (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic Fathers, LCL 24
and 25, 2 vols (London: William Heinemann, 1913), vol. 2, 31 2-45, and its successor, B.D.
Ehrman (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, LCL 24 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2002), 366-40 1.
 The Martyrdom of 127
Polycarp
after they happened. It makes an enormous difference to our
knowledge of the period if it can be said to be genuine.
Polycarp's biography, of course, does not depend on the
Martyrdom; even if the work is a pious fiction, the information
Irenaeus gives us about him could still be genuine, as could
Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. But rejecting the authenticity of the
Martyrdom would make Irenaeus' information, Polycarp's letter, and
indeed the Ignatian corpus, with which Philippians is closely
connected, look considerably less secure. The Martyrdom squares
with Irenaeus in particular so well that it could easily be accused of
having been written to authenticate Irenaeus' portrait: Polycarp's age
is stressed (9.3), and he is called 'an apostolic and prophetic teacher,
bishop of the catholic church in Smyrna' (16.2), a designation which
matches Irenaeus' theology quite closely. If the Martyrdom is
genuine, it provides a powerful underpinning for Irenaeus' claim of
some authentic knowledge of what the apostles and their successors
actually taught. If it is a pious fiction whose details do not add up,
the best corroborative evidence for Irenaeus' portrait of an apostolic
tradition disappears. The details, therefore, matter.

1. The Date of the Account

The text of the Martyrdom itself gives us precise information about

the date of Polycarp's death, and also a clear indication of the date
of the composition of the work. Chapter 21, a coda to the letter of
the church of Smyrna which actually tells the story, informs us,
And the blessed Polycarp bears witness at the beginning of the month
of Xanthikus, on the second day, seven days before the calends of
March, on a great Sabbath, at the eighth hour. And he was arrested by
Herod in the time of the High Priest Philip of Tralles, Statius
Quadratus being proconsul but our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever
- to whom be glory, honour, majesty, an eternal throne from
generation to gener ation. Amen.

Elsewhere (18.3), the text tells us that the community intends to

celebrate 'the birthday of his martyrdom', using a future tense: 'EVea
. . . W5 ouvaTov �1.i1v . . . TTape � EI 0 KUPI 05 ('there [in the
unnamed burial place], as we are able, the Lord will allow' the
celebration). This would seem to imply that the account is being written
less than a year after Polycarp's death.
The Roman historian W.H. Waddington identified Statius Quadratus
as Lucius Statius Quadratus, Roman consul ordinARIUS in 1 42.
Waddington argued on the basis of references to Quadratus in
the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides that he must have been proconsul of
Asia twelve years later, in the year 1 54/5 (the gubernatorial year ran
from May
to May).2 J.B. Lightfoot championed Waddington's date and the
arguments for it in his enormously influential commentary on the
Martyrdom.3 On their reckoning, Polycarp's death would therefore have
taken place on 23 February (the second of Xanthikus) 155, which,
neatly enough, fell on a Saturday.
Both reckoned that, according to the norms of the Antonine
period, Quadratus would have been due to become proconsul of
Africa or Asia, the two prize Roman provincial governorships, around
thirteen years after the consulship. (The emperor Claudius had specified
a five-year delay between the two offices a century earlier, but a
backlog always built up because of the practice of appointing suffect
consuls later in the year to share the honour of the office by taking
over from the two ordinarii who had given the year their names.) Since
they thought of the thirteen years as an average delay, a gap of
twelve seemed to them perfectly plausible.
The date of 155 seemed set. It seemed also to fit in with the other
traditions concerning Polycarp's life. Irenaeus claims that Polycarp
went to Rome in the time of Anicetus, when they discussed the date
of Easter
together; Anicetus' period as a church leader there (Eusebius gives
him eleven years4) is usually dated (partly on the basis of this meeting,
it must
be said) from about 1 54 to about 165. Polycarp claims in the text
(9.3) to have served the Lord eighty-six years (it is not clear
whether this means from his birth or from his boyhood); Irenaeus
claims (AH 3.3.4; Eusebius, HE 5.24. 16) that Polycarp knew John,
'the disciple of the Lord', and was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by
'the apostles'. If Polycarp was born in the year 70 or so, he could
easily have known John (who is linked by tradition
to nearby Ephesus), and being apparently fairly wealthy, S could well
have been appointed to some kind of episcopal role in the
community in
Smyrna while there were still 'apostles' around (whatever the word
episkopos is taken to mean at this stage, perhaps overseer of the
community's financial affairs). Since his parents had presumably
been Christians too (if Polycarp was Christian from his childhood),
they might well have known some of the generation in the church at
Ephesus who were brought in by Paul. Polycarp could then even take
Irenaeus right back to the first generation of Asian Christians.
Waddington's date therefore looks more or less plausible, not to
say exciting. Unfortunately, matters are not necessarily quite so
simple,

2. W.H. Waddington, 'Memoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aelius Aristide',

Memoires de l'Institut Imperial de France, Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 26
(1867), 203-68.
3. Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. I, 646-77.
 4. Eusebius, HE 5.24. 16.
5. Polycarp withdraws to two different farms outside the city (M. Pol. 5.1; 6. 1), which are
presumably his own, because he gives orders for food and drink to be brought to those who
come to arrest him (7.2).
because Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that Polycarp's martyrdom took
place in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, between 161 and 180. 6 This, often
coupled with the view that the Phrygian voluntary martyr mentioned
in chap. 4, Quintus, must be a Montanist, has led some scholars to
posit a date of 1 66 for the martyrdom (if the 'great Sabbath' is a
Saturday),7 1 67
(if it is a Sunday),8 or even 1 77 (thus linking Polycarp's death with the
persecution of the martyrs of Lyon and Vienne).9 Others, however,
have pointed out that Eusebius' own date can hardly be relied on,
since he also
dates the martyrdom of Pionius (which took place under Decius in the
mid-third century) to the same period. 1O Quintus' Phrygian origins,
meanwhile, by no means necessarily constitute a reference to the
'Phrygian heresy', as what later came to be called Montanism was
then known to its detractors. They could easily be a matter of mere
banal historical fact.
Timothy Barnes, while agreeing with Waddington and Lightfoot
that the text's own proconsular date rather than Eusebius' imperial
one should be the basis of any serious attempt to pin down the year
of Polycarp's death, has pointed out that there is a real difficulty
with a date of 1 54/5 for the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus.
Despite Lightfoot's talk of thirteen years between the consulship and
the senior proconsulships as an 'average' gap, there are no instances
at all of a consul in the Antonine period who became proconsul of
Asia or Africa as few as twelve years later. Even a thirteen-year gap
was in fact very rare, fourteen or fifteen being more common. The
year 1 54/5 ought therefore to be ruled out. 1 55/
6 remains possible, while 1 56/7 or 1 57/8 would be rather more likely
11
in the normal course of events.
Barnes raises further difficulties also. Philip of Tralles the high
priest ('Philip the Asiarch' in the main body of the letter, 12.2) held
that office (a state religious office of the province of Asia) on or
before the year 149/50, since he is attested as Asiarch on an
inscription of that year (the designation 'Asiarch' was kept after the
year-long office of high priest was

6. Eusebius, HE 4. 1 4. 1 0-4. 1 5. 1 . In Eusebius' earlier Chronicon, the martyrdom is

assigned to 1 67, though the abandonment of the exact date in the History shows that it had
been merely a guess forced by the need to enter the event under a specific year.
7. E. Griffe, 'A propos de la date du martyre de S. Polycarpe', Bulletin de Litterature
Ecclesiastique 52 (1951), 1 70-7.
8. P. Brind'amour, 'La date du martyre de Saint Polycarpe (Ie 23 ftvrier 167)', Analecta
Bollandiana 98 (1980), 456--62.
9. H. Gregoire, 'La veritable date du martyre de S. Polycarpe (23 fevrier 177), et Ie
"Corpus Polycarpianum" ', Analecta Bollandiana 69 (1951 ), 1-38.
10. Eusebius, HE 4. 15.46-7.
II. T.D. Barnes, 'A Note on Polycarp', JTS n.s. 18 (1967), 433-7, and 'Pre-Decian Acta
Martyrum', JTS n.s. 19 (1968), 510- 14.
demitted). 1 2 Barnes argues that he held the office no more than
once. 1 3 It is possible that the claim in chap. 21 that Philip was high
priest at the time Polycarp died is merely a false extrapolation on the
basis of the title Asiarch in the text of the letter by whoever
composed the coda (caused, presumably, by the irresistible pull of
the Gospel parallel), but the two dates cannot otherwise be
reconciled.
In the light of Barnes' rejection of 1 55, meanwhile, Aelius
Aristides also turns from being part of the solution to being part of
the problem. Aristides notes, in reminiscing about the course of his
seventeen-year illness, that his friend Quadratus succeeded a certain
Severus as proconsul of Asia. 14 Severus was proconsul in the tenth
year of the illness, while a certain Julianus (epigraphically datable as
proconsul in 1 44/5 or 145/6) had been proconsul in the second
year of the illness (or no earlier). This would make Severus proconsul
in 1 52/3 or 153/4; if he was succeeded by
L. Statius Quadratus, this would have to be no later than 1 54/5, the
year already ruled out as too soon after Quadratus' consulship.
Aristides may be misremembering, or we may be dealing with a
different Quadratus, 15 but in any case, Waddington's package no
longer looks quite so neat. Barnes himself, however, it is worth
taking into account, remains firmly in favour of a date in the late 1
50s, and sees these difficulties as no real hindrance to it.
The 'great Sabbath' (l1sya ocX��aTov) is a final complication: there has
still never been a fully satisfactory explanation of what it actually
means, or how the two terms fit together. 'Sabbaton' ought to mean
Saturday, because Polycarp is said in the text to have been arrested on
a Friday (� rrapao.KEUTl, 'the Preparation', 7. 1). Polycarp's death could
have occurred
on a Saturday in 1 56 as well as 155, it should be noted, because 1 56
was a leap year. 1 6 It has been pointed out, nonetheless, that by the
fourth century, TO I1sya ocX ��aTov can mean Sunday. This might allow
Eusebius'
date of 1 67 to be correct, it has been argued, though twenty-four
hours would then seem to have been lost in the middle of the
narrative. 17

12. So Barnes, 'A Note on Polycarp', 434.

13. Barnes, 'A Note on Polycarp', 434, 437.
14. Ae1ius Aristides, Sacred Tales 4.63-7. The work is analysed and translated in C.A.
Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968); for 4.63-
7, see 267-8.
15. Behr argues (speculatively) that the Quadratus of 4.63-7 is in fact not the Statius
Quadratus of the Martyrdom, but rather C. Julius Quadratus Bassus, suffect consul in 1 39:
Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales, 84 n. 84.
1 6. On this point, see Barnes, 'Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum', 51 3-14, and the still-valuable
discussion of C.H. Turner, 'The Day and Year of St. Polycarp's Martyrdom', in Studia Biblica et
Ecclesiastica, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 890), 1 20-.
17. Brind'amour, 'La date du martyre de Saint Polycarpe', a view rejected by J. den Boeft
and J. Bremmer, 'Notiunculae Martyrologicae 4', VC 45 (1991), 108, because of the reference
to � TTapaoKEU�.
 Meya has often been taken to indicate a major Jewish feast: Lightfoot
proposed the festival of Purim/8 because of the time of year, though there
seems nothing in particular to link the term with this feast. Eduard
Schwartz suggested that the occasion intended was the Sabbath
preceding Passover, which the Jewish communities of Asia Minor
of the time
celebrated unusually early because the month of Xanthikos came
earlier in the Asian calendar than in the Syrian/Macedonian one. ! 9
The Jewish
calendrical scholar Sacha Stern has recently vigorously rejected this
view?O
On the other hand, the games in progress suggest a pagan festival
of some sort rather than a Jewish one, perhaps a local Smyrnean
yearly holiday?! Pionius, a mid-third-century martyr of Smyrna, is
said to have been martyred on Polycarp's anniversary (also
designated a 'great Sabbath'), which would fit well with the picture
of an annual civic celebration, presumably coinciding with the
provincial governor's yearly visit to the city (and hence with the
execution of the local criminals). Such a festival might reasonably
attract the adjective 'great', but the day of the week would then be
irrelevant, since it has no place in a civic calendar.
For some scholars, the parallel with the Gospel accounts of the
death of Jesus is sufficient explanation for the term, particularly the
parallel with the phrase 'For that Sabbath was a high day [tJSYOATJ �
�tJepa]' (John
19.31). 22 But in the Gospel accounts, Jesus dies on the day of preparation
itself, not on the Sabbath; the origin of the phrase must therefore be
something more than mere imitation. Perhaps, as happens several times
in the Martyrdom of Po/ycarp, the author is merely fashioning a Gospel
parallel by glossing with language redolent of the passion narratives
some fairly mundane facts: the fact that Polycarp died on a
Saturday, and the fact that there was a pagan feast in progress at
the time.
When all of the above points have been fully considered, the year
156 emerges as the best date for the death of Polycarp, in my view.
If the case for it is far from watertight, the alternative dates are even
less satisfactory:

18. Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 1, 71 1-1 3.

19. E. Schwartz, Christfiche und jiidische Ostertafeln, Abhandlungen der Koniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, n.f., 8, 6
(Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhaudlung, 1905). Schwartz's argument is based on a list of
dates for the Jewish observance of sixteen consecutive Passovers attached to an Easter
table that was submitted to the Eastern Council of Serdica in 343.
20. S. Stern, Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century
BCE-Tenth Century CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 79-80.
21. W. Rordorf, 'Zum Problem des "Grossen Sabbats" im Polykarp- und
Pioniusmartyrium', in E. Dassmann and K.S. Frank (eds), Pietas, lahrbuch fUr Antike
und Christentum Erganzungsband 8 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1980), 245-9, suggests the
Roman feast of Terminalia, but that celebration, as den Boeft and Bremmer pointed out, is
'not attested outside Rome itself: 'Notiunculae Martyrologicae 4', 108.
22. Stern makes this suggestion: Calendar and Community, 80.
Eusebius clearly has no real information, and whatever the
difficulties with the Aelius Aristides evidence and the role of Philip of
Tralles, they still make far more sense in the context of the 1 50s
than later. But as with so much that concerns the Martyrdom of
Polycarp, though one's doubts can on the whole be satisfied on the
grounds that the alternative theories are even more problematic,
niggling questions remain.

2. The Composition of the Text

The main body of the Martyrdom of Polycarp purports to be a letter,

now divided into twenty modern chapters, from the church of
Smyrna to the church of Philomelium, recounting the death of their
bishop Polycarp. This begins with a fairly standard opening (,The
Assembly of God which is dwelling in Smyrna, to the Assembly of
God which is dwelling in
Philomelium, and to all the dwellings in every place of the holy
23,
and worldwide assembly ), and finishes with a standard greeting:
'Greet all
the saints. Those with us greet you, and also Evaristos, who wrote
this, with his whole household.' It is followed by a coda of two
chapters: chap. 21 (quoted above in full), which puts a date to
Polycarp's death and ends with an Amen, and chap. 22, which also
ends with an Amen, and runs as follows:
(22.1) We pray that you are well, brethren, walking in line with the
gospel word of Jesus Christ, with whom be glory to God, both Father and
Holy Spirit, for the salvation of the holy elect - as the blessed Polycarp
attested. May it be that we be found in his footsteps in the kingdom of
Jesus Christ!
(22.2) Gaius transcribed these things from the copy of Irenaeus, the
disciple of Polycarp - and Gaius lived with Irenaeus. And I, Socrates,
wrote it out in Corinth from the copy of Gaius. Grace be with you all!
(22.3) And again I, Pionius, wrote from the aforementioned copy,
after seeking it out, in accordance with the revelation of the blessed
Polycarp, who manifested it to me, as I will explain in what follows. I
gathered it up when it was now nearly worn out by age, that the Lord
Jesus Christ might also gather me up with his elect into his heavenly
kingdom - to whom be glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit for
ever and ever.
24
Amen.

23. ' OYIO Kal Ko6oAlKh 'EKKAT]OIO can, of course, be translated 'Holy and Catholic
Church', but a non-technical translation has been preferred so as not to prejudge questions of
church order at this period.
24. One of the manuscripts, Moscow 390, presents chap. 22 in quite a different form.
The contents are generally the same, but there has been substantial rewriting,
apparently on the basis of the biographical information Irenaeus gives about Polycarp. It
is possible to argue the toss, but my view is that the Moscow recension is a secondary
reworking of the text form that I have translated above.
 This plethora of conclusions reminds one of two people unable to
end a telephone conversation. It purports to be an authenticating
tradition of its own: the chain of scribes is traced back to Irenaeus,
and forward to Pionius, the third-century Smyrnean martyr with a
problematic martyr dom account of his own which has a whole series
of parallels to the Martyrdom of Polycarp. This has made more than
one scholar suspicious: miraculous revelation of the whereabouts of a
hidden 'ancient' manuscript is a well-known device for authenticating
a newly written one, and the connection with Pionius seems a little
too neat. On the other hand, the connection with Irenaeus is
plausible enough: it is easy to imagine him wanting a copy of such a
document if he knew of its existence, and Corinth is a likely enough
place for him to have stopped off on his way to the West, allowing
the unknown Gaius to take a copy of the inspirational document in
his turn.
Some scholars, most notably in recent times Hans von
Campenhausen, have seen this list as evidence, not merely of a
number of scribes, but of a
number of redactors who have all added material to an original
historical core.25 von Campenhausen noted, as others had before him,
that there are
a number of differences between the text cited by Eusebius of
Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History and the rest of the manuscript
tradition of the Martyrdom: above all, that the Eusebian account does
not contain most of the parallels with the passion narratives of the
Gospels. He developed these observations into a theory of a series
of redactions of the text both before and after Eusebius. Pre-
Eusebian additions would include material concerning the cult of
martyrs in chaps 1 7-18 (which von Campenhausen saw as
anachronistic), the Quintus story (chap. 4), and some miraculous
material (for example, the voice from heaven that tells Polycarp to
'be strong' as he enters the stadium, 9. 1); post-Eusebian would be the
Gospel parallels, more miraculous material (particularly the dove which
emerges from Polycarp's death-wound, 16.1 ), and the dating in the
proconsulship of Statius Quadratus, with which Eusebius' dating
disagrees.
It is certainly true that the text of the Martyrdom given in Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History 4. 15 does differ in a number of places from the
manuscript tradition of the Martyrdom as it has survived elsewhere.26

25. H. von Campenhausen, Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarprnartyriurns,

Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische
Klasse, 1 957, 3 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1957), reprinted in H. von Campenhausen, Aus der
Fruhzeit des Christen turns: Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts
(Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1963), 253-301 (citations in this chapter from the latter).
26. The two versions are printed side by side with the divergences underlined in G.
Buschmann, Das Martyriurn des Polykarp, KAV 6 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1 998), 1 9-34 (following Dehandschutter). There is a good summary of the manuscript
tradition in B. Dehandschutter, 'The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research', ANRW
2.27. 1, 486-7. There are seven manuscripts in all. Five were known from the time of
Nonetheless, the most important of these differences can be
accounted for by the fact that Eusebius is clearly summarizing the
first section (chaps 1-7) rather than giving it word for word, in order
to concentrate on the martyrdom itself, which is what really interests
him. The minor differences in the second half (8. 1-19. 1) are, as
various scholars including Lightfoot have pointed out, not greater
than those generally found in texts cited by Eusebius. There are few
significant differences from the section which Eusebius purports to be
quoting verbatim (KOTO: AE �IV) rather than summarizing: his
omission, from M.Pol. 15.2, of the comparison of Polycarp's body to
baking bread, in favour of a concentration on the alternative
comparison with gold and silver being refined in the furnace; and the
omission from 16.1 of the dove which was said to have come out of
Polycarp's body after it was stabbed by a professional death-blow
dealer (KO�<I>EKTWp).27 These details are, surely, more likely to have
been present in Eusebius' exemplar and censored by him on grounds
of implausibility than to have been the only significant additions to
this section (nearly half the work) by a putative post-Eusebian
redactor. A further slight change in the same verse makes this even
more likely: the weapon used to dispatch Polycarp is a � I <l>iolOV
(dagger) in the non Eusebian tradition, but in Eusebius' account
becomes a �i<l>o5 (sword). It is easy to imagine Eusebius changing
the first to the second in the interests of plausibility (though both
demand that the fire be pretty definitively dying out at this stage, to
allow the dispatcher to approach); it is very difficult to imagine a
rationale for a post-Eusebian change in the other direction.
It is also true, however, that the text itself does come across as
dislocated at certain points. von Campenhausen, indeed, might be
accused
of not going far enough: Conzelmann's still more radical account
addresses these dislocations rather better?8 As he points out, Polycarp's
arrest, interrogation and execution are described in great detail, but
the story of the others who were martyred at the same time is told
briefly and allusively, with no discussion of how they were taken,
and little of their individual deaths. Polycarp is said to be the twelfth
martyr in Smyrna

Lightfoot; a sixth (in Istanbul) was added in the early twentieth century; and a seventh was
described and collated by B. Dehandschutter, 'A "'New" Text of the Martyrdom of Polycarp',
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 66 (1 990), 391-4. All are collections containing various
readings for saints' days in February, and all belong to the same family (labelled g), except
Moscow 390 (M), noted above, which differs significantly in having
(among other things) a longer final coda.
27. On the KOIl<pEKTCUP (professional dispatcher of beasts), see Lightfoot, Ignatius
and Polycarp, vol. 3, 390.
28. H. Conzelmann, Bermerkungen zum Martyrium Polycarps, Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 1978, 2 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1 978).
together with those from Philadelphia (19. 1), which leads us to expect
the story of all twelve, but we only learn the name of one other, the
'most noble Germanicus', who encourages those who are facing the
beasts with him (3. 1). The account describes in general terms the
cruel tortures the (unnamed) others underwent, but a narrative is
only really established as Germanicus pulls a beast violently towards
him to hasten his death, and the crowd calls for Polycarp. The odd
paragraph concerning the Phrygian Quintus is then introduced (chap.
4), interrupting the flow, describing how he first forced himself and
others to come forward, and then was persuaded to sacrifice. A brief
moral is added ('It is because of this, brothers, that we do not
praise those who hand themselves over'), and then the narrative
returns to the call for Polycarp's death, recounting Polycarp's
hearing of it, his withdrawal on the advice of friends, and his pursuit
and capture by the city authorities.
It is therefore easy to wonder about this section of the narrative in
particular - to be tempted to see the Phrygian story as a later
interpolation, or to imagine that there was originally more to the tale
of Germanicus and the others, or that the style of the whole was
originally as allusive and undetailed as this part of it, and was
worked over at a later date. But von Campenhausen's theory well
demonstrates the major problem with most 'multiple redactor'
theories: assigning a plausible motive to the various putative
redactors, especially when there are a number of these. Why should
this text, in particular, have been worked over so many times over
the space of a mere couple of centuries, when there is no obvious
need to bring it up to date? Why suddenly add in a reference to a
heavenly voice which addresses Polycarp, or decide out of nowhere
to have Polycarp placed on a donkey (and this before the other
Gospel parallels are added)? It is not as though we are dealing with
oral formulaic poetry.
In the case of Conzelmann's more thoroughgoing proposals, perhaps
more plausible in themselves than von Campenhausen's because
they do not begin from the desire to excise certain passages for
theological reasons, but rather from the observation of some oddities
in the narrative structure, we should still seek alternative explanations
before accepting a radical dismantling of the text. There may well be
other plausible ways of accounting for the interest in Polycarp and
the glossing over of the other martyrs: perhaps the narrator did not
know the other people involved, or did not like some of them, or
perhaps the details of their lives, arrests or deaths included
uncomfortable or unedifying matters which the narrator did not wish
to dwell on (there is a dark allusion to 'all the things which had
happened before' Polycarp's death ( 1 . 1), as though the addressees are
likely to know what these were). At the very least, it appears from
the narrative that the whole episode of persecution has been
precipitated by some acts of voluntary martyrdom; it is not surprising
that the narrator
should want to refrain from direct praise of those involved, when their
actions pose a danger to the whole community (cf. 1.2), or that the
narrative should seem to skirt rather awkwardly around the subject.
As the trend for source criticism and for dismembering texts has
receded, so has acceptance of von Campenhausen's analysis, once
very influential: recent studies have, on the whole, preferred to see
the work as a unity. 29 One serious problem with von
Campenhausen's theory is that
the omissions with textual support from Eusebius - the Gospel
parallels and the presence of Christ by the side of the martyrs - are
precisely those which are least theologically problematic in a second-
century context. Eusebius, in other words, gives us no real warrant
to begin to take the text apart. von Campenhausen's other proposals
must stand or fall on their own merits, which may not look
particularly strong to those who believe voluntary martyrdom and
the cult of the martyrs to be perfectly plausible
in a mid-second-century context. 30
von Campenhausen's theory, in other words, may appeal to one's
suspicions about the text, but it does not prove what it sets out to
prove, and it is hard to see how any similar theory could do so
either, rather than seeming simply arbitrary. Meanwhile, a more
wholesale theory of the Martyrdom as a composite text, such as
Conzelmann's, ends up paring off almost the whole account and
leaving nothing in the middle; it becomes for practical purposes a
theory of inauthenticity rather than multi-layered composition. The
suspicions caused by the scribal chain of chap. 22 may remain, but
without a more sophisticated mechanism for identifying the work of
redactors than has so far been proposed, it seems to make more
sense to concentrate one's enquiries on the authenticity of the text
as a whole, rather than to peel off putative editorial layers. After all,
if enough of it is impugned, we have more or less lost the text as a
witness to the sub apostolic period in any case.

3. Authenticity

The question of the authenticity of the Martyrdom has been very much
intertwined with the questions of the date and integrity of the text
discussed above. If these can be successfully challenged, the
account cannot be trusted. But there are also a number of other
reasons to wonder

29. On this drift away from complex source theories for the Martyrdom, see Buschmann,
Das Martyrium des Polykarp, 37-8, and B. Dehandschutter, 'The New Testament and the
Martyrdom of Polycarp', in A.P. Gregory and C.M. Tuckett (eds), Trajectories through the
New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 398-9.
30. Voluntary martyrdom is clearly attested in Justin's Second Apology in around 155 (2
Apology 2.20), and the cult of the martyrs probably by implication in Eusebius' account of the
martyrs of Lyon and Vienne in c. 177 (HE 5.1 .57-63).
about the veracity of the text, and some of them are difficult to
explain away.
Traditionally, as has been touched on above, the most obvious
reason for scepticism about the work's authenticity has been considered
to be the
number of its parallels with the Gospels in general, and with the
passion of Christ in particular. 3 1 Polycarp withdraws with some
friends, and
spends time in prayer (5.1). He knows and predicts that he is going to
be captured, and how he is going to die (5.2). The eirenarch ('peace
chief, in charge of city peacekeeping) is called Herod (6.2), and his
father is also involved in Polycarp's arrest (8.2). Those arresting
Polycarp go armed with weapons, as against a robber. They come for
him in the evening, and he could have escaped but does not (7. 1).
Polycarp is brought back to Smyrna on a donkey (8.1 ). He has a
dialogue with the Roman governor, who also has one eye on the crowd
(9.2-12. 1 ) . The crowd call for his death (12.2-3). 'The Jews' are
involved in his death (13. 1). His followers try to get his body (17. 1).
None of these things is actually implausible in itself, however: 'Herod'
is a perfectly plausible name for an aristocratic
Jew (Smyrna had long had a large and distinguished Jewish
community), or even for a good pagan;32 the association of
Christians with donkeys for
satirical purposes is well documented;33 and in this period it would
hardly be sensible to attempt an arrest of someone on his own
property without
weapons. Many of the parallels are in fact less close than one might
expect if they were invented: the claim that Polycarp was 'betrayed
by those of his own household' (6.1) merely because one of his slaves
gave away his
whereabouts under torture is only a parallel with Judas in
interpretation, not really in fact. 34 The narrator makes every possible
connection with the
Gospels, certainly, but that does not prove that none of these things
happened.
Then there are the miraculous occurrences. As already noted,
Polycarp predicts his own death (5.2). A voice comes 'from heaven'
urging Polycarp to 'Be strong and be a man!' (9.1 ). The fire does
not consume him, but billows out like a sail, surrounding him like a
wall. His body looks like baking bread, and smells like sweet perfume
(15.2). When his body is stabbed, there comes out a dove and a
great quantity of blood which extinguishes the fire (16. 1). Again,
though, none of these things (even the last, if one leaves room for
interpretation) is inherently implausible. His

31. The debate is summarized in Dehandschutter, 'The Martyrium Polycarpi', 503-7.

32. An example is Polycarp's contemporary, the fabulously wealthy Herodes Atticus, an
Athenian and a Roman consul.
33. See, for example, the well-known graffito of a crucified man with an ass's head from
the Palatine in Rome, reproduced in G.F. Snyder, Ante-Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of
Church Life before Constantine, revd edn (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2003), 60,
and discussed on 61-2.
34. Lightfoot makes this point well: Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 1, 610-14.
arrest was not unexpected, fire was a common means of execution,
and it is not unheard of for people to predict their own deaths in
times of war or persecution. The fact that 'no one saw the one who
had spoken' to Polycarp hardly rules out a human origin for the
voice. Executions in
which the victim is actually baked or roasted rather than being burned are
well documented.35 One would have to know how the fire was constructed
(it was built in haste for an ad hoc execution) to ascertain fully the
likelihood of its behaving as described, but given that the incident is
supposed to have taken place in a coastal city on a late afternoon in
tfebruary in the middle of a V-shaped stadium which was open at the
west (seaward) end (though partially protected by the hill of Pagos), the
strong
and swirling wind that would be needed to produce the effect depicted
seems plausible enough? 6 The fire must have been nearly out already
by the time Polycarp was stabbed by the KO\l<pEKTCUP, or it would
not have
been safe for him to approach. Even the dove need be no more than
a bird flying up from the direction of the fire, assuming the witnesses
would have been some distance from the events and unable to
ascertain where it had actually come from (or perhaps a Christian
onlooker bought one while the
wood-collecting was going on and brought it to release symbolically
at the appropriate moment).37
The most difficult part of the narrative to explain is not in fact any
of the miraculous details, but the Roman legal proceedings. It is
frankly astonishing to find Polycarp apparently on trial for his life
before one of the leading magistrates of the empire on a public
holiday in the middle of
a sports stadium, with no use of the tribunal, no formal accusation,
and, strangest of all, no sentence.38
Polycarp would have expected to be tried, as Christians generally
were, under cognitio extra ordinem the Roman governor's power
-

to hear any

35. Patrick Hamilton died in St Andrews in 1 528 in such a manner. It may be considered
the mark of a botched execution, where the fire has not been constructed properly, quite likely
in the present instance because it seems not to have been planned. One may hope that
Polycarp died of suffocation relatively quickly.
36. On the archaeology of the Smyrna stadium, see Louis Robert, Le Martyre de Pionios.
pretre de Smyrne, ed. G.W. Bowersock and C.P. Jones (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 1994), 1 14-15.
37. Lightfoot offers the splendid parallel of the vulture which the satirist Lucian of
Samosata has rise from the flames as Peregrinus commits suicide at the Olympic Games
(Peregrinus 39), as well as the eagle which was released from the funeral pyre of dead
emperors (Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. 3, 390-1).
38. This point is made surprisingly seldom in discussions of the Martyrdom, though it is
raised by Gary Bisbee in his study of pre-Decian martyr acta: 'The setting that is given for
Polycarp's trial should give us pause, for it is not a magistrate's tribunal or any other such
municipal setting............The stadium is an improbable place for a trial': G.A. Bisbee, Pre
Decian Acts ofMartyrs and Commentarii, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 22 (Philadephia:
Fortress Press, 1988), 121-2. Cadoux also raises the point: 'From the point of view of the
local case brought before him which he thought fit, and give
sentence on it. 39 The proconsul had power to execute justice,
including capital punishment, to a considerable extent as he pleased,
though with some
reference to whether or not the accused was a Roman
citizen. Nonetheless, although the judicial decisions of a governor
might seem arbitrary (he could dismiss the case or hear evidence
concerning it for as long as he wanted, and then release the accused or
sentence him or her to hard labour, corporal punishment or death, as
seemed good to him at the time), the forms were not. The forms used in
all other trials in authentic martyr acta (and those which want to
sound authentic) are clearly recognizable, either expressly or by
implication. The Christians are brought by their accusers before the
tribunal (��\Jcx), the judgement seat; the governor may consult with his
consiliUM, and the sentence (Kp IOlS) is given formally by him, often being
read out from a tablet. At least one of
these features (accusers, judgement seat, or sentence) appears in all
four Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus.40
In Polycarp's case, however, all of these are lacking. He is
arrested in the middle of a public holiday, and apparently taken
directly to the governor as the latter attends the games, with no
intervening hearing in a suitable place, such as the forum, or the
governor's palace. Nonetheless, the proconsul does go through some
of the motions of a trial analogous to that faced by other Christians
of the period: he asks Polycarp his name, and then proceeds with
the stock lines of magistrates at Christian trials: ' Respect your age', '
Curse Christ', 'Swear by the genius of Caesar' (9.2-3). When Polycarp
refuses, he apparently simply turns him over to the crowd, and
allows them to order his execution as they see fit. Can we really
accept these proceedings as historical?
It is worth looking at the account in some detail, because the
narrative gives us many little touches which address the strangeness
of the proceedings in an interesting way. We are invited to view
Statius Quadratus as acting inappropriately, I would argue, with
disdain for the traditions of Roman justice, Roman piety and Roman
ethics. Quadratus is shown up as being neither a pious philosopher
nor a just ruler - very much the terms which concern Justin Martyr
in writing his Apologies at more or less the same time.
Polycarp is brought forward (within speaking distance of the
governor, 9.2). The proconsul proceeds to what purports to be a
trial, which must be

customary forms of proconsular justice, the proceedings were unusual': C.1. Cadoux,
Ancient Smyrna: A History of the Cityfrom the Earliest Times to 324 A.D. (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1938), 359.
39. On cognitio extra ordinem, see A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law
in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 1 7-18.
40. Mark 15.3-4 (accusers); Matt. 27.12, 19 (accusers, ��!la); Luke 23.24 (KpIOIS);
John 19.13 (��!la).
a mark of contempt in the context, given the setting. The narrative
presents Polycarp throughout as responding to the proconsul's
games playing with dignity and gentlemanly openness (rroppT]oio,
10. 1).
Polycarp's first act, once he has answered to his name, is to look
round 'with dignity in his face' at all the crowd of 'lawless' Gentiles in
the stadium, and gesture towards them (e TTl o eioos) with his hand (9.2).
The meaning of this gesture is not spelled out - it is connected in the
narrative with the governor's demand that Polycarp say 'Away with
the atheists,' and is usually taken as a rather insolent indication that
he means to say 'Away with the atheists' to the crowd. But, though
he does indeed say the words after this gesture, he says them
immediately after groaning and looking up to heaven - so his reply is
not an insolent but an ambiguous one (as his third reply, IJETa
rroppT]oios aKouE (10. 1), 'hear it openly', makes clear). The gesture
is, in fact, as much to the stadium as to the crowd, and may be
taken to mean 'Do you really intend to try me here?' The governor
presses on, saying 'Swear, and I release you; curse Christ.' Polycarp
gives another dignified but stilI slightly covert answer, the famous
'tfor eighty-six years I have served him, and he has done me no
injustice [bOI KEIV]; how can I slander my King who has preserved
me?' (9.3). The mention of injustice is one of a series of such subtle
references to
the questionable nature of the governor's procedure in this section.
The governor presses Polycarp again to swear by the genius of
Caesar, and this time Polycarp changes tack: he is explicit in his reply,
openly criticizing the governor for his actions and making his own
position plain: 'If you emptily think [Kevooo�EIS] that I should swear
by the genius of Caesar, as you say, and are pretending that you do not
know who I am, hear it with boldness: I am a Christian. And if you want
to learn the rationale [AOyoS] of Christianity, fix a day and hear [the
case]' (10. 1). Polycarp here essentially accuses the proconsul of using
legal formulae in an empty manner, asking Polycarp's name and telling
him to swear when he is not in a suitable setting for a trial. Polycarp
challenges the governor's
cynical behaviour by making the clear confession appropriate to a trial
and asking the governor in return to follow the normal procedure of
naming a day and hearing the case properIy.4 1 But the proconsul,
continuing his contemptuous treatment, tells Polycarp instead to
persuade the people (o�IJOS, but in the shape of the stadium
crowd). It is unlikely that he fears a riot - his unusual action in
hearing the case outside a formal setting is more likely to cause one
than to prevent one. Polycarp continues his dignified practice of
recalling the governor to his own

41. A Roman governor would arrange in advance to hear a case in a given city on the
assize circuit during his formal assize sessions there, sometimes on a given day, sometimes
not. See the discussion in G.P. Burton, 'Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of
Justice under the Empire', Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975), 101.
position: 'You I would have held worthy of an account, for we have been
taught to allot honour which is proper and does not harm us to
rulers and authorities appointed by God. But these I do not hold as
fitting for a
defence to be made to them' (10.2). 4 2 Polycarp is very clear what
constitutes a proper authority and what does not; he is presented as
being more on the side of Roman justice than the proconsul is.
The governor seems to have in mind a sadistic game of making
Polycarp plead with the crowd. When Polycarp refuses to play, he
begins to threaten him, first with wild beasts, then with fire.
Polycarp, in his reply, implicitly accuses the proconsul of being a bad
philosopher and of
being impious (and hence a bad representative of the emperor Antoninus
Pius and his philosopher sons). 43 He first invokes a philosophical
commonplace with a sting in the tale: 'Change of mind from better
to
worse is not a possible change for us, but it is good to make a
change from harsh proceedings to just ones [aTTo TWV XCXAETTWV
'Srrt TO 81KCXtcx]' (1 1 . 1 ).44 He then brings out the stock Christian
answer to the threat of fire ('You threaten a fire that burns for an
hour and then is quickly quenched'), but adds, 'you do not know the
fire of the coming judgement and eternal punishment which awaits
the impious [Tots acrs�Ecrt]'. The sentiments are close to those of
Justin Martyr. Polycarp, having made his point, then cuts the
proceedings off: 'But why are you delaying? Do what you want to'
( 1 1 .2).
In normal circumstances, Polycarp's bold speeches to such a
prestigious figure might be dismissed as simple invention - a normal
technique for speeches in any ancient narrative, historical or otherwise.
They may well be such in any case: the narrative says that Polycarp said
'these and many other sayings' (12.1 ), and attributes to the proconsul
'the other things which follow, as they are accustomed to say' (9.2).
But if we accept that the proconsul was acting against normal custom,
and was enjoying himself playing with Polycarp for the crowd's benefit,
then some response such as Polycarp's begins to sound plausible.
What the narrative is keen above all to stress is that Polycarp kept
his dignity and the governor lost his. Polycarp's 'face was filled with
grace' and did not fall at the things said to him, whereas the
proconsul was 'beside himself (12 .1). This may well be an
exaggeration, but if we accept that Statius Quadratus did hold a trial
in such undignified circumstances

42. This passage is often taken as demonstrating a desire on the proconsul's part to give
Polycarp a chance (cf. e.g. Lightfoot, who is agnostic on the point: Ignatius and Polycarp, vo!'
3, 381). Polycarp might then be thought to be merely stubborn in passing up the opportunity.
But it is the proconsul himself who has made the decision to hear the case then and there in
the stadium, instead of putting it off until a regular assize session, which he could easily have
done. In making this decision his intention cannot be benign.
43. For this theme, see Justin, 1 Apology I; 2 Apology 2.16 and 15.5.
44. Cf. Plato, Republic, 381 b- (2, 20).
 for the benefit of the stadium crowds, he did indeed compromise to
some degree his standing as the representative of justice and good
order.
The course of the execution itself is not easy to reconstruct. No sentence
is pronounced on Polycarp,45 and it is very difficult to work out who
actually gives the order for him to be executed. The proconsul sends his
herald into the middle of the stadium to proclaim three times 'Polycarp
has confessed that he is a Christian!' (or perhaps 'Polycarp has
,
confessed three times that he is a Christian! 46) (12.1). The crowd then
ask Philip the
Asiarch (who seems to be in charge of at least the mock-hunting
section of the games) to set a lion on Polycarp, but he refuses on
the grounds that it is not permissible (E�OV), since he has now
completed the hunting (12.2). This is a very interesting comment. On
the one hand, it may signify that he has now fulfilled his expensive
duty of animal provision and has no intention of spending any more
money unnecessarily. On the other, he may be signalling a certain
disapproval of the casual attitude to legal form shown by the
proconsul, and washing his hands of the affair. He may even be
seeking to draw a line under the quasi-trial (since no actual sentence
has been passed) by interpreting the crowd's request, not as a
demand to
execute Polycarp as a criminal, but as one to enlist him as a
professional beast-fighter.47 Either way, his mention of
impermissibility may well be a
tacit rebuke to the proconsul, who has already threatened Polycarp
both with wild beasts and with execution by fire.

45. The giving of sentence was, in fact, the most carefully prescribed and closely defined
part of cognitio procedure, and a sentence could be invalidated if it was not given properly:
see T. Mommsen, Le droit penal romain, vol. 2, tr. J. Duquesne, Manuel des antiquites
romaines 18 (Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1 902), 128-30, with 30 n. 5.
46. The Greek can be read either way. For a discussion, see J. den Boeft and J.
Bremmer, 'Notiunculae Martyrologicae III: Some Observations on the Martyria of
Polycarp and Pionius', Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 39 (1985), I l l-B.
47. The word for 'hunt' is KUVT]YEOicx Latin venatio. In the arena, exotic and/or
=

dangerous species would be pitted against (free or slave) bestiarii ('beast-fighters'), made to
fight each other, or used to execute criminals who had been condemned ad bestias. KuvT]yeoicx
could be used in a wider sense of any of these activities: see the discussion in the classic
work of Louis Robert, Les gladiateurs dans I'Orient grec (Paris: Edouard Champion, 1 940), 31
0-
12. But normally the various forms of hunt were separated from the execution of the
condemned, though bestiarii might feature in both parts of the programme - in the former as
protagonists, in the latter as stagehands, as it were, managing the animals. Reliefs and
mosaics sometimes show scenes of armed bestiarii fighting beasts and scenes of criminals
being devoured by them in the same panel (an example is the gruesome border of a floor
mosaic from the villa of Dar Buc Ammera in Tunisia, reproduced in K.W. Coleman, 'Fatal
Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments', Journal of Roman
Studies 80 (1990), 55, plate II), but proximity in representation does not necessarily imply
simultaneity of occurrence. Criminals were sometimes sentenced to serve as bestiarii (see
Justinian's Digest 48. 19.1 1), but that was not - directly - a sentence of death. So Philip may
be saying both that his part of the proceedings is over and that executions are not his
responsibility anyway. It is noticeable that he does not say that there are no lions left.
 What happens next is not very clear (the narrative claims, with a
ring of authenticity, that it all happened very quickly). The crowd cry
out that Philip should have Polycarp burned (1 2.3): the narrator
uses the phrase
'E80I;EV CXtJTOIS (it seemed good to them), surely an ironic reference to the
usual formula for giving a legal decision.48 The narrative does not
tell us how Philip responded, or how the proconsul reacted, but it is
not unlikely that Philip said there was no wood, because the next
thing that happens is
that the crowd go off and bring wood from nearby stockpiles in (their
own?) bathhouses and workshops (13. 1), presumably passing them
down to the men who have been orchestrating the games. Someone
must have given the nod for the pyre to be built and Polycarp to be
placed on it, whether Philip or the proconsul or Herod the eirenarch,
though the authority by which it was done was of course ultimately
the proconsul's, the only official present with the right to execute.
The narrative speaks only of 'they' and 'the men of the fire' who
were going to nail him but desisted at his request (1 3.3), who gave
him time to pray (1 4), and who finally lit the fire (1 5 .1 ).
At length 'the lawless ones', seeing that the fire was not going to
consume his body, 'commanded' (EKEAEUOCXV) a confector to go up to
him and stick a dagger into him ( 16. 1; exactly whose authority is
behind this is once again unclear). After this action, administrative
practice more or less returns to normal. It is the pronconsul who has
the right to release the body for burial or not; Herod's father Niketas
persuades him not to hand it over (1 7.2), so 'the centurion' (under
the proconsul's command, and mentioned for the first time) takes
the body and burns it on a pyre, after which the Christians are able
to collect and remove the bones, 'more refined than gold', and
preserve them (1 8.2).
So the text itself does address, up to a point, the strangeness of the
legal proceedings it describes. They are subtly presented, both by Polycarp
and by the narrator, as out of step with normal Roman legal practice,
but within a system which, from a Christian point of view, is fairly
arbitrary anyway. Paradoxically, their strangeness probably makes
them more likely to be historically accurate. Polycarp's trial with no
sentence in a stadium on a public holiday could only have been
invented for one of three reasons: out of ignorance of Roman judicial
practice, out of lack of interest in it, or out of a desire to characterize
the Roman authorities as arbitrary and incompetent. Since Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History is the TERMINUS ante QUEM for the work, its date
of composition must be a time when normal Roman capital trial
procedure is all too well known to

48. The argument has sometimes been put forward that in the second century
acclamations of the cS��05 of the cities of Asia Minor had some sort of juridical force; for
a convincing critique, see S. Ronchey, Indagine sui Martirio di san Policarpo, Nuovi Studi
Storici 6 (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Media Eva, 1990), 13 3--45.
Christians. A work of fiction as fantastical as the late-second-century
Acts of PAUL and Thecla, in which Thecla is saved from her execution
pyre by a timely shower of hail, from wild beasts by perfume, and from
man-eating seals by an opportune flash of lighting, still takes the trouble
to include the details of a proper trial, including the �ll � a , the consiliUM,
and the Kplm5 (Acts of PAUL and Thecla 20, 2 1 , 27). And it seems odd
that a work so keen to follow the Gospels in other matters does not
follow them in this. Yet on the other hand, not enough is made of the
governor's departure from normal practice to argue that the piece is a
deliberate crude attack on Roman arbitrariness. And ultimately,
there was nothing to stop the proconsul of Asia acting in this way,
especially with a group such as the Christians, who were not in a
position to seek redress.
Some final points might be made in favour of authenticity. There are,
despite the difficulties with the proconsul's actions, some persuasive
touches in this narrative. Polycarp's death ends the persecution ( 1 . 1 ) : this
would make sense if the proconsul came to recognize after the event that
his actions had not been conducive to respect for law and order.
Polycarp's plea, in answer to the demand to curse Christ, 'tfor eighty-six
years I have served him, and he has done me no injustice: how can
I blaspheme my King who saved me?', does sound like something he
might actually have said (perhaps in discussion beforehand). When
Polycarp undresses for the fire, he has trouble, at his age, taking his
shoes off, because members of the community always used to fight over
the privilege of doing it for him ( 1 3.2). The over-theologizing of
Polycarp's death, concentrating on his noble mien, his appearance as of
baking bread and the sweet smell as of incense, is characteristic of the
usual contemporary Christian reluctance simply to report the horrors of
persecution without some formula which presents the pain as not
entirely real, not entirely there, because of God's grace or the presence
of Christ: the same can be found in the account of the martyrs of
Lyons, the Martyrdom of PIONIUS and the various accounts given by
Eusebius of Caesarea. The striking blend of horror and admiration
with which Polycarp's end is watched is perhaps the strongest argument
for the work's authenticity.
The theology of the work is also persuasive as coming from the middle
of the second century. Polycarp is described as a bishop, and is very
keen on catholicity, but the narrative itself is much more interested in
him as a true disciple of Christ than as a church leader. Non-Christians,
who would later be called 'Greeks' or 'those outside', are here described
as 'the nations' (TO e8vT), 9.2; 12.2; 19. 1), the usual Jewish term for non-
Jews. The Christian community is still in something of a ghetto: the
code-words of Roman education and philosophy, which Justin is
bandying about in Rome so enthusiastically at this time, are largely
absent here. The crowd, both pagans and Jews, are still entirely hostile.
Nonetheless, Polycarp is well enough known in Smyrna as a church
leader to be shouted for by
name; and though the greatest response the narrator can envisage from
the people to his witness is astonishment or wonder, not sympathy or
real interest, the narrative ends with Polycarp being talked about in
every place, 'even by the nations' (19. 1).

4. Conclusion

The date, unity and authenticity of the Martyrdom ofPolycarp continue to

be argued over and puzzled over by scholars. To a considerable
extent, this reflects the interest of the piece, and the preciousness of
the glimpse it offers us of the mid-second-century Asian church. We
find in it a frail old man, faithful unto death, accepting a cruel and
humiliating public execution rather than deny 'my King who saved
me'. Too edifying for some, perhaps, and too good to be true for
others. But ultimately, the Martyrdom ofPolycarp is most interesting if it
is true, if it is the authentic record of how someone in the church of
Smyrna made sense of Polycarp's death. tfor if we look behind the
text, if we read between the lines, we can see a community which is
all too human: where some step forward in bravado and catapult
others into the centre of a horrific and deadly public entertainment;
where the community can remember some members with loving pride
and brush aside even the names of others; where Christians and
Jews regard one another with bitter hatred; where having property
and slaves is all part of Polycarp's holy persona. At the same time,
we can be impressed, perhaps, by Polycarp's care for little and great,
by his dignity in the face of a system carefully designed to strip
dignity entirely away, by the community'S enormous respect for him,
by the narrator's concern for the terrible sufferings of the other
martyrs, and distress that they should have been exposed out of
some people's bravado, by the determination of the community to
carry on, as well as by the narrator's obvious love of and knowledge
of the Gospels.
But there is, ultimately, no better place for the Martyrdom of Polycarp
than the mid- 1 50s, as I have tried to show. Philip of Tralles and
Statius Quadratus fit nowhere else; the Justin parallels fit nowhere
better; the ghetto mentality fits nowhere later so well. The Gospel
parallels seem too forced to be invented; the proconsul's actions
seem too unusual for polemic. The level of narrative artistry
concerning such a recent atrocity may give us pause, but it is an
effective means of distancing the narrator from the horror of what is
being described.
In addition, none of the alternative theories really work.
Composite narrative theories are unnecessary (since Eusebius'
omissions are not difficult to explain away) and often arbitrary, or
else so far-reaching as to be virtually arguments for inauthenticity.
But arguments for inauthenti-
city stumble over this one fact above all: there is nothing in the text
that cannot belong to the mid-second century.
When these two conclusions, positive and negative, are put
together, they must outweigh whatever suspicions remain. The
Martyrdom of Polycarp is in some ways a strange text, strangely
distanced from its subject and strangely manicured. It shares its
strangeness with many of the other writings described by the term
'Apostolic tfathers'. But it simply does not fit anywhere else than
where it is.
 Chapter 12

THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS

Paul Foster

No text and no context. These circumstances confront the investigator of

the document known as the Epistle to DiognETUS. The single medieval
copy of the manuscript that preserved the text was destroyed by fire in
1 870, and the contents of that text gave no firm indications about
where or when it was written. Moreover, its placement among the
admittedly arbitrary corpus known as the Apostolic tfathers is
somewhat dubious. This situation, however, is not quite as bleak as it
may sound, since a number of transcriptions of the manuscript had
been made prior to its loss, and while the context for its composition
remains a contested issue, generic comparisons may cast some light on
both the purpose and origin of the document.

1. The Text

The text that has become known as the Epistle to DIOGNETUS is not
referred to in any of the extant patristic writings, and only became
known through a single manuscript, the history of which can perhaps be
traced back to the fifteenth century. Marrou, in his commentary on
DiognETUS, describes the discovery of the manuscript in
Constantinople around 1436 by a young Latin cleric, Thomas
d'Arezzo, in a fishmonger's shop, among a pile of wrapping papers. 1
According to this story, d'Arezzo purchased the manuscript at little
cost, then before he set out on a mission to the Muslims the codex
was passed on to the future cardinal Jean Stojkovic de Raguse. The
document remained in Stojkovic's possession until his death in 1 443,
when his library was left to the Dominicans and Carthusians in the
town of Basle. Although some elements of this reconstructed history are
speculative, it is based on the personal writings of Stojkovic (known

1. H.I. Marrou, A Diogm!te: Introduction, edition critique, traduction et commentaire

(Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1951), 6.
14 The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers
by that stage as Cardinal Giovanni da Ragusa)? But it is not until the
beginning of the sixteenth century that it becomes possible to speak
with certainty about the history of the manuscript. Within the codex,
at the rear of the volume, there was a note in Johannes Reuchlin's
(d. 1522) hand
stating 'that the MS. had been in his custody and that he had bought
it from the Carthusian brotherhood in his native town'. 3
During the last quarter of the sixteenth century three
transcriptions were made of the manuscript. The first, made around
1 580 by B. Haus, was lost for three hundred years until it was
rediscovered in 1880 in the University Library at Tiibingen, where it
is still housed. Second, J.J. Beurer of tfreiburg copied the text
around 1590, and although this transcription was subsequently lost,
a number of its readings have been preserved in an appendix to the
edition published by Stephanus (Henri Estienne). The editio princeps
published by Stephanus was based on a transcription he himself had
made in 1 586. tfurther, as Ehrman notes, 'two careful collations of
the manuscript were made in the nineteenth
century for Otto's edition of the text, one by E. Cunitz and the other
4
by E. Reuss in 1861'. However, in 1870 during the tfranco-Prussian
War,s the
library in Strasbourg where the manuscript had arrived at some
point between 1793 and 1 795 caught fire,6 and the manuscript,
which up until that point had survived the vagaries of history, was
destroyed.

2. The Genre and Content of the Epistle

The opening lines of the epistle are reminiscent of the prologue to

Luke's Gospel addressed to Theophilus. The unnamed author speaks
to the recipient in the following terms:
Since I see, most excellent Diognetus, that you are exceedingly zealous to
learn the religion of the Christians and are making very clear and careful
enquiry about them . . . I welcome this eager desire in you, and I ask God .
. . that it may be given to me so to speak that you may gain as

2. Marrou, A Diognl!te, 6 n. 1, and G. Mercati, 'da mcunaboli a codici, I. Di dua ou tre

rari codici greci del cardinale Giovanni da Regusa (d. 1443)', in L. Donati (ed.), Miscellanea
bibliografica in memoria di don Tommaso Accurti, Storia e Letteratura 15 (Rome: Edizioni di
'Storia e Letteratura', 1 947), 3-26.
3. See H.G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1 949), 68.
4. B.D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, LCL 25 (Cambridge, Mass. and London:
Harvard University Press, 2003), 128.
5. tfor a description of the wider events that led up the ourbreak ofthe tfranco-
Prussian War and a description of its extent, see M. tfoot, 'The Origins of the tfranco-
Prussian War', in J.P.T. Bury, The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. 10, The Zenith of
European Power 1830-1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 577-602.
6. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 68.
 much benefit as possible by your hearing, and to you so to hear that the
speaker may not be put to grief. (Diog. I)

Common features, such as the form of address 'excellent', a very similar

opening word in both accounts (Luke: 'ETTSIOrlTTSP; Diog.: 'ETTSI Orl),
and the reference to careful enquiry in both prologues, may suggest
that the author of Diogne TUS has consciously modelled his introduction
on that of the third Gospel. Alternatively, the similarities may be
due to wider rhetorical conventions. However, after the opening, the
similarity with the Gospel genre ceases.
The literary form is that of a letter, addressed to a certain
Diognetus by an unnamed and unknown author.7 This is a literary
letter, rather than a personal note. In terms of generic categories it
is closer to the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews, with its self-
conscious literary flour
ishes, than it is to Philemon, which is written with a specific situation in
mind and addressed to a single individual, with the apostle Paul
presumably seeing no further applicability in that brief piece of corres
pondence than its original intent of softening Onesimus to grant
his request. By contrast, the Epistle to DiogNETUS, though addressed
to a named person (although this could be a literary device),
has an intentionally generalized style without 'the inclusion of any
,
homely
personal touches .8 Classification of the genre is further complicated by
the observation that the present form of the letter has a 'literary
seam' separating chaps 1-10 from 1 1-12. These different sections
appear to represent two distinct sources that have been combined
during the process of transmission. The identification of this seam is
supported by a marginal note that existed in the manuscript at the
,
end of chap. 10, and which reads
'and here the copy has a break .9 Furthermore, another marginal note
described a lacuna found at 7.6 in the manuscript from which the scribe
was copying. As Ehrman comments, 'there is no way to know how much
of the intervening text has been lost, whether just a few words or a
,
page or more . I O
While the text is in the form of a letter, it has an obvious
pedagogical and apologetic function. The Christian apologists were
active in the second half of the second century, and their purpose
was 'explication of Christian beliefs, practices and morals, and of
course the explication

7. For the suggestion that Polycarp was the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, see
C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus' Apostolic Presbyter and
the Author of Ad Diognetum (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006), 24-3 1.
8. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 8.
9. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 124.
10. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 124.
tended to grow imperceptibly into defence'. l l Chief among these writers
was Justin Martyr, 12 who tried to convince his interlocutors that
Christianity had affinities with philosophy and reason rather than with
mythology and popular religion. 13 In a similar vein the Epistle to
DIOGNETUS seeks to encourage its readers 'to put aside prejudice
and
acknowledge the superiority of Christians' understanding and service
of God to that of Jews'. 1 4 The connection with the apologists is
further
strengthened by consideration of the codex in which the manuscript of
DIOGNETUS was bound. Marrou lists the 22 works that this 260-
page manuscript contained. 1 5 The first five were works attributed to
Justin, of
which the Epistle to DIOGNETUS was the fifth and bore the Greek title TOU
OtlTOU rrpo5 �16YVETOV ('of him to Diognetus'), with the pronoun
O\JTOU
(,him') referring back to the title at the head of this collection of five
works by Justin, TOU aylou 'IOUOTIVOU ¢IAOO6¢ou KeXl IlcXpTUp05 ('of St.
Justin, philosopher and martyr'). The two parts of the epistle mean
that it is probably necessary to identify two authors of this now-
composite work. Most scholars have rejected the claim of the codex
that Justin was the author, even of chaps 1-10, the apologetic
section. Presumably this is on the basis of stylistic variation and an
awareness of the tendency to attribute unknown works to prominent
figures. Regardless of the specific author, the epistle appears to be
most satisfactorily dated in the period of the apologists in the second
half of the second century, although a later date is not impossible.
In the epistle a number of themes and topics are addressed, but
there is some progression of thought. The contents can be tabulated
in the following manner:

1
Prologue
2. 1-10
Futility of paganism
3. 1---4.6 Futility of Judaism
5 . 1-6. 1 0
The character and religion of Christians
7.1 -9 God's purpose and the nature of his envoy
8. 1-9.6 God's Son: revealer and saviour
10. 1-8 Imitation of God
11 Ministry of the Word
12 Unity of knowledge and life

II. R.A. Norris Jr, 'The Apologists', in F. Young, L. Ayres and A. Louth (eds), tfhe
Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 36.
12. Other apologists include Tatian, Aristides, Quadratus, Melito, Athenagoras, and, as
a late flowering of the phenomenon, Origen in his Contra Celsum.
13. Norris, 'The Apologists', 37.
14. Norris, 'The Apologists', 43-4.
15. Marrou, A Diogmite, 10-17.
It can be seen that whereas the first ten chapters have an apologetic
focus, the final two have internal ecclesial concerns.

3. The Teaching of the Epistle

In discussing the religious practices of pagans, the author draws on a

strand of polemic that can be traced back at least as far as the
prophetic book of Isaiah. Criticising the physical objects before
which adherents offer devotion to their gods, the author mockingly
writes,

Is not one a stone, like that which we tread on, another bronze, no
better than the implements which have been forged for our use, another
wood already decayed, another silver, which needs a man to guard it lest
it be stolen . . .? (2.2)

This sarcastic polemic may well be based upon a similar critique in Isa.
44. 1 2-17, which, while not demonstrating the author was
ethnically Jewish, does demonstrate a willingness to appropriate
Jewish teaching against idolatry. The author identifies the non-
participation in idol worship by Christians as the reason for their
persecution (2.6). In fact, it is the refusal of Christians to reverence
inanimate objects that, according to the author, highlights pagan
'bondage to such gods' (2. 1 0).
Although the author is happy to draw upon Jewish antecedents to
criticize pagans, this does not prevent him from subjecting Jews to
equally withering criticism. In this regard he appears to observe a
category distinction that is prominent in Christian thought between
the biblical Israelites, who are classed as proto-Christians, and the
contemporary Jews, who are classed as recalcitrants and rejecters of
the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. The fundamental argument in
chap. 3 revolves around the offerings presented by Jews. While they
do not present their gifts to 'images void of sense', the author,
nonetheless, accuses the Jews of assuming that God 'were in need of
them' (3.3). In this sense the author turns the Jewish critique of
paganism against the Jews themselves. Thus,
as Jefford describes the train of thought, 'it is claimed that the Jews
also have turned the one, true God into an image of idolatry'. 1 6 The
argument
continues by suggesting that Jewish 'faddiness' or 'fussiness', to
employ Blakeney'S terms, 17 is inconsistent since they accept some of
God's created gifts for their use while rejecting others, in what the
author characterizes as a totally arbitrary fashion (4.2).
Having swept aside the religious practices of both pagans and Jews,
the author next presents the positive virtues of the Christian faith.
Adherents

16. C.N. lefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1 996), 163.
17. E.H. Blakeney, The Epistle to Diognetus (London: SPCK, 1 943), 42-3.
of this faith are good citizens in that they do not separate themselves
from the rest of society (5. 1-2), which is surely a thinly veiled
criticism of Judaism. They live moral lives and perform good works,
yet while presenting these positive aspects the author also describes the
reality of the persecution they endure:
When doing good they are punished as evildoers; suffering
punishment, they rejoice as quickened into life. By the Jews they are
warred against as foreigners, and are hunted down by the Greeks. Yet
those who hate them cannot state the cause of their hostility. (5.l6-
17)
In chap. 6 the author develops the metaphor that Christians are
the 'soul of the world', living as the incorruptible element among
corruptible objects. This worldview, with its description of the
invisible soul and the contrast between the corruptible and
incorruptible, has clear parallels with Platonic thought, and may
reflect the way in which Christian apologists tried to appropriate the
concepts of Hellenistic philosophers for
their own polemical purposes.
Although both Meecham 1 8 and Jefford 19 group chap. 7 with the
previous two chapters, this section has little in common with
describing the nature of Christians and their religion, the purpose of
the preceding
material. In fact chap. 7 is much more closely connected with the two
chapters that follow. The focus is upon the Almighty God's choosing
not to act through some inferior intennediary, but instead sending as
his envoy 'the very Artificer and Maker of the universe himself, by
whom he created the heavens' (7.2). The term 'Logos' appears once
in chap. 7 (7.2), but not as a title for the one who is referred to as
the 'Artificer and Maker'. Nevertheless, this passage may well have a
Logos Christology informing its reflection concerning the divine
envoy. Cosmological reflection on the role of the Logos was a key
aspect among apologists in the development of their Christologies
(see e.g. Justin, Dial. 1 29.3-4). Commenting on the development of
Logos Christology, especially in the Eastern, or Greek-speaking,
church, Dunn states,
it afforded the better link with the philosophical speculation of the day
and enabled Christians to contribute their own distinctive claims to
the then dominant concern of wider religion and philosophy to
understand
20
and conceptualize the relation between God and the cosmos.

This Christological outlook adds further weight to the case for

dating DIOGNETUS to the second half of the second century, when the
apologists were most active.

18. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 6.

19. Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers, 167.
20. I.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Doctrine
of the Incarnation, 2nd edn (London: SCM Press, 1989), 214.
 In the remaining three chapters of the first section of the letter,
the author speaks about the inability to know God apart from divine
self disclosure. This, it is claimed, has occurred, being communicated
by God through his rrol5 (,servant; child'). Chapter 9 elucidates the
salvific dimension of what God brought about through the work of
his Son in making righteous those who were formerly wicked (9.3-
5). Finally, this is seen as placing a responsibility on those whom
God has loved (10. 1), which requires them to emulate the goodness
of God.
The additional two chapters show a marked change in style,
rhetoric and content. In chap. 1 1 the favoured Christological title
'Logos' occurs six times in this short piece of text. On the basis of
the apparent 'progressive development from the status of Myo5 to
that of ulOs- or rroI5',l1 Connolly suggests, on the basis in turn of
parallel ideas in Contra
NoETUM, that Hippolytus is also the author of the epistle's two appended
chapters. 22 Scholars have not been quick to take up this suggestion. In
chap. 12 the author presents an allegorical reading of the two trees
that stood in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2-3). Those who adhere to
the divine truth are described as 'a Paradise of delight, who raise up
in themselves a fruitful and flourishing tree, and are laden with
various fruits' (12.1 ). However, the author subverts the original
Genesis story by supporting the partaking of the fruit from the tree of
knowledge. He argues that 'the tree of knowledge does not kill;
disobedience kills' (1 2.2). This creative retelling of the biblical
narrative may be motivated by a desire to demonstrate that
Christianity is not antithetical to knowledge. In fact, those to whom
this allegory is addressed are encouraged to eat from the tree of
knowledge: 'if you bear this tree and pluck its fruit, you will always
gather what God desires' (12.8). The passage continues by reversing
the negative picture of Eve. In contrast to the way the New Testament
refers to her as the archetypal transgressor and deceiver (2 Cor.
1 1 .3; 1 Tim. 2. 14), DIOGNETUS declares, 'Eve is not corrupted, but believed
on as a virgin' (12. 8). It is likely that an allegorical interpretation is
being presented, with Mary portrayed as the second Eve in the new
Paradise formed by those who are obedient to the Logos of God.
Such symbolism is evident from the mid-second century onwards,
and as Meecham
observes, 'The parallel between the Eve of Genesis and the Virgin
Mary is familiar' .23 Justin provides a more explicit parallelism between
these two
women (Justin, Dial. 100), as do Irenaeus (AB 3.22.4) and Tertullian
(De Carn. Christi 17). The epistle concludes with a panegyric,
eulogizing the salvific plan, the knowledge of the apostles and the
providence of God. In

21. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 145.

22. R.H. Connolly, 'Ad Diognetum', JtfS 37 (1936), 2ff.
23. Meecham, tfhe Epistle to Diognetus, 145.
contrast to the argued defence of Christianity in the first ten
chapters, this homily is definitely produced for internal consumption.

4. tfhe tfheology of Diognetus

The theological ideas put forward in this letter vary from the
conventional to the creative, and from the mundane to the mature.
Its reflections on a number of issues both place it within the wider
context of late-second century thought, and show that the author
was capable of innovative and fresh thinking. The anti-pagan and
anti-Jewish rhetoric continues a tradition of Christian hostility
towards those religions. However, the author creatively uses Jewish
polemic against idolatry as the basis for his critique of Judaism: 'The
,
Jews offer God worship in the same fashion as
the Greeks; Jewish sacrifices are as foolish as pagan offerings. 24 The
doctrine of deification prominent in Eastern Orthodoxy also appears
to be present in the thinking of Diognetus, at least in embryonic
form.25 In the final chapter of the first section the epistle states that
through practical
acts of charity directed to neighbours one may 'become a god to those
who receive them, this one is an imitator of God' (1 0.6). Marrou
notes how this doctrine emerges out of the concept of the 'heroic
person' in Hellenistic thought.26 However, by linking this process with
acts of charity
Diognetus grounds the notion of deification in concrete acts which are
incumbent upon all Christians.
The ideas about God that are presented in this epistle are not
developed in a systematic manner, but rather emerge in an ad hoc
fashion in the discussion of other topics. God is affirmed as the
creator (7.2) and the maker of the universe (8.7). Yet this needs to be
held in tension with the presentation of the agent through whom 'he
created the heavens' (7.2). Such ideas may be influenced by the
Platonic desire to distance the supreme God from the taint of the
material realm. The reference to an intermediary may also stem from
a more functional concern to attribute a role in creation to the pre-
existent Logos. Although the author concedes that it may have been
supposed that God had 'no concern or care for us' (8 .1 0), this has
been shown to be a misjudgement, because, by the communication
of his purpose through his child, God 'proved himself not only a lover
of mankind but also long-suffering' (8.7). Thus, through such
reasoning the author of Diognetus presents a God who is both

24. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 35.

25. For a comprehensive treatment of the doctrine of deification see R. Norman, The
Doctrine of Deification in the Gree Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005).
26. Marrou, A Diogm!te, 216.
fundamentally benign and also providential in his planning for the
redemption of humanity and the revelation of his love.
Christology is another key theological topic implicit in the thinking of
DiognETUS. Logos Christology is most prominent in the two appended
chapters, but it also appears to inform the train of thought in chap. 7.
The more prominent titles employed in the first ten chapters are
'child'/ 'servant' (TTCiIS, 8.9; 9. 1 ), various titles involving the term 'son'
('son of God', 9.4; 'his own son', 9.2; 'only-begotten son', 1 0.2),
'saviour' (9.6), 'Lord' (7.7) and 'Artificer and Maker of the
universe' (7.2). The concentration of these titles in chaps 7-1 0 is not
surprising when one takes into account the progression of thought in the
epistle, which turns to
the nature of God's envoy only after tackling other issues. Meecham
characterizes the Christology as 'simple and unscholastic',27 and
also
suggests that 'the author thinks of the Son as not only pre-existent,
,
but subordinate to the Father .28 It would, however, be
anachronistic to accuse the author of subordinationism. While the
divinity of the Son may
appear to be derivative on that of the Father, since the plan of
redemption needs to be 'communicated to his child', the author does
not offer a treatise on the relationship between the first and second
persons of the Trinity, and even if he had attempted this it is
doubtful whether during the second century the conceptual
development had taken place that would have allowed writers to
avoid the charge of subordinationism.
Ecciesiology is not a prominent concern in DiogNETUS. The author
does refer to believers collectively, and thus shows an awareness
of the communal nature of Christianity, but he offers little insight
into the governance of that community. The Church is mentioned twice
in chap. 1 1 , but this section may date to a period later than that of the
preceding material. In chap. 1 1 the Church is described as the recipient of
grace and revelation through the work of the Son, and its role is to
ensure that 'the pledges of faith are not broken nor the decrees of the
fathers transgressed' ( 1 1 .5). This position of safeguarding the deposit
of faith is articulated again in the following verse: 'the faith of the
Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is guarded, and
buoyant is the grace of the Church' ( 1 1 .6). It is interesting to note
the plural reference to the 'Gospels'. Stanton observes that 'the
fourfold Gospel emerged in the
second half of the second century and that the Muratorian Fragment
and Irenaeus are our primary witnesses'. 29 It may well be that
DIOGNETUS
should be added to this list of primary witnesses to a multiple
Gospel canon, although this is not necessarily quite the same thing
as a 'fourfold

27. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 26.

 28. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, 26.
29. G.N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 63,
italics in original.
canon'. Papias also bears witness to multiple Gospels, but not
necessarily to a corpus of four Gospels. 3 o

4. Conclusions

Although no manuscript of the Epistle to DIOGNETUS is extant, the

transcriptions of the text still allow access to the thought-world of the
author of the text. Although there are no direct indications of the date of
composition or the geographical location of its writer, generic compari
sons do assist in situating the document. One must also bear in mind that
the epistle is a composite document, and while it may be possible
to identify plausible dates for the component parts, it is impossible to
suggest when or by whom these components were united. The concerns
and style of the first ten chapters have many points of contact with the
apologists. This suggests a date after 1 50 CEo Its plural reference to the
'Gospels' may push this date forward, into the last quarter of the
century, but caution is required since the plural form is evidence of
some degree of multiplicity without demonstrating an awareness of a
fourfold Gospel canon. The dating of the final two chapters are equally
problematic, but they give a feel (albeit no more) of being later, and a
possible date may be the first half of the third century.
DIOGNETUS gives a robust defence of the Christian faith, and exudes a
confidence in the superiority of that form of belief to that of its main
competitors, paganism and Judaism. Persecution remains a reality for
the author, and to this end he tries to convince his readers that
Christianity is no threat, but actually surpasses the best expressions
of reason and philosophy. These arguments are an attempt to convince
those outside the community that Christianity is a rigorous and
attractive faith, worthy to be pursued by all who cherish reason and
despise superstition. The vagaries that preserved this letter down
through the generations from the late second century to the fifteenth
century are unknown, and the fact that it is nowhere cited in patristic
or medieval sources is puzzling. However, its rediscovery provides a
vivid snapshot of an early attempt to present rationally the integrity
of Christianity to a society that was both pluralistic and hostile.

30. Though see the discussion by Hill in Chapter 5, sect. 3 above.

 INDEX

Acts of Paul and Thecla 1 44 Codex Sinaiticus In. 4, 73, 75n. 20,
Adoptionism 1 00 106n. 99
Alexandria 37, 54 Codex Vaticanus 106n. 99
Anicetus 128 Corinth 21, 24-6, 28, 34, 37
Antioch 1, 15, 1 6, 33, 81, 86, 87, 96, Isthmian Games 37
1 1 3, 123 Council of Jerusalem 16
Antoninius Pius 61, 89, 141 Crescens 11 3
Apology of Quadratus 52-62 Cyril Lucar, Patrirch of Constantinople
apostles 43--4 33
Apostolic Canons 23, 33
Apostolic Constitutions 85 D'Arezzo, Thomas 147
Aristides 53, 59-60 deacon 11 , 18, 93--4
Athanasias Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran) 1 4, 1 6n. 17,
Festal Epistle (367 CE) 23 80n. 46, 92
Athenagoras 61 Decalogue 7
Didache 1, 7, 8 13-20, 21, 22, 126
baptism 1 7-1 8 , 95, 1 00 Didymus the Blind 23, 72-3
Bar-Cochba 75 Dionysius of Corinth 1, 23
2 Baruch 49 Docetism 89-93, 99, 101
bishop 11 , 18, 51, 93-8, 127 Doctrina apostolorum 13, 15
Bryennios, Philotheos 13, 33, 34n. 5, 73 Domitian 6, 28
donkey 137
canon 1, 72, 109
Carpocratians 58 Egypt 75
charisma 1 8-19, 65, 95-6, 107 Epistle of Barnabas 7, 8 16, 22, 72-80,
Christ 4, 10, 39, 90, 99, 11 6, 11 9, 125, 126
1 37 Epistle to Diognetus 52, 60, 147-56
christology 20, 90, 98-100, 1 52, 155 genre and contents 148-5 1
angeJomorphic 92 history of the text 147--48
Davidic 1 8, 20 teachings 15 1-54
logos 1 52, 153, 1 54 Epistles of Ignatius 1, 10, 14, 81-107,
church (ecclesia) 4, 10, 12, 34, 39, 66, 1 24, 126
93-8, 107, 1 32, 155 dating 84-9
circumcision 91 Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 81,
Clement of Alexandria 48, 63, 72-3 88, 89, 94, 98, 99, 100, 1 01 , 103,
Clement of Rome 21, 24, 86 105
1 Clement 1, 8, 10, 21-31, 80, 87, 1 12, Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians
126 81, 90, 94
2 Clement 9, 22, 32-41, 1 26 Ignatius Epistle to the Philadelphians
Codex Alexandrinus In. 4, 22, 33, 34 81, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 98
Codex Bezae 45 Ignatius Epistle to Polycarp 8, 82, 96,
Codex Hierosolymitanus 22, 73, 75n. 105
20
15 The Writings of the Apostolic
8 Fathers
Ignatius Epistle to the Romans 23, 81,
Marcion 108, 1 14, 11 5, 1 24
82, 89, 99, 1 02, 103
Marcus Aurelius 6, 61
Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrneans 81, martyrdom 10, 81, 1 02-3, 106, 1 08,
89, 90, 95, 96, 98, 1 00, 101, 104
123, 1 34-6, 13 8--45
Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians 81,
Martyrdom of Polycarp 81, 108, 125
89, 94, 95, 1 00, 101
126-46
three recensions 82--4
authenticity 1 36--45
use of the New Testament 1 03-6, 1 07
composition of text 132-6
eschatology 9, 10, 12, 1 9-20, 45, 49-51,
dating 127-32, 1 46
1 17
Mary, Mother of Jesus 89, 1 00-1, 153
eucharist 3, 4, 8, 14, 1 7-18, 93-8
Melito of Sardis 34
Eusebius Historia Eccesiastica In. 2,
Minucius Fundanus 6
6n. 18, 23, 33, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47,
monarchical episcopacy 11 , 24, 87, 97
52, 53-5, 57, 61-2, 84-5, 1 06, 1 09,
Montanism 67, 1 29
1 10, 128, 130, 133, 1 34, 143, 145
Muratorian Cannon 1, 64
Eve 153
4 Ezra 60
Nerva 74
Fragments of Papias 42-5 1, 57
Origen 24, 61, 72-3, 85
Franco-Prussian War 1 48
paganism 151, 1 56
Gaius 133 Palestine 3
Gentiles 15
Papyrus Egerton 2, 9n. 29
Gnosticism 11, 48, 91
Paul 2, 3, 4, 10, l l , 16, 30, 70, 80, 98,
Basilides 48-9
102, 1 06, 108, 11 8-19, 128
Gospel of Peter 9n. 29
penance 66
Gospel of Thomas 3, 5, 9, 40
persecution 28, 36, 38, 64, 66, 68-70,
gospel traditions 45-7, 70, 155, 1 56
Peter 23, 46, 103
Hadrian 48, 55-6, 75, 89
Pharisees 18
Harnack, Adolf von 1 3-14, 18 Philo 75, 80n. 46
Holy Spirit 18, 66, 1 20 Photius 3 1
hospitality 11
Pionius 129, 131, 1 32, 133
Pliny the Younger 6, 11
Ignatius 10, 23, 39, 108, 11 3, 119, 121-3
Polycarp 11, 81, 95, 1 08, 1 26--46
incarnation 39
Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 1,
Irenaeus 23, 37, 43, 44, 49, 50, 58-9, 22, 29, 73, 81, 89, 108-25, 127
1 09, 1 l0, 1 26, 1 27, 128, 153 authenticity 1 24
date 123--4
Jerome 56, 72-3 imitation 11 9-20
Jerusalem 19, 108 partition theory 1 20-3
Jesus 2, 3, 19, 30, 39, 99, 1 17, 151 righteousness 11 3, 11 5, 11 6, 11 8-19
Jewish-Christianity 1 5, 16, 50, 71, 80 presbyter 29, 35, 93--4
Johannine secessionists 90 prophet 19
Judaism 7, 77-80, 90-2, 144, 1 50, 151, proto-orthodox 109
1 54, 1 56 Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 23, 24
Jupiter Capitolinus 75 Purim 131
Justin Martyr 35, 45, 50, 61, 80n. 46,
1 26, 1 39, 141n. 43, 144, 1 50, 1 52 Q 2, 3, 9, 17, 45
Quadratus, apologist 55-6
Lord's prayer 8, 18 Quadratus, bishop of Athens 55-6
 Index 1 59

Quintus 1 29, 133, 135 Stephanus 148

Stoicism 7, 30-1, 70
repentance 37-8, 66--7 Stojkovic de Raguse, Jean 147-8
resurrection 1 00, 119 subordinationism 155
rhetoric 26, 1 10-1 2 synagogue 34
Roman legal proceedings 1 38-40, 1 42-4
Rome 3, 5, 9, 21, 24-6, 28, 37, 64, Tatian 61
68-70, 81, 96, 1 06, 121, 1 23, 1 28 temple 74
Rule of St Benedict 16 Tertullian 24, 67, 1 53
Theophilus of Antioch 61
salvation 66, 1 1 6-1 8 Torah 1 5, 1 6, 77
Second Isaiah 3 Trajan 6, 54, 86
Second Sophistic 31 transubstantiation 97
Septuagint 7, 27, 29, 76, 1 12 trinitarian controversy 1
Shepherd of Hermas 1, 10, 21, 63-71, Two Ways text 1 3-14, 17, 79
72, 1 26
Mandates 7, 65 Ussher, James (Archbishop of
Similitudes 65 Armagh) 82-3
Visions 23, 65
Simon Magus 58 Valens 11 3, 1 14, 1 16, 1 19
sin 68 Vespasian 74
Son of Man 3 Voss, Isaac 83