In my previous post I talked about a textual problem in the early Christian writing, “The Martyrdom of Polycarp.” To my surprise, I’ve never talked about this intriguing text on the blog before. It’s time I did!
This is one of the books of the corpus I’ve been calling “The Apostolic Fathers,” a collection of ten or eleven “proto-orthodox” authors (meaning that they attest forerunners of the views that eventually became “orthodox” — that is, widely approved as “true”). It is our first Christian narrative fully devoted to describing a martyrdom (the martyrdom of Stephen is described in the NT in Acts 8, but it one episode in a long narrative; other martyrdoms are mentioned in Acts and Revelation, etc., but are not narrated). This became a kind of genre within early Christian literature–accounts, many of them claiming to be by eyewitnesses, of martyrdoms.
Here is how I discuss the Martyrdom of Polycarp in my Loeb edition of the Apostolic Fathers (in the Introduction to my translation of the text). This will take two posts.
******************************
The Martyrdom of Polycarp has long occupied a place of special intrigue for readers of the Apostolic Fathers. This is an account, evidently based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, of the trial and execution of a prominent church leader of the early and mid-second century, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. Known already from the letter addressed to him by Ignatius, an earlier martyr (whose own death is recounted only in later legends), and from the letter that he wrote to the church in Philippi (see the Letter of Polycarp), Polycarp was an important figure in the development of proto-orthodox Christianity. Tradition held that in his youth he was the follower of the disciple John and that later in life he became the teacher of the famous bishop of Gaul, Irenaeus, forming a link between the apostles themselves and the emerging proto-orthodox community (Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 5.20; 4.14; see Mart. Pol. 22.2). In any event, this account of his death is the earliest Christian martyrology that we have outside of the New Testament description of the death of Stephen (Acts 7-8). It was not, however, written simply to recount the historical facts of Polycarp’s arrest, trial, conviction, and execution. It was also meant to sanction a particular attitude and approach to martyrdom.
Overview
The Martyrdom of Polycarp is in the form of a letter sent by the church of Smyrna to the church of Philomelium, in Phrygia. Its actual author was an otherwise unknown Christian named Marcion (unrelated to the heretic of the same name reportedly opposed by Polycarp), who dictated the account to a scribe named Evaristus (20.1-2). This Marcion begins his account by informing his readers that Polycarp’s death was no mere accident of history or miscarriage of justice: it occurred according to the will of God and happened “in conformity with the gospel” (1.1).
To illustrate the point, the account narrates numerous parallels between the deaths of Polycarp and Jesus. Like Jesus, we are told, Polycarp did not turn himself in, but waited to be betrayed (1.2); he knew about his coming execution in advance and predicted it to his followers (5.2); he prayed intensely before his arrest (7.2-3); he asked that God’s will be done (7.1); the official in charge of his arrest was named Herod (6.2); he rode into town on a donkey (8.3); and so on.
This emphasis that Polycarp’s martyrdom conformed to the will of God can be seen in other aspects of the account as well. Like other martyrs, who are mentioned only in passing (2.2-3), Polycarp receives such divine succor during his torture that he feels no terror and experiences no anguish (12.1; 15.2). When burned at the stake, he does not need to be secured to the upright with nails, but can stand of his own volition. When the conflagration begins, a miracle occurs – the flames do not touch his body but envelop him like a sheet. And rather than emitting a stench of burning flesh, his body exudes a sweet odor like perfume (15.2). Since the flames cannot kill him, an executioner resorts to stabbing him with a dagger, which has the effect of releasing a dove from his side (his “holy” spirit, returning to heaven?), along with such a quantity of blood that it douses the flames (16.1).
The legendary details of the account, in other words, are designed to show God’s stamp of approval on a martyrdom of this kind. The author does not want to insist, however, that every Christian is to suffer like this. Quite the contrary, one of the overarching points of the narrative is that even though a Christian brought up on charges should face death bravely, without denying Christ or performing the acts of sacrifice necessary to escape the ultimate penalty, one must not go out of the way to seek death by martyrdom. The point is stated explicitly early on in the narrative, in the brief account of Quintus, a Christian from Phrygia who volunteers for martyrdom and urges others to do so as well, only to turn coward when confronted by the beasts (ch. 4). And so the author says, “we do not praise those who hand themselves over, since this is not what the gospel teaches.”
It may be, then, that this author wanted to present a moderating view of martyrdom to his Christian readership – against some groups of Gnostics on the one side, who insisted that God never calls a Christian to die for the faith (their logic, in part: since Jesus died for others, others need not die) and against some rigorist groups, on the other side, like the Montanists who later appeared in Quintus’s home territory of Phyrgia, who believed in voluntary martyrdom. For this author, Polycarp did nothing to expedite his death (he actually went into hiding), and yet when his time came, he faced it faithfully and bravely, in imitation of Christ: “my king who has saved me,” he proudly announced at his interrogation, a king he had served for eighty-six years (9.3).
Several other ideas set forth in the account became standard features in the martyrological accounts that were to become increasingly popular among Christian readers: a person could be put to death simply for claiming to be Christian, and part of the crime involved “atheism,” that is, not acknowledging the existence and power of the pagan gods (3.2; 9.2; 12.1); suffering martyrdom brings eternal life (which is no doubt why some Christians sought it out) (2.3); the temporary suffering at the hands of human torturers is nothing compared to the eternal torments reserved for those who oppose God (2.3); the struggle between antagonistic pagan mobs and Christians is actually a cosmic battle between the devil and God (2.4; 3.1; 17.1-2); and God’s certain victory in this contest, seen above all in the fearless and proud demeanor of Christians in the face of death, could not help but attract the notice of pagan onlookers themselves (3.2; 16.1).
Also significant is (a) the claim that even though the obvious opponents of the Christians are the pagan mobs and ruling authorities (and the devil), it is the Jews who are ultimately responsible for the antagonism (13.1; 17.2); (b) the emphasis played on the sanctity of the body of the martyr, both before his death and afterwards, when his remains were preserved as relics (13.2; 17.1; 18.2); (c) the indication that celebrations were held to commemorate the martyrdoms on the anniversaries of their deaths (their “birthdays”!) (18.3); and (d) the curious comment that Christians who were martyred were “no longer humans but already angels” (2.3).
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Will the recording of the movie club be sent out at all? (plus that excerpt from Signifying God). I would love to go back and hear some of the points again.
Thank you so much!!
Yup, it should be coming. I’m having trouble getting ahold of the excerpt of Signifying God but if I can track one down I’ll send it too.
Often when I read about Christianity I secretly wish not to find the word”Jew”.It’s probably a learned reflex.
Reading the paragraph below,I tried to find its textual source,to see the reason for the blaming,but couldn’t.
Did “the” Jews betray,connive, collaborate ……what are the Jews accused of,to be dimmed morally and ultimately responsible for Polykarp’s martyrdom?
“….. even though the obvious opponents of the Christians are the pagan mobs and ruling authorities (and the devil),it is the Jews who are ultimately responsible for the antagonism (13.1; 17)”
I also read
” This Marcion begins his account by informing his readers that Polycarp’s death was no mere accident of history or miscarriage of justice:it occurred according to the will of God and happened “in conformity with the gospel” (1.1).”
How does this (reassuring) sentence,with its affirmation that things occurred just as God and the Gospels willed them,coexist with blaming the Jews for “moral responsibility”?Weren’t Jesus,Polykarp, and every participant destined by God for a sacred role?
Didn’t Jesus warn the disciples that they would be persecuted ( martyred?) for his sake? Was this known to the writer?
Jesus also spoke of love and forgiveness.
Are these opposite reasonings an example of mentally disconnected tracks? Or is it plain Jew hatred?
My sense is that opposition to Jews and Judaism affects a lot of the early Xn traditions, but that there are other issues going on as well; it’s sometimes hard to disentangle what is driving what….
Why does the author of the John Gospel refer to the Jews instead of the Jewish authorities?
Apparently because for him, in his historical context, “the Jews” were the enemy of the followers of Jesus, and he is transplanting his own situation back into the time and life of Jesus.
Interesting
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I’m about to make final decisions regarding subjects to take in my general humanities degree at the University of Cape Town. I’m thinking about taking a language. I see they offer Greek in the classics department. In the outline it just says ancient/ classical Greek. Is that koine Greek?
Otherwise I’m gravitating towards history, philosophy, English and psychology. Does that sound like a good spread to you?
Thank you!
Terrific spread! And classical Greek is almost certainly Attic, and that’s *definitely* what you should learn; with it you’ll be able to read Koine, but if you learn just Koine it will be a steep climb to read Attic.
Hi Bart,
I fear I may be starting to go in circles in my monthly gold questions, so thought I’d ask this in a comment.
In November, you said that you still didn’t see any reason to think that Luke’s birth narrative was written with knowledge of Matthew. In January, though, you said that the tradition of the Messiah being a virgin birth is not attested to prior to Matthew. How do you reconcile these two things?
“Attested” means that it is not “found in any written source” prior to Matthew. That is, Matthew is the first to mention it. That doesn’t have any bearing on whether his mention was the source for every source that mentions it. If breaking news comes out in the New York Times tonight about something that Biden did this morning, that would not mean that the report on the same story in the Washington Post tomorrow morning got their informatio from the Times. They would have gotten it independently but simply hadn’t published the report yet.
Matthew is clearly very concerned with the ‘fulfillment of scripture’ in story of Jesus, and the virgin birth narrative clearly fits into that. As another example that I think better explains my skepticism:
The ’30 pieces of silver’ narrative with Judas, if originally an oral tradition, would presumably have to start with someone familiar with that bit of scripture, and then would have to have been accurately transmitted in the details orally through a number of people who presumably were not literate and with no access to the text of Zechariah.
Past that, it would then have to be the case that Matthew somehow managed to collect a large number of oral traditions that preserved the correct details to show that they are fulfillments of scripture.
Given the Greek translation and the memorability of a ‘virgin birth’ I guess this is at least less plausible for that narrative, but it still seems to me that if Matthew is only repeating oral traditions, he has quite an impressive number that accurately preserve details from the Hebrew Bible.
So I guess my question here is: Why is it considered more likely all these stories have a pre-Matthew oral tradition than being the author’s invention?
It’s a probility call. Since one of our Gospel writers says there were lots of gospels floating around out that (Luke 1:1), and since w know that Matthew used sources for most of his Gospel (Mark and Q), anytime there is something not known from another source found in Matthew one has to decide if he’s also basing that on a source or just makin’ it up. Given that *most* of his material clearly comes frm sources, the burden of proof would need to be on someone who wants to argue that in *THIS* case he is not. And so it’s just a matter of coming up with the argument that this instead of that is more probable.
I’m very curious about this because Matthew seems to have 2 agendas in the material that’s exclusive to him. He wants to portray Jesus as the new Moses (Herod tried killing him just like Pharaoh with Moses, he had to escape to Egypt as Moses had to escape from Egypt, the sermon on the mount, etc.) and his second agenda would be to show that he fulfilled Hebrew scripture. Now none of the other gospels try to do either of those and they are compromised of 4 different sources (Mark, Luke, John and Q). So wouldn’t this indicate that this was Matthew’s own innovation?
I think the other Gospels all do do this, but just in different ways. Just to take Mark: staring in 1:2 he shows that Jesus was a fulfilment oof Scripture. And he gives numersou indications that Jesus was a new Moses figure (e.g., with the imagery of the exodus at his baptismm and of the wandering / testing in the wilderness for 40 years in his temptaiton by the temptations for 40 days. Luke and John too, in different ways. Ithink this was a common motif in early Xty.
The line “to fulfill what was written…” is used almost exclusively by Matthew and he uses it about a dozen times. This just seems to me to be Matthew’s own literary style for a specific agenda. Is this not the case?
Yup.
What is the deal with exegesis and eisegesis are they both used in a historical setting? Is one more useful than the other?
Exegesis refers to drawing the meaning out of a text (from the Greek words: “to lead out). It is the technical term for referring to the interpretation of what a text actually means on the page. Eisegesis is a derogatory term that refers to reading your own meaning *into* the text (“to lead in”). It is what one interpreter accuses another interpreter of doing when she is making the text say what she wants it to rather than what it does.
Interesting! I didn’t know that
I recently read “”Cult of the Dead” by Kyle Smith. You describe it as “A brilliant, entertaining, and accessible account of the history of martyrdom.” I certainly did, and fellow blog members might also.
Ah, glad to hear that. Maybe I’ll have him write some posts about it!
Very interesting to find this:
(d) the curious comment that Christians who were martyred were “no longer humans but already angels” (2.3).
I have often been amused by how widely held is the notion (I guess I wouldn’t call it a “belief” per se) among people in the Christianity-infused culture that “good” people [salvific plans vary widely, of course] go to heaven and become angels.
I guess I would have thought this was a modern “gloss.” And yet you show it here.
Bart, might you consider exploring a topic here in the blog of this history of ideas about humans, saints and angels, and their (non)interchangeability?
I thought it was too, till I started reading the Apostolic Fathers. It’s an intriguing topic. It *looks* like the idea is that God uses some of his saints as “messengers” (the literal meaning of “angels”) to do his will from heaven. But I would love to know what the author actually was thinking.
You wrote “suffering martyrdom brings eternal life (which is no doubt why some Christians sought it out)”. Didn’t Christians already believe that following Jesus brought eternal life? Was it a better eternal life to die a martyr?
Ah, manyat the time thought that the only way to be a *true* follower of Christ was by imitating his example. (To be my follower “you must take up your cross and follow me!”
That phrase “you must take up your cross and follow me” always puzzled me. Jesus could not have said it. No matter how you interpret it, it is to be taken metaphorically. Nobody takes it literally; but the metaphor only works AFTER Jesus died on the cross. If Jesus said it during his ministry, his disciples would think that he was going crazy. The phrase must come from Paul or some other, AFTER his crucifixion. It is interesting that Mark, Matthew and Luke, who quote it, say that it was Simon of Cyrene that carried the cross, only John, who doesn’t quote it, says Jesus did it. He may have noticed the discrepancy.
That’s right, it’s hard to place in the life of Jesus himself. But nothing puts it directly with Paul. And yup, John has a different view of things…
I’m sorry if you cover this in your book on the afterlife– which I unfortunately haven’t had a chance to read thoroughly yet — but do you see a connection between Christian attempts to come to terms with the deaths of pious Christians at the hands of pagan authorities (such as Polycarp’s) and the development of an idea of hell as a place of eternal torment for God’s/Christ’s enemies? It seems from some of the early apocalypses you’ve talked about here that the punishments meted out to sinners in early Christian visions of hell approximate the terrors of Roman torture and execution, such as fire and scourges and gnawing beasts, that the early martyrs are said to have suffered. Is “hell” then a product of imagining what it would be like if the persecutors of Christians got their just deserts?
Jesus talks about the wicked being cast into “outer darkness” into a place of desolation and destruction. But these early Christian visions of hell seem to be a lot more like the kind of “justice” practiced by Romans on criminals and enemies of the state — which included Christians.
Yup, there’s a clear connection. Some scholars have argued that the detailed descriptions of the punishments in hell are modelled on Roman forms of torture. “You do this to us, and God will do it to you.” (BUT, in your case it will be for all eternity…)
Dr. Ehrman,
The claim that the earliest apostles died for their faith is common. I heard you mention somewhere that only four original apostles have traditions about them dying for their faith and they come much later. What are those (and where do they come from)?
Also, what about the general idea of persecution? Even if they didn’t die for their faith, they seemed very much willing to be persecuted and die for their faith didn’t they? Paul is a prime example of someone who was heavily persecuted and the Stephen and James tradition of them being martyrs is found in Acts. So I was curious as to what your thoughts are on this? Weren’t Christians persecuted?
I”m afraid we don’t have any record at all of most of the apostles after the death of Jesus, except scattered legends here and there. In the NT James the son of Zebedee is martyred (in Acts). Jesus seems to intimate that Peter and John will be martyred in the Synoptics (“can you be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? yes lord….). Peter and Paul are said to be martyred in 1 Clement. Other than that we have only much later legends. There are five lengthgy surviving “Acts” of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, and John” They are highly legendary (read them and see!). John is said to die as an old man. The other four are describved as martyrs (in marvelously legndary terms). These are not reliable reports, and for the other apostles — they simply disappear from history for the most part after they are named in Acts (but their experiencs are not describved). You mayt be interested in looking at the book The Myth of Early Christian Persecution by Candida Moss which gives a fuller account.