Loading...Do you know the first account of a Christian martyr — the actual narrative of his trial and executio — from outside the New Testament? It’s one of the Apostolic Fathers, and for many readers one of the most intriguing: The Martyrdom of Polycarp. Here is a nutshell summary of the work, an edited version of my Introduction to the translation I made for my collection, The Apostolic Fathers (Harvard University Press)
******************************
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
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Q: Assuming that the accounts of Ignatius’ death were not wildly overblown, could this account of Polycarp be considered the first known hagiography of a proto-orthodox Christian follower, or is it too limited in scope to qualify as a hagiographic work?
Yes, the accounts of Ignatius’s martyrdom are clearly later and legendary. Martyrdom texts did eventually migrate into hagiography, as soon as martyrdom was no longer an optoin (4th century); and the clearly generic similarities. But they aren’t quite the same, as hagiography comes to assume a number of standard literary elements. So maybe Proto-Hagiographic?
I find the question of whether Polycarp was really a direct disciple of the Apostle John very intriguing. My sense is that we should probably treat that claim cautiously, perhaps as a later tradition rather than something we can establish historically.
At the same time, Polycarp’s writings seem to show a clear affinity with the Johannine epistles, especially in the anti-docetic emphasis that Jesus Christ truly came in the flesh. This also seems to resonate with the incarnation theology of the Gospel of John, particularly “the Word became flesh.”
So my question is this: even if the direct John–Polycarp relationship is legendary or uncertain, does Polycarp’s language still provide some support for the idea that Johannine traditions were circulating quite early in Asia Minor?
Would it be reasonable to say that the Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles were composed, edited, or circulated in connection with Asia Minor, perhaps around Ephesus?
The closest connectoin is with the passage about antiChrist in 1 John and Polycarp. Otherwise there’s not much Johannine connect, and that kind of allusion/reference only requires him ahving read the book. Irenaeus does claim that Polycarp was John’s disciple, but it is particularly striking that Polycarp *repeatedly* quotes the Synoptic Gospels, Paul, and other texts, but never quotes the Gospel of John. Very odd.
The tradition is that yes, John wrote all these things in Ephesus where they were first circulated. The standard view among scholars today is that John, the actual disciple, son of Zebedee, didn’t write any of them. For one thing, he couldn’t write. (as Acts 4:13 explicity says and is clear from his background before meeting Jesus, as found in the NT itself)
Having now read the whole January–February 2023 series, I understand the case far better than I did. The argument that persuades me most is the colophon: the named copyists and transmitters, the constructed chain of transmission, and the Pionius vision. That is where the text does something a legendary account need not do: it manufactures a traceable-looking provenance. It also seems to carry the intentional element of the forgery claim, as distinct from the dating.
In the final post of the series, you reject Von Campenhausen’s view that chapter 22 is a later accretion, noting that no manuscript lacks it. That is strong evidence against treating it as an obvious interpolation. But it is now bearing considerable weight: if the colophon most clearly establishes deliberate deception, the evidence for its originality must support the intentional claim, not merely resist the redaction hypothesis.
Would the case for conscious forgery, as opposed to a late legendary account, still stand if the colophon were set aside? Or is it, in your judgment, load-bearing?
Yes, Candida Moss makes a strong case in her book on martyrdoms that doesn’t rest on the Colophon.
Dr Ehrman, how credible do you find the claim that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John?
I don’t think it’s likely. For one thing, it’s hard to imagine how he could have been a young adult before John the son of Zebedee died. The author of Mark’s Gospel indicates he’ll be martyred (ch. 10: he will “drink the cup” that Jesus did), so it would have been before the year 70. It seems unlikely Polycarp could have been born before the year 80 (he’s martyred in the mid 150s).
Dr. Ehrman,
I am writing a memoir about my life as a Korean War orphan who was adopted to the United States in 1959.
Years ago, I heard one of your lectures in which I remember you saying something very close to:
“The past is everything that occurred before this moment. But the past cannot prove itself. That is what history is for—history is the evidence of the past.”
This concept has stayed with me because much of my memoir is about reconstructing my own past from historical evidence—adoption records, photographs, military records, and DNA.
I have been unable to determine whether those are your exact words or my recollection of your explanation. If this is your statement, would you mind if I quoted it in my memoir with proper attribution? If it is not your exact wording, how would you recommend I attribute the idea?
Thank you for your time and for your work on historical method.
Sincerely,
Brian Tschabold
Sounds like you’ve had an interesting life! That sounds like something I’d say. I can’t remember putting it quite that way, but I rather like it. What I usually say is that the Past is everything that has ever happened, and History is what we can established as probably happening based on our surviving evidence. So they are not the same. The past is not history.
The Magistrate tried to persuade him [Polycarp], saying, What harm is there in saying, “Cæsar is Lord”….8:2 “Swear ‘Caesar is Lord’ and I will set you free, revile Christ.” Polycarp declared, “Eighty six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong, how then can I blaspheme my King, my Saviour?”….9:3 We worship [Christ] none else, for it is the Son of God whom we worship 17:3