Irenaeus and Polycarp
Irenaeus of Lyons
give their consideration, Eusebius clearly sees the controversy in a fourthcentury perspective, with many bishops meeting in diverse places to come to a conclusion. Finally, although Eusebius reports that Victor tried to 'cut off from the common unity all the communities of Asia', it is almost certain that this refers to communities of Asian Christians in Rome, with their striking paschal celebrations, rather than, again in a fourth-century perspective, the action of a pope of Rome against Christians in Asia. This is made all but certain by the reference in Irenaeus' letter, the most concrete example we have seen so far, to the practice of exchanging eucharistic gifts.
It is surely impossible to imagine that eucharistic gifts were sent from Rome to Asia! If the eucharistic gifts were exchanged, and so common unity was maintained, this must have taken place within Rome. And so, in turn, if there was a rupture in communion, with Victor wanting to take action against other communities for their liturgical practices, this was also an intra-Roman event.
In this controversy, Irenaeus, again in the name of the Christians of Gaul, intervened, reminding Victor that his own predecessors had accepted a diversity of practices, 'for our disagreement in the fast confirms our agreement in the faith'. In particular it is once again the example of Polycarp that Irenaeus calls for as a precedent. And, as a result of this embassy of peace by Irenaeus, 'the peace of the whole Church was kept both by those observed and those who did not'.130
IRENAEUS AND POLYCARP
Polycarp was clearly an important figure for Irenaeus: an 'apostolic presbyter', a 'disciple of the apostles', one who had seen and conversed with those who had seen the Lord. We also saw above how Polycarp's visit to Rome in the mid-150s was something of a catalyst for Christianity there, convincing many to turn away from the heresies of Marcion and 130 The difference of practice at stake here might be greater than is immediately apparent.
What is being 'observed' (or not) has been a matter of great scholarly controversy, for the verb has no object. Cf. A. Stewart-Sykes, The Lamb's High Feast: Melito, Peri Pascha and the Quartodeciman Paschal Liturgy at Sardis (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 205, n. 288. As Eusebius records two letters from the supporters of the Quartodeciman practice, but does not provide any comparable evidence for an alternative practice, it is possible that Victor's community had no annual celebration of Pascha, but only the weekly commemoration of the Lord's resurrection on Sundays; the (subsequent?) celebration of Pascha on the following Sunday would seem to be a compromise position.
Irenaeus of Lyons Valentinus, by precisely this appeal to an apostolic connection, 'proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles' (haer.
3.3.4). As this connection is of importance to Irenaeus, and a significant part of his own background, it is worth considering it and the figure of Polycarp in more detail.
The difficulty with Irenaeus' portrait of Polycarp, as an 'apostolic presbyter' and a touchstone of Orthodoxy, is that it does not correspond to what we see in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, for here he makes no claim to having known any of the disciples of the Lord, nor does he engage in any anti-heretical polemic, and seems generally rather simple and uneducated. It is thus often assumed that, in making such claims,
Irenaeus is embellishing vague childhood memories for his own purposes.
But that Irenaeus should have deliberately or inadvertently promoted a false picture of Polycarp is extremely unlikely, if only for the fact that he exhorts Florinus to return to what they had both heard from Polycarp himself on the basis of their shared memories.131 Irenaeus and Florinus, moreover, were not the only ones to have known Polycarp. Furthermore,
Irenaeus' portrait of Polycarp, as seen in three separate works written over several years, is so stable that it cannot be the product of vague memories, and too detailed and multi-faceted, involving many claims, that it would be rather complex for it to be a deliberate deception.
On the other hand, there are good reasons, as Hill has recently and persuasively argued, for accepting the authenticity of Irenaeus' portrait of Polycarp. The only apostle directly named by Irenaeus as having had contact with Polycarp is John. Aside from the much-debated relationship between the apostle John and John the Elder, mentioned by Papias, and seemingly conflated by Irenaeus, the evidence for the apostle John's long life and residence in Asia Minor is strong.132 Accepting the generally
131 Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 174. As Alan R. Culpepper ( John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, Studies on Personalities of the New Testament (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1994), 126) points out: 'Since he appeals to Florinus' memory of their shared experience, it is most unlikely that Irenaeus would have fabricated any of this. Presumably,
Florinus' memory was as clear as Irenaeus'.'
132 Cf. Frederick W. Weidmann, Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and their Challenge to the Literary Traditions (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 130: 'many and varied accounts of John's activity provide the basis for recognizing the existence of both pre-Irenaean and para-Irenaean traditions about the ministry of the apostle John in Asia
Minor and specifically Smyrna'. Hill, Lost Teaching, 176: 'While Tertullian was certainly dependent upon the witness of Irenaeus, other sources, such as the Acts of John, probably the Epistula Apostolorum, and certainly Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, presume the presence of an aged apostle John in Asia Minor and are independent of Irenaeus.' Irenaeus does apparently conflate John the Apostle and John the Elder, mentioned by Papias
Irenaeus of Lyons
agreed-upon date for Polycarp's martydom as 155/6, and his claim to be 86 years old before his martyrdom, it would indeed have been possible for Polycarp to have encountered the apostle John.133 His Letter to the Philippians, which is clearly an early work, may well have been written before meeting John, or more likely in a period when a claim to acquaintence with the apostles was unremarkable. As he continued advancing in years, such a claim would quite naturally become more important.
Moreover, the letter is addressed to a community established by Paul rather than John, and so such reticence is again understandable. Polycarp's personal connection with 'the apostles and others who have seen the Lord' would be further substantiated if we accept Hill's argument, mentioned earlier, that the Letter to Diognetus is by Polycarp, for the author of this work speaks of himself, in a unique manner but in conformity with Irenaeus' many testimonies, as 'a disciple of apostles'.134
The Martyrdom of Polycarp also gives the impression of a figure with much greater stature and ability than does the Letter to the Philippians. It recounts a revealing exchange between Polycarp and the pro-consul,
Statius Quadratus, whom Philostratus describes as a talented orator and sophist capable of discoursing on abstract philosophical themes extemporaneously.135 When asked to 'swear by the genius of the emperor', Polycarp replies:
'If you vainly suppose that I will swear by the genius of Caesar, as you say, and pretend that you are ignorant of who I am, listen plainly: I am a Christian. And if (h.e. 5.39.3) in asserting that Papias was 'a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp' (haer
5.33.4), but, as Hill (Lost Teaching, 173, n. 14) points out, this literary conflation was aided by Irenaeus' knowledge that Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp, whereas 'his knowledge of Polycarp was not merely textual but direct and personal'. For the question of the relationship between the apostle John and John the Elder, and its implications for discerning Papias' knowledge of the activity of the apostle in 'receiving' the first three Gospels and completing them with his own, see Charles E. Hill, 'What Papias said about John (and Luke): A "New"
Papian Fragment', JTS ns 49 (1998), 582–629, and The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 383–96, 407–16; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 433–7;
Charles E. Hill, 'The "Orthodox Gospel": The Reception of John in the Great Church prior to Irenaeus', in Tuomas Rasimus (ed.), The Legacy of John (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 233–300, and Who Chose the Gospels?, 207–25.
133 Cf. M. Polyc. 9.3, and B. Dehandschutter, 'The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research', ANRW 2.27.1 (1993), 485–522, at 497–501.
134 Diogn. 11.1:I ºø ª ÆŁÅ. Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 133–6, 171–7: 'As a self-description, this appears to be unique in early Christian authors' (pp. 133–4).
135 Philostratus, VS 576.
Irenaeus of Lyons you wish to learn the doctrine of Christianity, fix a day and listen [ N b Łº Ø e
F æØ ØÆØ F ÆŁ E ºª, e æÆ ŒÆd ¼Œı ]'.
The Pro-Consul said, 'Persuade the people [ E e B]'.
And Polycarp said, 'You, I should have held worthy of discussion, for we have been taught to render honour, as is meet, if it hurt us not, to princes and authorities appointed by God. But as for those, I do not count them worthy that a defence should be given'. (M. Polyc. 10.1–2)
Standing before the pro-consul himself, Polycarp is not at all intimidated, but instead tries repeatedly to engage him: give me a time and place to speak more with you, so that you might learn the teaching of Christianity!
Statius Quadratius rebuffs him, directing him to speak 'to the people', perhaps knowing, as Irenaeus recalled, that Polycarp was accustomed to deliver discourses 'to the people [æe e ºBŁ]' (h.e. 5.20.6), and perhaps also fearing losing face in such a discussion. Yet Polycarp tries again: I would consider it worthy to have such a discussion with you.
Polycarp is clearly portrayed as an experienced apologist, with enough confidence to persuade a skilled sophist of the truth of Christianity. That Polycarp's rhetorical abilities should have developed in this way in the forty or so years since writing his Letter to the Philippians, during the very period when the movement known as the Second Sophistic was flourishing, is only to be expected.
It is also evident from other sources that Polycarp did indeed have a high reputation. Florinus, as we have seen, while flourishing 'in the royal court', was nevertheless trying to make a good impression on Polycarp, and there is no suggestion that this connection would have harmed his career. The letters of Ignatius, written in the early years of the second century, also mention various figures who appear in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, again indicating that he had good social standing. Ignatius specifically requests Polycarp to send his greetings to 'the wife of the procurator with her whole house and her children', implying that they were members of his flock.136 'Alce' is also mentioned by name by Ignatius, in his letter to Polycarp and his letter to the Smyrnaeans; and she is mentioned again, some five decades later, by the Martyrdom.137 According to the Martyrdom, Alce was the sister of Nicetas and the aunt of his son,
Herodes; Herodes was the 'chief of police' in the city, who seized Polycarp 136 Ignatius, Polyc. 8.2; on the word K æ, as the name of an office, 'procurator', rather than a personal name, see J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Macmillan, 1889; repr.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), pt 2, vol. 2, pp. 358–9.
137 Ignatius, Polyc. 8.2; Smyrn. 13.2; M. Polyc. 17.2.
Irenaeus of Lyons
and took him to the stadium, and Nicetas was the one who approached the 'magistrate' after Polycarp's death to persuade him not to hand over the body, 'lest they desert the crucified one and begin to worship this one'
(M. Polyc. 6.2, 8.2–3, 17.2). Their social rank and knowledge of Christianity is clearly evident, and demonstrates Polycarp's own standing and reputation in Smyrna, as an able orator and a skilled apologist.
In addition, we should also recall that, besides describing how Polycarp sat and discoursed, and delivered discourses to the people, Irenaeus also recalls that Polycarp wrote letters to both neighbouring churches, strengthening (KØ Åæ Çø) them, and to the brethren, admonishing
(ıŁ H) and exhorting (ææ ) them (h.e. 5.20.8). It is also likely that the verses against Marcus quoted by Irenaeus from 'the divinely inspired elder and preacher of the truth' were composed by Polycarp:
Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic,
Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error, Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception,
Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate, Which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish,
By means of Azazel, that fallen and yet mighty angel,— Thus making thee the precursor of his own impious actions.
(haer. 1.15.6) Accepting this as Polycarp's composition further indicates both his own literary ability as well as his anti-heretical activity. In all, it would be a mistake to underestimate Polycarp's literary, rhetorical, and apologetic abilities. His talent and capacity were, moreover, known not only to his own disciples, but to others in Smyrna and its environs. Even allowing for hagiographic exaggeration, his prowess is also evidenced by the crowd, as they shout out at Polycarp's martyrdom: 'This is the teacher of Asia [› B
Æ Ø ŒÆº], the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our Gods, who teaches many neither to sacrifice nor to worship.'138
In his work on Polycarp, Charles Hill has further argued that we have solid reasons for identifying the anonymous presbyter whose teaching is
138 M. Polyc. 12.2, following the reading evidenced by Eusebius and adopted by Lightfoot
(Apostolic Fathers, pt 2, vol. 3), rather than that followed by Bart Ehrman (The Apostolic Fathers,
LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003)), who gives 'the teacher of impiety
[I Æ]'. The balance of this threefold acclamation requires that the first title, as the second and third, be positive praise.
Irenaeus of Lyons given by Irenaeus in haer. 4.27–32 with Polycarp.139 This section of Irenaeus' work begins with these words:
4.27.1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from the apostles whom he had seen, and from their disciples,140 the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance.
And the section closes with the following:
4.32.1. In this manner indeed the presbyter, a disciple of apostles, used to discourse141 concerning the two testaments, proving that both are from one and the same God, for there is no other God besides him who created and formed us, nor does their word have any stability who say that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by another 'certain power', or by another God.
The description of the 'certain presbyter' clearly echoes Irenaeus' descriptions that we have seen of Polycarp as one who had heard from the apostles and their disciple, and who used to discourse in a manner that Irenaeus has inscribed in his heart. The only extended treatment of Marcion's teaching in the work is haer. 4.27–32, and this corresponds to the discourses to which we have seen Irenaeus appeal in his Letter to Florinus concerning the very same problem. It is, furthermore, only here, in Against the Heresies, that Irenaeus claims to be passing on the teaching he had heard from the presbyter, and that the presbyter himself attributed this to an earlier source, certain unnamed 'apostles and their disciples'.
Hill further suggests a number of plausible reasons why Irenaeus did not identify this 'presbyter' by name.142 First, it is not unusual for Irenaeus to cite ecclesial authorities without mentioning their names, even when he knows their identity. Second, this extended passage follows on from a section where Ireneaus has been emphasizing the importance of obeying
'the presbyters who are in the church' who 'possess the succession from the apostles', and who 'have received the certain gift of truth' (haer.
139 Hill, Lost Teaching, 8–24.
140 This translation follows the Armenian version, rather than the Latin, which reads
'from those who had seen the apostles and their disciples', putting a generation between the presbyter and the apostles. For the reasons for preferring the Armenian, see A. Rousseau,
B. Hemmerdinger, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier, Ire´ne´e de Lyon: Contre Les He´re´sies, Livre IV,
SC 100, 2 vols (Paris: Cerf, 1965), vol. 1, p. 263, and Hill, Lost Teaching, 8–10. It is generally agreed that the Armenian presents a very literal, even wooden, translation of the Greek compared with the Latin.
141 Again in the imperfect tense, disputabat, or in the SC retroversion Ø ºª .
142 Hill, Lost Teaching, 23–4.
Irenaeus of Lyons
4.26.2); it is likely that he expected his readers to recall the beginning of the previous book, haer. 3.3–4, where he named these presbyters, the various leaders in Rome and Polycarp in Smyrna. Third, the similarities between haer. 4.27–32, the Letter to Florinus, and the Letter to Victor are so striking that they probably come from the same period, so that Irenaeus felt no need to identify the presbyter in haer. 4.27–32. And, finally, it is the presbyter's character as a faithful and truly apostolic figure that is being emphasized, rather than his personal identity.
If we accept this identification, as I am persuaded to do and will assume hereafter, then it further establishes a much greater link between Irenaeus and Polycarp than is often supposed: Irenaeus did indeed enjoy Polycarp's presence, hearing his teaching, for a sufficiently long period to be able to memorize large portions of the discourses he was in the habit of delivering. There are also several further conclusions, as Hill points out, that we can draw regarding Irenaeus' debt to Polycarp.
First, in haer. 4.30.1, in the context of refuting Marcion's faulting of Israelites having plundered the Egyptians and using the booty to fashion a temple for their God, Irenaeus makes an intriguing aside: 'As to those believing ones who are in the royal court [in regali aula], do they not derive the utensils they employ from the property which belongs to Caesar?'
Given how Irenaeus elsewhere describes Florinus as flourishing 'in the royal court', this comment seems directed against Florinus himself.143
And, if Florinus is in Irenaeus' mind while writing this passage, we should probably go further back, to haer. 4.26, in which Irenaeus describes the 'presbyteral' reading of Scripture that manifests their 'certain gift of truth'
(haer. 4.26.2), and criticizes those 'who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying "no man sees us"' (haer. 4.26.3). This again echoes very clearly Irenaeus' words to Victor regarding the activity of Florinus, especially in the word 'many': the 'many' who accepted the writings circulated by Florinus, 'as coming from a presbyter', and the 'many' who improperly regard such figures as being 'presbyters'.144 The situation in Rome addressed by Irenaeus in his letters to Blastus, Florinus, and Victor would thus be the concrete context for Irenaeus, beginning in haer.
4.26, to expound upon the need to follow the tradition of the apostolic 143 Hill, Lost Teaching, 17.
144 Hill, Lost Teaching, 22.
Irenaeus of Lyons presbyters, and culminating with his reminiscences of such a presbyter's treatment of Marcion, the teaching that had attracted the attention of Florinus, another disciple of Polycarp.
A second point of connection to be drawn between the teaching of the anonymous presbyter and Irenaeus' own work is suggested by the conclusion of section haer. 4.27–32, where Irenaeus reports that the presbyter used to discourse not only about how the two testaments are from the same
God, for there is no other, but that the teaching of those who say that 'this world of ours was made either by angels or by another certain power or by another God' has no stability (haer. 4.32.1). This threefold classification has a direct and unique echo in Polycarp's dying prayer, to 'the God of angels and powers and all creation' (M. Polyc. 14.1). Even if these are not the very words of Polycarp himself, the prayer is certainly composed by one familiar with him and his teaching, and, most strikingly, is not paralleled by any biblical, liturgical, or other martyrological source.145 We have every reason then for thinking that this is Polycarp's own familiar teaching. This being the case, it is significant that this threefold identification is used by Irenaeus as a structural principle organizing the arrangement of heresies catalogued in haer. 1.23–7. It has often been assumed that Irenaeus is here drawing upon an earlier heresiological catalogue, but the various suggested sources are now either lost, such as Justin's Syntagma, or merely conjectured. With Polycarp's dying prayer and the presbyter's words in haer. 4.32.1, we have a tangible point of reference.146
Irenaeus begins with Simon, Menander, Saturnilus, Basilides, and Carpocrates, all of whom taught, in various ways, that the creation was accomplished 'by angels' (haer. 1.23–5); Cerinthus taught that it was by 'a certain power' (haer. 1.26); and that it was by 'some other God' is the teaching of Cerdo and Marcion (haer. 1.27). Into this mix, Irenaeus has also included certain others, the Ebionites and the Nicolaitans by association, as it were: the former for having taught about Christ (that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary) in a similar manner to Carpocrates and Cerinthus, and the latter for having taught in the same period and area as Cerinthus (haer. 1.26.2–3).147 That Polycarp knew Marcion is clear from the anecdote told by Irenaeus: 'Polycarp replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me?" "I do know you, the firstborn of Satan"' (haer. 3.3.4). It is also from Polycarp that Irenaeus knew of 145 Hill, Lost Teaching, 27–8.
146 Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 24–5.
147 Hill, Lost Teaching, 26.
Irenaeus of Lyons
the encounter between John, the disciple of the Lord, and Cerinthus:
'going to bathe at Ephesus, and seeing Cerinthus within, [ John] rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within"' (haer. 3.3.4). It is also likely that Polycarp himself had an encounter with some followers of Cerinthus' teaching. According to Ignatius, there were some in Smryna teaching that Christ only 'suffered in appearance' and that he did not truly 'bear flesh', refusing to listen to the prophets or the Gospel.148 Such teachings are clearly echoed by Irenaeus' report of Cerinthus' teaching (haer. 1.26.1).
Finally, if we accept that haer. 4.27–32 derives from Polycarp, then it also demonstrates a level of sophistication on the part of Polycarp, both as an apologist and as an interpreter of Scripture.149 In these five chapters,
Irenaeus recounts a great deal of Polycarp's argument against Marcion. It strongly suggests that Polycarp knew Marcion's Antitheses, even using the same word (IØØŁÆ, in Rousseau's retroversion, haer. 4.28.1) in rebutting him.150 With Polycarp having discoursed often over many years on the problem of Marcion's teaching, Irenaeus' claim that Polycarp turned many away from the teaching of Marcion in Rome is indeed believable (haer.
3.3.4). Irenaeus' recollections of Polycarp's teaching in haer. 4.27–32 also indicate his high level of exegetical sophistication. Of particular interest for our understanding of Irenaeus' own theological formation is Polycarp's insistence that, when dealing with morally dubious actions of certain figures recounted in Scripture, but who are left without reproach, one must 'search for a type', for nothing is without purpose (haer. 4.31.1).
Seeing 'types' within Scripture goes back to Paul, of course, who stated that the things that befell sinners of old 'happened to them as a type
[ıØŒH]' (1 Cor. 10:11), and thereafter becomes a universal approach to reading Scripture. But with Polycarp we have good reason to see this practice as now raised to the level of a hermeneutic principle. Also of particular interest, with a view to Irenaeus' own theology, is Polycarp's description of the exodus from Egypt as being 'a typical exodus' compared with 'our true exodus', which is the exodus of the Church from among the Gentiles, being led from this world into the inheritance bestowed by 148 Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrn. 2, 5, 7.
149 Hill, Lost Teaching, 80–8. For the text and full analysis of the quotations from the presbyter given in haer. 4.27–32, see Hill, Lost Teaching, 37–71.
150 Cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 42, 90. For the implications of this, both for the dissemination of the Antitheses and for Marcion's own knowledge of the writings of the apostles, see Hill, Lost
Teaching, 90–4.