Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 80/4POLYCARPIANA (2004) 475-484
Polycarpiana Notes on the Hagiographic “Dossier” of a Saint
Boudewijn DEHANDSCHUTTER K.U. Leuven
Some twenty-five years ago, we were able to publish a study on the Martyr- dom of Polycarp (MPol), as a result of the research for our doctoral dissertation on early Christian martyrdom1. Of course, scholarship did not give up in the years following, and many publications came to enrich our knowledge about the bishop of Smyrna, his glorious life and death. Not only a magisterial commentary was published on MPol, also the difficulties surrounding the Life of Polycarp, the Vita, were seriously taken up2. And a Coptic document about Polycarp’s death shed new light on the traditions on Polycarp in early Christianity3. However, it remains true that some documents related to saint Polycarp were and are rather neglected. We must confess that also our contributions on the Martyrdom of Polycarp only gave a scarce reference to texts that probably have more to say than is manifest at a first glance. We had to learn that hagiography is a compli- cated matter, certainly not to be reduced to the investigation of the earliest possi- ble documentation about a martyr or a saint, to approach the so-called historical facts. It is no less important and exciting to study the image-making of a saint and its development through the centuries. When we mentioned earlier the pseudo- Chrysostomian homily on Polycarp (BHG 1564) and the Epitome on Polycarp’s life and death (Bios kai martyrion) (BHG 1562), our purpose mainly was to col- lect some text-critical evidence from these sources for the edition of MPol4. The
* Part of this paper was offered as a contribution to the Fourteenth International Confer- ence on Patristic Studies, Oxford 18th-23rd August 2003. 1. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Martyrium Polycarpi. Een literair-kritische studie (BETL, 52), Leuven, 1979; cf. ID., Martyrium Polycarpi. Bijdrage tot de studie van de martelaar in het vroege christendom, Deel I. Tekst. Deel II. Bibliografie, noten indices, Leuven, 1977. And see our overview: The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research, in ANRW II, 27/1, 1993, pp. 485-522. 2. G. BUSCHMANN, Das Martyrium des Polykarp übersetzt und erklärt (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern, 6), Göttingen, 1998; A. STEWART-SYKES, The Life of Polycarp. An Anonymous Vita from Third-Century Smyrna (Early Christian Studies, 4), Sydney, 2002. See also about these publications our remarks in Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001) 101- 104, as well as ETL 75 (1999) 430-437, on Buschmann; on Stewart-Sykes, see Vigiliae Christianae 58 (2004) 209-214. 3. See F.W. WEIDMANN, Polycarp and John. The Harris Fragments and Their Chal- lenge to the Literary Tradition, Notre Dame, 1999; see our remarks in Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001) 104-107. Our first remarks on the Harris fragments in our 1993 publication were not entirely correct, and had to be rectified, cf. F.W. WEIDMANN, Intertextuality and Intent: John and the Apostolic Mission in the Harris Fragments on Polycarp, in SBL 1995 Semi- nar Papers, Atlanta, 1995, pp. 394-398. 4. Cf. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), pp.39-40, 44-46. 476 B. DEHANDSCHUTTER present contribution wants to return in a more complete fashion to the hagiographic “dossier” of the Smyrnaean bishop, discussing at least two signifi- cant parts of it: the homily and the epitome already mentioned. It might prove that, although these documents belong to a later period, they instruct us not only about the later “image” of the saint, but also about the early construction of that image.
1. (Pseudo-)Chrysostom on Polycarp
The hagiographic “dossier” on Polycarp contains only two homilies: the Chrysostomian homily the presentation of which is to follow, and a homily attrib- uted to a remote successor of Polycarp, Metrophanes of Smyrna (BHG 1563)5. The latter, a real product of Byzantine hagiography, will not occupy us6. The former, attributed to John Chrysostom (cf. CPG 4760), belongs to a manuscript offered by F. Cumont to the “Bibliothèque Nationale” at Brussels, and was described by J. Bidez in a contribution before the “Académie Royale de Belgi- que” in 19007. The content of the manuscript is not of first value, being a kanonarion for the month of November, written during the twelfth or the thir- teenth century8. The importance of the manuscript consists in the fact that it covers a number of palimpsest pages with hagiographic contents. Bidez identified among other works a panegyric on Polycarp9. As this panegyric occupies us in the following lines, two remarks must be made from the beginning: 1°) Scholarly criticism has excluded that we are dealing with a genuine Chrysostomian text, and our homily has duly been listed among the “pseudo-Chrysostomian” materi- als10; 2°) The text can be read only very fragmentarily on some palimpsest pages: every further consideration of the panegyric must take into account this very unfortunate situation. However, it might be possible to derive from the fragments something more than a few text-critical observations11: some traits of the image of Polycarp
5. This metropolitan can be dated ca. 857-880; cf. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2 (1991) 1359. 6. It was published by B. GEORGIADES in Ekklèsiastikè Alètheia 3 (1882-1883) 299-302. 7. J. BIDEZ, Description d’un manuscrit hagiographique grec palimpseste avec des fragments d’un panégyrique de saint Polycarpe, attribué à saint Jean Chrysostome, in Bul- letin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique. Classe des lettres, 1900, pp. 579-624. 8. A. EHRHARD, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhundert (TU, 50-52), Leipzig – Berlin, 1936-1952, Vol. 1, p. 251, dates it to the 14th century. 9. BIDEZ, Description (n. 7); comp. Analecta Bollandiana 21 (1901) 210-211, and EHRHARD, Überlieferung (n. 8), pp. 251-252, who points out that the hagiographical mate- rials belong to a tenth century menologium, a “Halbjahressammlung” (September-Febru- ary). 10. Cf. J. DE ALDAMA, Repertorium Pseudo-Chrysostomicum, Paris, 1965, no 547; R.E. CARTER, Codices Chrysostomici graeci III. Codices Americae et Europae occiden- talis, Paris, 1970, p. 61. Our text can not be traced back to the collections of pseudo- Chrysostomica reconstructed by e.g. S.J. VOICU, Pseudo-Giovanni Crisostomo: I confini del corpus, in JAC 39 (1996) 105-115; ID., Pseudochrysostomica, in RAC 18 (1998) 503- 515. 11. This was done already by Bidez himself who points to the parallels between the pseudo-Chrysostom and the codex Mosquensis (390) together with Eusebius’ version of POLYCARPIANA 477 which are in the mind of the homilist could become apparent. For the sake of clarity we follow the numbering of the fragments given by Hilgenfeld12: I. The title of the homily has been conserved so that we know that this section was the very beginning of the homily. The text starts with an expression of joy, and adds an explicit quotation of Paul, Phil 4,4, making it clear that the apostle wrote these words to the episkopoi, together with the presbyteroi and the diakonoi of the Philippians (cf. ibid. 1,1). It is at least striking that the homilist makes the hierarchical order of the community leaders quite explicit, whereas Paul only speaks of episkopoi (plural) and diakonoi. This is a well known diffi- culty among interpreters, including those of ancient Christianity. Reading Chrysostom’s homilies, we see that the great orator is very well able to respect the Pauline text, because, in his opinion, there was in Paul’s time no division be- tween the titles of episkopos and presbyteros. It seemed superfluous to name these people separately! We did elaborate on the Chrysostomian exegesis else- where13, but it may be clear that our homilist did not share the Chrysostomian position on the different functions in Christian ministry during the Apostolic pe- riod. Then the homilist turns to the theme of the “crowns”, no doubt the martyr’s, and we can assume that he thinks about MPol itself, ch. 17,1 and 19,1. The theme is very popular in homiletics on the martyrs, especially on Stephen the protomartyr, but it belongs as well to the general agonistic terminology that is often applied to the martyrs14. After a lacuna a following theme is introduced: the corner stone, illustrated by a quotation from Isa 28,16 and, after a gap, Paul, 1 Cor 3,16-17, anticipated by an allusion to Heb 11,10. In all these cases the homilist slightly adapts the quotations to make them fit the context of a direct address to the audience. II. The theme of the corner stone brings the homilist to Polycarp “who built himself up today upon that stone…”. This again is based on a Pauline quotation, Eph 2,20 combined with a reference to 1 Cor 9,25-27, a well-known agonistic passage: it is the struggle for the crown of incorruptibility which allows the homilist to explain the martyr’s courage in his contest with the devil. All this gives us the opportunity to concentrate now on the story of Polycarp, the preced- ing elements of which (as known by the Martyrium Polycarpi) are completely neglected. It is this aspect of the homily that will occupy us again in the second part of this contribution. the Martyrdom (H.E. IV, 15). Also A. HILGENFELD, Des Chrysostomos Lobrede auf Polykarp, in Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 45 (1902) 569-572, devoted the same text-critical attention to the panegyric, as did F.W. FUNK, in TQ 84(1902) 479-480. Consequently K. BIHLMEYER introduced some readings of the pseudo-Chrysostom in his much used edition of the Apostolic Fathers, cf. Die apostolischen Väter. Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe, Tübingen, 1924; 31970, p. XLIII. See also our Martyrium Poly- carpi (n. 1), pp. 39-40. 12. We compare throughout the text as published by Bidez with that of Hilgenfeld, the latter offering some variant readings over against the former. 13. Cf. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Primum enim omnes docebant: Awareness of Discontinu- ity in the Early Church: The Case of Ecclesiastical Office, in A. HILHORST (ed.), The Apos- tolic Age in Patristic Thought, Leiden – Boston, 2004, pp. 219-227. 14. See the introduction by J. LEEMANS, to ID. – W. MAYER – P. ALLEN – B. DE- HANDSCHUTTER, “Let us die that we may live”. Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria (c. AD 350-AD 450), London – New York, 2003, pp. 3-52, esp. 29-30. 478 B. DEHANDSCHUTTER
III. Polycarp enters the stadium, the confrontation with the procurator is imme- diately mentioned, as well as the efforts of the crowd in collecting the wood for the pyre, “… and mainly the Jews”. This detail seems of great importance to the homilist. A lacuna in the text hinders us unfortunately, but it is plain that the homilist has connected this passage on the Jews with the story of Stephen whose words from Acts 7,52 are quoted: “Whom of the prophets your fathers did not kill, those who announced the coming of Christ”. However careful we should be in the consideration of a text so partially known to us, we may suppose that the homilist has given full weight to the collaboration of the Jews in the story of Polycarp’s martyrdom, and by the way, puts the bishop of Smyrna on a par with the protomartyr Stephen, who also died at the hands of the Jews. At this point the homily reveals a kind of anti-Judaism not uncommon in the homiletics of Chrysostom’s time15. IV. After a gap, the martyr is described on the pyre. The homilist follows the text of MPol but paraphrases at many instances, so that conclusions supporting textual criticism can only be meagre. Polycarp appears as the one mastering the situation: he is the makarios, the dikaios, the offering to God. As far as possible, one recognises that in the mind of the homilist martyrdom is a matter of Christian superiority. V. The description of the miracle of the fire not touching the martyr follows: it is a “thauma magikon”, seen by everybody, and not only by those to whom it was given to see (as in MPol 15,1). So the miracle has to appear as “astonishing” as possible, not as a privilege for a few people, or a reservation for the “readers” alone (cf. MPol 9,1)16. Adapting the text, the homilist prepares a new quotation, Isa 43,2: “Even if you go through fire, the flame will not burn you”, introduced with the words: “Now the prophet Isaiah must say to the martyr suffering for Christ”. This kind of addition is not uncommon in martyrological homilies. (So in the homiletics on the XL Martyrs of Sebaste, the reference to Ps 65 [LXX],12 is not lacking: “… we went through fire and water, and You led us to salva- tion”17).
15. Cf. the homilies on Stephen by Asterius of Amaseia or Hesychius of Jerusalem, translated in LEEMANS et al. (eds.), “Let us die” (n. 14); but see also GREGORY OF NYSSA, In Stephanum (CPG 3186); PROCLUS OF CONSTANTINOPEL, In Stephanum (CPG 5837) and In Stephanum (CPG 5816). As to homilies attributed to Chrysostom, several might be spuria (CPG 4575; 4600
VI. The text is rather difficult to read, but it appears that the homilist expands the narration on the stabbing of the martyr, and this happens so that the spirit of the martyr can dwell in heaven. It is not clear whether or not the pseudo- Chrysostom confirms the “presence” of the much discussed “dove” (MPol 16). Bidez and Hilgenfeld restore it, but other authors are more sceptic18. However, one must admit that the text shows no affinity with the Eusebian version of MPol, and this contradicts the claim that our homilist would have had Eusebius in mind for his homily. According to Bidez, the dove has made the homilist associate this element of the story with the narration of the baptism of Christ where a dove ap- pears from heaven (Matt 3,16 par.). Are we pressing the text too much in reading here an attempt to make a comparison between the story of the martyr and the life of Christ? With all precaution we can at least read that the miraculous element is emphasised, and the crowd, as a response to a heavenly appearance, shouts out that the blessed is now near to God and dwells in heaven. VII. Only a few words remain. The blessed Polycarp seems to be addressed directly, no doubt to implore his intervention. There are many examples of the like at the end of homilies in honour of a martyr19.
To summarise the most certain features of this unfortunately incomplete hom- ily, we can say that its author is well versed in Scripture. He has some preference for Paul, quotes Acts and Isaiah. The homilist gives the story of Polycarp a more explicit biblical foundation, working as much as possible with quotations which seem to indicate that Christian martyrdom is a fulfilment of biblical prophecy. The connection with the theme of the corner stone might suggest that this Gospel text belonged to the readings from Scripture on the occasion of the martyr’s celebra- tion. The homilist shuns no occasion to enforce the miraculous element. But above all, we must say that the pseudo-Chrysostom takes an anti-Judaic stand. As far as we can see, he does not hesitate to give to the presence of the Jews in the martyr- dom a dimension that makes Polycarp comparable to Stephen the protomartyr. One could observe here the rhetorical technique of synkrisis, but it cannot be ruled out that the role of the Jews is for our author more than a hagiographic stylisation: it might have had an historical basis that fuels his own feelings to- ward Judaism.
2. The Bios kai Martyrion of Polycarp According to Codex Mosquensis 376
When preparing our doctoral dissertation, we came across a reference to a text of the Martyrium Polycarpi in the codex Mosquensis 376, a document apparently not yet used for a critical edition20. Our disappointment had to follow before
18. So e.g. H. MÜLLER, Aus der Überlieferungsgeschichte des Polykarp-Martyriums. Eine hagiographische Studie, Paderborn, 1908, pp. 60-61. 19. And a remarkable instance of this, as far as Polycarp is concerned, is the Bios kai Martyrion, ending with a direct appeal to Polycarp as the mediator in heaven; cf. part II of this contribution. Comp. also GREGORY OF NYSSA, In Theodorum, cf. LEEMANS et al. (eds.), “Let us die” (n. 14), pp. 90-91. 20. The reference was taken from A. EHRHARD, Forschungen zur Hagiographie der griechischen Kirche vornehmlich auf Grund der hagiographischen Handschriften von Mailand, München und Moskau, in RQ 11 (1897) 67-205, cf. p. 115, who refers to a 480 B. DEHANDSCHUTTER long: this Mosquensis did not contain a text of the Martyrium but a kind of epitome, a summary of the life and death of the Smyrnaean bishop, and moreover the text we believed we “discovered”, had already been edited more than once! A. Papadopoulos Kerameus edited this Bios kai Martyrion (in the following to be abbreviated as Bios) in 1894, and B. Latyshev published in 1911 the remains of the menologium to which the Bios belongs21, a menologium to be identified by A. Ehrhard as the “kaiserliche Menologium”22. As a result, we did not devote much attention to the Bios in our work on Polycarp23. It is our hope to repair this ne- glect now: it is even our hypothesis that the Bios, known through a text dating from the tenth or the eleventh century24, covers a source on the life and death of our saint different from the tradition available through the Martyrium as well as the Vita Polycarpi! Let us first briefly summarise the Bios, and then pose the question about the hagiographic materials that draw the image of the saint in this source.
The contents of the Bios can be divided, with Latyshev, in six chapters, the first of which contains the date of the martyrdom during the reign of Decius. This is certainly not an original feature but seems to correspond to the presentation of the martyrs in the “Imperial menologium”25. Then follow two chapters on the life of the saint (2-3), followed by the description of his death (4-5). Ch. 6, as a con- clusion, calls directly upon the martyr for his intervention. This final chapter puts the text in the perspective of an image of Polycarp as the saint, the holy man whose life and death must have been surrounded by miraculous events and whose help and mediation is expected directly. The Bios calls upon the martyr, remem- bering that his burial place became a source of wonders and a place of healing for the sick, a place where one can pray for help against visible and invisible en- emies. At first sight one could presume that the Bios continues to develop the miracu- lous traits of the image of Polycarp already present in the narration of the Vita,
“Martyrium des heiligen Polykarp von Smyrna”; afterwards EHRHARD gave a more correct description in Überlieferung (n. 8), Vol. 3, p. 343. 21. B. LATYSHEV, Menologii anonymi Byzantini saeculi X quae supersunt I, St. Peters- burg, 1911 [reprint 1970], pp. 123-126; see also BHG 1562 with information on Papado- poulos Kerameus, and another editor, G. Krateros. For details of the former’s publication, cf. LATYSHEV, o.c., p. VI n. 3. 22. EHRHARD, Überlieferung (n. 8), Vol. 3, p. 343; cf. ID., in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21 (1912) 239. The qualification of the menologium by Ehrhard as “nach-Metaphrastisch” should not disqualify the text about Polycarp: the Metaphrast has no story about Polycarp (!); see Ehrhard’s observations on the reduction of the Metaphrast’s menology of Febru- ary: Überlieferung (n. 8), Vol. 2, p. 607. See again R. AIGRAIN, L’hagiographie. Ses sources – Ses méthodes – Son histoire. Reproduction inchangée de l’édition originale de 1953, Brussels, 2000, p. 78. 23. Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), pp. 44-46. 24. See LATYSHEV (n. 21); Ehrhard inclines to a date in the eleventh century. 25. Comp. H. DELEHAYE, Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, Brussels, 21966, p. 100. Very probably the opening chapters of the Martyrium Pionii are at the be- ginning of the later chronological confusion: “On the second day of the sixth month, on the occasion of a great Sabbath, and on the anniversary of the blessed martyr Polycarp, while the persecution of Decius was still on, there were arrested the presbyter Pionius…” (Mart.Pionii 2; transl. MUSURILLO); see also the comments of ROBERT, Martyre (n. 15), pp. 50-51. POLYCARPIANA 481 and not at all absent either in the Martyrium26. But a further inquiry about the hagiographic background of the Bios will show that it is not that simple. a) The Life of Polycarp Already the first editor, A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, suggested the possibility that behind the Bios a source different from the Martyrium and the Vita could be discovered. The idea was rejected by the Bollandist fathers who saw no reason to introduce a “third” source27: the Bios was an epitome, a summary of the Vita and the Martyrium. There is however something that precludes a direct link with the Vita when reading the beginning of the Bios. It is known that the Vita contains a narration about Polycarp’s life showing a portrait of the Smyrnaean bishop that corresponds closely to the image of the Christian leader in the Pastoral Epistles. This entirely Pauline inspiration has struck many a scholar: it seems to be in fla- grant contradiction with the earliest possible source about Polycarp, Irenaeus of Lyons, who no doubt connects Polycarp with John (Iren. Ep. ad Florinum, in Eus., H.E. V, 20,6). At least the Vita shows no acquaintance with a story about a disciple of John, but tells the story of Polycarp’s election as a successor of Boukolos. The Bios in its turn informs us that Polycarp was a disciple of John, the theologos and evangelist, together with Ignatius the theophoros, and Bou- kolos the all-wise who adorned the episcopal see of Smyrna before Polycarp. It is not possible to connect this information with the Vita28. What again is very unlike the Vita is the way in which some of Polycarp’s miracles are remembered. All of them are not the same in the Bios as in the Vita, and in as far as they are, the Bios treats them with much less detail. Instead the text insists on the element of synkrisis, comparison with the Old Testament model, the prophet Elijah. This is the case in the story of the miraculous filling of the stores of Polycarp’s mistress, Callisto, and also in the story about the rain miracle29. All this might suggest that the redactor of the Bios is dependent on a
26. MPol has integrated no little hagiographic presentation, without affecting the his- torical importance of the document. But G.A. BISBEE, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 119-132, has shown the distance between an official recording of the trial and the narration in MPol. On the other hand, the hagiographic ele- ments in MPol should not be taken too much as “innerkirchliche Polemik” about the mar- tyr cult; cf. D. VAN DAMME, Polykarp von Smyrna, in TRE 27 (1997) 25-28, cf. p. 27; see our The Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Outbreak of Montanism, in ETL 75 (1999) 430- 437. 27. See Analecta Bollandiana 15 (1896) 86-87: comp. A. EHRHARD, Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung von 1884-1900, Freiburg i.B., 1900, pp. 572-573; MÜLLER, Überlieferungsgeschichte (n. 18), p. 8. 28. The Vita does not mention Ignatius. One could think about Eusebius’ connection of Ignatius with Polycarp (H.E. III, 36), but Eusebius does not known anything about Boukolos. It was the supposition of Papadopoulos Kerameus that the Bios relied (at least partially) on a story about Boukolos, see the passage in Bios ch. 3: “But as Boukolos ar- rived at the extremity of his life, as the story (historia) about him tells plainly…” (Polycarp was chosen as a bishop). STEWART-SYKES, Life (n. 2), p. 146 notes that Boukolos is left by John the apostle as proedros of the Church of Smyrna together with Polycarp, at least ac- cording to the Prochorus version of the Acts of John. It is only a question whether this can be traced back to an early tradition; cf. É. JUNOD – J.D. KAESTLI, Acta Johannis. Praefa- tio – Textus, Turnhout, 1983, pp. 147, 371. However, the combination of Polycarp, Ignatius and Boukolos is also present in the Synaksarion. 29. The rain miracle belongs to the cycle on Elijah in 1 Kings 18; it is present as well e.g. in Gregory of Nyssa’s homily on the XL Martyrs of Sebaste; cf. J. LEEMANS, in “Let 482 B. DEHANDSCHUTTER source in which the comparison with the Old Testament is central, more than that (as in the Vita) a narration is given about the miracles with great detail. b) The Martyrdom It might be supposed, as the Bollandist fathers did, that the Bios relied upon the story of Polycarp’s martyrdom known through the menologium text30. But two remarks are not out of place: 1°) All the witnesses of the “standard” text of MPol show differences among each other, and it is not possible to bring the text of the Bios back to one of them, except for an accidental similar reading31; 2°) The “Harris fragments” show that there existed at least one version of the story of Polycarp’s death quite different from the “standard text”, a version in which Polycarp’s relation to John received particular emphasis32. What we can say with certainty about the Bios is that the redactor has selected a number of features that emphasise the outstanding character of the saint: Polycarp enters the stadion accompanied by a heavenly voice saying: “be strong Polycarp … I am with you”. He stands before the proconsul “as my Jesus before the judging Pilate”. He is the acceptable offering to God, the Bios playing here consciously on the notion of “holokarpoma”33. The moment of the martyr’s death is accompanied by a sweet odour, “euodia”, the odour of sanctity34. When the martyr is stabbed by the “confector”, the Bios repeats with insistence that this event provokes only a sweet smell. This odiferous event makes the redactor of the Bios even “neglect” the dove, the much-debated dove escaping from the mar- tyr’s body at the moment of his death, together with a flux of blood35. However we read the Bios, its story of Polycarp’s death points to a “symbolism” different to what we find in the “standard” text. The possibility of a “particular” source can be illustrated at two other in- stances. The suggestion by Papadopoulos Kerameus about a different source for the Bios was connected with the circumstance that in the Bios the martyrdom us die” (n. 14), pp. 99, 109 n. 16. The Bios also refers to the miracle of the fire extin- guished by Polycarp (cf. Vita 28, incomplete); but the Bios’ emphasis is again that Polycarp performed the miracle only by prayer and the sign of the cross. 30. It has been argued in our work on Polycarp that the quotations made by Eusebius, H.E. IV, 15, represent the menologium text as well, and that there is no reason to believe that Eusebius’ text was based on an earlier form of the martyrdom: Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), pp. 34-38, 62-71. In the mean time, authors as different as S. RONCHEY, Indagine sul martirio di san Policarpo, Roma, 1990, and BUSCHMANN, Martyrium (n. 1), have followed the same argument. 31. Cf. Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), pp. 72-108. 32. See WEIDMANN, Polycarp and John (n. 3); Weidmann is no doubt mistaken in the importance given to the version of Eusebius! 33. Comp. Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), p. 96. 34. See the ample comments of BUSCHMANN, Martyrium (n. 1), pp. 301-309; A. LALLEMAND, Le parfum des martyrs dans les Actes des Martyrs de Lyon et le Martyre de Polycarpe, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Patristica XVI, Berlin, 1985, pp. 186-192. 35. Also in Eusebius’ presentation the dove is lacking (H.E. IV, 15,39), but there is more than one reason why Eusebius would have dropped it. As a rule one can say that Eusebius wants to refer to the martyr stories as historical events, without giving much credit to miraculous phenomena that could endanger his reliability. There is a possibility as well that the dove was dropped for whatever reason in the textual tradition before Eusebius, or after him! POLYCARPIANA 483 starts with the entrance of the bishop in the stadion. The learned editor made mention of the fact that the same thing happened in the homily on Polycarp by Metrophanes of Smyrna (BHG 1563). At a closer look this might not seem very convincing. But the same case occurs in the homily we presented above, that of the pseudo-Chrysostom (fragment III). Are we allowed to recognise here the indi- cation of a version of the Martyrdom that started only with the crucial moment of Polycarp’s entrance in the stadion and the confrontation with the proconsul – without previous account of the persecution and the arrest of the bishop? There is more. The heavenly voice has already been mentioned. The expansion “I am with you”, not present in the standard text, could be read as a hagiographic embellish- ment36. In our view however, the words indicate the solemn beginning of the story with a particular biblical reference. Indeed, the words: “I am with you” can be read as a reference to Isa 43,2: “If you go through the water, I am with you… If you go through fire, the flame will not burn you…”. This is exactly what is going to happen to Polycarp, and, as we have seen, the same text has received also a particular emphasis in the pseudo-Chrysostomian homily on the bishop of Smyrna. Another indication can be discovered at the end of the story. The Bios certainly knows about the role of the Jews during Polycarp’s trial. As in the Martyrium they are present in the stadion and join with fervour in the collecting of the wood for the pyre. But in the Bios they “disappear” at the moment of the burial, whereas in the “standard” version the antithesis between Jews and Christians comes to its climax (MPol 17,2–18,137), the Jews intervening with the authorities so that the remains of the martyr should not be released, “lest they (the Chris- tians) abandon the Crucified and start venerating this one”. Can we imagine that the redactor of the Bios would have dropped this crucial point when it had been available in his source? Or are we to admit the existence of a parallel story, end- ing with the odiferous martyr’s death which fills with joy those who were stand- ing by?38
3. Conclusions
As to the pseudo-Chrysostom we are able to conclude that his homily makes an interesting comparison between the martyr Polycarp and the protomartyr Stephen. This at least, together with the tendency to refer more amply to biblical texts, might betray a background not to be derived simply from the well known story of the martyrdom.
36. Cf. Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), p. 44 n. 83. 37. The role of the Jews in MPol is a much debated question, cf. BUSCHMANN, Martyrium (n. 1), pp. 209-213; and again E.L. GIBSON, The Jews and Christians in the Martyrdom of Polycarp: Entangled or Parted Ways?, in A.H. BECKER – A.Y. REED (eds.), The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, Tübingen, 2003; F.W. WEIDMANN, “To Sojourn” or “To Dwell”? Scripture and Identity in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in C.A. BOBERTZ – D. BRAKKE, Reading in Chris- tian Communities. Essays on Interpretation in the Early Church, Notre Dame, 2002, pp. 29-40. 38. Also MÜLLER, Überlieferungsgeschichte (n. 18), p. 61, has noticed the particularity of this conclusion of the story. 484 B. DEHANDSCHUTTER
The same is true for the Bios. This text from the Mosquensis 376 seems to be more than a product of Byzantine hagiography. We cannot exclude the possibility to discover a new source on the life and death of the Smyrnaean bishop, reaching beyond the era of Byzantine transmission and concurring with the earliest sources we thought we possessed. Our hypothesis means a serious retractation of what we wrote years ago in our dissertation. There we followed the wise judgements of the Bollandist Fathers39. But it became our conviction that the “Harris frag- ments” have shown that there has been more than one story about Polycarp! The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp known as Martyrium Polycarpi has always been held in high esteem as a document about early Christian martyrdom. It was regarded as very near to the historical facts, whatever could be due to the actual redaction of the text. Attempts to separate the more “historical” from the more “hagiographic” have failed40. Why should we refrain from giving to the Bios the same treatment and read it according to its author’s view on the histori- cal past about the Life and Death of Polycarp? If the preceding analysis has any chance to contain some valuable observations, it is possible to divide the story about Polycarp’s death over three early traditions: 1°) the Harris Fragments, in- sisting on the connection with the apostle John (comp. Irenaeus); 2°) the menologium text focussing on a comparison with the passion narrative in the sense that “God’s will be done”, and 3°) the Bios offering an account on Polycarp, which for the martyrdom starts at the confrontation with the authorities and describes the martyrs death as a miraculous event sustained by the divine presence41.
Faculty of Theology Boudewijn DEHANDSCHUTTER Sint-Michielsstraat 6 B-3000 Leuven
ABSTRACT. – This contribution discusses two neglected testimonies about Polycarp of Smyrna, a homily of a Pseudo-Chrysostom and an Epitome of the Life and Death of Polycarp. It is argued that these witnesses might contain elements about traditions on Polycarp’s life and martyrdom that are not to be recognised in the Vita Polycarpi nor in the Martyrium Polycarpi, and as such contribute to the hagiographical image of the saint.
39. Martyrium Polycarpi (n. 1), pp. 44-46. 40. Ibid., pp. 131-155; and again Martyrdom (n. 26). 41. It could be argued of course that the Bios simply dropped e.g. the passages on Polycarp’s flight (MPol 5-8) as not fitting the hagiographical image, and other materials that draw the attention away from the martyr (MPol 2-4). However, a tradition on Polycarp which did not put forward the question of the “fuga in persecutione”, might be early as well, and that is what we presume for the Bios.