VolumeTH E Number

118 E X P O2S IPages

T O 53–63
RY TIMES 53
EXPOSITORY Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi)

THE
TIMES DOI: 10.1177/0014524606070855
http://EXT.sagepub.com

Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to the Philippians1

Y
By DR MICHAEL HOLMES
College of Arts and Sciences, Bethel University

The Letter 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.
KEYWORDS
Polycarp, Smyrna, Letter to the Philippians, Philippi, Righteousness

1. Polycarp and prophetic’ ‘teacher of all Asia’ (16.2, 12.2) who

P
olycarp of Smyrna may well have been the most fearlessly modelled ‘a martyrdom in accord with the
important Christian leader in Asia Minor in the gospel’ (1.1).
first half of the second century ce. Probably Irenaeus (who as a young man met and was
born about the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 instructed by Polycarp) preserves a number of details
ce, Polycarp was already bishop of Smyrna when his and anecdotes about him. He reports that Polycarp’s
older friend and mentor, Ignatius of Antioch, visited colleagues included both Papias (Adv. Haer. 5.33.4)
him and later sent him a letter of encouragement and and Florinus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.20.4–8), and
advice as Ignatius, already condemned to the arena, mentions a trip to Rome in the early 150’s, at which
made his way to Rome (possibly as early as 110–120). time Polycarp (a staunch Quartodeciman) debated
Several decades later, at age 86 (c.155–60),2 Polycarp the proper date for observing Easter with Anicetus,
died a martyr’s death, condemned to the flames for bishop of Rome (neither, apparently, persuaded the
his refusal to deny Christ and sacrifice to the emperor. other).3 He also recalls a testy confrontation between
Details of Polycarp’s arrest, trial and execution Polycarp and Marcion, an occasion when Polycarp
were recorded by a member of his congregation in dismissed Marcion as the ‘first-born of Satan’.4
a letter now known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Polycarp’s life and ministry spanned the time
It portrays (in sometimes touching detail) both his between the end of the apostolic era and the
steadfast commitment to his Lord (9.3: ‘For eighty- emergence of catholic Christianity, and as a proto-
six years I have been his servant, and he has done orthodox leader he was deeply involved in the
me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who central issues and challenges of this critical era.
saved me?’) and his heroic valour as an ‘apostolic These included the increasing possibility of conflict
with the Roman state, the challenge of the emerging
‘Gnostic’ movement and its charismatic leaders (such
1
The following is a substantially expanded version of the
introduction to this document in Michael W. Holmes, The as Cerinthus and Marcion), the development and
Apostolic Fathers in English, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: expansion of the monepiscopal form of ecclesiastical
Baker Academic, 2006). For the Greek text, consult Michael organization, and the beginnings of the formation
W. Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts with
English Translations, rev. edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1999). 3
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.3.4; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.24;
2
Cf. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts with English 4.14.1–5.
Translations, 223. 4
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.3.4; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.14.7.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

54 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES

of a canon of early Christian writings. Irenaeus and Polycarp also authored the Pastoral Epistles has
Eusebius both considered him to be a significant rightly met with little acceptance.10 More promising
link in the chain of apostolic tradition (a concept is the intriguing proposal (now the subject of a
of increasing importance throughout the second major monograph) that Polycarp is the author of
century). Conservative and traditional, Polycarp the anonymous apology known as the Letter to
exercised influence far beyond Asia as he sought to Diognetus.11 More probable is the prospect that
protect and maintain the proto-orthodox strand of some of Polycarp’s oral teachings may be embedded
the early Christian movement. in Irenaeus’s writings. In Against Heresies (4.27.1–
32.1), Irenaeus apparently passes on from memory
2. Polycarp as Author the teaching of a presbyter, one who was, according
Tradition portrays Polycarp as a prolific writer. to Irenaeus, ‘a disciple of apostles, who heard and
Irenaeus speaks of him as the author of several ‘letters saw apostles and their disciples’ (4.27.1). A number
which he sent either to the neighbouring churches, of scholars12 have now argued that this anonymous
strengthening them, or to some of the brethren, elder is, in fact, Polycarp of Smyrna – who may also
exhorting and warning them’.5 The anonymous be, in Hill’s opinion, the source for the ‘catalog of
author of the (historically worthless) Life of Polycarp heresies’ in Adv. Haer. 4.23–27.13
is even more extravagant, attributing to Polycarp
‘many treatises and sermons and letters’.6 Also, a 3. The Letter to the Philippians
canon list attributes a Didaskalia to Polycarp.7 Brief, direct, and stylistically unpretentious,
Of all these many writings attributed to Polycarp, Philippians is a good example of what Stowers terms
however, only a single one survives under his name:8 a ‘letter of exhortation and advice’, one that combines
a letter he wrote to the Christian community in the aspects of a paraenetic (exhortatory) letter, a letter of
Macedonian town of Philippi. Irenaeus offers the advice, and a letter of admonition.14 Specific aspects
earliest testimony to this document: ‘There is also a of a paraenetic letter (the writer is the recipients’
letter of Polycarp written to the Philippians, a most friend or moral superior, who recommends habits
powerful one, from which those who so desire and of behaviour and actions that conform to a certain
are concerned about their own salvation can learn model of character, in a letter typically directed ‘at
both the character of his faith and the message of those who had already been initiated into a social
the truth’ (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. group and needed to habituate the initial learning’15)
4.14.8). are clearly evident in Philippians, especially chapters
Has anything by Polycarp survived without his 2–10. The Philippians have apparently approached
name attached? Victor of Capua attributes some Polycarp as their social and ecclesistical superior
extant comments on gospel passages to Polycarp, (his demurral in 3.1–2 notwithstanding), and he
but ‘parts of these are manifestly spurious responds appropriately. Moreover, much of what he
and the remainder are discredited by this base
companionship’.9 Von Campenhausen’s claim that 10
H. von Campenhausen, ‘Polykarp und die Pastoralen’,
repr. Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr
5
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Siebeck, 1963), 197–252.
5.20.8). 11
Pier Franco Beatrice, ‘Der Presbyter des Irenäus, Polykarp
6
Vit. Poly. 12 (in J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part von Smyrna und der Brief an Diognet’, in Eugenio Romero-
2: S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp (3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1885, Pose (ed.), Pléroma Salus Carnis. Homenaje a Antonio Orbe,
2nd edn, 1889), 2.3.494). S.J. (Santiago de Compostella, 1990), 179–202; Charles
7
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2.1.447, 351 n. 1. E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying
8
The Life of Polycarp ‘explains away’ the loss of many Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum
documents by attributing their destruction to the same pagans (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
who instigated Polycarp’s martyrdom: ‘He wrote also many 12
Frank D. Gilliard, ‘The Apostolicity of Gallic Churches’,
treatises and sermons and letters, but in the persecution HTR 68 (1975), 17–33, here 29, n. 30; Beatrice, ‘Der Presbyter
which arose on his account, when he was martyred, certain des Irenäus, Polykarp von Smyrna und der Brief an Diognet’;
lawless heathen carried them off. Their character however is Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, 7–24.
evident from those still extant, among which the Epistle to the 13
Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, 24–31.
Philippians was the most adequate’ (Vit. Poly. 12; cf. Lightfoot, 14
Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman
Apostolic Fathers, 2.3.494). Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 91–96.
9
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2.1.473. 15
Stowers, Letter Writing, 96, 95.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 55

writes seeks to reinforce existing behaviour or affirm the community, with respect to both its beliefs and
things already known.16 behaviour, was a key goal of the author.23
In chapter 11, characteristics of letters of advice In short, the letter is a complex hortatory letter
(symbouleutikai)17 and admonition (nouthetē tikai)18 that employs a homiletic style of discourse, and which
are evident as Polycarp combines traditional maxims also displays an awareness of Hellenistic epistolary
(e.g., ‘avoid love of money’) with his own opinion conventions and rhetorical theory throughout the
regarding how the Philippians should treat Valens document.
(‘be reasonable’, 11.4) in an effort to restore the For many of his exempla Polycarp draws upon the
congregation’s sense of of σωρσνη (‘self-control’ Scriptures, in the form of the Septuagint. Schoedel
or ‘moderation’). suggests that he makes use of Psalms, Proverbs,
Another style of discourse, the ‘word of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Tobit,24 a list which, if
exhortation’ (λγ παρακλσεω),19 seems also to revised, might require reduction.25 At the same time,
have influenced the document, especially in chapters the frequency with which Polycarp’s language and
2–10. The basic pattern of this widely-occurring vocabulary are illumined by the Septuagint suggests
form consists of (1) presentation of exempla, i.e., that his acquaintance with it may run deeper than
authoritative sayings (often scriptural) or examples, his references or allusions indicate.26
(2) a conclusion based upon the exempla indicating Polycarp also makes considerable use of early
their relevance or significance for those addressed, Christian writings. He is quite familiar with 1 Peter
and (3) an exhortation based upon that conclusion and 1 Clement, and also uses 1 Corinthians and
(which may also anticipate exempla and conclusions Ephesisans. He probably made use of 1–2 Timothy
to follow).20 This basic pattern occurs frequently in and 1 John, and perhaps Romans, Galatians, and
Philippians.21 Philippians.27 While none of these documents are
With respect to its rhetorical features, the body cited as ‘Scripture’ (the reference to Ephesians in
of the letter may be characterized as epideictic 12.1 being a possible exception), the way in which
rhetoric, a type whose goals included enhancement Polycarp refers to them indicates that he considered
of an audience’s existing beliefs.22 This confirms what them authoritative writings. He also cites, in the
the epistolary features suggest: that maintenance of

23
Cf. Harry O. Maier, ‘Purity and Danger in Polycarp’s
16
Reinforcement of existing behaviour: ‘you believe’, Epistle to the Philippians: The Sin of Valens in Social
1.3; ‘continue in the faith’, 4.3; ‘if we continue to believe’, Perspective’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (1993),
5.2; ‘persevering’, 7.2; ‘continue to hold steadfastly and 229–47, esp. 244–47.
unceasingly’, 8.1; ‘continue to stand fast’, 10.1; ‘maintaining’, 24
W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp,
10.2; ‘self-control in which you live’, 10.3. Affirmation of Fragments of Papias (Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1967), 5; cf.
things known: ‘knowing’, 1.3, 4.1, 5.1; ‘remembering’, 2.3, earlier Daniel Völter, Polykarp und Ignatius und die ihnen
12.1; Paul taught and wrote them, 3.2; ‘return to the word zugeschriebenen Briefe (Leiden: Brill, 1910), 29–30.
delivered to us from the beginning’, 7.2; ‘what we have 25
Apparent allusions to the three major prophets may all
believed’, 8.2; ‘which you saw’, 9.1; ‘do we not know’, 11.2; be indirect or mediated.
‘you are all well trained’, 12.1. 26
Albert E. Barnett (Paul Becomes a Literary Influence
17
Stowers, Letter Writing, 107–108. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1941), 170) aptly notes that
18
Stowers, Letter Writing, 125–27. Polycarp displays a ‘freedom of rendering as though he were
19
See Lawrence Wills (‘The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic quoting from memory. Instead of making his references direct
Judaism and Early Christianity’, HTR 77 (1984), 277–99), as and formal, he usually works the ideas and expressions into
refined and developed by C. Clifton Black II (‘The Rhetorical statements of his own’.
Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A 27
Michael W. Holmes, ‘Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians
Response to Lawrence Wills’, HTR 81 (1988), 1–18). and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament’,
20
Wills, ‘Form’, 279, 281–82, 284–85. in A. Gregory and C. Tuckett (eds.), The Reception of the
21
1.3–2.1; 4.1; 5.1–2; 8.1–9.1a; 9.1b–10.3. New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford
22
Black (‘Rhetorical Form’, 5), summarizing the discussions University Press, 2005), 187–227. There are possible allusions
of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian on this point; cf. G. A. to other documents (e.g., the four canonical gospels, Acts, 2
Kennedy (New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and 2
Criticism (Chapel Hill and London: University of North John), but insufficient evidence to demonstrate their use. This
Carolina Press, 1984), 19): epideictic ‘seeks to persuade does not mean that Polycarp was unacquainted with these,
[the audience] to hold or reaffirm some point of view in the only that he does not appear to have made use of them in this
present.’ particular letter.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

56 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES

same authoritative manner, at least one saying found may have said in their letter, what circumstances
nowhere else in early Christian sources.28 prompted them to write, and whether they saw
It is worthwhile to observe how Polycarp utilizes any link between their request for a discussion of
his resources. The letter is often dismissed as little ‘righteousness’ and the matter of Valens.
more than an unreflective pastiche of quotations and Whether or not the Philippians saw a connection
allusions.29 But Polycarp is no mere ‘seedpicker’ (cf. between their request for a discussion of righteousness
Acts 17:18) mechanically stringing things together: and the matter of Valens, it is quite possible that
he not only abridges or alters his sources in the Polycarp did. Indeed, a major interpretive question is
process of incorporating them into his letter, but the relationship (or lack thereof) between these two
in so doing often changes the meaning or point to main issues and the extensive exhortation.
serve his own purposes.30 In short, his heavy use P. N. Harrison exemplifies a traditional approach,
of traditional materials is not without evidence of which generally (a) sees no connection between the
thought and originality – indeed, it likely reflects a two issues, and (b) thinks that the problem of
strategic decision on his part. ‘heresy’ (which Harrison argued was sparked by
Marcion) is the major problem.33 Schoedel, who
4. Occasion and Central Concerns similarly sees no intrinsic link between ‘love of
Philippians was penned by Polycarp in response to money’ and ‘heresy’,34 nonetheless reads the letter
a letter from Philippi (cf. 3.1; 13.1). On the basis of as an interconnected whole by viewing the two
his response, it seems probable that the Philippians issues as equally symptomatic of a profound moral
mentioned their reception of Ignatius (cf. 1.1); it is failing in Philippi, to which Polycarp responds by
certain that they asked Polycarp to discuss the subject scrutinizing both issues through the lens of (what
of righteousness (3.1), to assist their participation he considers to be) a proper understanding of
in the embassy to Antioch (13.1), and to send them ‘righteousness’.35
a copy of Ignatius’s letters (13.2). They may have One of the first to argue in a thoroughgoing way for
raised the matter of Valens (an avaricious presbyter) a connection between the two issues was Meinhold.
on their own initiative as well (alternatively, however, Reading chapters 11–12 in light of chapters 3 and
it is possible that Polycarp learned of this matter via 7, and convinced that Marcion (whose teachings he
the letter carrier).31 In the absence of further evidence, thinks sparked a ‘debate’ about righteousness in
we can only speculate about why the Philippians Philippi) was the target of Polycarp’s comments in
wrote to Polycarp rather than someone else (though chapters 2–10, he finds a link with chapters 11–12
his re-commendation of Crescens in chapter 14 by suggesting that Valens’s sin was the acceptance of
implies some prior relationship),32 what else they a monetary gift from Marcion.36
Steinmetz, reading chapters 2–10 in light of
28
Phil. 6.1; cf. Holmes, ‘Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians’, 11–12, achieves a unified reading of the letter by
188–89. reducing the central issues to just one (the mention
29
See for details B. Dehandschutter, ‘Polycarp’s Epistle to
the Philippians: An Early Example of ‘Reception’, in J.-M.
of ‘heresy’ in 7.1 being, in his estimation, almost
Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Christianity (Leuven: entirely pro forma, of little significance with respect
Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1989), 275; also Kenneth to the occasion of the letter): the case of Valens, who
Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and is symptomatic of a problem infecting the whole
Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical
and Extra-Biblical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 4–6; Paul
congregation. The substantial paraenetic emphasis
Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion,
Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians 33
P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians
and its Allusions to New Testament Literature (Tübingen: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 169,
Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 129–30.
30
See, e.g. his use of Ephesians and 1 Peter in Phil. 34
Schoedel, Polycarp, 17, 31.
1.3–2.1. 35
W. R. Schoedel, ‘Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of
31
Cf. in this respect 1 Corinthians 1:11 and 7:1. Antioch’, ANRW II.27.1 (1993), 272–358, here 282.
32
See the discussion in Peter Oakes, ‘Leadership and 36
P. Meinhold, ‘Polykarpos’, Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Suffering in the Letters of Polycarp and Paul to the Philippians’, encyclopädie 21.2 (1952), 1662–93, here 1686–87. When
in A. Gregory and C. Tuckett (eds.), Trajectories through the Marcion joined the church in Rome, he is reported to have
New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford given it a gift of 200,000 sesterces (so Tertullian, Praescr.
University Press, 2005), 370–73. 30.2).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 57

reflects Polycarp’s belief that virtue is the flip side of however, I am not convinced that chapters 11–12
the coin of ‘righteousness’.37 hold the key to the letter. One topic that we know
Maier’s sociologically-oriented analysis (which the Philippians raised in their letter, and to which
takes for granted the existence of two problems) Polycarp devotes by far the greatest portion of his
combines a reversal of Harrison’s evaluation of the letter, is the subject of righteousness. This observation
relative importance of the two issues with Steinmetz’s should therefore be given substantial weight in any
view that chapters 11–12 offer the key to the situation: assessment of the letter.
‘While Polycarp was anxious about the spread and The observed inability to find a connection
reception of false teaching, his ethical exhortation between the two sections of the document in
reveals a more profound concern with group the occasion of the letter suggests that it may lie
solidarity and purity, phenomena compromised by elsewhere, perhaps in Polycarp’s goals or his own
Valens’ abuse of wealth.’ For Maier ‘righteousness’ theological perspective. The letter’s epistolary and
is primarily a moral rather than a theological term, rhetorical features,40 its sociological aspects, and
and ‘the main focus of the letter is the protection of key aspects of the historical context suggested above
the purity of the Philippian church’.38 (namely, that the ‘anti-heretical’ elements likely
Maier’s rich sociological analysis reveals the reflect the situation in Smyrna and that Marcion
shortcomings of purely theological readings (which is not in view) lead one to suggest that Polycarp’s
stress the ‘anti-heretical’ aspects at the expense of own theological understanding may provide the
other elements, and thereby fail to do justice to the key to the letter’s unity. That is, Polycarp believed
paraenetic aspects of the letter); at the same time, that wrong behaviours were prima facie evidence
it is unable adequately to account for the historical of wrong beliefs, and that wrong beliefs inevitably
particularities of the situation. Furthermore, recent produced wrong behaviours. Further, wrong beliefs
investigations, despite their shared belief that the and/or behaviours are characteristic of outsiders,
letter exhibits a thematic unity, have differed regard- not insiders. Consequently Valens’ problematic
ing the nature or identity of that unity. behaviour with regard to finances represents a major
Steinmetz and Maier point us in a fruitful threat both to the Philippian community’s stability
direction in two respects. First they remind us of (in that it blurred the boundary between insiders and
the need to take seriously the paraenetic character outsiders) and its theological self-understanding (in
of the document. Second, they rightly downplay that it led to questions or uncertainty about the
the role or importance of 7.1 in the letter. (Indeed, I meaning of righteousness).
would argue not only that 7.1 plays a minimal role This understanding of the letter makes sense of
in the document, but also that whatever role it does the way Polycarp stresses so strongly the behavioural
play reflects Polycarp’s situation in Smyrna rather aspects of what is usually viewed as a purely
than circumstances in Philippi, and that Marcion ‘theological’ concept, i.e. ‘righteousness’.41 For him,
is nowhere in view.)39 Contra Steinmetz and Maier, orthopraxy is the other side of the coin of orthodoxy;
if the community is behaving properly, it is also
37
P. Steinmetz, ‘Polykarp von Smyrna über die Gerechtigkeit’, likely believing properly. This position may explain
Hermes 100 (1972), 63–75. the vigour with which he reinforces (what he thinks
38
Maier, ’Purity and Danger’, 246, 246 n. 67. should be) the community’s sense of behavioural
39
On the generic, non-particular character of the polemic in
7.1 (note, e.g., the repeated  ν, ‘whoever’), cf. N. Dahl, ‘Der
norms and standards throughout the letter. His
Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels’, in Apophoreta key goal was to maintain and protect the integrity
(Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), 70–84; Steinmetz, ‘Polykarp von of the community in terms of both its beliefs and
Smyrna’, 73. Regarding Smyrna rather than Philippi: in view of
(a) Smyrn. 4.1–5.3 (cf. 2.1, 6.1–7.2), where Ignatius specifically 40
Stowers notes that such a letter usually offers a ‘model
identifies in Smyrna ‘certain people’ whose teaching bears a very of what it means to be a good person in a certain role’ and
close resemblance to that proscribed by Polycarp, and (b) the ‘attempts to persuade and move the audience to conform to
absence in Philippians of evidence of sectarianism in Philippi, that model and to elicit corresponding habits of behaviour’
it seems likely that the target(s) of Polycarp’s remarks lived not (Stowers, Letter Writing, 94).
in Philippi but in or around Smyrna (cf. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy 41
It also takes account of the fact that in both sections of the
and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress letter, Polycarp’s primary concern is with the community; even
Press, 1971), 69–70). Against Marcion as Polycarp’s target, see, in chapters 11–12 he devotes considerably more attention to
e.g. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 89–108. the community than he does to Valens and his wife.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

58 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES

behaviours. Thus throughout the letter he displays ‘if ’, that is, they ‘please him in this present world’
a primary, over-riding concern: that the Philippian and ‘prove to be citizens worthy of him’ (5.2; cf.
congregation continue to ‘follow the example of the 5.3, 8.1, 10.2). But response is not just a matter of
Lord, firm and immovable in faith . . . cherishing one behaviour; it also entails the acceptance of certain
another, united in truth . . . despising no one’ (10.1), beliefs about God and especially Jesus (cf. 7.1).
and thereby maintain a proper boundary between In short, Polycarp works with a synergistic
themselves and the Gentiles among whom they live. understanding of salvation; salvation (especially
with reference to resurrection) is for Polycarp both
5. Key Theological Themes a gift and an achievement.42 It is a gift because it is
On the basis of such a short and so clearly occasional the result of God’s will and grace as manifested in the
letter it is unwise to attempt to say anything of a sacrificial actions of Jesus; it is an achievement in that
comprehensive nature about Polycarp’s theology. its attainment at the eschatological judgment requires
But because he does devote a substantial part of his a response of faithful obedience, of acknowledging
letter to the topic of ‘righteousness’ – and because certain facts about Jesus, of endurance under trial,
the preceding paragraph has already raised the of keeping the divine commandments in accordance
question of what he means by that term – it seems with God’s will.43 For Polycarp, as for 1 Peter, ‘faith
appropriate to attempt a sketch of his views (to the validates itself in action, to the extent that faith and
extent that they are revealed in the letter) on some action are indistinguishable’.44
selected topics.
42
For the language of this last phrase and much of the next
i. Salvation sentence I am indebted to Frances Young, The Theology of
Before turning to ‘righteousness’ it will first be helpful, the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
in order to create a suitable context, to summarize 1994), 58.
43
This equal emphasis on both gift and achievement stands
Polycarp’s views about salvation. Salvation for contra some who think that human achievement has become
Polycarp is first and foremost something that God more decisive than the divine gift in Polycarp’s theology, an
has accomplished through Jesus Christ: it is a matter alleged development which is then seen as revealing either ‘a
of ‘grace’ – that is, ‘by the will of God through Jesus real failure . . . to apprehend the death of Christ’ and ‘to grasp
the meaning of grace’ (T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in
Christ’ – not ‘works’ (1.3). It involves ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ The Apostolic Fathers (Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd,
(1.3, 5.2) – itself a gift (3.2) – in the God who has 1948), 93, 96), or a serious loss and departure from the New
raised from the dead (1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 9.2, 12.2) Jesus Testament, especially Paul, in that faith is not so much a gift
Christ, who ‘endured for our sins’ (1.2), that is, ‘who and therefore a presupposition (Voraussetzung) of resurrection,
but has instead something of the character of a work and thus
bore our sins in his own body upon the tree’ (8.1), is a condition (Bedingung) of resurrection (Annegreth Bovon-
‘who died on our behalf’ (9.2). Thurneysen, ‘Ethik und Eschatologie im Philipperbrief des
Furthermore, while salvation is to some extent Polycarp von Smyrna’, ThZ 29 (1973), 256, 247–48, 250), or
a present experience (‘you have been saved’, 1.3), evidence of the Hellenization of the gospel (Hans Lohmann,
Drohung und Verheissung: Exegetische Untersuchungen zur
it definitely is eschatological in character and Eschatologie bei den Apostolichen Vätern (Berlin and New
orientation, with resurrection the primary focus: the York: De Gruyter, 1989), 194; cf. Torrance, Grace, 97) – and
God who raised Jesus from the dead ‘will raise us perhaps all three at once.
also’ (2.2; cf. 5.2, ‘we will receive the world to come Such formulations do not adequately represent Polycarp’s
understanding of human achievement or obedience, for at
as well, inasmuch as he promised to raise us from the least three reasons: they (1) pay insufficient attention to the
dead and . . . we will also reign with him’; see also 5.3, polemical context in which he writes, (2) give insufficient
8.1, 12.2), and the Jesus who died for us will return consideration to Polycarp’s initial statements about grace
as the eschatological Judge (2.1, 6.2). (cf. 1.3) and the persistent indicative/imperative dialectic
throughout the letter (cf. 1.3–2.3, 5.2, 8.1–2), and (3) impose
But if salvation is a divine gift and promise, it is upon the discussion a false either/or dichotomy that is often
at the same time a matter of human achievement. deeply shaped by later theological formulations or concerns (cf.
For whether the past divine act on our behalf will especially Torrance, who works with a narrow neo-orthodox
in fact become actualized in the future depends, understanding of Paul and charges any apostolic father who
fails to repeat that precise understanding with a failure to
in Polycarp’s understanding, a great deal on how understand the ‘true’ meaning of grace).
humans respond in the present. God will raise up 44
J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Waco, TX: Word,
believers from the dead ‘if ’ they ‘do his will’ (2.2), 1988), lxxiv.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 59

ii. Righteousness45 Jesus,49 and thus have hope of being raised up by

Whereas Paul uses ‘righteousness’ in a distinctive God. Conversely, the absence of either certain beliefs
eschatological sense, there is as well a broad stream (e.g., the errorists in 7.1) or behaviours (cf. e.g., the
of Jewish and early Christian tradition which under- quotation of 1 Cor 6:9 in 5.3) indicates, to Polycarp,
stands the concept more in terms of behaviour con- at least a strong probability of receiving a negative
forming to God’s will. Indeed, ‘the use of the concept verdict when Jesus returns as eschatological Judge.
of righteousness in connection with the demand for Thus the concern for Valens: his present behaviour
authenticating deeds’ is characteristic of ‘a relatively raises questions about his future fate. Such an
broad early Christian tradition, in which δικαισνη understanding of righteousness in terms of present
[“righteousness”], in contrast to its theological usage behaviour cannot easily be separated from the idea
in Paul, becomes a major parenetic motif’.46 of a future judgment (a theme Polycarp stresses in
It is with this broad stream of early Christian 2.1–2, 5.2–3, 6.2, 11.2), and here may be the key
tradition that Polycarp aligns himself with respect to understanding the close link in Polycarp’s mind
to his understanding of righteousness.47 For Polycarp, between false teaching and wrong (i.e. ‘unrighteous’)
the ‘righteous’ person is the one who, in response to behaviour in general, and the ‘deniers’ mentioned
the gracious divine initiative and acts, aligns both in 7.1 and Valens in particular. In short, Valens
one’s beliefs and behaviours with those proclaimed denies by his deeds what the ‘heretics’ deny by their
about, prescribed by, and modelled by the one words.
through whom God has both accomplished and
iii. Imitation
made the offer of salvation,48 namely Jesus.
Righteousness is thus a richly evocative and Closely linked to and explicable in terms of his
parenetically useful term for Polycarp, one that understanding of righteousness is Polycarp’s use
primarily has to do not with divine activity on behalf of the theme of ‘imitation.’ Apart from a passing
of humans (as in Paul), but with how humans respond mention in 2.2, the references to this topic are
to divine activity and initiative on their behalf. It is a clustered in 8.2–10.1. While both Jesus’ suffering
term that brought to mind for Polycarp a broad and and endurance are mentioned, it is the latter that
probably clearly defined (though in this letter not receives the primary emphasis: endurance is the
fully stated) complex of beliefs and behaviours that virtue urged upon the Philippians, while suffering is
ought to characterize authentic Christian existence. only a possibility. But Jesus is not the only one who
This understanding of righteousness means models endurance: Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, ‘others
that the term also plays an important ‘diagnostic’ from your congregation’, Paul, and the ‘rest of the
function for Polycarp. For him, the presence of apostles’ are also brought forward as examples of
certain beliefs and behaviours – i.e. ‘righteousness’ those who ‘exercised unlimited endurance’ (9.1) and
– among the Philippians is a reassuring indicator that therefore are to be imitated.
they are indeed ‘enduring’ (9.1) or ‘bearing fruit’ Because Polycarp grounds his call for endurance
(1.2) or holding ‘steadfastly and unceasingly to our upon the sacrificial death of Jesus (9.2, 8.1), and thus
hope and the guarantee of our righteousness’, Christ sharply distinguishes Jesus from the other (merely
human) examples, it is probable that Polycarp here
is working with ‘imitation’ more in the sense of
45
See also Steinmetz (‘Polykarp von Smyrna’, 69–75) and
Rudolph Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.;
Nachfolge (‘following after’ as a response) than
New York: Scribner, 1951, 1955), 2.171–173). Meinhold Nachahmung (‘imitation’ as an achievement),
(‘Polykarpos’, 1685–86) offers an interpretation in terms of although it is not clear that he would so sharply
an anti-Marcionite polemic. distinguish between the two.
46
K. Kertelge, ‘δικαισνη’, EDNT 1 (1990), 330.
47
Similarly Steinmetz, ‘Polykarp von Smyrna’, 73.
What unites Jesus and the other examples is that
48
In emphasizing Jesus as saviour, teacher, and model, they all have been ‘raised by God’ (9.2) – that is, all
Polycarp closely parallels 1 Peter, a document Polycarp have experienced resurrection as the outcome of their
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, 49
Phil. 8.1; this is the only instance in Philippians in which
and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (Michaels, 1 ‘righteousness’ may bear something of the Pauline sense of the
Peter, lxxv). term (similarly Bultmann, Theology, 2.172).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

60 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES

endurance, and thus Ignatius, Paul, and the others that Philippians as we now know it preserves two
can now be said to be ‘with the Lord’ (9.2). Thus the letters, not just one.
goal of ‘imitation’ is not so much to recapitulate the
Lord’s suffering (though in some cases that might i. Integrity
happen), but similarly to experience resurrection, the The uncertainty regarding the document’s integrity
goal towards which he urges the Philippians.50 arises out of a feature intrinsic to the letter itself: the
apparent tension between two of its references to
iv. Holy Spirit Ignatius. In 9.1 (cf. 1.1), Polycarp seems to assume
A striking aspect of Polycarp’s letter is the complete that Ignatius already has been martyred, whereas in
absence of any trace or mention of the Holy Spirit. 13.2 he appears to ask for information about his
While the term ‘spirit’ (πνεµα) does occur twice fate. These references have long been understood as
in Polycarp, at 5.3 and 7.2, in both instances it indicating (a) that sufficient time had passed since
apparently refers to the human spirit rather the Holy Ignatius’s final departure for Rome for Polycarp to
Spirit. But it is not merely a matter of an argument assume that Ignatius had, by the time of writing,
from silence: in 8.1, the ‘guarantee’ or ‘pledge’ already been martyred, but (b) he had not yet
(ραν), which in Paul is always the Holy Spirit received a confirmatory report.52 Thus the letter is
(2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:14; cf. Rom 8:23), is identified customarily dated not long after the time of Ignatius’s
by Polycarp as ‘Christ Jesus’. A consequence of death.
this substantial difference is that whereas Paul Some scholars, however, most notably Harrison,
understands Christian existence primarily in terms have proposed that Philippians is really two letters:
of divine empowerment, Polycarp apparently views chapters 13–14 are a brief cover note written to
it more as a matter of human effort or achievement.51 accompany a copy of the letters of Ignatius which
That is, what for Paul are ‘fruit of the Spirit’ have Polycarp sent to Philippi very soon after Ignatius’s
for Polycarp more the character of virtues to be departure from there but before his arrival in Rome,
pursued. The differences between these two ways of while chapters 1–12 comprise the substance of
understanding the dynamic of a life of faith are not Polycarp’s response to a later ‘crisis letter’ from
inconsequential. Philippi, penned several years after Ignatius’s
martyrdom.53
6. When Was it Written? Has It Been The wide acceptance of Harrison’s partition
Tampered With? theory in the decades following its publication
As noted earlier, Polycarp probably died sometime says more about a climate of opinion54 than it does
between 155–160 ce. Thus his lifespan provides a
window of some fifty or more years for the writing
of Philippians, one that encompasses, in effect, the 52
Cf. similarly H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von
entire first half of the second century. Where the letter Antiochia und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna, 2nd edn
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 112–13.
is placed within this range is dependent upon the 53
Harrison, Two Epistles, 15–16, 225, 267–68. The
question of its integrity, because it has been suggested suggestion that chap. 14 belongs with chaps. 1–12 (so James
A. Kleist, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles
and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias,
50
On resurrection as the goal of imitation, cf. Jacques The Epistle to Diognetus (Westminster, MD: Newman;
Liébaert, Les enseignements moraux des Pères Apostoliques London: Longmans Green, 1948), 71, 82, 196 n. 100; Philipp
(Gembloux: Duculot, 1970), 70–73. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung
51
Cf. Schoedel, Polycarp, 9–10; also Bultmann, Theology, in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen
2.171. On this issue Ignatius would seem to occupy a position Väter (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1975), 559 (strongly;
somewhere between Paul and Polycarp. What Schoedel but cf. 154)) is, on the basis of transcriptional considerations
(Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress alone, extremely unlikely (cf. R. Joly, Le dossier d’Ignace
Press, 1985), 30) says with respect to the difference between d’Antioche (Brussells: Éditions de l’université de Bruxelles,
Paul and Ignatius – ‘this shift of emphasis has more to do with 1979), 23–28).
his [i.e., Ignatius’] conception of the way in which people are 54
On the traditional (early) dating of the letter, certain
empowered to live godly lives than with his view of the way in features of its contents (such as its use of the term εαγγλιν,
which godly living is related to the final destiny of the believer’ ‘gospel’) are in some quarters thought to be ‘too early’, and
– would appear to be even more applicable to the difference Harrison’s partition thesis, which posited a considerably later
between Paul and Polycarp. date for the bulk of the letter, neatly ‘resolves’ the perceived

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 61

the strength of his case, which effectively rests on request for a copy of Ignatius’s letters) than the
a single assertion: that Polycarp could not have second. Furthermore, it eliminates the key reason
written chapter 9 prior to learning for certain that Harrison’s proposal proved so popular, namely that
Ignatius had indeed been martyred. As Harrison puts it permitted a ‘late dating’ of what on the traditional
it, ‘Polycarp was much too experienced and much dating were perceived to be ‘problematic’ portions
too sensible a person to shut his eyes to the inherent of Philippians.
uncertainty of human affairs’; ‘how could Polycarp A grammatical irregularity in 1.1–2a57 suggests
dare to write such a thing without knowing whether that if Philippians does consist of two letters, then
or not it was true? . . . Must it not have occurred the first one likely comprises the praescript + 1.1,
to any sensible man in Polycarp’s place that to use plus 13–14, while the second consists of all of 1.2
language of this kind just then might be somewhat (less the initial κα, ‘and’) through the end of chapter
premature, indeed that he was running a risk of 12. On this scenario, (a) the longer second letter was
making himself ridiculous?’55 shorn not just of its postscript (as per Harrison’s
Those less certain than Harrison of our ability proposal) but also of its praescript and a following
to ‘know’ what a figure such as Polycarp would or aorist verb which would have opened the letter proper
would not do have not found his rhetorical questions (equivalent to, if not identical with, the ‘I rejoiced’
compelling – especially as Harrison, in attempting to which opens 1.1; (b) the praescript and opening lines
solve one tension, created another. He suggested that of the short cover note (i.e., the prescript and 1.1 of
the second letter was composed some twenty years the extant letter) were affixed to it instead, and (c)
or so after the first, but reviewers quickly recognized the remainder of the cover note (chapters 13–14) was
that the mention of Ignatius in 1.1 appears to reflect placed where it made the most sense, that is, after
a fresh memory of Ignatius on the part of the rather than before the body of the second letter.
Philippians. This new tension was resolved largely by But is any partition theory necessary? The only
dating the second letter (contra Harrison) to within substantive basis for the various partition theories
a year or so of the first.56 remains Harrison’s claim that chapter 9 could not
But this proposal does not fully resolve the have been written at the same time as chapter 13
problem: the Philippians, one may suggest, would – that is, that Polycarp could not have expressed
have been far more likely to have mentioned Ignatius himself as he does in chapter 9 in advance of
in their first letter to Polycarp after Ignatius’s visit learning for certain of the fate of his friend. At least
(which, on the two-letter hypothesis, would be the three considerations, however, strongly suggest
otherwise.
First, as Harrison himself notes, Polycarp ‘knew
difficulties. Cf., e.g. A. Bellinzoni: ‘The question of the use of that Ignatius had been condemned by the Roman
Matthew (and Luke) in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians authorities in Antioch to be killed by wild beasts in
is simplified by Harrison’s thesis. It is not in the earlier letter the Flavian amphitheatre . . . common sense probably
(110–17) but in the later letter (135 or later) that we find
clear use of Matthew, Luke, and 1 Clement. The results,
told him truly that the Romans could be trusted to
therefore, conform to our picture of the other early Apostolic take care that no one robbed Ignatius of his crown’.58
Fathers, i.e. they reflect no use of our canonical gospels’ (‘The However much allowance one might wish to allow
Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century’, SecCent 9 (1992), for the contingencies of human events, Polycarp
197–258, here 209). But as Everding observes, ‘it seems rather
too convenient to transport this data out of the earliest part
had no reason to think that events might turn out
of the century due to source critical arguments’ (H. Edward differently than expected. Second, the emphasis
Everding, Jr., ‘A Response to Arthur J. Bellinzoni’, SecCent 9 in chapter 9 is more on Ignatius’s endurance than
(1992), 259–63, here 261). his death. This aspect of Ignatius’s life was as true
55
Harrison, Two Epistles, 140, 151.
56
See, e.g., the reviews of Harrison by C. J. Cadoux (JTS 38
(1937), 267–70), of which the essay by L. W. Barnard (‘The 57
Namely, the non-parallel use first of a participial
Problem of St. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians’, Studies phrase (δεαµνι, ‘you having welcomed’) and then a τι
in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (New York: (‘because’) clause to express Polycarp’s two ‘reasons for joy’.
Schocken; Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 31–39) reads in many For a full discussion (and a satisfying alternative explanation)
respects like an extended version; H.-C. Puech (RHR 119 see William R. Schoedel, ‘Polycarp’s Witness to Ignatius of
(1939), 96–102); and H. D. Simonin (RSPhTh 27 (1938), Antioch’, VC 41 (1987), 1–10.
258–60). 58
Harrison, Two Epistles, 152.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

62 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES

and vivid before his death as it was after. Third, the On Harrison’s division of the letter, which
example of Ignatius himself shows how it is possible includes 1.1 as part of the second letter, the
for someone simultaneously to acknowledge the apparently fresh and still vivid memory of Ignatius
element of contingency with regard to the future yet presupposed by 1.1 would almost require that it
speak of it in advance in quite certain terms. There be dated within a year or so of Ignatius’s death.
are clear expressions of contingency in Rom. 1.1 On the preferable alternative partition hypothesis
(‘if it is his will’; cf. 3.2) and 1.2–4.1 (he appeals to discussed (but not accepted) above, which joins the
the Roman Christians not to interfere), yet in 4.2 praescript + 1.1 with chapters 13–14, the second
Ignatius can say ‘I am [εµ] God’s wheat, and I am letter (basically 1.2–12.3) could have been written
being ground [λθµαι] by the teeth of the wild any time between the death of Ignatius and the
beasts.’ In short, so vivid is his vision of the future death of Polycarp. The absence of any identifiably
that he can speak of it as already present, his own Marcionite references in chapter 7 and the mention
uncertainties notwithstanding. of Ignatius in chapter 9 suggest (but certainly do
In short, the document is more likely a single not require) a time closer to Ignatius’s martyrdom
unified letter59 than it is a combination of two.60 than to Polycarp’s.

ii. Date iii. Authenticity

Chapter 13 was probably written within a month Questions about the authenticity of Philippians
or two following 24 August (cf. Ignatius, Romans – that it has been forged, for example, or inter-
10.1–3) in the year in which Ignatius was apparently polated – arise from the circumstance that it
martyred. For those who accept the unity of offers the earliest testimony to the existence of the
Philippians, determining that year will establish the Ignatian correspondence (whose collection Polycarp
date of the letter’s composition. But as was evident apparently initiated; cf. Phil. 13.2). This means that
from Paul Foster’s discussion of this question, anyone challenging the authenticity of Ignatius’s
determining that year is no easy matter.61 Efforts to letters must also argue that Philippians was either
identify a specific year for his arrest and/or death forged or interpolated by whoever forged the
rest upon hypothetical reconstructions or external Ignatian corpus.63 The challenge to the authenticity
testimony of uncertain reliability, and internal of Philippians, in other words, is really a corollary to
evidence is both sparse and vague. Perhaps the most the challenge to the authenticity of Ignatius’s letters,
that can be said with any degree of confidence is and therefore properly belongs to the discussion of
that Ignatius probably died sometime during the first that vexed question.64
third of the second century.62
7. Conclusion
59
Recent ‘single letter’ advocates include Schoedel, Polycarp, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians offers an
4, 29, 37–38, with Schoedel, ‘Polycarp of Smyrna’, 277–83; important glimpse into the life of two churches and
Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Brief
des Polykarp von Smyrna, 112; Dehandschutter, ‘Polycarp’s the mindset of an important Christian leader in the
Epistle to the Philippians’, 276–79; P. Nautin, ‘Polycarp’, in early second century, a tumultuous time of conflict,
Angelo Di Berardino (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Early Church challenge, and change. His concern for order, stability,
(2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, 1994),
2.701; Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 148–69.
60
Recent ‘two letter’ advocates include: Barnard, ‘The 63
For recent examples cf. R. M. Hübner, ‘Thesen zur
Problem of St. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians’, Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius
31–39; Meinhold (‘Polykarpos’, 1683–87); J. B. Bauer, Die Antiochien’, ZAC 1 (1997), 44–72, and T. Lechner,
Polykarpbriefe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und
18–19; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 15–24. theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Briefen des Ignatius von
61
Paul Foster, ‘The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Part 1)’, Antiochien (Leiden: Brill, 1999); for surveys of the question
Expository Times 117.12 (2006), 487–95; ‘The Epistles of consult Harrison, Two Epistles, 27–72, and Schoedel,
Ignatius of Antioch (Part 2)’ Expository Times 118.1 (2006), ‘Polycarp of Smyrna,’ 276–85; cf. also Mark J. Edwards,
2–11. ‘Ignatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Hübner’,
62
Similarly Schoedel, ‘Polycarp of Smyrna’, 347–58; Charles ZAC 2.2 (1998), 214–26.
Munier, ‘Où en est la question d’Ignace d’Antioche? Bilan d’un 64
On this question see now Foster, ‘The Epistles of Ignatius
siècle de recherches 1870–1988’, ANRW 2.27.1 (Berlin/New of Antioch (Part 1)’ and ‘The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch
York: W. de Gruyter, 1993), 380, 484. (Part 2)’.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

 THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 63

and tradition (an ethos which he shares with the Testament Literature (WUNT 2.134; Tübingen:
Pastoral Epistles) as he seeks to maintain the stability Mohr Siebeck, 2002).
and integrity of these two congregations is motivated P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the
throughout by a theologically informed faith and Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University
hope committed to ‘love for God and Christ and for Press, 1936).
our neighbour’ (Phil. 3.3). If this one surviving letter A. C. Headlam, ‘The Epistle of Polycarp to the
is at all typical of the man, it is possible to appreciate Philippians’, Church Quarterly Review 141 No.
why many (pagan and believers alike, according to 281 (1945), 1–25.
his martyrologist) esteemed him as a faithful and M. W. Holmes, ‘Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians
distinguished teacher (cf. MartPol. 19.1). and the Writings that Later Formed the New
Testament’, in A. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett
8. Bibliography (eds.), The Reception of the New Testament in
L. W. Barnard, ‘The Problem of St. Polycarp’s Epistle the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: OUP, 2005).
to the Philippians’, in Studies in the Apostolic J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Part 2
Fathers and Their Background (New York: Ignatius and Polycarp, vols. 1–3 (London:
Schocken, 1966), 31–39. Macmillian, 1889, 1890; reprinted Peabody, MA:
J. B. Bauer, Die Polykarpbriefe (KAV 5; Göttingen: Hendrickson, 1989).
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). H. O. Maier, ‘Purity and Danger in Polycarp’s Epistle
K. Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their to the Philippians: The Sin of Valens in Social
Literary and Theological Relationship in Light Perspective’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 1
of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical (1993), 229–47.
Literature (VCSupp 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002). P. Meinhold, ‘Polykarpos’, Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
P. Th. Camelot, Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de encyclopädie 21.2 (1952), 1662–93.
Smyrne, Lettres; Martyre de Polycarpe (4th edn; H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia
SC 10; Paris: Cerf, 1969). und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna, 2nd edn
B. Dehandschutter, ‘Polycarp’s Epistle to the (HNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985).
Philippians: An Early Example of “Reception”’, W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp,
in J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Fragments of Papias (The Apostolic Fathers, vol.
Christianity (Leuven: Leuven University Press and 5; Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1967).
Peeters, 1989), 275–91. W. R. Schoedel, ‘Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of
P. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: The Antioch’, ANRW II.27.1 (1993), 272–358.
Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the P. Steinmetz, ‘Polykarp von Smyrna über die
Epistle to the Philippians and its Allusions to New Gerechtigkeit’, Hermes 100 (1972), 63–75.

THE ROLE OF ‘THE I’ IN ROMANS 7

DOI: 10.1177/0014524606071024
Hermann Lichtenberger, chair of New Testament Studies at the University of Tübingen, publishes a revised
version of his habilitation dating from 1985. Lichtenberger’s Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit
(WUNT 164; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004. €79.00. pp. vii + 315. ISBN 3–16–14827–X) deals with Romans
7, one of the key texts of Pauline anthropology and soteriology. Lichtenberger gives an extensive survey of the
history of research on Romans 7 (from Origen to the twentieth century). Following ideas of W. G. Kümmel,
Lichtenberger offers a detailed exegesis of the text plus extensive excursuses on some of its most important
motifs. Lichtenberger concludes that Romans 7:7–25 in principle speaks about man without Christ, while
Romans 8:1ff. deals with man in Christ. Due to the text’s intertextual relationship with Genesis 3, Lichtenberger
interprets the ‘I’ of Romans 7 as spoken by humankind but simultaneously as Adam’s ‘I’.
TOBIAS NICKLAS
Radbound Universiteit Nijmegen, Netherlands

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015