Polycarp, Ephesians, And “Scripture”

By Paul Hartog

[Paul Hartog is an Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies at Faith Baptist Theological Seminary in Ankeny, Iowa.]

I. Introduction

In his 1983 WBC study of 2 Peter, NT scholar Richard J. Bauckham discussed the use of γραφαί (“scriptures”) in 2 Pet 3:15–16.[1] Bauckham noted that the term was attached to Paul’s letters as “inspired, authoritative writings,” with the probable implication that they were “suitable for reading in Christian worship.”[2] Bauckham then emphasized that one is not immediately warranted to jump from the term “scriptures” to a notion of a fixed, limited canon in that historical moment.”Apostolic writings must have ranked as authoritative writings, suitable for reading in Christian worship, long before there was any fixed NT canon.”[3]

Bauckham went on to list “possible early instances of NT texts being called γραφαί,” including 1 Tim 5:18 (a possible quotation of a Gospel saying as “scripture”), 2 Clem. 2.4 (a Gospel saying cited as “another scripture”), Barn. 4.14 (a citation of Matt 22:14 introduced with “as it is written”), and Pol. Phil. 12.1 (a citation of Ps 4:5 and Eph 4:26 as “these scriptures”). According to Bauckham, “There is nothing at all surprising in this development. Apostolic writings were regarded as inspired and authoritative from the beginning.... Once they were being read along with the OT in Christian worship, it was quite natural that the term γραφή (‘scripture’) should come to be used for them.”[4]

A majority of scholars in the field of early Christian studies, however, challenge Bauckham’s final example, that Polycarp’s Philippians refers to a text from Ephesians as “scripture.” The present article will re-examine this issue and argue that scholarship should, in fact, be open to this distinct possibility. Along the way, we will elongate Bauckham’s list of other possible early designations of NT documents as “scripture.”

In chapter 12 of his Epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp declares, “For I am convinced that you are well trained in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hidden from you (something not granted to me). Only, as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘be angry but do not sin,’ and ‘do not let the sun set on your anger.’ Blessed is the one who remembers this, which I believe to be the case with you.”[5] Scholars have debated whether Polycarp applies the label “scriptures” to Ephesians, since Eph 4:26 similarly exhorts, “be angry but do not sin, and do not let the sun set on your anger.” Bart Ehrman simply demurs, “On one occasion Polycarp may actually refer to the book of Ephesians as ‘Scripture,’ but the interpretation of the passage is debated.”[6] If Pol. Phil. 12.1 does refer to Ephesians as “scripture,” it is an important early example of such a labeling of a document now in our NT.

Polycarp, Philippians 12 is only available in the Latin translation of the original Greek: Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum. Modo, ut his scripturis dictum est, irascimini et nolite peccare, et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram. Beatus, qui meminerit; quod ego credo esse in vobis.[7] James Donaldson argues that the Latin phrase ut his scripturis dictum est (“as it is said in these scriptures”) was a later interpolation.[8] However, there is no available textual evidence to support this interpolation theory. If the passage can be meaningfully interpreted as it currently stands, a textual corruption does not appear to be a necessary recourse. If ut his scripturis dictum est properly belongs in the available Latin translation, as appears to be the case, then a Greek γραφαῖς almost certainly stands behind the Latin scripturis.[9] Charles Nielsen has compiled similar examples of γραφαί being translated as scripturae.[10] Although the word γραφαί may mean merely “writings” in general, the NT documents always use the term to refer to the “sacred writings” or “scriptures.”This particular sense is definitely in view in Pol. Phil. 12.1, since the scripturis (“scriptures”) are paralleled to the sacris literis (“sacred writings”) in the previous sentence.[11] The word his (“these”) before scripturis demonstratively links “these scriptures” with the sacris literis.

Polycarp, Philippians 12.1 continues, “Only, as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘be angry but do not sin,’ and ‘do not let the sun set on your anger.”’ The first phrase (“be angry but do not sin”) is found in the LXX version of Ps 4:5a (ET 4:4a) = ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε.[12] This same phrase is then quoted in Eph 4:26a. The second phrase (“do not let the sun set on your anger”) is verbally parallel to Eph 4:26b alone. Philippians 12.1 includes the coordinating conjunction et between these two phrases, unlike Eph 4:26. Although one might wonder if the et was added by the Latin translator without warrant in the original, we possess no extant evidence for such an interpolation, so again it seems best to interpret the text as it stands. The inclusion of et may imply that the two phrases are being treated as conjoined citations. The cited materials are introduced with the formulaic ut his scripturis dictum est (“as it is said in these scriptures”). Kenneth Berding labels this introduction as “the clearest example of a citation formula in all of Polycarp’s letter.”[13] Philippians elsewhere tends to use more generic formulaic introductions, such as “knowing that” or “knowing therefore” (1.3; 4.1; 4.3; 5.1; 6.1); “being persuaded that” (9.2); and simply “because” or “for” (5.3; 7.1; 9.2; 10.2).[14]

II. Interpretations of Polycarp, Philippians 12.1

Nielsen lists what he considers to be four interpretive principles concerning Pol. Phil. 12.1. (1) “In the first place, if being ‘well versed in the sacred Scriptures’ means being able to quote passages accurately and being able to refer to the text for long quotations, then Polycarp does not appear to be well versed, even in the Pauline corpus.”(2)”In the second place, Polycarp may have had the Old Testament partly in mind during his profession of ignorance, and insofar as he does, his statement is painfully accurate.” (3) “In the third place, to appear humble is an occupational requirement and hazard for a bishop.” (4) “In the fourth place, in comparison with the Church at Philippi, which was founded by Paul himself, perhaps Polycarp was not well versed in Paul’s writings.”[15]

Nielsen’s interpretive guidelines, however, appear to be of limited value. For example, by the combination of principles (1) and (4), is the reader to conclude that the Philippians could “quote passages accurately” from various Pauline epistles and “refer to the text for long quotations,” unlike Polycarp who was comparatively less well-versed in the Pauline writings?[16] Nielsen’s interpretive program seems to overlook Polycarp’s own amazing command of the Pauline literature,[17] to equate the non-use of the OT with ignorance of its contents,[18] to downplay the role of genuine humility in the life of a church leader,[19] and to interpret too literally Polycarp’s humble disavowal of his own scriptural knowledge and his alternative praise of the Philippians’ scriptural knowledge.[20]

Among other Polycarp scholars, Pol. Phil. 12 has continued as a center of interpretive dispute, as they have debated whether Polycarp applies the label “scriptures” to Ephesians. Berding claims, “Probably the most discussed quotations in the entire letter are the quotations found here.”[21] He continues, “The obvious problem with a literary connection with Eph 4:26 is that at face value it appears that Polycarp has linked under his introductory formula a quotation from Ps 4:5a (also found in Eph 4:26a) with a quotation only found in this form in Eph 4:26b and called them both Scripture.”[22] Many of the questions associated with the passage concern the complexities of examining possible citations within citations. Berding goes on to list five potential solutions “to this difficulty.”[23]

In a first view, Polycarp mistakenly believes that the second phrase is also found in Ps 4:5.[24] Polycarp, who was citing from memory, is unaware that “do not let the sun go down on your wrath” is only found in Eph 4:26 and not in Ps 4:5. In this reconstruction, Polycarp’s knowledge of Eph 4:26 incorrectly alters his apprehension of Ps 4:5. Helmut Koester writes, “He [Polycarp] therefore made the addition without implying that Eph. might have had the authority of the Scripture for him. Perhaps he was also not even aware that this second sentence was not found in the O.T.”[25] According to this explanation, Polycarp meant to apply the title “scriptures” to the Psalms alone. Berding counters, “Anyone arguing this position has to reckon with a substantial weight of evidence in Pol. Phil. that Polycarp has a very good memory and appears repeatedly to be able to connect Pauline quotations and allusions with the name of Paul.”[26] Boudewijn Dehandschutter also considers this theory to be “very unlikely in a context which focuses on the Philippians’ knowledge of Scripture.”[27]

In a second view, Polycarp may be aware that both exhortations are found in Eph 4:26. But he also knows that the first exhortation appears in Ps 4:5a as well, and he believes that the second exhortation alludes to similar materials elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. The phrase “do not let the sun go down on one’s anger” is interpreted as an allusion to Jer 15:9 or to Deut 24:13–15.[28] In this view, Polycarp uses the term “scriptures” of Ps 4 and of the various OT allusions that lie behind the second phrase. Therefore, he is not including Ephesians among the “scriptures,” but only the OT materials.[29] However, we know that Polycarp certainly knew Ephesians based upon other evidence.[30] One wonders, then, why faint allusions to OT passages are to be emphasized if one can explain the material as a direct quotation of a work demonstrably known to Polycarp (i.e., Eph).

According to a third opinion, Polycarp gleans the first phrase from Ps 4:5a(“be angry and do not sin”)and the second phrase from Eph 4:26b(“but do not let the sun set on your anger”), and uses scripturis as a reference to both sources.[31] This view is perhaps buttressed by the fact that an et appears between the two quotations in Pol. Phil. 12.1, since Eph 4:26 does not use a coordinating conjunction to connect the two exhortations. The plural his scripturis may also lend itself to more than one source, although probably not too much weight should be placed upon the plural form in this context.[32] In this third scenario, then, Polycarp refers to both Psalms and Ephesians as “scriptures.” Edwin Blackman confidently surmises that Pol. Phil. 12.1 “definitely” regarded Ephesians as “scripture.”[33] Dehandschutter believes that the passage is a “clear reference” to the quotation of Ephesians as scripture.[34] Lee McDonald asserts, “Polycarp appears to have consciously placed an OT scripture and a Christian writing on an equal authoritative footing.”[35] Andreas Lindemann has also taken this position, and he has concluded that although Marcion was probably the main impetus to the canonization processes, others at the same time or earlier were thinking of NT documents as “scripture” (perhaps in an inchoate fashion).[36]

Nielsen hints at a fourth option, that Polycarp gathers both phrases from Eph 4:26 alone. According to Nielsen, Polycarp was probably not even aware that the first exhortation was found originally in Ps 4:5a.[37] In this interpretation, Polycarp is only applying scripturis to Ephesians (and not Pss).[38] Nielsen argues that the authority granted to Paul as apostle has now been transferred to the writings of Paul.[39] On this basis, Nielsen theorizes that Polycarp was “already stressing the Pauline corpus as Scripture to the near exclusion of the OT, just as he was already stressing the authority of Paul to the near exclusion of the other apostles.”[40] Nielsen accordingly portrays Polycarp as being sympathetic with a Marcionite-like canon.[41] However, Polycarp unmistakably and frequently used 1 Peter.[42] And the coordinating conjunction et as found in Pol. Phil. 12.1 (but not in Eph 4:26) may possibly point to two implied sources for Polycarp’s quotations (Pss and Eph), although it is again difficult to know how much weight to place upon this inclusion of et.

In a fifth position (proposed by Johannes Bapt. Bauer and tentatively followed by Berding), the second phrase as found in both Eph 4:26 and Pol. Phil. 12.1 is a loose paraphrase of Ps 4:5b.[43] In this reconstruction, Polycarp’s use of “scripture” would apply to the Psalms alone.[44] The first exhortation comes directly from Ps 4:5a, and the second is a loose paraphrase of the LXX of Ps 4:5b: “Speak in your hearts and upon your bed feel remorse.”[45] Bauer proposes that the κατανύγητε (“feel remorse”) in Ps 4:5 may have been read as κατανύετε (“accomplish, fulfill, bring to an end”).[46] A Hellenistic reader may have interpreted Ps 4:5b as “Speak in your hearts and upon your beds bring to an end [your anger].” This hypothetical reading would have resulted in the loose paraphrase found in Eph 4:26b as well as Polycarp’s subsequent appropriation. “The location of Polycarp’s second exhortation along with the first in Ps 4:5 (though not denying knowledge of Eph 4:26) would then mitigate against Polycarp identifying Eph 4:26 as Scripture.”[47] However, this theory of a misconstrual of κατανύγητε as κατανύετε may be tempered when one considers that the LXX, NT, and early Patristic authors often used the verb κατανύσσομαι but never the verb κατανύω.[48] This fact makes it seem highly unlikely that both Ephesians and Polycarp’s Philippians would have chosen the same loose paraphrase independently. It would then appear that the wording of the second quotation (at least) comes more directly from Eph 4:26, as Berding himself properly recognizes.[49] He categorizes the second quotation as “a probable true citation of Eph 4:26b (with awareness of Ps 4:5b),” and thus argues that the application of “scriptures” reaches behind this “primary dependence” upon Eph 4:26b back to Ps 4:5b via paraphrastic utilization within the secondary citation.

III. Scripturis as a Possible Reference to Ephesians

I have praised Berding’s important and meticulous study elsewhere.[50] “No previous study has so extensively discussed each of the possible instances of Polycarp’s use of literary sources.”[51] One may properly sense, however, some hesitancy in Berding’s own conclusion of this specific issue, since he himself acknowledges “some uncertainty.”[52] Moreover, attributing the label “scriptures” to Ephesians actually comports well with Berding’s overall thesis. Within the discussion of Pol. Phil. 12.1, Berding states, “The reason he [Polycarp] does not heavily draw upon the OT writings in his letter is because connecting his reader to Christian writings, and Paul in particular, better fits his purpose, which is to give instruct [sic] about ‘righteousness’ like Paul.”[53] Berding concludes that the “primary dependence in the first exhortation” of Pol. Phil. 12.1 is upon Ps 4:5a, and “the second exhortation is primarily dependent” upon Eph 4:26b. Berding goes on to classify the first quotation as “a probable true citation of Ps 4:5a (with awareness of Eph 4:26a)” and the second quotation as “a probable true citation of Eph 4:26b (with awareness of Ps 4:5b).”[54] In Berding’s view, Pol. Phil. 12.1 cites both Ps 4:5 and Eph 4:26, but only uses “scripture” of the former. However, it would seem that if Pol. Phil. 12.1 contains a “true citation” of Eph 4:26 (in at least one of the two juxtaposed exhortations), then the term scripturis may naturally apply to it as well.

One notices a similar tension in a recent work by L. Michael White. White asserts that Polycarp does not call any Pauline epistle “scripture,” but Polycarp “does assume that the teaching of Paul carried significant authority, especially for the Philippians.”[55] White explains, “All of this points to a growing awareness of earlier Christian language and writings, particularly some of the letters of Paul, and may well reflect the kinds of collections that were beginning to circulate in both Asia Minor and Rome by the early part of the second century.”[56] White asserts, “When once he [Polycarp] refers to the ‘Scriptures,’ he has in mind the Jewish Scriptures, specifically the Psalms.”[57] White’s accompanying endnote claims that Pol. Phil. 12.1 “combines a quote” from Ps 4:5 with an “allusion” to Eph 4:26.58 However, the second citation in Pol. Phil. 12.1 is just as verbally similar to Eph 4:26 as the first citation is to Ps 4:5. To categorize the one as a “quotation” and to classify the other as an “allusion” seems rather inequitable.[59]

Berding begins his discussion of Pol. Phil. 12.1 by referring to “the obvious problem” that “at face value” Polycarp apparently linked a quotation from Psalms and a quotation from Ephesians “and called them both Scripture.”[60] Berding continues by citing the various solutions to “this difficulty.”[61] On the one hand, many scholars find it impracticable to grant that a work like Ephesians was already called “scripture” (in some sense) by the early second century.[62] On the other hand, Berding appropriately cites 2 Pet 3:15–16 as a citation of Pauline materials as “scriptures,” and he therefore rightly distances himself from such a presumption: “I am not arguing that Polycarp cannot refer to Paul’s writings as Scripture in the early parts of the second century, only that the evidence is not a clear argument that he does.”[63]

Berding expounds, “It cannot be maintained that in the first half of the second century there were never equivalencies drawn between the OT and the NT, though it is rare.”[64] However, “equivalencies” drawn between the functional authority of the “prophets” and the functional authority of the “apostles” are actually fairly common.[65] Early Christian writers rather frequently juxtaposed “the prophets,” “the apostles,” and “the words of the Lord” (or “the gospel”) (see 2 Pet 3:2; Ign. Phld. 5.1-2; 9.1-2; Ign. Smyrn. 5.1; 7.2; Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.9; 2 Clem. 14.2; Justin Martyr, Dial. 119; Diogn. 11.6).[66] First Clement 13.1 exhorts, “Let us do what is written.” Then follows a conflated citation of Jer 9:23–24 and 1 Sam 2:10 introduced with the formula, “For the Holy Spirit says” (1 Clem 13.1).[67] Immediately following, the author admonishes, “Most of all, let us remember the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spoke as he taught gentleness and patience,” followed by the utilization of dominical sayings loosely similar to Gospel texts (1 Clem 13.1).[68] Polycarp himself explicitly linked the prophets and the apostles in Pol. Phil. 6.3, causing Werner Georg Kümmel to claim that Polycarp took the “first steps” toward a canonization of the NT with this juxtaposition of authorities.[69] Justin Martyr explains that “the memoirs of the apostles” were read with “the writings of the prophets” in public worship (1 Apol. 1.67). This parallel use of authoritative texts demonstrated a certain “functional” equivalence between them.[70] According to F. F. Bruce, “The apostles’ authority is evidently not less than that of ‘the books’ (the Old Testament writings); their Lord’s authority is a fortiori on a par with that of the law and the prophets.”[71] “These quotations do not amount to evidence for a New Testament canon,” continues Bruce. Yet “they do show that the authority of the Lord and his apostles was reckoned to be not inferior to that of the law and the prophets.”[72]

Mary Ann Donovan comments, “Justin … gives evidence that by the mid-second century the worshiping community used the gospels liturgically (thus as Scripture).”[73] “If they [the Gospels] were not graphe, then the graphe had been surpassed by them,” argues John Barton, since “phenomenologically, they were Scripture, having the kind of authority and standing for Christians that holy books do have for the religions to which they belong.”[74] Similarly, 2 Clem. 14.2 also juxtaposes “the books [Hebrew Scriptures] and the apostles” as functionally equivalent in authority. Harry Gamble notes that certain Christian writings “were found to be specially helpful in sustaining, enriching, renewing, and directing the faith and life of the churches,” and they “came to be valued and widely employed in Christian worship and teaching alongside the Jewish scriptures and in some ways proved even more useful than the Jewish scriptures.”[75] Therefore, “It was on the basis of this sustained experience of their usefulness that the church recognized them as constituting ‘scripture.”’[76]

Moreover, Berding (following the work of R. P. C. Hanson) notes the following examples of γραφή (“scripture”)or ὡς γέγραπται (“as it has been written”) being used of NT writings before the middle of the second century:[77] 2 Pet 3:16 unambiguously identifies Paul’s epistles as γραφαί. Barnabas 4.14 introduces the saying “many are called but few are chosen” with the formulaic “as it is written (ὡς γέγραπται)” (cf. Matt 22:14; some MSS of Matt 20:16).[78] The Gnostic Basilides cites 1 Cor 2:13 as”scripture.”[79] Second Clement 2.1-4 quotes Isa 54:1 (cf. Gal 4:27) and then continues, “And another Scripture says (καὶ ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει), ‘I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”’ This other “scripture” must refer to Mark 2:17 or Matt 9:13.[80]

One could definitely add to this list as found in Berding, since Basilides introduces citations from Romans and Ephesians with “it has been written” (in Hippolytus, Haer. 7.13-14; cf. 7.18).[81] According to Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus also cited Ephesians as “scripture”(Strom. 6.34).[82] In addition, one might append the interpretational quandary in 1 Tim 5:18 (does it refer to a Gospel saying as “scripture”?).[83] Justin Martyr’s Dial. 49.5 introduces a citation from Matt 17:13 with the formula “as it is written”; and Dial. 100.1 prefaces material from Matt 11:27 with “in the Gospel it is written (καί ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δε γέγραπται εἰπών).”[84] Decades later Theophilus commenced a quotation from the Fourth Gospel by stating, “that is what the holy Scriptures and all the Spirit-filled men teach us, and among them John says....”[85] The Letter of the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne preceded a citation of Rev 22:11 with the formulaic introduction, “that the scripture might be fulfilled.”[86] Irenaeus warned of Gnostics who fearlessly practice those forbidden deeds which “the scriptures” use to characterize those who “shall not inherit the Kingdom of God” (Haer. 3.6.3; cf. 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:19–21). With 2 Clement citing a Synoptic Gospel as “another scripture”; the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr introducing Synoptic sayings with (ὡς) γέγραπται; the Letter of the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne presenting Revelation as “scripture”; and 2 Peter, Basilides, Valentinus, and Irenaeus all referring to Pauline epistles specifically as “scripture” (and two of them citing Eph itself ), is it possible that Polycarp might have labeled Ephesians “scripture” as well?[87]

Polycarp’s infrequent use of the OT and his frequent emphasis upon Paul would seem to lend credence to the view that Polycarp did label Ephesians as “scripture.”[88] Polycarp was “well versed in the Pauline Epistles,” and he “made an exceedingly limited use of the Old Testament.”[89] Polycarp appears to use the Hebrew Scriptures only about six times, citing or alluding to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.[90] Yet Philippians frequently quotes and alludes to various writings that would come to be canonized in the NT. Polycarp clearly utilizes Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John; he probably employs Matthew, 2 Corinthians, and 2 Timothy; and he possibly uses Luke, Acts, and 2 Thessalonians.[91] If one tabulates all of the individual quotations and allusions, Polycarp utilizes what would become known as the “New Testament” documents far more than the Hebrew Scriptures, in a ratio of about 13 to 1.[92] This frequent employment of the NT writings and this sparing use of the OT fit Polycarp’s purpose and the Philippians’ situation and context.[93]

Furthermore, Polycarp stresses the authority of Paul specifically (3.2; 9.1; 11.2-3).[94] Polycarp writes in Pol. Phil. 3:

I am writing you these comments about righteousness, brothers, not on my own initiative but because you invited me to do so. For neither I nor anyone like me can keep pace with the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time, accurately and reliably taught the word concerning the truth. And when he was absent he wrote you letters; if you study them carefully, you will be able to build yourselves up in the faith that has been given you.[95]

Polycarp clearly reveres the apostolic authority invested in Paul.[96] Paul had orally shared “the word of truth” while he was with the Philippians, and the same authority was present in his epistles.[97] Moreover, in the paraenetic passage leading up to 12.1, Polycarp addresses the case of the errant elder named Valens (11.1) “precisely on the base of the Philippians’ knowledge of Pauline doctrine.”[98]

IV. Further Considerations

Thus, an application of “scripture” to Ephesians seems to fit the context of Polycarp’s emphasis upon Paul and his scant use of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the emerging functional equivalencies drawn between the prophets and the apostles. It is also congruent with other instances of NT writings being labeled as “scripture” before the mid-second century.[99] Yet most modern scholars seem reticent to grant the possibility that Polycarp identifies Ephesians as “scripture.” For example, Ernst Käsemann asserts that the attribution of Ephesians as “scripture” in Pol. Phil. 12.1 can only be “ein Fehler der Überlieferung oder ein Irrtum” (“a mistake of transmission or an error”).[100] Is part of this general reluctance the assumption that the label “scripture” somehow carries with it the entire baggage of “canonicity,” including a developed process of recognition and a resultant “fixed canon”?[101] Dehandschutter rightly warns against confusing Polycarp’s regard of a text as “scripture” and the formal canonical status of NT documents.[102] Hanson explains, “There can be little doubt therefore that some writers in the second century did refer to the books of the New Testament as ‘the Scripture’ or ‘the Scriptures’. But it is difficult to discover, once we have established this, just what force this word had for them.”[103] Helmut Koester (followed by William Schoedel) argues that the formula “as Paul teaches” (as found in Pol. Phil. 11.2) suggests that “an apostle is not yet regarded as one who has written Scripture.”[104] However, the authority of the apostolic message, the authority of the apostolic writings, and the authority of the apostles themselves seem to have been closely connected in the early church (cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:10–13; Titus 1:1–3, 9). The authority of the “apostolic” texts would have been related to the authority invested in the apostles as preservers of the apostolic message.[105] This very notion of apostolic authority is found in Pol. Phil. 3.1-3. The wise, blessed, and glorious Apostle Paul “accurately and reliably taught the word of truth,” and “when he was absent he wrote you letters” (3.2).

Furthermore, during this ecclesiastical period, the term “scripture” can be used of authoritative writings apart from a developed notion of a limited or closed canon. Everett Ferguson describes the history of the process of canonization in four stages: “1. the scripture principle, 2. the canon principle, 3. the closed canon, and 4. the general recognition of the closed canon.” The first stage was simply “the acknowledgement of a written authority.”[106] “Another way to say this,” explain Alan Hauser and Duane Watson, “is that one does not have to have a closed written canon to have authoritative literature.”[107] Harry Gamble notes that Patristic scriptural interpretation

required no canon in the sense of a closed list of books, yet it presumed a shared recognition that at least some books were authoritative Scripture.... Scripture was understood as both authoritative and coherent without a precise determination of its outer limits, because it had a broadly agreed core.[108]

Ehrman explains, “These authors understood that there were certain authorities that were of equal weight to the teachings of ( Jewish) Scripture. They had no idea that there would eventually be a twenty-seven book canon.”[109]

The early Christian application of “scripture” is not uniform in regard to the generally recognized canonical boundaries. For example, 1 Clem. 23.3 cited an unknown source as “scripture” (cf. the same material cited as a “prophetic word” in 2 Clem. 11.2-3).[110] The Epistle of Barnabas presented a quotation of 1 Enoch with the formula, “for the scripture says” (16.5).[111] Irenaeus, who frequently used the term “scripture” of NT documents, could call the Shepherd of Hermas “scripture” as well (Haer. 4.20.2).[112] Clement of Alexandria used the term “scripture” (ἡ γραφή) of four uncanonical sayings.[113] Tertullian introduced a citation from 1 Enoch with “you have it in scripture” (Res. 32.1).

If Polycarp does consider Ephesians to be in some sense “scripture,” what of his earlier statement in Pol. Phil. 12.1, “For I am convinced that you are all well trained in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hidden from you (something not granted to me)”?[114] Is this an open admission that Polycarp did not know the “sacred writings” (sacris literis)?[115] Some have maintained that Polycarp really is ill-acquainted with the “scriptures” (taken as the Hebrew Scriptures), and therefore he does not quote the OT often.[116] William Farmer asserts that Polycarp rightfully deprecates his knowledge of the (Hebrew) Scriptures, since he only demonstrates a proficient knowledge of the Christian writings.[117] But a general ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures seems rather unlikely since Polycarp was a famous and important church leader who had been a Christian for a lengthy period of time (Mart. Pol. 9.3).[118]

Others have suggested that Polycarp’s thought has been mistranslated. Joseph Fischer suggested the alternate translation of “mir aber steht es nicht zu” (“but I have no right to it”), although he himself did not finally defend this rendition.[119] In his volume on Polycarp, Schoedel suggested that the sense of the phrase be differentiated from the previous phrase:”For I am convinced that you are all well trained in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hidden from you. But that [teaching or application of your knowledge of Scripture] has not been left for me.”[120] That is, Polycarp was stating that it was not his role to teach the “sacred writings” to the Philippians, since they already knew them; therefore, he was not belittling his own scriptural knowledge.

It seems, though, that scholars have tended to take Polycarp’s customary humble disavowal too literally.[121] It is possible to maintain a completely unstrained translation of the passage while retaining Polycarp’s evident knowledge of the “scriptures” (possibly including Eph). With the advent of rhetorical criticism, interpreters have recognized Polycarp’s use of a common rhetorical stratagem. Bauer has designated Polycarp’s assertion as “eine Demutsformel” (“a humility formula”).[122] Berding has followed suit and labeled the rhetorical device a “humility statement.”[123] Berding maintains, “I think that Polycarp’s statement also carries with it paraenetic intent. Though his knowledge of the ‘Scriptures’ is actually superior to that of the Philippians, he depreciates his knowledge in order to spur them to more learning and obedience to the Scriptures.”[124] Berding notes that Polycarp “begins by commenting that they are well trained in the Scriptures, a statement which itself would have spurred the Philippians to learn the Scriptures better (since they know that Polycarp actually exceeds them in this area).”[125] Berding’s case can be strengthened by highlighting the paraenetic intent of the motivational words that follow in Pol. Phil. 12.1: “Blessed is the one who remembers this, which I believe to be the case with you.”

Berding lists similar rhetorical “humility statements” as occurring in Acts 26:2–3; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15; 1 John 2:20–21; 1 Clem. 53.1; Ign. Eph. 3.1; 14.1; Ign. Trall. 3.2 [sic = 3.3?]; and Pol. Phil. 11.3. I find similar “humility formulae” in 1 Clem. 62; Ign. Eph. 12.1; 21.2; Ign. Trall. 5.2; 13.1; Ign. Rom. 4.3; and Ign. Smyrn. 11.1. Analogous to Pol. Phil. 12.1, 1 Clem. 53.1 praises the scriptural knowledge of its recipients: “For you know, and know well, the sacred Scriptures, dear friends, and you have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things, therefore, merely as a reminder.” And Ign. Eph. 3.1 includes a heightened self-deprecation comparable to Pol. Phil. 12.1: “I am not commanding you, as though I were somebody important.... For now I am only beginning to be a disciple, and I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.” We obviously are not meant to conclude that Ignatius had no business writing his letter to the Ephesians. In a similar fashion, one should not falsely assume that Polycarp really is ignorant of the scriptures, simply because he includes his own rhetorical “humble disavowal” or “humility formula” in Pol. Phil. 12.1. Once one understands the rhetorical nature of Polycarp’s statements concerning the sacris literis, the parallel label scripturis can plausibly be applied to Ephesians, even though Polycarp may have known Ephesians reasonably well.

V. Dating This Early Designation of Ephesians as “Scripture”

This article has argued that scholarship should be more open to the distinct possibility of Polycarp labeling Ephesians as “scripture.”[126] Even if one discounts or rejects this specific conclusion, our investigation has provided enough other early Christian evidence to debunk various other views, including the perspective of Hans von Campenhausen, who incorrectly asserts that Irenaeus was the first “orthodox” writer to use “scripture” in referring to NT writings.[127]

In their joint study on the process of canonization, William Farmer and Denis Farkasfalvy maintain, “There can be little doubt that Polycarp’s library of Christian writings is the purest touchstone that we have of the emerging New Testament canon that is later evidenced in the writings of Irenaeus, the critical reflections of Origen, and the literary and historical investigations of Eusebius.”[128] But how early is this evidence in Polycarp, whether his use of documents later canonized in the NT or his (possible) labeling of Ephesians as “scripture”? In 1936, P. N. Harrison published his influential Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians.[129] Harrison ingeniously argued that our current Philippians is a composite work formed by the merging of two original (and genuine) letters. Polycarp’s first letter served as a short cover note to the Ignatian collection (Pol. Phil. 13 and probably 14). The second letter (the “crisis letter”) was made up of Pol. Phil. 1–12. Harrison dated the earlier “cover note” to shortly after Ignatius’s journey through Smyrna and Philippi (c. a.d. 115), and he placed the later “crisis letter” around a.d. 135.[130] Harrison’s basic composite theory won wide support.[131] Yet many advocates modified the dates in his conflation hypothesis and argued that the second letter was probably written only a few years after Ignatius’s trip (a.d. 120 at the latest), rather than around a.d. 135.[132]

Other scholars have wondered about the necessity of such a two-letter theory at all,[133] and a few have opposed it and have defended the unity of the letter.[134]

I have given various arguments for the unity of Philippians elsewhere.[135] Here let me add briefly to that case. In Pol. Phil. 1.1, Polycarp rejoices that the readers “helped on their way those men confined by chains suitable for saints, which are the diadems of those who are truly chosen by God and our Lord.” Most scholars believe these words would naturally refer to an assistance of Ignatius and his companions.[136] The two-letter theory assumes that Polycarp praised the Philippians for assisting Ignatius twenty years later (in Harrison’s version) or perhaps several years later (in the modified version). But this material occurs in the statement of rejoicing in the letter opening (1.1). Epistolary analysis reveals that the cause of such rejoicing is tied to the occasion of writing.[137] Furthermore, Holmes appropriately argues that this statement of rejoicing was probably included in response to a description of the reception of Ignatius and his companions found in a letter the Philippians had recently sent to Polycarp.[138] Thus, chapter 1 could not have been written long after Ignatius’s journey.[139]

If one agrees that Polycarp’s Philippians is a unified letter and that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan (the commonly held, traditional view),[140] then all of Polycarp’s Philippians must have been written before a.d. 117.[141] Some scholars have become increasingly open to a chronological positioning of Ignatius’s martyrdom more flexible than the Eusebian placement within the reign of Trajan. Holmes, for example, states, “Perhaps the most that can be said with any degree of confidence is that Ignatius probably died sometime during the first third of the second century.”[142] There is not sufficient space here to re-investigate this chronological issue fully. In any case, if one agrees that Pol. Phil. 12.1 seems to use the term “scripture” of Ephesians as an authoritative writing, then Polycarp still provides an important early example of such an application, at least within the early decades of the second century.[143] Most surely, one may not project a concept of the closed NT canon, much less a general recognition of a fixed canon, upon Polycarp’s use of “scripture.” Nevertheless, Polycarp’s Philippians provides an intriguing use of γραφή, an evidence which may be one small signpost along the way.

Notes

1. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC; Waco: Word, 1983), 333. Bauckham explains that 2 Pet only refers to those Pauline letters at hand, “and we have no means of knowing how many they were” (330–31).
2. Ibid., 331. Bauckham interpretes the “divine passive”reference to Paul writing “in accordance with the wisdom given to him”(2 Pet 3:15) as an allusion to inspiration and apostolic authority (329).
3. Ibid., 331. “As inspired, authoritative writings, Paul’s letters rank alongside ‘the other scriptures,’ i.e., the OT and (probably) other apostolic literature. This does not imply that the author knows a NT canon, but probably means that some kind of collection of Paul’s letters—we cannot tell how many—was known to the author, and that they were read in Christian worship along with the OT Scriptures. This passage belongs to a fairly early stage in the process which led to the formal recognition of a canon of apostolic writings” (335).
4. Ibid., 331.
5. English translations of the Apostolic Fathers come from Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).
6. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 237.
7. All nine extant Greek manuscripts of Pol. Phil. abruptly transfer from 9.2 to Barn. 5.7. Eusebius’s Hist. eccl. 3.36.13–15 preserves a Greek text of all of Pol. Phil. 9 and most of 13. But Pol. Phil. 10, 11, 12, and 14 are only available in the Latin version.
8. James Donaldson, The Apostolic Fathers: A Critical Account of Their Genuine Writings and of Their Doctrines (London: Macmillan, 1874), 243.
9. See J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Part 3, Vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1889), 344; cf. P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 334.
10. Charles M. Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” AThR 47 (1965): 200.
11. Tertullian links scriptura with litterae in Pud. 5.9.
12. The Hebrew states, “Tremble and do not sin.”
13. Kenneth Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (VCSup 62; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002), 117.
14. See Paul Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament (WUNT 2.134; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 191.
15. Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 204.
16. Cf. the obvious misstatement of this critique in Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 206, where the name of “Paul” has mistakenly replaced that of “Polycarp.”
17. Polycarp demonstrates a working knowledge of Rom, 1 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, 1 Tim, probably 2 Cor and 2 Tim, and possibly 2 Thess (see further discussion below).
18. Berding argues that Polycarp purposely employs a Christian paraenetic centered on Christian (and especially Pauline) materials (Polycarp and Paul, 140); cf. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 194; Boudewijn Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians: An Early Example of ‘Reception,”’ in The New Testament in Early Christianity (ed. J.-M. Sevrin; BETL 86; Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989), 285.
19. David K. Rensberger, “As the Apostle Teaches: The Development of the Use of Paul’s Letters in Second-Century Christianity” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1981), 116.
20. See the discussion of Polycarp’s “humility formula” below.
21. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 117.
22. Ibid., 118; emphasis in the original.
23. Ibid. In a sixth view, Donald Hagner suggests that the original Latin translator (or some other copyist during the process of transmission) harmonized the text to fit Eph 4:26, but such a reading was not original with Polycarp. See Donald A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 284. As may seem reasonable in such a difficult question of interpretation, others have not arrived at any firm conclusion. Cf. Ehrman, Lost Christinianities, 237; Alan J. Hauser and Duane Frederick Watson, eds., The Ancient Period (vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 41, 311.
24. Helmut Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957), 113; William R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias (vol. 5 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary; London: Nelson, 1967), 35; John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), 30 n. 15. Koester also proposes another option, that Polycarp awkwardly uses “scriptures” of “Be angry but do not sin” (a quotation from Pss) but not also of the following “Do not let the sun set on your anger” (a quotation from Eph) (see Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 113; cf. R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church [Library of History and Doctrine; London: SCM, 1962], 205–6). Cf. Mark 1:2–3, which introduces material with the formula, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” but then utilizes Malachi as well as Isaiah.
25. Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 113; quoted in Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 201. See also Schoedel, Polycarp, 35 n. 12.
26. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 118. Berding refers the reader to his argumentation in ch. 4 (14255). At the same time, however, one must beware of importing modern “citation” concerns into the ancient processes of composition and public reading. See Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).
27. Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 282. This rejoinder may perhaps take Polycarp’s praise of the Philippians’ scriptural knowledge too literally, as will be explained later. One must also consider the nature of the reception of texts and of the utilization and citation of texts in the second century, since ancient concerns differed from modern ones.
28. Albert E. Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), 180–81.
29. In Weiss’s reconstruction, Polycarp refers to Ps 4:5 in the first clause and to Deut 24:15 in the latter clause. Therefore, Weiss contends that Polycarp does not refer to Eph 4:26 at all in Pol. Phil. 12.1. See Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; trans. A. J. K. Davidson; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 1:44.
30. See especially the compressed quotation of Eph 2:8–9 (introduced with the formulaic “knowing that”) in Pol. Phil. 1.3. This quotation immediately follows a citation of Eph 2:5. Berding also lists a “possible allusion” to Eph 6:14 in 2.1; a “possible loose citation” of Eph 5:21 in 10.2; a “possible reminiscence” of Eph 5:5 in 11.2; and a “possible abbreviated citation” of Eph 6:18 in 12.3 (Polycarp and Paul, 200). See also Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians, 293.
31. Maurice F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4; Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 62. F. F. Bruce declared that Polycarp “appears definitely to ascribe scriptural status to a New Testament writing” (Canon of Scripture, 122).
32. Cf. Hagner, Use of the Old and New Testaments, 274 n. 1. In the context of Pol. Phil. 12, the plural his scripturis serves as a parallel to the sacris literis.
33. Edwin Cyril Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: S.P.C.K., 1948), 30. Nielsen comments, “Even though Blackman’s position seems to be a fairly lonely one, it is defensible” (Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 201).
34. Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 282.
35. Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 79.
36. Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 228. Cf. Kümmel, who regards Polycarp’s use of “scripture” for Eph as possible, if not likely (Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament [rev. ed.; trans. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 484 n. 28). See also Michael W. Holmes, “Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians,” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Paul Foster; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 112.
37. Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 201.
38. Ibid. Nielsen himself does not appear to hold this view firmly. Marshall seems to trace Pol. Phil. 12.1 back to Eph 4:26 alone (Murray M. Marshall, “Use of the Books of the New Testament by the Early Christian Writers, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna and Irenaeus of Lyons” [M.A. thesis, Eastern New Mexico University, 1950], 41, 45).
39. Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 212.
40. Charles M. Nielsen, “Polycarp and Marcion: A Note,” TS 47 (1986): 298. Cf. Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 199–216.
41. See also Polycarp’s alleged Marcionite tendencies in Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 484 n. 28.
42. Eusebius already noted this fact (Hist. eccl. 4.14.8). See Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 189; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 201–2.
43. Berding acknowledges, “With some uncertainty, J. B. Bauer’s solution is the one adopted here” (Polycarp and Paul, 119).
44. Johannes Bapt. Bauer, Die Polykarpbriefe (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 69–71; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119.
45. The Hebrew states, “Speak within your own heart on your bed and be still.”
46. Bauer gives evidence of such a misreading by Hellenistic readers (Die Polykarpbriefe, 69–71).
47. Ibid., p. 71.
48. See G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). The word occurs nineteen times in the LXX and is found in pseudepigraphal and Patristic sources as well as Acts 2:37. Cf. Justin, Dial. 91.3.
49. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119.
50. Paul Hartog, review of Berding, Polycarp and Paul, RelSRev 30 (2004): 205; Hartog, review of Berding, Polycarp and Paul, WTJ 66 (2004): 443-45.
51. Hartog, review of Berding (WTJ ), 445.
52. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119.
53. Ibid., 117; emphasis in the original. Dehandschutter contends that Polycarp rarely quotes the OT because he wants to employ “a specifically Christian paraenetical tradition” rather than a Jewish or Hellenistic one (“Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 285).
54. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119.
55. L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity (San Francisco: Harper, 2004), 354.
56. Ibid. Cf. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 232–35.
57. White, From Jesus to Christianity, 354.
58. Ibid., 481 n. 72.
59. Furthermore, even if Pol. Phil. 12.1 quoted Pss and only alluded to Eph, the label “scriptures” could still apply to both of the utilized sources. White might have been more consistent if he had argued his view based upon the complexities of dealing with citations of citations, combined with the inexactitude of many Pauline uses of the Hebrew Scriptures.
60. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 118; emphasis in the original.
61. Ibid., 118.
62. See W. Bauer, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbriefe (ed. H. Lietzmann; HNT, Die Apostolischen Väter 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1920), 297; John Lawson, A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 164.
63. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119. Schoedel surpasses Berding’s reference to the lack of “clear” evidence when he proclaims that there is no evidence that Polycarp regarded any of the NT books as “scripture” (Polycarp, 5).
64. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119 n. 286.
65. See Denis M. Farkasfalvy, “‘Prophets and Apostles’: The Conjunction of the Two Terms before Irenaeus,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers (ed. W. Eugene March; San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1980), 109–34; Denis M. Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture in St. Irenaeus,” RBén 78 (1968): 319-33; James Daniel Hernando, “Irenaeus and the Apostolic Fathers: An Inquiry into the Development of the New Testament Canon” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1990); Charles E. Hill, “Ignatius and the Apostolate: The Witness of Ignatius to the Emergence of Christian Scripture,” StPatr 36 (2001): 226-48; and esp. Hill, “Ignatius, ‘the Gospel’, and the Gospels,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 267–85.
66. For later second-century examples, see Theophilus, Ad Autol. 3.12; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.3.6; 1.8.1; 2.27.2; 3.1.1–2; 3.17.4; the Muratorian Canon 79–80 (if the traditional Muratorian dating is accepted); and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.16. See also Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 4.49. For a discussion of the development, see Patrick McGoldrick, “Liturgy: The Context of Patristic Exegesis,” in Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit (ed. Thomas Finan and Vincent Twomey; Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995), 27–28. The Apostle Paul used Jesus materials as authorities in his letters (1 Cor 7:10–11; 11:23–26; cf. Acts 20:35; 1 Thess 4:15). See the comparable authority of the OT and (oral) Jesus materials in 1 Cor 9:8–14. Even in the context of the early second century, with a continued importance of oral traditions, the “words of the Lord” and especially “the gospel” are not necessarily equivalent with the written Gospels as modern readers know them. Writers from the period often emphasized the personal authority of Jesus and of the apostles. For example, 2 Clem. 14.2 parallels “the books” (Hebrew Scriptures) and “the apostles” as functional equivalents. Some early Christian texts juxtapose “the Lord” (or “the gospel”) and “the apostle” only (1 Clem. 46.7–47.3; Ign. Magn. 13.1).
67. Cf. 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17.
68. Cf. Matt 5:7; 6:14; 7:1–2; Luke 6:31, 36–38. See also Ign. Phld. 8.2.
69. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 483–84. Berding discusses Polycarp’s “three streams of authority” (the prophets, the Lord, and the apostles) in a lengthy excursus (Polycarp and Paul, 15862). Berding notes that “the Lord himself is the fulcrum of the three.... Thus, the closest that Polycarp comes to relating these three streams of authority is to put Christ at the center” (161). Cf. Ign. Phld. 8.2. Polycarp refers to the authoritative teaching of the Lord in Pol. Phil. 2.3; 7.1; 7.2. He expressly condemns anyone who “twists” the sayings of the Lord (7.1-2).
70. See C. E. Hill, “Justin and the New Testament Writings,” StPatr 30 (1997): 42-48. Contrast Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), 41–42. “Public lection was certainly a most important preliminary condition for the canonizing of a book” (Adolf von Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of the New Creation [trans. J. R. Wilkinson; New York: Macmillan, 1925], 26). Cf. Harry Y. Gamble, “The Formation of the New Testament and Its Significance for the History of Interpretation,” in The Ancient Period, 418; Willy Rordorf, “The Bible in the Teaching and the Liturgy of Early Christian Communities,” in The Bible in Greek and Christian Antiquity (ed. and trans. Paul M. Blowers; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 69, 87–88; McGoldrick, “Liturgy,” 27–37; Jean Daniélou, The Bible and the Liturgy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956). Paul’s epistles were read in the context of worship early on (1 Thess 5:27; Col 4:16; 1 Tim 4:13). Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.11. See also the public reading of texts as a sign of scriptural authority in the Muratorian Canon (cf. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 240–43).
71. Bruce, Canon of Scripture, 122.
72. Ibid., 123.
73. Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997), 14.
74. John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 25.
75. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (GBS New Testament Series; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 18.
76. Ibid. See also Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 234. Trigg remarks, “Mentioning them as separate authorities is an indication that New Testament writings are coming to be recognized as having the same authority as the Old” ( Joseph Trigg, “The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists,” in The Ancient Period, 310).
77. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 119 n. 286. See Hanson, Tradition, 205–7. Hanson ventures into the third century by citing the evidence of Dionysius of Corinth (Tradition, 206; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.12). Hanson also argues that the warning not to pervert or add to the scriptures (found in several early “orthodox” authors) is most likely a reference to the NT documents (Tradition, 206).
78. See also 1 Clem. 13.
79. Hippolytus, Haer. 7.14.
80. Holmes asserts, “This appears to be the earliest instance of a New Testament passage being quoted as ‘Scripture”’ (The Apostolic Fathers, 109 n. 3; though cf. 203). Holmes considers both the occasion and the date of 2 Clem. to be “open questions,” and he lists options ranging from a.d. 98 to 140 (103–4). 2 Clem. 14.1 may perhaps quote Jesus material as “scripture” (Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46), but the same material is also found in Jer 7:11.
81. Hippolytus uses the phrase “it has been written” with two citations from Rom in Haer. 7.13 and one citation from Eph in Haer. 7.14. After describing various tenets of the Marcionites, Hippolytus notes that none of these “has been written” in the Gospel of Mark (Haer. 7.18). He further criticizes Apelles for alleging that “the things that have been written” in the law and prophets are merely of human origin (Haer. 7.26).
82. See H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (London: Mowbray, 1954), 194–96. Both Basilides and Valentinus were “Gnostic” teachers who were active during the second quarter of the second century. Such early Gnostic uses of “scripture” raise questions concerning how different groups might have proceeded at different paces along some type of canonization process. I wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for this and other insightful critiques. For one possible elucidation of the utilization of the Pauline epistles as authoritative “scriptures” in Basilides and Valentinus, see R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 207.
83. For contrasting views, see George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 233–34; and William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC; Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 310–11. James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer believe that 1 Tim 5:18 combines a “scriptural proof text” with “Jesus’ saying that ‘the laborer deserves his wages’ (Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7)” ( J. L. Kugel and R. A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation [LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 130). Ehrman likewise believes that 1 Tim combines Deut 25:4 with Jesus material: “Here Jesus’ own words are equated with Scripture” (Lost Christianities, 233).
84. Cf. Dial. 101.3. Hanson vaguely references Justin’s use of “it is written” but does not provide any primary source citations (Tradition, 206).
85. Theophilus, Autol. 2.22. Elsewhere, Theophilus calls Paul’s Epistle to the Romans “the divine word” (Autol. 3.14).
86. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.58. Cf. also Theophilus, Autol. 1.14.
87. Cf. also the possible reference to a Gospel saying as “scripture” in 1 Tim 5:18 (see n. 83 above).
88. See D. Richard Stuckwisch, “Saint Polycarp of Smyrna: Johannine or Pauline Figure?,” CTQ 61 (1997): 116, 123–24.
89. Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence, 170.
90. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 174–76; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 187, 198. Schoedel believed that Polycarp also employed Ezek (W. R. Schoedel, “Polycarp, Epistle of,” in ABD 5:392; cf. Schoedel, Polycarp, 5). Berding lists Ezek under his “possible” category (Polycarp and Paul, 187). Ehrman comments that there are “nearly a hundred” quotations from the NT documents in Pol. Phil. and “only about a dozen” from the OT (Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 236–37).
91. See Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 195. After re-analyzing the evidence for 1 John, I moved the work from the “probable” category to an “almost certain” category. See Paul Hartog, “The Opponents in Polycarp, Philippians and 1 John,” in Trajectories of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). After meticulously examining Pol. Phil., Berding offers these more optimistic categorizations: Polycarp “almost certainly” used Matt, Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, 1 Pet, and 1 John. He “probably” used Luke, Acts, and 2 Thess. He “possibly” used Mark, John, Col, 1 Thess, and Heb (Polycarp and Paul, 187). Ehrman’s comment that Polycarp “especially” used Heb (along with the Pauline epistles, 1 Pet, and the Synoptic Gospels) is aberrant (Lost Christianities, 237).
92. This ratio is based upon Berding’s appendix (Polycarp and Paul, 191–206). One readily grants the difficulty of attaching scientific statistics to the literary art of recognizing citations and allusions.
93. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 199–202.
94. Polycarp introduces a Pauline text with “knowing that” three times (1.3; 4.1; 5.1). The Latin translation of 11.2 asserts sicut Paulus docet (“as Paul teaches”). See Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 135. Polycarp also employs “being persuaded that” to introduce Phil 2:16 in Pol. Phil. 9.2; and Pol. Phil. 5.3 uses a simple “because” to introduce a quotation from 1 Pet 2:11 followed immediately by another from 1 Cor 6:9 (cf. Gal 5:19–21).
95. Cf. the “wisdom” of Paul the “scripture” writer in 2 Pet 3:15–16.
96. Cf. also 1 Clem. 47.3-4; Ign. Rom. 4.3; Ign. Trall. 3.3; Ign. Magn. 13.1.
97. Moreover, Pol. Phil. 3.2 applies the verb ἐγκύπτω to the Pauline letters, which may also hint at a high regard for such writings, since 1 Clem. consistently uses the verb with the Hebrew Scriptures (1 Clem. 45.2; 53.1; 62.3). Cf. also the similar use of ἐγκύπτω in Aristides, Apology 16; Methodius, Res. 1.45; Basil of Caesarea, Homiliae de hominis structura 1.1; John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 72.4. Poly-carp’s knowledge of 1 Clem. is rather certain (see Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 176; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 202).
98. Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 283.
99. Irenaeus will later tell Florinus that Polycarp “reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures,” which in the context seems to refer to apostolic writings (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.20). Norris avers, “Christian communities would have possessed recognized sacred writings called ‘scriptures’ by the end of the first century, the beginnings of our New Testament” (Frederick W. Norris, “The Canon of Scripture in the Church,” in The Free Church and the Early Church: Bridging the Historical and Theological Divide [ed. D. H. Williams; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 8). See also David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Trobisch’s controversial theory argues that a definitive edition of the NT in Greek was completed by the middle of the second century.
100. Ernst Käsemann, ed., Das Neue Testament als Kanon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 67 n. 15.
101. Dehandschutter reminds us, “Here a confusion is at hand between Polycarp’s considering a text as Scripture and the canonical status of a Pauline epistle. These are different matters” (“Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 282). Contrast Damien van den Eynde, Les normes de l’enseignement chrétien dans la littérature patristique des trois premiers siècles (Gembloux: Duculot, 1933), 45–46. Van den Eynde cannot acknowledge that Pol. Phil. 12.1 termed Ephesians as “scripture,” due to a confusion between the concepts of “scripture” and canonization. Cf. White, From Jesus to Christianity, 354.
102. Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 282; cf. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 23 n. 1; Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 483–84. Farkasfalvy refers to a “proto-Canon” (“‘Prophets and Apostles,”’127).
103. Hanson, Tradition, 207. See also Hanson’s concession concerning Theophilus of Antioch (207 n. 7).
104. Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 113; Schoedel, Polycarp, 32. Donaldson believed that the phrase “as Paul teaches” was an interpolation (Apostolic Fathers, 245). Lindemann muses that such an addition by the Latin translator “is not impossible” (Andreas Lindemann, “Paul in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers,” in Paul and the Legacies of Paul [ed. William S. Babcock; Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990], 42). But this theory seems unnecessary, since Polycarp frequently quotes Pauline texts. Although Polycarp does not explicitly name the author of his cited sources elsewhere, he does refer to Paul by name in Pol. Phil. 3.2; 9.1; 11.2; 11.3.
105. When Serapion analyzed the Gospel of Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.12.3–6), “The question was not, ‘Are these books to be counted as “scripture”?’ but ‘Are these books apostolic and orthodox?”’ (Robert M. Grant, The Formation of the New Testament [New York: Harper & Row, 1965], 150). Grant argues that Irenaeus was more concerned with the preservation of the apostolic tradition than with the “scriptural status” of various books (156). The apostles communicated the “word of truth” whether orally or in writing (106). Cf. 1 Thess 2:13; Pol. Phil. 3.2. See also Harnack’s concept of Lehrautorität (A. von Harnack, Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus und die anderen vorkonstantinischen christlichen Briefsammlungen [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1926], 72 n. 4).
106. Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries (Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 2002), 46.
107. Hauser and Watson, Ancient Period, 30. They claim that the residents of the Qumran community “appear to have had both a highly developed concept of scriptural authority and a strong sense of the open-endedness of that authority” (30).
108. Gamble, “Formation of the New Testament Canon,” 421.
109. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 234. In the context beginning with p. 232, Polycarp is one of “these authors” who understood the functional equivalence between the Hebrew Scriptures and certain other authorities.
110. Moreover, 1 Clem. 45.2 declares, “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit.” Two chapters later, 1 Clem. reminds the recipients that Paul “wrote to you in the Spirit” (47.3). The closing of the letter promises that “you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit” (63.2). These three passages seem, in some sense, to refer analogously to the Spirit-given nature of the “scriptures,” Paul’s writings, and 1 Clem. itself.
111. The Shepherd of Hermas presented a non-canonical prophecy with the formulaic, “as it is written” (Herm. Vis. 2.3.4).
112. Cf. the comments in Harnack, Origin of the New Testament, 40. Rousseau thinks that Irenaeus is blandly referring to Hermas as the “the writing” and not “the scripture” (A. Rousseau, Irénéede Lyon: Contre hérésies IV [SC 100.1; Paris: Cerf, 1965], 248–50); cf. R. M. Grant’s concurrence in Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), 38. The early Tertullian also applied the term scriptura to the Shepherd of Hermas, but in a seemingly generic sense: “that Hermas, whose writing is generally inscribed with the title The Shepherd”(Or. 16; ETfrom ANF ). But in another passage, Tertullian questioned whether the “‘scripture’ of the Shepherd” (scriptura Pastoris) “deserved to be included in the canon.” He responded, “I, however, imbibe the Scriptures of that Shepherd who cannot be broken” (Pud. 10.12). Tertullian similarly uses scripturam of the Acts of Paul, yet discredits its authenticity (Bapt. 17.5). The anonymous De Aleatoribus (possibly third century) could still label the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache as “scripture” (see Hanson, Tradition, 227).
113. See Hanson, Tradition, 226.
114. Lake considers this statement to be an allusion to the Philippians’ earlier letter to Polycarp (Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers [2 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann, 1912], 1:299; cf. Grant, Formation, 105).
115. Hopefully, the unsustainable view that Polycarp was a “simpleton” has been adequately laid to rest. See Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 147; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 141.
116. Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 1:460; Rensberger, “As the Apostle Teaches,” 346; Massey Hamilton Shepherd, “The Letter of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to the Philippians,” in Early Christian Fathers (ed. Cyril Charles Richardson; London: SCM, 1953), 123; Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” 201; Schoedel, “Polycarp, Epistle of,” 5:392. See Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 115 n. 270.
117. In Schoedel, Polycarp, 70; cf. Schoedel, “Polycarp, Epistle of,” 5:392.
118. In his commentary on Polycarp (composed before his ABD article), Schoedel maintained that a self-deprecation of Polycarp’s own scriptural knowledge “seems out of place here” (Polycarp, 34–35). Berding also notes that the Philippians had requested Polycarp to advise them in matters, a fact difficult to reconcile with his purported scriptural ignorance (Polycarp and Paul, 115–16).
119. Joseph A. Fischer, Die Apostolischen Väter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956), 263 n. 141.
120. Schoedel, Polycarp, 34–35. Schoedel acknowledges that the “more natural translation” of 12.1 would be, “But that [knowledge of Scripture], however, has not been granted to me” (35). He concedes that “such humility would scarcely be beyond the spiritual capacities of Polycarp” (35). Nevertheless, Schoedel argues that a different rendition must be adopted, since Polycarp would have known the scriptures from childhood.
121. For example, Hauser and Watson, Ancient Period, 41.
122. Bauer, Die Polykarpbriefe, 69.
123. Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 116.
124. Ibid.
125. Ibid.
126. Whether the first citation of Pol. Phil. 12.1 comes from Pss or Eph, I have tried to establish that the second phrase is only verbally parallel to and most likely comes directly from Eph 4:26. The inclusion of et in Pol. Phil. 12.1 (unlike Eph 4:26) may point to dependence on both Pss and Eph, although one wonders how much to make of its insertion.
127. Hans F. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 186. Campenhausen contends that the innovative Irenaean emphasis on the NT writings as “scripture” came as a result of using them as authorities against heretics (186–87; 208–9). Cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 2.35; 3.pref.; 3.12.9. For evidence of applying the term “scripture” to NT writings before Irenaeus, see the earlier discussion above.
128. William R. Farmer and Denis M. Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 125. Thus, it would appear that Marcion neither initiated the process of canonization nor provided the canon’s contours (see Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 214–15).
129. Berding labels Harrison’s volume “the most significant piece of scholarship” on Pol. Phil., alongside the work of Lightfoot (Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 15). Holmes explains, “It is difficult to overstate the impact on Polycarpian studies of Harrison’s partition theory, which was widely, even enthusiastically accepted” (Michael W. Holmes, forthcoming commentary on Polycarp in the Hermeneia series). Holmes continues,”Indeed, it appears to have effected a paradigm shift so thoroughgoing that the thesis of two letters was for some decades generally taken for granted, and the burden of proof shifted to those who would maintain the traditional view of the letter’s integrity” (ibid.).
130. The purported difference between the two letters “is a question not so much of moods, or of miles, as of decades” (Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles, 13).
131. For sources, see Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 150–51. Most recently, both Berding and Ehrman are inclined to hold this view (Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 13–24; Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers [2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003], 1:327–29). Berding believes that Barnard’s argument based upon Pol. Phil. 13 “significantly strengthens Harrison’s thesis”(Polycarp and Paul, 17); cf. L. W. Barnard, “The Problem of St. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” in Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), 31–39. But see the counter in Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 156–57. Berding adds his own “additional argument”: Pol. Phil. 3.1 states that the purpose was to respond to the Philippians’ request to write about “righteousness,” while Pol. Phil. 13 indicates that the purpose was to respond to the Philippians’ request for a collection of Ignatian letters (Polycarp and Paul, 16–17). However, ch. 13 itself contains two requests: to send an Ignatian collection back to Philippi and to forward a letter to Antioch. If Polycarp responded to two Philippian requests in one letter, could he not have responded to three?
132. Cecil John Cadoux, review of P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians, JTS 38 (1937): 267-70; Henri-Charles Puech, review of P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians, RHR 119 (1939): 96-102; Fischer, Die Apostolischen Väter, 236–37; P. Th. Camelot, Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres, Martyre de Polycarpe (2d ed; SC 10; Paris: Cerf, 1951), 194–95; Barnard, “The Problem of St. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 31–39; Virginia Corwin, Saint Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (Yale Publications in Religion 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 10; Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 60; J. Christian Wilson, “Polycarp,” in ABD 5:388; Stuckwisch, “Saint Polycarp,” 114; Kenneth Berding, “Polycarp of Smyrna’s View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy,” VC 53 (1999): 349-50; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 15–18. Bauer extends the possible limit into the third decade as a whole (Die Polykarpbriefe, 5).
133. Edgar J. Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), 25; Andreas Lindemann and Henning Paulsen, Die Apostolischen Väter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 243; Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul and the Scripture,” 216.
134. Pierre Nautin, “Polycarp,” in EECh 2:701; Shepherd, “Letter of Polycarp,” 124–25.
135. Hartog, Polycarp and Philippians, 148–69.
136. See William R. Schoedel, “Polycarp’s Witness to Ignatius of Antioch,” VC 41 (1987): 1-10.
137. See Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 111–16, 118; Schoedel, “Polycarp’s Witness,” 5–8.
138. Holmes, forthcoming Hermeneia commentary on Polycarp. Holmes suggests an alternative composite theory. He proposes that the prescript—1.1 and chapters 13–14 made up the original “cover letter,” and 1.2–12.3 made up a second letter (shorn of the beginning part of its prescript as well as its postscript). This hypothesized conflation would be one way of explaining the grammatical irregularity found in 1.1-2 (see Holmes, “Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians,” 122–23). For an alternative explanation, see Schoedel, “Polycarp’s Witness.” At the same time, Holmes “remains unconvinced that any partition theory is less problematic than the traditional view of the letter’s unity” (forthcoming Hermeneia commentary on Polycarp).
139. Cadoux, review of Harrison, 268. Cf. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 158.
140. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.33-36. Cf. Jefford, who places Pol. Phil. in a.d. 108–109 (Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 14–15). Various secondary witnesses place Ignatius’s martyrdom under Trajan, between a.d. 110–117 (see Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament, 58–60; Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” 278–79). Only one external witness places Ignatius outside of Trajan’s rule. John Madabbar (seventh century) sets Ignatius within Hadrian’s reign. But since John Madabbar states that Hadrian ascended to the throne after the death of Nerva, he may have simply confused Hadrian with Trajan in his succession of emperors. Ehrman notes that the historical context of a date in the middle of Trajan’s reign (a.d. 98–117) “coincides well with certain aspects” of Ignatius’s letters (Apostolic Fathers, 1:205). For a recent attempt to question the integrity and early dating of the Ignatian epistles, see Reinhard M. Hübner, “Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien,” ZAC 1 (1997): 44-72. But see also the responses by Andreas Lindemann, “Antwort auf die ‘Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien,”’ ZAC 1 (1997): 185-94; Georg Schöllgen, “Die Ignatianen als pseudepigraphisches Briefcorpus: Anmerkung zu den Thesen von Reinhard M. Hübner,” ZAC 2 (1998): 16-25; Mark J. Edwards, “Ignatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Hübner,” ZAC 2 (1998): 214-26; Hermann Josef Vogt, “Bemerkungen zur Echtheit der Ignatiusbriefe,” ZAC 3 (1999): 50-63; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 14 n. 66; Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:213. Hübner’s arguments were expanded by T. Lechner, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochen (VCSupp 47; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999).
141. Davies attempted to date Ignatius’s death more precisely to a.d. 113 (Stevan L. Davies, “The Predicament of Ignatius of Antioch,” VC 30 [1976]: 175-80). Essig tried to defend the exact date of a.d. 115 as found in the sixth-century John Malalas, but the evidence seems minimal (Klaus Gunther Essig, “Mutmaßungen über den Anlass des Martyriums von Ignatius von Antiochien,” VC 40 [1986]: 105-17).
142. Holmes, “Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians,” 124.
143. Holmes states of the dating of Ignatius’s martyrdom: “In view of this slender evidentiary basis, it is no surprise that attempts to fix the date more precisely have not been persuasive; if anything, the tendency is to enlarge the possible time frame in the direction of Hadrian’s reign (117– 138)” (Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers in English [3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 90). Cf. Paul Foster, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch,” in Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, 84–89; William R. Schoedel, “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 349. Schoedel had earlier claimed, “The date is under a cloud, but few seem disposed to challenge the suggestion that it was within Trajan’s reign (a.d.98–117) that Ignatius was martyred” (Polycarp, 4).

I wish to thank Boudewijn Dehandschutter and Charles E. Hill for their helpful insights in the composition of this article, as well as Kenneth Berding for his constructive response to this material in conference paper form.