Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/431

Rh POLYCAKP 415 assumption that the whole work is a forgery is untenable (1) because in that case we should expect that its tone and language and tendency would be in keeping with the Ignatian epistles, which is very far from being the fact, and (2) because we must assume that Irenreus himself had been deceived by a forged epistle of Polycarp, or else that he had read the genuine epistle, but in the course of the 3d century it had been supplanted by a spurious substitute. Either of these suppositions is extremely improbable, and, since internal marks of forgery are altogether absent, we must rather reverse the argument and say that the epistle of Polycarp is a very important piece of evidence for the historical existence of a bishop of Antioch named Ignatius, for his journey to martyrdom at Rome, and for the fact that on this journey he wrote several letters. In these circumstances it is very desirable that we should be able to fix the exact date of Polycarp s epistle. This unfortu nately is impossible, owing to the colourless character of the writing. Still it is noteworthy that there is not a single trace of the time of Trajan, that on the contrary an expression in the seventh chapter seems to presuppose the activity of Marcion. 1 In that case the letter cannot have been written before 140 A.D. The Ignatian epistles and the history of Ignatius furnish no argument to the contrary, for the idea that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan cannot be traced higher than the 3d century, 2 while the chronological indications in the Ignatian epistles themselves point to a later period. The epistle of Polycarp is of more importance for the Ignatian problem than for Polycarp himself. It conveys no distinct impression of his individuality, beyond the fact that the writer of this letter lived wholly in the ideas of the older generation and of the apostles, and would admit no addition to their teaching. That, however, is a feature which harmonizes admirably so far as it goes with the description which Irenceus gives of Polycarp in the letter to Florinus. On account of its dependence on older epistles, the epistle of Polycarp is of great value for the history of the canon. For the constitutional history of the church also it contains valuable materials ; but for the history of dogma it is of little use. 3. The epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp is an important docu ment, whether it is genuine or not. It belongs at any rate to the 2d century, so that even if it were spurious it would at least show what conception of the bishop s character was then prevalent. Polycarp appears in the letter as a man of a passive disposition, with too little energy and decision for the vehement Ignatius. The admonitions which Ignatius thinks fit to bestow on Polycarp (c. 1-6) are surprising, when we remember that they are addressed to an old and venerable man. But Ignatius was writing under the consciousness of impending martyrdom, and evidently felt, with all his affected modesty, that this gave him a right to censure the churches and bishops of Asia. To pronounce the epistle spurious on account of its tone is hazardous, because it is difficult to imagine how it could have entered the head of a forger to subject the honoured Polycarp to such treatment at the hands of Ignatius. 4. The most valuable source for the history of Polycarp is the letter of the church in Smyrna about his martyrdom. Eusebius has preserved the greater part of this epistle in his Church History (iv. 15); but we possess it entire with various concluding observa tions in several Greek manuscripts, and also in a Latin transla tion. 3 The epistle gives a minute description of the persecution in Smyrna, of the last days of Polycarp, and of his trial and martyrdom; and, as it contains many instructive details, and professes to have been written not long after the events to which it refers, it has always been regarded as one of the most precious remains of the 2d century. Certain recent critics, however, have questioned the authenticity of the narrative. Lipsius 4 brings the date of the epistle down to about 260, although he admits many of its statements as trustworthy. Keim 5 endeavours to show in a long dissertation that it could not possibly have been written shortly after the death of Polycarp, but that, although based on good information, it was not composed till the middle of the 3d century. But Keim s own investigation is sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind that the genuineness of the epistle will bear the closest scrutiny, for the arguments he advances are of no value. 6 The only positions which Keim (following in the wake of others 7 ) makes good are that a few slight interpolations 8 have been 1 Compare vii. 1 with Iren. iii. 3, 4. 2 See Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, 1878. 3 See Zahn, &quot; Epp. Ignat. et Polyc.,&quot; in Pair. App. Opp., vol. ii. ; Von Gebhardt in the Ztschr. /. d. histor. Theol., 1875, p. 356 sq. ; Harnack, Zeit dcs Ignatius, 1878. 4 Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol., 1874, p. 200 sq. 5 Aus clem Urchristenthum, p. 90 sq. 6 He lays stress especially on the miraculous elements and the ideal of martyrdom held up in the letters. 7 See Schiirer, Ztschr. f. d. histor. Theol., 1870, p. 203. 8 Amongst these we ought probably to include the expression, f) Ka.e t K }i tKKiffia (Inscr., c. xvi. 19), /ca0oA.iKos being here used in the sense of &quot; orthodox.&quot; inserted in the epistle, and that it was written, not a few days, but perhaps a year or two after the death of Polycarp. The statement in the epistle that Polycarp suffered martyrdom under the pro consulate of Quadratus has quite recently given rise to a voluminous literature. Eusebius in his Chronicle gives 166 A.D. as the year of Polycarp s death, and until the year 1867 this statement was never questioned. In that year appeared Waddington s &quot; Memoire sur la chronologic de la vie du rheteur vElius Aristide&quot; (Mem. de I lnstitut. imp. de France, 1867, xxvi.), in which it was shown from a most acute combination of circumstances that Quadratus was proconsul of Asia in 155-6, and that consequently Polycarp was martyred on the 23d of February 155. 9 Since the date of Polycarp s death is of great importance for the chronology of many other events, and since it is an unusual thing in the history of criticism for the date of any occurrence to be thus put eleven years farther back, Waddington s arguments have been examined by a great number of critics. Renan, 10 Aube, 11 Hilgenfeld, 12 Gebhardt, 13 Lipsius, 14 Harnack, 15 Zahn, 16 Egli, 17 and others have declared them selves satisfied, although some scholars regarded 156 as also a possible date. On the other hand Keim, 18 Wieseler, 19 and Uhlhorn, 20 join issue with Waddington and adhere to the date of Eusebius. The arguments on which they rely do not appear to the present writer to be convincing, and it may be asserted with great proba bility that the martyrdom of Polycarp took place on the 23d of February 155. 21 Besides these we have no other sources for the life of Polycarp. The Vita S. Polycarpi auctore Pionio (published by Duchesne, Paris, 1881, and Funk, Apost. Patr. Opp., vol. ii. p. 315 sq. ) is worthless. 22 The chief facts to be gathered about the life of Polycarp from the above sources are these. He must have been born before the year 69, for on the day of his death he declared that he had served the Lord for eighty-six years (Marty num, ix.). He became a Christian in his earliest youth, and was an associate of the apostle John and other disciples of Jesus who had come from Palestine to Asia Minor. What he heard from them he kept in life-long remembrance, and in his manhood and old age he used to gather the young people round him, and repeat to them what he had learned from those who had seen Christ in the flesh. Amongst these youthful hearers was Irenseus, who has recorded much of what he thus learned (for example, an encounter between John and Cerinthus in the bath, a statement about the age of Jesus, &c.). Especially when heresy began to raise its head, the aged Polycarp never ceased to appeal to the pure doctrine of the apostles. He lived to see the rise of the Marcionite and Valentinian sects, and vigorously opposed them. Irenams tells us that on one occasion Marcion &quot; endeavoured to establish relations with him &quot; (Iren., iii. 3, 4), and accosted him with the words e7rtyivoj&amp;lt;r/cet5 ^/xas ; there is no doubt that Marcion wished to be on friendly terms with so influential a man ; but Polycarp displayed the same uncompromising attitude which his master John had shown to Cerinthus, and answered 7n,yivw(TKa&amp;gt; ere rov TrpwroroKOv rov 2,arai3.. These stern words are again applied to Marcion in the epistle to the Philippians ; for it is undoubtedly Marcion who is referred to in the following passage (c. vii.) : &quot; He who falsifies the sayings of the Lord after his own pleasure, and affirms that there is no resurrection [of the flesh] and no judgment, is the first-born of Satan.&quot; The 9 He died ou a &quot; great Sabbath &quot; another expression winch has given rise to much discussion by which is meant the Sabbath after Easter. In 155 this fell on the 23d February, and this agrees with what the church of Smyrna says about the day of its bishop s death : irpo firra Kafv8ioi&amp;gt; MapTicoi/. 10 Antechrist, 1873, p. 207. n Hist, despersec., 1875, p. 325s?. 12 Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1874, p. 305 sq. 13 Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1875, p. 356 sq. 14 Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1874, p. 188; Jahrlb. f. prot. Theol., 1883, p. 525 sq. 15 Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch., 1876, p. 305. 16 &quot; Enp. Ignat. et Polyc., &quot; as cited above. 17 Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1882, p. 227 sq., 1884, p. 216 sq. 18 Aus dem Urchristenthum, p. 90 sq. 19 Die Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren, 1878, p. 34 sq. 20 Recdencyk. f. prot. Theol, 2d ed., xii. p. 105. 21 See Salmon in the Academy, 21st July 1883, p. 46 sq. &quot;- See Harnack in the Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1882, No. 12; Zahn, in the Getting. Gel. Anz., 1882, Heft 10.