[7]. Theodor Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Perthes, 1873); A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologie der antiochenischen Bischöfe bis Tyrannus nach Julius Africanus und den späteren Historikern (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1878); J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 2, S. Ignatius; S. Polycarp, 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1885).
[8]. R. Weijenborg, Les lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche (Leiden: Brill, 1969); R. Joly, Le dossier d’Ignace d’Antioche (Brussels: Éditions de l’université, 1979); J. Rius-Camps, The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, the Martyr (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1979).
[9]. W. R. Schoedel, “Are the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch Authentic?” Religious Studies Review 6 (1980): 196–201, summarized in Schoedel, Ignatius, 5–7; Caroline P. Hammond Bammel, “Ignatian Problems,” Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982): 62–97; cf. Charles Munier, “Où en est la question d’Ignace d’Antioche?” 359–484.
[10]. Reinhard M. Hübner, “Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien,” ZAC 1.1 (1997): 44–72; Andreas Lindemann, “Antwort auf die ‘Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien,” ZAC 1.2 (1997): 185–94; Georg Schöllgen, “Die Ignatianen als pseudepigraphisches Briefcorpus: Anmerkung zu den Thesen von Reinhard M. Hübner,” ZAC 2.1 (1998): 16–25; Mark J. Edwards, “Ignatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Hübner,” ZAC 2.2 (1998): 214–26; Hermann Josef Vogt, “Bemerkungen zur Echtheit der Ignatiusbriefe,” ZAC 3.1 (1999): 50–63. Also: Thomas Lechner, Ignatius Adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien, VCSupp 47 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Reinhard M. Hübner and Markus Vinzent, Der Paradox Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert, VCSupp 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
[11]. Mark J. Edwards, “Ignatius and the Second Century,” 214–26; see also A. Lindemann’s review of Lechner (see previous note) in ZAC 6 (2002): 157–61.
[12]. Schoedel, Ignatius, 7.
[13]. He cites it only three times (Eph. 5.3; Magn. 12; Trall. 8.2); allusions are no more numerous (cf. Eph. 15.1; Magn. 10.3, 13.1).
[14]. See Paul Foster, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 159–86.
[15]. The limits of this assessment of documents whose use can be demonstrated must be respected (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). That the use of a particular document cannot be demonstrated does not mean that Ignatius did not know it; it only means that knowledge of it cannot be demonstrated on the basis of a limited number of documents written under very stressful conditions (i.e., traveling as a prisoner).
[16]. Schoedel, Ignatius, 15–17; A. Brent, Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophist (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
[1]. The attempt by H. von Campenhausen (“Polykarp und die Pastoralen,” repr. Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963], 197–252) to show that Polycarp also authored the Pastoral Epistles has met with little acceptance. More intriguing is the proposal that Polycarp is the author of the anonymous apology known as the Letter to Diognetus (Pier Franco Beatrice, “Der Presbyter des Irenäus, Polykarp von Smyrna und der Brief an Diognet,” in Eugenio Romero-Pose, ed., Pléroma: Salus Carnis: Homenaje a Antonio Orbe, S.J. [Santiago de Compostella, 1990]: 179–202; Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006]). The evidence, however, is at best circumstantial, and the proposal remains a conjecture.
[2]. Cf. W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, vol. 5 of The Apostolic Fathers, ed. R. M. Grant (Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1967), 4–5.
[3]. Michael W. Holmes, “Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): 187–227. There are possible allusions to other documents (e.g., the four canonical gospels, Acts, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and 2 John), but insufficient evidence to demonstrate their use. This does not mean that Polycarp was unacquainted with these, only that he does not appear to have made use of them in this particular letter.
[4]. Harry O. Maier, “Purity and Danger in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians: The Sin of Valens in Social Perspective,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (1993): 229–47.
[5]. E.g., P. Meinhold, “Polykarpos,” Pauly-Wissowa, Real-encyclopädie 21.2 (1952): 1662–93; P. Steinmetz, “Polykarp von Smyrna über die Gerechtigkeit,” Hermes 100 (1972): 63–75; W. R. Schoedel, “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 272–358.
[6]. Cf. similarly H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 112–13.
[7]. P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936).
[8]. I am persuaded that the letter is more likely a single unified document than a combination of two. If, however, it should prove to be a composite document, then the earlier letter would consist of the prescript plus 1.1 plus 13–14, with the second letter thus comprising 1.2–12.3.
[9]. One letter: Schoedel, Polycarp, 4, 29, 37–38; Schoedel, “Polycarp of Smyrna,” 277–83; Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief, 112; B. 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 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 276–91; Paul Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians and Its Allusions to New Testament Literature, WUNT 2.134 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 148–69. Two letters: 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, 1966), 31–39; J. B. Bauer, Die Polykarpbriefe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995); 18–19; 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, VCSupp 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 15–24.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
[1]. For what follows see Michael W. Holmes, “The Martyrdom of Polycarp and the New Testament Passion Narrative,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 407–32.
[2]. Cf. Mart. Pol.17.3, which may reflect an attempt to circumscribe an incipient tendency to overvalue the role and significance of martyrs.
[3]. Hans von Campenhausen, “Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarpmartyriums,” in Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963): 253–301; cf. H. Conzelmann, “Bemerkungen zum Martyrium Polykarps,” in Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse 1978.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 41–58.
[4]. Modified: W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, vol. 5 of The Apostolic Fathers, ed. R. M. Grant (Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1967), 49–82. Rejected: L. W. Barnard, “In Defence of Pseudo-Pionius’ Account of Saint Polycarp’s Martyrdom,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, ed. P. Granfield and J. A. Jungmann, 2 vols. (Münster: Aschendorff, 1970), 1:192–204; V. Saxer, “L’authenticité du Martyre de Polycarpe: Bilan de 25 ans de critique,” Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome: Antiquité 94 (1982): 979–1001; B. Dehandschutter, “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 485–522.
[5]. Silvia Ronchey, Indagine sul Martirio d
i San Policarpo: Critica storica e fortuna agiografica di un caso giudiziario in Asia Minore (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1990).
[6]. Cf. R. M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 86–87.
[7]. Schoedel, Polycarp, 78–79; cf. T. D. Barnes, “Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum,” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 510–14.
[8]. Cf. P. Brind’Amour, “La date du martyre de saint Polycarp (le 23 février 167),” Analecta Bollandiana 98 (1980): 456–62.
[9]. So Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 306: “After 160 C.E.” In the second edition (New York: W. de Gruyter, 2000) he adopts the Eusebian date of 167 (pp. 284, 306), yet acknowledges that the martyrdom may have occurred “perhaps already in 156” (p. 284).
[10]. Proposed by H. Grégoire and P. Orgels, “La véritable date du martyre de S. Polycarpe (23 fevrier 177) et le ‘Corpus Polycarpianum,’” Analecta Bollandiana 69 (1951): 1–38.
The Didache
[1]. E.g., Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus the Blind; cf. Metzger, Canon, 49, 187, 214.
[2]. Robert A. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache (New York: Nelson, 1965), 1–16; L. W. Barnard, “The ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ and Its Contemporary Setting,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 194–95.
[3]. Jonathan A. Draper, “Barnabas and the Riddle of the Didache Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995): 96–99.
[4]. For the former see, e.g., Kurt Niederwimmer (The Didache [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 42–44), who describes an individual who functioned as compiler, editor, and author; for the latter, Aaron Milavec (The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 C.E. [New York: Newman, 2003], vii–ix).
[5]. See, e.g., Clayton N. Jefford (Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 42), who offers a four-level schema for understanding the development of The Didache.
[6]. Milavec, Didache, xii, xxvii, 59.
[7]. There is no meaningful evidence of any connection (in either direction) with Mark, John, Acts, any of the catholic or Pauline letters, or Revelation. See Christopher Tuckett, “The Didache and the Writings That Later Became the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 83–127.
[8]. For surveys of these various options consult Milavec, Didache, 693–739 (who argues for independence); and Tuckett, “The Didache and the Writings That Later Became the New Testament,” 83–127 (who argues for dependence on Matthew, likely somewhat indirectly, perhaps mediated through a process of oral tradition and/or memory).
The Epistle of Barnabas
[1]. S. Lowy, “The Confutation of Judaism in the Epistle of Barnabas,” Journal of Jewish Studies 11 (1960): 1–33.
[2]. Cf. 6.9, 9.8, 10.10, 13.7, 18.1, 19.1; also 2.3, 5.4, 11.4, 12.3, 21.5.
[3]. Robert A. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache (New York: Nelson, 1965), 1–16; L. W. Barnard, “The ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ and Its Contemporary Setting,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 194–95.
[4]. Jonathan A. Draper, “Barnabas and the Riddle of the Didache Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995): 96–99.
[5]. James Carleton-Paget, “The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 229–49.
[6]. Cf. further Clayton N. Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 14–16.
[7]. Two exceptions are P. Prigent, L’Épître de Barnabé I–XVI et ses sources (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1961), who suggests a Syrian milieu, and K. Wengst, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971), 113–18, who locates it in western Asia Minor.
[8]. Typical positions include those of J. A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 313–19), who follows Lightfoot (AF 1.2.505–12) in dating it to the time of Vespasian (AD 70–79); P. Richardson and M. B. Shukster (“Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 [1983]: 31–55), who propose the time of Nerva (AD 96–98); L. W. Barnard (“The ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ and Its Contemporary Setting,” ANRW 2.27.1 [1993]: 173–80), who suggests the early years of Hadrian’s reign (AD 117–138); and K. Wengst (Tradition, 105–13), who argues for 130–132 (similarly James N. Rhodes, The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 75–87).
[9]. E.g., Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
[10]. For the former see Richardson and Shukster, “Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis,” and J. N. B. Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); for the latter, Lowy, “The Confutation of Judaism in the Epistle of Barnabas,” 1–33.
[11]. Rhodes, The Epistle of Barnabas, 86–87.
[12]. Reidar Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
[13]. Rhodes, The Epistle of Barnabas, 180; cf. 201: the author “is ultimately concerned with the covenant fidelity of his own audience.”
The Shepherd of Hermas
[1]. The Shepherd is frequently referred to simply as Hermas and so is usually abbreviated Herm.
[2]. Graydon F. Snyder, “Hermas’ The Shepherd,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:148.
[3]. For example, community purity (an underlying concern in the discussion of postbaptismal sin) and community boundaries are threatened by the behavior of the “rich,” whose participation in business activities places them in constant contact with the “outside world” and its many temptations to sin. See Harry O. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991), 55–86.
[4]. James S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 120; Maier, Social Setting.
[5]. Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 24–28; Robert Joly, “Le milieu complexe du ‘Pasteur d’Hermas,’” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993): 524–51; J. Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy: A Study of the Eleventh Mandate (Leiden: Brill, 1973).
[6]. On the pneumatology of Hermas, consult Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, 31–34.
[7]. Graydon F. Snyder, The Shepherd of Hermas (Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1968), 1–12.
[8]. Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, 10–16.
[9]. For discussions of the evidence, consult Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 90–99, 218–36; Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, 20–24.
The Epistle to Diognetus
[1]. P. Andriessen, “The Authorship of the Epistula ad Diognetum,” Vigiliae Christianae 1 (1947): 129–36.
[2]. Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
[3]. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 248; H. G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1949), 19; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 236, 261 n. 24 (the evidence suggests “a relatively early date, not later than A.D. 150”).
[4]. R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 178–79.
[5]. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 248–49.
Fragments of Papias
[1]. Later legend (see fragments 19–20) will claim that Papias was John’s amanuensis.
[2]. Cf. the introductions to The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Martyrdom of Polycarp.
[3]. For an incisive analysis of Papias’s comments, consult Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 609–22.
[4]. For a discussion of the transmission of the gospel traditions that takes these points seriously, see James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 173–254.
[5]. Karl Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen Väter: Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe, 3rd ed., rev. W. Schneemelcher (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970), 133–40; translation in W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, vol. 5 of The Apostolic Fathers, ed. R. M. Grant (Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1967), 94–123.
[6]. It is, of course, possible that additional fragments of Papias’s work have been preserved by later writers without his name attached to them; e.g., Charles E. Hill (“What Papias Said about John [and Luke]: A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,”Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 49 [1998]: 582–629) argues that anonymous comments about the four canonical gospels preserved by Eusebius (Church History 3.24.5–13) should be attributed to Papias.
[7]. See any major commentary on the Gospel of John for discussion of this point.
[8]. Bart D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 24–44.
[9]. Didymus, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 223.7–13.
[10]. J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1951–1960), 2:147–52.
The Apostolic Fathers in English Page 43