-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
1/21
t-m]
i g i l i a e
Cnristianae
BRILL Vigiliae
Christianae
7 2013) 117-136 l iri llxom vc
Nailing Down and TyingUp:Lessons in Intertextual
Imp ossibility from th eMartyrdom of Poly carp
Candida R. Moss
Department of Theology
University of Notre Dam e
Notre Dame
IN46556
USA
Abstract
This paper addresses scholarly approaches to the function of allusions and intertextu-
ality in theMartyrdom ofPolycarp.It argues that scholarship on this question has oper-
ated with and been hampered by unspoken assumptions about the historicity and
authenticity of the account, the development of canon, the use of scriptural sources,
and th e function of allusions. Atten tion to the function of intertextuality in the acc ount
reveals both th at itisdifficult to identify c oncre tely the source s of the acc ount and th at,
as a result, it is impossible to speak authoritatively about the author's intent with
respect to the use of these sources.
Keywords
reception history, intertextuality. Gospels, Martyrdom of Polycarp, scripture in the
early c hurch
Introduction
Aconstant theme in the study of the literature ofthe esusmovement and
early church is the relationship of embryonic Christianity to the rest of the
ancient world, includingthe relationship of Christianideasto non-Christian
ideas and Christian texts to othertexts.In the latter case a cottage industry
has sp rung up around the identification of intertextsthose sources, liter-
ary, conceptual, and cultural, embedded in, lying behind, or suffusing an
early Christian text' There is, however, strikingly little reflection on, let
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
2/21
i i8 CR.l^oss / Vigdiae Christianae 6j (201 )n7-i36
alone consensus about, the scholarly models used to identify intertexts or
even how intertextuality works.^ While some ancient writers helpfully
trumpet their self-conscious use of other authors with citation formulae,
this is but one form of intertextual gesture. Even as New Testam ent schol-
ars have labored to reify citation and allusion as separate species of inter-
textuality, they have run aground when it comestoarticulating the function
of these respective intertextual forms.^ Unfixed and unspoken assumptions
about what qualifies as an intertext, how they are identified, and how the
relationship between text and intertext works underwrite scholarly discus-
sions ofthe
less
explicit forms of intertextual gesture. The effect
is
that even
as studies of intertextuality and, more recently, the reception of Biblical
literature continue to proliferate, often the pragmatic payoff of these
synonym for allusion. The notion of a text employed here is adapted from that of Julia
Kristeva,Desire in Mnguage:A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 1980), hut
this
paper
is
neithe r limitedto,nor dependent upo n, Kristeva
for its particular perspective. The wealth of literary-critical studies of intertextuality since
Kristeva demonstrates the enduring importance ofthe term. While Biblical scholars have
often presupposed an ontological difference between cultural influence {e.g., the influence
of Platonic m etaphysics on early Christian cosmology) and literary influence (e.g., the influ-
ence of Plato's
Timaeus
on the
Apocryphonof John),
this binary isas we shall seeunder
cut by the common scholarly argument that literary influences are in the air Where the
evidence for literary dependence falls short, scholars frequently resort to the notion of
atmospheric influence asadefensive rhetorical measure.
2' For an overview of various theoretical approaches to the function of intertextuality with
respec t to allusion, see Josep h Pucci,TheFuH-KnowingReader:Allusion and thePower ojthe
Reader in the Western Literary Tradition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998),
3-50; W illiam Irwin, W hat is an
kWusion? Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
59 (2001):
287-97.
Efforts to isolate the functionality of intertextuality in New Testament literature,
especially in the Pauline epistles, include Richard B. Hays's classic Echoes of Scripture in the
Letters of Paul
(New Haven, C onn.: Yale University P ress, 1989), and mo re recen t studies of
Steve Moyise, Paul and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use ofthe Old Testament
(G rand Rap ids, Mich.: Baker, 2010) and Stanley E. Po rter an d C hris top he r D. Stanley,As it is
Written: Studying Pau l's Use of Scripture (Atlanta, Ca.: Society of Biblical Literature Press,
2008).
^* In recent studies of intertextuality in the New Testament, quotation and citation have
been sharply demarcated from allusion. See, for example, J. Ross Wagner's summary of
intertextuality in Paul and Scripture, in
The Blackwell Companion
to
Paul
ed. Stephe
Westerholm (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011),
154 71
[166].The distinction between allusion
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
3/21
Nailing DownandTying U p
119
projects goes undiscussed. As ever-expanding footnotes of potential allu-
sions breedinthe alcoves ofthe academy, the intellectual benefit of such
allusions for the study of ancient l iterature is rarely discussed. *
This articleis anattemp tto think more precisely about the limits and
possibilitiesforthis kind of analysisinthe study of early Christian litera-
ture.The difficulties surrounding scholarly studiesofintertextualityare
even more acuteinnon-canonical literature, like early Christian martyr-
dom literature,inwhich theidentificationofcanonical intertexts is often
implicitly deemed more important than their use innoncanonical texts.^
Given a stated interest in utility and practice, this article focuses on a cen-
tral example.
It
takes as its case study theMartyrdomofPofycarp
a
narra-
tive about the death ofthe second-century bishop of Smyrna thatiswidely
acknowledged to be saturated with scriptural and cultural intertexts . t will
argue that thestudyofintertextuality in early Christian textshasbeen
encumbered bothbyscholarly interests in canonicity and authenticity and
byuntheorized assum ptions about how intertexts function. t willpropose
* ' where methodology
is
engaged
it
often assumes
a
statistical
or
quasi-scientific form.
In
their inf luent ial two-volume study ofth e New Testam ent
in the
Apostolic Fathers, A ndrew
Gregory
and
Christopher Tucket t propose evaluat ing
the
presence
of
allusions
or
ci tat ions
of the NT
and
Apostolic F athers using
a
sliding scale
of
certainty (see And rew G regory and
Ghristopher Tucket t ,
eds..
The
Reception
of
the
New
Testament
in the
Apostolic Fathers
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007]
and
Trajectories Through the New Testament and the
Apostolic Fathers
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005]). Similarly, Richard Bauckham
attempts statistically
to
analyze instances
of
intertextuality
in the
Acts of Peter
in
2 Peter and th e Apocalypse of Peter in
The Fate o fthe Dead Studies on theJewishandChris-
tian Apocalypses
ed.
Richard B auckham, Sup pleme nts
to
Novum Tes tamentum (Leiden:
Brill, 1998), 290-303.
The
rhetorical power
of
statistical analysis
and
quantifiable grades
seems
to be an
effort
to
formalize
and
regulate
the
am biguit ies
and
limitless p ossibilities of
intertexuality. Gregory
and
Tucket t o penly acknow ledge
the
problem
of
identifying cita-
tions with any certaintyin
Reception ofthe New Testament
2.
=' This
is by no
means always
the
case. See Michael Holm es's article
on
Th eMartyrdom of
Pofycarp
a ndtheNew Testam ent Passion N arratives, in
Trajectories through the New T esta-
mentand the Apostolic Fathers ed. And rew F. Gregory and C hristop her M. Tuc kett (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005),inwhich he conceptual izes the relat ionship betweenthe
gospel tradition and the
Martyrdom ofPofycarp
as inter preta tion, 407-32 [422-26]. See also
BartD.Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers Volume
(LCL; Cam bridg e, Mass.: Harva rd University
Press,
2003), 1-16.
^' I do not mean to suggest that the interest in canonicity is irrelevant merely that it
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
4/21
120
C R
Moss /
Vigiliae
Christianae 6j
2013) 117-136
that a more carefully conceptualized notion of intertextuality, which
ackn ow ledges the limits of intertex tual an alysis, is a necessary pre curso r to
any study of intertextuality.
Previous Scholarship
The de ath of Polycarp, as related by Pseudo -Pionius and Eusebius, is alocus
classicus
for the study of intertextuality in the early church.' ' The p rotago -
nist is self-consciously represented as an imitator
Christi.
Polycarp's con-
du ct and de ath are each chara cterized as taking place according to Gospel
and the parallels betw een the de ath of Jesus and the de ath of Polycarp are
apparent to even the most cursory of readers. Those that are most often
be insurmountable. For a recent study of this problem with respect to text criticism see
Bart D. Ehrm an, Intentio nal Fallacies: Scribal Motivations and the R hetoric of Critical Dis-
course (pa per pre sen ted at the ann ual me eting of the SBL, Atlanta, Ga., Nov emb er 2003).
Studies of intertextu ality and textua l recep tion in the
Martyrdom ofPotycarp
include
Boudewijn Deha ndsch utter , The New Testam ent and the Martyrdom of Pofycarp in
Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory
and Ch risto ph er M . Tu ck ett {Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 395-406. For a dis-
cussion of the relationship between Polycarp and the passion narratives, see G.E. Steitz,
Der Charakter der kleinasiatischen Kirche und Festsitte und die Mitte des zweiten Jahr-
hunderts, Jahrbuchir deutsche Theologie6 (1861):102-41;M.-L. Gu illaum in, En ma rge du
'Martyre de Polycarpe': Le dis ce rnm en t des allusions scripturaires, inForma F uturi: Studi in
onore del Cardinale Michle Pellegrino{Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1975), 46 2-6 9; B. Dehand -
schutter , Martyrium Folyca rpi: Een literar-kritische Stud ie, Bibl iotheca ephemeridum theo-
logicarum lovaniensium 52 {Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), 241-54; Victor Saxer,
Bible et Hagiographie: texts et themes bibliques dans les Actes des Martyrs authentiques des
premiers sicles (Bern: Lang, 1986),
27-33;
Gerd Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp,
Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vtern 6 {Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998);
Judith M. Lieu,image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the C hristians in the SecondCen-
tury {,\nh\xx^: T T Clark,
1996),
59-63 ;and M ichael W. Holm es, New Tes tam ent Passion
Narratives, 407 -32. That the Martyrdom of Polycarp is the subject of two essays in Gregory
and Tucke t t 's Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers witnesses to
scholarly interes t in intertextu ality in this acco unt. See Boudewijn D eha ndsc hutte r, The
New Testament and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 395-406, and Michael W. Holm es, The
Martyrdom of Polycarpand th e New Tes tam ent Passion Narratives, 407-32.
* For lists of para llels see the critical editi on s of Bas tiaensen ,Atti e Passioni dei Martiri 601-
605 and Bihimeyer, Dei4poso/sc/ien Vter, 162. Fora recent study of imitation see Majella
Fran zm ann , Imitatio Christi: Copying the Death of the Fou nder and Gaining Paradise, in
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
5/21
Nailing Down and Tying Up 121
cited include: the delay in being handed over to the authorities (1.2); the
distan ce from the city at the po int of arrest
(5.1);
the protagonist 's prophesy
of his own de ath (5.2; 12.3); the be trayal of the p rotag onist by som eone
close to him (6.2); the participa tion of a cha racte r nam ed Herod in the
eve nts tha t lead to the dea th of the p rotago nist (6.2); the invocation of rob-
bery as a mo tivating factor in the arres t and trial (7.1); the app reh en din g of
the protagonist at night (7.1-2); the obedience to the will of God (7.1); the
en tran ce into the city on an ass (8.1); the Rom an au tho rities' eq uivoca tion
ove r the se nte nc e of de ath (9.3-11.2); the inte rve ntio n of the blo od thirsty,
Jew ish crow d (12.2-13.1); the s tab bin g and flow of blood (16.1); an d the tim -
ing of the protagonist's death around Passover (21.1).
In academ ic treatm en ts of the
Martyrdom of Pofycarp
intertextua lity has
been employed in two related scholarly agendas: canonicity and auth entic-
ity. W ith respe ct to this first inte rest the identification and a ttestatio n of
scriptural sourcesa great deal of attention has lighted on the author's
library and his familiarity w ith the tex ts tha t eventually cam e to form par t
of the canon. In the first half of the twentieth century, fierce debate sur-
round ed the autho r 's use of the Gospels of M atthew a nd John . Argum ents
have been adva nced in favor
o the M artyrdom ofPofycarp s
dependence on
one Gospel or the other, with few allow ances being ma de for the possibility
of m ultiple Gospel intertexts. Efforts to isolate a pure inte rtex t tha t
is,
a
single textual tradition on wh ich the auth or is l iterarily dep end ent betra y
a co m m itm en t to canonical l i terature. Implicit in this particular deb ate are
concerns about the dating of canonical texts and the development of the
New Testament canon.
\i ofycarp
can b e show n to be reliant exclusively
upo n on e Gospel passion n arrative or ano the r then we can it sthought
establish bo th the status ofth at individual Gospel in the early church an d a
terminus ante quem for its composition. At stake in this specific kind of
study of intertextuality, therefore, is an interest in the role that non -can on-
ical texts such as the Ma rtyrdom of Pofycarp can play in establishing the
dating and status of canonical texts.
The second scholarly trend has been th e broad er tenden cy to see inter-
textuality and historicity as contradictory. The self-conscious representa-
tion of Polycarp as an imitator Christi, accompan ied by the num erous
allusions to scriptural na rratives of Jesus's death , casts som e do ub t on the
text's statu s as an eye witness rep ort. Tha t events and c hara cters inPofycarp
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
6/21
122 C.R.M oss IVigiliaeChristianae
the status of the account as an eyewitness report and even the date of the
text
itself.
In responding to this challenge Joseph Barber Lightfoot argued
that the literary ties between ofycarpand the passion narrative are forced.
His primary reason for viewing the parallelism between Jesus and Polycarp
as historical (rather than as an example of intertextuality) was his convic-
tion that the parallels are unpersuasive.Hewrote, a fabricator would have
secured a better parallel. We may say generally that
the violence
of
the
par
allelism is
a
guarantee
of the
accuracy
ofthefacts. ^
Lightfoot's argumen
has cast long shadows over later generations of scholars who have sub-
scribed to the view that the parallelsdonot detract from the authenticity of
the account'**
Yet Lightfoot makesanum ber of assumptions about the function of par-
allelism that are no longer persuasive. In the first place, we may infer from
Lightfoot that he assumes that if the parallelswerenot historically accurate
then the details ofthe narrative would by necessity be the invention of the
author. He writes tha t the artificiality o fthe parallels afford[s] sufficient
evidence that the narrator was dealing with historical facts and not with
arbitraryfictionswhich he might mouldas hepleased. writer,for instance,
who had
carte blanche
to invent and manipulate incidents at discretion,
would never have placed himself in such constraints. Lightfoot himself
seems here to gloss the notion of moldingfictions with the concept of
invention.'^ In otherwords,either the author invented these parallels him-
self or the events actually happened. There is no room either foramoder-
ate display of creative license,inwhich eventsareinterpretedby theauthor,
or for the idea that there were accumulating interpretative traditions of
* Jos eph Barber Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmil lan and Company,
1889),
1.614.
emphas is or ig inal
' '
Jud ith Lieu similarly remarks if the similarities betwe en Jesus and Polycarp were t he
intention of the author we would have expected him to make the point far more clearly
(Lieu,Image and R eality,61).Similar sta tem en ts are mad e by Leslie W. Barnard, In Defense
of Pseud o-Pion ius' Acc ount of Saint Polycarp's Ma rtyrdom, inKyriakon FestschriJohannes
Quasten, ed. Patrick Granfield an d Josef Jun gm an n {Mn ster:Aschendorff, 1970), 192-204
[ig5] and Kirsopp Lake, who remarks ofthe parallels , T h e co incidences are remarkable, b ut
none are in themselves at all improbable {The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2 [Cam bridge, M ass.:
Harva rd Unive rsity Press, 1992], 319).
' Lightfoot,1.613.
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
7/21
Nailing Down and Tying Up
123
which the author made use.'^ Implicit in this argument is a model of
com-
position in which an author works directly with a literary text. He or she is
not influenced by contemporary interpretations of traditions, by liturgical
re-readings of scripture, or by other th inkers or authors. The author works
in a cultural and intellectual vacuum with a text composed, potentially, a
hundred years earlier, yet remains unaffected by the opinions or traditions
of others.
Second, Lightfoot assumes that an author wishingtoportray one charac-
ter as ano ther through the use of narrative allusion will replicate the origi-
nal tradition without augmentation or elaboration. Allusion, in this
understanding of intertextuality, serves no aesthetic or interpretive func-
tion; it merely duplicates the thing to which it refers. One example given by
Lightfoot is the use ofthename Herod. Lightfoot writes that there is only
a faint resemblance between the position of the Smyrnaean captain of
police, who takes Polycarp into custody, and the Galilean king...Here
again a fabricator would have secured a better parallel. ''* This argument
makes sense only if the goal of the fabricator is to secure the best parallel,
rather that to use that parallel to make any additional point. Given the anti-
Jewish sentiment of the text sa whole itispossible that the 'inferior paral-
lel' serves an interpretive purpose. By identifying the captain with Herod
the author tarnishes those arresting Polycarp by aligning them with the
Jews while simultaneously equating the Biblical Herod with the (compara-
tively) lowly Roman police force.'^ Implicit in Lightfoot's assessment of
intertextuality
in
olycarp
is
the assumption that deviation from the model
of the intertextisa sign of historicity. If a parallelisanything less than pre-
cise, implies Lightfoot, then it is not a literary flourish, itisa historical fact.
In this particular scholarly debate the winneriseither history or literature,
either science or the arts, either truth or fiction. A perfect parallel is for
Lightfoot a duplication of the original narrative. We must infer from this
tha t an ideal parallel would be nothinglessthan a direct quotation; and yet
to set quotation above allusion shows a willful disregard for the function
' ' In the study oiPolycarp the first notable exception to this is Boudewijn Dehandschut-
ter 's dissertation
Martyrium Polyca rp: Een literair-kritische Studie
BETL 52 (Leuven: Pee ters,
1979)- Yet even for Dehandschutter quotation and canonicity linger in the background of his
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
8/21
124
C R l^oss
/VigiliaeChristianae 6j 2013)n/-i36
and aesthetics of allusion. If allusion
is
always treated as
pale, inadequate
version of quotation then itisnever engaged on its own terms.*^
Not all scholars subscribe to the history/literature binary that under-
writes Lightfoot'smagnum opus.Yet even in more recent scholarship quo-
tation lingers as an intertextual ideal. The magisterial work of Boudewijn
Dehandschutter describes allusions to the passion narratives as biblical
reminiscences and concludes, on this basis, that
Pofycarp
m ust have been
composed early.'^ It is precisely the lack of precise quotations or formulaic
citations that leads Dehandschutter to this conclusion. For, he argues, the
absence of these explicit forms of intertextual reference implies that at the
time the account was composed the passion narratives were not authorita-
tive.
Dehandschutter's logic is hereflawed While the explicit designation
of a text as scripture indicates its elevated (perhaps canonical) status, the
opposite is not the case. The absence of quotation formulae does not indi-
cate that a text was
not
scripture but merely that that form of reference is
not being employed in the instance in question. Implicit in Dehandschut-
ter's argument is the assumption that if text were canonical it would be
cited as a function ofitscanonicity. There is a clear hierarchy of intertex-
tual forms at work here in which quotationisalways privileged.
The fascination with citation or replicationisequally clearinthe workof
other scholars. Holmes's essay on ties between the passion narratives and
Pofycarp
restricts itself to those instances in the text in which evidence of
'*'' I do no t me an t o imply here a stru ctu ralis t definition of allusio n, in wh ich allusion is
both ca tegorica lly different from citati on an d functionally uniform . Lightfoot is, of co urse ,
not to be faulted for being una wa re of Kristeva or dec ons truction ist n otion s of intertextua l-
ity or failing to utilize the co nc ept an d language of allusion. But, l ike tho se wh o have fol-
lowed him an d precisely becau se he has bee n so influential, he is op en to critique for
workin g failing to recognize tha t Biblical para digm s are adapted and altered by later autho rs.
This much w as recognized with respect to Biblical types as early as the apostolic fathers
themselves.
' ' ' De han dsc hu tter first argued th is in his 1977 dissertation pub lished as Martyrium Poty-
carpi:EenUterair-kritische Studie (BETL52;Leuven:
1979).
The early date o fth e text was tied
to the fact that scriptural texts were not yet authoritative. He reaffirms this relationship
bet we en in tertextu al form a nd au thority in a 2005 essay in which he describes the in tertex-
tual phe no m en on as follows: earlier Christian docu m en ts being 'received' in the form n ot
of quotations but of allusions, implying the common basis of a written text but without
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
9/21
Nailing Down and Tying Up 125
the knowledge or use of specific gospel texts or doc um ents has been
argued.'^ While Holmes himself demonstrates that in some cases gospel
parallels can not be linked with a specific gospel, the term s of the discus-
sion are set in terms of replication and singular literary dependence on a
particular canonical text. '^ The implied goal, not only in the work of Hol-
mes but also in that of reception historians in general, is almost always to
demonstrate dependence upon a specific text. When this, upon occasion,
proves impossible, scholars often link this impossibility to the limitations
of the e viden ce. The Triple Tradition, for instance, is frequently and wo e-
fully cited as the complicating factor in the identification of intertexts.^
Arguably the most fascinating instance of scholarly debate about the
source of a specific intertextual gesture in Pofycarp is th e pr esu m ed ref-
erence in the sentence We do not praise those wh o hand themselves
over since the gospel does not so teach {Pofycarp4). The reference to
gospel (or, perh aps , Gospel ) has been variously used to deb ate the
author's view of the canonical or scriptural status of the gospels. This
de ba te a ssum es, of course, that th is teachin g s/iou/ci be found in the ca non i-
cal gospels themselves and has led to a number of unsuccessful attempts
to identify the source as M att
10:23.^'
Holm es notes that this is an odd line
of inte rpre tatio n, given tha t M att 10:23 prov ides instru ctio ns to flee from
'*' Holmes, Martyrdom of Polycarp and the New Testam ent, 408. Holmes explicitly relies
up on th e work of And rew Gregory, wh o acknow ledges the m ethodo logical difficulties posed
hy the use of allusion. See Andrew F. Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period
before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (WUNT 2/169; Tuhingen: Mohr
Sieheck, 2003), 5-20.
i= Ihid.
^ ' See, for examp le, the discussion in Andrew F. Gregory,Reception of Luke,7-15. Interest-
ingly, Gregory does not treatPolycarpas a place in which Luke is cited desp ite those places
whe re the au thor might he reading the Triple Tradi t ion.
^ Edouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gosp el of Saint M atthew on Christian Literature
before Saint Irenaeus, ii: The Later Christian Writings (ed. A.J. Bellinzoni; Louvain: Peeters,
1992),
48. Massaux h ere follows Deh andsc hutter, Martyrium Pofycarpi,244 and Buschmann,
Das Martyrium, 126-8. Th e sam e claim is m ad e, so m ew ha t differently, hy W.-D. Khler,D ie
Rezeption des Ma tthusevang eliums in der Zweit vor Irenaiis (WUNT 2.24; Tbin gen: M ohr
Siebeck, 1987), 489. Both these w orks are struc tured as studies of the interp retatio n of the
Gospel of Matthew in the period prior to Irenaeus and, thus, it is unfair to chastise these
authors for their selective interest in the first Gospel. At the same time, however, this is
precisely my point. It is the scholarly interest in tracing the in terpr etatio n of cano nical texts
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
10/21
126
C R
Moss / VigiliaeChristianae67 2093)uj-i^
persecution. This, he notes, is at odds with the statement in Pofycarp1.2
that Polycarp waited to be handed over. Holmes's critique is that because
the
Polycarp
do es no t accurately replicate M att 10:23 it is not de pe nd en t
upon it. That such great efforts should be taken to identify the presumed
source of this citation in the canonical gospels illustrates the extent to
which the debate is committed to a canonically grounded method. That
the terms of this debate hinge on
Pofycarp s
accu rate replication of the
meaning of the intertext demonstrates the extent to which interpreta-
tion is assumed to work as citation. Perhaps, in this Instance, the author
0Pofycarp wishes to reshape rather than reproduce his audience's under-
standing of Gospel traditions
about
flight in times of persecution. If this is
the case th en pe rha ps M att 10:23 's precisely the sort of text th at he has
in mind.
This argument might initially seem flimsy. After all, if there is no pre-
sumed relationship between the meaning of the text and the meaning of
the inte rtext th en the task of identifying th e intertex t is bo th p ointless and
impossible. At the same time we might compare Pofycarp 4.1 with other
rhetorical appeals to the teachings of the gospel that seem to inaccurately
reflect th e co nte nt of their sources. A fourth-century council of bisho ps in
Elvira (Spain) ruled that Christians who died during attacks on idols and
pagan temples should n ot be treated as martyrs because such actions can-
not be found in the Gospels. ^^ It is unlikely that the members of the coun-
cil were unaware of the claims of their contemporaries that in destroying
temp les they were imitating th e actions of Jesus ov erturning the tables of
money changers in the tem ple .^ While we might conclude that the bishops
simply don't know their scripture, a more probable ex planation is that they
are suppressing a particular exegetical tradition that maintained that the
destroying of pagan temples was in accordance with scripture. Hotmes's
statement that Pofycarp 4.1 doe s n ot accu rately reflect the m ean ing of
Matt10:23,therefore, assum es tha t there was no early-Christian scripturally
^^* The full text is as follows, Can. 60:
si quis ido(afregerit et ibidemfiterit ocdsus, quatenu s
in Evangelio scriptum non est eque invenitur sub ApostoUs unquamfactum, placuit in numero
eum non recipi martyrum (Eckhard Reichert, Die Caones der Synode von Elvira, Hamburg
1990,182). The da te of the cou ncil is deb ated . On the rh etorical ap peals to th e Gospel in the
disse min ation of lde as of toleration see Harold A. Drake, Lambs into Lambs: Explaining
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
11/21
Nailing Down and Tying Up 127
informed conversation abou t the significance and meaning of this passage
with respect to early Christian martyrdom.
Deeply embedded in these treatments of intertextuality in the
Martyr
dom ofPolycarpare three assumptions:
first
hat the intertexts are pure
the author utilized single texts or traditions directly and with respect for
their integrityand that deviation from a pure intertext is either the inde-
pendent innovation ofthe author in keeping with the genre ofthe martyr-
dom account or the hallmark of historicity;^'* second, that intertextual
forms can be used as a gauge for canonicity and thus for dating; and third,
that intertextuahty is at odds with authenticity. Each of these assumptions
is tied to a scholarly agenda preoccupied with canonical texts. It is in part
an interest in dating canonical texts that puts a premium on intertextual
purity. Similarly and conversely, it is the interest in preserving the authen-
ticity and, thus, the early date,o iPolycarpthat is scuttled by acknowledg-
ing a wider range of narrative allusion in the text.
Whatisabsent from the two methodologies described thus faris arobust
theory of how intertex tuahty works. Not only hasPolycarp like other non-
canonical literature, been subordinated to canon and to the kinds of ques-
tions that arise from a focus on canon and chronology, but intertextuality
itself has been treated as m ere duplication.^^Thisproblemisin part related
to the competing methods by which intertexts are identified andinter-
preted.
In positing a scholarly argument about the presence of an allusion,
one has to make a case for the philological or conceptual similarity of text
to intertext. Moreover, in order to justify the importance of this idea one
might also feel the need to show the insufficiency of other scholarly argu-
ments pertaining to intertextuality. These arguments are often made by
showing narrative or conceptual differences between the text one is dis-
cussing and those intertexts suggested by others. In the case o Polycarp
some have used this methodology in order to demonstrate the author's
2*'
Even in places where scholars openly acknowledge the role of tradition in the shaping of
Polycarpthey will nonetheless insist that this traditionisdep endent on a single Gospel. See,
for example, the argum ent of Massaux that the tradition is based on the first gospel,
Influenceofthe G ospel ofSaintMatthew 187.
^^' This difficulty has been, to an extent, highlighted by the editors of the 2006 volume
Beyond
Reception
who note that in scholarship the language used to describe the associa-
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
12/21
128 C R Moss /VigiliaeChristianae 6j(2013) ^7-136
exclusive knowledge of either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of
John.26 Imphcit in this process is the assumption that allusion works by
replicating the meaning of the intertext There is no room in this process
for adaptation or hybridity, much less subversion: the strongest case is
always made by demonstrating absolute consonance between text and
intertext.^^
In order to illustrate this point, we will exam ine a key mo m en t for analyses
of intertextuality in Pofycarp. The ambiguities inherent in this passage will
dem on strate so me of the limits of current ap proa ches to the q uestion.
Reassessing Intertextuality in Polycarp
In discussions of intertextuality in Polycarp the crit ical moment has
always been the supposed rupture with Ghristty imitation in the binding
of Polycarp. The ju nc tu re at which Polycarp refuses to be nailed to the
stake and is instead bound (13.3) can and has been understood as a break
in the
imitatio Christi
motif The divergence from the Gospel script might
be read, as Lightfoot wo uld hav e us do , as a violent parallel indic ating
the authenticity of the event. Polycarp declines to be nailed because the
historical Polycarp really was bound. This reading, however, would disre-
gard the narrative impact of Polycarp's binding in the account. Polycarp
^ ' On the flow of blood from the side ofPolycarp and the Gospel of John
9:34
see Steitz,
Charakter, 117-20. On the dove from the side ofPolycarp and Matt
3:16
see
Bidez,
Descrip-
tion, 579-624. The methodology employed h ere is that these two incidents in
Pofycarp
can
be tied only to the Gospels of Matthew or John , thereby demo nstrating reliability on those
texts.
In these argum ents itis
Pofycarp s
presumed replication of the Gospel motif tha t dem-
onstrates the author's reliance on tha t text. Thisisof courseastandard method in the iden-
tification of intertexts, but It places us in a methodological bind as it assumes that the
character of the relationship
is
one of replication.
' While this difficultyisslightly m itigated by Jon athan
Z.
Sm ith's argument about triangu-
lating comparisons, even in this case the a rgum ent is expressed in terms of similari.ty and
difference. Seejonathan Z. Smith,Drudgery
Divine:
On the Comparisono/EarfyChristian
and the
Religions
of
LateAntiquity
Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 14 {London
School of Oriental and African Studies; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, lggo),
51:
'x
resemblesymore thanzwith respect
to. . . ; '
or, 'x resemblesymore thanwresembleszwith
respect to... Thatisto
say,
the statem ent of comparison is never dyadic, butalwaystriadic;
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
13/21
Nailing Down and Tying Up 129
is not bound by accident but as the result of his own request; he states,
Leave me as
I
am ; for he wh o en ables m e to en du re the fire will also ena ble
m e to remain on the pyre with ou t moving, even witho ut the sense of secu-
rity w hich you get from th e nails. Polycarp's ability to stan d un fettere d in
som e respects trum ps the p osition and experience of the canonical C hrist.
Unlike Jesus , Polycarp do es no t requ ire fortifying nails to hold him s teady .
M ichael Holmes con clude s tha t this non-parallel serves to reinforce the
differencebetween the suffering Christ and his disciples. ^^
A nu m ber of scholars have pointed out the way in which the end uran ce
of Polycarp bo th here and elsewh ere in the narrative casts him as a philoso-
ph er and assimilates him to Socrates.^^ The similarities betw een Polycarp
and Socrates, long noted, include: their age{ poL 17D,Crito52E; Polycarp
9.3) and nobility (Phaed 58D; Polycarp
2.1;2.2;2.3;
3.1;
3.2 ;3o
th ei r refiasal to
flee to escape prosecution {Phaed 98E-99A; Polycarp 7.1); that they were
both charged with atheism
{Euth.
3B; Polycarp 3.2; 12.2) an d refused to pe r-
suad e o thers of the veracity of their claims[ poL 35D; Polycarp 10.2); their
prayers before death {Phaed 117C; Polycarp
14.1-3);
th e use of sacrificial ter-
minology to describe their deaths
{Phaed
118A; Po lycarp 14.1); an d th e
exem plary function of their de ath s{Phaed115C; Polycarp 1.2;
lg.i).^'
Leaving
aside the problem s of indirect influence from the de ath of Eleazar in
2 Maccabees 6 or even the Gospels, the argument for Socratic assimilation
certainly has some merit and com plicates the way in which we u nde rstand
^*' Holmes, Martyrdom ofPofycarp, 424. Holmes appears to overlook the way that if the
deaths of Polycarp and Jesus are here contrasted, Polycarp appears to outperform
Jesus .
23' See Jo ha nn es Geffcken Die christlichen Martyrien, Herm es 45
(1910):
481-505 an d Chri-
stel Butterweck, Martyriumssucht in der Alten Kirche? Studien zur Darstellung und Deutung
frchristlicher Martyrien (Beitrge zur historischen T heologie 87. Tb ingen: M ohr Siebeck,
1995).8-22 This argu m ent has recently be en revived by L. Stepha nie C obb in Imitatio Socra-
tis:
The Ma rtyrdom of Polycarp and the Noble Death Tradition, pap er prese nted at the
Ann ual Me eting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Novem ber2009,New Orlean s. On Poly-
carp and gym nosoph ist phi losophy see Jan
N.
Kozlowski, Polycarp as a Christian Gy mno so-
phist, Studia Patristica
5
(2011): 15-24.
^' W hile nobility is included am ong the parallels betw een Socrates and Polycarp it should
be noted that it is the martyrs in general who are described as noble, not Polycarp in
particular.
^ For a discussion of the influence of Socrates on early Christians and early Christian m artyr-
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
14/21
130
C R
Moss I
Vigiliae
Christianae 6j
2013) 117-136
intertextuality to work in the accou nt^^ Imitatio Christiand imitatio Socra-
tis
may be interwo ven and fused. It is interesting to note, how ever, that in
articulating the relationship between Polycarp and Socrates, scholars have
taken a methodological step that was not in view when Polycarp was com-
pared to Jesus, namely, the interte xts have been blurred a nd mixed. ^ The
documentation for the parallels between Polycarp and Socrates is drawn
from multiple literary sources:
the Apology,
the Crito,
Euthyphro,
and
Pha-
edo.
The iconic dea th of Socrates from wh ich the se parallels are add uce d is
not found in a single literary text. Moreover, the memory of Socrates was
mediated and shifted through the writings of Greco-Roman moralists and
philosophers.^ That the figure of Socrates was diffused through four hun-
dred years of culture only makes the situation more complicated. There is
no way to distinguish cu ltural p ortrait from literary dep iction . If we w an t to
argue t ha t there is an allusion to Socrates in this acco unt, th en it m ust be to
a compo site cultural portrait. If a me m ber of the audience und erstan ds the
allusion to Socrates, it is beca use he or she h as a non-literary image in his or
her mind.
We might co mp are this to notions of the infancy narratives. The do mi-
na nt c ontem porary narrative of the birth of Jesus inco rporates angels,
shepherds, animals, and magi. The image is indeed derived from literary
sources, but it ca nn ot be found in one single biblical text. The perform ance
of the infancy narrative fuses distinctive elements together into a novel
text that operates with a principle of inclusivity even as it creates a new
^^' Some have argued that the Martyrdom of Polycarp was influenced by Maccabean
ac co un ts th at, in tur n, we re influen ced by the figure of Soc rates. So, e.g., David A. deSilva,4
Maccabees, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 150. For the influence of
Socrates' dea th on th e passion narratives see Adela Yarbro Collins, Finding Meaning in the
Dea th of Jesus, The Journa l of Religion78/2 (1998):181;ead em , From Noble Death to Cruci-
fied Messiah,
NTS
40 (1994): 482-83.
^3*
Thisis,of course, the app roac h tha t we should tak e to all texts canon ical, apocryphal, and
non-Christian. The fact that scholars of early Christianity do not feel the need to argue for a
dependence on a particular Platonic text or adjudicate between Xenophon, Plato, and later
readers of these stories indicates that a different set of standards is being employed with
respects to canonical texts than non-Christian ones. divergence from the canonical story
{binding, rather than nailing) is the gro und s for scholarly interest in Socratic or p hilosophical
parallels, but divergences between Polycarp and Socrates demand no such exploration or
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
15/21
Nailing Down and Tying Up 131
m aster narrative . It seem s as if a similar process could und erlie th eMartyr-
dom of Pofycarp the que stion is, why has this intertextu al m odel be en
used to articulate only the relationship between Polycarp and Socrates and
not equally that between Polycarp and Jesus? The answer is that the com-
parison between Polycarp and Socrates is not constrained by the interests
in dating and canonicity that plague comparisons between Polycarp and
Jesus. Thisis,of course, the appr oa ch tha t we shou ld take to all texts can on-
ical, apocryph al, and non -Ch ristian. The fact th at sch olars of early C hristi-
anity do n ot feel the nee d to argue for
dep end enc e on a particular Platonic
text or adjudicate betw een X eno pho n, Plato, and later readers of these sto-
ries indicates that a different set of standards is being employed with
respec ts to canon ical texts than no n-Ch ristian one s. A divergence from
the canonical story (binding, rather than nailing) is the grounds for schol-
arly interes t in Socratic or philosop hical p arallels, bu t divergences betw een
Polycarp and Socrates dem and no such exploration or discussion.
M oreover, we might ask w he the r it is even necessary to locate tho se ele-
ments of the death of Polycarp that resonate with Socratic traditions so
concretely within the Platonic literary legacy, since these elements also
gesture toward much broader Greco-Roman constructions of masculinity.
Polycarp's self-control speaks to a worldview in which pain and emotion
we re a ssociated w ith femininity.^^ A particularly striking exam ple of ma s-
culin e self-control is found in Cicero's discussion of the true m an in the
Tusculan Disputations.Cicero relates, by way of example, the story of one
Gaius M arius, a rustic m an, bu t a ma n inde ed {rusticanus vir, sed plane
vir
who refused to be placed in restraints while an operation was carried
out on his leg.^^ After this display ofvalor Gaius insisted on an operation
on his second, unaffected leg. Gaius Marius's display of fortitude embodies
the philosophical division betwee n the natural, me re man {homo and the
heroic man
{vir
whose conduct surpasses his natural state.^^ Cicero's
35'
On this point with resp ect to early Christian literature see Colleen M. Conway,Behold
the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman M asculinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);
L. Stephanie Cobb,Dying to Be Men: Gender and Lan guage in Early Christian Martyr Texts,
Gen der, Theory, and Religion (New
York:
Co lum bia University Press, 2008); Gail
P.C.
Streete,
Redeemed Bodies: Women Martyrs in Early Christianity (Louisville, Ky.: W estm inste r Joh n
Knox, 2009).
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
16/21
132 C R Moss IVigiliaeChristianae Sy(2013)H/-136
example strikes a chord with the depiction of Polycarp, whose refusal of
restraints and easy embrace of sufFering mark him as a heroic man. The
heavenly voice tha t urges Polycarp to play the man in
9.1is
greeted w ith a
muscular display of Christianity. In short, there is more than one way to
read Polycarp's self-control in light of Greco-Roman values and sensibili-
ties;we need not necessarily retreat to the iconic Socrates.
The notion that the representation ofthe self-controlled Polycarpbreaks
with the d ea th of Jesus rests on the assum ption tha t ther e is a stable narra-
tive oft he crucifixion of Christ.^^ It ass um es tha t the au tho r inte rac ts exclu-
sively with a canonical passion narrative script in which Jesus is nailed,
rather than with a plethora of cultural motifs including apocryphal tradi-
tions,
interpretations ofthe passion narratives and other scriptural texts,
and the cultural significance of nailing and binding in general, all of which
aug m en t our un de rstan ding of this scene.^^ If we look beyond the c anon i-
cal passion narratives that have dominated discussions of intertextuality
in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp
however, it is clear that Polycarp's
self
restraint is not without precedent. Other re-readings ofthe passion narra-
tive insist on m ascu linizingjes us through the eradication of pain, fear, and
emotion. Luke's re-reading of Mark, for instance, certainly characterizes
the pass ion narra tive as philoso phical death.**** The de ath of Jesus in th e
late second -centur y Gospe/q/ /*eier casts Jes us as keeping silent durin g his
crucifixion as on e feeling no pain (4.11). In many re spe cts, the vision of
Jesus mirrored in Polycarp is in good company with these texts. Polycarp's
manhood see David Gilmore,
M anhood
in the
Making:
Cultural Concepts
of
Masculinity {
Haven, Conn.:YaleUniversity Press, iggo),11.
3 *By sthle narrative here do not mean a single intertext or specific Gospel, hut rather
the idea that there was a set {usually literal) interpretation of those common elements in
the canonical passion narrative to which the interpretation ofthe author
o
Pofycarpcan be
compared. In actual fact, as we willsee,the meanings of even the most foundational aspects
of the passion narrative were constantly heing interpreted. Without knowing precisely
which of these traditions our author
was
familiar
with,
we cannot offer
a
firm interpretation
ofhisrelationship to prior traditions.
^ ' The focus on the nailing and hinding reveals this assumption of a stable narrative per-
fectly. Only changes to a detail found in all four ofthe canonical passion narratives invite
this kind of scrutiny and appraisal. Of course, the omission of certain details without the
introduction ofnoveltymight be similarly im portan t and deliberate, as has been aptly dem-
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
17/21
Naiting Down and Tying Up
133
manly self-control can and perhaps should be treated as part of
second-
centu ry read ing tradition tha t cast Jesus as the ph ilosophical sage.
Even if we can speak confidently ab ou t the m an ne r in wh ich Polycarp
plays the man, we canno t draw simple conclusions about how the auth or
aug m ents his intertexts. That is, we ca nno t say with any certainty wh ether
or not the author intends to usurp, trump, or eradicate narratives in which
Jesus is nailed to the cross, because we cannot say with certainty that the
author utilized those accounts or held those narratives in view when he
wrote his acco unt. Wha t we can imag ine is how the
Ma rtyrdom ofPolycarp
would have been understood by audience members familiar with various
other early Christian traditions.
Nor can we assume that the focus of the author
or
the audience mem-
bers wo uld have rested up on the supp osed break with the crucifixion.
A noth er way of viewing the assim ilation to Christ is to focus not on discon-
tinuity with the cano nical passion narratives but on con tinuity with othe r
early Christian motifs. One function of Polycarp's binding is to assimilate
his dea th to the near-sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. For som e early Chris-
tians the
akedah
served as a pro toty pe of th e sacrifice of Jesu s and as an
ex am ple of faithfulness in God. *' Inte rw eav ing
akedah
and crucifixion in
this way, therefo re, is pa rt of
traditional Christian reinterpretation of the
binding of Isaac as a prototype of God's sacrifice of
Jesus.*^
When read in
light of the narrator's description of Polycarp as a splendid ram in 14.1, it
seem s that the b indin g ofPolycarp serves to draw togeth er sacrificial inter-
pretation s of his dea th with a tradition that c onn ected Isaac and Christ .
The reference to the binding of Isaac does not undermine the allusion to
the crucifixion, because the two accounts were linked in Christian typo-
logical constructions of history. The binding of Polycarp does not break
down the
imitatio
b ut ra the r reinforces it; Polycarp is inserte d into the cycle
of history alongside Isaac and Christ as ano the r typosof the inn oce nt sacri-
ficial victim. Read in this way, the binding of Polycarp serves a concrete
exegetical and theological purpose. What is impossible for us here is to
decide betw een these two readings of the binding event in the
Martyrdom
of Pofycarp. We can imagine how various hypo thetical ancien t readers
mig ht come to these con clusions, but we cann ot definitively e xclude one in
favor of the other.
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
18/21
134
C R
Moss / VigiUaeC hristianae67 2013)uj-t^
Conclusion
In scholarship on the
Martyrdom
ofPofycarp discussions of scriptural and
cultural intertexts have been marred by two sets of legitimate scholarly
agendas: a preoccupying interest in the historicity of events and a canoni-
cal commitment to the idea that intertexts must be pure and replicated
without augm entation . Following Samuel Sandmel's criticism of parallelo-
mania in 1962, the m ethod by which intertexts are identified has been
sharpened and focused on the idea of singular intertexts.'*^ After all, in
order to persuade one's colleagues that one has happened upon an impor-
tant intertext, one lists exclusive parallels between the primary text and
the newly recognized intertex t. The mannerinwhich one convinces others
of the viability of one's posited source rests on the idea that one has discov-
ered the single ancient text that can illuminate some otherwise inexplica-
ble element in the object of one's
study.
Scholarly comparisons of Polycarp
with Socrates andjesus have illustrated this quite nicely. Polycarp has been
cast as Socrates because the comparison with Socrates can illuminate ele-
ments of
the
text that comparisons with canonical passion narratives can-
not Yet, as we have seen, the situation was much more complicated.
Although the comparison with Socrates does indeed illuminate our under-
standing of Polycarp, it does not do so definitively; similarly, recourse to
comparisons with the passion narratives adds much to our interpretation
of the text, but comparisons with Jesus also present only one analytical
thread. The solution is not merely to add and subtract potential intertexts
until every divergence in the story
is
accounted for, but rather
to
leave open
the possibility of a multiplicity of readings by authors as well as audiences,
both partial and whole.'*'* Even if the allusionto asingle literary description
'*3' Samuel Sandmel, Parallelomania.V^-8 (1962): 1-13.
**' Studies of intertextuality th at do not focus on the author often have an ideal full-know-
ing reader as the object of study. The erudition of this posited audience mem ber
is
perhaps
matched onlybythe scholars who shapeher It stands to reason, though, tha t justasmodem
scholars havepresumably because of their own interests and literary fluencyfocused
on one or another intertext
as
the determinative influence onP ofycarp so too ancien t read-
erswould have understood
Polyearp
in theirowndistinctive
ways.
Thecomparison between
modem and ancient readings is instructive because scholarly descriptions of ancient audi-
ences use elite modem notions of education to distinguish between different k inds of
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
19/21
Nailing own and Tying Up 135
of Socrates could plausibly explain every aspect of the characterization of
Polycarp, we could not rule out other cultural and literary intertexts merely
because they are not, strictly speaking, necessary. Occam's razor is not
especially helpful when it comes to the ways that multiple individuals
interpret texts.
his
study
o ofycarp
has tried to reveal just how difficult it
is
to identify
specific literary intertexts
to the
exclusion
of
all otherinfiuences. The diffi-
culty of ascertaining the precise intertexts for the binding of Polycarp poses
a challenge for discussions of intertextuality in general and, more specifi-
cally, for the artificial differentiation of cultural and textual appropriation.
The ambiguity in the Polycarp story directs us to the ultimately unsustain-
able distinction between culture and text. Literary intertexts are no more
fixed and solid than cultural intertexts. This blurred line is exposed in the
tendency of scholars to argue that intertexts and infiuences were in the
air rather than held in the hand. Impossible to prove or disprove, this
recourse to atmospheric infiuence is perceived to be a stronger rhetorical
posture than literary dependence. This rhetorical sleight of hand skims
over the diverging commitments to authorial in tent and audience response
embedded in notions of infiuence and intertext, respectively. What the
recourse to atmospheric intertexts reveals is the impossibility of identify-
ing one single pure intertext.
Not only
is
it difficult to eliminate intertexts, it
is
increasingly difficult to
speak definitively about the relationship between text and intertext
because it is impossible to assert with certainty what combination of ideas
is being evoked. The account of Polycarp's martyrdom explicitly identifies
its hero as a model to be emulated and imitated and specifies the Gospel as
a key component of his martyrdom.
Yet
deviation from
or
correspondences
with the gospels canno t
be
definitively said to affirm, subvert, or trum p the
gospels because the author may be working no t only with m ultiple textual
portra its of Jesus but also with interpretive traditions, cultural tropes, and
non-Christian exemplars. Simultaneously and merely by its translocation
to a new narrative setting, the model presented by ofycarprecreates the
Jesus narrative
itself
and we find ourselves with a range of new and per-
haps distinctive interpretative possibilities.'*^ The recognition that inter-
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
20/21
136
C R
Moss I
Vigiliae
Christianae 6
2013) 117-136
textuality is complicated, indeterminate, and well-nigh impossible to nail
down does not mean that authors did not work with specific intertexts in
mind. Yet even in those rare cases where texts are accurately and directly
quoted, only theidentificationof the intertextnot itsmeaning n b
confidently asserted. We cannot assume, in those cases where texts are
directly replicated In the form of quotation, that the original meaning of
a text is being preserved by a later author. Meaning is always unsteady,
constantly reproduced, and indeterminate.
-
7/25/2019 MOSS, C. R. Nailing Down and Tying Up. Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility From the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
21/21
Copyright of Vigiliae Christianae is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.