moss, c. r. nailing down and tying up. lessons in intertextual impossibility from the martyrdom of...

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

[email protected]

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


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


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


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


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


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.


7/21

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


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


9/21


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


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


11/21


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-


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;


13/21


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-


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


15/21


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).


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-


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.


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


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-


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.


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.

moss, c. r. nailing down and tying up. lessons in intertextual impossibility from the martyrdom of...

Documents