Epistula Polycarpi: Manuscripts

HULCE version of Epistula Polycarpi Edition

Introduction

Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, was a respected authority in northwestern Asia minor Christian communities. As Irenaeus testifies (Eusebius, His eccl. 5.20.8), he wrote several letters. However, only one has been preserved. Irenaeus (Hist eccl. 4.14.8) and Eusebius (Hist eccl. 3.36.13) knew only this letter.

The Greek manuscripts of the letter of Polycarp known to us are from the 15th and 16th centuries. They include only the beginning of the letter up to 9.2, followed by the latter half of the letter of Barnabas (5.7-fin). The gap between the two truncated letters is about 10.000 letters, which indicates that the Greek text of Pol. Phil. and Barn. had lost a quaternion, i.e., four leaves. Thus all the fifteen Greek manuscripts we have stem from one and the same Renaissance manuscript. We have the Greek text of Pol. Phil. 13 only because Eusebius quotes it in Hist. eccl. 3.36.13-15. Furthermore, there is an interesting textual source: Pandectes Scripturae Sacrae of Antiochus of Palestine, a monk active in the 7th century in the Palestinian monastery of Mar Saba. In Pandectes 123, Antiochus copies Pol. Phil. 6.1-2a and partially 5.2 without mentioning his source. These passages include interesting textual variants; they offer a unique chance to compare an early medieval Greek witness with both the renaissance Greek manuscripts and the Latin witnesses. This parallel was treated by Cotterell in 1891, but he neither studied the manuscripts nor thought about the textual significance of Pandectes.   

It is interesting that one group of the manuscripts that transmit Pol. Phil. 1.1-9.2 (later called family α) also include the long recension of the Ignatian corpus – the letters of Pseudo-Ignatius – which immediately precede the letter of Polycarp. Another group of manuscripts (called family β) do not include the Pseudo-Ignatian corpus but only the truncated letters of Polycarpus and Barnabas. Correspondingly, we know earlier manuscripts in which the Pseudo-Ignatian letters – which were written by editing the original letters towards the end of the 4th century – were originally transmitted independently of Pol. and Barn. Thus, Pol. and Barn. were most likely joined together before the Pseudo-Ignatian corpus was added to some manuscripts including Pol. Phil. and Barn.

The earliest Greek manuscript known to us is Vaticanus = Vat.Gr.859 (v), In 1880, Franz Xaver Funk (1840 – 1907), the renowned editor of the works of the Apostolic fathers, published a short article,  His conclusion, embraced by all scholars studying these manuscripts today, was that Ottobonianus = Ott.Gr.348 (o) is a copy of Vaticanus, and Florentinus = Plut. 7.21 (f), in turn, is a copy of Ottobonianus, while Parisinus = Grec 437 (p) was copied from Florentinus – and I may add that so is Eblatanus (e). Thus, in order to edit the original Greek text of Ps.-Ign., Pol. and Barn., we can discard all other Greek witnesses. There is, however, a minor problem of a relatively small number of readings of v, which seem to be secondary in relation to o or f. This problem would need a detailed study.

As for the families α and β, in Pol. Phil. there are only about ten clear textual differences that separate them from one another. The manuscripts of family β seem to go back to Vaticanus of family α or a lost archetype very close to it – or possibly to two slightly different manuscripts. Anyway, the ties between all known Greek manuscripts are close. Excepting Andros (a), Parisinus (p) and Eblanus (e), all the Greek manuscripts have their Sitz im Leben in Italy, particularly in Vatican. Their interrelationship is tight, and most of them stem from the 16th century.

The Latin translation of Pol. Phil. has been essential for scholars because it includes the whole letter. It was created in late antiquity, as some striking parallels to the Old Latin Bible translation and the writings of the Western Fathers demonstrate (decorosus, 1.1; detractio, 2.2 and 4.3; inculpabilis, 14; vaniloquium, 2.1; see Bauer 1995, 17-18). The similarities between the Latin translation of Pol. Phil. and Passio Sancti Ignatii, which is dependent on the former, also support this dating. Because of its clear differences from the Greek original, some scholars have concluded that the Latin translation is of poor quality, while others rather suggest that it is based on a somewhat corrupted Greek manuscript.

The earliest Latin manuscript of Pol. Phil. is Regius = Reg.lat.81 (r) is from the 9th century and is preserved in the Vatican Library (on Latin manuscripts, see Myllykoski 2023, 12-18). In spite of relatively many deviant readings, it is also the best manuscript of family α; almost equally important is the long-neglected Artebatensis = Arras, ms. 51 (a; 11th century). Because of the striking similarity between these two manuscripts, I assume that they both are copied from an original that was located in Rome. Because Carolopolitanus α = Charleville-Mezieres, ms. 266 (cα, the latter half of the 12th century) includes many deviations from the earlier readings, many of which appear in the later, 15th century manuscripts of family α. The crown witness of family β is Bruxellensis = Bruxelles, ms. 1024 (b) from the 11th century. The six witnesses of family β collated here have a very united profile. They all seem to be direct or second-hand copies of an early Italian manuscript. It is likely that most of these manuscripts (b c rβ o t cβ) were copied for newly founded monasteries in the area between Paris and Brussels in the 12th century. In order to explain the high degree of their similarities we just have to assume one Italian manuscript that became available in Paris somewhat earlier.

The two central places for the production and transmission of Latin manuscripts in the Middle Ages were Rome and Paris. Up to the late Renaissance printed editions, Pol. Phil. was mostly known in Italy, France and Britain. The Greek manuscripts that included the mutilated letter of Polycarp (up to 9.2) came to Italy most likely in the late 15th century, after the final collapse of the Byzantine empire.

Greek Manuscripts: Family α

Greek Manuscripts: Family β

Manuscripts Copies of Greek Editions

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica (edition and the best manuscript)

Antiochus monachus, Pandectes Scripturae Sacrae (edition and a good manuscript)

Latin Manuscripts: Family α

Latin Manuscripts: Family β

Unclassified Latin manuscripts

Manuscript Copies of Latin Editions

Saavutettavuusseloste

HULib Critical Editions 2023