Return to Home Page

Fox tells us that "the further the Decian persecution receded, the more its tales of heroism multiplied. However, among the legends and the mass of contemporary paperwork, we still lack one vital piece of evidence: an account of a martyrdom which can stand up to the doubts of scholars and historians." (460) Fox cites S. Gero (? see n. 32) as claiming that the account of the martyrdom of Pionius is a "pretence." According to Fox, however, it is "nothing of the sort" (460).

Fox observes (460) that the Greek text of the martyrdom of Polinius survives in a mss dating from no earlier than the twelfth century. According th Fox, however, "Its color and detail are confirmed by earlier versions" - an Armenian translation made in the 430s (How do we know this?), a fragmentary Latin translation dates from the eighth century, and a Slavonic mss dating from late eleventh century. (460)

How these mss "confirm" the color and detail of the account, however, is unclear, since the most that could be said is that they contain similar color and detail. More important, however, is that the presence of "color and detail" is not necessarily a mark of authenticity, but may simply characterize a good forgery.

As evidence for the authenticity of the Pionius story, Fox appeals primarily to details and local color. Fox is impressed by the fact that the text explicitly states that Decius was the Emperor, even "adding Trajan, correctly, to his name," and providing the precise dates, "the year 250 and the months February and March" (462) - although Eusebius' (longer) version seems to have included no such details, allowing him therefore to date the events earlier. Were such details simply left out in Eusebius' version? Why? Or were they added later - in which case how do we know that such "details" are reliable?

As additional evidence, Fox refers to the mention of several characters: POLEMON. He tells us that "Pionius and his fellow prisoners were arrested by a group of pagans who were led by Polemon, a temple official in Smyrna... Polemon was a famous name in Imperial Smyrna, and this Polemon fits very well as one of the edict's local commissioners. Coins of Smyrna in the second and third century honour the city and three of her temples, one of which was Polemon's temple of the two goddesses Nemeseis... Sensibly, the city had chosen a senior 'temple warden,' or neokoros, as one of the commissioners to enforce sacrifice for its local gods." (463) But all this can also explain why the writer of the Pionius story would have appropriated such a "famous name" for his story.

SABINA/POLITTA Although the early Armenian translator omitted almost every scene which mentioned her" (Why would he have done this?), a second leading figure is Sabina the Christian, who relates that she had been a slave girl, cast away by her mistress, the "lawless" Politta. Fox observes that that a recently discovered inscription (what date?) in the village of Apollonis, northeast of Smyrna, mentioned a certain Eutychianus, business agent of a Flavia Politta, who had acquired an estate near Apollonis. And this Flavia Politta was married to Manilius Fuscus, a future governor of Asia, and who (Fox speculates) "may well have bought this estate while serving in the province, probably around 210." And back in Rome, Manilius "had already served as one of Rome's board of 'fifteen men' who had authority over new foreign cults and controlled the use of the Sibylline Books. In 203/4, Manilius is known as their Master." And as such he presided over Rome's seventh round of "secular games," at which Politta led the procession. Other inscriptions witness to Flavia Politta's contributions gilding the extravagant forecourt of the gymnasium in Sardis in 211/212. (463f) Fox again speculates that Sabina "must have been a slave in this family's household, perhaps of Flavia Politta herself, or if not, of her daughter." (465). At least, this is what "must have been" if the story is authentic. But all this really shows is that Flavia Politta was a well-known figure, associated with western Anatolia, who could easily have been appropriated by the writer of this story for verisimilitude.

RUFINIUS. Pionius later engages in debate with a man named Rufinius, described as "one of those who were thought to excel at rhetoric." Fox observes that the name Rufinius "shows up intermittently" between 138 and 244 on coins from Smyrna inscribed with the names of the year's civil magistrate, and that the name "Claudius Rufinus the sophist" appears c. 208 and "Rufinus the sophist" ten years, at most, before Pionius' arrest. So Fox suggests that Rufinus the sophist "may have been born around 180 and survived until 250 to meet Pionius..." (466) "Serving the city during fifty years, Claudius Rufinus measured up to the great public figures of his city's history." (466)-- except that he was defeated in a legendary debate with Pionius! Again, it seems more probable that the figure of Rufinius is simply appropriated by the author to produce an exciting story.

According to Fox, "These individuals vindicate the martyrdom's details, date it to 250, and refute Eusebius's view." (468) On the contrary, these "details" themselves are what must be vindicated.

Fox combines the question of whether the story should be located in Smyrna during the reign of Decius or somewhere else during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (as Eusebius assumed) with the question of authenticity, which really should be separated. While his arguments are persuasive that, in its present form, the Pionius story is set in Smyrna during the Decian persecution, they do not persuade that the story is anything more than an embellished version of Eusebius' account of Polycarp's martyrdom, which in an indirect way now extends the celebration of Polycarp's martyrdom. In any case, he has not shown that we are dealing with anything more than a legend.

Almost as an aside, perhaps to indicate that he is not totally gullible, Fox identifies the legend of POLYEUCTUS is "fiction from start to finish," and observes that "Christians' abundant gifts for forgery soon met the demand for stories of their martyrs' 'last days.'" (468) Instead of providing further examples of such forgeries, however, he immediately observes that "the martyrs, however, had not been reticent, for the filth and darkness did not deter Christians from writing to their friends and brothers" -- for which he offers Paul, Cyprian, and Perpetua as examples - which provides occasion for presenting more such stories, which are supposedly reliable because they are "circumstantial and the visions detailed and local." (468f)

Fox now returns to an extended discussion of the story of Pionius, and in particular the two speeches of Pionius (470-492). He again appeals to the presence of "details" as a sign of authenticity. "Both these speeches... are so full of exact detail that they cannot be the late fiction which has so often been alleged. Again, they need only derive from Pionius himself and his 'composition'." (471)

With regard to Pionius's tirades against the Jews, for gloating over Christians who had lapsed and for inviting Christians into their homes, Fox observes:

With regard to the story Pionius attributed to the Jews about Jesus' execution as a crimnal and his resurrection appearances having been caused by sorcery, Fox observes, "It would be too sceptical to ascribe it all to his [Pionius's] imagination and to doubt if in this crisis the Jews were concerned to undermine their Christian hearers' faith. Rather, we are being treated to one of our rare glimpses of Jews' continuing missionary interest, and interest, indeed,which Christians no longer extended so openly to them." (480) But Fox also observes that Pionius rejoinder was much like Tertullian's discussion of the same problem, "using similar proof texts and some of Tertullian's phrases"! (480)

Jews in Smyrna (481) Fox attempts to justify Pionius's polemic against the Jews. All he tells us, however, is that there was "a Jewish community of some size," that "the Jews and pagans of Smyrna had lived in close contact," that the Jews had "high contacts in the city's life," and that "the Christian church was a poor relation to the strong Jewish community," which in his mind somehow justifies not only Pionius's rabid polemic but Melito's as well.

Return to Home Page