apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 4^3
The first form of this edict, bearing the name of Antoninus Pius, is attached in the
Mss as a sort of appendix to the Second Apology of Justin Martyr {Op. i. p. 244 sq,
Otto, ed. 3). There is no reason however for supposing that it was so attached
by Justin himself, and this appendix must be due to a later transcriber. In the
opening lines the mss have SrjixapxiKTJi i^ovaias viraros ird', TraTTjp Trarpidos to ku,
which was corrected by Mommsen {Thcol. Jalirb. xiv. p. 431, 1855) as I have given
it in the text, 57]fj.apxi-Kris e^ovcias rb Ka ,
vTraros to 5', waTy]p waTpLdos
— a correction
which commends itself, for the text of the mss is impossible, whether the document be
genuine or not. This reckoning, Trib. Potest, xxi, Cons, iv, corresponds to a.d. 158,
three years after the probable date of Polycarp's martyrdom.
The second form, professing to have issued from M. Aurelius, is found in Eusebius
(ZT. £. iv. 13). The emperor's titles however are not consonant with themselves. The
dates, Trib. Potest, xv, Cons, iii, would give a.d. i6i ;
but M. Aurelius did not assume
the name 'Armeniacus' (not'Apfi&ios but 'Apij.evi.aK6s)
till a.d. 163 (Capitolin. Marcus
8, Verus 7; see Clinton Fasti Roinani i. p. 151 sq). If therefore the document be
genuine, some correction is necessary. Thus we might make an alteration in the
numbers, and read, as I have suggested elsewhere (11. p. 496), 9 {
— 'ivvarov) for €
{wiixTnov), in which case we shall get, Trib. Potest, xix, Cons, iii, corresponding to
A.D. 165. Or again we might strike out the word 'ApfiivLos as a later addition; and
this solution is suggested both by the form {'Ap/j.€vi.aK6s alone being correct) and
by the fact that the words 'AppiivLos dpxi-epevs p-iyiaTOs are wanting in Chroii. Pasch.
p. 484 sq (ed. Bonn.), where it is quoted. In Rufinus however and in the Syriac
Version of Eusebius they are found as in the Greek ; and, since the Chronicon Paschale
would naturally derive the document from Eusebius, we must attribute the omission
to the carelessness of a scribe, whose eye was misled by the homceoteleuton -crros in
2e/3a(7r6s, jxiyiffTos,
It is to be observed also that, though the name of M. Aurelius is distinctly given in
the heading of the edict itself, yet Eusebius [H. E. iv. 12) prefaces it with the words,
ei'Tenx^ets 5e /cat 1;^' eTepuv 6 avTos j3a(n\evs eirl ttjs 'Aaias dS€\(pQv, TravToiais xj^peai
Trpos tQiv iinxo3pi(i}v drjpuov KaTairovovixivuiv, TOiavT-qs rj^lucre Tb kolvov ttjs 'Acrias
Siardfews; where 'the same emperor' ought to refer to Antoninus Pius, who has been
mentioned immediately before by Eusebius (iv. 11) as the sovereign to whom Justin
dedicated his Apology (jSaaiXel 'AvtwvIvi^ ry 5ij iiriKK-qdivTi Ewe/Sei), and again (iv.
12) in the opening of the Apology itself, which Eusebius quotes. Moreover the document
is introduced in the midst of events relating to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and
this emperor's death and the consequent succession of M. Aurelius are not recorded
till a later point in the history (iv. 14).
On the supposition of the genuineness, Wieseler {Christaiverfolgiingen p. 21 sq)
explains these phenomena as follows. The edict, though bearing the name of the
reigning Augustus, Antoninus Pius, was really dictated by the Cresar, M. Aurelius. To
this Melito refers, when in his Apology addressed to the latter he writes (Euseb. H. E.
iv. 26), 6 5^ TraTTfp crov, Kai