apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 485
Eusebius is inconsistent with itself, as we have seen (p. 483). Nor do we get rid of
our difficulties by substituting, as I have suggested, xix for xv ;
since Trib. Potest.
xix, corresponding with A.D. 165, still falls within the joint reign of M. Aurelius and
went out in the name of both em-
L. Verus. But during this period edicts always
perors. M. Aurelius was scrupulously careful for the dignity of his brother Augustus;
and it is inconceivable that, writing to the Commune Asiae which was more immediately
under the control of Verus at this time, he should have omitted Verus' name
altogether. On the other hand the body of the document is evidently preserved in a
purer form in Eusebius. In the Justin copy the transcriber has striven to get more
explicit testimony in favour of the Christians and against heathendom. Thus for iyw /jl^v
otSa ' I know ' he substitutes iyw ip/J-vv
'
I supposed' ;
but he has altered the rest of the
sentence carelessly, so as to leave a confused construction eyC: (^fj-v on Kal toijs 6eois
iiri/jLeXeTs ^ffecrdat k.t.\. The on has been retained through inadvertence, though an
infinitive has been substituted for a finite verb in the rest of the sentence.
Examples
indeed of this grammatical dislocation are found elsewhere (see Otto's note on Justin.
Dia/. 45), but it is generally masked by the intervening words. Again the insertion
eivfp SvwaivTO, implying the impotence of the heathen deities, and of arii'a ov
Svfifj.eda a7ro5e^ai, emphasizing the injustice of the charges against the Christians,
tell their own tale. The workmanship is too coarse for the original forger of the
document. I suppose then that the original document bore the name of Antoninus
Pius, but that it was refurbished somewhat later and supplied with a new
label, so as to apply to M. Aurelius. Whether it was first issued while Antoninus
Pius was still living, may be open to question. Probably not. Indeed the forgery
would seem to have been suggested by what Melito says of Antoninus Pius in his
Apology addressed to M. Aurelius, or at all events to have been elicited by the persecutions
which called forth a flood of apologetic literature under this latter emperor.
The copy, bearing the name of M. Aurelius, cannot have been issued till some years
after the death of L. Verus, when the twofold incongruity of the insertion of the title
Armeniacus (written 'Armenius') and the omission of Verus' name would not strike
the mind of the falsifier. The fate of the two forms of the edict however has been
different. The Pian form has undergone bold manipulation at the hands of some later
transcriber, who dissatisfied with the testimony borne by the Roman emperor to
Christianity made him speak in more explicit language
;
whereas on the other hand
the Aurelian form, preserved in Eusebius, has come down to us very much in the
words in which it was issued by the redactor. The strange procedure of Eusebius, who
while giving the copy which bears in the forefront the name of M. Aurelius nevertheless
ascribes it to Antoninus Pius, can best be explained by supposing that he was
acquainted with both forms of the document.
M. Aurelius
(iii) [a.d. 161— 180].
(a) Letter to the Romafi People and Setiate.
M.dpKOv /SaciXccus iiridToXr] tt/dos Trjv crvyKkiqTOv, Iv y [xapTvpel XpKr-
Ttavov aiTtovs yeyevrjaOai rr^s VLi