apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

LETTER OF THE SMYRN^ANS. 637
A very strong case is thus made out for the credibiUty of the statements
in this chronological postscript. On the other hand it has
been commonly supposed that Eusebius was unacquainted with it;
and his alleged ignorance is regarded as an evidence of a later date.
But after the cogent argument for the unity of authorship offered above
(p.
626 sq), some other explanation must be sought for this ignorance
if it really existed. Thus we might suppose that his copy of the
document was mutilated at the end. This would be an easy solution.
But, after all, what solid ground is there for believing him ignorant
The paragraph contains matter which may be highly interesting to us,
but which would have no value for him. He abridges the document
before him, and he ends naturally with the sentence which closes the
account of the martyrdom. The rest of the main document, as well as
these postscripts,
is left untouched. But it may be urged that he shows
himself ignorant of the true date of the martyrdom, and that this paragraph
mentioning the proconsulate of Statius Quadratus would have put
him in possession of the information required. My reply is, that
judging from other cases, he was without the means, and would not
have taken the trouble, to identify the year by the proconsul's name.
In several other instances he mentions (always in quotations from other
writers) the proconsulates during which certain events took place but
;
in every case he shows himself ignorant — both in the Chronicon and in
the History — of the date of the incidents mentioned. Thus the letters
of Hadrian relating to the Christians are connected with the proconsulates
of Serenius [Licinius] Granianus and Minucius Fundanus
{H. E. iv. 8) ;
the martyrdom of Sagaris and the Paschal controversy at
Laodicea with the proconsulate of Servillius [Sergius] Paulus {H. E. iv.
26) incidents in the Montanist
; struggle with the proconsulate of Gratus
{H. E. V. 16); certain others in the same struggle with the proconsulate
of ^milius Frontinus {H. E. v. 18). It is clear then that he had no
list of the proconsuls before him which would settle the chronology;
and that he grudged either the time or the labour which would have
enabled him to supply the deficiency. He deals in the same way
likewise with other provincial governors, as for instance Pliny the proprretor
of Bithynia during the Christian persecution there {H. E. iii. 33),
and Atticus the legate of Syria when Symeon was martyred {H. E. iii. 32),
though it was a matter of real interest in both cases to have ascertained
the exact dates.