apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

650 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(§ 21), of which Eusebius says nothing. He places the martyrdom (see
above, p. 568) in the consulship of ^Uanus' and Pastor, i.e. a.d. 163,
in which year the consuls were M. Pontius Laelianus and A. Junius
Pastor. It is not obvious why he should have chosen this particular
year. As he seems to have interpreted o-a^ySara) /Aeya'Aw according to
the Christian language of his own day to mean the Saturday before
Easter Day (inserting the definite article, rw fxeyaXu) o-a/S/SaTw), and to
have altered the name of the month accordingly from vii Kal. Mart,
to vii Kal. April, so that the martyrdom might fall within a possible
Easter season, we might suspect that he selected the earliest year
after the accession of M. Aurelius, when Easter Day fell on vi Kal.
April, according to his reckoning. At all events it is difficult to resist
the impression that the choice of this year was connected with his
Paschal calculations.
On the other hand Idatius places the martyrdom in the ist year of
M. Aurelius. After the consuls of the year 161, he writes 'His conss.
orta persecutione passi Polycarpus et Pionius' {C/iro/i. Pasch. 11. p. 162,
ed. Bonn.). This is perfectly intelligible. Polycarp's martyrdom
is the
first incident mentioned by Eusebius in his History after the accession
of M. Aurelius, and is introduced with the words Iv touto), 'At this time'.
All the writers hitherto quoted have placed the martyrdom during
the reign of M. Aurelius, following either the Chronicle or the History
of Eusebius. On the other hand Georgius Hamartolus with
his later plagiarists, and perhaps also some earlier chronicler whom he
copied, assign it to the reign of his predecessor Antoninus Pius (see above,
P- 573)' Though cogent reasons will be given hereafter for adopting
this as the correct view,
it seems to me highly doubtful whether these
writers based their opinion on any
historical tradition or critical investigation.
The name Antoninus was common not only to Antoninus
Pius and M. Aurelius, but hkewise to Commodus and several later
emperors. Hence confusions are frequent. Georgius might have derived
his information ultimately from Eusebius through some intermediate
writer who omitted to say which of the Antonines was meant.
Eusebius
several times calls M. Aurelius by the name 'Antoninus' alone (iv. 26,
30, V. 4, 9) and, as we have seen (p. 648), he describes the persecutions
in Gaul as IttI
happening 'AvrwvtVoi;.
Socrates stands alone in placing the martyrdom under Gordian,
A.D. 238— 244 (see above, p. 562). It is not easy to explain this gross
^
'Vetere, ut videtur, erfore, quia
in l. aeliano exaratum esse diserte traduobus
titulis, Hispano (C /. L. 11. ditur'; YA€\\\ Fast. Cois. p. 76.
3552) et Romano (C. I. L. vi. 1497),