apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

6/2 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
after adopting Waddington's general results. This correspondence of
the days however will only suit a.d. 156, and not a.d. 155,
It has been shown that the language of Aristides is unfavourable
to the substitution of this later date (a.d. 156). And, when we turn
from the orations of Aristides to the notices of Polycarp, the evidence
is still more strong against this substitution. The martyrdom
is stated
to have taken place on the 2nd of Xanthicus and on a 'great sabbath.'
Now the 2nd of Xanthicus (February 23) fell on a Saturday in 155, but
not in 156. Hilgenfeld, as I have already mentioned, disposes
difficulty in his own way.
Lipsius cuts the knot without attempting to untie it.
of this
He condemns
the mention of the ' great sabbath ' outright as a spurious and legendary
addition. It is difficult to see on what grounds he can do this, while
accepting the proconsulship of Quadratus as a historical fact. The
latter is mentioned in the chronological postscript to the Martyrdom
alone. The notice of the great sabbath has a far higher title to respect ;
for it occurs not only in this postscript (§ 21), but in the body of the
document itself (§ 8). It is indeed the best authenticated of any of
the chronological data relating to the martyrdom.
I mentioned incidentally at an earlier point (p. 659) one possibiHty
which has escaped Waddington. It is necessary to revert to this now.
It was pointed out that the marriage
of M. Aurelius and Faustina in all
probability took place a year earlier than it.
Waddington places This
allows the alternative of a.d. 144, 145, or a.d. 145, 146, for the consulship
of Julianus, whereas Waddington contemplates only
the latter.
But, if the former were adopted, then the proconsulship of Quadratus
would be removed a year back correspondingly, and the martyrdom
would fall in a.d. 154. The reason for rejecting this solution is the fact
already mentioned, that the 2nd of Xanthicus did not fall on a Saturday
in that year.
We have seen that the great majority of subsequent
critics have
accepted Waddington's revision of the Aristidean chronology with or
without modifications which have no great importance. Amidst this
general chorus of approbation however, two dissentient voices have been
raised loudly. It has been strenuously attacked from directly opposite
quarters, by the ultra -conservative critic Wieseler {Christenverfolgungen
etc. p. 34 sq, 1878), and by the ultra- radical critic Keim {Aus detn
Urchristejithimi p. 34 sq, 1878).
Wieseler has subjected Waddington's results to a thorough examination
;
but his failure only serves to establish Waddington's main