apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 689
The two last days must belong in some way to the birthday of
Augustus, which could not fail to be celebrated by this college. As
there is a gap at the end of the third list and the ypa/A/Aarcus has only
four days, I should think that there is
wanting the Dius i = Sept. 23.'
It will be seen that, besides its
general bearing, this list illustrates
some special points, the e.^. meaning of tt/jo (see p. 680), and of
Sebaste (see p. 714).]
(ii) A/ri/ 6.
Wieseler {^Christenverfolgwigen p. 47 sc}) arbitrarily rejects from the
chronological notice the words /atjvos Eav^tKoJ} Sevrepa lo-Tafjievov irpS
tTTTa KaXav8o)v MapTtwv (or 'ATrpiAtwv). He argues that the name Hav-
^iKos betokens a lunar month, and that a lunar reckoning
is still further
implied in the word la-raixivov. He insists moreover that the solar
calendar had not yet been introduced at Smyrna at the time of
Polycarp's martyrdom. But in a lunar calendar the 2nd of Xanthicus
would not correspond either to vii Kal. Mart, or to vii Kal. April., and
this part of the notice is therefore discredited. Though he regards
a matter of indifference to him how Feb. 23 came to be observed as the
festival of Polycarp, yet he tries to explain the fact. He infers from the
it as
Paschal Chronicle that for some reason or other it was at one time kept
on vii Kal. April., and he believes that the calendar of Asia Minor was
at a particular epoch pushed a month farther back so that vii Kal.
Mart, took the place of vii Kal. April.
I shall have to consider presently the arguments by which Wieseler endeavours
to prove that a lunar calendar prevailed at Smyrna in the middle
of the second century. As regards the rest of his speculations,
it is sufficient
to call attention to the fact that, even if we discard the evidence
drawn from the Acts of Pionius, which is surely very important, the Syriac
Martyrology (see above, p. 560), which places Polycarp's martyrdom on
February 23, carries us back two or three centuries earlier than the Paschal
Chronicle, and must therefore be regarded as far more trustworthy.
both the Asiatic and the Roman dates for the
Having thus rejected
month and day, he falls back on the notice of the 'great sabbath', as
the sole authentic chronological note of the day. But this he considers
all-sufficient. He holds that the ' great sabbath ' must refer to a Christian,
not a Jewish observance. He maintains with Ideler (11. p. 201)
and others that the Quartodeciman Paschal commemoration included
three days (Nisan 15, 16, 17) — the Passion and the Resurrection with
the intervening day when the
Lord rested in the grave
— corresponding
to the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, of the Western usage, though
IGN. I. 44