apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM.
7^3
usage March 26 would in a.d. 169 be the Saturday preceding the
Paschal celebration. But the Saturday preceding the Passover was
called 'the great sabbath' by the Jews; and the same name for the day
would be retained by those Christians who followed the Quartodeciman
usage. He further infers from the Acts of Pionius, that the annual
festival of Polycarp was a moveable festival, being always kept on the
Saturday before the Paschal celebration.
Again Pearson {De Ann. Prim. Rom. Episc. c. 18, Minor Works 11.
p. 542 sq) adopts this same day. Having determined on grounds
which have been mentioned already (p. 653 sq) that the year of the
martyrdom was a.d. 147, he finds that in this year March 26 was a
Saturday and he calculates that it was the
; Saturday preceding the
14th Nisan, or the Paschal celebration. Hence it is called ad/3(3aTov
fieya.
The opinions of these older critics suggest two remarks.
First ; the stress which they laid on the testimony of the Paschal
Chronicle might have seemed justifiable when they wrote, but with the
fuller evidence which we possess the case is altogether different. This
evidence is threefold, (i) It can no longer be contended that the read-
emendation'. This
ing MaprtW in the Smyrnaean Letter is an arbitrary
reading appears in the best ms, and it moreover explains all the others.
(2)
We have overwhelming testimony that in the earliest ages the day of
Polycarp in the Greek and Eastern Church was February 23; and none
other is mentioned outside the Paschal Chronicle. On this point the
Acts of Pionius and the Syriac Martyrology are two entirely independent
witnesses of the highest value. (3) The reckoning of the Smyrnsean
Letter (Xanthicus 2 = February 23) is confirmed by the calendar in the
Florentine Hemerology, and they are quite independent the one of the
other.
Secondly ; though seemingly in the schemes of these critics the day
of the month confirms the date of the year, and conversely, yet this
confirmation is
only apparent, not real. The year is indeed ascertained
first, and the day of the month is found afterwards to harmonize with
it. But on examination we find that, on their own principles, there was
no more reason why Ussher should have chosen a.d. 169
A.D. 147 than any of the neighbouring years; but obviously
or Pearson
in both
^
Thus Pearson {Minor Works, II. Valesii ex errore manifesto orta est.' In
pp. 545, 546) speaks of the reading Map- like manner Usslier (p. 368 sq) assumes
riijiv
adopted by Valesius as nova ' sua the correctness of ' kirpikMv as his startlectio
hactenus inaudita,' and adds 'lectio ing point.