apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

7l8 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
To these passages
in the Acts should be added the notice in the Chroti. Pasch.
pp. 503, 504 (ed. Bonn.), which I will call C.
(C) 'I»'5. tS*. a'. h-K. AckIov Katcropos Kai Ackiov vlov avrov.
Kat ev 'Z/ivpvri ttjs 'Aaias ni6j'iOS avv aWots woWoh ifiaprvp-qcrfv, dcr/p \6yios /cat tujv
ev fiaOrifiacnv tov XpiffrMPaJv \6yov diaTrpenovTiov yviiipi^oixevos, eirl Ilp6K\ov KulVriXXiavou
dvOvwarov ttjs 'Auias wpb d' I5(2v Mapriwc, eurt Kara 'Aaiavoi'S firjvl '^ktu) (.§ ,
(ro/3-
pdrov upq. deKarrj.
With these data, we have to consider first the year and then the day
of the martyrdom.
(i)
As regards the year, there can be no doubt that A assigns
it to
A.D. 250. The words should doubtless be read 'Sub proconsule JuUo
Proclo Quintiliano, coss. Imperatore Gaio Messio Quinto Trajano
Decio et Vettio Grato.' On the other hand C places
it under a.d. 251,
but C has tumbled about the consuls for these years in hopeless confusion.
It gives the names in the following order Decius and
: (i)
Gratianus, i.e. Gratus (a.d. 250); (ii) Gallus and Volusianus (a.d. 252);
(iii) Volusianus and Maximus (a.d. 253); (iv) Decius and Decius (a.d.
251); (v) Valerianus and Gallienus (a.d. 254). Its authority therefore
is valueless. As regards B, Ussher (de Maced. et Asian. Ami. p.
372 sq) considers that it originally gave the consuls of a.d. 251 in the
text; that some scribe annotated in the margin those of a.d. 250 'ex
fastis consularibus, qui hoc in loco sunt turbatissimi ' ;
and that thence
the note crept partially into the text and produced the confusion which
we find. It should be observed that Ussher was only acquainted with
B and C. Had he known A, he could not have maintained this view.
If there be any interpolation from the margin such as he supposes, it
must have been the converse. The consuls of a.d. 250
must have
stood in the text originally, and those of a.d. 251 have been superposed.
But I do not see anything of the kind. The to Tpirov is a
mistaken interpretation of F, i.e. Taiov, the praenomen of Decius, which
accordingly has disappeared in B, and to SeuTtpov belongs properly to
the senior consul, the emperor himself; but as he was already provided
with a number to rpiTov in the way which I have it
explained, was
necessary to transfer to Sevrepov to his junior colleague. The younger
Decius however, the son Herennius Etruscus, was never consul more
than once. The rest of the confusion is
explained by a careless repetition
of names. The year of the martyrdom therefore is a.d. 250. This
year moreover, as I have shown (see above, p. 713), offers an explanation
of the ' great sabbath ',
which it is
impossible to explain if the year
251
be taken.
(2)
When we come to consider the day, we must keep apart two