apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 721
(P- 3 0'- J^st as we saw that the Roman date, iv Id. Mart., was interpolated
in the earlier part of the narrative from the later, so conversely
the 'sabbath' is interpolated in the later part from the earlier. Everything
in the narrative points to a sabbath as the day of the apprehension,
but nothing there suggests a sabbath as the day of the actual
martyrdom.
We may therefore with some confidence restore the chronological
notice at the close of the Acts of Pionius as follows;
Taura eTrpa^^r;
iirl dvOvTrdrov [T179 'Acrias] 'louAtov TipoKXov Ko(,VTtA.Xtavov,
vTraTivovTtav [ai;TOKpaTopos]
raioi; Mecrcrtoi; Ko'tVrov Tpatavou AiKiov
[^e^acTTOu] TO Sevrepov koL Ovcttlov Vpdrov, irpo reacrapiov elSwv Mapriwv
Kara 'Pa)p,atots, Kara 8e Acriavovs fxyjvo^ cktov ivveaKaiSeKarr] Tjfjiepa, Mpa
SeKarrj, Kard Se ly/xas /SacrtXevovTos toC K.vpLOv rjfjLwv Irjaov XpicrTOiJ k.t.A.
'These things happened when Julius Proculus Quintilianus was proconsul [of
Asia], in the consulship of [Imperator] Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius [Augustus]
for the second time and Vettius Gratus, according to Roman reckoning on the
4th before the Ides of March, according to Asiatic reckoning on the lytli day of the
sixth month, at the tenth hour, but according to the reckoning of us (Christians) in
the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc'
Aube' {LEglise et V I^tat p. 142, 1885) writes; 'It is certain that the
Greek Acts which Eusebius had before his
eyes
did not contain either
the name of the proconsul who judged Pionius or the name of the
emperor Trajanus Decius, both of them given in the Latin works.' I do
not feel so sure on this point. As regards the proconsul's name, I have
already given reasons why it might have been read by Eusebius without
suggesting a date (p. 637). The case of the emperor's name is different.
Clearly it cannot have stood in the forefront (§ 2), as it does in B, tov
TOV Kara AcKtov. But its absence in A shows that the mention of
Stwyp-oi5
the name here in B is a later addition. If however it occurred only in
the chronological note at the end, it might possibly have escaped his
notice, more especially if avTOKparopos and Se^ao-roi) were wanting in
his copy, as they are in some of ours. Zahn apparently considers that
Eusebius was correct in ascribing the martyrdom of Pionius to the age
of Polycarp and not to that of Decius (see Harnack Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.
II. p. 81). He therefore looks upon the present Ads of Pionius
as interpolated since the time of Eusebius (Ign, et Polyc. Episi. pp. 1,
164, 165). But the characteristics of the age of Decius (the prominence
of the sects for instance) seem to me to be woven into the very texture
1
He says 'utrobique',' in both places'; day of the apprehension, a sabbath is
but in the earlier passage, where it is the altogether in its place,
as we have seen.
IGN. I. 46