apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

ADDENDA. 727
p. 711 1. 20. The difficulty, real or supposed, in the identification of the 'great
sabbath' of Polycarp's martyrdom with the feast of Purim, which I have provisionally
adopted, has given rise to another theory of Mr C. H. Turner of New College, Oxford,
which he communicated to Bishop J. Wordsworth, and which the latter has introduced
into the posthumous edition of his father's work, Wordsworth's Church History to the
Council of Nicaa p. 163 sq (1889), stamping it with his o\vn approval. Turner
considers Waddington's date which I have adopted open to two objections.
1.
Lipsius {Chronologie p. 263) fixes the death of Pius and accession of Anicetus
A.D. 154 at the earliest and a.d. 156 at the latest. Now if this be so, and if
Polycarp was martyred in Feb. 155, he must have visited Anicetus at Easter 154; but
this is too narrow a margin, and Lipsius therefore prefers 156 to 155. Mr Turner
agrees with him. I believe that I have shown in my forthcoming edition of Clement
(l. p. 343), that it is impossible with our existing data to fix the accessions of the Roman
bishops in the middle of the second — century within three or four years, though a strict
reckoning would suggest A.D. 153 155 for that of Anicetus. But the conclusion to
which we are driven by the evidence is that, wherever we have an independent date, as
e.g. the Martyrdom of Polycarp, this should be used ' to test the accuracy of the chronology
of the papal list, and not conversely^ (id. p. 341).
2. He quotes Dr Salmon as showdng that my identification of the 'great sabbath'
of the Martyrdom with the Jewish feast of Purim 'is, if correct, fatal to the usually
accepted date, since Purim fell
even ten days of February 23 in A.D. 155.'
at the full moon of Adar, and no full moon fell within
But there was not the same reason why the
precise day of the full moon should be observed in the case of Purim, as there was in
the case of the Passover. Adar was the last month of the year, and it was at this
period of the year that the intercalations were made. Whether in this age the Jews
intercalated by whole months or fractions of months, we cannot say. Whether they
celebrated two feasts of Purim in the intercalary year, as they did at a later date, the
greater and the lesser, the one in Adar, the other in Veadar (the intercalary month),
we are not informed. The only certain fact is, that the Jewish intercalations at this
period were uncertain and varied in different localities.
Thus it seems to me that the irregularities of the period leave room for the
hypothesis that in the year 155 the feast of Purim may have fallen on February 23.
But I do not lay any stress on this particular solution. The expression aa^^arov ijLeya,
'a high sabbath,' would (as I have said) be satisfied by any day on which any festival
or commemoration was coincident with a sabbath.
On the other hand Mr Turner's theory requires that the 22nd should be substituted
for the 23rd, though there is no authority for this day. This substitution he supports
by the hypothesis, that in the calendar of Proconsular Asia the intercalary day
might be different from the Julian (vi Kal. Mart. = Feb. 23), so that in a leapyear
Feb. 22, not Feb. 23, would be the equivalent. But for this hypothesis — which
seems very unlikely in itself— there is no evidence. Nor do I see any possible intercalation
that would support the theory. In the inscription which I have discussed
(p. 683) I have given reasons why 2nd Anthesterion (Xanthicus) might be reckoned as
viii Kal. Mart, instead of vii Kal. Mart. As this was leap-year (a.d. 104), Mr Turner
seems to think that the fact will help him. I do not see how. If the supposed intercalary
day in the calendar of Proconsular Asia were before 3rd Xanthicus, it would
push this calendar one day forward as compared with the Julian, and 3rd Xanthicus
might be equivalent to vi Kal. Mart., but not to viii Kal. Mart. ; if it were after, it
could not affect the 3rd Xanthicus in the comparative reckoning of the two calendars.