Roger Pearse

Is there anyone reading this who is familiar with a supposed citation from Polycarp in the 7th century Armenian writer, Ananias of Shirak? I came across a reference to it while looking at F. Cumont, "Textes et Monuments" (Mithras), vol. 1, p. 355 (1899).

Cumont also says that F.C.Conybeare has done an English translation of it (which he has seen), which will appear 'soon' in The Expositor.

I looked through all the issues of the Expositor from 1899 to 1905, without finding it. I did find two works of Ananias, translated by FCC, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6, but these do not contain the passage. I think the work may be "On Epiphany" or something like that, but I don't have anything here that even mentions the writer or the text.

Can anyone offer anything on this passage, and where it might be found and, (if possible) where I can find this translation?

Many thanks,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

It says here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.polycarp.html with respect to Polycarp that This may confirm the title of the work.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Many thanks! There is remarkably little about this chap online, I find. However Steven Goranson in Crosstalk has now given me a reference for it:

Apparently Conybeare's translation "On Christmas" appeared in Expositor in 1896, 5th. series, 4: 121-137. (Perhaps Cumont's book reprinted some earlier articles, so was not up to date on this?)

This according to Robert H. Hewsen, "Science in Seventh-Century Armenia: Ananais of Sirak," Isis v.59 no.1 (Spring 1968) 32-45 (here 33 n.5). [S in Sirak has a caret] P. 45 "Discourse on Christmas," with a Polycarp reference, is said to be about the dates of Christmas and Epiphany in the Armenian calendar, differing from other calendars.

I've asked my local library to obtain a copy, and I will place it online.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

This (found at various places on the web but apparently originally friom the 1912 1th ed of the Encyclopedia Britannica may be relevant. (My suspicion is that the 3rd century De Pascha Computus may be if anything earlier than the ideas that Ananias attributes to Polycarp; ie I doubt the accuracy of Ananias' attribution.)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

I have scanned F.C.Conybeare's English translation of a work on the date of Christmas by the Armenian writer Ananias of Shirak (ca. 650), and placed it online. It is available here.

The printed text and also the electronic version is placed in the public domain. Copying and reposting is encouraged, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

This is really fascinating stuff. IF we assume that this is genuinely based on something Polycarp claimed, then some rather interesting implications arise.

This presumably arose out of disputes about Easter, in which we know Polycarp was involved, rather than primarily about the birth of Christ. IE the underlying claim is probably that the Passion and birth of Christ occurred on the same day of the year (See Clement of Alexandria Stromateis book 1 chapter 21). Since Polycarp claims that Christ was born on a Sunday the idea is presumbly that the birth and resurrection both occurred on the same date of the year and on a Sunday. However the baptism occurred exactly 30 years after the birth but on a Wednesday.

These claims (assuming Polycarp did not believe that Christ died 11 years after his baptism) impose strong chronological constraints IE that Christ died 33 years after his birth and in a leap year having been baptised 3 years earlier. The most likely dates are that Jesus according to Polycarp was born in 2 BCE baptised in 29 BCE and crucified in 32 BCE. With the birth baptism and resurrection (probably) dated April 13th in those years. (the Sunday nearest full moon in 32 BCE)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Interesting indeed -- thank you, Andrew.

I don't know whether we can rely on Ananias having accurate information, ca. 650, on what Polycarp wrote but of course it is possible. Photius ca. 800 had a great deal more Greek literature than we do. Conybeare refers to a now lost work, Responsiones by Polycarp, transmitted by Victor, but I must admit that I have never heard of this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

Roger, I had blogged a little about this work under the rubric of "Pseudo-Polycarp":

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...-polycarp.html
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...olycarp-2.html
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...olycarp-3.html
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...olycarp-4.html
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...olycarp-5.html

Chapman thought that Pseudo-Polycarp was really a misattributed Papias, but I don't know whether that will hold up either.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Many thanks indeed for these. Would you be willing to place these translations in the public domain, by any chance? If so, I will create a page and add them to the Additional Fathers (and credit you, of course). I saw your post while I was at Cambridge University Library, so have obtained Lightfoot's discussion of them which I would digest down and include as a preface (unless you'd like to write one). They all come from a now lost Latin catena, do they not?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I have links to all five of your pseudo-Polycarp blog posts on my Papias page (along with other posts of yours dealing with Papias), but have always wondered about the connection; did Chapman explain why he thought Polycarp was a mistake for Papias?

Ben.