 |
 |
Is there a logical explanation for the dating of "Martial" to the mid 3rd century while traditions claim him for the first (or perhaps early second) century? Its not the first time such an inconsistency has emerged in these materials, but this one seems so blatant. Are we dealing with the mixing of traditions concerning two different persons (whether historically identifiable or not)? Bob -- Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania new office address: 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304) [log in to unmask] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html > * Martial, bishop of Limoges (c. 250) - an eleventh-century vita claims > that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Jesus; > > Last year Daniel Williman added: > > It was Bernard Gui OP who tried to make a complete list of the original > disciples, and he certainly included Martial; but the 11th-century vita, > almost certainly by Ademar of S. Martial, made him much more: a relative > of S. Peter, converted out of the tribe of Benjamin by the preaching of > Jesus, it seems Martial would have been an apostle but for his young age. > The Limousin popes of Avignon, led by Clement VI, relied on the apostolic > legend and embroidered it further. In the S. Martial chapel of the palace > at Avignon, one sees Jesus instructing the Twelve at Capharnaum, using > young Martial as a living example of humility, "Unless you become like > this little one ..." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%