what extent this scheme should be read into the Serdica document depends,
however, on the plausibility of Schwartz’s textual emendations, according to
which the list of Passover dates ran as follows (thefirst year, 11 March,
corresponding to 328CE):^122
- 11 March,
- 30 March.
- 19 March.
- 8 March—MS XVIII, read VIII.
- 27 March—MS XXIII, read XXVII.
- 16 March.
- 5 March.
- 24 March.
- 13 March—MS XVI, read XIII.
- 2 March.
- 21 March.
- 10 March.
- 29 March—MS XXV, read XXVIIII (or XXIX) (?).
- 18 March—MS XVIIII, read XVIII (?).
- 7 March—MS V, read VII (?).
- 26 March—MS XXXVI, read XXVI.
In some cases the textual error is evident (years 4, 5, 9, 13, and 16), and in most
of these, Schwartz’s emendations are inherently plausible (years 4, 5, 9, and
16);^123 but the emendation of year 13 may be regarded as uncertain.^124 The
emendations of years 14 and 15 are largely conjectural.^125 But leaving aside
these doubtful cases (13–15), the scheme of –11/+19 is evident at least
throughout the rest of the list: starting on 11 March in year 1, 19 days are
added in year 2 (hence 30 March), 11 days subtracted in year 3, the same again
in year 4, 19 days added in year 5, etc. On balance, Schwartz’s emendations for
years 13–15 may be accepted therefore as reasonable.^126
The –11/+19 scheme depended entirely on the Julian (or Antiochene)
calendar, with reference to which all dates were calculated; but it was also
borrowed from Christian Easter cycles, where a–11/+19 scheme had similarly
(^122) After E. Schwartz (1905) 122–6; question marks indicate my own doubts. The text is also
in Stern (2001) 127 123 – 9.
The corrections of years 4 and 16 imply an error that could equally have occurred in the
Latin translation (the only version extant) or in the original Greek. The corrections of years 5 and
9 are best explained as errors in the Latin numerals.
(^124) E. Schwartz’s emendation (XXIX) is more likely if the error occurred in the Greek version
(fromŒŁtoŒå); if it occurred in the Latin version, however, XXX would be more likely.
(^125) Year 15 (V) looks in need of some correction, but it is unclear whether year 14 (XVIIII) is
erroneous at all. 126
In Stern (2001) 132 my conclusion is slightly more guarded.
338 Calendars in Antiquity