vid

According to this text, we only have single defective manuscript for most of text of Dialogue with Trypho, and the editing of Justin's text is almost entirely a matter of conjectural emendation, which is necessary in places but has certainly been employed too freely by some editors.

So far I was using two online versions of this text, one at newadvent.org and at ccel.org

Now I am trying to go over Justin Martyr and check his quotations of "memoirs of apostles" against our gospels. However, I really don't like idea that some translator or editor "supplied" perfect quotation where we are not sure of actual text.

Is there some critical edition of this text, or something else I could check against?

Roger Pearse

The Wikipedia article gives this, which is recent:

Miroslav Marcovich, ed. Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone (Patristische Texte und Studien 47, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1997).

Try Google books for some 20th century editions.

DCHindley

vid,

Both the sites you are accessing have the exact same source, volume 1 of the "American Edition" of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (1885). One may preserve the footnotes while the other does not.

A modern examination of the text and its interpretation might be: Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue reconsidered (or via: amazon.co.uk), Timothy J. Horner, 2001, 222 pages, 24 cm. A preview is here. Be careful where you start your look, as the preview is only so many pages. The best place to start is the introduction.

According to this book, the earliest manuscript, containing all of Justin's works we know today, is "A" (Codex Regius, Parisinus gr. 450, dated 1364). There are two copies of this, a copy with no critical apparatus (Codex Claromontanus 82, dated 1541) and a critical copy made by Robert Estienne for his Iustini Opera omnia (Paris: 1551). That's it. Outside of this and its copies, the works of Justin are mentioned by Irenaeus (2nd century, Ad, Her. 4.6), Eusebius (4th century, H.E. 4.8; 4.11.8, etc) and Photius (9th century, Bibliotheca Cod. 125).

We do not have any manuscript history or record of various editions that may have been produced between whenever it was written (mid 2nd century CE) and that earliest copy. This is significant in that the text appears to have a complex literary composition. There is the dialogue between Justin and Trypho, and there are long passages that are supposed to explain Justin's reasoning, but actually make it difficult to follow the argumentation (sounds like the Pauline letters all over again).

There are several dominant explanations for this phenomenon, and perhaps this is what you mean when you say "the editing of Justin's text is almost entirely a matter of conjectural emendation".

1) Justin's Dialogue is a verbatim account of a dialogue Justin had with a Jew, Trypho.

2) The Dialogue consists of a core text, probably the dialogues proper, which were expanded at a later time.

3) Trypho is an Idealized caricature of a Jew, which can be manipulated in order to counter Jewish criticisms.

4) Trypho is a complete fiction created purely for apologetic purposes.

5) Trypho is irrelevant, created as a straw man in order to allow Justin to indirectly argue against Marcionite views.

I did not get the impression from the book just cited that there are a lot of passages requiring textual emendation. I think, though, that there may be emendations necessary in order to recover any sources the final editor may have used.

DCH

vid

Thanks to both of you.

Just a note, the italic part in my original post (about editing) was quotation from linked article - I should have made that more obvious.

aa5874

Justin Martyr did NOT argue against Marcionites views in "Dialogue with Trypho". He made NO mention of Marcion in "Dialogue with Trypho".

Justin Martyr was arguing AGAINST the JEWS in "Dialogue with Trypho" the JEW.

vid

What about this?

aa5874

MARCIANS do NOT appear to be MARCIONITES.

MARCIONITES did NOT Confess the name of Jesus at all.

MARCIONITES confessed the name of the PHANTOM.

Marcians may be the FOLLOWERS of another heretic called MARCUS. See "Against Heresies" 1 attributed to Irenaeus and "Refutation Against All Heretics" 6 attributed to Hippolytus.

avi

In my opinion, the correct name for the followers of Marcion, was Marcionists, in conformance with the Greek.

"Marcionite" is a derogatory term, employed by the Catholics, to denigrate the significance of Marcion's contributions. I think this word "Marcionite" may have been derived from the English translation of Irenaeus' work, which no longer exists in the original Greek......

We ought, on this forum, regardless of our opinion of Marcion, or his beliefs, refer to his followers in the neutral term, following the Greek, literally, as Marcionists.

avi

DCHindley

The author's comments on this issue are in pages 29-31. Go look it up.

[Theodore G] Stylianopoulos [in Justin Martyr and the Mosaic law (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1975] explores the invisible foe of Marcionism in the Dialogue and reaches the conclusion that Justin did have a concern about the issue of Marcionism which he expressed in the Dialogue, especially in terms of the Mosaic Law. ...

[David P] Efroymson [in "The Pastristic Connection" in Antisemitism and the foundations of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), ed. by Alan T Davies 1979] also sees the Marcionite issues addressed in the Dialogue as definitive. He interprets Dial 11 - where Justin argues for the singularity of God, rather than a Christian god and a Jewish god - as a refutation of Marcionite doctrine. If Trypho were a real Jew, he reasons, then this point would not need arguing. [Horner's footnote: In this case, Efroymson is assuming that Jews would not know of the Marcionite teaching and not be able to use it against Christians.] The presence of a Marcionite agenda thus diminishes the importance of Trypho and even the Jewish element and [thus] makes the treatise more generally apologetic.

[Horner's footnote adds: It is equally possible that Marcionism was a fairly common and embarrassing set of beliefs in the second century C.E. It is just the kind of internal strife that opponents or skeptics would relish. Therefore it is not impossible that well informed Jews would have known about this variation within Christianity. Some might have believed that [Marcionism] was, in fact, the teaching of Christianity. Long after Marcion, Marcionism would have to be addressed over and over again to audiences who would only have heard [Marcion's] version of Christianity.]

Why do you keep on ranting whenever anyone reads between the lines, as if this is not a valid way of reading some texts? For decades the Western world had to settle for discerning the inner politics of the USSR by reading between the lines of their propaganda.

DCH