Yuri Kuchinsky

Which happens to provide yet another illustration of what some of us describe as *general textual instability* in the earliest Christian texts that we now possess.

The earlier we go, the more unstable things seem to be. Which was only to be expected, seeing that those early writings were not yet considered as Scripture.

Best,

Yuri.

Haran

You were right about the dating of the Diatessaron, Bernad.

I'm curious what Greek version that English translation was pulled from. Does it say? The Greek that Peter posted above does not seem to contain what is in this english translation.

Bernard Muller

I do not know. Check for yourself, I gave the link. I am also concerned by "The Greek version found in Barlaam and Ioasaph does not seem to have this passage.".
I would like to have answer on this mess.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

I got it from here:

_________________________________________________

ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER

TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK VERSION

BY

D. M. KAY, B.Sc., B.D.,

ASSISTANT TO THE PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

BARLAAM AND JOSAPHAT.

Translated from the Greek.

__________________________________________________

So it is connected to Barlaam and Josaphat, whoever they are.
Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

The Greek that I posted above corresponds to this part of here.

I. I, O King in the providence of God came into the world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth, the sun and the moon and the rest, I marvelled at their orderly arrangement.

And when I saw that the universe and all that is therein is moved by necessity, I perceived that the mover and controller is God.
For everything which causes motion is stronger than that which is moved, and that which controls is stronger than that which is controlled.

The self-same being, then, who first established and now controls the universe--him do I affirm to be God who is without beginning and without end, immortal and self-sufficing, above all passions and infirmities, above anger and forgetfulness and ignorance and the rest.

Through Him too all things consist. He requires not sacrifice and libation nor any one of the things that appear to sense; but all men stand m need of Him.

II. Having thus spoken concerning God, so far as it was possible for me to speak of Him, let us next proceed to the human race, that we may see which of them participate in the truth and which of them in error.

For it is clear to us, O King, that there are three classes of men in this world; these being the worshippers of the gods acknowledged among you, and Jews, and Christians. Further they who pay homage to many gods are themselves divided into three classes, Chaldaeans namely, and Greeks, and Egyptians; for these have been guides and preceptors to the rest of the nations in the service and worship of these many-titled deities.

III. Let us see then which of them participate in truth and which of them in error.
The Chaldaeans, then, not knowing God went astray after the elements and began to worship the creation more than their Creator. And of these they formed certain shapes and styled them a representation of the heaven and the earth and the sea, of the sun too and the moon and the other primal bodies or luminaries. And they shut them up together in shrines, and worship them, calling them gods, even though they have to guard them securely for fear they should be stolen by robbers. And they did not perceive that anything which acts as guard is greater than that which is guarded, and that he who makes is greater than that which is made. For if their gods are unfit to look after their own safety, how shall they bestow protection upon others? Great then is the error into which the Chaldaeans wandered in adoring lifeless and good-for-nothing images.
And it occurs to me as surprising, O King, how it is that their so-called philosophers have quite failed to observe that the elements themselves are perishable. And if the elements are perishable and subject to necessity, how are they gods? And if the elements are not gods, how do the images made in their honour come to be gods?
IV. Let us proceed then, O King, to the elements themselves that we may show in regard to them that they are not gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out of that which did not exist at the command of the true God, who is indestructible and immutable and invisible; yet He sees all things and as He wills, modifies and changes things. What then shall I say concerning the elements?

They err who believe that the sky is a god. For we see that it revolves and moves by necessity and is compacted of many parts, being thence called the ordered universe (Kosmos). Now the universe is the construction of some designer; and that which has been constructed has a beginning and an end. And the sky with its luminaries moves by necessity. For the stars are carried along in array at fixed intervals from sign to sign, and, some setting, others rising, they traverse their courses in due season so as to mark off summers and winters, as it has been appointed for them by God; and obeying the inevitable necessity of their nature they transgress not their proper limits, keeping company with the heavenly order. Whence it is plain that the sky is not a god but rather a work of God.

The Syriac portion that begins and ends with the same material in the Greek above is this:

I. I, O King, by the grace of God came into this world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth and the seas, and had surveyed the sun and the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the world. And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them. And it is manifest that that which causes motion is more powerful than that which is moved. But that I should make search concerning this same mover of all, as to what is his nature (for it seems to me, he is indeed unsearchable in his nature), and that I should argue as to the constancy of his government, so as to grasp it fully,--this is a vain effort for me; for it is not possible that a man should fully comprehend it. I say, however, concerning this mover of the world, that he is God of all, who made all things for the sake of mankind. And it seems to me that this is reasonable, that one should fear God and should not oppress man.

I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is "perfect," this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is "without beginning," this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him. Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not, for there is nothing which is able to stand against him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding; and in Him stands fast all that exists. He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of things visible; He requires not aught from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.

II. Since, then, we have addressed you concerning God, so far as our discourse can bear upon him, let us now come to the race of men, that we may know which of them participate in the truth of which we have spoken, and which of them go astray from it.

This is clear to you, O King, that there are four classes of men in this world:--Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. The Barbarians, indeed, trace the origin of their kind of religion from Kronos and from Rhea and their other gods; the Greeks, however, from Helenos, who is said to be sprung from Zeus. And by Helenos there were born Aiolos and Xuthos; and there were others descended from Inachos and Phoroneus, and lastly from the Egyptian Danaos and from Kadmos and from Dionysos.

The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews.

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

So then there are, as I said above, four classes of men:--Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.

Moreover the wind is obedient to God, and fire to the angels; the waters also to the demons and the earth to the sons of men.

III. Let us begin, then, with the Barbarians, and go on to the rest of the nations one after another, that we may see which of them hold the truth as to God and which of them hold error.

The Barbarians, then, as they did not apprehend God, went astray among the elements, and began to worship things created instead of their Creator; and for this end they made images and shut them up in shrines, and lo! they worship them, guarding them the while with much care, lest their gods be stolen by robbers. And the Barbarians did not observe that that which acts as guard is greater than that which is guarded, and that every one who creates is greater than that which is created. If it be, then, that their gods are too feeble to see to their own safety, how will they take thought for the safety of men? Great then is the error into which the Barbarians wandered in worshipping lifeless images which can do nothing to help them. And I am led to wonder, O King, at their philosophers, how that even they went astray, and gave the name of gods to images which were made in honour of the elements; and that their sages did not perceive that the elements also are dissoluble and perishable. For if a small part of an element is dissolved or destroyed, the whole of it may be dissolved and destroyed. If then the elements themselves are dissolved and destroyed and forced to be subject to another that is more stubborn than they, and if they are not in their nature gods, why, for sooth, do they call the images which are made in their honour, God? Great, then, is the error which the philosophers among them have brought upon their followers.

IV. Let us turn now, O King, to the elements in themselves, that we may make clear in regard to them, that they are not gods, but a created thing, liable to ruin and change, which is of the same nature as man; whereas God is imperishable and unvarying, and invisible, while yet He sees, and overrules, and transforms all things.

Those then who believe concerning the earth that it is a god have hitherto deceived themselves, since it is furrowed and set with plants and trenched; and it takes in the filthy refuse of men and beasts and cattle. And at times it becomes unfruitful, for if it be burnt to ashes it becomes devoid of life, for nothing germinates from an earthen jar. And besides if water be collected upon it, it is dissolved together with its products. And lo! it is trodden under foot of men and beast, and receives the blood of the slain; and it is dug open, and filled with the dead, and becomes a tomb for corpses. But it is impossible that a nature, which is holy and worthy and blessed and immortal, should allow of any one of these things. And hence it appears to us that the earth is not a god but a creation of God.

V. In the same way, again, those erred who believed the waters to be gods. For the waters were created for the use of man, and are put under his rule in many ways. For they suffer change and admit impurity, and are destroyed and lose their nature while they are boiled into many substances. And they take colours which do not belong. to them; they are also congealed by frost and are mingled and permeated with the filth of men and beasts, and with the blood of the slain. And being checked by skilled workmen through the restraint of aqueducts, they flow and are diverted against their inclination, and come into gardens and other places in order that they may be collected and issue forth as a means of fertility for man, and that they may cleanse away every impurity and fulfil the service man requires from them. Wherefore it is impossible that the waters should be a god, but they are a work of God and a part of the world.

In like manner also they who believed that fire is a god erred to no slight extent. For it, too, was created for the service of men, and is subject to them in many ways:--in the preparation of meats, and as a means of casting metals, and for other ends whereof your Majesty is aware. At the same time it is quenched and extinguished in many ways.

Again they also erred who believed the motion of the winds to be a god. For it is well known to us that those winds are under the dominion of another, at times their motion increases, and at times it fails and ceases at the command of him who controls them. For they were created by God for the sake of men, in order to supply the necessity of trees and fruits and seeds; and to bring over the sea ships which convey for men necessaries and goods from places where they are found to places where they are not found; and to govern the quarters of the world. And as for itself, at times it increases and again abates; and in one place brings help and in another causes disaster at the bidding of him who rules it. And mankind too are able by known means to confine and keep it in check in order that it may fulfil for them the service they require from it. And of itself it has not any authority at all. And hence it is impossible that the winds should be called gods, but rather a thing made by God.

VI. So also they erred who believed that the sun is a god. For we see that it is moved by the compulsion of another, and revolves and makes its journey, and proceeds from sign to sign, rising and setting every day, so as to give warmth for the growth of plants and trees, and to bring forth into the air wherewith it (sunlight) is mingled every growing thing which is upon the earth. And to it there belongs by comparison a part in common with the rest of the stars in its course; and though it is one in its nature it is associated with many parts for the supply of the needs of men; and that not according to its own will but rather according to the will of him who rules it. And hence it is impossible that the sun should be a god, but the work of God; and in like manner also the moon and the stars.

The passage in the Greek that corresponds to the passage in the Syriac above is put in chapter 15 of the Greek. This is in Kay's translation from the Greek of Barlaam and Josaphat, a longer story that incorporates most of Aristides:

XV. Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods. And having accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to life again and ascended into heaven. And if you would read, O King, you may judge the glory of His presence from the holy gospel writing, as it is called among themselves. He had twelve disciples, who after His ascension to heaven went forth into the provinces of the whole world, and declared His greatness. As for instance, one of them traversed the countries about us, proclaiming the doctrine of the truth. From this it is, that they who still observe the righteousness enjoined by their preaching are called Christians.

From the TLG CD-ROM:

Οἱ δὲ Χριστιανοὶ γενεαλογοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. οὗτος δὲ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ὁμολογεῖται ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐκ παρ- θένου ἁγίας γεννηθεὶς ἀσπόρως τε καὶ ἀφθόρως, σάρκα ἀνέλαβε καὶ ἀνε- φάνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς πολυθέου πλάνης αὐτοὺς ἀνακαλέσηται. καὶ τελέσας τὴν θαυμαστὴν αὐτοῦ οἰκονομίαν, διὰ σταυροῦ θανά- του ἐγεύσατο ἑκουσίᾳ βουλῇ κατ' οἰκονομίαν μεγάλην· μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀνεβίω καὶ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνῆλθεν. οὗ τὸ κλέος τῆς παρουσίας ἐκ τῆς παρ' αὐτοῖς καλουμένης εὐαγγελικῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς ἔξεστί σοι γνῶναι, βασιλεῦ, ἐὰν ἐντύχῃς. οὗτος δώδεκα ἔσχε μαθητὰς οἱ μετὰ τὴν ἐν οὐρα- νοῖς ἄνοδον αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὰς ἐπαρχίας τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ ἐδίδαξαν τὴν ἑκείνου μεγαλωσύνην· καθάπερ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν τὰς καθ' ἡμᾶς περιῆλθε χώρας τὸ δόγμα κηρύττων τῆς ἀληθείας. ὅθεν οἱ εἰσέτι διακονοῦντες τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ κηρύγματος αὐτῶν καλοῦνται Χριστιανοί.

Here is a link to Kay's translation of the Syriac recension. Here is the relevant section again:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

I don't know of the translation of J. Rendel Harris being online. Here is the relevant quote from chapter 2 of the Syriac in the translation of Dr. Harris as given in The Newly-Recovered Apology of Aristides:

The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known.

The following image shows the differences in English translation between the Syriac and the Greek of the paragraph being studied.



Right now I cannot think of any good arguments to show the priority of one version over another. Hopefully someone will dig up the Syriac and show us a scanned image. Perhaps there is some discussion somewhere of the text-critical issues concerning the Apology of Aristides? (No, not online--in journals or old books.)

Also, the Ante-Nicene Fathers says, "In 1878 these Armenians surprised the learned world by publishing a Latin translation of an Armenian fragment (the first two chapters) of the lost Apology of Aristides." If these are the first two chapters corresponding to the Syriac, they should contain the passage in question. Does anyone have a reference to a book that contains the Armenian, in the original or a translation? I don't expect you to have it on your bookshelf, but can you dig up a reference to such a document?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Here's a blast from the past.

I'd like us to wrangle over the issue a little more, or at least persuade Quentin to expand a little his entry on his web site. Maybe I can pick up some stuff to add to mine.

Here is the Greek as in Barlaam and Iosaphat, and here is the Syriac discovered around the turn of 1900. I do not even know where to look to get the Armenian of the first two chapters. I have the original language of the Greek but not the Syriac, but J. Rendel Harriss's book is available from Good Books Scholarly Reprints.

I imagine that a scholar must have published something in the last century comparing the Greek to the Syriac in regards to priority. I would be very happy if someone could hunt down the bibliographic info for an article or two.

If the Greek of this paragraph is more accurate, then the importance of the Syriac would be diminished, but that isn't proven. In any case, we should like to know what the Syriac means.

Here is Kay's translation again:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

Here is the relevant quote from chapter 2 of the Syriac in the translation of Dr. Harris as given in The Newly-Recovered Apology of Aristides:

The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known.

There is a manifest difference between these two translations of the Syriac: a short time was preached vs. a little while ago was spoken...as being preached. The former refers to the length of time of the preaching, while the latter refers to the the short amount of time before the author's time that the preaching by speaking stopped.

Then there is the question of who the referent to "among them" is: is it the Hebrews, the Christians, or man generally? All three groups are mentioned in our passage.

Finally, while it is clear that there is a gospel text which can be read, what is "the Gospel" that was spoken as being preached: is this a reference to pulpiteering with text in hand, or is it a reference to the frequently mentioned (especially in earlier Christian documents) Gospel or "Good News" of which the written texts are an imperfect attempt at recording a part by particular men? The singular reference "the gospel" and moreso the fact that it is preached and then "also" something can be read wherein to perceive the power that is on it (the Gospel) makes it plausible that the reference is to the one Gospel of Jesus Christ, much of which is recorded in a book called a gospel (the author may have used only one or maybe knew more than one). The idea of "preaching a text" makes sense to your modern Christian, but I am not certain this concept transfers to the second century.

Iasion conjectures that the text means "has been preached" instead of "was preached," but both translations of Harris and Kay disagree. Ultimate authority must rest with the Syriac original, should someone turn it up and make use of it. If it indeed is a reference to "was preached" as though not ongoing, as our translations indicate, then this mitigates against the "pulpiteering from a text" option, as that would not have stopped.

Now I offer these interpretative options and welcome more:

1. Jesus is the one doing the preaching, men or Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is oral, and "a short time" refers to the short duration of the ministry.

2. Jesus is the one doing the preaching, men or Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is oral, and "a little while ago" refers to the recent life of Christ and recent origin of Christianity (still mentioned as such well into the second century, and it was a short while ago compared to such venerable worthies as Moses and Hercules and Zoroaster).

3. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is oral, and "a short time" refers to the short amount of time in which the gospel was preached to Jews before turning over to the Gentiles for a more receptive audience.

4. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, everyone or anyone is "them," the Gospel is oral and then written, and "a short time" refers to the brief period of exclusively oral preaching before the production of books which one could read to grasp the gospel.

5. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, everyone or anyone is "them," the Gospel is oral and then written, and "a little while ago" refers to the recent time in the past in which the gospel went from being exclusively oral to being recorded in books.

6. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, the Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is the logia of Matthew composed in Jerusalem, and "a little while ago" refers to the time before the First Jewish Revolt during which these words could be preached in Jerusalem (or, instead, "a short time" between the death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem).

7. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, the Christians are "them," the Gospel is the first written gospel, and this text has been "preached" a short time among the Christians from its time of writing to the time of Aristides. (Again the Syriac will have to be checked for the validity of a "has been preached" instead of "was preached" interpretation.)

Can we rule out any of these, declare one most likely, or perhaps add one? I think I ruminated long enough to catch all the possibilities, but you never know.

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings all,

Thanks for your detailed post Peter, your options seem to cover the possibilities well - I think option 7 is most likely, and some new information agrees with this.


I posted a quick question on the hugoye (Syriac) list about the original Syriac of the phrase in question.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hugoye-list/messages


I received a reply from David Taylor which included the following comments:


I note he translates the key word as "proclaimed" rather than preached - this seems to support option 7 - that the (singular, un-named) Gospel was recently "proclaimed" among Christians.


He also had this to say about the DATING of Aristides :

This seems clear evidence of the later dating - he cites Doepp/Geerlings 'Dict. of Early Christian Literature' for more detail - does anyone have access to this work?

(Not sure how we will deal with the issue of Greek / Syriac priority - we have a very late Greek copy without our phrase, and a late Syriac WITH our phrase - the original no doubt in Greek.)


In conclusion, his answers lend some weight to my contention that this comment is evidence for a Christian Father who believed a singular un-named Gospel was new in the 140s or 150s.


Iasion

Roger Pearse

I read 'gospel' as being the Christian gospel, not a book; but that written form(s) of it existed, to which he alludes.

I don't think it would be safe to infer anything about the use of a harmony, one gospel (Mt.Mk.Lk.Jn-type gospel), three or four, from these words.

That the Gospel is a modern religion (relatively) is a problem all the fathers have to deal with, as the Romans were very hot on the importance of antiquity. They do so by presenting it as a development of Judaism.

Quentin, where do you find the statement that the text is unnamed? Aristides does not discuss the issue, as far as I can see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Armenian text:

Main Author: Aristides, 2nd cent.
Title Details: Sancti Aristidis philosophi Atheniensis sermones duos, quorum originalis textus desideratur, ex antigua Armeniaca versione nunc primum in Latinam linguam translatos ... / Felici Dupanloup, Aureliae Gallorum episcopo ... Patres Mechitaristae congregationis sancti Lazari, Venetiis 1878, D.D.D.
Publisher: [Venice], [1878]
Physical desc.: pp. 23 (8vo)
Note: With Armenian text
Other Names: Dupanloup, Félix, 1802-1878
Language: Armenian
Location Classmark Status
Deansgate /R55956 In

It's only 23 pages, so I've enquired if they will send me a photocopy. I think they will want $16, but I can stand that.

The Ms. was published from a 10th century Armenian ms. It contains a Latin translation.

"Barlaam and Joseph" was compiled ca. 630 AD by a monk of Mar Saba, and includes the text of Aristides, unnamed. However he edited it a bit to make it sound like a pagan philosopher was speaking. Syriac literature contains a fair quantity of oriental folktales, with a Christian cast -- some indeed are pre-Christian. Their historical value is nil, of course.

Two papyrus chunks of the Greek were found at Oxyrhynchus; cc.5-6 and end of 15-start of 16.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Greetings Roger,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply :-)

Yes, that is a fair interpretation - he could mean Gospel in the earlier informal sense, as well as a written form.

But,
I think his comment :

"...and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

suggests he is primarily referring to a written work - he doesn't say "if you've heard the Gospel" or "if you know of our Gospel" - he only refers to a work which can be "read therein".

Thus I tend to think he means a written work.


Well, if he was writing in the 140s or 150s, perhaps he is referring to Marcion's Gospel?

Marcion apparently published his Gospel in the 140s, singular and un-named (Tertullian criticises it as un-named.)


Well, considering this phrase :

"...the gospel, as it is called..."

I contend that Aristides is telling us exactly what the document is called - to whit : "The Gospel"

If Aristides had a document called "The Gospel according to Mark" he would hardly have left out the "Mark" would he?


The phrase "as it is called" is usually employed when the term is unfamiliar to the audience, which lends weight to my view that he is referring to a new type of document.

Notably, this phrase is also found in other Christian writings of mid 2nd century :

Gospel of the Ebionites:
“...the Gospel (so-called), current among them..."

Justin Martyr :
“...in the so-called Gospel”

Here we see 3 authors, mid 2nd century, use this phrase - which seems to indicate the term "Gospel", as a written work, is new in that time.


I understand you disagree that the Gospels were originally anonymous - I thought this was largely settled :

I am reading E.P. Sanders, a hard-core HJer, and he agrees :
"Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the 2nd century ... quoted in the first half of the 2nd century, but always anonymously ... Names suddenly appear about the year 180 "
("The Historical Figure of Jesus", p63,64)

Brown too:
"...quite possible that none was actually written by the one whose name was attached to it at the end of the 2nd century"
("Intro to the NT", p.7)


Iasion