Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies

178 Pages·2009·16.68 MB·English

by  Denis Minns

OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS Justin, Philosopher
The series provides reliable working texts of important early Christian and Martyr
writers in both Greek and Latin. Each volume contains an introduction,
text, and select critical apparatus, with English translations en Jαce, and
brief explanatory references.
Apologies
Other Titles in the Series
Cyril of Alexandria: Selected Letters
Edited by Lionel R. Wickham
EDITED WITH Α COMMENTARY ΟΝ ΤΗΕ ΤΕΧΤ ΕΥ
Augustine: De Doctrina Christiana
DENIS MINNS
Edited by R. Ρ. Η. Green
AND
Augustine: De Βοηο Coniugali and De Sancta Virginitate
PAUL PARVIS
Edited by Ρ. G. Walsh
Maximus the Confessor and his Companions:
Documents from Exile
Edited by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Ν eil
Leontius ofJ erusalem
Against the Monophysites:
Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae
Edited by Patrick Τ. R. Gray
Sophronius ofJ erusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy:
The Synodical Letter and Other Documents
Edited by Pauline Allen
The Epistles ofSt Symeon the New Theologian
Edited by Η. J. Μ. Turner
General Editor: Henry Chadwick
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
OXFORD For Bernice and [σΓ Sara
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ΟΧ2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide ίη
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark ofOxford University Press
in the υκ and ίη certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© Denis Minns and Paul Parvis 2009
The moral ήghts of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2009
ΑΠ rights reserved. Ν ο part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, ίη any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition οη any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging ίη Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Su:ffolk
Printed ίη Great Britain
οη acid-free paper by
the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and Κing's Lynn
ISBN 978-0-19-954250-5
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
PREFACE
More th'an a thousand years separate Justin's writing of the Apologies and
the transcription of the οηlΥ manuscript of independent value containing
them. Little is known of the history of the text in the intervening centuries,
~ apart from its influence οη other early Christian apologists and its citation
in the fourth century by E-I,lsebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiαsticαl History
and in the eighth century by John of Damascus in his Sαcrα Parallelα. Ιη
the ninth century Photius read a number of works attributed to Justin,
including an Apology ]or the Christians and a book against the Jews, presum
ably the Diαlogue with Trypho. Sadly, Photius' judgement was that, though
Justin's books are powerful and learned, they do not have the charm and
allure that might attract a mass readership (Bibliothecα 125, Henry, Π,
ρ. 97f.)·
Ιη more recent times scholars have been divided over how well Justin
has been served by the manuscript tradition of his works. We believe that
the text as delivered to us by Pαrisinus graecus 450 is the result of the atten
tive, if optimistic, editing and correction, at some stage in the manuscript
tradition, of a text that was severely lacunose and corrupt. Accordingly, we
have been more suspicious than some other editors of the merely super
ficial coherence often rendered by the manuscript text, and less inclined to
attribute its deficiencies to Justin's οννη inadequacies as a writer, ΟΓ even as
a thinker. The aim of the present work is to recover as far as possible the
Greek that Justin wrote. The English translation is primarily intended
to show what we think the Greek means. This is reflected in the style of
translation, and accounts for the sometimes lengthy footnotes, in which
we set out our reasons for thinking the text ofJ ustin is problematical, and
argue for the emendations we propose. Similarly, the Introduction is
intended primarily as an introduction to the text and its problems, rather
than as an introduction to Justin as philosopher ΟΓ theologian. We do not,
of course, claim to have solved all the riddles of the text, but we hope that
our edition will encourage others to try to peer behind what the manu
script has transmitted to see what Justin might actually have written.
We had always hoped to say in the Preface that for any errors that
remain each author blames the other, but the nature of the collaboration
has been such that it would be inappropriate to do so. Friends may be able
to diagnose from idiosyncrasies of style who is responsible for the initial
drafting of sections of the Introduction, but the work is in every way a
PREFACE
VΙΙ1
joint production. The project has been carried out over a number ofyears
ίη working sessions ranging from a week to several months, ίη Melbourne,
Oxford, and. Edinburgh. During these years we have been fortunate CONTENTS
enough to incur a number of obligations, both individual and collective, to
those who have helped us. Sir Henry Chadwick invited Denis Minns
to edit the Apologies for Oxford Early Christian Texts, approved of the
c070pting of PaulParvis to the project, and continued to cast an avuncular
eye over its progress. We deeply regret that he did not live to see its
publication. We must express our thanks to Fr Timothy Radcliffe ΟΡ, Abbreviations
who supported and encouraged our work in many ways, and to all at ουρ χ
who have helped us over the years. The institutions to which we are
Introduction
obliged include, ίη particular, Mannix College, Monash University, Mel
bourne; New College, the UniversityofEdinburgh; and the Blackfriars of Ι. Justin's Text(s): The Tradition ίη Manuscript and Print 3
2. The Man and his Work 32
Oxford and Edinburgh. We must also thank for generous and repeated
3. Justin's World 57
hospitality Owen and Bonnie Dudley Edwards, themselves something of
4. The Apparatus Criticus 71
an institution ίη Scottish culturallife. Among libraries we are particularly
Sources of Conjectural Readings 73
indebted to the Bodleian and Sackler Libraries at Oxford; the libraries of
Sigla 76
the University of Edinburgh, and especially that of New College; the
National Library of Scotland; and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris,
Texts and Translations
first for supplying us with a microfilm of Pαrisinus grαecus 450, and then
allowing us to examine the precious manuscript itself. Finally, it has been Justin's Apology οη Behalf of Christians 81
'The Second Apology' 271
customary since antiquity to include ίη prefaces a plaint about the arduous
labour involved in the work. Ιη our case we must confess that it has also
been a lot of fun, and we must thank all those who have helped make it so. Bibliography 324
Index of Biblical Passages
We are both indebted to Dr Sara Parvis, to whom Paul dedicates his half 339
of the book ίη appreciation of all she has contributed to the edition and to Index ofNames and Topics 341
him-for her always pertinent and stimulating questions and comments,
for unfailing love and encouragement, for the occasional gentle nudge to
finish_ the job, and for so much more. Denis dedicates his half to his
mother, who has wondered for some time if it would ever be finished.
. ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
ιΑ Justin, First Apology
2Α Justin, Second Apology
D Justin, Diαlogue with Trypho
ΑΗ Irenaeus, Adversus Hαereses
BDAG Α Greek-English Lexicon qf the New Testαment αnd Other
Eαr1y Christiαn Literαture (Bauer, Danker, Arndt,
Gingrich)
BDF Α Greek Grαmmαr qf the New Testαment αnd other Eαr1y
Christiαn Literαture (Blass, Debrunner, Funk)
C1L Corpus 1nscriptionum Lαtinαrum
GCS Griechische Christliche Schrijtsteller
ΗΕ Eusebius, Historiα Ecclesiαsticα
1GRR 1nscriptiones Grαecαe αd Res Romαnαs Pertinentes
1LS 1nscriptiones Lαtinαe Selectαe
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LSJ Α Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell, Scott, Jones)
PG Pαtrologiα Grαecα
PGL Α Pαtristic Greek Lexicon (Lampe)
P1R Prosopogrαphiα 1mperii Romαni Sαeculi 1, 11, 111
Ραρ. Ber. Aegyptische Urkunden αus den ΚOniglichen Museen zu
Berlin, Griechische Urkunden
SVF Stoicorum veterum Frαgmentα
TLG Thesαurus Linguαe Grαecαe. Α Digitαl Librαry qf Greek
Literαture
1
jUSTIN'S TEXT(S): TRADITION
ΤΗΕ
. ΙΝ MANUSCRIPT AND PRINT
The title of this book promises an edition of the Apologies of Justin Martyr.
But it is far from self-evident how many of them there are. That is ίη fact
one of the more hoary of the problems with which any editor of Justin
must deal-it has been an item οη the agenda since at least Grabe's great
edition of 1700. But it turns out to be quite an important question as well.
Much more is involved than a simple literary puzzle: it crucially affects our
whole picture of what Justin the apologist was trying to do, and might even
have some light to shed οη the way Justin the philosopher and teacher
operated ίη mid-second-century Rome.
The question has usually been approached solely ίη literary terms, but
we must consider as well what is knowable of the history of the text. We
therefore turn first to the manuscripts.
ΤΗΕ MANUSCRIPT TRADITION
Three manuscripts come into the reckoning: Parisinus graecus 450,
Phillίpicus 3081, and Ottobonianus graecus 274, which we, following the usage
established by Otto, will call Α, Β, and C.1
Parisinus graecus 450=Α
The οηlΥ one of these of independent value-and therefore the
manuscript οη which rests the whole tradition of Justin's authentic
works-is Parisinus grαecus 450.2 1t comprises 467 paper folios measuring
28.5Χ21.5 cm, and was completed, according to the colophon, οη
ii September 1364 (fo1. 461 a). Unfortunately, the scribe does not give his
name, and attempts to identifY him are inconclusive.3 The hand is regular
1 Ott03, νοΙ ι, part ι, ρρ. xxi-xxviii. Οη some other, late collections of extracts, see η. 40 below.
2 For descriptions see Otto3, ρρ. ΧΧί-ΧΧίίί; Archambault, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. xii-xxxviii; Marcovich,
Apologiαe, 5-6; Marcovich, Diαlogus, 1-4; and Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 158-g.
3 See Marcovich, Apologiαe, 5, η. 9 (rejecting a suggested identification with Manuel Tzykandyles);
Marcovich, Diαlogus, 3 (reporting a proposal ofE. Lamberz and Claus Vetten that he was an unnamed
stablemate of Tzykandyles who worked with him οη Mαrciαllus gr. 146; Marcovich returns a Scotch
verdict οη the proposal); and Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 159, η. 7 (tentatively putting forward the unnamed
scribe ofFlorence, Lαur. Plut. 9, 9).
4 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 5
and neat. Throughout the manuscript there are twenty-three (occasionally Joasaph was a1so a 1earned man, and in~ense1y interested ίη matters
twenty-two) 1ines per page. Margins are generous: the written area is theo1ogica1. 7
approximate1y Ι9.0-20.0Χ 12.5 cm. There are ηο signs or ru1ing: the scribe The copying of the manuscript must have been an expensive project.
followed the wire-marks of the paper ίη order to keep a1ignment. The paper οη which it is written is-as one wou1d expect by the mid
There are a number of variants and an occasiona1 comment offered ίη fourteenth century-Ita1ian, and of a very fine qua1ity. At 1east three
the margin (these are all noted ίη our apparatus). We think that all but two different papers were used by the scribe ίη the course of his work. That
of these are ίη the hand of the origina1 scribe or ίη that of a 1ater corrector οη which the Apologieswere written bears a watermark representing two
whom we have called c1 paralle1 keys (Briquet 3813), a type common ίη the 1340S and I350s.8
•
It is a sort of omnibus edition ofJ ustin and contains: The paper determined the precise size of the manuscript. Each sheet of
Briquet 3813 measured 29.2Χ44 cm, and so, fo1ded, produced a bifo1ium.9
extracts re1ating to Justin from Photius and Eusebius (fo1s. ιΓ-5"); Though it is οη1Υ a guess, the idea that such a manuscript might have
Epistula ad Zenam et Serenum (fo1s. 6"-16"); been produced ίη Mistra or Constantinop1e ίη circ1es with appreciab1e
Cohortatio ad Graecos (fo1s. ηΓ-50Γ); intellectua1 and financia1 ,resources-1ike those around the former
Dialogus cum Tryphone (fo1s. 50Γ-Ι93Γ); emperor or his son, the despot, is an attractive one.
Apologia Prima (the shorter Apo1ogy=fo1s. Ι93Γ-20ιΓ); One other, small indication perhaps points to a major centre 1ike Mistra
Apologia Secunda (the 10nger Apo1ogy= fo1s. 20IΓ-24ιΓ); or Constantinop1e. The first five fo1ios, as noted above, introduce the
De Monarchia (fo1s. 24ιΓ-247Γ); omnibus Justin with extracts from Photius and Eusebius. But the very first
Expositio Rectae Fidei (fo1s. 247Γ-26ιΓ); [ο1ίο is ίη a different hand. It contains Photius, codex 125 (twenty-six 1ines
CorifUtatio Dogmatum QJtorundam Aristotelis (fo1s. 26ιΓ-300"); of text οη the recto and seven οη the verso), followed by about twe1ve
Ad Graecos (fo1s. 300"-302"); b1ank 1ines and then, at the foot of the page, the first seven lines of
QJtaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles (fo1s. 302"-334"); Eusebian materia1 (though it begins abruptly and without any heading, as
QJtaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (fo1s. 334"-4ι6Γ); if it had been copied from or adapted from a damaged exemp1ar). Ιη other
Ad Graecos (agaln=4I6r-4I8"); words, fo1. ι is clear1y a rep1acement for something that was 10st or missing.
QJtaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos (fo1s. 418"-433Γ); There are more 1etters to the 1ine οη fo1. ι than the scribe of Α writes
Athenagoras, De Resurrectione Mortuorum (fo1s. 433"-46ιΓ). e1sewhere, and what is there would rough1y fill two normal pages of Α. 10
Clearly the scribe of fo1. ι copied codex 125, rea1ized he had too much
The manuscript was procured-presumab1y ίη Venice-by Guillaume space 1eft, and so skipped down the page so he could finish where Α
Pellicier, bishop of Montpellier and French ambassador to Venice from resumes at the top of fo1. 2Γ. But that means that Α then was ίη a centre or
1539 to 1542.4 It must have been still ίη Venice ίη 1541, when its apograph ίη communication with a centre where the rep1acement text could be
Phillippicus 3081 was copied, but was then sent to Fontaineb1eu to take its found. That means either somewhere where the exemp1ar or another copy
p1ace ίη the roya1 collection. was or somewhere with access to the re1evant passage of Photius. And ίη
It wou1d be interesting to know where Α was produced and where it the fourteenth century that was something of a rarity.
11
was between 1364 and, say, 1540, when it turned up ίη the West. We do
not knσw, but we can make some guesses. According to Marcovich, 'it 7 See Nicol, Reluctαnt Εnψerοr, ch. 7, 'Monk, historian and theologian (1354-1383)' = ρρ. 134-60.
8 Briquet 3813 is itself dated 1354. lη Α the cross surmQunting the pendant keys is sometimes
may well be that Α was produced ίη Mistra for the Despot Manue1 missing and sometimes appears with two cross-bars. The other papers seem closest to Briquet 11,669
Kantakouzenos,,5 Manue1 was the second son of the former emperor (dated 1364, 30Χ45 cm; though with an elongated upright surmounting the middle mountain, and
John VI Cantacuzene, by now 1iving ίη seeming1y contented retirement as ηο cross-bar) and Briquet 2621 (dated 1363, 30Χ44 cm).
9 The MS has at some point after it was written been very slightly trimmed, as is apparent from the
the monk Joasaph. Under Manue1's ru1e the Morea prospered, and partialloss ofletters at e.g. 234r (top margin), 239", 239r (bottom margin).
Mistra enjoyed something of a cu1tura1 renaissance.6 But the monk \Ο The text runs to a little over 1,800 letters-rather less than A's average of something like 1,938,
but a line or two for a title would easily make υρ the difference and, ίη any event, the text as found in
Α is broken at the beginning.
<[ See Archambault, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. χχ-χχχν, and Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 159. 11 See Diller, 'Photius' "Bibliotheca" in Byzantine Literature', esp. 392-3. Photius' codex 125
5 Marcovich, Diαlogus, 3. appears at the head of Alexαndrinus 60 (formerly CαirelιsΊS 86), said to be 13th century. It represents the
6 Οη the context, see Nicol, The Reluctαnt Elnperor, and, for Manuel himself, Nicol, The work of a number of different hands and otherwise contains the Church Histories of Sozomen,
Byzαntine Fαmily qf Kαntαkouzenos, ηο. 25 =ρρ. 122-g. Οη the flourishing culturallife of the Morea, see Theodoret, Socrates, and Evagrius. See Diller, 393; Moschonas, Cαtαlogue qf MSS qf the Pαtliαrcllαl
Zakynthinos, Le Despotαt grec de Moree, 310-76, esp. 320-49. LίbΠl1Υ qfA lexαndriα, no. 60 (Ρρ. 50-Ι); Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenos Kirchengesclzichte, ρρ. χίν-xvi.
6 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 7
Claromantanus 82 / Phillippicus 308ι=Β independent of Α, ΟΓ is it, like Β, simply a copy, direct ΟΓ indirect?
Harnack thought it was independent of Α,20 though, as we sha11 ~ee, he
There is οη1l2Υ one other complete manuscript of the Apologies, which we had an axe to grind. Blunt thought that it 'seems to rep~esent a dΠ:ereηt
sha11 cal1 B. As had'been long assumed, and as has now been clearly and
tradition to that of Α', without appearing to be much 1llteres.ted Ι? the
abundantly demonstrated by Bobichon,13 Β is simply an apograph of Α. matter while Marcovich and. Munier content themselves W1th slffiply
Its provenance is, fortunately, secure. It is dated 2 April 1541, and signed denou~cing its demerits. It is our belief that C is ίη fact a copy of Α, at at
by a 'George' who is certainly Georgios Kokolos, a scribe known to
14 least two removes, and so gives us ηο access to a separate branch of the
have worked ίη Venice and knownto have worked for Pe11icier. Clearly tradition. We have accordingly reported its readings, as we have those of
Pe11icier had a copy of Α made for himself in Venice before the exemplar Β, only where they seem to be of some interest. .
was sent οη to the royal co11ection. There are two lines of argument that lead us to that cOllC1USlOll, one
Β, unlike Α, has had a chequered career. It belonged successively to external and one internaΙ The extract from ιΑ occupies fols. 1-2 of Ottob.
Pe11icier, to Claude Ν aulot du Val, to the Jesuit Co11ege of Clermont ίη gr. 274 (foΙ 3 is blank). Those folios-.-and those folios only-were copie~ by
Paris, and, after the expulsion of the Jesuits from France, to the Meermann
the well-known scribe Giovanni ΟηΟΓίο, who was actlve at the VatIcan
co11ection. It then passed into the huge collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps
and elsewhere ίη Rome [Γo~ his appointment by Paul ΠΙ as 'scrittore
1s
at Middle Hill, near Cheltenham. For some years it was οη deposit in the
16 greco' in 1535 until his death ίη August 1563·21 .
British Library as Loan 36/13, but has, unfortunately, been withdrawn
Ιη addition to (ι) ιΑ 65-7, Ottob. gr. 274 conta1ns:
and was sold 'by private treaty' ίη March 2006.17
Since Β is a straight copy of Α and, as the painstaking work ofBobichon (2) Justin, Ad Zenαm et Serenum;
has demonstrated, there is not the slightest reason to think it had access at (3) Justin, Expostitio Rectαe Fidei;
any stage to another witness to the text, we cite it occasiona11y, as we will (4) Athenagoras, Legαtio; and
the work of various editors, οηlΥ ίη order to acknowledge the attribution (5) Petrus Nannius' edition of Athenagoras, De Resurrectione Mortuorum
of a few obvious corrections. (Paris: apud C. Wechelium, 1541).22
The Nannius' Athenagoras has extensive annotations in the hand of
Ottobonianus 274 = C ΟηΟΓίο.23 That is, as we shall see, important. . ,
The date and provenance of the rest of the manuscnpt-that. lS,
Editors since Otto have given space in the apparatus to Ottoboniαnus gr. 274, numbers (2)-(4) in the list above-is quite secu~e. Those texts ,;ere cOp1ed
which contains the text of οηlΥ three chapters, ιΑ 65-7.18 It is a truth by Emmanuel Provataris, also active at the Vat1can, whose earl1est datable
universa11y acknowledged that its text is 'by far inferior to Α' .19 manuscript seems to be 1546.24 Οη the ba~is o~ palaeographical con
The question, though, that must decide its importance-and what
siderations, Canart's careful study ofProvatans ass1gns Ottob. gr. 274 to the
place it should be accorded ίη our apparatus-is not its merit ΟΓ lack of it, . , ,.. 11' t 8 2S
earlier part of the COPY1St s career-prov1sl~na Υ 0.154.· .
but its pedigree. Is it a witness-however inadequate-para11el to and
As is hardly surprising for Greek COPY1StS wor~ng m Rome at th1S
period, both ΟηΟΓίο and Provataris were οη occaSlOll employed by the
12 See the descriptions ίη Ott03, ρρ. xxiii-xxvii (who did not recognize it as an apograph); learned and urbane Marcello Cervini, Cardinal Santa Croce, papallegate
Archambault, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. xxiv-xxviii; Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 159-61. to the Council of Trent, and, for the last three weeks of his life, Pope
13 Bobichon, 'Oeuvres'. Note his crisp conc1usion: 'L'ensemb1e de ces observations convergentes
permet d'affirmer que, pour 1e Dialogue avec Tryphon, le manuscrit de la British Library [our Β] est Marce11us π.26 The inventories of Cervinj's manuscripts, compiled when
bien une copie directe de ce1ui de 1a Bibliotheque Nationa1e. Remarque qui peut sans doute etre
etendue a l' ensemb1e du document, puisque ce1ui-ci paralt bien etre tout entier de la meme main.'
14 Gamillscheg and Harlfinger, RepcI"toriuιn del' gI1eclzisclzen Kopisten; no. 65 (=part Α, ρ. 59; part Β, 20 Harnack, 'Brod und Wasser', 130. He Γeasserted its independent character again the next year in
ρρ. 33-34). The plate illustrating Kok010s's hand ίn part C is Berol. Phill. 1406, foΙ 146r, dated 1542. Gesclzichte der αltchI-ίstlichen LiteI'αtur, ί, 99·
15 The history to this point is traced by Archambau1t, Diαlogue, νοΙ ι, ρρ. xxiv-xxviii, and 21 See RainQ, Giovαnni ΟΙΙ0110 dα Mαglie. For Onorio's dates, see ρρ. 27 and 44, and for Ottob. gr. 274,
summarized by Bobichon, 'Oeuvres', 160. see ρρ. 68 and 16a-:.-1. .. ' .
16 We are grateful to Mr J. Maldonado of the British Library for kindly informing us by email of the 22 See Feron and Battag1ini, Codices jjιJαllUSC11ptl GTαecz OttoboIlla1lαe, 153·
withdrawal and sale. 23 RainQ GiOVa1llli ΟΙΙ0110 dα jjιJαglie, 214.
17 Newsletter qft lze Associαtion jότ Mαnuscripts αnd Arclzives ίπ Reseαrclz Collections, 46 (May 2006), 13. Η Cana:t, 'Les Manuscrits copies par Emmanue1 PΓOvataris', 194·
18 See the description of the MS ίη Feron and Battaglini, CO.4ices jjιJαnuscI1pti GTαeci Ottob01liαnαe, 153. 25 Ibid. 264. . . ,
19 Marcovich, Apologiαe, 7. See Otto3, ρ. ΧΧνίίί; Harnack, UberliijeI'ung, 89, Ώ. 215; B1unt, Apologies, 26 See Raino, GiOVα1l1li ΟΙΙ0110 dα Nlαglie, 55-6, 68, and Canart, 'Les Manuscnts copres par Emmanue1
ρ. 1ii; Munier\ 86. PΓOvataris', 229.
8 INTRODUCTION JUSTIN'S TEXT(S) 9
the collection was purchased from the Cervini family by Gregory ΧΙΙΙ in chapters ίη 1549-before the appearance of the editio princeps.32 So these
1574, alllist the three pieces copied by Provataris, but say nothing of the chapters were obviously ίη circulation, οη their οννη, shortly before the
short text ofJ ustin. 27 : appearance of Stephanus' edition.
Were the first two folios of Ottob. gr. 274 produced at the same time? It cannot, then, at present be conclusively demonstrated that fols. 1-20f
Their absence from the inventories of the Cerviniαni may simply be a Ottob. gr. 274 are contemporaneous with the rest ofthe manuscript,33 but it
reflection of the summary nature of those lists.28 And three facts together is entirely plausible and would, indeed, seem highly likely. And it is readily
tend to suggest that the manuscriptas we have it is a coherent whole: (ι) apparent why a different copyist might have been entrusted with those
Onorio's involvement ίη both the first and the last pieces-copying the folios οηl,Υ. The exemplar must, as we shall see, have offered a dreadful
first two folios and heavily annotating the printed De Resurrectione; (2) the text, and Onorio had by then established his position as the premier
presence of a manuscript Legαtio together with that De Resurrectione; and copyist of Greek texts at the Vatican.
(3) the inclusion of two pseudo:Justin works together with the ιΑ extract. 29 If we can regard some time very close to 1548 as the date of fols. 1-2,
If it is a coherent whole, the inclusion of the Ν annius edition obviously important consequences follow, for by then Α was already ίη the West. Its
demands a date ηο earlier than 1541, and the presence of a handwritten apograph Β is, as we have seen, dated 2 April 1541.
Legαtio probably implies a date before 1557, when the editio princeps was We can ηονν turn to the internal evidence of the text itself. Harnack was
printed by Η. Stephanus. That fits well with the dates of the activity of struck by the density ofvariants ίη C, counting nineteen departures from
both Onorio and Provataris and with the date Canart inferred from the the text of A-and his list is not complete.34 Ιη a significant number of
development ofProvataris' hand. cases C is blatantly wrong. Examples are:35
We might add that Justin's views οη the eucharist would have been of
intense theological interest ίη the period leading up to and surrounding 65.5 ήμιν Α] ήμων C
the eucharistic decree of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent οη 66.1 δεδιδαγμένα Α] δεδαγμένα C (primα mαnu)
11 October 1551. 67.1 Επικουρουμεν Α] Επικορουμεν C
These chapters of the First Apology were to make their debut ίη the 67.3 ~dypoυs μενόντων Α] Els IlPTOVS C
conciliar debates with two references to his testimony οη the mixing of 67.3 Εγχωρει Α] ευχωρειν C
water and wine, one οη 29 December 1551 by Bartholomaeus Carranza 67-4 νουθεσ{αν Α] νουθεσμ-ην C
ΟΡ and the other οη 13 January 1552 by Christophorus Patavinus.30 ΒΥ 67.5 προσΦέρεται Α] προΦερέται C
then, Stephanus' editio princeps of the Apologies would havebeen accessible; 67.5 διάδοσιs Α] διάδωσιs C
the bishop of Niverne had sent a copy of 'il christiano philosopho Justino 67.7 χ~ραιs Α] X~pas C (primα mαnu)
Greco nuovamente stampato' to Cervini at Trent οη ι April 1551.31 67.8 Εσταύρωσαν Α] Εσταύρωσεν C
Others were keenly interested ίη Justin's testimony as well, and ίη far 67.8 Els Επ{σκεψιν Α] Επιστρέψειν C (primα mαnu)
distant England both Thomas Cranmer and Stephen Gardiner cited these 67.8 ύμιν Α] ήμιν C (primα mαnu)
There are οηlΥ two readings of C that merit consideration as perhaps
independent or even original. The second of them beguiled Harnack,
while the first occurs ίη ιΑ 65.1:
27 Devreesse, 'Les Manuscrits grecs de Cervini', ρ. 253 (nos. 75-7) and ρ. 267 (ηο. 131 (18)).
28 Other entries ίη the inventories omit part of the contents of a MS. Normally this occurs with αγαθοι πολιτευται Α] αγαθων πολ{τευσθαι C,
texts-sometimes very substantial ones-at the end of a MS, though οη one occasion (ίη a badly
giving the sense '... that we be made worthy, having learned the
damaged MS) it has occuned with texts found at the beginning, before the text actually listed ίη the
inventory. Following the identifications made by Devreesse and comparing the inventories (using truth, to live through good deeds and to be found guardians of the
the running numbers assigned to his list d (Ρρ. 259-68)) with the actual contents of the MSS as commandments' .
catalogued by Feron and Battaglini, the former (omission at the end) is the case with 8= Ottob. gr. 249;
30= Ottob.gr. ΙΙ3; 33= Ottob.gr. 109; 37= Ottob. g1". 366; 41= Ottob.gl" 35; 53= Ottob. g1". 18; 61= Ottob.gr. 281; 32 We owe this reference to the kindness of the Rt Revd Οοlίη Buchanan; see now his Justin Aιfar!)!r οπ
65= Ottob. gr. 300; 70= Ottob. gl .. 379; 104= Ottob. gr. 210; 146= Ottob. gr. 217, and the latter (omission at Baptίsm and EuchaTist, ρ. 6 with n. 9.
the beginning) is the case with 14= Ottob. g1". 59. 33 Unfortunately, the present binding dates only from Pius ΙΧ (Raino, Giovallni Onorio da Maglie,
29 That it is a coherent whole is apparently assumed by Canart, 'Les Manuscripts copies par 161).
Emmanuel Provataris', 234. 34- Harnack, ϋbeτlίqeτung, ρ. 89, n. 215.
30 Concilium Tridentil1um 7,513, line 24-514, line Ι and 667, lines 1-2. 35 Writing during the three-year closure of the Vatican Library, we here follow Marcovich's
31 Concilium Tίidentinuιn ΙΙ, 620, n. 2. citations.
10 1NTRODUCT10N JUs T1N'S TEXT(S)
ΙΙ
Νονν; it is true that πολιτευτήι; occurs nowhere else in Justin, while It would seem to follow that if C does indeed derive from Α, it lies at
πολιτεύομαι appears four times, all ίη the Diαlogue (45.3; 67.2,4; 109.1), and least two remQves away. That coheres with what we might have guessed
that at ιΑ 67.2 it occurs ίη proximity with KαTΎjςιωσθαι. But the C text is, from the quality, or lack of it, of the text of C. Giovanni Onorio was a
nonetheless, derivative. The word family is common ίη Justin; πολιτεία highly skilled and professional copyist,37 and it seems impossible that he
38
appears seven times. And ιΑ 67.2 ίη fact tells the other way, as we shall see. could have committed so many blunders ίη so short a passage.
Ιη the first place, 'to live through good works' seems odd. Justin else It might be worth noting that the words omitted by C at ιΑ 67.8 occupy
where uses an adverb with πολιτεύομαι ('to live lawfully (εννόμωι;)' (D 67-4); almost exactly one line ίη Α, οη [οΙ 238r, lines 22-3 (the penultimate and
'to live lawfully and perfectly (εννόμωι; και τελέωι;), (D 67.2)) or the last lines Qf the page). Α comma after τρέψαι; οη line 22, where the omis
prepositions εν ('ίη which (wickedness), (D 109.1)) or κατά ('according to SiOll begins, iS aligned directly over the rather similar-looking iota subscript
the Law of Moses' (D 45.3)), but the use of διά to express the modality in Tn at its end, and the kappa of κόσμον iS not dissimilar in shape from the
of Christian life seems misplaced. That means that ίη the C reading δι' eta of rιμέΡq" where the text of C resumes.
εργων άγαθων must be construed with KαTΎjςιωσθαι rather than with The second place where a reading of C might appear tempting iS its
πολίτεvσθαι-that is, πολιτεύεσθαι-whίch allows the preposition to retain omission of και κράματοι; ίη ,ιΑ 65.3. Indeed, it tempted Harnack, who
its normal instrumental sense. found ίη it one of the planks out of which to construct his thesis that Justin
The meaning is, then, close to that of D 67.2. There Trypho claims practised a bread-and-water eucharist, without the use of wine. 39 We have
Justin's position should have been that 'because of living lawfully and suggested (αd loc.) two alternatives-first, that the reading of Α ('cup of
perfectly he was made worthy to be chosen as Christ' (δια το εννόμωι; και water and krαmα') might make perfect sense, depending οη' the details
τελέωι; πολιτεύεσθαι αύτον KαTΎjςιωσθαι τού εκλεγήναι ειι; Χριστόν). It is, unfortunately lost to us-of eucharistic observance ίη his church; and
of course, a claim that Justin rejects, but the point is that ίη both passages secondly, that the text can be emended so as to remove the apparent
manner of life provides the grounds for being made worthy. awkwardness of 'water and water-mixed-with-wine'. Either alternative
ΙΕ, then, δι' εργων άγαθων must be construed with KαTΎjςιωσθαι, the text seems far simpler than Harnack's thesis, which involves not οηlΥ rallying
of C cannot stand, for πολιτεύεσθαι will not do without some qualifica to the defence of C here, but also excising, without manuscript support,
tion-some expression of the mode of life, as ίη all the occurrences of the references to wine ίη ιΑ 54.6 and D 69.2 as well as ιΑ 65·5 and 67.5.
verb ίη the Diαlogue. The evidence for the date of C and the quality of its readings together
Νονν, it is easy to see how the variant could have arisen-by the assimila make it, we think, virtually certain that we are here dealing with a des
tion of άγαθ- to the preceding genitive pluraΙ But that suggests two cendant of Α rather than with an independent branch of the manuscript
stages-and two scribes-involved ίη the process: first the assimilation and tradition, as Harnack so fondly hoped. Unfortunately, it is not at present
then the 'correction' of πολιτευται to πολίτευσθαι to give superficial sense. possible to identif)r precisely the links ίn the chain. Indeed, it may never
One other variant ίη C seems to presuppose two stages of corruption. be. The lines of transmission are complex. That is shown clearly enough
At ιΑ 67.8 we find by the garbled state of the text of C, by the existence of other, still later
\ \ , \ ,\ C manuscripts, ίn both Greek and Latin, containing these chapters as a
και TΎjν V" λ Ύjν Α] ειι; TΎjν αυγΎjν detached fragment,40 and by their use ίn the polemic between Cranmer
and
κόσμΟν--τn aVTn AJ om C 37 Indeed, ίη the fulsome words ofBenedetto Egio (writing to Fulvio Orsino), ΟηΟΓίο was 'graeco
rum voluminum multo omnium qui fuere quique nunc sunt et qui post aliis erunt in annis, eminentis
simus' (quoted by RainQ, Giovanlli On01io da Maglie, 28).
Those two variants are clearly linked. The latter, as Marcovich notes ίη his
38 Harnack, who does not identif)r the scribe, noted, 'Es beweisen aber die 19 Abweichungen,
apparatus, must have come about 'uno versu ίη exemplari omisso" The welche sich im Ottobon. auf so kleinem Raume finden, dass er nicht aus Par. abgeschrieben ist'
former would then be an attempt to give some sense to an unintelligible (ϋbeτΙiefiτung, ρ. 89, η. 215). He went οη to draw from that observation the conclusion, which by ηο
text-a guess as to the context in which 'turning darkness' might have means follows necessarily, that C was independent of Α.
36 39 Harnack, 'Brod und Wasser': the reading ofthe OttoboιziαIlus is discussed οη ρρ. 130-1. Harnack's
been embedded.
thesis provoked an enormous amount of discussion, but little support, though it has been cautiously
endorsed by McGowan, Ascetic Eucllalists, 151-5 and 159.
r
40 Ιη Greek, Athos, Vatopedi, Skete Demetriu 33, fols. 34-35" ~atter 16th century), and, in Latin,
36 The curious εΙς αρτους for ij αγρους μενόντων at ιΑ 67.3, noted above, might also point to two AIllbTOSianus Η. 142 infer. (1564) and MOllacensis Lαt. 132 (1565). There are, ίη addition, excerpts from
stages of corruption, if, first, μενόντων was accidentally omitted and then a guess made at some both Apologies ίη the IJth-century PαIisillus suppl. gT. 190, fols. 299r-301Ό For these, see Marcovich,
possible sense. Apologiae, 7, η. 15·