Disillusioned JW : What is your [Sea Breeze/Terry] source for the English
translation of Apol. 2? … which manuscript did
that source use for the translation?
Both English
translations are by D.M. Kay, Assistant to the Professor of Semitic Languages
in the University of Edinburgh, and can be found here. The Syriac
manuscript used was that found by J. Rendel Harris in the library of the convent
of St Catherine, at the foot of Mount Sinai, in 1889. Harris says in his book
on the ms that it was numbered 16 amongst the Syriac MSS of the convent and may
be dated to the 7th century.
Sea Breeze is quite correct to say
that there is no question as to the genuineness of the Apology of Aristides, in
the sense that Eusebius alludes to it in his Ecclesiastical History and in his
Chronicon. However, there is no mention of Aristides before Eusebius, Eusebius
does not quote from the Apology (perhaps because he did not possess a copy),
and none of the Fathers quote from the Apology either. In other words, we have
no evidence of its contents before the 7th century.
Is it reasonable to believe that the 7th
century Syriac translation accurately reflects the original Apology of
Aristides, especially in its reference to God coming down from heaven and
clothing himself with flesh? In his book on The Apology of Aristides, J. Rendel
Harris discusses the differences between the Greek, Syriac and Armenian
versions of the Christological passage and points out that it is only the
Syriac which contains the phrase “God came down from heaven”. He says:
The most serious change is that in the
Syriac, where the word ‘God’ is inserted as the subject of the verbs which
follow. The passage is one which was more likely than any other in the whole
piece to tempt later writers to make changes of their own. It is to be noted
here the Greek in spite of its additions represents the original Apology much
more faithfully than the Syriac does.
He goes on to say
The Syriac Version is often loose and inaccurate
: it drops a phrase here and there ; and it makes insertions by way of
explanation or of supplement, and sometimes in such a way as to convey a wholly
false conception of the original.
When considering the authenticity of
sayings attributed to the ante-Nicene Fathers it is safe to say that statements
reflecting a post-Nicene Christology should always be treated with caution.
