Aristides' Apology and the Novel Barlaam and Ioasaph

This study explores the so-called Apology of Aristides as it can be foundwithin Barlaam and Ioasaph (B&I). Scholars have started from thehypothesis (when comparing the Greek B&I version to the Syriac version)that the redactor of B&I has removed details from within the Apology.Although this has a prima facie probability, no scholar has addressedwhether this one hundred year old hypothesis holds any truth. In order tounderstand a text within a framing text, one needs to get a clear idea ofthe latter, especially its textual form and its core ideas. This allows aninsight into the relationship between the two entities. I ask whichelements of the Apology entered B&I and have been seen as fitting thisframework, which of the linguistic entities and theological ideas areconsistent with both the time and content of B&I, and how the Apologyreads as part of the overall narrative of the B&I. I explore the roleplayed by this 'added' text in B&I, and why the author or redactor mayhave chosen to use it. Furthermore, is this text the only fragment thatwas added to B&I? Once the 'text' of the Apology is understood in itsframe, I argue, can we examine how that frame may have impacted on theinterpretation of the Apology, and whether and to what extent it may haveimpacted on the text itself. This answer to the latter question mayalready have been suggested when looking at how the linguistic entitiesfit the B&I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology of the B&I with theolder Greek papyri of the Apology. A study such as this has never beenaccomplished, and yet such a study proves essential in understanding theGreek version of the Apology, as it appears in B&I, and how this newinformation relates to the other versions of the Apology. What we discoveris that the redactor has not changed much of the B&I version of theApology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.This study exploresthe so-called Apology of Aristides as it can be found within Barlaam andIoasaph (B&I). Scholars have started from the hypothesis (when comparingthe Greek B&I version to the Syriac version) that the redactor of B&I hasremoved details from within the Apology. Although this has a prima facieprobability, no scholar has addressed whether this one hundred year oldhypothesis holds any truth. In order to understand a text within a framingtext, one needs to get a clear idea of the latter, especially its textualform and its core ideas. This allows an insight into the relationshipbetween the two entities. I ask which elements of the Apology entered B&Iand have been seen as fitting this framework, which of the linguisticentities and theological ideas are consistent with both the time andcontent of B&I, and how the Apology reads as part of the overall narrativeof the B&I. I explore the role played by this 'added' text in B&I, and whythe author or redactor may have chosen to use it. Furthermore, is thistext the only fragment that was added to B&I? Once the 'text' of theApology is understood in its frame, I argue, can we examine how that framemay have impacted on the interpretation of the Apology, and whether and towhat extent it may have impacted on the text itself. This answer to thelatter question may already have been suggested when looking at how thelinguistic entities fit the B&I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology ofthe B&I with the older Greek papyri of the Apology. A study such as thishas never been accomplished, and yet such a study proves essential inunderstanding the Greek version of the Apology, as it appears in B&I, andhow this new information relates to the other versions of the Apology.What we discover is that the redactor has not changed much of the B&Iversion of the Apology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.This study explores the so-called Apology of Aristides as it can befound within Barlaam and Ioasaph (B&I). Scholars havestarted from the hypothesis (when comparing the Greek B&I versionto the Syriac version) that the redactor of B&I has removed detailsfrom within the Apology. Although this has a prima facieprobability, no scholar has addressed whether this one hundred year oldhypothesis holds any truth. In order to understand a text within a framingtext, one needs to get a clear idea of the latter, especially its textualform and its core ideas. This allows an insight into the relationshipbetween the two entities. I ask which elements of the Apologyentered B&I and have been seen as fitting this framework, which ofthe linguistic entities and theological ideas are consistent with both thetime and content of B&I, and how the Apology reads as part of theoverall narrative of the B&I. I explore the role played by this'added' text in B&I, and why the author or redactor may have chosento use it. Furthermore, is this text the only fragment that was added toB&I? Once the 'text' of the Apology is understood in itsframe, I argue, can we examine how that frame may have impacted on theinterpretation of the Apology, and whether and to what extent itmay have impacted on the text itself. This answer to the latter questionmay already have been suggested when looking at how the linguisticentities fit the B&I frame. Finally, I compare the Apologyof the B&I with the older Greek papyri of the Apology. Astudy such as this has never been accomplished, and yet such a studyproves essential in understanding the Greek version of the Apology, as it appears in B&I, and how this new information relates to theother versions of the Apology. What we discover is that theredactor has not changed much of the B&I version of theApology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.