PG 2 · cols. 663–666

I. Vossius, Praefatio ad Epistolam S. Barnabae (Amstelodami 1646)

Editors' preface

III.

(Isaacus VOSSIUS, Praefatio ad Epistolam S. Barnabae, Amstelodami anno 1646 ab ipso editam ad calcem Epistolarum S. Ignatii martyris.)

III.

(Isaac Vossius, Preface to the Epistle of St Barnabas, published by himself at Amsterdam in the year 1646 at the end of the Epistles of St Ignatius the Martyr.)

Aliquot jam sunt anni quod hanc Barnabae Epistolam, quam ab incomparabili Salmasio acceperam, in lucem emittere decreveram. Sed iter meum obstitit, quominus institutum illud tum temporis perficere licuerit. Dum vero Angliam lustro, alia sese obtulit occasio, qua scriptum illud, quod jam diu lucem merebatur, tandem aliquando divulgaretur. Parabat tum novam Ignatii editionem reverendissimus Hiberniae primas, Usserius Armachanus. Illi itaque postulanti et offerenti ut una cum Ignatianis haec quoque Barnabae excuderetur epistola, non tantum libenter id concessi, sed etiam

It is now some years since I had resolved to publish this Epistle of Barnabas, which I had received from the incomparable Salmasius. But my journey prevented me from being able to accomplish that design at that time. While, however, I was travelling through England, another occasion presented itself, whereby that writing, which had long since deserved the light, might at length be published. The Most Reverend Primate of Ireland, Ussher of Armagh, was then preparing a new edition of Ignatius. When he therefore requested and offered that together with the Ignatian epistles this epistle of Barnabas also should be printed, I not only gladly granted this, but also

Editors' notes and page, col. 663

Page

running head: S. BARNABAS APOSTOLUS.
marginal letters: A solus, aut; B tis : nunc; C de adventu; D Aliquot jam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title across cols 663-664 after usum : (III. / (Isaacus VOSSIUS, Praefatio ad Epistolam S. Barna... / editam ad calcem Epistolarum S. ...) cut off at right edge and not set; editors' matter: solus, aut, Epistolae argumentum, divisio., Aliquot jam
other: a full-width band stands across cols 663/664 in mid-page: the 4 paragraph(s) above it in col 664 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 663 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at Aliquot jam sunt anni
other: editors' heading, printed full-width across cols 663-664 above the two-column text (page 329); set here as the unit's title line.

PG 2:664

maximopere gavisus sum, in illas manus incidere antiquissimum istud monumentum, a quibus immensum quantum splendoris mutuari sibi posset. Et nisi ingens isthoc incendium, quod non exiguam partem urbis Oxoniensis vastavit, omnia quoque exemplaria absumpsisset, pulcherrimam ejus auctoris editionem jamdiu habuissemus. Non defuere tamen in Gallia viri docti, qui indignum putabant, scriptum hoc diutius in tenebris latitare. Itaque nuper Hugo Menardus, monachus ordinis Sancti Mauri, novam nobis editionem adornavit. Quin plurimum hoc nomine meritus sit de publico, nemo

rejoiced exceedingly that that most ancient monument fell into those hands from which it could borrow an immense amount of splendour for itself. And had not that huge fire, which laid waste no small part of the city of Oxford, consumed all the copies also, we should long ago have had a most beautiful edition of that author. Nevertheless there were not lacking learned men in France who thought it unworthy that this writing should lie hid any longer in darkness. Accordingly Hugues Ménard, a monk of the Order of Saint Maur, lately prepared a new edition for us. That he has deserved very well of the public on this account, there is no one

Editors' notes and page, col. 664

Page

running head: S. BARNABAS APOSTOLUS.
marginal letters: A altera paraenetica,; B cis prohibitis; C sum sub finem,; D maximopere gavisus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title across cols 663-664 after ad omnes. (III. / ...olam S. Barnabae, Amstelodami anno 1646 ab ipso / Epistolarum S. Ignatii martyris.)) cut off at left edge and not set; editors' matter: altera paraenetica, Prior pars epistolae, Secunda pars epistolae, Haec autem epistola, maximopere gavisus
other: the 4 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 663 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the editors' heading "III. (Isaacus VOSSIUS ...)" is printed full-width across cols 663-664; it is set once, in c663_a.md.

PG 2:665

est, qui inficias iverit. Plus tamen meruisset, si contigisset illi plura videre exemplaria. Cum enim tota illa editio ex uno promanarit codice, fieri aliter non potuit quin inemendatissima prodiret. Mihi, licet non usque adeo fortuna faverit, ut quisquam invidere debeat, ea tamen contigit felicitas, ut tribus in hoc corrigendo usus sim mss. Primum mihi Florentiae suppeditavit bibliotheca Medicea, altera duo bibliotheca Vaticana et Theatinorum, qui Romae agunt. Illorum usum acceptum fero Lucae Holstenio, viro summo et nunquam non infra merita sua laudando. Quid itaque ope istorum trium codicum praestitum sit, videbit is, qui operae pretium duxerit, editionem hanc cum altera, quam dixi, committere.

who would deny. Yet he would have deserved still more, if it had fallen to his lot to see more copies. For since that whole edition flowed from a single codex, it could not happen otherwise than that it came forth very unemended. To me, although fortune has not favoured me to such a degree that anyone ought to envy me, nevertheless this good fortune fell, that I used three manuscripts in correcting this work. The first the Medicean Library at Florence supplied to me, the other two the Vatican Library and that of the Theatines who live at Rome. The use of them I owe to Lukas Holste, a man of the highest standing and always praised below his merits. What therefore has been accomplished by the help of those three codices, he will see who thinks it worthwhile to compare this edition with the other which I mentioned.

Nescio autem cur quidam opinati sint hanc Epistolam non esse Barnabae, cum tamen et Clemens, et Origenes, et alii, illam ei tribuant. Offensi sunt, credo, viri docti, quod hic loca quaedam S. Scripturae aliter explicentur, quam explicari debebant. Persuaderi nequeunt, sic potuisse ea capi a viro tantae auctoritatis, cujus toties sacri libri meminerint, quique semper Pauli apostoli comes fuerit individuus, et ipse quoque unus e minoribus apostolis. Sed quis a primis illis Christianis omnigenam scientiam et doctrinam expostulet; quis illos non aeque hallucinatos existimet, atque eorum nepotes; praesertim in rebus nihil ad fidem pertinentibus? Nunquid et in epistola Clementis, quam nobis dedit vir maximus Patricius Junius, bibliothecarius regius (cui ego tantum debeo, ut plura ei debere non possim), similia occurrunt? Quis enim bono animo concoquere possit fabellam illam, quam de phoenice narrat, deque pluribus ultra Oceanum mundis? Non puto etiam quemquam velle admittere expositionem istam, ut linteum coccineum Raab meretricis, signum fuerit sanguinis Christi, et alia quaedam id genus, quae non est hujus loci referre. Atqui tamen iste Clemens, pari jure atque Barnabas, dictus est apostolus. Non debent itaque

Now I do not know why some have opined that this Epistle is not Barnabas's, whereas nevertheless both Clement, and Origen, and others attribute it to him. Learned men have been offended, I believe, because certain passages of Sacred Scripture are explained here otherwise than they ought to have been explained. They cannot be persuaded that those things could have been so taken by a man of so great authority, whom the sacred books mention so many times, and who was always the inseparable companion of Paul the apostle, and himself also one of the minor apostles. Yet who would demand of those first Christians all-round science and learning; who would not think them to have erred just as much as their descendants; especially in matters pertaining nothing to the faith? Do not similar things occur also in the Epistle of Clement which that greatest of men Patrick Young, the Royal Librarian (to whom I owe so much that I could not owe him more), gave to us? For who could digest with a good mind that tale which he relates concerning the phoenix, and concerning several worlds beyond the Ocean? Nor do I think that anyone is willing to admit that exposition, that the scarlet thread of Rahab the harlot was a sign of the blood of Christ, and certain other things of that kind, which it is not the place here to recount. And yet that Clement, by an equal right with Barnabas, was called an apostle. They ought not therefore

in hoc reprehendere quod in altero excusant. Notum est cuilibet, quam nimium mystice et superstitiose (pene etiam inepte) primi illi Christiani Scripturas sacras sint interpretati. Si itaque et in hoc auctore quaedam occurrant quae eruditis displiceant, dandum id potius moribus veterum Christianorum quam ut putetur scriptum esse supposititium. Sed neque hoc quemquam movere debet, quod Eusebius et Graeci posteriores inter ἀπόκρυφα reposuerint Epistolam Barnabae. Non enim hoc eo factum quod dubitarent de auctore, sed quod non probarent mysticas istas interpretationes multorum S. Scripturae locorum. Eadem ratione et Clementis Alexandrini, et multa Origenis opera, inter apocrypha relata sunt. Neque tamen unquam dubitatum fuit quin genuina essent illa opera. Et certe : si omnia quae aliquando inter apocrypha habita sint rejicere velimus, rejicienda quoque esset D. Pauli ad Hebraeos Epistola, item Judae apostoli Epistola, et illa Clementis ad Corinthios. Quod quam absurdum sit, quis est qui non videat.

to blame in this one what they excuse in the other. It is known to everyone how overly mystically and superstitiously (almost even foolishly) those first Christians interpreted the sacred Scriptures. If therefore in this author also certain things occur which displease the learned, that should rather be conceded to the customs of the ancient Christians than that the writing should be thought supposititious. Nor again ought this to move anyone, that Eusebius and the later Greeks placed the Epistle of Barnabas among the apocrypha. For this was not done because they doubted concerning the author, but because they did not approve those mystical interpretations of many passages of Sacred Scripture. For the same reason both the works of Clement of Alexandria and many works of Origen were reckoned among the apocrypha. And yet it was never doubted that those works were genuine. And certainly, if we wished to reject all works that have ever been held among the apocrypha, the Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews would also have to be rejected, likewise the Epistle of Jude the apostle, and that of Clement to the Corinthians. Who is there that does not see how absurd that would be?

Alii ex stylo et scriptionis genere dixerunt, sese deprehendere epistolam hanc esse spuriam. De Ignatii epistolis idem affirmabant. Sed nimium sane acuti volunt videri, qui talia jactant. Non ita facile est spuria scripta a genuinis distinguere, quam sit nativas gemmas dignoscere ab adulterinis. Cum enim veri lapilli cum fictitiis committuntur et comparantur, tum ut plurimum fucus apparet : ita purpura ad purpuram dijudicatur, ita et in aliis mercibus fit. Sed quid est, unde isti, qui negant, epistolas has esse Barnabae, et Ignatii, isthoc colligere potuerint? Nunquid alia eorum scripta viderunt? Non certe. Unde ergo iis innotuit, quo stylo usi sint Barnabas et Ignatius? At inquiunt isti sese nihilominus scire vera esse, quae sentiant. Si ita est, jam verbum non addam. Pergamus, et videamus, ecquid operae pretium fuerit ad hanc Epistolam adnotasse.

Others from the style and manner of writing have said that they detect this epistle to be spurious. They affirmed the same concerning the epistles of Ignatius. But those who boast such things wish to seem overly acute indeed. It is not so easy to distinguish spurious writings from genuine ones as it is to discern natural gems from counterfeit ones. For when true precious stones are brought together and compared with artificial ones, then for the most part the deceit appears: thus purple is judged by comparison with purple, and thus it happens in other wares also. But what is there whence those who deny that these epistles are Barnabas's and Ignatius's could have gathered this? Have they seen other writings of theirs? Certainly not. Whence therefore did it become known to them what style Barnabas and Ignatius used? Yet those men say that they know nevertheless that what they think is true. If it is so, I shall add not a word more. Let us proceed, and see whether it was at all worthwhile to have made annotations upon this Epistle.

Editors' notes and page, col. 665