S. Justinus philosophus et martyr, Oratio ad Graecos (Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας)

(1) ‹anchor: προὔχοντι› · call in col 229

Τῷ... προὔχοντι. Haec de principe poetarum Homero dicta existimat Stephanus; quamobrem ut quadrent quae sequuntur, Primum enim dicunt, conjicit legendum esse: Si quis ad eum qui apud vos doctrina excellit καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις et ad alios accedat. At non necessaria videtur emendatio. Quod enim Justinus ait: Si quis ad eum qui apud vos doctrina excellit, id de grammaticis, qui in interpretandis poetis operam insumebant, intelligi potest. Ad hos grammaticos generatim referri possunt quae sequuntur, Primum enim dicunt, etc. In his enim nonnulla sunt quae apud Homerum non legi notat Stephanus, quale est quod de Iphigenia dicitur.

"To him who excels." Stephanus thinks this is said of Homer, the prince of poets; and so, that what follows ("For first they say") may fit, he conjectures that one should read: "If anyone goes to him who excels in learning among you καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, and to the others." But the emendation does not seem necessary. For what Justin says, "If anyone goes to him who excels in learning among you," can be understood of the grammarians, who spent their labour in interpreting the poets. What follows, "For first they say," etc., can be referred to these grammarians in general. For among these things there are some which Stephanus notes are not read in Homer, such as what is said of Iphigenia.

(printed under page 121)

(2) ‹anchor: ἀργαλεώτατος› · call in col 229

Ἀργαλεώτατος. Vox difficilis visa Stephano, utpote rebus inanimis congruens, non hominibus. Sed tamen legitur ἀργαλέος Ὀλύμπιος, Iliad. A, v. 589.

"Most troublesome." The word seemed difficult to Stephanus, as being suited to inanimate things, not to men. But ἀργαλέος Ὀλύμπιος ("the troublesome Olympian") is nevertheless read, Iliad I (A), line 589.

(printed under page 121)

(3) ‹anchor: ἀπὸ λέπρου› · call in col 229

Ἀπὸ λέπρου. Legit Casaubonus ἀπ' ὀλέθρου. Probat H. Stephanus, modo legatur ὑπ' ὀλέθρου. Conjicit Potterus legendum λιπαροῦ, id est nitidi et elegantis. At nulla videtur mutandi necessitas. Nam, ut observat Sylburgius, sic incultum et horridum esse solet pastorum vitae genus, ut scabiosi non illepide dicantur. Atque hinc forte natum esse addit idem Sylburgius, ut Israelitae, cum pastores essent, ob lepram ex Aegypto pulsi fuisse fingerentur. Quod quidem commentum a Manethone et aliis nonnullis venditatum refellit Josephus, I App., et ejus vestigiis Theophilus Antiochenus, lib. III, ad Autol. Legendum ὑπὸ λέπρου, nisi referatur ad verbum ῥύσηται.

"By a leprous." Casaubon reads ἀπ' ὀλέθρου ("from a pest"). H. Stephanus approves, provided ὑπ' ὀλέθρου is read. Potter conjectures that one should read λιπαροῦ, that is, "sleek and elegant." But there seems no need to change it. For, as Sylburg observes, the shepherds' way of life is commonly so rough and unkempt that they may not inaptly be called scabby. And hence, adds the same Sylburg, perhaps arose the fiction that the Israelites, being shepherds, were driven out of Egypt for leprosy. This fabrication, peddled by Manetho and some others, Josephus refutes (Against Apion I), and in his footsteps Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, book III. Read ὑπὸ λέπρου, unless it is referred to the verb ῥύσηται.

(printed under page 121)

(4) ‹anchor: πρὸς τὸν Θέτιδος› · call in col 229

Πρὸς τὸν Θέτιδος. Conjunctionem καί praemittendam putat H. Stephanus.

"Against the son of Thetis." H. Stephanus thinks the conjunction καί ("and") should be put before it.

(printed under page 121)

- Ex Henr. Stephani interpretatione, pluribus locis emendata. — editors' matter (credit line for Migne's Latin version), set full width under col 229 after the title block; not the work's.

(none; footnotes (1)-(4) under page 121 are called in the Greek, col 229 only, and are set in n229)

(5) (continued) ‹anchor: ὁ ποταμὸν πηδήσας (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 231

Ὁ ποταμὸν πηδήσας. Difficultas inextricabilis si nihil mutetur: nusquam enim legitur Achilles fluvium saltu superasse. Sed si legamus πιδύσας, qui fluvium excivit, res illustrari potest ex Lycophrone et ejus scholiaste. Sic igitur Lycophron in Alexandra, vers. 245: Ὅταν πελασγὸν ἅλμα λαιψηροῦ ποδὸς / Εἰς θῖν' ἐρείσας λοισθίαν αἴθων λύκος, / Κρηναῖον ἐξ ἄμμοιο ῥοιβδήσῃ γάνος / Πηγὰς ἀνοίξας τὰς πάλαι κεκρυμμένας. / Quando Thessalicum celeris saltum pedis / In ripam imprimens ultimam ravus lupus / Fontanam ex arena ciebit aquam / Fontes olim opertos aperiens. Scilicet cum Graecis praedictum fuisset, ut narrat Lycophronis scholiastes, primum omnium periturum, qui primus e navibus in terram irruisset; cumque Protesilaus, qui primus desiluerat, ab Hectore aut ab alio occisus fuisset, Achilles, ejus casu eruditus, omnium ultimus desiluit, sed tanto impetu, ut ex terra, quam pedibus percusserat, fons eruperit. Non aliam profecto fabulam hoc loco Justinus attingere videtur. [Ne cui displiceat sensus, quem verbo πιδύσας adjunxi, monebo ῥοιβδήσας eodem prorsus sensu usurpari in Lycophronis versibus ibidem citatis. Stephanus animadvertit corruptum esse hunc locum: doctissimus Potterus nihil mutat, sed, quod quidem probare non possim, haec verba ὁ ποταμὸν πηδήσας idem valere existimat ac insiluit in Scamandrum, vel fluvium saltu excitavit. Non satis accurate mihi videtur H. Stephanus reddidisse illud de Ulysse dictum, ἐκ κακίας ἀρετὴν ἐνεπορεύσατο. Sic enim vertit: Ex improbitate famam virtutis lucratus est. Accuratius erit ipsam virtutem ex vitio, nimirum prudentiam ex dolo conflatam interpretari. Mox probat Justinus verae prudentiae expertem Ulyssem fuisse: qui quidem locus sic videtur, nihil prorsus mutando, reddi posse: Quod autem spectat ad illius ignorationem bonae prudentiae, declarat illa circa Sirenes navigatio, eum, quia sapere non poterat, aures obturasse. Plurima occurrunt apud Justinum ejusmodi exempla, in quibus illud ὅτι δέ idem valet ac quod spectat. Vid. Apol. I, n. 35, 45, 47, 50. Non dissimulandum est aculeum illum, quo Ulyssem Justinus figit, benigna interpretatione indigere. Cur enim peccandi occasionis fuga instar probri objicitur? Ipse Justinus in Cohort., exemplum Ulyssis ad imitandum proponit, atque auctor est ut aures cera obturemus, n. 36. Videtur idem factum hoc loco exagitare, quia adhibitam ab Ulysse cautionem a vera peccati fugiendi ratione, quae solis Christianis cognita precationem et spem divini auxilii adjunctam habet, longe distare intelligebat.] — Ex addendis et emendandis.

"He who leapt the river." An inextricable difficulty if nothing is changed: for nowhere do we read that Achilles crossed a river at a leap. But if we read πιδύσας, "who made a river spring forth," the matter can be explained from Lycophron and his scholiast. Thus, then, Lycophron in the Alexandra, line 245: [Greek verses, rendered by the Latin:] "When, pressing the Thessalian leap of his swift foot onto the furthest shore, the tawny wolf shall stir up spring-water from the sand, opening fountains long hidden." That is, as the scholiast of Lycophron relates, it had been foretold to the Greeks that the first to perish would be whoever first leapt from the ships onto land; and when Protesilaus, who had leapt down first, had been killed by Hector or by another, Achilles, taught by his fate, leapt down last of all, but with such force that from the earth he had struck with his feet a spring burst forth. Surely Justin seems to touch on no other fable in this place. [Lest the sense I have attached to the word πιδύσας displease anyone, I will point out that ῥοιβδήσας is used in exactly the same sense in the lines of Lycophron cited in the same place. Stephanus noticed that this passage is corrupt; the most learned Potter changes nothing, but thinks, which I for my part cannot approve, that these words ὁ ποταμὸν πηδήσας mean the same as "he leapt into the Scamander," or "he made a river spring forth by a leap." H. Stephanus does not seem to me to have rendered accurately enough what is said of Ulysses, ἐκ κακίας ἀρετὴν ἐνεπορεύσατο. For he translates: "From wickedness he gained a reputation for virtue." It will be more accurate to interpret it as virtue itself fashioned out of vice, namely prudence out of guile. Presently Justin proves that Ulysses lacked true prudence: a passage which, changing nothing at all, seems capable of being rendered thus: "As for his ignorance of good prudence, that voyage past the Sirens shows it: because he could not be wise, he stopped his ears." Very many examples of this kind occur in Justin, in which ὅτι δέ means the same as "as for." See Apol. I, nos. 35, 45, 47, 50. It must not be concealed that the barb with which Justin pierces Ulysses needs a kindly interpretation. For why is fleeing an occasion of sin thrown up as though it were a disgrace? Justin himself, in the Cohortatio, proposes the example of Ulysses for imitation and urges us to stop our ears with wax, no. 36. He seems to attack the same act in this place because he understood that the precaution Ulysses used was far removed from the true way of fleeing sin, which is known to Christians alone and has prayer and the hope of divine help joined to it.] — From the Addenda et emendanda.

(printed under page 122)

(6) ‹anchor: νυμφικὴν στολήν (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 231

Νυμφικὴν στολήν. Longe aberrabat a Justini sententia haec Stephani interpretatio: Cum vestem, qualem sponsae gerunt, induisset. Non tunc muliebrem vestem induit Achilles, cum Polyxenam Priami filiam in templo Apollinis Thymbraei uxorem ducens, a Paride ex insidiis occisus est. Olim quidem sub hac veste apud Lycomedem delitescens militiam subterfugerat; at idem ab eo factum non legitur, cum conjugis taedas in templo Apollinis praetenderet.

"A bridal garment." This rendering of Stephanus strayed far from Justin's meaning: "When he had put on such a garment as brides wear." Achilles did not put on women's clothing at the time when, marrying Polyxena, daughter of Priam, in the temple of Thymbraean Apollo, he was killed by Paris from ambush. Once indeed, hiding in this dress at the court of Lycomedes, he had evaded military service; but we do not read that he did the same when he held out the marriage torches in Apollo's temple.

(printed under page 122)

(7) ‹anchor: φρονῆσαι (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 231

Φρονῆσαι. Legit Stephanus φρονήσει ἐμφράξαι. Sed haud scio an aptior et commodior futura sit emendatio, si legamus: ὅτε μὴ ἠδυνήθη φρονῆσαι, ἐνέφραξε τὴν ἀκοήν. Cum sapere non posset, aures obturavit.: ὅτε probat Sanppe

"To be wise." Stephanus reads φρονήσει ἐμφράξαι ("to stop up by prudence"). But perhaps a more fitting and convenient emendation would be to read: ὅτε μὴ ἠδυνήθη φρονῆσαι, ἐνέφραξε τὴν ἀκοήν, "since he could not be wise, he stopped his ears." Sauppe [printed "Sanppe"] approves ὅτε.

(printed under page 122)

(8) ‹anchor: ἐπιδικάζομαι (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 231

Ἐπιδικάζομαι. Id est, non talem virtutem appeto, non cupidus sum ac tenax ejusmodi virtutis. Quo sensu Christus dicitur apud Origenem (l. IV adv. Cels., p. 139) praetulisse plebi eos qui ipsius sapientiae cupidi erant, τοὺς τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιδικαζομένους.

"I lay claim to." That is, I do not seek such virtue, I am not eager for or attached to virtue of that kind. In this sense Christ is said in Origen (book IV Against Celsus, p. 139) to have preferred to the common crowd those who were eager for his wisdom, τοὺς τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιδικαζομένους.

(printed under page 122)

(9) ‹anchor: μεθ' Ὅμηρον (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 231

Μεθ' Ὅμηρον. Nodum in hoc scirpo quaerit Stephanus, ac post has voces addendum putat ἐγένετο, ὅς, Post Homerum fuit Hesiodus, qui, etc. Mox legendum φησί vel eodem modo ac supra intelligendum illud φασί.

"After Homer." Stephanus looks for a knot in a bulrush [finds a difficulty where there is none], and thinks ἐγένετο, ὅς should be added after these words: "After Homer came Hesiod, who," etc. Presently one should read φησί ("he says"), or else understand that φασί ("they say") in the same way as above.

(printed under page 122)

(10) ‹anchor: ληρώδει (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 231

Ληρώδει. Legitur λήρῳ apud Stephanum qui hanc vocem adjective sumendam putat, aut legendum ληρώσει. Recte Steohan., cujus cf. Thesaur. ed. Paris. in h. v.

"Trifling." Stephanus's text reads λήρῳ, and he thinks this word should be taken as an adjective, or ληρώσει read. Stephanus [printed "Steohan."] is right; compare his Thesaurus, Paris edition, under this word.

(printed under page 122)

(11) ‹anchor: οὐκ ὀλίγων (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 234

Οὐκ ὀλίγων. Legendum conjicit Sylburgius οὐκ ὀλίγῳ. Sed in hac emendatione ut in multis aliis tum Sylburgius, tum etiam ipse Stephanus non tam sanandi, quam ornandi contextus partes sustinent.

"Not a few." Sylburg conjectures that one should read οὐκ ὀλίγῳ ("by no little"). But in this emendation, as in many others, both Sylburg and Stephanus himself play the part not so much of healing the text as of embellishing it.

(printed under page 123)

(12) ‹anchor: καὶ Δανάῃ (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 234

Καὶ Δανάῃ. Immerito Stephanus et Sylburgius legendum putant ἐπὶ Δανάῃ δέ. Sequitur enim mox ἐπτεροῦτο δέ. Uterque observat quatuor Jovis adulteria hoc disticho exprimi: Ζεὺς κύκνος, ταῦρος, σάτυρος, χρυσὸς, δι' ἔρωτα / Λήδης, Εὐρώπης, Ἀντιόπης, Δανάης.

"And for Danaë." Stephanus and Sylburg wrongly think one should read ἐπὶ Δανάῃ δέ. For ἐπτεροῦτο δέ follows soon after. Both observe that Jupiter's four adulteries are expressed in this couplet: "Zeus a swan, a bull, a satyr, gold, for love of Leda, Europa, Antiope, Danaë."

(printed under page 123)

(13) ‹anchor: Σεμέλης (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 234

Σεμέλης. Stephanus adnotat in ms. exemplari verbum esse inter Σεμέλης et τὸν ζῆλον quod legi non possit. Beurerus legit καὶ τῆς Ἥρας τὸν ζῆλον, quam lectionem probat etiam Stephanus, ideoque locum sic reddi mavult: Nam Semeles amor et illius (Jovis) petulantiam et Junonis zelotypiam coarguit. Paulo post legitur ἐδίωξεν in Beureri exemplari. SYLBURGIUS. Τῆς σεμ. Ἥρας τὸν ζ. cod. Argent.

"Of Semele." Stephanus notes that in the manuscript copy there is a word between Σεμέλης and τὸν ζῆλον that cannot be read. Beurer reads καὶ τῆς Ἥρας τὸν ζῆλον ("and Hera's jealousy"), a reading which Stephanus also approves, and so he prefers to render the passage thus: "For the love of Semele convicts both his (Jupiter's) wantonness and Juno's jealousy." A little later ἐδίωξεν is read in Beurer's copy. SYLBURG. The Strasbourg codex has Τῆς σεμ. Ἥρας τὸν ζ.

(printed under page 123)

(14) ‹anchor: σκεύωντι (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 234

Σκεύωντι. Corruptus locus videtur emendari posse si legamus ἐρωμένῳ αὐτοῦ Ὑακίνθῳ, Amasio suo Hyacintho. Sic enim Tatianus cap. 8 et Theoph. Antioch. lib. I, cap. 9, Hyacinthum cum Daphne conjungunt, ut Apollinis in futuris rebus praevidendis imperitiam arguant. Illa enim et vatem et vitium effugit, ut ait Clemens Protrept., p. 21; Hyacinthum autem imprudens occidit Apollo, cum discum jecit, quem Zephyrus flatu suo in caput pueri convertit. Eo libentius huic voci σκεύωντι Hyacinthum substituo, quod Apollinem ait Justinus a seipso argui, id est a propriis et domesticis rebus. Illud autem Αἰακίδῃ videtur in textum obrepsisse ex margine, ubi forte hoc nomen appositum fuerat, ut indicaretur ambiguum illud Pyrrho datum ab Apolline responsum: Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse. Sed res Pyrrhi non videntur huic Justini loco congruere.

"Σκεύωντι." The corrupt passage seems capable of being emended if we read ἐρωμένῳ αὐτοῦ Ὑακίνθῳ, "his beloved Hyacinthus." For thus Tatian, ch. 8, and Theophilus of Antioch, book I, ch. 9, join Hyacinthus with Daphne, to convict Apollo of lacking skill in foreseeing the future. For she escaped both the prophet and his vice, as Clement says (Protrepticus, p. 21); and Hyacinthus Apollo killed unawares when he threw the discus, which Zephyrus with his breath turned against the boy's head. I substitute Hyacinthus for this word σκεύωντι all the more readily because Justin says that Apollo is convicted by himself, that is, by his own and private affairs. But that Αἰακίδῃ ("to the Aeacid") seems to have crept into the text from the margin, where perhaps this name had been written to point to the ambiguous oracle given by Apollo to Pyrrhus: "I say that you, Aeacid, can conquer the Romans." But Pyrrhus's affairs do not seem to fit this passage of Justin.

(printed under page 123)

(15) ‹anchor: παιδεραστίας αἰσχρότητα› · call in col 234

Αἰσχρότητα. Id est legite Jovi turpitudinis notas huic vitio inurendas. Frustra ergo addendum ait Stephanus διδάξατε, quod ideo excidisse putat, quia idem verbum protinus repetitur.

"Shamefulness." That is, read to Jupiter the marks of disgrace to be branded on this vice. So Stephanus is wrong to say that διδάξατε ("teach") should be added, which he thinks fell out because the same word is repeated immediately after.

(printed under page 123)

(16) ‹anchor: τὸν γὰρ τριέσπερον› · call in col 234

Τριέσπερον. Vulgo creditur Trivesperum Herculem appellari, quia Jupiter, cum absente Amphitryone ad ejus uxorem Alcmenam venisset, tres noctes in unam conjunxerat. Aliam rationem afferunt Lycophron, ejusque scholiastes: quia videlicet tres dies in ceti immanis ventre Hercules traduxerat. Sic rem enarrat Lycophronis scholiastes: Cum Neptunus mercede fraudatus cetum immane in Laomedontis regionem immisisset, ac filiam Hesionem Laomedon oraculi jussu vorandam belluae exponeret, Hercules, ut rem adventu suo cognovit, promissis a Laomedonte equis immortalibus, quos Jupiter Laomedonti pretium rapti Ganymedis dederat, in os monstri hiantis irruit, ejusque intestina per tres dies contudit, ac tandem bellua mortua vivus evasit amissis tantum in hoc viscerum foco capillis. Alii, ut observat eruditissimus Potterus, Herculem, cum gravissima tempestate exorta navem fregisset, ab immani bellua absorptum fuisse et mirabiliter servatum dixerunt.

"Three-nights." It is commonly believed that Hercules is called "Three-nights" because Jupiter, having come to Amphitryon's wife Alcmena in his absence, had joined three nights into one. Lycophron and his scholiast give another reason: namely, that Hercules had spent three days in the belly of a huge sea-monster. The scholiast of Lycophron tells the story thus: When Neptune, cheated of his wages, had sent a huge sea-monster into the land of Laomedon, and Laomedon, at the command of an oracle, was exposing his daughter Hesione to be devoured by the beast, Hercules, learning of the matter on his arrival, and promised by Laomedon the immortal horses which Jupiter had given Laomedon as the price of the carrying-off of Ganymede, rushed into the monster's gaping mouth, pounded its entrails for three days, and at last, the beast being dead, came out alive, having lost only his hair in this furnace of the bowels. Others, as the most learned Potter observes, said that Hercules, when a violent storm had arisen and wrecked his ship, was swallowed by a huge beast and wonderfully preserved.

(printed under page 123)

(17) ‹anchor: τῶν ἀγώνων ἡγήτορα› · call in col 234

Ἡγήτορα. Duae tantum primae syllabae erant in cod. ms. Stephani, qui non dubitat ita scripsisse Justinum, ac legendum putat τὸν ᾀδόμενον.

"Leader." Only the first two syllables were in Stephanus's manuscript codex; he does not doubt that Justin wrote so, and thinks one should read τὸν ᾀδόμενον ("him who is sung").

(printed under page 123)

(18) ‹anchor: τὸν τοῦ Διὸς υἱόν› · call in col 234

Τὸν τοῦ Διὸς υἱόν. Omissum fuisse puto verbum σιγῶ aut aliud simile.

"The son of Zeus." I think the verb σιγῶ ("I pass over in silence") or something similar has been left out.

(printed under page 123)

(19) ‹anchor: ὃς κατέπεφνε (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 235

Ὃς κατέπεφνε. Stephanus legendum conjicit ὃς βριαρὸν vel σθεναρὸν κατέπεφνε λέοντα, quia inerat in exemplari vacuum aliquod spatium, cui explendo alterutram harum vocum melius congruere putat, quam si legatur Νεμαῖον. Hic enim agitur de leone Nemaeo. Sylburgius mallet βλοσυρόν· ac paulo post legendum ait, ἔλαφον δὲ καὶ ταύρους, quia non cerva sed tauri naribus ignem spirabant.

"Who slew." Stephanus conjectures that one should read ὃς βριαρὸν or σθεναρὸν κατέπεφνε λέοντα ("who slew the mighty" or "the strong lion"), because there was some blank space in the copy, and he thinks either of these words fills it better than if Νεμαῖον ("Nemean") were read. For the Nemean lion is meant here. Sylburg would prefer βλοσυρόν ("grim"); and a little later he says one should read ἔλαφον δὲ καὶ ταύρους ("and the hind and the bulls"), since it was not the hind but the bulls that breathed fire from their nostrils.

(printed under page 124)

(20) ‹anchor: στελέχους (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 235

Στελέχους. Stephanus et Sylburgius legendum censent, ἀπὸ στελέχους.

"Trunk." Stephanus and Sylburg think one should read ἀπὸ στελέχους ("from the trunk").

(printed under page 124)

(21) ‹anchor: ὄρη πηδήσας (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 235

Ὄρη πηδήσας. Non video quid sententiae ex hac Stephani interpretatione extundi possit, qui montes saltu transiliit, ut aquam acciperet, etc. Quare legendum videtur, ut antea, πιδύσας pro πηδήσας, qui montes fontem effecit, sive eduxit fontem ex montibus. Multa ethnici e Scripturis nostris in Herculis nomen transtulerunt, velut quod eum in monstri ventre tres dies fuisse fingebant. Minime ergo mirum, si illum ex colle et edita rupe aquas eduxisse dixerunt. Fontem ab eo repertum Troezenii monstrabant, teste Pausania in Corinthiacis, pag. 166.

"Leaping the mountains." I do not see what sense can be hammered out of this rendering of Stephanus, "who leapt over the mountains to get water," etc. So it seems one should read, as before, πιδύσας for πηδήσας: "who made the mountains a spring," or brought a spring out of the mountains. The pagans transferred many things from our Scriptures to the name of Hercules, as when they invented his three days in the monster's belly. It is no wonder, then, that they said he brought water out of a hill and a lofty rock. The people of Troezen used to point out a spring found by him, as Pausanias testifies in the Corinthiaca, p. 166.

(printed under page 124)

(22) ‹anchor: πυρὰν αὐτοῦ αὐτός (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 235

Πυρὰν αὐτοῦ αὐτός. Sine causa Stephanus legendum censuit κατ' αὐτοῦ, Pyra adversus seipsum structa. Mox lege τὸν ζῆλον. — Κατ' recte Steph. add. habetque cod. Argent.

"His pyre, he himself." Without reason Stephanus thought one should read κατ' αὐτοῦ, "a pyre built against himself." Presently read τὸν ζῆλον. — Stephanus rightly adds κατ', and the Strasbourg codex has it.

(printed under page 124)

(23) ‹anchor: ἐπεὶ οὖν (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 235

Ἐπεὶ οὖν. Aliquid deesse putat Stephanus, quod huic voci respondeat. Sed saepe alias Justinus, dum vehemens est in dicendo, longiores periodos devolvit, quae aut imperfectae sint, aut parenthesi distinguendae. Parenthesis huic loco apponi posset ab his verbis τὰ μὲν Ἀτρέως usque ad ista εἰώθατε μίξεσιν.

"Since therefore." Stephanus thinks something is missing to answer this word. But often elsewhere Justin, when he speaks vehemently, rolls out rather long periods which are either incomplete or to be marked off with a parenthesis. A parenthesis could be placed in this passage from the words τὰ μὲν Ἀτρέως as far as εἰώθατε μίξεσιν.

(printed under page 124)

(24) ‹anchor: ὑπὸ ἀκρασίας (not visible in the foot image)› · call in col 235

Ὑπὸ ἀκρασίας. Frustra hic aliquid deesse putat Stephanus. Is enim sensus est, sua illos arguit intemperantia.

"By incontinence." Stephanus wrongly thinks something is missing here. For the sense is: their own intemperance convicts them.

(printed under page 124)

(25) ‹anchor: καὶ ἀτεκνοῦντα› · call in col 235

Καὶ ἀτεκνοῦντα. Ante hanc vocem vel post existimat Stephanus deesse Αἴγυπτον.

"And childless." Stephanus thinks Αἴγυπτον ("Aegyptus") is missing before or after this word.

(printed under page 124)

(26) ‹anchor: τὰ Θυέστεια δεῖπνα› · call in col 235

Δεῖπνα. Recte Steph. legendum docet δεῖπνα ἃ Ἐριννύες.

"Banquets." Stephanus rightly shows that one should read δεῖπνα ἃ Ἐριννύες ("banquets which the Furies").

(printed under page 124)

(27) ‹anchor: τὰ γὰρ Οἰδιπόδου› · call in col 235

Οἰδιπόδου. Idem mallet Οἰδίποδος vel Οἰδιπόδεια. [Τὰ γὰρ Οἰδιπόδου κέντρα doctissimus Potterus, cujus multae exstant adnotationes in editione Oxoniensi anni 1703, interpretatur fibulas aureas, quibus sibi oculos eruit Oedipus. Sed haec conjectura minime mihi probatur. Nemo est enim cui non illa κέντρα transfixos potius Oedipi pedes, quam oculos effossos in memoriam revocent; cum praesertim ab his fibulis incipiat Justinus varios Oedipi eventus perstringere.] — Ex Addendis et Emendandis. Οἰδίποδος est in cod. Argent.

"Of Oedipus." The same [Stephanus] would prefer Οἰδίποδος or Οἰδιπόδεια. [The most learned Potter, whose many notes are extant in the Oxford edition of 1703, interprets τὰ γὰρ Οἰδιπόδου κέντρα as the golden brooches with which Oedipus tore out his eyes. But this conjecture does not satisfy me at all. For there is no one whom those κέντρα ("pins") would not remind of Oedipus's pierced feet rather than his gouged-out eyes; especially as Justin begins to touch on the various misfortunes of Oedipus with these pins.] — From the Addenda et Emendanda. The Strasbourg codex has Οἰδίποδος.

(printed under page 124)

(28) ‹anchor: καί σου τὸν γάμον› · call in col 237

Καί σου τὸν γάμον. Erat in exemplari Beureri (est in cod. Argent.), καὶ ἐπὶ σοῦ. Sed legendum putat Sylburgius ἐπίσου, pariter.

"And your marriage." Beurer's copy had (and the Strasbourg codex has) καὶ ἐπὶ σοῦ. But Sylburg thinks one should read ἐπίσου, "equally."

(printed under page 125) (28*) ‹anchor: καὶ τούτους› · call in col 237 Καὶ τούτους. Legend. putat Steph. τούτου, hujus regis heroes. Beurerus in suo exemplari scripserat τοὺς τούτου (quod et cod. Argent. recte habet). Ibidem Stephano suspectum est illud ὅτε, et aliquid deesse putat, vel saltem legendum, οὐ τοὺς ἐν λαοῖς.

"And these." Stephanus thinks one should read τούτου, "the heroes of this king." Beurer had written τοὺς τούτου in his copy (which the Strasbourg codex also rightly has). In the same place Stephanus is suspicious of that ὅτε, and thinks something is missing, or at least that one should read οὐ τοὺς ἐν λαοῖς ("not those among the peoples").

(printed under page 125)

(29) ‹anchor: αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμῶν› · call in col 237

Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμῶν. In exemplari videntur superesse vestigia vocis στρατηγός, articulo praefixo. Quadrare quidem huic loco nemo, ut opinor, inficiabitur, ait Stephanus. — Hanc conjecturam confirmat auctoritas codicis Argentor., ap. D. Otto. ED. PATR.

"For our own." In the copy traces of the word στρατηγός ("general"), with the article before it, seem to survive. "No one, I think, will deny that it fits this passage," says Stephanus. — The authority of the Strasbourg codex, in D. Otto, confirms this conjecture. EDITOR OF THE PATROLOGIA.

(printed under page 125)

(30) ‹anchor: ὁσιότητι› · call in col 237

Ὁσιότητι. Praemittendum καί, ut monet Stephanus.

"With holiness." καί should be put before it, as Stephanus advises.

(printed under page 125)

(31) ‹anchor: ἤδη δὲ διηνεκῶς› · call in col 237

Ἤδη δὲ.... ὁ θεῖος Λόγος. Haec verba, quae loco suo videntur excidisse, conjungi debent cum superioribus his vocibus, αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμῶν, etc., vel saltem ad eas referri: quod cum minus vidisset Stephanus, ac novam periodum incoepisset ab his verbis, ἤδη δὲ διηνεκῶς, sensum hujus loci minime assecutus est.

"Already … the divine Word." These words, which seem to have fallen from their place, should be joined to these earlier words, αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμῶν, etc., or at least referred to them: and since Stephanus did not see this, and began a new period with the words ἤδη δὲ διηνεκῶς, he quite failed to grasp the sense of this passage.

(printed under page 125)

(32) ‹anchor: ὡς διὰ Λόγου› · call in col 237

Ὡς διὰ Λόγου. Frustra Stephanus legendum putat ὡς δὴ λόγου. [Doctrinam divinam interpretatus est Stephanus hoc in loco et infra. Verbum Dei Filium designari existimo, de quo paulo ante agitur. Id enim videtur postulare tota orationis series. Verbum divinum quod nobis assidue praeest, non vult corporis strenuitatem..... sed animam puram sanctimonia munitam, et regis nostri tesseras, divinas actiones, quippe cum per Verbum vis quaedam in animam pervadat. Divinas actiones vocat ea quae a Christianis praeclare fiunt, quia haec gratia sua Verbum operatur. De eadem gratia intelligo quae sequuntur: O tibia pacifica animae bello appetitae, etc.] — Ex Addendis et Emendandis.

"As through the Word." Stephanus wrongly thinks one should read ὡς δὴ λόγου. [Stephanus rendered it "divine teaching" in this place and below. I think the Word, the Son of God, is meant, of whom there is talk a little before. For the whole drift of the speech seems to demand it: "The divine Word, who is ever over us, does not want strength of body ... but a pure soul fortified with holiness, and the tokens of our king, divine actions, since through the Word a certain power pervades the soul." He calls "divine actions" the things nobly done by Christians, because the Word works them by His grace. I understand what follows of the same grace: "O peaceful pipe of the soul assailed by war," etc.] — From the Addenda et Emendanda.

(printed under page 125)

(33) ‹anchor: ὡς σάλπιγξ› · call in col 237

Ὡς σάλπιγξ. Legendum ὦ σάλπιγξ.

"As a trumpet." Read ὦ σάλπιγξ ("O trumpet").

(printed under page 125)

(34) ‹anchor: εἰρηνικῆς› · call in col 237

Εἰρηνικῆς. Legendum εἰρηνικὴ, atque ita legit Stephanus.

"Peaceful" (genitive). Read εἰρηνικὴ (nominative), and so Stephanus reads.

(printed under page 125)

(35) ‹anchor: ἥτις οὐ› · call in col 237

Ἥτις οὐ. Novae periodi initium ab his vocibus ducebat Stephanus; sed prorsus referendae sunt ad superiores, δυνάμεως εἰς ψυχὴν διϊκνουμένης, idque satis perspicitur ex parenthesi, cujus ope difficili et obscuro loco lucem me attulisse spero.

"Which does not." Stephanus began a new period from these words; but they must certainly be referred to the earlier ones, δυνάμεως εἰς ψυχὴν διϊκνουμένης ("a power pervading the soul"), and this is clear enough from the parenthesis, by means of which I hope I have brought light to a difficult and obscure passage.

(printed under page 125)

(none; footnotes (28)-(35) under page 125 are called in the Greek, col 237 only, and are set in n237)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the lean images› · full-width foot note above the Analysis

Fritsche commentar. in Paul. Ep. ad Rom. tom. I, pag. 143 seqq.

Fritzsche, commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, vol. I, p. 143 ff.

(printed under page 126)

(37) ‹anchor: περιλυθεῖσα› · full-width foot note above the Analysis

Περιλυθεῖσα. Hanc vocem mutandam esse in παραλυθεῖσα ausim acriter contendere, inquit Stephanus. Dein δέ om. cod. Argent. Verba ὅθεν — ἐστιν Ottoni glossam olere visa sunt.

Περιλυθεῖσα. "I would venture to maintain vigorously that this word must be changed to παραλυθεῖσα," says Stephanus. Next, the Strasbourg codex omits δέ. The words ὅθεν — ἐστιν seemed to Otto to smell of a gloss.

(printed under page 126) <!-- The lower page carries only a full-width italic editors' argument (synopsis of the next work, the Cohortatio, with paragraph references n. 2–37), with no note calls; it is not a footnote and is not set here. --> (printed under page 126)

(36) Fritsche commentar. in Paul. Ep. ad Rom. tom. I, pag. 143 seqq.

(36) Fritzsche, commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, vol. I, p. 143 ff.

(37) Περιλυθεῖσα. Hanc vocem mutandam esse in παραλυθεῖσα ausim acriter contendere, inquit Stephanus. Dein δέ om. cod. Argent. Verba ὅθεν — ἐστιν Ottoni glossam olere visa sunt.

(37) Περιλυθεῖσα. "I would venture to maintain vigorously that this word must be changed to παραλυθεῖσα," says Stephanus. Next, the Strasbourg codex omits δέ. The words ὅθεν — ἐστιν seemed to Otto to smell of a gloss.

ANALYSIS COHORTATIONIS AD GRAECOS.

ANALYSIS OF THE EXHORTATION TO THE GREEKS.

Haec ad Graecos Cohortatio, cum leniori disputatione, non vehementibus querelis contineatur, scripta non videtur inter persecutionum incendia, quae sancti martyris majorem vim et animi dolorem excitassent, sed potius inter eas veluti inducias, quibus Ecclesia, tum cum Justinus ad fidem conversus est, perfruebatur. Atque id quidem causae esse arbitror, cur hujus orationis stylus, etsi Justinum omnino redolet, nitidior tamen et paulo expolitior sit, quam in aliis operibus. Vix dubium quin Romae scripta fuerit. Jam enim Italiam peragraverat Justinus, ut patet ex his quae se Cumis audivisse et vidisse narrat. Sed de his uberius agimus in Praefatione, ubi eorum etiam opiniones refellimus, qui hoc opus vel Justini nomini suppositum fuisse, vel mutilum ad nos pervenisse existimant. Propositum est sancto martyri veritatis cognitionem non a Graecis scriptoribus, sed a prophetis petendam demonstrare. Qua enim via ad fidem adductus fuerat, eadem alios adducere conabatur; et cum initium Christi cognoscendi habuisset ex cujusdam senis sermone, qui quantum philosophi a prophetis distent egregie disseruerat, visus est sibi pretium operae facturus, si in eodem argumento versaretur.

Since this Exhortation to the Greeks is couched in gentler argument and not in vehement complaints, it does not seem to have been written amid the fires of persecution, which would have roused greater force and grief of mind in the holy martyr, but rather during that truce, as it were, which the Church was enjoying at the time when Justin was converted to the faith. And this indeed I judge to be the reason why the style of this oration, although it altogether savours of Justin, is nevertheless more polished and a little more refined than in his other works. There is scarcely any doubt that it was written at Rome. For Justin had already travelled through Italy, as is plain from what he relates that he heard and saw at Cumae. But of these matters we treat more fully in the Preface, where we also refute the opinions of those who think that this work was either falsely ascribed to Justin's name or has come down to us mutilated. The holy martyr's purpose is to show that the knowledge of the truth is to be sought not from the Greek writers but from the prophets. For by the same way by which he had been brought to the faith he was trying to bring others; and since he had had the beginning of his knowledge of Christ from the discourse of a certain old man, who had discoursed excellently on how far the philosophers fall short of the prophets, he thought he would be doing something worth the labour if he occupied himself with the same argument.

Constat oratio duabus potissimum partibus, quarum in prima S. martyr demonstrat nihil de vera religione ex scriptoribus Graecis cognosci posse; in altera autem, si quid veri dixerint, id ad commendationem Christianae religionis valere, utpote haustum ex Hebraeorum fontibus.

The oration consists chiefly of two parts: in the first of these the holy martyr shows that nothing concerning the true religion can be learned from the Greek writers; in the second, that if they have said anything true, it serves to commend the Christian religion, as having been drawn from the springs of the Hebrews.

In prima parte S. martyr inquirit quosnam et quales religionis suae magistros habuerint ethnici et Christiani, quibusque exstiterint temporibus. Probat (n. 2) veritatem neque ex poetis, quorum adhuc absurdiores recenset opiniones (n. 3, 4), disci posse. Plato et Aristoteles (n. 5, 6) non solum inter se, verum etiam secum ipsi pugnant (n. 7). Longe dissimiles prophetae (n. 8) qui veritatem dono divinitus accepto cognoverunt. Horum primus Moyses, cujus antiquitas pluribus testimoniis probatur, ac caeteri deinceps coeleste illud donum acceperunt (n. 9, 10). Quod si ad oracula confugiant Graeci (n. 11), relictis philosophis; ea favent Christianis. Huc accedit (n. 12) quod recentes admodum Graecorum magistri. Nihil accurate scriptum ante Olympiades. Nondum inventae erant litterae Graecorum, cum Moyses scripsit. Quod si (n. 13) Moysis, et aliorum prophetarum libri Graece exstant, id ortum ex Ptolemaeo rege Aegypti, cujus rogatu in Graecum sermonem conversi fuere.

In the first part the holy martyr inquires who and of what kind were the teachers of their religion whom the heathen and the Christians had, and in what times they lived. He proves (n. 2) that the truth cannot be learned from the poets either, whose still more absurd opinions he reviews (n. 3, 4). Plato and Aristotle (n. 5, 6) are at war not only with each other but even with themselves (n. 7). Far unlike them are the prophets (n. 8), who knew the truth by a gift received from God. The first of these is Moses, whose antiquity is proved by many testimonies, and the rest in succession received that heavenly gift (n. 9, 10). But if the Greeks, abandoning the philosophers, take refuge in the oracles (n. 11), these favour the Christians. To this is added (n. 12) that the teachers of the Greeks are quite recent. Nothing was accurately written before the Olympiads. The letters of the Greeks had not yet been invented when Moses wrote. And if (n. 13) the books of Moses and of the other prophets exist in Greek, that arose from Ptolemy, king of Egypt, at whose request they were translated into the Greek tongue.

In altera parte (n. 14) ethnicos hortatur ut judicii futuri metu ad usus suos adjungant, si quid veri eorum magistri dixerint. Divina enim providentia factum, ut multa cum Christianis facientia vel inviti dicerent, ii praesertim, qui in Aegypto versati sunt, et ibi asservatas Mosis doctrinae reliquias collegerunt. In hunc usum citantur (n. 15) Orphei de uno Deo ejusque Verbo testimonia: Sibyllae etiam, Homeri et Sophoclis de uno et singulari Deo (n. 16, 17, 18). Pythagoras quoque unum admittit Deum (n. 19). Platonis varia sententia (n. 20). Deos admittit ob metum Atheniensium, sed videtur in Aegypto cognovisse illud Dei dictum: « Ego sum exsistens ille. » Quibus ex verbis patet (n. 21) nullum Deo esse nomen, ac error refellitur a serpente insinuatus primis hominibus. Non absimile illud Platonis (n. 22): « Quod semper est, minime vero genitum. » De diis autem contraria statuentem inducit (n. 23) Deum opificem. Unde immerito vituperat Homerum (n. 24), qui et ipse in Aegypto cognovit de singulari Deo. In metum Atheniensium rejicitur (n. 25) haec varietas sententiae Platonis. Multa alia ex Mose mutuatus Plato, de prophetis Deo afflatis (n. 26), de judicio et resurrectione (n. 27). Sic etiam Homerus (n. 28), cujus testimonia referuntur de anima in inferis cum corpore cruciata, de creatione, de paradiso, de turre, de diabolo e coelis praecipitato. Ideae Platonis (n. 29, 30) ex Mose minus belle intellecto ortum habuere. His adde (n. 31) currum Jovis et igneam essentiam, in qua Deum esse dicit. Videtur etiam (n. 32) aliquid cognovisse de dono coelitus descendente in sanctos homines. Ex Mose desumptum quod ait (n. 33) tempus cum mundo creatum. Ipsi etiam auctores simulacrorum videntur aliquid audiisse de divina historia (n. 34), illud nempe: « Faciamus hominem ad imaginem, etc. » Hortatur ergo Justinus (n. 34) ut ad sacros Christianorum libros ethnici confugiant, cum philosophi ipsi nihil se scire fateantur (n. 25): aut saltem Orpheum audiant, et ex parte veram religionem ex Sibylla discant (n. 36 37), et antiquos philosophos Mercurium et Acmonem consulant.

In the second part (n. 14) he exhorts the heathen, for fear of the judgement to come, to take over for their own use whatever true thing their teachers have said. For it came about by divine providence that they said many things agreeing with the Christians, even against their will, especially those who spent time in Egypt and there gathered the remains of Moses' teaching preserved there. To this end are cited (n. 15) the testimonies of Orpheus concerning the one God and His Word; also those of the Sibyl, of Homer and of Sophocles concerning the one and only God (n. 16, 17, 18). Pythagoras too admits one God (n. 19). Plato's opinion varies (n. 20). He admits gods out of fear of the Athenians, but seems to have learned in Egypt that saying of God: "I am He that is." From which words it is plain (n. 21) that God has no name, and the error insinuated by the serpent to the first men is refuted. Not unlike this is that saying of Plato (n. 22): "That which always is, and was by no means begotten." But while he lays down contrary things concerning the gods, he introduces (n. 23) God the Maker. Hence he undeservedly finds fault with Homer (n. 24), who himself also learned in Egypt about the one God. This variety in Plato's opinion is laid to the account of fear of the Athenians (n. 25). Plato borrowed many other things from Moses: concerning the prophets inspired by God (n. 26), concerning the judgement and the resurrection (n. 27). So too Homer (n. 28), whose testimonies are cited concerning the soul tormented with the body in the underworld, concerning the creation, paradise, the tower, and the devil cast down from heaven. Plato's Ideas (n. 29, 30) had their origin in Moses less well understood. Add to these (n. 31) the chariot of Jove and the fiery essence in which he says God is. He seems also (n. 32) to have known something of the gift descending from heaven upon holy men. Taken from Moses is what he says (n. 33), that time was created with the world. Even the makers of images seem to have heard something of the divine history (n. 34), namely that saying: "Let us make man after our image, etc." Justin therefore exhorts (n. 34) the heathen to take refuge in the sacred books of the Christians, since the philosophers themselves confess that they know nothing (n. 25); or at least to listen to Orpheus, and to learn the true religion in part from the Sibyl (n. 36 37), and to consult the ancient philosophers Mercury and Acmon.

<!-- note: Col. 239 is a full-width page (cols 239–240). At the top, above the rule, the last lines of the Oratio ad Graecos (Latin left, Greek right, ending ἐστιν), then the full-width footnotes (36) and (37), set here whole as requested so that they can replace the incomplete entries in n239 (this tool could write only ep_239.md; n239 itself was not edited). Below the rule comes the editors' Analysis Cohortationis ad Graecos (heading plus four italic paragraphs), which ends on this page before a short rule and blank space; it does not run on. Æ/œ ligatures are set as ae/oe. Set as printed, and possibly misprints: "(n. 34)" twice in succession (the second is probably 35), "fateantur (n. 25)" (probably 35), and "(n. 36 37)" without a comma. --> (36) Fritsche commentar. in Paul. Ep. ad Rom. tom. I, pag. 143 seqq.

(36) Fritzsche, commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, vol. I, p. 143 ff.

(37) Περιλυθεῖσα. Hanc vocem mutandam esse in παραλυθεῖσα ausim acriter contendere, inquit Stephanus. Dein δέ om. cod. Argent. Verba ὅθεν — ἐστιν Ottoni glossam olere visa sunt.

(37) Περιλυθεῖσα. "I would venture to maintain vigorously that this word must be changed to παραλυθεῖσα," says Stephanus. Next, the Strasbourg codex omits δέ. The words ὅθεν — ἐστιν seemed to Otto to smell of a gloss.

ANALYSIS COHORTATIONIS AD GRAECOS.

ANALYSIS OF THE EXHORTATION TO THE GREEKS.

Haec ad Graecos Cohortatio, cum leniori disputatione, non vehementibus querelis contineatur, scripta non videtur inter persecutionum incendia, quae sancti martyris majorem vim et animi dolorem excitassent, sed potius inter eas veluti inducias, quibus Ecclesia, tum cum Justinus ad fidem conversus est, perfruebatur. Atque id quidem causae esse arbitror, cur hujus orationis stylus, etsi Justinum omnino redolet, nitidior tamen et paulo expolitior sit, quam in aliis operibus. Vix dubium quin Romae scripta fuerit. Jam enim Italiam peragraverat Justinus, ut patet ex his quae se Cumis audivisse et vidisse narrat. Sed de his uberius agimus in Praefatione, ubi eorum etiam opiniones refellimus, qui hoc opus vel Justini nomini suppositum fuisse, vel mutilum ad nos pervenisse existimant. Propositum est sancto martyri veritatis cognitionem non a Graecis scriptoribus, sed a prophetis petendam demonstrare. Qua enim via ad fidem adductus fuerat, eadem alios adducere conabatur; et cum initium Christi cognoscendi habuisset ex cujusdam senis sermone, qui quantum philosophi a prophetis distent egregie disseruerat, visus est sibi pretium operae facturus, si in eodem argumento versaretur.

Since this Exhortation to the Greeks is couched in gentler argument and not in vehement complaints, it does not seem to have been written amid the fires of persecution, which would have roused greater force and grief of mind in the holy martyr, but rather during that truce, as it were, which the Church was enjoying at the time when Justin was converted to the faith. And this indeed I judge to be the reason why the style of this oration, although it altogether savours of Justin, is nevertheless more polished and a little more refined than in his other works. There is scarcely any doubt that it was written at Rome. For Justin had already travelled through Italy, as is plain from what he relates that he heard and saw at Cumae. But of these matters we treat more fully in the Preface, where we also refute the opinions of those who think that this work was either falsely ascribed to Justin's name or has come down to us mutilated. The holy martyr's purpose is to show that the knowledge of the truth is to be sought not from the Greek writers but from the prophets. For by the same way by which he had been brought to the faith he was trying to bring others; and since he had had the beginning of his knowledge of Christ from the discourse of a certain old man, who had discoursed excellently on how far the philosophers fall short of the prophets, he thought he would be doing something worth the labour if he occupied himself with the same argument.

Constat oratio duabus potissimum partibus, quarum in prima S. martyr demonstrat nihil de vera religione ex scriptoribus Graecis cognosci posse; in altera autem, si quid veri dixerint, id ad commendationem Christianae religionis valere, utpote haustum ex Hebraeorum fontibus.

The oration consists chiefly of two parts: in the first of these the holy martyr shows that nothing concerning the true religion can be learned from the Greek writers; in the second, that if they have said anything true, it serves to commend the Christian religion, as having been drawn from the springs of the Hebrews.

In prima parte S. martyr inquirit quosnam et quales religionis suae magistros habuerint ethnici et Christiani, quibusque exstiterint temporibus. Probat (n. 2) veritatem neque ex poetis, quorum adhuc absurdiores recenset opiniones (n. 3, 4), disci posse. Plato et Aristoteles (n. 5, 6) non solum inter se, verum etiam secum ipsi pugnant (n. 7). Longe dissimiles prophetae (n. 8) qui veritatem dono divinitus accepto cognoverunt. Horum primus Moyses, cujus antiquitas pluribus testimoniis probatur, ac caeteri deinceps coeleste illud donum acceperunt (n. 9, 10). Quod si ad oracula confugiant Graeci (n. 11), relictis philosophis; ea favent Christianis. Huc accedit (n. 12) quod recentes admodum Graecorum magistri Nihil accurate scriptum ante Olympiades. Nondum inventae erant litterae Graecorum, cum Moyses scripsit. Quod si (n. 13) Moysis, et aliorum prophetarum libri Graece exstant, id ortum ex Ptolemaeo rege Aegypti, cujus rogatu in Graecum sermonem conversi fuere.

In the first part the holy martyr inquires who and of what kind were the teachers of their religion whom the heathen and the Christians had, and in what times they lived. He proves (n. 2) that the truth cannot be learned from the poets either, whose still more absurd opinions he reviews (n. 3, 4). Plato and Aristotle (n. 5, 6) are at war not only with each other but even with themselves (n. 7). Far unlike them are the prophets (n. 8), who knew the truth by a gift received from God. The first of these is Moses, whose antiquity is proved by many testimonies, and the rest in succession received that heavenly gift (n. 9, 10). But if the Greeks, abandoning the philosophers, take refuge in the oracles (n. 11), these favour the Christians. To this is added (n. 12) that the teachers of the Greeks are quite recent[.] Nothing was accurately written before the Olympiads. The letters of the Greeks had not yet been invented when Moses wrote. And if (n. 13) the books of Moses and of the other prophets exist in Greek, that arose from Ptolemy, king of Egypt, at whose request they were translated into the Greek tongue.

In altera parte (n. 14) ethnicos hortatur ut judicii futuri metu ad usus suos adjungant, si quid veri eorum magistri dixerint. Divina enim providentia factum, ut multa cum Christianis facientia vel inviti dicerent, ii praesertim, qui in Aegypto versati sunt, et ibi asservatas Mosis doctrinae reliquias collegerunt. In hunc usum citantur (n. 15) Orphei de uno Deo ejusque Verbo testimonia: Sibyllae etiam, Homeri et Sophoclis de uno et singulari Deo (n. 16, 17, 18). Pythagoras quoque unum admittit Deum (n. 19). Platonis varia sententia (n. 20). Deos admittit ob metum Atheniensium, sed videtur in Aegypto cognovisse illud Dei dictum: « Ego sum exsistens ille. » Quibus ex verbis patet (n. 21) nullum Deo esse nomen, ac error refellitur a serpente insinuatus primis hominibus. Non absimile illud Platonis (n. 22): « Quod semper est, minime vero genitum. » De diis autem contraria statuentem inducit (n. 23) Deum opificem. Unde immerito vituperat Homerum (n. 24), qui et ipse in Aegypto cognovit de singulari Deo. In metum Atheniensium rejicitur (n. 25) haec varietas sententiae Platonis. Multa alia ex Mose mutuatus Plato, de prophetis Deo afflatis (n. 26), de judicio et resurrectione (n. 27). Sic etiam Homerus (n. 28), cujus testimonia referuntur de anima in inferis cum corpore cruciata, de creatione, de paradiso, de turre, de diabolo e coelis praecipitato. Ideae Platonis (n. 29, 30) ex Mose minus belle intellecto ortum habuere. His adde (n. 31) currum Jovis et igneam essentiam, in qua Deum esse dicit. Videtur etiam (n. 32) aliquid cognovisse de dono coelitus descendente in sanctos homines. Ex Mose desumptum quod ait (n. 33) tempus cum mundo creatum. Ipsi etiam auctores simulacrorum videntur aliquid audiisse de divina historia (n. 34), illud nempe: « Faciamus hominem ad imaginem. etc. » Hortatur ergo Justinus (n. 34) ut ad sacros Christianorum libros ethnici confugiant, cum philosophi ipsi nihil se scire fateantur (n. 25): aut saltem Orpheum audiant, et ex parte veram religionem ex Sibylla discant (n. 36 37), et antiquos philosophos Mercurium et Acmonem consulant.

In the second part (n. 14) he exhorts the heathen, for fear of the judgement to come, to take over for their own use whatever true thing their teachers have said. For it came about by divine providence that they said many things agreeing with the Christians, even against their will, especially those who spent time in Egypt and there gathered the remains of Moses' teaching preserved there. To this end are cited (n. 15) the testimonies of Orpheus concerning the one God and His Word; also those of the Sibyl, of Homer and of Sophocles concerning the one and only God (n. 16, 17, 18). Pythagoras too admits one God (n. 19). Plato's opinion varies (n. 20). He admits gods out of fear of the Athenians, but seems to have learned in Egypt that saying of God: "I am He that is." From which words it is plain (n. 21) that God has no name, and the error insinuated by the serpent to the first men is refuted. Not unlike this is that saying of Plato (n. 22): "That which always is, and was by no means begotten." But while he lays down contrary things concerning the gods, he introduces (n. 23) God the Maker. Hence he undeservedly finds fault with Homer (n. 24), who himself also learned in Egypt about the one God. This variety in Plato's opinion is laid to the account of fear of the Athenians (n. 25). Plato borrowed many other things from Moses: concerning the prophets inspired by God (n. 26), concerning the judgement and the resurrection (n. 27). So too Homer (n. 28), whose testimonies are cited concerning the soul tormented with the body in the underworld, concerning the creation, paradise, the tower, and the devil cast down from heaven. Plato's Ideas (n. 29, 30) had their origin in Moses less well understood. Add to these (n. 31) the chariot of Jove and the fiery essence in which he says God is. He seems also (n. 32) to have known something of the gift descending from heaven upon holy men. Taken from Moses is what he says (n. 33), that time was created with the world. Even the makers of images seem to have heard something of the divine history (n. 34), namely that saying: "Let us make man after our image, etc." Justin therefore exhorts (n. 34) the heathen to take refuge in the sacred books of the Christians, since the philosophers themselves confess that they know nothing (n. 25); or at least to listen to Orpheus, and to learn the true religion in part from the Sibyl (n. 36 37), and to consult the ancient philosophers Mercury and Acmon.

<!-- note: Col. 239 is a full-width page (cols 239–240). At the top, above the rule, are the last lines of the Oratio ad Graecos (Latin on the left, Greek on the right, ending ἐστιν), then the full-width footnotes (36) and (37), set here whole so that they can replace the incomplete entries in n239 (n239 itself was not edited). Below the rule comes the editors' Analysis Cohortationis ad Graecos: its heading and four italic paragraphs. It ends on this page before a short rule and blank space, and does not run on. Æ and œ are set as ae and oe. Re-checked 2026-11-08 against the full-width page images, which show the right margin whole. In the In prima parte paragraph the printed line ends "quod recentes admodum Græcorum magistri" at the justified margin, and the next line begins "Nihil accurate scriptum". No words stand between them and no full stop is visible after "magistri". The previous file's added full stop was removed, so the sentence is set as printed, with no verb and no stop (probably a misprint, perhaps a lost "sint."). The English supplies [.]. Last paragraph checked line by line: the page prints "ad imaginem. etc." (full stop after imaginem; now set so), "(n. 34)" twice, "fateantur (n. 25)" and "(n. 36 37)" without a comma. These are kept as printed, though they are probable misprints for 35, 35 and 36, 37. No other differences were found. -->