Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Typhro edited deceptively?

I had accidently found a book claiming that Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Typhro 's chapter 80 was edited deceptively, the text reads

" I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. "

Chapter 80

But I found a book that claims an extra “not” was removed from this statement, that it originally claimed those that do NOT belong to the pure and pious father think otherwise. This there ANY truth to this statement?? Or was this a conspiracy without evidence?:shrug:

I found it in this book pages 52-54 books.google.ca/books?id=ybw0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA74&dq=Joshua+W.+Brooks,+Elements+of+Prophetic+Study&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg1a2XzJjUAhXprlQKHSpxAK8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Justyn&f=false

if this is in the wrong place could the mods please move it thanks

If you’re not going to cite and name the actual book you “accidentally” found…then there’s no way anyone can answer

I would trust the translation found in William A. Jurgens books - “Faith of the Early Fathers”, there are three Volumes to the set and its available through Catholic Answers … I am not with my books - they being nearly 3000 miles from my location - so I can’t look it up … but they would be a great addition to your library anyway :wink:

shop.catholic.com/faith-of-the-early-fathers-volumes-1-2-and-3.html

Faith of the Early Fathers, Volumes 1,2 and 3
By: William A. Jurgens

I had posted the link in my first comment its called elements of prophetic interpretation by Joshua Williams Brooks

He did. It’s in the link to the Google Books reference: Elements of Prophetical Interpretation, by Joshua William Brooks.

Brooks was an Anglican priest of the 19th century. Here, he wants to argue against the Catholic assertion of Purgatory. In order to do so, he asserts that – although most translations agree there isn’t an extra ‘not’ in the one sentence – he’s read another author (Nathaniel Homes, in his ‘The Resurrection Revealed’) who claims he’s seen versions that include an extra ‘not’.

He uses this assertion to make the claim that Rome – seeing this problem – conspired to remove an extraneous ‘not’ in order to make the claim for Purgatory.

It’s a pretty tenuous argument. But, since his goal here is to argue against the Church and against Purgatory, he thinks he’s found something upon which to base his argument.

Now, here’s the thing: Homes doesn’t make the claim in the way that Brooks says he does. Homes does quote the Dialogue with Trypho as if there’s an extra ‘not’ there; but he doesn’t identify which translation he’s quoting (unless I’m missing something).

Moreover, Homes isn’t attempting to make the same argument Brooks is making. Rather, Homes is a millenialist, arguing that Justin agrees that there is a literal “thousand year reign of Christ” on earth. So Homes, in his work, isn’t using the “extra ‘not’” at all; rather, he’s pointing to other parts of the passage to make a different sort of point.

So, what do we have here? An unattributed variant in translation; an unsubstantiated claim of wholesale manuscript fraud; and a rather weak claim based on a single instance of the word “not”.

All in all – unless there’s more than meets the eye – there’s not a whole lot here, it seems. :shrug:

homes claims he is quoting from the Parisian translation, and thanks for getting to the bottom of this!

Jurgens’ set includes excerpts from the Fathers but not necessarily everything. It does include this passage, though. He translates it as such:

At this I said, “I am not such a wretched person, Trypho, that I would say other than what I think. As I admitted to you before, I and many others are of this opinion, and we believe absolutely that this will happen. But still, I signified to you that there are many Christians of pure and pious faith who do not share this belief.…

W. A. Jurgens, tran., The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970–1979), 61.

Do we have access to any greater detail than that?

In addition to what is said already, the quoted statement in the OP and the quoted supposed original in the source linked, are saying the same thing.

The “not” that was supposedly removed is part of “…**those race of Christians **who follow not godly and pure doctrine…”. The statement as quoted in the OP is “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise…”.

They convey the same message. One translation communicates “race of Christians” as “those who belong to the pure and pious faith”. The author of the linked book is trying to make something appear as what it isn’t.

Since the author didn’t provide the actual quote of the translation he says he was using, I think it very fair and reasonable to assume that what he thinks he saw is nothing more than a different translation of the original language, conveying the exact same message, in a more accurate way (in the case that we commonly see it today).

In other words, the unbiased sources (J.N.D. Kelley and other historians, for example) are using a more accurate translation. The biased author, on the other hand, is grasping for straws in an attempt to show something nefarious on the part of the Church.

Thanks Joe- :thumbsup:

And I do know its not everything - its a good amount of early writings though, the set is easy to use and I think Jurgens is dependable in his translation and analysis …

I figured that you knew that, I was pointing it out for others unfamiliar with the set.

It is a great set. The index alone makes it invaluable. I have it in print and electronic format. That’s what made it easy for me to find and copy and paste the passage. :slight_smile:

Hmm… are you certain?

Here’s the quote from ‘Resurrection Revealed’:

I confessed to thee before (and many others are of the same opinion with me), that that thing shall come to pass. And on the contrary I have signified unto thee, that many who are not of the pure and pious judgment of real christians do not acknowledge this: for I manifested to thee afore, that there are some, called christians (but who indeed are atheists and ungodly heretics), who altogether teach blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish things.

And now, as Brooks quotes it:

I have before confessed to thee that I and many others are of this opinion: [viz. that Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, and the saints enjoy a happy life on earth with Christ:] so that we hold it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many – even those of that race of Christians who follow not godly and pure doctrine – do not acknowledge it. For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound, &c.

And finally, as it appears in context at newadvent.org:

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish.

It sure looks like Homes and Brooks are using two not’s: one describing the people (or the quality of their doctrine) and another describing their assent; whereas other translations are only using one (regarding their assent).

It’s pretty well impossible to discern between the two translations, without having the original text at hand. I found a scan of it at this site (see p. 21), and it seems to have some interesting footnotes, as well, which touch upon these questions… but the scan is too blurry for me to make out. Maybe someone with better eyes might be able to make out what’s written there? From the looks of it, the sentence in question begins at line 24 (on p. 20) or thereabouts…

This is the passage in the Greek:

Κἀγὼ εἶπον· Οὐχ οὕτω τάλας ἐγώ, ὦ Τρύφων, ὡς ἕτερα λέγειν παρ΄ ἃ φρονῶ. ὡμολόγησα οὖν σοι καὶ πρότερον ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ταῦτα φρονοῦμεν, ὡς καὶ πάντως ἐπίστασθε τοῦτο γενησόμενον· πολλοὺς δ΄ αὖ καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης τοῦτο μὴ γνωρίζειν ἐσήμανά σοι.

Here’s the Latin translation:

Tum ego: Non ita miser sum, inquam, Trypho, ut aliud dicam, aliud sentiam. Tibi igitur et antea confessus sum, me et multos alios haec sentire, ita ut omnino perspectum habeamus sic futurum: at multos rursus, eosque ex illo Christianorum genere, quod piam et puram sequitur sententiam, id non agnoscere tibi significavi.

This is what the footnote in Trollope’s edition (p. 19-20) says:

πολλοὺς δ΄ αὖ καὶ τῶν] τῆς] καθαρᾶς ε. τ. λ. At the close of the chapter Justin says, ἐγὼ δέ, καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί, καὶ σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι ἐπιστάμεθα καὶ χίλια ἔτη ε. τ. λ. “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, etc.”] In order to remove the discrepancy, which they suppose to exist between these passages, Daillé, Tillotson and others maintain that a negative particle has by some means disappeared from the present context. It will be observed, however, that there is a palpable distinction between two classes of believers, of which the former, though in other respects holding a pure and pious creed, reject the millenarian scheme; while the latter, being in every respect (κατὰ πάντα) orthodox, regard that doctrine as an essential article of the true faith. Whether Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and those who thought with them, are to be ranked with perfect or imperfect believers, cannot be ascertained from their writings; but there is a passage in Tertulian (adv. Marc. III. 24.), from which it may be inferred that his notions on the subject of the Millennium were substantially the same as that of Justin. See Bp. Kaye on Tertullian, pp. 19. 345. Similar also were the views of Papias, Irenaeus, Apollinaris, Lactantius, and other Fathers.

OK… doing another Google search, I found another Greek version of the Dialogue, at this site. The text in question is chapter 80, and we’re looking at the passage marked ‘2’.

Beginning with Justin’s response (“I am not so miserable a fellow…”) and ending with what is variously translated as “think otherwise” or “do not acknowledge”, we have:

Κἀγὼ εἶπον· Οὐχ οὕτω τάλας ἐγώ, ὦ Τρύφων, ὡς ἕτερα λέγειν παρ’ ἃ φρονῶ. ὡμολόγησα οὖν σοι καὶ πρότερον ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ταῦτα φρονοῦμεν, ὡς καὶ πάντως ἐπίστασθε τοῦτο γενησόμενον·*** πολλοὺς δ’ αὖ καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης τοῦτο μὴ γνωρίζειν ἐσήμανά σοι.***

I’ve marked the section we’re talking about. I’m not seeing the double ‘not’. Rather, they are “pure” (καθαρᾶς) and “pious” (εὐσεβοῦς) Christians who “do not acknowledge” (μὴ γνωρίζειν).

Looking at the site for an identification for the text, all I see is “Разговор с Трифоном” Юстина на языке оригинала (“Justin’s ‘Dialogue with Trypho’ in the original language”), without further attribution.

But, I used the readable text there to compare to the (to me, unreadable) text of the scan, and the two seem to correspond. In the scan, this text begins around line 10 on page 19. And, as it turns out, the two seem to correspond – there’s no additional words in the scan. So, if we’re to believe Brooks, then we’d have to conclude (without evidence) that Trollope’s text is corrupted as well. (Of course, since Trollope, too, was an English cleric, we’d have to assume that Brooks is implying that Trollope, too, received the ‘corrupted’ text unknowingly.)

Conclusion: the second “not” was just a conjecture by people who apparently can’t wrap their heads at the prospect of both early Christian amillennials and millennials* as “[belonging] to the pure and pious faith.”

*Early Christian millennialism: not to be confused with modern-day ‘Rapture theory’ Dispensationalism.

Or, more to the point: by those who wanted to categorize Reformers as ‘pure and pious’ and Romanists as ‘not’. :wink:

wow that’s amazing thanks, do you know how old is the extent copy of Justin’s work that is that’s being quoted?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.