This study explores the so-called Apology of Aristides as it can be found

within Barlaam and Ioasaph (B&I). Scholars have started from the

hypothesis (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 addressed

whether this one hundred year old hypothesis holds any truth. In order to

understand a text within a framing text, one needs to get a clear idea of

the latter, especially its textual form and its core ideas. This allows an

insight into the relationship between the two entities. I ask which

elements of the Apology entered B&I and have been seen as fitting this

framework, which of the linguistic entities and theological ideas are

consistent with both the time and content of B&I, and how the Apology

reads as part of the overall 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 chosen to use it. Furthermore, is this text the only fragment that

was added to B&I? Once the ‘text’ of the Apology is understood in its

frame, I argue, can we examine how that frame may have impacted on the

interpretation of the Apology, and whether and to what extent it may have

impacted on the text itself. This answer to the latter question may

already have been suggested when looking at how the linguistic entities

fit the B&I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology of the B&I with the

older Greek papyri of the Apology. A study such as this has never been

accomplished, and yet such a study proves essential in understanding the

Greek version of the Apology, as it appears in B&I, and how 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&I version of the

Apology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.This study explores

the so-called Apology of Aristides as it can be found within Barlaam and

Ioasaph (B&I). Scholars have started from the hypothesis (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 addressed whether this one hundred year old

hypothesis holds any truth. In order to understand a text within a framing

text, one needs to get a clear idea of the latter, especially its textual

form and its core ideas. This allows an insight into the relationship

between the two entities. I ask which elements of the Apology entered B&I

and have been seen as fitting this framework, which of the linguistic

entities and theological ideas are consistent with both the time and

content of B&I, and how the Apology reads as part of the overall 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 chosen to use it. Furthermore, is this

text the only fragment that was added to B&I? Once the ‘text’ of the

Apology is understood in its frame, I argue, can we examine how that frame

may have impacted on the interpretation of the Apology, and whether and to

what extent it may have impacted on the text itself. This answer to the

latter question may already have been suggested when looking at how the

linguistic entities fit the B&I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology of

the B&I with the older Greek papyri of the Apology. A study such as this

has never been accomplished, and yet such a study proves essential in

understanding the Greek version of the Apology, as it appears in B&I, and

how 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&I

version of the Apology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.

This study explores the so-called Apology of Aristides as it can be

found within Barlaam and Ioasaph (B&I). Scholars have

started from the hypothesis (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 addressed whether this one hundred year old

hypothesis holds any truth. In order to understand a text within a framing

text, one needs to get a clear idea of the latter, especially its textual

form and its core ideas. This allows an insight into the relationship

between the two entities. I ask which elements of the Apology

entered B&I and have been seen as fitting this framework, which of

the linguistic entities and theological ideas are consistent with both the

time and content of B&I, and how the Apology reads as part of the

overall 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 chosen

to use it. Furthermore, is this text the only fragment that was added to

B&I? Once the ‘text’ of the Apology is understood in its

frame, I argue, can we examine how that frame may have impacted on the

interpretation of the Apology, and whether and to what extent it

may have impacted on the text itself. This answer to the latter question

may already have been suggested when looking at how the linguistic

entities fit the B&I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology

of the B&I with the older Greek papyri of the Apology. A

study such as this has never been accomplished, and yet such a study

proves essential in understanding the Greek version of the Apology,

as it appears in B&I, and how 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&I version of the

Apology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.