{"product_id":"9789042933705-aristides-apology-and-the-novel-barlaam-and-ioasaph","title":"Aristides' Apology and the Novel Barlaam and Ioasaph","description":"\u003cmeta content=\"text\/html; charset=utf-8\" http-equiv=\"Content-Type\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis study explores the so-called Apology of Aristides as it can be found     within Barlaam and Ioasaph (B\u0026amp;I). Scholars have started from the     hypothesis (when comparing the Greek B\u0026amp;I version to the Syriac version)     that the redactor of B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I, and how the Apology     reads as part of the overall narrative of the B\u0026amp;I. I explore the role     played by this 'added' text in B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology of the B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I). Scholars have started from the hypothesis (when comparing     the Greek B\u0026amp;I version to the Syriac version) that the redactor of B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I, and how the Apology reads as part of the overall narrative     of the B\u0026amp;I. I explore the role played by this 'added' text in B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology of     the B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I). Scholars have     started from the hypothesis (when comparing the Greek B\u0026amp;I version     to the Syriac version) that the redactor of B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I, and how the Apology reads as part of the     overall narrative of the B\u0026amp;I. I explore the role played by this     'added' text in B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I frame. Finally, I compare the Apology     of the B\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;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\u0026amp;I version of the     Apology contrary to what previous scholarship suggets.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"Rarewaves","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":55169651081590,"sku":"9789042933705","price":114.19,"currency_code":"GBP","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0092\/7504\/8033\/files\/orig_27158459.jpg?v=1737392279","url":"https:\/\/www.rarewaves.com\/products\/9789042933705-aristides-apology-and-the-novel-barlaam-and-ioasaph","provider":"Rarewaves.com","version":"1.0","type":"link"}