Steven Avery
Administrator
The Witness of God is Greater
Justin Martyr : Exposition of the True Faith (5th century)
[Vranic] The attribution [of Exposition of the True Faith] to Justin Martyr went unquestioned until the
eighteenth century. Some two hundred years later, the work has been conclusively restored to Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (393-457 AD), whose authorship has remained unchallenged since 1930. (Vranic, The Constancy and
Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 74)
[Vranic] In 1880 J.K.T. von Otto published his third edition of the works of Justin Martyr. In this critical edition,
the Expositio was published among the "fragmenta psevdo-ivstini." In creating the critical text, von Otto used
most of the extant manuscripts containing the Expositio rectae fidei: Codex (Regius) Parisinus MCCNCVIII—
codex A; Codex (Regius) Parisinus CMXXXVIII—codex Ab; Codex (Regius) Parisinus MCCLIX A—coda B;
Codex (Regius) Parisinus CDL—codex C; Codex Coislinianus CXX—codex D; Codex Coislinianus CCXXV—
codex Db; Codex Claromontanus LXXXII—codex E and Eb; Coda Argentoratensis grace IX—codex F; Codex
Gissensis DCLXIX-codex G; Coda Monacensis graecus CXXI—codex M; Codex Venetus graecus LXXXVI—
codex V. Several codices containing the Expositio were not taken into consideration due to their
inaccessibilityP but the chances that these manuscripts would substantially alter von Otto's critical text are
negligible. Von Otto detected two recensions of the text, a shorter and a longer version. The shorter version is
found in the reliable ancient codices D, G, and B, while the other manuscripts of the same family (A, Ab, Eb, V)
contain the longer text. Von Otto's critical edition relies on this manuscript family. The rest of the manuscripts
have the relatively corrupted text of the longer recension. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the
Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 75)
[Vranic] The two versions of the Expositio rectae fidei have existed since at least the tenth century. The
longer recension is divided into eighteen chapters. The shorter version excludes chapters 1, 6, and 18, most of
chapters 7, 8, and 16, and parts of chapters 5, 9, 10, and 13. As Sellers remarks, the shorter version is about
three-fifths the length of the complete version F.K. von Funk conducted a study of the two recensions and
concluded that the shorter version is merely an abbreviation of the original text, pronouncing the
longer version the textus receptus. This text was critically analyzed and published by von Otto. (Vranic, The
Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 75-76)
[Vranic] Only after the publication of von Otto's critical edition did the Expositio draw scholarly attention. The
major breakthrough in restoring the authorship of the Expositio to Theodoret of Cyrrhus came in 1930. Soon
after publishing a critical edition of the Liber contra impium Grammaticum of Severus of Antioch, J. Lebon
published an article in which he argued for Theodoret's authorship. Lebon's argument was based on the
evidence provided by Severus. Writing in the year AD 518, Severus, a former patriarch of Antioch with
passionate sympathies for Miaphysite doctrines, quoted passages from the Expositio, attributing them
expressly to Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The impact of Lebon's argument is evident in an article a few years later,
when the great M. Richard advanced an argument about the date of composition of the Expositio, taking
Theodoret's authorship as a given. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret
of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 76)
[Vranic] Therefore, the composition of the Expositio rectae fidei is best dated to the period between
Theodoret's ascent to the bishopric of Cyrrhus in AD 423 and the Nestorian schism at the Council of
Ephesus in AD 431. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus,
2015, p. 82-83)
Justin Martyr : Exposition of the True Faith (5th century)
[Vranic] The attribution [of Exposition of the True Faith] to Justin Martyr went unquestioned until the
eighteenth century. Some two hundred years later, the work has been conclusively restored to Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (393-457 AD), whose authorship has remained unchallenged since 1930. (Vranic, The Constancy and
Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 74)
[Vranic] In 1880 J.K.T. von Otto published his third edition of the works of Justin Martyr. In this critical edition,
the Expositio was published among the "fragmenta psevdo-ivstini." In creating the critical text, von Otto used
most of the extant manuscripts containing the Expositio rectae fidei: Codex (Regius) Parisinus MCCNCVIII—
codex A; Codex (Regius) Parisinus CMXXXVIII—codex Ab; Codex (Regius) Parisinus MCCLIX A—coda B;
Codex (Regius) Parisinus CDL—codex C; Codex Coislinianus CXX—codex D; Codex Coislinianus CCXXV—
codex Db; Codex Claromontanus LXXXII—codex E and Eb; Coda Argentoratensis grace IX—codex F; Codex
Gissensis DCLXIX-codex G; Coda Monacensis graecus CXXI—codex M; Codex Venetus graecus LXXXVI—
codex V. Several codices containing the Expositio were not taken into consideration due to their
inaccessibilityP but the chances that these manuscripts would substantially alter von Otto's critical text are
negligible. Von Otto detected two recensions of the text, a shorter and a longer version. The shorter version is
found in the reliable ancient codices D, G, and B, while the other manuscripts of the same family (A, Ab, Eb, V)
contain the longer text. Von Otto's critical edition relies on this manuscript family. The rest of the manuscripts
have the relatively corrupted text of the longer recension. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the
Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 75)
[Vranic] The two versions of the Expositio rectae fidei have existed since at least the tenth century. The
longer recension is divided into eighteen chapters. The shorter version excludes chapters 1, 6, and 18, most of
chapters 7, 8, and 16, and parts of chapters 5, 9, 10, and 13. As Sellers remarks, the shorter version is about
three-fifths the length of the complete version F.K. von Funk conducted a study of the two recensions and
concluded that the shorter version is merely an abbreviation of the original text, pronouncing the
longer version the textus receptus. This text was critically analyzed and published by von Otto. (Vranic, The
Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 75-76)
[Vranic] Only after the publication of von Otto's critical edition did the Expositio draw scholarly attention. The
major breakthrough in restoring the authorship of the Expositio to Theodoret of Cyrrhus came in 1930. Soon
after publishing a critical edition of the Liber contra impium Grammaticum of Severus of Antioch, J. Lebon
published an article in which he argued for Theodoret's authorship. Lebon's argument was based on the
evidence provided by Severus. Writing in the year AD 518, Severus, a former patriarch of Antioch with
passionate sympathies for Miaphysite doctrines, quoted passages from the Expositio, attributing them
expressly to Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The impact of Lebon's argument is evident in an article a few years later,
when the great M. Richard advanced an argument about the date of composition of the Expositio, taking
Theodoret's authorship as a given. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret
of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 76)
[Vranic] Therefore, the composition of the Expositio rectae fidei is best dated to the period between
Theodoret's ascent to the bishopric of Cyrrhus in AD 423 and the Nestorian schism at the Council of
Ephesus in AD 431. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus,
2015, p. 82-83)
Last edited: