apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 479
cinius Silvanus Granianiis and C. Minucius Fundanus, who had been consules suffecti,
the former A.D. io6, the latter A.D. 107 (see Klein Fasti Consulares p. 56). They
would therefore naturally be proconsuls of Asia in successive years, and probably
about A.D. 123, 124, and a.d. 124, 125, respectively (Waddington Pastes Asiatiqiies
p. 197 sq), as the interval between the two offices at this period was about seventeen
years. The name of the former however, as given in Eusebius and Rufinus, is
Serenius or Serennius (in Zonaras xi. 'i^'Yipevvioi), where it should have been Licinius
or Silvanus. If therefore Rufinus has reproduced the original letter, the corruption
must have "been due to Justin himself or have crept into his text before the age of
Eusebius and Rufinus.
A question of interest still remains to be discussed.
Does the Latin represent the
original rescript of Hadrian, or did Rufinus re-translate the document from the Greek
version of Eusebius The former view was first put forward by Kimmel Dc Ritfino
Eusebii iniei-prete p. 175 sq (1838), and he has carried the suffrages of most recent
critics, e.g. Gieseler, Neander, Otto, Heinichen, Bickell, Overbeck, Renan, and Aube.
On the other hand Kimmel's view has been controverted by Keim Aus dem UrchristentJmm
p. 184 sq, R0711 u. das Christenthiim p. 553 sq, by Funk Theologische
Quartalschrift LXi. p. iii sq, and by Doulcet Rapports etc. p. 68 sq.
It would not have been difficult for Rufinus to lay hands on the original, and thus
save himself the trouble of making a translation from the Greek. He might have
found it for instance in the collection which Ulpian had made, in his treatise De Proconsule,
of all the imperial ordinances relating to the Christians. But he would
probably have it more ready to hand in another place. He cannot have been unacquainted
with Justin Martyr's Apologies; and Hadrian's rescript was presumably still
appended there in its original Latin form, when he wrote, as it certainly was in the
time of Eusebius. Indeed, as Rufinus lived in the West, there would be no reason for
substituting a Greek Version in the copies circulated in his neighbourhood. Moreover
this is just what Rufinus does elsewhere. In translating Euseb. H. E. ii. 2, where
Eusebius quotes a Greek version of Tertullian Apol. 5, Rufinus substitutes the original
words of the Latin Apologist. Again in Euseb. H. E. ii. 25, where there is
another quotation from this same writer, Rufinus replaces the original and extends the
quotation. Again, in translating H. E. iii. 20 he reproduces some of the original phrases
of Tertullian (e.g. 'quasi homo', where Eusebius has ''"'
^xw o-wecrews), though here
he is evidently trusting his memory without referring to the book. Again in H. E.
iii. 33, where Eusebius quotes the passage of Tertullian {Apol. 2) relating to Trajan's
correspondence with Pliny, he omits the quotation itself, but the context shows that he
has the original words of Tertullian in his mind. His practice indeed is not uniform.
Some of the ordinances of the later emperors, which are given by Eusebius, he omits
altogether (e.g. that of Gallienus, Eus. II. E. vii. 13; and that of Maximinus, Eus.
H. E. ix. 7) ;
while in one instance, with reference to an imperial decree which Eusebius
{H. E. viii. 17) had translated or got translated from the original Latin into Greek, he
tells us that he had 'remoulded it into Latin' (nos rursum transfudimus in Latinum),
apparently meaning thereby that he had retranslated it.
In the present case the Latin has all the appearance of an original. The language
savours rather of the jurist than of Rufinus. Keim and Funk on the other hand point
to the amplifications 'eos in aliquo arguant', 'eis non permitto', 'quemquam horum
postulaverit reum', 'suppliciis severioribus vindices', etc., as decisive of its being
a translation. The 'sharpening' of the expressions is also alleged in favour of
this view (Keim p. 185). But we find just the same phenomena in the passages of