P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by DCHindley »

How P. Oxy 405 became identified as a fragment of Irenaeus Against Heresies, bk 3, sect 2-3:

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 3 405 (1903, p10 )

405-406. Theological Fragments.
Plate I (405 and 406 verso).

We here group together fragments of two different theological works, which we have not been able to identify, both containing quotations from the New Testament.

405 consists of seven fragments written in a small neat uncial hand, which is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the latter part of the second. The ordinary contractions θς, χς, ιης occur ; and it is clear that the use of these goes back far into the second century. Besides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotation from St. Matthew iii. 16-7 describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin similar to those employed for filling up short hues, e.g. in Fr.(a) ll. 9 and 13.


pg 11


16-22. Owing to the number of variations in the text of this passage (Matt. iii. 16-7) and the irregularities of the papyrus with regard to the ends of lines, as shown by Col. i, some of the restorations are rather doubtful. Both οὐρανοί in l. 14 and οὐρανῶν in l. 18 may have been contracted. In l. 15, πνεῦμα was written out in full, τό, and τοῦ, which are omitted by ﬡ and B, may have been also omitted by the papyrus ; and that καὶ, which is found in some MSS. before ἐρχόμενον, was not in the papyrus is fairly certain. The supplement in 1. 17 is rather short. The only known variant which would be longer is πρὸς for ἐπ᾽, found in several cursives. In 1. 19 there is certainly not room for the best-attested reading οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός: either the papyrus agreed with D in reading σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, or else ὁ υἱός μου was omitted or placed after ἀγαπητός.

Athenaeum (Oct 24 1903, p 548)

A PAPYRUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.
Deanery, Westminster, October 16th, 1903.

In their recently published volume of ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri ’ (Part III. p. 10) Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt give us an early Christian papyrus which they have not been able to identify. In describing it they say :—

“405 consists of seven fragments, written in a small neat uncial hand, which is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the latter part of the second......Resides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotation from St. Matthew iii. 16, 17, describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin.”

The fact is that we have here a scrap of the lost Greek original of the third book of Irenaeus adversus haereses. It corresponds with the Latin of III. 9f. (Harvey, II. pp. 31f.). When we see this, we are able to piece together all the disjecta membra save one (which consists, however, of no more than live letters). The following provisional reconstruction may perhaps enable the editors to read a few additional letters:—







Some portions of this reconstruction are, of course, hazardous; but it is plain that Irenaeus read αὐτόν ( = eum of the Latin), not αὐτήν, in Ps. cxxxi. 11, where the LXX. has both readings attested by good MSS. Moreover, it is now certain (as the editors of the papyrus had already ingeniously suggested as a possibility) that Irenaeus read σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ......(as D) in Matt. iii. 17. It is true that his Latin translator follows the more familiar text, and renders “Hic est filius meus," &c. ; but the tiny fragment numbered (c), which we are now able to fit into its place, actually gives us the word σύ. Following Codex Bezae again, I have ventured to read εἰς instead of ἐπ’, in order to get the additional letter required to make the line of the normal length (twenty letters).
J. Armitage Robinson.

Athenaeum Nov. 7 (1903 pg 616)

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI.
Oxford, October 23th, 1903.

A re-examination of the text of No. 405 in Part III. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri,' in the light of Dr. Armitage Robinson's extremely acute identification of it as a piece of the lost original of Irenaeus, III. 9 (Athenaeum, October 24th), enables us to confirm the correctness of his arrangement of the fragments and general restoration. Several of the mutilated letters which were previously uncertain or undeciphered can now be recognized, e.g., col. i. 4, κοιλίας is all preserved. The revised text will be given in full in an appendix to Part IV. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri ' next June. In the mean time the only important modifications of Dr. Armitage Robinson's provisional restorations which we wish to suggest are as follows. Col. i. 1, the reading proposed is unsuitable to the traces. It is difficult to find any restoration which will exactly agree with the Latin translation at this point, and perhaps there was a serious divergence, as in ll. 13-4. Col. ii. 6-12 (a quotation of Matthew iii. 16, 17), the small fragment (b) which remained unplaced belongs to ll. 7-9, and the whole passage should now be read and restored thus :—



Irenaeus thus agreed with the Codex Bezae in reading not only σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, but also ὡς in place of ὡσεὶ, a variant found in D alone, the presence of which in this passage of Irenaeus could not be inferred from the Latin translation quasi. These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose.
B. P. Grenfell.
A. S. Hunt.

Athenaeum (Nov 14 1903 p652)

THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.

Dr. Armitage Robinson, in your issue of October 24th, has made a very interesting discovery, in which we are not only presented with an almost contemporary fragment of one of the most important of the Fathers, but are also enriched en route with fresh suggestions as to the antiquity of the Greek text of Codex Bezae and its relation to the text of the New Testament employed by Irenaeus. In filling up, however, the blanks of the papyrus from the printed Latin text of Irenaeus, Dr. Robinson has followed his supplementary authority in too servile a manner.

It will not do to restore the missing words relating to the Star that comes out of Jacob in the following manner :—



The name of Balaam did not stand there : first, because, as the critical apparatus will show, the Clermont and Vossian copies of Irenaeus read not " Balaam " but " Ysaias" ; Harvey says, in his usual wooden manner, " by a similarity of error." Second, the very same substitution is found in Justin Martyr's ' First Apology,' at the thirty-second chapter, as follows :—

καὶ Ἠσαίας δέ ἄλλος προφήτης, τὰ αὐτὰ δι᾽
ἄλλων ῥήσεων προφητεύων οὕτως εἶπεν·
Ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, κτἑ.

The similarity of error, as Harvey would say, is sufficient to show that it is not an error at all, but that both Irenaeus and Justin are quoting from a book of prophetic testimonia in which the passage was referred to Isaiah. The importance of the observation is not limited to the single case discussed ; it is well known that there are many similar confusions, some of which go back to the New Testament itself. Perhaps before long Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt will dig up for us some fragments of this lost book of testimonies. J. Rendel Harris.

==========================================
Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 4 (Grenfell & Hunt, 1904. p 264)

APPENDIX II

A revised text of Part III, no. 405 (Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, iii. 9).

The seven fragments of an early Christian work published as 405 were identified by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson as belonging to the lost Greek original of Irenaeus' treatise Contra Haereses, which is extant only in a Latin translation, and when fitted together correspond to part of iii. 9. A provisional reconstruction was given by him in Athenaeum, Oct. 24, 1903; cf. our note, ibid., Nov. 7, and that of Dr. Rendel Harris, ibid., Nov. 14. We now print a revised text of the whole. The chief interest of the discovery lies in the resulting correspondence between the readings of Irenaeus' quotation from Matt. iii. 16-7 in ll. 23-9 and those of the Codex Bezae. The Latin translation there has the ordinary reading Hic est (filius meus), whereas the original agrees with D in having (l. 28) σὺ ε[ἶ in place of οὗτός ἐστιν, and a variant peculiar to D (ὡς for ὡσεὶ before περιστερὰν) occurs in 1. 25 (Lat. quasi). ' These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which the one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose ' (Athen., Nov. 7).


p 265


13·ἐπαγγελλόμενος would be expected (annutiliatus Lat.), but the letter before αγγ is more like τ or γ than π.
14-5. The Latin has el huius filius qui ex fructu ventris David, id est ex David virgine et Emmanuel, cuius el stellam &c. The papyrus version is much shorter.
16. For Ησαιας instead of Βαλααμ cf. Rendel Harris, Athen., Nov. 14.
31. The Latin has in Iesum, neque alius quidern Christus. The supposed v of Ιv is more like η, but it is impossible to read Ιηv, and for the omission of η in the earliest contractions of Ἰησοῦς cf. e. g. 1.

Comparison between a "modern" English translation, R. H. Rambaut tr, ANF, v.1 (1885) = ANCL, v.9 (1869); and the surviving Latin translation, W. Wigan Harvey ed, Libros quinque adversus haereses, v.2 (1857):

col i.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.9.2:
... David likewise speaks of Him who, from the virgin, is Emmanuel: "Turn not away the face of Thine
anointed. The LORD hath sworn a truth to David, and will not turn from him. Of the fruit of thy body
will I set upon thy seat." [RSV Psa. 132:10-11/OG 131:10-11]

And again: "In Judea is God known; His place has been made in peace, and His dwelling in Zion." [RSV
Psa 76:1/OG 75.2]

Therefore there is one and the same God, who was proclaimed by the prophets and announced by the
Gospel; and His Son, who was of the fruit of David's body, that is, of the virgin of [the house of] David,
and Emmanuel; whose star also Balaam thus prophesied ...

W. Wigan Harvey, p 31:



col ii.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3.9.3:

And then, [speaking of His] baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." [Matt 3:16-17]

For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, ...

W. Wigan Harvey, p 32:

DCH
Updated 7/21/18, found some errors
Attachments
Image version of Oxyrhynchus Papyus 405 as part of Irenaeus Against Heresies.pdf
(879.4 KiB) Downloaded 180 times
Image version of Oxyrhynchus Papyus 405 as part of Irenaeus Against Heresies.pdf
(879.4 KiB) Downloaded 153 times
Last edited by DCHindley on Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:10 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14710
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by Secret Alias »

Very interesting. Thank you David.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by DCHindley »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:33 pm Very interesting. Thank you David.
Of course(TM) I found errors. I have gone back and fixed the OP. I wanted to also attach JPGs of the transcriptions and the two extracts from Harvey, but something is wrong with the way the board software is storing attachments (you can't delete them, and as you try to replace, it adds multiple copies as attachments, even if I save "inline"). Until this is addressed, I will not be adding any images of G&H's, Robinson's or Harris' transcriptions.

I corrected the references where I found errors (Harris' response to Robinson's announcement that the fragment is from Irenaeus AH 3.9 was dated Nov 14 1903 rather than Nov 24 1903). I also gave a cut-down version of the passage in AH from the ANF English translation by Rambaut. This version also has smaller images of Harvey's edition of the Latin text.

The attachment (all 3 of them) *should* be an image-only PDF version of the articles.

Fun fun.

DCH
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7632
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Charles E Hill, 'Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures. Papyrological and Theological Observations from P.Oxy. 405'

https://www.academia.edu/10485335/Irena ... b._version_

Likely from Irenaeus : life, scripture, legacy, 2012 / edited by Sara Parvis & Paul Foster; based on a 2009 conference held at the University of Edinburgh http://www.worldcat.org/title/irenaeus- ... /833459893

P.Oxy. 3.405 (vH 671), consisting of fragments of a papyrus roll containing parts of Against Heresies, 3.9.3, was first published in 1903. At that time Grenfell and Hunt could say that “it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published”.9 (Oxyrhynchus Papyri III, 10). This of course is no longer the case, though P. Oxy. 405 can still claim the distinction of being the oldest Christian fragment yet published which contains a New Testament quotation.

Written in what C. H. Roberts calls “a handsome professional hand,”10 the fragment has also gained notoriety for its being so close chronologically to its original. Book three of Against Heresies was written sometime in the 180’s, and Roberts was very confident that P.Oxy 405 should be dated to the late second century.11 In his memorable words the manuscript “reached Oxyrhynchus not long after the ink was dry on the author’s manuscript”.12 Peter Rodgers thinks “It is not impossible that Irenaeus himself had written the fragment”.13

If P.Oxy. 405 did not actually originate in Lyons (penned by Irenaeus himself or not), the manuscript surely will be a first, or at latest, second generation copy of one which did originate there under Irenaeus’ own direction or supervision. Finally, P.Oxy. 405 has been of interest to NT text-critical scholars because its quotation of Matthew 3.16-17 is closer to the form of text in Codex Bezae than even the reputedly faithful Latin translation of AH allows, for it reveals, among other things, the reading, “you are my beloved Son” rather than, “This is my beloved Son.”

But P.Oxy. 405 reveals another very interesting and potentially significant scribal phenomenon which has received almost no attention, namely, the wedge-shaped marks, or “diplai,” in the left margin, each corresponding to a line of text.14

9 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 3 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1903), 10.

10 C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1977 (London, 1979), 23.

11 Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 23, it “certainly comes from the later part of the [second] century.” It is a “scholarly” text: “One of the criteria Turner employs for identifying the ‘scholarly’ texts is the presence of critical signs and other scribal practices” (23-24), and P.Oxy. 405 has them, as we shall see.

12 Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 53. Of course, we really do not know when it reached Oxyrhynchus. Roberts elsewhere suggests that the ms may have been produced in a scriptorium either in Alexandria – perhaps in relation to the school founded by Pantaenus – or in Oxyrhynchus itself (24).

13 Peter R. Rodgers, “Irenaeus and the Text of Matthew 3.16-17,” in J. Harold Ellens, ed., Text and Community. Essays in Memory of Bruce M. Metzger , two vols., Volume 1 (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), 51-55, at 51.

14 Grenfell and Hunt apparently judged that these were in 'the original hand of the scribe'. Having examined the papyrus myself (8 August 2008), with the help of the icam iris video enlarger in the conservation department at the Cambridge University Library, I can confirm that this is the case. The diplai exhibit the same color and density of ink, the same quality of line as the written text, and they correspond to the scribe’s use of space-filling diplai in the text at column i, lines 10 and 14


https://www.academia.edu/10485335/Irena ... b._version_
Then, p.6 -
The use of diplai, or any other marginal markings, to indicate quotations was thus not the norm. And P.Oxy. 405 turns out to be not only 'possibly the earliest Christian example', but among the earliest of all examples. Of other surviving Christian theological works from the early period, many, such as the mss of The Shepherd of Hermas, do not contain quotations per se. Others do contain quotations but no marginal markings.22

I have, however, so far come across six more, non-Biblical Christian manuscripts from the seventh century or earlier which use the diplai They are:

  • P.Mich. xviii.764, a two-column papyrus roll, dated by the editor to the second or third century,23 so, very much contemporary with P.Oxy. 405. It is a fragment of an unidentified homily or treatise. The left margin of the right-hand column contains diplai marking citations of Jer. 18.3-6 and 1 Cor. 3.13.

    23 Cornelia Eva Römer, “7.64. Gemeinderbrief, Predict oder Homilie über den Menschen im Angesicht des Jüngsten Gerichts,” in Cornelia E. Römer and Traianos Gagos, eds., P. Michigan Koenen (= P. Mich. Xviii). Michigan Texts Published in Honor of Ludwig Koenen (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996), 35-43.

  • Paris Bib. Nat. P.Gr. 1120, a late third-century,25 two-column papyrus codex found at Coptos, Egypt, containing two of Philo’s works.26 As Roberts pointed out, it is clearly a Christian copy of Philo, as shown by the nomina sacra abbreviations for God, Son, Father, Spirit, & Lord ...

    25 The original edition by the discover (V. Scheil’s in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique francaise au Caire 9.2 (Paris, 1893), v) dates it to the sixth century ... [but others] including A. S. Hunt, Roberts, Turner, and Hurtado, date it to the third century

    26 A papyrus fragment given the Gregory-Aland number P7, variously dated anywhere from the late third to the sixth century.30 This is actually not a NT manuscript but an unknown work which contains a quotation of Luke 4.1-2, marked with marginal diplai.31
.
.

I have, so far, found no NT papyrus manuscript which uses diplai to mark quotations.35 The first Biblical manuscript I know of which does so, also the only one of the period which does so consistently, is Codex Vaticanus (early to middle fourth-century).
.
.

4. Were the Marks Original to Irenaeus (or his Scribe)? [p. 14]

Arguing against their originality would be the fact that the next earliest known fragments of Against Heresies, the Jena fragments, from a very fragmentary third- or fourth-century roll (portions of A.H. 5.3.2-13.2) found at Apollonopolis, P. Jena. Inv. 18 and 21,52 do not have them.53

One might easily imagine, however, that by book 5 this scribe, like the scribes of the Philo treatises mentioned above, and of Sinaiticus, might have simply given up. Also, the Jena fragments display a less careful hand than P.Oxy 405.54

Perhaps this scribe did not have the skill or the interest required to produce a more scholarly volume such as P.Oxy 405. On the other hand, the earliest and perhaps textually most important of the Latin manuscripts of Against Heresies, Codex Claromontanus of the 9th century, does use marginal markings, though of a somewhat different shape, more like an elongated “s”
.
.
5. Diplae Sacrae?
In any case, it is significant that the author or the scribe of P. Oxy. 405 (whether Irenaeus himself or another) is very conscious that Irenaeus is at this point in the manuscript quoting a literary text. Do the diplai tell us anything more? In particular, would the scribe have marked Irenaeus’ quotations of the writings of Ptolemy the Valentinian, or pagan authors, or only quotations of what Irenaeus (or the scribe) regarded as Scripture? It is a pity that no more of the manuscript survives, from which alone we might be able to gain a definitive answer to this question. But the surrounding evidence may help us form a reasonably solid provisional answer. The only discussion of this phenomenon from antiquity which I have to this point discovered, is that of Isidore of Seville (560-636) in his Etymologies 1.21.1356 compiled between 615 and the early 630’s. In his section on critical marks, he says of the diple, “Our scribes place this in books of churchmen to separate or to make clear the citations of Sacred Scriptures.”57 Isidore links the diple to the marking of quotations of Sacred Scripture, and mentions no other forms of literature.
'
.
At least in manuscripts where we can make the distinction, then, Isidore’s comment proves true. Early Christian scribes adopted this siglum for marking quotations of Holy Scripture. Apart from Vaticanus’s probably unwitting marking of Aratus in Acts and its partial marking of 1 Enoch in Jude, we have uncovered no instance of a Christian scribe (or scribe of a Christian text) marking non-Scriptural quotations – this pertains even to the Christian copy of Philo mentioned above' ...

Conclusions

... First, this copy of Irenaeus’ writing is made on a roll. As Roberts and many others have observed, Christians used the codex for their Scriptural writings. Larry Hurtado says, “there is no New Testament text copied on an unused roll among second- or third-century Christian manuscripts.”70

Second, the words of Scripture contained in this roll are distinguished from the words of Irenaeus by diplai in the margin.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7632
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by MrMacSon »

I dunno if the link below or this excerpt adds anything, but here it is -

According to Rousseau and Doutreleau’s critical edition of Irenaeus, adv. haer. (SC 211: 107-108), the Matthew quotation comprises the following text:

ἀνεῴ[χθαν . . .] καὶ εἶδεν τ[ὸ . . . κατα-]βαῖνον ὡς π[εριστρερὰν καὶ] ἐρχόμενον ἐ[.. . . .] ἰδοὺ φωνὴ [. . .] λέγουσα, Σὺ ε[ἶ . . . ἀγα]πητὸς [ἐ]ν ᾧ [. . . ]

The corresponding Latin translation of Irenaeus for this text is (ibid.):

Aperti sunt caeli, et vidit Spiritum Dei quasi columbam venientem super eum. Et ecce vox de caelo dicens : Hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi complacui.

Assuming this fragment attests the wording of the Greek examplar for the Latin translation, the translator apparently omitted [κατα-]βαῖνον (= descendentem OL vg) and substituted Hic est (= Οὗτός ἐστιν: B etc.) for Σὺ ε[ἶ] (D; Tu es a d). Neither the Greek nor the Latin of Irenaeus attest other “Western” readings, however: καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (descendentem de caelo) and λέγουσα πρὸς αὐτόν (dicens ad eum).

http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2006/12/ ... 3-405.html
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by DCHindley »

MrMac,

That kind of variance from what the Latin version of AH would suggest the underlying Greek text should be, was why I was at first skeptical that this was really a fragment from AH, and not some apocryphal gospel or other Christian related commentary that was floating around in antiquity.

Looking into this (see OP - and it took a good bit of effort to dig up the audit trail documenting Robinson's seminal identification) I am now convinced that these fragments are indeed a copy of AH, or at least was some sort of private work that had quoted a fairly sizeable section of AH.

To illustrate this kind of extensive quoting, look at Harvey's edition of the Latin version of Irenaeus' AH and you will see that the entirety of book 1 of AH was quoted, more or less accurately, by Epiphanius in his Panarion. There are overlaps between this book, as preserved by Epiphanius, with smaller fragments or quotes found elsewhere in early Christian literature.

Epiphanius' Greek quotes are sometimes at variance with these other Greek fragments. Since a lot of the fragments from other sources are commentaries thy may have varied the original text to suit the themes of their commentaries, or quoted from memory, this may mean little. Unfortunately, Epiphanius is himself notorious for loosie-goosie quotes, but since he quotes an entire book of AH he may have had it in front of him, and not quoting from memory.

DCH
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:14 pmI dunno if the link below or this excerpt adds anything, but here it is -
According to Rousseau and Doutreleau’s critical edition of Irenaeus, adv. haer. (SC 211: 107-108), the Matthew quotation comprises the following text:

ἀνεῴ[χθαν . . .] καὶ εἶδεν τ[ὸ . . . κατα-]βαῖνον ὡς π[εριστρερὰν καὶ] ἐρχόμενον ἐ[.. . . .] ἰδοὺ φωνὴ [. . .] λέγουσα, Σὺ ε[ἶ . . . ἀγα]πητὸς [ἐ]ν ᾧ [. . . ]

The corresponding Latin translation of Irenaeus for this text is (ibid.):

Aperti sunt caeli, et vidit Spiritum Dei quasi columbam venientem super eum. Et ecce vox de caelo dicens : Hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi complacui.

Assuming this fragment attests the wording of the Greek examplar for the Latin translation, the translator apparently omitted [κατα-]βαῖνον (= descendentem OL vg) and substituted Hic est (= Οὗτός ἐστιν: B etc.) for Σὺ ε[ἶ] (D; Tu es a d). Neither the Greek nor the Latin of Irenaeus attest other “Western” readings, however: καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (descendentem de caelo) and λέγουσα πρὸς αὐτόν (dicens ad eum).

http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2006/12/ ... 3-405.html
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by mlinssen »

Thanks DCH (and Pete for digging it up).
Only one quest here for me:

The ordinary contractions θς, χς, ιης occur ; and it is clear that the use of these goes back far into the second century.

I would like to challenge that assertion (which you merely cite) by refining it:
χς, ις are relatively late and succeed χρς, ιης - yet it seems that
χρς, ιης made a comeback in really late Roman artifacts such as coins dating from 7th CE onwards

That would be all really - you just triggered me here, thank you very much
DCHindley wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:30 pm How P. Oxy 405 became identified as a fragment of Irenaeus Against Heresies, bk 3, sect 2-3:

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 3 405 (1903, p10 )

405-406. Theological Fragments.
Plate I (405 and 406 verso).

We here group together fragments of two different theological works, which we have not been able to identify, both containing quotations from the New Testament.

405 consists of seven fragments written in a small neat uncial hand, which is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the latter part of the second. The ordinary contractions θς, χς, ιης occur ; and it is clear that the use of these goes back far into the second century. Besides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotation from St. Matthew iii. 16-7 describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin similar to those employed for filling up short hues, e.g. in Fr.(a) ll. 9 and 13.


pg 11


16-22. Owing to the number of variations in the text of this passage (Matt. iii. 16-7) and the irregularities of the papyrus with regard to the ends of lines, as shown by Col. i, some of the restorations are rather doubtful. Both οὐρανοί in l. 14 and οὐρανῶν in l. 18 may have been contracted. In l. 15, πνεῦμα was written out in full, τό, and τοῦ, which are omitted by ﬡ and B, may have been also omitted by the papyrus ; and that καὶ, which is found in some MSS. before ἐρχόμενον, was not in the papyrus is fairly certain. The supplement in 1. 17 is rather short. The only known variant which would be longer is πρὸς for ἐπ᾽, found in several cursives. In 1. 19 there is certainly not room for the best-attested reading οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός: either the papyrus agreed with D in reading σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, or else ὁ υἱός μου was omitted or placed after ἀγαπητός.

Athenaeum (Oct 24 1903, p 548)

A PAPYRUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.
Deanery, Westminster, October 16th, 1903.

In their recently published volume of ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri ’ (Part III. p. 10) Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt give us an early Christian papyrus which they have not been able to identify. In describing it they say :—

“405 consists of seven fragments, written in a small neat uncial hand, which is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the latter part of the second......Resides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotation from St. Matthew iii. 16, 17, describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin.”

The fact is that we have here a scrap of the lost Greek original of the third book of Irenaeus adversus haereses. It corresponds with the Latin of III. 9f. (Harvey, II. pp. 31f.). When we see this, we are able to piece together all the disjecta membra save one (which consists, however, of no more than live letters). The following provisional reconstruction may perhaps enable the editors to read a few additional letters:—







Some portions of this reconstruction are, of course, hazardous; but it is plain that Irenaeus read αὐτόν ( = eum of the Latin), not αὐτήν, in Ps. cxxxi. 11, where the LXX. has both readings attested by good MSS. Moreover, it is now certain (as the editors of the papyrus had already ingeniously suggested as a possibility) that Irenaeus read σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ......(as D) in Matt. iii. 17. It is true that his Latin translator follows the more familiar text, and renders “Hic est filius meus," &c. ; but the tiny fragment numbered (c), which we are now able to fit into its place, actually gives us the word σύ. Following Codex Bezae again, I have ventured to read εἰς instead of ἐπ’, in order to get the additional letter required to make the line of the normal length (twenty letters).
J. Armitage Robinson.

Athenaeum Nov. 7 (1903 pg 616)

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI.
Oxford, October 23th, 1903.

A re-examination of the text of No. 405 in Part III. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri,' in the light of Dr. Armitage Robinson's extremely acute identification of it as a piece of the lost original of Irenaeus, III. 9 (Athenaeum, October 24th), enables us to confirm the correctness of his arrangement of the fragments and general restoration. Several of the mutilated letters which were previously uncertain or undeciphered can now be recognized, e.g., col. i. 4, κοιλίας is all preserved. The revised text will be given in full in an appendix to Part IV. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri ' next June. In the mean time the only important modifications of Dr. Armitage Robinson's provisional restorations which we wish to suggest are as follows. Col. i. 1, the reading proposed is unsuitable to the traces. It is difficult to find any restoration which will exactly agree with the Latin translation at this point, and perhaps there was a serious divergence, as in ll. 13-4. Col. ii. 6-12 (a quotation of Matthew iii. 16, 17), the small fragment (b) which remained unplaced belongs to ll. 7-9, and the whole passage should now be read and restored thus :—



Irenaeus thus agreed with the Codex Bezae in reading not only σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, but also ὡς in place of ὡσεὶ, a variant found in D alone, the presence of which in this passage of Irenaeus could not be inferred from the Latin translation quasi. These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose.
B. P. Grenfell.
A. S. Hunt.

Athenaeum (Nov 14 1903 p652)

THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.

Dr. Armitage Robinson, in your issue of October 24th, has made a very interesting discovery, in which we are not only presented with an almost contemporary fragment of one of the most important of the Fathers, but are also enriched en route with fresh suggestions as to the antiquity of the Greek text of Codex Bezae and its relation to the text of the New Testament employed by Irenaeus. In filling up, however, the blanks of the papyrus from the printed Latin text of Irenaeus, Dr. Robinson has followed his supplementary authority in too servile a manner.

It will not do to restore the missing words relating to the Star that comes out of Jacob in the following manner :—



The name of Balaam did not stand there : first, because, as the critical apparatus will show, the Clermont and Vossian copies of Irenaeus read not " Balaam " but " Ysaias" ; Harvey says, in his usual wooden manner, " by a similarity of error." Second, the very same substitution is found in Justin Martyr's ' First Apology,' at the thirty-second chapter, as follows :—

καὶ Ἠσαίας δέ ἄλλος προφήτης, τὰ αὐτὰ δι᾽
ἄλλων ῥήσεων προφητεύων οὕτως εἶπεν·
Ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, κτἑ.

The similarity of error, as Harvey would say, is sufficient to show that it is not an error at all, but that both Irenaeus and Justin are quoting from a book of prophetic testimonia in which the passage was referred to Isaiah. The importance of the observation is not limited to the single case discussed ; it is well known that there are many similar confusions, some of which go back to the New Testament itself. Perhaps before long Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt will dig up for us some fragments of this lost book of testimonies. J. Rendel Harris.

==========================================
Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 4 (Grenfell & Hunt, 1904. p 264)

APPENDIX II

A revised text of Part III, no. 405 (Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, iii. 9).

The seven fragments of an early Christian work published as 405 were identified by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson as belonging to the lost Greek original of Irenaeus' treatise Contra Haereses, which is extant only in a Latin translation, and when fitted together correspond to part of iii. 9. A provisional reconstruction was given by him in Athenaeum, Oct. 24, 1903; cf. our note, ibid., Nov. 7, and that of Dr. Rendel Harris, ibid., Nov. 14. We now print a revised text of the whole. The chief interest of the discovery lies in the resulting correspondence between the readings of Irenaeus' quotation from Matt. iii. 16-7 in ll. 23-9 and those of the Codex Bezae. The Latin translation there has the ordinary reading Hic est (filius meus), whereas the original agrees with D in having (l. 28) σὺ ε[ἶ in place of οὗτός ἐστιν, and a variant peculiar to D (ὡς for ὡσεὶ before περιστερὰν) occurs in 1. 25 (Lat. quasi). ' These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which the one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose ' (Athen., Nov. 7).


p 265


13·ἐπαγγελλόμενος would be expected (annutiliatus Lat.), but the letter before αγγ is more like τ or γ than π.
14-5. The Latin has el huius filius qui ex fructu ventris David, id est ex David virgine et Emmanuel, cuius el stellam &c. The papyrus version is much shorter.
16. For Ησαιας instead of Βαλααμ cf. Rendel Harris, Athen., Nov. 14.
31. The Latin has in Iesum, neque alius quidern Christus. The supposed v of Ιv is more like η, but it is impossible to read Ιηv, and for the omission of η in the earliest contractions of Ἰησοῦς cf. e. g. 1.

Comparison between a "modern" English translation, R. H. Rambaut tr, ANF, v.1 (1885) = ANCL, v.9 (1869); and the surviving Latin translation, W. Wigan Harvey ed, Libros quinque adversus haereses, v.2 (1857):

col i.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.9.2:
... David likewise speaks of Him who, from the virgin, is Emmanuel: "Turn not away the face of Thine
anointed. The LORD hath sworn a truth to David, and will not turn from him. Of the fruit of thy body
will I set upon thy seat." [RSV Psa. 132:10-11/OG 131:10-11]

And again: "In Judea is God known; His place has been made in peace, and His dwelling in Zion." [RSV
Psa 76:1/OG 75.2]

Therefore there is one and the same God, who was proclaimed by the prophets and announced by the
Gospel; and His Son, who was of the fruit of David's body, that is, of the virgin of [the house of] David,
and Emmanuel; whose star also Balaam thus prophesied ...

W. Wigan Harvey, p 31:



col ii.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3.9.3:

And then, [speaking of His] baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." [Matt 3:16-17]

For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, ...

W. Wigan Harvey, p 32:

DCH

Image version of Oxyrhynchus Papyus 405 as part of Irenaeus Against Heresies.pdf
Updated 7/21/18, found some errors
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:47 pm Thanks DCH (and Pete for digging it up).
Only one quest here for me:

The ordinary contractions θς, χς, ιης occur ; and it is clear that the use of these goes back far into the second century.

I would like to challenge that assertion (which you merely cite) by refining it:
χς, ις are relatively late and succeed χρς, ιης - yet it seems that
χρς, ιης made a comeback in really late Roman artifacts such as coins dating from 7th CE onwards

That would be all really - you just triggered me here, thank you very much
The highlighted assertion follows the mainstream assumption of practically all NT scholars and biblical historians that the NT was circulating (with the ordinary contractions θς, χς, ιης) in the 2nd century.

The other separate and primary assertion examined in this thread was that P.Oxy 405 is dated c.200 CE (by paleography in isolation) and represents a Greek fragment of Irenaeus AH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_405
Post Reply