Ben C Smith

More than a year ago several posters on this board were discussing papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment of Against Heresies by Irenaeus. I looked into the matter very briefly at the time, but have only recently investigated further.

I do not have the J. A. Robinson article in which he made the identification; but S. C. Carlson has emailed me a 1962 French article by Marcel Richard and Bertrand Hemmerdinger in which the authors compare the Greek fragment with a newly discovered portion of Greek text from Against Heresies (full citation on my baptism of Jesus notes and quotes page). They discovered this text in a book called the Florilegium Achridense, which dates to century XIII. In what follows, the Greek is from this florilegium, which quotes Against Heresies 3.9.3; the Latin is from the usual translation of Irenaeus; and the English is my own rendering:

Ειρηναιου επισκοπου Λογδωνου εκ του κατα αιρεσεως βιβλιου·

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from the book against heresy:

Ετι φησιν επι του βαπτισματος ο Ματθαιος; Ανεωχθησαν αυτω οι ουρανοι, και ειδε πνευμα θεου καταβαινον ωσει περιστεραν και ερχομενον εις αυτον· και ιδου, φωνη εξ ουρανου λεγουσα· Συ ει ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος, εν ω ευδοκησα. ου γαρ τοτε κατηλθεν ο Χριστος εις τον Ιησουν, ουδε αλλος μεν ο Χριστος, αλλος δε ο Ιησους, αλλ ο λογος του θεου, ο σωτηρ παντων και κυριευων ουρανου και γης, ουτος εστιν Ιησους καθως προεδιδαξαμεν, προσλαβομενος σαρκα και χρισθεις υπο του πατρος τω πνευματι, Χριστος Ιησους εγινετο, καθως Ησαιας φησιν.

Adhuc ait in baptismate Matthaeus: Aperti sunt [ei] coeli, et vidit spiritum dei quasi columbam venientem super eum. et ecce, vox de coelo, dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui. non enim Christus tunc descendit in Iesum, neque alius quidem Christus, alius vero Iesus, sed verbum dei, qui est salvator omnium et dominator coeli et terrae, qui est Iesus, quemadmodum ante ostendimus, qui et adsumtsit carnem et unctus est a patre spiritu, Iesus Christus factus est, sicut et Esaias ait.

Yet more, Matthew says on the baptism: The heavens were opened up, and he saw the spirit of God descending just as a dove and coming into him. And behold, a voice from heaven saying: You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.* For Christ did not at that time descend into Jesus, nor was Christ one person and Jesus another, but rather the word of God, which is savior of all and lord of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, just as we have taught before, who took on flesh and was christened by the father in the spirit, became Christ Jesus, as Isaiah says.

* Refer to Matthew 3.16-17.

And here is the relevant scrap of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405; the bracketed material, of course, is reconstructed; it is customary to overline the nomina sacra, but I do not know how to do that on this forum, so I have underlined them instead:

...μη ζητουσιν. [ετι φησιν επι]
του βαπτ[ισματος ο Ματθαι-]
ος· Ανεω[χθησαν οι ουρανοι]
και ειδεν τ[ο πνα θυ κατα-]
βαινον ωσ π[εριστεραν και]
ερχομενον ε[ις αυτον· και]
ιδου, φων[η εξ ουρανου]
λεγουσα· Συ ε[ι ο υς μου ο αγα-]
πητος, [ε]ν ω [ευδοκησα. ου]
γαρ τοτε ο Χς κατηλθεν εις]
τον Ιν, ουδ α[λλος μεν ο Χς,]
αλλος δε Ι[ς, αλλ ο λογος του]
θυ ο σωτ[ηρ παντων και κυ-]
ριευω[ν ουρανου και γης....]

Note that the first two words of the fragment, μη ζητουσιν (not seeking or who do not seek), are from the end of Against Heresies 3.9.2, which the Latin renders as non quaerebant eum.

With this information, we can assess what Jay Raskin mentioned about this fragment:

There can be little doubt that this is a fragment of Against Heresies 3.9.2-3. The words or parts of words not found in the Matthew quotation and which line up between the fragment and the Greek florilegium are as follows:

του βαπτ[ισματος]
[Ματθαι]ος
γαρ τοτε ο Χς (with a word reversal of subject and verb, permissible in Greek)
τον Ιν, ουδ α[λλος] (the florilegium has ουδε, a contextual variant for ουδ)
αλλος δε Ι[ς (the florilegium adds the definite article ο, another permissible and common variant in Greek)
θυ ο σωτ[ηρ]
[κυ]ριευω[ν]

This is not counting the first two Greek words of the fragment, which match the Latin, as I mentioned above. There may be plenty of citations of Matthew 3.16-17 in patristic literature, but how many of them come right after a discussion of not seeking something?

This is also not counting the fact that, among the words taken from Matthew 3.16-17, the Oxyrhynchus fragment actually agrees with the Greek florilegium and against our received text of Matthew in having you are my beloved son instead of this is my beloved son. IOW, both Irenaeus (according to the florilegium) and the Oxyrhynchus fragment reflect the same minority reading of Matthew.

This example completely ignores matters of average line length (so important in reconstructing fragments) and even the order of words; note that Jay lists his words randomly compared to the excerpt from US News and World Report. That is certainly not how papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 works; the words are all linked together in order on the same fragment, with line lengths to consider.

I think this was true when Robinson did his work.

Yes, he did, and the discovery of the Greek florilegium text confirmed his hypothesis. As the PGA likes to say, these guys are good.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

This is fascinating. I'll have to reconsider the matter. Thanks,

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin

Roger Pearse

Image of the papyrus here.

Ben C Smith

Thanks, Roger.

The Wiki page hosting that image says the photo is in the public domain. Is that true? If it is, does that mean I can host it on my website? (I hate it when photos I link to disappear from the web.)

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Wikipedia thinks it is public domain based on their interpretation of the Bridgeman Art Library case in a lower federal court in New York. There is always a risk that the decision might get reinterpreted, narrowed, superseded by legislation, or even overruled in the future.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Anyone's guess, I think. Where are you in the world, Ben? If you're in the UK, I would suggest not doing so, in case the papyrus' owners feel like spending our tax money on keeping our property invisible. If you're elsewhere, it will depend on local law and probability.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

IOW: Even the experts are not entirely sure.

Love our legal system. Just love it.

Roger, I am located in the US. Midwest. Never been to the UK. Would like to go sometime, though. I hear London named a clock after me.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

What? Smith?

Actually its the bell inside a (the famous) clock tower that bears the name Ben.

Roger Pearse

For the benefit of others, it might be worth explaining why the issue is unclear.

The picture is a photograph of a papyrus. The papyrus must be out of copyright, but no-one is allowed to photograph it by the owners (on whatever pretexts they can think up). But is a modern photograph of an out-of-copyright item itself out-of-copyright?

The libraries and archives, dedicated as they are to keeping the public away, would say yes. That way they can charge incredible prices for low-quality images and screw over researchers with expense accounts. The argument is that some photographs must be 'art', so should be original creative works, therefore in copyright; so therefore any photograph can be copyrighted.

The rest of us have doubts about this, observing the element of special pleading. The laws are unclear, but there is a US precedent which found that photographs of this kind were NOT protected; the Bridgeman art library case. Even UK people pay attention to this (because there is no case law, since no-one can afford to sue).

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Your proof seems solid. Thanks.

This tells us that at least some form of "Against Heresies" was likely to have been in circulation in Alexandria around 250 C.E.

Unfortunately, it does not supply us with the original date of composition or author's name.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay