andrewcriddle

yes
The author of the Pseudo-Clementines Homilies thought it was a prerequisite.
As Stephan said, the pseudo-Clementines are ultimately based on early (c 200 CE) sources. It is difficult to determine which parts go back to the early sources and which parts are much later additions. However, there are other interesting connections between sayings of Jesus in Justin and sayings of Jesus in the pseudo-Clementines which may indicate a very ancient common source.

Andrew Criddle

avi

Thank you very much, I will look at it, tonight. I appreciate your input, DCHindley, always very thorough!!!! Great to read your post.

A) If one has a fragment of parchment, and one seeks to identify the author of that parchment, is one not obliged to compare this fragment with a KNOWN template, rather than a Latin translation of unknown origin, date, or quality, itself? Are you not starting out with the supposition that this fragment does represent a portion of Adversus Haereses by "Irenaeus", without first demonstrating that fact? What is there about the text on this fragment, not the Latin text, but the text visible to us, that causes us to conclude that this fragment is indeed taken from AH III.9.3? Have you examined Ben's text, carefully, in comparison to what you yourself observe on the fragment? If there are any differences, would you please spell them out?

B) But, I thought that Ben cited two fellas from the 1960's who discovered some dusty archive dating from the 12th century, containing a Greek version of precisely this text, III.9.3. The quotes were included in what Andrew has explained, above, constitutes a Florilegium, or tribute. My question remains unanswered: What is so special about this text (particularly with regard to orthodox opposition to various heretical ideologies), that it should be incorporated into this Florilegium?

C) But, why is no one else concerned about the absence of the first half of Matthew 3:16? For example, why couldn't this fragment have been tossed onto the trash heap, because of an error in copying Matthew?

Thanks for the heads-up on the nomina sacra.

Umm, so, are you in agreement then with what Ben observes on the fragment, for I have highlighted some few, perhaps minor and insignificant, differences, from what he has written.

In particular: color red = what avi sees on the fragment, except for color green which, in my eyes corresponds not to the canon, but reads as follows:
omicron sigma alpha omega epsilon omicron

There remain several possibilities to explain this discrepancy, if there is a difference, hence my question: What do you see on the fragment?

avi

avi

Or, of course, may indicate common interpolation by later authors....

Thank you for addressing my question re: baptism.

I never understood why this practice was deemed so important, because, I had always imagined that the sole criterion for gaining admission to heaven was faith in the divinity of JC. Clearly, I won't be going there, ....

What does modern era Christianity hold with regard to baptism: is it part of the canon? Is that because Constantine requested baptism before his death? If it is not attested to in any of the 27 books of the canon, as a prerequisite to gaining admission to heaven, then why is it still practiced?

avi

avi

a. Sinaiticus conference?

b. Isn't this always true, of all ancient documents?

avi

Transient

As far as I am aware, the baptism that matters to God is the baptism of the heart and not the common baptism in water practised by the churches. God's Holy Spirit enters a person when they commit their life to God, accepting that Jesus died for them so that their relationship with God may be restored as their sins are forgiven.Then all the power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead resides in that person from that point on.

andrewcriddle

There is a reasonably good table of different modern Christian groups views about Baptism here.
Groups that emphasise the importance of Baptism usually recognize exceptions. See: Necessity_of_Baptism See also Baptism_of_desire
about those who were unable to be baptized even though they may have desired it.

(This is drifting rather off-thread)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

A 5th century date may be possible (I'm not an expert here.) However, a 6th century date or later may have problems with the history of subsequent correction to the manuscript. (If one accepts that it was taken to Caesarea, and corrected there, over a century after its original composition but before the Muslim conquest.)

Andrew Criddle

avi

I apologize.

Back to the subject at hand: Is there a link to the Florilegium, so that one can examine the Greek text, to see how it compares with POxy 3.405?

Why do you suppose that "Irenaeus" truncated Matthew 3:16 in this fragment, if indeed this scrap of papyrus was authored by him?

avi

Doug Shaver

Fascinating. Sort of like Mark must have been written around the time of the First Jewish War because it couldn't have been any earlier?

andrewcriddle

The main argument for a 4th century date is paleographical, ie that the handwriting is 4th century. I'm not sufficiently expert to say how firm this dating is.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add The presence of Barnabas and Hermas in the NT section probably indicates a period before the NT canon was fully established in all its details. If so this would indicate a date before the end of the 4th century.

Edited to Add More
One problem with this argument is that Codex Alexandrinus (Early 5th Century) Contains the First and Second letters of Clement. However argument about the Canonicity of the Clementine epistles seems to have continued in the Eastern church later than debate about Hermas and Barnabas. See Canons of the Apostles (allegedly apostolic true date c 380 CE) canon 85