avi

Well, I suppose that this may be a good time to clarify line designations, because Ben and I have two different points of reference, and judging from his comment above, it would seem, that spin offers yet a third numbering scheme:

I refer here ONLY to fragment labeled abf, and only to the text situated to the right of the vertical marker, labeled "a".

line 1, (starting from the top) contains a single letter, alpha;

line 2, contains four symbols, but I can only read two of them, both omicron;

line 3, contains perhaps six symbols, but I can only make out one of them, a sigma;

line 4, (corresponding to Ben's line 1) appears to my eye to have 9 symbols. Ben identifies 10 symbols. I can only recognize about five of the letters.

Ben has described this line:
μη ζητουσιν

He explains this text as follows:

line 5, (which corresponds to Ben's line 2, and spin's line 3) represents the first line of text purported to relate to Matthew 3:16-17

Ben observes seven letters here, but I only recognize six:

Tau, omicron, upsilon, Beta (which looks like kappa), alpha, pi.

Ben observes in addition, tau, after pi. I don't see it.

If one consults Codex Sinaiticus, the same strangely shaped Beta, looking for all the world like Kappa, appears, raising, at least in my mind, if no one else's, the suspicion that the date of POxy 3.405 corresponds roughly to the date of copying Codex Sinaiticus.

Line 10, (Ben's line 7) contains, by my reckoning, 4 symbols, delta, omicron, upsilon, phi. Ben writes, contrarily:
ιδου, φων
In other words, Ben observes three additional Greek letters. I don't see them.

This line, number 10, corresponds in Codex Sinaiticus, to approximately the middle of passage 16. There are 26 lines of text in the Codex, and these four symbols occur midway through line number 11, not quite half way through passages 16-17.

There remain seven more lines of text in POxy 3.405.
They are progressively decreasing in legibility.

Based upon simple arithmetic, it would appear that these remaining lines of obscure text, all belong to the same passage, Matthew 3: 16-17, not to "Irenaeus":
Codex Sinaiticus: 26 lines, line 11 corresponds to the midway point of POxy 3.405, i.e. line 10 (Ben's line 7).

If spin is correct, then, these remaining 7 lines of obscure text, belong, not to Matthew 3: 16-17, but to "Irenaeus".

I am puzzled. Why wouldn't "Irenaeus" finish the whole passage from Matthew? Why interrupt it half way through?

What did "Irenaeus" write, in those remaining seven lines, if they can be deciphered?.... To which version of Greek text is one comparing these fragments? Why was this particular text viewed as so important, that it was incorporated into a florilegium?

avi

spin

Gosh, Avi, you should read the text, at least the translation:

Still 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.

What Irenaeus wrote is in blue. Just check out what he is citing from Mt. This is a no-boner.


spin

avi

Thanks spin, always worthwhile to read your comments.

Mr. Magoo is a near sighted cartoon character who stubbornly refuses to accept his visual impairment, stumbling about, creating chaos and calamity.

Perhaps he was my cousin....

To my way provincial way of thinking, you have just now, in your post #61, confirmed the very message I had endeavored to send, with my previous message.

Here's what spin wrote:
1. The subject here is "Irenaeus" ' contribution to development of the canon, and in particular, evidence that the fragments of papyrus identified as POxy 3.405 (ostensibly authored in the late second or early third century) indeed represent "Irenaeus" ' famous text Adversus Haereses (AH)

2. However, what you have quoted is NOT from that fragment. Perhaps this text, quoted above, by spin, represents a (very elegant, in my opinion) translation of the Greek florilegium, as Andrew kindly explained to me. However, it certainly is NOT a translation of either the Codex Sinaiticus text of Matthew 3:16-17, nor of the subject of the thread, namely, reading, translating, and interpreting the contents of POxy 3.405.

We need to examine, carefully, the text of Matthew, from Codex Sinaiticus, to understand my objection to your red text above, spin:

τον βαπτιϲθειϲ δε ὁ ιϲ ευθυϲ ανεβη απο του ϋδατοϲ και ϊ δου ανεωχθηϲαν οι ουρανοι και εῖ δεν πνα θυ κατα βᾶινον ὡϲει πε ριϲτεραν ερχο μενον επ αυτο ·
17 και ϊδου φωνη εκ των ουνων λεγουϲα ὁυτοϲ ε ϲτιν ὁ υϲ μου ὁ α
γαπητοϲ εν ὡ η ϋδοκηϲα I chose purple, to represent Lord Constantine, i.e. royalty...

Here's the English:

16 And having been baptized, Jesus immediately went up from the water; and lo, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him.

17 And lo, a voice from the heavens, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Three points, regarding this text:

first: the two verses, 16 & 17, need to travel together, in order for this extract to possess any noteworthy significance. Either passage alone makes much less sense, when separated from its partner.

second: The Greek fragment, POxy 3.405 contains the words "tou bap" (and Ben thinks it contains "tou bapt"), precisely in accord with the text of Codex Sinaiticus, and NOT, as you have written, in blue, i.e. as if written by Irenaeus.

third: The fragment under discussion contains, as best I can decipher, only one line of the text from Matthew 17. The last line, according to me, in fragment abf, containing a presumed extract of text corresponding to that observed in Codex Sinaiticus, is found in line 10, which, by my gaze, contains delta, omicron, upsilon, phi, and only those symbols, (no others) representing the two Greek words ϊδου φωνη.

Please feel free to correct my errors, I am not offended in any way by such comments. I remain perplexed re: inclusion of this passage (what we observe in POxy 3.405) in florilegium.

Thanks,

avi

stephan huller

I don't understand why you are so hung up on what Sinaiticus says. Read Harvey's book on Irenaeus for God's sake (or Constantine's sake). Irenaeus's text is consistently closer to the Old Syriac. I don't understand your objection to the reconstruction of the fragment as Irenaeus's citation of Matthew.

When you look at the early Fathers the citations are rarely the same as the received text. That's just the way it is.

avi

Hi Stephan,

I don't have the quote, but in at least one other thread, you have cited the early FRAGMENTS of "Irenaeus", as supporting this or that aspect of the canon.....

So, I am asking for you, or spin, or Andrew, or Roger, or Jeffrey, or Ben to EXPLAIN, in detail, WHY this fragment, POxy 3.405 should be considered a fragment from a scroll authored by "Ireneaus".

I hope that someone will approach this systematically, question by question, as if this were an important issue. Maybe POxy 3.405 is unimportant. This particular papyrus is important to me, if no one else, because I see it as evidence that "Ireneaus" is a fictional character, created to establish existence of a canon in the second century, common era. In my view, the same "facts" get repeated, year after year, decade after decade, by so many people, that in the end, no one really knows WHY this fragment should be regarded as representing a partial copy of "Irenaeus" ' original Greek manuscript.

spin scoffed at my reading of fragment abf, informing me that my interpretation of the text was quite mistaken. He highlighted my "error" with blue and red text for clarification. As a pedagogical tool, he receives an A+. His interpretation, however, is flawed, in my opinion.

I await his clarification, for it appears to me, admittedly not the sharpest tack in the carpet, that he errs on this point, ascribing to "Irenaeus" text which is obviously (at least to me, obvious) NOT written by "Irenaeus", but rather by Matthew.

With regard to your excellent advice, Stephan, that I devote a bit more energy to studying W.Wigan Harvey's translation of the Latin version of AH, you may well be absolutely correct, and I may be 100% wrong, here, but, to my provincial way of thinking, one does not learn much about a fragment of papyrus, ostensibly representing an original Greek manuscript, by studying a document based upon a Latin "translation", (if "Ireneaeus" did not compose his message originally in Latin, despite living, supposedly, in a Latin speaking city), superimposed with Greek sentences, possibly quoting AH, from two different authors.

Here's my algorithm:
1. There exists a fragment, ABF of POxy 3.405, which has been attributed to "Irenaeus".
2. How do we establish that correspondence? At least at the very outset of our inquiry, we must analyze the papyrus, symbol by symbol.
3. What are the specific features of this fragmentary text, that leads us to assign the name of "Irenaeus" to it, and not some other author?

In other words, I commence NOT by studying Harvey, but by studying the fragment.

If someone, spin, or you, Stephan, or anyone else, seeks to introduce into this process, W.Wigan Harvey's BRILLIANT translation, that's fine with me, BUT, that does not correspond to FIRST describing accurately, exactly what one sees on the fragment itself.

Thus far, Stephan, in other words, we have not yet, on this forum, at least not in my opinion, reached the point, where a meaningful comparison can be made between the text visible on fragment abf of POxy 3.405, and Harvey's translation.

We do not even agree on the line numbering.
Ben and I have two different visions of the symbols observed on the papyrus.

My conclusion, Stephan, is that you, spin, and the other famous members of this august forum, (i.e. those who, unlike me, are fluent in Koine Greek) HAVE NOT YET DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. Roger, openly, and honestly (as is his tradition, thanks, Roger!) denies having an interest in performing this tedious chore, symbol by symbol clarifying exactly what is written on this fragment.

Get to it boys!! Before you can talk about "Irenaeus" this or that, you need to FIRST clarify EXACTLY what we see, or don't see, on this particular fragment, POxy 3.405, THEN, you can introduce Hippolytus, or Tertullian, or Harvey, or the Florilegium, etc...

Can we please answer the questions posed, instead of going off on a tangent, asking why I am "so hung up on what Sinaiticus says."

I am hung up on what is recorded in Sinaiticus, because it represents the gold standard among ancient extant texts, not W. Wigan Harvey.

I am hung up on what is written in Sinaiticus because YOU, Stephan, and spin, and Andrew, Roger, et al, all claim, that this fragment POxy 3.405 represents the writing of "Ireneaus", yet, what I see is a discrepancy between what spin at least, claims, in blue text, to be NOT from Matthew 3:16, but which in my opinion, contrarily, most certainly is from Matthew 3:16, leaving but a single word or two, on this papyrus fragment, as representing the supposed text of "Irenaeus".

Please, answer my several questions regarding the TEXT ON THE PAPYRUS FRAGMENT, focusing on the SUBSTANCE of those questions, rather than my motives or personality, both of which are utterly irrelevant to this thread.

Thank you.

avi

show_no_mercy

Siniaticus does not read ΤΟΝ ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΕΙΣ, it reads ΑΥΤΟΝ. ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΕΙΣ... Being translated, this would be: "...him. Having been baptized...". The ΑΥΤΟΝ is from the end of verse 15. ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΕΙΣ begins verse 16. A τον at the beginning of this sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.

Whereas POxy3.405 has ΤΟΥ ΒΑΠ...

An "uppercase" upsilon could look a bit like a "lowercase" nu, but this sort of confusion is anachronistic/impossible.

avi

Thank you snm, I stand corrected, and I apologize for having stupidly missed that important distinction. I have revealed, yet again my utter ignorance of Greek.

I appreciate your clarification, and yes, exactly as you have written, Sinaiticus defininitely does have ΑΥΤΟΝ, and I erred in not copying the WHOLE word, instead of simply the last three letters.

Foolishly, I didn't realize the distinction.

Then, to clarify, you mean to suggest, that the text of POxy 3.405 IS NOT identical with Matthew 3: 16, but rather, MUST represent, (exactly as spin suggested) the writing of someone other than Matthew.

Is that correct?

I have another DOZEN odd questions, well, maybe odd will be misunderstood. Ok, maybe they are also peculiar, but I mean to write, "several" or "a few other". If you see another obvious blunder like that, can you point it out? Thanks,

avi

stephan huller

Avi

Why are you hung up on Sinaiticus? My friend David Trobisch thinks the date for Sinaiticus could be as late as the fifth, sixth or even seventh centuries. Irenaeus didn't use Sinaiticus. He used a text related to the Old Syriac. It is still Matthew but Matthew based on a Syriac reading with the whole section being translated first into Greek and then Latin. You're worrying about trivialities.

avi

That is quite probable, I would not dispute you, or anyone else, who claimed that I acted, in the words of Schindler:
Die Wut über den verlorenen Groschen
(rage over a lost penny)

Here's my contention.

A. The text, purported to be Matthew 3:16-17 partially (red letters, following convention of spin) corrresponds to that text:
16:
17:
B. I have no idea what the rest of the text represents, and will study Harvey, to see if I can begin to comprehend WHY anyone would include this abridged quote from Matthew, as a tribute to "Irenaeus", in a Florilegium.

avi

show_no_mercy

I'm just curious:

Justin Martyr, First Apology 1.61.4 c. 150 CE:

Και γαρ ο Χριστος ειπεν· Αν μη αναγεννηθητε, ου μη εισελθητε εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων.

For Christ also said: Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of heaven.

This certainly isn't in Siniaticus. As a matter of fact, it's not from any extant NT as far as I'm aware. So where did Justin get it from?