stephan huller

It would seem more artificial to me (and a better proof of corruption) if all the scriptural citations fit (or were made to fit) the received text. This 'fixing' effort certainly is often present in Clement of Alexandria's gospel citations I believe. It probably represents an unconscious effort of the scribe. But Clement, Justin et al cite so many bizarre texts it is hard to argue that this helps the cause of a fourth century conspiracy. My rule of thumb actually is that the more bizarre the scriptural references, the more likely we are dealing with older sources. I can't see how those arguing for a fourth century conspiracy think that Irenaeus's New Testament helps their case.

avi

Wow, great question, implying yet another source for the canon.

I believe that aa5874 contends that Justin did not know the four gospels of the modern canon, i.e. Post-"Irenaeus", or, if that author's writings have been interpolated by Eusebius, then, post-Nicea. I think that aa5874 has written, on another thread or two, in this forum, that Justin Martyr used a synopsis of sorts..."Memoirs of the Apostles", if I am not in error. To the best of my recollection, that is one of the reasons why he maintains a late second century date, at the earliest, for the four Gospels, but I may well be in error on that point.

So far as I know, there exists no extant copy of "Memoirs...".

Has anyone considered that "Irenaeus" could be "Matthew"?

avi

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure where Justin got it from. Maybe he is quoting from memory.

FWIW the closest parallel is the Clementine Homilies Andrew Criddle

avi

Thanks Andrew for this quote.

a. Does "regeneration" here = baptism?

b. I thought that baptism was NOT a prerequisite to gaining admission to heaven, is that wrong?

c. Correct my error, here, please, but this homily is dated fifth century, or thereabouts, i.e. well after Nicea and the formal elaboration of the modern canon, if I am not in error....

avi

stephan huller

You are in error. The material seems to be connected to something very old (and lost). Most people connect the tradition to the Ebionites. There is a reference to Simon Magus here which is often thought to derive from an original Ebionite attack on Paul. This document did not originate from the hand of an orthodox writer.

avi

Thanks, Stephan, I appreciate your correction.

If you have the inclination, I would welcome a link to your source, but, if not, no problem. My supposition was derived from this web site--Wikipedia, sometimes unreliable....

The Ebionists are not referenced in the Wikipedia article..., but Eusebius is!!!

Surprise, surprise.

avi

avi

Perhaps this notion has been communicated to you, recently, by private message? Here is his opinion, expressed at his own website:

avi

avi

red, per spin, above, corresponds to Matthew 3: 16-17 seen on the fragment abf of POxy 3.405:

green: = disputed text, i.e. I claim that the fragment shows symbols NOT corresponding to Matthew 3: 16, in particular:

avi: omicron sigma alpha omega epsilon omicron,

Ben: omicron sigma alpha nu epsilon omega

in the fragment, line 6 (Ben's line 3). Ben observes, contrarily, the same letters as seen in Codex Sinaiticus, with the exception of sigma, for upsilon.

Codex Sinaiticus:
βαπτιϲθειϲ δε ὁ ιϲ ευθυϲ ανεβη απο του ϋδατοϲ και ϊ δου ανεω χθηϲαν 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 αγαπητοϲ εν ὡ η ϋδοκηϲα

Hort & Westcott:
baptisqeiV de o ihsouV euquV anebh apo tou udatoV kai idou hnewcqhsan oi ouranoi kai eiden pneuma qeou katabainon wsei peristeran ercomenon ep auton
kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outoV estin o uioV mou o agaphtoV en w eudokhsa

Alexandrian:
baptisqeiV de o ihsouV euquV anebh apo tou udatoV kai idou hnewcqhsan [autw] oi ouranoi kai eiden [to] pneuma [tou] qeou katabainon wsei peristeran [kai] ercomenon ep autonkai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outoV estin o uioV mou o agaphtoV en w eudokhsa

Byzantine majority:
kai baptisqeiV o ihsouV anebh euquV apo tou udatoV kai idou anewcqhsan autw oi ouranoi kai eiden to pneuma tou qeou katabainon wsei peristeran kai ercomenon ep auton
kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outoV estin o uioV mou o agaphtoV en w eudokhsa

Thus far, no luck finding AH III:9:3 in Latin/Greek in Harvey.

I did find the English version, just as spin reported.

I will keep looking....

Questions outstanding:

a. Why is the text of Matthew changed in this fragment, compared with ANY extant copy of the gospel, i.e. why is the first half of Matthew 3:16 truncated?

b. What is it about this text on the fragment, presumed to be from AH III:9:3, that warrants inclusion in a compendium of famous quotes from this author--i.e. the florilegium?

avi

DCHindley

It is on page 32 of volume 2 (page 43 of the PDF file). One problem is that except for P. Oxy 405, AH III.9.3 is only available in Latin.

AH III.9.3 (quoting Matt 3:16-17)
[16b] Aperti sunt, ¹[ei] coeli, et vidit Spiritum Dei quasi columbam, venientem super eum.
[17] Et ecce vox de coelo, dicens: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi ²bene complacui

¹ ei is bracketed, as omitted in the Clerm. and the Ar. MSS. The Syr. ... corresponds with the Greek AUTW.
² bene. This word is omitted in the Clerm. MS and its satellite Voss., and the omission brings the translation into closer connexion with the Syriac ... than the Greek EUDOKHSA.

The Ante Nicene Fathers translation is as follows:
"[16b] The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him:
[17] and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Vulgate Matt 3:16-17
16 baptizatus autem confestim ascendit de aqua et ecce aperti sunt ei caeli et vidit Spiritum Dei descendentem sicut columbam venientem super se 17 et ecce vox de caelis dicens hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi conplacui

Douay Rheems translates this literally:
16b the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
17 And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

P. Oxy 405 (which Ben's site cites in full, with preceding and following narrative corresponding exactly to Irenaeus' AH III.9.3) has (just the Matthew 3:16b-17 part, and be aware that this fragment employs nomina sacra for pneuma, theou):
16b Ανεω[χθησαν οι ουρανοι] και ειδεν τ[ο πνα θυ κατα]βαινον ως π[εριστεραν και] ερχομενον ε[ις αυτον·
17 και] ιδου, φων[η εξ ουρανου] λεγουσα· Συ ε[ι ο υς μου ο αγα]πητος, [ε]ν ω [ευδοκησα.

Transliterated:
16b ANEW[CQHSAN OI OURANOI] KAI EIDEN TO PNA QU KATABAINON WS P[ERISTERAN KAI] ERCOMENOU E[IS AUTON;
17 KAI] IDOU, FWN[H EX OURANOU] LEGOUSA; SU E[I O US MOU O AGA[PHTOS, [E]N W [EUDOKESA]

Scrivner's Textus Receptus, largely based on Codex Beza (i.e, the "western text" that Irenaeus seems to follow) has:
16b anewcqhsan autw oi ouranoi, kai eide to Pneuma tou qeou katabainon wsei peristeran kai ercomenon ep auton
17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa Outos estin o uios mou o agaphtos en w eudokhsa

The RSV renders this as:
16b [B]the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

The major difference between the Western Text and P Oxy 405 is the voice that says "You are my beloved son" in 405, following Mk 1:11 and Lk 3:22, and "This is my beloved son" in Codex Beza, Latin Irenaeus and the Vulgate.

DCH (it is 2:00 am here, so excuse any errors)

stephan huller

Yes, personal communication before the Sinaiticus conference. He was saying how the fourth century dates represent only the earliest date possible because of the Eusebian canons. The actual date could be much later than that.