stephan huller

The section of text that this fragment is supposed to correspond to is Adv Haer 3.9.2,3


2. Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, "The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep."(6) Of what Lord he does himself interpret: "That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son."(7) "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us."(8) 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."(9) And again: "In Judea is God known; His place has been made in peace, and His dwelling in Zion."(10) 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: "There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a leader shall rise in Israel."(1) But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed "For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;"(2) and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, "of whose kingdom is no end;"(3) and frankincense, because He was God, who also "was made known in Judea,"(4) and was "declared to those who sought Him not."(5)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."(6) 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, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father--was made Jesus Christ, as Esaias also says, "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from his root; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of God, shall fill Him. He shall not judge according to glory,(7) nor reprove after the manner of speech; but He shall dispense judgment to the humble man, and reprove the haughty ones of the earth."(8) And again Esaias, pointing out beforehand His unction, and the reason why he was anointed, does himself say, "The Spirit of God is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me: He hath sent Me to preach the Gospel to the lowly, to heal the broken up in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind; to announce the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance; to comfort all that mourn."(9) For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech. For "He needed not that any should testify to Him of man,(10) for He Himself knew what was in man."(11) For He called all men that mourn; and granting forgiveness to those who had been led into captivity by their sins, He loosed them from their chains, of whom Solomon says, "Every one shall be holden with the cords of his own sins."(12) Therefore did the Spirit of God descend upon Him, [the Spirit] of Him who had promised by the prophets that He would anoint Him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of His unction, might be saved. Such, then, [is the witness] of Matthew.CHAP. X

I don't see what the difficulty would be in this identification. Have actually tried to match the existing Latin to this Greek fragment?

avi

Thanks, Jay. Great point.

I profoundly dispute the assertion that P.Dura 2 was "definitely written before AD 256.

I contend that Dura Europos was the focus of the Imperial Army's attention for at least two of the seven day period, during which they paused their march on Ctesiphon, imperial capital of the Sasanian empire, to pay their respects at the nearby tomb of the teenage Roman emperor, who had died during a military expedition against the same foes, twenty years before. I have no doubt, none, that hundreds of Roman soldiers, having grown up in a "christian" milieu, swept away the single century of dust that had covered the house a block away from the Jewish synagogue, and hastily painted the handful of sketches from the new testament, in harmony with the more attractive, more meticulous paintings in the syngogue, from the old testament.

While there, I argue, they left behind a copy of Diatessaron, later discovered by Clark Hopkins. 15 Centuries of blowing dust, completely buried the "house church", which had never been a Christian house of worship, in my view, but rather a Jewish guest house with a mikvah.

If I am correct, then there is nothing "definite" about the date of that tiny scrap of papyrus.

avi

You need to spell out, how, exactly how, one can "create" a Greek manuscript from Latin fragments.

What is required here, is evidence, not argument.

I see no evidence at all, that "Against Heresies" represents the opinions of anyone, let alone someone living c 200 CE.

Ostensibly, it represents the opinions of a guy, from Syria, fluent in Greek, presumably with a native language of Syriac, but maybe his native language was Greek, who knows? In any event, he migrated (how?) to France, and settled in as Bishop in Lugdunum. But how? Why there? Why would the Roman army capture and murder his predecessor, but leave untouched the successor (Irenaeus), and the building, the temple, the church, the basilica, whatever it may have been. Conveniently, nothing remains today.

Why didn't the Roman army massacre the entire flock? What if there had been no flock to massacre? What archaeological evidence supports the existence of a cathedral with huge numbers of Christians living in Lugdunum, in 180CE? How could they gain permission from the Roman Governor, to construct such a large edifice? Were people free in the Roman Empire, to build whatever they wanted, wherever they wished, without obtaining permission from the central government?

What evidence can we produce to refute the notion that "Irenaeus" is not a complete fabrication, from top to bottom, created by several (very confused) authors, in the fourth century?

Can we rightfully deduce from a scrap of papyrus found in a dump, in Egypt, Oxyrhynchus, that the public libraries of the large metropolis' throughout the Roman empire, routinely accepted the gospels, and placed them on the shelves for public reading pleasure? Why should anyone consider the Latin text of Irenaeus to correspond to "christian" texts? It is clearly a human authored document, not a divinely inspired one, as has been noted in an earlier post on this thread.....

I think Jay is exactly right. I would add, for those insufficiently skeptical, how difficult would it be to plant such a tiny scrap of papyrus, at Dura Europos to firm up the date? Have any forum members examined the photographic record, furnished by Clark Hopkins? There is zero security, scores of bedouin tribesmen, wondering about, and photographs illustrate dozens of buckets of dirt, excavated, awaiting disposal, into which, anyone could easily slip a tiny scrap of papyrus, without being noticed. Look at the photographs!

The much beloved handwriting, compared with extracts from Attic Greek playrights, and Plato, and so on, to establish a date of creation, seems ill conceived, simply because of the underlying assumption: no one living then, had possessed skill sufficient to permit them to emulate a particular style of writing.

I disagree with that notion. I think that clever folks, even today, could produce a papyrus manuscript, that looked absolutely authentic, twenty minutes old, not twenty centuries. So, yes, books on "christianity", were found in public libraries, but when were they placed there? I argue, that they were certainly not installed in the second or even the third century, but rather, only AFTER the government gave permission to place them there, i.e. post Constantine.

Stuart

1) Celsus is probably late 1st quarter of the 3rd century.
2) Catholic Church was still forming in the early 3rd century, and there is ample evidence that the Marcionite books were public, and that many of the heretics used Christian books. Both camps had apocrypha.
- basically this is an unprovable concept, and assumes too much
3) Nothing would stop them, but did they?
- if there were a "public" library (how public is an open question) and Christian books were there, then why the need for Luke to compile? Why is there no references to earlier versions of the Synoptic Gospels?
4) Apologies were an op-ed type and I agree they would try to be public.
- but the way many were written was incendiary and appears to have been written for internal Christian consumption, not the pagan majority and powerful
- The form of the Apologies indicate they are fantasy conversations with the Emperors (or Senate). These bodies did not spend hours listening to complains and petitions. Everything had to short and sharp and to the point. You have 5 minutes to present your case and sit down. These Apologies are long tracts and not short and sharp, with mindless digressions, attacks on various heretics and other things a Senate or Emperor wouldn't care to waste 5 minutes of his valuable time on; not when he could approve a contract that would bring a few million denarii to the crown.
5) The best evidence we have of Christian documents winding up in the hands of others is the Marcionite Antithesis in the hands of the Manicheans. Tertullian's own sect of Montanist writings hasn't left much of a trace. So the veracity of that claim is somewhat in doubt. (What does he mean by public)

avi

Do you write this quoting a section of text from Shabuhragen? Any other source, upon which you may choose to rely, has been thoroughly corrupted by several centuries of Christian interference, in my opinion.

stephan huller

I only direct my comments to Stuart

how is it Celsus is given this absurd dating?

Stuart

How do you put Celsus in the 2nd century? Origen wrote in very middle of the 3rd century. What makes you back date Celsus besides a desire to have him in the 2nd century, for whatever reason?

I think a 2nd century dating is optimistic and unproven.

Stuart

I refer to two strong anti-Manichean sources, Hegemonius Acta Archelai Book XL, and the pseudo-Clement Recognitions and Homilies, which both present several elements of the Marcionite Antithesis as arguments for Manichean positions against Christians.

Many have mistaken Simon Magus as being Marcionite. But these are very late 3rd to mid-4th century documents, and Marcionism is no longer the heresy in view. These are non-Christians viewed as Christians.

aa5874

How do you put Origen "Against Celsus" in the 2nd quarter of the 3rd century?

A 3rd century dating for Origen's "Against Celsus" is unproven.

All writings which mention the Canonised Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Corpus were probably written later than the 2nd quarter of the 3rd century.

Apologetic writings up to the late 3rd century appear to have no influence by the Four Canonised Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

In addition, non-apologetic arguments against the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus appear to have started around the 4th century.

stephan huller

I don't know how anyone 'proves' anything in this field of study but from what I remember the two dates that are given depend on a number of factors:

1. There is some evidence internal to Against Celsus which suggests a date before the outbreak of the Decian persecutions (Origen seems to be writing at a time of peace for the Empire). So if we suppose that the final edition of this text was written 240 - 250 it doesn't make sense that Celsus wrote immediately before this time (i.e. 225 CE) as you suggest for several reasons:

1. there is a reference to 'joint rule' - i.e. two rulers of the Roman Empire - which has only been identified as representing the period when Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus ruled or Antoninus Pius and his son Commodus. I think Chadwick favored the second date and I have come to agree with this.
2. the lack of references to the Catholic Church (there are I believe two) and the assumption of a plethora of heretics at the time Celsus was writing (I am pretty sure that Origen says in the newly found fragments last year that the Marcionites had just about disappeared in the Empire).
3. Celsus makes reference to the punishment of the Jewish under Hadrian as 'just having happened' (not a direct quote). I think this is at the beginning of Book 8. There are no persecutions of Jews at the beginning of the third century and the Jews were very favorably received by Caracalla (as were the Christians). It doesn't make sense for a date 211 - 225 CE as you suggest.
4. The use of the witness of Hegesippus (i.e. Marcellina and Salome of the Harpocratians etc). This seems to date the text again to either 150 CE or 177 CE again to the time Marcellina came to Rome or to the report of Hegesippus.
5. There are a number of references to the Jewish religion and its use of the term 'Son of God' and other anomalies which - while not entirely 'fitting' any age - is difficult to believe represent the religion of the Mishnah which was certainly 'Judaism' in the time you suggest.
6. the reference to Jason and Papiscus (or whatever the f--- it is called) is indicative of the second rather than the third century).
7. the idea that Christians were persecuted under the penalty of death doesn't fit the age you suggest. Julius Africanus not only was highly favored by Caracalla (he devoted his Chronology to the Emperor) he also was openly a Christian.

I have my mother over at the house but those are seven basic reasons for the traditional dating being 177 - 180 CE - a period of 'twin rule' (Antoninus and Commodus) close enough to the Hadrianic ban on the Jews 'setting foot' in Judea etc.