Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:21 am
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:27 amI don't understand what what Head wrote means, eg. how can Irenaeus be "cited at Matt 3.17" ?? or how is that premise related to "certainly in dependence on this manuscript" ??
He is saying that Irenaeus is cited in the textual apparatus of important modern critical texts of Matthew, and that the citation of Irenaeus at Matthew 3.17 for the "you are" variant (as opposed to "this is") certainly depends upon that variant having been found in papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405. (Wallace was trying to give an example of a manuscript with important information about the NT text which is generally ignored because it is not a straight up manuscript of the NT itself, and Head is saying that, while this does happen, this particular manuscript is not an example of it happening, since it is cited in the critical texts. I can see Irenaeus being cited at Matthew 3.17 for "you are" in the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, for example.)
Cheers Ben. The syntax seems weird (gobbledegook-like), and, despite having pondered your reply and the terminology again, it's still not full clear.

What does "the citation of Irenaeus at Matthew 3.17 for the 'you are' variant" mean? Citation where? When? Later citation? Specific or widespread recitation??

Why 'at'? ... I would have thought it would be better to be something like 'the version of Matthew 3.17 in P.Oxy 405 ..' [or, 'the version of Matthew 3.17 cited [or present or seen] in P.Oxy 405..'].

Also, what does "Irlat cited in v16" mean??
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:30 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:21 am
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:27 amI don't understand what what Head wrote means, eg. how can Irenaeus be "cited at Matt 3.17" ?? or how is that premise related to "certainly in dependence on this manuscript" ??
He is saying that Irenaeus is cited in the textual apparatus of important modern critical texts of Matthew, and that the citation of Irenaeus at Matthew 3.17 for the "you are" variant (as opposed to "this is") certainly depends upon that variant having been found in papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405. (Wallace was trying to give an example of a manuscript with important information about the NT text which is generally ignored because it is not a straight up manuscript of the NT itself, and Head is saying that, while this does happen, this particular manuscript is not an example of it happening, since it is cited in the critical texts. I can see Irenaeus being cited at Matthew 3.17 for "you are" in the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, for example.)
Cheers Ben. The syntax seems weird (gobbledegook-like), and, despite having pondered your reply and the terminology again, it's still not full clear.

What does "the citation of Irenaeus at Matthew 3.17 for the 'you are' variant" mean? Citation where? When? Later citation? Specific or widespread recitation??

Why 'at'? ... I would have thought it would be better to be something like 'the version of Matthew 3.17 in P.Oxy 405 ..' [or, 'the version of Matthew 3.17 cited [or present or seen] in P.Oxy 405..'].

Also, what does "Irlat cited in v16" mean??
Here is the statement, and I have added my own comments in brackets:

Peter Head: The general point is fair enough: there are plenty of witnesses to the text of the NT that are not continuous text NT mss and we should find ways to ensure that we don't lose sight of them. But the illustration is poor. POxy 405 is a ms of Irenaeus; and Irenaeus is cited [in the standard critical texts of Matthew] at Matt 3.17 [the verse which Irenaeus quotes] certainly in dependence on this manuscript [papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, which is in Greek] (different from Irlat cited in v16 [Irlat = Latin version of Irenaeus, which offers a variant in verse 16]).

Head is referring to the Nestle-Aland text of the Greek NT, which cites the Latin translation of Irenaeus for a variant in verse 16 and the Greek version of Irenaeus for the variant in verse 17. Head is simply making it explicit that, when the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland text mentions Irenaeus for verse 17, it does not mean the Latin; it means the Greek, which must therefore mean papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405.

This is what the apparatus looks like from the SQE, for example:

Matthew 3.16-17 SQE.png
Matthew 3.16-17 SQE.png (56.84 KiB) Viewed 5855 times

Notice that it cites the Latin Irenaeus in verse 16 but just plain Irenaeus in verse 17 (both are underlined in red). Head is clarifying that the variant cited (by the scholars behind the Nestle-Aland text, which is what the SQE uses) is the Greek one for verse 17.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:23 pm Here is the statement, and I have added my own comments in brackets ...
  • Thank you very much Ben! (and I just realised that I had briefly thought Irlat might mean Latin version of Irenaeus).
Ethan
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by Ethan »

The Catholic Church as invented a whole list of fictional characters.
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by DCHindley »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:27 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:05 am It’s a fragment of Against Heresies.
I realise that. I would like to know if it has been specifically dated and, if so, on what basis. I have recently been wondering if paleography of early Christian texts such as P Oxy 405 is a biased methodology b/c it is both self-referencing and based on assumed or likely dates.
While I have never seriously questioned the dates given by Grenfel & Hunt to fragments found at Oxyrhynchus tell in Egypt, I *have* seriously questioned the dates given to the DSS fragments from Qumran. But there is an important difference:

Those damn authors of the DSS never dated anything. There were no marriage contracts, deeds or other dated documents. So the earliest researchers made comparisons to Hebrew in inscriptions and coins, which is not exactly the same as what might have been written on documents, which we unfortunately have almost none dated to the 1st century BCE or earlier. The dates thus proposed were largely wishful thinking (guesses) that magically coincided with the critics opinion about the value of the DSS for interpreting the development of Judaism or influenced early Christianity.

On the other hand, the Oxyrhynchus deposits included many fragments of dated legal or tax documents that range from as much as two or three centuries. So, it becomes possible to match up fragments and identify handwriting style ("hands") of individual scribes. Then they made stabs at further identifing scribal "schools" and how the writing style of that school changed over the years.

This sort of thing is even more precise when it comes to identifying medieval European hands, especially in Latin, because there you have many many thousands of complete manuscripts to compare.

While they didn't have that luxury with the Oxyrhynchus papyri, I feel they could make sound assumptions.

The dates that G & H assigned individual papyri usually have a margin of error of 50 years either way, unless they say otherwise. However, this is the "otherwise" case. G & H had this to say about P. Oxy 405 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol 3, page 10:
405-406. Theological Fragments.
Plate I (405 and 406 verso).

We here group together fragments of two different theological works, which we have not been able to identify, both containing quotations from the New Testament.

405 consists of seven fragments written in a small neat uncial hand, which is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the latter part of the second.

The ordinary contractions qs, cs, his (all with overstroke]; and it is clear that the use of these goes back far into the second century.

Besides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotationrom St. Matthew iii. 16-7 describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin similar to those employed for filling up short hues, e.g. in Fr.(a) ll. 9 and 13
.

Translated:

not later than the first half of the third century, means 201-250 CE. The extreme "most recent" date would be 250 CE.

and might be as old as the latter part of the second means 180-200 CE. "Might" does not mean "probably is", but expresses an extreme limit for the "earliest" possible date.

All that means is, at extremes, it was probably written between 180 and 250 CE. The median date would then be 215 CE. That would allow 35 years for a copy of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, written ca. 180 CE, to get to Egypt.

Lugdunum in Gaul was a *major* stop in the Roman military supply chain for legions active in the north, and Egypt was at the other side of a *major* civilian wheat supply chain that sent countless ships to Rome. Retainers of the elite classes/military officers and private businesspersons/merchants probably traveled along it all the time, where items could exchange hands. "I'll gladly trade you this spare mss of Irenaeus if you give me your copy of that wild & crazy codex with the epistles of Clement and Barnabas!" The other guy says "Do you have that in Latin?" :lol:

By the way, maybe I missed it, but who exactly identified P. Oxy 405 with Irenaeus AH? AH only survives (mostly) complete in Latin, not Greek. If one of the literary fragments of AH in Greek came even close to the Oxy fragments I think we can be sure that G & H would have quickly identified this fragment. But they admit the identity of the work escapes them. So, someone has had to do some pretty imaginative back translating from Latin to Greek to say "Ahah! This *must* be from Irenaeus AH!" FWIW, Matt. 3:16 occurs only in AH 3.9.3. Yet that passage in Matt. was also of interest to Heterodox Christians and Gnostics. A Google search got a lot of hits where this is assumed, but I'm just not seeing where someone gives a name to the person who connected the dots

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:06 pmBy the way, maybe I missed it, but who exactly identified P. Oxy 405 with Irenaeus AH? AH only survives (mostly) complete in Latin, not Greek. If one of the literary fragments of AH in Greek came even close to the Oxy fragments I think we can be sure that G & H would have quickly identified this fragment. But they admit the identity of the work escapes them. So, someone has had to do some pretty imaginative back translating from Latin to Greek to say "Ahah! This *must* be from Irenaeus AH!" FWIW, Matt. 3:16 occurs only in AH 3.9.3. Yet that passage in Matt. was also of interest to Heterodox Christians and Gnostics. A Google search got a lot of hits where this is assumed, but I'm just not seeing where someone gives a name to the person who connected the dots
I believe it was J. A. Robinson who made the connection. He probably did so on a hunch, originally, but what he wound up doing to demonstrate the connection is back translating the Latin version of this portion of Irenaeus into Greek and comparing it to the Greek found on the fragment. Later on Robinson's hypothesis was verified with the discovery of the Florilegium Achridense, a Greek florilegium which contained this portion of Irenaeus in Greek and lined up nicely with Robinson's back translation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by Charles Wilson »

DCHindley wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:06 pmThose damn authors of the DSS never dated anything.
Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 119:

"...But what is unique about these fragments is that they belong to a select group of Qumran documents mentioning identifiable historical personages, as the Nahum Commentary does with Anitiochus Epiphanes and Demetrius and the Paean to King Jonathon below appears to do with Alexander Jannaeus (c. 104 - 76 BC.)
...
"...these figures include 'Aemilius' (Aemilius Scarus, Pompey's general in Syria and Palestine), 'Shelamazion' (Salome Alexandra, d. 67 BC - Phariseeizing widow of Alexander Jannaeus, her eldest son Hycanus II...and possibly Shelamzion's younger son Aristobulus...In addition...possibly contains a reference to John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus' father..."

Hope this helps,

CW
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by DCHindley »

Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:09 am
DCHindley wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:06 pmThose damn authors of the DSS never dated anything.
Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 119:

"...But what is unique about these fragments is that they belong to a select group of Qumran documents mentioning identifiable historical personages, as the Nahum Commentary does with Anitiochus Epiphanes and Demetrius and the Paean to King Jonathon below appears to do with Alexander Jannaeus (c. 104 - 76 BC.)
...
"...these figures include 'Aemilius' (Aemilius Scarus, Pompey's general in Syria and Palestine), 'Shelamazion' (Salome Alexandra, d. 67 BC - Phariseeizing widow of Alexander Jannaeus, her eldest son Hycanus II...and possibly Shelamzion's younger son Aristobulus...In addition...possibly contains a reference to John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus' father..."

Hope this helps,

CW
Hey Charlie,

Don't deny that there are historical allusions in the commentaries. But no dates like you'd see in tax and financial documents. Unfortunately, there is such a diverse collection of documents written by literally hundreds of scribes, most of which are undatable, to *accurately* determine scribal schools.

DCH
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by John T »

DCHindley wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:35 pm
Don't deny that there are historical allusions in the commentaries. But no dates like you'd see in tax and financial documents. Unfortunately, there is such a diverse collection of documents written by literally hundreds of scribes, most of which are undatable, to *accurately* determine scribal schools.
DCH
DCH,
Granted this is going on a tangent but since you brought it up,what paleography evidence do you have that the Dead Sea Scrolls were inked by hundreds of different scribes?

I would guess that less than a few dozens scribes were employed at the Qumran scriptorium.

Professor Charlotte Hempel of the University of Birmingham, says; "I have suggested recently that the majority of members of the movement based at Qumran were probably illiterate..." Biblical Archaeology Review, Jul/Aug 2018 pg. 70.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by DCHindley »

John T wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:19 am
DCHindley wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:35 pm
Don't deny that there are historical allusions in the commentaries. But no dates like you'd see in tax and financial documents. Unfortunately, there is such a diverse collection of documents written by literally hundreds of scribes, most of which are undatable, to *accurately* determine scribal schools.
DCH
DCH,
Granted this is going on a tangent but since you brought it up,what paleography evidence do you have that the Dead Sea Scrolls were inked by hundreds of different scribes?

I would guess that less than a few dozens scribes were employed at the Qumran scriptorium.

Professor Charlotte Hempel of the University of Birmingham, says; "I have suggested recently that the majority of members of the movement based at Qumran were probably illiterate..." Biblical Archaeology Review, Jul/Aug 2018 pg. 70.
Hi John,

I believe I read it in one of the English translations I've been used to reading. Not sure if you were around during the period when Norman Golb's son Raphael, was posting here (maybe even FRDB days) under the name "anonymous" (this was required by the Judge that was overseeing his parole), but a lot of interesting things were thrown out for discussion.

As you probably know, Norman Golb thinks that the books were not from a "sect" but representative of a wide range of Judaisms active in the province of Judea. Sort of how we today box up our old print records, after scanning them of course, to store them in abandoned salt mines. They were sort of communal repositories for any scroll that contained the divine name. One of the reasons I heard he gave for this conclusion was the great number of scribal hands, more than might be expected from a relatively small sect, whether they be Essene or not.

I will have to look into this closer, but I bet if you were to search for "scribal hands" with "DSS" you'd get the result. It has been over 10-15 years since I have looked at these things, so my brain may be a wee rusty.

DCH
Post Reply