P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:30 pm
How P. Oxy 405 became identified as a fragment of Irenaeus Against Heresies, bk 3, sect 2-3:
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 3 405 (1903, p10 )
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 θς, χς, ιης occur ; 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 quotation from 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.
pg 11
16-22. Owing to the number of variations in the text of this passage (Matt. iii. 16-7) and the irregularities of the papyrus with regard to the ends of lines, as shown by Col. i, some of the restorations are rather doubtful. Both οὐρανοί in l. 14 and οὐρανῶν in l. 18 may have been contracted. In l. 15, πνεῦμα was written out in full, τό, and τοῦ, which are omitted by ﬡ and B, may have been also omitted by the papyrus ; and that καὶ, which is found in some MSS. before ἐρχόμενον, was not in the papyrus is fairly certain. The supplement in 1. 17 is rather short. The only known variant which would be longer is πρὸς for ἐπ᾽, found in several cursives. In 1. 19 there is certainly not room for the best-attested reading οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός: either the papyrus agreed with D in reading σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, or else ὁ υἱός μου was omitted or placed after ἀγαπητός.
Athenaeum (Oct 24 1903, p 548)
A PAPYRUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.
Deanery, Westminster, October 16th, 1903.
In their recently published volume of ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri ’ (Part III. p. 10) Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt give us an early Christian papyrus which they have not been able to identify. In describing it they say :—
“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......Resides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotation from St. Matthew iii. 16, 17, describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin.”
The fact is that we have here a scrap of the lost Greek original of the third book of Irenaeus adversus haereses. It corresponds with the Latin of III. 9f. (Harvey, II. pp. 31f.). When we see this, we are able to piece together all the disjecta membra save one (which consists, however, of no more than live letters). The following provisional reconstruction may perhaps enable the editors to read a few additional letters:—
Some portions of this reconstruction are, of course, hazardous; but it is plain that Irenaeus read αὐτόν ( = eum of the Latin), not αὐτήν, in Ps. cxxxi. 11, where the LXX. has both readings attested by good MSS. Moreover, it is now certain (as the editors of the papyrus had already ingeniously suggested as a possibility) that Irenaeus read σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ......(as D) in Matt. iii. 17. It is true that his Latin translator follows the more familiar text, and renders “Hic est filius meus," &c. ; but the tiny fragment numbered (c), which we are now able to fit into its place, actually gives us the word σύ. Following Codex Bezae again, I have ventured to read εἰς instead of ἐπ’, in order to get the additional letter required to make the line of the normal length (twenty letters).
J. Armitage Robinson.
Athenaeum Nov. 7 (1903 pg 616)
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI.
Oxford, October 23th, 1903.
A re-examination of the text of No. 405 in Part III. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri,' in the light of Dr. Armitage Robinson's extremely acute identification of it as a piece of the lost original of Irenaeus, III. 9 (Athenaeum, October 24th), enables us to confirm the correctness of his arrangement of the fragments and general restoration. Several of the mutilated letters which were previously uncertain or undeciphered can now be recognized, e.g., col. i. 4, κοιλίας is all preserved. The revised text will be given in full in an appendix to Part IV. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri ' next June. In the mean time the only important modifications of Dr. Armitage Robinson's provisional restorations which we wish to suggest are as follows. Col. i. 1, the reading proposed is unsuitable to the traces. It is difficult to find any restoration which will exactly agree with the Latin translation at this point, and perhaps there was a serious divergence, as in ll. 13-4. Col. ii. 6-12 (a quotation of Matthew iii. 16, 17), the small fragment (b) which remained unplaced belongs to ll. 7-9, and the whole passage should now be read and restored thus :—
Irenaeus thus agreed with the Codex Bezae in reading not only σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, but also ὡς in place of ὡσεὶ, a variant found in D alone, the presence of which in this passage of Irenaeus could not be inferred from the Latin translation quasi. These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose.
B. P. Grenfell.
A. S. Hunt.
Athenaeum (Nov 14 1903 p652)
THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.
Dr. Armitage Robinson, in your issue of October 24th, has made a very interesting discovery, in which we are not only presented with an almost contemporary fragment of one of the most important of the Fathers, but are also enriched en route with fresh suggestions as to the antiquity of the Greek text of Codex Bezae and its relation to the text of the New Testament employed by Irenaeus. In filling up, however, the blanks of the papyrus from the printed Latin text of Irenaeus, Dr. Robinson has followed his supplementary authority in too servile a manner.
It will not do to restore the missing words relating to the Star that comes out of Jacob in the following manner :—
The name of Balaam did not stand there : first, because, as the critical apparatus will show, the Clermont and Vossian copies of Irenaeus read not " Balaam " but " Ysaias" ; Harvey says, in his usual wooden manner, " by a similarity of error." Second, the very same substitution is found in Justin Martyr's ' First Apology,' at the thirty-second chapter, as follows :—
καὶ Ἠσαίας δέ ἄλλος προφήτης, τὰ αὐτὰ δι᾽
ἄλλων ῥήσεων προφητεύων οὕτως εἶπεν·
Ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, κτἑ.
The similarity of error, as Harvey would say, is sufficient to show that it is not an error at all, but that both Irenaeus and Justin are quoting from a book of prophetic testimonia in which the passage was referred to Isaiah. The importance of the observation is not limited to the single case discussed ; it is well known that there are many similar confusions, some of which go back to the New Testament itself. Perhaps before long Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt will dig up for us some fragments of this lost book of testimonies. J. Rendel Harris.
==========================================
Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 4 (Grenfell & Hunt, 1904. p 264)
APPENDIX II
A revised text of Part III, no. 405 (Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, iii. 9).
The seven fragments of an early Christian work published as 405 were identified by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson as belonging to the lost Greek original of Irenaeus' treatise Contra Haereses, which is extant only in a Latin translation, and when fitted together correspond to part of iii. 9. A provisional reconstruction was given by him in Athenaeum, Oct. 24, 1903; cf. our note, ibid., Nov. 7, and that of Dr. Rendel Harris, ibid., Nov. 14. We now print a revised text of the whole. The chief interest of the discovery lies in the resulting correspondence between the readings of Irenaeus' quotation from Matt. iii. 16-7 in ll. 23-9 and those of the Codex Bezae. The Latin translation there has the ordinary reading Hic est (filius meus), whereas the original agrees with D in having (l. 28) σὺ ε[ἶ in place of οὗτός ἐστιν, and a variant peculiar to D (ὡς for ὡσεὶ before περιστερὰν) occurs in 1. 25 (Lat. quasi). ' These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which the one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose ' (Athen., Nov. 7).
p 265
13·ἐπαγγελλόμενος would be expected (annutiliatus Lat.), but the letter before αγγ is more like τ or γ than π.
14-5. The Latin has el huius filius qui ex fructu ventris David, id est ex David virgine et Emmanuel, cuius el stellam &c. The papyrus version is much shorter.
16. For Ησαιας instead of Βαλααμ cf. Rendel Harris, Athen., Nov. 14.
31. The Latin has in Iesum, neque alius quidern Christus. The supposed v of Ιv is more like η, but it is impossible to read Ιηv, and for the omission of η in the earliest contractions of Ἰησοῦς cf. e. g. 1.
Comparison between a "modern" English translation, R. H. Rambaut tr, ANF, v.1 (1885) = ANCL, v.9 (1869); and the surviving Latin translation, W. Wigan Harvey ed, Libros quinque adversus haereses, v.2 (1857):
col i.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.9.2:
... 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." [RSV Psa. 132:10-11/OG 131:10-11]
And again: "In Judea is God known; His place has been made in peace, and His dwelling in Zion." [RSV
Psa 76:1/OG 75.2]
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 ...
W. Wigan Harvey, p 31:
col ii.
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3.9.3:
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." [Matt 3:16-17]
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, ...
W. Wigan Harvey, p 32:
DCH
Updated 7/21/18, found some errors
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 3 405 (1903, p10 )
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 θς, χς, ιης occur ; 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 quotation from 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.
pg 11
16-22. Owing to the number of variations in the text of this passage (Matt. iii. 16-7) and the irregularities of the papyrus with regard to the ends of lines, as shown by Col. i, some of the restorations are rather doubtful. Both οὐρανοί in l. 14 and οὐρανῶν in l. 18 may have been contracted. In l. 15, πνεῦμα was written out in full, τό, and τοῦ, which are omitted by ﬡ and B, may have been also omitted by the papyrus ; and that καὶ, which is found in some MSS. before ἐρχόμενον, was not in the papyrus is fairly certain. The supplement in 1. 17 is rather short. The only known variant which would be longer is πρὸς for ἐπ᾽, found in several cursives. In 1. 19 there is certainly not room for the best-attested reading οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός: either the papyrus agreed with D in reading σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, or else ὁ υἱός μου was omitted or placed after ἀγαπητός.
Athenaeum (Oct 24 1903, p 548)
A PAPYRUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.
Deanery, Westminster, October 16th, 1903.
In their recently published volume of ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri ’ (Part III. p. 10) Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt give us an early Christian papyrus which they have not been able to identify. In describing it they say :—
“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......Resides its early date (it is probably the oldest Christian fragment yet published), 405 is interesting on account of a quotation from St. Matthew iii. 16, 17, describing the Baptism, which is indicated by wedge-shaped signs in the margin.”
The fact is that we have here a scrap of the lost Greek original of the third book of Irenaeus adversus haereses. It corresponds with the Latin of III. 9f. (Harvey, II. pp. 31f.). When we see this, we are able to piece together all the disjecta membra save one (which consists, however, of no more than live letters). The following provisional reconstruction may perhaps enable the editors to read a few additional letters:—
Some portions of this reconstruction are, of course, hazardous; but it is plain that Irenaeus read αὐτόν ( = eum of the Latin), not αὐτήν, in Ps. cxxxi. 11, where the LXX. has both readings attested by good MSS. Moreover, it is now certain (as the editors of the papyrus had already ingeniously suggested as a possibility) that Irenaeus read σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ......(as D) in Matt. iii. 17. It is true that his Latin translator follows the more familiar text, and renders “Hic est filius meus," &c. ; but the tiny fragment numbered (c), which we are now able to fit into its place, actually gives us the word σύ. Following Codex Bezae again, I have ventured to read εἰς instead of ἐπ’, in order to get the additional letter required to make the line of the normal length (twenty letters).
J. Armitage Robinson.
Athenaeum Nov. 7 (1903 pg 616)
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI.
Oxford, October 23th, 1903.
A re-examination of the text of No. 405 in Part III. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri,' in the light of Dr. Armitage Robinson's extremely acute identification of it as a piece of the lost original of Irenaeus, III. 9 (Athenaeum, October 24th), enables us to confirm the correctness of his arrangement of the fragments and general restoration. Several of the mutilated letters which were previously uncertain or undeciphered can now be recognized, e.g., col. i. 4, κοιλίας is all preserved. The revised text will be given in full in an appendix to Part IV. of the ' Oxyrhynchus Papyri ' next June. In the mean time the only important modifications of Dr. Armitage Robinson's provisional restorations which we wish to suggest are as follows. Col. i. 1, the reading proposed is unsuitable to the traces. It is difficult to find any restoration which will exactly agree with the Latin translation at this point, and perhaps there was a serious divergence, as in ll. 13-4. Col. ii. 6-12 (a quotation of Matthew iii. 16, 17), the small fragment (b) which remained unplaced belongs to ll. 7-9, and the whole passage should now be read and restored thus :—
Irenaeus thus agreed with the Codex Bezae in reading not only σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν, but also ὡς in place of ὡσεὶ, a variant found in D alone, the presence of which in this passage of Irenaeus could not be inferred from the Latin translation quasi. These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose.
B. P. Grenfell.
A. S. Hunt.
Athenaeum (Nov 14 1903 p652)
THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENT OF IRENAEUS.
Dr. Armitage Robinson, in your issue of October 24th, has made a very interesting discovery, in which we are not only presented with an almost contemporary fragment of one of the most important of the Fathers, but are also enriched en route with fresh suggestions as to the antiquity of the Greek text of Codex Bezae and its relation to the text of the New Testament employed by Irenaeus. In filling up, however, the blanks of the papyrus from the printed Latin text of Irenaeus, Dr. Robinson has followed his supplementary authority in too servile a manner.
It will not do to restore the missing words relating to the Star that comes out of Jacob in the following manner :—
The name of Balaam did not stand there : first, because, as the critical apparatus will show, the Clermont and Vossian copies of Irenaeus read not " Balaam " but " Ysaias" ; Harvey says, in his usual wooden manner, " by a similarity of error." Second, the very same substitution is found in Justin Martyr's ' First Apology,' at the thirty-second chapter, as follows :—
καὶ Ἠσαίας δέ ἄλλος προφήτης, τὰ αὐτὰ δι᾽
ἄλλων ῥήσεων προφητεύων οὕτως εἶπεν·
Ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, κτἑ.
The similarity of error, as Harvey would say, is sufficient to show that it is not an error at all, but that both Irenaeus and Justin are quoting from a book of prophetic testimonia in which the passage was referred to Isaiah. The importance of the observation is not limited to the single case discussed ; it is well known that there are many similar confusions, some of which go back to the New Testament itself. Perhaps before long Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt will dig up for us some fragments of this lost book of testimonies. J. Rendel Harris.
==========================================
Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 4 (Grenfell & Hunt, 1904. p 264)
APPENDIX II
A revised text of Part III, no. 405 (Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, iii. 9).
The seven fragments of an early Christian work published as 405 were identified by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson as belonging to the lost Greek original of Irenaeus' treatise Contra Haereses, which is extant only in a Latin translation, and when fitted together correspond to part of iii. 9. A provisional reconstruction was given by him in Athenaeum, Oct. 24, 1903; cf. our note, ibid., Nov. 7, and that of Dr. Rendel Harris, ibid., Nov. 14. We now print a revised text of the whole. The chief interest of the discovery lies in the resulting correspondence between the readings of Irenaeus' quotation from Matt. iii. 16-7 in ll. 23-9 and those of the Codex Bezae. The Latin translation there has the ordinary reading Hic est (filius meus), whereas the original agrees with D in having (l. 28) σὺ ε[ἶ in place of οὗτός ἐστιν, and a variant peculiar to D (ὡς for ὡσεὶ before περιστερὰν) occurs in 1. 25 (Lat. quasi). ' These two unsuspected coincidences between Irenaeus and D, of which the one is misrepresented, the other inevitably obscured by the Latin translator, indicate that the extent of the agreement between Irenaeus' quotations and the text of the Codex Bezae is even larger than what the imperfect evidence of the Latin translation has led critics to suppose ' (Athen., Nov. 7).
p 265
13·ἐπαγγελλόμενος would be expected (annutiliatus Lat.), but the letter before αγγ is more like τ or γ than π.
14-5. The Latin has el huius filius qui ex fructu ventris David, id est ex David virgine et Emmanuel, cuius el stellam &c. The papyrus version is much shorter.
16. For Ησαιας instead of Βαλααμ cf. Rendel Harris, Athen., Nov. 14.
31. The Latin has in Iesum, neque alius quidern Christus. The supposed v of Ιv is more like η, but it is impossible to read Ιηv, and for the omission of η in the earliest contractions of Ἰησοῦς cf. e. g. 1.
Comparison between a "modern" English translation, R. H. Rambaut tr, ANF, v.1 (1885) = ANCL, v.9 (1869); and the surviving Latin translation, W. Wigan Harvey ed, Libros quinque adversus haereses, v.2 (1857):
col i.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.9.2:
... 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." [RSV Psa. 132:10-11/OG 131:10-11]
And again: "In Judea is God known; His place has been made in peace, and His dwelling in Zion." [RSV
Psa 76:1/OG 75.2]
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 ...
W. Wigan Harvey, p 31:
col ii.
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3.9.3:
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." [Matt 3:16-17]
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, ...
W. Wigan Harvey, p 32:
DCH
Updated 7/21/18, found some errors