I am not sure if this is a proper comment for this forum as it
wanders into the field of apologetics, but I wonder what some of you
experts think about the following idea?

I think that P.Oxy.III.405 is an important piece of evidence to
counter arguments offered by Crossan, Pagals, Ehrman (I am not sure
though if he holds to this?) and other Jesus Seminar types who want
to place some of the Gnostic Gospels in the first century based on
documentary evidence of second and third century fragments (the
Gospel of Peter, etc.) The argument is that a surviving second or
third century fragment indicates a much earlier date of writing.

As a conservative, I've used the same argument about the Rylands
fragment to say that a proliferation of John by the early second
century indicates at least a late first century date for the
autograph.

Therefore, a mid-first century date for the Synoptics gains some
credence.

But a surviving Irenaeus fragment with a date of 175 to 225 puts an
extant fragment of his manuscript possibly in his own lifetime. That
turns the entire argument on its head. While this can be used to
predate the four Gospels since Irenaeus is quoting from them
constantly, it also can be used to argue for a later date for some of
the Gnostic Gospels and pseudepigrapha since it is not unnown for a
fragement that is contemporaneous of its author to survive to the
present day.

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
<voxverax@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings Jay Rogers.
>
> The name of the fragment you are recollecting is P. Oxyrhynchus
III.
> 405.
>
> It contains text from Irenaeus (not Tertullian). Specifically,
from
> Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 9, 2-3.
>
> There is an online image of P. Oxy. 405 at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg
> (Features of interest: the nomina sacra and the use of ">" to
> indicate a Scripture-quotation.)
>
> The thing to see here is the form of Irenaeus' quotation of
Matthew's
> record of what was spoken by a voice from heaven at Jesus'
baptism.
> According to the Latin text of "Against Heresies" the voice from
> heaven says, "Hic est filius meus dilectus" – that is, "This is my
> beloved son." (The passage being cited = Matthew 3:16-17.)
>
> In P. Oxy 405, though, we find – well, let me present the
surrounding
> content in "Against Heresies" III:9:3 first, adapted from the
> presentation at
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt
>
> The second part of chapter 9, in which Irenaeus uses several proof-
> snippets, wraps up like this:
>
> "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;"
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; and frankincense, because He was God, who
> also was made known in Judea, and was declared to those who sought
> Him not."
>
> Then the third part begins:
>
> "And then, (about Jesus') 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." 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 Savior 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 Isaiah also says . . . ."
>
> In P. Oxy 405, when Irenaeus gets to the part about the voice from
> heaven, instead of saying "This is my beloved Son," P. Oxy. 405
> reads – well, let me present the relevant part of the Greek text of
> P. Oxy 405, with line-reconstructions, attached by periods to an
> English translation.
>
> MH ZHTOUSIN. [ET FHSIN EPI]………..sought [Him] not/
> TOU BAPT[ISMATOS O MATQAI]………….the bapti/
> OS. ANEW[CQHSAN OI OURANOI]……….hew: were ope/
> KAI EIDEN T[O _PNA_ _QU_ KATA]………and He saw the/
> BAINON WS P[ERISTERAN KAI]…………..scending in the form of a d/
> ERCOMENON E[IS AUTON. KAI]…………..coming t/
> IDOU FWN[H EX OURANOU]……………….behold, a voi/
> LEGOUSA, SU E[I P _US_ MOU O AGA]……saying, "You ar/
> MHTOS, [E]N W [EUDOKHSA. OU]…………ved, in whom/
>
> Okay. There are two significant variants in P. Oxy. 405's text of
> Matthew: WS instead of WSEI, and SU EI instead of OUTOS ESTIN.
Now,
> today, I won't attempt to make a case for either of these variants,
> or diverge into a presentation of their supportive witnesses.
> (Because they are important, and deserve more than a by-the-way
> treatment.) As I said, the thing to see, for the subject of the
day,
> is that the Latin text of "Against Heresies" presents a different
> text of Mt. 3:16-17 than the text of Matthew 3:16-17 that is
> presented in the Greek text in P. Oxy 405. Therefore either the
> Latin translation of "Against Heresies," or the Greek text in P.
Oxy
> 405, has been altered. Considering that Irenaeus somewhat
> consistently used a "Western" text, and that the witnesses which
> support "SU EI" are "Western," it looks like it is the Latin
> translation which presents the altered text. The discovery of a
12th-
> century text containing this passage from Irenaeus in Greek
(Stephen
> Carlson could tell you more about that), and agreeing with P. Oxy
405
> at this point, further solidifies the point.
>
> (But that does not mean that the form of Matthew 3:16-17 quoted by
> Irenaeus is original. OUTOS ESTIN is supported by a broad spectrum
> of witnesses.)
>
> JR: "I understand that 1 Clement is included in the earliest
> codices. But what about Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
> etc?"
>
> Regarding First Clement: it is not in the very earliest codices
> extant, but inasmuch as those are Gospels-codices that is not
> surprising. Regarding the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus,
and
> Tertullian: they are not included in any codices of Scripture,
> afaik. Some interesting information about other non-canonical
> writings, though, can be obtained via a careful study of the
> Conspectus of Papyri at
> www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf
>
> (P. Oxy 405 is included in this list of early Christian papyri of
all
> sorts – non-NT as well as NT).
>
>
> JR: "I think I remember Dan Wallace saying something along the
lines
> that patristic quotes are undervalued in textual criticism."
>
> Yes; the production of critical editions of the patristic writers
is
> among the most urgent tasks in NTTC. The old collections by Migne
> are still a useful place to start, but not a satisfactory place to
> conclude, the analysis of the patristic writings.
>
> Yours in Christ,
>
> James Snapp, Jr.
> Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
> Tipton, Indiana (USA)
> http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html
>