Introduction
For centuries, the lost Jewish-Christian dialogue Jason and Papiscus was known only through various fragmentary quotations and descriptions found in Patristic sources. This changed in 2011 with the publication of the Sinaiticus fragment: a newly discovered, large fragment of Jason and Papiscus.Footnote 1 The current article is an examination of what was previously known and assumed about Jason and Papiscus, and also an examination of the Sinaiticus fragment and how its discovery impacts the study of Jason and Papiscus. The examinations will be divided into the following sections: (I.) a summary of Patristic references to Jason and Papiscus; (II.) an overview of previous scholarly theories regarding Jason and Papiscus; (III.) a summary of the discovery of the Sinaiticus fragment, an examination of its previous publications, and a physical description of the fragment; (IV) previous observations about Jason and Papiscus reexamined in light of the Sinaiticus fragment; (V.) new observations in light of the Sinaiticus fragment; an appendix containing full quotations of all currently known ancient fragments of and references to Jason and Papiscus, including the Sinaiticus fragment; and new images of the Sinaiticus Fragment provided by Father Justin, the Librarian of Saint Catherine’s Monastery, where the fragment was originally discovered and still currently resides.
I. A Summary of Patristic References to Jason and Papiscus
Currently, the earliest surviving reference to Jason and Papiscus is a criticism of the dialogue found in the pagan philosopher Celsus’ anti-Christian work the True Doctrine (Ἀληθήζ λόγοζ).Footnote 2 This work was distributed in the mid-second century CE and now exists only as fragments preserved in Against Celsus, the Christian writer Origen’s third-century CE reply to Celsus. In one fragment, Celsus singles out Jason and Papiscus for criticism as a representative of both Jewish and Christian attempts at rhetorical allegory: “Jews and Christians try somehow to allegorize (their myths), but (their myths) are incapable of being explained in this way and are plainly very stupid fables. I know of a work of this type named The Dispute of Papiscus and Jason, which does not deserve laughter but rather pity and hatred.”Footnote 3 While Celsus refers to Jason and Papiscus, he does not, as far as we currently know, quote the text of the dialogue.
In addition to preserving Celsus’ reference to Jason and Papiscus, Origen’s reply to Celsus is also chronologically the next earliest reference to Jason and Papiscus. Origen refers to the dialogue by name in his response to Celsus.Footnote 4 Perhaps unexpectedly, Origen is contemptuous of Jason and Papiscus and writes that, by choosing the dialogue for criticism, “(Celsus) has chosen (a writing) whose style is not impressive, it is very basic … (and) would not excite the wise.”Footnote 5 In the lines that follow, Origen musters a more positive take on the dialogue and gives the earliest known outline of its contents: “a Christian discusses with a Jew by means of Jewish scripture and teaches that the messianic prophecies suit Jesus, and in a manner not ignoble nor unbecoming the character of a Jew, the other man opposes his argument with his reply.”Footnote 6 As far as is currently known, Origen does not quote the text of Jason and Papiscus.
Jerome referred to Jason and Papiscus in two separate works, both written in the late fourth century CE: Comments on Galatians and Hebrew Questions on Genesis. In Comments on Galatians, Jerome writes, “I remember in The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus, which is written in the Greek language, this expression: λοιδορία θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενοζ, ‘He that is hanged is cursed of God.’ ”Footnote 7 This quotation of Jason and Papiscus is not found in the Sinaiticus fragment. In Hebrew Questions on Genesis, Jerome presents another quotation of Jason and Papiscus: “In the son, God made heaven and earth.”Footnote 8 Jerome remarks that this Jason and Papiscus quotation was based on Genesis 1:1 and was the source of much confusion regarding the meaning of the section in Hebrew. It is of note that Jerome corrects this section of Jason and Papiscus, but, unlike Origen, does so in a way that does not deride the dialogue. This brief section of Jason and Papiscus is found in the Sinaiticus fragment.Footnote 9
Chronologically, the next reference to Jason and Papiscus can be found in Celsus Africanus’ introduction to his Latin translation of Jason and Papiscus, which is believed to date from the end of the fifth century CE.Footnote 10 This Latin introduction does not directly quote Jason and Papiscus, but does contain a summary of the dialogue’s contents that is more detailed than Origen’s earlier summary. Celsus Africanus’ summary reveals that Jason is the Christian discussant, Papiscus is the Jewish discussant, Papiscus is an “Alexandrian Jew,”Footnote 11 Jason’s teaching regarding the “Holy Spirit was victorious in the heart of Papiscus,” and Papiscus asked to be baptized (“receive the seal”) by Jason.Footnote 12 Like Jerome, Celsus Africanus also records that the dialogue was written in Greek.
John of ScythopolisFootnote 13 mentions Jason and Papiscus in a writing dated to the early sixth century CE.Footnote 14 John’s reference is brief, but important. John records that Clement of Alexandria, in the sixth book of Clement’s now lost work Hypotyposes (c. late second century CE), claimed Luke the Evangelist was the author of Jason and Papiscus. John corrects this attribution and assigns Jason and Papiscus to the pen of Ariston of Pella. John is the lone source for this information regarding Ariston of Pella as author of the dialogue. Until the discovery of the Sinaiticus fragment, John was also the lone source regarding the tradition that Luke the Evangelist was author of the dialogue. John further records that he read about the “seven heavens” in Jason and Papiscus; the “seven heavens” are not mentioned in the Sinaiticus fragment.
II. An Overview of Previous Scholarly Theories Regarding Jason and Papiscus
Before the publication of the Sinaiticus fragment, scholarly studies of Jason and Papiscus generally regarded speculation about the contents of the lost dialogue to be pointless.Footnote 15 After all, two summaries of the dialogue existed (Origen and Celsus Africanus), both summaries agreed with one another and both presented a Jewish-Christian dialogue that was similar to both roughly contemporary Jewish-Christian dialoguesFootnote 16 and those that came after it.Footnote 17 Because of this, scholarly work on Jason and Papiscus tended to focus on the question of authorship.Footnote 18 John of Scythopolis’ information that Ariston of Pella was the author of Jason and Papiscus forever linked the dialogue to the mysterious writer from Pella. As a result, most scholarly examinations of Jason and Papiscus also contained an investigation of Ariston of Pella. This immediately presented a problem, as John’s information about Jason and Papiscus also referenced an apparently parallel tradition that another author wrote Jason and Papiscus: Luke the Evangelist.Footnote 19
The possibility of two authors was an impediment to forming conclusions about Jason and Papiscus, particularly regarding attempts to date the dialogue. Eusebius,Footnote 20 the Chronicon Paschale,Footnote 21 and Moses of KhoreneFootnote 22 were in agreement that Ariston of Pella lived during the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135/136 CE); all three works refer to information about the revolt that they attributed to Ariston. If Ariston was the author of Jason and Papiscus, the dialogue could be dated to roughly the third decade of the second century, the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The possibility that Luke was the author of Jason and Papiscus changed the dating and implied that—at the latest—Jason and Papiscus was written at the end of the first century CE.
J. E. Grabe’s early (1699) investigation of both Jason and Papiscus and Ariston contained what became the most popular scholarly explanation of Clement’s reference to Luke as author of Jason and Papiscus.Footnote 23 Grabe focused in on what he claimed was a mistake in the Greek text of John of Scythopolis’ reference to Clement of Alexandria. Grabe “corrected” the Greek text and effectively did away with the reference to Luke the Evangelist as author of Jason and Papiscus.Footnote 24 As a result of Grabe’s work, many scholars accepted that only one person was mentioned as the author of Jason and Papiscus: Ariston of Pella. Grabe’s theory lived on into the twenty-first century,Footnote 25 before it was challenged by a detailed investigation of the Clement referenceFootnote 26 and then disproven by the Sinaiticus fragment itself, which indisputably refers to Luke the Evangelist as author of Jason and Papiscus on two separate occasions.Footnote 27
III. A Summary of the Discovery of the Sinaiticus Fragment, an Examination of its Previous Publications and Physical Description of the Fragment
While doing research in the library of St. Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai Desert, Dr. John Duffy unexpectedly discovered a large fragment of Jason and Papiscus (hereafter referred to as the Sinaiticus fragment).Footnote 28 Duffy was specifically searching St. Catherine’s library for works by Sophronius, the seventh-century CE Patriarch of Jerusalem. During this search, Duffy began reading a work designated Sinaiticus graecus 1807, an anonymous book of collected excerpts and commentary that focused on the dates and origins of important Christian events.Footnote 29 While the book had been catalogued previously by Vladimir Beneševič, the contents of the book had only been briefly summarized.Footnote 30 Duffy read through the first group of folios in the book and discovered a previously unknown homily on the Feast of the Circumcision by Sophronius. The sermon is internally dated to Sunday, 1 January 635 CE.Footnote 31 In the course of the homily, Sophronius indicates that he is going to expound upon a certain point and then introduces Jason and Papiscus, “The meaning of this … is mentioned in another work … the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus.”Footnote 32 Twenty–nine uninterrupted lines of text from the lost Jewish–Christian dialogue follow.
A. Duffy’s Initial Publication of the Fragment
Duffy’s initial publication of the Sinaiticus fragment focused primarily on demonstrating that the homily that contained the fragment was indeed written by Sophronius of Jerusalem.Footnote 33 The treatment of the Sinaiticus fragment in this initial article is brief but involved, although Duffy’s attempts to reason out some of Harnack’s theories about Jason and Papiscus are somewhat distracting.Footnote 34 Nonetheless, the establishment of Sophronius as author of the homily was accomplished.Footnote 35 This important achievement helps to demonstrate that the Sinaiticus fragment of Jason and Papiscus is indeed authentic and was recorded by a reliable writer.Footnote 36
B. Bovon and Duffy’s Publication of the Sinaiticus Fragment
Working with François Bovon, Duffy later published a separate article solely on the Sinaiticus fragment.Footnote 37 The article begins with an outline of the extant ancient references to Jason and Papiscus, then briefly summarizes previous scholarship on the dialogue, before presenting the full Greek text of the Sinaiticus fragment. This printed version of the Greek text is updated from its previous publication, with Duffy providing several helpful corrections to some small scribal mistakes found in the original Greek text.Footnote 38 Duffy and Bovon also provide, for the first time, an English translation of the Sinaiticus fragment. A section of comments on the Sinaiticus fragment and Jason and Papiscus follows.
While providing a good introduction to the Sinaiticus fragment, Duffy and Bovon fall into the same pattern set by previous studies: a focus on Ariston of Pella. As mentioned above, one of the main reasons Ariston became the focus of scholarship regarding Jason and Papiscus was because there simply was not enough tangible information about the dialogue itself to warrant a detailed investigation. This is not to say that there was a great deal of information available about Ariston of Pella at the time Duffy and Bovon wrote their article; there was not. A study published after Duffy and Bovon’s article demonstrated that Ariston of Pella was indeed a Christian writer of the second century CE,Footnote 39 but at the time their article was written, Duffy and Bovon could only assume that Ariston was a Christian, a writer, and active in the second century. The acceptance of these assumptions as fact, in turn, led the article’s focus away from the relationship between the Sinaiticus fragment and Jason and Papiscus, and instead attributed unwarranted importance to the relationship between Ariston of Pella and Jason and Papiscus.Footnote 40
Further, Bovon and Duffy’s article is lacking several essential components. There is no information regarding where the Sinaiticus fragment is actually located in Sinaiticus graecus 1807; that information is only in Duffy’s previous work. As a corollary to this, the actual length of the Sinaiticus fragment is not included in this article; this information also only occurs in Duffy’s previous article. Perhaps most vexing is that all previously known ancient references to and quotations from Jason and Papiscus are dutifully catalogued, but quotations of these sources are left out. Further, while Bovon and Duffy’s article details the discovery of the fragment, the article contains little reflection on or contextualization about exactly how and what the publication of this discovery changes regarding our knowledge of Jason and Papiscus, other Christian works, or Christianity in general.
C. Physical Description of the Sinaiticus FragmentFootnote 41
Sinaiticus graecus 1807 consists of 128 folios of parchment, with Greek text written recto and verso.Footnote 42 The text is in Greek miniscule script with a fair number of ligatures. The text has good word spacing; the letters are clearly formed and well preserved. Each page consists of an average of 24 lines of text with an average of seven to eight words per line. The digital images reveal that previous numberings of the folio were off by one folio side.Footnote 43 In this particular section of Sinaiticus graecus 1807, the unknown author/collector was interested in the Christian Sabbath (κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, “the Lord’s day”). The author/collector begins his study of the Sabbath with a brief quotation from a previously known work by Sophronius: the Sermon on the Nativity.Footnote 44 After this quote, the author/collector moves on to the previously unknown homily on the Feast of the Circumcision with the words “τοῦ αὐτοῦ,” indicating that this excerpt is also from Sophronius.Footnote 45
The section of Sophronius’ homily on the Feast of the Circumcision that introduces Jason and Papiscus begins at line 14 of folio 6 recto.Footnote 46 Jason and Papiscus is first mentioned at lines 21 and 22 of folio 6 recto. The fragment of Jason and Papiscus begins with the first line of folio 6 verso with the words, “(Papiscus) posed the question, Papiscus said, ‘I would… .’ ”Footnote 47 The fragment of Jason and Papiscus then continues on and takes up the entire page of folio 6 verso, 23 uninterrupted lines. The fragment continues on to folio 7 recto where it takes up five lines at the top of the page. Sophronius’ closing remarksFootnote 48 follow and run for 14 lines. The end of the closing remarks are the end of the quotation of Sophronius’ homily. The writer/collector then moves on to another topic.Footnote 49
IV. Previous Observations Reexamined In Light of the Sinaiticus Fragment
This section deals with previous observations about Jason and Papiscus that were the subject of debate in scholarship. The information found in the Sinaiticus fragment has impacted several of these observations.
A. Lukan Authorship of Jason and Papiscus
Before the discovery of the Sinaiticus fragment, the tradition that Luke the Evangelist wrote Jason and Papiscus was found only in John of Scythopolis’ section of Notes on the Mystic Theology of Dionysius the Areopagite (c. 537 CE), wherein John attributes the tradition of Lukan authorship to Clement of Alexandria.Footnote 50 This attribution was the subject of a great deal of debate in scholarly studies.Footnote 51
The Sinaiticus fragment confirms the existence of the tradition that Luke the Evangelist wrote Jason and Papiscus. In the framing sequences of the Sinaiticus fragment, Sophronius twice attributes Jason and Papiscus to Luke the Evangelist. In introducing the dialogue, Sophronius writes, “Luke certainly and clearly initiates us into this illuminating and lovely knowledge. The meaning of this typology is not in the divine gospel, nor is it in what he wrote about the acts of the Apostles, but it is mentioned in another work of his, and which having been devised in the form of a dialogue he named the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus.”Footnote 52 Later on in his sermon, Sophronius also noted, “And these things Luke, the divinely sweet (author) of the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus taught by (his) writing.”Footnote 53 Another important point is that Sophronius wrote the homily from which the Sinaiticus fragment came in 635 CE; this date provides a new terminus ante quem for the Lukan authorship tradition.
While the Sinaiticus fragment clearly indicates Sophronius was a believer in Lukan authorship of Jason and Papiscus,Footnote 54 we cannot currently know for certain where Sophronius received this tradition. Sophronius could have been reliant upon Clement of Alexandria for this information, or perhaps Sophronius’ copy of Jason and Papiscus contained some type of information that perpetuated the tradition. Nonetheless, the Sinaiticus fragment allows us to conclude that John of Scythopolis’ attempt to correct the tradition and associate Jason and Papiscus with Ariston of Pella was not entirely successful, as over a hundred years after the attempt, the highest-ranking Christian ἐπίσκοποζ of the city of Jerusalem (located roughly 130 km away from Beth Shean/Scythopolis) still openly stated that Luke the Evangelist wrote the dialogue.
With the Sinaiticus fragment, we can now update the literary appearances of the tradition of Lukan authorship of Jason and Papiscus: Clement of Alexandria knew of the tradition in Egypt near the end of the second century CE and accepted it; John of Scythopolis knew of the tradition—and corrected it—in Scythopolis/Beth Shean in the early sixth century CE; Sophronius knew of the tradition in Jerusalem in the second quarter of the seventh century CE and accepted it.
B. Independent Circulation of Jason and Papiscus
In Origen’s work, Against Celsus, we learn that the pagan writer Celsus wrote a criticism of Christianity which utilized Jason and Papiscus as an example of Christian writings he regarded as “nonsensical foolishness.”Footnote 55 In this critique, Celsus did not refer to Jason and Papiscus as being part of a collection. Rather, he refers to the dialogue directly and by name. Origen follows this same practice and also specifically refers to the dialogue as a separate writing or book.Footnote 56 It is also possible that Origen made a reference to the length or physical size of Jason and Papiscus. In the section in question, Origen writes, “Nevertheless, I could wish that all … could take the little writing into his hands… .”Footnote 57 Here, Origen describes the work as συγγραμμάτιονFootnote 58 which is a diminutive form of the word σύγγραμμα and can mean “the little writing” or perhaps “the little book.”Footnote 59 This may also be a further indication that Jason and Papiscus circulated independently.
The writings of Celsus Africanus provide evidence of a separately circulating Latin translation of Jason and Papiscus.Footnote 60 At the end of the fifth century CE, Celsus Africanus translated Jason and Papiscus from Greek to Latin and sent the translation—along with an introduction and outline of the translation—to the man he called Bishop Vigilius. Unfortunately, the introductory outline to the translation is all that survives.
In the framing sequences of the Sinaiticus fragment, Sophronius refers to Jason and Papiscus as “συγγράμματι” (written work or book) twice.Footnote 61 This indicates that Sophronius also regarded Jason and Papiscus as a separate work, unassociated with any other dialogue, and—because of his belief in Lukan authorship of the dialogue—a book he held in the highest esteem.
C. The Possibility that Jason and Papiscus Circulated under another Title
It has already been established that the material found in previously known fragments of Jason and Papiscus was not quoted in any other Jewish-Christian dialogue.Footnote 62 The same can now be said about the material from the Sinaiticus fragment: it is not quoted or used in any other known Jewish-Christian dialogue. As a corollary to this, we may also safely state that the Sinaiticus fragment further demonstrates that Jason and Papiscus was not copied or translated into Latin and distributed with a different title.Footnote 63 The reasons for these occurrences are currently unknown.Footnote 64
V. New Observations in Light of the Sinaiticus Fragment
The following section details new observations regarding the text of the Sinaiticus fragment. If any component of these new observations were made previously, the current author has made every attempt to note it.
A. All Quotations of the Bible Found in Fragments of Jason and Papiscus are from Mosaic Material
When examined with previously known fragments of the dialogue, the Sinaiticus fragment demonstrates further the exclusive use of Mosaic material by the two discussants as the foundation of their arguments.Footnote 65 The use of the term “Mosiac material” denotes both identifiable quotations from the Pentateuch/Torah and references to and quotations from writings cited by the author of the document as Mosaic with no parallel in any known Mosaic work. Jason and Papiscus’s apparently exclusive utilization of Mosaic material is unlike any other Jewish-Christian dialogue currently known. This fits in with Origen’s description of Jason and Papiscus as “a writing in which a Christian discusses with a Jew by means of Jewish scripture… .”Footnote 66
Being limited to the Mosaic material certainly does not hinder the creativity of the Christian respondent Jason. Among other examples, Jason uses quotations from this material to claim that “Christ” was active in the creation of the worldFootnote 67 and also utilizes quotations of Mosaic material to claim that the Christian holy day of Sunday was originally established by both God and Moses as a day holier than the Jewish Sabbath.Footnote 68
B. There are Many Similarities between Jason and Papiscus and the Epistle of Barnabas
The Sinaiticus fragment of Jason and Papiscus contains several similarities with the Epistle of Barnabas. Perhaps most striking is a Greek quotation of the Pentateuch/Torah used by the Christian discussant Jason.Footnote 69 The section reads: “In this way, God commanded this through Moses, saying: ‘Behold! I am making the last things just as the first.’ ”Footnote 70 From the way this section is constructed, it seems clear that Jason is quoting what he considered the Pentateuch/Torah.
Upon first impression, one could contend that perhaps the author of the dialogue intended to portray Jason as quoting a document other than the Pentateuch/Torah. The next section, however, negates this possibility: “… the beginning of the entire universe took place, as also the scripture of Moses mentions, just as God spoke, ‘let there be light and there was light.’ ”Footnote 71 The inclusion of the Greek words “ὡζ καὶ” in the second quotation indicates that the author of Jason’s narrative regarded both the first quotation about the “last things” and the second quotation about “let there be light” as part of the “scripture of Moses.”
It is important to point out that while the author of Jason and Papiscus regarded the “last things” quotation as part of the “scripture of Moses,” the quotation is not in the current received text of the Hebrew Torah or in any current edition of the Old Greek Pentateuch. However, this “last things” section can be found in Barn. 6.13 in a construction nearly identical to that found in the Sinaiticus fragment: “And the Lord says, ‘Behold! I am making the last things just as the first.’ ”Footnote 72
In this section of Barnabas, which is entitled, “What Does the Other Prophet, Moses, Say to Them,”Footnote 73 Barnabas takes various quotations from the writings of Moses (the Pentateuch/Torah) and expounds on how the quotations refer to Christ.Footnote 74 In this particular line, Barnabas clearly presents “Behold! I am making …” as a statement of God (“the Lord says …”). However, due to both the construction of the section and the fact that “Behold! I am making …” is not in any current copy of the Pentateuch/Torah, it was previously difficult to determine if Barnabas claimed the quote was from Mosaic material. The fact that this same quote is used by Jason and Papiscus and is explicitly referred to in the dialogue as coming from the “scripture of Moses” indicates that Barnabas used the quote in the same way: as a quotation of what the author believed to be Mosaic material.
Another point of close similarity between Jason and Papiscus and Barnabas is a claim from the Sinaiticus fragment that God established an “eighth day” (“ὀγδοάδα”) as the Christian Sabbath. In the Sinaiticus fragment, Jason says, “it is the day of the coming of ages; it falls on the eighth but is about to raise up the righteous in incorruption, in the Kingdom of God… . For the day of the Sabbath falls into rest, because it is the seventh day.”Footnote 75 Barn. 15.8 has the same concept along with similar language, “(God) is saying your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but (the Sabbath) which I have prepared, in which, when I have rested everything, I will make the beginning of an eighth day–that is, the beginning of another world.”Footnote 76 This conception of the Christian Sabbath has no known parallel outside of Jason and Papiscus and Barnabas.
The Sinaiticus fragment also claims that on this “new Sabbath,” “(the Messiah) rose again from the dead … and after he was seen (by) his disciples, that is to say his apostles, he went up to heaven.”Footnote 77 Barn. 15.9 has strikingly similar language, “Therefore, we also observe the eighth day as a time of rejoicing, for on it Jesus both arose from the dead and after he had appeared (again) ascended into the heavens.”Footnote 78
C. The Sinaiticus Fragment Contains a Unique Section that Describes the Logos of God and its Role in Creation
The section occurs in lines 13–15 of the Sinaiticus fragment, after a section where Jason has just recited Gen 1:3 to Papiscus, “Let there be light and there was light.” Jason continues, saying, “The Logos which came forth from God and made the light was Christ, the son of God through whom all things came to be.”Footnote 79 This is similar to the canonical Gospel of John 1:1 and 1:3: “… and the Logos was with God and God was the Logos… through him all (things) came to be.”Footnote 80 This seems to be the section of Jason and Papiscus that Jerome goes to great lengths to correct in his work Hebrew Questions on Genesis.Footnote 81
In this section, the Sinaiticus fragment is unambiguous regarding the identity of the Logos: it is Christ, “The Logos … was Christ… .” The similar section from John does not contain this identification, and it does not mention “Christ” at all. John is, however, clear about the Logos’ role in relation to God: “… the Logos was from God and God was the Logos… .” The Logos section from the Sinaiticus fragment does not refer to this concept in any way. In fact, the arrangement of words in the Sinaiticus fragment could leave the section open to a different interpretation, “The Logos which came forth from God and made the light was Christ, the son of God… .” The Logos is Christ and Christ is the son of God, but at no point does this section put forth the teaching that Christ is also God.
Jason and Papiscus’ trinitarian imprecision about the nature of Christ as God could have left the dialogue open to accusations of vacillation or heresy.Footnote 82 In early Christian communities of the second–fourth centuries CE, there were differences of opinion regarding trinitarian concepts and, relatively quickly, differences of opinion turned into internecine accusations and schism.Footnote 83 A common charge was that of “subordination:” teaching that Christ “the Son” came after, was created by, or was in any way subordinate to God “the Father.”Footnote 84 The Logos concept played an important role in several teachings about the nature of Christ later dubbed schismatic or heretical, and the adherents of these teachings often pointed to the Logos and its occurance in the Gospel of John as “proof” of their own opinion.Footnote 85 The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) attempted to address these and other matters and issued the Nicene Creed, which specifically addresses Christ’s role as Son in the Trinity.Footnote 86 Finally, it must be stated that the expression of the Logos concept found in Jason and Papiscus could be related to pre–Christian traditions about the Logos of God.Footnote 87
D. The Sinaiticus Fragment is Similar to the Fragments of Aristobulus of Alexandria
The majority of the surviving fragments of Aristobulus of Alexandria’sFootnote 88 writings are preserved in Eusebius’s Preparation of the Gospel and Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis and Exhortation to the Greeks. Eusebius quotes Aristobulus in a coherent, well-documented way; the same cannot be said regarding how the material appears in Clement.Footnote 89 For this reason, the Aristobulus material utilized hereafter is from Preparation of the Gospel.Footnote 90 In this work, sections of Aristobulus’ lost writings are quoted in three books: book seven (7.13.7–7.14.1),Footnote 91 book eight (8.8.38–8.10.18a),Footnote 92 and book thirteen (13.11.3–13.12.16). This final passage is the focus in what follows.
There are three distinct blocks of Aristobulus fragments in book thirteen of Preparation of the Gospel. The first block and the third blockFootnote 93 of the Aristobulus fragments are similar to the Sinaiticus fragment in structure, sequence, and subjects covered. Both the first block of text from Aristobulus (13.12.3–13.12.8) and the first of the Sinaiticus fragment (lines 7–15) begin with a section that focuses on the creation of the world through God speaking. Sequentially, both fragments next contain a section where each editor (Eusebius and Sophronius) interjects that he is moving on to another part of the work that he is quoting (Praep. ev. 13.12.9; Sinaiticus fragment, line 16). The third and last block of Aristobulus text (13.12.9–13.12.16) and the third and last section of the Sinaiticus fragment (lines 16–26) both end with a focus on the Sabbath, and both texts have an emphasis on the importance of a specific number: Aristobulus focuses on the number seven and Jason and Papiscus focuses on the number eight.
Beyond this surface similarity between the two works, there is a line from the Aristobulus fragments preserved in Preparation of the Gospel that is repeated in the Sinaiticus fragment.Footnote 94 In the first block of Aristobulus material (13.12.3), we read, “Just as Moses in the Law has said, the entire beginning of the universe was accomplished through God’s words.”Footnote 95 In the first section of text from the Sinaiticus fragment of Jason and Papiscus (line 11–12), we read, “By the word of God, the beginning of the entire universe took place, as also the scripture of Moses declares.”Footnote 96 Comparing the two lines, it seems clear that the line from Jason and Papiscus has been altered to better reflect Christian concerns. The fragment from Jason and Papiscus does not refer to the “Law” of Moses, but rather the “scripture of Moses.” The focus for Aristobulus is the “entire beginning” of the universe: the entire act of divine creation that began with, as Aristobulus writes, “God’s words.” Jason and Papiscus is concerned with “the word of God,” the Logos, not the “words” of God. This changes the emphasis in the sentence. The Christian perspective found in Jason and Papiscus views the Logos as part of God and with God before creation. Thus, for the author of Jason and Papiscus, the focus shifts from “the entire beginning of the universe” to “the beginning of the entire universe,” as the author of Jason and Papiscus has previously revealed the belief that “all things came to be”Footnote 97 through Christ as Logos. While both works claim to be citing a writing by Moses, the sections in question are currently unknown outside of the Aristobulus fragments and the Sinaiticus fragment.Footnote 98
In an often overlooked section from Against Celsus, Origen compares and contrasts Jason and Papiscus with Aristobulus (and Philo). Celsus writes, “At any rate, the allegories (Jews and Christians) have written about (Jewish and Christian myth), these are far more shameful and absurd than the myths; none of them at any point fit together since they join together strange and entirely nonsensical foolishness. I know of a work of this type named The Dispute of Papiscus and Jason, which does not deserve laughter but rather pity and hatred.”Footnote 99 To Celsus, Jason and Papiscus was merely one example of an entire genre of written works that he found offensive: Jewish and Christian attempts to demonstrate the validity of their “myths” through the use of rhetorical allegory. Origen gives us further insight into this section with his reply to Celsus: “By this, (Celsus) appears to refer to the writings of Philo, or to writers older still, such as Aristobulus. But I surmise that Celsus has not read the books, since it appears to me that in many sections they are so convincing even Greek philosophers would have been captivated by what they say… .”Footnote 100 Origen’s attitude changes completely when he replies to Celsus’ singling out of Jason and Papiscus as an example of a writing “of this type (Jewish and Christian rhetorical allegory).” In response to this, Origen writes, “out of all of these with a style of writing which contains allegory and narrative (Celsus) has chosen one whose style is not impressive … it is very basic … able to be of help to … the masses and the simple minded, but would not excite the wise… .”Footnote 101
On first impression, Origen’s negative attitude toward Jason and Papiscus is baffling. However, when viewed in light of the relationship between Jason and Papiscus and Aristobulus as revealed in the Sinaiticus fragment, a clearer picture emerges. Origen praises Aristobulus and Philo as “convincing” and “captivating” but criticizes Jason and Papiscus as “not impressive” and “basic” because he considers Jason and Papiscus to be a work that simply copied the style of the earlier Alexandrian allegorists.Footnote 102 Origen later writes that the dialogue contains “nothing worthy of hatred” and that it “does not even arouse laughter.”Footnote 103 Origen had no problem with the Christian themes of Jason and Papiscus, but he did have a problem with what he considered to be the dialogue’s embarrassing level of rhetorical unoriginality.Footnote 104
Origen’s comparison of Jason and Papiscus to the writings of Aritobulus and Philo is a further indication of certain similarities between the three sources. In Celsus Africanus’ Latin summary of Jason and Papiscus, Papiscus is described as an “Alexandrian Jew,”Footnote 105 and Jason’s reply to Papiscus (as preserved in the Sinaiticus fragment) appears structured as a point-by-point refutation of a (now lost) monologue by Papiscus.Footnote 106 This could indicate that Papsicus’s lost statement shared several similarities with the writings of Aristobulus in particular and the Alexandrian tradition of allegorical interpretation in general. While there are many connections that one could point to between Jason and Papiscus and Alexandria, this does not simply mean that Jason and Papiscus was written in Alexandria. Rather, what the Sinaiticus fragment reveals is that Jason and Papiscus was written in a way that made use of the Alexandrian tradition of allegorical interpretation of Jewish scripture. This effort was so successful that learned Christian figures such as Clement of AlexandriaFootnote 107 and Sophronius of JerusalemFootnote 108 accepted the tradition of Lukan authorship of Jason and Papiscus. With this acceptance also came the assumption that Jason and Papiscus represented a written account of an actual, historical event: a religious debate between Jason the Christian and Papiscus the Alexandrian Jew.
Afterword
The Sinaiticus fragment has proven invaluable in expanding our knowledge of Jason and Papiscus. As all good fragments do, it has also raised new questions. These include questions regarding the tantalizing similarities between Jason and Papiscus and the Epistle of Barnabas and the relationship between the dialogue and the Alexandrian allegorists. It has confirmed the tradition of Lukan authorship of the dialogue, but also raised questions about how or why this tradition started. The new section involving the Logos and its role in creation is interesting and open to interpretation regarding its meaning and possible origin.
Appendix of Full Quotations of All Currently Known Fragments of and References to Jason and Papiscus including the Sinaiticus FragmentFootnote 109
1.1. Origen, Against Celsus, 4.50–52.Footnote 110 A quotation from the pagan Celsus’ now lost book, the True Doctrine (Ἀληθήζ λόγοζ). Greek; Northern Mediterranean; ca. mid-second century CE.
(50) οἱ ἐπιεικέστεροι Ἰουδαίων καὶ 𝛘ριστιανῶν πειρῶνταί πωζ ἀλληγορεῖν αὐτά, ἔστι δ’ οὐχ οἷα ἀλληγορίαν ἐπιδέχεσθαί τινα ἀλλ’ ἄντικρυζ εὐηθέστατα μεμυθολόγηται… . (51) Αἱ γοῦν δοκοῦσαι περὶ αὐτῶν ἀλληγορίαι γεγράφθαι πολὺ τῶν μύθων αἰσχίουζ εἰσὶ καὶ ἀτοπώτεραι, τὰ μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶζ ἁρμοσθῆναι δυνάμενα θαυμαστῇ τινι καὶ παντάπασιν ἀναισθήτῳ μωρίᾳ συνάπτουσαι… . (52) Οἵαν δὴ καὶ Παπίσκου τινὸζ καὶ Ἰάσονοζ ἀντιλογίαν ἔγνων, οὐ γέλωτοζ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐλέουζ καὶ μίσουζ ἀξίαν. Ἔμοιγ’ οὖν οὐ ταῦτ’ ἐλέγχειν πρόκειται ἔστι γὰρ παντί που δῆλα, καὶ μάλιστα εἴ τιζ ὑπομείναι καὶ ἀνάσχοιτο αὐτῶν ἐπακοῦσαι τῶν συγγραμμάτων.
(50) The more reasonable Jews and Christians try somehow to allegorize [their myths], but [their myths] are incapable of being explained in this way and are plainly very stupid fables. (51) At any rate, the allegories they have written about them, these are far more shameful and absurd than the myths; none of them at any point fit together since they join together strange and entirely nonsensical foolishness… . (52) I know a work of this type named The Dispute of Papiscus and Jason, which does not deserve laughter, but rather pity and hatred. It is not my duty, however, to refute this nonsense for it is obvious to everyone, I presume, if anyone would have the patience and endurance to read the sections for themselves.
1.2. Origen, Against Celsus, 4.51–52.Footnote 111 Origen’s response to Celsus. Greek; Caesarea; mid-third century CE.
(51) Ἔοικε δὲ περὶ τῶν Φιλωνοζ συγγραμμάτων ταῦτα λέγειν ἢ καὶ τῶν ἔτι ἀρχαιοτέρων, ὁποῖά ἐστι τὰ Ἀριστοβούλου. Στοχάζομαι δὲ τὸν Κέλσον μὴ ἀνεγνωκέναι τὰ βιβλία, ἐπεὶ πολλαχοῦ οὕτωζ ἐπιτετεῦχθαί μοι φαίνεται, ὥστε αἱρεθῆναι ἂν καὶ τοὺζ ἐν Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφοῦνταζ ἀπὸ τῶν λεγομένων… . (52) Ἑξῆζ δὲ τούτοιζ ἐπιλεξάμενοζ ἀπὸ πάντων συγγραμμάτων τῶν περιεχόντων ἀλληγορίαζ καὶ διηγήσειζ μετὰ οὐκ εὐκαταφρονήτου λέξεωζ, τὸ εὐτελέστερον καὶ δυνάμενον μέν τι πρὸζ τοὺζ πολλοὺζ καὶ ἁπλουστέρουζ πίστεωζ χάριν συμβαλέσθαι οὐ μὴν οἷόν τε καὶ τοὺζ συνετωτέρουζ κινῆσαι… . Οὐδὲν δ’ ἧττον ἐβουλόμην πάνθ’ ὁντινοῦν ἀκούσαντα δεινολογοῦντοζ Κέλσου καὶ φάσκοντοζ τὸ ἐπιγεγραμμένον σύγγραμμα Ἰάσονοζ καὶ Παπίσκου ἀντιλογίαν περὶ 𝛘ριστοῦ οὐ γέλωτοζ ἀλλὰ μίσουζ ἄξιον εἶναι λαβεῖν εἰζ χεῖραζ τὸ συγγραμμάτιον καὶ ὑπομεῖναι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι ἀκοῦσαι τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵν’ αὐτόθεν καταγνῶ τοῦ Κέλσου, μηδὲν εὑρίσκων μίσουζ ἄξιον ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ. Ἐὰν δ’ ἀδεκάστωζ τιζ ἐντυγχάνῃ, εὑρήσει ὅτι οὐδ’ ἐπὶ γέλωτα κινεῖ τὸ βιβλίον, ἐν ᾧ ἀναγέγραπται 𝛘ριστιανὸζ Ἰουδαίῳ διαλεγόμενοζ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν γραφῶν καὶ δεικνὺζ τὰζ περὶ τοῦ 𝛘ριστοῦ προφητείαζ ἐφαρμόζειν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, καίτοι γε οὐκ ἀγεννῶζ οὐδ’ ἀπρεπῶζ τῷ Ἰουδαϊκῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ ἐτέρου ἱσταμένου πρὸζ τὸν λόγον.
(51) By this, [Celsus] appears to mean the writings of Philo, or of writers older still, such as Aristobulus. But I surmise that Celsus has not read the books, since it appears to me that in many sections they are so convincing even Greek philosophers would have been captivated by what they say… . (52) Next, out of all of these with a style of writing which contains allegory and narrative he has chosen one whose style is not impressive. It is very basic and, indeed, it is able to be of help to the faith of the masses and the simple minded, but would not excite the wise… . Nevertheless, I could wish that all who hear Celsus’ clever rhetoric asserting that the book called The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus about Christ deserves not laughter but hatred could take the little writing into his hands and have the patience and endurance to listen to its contents. He would then condemn Celsus, for there is nothing worthy of hatred in the writing. For if one reads it impartially, one will discover that the book does not even arouse laughter, in a writing in which a Christian discusses with a Jew by means of Jewish scripture and teaches that the messianic prophecies suit Jesus, and yet in a manner not ignoble nor unbecoming the character of a Jew, the other man opposes his argument with his reply.
2. Jerome, Comments on Galatians (Ad Galatas) 2.3.13b–14.Footnote 112 Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; Rome; late fourth century CE.
Memini me in Altercatione Iasonis et Papisci, quae graeco sermone conscripta est, ita repperisse: λοιδορία θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενοζ, id est maledictio Dei qui appensus est. Dicebat mihi Hebraeus qui me in Scripturis aliqua ex parte instituit quod possit et ita legi: quia contumeliose Deus suspensus est.
I remember in The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus, which is written in the Greek language, this expression: λοιδορία θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενοζ, “He that is hanged is cursed of God.” A Hebrew teacher, who taught me in some aspects of the Scriptures, told me that the passage could be read also in this way: “Because in disgrace, God is suspended.”
3. Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis (Hebraicarum Quaestionum in Genesim) verse 1:1).Footnote 113 Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; Bethlehem; late fourth century CE.
Genesis 1:1 In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Plerique existimant, sicut in Altercatione quoque Jasonis et Papisci scriptum est, Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam disputat: necnon Hilarius in expositione Cuiusdam Psalmi affirmat, in Hebraeo haberi: In filio fecit Deus coelum et terram; quod falsum esse ipsius rei veritas comprobat. Nam et Septuaginta interpretes, et Symmachus, et Theodotion, in principio, transtulerunt. Et in Hebraeo scriptum est, BRESITH (בראשית); quod Aquila interpretatur, in capitulo; et non BABEN (בבן) quod appellatur, in filio. Magis itaque secundum sensum quam secundum verbi translationem de Christo accipi potest. …
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. The majority believe, as it is written in The Dispute Between Jason and Papiscus, and as Tertullian in his book Against Praxeas contends, and as Hilary also asserts in the exposition of a certain psalm, that in the Hebrew it is “[i]n the son, God made heaven and earth.” The fact of the matter proves that this is a mistake. The Septuagint and Symmachus and Theodotion translated it as “[i]n the beginning” and in the Hebrew it is written BRESITH; Aquila interpreted this as “in the chapter.” It is not (the Hebrew word) BABEN which would mean “[i]n the son.” So, the verse can be applied to Christ more in its intention than in the translation of the word… .
4. Celsus Africanus, Ad Vigilium Episcopum de Iudaica Incredulitate.Footnote 114 An introduction to a Latin translation of Jason and Papiscus. Latin; Africa; end of the fifth century CE.Footnote 115
illud praeclarum atque memorabile gloriosumque Iasonis Hebraei Christiani et Papisci Alexandrini Iudaei discreptationis occurrit, Iudaici cordis obstinatam duritiam Hebraei admonitione ac leni increpatione mollitam, uictricem in Papisci corde Iasonis de spiritus sancti infusione doctrinam, qua Papiscus ad intellectum ueritatis admissus et ad timorem Domini ipso Domino miserante formatus et Iesum Christum Dei filium credidit et ut signaculum sumeret deprecatus Iasonem postulauit. Probat hoc scriptura concertationis ipsorum, quae collidentium inter se Papisci aduersantis ueritati et Iasonis adserentis et uindicantis dispositionem et plenitudinem Christi Graeci sermonis opera signata est… .
That noble, memorable, and glorious Dispute occurred between Jason, a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian Jew; the obstinate heart of the Jew was softened by the admonition and gentle chiding of the Hebrew, and the teaching of Jason on the giving of the Holy Spirit was victorious in the heart of Papiscus. Papiscus, brought thereby to a knowledge of the truth and the fear of the Lord through the mercy of the Lord, believed in Jesus Christ the son of God and asked to receive the seal from Jason. This is proven by the written account of their contest; they encounter each other, Papiscus opposing the truth, Jason asserting and vindicating the commission and fullness of Christ. The account is written in the Greek language.
5. John of Scythopolis (formerly attributed to Maximus Confessor), Notes on the Mystic Theology of the Areopagite, column 421.Footnote 116 Greek; Palestine; early sixth century CE.
Ἀνέγνων δὲ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺζ καὶ ἐν τῇ συγγεγραμμένῃ Ἀρίστωνι τῷ Πελλαίῳ διαλέξει Παπίσκου καὶ Ἰάσονοζ, ἥν Κλήμηζ ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺζ ἐν ἕκτῳ βιβλίῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων τὸν ἅγιον Λουκᾶν φησιν ἀναγράψαι.
And I have also read about the seven heavens in the writing by Ariston the Pellaian, the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, which Clement of Alexandria in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes states St. Luke wrote down.
6. Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, Homily on the Feast of the Circumcision. Greek; Jerusalem; 625 CE.Footnote 117
(6r)Footnote 118 καὶ μεθ᾿ ἕτερα· Λουκᾶζ οὖν ἡμᾶζ ὁ φανότατοζ ταύτην μυσταγωγεῖFootnote 119 τὴν λαμπροφανῆ καὶ ἐπέραστον εἴδησιν, οὐκ εὐαγγελίῳ τῷ θείῳ ταύτηζ τυπώσαζ τὴν μήνυσιν, οὐκ ἀποστολικαῖζ αὐτὴν ἐγγραψάμενοζ πράξεσιν,Footnote 120 ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἑτέρῳFootnote 121 αὐτοῦ διαμνημονεύσαζ συγγράμματι, ὅπερ καὶ χαρακτῆρι (5) διαλογικῷ τεκτηνάμενοζ ᾿Ιάσωνοζ ἐπονομάζει καὶ Παπίσκου Διάλογον.
Καὶ μετ᾿ ὀλίγα· ἐν τούτῳFootnote 122 γοῦν, φησίν, τῷ συγγράμματι, ὡζ ἐκ προσώπου Παπίσκου συν- (6v)Footnote 123 θεὶζFootnote 124 τὴν ἐρώτησιν, (Begin Fragment of Jason and Papiscus) Πάπισκοζ εἶπεν· “ἤθελον μαθεῖν διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν τὴν μίαν τῶν σαββάτων τιμιωτέραν ἔχετε” ᾿Ιάσων εἶπεν· “ταῦτα ὁ θεὸζ ἐνετείλατο διὰ τοῦ Μωυσέωζ λέγων, ‘ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ τὰ (10) ἔσχατα ὡζ τὰ πρῶτα·’ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν τὸ σάββατον, ἡ δὲ μία τῶν σαββάτων πρώτη ἐν αὐτῇ γὰρ διὰ λόγουFootnote 125 θεοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ παντὸζ κόσμου γίνεται, ὡζ καὶ ἡ γραφὴ Μωυσέωζ μηνύει, καθὼζ λέγει ὁ θεόζ· ‘γενηθήτω φῶζ, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶζ.’ ὁ δὲ λόγοζ ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ φῶζ ποιήσαζ ἦν ὁ 𝛘ριστόζ, ὁ υἱὸζ τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.” καὶ (15) ἕτερα ἀγαθὰ φήσαζ ἐπάγει λέγων “ἔνθεν οὖν γνῶθι, ἄνθρωπε, ὅτι κατὰ πάντα δικαίωζ τιμῶμεν τὴν μίαν τῶν σαββάτων ἀρχὴν οὖσαν τῆζ πάσηζ κτίσεωζ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῇ ὁ 𝛘ριστὸζ ἐφανερώθη ἐπὶ τῆζ γῆζ καὶ ὅτι τηρῶν τὰζ ἐντολὰζ καὶ τὰζ γραφὰζ ἔπαθεν, καὶ παθὼνFootnote 126 ἀνέστη πάλιν ἐν αὐτῇ ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ὀφθεὶζFootnote 127 τοῖζ μαθηταῖζ αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν τοῖζ ἀποστόλοιζ, εἰζ (20) οὐρανοὺζ ἐπορεύθη. καὶ ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν αἰώνωνFootnote 128 ἡμέρα, εἰζ ὀγδοάδα πίπτουσα καὶ μέλλουσα ἀνατέλλεινFootnote 129 τοῖζ δικαίοιζ ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, φῶζ αἰώνιον εἰζ (7r)Footnote 130 τοὺζ αἰῶναζ, ἀμήν. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα ἡ τοῦ σαββάτου πίπτει εἰζ κατάπαυσιν διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν τῆζ ἑβδομάδοζ. διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν ἡμεῖζ τὴν μίαν τῶν σαββάτων τιμῶμεν πολλὴν ἡμῖν φέρουσαν ἀγαθῶν παρουσίαν.” (End Fragment of Jason and Papiscus) Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν Λουκᾶζ ὁ θεσπέσιοζ τοῦ ᾿Ιάσωνοζ καὶ Παπίσκου Διάλογον συγγράφων ἐδίδαξεν, ὡζ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα … φεγγὴζFootnote 131 καὶ διάσημοζ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἡμερῶν πρώτη τῷ χ???? ??????????, ???ρόνῳ καθέστηκεν, καὶ τῆζ ἐνσάρκου τοῦ σωτῆροζ γεννήσεωζ ἡμέρα γνωρίζεται καὶ τῆζ αὐτοῦFootnote 132 ἐκ νεκρῶν (30) ἀναστάσεωζ, ὡσαύτωζFootnote 133 δὲ καὶ τῆζ ἀπ’ οὐρανῶνFootnote 134 αὐτοῦ δευτέραζ ἀφίξεωζ, ἥτιζ καὶ ἀδιάδοχόζ ἐστιν καὶ ἀπέραντοζ, οὔτεFootnote 135 εἰζ τέλοζ πώποτε λήγουσα, οὐδὲ ἑτέρανFootnote 136 μετ᾿ αὐτὴν παραπέμπουσα πάροδον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν τιμὴν καὶ τὸ σέβασμα ὑπὲρ τὰζ πολλὰζ ἡμέραζ κληρώσασα, ὡζ μυρίων ἡμῖν ἀγαθῶν παρουσίαν ἀπαρόδευτον τίκτουσα.
Among other things, Luke certainly and clearly initiates us into this illuminating and lovely knowledge. The meaning of this typology is not in the divine Gospel, nor is it in what he wrote about the Acts of the Apostles, but it is recorded in another work of his, and which, having been devised in the form of a dialogue, he named it the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. And after a little bit, he says in this tractate how the character Papiscus [Begin Fragment] posed the question, Papiscus said, “I would like to learn for what cause you honor the first day after the Sabbath.” Jason answered, “In this way, God commanded this through Moses, saying: ‘Behold! I am making the last things just as the first!’ The last [day of the week] is the Sabbath, but day one after the Sabbath is first, for on it, by the word of God, the beginning of the entire universe took place, as also the scripture of Moses declares, just as God spoke, ‘let there be light and there was light.’ The Logos which came forth from God and made the light was Christ,Footnote 137 the son of God through whom all things came to be.”Footnote 138 And when he had said other good things, he resumed, saying:Footnote 139 “Thereupon now know this, man, that above all we rightly honor the first of Sabbaths [Sunday] as being the beginning of all creation, because on it, the MessiahFootnote 140 was made manifest upon the Earth and by keeping the commandments and [fulfilling] the scriptures he suffered, and after he had suffered he arose. He rose again from the dead on it [Sunday, i.e. the “first day”] and after he was seen [by] his disciples, that is to say [by] his apostles, he went up to heaven. And that it is the day of the coming age of ages; it falls on the eighth but is about to raise upFootnote 141 the righteous in incorruption, in the Kingdom of God, the eternal light in the eternal, amen.Footnote 142 For the day of the Sabbath falls into rest, because it is the seventh day.Footnote 143 This, then, is the reason we honor the first of Sabbaths [Sunday], since it presents us with such an abundance of good things.” [End Fragment] And these things Luke the “divinely sweet” [author] of the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus taught by [his] writing. Since the Lord’s Day is a day that brings light, and it is obvious that it was established first [out of] the other days in time and was known as the day of the incarnation of the savior and of his resurrection from the dead. And also likewise, [it is the day of] his second coming from the heavens. And it also is perpetual and unending, neither into the end at any time ceasing, nor is any other day like it. And for this reason, it receives the honor and reverence from us above the other days, just as it bears the presence of a myriad of good things to come for us.
Images of the Text
