The Jewish-Christian Dialogue Jason and Papiscus in Light of The Sinaiticus Fragment

The Jewish–Christian Dialogue Jason
and Papiscus in Light of the Sinaiticus

Fragment
Harry Tolley
[email protected]
■ Abstract
For centuries, the lost Jewish-Christian dialogue Jason and Papiscus was known
only through various quotations and summaries from Patristic sources. This changed
in 2011 with the publication of a newly discovered, large fragment of Jason and
Papiscus known as the Sinaiticus fragment. The current article examines the
Sinaiticus fragment, compares it to the previously known remnants of Jason and
Papiscus and examines the information from the fragment in relation to other texts.
Several important new observations are obtained as a result. This article—for the
first time—unites the Sinaiticus fragment with all of the Patristic material related
to Jason and Papiscus in one appendix, with all entries newly translated by the
author with updated notes. This article also contains new digital images of the
Sinaiticus fragment.
■ Keywords
Jason and Papiscus, Jewish-Christian dialogues, Logos, Agrapha, Ariston of Pella,
Sophronius, Epistle of Barnabas, Aristobulus of Alexandria, Philo, Gospel of John
■ 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:
HTR 114:1 (2021) 1–26
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

2 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
a newly discovered, large fragment of Jason and Papiscus.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 (Ἀληθής λόγος).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.”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.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.”5 In the lines
that follow, Origen musters a more positive take on the dialogue and gives the
1
Originally published by John Duffy in “New Fragments of Sophronius of Jerusalem and Aristo
of Pella?” Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag
(ed. D. Bumazhnov et al.; OLA 187; Leuven: Peeters, 2011) 15–28.
2
Section 1.1 in the Appendix.
3
Section 1.1 in the Appendix. See also section V.D below.
4
Section 1.2 in the Appendix. See also section V.D below.
5

HARRY TOLLEY 3
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.”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
κρεμάμενος, ‘He that is hanged is cursed of God.’ ”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.”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.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.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,”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.12 Like Jerome, Celsus Africanus also
records that the dialogue was written in Greek.
John of Scythopolis13 mentions Jason and Papiscus in a writing dated to the
early sixth century CE.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
6
7
Section 2 in the Appendix. This is a quotation of Deut 21:23. The reason Jerome mentions this
section from Deut is because Paul mentions it in Gal 3:13.
8
Section 3 in the Appendix.
9
See section 6 in the Appendix. See also section V.C below.
10
11
See section V.D below.
12
13
For generations, this section was attributed to Maximus Confessor. It was only through the
work of Rorem and Lamoreaux that John of Scythopolis was identified as the author of this section.
See Paul Rorem and J.C. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating
the Areopagite (OECS; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998).
14

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.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
dialogues16 and those that came after it.17 Because of this, scholarly work on Jason
and Papiscus tended to focus on the question of authorship.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
15
For more information about the reasoning behind this sentiment, see: Johann Albert Fabricius,
Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum qui veritatem religionis Christianae adversus atheos,
epicureos, Deistas seu naturalistas, idololatras, judaeos et muhammedanos lucubrationibus suis
asseruerunt (1715; repr., Hamburg: Felginer, 1725) 152–53; Martinus Josephus Routh, “Aristo
Pellaeus,” in Reliquiae sacrae (rev. ed.; 5 vols.; Oxford: University Press, 1846–1848; repr., New
York: Hildesheim, 1974) 94–109.
16
Justin Martyr’s 2nd-century Dialogue with Trypho. Jason and Papiscus is also similar to
fragments of 2nd-century Christian dialogues with non-Christians such as the Dialogue of Rhodon
with Apelles (also known as the Conversation of Apelles with Rhodon) and Octavius and Caecilius
(also known as Marcus Minucius Felix’s Octavius).
17
Such as: Simon and Theophilus, Gregentius and Herbanus, Timothy and Aquila, Athanasius
and Zacchaeus and Papiscus and Philo. There have been scholarly attempts to demonstrate that
part or the entirety of Jason and Papiscus was preserved in a later Jewish-Christian dialogue, but
these attempts have been unsuccessful. See section IV.C below.
18
For studies of this type, see: Andreas Gallandius, “Prolegomena,” in vol. 1 of Bibliotheca
Graeco-Latina veterum Patrum (Venice: Albritti, 1765), repr. as “Notitia” in “Aristo Pellaeus,” PG
5, columns 1271–86; J. K. Theodor von Otto, “Aristo,” in Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum
Saeculi Secundi (Jena: Dufft, 1861–1881; repr., 9 vols.; Wiesbaden: Sändig, 1969), 9:349–63; Louis
Ginzberg, “Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern und in der apokryphischen Litteratur,” MGWJ 42
(1898) 537–50; Adolf Harnack, “Das dem Aristo von Pella beigelegte Werk: Jason’s und Papiskus’
Disputation über Christus,” in Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des 2. Jahrhunderts
in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter (TUGAL 1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1882) 115–30; Louis Ginzberg,
“Aristo of Pella (in the Decaoplis),” in JE 2:95; Andreas Külzer, Disputationes Graecae contra
Iudaeos (Byzantinisches Archiv 18; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1999) 95–97, 122–24.

HARRY TOLLEY 5
and Papiscus also referenced an apparently parallel tradition that another author
wrote Jason and Papiscus: Luke the Evangelist.19
The possibility of two authors was an impediment to forming conclusions
about Jason and Papiscus, particularly regarding attempts to date the dialogue.
Eusebius,20 the Chronicon Paschale,21 and Moses of Khorene22 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.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.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,25 before it was challenged by a detailed investigation of the
Clement reference26 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.27
19
See Section IV.A below.
20
Hist. eccl. 4.6.
21
Chronicon Paschale, Year 134. For more information about this reference, see Harry Tolley,
“Ariston of Pella’s Lost Apology for Christianity,” Hermes 146 (2018) 90–100.
22
Moses of Khorene (also known as Movses Khorenatsi), History of Armenia, 2.60.
23
Johannes Ernest Grabe, “Aristo Pellaeus,” in Spicilegium SS. Patrum, ut et Haereticorum,
Seculi post Christum natum I. II. & III (Oxford: Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698–1699), 2:127–33.
24
For more detailed information about how Grabe achieved this end, see Harry Tolley, “Clement
of Alexandria’s Reference to Luke the Evangelist as Author of Jason and Papiscus,” JTS 63 (2012)
523–32.
25
See Andrew J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (VCSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 2003)
191–93; Lawrence Lahey, “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through
the Sixth Century (excluding Justin),” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. Oskar
Skarsaune and Reider Hvalvik; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007) 581–639.
26
Tolley, “Clement of Alexandria,” 523–32.
27
Section 6 in the Appendix; see also section IV.A below.

■ 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).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.29 While the book had
been catalogued previously by Vladimir Beneševič, the contents of the book had
only been briefly summarized.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.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.”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.33 The treatment of the Sinaiticus fragment in this
initial article is brief but involved, although Duffy’s attempts to reason out some
28
Duffy, “New Fragments,” 15–28.
29
Duffy suggests that the book was probably written in the 16th century. He quotes Dr.
Nadezhda Kavrus–Hoffmann, who notes the possibility “that the (author of the book) may have
copied an actual Hodegon manuscript” (ibid., 15 n. 2). Vladimir Beneševič examined Sinaiticus
graecus 1807 in the early 20th cent. (but noticed neither the Sophronius sermon nor the Jason and
Papiscus fragment) and concluded that the book dated from the 15th century or possibly the 16th
century. Vladimir Beneševič, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Graecorum qui in monastario
Sanctae Catharinae in Monte Sina asservantur (St. Petersburg, 1917; vols. 1 and 3.1 repr., 2 vols.;
Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965) 2:212–14.
30
In his description of Sinaiticus graecus 1807, Vladimir Beneševič noted that folios 4 recto –
136 verso were one group. He briefly described the entire group as “Starting off (with a) synopsis
of Michael Attaliota” (“Синопсисъ Михаила Атталіота. пачиная съ”) and then recorded a partial
sentence from this large group of folios before moving on to folios 137 recto to 140 recto and so
on (Beneševič, Catalogus codicum, 2:217). It is remarkable that Duffy (who consulted Beneševič’s
work) did not simply think of the entire section as a writing of the 11th-century CE Byzantine
historian Michael Attaliates (“Michael Attaliota”) and move on to another section or some other work.
31
Duffy, “New Fragments,” 24.
32
Section 6 in Appendix, lines 1–5.
33

HARRY TOLLEY 7
of Harnack’s theories about Jason and Papiscus are somewhat distracting.34

Nonetheless, the establishment of Sophronius as author of the homily was
accomplished.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.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.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.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,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.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
34
Ibid., 24–28. See also section IV.C below.
35
36
“The material from the Dialogue is the only part of the sermon fragments that is not written
according to the patriarch’s rhythmical formula of the clausula, and this in turn conforms to the
patriarch’s normal practice elsewhere when he quotes from Scripture and other texts . . .” (ibid.,
27). See also section III.C below for further information.
37
François Bovon and John M. Duffy, “A New Greek Fragment from Ariston of Pella’s Dialogue
of Jason and Papiscus,” HTR 105 (2012) 457–65.
38
Bovon and Duffy, “Greek Fragment,” 461–63.
39
Tolley, “Ariston,” 90–100.
40
Bovon and Duffy, “Greek Fragment,” 459–60.

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 Fragment41

Sinaiticus graecus 1807 consists of 128 folios of parchment, with Greek text
written recto and verso.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.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.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.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.46 Jason and
41
See section 8 for images of the Sinaiticus fragment.
42
128 folios would equal 256 pages of text.
43
One can see clearly where, at some point in the past, someone wrote consecutive Arabic
numerals in the upper right corner on the recto of each folio. Duffy’s numbering is exactly one folio
side off from the new images. Thus, when we refer to “6 verso,” Duffy has “7 recto,” and so on.
Section 6 in the Appendix follows the new numbering of folios; it does not follow Duffy’s numbering
of folios. For the convenience of the reader: one page (recto and verso) is considered one folio.
44
This sermon can be found in Christoph Von Schönborn, Sophrone de Jérusalem: Vie monastique
et confession dogmatique (Théologie historique 20; Paris: Beauchesne, 1972). See also Duffy, “New
Fragments,” 15.
45
Duffy notes this indication, but also goes on to demonstrate Sophronius’ authorship using
comparisons to Sophronius’ known works. Duffy points out the close similarities between the
Patriarch’s interesting usage of “prose rhythm, using the so–called clausula . . .” (Duffy, “New
Fragments,” 20) found in both the Patriarch’s previously known works and the new homily. By
using two different avenues of investigation that result in the same conclusion, Duffy establishes a
compelling case for Sophronius as author of the homily on the Feast of the Circumcision. Further,
Duffy points out that this unique style is confined to the Sophronius material (ibid., 24–26) and
does not carry over to the Jason and Papisus quotation, further strengthening the possibility that
Sophronius was copying Jason and Papiscus from a text at hand, rather than memory.
46
With the words, “Among other things, Luke . . .” (καὶ μεθ᾿ ἕτερα Λουκᾶς . . .). See section

HARRY TOLLEY 9
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. . . .’ ”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 remarks48 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.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.50 This
attribution was the subject of a great deal of debate in scholarly studies.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,
6 in the Appendix for the full section of text.

47
τὴν ἐρώτησιν, Πάπισκος εἶπεν “ἤθελον. . . .” Section 6 in the Appendix. Again, the line
numbers in section 6 are Duffy’s numbering of only the lines of the Sinaiticus fragment, not the
line numbers of each section of Sinaiticus graecus 1807.
48
These remarks are included in section 6 in the Appendix.
49
The next work focuses on a ruler named Gregory (Γρηγορίου). It is a relatively long work (or
excerpt), occupying folios 7 recto to 10 verso. It seems to feature King Gregory “The Patrician”
(600[?]–646 CE), a contemporary of Sophronius of Jerusalem. To the best of the current author’s
ability to determine, the work is unattested outside of Sinaiticus graecus 1807. This work is,
unfortunately, outside the scope of the current article. It is worthwhile to note that this work is
not listed in Beneševič’s brief overview of folios 4 recto to 136 verso. See Beneševič, Catalogus
codicum, 217.
50
John of Scythopolis states that the tradition came from Clement of Alexandria and then
corrects the tradition and attributes the authorship of the dialogue to Ariston of Pella. See Section
5 in Appendix.
51
See also section II above, for more information; see Tolley, “Clement of Alexandria” for a
detailed examination.

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.”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.”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,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 ἐπίσκοπος 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.”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.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 . . .
52
Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 1–5.
53
54
Before quoting Jason and Papiscus, Sophronius seems eager to introduce the dialogue,
describing it as “certainly and clearly” bringing to the reader “illuminating and lovely knowledge”
(Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 1–2).
55
This work was known as True Doctrine (Ἀληθής λόγος) and is believed to have been written
in the mid–2nd cent. CE. See section 1.1 in the Appendix. See also section V.D below.
56
Section 1.2 in the Appendix. In these passages, neither Celsus nor Origen makes any reference
to the author of Jason and Papiscus.

HARRY TOLLEY 11
could take the little writing into his hands. . . .”57 Here, Origen describes the work
as συγγραμμάτιον58 which is a diminutive form of the word σύγγραμμα and can
mean “the little writing” or perhaps “the little book.”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.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.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.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
57
58
Harnack suggested that Origen’s usage of the word may have also been a pun meant to further
disparage Jason and Papiscus: “. . . hat in dem Schriftchen (συγγραμματίον nennt es Origenes) die
vulgäre Art erkannt. . . .” With the new information from the Sinaiticus fragment, this possibility
seems unlikely. See Harnack, “Aristo,” 116 n. 1.
59
The usage of συγγραμμάτιον to refer specifically to a small/short length writing or book
can also be found in the following works: Longinus, On the Sublime 1.1: Τὸ μὲν τοῦ Καικιλίου
συγγραμμάτιον . . . ; Lucian, Herodotus 1:  . . . καὶ περιβόητος γένοιτο καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ τὰ συγγραμμάτια;
among others.
60
Section 4 in the Appendix. Harnack’s analysis of Celsus Africanus’ Latin introduction and
outline of Jason and Papiscus is still unsurpassed. See Harnack, “Aristo,” 120–21 (see especially n. 1).
61
Section 6 in the Appendix, line 4 and line 6.
62
Theodor Zahn, “Über die ‘Altercatio legis inter Simonem Judaeum et Theophilum Christianum’
des Euagrius und deren ältere Grundlage,” in Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen
Kanons und der altkirchen Literatur (Erlangen: Deichert, 1884) 311–12; Peter Corssen, Die
Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani (Jever: Mettcker & Sons, 1890) 1–34; Ginzberg,
“Aristo of Pella,” 2:95.

distributed with a different title.63 The reasons for these occurrences are currently
unknown.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.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. . . .”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 world67
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.68
63
Harnack (Die Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani nebst Untersuchungen über
die antijüdische Polemik in der alten Kirche [TUGAL 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1883]) proposed that
the 5th cent. CE Jewish-Christian dialogue Simon and Theophilus (also known as The Altercatio of
Evagrius) was, in actuality, a Latin translation of Jason and Papiscus. After much criticism from his
scholarly peers, Harnack later openly retracted the theory (Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur
bis Eusebius [2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893–1904; 2nd exp. ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1958] 1.1:95.
Page number taken from the 2nd edition.).
64
Perhaps the association with Luke the Evangelist is behind this; perhaps it is because Jason
and Papiscus developed a poor reputation. We simply do not know.
65
See also V.D below, for more information on Mosaic material in the Sinaiticus fragment.
66
Section 1.2. in the Appendix.
67
68

HARRY TOLLEY 13
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.69 The section reads: “In this way, God
commanded this through Moses, saying: ‘Behold! I am making the last things just
as the first.’ ”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.’ ”71 The inclusion of the Greek words “ὡς
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.’ ”72
In this section of Barnabas, which is entitled, “What Does the Other Prophet,
Moses, Say to Them,”73 Barnabas takes various quotations from the writings of
Moses (the Pentateuch/Torah) and expounds on how the quotations refer to Christ.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
69
This particular parallel was first pointed out in Duffy, “New Fragments,” 25. While Duffy
(“New Fragments,” 25) and later Duffy and Bovon (“Greek Fragment,” 463) note that some scholars
accepted the brief section from Barnabas as an agraphon, it is important to note that the way the
Sinaiticus fragment uses this section certainly lends a great deal of credence to the possibility that
this section is indeed an agraphon.
70
Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ τὰ ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ πρῶτα. Section 6 in the Appendix, line 10.
71
Tοῦ παντὸς κόσμου γίνεται, ὡς καὶ ἡ γραφὴ Μωυσέως μηνύει, καθὼς λέγει ὁ θεὸς “γενηθήτω
φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.” Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 12–13. “Let there be light and there was
light” is from Gen 1:3.
72
Barn. 6.13: Ἰδοὺ ποιῶ τὰ ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ πρῶτα. Greek text of Barnabas from The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (ed. and trans. M. W. Holmes; 3rd ed.; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2007).
73
Barn. 6.8: τί λέγει ὁ ἄλλος προφήτης Μωϋσῆς αὐτοῖς.
74
Barn. 6.8–19.

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.”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.”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.”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.”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.”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.”80 This seems
75
καὶ ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν αἰώνων ἡμέρα, εἰς ὀγδοάδα πίπτουσα καὶ μέλλουσα ἀνατέλλειν
τοῖς δικαίοις ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ . . . ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα ἡ τοῦ σαββάτου πίπτει εἰς
κατάπαυσιν διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν τῆς ἑβδομάδος. Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 20–24.
76
Barn. 15.8: ὁρᾶτε, πῶς λέγει οὐ τὰ νῦν σάββατα ἐμοὶ δεκτά, ἀλλὰ ὃ πεποίηκα, ἐν ᾧ καταπαύσας
τὰ πάντα ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας ὀγδόης ποιήσω, ὅ ἐστιν ἄλλου κόσμου ἀρχήν.
77
καὶ παθὼν ἀνέστη πάλιν ἐν αὐτῇ ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ὀφθεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν τοῖς
ἀποστόλοις, εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἐπορεύθη. Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 18–20.
78
Barn. 15.9: διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη
ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς. It is not clear if Jason and Papiscus and Barnabas
mean that Jesus was resurrected, appeared to his disciples, and ascended to heaven all in the same
day. If so, this is completely different from the tradition found in the Acts of the Apostles, where
Jesus was resurrected, appeared to his disciples, and then kept appearing to them for a period of
forty days before ascending to heaven. This forty-day date of the ascension after the resurrection
is part of the Christian “Feast of Ascension.” See Acts 1:3.
79
ὁ δὲ λόγος ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ φῶς ποιήσας ἦν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾿ οὗ καὶ
τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 13–15.
80
John 1:1 and 1:3: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος  . . . πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ

HARRY TOLLEY 15
to be the section of Jason and Papiscus that Jerome goes to great lengths to correct
in his work Hebrew Questions on Genesis.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.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.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.”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
ἐγένετο. . . . Greek text of New Testament from NA28.

81
Section 3 in the Appendix. Louis Ginzberg (citing this quotation of Jason and Papiscus by
Jerome) suggested that Jason and Papiscus represented a Christian Midrash about the Logos. See
Ginzberg, “Die Haggada,” 539. See also section I. above.
82
Perhaps this might explain why Ariston of Pella, claimed by John of Scythopolis as author
of Jason and Papiscus, is left out of Jerome’s On Illustrious Men, even though Jerome quoted
from the dialogue on two separate occasions (sections 2 and 3 in the Appendix). However, some
Christian elites, such as Sophronius of Jerusalem (section 6 in the Appendix) continued to make
use of Jason and Papiscus, believing that it was written by Luke the Evangelist. Others, such as
John of Scythopolis (section 5 in the Appendix), wrote to challenge the dialogue’s authorship and
therefore also its reputation.
83
According to Hippolytus (d. ca. 235 CE) incorrect teachings about the divine nature of Christ
were started by Sabellius, Praxeas, and Cleomenes in Rome and Noetus in Smyrna (Hippolytus of
Rome, Haer., Books 9–11 and Hippolytus, Against Noetus). Similar teachings were started by Paul
of Samosata, who began the Paulianist movement in Antioch around 260 CE (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
7.26–30). Paulianism is specifically addressed [and condemned] in Canon 19 of the First Council
of Nicaea. Interestingly, Clement of Alexandria’s work Hypotyposeis (which John of Scythopolis
quotes as containing the earliest information that Luke the Evangelist wrote Jason and Papiscus) was
accused of heresy for a similar reason by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the 9th century.
See Photius’s Library, summary 109.
84
Subordination was a key component of Arianism. Socrates of Constantinople (also known as
Socrates Scholasticus) records the dispute between bishop Alexander and Arius, the eponymous founder
of Arianism, in his Ecclesiastical History 1.5 (Socrate de Constantinople: Histoire ecclésiastique.
Livre I. [ed. and trans. Pierre Périchon and Pierre Maraval; SC 477; Paris: Cerf, 2004] 60–61).

its occurance in the Gospel of John as “proof” of their own opinion.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.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.87
D. The Sinaiticus Fragment is Similar to the Fragments of Aristobulus of Alexandria

The majority of the surviving fragments of Aristobulus of Alexandria’s88 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.89 For this reason, the Aristobulus material utilized hereafter is from
85
See Hans Schwarz, The Trinity: The Central Mystery of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress,
2017) 35–56.
86
Athanasius of Alexandria’s work “Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicea”
(De Decretis) is a good overview of the events of the council. See H.C. Brennecke, U. Heil, and A.
Von Stockhausen, “De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi,” in Die Apologien (ed. H. C. Brennecke, U. Heil,
and A. Von Stockhausen; vol. 2 of Athanasius Alexandrinus Werke; New York: De Gruyter, 2006)
xci–xcvii. The section of the Nicene Creed that addresses Christ’s role in creation is: “Through whom
all things were made . . . (δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο . . .).” Greek text from “Eusebius of Caesarea’s
Letter on the Council of Nicaea,” in Socrates’s Ecclesiastical History 1.8 (SC 477: 89–103). This
seems to be a clear reference to the belief that it was Christ as Logos through whom the physical
world came into existence. However, the word Logos is conspicuous by its absence.
87
The work of Daniel Boyarin has helped to advance the theory that the concept of God’s “Logos”
as an independent agent active in many things—particularly the creation—was a Jewish conception
before it became a Christian conception. See Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish
Christ (New York: New Press, 2013); idem, “Logos, a Jewish Word: John’s Prologue as Midrash,”
in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (ed. Amy–Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011) 546–49; idem, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity
(Divinations; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006); idem, “The Gospel of the
Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94 (2001) 243–84.
88
It is generally regarded that the floruit of Aristobulus of Alexandria was near the end of
Ptolemy Philometer’s reign (155–145 BCE). See J. Cornelis de Vos, “Aristobulus and the Universal
Sabbath,” in Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam: Papers on Biblical and Related Wisdom
Read at the Fifteenth Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap (ed. George J. Brooke and Pierre van Hecke; OtSt 68; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 138–54;
S.A. Adams, “Did Aristobulus use the LXX for His Citations?” JSJ 45 (2014) 1–14; Carl R. Holladay,
“Testimonia,” in Aristobulus (ed. and trans. Carl R. Holladay; vol. 3 of Fragments from Hellenistic
Jewish Authors; SBLTT 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 114–26; A. Yarbro Collins, “Aristobulus
(Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:831–42. The tradition that
Aristobulus was from Paneas is attributed to a mistake in translating on the part of Rufinus in his
Latin version of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (Holladay, “Testimonia,” 202 n. 14).
89
The Aristobulus material preserved by Clement is spread out among several references in the
Stromateis and Exhortation to the Greeks. Clement does not follow the same pattern when quoting
Aristobulus, as at times he names Aristobulus as the source of the material (such as in Strom.
6.3.32.5–6.3.33.1), but other times quotes the material with no attribution to any author (such as
Strom. 6.16.137.4–6.16.138.4). It is only from the material preserved by Eusebius that we can
identify some of the Aristobulus material in the writings of Clement. For a full list of the various
fragments of Aristobulus found in the surviving writings of Clement, see Holladay, “Testimonia,”

HARRY TOLLEY 17
Preparation of the Gospel.90 In this work, sections of Aristobulus’ lost writings are
quoted in three books: book seven (7.13.7–7.14.1),91 book eight (8.8.38–8.10.18a),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 block93 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.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.”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.”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
43–44. There is also a fragment of Aristobulus recorded in Eusebius’ Hist. eccl. (7.32.16–7.32.19),
which Eusebius states was preserved in bishop Anatolius of Laodicea’s work On the Pascha. This
quotation deals exclusively with astronomical observations made during Passover.
90
Edition consulted: Eusebius, Die Praeparatio Evangelica (ed. Karl Mras; vol. 8 of Eusebius
Werke; GCS 43.1; Berlin: Akademie, 1954).
91
This quotation is repeated in the Aristobulus material in book thirteen.
92
The fragments in this section consist of Aristobulus attempting to explain the references
(primarily from the book of Exodus) to God’s hands, arms and other anthropomorphic terms.
93
The second block of text (13.12.5–13.12.8) from Aristobulus is taken up with the quotation
of a poem called Sacred Legend (Ἱερόν Λόγον); Aristobulus attributes the poem to Orpheus. The
poem is also referred to in Aristotle’s De an. 1.518 and Cicero’s Nat. d. 1.38. The quotation from
Sacred Legend concerns the creation of the world by God (identified as “Zeus” in Sacred Legend),
and Aristobulus uses it to further his claims that the writings of Moses influenced the writings of
the Greeks.
94
The line in question, found in Praep. ev. 13.12.3, does not have a parallel in the material
preserved by Clement of Alexandria.
95
Praep. ev. 13.12.3: καθὼς καὶ διὰ τῆς νομοθεσίας ἡμῖν ὅλην τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου θεοῦ
λόγους εἴρηκεν ὁ Μωςῆς. . . .
96
γὰρ διὰ λόγου θεοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου γίνεται, ὡς καὶ ἡ γραφὴ Μωυσέως μηνύει.

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”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.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.”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. . . .”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. . . .”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
97
98
See section V.A above, for other occurences of Mosaic material in the Sinaiticus fragment.
99
100
101

HARRY TOLLEY 19
considers Jason and Papiscus to be a work that simply copied the style of the
earlier Alexandrian allegorists.102 Origen later writes that the dialogue contains
“nothing worthy of hatred” and that it “does not even arouse laughter.”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.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,”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.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 Alexandria107 and Sophronius of Jerusalem108 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,
102
There are strong indications that an Alexandrian school of rhetoric and allegorical teaching
was in existence in the 1st cent. CE. The writings of Philo of Alexandria indicate he was part of (or
a product of) a school of allegorical writers. On many occasions, Philo refers to other allegorists
and freely makes use of their material to the point where it is difficult to differentiate between
Philo’s original work and the allegorists he quotes. See David M. Hay, “Philo’s References to Other
Allegorists,” SPhilo 6 (1979–1980) 41–75.
103
104
This is further demonstrated by Origen’s claim that only “the masses and the simple minded”
would enjoy the dialogue. Origen assumed this group would have no experience with the Alexandrian
style of rhetoric and would find the dialogue compelling. Origen contrasts this by writing that the
dialogue “would not excite the wise,” because he considered “the wise” erudite enough to see the
dialogue as Origen did: a weak attempt to copy the Alexandrian style as exemplified by Aristobulus
and Philo.
105
106
It is important to point out that the Sinaiticus fragment begins with Papiscus asking Jason,
“I would like to learn for what cause you honor the first day after the Sabbath.” This may be an
indication that Papiscus had just finished explaining why the Sabbath was important to Judaism
and offered Jason the opportunity to explain the Christian holy day. Written accounts of rhetorical
discussions often follow this same pattern of one discussant finishing his thoughts and then politely
giving a topic to the other discussant. Cicero and Cato’s discussion in book 3 of Cicero’s On Moral
Ends (De finibus) is an excellent example (Cicero, On Moral Ends [ed. Julia Annas; trans. Raphael
Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001] 68–116).
107
108

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
Fragment109
1.1. Origen, Against Celsus, 4.50–52.110 A quotation from the pagan Celsus’ now
lost book, the True Doctrine (Ἀληθής λόγος). Greek; Northern Mediterranean; ca.
mid-second century CE.
(50) οἱ ἐπιεικέστεροι Ἰουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν πειρῶνταί πως ἀλληγορεῖν
αὐτά, ἔστι δ’ οὐχ οἷα ἀλληγορίαν ἐπιδέχεσθαί τινα ἀλλ’ ἄντικρυς εὐηθέστατα
μεμυθολόγηται. . . . (51) Αἱ γοῦν δοκοῦσαι περὶ αὐτῶν ἀλληγορίαι γεγράφθαι
πολὺ τῶν μύθων αἰσχίους εἰσὶ καὶ ἀτοπώτεραι, τὰ μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς
ἁρμοσθῆναι δυνάμενα θαυμαστῇ τινι καὶ παντάπασιν ἀναισθήτῳ μωρίᾳ
συνάπτουσαι. . . . (52) Οἵαν δὴ καὶ Παπίσκου τινὸς καὶ Ἰάσονος ἀντιλογίαν
ἔγνων, οὐ γέλωτος, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐλέους καὶ μίσους ἀξίαν. Ἔμοιγ’ οὖν
οὐ ταῦτ’ ἐλέγχειν πρόκειται ἔστι γὰρ παντί που δῆλα, καὶ μάλιστα εἴ τις
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;
109
Although mentioned in Bovon and Duffy’s publication of the Sinaiticus fragment (Bovon
and Duffy, “Greek Fragment,” 459 n. 13), we do not consider it possible, as J. E. Bruns claimed,
that a fragment of Jason and Papiscus could be found in the writings of Anastasius of Sinai (J.E.
Bruns, “Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, Philo, and Anastasius the Sinaite,” TS 34 [1973] 287–94).
While interesting, Bruns’ theory is based entirely on speculation. Anastasius never mentions Jason
and Papiscus; the existence of the document in Anastasius’ Hodegos is entirely the creation of
Bruns. Bruns points out one of the most damning pieces of evidence against his theory himself,
“[the writing in question] was written about 685 [CE] in the desert, where Anastasius had to rely
on his memory (Bruns’ emphasis) for the many patristic and conciliar texts he cites and which are
often enough, not surprisingly, found to be inaccurate” (Bruns, “Altercatio,” 292).
110
Greek text from Origenes: Contra Celsum Libri VIII (ed. M. Marcovich; VCSup 54;
Leiden: Brill, 2001) 267–69.

HARRY TOLLEY 21
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, 4.51–52.111 Origen’s response to Celsus. Greek;

Caesarea; mid-third century CE.
(51) Ἔοικε δὲ περὶ τῶν Φιλωνος συγγραμμάτων ταῦτα λέγειν ἢ καὶ
τῶν ἔτι ἀρχαιοτέρων, ὁποῖά ἐστι τὰ Ἀριστοβούλου. Στοχάζομαι δὲ τὸν
Κέλσον μὴ ἀνεγνωκέναι τὰ βιβλία, ἐπεὶ πολλαχοῦ οὕτως ἐπιτετεῦχθαί
μοι φαίνεται, ὥστε αἱρεθῆναι ἂν καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφοῦντας
ἀπὸ τῶν λεγομένων. . . . (52) Ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις ἐπιλεξάμενος ἀπὸ πάντων
συγγραμμάτων τῶν περιεχόντων ἀλληγορίας καὶ διηγήσεις μετὰ οὐκ
εὐκαταφρονήτου λέξεως, τὸ εὐτελέστερον καὶ δυνάμενον μέν τι πρὸς τοὺς
πολλοὺς καὶ ἁπλουστέρους πίστεως χάριν συμβαλέσθαι οὐ μὴν οἷόν τε καὶ
τοὺς συνετωτέρους κινῆσαι. . . . Οὐδὲν δ’ ἧττον ἐβουλόμην πάνθ’ ὁντινοῦν
ἀκούσαντα δεινολογοῦντος Κέλσου καὶ φάσκοντος τὸ ἐπιγεγραμμένον
σύγγραμμα Ἰάσονος καὶ Παπίσκου ἀντιλογίαν περὶ Χριστοῦ οὐ γέλωτος
ἀλλὰ μίσους ἄξιον εἶναι λαβεῖν εἰς χεῖρας τὸ συγγραμμάτιον καὶ ὑπομεῖναι
καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι ἀκοῦσαι τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵν’ αὐτόθεν καταγνῶ τοῦ Κέλσου,
μηδὲν εὑρίσκων μίσους ἄξιον ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ. Ἐὰν δ’ ἀδεκάστως τις ἐντυγχάνῃ,
εὑρήσει ὅτι οὐδ’ ἐπὶ γέλωτα κινεῖ τὸ βιβλίον, ἐν ᾧ ἀναγέγραπται Χριστιανὸς
Ἰουδαίῳ διαλεγόμενος ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν γραφῶν καὶ δεικνὺς τὰς περὶ
τοῦ Χριστοῦ προφητείας ἐφαρμόζειν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, καίτοι γε οὐκ ἀγεννῶς οὐδ’
ἀπρεπῶς τῷ Ἰουδαϊκῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ ἐτέρου ἱσταμένου πρὸς 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 mes-
sianic 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.
111
Greek text from Origenes (ed. Marcovich), 269.

2. Jerome, Comments on Galatians (Ad Galatas) 2.3.13b–14.112 Latin, Greek, and

Hebrew; Rome; late fourth century CE.
Memini me in Altercatione Iasonis et Papisci, quae graeco sermone conscrip-
ta est, ita repperisse: λοιδορία θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, 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 κρεμάμενος, “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).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 scrip-
tum est, BRESITH (‫ ;)בראשית‬quod Aquila interpretatur, in capitulo; et non
BABEN (‫ )בבן‬quod 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.114 An

introduction to a Latin translation of Jason and Papiscus. Latin; Africa; end of
the fifth century CE.115
illud praeclarum atque memorabile gloriosumque Iasonis Hebraei Christiani
et Papisci Alexandrini Iudaei discreptationis occurrit, Iudaici cordis obstinat-
Latin text from Jerome, Commentarii in Epistulam Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas (ed. Giacomo
112
Raspanti; CCSL 77A; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006) 90.

113
Latin text from S. Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis Presbyteri Opera Omnia (ed. J. P. Migne;
3 vols.; PL 23; Paris, 1845) col. 985–87.
114
Attributed to Cyprian. Latin text from S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia (ed. G. Hartel;
3 vols.; CSEL 3; Vienna: Geroldi, 1871) 3:128.
115
For the reasons behind this dating, see Harnack, “Aristo,” 121.

HARRY TOLLEY 23
am 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 He-
brew 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 op-
posing 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 421.116 Greek; Palestine; early sixth
century CE.
Ἀνέγνων δὲ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐν τῇ συγγεγραμμένῃ Ἀρίστωνι τῷ
Πελλαίῳ διαλέξει Παπίσκου καὶ Ἰάσονος, ἥν Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς 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.117
116
Greek text from “S. Maximi Scholia in Lib. De Mystica Theologia,” in S. Dionysii Areopagitae
Opera Omnia quae Exstant et Commentarii quibus Illustrantur (ed. J. P. Migne; PG 4; Paris, 1857)
col. 421.
117
Greek text taken from Duffy, “New Fragments,” 16–18, and compared to new digital images
of Sinaiticus graecus 1807 by the current author. The critical apparatus for the text is as follows:
In footnotes to the Greek text, the first words are Duffy’s alteration to the text (indicated by “D”),
the second words are the original Greek from the Sinaiticus text (indicated by “S”). Duffy’s Latin
remarks on various sections from the text are also included and are also from “New Fragments.”
Note: the numbering of folios does not follow Duffy’s numbering, as the folio numbers written on
the pages of Sinaiticus graecus 1807 are exactly one folio side behind Duffy’s numbering. When
Duffy refers to “folio 7 recto” the Sinaiticus pages have “folio 6 verso” and so on. Line numbering
begins at the start of the fragment, with the introductory discussion to Jason and Papiscus, not the
top of the manuscript page.

(6r)118 καὶ μεθ᾿ ἕτερα· Λουκᾶς οὖν ἡμᾶς ὁ φανότατος ταύτην μυσταγωγεῖ119
τὴν λαμπροφανῆ καὶ ἐπέραστον εἴδησιν, οὐκ εὐαγγελίῳ τῷ θείῳ ταύτης
τυπώσας τὴν μήνυσιν, οὐκ ἀποστολικαῖς αὐτὴν ἐγγραψάμενος πράξεσιν,120
ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἑτέρῳ121 αὐτοῦ διαμνημονεύσας συγγράμματι, ὅπερ καὶ χαρακτῆρι
(5) διαλογικῷ τεκτηνάμενος ᾿Ιάσωνος ἐπονομάζει καὶ Παπίσκου Διάλογον.
Καὶ μετ᾿ ὀλίγα· ἐν τούτῳ122 γοῦν, φησίν, τῷ συγγράμματι, ὡς ἐκ προσώπου
Παπίσκου συν- (6v)123 θεὶς124 τὴν ἐρώτησιν, (Begin Fragment of Jason and
Papiscus) Πάπισκος εἶπεν· “ἤθελον μαθεῖν διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν τὴν μίαν τῶν
σαββάτων τιμιωτέραν ἔχετε” ᾿Ιάσων εἶπεν· “ταῦτα ὁ θεὸς ἐνετείλατο διὰ τοῦ
Μωυσέως λέγων, ‘ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ τὰ (10) ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ πρῶτα·’ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν
τὸ σάββατον, ἡ δὲ μία τῶν σαββάτων πρώτη ἐν αὐτῇ γὰρ διὰ λόγου125 θεοῦ
ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου γίνεται, ὡς καὶ ἡ γραφὴ Μωυσέως μηνύει, καθὼς
λέγει ὁ θεός· ‘γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.’ ὁ δὲ λόγος ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ τὸ φῶς ποιήσας ἦν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ
πάντα ἐγένετο.” καὶ (15) ἕτερα ἀγαθὰ φήσας ἐπάγει λέγων “ἔνθεν οὖν γνῶθι,
ἄνθρωπε, ὅτι κατὰ πάντα δικαίως τιμῶμεν τὴν μίαν τῶν σαββάτων ἀρχὴν
οὖσαν τῆς πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῇ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ
ὅτι τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς καὶ τὰς γραφὰς ἔπαθεν, καὶ παθὼν126 ἀνέστη πάλιν ἐν
αὐτῇ ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ὀφθεὶς127 τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις,
εἰς (20) οὐρανοὺς ἐπορεύθη. καὶ ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν αἰώνων128 ἡμέρα, εἰς
ὀγδοάδα πίπτουσα καὶ μέλλουσα ἀνατέλλειν129 τοῖς δικαίοις ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, ἐν
τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, φῶς αἰώνιον εἰς (7r)130 τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα
ἡ τοῦ σαββάτου πίπτει εἰς κατάπαυσιν διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν τῆς ἑβδομάδος.
διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν ἡμεῖς τὴν μίαν τῶν σαββάτων τιμῶμεν πολλὴν
ἡμῖν φέρουσαν ἀγαθῶν παρουσίαν.” (End Fragment of Jason and Papiscus)
Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν Λουκᾶς ὁ θεσπέσιος τοῦ ᾿Ιάσωνος καὶ Παπίσκου Διάλογον
συγγράφων ἐδίδαξεν, ὡς κυριακὴ ἡμέρα . . . φεγγὴς131 καὶ διάσημος καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων ἡμερῶν πρώτη τῷ χρόνῳ καθέστηκεν, καὶ τῆς ἐνσάρκου τοῦ σωτῆρος
γεννήσεως ἡμέρα γνωρίζεται καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ132 ἐκ νεκρῶν (30) ἀναστάσεως,
118
I.e. Duffy 6v.
119
D ὁ φανότατος ταύτην μυσταγωγεῖ : S ὁ φανότατον ταῦτα μυσταγωγή.
120
D πράξεσιν : S μήνυσιν. Regarding this word from the Sinaiticus fragment, Duffy remarks,
“ut vid. (apparently)” and “e praeeunte (preceeding) τὴν μήνυσιν.”
121
D ἐν ἑτέρῳ : S ἐνεστέρω.
122
D τούτῳ : S τοῦτο.
123
I.e. Duffy 7r.
124
In the entire New Testament, this particular word occurs only in the writings of Luke.
125
D διὰ λόγου : S διαλόγου.
126
D παθὼν : S –ῶν.
127
D ὀφθεὶς : S ὠφθεῖς.
128
ἡ τῶν αἰώνων : Duffy notes “bis scr. (repeated by mistake in the text).”
129
D ἀνατέλλειν : S ἀνατέλειν.
130
I.e. Duffy 7v.
131
D ἡμέρα . . . φεγγὴς : S ἡμεριφεγγεῖς. Duffy remarks, “ab (perhaps) περιφεγγὴς vel (or)
πρωτοφεγγὴς?”
132
D αὐτοῦ : S –ῆς.

HARRY TOLLEY 25
ὡσαύτως133 δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀπ’ οὐρανῶν134 αὐτοῦ δευτέρας ἀφίξεως, ἥτις καὶ
ἀδιάδοχός ἐστιν καὶ ἀπέραντος, οὔτε135 εἰς τέλος πώποτε λήγουσα, οὐδὲ
ἑτέραν136 μετ᾿ αὐτὴν παραπέμπουσα πάροδον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν
τιμὴν καὶ τὸ σέβασμα ὑπὲρ τὰς πολλὰς ἡμέρας κληρώσασα, ὡς μυρίων ἡμῖν
ἀγαθῶν παρουσίαν ἀπαρόδευτον τίκτουσα.
Among other things, Luke certainly and clearly initiates us into this illuminat-
ing 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,137 the son of God through whom all
things came to be.”138 And when he had said other good things, he resumed,
saying: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 Messiah140 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 up141 the righteous in incorruption, in
the Kingdom of God, the eternal light in the eternal, amen.142 For the day of
the Sabbath falls into rest, because it is the seventh day.143 This, then, is the
reason we honor the first of Sabbaths [Sunday], since it presents us with such
133
D ὡσαύτως : S ὡς αὐτοῦ.
134
D ἀπ’ οὐρανῶν : S ἀπὸ ἀνων. Regarding this word from the Sinaiticus fragment, Duffy
remarks “i.e. (such as) ἀνθρώπων, pro (instead of) οὐνων.”
135
D οὔτε : S οὐδὲ.
136
D ἑτέραν : S ἑτέρα.
137
Literally, Χριστός means “messiah,” or “anointed one,” but given the context of this work,
we assume it is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ or “the Christ.”
138
See Section V.C above.
139
Was this sentence in the original text or did Sophronius insert this as an abridgement of
information from the text?
140
ὁ Χριστὸς, i.e., “the Messiah,” or, simply, “Christ.”
141
There are numerous images of the Messiah’s descent from heaven being described as a “light
dawning” (ἀνατέλλειν) in Jewish texts. See T. Levi 18, Ben Sira 24, 1 En. 42.
142
The wording here (φῶς αἰώνιον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν) is similar to a formula (τοὺς αἰῶνας
τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν) found in Gal 1:5, 1 Tim 1:17, and 1 Clem. 50:7.
143
There is some interesting playfulness present here in the comparison of the “rising” eighth
day and the “falling” seventh day.

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 rever-
ence 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
Image 1 (top left)

Sinaiticus graecus 1807, folio 6
recto
Image 2 (bottom left)
verso
Image 3 (top right)
recto
Images reproduced by permission
of Saint Catherine’s Monastery,
Sinai, Egypt.

The Jewish-Christian Dialogue Jason and Papiscus in Light of The Sinaiticus Fragment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Jewish-Christian Dialogue Jason and Papiscus in Light of The Sinaiticus Fragment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Jewish-Christian Dialogue Jason and Papiscus in Light of The Sinaiticus Fragment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Jewish–Christian Dialogue Jason

and Papiscus in Light of the Sinaiticus

HTR 114:1 (2021) 1–26

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

■ I. A Summary of Patristic References to Jason and Papiscus

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

■ II. An Overview of Previous Scholarly Theories Regarding

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

■ III. A Summary of the Discovery of the Sinaiticus Fragment, an

A. Duffy’s Initial Publication of the Fragment

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of Harnack’s theories about Jason and Papiscus are somewhat distracting.34

B. Bovon and Duffy’s Publication of the Sinaiticus Fragment

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Sinaiticus graecus 1807; that information is only in Duffy’s previous work. As a

C. Physical Description of the Sinaiticus Fragment41

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Papiscus is first mentioned at lines 21 and 22 of folio 6 recto. The fragment of

■ IV. Previous Observations Reexamined In Light of the Sinaiticus

A. Lukan Authorship of Jason and Papiscus

6 in the Appendix for the full section of text.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

B. Independent Circulation of Jason and Papiscus

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

■ V. New Observations in Light of the Sinaiticus Fragment

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ἐγένετο. . . . Greek text of New Testament from NA28.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

D. The Sinaiticus Fragment is Similar to the Fragments of Aristobulus of Alexandria

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

■ Appendix of Full Quotations of All Currently Known Fragments

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1.2. Origen, Against Celsus, 4.51–52.111 Origen’s response to Celsus. Greek;

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

2. Jerome, Comments on Galatians (Ad Galatas) 2.3.13b–14.112 Latin, Greek, and

3. Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis (Hebraicarum Quaestionum in Genesim)

4. Celsus Africanus, Ad Vigilium Episcopum de Iudaica Incredulitate.114 An

Raspanti; CCSL 77A; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006) 90.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

am duritiam Hebraei admonitione ac leni increpatione mollitam, uictricem in

5. John of Scythopolis (formerly attributed to Maximus Confessor), Notes on the

6. Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, Homily on the Feast of the Circumcision.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

■ Images of the Text

Image 1 (top left)

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816021000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

You might also like

■ I. A Summary of Patristic References to Jason and Papiscus

■ II. An Overview of Previous Scholarly Theories Regarding

■ III. A Summary of the Discovery of the Sinaiticus Fragment, an

■ IV. Previous Observations Reexamined In Light of the Sinaiticus

■ V. New Observations in Light of the Sinaiticus Fragment

ἐγένετο. . . . Greek text of New Testament from NA28.

■ Appendix of Full Quotations of All Currently Known Fragments

■ Images of the Text