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 Section 1.2 in the Appendix.

6 Section 1.2 in the Appendix.

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 Section 4 in the Appendix.

11 See section V.D below.

12 Section 4 in the Appendix.

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 Section 5 in the Appendix.

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.

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.

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 Duffy, “New Fragments,” 1–24.

34 Ibid., 24–28. See also section IV.C below.

35 Duffy, “New Fragments,” 18–24.

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.

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 Λουκᾶζ …). See section 6 in the Appendix for the full section of text.

47 τὴν ἐρώτησιν, Πάπισκοζ 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.

52 Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 1–5.

53 Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 26–27.

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 (Ἀληθήζ λόγοζ) 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.

57 Section 1.2 in the Appendix.

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 περιβόητοζ γένοιτο καὶ αὐτὸζ 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.

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 Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 13–15.

68 Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 9–13.

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 ὡζ τὰ πρῶτα. Section 6 in the Appendix, line 10.

71 Tοῦ παντὸζ κόσμου γίνεται, ὡζ καὶ ἡ γραφὴ Μωυσέωζ μηνύει, καθὼζ λέγει ὁ θεὸζ “γενηθήτω φῶζ, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶζ.” 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 ὡζ 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 ἄλλοζ προφήτηζ Μωϋσῆζ αὐτοῖζ.

74 Barn. 6.8–19.

75 καὶ ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν αἰώνων ἡμέρα, εἰζ ὀγδοάδα πίπτουσα καὶ μέλλουσα ἀνατέλλειν τοῖζ δικαίοιζ ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ … ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα ἡ τοῦ σαββάτου πίπτει εἰζ κατάπαυσιν διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν τῆζ ἑβδομάδοζ. Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 20–24.

76 Barn. 15.8: ὁρᾶτε, πῶζ λέγει οὐ τὰ νῦν σάββατα ἐμοὶ δεκτά, ἀλλὰ ὃ πεποίηκα, ἐν ᾧ καταπαύσαζ τὰ πάντα ἀρχὴν ἡμέραζ ὀγδόηζ ποιήσω, ὅ ἐστιν ἄλλου κόσμου ἀρχήν.

77 καὶ παθὼν ἀνέστη πάλιν ἐν αὐτῇ ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ὀφθεὶζ τοῖζ μαθηταῖζ αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν τοῖζ ἀποστόλοιζ, εἰζ οὐρανοὺζ ἐπορεύθη. Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 18–20.

78 Barn. 15.9: διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰζ εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦζ ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶζ ἀνέβη εἰζ οὐρανούζ. 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 λόγοζ ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ φῶζ ποιήσαζ ἦν ὁ 𝛘ριστόζ, ὁ υἱὸζ 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 λόγοζ ἦν πρὸζ τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸζ ἦν ὁ λόγοζ … πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ 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).

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,” 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: καθὼζ καὶ διὰ τῆζ νομοθεσίαζ ἡμῖν ὅλην τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου θεοῦ λόγουζ εἴρηκεν ὁ Μωζῆζ… .

96 γὰρ διὰ λόγου θεοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ παντὸζ κόσμου γίνεται, ὡζ καὶ ἡ γραφὴ Μωυσέωζ μηνύει. Section 6 in the Appendix, lines 11–12.

97 Section 6 in the Appendix.

98 See section V.A above, for other occurences of Mosaic material in the Sinaiticus fragment.

99 Section 1.1 in the Appendix.

100 Section 1.2 in the Appendix.

101 Section 1.2 in the Appendix.

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 Section 1.2 in the Appendix.

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 Section 4 in the Appendix.

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 Section 5 in the Appendix.

108 Section 6 in the Appendix.

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.

111 Greek text from Origenes (ed. Marcovich), 269.

112 Latin text from Jerome, Commentarii in Epistulam Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas (ed. Giacomo 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.

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.

118 I.e. Duffy 6v.

119 D ὁ φανότατοζ 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 ὀφθεὶζ : S ὠφθεῖζ.

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 … φεγγὴζ : S ἡμεριφεγγεῖζ. Duffy remarks, “ab (perhaps) περιφεγγὴζ vel (or) πρωτοφεγγὴζ?”

132 D αὐτοῦ : S –ῆζ.

133 D ὡσαύτωζ : S ὡζ 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, 𝛘ριστόζ 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 𝛘ριστὸζ, 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 (φῶζ αἰώνιον εἰζ τοὺζ αἰῶναζ, ἀμήν) is similar to a formula (τοὺζ αἰῶναζ 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.