Wessely, C. “5. Adoracion du sang de Jésus-Christ.” Page 435 in Les plus anciens monuments du Cristianisme écrits sur papyrus: Textes édites, traduits et annotés. Patrologia Orientalis 18.3. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1924.
P.Vindob G 19931 is a hymn about the blood of Jesus. Sort of an early Christian “Nothing but the blood of Jesus” type thing. And you can begin to understand the Christology of at least the hymn writer as well as those who found the hymn worth copying (this appears to be a copy, at least to me; reasons given further below).
When I run into stuff like this little fragment that has so much to say, I’m always a little amazed it hasn’t had more press. Here’s a translation of Wessely’s transcription.
⸓ because of us
† Blood of the one made into flesh ⸓ from the holy virgin, Jesus Christ.
† Blood of the one who was born from the holy mother of God, Jesus Christ.
† Blood of the … being made to appear … Jesus Christ.
† Blood of the one who was baptized in the Jordan by John the forerunner, Jesus Christ, amen.
† Blood of the one who brought himself as a sacrifice for our sins, Jesus Christ, amen.
There are several theological assertions made in this tiny scrap.
- Jesus Christ was made into flesh and had blood. He was incarnated as a human from some other (deity, though the hymn is not explicit about this) state.
- The flesh is from the “holy virgin”
- Jesus Christ was born (so, not made). And born from the “holy mother of God.”
- It’s a pity this line is so fragmented. Is “being made to appear” in support of docetism, or is there text missing that would make this statement be an explicit refutation of docetism? I’d guess refutation because the blood of Jesus is so important in this material, but that’s just a guess.
- “John the forerunner” baptized Jesus in the Jordan.
- Jesus “brought himself” as a sacrifice for our sins. He actively did it, it did not just happen to him.
Now, why do I think this is a copy and not an original?
The very first line with the metobelus-like symbol appears to me to be a correction. The symbol on line 1 matches the symbol on line 2 and (to me, anyway) indicates a correction by addition. The scribe skipped the text inadvertently and made an addition note about it. So the first line is really: “Blood of the one made into flesh +because of us+ from the holy virgin, Jesus Christ.”
1500 years ago this material was used in some sort of Christian context. The blood of Jesus was (and is) important and crucial to the efficacy of his sacrifice.