In recent discussions about biblical texts, the New Testament's Luke is known for authoring two significant works: the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. However, it has come to light that he may have penned another text. This revelation emerged from a 2021 article published in the Harvard Theological Review, which delves into a work entitled The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus About Christ, attributed to Luke.

This text had been lost until a fragment was discovered in Egypt in 2004.

Despite the significance of this finding, mainstream religious media, including Vatican News and Christianity Today, have largely overlooked it. The discourse surrounding this fragment remains confined to academic circles, primarily within non-Christian publications.

I reached out to Harry Tolley, the author of the article, to inquire about the lack of coverage regarding this ‘Sinaiticus fragment.’ He concurred, stating:

> “Why is the Sinaiticus fragment not in National Geographic or mentioned in many other non-scholarly media? Maybe it is because not enough people know about it. Hopefully, you can help change this situation.”

Here are the essential details regarding the discovery.

The fragment was unearthed at Saint Catherine’s Monastery, an Eastern Orthodox establishment located on the Sinai Peninsula, renowned as a historical site since 565 A.D. This monastery, situated near what is traditionally recognized as the biblical Mount Sinai, has become a repository for significant Christian texts, including the Didache and Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest known New Testament manuscript.

John M. Duffy, a Harvard professor, did not anticipate uncovering anything of substantial importance during his visit to the monastery in 2004. He was researching sermons by Sophronius of Jerusalem, a notable saint, and stumbled upon an overlooked sermon from 635 A.D., which addressed the rationale behind Sunday worship.

While the straightforward reason for this practice is that it coincides with Jesus' resurrection, Sophronius hinted at deeper theological meanings, referencing a book outside the conventional canon:

> “Luke certainly and clearly initiates us into this illuminating and lovely knowledge…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…”

Sophronius then quoted from this other work.

The existence of the Jason and Papiscus text has been noted in early Christian literature. This dialogue features two Jewish figures, one being a Christian convert, discussing whether the Old Testament alludes to Jesus. The character Papiscus is traditionally Jewish, while Jason, likely the same mentioned in Acts 17, had close ties to Paul and might have followed Jesus.

Jason’s interpretation of the Bible was striking; he regarded biblical narratives as figurative rather than literal—interpreting them as theological allegories. The earliest known reference to Jason and Papiscus dates back to around 170 A.D., where the anti-Christian writer Celsus remarked that the author seemed more rational than many Christians, though he found the allegorical interpretations laughable.

Many early Christian thinkers engaged with the concept of Jason and Papiscus. Origen, a scholar from the 3rd century, indicated that this work was widely read. Jerome, in the 4th century, expressed confusion over biblical quotations attributed to Jason, such as:

> “In the son, God made heaven and earth.”

Jerome found this puzzling, as the original text states:

> “In the beginning, God made heaven and earth.”

Nonetheless, this “In the son” phrasing appeared in the writings of several early Christian authors, including Tertullian and Irenaeus.

Clement of Alexandria, a canonized saint who lived from approximately 150 to 215 A.D., may have referenced Jason and Papiscus in his Hypotyposes series. However, all seven volumes are now considered lost. The last known mention of the Hypotyposes in the 9th century expressed concern over Clement's views, denouncing them for combining orthodox thoughts with mythical narratives.

An early 6th-century writer, John of Scythopolis, noted Jason and Papiscus, attributing it to Luke, though he speculated that Ariston of Pella might be the true author.

In subsequent research, John M. Duffy concluded that Jason and Papiscus was indeed by Ariston, a relatively obscure 2nd-century Christian writer. The text had been dismissed as unimportant.

However, Harry Tolley, who has extensively studied Ariston, speculated that he may not have authored Jason and Papiscus. His paper presents evidence that keeps the authorship question open.

Isn’t the potential existence of a new text attributed to a New Testament author worth discussing?

When I posed this question to Tolley, he acknowledged the fragment's alignment with Luke's style, although proving this definitively would be challenging. He noted that a section of his paper analyzed the vocabulary of the fragment, which contained words unique to Luke’s writings, yet he was advised to remove this analysis.

Scholarly reluctance to engage with Luke's potential authorship stems from a desire to avoid controversy, according to Tolley:

> “My experience in openly challenging dating or textual aspects of the canonical Christian writings is that it just devolves into pointless squabbling with scholars who see themselves as white knights defending the orthodoxy.”

His study shifts focus from authorship to the revelations within the ‘Sinaiticus Fragment.’

At the heart of the fragment, Papiscus asks Jason why Christians observe Sunday as their day of worship. For Jews, this question would be pertinent, given that Saturday is the Sabbath—a fundamental commandment.

Jason argues that the significance of Sunday originates in Genesis, where God commands, “Let there be light,” linking this divine utterance to Christ.

Reading Genesis 1, one might not immediately perceive Jesus' presence during Creation, yet the prologue of John's Gospel suggests a connection, portraying Jesus as ‘the Light.’ Early Christian thought also implies that the Creation narrative in Genesis may symbolize the story of Christ and the Church.

Jason and Papiscus hints that the Old Testament portrays the passage of six ‘days,’ culminating in Jesus’ arrival, marking the beginning of a new theological era. Sunday, Jason claims, signifies a time of “an abundance of good things,” echoing the language of Genesis 1 and symbolizing the dawn of a new world.

In the course of his dialogue, Jason quotes God as saying something remarkable during Creation, referencing “the scripture of Moses,” though the specific line is absent from the Old Testament:

> “Behold! I am making the last things just as the first!”

This suggests that the first act of Creation was Jesus, with humanity's creation being the final act. Jason proposes that, with Jesus' arrival, a new phase is imminent—the “Kingdom of God”—which he describes as “the eternal light in the eternal.”

Could this text genuinely be attributed to Luke?

Two respected saints have suggested as much. Dismissing this connection seems hasty. Even without the attribution, Jason and Papiscus holds significant theological insights. It reflects a young faith that viewed itself as a transformative force, breaking from previous traditions.

The text emphasizes a religion interpreting the Bible through allegory and suggests a radically different biblical canon. In contemporary Christianity, these ideas may not find a welcoming audience, as Jason and Papiscus has been relegated to an obscure author and largely forgotten.