In dealing with papyri of such importance as Nos. 1 and 2, which lie strictly outside the field of study in which the editors can claim any special competence, it has been thought advisable to prefer speedy publication to an attempt at a definitive edition. The aim of the present volume is to make the texts accessible to scholars and to indicate the nature of the problems which arise, with such suggestions towards a solution as occurred to us. The texts here printed are the joint work of both editors. The first draft of the commentary on 1, with the translation, was prepared by myself, those on 2 - 4 by Mr. Skeat; but since particular problems have been discussed as they arose, and each editor has read through the others work, making suggestions for his consideration, we are jointly responsible for the volume as it appears. The method of publication and the system of abbreviated references employed are explained below. As a method of abbreviated reference to the papyri here published we would suggest "P. Lond. Christ."

We have to acknowledge our indebtedness to several scholars for valuable assistance. Mr. H. J. M. Milne has been consulted continually throughout the preliminary work of transcription and during the preparation of the volume, and texts and commentary alike have greatly profited by his suggestions, only some of which are separately acknowledged. Sir Frederic Kenyon has read the proofs of 1 and made numerous suggestions; it is a great satisfaction to find that he agrees with the views expressed in the commentary. To Mr. C. W. Brodribb of "The Times" we are indebted for a brilliant restoration in 1, which probably clears up a problem of which we had failed to reach a satisfactory solution. Prof. Schubart has examined photographs of 1 and 2 and given us an opinion as to dating which his reputation as a palaeographer makes specially valuable. It should be added that he emphasizes the uncertainty of the palaeographical factor, which in the present case is the sole evidence of date. To the Rev. P. L. Hedley we are indebted for the loan of a photograph of P. Baden 56. Dr. A. E. Brooke kindly supplied some notes on 3; and Mr. W. E. Crum, Mr. O. Burmester, and the Rev. Gregory Dix have given most welcome help in connexion with 4. Mr. C. H. Roberts has been consulted on several points. Lastly, we owe special thanks to Dr. John Johnson and the staff of the Oxford University Press for the skill and patience which they have shown in dealing with what we feel to have been, in some respects, a difficult problem of typography.

NOT since the discovery of the Sayings of Jesus at Oxyrhynchus has a Christian papyrus come to light which raises so many and such interesting problems as the present fragments. The Chester Beatty papyri are of far greater extent, but in some respects even they must yield in interest to these, since for the most part they merely provide new evidence for the text of existing books, whereas these, which reveal to us an entirely unknown work, open up new vistas altogether.

Even in its date the present papyrus (hereafter referred to as 1) possesses a peculiar importance, for it is unquestionably the earliest specifically Christian manuscript yet discovered in Egypt. The codex containing Numbers and Deuteronomy, in the Beatty collection (P. Beatty VI), and (according to the editor, whose view is supported by a photostat of the papyrus kindly lent by the Rev. P. L. Hedley) P. Baden 56 (Exodus) are its only rivals in point of age; and though it is probable enough that those manuscripts were used by, and very likely written for, a Christian owner or community, we cannot be as certain of this as we can of the Christian origin of 1. The papyrus must of course be dated, like P. Beatty VI, on grounds of script merely, always a somewhat precarious basis; but the date assigned to it above is highly probable and is likely to err, if at all, on the side of caution, for there are features in the hand which might suggest a period yet earlier in the century. The epsilon with its crossstroke normally high and sometimes begun on the left side of the semicircle (which at times seems to have its upper part made separately), the upsilon, the mu, the flat-bottomed beta with the bottom stroke extended to the left, the delta, can all be paralleled in literary or documentary papyri which are dated or datable in the first half of the second century; but it is the general appearance of the hand rather than the forms of particular letters which gives the impression of early date. Literary papyri are of course never exactly dated, being datable, if at all, and that only exceptionally, by cursive annotations or by documents written on the same sheet of papyrus, while cursive hands are in general not sufficiently dose to literary to be very helpful; but the present hand has cursive affinities, and there are dated or datable papyri which offer a basis for comparison. Mention may be made of three, the hands of which have an obvious general resemblance to that of the present fragments. The first is P. Berol. ined. 6854 (Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie, figure 34, p. 59), a document written in the reign of Trajan (died A.D. 117), in a hand sufficiently like the literary script to be usefully comparable; the second is P. Lond. 130 (Greek Papyri in the British Museum, i. 132 ff.; Schubart, op. cit., figure 81, p. 122), a horoscope calculated from 1 April A.D. 81 and therefore not likely to be later than the earlier years of the second century. The third, a letter written in a semi-literary hand, which is perhaps the most like of the three to the present hand, is P. Fay. 110, dated in A.D. 94. An attentive comparison of these hands with that of 1 produces a strong impression of similarity; and though literary hands were in general somewhat more conservative than documentary, it seems extremely improbable, on the basis of this and other evidence which has been examined, that 1 can be dated later than the middle of the second century.

Some general arguments might perhaps be adduced against so early a date, but they have little force. They are: the fact that the manuscript was a codex, not a roll, the occurrence of the nomina sacra or contractions of the sacred names and certain other words, the use of the diaeresis over initial u and (once) i, and the regular omission of iota adscript. As regards the first point, it is true that for pagan literature the codex form in papyrus is practically unknown in the second and very rare in the third century; but for Christian literature, which until recently was unrepresented in papyri of earlier date than the third century, the ratio is reversed, the codex form being by far the commoner (see e.g. F. G. Kenyon, Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome, pp. 95 ff.). In the last few years some Biblical papyri of earlier date have become available. P. Beatty VI, which is of the second century, provides a very early example of the codex form; and P. Baden 56, another codex, containing a portion of Exodus in the Septuagint version, is dated by the editor in the second century, perhaps even early in that century. It is in fact becoming increasingly probable that the preference for the codex over the roll was characteristic of the Christian community from quite early in its history, and it may well be that it was to Christianity that the eventual triumph of the former was mainly due.

It is certainly at first sight surprising to find the nomina sacra so well established by the middle of the second century, but no weight can be attached to this argument in the absence of any evidence that such forms were not of early date. As a matter of fact, all the evidence seems to suggest that the practice was in its origin pre-Christian. It apparently took its rise (see Traube, Nomina Sacra, III. i, especially p. 32) from the Jewish practice of representing the tetragrammaton or sacred name in Greek by the words kuriov or qeov, with only the first and last letters written and a stroke above them (KS and QS). The Christians, not unnaturally, took over this practice, and applied it also to the specifically Christian names. The nomina sacra found in the present fragments are as follows: KS (kuriov), QS (qeov), IH (Ihsouv), PRA (patera), MW (Mwushv), HSAS (Hsaiav), PROFAS (profhtav), EPROFSEN (eprofhteusen); while QU (qeou) is, with great probability, to be restored in l.52. Traube, in his fundamental work on the subject, already referred to, had but a limited number of papyrus texts on which to found his conclusions, and most of the manuscripts then available were of dates later than the middle of the third century, but even the earliest of them showed the use of the nomina sacra fully established. We have now a much larger range of evidence. KS and KN occur in P. Baden 56. The Chester Beatty papyri supply a mass of material as early as the earliest authorities accessible to Traube, and some of it even earlier. Here, too, we find the same or similar uses. Even in the earliest of them, P. Beatty VI, containing Numbers and Deuteronomy, which is certainly of the second century and probably not later than the middle of it (see, besides Kenyon's edition (The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, fasc. 1, 1933), the very important remarks of Wilcken, Archiv für Papyruslorschung, xi. 113. Wilcken would favour an even earlier date for several of these papyri than Kenyon assigns to them), there is a whole series of nomina sacra; and the New Testament papyri, P. Beatty I, II, and III, all of which are certainly of the third century and probably of the first half, have the specifically Christian contractions (see Kenyon, Aegyptus, xiii (1933), 5-10). So, too, in the papyrus codex containing the Shepherd of Hermas (second half of the third century) we find KS and QS and cases, PNA and PNS (gen.), and UIS and UIN (Campbell Bonner, A Papyrus Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas, p. 18).

Some of the contractions noted above are unusual. The normal form for the name Jesus is IS or IHS; here we have consistently the form IH. This is rare but not unprecedented; and as a matter of fact it appears to be of early origin and to have been superseded only gradually by the others. It is found in P. Beatty I (Gospels and Acts, first half of third century); but it can be traced even farther back. In the sub-Apostolic Epistle of Barnabas we read (Migne, Patr. Gr. ii. 752):

"kai perietemen Abraam ek tou oikou autou andrav deka kai oktw kai triakosiouv." Tiv oun h doqeisa toutw gnwsis; maqete touv dekaoktw prwtouv, eita touv triakosiouv. to de deka kai oktw, I deka H oktw. Eceiv Ihsoun. oti de staurov en tw T emellen ecein thn carin, legei kai touv triakosiouv. dhloi oun ton men Ihsoun en toiv dusi grammasi, kai en eni ton stauron.

That is to say, the 18 men circumcised by Abraham represent Jesus, because the two letters I and H, whose numerical value is respectively 10 and 8, add up to 18; and the 300 represent the Cross, because the letter T, taken as a symbol of the Cross, had the numerical value 300. The same idea occurs also in later writers, e.g. Clem. Alex., Strom. vi. II (Migne, Patr. Gr. ix. 305). It seems probable in fact, as observed by G. B. de Rossi, Bull. di Arch. Cristiana, S. iv, vi. 37, that the sign IH was in use from the Apostolic age downwards, and it may actually have been the first to be adopted. It is possible that the forms IHS, IHN, IHU, all of which occur in P. Beatty II (Pauline Epistles, third century; according to Wilcken the very beginning of that century), are but IH with the case-endings added. In P. Oxy. 850, 10 (fourth century) IHU occurs as apparently a vocative, and thus we get a complete range of cases, IHS representing the nominative, IHN the accusative, IHU the others. If so, this whole series must be separated from such contractions as IS, CS, &c., which were modelled on the Jewish KS, QS (Traube, op. cit., p. 115, remarks that IH "mit den christlichen Kontraktionen nichts zu tun hat". It may, on the contrary, be the more specifically Christian form of the nomen sacrum). It may be that the original method for the Christian nomina sacra was to give the first two letters of the word, IH, CR (on which see de Rossi, op. cit., pp. 30 ff.; Traube, op. cit., pp. 115 if.), the other method, IS, CS, being introduced somewhat later by the analogy of KS, QS. Alternatively both systems may have been concurrent from the beginning, as is suggested by P. Beatty VI (Numbers and Deuteronomy; mid second century), where, according to Sir Frederic Kenyon, both IHS and IS (for Joshua) occur side by side.

The abbreviation MW for Mwushv is not recorded either by Traube or by Kenyon_and is apparently quite new. It will be observed that it is of the same type as IH, i.e. abbreviation by suspension, not by contraction, which, as we have seen, may perhaps be the earlier Christian method. PROFAS and EPROFSEN and HSAS are also strange and apparently unrecorded forms. It may, however, be remarked that such eccentricities are on the whole more likely to have occurred at an early period than later, when the system of nomina sacra had become more regularized. Thus P. Beatty I has the contraction CRANOUS for Cristianouv; P. Beatty III (third century; Wilcken "die Mitte oder auch den Anfang des Jahrh.") has ESTRW (estaurwqh); and it is perhaps worth while to add that P. Oxy. 2068 (fourth century) has the unusual BS (basileuv). It is to be noted that PROFAS and EPROFSEN are formed on the same principle as IH and MW but with the addition of an ending to mark the case or tense.

We see, then, that the occurrence of the nomina sacra is no argument whatever against an early date. If they have any bearing on the question, those which occur seem, in view of the evidence examined, to make for rather than against it.

The two last arguments, which are of a palaeographical nature, have more weight than the others, for undoubtedly the occurrence of diaeresis and the omission of iota adscript can be used as criteria of date and, comparatively rare at the beginning of the second century, were increasing in frequency with each successive decade. Statistics for these phenomena do not appear to have been collected (a systematic investigation of the subject might be of some value for palaeography), but such search as it has been possible to make shows that the date assigned to 1 is not affected by them. The use of diaeresis over i or u was exceedingly rare till the second century, but it was not entirely unknown before then. Originally introduced to distinguish as separately pronounced a vowel accompanying another vowel with which it would otherwise make a diphthong, the usage was soon extended to vowels standing alone, and therefore became meaningless. It is only the latter use which is relevant to the present case. P. Fay. 110 (A.D. 94) contains in euu`perbaton (l. 9) and twi i`diwi (l. 2) instances of diaeresis which, though an extension of the original use, cannot be regarded as wholly incorrect, since adjoining vowels are being distinguished; but i`na (ibid., 11.6, 9) is a clear case of the incorrect use, dusi u`dasi (l. 17) is at best a further extension of the use in euu`perbaton and twi i`diwi. Systematic search might perhaps reveal other early examples, but so far as the statistics collected are concerned there are none in exactly dated documents before A.D. 110, and the diaeresis seems to have been used at first for iota and only later for upsilon as well (see, however, P. Fay. 110, above). P. Ryl. 82 (A.D. 113) shows both the correct (fai`tov l. 3) and the incorrect (feni`tov l. 7) uses; P. Oxy. 490 (A.D. 124) has i`sidov; and after this examples of i` multiply. In P. Ryl. 157 (A.D. 135) the diaeresis in to u`dragwgeisqai, to u`dwr (l. 19) serves to divide the vowels (as against tou), but there is no justification for it in proontov u`dragwgou (l. 19). Later instances are too numerous to be worth collecting. Literary papyri are, as already observed, hardly ever dated, and are therefore less useful for comparison, but some instances may be cited. P. S.I. 1088, dated by the editors in the second century, has i`na at the beginning of a line; P. Ross.-Georg. I. 20 (second century, perhaps age of the Antonines) has u`po (ll. 101, 103) at the beginnings of lines, and no. 21 of the same collection (mid second century) has several examples of both i` and u` and both correctly and incorrectly used. The same is true of P. Oxy. 1380, which is of the early second century and, being a text of a semi-literary kind, is specially comparable to these Gospel fragments. It may be added that P. Baden 56 (? early second century) has (l. 51) i`dou after faraw and that, according to information supplied by Sir Frederic Kenyon, P. Beatty VI makes frequent use of both i` and u`, alike in correct and in incorrect positions. In the later papyri of this group, I and II, the use is constant.

It will be seen, then, that the occurrence of the diaeresis does not in itself make against a date about A.D. 150. In fact the form of diaeresis used suggests an early rather than a late date, for it is clear that the scribe's usage was somewhat fluid and uncertain. He invariably marks initial u but not always in the same manner. The exact formation of his markings is often a little doubtful, owing to the condition of the papyrus, and it will be well to take each instance separately. In l. 8, u`meiv, he appears to have written u` with a single long stroke over u. (At present the stroke is broken in the middle, but this seems to be due to the wearing of the papyrus, and there is no reason to doubt that originally it was continuous.) In l. 13, u`mwn, where the printed text gives u`, the "diaeresis" really consists of a short straight stroke followed by a dash downwards at right angles, which may be accidental but is more probably intended to complete the sign. In l. 47, u`per, the u has two short horizontal dashes over it; in l. 53 the u` of u`mwn is similar; in 1. 61, u`potetakta[i], all that remains is a dash over a small portion of the top of u; in l. 66, i`o[rda]nou, there is a dot or dash to the left of i, but the other, though probably written, has disappeared; and in l. 71, u`dwr, two dots are visible. It appears, then, that the scribe, though he felt that u (and presumably i) should have the diaeresis, was very unsystematic in his method of forming it; and this suits an early rather than a late date after its introduction.

The iota adscript had long ceased to be pronounced, and for some time its use had been erratic, but it appears with some regularity, often in wrong places (e.g. after the w, of the verb-ending), down to the end of the first century. From then onwards omission becomes ever more frequent, until in the course of the third century iota adscript dropped out of use. In P. Oxy. 1380 already referred to (early second century) it appears, to judge from the published text, to be consistently omitted, as here.

Both the phenomena referred to are more often to be found in documentary hands or in the less formal literary papyri than in the work of the better class of scribes; but 1 is in fact written in a hand which is informal and by no means calligraphic, having indeed distinct affinities to the cursive. This makes its resemblance, both generally and in particular details, to certain documents dated early in the second century the more signiflcant.

There is one last point which should be dealt with in connexion with the problem of date. If the hand, as seen in the facsimile, be compared with that of P. Oxy. 656 (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part IV, plate ii) a codex of Genesis (cf., too, P. Ryl. 5), it will be seen that there is a really striking similarity, both in the general appearance and in the forms of individual letters, e.g. u, r, d, o, h, n, and to some extent a and m, though the latter shows a tendency to the formation of a lengthened tail to the first stroke which is characteristic of the second half of the second century and the following period. Now Grenfell and Hunt, after remarking that the script (of "decidedly early appearance") has "in some respects more affinity with types of the second century than of the third", conclude: "To the latter, however, the hand is in all probability to be assigned, though we should be inclined to place it in the earlier rather than the later part of the century." Their authority is certainly high; but the evidence of an undated text cannot be preferred to that of such dated or roughly datable ones as have been cited above, and it may be remarked that in 1904, when Part IV of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri appeared, Christian texts which could confidently be dated in the second century were unknown. It seemed doubtful whether Christianity had so early made sufficient headway outside Alexandria to leave any archaeological traces; and partly for this reason, and partly out of a laudable anxiety to avoid extravagant claims for new discoveries, there was a tendency to post-date the earlier Christian papyri. This certainly seems a case in point; and in the light of later knowledge it is more probable that P. Oxy. 656 is to be put back definitely into the second century than that 1 should be brought down appreciably later than the middle of that century. It may be added in conclusion that Professor Schubart, to whom a photograph was sent and whose authority on such a matter none will question, pronounced the date here assigned "as good as certain", that is in the degree to which palaeographical datings can ever be certain; and he remarked that some features of the hand might suggest an even earlier date (Sir Frederic Kenyon fully concurs in the dating of both 1 and P. Oxy. 656).

Something has already been said as to the hand of the papyrus. It is that of a practised writer but perhaps hardly of a professional literary scribe, and though fairly regular and of attractive appearance it has an informal air which recalls the cursive of the earlier part of the second century. There are no accents or breathings; punctuation is confined to a fairly frequent high point and a small space at the end of a sentence (or perhaps rather a kwlon). There is a tendency to enlarge the following letter, but this is not specially marked and applies chiefly to e. The papyrus is of medium quality. The orthography, apart from a few itacisms (apisteia, l. 19; hmein, l. 48; embreimhsamenov l. 51), which are to be expected everywhere at this period, is very correct. It may be added that there is a tendency to make two lines instead of one in forming letters, apparently the result of using a pen too deeply slit. The impression is in general of a manuscript which made no great pretensions to elegance, still less sumptuousness, but which was written with care and on the whole with a good standard of accuracy.

Unfortunately the provenance of the fragments is unknown. They formed part of a miscellaneous collection bought from a dealer. Most of the papyri acquired with them contain no internal evidence of provenance; of those which do (so far as a preliminary examination goes) one only comes from the Arsinoite nome, five certainly and one probably from Oxyrhynchus; and an Oxyrhynchite origin is likely for the rather high proportion of literary texts. Hence Oxyrhynchus is the most natural place of origin for the Gospel fragments also; but not much weight can really be attached to these arguments.

The method of publication adopted is as follows. First are printed, in parallel columns, a diplomatic transcript and a transcript, line for line, with accents and breathings and with the more obvious restorations of lacunae. A commentary on particular points of reading, restoration, or interpretation follows, after which are given, again in parallel columns, the Greek text and the parallels in the Canonical Gospels. This is followed by a translation of both; and at the end are discussed the problems raised by the fragments. It must be emphasized that this discussion is tentative and provisional only; it seemed more important to make the text accessible for general study by Biblical experts than to aim at an exhaustive treatment in this editio princeps.

2-4. The meaning of this sentence must apparently be that Jesus has committed no crime which could bring Him within the reach of the laws. He is contrasting Himself in this respect with those who have broken the laws, and it is likely that this is an imperative sentence. The unjust person contrasted with Jesus must be ton paraprasonta. The word (which does not occur in the N.T.) has more than one sense, but the only one suitable here is to "act unjustly, esp. exact money illegally" (L. and S). There would be a point in selecting extortion as typical (cf. Luke 3:13 mhden pleon para to diatetagmenon umin prassete; 18:11 ouk eimi wsper oi loipoi twn anqrwpwn, arpagev, adikoi, ktl. Matt. 23: eswqen de gemousin ex arpaghv kai akrasiav), but here a more general sense is preferable. The verb paraprassw is used absolutely in B.G.U. 340, 25 and in Plutarch, Agis, 16 (in W. Chrest. 238, 6 it is used in the passive, of the persons upon whom extortion is practised). Here, too, it is probably absolute, so that we may with some confidence read after [kai ano]mon. But what of the rest of the sentence? The idea at first suggested itself that something like 'hand over (e.g. paradote) the wrong-doer and transgressor and not me to the lawyers' was intended; for the nomikoi (the word seems to be more or less synonymous with grammateiv), among their other functions, acted as judges (see E. Schürer, Gesch. d. jüdischen Volkes³, ii. 318-19). This, however, seems strained and improbable. It is likelier that the lawyers are the people addressed. Apart from other considerations this makes an effective antithesis with the arcontev. Jesus addresses to the lawyers an observation which concerns a point of law but appeals to the Pharisees (arcontev, a word somewhat loosely used in the N.T., probably denotes in this place some of the leading Pharisees) on the matter of His mission and status. (It may be objected that since the arcontev were probably members of the Sanhedrin, on which there were also scribes or lawyers, the two classes can hardly be contrasted, but cf. Acts 4:5 touv arcontav kai touv presbuterouv kai touv grammateiv.) Hence we require here the idea of punishing or proceeding against. katadika-[zetepa]nta (cf. Matt. 12:7 ouk an katedikasate touv anaitiouv) would give a rather long supplement in l. 2; and though letters are frequently cramped and reduced in size at the ends of lines, kolazete (cf. Acts 4:21 to pwv kolaswntai) certainly suits the space better. This would give a text something like: [o de Ih(souv) [or kai] eipen] toiv nomiko[iv? kola-zete pa]nta ton paraprass[onta kai ano]mon kai mh eme.

4 f. The reading at the end of 1. 4 is quite uncertain and the sense obscure. The sentence no doubt continues the remark of Jesus which began in 1. 2. The little that remains of the letter before the lacuna is curved, like e, o, or s; the reading ai is fairly probable (or or); what follows might be e (or a), for there is a horizontal stroke extended far into the margin. In the next line the reading in the middle is by no means certain; poieite wv is also possible, though less likely than poiei pwv. Not much is left of the first visible letter, but what remains Milne would take as n and he suggests, exempli gratia, some such reading as to ergo]n o poiei pwv poiei; It is, however, difficult to connect this with the context, and moreover the small relic of a stroke joining the visible hasta of the first letter appears to be drawn upwards, as for m, not downwards, as for n. Usually the last stroke of m is curved to join the following letter, not almost straight, as here, but compare the m of mon in 1. 4, which is not dissimilar. The only words ending in -mopoiew seem to be asigmopoiew, polemopoiew, nomopoiew, qesmopoiew, kosmopoiew. The first can obviously be ruled out, and the second and last are quite inappropriate here. The other two are not inconsistent with the setting, but nomopoiew occurs only in Hesychius, qesmopoiew only in Euripides (and Hesychius). 'When a law-giver makes laws, how does he make them?' is con-ceivable hut unlikely, and it would certainly be more satisfactory to read n hut for the palaeographical difflculty. Or perhaps i linked to a preceding letter might be read. o gar anomov ouk oiden o poiei pwv poiei (Kenyon) gives a good sense but cannot be fitted in; o [p]ara[prassw]n also gives too long a supplement.

6. touv] a[r]contav tou laou: arcontev, in the sense here intended, occur several times in the Gospels, whether in the singular or the plural, but the phrase arcontav tou laou is found only in Acts 4:8 (a[r]contav tou laou kai presbuteroi); in Acts 23:5 the singular, arconta tou laou sou, occurs in a quotation from the O.T.).

7-10. Cf. John 5:39 eraunate tav grafav, oti umeiv dokeite en autaiv zwhn aiwnion ecein, kai ekeinai aisin ai marturousai peri emou. The verbal differences are interesting, for these very differences are attested in one form of the 'Western' text. In a, b, syr.^cu, after the text as given above, occur the words in quibus putatis vos vitam habere; hae (haec b) sunt quae de me testificantur; arm, ff₂ have the first clause only. This 'doublet' reading can be accounted for in one of two different ways. Both readings may have been current in different manuscripts of John, and a commentator may have added the second in the margin of the archetype from which the manuscripts showing the doublet were ultimately derived, later scribes having unintelligently incorporated it into the text side by side with the rival reading; or he may have quoted the words from the Gospel represented by 1 as a parallel to the Johannine version, with a similar result. If the first explanation be adopted, the presence of the reading in so early a text as 1 gives it a strong claim to preference; but the second is much more likely, and the interesting conclusion is that the present Gospel was current in the circle from which the text seen in the manuscripts referred to ultimately came. Where this circle is to be located can hardly be determined, but the fact that the doublet reading occurs, on the one hand in Latin, and on the other in Syriac and Armenian manuscripts, but in no Greek texts, may indicate that it was outside Egypt, perhaps in Syria. In the version of the saying here found eraunate is clearly imperative.

10-14. Cf. John 5:45 mh dokeite oti egw kathgorhsw umwn prov ton patera? estin o kathgorwn umwn Mwu`shv, eiv on umeiv hlpikate. The readings hlqon kathgorhsai and mou after patera are not recorded in the apparatus of Tischendorf, von Soden, or Wordsworth and White.

15-17. Cf. John 9:29 (the man born blind) hmeiv oidamen oti Mwu`sei lelalhken o qeov, touton de ouk oidamen poqen estin. A has elalhsen, as here; see, too, von Soden's apparatus. The space between e and oidamen is rather large for u, but h cannot be read for e and there is certainly not room for meiv, so that eu seems assured. o[ti] cannot be read, as e is certain.

20. Perhaps there occurred here some remark about h bas]ilei[a twn ouranwn.

25-7. For this attempt to stone Jesus cf. John 8:59 hran oun liqouv ina balwsin ep auton, and 10:31 ebastasan palin liqouv oi Ioudaioi ina liqaswsin auton. For li, of which only the bottoms of the letters remain, in could also be read, which would yield in[a liqasw-]si[n, and thus require a word like ebastasan or hran before liqouv; but li is the likelier. If it is correct, we must suppose some such reading as sunebouleusanto (Kenyon) tw oclw ina bastasantev liqouv omou ktl. (omou probably going with bastasantev rather than with liqaswsin). Of the letter read as b in the diplomatic transcript only a horizontal stroke below the line remains, and the only letters possible are therefore b or x (d and z also have a horizontal stroke at the foot, but they do not come below the line). To read b[astasantev] liqouv however, makes too short a supplement in 1.26, whereas with b[astasantev] we have too short a supplement in 1.25. To insert tav before liqouv would make the former division unobjectionable, and though tav is not wholly satisfactory it may perhaps be accepted as a pis aller; the article might be used to suggest 'the stones which were lying there'. Or something like Matt. 3:9, Luke 3:8 dunatai o qeov ek twn liqwn toutwn egeirai tekna tw 'Abraam may even have preceded.

27-32. As at present mounted a small piece of papyrus containing LON in 1.27, NOI in 1.28, and IPAR in 1.29 is crushed up too close to the main fragment, so that L, N, and I appear incomplete. For the text of 1.27-32 cf. the following passages: John 7:30 ezhtoun oun auton piasai, kai oudeiv epebalen ep auton thn ceira, oti oupw elhluqei (var. lect. elhluqen) h war autou; 7:44 tinev de hqelon ex autwn piasai auton, all oudeiv ebalen ep auton tav ceirav; 10:39 ezhtoun oun auton piasai, kai exhlqen ek thv xeirov autwn. In all three passages (except perhaps the last) piazw seems to denote the same action as epiballein tav ceirav epi; here the rulers laid hands on Him as a prelude to (or part of) the action of piasai. The supplement at the end of 1.29 and beginning of 1.30 is difficult. The natural reading is paradidwsin, and at first this was actually read, but the letter at the beginning of 1.30 looks more like l than d, and prolonged examination with a magnifying glass fails to reveal any trace of the bottom stroke of d or definite evidence that the ink has disappeared. Besides this, to read par[adi]d[wsin] gives a rather short supplement at the end of 1.29 and an awkwardly long one in the lacuna in 1.30. The visible traces in 1.30 are not quite at the edge of the column, and l, though not quite impossible, is not a very likely reading. One would expect auton to occur; but it is quite impossible to read par[dwsin au]to[n]. It is just possible that the letter is w, written rather large at the beginning of the line and therefore unlike any other w in formation, and that the true reading is par[adwsin] w[ste], but this is not satisfactory, either palaeographically or in sense. The explanatory use (as it may be called) of wste is common enough in documentary papyri (e.g. P. Hib. 43, 13 para Kallikleouv ... wste Prwtomacwi; P. Teb. 112, 77 Nanwi wste thi upogr[afhi]; P. Flor. 223, 3-7 parascev tw deina wste toiv tauroiv autou xorton), but it does not seem to occur in the N.T., and it is hardly needed here. On the whole, it is perhaps best to suppose that the ink of the bottom stroke of D, which would run along a projecting fibre of papyrus, has been rubbed off. paradidonai is certainly supported by the paradosewv of 1.32.

32. parado[sewv: the word nowhere occurs in the N.T. in the sense of 'betrayal' but only in that of 'tradition'.

33-4. Cf. Luke 4:30 autov de dielqwn dia mesou autwn eporeueto. In John 8:59 several manuscripts add the same reading or a variation of it (so, too, the 'Western' texts, e.g. D, et transiens per medium eorum ibat sic), and cf. also John 10:39 kai exhlqen ek thv ceirov autwn. The verb aponeuw nowhere occurs in the N.T., but ekneuw does, John 5:13.

35 ff. This incident may well be that recorded in Matt. 8:2-4, Mark 1:40-4, Luke 5:12-14 (not in John), but the details given differ strikingly. From a comparison of the three Synoptic versions, it will be seen that they agree throughout in substance (apart from the presence or absence of such vivid details as Mark's splagcnisqeiv or embrimhsamenov or Luke's peswn epi proswpon) and largely in wording. It is clear that they represent but a single tradition, whereas the present Gospel differs so widely as to suggest a different source entirely, unless, indeed, we are to suppose that the writer was freely embroidering the story he had found in the Synoptic writers; but this seems improbable. For a general discussion of the passage see below. As regards details, the beginning kai idou leprov proselqwn autw agrees verbally, except for the (restored) autw, with Matthew; but in the style of the Gospels there are only a limited number of ways of beginning an episode such as this, and the agreement may be accidental; moreover 1 differs in ll.41-2 from Matthew, agreeing more nearly, though only partially, with Luke. Apart from the leper's statement as to the origin of his leprosy, which is quite novel, the differences of 1 from the unanimous testimony of the Synoptists are as follows: nothing is said as to the leper making obeisance to Jesus (Matt. prosekunei, Mark gonupetwn, Luke peswn epi proswpon); he addresses Jesus by name, which he does not do in the Synoptic story (Matt. and Luke kurie; Mark no address); it is not stated that Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him; Jesus is at this point referred to as kuriov (not named in Mark and Luke; Matt. o Ihsouv); the concluding remark of Jesus is clearly different in wording and, if the conjectural restoration here adopted is at all correct, appears to agree with Luke 17:14, the healing of the ten lepers: poreuqentev epideixate eautouv toiv iereusin. In view of the isolation of lepers enjoined by Jewish law the statement of the leper that he had consorted with lepers is surprising; but the quarantine regulations were so well known that this detail is an argument rather for authenticity than for invention on the part of the writer. See the note on 1.58.

36. didaskale Ih(sou): Jesus is often enough addressed in the canonical Gospels as didaskale, but the present form of address (cf. also 1.52) is quite unparalleled there. The words are to be taken together, not separately (didaskale, Ihsou); cf. E. Schürer, op. cit., II. 315-16.

37. The space hardly admits of a third verb compounded with sun- in the lacuna, and the insertion of autoiv is quite consistent with the style.

38. el[eprhsa]: this verb does not occur in the N.T., but it seems all but certain here; el[hluqa prov se] is very unlikely in view of the kai autov egw and is in any case too long. There is also a form leprousqai, but it is attested only in the perfect passive participle, leleprwmenov (4 Kings 5: 1, 27; 15:5), except in P. Holm. 3, 16 (leproutai).

42. o de k(urio)v]: Ih(souv) de or o de Ih(souv) is of course equally likely.

49. This is the number of the page or leaf or quire. In the Beatty papyri it is always the page that is numbered (Kenyon). The long horizontal line which is all that remains gives a choice between a, less likely b, g, e, v, perhaps z, q, k, x. There may of course have been a preceding letter.

43 f. ex[etas]tikwv: a dubious reading, and the word does not occur in the N.T., but the remains certainly suggest it, and it suits the space.

52-4. Cf. John 3:2 (the arcwn twn Ioudaiwn), rabbei, oidamen oti apo qeou elhluqav didaskalov? oudeiv gar dunatai tauta ta shmeia poiein a su poieiv, ean mh o qeov met autou; 10:25 ta erga a egw poiw en tw onomati tou patrov mou, tauta marturei peri emou.

54-7. On the restoration of these lines depends the interpretation of the whole passage and the question whether we are here confronted with a variant version of the temptation of the Herodians. Before discussing the possibilities it is perhaps well to put down the various forms of this incident in the three Synoptic Gospels:

Matt. 22:16-21; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-25.

Here again the three accounts are essentially the same, differing only in minor details of wording and arrangement, except that St. Luke does not identify the questioners with the Herodians and the disciples of the Pharisees. When the Synoptic story is compared with the incident in 1, however ll.55 and 56 be restored, the differences are seen to be great, indeed radical; but there are certain resemblances. In both we get a body of people 'tempting' Jesus with a question; in both he is addressed as 'teacher' (in 1 didaskale Ihsou); in both the inquirers begin with a compliment and a hypocritical testimony to His qualifications for giving an answer; in both the question begins 'is it lawful?'; in both it somehow concerns the secular government (in the Synoptists Caesar, in 1 the vaguer 'kings'); in both Jesus perceives the guile of the question; and in both He begins with a counter-question indicating His perception (in Luke this is omitted). But in 1, so far as preserved, no answer is given, and instead Jesus inveighs against the Jews in words of Isaiah quoted by Matthew and Mark in a quite different context.

This said by way of preface, the details must be discussed. In the first place, the reading after hmein is very difficult. What appears is a well-defined loop, like a small omicron rather above the proper position. It is like no other letter in the papyrus, but most resembles the top loop of a, which its position also suits, thus suggesting the interrogative partide ara, or rather, in view of the space, ar; but nothing can be seen of the lower part of that letter, and there is no indication that the surface of the papyrus has been seriously damaged. After considerable hesitation it has seemed best to take it as a point, which has assumed the present form awing to the peculiarity in the scribe's pen alluded to above, the paint having opened and made two marks (forming a circle) instead of one. That baleus[ is basileusi is certain, and it seems almost equally certain that nai must be part af the infinitive of a verb. The question therefore arises whether the dative, toiv basileusi, is governed by exon or by this verb; in other words, whether the question is:

'is it lawful for kings to . . . ?, or, 'is it lawful to [give?] to kings?' Only in the second case is there even a prima facie case far connecting the passage with the temptation of the Herodians.

The next problem is what is to be read at the end of 1.56. Clearly toiv is the end of a word which began in 1.56; and as oiv is certain and the letters before the lacuna in 1.56 are clearly not au, we cannot anywhere read autwn. The last letter visible in 1.56 gave a good deal of trouble at first, till Mr. Milne recognized that the character is the first half of p, with the end of the preceding a intersecting it and turned almost vertically upwards. Once seen, the reading ap is clear; for similar examples see agar in 1. 53, where the a turns up, coalescing with the down-stroke of g, or the ap of 1.42, where the a turns upwards through the p as in this case, though the fact is there less obvious because the up-stroke coincides with the first down-stroke of p. In ll.54-6 rather more is preserved on the right edge of the leaf than elsewhere; hence no very long supplement is possible.

Any attempt to restore what is lost or to interpret the passage must start from a recognition of the fact (1) that the question is intended to embroil Jesus with the secular authorities (wste paradounai auton th arch as St. Luke puts it) and (2) that, though general in form (basileiv), it must have same particular reference. The authorities concerned are no daubt either the Roman governor or Herod. If it be the former, basileusi is an indirect way of referring to the Emperor. The analogies already noted with the Synoptic account of the Herodians' question favour this; and the form of the question, though more general than the Synoptic version, may be made to agree with it in essence if, following a brilliant suggestion by Mr. C. W. Brodribb of The Times, we end the sentence at arch and make ap[ part of the verb apodidwmi. In Mark's version the question is in two parts, the second being dwmen h mh dwmen; In 1.57 here o[u] was at first read; but m[ is really a likelier reading than o[ , and m[h suits the space better. Hence the supplement adopted in the text, which is in substance that of Mr. Brodribb, may be regarded as all but certain.

57 f. di]anoian: it would be rather more in accordance with ordinary practice to divide dia-noian. It is therefore possible that we should read anoian, for which see Luke 6:11 autoi de eplhsqhsan anoiav, kai dielaloun prov allhlouv ti an poihsaien tw Ihsou. This would, however, give a rather short supplement in 1.57.

58. embreim[hsamenov]: this passage gives strang support to the interpretation of embrimaomai as 'to be moved with indignation'; see Moulton and Milligan, Vocab. of the Greek Testament, s.v. The verb is, however, a somewhat mysterious one; why, for example, was Jesus embrimhsamenov in the case af the leper (Mark 1:43)? (D, a, ff² and the Diatessaron have orgisqeiv for splagcnisqeiv; in 1:41; see A. E. J. Rawlinsan, The Gospel acc. to St. Mark, p. 21.) Perhaps it refers to any strong emotional disturbance, whether of indignation or otherwise (so in John 11:33, Kenyon); but in Mark 1:43 it may denote indignation, if it be supposed that Jesus was angry with the man for breaking the law by consorting with lepers. If this (rather dubious) suggestion be accepted, the case for the authenticity of the saying recorded in ll.36-9 is strengthened. The Marcan version in fact is incomplete without the detail which 1 supplies. Since W omits the words kai embrimhsamenov ... auton, it looks as if same difficulty were felt.

58-61. For the thought cf. Luke 6:46 ti de me kaleite. kurie kurie, kai ou poieite a legw; and see, too, 18:19 ti me legeiv agaqon; Neither is an exact parallel. The second is indeed in reply to a question but is not part of such a reproach as is implied in mh akouontev o lego; the first parallels the thought but occurs in a different context, appearing in St. Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount, as a variant form of Matt. 7:21 ou pav o legwn moi kurie kurie, eiseleusetai eiv thn basileian twn ouranwn, all o poiwn to qelhma tou patrov mou tou en toiv ouranoiv. It is conceivable that the Lucan version, which fits into its context less smoothly than that of St. Matthew, may be due to contamination by the saying here recorded. It may be remarked that en tw stomati occurs in Isaiah 29:13 in the clause immediately preceding the passage quoted in the Gospels. The words here may be a reminiscence of that; hence en sbould perhaps be supplied, but tw stomati alone suits the space better.

61-6. This passage is quoted in Matt. 15:7-9, Mark 7:6-7 in a different context (the eating with unwashen hands); see below. Here the upokritai is omitted, the wording of the preface to the quotation is different, and the quotation itself differs from the Synoptic version: ceilesin autwn timwsin me replaces ceilesin me tima (the farmer is the LXX version; timwsin seems necessitated by the space); it seems probable that mathn me sebontai, which suits the space better, was written for mathn de sebontai me; and entalmata was certainly placed in a different order.

67-82. This is the only passage to which no even possible parallel can be found in the canonical Gospels, which therefore supply no help towards filling up the lacunae; and unfortunately this is the page in which the surface of the papyrus is in the worst condition. Consequently there is considerable daubt as to both the nature of the incident recorded and several of the individual readings. The question is discussed in the note an 1.69.

67. topw: the w is certain, but the other letters are all extremely dubious. If the downstroke read as T is correct (it is perhaps rather too far from the preceding w) the space for op is none too big. [k]atakleisan is hardly to be avoided, and the participle, in view of the highly probable upotetakta[i], is perhaps more likely to be a genitive absolute than a nominative. It may be either singular or plural; it is hardly possible to say which until a clearer understanding of the context has been reached.

68. upotetakta[i]: though very little of the u remains, it is rendered all but certain by a stroke above it, which must be part of the diaeresis. The following p is highly probable, and the ta[i] at the end is suggested by the traces.

69. This seems likely to be the xenon eperwthma of 1.71. The traces at the beginning are not unsuitable to di]a ti, though the space is a little large for atito. Mr. Milne and Sir Frederic Kenyon have suggested some restorations and interpretations, here and in what follows, which, while they must be regarded with scepticism as they stand, do certainly make excellent sense of the passage and may lead to the final solution. Milne would compare the incident with Christ's saying in John 12:24 amhn amhn legw umin, ean mh o kokkov tou sitou peswn eiv thn ghn apoqanh, autov monov menei. ean de apoqanh, polun karpon ferei . The word barov may, he suggests, have the sense 'abundance' (see L. and S., s.v., and cf. 2 Cor. 4:17 aiwnion barov doxhv); and in 1.70 ginetai may pehaps be restored, while in 1.69 he proposes, e.g., th gh. We thus get some such sense as '[When they (or ye, Kenyon)] have shut [the seed in a hidden] place, [when] it is put out of sight [in the earth], what causes its abundance to became too great to measure?' what follows is an illustration of this. In 1.75 either [ege]misen (Milne) or [eko]misen (Kenyon) is probable, and in 1.76 siton (or sita) might perhaps be restored (sperma seems too long), and perhaps [potam]on in 1.77. Later on Milne suggests [labwn] kate[sparm]enon udwr ep[i t]hn ghn [katebalen] (or epeiren). kai epl[hs]qh ('germinated', 'was quickened').

Attractive as the idea is, several of the actual readings proposed do not inspire confidence. The relation of katakleisan- to upotetaktai is not very happy and the sense given to the latter, especially in conjunction with th gh (there is not room for en), is unsatisfactory. The sawing af the corn on the river is at least unexpected; and the phrase labwn katesparmenon udwr is highly objectionable. speirw, like our 'saw', can be used of either the seed or the earth in which it is sawn, and katesparmenh or esparmenh is a well-known category of land in Egyptian land-registers; but it is a very different thing to apply the participle to water. Moreover, the sense postulated seems to require either the partitive genitive (or an equivalent) or at the very least the particle to. Could a Greek ever have expressed 'he took (some of) the water an which seed had been sawn' by elaben katesparmenon udwr? Again, while the passive of pimplhmi could mean 'to conceive' when used of a female animal, it does not seem clear that it could be applied ta seed-corn or to land; and everywhere in the N.T. it means either 'to be fulfilled' or 'to be filled with' something. Lastly, the reading ep[i t]hn ghn, though at first adopted, is considerably less probable than that printed in the text. Nevertheless, Milne's and Kenyon's suggestions may be on the right lines as regards the general interpretation of the incident.

71. nwn is inadequate to fill the space. pantwn would be too long after it, and hence wv, which suits the space, is read, with same hesitation.

73. Io[rd]anou: the certain io and nou (of a only a mere speck remains) put the reading beyond reasonable doubt. [potam]ou, which just suits the space, follows naturally; cf. Matt. 3:6, Mark 1:5 en tw Iordanh potamw.

78. en[..].n thn: if the first word is a verb it must be very short, e.g. en[hk]en. Whatever supplements may be adapted it seems impossible to end a clause with udwr as the point suggests. If not accidental (see critical note) it may be stichometrical; Milne suggests that the punctuation is by kwla. But if so, it does not seem to be carried aut consistently.

79. ep.[..]qh: presumably a verb. The trace of ink after p, which rather suggests i (difficult here), would well suit Milne's l. Kenyon suggests eph[r]qh.

80. e]xhga[g]en: not certain, for the x is not very good and there is little space for g, but palaeographically possible, and it seems to be imposed by the letters which are certain.

karpo[n]: palaeographically likely, but by no means certain.

81. cf. John 16:20 all h luph umwn eiv caran genhsetai, but it is too hazardous to connect this passage with that. Eiv caran is, however, likely enough. If so, this may be part of a speech af Jesus, e.g. poll[oiv estai] eiv caran (cf. Luke 2:10 euaggelizomai umin caran megalhn, htiv estai panti tw law).

83-94. It is just possible that this fragment should be placed above fragment 1, giving the upper right portion of the first page, the upper left portion of the second. The contents suit this position fairly well. In ll.83-8 we should then have the preliminaries to the conversation recorded on page 1: Jesus is apparently conversing with his interlocutors, and knowing (eidwv, 1.87) their intentions against him, we may suppose, he addresses to them (the nomikoi) the remark recorded in ll.2-5. ll.89-94 well suit the transition to page 2: the rulers, infuriated by what Jesus has said (for this see also the note on 1.90), resolve to kill Him (1.92). Jesus makes a further (short) remark (legei 1.93), which further angers them, and they urge the multitude to stone Him (ll.25 ff.). The general appearance of the papyrus on the two sides is also not unfavourable to this position; but unfortunately a close examination of the fibres makes it very doubtful. The two fragments are indeed not continuous, but down the right portion of fragm. 3 verso runs a line where the vertical fibres were displaced in manufacture, leaving a narrow space of varying width where only the horizontal fibres appear. There is in fragm. 1 verso no similar derangement of fibres in a position so related to fragment 3 that to place the fibres of the latter in the right position with regard to the former would not throw the margin of the text out of relation. It is always a little unsatisfactary to compare fibres on pieces which are not continuous, and the position suggested for fragment 3 cannot be definitely ruled out, but it is certainly improbable on the evidence of the papyrus, and it seems more likely that this fragment formed part of a third leaf.

90. Perhaps menw p[ar umn; cf. John 14:25 tauta lelalhka umin par umin menwn. Possibly ouketi menw par umin, which might follow on Jesus' reproach of want of faith in ll. 18 ff.

91. a-]kouseiv is also possible.

91f. apo]kteinwsin; probably preceded by ina or opwv and followed by auton. cf. John 11:53 ap ekeinhv oun thv hmerav ebouleusanto ina apokteinwsin auton.

As a matter of fact, the Gospel here preserved, the original composition of which can hardly be later than the early years of the second century, is probably too early for a definitely heretical intention to be at all likely. Heretical elements and tendencies there were no doubt in the thought of the early second century, but it may be questioned whether any of the great heresies had sufficiently crystallized at the period which we must presumably postulate for the composition of this text to permit of its identification with any of the really heretical Apocrypha. Some uncanonical Gospels are known, however, of which a fully heretical purpose cannot be asserted, and we must consider whether 1 may belong to one of these. The recorded works which most obviously suggest themselves on the discovery of such fragments as these are the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the Gospel of Peter. The first is ruled out by the fact that it stood in a specially close relation to St. Matthew's Gospel, so much so that some have regarded it as a sort of proto-Matthew, whereas 1, if it can be connected with Matthew at all, has only the slightest points of contact with it. Moreover, it is very doubtful whether a Greek version of the Gospel according to the Hebrews existed as early as the first half of the second century.

There is less superficial difficulty in connecting 1 with the Gospel of Peter, but a weighing of all the evidence makes very strongly against this also. The Gospel of Peter has frequently been described as Docetic in character; and though L. Vaganay, who has recently devoted to it a very careful and comprehensive study (L'Evangile de Pierre, Paris, 1930), concludes (pp. 118-22) that it is a product of popular Christianity rather than a really Docetic work, he admits, what indeed is evident, that it shows Docetic tendencies. The entire absence of any such phenomena from 1 cannot be regarded as a very serious argument, the fragments being so small, but it must certainly be reckoned with. More weighty is the relation of the two works to the canonical Gospels. It seems to be generally agreed that the author of the Gospel of Peter used the Synoptic Gospels, though he handled very freely the material they offered, but it has been disputed whether or not he knew St. John. Vaganay concludes that he probably did; but at least we may say that the connexion is slight. Now the connexion between 1 and John is obvious and palpable, whereas it is far less certain that its author made any direct use of the Synoptists. Again, the Gospel of Peter appears to have had but a restricted circulation. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch(A.D. 190-211), did not know of it till he found it circulating in the church of Rhossos; and such little evidence as we have suggests that its early use was in the main confined to Syria and Palestine; Vaganay concludes (p. 179) that it originated in the former. Egypt has indeed been considered as a possible provenance, and certainly the fragment to which we owe most of our knowledge of it was found there; but that fragment is of late date, and the arguments for an Egyptian origin of the Gospel are flimsy. One would hardly expect, therefore, to find it in an Egyptian papyrus of about the middle of the seeond century. Furthermore, the very date of 1 is against identification with the Gospel of Peter. The composition of the latter has indeed by some critics been put back as early as the end of the first century, but this seems on the whole unlikely. M. R. James (The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1924, p. 90) thinks it 'not safe to date the book much earlier than A.D. 150'; Vaganay (p. 163) inclines to a date shortly after A.D. 120. In either case it is at least unexpected to find it circulating in Middle Egypt by the middle of the century.

There are, however, other and perhaps even stronger arguments. The tone of 1 is sober, concise, and matter-of-fact; that of the Gospel of Peter is inclined to the marvellous, to wordiness, and to occasional extravagance. More important, the actual structure of the style differs considerably. That of the Gospel of Peter is definitely more vulgar than that of 1, as is obvious from even a hasty comparison of the two. The following among many other points of difference may be noted: the Gospel of Peter is notably syntactic in style, clause following clause connected by kai in a manner characteristic of the naive Greek of the uneducated classes; 1 shows a far more developed construction. In the Gospel of Peter oti is several times inserted before reported speech, as so often in St. Mark's Gospel; in 1 it is never so used. Asyndeton occurs in the Gospel of Peter seven times (22: tote hliov elamye; 25: tote oi Ioudaioi; 29: efobhqhsan oi presbuteroi; 45: tauta idontev; 46: apokriqeiv o Peilatov; 47: eita proselqontev; 57: tote ai gunaikev, Words like tote, eita, tauta were no doubt treated by the writer as equivalent to a connecting particle, but this use has no parallel in 1), but not once in 1 (cf. 1 77, kai tote as contrasted with the abrupt tote characteristic of the Gospel of Peter). In the Gospel of Peter Jesus is never once referred to by name (this is indeed one of the phenomena which have been taken as an indication of Docetic tendencies) but only as kuriov; in 1 o kuriov occurs in narrative passages twice (ll.33, 40; in 1.42 kuriov is restored, but Ihsouv is of course equally possible), Ihsouv three times (ll.17, 57, 72).

Each of these points is perhaps but slight evidence in itself when 1 is so small in compass, but taken together they constitute a weighty argument; and the general tone and character of the style are quite different in the two texts. The fact that the Gospel of Peter is put into the mouth of the Apostle, so that portions of it are narrated in the first person, is not of much importance as evidence, since what remains of 1 contains no incident in which the presence of St. Peter needed to be emphasized. Nor is it safe to rely too much on a comparison of 1 with the Apocalypse of Peter; for though there is much to be said for the view (cf. M. R. James, Apocr. N.T., p. 505) that the Apocalypse is really part of the Gospel, this view is necessarily conjectural. Certainly, if the Apocalypse actually did form part of the Gospel, the idea of identifying 1 with the latter may be ruled out decisively, since the differences of style and temper between 1 and the Apocalypse are even more marked.

It seems, then, that an identification with either the Gospel according to the Hebrews or that of Peter must be rejected. What of the Gospel according to the Egyptians? There is some initial prejudice in its favour when we are dealing with a Gospel found in Egypt, and there are fewer positive arguments against it than against the others, but that is mainly because so little is known about this Gospel. Certainly what we do know does not suggest that 1 is in any way connected with it. The three principal assertions to which the scanty available evidence concerning the Gospel according to the Egyptians have seemed to some scholars (e.g. Dr. M. R. James) to point are: (1) that it had a definite doctrinal (Gnostic) tendency; (2) that the female disciples occupied a prominent place in it; (3) that it contained a number of somewhat riddling and esoteric sayings; but all these conclusions are necessarily somewhat hazardous. Neither of the first two can be made about 1 so far as it is preserved. As regards the third, which is the best attested of the three, there is nothing of a strange or esoteric kind in fragment 1 or in fragment 2 recto. Fragment 2 verso does, however, contain a xenon eperwthma, and it is possible that some emphasis should be laid on this; but it is not apparently in the least of the same kind as the sayings quoted by Clement of Alexandria from the Gospel according to the Egyptians. All we can say, then, is that prima facie there is no case for identifying the two.

Neither is there much to be said for identifying 1 with any of the Gospels or similar works of which fragments have been found among Egyptian papyri. The Logia (P. Oxy. 1 and 654) can no doubt be ruled out at once, on every ground. Of P. Oxy. 655 too little remains to justify any confident assertion one way or the other; but what survives offers no point of contact with 1, though it does with the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the somewhat staccato style (legousin autw oi maqhtai autou. pote hmin emfanhv esei kai pote se oyomeqa; legei otan ekdushsqe ktl.) is not close enough to that of 1 to afford any evidence of identity. There is even less to be said for P. Oxy. 840; indeed, it is definitely unlikely that any connexion exists between 1 and the Gospel there represented. Among other points of difference Christ is twice referred to (excluding the restoration in 1.21) in the 45 lines of Oxy. 840 as o swthr and is nowhere mentioned by name.

It is in fact easier to say what 1 is not than to say what it is; but an attempt must be made to determine its affinities with the canonical Gospels; and since it stands in a different relation to St. John and to the Synoptists they must be considered separately. It is at least clear that 1 is not a mere rechauffe of elements derived from the canonical Gospels. This is proved conclusively by fragment 2 verso; for whatever restorations may there be adopted it is quite impossible to relate the incident recorded to anything which occurs in either John or the Synoptists. A similar conclusion is suggested by the incidents to which possible parallels may be found in the Synoptic Gospels. It is difficult to believe that the healing of the leper in ll.35-44 is not the same incident as that which is related by the three Synoptists (Matt. 8:2-4, etc.). It is, however, so differently told that it is by no means certain that the author of 1 was using the Synoptic Gospels at all and not rather drawing on an independent source, oral or written. The only passage which shows a significantly close verbal agreement with the Synoptic versions is precisely that where such agreement would be expected in any narrative of the incident. If we ask ourselves what feature of the miracle would be most likely to impress itself on the popular memory and so to appear unchanged or with but trifling variation in any account, the answer will certainly be that it was the simple affirmation of faith by the leper and Christ's equally simple reply. And as a matter of fact, though the former is identical in form in all the Synoptists, it appears in 1 somewhat differently worded (ean oun [su qelhv), kaqarizomai against ean qelhv, dunasai me kaqarisai). The other verbal similarities are either slight or of a not very significant kind; the only one which is at all important, the concluding injunction (largely restored), is with a different, purely Lucan context (for such transfer of phrases from one incident in one Gospel to a different incident in another, see B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 398.). It is indeed hardly rash to say that there is no conclusive evidence in this section of any use by 1 of the Synoptists. Even if the verbal coincidences betray a knowledge of them it is preferable to believe that the writer used them from a memory of the Synoptic version rather than with a copy of it before him. For his narrative nowhere suggests the work of a mere embellisher of the Synoptic account, and moreover his only substantial addition to the Synoptic version is quite pointless if it is a mere invention. If he were merely embellishing the Synoptic narrative it would hardly be explicable that he omits the 'worshipping' of Jesus which, with differences of wording, all the Synoptists record. Nor is there any apparent reason why he should ignore the stretching out of Christ's hand and touching of the leper. The obvious interpretation of the facts is really this: that while the appeal of the leper and the reply of Jesus impressed themselves so strongly on the hearers' minds that they became a fixed part of any narrative of the incident, other details left varying impressions on various people. One tradition, that represented by the Synoptists, remembered the prostration of the leper before Jesus and the touching of him by the latter; another, that represented by 1, while dropping these points, retained (what the other ignored) the account given by the leper of the way in which he contracted the disease.

Even more definitely may we say that there is no clear sign of Synoptic influence in ll.50-66. If the supplements adopted in the text are correct, the question here asked is clearly of the same type and asked with the same purpose as that of the Herodians, and the incident may probably be the same, though it is just possible that it is a similar but earlier attempt of Jesus' enemies to entrap Him. If the latter, it is obviously independent of the Synoptists; if the former, since there is no apparent reason for changing the form of the question and Jesus' reply so drastically, it would appear to represent an independent tradition. The verbal parallels which can be found in the canonical Gospels (Luke and John) to ll. 59-61 (ti me kaleite tw stomati umwn didaskalon, mh akouotev o legw) are so slight as to be irrelevant; the quotation from Isaiah in ll. 61-66 is reported by Matthew and Mark in a totally different context and with verbal differences which make it probable that the author of 1 was not 'lifting' it from there, a conclusion supported by the fact that his version agrees more nearly with the LXX than theirs. Moreover, the words tw stomati, which seem to point forward to the quotation from Isaiah, give that quotation an intimacy of connexion with the context which it hardly possesses in Matthew and Mark. The question is not answered so far as the fragment extends, but it is impossible to say whether or not a reply to it is lost in the lacuna.

So far, then, as the Synoptists are concerned,we may conclude that 1 appears to represent a quite independent tradition. It is not even certain that its author knew those Gospels at all; if he did, it is in the last degree improbable that he was copying from and embroidering them with the text of one or all of them before him; the most that can be conceded is that he had read them and that words and phrases from them had remained in his memory and found their way into his text. 'He' and 'his' may perhaps be applicable not to the author of 1 but to a written source which he was using; but this is less likely in view of the early date of the papyrus.

The relation of 1 to St. John is on a quite different footing and must be discussed separately. It is indeed of a varying degree of closeness. The leper incident is not found in John, where in fact no healing of lepers is recorded. Nor is the temptation of the Herodians a Johannine tradition. It is worthy of mention that, though the opening remark of the 'tempters' is paralleled in spirit in the Synoptic versions of the Herodian question, a far closer parallel in sense and actual wording is to be found, from a totally different context, in the opening remark of Nicodemus (John 3:2); but the parallel is general rather than very close in detail, and it is very doubtful whether we should be correct in supposing that the author of 1 had borrowed directly from John (or John from 1), though a recollection of either by the other may have influenced the phrasing. This is perhaps likely in view of the fact that the second part of the remark is paralleled not by John 3:2 but by John 10:25, where the words in question (tauta marturei peri emou) are put into the mouth of Jesus, not as here into that of the questioners (a gar poieiv marturei uper touv profhtav pantav). In fact a general recollection, by one writer or the other, rather than actual copying best accounts for the phenomena. The incident in fragment 2 verso, as already remarked, has no parallel in any canonical Gospel, but in the mutilated concluding lines it is possible (though very hazardous) to discover an echo of John 16:20.

When, however, we turn to lll.1-32 we find a quite different state of affairs. whatever view may ultimately be taken of the relationship, there can be no dispute that there is here a close connexion between 1 and John. The only question is what is the nature of this connexion. On the discovery of a new and non-canonical Gospel showing close verbal coincidences with John the assumption which naturally occurs first is that its author was using the existing Gospel of St. John as one of bis sources; but a careful consideration of the evidence leads at least to some hesitation about this conclusion. The narrative in 1 makes no impression of being a mosaic of extracts from an earlier work. There is a logical progression in the thought, so far as this can be determined from what remains. First Jesus (if the suggested restorations can be taken as indicating the general sense of the passage) addresses to the lawyers the exhortation to direct their attention to the law-breaker, not to Him. Then, turning to the rulers of the people, who no doubt represented more especially the Pharisaic party, He appeals to their knowledge of the Scriptures to confirm His mission; and He adds to the force of this by saying in effect: 'Do not mistake me; it is not I who accuse you but your own law-giver Moses, who, you will find, bears testimony to me and thereby convicts you of want of faith.' The Pharisees, quite naturally, reply that they know that God spoke to Moses, but as for Jesus, they have no knowledge of His credentials; whereupon Jesus proceeds to a further demonstration (now lost) of their want of faith. The development is perfectly smooth and self-consistent; yet when we turn to the Johannine parallels we find that the words eraunate ... peri emou are preceded by no such remark as that which 1 records immediately before them but form part of a long speech which began twenty verses earlier; that they are separated by five verses from the words which follow, mh dokeite ... hlpikate; that in John these words are followed by two more verses not found in 1, after which the Evangelist proceeds to a new episode, whereas in 1 the rulers of the people make a reply which, with the necessary change of person, is found in John in an entirely different context, being addressed by the Pharisees to the man born blind; and that this reply is in 1 followed by a further speech of Jesus, which, though only the beginning of it remains, is clearly not found anywhere in John or the other canonical Gospels. Here this page ends, but the episode is clearly continued on the verso; and here the relationship to John is even more curious. Once again, the narrative, so far as preserved, is quite continuous and well fitted together, and once again it recalls John at every turn. The attempt to stone Jesus is no part of John 5, with which the two first sentences addressed by Him on the recto to the rulers of the people find their parallel. There are two separate passages in John (8 and 10) where stones are taken up against Jesus, the second containing a reminiscence (palin) of the first, but in neither case does the context agree with that of 1; the wording of the latter seems to agree more closely with the second, 10:31. On three different occasions, none of them agreeing with the context here, St. John records in language generally recalling 1, unsuccessful attempts to seize (piazw) Jesus, and in one of them (7:30) he adds oti oupw elhluqei h wra autou; in 1 we find a similar phrase, oti oupw e[lhluqei] autou wra thv paradosewv. The concluding sentence of this episode in 1 has partial parallels with John 10:39 and Luke 4:30 (1: autov de o kuriov exelqwn (dia mesou au)twn apeneusen ap autwn; John: kai exhlqen ek thv ceirov autwn; Luke: autov de dielqwn dia mesou autwn eporeueto), but in neither case is the context the same.

Of these phenomena there appear to be only three reasonable explanations. (1) The writer of 1 was directly using John and picking isolated sentences from various contexts, which, with great skill and some small changes of wording, he fitted into a continuous narrative, a narrative which on this hypothesis can claim no real authority. (2) John used 1 as one of the sources on which he based his own Gospel. (3) John and the writer of 1 were drawing, in different degrees, on a common source. Neglecting for the moment the last possibility, we must ask whether the first or the second is in itself the more likely. There are certainly some weighty objections to the first. We have seen that elsewhere 1 shows such slight agreements with the canonical Gospels that it seems doubtful whether its author used them directly at all; yet here, on this supposition, he incorporates whole sentences of John, arbitrarily torn from their context, into an episode which he either invented for his own purposes or derived from some other, presumably non-Johannine, source. Why is it that in this portion of his work he adopts a procedure so different from his usual practice? There is no apparent purpose in inventing the episode; so far as the extant text goes it contains no doctrinal and no important biographical addition to what might have been found in the canonical sources; and if the episode was found by the writer elsewhere in a non-Johannine form why did he take the trouble to interpolate Johannine sentences into it? Moreover, these borrowings are not verbally identical with the Johannine parallels. The first sentence, eraunate ... peri emou, is indeed paralleled by a 'doublet' reading in certain manuscripts; but as pointed out in the note, it is more likely that it found its way into these as the result of a gloss quoting the present Gospel (or its source) than that it was the original form of John 5:39. So, too, in the second sentence 1 differs from the text of John 5:45 in two respects (hlqon kathgorhsai for kathgorhsw, and mou inserted after patera). These alterations seem quite pointless. Furthermore, the passage does not at all give the impression of padding or, as already said, of a mere mosaic. When taken by itself, without any reference to any other Gospel, it reads in no essential respect differently from the episodes which follow. It would probably be true to say that in style it has little, if any, of the characteristic Johannine ring. St. John's style is admittedly individual to the last degree; it is given to repetition and the sometimes almost painfully meticulous hammering out of a point. In 1 there is nothing of this; each point is made crisply and succinctly, and the text passes at once to another. If the writer was borrowing he certainly possessed a marked gift for fitting his borrowed matter harmoniously and imperceptibly into the structure of his style.

Let it be supposed, on the other hand, that John was using 1 (or its source). It is easy enough to imagine a highly individual writer like St. John expanding and combining material which he found in an earlier text to develop his interpretative record of Christ's teaching and personality. As Canon Streeter well puts it (The Four Gospels, p. 397), 'John, the preacher, the thinker, the mystic, aiming avowedly at writing, not a biography, but a message meant to burn . . . , was not likely to write, like the other Evangelists, with a copy of Mark or any other document in front of him. The materials he uses have all been fused in the crucible of his creative imagination, and it is from the image in his mind's eye, far more vivid than the written page, that he paints his picture.' In the present case, if he used 1, the verbal coincidences are perhaps sufficiently close to require more than a recollection of a previous reading of the text, but the free handling of his material is certainly characteristic, and the differences in wording noted above are more easily explicable in a writer with the characteristics of St. John than in the author of 1.

Between these two hypotheses the choice is not perhaps easy; but it would be rash to reject off-hand the dependence of John on 1 in favour of the reverse theory, involving such difficulties as those pointed out above. Little help is got from the vocabulary of the Johannine parallels in 1, but some observations must be made on them. The word eraunaw nowhere occurs in the Synoptic Gospels. It occurs once in John (7:52) over and above the passage (5:39) quoted as a parallel; but it is also Pauline and occurs once each in 1 Peter and Revelation. marturew does not occur in Mark; it is found once each in Matthew (23:31) and Luke (4:22); and it is extremely common in John, besides occurring in Acts and in various Epistles, especially Hebrews, 1 and 3 John, and Revelation. elpizo, found in Matthew and Luke, occurs nowhere else in St. John's Gospel, but it occurs (once each) in 2 John and 3 John. lalew is common throughout the N.T., but is specially so in John. piazw, which occurs eight times in John, is not found in the Synoptists, though it occurs in Acts.

These statistics show that the passages which are paralleled in John exhibit a somewhat Johannine phraseology, though, as already remarked, the style is not characteristically Johannine. On the other hand, this is not true of the remainder of the text, where, so far as linguistic affinities can be found at all, the words employed are perhaps more characteristic of the Synoptists (e.g. afisthmi and pandoceion occur only in Luke of the canonical Gospels). It is, however, doubtful whether these facts can be pressed as indicating in ll. 1-32 a dependence of 1 on John. If they have any evidential value they would perhaps better suit the third hypothesis indicated above, the independent use by John and 1 of a common source; and this would also help to explain the verbal differences in the sentences common to both. In this connexion it may be pointed out that the construction seen in hlqon kathgorhsai (John kathgorhsw) is nowhere found in John, though it is common enough in the Synoptists; when John wishes to use hlqon he says hlqon ina krinw (12:47). It also occurs in the Gospel according to the Egyptians (hlqon katalusai ta erga thv qhleiav, Cl. Alex. Strom. iii. 9, 63) and that according to the Hebrews (hlqon katalusai tav qusiav, Epiph. Haer. xxx. 16).Of this third hypothesis it may be said that it is of subsidiary importance only. If 1, 1-32, is a mere rehash of miscellaneous excerpts from John it lacks all independent authority, and the employment of such a method here might even shake our faith in the independence of the remainder of 1; but if this hypothesis be rejected, it is not vitally necessary to decide whether John used 1 or a source also used by 1, for in either case 1 puts us in touch, at first or second hand, with one of St. John's sources. In that case, the papyrus, highly interesting as it is already, becomes of the first importance.

So important indeed is the issue involved that it would be rash and ill-advised in the present editors, neither of whom can claim any wide acquaintance with this field of study, to attempt a positive solution. It is sufficient to state the relevant considerations and the reasons which induced them to question their first assumption that the author of 1 was in ll.1-32 drawing directly on the existing text of John. It may be added that the unJohannine character of most of the other material in 1 makes it quite impossible to regard the work as a sort of 'Proto-John'.

Of the other Gospels, Luke is perhaps that to which 1 shows most affinity. As already remarked, afisthmi and pandoceion occur only in Luke of the Evangelists. In the leper story, where the words occur, though the main portion is nearest to Matthew, the last extant sentence is Lucan, and the sentence which introduces it, autov de o kuriov ktl., has a rather striking resemblance to Luke 4:30. In 1 Jesus is twice referred to, in narrative, as o kuriov. This is not found at all in the best text of Matthew or Mark, but there are 14 (or 15) examples in Luke, and 5 in John (Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 212 f.). Mark never uses idou in narrative; in Matthew it occurs 32 times, in Luke 16, in John not at all. In 1 it is found once, in the leper story. The strange word embrimaomai (1, 58) occurs once in Matthew, twice in Mark, twice in John, and not at all in Luke. In the episode of the Herodians (?) the question, with its double interrogative, in ll.55-7 is nearest in form to St. Mark's version. It will be seen that the linguistic evidence is fluctuating, but the most important is perhaps the use of o kuriouv in narrative, which is specially characteristic of St. Luke.

To sum up: it is very doubtful whether 1 can be identified with any known uncanonical Gospel, with the possible (but very improbable) exception of the Gospel according to the Egyptians. The evidence indicates rather strongly that it represents a source or sources independent of those used by the Synoptic Gospels, and very likely, in part at least, authentic. Its relation to John is such as to suggest for serious consideration the question whether it may be, or derive from, a source used by that Gospel. It is now fairly well accepted (see, e.g., Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 12) that each of the four canonical Gospels was associated with a particular church, Mark with Rome, Luke with Achaea, Matthew perhaps with Antioch (Streeter, op. cit., pp. 500 ff.), and John with Ephesus. The importance of these churches, it may be supposed, secured general acceptance for the Gospels associated with them, but there is no improbability, indeed there is considerable likelihood, in the supposition that other churches had also their Gospels (cf. Luke 1:1), which were not so received, and 1 may we be one of these. Its discovery in Egypt may suggest that it was written for the Christian community of Alexandria; but this supposition is rendered a little doubtful by its connexion with John, which was pretty certainly the Ephesian Gospel. Perhaps, then, 1 originated in Asia and was later introduced into Alexandria and so into Egypt generally. In any case it seems probable that it was of comparatively early composition, most likely before the end of the first century.

It remains to discuss the order of the fragments and the position in Christ's ministry which is to be assigned to the incidents recorded. There is unfortunately no external evidence on this point. One numeral only occurs, on fragment 2 recto, and of this, which may be the number of the page, the folio, or the quire, too little remains for any reading. There is, however, some internal evidence as regards fragment 1. The first eight lines of the recto follow so naturally on the verso that it seems safe to take them as the continuation of the incidents there related. Thus we can assume that the verso page of this leaf preceded the recto. There were three possible ways of making up a papyrus codex, all of which involved a single folding of the papyrus sheets which composed it, as contrasted with the successive foldings of a sheet of vellum or paper (see F. G. Kenyon, Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome, pp. 100-7; The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, fasc. 1, pp. 9-13.): Several sheets might be laid flat, one above another to the requisite number, and then folded once, forming one large quire for the whole volume; or single sheets might be folded separately so as to form a succession of quires, each consisting of only two leaves; or, finally, a small number of sheets, five, ten, twelve, etc., might be folded together to form quires of ten, twenty, or twenty-four leaves. The papyrus was ordinarily laid before folding with the recto uppermost, so that a folded sheet of two leaves showed the succession verso, recto, recto, verso. The available evidence, to which a valuable addition has lately been made by the Chester Beatty papyri, suggests that the two first methods were the earlier ones and that in very early times the single-quire method was the commoner, though the fact that P. Beatty 1 (early third century) consists of two-leaf quires is a warning against hasty generalization. If we may assume that 1 was formed of a single quire, then, since the verso of fragment 1 precedes the recto, it would appear that this leaf at least belonged to the first half of the Gospel - or to the first half of the codex if it contained more than one work. Such a position well suits the context, at least so far as the leper incident is concerned. It is notoriously difficult to find in the Gospels any secure basis for a chronology of Christ's ministry, but the position of the leper story in the three Synoptic Gospels certainly indicates for it a comparatively early date, and it is quite certain that the Synoptists placed it in Galilee. In Mark it follows the sentence 'And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out devils', which suggests that the incident occurred in a city; and this is confirmed by Luke, who says explicitly 'while he was in one of the cities'. Now the incident which in 1 precedes it, the controversy with the lawyers and the rulers of the people, also points to a city of some size rather than a country place. Here, however, a difficulty arises. As already said, the Johannine parallels in ll.1-32 are found in various passages of John; but all these passages occur in portions of the narrative located by John at Jerusalem. Yet in 1 the passage which contains them is immediately followed by one relating an incident elsewhere recorded as occurring in Galilee. These facts may be interpreted differently according to the view taken of the relation between 1 and the canonical Gospels, especially John. If the author of 1 was excerpting John, we must suppose him to have culled isolated sentences from incidents at Jerusalem and woven them into a narrative which, from its position, should refer to Galilee; or, alternatively, that he transferred the leper incident from Galilee to Jerusalem. In the second case one cannot but feel some doubts as to the authority of 1 even in that incident. On the other hand, if John was using 1 (or its source) and incorporating into speeches at Jerusalem sentences which originally belonged to an incident in Galilee, this fact may seem to reinforce the doubts which many scholars have expressed as to the historicity of the earlier visits to Jerusalem which John alone records, though this is not a necessary inference.

The position of fragment 2 is yet more uncertain than that of 1, and it is impossible even to decide with any certainty which side should he placed first. If indeed 1 and 2 originally formed part of the same sheet, then 2 must follow 1 and its recto side must precede the verso, but there is no evidence for or against this. As 2 comes from the top of the leaf, 1 from lower down, it is difficult to compare the fibres, and in any case the fragments, even if from the same sheet, may have been parts of different kollhmata. Even if they were originally combined this would not prove that 2 recto followed 1 recto immediately, for if the codex was composed of a single quire many sheets may have lain above that which formed the two fragments preserved. Nor does internal evidence help in determining the order of the two sides of 2, for the text of the recto bears no relation to that of the verso, and it is clear that between the two there was a transition from one episode to another. There is indeed one point which is perhaps worth making. If the episode on the recto is a different version of the question of the Herodians, it should properly be placed at Jerusalem and late in the Gospel, since the Synoptists agree in assigning this jncident to the days before the Passion. M. Goguel denies that this can have occurred at Jerusalem, owing to the part played by the Herodians (Life of Jesus, Engl. ed., p. 401). But surely there is nothing improbable in the presence of Herodians at Jerusalem just before the Passover; and they would be just the people whom the Pharisees would naturally think of calling in for this purpose. There is, however, another possibility which is worth considering. St. Mark, after relating a series of conflicts with the scribes and Pharisees in Galilee, states (3:6; cf. Matt. 12:14; Luke 6:2) that 'the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him'. There must be something at the back of this statement. Did the Pharisees and Herodians actually go to the length of attempting, in an encounter unrecorded by the Synoptists, to entrap Jesus? And is the episode in fragment 2 recto a record of this, the subject of paragenomenoi being the Herodians, or, more probably, the Herodians and Pharisees combined? If so, a plausible arrangement suggests itself. Fragment 2 verso (by the Jordan) may have come first. Jesus may then have proceeded to some Galilaean City, where the question about oi basileiv was put to him; this may have been followed by the conflict with the lawyers and rulers of the people recorded in fragment 1; and finally came the leper incident. We should thus have the order: fragm. 2 verso, fragm. 2 recto; fragm. 1 verso, fragm. 1 recto (it would not follow of course that 1 came immediately after 2). It is hardly necessary to emphasize the highly conjectural character of this suggestion; but it is at least worth considering. If, on the other hand, the question in fragment 2 recto was asked at Jerusalem, verso is more likely to precede recto, since Jesus should, if we follow the Synoptic account, proceed from the Jordan to Jerusalem rather than vice versa. It is not necessarily an argument against this that, since the episode at Jerusalem should come late in the Gospel, recto ought to precede verso in this half, for (1) the manuscript may not have been a single-quire codex, (2) the codex may have contained more than one work, our Gospel occupying the first half of it.

There is no means of locating fragment 3. As pointed out in the notes, it is not, on the whole, likely that it formed part of fragment 1, and it is certain that it does not come from fragment 2.

The net result of this long discussion is, it is to be feared, a harvest of unsolved problems. Some of these are likely to prove insoluble unless further evidence comes to light, but it may be hoped that others will at least be brought nearer to a solution by the labours of scholars more competent in the field of Biblical studies, to whose attention the fragments must now be left.