This small fragment originates from the same papyrus codex as P.Lond.Christ.1, better known under the name P.Egerton 2. The papyrus in the British Museum was edited for the first time in 1935 by H.I. Bell and T.C. Skeat, "Fragments of an Unknown Gospel" (with illustration), then by the same authors in the same year with corrections, "The New Gospel Fragments".

The papyrus excited some attention at the time both because of its early dating and because of its contents. The publishers dated the three fragmentary papyrus pages to ca.150 by reference to the type of script, based upon which a still earlier date was considered possible. After P.Bodmer II of the gospel of John became known, P.Egerton 2 was examined several times because of the palaeographical relationship, in order to obtain a dating for P.Bodmer II. The dating of P.Bodmer II to the middle of the second century by H. Hunger encountered resistance from E.G. Turner, who considered the beginning of the third century more probable; viz. E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts Nr.63. The dating of P.Egerton 2 against this was not contested by Turner; viz. ders., Typology 5.3 and table P. 144 (under NT Apocrypha 7). The old dating is also upheld in J.van Haelst, Catalogue Nr.586 and K. Aland, Repertorium No. Ap 14.

This can now be supplemented by the discovery that, as in P. Bodmer II, in the Cologne fragments also there is an apostrophe between consonants ( aneneg'kon ), which according to E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts 13, 3 points rather to the third century. But even with a possible dating around 200, P.Egerton 2 would still rank among the earliest Christian papyri.

As well as the early dating, the papyrus also was of interest because of its content.  Nevertheless the original editors were able summarize the results of their investigation on p. 38 thus: "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"

In the following flood of statements by competent Bible researchers these speculations were upheld, and in particular the dependency on the gospel of John was hardly questioned at all. The single exception was the thesis of G.Mayeda, Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment Papyrus Egerton 2 und seine Stellung in der urchristlichen Literaturgeschichte, Berne 1946.

The consensus that has emerged from the scholarly discussion to date is given by J. Jeremias  in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I, p. 59: "There are contacts with all four gospels. The juxtaposition of Johannine... and synoptic material... and the circumstance that the Johannine material is interspersed with synoptic idioms, and the synoptic material with Johannine linguistic usage, leads us to conclude that the author knew all the canonical gospels. However he did not have them before him in a written collection, on the contrary the verbal resemblances in the digressions mentioned above suggest ... that the material is given from memory. So we might have an example of the overlap of the written and mainly oral transmissions before us.  Although the tradition was already fixed in writing, it still passed further on in memory to some extent, and found in this way... a new written precipitation".

The Cologne fragment completes the lower end of fr. 1 of P.Egerton 2 (starting from Z 19 verso, starting from Z 39 recto in the old numbering) with approx. 5 lines. The overall line numbering of the fragments changes because three lines of fr. 1 recto and seven lines of fragments 2 and 3  must be added to the old numbering.

On the verso of fr. 1 in the new part of the papyrus the quotations from John are continued, which follow a Sabbath-breach by Jesus.

The new part of the recto of fr. 1 surprisingly completes the account of the healing of the leprosy patient according to the synoptists but told with a Johannine idiom (Jo 5.14). The observation already made during the 'discussion of great interest' on fr. 2 recto acknowledged that "the synoptic account is interspersed with Johannine  linguistic usage" (J. Jeremias).

(Letters in red are doubtful. [[XX]]\/(YY) represents a correction from XX to YY.)

fr. 1 verso:
19 --------]TOISUPAUTOU[---
20 -----]OIS? EIGAREPI [---
21 -----]EPISTEUSATEA [---
22 --]R[ . ]EMOUGAREKEINO[---
23 --]NTOISPAT[ . . ]SIN [[H]]\/(u`) MW[---
24 ---]E[-----------------] . [ -----


fr. 1 recto:
42 [ . ]P[-----
43 DEAUTWOIH [----
44 TONEPIDEIXON [----
45 KAIANENEG'KON [----
46 [ . ]ARISMOUWS [[EP]]\/(PRO) E[----
47 [ . ]HKETIA[ . . ]RTANE [----
48 -------------------------] .. [

19 upa -: The rest of the u with a diaeresis over it and of the a are visible on P.Egerton 2.
20 After epi the right edge of the page is visible.
21 The highpoint before episteusate is visible on P.Egerton 2 as the last mark at the lower end of the verso from fr. 1.
23 hmw[ is probably corrected into u`mw[

43 The abbreviation line of Ih(souv) is visible on P.Egerton 2.
45 For the form anenegkon see Mandilaras, The Verb § 683, 2.
46 Above the hole in the s appears a point which appears to me to be of unclear meaning.
47 The middle horizontal stroke of the last E extends far into the free space before the break in the papyrus, as elsewhere at line ends.
48 Probably the abbreviation stroke of a Nomen Sacrum, behind it an indefinite mark.