The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 5

in which it only occurs in Luke ii. 11 etethe umin soter, hos estin Christos kyrios there is born to you a savior, who is Christ the Lord and John iv. 42 oidamen hoti outos estin o soter tou kosmou we know that this is the savior of the world, this is not sufficient to establish a Gnostic origin for the fragment. It is, however, enough to exclude the likelihood that 840 comes from either the gospel according to the Hebrews or that according to the Egyptians. For though soter savior is used in introducing quotations from those gospels by Origen (In Ioann. ii. 6 to kath' Hebraious euangelion entha autos o soter phesin: arti elabe me the gospel according to the Hebrews where the savior himself says: recently he took me etc.) and Epiphanius (Haer. 62. 2) en auto... gar polla toiauta hos en parabyso mysterioedos ek prosopou tou soteros anaferetai hos autou delountos tois mathetais for in it many such things as if in a secret mystery are reported from the person of the savior as he himself explaining to the disciples etc., the evidence of the extant quotations themselves indicates that kyrios Lord was the title commonly employed, as in the Gospel of Peter. In the absence of any definite resemblances between 840 and the scanty remains of the various uncanonical gospels composed in the second or third century, the fragment is best classed as belonging to a gospel distinct from any of them. The chief point of interest in it lies in the references to Jewish ceremonies of purification in connexion with the Temple-worship, about which the author at first sight shows an intimate knowledge. On some points the statements in the fragment find support in the extant authorities for the Temple-ritual at the time of Christ. Thus Josephus states that no Jew who was unclean had the right to be admitted to the inner court of the Temple, i. e. that known as the ‘court of the men of Israel’ (cf. l. 8, note), and the statement put into the mouth of the chief priest concerning the necessity of ceremonial washing and putting on white garments is in accordance with the regulations for priests described in the Mishnah (cf. ll. 25 and 27, notes). But that an ordinary Jew before visiting the inner court of the Temple had to wash and change his clothes as stated in ll. 18-20 is not confirmed by any other evidence; and neither the term hagneuterion purification place in l. 8 nor the limne tou Daveid pool of David in l. 25 are mentioned elsewhere, while considerable difficulty arises in connexion with the ‘sacred vessels’ which are stated to have been visible from the court to which Jesus and His disciples had penetrated; cf. ll. 12-21, note. Moreover the two stairways leading down to the ‘pool of David’ and still more the statement that dogs and swine were cast into it (ll. 33-4) seem to be details invented for the sake of rhetorical effect, for that a high priest washed himself in a pool of the character described in the fragment is incredible. So great indeed are the divergences between this account and the extant and no doubt well informed authorities with regard to the topography and ritual of the Temple that it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that much of the local colour is due to the imagination of the author, who was aiming chiefly at dramatic effect, and was not really well acquainted with the Temple. But if the inaccuracy of the fragment in this important respect is admitted, the historical