The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 5

character of the whole episode breaks down, and it is probably to be regarded as an apocryphal elaboration of Matt. xv. 1-20 and Mark vii. 1-23. In these circumstances the gospel to which the fragment belongs can hardly have been composed before the middle of the second century. The use of the term soter savior and the fact that the manuscript itself was written in the fourth or possibly even the fifth century may be represented as arguments for a third century date, but that seems to us improbable. After the four canonical gospels had come to be exclusively used in most churches, a process which was complete by the end of the second century (Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. ii. p. 699), no new gospel covering the same ground could look for more than a very limited acceptance, and after about A. D. 180 authors of apocryphal gospels generally avoided competition with the canonical gospels by placing their supposed revelations in the period of the Childhood or after the Resurrection. Moreover, if the author of 840 wrote in the third century, we should expect him to betray a definitely heretical point of view, which, as we have said, is not discernible in the fragment. That it is Egyptian in origin is very likely, but it stands much nearer to the gospel according to the Egyptians which was composed in the second century, probably before the middle of it, than e. g. to the Pistis Sophia which was written in the third. The literary quality also of the fragment does not favour a very late date; the style is more ambitious than that of the canonical gospels, and the rhetorical tendency of the composer, who uses a number of words not found in the New Testament, is somewhat pronounced, but he is more successful in catching something of the genuine ring than many of the authors of apocryphal gospels. Hence we prefer to regard the work to which 840 belongs as composed before A. D. 200. While the story of the dialogue between Christ and the chief priest has no claim to be accepted as authentic, and is probably a secondary or even tertiary production, the fragment is an interesting and valuable addition to the scanty remnant of the numerous uncanonical traditions concerning Christ's teaching which were current in many Christian communities, especially in Egypt, during the third and fourth centuries.

We are indebted to Prof. E. Schürer for several suggestions in the interpretation of this fragment.

original: "προτερονπροαδικησαιπαντασοφιζεται·αλλαπροσεχετεμηπωςκαιῠμεισταομοιααυτοισπαθητε·ουγαρεντοισζωισμονοισαπολαμβανουσιν"
"...before he does wrong makes all manner of subtle excuse. But give heed lest ye also suffer the same things as they; for the evil-doers among men receive their reward not among the living only..."