Papyrus Egerton 2
Papyrus Egerton 2
Papyrus Egerton 2 consists of four fragments. The fourth fragment yields nothing more than one illegible letter. The third fragment yields little more than a few scattered words. The first and second fragments offer four (or perhaps five) stories that parallel Johannine and Synoptic materials. Papyrus Köln 255 constitutes a related fragment of the text.23
At many points these fragments parallel the New Testament Gospels. The first story is replete with allusions to the Fourth Gospel. Jesus' assertion in lines 7–10 could well be drawn from John 5:39, 45. The lawyers' reply in lines 15–17 appears to be taken from John 9:29, while Jesus' rejoinder in lines 20–23a24 reflects John 5:46. The attempt to stone Jesus in lines 22–24 parallels John 10:31, while the declaration in lines 25–30 that they were unable to do so because His “hour had not yet come” echoes John 7:30 and 8:20. Reference to Jesus in line 30 as “the Lord” has a secondary ring. The second story is mostly Synoptic. The third story again combines Johannine and Synoptic elements. The opening statement in lines 45–47, “Teacher Jesus, we know that [from God] you have come, for what you are doing tes[tifies] beyond all the prophets,” is based on John 3:2 and 9:29 (cf. also John 1:45; Acts 3:18). Egerton's use of “teacher” (didaskale) is secondary to John's transliteration rabbi and may be due to its appearance in Mark 12:14a (“Teacher, we know that you are true”). The question put to Jesus in lines 48–50 is taken from Mark 12:14b parallel but appears to have missed the original point. Jesus' emotion in line 51 recalls Mark 1:43, while his question in lines 52–54 recalls a form of the question found in Luke 6:46. The remainder of Jesus' saying, which is a paraphrase of Isa 29:13, echoes Mark 7:6–7 and parallel.
Crossan's analysis of these fragments leads him to conclude that Papyrus Egerton 2 represents a tradition that predates the canonical Gospels. He thinks that “Mark is dependent on it directly” and that it gives evidence of “a stage before the distinction of Johannine and Synoptic traditions was operative.” Koester agrees with Crossan's second point, saying that in Papyrus Egerton 2 we find “pre-Johannine and pre-synoptic characteristics of language [which] still existed side by side.” He thinks it unlikely, pace Jeremias, that the author of this papyrus could have been acquainted with the canonical Gospels and “would have deliberately composed [it] by selecting sentences” from them.25
Theoretically Crossan and Koester could be correct in this assessment. However, some serious questions must be raised. First, several times editorial improvements introduced by Matthew and Luke appear in Egerton (e.g., compare Egerton line 32 with Mark 1:40; Matt 8:2; Luke 5:12; or Egerton lines 39–41 with Mark 1:44; Matt 8:4; Luke 17:14). There are other indications that the Egerton Papyrus is posterior to the canonical Gospels. The plural “kings” is probably secondary to the singular “Caesar” that is found in the Synoptics (and in Gos. Thom. §100). The flattery, “What you do bears witness beyond all the prophets,” may reflect John 1:34,45 and is again reminiscent of later pious Christian embellishment that tended to exaggerate the respect that Jesus' contemporaries showed Him (see the examples in Gos. Heb. §2 and Josephus, Ant. 18.3.3 §64).
A second question arises in response to Koester's statement about the improbability that the author of the Egerton Papyrus “would have deliberately composed [it] by selecting sentences” from the canonical Gospels. But is this not the very thing that Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian did? Justin Martyr composed a Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels and Tatian composed a harmony (i.e., the Diatessaron) of all four New Testament Gospels. If Justin Martyr and Tatian, writing in the second century, can compose their respective harmonies through the selection of sentences and phrases from this Gospel and that Gospel, why could not the author of the Egerton Papyrus do the same thing?
A third question arises out of Koester's suggestion that the mixture of Johannine-like and Synoptic elements is primitive, while their bifurcation into the extant canonical forms is secondary. If Koester's suggestion is correct, then the Egerton Gospel does indeed derive from the middle of the first century, as Crossan in fact argues. It would have to be this early if it were to be used by the Synoptic evangelists. If this is the case, then one must wonder why we have no other fragment or any other evidence of the existence of this extraordinarily primitive Gospel. How is it that we do not have other papyri, extracanonical Gospels, or patristic quotations attesting this primitive pre-Synoptic, pre-Johannine unified tradition?
Examples can be found in Justin Martyr's quotations, which sometimes combine materials from two or more Gospels. From Apologia I 15.9 we read: “If you love those who love you [cf. Matt 5:46 = Luke 6:32], what new thing do you do [unparalleled]? For even the fornicators do this [Matt 5:46: “tax collectors”; Luke 6:32–33: “sinners”]. But I say to you [cf. Matt 5:44], pray for your enemies [cf. Matt 5:44: “love”] and love those who hate you [cf. Luke 6:27: “do good”] and bless those who curse you and pray for those who mistreat you [cf. Luke 6:28].” In Apologia I 15.10–12 Justin combines materials from Matthew and Luke to create a lengthy saying that his readers would take as a single utterance. Yet it is a conflation.
In Apologia I 16.9–13 Justin has assembled, based on memory, a “word” of Jesus that is in reality a pastiche of Synoptic materials, which at one point may also reflect Johannine influence. Although drawn from a variety of contexts, there is nevertheless a general thematic unity that holds these materials together. With respect to composition, the sayings in P.Eger.2 §1 and §3 are similar to Justin's dominical “word.”
Another feature that tells against the antiquity and priority of the Egerton Papyrus is the story related in the badly preserved verso of fragment 2. Jesus apparently sows a handful of seed on the Jordan River, from which abundant fruit springs. The story is reminiscent of the kind of stories one finds in the late and fanciful apocryphal Gospels. For example, in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas we are told of the boy Jesus who sowed a handful of seed that yielded a remarkable harvest (Infan. Thom. 10:1–2 [Latin]).26
Although the hypothesis of Crossan, Koester, and others remains a theoretical possibility, the evidence available at this time suggests that in all probability Papyrus Egerton 2 represents a second-century conflation of Synoptic and Johannine elements, rather than primitive first-century material on which the canonical Gospels depended. The presence of at least one apocryphal tale akin to those of the least historically viable traditions only strengthens this conviction.