Really, for Christians, there should be no surprise that there have been papyrus manuscripts discovered that contain the sayings of Jesus that are not exactly the same as that of our canonical Gospels. The apostle John himself wrote in 98 C.E., “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.(John 21:25) Luke also infers this in his Gospel introduction when he writes, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, … it seemed good to me also, having followed all things accurately from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you …” – Luke 1:1-3.

In 1897, at a place in Egypt called Oxyrhynchus, two experts in ancient writings named Grenfell and Hunt found a piece of old papyrus paper while digging through an ancient trash heap. They figured out that this papyrus was a page from an old book — known as a codex — that dated back to the 3rd century [200-300]. This page was special because it had some lines on it that were thought to be things Jesus said. This kind of find is pretty common and gets named after where it was found, so this one is called the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, like other similar finds from that area (e.g., P.Oxy.LXI 4183, P.Oxy.LXI 4230, P.Oxy.LXI 4099). There’s a version of what was written on it in English that goes like this:

“Jesus saith, ‘Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the kingdom of God; and except you make the sabbath a real sabbath, ye shall not see the Father.’ Jesus saith, ‘I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart, and see not.’ Jesus saith, ‘A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither doth a physician work cures upon them that know him.’ Jesus saith, ‘A city built upon the top of a high hill and established, can neither fall nor be hid.’”[1]

In the first two sayings that are thought to be Jesus’ words, we find ideas that aren’t mentioned in the regular Bible, which means they are extra-biblical. Some experts think these sayings are among the “many other things” John talked about in John 21:25, things Jesus did that didn’t make it into the Bible. The phrase “A prophet is not acceptable in his own country” looks a lot like what’s written in Matthew 13:57, but the rest might be part of those extra things John mentioned. The fourth saying has a lot in common with what’s in Matthew 5:14.

In 1934, something else happened: The British Museum in London got their hands on some old pieces of papyrus from someone who sold them. Among these pieces were bits of what looked like a story about Jesus’ life that nobody had seen before, and they were written around 150 C.E. The following year, H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat, who took care of manuscripts at the British Museum, showed everyone the three pages they found by publishing pictures of them. These pieces turned out to be from an ancient Greek book, and they were made in Egypt. Now we call these pieces of papyrus “Egerton Papyrus 2.”

These documents are among the earliest examples we have of any writings about Jesus or the Christian faith. The British Museum acted quickly with these valuable finds; they got them in the summer of 1934, and by 1935, the contents were already published. This text is also known as the Unknown Gospel because there’s no mention of it in any ancient texts, and it was totally unknown until it was made public. These pieces belong to the Egerton Collection at the British Library. Later on, a fourth piece of the same text was found in the papyrus collection at the University of Cologne.

What’s left of these ancient writings tells us four different events: (1) a discussion that reminds us of parts of John’s Gospel; (2) the story of healing a man with leprosy, which is similar to passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; (3) a debate about whether it’s right to pay taxes to Caesar, which is like stories in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and (4) a fragmentary tale about something amazing happening near the Jordan River, which seems to be about seeds sprouting in a miraculous way. This last story isn’t found in any of the main books of the Bible that tell about Jesus’ life.

Jesus walked and stood on the bank of the Jordan river; he reached out his right hand, and filled it…. And he sowed it on the… And then…water…and…before their eyes; and it brought forth fruit…many…for joy…

The Nomina Sacra

This Greek text, especially with the early dating of 150 C.E., evidences a scribal custom that had recently developed. The scribes used suspensions (ΙΗ ΧΡ. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός [Jesus Christ]) or contractions (ΘΣ, Θεός, Theos, God), to which he would place a bar over the entire name (), for sacred names and words (nomina sacra). Nomina Sacra (singular: nomen sacrum from Latin sacred name): In early Christian scribal practices (how early we cannot know), there was the abbreviation of several frequently occurring divine names or titles within the Greek manuscripts. The very earliest copyists used a special form for the divine names: kurios (Lord), Iēsous (Jesus), Christos (Christ), theos (God), and pneuma (Spirit). In time, the list grew to fifteen names or words.

It should be noted that “the nomina sacra for Lord, Jesus, Christ, God, and Spirit are present in all extant second-century New Testament manuscripts where one or more of these nomina sacra are extant. The following second-century manuscripts that clearly show these nomina sacra are as follows:

• P4+P64+P67—Matthew, Luke
• P32—Titus
• P46—Paul’s Epistles
• P66—John
• P75—Luke, John
• P90—John”

Christian scribes adopted a practice from Jewish scribes involving how to write the name of God. In Jewish texts, the sacred name of God, יהוה (often represented as JHVH), was translated into Greek. Instead of writing the whole name, scribes would use abbreviations: “kyrios” for “Lord” without a definite article and “theos” for “God” using just the first and last letters with a line over them. This method of shorthand writing for divine names, known as nomina sacra, was well-established by the year 150 C.E. This is evidenced by various papyrus manuscripts like P4, P64, P67 (dated to 150-175 C.E.), P32 (150-200 C.E.), P46 (around 150 C.E.), P66 (around 150 C.E.), P75 (around 175 C.E.), and P90 (150-200 C.E.), where these abbreviations are consistently used.

This trend hints that after the last apostle, John, who is believed to have died around 100 C.E., changes began to appear in Christian practices as the apostles were no longer present to guide the faith, possibly leading to the great apostasy foretold in Christian teachings. It’s important to note that this insight into the practices of later scribes doesn’t tell us exactly how the original writers of the New Testament, or the very first scribes, wrote down their texts. The standardization of nomina sacra developed within about fifty years, which is a relatively short period. Given that John’s Gospel and his three letters were written between 96-98 C.E., they would likely be the most accurate to his teachings. Other New Testament books were written even earlier, before 70 C.E.

Again, the first four nominal sacra were (‘Jesus,’ ‘God,’ ‘Lord,’ and ‘Christ’) in the earliest extant manuscripts that we have. It is possible that the personal name of the Father, Jehovah, could be designated in the Greek as andand were the first attempts at the nomina sacra.[2] The Christian scribes soon thereafter expanded the list of abbreviations that included the following:  ho kyrios with a definite article applying to Jesus, not the Father? Followed by  (Iesous, Jesus). Was the initial attempt with the title for the father replacing the Tetragrammaton or sacred name יהוה in Greek without the definite article? Also,, the title for the father replacing the Tetragrammaton or sacred name יהוה in Greek? In addition, we have (patera, father) and (Moÿses, Moses).[3] It is certainly an anomaly that we find Moses’ name abbreviated by suspension (the first two letters) here in P Egerton 2 similar to how Jesus’ name is treated. Comfort writes, “Scattered across the pages of nearly every extant Greek New Testament manuscript can be seen the following nomina sacra.” (Encountering the Manuscripts, 2005, 199). The contraction or suspended word would have a bar over it.

ΚΣ for κυριος (Kurios) = Lord
ΙΗ or ΙΗΣ for ιησους (lēsous) = Jesus
ΧΡ or ΧΣ or ΧΡΣ for χριστος (Christos) = Christ
ΘΣ for θεος (theos) = God
ΠΝΑ for πνευμα (pneuma) = Spirit

George Howard has put forward the idea that the abbreviations κς (for “kyrios,” meaning “Lord”) and θς (for “theos,” meaning “God”) were the first special shorthand notations, called nomina sacra, made by non-Jewish Christians. These scribes didn’t feel tied to Jewish traditions, which included keeping the sacred name of God, יהוה, intact in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. However, Larry W. Hurtado, building on ideas from Colin Roberts, disagrees. He suggests that the abbreviation ιη (for “Iesous,” meaning “Jesus”) came first, as hinted at in the Epistle of Barnabas. This was followed by χρ (for “Christos,” meaning “Christ”), with κς and θς coming later, around the time when ις and χς started being used for the first two. There’s also a possibility that the personal name of the Father, Jehovah, was referred to in Greek texts as κς and θς, and these may have been the initial efforts to use nomina sacra. Comfort has commented on this topic.

The nomina sacra are also present in Greek Old Testament manuscripts and other Christian writings produced by Christians. This includes several second-century manuscripts noted below: P. Chester Beatty VI, Numbers, Deuteronomy P. Baden 4.56 (P. Heidelberg inv. 8), Exodus and Deuteronomy P. Antinoopolis 7, Psalms PSI 921, Psalms P. Oxyrhynchus 1074, Exodus P. Chester Beatty Papyrus VIII, Jeremiah P. Chester Beatty Papyrus IX, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther Other Christian writings also use nomina sacra: P. Geneva 253, Christian homily P. Egerton 2, Unknown Gospel P. Oxyrhynchus 405, fragment of Irenaeus P. Oxyrhynchus 406, Christian homily One of the main reasons we know that the Old Testament manuscripts are Christian manuscripts and not Jewish is the presence of nomina sacra in the text. Significantly, not one copy of the Greek Old Testament found at Qumran has these nomina sacra because this was a Jewish, not a Christian community. Jews never wrote nomina sacra the way Christians did; the Jews did things differently for one divine name and one divine name only: Yahweh. Jewish scribes would frequently write this in its Hebrew contracted form (even in paleo-Hebrew letters) and then continue on with the Greek text. Christians used κυριος (kurios = Lord) in place of Yahweh (YHWH) and wrote it in nomen sacrum form. Many Greek Old Testament manuscripts produced by Christians display this nomen sacrum. This can be seen in all six second-century Greek Old Testament manuscripts noted above. – Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 202.

Take a look at the image below at “1 verso” and note in line 12, in line 13 and in line 16. Next look at “1 recto” and note in line 9 and in line 12. However, we do not have Kyrios without the definite article, which would apply to the Father in the fragments. Really, we can say that it is likely that 150 C.E. was entering the time of standardization of the nomina sacra that would grow in sacred names and words.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, was a British palaeographer and biblical and classical scholar, comments on these fragments. “They contain four episodes in the life of our Lord, told quite simply, and therefore unlike the exaggerated and fanciful style of later apocryphal gospels, and in language showing strong affinities, sometimes with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and sometimes with the Fourth Gospel (John). The exact wording is often left doubtful by the mutilation of the papyrus, but the main drift of three out of the four episodes is clear.”[4] The superscript verse below provided by Edward D. Andrews into Bell and Skeat’s translation is his notes indicating those portions paralleled in the Biblical accounts.)

Egerton Gospel Translation

The Unknown Gospel Egerton Papyrus 2 + Cologne Papyrus 255 Fragment 1: Verso (?)

. . . ? And Jesus said] unto the lawyers, [? Punish] every wrongdoer and transgessor, and not me; . . . . . And turning to the rulers of the people he spake this saying, Search the scriptures, in which ye think that ye have life; these are they which bear witness of me. ^{[John 5:39.]} Think not that I came to accuse you to my Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. ^{[John 5:45]} And when they said, We know well that God spake unto Moses, but as for thee, we know not whence thou art, ^{[John 9:29]} Jesus answered and said unto them, Now is your unbelief accused …

Fragment 1: Recto (?)

… ? they gave counsel to] the multitude to [? carry the] stones together and stone him. ^{[John 8:59; 10:31]} And the rulers sought to lay their hands on him that they might take him and [? hand him over] to the multitude; and they could not take him, because the hour of his betrayal was not yet come. ^{[John 7:30]} But he himself, even the Lord, going out through the midst of them, departed from them. ^{[Luke 4:30]} And behold, there cometh unto him a leper and saith, Master Jesus, journeying with lepers and eating with them in the inn I myself also became a leper. If therefore thou wilt, I am made clean. The Lord then said unto him, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from him. [And the Lord said unto him], Go [and shew thyself] unto the [priests . . .

Fragment 2: Recto (?)

. . . coming unto him began to tempt him with a question, saying, Master Jesus, we know that thou art come from God, ^{[John 3:2; Matt. 22:16]} for the things which thou doest testify above all the prophets. ^{[John 10:25]} Tell us therefore: Is it lawful [? to render] unto kings that which pertaineth unto their rule? [Shall we render unto them], or not? ^{[Matt. 22:17]} But Jesus, knowing their thought, ^{[Matt. 9:4]} being moved with indignation, said unto them, Why call ye me with your mouth Master, when ye hear not what I say? ^{[Luke 6:46]} Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, [teaching as their doctrines the] precepts [of men] ^{[Matt. 15:7-9]} . . .

Fragment 2: Verso (?)

. . . shut up . . . in . . . place . . . its weight unweighed? And when they were perplexed at his strange question, Jesus, as he walked, stood still on the edge of the river Jordan, and stretching forth his right hand he . . . and sprinkled it upon the . . . And then . . . water that had been sprinkled . . . before them and sent forth fruit . . . Translation reprinted from: H.I. Bell and T.C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri (London: Oxford University Press, 1935).

Dating the Manuscript

The date of the manuscript is established on paleography alone. When the Egerton fragments were first published its date was estimated at around 150 CE;[5] implying that of early Christian papyri it would be rivaled in age only by P⁵², the John Rylands Library fragment of the Gospel of John. Later, when an additional papyrus fragment of the Egerton Gospel text was identified in the University of Cologne collection (Papyrus Köln 255) and published in 1987, it was found to fit on the bottom of one of the British Library papyrus pages. In this additional fragment, a single use of a hooked apostrophe in between two consonants was observed, a practice that became standard in Greek punctuation at the beginning of the 3rd century; and this sufficed for some to revise the date of the Egerton manuscript. This study placed the manuscript to around the time of Bodmer Papyri P⁶⁶, noting that Eric Turner had confirmed the paleographic dating of P⁶⁶ as around 200 A.D., citing the use of the hooked apostrophe in that papyrus in support of this date. However, this author and others would date P⁶⁶ to c. 100-150 A.D.^[6]

Michael Gronewald argues that P⁵² should be dated no earlier than 200 C.E. based on his analysis of P.Köln VI 255, using the hooked apostrophe in recto line 3 to support his redating of P52. To reinforce this argument Gronewald turned to a comment by Eric Gardner Turner an English papyrologist in Greek Manuscripts, suggesting with certainty (certainty when it suits them) that the apostrophe between mute consonants (e.g., lamb) was a feature of the third-century (200-300) C.E. However, Turner actually said, “In the first decade of iii AD this practice [using an apostrophe between two consonants] suddenly becomes extremely common and then persists.” Notice here what Turner does not say, he was not saying that this practice was not taking place in the second century at all but rather it became “extremely common and then persists” in the third century. Then Turner goes on to give examples of using a hooked apostrophe between two consonants from the second century: BGU III 715.5 (101 A.D.) and P.Petaus 86.11 (184/85 A.D.) and SB XIV 11342.11 (193 A.D.). Even P⁶⁶ that has been dated to 150-200 A.D., has a hooked apostrophe between two consonants, αγ’γελους. Turner states, this practice of a hooked apostrophe between two consonants “is not normally written in documents till iii AD” – Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 108. (bold and underline mine)

The revised dating for the Egerton Papyrus 2 continues to carry wide support among most of the new textual scholars. However, Stanley Porter has reviewed the dating of the Egerton Papyrus 2 alongside that of P⁵²; noting that the scholarly consensus dating the former to the turn of the third century and the latter to the first half of the second century was contra-indicated by close paleographic similarities of the two manuscripts.[7] The 1987 redating of the Egerton Papyrus had rested on a comment made by Eric Turner in 1971 (albeit that Turner himself had continued until his death in 1983 to accept a mid-second century date for the Egerton Papyrus), “in the first decade of III AD this practice (of using an apostrophe between two consonants, such as double mutes or double liquids) suddenly becomes extremely common, and then persists.”[8] Porter notes that Turner had then nevertheless advanced several earlier dated examples of the practice from the later second century, and one (BGU III 715.5) dated to 101 CE. Porter proposes that, notwithstanding the discovery of the hooked apostrophe in P. Köln 255, the original editors’ proposal of a mid-second century date for the Egerton Papyrus accords better with the paleographic evidence of dated comparator documentary and literary hands for both P⁵² and this papyrus “the middle of the second century, perhaps tending towards the early part of it.”

Simon Gathercole, The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew’s Gospel, Novum Testamentum 54 (2012) 209 -235

Article Abstract: A flyleaf bearing the title of Matthew’s gospel, found with the Luke fragments of P⁴ (henceforth P4), has been neglected in studies of P4 as well as in editions of the Greek New Testament. This article publishes for the first time a photograph of the flyleaf, and seeks to provide an accurate transcription of the often misspelled title. It also discusses the various factors impinging upon the date of the fragment, such as the Philo codex in which it was found and the apostrophe in the middle of Matthew’s name. A date in the late second or early third century makes best sense of the evidence, making this neglected flyfleaf the earliest manuscript title of Matthew’s gospel. Within this article is a lengthy discussion about the scribal habit of using an apostrophe between two consonants that was developing in the second century and became “extremely common and then persists” in the third century. This ties in with our discussion here in P. Egerton 2, the Unknown Gospel, and the redating of P52. Simon Gathercole’s article is excellent and very objective but I feel some observations need to be made. Thus, below are highlights from his article along with my responses

ARTICLE QUOTE: Turner and Parsons have commented: “In the first decade of iii A.D. this practice suddenly becomes extremely common and then persists.” (Page 227).

ARTICLE QUOTE: Oxford Handbook of Papyrology remarking that “in the third century CE, the habit arose of placing an apostrophe between doubled mutes or liquids,” (Page 228).

RESPONSE: Turner said, “In the first decade of iii AD this practice [using an apostrophe between two consonants] suddenly becomes extremely common and then persists.” Notice here what Turner does not say, he was not saying that this practice was not taking place in the second century at all but rather it became “extremely common and then persists” in the third century. Then Turner goes on to give examples of using a hooked apostrophe between two consonants from the second century.

ARTICLE QUOTE: Comfort and Barrett are the two scholars (writing collaboratively) who have ventured to question the consensus view. As a result of some of these considerations outlined above, they remark: “This title sheet was probably produced around a.d. 175-200 because that is when it became stylish for scribes to insert a hooked comma (apostrophe) between double consonants—as here, between the thetas.” (Page 230).

RESPONSE: Gathercole is about to question the wording from Comfort, “it became stylish.” But notice turner again arguing for the third century, [became “extremely common and then persists”] and now Comfort, “became stylish.” What Comfort meant was that using an apostrophe between two consonants was developing in the second century, and Turner is correct that it was in the third century that it became “extremely common and then persists.” I will show this to be true after the next quote.

ARTICLE QUOTE: First, the reasons given by Comfort and Barrett for assigning a probable second-century date are clearly problematic. Both the facts and the logic are faulty: it is not really true that the habit “became stylish” in the second century, and even if it had, a particular instance in a particular manuscript cannot with probability be assigned to the time when the habit first became fashionable. (Page 230-1).

RESPONSE: Then, this would be true of when it became “extremely common and then persists” too. I mean, really, Comfort is only saying when it was being developed. This, if you argue that it was the third century when using an apostrophe between two consonants became “extremely common and then persists;” then, it only seems like common sense that with numerous examples from the second century, it was developing.

On this, Philip Comfort offers us a reasonable view when he writes,

Turner indicates that another feature began in the early third century, namely, the use of a separating apostrophe between double consonants. Some paleographers of late seem to have adopted this observation as “fact” and thereby date manuscripts having this feature as post AD 200. Some paleographers would even redate manuscripts displaying this feature. For example, Schmidt redates P52 to ca. 200 based on the fact that its hand parallels that of the Egerton Gospel, which is now thought by some to date closer to ca. 200 based on this feature appearing in a newly published portion of the Egerton Gospel. However, I would argue that the previously assigned date of such manuscripts was given by many scholars according to their observations of several paleographic features. Thus, the presence of this particular feature (the hook or apostrophe between double consonants) determines an earlier date for its emergence, not the other way around. Thus, the Egerton Gospel, dated by many to ca. 150, should still stand, and so should the date for P52 (as early second century). Another way to come at this is to look at P66, dated by several scholars to ca. 150 (see discussion below). Turner, however, would date P66 later (early third) largely because of the presence of the hook between double consonants. What I would say is that the predominant dating of P66 (i.e., the dating assigned by most scholars) predetermines the date for this particular feature. Furthermore, there are other manuscripts dated prior to AD 200 that exhibit the apostrophe or hook between double consonants:

1. BGU iii 715.5 (AD 101)
αγ’χωριμφις
2. P. Petaus 86 (= P. Michigan 6871) (AD 185)
αγ’γων
3. SPP xxii 3.22 (second century)
απυγ’χεως
4. P. Berol. 9570 + P. Rylands 60 (dated by the editors of the editio princeps to ca. 200, dated by Cavallo to ca. 50)
φαλαγ’γας[9]

ARTICLE QUOTE: In these cases above, the apostrophe is often treated not merely as a deciding factor in favour of a third century hand all other things being equal. Rather, it is regarded by some as alone sufficient to indicate a third century date, and to outweigh the other factors indicating an earlier timeframe. (Page 233).

RESPONSE: Herein lies the problem. Using an apostrophe between two consonants was developing in the second century and became “extremely common and then persists” in the third century, so we ignore the fact that it was developing and existed in the second century and start redating everything based on an apostrophe, even though prior to many scholars for many reasons dated the manuscripts earlier. I will return to this in a moment.

ARTICLE QUOTE: It is extremely difficult to evaluate the relative merits of these arguments. Perhaps one should at most conclude that the appearance of the apostrophe cannot be assigned quite the decisive significance it has had in some recent discussions. On the other side, neither should one rush to argue that an apostrophe is as likely to be second century as third. (Page 233).

RESPONSE: No one is arguing that an apostrophe is as likely, just likely, and when coupled with the other reasons for an early date, the early date should stand.

ARTICLE QUOTE: Overall, the presence of the apostrophe in the flyleaf might well play a role in nudging the date into the third century, but it should not play an absolutely decisive role. (Page 233).

RESPONSE: Agreed. But once again, you had many world-renowned scholars date some manuscripts one way, and then based on an apostrophe that was developing and did exist in the second century, they redate because it became “extremely common and then persists” in the third century

ARTICLE QUOTE: The giants in the field of papyrology commonly state that the apostrophe as a consonant divider is a feature almost exclusively belonging to the third century CE and beyond. (Page 227).

RESPONSE: Usually, either side would say this is a fallacy of arguing from authority. But I can say it has to add some weight, but the evidence they present is the real evidence. So, if we are going to argue “giants in the field of papyrology” then let’s do it.

World-Renowned Paleographers and Textual Scholars Date P52 Early

• 100-150 C.H. Roberts
• 100-150 Sir Frederic G. Kenyon
• 100-150 W. Schubart
• 100-150 Sir Harold I. Bell
• 100-150 Adolf Deissmann
• 100-150 E. G. Turner
• 100-150 Ulrich Wilken
• 100-150 W. H. P. Hatch
• 125-175 Kurt and Barbara Aland
• 100-150: Philip W. Comfort
• 100-150 Bruce M. Metzger
• 100-150 Daniel B. Wallace
• 125-175 Pasquale Orsini
• 125-175 Willy Clarysse

The New Uncertain and Ambiguous Minded Textual Scholars Date P52

• 81–292 Don Barker
• 175-225 Brent Nongbri
• 200-300 Michael Gronewald

P52 and the Nomina Sacra

Larry W. Hurtado

Whether P52 did or did not have some nomina sacra form of Ιησους is a relatively small matter that can be addressed only on the basis of the sort of highly detailed observations that I have urged here. The larger concern that I underscore here is the importance of following an adequate method in dealing with such questions. My fundamental point is that sound method requires a rather thorough acquaintance with the scribal features of early Christian manuscripts in general, and particular attention to all the scribal features of any manuscript about which we seek to judge probabilities. – P52 (P. RYLANDS GK. 457) AND THE NOMINA SACRA_METHOD AND PROBABILITY

In New Testament textual studies, there are but two ways to make a name for oneself as a textual scholar. (1) The person would have to make a discovery that overwhelms the scholarly world in the extreme. (2) The person has to take a view or a position on something and then go out and find evidence that changes that view or position. Brent Nongbri seems to be trying (2) in his efforts to have his place within the history of New Testament Textual Studies. In 2120, scholars can look back at who changed the dates of the early papyri.

In Conclusion

In short, concerning the sayings of Jesus that were not part of the canonical Gospels, they can be viewed with mere curiosity because they were not preserved for us through inspiration by NT authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John when the canonical Scriptures were being written. They contain no value that would be binding on Christians.

Nevertheless, there is a great value in Egerton Papyrus 2 fragments just as it true with P52. They serve as an aid in undermining the Bible critics. These critics have long argued that John’s Gospel was not written until 150 C.E. This would mean that it could not have been written by the apostle John who died fifty years earlier in 100 C.E. Since Egerton Papyrus 2 fragments have so many parallel expressions found in John’s Gospel, it strongly indicates that whoever wrote Egerton Papyrus 2 fragments, he was using John’s writing as a source. Then, we have P52, a fragment of John’s Gospel, which has been dated to 100-150 C.E. Thus, the Gospel of John must have been written earlier than 150 C.E. in order for it to have been circulating down in Egypt where the Egerton Papyrus 2 fragments were written about 150 C.E. Therefore, Egerton Papyrus 2 fragments bolstered by the discovery in 1935 of the fragment P52 of John’s Gospel (Papyrus Rylands Gk 457), which also dates likely 110-150 C.E. to give it time to be found in Egypt, confirm the date of the writing of John’s Gospel to be about 98 C.E.

Digging Deeper into the Significance of Egerton Papyrus 2 in Early Christian Textual Studies

The discovery of the Egerton Papyrus 2, often referred to as The Unknown Gospel, is a pivotal piece of evidence in the field of New Testament textual criticism. Dating from 100-150 C.E., this papyrus holds considerable value for multiple reasons, particularly in relation to the dating of the Gospel of John and in countering the claims of higher criticism.

Affirmation of Early Circulation

The Egerton Papyrus 2 includes sayings of Jesus that parallel passages in the canonical Gospels, indicating that the traditions about Jesus’ life and teachings were circulating early within Christian communities. The presence of these traditions in a text dated between 100-150 C.E. provides evidence against the critical viewpoint that posits a much later date for the composition of the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John.

Challenging Higher Criticism

Higher critics have argued that the Gospel of John was written well into the 2nd century C.E., around 170 C.E. or later, and not by the apostle John. However, the similarities between the Johannine language in Egerton Papyrus 2 and the canonical Gospel suggest that the Gospel of John was already in wide circulation by the time Egerton Papyrus 2 was written, thus supporting a composition date closer to the end of the 1st century C.E. This earlier date aligns with traditional attributions of authorship to the apostle John and challenges theories proposed by higher criticism.

Insights into Scribal Culture

The manuscript’s use of nomina sacra demonstrates the veneration early Christians held for the sacred texts. This scribal practice provides a glimpse into the copyists’ reverence for the divine names and the meticulous care they employed in the transcription process, reinforcing the reliability of textual transmission.

Non-Canonical Sayings

While the Egerton Papyrus 2 contains sayings of Jesus that are not found in the canonical Gospels, it does not diminish the authority of the biblical text. These extracanonical sayings, although not included in the inspired Scriptures, offer a fascinating perspective on the breadth of early Christian oral tradition and the manner in which it was preserved alongside the texts that would eventually be recognized as canonical.

The Egerton Papyrus 2 serves as a tangible rebuttal to higher critical claims of a late composition date for the Gospel of John. It reinforces the scholarly consensus that the Gospel accounts, including that of John, were composed and disseminated much earlier than some critics assert. Furthermore, the papyrus enriches our understanding of early Christian manuscript culture and the transmission of the New Testament texts, underscoring their historical reliability and enduring significance for the Christian faith.

About the Author

See Also: PAPYRUS 52 (P52): THE “AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY” OF MODERN-DAY EVANGELICAL BIBLE SCHOLARS REDATING EARLY PAPYRI

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION

[1] Light from the Ancient Past, 1946, by J. Finegan, pp. 322, 323.

[2] Nomina Sacra, by Traube, III, i, p. 32.

[3] Fragments of an Unknown Gospel, by Bell and Skeat, p. 2.

[4] The Bible and Archaeology, 1940, by Sir Frederic Kenyon, pp. 216, 217.

[5] Bell, Idris and Skeat, T.C. Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri. Oxford, OUP, 1935.

^[6] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts Vol. I (Gran Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019), 353.

[7] Porter, Stanley E. (2013) “Recent efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of its Papyrological Evidence” in Christian Origins and Graeco-Roman Culture, Eds. Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts, Leiden, Brill, pp 71–84.

[8] Eric G Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, Oxford, OUP, 1971, p11 n50

[9] Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 108–109.