THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

thus affords a distinct point of contrast. Stress will perhaps be laid on the brevity of the introduction to the reply to the scribes and Pharisees in Fragment 2 verso ii, as compared with the corresponding accounts of the Evangelists. This, however, depends to some extent upon the restoration and would be less striking if, for example, the alternative supplement suggested in the note ad loc. were adopted. Moreover, the conciseness here is counterbalanced by the fullness of the preceding column. It is also significant that in Fragment 2 verso i, ii, recto i, which were certainly consecutive, a natural sequence of events is traceable—substantially that of St. Luke—to whom, as already remarked, the fragments show linguistic relationship. The questions put concerning the new doctrine in Fragment 2 verso i, as might be expected, precede (cf. Mark i. 27) and may be supposed to have arisen out of the claim to forgive sins as recorded in Luke v. 17 sqq. Column ii is parallel to Luke v. 27 sqq., while recto i embodies some of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, reported in Luke vi. The inference will follow that these columns stood comparatively early in the Gospel, which therefore, on account of the high pagination numbers, must have been preceded by some other work. Whether Fragment 1 belongs to the same work as Fragment 2 thus becomes questionable.

For the identification of this Gospel, if it be rightly regarded as such, decisive indications appear to be lacking. A search among the extant non-canonical Sayings has failed to disclose points of contact; nor are traces of bias in favour of or against any particular sect recognizable. It is natural to think of the Gospel according to the Egyptians; but beyond some a priori probability in the case of a document circulating in Egypt, little can be urged in support of this identification, and the distinctive characteristics commonly attributed to that Gospel are not here in evidence. Perhaps 1224 belongs to the same work as 655, which, though probably distinct from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, had some affinity to it. In their relation to the Synoptic Gospels there is a general similarity between 655 and 1224; both exhibit a free handling of Synoptic material and a tendency towards abridgement. The fact that the two papyri are derived from the same site lends the hypothesis of a common source a certain plausibility. A more definite suggestion is made by Dr. Bartlet, who is inclined to refer Fragment 2 to the Gospel of Peter. This view rests upon the interpretation mentioned above of Fragment 2 recto ii as concerned in some way with that disciple. In the eponymous Gospel an amplification of any incident relating to him would be likely enough, and since the Gospel was written in the first person, the use of "me" in line 1 is very appropriate. If it refers to the Call, this column should precede verso i, an arrangement already found probable on palaeographical grounds; but the difficulty pointed out in that connection (p. 2), arising from