TWO LECTURES

ON THE

'SAYINGS OF JESUS'

RECENTLY

DISCOVERED AT OXYRHYNCHUS

DELIVERED AT OXFORD ON OCT. 23, 1897
BY THE
REV. WALTER LOCK, D.D.
DEAN IRELAND'S PROFESSOR OF THE EXEGESIS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
AND THE
REV. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.
lady ma i; garet professor OF divinity

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1897
Price One Shilling and Sixpence net

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

TWO LECTURES

ON THE

'SAYINGS OF JESUS'

RECENTLY

DISCOVERED AT OXYRHYNCHUS

DELIVERED AT OXFORD ON OCT. 23, 1897

REV. WALTER LOCK, D.D.
DEAN IRELAND'S PROFESSOR OF THE EXEGESIS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
AND THE
REV. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.
LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY

O;>;fotrb
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1897

HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK

315

CONTENTS

I. Bibliography  5
II. Text, with Emendations and Illustrations . 7
III. Interpretation of the Text . . . -15
IV. History and Origin of the Sayings . .29

A 2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AoriA ' Ihcoy, Sayings of Our Lord : ed. princeps : June, 1897.
Spectator, July 17 and 24 (review).
Speaker, July 17 (review).
Guardian, July 2 1 (review, [W. Lock] : letter, H. C. Leonard).
fJSfetv YorJc Independent, July 22, B. W. Bacon [Eendel Harris].
British Revieio, July 24 (review).
Athenaeum, July 24 (letter : V. Bartlet).
Saturday Bevietv, July 24 (review).
Guardian, July 28 (letter : N. Heez).
C. Clemen, ' Neugefundene Jesusworte ? ' Die Christliche Welt,
July 29 (containing also some conjectural emendations by
Prof. Fe. Blass).
H. B. Swete, 'The Oxyrhynchus Fragment.' A lecture delivered
at Cambridge on July 29. Expository Times, September.
Academy, July 31 (review).
Literary World, July 31 (review).
A. Haenack, ' Ueber die jiingst entdeckten Spriiche Jesu.'
Freiburg i. B. August. (Translated in the Expositor,
November and December.)
M. R. James, 'The New Sayings of Christ.' Contemporary Review,
August.
Guardian, Aug. 4 (letter : J. Quaeey).
iLes ittudes, Aug. 5. P. Dueand.
Record, Aug. 6 (letters: A.L.M., H. C. Brown).
WhitehaU Review, Aug. 7 (review).
Athenaeum, Aug. 7 (letter : F. P. Badham).
Guardian, Aug. 1 1 (letters : W. Lock, W. E. Barnes).
Scarborough Post, Aug. 12 (lectures by B. P. Grenfell and
J. Rendel Harris).
Reviews marked with a f are quoted at second hand and have not been
seen by us.

6 Sayings attributed to our Lord
fThe Independent, Aug. 12, 16, 19, 26 (letters: A. C. McGiffert,
J. H. Thayee). [^American Journal of Theology-]
British Weekly, Aug. 1 2 (letters : A. Hendeeson, J. Paul).
Literarisches Centralblatt, Aug. 14 (review: G. KE[t7GEE]).
tE. Jacqtjiee, 'Les Sentences de Jesus recemment decouvertes.
L' Universite Catholique, Aug. 15.
Guardian, Aug. 18 (letter: A. S. Thomson).
Deutsche Literatur zeitung, Aug. 21 (review: O. v. Gebhaedt).
\Tlie Congregationalist, Boston, Aug. 19 (review : J. H. Ropes).
Theologische Literaturseitung, Aug. 21 (review: G. Heineici).
Chtardian, Aug. 25 ('Prof. Harnack on the newly-found Logia,'
W. Lock. Letters : B. Moffatt, T. G. Ceee).
Guardian, Sept. i (letter : A. N. Claye).
The New World, September (review : P. A. Christie).
H. A. Redpath, 'The so-called Logia and their relation to the
Canonical Scriptures.' Expositor, September.
J. Eendel Harris, 'The Logia and the Gospels.' Contemporary
Review, September.
Sir E. M. Thompson, 'The Sayings of Our Lord.' Sunday at
Home, September.
W. M. Flinders Peteie, ' The Harvest from Egypt. ' Leisure
Hour, September.
T. Z(ahn), 'Die jiingst gefundenen Ausspruche Jesu.' Theolo
gisches Literaturhlatt, Sept. 3 and 10.
Theologisch Tijdschrift, September (review : W. C. v. M[anen]).
Presbyterian and Reformed Review, October (review : G. T. Purves).
J. Lataix, 'Une nouveUe s6rie d'Agraphes.' Revue d'Histoire et
de Litterature Religieuse, September-October.
J. A. Cross, ' The Sayings of Jesus.' Expositor, October.
D. E. J., ' Sentences de J6sus.' Reme Benedictine, October.
P. Batiffol, 'Les Logia du Papyrus de Behnesa.' Revue Bibligue,
October.
Berliner Wochenschrift fur classische Philologie, Oct. 20 (review:
J. Deaeseke).
Egypt Exploration Fund, Annual report, October, B. P. Geenfell.
Church Quarterly Review, October (review).
G. F. Weight, 'The New Sayings of Jesus.' Bibliotheca Sacra,
Oct. 1897.
Critical Review of Theological and Philosophical Literature October
(review). '

II
TEXT, WITH EMENDATIONS AND
ILLUSTRATIONS

In regard to the numbering of the Logia we have decided, after some
hesitation, to keep to that of the editio princeps. The combination of
Logia III aud IV, adopted independently by Dr. Harnack and Dr. Swete,
is attractive ; aud if a change was to be made, it would have been better
that it should be made at once. But though attractive, the combination
of the two Sayings is by no means certain, and it seems on the whole best
to adJiere to the original numeration.
The names in square brackets attached to the illustrative texts other
than Biblical are those of the writers by whom they were first adduced.
I. [Aerei 'Ihcoyc, "EkBaAg npcoroN thn Aokon Ik toy 6ct)eAA-
MOY coy] kaI TOTe iiABAeyeic gkBaAeTn to KApcfioc to In t(o
6(t)9AAMa) TOY AAeA(|)OY coY.
Lc. vi. 4a (TE.) ex/SaAe -npSiTov ttjv boKov Ik tov otpOaKixov
cov, Koi TOTe 8ta;3Aei/fets e/c/SaA.eti' ro Kap(j)os to iv t(S 6(f>6aXiJUo
TOV abe\<l)ov aov. [. . . Kal tots bia^X.t'^eLs to Kap^os to ev t<S
d(j)9aKiJL(^ TOV abe\(l)ov aov eKfiake"Lv WH cum B, 13-69-124-
346-556 (=543 Greg.; cf. Scrivener, Adversaria, p. 33)
604 (1=700 Greg. ; cf. Hoskier, CoUations, dec, p. a8).] Cf.
Mt. vii. 5 sKjSaXe irpSiTov e/c tov 6^daXiJ.ov aov Trjv boKov,
Kal TOTe bial3X4\jfeis eK^aXelv Td Kap(f>os ex tov 6(j)daX.iJ.ov tov
abe\(f>ov aov.
II. Aerei 'Ihcoyc, 'Ean mh NHCTefcHTe toy kocmoy, oy mh
eYpHT6 thn BACiAeiAN TOY 06OY' KAI Ian Mh CABBATl'cHTe TO
caBBaton, oyk oyecee ton nATepA.
vr\aTevar\Tai Cod. /u.^ v7\aTevar}Te : nvqarevariTe
Kipp. ap. Zahn : /yua^o-jjre v. Gebhardt. toz; Koaixov
Cod. : TOV Koa^ov Gifford, Lock, al. : tS Koafxi^ Harnack

8 Sayings attributed to our Lord
(p. 13) : eh TOV Koap-ov {coll. Es. Iviii. 4) Redpath : etoj
T&v bvap&v Acad. : tov kolvov Quarry. evpr)TaL
Cod.
Es. Iviii. 6-14, praesertim 6-9 ovxt TOLavTrjv vrjaTeiav eyu
f^eXe^a.p,riv, \eyei Kvpios, aX\a Xve TrdvTa avvbeapov abiKMs,
biaXve aTpayyaXias ^laioov avvaXXaypaToiv, aTToaTeXXe TeOpava-
pevovi ev cKJieaei, xai Traorai' avvypa^r)V abiKOV biaaira. bia-
dpvTTTe TTeiv&VTi TOV apTov aov, Kal tttcoxovs aareyovs eiaaye eis
Tdv oIkov aov' eav i8rjs yvpvov, irepi^aXe, koi airo t&v olKeioiv tov
aireppLUTOs aov ov\ vnepo'^rj. Tore payqaeTai Tipoip-ov to (j)&s
aov, Kal Ta lajxaTd aov Taxv avaTeXel, Kai irpoTTopeijaeTaL epnrpoa-
6ev aov fj biKaioavvr] aov, Kai fj bo^a tov deov nepiaTeXel ere'
TOTe ^orjarj, Kai 6 5e6s eio-axoi^o-erat o-ov, en XaAowro's aov epel
'Ibov TTapeifxi. et J.3, 14 iav aTroo-rpei/fr/s otto tiSj' aa^^aTwv tov
TToba aov tov pjj ¦jroteij' ra 6eXrip.aTa aov ev ttj f]p.epq. Trj ayCa, koI
KaXeaeis ra ad^jSara Tpvcpepd, dyia ro) 6e^, ovk apeZs tov tto'So
aov en epydd, ovbe XaXr]aeis Xoyov ev opyfj ex tov aT6p.aT6s aov,
Kal ear] Tretroidas em Kvpiov, Kai avafii^daei ae enl to. dyadaTfjs
yrjs, Kal ¦^cop.iei ae ttiv KXrjpovopiav 'laKOj/S roS iraTpos aov.
Jo. V. 16—17 ''"'• ^'^ TOVTO ebiooKov ot 'lonSatot roj; 'Irjaovv,
OTI raCra eTrotet ev aa^^dT(p. 6 be 'Itjo-oSj wneKpivaTo avTols, 'O
TTQTTjp p.ov ku>s 'dpTi epyd^eTai, Kayon epydfo^ot.
Lc. xiv. 33 ovTa>s ovv nas e£ vp.S>v, os ovk dnoTaaaeTai naai
rots eaDroC vndp^ovaiv, ov bvvaTai p.ov elvai p,ad7]Tr\s.
Acta Pauli et Theclae § 5, p. 42 ed. Tischendorf [Hein-
rici] paKapioi ol eyxparety, ort airots XaX'^aei 6 6e6s. p-aKapioi
ot aTTOTa^dp.evoi t5> K6ap,(o rov'rUj ort avrot evOeis KXr]6'qaovTai..
Pistis Sophia, p. 157 [350] (ed. Petermann) [Grenfell-
Hunt] dnoTaaaeTe koVjuw totl et iXr] toti cf. p. 160 ff. ["354 ff.].
Addit. Cod. Bezae ad Luc. vi. 5 [Zahn] Tfj aiTr, ^p.4pa 6ea-
adp.ev6s TLva epyaC6p.evov tQ aa^jSaTco eTnev avT<^, "AvOpc^ne, el
p.ev olbas rt'jrotets, paKdpios el el bi p.i, olbas, ^mxardparosKai
napa^dTTjs et roB v6p.ov.
Justin Dial. c. Tryph. 13 [Grenfell-Hunt] Sa/3^art'fet.. iaas
oKaivos v6p.os bia navTbs mXet, Kal ip^els pilav dpyovvTes ^aipav
evae^eiv boKeiTe, ^^ voovvTes 6t<i tC ip.iv npoaeTdyr, . . el tis h
if^Zv ^mopxo. ^ KXinrns, navadaO.- et tis ^otxo., Mera.o,<rara>,
Kat o-eo-a/3/3artKe ra Tpvct>ep^ Kat iXnOiv^ adpfiaTa tov deov

//. Text, with Emendations and Illustrations g
Cf. c. 15 Kai Typi dXy\Qivr\v ovv tov Beov vqareiav piddeTe
vriaTeveiv, ws 'Ho-atas (prjaiv, tva ru dea evapeaTrJTe.
Clem. Al. Strom, iii. 15, § 99, 556 P. [British Review :
Guardian : J. B. Mayor ap. Kendel Harris] Eiz'oCxos toivw
ov)( 6 KaTrjvayKaap^ivos Ta popia ohbe p.-r\v 6 dyap.os elpr]Tai, dXX!
6 6.yovos dXrjOelas. " ^vXov" ovtos " $ripdv" T}v irpoTepov,
v-naKovaas be tZ Aoyto xat " (f>vXd^as to, adj3l3aTa " KaTo, aTTox^y
ap.apTt]p,dT(iiv Kai non^aas ras eyroAas evTip,6Tepos eVrat t&v avev
TToXiTeias opOrjs Xoyw p.6v(o •naibevop.eviav • . . Sta roCro "oiik
etaeAewerat evvovyps ets eKKXrjatav Oeov " o ayoyos Kat cLKapiros
Kal noXiTeia Kai Aoyu, aAA " ot pev evvov)(iaavTes eavTovs " and
ndaris apapTias " bid ttjv jSaaiXeCav t&v ovpav&v " paKdpioi ovtoC
elaiv ot T(M Koapov vr}aTevovTes.
Ih. vii. 12, § 76, p. 877 P. [Eendel Harris] N?jo-rei5et toivw
Kai KaTO, TOV v6p,ov dno t&v npd^eoDV t&v (fiavXav xat Kara rrji'
TOV evayyeXiov reAeiorjjra dnb t&v evvoi&v t&v novr]p&v . . .
OVTOS evToXrjv ttiv Kara to evayyeXiov bianpa^dpevos KvpiaKi-jv
eKelvrjv ttjv fjpepav noiei, OTav dno^dXXr] (pavXov vorjpa Kai yvoo-
aTiKov npoaXdjSri ttjv ev avT(S tov Kvpiov dvdaTaaiv bo^d^cov, dXXd
Kal OTav eniaTr)p,0VLK0V deu>piqp,aTOS KaTdXr]i^iv Xd^rj, tov KVplov
opav vop-i^ei, ras o\j/eis avrov npbs to, dopaTa x^ipayicy&v.
Clem. Al. Uel. Proph. § 14, p. 993 P. [J.B. Mayor ap. Eendel
Harris] rj vrjaTela dnoxji Tpo<pr)s ean Kara to ar/paivopevov,
Tpo(j)ri be ovbev biKaioTepovs rjp,ds tj dbiKooTipovs dnepyd^eTai, Kara
6e Tb p-vaTiKbv SrjAoi ort &anep rots Ka0' eva eK Tpocpfjs rj (car], rj
be dTpo(f)(a OavdTov avp-^oXov, ovTcas Kal rjixds t&v KoapiK&v
vTjaTeveiv XPVi '^"^ '"•p K6ap.(o dnoOdvoopev Kal juera roSro Tpocprjs
Oeias p-eraXajSovTes dea (r]aci>pev.
in. IV (= IIL Harnack, Swete). Aerei ' Ihcoyc, "E[c]thn
In mIcco toy kocmoy ka'i In cApKi cocfieHN aytoTc, kai efpoN
TTANTAC MeOYONTAC KAI OyAInA eYpON AiyciONTA In AYToTc' KAI
noNeT H vpYX""' i^OY Itt'i toTc yioTc tcon ANGpoSncoN, oti t^^KoI
eiciN th KApAiA AYTai[N] KAI [oy] BAl[noYCiN, nTOJXo) kaI oyk
oi'Aacin t]hn nTwyiAN.
aapKei Cod. bei\jrwvTa Cod. Kat . . /3Aeis
vel j8. e . . Cod. : Kal ov ^Xinovaiv ovbe yivdaKovaiv
TTjv eavT&v TTTMx^av Swete : dp^XeXs Blass ap. Clemen:

IO Sayings attributed to our Lord
dpjiXeZs r<5 v6i Zahn: a^^Aets rfj Staro^a o^k otbaaiv
alT&v T^vnTOixCav (coll. Apoc. iii. 17) Lock : a/^^Aets
pi.^ yeivc&aKOVTes {coll. Log. VL yeii^coo-KOi'raS Mt. 1. T-S
et passim Cod. B al.) eavT&v t^v Trroixiai' Sanday :
Kal /3pa8ets rfJ dKO^ air&V dXXd bid>KeTe ttjv nTmxiav
(coll. 3 Cor. viii. 9) Heinrici : xat ov ^Xenovaiv,
nTaxol Kal ovk oXbaaiv ttjv nraxiav Cross.
Baruc. iii. 34 [Grenfell-Hunt] p,eTd tovto enl Trjs yrjs (!>(f>dr]
Kal ev rots dvdpconois avvaveaTpd(pr]. (Cf. Iren. TV. XX. 4.
Cyprian^ Test. ii. 6.)
I Tim. iii. 16 os eepavepdOr] ev aapKi, ebiKaiddr] ev nvevpaTi,
&<pdr] dyyeXois.
Es. Iv. I 01 bi-\lr&VTes nopeveaOe etf)' vba>p, Kal oaoi p.7\ exere
dpyvpiov jSabiaavTes dyopdauTe.
Mt. V. 6 paKdpioi ot neiv&VTes koi 811/fwi'res r?ji> biKaioavvr\v
OTI avToi xopTaaOrjaovTai.
Jo. iv. 13, 14 dneKpiOr] 6 'Irjaovs Kal eTnev avTjj, Has 6
nivutv eK tov vbaTos tovtov bi'^rjaei ndXiv' 6s 8' h,v nirj eK tov
vbaTos ov ey&) bdtau) avT(2, ov p.r] bi^jrrjaei ets rdi' ai&va' aXXa ro
vbaip, 6 ey&) bcaaay avra, yevrjaeTai ev avT<S nrjyi} vSaros oAAo-
p.evov els C'"^" atwi'toi;.
Jo. vii. 37 'Ei^ 8e rrj eaxaTt] ^jxepa Trj jieydXrj Trjs eopTrjs
elaTTjKei 6 'Itjo-oCs, Kat eKpa^e Xeyiov, 'Eoi/ rts biijrq, epxeadia
npos pe Kal niveTOi.
Apoc. xxi. 6 eyo) Ta bi\}r&vTi bdaa eK Tijs nrjyfjs tov iJSaros
Trjs C'orjs bapedv.
Apoc. xxii. 17 6 hiy\r&v epxeadoi.
Apoc. iii. 17 Ae'yets on HAovo-to's et/xt, koi TrewAoiJTTjKa, xat
ovSei' xpeiav ^x'^, Kat ovk olbas oti av el 6 TaXainapos koi
eAeetvos xat nTaxos Kal TV(j)Xbs koi yvpivos.
Evang. Apocr. ap. Orig. in Mt. xiii. 3 (ed. Lommatsch.
ill. 314) [Jamesj Batiffol]. xat Ttjo-qCs yovv (j)rja[, 8ta rois
daOevovvTas ^aOivovv Kal bid rois Treti;c3i;ras ^7retWi> koI bid
Tovs bi-f&vTas ebC\lfav.
Pistis Sophia, p. 333 [373] (ed. Petermann) [James]
Vae us vae ns filiis hominum, quod erunt sicit caeci
palpantes in caligine, haud videntes. Miserere nostri
domine, in hac magna caecitate, in qua sumus.

//. Text, with Emendations and Illustrations n
Es. liii. IO ^ovAerat Kvpios d<peXeZv dnb tov ttoVou r^s i/^vx^s

avTov.

Ephr. Syr. Evang. Concord. Expositio, c. 1 7 (ed. Moesinger,
p. 303) [Heinrici]. Dixit, Quamdiu vobiscum ero et vobiscuni
loquar ? et alio loco : Taedet me de generatione ista. Cf.
Mc. ix. 19.
IV. Vide supra.
V (=VL Harnack, Swete). [Alrjei [Ihcoyc, "On]oY
Ian cocin [B, 0YK]"e[iciN AJeeoi, kai [ei'] no[Y] e[Tc] Ictin monoc
[Aejrco IftoeiMi Mef ayt[oy]' 6rei[p]oN ton Ai9on, kakeT efpnceic
M6, CJ^l'cON to SfAON, KAfo!) IkeT eiMl'.
. . ov eav a>aiv . . . . e  Oeoi vel adeoi legere sibi
visi sunt edd. pr. : onov kdv Zaiv /3, ovk elalv dOeoi
Blass (ap. Clemen) : oirou eav aaiv, ovk elalv dOeoi
Harnack (coll. Eph. ii. 12 x'^P'* Xpto-roC ... Kat
ct^eot ev Ta Koapa) : on. e. a. dvbpes Kal dOeoi Cross :
on. e. So-tz' bvo, eKel . . . (?) ot Heinrici : on. e. S.
ndvTes piiaodeoi Swete : on. e. a. ol Xey6p.evoi Oeoi
Kedpath : on. e. a. opov 'ivioi ddeoi v. Gebhardt.
. . ao . e . . Cod., sed parum certe : et nov els Clemen,
Cross, al. : 7rto-r6s els Swete : koi oVtos ets v. Gebhardt :
aanep els Harnack : eyd. ov els Heinrici. . . roi
Cod. (edd. pr. ; . . ya Blass) : A^yto Blass, Eedpath,
Cross : avTa Clemen (coll. Hebr. lehaddo) : avTa Zahn :
ibov Swete : exei Heinrici : ovrco Harnack : avTov
(= exet) V. Gebhardt : ^Tjrco Badham. eyeipov:
e^dpov Harnack (coll. Eccl. x. 9, vid. inf.).
Mt. xviii. 30 o5 yap eiaiv bvo fj rpets avvrjyp,evoi els to
epbv ovopa, ^Kei elpil ev p,eaa avT&v.
Jo. xiv. 30 ev eKetvr] tjj rjp,epa yvdaeaQe vpels oti eya ev rw
naTpC jxov, Kal vpeis ev epoi, Kaya ev vplv.
Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 10, § 68, p. 543 P. Tives be ol bvo
Kal rpets vndpxovaiv ev ovopari XpiaTov avvayopevoi, nap' ois
jxeaos eaTlv 6 Kvpios ; fj ovx} dvbpa Kal yvvaiKa Kal t4kvov tovs rpets
Aeyei ; on " dySpi yvvij bid deov dppo^eTai"' dAAd Khv ev^avos

12 Sayings attributed to our Lord
TIS elvai eiXri, ovx alpovp.evos rfjv naibonodav bid ti]V ev '^^"'^0-
TTOtt'a do-xoAtW, " peviTa," (jitjalv 6 dnoaToXos, " &yapos ws Kdyci."
^ovXeadai ydp Xiyeiv tov Kvpiov i^rjyovvTai p.eTd pev jav
nXewvMV tov brjpiovpyov elvai Tbv yeveaiovpyov 0i6v, peTa be tov
evbs tov eKXeKTOv tov aaTrjpa, dXXov brjXovoTi 6eov tov dyadov
vlbv necpvKOTa. to 6' oi^x ovTas exei, dAA' eo-rt p.ev koI p.eTd
t&v aa<j>p6vu>s yqpdvrav Kal TeKVonoirjadvTcov 6 Oebs 8t' vlov,
ean he Kal perd tov eyKpaTevaapevov Xoy ik&s 6 avTos aaavTws
Beds. Ephr. Syr. Evang. Concord. Expos, c. 14 (ed. Moesinger p.
1 64 ; cf. Eesch, Agrapha p. 395, Eopes, Spriiche Jesu p. 48)
[Grenfell-Hunt]. Sicut in omnibus indigentiis gregi sno
Christus consuluit, ita et vitam solitariam agentes in hac
tristi conditione consolatus est dicens : Ubi unus est, ihi et
ego sum, ne quisquam ex solitariis contristaretur, quia ipse
est gaudium nostrum et ipse nobiscum est. Et ubi duo
sunt, ihi et ego ero, quia misericordia et gratia eius nobis
obumbrat. Et quando tres sumus, quasi in ecclesiam
coimus, quae est corpus Christi perfectum et imago eius
expressa. Eccl. X. 9 e^aipav XiOovs bianovrjd'qaerai ev avToZs,
axiC<^v ^Xa Kivbvvevaei ev aiiToZs.
Hab. ii. 11 8to'rt At^os ck rot'xou fiorjaeTai Kal Kdvdapos eK
^vXov ^diy^eTai avTd.
Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) 7, 8 iroC nopevQa dnb tov nvevpaTos
aov ; Kal dnb tov npoadnov aov nov (pvya ; eav dvaB& ets
Tbv ovpavov, av exet et" eav Kara/Sw ets Tbv abrjv, ndpei.
Eph. i. 33 TO nXrjpapa tov Ta ndvTa ev ndai nXrjpovp.evov.
Gal. ii. 30 (& be ovKeTi eyd, Cjj be ev epol XpiaTos.
Evang. Gnosticum (fort. Evae), ap. Epiph. Raer. xxvi. 3
[Grenfell-Hunt] ^yd av Kal ai iyd' Kal 5nov idv jjs fyi iKeZ
elpL^Kal h dnaaCv elpi ianapp.ivos, Kal Bdev idv ^e'Aj/s avXX4yeis
pe, epi be avXXeyav eavTbv avXXeyeis.
Mart. Petri, x. (p. 98 ed. Lipsius) [Zahn] ah Tb nav koI
Tb^ nav ev aoC' Kal Tb 6v aii, xal oix l<rrti; SAAo 8 eVrtz; et' u^/
px>vos av (haec ad Christum referuntur). Act Joh xi
(p. 13 ed James) [Zahn] Tdnov oix lxa> Kal rd.ovs" Ixoi
(Christus loqwdur). ^

//. Text, with Emendations and Illustrations 13
Ep. Joh. Apocr. ap. Pseudo-Cypr. De Mont. Sin. et
Sion xiii. [Heinrici] Ita me in vobis videte, quomodo quis
vestrum se videt in aquam aut in speculum.
VI (=V. Harnack, Swete). Alrei 'Ihcoyc, Oyk Ictin
AeKToc npocj)HTHc In th nAxpiAi ayt[o]y, ofAe iAxpoc noief
GepAueiAC 6IC toyc reiNOocKONTAc ayton.
yeivaaKovTas Cod. : yti;-, ed. pr. reli. (vid. ad Log. III).
Mt. xiii. 57 OVK eaTiv npo(l)rjTr]s dripos el pf] ev Trj narpCbi
avTOV [om. WH] Kat ez^ Trj oIklo. avTov.
Lc. iv. 34 dp^i; Xeya vpiv, oti oii^els Trpo</)^r?js beKTOs eanv ev
Trj naTpibi avTOv.
Joh. iv. 44 avTos ydp 6 'Irjaovs epaprvprjaev oti 7rpo^?jrjjs ev
Trj ibiq naTpibi TipfjV oiik e'xet.
Lc. iv. 33 ndvTws epeiTe poi Trjv napa^oXfiv TavTrjv, Tarpe,
depdnevaov aeavTOv.
VII ( = VI. Harnack, Swete). Alpei 'Ihcoyc, TToAic
OIKOAOMHmInH In AKpON [o]pOYC YTH'^of Ka'i lcTHpirM6NH OYTG
n6[cjeTN Aynatai ofxe kpy[b]hnai.
ohob. Cod., Swete (coll. Winer-Schmiedel Gramm.
§ 13. 5; vid. etiam Meisterhans Gramm. d. att.
Inschrift. § 63. 1 6) : wkoS. ed. pr. reli. vxj/rjXovs Cod.
(ted ut videtur voluit scriba delere s).
Mt. V. 14 oil 8warat iroAts KpvjBrjvai enava opovs Keipevrj.
Mt. vii. 34—35 opoiadrjaeTai dvbpl ^povipa, otrrts aKoboprjae
Trjv oiKiav avTov enl ttjv nerpav. kol KaTejSrj fj Ppoxv Kal -^Xdov
ol noTapol Kat envevaav ol avepoi, koi npoaeneaov Trj oIkIo. eKeivrj,
Kat ovk eneae' TedepeXiaTO yap enl Trjv neTpav.
Lectionem o'lKoboprjpevr] pro Keipevrj apud Mt. v. 14 anti
quam esse testantur verss. syrr. (Lew. Cur. Pesh. ; non
autem Hard. Hieros.), Tatian. JDiatess. viii. 41 [Grenfell-
Hunt] Hil. ad loc. non potest civitas abscondi supra
montem aedificata [Swete] : cf. Clem. Horn. iii. 6'] XPV
ovv Ti]v eKKXrjaiav ds noXiv ev v\jrei aKoboprjpevrjv (f)LX6deov
exii'V Ta^iv Kal biotKTjaiv KaXrjv. [Harnack.]

14 Sayings attributed to our Lord
VIII (=Vn. Harnack, Swete). Alpei ' Incofc, 'Akoycic
[e]ic TO e[N coJti'on coy, to [aI exepoN IBycac].
aKoi/ets Cod. h aKoveis Zahn, v. Gebhardt. • tToe
. . rioji Cod. : ets to evdniov conj. edd. pr. els Tb
evaTiov (Swete) : ets Tb kv aTiov (Taylor ap. Swete,
Zahn, V. Gebhardt) : ets to Tap.eZ6v o-ov Badham. rp
. . .fort. Cod. : ro 8e erepov ovveKXeiaas Swete : r. 8. e.
efivaas Lock, Sanday : ru 8e eTepa napaKoveis Sanday
(coll. Act. Joh. xvii. p. 34 ed. James): ro be^iov
Zahn.

Ill
INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT
[W. Lock]
The time seems to have come when it is worth while to
take stock of the progress of the criticism and interpreta
tion of the Sayings attributed to our Lord, which were
edited by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt at the end of the
Summer Term; and I had determined to give a public
lecture on them this term, when Dr. Sanday made the
welcome suggestion that we might combine for the pur
pose. We are therefore jointly responsible for the revised
text, the critical apparatus, the illustrations, and the biblio
graphy which are in your hands, but we have as far as
possible divided the treatment of the subject, and each
lecturer is singly responsible for the opinions expressed in
his lecture.
The interpretation of the Sayings falls to me, and I have
only a few remarks to make that pass beyond its scope.
In the first place, the bibliography is professedly not com
plete, but we have attempted to include within it any letter
or review which made any independent contribution to
the discussion ; for those who wish to study the subject
further it will be well to indicate as the most important
contributions — first and foremost the editio princeps, in
which the careful decipherment of the text and the
cautious wisdom of the notes have been recognized uni
versally both in England and on the Continent, and after
that the lecture of the Eegius Professor of Divinity at

i6 Sayings attributed to our Lord
Cambridge, the monogi-aph of Prof. Harnack, and the
reviews of Clemen, Heinrici, and Zahn in Germany, and
those of Dr. James, Mr. Eendel Harris, and Mr. Cross in
England, and of M. Batiffol in the Revue Biblique.
Further, there are two points on which I would enter
a caveat,— a caveat which the history of the discussion seems
to render necessary. I think first that we should sit
loosely to the exact title Ao'yta ; I do not say that it is
wrong, but we need to remember that it has no authority
as the title of this document ; many will think it a very
probable suggestion, but considering that the phrase Ao'yta
'lijaov never occurs, that the phrase Ao'yta or Ta Ao'yta with
Qeov or tov Kvpiov or KupiaKo most frequently seems to mean
both in the first and second centuries either the Old Testa
ment or the whole Gospel message^, and considering sueh
passages as Acts xx. ^^, Apoc. xxi. 5, Clem. Eom. xiii. ^,
and the Tito-rot Ao'yot of the Pastoral Epistles, it seems to
me at least as probable that the real title was Ao'yot 'Irjaov.
At any rate if Ao'yta is right, ' Sayings ' is scai-cely an ad
equate translation ; ' Solemn Utterances ' or ' Oracles ' would
better reproduce the authoritative associations of the word.
Again, it needs to be remembered that in estimating the
genuineness and authority of the Sayings, each may claim
the right of being judged separately on its own merits ;
they may have been collected from various sources of
quite unequal value; and as the admitted genuineness
of the first does not carry with it that of the others, sb the
great difficulty of supposing the third to have been spoken
by our Lord does not necessarily affect the second or the
fourth. ' A<!7m : Acts vii. 38 ; Eom. iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; Clom.
Eom. xix ; Papias ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 39 ; Clem. Alex. Qui$ dives salv. 3.
p. 936 ; Iren. i, praet. i and I. viii. 1. In Eesch's .<lgrap7ia the word occurs
only twice (Log. 45. p. 128, and Apocr. 59. p. 433,, in each case apparently
meaning the Old Testament.
' Acts XX. 35 M.,^o>-.,;e.„ r. rwv K6yc,y „o Ktpio« 'I^ffoC, St, airh ,h,,
TlZJoT-' A' '"t"' ^ '""'''"'•' ¦¦ ^P-- --• 5 '-'" <"¦ ^-iTO. «<rro
Kai aAvVLvoi fiai : Clem TTnm v:^; ....
ovt e-K&\i]<,ev Siiaaico:v km^Uuav Kal ^^Kpoev^dav. '

///. Interpretation of the Text 17
This would be otherwise if we could trace any con
nexion of thought between the various Sayings ; and at
first I was inclined to find such a link in the idea of the
separation of the disciples from the world, or in the thought
of true spiritual vision. Mr. Bartlet and Mr. Badham
have both attempted to trace a similar connexion, the
former treating the fragment as part of a 'Manual for
Enquirers and Catechumens,' the latter as a series of
extracts from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, quoted
in some hortatory work by an ascetic of the Thebaid.
Mr. Eedpath treated them as Sayings drawn up to serve
as grounds of accusation against our Lord. But I doubt
whether any of these is more than an arbitrary fancy :
the quick interchange of person, 6ta/3Ae'i/fets, vijaTevarjre,
edv aiaiv, eyeipov, dKoveis, is against such a connexion ; as
also the fact that some Sayings seem addressed to disciples,
others to unbelievers.
I pass to the interpretation, and it is right to consider
first one of the most difficult points. How are we to
interpret the phrase ' Jesus says,' which introduces, or
perhaps concludes^, each Saying? why the simple personal
name ' Jesus ' ? why the present tense ? It is conceivable
that the historic name Jesus should be used as an antithesis
to the names of other teachers ; that the earlier part of the
book contained sayings of Plato, Moses, Isaiah, &c. : this
would be possible in the syncretistic atmosphere of Egypt ;
but on the whole it is more probable to see in it only the
work of a simple Christian. But the combination Ae'yet
'Irjaovs is rare even in the Gospels : in Eesch's collection
of Agrapha the exact phrase never occurs, though we
once have in Origen 'Irjaovs yovv (prjaiv (Log. 47. p. 129).
The usage then needs explanation, and four suggestions
have been made to explain it. (i) It may correspond to
the frequent use of the present in quotations, as in Ae'yet
fj ypacf)-^, K.T.X., where the writer is quoted as a present
witness to the truth (Dr. Swete). But this is not appro-
' So von Gebhardt and others, quoting Jer. i. 8, 17, ii. 2, 3, 12, 22, 29 ;
but the analogy is not quite exact. B

i8 Sayings attributed to our Lord
priate in a disconnected series of Sayings which are not
apparently illustrative of any one truth, (ii) The word
A^yet is extracted with the Saying from some narrative
Gospel ; it was there an historical present, and the writer
has taken it over as it stood (Zahn). This is ingenious,
but it is not likely that Ae'yet should have occurred uni
formly in a narrative, (iii) The present has a mystical
force ; the past Saying of the Lord still speaks and speaks
with an authoritative tone, somewhat akin to Cowper's
line, ' Jesus speaks and speaks to thee ' ; or we might
compare the touching paragraph in Dr. Pusey's Life:
' When his son Philip died he rarely expressed himseK as
if they were separated. " Philip says " was a more frequent
form of quoting the departed than "Philip used to say"'
(Life of Dr. Pusey, iv. p. 378). This would account for the
personal name 'Jesus' as well as for the present. The
collection would then be parallel to the collections of the
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, but faith in the risen Lord
causes the formula to run ' Jesus says,' not ' Jesus said,' as
the analogy of ' Hillel said ' or ' Hillel used to say '
would have suggested, (iv) There is a simpler explanation,
that the present tense is used because Jesus was still
present ; that these are extracts from some notes made
by a disciple in the lifetime of Jesus. It seems to me that
the choice lies between these two last explanations : the
last is the most natural, but it is difficult to apply it to
the third Logion, so that perhaps we ought to prefer the
penultimate view. We should paraphrase then, 'this is
a saying of Jesus'; 'this was said by Jesus in his lifetime
and is still the utterance of him who is still a living
Master.' We pass to the detailed Sayings.
I. The first Saying, ' And then shalt thou see clearly to
cast out the mote whioh is in thy brother's eye,' is
obviously a fragment. We have completed it from St.
Lukes Gospel, as it corresponds more closely with it
tban with St. Matthew; but it is to be noted that in the

///. Interpretation of the Text 19
position of kK^aXeZv it supports the Textus Eeceptus as
against WH., who follow B and the Ferrar group of
MSS. (to which ^^6 also belongs) and one other important
cursive. II. Jesus says, ' Except ye fast from the world, ye shall
in no wise flnd the kingdom of God ; and unless ye keep
the Sabbath as a Sabbath, ye shall not see the Father.'
The first difficulty here lay in the construction vrjaTeveiv
TOV Koapov, to which no analogy has been produced. Attempts
were made to translate it 'unless ye fast in due order'
(Clemen), ' with a material fast ' (Moffatt), ' while the present
order lasts,' ' a world-long fast ' (Swete) ; but all were too
forced. Emendations followed; von Gebhardt and Zahn
doubted the verb vrjaTevarjTe, the latter quoting with
approval the perversely ingenious conjecture of one of his
colleagues at Erlangen, edv pvrjarevarjTe, 'If you woo the
world, ye shall not win the kingdom of heaven.' Others
proposed to alter roii Koapov. But edv prj of the second clause
protects edv p-q in the first, aa^^aTiaijTe protects vrjaTevarjTe,
and the antithesis to ttjv ^aaiXeiav tov ©eov protects the
word Koapios, as do also the extracts quoted from the Acta
Pauli et Theclae, § 5, and Pistis Sophia, p. 157. There can
however be little doubt that the case should be altered
into roC Koapov. This genitive is found in Clem. Alex.
Strom, iii. 15, in a passage which suggests a reference to
some such saying as this, paKdpioi ovtoi elalv ot roB Koapov
vrjaTevovTes, not simply vrjaTevovTes, but ot vrjaTevovres, as
though they were a well-known class. It is also sup
ported by T&v KoajxiK&v vrjaTeveiv in Clem. Alex. Eel.
Proph. § 14. As far as I can decipher the MS., the reading
of the article seems ambiguous ; it might be roC or ro'i;, but
in Koapov the v is clear, hence the editors have probably
deciphered it rightly, and we may suppose that the phrase
vrjaTeveiv tov K6ap.ov, which is itself rare, has been con
sciously or unconsciously altered by the scribe to suit the
following accusatives.
The only further question of interpretation lies in the
B 3

20

Sayings attributed to our Lord

second half; is 'keeping the Sabbath' to be understood
literally or metaphorically? The majority of critics have
taken the second view, and in the main rightly, for the
corresponding first half, ' unless ye fast from the world,' is
necessarily metaphorical ; again, the unusual form aa^^aT-
iCeiv Tb ad^j3aTov, which is not found in the LXX or in the
New Testament, perhaps suggests ' the trv£ Sabbath '; and
lastly, the passages from Justia, Dial. c. Tryph. 13 and 15,
and Clem. Al. Strom, iii. 15, show that it was common with
the early Christian writers, following the guidance of Isaiah,
to spiritualize both fasting and Sabbath-keepiag in one
and the same context (N.B. especially Clem. Alex. loc. cit.
<f>vXd^as Ta ad^/Sara Kara dnoxfjv djiapTrjpaTav . . . ot pev
evvovxiaavTes eavTovs dnb ndarjs dpapTias . . . ovtoi elalv ol tov
Koapov vrjaTevovTes). There is however one objection to this
view, that it leaves the meaning very ambiguous ; at least
if the Saying originated at any time after the question
had arisen whether Christians were any longer to observe
the Jewish Sabbath. If it were intended to enforce the
Christian Sunday, some such phrase as ro dXrjOivbv ad^^aTov
would have been expected. Zahn has urged this point in
favour of a literal Jewish-Christian meaning. I would
suggest that it may have been a Saying of our Lord
meant to be ambiguous. Suppose Him asked in private by
some disciple after some public discussion on the question,
'Are we then not to fast? not to keep the Sabbath?' it
would be a natural answer, ' Nay, unless you fast — with
a real fasting from worldly desires — ye will not find the
kingdom of God ; and unless you make the Sabbath a true
Sabbath ye will not see the Father.' This would mean to
them then and be meant by the speaker to mean, ' unless
you keep the Jewish Sabbath, in the true sense which
Isaiah prescribed ' ; it would mean later and be meant to
mean, ' unless you keep the permanent rest from sin.' The
spirit of it would thus come very close to the second half
of the addition of Codex Bezae to St. Luke vi. 4 et' 6^ p^
Olbas, eniKaTdpaTos Kal napajSdTrjs el tov v6p.ov.

///. Interpretation of the Text 21
III, IV. Nearly all critics have differed from the first
editors in combining III with that which seemed to them
a separate Saying in IV : and many conjectures have
been made to supply the lacuna at the end. There seems
to be no clear indication of the number of letters to be
supplied in 1. 33 of the verso ; the number differs in the
other lines between 13 and 18, so that we have consider
able latitude. My own emendation was based upon Apoc.
iii. 17, but it has the drawback that, in order to suit the
number of letters required in the first line of the recto, the
word 01800-11; has to be divided after the a, an awkward
division which is not supported by the usage of the scribe
elsewhere, who as a rule divides his words carefully, and
avoids any division which would leave a consonant at the
end of one line, followed by a vowel at the beginning of
the next. Dr. Sanday's suggestion for this reason is pre
ferable, but it is against both that Mr. Hunt tells me that
in line 3i there is scarcely sufficient room for so broad
a letter as M to have stood before B, and both of us feel
the superiority of that of Mr. Cross. Adopting this, the
saying will run:
' I stood in the midst of the world, and in flesh I was
seen of them ^ ; and I found all men drunken, and not one
did I flnd thirsting among them. And I feel travail of
soul for the sons of men, for they are blind in heart and
see not, poor and know not their poverty.'
No question of exegesis proper arises here ; the meaning
is quite clear : the language is coloured perhaps by Baruch
iii. 34 [unless the words are there a later interpolation
(Swete)], by Isaiah liii. 10, Iv. i, and the metaphorical use
of bi-^dv in St. Mt. V. 6 and in St. John's writings. It is
difficult on the other hand to decide whether the Saying
is thought of as having been spoken by our Lord in His
lifetime or after the resurrection. Either is possible : the
aorists eo-rrji;, d<^Qrjv, evpov are possible for the earthly life,
1 For aiiTots after tou «6iriiov cf. 2 Cor. v. 19 ©cos ^v ev Xpiarw xhaiiov
itaTaWaaaaiv eavrw, p.ii \o-/tC6p.(vos avTOis rd. TiapaiTTd)p.aTa avToiv.

22

Sayings attributed to our Lord

being protected by the aorists of St. John xvii. 4, 6 ^So-
iaaa, e<^avipaaa, St. Luke xiii. 34 fjBiXrjaa (not however
by those in St. Mt. xxv. '>,S ff), and the present Troret is
quite conceivable for the post-resurrection life (cf. Acts
ix. 5) 1- The real difficulty seems to lie in the words 'ev
aapKi a4>0rjv, which suggests an antithesis to ei; nvevp,aTi
that would be unnatural at such a time. This is perhaps
an insuperable objection, but it may be that some simpler
statement has been modified by the language of later
theology ; and, if so, it would seem conceivable — say^ on
the evening of the Feast of Tabernacles, after Jesus had
made the great appeal edv rts bi\lfq, epxeaOut npos pe Kal
nivera, and perhaps also the great warning of St. John ix.
39-41 — that in the intimate circle of His followers He
should have used some such sad utterance as this.
V. The next Saying supplies the greatest difficulty both
of reading and of interpretation.
Lines 34-36 were scarcely decipherable, but, apart from
any emendation, it seemed clear that the meaning of the
fiirst part must be either, ' Wherever all are unbelievers and
one alone is faithful, there am I with him ' ; or,' wherever
there are two disciples I am with them, and wherever one
is alone, I am with him.' The two parallel clauses in the
second half suggest two parallel clauses here, and therefore
support the second alternative (Heinrici) ; and the passages
quoted from Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 10 and Ephrem Syr.
Ev. Concord. Expositio, c. 14, decide almost certainly for
the second view, by showing that some such Saying was
early attributed to our Lord. Of the many emendations
suggested, none is quite convincing, but we have provision
ally adopted the brilliant conjecture of Blass, onov edv aaiv
^, OVK eto-ti- a^eot, Kat et nov els iaAv povos, Ae'yco eyd elpi peT
avTov, 'Wherever there are two, they are not without
God's presenee, and if anywhere one is alone, I say I am
senafate^Sa^tr'™' !'"'' ^'^"''''^ ""^ supposing that we have two
separate Saymgs, u post-resurrection Saying (?<rr,. . . . airoh) joined by
Kai to a pre-resm-rection Saymg, ^oy^r, k.t.K. ' ' joinea oy

///. Interpretation of the Text 23
with him.' There are however doubtful points in it : the
use of ;8 for bvo in a simple statement, especially when ets
is written out in full in the next line, is improbable, but
cannot be pronounced impossible \ The insertion of A^yco is
unnecessary. I hesitated also about the rather poetical
meaning of a^eot ; but it has been suggested to me that it
may be an allusion to the Pagan nickname — ' they are not,
as men call them, dQeot. '; and further, it seems to me that
the reading is supported by Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 10 :
there the heretics are stated to expound some Saying of the
Lord's (^ovXeaQai ydp Xeyeiv tov Kvpiov e^rjyovvTai) as meaning
that the creator God was present with two or three, but
the Saviour was present with the one elect. Now this
would be a natural interpretation if, in the Saying they
were quoting, the two or three were said to be not without
God's presence (ddeoi), but Christ (eyd) said to be with the
one. The meaning of this will be ' where there are a few
Christians or only one,' and the application may have been
primarily either to common or private prayer, or perhaps
to married or celibate life.(cf. Clem. Alex. I.e.).
The latter half of this Saying offers no difficulty of read
ing, but is the most contested point of interpretation. ' Eaise
the stone and there thou shalt flnd Me ; eleave the wood
and I am there.'
It is most strange that a striking Saying such as this,
whatever its interpretation, should have left no trace of
itself in subsequent literature. Possibly some may yet be
found, and, most probably, in some literature emanating
from Egyptian monastic life. The only clue which the
passage itself supplies is that it must stand in some intelli
gible sequence of thought to the preceding words. No less
than five suggestions have been made.
i. Dr. Swete at Cambridge, and Dr. Lisco followed by
Dr. Harnack in Berlin, independently suggested that the
' Mr. Eedpath has since pointed out to us that the scribe of Codex B
of the LXX frequently uses numerals side by side with the full word, u. g.
Num. xxviii. 19 /ido'xous SiJo, Kpibv eva, dfivovs kvtavffiovs f : also ib. xxix. 1 7
Xiprnpov . . . eva. . . /iSaxovs 0', Kpioiis & ; see also Num. xxix. 15, 20, 26 ;
Judges XX. 23 Tj? ¦hi'-h'i rJ rtpiirr) ; 34 rg ii\t.kpa rp g! ; 30 tt? iip.ep<i tti rphrj.

24 Sayings attributed to our Lord
clue lay in Ecclesiastes x. 9. There the writer is speaking
of the vanity and danger of manual work, ' Whoso heweth
out stones shall be hurt therewith ; and he that cleaveth
wood is endangered thereby'; and it was held that the
author of this saying was consciously correcting the pessi
mistic utterance of the Preacher. Prof. Harnack interpreted
the saying quite literally, as the blessing of the Carpenter's
Son upon manual work. ' Do the simplest work, quarry
stone or cut down trees, and you will find My presence with
you.^ Dr. Swete, starting from the same illustration,
allegorized it and supposed our Lord to have applied it to
the spiritual building of the Church. ' The Wisdom of God
pledges Himself to be with the Christian builder, and never
more so than when he builds alone and with labour and
peril.' Of the two applications I should prefer the
literal ; but though at first sight this line of interpretation
seemed to me convincing, second thoughts make me hesi
tate. For the allusion to the passage in Ecclesiastes would
be rather obscure, even if the words were exactly the same ;
but as a matter of fact there is considerable change, which
would be hard to explain, if there was a direct aUusion to
that place. Why eyeipeiv for e^aipeiv ? (Harnack feeling
this difficulty conjectured e^dpov, but the reading seems
clear) ; why Tbv XiOov, to ^vXov for XiOovs and ^vAa ? why
the aorist tenses ? Such an allusion would almost necessi
tate e^aipe XiOovs, axiC^ ^vXa. Nor is it very likely that,
without supposing an allusion, we may take Eccl. x. 9 as an
illustration, to prove that the reference is to manual laboui",
for the aorists point to one action rather than to a regular
occupation ; eKei points more naturally to the place than to
the action, ' Thou shalt find Me in the stone ' rather than ' in
the act of raising,' for which ovTa would be more natural
than eK€t : and lastly, there seems no reason for the singulars
ron XiOov, TO ^vXov.
11. The second view, which has been most widely accepted,
is that which sees in the words an assertion of Christ's
presence in nature ; so that the sequence of thought will be
' In all forms of human life I am present ; yea, and under

///. Interpretation of the Text 25
inanimate creation you wiU find Me.' In this case the
singular will be deictic; ' Lift yonder stone, cleave yonder
piece of wood.' This is an assertion of Christ's universal
presence, differing only in its vividness from the language of
the prologue of St. John, or of Eph. i. 33, or of Ps. cxxxviii.
7, 8 : it does not deny Christ's personality or merge him in
nature, though it must be admitted that it finds its closest
analogies in the Gnostic writers whom we have quoted,
and whose teaching tended to that issue.
iii. A third view, suggested hesitatingly by the fii-st
editors and by Dr. James, is that the stress is on the
imperatives, and the Saying only enforces effort : ' You
must make an effort like that of raising a stone or cleaving
a tree if you wish to find Me.' But there is no stress on
the need of effort in the earlier part of the saying ; and
this interpretation does not do justice to e'Ket, nor explain
the singular Tbv XiOov. It would be similar to the Greek
proverb ndvra XiOov Kiveiv, but seems to require 7i-ai;ra A^^oj;.
iv. Both these last needs are satisfied by another inter
pretation (Barnes), which has found little acceptance, but
which seems to me to deserve more consideration, especially
if the Saying is of late date, when allegory had grown com
mon. This is that the words have a distinct reference to
the stone of the sepulchre, the wood of the cross ; and they
are words of reassuring preparation spoken to the disciples :
'Wherever you are, together or alone, I am with you ; and
whatever happens. My burial or crucifixion, I am there.
Lift up the stone of the tomb and you will find Me alive ;
pierce through the cross and you will find Me there too.'
Mr. Barnes supports this view by the mystical meaning
given to Habakkuk ii. 1 1 in patristic writers ; but the
evidence for such an interpretation is very slight.
v. Other interpreters refer to the ritual of sacrifice : ' Pre
pare an altar, pile up the stone, cleave the wood for fire,
and I shall be there in your worship.' But the illustrations
of this come from patriarchal times, before the days of the
fixed altar in the Temple, and again the plural would be
more natural than the singular. On the whole, then,

26 Sayings attributed to our Lord
I incline to the second view, which refers it to the presence
of Christ in nature.
VI. Jesus says, ' A prophet is not acceptable in his own
country, neither does a physician work cures on them
that know him.' This supplies no problem for interpreta
tion : but it is of great interest with regard to the relation
of the Sayings to the Synoptic Gospels, on which it is not
my duty to touch. I only note that the first part is partly
akin to St. Matthew and St. Mark in the phrase ovk eo-rt for
ovbeis ; partly to St. Luke in the use of the word 8eKTo's :
the second part is akin to St. Luke iv. 33, and to the thought
of St. Mark vi. 3-6, but there is nothing in either half which
seems to my mind sufficient to prove literary dependence.
It may be an independent preservation of the same Saying,
or an inaccurate quotation of its literary form.
VII. ' A city biiilt on the top of a high hill and flrmly
stablished can neither fall nor be hidden.' This combines
the thought of St. Mt. v. 14 with that of vii. 34, 35, but
does not compel the theory of literary dependence. The
word o'lKoboprjpevrj (St. Mt. v. 14 Keipevij) is interesting,
for though not found in any Greek MS. of the passage
in St. Matthew, it seems to be pre-supposed by the early
Syriac versions, by Tatian, and by a Latin version used
by Hilary. We have not changed the unaugmented form
oiKoboprjpevTj, as it is supported by inscriptions and some
Biblical MSS. (cf. St. Luke vi. 48 otKo8o/x^o-6lat, Tischdf. WH).
VIII. ' Thou hearest with one ear, but the other hast
thou closed.' This also is clear in meaning, and is mainly
interesting for the ingenious restoration of the letters which
were almost entirely illegible. The fia-st editors were
inclined to read ets ro evdniov : Dr. Swete moved a step
further in the right direction, suggesting ets ro evdTiov : and
Dr. Taylor, Master of St. John's CoUege, Cambridge, divided
this into els to In d)TCov — a conjecture which was made
independently by Zahn and von Gebhardt. The rest of
the clause was then supplied by Dr. Swete, r6 81 kepov

///. Interpretation of the Text 27
awiKXeiaas. We thought that ^^vaas was a simpler and
more ordinary word, though some may prefer Dr. Sanday's
later suggestion, tS, be ere'pw irapaKovets, ' You hear with one
ear, but with the other you refuse to hear.'
I have confined myself to interpretation ; perhaps I have
shown incidentally that I incline rather more than Dr. Sanday
does to the possibility that some at least of the new Sayings
may be genuine, and to the theory which would see in the
document a copy of some pre-canonical collection of our
Lord's discourses. If this were so, they would not consti
tute that new Gospel which the Spectator dreads and which
the Daily Chronicle welcomes ; they would not seriously
alter the conditions of the Synoptic problem as Mr. Eendel
Harris imagines, for the prologue of St. Luke shows that
there were pre-canonical documents out of which our
Gospels were framed, though it is silent as to their authority ;
these Sayings would have as much authority as the various
Agrapha have already, as much, that is, as sayings which
come to us anonymously, with no convincing proof of their
authorship, and without the sanction which was implied
in their being embodied in a canonical Gospel. They may
have been known and set aside by the writers of those
Gospels, or they may have been preserved in an independent
line of tradition which was unknown to them.

IV
HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF THE
SAYINGS [W. Sanday]
The history of this new discovery is an interesting
example of the importance of the presence or absence of
the definite article. The rumours which came to this
country from Egypt early in the year often spoke of the
finding of ' the Logia ' ; but I imagine that most of those
who knew what it meant took the phrase with a grain of
salt. However careful the discoverers might be, it was
inevitable that, in passing from mouth to mouth, what was
to them ' Logia ' should become ' the Logia ' which have
played so prominent a part in critical speculation. Now
that we have the published text before us, we may speak
of 'the Logia' in the sense of the particular Logia under
discussion, but in so doing we beg no questions as to their
relation to other works to which the title has been given.
We need not, I think, question the right of the first
editors, who have done their work in other respects so
well, to give to their newly found fragment a title which
numbers it with these. Its contents are exactly what
is meant by ' Logia ' — brief, authoritative, and as it were
•oracular' sayings \ And if 'Sayings' by itself should
' The viTiter who has demurred most to the title Ai57m is Dr. Zahn ;
but he does so, not because it is unsuitable in itself, but because its
application to the Sayings of the Fragment is not exactly on all fours
with what we know of the AiSvia of St. Matthew and of Papias. The
writer in the Athenaeum objects that the Sayings have not the oracular
character ; but in that I suspect that not many of us will agree with him.

30 Sayings attributed to our Lord
seem inadequate, it may be replied, that on a title-page
and in this kind of connexion the word has necessarily
come to mean ' select or memorable Sayings.' Besides, to
the Christian the ' Sayings of Jesus ' as such stand apart
from all others, and cannot be thought of without the
implication of authority.
The first real question which meets us is. What is the
relation of these new Logia to the lost writings which have
been hitherto known by the name ? The editors, no doubt
rightly, reject the hypothesis of 'any actual connexion
either with the Hebrew Logia of St. Matthew or with the
Ao'yta KvpiaKd' on which Papias commented. In this, to
the best of my belief, all subsequent writers have
agreed with them. The works in question are just those
to which for some time past, since the discoveries of recent
years began to excite fresh hopes of filling up the gaps in
early Christian literature, the thoughts of scholars interested
in the quest have turned most wistfully. If we could only
find the true Logia of St. Matthew, either in Greek or in
Hebrew, that most difficult of problems, the origin of the
Synoptic Gospels, would at one stroke be solved or be put
on the high road to solution ; and we should at the same
time have our materials for the Life of Christ carried back
one step nearer to the Life itself. And if we could but
recover the Xoyiav KvpiaK&v e^rjy^o-ets of Papias, we should
be in possession of a quantity of new material, not indeed
so authentic as the Matthaean Logia, but at least dating
from the period when tradition flowed still fresh and
strong. We do not know exactly what the work of Papias was.
He calls it a ' Commentary on Logia of the Lord.' Probably
it was an illustrative commentary in which the oral
material on which Papias set special store was brought in
to enrich the written material i. But whether the Ao'yta
^ This description appears to correspond with the language of Papias,
who speaks of ranging along with his interpretations (trvyKararifai rats
IPM,«-..) what he had well learnt and well remembered from the pres-
bytei. (Eus. S. B. IIL xxxix. 3); cf. Lightfoot, Essays on Supem Bel.

IV. History and Origin of the Sayings 31
KvpiaKa which formed the basis of the work were, as
Lightfoot, Harnack, and to some extent Zahn, suppose, our
Four Gospels, or a selection of Sayings made by Papias
himself, or a coUection previously existing, we are not in
a position to say quite positively.
In any case it is, I think we may say, certain that the
Logia of which those of the newly discovered Fragment
formed a part were not those of St. Matthew, and highly
probable that they had no direct connexion with the work
of Papias. The Sayings approximate to the type of those
in the Third Gospel rather than the First, while many
affinities have been pointed out to the Gospel of St. John,
There are no points of contact between the new Logia and
those- which can be traced to Papias. And it is a far cry
from Phrygia to Middle Egypt, even if we suppose that
the work of Papias had a wider circulation than we have
reason to think it had, or that the Logia on which it was
based ever had a separate existence from the commentary.
In dismissing Papias and the Matthaean Logia the editors
add that 'probably many such collections were made.'
They are perhaps justified in saying this ; but if so, their
own discovery is the chief ground for holding the opinion.
It is a tenable hypothesis that the new Logia are a specimen
of a class, but whether they are so or not will need further
testing. The chief direction in which this testing can be
applied would be through the analysis of our existing
Gospels; and this, as inquiiy stands at the present
moment, can hardly be said to be favourable. It is
a widely held opinion that behind the common portions of
our First and Third Gospels, if not behind much of our
Second Gospel as well, there lies a yet eariier source which
might be described by the name ' Logia 1.' But the tendency
' The dominant theory as to the origin of the common matter of our
first three Gospels is that known as the ' Two-Documeut hypothesis,'
according to which it is derived from (i) certain ' Notes of the Preaching
of St Peter' embodied in our Gospel of St. Mark, and (2) a collection of
' Logia - ascribed by Papias to St. Matthew. Whether this latter source
was employed in our Second Gospel as well as in the other two is a point
at present much debated. Per some time the affirmative view was held

32 Sayings attributed to our Lord
is to think of these Logia as something more than pure
sayings, strung together in no apparent order, and with
no connexion beyond the repeated Ae'yet 'irjaovs of the
Fragment. If we take a narrative like the HeaUng of
the Centurion's Servant, which is common to the two
Gospels and not found in St. Mark, we see there a com
plete story, not an isolated saying or sayings, and partly
cast into the form of dialogue. In this it is unlike the
Fragment. And even those portions of the common matter
of the two Gospels which are more strictly made up of
sayings yet in one or both of the Gospels usually have
a few words of introduction assigning them to some par
ticular occasion. Hence the predominant view is that the
Matthaean Logia were furnished with brief connecting
links of this kind ^. I say that this is the ' predominant
view ' ; at the same time it is very generaUy admitted that
many of the links are conjecturally inserted by the later
Evangelists, especiaUy by St. Luke. Where that was the
case the source might have had nothing more definite than
Aeyet 'Irjaovs. No doubt the question will be re-examined
in the \ishi of the new Fragment.
We must however also remember that the previous
works of which St. Luke speaks in his Preface are described
as birjyrjaeis, which from his use of the word dvaTa^aaOai we
should infer to have had some connected sequence ^. This
again is a point of difference from the Fragment. Broadly
speaking, we should say that the object of St. Luke's pre
decessors was historical, whereas the object of the work to
which the Fragment belonged was didactic — and that not
merely in the sense in which the other Canonical Gospels
only by Dr. B. Weiss, but it is now strenuously advocated in two essays
by Eesch and Titius in the volume dedicated to Weiss (Theol. Studien, etc.,
Gottingen, 1897).
Eesch is of opinion that the Logia contained not only longer con
nected sections (of narrative as well as discourse), but also short, detached
and scattered sayings, ' which were, perhaps, the pointed themes of dis
courses not written out in full.' He instances Mt. vii. 6 {op. cit. p. 114).
' This is on the common view that dvaT&laaSai = rather ' to draw up in
order' than to 're-state' (M«CleUan), 'e memoria repetere et oomponere'
(Blass).

IV. History and Origin ofthe Sayings 33
might be called 'didactic' as having a didactic purpose
running through their history. The Fragment is not part
of a history at all, but is part of a coUection of sayings,
each recorded for its own independent value.
In any future investigation of the Synoptic Question
the new Fragment is not likely to be lost sight of. At the
same time the degree of weight which we attach to it will
depend very much upon the extent to which we regard it
as reaUy analogous to the Matthaean Logia or to those of
Papias. It will depend very much on this, but not
entirely ; because it is conceivable that the new document
might be altogether later than either of these and less
authentic in substance, and yet that it might perpetuate an
older form. But the most intei-esting question in regard
to the Fragment is just this : Are we, or are we not, to
class it with the Matthaean Logia ? We might perhaps
express the question thus : Does it belong to the pre-
canonical or to the post-canonical stage of Christian
literatiu'e ? We must define our terms. By ' pre-canonical '
we might mean the stage anterior to the setting apart
of our present Four Gospels, with a more or less sharp
dividing line between them and all other writings which
bore the nature of Gospels. That would be at the latest
about the year 140 a.d. I did not however mean to use
the word in this sense, but rather in order to draw a line
between materials worked up in our Gospels and those
Gospels themselves. Clearly the new Fragment contains
matter which has not been so worked up. But is this new
matter to be regarded as on a similar footing to that which
has, or is it later and on the whole inferior ?
I find myself compelled to take this latter view. I
cannot think that any of the new matter represents, as it
stands, a genuine saying of our Lord. This rather unqualified
expression of opinion is not intended at all dogmatically,
but only for the sake of clearness. If we are to put the
Sayings in their place in the history of Christian thought,
we must seek to do this negatively as weU as positively ;
and the standard of comparison which offers itself first is
G

34 Sayings attributed to our Lord
that of the authentic ' Oracles of the Lord.' Speaking pro
visionally, we may say that the Sayings appear to be the
work of a single mind. This does not follow from the way
in which they are strung together, but from the common
quality which seems to run through them. The author
starts, as a rule, from genuine sayings, but works them up
in a sense of his own. There need not have been any
intentional dishonesty in this. At a time when oral
tradition was still fiowing a man might impress his own
stamp upon it almost unconsciously. The more earnest he
was, the longer he had brooded over the sayings which
reached him, and the deeper and stronger his own thoughts,
the more likely he would be to fuse and transfuse his
original and to add to it elements of his own. Something
of the kind I conceive to have happened in the case of the
Fourth Gospel ; and the difference between the Gospel and
the new Sayings I take to be that the latter do not rest
upon the same basis of personal experience.
For a terminus ad quem we may be content with the
date proposed by the editors, 140 a.d. And the ter
minus a quo may be put at the beginning of the century.
Further investigation may enable us to define these limits
rather more closely. Our first step may be to give reasons
for not going back further, or, in other words, for not
treating the Sayings as genuine.
The main arguments for possible genuineness, of which
reasonable use has been made, are three in number. Fii-st,
the rhythm and cast of the Sayings. This, it must be
allowed, is very like that of the sayings in the Gospels.
The laws of Hebrew parallelism are well observed. Due
weight must be attached to this fact. It seems to show
that tradition at the time when they were composed was
still a living tradition. And we should be inclined to
thmk that the Sayings received their form from one who
had Semitic blood in his veins. Besides this argument
there is the intrinsic excellence of the Sayings, and the
extent to which they may be paraUeled from others which
are well authenticated.

IV. History and Origin ofthe Sayings 35
There is truth in what is thus urged. And yet the
parallels do not go far enough to be a real guarantee of
genuineness. Both in this respect and in respect to the
substance of the Sayings there seems to be a clear interval
between these new Sayings and the certainly authentic
utterances of our Lord. The Sayings have an individual
stamp upon them, and a stamp which may well be caUed
striking ; but it is not His stamp. And it seems to me to
belong to a later generation and to a more developed stage
of reflection.
Let us take the Sayings in order. The first offers nothing
for our purpose. In the second we cannot help noticing
what may be called a technical use of language. The two
phrases, ' unless ye fast from the world ^ ' or ' renounce the
world,' and ' unless ye keep the sabbath,' both seem to have
this character — more so than anything of the kind that we
can point to in the Gospels. Ultimately the expressions
appear to be based on Isa. Iviii : ' Is not this the fast that
I have chosen ? to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo
the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and
that ye break every yoke ?'...' And if thou . . . call the
sabbath a deUght, and the holy of the Lord honourable ;
and shalt honour it, not doing thine own ways, nor finding
thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words : then
shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord,' &c. It is true that
'fasting from the world' introduces a new idea, analogous
to what we find in the Fourth Gospel. StUl the base of
the teaching is prophetic. No doubt the teaching of our
Lord Himself also takes up that of the Prophets. But the
atmosphere seems to be rather different. It would be
difficult to suppose that exactly this form of expression
would have occun-ed to one who had not been brought
up under Jewish institutions. But it seems to point to
a narrower and more esoteric circle than that addressed by
' The reading rbv KkapLov in the MS. seems to be assured ; but the
occurrence of the exact phrase vijaTeieiv tov K6ap.ov iu Clement of Alex
andria and of several more instances of the gen. with none of ace,
justifies the emendation tov kobjmv, and is interesting as showing that
the text already has a history. C %

36 Sayings attributed to our Lord
our Lord. The suggestion made in the Athenaeum that
the Sayings are connected with the sect of the Therapeutae
seems to me not very wide of the mark. I should say this
with still more confidence if I believed with the writer that
the Therapeutae were Christian. But to me the genuine
ness of the Philonic treatise De Vita Contemplativa seems
to have been proved, especially by Mr. Conybeare and
Dr. Paul Wendland ^, though there is stiU some opposition.
I am bound therefore to regard the Therapeutae as not
Christian but Jewish. They were, however, if Jewish,
a Jewish sect with Christian affinities. And the discovery
of these Logia would be a further reason for thinking that
it was just in such circles as these that Egyptian Christianity
first struck root.
The Third Logion confirms what the Second suggests.
First impressions are sometimes more trustworthy tban
those which are derived from study and argument. And
in spite of what has been said in various quarters, I cannot
think that the opening words eaTrjv ev peaa tov Koapov Kat
ev aapKi d((>6rjv avToZs could ever have come from our Lord.
' To come ' or ' appear ' or ' be manifested in the flesh ' is
a phrase which belongs to the later Apostohc age — to the
Pastoral Epistles and the Epistles of St. Jobn''^. It is a
product of reflective theology looking back upon the Incar
nation, and is unlike the language which our Lord Himself
used while among men. There is more analogy for the
phrase 'in the midst of the world,' but even this is confined

' Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life, Oxford, 1895 ; Wendland,
Die Therapeuten, Leipzig, 1896. Mr. Conybeare's work embodies materials
collected by Prof. L. Massebieau of Paris, one of the leaders in the reac
tion against the general discrediting of the book whieh followed a treatise
by Prof. Lucius of Strassburg in 1879. Another of those who put in
il word of quiet protest was Dr. Edersheim in the art. ' Pliilo ' in Diet.
Chr. Biog., and the same view is expressed by Dr. James Drummond in
the Jewish Quatierly, 1895, pp. 155-172. The most obstinate defender of
Lucius' position is Dr. Schurer {Theol. Literaturseittmg, 1895, col. 385 ff.,
603 f. ; 1896, col. 313 ff.). I do not say that there is no case, but the
better reasons seem to me to be for the genuineness of the treatise and
the worse against it. The que.stion is a touchstone of criticism.
2 I Tim. iii. 16 ; i John iv. 2 ; 2 Johu 7.

iV. History and Origin of the Sayings 37
to the Gospel of St. John \ In the remainder of the Logion
the technical character of the language, of which I have
spoken, is still more noticeable. There are some parallels
for the use of biy^fdv in a spiritual sense, but none that go as
far as this. The one example from the Synoptists, 'to
hunger and thirst after righteousness' (Mt. v. 6), has the
object expressed. And in the passages from St. John the
sense is always made clear by the context. There is no
instance of the words used absolutely and alone as in the
Logion ^. Still less are there any examples of the technical
use of p.eO-6ovTes. The language is not that of our Lord or
of the Church at large, but of a sect or section with
Encratite leanings. Whoever it was who put this Saying
into circulation knew that it would be understood without
expansion or explanation.
The most natural interpretation of the aorists 'eaTrjv,
&(f)Orjv, evpov, is that they are spoken from the point of
view of the period after the Eesurrection. They seem to
contain a retrospect of the ministry and of its effect. And
this impression is not cancelled by the present novel. Now
we know that many apocryphal writings took their stand
point in the time after the Eesurrection. Dr. James
mentions the Pistis Sophia, the Boohs of Je'u,, the Questions
of Bartholomew, and the Apoccdypse of Peter. To these we
may probably add the Gospel of PhUip, which is implied
in the Pistis Sophia and quoted by Epiphanius, Haer.

xxvi. 13^

Harnack takes the phrases eaTijv ev peaa tov Koapov
and iv aapKl &cj,Orjv as presupposing the doctrine of the
pre-existence of Christ as the Logos. This is doubted
by M. Batiffol, who would make the contrast rather
between the ^Josi-existent state and the Ufe on earth ('il
• John i. 10, iii. 17, vi. 14, i^- 39, ^- 36, xi. 27, xii. 46, xvi. 28, xvii. 18,
" On i)r Lock's view that the words might conceivably have been
k t the Feast of Tabernacles, a context would be supplied by the
spo en a , pg^gt and the discourse suggested by them (John
ceremonies 01 i^iio -^ i,it,ji a'
\ This might cover Sii^tui/Ta, but hardly /teflvoi'Taj.
^"3' Harnack, AUchrisl Lit. p. 14-

38 Sayings attributed to our Lord
n'est question dans ce texte que de la post-existence du
Christ par opposition a sa vie mortelle,' p. 8). But it
seems fair to say that pre-existence is implied as well
as post-existence. The personal existence of Him who
enters into the world and becomes incarnate stretches
backwards as well as forwards. The inference may not
be quite so stringent as in the 6 ck tov ovpavov Kara/3(is of
St. John, but it lies near at hand. The doctrine was no
doubt taught by St. Paul before the Synoptic Gospels
were committed to writing ; but we again note the leaning
of the Fragment towards the later and more developed
theology. I agree with Dr. Lock in thinking that the word and
a half which the first editors numbered Logion IV was
more probably than not the conclusion of Logion III.
The proportions of the page make it likely that not more
than a single line of text at the foot of the verso is missing.
The wide margin at the top prepares us to expect a simUar
margin at the bottom. And when first the roll gave place
to the codex, the dimensions and manner of writing of the
roll appear to have been preserved. We may see this by
the narrow columns of the text, which are characteristic of
the oldest codices. The papyrus was cut in regular lengths,
and the average depth was not great. It is however
possible, and perhaps probable, that there were two
columns of writing on a page. If so, the shape of the
book would be quarto ; and in that case perhaps more
than one line has been lost. It must not be forgotten that
if M. Batiffol is right, and the verso of the Fragment
was the under and not the upper side of the leaf, then the
text is of course not continuous. To me, however, the
reasoning of the first editors seems preferable. The ragged
edge of the papyrus looks more like a tear than the fraying
of age ; and I feel bound to accept the testimony of the first
editors as to the strip pasted on to the edge. Those who
have actually seen the papyrus must in such a matter be at
an advantage.
The combination of irrcoxo's and rv</)Ao's in Apoc. ui. l^

IV. History and Origin ofthe Sayings 39
increases the temptation to connect r^ nTax^iav with what
precedes. My own attempt to fill the gap has been given
along with others ; but I am not enamoured of it. The
speUmg yeti;a5o-K02.res seems to be characteristic of the
MS. (compare Log. VI) ; and there is abundant evidence
to show that it was an early speUing. It predominates
decidedly in the facsimile of Cod. Vaticanus (it occurs four
times in John x. 14, 15), and it appears to hold the propor
tion of about I : 2 in the facsimile of Cod. Alexandrinus
(N. T.) The number of letters to the line (14) is admis
sible. But I should have preferred avT&v to eavT&v, which
seems to be requUed by the vacant space. I have there
fore joined in adopting the conjecture of Mr. Cross as on
the whole the most attractive. It would be going too far
to be very confident that it represents what was actuaUy
written. The Fifth Logion (on the numeration of the first editors)
is of aU the most enigmatic. There is a double uncertainty
of reading and of interpretation. Fortunately the first is
somewhat diminished by the observation of Mr. Eedpath
(p. 33, sup.), for which we are much indebted to him. It
appears from it that even in a calligraphic MS. like
Cod. Vaticanus it is possible to have a numeral represented
by a letter and another spelt out in full side by side. Our
own examination of the N. T. only had not yielded any
examples. Perhaps this was to be expected. Although
they are not wanting, a MS. of the type of Cod. Vaticanus
would naturally be sparing of such irregularities. If we could
go back on the Une of its ancestry, especiaUy to the early
period when the books of the N. T. were more often copied
by zealous but unskiUed converts than by professed
scribes, they were probably much more numerous. Such
a variant as that in Acts xxvii. ^,1 (eNTConAoicocoQ and
6NTCOTTAo,«cococ) shows that the practice of representing
numbers by letters went back as far as the common
archetype from which were copied the divergent Unes of B
d the Sahidic Version on the one hand and NCHL, &c.,
, other. There are also well-known instances of the

40 Sayings attributed to our Lord
symbolism found in letters standing for numbers in
Ep. Barn. ix. 8^ and Apoc. xiu. 18.
This evidence is quite sufficient to lend support to the
otherwise attractive reading proposed by Dr. Blass, with
its extension by Clemen. Of all the various ways
of filling up the lacunae in the first half of the Saying
these seem the best ^-
As to the interpretation of the second half, I am glad to
find myself entirely at one with Dr. Lock. I should wish
to adopt not only his conclusion but the arguments on
which it is based. It will be unnecessary for me to repeat
these. I will only add to them, that against the supposi
tion of a conscious reference to Ecclesiastes (which is
common to the exegesis of Harnack and Dr. Swete) is the
comparatively rare use of that book and the improbabUity
that it would be assumed to be familiar to hearers or
readers. I take the text as referring to the presence of
Christ as the Logos in inanimate nature as well as with
the Church, even in its smallest fractions. This latter part
of the Saying is peculiar, but not necessarily heterodox.
The Sixth Logion has not much to detain us. The word
SeKro's is another link with the Gospel of St. Luke. The
added clause, ' Neither doth a physician perform cures
on them that know him,' has to me the appeai-ance of
developing a saying of our Lord's in the direction of Jemsh
proverbial literature like Ecclesiasticus.
Logion VII reads like a conflation of the two sayings,
Mt. V. 14 and vii. 24, 25. It would be too much to
maintain that our Lord Himself may not on some occasion
have combined sayings which in the firat instance had been
spoken separately. But in view of the general character
of the Logia as it has disclosed itself to us, it seems more
probable that the combination is due to tradition. About
the text of the saying a word will be said presently.
Logion VIII has been brilliantly restored through the
' Quoted by Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeog. p. 263.
' The reading Kiya, is very doubtful. Dr. Blass informed me that he
thought the first of the two remaining letters was T and not T.

IV. History and Origin of the Sayings 41
skiU of the first decipherers, who we can see frora
the facsimUe had the merest shreds to work upon, and the
happy inspiration of Dr. Swete and Dr. C. Taylor. I do
not think we can dispute the epithet 'striking' which
Dr. Swete appUes to the saying thus obtained. At the
same time it too seems on a par rather with the gnomic
wisdom of the Jews than with the authentic utterances
of our Lord.
We have been through the Logia with a result which
seems fairly consistent. A common character appears to
run through them which is sufficiently marked to enable
us to localize them tentatively in place and time. But
before we try to do this it may be well to take a glance
over their history.
And first, looking backwards. It would be going too far
to say that they implied a direct literary use of the Third
and Fourth Gospels. There are rather marked points of
contact with both. But it may be reasonably maintained
that these are more than counterbalanced by the differences.
It is not likely that the author, whoever he was, who gave
the Logia their present shape had the Canonical Gospels
lying open before him. He sits to them altogether too
loosely. We see this not only in the large proportion of
new matter, but also conspicuously in a case like that
of Logion V, where we find indeed an expression charac
teristic of St. Luke (SeKro's), but where the second clause
goes off into a form which, compact and symmetrical as it
is, has only a remote parallel in that Gospel. The state of
thiags on the whole is such as to be distinctly favourable
to a date for the composition of the Logia earlier than that
at which the Gospels acquired a fixed canonical authority.
The tradition of the Lord's Sayings is still handled with
considerable freedom. -, . ,
But although we thus stop short of the conclusion that
the Logia are consciously and deliberately built up with
stones taken from our Gospels, we may yet believe that
til had their origin under conditions of thought which
, Gospels had created. Perhaps we ought not to lay

42 Sayings attributed to our Lord
too much stress on the traces of written Gospels ; but we
find ourselves at least in an atmosphere impregnated with
the teaching which is for us embodied in the Gospels.
It is often a difficult matter to decide exactly between
the influence of the written and of the spoken word. If
any one thought he saw in Logia I, V, VI the last deposit
of a wave set in motion by our Synoptic Gospels, we
might not be able to prove that he was right, but we
should admit that the facts might naturally bear that
construction. A still more delicate question arises out of
the relation of the Logia to the Fourth Gospel, or to the
group of writings which bear the name of St. John, which
in any case go together. The use of Koapos, ev aapKi,
peOveiv, biyjrdv, nTaxeia seems redolent of these. But once
more it may be redolent not of any writing but of oral
teaching, and that either more or less directly. The range
of Johannean teaching is indeed to me one of the problems
in the history of the first century. If we believe that the
Gospel was written in the Eoman province of Asia, then
it is hardly likely to have affected such a document as the
DidaeM. There does not seem to be time for it to travel
back Eastwards and be assimilated in thought in the days
when wandering apostles and prophets were a common
phenomenon in the Churches. It would seem to be an
easier hypothesis to suppose that the Johannean expres
sions found in the Eucharistic prayer of the Didache came
in rather through oral teaching which had its centre
somewhere in Syria or Palestine before the Apostle had set
out for the West. Affinities of thought in the Letters of
Ignatius may have had a similar origin. The Johannean
element belongs to the substance of the writer's thought,
and had not been acquired yesterday or the day before at
the time of his martyrdom. If there was such an earlier
centre of Johannean teaching it would be nearer to the
home of the author of the Logia, and we might put back
the date at which the distinctive features of this teaching
entered his mind further than we could do if he was
dependent on the written Gospel and Epistles. But even

IV. History and Origin of the Sayings 43
so, we should not expect to find the influence of St. John
so cleariy marked in Syria or Palestine before the year
100. We may now descend the stream and see what traces
of the Logia we can find in later history 1. We are not
surprised to find these meet us first and most clearly in
¦^gyP*- There is fairly good reason to suppose that the
collection was known to Clement of Alexandria, who
flourished circa 190-200 A. d. It is not likely that the phrase
vrjaTeveiv tov Koapov was formulated by him for the first
time. On the other hand, it may naturally enough have
come into use through this collection. And the probability
of Clement's acquaintance with it is increased by his
apparent knowledge of the Saying, 'Where there is but
one, I am with him.' Clement appears to have in view not
his own Gospels, but the commentary of certain Encratite
Gnostics (see above, p. 23). It is conceivable that the
Saying quoted by Origen and aptly referred to by
Dr. James and M. Batiffol, Ata rois ao-^ez/oCiiiras fjaOevow
. . . Kat 8ta rovs bi-^&vTas ebi^j/av, came from the same source
as these Logia.
There are perhaps fainter examples of their use from
the region of Tatian's Diatessaron and the early forms
of the Syriac Version. Here too we come upon a trace
of uhi unus est, and, what is perhaps of less importance,
of the city 'buUt' on a hiU. If this last coincidence
had stood alone we could not have laid much stress upon
it, because the rest of the clause is so divergent as to
suggest that the compiler was drawing upon oral tradition
and was not directly influenced by the Canonical Gospel.
In the case of the Syriac Versions ' built ' is such a natural
paraphi-ase for ' set,' and comes so weU within the range
of the freedom which the eariy forms of the Version allow
themselves, that the coincidence might be accidental.
1 Tt ¦ 'ndeed strange that there should be no signs in literature of the
/^T.'f ooTriTiP- 'Eaise the stone,' &o. But we must remember that
remarkable sa^xiig, , . . , . . ...
T A rauha hardly less remarkable, rest upon a single quotation
severa .^^^ ^aaiXe-iaei k.t.X.). If that one quotation had been want-
^^'^\-u Tavinff would have been lost sight of altogether.
ing, tne s^ij^^o

44 Sayings attributed to our Lord
Taking, however, the two Logia together, there seems to
be some probabihty that the collection had a certain
circulation in Syria. And when we remind ourselves
further of the elegant Hebraistic form in which the
Sayings are cast, the question may well be raised whether
Syria or Palestine may not have been their place of origin.
The possibility must be reckoned with. StiU I incline on
the whole to Alexandria. If we took a pair of compasses
and placed them on the map with one limb pointing up the
Nile to Oxyrhynchus, and the other limb pointing toward
Antioch and Syria, the pivot on which both turned would
naturally lie in the position of Alexandria. And the
peculiar tone of thought, characteristic of the Sayings,
is such as we should look for in the- same region. What
ever we may think about the view that the Sayings are
extracted from the Gospel according to the Egyptians,
they may well have had their birth in proximity to it.
The Jewish cast about them would seem to indicate the
Jewish quarter of Alexandria, or the more salubrious air
of the environs where we are told that the Therapeutae
had their settlement. The date I should be inclined to put
about I20 A.D. — not earlier, or not much earlier, to give
time for the development of thought as we see it by
comparison with the Canonical Gospels ; and not much
later, because we seem to be stiU within the period of
living and actively formative tradition.
Such are the kind of conditions under which I conceive
that the Sayings took the shape in which we find them.
But there remains the further and subordinate question:
What relation does the Fragment which has just been
brought to light bear to the original Sayings? Was it
a direct copy of the Sayings, or did it belong to a coUec
tion of excerpts? The two leading scholars in Germany,
Dr. Harnack and Dr. Zahn, both hold this latter view, and
in England they have an aUy in Dr. M. E. James.
Dr. Harnack's opinion is definite. He thinks that the
Sayings came from the Gospel according to the Egyptians.

/ K History and Origin of the Sayings 45
This IS a very natural quarter in which to look. There is
a distinct resemblance between the Logia and what we
know of this Gospel. It was not, or at least not markedly,
heterodox. It had Encratite leanings, and was used by the
party in the Church which went by that name. It is
described by Epiphanius as containing many things ' put
into the mouth of the Saviour, and said as in a corner
mysticaUy ' (as ev napaj3vaTa p.vaTrjpidbas eK npoadnov tov
Sftir^pos, Haer. Ixii. 2), i.e. it was esoteric and mystical
in tone.
Still, if the Sayings of the Fragment came from this
Gospel, they must at least have been modified a good deal
in the process. The extracts which can with certainty be
referred to the Gospel are more like our Canonical Gospels,
a regular narrative with dialogue, not a string of discon
nected oracular sayings. Harnack therefore thinks that
the Sayings have been deliberately culled from the Gospel,
with the Unks of narrative left out. He believes that they
were put together not for private or learned, but for public
use. Precisely what kind of use he does not specify further,
but he thinks that if the object had been private the intro
ductory formula would have been, as in the Catenae, roO
avTov or roi; 'Irjaov, rather than the solemn Ae'yet 'Irjaovs.
Dr. Zahn does not exactly share this view. He says
that coUections of excerpts of this kind ' were in the time
of Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, and Heraclas not at all
uncommon.' He adds that they were put together for
other purposes than private study, instancing the iKXoyaC
from the Old Testament of MeUto of Sardis (Eus. H. E.
IV. xxvi. 13) and Serapion's extracts from the Gospel of
Peter (ibid. VL xii 6)1- , • ,k n 1
Zahn would find the source of the excerpts m the Gospel
used by the Ebionites, which he would identify with the
f these is really quite in point. The first would rather
1 Neither o ^^^^ ^^ j-estimonia, like Cypilan's three books ad Quirinum ;
come under ^ ^ ^^^^ ^^ faulty passages from the Gospel appended to
and Serapio ^^ warning. The.se differences were, I believe, worked
his 1'*"'"'^^^ by Mr. Grenfell at a Meeting of the Society of Historical
Theology-

46 Sayings attributed to our Lord
'Gospel of the Twelve' mentioned by Origen 1. The chief
traces of the Ebionite Gospel are to be seen in Epiphanius,
Haer. xxx. It is thought to have, in common with the
Fragment, its relation to the Canonical Gospels, especially
St. Luke, and its freedom in departing from them. Zahn
would date the Gospel about the year 170, and would refer
it to the same circle as the pseudo-Clementine writings and
the translator Symmachus. If the Logia came from Syria
or Palestine, there would be some ground for looking in
this direction. Zahn's main reason for choosing it is the
strongly Jewish- Christian character which he ascribes to
Logion II. But, on the other hand, we may weU doubt
whether an Ebionite Gospel, even of the type of the
Clementines, is likely to have had so bigh a doctrine of
the Person of Christ as is implied in the next two Logia.
I have also stated above my reasons for thinking that the
Sayings are really earlier in character than circa 170.
The theories of Harnack and Zahn are neither of them
convincing. The chief object of regarding the Logia as
excerpts appears to be in order to be able to refer them to
some known source, and in particular to a Gospel, though
their structure is unlike that of any Gospel with which we
are acquainted. But even if the success of their attempt
were clearer than it is, the remarkable formula Ae'yet 'Irjaovs
would still be imperfectly accounted for.
In this seems to lie the real heart of the enigma. There
is nothing exactly parallel to it in its repetition before (or
possibly, as Harnack thinks, after) each Saying. We are
driven to guess, and our guesses are very much in the dark.
At an early stage in the discussions Mr. Vernon Bartlet
pointed to the analogy of the Didache or 'Two Ways.'
He seemed to think that the Sayings had been drawn up
like this document for purposes of catechetical instruction.
Or, varying a little upon this, we might suggest that a
Christian philosopher had made for his own use and for
that of others a collection of Aphorisms to which the
instinct of reverence led him to give this particular form.
' Schol. in Luc. i. i (ap. Zahn, Gesch. d. Kan. ii. 267, 265).

IV. History and Origin of the Sayings 47
Or, more on the lines of Harnack, we might think (as
I was inclined to do at first) of some act of worship like
the Gnostic mysteries, in which the ' Oracles of Jesus ' were
solemnly repeated, after the manner of the 'comfortable
words ' in our own Communion Service.
But the analogy which I am inclined to think the
nearest is suggested to me by a remark made by the
Kev. C. F. Burney 1. Speaking as a Hebraist, he tells me
' Mr. Burney shall express his owu views on the philology of the
question : —
'The use of the present tense in this introductory formula {Aeyei
'1t](Tovs) appears to be susceptible of a simple explanation — the theory of
translation from a Neo-Hebrew or Aramaic original.
' Supposing these Logia to be represented, not as sentences spoken once
only by our Lord, but as His proverbial sayings, the natural formula of
introduction would be " Jesus used to say."
' Such a formula would certainly in Neo-Hebrew be represented in
one of two ways : — (i) by the participle coupled with the substantive
verb, or (2) more briefly, by the participle alone.
• A number of instances may be gathered from the Mishna treatise
Firqe 'Abh'oth, " The Sayings of the Fathers." Thus in I. 4 "l.iyi''"f3 ''Di''
nDIN mix {^K "Tose ben- Yo 'ezer, a man of Zereda, said" (parti
ciple); 5 IDiK D.bw"' tr-N pni' p ''Dl'', "Yos6 ben-Yohanan, a man
of Jerusalem, said" (part.); and so in 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and constantly.
In cases where a second saying of any Father is recorded, this is usually
introduced, without repetition of the name, by the pronoun with the
participle and substantive verb. So in I. 12, 13 KIH ... . IDIK b}r\
nOiK n''n "HiUel said (part.) .... He used to say." Cf. 15, IL 4 a,
s'oJ. But in every case in which the proper name occurs, the participle
¦mthout the substantive verb is used.
'In Aram I believe that "used to say" would always be expressed
bv the substantive verb with the participle-a construction which would
bythe substanti translation by the Greek present : e.g. Acta
«;:,t is :S v^r ^ f- ^--^ o^-) -^^ ^--
-n^ri::^:?S=v:ri:2:eX:ayingofourLordquoted as sJZre and so introduced by *--- P-*-'/ ^ :"^^^'i^
V y^ ; jj^ tjjg (jogpel, ' Love those who hate you.
He said {or sau ; ^^^ introductory formula of our Logia to have been
'Now, ^^PP"^^" ^tjij, y,{ji»^ '•< IDiN, or in Aram. "IDX '\ " n»N
written m gfiy"'oT "Jesus said" (sailh, quoting as Scripture), the
"Jesus used ^ y^^l^„ n&ei, a translator may very easily have considered
participle a o ^^^j^^^^. ^ Greek for the verb was the present tense, aud

48 Sayings attributed to our Lord
that the formula Ae'yet 'It7o-oCs might naturaUy represent the
common formula of citation employed in the Talmud, as
we see it in the early treatise Pirqe 'Ahoth, or ' Sayings of
the Jewish Fathers ' : ' Hillel said. Be of the disciples
of Aaron ; loving peace, and pursuing peace ; loving man
kind, and bringing them nigh to the Thorah.' 'Shammai
said, Make thy Thorah an ordinance ; say little and do
much ; and receive every man with a pleasant expression
of countenance,' and so on ^. I doubt if we are Ukely to
get nearer than this. The ' Sayings of the Jewish Fathers '
are really many of -them ' memorable sayiags ' ; and a Eabbi
who "had embraced Christianity, or a ' philosopher ' in
contact with Eabbis as in the Talmudical story quoted by
Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, i. 58^, would naturaUy
collect the Sayings of his Master in the manner famiUar to
him. Even so we have not a parallel for the repetition
of the name before each citation ; but the coUection of
strings of Sayings is characteristicaUy Jewish.
This observation may well come in to reinforce the
arguments for the Palestinian origin of the Logia. Taken
altogether, the arguments for that conclusion are not
inconsiderable. But there was a cultivated Judaism at
Alexandria as well as in Palestine, and the tone of thought
expressed in the Sayings appears to be Alexandrian rather
than Palestinian. We could imagine that they were in
the succession of the Wisdom of Solomon with a tinsre
from the Wisdom of Sirach. If we are right in connecting
them with Christian Therapeutae, they give us a gUmpse
into a circle which we may be sure must have existed,
though we have no direct evidence of it. It is the great
interest ofthe Logia that in any case they introduce us to
a side-growth of primitive Christianity which has hitherto
been hidden.
With an imperfect text, with interpretation in part
1 See the well-known and excellent edition by Dr. C. Taylor which,
I believe, is shortly to appear in an enlarged form.
^ Dr. Neubauer tells us that 'philosopher' is the Talmudical name for
a Christian doctor.

IV. History and Origin of the Sayings 49
uncertain, and with paraUels which faU us just at the most
critical point, no conclusions can be put forward as
possessing more than a higher probabiUty; but I have
indicated the alternatives which seem to me best to suit
the data and the choice which I should, as at present
advised, be inclined to make between them. At the same
. time I regard the two hypotheses of Egyptian and
Palestinian origin as real alternatives ; and I have swayed
from one side to the other in the process of writing.
Between a Graeco-Egyptian Jew under Palestinian influence
and a Palestinian Jew under Graeco-Egyptian influence
the difference is not very great. In either case the author
is a Jew who has heartily embraced Christianity.

OXFORD
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
I3Y HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

3 9002 08837 6620