"Sayings."—These documents have naturally excited considerable interest and raised many questions. The papyri of the "sayings" date from the 3rd century and most scholars agree that the "sayings" themselves go back to the 2nd. The year A.D. 140 is generally assigned as the terminus ad quem. There is a considerable diversity of judgment, however, with re gard to the value of the collection. (a) Some scholars maintain that the collection goes back to the ist century and represents one of the earliest attempts to construct an account of the teaching of Jesus. They are therefore disposed to admit to a greater or less extent and with widely varying degrees of confidence the presence of genuine elements in the new matter. (b) Sanday and many others regard the sayings as originating early in the 2nd century and think that, though not "directly dependent on the Canonical Gospels," they have "their origin under conditions of thought which these Gospels had created." The "sayings" must be regarded as expansions of the true tradition, and little value is therefore to be attached to the new material.
With the knowledge at our disposal, it is impossible to reach an assured conclusion between these two views. The real problem, to which at present no solution has been found, is to account for the new material in the "sayings." There seems to be no motive sufficient to explain the additions that have been made to the text of the Gospels. It cannot be proved that the expansions have been made in the interests of any sect or heresy. Unless new
discoveries provide the clue, or some reasonable explanation can otherwise be found, there seems to be no reason why we should not regard the "sayings" as containing material which ought to be taken into account in the critical study of the teaching of Jesus.
The 1903 Gospel fragment is so mutilated in many of its parts that it is difficult to decide upon its character and value. It appears to be earlier than 150, and to be taken from a Gospel which followed more or less closely the version of the teaching of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke. The second Gospel fragment (1907) seems to be of later origin than the documents already mentioned. Grenfell and Hunt date the Gospel, from which it is an excerpt, about 200. There is con siderable difficulty with regard to some of the details. The state ment that an ordinary Jew was required to wash and change his clothes before visiting the inner court of the temple is quite un supported by any other evidence. Nothing is known about "the place of purification" nor "the pool of David." Nor does the statement that "the sacred vessels" were visible from the place where Jesus was standing seem at all probable. But if the in accuracy of the fragment in this important respect is admitted the historical character of the whole episode breaks down and is probably to be regarded as an apocryphal elaboration of Matt xv. 1-20 and Mark vii. 1-23.
See the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part i. (1897), part iv. (r904), part v. (igo8).