Plate #1 of the sayings collection can be seen here. I’ll try to put up a bad transcription of the Greek from this first image at some point.
I would have liked to have been able to order Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. LXXXVII and have seen the whole thing, but USians don’t appear to be able to order from Bloomsbury, and no copies are showing up on their US distributor’s site yet.
Thank you so much to Martijn Linssen, who sent his paper to me, which links to hi res images and a transcription.
This is much better than the first pass transcription that I was going to foist off here.
ανε υ.
ερι μν.
οντι .α.
.ωμ .πυ
ωγ.ρ.μ
στευσ
ωηευρη
αν καιεα . λη
τστονκ ..
τετ .πδ
αρνσα
α καιοτσαυ
ουρα..ο.
μεσ.ντ
ολγ
.ω..
πωσα
ετ.α.
ενα ου
..ωντσ
.τηδοιεη
.οιτουτου.
.σαιεισαιε
λουενσν.
πατ.ρ
ωισ
με οτι
υτσ
θρστσ…
εα.ε…
ενετε.
In my opinion though, this is not really a “sayings collection”. It’s just a somewhat summarized version of the Matthew 6:25-34/Luke 12:22-32 story, with an interpolation that looks very similar to Gospel of Thomas Logion 27. With the difference that…here the Logion 27 saying has a context and makes sense. That is, as an anti-“prosperity Gospel” revision to Jesus’ teaching.
The [ἀπέθ]ανε ending that comes first would easily be explained, as the authors do, as Thomas Logion 63. Which is, of course, very similar to a summarized version of Luke 12:16-21.
So what do we have? This is a summary and syncretization of Matthew and Luke’s stories, with a relevant interpolation by whoever did the summary and syncretization. Later on, Gospel of Thomas evidently uses it as a source.
It can’t have gone the other direction, from Thomas to this syncretization. That is, from separate Logion 27 and 63 into this text. If it had, it would be hard to explain why it follows the ordering of Luke 12. The author would have had to recognize the Logion 63 and Luke 12:16-21 parallel and recreate the order.
Another piece of evidence that this is older than Logion 27, is Logion 27’s unique use of “βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ”, missing elsewhere in Thomas, as it is dropped here. I expect that this syncretic text is the original “τοῦ θεοῦ” dropper, and we’ve had it accidently added back in Thomas.
Far from being a sayings collection that proves Q, this discovery seems to buttress Goodacre’s “Case Against Q” that Thomas is really a Synoptic-derivative document.
Excellent observations there, Joel. My main fascination with this is the distinct lack of nomen sacrum for either πατὴρ or οὐράνιος used in the papyrus, which may be further indication of it’s early assigned date (2nd century CE).
Pretty sure ὑμῶν ὁ from Matt 6:26 could fit in line 13 on the recto before οὐράνιος, so will be interesting to see if the latest Oxyrhynchus volume restores the lacunae.
I now have a copy.
In the notes they say that the letter before οὐράνιος cannot be an ο or ν, due to the crossbar, and suggest π instead. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐπουράνιος “would fill the space”, but they don’t print it in the reconstruction.
For line 10, I’m going to make a suggestion: οὐδὲ μὴ εἰδ]ῆ̣τε τὸν πατέρα
The aorist [perfect form] εἰδῆτε instead of the ὄψεσθε of Logion 27 seems unobjectionable after εὑρήσετε/εὕρηται. For οὐδὲ μὴ (to fill the space) compare Isaiah 7:9 LXX καὶ ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε, οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε.
If there were accepted, the parallel to Logion 27 would be much tighter, and the probability of suggested σαββατίσητε τὸν κόσμον in the next line would increase, imo.
EDIT: I suppose, more likely οὐδὲ μὴ ἰδῆτε
Any chance you’re willing to share the published paper in the p oxy volume?
I’ll be in touch with you by email.