Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325.

Also known as the Fayyum fragment.

One of our many sources for primitive Christianity.

Late century III.

Papyrus Vindobonensis (or Vienna) Greek 2325.

Sole fragment.

1. [...ε]ξαγειν ως ε[ι]πε[ν] οτι, Α[παντες]
2. [εν ταυτη] τη νυκτι σκανδαλισ[θησεσ-]
3. [θε κατα] το γραφεν· Παταξω τον [ποιμε-]
4. [να, και τα] προβατα διασκορπισθησ[ονται. ει-]
5. [ποντος το]υ Πετ{ρου}· Και ει παντες, ο[υκ εγω....]
6. [...Ι{ησου}ς· Πρι]ν αλεκτρυων δις κοκ[κυσει τρις]
7. [...με α]παρν[ηση.]

1. [...l]ead out, when he s[a]i[d]: A[ll]
2. of you [on this] night will be scandaliz[ed]
3. [according to] what is written: I shall strike the [shep-]
4. [herd and the] sheep shall be scatter[ed. When]
5. [said] Pet{er}: Even if all, n[ot I....]
6. [...J{esu}s: Befor]e a cock twice cr[ows, thrice]
7. [you will d]en[y me].

What follows is a Greek synopsis of this fragmented text and its synoptic parallels in Matthew and Mark:

Word counts:

Matthew: 75.
Fayyum: 36.
Mark: 69.

The Lucan parallels are much slimmer:

In what follows I will break down the agreements of each pair of texts against the third text; I will also note those instances in which all three texts go their separate ways. (Luke, who has gone his own way, will not receive this same treatment here.)

Furthermore, I count each of four kinds of agreement. Two texts can agree against a third by mutually changing words, by mutually adding words, by mutually subtracting words, and by mutually changing word order.

Not all agreements are created equal. To mutually change a word from a third text or to mutually add the same words to a third text is more significant than to mutually choose to subtract the same words from a third text or to mutually change the order of words in that third text.* I call the first two kinds of agreement content agreement. The last two we might think of as noncontent agreement. I have asterisked the noncontent agreements in the lists below; words mutually subtracted receive a single * asterisk, while words mutually changed around in order receive a double ** asterisk. The content agreements stand as they are.

* Some might rank mutual changes in order a bit higher than I do here. The status of word order agreements is indeed a good topic for debate, but I do not think that changing their status would significantly affect our exercise, since there are only three word order changes to speak of at any rate.

Agreements of Matthew and Mark against Fayyum:

1. Matthew and Mark each have εις το ορος των ελαιων (unto the Mount of Olives), which Fayyum lacks; however, since this omission occurs at the beginning of the fragment, it is possible that Fayyum originally contained the phrase. Nevertheless, even so Matthew and Mark would agree against Fayyum in word order.**
2. Matthew and Mark each have εξηλθον (went out, indicative), while Fayyum has εξαγειν (lead out, infinitive).
3. Matthew and Mark each have λεγει (say, historic present), while Fayyum has ειπεν (said, aorist).
4. Matthew and Mark each have ο Ιησους (Jesus), which Fayyum lacks.
5. Matthew and Mark each have παντες (all), while Fayyum has the fuller απαντες (all).
6. Matthew and Mark each lack το (the), which Fayyum has.
7. Matthew and Mark each have γεγραπται (it is written), while Fayyum has γραφεν (thing written).
8. Matthew and Mark each have μετα το εγερθηναι με προαξω υμας εις την Γαλιλαιαν (after I am raised I shall go before you into Galilee), which Fayyum lacks.
9. Matthew and Mark each use an indicative verb (ειπεν and εφη) and Πετρος (Peter, nominative), while Fayyum uses a participle (probably ειποντος) in a genitive absolute construction with Πετρου (Peter, genitive).
10. Matthew and Mark each have αυτω (to him), which Fayyum lacks.
11. Matthew and Mark each have σκανδαλισθησονται (will be scandalized), which Fayyum lacks.
12. Matthew and Mark each have αμην, λεγω σοι οτι (amen, I say to you that), which Fayyum lacks.
13. Matthew and Mark each have ταυτη τη νυκτι (this night), which Fayyum lacks.
14. Matthew and Mark each have αλεκτορα (cock, accusative), while Fayyum has αλεκτρυων (cock, nominative).
15. Matthew and Mark each have φωνησαι (sound off, infinitive), while Fayyum has κοκκυσει (crows, indicative).

Words changed from Fayyum: 7.
Words added to Fayyum: 20.
Words subtracted from Fayyum: 1.
Order changed from Fayyum: 1?

Agreements of Mark and Fayyum against Matthew:

1. Mark and Fayyum each have οτι (that), which Matthew lacks.
2. Mark and Fayyum each lack υμεις (explicit you), which Matthew has.*
3. Mark and Fayyum each lack εν εμοι (at me), which Matthew has.*
4. Mark and Fayyum each locate τα προβατα (the sheep) before διασκορπισθησονται (shall be scattered), while Matthew reverses the order.**
5. Mark and Fayyum each lack της ποιμνης (of the flock), which Matthew has.*
6. Mark and Fayyum (apparently) each lack αποκριθεις (having answered), which Matthew has.*
7. Mark and Fayyum each have και (even, but in slightly different locations), which Matthew lacks.
8. Mark and Fayyum each lack εν σοι (at you), which Matthew has.*
9. Mark and Fayyum each have ουκ (not), while Matthew has ουδεποτε (never).
10. Mark and Fayyum each lack σκανδαλισθησομαι (I shall be scandalized), which Matthew has.*
11. Mark and Fayyum each lack εν (on), which Matthew has.*
12. Mark and Fayyum each have δις (twice), which Matthew lacks.
13. Mark and Fayyum (apparently) each have με απαρνηση (you will deny me), while Matthew reverses the order.**

Words changed from Matthew: 1.
Words added to Matthew: 3.
Words subtracted from Matthew: 10.
Order changed from Matthew: 2.

Agreements of Matthew and Fayyum against Mark:

1. Matthew and Fayyum each have εν ταυτη τη νυκτι (on this night), which Mark lacks.
2. Matthew has ειπεν (said) and Fayyum likely has ειποντος (having said), while Mark has εφη (spoke).
3. Matthew and Fayyum each lack αλλ (but or rather), which Mark has.*
4. Matthew and Fayyum each lack συ σημερον (you today), which Mark has.*
5. Matthew and Fayyum each lack η (virtually untranslatable in this instance with πριν), which Mark has.*

Words changed from Mark: 1.
Words added to Mark: 4.
Words subtracted from Mark: 4.

Disagreements among Matthew, Mark, and Fayyum:

1. Matthew has τοτε (then or at that time), Mark has και (and), and Fayyum has ως (when or as).
2. Matthew has γαρ (for), Mark has οτι (since), and Fayyum has κατα (according to).
3. Matthew has δε (and or but), Mark has αλλα (but or rather), and Fayyum lacks a parallel.

Thus Matthew and Mark add another word to Fayyum.

The Fayyum fragment has only one word which is not paralleled in either Matthew or Mark, or in both, and that word (το, or the) is grammatically necessary with γραφεν. On the other hand, it lacks 21 words represented in both Matthew and Mark.

Of the many agreements against Fayyum, content agreements amount to 27 words (words changed from and words added to Fayyum).

Of the many agreements against Matthew, content agreements amount to 4 words (words changed from and words added to Matthew).

Of the few agreements against Mark, content agreements amount to 5 words (words changed from and words added to Mark).