Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-07-21

Prof karabacell has been good enough
to show me the papyrus which has lately
been discovered among the FL Fayum man
uscripts, and which is alleged to be the
fragment Of Gospel older than those of
st. Matthew and st. Mark. 1t is q very
small fragment measuring three and a
half cenUmgters in length and four and
one-third in width, and contains seven
lines, having 105 words Of these ninety
six can be plainly deciphered. bat nine are
indistinct Some lines are mutilated at
the beginning and end, and it is supposed
that from nincty-one to ninety-eight letters
are missing The number OF deficient let
ters can be reckoned by comparing lines
three, four and seven with the others The
seventh contains but four letters. The
writing is in Greek, and DR.. q. Bickeli, of
the University OF Innsbruck, who discOy-
cred and deciphered the fragment. con-
clUdeS from the form of tie letters and the
Authorizations, that it was written in the
third century; but from the style OF the
composition he infers that il dates origi-
nally from the first century, and this is
also the opinion Of Or. Edward Harnark.
Here is the translation of the fragment,
line for line. As already reported. It's par
allel is 10 be found in Matthew %, verses
30 to -, and Mark II, verses 26 TO 50:
/ fnt after supper. as the\ went ont.
>. You viii al take 0iluuse this night.
p. According to the Scriptures, " viii srnite
the shepherd and theEhcep viii be scattered. 80
{. Then Peter spake,
.. And if all, not l.
6. lie said to him.
:. The cock VIII crow twice, and before that
thou shalt deny Ne thrice.
The omission Of the words, to be found
both in Matthew and Mark: Bat after
am risen again ! viii 60 before you into
Galilee,' is noticeable Dr. Blckel laws
stress upon the importance Of the manu-
scrip, as being tlSe earliest fragment OF a
written Gospel; not canonical. indeed, but
yet no pscudograph or haretical compost
ton. DR.. BiCEcliS views are set forth and
approyiugly commented upon by Dr. Har-
mark. DR.. Uanark, who is Il fervent Ro-
man Catholic, distinguished for his Greek
scholarship, remarks tbat, so far as he can
judge DR.. BiclSei has taken no liberties
with the text having only added five let
tiers, which, it could be plainly guessed.
We're the missing ones, bus which simply
WCuded broken words without altering The
sense Of a line. The antiquity and gcnu-
iueness of the fragments are he argues. be-
yond dispute, and he concludes: Ii is
strange that q sua strip Of papyrue. con-
tanning about LEO words, should be able to
raise 50 many important questions with
regard 10 the originality OF two OF the Cos
pels: but il would be too easy 20 dispose of
these questions by >aying that the papyruS
is not genuine. Having given our opinion
as 20 the occurrences, we must in the in
terest OF truth. maintain that there is no
explaining away the omission of orr Lord s
prophecy as to His going into Galilee, ex-
cept by supposing that the author of the
manuscript wrote from memory But what
probability is there that writing from
memory, he would have left out jhe most
striking and important passage in orr
Lords conversation with His disciples?
Let critics more learned than we are en-
deavor to account for the omission more
satisfactorily than we can. For ourselves,
we mast submit that ii goes far toward
suggesting q doubt as to whether the Cos
peis ascribed 10 Matthew and Mark were,
in the form in which we know them now,
composed by those disciples. - Vienna
cor. London Times.