The Egerton Gospel (P.Egerton 2 (=P.Lond.Christ. 1) +P.Cologne 255) contains numerous parallels with the canonical gospels,Footnote 1 although the episode of the so-called ‘Miracle on the Jordan River’ (ll. 65–73 || 2v.6–14) is without precedent. In the editio princeps, H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat state: ‘This is the only passage to which no even possible parallel can be found in the canonical Gospels, which therefore supply no help towards filling up the lacunae; and unfortunately this is the page in which the surface of the papyrus is in the worst condition. Consequently there is considerable doubt as to both the nature of the incident recorded and several of the individual readings.’Footnote 2 Bell–Skeat provided a base transcription and translation (below), and H. J. M. Milne and F. Kenyon suggested some restorations for the lacunae. Since 1935, numerous commentators have produced diverse reconstructions of this episode.Footnote 3
l. 6 (1) [τότε π]εριπατῶν Cerfaux, Bell–Skeat2, Mayeda.
ll. 9–10 (3) [ἐγέ]μισεν [σῖτον / σῖτα κ]αὶ Milne; [ἐκό]μισεν [σῖτον / σῖτα κ]αὶ Kenyon; [ἐγέ]μισεν [χόου κ]αὶ Lagrange; [ἐγέ]μισεν [ὕδατος κ]αὶ Lietzmann; [ἐγέ]μισεν [ὕδατι κ]αὶ Dodd; [ἐκό]μισεν [συκῆν κ]αὶ Cerfaux; [ἐκό]μισεν [ὕδωρ κ]αὶ / [ἐγέ]μισεν [ὕδατος κ]αὶ Dibelius; [ἐγέ]μ̣ισεν [σίτου κ]αὶ κατέσπειρ̣[εν] α̣υ᾿̣τὸν Schmidt; [ἐγέ]μισεν [ὕδωρ κ]αὶ Mayeda; [ἐγέ]μισεν [σίτου / αὐτὴν κ]αὶ Gronewald; [ἐκό]μισεν [ὕδωρ κ]αὶ Daniels; [ἐγέ]μ̣ισεν [. . . . . κ]αὶ Lührmann; [ἐγέ]μισεν [σπόρου κ]αὶ Bauer.
l. 11 (4) [ποταμ]όν· Milne, Kenyon, Cerfaux, Bauer; [χοῦν σίτ]ον· Lagrange; [αἰγιαλ]όν· Lietzmann, Dodd, Dibelius, Mayeda; [εἰς ἀγρ]ὸν· Schmidt; [δένδρ]όν· Daniels.
ll. 11–13 (5) καὶ τότε [. . . .] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον ὕ̣δωρ Bell–Skeat2; καὶ τότε [λαβὼν] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον ὕδωρ ἐπ̣[ὶ τ]ὴ̣ν γ̣ῆν [κατέβαλεν / ἔσπειρεν]· Milne; καὶ τότε [ἐπι]κατέ[χεεν χεόμ]ενον̣ / ἰέμ]ενον ὕ̣δωρ· ἐν[ῆκε]ν̣ τὴν̣ [γῆν ὁ σπόρος] Lagrange; καὶ τότε [δὴ τὸ] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον ὕδωρ ἐν[ῆκ]εν / ἔν[ιψ]εν / ἔλ[υσ]εν / ἔλ[ουσ]εν / ἔχ[ρισ]εν Lietzmann; καὶ τότε [εἰς τὸ] κατε[σπαλμ]ένον ὕδωρ· ἐ[νῆκε]ν τὴν [ῥίζαν αὐτῆς]· Cerfaux; καὶ τότε [δὴ τὸ] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον ὕδωρ ἔν[υγρ]ον τὴν [γῆν ἐποίησε] Dodd; καὶ τότε [ἡ γῆ τὸ] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον ὕδωρ· ἐν[έπιε]ν τὴν [σπορὰν λαβών] Dibelius, Mayeda; καὶ τότε α[ὐτοῦ] κατε[χέεν ἱκ]α̣νον ὕδωρ· ἔπ[ε]ι̣τ̣α τὴν [γῆν ἐθεῶντο]· Schmidt; καὶ τότε [ἐπὶ τὸ] κατε[. . . . . . .]ενον̣ ὕ̣δωρ ἔδ̣[ωκ]ε̣ν τὴν [γῆν ποτίζων] Gronewald; καὶ τότε [δὴ τὸ] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον̣ ὕ̣δωρ ἔχ[ρι]ε̣ν τ̣ὴν [ξηρὰν συκήν]· Daniels; καὶ τότε [τὸ γε] κατε[σπαρμ]ένον ὕδωρ· ἔπ[λησ]εν τὴν [κρηπῖδα] Bauer.
l. 13 (6) ἐπλ̣[ήσ]θη Milne, Dibelius, Mayeda, Gronewald, Daniels; ἐπή̣[ρ]θη Kenyon, Lagrange, Schmidt; ἐπο[τίσ]θη Dodd; ἐπ[ετά]θη Cerfaux; ἐπλ[ηρώ]θη Bauer.
In the most recent transcription of this episode, T. Nicklas expresses the same sentiments as Bell–Skeat: ‘Fragment 2↓ is an excellent example demonstrating the importance of intertexts for the reconstruction of a fragmentary apocryphal text. The lack of canonical (or other apocryphal) parallels prevents any secure reconstruction of the scene – this is shown by the wide range of (very speculative) attempts to reconstruct the original text.’Footnote 4 Nicklas then avoids reconstructing the text, and reproduces a text similar to Bell–Skeat's transcription with a few conservative emendations. The return to the editio princeps, and the production of at least twelve diverse reconstructions (none of which have gained broad scholarly approval), indicates that little progress has been made on this episode in the past eighty years.
There is, however, a consensus on three of the seven events described in this episode: (1) ‘Jesus, as he walked, stood on the bank of the Jordan River’ (2v.6–8); (2) he ‘reached out his right hand’ (2v.8–9); and (7) it (something) ‘brought forth fruit’ (2v.14). There is also a general consensus that Jesus: (3) took possession ([ἐκό]μισεν or [ἐγέ]μισεν) of something (2v.9–10); (4) and ‘scattered it upon’ something (2v.10–11). Yet there is complete diversity on: (5) the action taken with the ‘water’ (2v.11–12); and (6) the action(s) accomplished ‘before them’ (2v.13–14). The reason for this diversity, as noted by commentators from Bell–Skeat to Nicklas, is the apparent lack of a parallel account by which this episode in the Egerton Gospel can be reconstructed.
Despite the universally accepted reconstruction of event (1) as: [. . . . π]εριπατῶν ὁ ᾿Ιη(σοῦς) [ἐ]σ̣τάθη [ἐπὶ τοῦ] χείλους τοῦ ᾿Ιο[ρδ]ά̣νου [ποταμ]οῦ, few commentators have noted the significant verbal parallels with 2 Kings 2.13.Footnote 5 After taking up Elijah's mantle, ‘Elisha returned and stood on the bank of the Jordan (ἐπέστρεψεν Ελισαιε καὶ ἔστη ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου)’. No other Greek text uses this exact terminology to situate an event on the ‘bank of the Jordan’.Footnote 6 Furthermore, both texts indicate that the subject (᾿Ιησοῦς || Ελισαιε) approached the scene (περιπατέω || ἐπιστρέϕω) and stood (ἵστημι) ‘on the bank of the Jordan (ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου)’. Commentators also agree on the reconstruction of event (2) as: καὶ ἐκτείνα[ς τὴν] χεῖ[ρα αὐτο]ῦ τὴν δεξιάν, which has a textual parallel with Elisha's other miracle on the Jordan – Elisha threw a stick into the Jordan, the axe-head floats, and ‘he reached out his hand (ἐξέτεινεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ)’ to retrieve it (2 Kings 6.7).Footnote 7 These parallels do not help in reconstructing the lacunae in the rest of the episode, but they suggest that the author of the Egerton Gospel is purposely using an Elisha typology, specifically Elisha's ability to work miracles at the Jordan, in the depiction of Jesus’ miracle at this location.Footnote 8
A more promising parallel to this episode is found in Josephus’ expansion of 2 Kings 2.19–22.Footnote 9 After describing the fecundity of the ground surrounding the Jordan River, Josephus then provides a description of the copious spring near Jericho:
This spring, it is said, at first not only blighted fruit crops, but produced miscarriages in women. Indeed it proved unwholesome and destructive of everything, until it was reclaimed and transformed into a salubrious and life-giving stream by the prophet Elisha, the disciple and successor of Elijah. When he had been welcomed by the people of Jericho and hospitably entertained by them, he repaid them and their country by an undying favour. He went out (προελθών) to the spring and threw (καταβαλών) into the stream an earthenware vessel full of salt (πλῆρες ἁλῶν), and then, raising the guiltless right hand (δεξιὰν ἀνατείνας δικαίαν) to heaven and pouring (χεόμενος) propitiatory libations upon the ground (κἀπὶ γῆς), he implored the earth to purify the water and open sweeter channels. Then he called upon heaven to mingle its waters with more life-giving airs, and give the people round about an abundance of fruits (καρπῶν εὐθηνίαν) and children, and an unfailing supply of water conducive to their production, so long as they remained righteous. With these prayers (εὐχαῖς), accompanied by many ritual acts with his hands, using his skill, he changed the nature of the spring so that the water that had hitherto brought childlessness and famine, from then on became a source of fertility and plenty (Josephus, Jewish War 4.460–4).
Apart from the obvious difference in location,Footnote 10 the general details of Josephus’ account have striking parallels with 2v.6–14: (1) Elisha approaches the spring; (2) reaches up his right hand; (3) takes possession of the vessel full of salt (implied in Josephus but apparent in 2 Kings 2.20); (4) thrοws the salt into the water; (5) pours out liquid on the ground; (6) prays and is answered; (7) which results in the production of fruit and children.
The following is a tentative reconstruction of 2v.6–14 based on Josephus’ account, previous transcriptions and an autopsy examination of the manuscript.Footnote 11
6–8 (1) τότε is adopted in l. 6, following the suggestion of Bell–Skeat2, since a ‘high point’ is extant at the end of l.5.Footnote 12 This may further distance the relationship between the episode in 2v.1–5 from the episode in 2v.6–14, but it would make the ‘them’ of event (6) indiscernible.Footnote 13
ll. 8–9 (2) Josephus indicates that Elisha ‘reached up his righteous right hand’ (δεξιὰν ἀνατείνας δικαίαν) in prayer, which is similar in terminology to Jesus who ‘reached out his right hand’ (ἐκτείνα[ς τὴν] χεῖ[ρα αὐτο]ῦ τὴν δεξιάν), although the meaning and objects are obviously different. Jesus’ right hand is not mentioned in miracle accounts in the canonical gospels, nor is Elisha's in 2 Kings 2.19–22; this is an additional detail noted by Josephus.
ll. 9–10 (3) All commentators have noted that the verb is either [ἐκό]μισεν or [ἐγέ]μισεν, while there is a greater diversity regarding the object that Jesus possesses: water (ὕδωρ; ὕδατος); grain (σίτου; σῖτον; σῖτα); soil (χόου); a fig-tree (συκῆν); or seed (σπόρου). Using Josephus and 2 Kings 2.19–22 as a probable parallel, the reading [ἐκό]μ̣ισεν [ἅλας] has been selected: κομίζω is relatively synonymous with λαμβάνω in 2 Kings 2.20 where the men of the city ‘brought/took’ Elisha a new jar of salt; ἅλας follows the parallel context and fits within the lacuna in l.10 (±5 spaces).
ll. 10–11 (4) All commentators (with the exception of Lagrange and Schmidt) suggest that the object Jesus possesses in l.10 is then ‘sprinkled/sowed/scattered’ upon something: the river ([ποταμ]όν); the shore ([αἰγιαλ]όν); or the tree ([δένδρ]ον). The parallel with the purification of the Jericho spring indicates that Jesus threw salt upon the river.
ll. 11–13 (5) This event is the most difficult to reconstruct, and each commentator has provided unique readings. Most agree that the reconstructed verb in ll.11–12 is κατε[σπαρμ]ένον̣, but there are difficulties with this transcription. Bell–Skeat already noted in the editio princeps that applying this participle to ὕδωρ is ‘highly objectionable’ since it is usually used of seed or the earth in which it is sown.Footnote 14 This reading is also questionable, since the ε after the lacuna in l.12 is possibly an α – the common circular, downward stroke of the right-side of the α is visible, which does not align with the formation of ε in this manuscript.Footnote 15 Therefore, Schmidt's reconstruction, κατε[χέεν ἱκ]α̣νόν̣, is more plausible and the preceding lacuna in l.11 is likely the subject [αὐτὸς].Footnote 16
Despite its inclusion in the editio princeps, Bell–Skeat note that the small point after ὕδωρ in l. 12 is accidental, since ‘it seems impossible to end a clause with ὕδωρ as the point suggests’.Footnote 17 The formation of this point is also much higher than the usual · used throughout the manuscript.Footnote 18 The partially extant letters that follow in l. 12 can be read differently. Bell–Skeat originally suggested εν̣[. .].ν τ̣ὴν, but others have suggested that the first ν could be either π, δ, λ or χ. The latter two options are likely since only the top and bottom of the left side are visible, but no one has followed this in their transcriptions.Footnote 19 Perhaps it is a misshaped π, or the ink has simply fallen out of the left vertical stroke.
Multiple commentators have suggested that something is done to ‘the ground (τὴν γῆν)’; usually γῆν is placed in the lacuna at the beginning of l. 13, with the article being read at the end of l. 12. However, the cross-stroke on the supposed τ is exceptionally short, barely extends over the left of the vertical line, and looks like the γ in 1v.7, 8, 18, 1r.15 (but unlike the γ in 2r.5, 13, 2v.14 in which the crossbar does not extend over the left of the vertical line). Therefore, it is plausible that the lacuna at the end of l. 12 reads ἐπ̣[ὶ τ]ή̣ν γῆν.Footnote 20
If event (5) is read as: καὶ τότε [αὐτὸς] κατε[χέεν ἱκ]α̣νον̣ ὕ̣δωρ ἐπ̣[ὶ τ]ή̣ν γῆν, it produces a coherent narrative that has textual parallels with Josephus’ unique detail that, after throwing the salt into the spring and reaching up his right hand to heaven, Elisha was ‘pouring (χεόμενος) propitiatory libations upon the ground (κἀπὶ γῆς)’.
ll. 13–14 (6) Other transcriptions attempt to fill the first lacuna (±10 spaces) with various reconstructions that support their previous reading. The reading [προσεύξατο] is simply a conjecture based on Josephus’ account, but the Apostolic Constitutions also mentions the prayer of ‘Elisha at the barren fountain’ (Const. ap. 7.37). Despite its absence in 2 Kings 2.19–22, Elisha's prayer at the purification of the Jericho spring became part of the interpretive tradition.
The reconstruction of the rest of the event as καὶ ἐπλ̣[ηρώ]θη ἐνώ[πιον αὐτῶν] is also questionable, but the fulfilment of Jesus’ prayer would explain the production of fruit in event (7),Footnote 21 just as Elisha's prayer resulted in the production of fruit and children in Josephus’ account. The difficulty with this reading is that it may encroach on the supposed length of the initial lacuna (±2 spaces), and the implied subject changes from Jesus ([προσεύξατο]), to his prayer (ἐπλ̣[ηρώ]θη), to the ground (ἐ]ξ̣ήγα[γ]ε[ν]) – yet these problems do not appear insurmountable.
The upper left hook of the λ is visible, so another proposed reading of this verb is ἐπλ̣[ήσ]θη. An advantage of this reconstruction is that it aligns with the prophecy of Elisha in 2 Kings 3.10 where ‘the ground was filled with water (ἐπλήσθη ἡ γῆ ὕδατος)’, which may be another allusion to Elisha's water miracles. However, this does not help in the reconstruction of the lacunae in ll. 13–14. Dodd also suggests a possible restoration of event (6) as καὶ ἐπ[λήσ]θη ἐνω[ρίστερον] ‘it was very soon fecundated’,Footnote 22 which may explain the production of fruit in event (7), but does not help in reconstructing the lacuna at the beginning of l. 13. Another reconstruction is possible (influenced by Matt 13.26) that maintains the subject ‘ground’: (6) [ἐβλάστησεν]· καὶ ἐπλ̣[ηρώ]θη ἐνώ[πιον αὐτῶν (7) ἐ]ξ̣ήγα[γ]εν̣ [δὲ] κ̣α̣ρπ̣ὸ(ν).
The significant verbal parallels between event (1) and 2 Kings 2.13 indicate that the author of the Egerton Gospel is purposely correlating Elisha and Jesus. The striking parallels between events (2), (5) and (7) with Josephus’ expansion of 2 Kings 2.19–22 have produced a logical transcription for events (3) and (4), and a conjectural reconstruction of event (6). These parallels, and the proposed transcription, suggest that the author of the Egerton Gospel knew of the Elisha tradition that was also known to Josephus,Footnote 23 and then employed this Elisha typology, specifically his ability to produce water miracles at the Jordan River and Jericho spring, in the depiction of Jesus’ miracle on the Jordan.
