430 Clarence Russell Williams, 



not lia\c; had a common source. The Freer Logion seems to be the 

 product of a later, a more thoughtful and philosophical age. 



In rejecting the conclusion of so weighty an authority as Prof. 

 Harnack, it is comforting to find support in so eminent a textual 

 critic as Prof. Gregory, and one who agrees with the former in accep- 

 ting the Aristion source of the Longer Conclusion. While acknowl- 

 edging the possibility of identity of source, he does not accept the 

 theory. "Denn der Abschnitt scheint durchaus nicht aus dersclben 

 Feder geflossen, aus demselben Kopf entsprungen zu sein, wie der 

 unechte Schluss." (p. 6.3.) 



4. But if this logion is not to be assigned to the source from which 

 the Longer Conclusion was taken, what can be inferred as to its 

 origin ? 



Concluding that the section is an extract from a longer writing, 

 that Jerome probably knew the whole logion, having seen it in a MS 

 closely related to the Freer MS, that possibly he saw it in 386 A.D. on 

 his trip to Egypt, when he visited the Nitrian monasteries in addition 

 to spending a month in Alexandria, we conclude that this writing 

 is to be traced back to Egypt, perhaps to a Nitrian monastery. 



For in spite of his words, Jerome may have seen but one MS con- 

 taining this logion. It is not impossible that it is to this very MS that 

 he refers. At least it must have been one closety related, since of 

 all the thousands of Greek texts known to us, it has as yet been found 

 in no other MS, proving that this reading must always have had a 

 very limited diffusion. Probably it never traveled very far from its 

 source. Since this MS connects it with Egypt, it is most natural, 

 especially as on this supposition we can easily explain Jerome's 

 knowledge of it, to posit an Egyptian origin. This we are free to 

 do, since we have denied its coherence with the Longer Conclusion. 



Gregory suggests that the writer shows that he has been influenced 

 both in his vocabulary, and to a less extent in his thought, by Egyp- 

 tian Gnosticism, but other scholars take exception to such a conclusion. 

 The logion, however, probably formed a section of an apocryphal 

 Gospel or "kerygma," based upon our canonical Gospels, and prob 

 ably written in Egypt during the second century. 



But the remarkable confusion of text displayed by this logion is 

 scarcely what we would expect if its circulation was extremely lim- 

 ited. This leads Gregory to suggest that we have here a translation, 

 possibly from a Coptic original. Such a supposition might help to 

 explain such difficult passages as tttiv aWjOsiav xoO OsoO xairaT.alisaOat 

 5'Jv3C[j.i,v, and the lack of smooth connection between verses eight 

 and nine and verses nine and ten. 



