I had a little time on Friday afternoon to work through the editors’ editio princeps of P.Oxy. 5575 and I hope to write some more on it soon. But in the meantime, I thought I might share a first pass I made at a Greek synopsis here [PDF].
For this, I have simply adopted the editors’ reconstructed text even though there are places where I’m of a different mind. They naturally include plenty of alternate possibilities in their discussion, so their reconstructed text should obviously not be treated as final. But you have to start somewhere. Feel free to use and share it. Corrections are welcome.
One initial observation from making this synopsis is that the inclusion of Luke is, to my mind, somewhat precarious. I don’t see anything in the fragment that is distinctive of Luke. The material from the canonical Gospels is from the so-called double tradition and, in the few places where Matt and Luke diverge, our fragment is lacunose, follows neither, or follows Matthew. I don’t see any point where it distinctly follows Luke. If so, then parsimony would suggest we leave Luke out of the equation in explaining what this fragment is. But maybe others will see something I missed—as I said, I only had an afternoon to spend with it so far.
As for other initial reactions, here’s a nice video from Bible Unboxed, and don’t miss Brent Nongbri’s post on the paleography.