P^4/64/67 (Papyrus 4/64/67 – Suppl. Gr. 1120/Gr. 17/P. Barcelona 1)

PAPYRUS 4 P4 Contents: Luke 1:58–59; 1:62–2:1, 6–7; 3:8–4:2, 29–32, 34–35; 5:3–8; 5:30–6:16 Date: 150–175 C.E. Discovered: Coptos, Egypt in 1889 Housing Location: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. Gr. 1120 Physical Features: P4 is one the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke and contains extensive sections of the first six chapters: 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1; 2:6-7; 3:8-4:2; 4:29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16

Historical Discovery and the Joining of the Fragments

Papyrus 4, Papyrus 64, and Papyrus 67 are best understood as fragments of one and the same early Gospel codex, written by the same trained hand, and are usually referred to collectively as P4/P64/P67. This identification, argued especially by Colin H. Roberts, Kurt Aland, Joseph van Haelst, and T. C. Skeat, rests on their shared provenance in the Coptos–Luxor region, almost identical page dimensions, the same double-column layout and line counts, the same punctuation and paragraphing system, and a virtually identical script. Each group of fragments was discovered and cataloged separately, in different collections and even in different countries, before careful examination of their physical and textual features showed that they once belonged to the same book. Their unification into a single codex has transformed how these small fragments are understood and has made them one of the most important witnesses to the early Alexandrian text of the Gospels.

Papyrus 4 consists of fragments containing portions of Luke, held in Paris. Papyrus 64, long known as the “Magdalen papyrus,” preserves small portions of Matthew and is housed at Magdalen College, Oxford. Papyrus 67, kept in Barcelona, also preserves fragments of Matthew. For many years these papyri were studied independently, without any clear recognition that they were parts of the same codex.

The turning point came when scholars compared the papyrus texture, fiber pattern, ink color, script style, and page layout of the three sets of fragments. The similarities were too close to be coincidental. The same type of papyrus sheet, the same careful professional bookhand, the same column width, and similar line counts emerged across P4, P64, and P67. When the fragments were hypothetically placed into a reconstructed codex, their positions in Matthew and Luke fit together smoothly, with no contradictions in quire structure or page order.

On this basis, it is now best to speak of P4/P64/P67 as a single Gospel codex, very probably containing all four canonical Gospels: Matthew and Luke are directly attested by the fragments, while the quire calculations and the Matthew title leaf (ευαγγελιον κατα μαθθαιον) strongly imply Mark and John within the same volume, making this the earliest extant four-Gospel codex. On paleographic and historical grounds—including its close affinity with dated hands such as P.Oxy. 661 and the fact that P4 was already old enough to be recycled as binding material for a third-century Philo codex—the Gospel codex is best dated to the second half of the second century, around 150–175 C.E. This brings us very close to the first generation of copies after the autographs and shows what an early, carefully produced Alexandrian Gospel book looked like.

Paleographic Similarities Between P4, P64, and P67 – Philip W. Comfort

	P4	P64	P67
Page size[a]	13.5 cm x 17 cm	10.5 [+3.0] cm x 17 cm	10 [+3] cm x 17 cm
Columns per page[b]	two	two	two
Lines per column	36	35–36	36–38
Letters per line	12–19; 15–17 average	15–17	13–20; 15–17 average
Punctuation	high-point (frequent), midpoint, base point; colon (:) for new section (Luke 3:14; 6:8)	one high-point	several colons (:) as a kind of versification
Paragraphs (marked as outdent with horizontal bar)	at Luke 1:76, 80; 2:1; 3:19, 23; 5:36; 6:12 (most correspond with the beginning of a new paragraph)	at the beginning of Matt. 5:27 (corresponds with the beginning of a new paragraph)	at the beginning of Matt. 26:31 (corresponds with the beginning of a new paragraph)
Lettering[c]	letters are remarkably similar to those in the other fragments; many are identical	letters are remarkably similar to those in the other fragments; many are identical	letters are remarkably similar to those in the other fragments; many are identical

^[a] The narrower width for P64 and P67 represents only the area of writing. Since these dimensions do not take into account P4’s wide margins (two centimeters toward the gutter; one centimeter toward the outer edge), I have added the extra three centimeters to them. Thus, all three would have about the same page size.

^[b] The double column layout is an unusual feature, found only in these three manuscripts among the early New Testament papyri. Two later papyri (P34 and P41) have double columns, but they date from the seventh and eighth centuries respectively.

^[c] The following consonants are shaped identically: β, δ, γ, η, θ, κ, λ, ν, ξ, π, ρ, τ, χ. The following vowels are shaped identically: ι, ο, ω. A close examination of these letters reveals that each was stroked in exactly the same way. This is especially noticeable in the letters κ, ν, ξ, π, ρ, ω. The remaining consonant, sigma (ς), is quite similar but not always identical in the three manuscripts. (Not all the letters could be compared in all three manuscripts because the sparseness of text in P64 and P67 excluded a comparison of β, ζ, φ, and ψ.) The lower curve on the sigma in P64 and P67 doesn’t come around as far as does the sigma in P4. However, several sigmas in P4 do match P64 and P67, so we would expect that had more text been extant for P64 and P67, we would also see some fully rounded sigmas. Similarly, the formation of the vowels epsilon and alpha is not uniform. In all three manuscripts, the underside arc of the epsilon (ε) is fully curved in certain letters and not fully curved in others, and the alpha (α) is pointed in some places and somewhat rounded (at the left extension) in others.

Thus, it seems very likely that all three fragments (P4, P64, and P67) came from the same scribe and were from the same codex. My own recent examination of the actual manuscripts of P4 and P64 has convinced me of this. Though the coloring of P4 is generally darker than that of P64, the same lighter brown can be seen in a few portions of P4 and in three unpublished fragments of P4 that I saw. (These fragments are kept separate in a small envelope inside the box containing the leaves of P4 that are mounted in glass.) The first of these fragments clearly belongs to Luke 6:12, the second to Luke 5:33, and the third to Luke 1:79 or to Matthew 26:4 of P64. New reconstructions are reflected in the transcription that follows.

END OF PHILIP COMFORT EXCURSION

Paleographic Dating and the Professional Bookhand

The hand of P4/P64/P67 is one of the finest examples of an early Christian professional bookhand. The letters are formed with precision and consistency. The script is upright, rounded majuscule, with clear differentiation of letter shapes and minimal ligatures. The spacing between lines is regular, and the lines themselves run straight across the column with little waviness. These qualities mark the work of a trained scribe accustomed to copying literary texts, not a casual or semi-literate copyist.

Paleographers compare such scripts with dated documentary papyri and literary manuscripts. The hand of P4/P64/P67 fits best within the mid-second century, around 150–175 C.E. This date agrees with the general chronology assigned to similar professional bookhands and with the style of other early New Testament papyri. Attempts to push the fragments into the first century depend on forcing the paleographic evidence beyond its real precision. The script simply matches more closely the secure examples from the middle of the second century.

The professionalism of the hand has important implications for textual criticism. A scribe who writes in such an accomplished bookhand is usually copying from a respected exemplar and working in conditions that favor care and accuracy. The codex form, the regular columns, and the tidy margins all contribute to this impression. P4/P64/P67 is therefore an early example of deliberate Christian book production, where the Gospels were treated as high-status literature worthy of the best scribal skills available.

Codicology and Reconstruction of the Original Codex

The surviving fragments are small, but they preserve enough information for a partial reconstruction of the original codex. The papyrus sheets were written on both sides, arranged in quires, and folded to form a codex in the standard Christian manner. The text was written in two columns per page, each column carrying roughly thirty-five to thirty-eight lines with about fifteen to seventeen letters per line, and the surviving pieces point to page dimensions of about 13.5 × 17 cm for P4 and roughly 10.5 × 17 cm for P64/P67. These consistent measurements fit well with a codex of substantial size, capable of containing at least one complete Gospel and, in fact, a full four-Gospel collection.

The fragments from Luke (P4) come from the beginning of that Gospel, which suggests that, in the original codex, Luke followed another Gospel, likely Matthew. This fits the fragments from Matthew (P64 and P67), which appear to come from earlier in the codex. When the likely page and quire structure is calculated, Matthew would have occupied the opening portion of the codex, Luke would have followed, and there would still have been room for other Gospels. This makes it quite plausible that P4/P64/P67 represents an early four-Gospel codex, although the surviving evidence does not allow absolute certainty.

Even without every detail fixed, the broad outline is clear. The codex was a carefully planned literary book, not a small notebook or partial collection. It had enough leaves to carry extended narrative, was written with a professional bookhand, and was designed for repeated use in reading and teaching. These codicological features show how seriously at least some Christians in the mid-second century took the Gospels as core authoritative writings.

The Text of Matthew in P64 and P67

The Matthew fragments in P64 and P67 preserve portions of several chapters, including material in which the manuscript tradition shows noticeable variation. Although the pieces are small, their readings allow comparison with later manuscripts and reveal the textual character of the codex.

In the places where P64 and P67 can be compared with Codex Vaticanus and other early Alexandrian witnesses, they consistently support the Alexandrian readings. They stand with the shorter, more concise text against the fuller and often harmonized wording of the Byzantine tradition. This is particularly evident in passages where later scribes added clarifying phrases, repeated familiar formulas, or assimilated Matthew’s wording to parallel accounts in Mark or Luke. P4/P64/P67 resists such expansions and preserves Matthew’s individual style.

For example, in teaching sections of Matthew where later manuscripts include additional explanatory words, the fragments align with the simpler Alexandrian form. The same pattern appears in narrative scenes, where the codex omits phrases that look like later liturgical additions. Even when the fragments are small, the consistent profile emerges: the underlying text belongs to the disciplined Alexandrian tradition, not to a freer or more paraphrastic line.

There are also places where P64 or P67 preserves an independent reading that differs from both Vaticanus and the Byzantine tradition. In many of these instances, the differences involve minor orthographic variation or slight changes in word order that do not affect meaning. Occasionally, the fragment supports a reading that is more difficult and could explain how later manuscripts altered the text. Because the surviving evidence is small, each such instance must be weighed carefully. Yet the overall impression is that the scribe copied a high-quality exemplar faithfully, introducing few if any deliberate changes.

The Text of Luke in P4

Papyrus 4 preserves portions of Luke 1–6, the opening section of Luke’s Gospel that includes the infancy narratives and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. These chapters are rich in distinctive vocabulary and syntax, and they also contain several textual variants of interest. P4 offers early testimony in this crucial part of the Gospel.

When P4 is compared with the Alexandrian witnesses, especially Papyrus 75 and Codex Vaticanus, the closeness of its text is striking. In verse after verse, P4 sides with these manuscripts against readings found in later traditions. It presents the same disciplined, concise wording and avoids the expansions that appear in the Byzantine text. The agreements extend beyond isolated readings and reveal a shared textual pattern across extended stretches of narrative.

One example concerns the infancy narratives, where later manuscripts sometimes harmonize details with Matthew or introduce clarifying phrases. P4, like P75 and Vaticanus, preserves Luke’s distinctive phrasing without such embellishment. Another example appears in early miracle stories, where P4 and the Alexandrian witnesses retain shorter descriptions, while later manuscripts add explanatory clauses or liturgical echoes.

In a few places, P4’s readings are damaged, and reconstruction depends on comparison with other manuscripts. Still, enough text remains to show that the codex’s Luke is firmly anchored in the Alexandrian tradition. This is exactly what one would expect if the same codex also included an Alexandrian Matthew, and it supports the view that P4/P64/P67 is a coherent Alexandrian Gospel book rather than a mixture of disparate traditions.

P4/P64/P67 and the Alexandrian Text Type

The combined evidence from Matthew and Luke in P4/P64/P67 leaves little doubt that this codex belongs to the Alexandrian text type. Its readings align with other Alexandrian manuscripts in exactly those places where the Alexandrian tradition diverges from the Byzantine or Western texts. The codex is concise, resists expansions, and preserves more difficult readings that later scribes tended to smooth or harmonize.

In the Gospels, the Alexandrian text is particularly well anchored by Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. P4/P64/P67 joins this group as another witness roughly contemporary with the earliest papyri. When its readings are added to the apparatus, they repeatedly reinforce the Alexandrian profile. This convergence demonstrates that the Alexandrian text is not a late scholarly revision but an early and stable form of the Gospel text.

Furthermore, the combination of an Alexandrian text with a professional bookhand implies that the community responsible for P4/P64/P67 was concerned to preserve the text accurately. This was not a situation where scribes felt free to paraphrase or alter the Gospels significantly. Rather, the Alexandrian tradition represented in this codex shows a deliberate effort to transmit the text in a disciplined way, even though normal scribal errors still occurred.

Scribal Habits and Accuracy in P4/P64/P67

Because the surviving fragments are small, our view of the scribe’s habits in P4/P64/P67 is necessarily limited. Still, certain tendencies can be observed. The scribe’s spelling is generally consistent and follows the norms of contemporary Greek, though some phonetic spellings occur. Such orthographic variants are normal and do not affect meaning.

There is little evidence of deliberate harmonization within the surviving fragments. Where Matthew and Luke recount similar events, P4/P64/P67 allows each Evangelist to retain his own wording. This restraint contrasts with later manuscripts that frequently bring parallel accounts into closer agreement. The absence of harmonizing changes in the fragments suggests that the scribe respected the individuality of each Gospel and copied the exemplar carefully, rather than rewriting the text to his own preferences.

Unintentional errors, such as small omissions or transpositions, likely occurred, but the limited material makes them harder to detect. In the few instances where such phenomena appear, they fit the usual patterns of homoeoteleuton or simple misreading. There is no sign of doctrinal alteration or systematic adjustment. The codex, in other words, behaves like a careful, high-quality copy that still reflects normal human fallibility.

This combination reinforces a key point about preservation. There is no evidence in P4/P64/P67 of miraculous protection from error. The scribe works skilfully but not infallibly. Yet because the same text was copied by many scribes in different regions, and because several early Alexandrian witnesses survive, textual critics can compare their readings and reverse the small errors that did arise.

P4/P64/P67 and the Early Fourfold Gospel

The reconstruction of P4/P64/P67 as a single codex that likely contained at least Matthew and Luke and possibly the entire fourfold Gospel has significant implications for the history of the canon. By 150–175 C.E., Christian communities were not only reading the individual Gospels but also binding them together in codices. This reflects a clear recognition that the four Gospels belong together as a complementary witness to the life and work of Jesus.

The mid-second century is also the period in which writers such as Irenaeus explicitly speak of four Gospels, no more and no fewer. P4/P64/P67 provides physical confirmation of this fourfold consciousness. Even if the surviving fragments do not prove beyond doubt that Mark and John were included, the size and planning of the codex, its professional execution, and the pairing of Matthew and Luke strongly suggest that it was part of the same movement toward a standard Gospel collection.

The Alexandrian character of the text further shows that this recognition was not confined to one local tradition. The same broad pattern of four Gospels appears in diverse regions, and the Alexandrian community preserved a form of the text that is demonstrably close to the original. P4/P64/P67 thus stands as an early artifact of the canonical fourfold Gospel, both in its physical form and in its text.

Debates about Dating and Their Resolution

At times, sensational claims have been made that P64 or related fragments should be dated to the first century, even to within a few decades of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel. These claims were based on perceived similarities between the hand of P64 and certain first-century documentary papyri. While such proposals attracted attention, they did not withstand careful paleographic scrutiny.

Expert comparison of letter forms, ductus, and overall style shows that the script of P4/P64/P67 fits best in the middle of the second century, not the first. Features such as the treatment of certain letters, the rhythm of the writing, and the combination of professionalism with particular stylistic details align with securely dated manuscripts from around 150–175 C.E. Dating the codex much earlier would ignore the cumulative weight of paleographic evidence.

Yet this moderate date is still extremely early. A Gospel codex produced around 150–175 C.E. stands well within living tradition that respected and transmitted the apostolic writings, even though the original eyewitnesses had died. It shows that within roughly a century of the composition of Matthew and Luke, copies existed whose text in many places can be directly compared with our best modern editions. The distance between the autographs and the manuscripts we use today is therefore not an unbridgeable gulf but a chain in which P4/P64/P67 is a vital early link.

Contribution of P4/P64/P67 to Modern Textual Criticism

In modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, the readings of P4/P64/P67 are regularly cited wherever the fragments overlap with other witnesses. In passages where the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions diverge, the codex almost always supports the Alexandrian form. This strengthens the case for adopting the Alexandrian reading in the main text and relegating Byzantine variants to the apparatus.

Where P4/P64/P67 preserves independent readings, editors weigh them in light of external support and internal probability. If a reading is supported by other early witnesses and explains the origin of later variants, it may be adopted. If it stands alone and appears to reflect a plausible scribal error, it is noted but not accepted into the main text. In this way, the codex contributes to both confirmation and correction, reinforcing some readings and warning against others.

Because the fragments are early and come from a professionally produced codex, their testimony carries particular weight. They show that, long before the great majuscule codices like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were produced, the Gospels circulated in a form that already closely matches the Alexandrian text later preserved in those codices.

Papyrus 4/64/67 and the Reliability of the Gospel Text

When viewed as a whole, P4/P64/P67 offers a powerful witness to the reliability of the Gospel text. It does not present a radically different narrative of Jesus, nor does it support strange doctrines absent from other manuscripts. Instead, it supports the same Gospels that Christians read today, with variations confined to the level of wording, not message.

The codex’s alignment with early Alexandrian witnesses demonstrates that the Gospels were not subject to uncontrolled, radical rewriting in the second century. Rather, they were copied with care, using professional scribes and carefully prepared codices. Normal scribal errors occurred, but these errors can be identified and corrected by comparing multiple manuscripts.

P4/P64/P67 also refutes the notion that Christians only began to treat the Gospels as authoritative Scripture in the third or fourth centuries. By 150–175 C.E., a high-quality codex containing at least two, and likely all four, Gospels was already in use, reflecting both canon consciousness and a commitment to preserve the apostolic testimony accurately.

In this way, P4/P64/P67 exemplifies the larger pattern of preservation and restoration. Jehovah did not miraculously prevent every copying mistake, but He allowed the text to be transmitted in such a way that, through the survival of early, carefully produced manuscripts like this codex and through sound textual criticism, the original wording of the Gospels can be confidently recovered.

You May Also Enjoy

P132 (P. Oxy. 5258): A Third-Century Fragment of Ephesians 3:21–4:2, 14–16

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS