Analyzing Papyrus 50 (P50): A Critical Examination

Introduction to Papyrus 50 (P50)

Papyrus 50 (P50), designated by its Gregory-Aland number, is a significant early New Testament manuscript that provides a window into the text of the Acts of the Apostles. This particular papyrus contains fragments of Acts 8:26–32 and Acts 10:26–31, dating to approximately 250-300 C.E. The document is housed at Yale University, specifically within the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, under the catalog number P. Yale 1543. P50 is one of the smaller manuscripts in the corpus of New Testament papyri, yet it offers valuable insights into the textual history of the Acts. Elijah Hixson suggests that the manuscript may be forgery. This is discussed at length below under the heading Is P50 (P. Yale 1543) a Forgery.

Description and Physical Characteristics

Papyrus 50 is a miniature codex, a characteristic that is somewhat unusual in the manuscript tradition. The leaf, which was folded in half to create four pages, measures 13.8 cm by 17.7 cm, with each page containing 21-22 lines of text. The manuscript is noted for its slightly peculiar orthography and the presence of corrections, indicating that the scribe might not have been as skilled as those who copied other, more prominent manuscripts.

The physical characteristics of P50 suggest that it was a practical manuscript, likely intended for personal or communal reading rather than for liturgical use or as a deluxe copy for a church leader. The fact that it contains only two small portions of Acts, both dealing with early Christian evangelism to Gentiles, suggests that it might have been used for instructional or evangelistic purposes.

Textual Character and Significance

The Greek text of P50 is classified as belonging to Category III by Kurt Aland and his colleagues, which places it within a group of manuscripts that are important for the history of the text but are not necessarily authoritative for reconstructing the original text. This categorization reflects the mixed textual character of the manuscript. While it generally aligns with the Alexandrian text-type—similar to Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ) and Codex Vaticanus (B)—it exhibits some unique readings that merit closer examination.

Acts 8:26-32: The Encounter Between Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch

In Acts 8:26-32, Philip encounters an Ethiopian eunuch who is reading the prophet Isaiah. This passage is significant because it depicts one of the earliest instances of the Christian message being extended beyond the Jewish community. The eunuch, a high-ranking official under the queen of Ethiopia, represents a God-fearer, a Gentile who reveres the God of Israel but has not fully converted to Judaism.

The text of P50 in this passage is largely consistent with the readings found in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. However, there are some orthographical differences that could reflect either regional scribal habits or the specific practices of the scribe who produced P50. The use of nomina sacra, abbreviated forms of sacred names, is consistent with other manuscripts from this period, reinforcing the sacred nature of the text.

Acts 10:26-31: Peter and Cornelius

In Acts 10:26-31, Peter interacts with Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Regiment, who is described as a devout man who fears God. This encounter is pivotal in the narrative of Acts, as it marks the formal opening of the Christian faith to Gentiles without requiring them to first become Jews. Cornelius’ conversion and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon him and his household are presented as divinely sanctioned, thus establishing a theological precedent for the inclusion of Gentiles in the Christian community.

P50’s rendering of this passage is again largely in line with the Alexandrian text-type, though it contains some minor variations that are characteristic of Category III manuscripts. These variations are primarily orthographic and do not significantly alter the meaning of the text. The presence of corrections in this section suggests that the scribe was either working from a flawed exemplar or that errors occurred during the copying process, which were then corrected either by the scribe himself or by a later corrector.

P50 and the Alexandrian Text-Type

The alignment of P50 with the Alexandrian text-type is noteworthy, given that this text-type is generally regarded as one of the most reliable for reconstructing the original New Testament text. The Alexandrian text is characterized by its brevity and lack of expansion compared to other text-types, such as the Western or Byzantine. This suggests that the scribe of P50 was working within a tradition that sought to preserve the text as accurately as possible, even if the execution was sometimes less than perfect.

The Use of Nomina Sacra in P50

One of the defining features of early Christian manuscripts, including P50, is the use of nomina sacra, abbreviated forms of divine names and titles. In P50, these include abbreviations for terms such as “God” (ΘΣ), “Lord” (ΚΥ), and “Jesus” (ΙΣ). The use of nomina sacra served not only as a space-saving device but also as a way to convey reverence for the divine names. This practice is consistent across early Christian manuscripts and reflects a shared understanding of the sacredness of these terms.

The presence of nomina sacra in P50, despite its relatively small and utilitarian nature, indicates that this was a standard practice among Christian scribes of the time. The consistency in the use of these abbreviations across manuscripts suggests that there was a level of scribal training or convention that transcended individual scribes and geographic regions.

Orthographical Peculiarities and Corrections

P50 exhibits several orthographical peculiarities, which are characteristic of early Christian manuscripts. These include variations in spelling and the occasional use of non-standard forms. Such variations are not uncommon in manuscripts from this period and can often be attributed to regional differences in pronunciation or scribal habits.

The presence of corrections in P50 suggests that the scribe was aware of the importance of accuracy in copying the text. Corrections could have been made either during the initial copying process or by a later corrector who compared the manuscript to another exemplar. The fact that P50 contains corrections is indicative of a manuscript tradition that valued fidelity to the text, even if the initial copying was not always flawless.

The Dating of P50

The dating of P50 has been a subject of scholarly debate, with various scholars proposing different dates based on palaeographic evidence. Carl H. Kraeling, who first published the manuscript, dated it to the middle of the 4th century. However, subsequent scholarship, including the work of the Yale editors, has argued for a slightly earlier date, around 250-300 C.E., during the reign of Diocletian.

The arguments for this earlier date are based on several factors, including the formation of certain letters, such as alpha, eta, and upsilon, which exhibit early forms. Additionally, the use of the diaeresis, a diacritical mark that is rarely found after the 3rd century, supports an earlier dating. When compared to other manuscripts, such as P72, P50 appears to belong to the same era, further supporting the proposed dating.

The Provenance of P50

P50 was purchased by Yale University in 1933 in Paris, along with other manuscripts of Egyptian provenance. The exact location where P50 was originally discovered is unknown, but its Egyptian origin is consistent with the majority of early Christian papyri, which were often found in the dry, arid conditions of Egypt that are conducive to the preservation of papyrus.

The purchase of P50 in Paris is reflective of the early 20th-century manuscript trade, where many significant manuscripts were acquired by Western institutions. The provenance of P50 prior to its appearance in Paris remains a mystery, but its acquisition by Yale University has ensured its preservation and availability for scholarly study.

P50 and the History of the Acts Text

P50 provides valuable insight into the textual history of the Acts of the Apostles. While the manuscript is fragmentary and contains only two short passages, these passages are significant in the narrative of Acts, as they both deal with the spread of the Christian message to Gentiles. The text of P50, while generally in line with the Alexandrian tradition, also contains some unique readings that contribute to our understanding of the transmission of the Acts text.

The fact that P50 aligns closely with Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus suggests that it represents a relatively stable textual tradition. However, its classification as a Category III manuscript indicates that it also contains some independent readings, which could provide clues to the development of the text in the early centuries of Christianity.

P50’s Contribution to Textual Criticism

P50, like many early papyri, plays a crucial role in the field of textual criticism, particularly in the study of the Acts of the Apostles. Although it is a small and somewhat obscure manuscript, its existence helps to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the textual history of Acts. By comparing P50 with other manuscripts, scholars can trace the development of the text and identify areas where variations occur.

The textual character of P50, with its mix of Alexandrian and independent readings, highlights the complexity of the manuscript tradition and the challenges faced by textual critics in reconstructing the original text. P50’s orthographical peculiarities and corrections further illustrate the human element in the transmission of the New Testament text, reminding us that the text we have today is the result of centuries of careful copying and preservation.

Is P50 (P. Yale 1543) a Forgery

Elijah Hixson suggests that the manuscript may possibly be a forgery based on anomalies in line spacing, some text seeming to wrap around lacunae and serious issues with fiber alignment in the papyrus.

Hixson writes: Possible Markers of Inauthenticity in a Greek New Testament Papyrus: Genuinely Bad or a Very Good Fake? In this paper, I suggest that a Greek New Testament papyrus might be a modern forgery. While there is no single smoking gun strong enough to prove that the papyrus is a modern production, there are a number of red flags that mark it as suspicious. These include anomalous letterforms, writing that avoids holes in the papyrus (such that the text was certainly written after the papyrus medium had been damaged in some instances), ink bleeding, and a discrepancy between the copyist’s apparent knowledge of literary manuscripts and his or her skill in producing one. Where possible, I give comparisons of these aspects with the same phenomena in known fakes. However, many of these red flags could be explained in such a way that does not de-authenticate the manuscript, and I also give a counter-example of a (genuine) private letter from Alexandria that exhibits some of the same red flags. Still, the number of red flags in the Greek New Testament papyrus is suspicious. I suggest that the papyrus should be subjected to further testing in order to authenticate or de-authenticate it as a genuinely ancient New Testament manuscript.

Addressing Claims of Forgery: A Comprehensive Analysis of Papyrus 50

Elijah Hixson’s suggestion that Papyrus 50 (P50) may be a forgery is a serious claim, particularly given the manuscript’s significance in New Testament textual criticism. However, upon closer examination of the manuscript itself and the additional details provided, several reasons can be articulated to refute Hixson’s view and reinforce the authenticity of P50.

Line Spacing and Lacunae

One of Hixson’s concerns revolves around anomalies in line spacing and text that appears to wrap around lacunae (gaps in the papyrus). It is important to understand that ancient papyri often exhibit irregularities due to various factors inherent in the copying process, including the scribe’s skill, the quality of the papyrus, and the conditions under which the manuscript was produced.

The image of P50 shows some variation in line spacing, but this is not uncommon in ancient manuscripts. Scribes were working with materials that were not always of uniform quality, and the process of writing on papyrus could naturally lead to slight variations in line spacing. This is particularly true when scribes were copying texts in cursive or semi-cursive styles, where the flow of the script could be affected by the physical condition of the writing surface.

Moreover, the idea that text might seem to wrap around lacunae can be explained by the fact that scribes often had to deal with pre-existing damage to the papyrus or with inconsistencies in the papyrus fibers. Scribes might adjust their writing slightly to accommodate these imperfections, which could give the impression that the text was “wrapping around” gaps. This phenomenon can be observed in other authentic papyri and does not necessarily indicate forgery.

Fiber Alignment Issues

Hixson’s observation regarding fiber alignment in the papyrus is another point of contention. While misalignment of fibers might seem suspicious to a modern observer, it is essential to recognize that ancient papyrus production was not a perfect process. The alignment of fibers could vary, especially if the papyrus was of lower quality or if it had been stored improperly before use.

Philip W. Comfort, a respected papyrologist and paleographer, has examined numerous ancient manuscripts, including P50, and has not suggested that these anomalies point to forgery. His silence on this matter is telling because it suggests that, in his expert judgment, these features are within the range of what can be expected from genuine ancient manuscripts.

Historical Context and Provenance

Another factor to consider is the provenance and historical context of P50. The manuscript was purchased by Yale University in 1933 along with other manuscripts of Egyptian provenance. The acquisition of manuscripts from this period and region was relatively common, and while some forgeries have been identified in other cases, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that P50 was part of a group of forgeries. The context of its discovery and sale does not raise significant red flags that would cast doubt on its authenticity.

Comfort’s Expertise

Philip W. Comfort, an authority in papyrology and paleography, has not raised concerns about the authenticity of P50. Comfort’s extensive experience in examining papyri, coupled with his in-depth analysis of the textual and physical characteristics of manuscripts, lends significant weight to the view that P50 is authentic. His work, which includes detailed analysis of the handwriting, orthography, and other paleographic features of P50, suggests that the manuscript fits within the broader context of third-century Christian papyri.

Addressing Anomalous Letterforms

Hixson notes “anomalous letterforms” as a red flag. While it is true that variations in letterforms can sometimes indicate that a manuscript might be suspect, they are not uncommon in ancient manuscripts. Scribes in antiquity often exhibited personal idiosyncrasies in their handwriting, which could result in letterforms that differ from what might be considered “standard” or typical for the period. Furthermore, the scribe’s experience, regional influences, and the specific conditions under which the manuscript was copied could all contribute to these variations.

Philip W. Comfort, a recognized expert in papyrology and paleography, has analyzed many manuscripts and often discusses such variations within the context of the scribal practices of the time. The fact that Comfort did not highlight these letterform anomalies as problematic suggests that they fall within the acceptable range of variations for ancient papyri. It is important to remember that paleographic analysis is often more art than science, relying heavily on expert judgment, and Comfort’s expertise carries significant weight in this area.

Writing That Avoids Holes in the Papyrus

Hixson suggests that the writing in P50 “avoids holes in the papyrus,” implying that the text was written after the papyrus had already been damaged. While this might initially appear suspicious, it is not uncommon for ancient scribes to adjust their writing to accommodate imperfections in the papyrus. Papyrus sheets were not always of uniform quality, and flaws in the material could have developed either during production or as a result of wear over time. It is plausible that a scribe would adjust their writing around these flaws to preserve the legibility of the text.

Moreover, the suggestion that the text was written after the damage occurred does not necessarily point to forgery. Ancient scribes often reused older papyrus or adapted to the imperfections present in the medium they were given. The adjustment of text to avoid gaps could be seen as a careful attempt to maintain the readability of the document, rather than an indicator of modern tampering.

Ink Bleeding

The issue of ink bleeding is another concern raised by Hixson. However, ink bleeding can occur for a variety of reasons, including the quality of the ink, the absorption properties of the papyrus, and environmental conditions. Ancient inks were typically composed of carbon black and a binder, such as gum arabic, which could behave differently depending on the papyrus’s condition and the humidity at the time of writing.

Ink bleeding does not automatically indicate that a manuscript is a forgery. In fact, varying degrees of ink absorption and bleeding are observed in many authentic ancient manuscripts. The presence of ink bleeding in P50 could simply be a result of the natural interaction between the ink and the papyrus, especially if the papyrus had been subjected to fluctuating environmental conditions over the centuries.

Discrepancy in the Copyist’s Skill

Hixson’s point about the discrepancy between the copyist’s apparent knowledge of literary manuscripts and their skill in producing one raises an interesting issue. It is entirely possible for a scribe to be knowledgeable about the text they are copying while still exhibiting uneven skill in execution. Scribes were human, and their abilities could vary widely. Some scribes might have been more knowledgeable about the content of the text than adept at the physical act of copying.

In some cases, a scribe’s training might have emphasized textual knowledge over calligraphic precision. Alternatively, the scribe might have been working under less-than-ideal conditions, which could have affected the quality of their handwriting. The discrepancy Hixson notes could simply be the result of such factors and does not necessarily point to forgery.

Comparative Analysis with Known Fakes

Hixson also draws comparisons between P50 and known forgeries. While comparisons can be helpful, they must be made cautiously. Ancient manuscripts, even genuine ones, can share certain characteristics with forgeries simply because both sets of documents are products of human hands working with similar materials. The fact that some features of P50 might resemble those found in known forgeries does not in itself prove that P50 is inauthentic.

Counter-Examples from Genuine Manuscripts

Hixson acknowledges that many of the red flags he identifies could also be found in genuine ancient manuscripts. This admission is critical because it underscores the complexity of determining a manuscript’s authenticity based solely on physical and textual anomalies. The existence of genuine manuscripts with similar characteristics suggests that the features noted in P50 are not necessarily indicators of forgery but could be part of the normal range of variation in ancient papyri.

The Need for Further Testing

Hixson calls for further testing to authenticate or de-authenticate P50. While additional testing, such as multispectral imaging or radiocarbon dating, could provide more information, the current evidence does not decisively point to P50 being a forgery. Until such testing is conducted, the manuscript should be considered authentic based on the weight of the existing evidence and the judgments of experts like Philip W. Comfort.

In light of all the evidence, the concerns raised by Hixson, while worthy of consideration, do not definitively indicate that P50 is a modern forgery. The irregularities he points out can be explained by the natural variability in ancient manuscript production, and the absence of similar concerns from leading scholars like Philip W. Comfort further supports the authenticity of P50. The initial analysis remains robust, reinforcing the view that P50 is an authentic and valuable witness to the text of the Acts of the Apostles. The manuscript’s characteristics are well within the range of what is expected from ancient papyri, and the suggestions of forgery do not hold up under closer scrutiny.

Refuting the Notion of P50 as a Kirsopp Lake Fake

Elijah Hixson’s assertion that Papyrus 50 (P50) might be a forgery by Kirsopp Lake is based on a series of circumstantial observations rather than concrete evidence. Hixson posits that Lake had the means, opportunity, and perhaps even the motive, as suggested by his wife, Silva Lake, who reportedly hinted that such a spoof might have been within Lake’s character. However, these claims warrant a thorough examination to determine their validity.

Lack of Direct Evidence: A Critical Shortfall

The most significant issue with Hixson’s theory is the absence of direct evidence linking Kirsopp Lake to the forgery of P50. Speculations about Lake’s potential involvement are largely based on circumstantial factors—his skills, the time he lived in, and the supposed offhand comments by his wife. However, none of these factors provide tangible proof that Lake forged P50.

To convincingly argue that Lake forged this manuscript, one would need more than just conjecture; concrete evidence, such as comparisons of Lake’s known handwriting samples in Greek with the script of P50, would be necessary. As of now, no such evidence has been presented. The question Hixson raises about Lake’s potential to forge P50 remains speculative, hinging on what-ifs rather than substantiated claims.

The Importance of Handwriting Analysis

Handwriting analysis could be a crucial tool in either substantiating or refuting Hixson’s claims. If authentic samples of Kirsopp Lake’s handwritten Greek manuscripts exist, these could be directly compared with P50. Paleographic analysis could then determine whether there are any significant similarities in letterforms, stroke patterns, or other distinctive features that might suggest a common authorship. However, in the absence of such analysis, it is premature to suggest that Lake was the forger. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and so far, there is no definitive paleographic evidence to support this theory.

The Historical and Scholarly Context

Kirsopp Lake was a respected scholar, and while it is conceivable that he had the skills to produce a forgery, it is less clear why he would undertake such an endeavor. Scholars of Lake’s stature generally have their reputations to protect, and engaging in a forgery of this nature would risk everything they had built. The suggestion that Lake’s wife thought such an activity was not beneath him is anecdotal and cannot serve as a foundation for serious scholarly accusation.

Furthermore, the notion of creating a forgery requires not just skill but also a clear motive. Lake was already well-established in his field and had no apparent need to engage in a forgery that would put his academic standing in jeopardy. Hixson’s suggestion that Lake might have been engaging in a “spoof” lacks a convincing rationale, particularly when one considers the professional risks involved.

Comfort’s Silence on the Matter

As previously discussed, Philip W. Comfort, a leading authority in this field, has not raised concerns about the authenticity of P50 or suggested that it might be a forgery. Comfort’s extensive examination of the manuscript, which includes handwriting analysis, orthographic features, and paleographic context, does not align with the idea that P50 is a modern fake, let alone one perpetrated by Kirsopp Lake. Comfort’s silence on this theory speaks volumes, as it indicates that a respected expert in the field did not find the kinds of red flags that would typically alert a scholar to the possibility of forgery.

The Role of Objective Testing

Hixson’s argument would be stronger if it were accompanied by objective testing, such as radiocarbon dating or chemical analysis of the ink, which could definitively place the manuscript within a specific historical timeframe. Without such evidence, the argument remains speculative. The authenticity of P50 should be established based on rigorous, evidence-based methodologies, not on circumstantial connections to a particular individual, regardless of that individual’s expertise or historical period.

The claim that Kirsopp Lake might have forged P50 is based more on speculative associations than on concrete evidence. The absence of direct proof, such as handwriting analysis comparing Lake’s known Greek script with P50, weakens the argument significantly. Furthermore, the lack of motive and the potential risks to Lake’s reputation suggest that such an endeavor would have been highly unlikely. The suggestions made by Hixson remain in the realm of conjecture, and without further evidence, the theory that P50 is a Kirsopp Lake fake does not hold up to scrutiny. The manuscript should continue to be studied and evaluated based on the established principles of paleography and textual criticism, rather than on unsubstantiated suspicions.

The Ongoing Study of P50

The study of P50 is an ongoing process as scholars continue to examine the manuscript and its place within the broader context of New Testament textual criticism. While P50 may not be as well-known or as extensively studied as some of the larger and more complete manuscripts, it remains an important piece of the puzzle in our understanding of the New Testament text.

The existence of P50, with its unique features and textual peculiarities, serves as a reminder of the diversity of the early Christian manuscript tradition. Each manuscript, no matter how small or fragmentary, contributes to our knowledge of the New Testament text and the ways in which it was transmitted and preserved over the centuries.

As scholars continue to study P50 and other early papyri, new discoveries and insights are likely to emerge, further enriching our understanding of the New Testament text and its history. In the meantime, P50 stands as a testament to the care and dedication of the early Christian scribes who sought to preserve the teachings of the apostles for future generations.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION