
Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Papyrus 101 (P101), catalogued as P. Oxy. 4401, is a significant early witness to the Gospel of Matthew. Its value lies in both its physical characteristics and textual affiliations, contributing to our broader understanding of the transmission and early stability of the New Testament text. This fragment, although relatively small, offers critical data points for analyzing textual traditions and confirming the authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures as they were handed down in the early centuries of the Christian era.
The contents of P101 cover Matthew 3:10–12 and 3:16–4:3, making it a key witness to the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. The papyrus is dated to the third century C.E., with the script compared favorably to that of P. IFAO inv. 89 and P. Köln VII 282. Discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, it is currently housed in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Physical Description and Paleographical Data
P101 consists of a single papyrus leaf, with estimated original dimensions of 10 cm x 25 cm, containing 32–33 lines per page. The handwriting has been described as “plain and competent,” which is crucial because it reflects a scribe capable of transmitting the text accurately without being overly stylized or decorative. It exhibits no serifs, a characteristic that aligns with other documentary texts from Egypt dated to the third century. This provides paleographical reinforcement of its dating.
Such documentary consistency also aligns with Edward D. Andrews’ approach to assessing scribal accuracy and intent. The scribe was not attempting to embellish or creatively reframe the text—he was replicating what he received with functional precision, an important consideration in any discussion of textual transmission reliability.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Provenance and Dating
Found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, a city that has yielded a vast trove of early Christian and documentary papyri, P101 aligns with the documentary tradition typical of early Egyptian Christianity. The third-century dating of the manuscript is bolstered by comparisons with similar hands, such as P. IFAO inv. 89 and P. Köln VII 282, both securely placed in the third century.
This geographical and chronological context situates P101 at a time when the Christian text was spreading widely in codex form and reflects early scribal practices in transmitting the Gospels. Oxyrhynchus was a major center for manuscript production, and papyri from this region often carry weight in evaluating the reliability and early textual state of the New Testament.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Textual Content: Matthew 3:10–12; 3:16–4:3
Though the manuscript is fragmentary, the preserved content is significant. The verso (back) contains Matthew 3:10–12, while the recto (front) includes 3:16–4:3, with 3:13–15 lost between the leaves.
The fragment captures:
-
John the Baptist’s warning to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:10–12)
-
The baptism of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16–17)
-
Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness and His fasting and temptation (Matt. 4:1–3)
This portion of the text spans an important theological transition—from John the Baptist’s preparatory ministry to Jesus’ public inauguration and testing—underscoring the significance of P101 as a witness to early Christological and pneumatological narratives in Matthew.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Transcriptional Observations
P101 contains numerous interesting textual elements that aid in evaluating the manuscript tradition. A few examples are worth noting:
Matthew 3:11
“εγω μεν ὑμας βαπτιζω εν ὑδατι εις μετανοιαν…”
This aligns closely with the Alexandrian tradition as reflected in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B), but with some unique aspects that lean closer to א. The inclusion of “εις μετανοιαν” and the order of elements follow Alexandrian norms.
Matthew 3:12
“ου το πτυον εν τη χειρι αυτου…”
The verb construction “διακαθαριει την αλωνα” is in line with the primary Alexandrian readings, avoiding any Byzantine smoothing or expansion. This affirms its proto-Alexandrian character, leaning slightly closer to Codex Sinaiticus than to Vaticanus, as the textual character note rightly observes.
Matthew 3:16
“ειδεν το πνευμα του θεου καταβαινον ως περιστεραν…”
The description of the Spirit descending “as a dove” is consistent with the Alexandrian tradition, with no expansion or deviation, which further confirms the text’s high fidelity to early readings.
Matthew 4:1–3
The presence of standard Alexandrian forms such as “πειρασθηναι ὑπο του διαβολου” and “νηστευσας τεσσερακοντα ἡμερας” reflects the careful and restrained textual character of P101, as opposed to any Western or Byzantine liberties with paraphrasing or harmonizing.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Textual Affiliation and Character
The textual character of P101 has been classified as proto-Alexandrian, indicating its strong textual affinity with the Alexandrian text-type, but not yet fully stabilized as seen in later Alexandrian codices like Codex Vaticanus. It exhibits greater affinity with Codex Sinaiticus (א) than with Codex Vaticanus (B), though it shares considerable agreement with both. This suggests that P101 was copied from a line of transmission close to the early form of the Alexandrian tradition—possibly predating the editorial refinements seen in B.

This manuscript supports the documentary approach in textual criticism, wherein the earliest and best manuscripts (especially papyri) are weighed more heavily than internal considerations or conflated later readings. P101’s consistent textual fidelity and Alexandrian alignment reinforce the conclusion that the Alexandrian text-type, particularly in its early form, reflects a high degree of accuracy and closeness to the autographs.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Significance for Textual Criticism
P101 is a valuable witness for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the presence of a stable textual tradition in Egypt by the third century C.E., refuting liberal-critical theories that argue for wide textual chaos during the early centuries. Second, its paleographical dating to the third century shows that the core text of Matthew was already being copied and preserved with a level of precision indicative of a controlled transmission.
Moreover, this papyrus contributes to the growing body of evidence—alongside 𝔓75, 𝔓66, and Codex Vaticanus—that the Alexandrian text-type is not a result of later recension, but was present and stable from a very early date. As such, it undermines the notion that the Alexandrian witnesses are secondary or artificial. Instead, they reflect the most faithful preservation of the original New Testament text, in alignment with the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation and manuscript assessment.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Manuscript Integrity and Reconstruction
Portions of the manuscript require conjectural reconstruction due to damage, and square brackets in the transcription signal this uncertainty. However, these reconstructions are based on established readings from parallel Alexandrian manuscripts and are generally uncontroversial. For instance:
“λυσαι αυτος ὑμας βαπτισει εν πνευματι αγιω και πυρι”
Even though portions are damaged, the standard Alexandrian reading can be confidently reconstructed from comparison with 𝔓75, א, and B.
This further enhances our confidence in using early fragmentary papyri like P101 to bolster the critical text of the Greek New Testament. The consistency of these readings across different early Alexandrian witnesses shows that the textual stream was not only early but also remarkably well preserved.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
A Proto-Alexandrian Witness Confirming the Early Stability of Matthew’s Text
P101, though limited in extent, stands as a significant witness to the early text of Matthew. Its textual fidelity, third-century origin, and Alexandrian alignment—particularly toward Codex Sinaiticus—reinforce the documentary method’s reliability and underscore the value of early papyri in textual criticism. Far from being a chaotic or corrupted witness, P101 attests to the careful and reverent transmission of the New Testament Scriptures by early Christian scribes.
The evidence derived from this papyrus confirms that, by the third century C.E., the text of the Gospel of Matthew was not only in widespread use but also preserved with a level of accuracy that inspires confidence in the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture. Such witnesses continue to affirm the inerrancy of the biblical text and its faithful transmission from the autographs to the manuscripts we possess today.
✦ INTERLINEAR TEXT ✦
[Verso] – Matthew 3:10–12
10
οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν
therefore tree not producing
καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται
fruit good is cut down
καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται
and into fire is thrown
11
ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι
I indeed you I baptize in water
εἰς μετάνοιαν· ὁ δὲ ἐρχόμενος
unto repentance; the one but coming
ἰσχυρότερός μου ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ
mightier than I is, whose not I am
ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι·
worthy the sandals to carry (or untie);
αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι
he you will baptize in Spirit
ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·
holy and fire
12
οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ,
whose the winnowing fork in the hand of him,
καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ,
and he will thoroughly clean the threshing floor of him,
καὶ συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην,
and he will gather the wheat of him into the barn,
τὸ δέ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.
the but chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
[Recto] – Matthew 3:16–4:3
16
καὶ βαπτισθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς
and having been baptized the Jesus immediately
ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος· καὶ ἰδοὺ
came up from the water; and behold
ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν
were opened the heavens, and he saw
τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον
the Spirit of God descending
ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν·
as a dove coming upon him;
17
καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
and behold a voice out of the heavens
λέγουσα· οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ υἱός μου
saying: this is the son of me
ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.
the beloved, in whom I have approved.
Matthew 4:1
τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον
then the Jesus was led up into the wilderness
ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου·
by the Spirit to be tempted by the Devil;
2
καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας
and having fasted days forty and nights
τεσσεράκοντα, ὕστερον ἐπείνασεν.
forty, afterward he became hungry.
3
καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ,
and coming near the tempter said to him,
εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι
if son you are of God, speak so that the stones
οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται.
these loaves might become.
✦ LITERAL TRANSLATION ✦
Matthew 3:10–12
Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but the one coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you in holy spirit and fire.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the storehouse; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 3:16–17
And having been baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the spirit of God descending as a dove coming upon him.
And behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have taken delight.”
Matthew 4:1–3
Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the spirit to be tempted by the Devil.
And having fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he became hungry.
And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.”
You May Also Enjoy
Dual Authorship of Matthew: Inspired Hebrew Origins and a Spirit-Led Greek Rewrite in the First Century










































































































































































































































































































Leave a Reply