P110 (P. Oxy. 4494): A Textual Analysis of a Third-Century Matthew Fragment from Oxyrhynchus

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Provenance and Paleographical Assessment

P110, catalogued as P. Oxy. 4494, is a significant papyrus fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, containing portions of Matthew 10:13–15 and 25–27. It was discovered in the ancient Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus and currently resides in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The codex format of P110, its measured handwriting, and its paleographical affinities with other third-century manuscripts firmly situate it within the early third century, approximately 200–250 C.E.

The editor, W.E.H. Cockle, drew attention to the similarities between P110 and other well-dated papyri such as P45 and P. Flor. II 108. While P45 is typically dated to the late second or early third century, P. Flor. II 108 is dated ca. 260 C.E., due to its Heroninus Archive content. Such comparisons reinforce a secure third-century dating for P110, likely not later than 250 C.E.

The fragment’s dimensions are approximately 12 cm by 22 cm, with 40–43 lines per page—a relatively dense layout consistent with other Alexandrian texts from this period. The script is of the Reformed Documentary type, sometimes referred to as “Severe Style,” indicative of a professional hand used in Christian codices for public or ecclesial reading.

Textual Affiliation and Character

Though small in scope, P110 exhibits several readings that align it broadly with the Alexandrian tradition, albeit with a degree of textual independence. It shares certain readings with Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), and other representatives of the Alexandrian text-type but also contains unique readings not found elsewhere. These individual readings may reflect either a localized textual stream within the Alexandrian tradition or a witness to a now-lost stream of the text.

Despite these deviations, the consistent textual features support its general alignment with early and reliable text forms. As such, P110 is a valuable witness to the state of the text of Matthew circulating in Egypt in the early third century. Importantly, it does not reflect significant Byzantine influence, which is more prominent in later centuries, nor does it show the idiosyncratic paraphrastic tendencies typical of the Western text-type.

Matthew 10:14: Significant Variants and Textual Implications

Matthew 10:14 is especially noteworthy for the textual variants it exhibits in P110 compared with other manuscripts. The verse in question concerns Jesus’ instructions to the disciples on how to respond to rejection in various towns.

P110 reads:

καὶ ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς μηδὲ ἀκούσῃ τοὺς λόγους ἐξερχομένων ὑμῶν τῆς οἰκίας ἢ τῆς πόλεως ἢ κώμης ἐκμάξατε τὸν κονιορτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν.

This translation is: “And if anyone does not accept you nor listen to the words, as you are leaving the house or the city or village, wipe the dust away from your feet.”

Let us break down the variants as compared to other key manuscript traditions:

1. εξερχομενων υμων (as you are leaving):
P110 uses the genitive absolute construction, emphasizing the action of leaving as contemporaneous with the act of wiping the dust. This differs from the more standard εξερχομενοι, which is nominative and found in the Majority Text tradition. The genitive absolute is more refined and is consistent with Alexandrian syntactical tendencies, suggesting deliberate editorial shaping.

2. πολεως η κωμης (city or village):
P110, along with Codex Sinaiticus (א), 892, and family 13, includes both πόλεως and κώμης. This more expansive reading may reflect an effort to include both urban and rural contexts for Jesus’ instructions, offering a broader application. The Majority Text often simplifies this to πόλεως.

3. εκμαξατε (wipe):
This is a notable deviation. Most manuscripts, including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, read ἐκτινάξατε (“shake off”). P110 reads ἐκμάξατε, which literally means “wipe” or “wipe off.” This could indicate a more graphic or literal act being emphasized in the early Egyptian tradition. While ἐκμαξατε is rare, it is not impossible and may reflect an older, possibly more original reading.

4. απο vs. εκ:
P110 reads ἀπὸ τῶν ποδῶν, whereas other witnesses like Sinaiticus and Codex 33 use ἐκ. Although synonymous in many contexts, ἀπὸ might suggest a slightly less intensive or formal sense than ἐκ, potentially softening the command, or simply reflecting regional linguistic variation.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Matthew 10:25: Philological and Textual Notes

In verse 25, several layers of variation appear, mostly revolving around the name Beelzebul, the verb for “they called,” and the noun used for “household.”

1. Beelzebul (βεελζεβουλ) vs. Beelseboul (βεελσεβουλ) vs. Beezeboul (βεεζεβουλ):
P110 reflects textual fluidity in the transmission of Semitic proper names into Greek. Such variation is unsurprising given the lack of standardization in transliteration of Hebrew or Aramaic names. P110’s reading, split between its original and corrected hand, shows βεελσεβουλ (original) and βεελζεβουλ (corrected), demonstrating early efforts to harmonize to a dominant form. Codex B supports βεελζεβουλ, suggesting editorial activity in the Alexandrian stream.

2. επεκαλεσεν vs. επεκαλεσαν:
The singular ἐπεκάλεσεν in P110 is grammatically problematic if it refers to a plural subject, unless it refers to a collective singular or is stylistically motivated. The corrected hand renders the more expected ἐπεκάλεσαν, found in Codex Sinaiticus and the Majority Text. The singular might point to an earlier, less polished form or represent an oral reading where such singular usage might be tolerated.

3. τοις vs. τους (household):
Here, P110 aligns with Codex B in reading τοις οἰκιοις (to the household members), using the dative plural form. Others, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Byzantine witnesses, read τοὺς οἰκιακοὺς (the household members) in the accusative. The dative form fits better with the verb structure ἐπεκάλεσεν if the action is being directed “to” someone.

4. οικιοις vs. οικιους vs. οικιακοις:
P110 uses οἰκιοις, an unusual form not frequently attested, possibly a scribal or dialectal variant. The standard οἰκιακοῖς or οἰκειακοῖς (as found in B, D, א, and others) is more grammatically normative. Still, the P110 form may represent a more primitive orthography or a localized scribal habit.

Implications for Textual Criticism

P110 provides a rare glimpse into the state of the Gospel of Matthew as it was read and transmitted in early third-century Egypt. It reinforces the documentary method of textual criticism, demonstrating that even small fragments can contain early and reliable text forms. The alignments with Codex Vaticanus and early uncials bolster the argument for a stable Alexandrian core text as early as 200 C.E., pre-dating later Byzantine expansions or harmonizations.

Moreover, P110’s unique readings—particularly in Matthew 10:14 with ἐκμάξατε—deserve serious consideration in the ongoing construction of the critical text of the New Testament. While reasoned eclecticism often emphasizes internal criteria, P110 demonstrates that early external evidence can provide authentic readings not always preserved in the majority or later manuscripts.

Thus, P110 stands as a testament to the careful and deliberate transmission of the text of Matthew in the Egyptian Christian communities of the third century. Its value lies not merely in its antiquity, but in its alignment with other early witnesses and its independent textual testimony, which may preserve authentic, original readings lost in later manuscript traditions.

Conclusion

While P110 covers only a small portion of Matthew 10, its textual contributions are significant. It confirms the presence of a refined, carefully preserved Alexandrian text-type in early third-century Egypt, supports unique but plausible variant readings, and exemplifies scribal practices consistent with professional Christian book production of that time. As with other Oxyrhynchus papyri, it provides a valuable window into the development and transmission of the New Testament text in a period long before the standardization of later centuries.

You May Also Enjoy

The Development of “Families” of Manuscripts: Understanding New Testament Text-Types and Their Historical Formation

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).