Introduction: A Small Fragment with Large Significance

Papyrus 1 (commonly designated P1) is one of the earliest known witnesses to the Gospel of Matthew. Though physically modest—a single papyrus leaf from an early Christian codex—its value for New Testament textual criticism is substantial. It preserves portions of Matthew 1:1–9, 12, and 14–20, that is, part of the genealogy and infancy-related material that opens the Gospel.

Dated paleographically to about 175–225 C.E., Papyrus 1 stands within two generations of the apostolic age. According to a sober, documentary approach to textual criticism, this makes it an important checkpoint on the line of transmission that runs from Matthew’s autograph (written in the first century C.E.) to the later great uncial codices and beyond. Far from being a stray curiosity, P1 silently witnesses to how Christian communities in Egypt copied, read, and preserved Matthew’s Gospel near the close of the second century.

The text of P1 shows clear Alexandrian affinities. It shares the concise, disciplined profile that later appears in Codex Vaticanus (B) and, in many places, Codex Sinaiticus (א), while standing in marked contrast to the expanded, conflated readings that characterize much of the Byzantine tradition. By examining its physical form, scribal habits, and textual agreements and disagreements, one can see how Papyrus 1 confirms both the early circulation of Matthew and the overall stability of its text.

Papyrus 1 therefore does far more than fill a slot in a manuscript list. It helps answer larger questions: When and where was Matthew being read? How stable was the text in the second century? How does the text known from later critical editions relate to the earliest evidence? And what does all of this imply for confidence in the opening chapters of the Gospel?

Historical and Physical Profile of Papyrus 1

Discovery and Provenance in Egypt

Papyrus 1 belongs to the large body of papyrus material discovered in Egypt, likely from the Oxyrhynchus region, where the dry climate preserved discarded documents for centuries in ancient rubbish heaps. It was found among other literary and documentary papyri, showing that Christian texts were part of the same book culture as classical works and everyday records.

The fragment clearly comes from a codex rather than a roll. Both sides of the leaf are written on, and the layout and page structure reveal that it once formed part of a bound book. This is significant. By the late second century, Christians overwhelmingly preferred the codex format for their Scriptures. Papyrus 1 thus stands in continuity with that early Christian codex culture, signaling that Matthew was copied and read in a format distinct from many contemporary Jewish and pagan writings that still favored scrolls.

Though the exact community that owned and used this codex cannot be named, its Egyptian origin situates it within a region that was already a major center of Christian life and learning. The presence of Matthew’s Gospel there by about 175–225 C.E. implies previous copying and circulation outside Egypt, perhaps from Syrian or Palestinian centers where Matthew was first written and read.

Codex Format, Script, and Layout

The surviving leaf of Papyrus 1 reveals a single column of text per page, with fairly regular line lengths. The script is a competent majuscule hand, somewhat informal compared to the later biblical uncials but clearly the work of a scribe who knew how to copy literary texts. The strokes are firm, and the letter shapes match what is expected for a late second-century hand.

Margins are present but not extravagant. The page is practical rather than luxurious, suggesting a codex intended for regular ecclesiastical or congregational use rather than for display. There is little decorative ornament, and punctuation is minimal. The scribe relies on sense pauses and natural breaks in the text rather than elaborate punctuation systems.

This codex layout reveals that early Christian communities valued readability and economy. They invested in books that could be used, handled, and read aloud, even if these volumes did not exhibit the lavish decoration of later illuminated manuscripts. Papyrus 1 fits squarely within this pattern: a functional Gospel codex, carefully written but not ostentatious.

Dating: 175–225 C.E.

Paleographers date Papyrus 1 to approximately 175–225 C.E., based on comparison of its letter forms with dated documentary papyri from similar periods. The rounded majuscule, the formation of certain letters, and the general style move it firmly into this window.

This date is critical for textual studies. Matthew’s Gospel was written in the first century C.E., likely within a few decades of Jesus’ death in 33 C.E. The existence of a Matthew codex in Egypt by around 200 C.E. presupposes several stages: the original composition; initial copies produced and distributed; the Gospel’s reception as authoritative in multiple congregations; its travel from its original region to Egypt; and further copying by Egyptian Christians.

Papyrus 1 therefore stands as evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was accepted, widely used, and transmitted in a relatively stable form very early. It also narrows the chronological gap between the autograph and our earliest manuscripts, showing that we do not depend solely on much later medieval witnesses for the text of Matthew.

The Text of Matthew Preserved in Papyrus 1

Extent: Matthew 1:1–9, 12, and 14–20

The surviving text of Papyrus 1 covers sections of Matthew’s opening chapter, primarily portions of the genealogy (1:1–17) and the narrative surrounding Joseph, Mary, and the birth of Jesus (1:18–25). Due to the fragmentary state of the leaf, some verses are only partially preserved; others are missing entirely where the papyrus has broken away.

Nevertheless, enough survives to allow textual comparison. The genealogy portion in P1 lists key names linking Abraham, David, the exilic period, and the Messiah. The narrative portion includes parts of the account in which Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy, receives the angelic explanation, and responds in obedience. These verses are foundational for Matthew’s Christology, emphasizing Jesus’ Davidic descent, His legal status as Joseph’s son, and His conception by the powerful operation of God’s spirit.

Even from this small window into Matthew 1, one can assess how the text was handled in the late second century: whether names are spelled accurately, whether explanatory phrases remain intact, and whether scribes attempted to smooth or alter theological statements. Papyrus 1 allows precisely this kind of analysis.

The Genealogy and Davidic Line

Matthew’s genealogy has always attracted attention, both for its theological emphases and for its textual details. Papyrus 1 shows that by the late second century, an Egyptian copy of Matthew presented the genealogy in a form substantially consistent with that found in later Alexandrian witnesses. Names appear in the expected sequence, and the three great groupings (Abraham to David, David to the Exile, Exile to Christ) are maintained.

Where differences occur in later manuscripts—such as small spelling variations in names or the presence or absence of a particular name—Papyrus 1 helps clarify the earliest form. In several instances P1 sides with the more concise reading, lacking additional words or names found in some later traditions. This supports the view that the genealogy’s structure and content were already fixed early and that subsequent expansions reflect secondary developments rather than the original text.

The presence of the genealogy in an early Egyptian codex also responds to theories that treat the opening chapter of Matthew as a late addition or as a separate composition detached from the rest of the Gospel. Papyrus 1 indicates that Matthew 1, including the genealogy, was embedded in the Gospel text at an early stage and was not treated as an optional prologue.

The Infancy Narrative and Joseph’s Obedience

In the narrative segments preserved by Papyrus 1, Joseph’s central role as a righteous man who responds obediently to divine direction stands out. The fragment includes portions of the angelic message about Mary’s child and the instructions given to Joseph regarding marriage and naming the child.

The text in P1 aligns closely with other early Alexandrian witnesses, preserving both the miraculous conception and the naming of Jesus in language that matches the standard text of Matthew. There is no indication that the scribe diminished the supernatural elements of the narrative or attempted to reinterpret them. The infancy account appears fully intact, with its emphasis on prophecy fulfillment and the special identity of the child.

This again supports the stability of Matthew’s opening chapters. One does not see a second-century Egyptian Christian recasting the story into a more philosophically “acceptable” form; instead, P1 transmits the same infancy narrative that later appears in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and other reliable witnesses.

The Textual Character of Papyrus 1

Alexandrian Affinities

When Papyrus 1 is compared with later manuscripts, it exhibits a fundamentally Alexandrian profile. Its readings are generally concise and sometimes more difficult than those found in Byzantine witnesses, which often add explanatory phrases or harmonize with parallel passages in other Gospels.

In numerous places where variation exists, P1 sides with the readings later preserved in Codex Vaticanus and, in some cases, Codex Sinaiticus. This agreement cannot be dismissed as coincidence. It demonstrates that, already by 175–225 C.E., an Alexandrian-style text of Matthew 1 was circulating in Egypt. Vaticanus, produced about a century later, did not invent this textual character; it inherited it.

This has major implications. When modern critical editions favor Alexandrian readings in Matthew, they are not following a late recension. They are following a textual tradition whose roots reach back into the second century, attested by Papyrus 1 and confirmed by other early witnesses.

Relationship to Byzantine and Western Traditions

While Papyrus 1 aligns strongly with the Alexandrian tradition, it stands apart from many Byzantine readings and from the distinctive features of the Western text. Byzantine manuscripts often exhibit conflation—combining two earlier readings into one longer form—and introduce clarifying or liturgical expansions. P1 typically lacks these features, showing that they are later developments.

Western witnesses, such as Codex Bezae in other Gospels, display paraphrase, wordy expansion, and occasional narrative reshaping. In the portions of Matthew represented in P1, this Western tendency is absent. The text is straightforward and restrained.

Because Papyrus 1 predates the emergence of the fully developed Byzantine tradition, its testimony carries special weight when Byzantine and Alexandrian readings diverge in Matthew 1. Where P1 and Vaticanus agree in presenting a shorter, tighter reading, that agreement likely reflects the original text.

Unique and Singular Readings

Papyrus 1 does contain a few unique readings where it stands alone or with very limited support. These usually involve minor spelling differences or small shifts in wording that do not significantly affect meaning. In these cases, the scribe may have misread his exemplar, momentarily relied on memory, or adopted an alternative form that was current in his linguistic environment.

Such singular readings remind us that no manuscript is perfect. They do not, however, overturn the overall Alexandrian character of P1. When weighed in the larger context of its agreements with other early witnesses, these isolated differences appear as normal scribal noise, not as systematic alteration.

Scribal Habits Reflected in Papyrus 1

Orthography and Itacism

The scribe of Papyrus 1 writes in good, but not flawless, Greek. As is common in papyrus manuscripts of this period, there are instances of itacism—the interchange of vowels and diphthongs that sounded similar in the pronunciation of the time. These orthographic variations rarely affect meaning, and they are easily recognized and corrected when multiple manuscripts are compared.

Such features show that the scribe was a real person embedded in his linguistic environment, not an idealized copyist operating in a vacuum. The presence of normal second-century spelling habits in no way undermines the reliability of the text; rather, it helps modern scholars date the manuscript and understand how pronunciation influenced copying.

Corrections and Conscious Control

In some places, Papyrus 1 shows evidence of correction. A letter may be overwritten, a small addition squeezed above the line, or a minor omission marked and supplied. These corrections are important because they reveal that the scribe, or a later corrector, was actively comparing the copied text with an exemplar and adjusting the copy to conform more closely to that source.

The corrections generally move the text toward the same readings later preserved in Vaticanus and other Alexandrian witnesses. This indicates that the exemplar behind P1 already possessed a disciplined text, and that the scribe recognized that textual standard. He was not inventing new readings; he was aligning his work with a respected textual tradition.

Nomina Sacra and Reverence for Sacred Names

Like other early Christian manuscripts, Papyrus 1 uses nomina sacra—abbreviated forms of sacred names such as “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” and “Christ,” written with a horizontal bar above the letters. This practice, already well established by the second century, marks the manuscript unmistakably as Christian and shows that early scribes treated key titles and names with special reverence.

The consistent use of nomina sacra also may have contributed to textual stability. By setting sacred names apart visually, scribes reduced the likelihood of accidentally omitting or altering them. In the context of Matthew 1, where titles and names are the backbone of the genealogy and infancy narrative, this convention helped preserve the theological force of the text.

Papyrus 1 and the Early Transmission of Matthew

Matthew’s Gospel in Egypt by the Late Second Century

The existence of Papyrus 1 in Egypt around 175–225 C.E. proves that Matthew’s Gospel had already traveled far from its likely place of composition in the eastern Mediterranean. It had been copied, carried along trade and communication routes, received by Egyptian congregations, and copied again into codices such as the one P1 represents.

This rapid spread contradicts theories that treat Matthew as a marginal or late-developing Gospel. Instead, it confirms that the book was part of the core scriptural collection of early churches. Christians in Egypt did not treat Matthew as experimental literature; they treated it as Scripture worth copying, preserving, and reading alongside other apostolic writings.

Codex Culture and Canonical Consciousness

Papyrus 1’s codex format reveals that by the late second century, Matthew was not merely a loose scroll or individual pamphlet. It formed part of a bound volume designed for repeated consultation and public reading. The codex that contained P1 may have held only Matthew or may have been part of a multi-Gospel or multi-book collection. Either possibility points to developing canonical consciousness.

The choice to invest in a codex, which required more preparation and expense than a simple roll, reflects the community’s conviction that Matthew’s Gospel had enduring authority. Textual stability is closely linked to such canonical recognition. Books regarded as Scripture are less likely to be freely reworked or paraphrased; they are copied with care precisely because they are seen as the Word of God. Papyrus 1 exemplifies this connection between canon and careful transmission.

Implications for the Use of Matthew in Worship and Instruction

Given its format and content, the codex represented by P1 was almost certainly used in congregational settings—read aloud in assemblies, studied in instruction, and consulted for teaching and exhortation. The sections of Matthew 1 preserved in P1 include material well suited for such use, especially the fulfillment of prophecy and the explanation of Jesus’ identity as Messiah and Son of David.

The fact that this text functioned in worship and teaching in the late second century underscores its stability. A community that hears the same passages read repeatedly over years becomes familiar with their wording and is more likely to notice and resist significant alterations. Papyrus 1 participates in a living tradition of Scripture reading that helped guard the text from radical change.

Case Studies of Variants in Papyrus 1

Variants in the Genealogical Lists

The genealogical portion of Matthew has several points where manuscripts differ over the presence or spelling of particular names. Papyrus 1, though fragmentary, offers early evidence for some of these contested places.

Where later manuscripts introduce additional names or adjust the list to smooth numerical patterns, P1 often testifies to a simpler form. Its text supports the view that Matthew’s genealogy originally followed a clear theological structure rather than a mathematically flawless pattern designed to impress later audiences.

By preserving the less “harmonized” form, P1 aligns with the principle that scribes tend to expand and regularize rather than to omit and complicate. Its testimony thus favors the readings that modern critical editions place in the main text of Matthew 1.

Christological Titles and Theological Wording

In verses where Christological titles occur—such as references to “Christ,” “Son of David,” and “Son of Abraham”—Papyrus 1 supports the same key expressions found in later Alexandrian manuscripts. It does not omit these titles, nor does it replace them with weaker expressions.

This shows that the Christology of Matthew 1, in which Jesus is presented as the promised Davidic Messiah within the Abrahamic line, was already firmly embedded in the text by the late second century. Theologically significant wording did not wait for a later editorial process; it belongs to the earliest recoverable text.

Absence of Secondary Explanatory Additions

In some places where later manuscripts of Matthew 1 display extra phrases that explain a name, clarify a relationship, or expand a narrative detail, Papyrus 1 lacks such additions. Its concise text indicates that these explanatory expansions are secondary. Scribes in some traditions evidently felt the need to comment on the genealogy or to make the story easier for readers, and eventually such comments entered the main text of certain manuscripts.

P1’s testimony allows modern critics to identify and peel back these later layers, returning to the simpler wording of the original. Once again, the early Alexandrian line proves to be the gateway to Matthew’s autograph text.

Methodological Significance for Textual Criticism

Weight of Papyrus 1 as a Witness

Because Papyrus 1 is early and clearly Alexandrian in character, its readings carry considerable weight in textual decisions regarding Matthew 1. Even though its extent is limited, each verse it preserves is a valuable data point. When P1 agrees with other high-quality witnesses, especially the Alexandrian uncials, that agreement is strong evidence for the original reading.

When P1 stands alone, its reading must be weighed with caution. Age does not guarantee correctness. However, even singular readings can help scholars understand scribal habits and the history of specific variants. Papyrus 1 therefore contributes both directly, by supporting particular readings, and indirectly, by illuminating the copying process in the second century.

Role in Critical Editions of Matthew

Modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament include Papyrus 1 prominently in their apparatus for Matthew 1. Editors consult its readings whenever relevant variants appear and often follow its testimony when it aligns with other early Alexandrian witnesses.

While P1 by itself cannot reconstruct the entire text of Matthew, it confirms that the form of Matthew 1 printed in these editions is not a speculative reconstruction but a text grounded in concrete manuscripts reaching back to the second century. Its presence in the apparatus is a constant reminder that the early transmission of Matthew was both widespread and carefully controlled.

Documentary Method Vindicated

The study of Papyrus 1 illustrates the value of the documentary method in textual criticism. Rather than building theories on conjectural redactional stages or on purely internal stylistic arguments, the documentary method pays primary attention to actual manuscripts and their relationships.

Papyrus 1 shows that when manuscripts are weighed, not merely counted, early Alexandrian witnesses dominate the evidence for Matthew 1. Internal considerations—such as the tendency of scribes to expand and harmonize—then confirm what the external evidence already indicates. P1 thereby demonstrates that a sober, evidence-based approach is sufficient to recover the original text with high confidence, without resorting to speculative reconstructions.

Theological and Apologetic Implications

Reliability of Matthew’s Opening Chapters

Because Papyrus 1 attests an early, Alexandrian form of Matthew 1, it bolsters confidence in the reliability of the Gospel’s opening chapters. Critics sometimes argue that genealogies and infancy narratives are especially prone to legendary development. Yet the presence of Matthew 1 in a stable form by the late second century, in a codex used by ordinary Christians, shows that the text was not left open for free rewriting.

The genealogy presenting Jesus as the Son of David, the prophetic fulfillment motif, and the account of His conception and birth were already part of the accepted Gospel in Egypt by about 200 C.E. The distance between the events of 33 C.E. and the text of Matthew 1 in Papyrus 1 is historically modest, and nothing in the manuscript suggests that the core narrative had undergone theological reshaping in the meantime.

Refutation of Late-Composition and Radical-Redaction Theories

Some modern theories, influenced by higher criticism, propose that Matthew’s Gospel took shape through extended redactional processes well into the second century, possibly with major additions of infancy and genealogy material. Papyrus 1 stands as a direct counter to such notions.

If Matthew 1 were a late addition, it is difficult to explain how, by 175–225 C.E., a codex in Egypt already contains it in a form that agrees closely with later Alexandrian manuscripts. The evidence from P1 indicates that Matthew’s opening chapter must have been part of the Gospel’s established text significantly earlier than the papyrus itself, leaving no room for a long, drawn-out process of compositional layering in the second century.

Preservation Through Historical Transmission

Papyrus 1 demonstrates how the text of Matthew has survived not through flawless copying, but through the ordinary, at times uneven work of real scribes. Its pages contain expected slips—orthographic inconsistencies, minor omissions, and small corrections—yet when compared with other early Alexandrian witnesses, its text stands firmly within the same carefully transmitted line. The reliability of the Gospel does not rest on an idealized chain of perfect manuscripts, but on the broad and independent streams of evidence that allow scholars to identify and correct the small errors that naturally arose in transmission.

What Papyrus 1 provides, therefore, is not a miraculously untouched copy but a historically grounded witness to an early form of Matthew. Its presence alongside other second- and third-century manuscripts makes it possible to reconstruct the autograph with considerable accuracy. The confidence readers have in Matthew today is rooted in this convergence of early documentary evidence rather than in assumptions of textual infallibility at every stage of copying.

Conclusion: Papyrus 1 as a Window into the Earliest Matthew

Papyrus 1 may be small, but its contribution to New Testament textual criticism is large. It shows that by about 175–225 C.E., the Gospel of Matthew—complete with its genealogy and infancy narrative—was being copied in codex form in Egypt. The text it preserves is clearly Alexandrian, closely aligned with the later readings of Codex Vaticanus and other high-quality witnesses, and free from the expansions and conflations typical of later Byzantine tradition.

The scribal habits visible in P1 are those of a conscientious copyist working from a disciplined exemplar. Normal orthographic slips and minor singular readings appear, but they are exceptions against a backdrop of overall fidelity. In its agreements with other early manuscripts, Papyrus 1 confirms that the text of Matthew 1 transmitted in modern critical editions rests on solid documentary ground.

Through this single papyrus leaf, one can glimpse the early life of Matthew’s Gospel: read aloud in assemblies, copied for continued use, and treasured as part of the inspired Christian Scriptures. Papyrus 1 thus serves as an indispensable early witness to Matthew and a tangible demonstration that Jehovah has preserved His Word through the real and knowable history of the manuscript tradition.

You May Also Enjoy

Early Citations of the Gospels by the Apostolic Fathers: Establishing the Early Authority and Circulation of the Evangelical Texts

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS