Historical Setting and Codicology of Papyrus 72

Papyrus 72, commonly designated P72, is one of the most important early witnesses to the text of the so-called General Epistles, particularly 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude. It belongs to the Bodmer collection of papyri and is usually dated to about 200–250 C.E. This places it roughly a century and a half after Peter and Jude wrote their letters and firmly within the era when the Christian congregations were already collecting apostolic writings into codices for regular liturgical and instructional use.

P72 is not a small isolated fragment but part of a substantial papyrus codex. The surviving leaves reveal that the codex was planned to carry several Christian writings bound together, including 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and other texts. The codex is therefore an early physical testimony to the way some Christians grouped these writings and read them side by side. The presence of Peter and Jude at the heart of this collection shows that these letters had already achieved a respected standing in the community that produced and used the codex.

As with other early Christian books, the codex format of P72 is significant. Christians very early shifted from the scroll to the codex, using it for Scripture in a way that distinguished them from the surrounding literary culture. P72 participates fully in this Christian codex tradition. The leaves are arranged in gatherings, written on both sides, and laid out as a continuous book. This was not a random assemblage of loose sheets but a deliberately constructed volume designed for repeated reading, study, and probably public recitation in Christian meetings.

The papyrus itself is of good quality, though not of luxury grade. The fibers are laid out with care, and the surfaces were prepared to receive ink in a reasonably smooth fashion. The margins are modest but real, revealing planning in the layout rather than hasty copying. These codicological details show that the community which produced P72 invested serious effort and materials into preserving these apostolic letters, even if they did not produce an ornate or heavily decorated book.

The Scribal Hand and Character of the Codex

The scribe of P72 writes in what can best be described as a reformed documentary or semi-literary hand. The letters are generally upright and separate, belonging to the majuscule family of scripts, yet they lack the highly regular and elegant character of an expert professional bookhand. The lines are straight enough to give an orderly impression, though slight waviness and variation in letter size appear across the page.

This scribal hand fits comfortably within the categories already described when discussing scribal skills. It rises above the common hand of minimally trained writers who struggle to maintain consistent shapes and spacing, and it also surpasses simple documentary hands used for everyday business contracts or receipts. At the same time, it stops short of the refined professional bookhand visible in some luxury literary codices. The scribe of P72 knew how to copy a literary text and devoted sustained effort to producing a readable codex, but he did not work at the highest level of calligraphic artistry.

Punctuation and paragraphing in P72 are modest but present. The scribe occasionally uses spacing and enlarged letters to mark the beginning of significant sections, especially where a new letter or major internal division begins. These visual cues show that he viewed the text as a structured literary work, not merely as a stream of words. Nevertheless, the system is not highly elaborate, and much of the work of recognizing sentence structure and discourse flow falls to the reader.

Corrections appear in the manuscript, sometimes written over an erasure and sometimes inserted above the line. These corrections reveal a twofold reality. On the one hand, the scribe or a corrector recognized errors and cared enough to address them. On the other hand, the very presence of corrections demonstrates that copying was not infallible and that mistakes entered the text even in a carefully prepared codex. P72 therefore stands as a real historical artifact of human copying, not as a miraculously shielded container of an untouched text.

The Composite Contents of Papyrus 72

P72 is particularly interesting because it is not a codex devoted exclusively to the canonical books of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Rather, these letters appear in the midst of a collection that also contains other Christian writings, including a form of the Nativity of Mary and other non-canonical pieces that were valued in the community that produced the codex. This composite character is an important part of understanding the codex’s function and its textual value.

The placement of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude within this collection shows that the community considered these letters worthy of being copied and read alongside other Christian literature. The inclusion of extra-canonical texts does not diminish the status of Peter and Jude, nor does it automatically elevate the other writings to full canonical authority. Instead, it illustrates a situation in which a Christian community gathered together writings it found spiritually useful and orthodox, weaving canonical and non-canonical works into a single reading collection.

Within this composite volume, the Petrine and Judean letters occupy a natural sequence. First Peter appears, then 2 Peter, then Jude. This order reflects the growing recognition that these writings belong together as a set of General Epistles associated with leading apostolic figures. The association of 2 Peter and Jude is especially strong, because the two letters share numerous themes and expressions. The structure of P72 underscores that relationship by placing the letters in close proximity.

From a textual-critical standpoint, the composite nature of the codex does not lessen its value. The scribe copied all of these writings from exemplars that he regarded as authoritative or at least edifying. His scribal habits apply to all the texts in the codex, and his treatment of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude reflects the same level of seriousness he applied to the other works. The fact that he copied these particular apostolic letters at all, in a fairly early period, reinforces their established place in the life of at least one Christian congregation in Egypt.

Papyrus 72 and the Text of 1 Peter

The text of 1 Peter in P72 is one of the earliest relatively complete witnesses to this letter. It predates the great uncial codices such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by well over a century. For this reason, P72 provides vital information about the state of 1 Peter’s text in the early third century and plays a central role wherever the manuscript tradition of the letter is divided.

When P72 is compared with the later Alexandrian witnesses, especially Codex Vaticanus, significant common ground appears. In many passages where the Byzantine text exhibits expansions or stylistic smoothing, P72 and Vaticanus stand together with a shorter, tighter wording. This supports the conclusion that the Alexandrian tradition in 1 Peter is early and close to the original. P72 confirms that the disciplined, concise form of the letter was already in circulation long before the Byzantine text took shape.

At the same time, the text of 1 Peter in P72 is not identical to Vaticanus. P72 exhibits a number of singular readings and small variations that reveal the scribe’s habits and the character of his exemplar. Some of these involve mere spelling differences. Others involve the substitution of one common synonym for another or the slight rearrangement of word order. These do not change the meaning of the passage and are easily recognized as minor variants.

In a few places, however, P72 preserves readings that differ more noticeably from other manuscripts. For example, in some verses the scribe adds adjectives or titles that heighten the Christological emphasis, such as expanding references to “our Lord Jesus Christ” with additional terms of reverence. In other places he simplifies more complex clauses into shorter expressions. Such variants show that the scribe was not entirely passive. He allowed his own habits, and perhaps his devotional instincts, to influence the precise wording, even while he stayed within orthodox bounds.

The overall picture is that 1 Peter in P72 reflects a basically Alexandrian text with a modest degree of freedom. Where P72 supports other early Alexandrian witnesses against the Byzantine tradition, its testimony is weighty. Where it stands alone with a unique reading, the textual critic weighs that reading cautiously, recognizing both the value of an early papyrus and the reality of its scribal limitations.

Papyrus 72 and the Text of 2 Peter

The textual witness of P72 to 2 Peter is especially significant because the manuscript attests the entire letter at a relatively early date. Second Peter has fewer early witnesses than many other New Testament writings, and it has often been the subject of skepticism in higher-critical circles regarding its authorship and authenticity. P72 does not directly address questions of authorship, but it provides powerful evidence that 2 Peter was copied, read, and transmitted as Scripture in the early third century.

The text of 2 Peter in P72 shows a somewhat freer character than its 1 Peter text, though the difference is one of degree rather than of kind. The scribe’s tendency toward paraphrase and expansion is slightly more visible here. In some passages, where other early manuscripts preserve a more abrupt or compact form of the text, P72 smooths the expression or clarifies relationships between phrases. The scribe occasionally repeats words for emphasis or adds descriptive terms that highlight important theological themes.

One of the most significant features of P72’s text of 2 Peter is its treatment of Christological titles and eschatological references. The letter itself stresses the knowledge of “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” and the certainty of His coming judgment. P72 sometimes heightens this emphasis by expanding titles or by making references to the day of judgment more explicit. These expansions do not introduce new doctrine; rather, they reinforce already present themes in the letter. They reveal a scribe deeply impressed with the majesty of Christ and the seriousness of divine accountability.

Despite these freer tendencies, P72 remains an early witness to a text that is recognizably the same 2 Peter found in the main Alexandrian tradition. Where it aligns with other early witnesses against Byzantine readings, P72 confirms that the later Byzantine text exhibits secondary simplifications or expansions. Where P72 stands alone with a unique reading, the broader manuscript tradition often reveals that the reading is better explained as a scribal modification than as the original text.

Thus, for 2 Peter, P72 serves a dual role. It provides early attestation that the letter was widely used and regarded as authoritative, and it offers substantive, though occasionally free, textual data that help modern editors discern the original wording.

Papyrus 72 and the Text of Jude

The epistle of Jude is one of the shortest books in the New Testament, but its textual history is important because of its strong warnings against false teachers and its quotation from 1 Enoch. P72 is a key early witness to Jude, offering a nearly complete text that predates the major uncial codices.

In Jude, P72 continues the pattern already seen in 2 Peter. The scribe does not simply reproduce his exemplar in a rigid fashion. He occasionally expands Christological titles, underlining the majesty of Jesus Christ as Lord. He also shows a tendency to make implicit references more explicit. For instance, where other manuscripts speak of “Jesus,” P72 may read “our Lord Jesus Christ,” and where a pronoun might allow some ambiguity, P72 sometimes replaces it with a clear noun.

This habit appears especially in the doxological ending of Jude. The scribe is eager to honor God and Christ with full titles and richly descriptive phrases. Later Byzantine manuscripts often exhibit similar expansions, and scholars must carefully distinguish which expansions can claim early support and which arise later. P72 demonstrates that some of these expansions already existed in the early third century. However, the fact that a reading is early does not automatically prove its originality. The scribe’s pattern across 1 and 2 Peter and Jude shows that he habitually heightens Christological and doxological expressions. Therefore, whenever P72 alone presents an expanded title or phrase, the textual critic must consider whether it reflects the scribe’s devotional style rather than Jude’s original wording.

At the same time, P72 provides strong support for many of Jude’s more challenging readings. In places where later manuscripts soften Jude’s sharp denunciations or adjust his allusions, P72 frequently aligns with the shorter, more difficult text. This is especially valuable when assessing readings that involve Jude’s citations of Jewish tradition. P72 confirms that Jude’s original readers encountered a letter that was bold, uncompromising, and densely packed with Old Testament and extrabiblical imagery.

Overall, Jude in P72 stands as a vivid witness to the early text of the letter. Its agreements with other Alexandrian witnesses bolster confidence in the stability of Jude’s text, while its distinctive expansions reveal the scribe’s reverent but sometimes intrusive hand.

The Textual Character and Affiliations of Papyrus 72

When scholars describe the textual character of P72, they usually emphasize both its Alexandrian affinities and its distinctive freedom. In many passages across 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, P72 agrees with the readings found in later Alexandrian witnesses such as Codex Vaticanus. These agreements show that P72 belongs broadly to the same textual stream and that the Alexandrian form of these letters was already well established by the early third century.

At the same time, P72 departs from the tight, controlled Alexandrian profile found in papyri like Papyrus 75 and in codices like Vaticanus. P72 exhibits a greater number of singular readings, including both minor paraphrases and pious expansions. For this reason, it is not treated as a pure Alexandrian witness. Instead, it is best described as an Alexandrian-leaning text produced by a scribe who allowed himself more freedom in reproducing his exemplar.

This textual character appears against the background of a broader manuscript tradition that includes the later Byzantine text. For the General Epistles, the Byzantine tradition often presents smoother readings, additional clarifications, and harmonizations. In many cases, P72 and Vaticanus stand together against these later expansions, lending strong support to the shorter and more difficult readings. Where P72 diverges from Vaticanus but coordinates with certain other early witnesses, such as some important minuscules, it may point to early regional variations within the Alexandrian environment.

The fact that P72 is not a rigidly controlled manuscript does not reduce its importance. Its early date and broad coverage of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude make it invaluable for tracing the history of the text. Textual critics simply give greater weight to those readings of P72 that are supported by other reliable witnesses and more cautious weight to those readings that it presents alone. When P72, Vaticanus, and one or two other early witnesses join in a reading that stands against the Byzantine tradition, the external case for that reading becomes very strong.

Scribal Habits and Theological Tendencies in Papyrus 72

P72 offers a clear window into the habits and tendencies of an early Christian scribe. The manuscript reveals both unintentional errors and modest intentional changes, confirming the categories already outlined in the discussion of corruption. Understanding these habits allows textual critics to interpret P72’s readings accurately and to distinguish between genuine remnants of the original text and later scribal intrusions.

One of the most common features is orthographic variation. The scribe frequently writes words in ways that mirror contemporary pronunciation rather than classical spelling. These differences rarely affect meaning and are easily recognized as spelling variants. They show that the scribe worked naturally within his linguistic environment and did not treat spelling as a rigid standard.

Another recurrent habit is the expansion of titles and descriptive phrases, especially those relating to Christ. Where a simple reference to “Jesus Christ” occurs in other manuscripts, P72 might read “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Where a doxology concludes with a basic declaration of glory to God, P72 might add further terms exalting His power or majesty. These expansions reveal a sincere devotional spirit. The scribe clearly revered Christ and was deeply moved by the themes of salvation, judgment, and divine glory. Yet from a textual-critical perspective, they represent secondary developments rather than the original text.

P72 also exhibits occasional simplification of more complex expressions. In places where Peter or Jude wrote longer or more intricate clauses, the scribe sometimes shortens or rearranges the wording for clarity. This behavior reflects a desire to make the text more immediately accessible to readers and hearers. It also shows that the scribe was not mechanically copying letter by letter but was reading and understanding the text as he went, allowing comprehension to influence how he wrote.

Homoeoteleuton, where the scribe’s eye jumps from one ending to another similar ending and thereby omits intervening words, appears in P72 as it does in many manuscripts. These omissions usually involve short phrases rather than large sections and are often repaired by corrections or by comparison with other witnesses. They fall into the category of normal unintentional errors.

Taken together, these habits show that the scribe of P72 was both devout and human. He did not attempt to alter doctrine deliberately, but he allowed his reverence for Christ and his concern for clarity to shape parts of the text he copied. Textual critics, recognizing these tendencies, can account for them in their analysis and thereby move beyond the specific idiosyncrasies of P72 to the original wording.

Papyrus 72 and the Authenticity of the Petrine and Judean Letters

Papyrus 72 does more than show that 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude were being copied in Egypt around 200–250 C.E. It bears indirectly but powerfully on the question of who wrote these letters. When the internal claims of the epistles are combined with the external historical evidence and then set alongside the early witness of P72, the conclusion is clear: 1 and 2 Peter come from the apostle Peter, and Jude comes from Jude, the brother of James and thus a half brother of Jesus.

Second Peter explicitly claims to be written by “Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” That claim is not casual. The letter is sent to the same general audience as 1 Peter and presents itself as a second letter to that group. It speaks in the first person as one who knows his death is near in exactly the way Jesus foretold Peter’s own martyrdom. It refers to the Transfiguration as an event personally witnessed by the writer, and it speaks of the apostle Paul and “all his letters” as a known body of writings. The style, vocabulary, and thought-world of 2 Peter overlap not only with 1 Peter but also with Peter’s speeches in Acts, including shared expressions that appear nowhere else or only rarely in the New Testament. All of this internal evidence coheres naturally if the writer is the historical apostle Peter.

Externally, the evidence is also substantial. Early Christian writers allude to and cite 2 Peter as Scripture, and the letter circulates under Peter’s name in the manuscripts. It is reflected or echoed in early works such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, and later Fathers, including prominent teachers in both East and West, treat it as the genuine work of the apostle. The church never officially rejected it; rather, where questions arose, they concerned the strength of attestation in some regions, not a settled conviction that the letter was pseudonymous. When the evidence for 2 Peter is compared to that for many classical works whose authorship is taken for granted, 2 Peter stands on at least equally solid ground.

Objections raised by modern critics do not overturn this picture. Differences of vocabulary and style between 1 and 2 Peter are explained by differences of subject, situation, and the likely use of a secretary for 1 Peter, as the reference to Silvanus indicates. Variations of warmth and tone occur naturally when an author writes at different times to different needs, just as in Paul’s letters. Claims that 2 Peter reflects second-century Gnosticism do not withstand scrutiny, since the letter lacks the hallmark doctrines of that later system and instead combats false teachers in a way consistent with first-century conditions known from other New Testament writings. The reference to Paul’s letters presupposes that Paul’s writings were already circulating and respected, something fully compatible with a date near the end of Peter’s life in the 60s C.E. Nor does the rebuke narrated in Galatians give any reason to deny that Peter could later speak respectfully of Paul; the New Testament itself shows both men continuing to function as fellow workers. The charge of pseudonymity, when tested against early Christian views of authorship and truthfulness, reduces to saying that the letter would be a deliberate forgery, which the early congregations were not inclined to accept as Scripture.

The epistle of Jude is no less clear about its author. Jude identifies himself as “a slave of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James.” In the New Testament, a bare reference to “James” normally points to James the brother of the Lord, who led the congregation in Jerusalem and wrote the Epistle of James. If Jude is his brother, he is therefore another of Jesus’ half brothers, listed among the Lord’s brothers in the Gospels. Internally, Jude speaks of the apostles in the third person, distinguishing himself from them, yet he writes with strong authority, which fits the position of a respected member of the Lord’s family and an associate of the apostolic circle. The Gospels and Acts show that Jesus’ brothers, including James and Jude, were initially unbelieving but came to faith after the resurrection and then became active workers in the congregations.

Externally, Jude enjoys early and widespread recognition. It is alluded to in very early Christian writings, appears in early lists of New Testament books, and is treated as canonical by major Fathers across the ancient church. Early manuscripts include it, and second-century canon lists mention it as part of Scripture. The fact that some later readers hesitated because of Jude’s use of extra-biblical material does not change this record of early acceptance. Jude’s citation of a prophecy associated with Enoch and his reference to the dispute over Moses’ body do not undermine his inspiration; they simply show that the Holy Spirit guided him to use traditional material correctly, whether through direct revelation or through reliable transmission.

In this historical context, Papyrus 72 carries real evidential weight. It is an early, carefully produced codex from Egypt in which 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude stand side by side and are copied with the same seriousness as other Christian writings in the volume. By the early third century, then, these letters were not tentative experiments or recent pseudonymous productions. They were established, respected, and transmitted as authoritative documents. A community that copied them at such cost in time and materials, and that bound them together in a substantial codex, did so because it regarded them as genuine apostolic and apostolic-family writings.

Therefore, when the internal claims of the letters are taken at face value, when the external patristic and canonical evidence is weighed, and when the early witness of P72 is added to this picture, the result is straightforward. First and Second Peter are rightly attributed to the apostle Peter, and Jude is rightly attributed to Jude, the brother of James and half brother of Jesus. Papyrus 72 does not create this conclusion, but it stands as a strong, early documentary confirmation that these letters were received and transmitted in the churches as authentic from the men whose names they bear.

Papyrus 72 and the Preservation and Restoration of the General Epistles

P72 provides a powerful illustration of how preservation and restoration work together in the history of the New Testament text. On the one hand, the manuscript shows that Jehovah did not guarantee a miraculous chain of error-free copies. The scribe of P72 made mistakes, introduced expansions, and occasionally shaped the wording according to his own devotional instincts. On the other hand, P72 demonstrates that the text of the General Epistles has been preserved with remarkable stability and can be restored with high confidence through sound textual criticism.

If P72 were our only witness to 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, its singular readings and pious expansions might raise serious difficulties. However, it is not alone. The letters are also preserved in later papyri, in the great uncials, in important minuscules, in ancient versions, and in citations by early Christian writers. When all of this evidence is set side by side, the picture that emerges is one of deep agreement in the substance and wording of the text, with the variants largely confined to details that textual criticism is well equipped to handle.

P72’s early date means that, wherever it supports the same reading as other Alexandrian witnesses, the external case for that reading is very strong. When P72 and Vaticanus stand together against the Byzantine text, the evidence shows that the shorter, more difficult reading was present in multiple independent lines of transmission long before the Byzantine standard was formed. In those cases, the textual critic can be confident that the original text has been identified.

Where P72 differs from the rest of the tradition—especially where it alone presents an expanded Christological or doxological phrase—the documentary method allows these readings to be evaluated realistically. The critic recognizes that P72’s scribe tended toward such expansions and that isolated readings of this type are better explained as his contributions than as remnants of a lost original. The existence of many other manuscripts that lack these expansions confirms that the early church did not universally adopt them.

Therefore, P72 stands as a living example of how the New Testament has been preserved, not by a single perfect manuscript or by a miraculous barrier against scribal error, but by a broad, early, and overlapping manuscript tradition. Restoration relies on gathering this evidence, recognizing scribal habits, and giving priority to early and geographically diverse witnesses. P72 is one of those witnesses, and its voice is crucial in reconstructing the text of Peter and Jude.

Papyrus 72 in Modern Editions and Translations

Modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament place substantial weight on P72 when determining the text of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. In passages where P72 agrees with other early Alexandrian witnesses against the Byzantine tradition, editors commonly adopt the shared reading as original. Where P72 presents a distinctive reading that is supported by only weak external evidence, editors often record it in the apparatus but do not print it in the main text.

This balanced use of P72 reflects the principles of the documentary method. The manuscript’s early date and broad coverage mean that it commands attention. Yet its freer scribal habits and tendency toward expansion mean that it cannot be followed blindly. Instead, it is one part of the larger chorus of witnesses that together testify to the original text.

Translators working from these critical editions thereby depend indirectly on the testimony of P72. When readers encounter 1 and 2 Peter and Jude in a carefully prepared modern translation, they are benefiting from the early evidence of P72 both where its readings are adopted and where its idiosyncrasies have been corrected by comparison with other manuscripts. In this way, P72 participates in the continuing process by which the inspired text is made accessible to modern readers in accurately translated form.

Because P72 is an early, composite codex that binds together canonical and non-canonical writings, it also reminds modern readers that the early church valued a range of literature. Yet the fact that Peter and Jude stand at the center of the codex and that their text has been so carefully preserved and transmitted testifies to their special status. Through manuscripts like P72, the General Epistles of Peter and Jude have come down to us in a form that faithfully represents what their inspired authors originally wrote.

You May Also Enjoy

The Importance of Papyrus 52 for the Gospel of John

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS