Uncial 071 (P.Oxy. III 401): Matthew’s Infancy Narrative

Grenfell and Hunt recovered and published the leaf as P.Oxy. III 401. Its documented excavation at Oxyrhynchus gives it firmer findspot context than many manuscripts acquired through later collecting, and it subsequently entered the Harvard Semitic Museum collection. The modern GA identifier and repository shelfmark are treated as complementary controls on identity: the first connects the object to international textual scholarship, while the second identifies the physical leaf or codex in its present collection. This is especially important where old catalogs divided leaves that belong together, joined fragments that later proved distinct, or used a nickname based on a collector rather than a place of production. The record therefore distinguishes recovery place, copying place, later custody, publication, and current location. Where the early route is undocumented, it remains unknown rather than being reconstructed from a later library label. Facsimiles and digital workspaces extend access, but the original parchment remains the archaeological object.

A single small parchment leaf preserves Matthew 1:21–24 on one side and 1:25–2:2 on the other. The surviving text moves from the naming of Jesus and Joseph’s obedience into the visit of the magi. The leaf measures roughly 7 by 9.5 centimeters and preserves thirteen lines per page in a single column. Its compact size, broken margins, majuscule hand, and limited text identify it as a fragment of a codex rather than a free-standing amulet or continuous roll. The dossier reads the writing surface as evidence alongside the copied words. Column count, line count, page size, ink, letter formation, nomina sacra, punctuation, corrections, commentary, pagination, reuse, and broken margins each answer different questions about production and use. A single photographed side cannot stand for every page of a lost codex, so the image caption identifies the exact role of the surviving leaf. The selected public-domain image depicts this manuscript itself rather than a generic scribe, modern painting, or unrelated Bible. Where fragments share a parent codex, they are consolidated into one interpretive record instead of being counted as independent artifacts.

The display date “Fifth or sixth century AD” follows current catalog and palaeographic judgment. Letter shapes, ruling, page design, material, related dated hands, and publication history can narrow a range, but most of these manuscripts do not carry a copied colophon that supplies a modern calendar year. The artifact directly preserves Matthew 1:21–25; Matthew 2:1–2; that is a material connection to Scripture in the manuscript’s own historical period, not a claim that the leaf was present when the narrated events occurred. Later date does not automatically mean worthless text, and early date does not automatically make every reading original. Textual criticism weighs agreements, differences, corrections, scribal habits, translation, and genealogy passage by passage.