Paleography is the study of ancient handwriting and manuscripts. The discipline includes the practices of deciphering, reading, and dating historical manuscripts[1] and the cultural context of writing, including the methods with which writing and books were produced and the history of scriptoria.

Greek Paleography and Its Beginnings

Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741), a French Benedictine monk, who established the new discipline of paleography, laid the groundwork for the meticulous study of Greek manuscripts. He is also viewed as the originator of modern archaeology. As time passed, other scholars would make their contributions, as well. Tischendorf would comb Europe and its libraries, cataloging and discovering manuscripts along the way. During several trips to the Middle East, he had the opportunity to investigate several hundred other manuscripts. In the end, he would publish his findings in numerous critical editions of the Greek text, but his eighth (1869-72), to this day is used by textual scholars as a colossal thesaurus of variant readings. 

The 20th century saw an explosion of tools that have served as helps to paleographers. We have the Schoenberg Database of Manuscripts (SDBM), the Marcel Richard list of some 900 catalogs that describe 55,000 Greek manuscripts, The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, and the Institute for New Testament Textual Criticism in Münster, Germany. All of these are found on the internet, giving access to anyone who owns a computer. For the textual scholar and the paleographer, this storehouse of information has made the job of determining a manuscript’s age much easier and more precise.

PHILIP W. COMFORT EXCURSION

Dating Manuscripts

From the onset, I need to say that I think several of the earliest New Testament manuscripts have been dated either too late and/or not precisely enough. Since the date for many of these manuscripts was already assigned when the editio princeps was published, it has been and will continue to be an uphill battle to get a change of date. Or if a certain date is listed for a particular manuscript in the appendix of Novum Testamentum Graece or the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, readers take that as the fixed, authoritative date. But I think, as do several other scholars (cited throughout), that several of the dates are not early enough. Or, at least, they do not allow for an early date. Let me give an example. P⁴ is listed as “third century” in NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ when almost all recent scholarship on this manuscript concurs with “late second century.” At the very least, P⁴ should be listed as “second/third century.” At best, P⁴ should be listed as “late second century.” In my opinion, a new date needs to be set for about another thirty manuscripts. This is explained throughout the course of this chapter.

Another matter needs to be addressed up front. Paleographers often assigned a date to a New Testament manuscript without citing any other manuscripts displaying comparable paleographical features. This was often the case with the work of Grenfell and Hunt, who, as pioneers in papyrology, did not have enough manuscripts to draw comparisons with. Thus, their assigned dates were their best guesses. But accumulative discoveries of documents have now put us in the position of making more accurate assignments. Kenyon also did not cite any comparable manuscripts when he assigned dates for P⁴⁵, P⁴⁶, and P⁴⁷. Thus, this work must be done to determine if he was correct or not.

As the first order of business, I will discuss the various styles of handwriting in use during the Christian era (Roman Uncial, Biblical Unical, Decorated Rounded, Severe), and I will provide several examples of dated manuscripts for each. This is necessary to do first because many New Testament manuscripts have been and can be dated by comparison to manuscripts displaying these styles. Then I will discuss the dating of several Greek Old Testament and noncanonical Christian manuscripts whose calligraphy is helpful in dating New Testament manuscripts. Finally, I will discuss the dates of all New Testament manuscripts prior to AD 300, offering the studied opinions of several paleographers throughout, as well as some of my own observations.

The editio princeps for each of the New Testament manuscripts cited in this chapter is found in the previous chapter.

Criteria Used for Dating Manuscripts

Before I identify what I think are the earliest New Testament manuscripts, I need to stipulate the criteria I have used for dating manuscripts. These criteria are as follows: archaeological evidence, codicology, comparative palaeography, and the evolution of the nomina sacra. The third area, comparative paleography, is the most complex and therefore requires the most discussion. In this area, I will first look at the issue of determining dates for literary texts based on dated documentary manuscripts, and then I will examine comparative morphology (a study of comparable handwriting styles).

 

Archaeological Evidence

The first means used in dating a manuscript is to look at archaeological evidence. External and circumstantial factors can help scholars date manuscripts. For example, the terminus ante quem (latest possible date) for the Herculanuem manuscripts is AD 79, the date of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, and for the Dead Sea Scrolls is AD 70, the date the Qumran caves were abandoned. Scanlin writes, “Around AD 70 Qumran was destroyed during the Jewish war and Roman invasion. Thus, assuming that the Dead Sea Scrolls found near the Qumran settlement were the product of that community, then the latest date for the manuscripts hidden in nearby caves is AD 70.” Of course, not all the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts may have come from the Qumran community. The caves could have been used by other Jews hiding manuscripts at some other time. Nonetheless, very few scholars would date any of the Dead Sea Scrolls after the middle of the first century AD (both on archaeological grounds and paleographical).

The New Testament papyrus manuscript P⁴+P⁶⁴+P⁶⁷ cannot be dated later than AD 200 because it was placed in strips (perhaps as binding) for a third-century codex of Philo. Some length of time must be allowed for a well-written codex to have been used to such an extent that it was torn up and used as binding. The Gospel harmony manuscript 0212 cannot be dated later than AD 256 and is likely to be dated ca. 230 because the manuscript was discovered in the filling of an embankment erected in AD 256. A Christian house (in existence from 222 to 235) nearby the site of discovery was destroyed when the embankment was built.

Unfortunately, most manuscripts cannot be dated according to archaeological evidence because the attending circumstances are vague or ambiguous. Thus, for the dating of most biblical manuscripts, paleographers use the following criteria: codicology and comparative paleography, which also includes comparative stylistics and morphology.

Codicology

As was discussed in a previous chapter, the codex was in use prior to the end of the first century AD. It was the book form used exclusively by Christians for making copies of biblical writings. Therefore, any New Testament codex manuscript could be as early as the late first century. Knowledge concerning this dating of the codex increased with precision during the second half of the twentieth century, as more and more of the papyri were published. Paleographers living at the beginning of the twentieth century considered the codex to be a late second-century or early third-century invention and therefore would hardly date a Christian manuscript prior to the third century. Such was the case with Grenfell and Hunt, who assigned many third-century and fourth-century dates to Christian Old Testament manuscripts and New Testament manuscripts, when the handwriting clearly belonged to an earlier century. Increased knowledge about the creation of the codex has prompted paleographers to redate many of these manuscripts to an earlier period. This redating is addressed manuscript by manuscript in the following discussion.

Comparative Paleography

Biblical manuscripts are literary manuscripts. Dates were rarely if ever written on literary manuscripts. By comparison, documentary texts (i.e., manuscripts having documentary information) often provide exact dates if not explicitly so, at least implicitly by something written in the document. These documents provide the only paleographic means for dating manuscripts.

If a literary text has been written on the recto (the best and therefore the primary side of a papyrus or parchment leaf) and a dated documentary work has been written on the verso, the date of the documentary text provides the terminus ante quem (latest possible date) because the documentary text will be later. For example, a literary text on the recto, having a documentary text dated AD 150 on the verso, indicates that the literary text must be dated earlier than AD 150. We cannot be sure how much earlier, but the length of time could be quite substantial, perhaps as long as fifty to one hundred years because a literary text would normally have been used (or shelved) for a long period prior to being relegated to documentary use. As will be discussed below, one sumptuous literary text in the Heroninos collection, P. Rylands 16 (an unknown Comedy), was not relegated to documentary use (on the verso) for well over fifty to seventy-five, perhaps even one hundred years.

Fortunately, several manuscripts have been discovered that have a literary text on the recto and a dated documentary text on the verso. These manuscripts have enabled paleographers to establish the terminus ante quem (latest possible date) for the literary texts. As a rule of thumb, paleographers will usually subtract twenty-five to fifty years from the terminus ante quem when dating the literary text, for it is conjectured that the literary text (on the recto) must have been well used and well worn before being relegated to documentary use. Such literary texts with relatively certain dates provide models for comparative paleography.

If a literary text has been written on the verso of a documentary text (such as a letter or an official edict), which provides a date, then the documentary text provides the terminus post quem (the earliest possible date) for the literary text. For example, a date of AD 150 for a documentary text on the recto, with a literary text on the verso, means that the literary text cannot be dated earlier than AD 150. The length of time between the reuse of a documentary text for literary purposes would normally be shorter, probably around five to fifteen years at most inasmuch as the user would not have valued the document highly if he or she quickly put it to literary use. Let us take, for example, the Christian Psalms fragment, PSI 921 (Psalm 77:1–18). This is a fragment of Psalms written on the verso of a roll containing a bank register (on the recto) dated in AD 143/144. As such, it is quite likely that the Psalms portion should be dated anywhere between AD 155 and 170 (see comments below on this specific manuscript). Another example is P. Michigan 130, the Shepherd of Hermas. This manuscript, containing “The Mandates” of The Shepherd, was written on the verso of a scroll; the recto contains a document that can be dated to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (AD 161–180). Thus, it stands to reason that P. Michigan 130 could be dated AD 180–200.

The primary means of dating a New Testament manuscript, as an undated literary text, is by doing a comparative analysis with the handwriting of other dated documentary texts. The second method is to do a comparative analysis with literary manuscripts having a date based on the association with a documentary text on the recto or verso. Since several of the New Testament papyrus manuscripts exhibit a documentary hand, it is possible to find comparable dated documentary manuscripts. Fortunately, there are several documentary manuscripts that belong to the Heroninos correspondence (all dated around 260 and part of the Florentine Papyri) which have helped scholars to date several New Testament manuscripts (with a “documentary” hand), with corresponding handwriting, to the mid-third century. This pertains to P¹⁷, P³⁷, P⁵³, P⁸⁰, and P⁸⁶. A few literary texts, each dated ca. 200 (or a little earlier in the case of P. Rylands 16), reused for documentary purposes in the Heroninos collection, can help in the dating of New Testament manuscripts such as P³⁹, P⁴⁵, P⁹¹, P¹¹⁰, and P¹¹⁵.

Another two hundred Greek documentary papyri, dated AD 113–120, have come from the archive of Apollonios, a strategos of Hermopolis. A thorough study of these manuscripts prompted the papyrologist Ulrich Wilcken to date P⁵² to the same era, on the basis of comparable paleography (see discussion on P⁵² below).

In the following pages, various dated documentary manuscripts and literary texts with certain dates will be cited as supporting a date I propose for the earliest New Testament manuscripts. Admittedly, dating a literary text by comparing it with other literary texts involves some subjectivity, because it is as much an art as it is a science. Dating a manuscript is usually done by the person who produces the editio princeps of the manuscript. Sometimes this date is accepted by other paleographers; often it is challenged. As would be expected, paleographers do not agree on dates because of the subjectivity involved in the comparative analysis. Furthermore, it must be remembered that a manuscript could have been produced by an old scribe using a style he learned as a young man, or a manuscript could have been written by a young scribe just when a certain style was nascent. These factors could add or subtract twenty-five to fifty years to or from the date of any manuscript. All things considered, it is safest to date manuscripts within a range of fifty years. This allows for an early date and a later one for each manuscript. Usually both dates are defensible because we can see a complementary style in other manuscripts at both ends.

As paleographers seek to assign a date to a manuscript, they employ comparative morphology, which is a comparative study of letter forms. Paleographers in the past (such as Kenyon) used to look for a match of certain individual letter forms. This practice called the “test-letter” theory is no longer fully endorsed. Rather, paleographers look at the letters in relation to the entire piece of writing; in other words, it is the overall likeness that constitutes a morphological match. Of course, this doesn’t exclude matching letters, but the match must be more than just in a few letters.

Comparative Stylistics

Another way that paleographers date manuscripts is to determine its handwriting style and thereby place it in a time period where that style was prominent. Often, a paleographer can also determine if the manuscript shows early or late features of that period by comparative analysis with other manuscripts that have firm dates. In the following discussion, I will speak of four specific styles: Roman Uncial, Biblical Uncial, Decorated Rounded, and Severe (Slanting) Style. Several Christian manuscripts both of the Old Testament and New Testament display one of these styles.

Various papyrologists, such as Roberts and Turner,⁸ note scribal tendencies of the first three centuries AD. Roberts and Turner both indicate that there was a strong tendency for scribes in the first and second centuries to keep all their letters at an imaginary top line. Most bookhands display bilinearity, which is an attempt to keep all letters at an imaginary top and bottom line. Slanting handwriting begins in the second century. (Prior to that, letters were written upright.) Other second-century features are (1) the final nu on a line replaced with an extending overbar over the last letter (mid-second century), (2) a small omicron in documentary hands, which becomes prominent in third-century literary hands, and (3) angular letters (e.g., P⁴⁵, P⁷⁵) also in the late second and early third. In documentary and Greek biblical manuscripts, beginning in the first century AD and onwards, there was a strong tendency for documentary scribes to enlarge the first letter of each line and/or of each new section.

Other Features Used in Dating Manuscripts

Some paleographers take note of the ink color as an aid to making an estimation about a manuscript’s date. For example, lustrous black ink (also known as carbon ink) is earlier than brown. Brown ink has probably been mixed from an iron salt or other chemical compound and therefore generally points to a date after AD 300. The issue of black ink and brown ink is significant to the dating of P¹⁵ and P¹⁶ (see discussion below). Metallic ink usually points to a later date. However, P. Oxyrhynchus 2269, written in metallic ink, is dated AD 269.

Turner indicates that another feature began in the early third century, namely, the use of a separating apostrophe between double consonants. Some paleographers of late seem to have adopted this observation as “fact” and thereby date manuscripts having this feature as post AD 200. Some paleographers would even redate manuscripts displaying this feature. For example, Schmidt redates P⁵² to ca. 200 based on the fact that its hand parallels that of the Egerton Gospel, which is now thought by some to date closer to ca. 200 based on this feature appearing in a newly published portion of the Egerton Gospel. However, I would argue that the previously assigned date of such manuscripts was given by many scholars according to their observations of several paleographic features. Thus, the presence of this particular feature (the hook or apostrophe between double consonants) determines an earlier date for its emergence, not the other way around. Thus, the Egerton Gospel, dated by many to ca. 150, should still stand, and so should the date for P⁵² (as early second century). Another way to come at this is to look at P⁶⁶, dated by several scholars to ca. 150 (see discussion below). Turner, however, would date P⁶⁶ later (early third) largely because of the presence of the hook between double consonants. What I would say is that the predominant dating of P⁶⁶ (i.e., the dating assigned by most scholars) predetermines the date for this particular feature. Furthermore, there are other manuscripts dated prior to AD 200 that exhibit the apostrophe or hook between double consonants:

1. BGU iii 715.5 (AD 101)

αγ❒χωριμφις

2. P. Petaus 86 (= P. Michigan 6871) (AD 185)

αγ❒γων

3. SPP xxii 3.22 (second century)

απυγ❒χεως

4. P. Berol. 9570 + P. Rylands 60 (dated by the editors of the editio princeps to ca. 200, dated by Cavallo to ca. 50)

φαλαγ❒γας

Handwriting Styles

Four handwriting styles of the early period of Christianity are worthy of our attention for New Testament paleography. The first is called the Roman Uncial, the second is called the Biblical Uncial, the third is named the Decorated Rounded Uncial, and the fourth is the Severe (or Slanted) style. It must be said that all four styles are not always clearly distinct, nor can one exactly pinpoint the birth of one style, for there was a great deal of crossbreeding and mingling in the process. Nonetheless, there are some common features to each style, and there is a chronology for the emergence, popularity, and disappearance of each style.

The Roman Uncial

Paleographers date the emergence of the Roman Uncial as coming on the heels of the Ptolemaic period, which ended in 30 BC. Thus, early Roman Uncial begins around 30 BC, and the Roman Uncial hand can be seen throughout the first two to three centuries of the Christian era. The Roman Uncial script, generally speaking, shares the characteristics of literary manuscripts in the Roman period (as distinct from the Ptolemaic period) in that these manuscripts show a greater roundness and smoothness in the forms of letters and are somewhat larger than what was penned in the Ptolemaic period. Furthermore, the Roman Uncial typically displays decorative serifs in several letters, but not all. (By contrast, the Decorated Rounded style aims at making the decorations rounded and replete.)

Generally speaking, the Roman Uncial was a precursor to the Biblical Uncial—the one style emerging into the next. As such, it can be seen that certain paleographers interchange the two terms. However, the true Biblical Uncial differs from the Roman Uncial in that the Biblical Uncial typically displays no or little decoration and has noticeable shading, i.e., “the deliberate alternation of thick and thin pen-strokes, related to the angle at which the pen meets the paper.” In Kenyon’s estimation, a good New Testament example of a Roman Uncial is found in the manuscript P⁴⁶. Concerning P⁴⁶, the editor of the editio princeps, Kenyon said, “The letters are rather early in style and of good formation of the Roman period.” (See the discussion below on P⁴⁶.)

The Biblical Uncial

Another name for the Biblical Uncial is the Biblical Majuscule; this refers to large uncial letters, each stroked separately so as not to connect with other letters (as occurs with a running hand producing cursives or what is called ligatures). The term Biblical Uncial does not apply only to biblical texts; it was a term first coined by Grenfell and Hunt to describe the handwriting of certain biblical texts and then was extended to any kind of manuscript displaying that kind of handwriting, whether biblical or not. The Biblical Uncial is noted for retaining a bilinear appearance—that is, there is a conscious effort to keep a line of text within an imaginary upper and lower line. In this style, all letters except iota, rho, phi, psi, omega fit into squares of equal size, and all letters except gamma, rho, phi, psi have the same vertical extension (bilinearity). In Biblical Uncial there is a deliberate alternation of thick vertical strokes and thin horizontal strokes, with sloping strokes coming in between. In this style, rectangular strokes display right-angled shapes, and circular letters are truly circular, not oval. There are no ligatures (connecting letters) and no ornamentation at the end of strokes (such as serifs and blobs).

This style began to emerge in the first century AD. A few paleographers have recognized that a particular Herculaneum manuscript, P. Herculaneum 1457 (dated pre-AD 79), shows an early form of the Biblical Uncial. This was first recognized by Domenico Bassi in Papiri Ercolanesi (Tomo 1; Milan 1914 with 7 plates). W. Schubart affirmed this in his volume, Griechische Paleographie, 111–12, as did G. Cavallo in Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano, who (after referring to Bassi’s work) says, “P. Here. 1457 tra gli esempi pui antichi di onciale biblica.” (Cavallo considered P. Herculaneum 1457 to be an example anticipating the Biblical Uncial.) When Kim spoke of the Biblical Majuscule hand (in his article on P⁴⁶ discussed at length below) and its early type, he referred to P. Herculaneum 1457. In dating P⁶⁴⁺⁶⁷ to the late first century, Thiede also drew attention to the Herculaneum Papyri (referring to Schubart and an article by Cavallo, see discussion below), though he did not explicitly mention P. Herc. 1457.

An early form of the Biblical Uncial style can also be seen in P. London II 141, a document dated to AD 88 (for photo, see GLH 12a). The editors of this text wrote: “This document has a special value, being written in uncials of a type more nearly approaching the uncial writing of early vellum MSS than is to be found in any other extant document which can be attributed to so early a period. Moreover, it bears an actual date, and thus affords a standard of early uncial writing.”

Roberts said this manuscript “is an early and dated example of the large rounded hand which is fully developed in the second century in Hawara Homer (NPS I. 126) and P. Tebtunis II 265.” In other words, P. London II 141 is an early form of what came to be known as the Biblical Uncial.

As was just alluded to by Roberts, three noteworthy examples of Roman Uncial manuscripts showing features of the Biblical Uncial are (1) P. Hawara 24–28 (Homer’s Iliad), dated by most paleographers to the second century (for photo, see Cavallo, pl. 2; Montev. pl. 63); (2) P. Tebtunis II 265 (for photo, see Tebtunis Papyri, vol. 2); and (3) P. Oxyrhynchus 20 (for photo, see Cavallo, pl. 3), dated second century. The last two mentioned papyri are very similar in appearance. In fact, the editors of Tebtunis II 265 (Grenfell, Hunt, Goodspeed) dated it to the second century on the basis of its likeness to P. Oxyrhynchus 20.

1. Oxyrhynchus 20 has a firm date: second century. The recto contains Homer’s Iliad (II. 730–828), written in a large upright calligraphic uncial. On the verso are some accounts in a cursive hand of the late second or early third century. The sumptuous Homer had to have been in use for quite some time before it was relegated to documentary use. Hence, I would judge that it was composed in the first half of the second century.
2. Cavallo, in his majesterial work, Richerche sulla Maiuscola Biblica, makes a strong case for the style known as Biblical Uncial taking definitive shape in the middle to late second century AD. In order to justify this dating, he drew upon a few significant manuscripts whose dates are fairly well established. Cavallo pays special attention to P. Oxyrhynchus 661 (for photo, see Cavallo pl. 16; GLH 16a), as one of the earliest examples. This manuscript is dated with great certainty to the second half of the second century. Grenfell and Hunt said that on the verso of P. Oxyrhynchus 661 is a cursive hand “which is not later than the third century, and quite likely to fall within the second. The text of recto [P. Oxy. 661], then, can be assigned with little chance of error to the second half of the second century.” C. H. Roberts, dating P. Oxyrhynchus 661 to the latter part of the second century, says it “may also rank as the earliest datable example of the Biblical Uncial style” (GLH 16a).

Cavallo cites many other manuscripts belonging to the same era (the latter part of the second century) as also displaying the Biblical Uncial. Some of the more significant ones are as follows:

1. P. Oxyrhynchus 678, late second century (Cavallo, pl. 13a). Grenfell and Hunt wrote: “It is an upright and rather heavy calligraphic hand similar to [P. Oxy.] 661, and probably, like that papyrus, of the latter part of the second century.”
2. P. Oxyrhynchus 2356, dated ca. 175 (Cavallo, pl. 12). The editors wrote: “The text is written in a square upright uncial of a common type, of which it is only a moderately well made example, comparable with P. Ryl. 547 and attributable to the late second century.”
3. P. Oxyrhynchus 2364, second half of second century (Cavallo, pl. 13b). The editors wrote: “The hand is a good upright uncial of the so-called biblical type very like that of P. Berol. 13411 (which likewise contains choral lyric), [P. Oxy.] 661 (assigned to the second half of the second century), BM Inv. no. 2560.”

According to Cavallo, P. Oxy. 678, 2356, 2364 should be dated “intorno all fine del terzo venticinquennio del II secolo” (“around the end of the third quarter of the second century”—175).

4. P. Rylands 16, latter part of the second century (for photo, see GLH 22b). Cavallo points to P. Rylands 16 as one of the earliest examples of the Biblical Uncial. The dating of this manuscript is fairly certain because this literary text contains a documentary text on the verso (namely, a letter dated AD 255/256). The editor of P. Rylands 16, A. S. Hunt, remarked:

The hand of [P. Rylands 16] is extremely similar to that of P. Oxyrhynchus 661 (IV, Plate V), and like it can fortunately be dated with some accuracy, since the verso is inscribed with a letter to Heroninos (cf. e.g. P. Flor. 9, intro.), written in the third year of (of Gallienus), i.e., AD 255–256. A manuscript so elaborate would probably not be quickly destroyed, and hence the text on the recto can hardly be later than about the year 215 and may well belong, as there was reason to suppose that P. Oxyrhynchus 661 belonged, to the latter part of the second century.

Cavallo, more conservatively, dates P. Rylands 16 to 220–225, allowing for only thirty years before such a sumptuous manuscript was put to documentary use. C. H. Roberts (GLH 22b) would date it ca. 200. And E. G. Turner, who is usually very conservative in his dating, dated P. Rylands 16 to the second century. He posited this date because he observed that some of the documents in the Heroninos archive were already a century old before they were reused for writing letters.¹⁸ Taking all things into consideration, it is probably best to date P. Rylands 16 to the latter part of the second century.

5. P. Berol. 7499, ca. 200 (Schubart’s Greek Pal., pl. 93; Cavallo, pl. 19a). Schubart dated it to the beginning of the fourth; Cavallo would date it to the end of the second century/beginning of the third.
6. P. Oxyrhynchus 2395, end of the second century (Cavallo, pl. 15b). The editors wrote: “The script is a conventional upright uncial of the ‘biblical’ type much like [P. Oxy.] 1179, which is assigned to the early part of the third century.” But P. Oxy. 1179 could have also been written at the end of the second century.
7. P. Lit. London 78, late second century (Cavallo, pl. 14). This manuscript is a “round medium-sized rather heavy uncial hand of biblical type.”
8. PSI 1377 (Illiad IX) + P. Rylands 542 (Illiad V), end of second/beginning of third, ca. 200 (Cavallo, pl. 20a, b). These two manuscripts are part of the same work. Bartoletti, editor of the editio princeps, dated PSI 1377 “avanza l’ipotesi del II secolo: sarei invece del parere di assegnal III (inizio)” (i.e., possibly second century, more likely beginning of the third).
9. P. Oxyrhynchus 2334, later second century (Cavallo, pl. 29). The editor said it displays “a rounded, heavy hand, the precursor of the so-called ‘Biblical Uncial’ (cf. P. Rylands iii 547, [P. Oxy.] 2169, and 661.”
10. P. Vindob. 29784, end of the second century (Cavallo, pl. 15a).
11. P. Vindob. 29768, ca. 175 (Cavallo, pl. 12a), The two P. Vindob. manuscripts are discussed below in connection with the New Testament manuscript P^4+64+67
12. P. Oxyrhynchus 224+P. Rylands 547, later second century (Cavallo, pl. 6). These two manuscripts are part of the same text. P. Oxyrhynchus 224 was originally dated to the third century and then redated to the later second century, with the attachment of P. Rylands 547 (as part of the same manuscript), due to the influence of the dating of P. Oxyrhynchus 661, a manuscript sharing many features with P. Oxyrhynchus 224+P. Rylands 547. (P. Oxyrhynchus 224+P. Rylands 547 is discussed below in connection with the dating of P^4+64+67.)
13. P. Oxyrhynchus 2750, latter part of the second century. The editor wrote: “The hand is another example of the early Biblical uncial style similiar to [P. Oxyrhynchus] 661 … and may be dated around the later part of the second century AD.”
14. P. Oxyrhynchus 1179 (for photo, see Cavallo, pl. 28b), ca. 200. The editor wrote: “This small fragment offers another example of the ‘biblical’ type of uncials on papyrus. The hand closely resembles those of [P. Oxyrhynchus] 664 and P. Rylands 16, and may be assigned with some confidence to the earlier decades of the third century, if not to the end of the second.”

The early New Testament manuscripts written in Biblical Uncial are as follows: P^4+64+67, P³⁰, P³⁵, P³⁹, P⁴⁰, P⁷⁰, P⁹⁵, 0162, and 0189. Each is discussed below.

Decorated Rounded Uncial

Another style of handwriting was prominent during the early period of the church; it is called the Decorated Rounded Uncial. In this style, every vertical stroke finishes with a serif or decorated roundel. Schubart (naming this style Zierstil) thought this style existed from the last century of the Ptolemaic period (first century BC) to the end of the first century AD. Other scholars, such as Turner, see it as extending to the end of the second century (and perhaps even into the early third). He said, “The classification ‘Formal round’ is attained by far fewer hands. They are almost instantly recognizable, if only from the generous size of their letters.” He sees this as a single feature of several styles that existed from the second century BC to the second century AD.²¹ Concurring with Turner, Parsons writes: “Turner rightly insists that Schubart’s ‘decorated style’… is not really a style but a single feature of several styles spread over a period of four centuries from ii BC.”

Whether it is a single style or a single feature of several styles, manuscripts with the Decorated Rounded type of handwriting are conspicuous. There are several extant examples of dated manuscripts (i.e., manuscripts with certain dates) exhibiting this style that fall within the period of 100 BC to AD 150. Here is a representative list, cited in chronological order. (Some of the following manuscripts are also noted by Parsons, and other by Welles.) Some of these manuscripts display what could be called a Formal Round and others an Informal Round. The documentary manuscripts tend to be more informal than the literary, but they often provide good comparisons for the particular biblical manuscripts written in reformed documentary and documentary hands, while the more formal often provide good comparisons for biblical manuscripts displaying a bookhand.

1. P. Rylands 586+P. Oxyrhynchus 802 (Deed of Loan, 99 BC; for photo, see GLH 8a) (later Ptolemaic decorated style)
2. P. Fouad 266 (Septuagint) (mid first century BC, a cursive note on this papyrus is unmistakably Ptolemaic; for photo, see GMAW 56)
3. Greek Minor Scroll Prophets from Nahal Hever, 8HevXIIgr (50 BC to AD 50).
4. 7Q1 (Exodus) (100 BC)

This style is clearly Zierstil (Decorated Rounded), according to the editio princeps. in DJD IV, Grote 7, Fragments of Papyrus.

5. 7QS (50 BC to 50 AD)

This manuscript, whose identification has been highly debated (see discussion below), clearly displays a Zierstil (decorated rounded style), according to the editio princeps in DJD IV, Grote 7, Fragments of Papyrus.

6. Several manuscripts from Herculaneum (first century BC). Many of the manuscripts from Herculaneum display a Decorated Rounded style. These manuscripts must be dated pre-AD 79, when the town was buried. However, since many of the manuscripts came from Philodemus’s library or were his personal works, they probably should be dated pre-40 BC, the presumed date of Philodemus’s death. Some of the more noteworthy manuscripts are P. Here. 1005 (for photo, see Cavallo’s Ercolano, pl. 22); P. Here. 1423 (for photo, see Cavallo’s Ercolano, pl. 50); and P. Herc. 697 (for photo, see Cavallo’s Ercolano, pl. 32).
7. P. Murabba‘at 108, dated “moitie du 1^er siecle apres J.-C.” (beginning of the first century AD). The hand is clearly Zierstil, with affinities to manuscripts like P. Berolinses 6926 and P. Oxyrhynchus 246 (see below).

We know that the caves of Murabba’at had been inhabited repeatedly from 4000 BC to the Arabian period. A great number of documents including two letters from Simon ben Koshiba (Bar Kochba) show that the caves were a refuge during the second Jewish revolt (AD 132–135).

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1453 (Oath of Temple Lamplighters, 30–29 BC; for photo, see GLH 8b).
9. P. London II.354 (Petition to Caius Turranius, 7–4 BC; for photo, see GLH 9a) (informal round, slightly decorated).
10. P. Oxyrhynchus 2555 (after AD 46). This should be dated mid to late first century inasmuch as the document mentions a horoscope dated AD May 13, 46.
11. P. Oxyrhynchus 3700 (ca. AD 50). P. Oxyrhynchus 3700 “is given a reasonably secure terminus ante by the writing on the back: several sets of documentary phrases, doodling or draft, among them a date clause of AD 48–9.”
12. P. Oxyrhynchus 2471 (Cancellation of a Loan, ca. AD 50; for photo, see GMAW 64).
13. P. Oxyrhynchus 246 (Return of Sheep, AD 66; for photo, see GLH 10c).
14. P. Oxyrhynchus 2987 (Petition to Gaius Aeturnius Fronto, AD 78–79).
15. P. Berol. 6926 (Romance of Ninus, Prince of Assyria; second half of first century AD; for photo, see GLH 11a). The terminus ante quem (latest possible date) is supplied by the verso on which are some accounts of the reign of Trajan, referring to AD 100–101. Roberts said, “Compared with the first century hands already illustrated this hand is more rounded and uniform and displays a greater tendency to equality in the size of letters; in this it anticipates the hands of the second century” (GLH 11a).
16. P. London II 141 (AD 88; for photo, see GLH 12a). Roberts said, “It is a large, rounded bookhand which is fully developed in the second century” (GLH 12a).
17. P. Lit. London 6 (first century AD; for photo, see New Paleographic Society II, pl. 53), a further fragment of which has been published as P. Rylands 540. This is a manuscript of the Iliad of which on the verso is a document dated AD 88/89.
18. P. London 130 (Greek Papyri in the British Museum 1.132ff; for photo, see Schubart’s Paleography 81). This manuscript mentions a horoscope dated April 1, AD 81. Therefore, it is not likely to be later than the early part of the second century.
19. P. Oxyrhynchus 270 (AD 94).
20. P. Fayum 110 (Letter of Lucius Bellenus Gemellus to Epagathus, AD 96; for photo, see GLH 11b). Roberts said, “This is written in a rounded, regular hand … This hand is perhaps closer than that of any other dated document to those of the earliest Christian papyri, P. Rylands III 457 (= P⁵²) and P. London Christ. 1 (= Egerton Gospel)” (GLH 11b).
21. P. Berolinses 6845 (Homer’s Iliad), dated by Schubart first/second century (for photo, see P. Berol., pl. 19c).
22. P. Yale 1273 (Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women), ca. AD 100 (for photo, see Yale Literary Papyri, pl. ii).
23. P. Berolinses 6854, dated to the reign of Trajan (AD 98–117; for photo, see Schubart’s Greek Pal. 34). C. H. Roberts points to this manuscript in determining his date for Chester Beatty VI (Num.–Deut.), as being slightly later than P. Berolinses 6854. (See comments on Beatty VI below.)
24. P. Berolinses 6855, dated by Schubart as AD 135? (for photo, see P. Berol, pl. 22b).
25. P. Oxyrhynchus 454 + PSI 119 (Plato’s Gorgias 507–508; second quarter of the second century, AD 125–150; for photo, see GMAW 62). The date of this manuscript is quite solid inasmuch as it was written on the verso of a roll of military accounts providing a date of sometime after AD 111. Given the rule of thumb that a literary text written on the verso of a documentary text could have occurred in a short timespan (five to twenty-five years), the Plato text could be dated anywhere between AD 115 and 140. According to Turner (in GMAW 62), the hand is a “medium-sized, upright, rounded, ‘decorated,’ capital … The hand is of the professional type, but makes an impression of informality.”
26. P. Oxyrhynchus 1083 (second century; for photo see Oxy. vol. and Schubart’s Greek Pal., 74). Concerning the dating of this, the editors wrote: “The following fragments of a Satyric drama are written in upright uncials which are slightly above the medium size and of rather heavy and ungraceful appearance. They may be assigned to the second century, a date to which the cursive notes … would also seem to point.”

All these aforementioned documents, nearly all of which have solid dating, provide evidence for the existence of the decorated rounded hand during a certain time-frame. Significantly, there are hardly any dated documents beyond AD 150 that provide evidence of this style. In this regard, Welles is generally correct (as was Schubart): the greatest concentration of dated manuscripts displaying the Decorated Rounded is found between the period 100 BC to AD 100 (op. cit.). The evidence indicates that this should be extended to AD 150 but not much further.

E. G. Turner disagrees. He points out that P. Oxyrhynchus 3093 (dated AD 217) displays the serifs featured in the Decorated Rounded hand (GMAW, second ed., p. 21). However, this hand is clearly not a bookhand, but a cursive with thickenings at the tops and feet of verticals and occasional serifs. Turner says, “If these ‘decorations’ are regarded as a legacy of Schubart’s ‘decorated style’ (Zierstil), the lower terminus of that style must be extended into the third century” (Turner, as cited in P. Oxy. 3093). And in GMAW 87, he calls our attention to P. Oxyrhynchus 3030 (Official Letter of a Royal Scribe; 31 March 207 [or 211]) as providing another late example. P. J. Parsons, the editor of P. Oxyrhynchus 3030, said, “The letters are thickly ornamented with serifs and back-hooks. The general effect is much like that of [P. Oxy.] 2555, of the late first century. It is salutary to have, precisely dated, so late an example of this fragile decorated style.”

Turner admits that P. Oxyrhynchus 3030 is “late survivor” of this style (see GMAW 87). As such, an early third century date is not the norm for Decorated Rounded hands, nor is the late second century, for which we do not have any comparable dated documentary manuscripts. Rather, the highest concentration would be between 100 BC and AD 125/150. Interestingly, many Christian Greek Old Testament manuscripts, displaying the Decorated Rounded hand, have accordingly been dated to the late first century or second century, while scholars have usually been reluctant to do the same for New Testament manuscripts. Nonetheless, there are a few New Testament manuscripts displaying the Decorated Rounded style which belong in the period prior to AD 150, specifically, P³², P⁶⁶, P⁹⁰, and P¹⁰⁴. (Each of these is discussed below.)

Severe Style

For the most part, formal Greek handwriting remained upright during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. In due course, however, writers began to slant their letters to the right. When handwriting is upright, the angles will be right angles and the curves will be more rounded. When handwriting slopes, the angularity of the broad letters will be emphasized and the curves look like ellipses. This kind of hand also displays a mixture of narrow letters and broad letters. Turner, therefore, calls it Formal Mixed, while Schubart names it Strenge Stil (Severe style). Turner was of the opinion that there was no effort in documents to make a contrast between broad and narrow letters before the age of Hadrian (117–138). (See Turner’s discussion in GMAW, pp. 26–27.) This is countered by G. Cavallo in his work, Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano, who makes it quite clear that documents displaying wide and narrow letters appeared in Herculaneum prior to the second century.

Some second-century, third-century, and early fourth-century manuscripts, with firm dates, displaying this style are as follows:

1. P. Giss. 3, AD 117 (for photo, see GLH 15a). The date is certain; it is a libretto in celebration of the accession of Hadrian (reigned 117–138). The hand is one of the earliest examples of the broad, slanting style, which became quite popular later.
2. P. Michigan 3, second half of second century (for photo, see GLH 15c). This is dated solidly to the second half of the second century, inasmuch as a documentary text on the verso has a date of AD 190 (the terminus ante) written in a cursive hand.
3. P. Oxyrhynchus 2341, AD 202 (for photo, see GLH 19c). The date is certain; it is the record of a legal proceeding.
4. P. Florentine II. 108, ca. 200 (for photo, see GLH 22a). This papyri came from the Heroninos archive, a collection of papers and official documents found at Theadelphia in the Fayum. All the documents date around AD 260. The literary texts written on the rectos of many of these documents would date about fifty years earlier. Hence, this manuscript (Homer’s Iliad III) is ca. 200.
5. P. Rylands I. 57, ca. 200 (for photo, see GLH 22c). As with the above manuscript, this is a literary piece (Demosthenes, De Corona) on the recto of a document in the Heroninos archive. Its date must then be ca. 200.
6. P. Florentine II. 259, ca. 260 (for photo, see GLH 22d). This is a letter in the Heroninos archive written in a professional hand that resembles the common literary hand of the day.
7. P. Oxyrhynchus 2098, first half of third century (for photo, see GLH 19b). The recto has a portion of Herodotus, book 7; on the verso is a land survey dated to the reign of Gallienus (253–268). As such, the recto should be about fifty years earlier, ca. 200–225.
8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1016, early to middle third century (for photo, see GLH 20a; GMAW 84). The dating on this is difficult because the literary text (Phaedres) is written on the verso of a document, which is a land register (published as P. Oxyrhynchus 1044), mentioning the thirteenth year of a particular unnamed Roman emperor. The date could be 173/174 (Severus) or 195/196, according to C. H. Roberts, or 204/205 (Sept. Severus), according to Hunt, or 233/234 (Severus Alexander) according to E. G. Turner (see GMAW 84 for Turner’s arguments). At the latest, then, the literary text would have been written no later than ca. 240–250.
9. P. Oxyrhynchus 223, early third century (for photo, see GLH 21a). The Homer text (Iliad V = P. Oxyrhynchus 223) was written on the verso of Oxyrhynchite provenance dated AD 186 (= P. Oxyrhynchus 237). Thus, P. Oxyrhynchus 223 must be dated early third century.
10. P. Herm. Rees 5, ca. AD 325 (for photo, see GMAW 70). The person to whom this letter is addressed is known from the John Rylands archives as a scholasticus (government official) in the 20s of the fourth century.

The early New Testament manuscripts displaying this Severe (slanted) style are as follows: P¹³, P⁴⁵, P⁴⁸, P⁴⁹, P¹¹⁰, and P¹¹⁵. Each is discussed below.

Dating New Testament Manuscripts According to the Evolution of the Nomina Sacra

As is fully discussed in the next chapter, it is evident that the nomina sacra went through an evolutionary process. The initial repertoire of nomina sacra included special written significations for the divine names kurios (Lord), Iesous (Jesus), Christos (Christ), and theos (God). As will be argued in the next chapter, the divine title pneuma (Spirit) appears in the earliest stages of textual transmission and is nearly as ancient as the other four. Another early nomen sacrum was used for the words stauros (cross) and stauromai (crucify). In due course, other nomina sacra were added for huios (Son) and pater (Father), as well as for words such as anthropos (man), Israel (Israel), Ierosalem (Jerusalem), and ouranos (heaven).

Given this evolutionary process, one would think that the fewer the nomen sacrum, the earlier the manuscript. T. C. Skeat, for example, pointed this out when he dated P^4+64+67 to the second century. (This manuscript displays only the basic five nomina sacra.) However, another second-century manuscript, P⁶⁶, has far more nomina sacra. In fact, its repertoire of nomina sacra is nearly identical to that found in Chester Beatty VI (of the early to middle second century). Hunger, who dated P⁶⁶ to the first half of the second century, pointed out this concurrence of nomina sacra as one of his arguments for giving P⁶⁶ a second-century date.

The problem in using the nomina sacra for dating New Testament manuscripts is that their evolution began in the first century (perhaps at the time many of the New Testament books were first written) and was well underway in the second century. Thus, by the time we get to the mid-second century, many of the divine names are displayed as nomina sacra. Some of these names are always written as such; others such as Son and Father are sometimes written as nomina sacra and sometimes not in the very same manuscript. This inconsistency in displaying the nomina sacra form, as opposed to the full (plene), written-out form, shows that a particular nomen sacrum was in an evolutionary process. For example, it can be observed that the titles Son and Father were evolving in the second and early third centuries and became more or less fixed nomina sacra in the third century and thereafter. For example, in the second-century manuscript P^4+64+67 Son and Father are not written as nomina sacra. In other prominent second-century manuscripts, P⁴⁶, P⁶⁶, and P⁷⁵, “Son” and “Father” are sometimes written as nomina sacra and just as often are not. In most third-century manuscripts, these two titles are consistently treated as nomina sacra; see, for example, P¹, P⁹, P¹³, P¹⁶, P²², P²⁷, P²⁸, P³⁹, P⁴⁰ (in part), P⁴⁹, P⁵³, P⁷⁰, P⁷², P⁹¹, P¹⁰⁷, 0162. This evidence suggests that a manuscript not exhibiting nomina sacra for Father and Son or exhibiting them both in nomina sacra form and in plene form should be considered for a second-century date. Such is the case for P⁴⁵, which is usually dated to the third century (see discussion below).

Another example of a manuscript displaying both the nomina sacra and the full, written-out (plene) forms for all the names of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) is P⁴⁶. What is most significant is that the scribe did not always write the nomen sacrum for pneuma (Spirit) where one would expect the scribe to have done so (see discussion in next chapter). This could very well tell us that this title was not yet fixed as a nomen sacrum when the scribe of P⁴⁶ did his work; in other words, it was still developing. Since all the other second-century manuscripts consistently display pneuma as a nomen sacrum (when refering to the divine Spirit), this phenomenon in P⁴⁶ could indicate an early date for this manuscript.

Another issue pertains to the presence of the suspended form and short contracted form as preceding the longer contracted form (or what some call the combination form, which I think is a misnomer). As will be discussed in the next chapter, it is possible that the short contracted form (for example, ΙΣ for ιησους) was the first form used in the earliest Christian writings. A variation of this would be a fuller contracted form, such as ΙΗΣ. The question is: Is the fuller form a later evolutionary development? If so, then a manuscript with the fuller contracted form could be dated later than one with the shorter form. But it is just as likely that both forms developed concurrently or nearly concurrently. Some scholars think the suspended form of ιησους (Jesus), ΙΗ, was the earliest. But I have my doubts, all of which are expressed in the next chapter.

The upshot of this is that it is difficult to use the forms of the nomina sacra to date manuscripts. What can be used is the presence and/or absence of certain nomina sacra with respect to the full repertoire, as well as fluctuation in use in a particular manuscript (as in P⁴⁶).—Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 103–120.

END OF EXCURSION

How do Paleographers Date Manuscripts?

Imagine that we are paleographers rummaging through the library of an old monastery, one that dates back to the third century C.E. As we carefully move books aside, we discover that there are other loose pages within one of the books on the shelf. As we pull out the pages, we have discovered what looks to be an ancient uncial Greek document. As we continue to work our way through the books, looking for more pages, we are wondering about the age of this document. To our delight, the last page provides a clue that would establish the date within 50 years. It was not the same manuscript, but it was the same hand, the same style, the same handwriting, the same punctuation, as well as other features that would establish this as the same person who made the other Biblical manuscript. However, this manuscript has a date on it.

Sadly, it was not a practice of scribes to place dates in their manuscripts after they had completed them. Thus, the textual scholar must compare other documents that have dates, both Biblical and non-Biblical documentary texts, to make a determination from an investigation of the handwriting, punctuation, abbreviations, and the like. What we may have at times is a literary text on one side of the page, and a documentary text on the other side, making it easier to establish the date of the literary text.

Handwriting Investigation

How do textual scholars know that the manuscript dates to the second, third, or fourth century C.E. or any other century? If we were to pull any book from our bookshelf and turn a few pages in it, we would generally find the publication date on the copyright page. If we bought a used book that was missing the copyright page, we would have no idea when it was published. It is only because of modern technology that we could date the book. Extant ancient literary manuscripts hardly ever had dates on them. However, ancient documentary manuscripts do, which is crucial in our ability to date the undated literary manuscripts.

By means of the art and science of paleography, we can arrive at an approximate date when the manuscript was written. Terminus post quem (“limit after which”) and terminus ante quem (“limit before which”) specify the known limits of dating a manuscript. A terminus post quem is the earliest time the manuscript could have been written, and a terminus ante quem is the latest time the manuscript could have been written.

Paleographers could be viewed as manuscript detectives; through their knowledge of the writing of ancient texts, the forms, and styles, we get a reasonably close idea of when a manuscript was copied. For example, when looking at our modern languages today, we can see subtle changes within every generation or two. This holds true of ancient languages as well. A paleographer can provide us with a date that is usually correct to plus or minus 25 to 50 years through a painstaking comparison of hundreds of small features within an ancient manuscript.[2] Such features can distinguish certain periods as the amount of punctuation within a manuscript, abbreviations, and the amount of spacing between words. There are certain documents such as receipts, letters, leases, and petitions that do contain dates. These have formed a library of letters with the styles that go into making each letter during different time periods.[3]

The Rylands Papyrus 52 at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England
Text	John 18:31–33, 18:37–38
Date	110-150 C. E. C.E. denotes “Common Era,” often called A.D., for anno Domini, meaning “in the year of our Lord.”
Script	Greek
Found	Egypt
Now at	John Rylands University Library
Cite	C. H. Roberts, “An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library” (Manchester University Press, 1935)
Size	8.9 cm x 6 cm
Type	Seems to be Alexandrian
Category	I

At left and below is P52, a fragment of John’s Gospel. If we were to look closely at the actual copy (See high definition mage CSNTM),[4] we would see that this copyist added a little hook or embellishment to his manuscript. For example, a loop or curly line, while also omitting certain marks, incorporating a unique type of cross-stroke and rounded stroke of particular letters, which place this fragment in the early part of the second-century C.E.

While some textual scholars may disagree, 15 codices are dated within the second century C.E., with another 65 codices dated to the third century C.E. These are undoubtedly some of the most valuable manuscripts in establishing the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

Philip Comfort dates P52,

This dating is derived from comparing P⁵² to manuscripts such as P. Fayum 110 (A.D. 94), the Egerton Gospel (A.D. 130–150), P. Oslo 22 (A.D. 127), P. London 2078 (reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96), and P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. A.D. 100). Though each of these manuscripts bears significant resemblance to P⁵², P. Berolinenses 6845 is the closest parallel, in Roberts’s opinion. Another manuscript shares many similarities with P⁵², P. Oxy. 2533. The editors of P. Oxy. 2533 said that its handwriting could be paralleled with first-century documents, but since it had the appearance of being second century, they assigned it a second-century date. Thus, both P. Oxy. 2533 and P⁵² can safely be dated to A.D. 100–125. However, its comparability to manuscripts of an even earlier period (especially P. Berol. 6845), pushes the date closer to A.D. 100, plus or minus a few years. This is extremely remarkable, especially if we accept the consensus dating for the composition of the Fourth Gospel: A.D. 80–85. This would mean that P52 may be only twenty years removed from the original.”^[5]

This author would date the writing of the Gospel of John to A.D. 98. Therefore, P52 would have to date to about 110-125 A.D., only a few decades after the original was written. These few decades would have given it time to make its way down to Egypt, where it was discovered at the turn of the 20th century.

Now, all is not settled because some recent scholars are making efforts to redate P52 to a later date. Andreas Schmidt dates it to around 170 C.E.[6] and Brent Nongbri dates it to the late second early third centuries (no earlier than 200 C.E.),[7] and Elijah Hixon has cited these scholars for supporting his position of a later date for P52.

Papyrus Egerton 2, fragment 2 (recto)

Stanley E. Porter has further re-examined in detail the relationship of P52 to P.Egerton 2.[8] Porter has offered two more early biblical papyri [P. Oxy IV 656 (fragment of Genesis) and P.Vindob. G. 2325 (apocryphal gospel, the Fayum Fragment)], as he has offered us a comprehensive examination of the history and the variety of views amongst the papyrologists for the dating of P52 and P.Egerton 2, as he presents his argument that Roberts was correct on all three points: (1) both P52 and P.Egerton 2 are close parallels, (2) they are set apart by widely separate dates, and that P52 is to be set to the earlier date. Porter points out that P.Egerton 2 is in “a less heavy hand with more formal rounded characteristics, but with what the original editors called “cursive affinities.” (p. 82) He goes on to add that “Both manuscripts were apparently written before the development of a more formal Biblical majuscule style, which began to develop in the late second and early third centuries. (p. 83) Based on this, he also notes that even though the hooked apostrophe, which is found in P.Egerton 2 is unique as far as the second century is concerned, people are misconstruing what Turner actually says, “In the first decade of iii AD this practice [of using an apostrophe between two consonants, such as double mutes or double liquids] suddenly becomes extremely common and then persists.” Porter then writes, “Note that Turner does not say that the practice does not exist before the third century AD, but that in the first decade it becomes extremely common’ and then ‘persists.’” (p 83) Porter concludes, “The result is to bring the two manuscripts together, somewhere in the middle of the second century, perhaps tending towards the early part of it.” (p 84)

Stanley Porter has also challenged Nongbri’s contention that legitimate comparisons can be made between P52 and documentary papyri of the later second and early third centuries. Porter notes the warning from Eric Turner, “[c]onfidence will be strongest when like is compared with like: a documentary hand with another documentary hand, skillful writing with skillful, fast writing with fast. Comparison of book hands with dated documentary hands will be less reliable, the intention of the scribe is different in the two cases.” (p 79) Based on this, Porter cautions against Nongbri’s misguided view that literary texts should be compared primarily with documentary hands that have dates, disregarding the comparison of other literary texts. (p 81) Porter goes on to say, “Whereas dated manuscripts must enter into consideration and form the overall basis for much dating, I believe that it is also important to distinguish documentary from literary or semi-literary hands and attempt to use literary manuscripts for comparison with literary manuscripts.” (p 79) Porter goes on to argue that Nongbri’s submitted late second and third-century manuscripts to be compared with P52 are in many cases quite different from P52 so that they require comparison to concentrate on detailed letter forms without thought of the overall formation, trajectory, and style of the script. The final analysis is that “the result is to bring the two manuscripts together, somewhere in the middle second century, perhaps tending toward the early part of it, as a workable and serviceable date of transcription.” (p 84).

While the act of copying the Vaticanus Codex itself dates it to about 300-330 C.E., Westcott and Hort argued that the material (the written text, not the handwriting style)[9] therein was much earlier or even original. Let me offer a generic example, so we can understand how a manuscript can be dated to 300-330, and yet at the same time can be spoken of as containing a written text itself that is much earlier. Assume that we have four hypothetical NT manuscripts: P⁰⁰² (c.125), P⁰⁰⁴⁵ (c.200), P⁰⁰⁶⁷ (c.275), and Codex Z (c.325). One means of dating manuscripts is comparing the style of handwriting, as we explained above, i.e., the way the letters are formed.[10] The paleographer will find other Greek texts that have dates on them and match the handwriting in the text. Imagine that there are ten secular Greek manuscripts with the date of 100 C.E. on them, which match our P002 (c.125). We can then date the manuscript up to 50 years in both directions, between 50–150 C.E.

Now, setting aside the date of the manuscript as to when it was made, we find that each of these manuscripts has a written text that is similar to others of that time period. We are not talking about handwriting styles that are used to date the text’s time of being copied; instead, we are talking about certain features: the way words are spelled, the material is added or missing, notes are incorporated from correctors, and the like. As a result, we say that our Codex Z dates to 325 C.E. because the handwriting style places it on this date. However, some of the features mentioned above are not like the other manuscripts of 325 C.E. but are the same as those of our earlier P⁰⁰², dating to 125 C.E. Hence, going to our codex Vaticanus, we would say it dates to being copied about 300-330 C.E. based on the writing style (form of letters), but its written text (spelling, format, corrections, added/missing material) is earlier, dating to about 150–200 C.E. because it is almost exactly like P75.

Many scholars had felt that Westcott and Hort’s belief that the text of Vaticanus was written earlier, and was perhaps even original, was presumptuous; therefore, these scholars believed that Vaticanus reflected a third- or fourth-century text, from the time of its being copied. However, after the publication of P75, it was openly acknowledged that the two texts are, in fact, essentially the same, vindicating Westcott and Hort. Vaticanus itself was copied about 300-330 C.E., but its written text was from the middle of the second century at least, if not earlier. Hort’s view that Vaticanus is essentially original, minus a few discrepancies, is not so farfetched after all.

Paleographers divide ancient Greek handwriting into two basic categories–book hand, which is elegant and formal, and cursive, a form of “running” or flowing, writing used in nonliterary documents. Greek scribes also used various styles of letters, which can be categorized loosely as capitals, or majuscules to be correct–frequently called uncials–and cursive, or more precisely minuscules. The larger book hand, uncial writing, was used from the fourth-century B.C.E. until the eighth or ninth century C.E. Minuscule writing, the small form of book hand, was employed from the 8th or 9th century C.E. till the middle of the fifteenth-century when printing by means of movable type began in Europe. The minuscule script could be written more rapidly and compactly, which saved both time and parchment.

Let’s date one more manuscript. The dating of Papyrus 4 (P4) is easier to nail down because we know its place of origin (provenance). 

PAPYRUS 4

P⁴

• Contents: Luke 1:58–59; 1:62–2:1, 6–7; 3:8–4:2, 29–32, 34–35; 5:3–8; 5:30–6:16
• Date: 150–175 C.E.
• Discovered: Coptos, Egypt in 1889
• Housing Location: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. Gr. 1120
• Physical Features: P4 is one the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke and contains extensive sections of the first six chapters: 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1; 2:6-7; 3:8-4:2; 4:29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16

Textual Character: P4 is of the Alexandrian text-type and agrees with P75 and B 93 percent of the time. The copyist of P4 was likely a professional scribe. “P4 and P75 are identical in forty complete verses, with only five significant exceptions (Luke 3:22, 36; 5:39; 6:11, 14).” Comfort and Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts inform us that P4 came from the same codex as P64/67.

Initially, textual scholars’ dates for P4 differed as to its age, being dated anywhere from the late second century to the sixth century. As might be expected because of a lack of knowledge of scholars about papyrus manuscripts, Vincent Scheil in 1892 dated P4 to the sixth century.[11] In 1938, J. Merell dated P4 to the early fourth century.[12] Kurt Aland in 1963 dated P4 to the third century. In 1979, C. H. Roberts set the date for P4 as a late-second-century manuscript, also saying that P4 is part of the same manuscript as P64 and P67. Comfort writes, “If P4 can be shown to have come from the same codex as P64/P67, or at least from the same scribe, then it would naturally have an identical or similar date.”[13]

P4 was used as padding on a codex of Philo’s treatises. It had been hidden in a house in Coptos, a small town in the Qena Governorate of Egypt. This was done so that it would not be seized during Diocletian’s persecution in 303 C.E., as Coptos had been plundered by the Roman Emperor at that time. The codex of Philo’s treatises is from the third century and could be dated to the middle of the third century. On this, Comfort writes, “The owner of the Gospel codex was probably a Christian and therefore would have valued the Gospels. He would not have used a newly copied Gospel as stuffing for Philo’s treatises,26 so this Gospel codex must have been well used and well worn. In fact, it must have been a discarded copy replaced by another codex. Thus, P4 may have been made as early as a hundred years before A.D. 250, if not earlier. So, we are reasonably certain of at least a late-second-century date, but this does not preclude an earlier date because the codex may have been in use more than a hundred years before it was discarded. Therefore, all three papyrus pieces—P4, P64, and P67—fit easily into the same chronological window.[14]

From this, the preliminary conclusion can be that P⁴/P⁶⁴/P⁶⁷ is a second-century manuscript, being dated to about 175-200 C.E. In addition, Comfort adds, “We can conclude, then, that P⁴/P⁶⁴/P⁶⁷ is a second-century manuscript, probably dated to the third quarter of the century. The handwriting style lines up with P. Oxy. 2404 (second century), P. Oxy. 661 (ca. A.D. 175), and especially P. Vindob G 29784 (late second century). It shares some similarities with P. Oxy. 224/P. Ryl. 547 (late second century), P. Oxy. 2334 (second century), P. Oxy. 2750 (later second century), and P. Rylands 16 (late second century).”[15] He then goes on to add another line of evidence, saying, “Another feature of P⁴/P⁶⁴/P⁶⁷ suggests an early date: the small number of nomina sacra (used only for “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “Spirit”) compared to other late-second and early-third-century manuscripts, which add to those listed above nomina sacra for “Son,” “Father,” “man,” “cross,” and “crucify.” In P⁴/P⁶⁴/P⁶⁷, we may be seeing the nomina sacra in a relatively early phase of evolutionary development.”[16]

Paleographers have their preferred methods of dating manuscripts. They first take an overall look at the script–wide-angle views, so to speak–and then they examine it more closely, analyzing individual letters. Because it usually took a long time for significant changes to occur in the general style of handwriting, a close examination of the script, while useful, provides only a broad indication of the time of writing.

Thankfully, there are other ways to narrow down the date. These include identifying and dating the introduction of certain handwriting practices. For instance, in Greek texts, after the year 900 C.E., scribes began to increase the use of ligatures (two or more characters joined). Scribes also began to use interlinear writing (the writing of certain Greek letters below the line) as well as pronunciation aids called breathing marks.

As Metzger remarked, a person’s handwriting tends to remain constant throughout his life. Therefore, texts often cannot be dated more narrowly than within 50 years. What is more, scribes sometimes used earlier manuscripts as models, making the copy seem older than it is. Despite the many challenges, however, dates have been assigned to a number of important Bible manuscripts.

Dating Key Greek Bible Manuscripts

Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02) is an impressive codex, now in the British Library, and the most investigated manuscript. It was the first major Bible manuscript made available to scholars. It contains most of the Old and New Testament, written in uncials on vellum, a high quality of parchment made from calfskin. Paleographers date this codex to about the fifth century C. E. This is mainly because of the changes that took place in uncial writing in the middle of the fifth and sixth centuries, as illustrated in a dated document called the Dioscorides of Vienna.

Codex Sinaiticus (01) was discovered by textual scholar Constantin Von Tischendorf at the monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai. Sinaiticus was also penned in Greek uncials on parchment. At present, part of the Greek Old Testament has perished, with the whole of the New Testament surviving. Of this codex, 43 leaves are held in Leipzig, Germany; 347 leaves at the British Library in London; and portions of 3 leaves in St. Petersburg, Russia. Paleographers have dated Codex Sinaiticus to about 360 C.E. They arrive at this date, in part, because of the marginal tables (cross-references) in the gospels, which were invented by the fourth-century historian Eusebius of Caesarea, known as the Eusebian Canons.

Codex Vaticanus (B or 03) is the most valuable of all manuscripts, which contained the entire Bible at one time. As is indicated by its name, it is housed in the Vatican Library at Rome, first becoming known in 1475. It, too, was penned in Greek uncials on 759 leaves of parchment. It still contains most of the Old Testament, except most of Genesis and part of Psalms. It is missing some portions of the New Testament as well. It is dated to about 340 C.E. It is viewed as belonging to the earlier part of the fourth century as it lacks the Eusebian Canons mentioned above.

Treasure from a Garbage Dump

In 1920, the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England, attained a heap of papyri recently discovered in an ancient Egyptian garbage dump. As he sorted out the pieces of unpublished papyri, which encompassed letters, receipts, and census documents, scholar Colin H. Roberts caught sight of a fragment inscribed with text he recognized—a few verses from John chapter 18. Based on the style of the script, Roberts dated this scrap as the earliest Christian Greek text identified up to that time, even to date. It is the early date of P52 that holds its greatest value. Bible critics had argued that the Gospel of John was not penned until the second century, which would mean that the apostle John was not its author. The finding of P52 establishes that John had to be written before the close of the first century C.E., to be copied in Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, about 110-150 C.E.

This fragment came to be known as the John Rylands Papyrus 457, designated as P⁵² because it was penned on papyrus.[17] It was written in Greek uncials and has been dated to about 110-150 C.E., within just a few decades of the original writing of the Gospel of John! Significantly, even though the text only comprises a few verses, the text agrees almost precisely with the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Its contents include John 18:31-33, 37-38.

Are the “Early Dated” Papyri Really “Early”?

There is a new effort to redate the earliest Greek New Testament papyri by a new wave of paleographers: Pasquale Orsini, Willy Clarysse, Brent Nongbri, and readily accepted by a new wave of textual scholars, such as Daniel B. Wallace and Elijah Hixon. “The twentieth century was foundational for the issue of the dating of early Christian manuscripts. As is commonly known, it was during the twentieth century that the majority of New Testament and related Christian Greek papyri …”[18] We will return once more to P⁵² and use it as our test case.

Higher Criticism (or “the historical-critical method” is now known as biblical criticism and literary criticism. Some areas are source criticism, redaction criticism, form criticism, tradition-historical criticism, and many others. These scholars (not referring to the previously mentioned Wallace and Doxon) do not view the Bible as the Word of God. For these Bible scholars, it is the word of man and a very jumbled word at that. Textual scholar J. Harold Greenlee wrote, “This ‘higher criticism’ has often been applied to the Bible in a destructive way, and it has come to be looked down on by many evangelical Christians.” – The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition (2008, p. 2). Baker Publishing Group.

Lower Criticism (or textual criticism): Where higher criticism is destructive, textual criticism or textual studies is constructive. Greenlee wrote, “Textual criticism is quite distinct from literary criticism. Textual criticism simply takes the known [manuscripts] MSS of the New Testament, studies the differences between them, and attempts by established principles to determine the exact wording of the New Testament originals.” (2008, p. 2) Textual criticism looks to the external evidence (manuscripts) and internal evidence (author’s style, words he used, grammar and syntax, and other principles), to determine what the original words were in the original texts. Without knowing what the original words are, one cannot create a translation, interpret the Scriptures, and know God’s will. Now, having laid that groundwork, we can move on to the article itself.

Daniel B. Wallace wrote in the Foreword of Myths and Mistakes In New Testament Textual Criticism, “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.” (p xii) An example of this is found in the same book as there are recent attempts by modern scholars to redate P⁵² from 110-125, the latest 150 C.E. to 175-225 C.E. (Brent Nongbri, Elijah Hixon, Don Parker, Andreas Schmidt, and so on) (Page 103). Why is the early date of P⁵² important apologetically? Conservative evangelical Christians often cite P⁵² to those who are of liberal-moderate biblical criticism (higher criticism) school of thought because these Bible critics try to argue that the apostle John did not author the Gospel that bears his name. They believe the Gospel of John was written about 160-180 C.E.  Well, the apostle John died in 100 C.E., so for them, it would have been impossible for John to author the Gospel. Well, the discovery of P⁵² put one very solid nail in that line of thought because it was dated to about 110-125, the latest 150 C.E., and was discovered in Egypt. P⁵² was just a scrap, but it was a scrap containing John 18:31-33, 37-38. It hampered the discussion that the apostle John could not have written the Gospel. Or did it? Keep in mind, P⁵² was just one piece of evidence in a line of much more external and internal evidence that John authored the Gospel.

Elijah Hixon (Myths and Mistakes In New Testament Textual Criticism), an advocate of a late date for P⁵² (third century), explains,

First, P⁵² does not and cannot offer definitive proof that John’s Gospel is a first-century composition by an eyewitness. Even if P⁵² were written in the afternoon of April 26, AD 125 (it wasn’t), it would prove only that sections from John 18 were in Egypt by AD 125. Technically, such a date does not prove that John’s Gospel was in its “final” (canonical) form by then, nor does it prove that the text it contains is any more than a few months old. An early date of P⁵² might render these possibilities unlikely—even extremely unlikely—but it cannot disprove them. Two examples from redaction-critical commentaries demonstrate this point. First, Rudolf Bultmann accepted a date of P⁵² in the period of AD 100–150 and still argued that as much as forty years could have passed between the original writing of John’s Gospel and a final redaction that left it in the canonical form we have today. Second, Walter Schmithals was well aware of the existence of P⁵², but he still dated a final redaction of John’s Gospel to around AD 160–180. Given the uncertain nature of paleographical dating and the fact that P⁵² has not deterred source-critical scholars from adopting second-century dates of a final redaction to John’s Gospel, we quote again Paul Foster’s remarks about the usefulness of P⁵²: “Was John’s Gospel written before the end of the first century? Yes, probably.” (Page 104).

First, Elijah Hixon, like Don Barker was also a sounding board, and we had many back and forth discussions on messenger. Both helped improve this book. Now, notice that Hixson’s concern is very similar to that of Nongbri, the use and abuse of the traditional date range of P⁵² (100–150 C.E.). They fear that New Testament scholars will use and abuse Robert’s dating of P⁵² by focusing in on the early part of his date range, without qualifying that it is a fifty-year date range, such as picking a specific date of 110 C.E. or 125 C.E. Hixon’s first and primary concern that is motivating his perception of the evidence is whether P⁵² can be used to support that the apostle John wrote his Gospel in the late first century C.E. This appears to be more postmodern skeptical thinking that is driving or motivating the investigation. This is a strawman argument. Hixon is setting up hypotheticals that no one suggested and then knocking them down. Here we get a lot of motivation behind why it is supposedly acceptable for ambiguous and uncertain paleographers and papyrologists to redated P⁵². First, let me offer my brief observation that I believe is simply a pattern of behavior. I believe many modern-day Christian textual scholars have gone the way of …

• Hermeneutics and higher criticism in (subjective interpretation by the historical-critical method [personal feelings] over the objective interpretation grammatical-historical method [facts]), to the …
• Bible translation and dynamic equivalent in Bible translation (interpretive translations of what the translator thinks God said over the literal translation of what God actually said), to the …
• New Testament textual scholars seek to be as skeptical, ambiguous, and uncertain as possible over seeking a position, qualifying anything that may be ambiguous or uncertain.

Now, turning to Hixon’s words above, “P52 does not and cannot offer definitive proof that John’s Gospel is a first-century composition by an eyewitness.”

Response: This logical fallacy is called a strawman argument, where the person overstates the other side’s case or intentions, the opposing argument, ignoring the fact that evidence is abundant for John to be the author of the Gospel and P⁵² is just one piece, and then Hixon proceeds to knock down his “fake” point that conservative evangelicals have to supposedly have P⁵² dated early, he has created a straw man argument. Hixon goes on to infer that the renowned textual scholars, paleographers specifically (C. H. Roberts, T. C. Skeat, Fredric Kenyon, W. Schubart, Harold Idris Bell, Adolf Deissmann, Ulrich Wilken, and W. H. P. Hatch, and others), who dated P⁵² initially to an early date and other later textual scholars (Kurt and Barbara Aland [INTF Institute for New Testament Textual Research], Bruce M. Metzger as of 2006, Philip Comfort, David Barrett) that agreed were biased because of their Christian desire to have an early Gospel of John manuscript. This is called an ad hominem attack of circumstances, that is, attacking their Christianity as intrinsically biased instead of dealing with the evidence.

Hixon writes from above, “Technically, such a date does not prove that John’s Gospel was in its “final” (canonical) form by then, nor does it prove that the text it contains is any more than a few months old.”

Response: Canonical or canon criticism is just another historical-critical method that can take its place alongside source criticism, form criticism, rhetorical criticism, and the like. How dangerous is Higher Criticism (Biblical Criticism)?

Hixon writes from above, “An early date of P⁵² might render these possibilities unlikely—even extremely unlikely—but it cannot disprove them.”

Response: Another repeat of the strawman logical fallacy, in that, he sets the evangelical Christians as saying P⁵² absolutely disproves a later date for the Gospel of John. Well, first of all, let’s assume just for a moment that P⁵² C. H. Roberts and company were correct, and it dates to 100–150 C.E. Or that Philip Comfort and company are correct, and it dates to 100–125 C.E. Well, this would preclude a later date for John and place the Gospel in the first century. You cannot have John’s Gospel clear down in Egypt by 110-125 C.E. and at the same time have it be written between 160-180 C.E. Nevertheless, John was long accepted as the author based on internal and external evidence for 1,800 years before P⁵² was ever discovered.

Hixon writes above, “Two examples from redaction-critical commentaries demonstrate this point. First, Rudolf Bultmann accepted a date of P⁵² in the period of AD 100–150 and still argued that as much as forty years could have passed between the original writing of John’s Gospel and a final redaction that left it in the canonical form we have today. Second, Walter Schmithals was well aware of the existence of P⁵², but he still dated a final redaction of John’s Gospel to around AD 160–180.”

Response: You cannot reason with the unreasonable. You cannot be rational with the irrational. You do not base your textual work on the fear of how you will be seen within the academic community: “They won’t take me seriously.”

Hixon writes above, “Given the uncertain nature of paleographical dating and the fact that P⁵² has not deterred source-critical scholars from adopting second-century dates of a final redaction to John’s Gospel, we quote again Paul Foster’s remarks about the usefulness of P⁵²: ‘Was John’s Gospel written before the end of the first century? Yes, probably.’”

Response: No one has ever claimed that manuscript dating is certain in nature. The English word certain in the context of setting dates (paleography) means that we know for sure what the date is; our established date is proved, confirmed, authenticated, verified, beyond doubt, having complete conviction about the date we have set; confident. This would refer to setting a specific date, such as dating P⁵² specifically to 125 C.E. Yet, what we really have in reality is terminus post quem (“limit after which”) and terminus ante quem (“limit before which”) specify the known limits of dating a manuscript. This would be like C. H. Roberts with his 100-150 C.E. A terminus post quem is the earliest time (e.g., 100 C.E.) the manuscript (P⁵²) could have been written, and a terminus ante quem is the latest time (e.g., 150 C.E.) the manuscript (P⁵²) could have been written. 50 years was a common time period with seventy maximum. Now, they want 100 years and even 200 years.

On the other hand, uncertainty means that our dates for any manuscripts are not able to be relied on; not known or definite, not completely confident or sure of our dated manuscripts. Well, if the field of paleography is a field of uncertainty, why even waste the money on getting manuscripts dated. Why even have such a field of study? Being balanced, we can say that setting dates for literary manuscripts (P⁵²) is largely educated guesswork, not beyond doubt, but external and circumstantial factors can help scholars date manuscripts.” Philip Comfort and David Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Volume 1: Papyri 1-72 (Oct 2019, p. 12)

Hixon cites Dr. Don Parker, Papyrologist at Macquarie University, Ancient History Dept, Sydney. “It is difficult to place [P52] into a very narrow time period.” And he lives up to the not so narrow because he places it anywhere in the second to third centuries. He goes on to say, “This may be unsatisfactory for those who would like to locate [P52] in a narrower time frame, but the paleographical evidence will not allow it.”

Response: The paleographical evidence by the new paleographers is not as strong as one might conclude. It is largely dependent on manuscripts that are not dated and an attempt at comparing documentary with literary or semi-literary hands when they should attempt to use literary manuscripts for comparison with literary manuscripts. Turner states, “Confidence will be strongest when like is compared with like: a documentary hand with another documentary hand, skillful writing with skillful, fast writing with fast. Comparison of book hands with dated documentary hands will be less reliable. The intention of the scribe is different in the two cases …; besides, the book-hand style in question may have had a long life.”[19] Moreover, the handful of manuscripts they have used for comparison has a couple of similar characters, but the overall of the manuscript is not even similar.

Michael Gronewald argues that P⁵² should be dated no earlier than 200 A.D. based on his analysis of P.Köln VI 255, using the hooked apostrophe in recto line 3 to support his redating of P⁵². To reinforce this argument Gronewald turned to a comment by Eric Gardner Turner an English papyrologist in Greek Manuscripts, suggesting with certainty (certainty when it suits them) that the apostrophe between mute consonants (e.g., lam) was a feature of the third-century (200-300) A.D. However, Turner actually said, “In the first decade of iii AD, this practice [using an apostrophe between two consonants] suddenly becomes extremely common and then persists.” Notice here what Turner does not say, he was not saying that this practice was not taking place in the second century at all but rather it became “extremely common and then persists” in the third century. Then Turner goes on to give examples of using a hooked apostrophe between two consonants from the second century: BGU III 715.5 (101 A.D.) and P.Petaus 86.11 (184/85 A.D.) and SB XIV 11342.11 (193 A.D.). Even P66 that has been dated to 150-200 A.D. has a hooked apostrophe between two consonants, αγ’γελους. Turner states, this practice of a hooked apostrophe between two consonants “is not normally written in documents till iii AD” [third-entury AD] – Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 108. (bold and underline mine)

On this Philip Comfort writes,

Turner indicates that another feature began in the early third century, namely, the use of a separating apostrophe between double consonants. Some paleographers of late seem to have adopted this observation as “fact” and thereby date manuscripts having this feature as post AD 200. Some paleographers would even redate manuscripts displaying this feature. For example, Schmidt redates P52 to ca. 200 based on the fact that its hand parallels that of the Egerton Gospel, which is now thought by some to date closer to ca. 200 based on this feature appearing in a newly published portion of the Egerton Gospel. However, I would argue that the previously assigned date of such manuscripts was given by many scholars according to their observations of several paleographic features. Thus, the presence of this particular feature (the hook or apostrophe between double consonants) determines an earlier date for its emergence, not the other way around. Thus, the Egerton Gospel, dated by many to ca. 150, should still stand, and so should the date for P52 (as early second century). Another way to come at this is to look at P66, dated by several scholars to ca. 150 (see discussion below). Turner, however, would date P66 later (early third) largely because of the presence of the hook between double consonants. What I would say is that the predominant dating of P66 (i.e., the dating assigned by most scholars) predetermines the date for this particular feature. Furthermore, there are other manuscripts dated prior to AD 200 that exhibit the apostrophe or hook between double consonants:

1. BGU iii 715.5 (AD 101)
   αγ’χωριμφις
   2. P. Petaus 86 (= P. Michigan 6871) (AD 185)
   αγ’γων
   3. SPP xxii 3.22 (second century)
   απυγ’χεως
   4. P. Berol. 9570 + P. Rylands 60 (dated by the editors of the editio princeps to ca. 200, dated by Cavallo to ca. 50)
   φαλαγ’γας[20]

Hixon: [In his quoting Roberts] “‘On the whole we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P. Ryl. Gr. 457 was most probably written.’ Roberts arrived at that date by comparing the handwriting of P52 to that of other known papyri. It is important to note that Roberts did not say that P52 was written between AD 100 and 150 but that it was most probably written then.” (Italics Hixon, 102)

Response: Notice that Hixon is qualifying Robert’s qualification about Roberts’ dating of P⁵² to 100–150 C.E., most probably written. The italics is Hixon, not Roberts. Of course, it is most probably. No one has suggested that it was an absolute certainty. I would note that Elijah did not italicize the other qualification by Roberts, “we may accept with some confidence.”

Everyone knows that paleographic dating is conditional and difficult. No one has argued that it is the “most effective method.” (Nongbri) Every book on textual criticism and paleography makes this patently clear. There is not one papyrologist who isn’t aware of the immense difficulty in finding suitable comparative manuscripts. Of course, there is going to be a measure of subjectivity when one is evaluating the similarities. Yes, it will be difficult to assign dates to various paleographical features when we are dealing with literary documents, which is what Bible manuscripts are. Yes, it would be great to have corroborating documentary-dated manuscripts if possible, that is beyond all reasonable doubt match. Better yet, it would be great to have our literary document papyri to have been dated at the time of it having been copied. But this is not to be, so we use all measures to get at the best date range possible, including paleography. Hixon, Nongbri, and company have used paleography to undermine paleography that resulted in Roberts’ date range of 100–150 C.E.

Hixon: “A few considerations provide reason for revising Roberts’s early date for P52 (“most probably” AD 100–150). First, Roberts’s two closest matches to the hand of P52 were not themselves securely dated. Second, the securely dated specimens in general were not close matches. Third, there are now many more published manuscripts with which to compare P52 than when Roberts first published it in 1935, such that consensus regarding the paleographic dates can change. In the case of one of the two “close matches”—P.Egerton 2—it did. Roberts compared P52 to an early dated manuscript that is no longer considered to be so early.40 A recent redating of P.Egerton 2 concluded that it dates to circa AD 150–250 and that “it is not impossible that [P.Egerton 2] was produced sometime at the turn of the third century.” (Hixon, p. 102). Bold mine.

Short Response: What I believe Hixon means by securely dated are documentary manuscripts that have dates on them or literary manuscripts with archaeological and circumstantial factors that can help paleographers date manuscripts. The immediate problem is straightforward and unrealistic expectations. Why? All the New Testament papyri are literary documents with no archaeological and circumstantial factors, except for possibly P^4,64,67 and P¹⁰. Second, all New Testament manuscripts are literary documents, and so they will not have dates on them. Third, there are a number of documentary manuscripts that are securely dated and match or are similar to P⁵². We should also take note that unrealistic expectations are unhelpful expectations. When we set aside reasonable, rational, acceptable expectations with unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational expectations.

Nongbri: A manuscript can be dated by means of paleography most confidently when it can be compared with a large number of similar manuscripts with secure dates. Thus, there are some grounds for being cautiously confident about assigning paleographic dates to samples of Greek documentary writing of the Roman era since the pool of securely dated tax records, deeds, receipts, and other documents is quite large. By contrast, there are relatively few securely dated examples of literary Greek writing of the Roman era, so it is correspondingly much more difficult to paleographically date literary manuscripts with precision.”[21] Bold mine. 

Response: So, we would disagree with Hixon because we have several securely dated documentary manuscripts that are close matches to P⁵². P. Egerton 2 was redated but was done so on very weak evidence and has been dealt with extensively already.

Hixon: “Some scholars who are neither trained papyrologists nor paleographers have proposed unusually early or narrow dates for P52, and these dates should not be accepted. Karl Jaroš (AD 80–125), Philip Comfort (AD 110–125), and Carsten Peter Thiede (AD 80–130) are each controversial for their early dates, which have failed to gain scholarly acceptance.” (Hixon, 105). Bold mine.

Response: Fallacy Argument from Authority. It is a fallacious ad hominem attack argument that Comfort, for example, lacks authority; thus, his (Comfort’s) views and evidence do not need to be considered. Moreover, setting aside the ad hominem attack, below is a repeat of Comfort’s credentials.

Dr. Philip Wesley Comfort (1950–) is a noted professor, author, and editor. He is a professor of Greek and New Testament at Trinity Episcopal Seminary, visiting professor at Wheaton College, and senior editor of Bible reference at Tyndale House Publishers for 25-years. Comfort completed his second doctorate under the noted textual critic Jacobus H. Petzer at the University of South Africa. Comfort has been working in the field of textual criticism, paleography, and papyrology for over thirty years and has written over fifteen books on New Testament Textual Studies, many on paleography and papyrology, the first being some thirty years ago in 1990. Comfort has examined almost all of the 5,000 Oxyrhynchus papyri collection. He has also studied all of the early New Testament papyri, 25 of them in person with the actual document. When not in person, he has used high-definition images, such as The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, as well as hundreds of manuscripts from other collections. Comfort has spent most of his life researching and studying ancient papyri, deciphering what is on the papyrus, and then publishing his findings. This is the case with many past world-renowned papyrologists, such as Sir Frederic George Kenyon, Ulrich Wilcken, or E. G. Turner. The only thing Comfort has not done is work at caring for and preserving rare papyrus originals as Kenyon did at the British Museum. Clearly, Comfort is well qualified to date Greek New Testament manuscripts, specifically, the early Greek New Testament papyri manuscripts. It is his conclusions that have drawn such ire.[22]

DATING P⁵²

P⁵² is to be dated to the beginning of the second century (c. 100-125 C.E.)

Paleographer Philip W. Comfort writes,

Many scholars (Frederic G. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, Adolf Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed the dating of P52. Deissmann was convinced that it was written at least during the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117–138) and perhaps even during the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98–117). Deissmann wrote an article on this, “Ein Evangelienblatt aus den Tagen Hadrians,” which was translated in the British Weekly.

This dating is derived from comparing P52 to manuscripts such as P. Fayum 110 (A.D. 94), the Egerton Gospel (A.D. 130–150), P. Oslo 22 (A.D. 127), P. London 2078 (reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96), and P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. A.D. 100). Though each of these manuscripts bears significant resemblance to P52, P. Berolinenses 6845 is the closest parallel, in Roberts’s opinion. Another manuscript shares many similarities with P52, P. Oxy. 2533. The editors of P. Oxy. 2533 said that its handwriting could be paralleled with first-century documents, but since it had the appearance of being second century, they assigned it a second-century date. Thus, both P. Oxy. 2533 and P52 can safely be dated to A.D. 100–125. However, its comparability to manuscripts of an even earlier period (especially P. Berol. 6845), pushes the date closer to A.D. 100, plus or minus a few years. This is extremely remarkable, especially if we accept the consensus dating for the composition of the Fourth Gospel: A.D. 80–85. This would mean that P52 may be only twenty years removed from the original.[23]

This author would disagree with the dating of the Gospel of John to 80-85 C.E. I would place the date at about 98 C.E.

Stanley E. Porter concludes,

The conclusion of this study and the result of its investigation is that we are essentially back where we began in 1935 with the first publication of P.Egerton 2 and P.Ryl. III 457 (P52)— two manuscripts that have figured largely in recent discussion of the reconstruction of early Christianity. Roberts concluded that P.Ryl. III 45 (P52) should be dated to the first half of the second century, a conclusion with which Turner was generally in agreement even if expressing caution. Bell and Skeat concluded that P.Egerton 2 should be dated to the mid-second century, a cautious date on their part. Even if we recognize the two clusters of dates and evidence that Bagnall has suggested (as opposed to the four noted above), the evidence seems to indicate that we are back at the beginning. And this fact remains the same even if we take into account a larger number of comparable manuscripts, weigh letter typology, and find a suitable trajectory of manuscript features. In other words, the result is to bring the two manuscripts together, somewhere in the middle second century, perhaps tending toward the early part of it, as a workable and serviceable date of transcription. With that in place, we can then begin to place other manuscripts and frame the development of early Christianity in the second century.[24]

World-Renowned Paleographers and Textual Scholars Date P⁵² Early

• 100-150 C. H. Roberts
• 100-150 Sir Frederic G. Kenyon
• 100-150 W. Schubart
• 100-150 Sir Harold I. Bell
• 100-150 Adolf Deissmann
• 100-150 E. G. Turner (cautiously)
• 100-150 Ulrich Wilken
• 100-150 W. H. P. Hatch
• 100-125: Philip W. Comfort
• 100-150 Bruce M. Metzger
• 125-175 Kurt and Barbara Aland
• 125-175 Pasquale Orsini
• 125-175 Willy Clarysse
• 170 C.E. Andreas Schmidt
• 100-150 Daniel B. Wallace

Other More Recent Textual Scholars Date P52

• 100-225 Brent Nongbri
• 81–292 Don Barker
• 200-300 Michael Gronewald

Daniel B. Wallace writes in the foreword of MYTHS AND MISTAKES In New Testament Textual Criticism that “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.” (Page xii). This is certainly the case. However, this trend has been a long time coming. In the 1800s into the early 1900s, Higher Criticism (biblical Criticism) ruled the day, wherein liberal to moderate Bible scholars dissected the Word of God until it became the word of man and a garbled word at that. A few positions of these scholars (not Wallace, mentioned above) would be that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. Further, Job was not a real historical person, the prophet Isaiah of the eight-century B.C.E. and Daniel the prophet of the sixth-century B.C.E. did not write the books that bear their name. They would also believe that Jesus did not say everything recorded that he said in his famous Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus did not say that the Pharisees were snakes and vipers in Matthew 23. It was Matthew who said these things because he hated the Jews.

Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, we go from literal Bible translations (what God said by way of his human authors) and entered into the era of interpretive translations (i.e., dynamic or formal equivalent), wherein the translators give the reader what they think the authors meant by their words. The last few decades, textual scholars have refocused their objectives and goals from attempting to ascertain the original words of the original text to getting back to the earliest text possible. More recently, there has been a concerted effort to reset the dates of our earliest manuscripts to later dates.

Philip W. Comfort is one of few who has actually examined and published major works in which he has examined the entire range of early New Testament manuscripts. He is constantly under attack by the new wave of textual scholars that favor ambiguity and uncertainty and seek to redate our early papyrus manuscripts to later dates. If they can undermine the credibility of this one man who is standing in their way; then, they will control the narrative.

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION

[1] ‘Palaeography,’ Oxford English Dictionary.

[2] Dr. Bruce M. Metzger wrote, “Since the style of a person’s handwriting may remain more or less constant throughout life, it is unrealistic to seek to fix upon a date narrower than a fifty-year spread.” (B. Metzger 1981, 50)

[3]John F. Oates, Alan E. Samuel, and Bradford C. Welles, Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (New Haven, American Society of Papyrologists, 1967), 1:4.

[4] http://csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P52

^[5] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 366–367.

[6] A. Schmidt, “Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 35(1989:11–12)

[7] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 23-48.

[8] Porter, Stanley E. (2013) “Recent efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of its Payrological Evidence” in Christian Origins and Graeco-Roman Culture, Eds Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts, Leiden, Brill, pp 71–84.

[9] Handwriting styles are different from one time period in comparison to another, and by matching a Greek Christian NT manuscript’s style to a secular manuscript that contains a date, or a known style of a certain period, one can reasonably date an undated NT Greek manuscript.

[10] See Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. A corrected, enlarged ed. of The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001), S. 24.

Paleographers have been able to distinguish four major kinds of handwriting, each of which reveals something about the training (or lack thereof) of the copyist who produced it. The four types are as follows:

1.) Common: The work of a semiliterate writer who is untrained in making documents. This handwriting usually displays an inelegant cursive.

2.) Documentary: The work of a literate writer who has had experience in preparing documents. This has also been called “chancery handwriting” (prominent in the period A.D. 200–225). It was used by official scribes in public administration.

3.) Reformed documentary: The work of a literate writer who had experience in preparing documents and in copying works of literature. Often, this hand attempts to imitate the work of a professional but does not fully achieve the professional look.

4.) Professional: The work of a professional scribe. These writings display the craftsmanship of what is commonly called a “book hand” or “literary hand,” and leave telltale marks of professionalism such as stichoi markings (the tallying of the number of lines, according to which a professional scribe would be paid), as are found in P⁴⁶.

Various handwriting styles are more pronounced in one time period over another and thereby help in dating manuscripts.

[11] Vincent Scheil, “Fragments de l’Évangile selon saint Luc, recueillis en Égypte,” Revue Biblique 1 (1892): 113.^[11]

[12] Merell, “Nouveaux fragments du papyrus IV,” 7.^[12]

^[13] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 52.

^[14] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 53.

^[15] IBID, 53.

^[16] IBID, 53.

[17] The sources of to the Greek New Testament can be broken up into the categories: (1) papyrus (1^st – 6^th century C.E.), (2) vellum (4^th – 14^th century), and (3) paper.

[18] RECENT EFFORTS TO RECONSTRUCT EARLY CHRISTIANITY ON THE BASIS OF ITS PAPYROLOGICAL EVIDENCE: Downloaded from Brill.com 11/20/2019 by edandrews@christianpublishers.org via Edward Andrews

[19] Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (ed. P.J. Parsons; 2nd ed.; London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987), 19–20. Cf. Bell and Skeat, Fragments, 1.

[20] Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 108–109.

[21] Nongbri, Brent. God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 929-935). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

[22] For a fuller discussion see THE P52 PROJECT: Is P52 Really the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscript? By Edward D, Andres (ISBN-13: 978-1949586107) ISBN-13: 978-1949586107

[23] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019), 337-8.

[24] RECENT EFFORTS TO RECONSTRUCT EARLY CHRISTIANITY ON THE BASIS OF ITS PAPYROLOGICAL EVIDENCE: Downloaded from Brill.com 11/20/2019 by edandrews@christianpublishers.org via Edward Andrews