IMPORTANT NOTE: First, this is a little technical for the churchgoer not familiar with New Testament Textual Studies. Nevertheless, I have gone to great lengths to simplify it without lessening what needs to be said. Second, it is a lengthy article but worth every bit of your time and then some. Third, it will be a bit general for the first half. Then, there will be a section on dating P52, which will be followed by a more detailed. a lengthy section on dating P52 that deals with those trying to redate P52 to decades or even 150 years or more later than its initial, well-established date pf 100-150 C.E. This latter section on dating P52 will not be interrupted with book advertisements because it is too important, and you need to focus.

Introduction to Papyrus P52

Papyrus P52, also known as the Rylands Library Papyrus or St. John’s Fragment, is one of the most significant early New Testament manuscripts. This tiny piece of papyrus, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches, has gained tremendous attention due to its potential implications for the dating of the New Testament texts, particularly the Gospel of John. The fragment contains portions of John 18:31-33 on the recto (front) side and John 18:37-38 on the verso (back) side. Its discovery and subsequent dating to the early second century C.E. (circa 110-150 C.E.) make it the oldest known manuscript of the New Testament.

The significance of Papyrus P52 lies not only in its age but also in the insights it provides regarding the transmission and early circulation of the Gospel of John. This fragment is a physical testament to the existence of the Gospel of John in the early second century, thereby supporting the traditional dating of the Gospel’s composition in the late first century C.E. (circa 90-100 C.E.). As such, P52 has become a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing scholarly discussion about the origins and reliability of the New Testament texts.

The Discovery and Provenance of P52

Papyrus P52 was discovered in Egypt, though its exact location remains uncertain. It was purchased on the Egyptian antiquities market in 1920 by Bernard Grenfell, a renowned archaeologist and papyrologist. The fragment was part of a larger collection of papyri acquired by Grenfell, but it remained unexamined until 1934, when C.H. Roberts, a fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, identified it as a portion of the Gospel of John.

The provenance of P52 is likely tied to the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus regions of Egypt, both of which were known for their rich deposits of papyrus manuscripts. These areas were significant centers of Christian activity in the early centuries of the Common Era, and numerous early Christian manuscripts have been discovered there. However, it is not entirely clear whether P52 originated in Fayum, Oxyrhynchus, or another location within Egypt. What is certain is that the fragment was eventually brought to Manchester, England, where it is now housed in the John Rylands University Library.

Physical Characteristics of Papyrus P52

Despite its small size, P52 offers valuable information about early Christian manuscripts. The fragment is part of a papyrus codex, indicating that the early Christians favored the codex format over the scroll, which was more commonly used in the first century. The codex format, resembling a modern book with folded pages, was more practical for reading and copying large texts, and its adoption by Christians suggests a deliberate choice to distinguish their sacred texts from other literary forms.

P52 is written in Greek, with 18 lines per page. The writing style is classified as a “reformed documentary hand,” which, according to paleographer C.H. Roberts, suggests that the scribe was not a professional but rather an educated individual attempting to imitate a more formal script. The handwriting is described as “heavy, rounded, and rather elaborate,” with some letters being formed with multiple strokes, indicating a certain lack of fluidity and confidence in the scribe’s penmanship.

The fragment is written on both sides, a characteristic that confirms it was part of a codex rather than a scroll. The recto side contains seven partial lines from John 18:31-33, while the verso side contains seven partial lines from John 18:37-38. The text is written in a clear and legible style, with generous spacing between the lines and a margin of approximately 2 cm at the top. These features suggest that the manuscript was designed for ease of reading, possibly for use in a congregational setting.

One notable feature of P52 is the presence of the diaeresis (two dots above a vowel) over the initial iota in both the recto and verso texts. The diaeresis indicates that the vowel should be pronounced separately rather than as part of a diphthong. This detail, along with the decorative hooks and finials on certain letters, further suggests that the manuscript was intended for public reading, where clarity and precision in pronunciation were important.

The Textual Character of P52

The textual character of P52 has been a subject of scholarly debate due to the fragmentary nature of the manuscript. The small size of the fragment makes it difficult to make definitive judgments about its textual character, but some observations can still be made.

P52 is generally considered to align with the Alexandrian text-type, which is known for its accuracy and careful transmission. The Alexandrian text-type is the basis for most modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, and it is considered to be closer to the original autographs of the New Testament texts. However, the amount of text in P52 is too limited to make a conclusive judgment about its overall textual character.

Despite this limitation, the early date of P52 provides valuable evidence for the existence and circulation of the Gospel of John in the early second century C.E. This is significant because it challenges the claims of some critical scholars who have argued for a later date for the composition of the Gospel. The presence of P52 in Egypt, far from the original context of the Gospel’s composition, indicates that the text was being copied and disseminated widely within a few decades of its original composition.

The textual variants in P52, though minor, also contribute to our understanding of the early transmission of the New Testament. For example, the omission of certain phrases or the use of different forms of letters may reflect the scribe’s familiarity with other textual traditions or simply the limitations of the scribe’s skill. These variations, while not significant enough to alter the meaning of the text, provide insights into the process of textual transmission in the early Christian community.

The Significance of P52 for New Testament Textual Studies

Papyrus P52 is of immense significance for New Testament textual studies, primarily due to its early date and the implications this has for the dating of the Gospel of John. The majority of scholars date the composition of the Gospel of John to the late first century C.E., with most estimates falling between 90-100 C.E. The early second-century date of P52 suggests that the Gospel of John was already in circulation by the time the fragment was written, which supports the traditional dating of the Gospel’s composition.

The significance of P52 extends beyond its role in dating the Gospel of John. As the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, P52 provides a tangible link to the early Christian community and its textual practices. The fact that a manuscript of the Gospel of John could be found in Egypt within a few decades of its composition indicates the rapid spread of the Christian message and the importance of the Gospel texts in the life of the early church.

P52 also contributes to our understanding of the development of the New Testament canon. The inclusion of the Gospel of John in a codex format suggests that early Christians were already beginning to collect and organize their sacred texts in a manner distinct from other literary works. The use of the codex format, which was relatively novel at the time, indicates that the early Christians were innovative in their approach to preserving and disseminating their writings.

Furthermore, P52 serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by the early Christian scribes and copyists. The presence of textual variants and the uneven quality of the handwriting in P52 reflect the human element in the transmission of the New Testament texts. These variations underscore the importance of careful textual criticism in reconstructing the original text of the New Testament, while also highlighting the reverence with which these early Christians approached their sacred writings.

Paleographic Analysis and Dating of P52

The paleographic analysis of P52 has been a critical factor in determining its date. Paleography, the study of ancient handwriting, allows scholars to estimate the date of a manuscript by comparing its script to other dated examples. In the case of P52, C.H. Roberts compared the handwriting of the fragment to several other papyri from the first and second centuries C.E.

Roberts found that the closest matches to P52’s script were dated to the early second century, particularly the period of the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117-138 C.E.). One of the primary comparators was a papyrus of the Iliad conserved in Berlin, which was confirmed to date around 100 C.E. Other comparators included manuscripts such as P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.), the Egerton Gospel (130-150 C.E.), and P. Oxy. 2533, which was dated to the early second century.

Based on these comparisons, Roberts proposed that P52 should be dated to the first half of the second century C.E., likely between 110-150 C.E. This dating has been widely accepted by scholars, though some have suggested that the fragment could potentially be from as late as the third century C.E. However, the majority consensus remains that P52 is an early second-century manuscript.

The implications of this dating are significant for the study of the New Testament. If P52 is indeed from the early second century, it suggests that the Gospel of John was composed and circulated much earlier than some critical scholars have proposed. This early date for the Gospel of John aligns with the traditional view that the Gospel was written by the Apostle John, one of Jesus’ original disciples, toward the end of his life.

The early date of P52 also provides evidence against the theory that the Gospel of John was a later, more developed theological reflection rather than a historical account of Jesus’ life and ministry. The presence of P52 in Egypt in the early second century indicates that the Gospel of John was already being read and copied by Christians within a few decades of its composition, suggesting that it was accepted as authoritative scripture from an early stage.

The Greek Text of P52: A Closer Examination

The Greek text of P52, though fragmentary, provides valuable insights into the early transmission of the Gospel of John. The recto side of the fragment contains portions of John 18:31-33, while the verso side contains portions of John 18:37-38. The text of these verses is as follows:

Recto (John 18:31-33)

ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΕΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ ΟΥΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ- ΠΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ- ΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝ ΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ- ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ- ΔΑΙΩN

Translation:

The Jews, “For us it is not permitted to kill anyone,” so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he sp- oke signifying what kind of death he was going to die. Entered therefore again into the Praeto- rium Pilate and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Thou art king of the Jews?”

Verso (John 18:37-38)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TOΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤΥ- ΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕI- ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΟΥ- ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔΕΜΙΑΝ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ

Translation:

A King I am. For this I have been born and (for this) I have come into the world so that I would test ify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears of me my voice.” Said to him Pilate, “What is truth?” and this having said, again he went out unto the Jews and said to them, “I find not one fault in him.”

The text of P52 is notable for its close alignment with the standard Greek text of the New Testament. While there are minor textual variations, such as the possible omission of the phrase “ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ” in John 18:37 due to haplography (the unintentional omission of a repeated letter or word), these do not significantly alter the meaning of the text. The overall fidelity of P52 to the standard text suggests that the Gospel of John was transmitted with a high degree of accuracy in the early centuries of Christianity.

The Greek text of P52 also provides insights into the linguistic and literary features of the Gospel of John. The use of simple yet profound language, such as the repetition of key phrases like “truth” and “king,” reflects the theological emphasis of the Gospel. The dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, captured in P52, highlights the central theme of Jesus’ kingship and the nature of truth, both of which are central to the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus as the incarnate Word of God.

The Role of P52 in the Canonical Gospels

Papyrus P52, though small, plays a significant role in the study of the canonical Gospels. Its early date and textual alignment with the Gospel of John provide evidence for the early recognition and circulation of John’s Gospel as part of the Christian canon. The fact that P52 was likely part of a codex containing the entire Gospel of John suggests that early Christians were already beginning to collect and preserve the Gospels in a format that would later become standard for the New Testament.

The use of the codex format, as evidenced by P52, is particularly noteworthy. The codex, which consists of folded sheets bound together like a modern book, was a relatively new innovation in the first and second centuries C.E. Its adoption by early Christians for their sacred texts indicates a deliberate choice to distinguish their writings from other literary works, which were typically written on scrolls. The codex format allowed for easier reading, transport, and storage of the texts, and it likely contributed to the rapid spread of the New Testament writings.

P52 also sheds light on the process of canon formation in the early church. The presence of a manuscript of the Gospel of John in Egypt by the early second century suggests that John’s Gospel was already widely accepted as authoritative scripture. This challenges the view that the canon of the New Testament was a later development, solidifying only in the fourth century. Instead, P52 provides evidence that the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John, were recognized as authoritative and were being disseminated across the Christian world within a few decades of their composition.

Theological Implications of P52

The theological implications of Papyrus P52 are profound, particularly in relation to the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus. The fragment captures a critical moment in Jesus’ trial before Pilate, where Jesus affirms his kingship and his mission to testify to the truth. This passage is central to the Gospel of John’s high Christology, which presents Jesus as the divine Word who became flesh (John 1:14) and the true King whose kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

The dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, as preserved in P52, underscores the tension between earthly power and divine authority. Pilate, representing the Roman Empire, questions Jesus about his kingship, to which Jesus responds that his kingdom is not of this world. This exchange highlights the distinct nature of Jesus’ kingship, which is based on truth and spiritual authority rather than political power.

P52’s preservation of this passage also reinforces the Gospel of John’s emphasis on the theme of truth. Jesus declares that he came into the world to testify to the truth, and that everyone who is of the truth hears his voice. This theme resonates throughout the Gospel of John, where Jesus is repeatedly identified as the source of truth (John 14:6). The question posed by Pilate, “What is truth?” encapsulates the central conflict of the Gospel: the rejection of divine truth by the world.

The preservation of these verses in P52 serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of the Gospel of John’s message. The early Christians who copied and circulated this text were likely motivated by a deep conviction of its truth and significance. The fact that this tiny fragment has survived for nearly two millennia is a testament to the care and reverence with which the early Christians approached their sacred writings.

The Importance of P52 for Modern Textual Criticism

Papyrus P52 is a cornerstone of modern New Testament textual criticism, the discipline that seeks to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament by analyzing the various manuscript witnesses. As the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, P52 provides critical evidence for the early transmission and preservation of the Gospel of John.

One of the key contributions of P52 to textual criticism is its affirmation of the stability of the New Testament text over time. Despite the fragmentary nature of P52, the text it preserves is remarkably consistent with later manuscripts of the Gospel of John. This consistency suggests that the text of the New Testament was transmitted with a high degree of fidelity, even in the early centuries of the church.

P52 also underscores the importance of the Alexandrian text-type in the transmission of the New Testament. While P52 does not contain enough text to definitively classify it as Alexandrian, its alignment with the standard Greek text of the New Testament suggests that it may belong to this text-type. The Alexandrian text-type is known for its accuracy and careful transmission, and it serves as the basis for most modern critical editions of the New Testament.

Furthermore, P52 highlights the value of paleographic analysis in dating ancient manuscripts. The ability to compare the handwriting of P52 with other dated papyri has allowed scholars to place the fragment within the early second century, providing a crucial piece of evidence for the dating of the Gospel of John. This dating, in turn, supports the traditional view that the Gospel was composed by the Apostle John toward the end of the first century.

P52 also serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by textual critics in reconstructing the original text of the New Testament. The presence of minor textual variants in P52, such as the omission of certain phrases, illustrates the human element in the transmission of the text. These variations require careful analysis and consideration, as they can shed light on the history of the text and the practices of the early scribes.

In conclusion, Papyrus P52 is a vital piece of the puzzle in understanding the early transmission of the New Testament. Its early date, textual fidelity, and paleographic significance make it a key witness to the reliability and authenticity of the New Testament texts. As scholars continue to study and analyze P52, it will undoubtedly continue to play a central role in the ongoing quest to understand the origins and transmission of the New Testament.

The P52 Project: Is P52 Really the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscript?

Introduction to the Significance of Papyrus P52

Papyrus P52, commonly referred to as the St. John’s fragment, is a small but immensely significant piece of evidence in the field of New Testament studies. This fragment, measuring approximately 3.5 by 2.5 inches, contains portions of John 18:31-33 and John 18:37-38. It has been hailed as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, with an estimated date of 110-150 C.E., based on paleographic analysis. The fragment was discovered in Egypt and has been housed at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, since its identification by C.H. Roberts in 1934.

The early dating of P52 has been critical in supporting the traditional view that the Gospel of John was composed in the late first century C.E., likely around 90-100 C.E. This early date places the Gospel of John within a generation of the events it describes, lending weight to its historical reliability. However, the dating of P52 has not gone unchallenged. In recent years, some scholars have proposed that P52 might be as late as the third century, challenging its status as the earliest New Testament manuscript. This article will delve into these debates, examining the arguments for and against the traditional dating of P52, and will ultimately reaffirm the early second-century date as the most credible.

The Paleographic Dating of P52: A Historical Overview

The initial dating of P52 by C.H. Roberts in 1934 was based on paleographic analysis, a method that compares the handwriting of an ancient manuscript to other dated examples. Roberts compared the handwriting of P52 to several other manuscripts from the late first and early second centuries C.E., including P. Fayum 110 (dated to 94 C.E.), P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. 100 C.E.), and an undated papyrus of the Iliad conserved in Berlin. Based on these comparisons, Roberts concluded that P52 should be dated to the first half of the second century C.E., likely between 110-150 C.E.

This dating has been widely accepted by scholars for decades and has been used as evidence for the early composition and transmission of the Gospel of John. The early date of P52 suggests that the Gospel of John was composed in the late first century and was already being copied and circulated within a few decades of its composition. This challenges the views of some critical scholars who have argued for a later date for the Gospel, placing it in the mid-second century.

However, paleographic dating is not an exact science, and the dating of P52 has been subject to ongoing debate. In recent years, some scholars have challenged the early second-century date proposed by Roberts, arguing that P52 could be as late as the third century. These challenges have sparked renewed interest in the fragment and have led to a reexamination of the evidence used to date it.

Recent Challenges to the Early Date of P52

One of the most prominent scholars to challenge the early date of P52 is Brent Nongbri. In his 2012 article, “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” Nongbri argues that the paleographic evidence used to date P52 is not as conclusive as previously thought. He suggests that the handwriting of P52 could be consistent with manuscripts from as late as the third century and that the traditional dating of P52 to the early second century is based on an overly narrow set of comparisons.

Nongbri’s argument is based on a broader survey of dated papyri, which he claims show a wider range of handwriting styles than those considered by Roberts. He points out that some manuscripts with similar handwriting to P52 have been dated to the third century, suggesting that the style of handwriting seen in P52 may have persisted longer than previously thought. Nongbri concludes that P52 could plausibly be dated anywhere between the late first century and the early third century, with a preference for a later date.

Another scholar who has challenged the early date of P52 is Don Barker. In his 2014 article, “The Dating of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: What Are the Issues?” Barker argues that the paleographic evidence for the early dating of P52 is weak and that the fragment could be as late as the third century. Barker’s argument is based on the observation that some of the features of P52’s handwriting, such as the use of a hooked apostrophe between consonants, are more commonly found in manuscripts from the third century than in those from the second.

Barker also points to the redating of other manuscripts, such as P. Egerton 2, as evidence that the traditional dating of P52 should be reconsidered. P. Egerton 2, which was originally dated to the early second century, has since been redated to the early third century based on paleographic analysis. Barker suggests that a similar reevaluation of P52’s date is warranted, given the similarities in handwriting between the two fragments.

Rebuttal to the Later Dating Arguments

While the arguments for a later date for P52 have gained some traction, they are not without their critics. Scholars such as Philip Comfort and David Barrett have defended the traditional early second-century date for P52, arguing that the evidence for a later date is not compelling. Comfort, in particular, has emphasized the consistency of P52’s handwriting with other early second-century manuscripts, such as P. Fayum 110 and P. Berolinenses 6845.

Comfort argues that the features of P52’s handwriting that have been used to argue for a later date, such as the hooked apostrophe, were already developing in the second century and should not be seen as definitive evidence of a later date. He also points out that the broader range of handwriting styles considered by Nongbri includes some manuscripts that are themselves difficult to date with precision, making them less reliable as comparators for P52.

Another point of contention is the tendency of some scholars to overemphasize certain paleographic features while ignoring the broader context of the manuscript tradition. The presence of a particular feature, such as a hooked apostrophe, in a manuscript does not necessarily indicate a later date, especially if that feature was already in use in earlier manuscripts. Paleographic dating is inherently subjective, and it is important to consider the full range of evidence, including the broader manuscript tradition and the historical context in which the manuscript was produced.

Moreover, the traditional early second-century date for P52 is supported by more than just paleographic evidence. The discovery of P52 in Egypt, far from the original context of the Gospel of John’s composition, suggests that the text was being copied and disseminated widely within a few decades of its composition. This is consistent with the early date proposed by Roberts and challenges the notion that the text was only being circulated in the third century.

The Broader Implications of the Dating Debate

The debate over the dating of P52 has broader implications for New Testament studies. If P52 is indeed from the early second century, as the traditional dating suggests, it would imply that the Gospel of John was already widely circulated and recognized as authoritative within a few decades of its composition. This would support the traditional view that the Gospel was written by the Apostle John in the late first century and was quickly disseminated throughout the Christian communities.

On the other hand, if the later dates proposed by scholars like Nongbri and Barker are accepted, it would suggest a more gradual and perhaps less stable transmission of the text. This could have implications for our understanding of the development of the New Testament canon and the reliability of the early manuscripts. However, the evidence in favor of the early dating of P52, particularly the paleographic comparisons and the manuscript’s textual alignment, remains robust.

The dating of P52 also has implications for the broader field of paleography. The debate over P52 has highlighted the limitations of paleographic dating, particularly when it is based on a narrow set of comparisons. Paleography is an important tool for dating ancient manuscripts, but it is not an exact science, and it is important to consider the full range of evidence when making dating judgments.

The Role of P52 in the Transmission of the Gospel of John

P52 is not just a fragment of the New Testament; it is a key piece of evidence in understanding the transmission of the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John is one of the most theologically rich and historically significant texts in the New Testament, and the dating of P52 provides important insights into its early transmission and reception.

The early second-century date for P52 suggests that the Gospel of John was composed in the late first century and was quickly copied and circulated among the Christian communities. This challenges the views of some critical scholars who have argued that the Gospel was written in the mid-second century and was a product of a later, more developed theological reflection.

The early date of P52 also supports the traditional view that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, one of Jesus’ original disciples. This view has been challenged by some scholars who argue that the Gospel was written by a later follower of John, but the early date of P52 suggests that the text was composed within the lifetime of the Apostle and was quickly disseminated.

The transmission of the Gospel of John, as evidenced by P52, also sheds light on the early Christian community’s approach to textual preservation. The fact that P52 was copied and circulated in Egypt within a few decades of the Gospel’s composition suggests that the early Christians placed a high value on preserving and disseminating their sacred texts. This is consistent with the broader evidence of early Christian manuscript production, which shows a high degree of care and reverence for the New Testament texts.

The Theological Significance of P52

The theological significance of P52 extends beyond its role in dating the Gospel of John. The fragment contains portions of John 18:31-33 and John 18:37-38, which are part of the narrative of Jesus’ trial before Pilate. These verses are central to the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as the true King and the embodiment of divine truth.

In John 18:33, Pilate asks Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” This question is a key moment in the trial narrative, as it highlights the tension between earthly power and divine authority. Jesus’ response, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), underscores the spiritual nature of his kingship and his role as the bringer of truth.

The verses preserved in P52 also include Pilate’s famous question, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). This question is central to the Gospel’s theological message, as it reflects the conflict between the world’s rejection of divine truth and Jesus’ mission to testify to the truth. The preservation of these verses in P52 serves as a powerful reminder of the Gospel of John’s emphasis on the nature of truth and the identity of Jesus as the incarnate Word of God.

The theological significance of P52 is further enhanced by its early date. The fact that these verses were being copied and circulated within a few decades of the Gospel’s composition suggests that the early Christian community recognized the importance of these teachings and sought to preserve them. The early transmission of the Gospel of John, as evidenced by P52, reflects the centrality of its message to the early Christian faith.

P52 and the Development of the New Testament Canon

The early date of P52 also has implications for our understanding of the development of the New Testament canon. The fact that the Gospel of John was being copied and circulated in Egypt by the early second century suggests that it was already recognized as authoritative scripture by this time. This challenges the view that the New Testament canon was not solidified until the fourth century and supports the idea that the core texts of the New Testament were recognized and revered from an early stage.

P52 provides evidence that the Gospel of John was included in the early Christian codices, which were collections of texts that would later form the New Testament canon. The use of the codex format, which was relatively novel at the time, indicates that the early Christians were already beginning to collect and preserve their sacred texts in a manner distinct from other literary works.

The transmission of the Gospel of John, as evidenced by P52, also reflects the early Christian community’s commitment to preserving the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The fact that P52 was copied and circulated in Egypt within a few decades of the Gospel’s composition suggests that the early Christians placed a high value on preserving and disseminating their sacred texts. This is consistent with the broader evidence of early Christian manuscript production, which shows a high degree of care and reverence for the New Testament texts.

Conclusion: Reaffirming the Early Date of P52

Despite the challenges posed by recent scholarship, the traditional dating of P52 to the early second century remains well-supported by the evidence. The arguments for a later date, while interesting, are not compelling enough to overturn the substantial body of evidence that supports the early second-century date proposed by C.H. Roberts and others.

The early date of P52 provides important insights into the composition, transmission, and reception of the Gospel of John. It supports the traditional view that the Gospel was written by the Apostle John in the late first century and was quickly disseminated throughout the Christian communities. The early transmission of the Gospel, as evidenced by P52, reflects the centrality of its message to the early Christian faith and the care with which the early Christians sought to preserve their sacred texts.

P52 remains one of the most important pieces of evidence in New Testament textual studies, and its early date continues to be a cornerstone in arguments for the reliability and early transmission of the New Testament texts. As such, P52 holds a place of great significance in the ongoing study of the New Testament and the early Christian community.

This article, based on the arguments presented in The P52 Project, offers a detailed examination of the evidence surrounding the dating of P52 and reaffirms the traditional early second-century date as the most credible. The debates over the dating of P52 highlight the complexities and challenges of New Testament textual criticism, but they also underscore the importance of careful and balanced scholarship in assessing the evidence.

The Date of John’s Gospel and Its Origins: An Analysis of P52’s Redating Controversy by Stablet E. Porter

Introduction to the P52 Fragment and Its Importance

Papyrus P52, also known as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 or the St. John’s fragment, has long been celebrated as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament. Containing a few verses from the Gospel of John (John 18:31-33, 37-38), P52 was discovered in Egypt and dated by C.H. Roberts in 1935 to the early second century (110-150 C.E.). This dating positioned P52 as a cornerstone in discussions about the early composition and transmission of the New Testament, particularly the Gospel of John. The early dating suggested by Roberts supported the traditional view that the Gospel of John was composed in the late first century C.E., likely around 90-100 C.E., and was widely circulated soon after.

However, in recent years, this early dating has been challenged by several scholars, leading to a significant debate within the field of New Testament textual criticism. These scholars argue that P52 might actually date from the late second century or even into the third century, raising questions about the early transmission of the New Testament texts and the historical reliability of the Gospel of John. Stanley E. Porter, a leading scholar in New Testament studies, has engaged with these debates, critically analyzing the arguments for the later dating of P52 and reaffirming the traditional early second-century date.

The Twentieth-Century Foundations of P52’s Dating

The dating of early Christian manuscripts, including P52, became a central issue in New Testament studies during the twentieth century. The majority of New Testament Greek papyri were identified and published during this period, providing a wealth of new evidence for scholars to analyze. Among these manuscripts, P52 quickly became one of the most discussed due to its potential implications for the dating of the Gospel of John.

Stanley E. Porter highlights that there are several categories of manuscripts that have been considered in the discussion of early Christian texts: New Testament manuscripts, Old Testament fragments, and non-canonical Christian documents. Within these categories, P52 has been a focal point due to its early date and its association with the Gospel of John. Other significant New Testament manuscripts that have entered the debate include P.Oxy. L 3523 (P90) and P.Oxy. LXIV 4404 (P104), which are also fragments of the Gospels and are similarly dated to the second century or slightly later.

Porter points out that the dating of these manuscripts has been the subject of considerable debate, with scholars divided into different camps based on their preferred dating methods. Some scholars, such as C.H. Roberts and Philip Comfort, have argued for early dates for these manuscripts, while others, including Eric G. Turner and Brent Nongbri, have suggested later dates. This division has led to ongoing discussions about the most reliable methods for dating early Christian manuscripts and the implications of these dates for our understanding of early Christianity.

Critiquing the Redating of P52

One of the primary criticisms of the traditional early dating of P52 comes from Brent Nongbri, who in his article “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” challenges the methodologies used by earlier scholars. Nongbri argues that the paleographic comparisons used to date P52 to the early second century are not as definitive as previously thought. He suggests that the handwriting of P52 could just as easily be consistent with manuscripts from the late second century or even the third century, thus widening the potential date range for the fragment.

Nongbri’s critique hinges on the addition of several new comparative manuscripts, which he claims show similar handwriting styles but are dated to the late second or third century. However, Porter points out that many of these new comparators are non-literary or documentary texts, such as petitions and receipts, which may not be directly comparable to literary manuscripts like P52. The non-literary nature of these texts raises questions about their suitability as comparators for dating a literary manuscript like P52, which was likely intended for public or congregational reading.

Porter also addresses the concept of “date creep,” where the proposed date for a manuscript gradually becomes more specific and earlier over time. He notes that while some scholars, such as Philip Comfort, have suggested an even earlier date for P52 (around 100 C.E.), this is not without precedent. Earlier scholars like Adolf Deissmann also proposed early dates for P52, suggesting it could date to the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117 C.E.). Porter argues that these early dates are based on careful paleographic analysis and should not be dismissed lightly, even if more recent scholars advocate for later dates.

Comparative Manuscripts and Their Limitations

One of the critical aspects of dating P52 involves comparing it to other dated manuscripts. Traditionally, P52 has been compared to a small group of early second-century literary manuscripts, such as P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.) and P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. 100 C.E.), which share similar handwriting styles. However, Nongbri and other scholars advocating for a later date have introduced new comparative manuscripts, many of which are documentary texts rather than literary ones.

Porter critiques this approach, arguing that while the inclusion of new manuscripts is valuable, it is essential to distinguish between documentary and literary hands when making comparisons. Documentary texts, which often feature more cursive and informal handwriting styles, may not be directly comparable to the more formal book hands used in literary manuscripts like P52. As such, comparisons between P52 and these documentary texts may not provide a reliable basis for redating the fragment.

Porter also emphasizes the importance of considering the full range of evidence when dating manuscripts. While individual letter forms and handwriting styles are crucial, they should be weighed alongside other factors, such as the overall manuscript presentation, the spacing and display of letters, and the manuscript’s codicological features. By taking a more holistic approach to paleographic analysis, scholars can arrive at a more accurate and reliable date for P52.

Date Creep and the Question of Certainty

Porter discusses the phenomenon of “date creep,” where scholars’ proposed dates for a manuscript gradually become more specific and earlier over time. This has been particularly evident in the case of P52, where some scholars have suggested increasingly early dates based on paleographic analysis. For example, Philip Comfort has argued for a date around 100 C.E., which is at the earliest possible end of the range originally proposed by Roberts.

While some have criticized this trend as an example of scholars becoming overly confident in their dating, Porter argues that it is not without merit. He points out that the early dating of P52 has been supported by several prominent scholars over the years, including Deissmann and Wilcken, who proposed similar dates based on their paleographic analysis. Moreover, Porter notes that the range of proposed dates for P52 has not varied as widely as some might suggest, with most scholars agreeing on a range between 100 and 150 C.E.

Porter also addresses the argument that the early date proposed by Comfort and others is too specific and does not account for the inherent uncertainty in paleographic dating. While acknowledging the limitations of paleography, Porter contends that the evidence for an early date remains strong and that the gradual refinement of the proposed date for P52 reflects the accumulation of new evidence and insights rather than unwarranted speculation.

The Relationship Between P52 and P.Egerton 2

Another critical aspect of the dating debate involves the relationship between P52 and another significant early Christian manuscript, P.Egerton 2. P.Egerton 2 is a fragment of an unknown gospel that was originally dated to the mid-second century but has since been redated by some scholars to the late second or early third century based on paleographic features, such as the presence of a hooked apostrophe between consonants.

Porter examines the relationship between P52 and P.Egerton 2, noting that the two manuscripts have often been linked in discussions of early Christian texts. C.H. Roberts, who first dated P52, used P.Egerton 2 as one of his comparative manuscripts, noting that while there were some differences in handwriting, the two fragments shared enough similarities to be considered contemporaneous. However, more recent scholarship has suggested that P.Egerton 2 should be dated later, creating a perceived gap between the dates of the two manuscripts.

Porter critiques the arguments for redating P.Egerton 2, particularly the emphasis on the hooked apostrophe as a marker of a third-century date. He points out that while this feature became more common in the third century, it was not entirely absent in earlier manuscripts. Porter argues that the presence of a hooked apostrophe should not be taken as definitive proof of a third-century date, especially when other paleographic evidence points to an earlier date.

Moreover, Porter suggests that the perceived gap between the dates of P52 and P.Egerton 2 may be exaggerated. He argues that both manuscripts could reasonably be placed in the early to mid-second century, with P52 slightly earlier than P.Egerton 2. This view aligns with the original dating proposed by Roberts and others, which placed both fragments within the first half of the second century.

The Implications of the Dating Debate for Early Christianity

The debate over the dating of P52 has significant implications for our understanding of early Christianity and the development of the New Testament canon. If P52 is indeed from the early second century, it would provide strong evidence for the early composition and widespread dissemination of the Gospel of John. This would support the traditional view that the Gospel was written by the Apostle John in the late first century and was quickly recognized as authoritative by the early Christian communities.

On the other hand, if P52 is dated to the late second or early third century, it would suggest a more gradual process of textual transmission and recognition for the Gospel of John. This could have implications for our understanding of the development of the New Testament canon and the historical reliability of the Gospel. However, as Porter has argued, the evidence for the early dating of P52 remains robust, and the challenges to this date are not compelling enough to overturn the traditional view.

Porter also discusses the broader methodological implications of the dating debate. He emphasizes the need for careful and balanced scholarship when dealing with paleographic evidence, particularly when comparing literary and documentary manuscripts. Porter advocates for a holistic approach to paleographic analysis, considering not just individual letter forms but also the overall presentation of the manuscript, its codicological features, and the broader context of early Christian manuscript production.

Conclusion: Reaffirming the Early Date of P52

In his analysis, Stanley E. Porter critically engages with the arguments for redating P52 and reaffirms the traditional early second-century date proposed by C.H. Roberts and others. Porter argues that the evidence for an early date remains strong, despite the challenges posed by recent scholarship. He critiques the use of non-literary comparators and the overemphasis on certain paleographic features, such as the hooked apostrophe, as markers of a later date.

Porter also highlights the importance of considering the full range of evidence when dating manuscripts, including the manuscript’s overall presentation, its codicological features, and its place within the broader manuscript tradition. By taking a holistic approach to paleographic analysis, Porter concludes that P52 and P.Egerton 2 can both be reasonably dated to the early to mid-second century, with P52 likely dating to around 110-150 C.E.

This conclusion has significant implications for our understanding of the early transmission of the New Testament texts and the development of the New Testament canon. The early date of P52 supports the traditional view that the Gospel of John was composed by the Apostle John in the late first century and was quickly recognized as authoritative by the early Christian communities. As such, P52 remains a cornerstone in New Testament textual studies, providing critical evidence for the early composition and transmission of the New Testament.

This article condenses Stanley E. Porter’s work on the dating of P52 into a comprehensive analysis. It addresses the key points of his critique of the redating of P52, his defense of the traditional early second-century date, and the broader implications of this dating debate for New Testament studies.

Addressing Elijah Hixson’s Arguments for the Late Dating of Papyrus P52 (P52)

It is crucial to address the foundation of his assertions, engage with the textual and paleographical evidence he presents, and demonstrate why the earlier dating of P52 (110–150 C.E.) is more consistent with the historical and material evidence. Here, we will delve into Hixson’s claims, scrutinize the evidence he uses, and draw upon existing scholarship to bolster the argument for an earlier dating.

Hixson’s Argument: Overview

Elijah Hixson’s stance on the dating of P52, as discussed in Chapter 6 of “Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism,” advocates for a broader date range that extends into the third century. Hixson bases his argument on several key points: the limitations of paleographical dating, the comparison of P52 with later manuscripts, and the perceived biases in the traditional dating methods employed by earlier scholars such as Colin H. Roberts.

The Limitations of Paleographical Dating

One of Hixson’s primary contentions is the inherent uncertainty in paleographical dating. He argues that paleography, while useful, is not an exact science, and its conclusions should be approached with caution. Hixson suggests that the traditional dating of P52 to the early second century (110–150 C.E.) relies too heavily on paleographical comparisons that may not be as definitive as previously thought.

However, this critique overlooks the fact that paleography, despite its limitations, remains the most reliable method available for dating undated manuscripts. Paleographical analysis is based on the careful comparison of script styles, letter formations, and other textual features across a wide range of dated and undated manuscripts. While there is an acknowledged margin of error, the consistency of findings across multiple studies and comparisons lends considerable weight to the early dating of P52.

For instance, Roberts’ original dating of P52 was not based on a single comparison but on multiple comparanda, including P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.) and other second-century manuscripts . These comparisons demonstrated strong similarities in script style, suggesting an early second-century date for P52. The argument that these comparisons are insufficient does not negate the fact that they are still the most reliable means of dating available.

Comparison with Later Manuscripts

Hixson also argues that P52 shares similarities with later manuscripts, which could suggest a later date. He points to features such as the use of certain letter forms and the overall appearance of the text, which he claims are not exclusive to the early second century but can also be found in third-century manuscripts.

However, this argument can be countered by examining the broader context of manuscript evolution. While it is true that certain letter forms persisted across centuries, the specific combination of features found in P52 is more characteristic of the early second century than of the third century. For example, the form of the epsilon in P52, with its horizontal bar consistently approaching the upper bar, is a feature more commonly associated with earlier manuscripts .

Furthermore, the comparisons made by Roberts and other scholars with manuscripts like P. Fayum 110 and P. Egerton 2, both of which are securely dated to the early second century, reveal a high degree of similarity in letter forms, line spacing, and overall script style. These similarities are less pronounced in third-century manuscripts, which often exhibit more evolved forms of these letters .

The Hooked Apostrophe Controversy

One of the more specific points raised by Hixson and other proponents of a later date is the presence of the hooked apostrophe in P52. This feature, they argue, did not become widespread until the third century, suggesting that P52 should be redated accordingly.

However, this argument misinterprets the evidence. While it is true that the hooked apostrophe became more common in the third century, it is not accurate to say that it did not exist in the second century. As Stanley Porter and others have pointed out, examples of the hooked apostrophe can be found in second-century manuscripts, such as BGU III 715.5 (101 C.E.) and P. Petaus 86 (185 C.E.) . These instances demonstrate that the feature was in use during the time period traditionally assigned to P52.

Moreover, the presence of the hooked apostrophe in P52 does not necessitate a later date if other paleographical features strongly indicate an earlier one. The decision to redate P52 based solely on this feature, without considering the broader context of its script style, is not justified by the evidence. The weight of paleographical evidence, when taken as a whole, still supports an early second-century date for P52.

The Bias in Traditional Dating Methods

Hixson also critiques the biases that he perceives in traditional dating methods, particularly the tendency of earlier scholars to favor an early date for P52. He suggests that this bias has led to a narrow focus on early comparanda, to the exclusion of potentially relevant later examples.

While it is important to acknowledge the potential for bias in any scholarly endeavor, it is also necessary to recognize the robustness of the traditional dating for P52. The early date has been supported not only by the initial studies conducted by Roberts but also by subsequent scholarship that has reaffirmed his findings . The comparisons with early second-century manuscripts remain compelling, and the consistency of these findings across different studies suggests that the early date is not simply a product of bias but is based on solid evidence.

Furthermore, the argument that later examples should be considered does not undermine the early dating; rather, it underscores the need for a comprehensive approach that considers all relevant evidence. When this approach is taken, the evidence still favors an early second-century date for P52, as the later manuscripts typically exhibit more evolved forms of the script that are not present in P52. Lastly, are all of the world-renowned paleographers and textual scholars below going back to the 1930s to the present biased?

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
• 100-200 Daniel B. Wallace

Reaffirming the Early Dating of P52

In conclusion, Hixson’s arguments for a later dating of P52, while thoughtful, do not sufficiently undermine the substantial evidence supporting an early second-century date. The limitations of paleographical dating are acknowledged but do not negate the validity of the method when applied carefully and comprehensively. The comparisons with later manuscripts, while interesting, do not outweigh the strong parallels with early second-century examples. The hooked apostrophe, while a noteworthy feature, does not justify a wholesale redating of P52 when other paleographical features point to an earlier period. Finally, the perceived biases in traditional dating methods do not diminish the robustness of the evidence for an early date.

The early dating of P52, to around 110–150 C.E., remains the most consistent and supported conclusion based on the available evidence. This dating is crucial not only for our understanding of the transmission of the New Testament text but also for the broader context of early Christian literature and history. The evidence, when weighed carefully and without undue bias, still points to P52 as one of the earliest extant fragments of the New Testament.

Addressing Brent Nongbri’s Arguments for the Late Dating of Papyrus P52 (P52)

To effectively refute Brent Nongbri’s critique of the early dating of Papyrus P52 (P52), we must carefully examine his arguments and counter them with detailed evidence and scholarly reasoning. Nongbri’s critique is multifaceted, addressing the methodology of paleographical dating, the range of possible dates for P52, and the implications for the dating of the Gospel of John. Below is a detailed refutation based on a critical review of Nongbri’s arguments and an analysis of the available evidence.

Introduction

Brent Nongbri has challenged the traditional dating of P52, arguing that the fragment could date to the late second or even early third century. He critiques the reliance on paleographical comparisons that are themselves paleographically dated, suggests that earlier scholars have overly narrowed the possible date range for P52, and questions the use of P52 to argue for the early composition of the Gospel of John. However, Nongbri’s arguments, while rigorous, do not sufficiently undermine the substantial body of evidence supporting an early second-century date for P52.

Re-examining Nongbri’s Critique of Paleographical Dating

Nongbri begins by challenging the reliability of paleographical dating, emphasizing that it is not an exact science and that letter forms can persist over long periods, making it difficult to date manuscripts with precision. He argues that scholars like C.H. Roberts, who dated P52 to the first half of the second century, relied on paleographical comparisons with manuscripts that were themselves dated using paleography, thereby creating a circular argument.

While it is true that paleographical dating has limitations, it remains the most reliable method for dating undated manuscripts. The process involves comparing the script of an undated manuscript with dated examples, considering various factors such as letter forms, spacing, and overall style. The method is not infallible, but when applied rigorously, it can provide a reasonably accurate date range. In the case of P52, Roberts compared the fragment with multiple manuscripts, including P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.), which is securely dated. These comparisons revealed significant similarities in script style, supporting an early second-century date for P52.

Nongbri’s argument that older styles of handwriting might persist into later periods is not sufficient to dismiss the early date. While it is possible for certain letter forms to persist, the overall combination of features in P52 is more consistent with early second-century manuscripts than with later examples. The presence of features such as the epsilon with its horizontal bar approaching the upper bar, the two forms of alpha, and the overall script style align more closely with early second-century examples.

Addressing Nongbri’s Comparanda

Nongbri presents several later manuscripts as comparanda, suggesting that P52 could be as late as the third century. He highlights P. Mich. inv. 5336 (ca. 152 C.E.) and P. Amh. 2.78 (184 C.E.) as showing strong similarities with P52, arguing that these similarities extend the possible date range for P52 into the late second century.

However, a closer examination of these comparanda reveals that they are not as close in style to P52 as Nongbri suggests. For instance, while P. Mich. inv. 5336 shares some similarities with P52, such as the form of the alpha, there are also significant differences. The rho in P. Mich. inv. 5336, for example, does not dip below the line as it does in P52, and the overall script is more compressed than that of P52. These differences suggest that while there are some superficial similarities, the manuscripts belong to different periods.

Similarly, P. Amh. 2.78, while exhibiting some comparable features, such as the looped alpha, also shows significant differences. The epsilon in P. Amh. 2.78, for example, is generally sloppier than in P52, and the overall script is less regular. These differences indicate that while the two manuscripts may share some features, they are not close enough in style to justify extending the date range for P52 into the late second century.

The Methodological Challenge

Nongbri argues that scholars have inappropriately used P52 to argue for the early existence of the Gospel of John, suggesting that the fragment should not be used to date the Gospel. He contends that without an explicit date or clear archaeological context, P52 cannot definitively establish the Gospel’s date.

This argument, however, overlooks the cumulative weight of the evidence. P52 is one piece of a larger puzzle that includes other early papyri, such as P. Egerton 2, which is dated to the first half of the second century and shows familiarity with the Gospel of John. When considered together, these pieces of evidence strongly suggest that the Gospel of John was composed and circulated by the early second century. P52, with its early date, provides crucial support for this conclusion.

Moreover, Nongbri’s insistence on an explicit date or archaeological context sets an unreasonably high standard for manuscript dating. The reality is that most ancient manuscripts are undated and lack clear archaeological contexts. Paleographical analysis, despite its limitations, remains the best tool available for dating these manuscripts, and the consistency of the findings across multiple studies supports the early date for P52.

Implications for the Dating of the Gospel of John

Nongbri’s critique extends to the implications of P52’s date for the dating of the Gospel of John. He argues that because the date of P52 is uncertain, it should not be used to argue for an early date for the Gospel. However, this argument fails to account for the broader context of early Christian manuscript evidence.

The early date of P52, around 110–150 C.E., suggests that the Gospel of John was composed well before the middle of the second century. This is consistent with other early evidence, such as the writings of early Church Fathers, who show familiarity with the Gospel by the mid-second century. The early date of P52 therefore supports the traditional view that the Gospel of John was composed in the late first century.

Nongbri’s critique also overlooks the fact that P52 is not the only early manuscript of the Gospel of John. Other early papyri, such as P. Bodmer II (P66), dated to around 200 C.E., also support the early composition and transmission of the Gospel. The cumulative evidence from these manuscripts strongly supports the view that the Gospel of John was widely circulated by the early second century.

Conclusion: Reaffirming the Early Date of P52

In conclusion, Brent Nongbri’s critique of the early dating of P52, while thorough, does not sufficiently undermine the substantial evidence supporting an early second-century date for the fragment. The limitations of paleographical dating are acknowledged, but they do not negate the validity of the method when applied rigorously and with consideration of multiple comparanda. The comparisons with later manuscripts, while interesting, do not outweigh the strong parallels with early second-century examples. The methodological challenges raised by Nongbri do not diminish the robustness of the evidence for an early date.

The early dating of P52 to around 110–150 C.E. remains the most consistent and supported conclusion based on the available evidence. This dating is crucial for understanding the early transmission of the New Testament text and the development of the New Testament canon. The evidence, when weighed carefully and without undue bias, still points to P52 as one of the earliest extant fragments of the New Testament, providing critical support for the early composition and circulation of the Gospel of John.

Addressing Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse’s Arguments for the Late Dating of Papyrus P52 (P52)

To refute the arguments presented by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse regarding the dating of Papyrus P52 (P52), it is important to thoroughly examine their methodology, specifically their application of the “graphic stream” approach, and to address the critiques they levy against earlier dating assessments. Orsini and Clarysse propose a date range of 125 to 175 C.E. for P52, with an inclination towards the later half of this range, suggesting that P52 likely dates to the mid-second century. Below, we present a detailed refutation of their approach and conclusions, focusing on the robustness of the earlier dating proposed by C.H. Roberts and supported by numerous world-renowned scholars.

Introduction: The Methodology of Orsini and Clarysse

Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse adopt a “graphic stream” approach, similar to that of Don Barker, but with a more rigorous classification of hands based on the typology of Hellenistic Greek handwriting styles developed by Guglielmo Cavallo. Their methodology involves comparing manuscript hands within defined “styles,” “stylistic classes,” or “graphic types” rather than focusing solely on individual letter forms. This approach, while methodologically sound in theory, introduces several challenges and potential biases, particularly when applied to the dating of undated manuscripts like P52.

Orsini and Clarysse criticize the early parallels proposed by Philip Comfort and David Barrett as “inappropriate” and instead propose their own set of comparators, leading them to suggest a date range of 125 to 175 C.E. for P52. Their conclusions, however, are open to critique on several fronts, particularly their selective use of comparators and the potential implications of their broader methodology for the dating of New Testament papyri.

Critique of the “Graphic Stream” Approach

The “graphic stream” approach, as applied by Orsini and Clarysse, aims to situate manuscripts within broader handwriting trends rather than focusing exclusively on specific letter forms. This method can be useful for understanding the evolution of script styles over time but can also lead to overly broad or imprecise dating when applied without sufficient attention to the nuances of individual manuscripts.

One of the key issues with the “graphic stream” approach is its inherent broadness. While it is true that handwriting styles can evolve gradually, the approach can obscure critical distinctions between different periods. For example, while the “Round Chancery Script” identified by Orsini and Clarysse spans several decades, the specific characteristics of P52 align more closely with earlier examples within this script style, suggesting an earlier date than they propose.

Additionally, Orsini and Clarysse’s reliance on this broad classification can lead to the exclusion of relevant comparators that do not fit neatly within their predefined categories. By focusing on a specific “graphic stream,” they may overlook the subtle variations in script that could provide more precise dating. This selective inclusion and exclusion of comparators raise concerns about the objectivity of their dating conclusions.

Reassessing the Comparators Used by Orsini and Clarysse

Orsini and Clarysse propose several key comparators for P52, including P. Flor 1.1 (153 C.E.), PSI V 446 (132–137 C.E.), and P. Fayum 87 (156 C.E.). While these comparators are certainly relevant, their selection and interpretation deserve closer scrutiny.

For instance, while P. Flor 1.1 is indeed a close parallel in terms of script style, Orsini and Clarysse’s emphasis on this manuscript as a definitive comparator for P52 might overlook the broader range of potential comparators that align more closely with an earlier date. P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.), which was used by Roberts in his original dating of P52, shares significant similarities with P52, particularly in the formation of specific letters such as the epsilon and the alpha. The exclusion of such early comparators from their analysis is a notable limitation in their methodology.

Furthermore, the decision by Orsini and Clarysse to propose a date range of 125 to 175 C.E. for P52, based on these comparators, is open to challenge. While their date range is narrower than that proposed by Don Barker or Brent Nongbri, it still allows for a substantial margin of error. Given the strong similarities between P52 and earlier manuscripts like P. Fayum 110, a date closer to the early second century remains more plausible.

The Inconsistency in Orsini and Clarysse’s Conclusions

One of the more puzzling aspects of Orsini and Clarysse’s argument is the inconsistency in their conclusions regarding the dating of P52. While they propose a date range of 125 to 175 C.E., they also suggest that P52, along with P90 and P104, “probably all [date to] the second half of the second century.” This conclusion seems at odds with the more precise and narrower date range they initially propose.

This inconsistency raises questions about the robustness of their dating methodology. If P52 could potentially date to the second half of the second century, as they suggest, why not consider a broader range that includes the possibility of an earlier date? The suggestion that P52 might date to the second half of the second century appears to be more speculative than evidence-based, particularly given the strong parallels between P52 and earlier manuscripts.

The Support for an Early Date by World-Renowned Scholars

It is important to emphasize that the early dating of P52, around 110–150 C.E., is supported by numerous world-renowned paleographers and textual scholars. Scholars such as C.H. Roberts, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Adolf Deissmann, and Bruce M. Metzger have all supported an early date for P52 based on careful paleographical analysis and comparison with securely dated manuscripts. These scholars have noted the strong similarities between P52 and early second-century manuscripts, which align more closely with the earlier part of the second century than with the later dates proposed by Orsini and Clarysse.

Moreover, Philip W. Comfort, who supports an even earlier date of 100–125 C.E., has provided a detailed analysis of the letter forms and script style in P52, arguing that they are more consistent with early second-century examples than with mid- or late-second-century examples. The broad support for an early date among these scholars underscores the robustness of the early dating of P52.

The Implications for the Dating of the Gospel of John

The dating of P52 has significant implications for the dating of the Gospel of John. If P52 dates to the early second century, as the evidence suggests, it provides strong support for the view that the Gospel of John was composed in the late first century and was already in circulation by the early second century. This challenges the notion that the Gospel of John was a later composition, a view held by some critical scholars.

Orsini and Clarysse’s proposed date range of 125 to 175 C.E. would still support an early date for the Gospel of John, but their suggestion that P52 might date to the second half of the second century could potentially weaken this argument. However, given the weight of evidence supporting an early date for P52, the earlier dating of the Gospel of John remains the most plausible conclusion.

Conclusion: Reaffirming the Early Date of P52

In conclusion, while the methodology used by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse is rigorous and contributes to the broader discussion of New Testament manuscript dating, their conclusions regarding P52 are not as well-supported as those of earlier scholars who advocate for an early second-century date. The “graphic stream” approach, while useful in understanding broader trends in handwriting, is less effective for dating specific manuscripts with precision. The selective inclusion of comparators and the inconsistency in their conclusions further weaken their argument for a later date.

The substantial support for an early date of 110–150 C.E. by world-renowned scholars such as C.H. Roberts, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, and Bruce M. Metzger remains compelling. The evidence, when weighed carefully, continues to support the early dating of P52, which is crucial for understanding the early transmission of the New Testament text and the development of the New Testament canon.

This refutation provides a comprehensive critique of Orsini and Clarysse’s methodology and reinforces the evidence for the early dating of P52, drawing on the substantial body of scholarship that supports this conclusion.

DATING P⁵²

P⁵² is to be dated to the beginning to the middle of the second century (c. 110-150 C.E.).

Muenster’s Manuscript Depository Table

Primary Name	P52
Language	g
Origin Year Early	125
Origin Year Late	175
Origin Year Description	II (M)
Content Overview	J 18,31-33.37-38
Leaves Description	1 frag
Columns	1
Columns Max (if varies)
Lines	7
Lines Max (if varies)	18
Lines Description	7 (18)
Height	220
Height Max (if varies)
Width	180
Width Max (if varies)
Versification	DEFAULT
Institute	John Rylands University Library of Manchester
Location	Manchester
Shelf Number	Gr. P. 457
Content	J 18,31-33.37-38
Leaves	1 Frg
Alternative Date	2-3 Cent. Nongbri

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 A.D. 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 to any other century? If we were to pull any book from our bookshelf and turn a few pages in it, we would normally find the date of publication on the copyright page. If we bought a used book that was missing the copyright page, we would have no idea of when it had been 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, and this is crucial in our ability to be able to date the undated literary manuscripts.

It is by means of the art and science of paleography that 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. As an example, when looking at our modern languages today, we can see that within every generation or two there are subtle changes. This holds true of ancient languages as well. Through painstaking comparison of hundreds of small features within an ancient manuscript, a paleographer can provide us with a date that is usually correct to plus or minus 25 to 50 years.^[1] 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. It is these that have formed a library of letters with the styles that go into making each letter during different time periods.^[2]

However, it is best when dating these ancient manuscripts to compare like manuscripts: a literary (professional or semi-professional scribe) document with a literary document and a documentary with a documentary. The documentary hand is by a copyist who is not a professional or semi-professional but rather a literate copyist who has experience making documents, such as tax receipts, business and personal letters, and business contracts.

^[1] 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)
^[2] 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.

The Rylands Papyrus 52 at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England
Text	John 18:31–33, 18:37–38
Date	110-125 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 above is P⁵², a fragment of John’s Gospel. If we were to look closely at the actual copy (See high definition mage CSNTM),^[3] 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, as of the time of this writing, 10 codices are dated within the second century C.E., with another 56 codices that are dated to the third century. These are undoubtedly some of the most valuable manuscripts in establishing the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

^[3]    http://csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P52

This author would date the writing of the Gospel of John to 98 C.E.. Therefore, P⁵² would have to date to about 110-150 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.

Stanley E. Porter has further re-examined in detail the relationship of P⁵² to P.Egerton 2^[6] 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) – Porter, Stanley E. (2013) “Recent Efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of Its_Papyrological Evidence” in Christian Origins and Graeco-Roman Culture, Eds Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts, Leiden, Brill, pp 71–84.

Stanley Porter has also challenged Nongbri’s contention that there are legitimate comparisons that 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 letterforms 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).

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. – 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.

This author would disagree with the date of the authoring 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. – Stanley E. Porter Recent Efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of Its_Papyrological Evidence [9789004234161 – Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture]

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
• 100-200 Daniel B. Wallace

Other More Recent Textual Scholars Date P52

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

In New Testament textual studies, there are but two ways to make a name for oneself as a textual scholar. (1) The person would have to make a discovery that overwhelms the scholarly world in the extreme. (2) The person has to take a view or a position on something and then go out and find evidence that changes that view or position. Brent Nongbri seems to be trying (2) in his efforts to have his place within the history of New Testament Textual Studies. In 2120, scholars can look back at who changed the dates of the early papyri.

Using Comparative Paleography to Date P52

Philip Comfort writes, “The primary means of dating a New Testament manuscript, as an undated literary text [e.g., P⁵²], 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.”^[1] Comfort goes on to explain, “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[2] 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.”^[3] We have chosen 14 different letters that are the most visible in P⁵² (alpha, delta, epsilon, eta, iota, kappa, lambda, nu, omicron, pi, sigma, tau, upsilon, and omega). Guglielmo Cavallo, in chapter 5: Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri, “Palaeographical evidence can emerge from the comparison of dated or datable documentary writing and undated literary hands. In the absence of any other criterion for dating, only a palaeographical assessment remains.”[4] He goes on to say, “The skilled hands found in literary papyri of the second and third centuries [C.E.] display a great variety of graphic solutions.”[5] He adds, “At this time, the most notable phenomenon in writing found in the domain of skilled and calligraphic hands is the development of normative scripts (i.e., handwritings that  follow precise rules and are repetitively stable in their technique and manner of  execution, with the result that they have great staying power).”[6]

Style of Writing

The writing styles under consideration for the papyri between 75 – 225 C.E. had many general characteristics. The styles include the Roman Uncial, the Biblical Uncial or Biblical Majuscule, the Decorated Rounded Uncial, and the Severe Style. A style of writing began (came into being, starting point), emerged (apparent), fully developed (all characteristics in play), became prominent (common, well-known), and then faded (gradually disappear). Therefore, it was common for one style to begin and emerge while another was still in play or fading. In fact, the emergence and development of the new style are likely what caused the current style to begin to fade. The time period for the full process from a style beginning (coming into being) to fading (diminishing gradually) can be quite long, but it can also vary.

• The appearance of one character being separate or several characters being separate from the others and then the next letter or letters linked by ligatures. What seems to be ligatures in P⁵² are simply letters touching or bumping into one another.
• There was a roundness and smoothness in the forms of the letters.
• There was a darkening of the characters by going over them again.
• There are decorative serifs in several letters. A serif is a slight projection finishing off a stroke of a letter in certain typefaces.
• The Biblical Uncial has little or no decoration and intentionally alternates between thick and thin strokes of the pen unlike its predecessor, the Roman Uncial.
• An undecorated script began (came into being, starting point) and emerged (apparent) in the late first century, and was fully developed (all characteristics in play) at the beginning of and into the middle of the second century and became prominent (common, well-known) toward the end of the second century C.E. Here we find the character squarer, with a heavy look. The letters are uniform size (except iota, rho, phi, psi, omega), stand upright, and thick and thin strokes are certainly notable.
• There were times when convenience rather than beauty was the primary consideration.
• There was a contrast between thin horizontal strokes and heavier (thicker) vertical ones. (See gamma, pi, tau), with slanted strokes coming in between
• Then, there are the slanted strokes in between (alpha, delta, lambda).
• The Rho and upsilon extend below the baseline.
• The hastas of phi (Φ) and psi (Ψ) extend both up and down.
• All the letters except gamma, rho, phi, psi extend the same level vertically.
• In time, there were no ligatures (connecting letters).
• There was no embellishment at the end of strokes, such as serifs and blobs.

In the following pages, we will use comparative paleography, looking at the various documentary and literary manuscripts dating from about 75–225 C.E. that have been used in the dating and redating of P⁵². There is no other method for dating an undated literary document as Nongbri and others well know. All parties know that dating a literary by comparing it to other literary texts involves some subjectivity. It is both an art and a science. THE SCIENCE: The one doing the comparing must use the common sense that God gave him or her, being reasonable and rational, avoiding unrealistic expectations, which are unhelpful expectations. We have now heaped doubt on the Christian community when we set aside reasonable, rational, acceptable expectations with unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational expectations. THE SCIENCE: Of course, there are some basic rules and principles in the comparison process. The primary principle would be to look at many different letters in the documents being compared instead of just a few. A second principle would be to identify general similarities instead of some letter form fingerprint that would be an exact match if laid over each other. Another thing to be mindful of is that these different styles of writing did not just show up on the scene and then disappear without a trace. However, there was a time when a style was fully developed (all characteristics in play), became prominent (common, well-known).

Dating would be somewhat easier if the P⁵² scribe were a professional scribe bookhand instead of a practiced scribe because we would have higher expectations for him. He does seem to try to be consistent, or he is consistent to a degree in the way he writes. He has no intention; it seems to be perfect. But he seems to be trying to do a good job. Some of his letters are more consistent than others. Some you cannot really judge because the one that looks like a ligature but really is just two or three letters touching, while the others are clearly a stand-alone or at least not being bumped into. He was employing great care in his writing, attention to detail, a kind of unofficial style.

Roberts’ observed that “the scribe [of P⁵²] writes in a heavy, rounded and rather elaborate hand, often uses several strokes to form a single letter (cf. the eta and particularly the sigma in Recto, 1. 3) with a rather clumsy effect and is fond of adding a small flourish or hook to the end of his strokes (cf. the omega, the iota and the upsilon); among particular letters the epsilon with its cross stroke a little above the centre, the delta, the upsilon and the mu may be noted. Some of these features can be paralleled from dated documents,” as well as literary documents.[7] Roberts adds, “The writer of P. Ryl. Gk. 457 [P⁵²] (as far as one can judge from the scanty evidence) used neither stops nor breathings; his orthography, apart from a couple of itacisms,[8] is good, and his writing, if not that of a practiced scribe, is painstaking and regular. In this respect, the verdict of the editors of P. Egerton 2 upon the writer of that text is applicable to ours: P. Ryl. Gk. 457 also has a somewhat ‘informal air’ about it and with no claims to fine writing is yet a careful piece of work.”[9] Did Roberts’ position on P52 change over time? It has been argued that he was young and inexperienced in 1935, a mere 26-years old.

At 68 years old and at the close of an illustrious career in the field of textual studies, paleography, papyrology, he had authored five books, which included, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library (1936), The Antinoopolis Papyri (1950), Birth of the Codex (1954), Oxford Palaeographical Handbooks (1955), and Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (1977). In the latter, Roberts surveyed fourteen papyri. He believed them to be of Christian origin. Twelve of these were codices, and the other two were scrolls. In 1977, these were all the manuscripts that were commonly viewed as dating to the second century C.E., including P⁵². Only three of the fourteen he viewed as possessing a handwriting style known as a professional bookhand, that is a professional who was very capable of producing literary works. The other eleven, which included P⁵², Roberts stated that their scribes were,

…not trained in calligraphy and so not accustomed to writing books, though they were familiar with them; they employ what is basically a documentary hand but at the same time they are aware that it is a book and not a document on which they are engaged. They are not personal or private hands; and in most a degree of regularity and of clarity is aimed at and achieved. Such hands may be described as “reformed documentary.” (One advantage for the paleographer in such hands is that with their close links to the documents they are somewhat less difficult to date than purely calligraphic hands).[10]

NOTE: This documentary hand that Roberts speaks of sounds more like the reformed documentary hand. As defined today, the reformed documentary hand is a step above the documentary hand as far as the skill of copying a document is concerned. 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). Official scribes used it 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]

It should be noted that the codex of P⁵² was done on a good quality papyrus. It had wide margins, it had letters that were clear and generally upright, possessed short lines, decorative script hooks and finials (a decorative feature at the foot of the letter), as well as its bilinear writing (letters being kept with an imaginary upper and lower line, except the alpha, upsilon, iota, and the rho).[12] All of this gives an overall appearance of a copyist who not being of the professional bookhand caliber, he is also not far removed. His letterforms are not as fine as P⁶⁴ or P⁷⁷, he is closer to the reformed documentary hand. The scribe that penned P⁵² knew that he was not working on some legal document but rather a literary work. P⁵², like many of the other early Greek New Testament papyri, were written in this reformed documentary hand. (P¹, P³⁰, P³², P³⁵, P³⁸, P⁴⁵, P52, P69, P87, P90, P¹⁰⁰, P¹⁰², P¹⁰⁸, P¹⁰⁹, P¹¹⁰) When Roberts authors his next book, he is now 74 years old, and it is now 1983, so he is long removed from 1935, and there is absolutely no indication he ever changed his position on the dating of P⁵² up until the time of his death in 1990.

In The Birth of the Codex, Roberts and Skeat wrote:

The Christian manuscripts of the second century, although not reaching a high standard of calligraphy, generally exhibit a competent style of writing which has been called “reformed documentary” and which is likely to be the work of experienced scribes, whether Christian or not.… And it is therefore a reasonable assumption that the scribes of the Christian texts received pay for their work.^[13]

Handwriting comparison is not like DNA comparison and fingerprint comparison. With DNA and fingerprints, we will get an exact, absolute match. Handwriting analysis (comparing) is general in its very nature. We are looking for a general pattern, not that every single letter and style or form must match explicitly in every detail with each other.

The idea that “paleography is not the most effective method” or ‘using a undated manuscript to date an undated manuscript is circularity of argument’ “for dating texts” seems to suggest that a better method is available to us for P⁵² or all other undated literary manuscripts. That is not the situation, as even Nongbri admits. As I mentioned before, he uses paleography in an effort to undermine P⁵².

Characteristics

On P. 6845, Nongbri agrees but disagrees. He writes, “P.Berol. 6845, to which the original editor assigned a date (on paléographie evidence) in the early second century. There are some definite similarities between letters in the two manuscripts, particularly upsilon and mu, but the pi and alpha of P52 are quite distinct from those of P.Berol. 6845. The epsilon of P.Berol. 6845, with its middle bar consistently approaching and frequently meeting the upper bar, is also different from that of P52. The rho of P.Berol. 6845 does not stretch below the other letters, as does the rho of P52. Overall, the hand is not dissimilar from P52, but, as we shall see, the similarities seen here persist in documents of the third century C.E.”[14] (bold mine)

It seems, when someone uses the phrase “not dissimilar” they are trying to downplay the similarity by using the adverb “not” to give the opposite impression mentally of what is true, i.e., there is a definite similarity. Nongbri openly says that there are “some definite similarities.” He then gives upsilon and mu as those similarities. He then says, “the pi and alpha of P52 are quite distinct,” to which I would disagree about the pi, as you can see in the image above. Moreover, between P⁵² and P.Berol. 6845, there is definite similarity also between kappa, lambda, nu, upsilon, and omega, as can be seen from the above image.

Clearly, there is much similarity between P⁵² and P. Egerton 2. Since there has been a redating of P. Egerton 2 to about 200 C.E., a redating that should not be, we will suggest that you read CHAPTER 1 P. Egerton 2.

On P.Fayûm 110 we find Nongbri still agreeing and disagreeing. He writes, “While Roberts notes that the similarities are not as close, he does provide some parallels from dated documentary papyri. Roberts especially emphasizes the importance of P.Fayûm 110 because it ‘shows, as does our text, the simultaneous use of two forms of alpha.’ In figure 5,1 have enlarged the ends of lines 7-9, which display this characteristic. The alpha of βαθος in line 8 is looped; the alpha of ελαι- at the end of line 7 is not looped, but neither is it arched like the non-looping alpha of P52. The alpha of P.Fayûm 110 looks more like the alpha of μαρτυ[ρησω] in line 2 on the verso of P52. The delta is also similar to that of P52.”[15]

It seems as though we will have to repeat the development of the manuscript font style and characteristics here as well. A style of writing began (came into being, starting point), emerged (apparent), fully developed (all characteristics in play), became prominent (common, well-known), and then faded (gradually disappear). Therefore, it was common for one style to begin and emerge while another was still in play or fading. In fact, the emergence and development of the new style are likely what caused the current style to begin to fade. The time period for the full process from a style beginning (coming into being) to fading (diminishing gradually) can be quite long, but it can also vary.

The manuscripts that are used to support the early dating of P⁵² to about 110–150 C.E. have multiple matching letters, not a single matching letter. The phrase that we need to keep in mind is, generally speaking, not absolute certainty. The match of letterforms, generally speaking, is what we look for. Do the forms of the letters look similar in style in P⁵² itself (alpha, delta, epsilon, eta, iota, kappa, lambda, nu, omicron, pi, sigma, tau, upsilon, and omega)? Largely, when in all the places I see sigma, tau, upsilon, etc., are they similar in form? If the answer is yes, which it is for P⁵²; then, we move on to the documents that have been presented by Roberts and other paleographers and papyrologists since. Is there a general match, not some fingerprint-DNA match? And, once again, the answer is yes. The scribal tendencies of these matching letterforms in P⁵² and these other dated and undated documents also appear in the center of the fully developed (all characteristics in play) and became prominent (common, well-known) timeline. It seems Nongbri is attempting to find a couple of letterforms at later dates (maybe the fading, diminishing part of the timeline) that have similar features to letters in P⁵² so as to date P⁵² to a wider and later date range, i.e., 100-225 C.E.

Nongbri admits, “I have not radically revised Roberts’s work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute “dead ringers” for the handwriting of P52, and even if I had done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century.” What is Nongbri’s worry, then? He states it plainly, “The real problem is thus in the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence.”[16] What does that mean? For Nongbri and other paleographers and papyrologists, it is troublesome when textual scholars and Christian apologists take the dating of 100-150 C.E. and say that P⁵² dates more specifically to 100 C.E. or 110 C.E. or even 100-125 C..E. For Nongbri and company that is using and abusing papyrological evidence. But I turn the table on Nongbri and company, in that I find a lot of the newer textual scholars, paleographers, and papyrologists who use and abuse the later dating by referring to 200 C.E. My second point would be, how can a New Testament scholar abuse the evidence of 100-150 C.E. when the date range is 110–150 C.E. if they select and date therein? The papyrologist is telling us any date in between those two ranges is possible. Yes, the New Testament scholar should share the whole range and then if he chooses to highlight an earlier focus, qualify it like, ‘so it could date as early as ______.’ Also, Nongbri and others see fifty years as too small of a time period for a writing style. They feel that a century or even two centuries is a more suitable range for a writing style.

Nongbri writes, “He [Roberts] next notes similarities with P.Lond. inv. 2078 (=SB 5.7987), a letter written under the reign of Domitian (81-96 C.E.).36 SB 5.7987, reproduced in figure 6, is, in my opinion, the least convincing of Roberts’s parallels. Its upsilon is distinctly different, the alpha has neither arches nor loops and the delta is not at all similar. Only the mu closely resembles that of P52 (and occasionally the rho, as in καισαρος in the middle of the penultimate line).”[17]

Again, I would simply reply that unless we are matching up two very professional scribes, like the one who worked on Codex Vaticanus, we are not to expect some fingerprint-DNA match. Thus, generally speaking, the letters will be similar. Moreover, not every document will be as closely matched like the other. If you are comparing ten manuscripts, one of them has to be the closest or best-matched document, and one of them will have to be the least close matched of the ten, but this does not negate its support. Nongbri says that is “the least convincing of Roberts’s parallels.” Well, one of them has to be.

Roberts then refers to “P.Oslo 2.22, here figure 7, a petition to a strategus written in 127 C.E. He sees resemblances in the eta, mu, and iota. In figure 8,1 have enlarged the beginning of line 3, which reads – μης θεαδελφειας and shows all three of those letters. The overall appearance is not terribly close to that of P52, but the letters that Roberts identifies are similar. Some letters, however, are very different, such as the sigma, which curves sharply downward in P.Oslo. 2.22.”[18]

Nongbri says, “the overall appearance is not terribly close to that of P⁵², but the letters that Roberts identifies are similar.” Again, we are not looking for an absolute perfect match. Are there several letters that do match? Yes. Nongbri goes on to point out differences once again “Some letters, however, are very different, such as the sigma, which curves sharply downward in P.Oslo. 2.22.” Yes, well, this is expected because the scribe of P⁵² is not a professional scribe; he is a practiced scribe, a reformed documentary hand, which is a literate writer with experience in making copies of literature. There are times when the forms of the letters in P⁵² does not even match the forms of the letters in P⁵².

On this Nongbri writes, “The next papyrus Roberts mentions is now known as B.G.U. 1.22 (fig. 9), a document dated to 114 C.E. Roberts does not point out any specific characteristics of this papyrus, and I am uncertain what similarities he sees here. The alpha is different, lacking both the arch and loop of P52’s two types of alpha. The vertical stroke of the tau of B.G.U. 1.22 often leans to the right. The upsilon is perhaps similar, but on the whole, this document is not an overly impressive parallel.”[19]

Nongbri simply gives you an image of B.G.U. 1.22 alone, while I have given you letters in the above image B.G.U. 1.22 on top of P52. We can see some slight similarities with the alpha, eta, and Tau when we do it this way. But I believe that we have a more significant similarity with the epsilon, the kappa, Nu, and Pi. And an even more likeness with the Upsilon and Omega. Again, we are not comparing two professional scribes here, so the subtle difference is to be expected. It might not be overly impressive, but it isn’t unimpressive or mediocre either. We are not expecting some fingerprint-DNA match. Thus, generally speaking, the letters are similar, some more so than others. Again, not every document will be as closely matched as the other.

Nongbri writes of P.Mich. 5336, “Several individual letters resemble those of P52, and the overall impression is similar. The vertical spacing of the lines is more compressed, but the spacing between letters is comparable, as is the rough bilinearity.” I would note that having a dated manuscript of 152 C.E. only helps Roberts’ date range of 110–150 C.E.

The problem with Nongbri’s newfound manuscripts used for comparison is that they are all documentary texts being compared with the literary text of P⁵². Nongbri himself appears to admit their shortcomings when he writes, “Turner (Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 19-20) notes that the ideal situation would be to compare literary hands to other dated literary hands. Unfortunately, examples of literary papyri with firm dates are in short supply, especially relative to the number of dated documentary papyri (see further the discussion in Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, xii-xv).”[20] (Bold mine) All early Greek New Testament manuscripts, specifically the early papyri since that is our subject matter here, are literary documents, which means that they do not contain dates. Documentary texts, that is, manuscripts with documentary information, provide dates, often explicitly so. Or, at a minimum, they have something written within that document that can lead to a dating period. These documentary texts are therefore not as valuable as the literary documents when the comparison is with another literary document, which Nongbri seems to admit on the one hand and then complain about comparing literary with literary. I would also remind the reader that be it comparing literary text with documentary texts or literary with literary texts, this is paleographically dating the manuscripts. If we recall, Nongbri wrote, “Paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand.49 Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52.” Yet, Nongbri, in this very paper, is using paleography to redate or length the date period of the P⁵².

“A more cursive document that bears some resemblance to P52 is P.Oxy. 51.3614. P.Oxy. 51.3614 shows more ligatures than P52, but the vertical and horizontal spacing is similar. Several individual letters also show affinities.”[21]

Nongbri writes, “The hand of P.Oxy. 52.3694 is obviously less well formed and less regular than that of P52, but it is to be expected that a document would be written more quickly and less deliberately than a literary text.”[22]

What Nongbri said of P.Oxy. 52.3694, he said, also applies to P.Oxy. 41.2968, that is, both are “obviously less well-formed and less regular than that of P52, but it is to be expected that a document would be written more quickly and less deliberately than a literary text.” Nongbri says that the upsilon is “very similar to those of P52, as is the mu.” Agreed on the upsilon. He says that the rho is “also very close.”[23] I would disagree here.

Image 38 Upsilon-Mu-Rho from P.Oxy. 41.2968 and P52

While the upsilon here is similar, there is no ligature with P.Oxy. 41.2968 that we see with P52. Moreover, the upsilon P.Oxy. 41.2968. is also thicker. Yes, there are some similarities between the mu and rho, but there are also dissimilarities. While these letters have some similarities, overall, all the letterforms in P.Oxy. 41.2968 is quite different from P52. Moreover, the spacing between letters is different. The spacing between lines is different. Of P52, Nongbri writes, “The space between each line is about equal to the height of a line. There is an impression of a rough bilinearity.”[24] (bold mine) There is no effort on the part of the scribe of P.Oxy. 41.2968 to keep his text within an imagined upper and lower line, that is, a bilinear form.

What we are discovering with Nongbri’s comparable manuscripts is those that have the closest comparable, that is, those that are most similar actually support a date of 94 to 150, which aligns with Roberts’ range, and those manuscripts further removed to a later date range are far less similar to P⁵². Nongbri admits as much, “I have not radically revised Roberts’s work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute ‘dead ringers’ for the handwriting of P52.”[25]

The editors of P. Oxyrhynchus 2533 said that the handwriting was similar to first-century documents but that it has the appearance of a second-century document. Clearly the handwriting of this small portion of P. Oxyrhynchus 2533 is very much like P⁵².

The likeness between P⁵² and P. Murabba‘at 113 is obvious, especially with the epsilon, iota, alpha, and the delta.

The paleographers and papyrologists of the last 20-30 years have a favorite saying, “follow the evidence,” “you have to follow the evidence.” Your response should always be “yes, follow the evidence, with one caveat, follow the weightiest evidence.” You see dear reader they, the paleographers and papyrologists, are the arbiters of the evidence, so in some cases, it is simply manufactured weak evidence, or they are trying to overcome a mountain of old evidence with a new bucket of dirt.

Let us remember who is in the date range of 100-150 for P52: C. H. Roberts, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, W. Schubart, Sir Harold I. Bell, Adolf Deissmann, E. G. Turner (cautiously), Ulrich Wilken, W. H. P. Hatch, Philip W. Comfort, and Bruce M. Metzger. Many manuscripts have been offered over the decades to support this long-held date range, and the greatest opponent, Brent Nongbri, openly admits, “I have not radically revised Roberts’s work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute ‘dead ringers’ for the handwriting of P52.”

While I am not a reader of minds and hearts, we will leave that up to God Himself. Using my 32 years of work and some basic deduction, I would say Nongbri’s article’s title, and his beginning statement gives us his motivation for challenging such a long-standing date. The article title is “The Use and Abuse of P52.” He then writes, “I can highlight the uncertainty involved in paleographic dating and encourage caution when using P52 to assess the date (and thus the social setting) of the Fourth Gospel.” (pp. 26-27). He then concludes the article with, “The real problem is thus in the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence.” (Nongbri, p. 46)

His entire motivation is derived from his belief that New Testament scholars have used and abused the dating range of 100–150 for P⁵². This is because for a long time before the discovery of P⁵², the Gospel of John was argued by liberal and moderate Bible scholars to have been written in about 170 C.E. This argument came to a screeching halt the moment P⁵² was dated between 100–150 C.E. The Gospel of John was now dated to the first half of the second century C.E., which is only a few decades after the original was written in about 98 C.E. In addition, it had made its way down in Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This meant that liberal to moderate Bible scholarship had no leg to stand on in their effort to dislodge John as the author of the Gospel. Many New Testament scholars would say that P52 was copied about 110 or about 125 C.E., a mere quarter of a century or so after John’s death. Nongbri thinks two things: (1) it is abuse for the NT scholars to pick an arbitrary early part of the date range when discussing it and that (2) fifty years is too small of a date range.

So, he has set out to bring forward a handful of manuscripts to try and unseat that 100-150 C.E. date range of P⁵². He also brings forward an ad hominem attack on Roberts’ age and experience. Yet, he knows that Roberts’ upheld his initial dating decade after decade of his illustrious career until he died in 1990. His fear of what NT Bible scholars might do in using and abusing the 50-year date range is nothing in comparison to the textual scholars, paleographers, and papyrologists now falling in line and referring to the longer date range, and largely referring to the end of it, saying P⁵² should be dated to 200 C.E. earliest or later. You will notice that Nongbri and company are not offended at that use and abuse. Those new manuscripts actually point more to Roberts’ dating of P⁵² than anything else. Nongbri is living in a world of probabilities based on scant evidence, which he openly admits as opposed to reality. His skeptic nature, pessimism, uncertainty, and ambiguousness result from postmodernism.

Their idea is that we can never be certain of anything regarding the Scriptures. Everyone knows that paleographic dating is conditional and difficult. No one has argued that paleographical dating is the “most effective method.” Thus, it is a red herring fallacy to suggest that someone has argued that paleographical dating is the “most effective method” and then undermine what no one has actually claimed. It is a far cry from “not the most effective” to being ineffectual. Uncertainty does not displace levels of probability. When Nongbri suggests that “paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts,” he seems to suggest that there is a better method readily available to us with P⁵², a literary undated document. Not only does Nongbri know this is not the case, but he also admits it himself, and then he turns to use paleography to undermine the 100–150 C.E. dating of P⁵². He well knows almost all New Testament manuscripts, which are literary undated documents, are dated strictly on paleographical bases.

Recently Brent Nongbri has argued that the dating of P⁷⁵ to 175-225 C.E. is not reasonable. Instead, he argues that the similarity of the text of P⁷⁵ to that of Codex Vaticanus is better explained in that, according to him, they were both produced in the fourth century C.E.[26] P75 contains Luke 3:18–24:53 as well as John 1–15. Here we are with the Gospel of John again. Nongbri has also redated P⁶⁶, a near-complete codex of the Gospel of John, from 150 C.E. to “early or middle fourth century” (300-350 C.E.).[27] I am starting to see a pattern here when it comes to the Gospel of John. Nongbri’s skepticism is unwarranted.

THE UNKNOWN GOSPEL: Egerton Papyrus 2

About the Author

[1] 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.

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

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

^[1] Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 106.

[2] F. G. Kenyon, The Paleography of Greek Papyri, 73.

^[3] Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 107.

[4] Roger S. Bagnall, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 102.

[5] Roger S. Bagnall, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 123.

[6] Roger S. Bagnall, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 123, 127.

[7] Colin H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library, (Manchester, England, Manchester University Press, 1935), 13.

[8] Almost regularly, a plain iota is replaced by the epsilon-iota diphthong (commonly if imprecisely known as itacism), e.g. ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead οf ΔΑΥΙΔ, ΠΕΙΛΑΤΟΣ instead of ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ, ΦΑΡΕΙΣΑΙΟΙ instead of ΦΑΡΙΣΑΙΟΙ, etc. – Jongkind, Dirk (2007). Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias Press LLC, p. 74 ff, 93–94.

[9] Colin H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library, (Manchester, England, Manchester University Press, 1935), 17.

[10] Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, London: OUP for the British Academy, 1979 (based on the 1977 series of Schweich Lectures), 12-14.

[11] 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.

[12] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 28.

^[13] Colin H. Roberts; T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex, (London, Oxford University Press, 1983), 46.

[14] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 33.

[15] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 35-36.

[16] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 35-36.

[17] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 36.

[18] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 38.

[19] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 38.

[20] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 31-32, ftn. 25.

[21] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 43.

[22] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 44.

[23] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 44.

[24] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 28.

[25] Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 46.

[26] Nongbri, “Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.”

[27] Brent Nongbri. “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014), 1–35.