Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

How Does Papyrus 52 Transform Our Understanding of the New Testament’s Early Textual History?

Introduction to Papyrus 52

Papyrus 52 (P52), commonly referred to as the Rylands Papyrus, is one of the most significant discoveries in New Testament textual studies. Housed at the John Rylands University Library in Manchester, England (Gr. P. 457), P52 contains fragments of John 18:31–33, 37–38. This early papyrus is crucial for understanding the transmission and early dissemination of the Gospel of John. Its importance lies not only in its textual content but also in its early date, placing it within a generation of the original autograph. This analysis will provide a comprehensive overview of P52, addressing its date, content, physical features, provenance, and textual character, offering a clear understanding of how it shapes conservative evangelical scholarship.

The Date of Papyrus 52

The dating of P52 has been a subject of intense scholarly focus, with most experts placing it in the early second century, around 100–125 C.E.. This dating is based on paleographic comparisons with other ancient manuscripts, particularly those from the reigns of Trajan (98–117 C.E.) and Hadrian (117–138 C.E.). C. H. Roberts, who first identified and published the papyrus in 1935, concluded that its handwriting closely resembled that of contemporary manuscripts like P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. 100 C.E.) and P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.).

Supporting Paleographic Comparisons

Roberts noted striking parallels between P52 and P. Berol. 6845, particularly in its reformed documentary hand—a common script used for practical texts in the first and early second centuries. Additionally, manuscripts such as P. Oxy. 2533 and the Egerton Gospel (ca. 130–150 C.E.) further validate the proposed date. The editors of P. Oxy. 2533 remarked that its style could align with late first-century documents but leaned toward a second-century date due to certain script features.

Such findings are significant because they push the earliest extant evidence of the Gospel of John closer to its original composition. If the apostle John authored his Gospel in Ephesus around 98 C.E., as conservative scholars often argue, P52 may be separated from the autograph by only a couple of decades. This short gap is remarkable compared to other ancient texts, where extant manuscripts often appear centuries after their originals.

Content of Papyrus 52

P52 contains brief portions of John 18:31–33, 37–38, covering two distinct narrative segments. In these verses, Jesus stands before Pontius Pilate, discussing His kingdom and truth—a pivotal moment leading to His crucifixion. The Greek text preserved on P52 aligns closely with other Alexandrian witnesses, underscoring the accuracy of early textual transmission.

John 18:31–33 (Partial Text from P52):

“Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.’ The Jews said, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.’ This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken…”

John 18:37–38 (Partial Text from P52):

“Then Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?'”

Although fragmentary, P52 preserves enough text to confirm its identity and demonstrate the theological depth of the Fourth Gospel.

Physical Features of Papyrus 52

Physically, P52 consists of a single, rectangular fragment measuring approximately 18 cm x 22 cm, with traces of 18 lines per page. It is written on both sides (recto and verso), confirming that it originated from a codex rather than a scroll. This distinction is vital because codices were the preferred format for early Christian writings, aiding portability and facilitating the spread of the Gospel.

The script is a reformed documentary hand, characterized by its clarity and regularity. This style, while practical, suggests that the scribe intended the document for active use, possibly in a worship or teaching context. Its production likely occurred in Egypt, a major hub for Christian textual activity.

The Provenance of Papyrus 52

The exact provenance of P52 remains uncertain, though its discovery suggests origins in Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. These regions were prolific centers of papyrus production and textual transmission in the Roman Empire. P52 was acquired by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt during their excavations but remained unexamined among a collection of papyri until rediscovered by C. H. Roberts in 1934.

Roberts speculated that P52 circulated between Fayum and Oxyrhynchus based on its physical characteristics and historical context. The presence of this fragment in Egypt highlights the rapid dissemination of Johannine literature in the early second century, a phenomenon also supported by the widespread adoption of the codex format.

Textual Character of Papyrus 52

The textual character of P52, though limited in scope, aligns most closely with the Alexandrian text-type, described by Bruce Metzger as “normal” and reliable. This is consistent with other early papyri, such as P66 and P75, which share Alexandrian affinities. Despite its brevity, P52 offers critical confirmation of the stability of the Gospel of John’s text in the early second century.

Theological Implications

P52’s textual consistency with the Alexandrian tradition supports the reliability of modern critical editions, such as the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek texts. The fragment’s alignment with these texts reinforces the conservative view that the New Testament has been faithfully preserved through centuries of transmission, as Jehovah promised:

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

P52 and the Integrity of the New Testament

Papyrus 52 is a cornerstone for New Testament textual criticism. Its early date, proximity to the autograph of John’s Gospel, and textual fidelity affirm the conservative evangelical position that the Scriptures have been accurately transmitted from their inception. The discovery of P52 underscores Jehovah’s providence in preserving His inspired Word, ensuring that believers can have full confidence in the message of the Gospel.

This fragment serves as a tangible link between the apostles and modern readers, demonstrating that the message of Jesus Christ has been faithfully safeguarded through the centuries. As the apostle Peter declared:

“The word of the Lord endures forever. And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” (1 Peter 1:25)

The Greek Text of Papyrus 52: An In-Depth Examination

Papyrus 52 (P52) offers a fascinating glimpse into the Greek textual tradition of the Gospel of John. This early fragment, dated to approximately 110–125 C.E., provides a critical anchor for understanding the development and dissemination of New Testament writings. Its content, written in Greek on both sides, confirms its origin from a codex rather than a scroll. Codices were the preferred medium for early Christians, reflecting the unique context in which the Gospel message was transmitted.

Codex Format and Physical Layout

The codex format of P52 is unmistakable. The fragment preserves parts of the recto (front) and verso (back) sides of a single leaf, corresponding to John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38, respectively. The recto represents the top left corner of a right-hand page, while the verso corresponds to the top right corner of a left-hand page. Margins are visible at the top and inner edges, allowing scholars to reconstruct its approximate dimensions and format.

The original codex likely consisted of 33 large folded papyrus sheets, written on both sides, creating approximately 130 pages. Closed, the codex would have measured around 21 cm × 20 cm (8.3 in × 7.9 in). The writing is generously scaled, with letters averaging 0.3–0.4 cm (0.12–0.16 in) in height, spaced 0.5 cm (0.20 in) apart, and a margin of 2 cm (0.79 in) at the top. This spacious layout suggests that considerations of economy did not heavily influence its production, a notable contrast to other ancient manuscripts.

The Textual Content of Papyrus 52

P52 preserves parts of John 18:31–33 and John 18:37–38. Below are detailed transcriptions and translations of the visible text, with a focus on the recto and verso.

Recto: John 18:31–33

The recto contains portions of the interaction between Pilate and the Jewish leaders:

Greek Text (visible portions):
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

The verso contains part of Jesus’ response to Pilate and Pilate’s subsequent remarks to the Jews:

Greek Text (visible portions):
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.’”

Scribal Characteristics

The handwriting of P52 is classified as a reformed documentary hand, a style commonly employed in non-literary documents but adapted here for use in a codex. While the scribe was not a professional calligrapher, their work demonstrates an effort to produce a clear and legible text, suitable for public reading. Several notable features include:

Over-Scaled Letters: The letters are larger than typical literary hands, with occasional decorative flourishes.
Letter Forms:
- Two distinct forms of alpha and upsilon suggest variations between formal and informal writing habits.
- Elaborate hooks and finials adorn several letters, such as iota, omega, and mu, lending an aesthetic quality to the manuscript.
Peculiarities in Construction: The scribe frequently used multiple strokes for individual letters, resulting in uneven proportions and a “labored” appearance.

These features align with Roberts’ observation that P52 represents a careful but unpracticed effort to imitate a formal bookhand, likely by an educated individual rather than a professional scribe.

Textual Variants and Observations

The text of P52 largely conforms to the Alexandrian text-type, renowned for its accuracy and fidelity. However, one notable textual issue arises in the verso (John 18:37), where the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) appears to have been omitted. This suggests haplography, a common scribal error where repeated words or phrases are inadvertently skipped.

Implications of the Alexandrian Alignment

The alignment of P52 with the Alexandrian text-type reinforces its reliability. This text-type is foundational for critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts. By providing early evidence of the Alexandrian tradition, P52 strengthens the argument for the textual stability of the New Testament.

Context and Usage of Papyrus 52

The physical characteristics of P52 and its codex format suggest it was intended for congregational reading. The generous margins, clear script, and large letters would have facilitated ease of use during public recitation or teaching. This aligns with early Christian practices, as described by the apostle Paul:

“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13, UASV)

The Enduring Legacy of Papyrus 52

P52 is an extraordinary artifact, offering direct evidence of the Gospel of John within decades of its composition. Its content, paleographic features, and codex format testify to the early Christian commitment to preserving and transmitting the inspired Word of Jehovah. As such, P52 serves as a tangible reminder of the faithfulness of the early Church and the enduring truth of the Scriptures:

“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, UASV)

Brent Nongbri’s Critique of the Dating of Papyrus 52

Brent Nongbri’s analysis of Papyrus 52 (P52) challenges the traditionally accepted early dating of the fragment, raising significant questions about the methodology used in paleographic studies. Nongbri critiques both the early second-century dating championed by scholars like C.H. Roberts and Philip W. Comfort and the later dating proposed by Andreas Schmidt. He questions the reliability of paleography as a method for assigning precise dates to undated manuscripts, emphasizing the potential for older handwriting styles to persist into later periods.

Nongbri’s Key Arguments

Dated Comparators: Nongbri highlights the reliance on paleographic comparisons with manuscripts that are themselves paleographically dated, not explicitly dated by archaeological or contextual evidence. He finds this method inherently circular.
Expanded Dating Window: By collecting images of explicitly dated comparator manuscripts, Nongbri demonstrates that P52 shares paleographic similarities with documents dated to the later second and early third centuries, such as:
- P. Mich. inv. 5336 (ca. 152 C.E.)
- P. Amh. 2.78 (ca. 184 C.E.)
Criticism of Assumptions: Nongbri criticizes scholars who treat the midpoint of Roberts’s proposed range (100–150 C.E.) as a terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John, arguing that this is unwarranted based solely on paleographic evidence.
Paleographic Methodology Limitations: Nongbri stresses the inherent imprecision of paleographic dating and warns against using it to resolve debates about the composition of the Gospel of John. He concludes that P52 could plausibly date to the late second or even early third century.

Nongbri’s Conclusion

Nongbri refrains from assigning a definitive date to P52, preferring to emphasize the uncertainty inherent in paleographic analysis. He insists that P52 alone cannot decisively demonstrate the existence of the Gospel of John in the early second century. Instead, he calls for a broader approach, incorporating archaeological and contextual evidence.

Refuting Nongbri’s Critique with Evidence

While Brent Nongbri raises valid concerns about the limitations of paleography, his conclusions can be effectively countered by both the intrinsic evidence of P52 and comparative studies with other manuscripts. A comprehensive review of the evidence supports the early second-century dating proposed by Roberts and affirmed by subsequent scholars.

1. Paleographic Evidence Supports Early Dating

C.H. Roberts’ original analysis placed P52 in the early second century (ca. 100–150 C.E.), based on its strong paleographic parallels with P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. 100 C.E.) and P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.). These comparisons remain robust and are bolstered by later studies, such as those by Stanley E. Porter.

Porter demonstrates that P52’s hand predates the emergence of the formal Biblical majuscule style, which began to develop in the late second century. This situates P52 squarely in the early second century.

2. Reevaluation of Comparators Validates Roberts’ Findings

Porter reexamined the relationship between P52 and other significant early papyri, particularly P. Egerton 2, a fragment of an apocryphal gospel. He concluded that P52 and P. Egerton 2 share numerous stylistic similarities, particularly in their informal yet careful hands. Importantly, P. Egerton 2 is widely dated to the first half of the second century, lending support to a similar dating for P52.

Porter further observes that P52 and P. Egerton 2 precede the development of a more formalized script style evident in manuscripts of the later second century, reinforcing the early date.

3. Limitations of Nongbri’s Comparators

Nongbri’s use of later second- and third-century comparators, such as P. Amh. 2.78, is problematic. As Eric Turner cautions, comparing book hands with documentary hands is inherently unreliable because the scribes’ intentions differ significantly.

Documentary hands, such as those used in petitions or administrative texts, often reflect localized and idiosyncratic styles that are not directly comparable to literary hands used in codices like P52.

4. Typological Analysis and Letter Forms

Porter emphasizes the importance of typological analysis over isolated letter form comparisons. By examining the overall style, trajectory, and formation of letters, Porter concludes that P52 aligns most closely with second-century scripts. Key features include:

Alpha: The double form of alpha in P52—one decorative and one simple—finds strong parallels in second-century manuscripts.
Mu and Sigma: These letters exhibit individualization characteristic of the second century, with decorative hooks and deliberate spacing.
Comparison with First-Century Hands: While some letter forms resemble first-century scripts, others align more closely with early second-century examples, situating P52 firmly within Roberts’s original range.

5. Archaeological and Contextual Evidence

Although P52 lacks explicit archaeological context, its provenance in Egypt aligns with what we know of early Christian manuscript production and dissemination. By the early second century, Egypt was a hub for Christian textual activity, with numerous papyri from this period corroborating the widespread use of the codex format for Christian writings.

6. Implications for the Gospel of John

The early dating of P52 strengthens the case for an early composition of the Gospel of John. If P52 was produced around 125 C.E., the Gospel must have been written and disseminated well before this date, supporting a late first-century composition date (ca. 80–98 C.E.). This aligns with the traditional view that the apostle John authored the Gospel during his later years in Ephesus.

Final Assessment: The Case for Early Dating

Brent Nongbri’s critique underscores the complexities of paleographic analysis, but his conclusions fail to overturn the early second-century dating of P52 for several reasons:

Robust Comparisons: The paleographic parallels identified by Roberts and Porter remain compelling and align P52 with early second-century manuscripts.
Typological Methodology: A holistic analysis of letter forms and script characteristics consistently places P52 in the first half of the second century.
Misapplication of Later Comparators: Nongbri’s reliance on documentary hands from the late second and third centuries ignores key distinctions between literary and non-literary scripts.
Broader Evidence: The widespread use of the codex format and the rapid dissemination of the Gospel of John bolster the early dating of P52.

The balance of evidence confirms that P52 was likely produced between 100 and 125 C.E., providing critical support for the conservative view of the Gospel of John’s early composition and dissemination. As C.H. Roberts aptly summarized, “We may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which [P52] was most probably written.”

Don Barker’s View on the Dating of Papyrus 52

Don Barker proposes a unique approach to dating New Testament papyri, including P52, based on the concept of graphic streams—an idea introduced by Guglielmo Cavallo. Barker shifts the focus from the precise comparison of individual letter forms to the broader “graphic stream” representing the evolution of handwriting styles over time. According to Barker, P52 belongs to the “round block script” graphic stream, a style attested from the first century C.E. through the third century C.E.

Key Points of Barker’s Argument

Graphic Streams as a Dating Framework: Barker identifies P52’s script as part of the “round block script” graphic stream. This script style is not tied to specific decades but reflects an enduring handwriting tradition spanning several centuries.
Dated Comparators in the Graphic Stream: Barker acknowledges eleven dated manuscripts in this graphic stream, ranging from P.Oxy. 3466 (81–96 C.E.) to P.Oxy. 3183 (292 C.E.). These include:
- Early examples like P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.)
- Later examples proposed by Nongbri, such as P. Mich. inv. 5336 (152 C.E.) and P. Amh. 2.78 (184 C.E.)
Letter Formation and Style: Barker argues that while letter formation is significant, the broader stylistic features of the script should take precedence. He suggests that the persistence of certain graphic streams, such as the “round block script,” makes it challenging to assign P52 to a narrow timeframe within this tradition.
Second or Third-Century Dating: Based on the dated examples within the “round block script” graphic stream, Barker assigns P52 a potential date in the second or third century C.E., rejecting attempts to confine it to the early second century.

Implications of Barker’s Approach

Barker’s methodology implies that P52 cannot be precisely dated using traditional paleographic methods. He concludes that P52’s script does not exclude a later second-century or early third-century date, aligning somewhat with Nongbri’s skepticism regarding early dating. However, Barker’s focus on graphic streams departs from Nongbri’s emphasis on individual letter comparisons, offering an alternative framework for understanding the manuscript’s place in the development of early Christian texts.

Refuting Don Barker’s Dating of Papyrus 52

While Don Barker’s graphic stream methodology adds a valuable perspective to paleographic studies, it does not invalidate the early second-century dating proposed by Roberts and supported by subsequent scholars. The weight of evidence, both paleographic and contextual, favors an early second-century date for P52. Barker’s broader timeframe introduces unnecessary uncertainty and fails to adequately account for key features of the manuscript.

1. Paleographic Analysis Revisited

Barker’s assertion that the “round block script” graphic stream spans several centuries does not undermine the specific paleographic parallels identified by Roberts and others. The detailed examination of P52’s letter forms reveals strong affinities with early second-century manuscripts, such as:

P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.)
P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. 100 C.E.)
P. Egerton 2 (ca. 130–150 C.E.)

As Stanley E. Porter observed, the handwriting of P52 and P. Egerton 2 predates the formal Biblical majuscule style, situating both manuscripts within the first half of the second century. This assessment directly challenges Barker’s suggestion of a possible third-century date.

2. Persistence of Older Styles

Barker emphasizes the persistence of the “round block script” graphic stream over several centuries, but this does not preclude the identification of narrower timeframes within the stream. Eric Turner’s caution about comparing documentary and literary hands is particularly relevant here. While documentary hands may exhibit prolonged stylistic continuity, literary hands like that of P52 are often more temporally specific.

The decorative features and clear bilinear structure of P52 align more closely with early second-century examples than with third-century counterparts, supporting Roberts’s original dating.

3. Archaeological and Contextual Evidence

P52’s early date is consistent with the rapid dissemination of Christian texts in the first and second centuries. By the early second century, Egypt had become a hub for Christian textual production, as evidenced by the widespread adoption of the codex format for scriptures. Barker’s suggestion of a third-century date does not align with the early Christian context in which P52 was likely produced and used.

4. Comparisons with Dated Manuscripts

Barker’s reliance on late second- and third-century comparators, such as P. Mich. inv. 5336 and P. Amh. 2.78, overlooks key differences in script style and context:

These later examples are primarily documentary texts, not literary manuscripts like P52. As Porter notes, the intentions of scribes differ significantly between these categories, making direct comparisons unreliable.
Typological analysis of P52’s script reveals features, such as the distinct forms of alpha, mu, and sigma, that are more characteristic of the second century than the third.

5. Reevaluation of Roberts’s Findings

C.H. Roberts identified the closest parallels to P52 as P. Fayum 110 and P. Berolinenses 6845, placing the fragment in the early second century. Subsequent studies, including those by Porter and Comfort, affirm Roberts’s conclusions. Barker’s approach, which discounts these comparators, fails to account for their strong alignment with P52’s script.

6. Implications for the Gospel of John

An early second-century date for P52 strengthens the case for a late first-century composition of the Gospel of John (ca. 80–98 C.E.). If P52 were dated to the third century, as Barker suggests, it would introduce an implausibly long gap between the Gospel’s composition and its earliest extant manuscript evidence.

Conclusion: Affirming the Early Second-Century Date of P52

Don Barker’s graphic stream methodology provides a useful framework for understanding the broader development of handwriting styles. However, his proposed second or third-century date for P52 is inconsistent with the paleographic and contextual evidence. The manuscript’s script aligns most closely with early second-century examples, as demonstrated by Roberts, Porter, and others.

The weight of evidence confirms that P52 was likely produced between 100 and 125 C.E., providing critical support for the early dissemination of the Gospel of John. This conclusion reaffirms the reliability of the New Testament text and highlights the remarkable preservation of the inspired Word of Jehovah through the centuries:

“The words of Jehovah are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6, UASV)

Refuting Orsini and Clarysse’s View with Evidence

While Orsini and Clarysse’s refinement of paleographic dating offers valuable insights, their proposed date range for P52 (125–175 C.E.) does not align with the preponderance of evidence. Their later leanings, particularly the suggestion that P52 may date to the second half of the second century, contradict the early second-century context supported by Roberts, Porter, and others.

1. Paleographic Evidence Supports Early Dating

The comparisons identified by C.H. Roberts, particularly with P. Fayum 110 (94 C.E.) and P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca. 100 C.E.), remain highly robust. These manuscripts exhibit script characteristics that align closely with P52, firmly situating it within the early second century.

P. Fayum 110: The script’s clear bilinear structure, decorative letter forms (e.g., alpha and mu), and spacing align P52 with this late first-century manuscript, rather than later second-century examples.

Orsini and Clarysse’s reliance on P. Flor 1. 1 (153 C.E.) and P. Fayum 87 (156 C.E.) ignores key differences in script style and format. These later comparators, though stylistically similar, exhibit evolutionary changes not yet present in P52.

2. Typological Consistency

Stanley Porter emphasizes the importance of typological consistency in paleographic analysis, observing that P52 and P. Egerton 2 (ca. 130–150 C.E.) share script features indicative of the early second century. Porter further notes that both manuscripts precede the formal Biblical majuscule style, a development that becomes prominent in the late second century.

PSI V 446 (132–137 C.E.): While similar in certain stylistic aspects, this official proclamation was written in a documentary hand. As Eric Turner cautioned, comparing documentary and literary hands introduces unnecessary variability due to the differing purposes of the manuscripts.

3. Early Context of Codex Use

The codex format of P52 provides additional support for its early date. By the early second century, Christians widely adopted the codex for scripture, distinguishing their texts from contemporary scrolls. P52’s dimensions, clear bilinear script, and absence of extensive decoration reflect the early stages of codex development.

Orsini and Clarysse’s mid-second-century dating fails to account for this significant contextual evidence. A later date would imply an anomalously delayed adoption of the codex for P52.

4. Comparison with P104

Orsini and Clarysse propose a similar date range (100–200 C.E.) for P104, another fragment of Matthew’s Gospel. However, the paleographic features of P104 are less refined than those of P52, suggesting that P52 predates P104. This observation challenges Orsini and Clarysse’s conclusion that both fragments belong to the second half of the second century.

5. Archaeological and Contextual Evidence

P52’s provenance in Egypt, a key center of early Christian textual activity, further corroborates an early second-century date. The rapid dissemination of Johannine literature, supported by P52’s alignment with Alexandrian textual traditions, reinforces this timeline.

The alignment of P52 with early Alexandrian witnesses, as noted by Bruce Metzger, underscores its importance in validating the early transmission of the Gospel of John.

6. Reevaluation of Orsini and Clarysse’s Comparators

While Orsini and Clarysse’s methodology provides a narrower focus on stylistically similar manuscripts, their dismissal of early comparators like P. Fayum 110 is unwarranted. These early manuscripts exhibit clear parallels to P52’s script and formatting, making them indispensable to any dating analysis.

Affirming the Early Second-Century Date of P52

The evidence overwhelmingly supports an early second-century date for P52, aligning with C.H. Roberts’ original conclusion (ca. 100–150 C.E.). Orsini and Clarysse’s mid-second-century proposal introduces unnecessary delay and conflicts with key paleographic, typological, and contextual factors. The balance of evidence affirms the following:

Paleographic Consistency:
P52’s script aligns closely with early second-century manuscripts, such as P. Fayum 110 and P. Berolinenses 6845, and predates stylistic developments seen in later examples like P. Fayum 87.
Codex Format and Christian Context:
P52 reflects the early Christian adoption of the codex, situating it firmly within the early second century.
Transmission of John’s Gospel:
An early second-century date for P52 strengthens the case for a late first-century composition of John’s Gospel (ca. 80–98 C.E.), validating its authenticity and early circulation.

As the Scriptures affirm, Jehovah has preserved His Word through time:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35, UASV)

Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse contribute valuable refinements to paleographic methodology, but their mid-second-century dating of P52 fails to account for the manuscript’s early paleographic and contextual evidence. The original dating by C.H. Roberts, supported by subsequent scholarship, remains the most reliable conclusion: P52 was likely produced between 100 and 125 C.E. This affirms the integrity of the New Testament text and its faithful transmission through the centuries.

Concluding Argument on P52

World-Renowned Paleographers and Textual Scholars Confirm Early Dating of P52

100–150 C.E.

C.H. Roberts
Sir Frederic G. Kenyon
W. Schubart
Sir Harold I. Bell
Adolf Deissmann
E.G. Turner
Ulrich Wilken
W.H.P. Hatch
Philip W. Comfort
Bruce M. Metzger
Daniel B. Wallace

125–175 C.E.

Kurt and Barbara Aland
Pasquale Orsini
Willy Clarysse

The New Uncertain and Ambiguous Proposals

81–292 C.E.

Don Barker

175–225 C.E.

Brent Nongbri

200–300 C.E.

Michael Gronewald

Concluding Argument

In the field of New Testament textual studies, achieving recognition as a scholar requires either (1) a groundbreaking discovery that profoundly reshapes the academic landscape or (2) the advocacy of a novel, often controversial, position that claims to redefine established views. While the first pathway builds on concrete evidence and contributes to the field’s advancement, the second often relies on speculative methods that may prioritize notoriety over substance.

Brent Nongbri’s critique of the early dating of P52 appears to align with the latter approach, as he proposes significantly later dates that deviate from the consensus of world-renowned scholars. His emphasis on broadening the range of possible dates introduces ambiguity where clarity has been firmly established by preeminent paleographers such as C.H. Roberts, Adolf Deissmann, and Bruce Metzger. Similarly, Don Barker and Michael Gronewald extend the timeline even further, with dates reaching into the third century—a view that conflicts with the historical, paleographic, and contextual evidence.

The overwhelming consensus among leading paleographers and textual critics supports an early second-century date for P52 (100–150 C.E.), firmly situating it as one of the oldest extant witnesses to the Gospel of John. Scholars who seek to radically alter this view must contend with the robust evidence that has stood the test of time.

By 2120, future scholars will likely reflect on these debates and recognize that the speculative dating proposals of Nongbri, Barker, and others failed to withstand rigorous scrutiny. Instead, the enduring legacy of the early second-century dating of P52 will continue to affirm its significance in the history of New Testament textual studies, underscoring the precision and reliability of the scholarly giants who upheld its authenticity.

EXCURSION – No Miraculous Preservation but Rather Preservation and Restoration

1 Peter 1:25 and Isaiah 40:8 are often taken by the charismatics, the King James Version Onlyists, and those in the unknowing to mean that God’s Word has gone unchanged since the original were written. They believe in miraculous preservation, which is biblically untrue and not the case in reality because there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in tens of thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. What we have is the copyists preserving the texts as best as they could.

Scribal Skills

The quality and precision of these copies often depended on the scribe’s skill. Manuscripts can exhibit different handwriting styles, indicating the diversity of scribes involved in their copying:

The Common Hand: Sometimes, it can be tough to differentiate a badly made “documentary” handwriting from a regular one. However, typically, common handwriting shows the effort of someone with limited Greek-writing skills.

The Documentary Hand: These scribes were often accustomed to writing documents, such as business records or minor official documents. Their work is characterized by non-uniform lettering, with the initial letter on each line often larger than the rest. The lines of letters may not be even.

The Reformed Documentary Hand: This term refers to scribes who were aware they were copying a literary work rather than a mere document. Their work often exhibits more care and a slightly higher degree of uniformity than the basic documentary hand.

Professional Bookhand: Some manuscripts were clearly copied by professional scribes skilled in producing literary texts. An example is the Gospel codex known as P4+64+67, which showcases well-crafted calligraphy, paragraph markings, double columns, and punctuation.

How We Got the Greek Text of the New Testament:

Transmission:

Inspiration and Original Writing:
- The New Testament writings are considered by Christians to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. This means that the original authors, like Paul, John, or Peter, were guided by divine influence in their composition. This process is described in 2 Peter 1:21 where it states that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Manuscript Copying:
- After the originals were written, they were copied by hand. This copying was not under the same divine inspiration. Therefore, while the original texts were considered inerrant by believers, the copies made by scribes could contain errors due to human limitations.

Corruption:

Unintentional Errors:
- Orthographic Variants: Simple spelling mistakes or misunderstandings of the text due to similar sounding words in Greek.
- Omissions or Additions: Sometimes, scribes would inadvertently omit words or lines, or add them based on what they thought should be there or what they remembered from memory.
- Transpositions: Words or letters might be written in a different order.
Intentional Changes:
- Harmonizations: Scribes might adjust texts to make them consistent with parallel accounts in other Gospels or with Old Testament passages.
- Theological Emendations: Changes made to clarify or emphasize theological points, or sometimes to protect the text against heretical interpretations.

Types of Scribal Hands:

The Common Hand:
- Reflects the work of less skilled or less literate scribes. The handwriting might be sloppy, letters might be uneven, and there could be frequent mistakes due to the scribe’s limited proficiency in Greek.
The Documentary Hand:
- Used by scribes familiar with writing documents like contracts or letters. The writing might not be aesthetically pleasing but functional. Letters might vary in size, especially with the first letter of a line being larger, and lines might not be straight.
The Reformed Documentary Hand:
- Indicates a scribe who recognized the text’s literary value, aiming for better legibility and uniformity than a purely documentary hand but not reaching the skill level of a professional.
Professional Bookhand:
- Employed by those trained in calligraphy for literary works. These manuscripts would exhibit careful lettering, use of spacing, punctuation, and other features for clarity and beauty. An example is the early codex P4+64+67, which shows advanced scribal practices.

Restoration:

Textual Criticism:
- From the 18th century onwards, scholars like Johann Jakob Griesbach, Karl Lachmann, Constantin von Tischendorf, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, Eberhard Nestle, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and Bruce M. Metzger have worked on reconstructing the original text of the New Testament.
- They compare thousands of manuscripts, versions, and quotations by early Church Fathers to discern the most likely original readings. Their work involves:
  - Collation: Comparing manuscripts to note variants.
  - Textual Analysis: Evaluating these variants based on external (manuscript age, geographical distribution) and internal (scribal habits, theological tendencies) evidence.
  - Eclectic Editions: Producing texts that blend readings from various manuscripts believed to best represent the original text.

This scholarly endeavor continues today with the use of digital tools and broader manuscript access, striving to get closer to the original wording of the New Testament texts while acknowledging the human elements in their transmission.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

Bibliography

Andrews, Edward D. The P52 Project: Is P52 Really the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscript? Christian Publishing House, 2020.
Barker, Don. “The Dating of New Testament Papyri.” New Testament Studies 57, no. 4 (2011): 571–582.
Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. 2 vols. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2019.
Hurtado, Larry W. “P52 (P.Rylands Gr 457) and the Nomina Sacra: Method and Probability.” Tyndale Bulletin 54, no. 1 (2003): 1–14.
Nongbri, Brent. “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98, no. 1 (2005): 23–48.
———. “Palaeography, Precision, and Publicity: Further Thoughts on P.Ryl. III.457 (P52).” New Testament Studies 66, no. 4 (2020): 471–499.
Orsini, Pasquale, and Willy Clarysse. “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88, no. 4 (2012): 443–474.
Porter, Stanley E. “Recent Efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of Its Papyrological Evidence.” In Christian Origins and Graeco-Roman Culture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts, 71–84. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Roberts, C.H. An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935.
———. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Schnelle, Udo. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Tuckett, Christopher M. “P52 and Nomina Sacra.” New Testament Studies 47, no. 4 (2001): 544–548.