Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by MrMacSon »

.
The Use and Abuse of P52:
Papyrological Pitfalls in the
Dating of the Fourth Gospel

Brent Nongbri
Yale University
... any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphie context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.

http://people.uncw.edu/Zervosg/Papyrolo ... Misuse.pdf* 404: not found
* https://www.academia.edu/436092/The_Use ... rth_Gospel
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by lsayre »

To what extent does "confirmation bias" interfere with paleography?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by Giuseppe »

A reason for dating John after Bar-Kochba, and to think that the persecution of Christians by Bar-Kochba is historical :

John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.
A religious persecution as that here described could only be organized by the State. Only by Bar-kokhba.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
yalla
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:52 am

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by yalla »

A review of Roger Bagnall's book "Early Christian Books in Egypt"
http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Bagnall2011rev.pdf

"First,there has been a tendency to date Christian papyri too early. And, secondly, there is little evidence for the emergence or visibility of Christianity in Egypt before the end of the second century.
Both of these points deserve close reflection.

It is surprising that Bagnall did not attack the early dating of 𝔓52 more severely, especially given the fact that it was dated in relation
to P.Egerton 2. The publication of P.Köln 255, which is a continuation of one of the pages of P.Egerton 2, has resulted in a revision of the dating of P.Egerton 2. This is due to P.Köln 255
containing a punctuation mark not evidenced prior to the end of the second century. Hence,
instead of the initial proposal of dating P.Egerton 2 to around 130, it is now seen as being written
sometime closer to 200. However, despite the fact that the hands of 𝔓52 and P.Egerton 2
were seen as similar, and hence 𝔓52 was dated to 125 on this basis, there has been no attempt
to move the dating of 𝔓52 to around the end of the second century.
Such an insight would
have strengthened Bagnall’s case of the ideologically driven nature of the dating of many New
Testament papyri
"

[Incidentally, I thought this topic, Nongbri/p52 had been visited previously?}
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by Stuart »

There are dates for p52 as late as the 5th century.

It is based entirely on handwriting analysis of a few characters which is said to be Hadrianic. But date ranges for that style and usage include samples from early in the 1st century to 6th century. Others have tighter windows from the end of the 1st to the end of the 3rd century. In and of itself it's insufficient o draw a hard conclusion. You need to turn to other "evidence," by which I mean bias since none exists.

Dating of such nebulous technique often is associated with preexisting notions of Gospel dates. While more recent dating places it around 200 AD, earlier dating was from around 125-150AD. But to be honest these are at best WAGs. But even so a date of 200 AD (which I still think is ridiculously early and influenced by prevailing theories of early NT writings) would mean there is no 1st or 2nd century manuscript scrap existent.

This in turn means dating the NT writings either early (1st century and early 2nd) or late (2nd century and early 3rd) would not be impossible.

Note: it is my opinion that we are unlikely to ever find more than scraps from prior to the Diocletian persecution for the simple reason that manuscripts were confiscated and burned by the Romans -- and we have some Roman records of such confiscations. And even those scraps could also be post-Diocletian, given the fickle dating ranges. The mass reproduction of manuscripts began in earnest after the Decian and especially after the Diocletian persecutions out of necessity. IMO distinct text types are evidence that very few manuscripts survived to be copied, so that instead of a more even blending of readings we have more pronounced differences of distinct types, a result of only few progenitors available to copy from. The text types thus speak of a time when a rich diversity of manuscripts existed, but an extinction came and only a few survived to propagate -- applying evolutionary model. This is my WAG to explain the state of the manuscripts. It can also explain the relative dearth of Gnostic manuscripts as few resources were available to reproduce their lost inventory. The "lists" of heresies and of Canon can also be seen as a product of the confiscations, meant to answer the question, which books do they spend precious resources on reproducing if and when copies of books are found. (This is why I date deutero-Irenaeus AH 1.22-31 as post-Decian, if not post-Diocletian, ditto much of the writings said to be Hippolytus and pseudo-Tertullian; such lists of heresies are not very relevant prior)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by Ulan »

Stuart wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:42 am Note: it is my opinion that we are unlikely to ever find more than scraps from prior to the Diocletian persecution for the simple reason that manuscripts were confiscated and burned by the Romans -- and we have some Roman records of such confiscations.
Do you by chance have a source at hand for this? I'm not doubting the statement, I would just like to know where this is documented, and you seem to know this.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by outhouse »

This reminds me of the late AchyraS using outdated crap to sell her feces.

Brent is off base. Physical evidence trumps educated guesses.

Nothing changes because of his work or lack of it
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by toejam »

^That's a bit over the top. Nongbri's statement here is fair. His point is that evangelical scholars try to draw more from P52 than is justified. Heck, it even gets a mention in the 'Case For Christ' movie in order to justify the reliability of the text.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by Steven Avery »

As an evangelical who is interested in these issues, I also believe that Brent Nongbri is spot-on.
I've asked him some specific questions and always received excellent replies.

Just would like to see those sharp-cookie Aussies at Macquerie give Sinaiticus a bit more
attention than they have. :)

One thing is fundamental about the handwriting element of palaeography (the word is used
is thin and wide senses.)

All handwriting analysis is time-asymmetrical. Nobody writes in a future style of writing.
However, any style of writing can be copied and used for hundreds, or thousands, of years.
This is especially true with texts like the Bible. Tradition, respect, replicas, calligraphy
practice by copying and forgery are all reasons for the longevity of a script.

Thus, a terminus ante quem can be reasonably precise. It is that pesky terminus ad quem
where they all trip up.

And thus, unless there is a strong external corroboration of a date, (it is interweaved with a shopping
list for Bar Kochba's ammunition) these ranges of 50 or 100 years are generally non-functional.

This is true generally for the New Testament uncials, as well, even those that are authentic antiquity
documents.

Steven
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

Post by Stuart »

Ulan wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:14 am
Stuart wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:42 am Note: it is my opinion that we are unlikely to ever find more than scraps from prior to the Diocletian persecution for the simple reason that manuscripts were confiscated and burned by the Romans -- and we have some Roman records of such confiscations.
Do you by chance have a source at hand for this? I'm not doubting the statement, I would just like to know where this is documented, and you seem to know this.
First we have the Libellus documents, 46 of them from 250 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libellus

The first evidence of persecution P. Oxy. XLII 3035 from about 257 AD

We have a numerous documents of confiscations from the Diocletian persecution
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 6NAhCnb4VA

P.OXy XXXIII 2673 is a good example, a list of property seized. It tells us what the Romans where looking for.

Eusubius, a source I do not trust, says the first edict of the persecution by Diocletian, was in 303 when he ordered that the newly built Christian church at Nicomedia be razed, its scriptures burned, and its possessions seized. Once accomplished this was followed up with an order to do the same for ALL Christian churches.

For Church sources (not as reliable, but at least these are within a generation or two)
http://www.fourthcentury.com/persecution-sources/

I only cite the Christian sources because it is a rare case where they conform to archival documents the Romans left behind. There is ZERO papyri evidence prior to Decius of any Roman actions concerning Christians.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Post Reply