Editing Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (section)

== Date ==
The significance of 𝔓{{sup|52}} rests both upon its proposed early dating and upon its geographic dispersal from the presumed site of authorship, traditionally thought to have been [[Ephesus]]. As the fragment is removed from the autograph by at least one step of transmission, the date of authorship for the Gospel of John must be at least a few years prior to the writing of 𝔓{{sup|52}}, whenever that may have been. The location of the fragment in Egypt extends that time even further, allowing for the dispersal of the documents from the point of authorship and transmission to the point of discovery. The Gospel of John is perhaps quoted by [[Justin Martyr]], and hence is highly likely to have been written before c. 160 CE;<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 25">Roberts(1935), p. 25.</ref> but 20th century New Testament scholars, most influentially [[Kurt Aland]] and [[Bruce Metzger]], have argued from the proposed dating of 𝔓{{sup|52}} prior to this, that the latest possible date for the composition of the Gospel should be pushed back into the early decades of the second century;<ref name="Nongbri, p. 24">Nongbri, p. 24.</ref> some scholars indeed arguing that the discovery of 𝔓{{sup|52}} implies a date of composition for the Gospel no later than the traditionally accepted date of c. 90 CE, or even earlier.<ref name="Nongbri, p. 32">Nongbri, p. 32.</ref>

Scepticism about the use of 𝔓{{sup|52}} to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment's authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of dated textual references or associated archeology.<ref name="Nongbri, p. 25">Nongbri, p. 25.</ref> Secondly, like all other surviving early Gospel manuscripts, this fragment is from a [[codex]], not a scroll. If it dates from the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a literary codex.<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref> (Around 90 CE, [[Martial]] circulated his poems in [[parchment]] codex form, presenting this as a novelty.) The year before Roberts published 𝔓{{sup|52}}, the [[British Museum]] library had acquired papyrus fragments of the [[Egerton Gospel]] (P.Egerton 2) which are also from a codex, and these were published in 1935 by H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat.<ref>H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat. ''Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri'', Oxford; OUP, 1935</ref> Since the text of 𝔓{{sup|52}} is that of a canonical gospel, the [[Gospel of John]], whereas that of the Egerton Gospel is not, there was considerable interest amongst biblical scholars as to whether 𝔓{{sup|52}} could be dated as the earlier of the two papyri.<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 34">Roberts(1935), p. 34.</ref><ref name="Hurtado, p. 7">Hurtado, p. 7.</ref>

=== Colin Roberts ===

𝔓{{sup|52}} is a literary text and, in common with almost all such papyri, has no explicit indicator of date. Proposing a date for it ultimately required comparison with dated texts, which tend to be in documentary hands (contracts, petitions, letters). Nevertheless, Roberts suggested two undated literary papyri as the closest comparators to 𝔓{{sup|52}}: P. Berol. 6845<ref name="Nongbri, p. 33">Nongbri, p. 33.</ref> (a fragment of an [[Iliad]] scroll conserved in Berlin and dated paleographically to around the end of the first century) which he suggested (other than in the form of the letter alpha) is "the closest parallel to our text that I have been able to find, a view that I was glad to find shared by so great an authority as Sir [[Frederic G. Kenyon|Frederic Kenyon]]"; and P.Egerton 2 itself,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 34">Nongbri, p. 34.</ref> which was then estimated to date around 150 CE. Roberts stated that in the Egerton Gospel, "most of the characteristics of our hand are to be found, though in a less accentuated form"; and he particularly noted similar forms of upsilon, mu and delta.<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 14">Roberts(1935), p. 14.</ref>

Establishing the Berlin Iliad P. Berol 6845 as a comparator was key to Roberts proposing an early 2nd century date as plausible for 𝔓{{sup|52}}; as the Berlin papyrus had been dated to the end of the first century by [[Wilhelm Schubart]], in a landmark papyrological study which demonstrated the close similarity of its hand to that of P. Fayum 110,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 35">Nongbri, p. 35.</ref> a personal letter, but written by a professional scribe in a "literary type" hand<ref>Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, ''Fayum Towns and their Papyri'', London, Egypt Exploration Fund, 1900, p 263, "written.. by a scribe in a well-formed uncial hand of a literary type, which being dated is important palaeographically"</ref> and with an explicit date of 94 CE.<ref>Wilhelm Schubart ''Papyri Graecae Berolinenses XVII'', Bonn; Marcus and Weber, 1911</ref>  In proposing a date of around the middle of the second century for P. Egerton 2, Skeat and Bell had also relied on comparison with P.Fayum 110;<ref name="Nongbri, p. 34">Nongbri, p. 34.</ref> together with Abb 34 (now known as B.G.U. 1.22 and dated ca. 110–117 CE),<ref name="Nongbri, p. 39">Nongbri, p. 39.</ref> a letter in a documentary hand of the time of Trajan; and P.Lond. 1.130,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 48">Nongbri, p. 48.</ref> a horoscope of late first or early second century date. The Berlin Iliad has since been re-edited in the light of more recent discoveries, but confirming Schubart's conclusions as to its dating around 100 CE, and its close relationship to the dated literary type hand of P.Fayum 110;<ref>William Lameere ''Apercus de palaeographie homerique a propos des papyrus de l'Illiade et de l'Odyssee des collections de Gand, de Bruxelles a de Louvain'', Paris; Editions Erasme, 1960, pp 81–83</ref> and it remains a primary exemplar of a particularly distinctive form of first/early second century CE calligraphic book hand.<ref>Guglielmo Cavallo ''Greek and Latin writing in the Papyi'' in "The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology" Roger S Bagnall ex., Oxford; OUP, 2009, p 114</ref>  Roberts in turn was also to advance P. Fayum 110 and Abb 34 (though not P.Lond. 1.130) as dated comparators to 𝔓{{sup|52}}, identifying P. Fayum 110 as the "most important parallel"  he could find among dated documents, and noting in particular that both of these showed the same two forms of alpha in simultaneous use.<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 15">Roberts(1935), p. 15.</ref>  Nongbri  notes other instances where the letter forms in P. Fayum 110 are a closer match to those in 𝔓{{sup|52}} than are the counterpart forms in P. Berol 6845; specifically delta,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 36">Nongbri, p. 36.</ref> pi, rho and epsilon. In his later career, Roberts reasserted the close resemblance of P. Fayum 110 to both 𝔓{{sup|52}} and P. Egerton 2.<ref>Roberts C.H.''Greek Literary Hands 350BC – AD 400'', Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1955, p. 11</ref>

Roberts also proposed two further dated papyri in documentary hands as comparators for 𝔓{{sup|52}}:  P. London 2078, a private letter written in the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE),<ref name="Nongbri, p. 37">Nongbri, p. 37.</ref> and P. Oslo 22, a petition dated 127 CE;<ref name="Nongbri, p. 38">Nongbri, p. 38.</ref> noting that P. Oslo 22 was most similar in some of the more distinctive letter forms, e.g. eta, mu and iota. Roberts circulated his assessment to [[Frederic G. Kenyon]], [[Wilhelm Schubart]] and [[Idris Bell|H. I. Bell]]; all concurred with his dating of 𝔓{{sup|52}} in the first half of the 2nd century.<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 15">Roberts(1935), p. 15.</ref> Kenyon suggested another comparator in P. Flor 1. 1, a loan contract dated 153 CE;<ref name="Nongbri, p. 40">Nongbri, p. 40.</ref> but Roberts did not consider the similarity to be very close, other than for particular letters, as the overall style of that hand was [[cursive]].<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 16">Roberts(1935), p. 16.</ref> In the same year 1935, Roberts's assessment of date was supported by the independent studies of [[Gustav Adolf Deissmann|A. Deissmann]], who, while producing no actual evidence, suggested a date in the reigns of Hadrian (117–138) or even Trajan (98–117).<ref name="Deissmann, Adolf 1935">Deissmann, Adolf. "Ein Evangelienblatt aus den Tagen Hadrians." ''[[Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung]]''; 564, 3 Dezemb. 1935 [English trans. in British Weekly December 12, 1935.]</ref> In 1936 the dating was supported by [[Ulrich Wilcken]] on the basis of a comparison between the hand of 𝔓{{sup|52}} and those of papyri in the extensive Apollonius archive which are dated 113–120.<ref>Wilcken Ulrich, ''Die Bremer Papyrus-Sammlung'', FF 12, 1936, p. 90</ref>

=== Philip Comfort ===

Subsequently, other comparator literary papyri have been suggested, notably P. Oxy. XXXI 2533,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 47">Nongbri, p. 47.</ref> where a literary text of the second century in a hand proposed as very close to 𝔓{{sup|52}} is found written on the back of a re-used document in a late first century business hand;<ref>Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, ''The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts'', Wheaton Ill; Tyndale, 2001, p. 367</ref> and also three biblical papyrus codices; P. Oxy. LX 4009 (an apocryphal gospel fragment, dated paleographically to the early/mid second century);  and P. Oxy. L 3523 ([[Papyrus 90|𝔓{{sup|90}}]]) and P. Oxy. LXIV 4404 ([[Papyrus 104|𝔓{{sup|104}}]]) both dated paleographically to the later second century.<ref>Roger S. Bagnall, ''Early Christian Books in Egypt'', Princeton; Princeton University Press, 2009, pp. 15–16</ref> In addition, the discovery of other papyrus codices with second century hands, such as the Yale Genesis Fragment (P. Yale 1),<ref>T. C. Skeat, "Early Christian Book Production, Papyri and Mancuscripts" in G. W. Lampe ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Bible'', Cambridge; CUP, 1969, pp71-75</ref> suggested that this form of book was more common for literary texts at this date than had previously been assumed. Consequently, until the 1990s, the tendency amongst New Testament commentators, supported by several paleographers such as Philip W. Comfort, had been to suggest a date for 𝔓{{sup|52}} towards the earlier half of the range suggested by Roberts and his correspondents.<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref> However, a cautionary note was raised by the discovery that a papyrus fragment in Cologne constitutes part of the Egerton Gospel.<ref>M. Gronewald et al, ''Kolner Papyri VI'', Opladen; Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987, p. 136-145</ref> In this fragment the letters gamma and kappa are separated by an hooked apostrophe, a feature infrequent in dated second century papyri; which accordingly has been taken as implying a date for the Egerton Gospel closer to 200 CE – and indicating the perils of ascribing a date for a papyrus text of which only a small part of two pages survives.

=== Brent Nongbri ===

The early date for 𝔓{{sup|52}} favoured by many [[New Testament]] scholars has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 CE, plus or minus twenty-five years; on the basis of a comparison with [[Chester Beatty Papyri|Chester Beatty Papyri X and III]], and with the redated Egerton Gospel.<ref>A. Schmidt, "Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457," ''Archiv für Papyrusforschung'' '''35''' (1989:11–12).</ref>  Brent Nongbri<ref name="Nongbri, p. 46"/> has criticized both Comfort's early dating of 𝔓{{sup|52}} and Schmidt's late dating, dismissing as unsound all attempts to establish a date for such undated papyri within narrow ranges on purely paleographic grounds, along with any inference from the paleographic dating of 𝔓{{sup|52}} to a precise ''terminus ad quem'' for the composition of the Fourth Gospel. In particular Nongbri noted that both Comfort and Schmidt propose their respective revisions of Roberts's dating solely on the basis of paleographic comparisons with papyri that had themselves been paleographically dated. As a corrective to both tendencies, Nongbri collected and published images of all explicitly dated comparator manuscripts to 𝔓{{sup|52}}; demonstrating that, although Roberts's assessment of similarities with a succession of dated late first to mid second century papyri could be confirmed,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 40">Nongbri, p. 40.</ref> two later dated papyri, both petitions,  also showed strong similarities (P. Mich. inv. 5336,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 41">Nongbri, p. 41.</ref> dated around 152 CE; and P.Amh. 2.78,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 42">Nongbri, p. 42.</ref> an example first suggested by [[Eric Gardner Turner|Eric Turner]],<ref name="Eric Turner 1977, p. 100">Eric Turner, ''The Typology of the Early Codex'', Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977, p. 100</ref> that dates to 184 CE). Nongbri states "The affinities in letter forms between (P. Mich. inv. 5336) and 𝔓{{sup|52}} are as close as any of Roberts's documentary parallels",<ref name="Nongbri, p. 41">Nongbri, p. 41.</ref> and that P.Amh. 2.78 "is as good a parallel to 𝔓{{sup|52}} as any of these adduced by Roberts".<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref>  Nongbri also produces dated documents of the later second and early third centuries,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 43-45">Nongbri, p. 43-45.</ref> each of which display similarities to 𝔓{{sup|52}} in some of their letter forms. Nongbri suggests that this implied that older styles of handwriting might persist much longer than some scholars had assumed,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 32">Nongbri, p. 32.</ref> and that a prudent margin of error must allow a still wider range of possible dates for the papyrus:

{{blockquote|What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of 𝔓{{sup|52}}. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence.  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 𝔓{{sup|52}}, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that 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 stratigraphic 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.}}

Nongbri resists offering his own opinion on the date of 𝔓{{sup|52}}, but apparently approves the relatively cautious terminology both of Roberts's dating, "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which (𝔓{{sup|52}}) was most probably written";<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 16">Roberts(1935), p. 16.</ref><ref name="Nongbri, p. 30">Nongbri, p. 30.</ref> and also of Roberts's speculations on possible implications for the date of John's gospel, "But all we can safely say is that this fragment tends to support those critics who favour an early date (late first to early second century) for the composition of the Gospel rather than those who would still regard it as a work of the middle decades of the second century".<ref name="Nongbri, p. 30">Nongbri, p. 30.</ref><ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 26">Roberts(1935), p. 26.</ref> Nevertheless, and notwithstanding Nongbri's statement to the contrary, some commentators have interpreted his accumulation of later dated comparators as undermining Roberts's proposed dating;<ref>Roger S. Bagnall, ''Early Christian Books in Egypt'', Princeton; Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 12, ".. undermine confidence in an early date, even if they do not fully establish one in the late second or early third century"</ref>  but such interpretations fail to take into account the essential similarity of Roberts's and Nongbri's main findings.  Roberts identified the closest parallels to 𝔓{{sup|52}} as being P. Berol 6845 and P. Egerton 2,<ref name="Roberts(1935), p. 14">Roberts(1935), p. 14.</ref> then dated paleographically to 100 CE and 150 CE respectively; and proposed that the most probable date for 𝔓{{sup|52}} would lie in between these two.  Nongbri rejects paleographically dated comparators on principle, and consequently proposes the closest dated parallels to 𝔓{{sup|52}} as being P. Fayum 110 of 94 CE, P.Mich. inv. 5336 of ca. 152 CE and P.Amh. 2.78 of 184 CE; each, he suggests, as close to 𝔓{{sup|52}} as the others,<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref><ref name="Nongbri, p. 36">Nongbri, p. 36.</ref><ref name="Nongbri, p. 41">Nongbri, p. 41.</ref> and all three closer than any other dated comparator. The consequence is to extend the range of dated primary reference comparators both earlier and later than in Roberts work; and Nongbri stresses that, simply from paleographic evidence, the actual date of 𝔓{{sup|52}} could conceivably be later (or earlier) still.<ref name="Nongbri, p. 46">Nongbri, p. 46.</ref> Although Nongbri is concerned to demonstrate that the possibility of a late second (or early third) century date for 𝔓{{sup|52}} cannot be discounted, his chief criticism is directed at those subsequent commentators and scholars who have tended to take the midpoint of Roberts's proposed range of dates, treat it as the latest limit for a possible date for this papyrus, and then infer from this that the Gospel of John cannot have been written later than around 100 CE.<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref>
.

=== Stanley Porter ===

The relationship of 𝔓{{sup|52}} to P.Egerton 2 has been further re-examined in detail by Stanley E. Porter. Porter offers two further comparator early biblical papyri for both texts, P. Oxy IV 656 (a fragment of Genesis) and P.Vindob. G. 2325 (another apocryphal gospel, the [[Fayum Fragment]]); and provides a wide-ranging survey of the history and range of opinion amongst papyrologists for the dating of 𝔓{{sup|52}} and P.Egerton 2, presenting arguments to support Robert's judgement that the two are close parallels, that they are unlikely to be of widely separate dates, and that 𝔓{{sup|52}} is more likely the earlier. Specifically he notes that P.Egerton 2 is in "a less heavy hand with more formal rounded characteristics, but with what the original editors called "cursive affinities"."<ref name="Porter, p. 82">Porter, p. 82.</ref>  Porter adds 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."<ref name="Porter, p. 83">Porter, p. 83.</ref>  In this respect, Porter also notes that although the hooked apostrophe form found in the Cologne fragment of P.Egerton 2 is unusual in the second century, there is at least one known dated example in a papyrus of 101 CE and three others of mid or late second century date. "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."<ref name="Porter, p. 84">Porter, p. 84.</ref>

Stanley Porter has also questioned Nongbri's assertion that valid comparisons can be made between 𝔓{{sup|52}} and documentary papyri of the later second and early third centuries; noting the warning from Eric Turner that, "Comparison of book hands with dated documentary hands will be less reliable, the intention of the scribe is different in the two cases."<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref><ref name="Porter, p. 79">Porter, p. 79.</ref> and in respect of this Porter cautions against what he terms Nongbri's 'overly skeptical'<ref name="Porter, p. 78">Porter, p. 78.</ref> insistence on disregarding comparators without an explicit date, forcing comparators for literary texts inappropriately to be confined to purely documentary hands.<ref name="Porter, p. 81">Porter, p. 81.</ref> Porter suggests that Nongbri's proposed late second and third century comparators are in several cases quite different from 𝔓{{sup|52}} so that they force comparison to focus on detailed letter forms without consideration of the overall formation, trajectory and style of the script. If, rather than undertaking comparisons document by document, typological letter comparisons are instead applied using published series of dated representative script alphabets,<ref>Edward Maude Thompson, ''An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleaography'', Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1912, pp. 144–147</ref><ref>Eric G. Turner, ''Greek Manuscripts of Antiquity'', Oxford, OUP, 1971, p. 2</ref> then, Porter asserts, both 𝔓{{sup|52}} and P.Egerton 2 "fit comfortably within the second century. There are of course some letters that are similar to those in the third century (as there are some in the first century) but the letters that tend to be given the most individualization, such as alpha, mu and even sigma, appear to be second century."<ref name="Porter, p. 82">Porter, p. 82.</ref> Both Porter and Nongbri note that Eric Turner, notwithstanding his proposal of P.Amh. 2.78 as a parallel for 𝔓{{sup|52}}, nevertheless continued to maintain that "The Rylands papyrus may therefore be accepted as of the first half of the second century".<ref name="Nongbri, p. 31">Nongbri, p. 31.</ref><ref name="Eric Turner 1977, p. 100"/><ref name="Porter, p. 77">Porter, p. 77.</ref> Nongbri has subsequently pointed out the limited usefulness of Porter's study due to the fact that it makes no reference to manuscripts with secure dates and thus is entirely circular (several undated manuscripts are used to provide a date for another undated manuscript).<ref name="Nongbri (2020), pp. 479-480.">Nongbri (2020), pp. 479-480.</ref>

=== Don Barker ===

An altogether different approach to dating New Testament papyri has been proposed by a number of paleographers in recent years, drawing on the notion of "graphic stream" developed by [[Guglielmo Cavallo]]. Rather than comparing letter forms of undated papyri directly with dated comparators, it is proposed that the hand in question should first be identified to a graphic stream representing the overall development of a particular handwriting style. "The way that individual letters are formed within these graphic streams is secondary to the overall style of the script".<ref name="Barker, p. 572">Barker, p. 572</ref>  Don Barker, reviewing the proposed comparators and range of datings that have been advanced over the years for 𝔓{{sup|52}}, maintains that this papyrus can be placed in a "round block script" graphic stream that is attested from the first century onwards; and notes eleven dated examples ranging from P.Oxy. 3466 (81–96 CE) to P.Oxy.3183 (292 CE) and including all the later parallels proposed by Nongbri and Turner as well as P.Fayum 110 (94 CE) from Roberts's original study. Otherwise, however, Barker rejects from this graphic stream all the other comparators proposed by Roberts and his correspondents, including P. Flor 1. 1 (153 CE).  Barker maintains that the letter formation within this the graphic stream "appears to have great holding power", and proposes that it is consequently difficult to place 𝔓{{sup|52}} into a narrower time frame within it. " When the general style and individual letter features are kept in close connection and keeping in mind how a scribe writing a documentary text may write a literary text differently, it would seem from the above dated manuscripts, that a date of the second or third century could be assigned to P.Ryl. 457"."<ref name="Barker, p. 575">Barker, p. 575</ref>

=== Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse ===

[[Pasquale Orsini]] and Willy Clarysse also adopt the "graphic stream" approach; and have applied it to reviewing the dating for all New Testament manuscripts proposed as having been written before the mid-fourth century, including 𝔓{{sup|52}}. Since none of these papyri and parchments carry explicit dates, all must be dated paleographically; so Orsini and Clarysse propose that manuscript comparisons for such paleographic dating should be made only between hands that are similar to one another.<ref name="Orsini, p. 448">Orsini, p. 448.</ref> However, and in contrast to Don Barker, their classification of hands conforms rigorously to the typology of Hellenistic Greek handwriting styles developed by [[Guglielmo Cavallo]];<ref>Guglielmo Cavallo, ''Il calamo e il papiro.  La scittura greca dall'eta ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio'', Florence; Papyrologica Florentina 36, 2005, p. 75</ref> applying his categorisation of hands into 'styles', 'stylistic classes' or 'graphic types' as appropriate.  Orsini and Clarysse propose dates for New Testament papyri that are often rather later than the consensus dates in the Nestle-Aland lists,<ref name="Orsini, p. 466">Orsini, p. 466.</ref> and considerably later than the counterpart dates proposed by Comfort and Barrett.<ref name="Orsini, p. 445">Orsini, p. 445.</ref> They criticise Don Barker for assigning dates they regard as extending too early;<ref name="Orsini, p. 460">Orsini, p. 460.</ref> the dating ranges they themselves propose for New Testament papyri are never wider than 100 years, more frequently 50 years, and for several early papyri ([[Papyrus 46|𝔓{{sup|46}}]], [[Papyrus 95|𝔓{{sup|95}}]], [[Papyrus 64|𝔓{{sup|64+67}}]]) they propose purely paleographic dates within a 25-year range.<ref name="Orsini, p. 470">Orsini, p. 470.</ref> In their paper Orsini and Clarysse state that the early parallels proposed for 𝔓{{sup|52}} by Comfort and Barrett are "inappropriate";<ref name="Orsini, p. 462">Orsini, p. 462.</ref> and, although they cite with approval Nongbri's assessment of the respective papyrological dating approaches adopted by Grenfell, Hunt and Roberts, they do not cite his specific study of 𝔓{{sup|52}}, and none of his proposed later parallels feature in their list of stylistically similar comparators; nor do any of other papyri advanced by Barker as representatives of his proposed graphic stream.  Of the papyri discussed by Roberts and his correspondents, and in contradiction to Barker, Orsini and Clarysse maintain Kenyon's proposed dated parallel, P. Flor 1. 1 (153 CE) as corresponding to the same "Round Chancery Script" graphic type as 𝔓{{sup|52}}.<ref name="Orsini, p. 458">Orsini, p. 458.</ref> Two further comparators they propose are PSI V 446, the official proclamation of an edict of the prefect Petronius dated 132–137 CE; and P. Fayum 87, a municipal receipt dated 156 CE;<ref name="Orsini, p. 462">Orsini, p. 462.</ref> while they also note, as other commentators have done, the close similarity of 𝔓{{sup|52}} to [[Papyrus 104|𝔓{{sup|104}}]] for which they propose a date of 100–200 CE.  Consequently, Orsini and Clarysse propose 125 to 175 CE as the range of dates for 𝔓{{sup|52}};<ref name="Orsini, p. 470">Orsini, p. 470.</ref> which corresponds with the "mid second century" date proposed Stanley Porter, is much narrower than the ranges envisaged by Barker or Nongbri, and implies within their dating schema that 𝔓{{sup|52}} and [[Papyrus 104|𝔓{{sup|104}}]] stand as the earliest New Testament papyri so far identified (although, strangely, at the conclusion of their article, Orsini and Clarysse state that 𝔓{{sup|52}}, [[Papyrus 90|𝔓{{sup|90}}]], and [[Papyrus 104|𝔓{{sup|104}}]] "probably all [date to] the second half of the second century)."<ref name="Orsini, p. 466">Orsini, p. 466.</ref>

=== John Rylands Library ===

The John Rylands Library states "The first editor dated the Fragment to the first half of the second century (between 100–150 AD). The date was estimated palaeographically, by comparing the handwriting with other manuscripts. However, palaeography is not an exact science – none of the comparable Biblical manuscripts are dated and most papyri bearing a secure date are administrative documents. Recent research points to a date nearer to 200 AD, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that any earlier fragments from the New Testament survive. Carbon-dating is a destructive method and has not been used on the Fragment."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/rylands/special-collections/exploring/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/what-is-the-significance/|title = What is the significance of this fragment? (The University of Manchester Library)}}</ref>