I’m not a regular consumer of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” but I was compelled to check it out when I heard that the podcaster was chatting about P.Ryl.Gr. 3.457, a.k.a. P52, the small fragment of a papyrus leaf containing a bit of chapter 18 of the Gospel According to John. The occasion was a conversation with a Christian apologist.
The interview contained a number of standard apologetic talking points, and so it’s not surprising that the general topic of papyrology and the specific topic of P52 comes up (along with a facsimile and a reconstruction of the leaf). I’ve studied this fragment pretty carefully over the years (articles in Harvard Theological Review in 2005 and New Testament Studies in 2020), so I’m fairly familiar with the scholarship. Unfortunately, the apologist makes a number of false or misleading claims, so for anyone who might be interested, here is a brief fact check.
- “Discovered by C.H. Roberts in the 1940s” False. The piece was among several chosen and bought for the Rylands library by Bernard Grenfell in 1920. C.H. Roberts published the piece in 1935.
- The codex is “almost exclusively a Christian convention”: False. We have many codices that contain non-Christian material.
- “Most likely comes from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.” Misleading. We don’t really know where this piece came from because it was bought on the antiquities market and not scientifically excavated. It’s possible that it comes from Oxyrhynchus, but Grenfell was buying from dealers elsewhere in Egypt in addition to the area of Oxyrhynchus.
- “There’s still debate about the dating of this” papyrus. True.
- “But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably.” Very much debatable. This is the same story that was being told pretty much from the time of the publication of P52 in 1935. In older versions, the date of the papyrus was usually given as “circa 125 AD,” but here the rhetoric is a bit more slippery: “comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century.” But for the logic to work, that “potentially beginning of the second century” has to become “definitely beginning of the second century.” But the dating of P52 is not at all certain; it is just based on handwriting analysis, and there are good parallels for the script of P52 in papyri from the late second century and even the third century (see my 2020 New Testament Studies piece).
The fact is that we don’t know the date of this piece with confidence. So, trying to use P52 to establish a first-century date for the composition of the Gospel According to John doesn’t work. I don’t have a horse in the race when it comes to the time of the composition of John, but I would stand by the words I wrote back in 2005:
“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.”
The interview also has some misleading statements about P75 (a.k.a P.Bodmer 14-15, a.k.a. Hanna Papyrus 1). I’ve written a bit about the different scholarly views on this relationship and offered my own take on things (Journal of Biblical Literature 2016).
It’s good to see early Christian manuscripts being discussed in a popular setting, but it would be even better if the information was accurate.
Variant Readings 
Hi Dr. Nongbri, Wes here, the person who appears on Rogan. I don’t disagree with your assessment and (maybe inefficiently) tried to hedge my bets a number of times in the conversation about dating — especially mentioning that the date is contested. I wasn’t implying at all that Roberts was the one that discovered it in Egypt but discovered it at the JRL, that in Roberts’s day it questioned the consensus but that while a 2nd century date is more or less the agreement now but there certainly are good reasons to think otherwise (as your work is a fine testament to). I was also using Oxyrhynchus more as a catch all term, but once again take your point about that note.
This particular moment was over the 2.5 hour mark into a long-form, no notes, non-linear conversation where many topics were discussed (Rogan wanted to talk about sports and cosmology as well). Not that that is an excuse for getting details wrong but I hope the grace of slight brain fog taking place can be factored in. All that to say, I do appreciate you taking the time to communicate where and why being clear on these things is important.
Hi Wes, Thanks for your comment. “Non-linear conversation.” Yes, I don’t envy you having to shift–basically mid-sentence–from early Christian papyri to “Hey, what do you think about the Voynich Manuscript?” If my comments in the post seem a little less than charitable, that arises from my frustration with the overall presentation of P52 as a kind of paradigm shifting artifact. It can’t bear this weight, and in fact there is no need for it to do so for the argument you were making. There are of course good reasons for rejecting Baur’s ideas about John, and there are sound arguments for dating the Gospel According to John to the first century (just as there are some reasonable arguments for placing it in the second century). But (to me, anyway) bringing in P52 as a kind of “seal the deal” demonstration of a first-century date isn’t really helpful because the fragment itself isn’t securely dated. I’ve tried to present the evidence about this as clearly as possible in my publications, and so it’s a little disheartening for me to continue to encounter the P52-as-proof story again and again. So, that’s where I’m coming from. But cheers to you for jumping in the ring with Rogan and having the discussion.
I definitely don’t disagree with your assessment of using P52 to date John early. I would not use that as a stand alone argument if I was arguing in that direction and I completely agree that it is nothing close to a “seal the deal” rational. My telling the story (albeit inadequately) about Robarts and Baur was to take the opportunity while Joe was talking about paradigm shifts and census changing to present the facsimiles I had made for him to him. Once again, genuinely appreciate your work.
Thanks for this, Brent! I figured you would have something helpful to say about this the moment I heard him talking about P52.
Your first point about Roberts seems a little unfair – Huff does tell the story about Roberts “discovering” it in the sense of identifying it in the library, even if he got the date wrong.
Hi, the chat between Wed and Brent is an excellent example of how these things should be done. Kudos to you both.
Sorry, *Wes* not Wed.
My fault for not checking the Autocorrect…may it rust in piece!!
it would be great to have Dr. Nongbri on Joe Rogan! I am reading your book now and appreciate the subtlety that you present with dating manuscripts. Biblical apologists seem to always utilize the most earliest manuscript dates as if that legitimizes the sources worth. Thanks again for your reply here!
I cannot comment on the criticisms of Wes. I like seeing academics argue lol.
However, is there something wrong with using P52 as a talking point in Christian apologetics? Your introduction to this blogpost certainly seems to be filled with disdain at such a notion.
Thanks for your note, Nolan. I don’t intend to sound disdainful. My point is that is if we go by the best knowledge that we have about P52, it is not especially useful in the debate about the date of the composition of the Gospel According to John.
I Think Joe Rogan Is a Charlatan