Originally Posted by spin

The question of the questionable dating of p52 has been brought up here before. Here I cited an early review of the 125 CE +/- 25 years dating. There is the 170 +/- 25 years dating supplied by Andreas Schmidt that most people seem bent on ignoring. And there is Brent Nongbri's analysis, "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", cited from Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52. Nongbri is essentially more cautious than the early reviewer I citied who said, "The wise reader will, therefore, hesitate to base any important argument on the exact decade in which this papyrus was written; he will even hesitate to close the door on the possibility that it may be later than AD 150."

Nongbri specifically tells people "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." This thread should take note.


spin