Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, friends,

So much in New Testament history hinges on the Rylands Papyrus (P52). After all, this is supposed to be the earliest fragment of the New Testament that we possess. In every standard Introduction to NT, it is said that this tiny piece of writing, which contains only 118 legible letters, is dated "at about 125 AD".

This small fragment of John 18:31-33; 37-38 was found in Egypt, although the exact location of where it was found remains unknown. Its discovery was first announced publicly in 1935. And according to the typical view as expressed by Christian fundamentalists,

<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html</a>

"The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John."

Most people who are new to NT studies will be surprised that, a century ago, it was actually quite common to date all of our NT gospels to the 2nd century. Yes, dear friends, since WWII, there has clearly been a lot more conservatism in NT studies. So it's almost a universal view in the field nowadays that the canonical gospels are all first century products -- a view that really has no basis in reality whatsoever, outside of P52, that is.

Supposedly, the discovery of P52 had been a big triumph for the early daters of the gospels, since GJohn is generally seen as the latest gospel of the four. So if even the latest gospel had already been in circulation in Egypt by 125 CE, this means that all the gospels are very early, right?

Well, I'm saying that the whole thing is, quite simply, a fraud. Here we have an unprovenanced scrap of writing the size of a postage stamp, and this little piffle has somehow changed the state of the discipline? Yeah, right...

So, just how reliable is palaeographic dating of manuscripts (MSS) in the first place? Just how easy is it for scholars to take a look at the handwriting of an ancient document, and to establish its age on this basis? As anyone who's ever looked into this area should know, the reliability of palaeographic dating is far from secure. In fact, any honest palaeographer will only give the age of a MS with the accuracy of plus or minus 50 years, or maybe even 100 years. But this is for an actual MS, and not for a tiny scrap of writing that comes from nobody knows where. And then again, palaeographers are also very often wrong, or disagree with each other widely.

As an illustration of this, let's take a look into some real and very substantial biblical MSS, and see how they've been dated over the years. Since I've been myself studying a variety of MSS for quite some time, examples should be quite easy to come by.

So let's take as an example the Old Latin Codex Bobiensis (typically abbreviated as "k") -- a very important early MS, that has been studied extensively since the 19th century, when it was first discovered. This is apparently the oldest of all of our Old Latin MSS, and it contains most of Matthew and Mark.

So, let's see, according to Bakker,

"Palaeographers almost unanimously hold the opinion that k is a 5th or 6th century MS." (Adolphine Bakker, A STUDY OF CODEX EVANG. BOBBIENSIS, Amsterdam : N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1933, p. 7)

This was published in 1933, just about the time when Rylands was being dated in England. Please note how she puts the date of this Codex here. She doesn't say it was dated "about 525 AD", or "about 475 AD". Rather, she says "5th or 6th century".

Next, let's take a look into Aland's Synopsis, the standard reference book of all NT scholars. And what do we find there about the date of Codex Bobiensis? It says "4th or 5th" century. Hmm... It looks like the "unanimous opinion of palaeographers" has changed quite a bit since 1933, didn't it? All of a sudden, Bobiensis becomes a century older! And again, we don't get so much precision here, do we? The range of dates is stated just as loosely as before...

But let's not stop there. Now, there's a brand-new study of the Old Latin gospels by Burton that has just been published recently (Philip Burton, THE OLD LATIN GOSPELS: a study of their texts and language. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2000). And what do we find there? He says unambiguously that Bobiensis is now dated to the 4th century! So it looks like this amazing Codex is still getting older...

Thus, some Experts say Bobiensis should be dated in the 6th century, and some say it should be the 4th! It looks like we have a range as large as 300 years!

But perhaps there's something very unusual about our Codex Bobiensis? Not at all. Such imprecision is, in fact, a very common thing in palaeography.

Let's take a look at the Codex Bezae, another very important text representing Western text-type -- a nearly complete MS of the four gospels. I have an older edition of the New Testament here by Merk, and it says that Bezae should be dated in the 6th century. Aland says 5th century. And Burton says "around 400", or, in other words, as early as the late 4th century! Almost the same situation exactly as with the Bobiensis.

So how much can we trust the palaeographers then? Well, as I say, with luck, they just might get the date within the range of +/- 100 years or so, but, then again, a couple of generations later, this might change again... That's about all that needs to be said on this subject. But this is if we are talking about the _real manuscripts_, and not some mongrel scrap of a writing without any history attached to it.

So is there any way to date our NT gospels other than with the help of palaeography? Of course there is. We simply need to look into the citations from the gospels, as found in the earliest Fathers of the Church. And based on that, there's really no attestation for our canonical GJohn earlier than Irenaeus -- late in the second century!

And the situation is very similar with the other 3 gospels. Dating the Synoptics is complicated by the fact that there's some considerable doubt about the authenticity of various epistles of the earliest Church Fathers. A lot of them, like those of Ignatius, for example, may not be authentic at all, in spite of what the "consensus view" among our NT academic hucksters might hold today.

To be sure, we do know that the gospels already existed well before Irenaeus, but they seem to have been in a very different shape, textually-speaking, compared to how we see them now. Certainly the citations from Justin (ca 150 CE) -- the earliest _undisputed_ writings by a Church Father that we possess today -- seem to attest for us a much earlier text, the text that had apparently been heavily re-edited and expanded between the time of Justin and the time of Irenaeus. And, by the way, Justin seems quite unaware of GJohn as yet... Either this gospel was simply unknown to him, or perhaps it was seen in his circles as "heretical" and out of bounds.

And neither is GJohn as yet known to Polycarp. The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, generally thought to be from ca 135 (or even later?), never quotes from John, and never even alludes to it. And yet other NT writings are quoted abundantly in his letter. (Polycarp is generally thought to be the teacher of Irenaeus, who was a well known later proponent of GJohn.)

So where does that leave us with the Rylands Papyrus? Quite simply, this "earliest gospel fragment" looks very much like a fraud -- a blatant deception that the New Testament scholars -- these modern-day apologists for the faith -- have been perpetrating on the unwary public.

Thus, if anything, this absurd deification of P52 in today's NT studies may indicate much more about the professional honesty of these scholars -- or a lack thereof, as the case may be -- than about the real dating of our NT gospels. Yes, it sure looks like there's quite a bit of trickery that's going on in this field.

So it is for saying things like this that I've been expelled recently from TC-List. But if these bigots and con-artists think that I will remain silent about these blatant abuses in the NT profession, they are badly mistaken. And there's a lot more there that I can tell about...

Best regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- <a href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku" target="_blank">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku</a>

I doubt, therefore I might be.

Amen-Moses

As far as I am concerned palaeography is a pile of pants, SOME imperial Roman inscriptions can be dated by the type of text used but this dating varies across the empire (by as much as 100 years from Rome to the outskirts of the empire) and SOME Greek inscriptions can be treated likewise but when it comes to regional copiers who have been instructed by their masters with no outside influences the whole house of cards comes a tumbling down.

Heck I can go to my local cemetary and dat 19th century inscriptions to much earlier based on palaeography.

The error bounds with such a technique are massive, i.e some given text could be produced by an apprentice whose master is 90 years old, this apprentice could carry on producing this form for many years giving error bounds in excess of 100 years, pure poppycock!

Amen-Moses

Iasion

Greetings again Yuri,

Hmm,
are you being picky about the distinction between "papyrus" and "manuscript"?

Or are you really arguing that the NT is "ALL based on 4-5th century" WITNESSES ?

A quick check of my NT 27 shows MANY witnesses (yes, papyrii) from the 3rd century (e.g. p66, p46).

Thus it is simply NOT TRUE to say
"It's all based on 4th-5th century MSS."

Perhaps you meant to say "all the manuscripts are 4-5th century"?


So, you agree that the papyrii go back to 200?
I'm not sure I can reconcile this with your previous statement.

If the Alexandrian text has been around since c.200 - how does this allow for a NT all based on 4-5th century MSS ?

Are we moving on to the Alexandrian Vs Byzantine text debate? Perhaps you could explain further.


Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings,

Your comments about manuscript dating are interesting, yet I note that knowledge increases as a field is studied - the manuscripts COULD have been pushed back in dating due to better understanding and more evidence.

Are there any MSS which have been re-dated LATER over the years? I'd guess there are, but you couldn't argue conservatism in that case.


I note that Ptolemy cites John, he is probably a little before Irenaeus.

QuentinJ

Peter Kirby

Yuri, I am curious about one thing at the moment: when and/or how do you date the Gospel of Thomas?

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

Some minor niggles:

A)The entire state of NT criticism does not hinge on P52. In fact, the fragment is too small to be of much use for anything aside from an historical curiousity. The gospels are mostly dated by internal text critical means. GMk, for example is considered the earliest gospel by most scholars (a view I know you disagree with) and yet the earliest MSS attestation we have is the fragment of GMk (123 verses) in P45 dating to the 3rd century. P52 does set the terminus ad quem to the first half of the 2nd century, but it is of little value for dating the autograph.

B)P52 is not the only 2nd century MSS fragment we have. There is also P90 a fragment of GJn containing about 12 verses (160 words) which dates to the 2nd century. It is still pretty newly discovered so a precise date is not offered.

C)I hardly think any kind of "ivory tower conspiracy" is likely to be going on with regard to P52. In the first case as with all such conspiracy theories the level of uniform agreement and collusion required to keep such conspiracy "quiet" is far less probable than simply accepting an early 2nd century date for P52. Secondly such a "conspiracy" is of little or no value since 99% of believers probably know nothing of P52 and certainly don't care. There are several books among the catholic letters (around 7) which are attested nowhere before in the 4th century and this poses no apparent concern to rank and file believers with respect tot he authenticity of those books because they have no knowledge of that fact.

CX

I presume you meant NA27 not NT27. NA27 lists 46 MSS which are dated to the 3rd century or earlier. Even so much of the NT is unattested prior to in the 4th century. Needless to say this does not prove a later date for the gospels than is supposed. Lastly, your distinction between "manuscript" and "papyrus" is not accurate. A manuscript is any handwritten NT document. The earliest are the papyri (so-called for the material they are written on) followed by "uncials" and "miniscules". Codex Sinaiticus (), for example is an uncial codex, but it is also properly referred to as a manuscript.

Jayhawker Soule

I can't tell if the intent here is petty ad hominem or pathetic advertising. To paraphrase: if anything, this absurd rant may indicate much more about the professional honesty of this 'scholar' -- or a lack thereof, as the case may be -- than about the real dating of our NT gospels.

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, Quentin, let me clarify this.

What I mean is that our NT gospels are 99.5% based on 4th-5th century MSS. And this is a fact, because when you compare the NT as printed originally in the 19th century by Westcott & Hort, who were of course the fathers of the current Nestle/Aland text, you will find that 99.5% of the latest Nestle/Aland text of the gospels agrees exactly with Westcott & Hort NT (calculations by Maurice A. Robinson). But hardly any of the Papyri were as yet known to Westcott & Hort. The Papyri were almost all discovered in the 20th c.

In my view, Alexandrian text originated gradually in the period from 180-250 CE, because this is what the patristic evidence really indicates. And this is fully consistent with the Papyri, which all come from Egypt, of course, and happen to bear witness to this textual evolution. So the 20th c. discoveries of the Papyri haven't really told us anything new about the textual picture prior to 200 CE. This is a widely held view among at least some of the textual scholars. I can supply citations on request.

All the best,

Yuri.

Radcliffe Emerson

Even if it could be traced to 125 ad, that's no proof an apostle wrote it. How old was John in approx. 33 ad when Jesus was allegedly killed?
That's over 90 years right there.