Wes Huff, Joe Rogan, P. Ryl. 3.457 (P52) and the Gospel of John

Joe Rogan Holding up a facsimile of P52 that Huff made and presented to Rogan.

Christian Apologist and New Testament Scholar Wes Huff of Apologetics Canada appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The interview has gone viral within the New Testament Textual Criticism communities in the online sphere particularly because of Huff's statements around the John Ryland papyrus known as P52 (shelf number P.Ryl. III 457).

It seems that everyone has wanted to jump into the discussion surrounding this fragment, including Brent Nongbri, professor of History of Religions at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society in Oslo. Over on his excellent blog Variant Readings, he listed several points of critique concerning P52 that Huff discussed on the Joe Rogan Experience. Nongbri has published extensively on the uncertainties of assigning dates to manuscripts using other non-dated papyri, especially with regard to P52. Despite Nongbri's obvious expertise I was a bit surprised by some of his criticisms of Huff's comments.

First was Huff's statements about the Christian use of the Codex. I had to re-watch that portion of the interview to be certain of the wording. When I first watched the interview I was in complete agreement with what Huff said, that Christians used the Codex exclusively with regard to their scriptures, which is absolutely true.Yet Nongbri seems to think Huff was arguing that ONLY Christians used the codex.

"The codex is “almost exclusively a Christian convention”: False. We have many codices that contain non-Christian material."

I don't think that this was what Huff was trying to convey when he was recounting the story to Rogan. Following are Huff's words in their full context.

"C. H. Roberts is, you know, literally going through these piles of manuscripts in these drawers that are being, like, stashed away and he finds this guy [P52], and he sees that it's written on both sides, which is almost exclusively a Christian convention. Because in the ancient world, they used scrolls. And the Christians, for reasons we're not entirely clear on, they start to make codices, books. Mhmm. And so, they write on both sides and so he says, okay this is written on both sides it's probably a Christian manuscript." (This at the 01:57:31-01:57:54 mark of the YouTube interview)

Nongbri's criticism appears to be taking issue with something that Huff never meant to say. It is most certainly true that Christians exclusively used the codex for their sacred writings, and this is likely what Huff was referring to and not that Christians invented the codex or that secular writings never appeared in the codex format. This becomes clear when his statements are taken in full context. In my hearing, Huff was highlighting the importance given in the discovery and publication by Roberts of the fact that P52 was the earliest known copy of a New Testament writing and it was a codex. In the description of the P52 in the Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts, it is in the preparation of this volume that Roberts "discovered" the Ryland's fragment, he notes that, 

"The fragment is part of a leaf of a papyrus codex and thus conforms to the almost universal rule that works of Christian literature were written in the codex form" ("Catalogue," pg. 1).

Along with this, in the editio princeps of P52, Roberts had this to say.

"The fact that it is part of a codex, not of a roll, need now cause no surprise; thanks to recent discoveries we are coming to regard the codex as the normal vehicle for Christian literature even in the second century." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 12)

The fact that the fragment was so early (at least according to the dating conventions of the day) and that it was a codex played a part in the excitement surrounding it's discovery and publication and Huff was right to point this out.

In this info graphic Wes Huff gives details concerning the Christian use of the Codex. Note that Huff acknowledges that Christians did NOT invent the Codex and that Christian papyri only amounts to 20-40% of codices.

Second, Nongbri called attention to Huff's statement that the Ryland's fragment likely originated from Oxyryhnchus Egypt. Nongbri wrote.

"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."

The pushback by Nogbri about Huff's statement concerning provenance is hardly warranted. Roberts stated this about the fragment.

"Unfortunately, the provenance of the papyrus cannot be exactly determined. It was one of a large number purchased for the Library by the late B. P. Grenfell in 1920; the group to which it belongs consists of some literary texts and documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, all of which are stated to have come either from the Fayum or from Oxyrhynchos." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 24).

Not only does Roberts believe P52 originated in the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Nongbri himself stated that either of these locations were it's likely provenance. In his article, 'The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Nongbri wrote in response to Roberts statements quoted above,

"Even absent that statement of provenance, we would be on safe ground assuming one of those two locales simply given the relative numbers of papyri discovered at those locations." ("The Use and Abuse of P52," pg. 27 footnote 14)

Therefore, if both Roberts in the editio princeps and Nongbri himself confirms that P52 is likely from Oxyrhynchus or from the Fayum, then Huff's statement was not misleading, it was on point.

Thirdly, with regard to the dating of P52 and the composition of John's Gospel, Nongbri has long taken issue with arguments like the one mentioned by Huff. It is worth quoting both Huff's comments, and Nongbri's reply together.

""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)"

A few things that should be noted here, one is the date range given by Nongbri. It is certainly true that this type of hand used by the scribe of the Rylands fragment has comparable examples into the third century. No one is disputing this. It is also true that, as Nongbri notes himself, these date ranges do not mean that P52 definitely dates to the early third century either. I really do think that Nongbri overstates his case somewhat. The fact that so many copies of John have survived, even if they all do date to the early third century, does say something about when the Gospel of John was composed. It at least speaks to the popularity and frequent copying of the text which reflects positively on its reception. It is certainly possible that P52, or even P.Bodmer II were copied in the second century. All Huff would need to do is change a few words of his comments and Nongbri's criticism would completely miss the mark.

"But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second [to early third] 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. [If the fragment dates to the early second century.]”

If these few minor changes were made and stated, then nothing that Huff claimed would have fallen within the realm of Nongbri's technical criticism. Along with this, Huff's comments were made in the context of the fragment's discovery. And with regard to the initial impact of the publication of the editio princeps, it certainly did have this affect on the consensus surrounding the date of composition for the Gospel of John.

Joe Rogan Experience #2252. Click Image for Link to YouTube Video

_______________________________________

Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Harvard Theological Review, 2005; Vol. 98, p. 23-52.

Brent Nongbri, “Palaeography, Precision and Publicity: Further Thoughts on P.Ryl.Iii.457 (P52),” New Testament Studies 66, no. 4 (2020): 471–99.

C. H. Roberts, Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts (Nos. 457-551), Manchester: Sherratt and Hughes, 1938.

C.H. Roberts, "An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1936; Vol. 20 (1), p. 45-55.