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.

A Text Without Martha: Implications of an Earlier Textual Layer of John’s Gospel

In a 2017 issue of Harvard Theological Review, Elizabeth Schrader (PhD student at Duke) published an article postulating an earlier textual layer of John’s Gospel that highlighted (to a greater extent than traditionally thought) the sister of Lazarus, Mary, in the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

Elizabeth Schrader, “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century?” Harvard Theological Review 110.3 (2017): 360-392.

"This study examines the text transmission of the figure of Martha of Bethany throughout the Fourth Gospel in over one hundred of our oldest extant Greek and Vetus Latina witnesses. the starting point for this study is instability around Martha in our most ancient witnesses of John 11-12, Papyrus 66. By looking at P66's idiosyncrasies and then comparing them to the Fourth Gospel's greater manuscript transmission, I hope to demonstrate that Martha's presence shows significant textual instability throughout the Lazarus episode, and thus that this Lukan figure may not have been present in a predecessor text form of the Fourth Gospel that circulated in the second century." (Schrader, 360)

As Schrader notes in the introduction to the article, much of the argument depends on the textual idiosyncrasies of P66. In response, this post will focus on just two readings as they are found in P66. At John 11:1 Schrader argues that Mary was the only name originally present in the Lazarus story in this verse. And at John 11:3 it is Mary who allegedly sent word to Jesus and not Mary and Martha.

P66 showing duplication of μαριας and correction to μαρθας (circled in red) at John 11:1

The P66* reading in John 11:1, μαριας και μαριας, could be explained by dittography, or an error caused by a backward leap (as Schrader acknowledges on 362). Royse notes that slips involving a backward leap or dittography are quite common to the scribe of P66 (Schrader only mentions the dittography’s noted by Royse at John 1:17b, 12:26a, and 14:3; Schrader, 362). Royse notes backward leaps at John 3:3, 3:31b, 7:44a, 8:42b, 9:41a, 9:41b, 10:38b, 13:20c (either a backward or a forward leap) 13:32, 14:10b, 14:12a, 14:12c, 16:25 (Royse, 422-432). And this list is not exhaustive.

Schrader acknowledges this, but argues that this scribal slip and correction must be explained in light of “the surrounding reading of P66” (Schrader, 363). I find it interesting that at 10:38, just a few verses before John 11:1, on the recto of the same page, we find a very similar phenomena. The scribe did a backward leap and began to rewrite the same words (εν εμοι ... εν τω πατρι; Royse, 430). Because of the close proximity of these scribal slips (and the frequency of their occurrence throughout), it seems more likely that the repeating of μαριας was due to a backward leap and a repeating of the name, rather than the bleeding through of an earlier text form of John with Martha excluded.

P66 at John 10:38 showing the dittography and correction of εν εμοι ... εν τω πατρι

The changing of the pronoun from masculine to feminine in John 11:1 (αυτου > αυτης) after the dittography of μαριας could again be explained by the scribal peculiarities of P66. The scribe alters the gender of a pronoun at 4:11a, a noun at 15:19a, and the case of several pronouns at 6:7b, 15:13 (this is not an exhaustive list).

The original reading at John 11:3 is unique in that “P66 is the only extant witness that actually transcribes the name of a single sister” (Schrader, 370). The scribe of P66 originally wrote, απεστιλεν ουν μαρ[?]α προς αυτον λεγουσα (Mary/Martha then sent toward him saying). In a complicated series of erasures and corrections, the scribe changed the text to read απεστιλαν ουν αι αδελφαι προς αυτον λεγουσαι (The sisters then sent toward him saying).

Schrader notes that “this reading is crucial” to her thesis that the story of Lazarus originally only included Mary and Martha was added by the scribe of P66. Though Schrader does indicate that scholars are divided as to which name was originally present in this verse, it is very difficult to discern from the images which name was initially written by the scribe (Schrader, 367-368). Though Schrader and other scholars contend for μαρια as the original reading, μαρθα could have just as easily been the initial transcription.

P66 at John 11:3 showing deletion and correction

P66 at John 11:3 showing possible initial reading μαρια

P66 at John 11:3 showing possible initial reading μαρθα

The initial reading of μαρθα can very easily be explained as harmonization. One characteristic noted by Schrader is that “[i]t seems likely that there was an early harmonization of the Johannine Lazarus story to the Lukan story of Mary and Martha” (Schrader, 391). Both Colwell and Royse recognize a tendency to harmonize readings with remote parallels in other Gospels (Colwell, 112-114; Royse, 536-544). It is quite possible that the scribe was harmonizing the story to Luke 10:38-42 where Martha is quite prominent. One does not have to go as far as Luke’s gospel for harmonization parallels. It is also possible that the scribe was harmonizing to a point later in the story where Martha runs out to meet Jesus at John 11:21 (cf. 11:30). I find it interesting that at none of these places does the scribe of P66 attempt to remove the prominence of Martha who takes center stage in the narrative. Complicated and lengthy erasures and corrections are not uncommon for the scribe of P66. A "confusing" series of errors of backward leaps, erasures, and corrections made in scribendo are found at 7:33 (Royse, 422). A very similar occurrence is located at 13:20c (Royse, 431).

I think that, in the case of P66, it is wise to heed the words of Ernest Colwell;

“Wildness in copying is the outstanding characteristic of P66. This makes it very difficult to decide whether particular readings are due to editorializing on the part of the scribe or rather are due to his general laxity and inefficiency.” (Colwell, 121)

In response to these types of allegations, Schrader writes,

“I believe that the changes around Martha in P66 cannot simply be dismissed as scribal mechanical errors, because there are so many strange variants around Martha throughout the text transmission of the Fourth Gospel, as well as patristic quotations and ancient extracanonical texts.” (Schrader, 391)

I think that, at least in the case of P66, a better explanation for the unusual readings are the blunders and slips peculiar to the scribe of P66.

Though I do not wish to comment on the rest of the article content and argument at this time, I do think that Schrader's paper is a detailed and thorough piece of research. She has effectively used the data made available in online editions and other online tools that, I am sure, will be a model for future researchers.
_______________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Royse, James R., "Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri." NTTSD 36. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Colwell, Ernest C., "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75," pages 106-124 in "Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament." NTTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Teaching Aids for Ancient Christian Readers

Some of the earliest copies of the New Testament writings were copied in such a way that they aided the reader in their task of deciphering the scriptio continua. Bookrolls from the Roman world (1st -3rd century CE) which contained works of literature had very little by way of assistance for the reader. Take for example P. Lond. Lit. 134 (ca. 200 CE), a copy of  Hyperides, In Philippidem. It has a steady stream of letters uninterrupted by spaces or any type of punctuation.

P. Lond. Lit. 134. (Johnson, "Bookrolls and Scribes," 400)

Those fortunate children in antiquity with access to an education had to be taught methods of deciphering this system of writing. Grammarians (ancient teachers) facilitated this instruction by creating models of ancient works such as Homer's Iliad that incorporated spaces between words and markings differentiating syllables and sense units. One example of a teacher's model is a wooden tablet from Roman Egypt that contains Homer's Iliad (3rd century). The wooden slate uses spaces between words and markings to assist beginning readers in comprehending the text.

AM 13839 (Cribiore, "Gymnastics of the Mind," 135)

Similar phenomena of reading aid can be detected in some early copies of New Testament writings. For example, spaces between words can clearly be seen throughout P46 (2nd/3rd century), a collection of Paul's epistles.

The beginning of Galatians in P46

Spaces and limited punctuation can be seen in P66 (2nd/3rd century), a copy of John's Gospel. 

The beginning of the Gospel of John in P66.

There are some interesting parallels between early New Testament manuscripts such as P46 and P66 and teachers models such as AM 13839. Both types of documents employ clear and legible scripts, give generous space between lines, and use spacing between words and sense units. These features have been highlighted elsewhere on this blog (here, and here). It has already been noted that reading aids seem to reveal that these Christian books were produced for less than capable readers.
Coupled with this, perhaps the presence of reader's aids in copies of New Testament manuscripts also reveal another parallel with teacher's models; that of instruction. Just like teacher's models were used almost exclusively in the context of learning, perhaps these Christian manuscripts were produced so that they could be used primarily within teaching contexts.
_____________________

Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Johnson, William A., Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

The Gospel of John and Readers of Mark

I have been reading through Richard Bauckham, ed. The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). In chapter five, "John for Reader's of Mark," Bauckham argued that John wrote his gospel with the understanding that the Gospel of Mark had been widely disseminated and read throughout the larger Christian community (p. 148). Therefore the Gospel of John was written in order to complement the stories and the chronology of Mark (p 170-171). John must have had the Gospel of Mark in view and not just oral traditions as these oral traditions might vary from place to place in their specifics and chronology (p. 164). This dependance can be seen particularly in two parenthetical glosses found at 3:24 and 11:2 (p. 151).

Eusebius on John's Gospel
Bauckham's theory aligns well with Eusebius' explanations concerning Mark;

"Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. . . . [Mark] had no intention of giving and an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings." (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15)

A little earlier Eusebius had given the motivation for John to write his gospel;

“And after Mark and Luke had already made the publication of the Gospels according to them, John, they say, used all the time, a proclamation that was not written down, and at last came to writing for the following cause. After the three Gospels which had been previously written had already been distributed to all, and even to himself, they say that he welcomed them and testified to their truth, but that there was therefore only lacking to the Scripture the account concerning things which had been done by Christ at first and at the beginning of the proclamation. . . . Now they say that on account of these things, the apostle John was exhorted to hand down in the Gospel according to himself the time passed over in silence by the first evangelists and the things which had been done by the Savior at this time.” (Hist. eccl. 3.24.7-11)

According to Bauckham, several of John's parenthetical glosses (i.e. 2:14-22; 3:24) can be explained as chronological correctives or explanations for readers of Mark who might be confused by the differences between the events as they occur in John and those in Mark (p. 153, 159). Bauckham's theory aligns well with Eusebius' understanding of the writing of Mark and John. Mark and Luke had apparently already circulated widely when John decided that he would write his gospel account. If Mark wrote down Peter's preaching without regard to chronology, it would have been necessary for John to correct or explain the chronology at points of variance.

Mark: Macro Level Stability
Reading this got me thinking about the textual veracity of the Gospel of Mark. Bauckham's theory in "John for Readers of Mark" would only work if the overall structure and content of the Gospel of Mark has remained preserved over the centuries. Let me explain.
There has been significant scholarly interchange over the last few years concerning the usefulness of the term "original-text" (see Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’). Some scholars are more skeptical than others, but there is an overall hesitation to assume that the Gospel texts that we have preserved today (in critical editions) are the same as when these Gospels were penned in the first century. If Bauckham's theory is correct, then the parenthetical glosses in John (if original, and Bauckham makes a convincing case that they are) indicate that the overall structure of Mark preserved today is very similar to that which circulated in John's day in the late first century. This confirms Holmes' reflections on the preservation of the Gospels;

"In short, a very high percentage of the variation evident in the text of the Four gospels and Acts affects a verse or less of the text. On this level, the fluidity of wording within a verse, sentence, or paragraph is sometimes remarkable. At the same time, however, in terms of overall structure, arrangement, and content, these five documents are remarkably stable. They display simultaneously, in other words, what one may term microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability."
(Holmes, From Original Text to Initial Text, 674)

__________________________
Bibliography 

Epp, Eldon Jay. “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review. 92.3 (1999): 245–281.

Holmes, Michael W. “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.” Pages 637-681 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. New Testament, Tools, Studies and Documents 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
______________________________

More on the Subject of New Testament Textual Corruption

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 1

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 2

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 3

Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, the Banker: 'Corruptors' of Scripture  

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible