and most papyri bearing a secure date are administrative documents. Recent research points to a date nearer to 200 AD, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that any earlier fragments from the New Testament survive." Text-critical and historical significance Finds of early Christian papyri from Egypt represent the earliest surviving indisputable physical evidence for Christianity and the Gospels. There is a considerable degree of overlap in the proposed ranges of dates for these papyri, and consequently it cannot be stated categorically that 𝔓 is earlier than other New Testament fragments of apparent 2nd century date, such as 𝔓, 𝔓 and 𝔓; it also cannot be stated categorically that it is earlier than some early apocryphal texts, such as P. Egerton. 2, P.Oxy. LX 4009. There are, in addition, a number of papyrus fragments of Old Testament books in Greek (chiefly Psalms) which have also been dated to the 2nd century, and whose characteristics have been advanced as indicating a Christian, rather than Jewish or pagan, origin. Nevertheless, since all of these papyri have been dated paleographically, and mostly with reference to the same dated documentary comparators, they may be considered as a manuscript cluster whose estimated dates will vary as a group, amongst which 𝔓 is commonly recognised as having earlier features. Moreover, despite the small quantity of text, the text that survives in 𝔓 is sufficient to provide early witness to a number of key historical claims about the Historical Jesus; though not mentioned by name, the verses in 𝔓 show a man tried before the Roman authorities at a specific date (the governorship of Pontius Pilate), at a specific place (the Praetorium in Jerusalem), sentenced to a specific death (crucifixion), and all at the instigation of the Jewish Temple authorities. If the early 2nd century dating of the 𝔓 is in fact correct, then the fact that the fragment is from a codex rather than a scroll would testify to the very early adoption of this mode of writing amongst Christians, in stark contrast to the apparent practice of contemporary Judaism. Furthermore, an assessment of the length of 'missing' text between the recto and verso readings corresponds with that in the counterpart canonical Gospel of John; and hence confirms that there are unlikely to have been substantial additions or deletions in this whole portion. Other than two iotacisms (), and in the probable omission of the