would still regard it as a work of the middle decades of the second century". Nevertheless, and notwithstanding Nongbri's statement to the contrary, some commentators have interpreted his accumulation of later dated comparators as undermining Roberts's proposed dating; but such interpretations fail to take into account the essential similarity of Roberts's and Nongbri's main findings. Roberts identified the closest parallels to 𝔓 as being P. Berol 6845 and P. Egerton 2, then dated paleographically to 100 CE and 150 CE respectively; and proposed that the most probable date for 𝔓 would lie in between these two. Nongbri rejects paleographically dated comparators on principle, and consequently proposes the closest dated parallels to 𝔓 as being P. Fayum 110 of 94 CE, P.Mich. inv. 5336 of ca. 152 CE and P.Amh. 2.78 of 184 CE; each, he suggests, as close to 𝔓 as the others, and all three closer than any other dated comparator. The consequence is to extend the range of dated primary reference comparators both earlier and later than in Roberts work; and Nongbri stresses that, simply from paleographic evidence, the actual date of 𝔓 could conceivably be later (or earlier) still. Although Nongbri is concerned to demonstrate that the possibility of a late second (or early third) century date for 𝔓 cannot be discounted, his chief criticism is directed at those subsequent commentators and scholars who have tended to take the midpoint of Roberts's proposed range of dates, treat it as the latest limit for a possible date for this papyrus, and then infer from this that the Gospel of John cannot have been written later than around 100 CE. . Stanley Porter The relationship of 𝔓 to P.Egerton 2 has been further re-examined in detail by Stanley E. Porter. Porter offers two further comparator early biblical papyri for both texts, P. Oxy IV 656 (a fragment of Genesis) and P.Vindob. G. 2325 (another apocryphal gospel, the Fayum Fragment); and provides a wide-ranging survey of the history and range of opinion amongst papyrologists for the dating of 𝔓 and P.Egerton 2, presenting arguments to support Robert's judgement that the two are close parallels, that they are unlikely to be of widely separate dates, and that 𝔓 is more likely the earlier. Specifically he notes that P.Egerton 2 is in "a less heavy hand with more formal rounded characteristics, but with what the original editors called "cursive affinities"." Porter adds