Oldest Biblical manuscripts

[Mikey]

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I was unable to find an answer, so I'll throw it out there. Does anyone know when the earliest New Testament manuscripts are dated? My Greek professor here at the University of Michigan showed us a manuscript of Hebrews that he said was one of the oldest on record, and while I don't remember the date he gave for it, it seemed as though I remembered reading that there are much earlier extant manuscripts of many of the NT books.

[Lizard]

Egad. I thought I responded to this post yesterday. I know I typed it, don't know where it went. :shrug:

Well here is what I posted (or thought I posted) yesterday more or less:

I heard, but don't know how to verify, that there are fragments of the Gospel of John dated to the late first Century.

[sylas]

In another thread I was discussing old manuscripts, and found a useful page called N.T. Ancient Manuscripts (http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html). The oldest claim is for somewhere from AD 30 to AD 70 for a tiny fragment showing some of Matthew; but the claim is apparently dubious (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm); the conventional date is around 200 AD.

The page also gives dates prior to AD 70 for a tiny fragment 7Q5 from Qumran, claimed to be from the gospel of Mark. This identification is under popular dispute because the content is so small that identification to Mark is not definite.

The next oldest is the Rylands papyrus (P52), dated to 125 AD. This one appears to be generally accepted, and probably stands as the oldest generally accepted fragment. The others could be older NT examples, but are have not been generally persuasive to the majority of scholars in this field.

Here is P52:
http://biblefacts.org/images/p52.jpg

Cheers -- Sylas

[Vorkosigan]

The next oldest is the Rylands papyrus (P52), dated to 125 AD. This one appears to be generally accepted, and probably stands as the oldest generally accepted fragment. The others could be older NT examples, but are have not been generally persuasive to the majority of scholars in this field.

Sylas, recent redating has pushed p52 back into the second half of the second century. There's a discussion of this in Schnelle's History and Theology, in his section on John. There is currently no good reason to accept the 125 dating, though it will probably take another 25 years before that penetrates into discussion forums like this one. p52 probably dates from around, or after, 150. The fragment is of a writing that closely resembles the Gospel of John -- there are a number of differences. Interestingly, the next oldest fragment is also from the same portion of the gospel of John, though I have forgotten its number. Whether the fragment is of GosJohn depends, I suppose on when you accept that document reached its final form, and how.

Here is a good start.
http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Check out the Papyrology links at www.ntgateway.com for more good links. Also, of course, see the second volume of Koester's History and Literature of Early Christianity for its wonderful discussion of the dating and usefulness of these papyri.

Vorkosigan

[sylas]

Sylas, recent redating has pushed p52 back into the second half of the second century. There's a discussion of this in Schnelle's History and Theology, in his section on John. There is currently no good reason to accept the 125 dating, though it will probably take another 25 years before that penetrates into discussion forums like this one. p52 probably dates from around, or after, 150. The fragment is of a writing that closely resembles the Gospel of John -- there are a number of differences. Interestingly, the next oldest fragment is also from the same portion of the gospel of John, though I have forgotten its number. Whether the fragment is of GosJohn depends, I suppose on when you accept that document reached its final form, and how.

Here is a good start.
http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

That link was one I had been reading prior to sending my post, though I did not quote it directly so I did not give the link in my post. It endorses the date of 125 AD. I don't doubt you in saying that later dates are given in more recent research; but the link you give is not able to support that. I've not been to a library to check out the other references.

Here is what the link given above says about P52:Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Vorkosigan]

That link was one I had been reading prior to sending my post, though I did not quote it directly so I did not give the link in my post. It endorses the date of 125 AD. I don't doubt you in saying that later dates are given in more recent research; but the link you give is not able to support that. I've not been to a library to check out the other references.

Here is what the link given above says about P52:Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

Cheers -- Sylas

Yes, but p52 doesn't really prove that. All it proves is the existence of the story. The history of GosJohn is very convoluted, and involves lots of editing. David Ross's website used to have a wonderful summary of Evan Powell's thesis (first proposed by Streeter) that the current ending of John (ch 21) was originally part of the ending of Mark. The stylistic and lexical similarities are extremely convincing. Here is the link; scroll down to "The Missing Ending of Mark"

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/index.html

The discussion there give some idea of how John evolved, and how late. That's why I am hesitant to call this a fragment of John, but think of it simply as a manuscript with part of a story that later became part of John. Another interesting source is Theophilus of Antioch, who calls himself a Christian and refers to a Gospel of John, but seems to be unaware that it discusses Jesus Christ. Clearly there were several versions of this gospel running around, or several source documents, and they were eventually redacted into one document sometime around the end of the second century. The old critics had good reasons for assuming John was a late Gospel.

Vorkosigan

[Calvinist4Him]

Yes, but p52 doesn't really prove that. All it proves is the existence of the story. The history of GosJohn is very convoluted, and involves lots of editing. David Ross's website used to have a wonderful summary of Evan Powell's thesis (first proposed by Streeter) that the current ending of John (ch 21) was originally part of the ending of Mark. The stylistic and lexical similarities are extremely convincing. Here is the link; scroll down to "The Missing Ending of Mark"

I'm not convinced that the higer criticism is infallable, much less the right approach. ;) Actually, to get closer to my opinion, I think the higher criticism is for the most part...bunk. Higher criticism seems to primarily be concerned with what I consider to be speculation and theory.

For those who disagree, I refer them to the higher criticism thoughts of C.S. Lewis, a genius and an expert in literature. :)

[Vorkosigan]

I'm not convinced that the higer criticism is infallable, much less the right approach. ;)

Who said it was infallible? In fact, I point out that the history of the creation of John is difficult to understand! John has been re-arranged and edited several times, and reconstructing (for example) the original chapter order is very difficult.

Actually, to get closer to my opinion, I think the higher criticism is for the most part...bunk. Higher criticism seems to primarily be concerned with what I consider to be speculation and theory.

Your opinion is noted. "Higher criticism" is what we call "scholarship" elsewhere. Is all scholarship "bunk"? Or does it become "bunk" only when applied to the NT? That's not an idle question. For example, the same stylistic analyses that determined the Pastorals are later forgeries are also used by the police to detect forgery. Should we release all those forgers so detected from prison?

For those who disagree, I refer them to the higher criticism thoughts of C.S. Lewis, a genius and an expert in literature. :)

Lewis, however, was a total klutz when it came to the NT and to religious argument. Didn't you ever read his comments on the floating pericope in John? And he was certainly no genius. In fact, Lewis is generally considered pretty low grade when it came to thinking. There are plenty of brainy Christian thinkers around, but Lewis isn't one of them. Lewis is revered mostly by adolescents and young adults, who mistake his first-class rhetorical skills for actual thought.

Vorkosigan

[Calvinist4Him]

Who said it was infallible? In fact, I point out that the history of the creation of John is difficult to understand! John has been re-arranged and edited several times, and reconstructing (for example) the original chapter order is very difficult.

John has been re-arranged and edited several times eh? Where is the evidence for your claim? Reconstucting? How many MSS do you think are needed to "reconstruct" the Gospel of John? (yes, I know P52 is only a fragment from John)


Your opinion is noted. "Higher criticism" is what we call "scholarship" elsewhere. Is all scholarship "bunk"? Or does it become "bunk" only when applied to the NT? That's not an idle question. For example, the same stylistic analyses that determined the Pastorals are later forgeries are also used by the police to detect forgery. Should we release all those forgers so detected from prison?

Higher criticism in YOUR opinion is scholarship, in my opinion it is speculation and theory. Is all scholarship bunk? Of course NOT!! Where did I say that or imply that?!?!? The Pastorals are later forgeries? Where is the evidence for your claim? Forgers and prison, umm...are you familar with the Red Herring fallacy or the Strawman fallacy?

Lewis, however, was a total klutz when it came to the NT and to religious argument. Didn't you ever read his comments on the floating pericope in John? And he was certainly no genius. In fact, Lewis is generally considered pretty low grade when it came to thinking. There are plenty of brainy Christian thinkers around, but Lewis isn't one of them. Lewis is revered mostly by adolescents and young adults, who mistake his first-class rhetorical skills for actual thought.

Lewis was a total klutz when it came to NT and religious argument? Are you familar with the ad hom fallacy? I believe he delivered a very good moral argument in his book "Mere Christianity". Lewis is considered low grade when it comes to thinking? That is news to me. Again, do you have any more ad hom to add to this degenerating discusssion? You could have tried to be a little more insulting, it might have given the appearance that you are a great thinker, far beyond the adolescent mind of C.S. Lewis. :ahem:

[Vorkosigan]

John has been re-arranged and edited several times eh? Where is the evidence for your claim? Reconstucting? How many MSS do you think are needed to "reconstruct" the Gospel of John? (yes, I know P52 is only a fragment from John)

Who knows? John has clearly been altered, lengthened, and edited. For example, the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8 is also found in Luke in some manuscripts. Shouldn't that tell you something? Clearly the ending of John 20 was originally the ending of the Gospel; indeed, that is the ending of the Gospel that Tertullian knows. Later John 21 was added. The same redactor who added John 21 also made additions elsewhere in the gospel. Another example: exegetes consider John 15;1-17:26 to be out of order. John 7 and 8 contain numerous discourses that need to be fleshed out, and John 4 contains a miracle story that sets up a dialogue that is never held. For these reasons, a number of exegetes believe that at least part of the gospel of John is in draft form. So which evolution of the Gospel of John is really "the Gospel of John?"

The question isn't really "number of manuscripts" as seams and changes in style and ideology make much of the editing clear. These same techniques are used to detect interpolations in other tests from the past, in Aristotle, for example, and in documents where we have only one examplar.

Higher criticism in YOUR opinion is scholarship, in my opinion it is speculation and theory. Is all scholarship bunk? Of course NOT!! Where did I say that or imply that?!?!? The Pastorals are later forgeries?

You are apparently unfamiliar with modern New Testament scholarship. The Pastorals are widely considered by all serious scholars to be later forgeries in Paul's name. I suggest you read a solid New Testament introduction, like that of Ehrman, Brown, Schnelle, or some other Christian scholar. In fact some argue that the author of Luke wrote the Pastorals.

Where is the evidence for your claim?

Stylistic and content analysis. The evidence from style is clear. I suggest you check out any serious introductory work. Peter Kirby's excellent Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) website has good thumbnail introductions to the entire corpus.

Forgers and prison, umm...are you familar with the Red Herring fallacy or the Strawman fallacy?

You didn't answer the question. If we use the same techniques on Aristotle and on the Gospel of John, why are they "bunk" when used on the latter?

Lewis was a total klutz when it came to NT and religious argument? Are you familar with the ad hom fallacy? I believe he delivered a very good moral argument in his book "Mere Christianity".

Lewis' arguments are laughable. If you want brains, try someone like Plantinga. Or even Lweis' mentor, Chesterton, from whom CSL stole most of the arguments you think were his in Mere Christianity. Chesterton was a much more intelligent, sensitive, witty, and clearer thinker than CSL.

But if you want to start a new thread, no problem. Simply put up some good arguments from Mere Christianity, and I will spend 2 hours and 3 minutes destroying each one -- two hours laughing, and 3 minutes shredding them. Really. Lewis does not require much thought. You can do a lot better than him.

Lewis is considered low grade when it comes to thinking? That is news to me.

Welcome to the real world. Do you know any Centers of Philosophy named after Lewis? Do you think he is widely cited by serious philosophers and scholars? Sorry to burst your bubble....

Again, do you have any more ad hom to add to this degenerating discusssion? You could have tried to be a little more insulting, it might have given the appearance that you are a great thinker, far beyond the adolescent mind of C.S. Lewis.

Well, actually, most of the people I know think a lot better on philosophy, biology, literature, and the New Testament than he does. Our knowledge of the world has advanced exponentially since his time, ya know! Almost all the serious Christian posters at Infidels, for example, are better logicians and know their Bible much better than he does, and have a much wider range of knowledge about the world, as do most of the more intelligent atheist posters there. Lewis is aimed strictly at the literate, but not too learned, believer. For more learned believers and non-believers, another level of writing is necessary, you know, like Thomas Merton, or Teilhard de Chardin.

In case you are interested, here is a site with Christian philosopher articles.

http://www.faithquest.com/modules.php?name=Sections

I'd like you to note two things. First, the discussions are at a very high level. Second, C. S. Lewis is nowhere represented. Everyone there can think rings around Lewis in a state of complete inebriated unconsciousness.

Also, Pojman changed his position a couple of years ago, and is now an atheist, I think.

Also, we had a discussion of the problem of pain here
The Problem of Pain (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34450&perpage=25&pagenumber=1). Mind you, we don't discuss Lewis much; knocking him down is rather like shooting whales in a swimming pool. Found it! Here is the discussion we had a couple of years ago on Mere Christianity: Mere Christianity (http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067&p=2)

Also, if you don't feel like typing, Mere Christianity is online at:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/cslewis/merechri/merech01.htm
Vorkosigan

[learning]

Hi, I do not have a exact date for any manuscripts, but I remember at a Bible study of the book of Mark, the teacher told us it was the first gospel written, to encourage the Christians in Rome who were under persecution. It moves quite quickly through the gospel, and emphasises how Jesus did a lot of things 'immediately'. Also, I think that the epistles of Paul were written earlier than anything in the New Testament, but this is just in dating the things 'written' not necessarily their importance, which is why the later written gospels were put first, I think. I like how Paul states that there were eye witnesses alive at that time, (I think in the book of Corinthians) who had seen Jesus risen from the dead, of the 500 who were to have seen Jesus after he arose.

[learning]

Actually, I find the first book of John very smooth. We are studying the book of John in our Bible study, and we find it so rich and so deep, that we are only in Chapter 7 after a year in it!

As for C.S. Lewis, I may not agree with everything he says about pain, but as one who works in nursing, with people where the pain medication sometimes doesn't always work, or who are dying and the pain medication doesn't always work, I found it a little bit helpful. There's not a lot of stuff out there about this. Hey, if you know of anything better, let me know! ;)
I think C.S. Lewis said that the one who influenced him the most was George MacDonald, and I know that Lewis' apologetics don't necessarily help athesists, but I found some of his things helpful. I found George MacDonald's writings very, very good, though I don't agree with everything that he says either. But I have no doubt as to the genius of C.S. Lewis when it comes to the 'Chronicles of Narnia'. :)

[learning]

When it comes to some 'scholarship' that tears apart the Bible, I don't really tend to agree. This is how I sort of 'feel' about that
"Earth's crammed with heaven
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries."
by Elizabeth Barrett Browning
and here
Psalm 18:25,26
"To the faithful you show yourself faithful
To those with integrity you show integrity
To the pure you show yourself pure
but to the wicked you show yourself hostile."

Often, how we view God, is how we view the scriptures. It is not all cut and dried 'scholarship' now is it?

[djconklin]

djconklin, please do not post back-to-back posts to the same person. I've combined your two posts here.

John has clearly been altered, lengthened, and edited. For example, the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8 is also found in Luke in some manuscripts.

The pericope of the woman taken in adultery is found in Luke in ONE mss (f13),not "some". See Metzgers' Textual Commentary, pages 188-9.

The fact that this pericope is found in other places in John does NOT indicate that the whole book has been "altered, lengthened, and edited".

Another example: exegetes consider John 15;1-17:26 to be out of order.

Please name them.

John 7 and 8 contain numerous discourses that need to be fleshed out,

According to whom? According to what standards?

and John 4 contains a miracle story that sets up a dialogue that is never held.

Please be more explicit. There's a passing reference to a miracle but there's no miracle in the passge itself and there's plenty of dialogue.

You are apparently unfamiliar with modern New Testament scholarship. The Pastorals are widely considered by all serious scholars to be later forgeries in Paul's name. I suggest you read a solid New Testament introduction, like that of Ehrman, Brown, Schnelle, or some other Christian scholar.

"[T]he nature of the pseudopigraphical theory makes it virtually impervious to disproof: "All that needs to be done is to propose that some unknown person, on some unknown occassion, and for some supposed reason prodiuced his own theological viewpoint under the guise of Pauline letters." Philip H. Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus IVP New Testament Commentary Series (1994): 15 citing Michael Prior Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. JSNT Supplement Series 23 (1989): 23.

This theory also presupposes that the people back then were such dolts that someone could foist a document onto them claiming it came from Paul. It ignores historical reality of how things were transmitted back then. For a good start see Bailey, Kenneth E. "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," Asia Journal of Theology (Singapore) 5/1 (1991): 34-54.

Or even Lweis' mentor, Chesterton, from whom CSL stole most of the arguments you think were his in Mere Christianity.

Evidence please.

[One Bad Pig]

You are apparently unfamiliar with modern New Testament scholarship. The Pastorals are widely considered by all serious scholars to be later forgeries in Paul's name. I suggest you read a solid New Testament introduction, like that of Ehrman, Brown, Schnelle, or some other Christian scholar. In fact some argue that the author of Luke wrote the Pastorals.
Vorkosigan
Vork,

Can you back this up? I have attestations to the contrary from Dr. Charles Ryrie (NASB Study Bible); Drs. Carson, Moo, and Morris (An Introduction to the New Testament); and Dr. Robert Gundry (A Survey of the New Testament). I understand that the Pastorals differ somewhat stylistically from the rest of Paul's epistles, but they're directed to a different audience. It is possible that Paul dictated (perhaps loosely) the letters to Luke, who acted as a secretary.

[cbro]

Anyone else tell you how hard it is to read your signature?
Also, would you answer a thread about why you don't believe all this history you know and how can you deny the accusation of "anti-supernatural bias" and your presupposing "philosophical naturalism" or "the uniformity of natural law?


[QUOTE=Vorkosigan Yes, but p52 doesn't really prove that. All it proves is the existence of the story. The history of GosJohn is very convoluted, and involves lots of editing. David Ross's website used to have a wonderful summary of Evan Powell's thesis (first proposed by Streeter) that the current ending of John (ch 21) was originally part of the ending of Mark. The stylistic and lexical similarities are extremely convincing. Here is the link; scroll down to "The Missing Ending of Mark"

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/index.html

The discussion there give some idea of how John evolved, and how late. That's why I am hesitant to call this a fragment of John, but think of it simply as a manuscript with part of a story that later became part of John. Another interesting source is Theophilus of Antioch, who calls himself a Christian and refers to a Gospel of John, but seems to be unaware that it discusses Jesus Christ. Clearly there were several versions of this gospel running around, or several source documents, and they were eventually redacted into one document sometime around the end of the second century. The old critics had good reasons for assuming John was a late Gospel.

Vorkosigan[/QUOTE

[cbro]

djconklin, please do not post back-to-back posts to the same person. I've combined your two posts here. [/notice



The pericope of the woman taken in adultery is found in Luke in ONE mss (f13),not "some". See Metzgers' Textual Commentary, pages 188-9.

The fact that this pericope is found in other places in John does NOT indicate that the whole book has been "altered, lengthened, and edited".



Please name them.



According to whom? According to what standards?



Please be more explicit. There's a passing reference to a miracle but there's no miracle in the passge itself and there's plenty of dialogue.



"[T]he nature of the pseudopigraphical theory makes it virtually impervious to disproof: "All that needs to be done is to propose that some unknown person, on some unknown occassion, and for some supposed reason prodiuced his own theological viewpoint under the guise of Pauline letters." Philip H. Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus IVP New Testament Commentary Series (1994): 15 citing Michael Prior Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. JSNT Supplement Series 23 (1989): 23.

This theory also presupposes that the people back then were such dolts that someone could foist a document onto them claiming it came from Paul. It ignores historical reality of how things were transmitted back then. For a good start see Bailey, Kenneth E. "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," Asia Journal of Theology (Singapore) 5/1 (1991): 34-54.



Evidence please.
Is this in the right place?