Confirmations of the New Testament

[Teallaura]

...

If you are able to provide academic references that document NT fragments that date before 100 AD please do because I haven't hand waved enough evidence away today.

Fixed it for ya!

[lee_merrill]

Well, I ordered a copy of "The Text of the New Testament" by the Alands (second edition), and found this:

Source: The Text of the NT, pp. 28-29

Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed [Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover with the text of Nestle-Aland] are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected.

© Copyright Original Source

The differences they note are verses which have variants in the various editions. Now we are making progress, as subsequent editions refine their estimates, yet there is substantial agreement throughout the process.

Source: The Text of the NT, pp. 27-28, emphasis in the original

… one further comment may be necessary to avoid a methodological misunderstanding. The number of instances where these various editions differ among themselves and from Nestle seems quite high. In reality their significance is minor. Consider that the text of Nestle-Aland²⁵ comprises 657 pages. When von Soden and Vogels show 2047 and 1996 differences from it respectively, this amounts to no more than three differences a page. This changes the perspective completely.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Fixed it for ya!

Still waiting . . .

If you are able to provide academic references that document NT fragments that date before 100 AD please do

It is unethical to edit someone else's post, and to argue by web link. Actually I asked Lee Merriil since you failed to respond and are too busy waving your hands.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think he's being sneaky. He's not exactly good with details.

Details provided with references.

[Teallaura]

...blah, blah, blah - making demands of others but still not addressing the argument other than to hand wave...

You pull this nonsense every time - I provided references. You provided one source to refute all FOUR references I'd provided and then demand I prove your cherry picked insufficient source wrong.

You owe me three references - and a sincere attempt at a refutation.

But as long as you keep up the pretense and the hand waving...

[Teallaura]

Details provided with references.

No, that would be an argument by weblink. But the truth is, you are bad about losing track of the argument on the rare occasions you actually play fair.

[One Bad Pig]

Details provided with references.

Thanks for proving my point.

[One Bad Pig]

They were indeed regularly read aloud at meetings. So were many other “living texts” such as the Epistle of Barnabas, Epistles of Clement, The Gospel of Thomas, The Didache and several other texts…during the first two centuries in particular.

It would be grand if you could show any sort of proof about any of those, from that period in particular.

The Canon of Holy Writ was not finalized until much later. Its definitive form was not drawn up until the Easter letter of Bishop Athanasius in 367 C.E.

It never was definitively drawn up; that is just our first record of what had become the (nearly) universal consensus.

No true scholarship begins with an assumption. In this instance the assumption is of “inerrant scripture”. This is not scholarship, its confirmation bias.

Then you can throw out every single paper written in support of AGW - or do you like being inconsistent?

[lee_merrill]

No true scholarship begins with an assumption. In this instance the assumption is of “inerrant scripture”. This is not scholarship, its confirmation bias.

And could it be that these scholars arrived at a conclusion that Scripture is inerrant? I know I did, at one time I believed that Scripture had errors, and became convinced later on that it did not.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

You pull this nonsense every time - I provided references. You provided one source to refute all FOUR references I'd provided and then demand I prove your cherry picked insufficient source wrong.

You owe me three references - and a sincere attempt at a refutation.

But as long as you keep up the pretense and the hand waving...

Ther reference I provided covered the dating of the other fragments and described the Mark fragment as the oldest, and dated after 125 AD.oore references to follow.

Source: http://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3058

Papyrus 75, the Oldest Surviving Fragment from the Gospel of Luke
175 - 225


Papyrus 75Offsite Link (75, Papyrus BodmerOffsite Link XIV-XV), an early Greek New Testament papyrus of the Alexandrian text-typeOffsite Link written between 175 and 225 CE, was purchased from the Bibliotheca BodmerianaOffsite Link by Frank Hanna IIIOffsite Link, and donated to the Vatican Library in March 2007. This papyrus is believed to contain the oldest known fragment from the Gospel of LukeOffsite Link, the earliest known Lord's PrayerOffsite Link, and one of the oldest written fragments from the Gospel of JohnOffsite Link. It is also the oldest manuscript that contains two Gospels. This could be interpreted to suggest that after this period the four Gospels were circulated together.

"This affirmation becomes understandable only if one takes a step back in time to the classical world. In Greek and Roman milieus, formal texts were exclusively transmitted on papyrus scrolls whereas informal texts (accounts, notes, receipts...) were transcribed on other types of support, such as wax tablets or pottery 'labels' (ostra-ca).

"In the first century A.D., 'notepads' made of superimposed sheets folded and sewn together or tied with a piece of string became common. These articles of pagan origin were very soon used by Christians, as can be learned from a famous Deutero-Pauline passage in which Timothy is asked not to forget 'the parchments', that is, the notes (II Tm 4:13).

"This new format, a single notebook, had enormous advantages in comparison with the traditional scroll: it provided much more space and less bulk as well as more contained costs. At the same time, it facilitated the consultation and reading of a specific passage, all of which were significant factors for public reading at important liturgical celebrations.

"The Bodmer Papyrus 14-15, that originally consisted of 36 double leaves placed one on top of the other to make a total of 144 pages [of which 101 leaves survived,] is the oldest find that contains the text of two Gospels together, the Gospels of Luke and John. But why, one might ask, did it not contain all four Gospels?

"This can be explained by the limitations of the new technique which although it provided almost twice as much room as the classical papyrus scroll, was still a fragile structure that inevitably tended to split along the fold, especially if the number of double pages exceeded 50. Thus, a codex of this kind could contain only a little more than two Gospels.

"However, since all the lists of the Gospels begin with that of Matthew, one might presume that together with the surviving papyrus another volume was also made, now completely lost, which contained the two missing Gospels, that of Matthew and that of Mark" (http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR...rus.HTMOffsite Link, accessed 09-14-2010).

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

It would be grand if you could show any sort of proof about any of those, from that period in particular.

“In the second and third centuries, when many Christian documents were being written and circulated, Christians didn’t yet have a sense of which writings were canonical and which noncanonical, because there was, as yet, no New Testament canon”.

“Even in the ancient world, texts could move between canonical and noncanonical status. For example, there are a number of writings—including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans—that were “canonical” at some point in antiquity but are noncanonical today.”

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tool...nical-writings

These texts show the fluidity of the notion of Scripture in the early centuries of the Church as demonstrated by the Aland’s in ‘The Text of The New Testament’ as previously cited.

[Teallaura]

Ther reference I provided covered the dating of the other fragments and described the Mark fragment as the oldest, and dated after 125 AD.oore references to follow.

Source: http://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3058

Papyrus 75, the Oldest Surviving Fragment from the Gospel of Luke
175 - 225


Papyrus 75Offsite Link (75, Papyrus BodmerOffsite Link XIV-XV), an early Greek New Testament papyrus of the Alexandrian text-typeOffsite Link written between 175 and 225 CE, was purchased from the Bibliotheca BodmerianaOffsite Link by Frank Hanna IIIOffsite Link, and donated to the Vatican Library in March 2007. This papyrus is believed to contain the oldest known fragment from the Gospel of LukeOffsite Link, the earliest known Lord's PrayerOffsite Link, and one of the oldest written fragments from the Gospel of JohnOffsite Link. It is also the oldest manuscript that contains two Gospels. This could be interpreted to suggest that after this period the four Gospels were circulated together.

"This affirmation becomes understandable only if one takes a step back in time to the classical world. In Greek and Roman milieus, formal texts were exclusively transmitted on papyrus scrolls whereas informal texts (accounts, notes, receipts...) were transcribed on other types of support, such as wax tablets or pottery 'labels' (ostra-ca).

"In the first century A.D., 'notepads' made of superimposed sheets folded and sewn together or tied with a piece of string became common. These articles of pagan origin were very soon used by Christians, as can be learned from a famous Deutero-Pauline passage in which Timothy is asked not to forget 'the parchments', that is, the notes (II Tm 4:13).

"This new format, a single notebook, had enormous advantages in comparison with the traditional scroll: it provided much more space and less bulk as well as more contained costs. At the same time, it facilitated the consultation and reading of a specific passage, all of which were significant factors for public reading at important liturgical celebrations.

"The Bodmer Papyrus 14-15, that originally consisted of 36 double leaves placed one on top of the other to make a total of 144 pages [of which 101 leaves survived,] is the oldest find that contains the text of two Gospels together, the Gospels of Luke and John. But why, one might ask, did it not contain all four Gospels?

"This can be explained by the limitations of the new technique which although it provided almost twice as much room as the classical papyrus scroll, was still a fragile structure that inevitably tended to split along the fold, especially if the number of double pages exceeded 50. Thus, a codex of this kind could contain only a little more than two Gospels.

"However, since all the lists of the Gospels begin with that of Matthew, one might presume that together with the surviving papyrus another volume was also made, now completely lost, which contained the two missing Gospels, that of Matthew and that of Mark" (http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR...rus.HTMOffsite Link, accessed 09-14-2010).

© Copyright Original Source

One.

[shunyadragon]

Two . . . actually three including Mark fragment reference. You know these are easily available to you.

Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html

Papyrus 52: A Fragment of John’s Gospel

papyrus 56

This small fragment of St. John's Gospel, less than nine centimetres high and containing on the one side part of verses 31-33, on the other of verses 37-38 of chapter xviii is one of the collection of Greek papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. It was originally discovered in Egypt, and may come from the famous site of Oxyrhynchus (Behnesa), the ruined city in Upper Egypt where Grenfell and Hunt carried out some of the most startling and successful excavations in the history of archaeology; it may be remembered that among their finds of new fragments of Classical and Christian literature were the now familiar "Sayings of Jesus". The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.It provides us with invaluable evidence of the spread of Christianity in areas distant from the land of its origin; it is particularly interesting to know that among the books read by the early Christians in Upper Egypt was St. John's Gospel, commonly regarded as one of the latest of the books of the New Testament. Like other early Christian works which have been found in Egypt, this Gospel was written in the form of a codex, i.e. book, not of a roll, the common vehicle for pagan literature of that time.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.

Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size.

© Copyright Original Source

These references that I have provided are the dates of the known earliest fragments. Yes, some scholars project date estimates back to the late first century, but this is not based on the actual dates of the fragments. It is based on projected estimates as to when the original could possibly have been written. The belief that the referenced gospel are copies is based on references that possibly refer to originals ritten late in the 1st century, such as references to the Book of Revelation claimed to have been written between 80 and 100 AD, but the earliest fragment known is dated A.D. 100-200.

Source: https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

Papyrus P98
P98
Papyrus P98 comes from an ancient scroll and contains the earliest manuscript of the book of Revelation. Photo Credit: L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO), Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Papyrus P98 (P. IFAO inv. 237b [+a]) is a manuscript fragment that contains verses from the first chapter of the book of Revelation. It was copied circa A.D. 100-200, likely in Egypt.9 The manuscript was first published by Guy Wagner in 1971, who dated it to the second century. He did not recognize that it was a biblical text, however, and it wasn’t until 20 years later that Dieter Hagedorn identified it as coming from Rev. 1:13-20. The manuscript is in the collection of L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO) in Cairo, Egypt.

In about A.D. 185, Irenaus wrote that the book of revelation was composed, “almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”10 Domitian reigned from A.D. 81-96, which is one of the reasons many scholars believe the book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John sometime in the 90’s. Thus, P98 was likely copied within about 100 years of the original autograph.

© Copyright Original Source

Also:

Source: https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

Other Possible Second Century Manuscripts

In addition to the above four manuscripts which were copied sometime between A.D. 100-200, there are another group of manuscripts that may date to the second century as well (usually listed as dating from the 2nd – 3rd centuries). These are led by the recently published Papyrus P137 (P. Oxy. 5345), the manuscript formerly known as “First-century Mark.” After six years of rumors, it was finally published in 2018 by Oxford papyrologists Daniela Colomo and Dirk Obbink, who dated it paleographically to A.D. 150-250.12 While not the first-century manuscript that some were anticipating, it is nonetheless the earliest copy of the gospel of Mark in existence.

According to the database maintained by the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (www.csntm.org), there are six other manuscripts that are also dated to the 2nd or 3rd centuries.

Manuscript Contents Language Date
Papyrus P32 Titus Greek 2nd-3rd Century
Papyrus P46 Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews Greek 2nd-early 3rd Century
Papyrus P66 Gospel of John Greek 2nd-3rd Century
Papyrus P77 Gospel of Matthew Greek 2nd-3rd Century
Papyrus P103 Gospel of Matthew Greek 2nd-3rd Century
Majuscule GA0189 Acts of the Apostles Greek 2nd-3rd Century

SUMMARY
This brings the total number of possible second-century New Testament manuscripts to 11. These 11 manuscripts, and in particular, the four that are securely dated to the second century, are important links in chain connecting the Bible we read today to the original text of the New Testament.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

I should note that the earliest manuscript of Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic War"), which was published somewhere 58 and 49 BC, comes from the 9th cent. A.D. This, using shuny's logic, means it is clearly not at all trustworthy and needs to be dismissed out of hand. Heck, that's true with nearly every writing we have from the ancient world. The oldest copies date from many centuries later.