Julian

It means that we can reconstruct a version that comes close to the autographs. It says nothing about the validity of the contents.

Other concerns are that most copies are comparatively late, i.e. after orthodoxy had a chance to 'fix' the books. We see considerable deviation in the earlier copies. Also, papyrus only survives well in certain geographic areas which means that, although other and later manuscripts attest to many variations, we are seeing mostly egyptian exemplars. That's one of the reasons why D(05) is so interesting.

Julian

dzim77

The Matthew and Luke accounts have the appearnces. If Matthew was an eyewitness, and Luke got material from Peter, how would this degrade the reliability?

Also, isn't it a bit inaccurate to assert 'the resurrection was ADDED to the story'? The resurrection itself was clearly stated in v.6-8 before the so-called 'added' material.


The Trinity doctrine was added? Doesn't make sense to say a 'doctrine' was added. What passages are you referring too?

Again, what passages are you referring to that were 'added'?

Interesting, but doesn't apply to 'critical Christian doctrine'.

-sorry if i sound blunt, but i'm in a bit of a rush-

Iasion

Which are totally different to each other, and to G.Mark and G.John. They are highly variant legends, not history.


He wasn't.

He didn't.
(Christians usually claim G.Luke is derived from PAUL, and G.Mark from Peter - scholars do not agree.)

No it isn't.
All it has is the vague statement about Christ being "risen". Which could just as easily mean gone to heaven. There is not the slightest hint it means anything more.

Do you really not know that
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "
at 1 John 5:7 was ADDED to the Bible much later?

This passage is the main proof text for the trinity doctrine. The passage is NOT found in the early MSS. This is a clear interpolation which affects a fundamental Christian doctrine.


Many examples can be found here :
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html


Iasion

Dean Anderson

Thanks for the links, guys!

Gamera

Surely you're being somewhat coy. The significance of P52 is not that it adds to the number of NT manuscripts, but that if dated correctly, it shows that the gospel of John was in existence within a century of Jesus's death. Since the Gospel of John is unlikely to have sprung into existence without sources, it further suggests that written gospels existed within decades of Jesus' death. This proximity in time is probative of whether the gospels reflect an historical Jesus, and if they do whether they accurately reflect his ministry.

It's not that proximity in time proves accuracy; but lack of proximity certainly raises the presumption of inaccuracy. P52 disposes of that presumption.

pharoah

There is no "standard" that equates lots of copies of documents with truth of the contents. The zillion copies of Harry Potter books out there does nothing to increase its truth value.

Gamera

This is an invidious comparison. In the first centuries of the common era, they didn't have a way to mass produce texts, like we do now. Mss were quite expensive to make. A good illuminated vellum for instance of any length is estimated to have cost about $30K to produce.

So the fact that a text is copied and recopied and preserved and duplicated in the 1-3rd centuries CE, suggests the text had particular meaning to people, who were willing to bear the rather high cost of this dissemination.

That's not evidence of historical accuracy per se, but it is evidence of importance. And if a text is important and purports to be historical, it suggests it may have undergone a level of scrutiny about its historical accuracy that some two-bit graeco-roman romance, that exists in only one ms, would not.

Roller

I think we all agree on this, more or less. Gospel of John was written approx. 90-100CE (mainstream), reagardless of p52, no? I, for one (again, for what its worth), think that the gospels were written 65-100CE, regardless of when we have the earliest fragments (unless, of course, the fragment is earlier then the range I suggested). I understand that the dating is somewhat speculative.

We do have church fathers letters (Clement?) from around year 100CE that quote gospels. Of course, the problem becomes that what they are quoting is not really identical to what we have. It seems that the website is saying how "original" gospels are identical to the ones we have today.

What I'm saying is that the website appears very disingenious. Actually, p52 is the only(?) fragment in 30-150 years that they talk about and its close to the upper limit. Again, what they want you to believe is that we have complete copies as early as 130CE. We don't.

However, what I'm certainly NOT saying is that the current Christian scholarship is at the level of that webpage. That is certainly not true.

Again, I think that the internal evidence (although speculative) points to the 65-100CE timeframe. I don't think, however, that this has anything to do with accuracy. Gospels themselves don't agree on more than one issue. Mostly, I believe, because each writer is trying to fit Jesus in his (writer's) theology.

Well... Gospels do differ between eachother so you have a starting level of innacuracy right there. Even if you assume that they were written few decades from eachother, regardless of time distance.

Let me make a prediction. If we find one complete gospel dated as early as 30-150, it will be different from anything we have today. Not to mention if we would find a Marcionite Luke from this period

dzim77

[QUOTE=Iasion;3737261]Which are totally different to each other, and to G.Mark and G.John. They are highly variant legends, not history.

They are different versions and portions of a complete event. John Wenham does a nice job of proposing a complete version in his 'Easter Enigma'


Wow, that was embarassing. :redface: sorry, i misspoke badly.


The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from many passages which are consistent throughout the NT. It is not based only on 1 John 5:7.

For one example see John 1:1-3 & 18
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Malachi151

first of all John was written late (and probably by mutliple authors), after some of these arguments had come to a head, but even then it doesn't explicitly support the trinity.

Try finding ANY support for the trinity in Mark, Matthew, or Luke!!! :wave:

(In fact, MML make many claims against the idea of trinity)