DCHindley

Hi Andrew,

For the sake of the lurkers, here is a fairly extensive analysis of the major mss:

eapr	Century	Century	sigla	aka	Notes
	Aland
acts	300		p38
acts	3rd		p29
acts	3rd		p45		e acts
acts	3rd		p48
acts	3rd		p53		e acts
acts	3rd		p91
cath	3rd		p9
cath	3rd		p20
cath	3rd		p23
e	200		p64		+ p67
e	200		p66
e	200		p67		+ p64
e	2nd		p52
e	2nd		p90
e	2nd		p104
e	2nd	3rd	p77
e	2nd	3rd	p103
e	3rd		p1
e	3rd		p4
e	3rd		p5
e	3rd		p22
e	3rd		p28
e	3rd		p39
e	3rd		p45		e acts
e	3rd		p53		e acts
p	200		p32
p	200		p46
p	3rd		p12
p	3rd		p15
p	3rd		p27
p	3rd		p30
r	2nd(?)		p98
r	3rd		p47
acts	5th		D 05	Bezae Cantabrigiensis	e acts
e	5th		D 05	Bezae Cantabrigiensis	e acts

So, from this (truncated to fit) analysis, among papyri, Acts is transmitted separately from the Catholic epistles (there were no examples of the "apostolicon" = Acts + Catholic epistles, as we find in most vellum codices). All of these papyri are 3rd century. By comparison, mss with the Gospels, Pauline corpus and even Revelation all from the 2nd century.

The list was compiled from those lists of papyri & uncials you find in the back of UBS and NA editions. There were 119 papyri in all in my analysis. Of the 15 papyri preserving Acts, and 58 papyri preserving Gospels, only 2 have both Gospels and Acts. For the sake of comparison, of 268 uncials, the only uncial to have both Gospels and Acts is Codex D (05), which is 5th century.

It seems to me that P45, instead of being an example of the early freeness in grouping books, is actually a 3rd century experiment. Gospels, Acts and the Catholic epistles were normally preserved in separate papyri codices. But you are correct that grouping Acts with the Catholic epistles occurs with the vellum uncials.

DCH

aa5874

You seem to be dealing with imagination. Experts have deduced that the Pauline writings have Multiple authors and that writings believed to authehtic have been corrupted.

aa5874

Please, what earlier monotheistic text are you referring to?? Where can we find this ealier monotheistic text???

If 1 Clement was written in the mid 5th century then an earlier monotheistic text could be from the very same century but just sometime earlier.

Please, tell us when 1 Clement was written because the letter has no known author. Authorship has been PRESUMED and no original have been found and dated.

Sheshbazzar

Yeah, yeah, yeah we have already been through this before.
Can you comprehend what the words 'seem to be' indicate?

I was just saying -to Duvduv- that '1 Clement', no matter when it may have been originally written -SEEMS- to me to have been cobbled and 'christianised'.
You know damn well that I AM NOT claiming that any earlier non-christian text of 1 Clement has ever been found.
I am referring to the text as '1 Clement' because that is the -title- it is now identified and known by, whether you like it or not.
It doesn't make one damn bit of difference to my point if a 'Clement' did or didn't write any of it, or when it was written.
If I had not specified the -title- '1 Clement' no one here would have any idea what the hell text it was that I was talking about.

aa5874

Well, please!!! Do you not advocate some kind of early BCE movement??? Please, you must remember that what you write is recorded.

As soon as you challenge people here they become all flustered.

You claimed that when reading" 1 Clement, many of the NT 'quotations' and 'names' seem to be quite crudely inserted into the monologue of an earlier non-christian monotheistic text".

Surely you MUST have some time period in mind for 1 Clement if you think there is some earlier source.

A 10th century monotheistic writing is earlier than an 11th century text so what time period have you allocated to the Anonymous writing called 1 Clement????

Sheshbazzar

Whatever aa.

aa5874

It is NOT whatever!!! When you make claims then I expect that you FIRST collected the DATA to support them.

This is basic.

When I claim that the Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite it is because I have COLLECTED the Data to support my arguments. That is all.

The Pauline writings contain statements about the resurrection of Jesus that are NOT found in any Canonised Gospel or book.

1. The short-ending gMark does NOT state that Atonement of Sins was accomplished by the resurrection.

2. No other book in the Canon states that Atonement of Sins was accomplished by the resurrection.

How is it possible that ALL verisions of the Canonised books did NOT incorporate the Pauline revelations of Salvation by the resurrection???

The dated evidence of P 46 are from the mid 2nd century or later.

The Pauline writings claim Jesus was Bodily resurrected which is anti-Marcionite.

Based on Justin Martyr, Marcion was alive in the mid 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

Whoop dee do.

angelo

I gather from your post that in your opinion none of the N/T authors are who they claim to be. I'm of the same opinion and furthermore, all we have a copies of copies of copies which with each copying was added or subtracted to. No credibility at all in any of the books of the N/T.

Sheshbazzar

Many of the NT writings were and are anonymous. In those instances the authors made NO claims at all as to whom they were.
It was the latter church that tacked names onto these unknown authors willy-nilly and sometimes silly.
By the internal written evidence of the Gospel, there is no way that the Apostle Luke would have been the actual author of the text that the church called 'Luke' and claimed to have been written by the Apostle Luke.

It is not a radical view that much of 'Paul's' writings did not originate with any original Paul.
Entire books were written under the name 'Paul' that 'Paul' had no hand in, and likely never even heard of during his lifetime.
The writings of Saul the Pharisaic Jew that once were genuine, were doctored, edited, and interpolated by centuries of christian theologians.
It is my belief that the name 'Paul' was introduced by the christians as a handy marker to easily differentiate the christian reworked and approved versions of these texts from any of the older and authentic texts of Saul the Pharisaic Jew which were then still in circulation. (and which christians 'authorities' would seek out and burn as being heretical)
I would estimate the the real Saul ('Paul') wrote perhaps less than 20% of the text that is attributed to him, and what is left of those original verses are now only thinly scattered throughout a text mostly invented by latter unknown and unidentifiable christian editors.

So yes, I certainly agree with your opinion. The NT texts all lack credibility.
And in my view every one of them was either tampered with or outright forged by the orthodox churches.